# "IT IS FINISHED" (Tetelestai)



## Fish&Chips

*Implications of Tetelestai*

The implications of Jesus' words on the cross are eternally positive for those who repent and receive Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior--by the grace of God alone, through faith alone, in Jesus Christ alone. However, the implications of Jesus' words on the cross are eternally negative for any organization or individual who seeks to add to, detract from, or replace not only Jesus' words on the cross, but also the work He accomplished to the glory of God the Father.

Every man-made religion and each of their faithful adherents stand, right now, in the cross-hairs of God's wrath. "For he whom God has sent utters the words of God, for he gives the Spirit without measure. The Father loves the Son and has given all things into his hand. Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life; whoever does not obey the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God remains on him" (John 3:34-36).

Roman Catholicism denies the efficacy of Jesus' finished work on the cross through the practice and observance of the mass. During the mass, through the unbiblically magical art of transubstantiation (Jesus literally becoming the bread and the wine), Jesus must sacrifice Himself again and again for sin.

Jehovah's Witnesses deny the efficacy of Jesus' finished work on the cross by denying Christ died on the cross and by insisting one must be a member of the Watchtower Society and obey the Law of God to receive their demonic brand of salvation.

Mormonism denies the efficacy of Jesus' finished work on the cross by adding their perceived righteousness and works to their ungodly salvation process. According to 2 Nephi 25:23, in the Book of Mormon, salvation is by grace, plus works. "For we labor diligently to write, to persuade our children, and also our brethren, to believe in Christ, and to be reconciled to God; for we know that it is by grace that we are saved, after all we can do."

Islam denies the efficacy of Jesus' finished work on the cross by seeing Jesus as nothing more than a prophet, second to their false prophet Muhammad. They also believe it was Judas (a treacherous false convert), not Jesus, who died on the cross.

But the implications of Jesus' words on the cross extend beyond false religions and into American Evangelicalism.

Some churches deny the efficacy of Jesus' finished work on the cross by spending time and resources wooing the unsaved to the "Christian Club" instead of calling them to repentance and faith in the Lord Jesus Christ. Oh, how many times I have heard the testimonies of professing Christians--testimonies that culminate with happy membership at a church and not with the bending of the knee, in repentance and by faith, at the foot of the cross.

Some churches deny the efficacy of Jesus' finished work on the cross, diminishing the gospel as the power of God for salvation, by insisting Jesus and the gospel need the help of man's innovation and perceived ability to make the gospel more palatable. This is demonstrated through gimmicks, sales pitches, bait and switch tactics, and playing to the primal desires of health, wealth, prosperity, ease, comfort, and happiness without accountability.

Some churches deny the efficacy of Jesus' finished work on the cross by teaching unbiblical mantras such as:

"Christians have to earn the right to share the gospel with someone."
"Unbelievers need to see Jesus in you before they will hear what you have to say."
"People need to hear more than â€˜Jesus can forgive your sins and give you eternal life.â€™ They need help with the real problems they're facing today."
Some churches deny the efficacy of Jesus' finished work on the cross by failing to distinguish service, helps, and hospitality from evangelism, which is the actual and literal presentation of the gospel of Jesus Christ to those who are lost and bound for Hell.

And the list goes on...

When Jesus said, "It is finished," He meant it. He actually meant what He said. He _really_ meant it. For any group or any individual to add or detract from Christ's words or finished work, regardless of the religious stripes they wear, is the height of arrogance and the depth of depravity

By Tony Miano

http://carm.org/it-is-finished


----------



## WillieT

You are a VERY misinformed person. Where do you get your information?


----------



## Fish&Chips

I attached the link.
What part do you not agree with?


----------



## jimk

Maybe the last word spoken....another meaning may be "Paid In Full!"

Great post!


----------



## WillieT

Don't believe everything you read on the internet.


----------



## Fish&Chips

shaggydog said:


> Don't believe everything you read on the internet.


Thanks shaggydog. Things like these, I compare to what the bible says and decide from there. I just don't know what part you are in conflict with.


----------



## Jiggin Junkie

*Acts 2:29-36*

29 â€œMen _and_ brethren, let _me_ speak freely to you of the patriarch David, that he is both dead and buried, and his tomb is with us to this day. 30 Therefore, being a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him that of the fruit of his body, according to the flesh, He would raise up the Christ to sit on his throne,[a] 31 he, foreseeing this, spoke concerning the resurrection of the Christ, that His soul was not left in Hades, nor did His flesh see corruption. 32 This Jesus God has raised up, of which we are all witnesses. 33 Therefore being exalted to the right hand of God, and having received from the Father the promise of the Holy Spirit, He poured out this which you now see and hear.
34 â€œFor David did not ascend into the heavens, but he says himself:
â€˜The Lord said to my Lord,
â€œSit at My right hand,
35 Till I make Your enemies Your footstool.â€â€™[b]

36 â€œTherefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly that God has made this Jesus, whom you crucified, both Lord and Christ.â€

*Philippians 2:5-11*

*The Humbled and Exalted Christ*

5 Let this mind be in you which was also in Christ Jesus, 6 who, being in the form of God, did not consider it robbery to be equal with God, 7 but made Himself of no reputation, taking the form of a bondservant, _and_ coming in the likeness of men. 8 And being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself and became obedient to _the point of_ death, even the death of the cross. 9 Therefore God also has highly exalted Him and given Him the name which is above every name, 10 that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of those in heaven, and of those on earth, and of those under the earth, 11 and _that_ every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ _is_ Lord, to the glory of God the Father.


----------



## Fish&Chips

It's all about "JESUS"


----------



## Jiggin Junkie

*Hebrews 1:1-4*

New King James Version (NKJV)

*Godâ€™s Supreme Revelation*

1 God, who at various times and in various ways spoke in time past to the fathers by the prophets, 2*has in these last days spoken to us by His Son, whom He has appointed heir of all things,* through whom also He made the worlds; 3 who being the brightness of _His_ glory and the express image of His person, and upholding all things by the word of His power, when He had by Himself[a] purged our[b] sins, sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high, 4 having become so much better than the angels, as He has by inheritance obtained a more excellent name than they.


----------



## Tortuga

What happened to that old fashioned 2nd commandment that said something like.."Love thy neighbor as thyself"..???

...or is that just out of style now ?


----------



## Fish&Chips

Tortuga said:


> What happened to that old fashioned 2nd commandment that said something like.."Love thy neighbor as thyself"..???
> 
> ...or is that just out of style now ?


True love entails speaking the whole truth. Why would you deceive someone you love?


----------



## Jiggin Junkie

Tortuga said:


> What happened to that old fashioned 2nd commandment that said something like.."Love thy neighbor as thyself"..???
> 
> ...or is that just out of style now ?


What is love? If you see your child about to put his or her hand on a red hot stove, do you let them or pop their hand and tell them they will hurt themselves very badly if they continue and touch it. You have to speak the truth in love to save them from eternal damnation sometimes. People tend to forget that God is not only a God of love but also of Justice. There are consequences to ones actions.


----------



## Tortuga

I'm not sure where I lost track here.. The OP seemed to be implying that Catholicism, Mormonism, Jehovah Witnesses. Evangelism and Islam (I must admit I kinda agree on this one) are NOT religions at all... 

Am I completely missing his point ???... Is it a 'my way or the highway' kinda thing.???......


----------



## WillieT

Tortuga said:


> What happened to that old fashioned 2nd commandment that said something like.."Love thy neighbor as thyself"..???
> 
> ...or is that just out of style now ?


Love will never go out of style, but there are many types of love that are mentioned in God's Word. Below some are listed, as well as the distinctions.

A feeling of warm personal attachment or deep affection, as for a friend, for a parent or child, and so forth; warm fondness or liking for another; also, the benevolent affection of God for his creatures or the reverent affection due from them to God; also, the kindly affection properly expressed by Godâ€™s creatures toward one another; that strong or passionate affection for a person of the opposite sex that constitutes the emotional incentive to conjugal union. One of the synonyms for love is â€œdevotion.â€
Aside from those meanings, the Scriptures speak also of love guided by principle, as love of righteousness or even love for oneâ€™s enemies, for whom a person may not have affection. This facet or expression of love is an unselfish devotion to righteousness and a sincere concern for the lasting welfare of others, along with an active expression of this for their good.

The verb Ê¼aÂ·hevâ€² or Ê¼aÂ·havâ€² (â€œloveâ€) and the noun Ê¼aÂ·havahâ€² (â€œloveâ€) are the words primarily used in Hebrew to denote love in the foregoing senses, the context determining the sense and degree meant.

The Christian Greek Scriptures mainly employ forms of the words aÂ·gaâ€²pe, phiÂ·liâ€²a, and two words drawn from storÂ·geâ€² (eâ€²ros, love between the sexes, not being used). AÂ·gaâ€²pe appears more frequently than the other terms.

Of the noun aÂ·gaâ€²pe and the verb aÂ·gaÂ·paâ€²o, Vineâ€™s Expository Dictionary of Old and New Testament Words says: â€œLove can be known only from the actions it prompts. Godâ€™s love is seen in the gift of His Son, I John 4:9,Â 10. But obviously this is not the love of complacency, or affection, that is, it was not drawn out by any excellency in its objects, Rom. 5:8. It was an exercise of the Divine will in deliberate choice, made without assignable cause save that which lies in the nature of God Himself, cp. Deut. 7:7,Â 8.â€â€"1981, Vol. 3, p. 21.

Regarding the verb phiÂ·leâ€²o, Vine comments: â€œ[It] is to be distinguished from agapao in this, that phileo more nearly represents tender affection.Â .Â .Â . Again, to love (phileo) life, from an undue desire to preserve it, forgetful of the real object of living, meets with the Lordâ€™s reproof, John 12:25. On the contrary, to love life (agapao) as used in I Pet. 3:10, is to consult the true interests of living. Here the word phileo would be quite inappropriate.â€â€"Vol. 3, pp. 21, 22.

James Strongâ€™s Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible, in its Greek dictionary (1890, pp. 75, 76), remarks under phiÂ·leâ€²o: â€œTo be a friend to (fond of [an individual or an object]), i.e. have affection for (denoting personal attachment, as a matter of sentiment or feeling; while [aÂ·gaÂ·paâ€²o] is wider, embracing espec. the judgment and the deliberate assent of the will as a matter of principle, duty and propriety .Â .Â .Â ).â€

AÂ·gaâ€²pe, therefore, carries the meaning of love guided, or governed, by principle. It may or may not include affection and fondness. That aÂ·gaâ€²pe may include affection and warmth is evident in many passages. At John 3:35, Jesus said: â€œThe Father loves [aÂ·gaÂ·paiâ€²] the Son.â€ At John 5:20, he said: â€œThe Father has affection for [phiÂ·leiâ€²] the Son.â€ Certainly Godâ€™s love for Jesus Christ is coupled with much affection. Also Jesus explained: â€œHe that loves [aÂ·gaÂ·ponâ€²] me will be loved [aÂ·gaÂ·peÂ·theâ€²seÂ·tai] by my Father, and I will love [aÂ·gaÂ·peâ€²so] him.â€ (Joh 14:21) This love of the Father and of the Son is accompanied by tender affection for such loving persons. God's worshipers must love him and his Son, as well as one another, in the same way.â€"Joh 21:15-17.

So, although distinguished by respect for principle, aÂ·gaâ€²pe is not unfeeling; otherwise it would not differ from cold justice. But it is not ruled by feeling or sentiment; it never ignores principle. Christians rightly show aÂ·gaâ€²pe toward others for whom they may feel no affection or fondness, doing so for the welfare of those persons. (Ga 6:10) Yet, though not feeling affection, they do feel compassion and sincere concern for such fellow humans, to the limits and in the way that righteous principles allow and direct.

However, while aÂ·gaâ€²pe refers to love governed by principle, there are good and bad principles. A wrong kind of aÂ·gaâ€²pe could be expressed, guided by bad principles. For example, Jesus said: â€œIf you love [aÂ·gaÂ·paâ€²te] those loving you, of what credit is it to you? For even the sinners love those loving them. And if you do good to those doing good to you, really of what credit is it to you? Even the sinners do the same. Also, if you lend without interest to those from whom you hope to receive, of what credit is it to you? Even sinners lend without interest to sinners that they may get back as much.â€ (Lu 6:32-34) The principle upon which such ones operate is: â€˜Do good to me and I will do good to you.â€™
The apostle Paul said of one who had worked alongside him: â€œDemas has forsaken me because he loved [aÂ·gaÂ·peâ€²sas] the present system of things.â€ (2Ti 4:10) Demas apparently loved the world on the principle that love of it will bring material benefits. The apostle John says: â€œMen have loved [eÂ·gaâ€²peÂ·san] the darkness rather than the light, for their works were wicked. For he that practices vile things hates the light and does not come to the light, in order that his works may not be reproved.â€ (Joh 3:19,Â 20) Because it is a truth or principle that darkness helps cover their wicked deeds, they love it.

Jesus commanded: â€œLove [aÂ·gaÂ·paâ€²te] your enemies.â€ (Mt 5:44) God himself established the principle, as the apostle Paul states: â€œGod recommends his own love [aÂ·gaâ€²pen] to us in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.Â .Â .Â . For if, when we were enemies, we became reconciled to God through the death of his Son, much more, now that we have become reconciled, we shall be saved by his life.â€ (Ro 5:8-10) An outstanding instance of such love is Godâ€™s dealing with Saul of Tarsus, who became the apostle Paul. (Ac 9:1-16; 1Ti 1:15) Loving our enemies, therefore, should be governed by the principle established by God and should be exercised in obedience to his commandments, whether or not such love is accompanied by any warmth or affection.


----------



## WillieT

Tortuga said:


> I'm not sure where I lost track here.. The OP seemed to be implying that Catholicism, Mormonism, Jehovah Witnesses. Evangelism and Islam (I must admit I kinda agree on this one) are NOT religions at all...
> 
> Am I completely missing his point ???... Is it a 'my way or the highway' kinda thing.???......


You are not missing the point at all. The OP has some very wrong information. It is amazing to me that people see something on the internet or have someone tell them something and take is as truth, but in reality have no idea if what they are saying is correct or not.

I can ASSURE you that some of the statements in the original post are as far off base as they can get.

Final side not on this thread. If you research the the original wording in the scriptures, Jesus was hung on a stake not a cross. Greater pain on a stake than on a cross, harder to breath.


----------



## Tortuga

OK, Shaggy.....:rotfl:


----------



## Fish&Chips

All we have to do is read our bible and pray that God would give us revelation, and he will. Jesus said that he is the only way to the Father. Nothing else is required. All these religions above add something else or they change everything all together. If we believe what Jesus said and if we truly love him, we will obey his commandments.

Shaggy....what can I say to you? God bless you.


----------



## Fish&Chips

The gospel is simple - It's all about JESUS.


----------



## Jiggin Junkie

*1 John 5:9-13*

New King James Version (NKJV)

9 If we receive the witness of men, the witness of God is greater; for this is the witness of God which[a] He has testified of His Son. 10 He who believes in the Son of God has the witness in himself; he who does not believe God has made Him a liar, because he has not believed the testimony that God has given of His Son. 11 And this is the testimony: that God has given us eternal life, and this life is in His Son. 12 He who has the Son has life; he who does not have the Son of God does not have life. 13 *These things I have written to you who believe in the name of the Son of God, that you may know that you have eternal life,*[b] and that you may _continue to_ believe in the name of the Son of God.


----------



## Jiggin Junkie

shaggydog said:


> You are not missing the point at all. The OP has some very wrong information. It is amazing to me that people see something on the internet or have someone tell them something and take is as truth, but in reality have no idea if what they are saying is correct or not.
> 
> I can ASSURE you that some of the statements in the original post are as far off base as they can get.
> 
> Final side not on this thread. If you research the the original wording in the scriptures, Jesus was hung on a stake not a cross. Greater pain on a stake than on a cross, harder to breath.


I'm curious where you think the OP is wrong in his information too? Teach us something here.


----------



## WillieT

Fish&Chips said:


> All we have to do is read our bible and pray that God would give us revelation, and he will. Jesus said that he is the only way to the Father. Nothing else is required. All these religions above add something else or they change everything all together. If we believe what Jesus said and if we truly love him, we will obey his commandments.
> 
> Shaggy....what can I say to you? God bless you.


God bless you also, Fish. Hopefully one day, before it is too late, you will open your heart to what the Bible really teaches. It will set you free from many of the false teachings you now embrace. I know in your heart, you think you are correct and your intentions are good. I have no doubt about that.

Remember that Jesus chastised the religious leaders of his time, told them they were from their father, the devil. These were the ones that the people looked to for scriptual guidance, they are also the ones that had Jesus put to death. Many saw the miracles that Jesus performed, but still did not put faith in him.

There are many so called religious leaders that are teaching the thought of man, not what is in the Bible. I do hope you see the TRUTH some day. It is out there.


----------



## Fish&Chips

I know the TRUTH his name is JESUS and he has set me free.


----------



## Fish&Chips

shaggydog said:


> There are many so called religious leaders that are teaching the thought of man, not what is in the Bible. I do hope you see the TRUTH some day. It is out there.


Shaggy, I decided a long time ago to follow Jesus and not man. And I also realized that when we present the truth, there will always be those that oppose you.


----------



## WillieT

Fish&Chips said:


> Shaggy, I decided a long time ago to follow Jesus and not man. And I also realized that when we present the truth, there will always be those that oppose you.


I do know the truth, and have been opposed more than you will realize. I have quoted scriptures straight from God's word that has been opposed in these forums. The Bible is Truth. Everything that I say will come straight from the Bible, that is where my beliefs come from.


----------



## Fish&Chips

shaggydog said:


> Final side not on this thread. If you research the the original wording in the scriptures, Jesus was hung on a stake not a cross. Greater pain on a stake than on a cross, harder to breath.


Shaggydog are you 100% sure about this?


----------



## WillieT

Fish&Chips said:


> Shaggydog are you 100% sure about this?


100%

â€œTorture stakeâ€ in Mt 27:40 is used in connection with the execution of Jesus at Calvary, that is, Skull Place. There is no evidence that the Greek word stauÂ·rosâ€² here meant a cross such as the pagans used as a religious symbol for many centuries before Christ.
In the classical Greek the word stauÂ·rosâ€² meant merely an upright stake, or pale, or a pile such as is used for a foundation. The verb stauÂ·roâ€²o meant to fence with pales, to form a stockade, or palisade, and this is the verb used when the mob called for Jesus to be impaled. It was to such a stake, or pale, that the person to be punished was fastened, just as the popular Greek hero Prometheus was represented as tied to rocks. Whereas the Greek word that the dramatist Aeschylus used to describe this simply means to tie or to fasten, the Greek author Lucian (Prometheus, I) used aÂ·naÂ·stauÂ·roâ€²o as a synonym for that word. In the Christian Greek Scriptures aÂ·naÂ·stauÂ·roâ€²o occurs but once, in Heb 6:6. The root verb stauÂ·roâ€²o occurs more than 40 times, and we have rendered it â€œimpale,â€ with the footnote: â€œOr, â€˜fasten on a stake (pole).â€™â€

The inspired writers of the Christian Greek Scriptures wrote in the common (koiÂ·neâ€²) Greek and used the word stauÂ·rosâ€² to mean the same thing as in the classical Greek, namely, a simple stake, or pale, without a crossbeam of any kind at any angle. There is no proof to the contrary. The apostles Peter and Paul also use the word xyâ€²lon to refer to the torture instrument upon which Jesus was nailed, and this shows that it was an upright stake without a crossbeam, for that is what xyâ€²lon in this special sense means. (Ac 5:30; 10:39; 13:29; Ga 3:13; 1Pe 2:24) In LXX we find xyâ€²lon in Ezr 6:11 (1 Esdras 6:31), and there it is spoken of as a beam on which the violator of law was to be hanged, the same as in Ac 5:30; 10:39.
The Latin dictionary by Lewis and Short gives as the basic meaning of crux â€œa tree, frame, or other wooden instruments of execution, on which criminals were impaled or hanged.â€ In the writings of Livy, a Roman historian of the first century B.C.E., crux means a mere stake. â€œCrossâ€ is only a later meaning of crux. A single stake for impalement of a criminal was called in Latin crux simâ€²plex. One such instrument of torture is illustrated by Justus Lipsius (1547-1606) in his book De cruce libri tres, Antwerp, 1629, p.Â 19. The photograph of the crux simplex on our p.Â 1578 is an actual reproduction from his book.
The book Das Kreuz und die Kreuzigung (The Cross and the Crucifixion), by Hermann Fulda, Breslau, 1878, p.Â 109, says: â€œTrees were not everywhere available at the places chosen for public execution. So a simple beam was sunk into the ground. On this the outlaws, with hands raised upward and often also with their feet, were bound or nailed.â€ After submitting much proof, Fulda concludes on pp.Â 219, 220: â€œJesus died on a simple death-stake: In support of this there speak (a)Â the then customary usage of this means of execution in the Orient, (b)Â indirectly the history itself of Jesusâ€™ sufferings and (c)Â many expressions of the early church fathers.â€
Paul Wilhelm Schmidt, who was a professor at the University of Basel, in his work Die Geschichte Jesu (The History of Jesus), Vol. 2, TÃ¼bingen and Leipzig, 1904, pp.Â 386-394, made a detailed study of the Greek word stauÂ·rosâ€². On p.Â 386 of his work he said: â€œÏƒÏ„Î±Ï&#8230;ÏÏŒÏ‚ [stauÂ·rosâ€²] means every upright standing pale or tree trunk.â€ Concerning the execution of punishment upon Jesus, P. W. Schmidt wrote on pp.Â 387-389: â€œBeside scourging, according to the gospel accounts, only the simplest form of Roman crucifixion comes into consideration for the infliction of punishment upon Jesus, the hanging of the unclad body on a stake, which, by the way, Jesus had to carry or drag to the execution place to intensify the disgraceful punishment.Â .Â .Â . Anything other than a simple hanging is ruled out by the wholesale manner in which this execution was often carried out: 2000 at once by Varus (Jos. Ant. XVII 10. 10), by Quadratus (Jewish Wars II 12. 6), by the Procurator Felix (Jewish Wars II 15. 2), by Titus (Jewish Wars VII. 1).â€
Evidence is, therefore, completely lacking that Jesus Christ was crucified on two pieces of timber placed at right angles. We do not want to add anything to Godâ€™s written Word by inserting the pagan cross-concept into the inspired Scriptures, but render stauÂ·rosâ€² and xyâ€²lon according to the simplest meanings. Since Jesus used stauÂ·rosâ€² to represent the suffering and shame or torture of his followers (Mt 16:24), we have translated stauÂ·rosâ€² as â€œtorture stake,â€ to distinguish it from xyâ€²lon, which we have translated â€œstake,â€ or, in the footnote, â€œtree,â€ as in Ac 5:30.

I can cite other sources if necessary.


----------



## WillieT

Just one more.

The book The Non-Christian Cross, by John Denham Parsons, states: â€œThere 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.Â .Â .Â . it is not a little misleading upon the part of our teachers to translate the word stauros as â€˜crossâ€™ when rendering the Greek documents of the Church into our native tongue, and to support that action by putting â€˜crossâ€™ in our lexicons as the meaning of stauros without carefully explaining that that was at any rate not the primary meaning of the word in the days of the Apostles, did not become its primary signification till long afterwards, and became so then, if at all, only because, despite the absence of corroborative evidence, it was for some reason or other assumed that the particular stauros upon which Jesus was executed had that particular shape.â€â€”London, 1896, pp. 23, 24.

Note how the author talks about the translation being misleading.

Type "cross" in the bing search engine to find it's origin. FnC, this is mainly for you. I want you to know the truth. You will find many references such as the one belos.

The Cross
A tradition of the Church which our fathers have inherited, was the adoption of the words "cross" and "crucify". 

These words are nowhere to be found in the Greek of the New Testament. These words are mistranslations, a "later rendering", of the Greek words stauros and stauroo. Vine's Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words says, "STAUROS denotes, primarily, an upright pole or stake ... Both the noun and the verb stauroo, to fasten to a stake or pole, are originally to be distinguished from the ecclesiastical form of a two-beamed cross. 

The shape of the latter had its origin in ancient Chaldea (Babylon), and was used as the symbol of the god Tammuz (being in the shape of the mystic Tau, the initial of his name) ... By the middle of the 3rd century A.D. the churches had either departed from, or had travestied, certain doctrines of the Christian faith. 

In order to increase the prestige of the apostate ecclesiastical system pagans were received into the churches apart from regeneration by faith, and were permitted largely to retain their pagan signs and symbols. Hence the Tau or T, in its most frequent form, with the cross piece lowered, was adopted .

Dr. Bullinger, in the Companion Bible, appx. 162, states, "crosses were used as symbols of the Babylonian Sun-god ... It should be stated that Constantine was a Sun-god worshipper ... The evidence is thus complete, that the Lord was put to death upon an upright stake, and not on two pieces of timber placed at any angle." 

Rev. Alexander Hislop, The Two Babylons, pp. 197-205, frankly calls the cross "this Pagan symbol ... the Tau, the sign of the cross, the indisputable sign of Tammuz, the false Messiah ... the mystic Tau of the Cladeans (Babylonians) and Egyptians - the true original form of the letter T the initial of the name of Tammuz ... the Babylonian cross was the recognised emblem of Tammuz." 

In the Encyclopaedia Britannica, 11th edition, vol. 14, p. 273, we read, "In the Egyption churches the cross was a pagan symbol of life borrowed by the Christians and interpreted in the pagan manner." Jacob Grimm, in his Deutsche Mythologie, says that the Teutonic (Germanic) tribes had their idol Thor, symbolised by a hammer, while the Roman Christians had their crux (cross). It was thus somewhat easier for the Teutons to accept the Roman Cross.

Greek dictionaries, lexicons and other study books also declare the primary meaning of stauros to be an upright pale, pole or stake. The secondary meaning of "cross" is admitted by them to be a "later" rendering. At least two of them do not even mention "cross", and only render the meaning as "pole or stake". 

In spite of this strong evidence and proof that the word stauros should have been translated "stake", and the verb stauroo to have been translated "impale", almost all the common versions of the Scriptures persist with the Latin Vulgate's crux (cross), a fallacious "later" rendering of the Greek stauros. Why then was the "cross" (crux) brought into the Faith?

Again, historical evidence points to Constantine as the one who had the major share in uniting Sun-worship and the Messianic Faith. Constantine's famous vision of "the cross superimposed on the sun", in the year 312, is usually cited. Writers, ignorant of the fact that the cross was not to be found in the New Testament Scriptures, put much emphasis on this vision as the onset of the so-called "conversion" of Constantine. But, unless Constantine had been misguided by the Gnostic Manichean half-Christians, who indeed used the cross in their hybrid religion, this vision of the cross superimposed on the sun could only be the same old cosmic religion, the astrological religion of Babylon. The fact remains: that which Constantine saw, is nowhere to be found in Scripture.

We read in the book of Johannes Geffcken, The Last Days of Greco-Roman Paganism, p.319, "that even after 314 A.D. the coins of Constantine show an even-armed cross as a symbol for the Sun-god." Many scholars have doubted the "conversion" of Constantine because of the wicked deeds that he did afterwards, and because of the fact that he only requested to be baptized on his death-bed many years later, in the year 337. So, if the vision of the cross impressed him, and was used as a rallying symbol, it could not have been in honour of YahushÃºa, because Constantine continued paying homage to the Sun-deity and to one of the Sun-deity's symbols, the cross.

This continuation of Sun-worship by Constantine is of by his persistent use of images of the Sun-deity on his coins that were issued by him up to the year 323. Secondly, the fact of his motivation to issue his Sunday-keeping edict in the year 321, which was not done in honour of YahushÃºa, but was done because of the "venerable day of the Sun", as the edict read, is proof of this continued allegiance to Sol Invictus. We shall expand on this later.

Where did the cross come from, then? J.C. Cooper, An Illustrated Encyclopaedia of Traditional Symbols, p. 45, aptly summarises it, "Cross - A universal symbol from the most remote times; it is the cosmic symbol par excellence." Other authorities also call it a sun-symbol, a Babylonian sun-symbol, an astrological Babylonian-Assyrian and heathen run-symbol, also in the form of an encircled cross referred to as a "solar wheel", and many other varieties of crosses. Also, "the cross represents the Tree of Life", the age-old fertility symbol, combining the vertical male and horizontal female principles, especially in Egypt, either as an ordinary cross, or better known in the form of the crux ansata, the Egyptian ankh (sometimes called the Tau cross), which had been carried over into our modern-day symbol of the female, well known in biology.

As stated above, the indisputable sign of Tammuz, the mystic Tau of the Babylonians and Egyptians, was brought into the Church chiefly because of Constantine, and has since been adored with all the homage due only to the Most High.

The Protestants have for many years refrained from undue adoration of, or homage to the cross, especially in England at the time of the Puritans in the 16th - 17th centuries. But lately this un-Scriptural symbol has been increasingly accepted in Protestantism.

We have previously discussed "the weeping for Tammuz", and the similarity between the Easter resurrection and the return or rising of Tammuz. Tammuz was the young incarnate Sun, the Sun-divinity incarnate. This same Sun-deity, known amongst the Babylonians as Tammuz, was identified with the Greek Adonis and with the Phoenician Adoni,96 all of them Sun-deities, being slain in winter, then being "wept for", and their return being celebrated by a festivity in spring, while some had it in summer - according to the myths of pagan idolatry.

The evidence for its pagan origin is so convincing that The Catholic Encyclopedia admits that "the sign of the cross, represented in its simplest form by a crossing of two lines at right angles, greatly antedates, in both East and the West, the introduction of Christianity. It goes back to a very remote period of human civilization." It then continues and revers to the Tau cross of the pagan Egyptians, "In later times the Egyptian Christians (Copts), attracted by its form, and perhaps by its symbolism, adopted it as the emblem of the cross."98 Further proof of its pagan origin is the recorded evidence of the Vestal Virgins of pagan Rome having the cross hanging on a necklace,99 and the Egyptians doing it too, as early as the 15th century B.C.E.100 The Buddhists, and


Ancient Egyptian Rot-n-no priests. Note the crosses on the robe, and hanging from their necks.

Numerous other sects of India, also used the sign of the cross as a mark on their followers' heads. "The cross thus widely worshipped, or regarded as a 'sacred emblem', was the unequivocal symbol of Bacchus, the Babylonian Messiah, for he was represented with a head-band covered with crosses. "It was also the symbol of Jupiter Foederis in Rome.103 Furthermore, we read of the cross on top of the temple of Serapis,104 the Sun-deity of Alexandria.


This is Tammuz, whom the Greeks called Bacchus, with the crosses on his head-band.

After Constantine had the "vision of the cross", he and his army promoted another variety of the cross, the Chi-Rho or Labarum or sometimes . This has subsequently been explained as representing the first letters of the name Christos, the being the Greek for "Ch" and the being the Greek for "r". but again, this emblem had a pagan origin. The identical symbols were found as inscriptions on a rock, dating from the year ca. 2 500 B.C., being interpreted as "a combination of two Sun-symbols", as the Ax or Hammer-symbol of the Sun- or Sky-deity, and the or as the ancient symbol of the Sun, both of these signs having a sensual or fertility meaning as well.

Another proof of its pagan origin is the identical found on a coin of Ptolemeus III from the year 247 - 222 B.C. A well-known encyclopaedia describes the Labarum (Chi-Rho) as, "The labarum was also an emblem of the Chaldean (Babylonian) sky-god and in Christianity it was adopted..."Emperor Constantine adopted this Labarum as the imperial ensign and thereby succeeded in "uniting both divisions of his troops, pagans and Christians, in a common worship ... according to Suicer the word (labarum) came into use in the reign of Hadrian, and was probably adopted from one of the nations conquered by the Romans. "It must be remembered that Hadrian reigned in the years 76 - 138, that he was a pagan emperor, worshipped the Sun-deity Serapis when he visited Alexandria, and was vehemently anti-Judaistic, being responsible for the final near-destruction of Jerusalem in the year 130.



Another dictionary relates the following about the Chi-Rho, "However, the symbol was in use long before Christianity, and X (Chi) probably stood for Great Fire or Sun,and P (Rho) probably stood for Pater or Patah (Father). The word labarum (labarum) yields everlasting Father Sun."

What is the "mark of the beast" of which we read in Rev 13:16-17, Rev 14:9-11, Rev 15:2, Rev 16:2, Rev 19:20 and Rev 20:4 - a mark on people's foreheads and on their right hands? Rev 14:11 reveals the mark to be "the mark of his (the beast's) name." Have we not read about the mystic Tau, the T, the initial of Tammuz's name, his mark? This same letter T (Tau) was written in Egyptian hieroglyphics and in the old Wemitic languages as, representing the CROSS. Different interpretations have been given to the "mark of the beast", and also the cross has been suggested. There has been some research done on the strange crosses found on quite a few statues of pagan priests, on their foreheads. However, these scholars have been unable to come to an agreement. Conclusive evidence may still come (see among others: Dr. F.J. Dolger, Antike und Christentum, vol. 2, pp. 281-293).

Let us rather use the true rendering of the Scriptural words stauros and stauro, namely "stake" and "impale" and eliminate the un-Scriptural "cross" and "crucify".


----------



## Fish&Chips

Shaggydog, so you're saying that the bible needs to be changed? Or you believe the bible but just need to re-interpret it? To me the bible says that Jesus was crucified. Whether on a stake, a cross, a pole - does it really matter? Even though the bible does says cross. Jesus came and paid the price for our sins. He suffered a horrible death so that we could be redeemed and not have to go to hell.


----------



## Fish&Chips

And JESUS is the son of God. He is the only way to heaven. If he said it, I believe it.


----------



## atcfisherman

Good Lord!!!!! Cross or "stake," it doesn't matter. Do you thing Jesus is going to ask you "Do you thing I died on a cross or a stake? It will affect your salvation!". Really!!! Wether a cross so "stake" He died for the sins of the world and He is The Truth and The Way and The Life and NO ONE GOES TO THE FATHER EXCEPT THROUGH JESUS!!!

Glad I missed this one. And I have yet to see where the one accusing e OP has say what they disagree with. Also, it's dangerous to judge someone's salvation based on Internet conversations. 




In Christ Alone I Place My Trust


----------



## WillieT

Fish&Chips said:


> Shaggydog, so you're saying that the bible needs to be changed? Or you believe the bible but just need to re-interpret it? To me the bible says that Jesus was crucified. Whether on a stake, a cross, a pole - does it really matter? Even though the bible does says cross. Jesus came and paid the price for our sins. He suffered a horrible death so that we could be redeemed and not have to go to hell.


The Bible is exactly right. Your translation does not translate the original words correctly, and yes, it matters a great deal. The cross is of pagan orgin. We have had the discussion on hell before. Again, you are being misled. Jesus is absolutely our only hope for salvation.


----------



## WillieT

Fish&Chips said:


> And JESUS is the son of God. He is the only way to heaven. If he said it, I believe it.


So, do you believe in a triune? And he is certainly the only way to salvation.


----------



## WillieT

atcfisherman said:


> Good Lord!!!!! Cross or "stake," it doesn't matter. Do you thing Jesus is going to ask you "Do you thing I died on a cross or a stake? It will affect your salvation!". Really!!! Wether a cross so "stake" He died for the sins of the world and He is The Truth and The Way and The Life and NO ONE GOES TO THE FATHER EXCEPT THROUGH JESUS!!!
> 
> Glad I missed this one. And I have yet to see where the one accusing e OP has say what they disagree with. Also, it's dangerous to judge someone's salvation based on Internet conversations.
> 
> In Christ Alone I Place My Trust


The OP is the one judging someone's salvation with the original post. And a word here and there makes a huge amount of difference intranslation.


----------



## Seeker

I agree with atc.

Although, I do believe Jesus carried 1/2 of the cross to the crucifixion site and the other half was assembled there. So, in theory.. your both right in a kinda sorta way. 

Jesus's hands and feet were nailed to a cross. A single pole or stake just physically would not allow for Jesus's hands to be nailed being stretched out like he was. Google (Patibulum) for a clearer understanding...

From the Father through the Son by the Holy Spirit. The trinity.


----------



## DA REEL DADDY




----------



## Fish&Chips

â€œBring me a worm that can comprehend a man, and then I will show you a man that can comprehend the triune God.â€.....John Wesleyhttp://bible.org/article/trinity-triunity-god#P105_5685


----------



## WillieT

Seeker said:


> I agree with atc.
> 
> Although, I do believe Jesus carried 1/2 of the cross to the crucifixion site and the other half was assembled there. So, in theory.. your both right in a kinda sorta way.
> 
> Jesus's hands and feet were nailed to a cross. A single pole or stake just physically would not allow for Jesus's hands to be nailed being stretched out like he was. Google (Patibulum) for a clearer understanding...
> 
> From the Father through the Son by the Holy Spirit. The trinity.


Every indication is that it was a stake not a cross. Raise both of you hands above your head, with one palm against the back of your other hand. How, physicallym would a stake not work. I am 63 years old with arthiritis and I can physically do that. Same with the feet. That position puts the greatest stress on the body core, harder to breath. That was the purpose. Jesus died on a torture stake, not a torture cross.

There is no two rights. Did you read the translations of the original wording by many experts. They all agree, it was not a cross. You have just been told it was a cross all your life. That I can understand. It is just not correct. Ther is no Trinity spoken of in the Bible. Jesus words himself were, "the Father is greater than the Son." Pretty clear they were not equal.


----------



## WillieT

Fish&Chips said:


> â€œBring me a worm that can comprehend a man, and then I will show you a man that can comprehend the triune God.â€.....John Wesleyhttp://bible.org/article/trinity-triunity-god#P105_5685


You don't understand it. You said s in a post in the jungle seveal weeks ago. You said it is a mystery. It is hard to understand for a reason, it is not understandable, if that is a word. Hopefully one of these days God will remove your blinders. I do hope so.


----------



## Fish&Chips

Shaggydog I just want to clarify something.
Do you believe that those who believe that Jesus Christ died on a cross - those people have taken the mark of the beast? Is that what you think/believe?


----------



## WillieT

Fish&Chips said:


> Shaggydog I just want to clarify something.
> Do you believe that those who believe that Jesus Christ died on a cross - those people have taken the mark of the beast? Is that what you think/believe?


Not at all. I think they are misinformed. If you were taught all through school that 2+2=5, it would be hard to accept that 2+2=4.Now, just as in Jesus day, most of the blame goes to the religious leaders. But after Jesus came and brought his Fathers word to the people, the burden was then on the people. Some accepted Jesus for whom he was, the Son of God. But unfortunately, the vast majority held to their original belief and rejected him, to the point of killing him. But in fact it had to be that way, it was prophesied, and accomplished. And yes it is only through Jesus that any of us have a chance for salvation.

Remember who is really ruling the world at this time. He is responsible for the blinding of the masses. One way he has done that is through unscriptual doctrine.

Example: What does the Bible say about homosexuality? It is absolutely condemned. How many churches have changed their view on homosexuality, have they accepted it and allowed it in their congregations? Has God's view on homosexuality changed?

Questionfor you. What was God's original purpose for Adam and Eve and their offspring? Did it work out? Has that purpose changed?

I am sure that you are familiar with the Lord's Prayer, the Model Prayer, the Amen, or whatever you want to call it. Read that model prayer and meditate on it. Try to get the real understanding of "let your kingdom come, on Earth as it is in heaven." You need to really understand what that means. God's kingdom will come to the earth, but there will be requirements to be a part of that kingdom.

It is certainly my hope to be part of it. God wants all to be a part of it, but there are requirements. The very first requirement is ACCURATE knowledge.


----------



## atcfisherman

F&C,

I wouldn't even bother. True Christianity didn't start in the 1870's. And the "New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures" is not a source one should put stock in.

Christ warned about those in the end times. Anyway, I wish I hadn't opened this thread. UGH!

Bottom line is God measures our hearts, not if we believe it was a cross or a stake. It one thinks that those who believe it was a cross will go to hell, then that person has missed what salvation is. 


In Christ Alone I Place My Trust


----------



## Fish&Chips

Shaggydog, I just wanted to make sure I understood you because in one of your earlier posts, it attributed believing in the cross to the mark of the beast. So I wasn't sure if that is what you were implying.

Atcfisherman I hear you. Christianity has to do with the heart and that is what God wants to change in every person. All these other little things that people get hung up on are just distractions from the enemy. And it works to ensnare people and keep them pacified or focusing on little issues that really don't matter in the end. My initial post must have struck a nerve and prompted a response, but I believe that it is the truth. Like I said before many times - "It's all about Jesus!"


----------



## WillieT

Most rejected the truth in Jesus day, the same is true today.


----------



## atcfisherman

Again, the"truth" didn't start in the 1870's. It started with Jesus. And after the book or revelations was finished, there are no new "prophecies" or no new "revelations" to the bible. It's sad that many are blinded these days. BTW I are you one of the 144,000? Is so, who gets kicked out?

The great thing about man is he is given the choice to be right or wrong and many exercise their rights to be wrong. 


In Christ Alone I Place My Trust


----------



## WillieT

atcfisherman said:


> Again, the"truth" didn't start in the 1870's. It started with Jesus. And after the book or revelations was finished, there are no new "prophecies" or no new "revelations" to the bible. It's sad that many are blinded these days. BTW I are you one of the 144,000? Is so, who gets kicked out?
> 
> The great thing about man is he is given the choice to be right or wrong and many exercise their rights to be wrong.
> 
> In Christ Alone I Place My Trust


In the case of following the true teachings of Christ, unfortunately most exercise their right to be wrong. It even says so in the Bible.


----------



## WillieT

Fish&Chips said:


> Shaggydog, I just wanted to make sure I understood you because in one of your earlier posts, it attributed believing in the cross to the mark of the beast. So I wasn't sure if that is what you were implying.
> 
> Atcfisherman I hear you. Christianity has to do with the heart and that is what God wants to change in every person. All these other little things that people get hung up on are just distractions from the enemy. And it works to ensnare people and keep them pacified or focusing on little issues that really don't matter in the end. My initial post must have struck a nerve and prompted a response, but I believe that it is the truth. Like I said before many times - "It's all about Jesus!"


I guess you don't want to answer the questions I asked. Is it appropriate for a religion or even a congregation make adjustments to doctrine based on popular belief? Has God changed His standards?


----------



## Fish&Chips

shaggydog said:


> I guess you don't want to answer the questions I asked. Is it appropriate for a religion or even a congregation make adjustments to doctrine based on popular belief? Has God changed His standards?


No & No


----------



## WillieT

atcfisherman said:


> Again, the"truth" didn't start in the 1870's. It started with Jesus. And after the book or revelations was finished, there are no new "prophecies" or no new "revelations" to the bible. It's sad that many are blinded these days. BTW I are you one of the 144,000? Is so, who gets kicked out?
> 
> The great thing about man is he is given the choice to be right or wrong and many exercise their rights to be wrong.
> 
> In Christ Alone I Place My Trust


Who said the truth started in 1870? You are correct, the truth started with Jesus and the first century congregation. Jesus set the example and true Christians, although imperfect try to model their lives after the Christ.

Please be careful on condemning any Bible, that borders on blasphemy.


----------



## WillieT

Fish&Chips said:


> No & No


So how do you explain why so many have done it? Do they have God's blessing?


----------



## Seeker

shaggydog said:


> Every indication is that it was a stake not a cross. Raise both of you hands above your head, with one palm against the back of your other hand. How, physicallym would a stake not work. I am 63 years old with arthiritis and I can physically do that. Same with the feet. That position puts the greatest stress on the body core, harder to breath. That was the purpose. Jesus died on a torture stake, not a torture cross.
> 
> There is no two rights. Did you read the translations of the original wording by many experts. They all agree, it was not a cross. You have just been told it was a cross all your life. That I can understand. It is just not correct. Ther is no Trinity spoken of in the Bible. Jesus words himself were, "the Father is greater than the Son." Pretty clear they were not equal.


Shaggydog, you speak of earthly experts.. I will just let that be as is it was stated.. I don't trust experts or man made science as far as I can throw them. I will pick up my cross and follow him as he asked his deciples to do.

As far as the trinity. I did not understand it for the longest and I do not expect you or anyone else to understand it either. I want you to keep in mind, we do not think the way they do. (God and or Jesus) Nor, do we have the understanding they do but I will post more about it when time allows. A simple 30min writting seesion is just not enough time to put thoughts in a post on a very complex subject.


----------



## WillieT

The experts I spoke of are experts in foreign language translations. I don't know if you read a couple of my earlier post on a stake vs a cross, if not please do so. One posted earlier, a cross or a stake, what difference does it make.

Be clear, it make a tremendous difference that the original wording is translated correctly. I cited some other sources,most off of the internet, just to back up my statement. The article on the cross being of pagan orgin came directly from the internet. Type it in and see what results you get. In the original language there is no mention of a cross in the Bible. You also might be interested in reading Exodus 20:4,5.


----------



## Fish&Chips

shaggydog said:


> So how do you explain why so many have done it? Do they have God's blessing?


I'm not sure to whom you are referring to, but the bible warns us about false prophets. Of course not, they would not have God's blessing.


----------



## WillieT

Fish&Chips said:


> I'm not sure to whom you are referring to, but the bible warns us about false prophets. Of course not, they would not have God's blessing.


I was asking about religions changing their doctrines to satisfy popular trends. Condoning homosexuality, women in ministers positions, etc, it goes on and on. Do you think they are deviating from God's standards? Look closely at the religions that are doing this. Are these things scriptual? Do you think they have God's blessings.


----------



## Fish&Chips

shaggydog said:


> I was asking about religions changing their doctrines to satisfy popular trends. Condoning homosexuality, women in ministers positions, etc, it goes on and on. Do you think they are deviating from God's standards? Look closely at the religions that are doing this. Are these things scriptual? Do you think they have God's blessings.


According to this, they would not be following the bible. And no, they would not have God's blessing.


----------



## Fish&Chips

Shaggydog, but I am still waiting for you to point out where my initial post is in error.


----------



## WillieT

Fish&Chips said:


> According to this, they would not be following the bible. And no, they would not have God's blessing.


We are in agreement at last. Common ground. You agree that a Christian congregation should base it's doctrines on scriptural principal and not change those doctrines to satisy the masses.

Let me throw one more thing in the mix. True Christians are organized to serve God in unity. As Jesusâ€™ sheep listen to his voice, they become â€œone flockâ€ under his leadership. John 10:16 â€œAnd I have other sheep, which are not of this fold; those also I must bring, and they will listen to my voice, and they will become one flock, one shepherd.

They are not divided over doctrinal matters. 1Â Corinthians 1:10 Â Now I exhort YOU, brothers, through the name of our Lord Jesus Christ that YOU should all speak in agreement, and that there should not be divisions among YOU, but that YOU may be fitly united in the same mind and in the same line of thought.

If you are looking for the real truth do a little research. See what religions have changed doctrine concerning, I'll just point out a few, homosexuals, condoning and letting them in the congregation, women in the pulpit, gay marriage, covering up gross misconduct, having divisions in doctrine, those that embrace things condemned by God read Ex20: 4,5.

I will not call anyone out. You can see for yourself if you want to know the truth about things. See who is standing at the end of the day.


----------



## Fish&Chips

shaggydog said:


> We are in agreement at last.


So do you agree that Jesus Christ died on the cross to pay for our sins? So that we wouldn't have to endure eternal suffering in hell.


----------



## WillieT

I agree that Jesus died to pay for our sins, but he died on a stake. No one will have to endure eternal suffering in hell. God is love. You cannot love your children and torture them. Doesn't make sense. Besides the scriptures say the dead are conscience of nothing at all. I am pretty sure that if you are burning you will be conscience of it.


----------



## Fish&Chips

So just because something doesn't make sense to us, that means it can't be?


----------



## WillieT

Fish&Chips said:


> So just because something doesn't make sense to us, that means it can't be?


I don't know what doesn't make sense? The things we have discussed make perfect sense to me.


----------



## Fish&Chips

shaggydog said:


> I agree that Jesus died to pay for our sins, but he died on a stake. No one will have to endure eternal suffering in hell. God is love. You cannot love your children and torture them. *Doesn't make sense.* Besides the scriptures say the dead are conscience of nothing at all. I am pretty sure that if you are burning you will be conscience of it.


This


----------



## WillieT

It doesn't make sense that you could love your children, yet if they were disobidient. you would torture them.

The scriptures are very clear. Please check it out in your own copy of the Bible. The wage of sin is death. That's it. Nothing more, nothing less. No eternal torment. The love of God and his son Christ Jesus cannot even be compared to human love. His love for us is much more intense than any love we are capable of feeling. How could he possibly consider eternal torment (torture) for his children. How can anybody believe that he could torture them. God is not capable of that.

The Bible speaks of having a Godly fear. Do you know what that really means? It means a healthy fear of him, a fear of displeasing him. Not being afraid of him. He wants us to worship him because we love him, not because we are afraid if we are disobidient that he will burn us forever in hell. Could you love someone that you were afraid of? Afraid that if you did something wrong that they would hold you hand in the fire. Could you love someone like that. How could God possibly be like that? I was born and raised a Methodist, but I never put stock in a burning hellfire. It is not be possible with God.

Besides the scriptures are also clear the the dead are conscience of nothing at all. Please check it out in your own Bible. I am pretty sure if you were burning in hell you would be conscience of it. If you were in a fire would you know it? You would until you died, then you would not know it any more.


----------



## Fish&Chips

Can a judge send you to prison for life? Yes. Why? Because he is there to execute justice. God is holy & just. He gives us plenty of opportunities to repent of our sins and follow him. Oh how there are multitudes of people that wished it was true that once you die, that is the end. Unfortunately the bible is very clear that your soul will live forever. Either in heaven or in hell. Our little minds will never totally understand God's ways & thoughts, but I guarantee you they are perfect. We just need to trust in Jesus. He is the answer.


----------



## WillieT

Fish&Chips said:


> Can a judge send you to prison for life? Yes. Why? Because he is there to execute justice. God is holy & just. He gives us plenty of opportunities to repent of our sins and follow him. Oh how there are multitudes of people that wished it was true that once you die, that is the end. Unfortunately the bible is very clear that your soul will live forever. Either in heaven or in hell. Our little minds will never totally understand God's ways & thoughts, but I guarantee you they are perfect. We just need to trust in Jesus. He is the answer.


The soul dies with the body. Another false teaching. I've tried.


----------



## atcfisherman

Refuting Jehovahâ€™s Witnesses

While the Christian church has never considered the exact method of Jesusâ€™ crucifixion or impalement as a major concern, the WT has certainly made an issue of it since the time of President Rutherford. In doing so, they hold true to their pattern of majoring in minor issues; often distracting their followers from more important issues.

The WT considers the churches as â€œuncleanâ€ for using the cross as a symbol of the death of Jesus. While it is agreed that worship of the cross or any other symbol is wrong, the use of a symbol for illustrative purposes has never been wrong, either in the NT or OT records. For instance, cherubs (angels) were embroidered on the curtains of the tabernacle in Mosesâ€™ time (Ex. 26:1). The Watchtower even uses a tower as their own special symbol.

Up until the late 30â€²s the WT pictured Christ as dying on the traditional cross. However, while later eliminating the cross as well as the name of Jesus on their front cover, they continued to use a watch tower as their symbol. In the book Enemies, President J.F. Rutherford attacked the traditional story of the cross as wrong because â€œThe cross was worshipped by the Pagan Celts long before the [birth] and death of Christ.â€ (pages 188-189) With no accompanying historical or archaeological evidence, Rutherford stated his new doctrine as fact. Actually, what pagans did with crosses before the death of Christ has nothing to do with how the Romans crucified people. Besides, Jesus did not choose his instrument of death.

The current WT objections to the cross are:

1. The Biblical Greek doesnâ€™t suggest a cross, but rather a â€œpoleâ€ or â€œstake.â€

2. The cross was a pagan symbol later adopted by the â€œapostateâ€ church.

3. Archaeology proves that Jesus died on an upright stake rather than a cross.

4. The cross is to be shunned rather than mentioned or displayed.

Letâ€™s consider the answer to these objections one by one:

JW: The Greek â€˜staurosâ€™ does not refer to cross

As the years went by, â€œproofâ€ was supplied by the WT to substantiate its position on the cross. In 1950 with the release of the New World Translation of the Christian Greek Scriptures, the appendix (pages 768-771) first argues that the Greek words stauros (Matt. 10:38) and xylon (Acts 5:30) do not mean a cross, and stated that these words only mean an upright stake without a crossbeam, and that there is no proof to the contrary.

The Greek stauros has the primary meaning of a pole or stake, as the WT points out. What they donâ€™t mention is that the word often refers to more complex constructions, such as the cross. The Latin word crux usually translated â€œcross,â€ was also at times used to refer to a mere stake. What the WT specifically ignores is that the Romans DID execute prisoners on crossesâ€"an issue they are careful to sidestep in their presentation. The horizontal bar of such crosses was called the patibulum, and the slaves to be executed were customarily made to carry the patibulum to the place of execution. (Seneca, De Vita Beata 19:3; Epistola 101:12; Tacitus, Historiae, IV, 3)2

Authoritative lexicons give the definition of stauros as a â€œstake sunk into the earth in an upright position; a crosspiece was often attached to its upper part.â€3

Xylon, like stauros, can also be used to refer to a cross, a fact carefully side-stepped by the WT in their effort to prove their point. They thus fail to prove anything with regard to stauros and xylon. Therefore we must look to the historical record for more decisive proof on the method of crucifixion.

JW: â€œThe cross was a pagan symbol later adopted by Churchesâ€

Whatever usage of the cross existed before or after the time of Christ is irrelevant to the issue. Additionally, there is no conclusive evidence that 1st century Jews or Christians looked upon the crucifixion cross as a symbol of false worship. It was used as a means to an endâ€"the punishment or death of a criminal. Symbols mean different things at different times. Furthermore, Jesus did not choose his instrument of death.

While the Catholic church may have later capitalized on the imagery of the cross, and some people even today regard it as an idol, that does not affect the earlier, Biblical usage of the cross as a symbol of the gospel (see the fourth objection). Evidence reveals that as early as the first century there were Christians who used the cross as a symbol for Christianity. The Romans even mocked them by depicting Jesus as an *** on a cross (see appendix for illustration). Apparently the cross did not readily remind the first century Christians of previous pagan meanings, but stood for Christ and his message as far as believers and even non-believers were concerned. Today it is much the same. People usually consider the cross a sign of Christianity.

JW: Archaeology shows that Jesus died on a stake, not a crossâ€

In the 1950 and 1969 editions of the New World Translation (in their appendix), the WT reproduces one of sixteen woodcut illustrations by the 16th century writer Justus Lipsius, who authored a work called De Cruce Liber Primus, Secundus and Tres. They reproduce his picture of a man impaled on an upright stake, failing to mention that Lipsius produced fifteen other illustrations (most of which picture various crucifixions on crosses).

The Watchtower makes the statement:

â€œThis is the manner in which Jesus was impaled.â€

They then refer to an article in the Catholic Ecclesiastical Review of 1920 that states that the cross was not used until after A.D. 312 as the sign of the crucifixion. 4

The 1950 New World Translation of the Christian Greek Scriptures (Appendix, p.770) states:

â€œRather than consider the torture stake upon which Jesus was impaled a relic to be worshiped, the Jewish Christians like Simon Peter would consider it to be an abominable thing.â€

They then quote Paulâ€™s reference to Deut. 21:22,23 at Galatians 3:13 to prove that the cross was an abomination. They continue,

â€œHence the Jewish Christians would hold as accursed and hateful the stake upon which Jesus had been executed.â€

The NWT makes its final point in stating,

The evidence is, therefore, completely lacking that Jesus Christ was crucified on two pieces of timber placed at a right angle. We refuse to add anything to Godâ€™s written Word by inserting the pagan cross into the inspired Scriptures, but render stauros and xylon according to the simplest meanings. . . . The passing of time and further archaeological discoveries will be certain to prove its correctness. Even now the burden rests upon all who contend for the religious tradition to prove that Jesus died on more than a simple stake. (p.771)

In 1969 the Kingdom Interlinear Translationâ€˜s appendix contained much the same information, as does the 1984 New World Translation Reference Bible and the 1985 revision of the Kingdom Interlinear. The 1985 edition adds comments by Vineâ€™s Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words that supports the view that pagans before the time of Christ used the symbol T representing the Babylonian god Tammuz, and that this practice apparently influenced the Catholic Church in the issue of cross worship. Vine claims the Catholic ecclesiastical system adapted the symbol of the cross as a holdover from paganism.

The most amazing thing of all is that the WT could make a statement such as â€œevidence is completely lackingâ€ that Jesus was crucified on a cross, when the VERY BOOK they use as â€œproofâ€ to support their claims SAYS JESUS DIED ON A CROSS! One of the woodcuts of Lipsius not mentioned by the WT, shows a crucifixion on a cross. A partial translation of the Latin text alongside this woodcut says:

In the Lordâ€™s cross there were four pieces of wood, the upright beam, the crossbar, a tree trunk (piece of wood) placed below, and the title (inscription) placed above.

Also they hand down (this account by) Irenaeus:

â€œThe construction of the cross has five ends, two on the vertical and two on the horizontal, and one in the middle where the person attached with nails rested.â€ (De Cruce Liber Secundus, pg. 661)

The earlier (1950 and 1969) editions of the NWT, after referring to Lipsiusâ€™ picture of a man on an upright stake stated, â€œThis is the manner in which Jesus was impaled.â€ They thereby attempted to convey the idea that Lipsiusâ€™ book was proving their point. Since then the exposure of their dishonesty induced them to leave this statement out of the 1984 and 1985 versions of the NWT; but they STILL use Lipsiusâ€™ illustration to make their point, while failing to tell the real story! They are intentionally avoiding the truth.

Furthermore, their reference to the Catholic Ecclesiastical Review (1920) is outdated, as there have been further archaeological finds that indicate otherwise, such as mentioned in Biblical Archaeology Review of Jan./Feb. 1985.

This brings up another very embarrassing issue for the WT â€" that of recent archaeological finds. In the earlier editions (1950 and 1969) of the NWT they had said,

â€œThe passing of time and further archaeological discoveries will be certain to prove its correctness. . . .â€

Why did they omit this statement from the 1984 and 1985 versions of the New World Translation? Precisely because of the more recent archaeological finds! While the WT has made use of obscure and long-outdated sources in an attempt to prove their point, the bulk of the historical finds as well as the most recent excavations reveal substantial proof for the traditional crucifixion story, as long held by the churches.

In Christ Alone I Place My Trust


----------



## Jiggin Junkie

atcfisherman, 

Very well studied and thought out. Thanks for sharing. The issue is not the method but rather the results. Jesus also told doubting Tomas to place his finger in the nail scars in His hands and the spear wounds in His side. It mentions nothing of a gaping hole through the entire body. The bottom line is Jesus shed His blood so that we could be covered, just like the Passover applying the blood to the doorposts so the death angel passed over Gods people. So to now does death Passover His redeemed. The scripture says we pass from life to life.


----------

