jvitne scribbled: That is because he was the “the Christ the SON OF GOD” and so he (Jesus) when on to reply (as one being sent to earth to bear witness to the truth), when He said “You yourself said [it]. Yet I say to YOU men, from henceforth YOU will see the Son of man sitting at the right hand of power and coming on the clouds of heaven.” Another occasion Jesus had asked his disciples: “Who are men saying the Son of man is?” Their reply: “Some say John the Baptist, others Elijah, still others Jeremiah or one of the prophets.” “You, though, who do you say I am?” Jesus continued. Peter answered: “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.” At this point Jesus said: “Happy you are, Simon son of Jonah, because flesh and blood did not reveal it to you, but my Father who is in the heavens did.” 3). Thoughts to consider: Jesus asks his Disciples what people were saying of the “Son of Man” and so he wanted to know what the Disciples thought of him, who really was him. Was he just the “Son of Man” as people says? So he asks them, “You, though, who do you say I am?” Peter answered: “You are the Christ, the SON of the living God.” Did Jesus reject him to say that he was just the “Son of Man”, that people claim? Instead, he replied by saying “because flesh and blood did not reveal it to you, but MY FATHER who is in the heavens did.” In conclusion, When one considers that Jesus was not the only spirit son of God created in heaven, it becomes evident why the term “only-begotten Son” was used in his case. Countless other created spirit beings, angels, are also called “sons of God,” in the same sense that Adam was, because their life-force originated with Jehovah God, the Fountain, or Source, of life. (Job 38:7; Psalm 36:9; Luke 3:38) But these were all created through the “only-begotten Son,” who was the only one directly begotten by God.—Colossians 1:15-17. Thank you.

jvitne scribbled: When Jesus died, even the Roman soldiers standing by knew that Jesus was not God: “The army officer and those with him watching over Jesus, when they saw the earthquake and the things happening, grew very much afraid, saying: ‘Certainly this was God’s Son.’” (Matthew 27:54) They did not say, ‘this was God’ or ‘this was God the Son,’ because Jesus and his disciples taught that Jesus was the Son of God, not God Almighty in human form. God himself testified that Jesus was his beloved Son, as the Bible writer Matthew noted when Jesus was baptized. (Matthew 3:17) Other Bible writers noted the same. Mark wrote: “A voice came out of the heavens: ‘You are my Son, the beloved; I have approved you.’” (Mark 1:11) Luke said: “A voice came out of heaven: ‘You are my Son, the beloved; I have approved you.’” (Luke 3:22) And John the Baptizer, who baptized Jesus, testified: “I have borne witness that this one [Jesus] is the Son of God.” (John 1:34) So God himself, all four Gospel writers, and John the Baptizer clearly state that Jesus was the Son of God. And some time later, at the transfiguration of Jesus, a similar thing happened: “A voice [God’s] came out of the cloud, saying: ‘This is my Son, the one that has been chosen. Listen to him.’”—Luke 9:35. At Matthew 26: 59 – 68 The chief priests and the entire San´he•drin were looking for false witness against Jesus in order to put him to death … So the high priest said to him: “By the living God I put you under oath to tell us whether you are the Christ the SON OF GOD!” 64 Jesus said to him: “You yourself said [it]. Yet I say to YOU men, From henceforth YOU will see the Son of man sitting at the right hand of power and coming on the clouds of heaven.” 65 Then the high priest ripped his outer garments, saying: “He has blasphemed! What further need do we have of witnesses? See! Now YOU have heard the blasphemy. 66 What is YOUR opinion?” They returned answer: “He is liable to death. 2). Thoughts to consider: Why would they (chief priests and the entire Sanhedrin) ask Jesus if he was (under oath) if he was “the Christ, the SON Of God”? And did they say he had “blasphemed” and that “he was liable to death”, for saying that he was the Son of God?

jvitne scribbled: *Part 2: Not ‘God the Son’ but “God’s only begotten Son”? WHILE Jesus is often called the Son of God in the Bible, nobody in the first century ever thought of him as being God the Son. Even the demons, who “believe there is one God,” knew from their experience in the spirit realm that Jesus was not God. So, correctly, they addressed Jesus as the separate “Son of God.” (James 2:19; Matthew 8:29) And when Jesus died, the pagan Roman soldiers standing by knew enough to say that what they had heard from his followers must be right, not that Jesus was God, but that “certainly this was God’s Son.”—Matthew 27:54. Hence, the phrase “Son of God” refers to Jesus as a separate created being, not as part of a Trinity. As the Son of God, he could not be God himself, for John 1:18 says: “No one has ever seen God.”—RS, Catholic edition. The disciples viewed Jesus as the “one mediator between God and men,” not as God himself. (1 Timothy 2:5) Since by definition a mediator is someone separate from those who need mediation, it would be a contradiction for Jesus to be one entity with either of the parties he is trying to reconcile. That would be a pretending to be something he is not. The Bible is clear and consistent about the relationship of God to Jesus. Jehovah God alone is Almighty. He created the prehuman Jesus directly. Thus, Jesus had a beginning and could never be coequal with God in power or eternity. Never did Jesus claim to be almighty God himself. Any impartial reading of the Bible without preconceived ideas about the Trinity will verify that. For example, at John 3:16, Jesus said: “For God loved the world so much that he gave his only-begotten Son.” Just two verses later, Jesus again said that he was “the only-begotten Son of God.” (John 3:18) When the Jews accused Jesus of blasphemy, he answered: “Do you say to me whom the Father sanctified and dispatched into the world, ‘You blaspheme,’ because I said, I AM GOD’s SON?” (John 10:36) Jesus did not say that he was ‘God the Son’ but that he was “God’s Son.” 1). Thoughts to consider: Why would they stone Jesus if and when he replied: I AM GOD’s SON?

jvitne scribbled: *Part 2: Not ‘God the Son’ but “God’s only begotten Son”? WHILE Jesus is often called the Son of God in the Bible, nobody in the first century ever thought of him as being God the Son. Even the demons, who “believe there is one God,” knew from their experience in the spirit realm that Jesus was not God. So, correctly, they addressed Jesus as the separate “Son of God.” (James 2:19; Matthew 8:29) And when Jesus died, the pagan Roman soldiers standing by knew enough to say that what they had heard from his followers must be right, not that Jesus was God, but that “certainly this was God’s Son.”—Matthew 27:54. Hence, the phrase “Son of God” refers to Jesus as a separate created being, not as part of a Trinity. As the Son of God, he could not be God himself, for John 1:18 says: “No one has ever seen God.”—RS, Catholic edition. The disciples viewed Jesus as the “one mediator between God and men,” not as God himself. (1 Timothy 2:5) Since by definition a mediator is someone separate from those who need mediation, it would be a contradiction for Jesus to be one entity with either of the parties he is trying to reconcile. That would be a pretending to be something he is not. The Bible is clear and consistent about the relationship of God to Jesus. Jehovah God alone is Almighty. He created the prehuman Jesus directly. Thus, Jesus had a beginning and could never be coequal with God in power or eternity. Never did Jesus claim to be almighty God himself. Any impartial reading of the Bible without preconceived ideas about the Trinity will verify that. For example, at John 3:16, Jesus said: “For God loved the world so much that he gave his only-begotten Son.” Just two verses later, Jesus again said that he was “the only-begotten Son of God.” (John 3:18) When the Jews accused Jesus of blasphemy, he answered: “Do you say to me whom the Father sanctified and dispatched into the world, ‘You blaspheme,’ because I said, I AM GOD’s SON?” (John 10:36) Jesus did not say that he was ‘God the Son’ but that he was “God’s Son.” 1). Thoughts to consider: Why would they stone Jesus if and when he replied: I AM GOD’s SON?

jvitne scribbled: So Jesus, the only-begotten Son, had a beginning to his life. And Almighty God can rightly be called his Begetter, or Father, in the same sense that an earthly father, like Abraham, begets a son. (Hebrews 11:17) Hence, when the Bible speaks of God as the “Father” of Jesus, it means what it says—that they are two separate individuals. God is the senior. Jesus is the junior—in time, position, power, and knowledge. In conclusion, the answer to the above question is, yes without a doubt! In fact, not even Trinitarians believe such a notion. If it were true that Jesus was created, then the teachings of the Trinity would have nothing to lean on. Hence one considers that Jesus was not the only spirit son of God created in heaven, it becomes evident why the term “Only-Begotten Son” was used in his case. Countless other created spirit beings, angels, are also called “sons of God,” in the same sense that Adam was, because their life-force originated with God [Jehova], the Fountain, or Source, of life. (Job 38:7; Psalm 36:9; Luke 3:38) But these were all created through the “only-begotten Son,” who was the only one directly begotten by God.—Colossians 1:15-17.

jvitne scribbled: Salamm my fellow nieghbours: ) As a Christian, in the true sense of the name, I would like to clarify a point of concern if I may, for the sake of allowing many to understand why Jesus is the “Son of God” and yet, Having No Share In Divinity. For the record, as a true Christian and one following the Teachings of Jesus and his disciples, I do believe in the “Trinity”! It is a pagan doctrine that was formally introduce to the churches (Christendom, of which I am no part of) during the 4th century. Until then it has permeated it self as self taught teaching without any real evidence of divine backing but rather an inspired utterance conspired by demons. *But is Jesus the “only Begotten Son” of the God, as the Bible claims? THE Bible calls Jesus the “Only-Begotten Son” of God. (John 1:14; 3:16, 18; 1 John 4:9) Some say (Trinitarians) say that since God is eternal, so the Son of God is eternal. But how can a person be a son and at the same time be as old as his father? Some too reason, that in the case of Jesus, “only-begotten” is not the same as the dictionary definition of “begetting,” which is “to procreate as the father.” (Webster’s Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary) And some may reason if it is “to procreate as the father,” then God would have a mother in order to produce. Well, the question one should ask is, how did God create the first man Adam & Eve and the angels, without the need of sexual reproduction? Simply, the scripture tells us that he created them by giving them the breath of life. Furthermore, why does the Bible use the very same Greek word for “Only-Begotten” to describe the relationship of Isaac to Abraham? Hebrews 11:17 speaks of Isaac as Abraham’s “Only-Begotten son.” There can be no question that in Isaac’s case, he was only-begotten in the normal sense, not equal in time or position to his father. The basic Greek word for “only-begotten” used for Jesus and Isaac is mo•no•ge•nes´, from mo´nos, meaning “only,” and gi´no•mai, a root word meaning “to generate,” “to become (come into being),” states Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance. Hence, mo•no•ge•nes´ is defined as: “Only born, only begotten, i.e. an only child.”—A Greek and English Lexicon of the New Testament, by E. Robinson. The Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, edited by Gerhard Kittel, says: “[Mo•no•ge•nes´] means ‘of sole descent,’ i.e., without brothers or sisters.”

jvitne scribbled: B). In Matthew 27:7-8: “And they took counsel and bought with them the potter’s field to bury strangers in. Wherefore that field was called the Field of Blood, unto this day.” After remorseful Judas threw into the temple the betrayal price of 30 pieces of silver (if shekels, $66), the chief priests used the money to buy “the potter’s field to bury strangers.” (Mt 27:3-10) The field came to be known as Akeldama, or “Field of Blood.” (Ac 1:18, 19; see AKELDAMA.) Since the fourth century C.E. this field has been identified with a location on the S slope of the Hinnom Valley, just before it joins the Kidron Valley. The expression “the potter’s field” does not specifically indicate whether the field was one simply owned by a potter or was called that because, at some point in its history, it was an area where potters pursued their craft. The latter, though, seems probable if the traditional site is correct. It would be near the Gate of the Potsherds (or “Gate of the Potters,” according to J. Simons in his footnote in Jerusalem in the Old Testament, Leiden, 1952, p. 230), mentioned in Jeremiah 19:1, 2. (Compare Jer 18:2.) Even in recent times the necessary raw material, clay, has been available in the vicinity. Also, making pottery required a good water supply, and the site was close to the spring at En-rogel and the Pool of Siloam as well as near such water as might be in the Hinnom Valley in the winter.

jvitne scribbled: Salaam: My fellow Neighbours: I would like to clarify a point here if I may, for the sake of allowing many to understand why and for what reasons that these words were said, on the part of Jesus, during his death. A). What did Jesus mean by his words, “My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?”- Matthew 27:46 Jesus was well aware that he would have to “go to Jerusalem and suffer many things . . . , and be killed, and on the third day be raised up.” (Matthew 16:21) So there just is no reason to believe that Jesus— a perfect human— would not be seized with fear over what he faced; nor would death on a stake suggest to him that his Father had rejected him. Jesus knew in advance “what sort of death he was about to die,” that is, death by impalement. (John 12:32, 33) He was sure, too, that on the third day he would be raised up. How, then, could Jesus say that God had forsaken him? Jesus spoke these words in fulfillment of Psalm 22:1, which was originally written relative to David. Not that David was forsaken for impalement on any torture stake, but he was forsaken to the fury of enemies because of his faithfulness to the Kingdom covenant. In all this David was a prophetic type of Christ. Jesus was forsaken to a disgraceful death, on an accursed tree, in order to test his integrity. By remaining faithful he triumphed in his integrity, as the rest of the Psalm shows. Other verses of Psalm 22 concerning David were fulfilled upon Jesus, further proving it was prophetic of the Greater David, Christ. Compare Psalm 22:1 with Matthew 27:46 and Mark 15:34; Psalm 22:7, 8 with Matthew 27:39, 43; Psalm 22:15 with John 19:28; Psalm 22:16 with Mark 15:25; and Psalm 22:18 with Matthew 27:35. But the mere utterance of these prophetic words of Psalm 22:1 was not in itself sufficient for fulfillment of them. At the time Jesus uttered them on the torture stake they really had a background against which to be fulfilled. In this case God’s forsaking Jesus did not mean that God turned his back upon him as disapproved and condemned, but merely that God released him to the full fury of his enemies, even to the extent of allowing them to kill him. Thus God forsook or released Jesus over to his enemies, to be subject to the enemies to do whatsoever they wanted to do with him, not even shielding him from ignominious death. It would be hard to trust a book that is found to contain inaccuracies. Imagine reading a modern history book that dated the Second World War to the 1800’s or that called the president of the United States a king. Would such inaccuracies not raise questions in your mind about the overall reliability of the book? NO ONE has ever successfully challenged the historical accuracy of the Bible. It refers to real people and real events.

jvitne scribbled: SITTIE: Your are welcome. The reason why many in "Christendom" do not know this is because they are set in their ways, with prejudices and biases towards Moslems and those they deem to be cults. As long as you do not subscribe to their so call pagan god (Triune gods of three), you are doom for ever receiving salvation! Well, I not only reject such teachings but denounce any claims that the scriptures does not teach such. I am not alone in this view. We are well over 6 million earth wide in 235 lands who do not teach nor give any worship to this Trinity. For we know too well that Jesus, nor the prophets taught it. We consider ourselves as true Christians in every way. No symbols are use (such as crosses). We worship one God whose name is Yehova and so we call ourselves witnesses of him, to bear the truths to the world as Jesus instructed his followers to do. Thus, to him alone do we give sacred service to. Jesus to us is one having authority given to him by the father, his God. However our view on Jesus may seem different to you, in that we consider him as being created and was the son of God (as he himself proclaim). He had a prehuman existence (an angel) who came to earth by means of Mary and was transferred to her by means of God's holy spirit (his active force and not a person). Therefore we acknowledge his death for all mankind by means of a ransom sacrifice, foreshadowed by Moses to the then Israelite s. We accept the scriptures as all inspired and that it by which the only true God instructs us to serve him. As you are aware, many of these churches fall short to these requirements and have taken pagan customs (Christmas, Easter, etc.) to follow the teachings of men.

jvitne scribbled: 6. WHY DID THE PEOPLE OF JESUS’ TIME KILL HIM? The answer is found in the Gospel book of John 11: 47, 48 which says: “Consequently the chief priests and the Pharisees gathered the San´he•drin together and began to say: “What are we to do, because this man performs many signs? If we let him alone this way, they will all put faith in him, and the Romans will come and take away both our place and our nation.” So, it was lust for power perverted the justice of the Jewish high court. Likewise, instead of rejoicing when Jesus’ disciples cured people, the religious leaders “became filled with jealousy.” As judges, they should have been God-fearing and just, but most of them were corrupt and dishonest.—Exodus 18:21; Deuteronomy 16:18-20. Also of importance is at the trail taking place with Jesus when ‘the chief priests and the entire San´he•drin in questioning Jesus the According to Mathew 26: 59-68 They had charge him with blasphemy on account for admitting that he was the ‘Son of God’ and not God as some in “Christendom” may claim. For consideration please note, as respect Jesus being an actually ‘Son of God’when the 63“ ‘chief priests and the entire San´he•drin in questioning Jesus’ ask him, “By the living God I put you under oath to tell us whether you are the Christ the Son of God!” 64 Jesus said to him: “You yourself said [it]. Yet I say to YOU men, From henceforth YOU will see the Son of man sitting at the right hand of power and coming on the clouds of heaven.” 65 Then the high priest ripped his outer garments, saying: “He has blasphemed! (Which, under the Law was deserving death for blasphemers)? So, the fact that Jesus did admit to being the ‘Son of God’ is admitted by himself, thus he would not have been sentence to death for blasphemy. Overall, the Jewish religious leaders were murderers, willing to slay an innocent man to accomplish their ends. Thus they plotted Jesus’ death. (John 8:44; 11:48-53) But a problem arose. They were afraid that acting against Jesus would cause an uproar among the people, many of whom respected or followed Jesus. (Matt. 26:4, 5) So after they had arrested Jesus secretly and condemned him on a religious charge, they sought to get Pilate to have Christ executed.

jvitne scribbled: 5. WHY IS WINE (an alcoholic drink?) OFFERED IN CHURCHES? That is a very good question simply because alcohol is use rather than grape juice as some would protest. Those who adhere to the Temperance or Prohibition Movement insist that Jesus’ words “the fruit of the vine” mean grape juice, and not real fermented juice or wine. But we remember that the harvest of the vineyard occurred in the late summer of the year, whereas the passover of the Jews did not occur until the following spring six months later, and the Jews did not have the means generally to preserve grape juice that long and keep it from fermenting. Jesus used the “fruit of the vine” that was available at the passover season, which was real wine. The history shows that the Jews used real wine at that season, and to this day the Jews follow up their tradition from that time and use fermented grape juice or real wine with alcoholic content. When passing the wine to his faithful apostles, Jesus said: “This means my ‘blood of the covenant,’ which is to be poured out in behalf of many.” (Mark 14:24) That wine symbolised his own lifeblood. By means of his shed blood, forgiveness of sins would be possible for those who put faith in it. On this occasion Jesus was highlighting the cleansing from sin that it would make possible for his prospective joint heirs. His words also indicate that by means of that blood the new covenant between God [YeHoVaH] and the spirit-anointed Christian congregation would be made operative. For consideration: The same can be said as regard the unleavened bread, that Jewish matzos are purchased and used, with care being taken to obtain matzos that have not been made with extra ingredients, such as onions, malt or eggs. Flat, dry, unseasoned matzos are appropriate. Or unleavened bread can be made. A small amount of whole wheat flour can be mixed with a little water. The slightly moist dough is rolled thin and then baked on a flat (slightly oiled) cooking sheet until the bread is dry and crisp. Regarding the unleavened bread that Jesus gave to his apostles when instituting the Memorial, he said: “This means my body.” (Mark 14:22) That bread symbolised his own sinless body of flesh. This he would give in behalf of the future life prospects of mankind, and on this occasion special attention is drawn to the life prospects that it makes possible for those who would be chosen to share with Jesus in the heavenly Kingdom.

jvitne scribbled: Thus the weight of the evidence indicates that Jesus died on an upright stake and not on the traditional cross. The Greek word rendered “cross” in many modern Bible versions (“torture stake” in NW) is stau•ros´. In classical Greek, this word meant merely an upright stake, or pale. Later it also came to be used for an execution stake having a crosspiece. The Imperial Bible-Dictionary acknowledges this, saying: “The Greek word for cross, [stau•ros´], properly signified a stake, an upright pole, or piece of paling, on which anything might be hung, or which might be used in impaling [fencing in] a piece of ground. . . . Even amongst the Romans the crux (from which our cross is derived) appears to have been originally an upright pole.”—Edited by P. Fairbairn (London, 1874), Vol. I, p. 376. Was that the case in connection with the execution of God’s Son? It is noteworthy that the Bible also uses the word xy´lon to identify the device used. A Greek-English Lexicon, by Liddell and Scott, defines this as meaning: “Wood cut and ready for use, firewood, timber, etc. . . . piece of wood, log, beam, post . . . cudgel, club . . . stake on which criminals were impaled . . . of live wood, tree.” It also says “in NT, of the cross,” and cites Acts 5:30 and 10:39 as examples. (Oxford, 1968, pp. 1191, 1192) However, in those verses KJ, RS, JB, and Dy translate xy´lon as “tree.” (Compare this rendering with Galatians 3:13; Deuteronomy 21:22, 23.) The book The Non-Christian Cross, by J. D. Parsons (London, 1896), says: “There is not a single sentence in any of the numerous writings forming the New Testament, which, in the original Greek, bears even indirect evidence to the effect that the stauros used in the case of Jesus was other than an ordinary stauros; much less to the effect that it consisted, not of one piece of timber, but of two pieces nailed together in the form of a cross. . . . It is not a little misleading upon the part of our teachers to translate the word stauros as ‘cross’ when rendering the Greek documents of the Church into our native tongue, and to support that action by putting ‘cross’ in our lexicons as the meaning of stauros without carefully explaining that that was at any rate not the primary meaning of the word in the days of the Apostles, did not become its primary signification till long afterwards, and became so then, if at all, only because, despite the absence of corroborative evidence, it was for some reason or other assumed that the particular stauros upon which Jesus was executed had that particular shape.”—Pp. 23, 24; see also The Companion Bible (London, 1885), Appendix No. 162.

jvitne scribbled: 4. WHY THE CROSS? Sadly however, ignorance is what prevents many in “Christendom” from knowing the true nature and the fact regarding the cross and to what does it truly represents. This is why it is so describe by “Christendom” that the Cross is said to be a device on which Jesus Christ was executed is referred to by most of Christendom as a cross. The expression is drawn from the Latin crux. However, this is far from the truth. By using the Scriptures to answer this question, one can see plainly/clearly, that God [YHVH] does not condone nor tolerate graven images (idols) in worship of him or to him. For He made it clear to Moses in Exodus 20:4, 5, JB, He warns: “You shall not make yourself a carved IMAGE or any likeness of anything in heaven or on earth beneath or in the waters under the earth; you shall not bow down to them or serve them.” (Notice that God commanded that his people not even make an IMAGE before which people would bow down.) We know for a fact that the first-century Christians never used them according to ‘History of the Christian Church’ by J. F. Hurst, Vol. I, p. 366; to which he says that: “There was no use of the crucifix and no material representation of the cross.” Yet, still we see some wear “crosses” around their necks, as a sign (symbol) that they are Christians, something which goes contrary to the Bible. The question we should ask ourselves is a). ‘Does it really make any difference if a person cherishes a cross, as long as he does not worship it?’ b). Is veneration of the cross a Scriptural practice? A). Well, how would you feel if one of your dearest friends was executed on the basis of false charges? Would you make a replica of the instrument of execution? Would you cherish it, or would you rather shun it? In ancient Israel, unfaithful Jews wept over the death of the false god Tammuz. God [YeHoVaH] spoke of what they were doing as being a ‘detestable thing.’ (Ezek. 8:13, 14) According to history, Tammuz was a Babylonian god, and the cross was used as his symbol. From its beginning in the days of Nimrod, Babylon was against Jehovah and an enemy of true worship. (Gen. 10:8-10; Jer. 50:29) So by cherishing the cross, a person is honoring a symbol of worship that is opposed to the true God. As stated at Ezekiel 8:17, apostate Jews also ‘thrust out the shoot to Yehovah’s nose.’ He viewed this as “detestable” and ‘offensive.’ Why? This “shoot,” some commentators explain, was a representation of the male sex organ, used in phallic worship. How, then, must God [Yehovah] view the use of the cross, which, as we have seen, was anciently used as a symbol in phallic worship? B). Paul was inspired to give counsel when he wrote at 1 Corinthians 10:14: “My beloved ones, flee from idolatry.” (An idol is an image or symbol that is an object of intense devotion, veneration, or worship.)

jvitne scribbled: 3. IS THE CROSS A SIGN FOR CHRISTIANITY? Emphatically No! The “cross” is not and has never been a sign for true Christians. Read question 2). ‘How we know he is a Christian without talking to him?’ This should be the only sign by which a Christian would be identified: Love above all else. This should be their conduct and attitude, which makes up their ‘new personalities’ that which distinguishes them from the world. That is their sign. (Galatians 5:19-21; 1Co 6:9-11; Eph 4:17-24; Col 3:5-10; Ro 10:10; Jas 2:17, 26). Jesus himself said: “I am giving you a new commandment, that you love one another; just as I have loved you, that you also love one another. By this all will know that you are my disciples, if you have love among yourselves.”—John 13:34, 35. Love does not support wars nor condone it in any way towards their fellow man. Therefore, the “cross” is nothing more than a pagan symbol adopted ancient paganism practices before Jesus. For the record here are just a few historical points to bear in mind about the Cross?: Accordingly to The Cross in Ritual, Architecture, and Art (London, 1900), G. S. Tyack, p.1: wrote: “It is strange, yet unquestionably a fact, that in ages long before the birth of Christ, and since then in lands untouched by the teaching of the Church, the Cross has been used as a sacred symbol. . . . The Greek Bacchus, the Tyrian Tammuz, the Chaldean Bel, and the Norse Odin, were all symbolised to their votaries by a cruciform device.” Likewise, The Worship of the Dead (London, 1904), Colonel J. Garnier, p. 226. says: “The cross in the form of the ‘Crux Ansata’ . . . was carried in the hands of the Egyptian priests and Pontiff kings as the symbol of their authority as priests of the Sun god and was called ‘the Sign of Life.’” Of interest is this comment in the New Catholic Encyclopedia 1967), Vol. IV, p. 486 says: “The representation of Christ’s redemptive death on Golgotha does not occur in the symbolic art of the first Christian centuries. The early Christians, influenced by the Old Testament prohibition of graven images, were reluctant to depict even the instrument of the Lord’s Passion.” Concerning first-century Christians, History of the Christian Church says: “There was no use of the crucifix and no material representation of the cross.”—(New York, 1897), J. F. Hurst, Vol. I, p. 366.