Just another question i'll add to my "unknown list"
2007-11-05 01:40:54 · 12 answers · asked by Blade 3 in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
Lets phrase it this way...if Jesus really "existed" and was claimed to be the son of God and was worshipped...back then. Why did it take 200 years for them to paint the first picture of him with his mother- and that was found in CAVE!? You cant exactly say that the bible is (at) ALL true then can you?- 200 years-200 years-200 years-200 years-200 years-200 years-200 years-200 years-200 years-200 years.....If it were- wouldn't other people also have recored what they saw of "Jesus"?
2007-11-05 01:46:06 · update #1
Its the 12th picture http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_%28mother_of_Jesus%29
2007-11-05 01:48:14 · update #2
maybe they didnt have any paint and had to wait till it was invented [bet you didnt think of that]
2007-11-05 03:35:47 · answer #1 · answered by debs 5 · 1⤊ 1⤋
This is pure speculation on your part, based on the assumption that the existence of every historical person must be verified by paintings and images.
Of course, religious images were a religious tradition of the Jews and this was carried on by early Christians.
The ancient Hebrew synagogue at Dura-Europos, which was destroyed in the mid 200s AD is filled with icons and imagery. And ancient house churches from the same period were also found containing icons. As the Christians inherited Jewish worship practices, it logically follows that they continued to create religious images.
You must also keep in mind that with the heresies floating around those days that centered around the humanity of Christ, making physical images of Him and His mother was not as common as it was in later centuries when the Church had definitely settled the issue of His humanity and His divinity.
Pax Vobiscum+
2007-11-05 09:57:00 · answer #2 · answered by Veritas 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
It was all the censorship
People kept insisting the pictures of the mother nursing needed to be deleted so the cave men would go out and find some food
2007-11-05 15:02:15 · answer #3 · answered by genntri 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
So here is a question for you.
How do you know that there were no prior paintings of Mary or Jesus?
What record chronicles the paintings of these individuals throughout the ages?
I think you really have nothing here ... a non-issue.
2007-11-05 09:52:02 · answer #4 · answered by Deirdre H 7 · 5⤊ 0⤋
Perhaps people did not think of painting before then. And probably the picture was a depiction and not a true representation. I do not know the answer to this, but thanks for the points!
2007-11-05 11:24:24 · answer #5 · answered by zakiit 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
And how do you know that is true? There is actually an image attributed to St John. If I find it, I'll add a link.
2007-11-05 09:45:02 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 6⤊ 1⤋
They were planning on waiting for computer graphics, but decided they couldn't wait that long, so they only waited 200 years.
2007-11-05 09:44:36 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 2⤋
St. Luke was the first icon writer you can see more here.
http://orthodoxwiki.org/Apostle_Luke
2007-11-05 09:49:43 · answer #8 · answered by alexandersmommy 5 · 1⤊ 1⤋
A painting could have been drawn b4 that time-who knows really?
2007-11-05 09:44:29 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 4⤋
cos they was searchin for a virgin and a siantly child guess they gave up after 200 years......
2007-11-05 09:46:53 · answer #10 · answered by cinderella 6 · 0⤊ 4⤋