Featured If We Protestants Truly Hated Catholics...

If I do not "know" the Father and Jesus Christ whom He has sent, then I know nothing, no matter what else I 'know' (vanity).

However, the WTS/JW proclaim that the Cross is pagan, and therefore, God would never use that. They willingly forget that paganism always twists the reality, and the cross is the symbol of the love to God and man, vertical and horizontal, the cross-roads of love. There is more to it than this, but they do not acknowledge all of the pagan material in their own writings, the Winged sun disk of Thebes, 3 finger hands, keys, and all else. They also do not seem to realize that the "stake" (upright pole) is just as "pagan", look around the world. The upright pole is all over the place in "paganism", and so they practice hypocrisy.

However, Jesus died upon the "Cross". It is from OT to NT, not merely in English language, but in type and antitype, in prophecy and all over. However, let me go back to show you what the WTS/JW left out from the Imperial Bible Dictionary and the Roman Catholic Encylopedia.

Again, here is what they said it says:

"... The Imperial Bible-Dictionary says that the word staurosʹ “properly signified a stake, an upright pole, or piece of paling, on which anything might be hung, or which might be used in impaling a piece of ground.” The dictionary continues: “Even amongst the Romans the crux (Latin, from which our cross is derived) appears to have been originally an upright pole.” Thus, it is not surprising that The Catholic Encyclopedia states: “Certain it is, at any rate, that the cross originally consisted of a simple vertical pole, sharpened at its upper end.” ..." - [1]

Here is the actual source in what it really says (and notice where they stopped and used ellipses):

"... CROSS, CRUCIFY. The Greek word for cross, σταυρός, properly signified a stake, an upright pole, or piece of paling, on which anything might be hung, or which might be used in impaling a piece of ground. But a modification was introduced as the dominion and usages of Rome extended themselves through Greek-speaking countries. 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. But from the time that it began to be used as an instrument of punishment, a transverse piece of wood was commonly added: not, however, always even then. For it would seem that there were more kinds of death than the one by the cross; this being sometimes accomplished by transfixing the criminal with a pole, which was run through his back and spine, and came out at his mouth (adactum per medium hominem, qui per os emergat, stipitem, Seneca, Ep. xiv.) In another place (Consol. ad Marciam, xx.), Seneca mentions three different forms: "I see," says he, "three crosses, not indeed of one sort, but fashioned in different ways; one sort suspending by the head persons bent toward the earth, others transfixing them through their secret parts, others extending their arms on a patibulum." There can be no doubt, however, that the latter sort was the more common, and that about the period of the gospel age crucifixion was usually accomplished by suspending the criminal on a cross piece of wood.

But this does not of itself determine the precise form of the cross; for crosses of three different shapes were known to have been in use. One, and that probably the most ancient, was in the form of the letter T, which as commonly written consisted simply of a perpendicular line with another laid across the top, making two right angles, T. In the earlier Christian writers this letter is often referred to to as a symbol of the cross, and, on account of such a resemblance, Lucian, in his usual style, prefers a charge against the letter (Judio. Voc. xii.) The letter X represents another sort, which has received the name of St. Andrew, from a tradition that on a cross of this description the apostle of that [376-377] name suffered martyrdom. But the commonest form, it is understood, was that in which the upright piece of wood was crossed by another near the top, but not precisely at it, the upright pole running above the other, thus t -- and so making four, not merely two right angles. It was on a cross of this form, according to the general voice of tradition, that our Lord suffered; but there is nothing in the narratives of the evangelists which determines this to have been the form employed, rather than either of the other two. It is, however, the one most commonly met with in the paintings and sculptures that have survived from the earlier ages. …" - The Imperial Bible Dictionary, Historical, Biographical, Geographical, and Doctrinal: Including the Natural History, Antiquities, Manners, Customs, and Religious Rites And Ceremonies Mentioned In The Scriptures, And An Account Of The Several Books Of The Old And New Testaments. Edited By The Rev. Patrick Fairbairn, D.D., Author Of "Typology Of Scripture," "Commentary On Ezekiel," Etc. Illustrated By Numerous Engravers, Volume I, London: Blackie And Son, Paternoster Row; And Glasgow And Edinburgh. MDCCCLXVL., pages 376, 377 - https://archive.org/stream/imperialbibledi00fairgoog#page/n402/mode/1up/search/"an+upright+pole"

I shall cite the Roman Catholic Encyclopedia next, and notice what they purposefully left out of it.

 

------------------------------------------------------------------------

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Yes it is old and I wanted to get back to that.......
calling us " my husband and I " [[ ignorant ]]

 

This time I shall cite from the Roman Catholic Encyclopedia and show the deception they used.

Again, here is what they said it says:

"... The Imperial Bible-Dictionary says that the word staurosʹ “properly signified a stake, an upright pole, or piece of paling, on which anything might be hung, or which might be used in impaling a piece of ground.” The dictionary continues: “Even amongst the Romans the crux (Latin, from which our cross is derived) appears to have been originally an upright pole.” Thus, it is not surprising that The Catholic Encyclopedia states: “Certain it is, at any rate, that the cross originally consisted of a simple vertical pole, sharpened at its upper end.” ..." - [1]

Here is what the the Roman Catholic Encyclopedia actually says:

"... The penalty of the cross goes back probably to the arbor infelix, or unhappy tree, spoken of by Cicero (Pro, Rabir., iii sqq.) and by Livy, apropos of the condemnation of Horatius after the murder of his sister. According to Hüschke (Die Multa, 190) the magistrates known as duoviri perduellionis pronounced this penalty (cf. Liv., I, 266), styled also infelix lignem (Senec., Ep. ci; Plin., XVI, xxvi; XXIV, ix; Macrob., II, xvi). This primitive form of crucifixion on trees was long in use, as Justus Lipsius notes ("De cruce", I, ii, 5; Tert., "Apol.", VIII, xvi; and "Martyrol. Paphnut." 25 Sept.). Such a tree was known as a cross (crux). On an ancient vase we see Prometheus bound to a beam which serves the purpose of a cross. A somewhat different form is seen on an ancient cist at Præneste (Palestrina), upon which Andromeda is represented nude, and bound by the feet to an instrument of punishment like a military yoke — i.e. two parallel, perpendicular stakes, surmounted by a transverse bar. Certain it is, at any rate, that the cross originally consisted of a simple vertical pole, sharpened at its upper end. Mæcenas (Seneca, Epist. xvii, 1, 10) calls it acuta crux; it could also be called crux simplex. To this upright pole a transverse bar was afterwards added to which the sufferer was fastened with nails or cords, and thus remained until he died, whence the expression cruci figere or affigere (Tac., "Ann.", XV, xliv; Potron., "Satyr.", iii) The cross, especially in the earlier times, was generally low. It was elevated only in exceptional cases, particularly whom it was desired to make the punishment more exemplary or when the crime was exceptionally serious. Suetonius (Galba, ix) tells us that Galba did this in the case of a certain criminal for whom he caused to be made a very high cross painted white — "multo præter cætteras altiorem et dealbatam statui crucem jussit". ...

... Among the Romans the cross never had the symbolical meaning which it had in the ancient Orient; they regarded solely as a material instrument of punishment. There are in the Old Testament clear allusions to the Cross and Crucifixion of Jesus Christ. Thus the Greek letter (tau or thau) appears in Ezekiel 9:4, according to St. Jerome and other Fathers, as a solemn symbol of the Cross of Christ — "Mark Thau upon the foreheads of the men that sigh". The only other symbol of crucifixion indicated in the Old Testament is the brazen serpent in the Book of Numbers (21:8-9). Christ Himself thus interpreted the passage: "As Moses lifted up the serpent in the desert, so must the Son of man be lifted up" (John 3:14). The Psalmist predicts the piercing of the hands and the feet (Psalm 21:17). This was a true prophecy, inasmuch as it could not be conceived from any custom then existing; the practice of nailing the condemned to a T-shaped cross being, as we have seen, at that time exclusively Western. The cross on which Jesus Christ was nailed was of the kind known as immissa, which means that the vertical trunk extended a certain height above the transverse beam; it was thus higher than the crosses of the two thieves, his crime being judged a graver one, according to St. John Chrysostom (Homil. v, c. i., on I Corinth.). The earliest Christian Fathers who speak of the Cross describe it as thus constructed. We gather as much from St. Matthew (27:37), where he tells us that the titulus, or inscription containing the cause of His death, was placed, "over", the head of Jesus Christ (cf. Luke 23:38; John 19:19). St. Irenæus (Adv. Haer., II, xxiv) says that the Cross had five extremities: two in its length, two in its breadth, and the fifth a projection (habitus) in the middle — "Fines et summitates habet quinque, duas in longitudine, duas in latitudine, unam in medio". St. Augustine agrees with him: "Erat latitudo in qua porrectæ sunt manus longitudo a terrâ surgens, in quâ erat corpus infixum; altitudo ab illo divexo ligno sursum quod imminet" (Enarration on Psalm 103; Serm. i, 44) and in other passages quoted by Zöckler (Das Kreuz, 1875, pp. 430, 431).

Nonnus confirms the statement that Jesus Christ was crucified on a quadrilateral cross ..." - CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Archaeology of the Cross and Crucifix

Eze 9:4 And the LORD said unto him, Go through the midst of the city, through the midst of Jerusalem, and set a mark upon the foreheads of the men that sigh and that cry for all the abominations that be done in the midst thereof.

Eze 9:4 ויאמר יהוה אלו עבר בתוך העיר בתוך ירושׁלם והתוית תו על־מצחות האנשׁים הנאנחים והנאנקים על כל־התועבות הנעשׂות בתוכה׃

Eze 9:4 waYomer y'hwäh *ëlô [ëläyávor B'tôkh' häiyr B'tôkh' y'rûshäläim w'hit'wiytä Täw al-mitz'chôt häánäshiym haNeénächiym w'haNeénäqiym al Käl-haTôëvôt haNaásôt B'tôkhäH

Did you see what the WTS/JW left out of their research? Everything which disagreed with them. More practicing of hypocrisy, but of course, most of the persons in the org. have no idea they have been lied to by their own 'faithful and discreet slave' (terrible translation).

 

Now we can look at the Bible, in what it says from OT to NT about the way in which Jesus would suffer. It is as clear as day, but those who do not want to admit that what they have belived is a lie, will continue in their darkness, though Jesus came into the world that all may see, hear and be healed in their heart. Not tonight though. Tomorrow, we can continue if you would like. We can begin with this verse:

Act_3:18 But those things, which God before had shewed by the mouth of all his prophets, that Christ should suffer, he hath so fulfilled.

Therefore, we can look into the prophets and see how they foretold how Jesus would "suffer", and it even tells us the shape of that instrument.

 

There are lots of JW's in Europe.

 

Thanks for that transparently ignorant post.

First of all - it's not a horse's head - it is a donkey's head. Another name for the Alexamenos Grafito is the "Gaffito Blasfemo" - or "Blasphemous Graffiti" because it depicts Christ with the head of a donkey.
It is a drawing of mockery - yet it depicts a 1st century Roman crucifixion on a cross-beamed cross and NOT a "torture stake".

It was commonly believed by some pagans that Christians practiced onolatry - or "Donkey worship".

Below is a tracing of the etched graffiti:


A little advice: It's probably best to do your homework before posting these kinds of embarrassing claims . . .

 

There is no "Protestant church", Einstein. It is a gaggle of tens of thousands of disjointed and perpetually-splintering sects - not ONE.

A renegade, pseudo-Catholic faction is, by definition, a Protestant sect . . .

 

No - I use a Bible. It's just that MY Bible wasn't edited by Martin Luther, so it contains the original 46 Books of the OT. YOURS only has 39.

Look - you seem like a fairly nice person. When you are judged by God, you won't be able to blame ANYBODY but yourself for not knowing Scripture or refusing to purchase a Bible. That falls directly on YOU . . .

 

That us a stupid as saying that just because YOUR pastor may be a tax cheat - then YOU must be one.
What an unbelievably idiotic statement . . .

The Pope is from Argentina.
Wouldn't that make him an Argentinist, Einstein??

 

Paul says that we are to preach Christ CRUCIFIED - which is a stumbling block to the Jews and foolishness to the Gentiles (! Cor. 1:23).

We preach Him crucified because without His glorious death - there is NO salvation.
Without the Crucifixion - there is NO Resurrection and NO eternal life.

I don't know about YOU - but I praise my Lord Jesus for what He did on the cross. If it's shameful or embarrassing to YOU - then you don't know Him . . .

 

JW's such as Zipzaddle don't believe that, BOL.

 

Apparently not . . .

 

I am going to make an observation B. about the Bible that I have been enlightened about in regards the numerical books of the Bible.

There are two stacks of 6 loaves on the table of shewbread, which represents God's word, taken together. 6-6.
Across from the table of shew bread is the candlestick when all the flowers, knops etc added up. 66.
The book of Isaiah, being the mini bible, from creation to redemption and new heavens and earth, are chapters. 66
The number of man is 6.
The OT itself, the standard of judgment is the limit of the law, meaning, 40 stripes save 1. 39.
The NT is a litte more interesting, in that there are 4 gospels, corresponding to the 4 living creatures of Revelation, 7 letters to 7 churches by Paul as like in Revelation, etc and it also ties into the Sanctuary. The 4 gospels in the altar of Sacrifice, the book of Acts the Laver of Baptism, the letters to the churches and epistles the life in the Holy Place (bread (word), incense (prayer), light (share)), and Revelation ending in the Most Holy Place. It also is 3 to the 3rd power (3x3x3). 27.

Please do not blame Luther for everything. It is historically unrealistic and it would be a gross historical error (consider also Miles Coverdale, 1537 and also the Geneva 1560 and 1611 of James I (between the testaments (translated by the 2nd Cambridge Company of 7 men (John Duport, William Branthwaite, Jeremiah Radcliffe, Samuel Ward, Andrew Downes, John Bois, Robert Ward)) with notation that it was not scripture, but for historical use (and many simply had their copy rebound and removed the apocrypha altogether))), and also an oversimplification of why the apocrypha (Tobit, Judith, 1 & 1 Maccabees, Wisdom (Sirach), Ecclesiasticus, Baruch, * Esther (added "God" throughout, Mordecai's dream, Haman's letter, Esther's "God" prayer, etc) & * Daniel (additional portions, as in Daniel many more lines in chap. 3, 'prayer/song of Azariah', and chap. 13 (Susanna) and 14 (Bel & the Dragon).)) ceased to be included as part of a volume that Christians read, under normal circumstances. (I have read them all and then some.)

"The apocryphal books were not admitted into the canon of Scripture during the first four centuries of the Christian church. They are not mentioned in the catalogue of inspired writings made by Melito, bishop of Sardis, who flourished in the second century, nor in those of Origen, in the third century, of Athanasius, Hilary, Cyril of Jerusalem, Epiphanius, Gregory Nazianzen, Amphilochius, Jerome, Rufinus, and others of the fourth century; nor in the catalogue of canonical books recognized by the Council of Laodicea, held in the same century, whose canons were received by the Catholic Church; so that, as Bishop Burnet well observes, "we have the concurring sense of the whole church of God in this matter." To this decisive evidence against the canonical authority of the apocryphal books, we may add that they were never read in the Christian church until the fourth century, when, as Jerome informs us, they were read "for example of life and instruction of manners, but were not applied to establish any doctrine;" and contemporary writers state that although they were not approved as canonical or inspired writings, yet some of them, particularly Judith, Wisdom, and Ecclesiasticus, were allowed to be perused by catechumens. As proof that they were not regarded as canonical in the fifth century, Augustine relates that when the book of Wisdom was publicly read in the church, it was given to the readers or inferior ecclesiastical officers, who read it in a lower place than those books which were universally acknowledged to be canonical, which were read by the bishops and presbyters in a more eminent and conspicuous manner. To conclude: Notwithstanding the veneration in which these books were held by the Western Church, it is evident that the same authority was never ascribed to them as to the Old and New Testament; until the last Council of Trent, at its fourth session, presumed to place them all (excepting the prayer of Manasseh and the third and fourth books of Esdras) in the same rank with the inspired writings of Moses and the prophets." - An Introduction to the Critical Study and Knowledge of the Holy Scriptures. by Thomas Hartwell Horne, B.D. of Saint John's College, Cambridge; rector of the United Parishes of Saint Edmund the King and Martyr and Saint Nicholas Acons, Lombard Street; Prebendary of Saint Paul's; New Edition, from the Eighth London Edition, Corrected and Enlarged. Illustrated with numerous maps and fac-similies of Bilical Manuscripts. Volume I. Philadelphia: Published by J. Whetham & Son, 144 Chestnut Street. Stereotyped by L. Johnson. 1841.; page 426 (left column) - https://archive.org/stream/anintroductiont07horngoog#page/n459/mode/1up

http://www.biblelight.net/hebrew-canon.htm

Apocrypha, and the reasons they are not accepted as "canon":

"... 1. Not one of them is in the Hebrew language, which was alone (a little Syriac/Chaldee in Daniel, etc.) used by the inspired historians and poets of the Old Testament.

2. Not one of the writers lays any claim to inspiration.

3. These books were never acknowledged as sacred Scriptures by the Jewish Church, and therefore were never sanctioned by our Lord.

4. They were not allowed a place among the sacred books, during the first four centuries of the Christian Church.

5. They contain fabulous statements, and statements which contradict not only the canonical Scriptures, but themselves; as when, in the two Books of Maccabees, Antiochus Epiphanes is made to die three different deaths in as many different places.

6. It inculcates doctrines at variance with the Bible, such as prayers for the dead...

7. It teaches immoral practices, such as lying, suicide, assassination and magical incantation. ..." - Sam Gipp - https://samgipp.com/answerbook/?page=34.htm

 

Thank you.

I agree that all scripture is useful. But notice scripture doesn't say it is the ONLY thing for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training.

You still have to explain how the men of the Catholic Church or the men of the Lutheran Church or Mormon Church etc. used THE SAME SCRIPTURE for teaching, rebuking, correcting, training and they all came up with a different interpretation of that scripture and feel they are equipped for every good work. Scripture is useful, in the right hands. Which hands do you choose???

There are some Protestant denominations that believe "one person in one church knows the Word of God over all others". That fantasy became popular after the Reformation.

There are also people that sit in their lounge chair on Sunday (it's "their" church service), read scripture and interpret it then pat themselves on the back because they feel the Holy Spirit guided them to the right answer. They fit your definition of ludicrous. Do you know any people like that?

Mary

 

Sounds like the pope to me.

 

Lol......It's not a bad word!!

It means "same" or in this case people that agree with him.

"Ilk" is a lot shorter to write then "people that agree with you".

Mary

 

Then you don't know anything about the Catholic Church and the Papacy!!

Mary

 

Mary, do you believe everything the pope says or do you have any opinions of your own that you believe?

 

Rollo,

Now, now young man. When you answer my question, I will answer yours. Let's try again and I will modify the question so it is more clear:

How is it that men from different denominations using THE SAME SCRIPTURE for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training all come up with a different interpretation of that scripture??? Which denomination do you choose as the one who is going to teach, rebuke, correct and train you Rollow Tamasi???

Mary

 

Looks like a pissing contest to me

Rollo, you’re next