Does it matter? Not to me. I grew up going to church. I feel much more natural about the cross than the stake. However, it used to be fun to hold up one finger, the index finger and back away from people, cross and vampire style. But this gives me a flight of fancy. You could give shunning JW's "the stake" or shoot them a "stake", middle finger. You'd be "staking" them, rather than "shooting a bird" which is considered obscene jesturing. "Noooo, I am not shooting you the bird, I am staking you! BIG DIFFERENCE."
Ok, lets set the record straight was it a CROSS or a STAKE
by Witchs Son 26 Replies latest watchtower bible
-
-
Barbie Doll
I believe in a trinity - steak, potatos, and veggies
PEC ----would go for a Stake.
OUTLAW----You are so funny, You make me laugh.
It was a Cross, made out of wood and it comes from a tree.
-
MMae
Let's not forget Biblical support:
John 20:25, where Thomas says, " Except I shall see in his hands the print of the NAILS......I will not bellieve." (as apposed to a single nail driven through both hands.) Of lesser significance, but still of interest is that Matthew 27:37 says that the sign hung on the cruxifix was placed above His HEAD (as apposed to being hung above his hands.)
Bottom line: It is not significant one way or the other. All that matters is the fact that He did sacrifice his life, not upon what device. In the spirit of Romans 14 - 15:1-7 we should not judge one another's belief on the matter, AND we should exercise caution not to cause another to turn away from Christ by insisting on our own point of view.
Therefore, if I expected to see JWs, I would not wear a cross, knowing that they veiw it only as a pagan symbol. When discussing it, I like to emphasize that we really do not know for sure, but for these reasons, I cannot say that it was not a cross. I point out that those that do revere the cross do so as a rememberance of Christ's sacrfice, and therefore are "doing it into the Lord."
Since most JWs insist that stauros means a single pole, I point out that if He were carrying the crossbeam, which would be attached to the upright pole at the torture sight, it would in fact be a single pole that he carried. And as a point of reason, would it be possible for a man to carry a pole that was large and strong enough for him to be impailed upon it? or is it more reasonable to think that the crossbeam, which would be much smaller in comparision, would be the more likely piece of wood carried by Jesus.
My only goal in this kind of discussion is to allow the JW to see that there is a possibility that Christ was tortured on a cross, and that revering a cross does not chaulk one up as a "false Christian."
Romans 14: 4-6,14,22-23 says 'Why do you judge another man's servant. It is up to his master whether the servant's actions are pleasing or not. In fact, when we stand before God, He is able to view us all as pleasing. When it come to these matters of concsience, let each person be sure in his own mind what he thinks is best. That way every person that engages in a practice, does it for the glory of God with thankfulness; and everyone that refrains from a practice, does not do it to the glory of God, also with thankfulness. I am absolutely convinced by Jesus Himself that there is NOTHING unclean. But, if a person's conscience views it as unclean, then for him it is unclean. You would not be showing Christian kindness to him if you insisted on having it your way in front of him. You could be responsible for turning him away from the Lord. Be happy to exercise your practice before God. Avoid pressuring others to do the same, for them it may be a sin.'
-
Maddie
I think the JW's are wrong about this one, just as they are about many things. It was a cross.
Maddie
-
stillajwexelder
I dont see how anyone can know for sure
-
keyser soze
I've never understood why it matters so much to JW's, or why they go to such lengths to prove they're right on this particular issue. Does believing that his arms were upward instead of sideways somehow make your worship more pure?
-
choosing life
I agree that it makes absolutely no difference. The witnesses always get caught up in small details and miss the main point.
Kinda like putting the symbol of life (blood) as more important than the gift of life itself.
-
ex-icoc
cross
-
XJW4EVR
To me, based on the historic record and the biblical record, Jesus was crucified. Now am I going to die on that particular hill of theology? Absolutely not. I am more concerned about the meaning that is placed on that death. In other words, was the atonement that Jesus made only for Adam's sin, or was it for every member of the elect?
-
momzcrazy
If you believe in the ransom does it really matter? It's like asking did Jesus drink out of a silver cup or a pewter cup at Passover. The meaning is the same either way.
momz