XPost: alt.bible, alt.religion.christian.biblestudy, alt.religion.christianity   
   XPost: alt.religion.christian.roman-catholic, alt.christnet.christianlife   
      
   Friend james is not used to testing theories in history; such as the one   
   below:   
      
   >>>>>>>>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.   
   >   
   >>All we need do is show strong evidence the shape of the cross was discussed   
   >>long before the 4th century and the theory flunks.   
   >>   
   >>>>See if friend james refutes the evidence the above is unfounded, 2nd   
   >>century 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.   
   >>   
   >>If friend james to present a credable response; he must show the above 3   
   >>men did not write about the shape of the cross long before the 4th century.   
   >>Any other form of response is really a concession the jw vatican's theory   
   >>is without support.   
   Friend james tries playing dumb:>   
   >What does the "cross" have to do with the 4th century?   
      
   Everything, the jw vatican has a theory that in part involves the church in   
   the 4th century changing the shape of the cross; from a pole to a pole with   
   a crossbar. That theory goes down the drain because of the early 2nd   
   century descriptions above of the pole with a crossbar.  It was not as the   
   jw vatican claims; the theory is dead as a dodo, no?   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)