a new article for those who are interested.... http://jwsurvey.org/cedars-blog/patterson-on-the-line-watchtower-claims-that-paying-cash-bond-would-cause-immediate-irreparable-harm-and-hardship.
.
cedars.
Well, well 17$ millions of dollar ? -> http://www.easternconsolidated.com/listings/67-livingston-street?A=SearchResult&SearchID=2850320&ObjectID=5282957&ObjectType=35
I am surprised that in 2004 you can sell a property for 205 millions of dollars and have no money 8 years after ->
lawyer tells of agonising scenes as doctors forced to let a jehovah's witness who wanted to live, die.. http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-families/health-news/lawyer-tells-of-agonising-scenes-as-doctors-forced-to-let-a-jehovahs-witness-who-wanted-to-live-die-7879674.html.
a lawyer who advised doctors that they must let a 22-year-old jehovah's witness die even though he wanted to live has spoken of the agonising scenes before the young man's death.. robert tobin, a partner in the london law firm kennedys, was called in by an unnamed nhs trust when the man, a jehovahs witness who was critically ill with sickle cell anaemia, refused a blood transfusion which could have saved his life.. over three weeks the man gradually deteriorated as the crisis progressed, before eventually dying.
medical staff were understandably upset at seeing a patient deteriorate before their eyes knowing a simple procedure could have been provided that would have saved his life, mr tobin said.. the mans mother, also a jehovahs witness, was at her sons bedside, and an elder from the mans church also attended.
The change of practice that Dogpatch is talking about, dated from 2005, you can find it on the "noblood" forum, this is Jan B. Wade, a bloodless coordinator who said that:
"There has been some refinement in what a Jehovah's Witness patient may or may not accept. Some Jehovah's Witnesses may not require the blood to be kept in a directely connected line. For these patients two or three units might be removed and kept standing by in the room for reinfusion. Other patients might want the removed blood to be attached to a return line that is actually connected to their body. It is up to the individual patient to decide."
http://www.noblood.org/transfusion-alternatives/2662-question-re-hemodilution/#.T-lflfU7RDQ
I have mentionned briefly here in 2007: http://www.jehovahs-witness.net/watchtower/medical/128917/1/Hemodilution-A-new-secret-change-in-blood-Policy
if you can read french, the last story in france concerning a sexual abuse of a young girl of 10 years during the year 2000 to 2002 by a jw.
the judicial committee of the "brother" has found him repentant, even if he has abused her nearly 380 times.
it seems that they have never told it to the police because the victim has taken ten years to make it by herself:.
If you can read french, the last story in France concerning a sexual abuse of a young girl of 10 years during the year 2000 to 2002 by a JW. The judicial committee of the "brother" has found him repentant, even if he has abused her nearly 380 times. It seems that they have never told it to the police because the victim has taken ten years to make it by herself:
the latin fathers of the church has never described jesus carrying a "patibulum".
indeed, the early christians to represent jesus carrying the "crux", not the "patibulum".
it's a fact.
The French said:
For instance, Chapman deals of the various interpretations of Dt 21:22,23. And do you know what he explains about it ? Thanks to Talmud of Babylon, we know how the Jews executed this law at the time of Jesus. The sinner was hanged on a trunk, his hands bound together, above the head... Strangely, Jews have seen the application of this law in the execution of Jesus (for the jew vision, see Acts, Galatians, Talmud).
You don't seem to realise that the hanging in Dt and in rabbinic writing is the hanging of the death body of the sinner (. The sinner has been stoned to death before that.
It is not surprising that when the Talmud talk about the execution of Jesus (Sanhedrin 43a) it used the same steps: The stoning to death of Jesus before the hanging of his dead body:
"On the eve of the Passover Yeshu34 was hanged. For forty days before the execution took place, a herald went forth and cried, 'He is going forth to be stoned because he has practised sorcery and enticed Israel to apostacy. Any one who can say anything in his favour, let him come forward and plead on his behalf.' But since nothing was brought forward in his favour he was hanged on the eve of the Passover!"
So the Babylonian Talmud is useless for the determination of the shape of the "stauros" of Jesus. The author believe that Jesus was stoned and that his dead body was hanged contrary to the Bible narration.
the latin fathers of the church has never described jesus carrying a "patibulum".
indeed, the early christians to represent jesus carrying the "crux", not the "patibulum".
it's a fact.
TheFrench said:
"This is true but men who were tortured in concentration camps were only suspended by the hands. So all the weight of their bodies weighed on the hands.
In ancient times, one who was crucified could have tied or nailed feet. Which had the effect of distributing the weight on two points of support, hands and feet. Under these conditions, the agony lasts longer. This is true whatever the device (or cross post).
Therefore, any comparison must be made keeping in mind the difference."
Well, in the ancient forum jehovah.forum-religion.org in 2006 and here in 2011, i have take the time to present the work of Frank Zugibe, and whant we can conclude with it. I hope some day, you will examine my argument ?
To sum-up it. Even if the weight of the body could be important, it is clear of the experiment of Zugibe that it is the position of Jesus on the cross that it is meaningful. If jesus could not eleviated him by his arms, he suffocated as the men in the concentration camp, his feet nailed or not is not important in this case. If we want to take in consideration the weight of the body with feet nailed or not Zugibe has calculated :The tension is 3 time higher with the feet not nailed on the cross. If we consider the time that men in concentration camp take to die, and multiply it by 3, it is still to quick to Jesus to die on a stake in comparaison with the indication of the Bible. You know that since 2006, and i explain it to you in 2011. I see that in 2012, you have still not considered it, even to criticize the Zugibe's result or not.
the latin fathers of the church has never described jesus carrying a "patibulum".
indeed, the early christians to represent jesus carrying the "crux", not the "patibulum".
it's a fact.
To prove that the Pozzuoli's graffito is not a fake, you can simply go to the website of the Pozzuoli's city, it is not more difficult than that:
http://www.comune.pozzuoli.na.it/resources/documents/beni%20culturali/0010ca.htm
You have a photo of it:
So, contrary as your assertions on my forum, that the proofs of the veracity of this graffito, are "fragile", this graffito is well known in the city of Pozzuoli, as to be used as online information for tourists.
the latin fathers of the church has never described jesus carrying a "patibulum".
indeed, the early christians to represent jesus carrying the "crux", not the "patibulum".
it's a fact.
http://www.fastionline.org/docs/FOLDER-it-2008-127.pdf
I don't know if i understand clearly italian, but it seems for me that the crucified men on this roman tomb is dated from 200 B.C and not A.D (on page 7 of the Pdf document), so it has clearly a tranversal beam on this representation.
the latin fathers of the church has never described jesus carrying a "patibulum".
indeed, the early christians to represent jesus carrying the "crux", not the "patibulum".
it's a fact.
The punishment of "patibulum" or "furca" does not necessarily lead to the punishment of the cross, to death. Therefore, both punishments are different. Hence my remark : " there is no evidence (h ence my " explicitly") that this " patibulum " is the crossbar which is placed on a pole". Simply.
My remark was here to show that your opinion (, there is no evidence that this " patibulum " is the crossbar which is placed on a pole) was ironically inspired by an apostate and not clearly yours. And what you are provided now is a slightly different opinion, because Leolaia has clearly provide you with a list of latin texts where the punishment of patibulum lead to (or "explicitly linked" to) the punishment of the cross, and you have rejected them not because we have two separate instance of a punishment as you are trying to reformulate you opinion but because during the same punishment "there is no evidence that this "patibulum" is the crossbar wiche is placed on a pole", if someone read french, he could see that when i have formulated this argument before you, it was ironically, as an example of a stupid argument ("c'est fort de café") but this is exactly the path that "Jéhu/TheFrench" has taken !!!
Now concerning the punishment of "furca", i agree that it has clearly evolved during time, it was at the beginning (and during a long time) a separate punishment from the punishment of the cross.
It is strange that you are totally agree with one of the poster here, when he try to connect too quickly "xylon" with "furca" even if Plutarch is calling it "sterigma" to validate the jw's idea that Jesus has carried his stake (and not a cross), even if the description of Plutarch could perfectibly feet with the idea of a punishment of "patibulum" or "furca" ALONE, but in the same time you are totally incapable to see a kind of "norm" as Hengel stated in his book, starting event before the first century i e 1/ the flogging 2/ the carrying of the stauros 3/ the hanging on the cross etc... and in this normalisation the possibly form of the cross as we used to represent it, and as both pagan and christian's writer has testified on the second century, and even in the first century !! (remember the Pozzuelo graffito that you seems to believe that it is a fake, and for your information Guarduacci, the woman who has found the graffito, is a recognised archeologist in Italy and a specialist of the first century christians, so your comment that no specialists on the subject have known this graffito is particulary strange !!)
the latin fathers of the church has never described jesus carrying a "patibulum".
indeed, the early christians to represent jesus carrying the "crux", not the "patibulum".
it's a fact.
Also, I found out, that when koine-speaking authors were referring to patibulum they used 'xulon', not 'stauros' (particulary because the very root of the word stauros means 'stay'; 'stay' and 'stauros' share the same Proto-Indo-European root 'sta-' and have nothing to do with horizontal bar, but with something vertically staying). For instance: Plutarch, Coriolanus 24.4-5.
I Just found in this Plutarch's text, that "Furca" in latin could be translate by "sterigma" in greek.
The use of "xylon" (piece of wood) just before this passage, seems to reflect a difficulty of Plutarch to explain what is a furca, this difficulty is vividly represented in the french translation: " lui faire porter un de ces bois fourchus qui servent d'appui au timon d'un chariot,"
the latin fathers of the church has never described jesus carrying a "patibulum".
indeed, the early christians to represent jesus carrying the "crux", not the "patibulum".
it's a fact.
Sorry Leolaia, i have inspired my jw's friend Jehu on my forum (who is called "The French" here), i have said to him several days ago what he has said here:
In the texts of Plautus, for instance, the few times ( very rare : twice, I think ) where " patibulum " and " crux " are in the same text, there is no evidence (h ence my " explicitly") that this " patibulum " is the crossbar which is placed on a pole ! Same for the other Latin texts. If not, prove me wrong, I expect that. Really...
So i cite myself in french in an answer to "the_French"/Jéhu the 06/07/11 on my forum , one week before the arrival of "The-French" here:
On pourra rétorquer qu'il n'est pas dit que le supplicié est cloué sur la croix avec le patibulum, bref qu'on a eu l'idée après seulement à partir du deuxième siècle de clouer le supplicié avec le patibulum, (ce morceau de bois où il avait les mains attachés en forme de croix), cela voudrait donc dire que les auteurs chrétiens grecs qui n'ont pas de mots pour différencier "patibulum" et "crux" et qui ont mis "stauros" pour les deux, se seraient trompés, le stauros (patibulum) qu'a porté Jésus, il n'est pas mort dessus, et n'était donc pas le stauros (crux. croix ou poteau en français donc) sur laquelle on l'a suspendu. C'est un peu fort de café.
Well, in a certain manner, our Jw apologist is citing an apostate
