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 Achaen Kramarek, a highly realistic depiction of Jesus Christ, which Achaen 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 over-interpreting 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... to share. Sincerely, Sam, United States. Your question, Sam, expresses an extremely modest demand. Is there any principle to reason to regard such a portrait as potentially veretical? I think we can agree that there is no reason to think that the painting is veretical. 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 veredical? 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 veretical. The more interesting question I think is whether there is any reason to think that the painting is not veretical. 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 reentry into our space-time 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 theoretical. Interestingly, 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?