Posted on 04/19/2014 6:23:29 AM PDT by Gamecock
I understand your thinking and agree with it.
When I lived in Saudi Arabia I saw that the Muslims DID know about Jesus, ISSA.
They showed their "respect" by having stores named after him--Issa's market. I saw "Issa cookies" too. There were no blasphemous use of His name but...c'mon.
I would be leery of that kind of cavalier use of Jesus' name and image: too casual.
The giant Cross? That IS inspiring because it is a THING, NOT a chalk drawing of God to be washed away, erased and/or misused. We have enough of that already from the Jesus-haters.
Am I picking just too many nits? If so, I apologize.
A blessed Easter to you and yours.
What is it doing.
Nothing as fancy as chalk drawings of Jesus. But we will gather for corporate worship of the risen King. Sing His praises. Hear an exposition of Matthew 28:10 that will last about 30 minutes. We will confess our sins. Hear an assurance of pardon. Pray. Feast at the Lord's table. Be sent out into the world to live our lives in a way that glorifies God and all that it entails.
How many people have you invited to church?
What exactly are you looking for here? Generally I don't invite nonbelievers to church. Church is not the place for evangelism, but rather the goal. Church is the place for believers. It is my job to witness to the world what Jesus has done. We are not told to take the easy way out and just invite people to church.
That being said if someone is asking for a church I will invite them. If I meet someone new to the area I will ask them if they are looking for a church home. If there is a skeptic that seems to be swaying I will invite them. I will invite those with questions. But I will not invite those who are openly nonbelievers.
How many have I invited? No idea. I don't keep notches on my Bible.
So what about the private jet? Have you hopped a ride? Been to your pastor’s mansion?
Interesting that the Baptists would pick up on the stations of the cross, but not suprising. It seems Baptists and Catholics would be on the same page on some issues. If I recall, both Baptists and Catholics were big in the early days of the right to life movement.
CC
I'm not into shallow, feel good about yourself, christianity. I'd rather be about real Christianity.
Life changing Christianity. My life, as well as others.
Do people have to look to a 17,000 sq ft image to "see" or be drawn to Jesus? Or do they look at a persons life and see and are drawn to Jesus in their life?
Lots of people are busy AT or "doing" church, few are actually moving the kingdom.
But how about the person who's not a Christian? The person who has never REALLY heard the gospel. All they TRULY know, is that they have mocked some guy named Jesus and his followers.
Do you really think people, totally unfamiliar with Jesus, see Jesus, or just some guy with long hair and a beard? Do they see followers of Jesus as Christ like, even though they don't know Christ or what he's like? Or do they see some religious nuts trying to SELL people their religion?
I trust you have been a careful Berean and done a careful study on the 2nd Commandment and idolatry? And you know what biblical worship is and is not?
Christians are to worship in spirit and TRUTH. Since we have no way to know what Christ looked like how might we create a truthful image? Have you ever considered how you might go about teaching the truth based on a lie? Does that sound like a practice the God of the Bible would countenance?
Here is what John Murray had to say on Pictures of Christ:
The question of the propriety of pictorial representations of the Saviour is one that merits examination. It must be granted that the worship of Christ is central in our holy faith, and the thought of the Saviour must in every instance be accompanied with that reverence which belongs to his worship. We cannot think of him without the apprehension of the majesty that is his. If we do not entertain the sense of his majesty, then we are guilty of impiety and we dishonour him.
It will also be granted that the only purpose that could properly be served by a pictorial representation is that it would convey to us some thought or lesson representing him, consonant with truth and promotive of worship. Hence the question is inescapable: is a pictorial representation a legitimate way of conveying truth regarding him and of contributing to the worship which this truth should evoke?
We are all aware of the influence exerted on the mind and heart by pictures. Pictures are powerful media of communication. How suggestive they are for good or for evil, and all the more so when accompanied by the comment of the spoken or written word! It is futile, therefore, to deny the influence exerted upon mind and heart by a picture of Christ. And if such is legitimate, the influence exerted should be one constraining to worship and adoration. To claim any lower aim as that served by a picture of the Saviour would be contradiction of the place which he must occupy in thought, affection, and honour.
The plea for the propriety of pictures of Christ is based on the fact that he was truly man, that he had a human body, that he was visible in his human nature to the physical senses, and that a picture assists us to take in the stupendous reality of his incarnation, in a word, that he was made in the likeness of men and was found in fashion as a man.
Our Lord had a true body. He could have been photographed. A portrait could have been made of him and, if a good portrait, it would have reproduced his likeness.
Without doubt the disciples in the days of his flesh had a vivid mental image of Jesus’ appearance and they could not but have retained that recollection to the end of their days. They could never have entertained the thought of him as he had sojourned with them without something of that mental image and they could not have entertained it without adoration and worship. The very features which they remembered would have been part and parcel of their conception of him and reminiscent of what he had been to them in his humiliation and in the glory of his resurrection appearance. Much more might be said regarding the significance for the disciples of Jesus’ physical features.
Jesus is also glorified in the body and that body is visible. It will also become visible to us at his glorious appearing—“he will be seen the second time without sin by those who look for him unto salvation” (Hebrews 9:28).
What then are we to say of pictures of Christ? First of all, it must be said that we have no data whatsoever on the basis of which to make a pictorial representation; we have no descriptions of his physical features which would enable even the most accomplished artist to make an approximate portrait. In view of the profound influence exerted by a picture, especially on the minds of young people, we should perceive the peril involved in a portrayal for which there is no warrant, a portrayal which is the creation of pure imagination. It may help to point up the folly to ask: what would be the reaction of a disciple, who had actually seen the Lord in the days of his flesh, to a portrait which would be the work of imagination on the part of one who had never seen the Saviour? We can readily detect what his recoil would be. No impression we have of Jesus should be created without the proper revelatory data, and every impression, every thought, should evoke worship. Hence, since we possess no revelatory data for a picture or portrait in the proper sense of the term, we are precluded from making one or using any that have been made.
Secondly, pictures of Christ are in principle a violation of the second commandment. A picture of Christ, if it serves any useful purpose, must evoke some thought or feeling respecting him and, in view of what he is, this thought or feeling will be worshipful. We cannot avoid making the picture a medium of worship. But since the materials for this medium of worship are not derived from the only revelation we possess respecting Jesus, namely, Scripture, the worship is constrained by a creation of the human mind that has no revelatory warrant. This is will-worship. For the principle of the second commandment is that we are to worship God only in ways prescribed and authorized by him. It is a grievous sin to have worship constrained by a human figment, and that is what a picture of the Saviour involves.
Thirdly, the second commandment forbids bowing down to an image or likeness of anything in heaven above, or in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth. A picture of the Saviour purports to be a representation or likeness of him who is now in heaven or, at least, of him when he sojourned upon the earth. It is plainly forbidden, therefore, to bow down in worship before such a representation or likeness. This exposes the iniquity involved in the practice of exhibiting pictorial representations of the Saviour in places of worship. When we worship before a picture of our Lord, whether it be in the form of a mural, or on canvas, or in stained glass, we are doing what the second commandment expressly forbids. This is rendered all the more apparent when we bear in mind that the only reason why a picture of him should be exhibited in a place is the supposition that it contributes to the worship of him who is our Lord. The practice only demonstrates how insensitive we readily become to the commandments of God and to the inroads of idolatry. May the churches of Christ be awake to the deceptive expedients by which the archenemy ever seeks to corrupt the worship of the Saviour.
In summary, what is at stake in this question is the unique place which Jesus Christ as the God-man occupies in our faith and worship and the unique place which the Scripture occupies as the only revelation, the only medium of communication, respecting him whom we worship as Lord and Saviour. The incarnate Word and the written Word are correlative. We dare not use other media of impression or of sentiment but those of his institution and prescription. Every thought and impression of him should evoke worship. We worship him with the Father and the Holy Spirit, one God. To use a likeness of Christ as an aid to worship is forbidden by the second commandment as much in this case as in that of the Father and Spirit. (This article first appeared in Reformed Herald, February, 1961.)
PICTURES OF CHRIST by Thomas Vincent
“It is not lawful to have pictures of Jesus Christ, because his divine nature cannot be pictured at all, and because his body, as it is now glorified, cannot be pictured as it is, and because, if it do not stir up devotion, it is in vain; if it do stir up devotion, it is a worshipping by an image or picture, and so a palpable breach of the second commandment. (Excerpt from Exposition of the Westminster Assembly’s Shorter Catechism.)”
PICTURES OF CHRIST by Loraine Boettner
“Closely akin to the use of images is that of pictures of Christ. And these, we are sorry to say, are often found in Protestant as well as Roman Catholic churches. But nowhere in the Bible, in either the Old or New Testament, is there a description of Christ’s physical features. No picture of Him was painted during His earthly ministry. The church had no pictures of Him during the first four centuries. The so-called pictures of Christ, like those of Mary and the saints, are merely the production of the artist’s imagination. . . . No picture can do justice to his personality, for he was not only human, but divine. And no picture can portray his deity. All such pictures are fatally defective. . . . For most people the so-called pictures of Christ are not an aid to worship but rather a hindrance, and for many they present a temptation to that very idolatry against which the Scriptures warn so clearly. (Excerpt from Roman Catholicism.)”
And people say the Catholic church has bizarre doctrine and rules....
He went to a church that STARTED and TAUGHT everybody else, the megachurch model.
20 YEARS AGO he was involved with the churches Jr. High ministry. A Jr high ministry that had 600-700 kids every week. The HS ministry was running about 1200 per week at the time.20 YEARS AGO.
An auditorium that sat about 7,000 with 4 services on weekends, averaging about 18,000 people a weekend. That was BEFORE the satellite churches.
HEY...his pastor was"____ ______".
Every year they'd have a couple of major conferences where Christian leaders came from throughout the nation, even the world, to see how this game changing, cutting edge church did things.
They had an organization that other churches could be part of, so that other churches could model themselves after and market themselves as a "Church X" type of church.
After hearing his spiel for years, I started wondering who he was trying to impress. The more I heard him BRAG about HIS church, the more nauseated I got. After awhile, I really started wondering who he was trying to draw attention to? Himself and this awesome, massive church, that HE was PART of?...
Or Christ?
Because of him, today, I'm unimpressed with numbers.
I belong to a MUCH, MUCH smaller church, that is growing. I don't view growth as everything. It can and should be an indicator of God's Spirit working in the church. But NUMBERS shouldn't be ANYONE's focus.
I'm not interested in someone's CHURCH, doing this and that and that and that and this and, and, and, and...
I want to hear someone tell me what makes their heart burn for serving Christ.
That guy at that mega church. Before he tried to impress himself and others with numbers, his ministry for Jr High kids, burned inside him. You couldn't hardly talk to him without him talking about the ministry and what was going on in it and with his guys.
Does it mean that there wasn't real life change happening there??? NOT AT ALL!!!
Does it mean that the church itself wasn't about the GOSPEL, instead of numbers??? NOT AT ALL!!!
Does it mean that everybody at the church had the same view??? NOT AT ALL!!!
I have just known too many people like that guy, who get distracted by the flash and numbers.
Oh...they might be "talking" of the same "person", but they don't see Jesus as the Messiah. As the savior of the world. As the very son of the one true God. As God himself.
If people miss any of those things about Jesus, they don't truly know Jesus.
Muslims try to paint Jesus as a prophet of Allah and as a good teacher.
Jesus wasn't a "good teacher".
And he wasn't a prophet.
Anything LESS than worshiping Jesus for who he truly is, is disrespect. No matter what others might try to say or do.
Was that chalked on the plaza outside the St. Pete’s?
I think we worry too much at times. I am a big prayer. God is bigger than you and me. Prayer is most powerful. He will raise the perfect laborer for that person with prayer. It is now reported many Muslims are having dreams opening up bibles and walking into churches. I believe this is our prayers in Christ. Wonderful.
By all means ignore me. It’s impressive how you figured it all out without having to turn to the Scriptures.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QGR08BizLq8
http://www.michaelyoussef.com/storage/InsightsIntoIslamMY.pdf
I stand by everything I said. I am not ashamed one iota.
I believe God can bring people to faith any way He chooses.
But He has told we believers how we are to bring others to an understanding: faith comes by hearing.
I have invited over 300 to church. I do know that 156 went to my church at least once.
I always invite nonbelievers to church. Jesus can come into their hearts like a stroke of lightning. Been there and have seen it.
Actually he doesn’t have a jet. He flies regular airlines in the cheapo class.
There has been a rumor for years that he flies to the various campuses between services in helicopters but that isn’t true. He drives like the rest of us.
We were given a giraffe and he makes appearances in some films that we make for the services. Beautiful animal.
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.