Another gospel-free self-righteous moral lecture that robs people of the >good news about Christ's death and resurrection for our sins. No one
becomes truly moral or upright in how they live, apart from saving faith
in Jesus Christ, as revealed in the gospel. Thus, you're not promoting >salvation, but legalistic self-righteousness and one-uppery.
Revelation 21:3u4 speaks about the final state after judgment, not the
means by which sinners enter that state. Scripture never presents the >promise of a new heaven and new earth as the gospel itself, but as the >outcome secured by the gospel. John places Revelation 21 after the >resurrection, judgment, and removal of unbelief. He does not replace the >message of ChristAs cross
with a future political or governmental
arrangement.
The Bible defines the gospel clearly and narrowly. Christ died for our
sins, He was buried, and He was raised on the third day (1 Corinthians >15:1u4, ESV).
That message saves. No passage teaches that announcing a
future earth without wickedness saves anyone apart from faith in
ChristAs finished work. Revelation itself grounds victory in the blood
of the Lamb, not in allegiance to a system (Revelation 5:9; 12:11, ESV).
Revelation 21:3u4 comforts believers. It does not convert unbelievers.
John already addressed the means of cleansing earlier: owashed their
robes and made them white in the blood of the Lambo (Revelation 7:14,
ESV). Without that washing, exclusion remains certain, regardless of how >often someone speaks about a coming earth (Revelation 21:8; 22:15, ESV).
Matthew 24:14 defines the content of what must be preached. Jesus calls
it othis gospel of the kingdom,o
which He had already defined as
repentance and forgiveness of sins through Him (Luke 24:46u47, ESV). The >kingdom gospel does not bypass the cross. The King establishes His
kingdom by His death and resurrection. There is no kingdom good news
without substitutionary atonement.
Appealing to 1 John 2:17 strengthens this point rather than weakening
it. John contrasts the passing world with doing the will of God. Earlier
in the same letter, he defines that will explicitly: believing in the
Son and resting in His atoning sacrifice (1 John 3:23; 2:1u2, ESV).
Eternal life comes through the Son, not through anticipation of an
improved earth.
Scripture never tells sinners to anchor hope in Revelation 21 while
ignoring Calvary. The order always runs the same: the cross first, >resurrection next, salvation now, glory later (Romans 8:30; 1 Peter
1:3u5, ESV). Remove the gospel, and Revelation 21 becomes unreachable >comfort, not saving truth.
The new earth answers mankindAs problems only because Christ answered
sin at the cross. Without that foundation, talk of GodAs government
reduces to moralism and deferred hope. The Bible insists that
reconciliation happens now through the blood of Christ, or it does not >happen at all (2 Corinthians 5:18u21; John 14:6, ESV).
Thus, you promote yet another gospel-free, legalistic, self-righteous >one-uppery lecture that will lead men to hell while robbing them of the >saving gospel.
heresy, and you can't accidentally keep doing this by mere
unintentional, sincere, coincidental oversight. You have to deliberately >LABOR to sear your conscience against the plain statements of the Bible
and exalt your own emotional preferences above Scripture to keep
insisting on your heresies.
On Wed, 31 Dec 2025 11:18:28 -0600, Christ Rose
<usenet@christrose.news> wrote:
Revelation 21:3rCo4 speaks about the final state after judgment, not the
means by which sinners enter that state. Scripture never presents the
promise of a new heaven and new earth as the gospel itself, but as the
outcome secured by the gospel. John places Revelation 21 after the
resurrection, judgment, and removal of unbelief. He does not replace the
message of ChristrCOs cross
cross - staurus
with a future political or governmental
arrangement.
No one said he did. Yes, there are a lot of things that have to
happening before we see the fulfillment of Rev 21:3,4.
The Bible defines the gospel clearly and narrowly. Christ died for our
sins, He was buried, and He was raised on the third day (1 Corinthians
15:1rCo4, ESV).
You have it right now. You have been saying at Luke 23:43 that the
thief would be in Paradise that same day ("today")
But as you say, Jesus had to be buried for 3 days. Thus the comma in
your translation is in the wrong place, and throws the whole narrative
off.
On 1/1/2026 9:33 AM, James wrote:
On Wed, 31 Dec 2025 11:18:28 -0600, Christ Rose
<usenet@christrose.news> wrote:
Revelation 21:3u4 speaks about the final state after judgment, not the
means by which sinners enter that state. Scripture never presents the
promise of a new heaven and new earth as the gospel itself, but as the
outcome secured by the gospel. John places Revelation 21 after the
resurrection, judgment, and removal of unbelief. He does not replace the >>> message of ChristAs cross
cross - staurus
o When the Bible says "boat", that doesn't mean "without oars".
We know they had oars because it says they "rowed" the boat
(Mark 6:48; John 6:19).
o When the Bible says "staurus" (pole), that doesn't necessitate
"without a crossbeam". We know Romans hung patibulum on the
staurus. We know they were in the shape of a cross (T or t, or
X).
No one goes to hell
for understanding that the Romans hung cross-beams
on the staurus. No one goes to heaven because they denied Romans hung >cross-beams on the staurus. You're not saving anyone or championing the >defense of God's glory by making a continual, stupid and needless point
of contention over the word staurus.
with a future political or governmental
arrangement.
No one said he did. Yes, there are a lot of things that have to
happening before we see the fulfillment of Rev 21:3,4.
You don't tell people the gospel which the disciples preached,
and by
which Paul said men were saved (1 Corinthians 15:1-4). You give
legalistic, moral one-uppery lectures that try to rob people of enjoying >their daily lives over false and twisted doctrines of your own
fabrication, while not telling them what the Bible says is necessary to
be saved.
You promote a false, Christ-denying method of atonement for sins,
claiming men's own death will atone for their sins, which contradicts
the Bible and is NOT what Romans 6 teaches. Believers are saved from the >obligation to sin through faith in Christ's death to sin and
resurrection to newness of life. It is only the believer who has died
with Christ to sin, not the unbeliever. You promote blatant, >Bible-contradicting LIES, including your implication that the eternal
state described in Revelation 21 is somehow a replacement for the gospel.
The Bible defines the gospel clearly and narrowly. Christ died for our
sins, He was buried, and He was raised on the third day (1 Corinthians
15:1u4, ESV).
You have it right now. You have been saying at Luke 23:43 that the
thief would be in Paradise that same day ("today")
More of your stupid, brainwashing efforts and twisted lies. He was with >Christ on that day, in his soul, before Christ rose from the dead.
Nowhere does the Bible teach that people cease to exist when they die,
or that they are recreated out of nothing after ceasing to exist. That's >part of your gospel denying lies of Satan by which you seek to comfort >people with the idea they can reject Christ's atonement for their sins,
and still escape eternal, conscious torment in the lake of fire.
In the best case scenario that you don't realize you are a manipulated
tool of Satan, that does not excuse the fact that you directly and with >determination, contradict the gospel and seek to lead men down a path
that will result in their conscious, eternal torment.
But as you say, Jesus had to be buried for 3 days. Thus the comma in
your translation is in the wrong place, and throws the whole narrative
off.
idem. You do almost nothing but promote twisted lies and deceit like
your father the devil. You are a sock-puppet mouthpiece for Satan. You
do almost nothing but promote satanically manipulated lies which are >calculated to lead people to eternal damnation, contrary to your
continual efforts to portray yourself as an angel of light. Almost every >time you open your mouth to talk it's the voice of Satan.
Entertaining your lies is an exercise in contamination.
rCo When the Bible says "boat", that doesn't mean "without oars".
We know they had oars because it says they "rowed" the boat
(Mark 6:48; John 6:19).
I'm not talking about oars.
rCo When the Bible says "staurus" (pole), that doesn't necessitate
"without a crossbeam". We know Romans hung patibulum on the
staurus. We know they were in the shape of a cross (T or t, or
X).
"We know", but I don't know. Please show me.
========================================
Fri, 02 Jan 2026 19:47:21 -0500
<jdbglkd12epf2fj3c42f2kfgijqjhcu68g@4ax.com>
Watchtower Heretic James <James> wrote: >========================================
o When the Bible says "boat", that doesn't mean "without oars".
We know they had oars because it says they "rowed" the boat
(Mark 6:48; John 6:19).
I'm not talking about oars.
Quit dodging and playing stupid. You KNOW the Bible says "boat", NOT
"oars", yet we know the disciples "rowed" the boat. Thus, the mere fact >Scripture says "boat" does not EXCLUDE the boat from having "oars". You
KNOW that, yet you KEEP PRETENDING that because the Bible says "staurus" >(pole), not "patibulum" (cross-beam), it MUST ONLY be understood to mean
"a pole WITHOUT A CROSS-BEAM".
========================================
Fri, 02 Jan 2026 19:47:21 -0500
<jdbglkd12epf2fj3c42f2kfgijqjhcu68g@4ax.com>
Watchtower Heretic James <James> wrote: >========================================
o When the Bible says "staurus" (pole), that doesn't necessitate
"without a crossbeam". We know Romans hung patibulum on the
staurus. We know they were in the shape of a cross (T or t, or
X).
"We know", but I don't know. Please show me.
What do you call someone who claims he doesn't know and needs to be
shown information which can be documented as having been shown to him no >less that 10 times already? How about "Liar"?
Here it is again:
1. Seneca the Younger (c. 4 BCuAD 65) u *De Vita Beata* 19.3
"Aliter patiuntur bestiarum ictus aut patibulo suffiguntur"
(Seneca, *De Vita Beata* 19.3)
("They suffer blows from beasts or are fastened to the
patibulum.")
2. Plautus (c. 254u184 BC) u *Miles Gloriosus* 359u360ferat per urbem, deinde affigatur cruci" (Plautus,
".
*Miles Gloriosus* 359u360).
("Let him carry the patibulum through the city, then be fastened
to the cross").
execution, consistent with Gospel accounts (John 19:17).
Seneca mentions criminals being fastened to the patibulum, indicating it was a physical beam."
3. JustinianAs Digest (compiled AD 533)
"Qui patibulo adfixus est" *Digest* 48.19.28 o15.
("He who has been affixed to the patibulum.")
This shows legal terminology acknowledging the patibulum as part of >crucifixion.
These sources confirm that Roman crucifixion involved the patibulum,
which the condemned carried and was affixed to, forming the traditional >cross structure (T or a). The concept of outstretched arms (e.g., John >21:18) assumes this form.
Quit dodging and playing stupid. You KNOW the Bible says "boat", NOT
"oars", yet we know the disciples "rowed" the boat. Thus, the mere fact
Scripture says "boat" does not EXCLUDE the boat from having "oars". You
KNOW that, yet you KEEP PRETENDING that because the Bible says "staurus"
(pole), not "patibulum" (cross-beam), it MUST ONLY be understood to mean
"a pole WITHOUT A CROSS-BEAM".
Yes, that is what the word "staurus" meant to first century
Christians.
Seneca mentions criminals being fastened to the patibulum, indicating it was a physical beam."
Although it could have been a crux simplex.
These sources confirm that Roman crucifixion involved the patibulum,
which the condemned carried and was affixed to, forming the traditional
cross structure (T or rCa). The concept of outstretched arms (e.g., John
21:18) assumes this form.
But assuming you are right, why would the 1st century Bible writers
call it a staurus? They should have called it a pagan cross, or the
Latin crux.
========================================Watchtower supporter James.
Sun, 04 Jan 2026 09:01:13 -0500
<0mkklkl7qveldn1p40s9h5kqjli7k8lr42@4ax.com>
Watchtower Heretic James <James> wrote: >========================================
Seneca mentions criminals being fastened to the patibulum, indicating it was a physical beam."
Although it could have been a crux simplex.
"Although" admits it could have been a T or t. If your ongoing claims
had simply been that "it could have been just a pole without a
cross-beam", that would be one thing. But you have PRETENDED in this
case for a LONG TIME, that if it doesn't specifically state "with a >cross-beam", then it automatically EXCLUDES that understanding,
"period", no matter how much extra-biblical reasoning goes along with
it. You have been claiming to that effect. That cannot be an ignorant,
or sincere oversight.
You understand that "boat" doesn't mean "without oars", simply because
it uses the word "boat" and not "with oars". They didn't need to be told >"boat with oars", because they KNEW they had oars without being told,
since they "rowed" the boats.
You understand that "house" doesn't necessitate "house without doors", >simply because it says "house", and not "house with doors". Everyone
knew they had doors.
Yet when you get to the word "pole", you INSIST that it MUST be
understood as "without a patibulum", and that "no amount of reasoning"
that comes from outside the Bible can change that.
That is two falsehoods (lies) at once. The first lie is that one would
need to change "pole" to "pole with a patibulum" in order for it to
include a patibulum. You KNOW and have ADMITTED that Bible boats had
oars, even though they say "boat", not "boat with oars". You KNOW that
Bible houses had doors, even though they say "house", not "house with >doors". Yet when it comes to the word "pole", you INSIST that it MUST >EXCLUSIVELY mean "pole without cross-beams". That is NOT an "innocent
error" or "mistake". That's WILLFUL, INTENTIONAL DECEIT, to try and >disqualify patibulum on the basis that it says "pole", not "pole with a >patibulum".
On Sun, 4 Jan 2026 18:10:37 -0600, Christ Rose
<usenet@christrose.news> wrote:
========================================Watchtower supporter James.
Sun, 04 Jan 2026 09:01:13 -0500
<0mkklkl7qveldn1p40s9h5kqjli7k8lr42@4ax.com>
Watchtower Heretic James <James> wrote:
========================================
Seneca mentions criminals being fastened to the patibulum, indicating it was a physical beam."
Although it could have been a crux simplex.
"Although" admits it could have been a T or t. If your ongoing claims
had simply been that "it could have been just a pole without a
cross-beam", that would be one thing. But you have PRETENDED in this
case for a LONG TIME, that if it doesn't specifically state "with a
cross-beam", then it automatically EXCLUDES that understanding,
"period", no matter how much extra-biblical reasoning goes along with
it. You have been claiming to that effect. That cannot be an ignorant,
or sincere oversight.
You understand that "boat" doesn't mean "without oars", simply because
it uses the word "boat" and not "with oars". They didn't need to be told
"boat with oars", because they KNEW they had oars without being told,
since they "rowed" the boats.
You understand that "house" doesn't necessitate "house without doors",
simply because it says "house", and not "house with doors". Everyone
knew they had doors.
Yet when you get to the word "pole", you INSIST that it MUST be
understood as "without a patibulum", and that "no amount of reasoning"
that comes from outside the Bible can change that.
That is two falsehoods (lies) at once. The first lie is that one would
need to change "pole" to "pole with a patibulum" in order for it to
include a patibulum. You KNOW and have ADMITTED that Bible boats had
oars, even though they say "boat", not "boat with oars". You KNOW that
Bible houses had doors, even though they say "house", not "house with
doors". Yet when it comes to the word "pole", you INSIST that it MUST
EXCLUSIVELY mean "pole without cross-beams". That is NOT an "innocent
error" or "mistake". That's WILLFUL, INTENTIONAL DECEIT, to try and
disqualify patibulum on the basis that it says "pole", not "pole with a
patibulum".
You translate based on the words in the best copy. Your logic is off
by a mile. I call God's Son, Jesus. But I didn't mention his two eyes,
nor his 2 ears, or his two legs, etc, etc. Are they then missing from
him? IT IS SIMPLE. Most all modern Bibles translate staurus as
"cross", which are false translations in those spots.
If you REALLY want translations that equal the original words. Try the
NWT. (New World Translation)
========================================
Sun, 04 Jan 2026 09:01:13 -0500
<0mkklkl7qveldn1p40s9h5kqjli7k8lr42@4ax.com>
Watchtower Heretic James <James> wrote: >========================================
These sources confirm that Roman crucifixion involved the patibulum,
which the condemned carried and was affixed to, forming the traditional
cross structure (T or a). The concept of outstretched arms (e.g., John
21:18) assumes this form.
But assuming you are right, why would the 1st century Bible writers
call it a staurus? They should have called it a pagan cross, or the
Latin crux.
Why did first century Bible writers refer to God as "theos", since
that's what pagans called their false gods?
You try to poison people's
minds by association over things that are not sin, based on false
standards of your own invention. We are not obligated to call everything
a pagan uses evil, just because they use it. Rainbows are still God's >covenant with mankind not to destroy the entire earth with a flood. They >don't become evil, simply because pagans appropriate it to promote evil.
You've been shown example after example of this, where God prescribes
the same things pagans use (e.g. prayer, offerings, etc.). You promote >legalistic one-uppery, by trying to associate things which are not evil
as being evil, simply because some pagan may have done something similar
in the past. Pagans don't get to define the meaning of words and
symbols. God does. Call not thou unclean what God has cleansed.
You promote a legalistic asceticism Colossians warns against, but which
is of no value at preventing sinful indulgence.
On Sun, 4 Jan 2026 18:20:38 -0600, Christ Rose
<usenet@christrose.news> wrote:
========================================
Sun, 04 Jan 2026 09:01:13 -0500
<0mkklkl7qveldn1p40s9h5kqjli7k8lr42@4ax.com>
Watchtower Heretic James <James> wrote:
========================================
These sources confirm that Roman crucifixion involved the patibulum,
which the condemned carried and was affixed to, forming the traditional >>>> cross ["pole"] structure (T or rCa). The concept of outstretched arms (e.g., John
21:18) assumes this form.
But assuming you are right, why would the 1st century Bible writers
call it a staurus? They should have called it a pagan cross ["pole"], or the
Latin crux.
Why did first century Bible writers refer to God as "theos", since
that's what pagans called their false gods?
So?
Those writers were influenced to write those things by God Himself:
-- King James
2 Timothy 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction
in righteousness:
You try to poison people's
minds by association over things that are not sin, based on false
standards of your own invention. We are not obligated to call everything
a pagan uses evil, just because they use it. Rainbows are still God's
covenant with mankind not to destroy the entire earth with a flood. They
don't become evil, simply because pagans appropriate it to promote evil.
When I say "pagan", I am meaning in a false religious sense.
Like for example, I may call it a pagan cross ["pole"]. Yes, a pagan cross ["pole"]
might even be worshipped, depending upon which pagan nation is
promoting the cross ["pole"].
I know Constantine thinks he saw a cross ["pole"] in the vision near the sun.
From then on cross ["pole"]es were coming out of their ears. (oh by the way, Constantine was a sun worshipper)
You've been shown example after example of this, where God prescribes
the same things pagans use (e.g. prayer, offerings, etc.). You promote
legalistic one-uppery, by trying to associate things which are not evil
as being evil, simply because some pagan may have done something similar
in the past. Pagans don't get to define the meaning of words and
symbols. God does. Call not thou unclean what God has cleansed.
God never 'cleaned' the pagan cross. It is corrupt as it always was.
You promote a legalistic asceticism Colossians warns against, but which
is of no value at preventing sinful indulgence.
I don't accept your opinions as truth. I don't promote what you call
"legal asceticism". However I do promote Bible teachings of the truth,
the REAL truth, like Jesus is not God:
-- King James
John 14:28 Ye have heard how I said unto you, I go away, and come
again unto you. If ye loved me, ye would rejoice, because I said, I go
unto the Father: for my Father is greater than I.
- King James
1 Corinthians 11:3 But I would have you know, that the head of every
man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of
Christ is God.
| Sysop: | Amessyroom |
|---|---|
| Location: | Fayetteville, NC |
| Users: | 54 |
| Nodes: | 6 (0 / 6) |
| Uptime: | 15:58:28 |
| Calls: | 742 |
| Files: | 1,218 |
| D/L today: |
3 files (2,681K bytes) |
| Messages: | 184,205 |
| Posted today: | 1 |
