Cross or a Stake - which was it?

by KAYTEE 120 Replies latest watchtower bible

AlanF

Repeat this 1,000 times, scholar pretendus: "Richard Nixon was not a crook. Richard Nixon was not a crook. . . "
After 1,000 repetitions you will believe it.
AlanF
AlanF

scholar pretendus wrote:
: Alan F . . . [is my] God . . . Nothing amuses me more than to . . . refute what celebrated WT scholars have revealed to the scholarly community and the world . . . [Their] puerile attempts to invalidate [his] arguments fail, [his] use of the classical sources are correct, the lexical meanings of xulon and stauros are correct . . . Celebrated WT scholars . . . have . . . misrepresented source references either currently or previously . . . I know that for many years . . . [their] writers misuse other references . . . Perhaps if you feel so strongly about the matter you should do a PHD thesis on the subject which may serve some benefit to the community or you write to Bethel and make a complaint. . . The simple fact is that [your] writings are simple, written for the world-wide community and these ideas articulate the basic facts of the matter whatever the case and appeal to the heart and mind of the reader. Such a philosophical and methodological approach to research and writing . . . is truth, plain and simple for all races, cultures greatly benefiting. . . I repeat the Society by means of celebrated WT scholars have misrepresented . . . all that apostates is write . . . That is a process that anyone can duplicate if one wishes too but such falsification is a smokescreen designed to conceal the raw facts about matters. Falsification is simply a critiicsm or an alternative viewpoint or opinion and proves nothing. Leolaia: Your cross vs stake hypothesis . . . contains . . . facts that [validate] the raw lexical and traditional data. You have . . . proved that the classical material negates the case put by by [the Society]. You need to . . . present the material for peer review and have it published in a journal.
For once I agree with you, scholar pretendus!
AlanF
Leolaia

I repeat the Society by means of celebrated WT scholars have misrepresented no-one or no-thing.

As expected, pseudo-scholar has failed to give any substantive defense of this claim, other than mindlessly repeating it. I invited him to show how the Society's representation of Lucian was proper, but he has declined to demonstrate his assertions.
All that apostates is write material that merely seeks to falsify our presentation of evidence.
Now you are making an accusation of misrepresentation on my part. And you do nothing to support such idle slander. Please show "how" and "why" the Society's "presentation of the evidence" on the matter has been "falsified".
That is a process that anyone can duplicate if one wishes too but such falsification is a smokescreen designed to conceal the raw facts about matters.
LOL!! Who has "concealed" the "raw facts" of the matter? Give me a break. My thread posted nearly every relevant text from ancient sources discussing the manner of execution and the form of the cross! None of these sources have ever been discussed by the Society (with the exception of Lucian's Prometheus, which they misrepresent as supporting their position), and no JW would know of their existence through WTS publications. Where has the Society discussed Plautus? Where have they discussed Lucian's "Trial in the Court of Vowels"? Where have they discussed Epictetus? Where have they discussed Seneca? You, sir, have no credibility at all when you lie and accuse me (and others on this thread) of concealing evidence.
Leolaia: Your cross vs stake hypothesis is a nothing, it contains no facts that invalidate the raw lexical and traditional data.
More bullshit. It is a fact that crux referred to two-beamed crosses in the first century AD and centuries before. It is a fact because Plautus, Seneca, and other writers used it in just this way. It is a fact that stauros referred to the patibulum and the two-beamed cross in the first and second centuries AD. This is a fact because Lucian, Artemidorus, Epictetus, Chariton, and other writers used it this way. Do you wish to contest these facts? Then do it. But don't mindlessly repeat your unfactual beliefs. Get your hands dirty with the Greek and Latin and try to show that Seneca was not talking about a two-beamed cross, or that Lucian was not describing a two-beamed cross when he compared the stauros to the shape of the letter Tau.
You have not proved that the classical material negates the case put by by us.
Why? Explain. State your reasons. I have shown exactly how it negates the Society's claims. If you claim that it doesn't, take my claims one by one and try to show how and why they are not supported.
You need to try much harder and deeper
No, how about you try a little harder to give a scintilla of evidence in support of your claims. I have looked up every single instance of crux, stauros, patibulum, etc. in ancient sources and presented and analyzed relevant texts in detail. That's as "hard" and "deep" as it can get. But exhaustive research is not enough for you if it doesn't support the Society's faulty claims.
and if you are so cocky about your research then present the material for peer review and have it published in a journal.
There is absolutely nothing new at all in the research that would interest a journal at all in it....the ground has been thoroughly covered before by Martin Hengel (Crucifixion: In the ancient world and the folly of the message of the cross. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1977) and countless other scholars (going back to Justus Lipsius). I freshly researched all the material myself to determine the facts of the matter, and I placed it on the web for those unacquainted with the data (especially since the WTS has never given any "scholarly" consideration of these primary sources), but there is nothing novel about my research other than pointing out how the primary sources invalidate the claims of the WTS. It simply summarizes all the evidence that every other "peer" scholar on crucifixion would already know, and my generalizations do not differ much from what has already been stated by scholars. But you've brought up a great idea. Since the WTS position on the words stauros and crux is clearly contrary to modern scholarship on crucifixion, and since you claim they are "celebrated WT scholars" and that "scholars" have their work peer-reviewed, it would be a splendid idea for the Society to write a discussion of primary sources on crucifixion and submit it for peer review in an academic journal. It would certainly be instructive to learn how such a paper would be evaluated (e.g. I suspect their misuse of Lucian and Livy would not get them very far).

TheListener

If anyone doubts the evidence Leolaia has presented go check out the

research for yourself. It's there and it totally corroborates Leolaia's

conclusions. The only anomaly you'll find is which particular words

a translator chose to use when rendering the Greek or Latin text into English.

Leolaia's research is astounding and any true truth seeker cannot ignore it.

scholar

Leolaia
Your thesis is simply a critique, an attempt to falsify what celebrated WT scholars have published over many decades in various publications proving that the biblical testimony is in agreement with the lexical data and history that Jesus died on a stake rather than a cross as trtaditionally believed.
The simple facts are that Jesus died on a stake because this is what the eyewitnesses saw, they saw a stauros which means a pole , stake or whatever. The testimong does not suggest a stake with a crossbeam or another piece of wood affixed to it, they did not see two or three or four pieces of wood but a simple, single piece of wood described by the word stauros. It is very, very simple. Also, Jesus could only have died in this mannner because under Jewish Law, criminals were hung on a stake or stauros so Jesus died according to Jewish custom but under Roman authority. Jesus's death had to fulfill Jewish Law completely.
Besides these simple facts without engaging in the historical debate there is the problem that the cross is a pagan symbol and it would be a violation of the sacred for Jesus to be associated with a pagan thing. Jesus death was sacrificial and a sacred act of atonement and it could not violated by the introduction of something unclean and detestable. You frankly are a stupid woman for suggesting such an alternative that something Holy could then become unclean. How utterly stupid and monstrous to impugn and insult the death of our Saviour that way. You should be ashamed of yourself. What you are saying is that the High Priest on the Day of Atonement could and did bring unclean things into the Holy of Holies.
Theology alone renders the idea that Jesus died on a cross as impossible despite what later tradition and current scholarship on the crucifixion believes. Jehovah through his Son and his FDS by means of the sacred Word has revealed that Jesus died on a stake and that agrees with the views of many other scholars through the centuries.
Your methodology regarding the classical writers is a sham and that is something for another day for me to critique. Your views are disreputable, dishonest and reflect poor scholarship.
scholar JW
mrsjones5

After reading this thread and all of pseudo-scholar's replies I get the feeling that pseudo-scholar is pullin you all's collective leg and I'm beginning to wonder why anyone would take pseudo-scholar serious. I put him in the same boat as Hisbiscus with the exception that pseudo-scholar may know a few more big words.
scholar

Alan F
Repetition is a great learning tool and no doubt has contributed to your divine genius. Perhaps that is why you repeatedly claim that Jehovah's Witnesses are not the true Religion amongst the repudiation of all the things you formerly believed to be true.
Really Alan you are a hollow log, you make some noice but little else.
By the way Richard Nixon shares a common characteristic with apostates, both are double-tongued.
scholar JW
inquirer

@Scholar,

Admittingly at the back of my mind, I have thought for a long time (even though I believe in the stake theory) that in some ways it doesn't matter if the cross is pagan origin or not, the fact is he died on a torture implement is the most important thing. I don't think the Romans could give two houts what he died on and wouldn't care about it being "unclean" origin. These people mocked Jesus, remember! What we need is solid proof from historians who lived around the perid like what leolaia was trying to do. But recently I've been reading the "Non-Christian Cross" and I am thinking about both theories.

Thanks for showing me that page Leolaia! :)
Leolaia

Your methodology regarding the classical writers is a sham and that is something for another day for me to critique. Your views are disreputable, dishonest and reflect poor scholarship.

Again, pseudo-scholar has refused to do anything other than give a strident denunciation of what I wrote, satisfied to heckle at what he doesn't like. His tactics are intellectually insulting but fortunately few are taken in by his charade.
The simple facts are that Jesus died on a stake because this is what the eyewitnesses saw, they saw a stauros which means a pole , stake or whatever. The testimong does not suggest a stake with a crossbeam or another piece of wood affixed to it, they did not see two or three or four pieces of wood but a simple, single piece of wood described by the word stauros. It is very, very simple.
If you even tried to give one ounce of effort to respond to my research, you would at least attempt to address the evidence that contradicts squarely what you just wrote. Since you have not done that, I am satisfied to just let my own prior work stand as an eloquent rebuttal.
Besides these simple facts without engaging in the historical debate there is the problem that the cross is a pagan symbol and it would be a violation of the sacred for Jesus to be associated with a pagan thing. Jesus death was sacrificial and a sacred act of atonement and it could not violated by the introduction of something unclean and detestable....Theology alone renders the idea that Jesus died on a cross as impossible despite what later tradition and current scholarship on the crucifixion believes.
There are enough holes in this non-argument to let Lake Pontchartrain flood through. See my earlier comments to you on this in the 607 thread back in June-July.
You frankly are a stupid woman for suggesting such an alternative that something Holy could then become unclean. How utterly stupid and monstrous to impugn and insult the death of our Saviour that way.
LOL!! What a stupid idiot you are, if you think vertical poles were devoid of pagan idolatrous significance.
Midget-Sasquatch

Oh "scholar"
Besides these simple facts without engaging in the historical debate there is the problem that the cross is a pagan symbol and it would be a violation of the sacred for Jesus to be associated with a pagan thing. Jesus death was sacrificial and a sacred act of atonement and it could not violated by the introduction of something unclean and detestable. You frankly are a stupid woman for suggesting such an alternative that something Holy could then become unclean. How utterly stupid and monstrous to impugn and insult the death of our Saviour that way. You should be ashamed of yourself. What you are saying is that the High Priest on the Day of Atonement could and did bring unclean things into the Holy of Holies.
Theology alone renders the idea that Jesus died on a cross as impossible despite what later tradition and current scholarship on the crucifixion believes.
Hey corect me if I'm wrong but, just where did the Christ offer up his blood as a sacrifice to God according to Hebrews 9:11? I don't think there were any pieces of wood with him there -- that is brought into the Holy of Holies in Heaven.
More importantly though: Isn't the spilled blood even of simple animals suppossed to be able to sanctify those who were defiled? Do you even understand Hebrews 9:13?
How much more so then the blood of the Christ? Remember Hebrews 9:14? Or are you saying that a couple of pieces of roman wood would be too much for the blood of the Christ to nullify?
Oh yeah, read Matthew 5:22 while you've got your Bible open.

Cross or a Stake - which was it?

Share this