28 Jun 10
Originally posted by robbie carrobieIt's curious how you say that my presentation is so badly lacking in clarity; and yet you say "by your comments, it is perfectly obvious that you know not what you are saying". If you are really having so much trouble understanding my points (despite your saying that it's already "perfectly obvious" to you that my points are mistaken), you can refer to the comments of Conrau K, who already stated the basic idea in clear language (reread his post that directly precedes my first post in this thread).
I'm quite sure your considerations have nothing to do with whether or not it can reasonably be considered an adulteration - lemony yellow
i see you are now able to discern the intentions and motivations of the heart, do you also read minds with a mind ray from a laboratory somewhere in the hills? whether you are sure or otherwise is neither here ...[text shortened]... air of waders and wade through superfluous use of language. It also helps to dispel ambiguity.
This is just another page from the comprehensive JW book of nonsense. Your superstitions regarding the cross are silly and needlessly divisive. If you want to present evidential considerations regarding whether or not Jesus died on some other implement (vice the cross), that is just fine. But quit pretending that the faith of others is polluted by symbolic rendering of the cross. Your argument is particularly asinine in light of the fact that the past pagan significance you talk about is basically completely irrelevant to what these persons today take the cross to stand for and why they take it to be meaningful.
28 Jun 10
Originally posted by LemonJelloactually i do not read Conraus posts, he has made it perfectly clear that he wishes to have no part in any discussion with either myself nor Galvo. If only he would keep his word. You may refer to one of his previous posts.
It's curious how you say that my presentation is so badly lacking in clarity; and yet you say "by your comments, it is perfectly obvious that you know not what you are saying". If you are really having so much trouble understanding my points (despite your saying that it's already "perfectly obvious" to you that my points are mistaken), you can refer to t ...[text shortened]... hat these persons today take the cross to stand for and why they take it to be meaningful.
Once again you are making the mistake of declaring an opinion, in this case your own opinion as being synonymous with some kind of truth. If you could produce any type of scriptural evidence, well it could be considered, if you could produce any kind of authoritative quotation from a biblical a scholar, well it could be evaluated. thus the very accusations that you have levelled against me have been found wanting in your own post, i wont call it hypocrisy, but you could do with a good kick up the bum to bring you to your senses. I myself have been through this with Conrau, Jaywill, Manny, a thousand young, epiphaneus and no doubt many others, looked at many lines of reasoning, both historical, linguistic and textual, it is tiring to do so again.
Simply because something transcends the epochs of time does not in any shape or form mean that it is any more acceptable to God now than it was then, regardless of your apologetics, for the Bible is quite clear on the matter, a Christian should try to remain sanctified and spiritually clean before God. Your claims of irrelevance are based on what? who can tell.
28 Jun 10
Originally posted by robbie carrobieI agree Robbie. Everyone here has an opinion and that's fine, but when they don't follow it up with scriptures that prove why they have that opinion then it's just that..a personal opinion and nothing else.
actually i do not read Conraus posts, he has made it perfectly clear that he wishes to have no part in any discussion with either myself nor Galvo. If only he would keep his word. You may refer to one of his previous posts.
Once again you are making the mistake of declaring an opinion, in this case your own opinion as being synonymous with some ...[text shortened]... d and spiritually clean before God. Your claims of irrelevance are based on what? who can tell.
28 Jun 10
3 edits
Originally posted by galveston75================================
Is there any record in the Bible of any of the apostles or other immediate followers of Jesus that were directly taught by Jesus, using the supposed cross as something to use in their worship to God?
It just seems that if we are to have such an instrument that we need to use and possess it would have happened immediatly by them.
But instead it wasn r and question if these items and beliefs are really of a Christian origin or taught by Jesus.
Is there any record in the Bible of any of the apostles or other immediate followers of Jesus that were directly taught by Jesus, using the supposed cross as something to use in their worship to God?
====================================
Why did you write this to me ? Did I advocate worshipping a physical cross or worshipping with a physical cross ?
- Joined
- 15 Sep 04
- Moves
- 7051
28 Jun 10
Originally posted by robbie carrobieactually i do not read Conraus posts, he has made it perfectly clear that he wishes to have no part in any discussion with either myself nor Galvo. If only he would keep his word. You may refer to one of his previous posts.
actually i do not read Conraus posts, he has made it perfectly clear that he wishes to have no part in any discussion with either myself nor Galvo. If only he would keep his word. You may refer to one of his previous posts.
Once again you are making the mistake of declaring an opinion, in this case your own opinion as being synonymous with some ...[text shortened]... d and spiritually clean before God. Your claims of irrelevance are based on what? who can tell.
I do not recall vowing never discuss further with you. Certainly on some subjects I will not debate with you -- the Trinity for one because the same points are constantly revisited and I find myself reiterating the same argument over and over again. Also, the issue of when Eucharist was celebrated in the early Church. The evidence is overwhelming and your refusal simply to acknowledge this reflects a dogmatic blindness. On other issues, I am willing to express my thoughts and debate with whomever.
No one however is debating whether Christ actually died on a cross. I think it is accepted that the Greek 'stauros' can mean either a cross or a pike and there is simply insufficient evidence to reach any decisive conclusion. No one has debated the issue. So no Scriptural debate is called for on this issue.
The issue, quite simply, is your accusation that the cross is pagan and that Christians who use the cross have transgressed the rules of Christian piety. As I pointed out, the cross appears in the Hebrew Scriptures as well (Ezekiel 9:4) and it could quite easily be that early Christians appropriated the cross, not from pagan religion, but from their own Scriptures. Furthermore, even if the cross was deliberately adopted from pagan ritual, and this is the point I and LemonJello made, it does not follow that it is still pagan. Christians have attached new significances to the cross and it has been purged from any original pagan associations. You have to consider the motivations and intentions of the Christians themselves.
You and Galvo are clearly obfuscating this issue. This issue is not about the historicity of the cross, and whether it was the actual instrument of Christ's death, and it is certainly not about the prohibition on idolatry. Even if the cross were derived from paganism, it is not worshipped by Protestant Christians such as Jaywill and Catholic and Orthodox Christians would argue that they do not worship it either but rather venerate it.
29 Jun 10
Originally posted by jaywillI think I was just commenting to Robbies quote. But You could give an answer if you want.
[b]================================
Is there any record in the Bible of any of the apostles or other immediate followers of Jesus that were directly taught by Jesus, using the supposed cross as something to use in their worship to God?
====================================
Why did you write this to me ? Did I advocate worshipping a physical cross or worshipping with a physical cross ?[/b]
29 Jun 10
Originally posted by Conrau KSo what about : "DO NOT MAKE OR HAVE IN YOUR POSSESION ANY GRAVEN IMAGE OF ANYTHING IN THE HEAVENS OR EARTH" don't you understand?" The only way that scripture and many other like it are supposedly wrong or outdated is because some group of men decided centuries ago that they were no longer valid. Who gave any man on this earth the right to change what God had written in the Bible?
[b]actually i do not read Conraus posts, he has made it perfectly clear that he wishes to have no part in any discussion with either myself nor Galvo. If only he would keep his word. You may refer to one of his previous posts.
I do not recall vowing never discuss further with you. Certainly on some subjects I will not debate with you -- the Trinity ...[text shortened]... odox Christians would argue that they do not worship it either but rather venerate it.[/b]
Is God a hypocrite that he renigs on his laws?
- Joined
- 15 Sep 04
- Moves
- 7051
29 Jun 10
1 edit
Originally posted by galveston75Do you think that sculptures in, say, the Louvre violate this commandment? Do you think, say, that Christians who put an image of a fish on their cars to show they are Christians are committing idolatry? Is every image idolatrous?
So what about : "DO NOT MAKE OR HAVE IN YOUR POSSESION ANY GRAVEN IMAGE OF ANYTHING IN THE HEAVENS OR EARTH" don't you understand?" The only way that scripture and many other like it are supposedly wrong or outdated is because some group of men decided centuries ago that they were no longer valid. Who gave any man on this earth the right to change what God had written in the Bible?
Is God a hypocrite that he renigs on his laws?
29 Jun 10
Originally posted by Conrau KYes if it is used in any kind of worship. God says to have nothing in graven form if it is used for worhip. We are to worship him only. I think thats where your seriously confused is that just a statue of a bird or whatever is not something God would condemn by any means. But if you carry that into your church and prayed to it for whatever.........then it's wrong.
Do you think that sculptures in, say, the Louvre violate this commandment? Do you think, say, that Christians who put an image of a fish on their cars to show they are Christians are committing idolatry? Is every image idolatrous?
Don't you see the wisdom from God in making those commands? If he allowed even the smallest statue to be made, with humans being imperfect as we are would loose sight of their worship to God. Just as the ones who came out of Egypt did when they made the Golden calf. And when God says in the Bible that he is a Jealous God and demands exclusive devotion..that should be taken seriously, don't you think?. He is not to be mocked. Right?
- Joined
- 15 Sep 04
- Moves
- 7051
29 Jun 10
2 edits
Originally posted by galveston75Yes if it is used in any kind of worship.
Yes if it is used in any kind of worship. God says to have nothing in graven form if it is used for worhip. We are to worship him only. I think thats where your seriously confused is that just a statue of a bird or whatever is not something God would condemn by any means. But if you carry that into your church and prayed to it for whatever.........then i ve devotion..that should be taken seriously, don't you think?. He is not to be mocked. Right?
Right. So what about those many Christians who do not use the cross in any kind of worship. No bowing, kissing or kneeling or any overt gesture of homage. Presumably that is not idolatry?
If that is the case, you and Robbie, as I explained before, need to clarify your objection to the crucifix.
29 Jun 10
Originally posted by galveston75G-75 My man 🙂 Do you not worship the Mustang? I can see it a little mustang on a chain. 🙂
One can justify the use or possesion or whatever reason one came come up with to make, buy, create, bow down to, hold some religious importance on, venerate, or whatever.
But this is mans decision to do this and has never been approved in one scripture in the Bible, by God, Jesus, the apostles, the early Christians or the ones of old that followed Gods ...[text shortened]... anyway in a religious sense, then why didn't Jesus do that or tell anyone at all to use them?
All kidding aside would looking into how the Romans tortured and punished criminals in that day shed some light on how / what Christ was crucified on ?
Also Christians should know better than to worship the instrument in which Christ was crucified on anyway.
I agree with one aspect that man worships everything but the creator.
Manny
29 Jun 10
I was thinking no where does it say anything about Christians worshiping the
cross in the scriptures. When I think about it was just what was done by the Romans in that day. It is kinda irrelevant in the sense of who cares what Christ was crucified on anyway. The point is He was crucified!! This be it for the sins of the world. Now the symbolism for the Christian should be to emulate Christ at least symbolically by putting the old man to death the sin nature. Putting to death the old nature for the spiritual.
Manny
- Joined
- 15 Sep 04
- Moves
- 7051
29 Jun 10
Originally posted by menace71All kidding aside would looking into how the Romans tortured and punished criminals in that day shed some light on how / what Christ was crucified on ?
G-75 My man 🙂 Do you not worship the Mustang? I can see it a little mustang on a chain. 🙂
All kidding aside would looking into how the Romans tortured and punished criminals in that day shed some light on how / what Christ was crucified on ?
Also Christians should know better than to worship the instrument in which Christ was crucified on anyway.
I agree with one aspect that man worships everything but the creator.
Manny
Not really. The Romans employed a number of methods of execution. The 'stauros' or 'crux' which was used for rebels could be either a cross or a pike. Neither historical or linguistic insights are helpful in this case.
29 Jun 10
Ok so archeology and linguistics do us not to well in this debate.
Well that begs the question how important is the instrument in which Christ was crucified on matter? The text might help but I think there is some ambiguity or there would not even be an argument. As far as Christians worshiping the cross this is old hat because it's the same argument like saying that Christians worship statues or what have you. True enlightened Christians know better I would think. As far as saying the cross had pagan origins who cares. It did have Roman and apparently Phoenician roots but I don't think they worshiped it. They killed people with it.
Manny
- Joined
- 15 Sep 04
- Moves
- 7051
29 Jun 10
Originally posted by menace71My thoughts too. Why should the addition of a crossbeam really equal the difference between Christian piety and pagan idolatry?
Ok so archeology and linguistics do us not to well in this debate.
Well that begs the question how important is the instrument in which Christ was crucified on matter? The text might help but I think there is some ambiguity or there would not even be an argument. As far as Christians worshiping the cross this is old hat because it's the same argument like ...[text shortened]... ly Phoenician roots but I don't think they worshiped it. They killed people with it.
Manny