quote:

say the following with respect and no desire to 'hurt' you. The cross is not symbolic of longing
in the way you seem to suggest. It is rather an object of shame, ridicule, torture and death. It
is a very appropriate symbol of the result of our sin. If it has come to mean other to you through
personal time spent in God's presence, that is your experience. Scripture does not indicate
what you seem to wish convey in that regard.

I have no doubt that Jesus loves us and desires our love; however, I just do not see or 'feel' what
you are saying when I view your picture.

quote:

ORIGINAL: kisstheson

thirst, desire, need to be poured out because He loves...what's the difference? Jesus hanging on the cross, what do you see in that act?

The poem speaks of the humanity of Christ...the emotional Jesus who thirsts to love souls.

I don't understand why people can't recognize this in Jesus.

quote:

ORIGINAL: kisstheson

quote:

ORIGINAL: techne

quote:

ORIGINAL: kisstheson

quote:

people took issue with the connotations of your use of the words "thirst" and "longing" in connection with the image and the particular personal/ theological position you espouse (though, admittedly, it is possible i'm wrong). if it is indeed about discussion, and if you are indeed interested in all possible interpretations (which will, in turn, help you make better choices for both art execution and theological explication) then let's engage.

it's the choice I made. the painting touches some and others don't like it. why does it need to be better? Art is about the heart, not pleasing everyone.

to be honest, i'm not sure what you're referring to. you invited responses. and then, when you explained your intention as to what you were trying to communicate about jesus, people had problems with the language you employed. nobody actually commented on the image so your comment about whether or not it needs to be "better" is irrelevant at best.

and i would argue that art is not, in fact, simply about one's heart (but then, we've been down this road before, haven't we?) - art is in the service of communicating or conveying something, and when we fail, or when there is a gulf between our intention and the work's reception, that is something important that we should, as artists and creatives, pay attention to.

but whatever.

whose to say what art is a failure or not? Jesus spoke in parables. Story telling is an art form. Half the people didn't grasp the depth of what he was conveying. So did Jesus fail at telling the story? even his disciples didn't get it and asked him for the interpretation.

quote:

ORIGINAL: kisstheson
Did you know Michelangelo sculpted a nude statue of Christ embracing the cross? Some might be highly offended by his work. Does that mean he failed at communicating the fact that Christ was human?...Some look away in disqust and say Michelangelo failed because he scuplted a Jesus who is too human.

quote:

ORIGINAL: kisstheson
I always go for the heart as long as the art doesn't blaspheme the Savior.

quote:

ORIGINAL: stellaluna

quote:

ORIGINAL: kisstheson

thirst, desire, need to be poured out because He loves...what's the difference? Jesus hanging on the cross, what do you see in that act?

The poem speaks of the humanity of Christ...the emotional Jesus who thirsts to love souls.

I don't understand why people can't recognize this in Jesus.

I don't believe Jesus thirsts to love souls. He already loves them. God/Jesus has no need.

I think there has to be a balance in how Jesus is portrayed, but I sincerely believe he was mostly stoic. You don't choose to lay your life down, and die the way he did and be an emotional wreck. You just don't.

quote:

firstly, if your image doesn't communicate what you want then it is a failure i.e. not as successful. art is by its very nature parabolic.

quote:

bruce herman does much the same today to emphasize christ's humanity. but we aren't talking about the potential of a work's content or execution to be offensive (e.g. i just happen to think that serrano's **** christ is amazing and beautiful and deeply religious in content and intention and execution). even more, within m's cultural context, nudity would have been less of an issue than it is today. of course, after the pope who commissioned the sistine chapel died, a later pope had someone paint "mini-togas" on all the naked figures. what we were discussing was the failure - for some - of your image to convey what you explained was your intention.

quote:

ORIGINAL: kisstheson

quote:

firstly, if your image doesn't communicate what you want then it is a failure i.e. not as successful. art is by its very nature parabolic.

sure...I could have painted Christ kneeling beside a dry river bed with His hands trying to scoop water but none is there, His large pleading eyes turned towards the viewer and words written at the bottom of the illustration: "I thirst!"

quote:

ORIGINAL: kisstheson
I painted the picture so that it could be interpreted both ways...Jesus is offering the cup of salvation (or) Jesus is like the scene from "Oliver." Young Oliver Twist holds out an empty cup or bowl and pleads, "please sir, more!"

quote:

ORIGINAL: kisstheson
Does He thirst or doesn't He? What's my part in answering that plea? What is meant by "thirst"?

quote:

ORIGINAL: kisstheson
I'm happy because the art started a discussion about Christ. That was my intention.

quote:

ORIGINAL: kisstheson
Michelangelo statue of a nude Christ couldn't have pleased everyone. depending on what Pope is "reigning" for lack of a better term, the loin cloth is on or off. Not everyone understood michelangelo's "vision."

quote:

ORIGINAL: kisstheson
You can't please all the people all the time.

quote:

ORIGINAL: kisstheson

quote:

bruce herman does much the same today to emphasize christ's humanity. but we aren't talking about the potential of a work's content or execution to be offensive (e.g. i just happen to think that serrano's **** christ is amazing and beautiful and deeply religious in content and intention and execution). even more, within m's cultural context, nudity would have been less of an issue than it is today. of course, after the pope who commissioned the sistine chapel died, a later pope had someone paint "mini-togas" on all the naked figures. what we were discussing was the failure - for some - of your image to convey what you explained was your intention.

Does everyone "understand" serrano's crucifix immersed in urine? Most Christians consider it blasphemy. this was my opinion for a long time but the more I thought about it the more I started to see this image in a different light. Did he truly and clearly portray his intention?

quote:

ORIGINAL: kisstheson
Was serrano's art a failure because some didn't "get it"?

quote:

ORIGINAL: techne

quote:

ORIGINAL: kisstheson

quote:

firstly, if your image doesn't communicate what you want then it is a failure i.e. not as successful. art is by its very nature parabolic.

sure...I could have painted Christ kneeling beside a dry river bed with His hands trying to scoop water but none is there, His large pleading eyes turned towards the viewer and words written at the bottom of the illustration: "I thirst!"

ha! you're right -- you could have (and i'm glad you didn't)

but then that's not what you were trying to communicate...
I already told you the picture could be interpreted two ways.

quote:

ORIGINAL: kisstheson
I painted the picture so that it could be interpreted both ways...Jesus is offering the cup of salvation (or) Jesus is like the scene from "Oliver." Young Oliver Twist holds out an empty cup or bowl and pleads, "please sir, more!"

except that you didn't leave that open to us. or, at least, once you gave your explanation, it was no longer available to us to have multiple readings. and i think that the reference to oliver might be there, but i wonder if it would be as widely discernible as you think.
That's actually not the issue.

quote:

ORIGINAL: kisstheson
Does He thirst or doesn't He? What's my part in answering that plea? What is meant by "thirst"?

well -- i think that's a good question, and a great starting place. what image says that? is there a stronger way to present that?
Sure! Christ kneeling by the dry riverbed. there are other possibilities

quote:

ORIGINAL: kisstheson
I'm happy because the art started a discussion about Christ. That was my intention.

okay.

quote:

ORIGINAL: kisstheson
Michelangelo statue of a nude Christ couldn't have pleased everyone. depending on what Pope is "reigning" for lack of a better term, the loin cloth is on or off. Not everyone understood michelangelo's "vision."

my point was that one's own personal baggage or intention can blind us to what the work is saying. whether it pleases everyone is beside the point.
Now you are getting to the real issue as to why this thread has continued. "personal baggage." seems like most people here cannot believe the thirst of Christ on the cross was more than a literal thirst for water, but a spiritual thirst as well therefore it would be difficult to read or accept the idea in that painting. Christ couldn't possibly be asking for a drink.

quote:

ORIGINAL: kisstheson
You can't please all the people all the time.

and why would anyone even try?

quote:

ORIGINAL: techne

quote:

ORIGINAL: kisstheson

quote:

bruce herman does much the same today to emphasize christ's humanity. but we aren't talking about the potential of a work's content or execution to be offensive (e.g. i just happen to think that serrano's **** christ is amazing and beautiful and deeply religious in content and intention and execution). even more, within m's cultural context, nudity would have been less of an issue than it is today. of course, after the pope who commissioned the sistine chapel died, a later pope had someone paint "mini-togas" on all the naked figures. what we were discussing was the failure - for some - of your image to convey what you explained was your intention.

Does everyone "understand" serrano's crucifix immersed in urine? Most Christians consider it blasphemy. this was my opinion for a long time but the more I thought about it the more I started to see this image in a different light. Did he truly and clearly portray his intention?

i don't think "most christians" consider it blasphemy. "most christians" have never seen it, thought through it or looked at it in context. in fact, until one reads the label, i would hazard a guess that most people would have a very positive response to the image.
Really? I have heard a lot of negative comments about that image, especially about the title.

it is beautiful. and within the context of serrano's catholicism and the catholic embrace of the body and its place within spirituality, the work is far more complex than we often consider.

but i'm curious -- you say you "started to see this image in a different light". how? do you mean that you began to see what was initially blasphemous as something else? if so, wasn't the issue you since serrano has said that he never intended the image as blasphemous, and was surprised when it created the furour that it did? i think he did portray his intention but, since it is a complex
Sorry you just said that you didn't believe many Christians found the image offensive. What furour? Who was upset about it if not Christians? yes his image was complex and not so 'black and white." people can misread a person's intentions. My opinion changed because I believe this is exactly what some people do to Christ and His sacrifice. they **** on Christ. This painting is a truism.

piece, some people never bothered spending time with the piece and thinking through what it was and instead placed their own expectations and opinions onto it. so i think he did indeed make the image to reflect his ideas about faith and religion, the body and spirituality, images and symbols. and, in fact, he created a whole series of images that explored those ideas, so it helps to look at the work in context.
Yes taking time to think about it. I think you give Serrano more grace than me. perhaps my illustration wasn't controversial enough.

quote:

ORIGINAL: kisstheson
Was serrano's art a failure because some didn't "get it"?

no. but there is the big tension, or question, when it comes to the relationship between artist, object and viewer. there are often quite a number of "allowable deviances" when it comes to interpreting a piece, but those interpretations must be based on what is in the work. not what is in the viewer (or at least, not at the beginning of the process of looking at something). i think the failure was that of viewers not engaging with the work on its own terms.

we might never have known about serrano's piece if mayor giuliani, in a politically motivated gesture, hadn't raised an uproar over it (the exhibition: sensation) despite the fact that he had not even seen the exhibition the piece was in!
so the the failure was on the part of the viewers and not the artist? I thought you said the painting should convey a clear message. Was his message clear? More grace for Mr. S than for kisstheSon. ;)

then again, i think it's beautiful. i still want a life sized poster for my living room. it would make quite the conversation piece.

quote:

the conversation about the cross came long after the initial posting about what we thought about the image of jesus and his little cup.

quote:

ORIGINAL: techne

quote:

ORIGINAL: solarflare
I do not find that picture conveys what you seem to intend for it to convey. As a successful artist/photographer, and as someone who has taught art to adults, I have critiqued plenty of people's work.

you got a website? you can see some of my work (and ruminations) here.

Yes, I do have a website....but I do not link from this site...photos I post for my avatar are mine

quote:

ORIGINAL: solarflare
I would think you would expect feedback to be both positive and negative and a person cannot do so if they must wear kid gloves and walk on eggshells.

and maybe the question of critique is a good one to discuss in another thread (rather than making this about kisstheson). how do we critique work? what is the process? is there a process? what should we address in a critique? what is critique? how do we ask for critique? how do we determine what we are actually asking people to critique? how do we deal with their responses? and our own? i would be more than willing to start such a thread and instigate the conversation...

I said the above re putting something out there and asking people what they think...doesn't matter the venue, results will vary according to responders...but I'm game for discussion....proper discussion ... your questions are good

quote:

ORIGINAL: solarflare
We learn by example, we learn by study, we learn by many different ways. When an 'artist' puts forth a piece and asks people to comment on it in a vague manor such as you have done, you cannot expect other than the replies contained herein.

see above.

quote:

ORIGINAL: solarflare
I say the following with respect and no desire to 'hurt' you. The cross is not symbolic of longing in the way you seem to suggest. It is rather an object of shame, ridicule, torture and death. It is a very appropriate symbol of the result of our sin. If it has come to mean other to you through
personal time spent in God's presence, that is your experience. Scripture does not indicate what you seem to wish convey in that regard.

of course, the conversation about the cross came long after the initial posting about what we thought about the image of jesus and his little cup.

again, it might be an interesting conversation to explore how images mean, and how we reconcile that with scripture, as well as how we can (or cannot) deviate. or an exploration of the difference between illustrating theology and presenting more personal interpretations of spiritual experiences...
should be interesting....plenty of inspiration spirtually and visually speaking

quote:



ORIGINAL: solarflare
I have no doubt that Jesus loves us and desires our love; however, I just do not see or 'feel' what you are saying when I view your picture.

so then the task, and responsibility, for all of us, is to unpack and investigate why that might be so. we are able to explain or "back up" our opinions.

quote:

ORIGINAL: solarflare
I am not a Christian artist...I am an artist who is a Christian. I pray about my work and am often inspired, I believe, by the Holy Spirit. I would not presume to think others feel the same about my work when viewing it as did I when creating it. Comments are almost always positive but I do not become perturbed if they do not see what I felt.

another interesting possible discussion -- the role of the holy spirit (and us) in the creative process. what does that mean? what does that involve? how does that work?

Personally, I do not think I am inspired apart from the Spirit of God....God is our Creator...I create on a minor scale....but I think the creative process comes from Him...

quote:



ORIGINAL: solarflare
One very large piece of work was viewed by all as wonderful except for one man, a doctor, who saw something 'dark' in my work that really was not there and never entered my mind. Should I try and convince him how wrong he was or go on and on about what I really meant? (I didn't mean anything... I was just trying to convey beauty). I think that would have been frustrating for both of us.

this points to the idea that "whatever we get out of the work is right". it's not. one's opinions and subjective responses are one thing, but they are your thing. that is about the viewer, not the work. one's interpretations must be connected to the work at hand. if there is nothing in the work that points to that idea, it simply isn't appropriate to foist one's own opinions onto the work. though i'd be willing to discuss (argue?) that.
basically agree...more discussion would be interesting

quote:

ORIGINAL: solarflare
Art is extremely SUBJECTIVE (to put it mildly) and if you wish your work to convey a certain message it might be helpful if you accepted both good and 'bad' comments.....as far as the meaning of it goes, there is no way everyone is going to see what you felt.

i would argue that art is much less subjective than we would like, aha...could argue this one LOL! but one's personal response is absolutely subjective. the issue for me is that art is not about your personal subjective opinion about what a piece of art is about. art isn't simply about self-expression, and it isn't about personal interpretation. or at least i would argue that isn't 1. biblical, 2. useful, or 3. art. but i'd be willing to discuss that.
Open the discussion...I would like something to talk about that does not involve gut level emotions but actual thinking processes.... My response here has nothing to do with this particular threadbut you're right - one needs to be clear as to what they want to communicate, and then to be willing to listen to how and why it is or isn't effective in communicating that idea.

pax.

quote:

ORIGINAL: solarflare

quote:

the conversation about the cross came long after the initial posting about what we thought about the image of jesus and his little cup.

Hmmm...yes...but apparently the cross, according to KTS portrays Jesus longing....(I don't mind interpretive stuff...hey I like abstract if it is good and yeah, there ARE standards for what is and is not art or good art...) ....which I do not find in Scripture. I do find this, however:
Therefore, since we are surrounded by such a great cloud of witnesses, let us throw off everything that hinders and the sin that so easily entangles, and let us run with perseverance the race marked out for us. Let us fix our eyes on Jesus, the author and perfecter of our faith, who for the joy set before him endured the cross, scorning its shame, and sat down at the right hand of the throne of God. 3Consider him who endured such opposition from sinful men, so that you will not grow weary and lose heart.

Hebrew 12:1-2

Jesus scorned the shame of the cross...He did not long lovingly from it. So, that is my point...not the art in particular....however, since you asked, I do not see in the picture what KTS wished to portray. Nothing personal...I just don't see it.

Thx

quote:

which is probably why you don't see it with all due respect because you are limiting Jesus' thirst to water only. take the whole council of scriptures together. Didn't Jesus long to embrace jerusalem, the very ones who would later crucify Him? 'o Jerusalem...how I have longed to gather you unto myself" I'm sure you know that scripture.

I on the other hand can't see a Jesus who looks out over the world and doesn't have a strong desire and thirst to save as many as possible but they refuse. Maybe our "yes" is a little poured into Jesus' cup.

quote:

which is probably why you don't see it

quote:

ORIGINAL: solarflare

quote:

which is probably why you don't see it with all due respect because you are limiting Jesus' thirst to water only. take the whole council of scriptures together. Didn't Jesus long to embrace jerusalem, the very ones who would later crucify Him? 'o Jerusalem...how I have longed to gather you unto myself" I'm sure you know that scripture.

I on the other hand can't see a Jesus who looks out over the world and doesn't have a strong desire and thirst to save as many as possible but they refuse. Maybe our "yes" is a little poured into Jesus' cup.

You choose to ignore the Scripture that says Jesus scorned the cross...and you tell me to take the
whole council of Scripture together? Right
God forbid I should ignore any scripture. He endured the cross despising the shame, Again it doesn't say He scorned the cross. He endured the cross but despised the shame, (Hebrews 12:2)Shame is a part of what Jesus went through. Absolutely!

I have not limited Jesus in any way. It would not be possible for me to limit the Son of God. I think you have a teeny
weeny bit of an unsupported view of Jesus...
really? remember this scripture? "Oh Jerusalem, Jerusalem! How often I have longed to gather you unto Myself as a mother hen gathers her chicks under her wings but you would not!" Matthew 23:27

What is this "I on the other hand" ... no...I do not think Jesus has a 'thirst' to save people. Really I do not. God so loved the world...it is
love that is the factor here...not some unrequited passion..........


What do you make of the Scripture I quoted? What does the word scorn mean to you? Jesus ENDURED the cross scorning the shame of it
and yet you go on about how it portrays Jesus' longing. Sorry....I do not find that in Scripture. Would you provide the passage that tells us the cross portrays Jesus' longing or thirst? Basically what that Scripture is saying is that Jesus put up with the cross because of what the result would be...our salvation and reconcilation with God.
Sure He hated the shame of hanging naked in fornt of the world. Yet I have to admit I find it incredulous when Christians tell me they believe Jesus just "put up" with the cross. I'm not trying to be contentious. let me give you a small example. Sometimes my knees really hurt me and it's difficult for me to walk. Sometimes I can't wait to sit down and rest but I have to endure the pain if I want to finish my task and it takes an awful lot of will just to endure that pain. Now our dear Savior walked with not only pain in His knees but a crown of thorns pressing into His scull, opened wounds covering body, a heavy cross weighing on His back...can you imagine how painful just one step was for Jesus? MY gosh! Just enduring the lashing and then to go though the excruciating pain of having nails severing tender nerves and die a death of slow suffocation for six hours! When i feel the pain in my knees I often think of Christ. How did He do it? it's hardly humanly possible to not will ones self to die on the spot when enduring the pain He went through. what I am saying is it took a lot more than just having to "put up" with the cross. Jesus had to have an extraordinary love to endure as long as He did considering that He could have willed Himself to die anywhere along the way. "No one takes My life away from Me!" said Christ, "I lay it down of My own free will." Jesus loved to last last and highest degree. (John 13:1) That Love includes all that is within love...longing, thirst, desire, longsuffering...Include all the colors, the depths, the layers of His love for it was beyond, beyond anything on this earth. Christ looked out upon His cross and thirsted to save us. he thirsts for our souls. sadly His love is unrequited by many in world today.
If you are going to tell me to take all the council of Scripture you migh to do so yourself. Honestly, I was only trying to discuss one aspect brought up by yourself and now you are trying to tell me I have a flawed understanding of Scripture. I never said I was superior or knew everything...I brought up a verse that contradicts what you are saying. You ingnore the verse, steam right along and tell me I am off base.
I never said you had a flawed view of scripture. I am suggesing a bigger picture of the Passion.

Scorn means to contempt or disdain...not much of a picture of longing IMO.

quote:

ORIGINAL: myka

KTS,

I truly appreciate your focus on the emotional side of Jesus.
Thank you.

I think that the problem is that thirst is not an 'emotional' experience, but one that indicates physical lack. Kind of like a mixed metaphor which can lead to confusion about the message that the author/artist intended.
why is it that people believe Jesus had no emotion or longing or thirst to save us? i sincerely don't understand how some come to that conclusuon. This can be spiritual and of course physical.

FWIW, I do believe that the Godhead (Father, Son, Holy Spirit) desires to loved by people to such depths that we cannot fathom. It is different than a romantic pining or physical thirst (as God is Spirit)
Except God the Son, 2nd person in the tri-unity of God became Man with human emotions. perfect emotions but still human. when Jesus weeps those are real tears. he's feeling something. There's has to be a reason why He's weeping over Jerusalem or weeping at Lazurus' tomb. God is also Jesus who is more than Spirit. "All the fulness of the Godhaed dwells in Jesus in BODILY form." (Col 2:9)
for something that we lack in an of ourselves. Since the very essence of God is Love which implies relationship, God's love for us is such that He deeply in the core of His being desires relationship with us,
Exactly! not to fulfill something that is lacking in Him or in His Being, but as a return to the perfection of the first relationship that He had with people.Part of love is being poured out for the beloved, an unselfish giving. love has to have expression in order for it to be genuine. Now if Jesus' ift is not received how can there be relationship? of course Jesus longs for, desires and thirsts for a two way relationship. He would have suffered if this was not in His heart, This is something that is very difficult to portray in visual terms.

Honestly, my first reaction was to understanding the sketch as Jesus offering His blood... "This is my blood"
Thanks! That's beautiful!

My second thought was of the passage in Matt 25 about doing unto the 'least of these'.
Amen!

I also think that the 'cup' has a certain very strong symbolic meaning within Christianity that is difficult to 'get past' and leads to certain interpretations.


This is not to say that your thoughts and ideas are not worthy of reflection, they are, certainly. I appreciate that,I think that sometimes, we can think that we are saying one thing, but we communicate something else (that we did not intend).

quote:

why is it that people believe Jesus had no emotion or longing or thirst to save us? i sincerely don't understand how some come to that conclusuon. This can be spiritual and of course physical.

quote:

Except God the Son, 2nd person in the tri-unity of God became Man with human emotions. perfect emotions but still human. when Jesus weeps those are real tears. he's feeling something. There's has to be a reason why He's weeping over Jerusalem or weeping at Lazurus' tomb. God is also Jesus who is more than Spirit. "All the fulness of the Godhaed dwells in Jesus in BODILY form." (Col 2:9)

quote:

of course Jesus longs for, desires and thirsts for a two way relationship. He would have suffered if this was not in His heart,

quote:

ORIGINAL: myka

quote:

why is it that people believe Jesus had no emotion or longing or thirst to save us? i sincerely don't understand how some come to that conclusuon. This can be spiritual and of course physical.

Unfortunately, there is a long history of people who believed that God did not have emotions because He is unchangeable (and in their minds emotions are changeable). The good thing is that many theologians and leaders of churches today agree that Jesus had emotions -- especially since there are many passages in the Bible that discuss the various emotions that Jesus and God had/has.

quote:

Except God the Son, 2nd person in the tri-unity of God became Man with human emotions. perfect emotions but still human. when Jesus weeps those are real tears. he's feeling something. There's has to be a reason why He's weeping over Jerusalem or weeping at Lazurus' tomb. God is also Jesus who is more than Spirit. "All the fulness of the Godhaed dwells in Jesus in BODILY form." (Col 2:9)

That's what I was trying to explain; God's (and Jesus') emotions are perfect and holy whereas ours are not. For example, God's jealousy is a holy and righteous jealousy while human jealousy is often not righteous and in fact sinful. Jesus' desire and longing to see people come into relationship with Him is Holy and unrelenting. I don't think that just one person coming to Jesus lessens his longing or desire for people which will not be satiated until the end of time when all recognize Him in His rightful place.

Personally, when Jesus said "I thirst" on the cross, I believe that statement to be emphasizing His full humanity and experience of his bodily existence while on the cross. When we allegorize Jesus' bodily experiences, we also lessen His humanity and the self-sacrificial love that he has for us. Thirst is an experience that is easily remedied with merely a swab of moisture, and Jesus longing desire is much more than any human thirst could convey. His longing desire is not just for a drop in his cup, but for all of us, every part of our being to be wholly his.

quote:

of course Jesus longs for, desires and thirsts for a two way relationship. He would have suffered if this was not in His heart,

Jesus really did suffer for our sins -- a horrible torturous death -- the worst that the Romans had devised for their enemies. Suffering is also a human experience and emotion. He suffered and died for the relationship that we can have through his death.

quote:

ORIGINAL: solarflare

Well I read yr reply...and it is apparent that unless I would see things exactly as you do, I must be wrong...even though you left things open to interpretation.

Really, why bother to ask for input if all you really want is to give us yours..

Too funny

quote:

What I did suggest was maybe there is more to His sufferings that you haven't seen.

quote:

ORIGINAL: solarflare

quote:

What I did suggest was maybe there is more to His sufferings that you haven't seen.

Or......long pause....maybe I understand what Scripture is actually saying and do not try and
add to it ...anyway, this is not going anywhere, so....