Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'General Baptist Discussions' started by J.D., Dec 20, 2007.
I have pictures of him in an old family Bible.
Are you sure those are not some photos of your great, great 'grandpa' made by Matthew B. Brady in the years after the American Civil War?
If you truly want to know what Jesus looks like, look at your church...
For it is the Body of Christ..
We are the body of Christ..
Our eyes should show compassion
Our hands should show healing, and should be reaching out to those in the ditch
Our feet should be walking to spread the gospel
Our mouth should be saying the things Jesus said
Our ears should be listening to the Holy Spirit
Our faces should glow with God's glory...
We should smile more, laugh more, enjoy being around holy people.
These are just off the top of my head, maybe others could add some features of Christ they see in their local Body of Christ.
He has long, flowing dark brown hair and a tender, pleading face. He's very attractive.
No. He has blonde hair and blue eyes and is very skinny and pale.
No he doesn't - I'm looking right at the picture and he has brown hair and dark eyes. But he is very skinny and pale though. You got that part right.
Don't argue with me! :laugh: That picture was taken before He dyed His hair blonde and became European!
I have two kids, and was there for both of their births. I have a pretty good idea of what Jesus looked like when He was born!
I just know in my heart what he looks like and that's all that matters! As long as I don't pray to the picture, he can look like whatever I want him to look like, right?
Absolutely. I hope you know that I was just messin' with you.
On a slightly different note, I've heard that Mary was somewhere between fourteen and sixteen when she gave birth, and Joseph was probably in his early thirties? Is that accurate? Wow!
One word to describe this thread:
Gimme that worm!
And I'm messin with you. That's what that wink means.
But I am trying to make a point about the "graven images" issue. I think hanging a "picture" of Jesus in the house is a violation of sacred law because it reduces the Holy down to the common or profane. I don't have to pray to it to offend God. I'm not looking to condemn anyone, I just don't understand how people can be so casual about it.
I'm trying to use reduction to absurdity to prove a point. Some where along the way, it must matter how we represent God in images. Take for example the radical feminists that have portrayed Christ as a woman. How are they any more wrong than me if I represent him as a Europian or an African? How about if I represent him as an animal to support my radical worship of nature? Where is the line?
I say that the line has been drawn by God, and we should not represent Christ in any image whatsoever, including as a baby in a manger.
There, I said it, and I ain't taking it back!:tonofbricks:
Speaking of the Church being the Body...
We also know to be absent from the Body is to be present with the Lord.
I am now going to stay home instead of going to Church and I will be with the Lord
Ok. Sometimes I'm not the sharpest knife in the drawer. :laugh:
I understand what you're saying and I think I have had similar thoughts all along and didn't realize it until I started participating in this discussion (and Dale's in the other thread). I am uncomfortable with images of Christ. I don't have any in my house for that reason. Hmmm.
Hey...cast your nets on the other side...
Wait...you're using a pole. Nevermind.
I won't touch that worm though. That's what husbands are for. :laugh:
That would be to get the fish. To get the worm, you have to be the "early bird".