# A picture of Jesus in the clouds



## Scott Shahan (Apr 5, 2007)

I was wondering what people thought about this picture. Any thoughts about this? 

http://bibleprobe.com/jesusinclouds.htm


----------



## Romans922 (Apr 5, 2007)

Don't make me break the 2nd Commandment please.


----------



## BobVigneault (Apr 5, 2007)

I remember seeing that pic back in the early 70s. Whether it's Jesus or not no one would be able to say. I seriously doubt it's Jesus even if the image is un-doctored. Most of all we would not need such an image to PROVE that Jesus is alive. This seems to be the purpose that the author gives for the picture's existence. This is the most offensive aspect of these sort of phenomena. Our proof lies in our faith in the Word of God. We are people of the Word. The Word is the only point of contact with Christ and the only unmistakable revelation of Jesus Christ.


----------



## Scott Shahan (Apr 5, 2007)

Romans922 said:


> Don't make me break the 2nd Commandment please.




That is what I was thinking too. In our men's group this morning we have been reading Calvin's Institutes and we were reading about pictures/images (book 1). I have a few pictures in my house and I need to get rid of them. This particular picture I don't think they, whoever they are is saying that this is Jesus. They are just asking a question. Anyway do I give my pictures away or do I trash them? I spent alot of money on a few of these. I liked them because of the art work. But after reading Calvin, I am convinced that I shouldn't have any Pictures in my house of "Christ".


----------



## Scott Shahan (Apr 5, 2007)

BobVigneault said:


> I remember seeing that pic back in the early 70s. Whether it's Jesus or not no one would be able to say. I seriously doubt it's Jesus even if the image is un-doctored. Most of all we would not need such an image to PROVE that Jesus is alive. This seems to be the purpose that the author gives for the picture's existence. This is the most offensive aspect of these sort of phenomena. Our proof lies in our faith in the Word of God. We are people of the Word. The Word is the only point of contact with Christ and the only unmistakable revelation of Jesus Christ.



  I totally agree Bob, I doubt that it is Jesus. I will have to admit that it is an odd picture though.


----------



## Romans922 (Apr 5, 2007)

if you are convicted by it and it is part of 10 commandments, i'd get rid of them. Don't want others to sin... (my 2 cents)


----------



## BobVigneault (Apr 5, 2007)

Everyone is OK. I computer enhanced the image and I don't believe that's Jesus. Just some guy. Nothing to see here, please move along.


----------



## BobVigneault (Apr 5, 2007)

The 2nd commandment doesn't enter into this topic. IT'S A CLOUD!!!!!!!!
If that is an image of Jesus then I'm a little black rain cloud! Sorry Pooh.


----------



## Scott Shahan (Apr 5, 2007)

BobVigneault said:


> The 2nd commandment doesn't enter into this topic. IT'S A CLOUD!!!!!!!!
> If that is an image of Jesus then I'm a little black rain cloud! Sorry Pooh.




    That is pretty funny Bob.


----------



## Scott Shahan (Apr 5, 2007)

Romans922 said:


> Don't make me break the 2nd Commandment please.



Hey,

Sorry Andrew, It isn't Jesus, It is some guy wearing a white bath robe.


----------



## Timothy William (Apr 5, 2007)

Those pictures are absurd. Jesus appeared to me in a vision once and he looked absolutely nothing like that. I am sure he had fair skin, long blond hair and deep blue eyes....

But seriously, I don't get the point of this type of image. Claiming that something looks like Jesus is not only contrary to Scripture, it is against common sense and will be offputting to any intelligent unbeliever. We are not to be like the Romanists who think they need to support their faith with man-made props and crutches.


----------



## No Longer A Libertine (Apr 5, 2007)

This looks to me like a still frame from the 1927 version of Cecil B. DeMille's passion movie.

It has the look and grain of a clip from an old silent movie.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0018054/


----------



## govols (Apr 5, 2007)

Well, it can't be Elvis because he works at the gas station down the road.


----------



## Blueridge Believer (Apr 5, 2007)

That pic has been around for years. I suspect it is nothing more than charismatic poppycock.


----------



## BobVigneault (Apr 5, 2007)

Blueridge reformer said:


> That pic has been around for years. I suspect it is nothing more than charismatic poppycock.









Shambala hema hochta shumu (falling down in a fit of 'holy' laughter) Yummy!

Now this thread is complete, we've got graven images and speaking in tongues and tasty treats.


----------



## Blueridge Believer (Apr 5, 2007)

BobVigneault said:


> Shambala hema hochta shumu (falling down in a fit of 'holy' laughter) Yummy!
> 
> Now this thread is complete, we've got graven images and speaking in tongues and tasty treats.



hastalashondi seemetiemybowtie. whostolamyhonda! Does anyone need a translation?


----------



## Scott Shahan (Apr 5, 2007)

Blueridge reformer said:


> hastalashondi seemetiemybowtie. whostolamyhonda! Does anyone need a translation?



I am glad you guys have brought up this whole "speaking in tongues". You know I have never been able to really know what to think about that. I have never been able to speak in tongues. So I don't know if I am baptized with the Holy Spirit? Isn't if you are baptized with the Holy Spirit that you can speak in tongues? So in their doctrinal belief are there two different kinds of baptism??


----------



## BobVigneault (Apr 5, 2007)

Very nice James, we should get together for a beer and speak in tongues sometime. I don't need a translation, I took an online course, Pimsleur's See It and Say It in Tongues a couple years ago. I really enjoy being able to understand those jokes that Copeland and Hagin tell each other in tongues. Sometimes that big faker Copeland is just reciting a grocery list or the phone book but he does it in tongues and everyone thinks he's talking to angels. I know better because I took the course. 

Bessings James and 'seemetiemybowtie' to you as well brother.


----------



## Scott Shahan (Apr 5, 2007)

BobVigneault said:


> Very nice James, we should get together for a beer and speak in tongues sometime. I don't need a translation, I took an online course, Pimsleur's See It and Say It in Tongues a couple years ago. I really enjoy being able to understand those jokes that Copeland and Hagin tell each other in tongues. Sometimes that big faker Copeland is just reciting a grocery list or the phone book but he does it in tongues and everyone thinks he's talking to angels. I know better because I took the course.
> 
> Bessings James and 'seemetiemybowtie' to you as well brother.




    Bob, your cracking me up today!!


----------



## Davidius (Apr 5, 2007)

shudabawtahonda buttabawtaneesan

Some friends in the charismatic campus ministry of which I was formerly a part once said that people in our parachurch organization had actually used phrases like that to "teach people how to speak in tongues."


----------



## Blueridge Believer (Apr 5, 2007)

CarolinaCalvinist said:


> shudabawtahonda buttabawtaneesan
> 
> Some friends in the charismatic campus ministry of which I was formerly a part once said that people in our parachurch organization had actually used phrases like that to "teach people how to speak in tongues."




I got to have that one translated!


----------



## Davidius (Apr 5, 2007)

Blueridge reformer said:


> I got to have that one translated!



  

"Shoulda bought a Honda but I bought a Nissan."


----------



## Scott Shahan (Apr 5, 2007)

CarolinaCalvinist said:


> shudabawtahonda buttabawtaneesan
> 
> Some friends in the charismatic campus ministry of which I was formerly a part once said that people in our parachurch organization had actually used phrases like that to "teach people how to speak in tongues."


----------



## BobVigneault (Apr 5, 2007)

CarolinaCalvinist said:


> shudabawtahonda buttabawtaneesan
> 
> Some friends in the charismatic campus ministry of which I was formerly a part once said that people in our parachurch organization had actually used phrases like that to "teach people how to speak in tongues."



    You are fluent David, what a pleasure.


----------



## Davidius (Apr 5, 2007)

BobVigneault said:


> You are fluent David, what a pleasure.



Languages have always been my thing.


----------



## BobVigneault (Apr 5, 2007)

Oh man, you see, this is what separates the PB from all the other boards. Where on earth can you go to get this kind of education, this kind of information. The depth of knowledge and experience on this board is staggering. I want you all to know how very proud I am to be able to call you friends and brothers.

This brings to mind the very familiar latin expression:

Feely me boneybelli!


----------



## No Longer A Libertine (Apr 5, 2007)

I called the witch doctor and this is what he said, yes he said, oh e ooh ah ah-ting tang walla walla bing bang oh e oh ah ah, ting tang walla walla bing bang.


----------



## VictorBravo (Apr 5, 2007)

I once saw Chet Huntley in the clouds. These "pareidolia" are everywhere!

By the way, Elvis now resides in a tree:






And Pharoah ended up on Mars:






And so did Kermit!:


----------



## Augusta (Apr 5, 2007)

joshua said:


> No, it's not like that at all.
> 
> _bali oday ley saw tanoma_
> 
> ...




   

Where were you guys when I was under the gun to say something to show I could speak in tongues. I could have used this stuff then.


----------



## matt01 (Apr 5, 2007)

Scott Shahan said:


> Anyway do I give my pictures away or do I trash them? I spent alot of money on a few of these. I liked them because of the art work. But after reading Calvin, I am convinced that I shouldn't have any Pictures in my house of "Christ".



Trash them. If it is wrong for you to have them, it would be worse to give them away.


----------



## Scott Shahan (Apr 5, 2007)

matthew said:


> Trash them. If it is wrong for you to have them, it would be worse to give them away.



Your right, it would be worse to give them away. There is a socalled Christian bookstore here in this town that is just loaded with Christian pictures/artwork. It is ok to have Christian artwork of the disciples, Moses, ect. I am getting rid of the pictures that have Christ in them.


----------



## turmeric (Apr 5, 2007)

Yondacumahonda. Shudabawtasubaru!

The problem with Hagin's jokes, once you translate them, they aren't that funny! He needs to get a day job!


----------



## MrMerlin777 (Apr 5, 2007)

BobVigneault said:


> Shambala hema hochta shumu (falling down in a fit of 'holy' laughter) Yummy!
> 
> Now this thread is complete, we've got graven images and speaking in tongues and tasty treats.


----------



## govols (Apr 6, 2007)

victorbravo said:


> I once saw Chet Huntley in the clouds. These "pareidolia" are everywhere!
> 
> By the way, Elvis now resides in a tree:




Well, how in the world is Elvis going to be able to pump gas from that tree???


----------



## ChristopherPaul (Apr 6, 2007)

matthew said:


> Trash them. If it is wrong for you to have them, it would be worse to give them away.



Just curious, do you apply the same principal to books that violate the third commandment?


----------



## ChristopherPaul (Apr 6, 2007)

BobVigneault said:


> The 2nd commandment doesn't enter into this topic. IT'S A CLOUD!!!!!!!!
> If that is an image of Jesus then I'm a little black rain cloud! Sorry Pooh.



I agree, the sin surfaces when we attribute the image as that of God. I could post an image of Brad Pitt and say that I think this is a picture of Jesus. I would be sinning but not those who simply look at the image of Brad Pitt. Same with this cloud or still frame image from a 1927 movie or whatever it is.

The fact is, we do not know what Christ looked like, so to portray any image at all and call it God is not only a violation of the 2nd commandment, but also a lie.


----------



## matt01 (Apr 6, 2007)

matthew said:


> Trash them. If it is wrong for you to have them, it would be worse to give them away.





ChristopherPaul said:


> Just curious, do you apply the same principal to books that violate the third commandment?



While I do not necessarily support censorship, I would hold a similar stance regarding books that violate any of the commandments. If it is a sin for me to have something, why would I give it to my neighbor?


----------

