THOU FORSAKEN

Yeshua upon the Tree: a Terrible Beauty, an Immense Paradox

2008-12-25T15:01:00.000-08:00

I pause and recognize that this may disturb some people. How the cross can be a thing of beauty is strange to those that are not its adherents. Those of the Faith view the suffering and death of Messiah as Divine love and mercy for all humanity. Indeed, it is a terrible beauty, an immense paradox.

What follows are ideas behind my art. I introduce the site with the black & white pencil version. Without color it seems raw and unprocessed, a better foundation for individual contemplation. At the end you can see painted versions of the art.

Thoughts about Christ, the cross, and Black Liberation Theology – that is the faith of U.S. President Obama.

2008-12-16T08:28:00.000-08:00

With the historical U. S. presidential election of Barack Hussein Obama, the world may develop a curiosity about our president's faith (you know... the one that he has been in for over 20 years but keeps "hush, hush" about). Simply put, this worldview aims to make divine the historical experience of Black Americans in this country and advocates reparations (monetary payback for slavery) as being part of our work toward a collective salvation. It is a heretical effort to have Christians revere the past suffering of Blacks… like we revere the suffering of Christ on the cross. These are not just my conclusions about the theology. The ideas are clearly explained by James Cone himself, who was so highly touted by Jeremiah Wright on Fox news and is a father to the movement. You can read some of his books that clearly put forth these ideas. You can even listen to him expand upon Black Liberation Theology on YouTube:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-1X5sZ6Q4Fw

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TIVwBuyXXE0

This guy says some extreme things that are grounded in false doctrine. But here I will just target a specific claim of Black Liberation Theology. James Cone claims that we should have a dialogue about seeing the cross of Christ as being like the Black lynchings of the past. The idea is blasphemy. I will explain this shortly. But also the idea is selfish and illogical. I say selfish because the idea is an effort to establish that blacks were victims of systematic mass murder and are thus due restitution. The notion helps propagate and validate the goal of reparations. But let us examine the logic of this claim that we should come to understand the cross through the lynching tree.

Was the cross like a lynching?

No, it was not. The truth is, our historical lynchings were more like some of the stonings back in Biblical times rather than the cross. Back then the people would sometimes rise up and stone someone for an offense. Just like some of those stonings, a lynching is when a mob executes a person without due process of the law. Of course, we often see it this way only by looking back and applying the laws of today to the situation. But back then in Biblical times, execution by way of stoning was the law.

What is the difference between a hanging and the lynching tree?
In fact there is only one difference: it took legal order to hang someone; but to lynch someone upon a lynching tree was an act of the people - both situations involved a person being put to death with a rope around his neck. We know the Crucifixion of Christ undeniably involved a legal order. In this, the Crucifixion was actually more like a hanging. Not long ago in this country criminals were hanged by order of a court or legal proceeding. In other words, the person was found guilty of a crime. Christ went before the Jewish religious counsel and no less than three government officials. In the end he was deemed a criminal (though it was also acknowledged that he was blameless). His stated crime was being the "KING OF THE JEWS" - which was an insurrection against Caesar and the Roman Empire. So they suspended him on a tree... crucified him.

Being blameless, or sinless, is a key distinction to make between Christ and those that were hanged or lynched. If they were hanged, obviously the court of law found them guilty of a crime. If they were lynched it was because the people found them guilty of something. Unfortunately, the ones that were lynched did not have the benefit of a court hearing to defend themselves against the charges. But the bottom line is that these people were seen as being guilty of wrongdoing. Christians believe that Christ was blameless, or sinless. And not just at the time of the Crucifixion, but during his whole life. This belief is one of the many pillars on which supports our claim that he is divine. To claim that a man has never sinned his entire life is to claim that he is something more than human. You cannot compare such a man to criminals and the like. To do so is to diminish the claim that Christ is God incarnate. This may not bother some. But some consider this to be a denial of the divinity of Christ and blasphemy.

Since Christ had court proceedings like the criminals that we used to hang, why does James Cone compare the cross to the lynching tree rather than a hanging... even though it is illogical? Well, it is a better way to sell his idea. Why? Because most of the criminals that were hanged in this country were white. However, most of the people that were lynched were black (only about 1/3 were white). If he compares the cross to lynchings and he spins it just right, it becomes what we call "a black thing". It becomes propaganda for his cause... the cause to make divine the historical experience of Black Americans and gain reparations.

But let us NOT be hypocrites here!
This is not the first time that people have taken the ideas of God and used them for political gain. Many cultures have done this, but I will not spend much time on the details of the idea. But it is interesting to me to see the parallels between the government or culture of a people and their brand of Christianity. For example, Protestantism of the United States with its many independent denominations makes me think about our so-called decentralized form of government where individual states supposedly hold the most authority. We Protestant Christians of America are so independent and self-indulged in our religious pursuit of blessings and prosperity - and this is a clear parallel with the idea of our American right to "pursue the American dream". Out of respect, I will avoid voicing observations on Catholicism, Anglicanism, and Eastern Orthodoxy. But there are layers of parallels between each brand of Christianity and their respective host governments and/or cultures.Understanding that so many have participated in a christianity incorporated, for profit and for empire... why should we not expect Black Americans to do the same thing? We all need Christ to return and set things right.

So, is Black Liberation Theology blasphemy? Well, not all of the ideas from Black Liberation Theology are blasphemy- but some are. I guess this can be said about other forms of Christianity, as well as some individual Christians. We sin individually, as well as collectively. This is why we need the Messiah.

Christians should defend the Faith from ideas that tarnish it. It is intolerable when certain people use concepts of the cross to raise up and deify themselves for selfish gain - especially when they use bad doctrine to do it. I have had many black friends over the years of my life. I do not want to see them and the world to be taken in by what is actually antichrist doctrine. These things said, I will pray that people see the truth and for my president whom I love. And it will be interesting to see how Black Liberation Theology affects President Obama's image and policy making. I see it already. If you do not... WAKE UP.

The face of the Messiah - the face of a Jew!

2008-12-10T12:58:00.000-08:00

Since we are on Black Liberation Theology, I might as well bring up this delicate issue. Others have already brought it up with me. Some like to ask why I depict a "white" Jesus (or Yehoshua, Yeshua, Iesous, Iesus, etc.). They claim that he was a black man.

"Jesus was a poor black man in a country and a culture controlled by rich white people! The Romans.... O’ I am so glad I got a God who knows what it is to be a poor black man in a country and culture that is run by rich white men! "

That is one of the many now infamous quotes from Jeremiah Wright. His point, Jesus was a poor man living in the land of Judea (a black man according to him) which was controlled by the Roman Empire (rich white people). He is saying that Jesus can identify with Black Americans living in the USA. OK, I get that. But an underlying secondary idea is what I take issue with. If a black man says that Jesus is black... we understand that to mean black like him. How do you see it? The people of Europe during colonial times considered anyone that was not white European as black - this would include Black Africans, Indians, Arabs, etc. So, if you go by that outdated definition of black, then you would be right. But Christ was not black if you define it the way most Americans do today (and most everybody else in the world).

Why do I care if someone calls Christ a black man?
Where does that idea leave the Jew? Jesus was a Jew. He likely had the big nose that points down, heavy-lidded or droopy eyes, and all those Jewish features that certain people sometimes make fun of. Talking about such things is political incorrect to the maximum - it reminds people of the way the Nazis talked about the Jews. Such features may not be what we call sexy, but I have come to see them as beautiful - because my Savior had such features. And he probably had that funny hair on the sides of his head like some of the Jews have today. Ashkenazi Jews of the Hasidic persuasion did not come up with those side locks. Interestingly, many Yemenite Jews grow their side locks very long and claim to have done this since the time of the second temple (that is the time of Christ). We do not know if Christ had long or short hair, but most likely he had the longer side locks. All the Jews did back in that time (see Leviticus 19:27-28 for the reason).

But aren't "European-looking" Ashkenazi Jews actually Khazars?

For those of you that have not read up on this, the Khazarian Empire was located above Mesopotamia and the Black Sea. These Khazars converted to Judaism in the 7th century. Many claim that the Ashkenazi Jews (or European Jews) are actually descendants of these people and not Jews by blood at all. Some Afro-centrist thinkers, like the Black Hebrew Israelites, have the ridiculous claim that our modern day Jews are impostors and that African Americans are actually the real Israelites. No doubt, many of the people that think they are true Jews by blood (Israelites) are actually descents of Khazars. But to say that all Ashkenazi Jews are Khazars is a stretch beyond belief if you do an honest study on the subject. But I am not intending to argue too much about that issue. If you think it is inaccurate to picture Christ as looking like an Ashkenazi Jew, then picture him as a Sephardi Jew or a Mizrahi Jew. Generally speaking these Jews are darker. You can't claim that all the Jews of these backgrounds are also Khazars. If you do, then what about their "Arab cousins" that look like them? Are they impostors too?

There are Jewish communities that can trace their roots for thousands of years. I could go on and on with examples. But I will just give you one. Here is Naeim Giladi . He is an Iraqi Jew. Here is a quote from him:

"We were originally Haroons, a large and important family of the Babylonian Diaspora. My ancestors had settled in Iraq more than 2,600 years ago - 600 years before Christianity, and 1,200 years before Islam. I am descended from Jews who built the tomb of Yehezkel (Ezekiel), a Jewish prophet of pre-biblical times. My town, where I was born in 1929, is Hillah, not far from the ancient site of Babylon.

The original Jews found Babylon, with its nourishing Tigris and Euphrates rivers, to be truly a land of milk, honey, abundance - and opportunity. Although Jews, like other minorities in what became Iraq, experienced periods of oppression and discrimination depending on the rulers of the period, their general trajectory over two and one-half millennia was upward. Under the late Ottoman rule, for example, Jewish social and religious institutions, schools, and medical facilities flourished without outside interference, and Jews were prominent in government and business."

Here is the link to a site that gives you more details about this Jewish man, who incidentally is against Zionism: http://www.inminds.co.uk/jews-of-iraq.html. I copied the quote above from there. It makes my point. Here is a perfect example of a Jew that can trace his family way back. His family history has nothing to do with the Khazarian Empire - in fact it greatly precedes its existence. His face is the face of his ancestors. Below is a picture of this Mizrahi Jew when he was a handsome young man.

I could show you similar cases from all over the Middle East and beyond. I look to these examples in deciding how to depict the Messiah. You can depict him lighter or darker. It does not matter to me, nor should it to anyone else that is a serious Christian. We should not care about the skin tone our Lord had when he physically walked the earth.

So what is my point?

To indicate that our modern day Jews are impostors is disingenuous and racist. It is disingenuous because an honest study of the subject reveals otherwise - with Jewish genealogies like the one above and ancient Jewish graveyards to prove it. Europeans are not the only people that have undergone de-pigmentation (lightening) of the skin. You can see it in India. You can see it in Asia. You can see it in the Middle East. You can see it everywhere. The Kurdish people are a good example of this. Incidentally, scientists that study genetics say that the DNA of the ancient Israelite was most similar to that of the modern day Kurdish people. This makes sense because Abraham, Father of the Israelites, came from the same geographic region as the Kurds. Look here to see pictures of Kurdish people: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kurdish_people.

The world is full of peoples with lighter skin. Just because Jews have light skin does not mean that they are European impostors. Accepting such a claim may allow racists, from the White Supremacists (white hate groups) to the Black Hebrew Israelites (black hate groups), to justify the things they say and do. And these groups may disrespectfully use the description or image of Christ as propaganda. This is a corruption of the truth.

O Lord, forgive us for the times we have used the image of Christ and the cross as an instrument for service of empire and personal profit, maybe even hate. We have done this since the time Christ came. Return to us O Lord and establish your kingdom upon the earth - for we are woefully inadequate to so without you.

Do you care about the Cross of Jesus Christ, heresy, influence of Black Liberation Theology on the policies of President Obama, racism against the Jews, etc. ?

2008-12-05T11:54:00.000-08:00

If so, you should read the above. Or just click here to begin:

www.thouforsaken.blogspot.com

If you don't care about those things, I'll just talk about the art. Using several different photo references, I drew the picture using pencil and blending stump. I scanned my pencil drawing into a computer and painted it in black & white. Then I painted it in color. The digital painting has de-saturated colors because the sky went dark and you would not see much color. The use of subdued colors in the final picture should result in a creation that is more forgiving for someone that struggles with the effective use of color such as myself. The lighting of the picture is supposed to be torch lights and/or bonfires burning below the cross. Originally, I was going to make the edges of the picture slightly blurred while keeping the face of Christ sharp. This would help pull the eyes more to the focal point. But then I decided it might work better to surround the focal point with de-saturated colors. This would accomplish the same effect but in a more dramatic way and without obscuring detail.

In part, my inspiration for the piece was the former Pope John Paul’s staff. Upon it he had this crucifix called "the bent cross". Some people have the ridiculous claim that the symbol is Satanic. The details of the claim are not even worth mentioning. Anyway, I like how it bends from the weight of Christ and shows the cross as looking more like a tree. It is a thing of beauty… terrible beauty.

Today is suspended upon the Tree, He who suspended the land upon the waters.
Today is suspended upon the Tree, He who suspended the land upon the waters.
Today is suspended upon the Tree, He who suspended the land upon the waters.

2008-11-25T11:56:00.000-08:00

Here is one of my painted versions (right click and open in new window to see a larger picture). As mentioned, I usually like my black & white version better. Without color it seems raw and unprocessed, a better foundation for individual contemplation. I paint my pencil drawings in numerous layers using an old version of Corel-Paint. The brush settings I use allow me to paint while preserving the character/textures of the pencil drawing. My art is usually like a mixed-media sandwich made up of many digital paint layers and the pencil drawing is the meat in the middle.

I am still working on the colored version. I have not decided if I like the sparks or not, which are suppose to be rising up from torches and/or bonfires burning below the cross. Here is a representation of Christ looking more like a Jewish man, side locks of hair and all. I did it that way because I have never seen him depicted on the cross in a manner that authentically indicates that he was a Jew. His hair has the hint of "ruddy" so as to suggest that he is from the bloodline of King David – like the scriptures tell that Messiah would be. Since I depict Christ looking more Jewish, I like to call this "Yeshua upon the Tree".

Above is a zoom-in of another version. His eyes are lighter and reflect the fire that burns below the cross. You can also better see the detail in his beard and side locks of hair (called peyot, payos, or peyes). As mentioned above, a long time ago Jewish men did not cut the hair on the sides of their heads. Today many Jews do not wear these side locks. But some groups still have them. There are different styles and traditions related to how the side locks are worn.

TO ENLARGE RIGHT CLICK & OPEN IN NEW WINDOW

In this version I give him cold eyes, which seems more expressive and foreboding than the brown eyes. But some do not like to see Christ portrayed with the lighter eyes.

Thanks for visiting.

Read Psalm 22 - which opens with "MY GOD, MY GOD, WHY HAST THOU FORSAKEN ME?"