See other Religion Articles
Title: Was Jesus Christ crucified on a cross? - The Explanation
Source:
[None]
URL Source: http://jehovah.to/exe/translation/cross.htm
Published: Oct 25, 2007
Author: Bible
Post Date: 2007-10-25 14:34:34 by richard9151
Keywords: None
Views: 601
Comments: 32
I was, frankly, amazed at the responses to the first post; Was Jesus Christ crucified on a cross? 952 views, 178 comments! And the wide divergence of opinions given begins to show how little most people understand the Bible, and, how few have actually read it. And, I mean read it, as opposed to listening to someone who claims to have read it. Part of the answer about this subject I supplied in the first post. Namely; "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), ... " The quote from Galatians 3:13 is a direct quote from the Old Testament. It is not open to change, as it is a quote. But you will find in various Bibles, that the word 'cross' is substituted. This is not acceptable when a Quote is being made. When you begin to find things such as this, then you begin to realize that someone has an agenda, and you must be doubly careful as to what is going on. Why, in particular, are details such as this important? First off, it helps you to identify those who are liars. If they change things, it is done to decieve. Are we to assume that any deception is an isolated event? I would hope we do not! Liars are liars, and seldom change their spots. Quite frankly, if people really began to pay attention to what is actually in the Bible, most of the problems of the world would go away. And most of the non-sense that plagues Christianity would also go away. I have said this before; just because someone claims to be Christian does not make it so. A man is known by his actions, and not by his words. And if so-called Christian congregations are praying for a war with Iran, and for success in Iran, while waiting for the so-called Rapture.... well, they ain't Christian. And that is as simple as it gets. This is the explanation for this post. And by the way, I am not a Jehovah's Witness; I just use the best material available wherever I may find it. +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Did Jesus Die on a Cross? WAS it a mistake? Had church leaders erred? Such questions might well have occurred to residents of Cartagena, Spain, not long ago. Why? Because of a Holy Week poster that depicted Jesus Christ impaled, not on a cross, but upon an upright stake that lacked a crossbeam. For centuries, professing Christians have been taught that Jesus Christ was put to death on a cross. Among many Christians "representations of Jesus nailed to a cross" have special importance. Yet, is it possible that Christ did not die on a cross? Crosses of various kinds have been common from early times. Says The Encyclopedia Britannica: "From its simplicity of form, the cross has been used both as a religious symbol and as an ornament, from the dawn of man’s civilization. Various objects, dating from periods long anterior to the Christian era, have been found, marked with crosses of different designs, in almost every part of the old world." (Eleventh Edition, Vol. VII, p. 506) Hence, the cross does not have what some might term a "Christian" origin. Of course, that does not mean that Jesus did not die on a cross. Some people have been executed by being impaled on crosses. However, the Romans often put individuals to death on posts having no crossbars. Could that have happened in Jesus’ case? If a contemporary artist had stood before the dying Jesus on Golgotha, he might have left us an authentic portrayal of that highly significant event. But no artwork of this kind is in existence, and certainly later tradition is not conclusive. Nevertheless, we do have the recorded words of an eyewitness. Who was he? As Jesus looked down from that implement of torture and death, he saw "the disciple whom he loved," the apostle John. To him Jesus committed the care of his mother, Mary. (John 19:25-30) So, John was there. He knew whether Jesus died on a cross. To designate the instrument of Christ’s death, John used the Greek word stawros rendered "torture stake" in the New World Translation. (John 19:17, 19, 25) In classical Greek, stawros’ denotes the same thing that it does in the common Greek of the Christian Scriptures-primarily an upright stake or pole with no crossbar. Interestingly, John Denham Parsons wrote in the book The Non-Christian Cross: "There is not a single sentence in any of the numerous writings forming the New Testament, which, in the original Greek, bears even indirect evidence to the effect that the stauros used in the case of Jesus was other than an ordinary stauros; much less to the effect that it consisted, not of one piece of timber, but of two pieces nailed together in the form of a cross." The Jnterpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible states, with reference to stauros’: "Literally an upright stake, pale, or pole... As an instrument of execution, the cross was a stake sunk vertically in the ground. Often, but by no means always, a horizontal piece was attached to the vertical portion." Another reference work says: "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.... Even amongst the Romans the crux (from which our cross is derived) appears to have been originally an upright pole, and this always remained the more prominent part."-The Imperial Bible Dictionary. In the book The Cross and Crucifixion, by Hermann Fulda, it is said: "Jesus died on a simple death-stake: In support of this there speak (a) the then customary usage of this means of execution in the Orient, (b) indirectly the history itself of Jesus’ sufferings and (c) many expressions of the early church fathers." Fulda also points out that some of the oldest illustrations of Jesus impaled depict him on a simple pole. The Christian apostle Paul says: "Christ by purchase released us from the curse of the Law by becoming a curse instead of us, because it is written: ‘Accursed is every man hanged upon a stake."’ (Gal. 3:13) His quotation was from Deuteronomy, which mentions placing the corpse of an executed person on a "stake," then adds: "His dead body should not stay all night on the stake; but you should by all means bury him on that day, because something accursed of God is the one hung up; and you must not defile your soil."-Deut. 21:22, 23. Was this "stake" a cross? No. In fact, the Hebrews had no word for the traditional cross. To designate such an implement, they used "warp and woof," alluding to yarns running lengthwise in a fabric and others going across it on a loom. At Deuteronomy 21:22, 23, the Hebrew word translated "stake" is ‘ets, meaning primarily a tree or wood, specifically a wooden post. Executional crosses were not used by the Hebrews. The Aramaic word ‘a’, corresponding to the Hebrew term ‘ets, appears at Ezra 6:11, where it is said regarding violators of a Persian king’s decree: "A timber will be pulled out of his house and he will be impaled upon it." Obviously, a single timber would have no crossbeam. In rendering Deuteronomy 21:22, 23 ("stake") and Ezra 6:11 ("timber"), translators of the Septuagint Version employed the Greek word xylon, the same term that Paul used at Galatians 3:13. It was also the one employed by Peter, when he said Jesus "bore our sins in his own body upon the stake." (1 Pet. 2:24) In fact, xy’lon is used several other times to refer to the "stake" on which Jesus was impaled. (Acts 5:30; 10:39; 13:29) This Greek word has the basic meaning of "wood." There is nothing to imply that in the case of Jesus’ impalement it meant a stake with a crossbeam. So, the evidence indicates that Jesus did not die on the traditional cross. Hence, Jehovah’s witnesses, who once had a representation of the cross on the front cover of their journal The Watchtower, no longer use such a symbol. Nor do they give the stake veneration. Surely, the instrument of Jesus’ suffering and death no more merits such reverence than would the gallows on which a beloved one might have died unjustly. Moreover, God’s Word prohibits such veneration, for it says, "flee from idolatry" and "guard yourselves from idols." (1 Cor. 10:14; 1 John 5:21). Does this mean that Jehovah’s witnesses care little about the death of Jesus Christ? No. They know that by means of it God provided the ransom that releases believing mankind from bondage to sin and death. (1 Tim. 2:5, 6) These matters often are discussed at our meetings. And, like the early Christians, annually they commemorate Jesus’ death during celebration of the Lord’s evening meal. (1 Cor. 11:23-26) At all of such gatherings in the local Kingdom Hall you will find a hearty welcome.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: dakmar, PnbC, Jethro Tull, aristeides, gengis gandhi, Alan Chapman, innieway, lodwick, Rupert_Pupkin, rowdee, mirage, Paul Revere, SmokinOPs, tom007, randge, Hayek Fan, christen, Minerva, Critter, AllTheKings'HorsesWontDoIt, FormerLurker, noone222, Zippo (#0)
I have started a new ping list; Bible facts. Please join if you are interested. I will be addressing additional questions, such as the so-called Rapture that many 'believe' is a part of the Bible, over the coming months. Additional subjects to be covered; Is there a heaven in the Bible? What happens to us at death? What about the soul? When you begin to see what is actually in the Bible, you will be amazed at what you use to believe was Christianity!
When a man who is honestly mistaken hears the truth, he will either quit being mistaken or cease to be honest.
No. He was crusified on a wooden fish. I know because I saw it on the back of a car.
Ce n'est pas pour toujours. ‡
Using the Bible to prove the Bible's validity is exactly the kind of circular logic that allows those inside it to think they're looking at the world rationally. The Bible is a library, and the books which are in that library were picked by a group of men who had absolutely nothing to do with Jesus, his message, or his alleged time on earth. They were power brokers and government lackeys crafting the religion they wanted. They were the Rupert Murdochs, Jerry Falwells, Pat Robertsons, and Roger Ailes of their day, and it is they who compiled the thing people call The Bible.
I have not said a single word about the validity of the Bible, so why are you bringing this into the discussion? This thread is about the 'beliefs' that people hold and which they think/assume come from the Bible. That is all that it is. Anything else?
When a man who is honestly mistaken hears the truth, he will either quit being mistaken or cease to be honest.
Uh on this youre so wrong.. it's not that they've substituted anything.. it's how the word itself may have been translated not that they 'changed God's word'..
Zip; look closely at the words above. This is not hard to understand. In every Bible I have looked in these words; for it is written are used in this verse. That says that this is a quote. This Bible then continues; Cursed is everyone who hangs on a cross). That is not what is written in the original verse (see above), which carries over into every Bible that I have looked at. When you quote, the words must be exact, and they are not. That is an error, and it is not permissable.
When a man who is honestly mistaken hears the truth, he will either quit being mistaken or cease to be honest.
#1 You totally misunderstand the point I'm making.. #2 what is a 'cross' made of? Wood.. what does wood come from? Trees.. Also which translation are you taking that from? Some are not meant to be accurate or perfect translations.. some are meant to use colloquial English..
This thread is about the 'beliefs' that people hold and which they think/assume come from the Bible. That is all that it is. Anything else? Are you mental? I replied to the article you posted. You didn't write it. You merely posted it. I replied to its content. If you don't like that, tough shit.
Haha! That's perfect. You can always tell which person has the least knowledge. It's the one with the Bible as his source for all information.
I'll ask the same question I asked before: "What makes your interpretation any more valid than any other Protestant denomination, or the Catholic interpretation for that matter? Does God talk to you while you sleep? Does he send you e-mails? Just what makes you so righteous that you have the authority to tell anyone what Bible phrases do and do not mean?" You don't have any answers, all you have are your opinions.
I guess besides having a smart mouth you are also somewhat slow in understanding what you are reading. That info was posted only as an explanation for the title to the post; Was Jesus Christ crucified on a cross? Neither this thread, nor the first post, has anything to do with the validity of the Bible. It is about beliefs that people, you being a good example, have about the Bible and which are false. These beliefs are legion, and most of them have nothing to do with His Truth. All of which does not mean that I think the Bible is invalid; it most certainly is not. However, the Bible only makes sense when you look at the information correctly and accept what is said without change.
When a man who is honestly mistaken hears the truth, he will either quit being mistaken or cease to be honest.
Ask away. I am not interpreting the Bible. This concerns only the verses as they appear in the Bible, and how this is mis-portrayed to people. Nothing more. As to the info that I use, I am not responsible for that. However, I generally have good reasons for using such info and how it fits into verifiable verses in the Bible. As I said before, I have a dozen different Bibles, and I will generally check a verse for validity in at least 3 Bibles before I use it.
When a man who is honestly mistaken hears the truth, he will either quit being mistaken or cease to be honest.
True. It's that absolute belief that the right words are exactly the one a religious person thinks they are which makes everything else wrong. Let us assume that Jesus was really here, and the story told in the gospels in essentially correct. If it is the word of God, and if it is intended as instruction for us, then we have to ask why God would allow two different apostles who lived with Jesus quote him differently when he was giving the same speech. If God intended us to see every word as exact, he would have made sure that all apostles told exactly the same story using exactly the same words. They didn't. There are several instances of apostles using different words to describe the same SERMON Jesus spoke. THEREFORE, we can reasonably know that the exact words are not important, for if they were, there would be no difference in the way one apostle quotes Jesus and the way another does. That is, if God was the New Testament's editor and designer, and if every word is exactly as he intended. A more reasonable conclusion is that men remember things differently absent a recording device, and they write those memories fully believing they are telling the absolute truth. Everything about Jesus, his words, and the life he is said to have lived say this was a man who never wrote anything down because that's how he wanted it. The story of his lessons lives, and that was what he cared about, not all this worship nonsense, not all the holier than thou attitudes that ARE modern Christendom.
You need to be using a Greek interlinear bible.. or learn Greek to get a clear understanding of the meaning of the word or words used.
Haywood Jablome? You pompous, ignorant, Bible thumping twit. The entire article is based upon exactly what I addressed: the fact that it tries to use the Bible to prove the truth of the Biblical issue asserted. It's like using Scientology literature to prove Scientology is right.
Well for one thing .. the apostles wrote from different perspectives.. just as anyone who is witness to an event will do.. based upon their history or their socioeconomic and/or educational or religious background.
My problem with those who hover over the Bible is their failure to see the forest for the trees. Most Christians actively avoid doing the things Jesus actually told them to do. 99% of them have never been to visit a prisoner. Most wouldn't dream of being the Samaritan in similar circumstances. And where do they get all this outrageous pride and arrogance? Where do they get the big church buildings, the success doctrine, and the political activism? There is almost none of Jesus to be found at most churches bearing his name.
I dont disagree.. Maybe the question should be asked.. where in scripture is the blueprint for the type church we see today? I've not seen it.
You are correct, Zip; it does not exist in Scripture, just as the rapture does not exist, but, because people have no real idea as to what is in the Bible, they are easy to decieve. Care to buy a sliver of the 'real cross'? The Roman church probably sold enough of such to make up 100s of crosses. Or, perhaps, you would prefer only a plastic version that has been blessed by a prelate/priest (more expensive)/Bishop (more expensive)/Cardinal (more expensive), or, gasp! one blessed by the pope!? And where is the people's faith? In His Words, or, in that plastic cross hanging on the wall? That instrument of torure, and which the Roman church has deemed to be holy. The problem, Zip, is when people put their faith in men and their words, instead of in The Word, for to do that, we find that we are required to do much that many do not wish to do. And the cross is just one of many, many things that exist in the minds of the people, but not in the Bible.
When a man who is honestly mistaken hears the truth, he will either quit being mistaken or cease to be honest.
I'll give you a little clue about translations: there is an old saying, "All translators are liars." There are no exact, 100% translations. You are making a big deal out of nothing. The Romans crucified hundreds of thousands of people on crosses, and Jesus was one of them.
"He is a very shallow critic who cannot see an eternal rebel in the heart of a conservative." - G.K. Chesterton
I don't think it matters if it was a tree or a cross. Icons have no place in a religion supposedly based upon Jesus, whether it is a cross, a tree, or a fish.
It is most practical to lash the prisoner's arms to a crossbar, which the prisoner carries to the place of execution. The vertical post is permanently placed there. The crosspiece is raised and lashed into a notch on the post. The length of time until death occurs depends on whether the buttocks and/or feet have some support or whether all weight is borne by the arms. If the body is suspended by the arms from the top of a vertical post, death occurs rather rapidly. This is not so good from the point of view of the executioner.
At the risk of playing Devil's Advocate, all puns intended - First, there had to have been a Jesus. Then he had to be crucified. Then it had to be done on a cross. All three bits come into play to answer that question. Not everyone believes that (a) there was a Jesus -or- (b) He was cruficied [the Gnostics had an opinion on that] -or- (c) That it was indeed a cross. It would be, however, a fascinating research project, to actually prove all three parts of the question.
America is not at war. The military is at war. America is at the mall and the Congress is out to lunch.
I do not believe in the creed professed by the Jewish church, by the Roman church, by the Greek church, by the Turkish church, by the Protestant church, nor by any church that I know of. My own mind is my own church. All national institutions of churches, whether Jewish, Christian or Turkish, appear to me no other than human inventions, set up to terrify and enslave mankind, and monopolize power and profit. (hint: not my quote)
Nice use of weasal words. You just made my point. By "misportrayed," of course you mean biblical interpretations you don't agree with. Now, if I were to post your interpretations to a hundred different websites that specialized in sharing with the world "God's word/the truth," my bet is that they would all say you are wrong and then proceed to give me one hundred different reasons why you are wrong and then give me one hundred versions of their own "truth." Each being different from the other. This is exactly why there are mosre than 38000 Protestant denominations in the world and approximately 6- 10 Catholic-type denominations. The problem with all of this is that there is only one truth and no one knows what the hell it is, to include you. So you can embrace your truth as tight as you want in order to make you feel superior to everyone else. You can go and damn everyone to hell to your heart's content for not agreeing with you and your interpretation. For myself however, I refuse to believe that God is going to hold me or anyone else accountable fo his supposed words when no one knows what those words really mean. If He were concerned about such things then He would make damn sure that we knew whose version of "the truth" is correct.
You're exactly right! Most of them have never seen this passage, or "conveniently" overlook it: Luke 6:46 And why call ye me, Lord, Lord, and do not the things which I say? On a related note, and with you being a lawyer, you might find this one interesting: Matthew 5:34 But I say unto you, Swear not at all; - and - James 5:12 But above all things, my brethren, swear not, neither by heaven, neither by the earth, neither by any other oath: but let your yea be yea; and [your] nay, nay; lest ye fall into condemnation. When was the last time you saw someone during a trial when asked "Do you swear to tell the truth..." answer NO? I don't think courts use the Bible to swear on anymore, but how ironic is it that they used to ask people to SWEAR on the ONLY book on the planet that tells you NOT to???
99 percent of lawyers give the rest a bad name. I'm commenting on what you wrote even though this topic has nothing to do with the original topic of this thread. You wrote that the New Testament says that Christians should not take oaths, or swear, same difference (actually you stated that the whole Bible condemns oaths but only use NT quotes so I guessed that that's what you meant). You quote Mathew 5:34 but you do not quote the entire passage dealing with taking oaths: 33 "Again you have heard that it was said to those of old, 'You shall not swear falsely, but shall perform to the Lord what you have sworn.' 34 But I say to you, Do not take an oath at all, either by heaven, for it is the throne of God, 35 or by the earth, for it is his footstool, or by Jerusalem, for it is the city of the great King. 36 And do not take an oath by your head, for you cannot make one hair white or black. 37 Let what you say be simply 'Yes' or 'No'; anything more than this comes from evil." (Mathew 5:34-37 ESV) The context of this passage involves the problem that the Jews had with their numerous oath taking. The Jews had become experts in making vows, oaths, pledges, and promises that were invalid, meaningless, and worthless. They would not swear by God, because lying under oath or breaking one’s word when given in the name of God was considered blasphemy because it would be taking God’s name in vain. So they swore by heaven, by the temple, by their own head, etc. It had become a tradition that set aside and made void the word of God. Jesus was addressing this blatant form of cheating and sin that the Jews were invovled in. That's why He said not to swear on God or by anything else if you're not going to do what you say you're going to do. In Mathew 5:34-37 and James 5:12 the overall message is clear, do what you say you're going to do. If you're going to tell the truth, then tell it, if you're going to perform some type of work, then do it. If not, then don't swear and don't take an oath. So these passages, according to my view, are more concerned with taking false oaths, then taking oaths in general. But just in case you still feel that taking oaths is condemned in the Bible completely I direct your attention to Mathew 5:34 again and see that Jesus was concerned with "swearing falsely," not that "all swearing" was necessarily evil or a sin. How could it be? When the Old Testament approved it: It is the LORD your God you shall fear. Him you shall serve and by His name you shall swear. (Deuteronomy 6:13 ESV) If a man vows a vow to the LORD, or swears an oath to bind himself by a pledge, he shall not break his word. He shall do according to all that proceeds out of his mouth. (Numbers 30:2 ESV) You shall not swear by my name falsely, and so profane the name of your God: I am the LORD. (Leviticus 19:12 ESV) [Notice that God is "not" commanding that all oaths be stopped, but is prohibiting taking oaths and not fulfilling them]. 21 "If you make a vow to the LORD your God, you shall not delay fulfilling it, for the LORD your God will surely require it of you, and you will be guilty of sin. 22 But if you refrain from vowing, you will not be guilty of sin. 23 You shall be careful to do what has passed your lips, for you have voluntarily vowed to the LORD your God what you have promised with your mouth. (Deuteronomy 23:21-23 ESV) [Once again it's taking an oath and breaking it that's prohibited, not the taking of the oath itself]. So it's clear that the Bible is not condemning oaths, but rather the breaking of oaths. Taking oaths in court is not against the Bible because if the Christian (or Jew) is going to tell the truth anyway (ideally), then taking an oath, or "swearing to tell the truth" isn't prohibited because the Christian (or Jew) is going to do that anyway. Meaning, the God-fearing person is going to tell the truth anyway, whether or not they swear to it. To further substantiate that "swearing" or "oath taking" is not prohibited, I direct your attention to Mathew 26: 63 But Jesus remained silent. And the high priest said to him, "I adjure you by the living God, tell us if you are the Christ, the Son of God." 64 Jesus said to him, "You have said so. But I tell you, from now on you will see the Son of Man seated at the right hand of Power and coming on the clouds of heaven." (Mathew 26:63-64 ESV) Here, the high priests' words, "I adjure you" is equivalent to, "I put you under oath," which in today's language is equivalent to, "Do you swear to tell the truth." I invite you to look in any reputable translation to see that "I adjure you" is the same as putting Jesus under oath. Now the important thing to remember is that Jesus accepted being placed under oath, in effect He swore by the living God that He was telling the truth. So if Jesus had no problem with accepting being under oath, and this is after He made His speech about not taking oaths 21 chapters ago, then I guess He was referring to taking false oaths and not condemning all oaths entirely. best wishes, zerocool
63 But Jesus remained silent. And the high priest said to him, "I adjure you by the living God, tell us if you are the Christ, the Son of God." 64 Jesus said to him, "You have said so. But I tell you, from now on you will see the Son of Man seated at the right hand of Power and coming on the clouds of heaven." (Mathew 26:63-64 ESV) Here, the high priests' words, "I adjure you" is equivalent to, "I put you under oath," which in today's language is equivalent to, "Do you swear to tell the truth." Thanks for the reply to my comment. It shows serious thought and a good effort at STUDY! But I have to wonder about the part I quoted. Anyhow, your response is still good food for thought. Thanks! I'll put more study and thought into the matter...But in the meantime, if the "need" arises, I will continue to follow the Messiah's words in Matthew 5:34, and decline to take any oaths...
99 percent of lawyers give the rest a bad name. Yours is one of the nicest replies I've ever seen in a debate-type forum. I didn't think it was possible. My confidence in hoping for civilized debates has been reaffirmed. Thank you. To comment on your response, I do agree with you that generally, you're better off not taking oaths at all. Even if I didn't agree it's not worth arguing over something as non-essential as that between Christians. I replied just to shed some light on the issue. I will however attempt to further substantiate my view just for the sake of testing out my belief on this issue, to determine if it can stand up to scrutiny. Once again, I agree with you completely that generally, it's best not to take oaths. I'm merely further discussing this topic to test my own belief that taking oaths is still permissable, which I sense that you feel it is not. I continue to refer to the previous point that the Old Testament does not condemn oath-taking but the breaking of oaths, which is the context, I believe, which Jesus is referring to in Mathew 5:34-37. Mostly for the fact that though Jesus does say not to take oaths, the rest of the passage immediately following that shows in what matter we should not take oaths, mainly, not taking oaths by other means apart from by God, in an effort to subvert the consequences of breaking an oath and allowing the Jews (or anyone) to take an oath with no intention of keeping it. My personal belief is that is what Jesus meant when He said not to take oaths, since the Jews, in general, couldn't be trusted with keeping their word if God Himself (Jesus) has to further point out the problem to them. You have a question wondering whether you are assumed to have taken an oath if someone puts you under oath and you answer them, without denying taking that oath. To answer that I submit that generally, when a person hears something that they take offense to, or feel very strongly about, they, generally speaking, respond to that. Meaning, that if one of your friends came up to you and said, "I just got done beating my wife, want this soda?" And you took the soda from him without skipping a beat, then that would reveal that you either accept that beating his wife was a good thing, or that you don't necessarily find it an important issue. Jesus shows this type of acceptance (meaning that He continues on, showing that He accepted a previous statement, not, that He approves of wife beating) when He is talking with Thomas in the book of John: 28 Thomas answered him, "My Lord and my God!" 29 Jesus said to him, "Have you believed because you have seen me? Blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed." (John 20:28-29 ESV) I don't have to mention that using the word "God" haphazardly back in the day would have been a blatant violation of the third commandment to not take God's name in vain. If Jesus wasn't God, then He would have rebuked Thomas immediately. But Jesus doesn't give a rebuke, He merely continues talking with Thomas showing His acceptance of the fact that He is indeed Thomas' God as Thomas exclaimed. My point is that Jesus doesn't say, "You're right Thomas, I am your God." Jesus doesn't have to. By not addressing it He is revealing that He does indeed agree with that statement. Likewise, in Mathew 26:63-64, the high priest puts Jesus under oath (which neither of us deny) and Jesus accepts that oath by not addressing it but instead continued and responded. If Jesus thought that oath taking was wrong in court, and He was basically in court, then most assuredly He would have said something about His denial of accepting that oath. In the same way that if someone came to me and said, "I'm calling you a homosexual, now answer this question of mine." And I didn't respond to the false allegation that I was gay, then that would strongly imply that I accepted the association of being gay. If I was in court and taking oaths was against my beliefs and the bailiff told me, "Do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth so help you God." And I responded by saying, "No, I will not swear. But I will tell the truth." That would show that that topic was important to me. But if the bailiff said the same thing, and I responded by just telling my story, then that shows that I either accept that oath, or that the topic is unimportant to me. I hope that I actually brought something new to the discussion rather than just rehash what I've previously stated. If I haven't, I apologize. Although, I do have a question to pose to you: You wrote: "...I will continue to follow the Messiah's words..." [You said this referring to only one passage, I will however apply this to all of Jesus' teachings because only agreeing with one command wouldn't make much sense]. Since you agree with always doing what Jesus tells you to do, then does that mean that you don't call anyone teacher, or father, or master? Jesus says in Mathew in response to the wickedness of the Scribes and Pharisees: 8 But you are not to be called rabbi, for you have one teacher, and you are all brothers. 9 And call no man your father on earth, for you have one Father, who is in heaven. 10 Neither be called instructors, for you have one instructor, the Christ. (Mathew 23:8-10 ESV) The KJV translates instructor and teacher with "master." Yet in Ephesians we see the breaking of this command: 5 Slaves, obey your earthly masters with fear and trembling, with a sincere heart, as you would Christ, 9 Masters, do the same to them, and stop your threatening, knowing that he who is both their Master and yours is in heaven, and that there is no partiality with him. (Ephesians 6:5,9 ESV) [Paul here shows that it's okay to still call people master]. and 1 Masters, treat your slaves justly and fairly, knowing that you also have a Master in heaven. (Colossians 4:1 ESV) [Paul shows that we can still call people master]. 10 I appeal to you for my child, Onesimus, whose father I became in my imprisonment. (Philemon 1:10 ESV) [Paul calls himself Onesiums' father]. 4 To Titus, my true child in a common faith: Grace and peace from God the Father and Christ Jesus our Savior. (Titus 1:4 ESV) [If Titus is Paul's child, that would undoubtedly make Paul his father]. 2 To Timothy, my beloved child: Grace, mercy, and peace from God the Father and Christ Jesus our Lord. (2 Timothy 1:2 ESV) [Once again Paul refers to Timothy as his child, which would make Paul his father]. These verses support that Paul believed that calling people father and master was still acceptable even after Jesus explicitly commanded to not do that very thing. Either Paul had no idea what he was doing, or the command in Mathew 23:8- 10 means something other than the obvious meaning. Perhaps Jesus is only referring to master, teacher, and instructor in a spiritual sense? But if that's true, Paul still broke that command by referring to other believers as his children, which logically means the reverse is true, that he considered himself the spiritual father of those believers. This sounds like blasphemy to me. Of course I don't believe that Paul was breaking any command. I'm just pointing out an interesting command from Jesus that if you were going to take Mathew 5:34 literally, then you would have to take Mathew 23:8-10 literally. Which means no more calling people teachers, you can't call your father "father" anymore, and you can't call anyone an instructor. I know this last topic diverges from the original about taking oaths, but I hoped I tied it together somewhat to make sense. Once again, I agree the same as you about not taking oaths in general, but if you're going to follow that command, you have to follow this command as well, which I'm sure you don't, nor does anyone else. Honestly, I have no idea the true meaning of Mathew 23:8-10, perhaps you'll have some good insights on this, as well as on the first part of my comments. best wishes, zerocool
Same here! Thank you too... I don't know for sure how good my "insights" to it are, but here goes. As for Matthew 23:8-10 - yes, I adhere to those as well. However, 2 of the verses are concerning others calling me something, and only 1 concerns what I call someone else. Because of this, I'll address verse 9 separately. Is this a case of perhaps the ESV mistranslating something? It looks like it may well be. I believe the KJV in this instance is more accurate, and therefore Paul did NOT violate the Messiah's words in Matthew 23:9 IMHO, the most egregious violators of this command are the Catholics. They routinely call their priests "father", and the Pope "Holy Father". Matthew 23:8 and 10 are entirely different. Both refer to being called something by someone else. Just because someone calls you something does not necessarily make it true. You may have read Marx's Communist Manifesto, and be thoroughly versed in the principles of Communism; but, does that make you a Communist, or if I call you a Communist, does that make it true? Of course not. In matters relating to others, I am certainly not anyone's "master", nor do I wish to be. (I'm also not anyone's slave, which is something very few Americans can state honestly, but that is fodder for a different discussion altogether LOL) Likewise, I am not a preacher, nor do I wish to be. You had referred to me as Christian in your reply to me. Not meaning to be "uncivil", but that is a false assumption. Now while it IS true that I try my best to follow the teachings of the Messiah, being a "Christian" is not something that I attribute to myself. It may be something that others may attribute to me, but that doesn't make it so. In the KJV, you will only find the word Christian 3 times; and, in none of those instances was it something which the followers of the Messiah attributed to themselves. It was something which they were called by others, which is directly related to my discussion above about being called Rabbi or Master by others. That is because I do things which "Christians" (meaning the average Baptist, Catholic, Methodist, etc whose doctrines are commonly known as being "Christian") don't do like observing the Sabbath from sunset Friday to sunset Saturday, and NOT doing things that "Christians" don't have a problem with doing like eating pork, or observing Christmas and Easter. If this has you wondering, NO I'm not Jewish either... I have some things which I need to get done, but I would more than happy to discuss all this further with you. I will PM you later and delve a little deeper into my beliefs and why I feel that way.
99 percent of lawyers give the rest a bad name. I respectfully apologize for asserting your association with the term Christian. ""Just because someone calls you something does not necessarily make it true. You may have read Marx's Communist Manifesto, and be thoroughly versed in the principles of Communism; but, does that make you a Communist, or if I call you a Communist, does that make it true? Of course not."" I agree that someone calling you something doesn't make it true. But if Jesus were talking to ducks and told those ducks to no longer call each other ducks, would that make any sense to you? They're still ducks, and simply not associating that title to them anymore would make little difference. From my rendering of the passage, it logically makes sense that if Jesus doesn't want anyone to even be called, "teacher" (or rabbi which means the same thing), then that would mean that you weren't supposed to practice, or do those things associated with that term. To highlight this point, what if Jesus were talking to serial killers and he told them to no longer call each other serial killers, but they can keep practicing serial killing. Would that really mean anything if Jesus said that? If people continued to do everything that is involved with those terms (i.e. teachers still teaching, fathers still being fathers), then just literally not being called those titles anymore doesn't really mean much does it? If Jesus meant us to take these verses literally, no one would understand what it means. You might as well start eating Jesus' body because He said we must eat His flesh and drink His blood if we are to be saved (John 6:53-56). I seriously doubt that Jesus meant Mathew 23:8-10 to be taken literally since I've previously pointed out that Paul on numerous occasions refers to people as "master" and himself as believer's spiritual "father." And though you pointed out the debatable translation of "begotten" as "father" in the ESV, I direct your attention to the overall point of that verse, which reveals Paul referring to himself as Onesimus' spiritual father. Paul consequently also referred to himself as the spiritual father of Timothy and Titus in the verses I've quoted previously. You seem to not deny that Paul referred to himself as their spiritual father but instead sidetracked on the translation of the word "gennao." That's fine, but you still need to address the main point. And your response to Paul calling people "master" did not address that he referred to people as master at all, but rather you stated that you aren't a master, which wasn't the point at all. Paul still referred to people as "master" and himself as "father," which would be breaking Jesus' command. And once again, I'll even give it to you that in Philemon 1:10 the word should be "begotten" and not "father," because that still doesn't change the meaning of that verse. And that still doesn't address the issue that Paul was referring himself as their spiritual father which, for all intents and purposes, is breaking Jesus' command to not be called father. It appears you believe that it's the mere title itself that Jesus was concerned with, but what good is a title if the person continues practicing the works of someone who has that particular title anyway? Regardless, I do find our discussion interesting and enjoy your responses. Just to restate my original intent, I'm not debating these issues, nor do I wish to change your mind on them. These issues as I've stated are "non-essentials" and therefore whether you agree with me on them or not makes no difference. I just don't want you having the wrong idea of why I'm discussing these things. If the topic was on the deity of Christ and the Resurrection, and you disagreed, then I'd have the desire of changing your mind on the issue. I await your further insights and if you'd like to PM me, be my guest. best wishes, zerocool
Ping list
#2. To: richard9151 (#0)
Was Jesus Christ crucified on a cross? - The Explanation
#3. To: all (#0)
#4. To: Paul Revere (#3)
#5. To: Paul Revere (#3)
Using the Bible to prove the Bible's validity
#6. To: richard9151 (#0)
But you will find in various Bibles, that the word 'cross' is substituted. This is not acceptable when a Quote is being made.
#7. To: Zipporah (#6)
(for it is writtenm Cursed is everyone who hangs on a cross).
#8. To: richard9151 (#7)
(Edited)
#9. To: richard9151 (#5)
I have not said a single word about the validity of the Bible, so why are you bringing this into the discussion?
#10. To: Alan Chapman (#4)
#11. To: richard9151 (#0)
#12. To: Paul Revere (#9)
This is the explanation for this post.
#13. To: Hayek Fan (#11)
I'll ask the same question I asked before:
#14. To: Zipporah (#6)
Uh on this youre so wrong.. it's not that they've substituted anything.. it's how the word itself may have been translated not that they 'changed God's word'..
#15. To: richard9151 (#13)
As I said before, I have a dozen different Bibles, and I will generally check a verse for validity in at least 3 Bibles before I use it.
#16. To: richard9151 (#12)
(Edited)
I guess besides having a smart mouth
#17. To: Paul Revere (#14)
Let us assume that Jesus was really here, and the story told in the gospels in essentially correct. If it is the word of God, and if it is intended as instruction for us, then we have to ask why God would allow two different apostles who lived with Jesus quote him differently when he was giving the same speech. If God intended us to see every word as exact, he would have made sure that all apostles told exactly the same story using exactly the same words. They didn't. There are several instances of apostles using different words to describe the same SERMON Jesus spoke. THEREFORE, we can reasonably know that the exact words are not important, for if they were, there would be no difference in the way one apostle quotes Jesus and the way another does.
#18. To: Zipporah (#17)
#19. To: Paul Revere (#18)
#20. To: Zipporah, Paul Revere (#19)
I dont disagree.. Maybe the question should be asked.. where in scripture is the blueprint for the type church we see today? I've not seen it.
#21. To: richard9151 (#0)
#22. To: richard9151 (#20)
#23. To: richard9151 (#0)
#24. To: richard9151 (#12)
Was Jesus Christ crucified on a cross?
#25. To: Zipporah, all (#19)
I dont disagree.. Maybe the question should be asked.. where in scripture is the blueprint for the type church we see today? I've not seen it.
#26. To: richard9151 (#13)
Ask away. I am not interpreting the Bible. This concerns only the verses as they appear in the Bible, and how this is mis-portrayed to people. Nothing more.
#27. To: Paul Revere (#18)
Most Christians actively avoid doing the things Jesus actually told them to do.
Steven Wright
#28. To: innieway (#27)
I don't think courts use the Bible to swear on anymore, but how ironic is it that they used to ask people to SWEAR on the ONLY book on the planet that tells you NOT to???
#29. To: zerocool (#28)
To further substantiate that "swearing" or "oath taking" is not prohibited, I direct your attention to Mathew 26:
Being "put under oath" is something you have to do yourself by acknowledging the oath. "I put you under oath" is a statement, "Do you swear to tell the truth." is really a question. So I'm not sure that your conclusion is correct. If someone asks me "Do you swear to tell the truth?" and I answer with "That guy stole my car" - did I take an oath? If someone tells me "I put you under oath", and I say anything does that mean I accepted the oath?
Steven Wright
#30. To: innieway (#29)
(Edited)
Anyhow, your response is still good food for thought. Thanks! I'll put more study and thought into the matter...But in the meantime, if the "need" arises, I will continue to follow the Messiah's words in Matthew 5:34, and decline to take any oaths...
#31. To: zerocool (#30)
(Edited)
My confidence in hoping for civilized debates has been reaffirmed. Thank you.
Since you agree with always doing what Jesus tells you to do, then does that mean that you don't call anyone teacher, or father, or master? ... I'm just pointing out an interesting command from Jesus that if you were going to take Mathew 5:34 literally, then you would have to take Mathew 23:8-10 literally. Which means no more calling people teachers, you can't call your father "father" anymore, and you can't call anyone an instructor. ... Honestly, I have no idea the true meaning of Mathew 23:8-10, perhaps you'll have some good insights on this, as well as on the first part of my comments.
I can't ever recall calling my dad anything other than "dad" or "daddy". I don't know if using the word "father" is something very many do when talking about or to their biological parent, but I don't.
As for Philemon 1:10, in the KJV it says I beseech thee for my son Onesimus, whom I have begotten in my bonds:
There are about 175 mistranslations (I can't say how many were intentional, but SOME were) in the KJV. Let's look at this verse closer.
The words "I have begotten" were translated from the Greek word gennao. Gennao is used as a verb (which indicates an action). In an outline of Biblical usage, it means:
a) to engender, cause to arise, excite
b) in a Jewish sense, of one who brings others over to his way of life, to convert someone
c) of God making Christ his son
d) of God making men his sons through faith in Christ's work
In Matthew 23:8 the Messiah tells us not to be called Rabbi (who were the "teachers" of the Law), and He lays out why in the verses preceding verse 8. I can't ever recall the Messiah having one good word to say about the Rabbis or preachers (and the same applies to doctors and lawyers). I'm not so sure that anything has changed. Look at the Hagees and Falwells we have today and their lies, corruption, and false teachings...
In Matthew 23:10 the Messiah tells us not to be called "master", and gives us the reason in verse 12.
Steven Wright
#32. To: innieway (#31)
(Edited)
You had referred to me as Christian in your reply to me. Not meaning to be "uncivil", but that is a false assumption.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest