pajarito

Scripture is not subjective if principals of hermeneutics are adhered to. Original intent of the author, who it was addressed to, what (if any) application does it have for us today (it may not because it may have been written for a particular group of people at a particular time), context, context, context, does the verse harmonize with other scripture concerning the same topic, etc. It's not whether a particular verse means something to me (or you). It's about what the verse or scripture actually means based on what the writer intended. You can't cherry pick what you like and discard what you don't. There was no subjectivity concerning who Jesus claimed to be and what he did to prove it then and there isn't now.

How would you feel if someone posted a very derogatory picture of your mother or a list comparing her inappropriately to someone here? Oh, it’s your right to blaspheme all you want even if it offends me. However, your offense is primarily against God and you will have to answer for it someday.

Blasphemy is serious.

I am not judging you simply by telling you of God’s judgment. God has judged all the world as being guilty before Him (Romans 3:19, 23) and he that believes not is condemned already (John 3:18). Biblically, it is not being judgmental to warn of sin and judgment. The context of Luke 6:37, “Judge not lest you be judged”, concerns the wrongness of judging one another. John 7:24, however, says “Judge not according to the appearance, but judge righteous judgment.” It is expected that the Christian should make a moral righteous judgment concerning someone who steals, lies, commits adultery or murder, etc. It is expected (actually commanded) that the Christian should warn that these sins will have eternal consequences.

Up until about 1600 years ago, your saying that would have gotten you at least thrown out of your local church, if not arrested. What has being thrown out of church, arrested, or even what Saint Augustine and Lactantius said in this regard got to do with the truth which is found in scripture? Saint Augustine, Lactantius, and even the Pope do not supercede scripture.

I'm not here to win friends. It's also not my job to convert you or anyone else. It's up to God to save you...or not. I'm just telling you what scripture says concerning your destiny. I don't want your money and I'm not trying to convince you to be in any particular denomination or church. The scripture is not harmonious with the diversity of the world. Jesus drew a line in the sand separating Himself from every other religion or religious leader of the world. The sword in the passage below is Word and the truth of the gospel message. The message in my link below is completely Biblical. For those who are hardened to its message, it is a double edged sword. For those who are contrite in spirit, humbled, and convicted, it is the power unto salvation. However, the Bible states clearly that the message will be offensive to most. It was ok for Jesus so its ok for me also.

Isaiah described the Earth as being round:

No. Do you? Transubstantiation and the Real Presence

- Who here "grew up Catholic?" - Who went to Catholic school? - Who here broke away from the Catholic church because they were disenchanted with their practice and teachings and gave up on Christianity? I wish every Catholic here would listen to this sermon in its entirety. John MacArthur sermon on Catholicism and the office of the Pope in 2 parts which was broadcast November 9, 2006 on Way of the Master Radio: Part 1 Part 2

You could not have listened to what I posted b/c I'm listening to it right now and have been since I posted it. Jesus Christ paved the way for modern Christianity, not the Pope. Your ignorance of the subject is willful.

How much time do you have? John MacArthur describes the problems with Catholicism much better than I ever could. This is a sermon by John MacArthur broadcast on Way of the Master Radio concerning the subject of whether or not Catholics are saved. [url

Why would Jesus be offended by a principle He articulated? Also, the Bible makes it clear that there are none who are righteous (Romans 3:10). There is no one (including myself) who is “a good person”, by God’s standard. All fall short and are deserving of punishment. This involves “dying to self”, repenting (complete turning away from and apologizing because of) your lawlessness, and trusting in the Savior (alone) for your salvation. Jesus said that and He was a Jew, not a Christian. It’s got nothing to do with Christianity, although, Christians should adhere to it. Christianity is merely a roadmap to a destination. Some do in fact interpret that passage in a way that fits their own “world view”, however, that will not save them on the Day of Judgment. I’m sure Adolph Hitler “felt like” he was a good person and justified in his actions. What have your personal feelings got to do with any of this? I’m not judging you. God is and by His standard. I’m just warning you of the consequences of your thoughts and actions. There is a storm coming.

You know a false prophet by their “fruits” (Matthew 7:15-20). If what a so called prophet says does not happen, we are not to trust them (Deuteronomy 18:21-22). Because none of them were the Son of God. Until you die and have to face the judgment of God.

I think you have a very broad idea of what a Christian is where the Biblical criteria is very narrow. Just because a person calls themselves a Christian does not make it so (Matthew 7:13).

I agree!!! More importantly, however, was who he claimed to be and what he did for all of us.

What's your point? He was a 1st Century Jew. The picture Billvon posted is probably fairly accurate. Whether you call him black, white, or brown really doesn't matter at all. He looked how he looked. Whatever misrepresentation of his likeness the Catholic Church or anyone else has invented is just that...a misrepresentation. Wouldn't be the first thing the Catholic Church has misrepresented.

Anyway, here's more on the Trinity:

Maybe I just can't follow you. You're going back and forth between pagan religions and where Christianity came from, the concept of the Trinity, and what did Jesus look like. One comment leads into another as if one proves or disproves something about the other. What has the origin of Christianity or even the Trinity got to do with what Jesus probably looked like?

***The Council of Nicea did not invent the Trinity. The deity of Christ is found in the scriptures in the New Testament Matt. 2:2,11; 14:33; 28:9; John 9:35-38; and Heb. 1:6 as well as the Old Testament: Zech. 12:10, "And I will pour out on the house of David and on the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the Spirit of grace and of supplication, so that they will look on Me whom they have pierced." Exodus 6:2-3, "God spoke further to Moses and said to him, "I am the Lord; 3 and I appeared to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, as God Almighty, but by My name, Lord, I did not make Myself known to them." Compare with "Not that any man has seen the Father, except the One who is from God; He has seen the Father," (John 6:46). The point is that God Almighty was seen, but not the father. He was the pre-incarnate Christ who is seen in the Old Testament, who is defined in nature. 1 Cor. 1:2, "to the church of God which is at Corinth, to those who have been sanctified in Christ Jesus, saints by calling, with all who in every place call upon the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, their Lord and ours." The phrase, "call upon the name of the Lord [YHWH]" is used in the OT only in reference to God (i.e., Psalm 116:4), never anyone else. Yet, the Greek equivalent (LXX) of the phrase is applied to Jesus in 1 Cor. 1:2. It says that the church "calls upon the name of the Lord Jesus." Why is a phrase used ONLY of God in the OT, applied to Jesus in the NT? The LXX translates "call upon the name of YHWH" as "call upon the name of the Lord [kurios]." The phrase "call upon the name of the Lord is applied to Jesus. Da Vinci Code

The concepts in the New Testament were not derived out of thin air. Amos 3:7 says, "Surely the Lord God does nothing unless He reveals His secret counsel to His servants the prophets." What is mentioned in the New Testament is revealed in the Old Testament either clearly or in types and figures. Gen. 22 is a great example of the sacrifice of Jesus, the Son in Typology represented by the sacrifice of Isaac. Some critics of Christianity state that Christianity borrowed its concepts from pagan sources like Mitrha, Osiris, Apollonius, etc. Admittedly, there are similarities in some pagan religions with Christianity, but that does not mean Christian writers borrowed from them any more than similarities between Communism and Democracy mean one is from another. Similarities abound in many religions. Hinduism has moral statements similar to Christianity as does Taoism. But they are unrelated to each other. There are, however, several reasons working against the idea that the people who wrote the New Testament copied ideas from pagan myths. First of all, the writers of the New Testament were Jews. As Jews they would have nothing to do with paganism in any form. They knew specifically that Jesus fulfilled the Old Testament which is why they followed Him. Second, the Old Testament has almost all the New Testament themes from which a devout Jew would refer when writing the New Testament. Third, there is no proof at all that the New Testament writers borrowed from pagan sources and incorporated them into the New Testament. It is up to the critics to supply reasonable evidence for this if they want to hold the position. Just saying it happened doesn't mean anything. Fourth, so what if there are similarities? What does it prove? If two writers in the same city both write similar articles about the President of the U.S., does it mean one used another's concepts? Not at all. Similarities happen all the time when dealing with similar subjects. Besides, it makes sense that common themes would be around an area at the same time in history when all nations served various gods. Undoubtedly, some similarities will occur, but that doesn't mean one was borrowed from another. Finally, there is another possibility worth examining. The concepts of redemption, the incarnation, resurrection, etc., are prophesied in the Old Testament and these documents were around for hundreds and hundreds of years. It is quite possible that if any borrowing was done, it was done by the pagans who incorporated Old Testament concepts since these documents existed prior to many of these pagan myths. Nevertheless, following is a chart that exemplifies many of the themes that were revealed in the Old Testament and fulfilled in the New. It is easy to see that there is no need at all for the Christians to borrow from any source outside the Old Testament. Are the New Testament themes found in the Old Testament?

No... Not really. He looked exactly like a 1st century Jew. You read the entire Bible in an attempt to settle this? I wish I was that good. You didn't get His ethinicity from your reading? When & where He was born, how he was raised, his entire blood line, etc. Also, why in the world would the color of his hair or eyes or how brown his skin was be important at all? Eye-witness recorded accounts aren't good enough but a painting would be? What have the misrepresentations by the "white" Roman Catholic Church got to do with anything? That sounds a bit racist and bigoted.

Sure... Like a 1st Century Jew.

So then it is fair to say that the universe had no begining and "always was"... Why is that fair?

Cool.

I know. Did you mean to reply to me?