XPost: alt.bible, alt.religion, alt.religion.christian.biblestudy
XPost: alt.religion.christian.roman-catholic, alt.christnet.christianlife
From: seaviews7@yahoo.com
On 10/23/2023 4:36 PM, James scribbled:
> On Sat, 14 Oct 2023 13:46:58 -0700, teslaStinker
> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On 10/14/2023 9:37 AM, servant wrote:
>>> 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?
>>
>> that is pretty funny, a dodo. your apostasized from the faith friend,
>> is certainly that. The Greek, was taken not only from the latin but
>> also from the hebrew, that means, the thing was changed to a pole later
>> on from a cross, not the other way around like the dodo says. Here, i
>> cannot do much better as it in being of somewhere else to determine some
>> of the truths, an facts, these are some in the photo style art of what
>> Italia has to offer in true art and also the buildings and what is
>> actually still there to still be seen. Some is of the 3rd 4th century,
>> some of it is not loading correctly, but most of it works an can be
>> seen. YOU must have a software called frames loaded in windows, to view
>> the https files correctly or the frames will not work. On the popups
>> when you scroll over the link, some are with the dates of the artwork,
>> this is how you can tell when it was made. I did this myself and have
>> been to Italia myself, and some of it is actual photos using a 35mm,
>> some of it is from the Museums, some is from books that display what is
>> in the museums. Most of it, is a showing a cross, and mostly, they were
>> serious about what they would build for God.
>>
>> But its a fact, it was a cross I believe, not so much a pole, but there
>> were poles in crucifixions. So what, if you think its a pole, ? this is
>> not what determines a heretic. Its just an object of torture. AND,
>> since very long ago when the Hebrew was translated, it is determined a
>> cross. The one used in Jerusalem that day. By several theologians.
>
> No matter how many words you write, no matter how many reference works
> you look up, no matter how many changes men made to Bible words,
> THE BIBLE USES THE WORD "STAURUS" (an upright pole) TO DESCRIBE THE
> INSTRUMENT JESUS WAS IMPALED ON.
>
> It is cut and dry. All I can say is believe what you want to. And I
> will believe what the Bible actually says.
>
It the true Bible does not say such at all.
Here is your problem about God.
I shall use the true Bible to profess it.
" 18 Balaam answered: If Balac would give me his house full of silver
and gold, I cannot alter the word of the Lord my God, to speak either
more or less. "
IT does say beam in the true catholic Bible, It also says cross In the
true catholic Bible. Both, in the true catholic Bible. It does not
mean your false Bible is correct or that you are.
Its Not my fault you are so dam dumb, that
you believe those that changed it. antiChrist lover
And we know why you would do that.
Same as servant on the postboard does. Its written right there in
black and white, in verse #18 of the only true Bible there is.
And it also applies to the problem of the cheating lying democrat party
today.
NO CHANGES is what God had said and told His People. It still stands
the same
>
>>
>>
>> https://truecarpentry.org/webfolders/web6/ItaliaPaintings.htm
>>
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
