No, He was not. He was crucified on a Roman cross, made out of wood, just like the thieves on either side of Him.
The cross
- Thread starter Cliffy
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
No, He was not. He was crucified on a Roman cross, made out of wood, just like the thieves on either side of Him.
It is not a complicated question. The Puritans burned "witches" at the stake. You cannot say that the Puritans were acting as Christians because the Bible never calls on us, as Christians, to kill people, no matter what they believe. The Puritans either didn't understand the Bible, or they were just acting through their own base fears and suspicions when they killed those people because God in no way ordained or sanctioned those killings. You can't call something that the Bible condemns normative Christian behavior just because someone that says they are a Christian is doing it.
You have the opposite case with Islam. We are repeatedly told we should not judge the religion by the violent behavior of it's adherents. The problem with that rational is that Islamic terrorists are doing what their book tells them to do.
It is not nearly as complicated as you make it out to be. Pretty simple concepts.
Have you read the Bible ?
I'm afraid that it does call for various people to be put to death and other than those things specifically mentioned in the sermon on the mount we are told that not a jot of the Law is altered.
I pointed out there that we are told not to suffer a witch to live, so how do you reconcile that with what you've said above ?
Do you not accept the possibility of witchcraft incidentally ?
What you say about Islaam is quite correct, and very much what I said earlier.
I'm afraid that it does call for various people to be put to death and other than those things specifically mentioned in the sermon on the mount we are told that not a jot of the Law is altered.
I pointed out there that we are told not to suffer a witch to live, so how do you reconcile that with what you've said above ?
Do you not accept the possibility of witchcraft incidentally ?
What you say about Islaam is quite correct, and very much what I said earlier.
No, I've never read the Bible. I just jumped in here by parachute.
Under Mosaic Law Israel was called upon to put certain people to death for some sins, and during the Exodus God commanded them to destroy certain groups of people but there was a very specific reason for that. Old Testament Mosaic Law, in the ceremonial and civil statues NEVER applies to the Church and never has. Those laws were given specifically to the Jews and people prove they don't really understand the Bible when they continually attempt to mix the two.
Yes, I believe in witchcraft. Although some people may be practicing it unknowingly to some extent, it is a very prevalent component of the New Age movement, and the New Apostolic Reformation. Something like Beni Johnson's "grave sucking" is nothing more than necromancy which is forbidden. But give me just one single New Testament scripture that tells the Church to kill witches. We are not talking about Mosaic Israel here. We are talking about the present day Church. The two are not the same.
So, when Our Lord said that not a jot of the Law was changed what do you think he meant ?
I don't much like the idea of "the present day church" being something different to Christianity itself. Personally, I think that's a deception in which some people think they can alter Christianity to fit their own politics and sensibilities.
You say that you understand the Bible, whereas others don't , and I don't think that's a good thing.
After many many years of study and prayer I am certain of some things, but I think we can always learn more because we don't know what God knows, and I would hesitate to question what He has said according to my own view of the world.
I don't much like the idea of "the present day church" being something different to Christianity itself. Personally, I think that's a deception in which some people think they can alter Christianity to fit their own politics and sensibilities.
You say that you understand the Bible, whereas others don't , and I don't think that's a good thing.
After many many years of study and prayer I am certain of some things, but I think we can always learn more because we don't know what God knows, and I would hesitate to question what He has said according to my own view of the world.
We can always learn more. I learn something new every day. That isn't the point, and I am not "changing" Christianity. It is the world that has radically changed it since the Church was instituted on the day of Pentecost.
Show me where, in the Bible, Mosaic Law was given to anyone but Israel.
She me one verse in the New Testament that tells the Church it should kill people. It was you that intimated that we should kill witches, so give me some New Testament proof of that.
You keep tossing out a snippet of Matthew 5:18 as if that proves something. Yes, the moral components of the Law are binding on the Church. The ceremonial and civil codes have never been binding on anyone but Mosaic Israel. Read Leviticus.
Are you saying that Israel, (The Jews) and The Church are the same thing?
Well my honest understanding is that the law didn’t change ( and I base that upon what our Lord said), but it was now possible to be forgiven.
He didn’t say anything about this distinction between moral obligations and other stuff which you speak of.
I also thought that the crucifixion expanded the chosen people to include gentiles. Our Lord was Jewish if course and was referred to during his time on earth as a Rabbi and our God is also known as the Lord God of Israel.
He is the only true God and as far as I know he doesn’t have different rules for different races or nationalities.
What about the Ten Commandments by the way ? Do they still count ?
Don’t you think the Gospel of Matthew counts either ?
Listen, I don’t like this stuff which I’d like arguing about it . We all have to search for the true word and we should help each other by discussion of our conclusions rather than batter each other with entrenched viewpoints - which isn’t to say that if you believe something you have to change that unless you think you’d previously misunderstood . That happens to me all the time
He didn’t say anything about this distinction between moral obligations and other stuff which you speak of.
I also thought that the crucifixion expanded the chosen people to include gentiles. Our Lord was Jewish if course and was referred to during his time on earth as a Rabbi and our God is also known as the Lord God of Israel.
He is the only true God and as far as I know he doesn’t have different rules for different races or nationalities.
What about the Ten Commandments by the way ? Do they still count ?
Don’t you think the Gospel of Matthew counts either ?
Listen, I don’t like this stuff which I’d like arguing about it . We all have to search for the true word and we should help each other by discussion of our conclusions rather than batter each other with entrenched viewpoints - which isn’t to say that if you believe something you have to change that unless you think you’d previously misunderstood . That happens to me all the time
Funny. You don't "like" this stuff you are bringing up, and yet, you are quite willing to tell other people they are wrong, and make assumptions that you have no way of knowing are actually true or not, because you are not hearing what you want to hear. Comments like "Have you ever read the Bible?," or "Don’t you think the Gospel of Matthew counts either?" are not based on any kind of fact, or knowledge of me at all, because you have none, but you'll toss them out there anyway as a sidetrack. And it's all done to avoid dealing with a statement that you yourself made, to whit:
"I pointed out there that we are told not to suffer a witch to live, so how do you reconcile that with what you've said above ?"
I've asked you for New Testament scriptural proof from you to support that statement twice now and you have ignored me each time. You keep going off on a tangent to avoid dealing with what you said. I ask you pointed questions and you steadfastly refuse to deal with them at all.
The Bible doesn't mean different things to different people. It can't. The Gospel is a very clear and simple message of salvation and how to reconcile one's self to God through Jesus Christ and it is almost impossible to gum it up unless one has a pre-determined desire to do so based on personal bias. There is no question that God deals differently with mankind at different times. Does God deal with us in the same way that he dealt with mankind prior to the Flood? Does He deal with us in the same way He did with Israel during the Exodus? Or the time of the Prophets? Paul makes it very clear that the Church was a mystery that he was sent to educate the Church about. Even the original Apostles had no clear understanding as to exactly what the Church was or how it was to function but they were guided by the Holy Spirit after Jesus' ascension. Yes, the Church is grafted into Israel but it is not Israel itself. Jesus restates all 10 commandments except the Sabbath since Jesus Himself is the Lord of the Sabbath and it has been physically impossible to keep the Sabbath since the Temple was destroyed in 70 AD. That was the entire point of God allowing the Temple to be destroyed in the first place. To show that salvation comes through Jesus, not the Law. You keep attempting to use Matthew 5:18 to say we have to somehow keep the law, but lets look at it a little more fully to see if that's true or not.
Matthew 5: 17-20 17 "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. 18 I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. 19 Anyone who breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. 20 For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven.
Jesus fulfilled the Law. His work was finished on the cross meaning no person can earn their way to heaven through works, which is what the Law is. Jesus was the sign of a new covenant with mankind in regards to salvation. Read Hebrews. Hebrews makes it extremely clear that anyone attempting to save themselves through following the Law will never accomplish their goal. Hebrews actually clearly states that anyone yoking themselves to the Law are under a curse. No where, in Acts, do the Apostles find it wise or expedient to yoke the Gentile Church to 613 laws and regulations.
I don't know why you keep mentioning the idea of salvation coming through acts, because I never suggested that.
The bit you quote in green seems to me to support what I said.
Our Lord specifically did NOT cancel out the Law and said so clearly. He added to it and changed the nature of how we should view it .
You've raised a big issue in my mind and I've prayed a lot about it.
Where I am is here - I don't believe that the Catholic Church is set up to mislead me although some within it over two millennia might have wanted to do that. Also , some of them might have been wrong in the multifarious views and teachings they've come up with. Equally I don't think that you set out to mislead me , but you also can be mistaken.
Ultimately the individual relationship between a man and our Lord Jesus Christ is what counts and the means by which we can best understand the truth. All of us can and should do our best to teach and inform others, especially those large numbers of people who have difficulty learning anything. Therefore we must consider what the church says on one hand and what you say on the other, but we cannot accept either version as if it's an unchallenged set of facts, but rather view both - and all other versions- through prayer and study.
Therefore , put forward your teachings , but don't become angry if they're questioned and don't regard it as a personal insult if someone disagrees with what you say on the matter. God knows everything and we know nothing, so we can only do our best to understand His will.
I've often reminded Catholics that the church belongs to God rather than God belonging to the Church and with great love and respect I would give you similar advice.
The bit you quote in green seems to me to support what I said.
Our Lord specifically did NOT cancel out the Law and said so clearly. He added to it and changed the nature of how we should view it .
You've raised a big issue in my mind and I've prayed a lot about it.
Where I am is here - I don't believe that the Catholic Church is set up to mislead me although some within it over two millennia might have wanted to do that. Also , some of them might have been wrong in the multifarious views and teachings they've come up with. Equally I don't think that you set out to mislead me , but you also can be mistaken.
Ultimately the individual relationship between a man and our Lord Jesus Christ is what counts and the means by which we can best understand the truth. All of us can and should do our best to teach and inform others, especially those large numbers of people who have difficulty learning anything. Therefore we must consider what the church says on one hand and what you say on the other, but we cannot accept either version as if it's an unchallenged set of facts, but rather view both - and all other versions- through prayer and study.
Therefore , put forward your teachings , but don't become angry if they're questioned and don't regard it as a personal insult if someone disagrees with what you say on the matter. God knows everything and we know nothing, so we can only do our best to understand His will.
I've often reminded Catholics that the church belongs to God rather than God belonging to the Church and with great love and respect I would give you similar advice.
I would NEVER suggest that works bring one salvation. That concept is completely alien to the Bible.
If you are in the Catholic church, the best advice that anyone can give you is this:
Get out.
Seriously.
Get out.
Today.
Catholic doctrine and theology is 90% pagan junk with 10% Christian-sounding jargon tossed in occasionally to make the religion sound palatable. It is 100% works-based and anything that is works-based means you don't need Jesus because you are saving yourself through your own works. I don't know why Catholics talk about Jesus at all, beyond the usefulness He brings to the scam that they are a Christian church when they clearly are not. Catholic salvation does not depend on Jesus or His finished work on the cross.
Jesus added nothing to the law. If you believe that Jesus did not fulfill Mosaic Law, I hope you are keeping all 613 separate tenets of Mosaic Law, including the Sabbath, or you have an ugly surprise in store in your future.
You keep attributing things to me which I didn't say, such as " works based salvation" which only YOU mentioned, and the last bit about or Lord Jesus Christ altering the Law, which I've repeatedly said he didn't here.
You are also completely misrepresent Catholic teachings, which I have studied and I'm hoping you haven't because that would mean you're doing it deliberately.
In fact salvation in the Catholic Church is about being in a state of grace and one can and will be saved by truly accepting Jesus Christ as the son of God ,that he was born of woman, crucified then resurrected and ascended to heaven .
The greatest sinner can be redeemed by this and it's nothing whatever to do with his acts or behaviour prior to redemption. It's also true that a man who does not accept this redemption is said to be beyond redemption despite a faultless and good life if he doesn't accept it.
Frankly ,if you don't know what you're talking about, then you shouldn't go around telling people nonsense and trying to drive wedges between Christians .
I'm sorry to be impatient with you, but you're talking utter nonsense on the subject
You are also completely misrepresent Catholic teachings, which I have studied and I'm hoping you haven't because that would mean you're doing it deliberately.
In fact salvation in the Catholic Church is about being in a state of grace and one can and will be saved by truly accepting Jesus Christ as the son of God ,that he was born of woman, crucified then resurrected and ascended to heaven .
The greatest sinner can be redeemed by this and it's nothing whatever to do with his acts or behaviour prior to redemption. It's also true that a man who does not accept this redemption is said to be beyond redemption despite a faultless and good life if he doesn't accept it.
Frankly ,if you don't know what you're talking about, then you shouldn't go around telling people nonsense and trying to drive wedges between Christians .
I'm sorry to be impatient with you, but you're talking utter nonsense on the subject
