StudyGrowKnow

Definitely – According to Some – It’s Muhammad in Romantic Cannibals “Art”

October 12, 2010 at 10:39 AM 4 comments

One other note about the “art” at the Loveland Museum.

It’s interesting that most understand that Jesus is the subject of more than one of the prints.  How do we know?  Well, first of all, the artist himself has not denied that it is of Jesus.  Second, there is a very well-known head/face of Jesus that we have seen in paintings for years that Chagoya used in one of the prints.  Seems clear enough that these facts, along with the Roman Catholic imagery used throughout the numerous panels in Chagoya’s “art” speaks to the point that the subject in at least two of the panels is Jesus Himself.

As a brief aside, I absolutely love it when atheists and agnostics, et al, claim as fact that Jesus does not (nor ever) exist.  I find that funny on a number of levels.  In their concerted efforts to disallow Christianity, they have to go so far as to say that Jesus never existed.  They cannot prove it (and of course, they would say you cannot prove a negative), but the fact that Christianity has become such a worldwide religious movement would provide indirect evidence that He did, in fact, exist.

Back to the “art” of Professor Enrique Chagoya! (trumpet fanfare please!).  As we have noted, though it is fairly obvious that Jesus is the subject of a number of the prints in Chagoya’s work (to the extent that even atheist bloggers are admitting it), it is far more difficult to narrow down the identity of the individual in the print two panels to the left of the “Jesus-on-the-receiving-end-of-a-sexual-trick” print.

As far as I can tell, there is an individual who is sitting next to a bed.  His head seems to be on fire and there are two pigs prancing on the bed itself.  Apparently, this is Muhammad.  I’m not certain how people arrive at that conclusion though.  Granted, it is difficult to see the detail in the image on the ‘Net, so it is possible that those who have seen it up close and personal are privy to additional information that cannot readily be seen in photos uploaded to the Internet.

Nonetheless, people are sure that the individual in question IS Muhammad.  In fact, I have received a number of comments from people who, after reading my first post about said “art” simply point out without equivocation that Muhammad IS pictured.  This is usually followed by a comment suggesting that Muslims have not protested the presence of a print paying sacrilege to their prophet, as if all of a sudden radical Muslims are playing nice and always have done so.

One blogger (who wrote me) is so sure that it’s Muhammad, wrote this on his own blog in response to another blogger who complained about the blasphemous print of Jesus:  “Ummm, guys, that kneeling beardo with his head on fire? with the piggy hookers? That’s muhammad, dumba****.   I know, this information is hidden away in books, but at least pay attention when the Teevee gives you your hating orders.”

Apparently, the writer of the above quote is so sure that the print is of Muhammad, that he was able to offer his sarcastic rejoinder complete with epithet (or expletive if you prefer).  So without question, people certainly take the individual in that print with the pigs to be Muhammad.  Why couldn’t he be a Jew, which to me makes more sense since pork is not within the category of foods that are Kosher, yet for Arabs, pork is fine.

It certainly appears that the idea that the man is Jewish is much more in keeping with the overall sacrilege of the prints taken together.  You know, orthodox Jews should not eat pork, therefore the artist puts pigs in the print, with the man on the ground looking longingly for something he cannot have.  This would be in keeping with the print of Jesus on the receiving end of a sexual act (though it looks as though the “giver” here is simply getting warmed up), something Chagoya may believe Jesus always wanted but could not have either.

That’s the thing with art.  It’s up to the interpretation of the people who view it.  Some will say that the Bible is just like that.  I would disagree completely.  The problem with the way the Bible is often viewed is that too many numbskulls attempt to understand the Bible from today’s cultural vantage point, instead of trying to understand it in the culture from which it was written.

If more people actually took the time to study the culture of Jesus’ day (for the New Testament), do some word studies, and find out how people of that day thought and acted, there would be a far greater understanding of the Bible than exists today.  For instance, the New Testament portion of the Bible is filled with Jewish idioms.  If a person attempts to understand a Jewish idiom from Christ’s day in terms of their particular culture and language of today, the interpretation will fall flat on its face.

Jesus Himself used many figures of speech and exaggerations when He taught the crowds.  His words make perfect sense…UNLESS a person takes no time to study the background behind those words.

Even the Old Testament is replete with specific language patterns and verbiage.  Beyond this, culture plays a very large role in how people interacted with others.

I was talking with an atheist who was so busy yucking it up about how the Bible was garbage, written by a bunch of uneducated nomads, etc., that he actually made several mistakes he never caught onto.  I was more than happy to point them out to him.

For instance, he quoted part of Deuteronomy 14, which among other things, points out that it was against Mosaic Law to boil a “kid” (baby goat) in its mother’s milk.  He laughed and smugly used that to show how asinine the Bible is at its root.

I commend him for actually knowing specific Scriptures.  That’s amazing considering most people who say they are Christians would not know what he was talking about.  At any rate, I pointed out to him that there were two reasons this law was given by Moses:

1. dairy products should be kept separate from meat products when cooking (has to do with being Kosher), and
2. there was a custom with the pagans around the newly created nation of Israel.  When these pagans worshiped certain gods, they would do so by boiling a kid in its mother’s milk

God did not want His newly created nation of Israel to do things that smacked of idolatry.  This is the reason for many of the laws that Moses handed down to the Israelites.  Many of the laws were also given for dietary and/or health reasons.

God did not take the time to explain many of His laws.  The people of Moses’ day understood them and the reasoning behind them.  They did not need to ask.  We are not living in that culture or that day and age.  Because of the fact that we are far removed from them, we actually have to study that age separately because we will not get all of it from the Bible itself.

Interpretations are nothing more than opinions.  We all know what opinions are like and the fact that everyone has them.  Whether it’s art we are looking at, or the Bible we are studying, our interpretation is always based on something.

In the case of the “art” in question, I have not read anyone who questions the identity of either Jesus or Muhammad in the work by Chagoya.  Did they arrive at that conclusion because they themselves interpreted it that way, or did they hear someone else say it and agreed?

The same applies to the Bible, or any book of antiquity.  You do not take Shakespeare and attempt to understand it in light of today’s culture.  You do not read a book by Anthony Burgess and look for meaning in 2010.  You obviously have to go back to the source and the culture that existed during the time of Shakespeare (or much more recently), or Burgess.

People do not do that with the Bible.  They read it and go “Makes no sense!”  One blogger complained that he had finished reading Matthew and STILL did not know which Matthew it was that wrote the gospel of Matthew.  He is correct when he states that the gospel itself does not say, except for the designation Matthew affixed to the book itself.  So, gee, what to do?  It must have been a huge guessing game then, right?

No, not at all.  Where should this guy who read through Matthew go to find out WHICH Matthew the Bible is referencing?  How about to the early Church Fathers?  As far back as Eusebius, the early church understood this book to have been written by THE Matthew, who was a publican (you know, one of those “sinners”) and then became an apostle of Jesus Christ.

Much study has been done on the various authors of each and every book of the Bible.  That study included understanding the culture of the times, reading the many works by the early Church Fathers, and searching for and locating any extra-biblical sources beyond these (Josephus, for instance), who verify the biblical account.

When I studied acting, I also studied Shakespeare…again.  It remains difficult to cut through the verbiage and determine William’s meaning in each of his works, but it is possible.  The same applies to the Bible.  To fully study Scripture, one does not merely study the Bible, though that is an excellent place to start.  Other areas must be studied in order to gain a full understanding of the entirety of the Bible.

I’m 53-years old and I became a Christian at the age of 13.  Since that time, I have earned a Bachelor’s in Bible, a Masters in Biblical Studies, a Doctorate in Divinity, and have nearly completely all requirements for my Doctorate in Theology.  However, in many ways, I’m just scratching the surface of the Bible and its unified theme.

The Bible was written over a period of roughly 1600 years, by over 40 human authors.  The consistency is absolutely amazing, which speaks to the fact that it was not written solely by humans.  The Qur’an was written over a period of roughly 50 years and simply records the comments, sayings, and statements of one man – Muhammad.  The contradictions in the Qur’an are also very obvious.  In fact, it is clear that Muhammad’s tone changes after the first few chapters.  Once a friend of the Jew and Christian, he became adamantly opposed to them and decided to slaughter them whenever he could do so.

As I said toward the beginning of this specific blog, no one seems to doubt the identity of the subject of the print with the pigs as being Muhammad anymore than they doubt that Jesus is the subject of at least two prints.  Interpretation matters of course, but as for me, I’m not convinced it actually IS Muhammad.  If there is something very specific in that print that testifies to that fact, then I cannot see it because of the quality of the uploaded image.

Some things in life are left up for grabs and interpretation.  Artwork and that which passes as artwork unless specifically and clearly enunciated by the artist is one of those things.  The Bible is not.

If there is something that specifically and categorically states somehow that the print allegedly of Muhammad is actually OF Muhammad, I would be interested to know that.  That includes any word from the artist himself.

Since all the hubbub has to do with the one print of Jesus and since the artist has not denied that it is of Jesus, that along with other aspects of the print can confirm to us that it is in fact, Jesus.  Not so with the image of Muhammad.

Rather than leave that up to my interpretation, I will do my best to wait for any concrete evidence that points directly to Islam’s prophet.  Maybe others will do the same.

Entry filed under: 9/11, alienology, Atheism and religion, Demonic, dispensationalism, Eastern Mysticism, emergent church, Islam, israel, Judaism, Life in America, new age movement, Posttribulational Rapture, Pretribulational Rapture, Religious - Christian - End Times, Religious - Christian - Prophecy, Religious - Christian - Theology, salvation, Satanism, Sharia Law, temple mount, ufology. Tags: enrique chagoya, is it muhammad in chagoya's art?, muhammad in chagoya's art, muhammad with two pigs, professor chagoya of stanford, romantic cannibals.