See other Religion Articles
Title: Was Jesus Christ crucified on a cross?
Source:
[None]
URL Source: [None]
Published: Oct 18, 2007
Author: Bible
Post Date: 2007-10-18 13:09:07 by richard9151
Keywords: None
Views: 2517
Comments: 195
I find it curious that so many people have so much faith in men. And, in what men say, and this is esp. true when what the men says flys directly in the face of what they claim to represent/say. I hold to this firmly; A man is known by his actions, and not by his words. And this leads me directly to what is wrong with America; the churches. And specifically those churches which claim to be Christian churches. And to the men who serve in those churches, and who know that they lie. After all, such men do, supposedly, read the Bible. Well, they have at least one time in their lives I think it is fair to assume. More than that? Pretty doubtful actually. So this brings me to the question I posed in the title of this post; Was Jesus Christ crucified on a cross? The only acceptable answer to this comes from the Bible. I assume that everyone who claims to be Christian will agree with this. My first Bible (that I read extensively) was The King James Study Bible. I have continued to use it, although I have more than a dozen different Bibles now. In the King James; Galatians 3:13; Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us: for it is written, CURSED is EVERYONE THAT HANGETH ON A TREE. Second witness; "...for it is written ... " ; Deutronomy 22:22; And if a man have committed a sin worthy of death, and he be to be put to death, and thou hang him from a tree; (23) His body shall not remain all night upon the tree, but thou shall in any wise bury him that day; (for he that is hanged is accursed of God;) ... Now, this may come as a surprise to many of you, but a tree ain't a cross; it is a post. In the Spanish translation of the King James, it is clearer, for they use the term madero, which means board, or, post. In addition, if you have read anything about the Roman Empire, one of the notable facts about the Romans was their efficiency in killing people. And it is not efficient to use two pieces of wood, i.e., a cross, when a single piece of wood, a post, will suffice. And, in fact, this is how the Romans did hang those who they wished to make examples out of; on a post. (Yeah, yeah, I know; all the movies use crosses. And, your point is?) There is another point that must be made here; when a man is hung on a post, or, for that matter, if he were to be hung on a cross, with nails, YOU CAN NOT DRIVE THE NAILS THROUGH THE PALMS OF HIS HAND. It will not work, because when the post/cross is lifted up and dropped into the hole prepared for it, the nails will rip out of the hands and the man will drop to the ground. The Romans knew this from, I am sure, experience, and the nails were ALWAYS driven into the wrists of the victim, between the two bones of the arm. This is the only location which offers enough strength to be usuable is such a manner. The best depiction of Jesus being executed that I have seen is contained in the Watchtower book; What Does The Bible Really Teach? on page 52. What does this mean: If you are attending a so-called Christian church, which uses the cross as a part of their worship, and protrays Jesus on that cross with nails through the palms of his hand, then you are participating in a deliberate lie. And, you are in a church properly described in Revelations a one of the daughters of the whore of Babylon. (I paraphrase; not going to look it up today.) Now, let's look at a couple of other Bibles and see what is said; New American Standard Bible; Galatians 3:13; Christ redeemed us from the curse of the Law, having become a curse for us -- for it is writte, "CUESED IS EVERY ONE WHO HANGS ON A TREE" -- Second Witness; Deuteronomy 21:22; And if a man has committed a sin worthy of death, and he is put to death, and you hang him on a tree, (23) his corpse shall not hang all night on the tree, but you shall surely bury him on the same day (for he who is hanged is accursed of God), ... Pretty good. Not far off, but.... let's take a quick look at another Bible. Holy Bible From the Ancient Eastern Text (George M. Lamsa's Translation from the Aramaic of the Peshitta); Galatians 3:13; Christ has redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming accursed for our sakes (for it is writtenm Crused is everyone who hangs on a cross). OOPS! WOW! Boy, do we need that second witness now! Second Witness; Deuteronomy 21:22; And if any man has committed a sin worthy of death, and he is crucified on a tree, and thus put to death; (23) His body shall not remain all night upon the tree but you shall bury him the same day (for he who shall revile God shall be crucified), ... Gotta a problem here, because the second witness does not confirm what was written in Galatians. That means that there is an error in this Bible, and brings into question any quotes taken from it, unless they be confirmed by a second witness. And this problem probably stems from the translator wanting to believe what he had been taught about the cross. And rather than translate directly, he transposed his beliefs into the translation. I am a Christian; I freely and happily and contentedly proclaim this to be true. Chritianity is NOT a religion; it is a way of life, attempting to follow in the footsteps of The Christ. As a Christian, I have a responsibility to study His Word, that I not be lead into error. I accept that responsibility. I also accept the responsibility to help others to learn as well, that any errors that I or they hold may be revealed and corrected jointly. I have stated this before; I ask for correction in anything that I am in error on. And I have been corrected, and I thank those who help me to learn, and, (this is a big one!) change. I hope you find this post helpful, and that it helps to bring all of us to a wider understanding of what is being, deliberately, done to America, through what is supposed to be His church (people). Next post, in a day or so; Is Jesus Christ God?
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Comments (1-153) not displayed.
.
.
.
#154. To: Paul Revere (#153)
(Edited)
Excuse me, but I don't understand this 'focusing on the big picture; getting bogged down on some point that he (or anyone really) thinks matters' routine.......it seems like you've been demanding 'proof' or 'evidence' of the existence of Jesus Christ. You went so far as to list a whole bunch of names, it would seem, as representing evidence of some 'brilliant' minds who support your position. And when [edit: correct spelling] You made a statement that Jesus didn't exist and prvoided a list of those whom you consider back your position....and when at least one was found to not be the case, it suddenly is 'some minute or insignificant point' and doesn't matter. That sort of sounds like like 'stay focused on my left hand; no, don't look at the right one==trust me'. Anyways, can you explain why it doesn't matter that you put a name out there--at least one--that seemingly doesn't support your position? Thanx
I should have pinged you to the previous comment in that I used your name. Sorry.
Still no admission that you were wrong about Strauss. What people on your list said what you claim?
To reason, indeed, he was not in the habit of attending. His mode of arguing, if it is to be so called, was one not uncommon among dull and stubborn persons, who are accustomed to be surrounded by their inferiors. He asserted a proposition; and, as often as wiser people ventured respectfully to show that it was erroneous, he asserted it again, in exactly the same words, and conceived that, by doing so, he at once disposed of all objections. - Macaulay, "History of England," Vol. 1, Chapter 6, on James II.
Not only that. That just happens to be the name I checked (and not even because I thought or suspected Paul Revere was wrong in claiming he took his position. I started to question in my mind my previous assertion -- which turned out to be wrong, when I checked -- that Strauss was French. So I checked.) And that name that I happened to check turns out not to belong on Paul Revere's list. For all I know, none of the names on his list take the position Paul Revere claims. Thanks for supporting my position, by the way.
To reason, indeed, he was not in the habit of attending. His mode of arguing, if it is to be so called, was one not uncommon among dull and stubborn persons, who are accustomed to be surrounded by their inferiors. He asserted a proposition; and, as often as wiser people ventured respectfully to show that it was erroneous, he asserted it again, in exactly the same words, and conceived that, by doing so, he at once disposed of all objections. - Macaulay, "History of England," Vol. 1, Chapter 6, on James II.
You're one to talk. What do you call your posts? Like your complaint about my mentioning my degrees, only to have you long after in the thread start bragging about your courtroom successes. I wonder if they're any more real than your list of scholars.
To reason, indeed, he was not in the habit of attending. His mode of arguing, if it is to be so called, was one not uncommon among dull and stubborn persons, who are accustomed to be surrounded by their inferiors. He asserted a proposition; and, as often as wiser people ventured respectfully to show that it was erroneous, he asserted it again, in exactly the same words, and conceived that, by doing so, he at once disposed of all objections. - Macaulay, "History of England," Vol. 1, Chapter 6, on James II.
I caught your earlier comments regarding your thinking of Strauss as a Frenchman, and that you were perhaps a little squeamish over that (not the appropriate term, I'm sure) and went to check it out, and found out that not only was the guy not a Frenchie, he did NOT support PR's apparent assertion. Isn't it odd how sometimes one thing leads to the discovery of another! :) While it may support your position, what actually brought me to this point was that this 'stellar' counsellor has effectively said, 'oh, don't bother looking at the evidence, trust me'. And a lawyer is one of the very last people on earth that I would trust. Anyone that goes to a school to learn how to speak out of both sides of their mouth, as well as take acting, is not exactly someone I would admire. Principles and ethics mean a lot to this 'dumb old broad'. And when I see something like what PR is doing here-- ignoring questions or grabbing some new subject to bring into the mix, the hackles go up. And if it happens on a topic upon which we don't agree--where we would tend to have our BS meter running, how much BS is put out there as 'gospel' on topics where the BS meter is in OFF position.
Whatever, Aristedious. If I thought your opinion mattered, I would address your comments further. I don't.
His telling everyone to quit hating each other is really the more important story.
" Junk is the ideal product... the ultimate merchandise. No sales talk necessary. The client will crawl through a sewer and beg to buy." - William S Burroughs
You have hit the problem on the nose. Most worship the man, not the ideals he espoused. The lessons of Jesus are seldom guideposts for those who claim to follow him.
I thought he didn't exist.
Just what the hell do ya mean by that crack, Pal?
"Satan / Cheney in "08"
I tell everyone to quit hating each other and they just laugh at me.
" Junk is the ideal product... the ultimate merchandise. No sales talk necessary. The client will crawl through a sewer and beg to buy." - William S Burroughs
It's code for you'll get your money for Afghani heroin tonight, watch for a blue stationwagon.
" Junk is the ideal product... the ultimate merchandise. No sales talk necessary. The client will crawl through a sewer and beg to buy." - William S Burroughs
"one hand washes the other". Watch for the Red Stick.
"Satan / Cheney in "08"
I don't think Jesus lived as represented. I do believe that the lessons he is said to have taught are good lessons which have been taught by wise men. I don't believe all the hero elements that were commonly ascribed to heroes in ancient times. You know, virgin birth, son of God. Crap like that.
He said; In secret have I said nothing. He also said, If you Love Me,, do My Words, and the Words that I speak are the Words of my Father, and are not mine. (understand, I paraphase; did not look up the specific quotes/verses.) The problem, Dak, if you will simply read this thread, as I assume that you have, then you begin to understand that because so many people accept the errors that have been brought into Christianity, they really have no clue as to what is the Truth. Is it then your contention that it is acceptable to celebrate the birth of Tammuz on Dec. 25th, calling on the son of god to save you? Simply because His (Jesus)telling everyone to quit hating each other is really the more important story? How about birthdays? Is it acceptable to celebrate any birthdays? Given that the celebration of birthdays is the basis of the acceptance of life begins at birth, and thus abortion is OK? Is that acceptable? Again, simply because? The message of Jesus is either correct in all respects, or, it is not. For instance, the cross had been used throughout the ages as a fertility symbol. And, it was brought into Christianity by the Roman church, who also brought in Easter, Xmas and etc. That is the problem we face, finding the Truth.
When a man who is honestly mistaken hears the truth, he will either quit being mistaken or cease to be honest.
So you've just conceded that Jesus did exist. Precisely what you've spent this whole thread denying. You just won't have the decency to admit you lost the argument.
To reason, indeed, he was not in the habit of attending. His mode of arguing, if it is to be so called, was one not uncommon among dull and stubborn persons, who are accustomed to be surrounded by their inferiors. He asserted a proposition; and, as often as wiser people ventured respectfully to show that it was erroneous, he asserted it again, in exactly the same words, and conceived that, by doing so, he at once disposed of all objections. - Macaulay, "History of England," Vol. 1, Chapter 6, on James II.
If I thought your opinion mattered, I would address your comments further. I don't. But, even though you've lost the argument, you continue to insult me. I guess you won't forgive somebody who points out an error you make, and who beats you in an argument. I wonder if you realize how much you've revealed about what sort of person you are.
To reason, indeed, he was not in the habit of attending. His mode of arguing, if it is to be so called, was one not uncommon among dull and stubborn persons, who are accustomed to be surrounded by their inferiors. He asserted a proposition; and, as often as wiser people ventured respectfully to show that it was erroneous, he asserted it again, in exactly the same words, and conceived that, by doing so, he at once disposed of all objections. - Macaulay, "History of England," Vol. 1, Chapter 6, on James II.
Why don't you just kick your dog? You could still get your frustrations out that way, but it wouldn't annoy us like your whiney posts do.
Bunch of internet bums ... grand jury --- opium den ! ~ byeltsin
Everything is revealed. Everything.
Interesting how all that 'brilliance' can be tarnished so quickly. More interesting, it seems, is just who did their own tarnishing. I congratulate you on keeping the level of debate/discussion on the high road.
No, retard, I haven't. I've concluded that talking to a sad old fart like you is a waste of time. Don't you have restrooms to troll?
I've revealed what I've always revealed: my utter contempt for you, and the ignorant, simple minded ways for which you stand. Go sell crazy somewhere else, lady.
Sounds like somebody needs a nap.
Bunch of internet bums ... grand jury --- opium den ! ~ byeltsin
Or a diaper change? Would you believe a bottle of Midol?
I'm surprised that no one has substantiated that Jesus did in fact die on a two- beam cross using the account written in the book of Mathew: And over his head they put the charge against him, which read, "This is Jesus, the King of the Jews." (Mathew 27:37 ESV) This reveals that Jesus' sign was placed above his head. If Jesus were crucified on a pole (with hands placed above head) then the sign would have been placed above his "hands" not "head." best wishes, zerocool
good observation. welcome to 4, zerocool.
well done, welcome to 4!
Ron Paul for President - Join a Ron Paul Meetup group today!
I began this tread to start people thinking and talking. Seems to have worked. I am, frankly, pleased at the very well thought out comments, and not at all suprised at the ignorance displayed as well. Esp. by those who have never read the Bible, but who put forth comments as if they have some knowledge on the subject. There is a very interesting book; Accuracy and Bias in English Translations of the New Testament, by Jason David BeDuhn, an Associate Professor of Religious Studies at Northern Arizona University in Flagstaff. He makes a very important quote in Chapter 10; "... and make sure that the translations come out in accordance with their beliefs." The point about the Bible is that when such things are done, mistranslations, the Bible ceases to confirm itself. I showed this in how a mistranslation in one Bible came about because the beliefs of the translator did not permit him to quote correctly from the original in the Old Testament. Still, someone argued with me, not accepting that a quote is a quote; no changes permitted. But overall, perhaps Critter made the best statement; "Does it matter?" Referring to a post or to a cross having been used. Well, yes, and no. The act occurred. The actual instrument is not an issue. The issue is how so-called Christians permit themselves to be led astray from the real issues. For instance, making an item of worship out of the cross. Please permit me to digress for a moment. I have found a couple of written descriptions of how men were put to death by the Romans. I will just give you a brief report. First off, this was always a sentance of death, and it was a death that was designed to be long and very, very painful; i.e., the men were tortured to death on the post. Unless someone was famous or his crime was well known, there was no parade of the victim supporting the post on the way to the execution. Everything was prepared in advance, with the hole ready for the post and the post laid out beside the hole. Generally, there were four soldiers/jailers, who always had very firm control of the victim. When they arrived at the post, one of the s/j kicked the victims feet out from under him and he was slammed down onto the post by the two s/j who had his arms, driving all of the air out of his lungs and making him helpless for a short period of time. The kicker used the nails and the maul, with two of the s/j strecthing out his legs, and one holding his arms crossed over the post above his head. Generally, within just a few seconds of arriving at the post, the nails would have been driven through his wrists, and this pain would further disable the victim, making it easier to continue with the feet. The legs were stretched out and the feet pulled flat against the pole, and the nails were driven trough the arch of the foot. Ready to ahng the victim.... except.... Sometimes the court which condemned the victim would issue a death sentance with mercy; i.e., so the victim would die faster. When this happened, the maul was used to smash one leg (the shin bone; you want to think about what that would feel like) and one arm. The final death on the tourture post was by asphyxiation; when the full weight of the body hangs only by the arms, this constricts the chest and slowly slowly slowly the victim dies from a lack of oxygen. When the victim can no longer, despite the great pain caused by the movement, pull himself up by his arms, or push himself up from his legs to take a breath, asphyxiation occurs. Smashing one leg and one arm generally meant that the victim died in a day or so rather than lastin for two or three days. By now, the post is ready to be dropped into the hole. The accounts that I have read make the point that by the time the post was upright, blood was generally freely flowing from the mouths of the victims, who generally bit through their tongues during the process. Victims were even known to have bit the ends of their tongues off. Also, unless the sentancing court said differently, the bodies were left to rot on the post. No burial. As related in this thread, there were a couple of other systems used, always efficient methods of putting people to death. Included in this were the H, which was two posts on which a cross bar, with the victim nailed to that cross bar, was placed. The problem with such systems is that victim died much faster because they could not use their legs for support for breathing. The Romans were into efficiency and slow deaths. Overall, the point that I was heading for was a question; I have never understood how so-called Christians could make an item of worship out of something such as an instument of torture & death; esp. when that object of worship, the cross, is promoted by the same churches that promote easter and Xmas. And please, do not tell me about how the cross is only a symbol; I have watched people pray to crosses all of my life, and I find it... well, lacking in taste for a better way to put it. The object of this discussion, and those to follow, is to begin to learn how all of us have been seriously misled about what is true in history. And, about how we have been mislead to the enrichment of the so-called churches. And, does someone find that this last comment is also off-base?
When a man who is honestly mistaken hears the truth, he will either quit being mistaken or cease to be honest.
Ping!
When a man who is honestly mistaken hears the truth, he will either quit being mistaken or cease to be honest.
...apparently, in this book, one is (to) turn within and seek the 'divine counselor' for insight, and leave it at that. Exactly.
"They must find it difficult... Those who have taken authority as the truth, rather than truth as the authority." ~ Gerald Massey
No, but just because the Bible says Jesus was tied to a cross or hung from a tree or nailed to a post doesn't mean he was.
"They must find it difficult... Those who have taken authority as the truth, rather than truth as the authority." ~ Gerald Massey
And please, do not tell me about how the cross is only a symbol; I have watched people pray to crosses all of my life, and I find it... well, lacking in taste for a better way to put it. My "2¢" on the matter: Whether anyone wants to admit it or not, Christian churches (or certainly all modern mainstream ones) definitely are "patterned" off of the Roman Catholic "model". Thus, perhaps we should look at what we're REALLY dealing with here. By and large, Christians DON'T follow even the 10 Commandments - in particular the 2nd. Christiandom has as the 9th Commandment "Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's wife"; and, as the 10th "Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's goods" - AND (as mentioned) has the 2nd "bumped" off altogether. SO, in light of this, just the ACT of MAKING those crosses that adorn very nearly EVERY "Christian" home (right along with those statues of the Messiah and all the others too) in itself is a violation of the 2nd Commandment - let alone WORSHIP of such!!! It appears to me rather amazing that Christians come up with all sorts of things to "defend" their various positions on something like whether there was a crossbar on the Messiah's "instrument of death", and all the while completely IGNORE the MUCH bigger issue at hand in the first place! For those that KNOW me, they KNOW I am a believer in the Messiah; BUT I refuse to be called a Christian. I do NOT want to be "clumped" into that "category", and for several reasons; but, first and foremost, because by and large Christians simply do NOT follow Scripture. They follow "feed good" ideas. America is at that awkward stage. It's too late to work within the system, but too early to shoot the bastards. On the road to tyranny, we've gone so far that polite political action is about as useless as a miniskirt in a convent. I was raised Catholic, was an altar boy, had Catholic stamped on my dog tags and married in the Catholic Church. In those days I didn't even think much about what scripture said, nor was it ever taught to me by the Catholic Church. Oh sure, we had a verse or two each Sunday, and then a sermon based on the verse, but the teaching/instruction never elevated from the milk level to the meat level. At my Church we had a huge cross with Jesus hanging, bleeding behind the altar. It wasn't until much later in life that I asked, "why, if Jesus lives, and "He has risen", do the churches continue to portray Him as hanging dead on a cross in front of all the little kids that they make go to church ? As was mentioned by innieway above, most Christians are simply following in the footsteps of their parents or following some feel good preachers advice rather than search the scriptures themselves.
"Paper is poverty,... it is only the ghost of money, and not money itself." --Thomas Jefferson to Edward Carrington, 1788. ME 7:36
Me too. When someone asks me if I'm a Christian, I hesitate to answer yes or no, because I don't agree with alot of 'Christians'. I do agree with most everything Jesus supposedly said especially the Lord's Prayer. The Bible has an immeasurable wealth of wisdom in it. I'm much more likely to accept an invitation to Church if there's food to be eaten afterward. Mmmmm... food.
"They must find it difficult... Those who have taken authority as the truth, rather than truth as the authority." ~ Gerald Massey
That's a warning; "Fuck with us and you'll end up like this guy."
"They must find it difficult... Those who have taken authority as the truth, rather than truth as the authority." ~ Gerald Massey
It gets even worse than that. Of all the 6000+ manuscripts that are extant, no two of them are in 100% agreement. This leads the translators to have to make educated guesses as to which accounts are "correct" and which are "incorrect" and leads to different things in different editions. Suggested reading: Bart Ehrman's Misquoting Jesus Ehrman is the Chair of the Department of Religious Studies at UNC Chapel Hill.
America is not at war. The military is at war. America is at the mall and the Congress is out to lunch.
I edited my post to reflect what you point out here AFTER you had made this reply. But, this reply DOES point out something very important, IMHO - that the very term Christian invokes an "image" in everyone's mind, and by accepting that "title" there is a preconceived notion of your beliefs. I don't hesitate. I let it be known straight up I'm NOT a Christian. I don't care to even walk in the doors (and just don't do it) of a "den of lies" or "place of pagan practices" - food or not... BTW, I wasn't "born and raised" this way - quite the contrary. Perhaps if more people would take a stance of "everything I've ever learned might be based upon lies" and take an honest look at things for themselves with an open mind (and perhaps listen to what some "kooks" say and weigh the evidence), they may find that INDEED everything they HAD been taught WAS a pack of lies...
America is at that awkward stage. It's too late to work within the system, but too early to shoot the bastards. On the road to tyranny, we've gone so far that polite political action is about as useless as a miniskirt in a convent. Me too. I USED to have the crosses, rosaries, Mary and Jesus statues, etc as a part of my "home decor". And along the line of those things being a violation of the Second Commandment, just what are the works of Michaelangelo in the Sistine Chapel and elsewhere - no matter what an "amazing human accomplishment" they may be? It strikes me as one thing when someone is doing something who just honestly doesn't know better, and quite another when they've been exposed to something (like someone telling them something which they don't have good rebuttal for) which SHOULD give them reason to dig for answers but then DON'T. Failure to take action because it may put you outside your "comfort zone" is NO excuse.
America is at that awkward stage. It's too late to work within the system, but too early to shoot the bastards. On the road to tyranny, we've gone so far that polite political action is about as useless as a miniskirt in a convent. Excellent essay, innieway; thank you. Better than I could have written, although it was next to be tried!!
When a man who is honestly mistaken hears the truth, he will either quit being mistaken or cease to be honest.
All of those icons and assorted other bullshit only serve to reduce the unmeasurable power of the Creator of the universe. It ALL belongs to the Creator and we have been appointed TRUSTEES with a fiduciary responsibility to improve it, without ANY personal ownership. Materialism serves to reduce us to a sub-human level of self gratification that prevents us from better serving as trustees, actually causes us to violate our duties in pursuit of material "stuff" ... we lose our moral compass, become more akin to base animals ... like the old broads spoken of in another thread that went to Africa to get laid as if they were dogs. The scriptures point out that mankind's heart will wax cold in the latter times. This is happening, people are losing their respect for things once considered sacred, like their love for their fellow man.
"Paper is poverty,... it is only the ghost of money, and not money itself." --Thomas Jefferson to Edward Carrington, 1788. ME 7:36
Comments (195 - 195) not displayed.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/LatestYou're incapable of focusing on the big picture. You get bogged down on some point YOU think matters.
aristides aristeides found one that differed with you and what you were saying/supporting and pointed it out to you, you're calling it whining and bogged down???
#155. To: aristeides (#154)
#156. To: Paul Revere (#153)
#157. To: rowdee, Paul Revere (#154)
Anyways, can you explain why it doesn't matter that you put a name out there--at least one--that seemingly doesn't support your position?
#158. To: Paul Revere (#153)
Whiner.
#159. To: aristeides (#157)
#160. To: aristeides (#158)
#161. To: richard9151 (#0)
Was Jesus Christ crucified on a cross?
#162. To: Dakmar (#161)
His telling everyone to quit hating each other is really the more important story.
#163. To: Paul Revere (#162)
The lessons of Jesus are seldom guideposts for those who claim to follow him.
#164. To: Dakmar (#161)
His telling everyone to quit hating each other is really the more important story.
#165. To: Fred Mertz (#163)
#166. To: tom007 (#164)
Just what the hell do ya mean by that crack, Pal?
#167. To: Dakmar (#166)
#168. To: Fred Mertz (#163)
I thought he didn't exist.
#169. To: Dakmar (#161)
His telling everyone to quit hating each other is really the more important story.
#170. To: Paul Revere (#168)
#171. To: Paul Revere (#160)
(Edited)
Whatever, Aristedious.
#172. To: Paul Revere (#148)
Now how many jury trials have you won, professor NOBODY?
#173. To: aristeides (#171)
I wonder if you realize how much you've revealed about what sort of person you are.
#174. To: aristeides (#171)
#175. To: aristeides (#170)
So you've just conceded that Jesus did exist.
#176. To: aristeides (#171)
wonder if you realize how much you've revealed about what sort of person you are.
#177. To: Paul Revere (#176)
I've revealed what I've always revealed: my utter contempt for you, and the ignorant, simple minded ways for which you stand. Go sell crazy somewhere else, lady.
#178. To: Minerva (#177)
#179. To: richard9151 (#3)
#180. To: zerocool (#179)
This reveals that Jesus' sign was placed above his head.
#181. To: zerocool (#179)
#182. To: PnbC, Jethro Tull, robin, Christine, aristeides, gengis gandhi, Alan Chapman, innieway, lodwick, Rupert_Pupkin, mirage, rowdee, Paul Revere, SmokinOPs, Dakmar, tom007, randge, Hayek Fan, Minerva, Critter, AllTheKings'HorsesWontDoIt, FormerLurker (#0)
And this leads me directly to what is wrong with America; the churches.
#183. To: noone222, Fred Mertz, Cynicom, zerocool, , *Bible facts*, *Agriculture-Environment* (#0)
#184. To: gengis gandhi (#8)
...a book is not god...
#185. To: richard9151, gengis ghandi (#12)
...the Bible is not and does not pretend to be a so-called god.
#186. To: richard9151 (#182)
(Edited)
Overall, the point that I was heading for was a question; I have never understood how so-called Christians could make an item of worship out of something such as an instument of torture & death; esp. when that object of worship, the cross, is promoted by the same churches that promote easter and Xmas.
The Roman Catholic "model" very effectively CHANGED the 10 Commandments, resulting in nearly ALL of "Christiandom" being led astray. The 2nd Commandment which forbids the making of, and bowing down to images, was completely OMITTED; while the 10th (which forbid coveting) was split in two - thus giving the false appearance of still having "10 Commandments". The 2nd Commandment ACTUALLY says:
Exodus 20:4 Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness [of any thing] that [is] in heaven above, or that [is] in the earth beneath, or that [is] in the water under the earth: 5 Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God [am] a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth [generation] of them that hate me; 6 And shewing mercy unto thousands of them that love me, and keep my commandments.
The 10th Commandment ACTUALLY says:
Exodus 20:17 Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that [is] thy neighbour's.
Secondly (which may be an off-spin of the first and is at least related), I'm not at all "keen" on the idea of allowing myself to be judged by perceptions associated with a "title" - at least not a common one. While it may be possible to defend my religious beliefs prohibiting me from vaccinations and licenses AND be termed "Christian" at the same time; it is considerably more difficult, as everyone KNOWS that these things are not something which violate the Christian mantra. Christian isn't a title which the Apostles used in describing themselves, why should I? The words Jesus Christ are used as a TITLE for the Messiah, it was not His name. I firmly believe that Christiandom is a tool which has been used as part of the means by which the whole world has been deceived.
Claire Wolfe
H. Jackson Brown
#187. To: innieway (#186)
#188. To: innieway (#186)
For those that KNOW me, they KNOW I am a believer in the Messiah; BUT I refuse to be called a Christian. I do NOT want to be "clumped" into that "category", and for several reasons; but, first and foremost, because by and large Christians simply do NOT follow Scripture. They follow "feed good" ideas.
#189. To: noone222 (#187)
"why, if Jesus lives, and "He has risen", do the churches continue to portray Him as hanging dead on a cross in front of all the little kids that they make go to church ?
#190. To: richard9151 (#182)
The point about the Bible is that when such things are done, mistranslations, the Bible ceases to confirm itself.
#191. To: wudidiz (#188)
Me too. When someone asks me if I'm a Christian, I hesitate to answer yes or no, because I don't agree with alot of 'Christians'.
Claire Wolfe
H. Jackson Brown
#192. To: noone222 (#187)
I was raised Catholic, was an altar boy...
Claire Wolfe
H. Jackson Brown
#193. To: innieway (#186)
My "2¢" on the matter:
#194. To: innieway (#192)
I USED to have the crosses, rosaries, Mary and Jesus statues, etc as a part of my "home decor".
.
.
.