Reniaa you asked me what questions you have missed. I have reposted them adn you have run...yet again.
Jesus not crucified on torture stake. Impossible!
by sacolton 250 Replies latest watchtower bible
-
-
babel on
the appostles and all the first century christians didn't feel the need to were a miniture death instrument around their necks
this I feel we would never know for sure, but that the cross was a powerful symbol to early Christians and what that type of death meant for mankind is proven in 1 Cor. 1 18(for the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God). can you not see here that the cross (object) was synonomous with the message of christ. It is apparant that by at least the time Paul was writing to the corinthians the church had begun using the cross or Pole as their symbol. It was not worshipped, it was the logo much like the Tower is used to identify the watchtower group! When you see a cross today you think Christian. (unless your JW and then you think Pagan)jeeze
-
undercover
My understanding is that stauros in its simplest form means upright pole...but can also mean a variety of similar structures, including the cross.
I haven't read every post on this thread, but this statement pretty much sums up most scholarly and archelogical findings on the subject. Seeing that Nark and Leo have been on this thread, I'm sure some of this evidence has been presented.
This statement:
While we can not dogmatically claim Jesus was hung on a cross we equally can not claim that he wasn't. However, Scriptures and history do seem to lend to his being impaled on a cross.
again sums up the situation nicely. For the WTS, or any other group, to emphatically state that Jesus was hung on a stake and not a cross without admitting that evidence for their case is not overwhelming, is misleading if not outright dishonest.
Even if Jesus was executed on a stake and not a cross, he wasn't impaled. To impale means to run the stake or pole through the body. There are some graphic illustrations of this if one does a little research on-line. One of the more sensationalized events of this type of killing are the executions by Vlad the Impaler.
-
Narkissos
Second exception, for an interesting piece of JW apology tactics (the pattern of which applies to a number of topics, such as "Jehovah" in the NT):
history is written by the winners with christianity this is definitely the case since death to heretics was the norm. What has to be remembered is all these theologians you quote leolaia had to support trinitarian Christianity and the writings kept would all be in support of the current doctrines, what would happen to anything written that supported anything different?
If this is so, how come JWs (and other kinds of "heterodoxy") do claim "evidence" from literature which was produced or transmitted under "apostate" church control to support their views?
Let me help you: (1) WT makes up doctrine; (2) WT finds shreds of "evidence" to support doctrine (even if that implies partial quoting, misrepresentation of sources and opinions, etc.); (3) "evidence" supporting WT doctrine was providentially preserved from "apostasy"; (4) evidence contrary to WT doctrine was falsified by "apostasy". Isn't it simple?
(Leolaia, thank you, but while I have some experience in Bible languages and translation, I would never measure to your knowledge and understanding of ancient literature in general. Which is what really matters to the topic under discussion -- and many others. To the translator, any word like stauros is a "x" -- I mean "unknown," not x-cross ! -- until it is defined by usage, which in turn is only known by survey and analysis of the entire linguistic corpus, taking into account diachronic -- historical -- developments; just the kind of interdisciplinary work that lies behind any dictionary, and which amateurs playing one dictionary definition against another, or mixing them at their wish, so totally ignore.)
-
Vinny
Reniaa (our fast running wascally wabbit) writes:
"isaac tell me what questions I missed because I have tried to answer all on here although it's begining to get repetitive."
**** This is a joke, right Reniaa?
I have followed you FOR ONE YEAR NOW with questions that you simply vanish from. Many times you just run away, including yesterday. Just go here:
http://www.jehovahs-witness.net/jw/experiences/173978/2/WHY-cant-Jehovah-REINSTATE-Satan
I have posted thread links all over this site and laid out too many direct, simple yes or no questions to count Reniaa.
But you always do the same JW TWO-STEP and out the door dance move on me. You should be on dancing with the stars Reniaa.
You have so many neat JW dance moves you might just win.
You are not sincere though, IMO. And Reniaa, I believe everybody that knows you well enough here sees through your little rabbit tricks, dance moves and disappearing acts.
Okay, so Jesus died on a stake then, it does not matter to me. You win.
NOW, can you explain what this special list that is the 'WATCHTOWER'S BABY FOR LIFE' does for any claims that God uses WT as his chosen channel ?:
http://www1.tip.nl/~t661020/wtcitaten/part2.htm
Or How about this page of hypocrisy Reniaa: (see what happens when any JW tries doing what they tell others to do).
http://www.watchtower.org/e/20000622/article_03.htm
And Reniaa, here is my little list showing just why the JW's are wrong on blood Reniaa:
http://www.jehovahs-witness.net/watchtower/medical/150613/1/WT-SOCIETY-IS-WRONG-ON-BLOOD
Did God get all those EMBARRASSING DATES wrong too Reniaa? (1914, 1925, 1975, 2000, GENERATION OF 1914 ETC)...
Did God get Vaccinations wrong Reniaa?
And then 21 years later did God change his mind about vaccinations Reniaa? (Or was it possibly because vaccinations were stomping out polio, smallpox and more)?
Did God get organ transplants being, "CANNIBALISM", wrong too Reniaa?
And then change his mind again 13 years later saying organ transplants were not cannibalism after all! (how bout that!).
Did God get, "ALTERNATIVE SERVICE" wrong Reniaa? (((FOR 50 YEARS))).
Did God change his mind 50 years later and then say alternative service is now okay to do?
Who did all those brothers go to jail for Reniaa? Was it for Jehovah or for the Watchtower Society?
What about special BETH-SARIM, Reniaa? Was Jehovah behind Beth Sarim too? An entire house and property waiting for the ancient worthies to be resurrected and have a place to go to. Who was Beth Sarim an embarrassment to Reniaa?
Is it reasonable to expect just a little more from God's channel than all this Reniaa?
What do you think Reniaa?
Who did all those witnesses that died because of not getting vaccinations or organ transplants die for Reniaa? Did they die for God or for the Watchtower Society? You tell me Reniaa.
So please, finally tell me, are you ready to let your little girl die if for some reason she needs blood Reniaa? Please answer yes or no. Put yourself in that situation right now before it actually happens.
Are you ready to teach other people in your territory that they too must say no to blood even if death results? Yes or no Reniaa? I know you don't like the blood policy Reniaa, you've already stated this (and I quoted your words on that other thread that you ran away from like a very fast rabbit).
Reniaa, Are you also ready and willing to shun your little girl if she gets baptized at like 14 but then says, "sorry ma, the JW's just ain't for me", at 18?
Reniaa, Do you tell your bible studies that the JW's were FLAT WRONG about those organ transplants, vaccinations, alternative service, Beth Sarim, 1914, 1925, 1975, 2000, Rape Rules, Sex with animals or sex with the same sex not breaking the marital bond along 500 more things just like these.
Do you tell your bible studies all about these many mistakes Reniaa?
You see Reniaa, it would be disingenuous of you to only show the one side of the JW picture, don't you think?
People have a right and you have an obligation to show people the COMPLETE JW PICTURE.
Most bible studies only know what JW's tell them in their little bible study books. (I bet you know this now). And NOWHERE does it mention all these problems that destroy the WT Society as being used by God for anything at all.
Jesus walked on water.
Moses parted the Red Sea.
A Cloud followed the ark of the covenant.
And the JW religion owns this bad boy: http://www1.tip.nl/~t661020/wtcitaten/part2.htm
Do you see the slight difference here Reniaa?
This is why many people after knowing the entire JW range of facts end up walking away altogether.
And this despite the fact that we will be judged as wicked, as some apostate, be labeled, shunned and lose almost everything we have.
Is this fair Reniaa? Is this scriptural Reniaa? No, it is neither... and I have examined all the scriptures many times and in great detail. No scripture supports this unfair abuse of power and loss of friends, family and reputation.
I hope you take the time to honestly examine all these things Reniaa.
Be ready to cut-off your own little girl. Because you just might have to. It happens more than you know.
So Reniaa, the next time you say "what questions have I missed because I try to answer them all", please do not get offended when I fall out of my chair laughing.
You have many questions all over this site that you have put on your lap.
And then you run like a fast little rabbit...
And do the JW dance moves out the door...
Silly Reniaa.
Vinny
-
mrsjones5
Reniaa must be maddening to talk to in real life
-
Leolaia
leolaia your research is interesting but it doesn't change the fact that stauros is a word that makes no assumption of crosspiece unlike cross which does. that romans used execution methods that involve crosspieces as well as ones that didn't is a given.
You keep missing the point. The denotation of stauros makes no assumption of form because it pertains to the function of the device which itself was variable in form. This means that stauros referred to composite "crosses" long before Jesus died (i.e. since the second century BC) because that form was widely in use at the time. This directly contradicts the Society's claim that stauros did not refer to composite "crosses" until much "later". Second, I have repeatedly explained that denotation is not all there is to a word's "meaning"; the pragmatics of usage shapes a word's connotation and we can definitely see that writers did refer to a typical form of the stauros (as involving an intersection of a horizontal with a vertical) which undoubtedly reflects patterns in crucifixion practice; there can only be a (proto)-typical form if that is one that occurs frequently or with salience. Crucifixion with crossbeams was so common that one could readily conjure up the image of a composite "cross" by the word stauros; crucifixion with a crux simplex thus would have been far less salient and/or common. Although English "cross" for many people denotes form as well as function, the denotation does at least capture this connotation. "Stake" and especially "torture stake" (which obtains its connotation of form from the Society's usage of the term and depiction of its referrent), on the other hand, has exactly the opposite connotation. A JW would not conjure up the image of a composite "cross" from the term "torture stake"; the connotation is one that excludes the crosspiece rather than picturing it as a typical part of the instrument. Therefore "cross" is a far better term to use than a neologism like "torture stake" when stauros refers to the execution device (not to mention the fact that "cross" is the English term that specifically refers to the Roman execution apparatus), and since the gospel writers gave other indications that a crosspiece was probably pictured, "cross" is most suitable in that context.
But the original bible wording stauros which any historian will admit means stake/pale
Stop right there, you are committing the etymological fallacy again. When historians say that the original meaning was "stake", of course that is the case — the word had just the meaning of "stake" before it was used to refer to an instrument of execution. Then the meaning changed; the word gained a new denotation as a term referring to a particular apparatus in capital punishment. At that point it no longer meant "stake", it also meant "cross". Historians use "cross" to refer to the exeuction instrument, regardless of the form it took. Whatever the word meant in c. 600 BC before crucifixion was invented has very little to do with what it meant when it referred to a form of Roman execution in the first century AD. You want to smuggle the original denotation of the word into its later specialized denotation, as if it has any bearing on the form of the execution device that the word referred to. This is a very basic mistake.
as you yourself admit makes no revelation of crosspiece
False, you keep getting this part of my argument wrong. Not any surprise since you never fail to misrepresent what I say over at Topix.
it is a word more about the way Jesus died not the shape of his death instrument and that is the problem.
It is only a "problem" because the JWs make a big issue out of something that nobody cares about.
You not only have to prove Jesus definitely died on a cross which is impossible but also that the writers intended a shape to be important.
What kind of burden of proof is this? Since it was the crux simplex that was exceptional, and since there is no evidence that the Romans made the condemned carry the stipes without any patibulum, it would seem that the burden is on you to demonstrate why one should use a term that has a connotation that excludes what was the most probable or common form of the cross. There is nothing other than an etymological fallacy that would give the preference to "stake".
All four writers of his death and references to it afterwards give no indication to it's shape at all it is completely in shadow biblically and should stay that way to be biblically true. I will say no more since I think my points are all well documented.
"All four writers of his death"? All four gospels refer to Jesus or Simon of Cyrene carrying the cross to Golgotha. It was the patibulum that the Romans made the condemned carry. The Romans never referred to one carrying a crux or a stipes. The whole practice itself derived from the older Roman custom of making a slave parade around in public with his arms tied to a patibulum (originally, a piece of wood that propped doors open). It is most unlikely that Greek writers (who did not borrow the word patibulum but simply used stauros to refer to it) referred to some other kind of practice just because they were writing in another language. So the reference to cross-bearing in the gospels is a rather convincing indication that the writers pictured Jesus' stauros as containing a crossbeam. This is even more clear in the generalized references to cross-bearing in the sayings in Mark 8:34 (= Matthew 10:38, 16:24, Luke 9:23, 14:27, Gospel of Thomas 55:1), which pertain not to any specific instance where an exception might apply but to the practice in general. The probable allusion to cross-bearing in John 21:18-19 (where a patibulum is implied via the reference to stretching of the hands) may be another indication.
"references to it afterwards"? Are you kidding me? The earliest references after the gospels are very explicit about its form.
Christians of later centuries influenced by methods they themselves had seen by romans assumed Jesus died on a cross piece stake.
Not "later centuries". This nonexistant span of centuries is a product of your imagination. And there was nothing uncommon about the patibulum in the first century AD.
-
Colton
Food for thought ...
What is this called:
Answer: Telephone pole.
Now, notice the cross beam at the top? It's still known as a telephone POLE and never renamed as a telephone CROSS.
Think about that.
-
mrsjones5
Semantics
-
reniaa
hi isaac I did address those points but I reserved the right to address them my way :)
I showed password that Jesus is our leader saviour and king and that authority was given him by God but also authority was given to our leaders by Jesus until he returns I proved this by showing a scripture that clearly says we should obey our leaders from the bible.
I wonder who we should follow first? Christ or leaders on earth?
so firstly it isn't a case of either/or. Obviously as a witness we put the bible first as inspiration from God anything we then bring in has to be in accordance with this even if it is principle based decision. Let the reader decide which religions are following the bible the most closely.
Your next question is basically the same but cleverly worded.
Reniaa, can you show me even 1 verse where we are told we need to find the human channel that leads us to Jesus?
Now show me how we can come to a knowledge of God atm without some human interaction but still we have the the bible as the measure by which christian Religions with holy spirit guidance should be testing doctrine by, look at the following.
2 Timothy 3:16
All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness,but humans are still involved they are who teach each other and who make the bible translations from the original ones we read! the whole of the greek scriptures show this and also it shows this should be done with unity and with leaders. Jesus would not of bothered with the appostles if we didn't need men and leaders at this time. Why was peter sent to the ethopian? why was any disciple sent anywere to preach the gospel?
It is clear from the bible scriptures that the dis-unity in faith we have now was forseen and written about.
I'm still waiting for her to show me one verse from the Christian Greek Scriptures where the Father is referred to as Jehovah/YHWH.
This was password cleverly wording a question that makes the reader think unless YHWH is in the greek scriptures it is invalid. I pointed out that because YHWH was in the hebrew scriptures that is valid enough for me as both are inspired words of God. I could also point out that since We have no original letters from greek scriptures especially the mathew Gospel written in hebrew it would be wrong to assume the name isn't there without more proof.
1) Why did Jesus never pray using Jehovah's name...especially when he instructed his followers to address their prayers to the Father (no mention of Jehovah) in the model prayer at Matthew 6: 9-13?
I'm failing to understand the point of this question If Jesus directs us to pray to the father which is clearly identified as YHWH, he is not saying the word father but he is saying 'pray to my father'? again is this somehow trying to invalidate the hebrew scriptures and their use of YHWH?
as to the rest of your questions I answer as I always do that one
Matthew 7:4
How can you say to your brother, 'Let me take the speck out of your eye,' when all the time there is a plank in your own eye?
