Jesus was put to death on a stake, not a Cross.

[Germanicus]

The instrument of Jesus's death is noted in the Bible passages as at Mathew 27:32 and 40, where the Greek word stauros is translated as 'cross'

in various English Bibles.

But what did stauros mean in the first century when the Greek scriptures were written?

An expository Dictionary of New Testament Words, by W. E. Vine says: 'stauros ...denotes primarily an upright pale or stake.

on such, malefactors were nailed for execution.

Both the noun stauros and the verb stauroo, to fasten to a stake or pale, are originally to be distinguished from the ecclesiastical

form of a two beamed cross.

The shape of the latter had it's origin in ancient Chaldea, and was used as the symbol of the god Tammuz (being in the shape of the mystic Tau, the initial

of his name) in that country and in adjacent lands, including Eygpt.

Vine says: 'By the middle of the 3rd century AD, 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 it's most frequent form, with the cross-piece lowered was adopted

to stand for the cross of Christ.

The new Catholic Encyclopaedia adds: The representation of Christs redemptive death on Golgotha does not occur in the symbolic art of the first Christian centuries.

The early Christians influenced by the Old Tesament prohibitation of graven images were reluctant to depict even the instrument of the Lord's death..

The cross comes to be represented in the time of Constantine.' So there is little evidence that, for the first 300 years after Christ's death, those claiming to be Christians used the cross in worship. In the fourth century, however , pagan Emperor Constantine became a convert to Christianity and promoted the cross as it's symbol.

The New Catholic Encyclopaedia admits: The cross is found in both pre-Christian and non-Christian cultures.

Why, then, was this pagan symbol promoted? apparently to make it easier for pagans to accept 'Christianity', arguably violating God's own commandments against idolatry. Even if we ignore the evidence and assume that Jesus was killed on a cross should the instrument of Jesus Christs murder be venerated?

[Anthropos]

Commemoration of the Appearing of the Precious Cross over Jerusalem (http://www.serbianorthodoxchurch.net/cgi-bin/saints.cgi?view=701157129953)

[Murphy]

It can be translated either way. I think we need to defer to history in this matter, and the historical documents point to a cross. This post just seems to be yet another attempt to find some kind of pagan symbolism in Christianity. And if you look hard enough, you'll find it. If you look hard enough, you can find anything anywhere.

Satan will use any sect to pervert and distort any symbol of Christ's one true Church and malign the symbol of Christ's triumph: the Holy Cross!

Regards,
Eóin.

[Germanicus]

It can be translated either way. I think we need to defer to history in this matter, and the historical documents point to a cross. This post just seems to be yet another attempt to find some kind of pagan symbolism in Christianity. And if you look hard enough, you'll find it. If you look hard enough, you can find anything anywhere.

Satan will use any sect to pervert and distort any symbol of Christ's one true Church and malign the symbol of Christ's triumph: the Holy Cross!

Regards,
Eóin.

:)


But on the other hand, Constantine wanted to jump on the band wagon of this up and coming sect by adopting the faith, what he could not stop or crush he ruled by inventing the Holy Roman Catholic Church.

[The Lawspeaker]

@Eoin

Apparently a Holy Stake would be a better translation. :wink

[Murphy]

@Eoin

Apparently a Holy Stake would be a better translation. :wink

Thank you for ignoring the greater part of my post :coffee:.

Regards,
Eóin.

[The Lawspeaker]

Thank you for ignoring the greater part of my post :coffee:.

Regards,
Eóin.
Because it is just pure nonsense and Catholic propaganda. Come up with facts, my boy, not with Papist rubbish.

[Murphy]

Because it is just pure nonsense and Catholic propaganda. The truth is a bitch, laddie.

Uh-huh :coffee:.

Regards,
Eóin.

[The Lawspeaker]

Uh-huh :coffee:.

Regards,
Eóin.
Well. Time to think about a different religion, don't you think ?
Try Heathenism. :coffee:

[Murphy]

Well. Time to think about a different religion, don't you think ?
Try Heathenism. :coffee:

I'd rather stay faithful to God, thank you very much :).

Regards,
Eóin.

[Germanicus]

To be fair i have watched the film "The Life of Brian" and i must say back then over 2,000 yrs ago they would have followed anyone who had a new theme?

[The Lawspeaker]

I'd rather stay faithful to God, thank you very much :).

Regards,
Eóin.
Well. Then Protestantism would be something for you. :)

[Murphy]

Well. Then Protestantism would be something for you. :)

You want me to convert to Judai.. I mean Protestantism? No thanks, like I said, I am faithful to God and His Church, not mans.

Leave it at that Lawspeaker, you're being rather immature these days.

Regards,
Eóin.

[The Lawspeaker]

You want me to convert to Judai.. I mean Protestantism? No thanks, like I said, I am faithful to God and His Church, not mans.
Well. I can't say that Catholicism is God's Church. More the Pharisees' perhaps but sure as hell not God's church as it violates basically all His commands on a daily basis and has been doing that since it's very conception. Read your Bible again, Eoin, if you have one and leave those Catholic books on your shelf and you'll come to a whole new understanding.


Leave it at that Lawspeaker, you're being rather immature these days.

Regards,
Eóin.
Aww. I am sorry. Do I hurt your precious feelings ?

[Murphy]

Well. I can't say that Catholicism is God's Church. More the Pharisees' perhaps but sure as hell not God's church as it violates basically all his commands on a daily basis and has been doing that since it's very conception.

:coffee: Yes, yes.. you Protestants of course know better than the Church that Christ founded and promised that the Gates of Hell shall not prevail against it and that the Holy Ghost would always abide with it.

I really need to learn you guys know best don't I :rolleyes2:?


Read your Bible again, Eoin, if you have one and leave those Catholic books on your shelf and you'll come to a whole new understanding.

I wonder if anyone else will tell him that the Bible is a Catholic book.. I don't have the heart to destroy his fantasy.


Aww. I am sorry. Do I hurt your precious feelings ?

Not at all Lawspeaker. I request you leave it alone out of charity. You have humiliated yourself enough in various threads that it is just now sad.

Regards,
Eóin.

[SuuT]

I'd rather stay faithful to God, thank you very much :).

Regards,
Eóin.

Then increase your knowledge. (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04517a.htm) :)

[The Lawspeaker]

:coffee: Yes, yes.. you Protestants of course know better than the Church that Christ founded and promised that the Gates of Hell shall not prevail against at that the Holy Ghost would always abide with it.

I really need to learn you guys know best don't I :rolleyes2:?
First of all. I am not a Protestant. I may be Dutch but not all Dutch are Protestants and if you had bothered to read more once what I once told about myself you would have known that I received a Catholic upbringing - and turned Wiccan (which was a nice start of my spiritual journey).

Good- now that we have that sorted out- let's go to less personal things shall we ?

You will have to point me at the exact passages in the Bible that refer to what you just said. Evidence, my dear friend, evidence is what matters.





Not at all Lawspeaker. I request you leave it alone out of charity. You have humiliated yourself enough in various threads that it is just now sad.

Regards,
Eóin.
Alright. I'll be charitable towards you and I'll let you off after you have provided me with the evidence and the answers that I need. After it was not me that was humiliated and I didn't know that humiliation was part of the game. Humiliation and submission- it must be a Catholic thing. I always thought charity was- but then I was a stupid teenager.

[Cato]

I've heard cross, gibbet, stake and tree. All this does is suggest to me that there were various versions of just how the [god]man died floating around in ancient times. It also ties in neatly with the solar religious iconography of the sun (i.e. savior) crucified at the apex of the zodiac, at which point it dies (hence the darkness at Jesus' death) and goes into the underworld.

[Murphy]

You will have to point me at the exact passages in the Bible that refer to what you just said. Evidence, my dear friend, evidence is what matters.


13 And Jesus came into the quarters of Caesarea Philippi: and he asked his disciples, saying: Whom do men say that the Son of man is? 14 But they said: Some John the Baptist, and other some Elias, and others Jeremias, or one of the prophets. 15 Jesus saith to them: But whom do you say that I am?

16 Simon Peter answered and said: Thou art Christ, the Son of the living God. 17 And Jesus answering, said to him: Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-Jona: because flesh and blood hath not revealed it to thee, but my Father who is in heaven. 18 And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. 19 And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose upon earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven. 20 Then he commanded his disciples, that they should tell no one that he was Jesus the Christ.

18 "Thou art Peter"... As St. Peter, by divine revelation, here made a solemn profession of his faith of the divinity of Christ; so in recompense of this faith and profession, our Lord here declares to him the dignity to which he is pleased to raise him: viz., that he to whom he had already given the name of Peter, signifying a rock, St. John 1. 42, should be a rock indeed, of invincible strength, for the support of the building of the church; in which building he should be, next to Christ himself, the chief foundation stone, in quality of chief pastor, ruler, and governor; and should have accordingly all fulness of ecclesiastical power, signified by the keys of the kingdom of heaven.

18 "Upon this rock"... The words of Christ to Peter, spoken in the vulgar language of the Jews which our Lord made use of, were the same as if he had said in English, Thou art a Rock, and upon this rock I will build my church. So that, by the plain course of the words, Peter is here declared to be the rock, upon which the church was to be built: Christ himself being both the principal foundation and founder of the same. Where also note, that Christ, by building his house, that is, his church, upon a rock, has thereby secured it against all storms and floods, like the wise builder, St. Matt. 7. 24, 25.

18 "The gates of hell"... That is, the powers of darkness, and whatever Satan can do, either by himself, or his agents. For as the church is here likened to a house, or fortress, built on a rock; so the adverse powers are likened to a contrary house or fortress, the gates of which, that is, the whole strength, and all the efforts it can make, will never be able to prevail over the city or church of Christ. By this promise we are fully assured, that neither idolatry, heresy, nor any pernicious error whatsoever shall at any time prevail over the church of Christ.

19 "Loose upon earth"... The loosing the bands of temporal punishments due to sins, is called an indulgence; the power of which is here granted.

http://www.drbo.org/chapter/47016.htm

.. and this is from the Haydock commentary:


Ver. 8. Why do you think? That we might know what effect this discourse of our Saviour had upon his disciples, the evangelist immediately subjoins, then they understood, &c. This exposition of Christ freed them from the accusation of the Jews; it made them who were negligent and inattentive, both diligent and attentive, and confirmed them in their faith. (St. Chrysostom)

Ver. 13. Cæarea Philippi, was first called Paneades, and was afterwards embellished and greatly enlarged by Philip the tetrarch, son of Herod the great, and dedicated in honour of Augustus, hence its name. There was moreover another Cæsarea, called Straton, situated on the Mediterranean: and not in this, but in the former, did Christ interrogate his disciples. He first withdrew them from the Jews, that they might with more boldness and freedom deliver their sentiments. (St. Chrysostom, hom. lv.) --- The Cæsarea here mentioned continued to be called by heathen writers Panea, from the adjoining spring Paneum, or Panium, which is usually taken for the source of the Jordan.

Ver. 14. Some say, &c. Herod thought that Christ was the Baptist, on account of his prodigies. (Matthew xiv. 2.) Others that he was Elias: 1st. because they expected he was about to return to them, according to the prophecy of Malachias; behold I will send you Elias; 2nd. on account of the greatness of his miracles; 3rd. on account of his invincible zeal and courage in the cause of truth and justice. Others again said he was Jeremias, either on account of his great sanctity, for he was sanctified in his mother's womb; or, on account of his great charity and love for his brethren, as it was written of Jeremias: he is a lover of his brethren. Or, again, one of the prophets, viz. Isaias, or some other noted for eloquence; for it was the opinion of many of the Jews, as we read in St. Luke, that one of the ancient prophets had arisen again. (Denis the Carthusian)

Ver. 15. Whom do you say that I am? You, who have been continually with me; you, who have seen me perform so many more miracles; you, who have yourselves worked miracles in my name? From this pointed interrogation, Jesus Christ intimates, that the opinion men had formed of him was very inadequate to the exalted dignity of his person, and that he expects they will have a juster conception of him. (St. Chrysostom, hom. lv.)

Ver. 16. Simon Peter answering. As Simon Peter had been constituted the first in the college of apostles, (Matthew x. 2.) and therefore surpasseth the others in dignity as much as in zeal, without hesitation, and in the name of all, he answers: thou art the Christ, the Redeemer promised to the world, not a mere man, not a mere prophet like other prophets, but the true and natural Son of the living God. Thus Sts. Chrysostom, Cyril, Ambrose, Augustine, and Tirinus. When our Saviour inquired the opinion of the vulgar, all the apostles answered; but when he asks their opinion of him, Peter, as the mouth of the rest, and head of the whole college, steps forth, and prevents the others. (St. Chrysostom, hom. lv.) --- Tu es Christus, filius Dei vivi; or, as it is in the Greek, o christos, o uios; The Christ, the Son, the Christ formerly promised by the law and the prophets, expected and desired by all the saints, the anointed and consecrated to God: o uios, the Son, not by grace only, or an adoptive filiation like prophets, to whom Christ is here opposed, but by natural filiation, and in a manner that distinguishes him from all created beings. --- Thou art[1] Christ, the Son of the living God, not by grace only, or by adoption, as saints are the sons of God, but by nature, and from all eternity, the true Son of the living God. (Witham)

Ver. 17. Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-Jona. Simon is undoubtedly Sumeon, as written 2 Peter i. 1. Bariona is son of Jona, or John, an abridgment for Barioanna. Bar, in Chaldaic, is son; hence St. Peter is called, in John xxi, 16. and 17, Simon, son of John. It was customary with the Jews to add to a rather common name, for the sake of discrimination, a patronumikon, or patronymic, as appears from Matthew x. 3. and xxiii. 35; Mark ii. 14; John vi. 42. (Pastorini)

Ver. 18. Kago. And I say to thee, and tell thee why I before declared, (John i. 42.) that thou shouldst be called Peter, for thou art constituted the rock upon which, as a foundation, I will build my Church, and that so firmly, as not to suffer the gates (i.e. the powers) of hell to prevail against its foundation; because if they overturn its foundation, (i.e. thee and thy successors) they will overturn also the Church that rests upon it. Christ therefore here promises to Peter, that he and his successors should be to the end, as long as the Church should last, its supreme pastors and princes. (Tirinus) --- In the Syriac tongue, which is that which Jesus Christ spoke, there is no difference of genders, as there is in Latin, between petra, a rock, and Petrus, Peter; hence, in the original language, the allusion was both more natural and more simple. (Bible de Vence) --- Thou art Peter;[2] and upon this (i.e. upon thee, according to the literal and general exposition of the ancient Fathers) I will build my church. It is true St. Augustine, in one or two places, thus expounds these words, and upon this rock, (i.e. upon myself:) or upon this rock, which Peter hath confessed: yet he owns that he had also given the other interpretation, by which Peter himself was the rock. Some Fathers have also expounded it, upon the faith, which Peter confessed; but then they take not faith, as separated from the person of Peter, but on Peter, as holding the true faith. No one questions but that Christ himself is the great foundation-stone, the chief corner-stone, as St. Paul tells the Ephesians; (Chap. ii, ver. 20.) but it is also certain, that all the apostles may be called foundation-stones of the Church, as represented Apocalypse xxi. 14. In the mean time, St. Peter (called therefore Cephas, a rock) was the first and chief foundation-stone among the apostles, on whom Christ promised to build his Church. (Witham) --- Thou art Peter, &c. As St. Peter, by divine revelation, here made a solemn profession of his faith of the divinity of Christ, so in recompense of this faith and profession, our Lord here declares to him the dignity to which he is pleased to raise him: viz. that he, to whom he had already given the name of Peter, signifying a rock, (John i. 42.) should be a rock indeed, of invincible strength, for the support of the building of the church; in which building he should be next to Christ himself, the chief foundation-stone, in quality of chief pastor, ruler, and governor; and should have accordingly all fulness of ecclesiastical power, signified by the keys of the kingdom of heaven. --- Upon this rock, &c. The words of Christ to Peter, spoken in the vulgar language of the Jews, which our Lord made use of, were the same as if he had said in English, Thou art a rock, and upon this rock I will build my church. So that, by the plain course of the words, Peter is here declared to be the rock, upon which the church was to be built; Christ himself being both the principal foundation and founder of the same. Where also note, that Christ by building his house, that is, his Church, upon a rock, has thereby secured it against all storms and floods, like the wise builder. (Matthew vii. 24, 25.) --- The gates of hell, &c. That is, the powers of darkness, and whatever Satan can do, either by himself or his agents. For as the Church is here likened to a house, or fortress, built on a rock; so the adverse powers are likened to a contrary house or fortress, the gates of which, i.e. the whole strength, and all the efforts it can make, will never be able to prevail over the city or Church of Christ. By this promise we are fully assured, that neither idolatry, heresy, nor any pernicious error whatsoever shall at any time prevail over the Church of Christ. (Challoner) --- The gates, in the Oriental style, signify the powers; thus, to this day, we designate the Ottoman or Turkish empire by the Ottoman port. The princes were wont to hold their courts at the gates of the city. (Bible de Vence)

Ver. 19. And I will give to thee the keys, &c. This is another metaphor, expressing the supreme power and prerogative of the prince of the apostles. The keys of a city, or of its gates, are presented or given to the person that hath the chief power. We also own a power of the keys, given to the other apostles, but with a subordination to St. Peter and to his successor, as head of the Catholic Church. --- And whatsoever thou shalt bind, &c. All the apostles, and their successors, partake also of this power of binding and loosing, but with a due subordination to one head invested with the supreme power. (Witham) --- Loose on earth. The loosing the bands of temporal punishments due to sins, is called an indulgence: the power of which is here granted. (Challoner) --- Although Peter and his successors are mortal, they are nevertheless endowed with heavenly power, says St. Chrysostom, nor is the sentence of life and death passed by Peter to be attempted to be reversed, but what he declares is to be considered a divine answer from heaven, and what he decrees, a decree of God himself. He that heareth you, heareth me, &c. The power of binding is exercised, 1st. by refusing to absolve; 2nd. by enjoining penance for sins forgiven; 3nd. by excommunication, suspension or interdict; 4th. by making rules and laws for the government of the Church; 5th. by determining what is of faith by the judgments and definitions of the Church. (Tirinus) --- The terms binding and loosing, are equivalent to opening and shutting, because formerly the Jews opened the fastenings of their doors by untying it, and they shut or secured their doors by tying or binding it. (Bible de Vence) --- Dr. Whitby, a learned Protestant divine, thus expounds this and the preceding verse: "As a suitable return to thy confession, I say also to thee, that thou art by name Peter, i.e. a rock; and upon thee, who art this rock, I will build my Church, and I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven, the power of making laws to govern my Church." (Tom. i, p. 143.) Dr. Hammond, another Protestant divine, explains it in the same manner. And p. 92, he says: " What is here meant by the keys, is best understand by Isaias xxii. 22, where they signify ruling the whole family or house of the king: and this being by Christ accommodated to the Church, denotes the power of governing it."

Ver. 20. Tell no one that he was Jesus, the Christ. In some manuscripts both Greek and Latin, the name Jesus is not here found, and many interpreters think it superfluous in this place. The Greek expressly says the Christ adjoining the article, which the Latin tongue does not express. (Bible de Vence) --- "In a preceding part of Scripture, Jesus sending his apostles, commanded them to publish his coming; but here he seems to give a contrary mandate, tell no one, &c. but in my opinion it is one thing to preach the Christ, and another to preach Christ Jesus; for Christ is a name of dignity, but Jesus is the particular name of the Redeemer." (St. Jerome) --- He did not forbid them to teach that there was a Messias a Redeemer, but to declare then that he was the person; 2nd. the disciples (Matthew x,) are not sent to preach the gospel, strictly speaking, but only to prepare the minds and hearts of the people for the coming of the Messias, as is evident from Matthew x. 23. See Mark xiv. 61. and 62; John v. 18. and viii. 58. and x. 30. and xi. 27. But why did he lay this injunction? To avoid the envy of the Scribes, and not to appear to raise his own glory. He wished the people to be induced to own him for their Messias, not from the testimony of his retainers, but from his miracles and doctrines; and lastly, because as his time was not yet come, the apostles were not yet fit to deliver, nor the people to receive, this grand tenet. (Mat. Polus.) --- It might moreover have proved a hinderance to his death.

Ver. 21. From that time, &c. Now when the apostles firmly believed that Jesus was the Messias, and the true Son of God, he saw it necessary to let them know he was to die an infamous death on the cross, that they might be disposed to believe that mystery; (Witham) and that they might not be too much exalted with the power given to them, and manifestation made to them. (Haydock)

Regards,
Eóin.

[The Lawspeaker]

I am looking into the Statenbijbel right now- and I'll let you know when I find it.

[Cato]

The Christian tale of the harrowing of hell is at least as old as the Egyptian tale of the sungod Ra's daily trip into the underworld, during which he battled with the Apep the serpent (serpents and dragons almost always prefigure as enemies of the sungod/savior in the west) and brought joy and happiness to the dwellers in Amenti (Egyptian paradise).

[The Lawspeaker]

<table><tbody><tr><td valign="top">13</td><td>Als nu Jezus gekomen was in de delen van Cesarea Filippi, vraagde Hij Zijn discipelen, zeggende: Wie zeggen de mensen, dat Ik, de Zoon des mensen, ben? </td></tr><tr><td valign="top">14</td><td>En zij zeiden: Sommigen: Johannes de Doper; en anderen: Elias; en anderen: Jeremia of een van de profeten. </td></tr><tr><td valign="top">15</td><td>Hij zeide tot hen: Maar gij, wie zegt gij, dat Ik ben? </td></tr><tr><td valign="top">16</td><td>En Simon Petrus, antwoordende, zeide: Gij zijt de Christus, de Zoon des levenden Gods. </td></tr><tr><td valign="top">17</td><td>En Jezus, antwoordende, zeide tot hem: Zalig zijt gij, Simon, Bar-Jona! want vlees en bloed heeft u dat niet geopenbaard, maar Mijn Vader, Die in de hemelen is. </td></tr><tr><td valign="top">18</td><td>En Ik zeg u ook, dat gij zijt Petrus, en op deze petra zal Ik Mijn gemeente bouwen, en de poorten der hel zullen dezelve niet overweldigen. </td></tr><tr><td valign="top">19</td><td>En Ik zal u geven de sleutelen van het Koninkrijk der hemelen; en zo wat gij zult binden op de aarde, zal in de hemelen gebonden zijn; en zo wat gij ontbinden zult op de aarde, zal in de hemelen ontbonden zijn. </td></tr><tr><td valign="top">20</td><td>Toen verbood Hij Zijn discipelen, dat zij iemand zeggen zouden, dat Hij was Jezus, de Christus. </td></tr></tbody></table>


Me, being lazy I checked Mattheüs 16 in the Dutch Statenbijbel (Original 1637 Translation online). And you had written I couldn't find. Which is typical.

Now I do the same thing with the King James Translation:


13 (http://www.studylight.org/desk/?query=mt+16:13&t=kja&sr=1&l=en) When Iesus came into the coasts of Cesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, saying, Whom doe men say, that I, the sonne of man, am? 14 (http://www.studylight.org/desk/?query=mt+16:14&t=kja&sr=1&l=en) And they said, Some say that thou art Iohn the Baptist, some Elias, and others Ieremias, or one of ye Prophets. 15 (http://www.studylight.org/desk/?query=mt+16:15&t=kja&sr=1&l=en) He saith vnto them, But whom say ye that I am? 16 (http://www.studylight.org/desk/?query=mt+16:16&t=kja&sr=1&l=en) And Simon Peter answered, and said, Thou art Christ the sonne of the liuing God. 17 (http://www.studylight.org/desk/?query=mt+16:17&t=kja&sr=1&l=en) And Iesus answered, and said vnto him, Blessed art thou Simon Bar Iona: for flesh and blood hath not reueiled it vnto thee, but my Father which is in heauen. 18 (http://www.studylight.org/desk/?query=mt+16:18&t=kja&sr=1&l=en) And I say also vnto thee, that thou art Peter, and vpon this rocke I will build my Church: and the gates of hell shall not preuaile against it. 19 (http://www.studylight.org/desk/?query=mt+16:19&t=kja&sr=1&l=en) And I will giue vnto thee the keyes of the kingdome of heauen: and whatsoeuer thou shalt bind on earth, shall be bound in heauen: whatsoeuer thou shalt loose on earth, shall be loosed in heauen. 20 (http://www.studylight.org/desk/?query=mt+16:20&t=kja&sr=1&l=en) Then charged hee his disciples that they should tel no man that he was Iesus the Christ. Of course- exactly the same thing. I doubt whether this point towards the Catholic Church though.

[Anthropos]

:)


But on the other hand, Constantine wanted to jump on the band wagon of this up and coming sect by adopting the faith, what he could not stop or crush he ruled by inventing the Holy Roman Catholic Church.

A church by that name did not yet exist at that point. There was not yet a split of Christianity into the Coptic, the Eastern Orthodox and the Romancatholic churches. All three of them have apostolic succession (as do also some Protestant churches). The insinuation to the effect that the Church is a sect ("invented" independently of the events portrayed in the Gospel) is a revision of history as it is known not only to Christians but to all people who do not discard arbitrarily what seems to be reliable sources.

[Murphy]

Now for Christ's promise that the Holy Ghost will abide with His Church.


20 Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and behold I am with you all days, even to the consummation of the world.


16 And I will ask the Father, and he shall give you another Paraclete, that he may abide with you for ever. 17 The spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, nor knoweth him: but you shall know him; because he shall abide with you, and shall be in you. 18 I will not leave you orphans, I will come to you. 19 Yet a little while: and the world seeth me no more. But you see me: because I live, and you shall live. 20 In that day you shall know, that I am in my Father, and you in me, and I in you.

16 "Paraclete"... That is, a comforter: or also an advocate; inasmuch as by inspiring prayer, he prays, as it were, in us, and pleads for us.

16 "For ever"... Hence it is evident that this Spirit of Truth was not only promised to the persons of the apostles, but also to their successors through all generations.

http://www.drbo.org/chapter/50014.htm

http://www.drbo.org/chapter/47028.htm

Here is the Haydock commentary:


Ver. 20. Behold I am with you all days, even to the end of the world, embraces two points necessary for the Church; viz. integrity of doctrine, and sanctity of life; for, if either of these should be wanting to the Church, it might then be justly said, that she had been left and abandoned by Christ, her Spouse. (Estius) --- Jesus Christ will make good his promise: 1. by always dwelling in the hearts of the faithful; 2. by his sacramental presence in the holy Eucharist; 3. by his providential care, and constant protection to his holy Catholic Church. These last six lines of St. Matthew's gospel, says the bright luminary of France, Bossuet, most clearly demonstrate the infallibility and indefectibility of the one, holy, Catholic Church, which all are commanded to hear and obey.


Ver. 1. Which the persecutions you will have to suffer, on the part of man, may possibly occasion, particularly with the weak.

Ver. 4. That when the hour of them shall come[1] , you may remember that I told you. This is both the sense and the construction, by the Greek text, which here determines the construction of the Latin. (Witham)

Ver. 5. None of you asketh me, whither goest thou? St. Peter had put this question, chap. xiii. 36. and Thomas, chap xiv. 5. The meaning, then, of Christ's words here, seems to be, that having told you, I am going to leave you, and also going to him that sent me, you do not ask, says St. Cyril, to be fully and thoroughly informed about it. (Witham) --- You suffer yourselves to be entirely overcome with grief; and none of you inquire of me, whither I am going. You look on my departure as an eternal separation between us, and take leave of me, as if we were never to meet again. But be persuaded; my absence will only be for a short continuance; and this absence will be honourable and glorious for me, and extremely advantageous for you. If you were fully persuaded of this, you would inquire, how long I should be absent, and whither I was going; as one friend in the act of parting, is always accustomed to ask another. But you only torture your minds with the pain and grief you will have to suffer at my loss. (Menochius, Tirinus, &c.)

Ver. 6. Sorrow hath filled your heart: and this sorrow hindereth you from asking, what you should earnestly desire to know. (Witham) --- Peter had put the question above, chap. xiii. 36. and Thomas, chap. xiv. 5. But Jesus Christ means, that they did not persevere in their questions, so as to obtain satisfactory information, where, when, and for what end he was going, and how soon he was to return to them, or if to return at all. For it is customary with friends, to put the most minute questions on all these heads to friends, when they are about to be separated from each other. (Menochius)

Ver. 7. I tell you ... it is expedient for you that I go: that I leave you, as to my corporal presence: that I suffer death, for the redemption of all men. And if I go not, the Paraclete will not come, according to the order of the divine decrees: his coming to sanctify you with his gifts, and to teach you all things, is not to be till after my ascension. When I am gone, I will send him to you. The Father and I will send him, for he proceedeth from both. (Witham)

Ver. 8. He will convince[2], or convict the world. Others translate, he will reprove the world of sin, &c. These words have occasioned a great many expositions. I here follow St. Cyril, that the Holy Ghost will condemn the Jews, and all obstinate unbelievers, of their sin, in not believing, after so many miracles, and so many pregnant motives, that ought to induce them to submit to the Christian faith. 2ndly, Of justice, by shewing the justice and innocence of Christ, and also, that true justice and sanctification cannot be obtained, but by his grace. 3rdly, Of judgment, by shewing that the world, and the prince of this wicked world, the devil, is justly condemned, his empire in a great measure destroyed, and that all the wicked will be justly condemned, and punished with him. (Witham) --- The Holy Ghost, by his coming, brought over many thousands, 1st, To a sense of their sin, in not believing in Christ. 2ndly, To a conviction of the justice of Christ, now sitting at the right hand of his Father. And 3rdly, To a right apprehension of the judgment prepared for them that choose to follow Satan, who is already judged and condemned. (Challoner) --- The Greek text, in addition, has oti ou pisteuousin eis eme. Because they have not believed in me. This accusation and conviction of sin, cannot naturally fall on any, but the incredulous Jews. St. Augustine, Ven. Bede, St. Chrysostom, Theophylactus, and many others, are of opinion, that this sin was their unbelief in Jesus, after all the miracles he had done in their presence, after so many prophecies so clearly accomplished in his person, after so many prodigies and wonders, which happened at his death, at his resurrection, and after his resurrection. They are accused, and convinced of sin, particularly by sensible effects of the Holy Spirit, in the apostles, by the gift of miracles and tongues, and that supernatural knowledge, which was communicated, not only to the apostles, but also to all the first Christians. These are the means, which the Paraclete, the consoling and assisting Spirit, makes us of, to condemn, and convince the world of sin; that is, of incredulity, which is the source and foundation of all other sins. The world had calumniated and despised its Saviour. It had condemned him, as a liar, as a seducer, magician, a man possessed by the devil, a destroyer of the law of God. To which the Son of God made no resistance; he only replied, that he did not wish to take the execution of justice upon himself, and that he was not come into the world to judge the world. Therefore, he committed all to the Holy Spirit, who, in the persons of the apostles, did justice to the Son, by shewing to the whole world, his doctrines, his life, his miracles, and the accomplishment of all the ancient prophecies in his person. All that the apostles preached, they confirmed by most stupendous miracles, gained the hearts of pagans to believe Jesus as their Redeemer, and called down imprecations upon the heads of the incredulous Jews, who had rejected a prophet, visibly sent by God, a Saviour and Redeemer of his people, who, in his person, bore all the characters of the divinity. (Calmet)

Ver. 13. When he, the Spirit of Truth, is come, he will teach you all truth; will direct you and the Church, in the ways of truth. For he shall not speak of himself, or of himself only, because, says St. Augustine, he is not from himself, but proceedeth from the Father and the Son. Whatsoever he shall hear, he shall speak[3]; this his hearing, says St. Augustine, is his knowledge, and his knowledge is his essence, or being, which from eternity is from the Father and the Son. The like expressions are applied to the Son, as proceeding from the Father. (John v. 30. and viii. 16. &c.) (Witham) --- If he shall teach all truth, and that for ever, (chap. xi; ver. 26.) how is it possible, that the Church can err, or hath erred in matters of faith, at any time, or in any point of doctrine? In this supposition, would not the Holy Ghost have forfeited his title of Spirit of Truth?

Ver. 15. All things whatsoever the Father hath, are mine. The obvious sense of these words, shews, that the Son hath the same nature, and the same substance with the Father, and that he is one, and the same God with him. And by Christ's adding: therefore he (the Holy Ghost) shall receive of mine, we are taught, that the third person proceeds from both the Father, and the Son, and that he receives, and has the same perfections. (Witham)

Ver. 16. A little while, and now you shall not see me, &c. Many expound these words in this manner: that after a little while, you shall not see me, because even to-morrow, I shall be taken from you by death: and again, after a little while, you shall see me, because the third day I shall rise again, and converse with you, till my ascension. St. Augustine gives another interpretation, (tract. 101.) that by the first little while, may be understood, the short time till Christ's ascension, and by the latter little while, the short time that the apostles were to live in this world; after which they should see, and enjoy Christ for ever in the kingdom of heaven. And this exposition seems to agree better with the following promise. (Witham) --- In a few hours, I shall be separated from you, to be delivered up to my enemies, and put to the cruel death of the cross; and after a short time, I shall rise again; then you shall see me in my new state of glory. St. Chrysostom, both Sts. Cyrils, Theophylactus, Euthymius, St. Augustine, and others, interpret this verse differently; thus: Not long hence, I shall be entirely separated from you; you shall not see me, because I shall go to the Father, by my ascension; but you shall see me again, after a short time, at my second coming, to judge the living and the dead. All the time, that shall pass between my ascension, and my second coming, is in the eyes of God only as a moment. For a thousand years in thy sight are but as yesterday, which is past and gone. (Psalm lxxxix. ver. 4.) And the apostle calls all time a moment, a time that soon passes. (1 Corinthians vii. and 2 Corinthians iv.)

Ver. 20. Your sorrow shall be turned into joy, chiefly at the end of your mortal life; then you shall have a joy, never to be taken from you. (Witham)

Ver. 22. The joy you will feel at my resurrection, shall ever be unalterable, and unremitting, because there I shall give you assurances and proofs of your future resurrection, and immortality. As you have been partakers in my labours, in my ignominies, and in my sorrows, so also shall you have a share in my glory, in my resurrection, and immortal bliss. Behold, these will rise to your ever unalterable and permanent joy. This is the opinion of St. Chrysostom, St. Cyril, Theophylactus, and others.

Ver. 23. In that day[4], or at that time, in that happy state, you shall not ask, you shall not need to ask me any questions: nor even desire to have any happiness, but what you will enjoy. But now if you ask, that is, petition for any thing of the Father in my name, he will give it you, whatever graces or assistances you stand in need of: ask them in my name, as I am your chief Mediator, through whose merits all shall be granted you. This is the constant practice of the Church, to ask for all graces through our Lord Jesus Christ. (Witham) --- In my name. In consequence of this promise, the Church concludeth all her prayers, even those that are addressed to the saints, Per Christum Dominum nostrum, through Christ our Lord.

Ver. 24. Hitherto you have not asked any thing in my name: by the merits of me, your Mediator and Redeemer. They were not yet acquainted, says St. Cyril, with this manner of praying and petitioning, as they were afterwards. (Witham)

Ver. 26-27. In that day ... I say not to you that I will ask the Father for you, or shall need to ask the Father for you, though I am your Redeemer, your chief Advocate and Mediator, by dying for all the world. --- For the Father himself loveth you, because you have loved me, and have believed that I came forth from God, sent to be your Redeemer. --- I came forth from the Father, both as begotten of him from all eternity; and I also came into the world, as sent from him to become man, to become the Redeemer of the world, both as God and man. Now I am going, as man, to leave the world, and go to the Father, with whom I am, and have always been, as God. (Witham)

Ver. 29. In this we believe that thou camest forth from God; that is, we are more confirmed than ever, that thou art the Messias, the true Son of God. Yet St. Chrysostom, St. Cyril, and St. Augustine, take notice, that their faith was but imperfect, till after Christ's resurrection, and the coming of the Holy Ghost; and therefore Christ answered them, (ver. 31. &c.) Now do you believe? the hour cometh, that you shall be dispersed, &c. (Witham)

Regards,
Eóin.

[Amapola]

Actually, it doesn't matter if Jesus died on a stake or on a cross, the important thing is that he shed his blood for our sins. Anyway, in the Bible the word "nails" instead of "nail" can be read, which, of course, entails nails across his arms outstretched on a cross otherwise only "one" nail would have been needed. Also the Romans placed a notice above Jesus' head, if a stake would have been used instead, the notice had been placed above his hands not his head. Appart from that there are multiple references in the bible of a "cross" instead of a stake.

[Cato]

That church did not yet exist at that point. There was not yet a split of Christianity into the Coptic, the Eastern Orthodox and the Romancatholic churches. All three of them have apostolic succession (as do also some Protestant churches). The insinuation to the effect that the Church is a sect ("invented" independently of the events portrayed in the Gospel) is a revision of history as it is known not only to Christians but to all people who do not discard arbitrarily what seems to be reliable sources.

I think you need to check your facts a bit more. Eusebius goes into very explicit detail about many so-called Christian heresies. The myth that there was ever a single, originally unified Christian church is itself the myth.

For example, Eusebius attacks the Ebionites, a purely Jewish sect of Christ-followers and, very likely, closely connected to the original followers of Jesus (and not made-up apostles) and Jesus' family. James "the Just," Jesus' brother gets nary a mention in the Christianized/Catholicized stories, but he was the successor to Jesus in the Jesus movement (and a Torah-observant Jew, which is why he's passed over in favor of fellows like Cephas and Paul).

http://ancienthistory.about.com/library/bl/bl_text_eusebius_iii27.htm

[Anthropos]

I think you need to check your facts a bit more. Eusebius goes into very explicit detail about many so-called Christian heresies. The myth that there was ever a single, originally unified Christian church is itself the myth.

For example, Eusebius attacks the Ebionites, a purely Jewish sect of Christ-followers and, very likely, closely connected to the original followers of Jesus (and not made-up apostles) and Jesus' family. James "the Just," Jesus' brother gets nary a mention in the Christianized/Catholicized stories, but he was the successor to Jesus in the Jesus movement (and a Torah-observant Jew, which is why he's passed over in favor of fellows like Cephas and Paul).

http://ancienthistory.about.com/library/bl/bl_text_eusebius_iii27.htm

Not really. You just need to make sure that you can read well enough to understand what I wrote. Heresies existed from the very beginning. Those who rejected the incarnation of God, Jesus, were all heretics, for example, as they are still today.

[Cato]

Not really. You just need to make sure that you can read well enough to understand what I wrote. Heresies existed from the very beginning. Those who rejected the incarnation of God, Jesus, were all heretics, for example, as they are still today.

So Jehovah himself is a heretic for claiming that he is not a man?

[Anthropos]

So Jehovah himself is a heretic for claiming that he is not a man?

Keep your fantasies to yourself, smartass. Or present them without putting words in my mouth.

(It's considered to be a good rule of conduct where I come from, at least.)

[Cato]

Jehovah put the words in your mouth not I. Or do you contradict the many utterances of said deity in the "Old Testament" where he indicates that he is not a corporeal entity and never will be one?

As to good manners, netiquette, you were the fellow who typed:

You just need to make sure that you can read well enough to understand what I wrote.

What am I blind and stupid for disagreeing with your assertions? Patronizing Christians only excite my desire to put the shoe on my foot. :)

[Lutiferre]

I think you need to check your facts a bit more. Eusebius goes into very explicit detail about many so-called Christian heresies. The myth that there was ever a single, originally unified Christian church is itself the myth.
It is not a myth. There was certainly a single thing which was a Church in direct continuation since the beginning. Historical record easily proves this.


For example, Eusebius attacks the Ebionites, a purely Jewish sect of Christ-followers and, very likely, closely connected to the original followers of Jesus (and not made-up apostles) and Jesus' family.

Which is simply a statement of faith which most scholars would disagree with.

As a matter of fact, the Ebionites were a relatively late sect who had nothing to do with Jesus or his family, whereas the Nazarenes were earlier but still not the earliest.


James "the Just," Jesus' brother gets nary a mention in the Christianized/Catholicized stories, but he was the successor to Jesus in the Jesus movement (and a Torah-observant Jew, which is why he's passed over in favor of fellows like Cephas and Paul).
James the Just was similar to Paul in terms of how he was chosen as an Apostle, in that he was said to have had a special experience of the Risen Jesus, just like Paul, from which to form the basis of his mission as apostle.

As to James, he certainly does get mention, in one of the earliest testimonies to him in detail in the Protevangelium of James of the second century, and the views you claim are simply not supported by any of this earliest data we have.

Even the most Hebrew-oriented Gospel of Matthew which is not even the earliest Gospel, does not actually preach observing the Torah, though a superficial reading of it would suggest it (Matthew 5:17). It preaches, very specifically, that only Jesus fulfills the Torah, and that his fullfilment of the law is the grace by which those who follow him become holy. This it does so, even in what we know of the Ebionite and Nazarene copies of Matthews Hebrew-oriented Gospel, though the content is reduced significantly, this core portion of Matthew 5 is not.

It is notable that the Ebionites and Nazarenes were in possession only of a fragmented and altered version of Matthews gospel, since if they were truly the earliest Christians, they would have the earlier documents and gospels (Mark and potentially Q/M).

So Jehovah himself is a heretic for claiming that he is not a man?
First, there is no "Jehovah". There is God, who is named among other names by the tetragrammaton (JHVH). In the selfrevelation of the Old Covenant, God was not a man, so if God has said, "I am a man" to the Hebrews, he would have been a liar.

In Jesus, the divine nature never became man. God assumed man, and hence, became man in his person, but only as an assumed nature into the person. It was not blended with the divine nature. So he is not a pagan "godman", who is a divine-human hybrid, but rather like Daniel’s Man of Daniel 7:6-7.

[Sol Invictus]

Romans executed and tortured people by hanging them on a cross,

not a stake.

[Cato]

It is not a myth.

*SNIP*

Such misplaced authority. And how do you know this eh? Are you privy to the creator's inmost secrets or do you merely possess a book that says it's divinely-inspired?

[Óttar]

Vine says: 'By the middle of the 3rd century AD, the churches had either departed from, or had travestied certain doctrines of the Christian faith.
This just about sums it up right here.

Eion is proof that Catholics (and other Christians for that matter) don't have any common sense. If the pope (or insert appropriate authority here) tells them to jump they jump and if same tells them that the sum of 2 + 2 = 5 they believe it.

[The Lawspeaker]

There is a word for people like that:

http://sosanchorage.files.wordpress.com/2009/09/sheeple.jpg

They believe anything, however fraudulent, that figures of "authority" tell them because then they don't need to think for themselves. It's an easy mentality.

One that has done so much damage over the centuries..and continues to do so to this very day.

[Cato]

The Christians that I admire most are the Gnostics, folks that've gotten the shit end of the stick for quite a long time. After these are the Unitarians (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unitarianism). The robots are just fodder to be rolled over for the most part, minions of doctrines that they've merely inherited rather than intuited for themselves.

[Anthropos]

The majority of critics here on this board prefer to make up modern myths about what Christianity is to actually searching for Truth.

(The board is fine. People are the same everywhere.)

[Lutiferre]

*SNIP*

Such misplaced authority. And how do you know this eh? Are you privy to the creator's inmost secrets or do you merely possess a book that says it's divinely-inspired?

Snip, indeed, because you took the reason away instantly and instead resorted to attacking a straw man. Here is what you cut away:

There was certainly a single thing which was a Church in direct continuation since the beginning. Historical record easily proves this.

I have myself studied this historical record and have posted much information here on the Apricity about it already, and can only recommend you to study it as well since you are obviously underinformed.

[Lutiferre]

The Christians that I admire most are the Gnostics, folks that've gotten the shit end of the stick for quite a long time. After these are the Unitarians (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unitarianism). The robots are just fodder to be rolled over for the most part, minions of doctrines that they've merely inherited rather than intuited for themselves.
I've talked to a few so-called Unitarians, and heard of others experiences with them, they were idiots for the most part and often not even interested in real Christianity but a mixture of some "feel-good" modernist interpretation of Christianity along with various new age beliefs.