Continuation of Faith Alone...

[bodhitree]

Here is my original post in the Faith Alone thread with Wiccan_Child

Originally Posted by freeport

The New Testament is the primary source for validation of Jesus. There are several books there written by Jews about Jesus from firsthand witness:

Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, James, Peter, and so on.

Then, there are secondary witnesses such as Peter.

You have the whole New Testament.

As for what he looked like, no, people did not bother with that. Jesus taught about not judging by appearances.

​

Maybe to try to clarify, because I am reading this and I would like to see some answers too, but what the poster is trying to say (and correct me if I am wrong) is, there are documents that have nothing to do with Buddhism that verify Siddhartha Gautama as a real person. Its easier to verify his realness if there are unbiased accounts. Your accounts that you cite are at the heart of the matter, and therefore cannot be as useful, I mean, these authors have a little bit of bias (theyre calling him GOD, that is bias!). It doesnt mean you have to throw them out, it just means you need even more evidence beyond that.

Its not that (at least I personally) want to NOT believe, its just, when someone is claiming they are God and if you dont believe in them you'll go to hell, you want to be sure...I mean, if someone walked up to me on the street and said that, I would just run in the opposite direction and call the police. The Buddha doesnt get that kind of reaction because he WAS just a man, and he didnt claim to be anything more, and he certainly didnt threaten anyone with eternal suffering.

Look at it this way,

You dont believe that Mohammad is the real deal, and he has plenty of people who will vouch for him. But, what would your answer be to that? "Oh, well they are all Muslim, duh" well, same difference here.

Hopefully that helps? Maybe if we get past the confusion, we can get to the meat of the answer

I mean, its confusing, why in cases like this, can we not ask for more data than just the Bible? I am sure if this is so obvious and so true, then there is other evidence?

And about Jesus' looks?

No one bothered to explain what he looked like, so we default and make him a white, European male, with brown hair, brown eyes, a beard, and pale skin? Why? Why is it even allowed to picture him, especially since everyone knows they are picturing him wrong?

I dont disagree, I think people need to have something that visually appeals to their senses, that gives them a image that they can visualize and try to embody, but...I dont know. Looks dont matter? So then why is he white? Why didnt God just be honest with us and tell us what he really looked like so we COULD think upon him and hold him clearly visualized in our hearts?

 

[drich0150]

why in cases like this, can we not ask for more data than just the Bible? I am sure if this is so obvious and so true, then there is other evidence?

From the period in which you speak, how many other corroborating text do you think exists, for event, or any one person? We know more, or have more manuscripts/different accounts, written about Jesus than we do Cesar, but no one seems to want to Question the Facts that tells us about Cesar. Seemingly they are taken at face value.

And about Jesus' looks?

Your not going to put together a composite sketch with this description, but you will get the Idea.

Rev.1:


9I, John, your brother and companion in the suffering and kingdom and patient endurance that are ours in Jesus, was on the island of Patmos because of the word of God and the testimony of Jesus. 10On the Lord's Day I was in the Spirit, and I heard behind me a loud voice like a trumpet, 11which said: "Write on a scroll what you see and send it to the seven churches: to Ephesus, Smyrna, Pergamum, Thyatira, Sardis, Philadelphia and Laodicea." 12I turned around to see the voice that was speaking to me. And when I turned I saw seven golden lampstands, 13and among the lampstands was someone "like a son of man,"[b]dressed in a robe reaching down to his feet and with a golden sash around his chest. 14His head and hair were white like wool, as white as snow, and his eyes were like blazing fire. 15His feet were like bronze glowing in a furnace, and his voice was like the sound of rushing waters. 16In his right hand he held seven stars, and out of his mouth came a sharp double-edged sword. His face was like the sun shining in all its brilliance. 17When I saw him, I fell at his feet as though dead. Then he placed his right hand on me and said: "Do not be afraid. I am the First and the Last. 18I am the Living One; I was dead, and behold I am alive for ever and ever! And I hold the keys of death and Hades.

So then why is he white?

Because during the time period when most of the popularized images of Jesus were originally painted, most of Europe was at war, or had recently been at war with the Muslims, and back then there wasn't an ACLU to make everyone respect individual rights and liberties.. When one nation or people went to war with another nation or people, apart of the propaganda efforts were spent vilifying every aspect of that culture. The way they looked, there dress and even their names...

Ever wonder why all of the "Heroes" of scripture have Anglo/European Names, Marry, Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Daniel, David, Jesus.. And The Villains Got to keep their Given Names, Herod, Barabbas, Bathsheba, Jezebel??
If you look at a "Jewish" New Testament or a direct translation you may have some trouble identifying all of the same people you may already think you know.

None of this matters... What is in a name? Or image? We are commanded to refrain from worshiping such things anyway.. These things are there to help those young in the faith to grow.. It help people to relate. The problem comes in when these things become the cornerstones of your faith.. Remember we are here to Worship God, no matter what his name actually is, or what he really looks like.

 

[ebia]

Here is my original post in the Faith Alone thread with Wiccan_Child

Originally Posted by freeport

The New Testament is the primary source for validation of Jesus. There are several books there written by Jews about Jesus from firsthand witness:

Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, James, Peter, and so on.

Then, there are secondary witnesses such as Peter.

You have the whole New Testament.

As for what he looked like, no, people did not bother with that. Jesus taught about not judging by appearances.

​

Maybe to try to clarify, because I am reading this and I would like to see some answers too, but what the poster is trying to say (and correct me if I am wrong) is, there are documents that have nothing to do with Buddhism that verify Siddhartha Gautama as a real person. Its easier to verify his realness if there are unbiased accounts.

There's pretty much no such thing as unbiased accounts in history. When someone writes up someone's story they have their own agenda and do so for a reason. If you reject biased accounts you stop doing history because you have next to nothing left to work with.

Your accounts that you cite are at the heart of the matter, and therefore cannot be as useful, I mean, these authors have a little bit of bias (theyre calling him GOD, that is bias!). It doesnt mean you have to throw them out, it just means you need even more evidence beyond that.

No, it means one has to work with whatever one has got, but be prepared to look beyond what the author says at face value to consider why they might say what they say or frame it in the way they do. Yes, Mark, Luke, Paul, etc have their agenda, but so do all the other historians writing about the first century world such as Josephus. So do the handful of people writing about Tiberius Caesar (emperor of the known world at the time of Jesus and far less well documented than Jesus). One of the realities of doing 1st century history is that you usually have far less to work with than you would like

So you work with what you have, but look also at what you can understand of the agendas of the writers, and you look at where they could have got their ideas from.

Its not that (at least I personally) want to NOT believe, its just, when someone is claiming they are God and if you dont believe in them you'll go to hell, you want to be sure...I mean, if someone walked up to me on the street and said that, I would just run in the opposite direction and call the police. The Buddha doesnt get that kind of reaction because he WAS just a man, and he didnt claim to be anything more, and he certainly didnt threaten anyone with eternal suffering.

Buddism actually has quite a lot to say about the consequences of inappropriate behaviour, which is not entirely discontinuous with what Jesus actually said in context (as opposed to what some would portray him as saying).

Look at it this way,

You dont believe that Mohammad is the real deal, and he has plenty of people who will vouch for him. But, what would your answer be to that? "Oh, well they are all Muslim, duh" well, same difference here.

There are several really major differences. First of all, nobody doubts that both Jesus and Mohammad were real historical people. But where the Koran claims to be dictated by God through Mohammed, the bible is not dictated by Jesus but the written up accounts of Jesus. No-one could possibly be in a position to verify if whether Mohammed's visions really did happen, but a significant number of people saw (or claimed they saw) both the empty tomb and the risen Jesus. One also needs to ask "where else could the ideas come from?" There are no spectacular new ideas in Islam that aren't traceable to other influences (often Christianity). But the resurrection was an idea completely out of left field for both Jews (who knew that resurrection was something that would happen to all God's people at the end of time, not something that could possibly happen in time) and Greeks (who knew resurrection could never possibly happen and had stories to explain that).

If you want the argument in full historical detail I would recommend "Resurrection of the Son of God" by N.T. Wright, which explores the issue of resurrection from a scholarly historical perspective.

I mean, its confusing, why in cases like this, can we not ask for more data than just the Bible? I am sure if this is so obvious and so true, then there is other evidence?

People who don't want the resurrection to have happened are hardly likely to go around saying it did, are they. Faced with the resurrection itself one either denies it (and then doesn't write texts saying it happened) or one reshapes one's theology and becomes a Christian. If you reject all the Christian accounts you must be, by definition, rejecting all the accounts that will say it happened.

That Jesus existed, and said and did more or less what the gospels say, is accepted by most historians. As is his crucifixion. It's when you get to the resurrection that people argue, because that's the event that is either false or changes the world.

And about Jesus' looks?

No one bothered to explain what he looked like, so we default and make him a white, European male, with brown hair, brown eyes, a beard, and pale skin? Why? Why is it even allowed to picture him, especially since everyone knows they are picturing him wrong?

Jesus is an historical,human, figure, so there is no reason not to picture him. But his looks aren't important, so the gospel writers do not mention anything about them. So we have two options, each valid and appropriate in different contexts. The first is to picture him as a typical palestinian of the period. The second is to picture him in a way typical of the people for whom the image is intended (as he came for each and every part of humanity). The wrong way is to continue to insist on protraying him as a whiter than white, spotless, blond Anglo-Saxon.

I dont disagree, I think people need to have something that visually appeals to their senses, that gives them a image that they can visualize and try to embody, but...I dont know. Looks dont matter? So then why is he white? Why didnt God just be honest with us and tell us what he really looked like so we COULD think upon him and hold him clearly visualized in our hearts?

I suspect it's better that we don't have a single image, but multiple images appropriate to context. If one is producing a statue for a church in the Simpson Desert then portray him as an aborigine.

 

[seashale76]

And about Jesus' looks?

No one bothered to explain what he looked like, so we default and make him a white, European male, with brown hair, brown eyes, a beard, and pale skin? Why? Why is it even allowed to picture him, especially since everyone knows they are picturing him wrong?

I dont disagree, I think people need to have something that visually appeals to their senses, that gives them a image that they can visualize and try to embody, but...I dont know. Looks dont matter? So then why is he white? Why didnt God just be honest with us and tell us what he really looked like so we COULD think upon him and hold him clearly visualized in our hearts?

Long, but hopefully explains some things (I copied a previous post of mine so if it veers from your exact question, you have my apologies)... Regarding how Christ is physically portrayed, there are a few things you should be made aware of:

This post may seem a bit disjointed because I delve into what icons are, when you were speaking of why Christ is often portrayed with long brown hair, but I don't think one can begin to understand the latter until they understand the former. Plus, I probably don't explain it well. But, this is one of my big areas of interest. I'm not writing this to convince you of my particular beliefs regarding icons, but just for general information. I'm not intending this to start any kind of debate of iconclast vs. iconodule.

I suppose you have to understand where the Western Medieval painters got their initial ideas from. This idea that you propose (that of Christ being completely physically misrepresented) certainly came about in the West, but not so in the East. The earliest iconographers in Byzantium weren’t considered artists they were craftsmen, and people were presented in Byzantine court dress. There are strict rules to iconography. The way Christ is presented has pretty much become a set thing (while schools and styles may change slightly, certain aspects never do). Long hair and beards on men tend to represent renunciation of the things of this world. God the Father is never shown, and the Holy Spirit is only represented by a dove, rays of power, or tongues of flame. As such, there are iconographic abominations, which is just about anything that Western Christianity has come up with, sad as that is to say.

Medieval painters in the West and later on during the Renaissance were focused on showing beauty and man and they even used human models to sit for their Virgin and Child paintings. While beautiful, they certainly weren't icons in any true sense because they got caught up in so much else and they lost something vital along the way.

There is a lot that can be said about icons. There is much more that simply can’t be easily covered on a message board. They are a fascinating subject and easily misunderstood by people who don’t use them for their intended purpose. Books upon books have been written about them. I suggest that if you are interested in the subject that you go and find some books (I especially recommend Quinot and Martin). Many art collectors usually miss the point entirely. People who defile them, make portraits of other people like Ghandi or Martin Luther King in an iconographic style, people who print them on t-shirts: it is seen pretty much as very sad and outrageous. Seeing an icon in a museum, even if that museum used to be a church, is distorting the context.

Linette Martin in her book Sacred Doorways: A Beginner’s Guide to Icons (page 212) states, “To the question, “Where does an icon belong?” the obvious answer is, “In a church, to be an integral part of the Divine Liturgy, or in a Christian home as a devotional focus.”

Regarding God the Son in icons, Martin says (page 149), "In the fifth century the bearded face became standard and has continued to be the principal way he is shown. There is a cross in his halo so you can immediately distinguish Christ form the apostles. His hand is in a position of blessing, commanding, or teaching. In some icons of the Virgin and Child, he is a minature adult (though beardless) to show he had a knowledge and an identity beyond that of an ordinary purely human baby. This is precisely because he is the Incarnate Word and Wisdom of God. The Christ Child in icons usually holds a scroll to show he is God's Wisdom. Icon craftsmen were not concerned with making a pretty picture of any mother and baby and then merely adding haloes. To paint him as an ordinary baby would be to say, visually, that he was an ordinary baby. Instead, the Byzantine craftsman was making a picture of the Incarnation."

Symbolism is key. There is a lot of it to be found. From seemingly random trees, to personification, to color, to the way figures hold their hands, to the scale of figures, to profiles, animals, arrested movement, body language, buildings, clothing worn, drapery, rocks, furniture, haloes, handheld objects, inscriptions, landscape, simultaneous narration, etc. it all means something. There is an entire theology behind icons.

The earliest icons we know of are almost all at St. Catherine’s Monastery in Mt. Sinai, Egypt (and many of them were exhibited at the Getty for a few months until March of this year accompanied by a few of the Monks). Holy Image, Hallowed Ground (Getty Center Exhibitions)Go to their website and watch the video about the monastery and the icons. It is very awesome and well done.


From Linette Martin’s book, Sacred Doorways: A Beginner’s Guide to Icons (page 150, 151) published by Paraclete Press, copyright 2002:

“Christ Pantocrator (pan-to-crah-tor) means Christ, the ruler of all.

The domed roof of a Byzantine church represents the vault of heaven, and originally, mosaicists may have decorated it with the Ascension. By the tenth century, the figure in church domes was half-length, and the picture for a dome had changed from narrative to confrontational. It was discovered that a half-length figure fitted more easily into a circle than one of full length, and it allowed the face to be on a larger scale… He holds a closed book, which may be seen as the Gospels or as the Book of Judgment in Revelation 20: 11,12…”

The fingers of his right hand are bent in the position of a priest’s hand of blessing and are pointing toward himself. The index finger of his other hand points powerfully across the picture, balancing the sideways glance of his eyes to his left. When we look carefully at the face of this Pantocrator, we see a difference between one side and the other. His right side, the side of blessing, is calm; his left side, the side of judgment, is fierce with an angry eyebrow. After nearly nine hundred years this awe-inspiring image still has the power to convert. Confronted with it for the first time some people react with shock: This is not a tame Jesus. The only thing that lets us off the hook is that those eyes do not look directly at us. The image is a reminder that the Last Judgment should be feared because it will be absolutely just, albeit tempered by mercy and total understanding.”

The Pantocrator is not intended to represent Christ as the Jesus of Galilee, but as the awe-inspiring God-Man, the King of the Universe and terrible Judge at the end of time.”

The following is an excerpt from an article that gives an extremely brief general overview of icons. The last paragraph talks specifically about Christ in icons.

Eastern Orthodox Christians and Iconography | Antiochian Orthodox Christian Archdiocese

”So what is an icon? Webster defines an icon as an image (Webster, 1966). In the Orthodox Church an icon is a sacred image, a window into heaven. An image of another reality, of a person, time and place that is more real than here and now. More than art, icons have an important spiritual role. Michel Quenot says it well in his book, The Icon: Window on the Kingdom, an icon is
“theology in imagery, the icon expresses through color what the Gospel proclaims in words”.

For this reason the rules regarding the creation of an icon are rigorous. The iconographer must prepare himself for the task of painting an icon by following a strict discipline of fasting and prayer. He must quiet his spirit and submit himself to God. The icon he creates will not be signed. He will not expect accolades or applause when the icon is completed. The icon will be created to inspire and lead others into worship. Painting the icon is not a use of imagination. Instead, the icon will be painted using the prescribed regimen and style that has been passed down through the centuries. Everything from the facial expressions to the colors used is predetermined. The following is a prayer recited by an iconographer prior to starting to work:

O Divine Master of all that exists, enlighten and direct the soul, the heart and the mind of your servant: guide my hands so that I might portray worthily and perfectly Your Image, that of Your Holy Mother and of all the Saints, for the glory, the joy, and the beautification of Your Holy Church. ( Quenot, p.13)

The primary purpose of the icon is to aid in worship. Its design follows that purpose. Through lines and color the iconographer conveys the awesomeness of the invisible, divine reality(Evdokimov, 1990). The creation of an icon is defined by tradition. That is a 21 st century iconographer would not decide to change the shape of Christ’s face. It is understood that a person who saw them in the flesh painted the first icon of an individual. St. Luke is accredited with painting the first icons of Christ and Mary the Blessed Virgin. Each subsequent iconographer will use the original icon as a guide. There is room for a small amount of stylistic change but tradition limits the options for that change ( Forest, 1997).

Icons are not created to force an emotional response. When portraying historical scenes the faces don’t show emotions but instead portray virtues such as purity, patience in suffering, forgiveness, compassion and love. An example of this would be the portrayal of Christ on the cross. Neither is the icon a sentimental picture. Christ is always shown as God. Even the icons of Christ seated on His mother’s lap show Him with an adult face, revealing that even though Christ lived as a child among us He was also God ( Forest,1997).

Icons depict silence. There are no actions displayed, no open mouths. The icon invites the Christian to enter into contemplation,prayer, and silence (Ware,1979). Space is not defined as three-dimensional and time is insignificant. The story told by the icon precludes time and space. An example would be the icon of the Nativity, which shows the cave where Christ was born in the background with those who came to adore in small vignettes. Lighting proceeds from the character portrayed in the icon. There are never shadows in icons. This shows us that the saint portrayed is “glorified” having completed the race and entered into heaven (Quenot,1991).

Symbolism is used in icons and details are used minimally. For example, when showing John the Baptist baptizing in the river the grown man he baptizes is shown as an infant because the baptism is a rebirth. Colors are also symbolic. Blue reveals heaven and mystery. Green is youth, fertility and the earth’s vegetation. Red, the color of blood, suggests life, vitality and beauty. White is purity, the divine world and innocence. Gold indicates sanctity, splendor, and the glory of God and life in the heavenly kingdom. Purple reveals wealth, power and authority.

First and foremost, icons are a constant reminder of the incarnation of Christ, that is to say, they remind us that God “sent His only begotten Son”(Bible, John 3:16) to rescue us from our sin and death. We cannot see God the Father or God the Holy Spirit, but, because Christ chose to take on human flesh, we can see Him. His face can be portrayed on wood with paint. We can also paint His Mother and other saints who have finished the race and gone on to heaven. The Orthodox believe that surrounding themselves with icons help them to acknowledge the constant presence of Christ and the saints in their lives.”



__________________

 

[Van]

Hi Bodhitree, your opening post asks two basic questions.

First, why trust exclusively in the Bible, rather than in other writings such as the Koran, or the Book of Mormon, or the writings of Buddha. The other systems offer a works based path to God. The Bible offers a faith based path to God. Whosoever believes in Him shall not perish but have eternal life. The Bible says you cannot make it with a works based system because everyone is a sinner and if you break the law on one point, you have broken the whole law. Thus you need to not trust in your own works of righteousness, which you have done, but instead in Christ Jesus.

Your other question is why do so many depictions of Christ fall short of the mark. First, any depiction of Jesus should only be used to remind us of the Jesus described in scripture, otherwise the depiction becomes like a carved image and we are to have no carved images before us.

 

[freeport]

Here is my original post in the Faith Alone thread with Wiccan_Child

Originally Posted by freeport

The New Testament is the primary source for validation of Jesus. There are several books there written by Jews about Jesus from firsthand witness:

Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, James, Peter, and so on.

Then, there are secondary witnesses such as Peter.

You have the whole New Testament.

As for what he looked like, no, people did not bother with that. Jesus taught about not judging by appearances.

​

Maybe to try to clarify, because I am reading this and I would like to see some answers too, but what the poster is trying to say (and correct me if I am wrong) is, there are documents that have nothing to do with Buddhism that verify Siddhartha Gautama as a real person.

<snip>

You dont believe that Mohammad is the real deal, and he has plenty of people who will vouch for him.

No. The poster was saying he did not believe Jesus ever really existed.

I specifically stated that I do think Buddha and Muhommad actually did exist. So your standard there is completely messed up.

And I accepted their own followers for evidence of that, as does the majority - vast majority of the planet - for evidence of Jesus existing.

As for whether Jesus existed or not, there is ample evidence of that.

One has to go into very far fetched and disproven theories to claim otherwise. There is further ample documentation from many sources as to the real existence of the first AD church.

There are well dated documents showing all of that, and documentation from at least one Jewish source, possibly Roman as well, of Jesus existing.

That is beyond the very people who wrote of Him as His followers, who created the New Testament -- all of whom were and are Jewish.

 

[childofGod31]

I am not allowed to speak openly in another thread, so I am starting a new one here, here is my original post in the Faith Alone thread with Wiccan_Child

Originally Posted by freeport

The New Testament is the primary source for validation of Jesus. There are several books there written by Jews about Jesus from firsthand witness:

Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, James, Peter, and so on.

Then, there are secondary witnesses such as Peter.

You have the whole New Testament.

As for what he looked like, no, people did not bother with that. Jesus taught about not judging by appearances.

​

Maybe to try to clarify, because I am reading this and I would like to see some answers too, but what the poster is trying to say (and correct me if I am wrong) is, there are documents that have nothing to do with Buddhism that verify Siddhartha Gautama as a real person. Its easier to verify his realness if there are unbiased accounts. Your accounts that you cite are at the heart of the matter, and therefore cannot be as useful, I mean, these authors have a little bit of bias (theyre calling him GOD, that is bias!). It doesnt mean you have to throw them out, it just means you need even more evidence beyond that.

Its not that (at least I personally) want to NOT believe, its just, when someone is claiming they are God and if you dont believe in them you'll go to hell, you want to be sure...I mean, if someone walked up to me on the street and said that, I would just run in the opposite direction and call the police. The Buddha doesnt get that kind of reaction because he WAS just a man, and he didnt claim to be anything more, and he certainly didnt threaten anyone with eternal suffering.

Look at it this way,

You dont believe that Mohammad is the real deal, and he has plenty of people who will vouch for him. But, what would your answer be to that? "Oh, well they are all Muslim, duh" well, same difference here.

Hopefully that helps? Maybe if we get past the confusion, we can get to the meat of the answer

I mean, its confusing, why in cases like this, can we not ask for more data than just the Bible? I am sure if this is so obvious and so true, then there is other evidence?

And about Jesus' looks?

No one bothered to explain what he looked like, so we default and make him a white, European male, with brown hair, brown eyes, a beard, and pale skin? Why? Why is it even allowed to picture him, especially since everyone knows they are picturing him wrong?

I dont disagree, I think people need to have something that visually appeals to their senses, that gives them a image that they can visualize and try to embody, but...I dont know. Looks dont matter? So then why is he white? Why didnt God just be honest with us and tell us what he really looked like so we COULD think upon him and hold him clearly visualized in our hearts?

About the image of Jesus Christ:
Jesus Christ is not a man, He is a the Spirit who fills everything everywhere with Himself. (I forgot the scripture reference, but I could find it if needed) So, as such, He probably doesn't have a natural "man" body in which He always exists. I would imagine He could take many forms. I am just conjecturing of course.

About Jesus threatening with hell:
There is a different perspective here: Jesus didn't really come to say: choose me or you will burn in hell for rejecting me.
The idea was that this whole world is condemned already. (it so happened, we don't really know the real reason). Choose me, so I can save you (out of this condemned world).
JOH 3:17 For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him.


JOH 3:18 Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because he has not believed in the name of God's one and only Son.

That person stands condemned already because everybody was condemned already. They don't BECOME condemned when they reject Jesus. They were condemned before that. But if they choose to believe in Jesus, they are washed in His blood, forgiven and plucked out of this world that is condemned.

But there is an interesting verse that makes me think: hmm, I wonder what it means?

And yet, 1TI 4:10 (and for this we labor and strive), that we have put our hope in the living God, who is the Savior of all men, and especially of those who believe.

I would think that Jesus is only the Savior of those who believe, but here it says He is the Savior of all men (and ESPECIALLY those who believe). So there is something going on here that we are not thinking of I think... Why does it say: "especially" of those who believe and not "only of those who believe"?...