Jesus Washing Osama's Feet

[targus]

The artist is not depicting foot-washing as a benefit of the Kingdom of Heaven. The artist is demonstrating the attitude of Christ toward sinners. Bin Laden is as worthy of Christ's service and love as you or I.

We're getting bogged down in the act of footwashing here, when really we're needing to examine the love of Christ and the attitude of service he adopted when he came to earth.

Why do you suppose it was that Jesus washed the feet of the Apostles but not Pilate, Herod, the pharisees, or the Sanhedrin?

 

[kyredneck]

We could do a poll, but a majority of BB members is not representative of a) truth or b) a general evangelical opinion. Therefore, a poll would not be particularly helpful.

You've the same exact arrogance and conceit of the author of the article; you just don't see it. It offended the senses of the many, but you just don't get it. In your eyes they're wrong. Rare it is that I agree with hoi polloi, but I do this time around.

 

[jaigner]

You've the same exact arrogance and conceit of the author of the article; you just don't see it. It offended the senses of the many, but you just don't get it. In your eyes they're wrong. Rare it is that I agree with hoi polloi, but I do this time around.

Hmmm...so you're accusing me of arrogance because I don't agree with the popular opinion?

That's a pretty far reach on its own.

 

[blackbird]

Those whos feet were washed by Jesus were commanded to do the same to others!!

Thats what I'd like to see in the second painting-----those in the first painting moving back into their own little world and becoming foot washers. It wasn't unbecoming for Jesus to have washed His disciples feet(probably over and over and not just once or twice) and then his disciples return home to their wives and children and co workers and neighbors unrepentant and unmoved!!

I guess we need to ask the question---in the painting----are the folks having their feet washed actually moved to do likewise???

 

[mandym]

They don't need a picture of Jesus washing the feet of the lost. Jesus went much farther than that. He allowed Himself to be nailed to a cross for their sin. Quite frankly I disagree that Jesus has the attitude presented in the picture. we should be careful that any picture of Jesus does not fail to include the price paid for that sin. to do so would do violence to the gospel.

What I get from the picture reminds me of one of the false gospels going around that all you have to do is simply follow Jesus. If anything those people in that pic should be kneeling at the feet of Jesus in repentance. Jesus is resurrected and His feet washing days are gone. He is King of Kings and sits at the right hand of the Father.

 

[Alive in Christ]

Well.

This old, and apparently dead, thread gets ressurected. :thumbs:

What I posted in the 1st few pages....I still feel the same way. I think the picture is a good one, in that it promotes the idea that there should be no limit to who we should be willing to extend Gods love and grace to.

I like the picture for that reason.

 

[Aaron]

I think the picture is a good one, in that it promotes the idea that there should be no limit to who we should be willing to extend Gods love and grace to.

Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine. . .

Sounds to me like there's a limit and *gasp* character judgment to be exercised.

 

[Luke2427]

What do you think about this picture?

http://gregboyd.blogspot.com/2007/11/washing-osamas-feet.html

Just wondering.

I think it is blasphemous.

Jesus is no longer a lowly carpenter who lived as our example.

He is King of Kings and Lord of Lords.

When John saw him as he is now with hair white like wool and eyes as a flame of fire and feet like brass as it burns in a furnace he fell down before him as DEAD.

When Paul saw him on the road to Damascus as he is now, but glory significantly veiled, his eyes were burned and blinded.

It was this Jesus that Daniel saw and fell down as dead.

It was this same Jesus who covered Moses in the cleft of the rock because no man can look upon his face and live.

This same Jesus now sits in a rainbow enshrouded, lightening lit throne, and is serenaded by unceasing and great claps of thunder and the song of the seraphim who cannot look upon him but cover their eyes with two of their six wings as they fly and cry "HOLY! HOLY! HOLY!"

That is Christ Jesus as he is now. He is not coming back to this earth in a manger but on a White Horse with the armies of Heaven following. And he is not coming to wash men's feet but to tread beneath His feet the wine-press of the fierceness of the wrath of Almighty God and to put his enemies under His feet making them his footstool.

There is something wrong with us when we prefer to think of him as he was temporarily for our benefit rather than the way he was throughout eternity past and now is and will forever be.

Something is wrong with us.

 

[pinoybaptist]

MAYBE, OBL is one of God's elect.
Paul certainly couldn't be said to be God's child when he was still Saul.
But in DUE TIME, here in this time world, God called Saul out to be Paul.
OBL, right now, is, well, OBL.
And I have no desire to call him "Brother".
I certainly have no desire to just raise my hands in prayer while he kills me for no other reason than that I come from a country and way of life he hates, just because he may be part of that country I am a spiritual citizen of.
I will certainly do my best to defend myself and maybe help him find out if he's a citizen of my spiritual country, wot ?
What about those others in the line up ?
Seems to me like some of them should be washing MY feet instead of the other way around, if "service" is the theme of foot washing.
All told, I find the picture, as RAdam said, "stupid", "tasteless", "blasphemous", and I will have no compunction at all of smashing the canvass on the painter's head.

 

[pinoybaptist]

.............. Rare it is that I agree with hoi polloi, but I do this time around.

What meaneth thou, brother, when thou sayest, "hoi polloi" ?
Referrest thou to something Asiatic ?
Some thing exotic that brewest in some pot that hangeth over a wood stoked fire ?

 

[David Lamb]

But in DUE TIME, here in this time world, God called Saul out to be Paul.

I have heard this idea quite often - the idea that "Saul" was his pre-conversion name, and "Paul" was his name after the Lord met him on the Damascus road. But his conversion comes in Acts 9, yet Luke continues to call him "Saul" until Acts 13.9, where we read:

Then Saul, who also is called Paul, filled with the Holy Spirit, looked intently at him.
​

As I understand it, Saul was his Jewish name, but he was also a Roman citizen, and Paul was his Latin name. I don't think the bible tells us that God changed his name, in the way that He changed Abram to Abraham, Sarai to Sarah, and so on.

 

[blackbird]

I have heard this idea quite often - the idea that "Saul" was his pre-conversion name, and "Paul" was his name after the Lord met him on the Damascus road. But his conversion comes in Acts 9, yet Luke continues to call him "Saul" until Acts 13.9, where we read:

Then Saul, who also is called Paul, filled with the Holy Spirit, looked intently at him.
​

As I understand it, Saul was his Jewish name, but he was also a Roman citizen, and Paul was his Latin name. I don't think the bible tells us that God changed his name, in the way that He changed Abram to Abraham, Sarai to Sarah, and so on.

Rahab was the same way----she was Rahab PreJerichowallfall and postJerichowallfall

God also carried the stigma of harlot along with her proper name into the New Testament!!

As for OBL being "elect"------he won't be elect until he becomes a whosoever will

 

[David Lamb]

Rahab was the same way----she was Rahab PreJerichowallfall and postJerichowallfall

God also carried the stigma of harlot along with her proper name into the New Testament!!

As for OBL being "elect"------he won't be elect until he becomes a whosoever will

I don't think that's the same thing at all. "Rahab" is the only name she has in the bible; she is described as "the harlot" in Joshua 6.17 & 25, and James 2.25, but (although I know that "name" in the bible often means "character"), "harlot" was not her name in the sense that Paul and Saul were names of the apostle.

Your comment about Osama Bin Laden's election was presumably in response to pinoybaptist's post, as I didn't mention it. But I would rephrase your comment like this:

As for OBL being "elect"------he won't know he is elect until he becomes a 'whosoever believeth'.
​

God elected "before the foundation of the world". He elected Saul/Paul back then, but Saul didn't know about it until the Lord spoke to him on the Damascus road.

 

[kyredneck]

What meaneth thou, brother, when thou sayest, "hoi polloi" ?
Referrest thou to something Asiatic ?
Some thing exotic that brewest in some pot that hangeth over a wood stoked fire ?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hoi_polloi

Heheh, actually it's plain ol' Koine Greek: "the many" (the most, the masses, the majority, the mainstream. IMO, the definite article implies a particular group of people within the scriptures who belong to the Lord, as is bore out in these passages:

so we, the many, one body are in Christ, and members each one of one another.
Ro 12:5 YLT

15 But not as the trespass, so also is the free gift. For if by the trespass of the one the many died, much more did the grace of God, and the gift by the grace of the one man, Jesus Christ, abound unto the many.
19 For as through the one man`s disobedience the many were made sinners, even so through the obedience of the one shall the many be made righteous. Ro 5:15,19 ASV

15 For all things are for your sakes, that the grace, being multiplied through the many, may cause the thanksgiving to abound unto the glory of God. 2 Cor 3:15

15 looking carefully lest there be any man that falleth short of the grace of God; lest any root of bitterness springing up trouble you, and thereby the many be defiled; Heb 12:15

Conformance with the majority, although they may belong to God, is not always a good thing, or necessarily means that one is correct:

1 For I would not, brethren, have you ignorant, that our fathers were all under the cloud, and all passed through the sea;
2 and were all baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea;
3 and did all eat the same spiritual food;
4 and did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of a spiritual rock that followed them: and the rock was Christ.
5 Howbeit with most of them God was not well pleased: for they were overthrown in the wilderness. 1 Cor 10:1-5 ['the many' implied]

........wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many are they that enter in thereby...... [imo, again implied or alluded to]

12 And because iniquity shall be multiplied, the love of the many shall wax cold.
Mt 24:12

17 For we are not as the many, corrupting [lit. making merchandise of] the word of God: but as of sincerity, but as of God, in the sight of God, speak we in Christ. 2 Cor 2:6,17

I referred to hoi polloi in the OP article as those that were offended at the posters. I am in agreement with them. The picture was offensive. Jaigner still fails to see any justification for 'the many' to take offense.

 

[jaigner]

I referred to hoi polloi in the OP article as those that were offended at the posters. I am in agreement with them. The picture was offensive. Jaigner still fails to see any justification for 'the many' to take offense.

That is true. And that doesn't make me arrogant.

 

[kyredneck]

That is true. And that doesn't make me arrogant.

OK, how's about obstinate? You insist that the many are wrong and you are right. And you keep bumping the horrid thing back up to the surface. You won't let it go away.

 

[jaigner]

OK, how's about obstinate? You insist that the many are wrong and you are right. And you keep bumping the horrid thing back up to the surface. You won't let it go away.

Hmmm...okay. Maybe I am obstinate, but I was hoping that bringing it up again would produce some different and diverse opinions. Since you keep speaking up and decrying my arrogance or stubbornness maybe you're as obstinate as I am.

Either way, even if you're right and I'm wrong, that doesn't make this discussion horrid or illegitimate. Tough issues need to be discussed and wrought out. It's not helpful to just say "this is stupid and you're wrong."

Also, check the quote you have in your signature.

"The exact contrary of what is generally believed is often the truth."

This is a legitimate observation and, perhaps, even in evangelicalism, the majority isn't correct. Maybe that's the case here.

 

[kyredneck]

Hmmm...okay. Maybe I am obstinate, but I was hoping that bringing it up again would produce some different and diverse opinions. Since you keep speaking up and decrying my arrogance or stubbornness maybe you're as obstinate as I am.

Either way, even if you're right and I'm wrong, that doesn't make this discussion horrid or illegitimate. Tough issues need to be discussed and wrought out. It's not helpful to just say "this is stupid and you're wrong."

Also, check the quote you have in your signature.

"The exact contrary of what is generally believed is often the truth."

This is a legitimate observation and, perhaps, even in evangelicalism, the majority isn't correct. Maybe that's the case here.

Yea, I cringed to say that I was in agreement with hoi polloi on this, but this time they're right.

And I'm sorry brother, but this statement of yours just comes accross to me as being arrogant:

We could do a poll, but a majority of BB members is not representative of a) truth or b) a general evangelical opinion. Therefore, a poll would not be particularly helpful.

...And when I say that, I'm not saying that I think that you are an arrogant person, just that you're beiing arrogant in this instance.

The poll would show how the majority stands.