[quote]katzenjammer wrote:
[quote]honest_lifter wrote:
You mean looking up the original Greek and establishing the original meaning of different words in the Bible?
[/quote]
That’s not what you did. Please don’t pretend otherwise. It makes you look foolish. [/quote]
I looked it up a long time ago. I was showing my research. So yes that IS what I was doing. This wasn’t twisting scripture or anything.
[quote]dmaddox wrote:
[quote]honest_lifter wrote:
10 verses later. John 14:20 - New American Standard Bible
In that day you will know that I am in My Father, and you in Me, and I in you.
So we are all God then I would have to assume?[/quote]
I will take this tounge in check. I will say that Jesus is fully God and Fully Man. Not being fully God would make him just a sinful human like you and me. But since Jesus did not have a human father do donate his sinful sperm then he could be sinless correct?[/quote]
Why are humans sinful?
[quote]honest_lifter wrote:
[quote]katzenjammer wrote:
[quote]honest_lifter wrote:
[quote]katzenjammer wrote:
[quote]honest_lifter wrote:
The book The Non-Christian Cross, by John Denham Parsons, states: “There is not a single sentence in any of the numerous writings forming the New Testament, which, in the original Greek, bears even indirect evidence to the effect that the stauros used in the case of Jesus was other than an ordinary stauros; much less to the effect that it consisted, not of one piece of timber, but of two pieces nailed together in the form of a cross…it is not a little misleading upon the part of our teachers to translate the word stauros as ‘cross’ when rendering the Greek documents of the Church into our native tongue, and to support that action by putting ‘cross’ in our lexicons as the meaning of stauros without carefully explaining that that was at any rate not the primary meaning of the word in the days of the Apostles, did not become its primary signification till long afterwards, and became so then, if at all, only because, despite the absence of corroborative evidence, it was for some reason or other assumed that the particular stauros upon which Jesus was executed had that particular shape.”-London, 1896, pp. 23, 24.
In classical Greek the word (stauros’)primarily denotes an upright stake, or pole, and there is no evidence that the writers of the Christian Greek Scriptures used it to designate a stake with a crossbeam.
Google it. [/quote]
This is just pure nonsense. Both stauros and xylon were often used to signify a cross, a tree, a stake, and many other things. To emphasize one or the other on purely linguistic grounds is, well, dishonest.
What all this points out is the danger of focusing only on the Holy Scripture - because customarily, the Romans put Jews to death on a stake with a cross beam, or patibulum, which they were made to carry themselves. This is a matter of indisputable fact.
Finally, really, does matter if it was an actual “cross” as we understand it - or a stake?
[/quote]
There! The heat of the matter. Does it really matter. Yes. Yes, it matters because of why I brought it up in the first place. The translation I use was put under attack. That there are words added and taken out to fit my doctrine. In the very verses he quoted it had cross, which today, if you ask the vast majority of Christians refers to a torture set-up involving 2 pieces of wood not just one. Even xylon refers to wood, or tree, or even club. There is ZERO reference to it being ANYTHING BUT a single piece of wood. But images depict Jesus on the aforementioned 2-piece set-up.
My translation was challenged in regards its accuracy. I couldn’t help but point out the irony.
Bottom line there is no proof to the contrary that either word can or should be rendered as a crossbeam setup. This concept was added later.
Also, please, to further answer your question, what does your Bible say at Galatians 3:13?
(why translation is important)[/quote]
No, what it points out is the folly of sola scriptura. You are misleading yourself and (potentially) others.
None of what you said above really addresses what I said in my post; so I won’t simply re-iterate.
[/quote]
There was prophecy involving the use of a stake in Jesus death. Therefore, how he died was absolutely critical. De 21:23.[/quote]
Right - because prophecies are always fulfilled precisely and to the exact letter. Please - this is getting silly.
Nota bena: you still haven’t responded to my post.
[quote]katzenjammer wrote:
[quote]honest_lifter wrote:
[quote]katzenjammer wrote:
[quote]honest_lifter wrote:
[quote]katzenjammer wrote:
[quote]honest_lifter wrote:
The book The Non-Christian Cross, by John Denham Parsons, states: “There is not a single sentence in any of the numerous writings forming the New Testament, which, in the original Greek, bears even indirect evidence to the effect that the stauros used in the case of Jesus was other than an ordinary stauros; much less to the effect that it consisted, not of one piece of timber, but of two pieces nailed together in the form of a cross…it is not a little misleading upon the part of our teachers to translate the word stauros as ‘cross’ when rendering the Greek documents of the Church into our native tongue, and to support that action by putting ‘cross’ in our lexicons as the meaning of stauros without carefully explaining that that was at any rate not the primary meaning of the word in the days of the Apostles, did not become its primary signification till long afterwards, and became so then, if at all, only because, despite the absence of corroborative evidence, it was for some reason or other assumed that the particular stauros upon which Jesus was executed had that particular shape.”-London, 1896, pp. 23, 24.
In classical Greek the word (stauros’)primarily denotes an upright stake, or pole, and there is no evidence that the writers of the Christian Greek Scriptures used it to designate a stake with a crossbeam.
Google it. [/quote]
This is just pure nonsense. Both stauros and xylon were often used to signify a cross, a tree, a stake, and many other things. To emphasize one or the other on purely linguistic grounds is, well, dishonest.
What all this points out is the danger of focusing only on the Holy Scripture - because customarily, the Romans put Jews to death on a stake with a cross beam, or patibulum, which they were made to carry themselves. This is a matter of indisputable fact.
Finally, really, does matter if it was an actual “cross” as we understand it - or a stake?
[/quote]
There! The heat of the matter. Does it really matter. Yes. Yes, it matters because of why I brought it up in the first place. The translation I use was put under attack. That there are words added and taken out to fit my doctrine. In the very verses he quoted it had cross, which today, if you ask the vast majority of Christians refers to a torture set-up involving 2 pieces of wood not just one. Even xylon refers to wood, or tree, or even club. There is ZERO reference to it being ANYTHING BUT a single piece of wood. But images depict Jesus on the aforementioned 2-piece set-up.
My translation was challenged in regards its accuracy. I couldn’t help but point out the irony.
Bottom line there is no proof to the contrary that either word can or should be rendered as a crossbeam setup. This concept was added later.
Also, please, to further answer your question, what does your Bible say at Galatians 3:13?
(why translation is important)[/quote]
No, what it points out is the folly of sola scriptura. You are misleading yourself and (potentially) others.
None of what you said above really addresses what I said in my post; so I won’t simply re-iterate.
[/quote]
There was prophecy involving the use of a stake in Jesus death. Therefore, how he died was absolutely critical. De 21:23.[/quote]
Right - because prophecies are always fulfilled precisely and to the exact letter. Please - this is getting silly.
Nota bena: you still haven’t responded to my post.
[/quote]
I can’t believe you just used sarcasm there. All prophecies MUST be fulled precisely, other wise it wouldn’t be a fulfilled prophecy.
And what is the post i haven’t responded to? the one about the dangers of using the Bible as the only authority on its contents?
[quote]honest_lifter wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
I will definitely leave you to have your opinion. However, do you recall the purpose of the fiery-serpent?[/quote]
8 And the Lord said to him: Make brazen serpent, and set it up for a sign: whosoever being struck shall look on it, shall live. 9 Moses therefore made a brazen serpent, and set it up for a sign: which when they that were bitten looked upon, they were healed.
My mistake it was not a fiery serpent, but a brazen serpent. It was so when they were bitten by the fiery snakes that they could look upon the statue and live.[/quote]
That is true. they looked upon it to get healed. how does that tie in with your use of statues? Because as we know, God commanded the serpent be destroyed when it started to be used in worship. - 2 Kings 18:4,5
[/quote]
Lets interpret correctly. The snakes were not being used in worship, but were being worshipped. The people were burning incense to the serpent. There is a big difference. The serpent was leading people astray from the God who gave them the serpent to heal them. God was doing the healing and not the brazen snake. As long as the statues are not leading people astray from God there is nothing wrong with them in any churches.
Your founder says other wise then that is just putting up a hedge to keep you from sinning. The same thing that the Pharasees did to the Jews. The same thing that the Baptists did, no dancing, no drinking alcohol, to keep people from sinning. Is there really anything wrong with this, not in and of itself, but when you start to lead people from the Grace that God is giving to us freely then there is an issue. Jesus had an issue with it because the Pharasees were thinking of themselves more highly than the lay people because they came up with the rules.
[quote]honest_lifter wrote:
[quote]katzenjammer wrote:
[quote]honest_lifter wrote:
[quote]katzenjammer wrote:
[quote]honest_lifter wrote:
[quote]katzenjammer wrote:
[quote]honest_lifter wrote:
The book The Non-Christian Cross, by John Denham Parsons, states: “There is not a single sentence in any of the numerous writings forming the New Testament, which, in the original Greek, bears even indirect evidence to the effect that the stauros used in the case of Jesus was other than an ordinary stauros; much less to the effect that it consisted, not of one piece of timber, but of two pieces nailed together in the form of a cross…it is not a little misleading upon the part of our teachers to translate the word stauros as ‘cross’ when rendering the Greek documents of the Church into our native tongue, and to support that action by putting ‘cross’ in our lexicons as the meaning of stauros without carefully explaining that that was at any rate not the primary meaning of the word in the days of the Apostles, did not become its primary signification till long afterwards, and became so then, if at all, only because, despite the absence of corroborative evidence, it was for some reason or other assumed that the particular stauros upon which Jesus was executed had that particular shape.”-London, 1896, pp. 23, 24.
In classical Greek the word (stauros’)primarily denotes an upright stake, or pole, and there is no evidence that the writers of the Christian Greek Scriptures used it to designate a stake with a crossbeam.
Google it. [/quote]
This is just pure nonsense. Both stauros and xylon were often used to signify a cross, a tree, a stake, and many other things. To emphasize one or the other on purely linguistic grounds is, well, dishonest.
What all this points out is the danger of focusing only on the Holy Scripture - because customarily, the Romans put Jews to death on a stake with a cross beam, or patibulum, which they were made to carry themselves. This is a matter of indisputable fact.
Finally, really, does matter if it was an actual “cross” as we understand it - or a stake?
[/quote]
There! The heat of the matter. Does it really matter. Yes. Yes, it matters because of why I brought it up in the first place. The translation I use was put under attack. That there are words added and taken out to fit my doctrine. In the very verses he quoted it had cross, which today, if you ask the vast majority of Christians refers to a torture set-up involving 2 pieces of wood not just one. Even xylon refers to wood, or tree, or even club. There is ZERO reference to it being ANYTHING BUT a single piece of wood. But images depict Jesus on the aforementioned 2-piece set-up.
My translation was challenged in regards its accuracy. I couldn’t help but point out the irony.
Bottom line there is no proof to the contrary that either word can or should be rendered as a crossbeam setup. This concept was added later.
Also, please, to further answer your question, what does your Bible say at Galatians 3:13?
(why translation is important)[/quote]
No, what it points out is the folly of sola scriptura. You are misleading yourself and (potentially) others.
None of what you said above really addresses what I said in my post; so I won’t simply re-iterate.
[/quote]
There was prophecy involving the use of a stake in Jesus death. Therefore, how he died was absolutely critical. De 21:23.[/quote]
Right - because prophecies are always fulfilled precisely and to the exact letter. Please - this is getting silly.
Nota bena: you still haven’t responded to my post.
[/quote]
I can’t believe you just used sarcasm there. All prophecies MUST be fulled precisely, other wise it wouldn’t be a fulfilled prophecy.[/quote]
Oh? Really? Where does is say this in scripture? You claim to follow scripture EXACTLY. SO I WANT THE EXACT WORDING ABOVE. EXACT. LIKE THIS: “All prophecies MUST be fulled precisely, otherwise it wouldn’t be a fulfilled prophecy.”
Here:
[quote] Katzenjammer wrote:
This is just pure nonsense. Both stauros and xylon were often used to signify a cross, a tree, a stake, and many other things. To emphasize one or the other on purely linguistic grounds is, well, dishonest.
What all this points out is the danger of focusing only on the Holy Scripture - because customarily, the Romans put Jews to death on a stake with a cross beam, or patibulum, which they were made to carry themselves. This is a matter of indisputable fact.[/quote]
[quote]dmaddox wrote:
[quote]honest_lifter wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
I will definitely leave you to have your opinion. However, do you recall the purpose of the fiery-serpent?[/quote]
8 And the Lord said to him: Make brazen serpent, and set it up for a sign: whosoever being struck shall look on it, shall live. 9 Moses therefore made a brazen serpent, and set it up for a sign: which when they that were bitten looked upon, they were healed.
My mistake it was not a fiery serpent, but a brazen serpent. It was so when they were bitten by the fiery snakes that they could look upon the statue and live.[/quote]
That is true. they looked upon it to get healed. how does that tie in with your use of statues? Because as we know, God commanded the serpent be destroyed when it started to be used in worship. - 2 Kings 18:4,5
[/quote]
Lets interpret correctly. The snakes were not being used in worship, but were being worshipped. The people were burning incense to the serpent. There is a big difference. The serpent was leading people astray from the God who gave them the serpent to heal them. God was doing the healing and not the brazen snake. As long as the statues are not leading people astray from God there is nothing wrong with them in any churches.
Your founder says other wise then that is just putting up a hedge to keep you from sinning. The same thing that the Pharasees did to the Jews. The same thing that the Baptists did, no dancing, no drinking alcohol, to keep people from sinning. Is there really anything wrong with this, not in and of itself, but when you start to lead people from the Grace that God is giving to us freely then there is an issue. Jesus had an issue with it because the Pharasees were thinking of themselves more highly than the lay people because they came up with the rules.[/quote]
OK, I will not argue that point, upon further looking into it, that very well can be.
A couple scriptures to reason on:
John 4:23,24
“True worshipers will worship the father in spirit and truth: this is the kind of worship the father wants. God is a spirit, and those who worship must worship in spirit and truth.”
2 Cor 5:7
“We walk by faith, not by sight.”
Isa 40:18
“To who could you liken God? What image could you contrive of him?”
Acts 17:29
“since we are the children of God, we have no excuse for thinking that the deity looks like anything in gold, silver or stone, that has been carved and designed by a man.”
Isa 42:8
My name is Yahweh, I will not yield my glory to another, nor my honor to idols (or “graven things”)
1 Tim 2:5
“there is only one God, and there is only one mediator between God and mankind, himself a man, Christ Jesus.”
[quote]katzenjammer wrote:
[quote]honest_lifter wrote:
[quote]katzenjammer wrote:
[quote]honest_lifter wrote:
[quote]katzenjammer wrote:
[quote]honest_lifter wrote:
[quote]katzenjammer wrote:
[quote]honest_lifter wrote:
The book The Non-Christian Cross, by John Denham Parsons, states: “There is not a single sentence in any of the numerous writings forming the New Testament, which, in the original Greek, bears even indirect evidence to the effect that the stauros used in the case of Jesus was other than an ordinary stauros; much less to the effect that it consisted, not of one piece of timber, but of two pieces nailed together in the form of a cross…it is not a little misleading upon the part of our teachers to translate the word stauros as ‘cross’ when rendering the Greek documents of the Church into our native tongue, and to support that action by putting ‘cross’ in our lexicons as the meaning of stauros without carefully explaining that that was at any rate not the primary meaning of the word in the days of the Apostles, did not become its primary signification till long afterwards, and became so then, if at all, only because, despite the absence of corroborative evidence, it was for some reason or other assumed that the particular stauros upon which Jesus was executed had that particular shape.”-London, 1896, pp. 23, 24.
In classical Greek the word (stauros’)primarily denotes an upright stake, or pole, and there is no evidence that the writers of the Christian Greek Scriptures used it to designate a stake with a crossbeam.
Google it. [/quote]
This is just pure nonsense. Both stauros and xylon were often used to signify a cross, a tree, a stake, and many other things. To emphasize one or the other on purely linguistic grounds is, well, dishonest.
What all this points out is the danger of focusing only on the Holy Scripture - because customarily, the Romans put Jews to death on a stake with a cross beam, or patibulum, which they were made to carry themselves. This is a matter of indisputable fact.
Finally, really, does matter if it was an actual “cross” as we understand it - or a stake?
[/quote]
There! The heat of the matter. Does it really matter. Yes. Yes, it matters because of why I brought it up in the first place. The translation I use was put under attack. That there are words added and taken out to fit my doctrine. In the very verses he quoted it had cross, which today, if you ask the vast majority of Christians refers to a torture set-up involving 2 pieces of wood not just one. Even xylon refers to wood, or tree, or even club. There is ZERO reference to it being ANYTHING BUT a single piece of wood. But images depict Jesus on the aforementioned 2-piece set-up.
My translation was challenged in regards its accuracy. I couldn’t help but point out the irony.
Bottom line there is no proof to the contrary that either word can or should be rendered as a crossbeam setup. This concept was added later.
Also, please, to further answer your question, what does your Bible say at Galatians 3:13?
(why translation is important)[/quote]
No, what it points out is the folly of sola scriptura. You are misleading yourself and (potentially) others.
None of what you said above really addresses what I said in my post; so I won’t simply re-iterate.
[/quote]
There was prophecy involving the use of a stake in Jesus death. Therefore, how he died was absolutely critical. De 21:23.[/quote]
Right - because prophecies are always fulfilled precisely and to the exact letter. Please - this is getting silly.
Nota bena: you still haven’t responded to my post.
[/quote]
I can’t believe you just used sarcasm there. All prophecies MUST be fulled precisely, other wise it wouldn’t be a fulfilled prophecy.[/quote]
Oh? Really? Where does is say this in scripture? You claim to follow scripture EXACTLY. SO I WANT THE EXACT WORDING ABOVE. EXACT. LIKE THIS: “All prophecies MUST be fulled precisely, otherwise it wouldn’t be a fulfilled prophecy.”
Here:
[quote] Katzenjammer wrote:
This is just pure nonsense. Both stauros and xylon were often used to signify a cross, a tree, a stake, and many other things. To emphasize one or the other on purely linguistic grounds is, well, dishonest.
What all this points out is the danger of focusing only on the Holy Scripture - because customarily, the Romans put Jews to death on a stake with a cross beam, or patibulum, which they were made to carry themselves. This is a matter of indisputable fact.[/quote]
[/quote]
You are right, you will not find my words I used in the Bible. May I ask, then, if they don’t have to be exact, what separates them from mere coincidence?
Just some additional information about the origins of the cross as it is known today.
[quote]honest_lifter wrote:
You are right, you will not find my words I used in the Bible.
[/quote]
Okay. Now. Nevertheless, that sentence above is an interpretive principle that you make use of in reading the Bible, right?
A great deal - but let’s return to this after we square away the above.
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]MBH wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
3 Jesus answered, and said to him: Amen, amen I say to thee, unless a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.
12 But as many as received him, he gave them power to be made the sons of God, to them that believe in his name. 13 Who are born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.
I am going to presume that is talking about after you die, being resurrected (or born again) to Heaven. Not that you are born again during this life time.[/quote]
Actually, no, you need to be born again during this lifetime.
[/quote]
Proof, because so far your scripture has just pointed that you’re born again is after you are dead in other words resurrection. [/quote]
To explain why it is not after we physically die when we are born again:
John 3:5-6 “Truly, truly I say to you, unless one is born of water [physical] and the Spirit he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.”
Romans 8:8 “If anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he does not belong to Him.”
1 Cor 2:14 “The man without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God, …”
The above verses refer to the Spirit dwelling in a person during their lifetime before they die physically. The Spirit comes into a person when they are “born again”. When a person is born physically they do not have the Spirit (they are spiritually dead). That is why they need to be born again. The second “birth” is when they are born of (indwelt by) the Spirit after being born physically (Jesus used the term “water”; we are born in a sack of water).
[quote]I am not talking about the death and resurrection of the physical body, which will happen. I’m talking about spiritual life and death. We are born into this world spiritually dead, and in order not to remain dead, we must receive the life of God into our human spirit to raise us from the dead spiritually.
[/quote]
To explain being born spiritually dead:
Gen 1:27 “And God created man in His own image in the image of God He created him…”
The Bible teaches that God is a spirit, without a body or physical form. Therefore, this verse can’t be saying that we look like God. There are other forms of life that God created. What could it mean that man was created in God’s image? The answer is in the spiritual aspect of man. The human spirit is the part of man that enables him to relate to and know God, and is the source of his inner drives for love, acceptance, meaning, and purpose in life. Man’s spirit was created to be united with God’s Spirit and was the means through which he originally enjoyed perfect fellowship with God. God wanted His relationship with man to be a love relationship, received and expressed back to Him through the agency of faith. Man had to be given free will, because love can only be possible where man is free to choose. Through this free relationship-God and man united in spiritual life-God had access into Adam’s soul, his mind, will, and emotions; totally influencing his behavior. Every thought, word, emotion, and deed of Adam and Eve were a perfect representation of God. They lived bearing a full, visible representation of the invisible God. This is the answer to being created in the image of God-not a physical image, but the display of a certain kind of life-God’s life. Since neither Adam nor Eve were God, that life in them was totally determined by their free decision to remain in that dependent relationship.
Genesis 2:17 “…for in the day that you eat from it you will surely die.”
Gen 3:4,5 “You surely shall not die! For God knows that in the day that you eat from it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.”
They were offered the chance (the lie) to step outside of their dependent faith relationship with God, and to be independent (“you will be like God”). Satan was saying you don’t need God to be a man, be your own god, decide for yourself what is good and evil.
Adam and Eve didn’t die physically that day, but by believing Satan’s lie and calling God a liar, they did die spiritually. God honored their free choice and withdrew His life from them.
Gen 5:1,3 “In the day when God created man, He made him in the likeness of God…When Adam had lived 130 years, he became the father of a son in his own likeness, according to his image, and named him Seth. Then the days of Adam after he became the father of Seth were 800 years, and he had other sons and daughters.”
Adam and Eve could not pass on spiritual life that they no longer possessed, and all their descendants are born spiritually dead. This is why the virgin birth is significant; it was the only way Jesus could be born spiritually alive. Otherwise He would have inherited the human state of spiritual death and their sinful human nature. He had to be born alive spiritually so He would have a life to lay down on our behalf.
The issue in salvation is life and death. Jesus Christ, spiritually alive, laid down His life for us, so that He could give His life to us because we were spiritually dead. “You were dead in your transgressions and sins” (Eph 2:1) “Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men, because all sinned.” (Rom 5:12)
Everyone who comes to Him in faith receives His very life through the indwelling Holy Spirit. “But God, being rich in mercy, because of His great love with which He loved us, even when we were dead in our transgressions, made us alive together with Christ (by grace you have been saved).” (Eph 2:4,5)
[quote]
Really? And creation is real and there was a solid water cloud that covered the earth and we all breathed O3 and lived close to a thousand years. I am sure Adam did not really live to be 930 years old.
Jesus has not taken away all our sins, we still have to ask God for them to be forgiven that has been clear for a long time. However, dying at the Cross has allowed for all sins to be forgiven. To have salvation.[/quote]
Regarding whether Jesus has taken away our sins:
John 1:29 “The next day John saw Jesus coming toward him and said, ‘Look, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world!’”
Heb 9:28 “So Christ was sacrificed once to take away the sins of many people…”
1 John 3:5 “But you know that He appeared so that He might take away our sins.”
1 John 2:2 “He is the One who turns aside God’s wrath, taking away our sins, and not only ours, but also the sins of the whole world.”
Atonement covered our sins; Christ took away our sins.
And please note that you still have not answered my post, which I will add to for clarity:
[quote]Katzenjammer wrote:
This is just pure nonsense. Both stauros and xylon were often used to signify a cross, a tree, a stake, and many other things. To emphasize one meaning over another on purely linguistic grounds is, well, dishonest.
What all this points out is the danger of focusing only on the Holy Scripture - because customarily, the Romans put Jews to death on a stake with a cross beam, or patibulum, which they were made to carry themselves. This is a matter of indisputable fact. Why ignore this fact in your interpretation of the word?
[/quote]
[quote]katzenjammer wrote:
And please note that you still have not answered my post, which I will add to for clarity:
[quote]Katzenjammer wrote:
This is just pure nonsense. Both stauros and xylon were often used to signify a cross, a tree, a stake, and many other things. To emphasize one meaning over another on purely linguistic grounds is, well, dishonest.
What all this points out is the danger of focusing only on the Holy Scripture - because customarily, the Romans put Jews to death on a stake with a cross beam, or patibulum, which they were made to carry themselves. This is a matter of indisputable fact. Why ignore this fact in your interpretation of the word?
[/quote][/quote]
Look at the history of the cross please. It doesn’t start around Jesus. The fact you are using needs to be grounded further to continue this discussion as that is a strong base point.
[quote]honest_lifter wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
I will definitely leave you to have your opinion. However, do you recall the purpose of the fiery-serpent?[/quote]
8 And the Lord said to him: Make brazen serpent, and set it up for a sign: whosoever being struck shall look on it, shall live. 9 Moses therefore made a brazen serpent, and set it up for a sign: which when they that were bitten looked upon, they were healed.
My mistake it was not a fiery serpent, but a brazen serpent. It was so when they were bitten by the fiery snakes that they could look upon the statue and live.[/quote]
That is true. they looked upon it to get healed. how does that tie in with your use of statues? Because as we know, God commanded the serpent be destroyed when it started to be used in worship. - 2 Kings 18:4,5
[/quote]
Not when they started to use it in worship, because they came to the Lord to be healed, and the Lord gave them the serpent to be healed. However, when they said that the serpent was the source of power (or God) to be worshiped then it was determined by God that it needed to be destroyed.
[quote]honest_lifter wrote:
[quote]katzenjammer wrote:
And please note that you still have not answered my post, which I will add to for clarity:
[quote]Katzenjammer wrote:
This is just pure nonsense. Both stauros and xylon were often used to signify a cross, a tree, a stake, and many other things. To emphasize one meaning over another on purely linguistic grounds is, well, dishonest.
What all this points out is the danger of focusing only on the Holy Scripture - because customarily, the Romans put Jews to death on a stake with a cross beam, or patibulum, which they were made to carry themselves. This is a matter of indisputable fact. Why ignore this fact in your interpretation of the word?
[/quote][/quote]
Look at the history of the cross please. It doesn’t start around Jesus. The fact you are using needs to be grounded further to continue this discussion as that is a strong base point.[/quote]
It is well established that crosses were used by Romans as a means to execute Jews at the time of Christ.
[quote]honest_lifter wrote:
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]honest_lifter wrote:
[quote]ckallander wrote:
Up the punks![/quote]
The bible doesn’t say that hell is a place of torment. It is just the common grave, where you would be going anyway when you die. No harm no foul.[/quote]
You couldn’t be more wrong, hell is a real place where there is real punishment which you feel and it lasts for eternity:
Matthew 13:42 “And shall cast them into a furnace of fire: there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth.”
Matt 25:41: “Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels.” This passage relates to Jesus’ judgment of all the world.
Mark 9:43-48: And if thy hand offend thee, cut it off: it is better for thee to enter into life maimed, than having two hands to go into hell, into the fire that never shall be quenched."
Luke 16:24: “And he cried and said, Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus, that he may dip the tip of his finger in water, and cool my tongue; for I am tormented in this flame.” (This is a plea described as coming from an inhabitant of Hell).
Revelation 20:13-15: “…hell delivered up the dead which were in them…And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death. And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire.”
Revelation 21:8: “But the fearful, and unbelieving … shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone.”
Matthew 25:46: " And these shall go away into everlasting punishment."
Mark 9:43-48: “…it is better for thee to enter into life maimed, than having two hands to go into hell, into the fire that never shall be quenched”
Revelation 14:11: " And the smoke of their torment ascendeth up for ever and ever: and they have no rest day nor night…"
[/quote]
Do you think God would allow humans to suffer eternal torment for just 80 years of bad deeds?[/quote]
The Bible is clear that “no one knows the mind of God”. What you may suppose to be true is based on your human emotions, some even quote hollywoods version of God to bolster their confidence. This would be funny if it were not so very sad. By the way do you think it’s “fair” that one reckless act done on earth should cause immediate death? One wrong turn, one extra drink, simply being in the wrong place at the wrong time. If you have 80 years I can assure you that (like you today) you will be exposed to the truth, if you refuse that truth, you might say you’ve taken that one wrong turn.
[quote[How would you reconcile that with the scriptures that say when we die, we are no longer conscious of anything?[/quote]
I’ve just given you multiple scriptures that speak of one feeling eternal torment, and there are more. Now tell me how do you reconcile those scriptures?
[quote]honest_lifter wrote:
I have no problem having these discussions. However, you and I are both aware that only those looking are going to be open for change. I am 25, and have been involved in a preaching work for the past 10+ years.
Many people have listened, many people have been perfectly happy where they are. That is a personal choice. There are going to be scriptures in the Bible that can be used out of context and applied to fit any need, we all know that.
I am enjoying the rather civil conversations that we are having and my personal hope is that people see the points I am trying to make. Of course, I have been doing this long enough to know that isn’t possible.
For the most part, we all feel we are right and that is why we are defending our positions.[/quote]
I really hope that you’ve not been spreading the “you feel nothing after death” nonsense. This is simply leading people down the wrong road. I quoted several passages which contradict you and there are many, many more. I believe you to be well intended but very confused.
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]honest_lifter wrote:
I have no problem having these discussions. However, you and I are both aware that only those looking are going to be open for change. I am 25, and have been involved in a preaching work for the past 10+ years.
Many people have listened, many people have been perfectly happy where they are. That is a personal choice. There are going to be scriptures in the Bible that can be used out of context and applied to fit any need, we all know that.
I am enjoying the rather civil conversations that we are having and my personal hope is that people see the points I am trying to make. Of course, I have been doing this long enough to know that isn’t possible.
For the most part, we all feel we are right and that is why we are defending our positions.[/quote]
I really hope that you’ve not been spreading the “you feel nothing after death” nonsense. This is simply leading people down the wrong road. I quoted several passages which contradict you and there are many, many more. I believe you to be well intended but very confused.[/quote]
If you don’t want to listen you don’t have to. There is scriptural backing for it, which I have shared. The idea of a hell fire was not an original teaching.
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]honest_lifter wrote:
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]honest_lifter wrote:
[quote]ckallander wrote:
Up the punks![/quote]
The bible doesn’t say that hell is a place of torment. It is just the common grave, where you would be going anyway when you die. No harm no foul.[/quote]
You couldn’t be more wrong, hell is a real place where there is real punishment which you feel and it lasts for eternity:
Matthew 13:42 “And shall cast them into a furnace of fire: there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth.”
Matt 25:41: “Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels.” This passage relates to Jesus’ judgment of all the world.
Mark 9:43-48: And if thy hand offend thee, cut it off: it is better for thee to enter into life maimed, than having two hands to go into hell, into the fire that never shall be quenched."
Luke 16:24: “And he cried and said, Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus, that he may dip the tip of his finger in water, and cool my tongue; for I am tormented in this flame.” (This is a plea described as coming from an inhabitant of Hell).
Revelation 20:13-15: “…hell delivered up the dead which were in them…And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death. And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire.”
Revelation 21:8: “But the fearful, and unbelieving … shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone.”
Matthew 25:46: " And these shall go away into everlasting punishment."
Mark 9:43-48: “…it is better for thee to enter into life maimed, than having two hands to go into hell, into the fire that never shall be quenched”
Revelation 14:11: " And the smoke of their torment ascendeth up for ever and ever: and they have no rest day nor night…"
[/quote]
Do you think God would allow humans to suffer eternal torment for just 80 years of bad deeds?[/quote]
The Bible is clear that “no one knows the mind of God”. What you may suppose to be true is based on your human emotions, some even quote hollywoods version of God to bolster their confidence. This would be funny if it were not so very sad. By the way do you think it’s “fair” that one reckless act done on earth should cause immediate death? One wrong turn, one extra drink, simply being in the wrong place at the wrong time. If you have 80 years I can assure you that (like you today) you will be exposed to the truth, if you refuse that truth, you might say you’ve taken that one wrong turn.
If you want to have an intelligent, probing discussion about this topic I will be more than happy to. We take it to the original languages for the scriptures in question and we view it with an open mind to establish the true points. Is that something that you are willing to do? No preconceived notions? I will do the same.
[quote]katzenjammer wrote:
[quote]honest_lifter wrote:
[quote]katzenjammer wrote:
And please note that you still have not answered my post, which I will add to for clarity:
[quote]Katzenjammer wrote:
This is just pure nonsense. Both stauros and xylon were often used to signify a cross, a tree, a stake, and many other things. To emphasize one meaning over another on purely linguistic grounds is, well, dishonest.
What all this points out is the danger of focusing only on the Holy Scripture - because customarily, the Romans put Jews to death on a stake with a cross beam, or patibulum, which they were made to carry themselves. This is a matter of indisputable fact. Why ignore this fact in your interpretation of the word?
[/quote][/quote]
Look at the history of the cross please. It doesn’t start around Jesus. The fact you are using needs to be grounded further to continue this discussion as that is a strong base point.[/quote]
It is well established that crosses were used by Romans as a means to execute Jews at the time of Christ.
[/quote]
Did you honestly look up the history of the cross and its origins and meanings?