I need the full page illustration of possible impalement

by Mulan 32 Replies latest watchtower bible

• 

  Mulan

  In the large JW reference Bible (page 1578) is a drawing of a man dying on an upright pole. In Penton's book, Apocalypse Delayed, there is a reference on page 342 to that illustration, mentioning it is only one of 16 drawings, 13 of which show a cross beam. (another deceitful attempt by JW's)

  Does anyone have a copy of that illustration? If so, will you post it here. I know I have seen it but we must not have a copy of it.

  I have a young friend, who is marrying a former JW, and he is arguing the cross issue with her, and I want to give her this picture to show him and her future father in law, who is currently a JW elder.
• 

  blondie

  http://www.freeminds.org/doctrine/cross.htm

  Above is some information, below has the picture.
  

  In their original Kingdom Interlinear Translation on page 1155, they state, "Such a single stake for impalement of a criminal was called crux simplex, and the method of nailing him to such an instrument of torture is illustrated by the Roman Catholic scholar, Justus Lipsius, of the 16th century. We present herewith a photographic copy of his illustration on page 647, column 2, of his book De Cruse Liber Primus. This is the manner in which Jesus was impaled."

  Such lies! On page 46 of De Cruse Liber Primus Justus Lipsius really said, "In the Lord?s cross there were four pieces of wood, the upright beam, the crossbar, the piece of wood placed for the feet, and the title inscription placed above."

  http://www.agapeacceptance.co.uk/justus1.htm
• 

  Satanus

  The rest of the pictures in the book from which the wt got that one but ignored, can be viewed or downloaded from elsewhere's site @ Cruce_Libri

  Cruce_Libri Slideshow

  S

  edit requested by member ~ Scully
• 

  Mulan

  Thank you both..............it is exactly what I wanted.
• 

  Leolaia

  One revealing statement was in the 15 Feburary 1980 Watchtower. After describing a carving of Jesus crucified with his hands extended over his head (thought to have been made by Michelangelo), the article went on to say:

  Whether the wooden sculpture is the work of the 16th-century artist Michelangelo or not, it illustrates that the impalement of Christ on a cross frame has not always been so certain as Christendom's leaders today would have people believe. For example, the 16th-century Roman Catholic scholar Justus Lipsius illustrated impalement in his book ?De Cruce Liber Primus.?

  The clear implication here is that Justus Lipsius himself was not "so certain" about Jesus having been crucified on "a cross frame". The author obviously was not familiar with the actual work, which is quite clear on the matter.
• 

  googlemagoogle

  any idea of where i can get a copy of that book?
• 

  XQsThaiPoes

  I dont really get the point. There are lots of ways to impale a person. What if the JWs believe jesus was hung on a traditional cross upside down? The watchtower is pretty clear that they have no Idea how Jesus died they just don't like the + shape because it eliminates other options.

  THey have pretty much the same arguement for the traditional cross. It's a JW tradition and because you can't prove other wise they are keeping it. To be fair they should show Jesus in various forms of impalement, but religion was never about being fair so why bother. In russia the cross sometimes has two bars. It does not really matter. I mean there are people with pretty good agruments that Jesus is a composite of many other people and stories, the events of the gosple never all happend to one person, and that christianity is basically a first century semitic urban legend.

  Unless they are arguing what the watchtower printed vs the contents of the 16th century book (which I doubt). I can't figure out what they are argueing about one camp likes a monorail the other a cross. The muslims and jews believe jesus existed maybe we should ask them what he died on?
• 

  googlemagoogle

  i think the point is, that quotes are used out of context. that's not honest.
• 

  Will Power

  Unless they are arguing what the watchtower printed vs the contents of the 16th century book (which I doubt).

  This is definitely a topic of discussion. The fact that they claim to be the only ones to have and BE the truth, how they ARRIVE at that statement should always be under scrutiny. All the misquotes of others that they print along with their own double twists on their own printed material begs this.

  The TRUTH as they call it can only be looked at from one angle, (their's) from one source, (their's) with a mind that they have formed and deem to be in the right state.

  What one believes is one thing and everyone's right - HOW they got there is another. Believing something because you were lied to, info withheld, or tricked does not justify "well at least you got there - no matter what !!"

  The end does not justify the means.

  w
• 

  homme perdu

  Mulan take a look at this, http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/religion/jesus/crucifixion.html