Originally posted by Diggin in da Word:
you guys just don't get it do you?
Yes, we do. There's simply NO old symbol that hasn't been used by pagans at one time or another. And that includes the CROSS.
standing has given scripture to back his belief, he has given several posts to show the triquesta came from the pagan camp.
While WE have shown the CROSS to have once been a pagan symbol, a fact conveniently ignored.
He is right from backing out.
Yes, because he can't win this one. All, or most of his info came from a Terry Watkins article. Senor Watkins is one of the most unlearned of all the KJVO authors.
The Bible teaches that if they will not receive your report to have nothing to do with them.
It also teaches to have nothing to do with an incorrect report.
I am suprised he stayed in the thread this long.
Me,too, as he didn't wanna comment about the CROSS's pagan usage.
He really must be concerned about christians holding onto that which God detests and you belittle him as if he were satan himself.
The problem is, he was WRONG. The triquetra's last regular usage was by Christians who added it to their sigs on letters they'd written to each other. There it signified the HOLY TRINITY.
sfiC has not spoken any lies and you brand him as one by saying he need to come back and admit he is wrong? Take a long look in the mirror of God's Word and you may find if you truly look that you are the ones that are wrong.
I don't think so.
Are you also afraid to discuss the CROSS's pagan uses?
The t-shaped cross is now an almost-universal symbol of Christ's crucifixion, and is not recognized as a pagan symbol anywhere that I can think of. OTOH, the triquetra hasn't been used too much for a long time, & the NKJV publishers were going by its last common usage as a CHRISTIAN symbol. saying that God detests it is mere GUESSWORK.
The whole triquetra issue is merely a KJVO ploy, started, as I said, by an unlearned KJVO author, Watkins, who was trying to find fault with the NKJV. It is without merit, and more than one of us has seen right through it. Now, while I CERTAINLY wouldn't try to link SF with Satan, he is a known KJVO and thus his views are shaped accordingly.
you guys just don't get it do you?
Yes, we do. There's simply NO old symbol that hasn't been used by pagans at one time or another. And that includes the CROSS.
standing has given scripture to back his belief, he has given several posts to show the triquesta came from the pagan camp.
While WE have shown the CROSS to have once been a pagan symbol, a fact conveniently ignored.
He is right from backing out.
Yes, because he can't win this one. All, or most of his info came from a Terry Watkins article. Senor Watkins is one of the most unlearned of all the KJVO authors.
The Bible teaches that if they will not receive your report to have nothing to do with them.
It also teaches to have nothing to do with an incorrect report.
I am suprised he stayed in the thread this long.
Me,too, as he didn't wanna comment about the CROSS's pagan usage.
He really must be concerned about christians holding onto that which God detests and you belittle him as if he were satan himself.
The problem is, he was WRONG. The triquetra's last regular usage was by Christians who added it to their sigs on letters they'd written to each other. There it signified the HOLY TRINITY.
sfiC has not spoken any lies and you brand him as one by saying he need to come back and admit he is wrong? Take a long look in the mirror of God's Word and you may find if you truly look that you are the ones that are wrong.
I don't think so.
Are you also afraid to discuss the CROSS's pagan uses?
The t-shaped cross is now an almost-universal symbol of Christ's crucifixion, and is not recognized as a pagan symbol anywhere that I can think of. OTOH, the triquetra hasn't been used too much for a long time, & the NKJV publishers were going by its last common usage as a CHRISTIAN symbol. saying that God detests it is mere GUESSWORK.
The whole triquetra issue is merely a KJVO ploy, started, as I said, by an unlearned KJVO author, Watkins, who was trying to find fault with the NKJV. It is without merit, and more than one of us has seen right through it. Now, while I CERTAINLY wouldn't try to link SF with Satan, he is a known KJVO and thus his views are shaped accordingly.