04-01-2004, 10:43 PM
"Depictions of Jesus that claim to represent the historical Jesus of Nazareth, but that minimize his Jewishness by an exaggerated separation from his ethnic-religious context cannot be called Christian."
Yes. Of course. And all those Christians throughout the ages, who adopted Christ to their beliefs to develop syncretic christianities? Sorry, but you're all just pagans. You "cannot be called Christian".
Every Christian group, from Europeans to Africans to South American Natives, makes a Jesus in their own image. It's the way religious iconography works. Every portrayal of Jesus in art inevitably "minimize(s) his Jewishness". Take a look at every painting of Jesus. Or Mary. Or the apostles. Or any religious figure.
It's the story that has religious significance, the form of the thing. It doesn't really matter (unless you're an irredeemable literalist) that he was Jewish.
Jester
Yes. Of course. And all those Christians throughout the ages, who adopted Christ to their beliefs to develop syncretic christianities? Sorry, but you're all just pagans. You "cannot be called Christian".
Every Christian group, from Europeans to Africans to South American Natives, makes a Jesus in their own image. It's the way religious iconography works. Every portrayal of Jesus in art inevitably "minimize(s) his Jewishness". Take a look at every painting of Jesus. Or Mary. Or the apostles. Or any religious figure.
It's the story that has religious significance, the form of the thing. It doesn't really matter (unless you're an irredeemable literalist) that he was Jewish.
Jester