HOME | DD

Description
As a rule I am both happy and unhappy with the final product. Anywho. I wanted to give a different feel to this portrait, as I am attempting to expand my artistic repertoire. I tried to give, in regards to colour scheme, my idea of the Saviour a High Medieval feel, without the pomp and splendour, per se, of the robes. I wanted the background to be flat and doused with symbolism which would in turn make the portrait seem more 3 dimensional. I think that's where I began to go awry, the background, in reality, is much flatter. However the scanner did not capture this. Although... the shading, I do fancy. I elected to leave both the Halo and Algiz Rune blank because I want them to have a sense of purity, as both are symbols of resounding life.But you aren't hear to read my rambling with regards to artistic meritocracy.

First of all, I love symbolism. I wanted to create a portrait of Haelend (Jesus Christ) that a number of religious groups can enjoy. I am Catholic, with Gnostic tendencies and sympathies and heavy Germanic proclivities. So that's the beginning of this portrait. I wanted to capture the spirit of both the orthodox, Catholic Christ, and the Gnostic Jesus. I suffused the two parts in the character of Haelend, which is what my forefathers referred to Christ as. The term Haelend has no modern English connotation, tragically, but translates roughly to Saviour - but can also refer to a healer, or prophet, of which both things Haelend was. I digress.

For those unfamilliar with Gnosticism, I will put up some basic information, assuming that most readers will not be motivated to do fact-checking on their own - though I whole-heartedly recommend it.

As religious groups, from the secular perspective, Catholics and Gnostics developed side by side in their early history. It is commonly held that Gnosticism was a later invention, proceeding Christianity, the fact of the matter is that the core elements of Gnosticism had roots in times far preceding those of Christianity's. What we might call Gnostic Christianity is a permutation of Catholic Christianity. It is a myth that there was a unified system of Dogma regarding Christian Theology. There was the prevalent, dominant and more powerful views which coalesced, thanks largely to the venerable Church Fathers, which quickly established itself as the Orthodox, or Catholic Theology.

The Gnostics lacked that same cohesive organisation, their ideas often conflicted and were oftentimes incompatible. And like with all heretical groups, they splintered themselves into oblivion. It would not be until the Protestant Revolt that a deformation of Christian teachings gained enough logistical backing that it could not be suppressed or otherwise outlived. It is one of Western Religion's great tragedies that there was such enmity between Catholics and Gnostics, in that both, obviously one over the other, had tremendous advances in philisophical thought and titanic ideas. It is also ironic, really, as there are heavy proto-Gnostic thought processes already incorporated in both the Old and New Testaments, some of which were embraced by the Church Fathers who were by the radical extremity of the major Gnostic sects, forced to combat them to defend the orthodox view of Theology. The Gnostics, enviably persistant, survived for many hundred of years, uprising in different guises, until they eventually found a lasting home in the freakish number of permutations of the heresy of Protestantism. However, the ultimate downfall of a potential Gnostic Church as a rival to the Catholic Church was their "free spirit." They were, and are utterly disorganised and incapable of forming cogent hierarchies, something that the Catholic Church did with gusto - basing Her principle organisational measures upon Roman civilisation.

Some basic tenets of (ancient) Gnosticism, which are generally applicable to the various denominations thereof, are:

- A belief in the utter superiority of the Spiritual over the Material.

- That the world is fallen in a much more literal sense than the Catholic view: all Matter is, if nor bold-facedly evil, corrupt and in need of redemption.

- Redemption is secured only through death. The Material is hopelessly infested with evil. True reunion with God, or even relationship with Him, is not attainable from the mortal coil.

- Redemption is not necessarily a moral question. Your Salvation is predicated upon your knowledge. Gnosis. Which is an evolutionary (not in the hypothetical biologial imperative sense) process, gradually leading one on an ever-changing perspective, culiminating in enlightenment, and prayerfully, release from the Mortal Coil.

- Not everyone is capable of achieving right Gnosis. This made Gnosticism a very elitist movement, potentially, Redemption, Salvation, were not God's free gifts. They had to be earned. There were worthy and unworthy souls. Views of the unworthy varied humungously.

- The deity depicted by the Old Testament is not God. The Jewish Scriptures are bastardisations and cheap documents of a petty, vindictive mind.

Now as for the question of Haelend. The Gnostics varied from sect to sect with regards to their interpretation of Christ. Most had a belief in him as an important Prophet. Some actually held that he was God, as Catholicism does, or at least a god. Some believed he was a god who fought the Old Testament god, almost universally regarded as petty and villanous by the Gnostics. Others believed he was a simple visionary who emancipated us from the Jewish Law. The founder of the Moslem religion, Mohamed, had a very Gnostic interpretation of Christ, in fact. It is not without possibility that Mohamed was inspired by Gnostic traditions or folklore which might have pervaded his region. Similarly, the Mormons have a deeply Gnostic strain about them. In that Mormonism holds that there be a multiplicity of gods, but that the Yahweh-God held a certain superiority, and created the Jesus-Prophet with the intent of apotheosising him and turning him into the Jesus-God. These ideas have their roots in potential Gnostic thought, also. Very few Gnostics believed in the Crucifixion, Burial and Resurrection of Christ as a literal event, however.

So there's Gnosticism in an extreme nutshell. It's hard to capture the allure, veneer and mysticism of it in a couple paragraphs, so I would strongly urge anyone reading to acquaint themselves, in a scholarly way, with this most ancient tradition. In a religious way, of course, I am both inclined and obligated to refer you to the Church to which I belong, the Catholic Church, which is the oldest continuous institution of such calibre in existence. Also, we're the only ones who were in a position to outdo the Gnostics.

As to the Anglo-Saxon bit. The Anglo-Saxon people were, after conversion and until Henry VIII, a deeply Catholic people. Ours was a very earthy expression of Catholicsm. Our image of Christ was rooted in what would today be called "low-Christology." That is to say, a belief that emphasised the humanity of Christ. To us, Christ was the direct emissary of God who walked amongst us. He was a real and active Deity, one upon whom you could expect to find around any corner. He was called Haelend. His Father was Dryhte. He was a teacher, poet, fisherman, prophet, theologian. He had Thanes. He was a warrior, a doer, and a worker. It's much more difficult to speak to the character of Haelend, so you simply must research and read Anglo-Saxon Catholic literature. It truly is remarkable spiritual reading.

Gott mit uns,

Description
As a rule I am both happy and unhappy with the final product. Anywho. I wanted to give a different feel to this portrait, as I am attempting to expand my artistic repertoire. I tried to give, in regards to colour scheme, my idea of the Saviour a High Medieval feel, without the pomp and splendour, per se, of the robes. I wanted the background to be flat and doused with symbolism which would in turn make the portrait seem more 3 dimensional. I think that's where I began to go awry, the background, in reality, is much flatter. However the scanner did not capture this. Although... the shading, I do fancy. I elected to leave both the Halo and Algiz Rune blank because I want them to have a sense of purity, as both are symbols of resounding life.But you aren't hear to read my rambling with regards to artistic meritocracy.

First of all, I love symbolism. I wanted to create a portrait of Haelend (Jesus Christ) that a number of religious groups can enjoy. I am Catholic, with Gnostic tendencies and sympathies and heavy Germanic proclivities. So that's the beginning of this portrait. I wanted to capture the spirit of both the orthodox, Catholic Christ, and the Gnostic Jesus. I suffused the two parts in the character of Haelend, which is what my forefathers referred to Christ as. The term Haelend has no modern English connotation, tragically, but translates roughly to Saviour - but can also refer to a healer, or prophet, of which both things Haelend was. I digress.

For those unfamilliar with Gnosticism, I will put up some basic information, assuming that most readers will not be motivated to do fact-checking on their own - though I whole-heartedly recommend it.

As religious groups, from the secular perspective, Catholics and Gnostics developed side by side in their early history. It is commonly held that Gnosticism was a later invention, proceeding Christianity, the fact of the matter is that the core elements of Gnosticism had roots in times far preceding those of Christianity's. What we might call Gnostic Christianity is a permutation of Catholic Christianity. It is a myth that there was a unified system of Dogma regarding Christian Theology. There was the prevalent, dominant and more powerful views which coalesced, thanks largely to the venerable Church Fathers, which quickly established itself as the Orthodox, or Catholic Theology.

The Gnostics lacked that same cohesive organisation, their ideas often conflicted and were oftentimes incompatible. And like with all heretical groups, they splintered themselves into oblivion. It would not be until the Protestant Revolt that a deformation of Christian teachings gained enough logistical backing that it could not be suppressed or otherwise outlived. It is one of Western Religion's great tragedies that there was such enmity between Catholics and Gnostics, in that both, obviously one over the other, had tremendous advances in philisophical thought and titanic ideas. It is also ironic, really, as there are heavy proto-Gnostic thought processes already incorporated in both the Old and New Testaments, some of which were embraced by the Church Fathers who were by the radical extremity of the major Gnostic sects, forced to combat them to defend the orthodox view of Theology. The Gnostics, enviably persistant, survived for many hundred of years, uprising in different guises, until they eventually found a lasting home in the freakish number of permutations of the heresy of Protestantism. However, the ultimate downfall of a potential Gnostic Church as a rival to the Catholic Church was their "free spirit." They were, and are utterly disorganised and incapable of forming cogent hierarchies, something that the Catholic Church did with gusto - basing Her principle organisational measures upon Roman civilisation.

Some basic tenets of (ancient) Gnosticism, which are generally applicable to the various denominations thereof, are:

- A belief in the utter superiority of the Spiritual over the Material.

- That the world is fallen in a much more literal sense than the Catholic view: all Matter is, if nor bold-facedly evil, corrupt and in need of redemption.

- Redemption is secured only through death. The Material is hopelessly infested with evil. True reunion with God, or even relationship with Him, is not attainable from the mortal coil.

- Redemption is not necessarily a moral question. Your Salvation is predicated upon your knowledge. Gnosis. Which is an evolutionary (not in the hypothetical biologial imperative sense) process, gradually leading one on an ever-changing perspective, culiminating in enlightenment, and prayerfully, release from the Mortal Coil.

- Not everyone is capable of achieving right Gnosis. This made Gnosticism a very elitist movement, potentially, Redemption, Salvation, were not God's free gifts. They had to be earned. There were worthy and unworthy souls. Views of the unworthy varied humungously.

- The deity depicted by the Old Testament is not God. The Jewish Scriptures are bastardisations and cheap documents of a petty, vindictive mind.

Now as for the question of Haelend. The Gnostics varied from sect to sect with regards to their interpretation of Christ. Most had a belief in him as an important Prophet. Some actually held that he was God, as Catholicism does, or at least a god. Some believed he was a god who fought the Old Testament god, almost universally regarded as petty and villanous by the Gnostics. Others believed he was a simple visionary who emancipated us from the Jewish Law. The founder of the Moslem religion, Mohamed, had a very Gnostic interpretation of Christ, in fact. It is not without possibility that Mohamed was inspired by Gnostic traditions or folklore which might have pervaded his region. Similarly, the Mormons have a deeply Gnostic strain about them. In that Mormonism holds that there be a multiplicity of gods, but that the Yahweh-God held a certain superiority, and created the Jesus-Prophet with the intent of apotheosising him and turning him into the Jesus-God. These ideas have their roots in potential Gnostic thought, also. Very few Gnostics believed in the Crucifixion, Burial and Resurrection of Christ as a literal event, however.

So there's Gnosticism in an extreme nutshell. It's hard to capture the allure, veneer and mysticism of it in a couple paragraphs, so I would strongly urge anyone reading to acquaint themselves, in a scholarly way, with this most ancient tradition. In a religious way, of course, I am both inclined and obligated to refer you to the Church to which I belong, the Catholic Church, which is the oldest continuous institution of such calibre in existence. Also, we're the only ones who were in a position to outdo the Gnostics.

As to the Anglo-Saxon bit. The Anglo-Saxon people were, after conversion and until Henry VIII, a deeply Catholic people. Ours was a very earthy expression of Catholicsm. Our image of Christ was rooted in what would today be called "low-Christology." That is to say, a belief that emphasised the humanity of Christ. To us, Christ was the direct emissary of God who walked amongst us. He was a real and active Deity, one upon whom you could expect to find around any corner. He was called Haelend. His Father was Dryhte. He was a teacher, poet, fisherman, prophet, theologian. He had Thanes. He was a warrior, a doer, and a worker. It's much more difficult to speak to the character of Haelend, so you simply must research and read Anglo-Saxon Catholic literature. It truly is remarkable spiritual reading.

Gott mit uns,