Pagan beauty vs Christian beauty

No he did not it is just an expression I used instead of sideways, and they did give Him cloaks to put on the colt.
If Jesus as a man, sat sideways, then any man who ride a colt or donkey at that time would most likely do the same.

So the whole argument is just silly.

Riding into town on a colt was a sign of peace and how He sat is a non issue.

That's not an accurate way to look at them.

iconogrophy is essentially a pictographic language to communicate the scripture. it can be relatively simple or fairly complex; it has a developed symbolic language and it's intent is not to be an object of idolization but a message reminding the viewer of and pointing the viewer to the truth.

As such it isn't meant to be representational. it's not designed to be an accurate portrayal like a photograph. often people who paid to help have a painting made or a church built were depicted in the scenes themselves, and that's how we get the image of a medieval European man as Jesus in popular culture. not because people were so stupid that they really thought Christ or the apostles didn't look Jewish but because the intent of the art was never to be an idealized representation but an approachable, relatable image that told a story, that related an event in the Bible, and included symbolism in it that taught the themes present in that scripture. it was meant for people who did not know how to read, who had no Bible of their own, to be able to see it and remember what they had heard when the Bible was preached to them

in the partícular case of the OP image with Jesus riding sidesaddle, this is how the artist chose to convey the scripture, "meek and lowly, riding on an ass"

That's all it is. it is not meant to be idolized. it is meant to remind us of the Word of God.

exactly

in particular He sat on a foal, unweened. scripture is specific saying this.
this is a very young donkey who would be crushed by the weight of a man - riding it was miraculous! He was bending physics to His will, "a bruised reed He will not break"

this aspect I have never seen depicted and very very rarely preached

How meek! how gentle!
His lovingkindness and grace!
His power and mercy over all creation!

well although I've never been much of a painter so much as a sculptor & potter, i actually finished my BFA not just majored it in for an unspecified amount of time. and part of earning that was learning about these things, their interpretation, their construction and their history.

IMO the iconoclasm was the tragic result of misunderstanding on both sides: those who stupidly made idols of images and those who stupidly in overreaction thought any image has no purpose or use other than idolatry. they forget that God Himself instructed specifically that the temple be decorated with images of cherubim: thus the interpretation of 'have no graven image' to mean any representation of any living thing is sinful, is a clearly wrong interpretation.

i do not believe we are so stupid in this age, in this community. we are better served not to judge these artworks but to understand them and glean from them what we can see about Christ.

What does this painting mean?

Does it glorify Christ?
How?

Thanks;
I like it

It doesn't matter.
It's iconography.
It's symbolic, not representational.
What we need to know to understand the image is what does side-saddle mean in the language of the art of the time it was painted.

What the OP is about is the clear difference in the symbology of human kings and the One Divine King. that's the subject, and Art is part of the way that conversation is vocalized. so we need to know how to understand the art that is part of the conversation.

That's all.

inability to truly appreciate European religious art puts you at a disadvantage and I hope I can be of some service to remedy that - we are kin, not enemies.

Sorry @HeIsHere for whatever reason I thought @Niki7 wrote this post and my comments directed at a single person were to her not you
..
also i'm generally just a page or two behind everyone always lol

In general yeah to everyone, the OP isn't about art it's about Christ. so I want to fully cover the art aspect so the focus can be Christ.

also i don't want to sidetrack into the legitimacy of any certain denomination but I dunno if addressing any of that is harmful or detrimental. it does seem like getting into the meaning and purpose of art is necessary.. but like I said I am a page behind everyone, as always.

much love and no ill intent
- post

@Niki7

i should not have posted this

I am an idiot

My apologies

artists have intentions and artists have degrees of understanding and degrees of skill

all these things are part of judging art, and some of those things involve knowledge of the heart that none of us have, only God - so evaluation of art fundamentally requires grace. let's have & demonstrate grace!!

=]


i suggest taking the most merciful option we have, because, He said 'judge as you yourself would (prefer to be) be judged'

Interesting. I didnt give that factor much thought.
I did however think riding one that has not been meeked yet is an amazing thing. I have been bucked off a few, lets just say not well trained equine, they are not docile.

I am a born again Christian, that Jesus saved 43 years ago. I would object to statements #1&2. There is no rapture in the Bible!! The entirety of premillennialism dispensationalism is founded on this egregious mistake. I could show you in Koine Greek how wrong this dispensational interpretation of 1 Thess 4:17, but that would be abducting the thread! And it has already been abducted enough! I hope on another thread, at another time?

Suffice it to say, there are 4 different eschatological scenarios right now:

1. Pre-Millennialism and all its variations.

2. Historic pre-Millennialism which contends that as far as the Jews, there is no Plan B for their salvation. There are other differences between the historic and dispensational pre-Millennialism, but too lengthy to discuss here.

3. Post-Millennialism. They believe that:

"Postmillennialism...teaches that the forces of Satan will gradually be defeated by the expansion of the Kingdom of God throughout history up until the second coming of Christ. This belief that good will gradually triumph over evil has led proponents of postmillennialism to label themselves "optimillennialists" in contrast to "pessimillennial" premillennialists and amillennialists."
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Postmillennialism#:~:text=This%20belief%20that%20good%20will,%22pessimillennial%22%20premillennialists%20and%20amillennialists

My understanding is that this third view largely disappeared after WWI & WWII, along with other 20th century pessimisms like nuclear war, and so forth! In other words, things are not gradually getting better & improving through human efforts!

4. Amillennialism- Amillennialism holds that while Christ's reign during the millennium is spiritual in nature, at the end of the church age, Christ will return in final judgment and establish a permanent reign in the "new heaven and new Earth.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ami...hat while Christ's,new heaven and new Earth."

All 4 of these positions are valid, theologically sound doctrines. While some obscure, independent fundamentalist churches believe only the first view is correct, when they preach that the other three views are heresy, and the people holding to these views are not saved, these false preachers are going to be judged by Christ, for the exclusion of Bible believing, born again Christians, on the basis of their eschatological beliefs, from the kingdom of God.

God will certainly recognize his own, including those who hold different eschatological theology. The Bible commands people to be saved by their faith in Jesus Christ as the propitiation for their sins not their end times doctrine!

"He then brought them out and asked, “Sirs, what must I do to be saved?”
31 They replied, “Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved—you and your household.” Acts 16:30-31

"If you declare with your mouth, “Jesus is Lord,”and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. 10 For it is with your heart that you believe and are justified, and it is with your mouth that you profess your faith and are saved." Roman's 10:9-10

There are other verses, too! So before you start knocking out whole denominations as well as individuals from the kingdom of God for their eschatological beliefs, you need to take a closer look at what the Bible actually says.

Further, those who focus on eschatology to the exclusion of other doctrines are shallow, immature and need to read the Bible unaided, to see what really matters to God.

Simona comes from a church that is theological deep & rich! The Cappadocian Fathers, for example were advancing the doctrine of the Trinity in the 4th century. I've met a few very exclusive Orthodox in America, but most are inclusive of other Christians that believe in Jesus & the gospel, and understand they are saved. My grandparents were Orthodox, and my grandmother frequently used to say, "Ya gotta believe in Jesus!" In her broken English.

Instead of searching for a church that matches your eschatological doctrines, perhaps looking for a church that preaches that Jesus is the way, the truth & the life. No one comes to the father, but by him! Or the other "thing - agape love!

"34 “A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another. 35 By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another.” John 13:35-35

Sorry but I have to inform you: @TheDivineWatermark has you beat.
The case insofar as the pre-trib rapture and post-trib redemption of Israel is closed.

Judgement has been rendered because of overwhelming (and I mean overwhelming!) boilerplate Biblical support so codified in the text.

This of course is a Biblically untenable view. There is only ONE correct eschatological scenario. And if you care to look out of your window (at Israel and world events) you will know which ONE is the correct ONE.

hi, Simona! you make me smile, partly because i imagine, based on your screen name, that you're the same age as our 4th born; our only son.

can i please address just this thought? i don't believe they're the same people. i know this is a common thought in Christendom, so allow me to explain my thinking.

the people singing Hosanna to the Son of David were likely pilgrims who, by covenant obligation, were making their way to Jerusalem for the Passover. they would have been singing the Songs of Ascent from the Psalter. one of them would have been Ps 118, where we find these words:

O LORD, save us, we pray. (Hosanna! save now!)
We beseech You, O LORD, cause us to prosper!
Blessed is he who comes in the name of the LORD.
From the house of the LORD we bless you.
The LORD is God;
He has made His light to shine upon us.
Bind the festal sacrifice with cords
to the horns of the altar.

i get chills thinking the Lord Jesus heard those last words i quoted as He rode into Jerusalem!

but i believe not that the people were fickle, but that it's two different groups. perhaps the second group were Jerusalemites, i don't know. the Lord knows those who are His, though.

thanks for your patience.

How different He shall appear when He returns. Far more dreadful and awesome than any Roman Emperor.
Revelation 19
11 And I saw heaven opened, and behold a white horse; and he that sat upon him was called Faithful and True, and in righteousness he doth judge and make war.
12 His eyes were as a flame of fire, and on his head were many crowns; and he had a name written, that no man knew, but he himself.
13 And he was clothed with a vesture dipped in blood: and his name is called The Word of God.
14 And the armies which were in heaven followed him upon white horses, clothed in fine linen, white and clean.
15 And out of his mouth goeth a sharp sword, that with it he should smite the nations: and he shall rule them with a rod of iron: and he treadeth the winepress of the fierceness and wrath of Almighty God.
16 And he hath on his vesture and on his thigh a name written, KING OF KINGS, AND LORD OF LORDS.

Why is that? People don't ride horses side saddle. Well, I know women did for a while, but that just seems silly to me.

Thank you. Really. For saying so. ..Probably not an idiot tho. Do you have terrier blood?

OK well we now that we know I didn't write that post Did you not have your 2nd cup of coffee?

Deu 26:18
'And Jehovah hath caused thee to promise to-day to become His people, a peculiar treasure, as He hath spoken to thee, and to keep all His commands;
Deu 26:19
so as to make thee uppermost above all the nations whom He hath made for a praise, and for a name, and for beauty, and for thy being a holy people to Jehovah thy God, as He hath spoken.

No one makes saddles to fit a foal or a colt.
Before an equine is mature enough to ride, their top line is not filled out, and their spinal ridge is quite prodigious. This is why even a pony saddle would not work. This is also why it would be a painful ordeal to sit astride one. Women have sat sideways since the beginning of using beasts of burden.