Hi Ken,
I don't follow the leap to "...Images of Christ then are not only factual
representations of the man Jesus...".
You correctly point out that, according to the Bible, God has been seen, in part,
and, more importantly,
can be seen.
- Michael
[log in to unmask] wrote:
> In a message dated 12/05/1999 2:56:29 PM Eastern Standard Time,
> [log in to unmask] writes:
>
> > Man is supposed to have been created in God's image, though I think "image"
> > has a complicated meaning here is God can't be seen.
> >
> > pat sloane
>
> God has been seen, just not completely. Moses' encounter with God on the
> mountaintop included seeing the 'backside' of God. Luther spoke of God as
> both hidden and revealed, thus the images of God are only partial glimpses
> into the divine God. Jesus becomes the true point of contact as there is
> then a point where the hidden and revealed God are represented in the same
> person. Images of Christ then are not only factual representations of the
> man Jesus, but also images meant to illicit a faith response.
>
> One of the most startling images of Christ, without beard, is that of the
> ceiling portrait of Jesus as pantocrator at the Shrine of the Immaculate
> Conception in Washington, D.C. If there is a more terrifying picture of
> Christ then this, I have not seen it.
>
> Ken A. Grant
> South Bend
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|