pajarito
-
Content
4,872 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Never -
Feedback
0%
Posts posted by pajarito
-
-
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. -
QuoteBy the way, your "only G-d is the only judge, not me" routine is rather stale. You are the one who is judging people (read what you said about the "storm" upthread, and that I'll end up believing in Christ on judgement day)...that is one of the main reasons I am glad *not* to believe what you do -- I'm not in the business of subtly telling people that they're going to rot in hell forever for not believing what *I* believe, and I never will be.
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. -
QuoteQuote>Isaiah described the Earth as being round:
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. -
QuoteTo me, it's wrong on many levels. For one, it's no way to win friends (or converts as that is often the objective).
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.QuoteAnother -- it's not a very harmonious way of living in a very diverse world, and I think it ultimately goes counter to what Jesus taught.
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.QuoteThink not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law. And a man's foes shall be they of his own household.
Matthew 10:34-36
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. -
QuoteI didn't start with the premise that the world isn't round and then set about trying to make everything fit within my viewpoint.
Isaiah described the Earth as being round:Quote"It is he that sits upon the circle of the earth" (Isaiah 40:22). This is not a reference to a flat disk, as some skeptic maintain, but to a sphere. Secular man discovered this 2,400 years later. At a time when science believed that the earth was flat, is was the Scriptures that inspired Christopher Columbus to sail around the world.
-
-
- 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 -
QuoteCatholicism paved the way for modern Christianity, but Catholicism is evil.
ergo
God paved the way for Catholicism, therefore god is evil.
As god is an invention of man, no wonder Christians consider man as evil and in need of punishment.
Jesus would be shocked at that concept.
Jesus didn't write one damn word; it's sad that modern day Christians are foolish enough to not realize that. There is no "book of Jesus." For all anyone knows, he was as ignorant as Elvis, only wildly more popular in modern time.
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. -
QuoteWhat other examples of Catholic misrepresentation can you give?
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 -
QuoteYour view on this matter has been made very clear. Very few people in this world are Christian, according to your scriptures and "Are you a good person." I'm quite confident that Jesus would be offended over it, as most good people are.
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.QuoteHe that believes on the Son has everlasting life: and he that believes not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abides on him.
John 3:36
Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.
John 3:3
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.Quote"Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it" doesn't say anything about Christianity. Some interpret this passage in a way that fits their narrow view; Others see it for what it is...a recommendation for setting rules and living by them to save themselves from certain challenges.
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.QuoteIn that same chapter, Matthew says "How can you say to your brother, 'Let me take the speck out of your eye,' when all the time there is a plank in your own eye? 5You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother's eye."
Wouldn't you agree that telling people they're not good or saying that they are not Christian when they feel they are, is a big plank in thine own eye?QuoteHe that believes on him is not condemned: but he that believes not is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.
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. -
QuoteSure, Jesus had some wonderful ideas, but for a man to say stuff like "I am the way the truth the light" and (something to the effect of) "the only way to G-d is through me" is completely megalomaniacal. I never trust any preacher that throws the word "I" in the same sentence with big words like "truth."
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).QuoteI don't think even Moses, David or any of the prophets preceding Jesus had the balls to say such things. If I were a Jew living in the time of Jesus, I'd have perceived him as a cult leader and I'd have ignored him.
Because none of them were the Son of God.QuoteI'll never believe what the church teaches and I will always be okay with that.
Until you die and have to face the judgment of God. -
QuotePot-Kettle?
I dare you to walk into a KKK meeting and tell those "Christians" that it doesn't matter if Jesus was a black man. On second thought, I'll pay your airfare (and mine) just for the fun of watching it occur. Your hospital bills are your own expense.
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). -
QuoteIntersting that so many here.. are far more interested in how he looked and what his ethnicity is.. rather than the message he brought to us and his teachings.
I agree!!! More importantly, however, was who he claimed to be and what he did for all of us. -
Quoteby 'modern standard' Jesus would be considered 'black' if he were born an american..
awaits the frothing responses
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:QuoteThe Trinity—the triune nature of God—is a basic doctrine of Christianity. Although the word “Trinity” is not found in the Bible, the elements of this doctrine are all taken directly from God’s Word. The doctrine of the Trinity states that there is one God who exists eternally as three distinct persons: the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. The Bible could not be more explicit that there is only one God, which it declares about two dozen times. In Isaiah 45:5 God says, “I am the LORD, and there is no other; besides me there is no God.” In Mark 12:29 Jesus states, “The first of all the commandments is, Hear, O Israel; The LORD our God is one Lord . . .’”
Jesus referred to God as His Father, and the apostles frequently spoke of “God the Father.” But the New Testament also insists that Jesus is God. For example, Thomas acknowledged Jesus as “my Lord and my God” (John 20:28), and both Peter and Paul spoke of Jesus as “our God and Savior” (2 Peter 1:1; Titus 2:13). Yet the New Testament also makes the distinction between the Father and the Son as two very different persons. In fact, they tell us that they love one another, speak to each other, and seek to glorify each other (e.g., John 17:1–26).
The Old Testament refers often to the Holy Spirit as God at work in the world, without distinction from the Father. But Jesus in John 14—16 explained that the Father at Christ’s request would send this Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit would teach and guide the disciples, not speaking on His own initiative, but speaking on Christ’s behalf and glorifying Christ. Thus, the Holy Spirit is revealed by Christ to be a third person distinct from the Father and from the Son.
The three persons of the Trinity—the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit—are distinct persons, yet they are all the one God. They are in absolute perfect harmony consisting of one substance. They are coeternal, coequal, and copowerful. If any one of the three were removed, there would be no God.
There is, though, an apparent separation of some functions among the members of the Godhead. For example, the Father chooses those in Christ to be saved (Ephesians 1:4); the Son redeems them (Ephesians 1:7); and the Holy Spirit seals them (Ephesians 1:13).
A further point of clarification is that God is not one person, the Father, with Jesus as a created being and the Holy Spirit as a force (Jeho-vah’s Witnesses). Neither is He one person who took three consecutive forms, i.e., the Father became the Son, who became the Holy Spirit. Nor is God the divine nature of the Son, where Jesus had a human nature perceived as the Son and a divine nature perceived as the Father (United Pentecostal). Nor is the Trinity an office held by three separate Gods (Mormonism).
It has been interestingly said, “If you try to figure out the Trinity, you will lose your mind; if you deny the Trinity, you will lose your soul.” In short, the doctrine of the Trinity is completely biblical, and it is essential that all Christians give assent to this doctrine.
--Taken from Lesson 49, The Way of the Master School of Biblical Evangelism -
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? -
QuoteI was referring to something more apparent: the trinity.
3 != 1.
Look up the Council of Nicaea -- what you believe is the result of a vote that the emperor Constantine organized.
***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 -
QuoteWhy does it give you the creeps? Christianity is a pagan religion (although Christians hate to admit that and absolutely insist that it is monotheistic). Humbling oneself before graven images is perfectly acceptable practice in pagan religions, and has been for millenia. Perhaps it's something you should try getting comfortable with.
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? -
QuoteSo white Caucasian, long hair and a beard?
No... Not really. He looked exactly like a 1st century Jew.QuoteAnyway in an attempt to settle this, I read the bible, oh hmm wierd, there is no description of Jesus’ ethnicity or physical appearance in the Bible.
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?QuoteAnd it would seem that no one has ever uncovered any drawings or paintings of Him made while He was alive.
Eye-witness recorded accounts aren't good enough but a painting would be?QuoteIn fact it would seem the first pictures of Jesus came hundreds of years after His death, by artisans commissioned by the white Roman Catholic Church,
What have the misrepresentations by the "white" Roman Catholic Church got to do with anything? That sounds a bit racist and bigoted. -
QuoteJust wondering, anyone know???
Sure...
Like a 1st Century Jew. -
QuoteQuoteGod had no begining. He always was.....
So then it is fair to say that the universe had no begining and "always was"...
Why is that fair? -
QuoteI was replying in general but went off your thread. I figured I would end this debate by answering the question properly.
Cool.QuoteThe fool has said in his heart, "There is no God."
Psalm 14:1 -
QuoteGod had no begining. He always was.....
I know. Did you mean to reply to me?
What did Jesus look like???
in Speakers Corner
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.