It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Is the Cross Just Another Lie? (Revised)

page: 7
6
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 9 2008 @ 05:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by MatrixProphet
reply to post by Crispus
 

I appreciate all the work you did, but I do not find it to be substantial enough to argue my points.

Do you agree that there's historical evidence that shows those condemned to crucifixion would often carry the patibulum even before Jesus' time?


Originally posted by MatrixProphet

"Though the procedure was subject to wide variation according to the whim and sadism of the executioner, by the Roman period several features were fairly standard. With a placard proclaiming the crime hung around the neck, the condemned prisoner carried the crossbar, not the whole cross, to the place of execution where the upright stake was already in place."
(Harper's Bible Dictionary, 1985 edition, p. 194; see also the Anchor Bible Dictionary Volume 1, 1992 edition, pp. 1208-1209)


The problem with this is: are the writer's of this theory regarding Jesus biased? Are the writers of the above Bible Dictionary's biased and would they have reason to be? Other scholars as I have indicated before have expressed their anger and distaste regarding how the cross was added to lexicons etc. to support Christian bias.

Other bible commentaries say the same thing because it's based on history. Other sources such such as Bullinger, Hislop and Parsons may be bias too. Bullinger was an Anglican and may have had some prejudiced against the Catholic church. Hislop was anti-Catholic and has been criticized for his methods. One who criticized him was Ralph Woodrow who wrote a book based on Hislop's work then later realized that Hislop's reasoning wasn't sound.


Originally posted by MatrixProphetThe point that is irrefutable is; there is no proof that Jesus died on a cross, nor is there proof that he didn't. So then when making a case a person needs to look at all the angles. How did it fit into the Jewish law? His bones could not be broken to fulfill all the prophesies that Jesus needed to complete, which are about, 327! He needed to die quickly and the cross could take days, weeks etc. and they could still even live.

It could have taken days but his flogging was at the hand of the Romans and not the Jews who gave thirty-nine lashes. They may have given him only thirty-nine since he was a Jew but weren't obliged to do so.


Originally posted by MatrixProphet[I will not rehash all the information that has already been dispensed by myself and others. Just go back and read all the posts. Many others are questioning it, or like myself - believe it to be a lie. You have not changed my thinking.

Okay but since I've researched the WT and debated with JW's I'll post some things the WT has said and people can decide if they're bias. I read that Mormons also believe Jesus died on a stake. Some of the WT's selective or questionable quoting to support their belief that Jesus died on a stake is at www.geocities.com...

"The Greek word for cross, (stauros), properly signified a stake, an upright pole, or piece of paling, on which anything might be hung, or which might be used in impaling (fencing in) a piece of ground. But a modification was introduced as the dominion and usages of Rome extended themselves through Greek-speaking countries. Even amongst the Romans, the crux (from which the word cross is derived) appears to have been originally an upright pole, and always remained the more prominent part. But from the time that it began to be used as an instrument of punishment, a traverse piece of wood was commonly added ... about the period of the Gospel Age, crucifixion was usually accomplished by suspending the criminal on a cross piece of wood."
(The Imperial Bible Dictionary", by P. Fairbairn, London, 1874, Vol 1 p. 225)




posted on Apr, 9 2008 @ 05:19 PM
link   
On page 91 of Reasoning from the Scriptures the WT quoted the Imperial Bible Dictionary but didn't include what is in bold print above.

In 'What Has Religion Done for Mankind' the WT said


Constantine was a pagan worshiper of the sun god, and the symbol of this false god was the cross or the letter T, the initial letter of the false god Tammuz. If what Constantine saw in vision was a cross, then it was the sign of his god, for Jesus Christ was not hanged upon a cross but was hanged upon a simple stake. It was from Constantine's time onward that the symbol of the apostate Christianity which he professed to accept was the cross.
('What Has Religion Done for Mankind', 1951, p. 270)

This is not true; the Chi-Rho represents the first two letters of the word 'Christ' in Greek - XPI ΣTOΣ. The oldest image of the chi-rho, or Labarum, on a coin or medallion was made in the city of Ticinum in 315 A.D. Even if the manuscripts which have the chi-rho date to the first half of the third century it was long before Constantine used the symbol on a banner. Professor of New Testament Studies, David L. Balch, and Professor of New Testament, Carolyn Osiek, have found four early papyri with the staurogram (P66, P73, P80, and P91) and two with the abbreviation for cross or crucify (p45 and p46). (Early Christian Families in Context: An Interdisciplinary Dialogue by David L. Balch and Carolyn Osiek, p. 107; compare to preface of An American Translation by William F. Beck, 1976).

Some say the solar wheel was transformed into the labarum but if a similar symbol is found in pagan culture predating Christianity it doesn't necessarily mean it was adopted from a pagan culture. The addition of a circle is often because the Chi-Rho is depicted within a wreath which was common in ancient Rome and Greece and this also may have been inspired by early depictions of the Chi-Rho on coins and medallions. The Chi-Rho is often depicted with the Alpha and Omega in reverence to the God of the bible and the banner which Constantine used looked nothing like a solar wheel or Shamash's symbol. After Constantine defeated Maxentius in 312 A.D. the Chi-Rho replaced the eagle on Roman Standards. I did not find a picture of a symbol of Tammuz that resembles the labarum but comparing the symbol of the closely related Shamash to a Chi-Rho encircled by a wreath it's plain that it has no connection to a Babylonian sun-god or Chaldean solar wheel

www.aloha.net...

www.biblewheel.com...


With so many different designs having been used in false worship, if a person went to the trouble and took the time he might find an undesirable connection with almost every design he sees around him. But why do that? Would it not be needlessly upsetting? And is that the best use of one's time and attention?"(Awake!, Dec. 22, 1976, p. 15)

Ironically, it was Constantine, along with Licinus, who helped end the persecution of Christians including eight years of the most horrific persecution which began under Diocletian. Two years after the Edict of Tolerance was issued by Galerius, Constantine and Licinus proclaimed the Edict of Milan which granted "Christians free and unrestricted opportunity of religious worship."

The Shepherd's crook, or Crosier, is similar to a symbol used in ancient Assyria, Babylonia and was one of the chief attributes of the Egyptian god Osiris who is often depicted holding a crook and a flail. But in Christianity the 'P' is stylized to look like a Shepherd's crook and extends from a Latin cross. It is an emblem of the Apostles and associated with the Good Shepherd, Jesus Christ.



posted on Apr, 9 2008 @ 05:22 PM
link   
In 1963 the Watchtower made an unusual admission about the word stauros:

“. . . the term stauros, the only one used by the Gospel writers when referring to that upon which Jesus hung, could mean either a plain pole, a stake or a cross.” (Awake!, April 8, 1963, p. 28; compare to the November 22, 1976 Awake!, p. 27)


On page 7 of the 1990 edition of 'How Can Blood Can Save Your Life?' there's a picture of Christians crucified on crosses in the Roman coliseum.

On page 1155 of the 1969 edition of the Kingdom Interlinear Translation the WT quotes from "De Cruce Liber Primus" by Justus Lipsius. They show an illustration from his book of a man crucified on a stake and state that this was the way Jesus died. In "De Cruce Liber Primus" there is at least seven illustrations of types of execution are shown. On page 661 of De Cruce Liber Primus the illustration of Christ on the cross and Justus Lipsius says this:

"In the Lord's Cross, there were four pieces of wood, the upright beam, the crossbar, a "tree-trunk" piece of wood placed below, and the title (inscription) placed above."

Why didn't the Watchtower include this illustration but use a picture of a common criminal on a stake instead?


"Tradition, not the Scriptures, also says that the condemned man carried only the crossbeam of the cross, called the patibulum or antenna, instead of both parts. In this way some avoid the predicament of having too much weight for one man to drag or carry a third of a mile (.5 kilometer) from the Castle of Antonia to Golgotha." (Aid to Bible Understanding, p. 824)

It is not tradition but is recorded as a historical fact. Plautus, Dionysius, Seneca and others recorded events that were common knowledge. The WT has admitted that the idea of one man (especially a man who had been flogged) carrying a ten foot, 200 pound stake more than 2,100 feet is a predicament. Quite an admission!


But do not writers early in the Common Era claim that Jesus died on a cross? For example, Justin Martyr (114-167 C.E.) described in this way what he believed to be the type of stake upon which Jesus died: "For the one beam is placed upright, from which the highest extremity is raised up into a horn, when the other beam is fitted on to it, and the ends appear on both sides as horns joined on to the one horn." This indicates that Justin himself believed that Jesus died on a cross. However, Justin was not inspired by God, as were the Bible writers.
(Awake! November 22, 1976 p. 27)

The WT claims that they're not inspired either and no one who writes for them lived during the second century.

Sources often quoted by the Watchtower and JW's are from the late nineteenth century or early twentieth century. These include Parsons' "non Christian Cross" (1892), Jameson's History of our Lord as Exemplified in Works of Art (1872) and the appendix to the Companion Bible by E.W. Bullinger (1896). Because they're old publications does not mean the commentaries are bad; the Popular and Critical Bible Encyclopedia published early in the twentieth century has very informative commentaries on the cross and crucifixion. But there has been much in the way of medical experiments and archaeological discoveries since then. W.E Vine, who is often quoted, died in 1940: the same year that Herman Moedder carried out his experiments.

Something that is quoted by JW apologists and those who believe Jesus died on a torture stake is Appendix 162 of the Companion Bible by E.W. Bullinger. Here are a few statements from the appendix:


The Catacombs in Rome bear the same testimony: "Christ" is never represented there as "hanging on a cross", and the cross itself is only portrayed in a veiled and hesitating manner.

Christ is never portrayed hanging on a torture stake in the Catacombs either and, as Bullinger says , the cross itself is portrayed even if it is only in a veiled and hesitating manner.



posted on Apr, 9 2008 @ 05:25 PM
link   
More from Bullinger:


In his Letters from Rome Dean Burgon says: "I question whether a cross occurs on any Christian monument of the first four centuries".

Burgon wrote that in 1862 and there have been archaeological discoveries since then.


In Mrs. Jameson's famous History of our Lord as Exemplified in Works of Art, she says (vol. ii. p. 315): "It must be owned that ancient objects of art, as far as hitherto known, afford no corroboration of the use of the cross in the simple transverse form familiar to us, at any period preceding, or even closely succeeding, the time of Chrysostom"; and Chrysostom wrote half a century after Constantine!

That is not exactly what Jameson said although the intended meaning is the same. This is what she said with what follows:


"....at any period preceding or even closely succeeding the words of St. Chrysostom. But if the simple cross be not found in any relics of Art, there is no doubt, on the other hand, that another form of it exists on objects coeval with Chrysostom, and that in such abundance as to infer the truth of the fullest meaning of his words. This is, namely, the so-called monogram of Christ, in the more or less complex tracery of which the cross, if not actually seen, is at least indicated. This monogram is composed of two Greek letters, the X or Ch and P or R, which by a usual Greek abbreviation formed one composite letter out of the first consonants of the name of Christ, and was adopted evidently in familiar household usage by Christians alike of the East or West. There is no doubt that this monogram was venerated not only as containing the name of Christ, but as affording to the eye of faith the materials in some sort for the sign of the cross."
(History of our Lord as Exemplified in Works of Art by Anna Brownell Jameson, Vol. 2, p. 315


She wrote that in 1872 and there have been archaeological discoveries since then. In fact the first staurogram illustrated on page 3 of 'The Earliest Christian Artifacts: Manuscripts and Christian Origins' by Larry Hurtado is the same symbol which appears on that page in Jameson's book! On a webpage from a JW apologist it shows a picture from page 167 of Jameson's 'History of our Lord as Exemplified in Works of Art', Vol. 2. /6x453e

The caption in Jameson's book says "Early Crucifixion with Thieves" but that is either erroneous or misleading. The drawing is from astronomer Paolo Frisi who lived from 1728-1784 and the drawing is believed to be an 11th-century depiction of the Crucifixion. The picture shows what appears to be the risen Lord floating a few inches off the ground. He is standing between two thieves who are fully clothed and whose hands are tied behind their backs (not above their heads) and not nailed to the posts. Given the date of the drawing and the artistic license involved (and the fact that Frisi was an astronomer) it provides no details of the manner of Jesus' crucifixion. Jameson says on that same page (315) "In the Syriac MS., in the Laurentian Library at Florence, the thieves are nailed on to their crosses—in this, doubtless, preserving greater historical accuracy."



posted on Apr, 9 2008 @ 05:26 PM
link   
On an article called 'Did Jesus Really Die On a Cross?' on the WT's website they say...


Long before the Christian era, crosses were used by the ancient Babylonians as symbols in their worship of the fertility god Tammuz. The use of the cross spread into Egypt, India, Syria, and China. Then, centuries later, the Israelites adulterated their worship of Jehovah with acts of veneration to the false god Tammuz.

What about the pagan goddess Asherah?? Tammuz is found only once in the Old Testament (Ezekiel 8:14) while Asherah is mentioned forty times. Commenting on W.L. Reeds book 'The Asherah in the Old Testament' author Judith Hadley states....

"He then includes an extensive discussion of the various cultic objects which are mentioned with the asherah (altars, high places, masseboth, pesilim, incense altars, idols, molten images, and other selected objects), from which he concludes that asherah was associated with many pagan cult objects, and was never completely assimilated with Yahwism. Furthermore, he believes the wooden symbol of the goddess to be an image of the goddess herself (p. 53). He also examines the occurrence of Asherah with other deities, and concludes that Asherah was a goddess who was worshipped as a consort at the shrines of both Yahweh and Baal (p. 58).
(The Cult of Asherah in Ancient Israel and Judah: Evidence for a Hebrew Goddess by Judith M. Hadley , p.12, University of Cambridge Oriental Publications, Vol. 57)

Some say that the concept of death on a form of torture stake has its own Pagan connections in Greek mythology. The Phrygian satyr Marsyas became an expert at the pan flute and challenged Apollo, the patron of music, to a contest. Apollo agreed but said that the winner could decide the loser's punishment. The Muses awarded the victory to Apollo, who chose to hang Marsyas from a tree and flay him alive. There is a statue of Marsyas in the Louvre and you can see a picture of it on this webpage. homepage.mac.com...

Russell's books have the symbol of a winged creature similar to the symbol of an Egyptian god and there is a statue of the Ephesian goddess Artemis with a watchtower on her head.

This is something you won't read in a WT publication:

"In the reign of Theodosius "the Great" (378-395), Christianity was made the official state religion. Christians in official posts quickly used their new found influence to outlaw pagan practices, such as ritual sacrifice; pagan temples, idols, and altars were destroyed as well. Some degree of Eastern mysticism and aristocratic philosophy remained for several decades, but Christianity had, in fact, triumphed."
www.britannia.com...

A poster on another board said it very well: "Why the Watchtower Society has gone to such great lengths to create a completely imaginary case for a "stauros" with no crossbeam is puzzling, but it no doubt have something to do with a need to distinguish itself from other denominations. It should also demonstrate for all how little regard the WTS have for truth. All this information has been made available to the WTS many times. Is the Cross a Pagan Symbol? Sure. And among these ancient pagan nations who had crosses were the Romans, who selected the torture device that was used to kill Jesus."

Why is it unacceptable that the object on which Christ was crucified had been used for sinful purposes? Jesus came into a sinful world, died for the sins of mankind at the hands of sinners and was killed on an object that was used for something sinful. Many that were executed were not guilty and were murdered which is a sin and no matter what Jesus was crucified on there would have been a similar object used in some pagan religion. The historical, medical, archaeological and biblical evidence show that Jesus died on a cross.

[edit on 9-4-2008 by Crispus]



posted on Apr, 9 2008 @ 07:13 PM
link   
reply to post by Crispus
 


Thank you! I really want to thank you for all this attention. And the fact that you were brought in to be a heavy ringer, is a real compliment to me.

Questioning and thinking out of the box has really helped me to develop a God consciousness and to not be limited by the dogma of religion. We will not agree on all that you said, as so much is up for interpretation, and translation, and as to who quoted or translated the historians. I am thinking abstractly and not just depending on outside sources. It becomes an issue of control.

One spiritual abstract thought (if it is correct) can outweigh a thousand memorized or quoted texts. You are working with the minds of men with their conditioning and beliefs and agendas. It doesn't translate to truth.

If people like myself did not think outside the box we wouldn't be even having this conversation as the computer would not exist.

The debate is still open as to Jesus, and how he feels about it all. Time will only tell if Jesus makes his truth known. But it does illustrate to me, the duping of religious mankind, and I mean all, including JW's, Mormons, Catholics, Presbyterians, Baptists, etc.

You have substantiated with me that I am most likely right. That religious mankind (with contradictory arguments) ironically, would make Jesus, the Anti-Christ.



posted on Apr, 9 2008 @ 08:09 PM
link   
In other words Crispus, Matrix prophet has made up his mind, and there is nothing anybody can say to help shine further info on the subject, and since he is right, only those who have similar views can be quoted, and anybody who disagrees with what he says, or shows that what he is saying is incorrect, is obviously wrong. For example, he bases his whole argument on words saying the Christ was killed on a stake, but completely rejects all additional info that shows yes, he was killed on a stake that was permanently kept in place, and that he carried the cross bar to this stake which was then attached to it. Only listening to info that backs up your argument and rejecting evidence that crushes is is not exactly "thinking outside the box", but hey, whatever does it for you.



posted on Apr, 9 2008 @ 08:15 PM
link   
reply to post by doctorex
 


Thanks for making a concise synopsis of this thread.
I keep looking at it but am repelled at the idea of wading through it to understand exactly what the argument is.
I will save myself the trouble.
I made one post here a while back about not using the symble of the cross.
I will repeat that it is not a good symble for use by christians.
Let the satanists go ahead and use it for all the delight they can get out of it.
Just stay away and now we may have even more reason to avoid it.



posted on Apr, 10 2008 @ 11:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by MatrixProphet
reply to post by Crispus
 


Thank you! I really want to thank you for all this attention. And the fact that you were brought in to be a heavy ringer, is a real compliment to me.

I assure you no one brought me in. I've been debating regularly on a couple of other boards, this topic came up again and as I was searching for different webpages about the cross/stake issue I found this one.


Originally posted by MatrixProphetOne spiritual abstract thought (if it is correct) can outweigh a thousand memorized or quoted texts. You are working with the minds of men with their conditioning and beliefs and agendas. It doesn't translate to truth.

What men are you referring to specifically and how are they any less bias or conditioned than you? Many of the men who I cited were historians or theologians and were recording events as they saw them occur or were handed down to them orally. They had no ulterior motive to change the shape or type of object on which Jesus was crucified. It's a fact that a patibulum was often carried to the sight of crucifixion and that a two beam cross was one of the methods of crucifixion that the Romans used even before Jesus. I don't have any necessity to hold to a presupposition and, after researching, believe that monogenes doesn't mean 'only begotten' but one and only and carries a sense of being unique. This goes against about 1,600 years of tradition and theology and those who are KJV only would fight me tooth and nail on that issue.


Originally posted by MatrixProphetYou have substantiated with me that I am most likely right.

Yet you haven't tried to refute my points. Though none of the New Testament authors specifically describe the stauros that Jesus carried as being nailed to an upright post that is the only thing that makes sense in light of what else is said about him. Matthew, Mark, Luke and John didn't go into detail about his being nailed to a cross, if his arms were tied with ropes or if he carried the charge against him (titulus) around his neck which was often the case.



posted on Apr, 10 2008 @ 11:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by doctorex
In other words Crispus, Matrix prophet has made up his mind, and there is nothing anybody can say to help shine further info on the subject, and since he is right, only those who have similar views can be quoted, and anybody who disagrees with what he says, or shows that what he is saying is incorrect, is obviously wrong.

It certainly seems that way. The only verse in the N.T. that would in any way lend credence to the belief that Jesus was crucified on a stake is John 3:14.


Originally posted by doctorexFor example, he bases his whole argument on words saying the Christ was killed on a stake, but completely rejects all additional info that shows yes, he was killed on a stake that was permanently kept in place, and that he carried the cross bar to this stake which was then attached to it.

I don't understand why the Romans would bother to make four to six soldiers carry a stake back and forth to different locations when the Centurion could find better things for them to do like protect the Governor and keep the peace. That's four to six soldiers per stake. Why not just leave the stake there?

A core argument against Jesus' crucifixion being on a cross is the original meaning of stauros. But meanings of words often change over time and can lose their original meaning altogether or mean more than they did originally. JW's use this argument when explaining why proskuneo means obesiance when it refers to Jesus. Asherah is often translated as groves in the KJV; something that most of us wouldn't understand when we first read it. I've got a list of about two-hundred archaic words in the KJV but it was first translated about four-hundred years ago. There's no reason to think that stauros and crux can't mean more than just a stake and historical records and the bible show that they do.


The condemned, after having been scourged (Liv. XXXVi: 26; Prud. Enchir. Xli: I), had to bear his cross, or at least the transverse beam, to the place of execution, which was generally in some frequented place without the city. The cross itself, or the upright beam, was fixed in the ground.
(The Popular and Critical Bible Encyclopedia edited by Samuel Fellows, 1919, Vol. 1, p. 475)


The fact that Jesus carried his stauros even part of the way to Golgotha after the Romans scourged him shows that it wasn't the crux simplex and common sense dictates that the Romans would have left the main beam or stake at the sight of executions. Josephus describes Jesus ben Ananias as being "flayed to the bone with scourges" (Wars of the Jews, 6:5, 3). Eusebius wrote that some martyrs at the time of Polycarp "were torn by scourges down to deep seated veins and arteries, so that the hidden contents of the recesses of their bodies, their entrails and organs were exposed to sight" (Ecclesiastical History, 4.15.3-5; compare to Isaiah 52:14).

No early church father describes Jesus as being crucified on a stake. The word stauroo is translated as crucify or crucified in most translations but is translated as 'impale' in the NWT. 'Crucify' comes from the Latin 'crucifigere' which means "to fasten to a cross"; it is a combination of crux (cross) and figere (fasten). In the Vulgate crucifigere is used in various forms in the N.T. and specifically used in John 19:10. One thing that should be considered when making translating the bible is the target language and impale differs greatly from crucify in modern English. The word translated as beam in Ezra 6:11 in the LXX is xylon but the Hebrew word for that verse is not the one in Deuteronomy which is 'ets. It's in Deuteronomy twenty times and is translated in the NWT as wood and tree (or trees) nine times each. Only in Deut. 21:22-23 is it translated as stake.



posted on Apr, 10 2008 @ 01:24 PM
link   
To give Crispus his credit (I could have done without the OCD aspect however, LOL!), there are reams and reams of information attaching the cross to Jesus on the net. I knew this when I wrote the thread. I have done tremendous research into this also, and could find again...reams of info, but most of it is on religious websites. I did not want to use the majority of theologians as they have a duty to keep the cross as part of Christianity, as it would leave a huge hole for many faiths, if it were found to be even remotely wrong. So I only give Theologians a certain amount of recognition.

The challenge is not in finding evidence to prove it right, it is in the challenge to find information that is not biased and one that goes completely contrary to traditional thinking. That my friend, doctorex is indeed thinking outside of the box! Anything that is taught and believed by the masses, cannot be attributed to living outside the box. As a matter of fact, most of the masses are trapped in boxes.

Now... in a court of law you can have a case that seems to have been cemented. You can have a preponderance of evidence that makes your case seem like you will win in the end, but you can still lose, why? Because there can always be; "the surprise witness, a DNA sample, or the infamous glove!" that can throw a case completely out. All it takes is one detail, to derail a well formulated argument.

That is why I considered in my argument; the spiritual side. It is crucial to the case to accept the prophetic as well as the pagan aspects. We can all obsess till we are blue in the face about the mechanics of the actual cross. But the purity of it is very questionable, and along with the prophetic, can create a good case. If you wanted to stick with just the cross itself, the argument would be a more difficult one for someone to argue against. But the spiritual aspects relating to its pagan attributes especially regarding phallic worship is another matter entirely! Incidentally, there are many books confirming this as truth, and most are not done by theologians!

I understood when I wrote this thread that there would be touchy aspects to it. Religionists have a loyalty to traditional beliefs and doctrine, and it would be an insurmountable thing to challenge them. But that was not my goal, even though I expected it. There are many like myself who no longer tread the religious route, and these are the ones I am actually approaching. I am fascinated in giving out new light, as I am in receiving it. I have learned much from those who have approached the Bible from a different light and have not feared doing so.



posted on Apr, 10 2008 @ 03:38 PM
link   
Whether Christ died on a cross or a stake is irrelevant to the message.

However, it is a real eye opener as regards how organized christianity has altered the original movement begun by Jesus, and how unaware most christians are of that.

On another point, I came into this thread thinking it was an exploration of the true history of the church. However, I then discovered Matrixprophet is a self-styled prophet, with views not dissimilar to those held by many of the faith-based posters on this board.

It was like going into a creepy house at night with a stalwart bystander, only to turn round and discover said stalwart is actually one of the monsters...

Argggggggggggggggggggggggghhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!


[edit on 10-4-2008 by rizla]



posted on Jun, 30 2008 @ 06:00 PM
link   
www.catholic.com...

it should work now,youve probablt ran across the such before,but what the hey

[edit on 30-6-2008 by pureevil81]

[edit on 30-6-2008 by pureevil81]



posted on Jun, 30 2008 @ 06:16 PM
link   
reply to post by pureevil81
 


For some reason the link does not work for me. I would read it! Thanks.



posted on Jun, 30 2008 @ 11:17 PM
link   
reply to post by MatrixProphet
 


ya know matrix,i have been seeking the truth for years,doing research on the internet and off the internet.....and we come up with completely different conclusions,why i dont know.not to judge you by any means,but you sound like you take a jehovas witness point of view,not that there is anything wrong with that,but i have read the watchtower on this same topic,and you pretty much quote them exactly....the watchtower makes money off those pamphlets,not in america but mainly overseas,the watchtower along with the nwt is written by jehovas witnesses.i read in the newest watchtower that the nwt is written by independent people,but thats not true.before i go on to rant about all that,i would like to hear your take on some of this,are you jehovas witness,like i said nothing wrong with that in my opinion.....and by the way where did they come up with jehovah? YHWH...so how could you make jehovah out of that when YHWH is in fact a unpronouncable holy hebrew word.sorry if thats off topic.take care



posted on Jul, 1 2008 @ 06:17 PM
link   
reply to post by pureevil81
 


If you go back and read my thread and the resources you will not find that I mention JW's anywhere! I believe that when one does research it is important to look in areas where the researchers have no bias, or agenda. I have researched and read through the years, as Crispus noted, many sites that confirm the cross. But what sites are they? Religious ones!

I do not value the word or testimony of a theologian who would have obvious reasons for maintaining a certain view. If your religion is supported with this belief then it would behoove the writers & leaders to assure that it is valid, whether or not it is.

Actually, if you do more research along the phallic lines related to the cross you may find a different viewpoint that the religious rarely, if ever, touch. Go back and study ancient Egypt and its association with the ankh and learn the origin of the Christian cross from them and all the civilizations forward. It is an eyeopener!

I abhor the background of the cross as many more would, if one just did the research. My question of which no-one has addressed is: would God and his son have had anything to do with something so pagan? Would they have allowed it to fulfill prophesy? The cross that is so revered, is one with a very pagan phallic background. Would the purity that Jesus represented be adulterated with this evil symbol?

It is also important to note: other writers will quote scholars, theologians etc. to get definitions without researching information themselves. Not only religion, but academia, will rely on someones research or written word and use it as fact, when there may be no truth in it at all.

I also have said on numerous occasions (I can't blame you if you missed it) that I am not religious. No, I am most definitely not a Jehovah's Witness. The Mormon's have similar views and I am not one of them either. I am not of any religion nor do I believe religion is good or righteous. You asked!

Researching religions for many years has been an occupation of mine. I am not an authority but do find it interesting. So I do not feel it necessary to automatically go along with the masses in teachings. My experience has taught me that often the masses are wrong and sometimes detrimentally!

I just wanted to add: JW's & Mormons may be right about the cross thing! Who cares? It is ok for them to be right about some thing! They may be off about many other things. There is some truth in all religion, we have the choice to look for some of it and avoid the rest. IMO all religion is wrong in the end.

[edit on 1-7-2008 by MatrixProphet]



posted on Jul, 1 2008 @ 08:01 PM
link   
reply to post by MatrixProphet
 


actually i cant find anything ive missed concerning researches,sorry.and yes i did miss alot of things in this thread,i have actually thoroughly read it at this point.answered alot of my questions.mainly i see pagan pagan pagan.....maybe the sources you are quoting are pagan....who knows...take care.



posted on Jul, 11 2008 @ 09:29 PM
link   
reply to post by MatrixProphet
 

not ANOTHER lie but yes jesus died on a pole tree stake or ONE beem of wood with no limbs

its based of off the symbol called the mystic tau look that up i cant explain it all



posted on Jul, 12 2008 @ 10:47 AM
link   
I did some research on this. I don't think the cross is a Christian symbol to begin with. Graphical symbolism only belongs to the pagans.

Evidence:

The cross of Quetzalcoatl:



One has to understand that symbols are part and parcel of idolatry. These symbols represent heathen gods of the pagans. God does not want us to represent Him with anything, be it symbols, images, statues, anything made by hands. He already instructed us in the Bible not to do what the pagan does.

Although Jesus died on the cross, we don't use the cross to symbolize Him. What if Jesus died through stoning? Do we use a stone to symbolize Him? How about death by hanging? Do we use a rope to symbolize Him? How about beheading? Do we use a sword to symbolize Him?

These all sounds ridiculous and so is the cross to symbolize Christ.



posted on Jul, 12 2008 @ 11:03 AM
link   
reply to post by Crispus
 



I don't understand why the Romans would bother to make four to six soldiers carry a stake back and forth to different locations when the Centurion could find better things for them to do like protect the Governor and keep the peace. That's four to six soldiers per stake. Why not just leave the stake there?

the Romans were clever people and had engineering down.
Plus they did not want to do any more work than they had to.
That may be indicated by in the description of the events, they make someone else carry the cross.
The cross could have been the cross piece that the arms were attached to with the vertical piece left in place, permanently.
The dry climate and high position would have allowed for this because the base of the pole would not rot.
With a permanent vertical piece, it makes sense to attach the victim to the horizontal piece first, then raise the whole thing up, together.
Wood was non existent and the cross piece would have disappeared in a hurry if it was ever just left in place, without a guard, who would only be there while someone was on it.


[edit on 12-7-2008 by jmdewey60]



new topics

top topics



 
6
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join