newtestamentchristianity

                                                                      1. Introduction:  In a world where the left often upholds Liberal mainstream Judaism in Hollywood, but not Christianity, most Americans are exposed to thinking that Jews are all as they are portrayed in secular Hollywood films. Nowadays, many modern Americans are led to believe that Jesus was not white or black, and questioning this makes one a racist. As a result, modern art often depicts Jesus as darker than how He was historically portrayed in the artwork of Christendom. But as politically incorrect as it is, Jesus was actually white. This is not about racism, but simply affirming historical facts. Middle Eastern people are regarded as white, anyhow. Furthermore, Jesus was probably a redhead. Indeed , t here is actually substantial evidence that Jesus was probably golden or redheaded . This is proven through the Old Testament, the New Testament, and Jewish and Christian history.                                   

                                                           I. Introduction In the modern world, it's easy to just accept claims without evidence. It's also easy to accept the opinions of one's priest or pastor without ever investigating their claims. And it's also easy to hope to find an answer through a quick Google search without carefully studying the history, philosophy, and theology of a particular doctrine. But Biblical theology requires so much more.  On the other hand, there are many issues concerning Christian history that are not addressed in Scripture. For example, Scripture never claims that Peter the Apostle went to Rome. Nor does it tell us about the origins of the Baptist or the Amish. Thus, when it comes to the study of the history of Christianity, most of it we cannot learn from the Bible alone.  Think of pews or printed Bibles and hymnal books. None of these existed in the first-century church when the New Testament was written. We learn about these pr

Today, Partial Preterism has been accepted by most Roman Catholics and mainline Christians but also among notable Calvinist scholars. Among its recent adherents are: Scott Hahn and Jimmy Akin (Roman Catholic), George Grant and Doug Wilson (Presbyterian), R. C. Sproul and Kenneth Gentry (Presbyterian), James White (Reformed Baptist), and N. T. Wright (Anglican). For reasons discussed briefly in this post, Preterism seems the best understanding of the events described in The Apocalypse, also known as Revelation. Full Preterism, which asserts that Christ has already returned, is generally regarded as heresy by the historic Christian traditions.  While most Biblical scholars today believe that Revelation was written during the reign of Domitian sometime after the destruction of the Temple, a minority of Biblical scholars believe that it was written earlier. Indeed, the minority claim that the Book of Revelation was likely written c. 68 AD, during the reign of Emperor Nero. If true, this wo

  I encourage the reader to open their Bibles and read from Revelation 12. For in this chapter, a woman clothed with the sun, a baby child, and a dragon are described.  It is a forced interpretation, however, to say that the woman clothed with the Sun in Revelation 12 is either the church or ethnic Israel alone. This is especially the case for the church, as the church did not give birth to Christ, whereas Israel preceded the birth of Christ.  When read literally, Revelation 12 refers to the Virgin Mary as she gave birth to Jesus, our Lord just as the woman in this chapter gives birth to the Savior-child.  And because I believe the woman clothed with the sun in Revelation 12 is the Virgin Mary, naturally, it follows that I believe Mary bodily ascended to Heaven like Elijah as this is what happens with the woman clothed with the Sun in the chapter.  Scripture never records Mary having died. The case of Revelation 12, though, is strong for Christians believing that God ascended her into

While I've often appreciated his history on Judaism, I've never claimed that I agree with N. T. Wright on various social issues. In fact, I don't. I disagree with Wright on women's ordination and other issues. I acknowledge his views on certain topics to reflect theological liberalism. Wright also embraces the dangers of Darwinian Evolution.  But theological liberalism goes far beyond women's ordination. It is a sickening plague that has brought down the lives of many throughout the West. It needs to be stamped out lest it continue spreading as the wildfire that it is.  It is often common in some Evangelical and fundamentalist circles to think of conservative thought as being against women preachers and homosexuality and emphasizing preaching on Hell and Heaven. Technically, all of this is conservative, but doing these things alone does not make one conservative.  Many Independent Baptists are not conservative. Peter Ruckman did not life believe that life began at c

  This is a small post. Basically, I just want to briefly argue why Prima Scriptura , that is, that Scripture is the primary authority, is the teaching of Scripture rather than that of Sola Scriptura .  Today, many Evangelicals claim that Eastern Orthodox, Roman Catholic, and Anglican Christians are wrong to hold traditions not found explicitly in Scripture. Some of them go so far as to claim that Sola Scriptur a is an essential of the Christian faith.  And yet nowhere in Scripture does the scriptures itself claim to be the only authority. In fact, the Apostles and elders in Acts 15 did not simply appeal to Scripture only in rejecting the Judaizers. Rather, they understood themselves as the head of the Christian Church which recognized any claims of necessary circumcision to be contrary to Scripture.  Scripture is inspired (2 Timothy 3: 16). Yet nowhere does Scripture ever claim that it alone is authoritative. In Acts 15, the Council of Jerusalem was authoritative over the church, for

                                                                     I. Introduction Before 1930, all Christian Churches (and all Christian theologians condemned contraception). Many Roman Catholics see the Lambeth Council of the 1930s as a radical change in church history, in which they claim, more denominations began to accept birth control. Indeed, it was in this church council, that the Church of England embraced a limited use of contraception. Ironically, however, the established Anglican Church of the 1930s, never intended contraption to be widely practiced and saw the purpose of contraception as morally acceptable in certain circumstances (see the Anglican article). Nevertheless, in time, not only the Church of England, but all the Protestant Churches came to embrace contraception, and eventually for far more than limited cases.  Later, in this post, I will address the Lambeth Council. However, more importantly, we need to ask ourselves does God allow contraception? If He does a