by pirata 32 Replies latest watchtower bible
The real dishonesty with the Watchtower position on this issue is that they have misled their members into the false belief that the Watchtower somehow "knows" that Jesus died on a stake instead of a cross.
The reality is that they have no idea (no more than anybody else) what he died on, but they stubbornly refuse to admit this.
Thanks to all for their research on this, which I will mark for when the mag is discussed
Vine was one of the "Plymouth Brethren". Interestingly enough, the only U.S. Prez with immediate Dub ties, Eisenhower (whose mom was a J.W.) claimed to be raised as one of the "Brethren" due to the embarrassing anti-government/nationalistic rhetoric of the WT. According to Jerry Bergman, at least...
"Vine"... pole...
Huh.
Correction: According to Wikipedia, Dwight's mom was formerly River Brethren, not Plymouth Brethren. But she did join the IBSA (which of course morphed into JWs under Rutherford's direction).
What I find really interesting (and I did not know this) is that Eisenhower was instrumental in adding the words "under God" to the Pledge of Allegiance... which, ironically, Dubs refuse to do.
Huh... again.
Land mines ahead!!
One thing I've learned over the years. JW's want you in their briar patch.
Or, to switch metaphors, they want you slogging in the details where the quicksand will suck you down.
These arguments of the Watchtower are detail heavy for a reason. The more dust they kick up with partial quotes and inferences the easier it
is to sound like they are saying something worthwhile.
Same as with 607 b.c.e. and 1914.
Same as with blood.
Lots of stuff floated around until your head spins.
Think of a murderer on trial for his life, like ummmmm O.J. Simpson. He gets all the best lawyers on his "dream team" then argues the DNA, blood spatters, racial prejudices of the detectives, timeline contradictions, tries on a glove while wearing a glove under it---and PRESTO! Aquittal!!
That's how it is done. The devil is in the details.
I saw an interesting show on Pompeii the other day. They showed an impression where a cross hung in a house when it was covered in ash in 79 A.D.
So Christians were using the cross in their worship only 46 years after Jesus' death.
I too never understood the argument of WHAT Jesus died on, isn't the moral of the story that he DIED for us. Who the f#*k cares WHAT he died on for us...
Even being born-in I never understood the hassle of it all.
Don't underestimate the plot holes and factual misdeeds of standard christian belief!
The foundation is reputed to be rock solid. It is anything but.
The Watchtower, Latter-Day Saints and others have exploited that fact all too easily.
You only have to demonstrate a few solid errors, falsities, myths and frauds for the destruction of faith in the foundations of christian belief!
Plenty exist!
The worse fact of all is how insane it is to base an ORTHODOXY on what is missing!
The hand--written original manuscripts are missing.
Gone.
Argue doctrine over who said what and debate "meaning"? Impossible!
We DON'T HAVE THE EXACT WORDS!
That should end all discussion.
But, it doesn't.
The debate over the cross vs stake is POSSIBLE because SO LITTLE of christianity rests on firm basis factually and historicity!
INTERPRETATION is where all the power lies.
AUTHORITY is claimed by those who possess the "right of interpretation"!
The Catholic Church claimed that absolute right along with tradition (majesterium.)
Protestantism ripped that authority away and placed in the hands of the individual believer (Sola Scriptura=the bible alone.)
The result? Thousands of interpretations.
Thousands of pastors, churches, authorities and councils and even Governing Bodies assumed the POWER and SOLE RIGHT to interpret.
JW's have the GB which claims majesterium exactly like the original Catholic Church.
The smart thing is to never argue such details at all!
Start with foundational issues such as HOW DO WE KNOW WHAT JESUS SAID since we DON'T HAVE HIS EXACT WORDS OR SAYINGS?!
Argue doctrine over who said what and debate "meaning"? Impossible!
We DON'T HAVE THE EXACT WORDS!
That should end all discussion.
But, it doesn't.
I so agree with you Terry. Most people have not even begun to think through the extremely shaky basis for claims of Biblical truth. What amuses me is, as a JW, I believed there were "just" two sides: The Truth and on the other side: Falsehood.
Fact is, if an alien visitor to earth took one look at all the Christian religions and organizations arguing among themselves - the visitor would conclude the whole damn lot are absolute nuts.
Arguments over the Trinity bring out the arm-chair scholar in every shade of believer and they exchange views as if their very source - some translation of a translation of a translation of an ancient text - "proves" the matter. Bor-ing. Then some believer will say, "Forget the arguments...I believe in my heart that Christ loves me," as if a inner, private feeling proves anything. People the world over, from every conceivable shade of religious belief claim they "know" it's true because of what has tocuhed them at an experiential level.
The epistle of Barnabas, typically dated between 80-120 AD, less than 100 years after the crucifiction, states that the cross was in the shape of the greek letter "Tau" ie: T.
