Freedom Is A Reality

originally posted by: ChesterJohn
a reply to: namelesss

No I was not offended by your response I was asking a real question.

Should not people know the difference between a Cross and an X?

I seem to remember another silly faction dispute about whether Jesus was hung on a 'X' or a 't'/'T'.
You aren't all on about that, are you?
An 'x' is as much as a 'cross' as a 't'.
Xtians do not have copyright on the 'cross'!
Definitionally, I think that you are quibbling over personal Perspectival trivialities. Why? To ignore my point?
You asked me why I did something, and I responded.
Then you argued with me, even after I explained my Perspective.

JW's say Jesus Christ was crucified on and X. If your hands and feet are spread apart and nailed the person being crucified would die in a matter of minutes after they are raised up on the Two feet of the X, because they could not push up to get a breath.

Aaaand there we have it, the worms head appears.
The 'X' is the 'cross' used by 'them'!
Funny thing about vain religion, there is always a 'them', heathens...
Even if that were the diametric opposite of what Jesus (the entire bible, for that matter) actually taught!
Whether or not it was expedient to crucify someone on one cross or another, they remain both 'crosses'.
The NT account was probably fictional, and 'calling' the shape of the crss to fit the (most likely fictional) story is not intellectually honest.
You have your version, others have theirs.
Why quibble?
Is your whole thing built on 'belief' (which needs to be fed crap like this), or Faith, which needs no 'feeding' at all?

Sorry I searched the scriptures to see if the statement that miss Joan made in her book was in the Bible. Just because people say Jesus said something doesn't make it true unless we can find a Biblical record of it. I had not found it. Do you have this book? If so could you look in the Bibliography and see from what she quotes it and from which version she is quoting it?

I have read the books so many times, that is why I kn ow what it says.
Perhaps, with the quotes in mind, you might read it again.
It is a rather easy and short read.
Find it for yourself, like I did.
I'd be happy to hand it to you, but I never jotted down every quote to use later for reference.
I think what I offered is a good place to start.
I have no need to ever read the book again, unless I am editing it.
IF I ever do stumble over that stuff again, I'll save it for you.

Thank you for the conversation! *__-

a reply to: namelesss

no i am not, the argument is made by JW's of which I am not.

I read Joans book excerpt you linked too. but the bibliography was not there even though she had no Bibliography mark next to it to show where she got the quote of Jesus from. I am not going to buy a book I am not interested in just to try and find out where she got her misquote from. But it wasn't in the Bible I have searched 25 different versions for that exact quote and it appears in none of them. My best assumption is she is either mistaken or misled on what the Biblical Jesus said.

a reply to: ChesterJohn

I am literally giggling at you Chester.

Let me ask you a very simple question. So simple a Yes or No will do.

Is X a cross or not?

a reply to: TerryDon79

systematically the lines intersect but the Roman cross of hanging a horizontal cross beam to a vertical beam of differing lengths is not the same as the crossing of two beams of equal lengths. Both crosses do entirely different effects to the Body.

One is an X and the other is liken to a lowercase t they are not the same Terry no matter how you want to try and be cleaver.

roads intersect they are called intersections, while a railway may intersect a road and it is called a crossing, not an intersection.

things that are different are not the same.

a reply to: ChesterJohn

So, I'll ask again.

Is X a cross?

A simple yes or no. I don't need an essay.

a reply to: ChesterJohn

A cross has a vertical and a horizontal, and an X does not, it has two slight angles that are neither horizontal or Vertical.

So technically they are not the same thing. No a cross is not an X

a reply to: ChesterJohn

Ok. Well, that's just wrong. Sorry Chester.

An X is, in fact, a cross.
Noughts and Crosses, for instance, use an X.

In the UK and other countries, 2 roads intersecting is called a crossroad.

Also, crucifixions used and I shape, a T, a T with an extra part at the top, a Y shape and an X shape.

From here


And then there's this. Type "cross" in google and, unsurprisingly, you'll get a mix including X.

a reply to: TerryDon79

And how many of those look exactly alike?

Things that are different are not the same.

The second and fourth one cannot have a sign nailed above the victim. the fourth one extended the victim fully and they usually die rather quickly.

The first one the victim is fully stretched out and would die rather quickly too.

The third one was the one that caused the most excruciating pain and discomfort. Arms straight out feet nailed on a small block giving them just enough room to push up on revealing pressure on the arms for a moment and allows the victim to take a breath. Then down they slump again they could live for days.

If an X was used no need to brake any legs because they would be dead in a few hours because they would have suffocated. The Romans perfected the Cross using all four forms until they found the one that did the most and kept them alive the longest. the on that was like a lower case "t" a longer vertical post that supported a shorter cross beam. Hence the term Cross which is what the people called for when they cried out "Crucify him".

a reply to: ChesterJohn

Scrambled egg and a boiled egg are still eggs, even though they "don't look the same".

Just like a T with a bit on top and an X are both crosses.

Here's a dictionary definition of a cross that proves that X is a cross.

From here

NOUN

1. A mark, object, or figure formed by two short intersecting lines or pieces (+ or ×)

You've been proven wrong Chester. Move on. You don't always have to be right.

ETA: I notice you're now making an argument about how your not god (Jesus of the bible never said he was god. In fact, he denied it) was crucified. That wasn't what you were arguing before. It was a simple "X isn't a cross". Goalposts of a none argument moved much?

a reply to: TerryDon79

See my modified post above.

But still how your eggs are served is what they are called by. Scrabbled are Scrambled. Boiled are boiled. We don't call boiled scrambled. And an egg in a shell is not the same as an that has no shell.

This is not a toe-may-toe toe-ma-toe argument. This is a one that takes some understanding something you seem to ignore.

the cross upon which Jesus was crucified was not two short intersecting lines. It was one long vertical post supporting a sorter Horizontal beam.

a reply to: ChesterJohn

Seriously guy? What is wrong with you?

Your original crying was X not being a cross. It is. Deal with it and grow up.

a reply to: TerryDon79

Actually are your serious.

I defined the cross I am speaking of you have not. You claim all with intersections are crosses I disagree on the definition of what A Cross that Jesus died on is not an X but a t structure.

Letter or writing does not apply here.

What does apply is the one that matters the cross of Christ. Gave you the reasons above why the others did nto work and why the one I promote is the correct cross.

a reply to: ChesterJohn

I couldn't give a rats behind about what shape a couple of bits of wood some idiot 2000 years ago got tortured on.

You said X isn't a cross. It is. Even the dictionary and historical evidence proves you wrong.

X's are crosses.

You're just arguing because you need to be right, nothing more.

Email the dictionary if you think they're wrong.

a reply to: TerryDon79

well you sure did seem to care over a X or a t and no you claim you could give a flip.

In the CONTEXT we were speaking of the "bits of Wood" not letters or dictionary meanings.

You argued for the sake of arguing.

Just because lines or things cross or intersect doesn't make the "bits of wood" we were talking about the same as the dictionary meaning. I showed that by intersections and crossing.

You're the one who wants to be right all the time. And this time over nothing but your idea and not that of the CONTEXT we were posting.

You did noting more than derail this thread.

a reply to: ChesterJohn

You did noting more than derail this thread.

That's rich coming from the person who was crying that an X isn't a cross.

So, you ignore historians and you ignore dictionaries because you need to be right.

Typical xtian.

You've shown your true ignorant Paulian colours. I have no time for you anymore Chester.

a reply to: TerryDon79

you ignored the context of Mine and anthers post and jumped in trying to make someone look bad. But all you did was prove you are nothing more than a trouble maker with a nit picking attitude.

a reply to: ChesterJohn

Ignoring everything that says an X is a cross is just stupidity. Much like saying you "follow jesus" when you actually follow Paul.

An X will always be a cross. It doesn't matter if it's written or made from something. Even the dictionary proves you wrong. But you can't have that. You must be right because you're special.

I won't be responding to your ignorance anymore.

a reply to: TerryDon79

I have proven that the two are not the same no matter what a modern dictionary says.

Paul followed Jesus and expanded on ALL Jesus Christ;s teachings by inspiration and you ignore that fact.

You got way to much time on your hands try getting a job.

originally posted by: Woodcarver
a reply to: newnature1

Freedom from gods condemnation? Well at least you admit he's an asshole.

So he's an asshole and you do believe in him?

He's an asshole and you don't " " " " " " ?

Or you're just a hateful person with daddy issues who participates
from thread to thread in this forum spewing insults because you're
an "" "" "" "" who doesn't know what to believe because he can't
know?

a reply to: TerryDon79

If Paul preached himself more than Jesus or God then I would be a follower of Paul but seeing the truth as to what Paul actualy teaches I would have to say you are in error.

let's see how many times Paul teaches of Jesus and God and how many times he preaches about himself (which he doesn't ever preach about himself).

Let's let the number of references speak for themselves.

Paul mentions Jesus 206 times, Lord 256 times, God 494 time, Godhead 3 times, Him (speaking of Jesus and God) 168 times, his (speaking of Jesus and God ) 179 times, himself (speaking of Jesus and God 47 times, he (*speaking of Jesus and God) 238 times that would equal 1, 544 times Paul speaks of Jesus or God in 13 letters. This not including the letter of Acts written to Theophilus (whose name literally means God's Love) written by Luke.

Now let's see how many times he talks about himself and if we keep the context they are not self serving remarks but in regards to himself and his service to Jesus and God for their sakes.

Myself 21 times, me 151 times, and I 456 times equals 628 times.

Having seen the evidence I would say Paul had less to say about himself as you claim and more to say about Jesus and God more than any other point.

1,544 times Paul speaks of Jesus and God in its many forms compared to 628 times he speaks of himself but in the context of his service and life in Christ Jesus, in only the few forms that can be used in speaking of himself.

Obama spoke more about himself in all of his speeches and addresses than than Paul ever did in 13 letters

You have once again been proven wrong about what you believe about Paul and my following him over Christ Jesus MY LORD and SAVIOUR.