be gone the standing empty cross

[Faithfulservant]

took away your Trinity with one letter ''A'' and there by backing up all other scriptures that does not give any supporting to the false belief in the Trinity .

I wasn't even speaking of denying the Trinity I was speaking of denying Jesus Christs diety . Jesus is the great I AM by His own words. Thomas called Him my Lord and my God. John chapter 1 spells out that He is the Word from the beginning. He was raised from the dead and witnessed in Jerusalem. He encountered Paul on the road to Damascus.

wondering why you are trying to change the subject of the tread .

Making an observation.. pointing out hypocrisy about changing the bible to fit ones theology.

.
torture stake is an accurate description of the implement and what its victim go's through .it would not remain standing as you picture the cross .

Sorry. Jesus died on a torture stake for our sins just doesn't ring the same. The cross is not a pagan symbol for us. It's the means that He shed His blood for the world.. not for 144000 lucky souls... But for the World to have eternal life. That includes you.

some thing you could do is go to Acts 5:30 - Bible Gateway and see how many different ways acts 5:30 is done in different bibles

It all reads the same to me. That the Father raised Him from the dead . Not that He took His Spirit and left His body somewhere..

 

[Thomas]

torture stake is an accurate description of the implement

But it's not an accurate translation of the text, though, is it? It's a subjective interpretation of a term which had a broad range of meaning – a stake on which victims were impaled, a device upon which victims were variously crucified, a fence-post, a pailing fence, a palisade ...

So it is translated in context – in your context it's an impaling post. In ours it's a cross.

As there is no absolutely definitive evidence in ancient texts, scholars continue to debate the issue.

It's further complicated by the loose use of terms in the Hellenistic era, from about 300 years before Christ, means that terms cannot be read literally and so defined absoplutely, as Witness dogma does.

 

[Thomas]

... yes it would look like a pole with a cross member . how ever the short end the stub end of the cross is the part that drops in to the hole...

But this is how you imagine it ... bit much to ask us to change everything to suit your imagination.

 

[Thomas]

because you have been lied to . the church is promoting something that did not happen. many have gone so far to even change scriptures to maintain the lie

Er, no ... that's you guys ...
Credit for inventiveness, though ... I mean you have a hill to climb.

Interpretations of John 1:1 or John 20:28 are somewhat overwrought, though, and tortuous to make it fit your theology.

 

[Thomas]

So where are we?

No further on than before, really.

The term stauros is unfortunately vague in its use in the era in question.

What we do know is Christ is executed, and we (traditional Christians) see that in the context of salvation history.

The exact 'how' remains a forensic detail which the sacred scribe wasn't really bothered with. Even contemporary Roman and Hellenic sources fail to provide exact details in their references to executions, although they provide enough to assert that saying 'it was like this' absolutely is not possible, there are just too many variables.

And yet crucifixion, with arms outstretched on a cross-piece, was a thing. The 'problems' of raising a cross with a man attached, or a crosspiece with a man attached, or what have you, is not real argument – the fact is, it was done.

That Scripture does not give precise detail tells us one thing – the precise detail is not a necessity.

Tradition has it that Jesus was crucified with arms outstretched, and there's no substantial argument to say that was not the case.

A revised reading of the Greek, some 2,000 years later, based on a very dubious assertion that it must mean this, is simply inadequate and easily dismissed.

Taken along with what the JWs claim as a 'literal translation' in the NWT falls flat on its face when there's clear evidence that the translators inserted words (yes, Colossians 1:16, I'm looking at you) into the text where it suits their theology – so Scripture was translated to fit that, rather than a theology derived from Scripture, and there's the crux of the matter!

 

[locust]

It all reads the same to me. That the Father raised Him from the dead . Not that He took His Spirit and left His body somewhere..

Acts 5:29-31

Complete Jewish Bible

​

29 Kefa and the other emissaries answered, “We must obey God, not men. 30 The God of our fathers[a] raised up Yeshua, whereas you men killed him by having him hanged on a stake. 31 God has exalted this man at his right hand as Ruler and Savior, in order to enable Isra’el to do t’shuvah and have her sins forgiven.

perhaps , take off the rose colored glasses

 

[locust]

So where are we?

No further on than before, really.

The term stauros is unfortunately vague in its use in the era in question.

What we do know is Christ is executed, and we (traditional Christians) see that in the context of salvation history.

The exact 'how' remains a forensic detail which the sacred scribe wasn't really bothered with. Even contemporary Roman and Hellenic sources fail to provide exact details in their references to executions, although they provide enough to assert that saying 'it was like this' absolutely is not possible, there are just too many variables.

And yet crucifixion, with arms outstretched on a cross-piece, was a thing. The 'problems' of raising a cross with a man attached, or a crosspiece with a man attached, or what have you, is not real argument – the fact is, it was done.

That Scripture does not give precise detail tells us one thing – the precise detail is not a necessity.

Tradition has it that Jesus was crucified with arms outstretched, and there's no substantial argument to say that was not the case.

A revised reading of the Greek, some 2,000 years later, based on a very dubious assertion that it must mean this, is simply inadequate and easily dismissed.

Taken along with what thew JWs claim as a 'literal translation' in the NWT falls flat on its face when there's clear evidence that the translators inserted words (yes, Colossians 1:16, I'm looking at you) into the text where it suited their theology – so Scripture was translated to fit that, rather than a theology derioved from Scripture, and there's the crux of the matter!

which Bible would you like to be used ?

 

[locust]

i find it interesting
In his 1871 study of the history of the cross, Episcopal preacher Henry Dana Ward accepted as the only form of the gibbet on which Jesus died "a pale, a strong stake, a wooden post". Anglican theologian E. W.
gasp ...how is it even possible ?

 

[Thomas]

which Bible would you like to be used ?

I think when discussing theology, it's best to compare translations and look at the original text, concordances and discussions. I tend to do this online where I can jump vetween translations, concordances and other references.

I have a Douay-Rheims, NRSV-CE and a couple of others ... I tend to use DR as my devotional reference.

I have just acquired David Bentley Hart's translation of the New Testament and will be delving into that.

In the text cited, the argument for translating the Gk xylon as 'stake' is poor.
For one, the version footnote assumes 'stake' from Deuteronomy 21:22-23, but Jesus was subjected to a Roman punishment, not a Jewish one. And most versions of the Hebrew translate the term by its primary reading as 'tree' ... in reading rabbinical commentary, I'd say 'plank', but there you go ...

In the NT, the Greek term xylon refers to simply to 'wood' as in 'timber' (1 Corinthians 3:12, Revelations 18:12); the stocks (Acts 16:24); a club (Matthew 26:47, 55); a post, cross, gibbet, tree (Acts 5:30; 10:29; 13:29); a tree (Luke. 23:31; Revelations 2:7).

Thus xylon can mean tree, and 'tree' is certainly a more accurate translation that 'stake' – here again is a contextual translation in light of other references, and JWs use 'stake' where the rest of Christendom uses 'cross'.

The question is why 'tree' is used when clearly, literally, Jesus was not executed on a tree. This is where 'technical/literal' translations fall down.

{i]Xylon[/i] appears 19 times in the NT: cudgel/staff (x5), tree (x10); wood (x3) stocks (x1).

Of the 10 mentions of tree, only five can be read as stake.

+++

The use of the Hebrew is interesting, but again this is a Jewish-inclined translation for a Jewish audience, hence the term t’shuvah.

The NT uses the term metanoia – they both mean essentially the same thing. The Hebrew means 'return' and the Greek a 'change of mind' or 'change of heart'

 

[Thomas]

i find it interesting
In his 1871 study of the history of the cross, Episcopal preacher Henry Dana Ward accepted as the only form of the gibbet on which Jesus died "a pale, a strong stake, a wooden post". Anglican theologian E. W.
gasp ...how is it even possible ?

LOL – with America, any out-there position is a probability! Ward was a Millerite ...

To pick up from your "Anglican theologian E.W. ...

"Anglican theologian E. W. Bullinger (died 1913) cited a letter from English Dean John William Burgon, who questioned whether a cross occurred on any Christian monument of the first four centuries ..."
In fact the cross did appear. 'The sign' – the sign of the cross, is mentioned in the Epistle of Barnabas (late 1st/early 2nd century) and the Symbol of the Cross is spoken of by Justin Martyr (100-165AD)

The cross as a Christian 'seal' came into use at least as early as the second century and was spoken of by Tertullian (160-240), Minucius Felix (d c250), St Cyprian (c210-258), Lactantius (c250-c325).

So the Cross was both a sign and symbol of the Church before any strict orthodoxy, or denomination, came into being.

+++

The Alexamenos graffito, lampooning Christian belief, shows a donkey-headed man crucified with arms outstretched. It's dated around 200AD, so the doctrine was common enough by then. The donkey is from an erroneous belief that the Jews worshipped a donkey-god, and that was transferred to Christians.

+++

"The sign of the cross’ antiquity also adds to its catholicity. It was in general use long before the cross or crucifix was present in worship or church buildings. However, these symbols are also found etched in gems of jewelry or graffiti form during the second century. St. Cyprian (AD 210-258) and many other early Church Fathers are witnesses to the use of the sign of the cross among the earliest generations of Christians. Given its universality in the late 100s, some scholars believe it was in use within the living memory of the Apostles themselves. Tertullian (c. AD 155-220), for example, writing at the end of the second century, testifies that: “At every forward step and movement, at every going in and out, when we put on our clothes and shoes, when we bathe, when we sit at table, when we light the lamps, on couch, on seat, in all the ordinary actions of daily life, we trace upon the forehead the sign.” Elsewhere, he positively identifies the sign: “We Christians wear out our foreheads with the sign of the cross.” The sign of the cross, according to the earliest centuries of Christians, is “the sign of the Lord,” and every baptized Christian was “marked” with it."
(Article here)

 

[Faithfulservant]

Acts 5:29-31​

​

Complete Jewish Bible​

​

​

29 Kefa and the other emissaries answered, “We must obey God, not men. 30 The God of our fathers[a] raised up Yeshua, whereas you men killed him by having him hanged on a stake. 31 God has exalted this man at his right hand as Ruler and Savior, in order to enable Isra’el to do t’shuvah and have her sins forgiven.

perhaps , take off the rose colored glasses

You do know that the NT was written in Koine Greek right? The fact that you are using the Jewish version is suspect since JWs believe that they replaced Jews? You don't even use the Jewish tetragrammaton YHWH as the name of God and replaced it with Jehovah which is not an accurate translation.

 

[Faithfulservant]

i find it interesting
In his 1871 study of the history of the cross, Episcopal preacher Henry Dana Ward accepted as the only form of the gibbet on which Jesus died "a pale, a strong stake, a wooden post". Anglican theologian E. W.
gasp ...how is it even possible ?

Not every supposed scholar speaks for everyone. Try again.

 

[muhammad_isa]

..So the Cross was both a sign and symbol of the Church before any strict orthodoxy, or denomination, came into being..

..but not established by Jesus, or endorsed by Jesus.

Of course, that has little to do with the OP i.e. cross or pole

 

[locust]

So the Cross was both a sign and symbol of the Church before any strict orthodoxy, or denomination, came into being.

looking to the cross ??sound as if its idealized 1 Corinthians 10:14

 

[Faithfulservant]

looking to the cross ??sound as if its idealized 1 Corinthians 10:14

You think we worship the cross? We worship Jesus who shed His blood on that cross so that we could be righteous and have a relationship with our Father in heaven. You think you can earn God's favor with your works when the only thing that pleases God is faith. You think you don't have idols? You are fooling yourself. We ALL have things we place above God.

 

[locust]

You do know that the NT was written in Koine Greek right? The fact that you are using the Jewish version is suspect since JWs believe that they replaced Jews? You don't even use the Jewish tetragrammaton YHWH as the name of God and replaced it with Jehovah which is not an accurate translation.

could /should have its own thread .maybe take a hint

 

[Faithfulservant]

could /should have its own thread .maybe take a hint

Just responding to your own post. If you don't want to be called out stop posting stuff that points out hypocrisy.

 

[locust]

You think we worship the cross? We worship Jesus who shed His blood on that cross so that we could be righteous and have a relationship with our Father in heaven. You think you can earn God's favor with your works when the only thing that pleases God is faith. You think you don't have idols? You are fooling yourself. We ALL have things we place above God.

Luke 4:8​

In reply Jesus said to him: “It is written, ‘It is Jehovah your God you must worship, and it is to him alone you must render sacred service.’”

I suspect you would have a hard time giving worship without the cross

 

[Faithfulservant]

Luke 4:8

New King James Version

​

8 And Jesus answered and said to him, [a]“Get behind Me, Satan! [b]For it is written, ‘You shall worship the Lord your God, and Him only you shall serve.’ ”

Another example of changing the Word to fit your theology.

Like I said I don't worship the cross. It's a symbol of the death and resurrection of my Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. I cannot look at the cross and not remember the sacrifice He made for me.

Did you ever look up laminin? I'm guessing not.

 

[locust]

You think we worship the cross? We worship Jesus who shed His blood on that cross so that we could be righteous and have a relationship with our Father in heaven. You think you can earn God's favor with your works when the only thing that pleases God is faith. You think you don't have idols? You are fooling yourself. We ALL have things we place above God.

Luke 4:8​

​

New King James Version​

​

​

8 And Jesus answered and said to him, [a]“Get behind Me, Satan! [b]For it is written, ‘You shall worship the Lord your God, and Him only you shall serve.’ ”

Another example of changing the Word to fit your theology.

Like I said I don't worship the cross. It's a symbol of the death and resurrection of my Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. I cannot look at the cross and not remember the sacrifice He made for me.

Did you ever look up laminin? I'm guessing not.

John 4:24​

God is a Spirit, and those worshipping him must worship with spirit and truth.”

John 4:23​

Nevertheless, the hour is coming, and it is now, when the true worshippers will worship the Father with spirit and truth, for indeed, the Father is looking for ones like these to worship him.