JESUS WEPT.

  • kreeze
  • Novice
  • Novice
  • kreeze
  • Posts: 27

Post 3+ Months Ago

excelent! i took a look at the painting and even though its far better than i could achieave i felt kinda let down after looking at the pencil version!

still both great peices!
  • findme
  • Student
  • Student
  • findme
  • Posts: 66

Post 3+ Months Ago

Wow! You have got great talent in drawing. I really like the picture. Keep it up.
  • tsisqua
  • Born
  • Born
  • tsisqua
  • Posts: 3

Post 3+ Months Ago

Oh Wow!
Please contact me here as I would like to use the image in an article I am writing about he historical Jesus. I won't be paid for it, and would love to use "Jesus Wept" and to credit you for the work.

This has to be one of the most beautiful images of Jesus I have ever seen.

Larry
  • horseman
  • Newbie
  • Newbie
  • User avatar
  • Posts: 10
  • Loc: leadethme.blogspot.com

Post 3+ Months Ago

tsisqua wrote:
Oh Wow!
Please contact me here as I would like to use the image in an article I am writing about he historical Jesus. I won't be paid for it, and would love to use "Jesus Wept" and to credit you for the work.

This has to be one of the most beautiful images of Jesus I have ever seen.

Larry


I will consider your request. But before permission is given I need to see the article and know what it is for and where it will be published. Please don't be bothered by my conditions. You should understand that I must take this position because of all the crazy stuff out there. I do not want my art associated with some of those type things. For example, a satanic metal band wanted my art entitled "Yeshua upon the Tree" for an album cover. But these guys are satanic and speak against Christ. Of course, I had to say no to them.

PEACE
  • tsisqua
  • Born
  • Born
  • tsisqua
  • Posts: 3

Post 3+ Months Ago

Thank you for your reply. As I said, this is an article about the historical Jesus, and draws upon historical research. I wish to say that it represents a thesis which many Christians will disagree with, and if you choose to decline the use of the image, well, I will most certainly understand and no hard feelings for sure. I do want to say that in my life; there is none greater than Jesus.

A thesis that the God taught by Jesus of Nazareth was not the God of the Hebrew Bible (i.e. Old Testament).


"Jesus had no traveling biographer to document his life, his teachings, or his death. What he had were some devoted followers who remembered his teachings as faithfully as possible, and transmitted them orally for a period of at least 40 years before the first version of the first gospel was ever written. Teachings from oral tradition have certain "earmarks" which indicate what they are.

The use of threes as a mnemonic technique.
Think of the "traveling salesman" jokes. You know, where the farmer has three daughters. Its why we are able to remember those jokes and retell them, albeit with our own take on it each time. The exact words are not remembered, but the gist of the story remains intact. An example would be the story of the man who placed three servants in charge of his money and the different ways they handled it.

Hyperbole. Exaggeration tends to stick in our heads and was a way oral teachers planted their ideas into the heads of their students. A camel through the eye of a needle. Straining a gnat and swallowing a camel. A speck in your friends eye and a plank in yours, etc . . .

Memorable exchanges and/or proclamation stories such as being asked whether or not it was right to pay taxes to Rome. Jesus asks for a coin and then inquires as to who's image is there. "Caesar's" the antagonists say. "Then give to Caesar what belongs to Caesar and to God what belongs to God". He didn't really answer the question. He advised those asking to know the difference between God's kingdom and worldly kingdoms.

Aphorisms. One liners which alter the traditional paradigm. "Man was not made for the Sabbath, but the Sabbath for man" is a good example. "Its not what goes into a man which defiles him, but what comes out of him." was an un-categorical challenge of kosher dietary laws, whether he was speaking literally or not.

His name for God was "Abba". This was Aramaic, and not simply a word for "Father" as it is translated. It was the first thing a Galilean father wanted to hear his baby say, the equivalent of "Dada" or "Ah-Da". Such personal names for the God of the Hebrews would have been considered a blasphemy, since it was unlawful to pronounce the name of God at all. This was one of the things which would have been memorable about Jesus, and passed on orally.

We know that he was baptized by John the baptist (a much more famous person than Jesus at the time). The reason we know this is because John baptized people "for the remission of sins", and a story about John baptizing Jesus would need to be explained by the later community who thought Jesus to be sinless. Hence the Baptist dialogues in the synoptic gospels where John tries to decline baptism to Jesus.

By the way, I am going on the works of the foremost biblical scholars in the field, most of whom are devoted followers of the teachings of Jesus, although a few are flat out atheists.

Now, there are many thing we can know about the historical Jesus, but I am not going to recite the complete works of John Dominic Crossan, or Marcus Borg, or others. But I do want to say, for the purposes of clarification, something about the origin of the written gospel literature:
By approximately the year 50 CE, there must have been at least one written tractate containing sayings and general teachings of Jesus. (For those who want to argue about the name of the man, I am speaking English and I will use his English name, Jesus). There must have also been a demand by that time for a written narrative for future generations, so that they might remember not only what he said, but also the remarkable things he did. Around this time the first edition of what would later become the Gospel of Mark appeared. In spite of what early Roman-influenced church fathers have said indicating Matthew was the first, most scholars believe an early version of Mark to be the first written narrative. The reason is that the later gospels of Matthew and Luke copied Mark in their retelling of the story, and unlike Mark, included the sayings from the available sources (i.e. the aforementioned tracts, one of which scholars term "Q" and was copied at times word for word by both Matthew and Luke), plus sources from their own research. To include these sayings it was necessary to create a narrative framework, a story or anecdote, in which to retell the saying. "Jesus went up on a high mountain and taught them, saying . . . yada yada yada." In order to make all this work, events and incidental sayings were created by the writers to fill out the story leading to the sayings.

Here's the way it happened:
Around 50 CE: Mark, Thomas, and Q
Round 70 CE: Later versions of Mark
Just before 90 CE: Matthew first, then Luke
Between 90-100 CE: John

Sources.
Mark: Oral tradition, and additional material when revised.

Matthew: Mark, Special Matthew (material unique to Matthew, and termed by scholars: "M"), and Q (material common to Matthew and Luke, but not appearing in Mark)

Luke: Mark, Special Luke (material unique to Luke and termed by scholars: "L"), and Q.

Thomas: Independent source which was lost for over a thousand years. Rediscovered at Nag Hammadi, Egypt in 1945

John: Developed much later by a pseudo-gnostic community, possibly in Syria. One source may be a "Gospel of Signs" which is now lost. John disagrees with the other three gospels on so many points that it was only barely accepted as cannon, yet it is the gospel most quoted by modern Christianity. It reflects the views of a community; how they in particular saw Jesus and what he meant to them. In John, Jesus speaks in long discourses which would have never been remembered though the oral period of transmission. He speaks of himself in HIGHLY elevated terms, as opposed to the other three gospels where he never speaks of himself this way unless the gospel writers have imposed this upon him using literary license.

Jesus lived an hours walk away from the city of Sephoris. This Hellenized Jewish city was being rebuilt during Jesus lifetime, having been razed after a rebellion there. The people of Galilee were a mixture of Pagan and Judaic unions. Jesus, being a tekton (something like a carpenter, but that translation is a bit misleading) would have needed to go there to work. Jesus called the elitist Jews "Hypocrites", and would be indicative that he had witnessed Greco-Roman theater. This is the Greek word which meant "actors" in the plays of the ancient world. As an artisan in the Roman world, he would have been familiar with their Gods, and most likely influenced, to whatever degree, by that culture.

Differences between "Abba" (as taught by Jesus), and JHVH (as taught by Judaic tradition.)
Abba: Offers unconditional pardon, based on a parental love. (See: Story of Prodigal Son)
JHVH: Requires sacrifices for pardon, usually animals, sometimes human. (See the story of Jephthah, Judges 11:31-40)
Abba: Offers a personal one-on-one relationship to his devotees.
JHVH: Requires a priest as a go-between.
Abba: Has equal concern for people of all backgrounds.
JHVH: Is only concerned with the Jews.
Abba: His kingdom is around us, and within us.
JHVH: His kingdom is a literal kingdom of the Jewish nation.
Abba: The poor are a concern, and are closest to his kingdom.
JHVH: The poor are cursed, the rich are blessed . . . because they get what they deserve.
Abba: Love your enemies.
JHVH: An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth.

This could go on all day. "Abba" is a window on the Divine which I always come back to. Jesus never claimed to be the God the Christian world would one day say he is. What he did claim was a window on the Divine: a loving parent whose eternal kingdom was for all. Jesus' teachings are paramount in my life. He is my friend, my guide, and bringing his teachings to those who needed them cost him his life. I do not believe in him as a literal human sacrifice for my sins, but that he was indeed murdered for bringing me the teachings which have brought me peace with the divine. That certainly makes him my savior."
  • horseman
  • Newbie
  • Newbie
  • User avatar
  • Posts: 10
  • Loc: leadethme.blogspot.com

Post 3+ Months Ago

tsisqua wrote:

... Differences between "Abba" (as taught by Jesus), and JHVH (as taught by Judaic tradition.)

Abba: Offers unconditional pardon, based on a parental love. (See: Story of Prodigal Son)
JHVH: Requires sacrifices for pardon, usually animals, sometimes human. (See the story of Jephthah, Judges 11:31-40)
Abba: Offers a personal one-on-one relationship to his devotees.
JHVH: Requires a priest as a go-between.
Abba: Has equal concern for people of all backgrounds.
JHVH: Is only concerned with the Jews.
Abba: His kingdom is around us, and within us.
JHVH: His kingdom is a literal kingdom of the Jewish nation.
Abba: The poor are a concern, and are closest to his kingdom.
JHVH: The poor are cursed, the rich are blessed . . . because they get what they deserve.
Abba: Love your enemies.
JHVH: An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth.

This could go on all day. "Abba" is a window on the Divine which I always come back to...



Pretend that you believe that Messiah is God incarnate. Pretend it just for a while. Put it firmly in your mind as an intense mental exercise. Now read what you wrote above, thinking on each one accordingly. It gives you a totally different perspective if you do this. I could respond line by line. But if you do this exercise, you should see a glimpse, hear an echo of the Divine and have a better understand of Old Covenant- New Covenant synergies.

I think that God used the Israelites to bring forth a certain man. Through the Israelites God controlled the bloodlines. The Law was the device that encouraged certain genetic traits and removed undesirable traits, very often violently. Desirable genes were eventually bottlenecked into the Davidic bloodline. 1000 more years of genetic work later, it was time. Messiah was born at the time of gene perfection. It took a long time to derive at a sequence of DNA that was far enough removed from the curse of Eden. At the point when the genetic work was complete God literally stepped into humanity, told us things, and then died for our sins.

So you see, I too can speak in ways that Christians may disagree with. But this is what we are talking about here. You just have to… see it. Yeah, this that I said is sort of like Dune, you know the Kwisatz Haderach and all that. Look on Wikipedia if you don’t know what I am talking about. Frank Herbert did quite the rip off job of Christianity with that one.

And about your “peace with the divine”…. I think that you do not have peace with the divine. You do not because there is no peace. No certain knowledge or teaching brings peace to a man - between one another, within our self, or with God. If that were so, war would have ended at some point of enlightenment. It has not . When I bid others with the word “PEACE”, it is prayer that Messiah returns and brings it. Through Messiah I have rest, but not peace, not now. No one does. But there is hope in Him.

Yet, the Biblical text reports that you must see Jesus as Messiah, or Savior. It stops short of demanding that you MUST see Him as God in the flesh. Perhaps reconciliation of all this will come at the Second Coming. It is interesting to me that Jews, Muslims, and Christians all look for His coming. The faiths diverge and then converge at the point of… Messiah.

Of course, this is an art forum. So I do not wish to go back and forth here with such debate. It is a very interesting talk to me. But the moderators may not allow it. You can email me and we can talk more if you wish. Find my email at my profile at the Jesus Wept website.

Why does someone that is not Christian want an image of Messiah weeping? For theatrics maybe? Where will this article be published?

PEACE

A newer version of the art.
Attachments:
Jesusweptpencilblackwhitedigitalpai.jpg
  • tsisqua
  • Born
  • Born
  • tsisqua
  • Posts: 3

Post 3+ Months Ago

"Why does someone that is not Christian want an image of Messiah weeping? For theatrics maybe? Where will this article be published?"


Perhaps to say that I can be a follower of the teachings of Jesus without being a Christian makes sense to you. I grew up in a situation that I'm sure you couldn't grasp, any more than I would understand what has brought you to where you are today. What doesn't make sense to me are churches who's doctrine incorporates the ideas of Jesus' divinity, and his death on the cross as the propitiation for our sins; yet seem to completely overlook any of his teachings from the synoptic gospels. Those teachings were the very reason he was crucified, not because he was a good man, the son of God, or even God incarnate.

Those teachings are also what I live my life by. Here's some tests to find out whether or not a man or woman is a follower of Jesus: 1. Ask for their money (you don't have to keep it . . . it's just a test) 2. (I don't really recommend this one. Purely hypothetical) Slap them and watch the response. 3. (This one's easy and can actually be tried at the workplace) Ask them to carry something for you. A LONG way. 4. Listen to them talk. It's that easy. Are they badmouthing anyone? Complaining? I really don't even care if they are using "rough language", their conversation should reflect the teachings of Jesus, if indeed, they are his followers.

Yet these same people will claim that their sins are washed away by the blood of Jesus and that people of any and all other faiths are Hell-bound. There are a few exceptions, but most Christians come very short of the standards set by our master.

You asked where the article would appear. This small, insignificant work would be self-published and appear only to my friends who subscribe to me on Scribd . Theatrics? No. I wished to do honor to the man who is the center of my existence, and your beautiful piece would have conveyed that, but I do not wish to use it if it would cause you any loss of sleep.

You are very blessed. May God continue to bless you, and to move people with your talent.

Larry
  • SB
  • Moderator
  • Genius
  • User avatar
  • Posts: 8745
  • Loc: Aberdeen, Scotland

Post 3+ Months Ago

For the record, being a moderator i do not object to conversations like this. In fact, it is very refreshing to see such a civil and well thought out conversation between two smart members. You've both got talents in your own ways and to object to you both expressing that would be a shame.

I am sure i speak on behalf of the moderator team and would not want to stand in the way of any further conversations should you see fit.
  • horseman
  • Newbie
  • Newbie
  • User avatar
  • Posts: 10
  • Loc: leadethme.blogspot.com

Post 3+ Months Ago

tsisqua wrote:

Perhaps to say that I can be a follower of the teachings of Jesus without being a Christian makes sense to you...



No, not really. Though I am open to an explanation from you, I do not see how it will make sense. If you reduce Christ down to a mere man, he is on the same par as pedophiliatic Priests, Rabbis, and Imams. He would be no better than the next fat televangelist that falls from so-called glory due to some illicit homosexual affair or scandal of greed.

tsisqua wrote:


Here's some tests to find out whether or not a man or woman is a follower of Jesus: 1. Ask for their money (you don't have to keep it . . . it's just a test) 2. (I don't really recommend this one. Purely hypothetical) Slap them and watch the response. 3. (This one's easy and can actually be tried at the workplace) Ask them to carry something for you. A LONG way. 4. Listen to them talk. It's that easy.



If we could past the 1,2,3,4 test we would not need the redemption of Christ.

Further, if Jesus were just a man, he would not be able to pass your 1,2,3,4 test either. Then that would make him a hypocrite. Then he could not be Savior. If you say to me that Jesus was different, he could pass the 1,2,3,4 test... then your are saying that he is MORE than a man, something... Divine? The whole thing just unravels if you if you accept that he was just a man.

AM I missing something? Does... "Q" explain this? HAHAHAHAHA. That last question was joke. But please, don’t be offended by this. After all, it’s not like you wrote... "Q". Sorry... last time....

Wish I could sit down with you over coffee or a cold beer and talk. We could learn much from one another.

PEACE

Post Information

  • Total Posts in this topic: 39 posts
  • Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests
  • You cannot post new topics in this forum
  • You cannot reply to topics in this forum
  • You cannot edit your posts in this forum
  • You cannot delete your posts in this forum
  • You cannot post attachments in this forum
 
 

© 1998-2014. Ozzu® is a registered trademark of Unmelted, LLC.