The Church or The Bible

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
281

[quote]honest_lifter wrote:

[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?[/quote]

I looked it up Wikipedia, and saw there were many ways of crucifing people. Some with a stake, some with a tree, and other methods that we have all discussed. The one item I found most interesting is when it stated that when a person was asked to carry the cross it was told that the only part that was carried was the cross beam that went on top of the steak being used. This form of crucificition was used by the Romans towards a conquered people group. I read it to mean that there were 2 pieces of the cross and this would back up the historical reference of the Catholic and Protestant churches are correct. John 19:16-17 states, "Finally Pilate handed him over to them to be crucified. So the soldiers took charge of Jesus. Carrying his own cross, he went out to the place of the Skull (which in Aramaic is called Golgotha).

I know that this is Wikipedia, and is not the most definitive source, but I did learn there were many ways to crucify people. I can see your point about the stake and I have no quams believing that some people were crucified this way, but Jesus was no way crucified in this manner.

I would like to see Katz response though.

282

[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.

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]

I have to bring this up. If all prophecies MUST be fullfilled precisely then how do you explain the Jehovah’s Witnesses prophecies of Armageddon? I will put a list of dates down of when the leaders of the Jehovah’s Witnesses believed Armageddon would start. They picked years and not months and dates. All of these dates were published in the Watch Tower, so please do not say they do not exist.

1914
1925
1975
1985
1989
2000

When each year came and went the prophecy was changed and explained away. The last few babies born in 1914 do not have many years left, and then the Kindom Halls will no longer have any people left of the original 144,000. When are you going to realize that you have been led astray and decieved by Satan? Pray to the true God and he will reveal the truth to you. Ask him.

283

[quote]dmaddox 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.

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]

I have to bring this up. If all prophecies MUST be fullfilled precisely then how do you explain the Jehovah’s Witnesses prophecies of Armageddon? I will put a list of dates down of when the leaders of the Jehovah’s Witnesses believed Armageddon would start. They picked years and not months and dates. All of these dates were published in the Watch Tower, so please do not say they do not exist.

1914
1925
1975
1985
1989
2000

When each year came and went the prophecy was changed and explained away. The last few babies born in 1914 do not have many years left, and then the Kindom Halls will no longer have any people left of the original 144,000. When are you going to realize that you have been led astray and decieved by Satan? Pray to the true God and he will reveal the truth to you. Ask him.
[/quote]

You are just plain incorrect with those statements. Sorry.

284

[quote]honest_lifter wrote:

[quote]dmaddox 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.

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]

I have to bring this up. If all prophecies MUST be fullfilled precisely then how do you explain the Jehovah’s Witnesses prophecies of Armageddon? I will put a list of dates down of when the leaders of the Jehovah’s Witnesses believed Armageddon would start. They picked years and not months and dates. All of these dates were published in the Watch Tower, so please do not say they do not exist.

1914
1925
1975
1985
1989
2000

When each year came and went the prophecy was changed and explained away. The last few babies born in 1914 do not have many years left, and then the Kindom Halls will no longer have any people left of the original 144,000. When are you going to realize that you have been led astray and decieved by Satan? Pray to the true God and he will reveal the truth to you. Ask him.
[/quote]

You are just plain incorrect with those statements. Sorry.[/quote]

So why were those dates published by your Leaders? What are they suppose to mean?

286

Wow DMADDOX you went from a bibical discussion to a personal attack. Your religion must be one of the reasons most wars are religious.

287

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
It consistently amazes me that the phrase “Live and let live” is left out of religion so often.

I don’t know when it became “Believe what I do or you’re going to hell.”

You people are all pathetic. [/quote]

The issue here is not about whether “believe what I do or you’re going to hell.” The issue is that people believe they are Christian and are leading people to believe as such, but they twist the truth to take their own view. Christianity if black and white. Possing yourself as a Christian then the doctrines are pretty much the same. You can go from Church to Chruch and the core foundation of Christianity is still in tact, such as Jesus is the only way to Heaven. The trinity, the sacraments, the death, burrial, and resurrection of Jesus. If other Religions would separate themselves from Christianity and not state they have the new word of God, and have been given the true interpretation of the Bible, then everything would be fine. Religions that state we have the new translation of the Bible and it is not based in the true scripture and then take the actual doctrines of the Church and then spin them, miss interpret them, that is when Christians rise up against Heresy.

You believe in a live and let live mentality, but if someone tried to twist something that is most dear to you, would you not have an issue? This is an example and my be off base, but if someone came into your house and stated the man you believed to be your father your whole life was not your father. Then they had some falsified document stating they were your father, but they could not proove it to you by using State records, and their DNA did not match yours, and by doing such your brothers and sisters started leaving your house for this false father, you would not have an issue? You would not protect your household?

288

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
It consistently amazes me that the phrase “Live and let live” is left out of religion so often.

I don’t know when it became “Believe what I do or you’re going to hell.”

You people are all pathetic. [/quote]

Careful with your stereotypes, that is not true. You can’t come here read one post amke make that determination. It’s a passionate topic. You get ensnared by saying we’re pathetic because of a single post. You are passionate about it to. Apparently you also cannot live and let live when it comes to religious belief, otherwise you would have said nothing at all.

289

[quote]dmaddox 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.

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]

I have to bring this up. If all prophecies MUST be fullfilled precisely then how do you explain the Jehovah’s Witnesses prophecies of Armageddon? I will put a list of dates down of when the leaders of the Jehovah’s Witnesses believed Armageddon would start. They picked years and not months and dates. All of these dates were published in the Watch Tower, so please do not say they do not exist.

1914
1925
1975
1985
1989
2000

When each year came and went the prophecy was changed and explained away. The last few babies born in 1914 do not have many years left, and then the Kindom Halls will no longer have any people left of the original 144,000. When are you going to realize that you have been led astray and decieved by Satan? Pray to the true God and he will reveal the truth to you. Ask him.
[/quote]

A little much, dude.
None of us have all the answers. Honest is looking for truth in as much as we are. We are all a little off from the truth. Faith doesn’t have to come from perfect knowledge to be a good faith. A perfect church belongs to perfect people.

290

[quote]BULLD0G700 wrote:
Wow DMADDOX you went from a bibical discussion to a personal attack. Your religion must be one of the reasons most wars are religious.[/quote]

Nice first post there BULLDOG. My questions have been fair. We want to know his motivations. You all know ours.

291

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]dmaddox 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.

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]

I have to bring this up. If all prophecies MUST be fullfilled precisely then how do you explain the Jehovah’s Witnesses prophecies of Armageddon? I will put a list of dates down of when the leaders of the Jehovah’s Witnesses believed Armageddon would start. They picked years and not months and dates. All of these dates were published in the Watch Tower, so please do not say they do not exist.

1914
1925
1975
1985
1989
2000

When each year came and went the prophecy was changed and explained away. The last few babies born in 1914 do not have many years left, and then the Kindom Halls will no longer have any people left of the original 144,000. When are you going to realize that you have been led astray and decieved by Satan? Pray to the true God and he will reveal the truth to you. Ask him.
[/quote]

A little much, dude.
None of us have all the answers. Honest is looking for truth in as much as we are. We are all a little off from the truth. Faith doesn’t have to come from perfect knowledge to be a good faith. A perfect church belongs to perfect people. [/quote]

If Honest was looking for the truth instead of spreading heretics he would actually read what is said to him and not just exclaim “you are wrong.” Honest would actually bring factual reason/logic or truth to the table. Every time he is pointed out to be wrong he has not evidence to the matter to explain how the person is wrong, they are just wrong. However when I or any of the others point out he is wrong we gladly give him proof of such things.

292

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

If Honest was looking for the truth instead of spreading heretics he would actually read what is said to him and not just exclaim “you are wrong.” Honest would actually bring factual reason/logic or truth to the table. Every time he is pointed out to be wrong he has not evidence to the matter to explain how the person is wrong, they are just wrong. However when I or any of the others point out he is wrong we gladly give him proof of such things.[/quote]

I am looking for the truth. I said he was wrong because he made a personal attack on my religion without any substantial information. I will not be sucked into a debate when the basis is that of malicious intent.

Others observed and commented on the nature of dmaddux’s comment.

If you don’t feel I brought research to the table, please reread my posts, and if you taken genuine exception to them, share, and we can have intelligent discussions. Otherwise, keep comments designed to incite arguments or to tear down aside, as I will not reply to any more of them.

293

I was just surprised that you question his religion, while in your second post you support the Catholic religion which have said and done wrong things also (my aunt still doesn’t eat meat on Fridays’)and also supporting Nazi Germany, let alone go into its gruesome past. Pat said it best in his post people are passoniate in what they believe. Just thought it was an unfair shot on your part

294

[quote]BULLD0G700 wrote:
I was just surprised that you question his religion, while in your second post you support the Catholic religion which have said and done wrong things also (my aunt still doesn’t eat meat on Fridays’)and also supporting Nazi Germany, let alone go into its gruesome past. Pat said it best in his post people are passoniate in what they believe. Just thought it was an unfair shot on your part[/quote]

I would like to appologize, it was an unfair shot. Passionate is a good term. The issue is the Catholic Church has appologized and asked for forgiveness from the Israel Nation for their past sins. This is why I am so passionate. The Jehovah’s Witnesses believe they are correct, and that all their doctrine is truth. My post, as blunt and attack oriented as it was, was looking for an answer. If Leaders believe in certain dates and these Leaders are the ones that translated their Bible, and have devised their Doctrine, would it not be logical to say that their translation and doctrine is way off base. All the direct questions about his faith have been pulled out of their publications.

295

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]dmaddox 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.

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]

I have to bring this up. If all prophecies MUST be fullfilled precisely then how do you explain the Jehovah’s Witnesses prophecies of Armageddon? I will put a list of dates down of when the leaders of the Jehovah’s Witnesses believed Armageddon would start. They picked years and not months and dates. All of these dates were published in the Watch Tower, so please do not say they do not exist.

1914
1925
1975
1985
1989
2000

When each year came and went the prophecy was changed and explained away. The last few babies born in 1914 do not have many years left, and then the Kindom Halls will no longer have any people left of the original 144,000. When are you going to realize that you have been led astray and decieved by Satan? Pray to the true God and he will reveal the truth to you. Ask him.
[/quote]

A little much, dude.
None of us have all the answers. Honest is looking for truth in as much as we are. We are all a little off from the truth. Faith doesn’t have to come from perfect knowledge to be a good faith. A perfect church belongs to perfect people. [/quote]

If Honest was looking for the truth instead of spreading heretics he would actually read what is said to him and not just exclaim “you are wrong.” Honest would actually bring factual reason/logic or truth to the table. Every time he is pointed out to be wrong he has not evidence to the matter to explain how the person is wrong, they are just wrong. However when I or any of the others point out he is wrong we gladly give him proof of such things.[/quote]

Granted I can see where he has not answered questions he has been challenged with, but he’s our brother. You can call him out on that, but not with hostility. I was afraid this may turn out to be a “My church has a bigger dick than yours” kind of thread. Keep in mind we are on a public forum. It’d be rare anybody change their minds based on what people think here. We are kind of anonymous. We should not get pissed because somebody doesn’t think like we do. They’re not going, especially not here.

296

[quote]BULLD0G700 wrote:
I was just surprised that you question his religion, while in your second post you support the Catholic religion which have said and done wrong things also (my aunt still doesn’t eat meat on Fridays’)and also supporting Nazi Germany, let alone go into its gruesome past. Pat said it best in his post people are passoniate in what they believe. Just thought it was an unfair shot on your part[/quote]

It did NOT support Nazi Germany. This is a myth. There was early cooperation nobody knew what was going to happen. The church was merely reaching out to the new governement as they would to any country whose government changed hands where a large Catholic contingent existed. This was short lived. Pope Pius wrote an encyclical condemning the Nazi’s and Germany. Hence, they rounded up the clergy threw them in to the concentration camps. Between 2 and 4 million Catholics were fried in those ovens.

297

[quote]BULLD0G700 wrote:
I was just surprised that you question his religion, while in your second post you support the Catholic religion which have said and done wrong things also (my aunt still doesn’t eat meat on Fridays’)and also supporting Nazi Germany, let alone go into its gruesome past. Pat said it best in his post people are passoniate in what they believe. Just thought it was an unfair shot on your part[/quote]

Well I am deeply sorry your Aunt freely chooses to not eat meat on Friday, bless her heart. And would you like to show evidence of the Catholic Church supporting Nazi Germany?

Yes, the Catholic Church did horrendous things even to our own kind in the past. What do you want us to do say everything is wrong, especially when it is two different subject matters? Your examples will fail as proof of the false teachings and Catholic Church being wrong in matters of religion. Please support your examples with proof of wrong doing or come up with other examples please. This is a theological debate, not if the Catholic Church did something corrupt in its affairs. However, please elaborate on the Catholic Church’s corruption further as your two examples have no weight so far in an argument of corruption (which could implicate the Church further on matters of theology).

298

[quote]honest_lifter wrote:

[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]

Nonsense, pure nonsense.

"2 Cor. 5:10

And Jesus spoke of a rich man; “In hell where he was intorment…I beg you, father send Lazarus to my father’s house, for I have five brothers. Let him warn them, so that they will not also come to this place of torment…they will repent.”

Do you think that the rich man was enjoying himself in hell? Do you think he was oblivious to the torment that he wanted to warn his brothers about?

It might be time to admit that you’ve been buying into the wrong information. We do live in a time where no one wants to admit that there are consequences for their actions. This no punishment in hell nonsense speaks directly to this current popular mind-set. Isn’t it wonderful that we can do anything that we want and there will be no punishment for it, you just simply fade away cease to exist. What a tragic and misguided concept to be peddling

I hope no one is fooled by this nonsense. There are indeed consequences for all of your actions on this earth and beyond.

299

[quote]honest_lifter wrote:

[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.

[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?

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]

I don’t have to do that because I’ve already done it. I’ve researched this topic many times in the past. I’ve looked at the original Greek version and also ancient Hebrew. There is no basis for your position other than it’s a modern way to twist the scriptures in order to not feel pressure to not sin. If one simply fades away, how convenient.

Really, stop it.

300

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
It consistently amazes me that the phrase “Live and let live” is left out of religion so often.

I don’t know when it became “Believe what I do or you’re going to hell.”

You people are all pathetic. [/quote]

If you had any sort of understanding or respect for the Bible (and I know you don’t) you would understand that it’s not me, or anyone on this thread that is claiming “believe what I do or you’re going to hell” it’s God’s word.

301

[quote]BULLD0G700 wrote:
Wow DMADDOX you went from a bibical discussion to a personal attack. Your religion must be one of the reasons most wars are religious.[/quote]

Let’s have some proof that most wars are religious, the fact is it’s quite the opposite.