Posted on 10/25/2007 11:48:44 AM PDT by lilylangtree
That would put a damper on the pillow talk, wouldn't it?
This is the old one, isn’t it? As long as the new one still have St. Mary and Baby Jesus...
Unless you’re a nihilist. “Let’s go to hell, baby!”
Please start a self-imposed pic posting ban of 3 months. : )
Different artist. See post #40.
Not quite what I saw in my head I am thinking more a silk screen with a large Jesus ( red in print) and in the background all the names listed ( in gold) in smaller print.
See that little baby in the bottom left hand corner? That Him.
However, that wasn't the point of your post, was it? You said: "She was the mother of our Lord . . . but that is all she is seen as. No different from other true believers in the Bible.". I'm simply trying to get you to acknowledge that you are wrong... the early Church saw Mary as many things... not the least of which is the Ark of the New Covenant. As such, it is entirely appropriate that Jesus would be seated in her arms, just as the Lord was present over the propitiatory of the old Ark when making his prescriptions to Israel.
What you see in this art isn't simply an acknowledgement that Mary had to be there as a birth mother or as a likely one to hold Jesus up at such a tender age. What you see is a visual representation of a deep theology... that few remember.
If you come up with a design, Cafe Press will market whatever you want. Just takes a PDF or high quality image file (like a PNG) uploaded to their site.
My “Jesus is the Reason for Season” sweatshirt came from there. I wear it all over during the holidays.
F
Wow! A Jesus and Mary Chain reference? And, oddly enough, appropriate to a FR discussion? I'm impressed!
Let's not forget Jesus Lizard too though!
I'm sure that they could have substituted an emaciated Mid-Eastern baby but that would put a damper on the whole Christmas spirit thing.
While I’m stirring up ‘stuff’ I may as well repost this:
Which brings me to one of my hobby horses:
We already agree that our calendar is wrong, off by anywhere from 2 to 16 years, depending on who’s doing the reckoning, and further in error because of the absence of a year zero.
The more fundamental point is that God did not intend us to mark His years by the birth of Jesus.
If He had intended this we would have a Biblical fixing of the date.
Further, the day of Jesus’ birth is unremarkable as all men are born.
However, very few return from the dead, that event is remarkable, and it is the defining moment of Christianity, the very moment of proof that his sacrifice was not in vain. And the Bible gives a precise reference for when this happened!
Clearly this was the date the calender was supposed to start!
For extra points, this makes our calender off by anywhere from 17 to 30 years. That makes this something like Holy Year 1990 to Holy Year 1977, giving us anywhere from 10 to 23 years to get our affairs in order before the real end of the millennium...
The article should read “as a Christian who...”, not “as a Christian that...”
Who is for people; that is for things.
Last I checked, Roman Catholics were Christians, as are Coptic Christians, Orthodox Christians, Protestants, and (so they say) even Mormons.
It's OK, it's just dope...
Do your letters keep coming back?
(They’re 41 cents now.)
The USPS site has the new and improved 41 cent version. That way baby Jesus doesn't have to reach out towards some two cent Navajo Jewelry.
OMGosh!! I haven't laughed so hard for ages. Thanks LOLOLOL!
Oh no... you’re saying it’s still the ‘70’s?!?!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.