XPost: alt.bible, alt.religion, alt.religion.christian.biblestudy   
   XPost: alt.religion.christian.roman-catholic, alt.christnet.christianlife   
      
   >>>>>>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.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)