XPost: alt.bible, alt.religion, alt.religion.christian.biblestudy   
   XPost: alt.religion.christian.roman-catholic, alt.christnet.christianlife   
      
   >>>>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?   
   >   
   Friend james finds the truth too much of a burden; so change the subject   
   instead:   
      
   >No. No matter what you want to call it, the word they translate from   
   >is STAUROS. Which is "an upright pole". Period. The end. Stop. No more   
   >to be said.   
      
   Ah, the truth stings, no?  The jw vatican says the description was changeed   
   in the 4th century from a pole to a pole with a crossbar.   
   False, as above   
   greek church fathers; two ith connections to John described the cross as   
   a pole with a crossbar.   
      
   The jw vatican theory, the real subject is proven beyond anypossible   
   rescue. So what else are they proven wrong about?  How much time do you   
   have?   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)