XPost: alt.bible, alt.religion.christian.biblestudy, alt.religion.christianity   
   XPost: alt.religion.christian.roman-catholic, alt.christnet.christianlife   
      
   I implore readers to read friend james response, the truth will be known   
   in his attempt at  . obfuscation his tactics are revealed.   
      
   >>How does friend james take the evidence, he helps me:   
   >>   
   >>>>The jw vatican dlaims the church in the first part of the 4th century   
   >>>>changed the shape of the cross from being a pole to the familiar shape with   
   >>>>a pole having a crossbar.   
      
   See if friend james refutes the evidence the above is unfounded, 2nd church   
   writers described it as a pole ith a crossbar.   
   >>>>   
   >>>>Very very good, that claim is easily tested in history.  When did the first   
   >>>>writings of the shape appear?  Short answer; in the 2nd century starting   
   >>>>just after the time the NT was finished.   
   >>>>   
   >>>>3 church fathers wrote about the exact shape,ie. a pole ith a crossbar.   
   >>>>They wrote in greek and knew exactly the word for chross used in the NT as   
   >>>>pole .   
   >>>>   
   >>>>Two of these either new John and/or was a 2nd generation disciple of John.   
   >>>>For any who might want to follow up, they were Justin Martyr, Tertullian,   
   >>>>and Irenaeus.  The last two have the connection to John.   
   >>>>   
   >>>>One of the last describes the shape of the cross like the mast of a ship   
   >>>>with crosbar to hold a sail.  The greek word in the NT also used tthe greek   
   >>>>word "pole" to mean a ship's mast and other upright wooden items.   
   >>>   
   >>Friend  james ignores the above:   
   >>   
   >>>Regardless of the rhetoric trying to justify the cross, the BIBLE (1st   
   >>>century) uses the word "staurus", an upright pole. That's just a fact.   
   >>   
   >>Bingo bigo, give the man a prize.  Having not read to learn the above; he   
   >>in fact repeats part of it; way to go friend james; thanks for the   
   >>confirmation.   
   >>   
   >>The 3 persons above spoke an wrote greek.  as said; they knew exactly the   
   >>NT wor in its basic meaning was "pole".  Yet all said that NT"pole" had a   
   >>crossbaar.  One said the cross was like a ship's mast,ie. a pole with cross   
   >>bar. One way the greeks also used the word "pole" was to mean a ship's mast   
   >>with crossbar exactly as he said..   
   >>   
   >>Not forgetting, two of them had direct connection to Jhon who was present   
   >>at the crucifixion and knew exactly the variation of "pole" structure   
   >>involved..   
   >>   
   >>Nope, e must go with the jw vatican which has no scholars of greek and a   
   >>glaring ignorance of the 1st century palistine.  Did I mention 2000 years   
   >>later?   
   >   
   >To the readers of servant:   
   >   
   >I have already posted Bible scholars who PRAISED the New World   
   >Translation. Either they are morons also, or that translation is a   
   >scholarly work. Use your own judgment.   
   >   
   >FACT; FACT; FACT. The Bible uses the word "staurus". (an upright pole)   
   >Let's repeat that.   
   >   
   > The Bible uses the word "staurus". (an upright pole)   
   > The Bible uses the word "staurus". (an upright pole)   
   > The Bible uses the word "staurus". (an upright pole)   
   > The Bible uses the word "staurus". (an upright pole)   
   > The Bible uses the word "staurus". (an upright pole)   
   >   
   >I don't know what else to say.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)