Question of the Week #985: Picturing Jesus

Dear Dr. Craig, I realize this question differs somewhat from the kinds of philosophical

or theological issues you are most often asked to address, but it is one I have been reflecting

on for quite some time and would value your perspective on.

You may be familiar with the portrait, Prince of Peace, by Achaean Kramarek, a highly

realistic depiction of Jesus Christ, which Achaean claims was inspired by what she took to

be veridical visions.

Notably, many individuals have also reported familiarity with, or even encountering, a strikingly

similar figure in other contexts, such as near-death experiences or dreams.

My question is this, is there any principled reason, philosophical, theological, or

epistemological, to regard such a portrait as potentially veridical rather than merely

imaginative or coincidental?

If one were to suppose that it were veridical, the significance would be extreme, since it

could actually depict the face of Christ, indeed the face of God, himself.

Yet at the same time, one might wonder whether the persistent ambiguity surrounding such

claims could itself be providential, serving to prevent misplaced focus on physical representation

rather than on Christ's person and work.

Am I overinterpreting the significance of this phenomenon, or is there a reasonable framework

within which to think about claims of this sort?

Thank you very much for your time, and for any thoughts you would be willing to share.

Sincerely, Sam, United States.

Your question, Sam, expresses an extremely modest demand.

Is there any principled reason to regard such a portrait as potentially veridical?

I think we can agree that there is no reason to think that the painting is veridical.

It looks like the typical image of Jesus that most of us have.

It would hardly be surprising that the artist would project visions of Jesus looking like

this.

What else would you expect?

But potentially veridical?

Isn't this asking merely whether there is any reason to regard the painting as possibly

resembling Jesus?

Well, I suppose one reason would be that in dreams and visions we sometimes do have images

of people as they actually appear.

So the painting is potentially veridical.

The more interesting question I think is whether there is any reason to think that the

painting is not veridical.

Here is such a reason.

During the intermediate state between our death and resurrection, we enter a state of disembodied

existence which brings us a closer fellowship with Christ, 2 Corinthians 5, verses 1-10.

But it would be very strange for disembodied souls to have fellowship with an embodied person.

Moreover it seems plausible that heaven is not a spatial location, but a spiritual sphere

of existence in which Christ's resurrection body is not manifest.

Only upon his re-entry into our spacetime continuum will his physical body be manifested.

So during that intermediate state it seems that the souls of the righteous dead are in close

communion with the soul of Jesus Christ.

In that case he does not have a physical face that can impact visually the souls of the

dead.

Rather, any visual images of people in that intermediate state would be souls mental projections

of one another.

In that case, Crameric's image of Jesus is at best her own mental projection of his

face.

Her mental projection of Jesus might be quite different from the mental projections of

other persons.

So it seems dubious to privilege her mental projection as veridical.

Unfortunately, it is far more likely that the shroud of Turin provides an image, indeed

a photographic image of what Jesus looked like.

Wouldn't that be amazing?