Thinking of becoming a Witness again and my reasons for doing so :(

by reniaa 383 Replies latest jw experiences

• 

  reniaa

  BTW, although Barnabas was written at most 100 years after the supposed time of Jesus, it was actually much closer in the time of the composition of the gospels, which themselves were written about 40-70 years after the crucifixion. In fact, when you compare its use of OT exegetical traditions with the gospels, Barnabas is in many ways more original and primitive. That is to say, it attests the first stages of interpreting OT traditions before they have been cast in the form of a narrative, as they appear in the gospels. See the discussion in Koester's Ancient Christian Gospels on how Barnabas preserves "the earliest stage and, at the same time, the best example of such scriptural interpretation" (p. 224-228), and JD Crossan's The Cross That Spoke , which goes over the exegetical traditions individually.

  hmmm you set me thinking on barnabus and current NT translations being so close to each other, I also wish to apologise for added to my original post since you read it, mainly just on your patibulum that jesus would have been tied or nailed to it before carrying it to his execution does that allow for simon of cyrene to carry it?

  "And as they came out, they found a man of Cyrene, Simon by name: him they compelled to bear his cross." (Matthew 27:32)

  I can see why personally using the cross would appeal, I have to say I think I prefer "execution stake" that you show is a better way to put it beside "torture stake" despite the conflicts of meaning because cross itself now means so much more than being executed in christianity unless you can definitively say it was latin cross used. I am a purest though.
• 

  Leolaia

  hmmm you set me thinking on barnabus and current NT translations being so close to each other, I also wish to apologise for added to my original post since you read it, mainly just on your patibulum that jesus would have been tied or nailed to it before carrying it to his execution does that allow for simon of cyrene to carry it?

  I don't see why not, rope is easily tied and untied. The prisoners were probably not nailed to the patibulum until they reached the execution site....if you look at the classical references, you can see that nailing to the cross FOLLOWS the carrying of the patibulum. Thus, for Plautus, adfigatur cruci (nailing to the cross) comes AFTER patibulum ferat per urbem (bearing the patibulum throughout the city). And Clodius Licinus distinguishes between cruci defiguntur and patibulum deligantur, such that patibulum deligantur (being tied to the patibulum) comes first, then circumferuntur (going around the place), and then finally cruci defiguntur (being nailed to the cross). At the same time, ligare, alligare, deligare, etc. are not used to refer to the affixing of a person to the cross, where crux/patibulum figere, adfigere, suffigere, etc. occur instead (but cf. Pliny, Historia Naturalis, 28.4, which refers to spartum e cruce "rope that is used in crucifixion", which could have been the rope used to tie the patibulum to the victim's arms, or the rope used to tie the feet at the cross, or most likely, the rope used to hoist the patibulum to the stipes).

  Also, it is good to note that there are two separate traditions; one posits Simon of Cyrene alone carrying the cross (Mark 15:21, Matthew 27:32, Luke 23:26), and the other posits Jesus alone carrying the cross (John 19:17). These are commonly harmonized in later exegesis, but these are separate scenarios in the gospels themselves (i.e. heautó in John 19:17, which attributes the cross-bearing to Jesus alone, thereby denying the gnostic idea that Simon of Cyrene was crucified in Jesus' stead).

  I can see why personally using the cross would appeal, I have to say I think I prefer "execution stake" that you show is a better way to put it beside "torture stake" despite the conflicts of meaning because cross itself now means so much more than being executed in christianity unless you can definitively say it was latin cross used. I am a purest though.

  In history you don't always know things 100%. Often things are more in terms of probabilities. In this case, it is much more probable that the crucifixion scenario related in the gospels involves a cross with a patibulum. That is very different from what the Society claims. Although the matter cannot be considered proven definitively, the evidence shows that the Society's claim is actually improbable. And this evidence already demonstrates that many individual claims that Society makes (e.g. stauros could not refer to a two-beamed cross, Livy did not use crux to mean cross, Lucian used stauros only to refer to a stake, etc.) are quite wrong.
• 

  Pickled

  Reinaa, did you know that the JW can only have a relationship with God through the faithful and discrete slave? That means that your decision, according to you, only comes down to one option. Believe in the faithful and discrete slave and everything they tell you is the correct thing to believe about the Bible, or find another religion.
  
  I have never been a JW, and even in the short time I studied with them I know this fact to be accurate. Its throughout all of their literature. I can provide the quotes if you like. The reason why I am pointing this out is because you seemed to have focused on whether or not Jesus died on a stake or a cross as though that is going to help you to decide whether or not to become a witness again.
  
  The truth is, the only thing you need to ask yourself is if you are willing to believe what THEY believe Jesus was nailed to. Right? If they say Stake....you believe Stake. Question answered. If they say Stake and you say Cross? You cant rejoin the group. Dilemma solved.
  
  The witnesses also spend almost all of their time pointing out the pagan customs and twisted interpretation of other religions. But when you ask them how they personally feel about Jehovah himself, there is this long pause as though that is a foreign question. So I will ask you....how do YOU feel about Jehovah? Cross, Stake, Literal Flood, Friendships, Trinity, and on and on.......but what about God himself? Are you looking for God, or are you looking for a religion? You have said absolutely nothing about trying to decide if you want to search for God or not. Even your thread indicates you are trying to decide whether or not you want to rejoin a religion that left you with so little information about the nature of God that you havent mentioned that "sidenote" once in 18 pages. Not an accusation. Just an observation.
  
  You spent 10 years away from this religion and you never once had the question pop up in your head....Who is God really? If your answer was that it depends on what shape of lumber Jesus was nailed to....perhaps your original religion stripped you of a desire for God Himself and left you on a quest to prove or disprove all the crazy things PEOPLE are doing in their quest for God instead. JW believe that it is not their responsibility to "know" God, but to place their faith in the "faithful and discrete slave" instead. Is that the only option you are trying to decide? To believe THEM or you can never find God?
• 

  Leolaia

  The truth is, the only thing you need to ask yourself is if you are willing to believe what THEY believe Jesus was nailed to. Right? If they say Stake....you believe Stake. Question answered. If they say Stake and you say Cross? You cant rejoin the group. Dilemma solved.

  Exactly. What we're doing in this thread is a little illustration of what is involved in thinking for yourself -- looking at the evidence and sources and coming to our own conclusions. Not so with what happens with the Society. They give you the answer. That's it. There's no room for disagreement. You have to accept it, or be "out of harmony" with "Jehovah's organization". And this is the silly thing -- a matter like "did Jesus die on a cross or stake?" is such a piddling issue....it's a question of what style the Romans made Jesus' cross. But that drives home the point -- even in the most insignificant matters, the Society demands complete agreement in belief. There isn't room for individual thinking on the subject -- the governing body hath spoken, and what is published in the Watchtower is "the truth". And they can, at the drop of a hat, change the belief into something that you would never have believed before.
• 

  reniaa

  In history you don't always know things 100%. Often things are more in terms of probabilities. In this case, it is much more probable that the crucifixion scenario related in the gospels involves a cross with a patibulum . That is very different from what the Society claims. Although the matter cannot be considered proven definitively, the evidence shows that the Society's claim is actually improbable. And this evidence already demonstrates that many individual claims that Society makes (e.g. stauros could not refer to a two-beamed cross, Livy did not use crux to mean cross, Lucian used stauros only to refer to a stake, etc.) are quite wrong.

  You are right 100% is a nice dream of most historians, I would say after reading all you've written and researching your points as well as a non-scholar as myself can, Ie can conclude theres a strong possibility of a tau shaped-cross T but but I'm not as quick to dismiss the simon cyrene conflict because 2 gospels do include him and don't mention untying etc so that is a small black mark against the tau argument. But if we can also use in probabilities time period wise (what was used then by romans against our research) it was tau shaped T or simplex crus (stake) that were used, even less likely is latin cross so if we put cross in the bible as definition people will just assume latin cross as they have for centuries and that would be wrong in my eyes.

  Visions of people all wearing T around their necks If we could prove for definate it was a Tau T :s

  This all wouldn't be so important if the latin cross wasn't such an important aspect of christianity especially how people venerate it, which is a shame.

  Well no more questions from me, You have answered my questions honestly and encouraged me to deeper research which I enjoyed a lot thank you leolaia, I hope you don't mind if my conclusions are not as positive as yours given the information.

  reniaa
• 

  Pickled

  I guess I don't understand.
  
  You would not be required to wear a cross in order to become a JW.
  
  You also would not be required to wear a cross in order to practice any of the other religions on the planet.
  
  There are actually a lot of churches these days who profess to be Christian and there is not a cross in sight anywhere in their building. Lots of motivational speaking, but no cross.
  
  Your original idea was this...
  
  "So here I am feeling like the prodigal daughter and thinking being among warm-hearted if strict people who will accept me back and give me a sense of community again that I haven't seen in any other christian faith for all I've looked, has gotta be better than being shoved and shunned and used by people who have stopped caring for each other and only think of themselves.
  
  Your thoughts please?"
  
  You said the JW are.......
  warm hearted.
  Strict.
  Accepting.
  Have a sense of community.
  Will not shove you.
  Will not shun you.
  Will not use you.
  Care for one another.
  Care for others.
  
  Are you talking about the individual members, or are you also including the "faithful and discrete slave"? Because the "faithful and discrete slave" is strict, but I can't find another thing on that list thats fits them. And even with the individual members, are you really saying that they would never shun you?
  
  What does that have to do with crosses and stakes?
• 

  reniaa

  Exactly. What we're doing in this thread is a little illustration of what is involved in thinking for yourself -- looking at the evidence and sources and coming to our own conclusions .

  This wouldn't matter if it didn't apply to every single faith or religion,

  I am going to talk in my own words completely and on how I think! if this sounds like a JW I apologise although I don't think it will.

  Firstly I believe in God, I went on Atheist forums to test this in myself and in the end I found not enough to proof that there isn't a God to dissuade me and I have to say my own personal need is to believe in God.....

  Next issue is, which God? The choices are unlimited you have to find a way of refining the search using personal taste and what you can logically believe!

  Next I look at my nature, I am non-violent, I love people and humanity, I also like logic and things to make sense (i'd make a good atheist lol if this annoying habit of wanting to believe in God didn't get in the way)

  Next I look at religions, I'll be honest I think christianity and the bible as a direct result of my upbringing became the religion of preference for me, I did attempt to look at other religions that their ancients writing didn't reach me as the bible did. My love of the bible was cemented the day I actually saw the "pontious pilate" stone in the british museum for real :)

  I don't think people realise how much we take on trust what we believe in life, not just in religion, I mean everything! just look at the iraq war, could we have done it if we hadn't had ourselves persuaded their were weapons of mass distruction?

  And then look at the power of the written word, You only have to see how many people now believe jesus was married because a man called Dan brown wrote a book of fiction called the davinci code, The discussions i've had on that....lol

  So now I have to choose a religion in Christianity WHICH? is the question, in this I only have one point of reference and that is the bible because in the end all christian faiths are drawn from it, I do have the choice of walking my own road on this! having a christian religion according to reniaa! Oooo but the bible is annoying it reminds me that God did not mean it that way, it says "do not forsake the gathering of yourselves together" and from israelites onwards he has grouped them together supporting each other. and jesus was chosen from the jews despite them going wrong, so God stood by his chosen people despite their waywardness of human nature to start believing each other rather than God (something which hasn't changed)

  Now we have Jesus and In following Jesus we are taking on trust he is God's son and has a right to tell us what to do and believe which is fine so far but we have also had 2000 years of mankind messing about with Christianity bringing pagan, mens opinions, and political twists and turns to it. How do we get back to the original?

  That is the question! and from this point I cannot go further or say more without being accused of leaning towards witnesses eeeek but this is where i am atm and the Cross is something i'm looking at atm as part of it.( Also my first post on how I have been treated has also effected me)

  Reniaa

  lol if any of that makes sense ^^
• 

  Sirona

  Jgnat

  Lay off the newcomer, Sirona. It is possible for two people at disparate locations to have the same hashed IP address. Some internet providers route ALL their users through a hub. In that case, anyone using that hub would have the same IP.

  Ok.

  You will notice, however, that my posts regarding the IPs were questioning more than anything because I didn't know myself.

  I knew what Leolaia pointed out, because I have had PM's from other posters pointing it out to me that others shared this code too. THAT is why I Pm'd a moderator to find out what the situation is. I didn't want to post it to the thread because I didn't want to inadvertantly make people suspect the other posters mentioned.

  The two of them can hold their own against the one of me.

  Sirona
• 

  Pickled

  It sounds like you are not able to imagine God apart from all the religions.
  
  That sounds like something an Atheist would say, definitely not a JW. So you don't have to worry about sounding too much like a JW.
  
  That means that if God can only be found in religion, and religion is man made...man created God?
  
  You would say otherwise I think. So could a good starting point be to spend a little bit of time researching the nature of God? You said you keep returning to the Bible, so while you are there....why not step away from the laws, covenants, etc that he established for MAN, and instead try to approach the Bible this time in a search for the personality of God Himself?
  
  If you can't come up with anything, then maybe you SHOULD become an Atheist.
• 

  jgnat

  If we were to look for a modern church that most closely follows the first century model, I believe there are others who come much closer than the Witnesses. The JW's heavy top-down administration, disbursed corporate structure, printing presses, their presentations, the taped music, sales technique, puncutality, and their rehearsed meetings remind me more of an early twentieth century sales convention than the early church.

  I think these guys are much closer to the early church model. http://housechurch.org/