Jesus actor struck by lightning

Um... where do we see where Jesus forbade people to make artistic representations of Him?

What do you think about the stained glass windows that existed before people learned how to read? Were they also damnably sinful?

 

Stained glass windows before people learned to read?

Mark Osgatharp

 

Stained glass windows before people learned to read?

Mark Osgatharp </font>[/QUOTE]Let me rephrase - before the general population was a reading population, stained glass windows were a way to understand the Bible. Do you think those were sinful?

 

Mark O,

It also doesn't mean that because he was struck by lightning that it was God's punishment, does it?

 

a. To say that the word of God needs to be dramatized to be more effective is to deny the power of the Holy Ghost in the preached word.
=============================================

The Lord save me from ever suffering to hear you preach. It would be most borrowing to hear the monotone as you read each excruciating word lest you mistakenly inflect a word here or there for..dread the thought...emphasis.

I say employ all means available to make the word attractive and clear in meaning. The Holy Spirit will interpret my ahs and ohs, but that doesn't mean I need to employ them.

We ought to be articulate orators, dramatic, if that is what it takes to convey God's message.

The passion plays in England were the beginning of theatre in that country. They were intended to take God's message to the masses through drama.

Cheers,

Jim

 

You get no disagreement from me here.

Why? Lightning is a NORMAL and NATURALLY occurring incident. People get struck my lightning all the time. Some live, some die. On occaision, someone will get struck in their lifetime more than once. I don't recall what the world record is, but I think it's around 5 or so. God did not "hurl" it at him any more than God "hurls" hurricanes on people of the east coast.

What a crock is is to say that playing Jesus on screen or stage is immoral. I can't think of a greater perversion of the Commandments. Last time I checked, Ten Neely is alive and well, and he's been playing Jesus on stage for 30 years. The guy at my cousin's church has been playing Jesus in their annual Easter pageant for some 7 years. Raif Feinnes and Robert Powell are alive and well, also.

 

The Scriptures uniformly attribute the occurance of all events of nature to the hand of God. I believe the Scriptures.

So what? I know a few liars who lived to ripe old age. Does that change the fact that God struck down Ananias and Saphira for lying or mean that God winks at lying?

There are some perverts who live into old age. Does that mean that God didn't rain down hell fire on Sodom or that God winks at adultery, fornication, or sodomy?

No, all it proves is that God occasionally singles out men for immediate and obvious judgment so as to send a warning signal to all while extending mercy to others. And because God is merciful and doesn't give all of us what we deserve immediately, we take this to mean He isn't in the destroying business at all. As Solomon said,

"Because sentence against an evil work is not executed speedily, therefore the heart of the sons of men is fully set in them to do evil."

Mark Osgatharp

 

You're saying natural events cannot be the handiwork of God to be natural events?

I would hardly call the Godly Christian man who plays Jesus every year at my cousin's church to be a liar and a pervert. Of course, leave it to you to cast unrighteous judgements on people.

In other words, you don't like the upcoming movie (the Passion), so you're going to prevert biblical references to your own gain. Additionally, you have a problem with depictions of Jesus, even though the Bible makes no such condemnation, and rather than discuss this topic, you will force this extra-biblical belief on all of us.

 

I'm saying that what we call "natural events" are, in fact, the direct work of God in every single instance. Therefore, everytime someone is struck by lightening it is because God struck them with lightening.

That does not necessarily mean that we know the reason God has for doing so in every instance. But if I was invovled in making a representation of the Lord - which is explicitly forbidden in the Scriptures and condemned as idolatry - and got struck with lightening while in the act, I think I'd be wondering if maybe I should cease and desist.

Mark Osgatharp

 

In the case of lightning, it's because there's an increasing amount of static electricity in the air that needs to be discharged.

What was God trying to tell us in this instance? Most likely, he's telling us to avoid standing outside during periods of heavy static buildup, because you're likely to become a human lightning rod.

Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.

 

JohnV,

Until you explain otherwise, I will take your comments to mean that you don't believe nature is 100% God's working.

Mark Osgatharp

 

Of course I do. I just disagree with your assessment of the result of God's working.

When God gives you a penny, don't pretend it's a dollar. Furthermore, don't think you're the only one who has a penny.

Thou shalt not test the Lord thy God.

 

And the fact is, the only way that we know those people were singled out is because His Word tells us so. Are you now telling us that you are a prophet from God and have knowledge that the rest of us do not? How do you know that he was singled out? You are doing nothing more than speculating, you have no proof, scriptural, or otherwise.

Nature hurts many people, God does not "hurl" lightening, tornadoes, hurricanes out at people. He created the world to function in a certain way. He allows it to function as he created it, even when it strikes at good people.

~Lorelei

 

I do not claim to be a prophet. I simply accept the plain statements of Scripture that every minute event of nature is caused by God. I have acknowledged that we may not always know why God does what He does, but that He does it cannot be denied.

I confess that I don't know with 100% certainty why God singled these men out to be struck with lightening and therefore concede to a bit of speculation and beg God to forgive me if I have used his name in vain.

But that He did single them out is without quesiton because of the fact that He didn't also strike everyone else at the same time. And I say again that if I were engaged in an action so blasphemeous as portraying the Son of God and got struck by lightening while doing it, it would sure make me stop and reconsider my behavior. But you say,

How someone as knowledgable in the Scriptures as you are can make such a statement is hard for me to comprehend, especially in light of the fact that you quote the following Scripture as proof of your assertion:

That passage proves that God causes the weather. How then can you say God let's it operate independantly? To which Scripture I add Psalm 78:48:

So how can you say God doesn't hurl lightening?

And Nahum 1:3,

So how can you say God doesn't send tornados and hurricanes?

Mark Osgatharp

 

I think you're thinking of Zeus (or, more likely, given some of your posts, you're thinking of Dr. Zaius). He's a dufferent god altogether.

Where in the Bible does it say this?

Not at all. This is just another way of preaching the word of God. If the screenplay is lifted ver batem, then what is the moral difference between reading the Bible and acting it out so that people can better grasp the words?

Maybe, maybe not.

First of all, appealling to emotionalism isn't necessarily a bad thing. For example,. "Uncle Tom's Cabin" appealed to people's emotions, but it lit a huge fire under the abolitionist movement.

The works of people like Jacob Reiss, Dorothea Dix, John Steinbeck and others appealed to emotionalism but they radically changed the way we treat the mentally ill and the poor. Are these things bad?

Isn't evangelism, itself, based on emotion? Trying to scare the Hell out of people with questions like, "if you were to die tonight..."

What preacher when giving an invitation doesn't appeal to people's emotions? Why do you think so many preachers have that soft, cheesy piano music playing in the background when they give an invitation?

I take it you haven't been to many movies lately.

Well, that's a bit of a straw man, but the pictures I've seen do not look like the long haired, blue eyed, peace loving hippie Jesus we all know from Sunday school. He looks much more Semetic here.

[ October 28, 2003, 11:18 AM: Message edited by: Mike McK ]

 

Sorry. As much as I hate the grammar police, I wish people would stop throwing the word "literally" around when what they're saying isn't literal.

I would think that it was probably bad historical research on the part of the director and that it was a little silly but, since we really don't know what Jesus looked like and that's such a trivial issue, anyway, I'd be much more concerned that the Gospel is presented faithfully.

Interesting. On the one hand, you say that you really don't know that God singled him out and then go on to say in the very next paragraph that God singled him out. Hmm....

This has nothing to do with God striking people with lightening, it's about His sovereignty.

This story is also recounted in Ex 9 and it's clear that this was God's doing for the protection of Israel, not as any sort of a punishment.

Again, this is speaking of sovereignty, not punishment.

 

I do not question God's working. But I would be careful to even hint at suggesting that He acted or acts out of judgment whenever a person is struck by a lightning bolt, etc. It may be a false accusation, which I would not want to consider myself being part of.

If you go out in an electical storm and stand next to someone with metal, there is the great possibility that you may be hit with lightning. That's basic 1+1=2 stuff.

 

.

But pretended representations of the Lord do nausiate me....literally.

Interesting. On the one hand, you say that you really don't know that God singled him out and then go on to say in the very next paragraph that God singled him out.</font>[/QUOTE]Can't you read? I didn't say that I didn't know "that God singled him out." I said I don't know "why" God did so. That what happened was the work of God is unquestionable, for whatever reason God did it.

This has nothing to do with God striking people with lightening, it's about His sovereignty.</font>[/QUOTE].

This is about the fact that God is the one who makes it rain and that He makes it rain on wicked people and just people. By the way, it doesn't mean that He does so in every instance, for we have many instances in the Bible where God witheld rain from people because they were wicked.

It does mean that whenever it rains on the just or the wicked, God is the one who does it.

This story is also recounted in Ex 9 and it's clear that this was God's doing for the protection of Israel, not as any sort of a punishment.</font>[/QUOTE]Actually, the text says,

But you say,

Again, this is speaking of sovereignty, not punishment.</font>[/QUOTE]You are wrong again, for the text says,

"God is jealous, and the Lord revengeth; the Lord revengeth and is furious; the Lord will take vengeance on his adversaries, and he reserveth wrath for his enemies. The Lord is slow to anger, and great in power, and will not at all aquit the wicked: the Lord hath his way in the whirlwind and in the storm, and the clouds are the dust of his feet" (Nahum 1:2-3).

Mark Osgatharp

 

OK, fair enough. I did miss that one little word which would indicate that there was no contradiction. There was no contradiction in your post. There is, however, absurdity.