Crosses Removed from Numerous State-Run Protestant Churches
Even the deadly coronavirus outbreak did not reduce the speed of the cross-demolition campaign sweeping through China. In mid-March, crosses were removed from multiple churches in the eastern provinces of Jiangsu and Anhui. In the neighboring Shandong, the prefecture-level city of Linyi is no exception: On top of at least 70 crosses removed from churches since last spring, more have been taken down during the epidemic.
On February 3, a representative of the Zhuangwu town government in Linyi-administered Lanling county hired workers to remove the cross from a Three-Self church in Hexi village. He claimed that it would be unpleasant for his superiors to see the cross, and he could be dismissed from office because of that.
Crosses of the Christ Gospel Church and the Luobei Christian Church in Hegang‚Äôs Luobei county were removed the same month using the same pretext. An employee in the county...
My response to QC was to avoid unnecessary repetition of what had been already stated.\\
BMcCausland. 4/22/2020 12:26¬†PM
John, amother description parallel to the stauros is the 'tree', which comes with another Greek term, xylon, meaning a wooden pole as in, "... When they had fulfilled all that was written of him, they took him down from the tree, and laid him in a sepulchre." The crucifixion mode might be considered as the Roman version of the death penalty by hanging on a stake described in the OT. BMcCausland. 4/18/2020 8:47 a.m.
However, every time the word crucified, or even cross, appears in NT the corresponding Greek term is stauros, a pole, and the idea is to impale BMcCausland 4/1/2020 6:47 a.m.
Vines Complete Expository Dictionary of Old and New Testament Words says: "STAUROS....denotes, primarily, an upright pale or stake. John UK 4/20/2020 2:42 a.m.
You are calling it a cross. I am calling it a stauros (pole, stake). John UK 4/18/2020 4:46 p.m.
But stauros actually means 'pole' or 'stake'. John UK 4/18/2020 12:04 p.m.
Seems like we have a double standard here(or one might say a moving of the post), Sister B, which goes again to prove the truth of what I have shared.
The true issue is integrity of thought and reasoning which follows after valid patterns of logic, without guile, misrepresentation, wrong assumptions, or twisted presumptions.4/22/2020 11:32¬†AM B. McCausland¬†
(this is saying that your thoughts, reasoning, logic , etc is correct while others who don't share your views, are inaccurate)
And what. you practice
My response to QC was to avoid unnecessary repetition of what had been already stated. ÔŅľ4/22/2020 12:26¬†PM B. McCausland
(Who are you to say what a person should or should not post and whether is is worthwhile?)
And because I point this out I am being insulting and shameful? You can say that I and others have poor patterns of logic, twisted thinking, have guile in our posts, don't understand, use misrepresentations, etc and that somehow is not insulting but to point out that is what you do is?
Unprofitable, no need to resort to covert insult, or personal harassment, but sadly, and as it has been *always* typical with you in the past, it appears you cannot end a discussion without it, if you cannot have it your way. How sad and shameful, however it seems it makes you feel better.
Sad also that you seem to miss out to identify poor patterns of logic.
Trust you have heard this phrase, 'Wouldn't touch with a barge-pole': boy, your practice is so distasteful that it would help to follow Christ's wise example of Luke 23:9
Kind regards, John. Thanks for endearing to be a gentleman
John UK wrote: St James, you ask: "how would you explain to someone that Sodom, Egypt, and the great city as all being places where our Lord was crucified?" I don't know how I would explain to someone that Sodom, Egypt, and the great city as all being places where our Lord was crucified? How would YOU do it?
Hey John, time is short for me and this question will be to involved to discuss. Perhaps another time.
Thank you sister, I'm glad I'm not the only one who does not see himself, his doctrine, his practice, his thought life, his deeds, his worship, his service, as being perfect and in no need of change for the better.
B. McCausland wrote: Good insight. US Please, use valid logic in interpreting intend. My response to QC was to avoid unnecessary repetition of what had been already stated. People like yourself relying on internet sources heavily to defend presuposed assumptions without practical insight of correlating issues of history, tend to err at the expence of biblical truth. Only Scriptures can be depended upon without error and that only of its original underlying uncorrupted texts.
BMcCausland you obviously believe you have superior intellect and reasoning abilities and your are more than welcome to that viewpoint. I would certainly agree that you have a very good intellect. As usual when you cannot refute a point you state that those (in this case me) have issues with logic, facts, and conclusions. Thus saying that because you are you, you are correct and others are incorrect. It's a pattern with which I am all too familiar. Thanks for sharing your opinion. Have a good day.
John UK wrote: Regarding the apostasy of the churches, have a think about this: If Jesus could write to seven churches in the 1st century and find plenty to castigate them for, do you not think that if wrote a letter to our churches in the 21st century he would also find plenty to tell us about that we are doing wrong?
US Please, use valid logic in interpreting intend. My response to QC was to avoid unnecessary repetition of what had been already stated.
People like yourself relying on internet sources heavily to defend presuposed assumptions without practical insight of correlating issues of history, tend to err at the expence of biblical truth. Only Scriptures can be depended upon without error and that only of its original underlying uncorrupted texts.
Unprofitable Servant wrote: John, my misunderstanding and my apologies
No worries bro.
Regarding the apostasy of the churches, have a think about this: If Jesus could write to seven churches in the 1st century and find plenty to castigate them for, do you not think that if wrote a letter to our churches in the 21st century he would also find plenty to tell us about that we are doing wrong?
Yet there is hardly a soul who cares about that, and so the churches are carrying on, year after year, year after year, with no change, no thought, just zombie-like playing at church, no genuine concern for the glory of God, no desire after perfection, little or no teaching on what the word holiness means, very little on subjection to Christ as Lord, plenty of Christian hedonism and little sacrifice, and overall is the impression that 1st century Christianity does not exist anywhere on planet earth, so far has it gone from the original blueprint. _______________
John UK wrote: 1. There will always be those who have no intention of discussing in a friendly fashion.
2. ... get to grips with what scripture teaches us. If that means jettisoning some things we have been brainwashed with, so be it.
3. Mike, the verb is stauroo (which has a line above the second o). The noun is stauro. In the KJV we have 'crucified' and 'cross', and that is what we have been fed with for centuries. But how will you translate these Greek words?
1. Thanks, John, however, 'friendly' discussion is only the 'cosmetic' side of the whole matter. The true issue is integrity of thought and reasoning which follows after valid patterns of logic, without guile, misrepresentation, wrong asumptions, or twisted presumptions. This shows in this passage by contrasting 'chaste' versus 'corrupted'
"I am jealous over you with godly jealousy: ... that I may present you as a 'chaste' virgin to Christ. But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtilty, so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ."
4. Mike, the brutal execution by 'hanging' had not the comfort of any in mind. The hanging on a pole could include nailing stretched arms over the head or back.
John 21:18 KJV (18)¬† Verily, verily, I say unto thee, When thou wast young, thou girdedst thyself, and walkedst whither thou wouldest: but when thou shalt be old, thou shalt stretch forth thy hands, and another shall gird thee, and carry thee whither thou wouldest not.
Adam Clarke notes:
"Thou shalt stretch forth thy hands - Wetstein observes that it was a custom at Rome to put the necks of those who were to be crucified into a yoke, and to stretch out their hands and fasten them to the end of it; and having thus led them through the city they were carried out to be crucified. See his note on this place. Thus then Peter was girded, chained, and carried whither he would not - not that he was unwilling to die for Christ; but he was a man - he did not love death; but he loved his life less than he loved his God."
The text is clear that Peter's hands were stretched out well before his crucifixion, so Wetstein's observation seems most likely.
John UK wrote: --- ______________ Mike, the verb is stauroo (which has a line above the second o). The noun is stauro. In the KJV we have 'crucified' and 'cross', and that is what we have been fed with for centuries. But how will you translate these Greek words?
1. Strong's has stauros as "(spec.) a pole or cross (as an instrument of capital punishment)"
Strong's has stauroo as "to impale on the cross;" Note it does not say impaled by a cross, in case some might rightly think you can't be impaled by a cross but can by a pole. But surely you can be impaled on a cross by nails.
Maybe I'm not looking close enough, but what's the basis for arguing with these definitions?
2. We might also consider Peter was told "you will stretch out your hands...etc..." John 21:18,19.
One does not stretch OUT ones hands by reaching overhead, does one? Let's add it up. You cannot stretch out hands without stretching out arms. You don't stretch out arms by reaching up with your hands overhead. Out and up have different meanings. So what happened to Peter when the time came? I would think exactly what Jesus said would.
Unprofitable Servant wrote: Your 4/19/2020 5:22 PM post and you seem to be implying, my apologies if I am wrong, that the reason that "deception" of a cross instead of a pole is due to the Christians adopting the views of the RCC.
Bro US, I just checked back, and I cannot find anywhere in that post where I said that the cross was an invention of the RCC.
I just don't get why you keep repeating it, because I do not (currently) believe that the cross is an invention of the RCC.
John UK wrote: Bro US, you're doing it again. I have to go out on my prayer walk just now, but if you would care to show me where I said that the cross was an invention of the RCC, I will consider your statement, and if necessary, apologise.
Your 4/19/2020 5:22 PM post and you seem to be implying, my apologies if I am wrong, that the reason that "deception" of a cross instead of a pole is due to the Christians adopting the views of the RCC.
When John persists the cross was an invention of the RCC when it can proved it isn‚Äôt is that not moving the goal post?
When John UK says people think the way they do because they believe that they‚Äôre ok, their church is ok, their worship is ok, etc when it has nothing to do with the subject at hand, is that not moving the goal posts?
When sister B answer to QC is to discredit him by saying ‚ÄúPerhaps you should re-read the posts below and read history broadly rather than depend on private understanding or on a single opinionated source‚ÄĚ is that not moving the goal post?
When Adriel says Christians think taking up cross means walking around with a plank of wood in tow and he has probably never met anyone who told him that, is that not moving the goal post?
When it said you cannot count on history, archaeology and quotes from people who were born in the first century then it looks to me as if we are moving the goal posts simply because it doesn't agree with our thinking.
Folks if we going to offer criticism of others we more than likely should start by looking at ourselves first.
James Thomas wrote: John, There is no problem with the translation of the term, but in order to arrive at the definition God intended we must consider from the context, how the term was used. Per the BLB here is the Outline of Biblical Usage: to stake, drive down stakes to fortify with driven stakes, to palisade to crucify to crucify one *metaph. to crucify the flesh, destroy its power utterly (the nature of the figure implying that the destruction is attended with intense pain)* Now, if you consider a verse I made mention to you earlier, how would you explain to someone that Sodom, Egypt, and the great city as all being places where our Lord was crucified? Rev 11:8 And their dead bodies shall lie in the street of the great city, which spiritually is called Sodom and Egypt, where also our Lord was crucified.
St James, I do not know the answer to your question. Please elaborate.
The "outline of biblical useage"; if that is for the word 'stauroo' the verb, let us say it can be translated by the English word 'crucify'. Does that tell you anything about the shape of the piece of wood upon which a person was crucified?