It's not worth arguing over because the purpose is not to identify exactly
what he looked like and say 'There, that's His image, precisely! Please Make
NOTE of it!'

Why would someone choose Cavizel over Devito?
Because with certain length hair, beard, and some makeup the viewer being
communicated to by the use of Cavizel's acting will almost instantly realize
this is the Christ you are talking about.

There's nothing to say you can't use Devito, or that his look isn't more
accurate even, but you'll have to work harder to make them realize he is
being used to communicate information (whether right or wrong) about Jesus
Christ.  People might first think, if the context is biblical history, that
he's representing Zacheus, until they observe more facts already familiar to
them about Christ.

It has more to do with what we (our culture) generally think he looked like
based on his genetics, which may or may not be accurate, but none-the-less
has wide-spread familiarity.  People associate Cavizel's tall, dark,
bearded, long hair look with The Christ understand who you're talking about,
without saying 'that's really HIM!'

It's no different than using the name 'Jesus' when talking about him to an
English audience, but 'Joshua' to an Israeli audience, and 'Je'sus'
(Hay-soos) to a Spanish audience.  You utilize a familiar mental image to
make the connection so you can get onto communicating the message, rather
than the image.
It's not about communicating the image, it's using familiar imagery to
facilitate communicating the message.

The 2nd commandment condemns accepting an image to *be* God so that you
worship it.
That's different than using an image to *represent* God, be it a name sound
or letters on a page or a diagram or a human face, for the sake of teaching
about Him.

The commandment is not about creating or carving or drawing or painting or
photographing or filming or gesturing, it is about what-vs.-who you
*assigning deity* and *give worship* to.

If I carve a dolphin and name it Joshua, have I broken the commandment?

Steve

PS - I apologize if I'm blending threads here. 

-----Original Message-----
From: JACKJEFF@... [mailto:JACKJEFF@...] 
Sent: Friday, February 27, 2004 10:17 AM
To: soundofgrace@...
Subject: [soundofgrace] RE: description of Christ - Jack to Steve


Steve:

<< You know what I'm talking about Jack. >>

No.  I'm sorry, but if I did I would not have posted my query to you.  There
were no specifics included.  Please do not conclude that in my ignorance I
am able to fill in the blanks. :-)

<< He was fully a descendent of Abraham.
We have an idea about the *average* body size, shape, hair color &
characteristics, facial shape, nose length, eye color...for a person of that
lineage. >>

We do???  Have you ever been overseas, particularly to Israel?  There was
quite a span of history including invasions and capativities between Abraham
and the 1st century.  I am left wondering exactly what you are talking about
here and where you got this information.  Eye color?  Nose length?

<< We certainly can't compose an eye-witness sketch, but we can generalize
what he might have looked similar to. No one's saying we can be precise, and
I fully realize the popular image doesn't even necessarily follow the
generalities well. >>

I would have to stress the word "might" in the above!

<< We know he didn't have African or Nordic skin color, unlikely he had afro
or blond or red hair, etc.  We aren't completely clueless, but it's not a
battle worth arguing. >>

On the last we are agreed.

John T. "Jack" Jeffery

--