Posts by CalebInFloroda

24

The Romans did not crucify robbers

by purrpurr in

i've been reading a book called nonsense from the bible.

in it it makes the point that the romans did not crucify robbers.

having since researched this it seems this is true.

CalebInFloroda

Thanks, Faye. I got some help from some exJWs when I first left that helped me healed and move on some 20 years ago. Just passing it on.

24

The Romans did not crucify robbers

by purrpurr in

i've been reading a book called nonsense from the bible.

in it it makes the point that the romans did not crucify robbers.

having since researched this it seems this is true.

Actually the expression "tau" in reference to the cross does not imply that it was not a traditional cross with a headpiece that allowed an additional inscription to be nailed about the head. It is merely used in academia to give a general idea of the shape, especially in reference to comparisons with the "iota" shape of a pale.

24

The Romans did not crucify robbers

by purrpurr in

i've been reading a book called nonsense from the bible.

in it it makes the point that the romans did not crucify robbers.

having since researched this it seems this is true.

CalebInFloroda

@John Aquila

The confusion among the JWs is actually a very telling mistake.

The Jews of the Second Temple era spoke Aramiac, mixed with Hebrew. The Romans spoke Latin. But the official language of writing was still Greek, the language of Alexander the Great who, though a Greek, paved the way for the Roman Empire and was still highly regarded after his death.

However holding on to Greek as the literary language was much like the use of Ecclesiastical Latin became centuries later. Most people in Rome didn't read, and those who did may have read only vernacular Latin with enough Greek to get by. And Rome had invented new technological advances, especially in warfare, that didn't exist in the Hellenistic world of Alexander and had no Greek words for them.

So the gospel writers used two Greek words for the cross, since the device did not exist in Alexander's time: STAUROS and XYLON. The first word meant "pale," a simple stake upon which criminals or their heads were sometimes tied or nailed to, and the other word meant "tree" in the sense of a dead tree trunk. The "T" shaped device had no word in the Greek at all.

The Witnesses, having no language scholars or background in history, simply opened a lexicon and read that the Greek word, STAUROS, meant "pale or stake." So they claim that the Devil and his Christian minions hide the fact from the world that Jesus really died on a stake. I mean, you can look it up for yourself in any Greek lexicon and verify it for yourself that the Greek word STAUROS does indeed mean "stake." Argument closed, right?

This is where being a language scholar is so important. Scholars know that the events described didn't happen in a Greek-speaking word. Jesus spoke Hebrew-Aramaic and the Romans spoke Latin. When the Romans pulled out the device upon which Jesus was nailed they called it a "crux," and there wasn't even a Jewish word for it then.

Because the official written language of the Roman world was Greek, the gospel writers did what you always do when you translate things from one language to another: use the best equivalent you have despite the fact that you will lose something in the translation.

Besides, we have evidence of crucifixion, secular accounts, etc., so why wouldn't anyone not understand these things?

Well, JWs obviously get blinded by that egotistical view "I looked it up and saw it with my own eyes, so I know the truth." The problem is that unless you know how to use a lexicon along with etymology then you will make many mistakes like the JWs did. It takes a translator, an etymologist, and a philologist along with a cultural specialist and a theologian who is an expert exegete in order to properly translate any Scripture text. That's a lot of educated specialists. Anyone can look up a word in a book, but it takes trained critical thinkers to put the data together properly, and the JWs have none.

The JWs missed the logical step of remembering that Greek is merely a translation of the events and that the words used were archaic or at least not always compatible with what was happening in the first century. Anyone can look up anything in a book, but that doesn't make you a scholar unless you can use it like a scholar.

24

The Romans did not crucify robbers

by purrpurr in

i've been reading a book called nonsense from the bible.

in it it makes the point that the romans did not crucify robbers.

having since researched this it seems this is true.

CalebInFloroda

@Diogenesister

Jewish historical accounts outside of the New Testsment testify to the typical treatment of Jews by the Roman State. There are many accounts, and even the Jewish Encyclopedia admits to this under the subject "crucifixion":

"The following crimes entailed this penalty: piracy, highway robbery, assassination, forgery, false testimony, mutiny, high treason, rebellion." Among the sources, the JE cites Jospehus, "B.J." v. 11, section 1.

So it is not due to reading the New Testament that it seems likely that Jesus was executed with petty criminals. I was simply stating that since this was the common type of criminal from among Jews that the Romans executed it isn't illogical to conclude that Jesus of Nazareth's crucifixion stood out as a high-profile execution among infamous individuals.

I don't doubt you are quite studious, and that you've read many books. Jewish accounts about the treatment we experienced is usually not detailed outside of Jewry with much accuracy, even among historians. This is often due to the complexity of the records and the language in which they are written, and largely due to the fact that Jews make up around only 1% or so of the population.

24

The Romans did not crucify robbers

by purrpurr in

i've been reading a book called nonsense from the bible.

in it it makes the point that the romans did not crucify robbers.

having since researched this it seems this is true.

CalebInFloroda

And, since I forgot to include this, the part about crucifying thieves:

Knowing they would have to cut the execution short by at least 3 p.m., due to Sabbatical preparation, and the fact that you only hung local criminals on crosses (the people would not be affected as much by seeing the death of a Gentile, for instance), what sort of Jews would be available for crucifixion on this day?

It was indeed a custom to pardon horrible criminals on Passover, so it was not likely that such a criminal deserving of this type of death would be available. And crimes among the Jews were somewhat limited in scope due to the fear most had of breaking the Mosaic Law. It also stands to make the death of Jesus even more shameful by executing him not with muderers but with common thieves, the leftovers of the criminal world. Why not? It was going to be a short day of executions anyway.

24

The Romans did not crucify robbers

by purrpurr in

i've been reading a book called nonsense from the bible.

in it it makes the point that the romans did not crucify robbers.

having since researched this it seems this is true.

CalebInFloroda

Actually from a Jewish perspective, may I add that our history is clear that the Romans used crucifixion any damn way the pleased.

While Jesus may be the most famous Jew ever crucified, he was definitely not the only one. Many Jews were put to death in this agonizing fashion. While crucifixion was officially reserved for crimes which required capital punishment, this was not always the case unfortunately. Romans were no different from people of today who bend the rules and allow power to go to their heads to the point of abusing it and the people under them.

While I don't believe Jesus was the Messiah, of course, as a Jew I can attest that the details of the crucifixion attributed to this case do suggest he was crucified with theives. The fact that an order to break their legs due to the coming Passover is something that implies a good knowledge of what crucifixion both does and why breaking legs was necessary before the Passover.

The cross had a tiny footrest of sorts (sometimes the legs were just slightly bent at the knees instead) in order to agonizingly delay death by asphyxiation. Not being able to fully stand made the lungs fill and the person slowly drowned in their own bodily fluids. If they could fully stand and bring their arms in, they could stop this process and recover, but since they were nailed in this position with their arms outstretched it became impossible. Death could take days.

But since Rome recognized Judaism as an official relgion of the state, crucifixions in the vicinity of the Temple in Jerusalem had to be cut short when a Sabbath or other holy day approached. The Law forbid hanging people on a Sabbath. Romans had learned that by breaking the legs the lungs would instantly flood with bodily fluids and blood and the person would basically drown. So when something like the Passover arrived, the Romans were all too happy to oblige to clear away the crucified in this way as they were equally satisfied to watch the horrific struggle for air that would follow.

It is also a peculiar note that the Gospels report that upon using a spear to determine if Jesus was dead that water and blood are spoken of as being released. (John 19.34) This suggests that the lung was pierced, and this is at least consistent with what is to be expected from death by crucifixion.

117

Is homosexuality ever justifiable? I say YES!!!

by TimothyT in

in the january 2012 awake, pages 28-29 there is another article about homosexuality.. .

the writers argue that genetics, the environment, and sexual abuse do not justify homosexuality.

the bible clearly states that homosexuality is wrong and is an abhorrent sin.

CalebInFloroda

Oh, and from another member of the "family," may I say: Mazel Tov!

117

Is homosexuality ever justifiable? I say YES!!!

by TimothyT in

in the january 2012 awake, pages 28-29 there is another article about homosexuality.. .

the writers argue that genetics, the environment, and sexual abuse do not justify homosexuality.

the bible clearly states that homosexuality is wrong and is an abhorrent sin.

CalebInFloroda

If I may insert a couple of things here from my background in both philology and as a Jew, and the fact that our holiday Sukkot is coming around the corner (which I am currently preparing for).

The word in Revelation 21.3 is NOT describing the Tabernacle. It is a SUKKAH in Hebrew, the type of tent set up during SUKKOT when we Jews celebrate the Festival of Tents/Tabernacles/Booths (why Gentiles have so many names for Sukkot is beyond me). The Greek equivalent of a "sukkah" is SKENE (pronounced "skaynay").

Because Revelation is speaking of G-d coming to dwell or living among us, it is speaking of an action, one actually associated with celebrating a feast (as a SKENE or a sukkah is often set up for other types of celebrations, even among Gentiles). The author of Revelation is borrowing from Jewish eschatology regarding Olam Ha Ba, of "the World to Come." In Revelation the author reverses the arrangement of the Temple wherein people had to travel often great distances to eat and feast at the Temple building in Jerusalem "where God dwelt."

But now G-d comes to humans to participate in the banquet. It is as if G-d comes to participate in an eternal celebration of Sukkot, but this is not likely a picture of the Third Temple. SKENE is used In Revelation in connection with an action (to set up a sukkah) which is different from saying people are going to a Temple.

The Third Temple is never described in the Hebrew Scriptures as a sukkah, always a Temple. The days of G-d dwelling in a tabernacle ended with the Davidic dynasty, and the only time it is ever spoken of in great detail is in the book of Hebrews where the author uses it instead of the Temple, claiming that Christianity is greater than the Tabernacle arrangement (oddly the author of Hebrews never speaks of the Temple).

As for the Bible and its use in religions regarding homosexuality: Judaism was one of the first (some claim the first) of the mainstream religions to fully accept homosexuals. The recent marriage equality changes in the United States were heavily and publicly lobbied for by Jewish denominations and movements in America. While Orthodox Jews still are on the fence at best (very much in the same place Catholicism dwells on the subject) with some still adamantly against it, universally in Judaism there is no recognition of homosexuality being prohibited in Scripture per se. The texts in the Hebrew Scriptures used by Christian groups as prohibitions against homosexuality, such as in Leviticus 18, are seen as limited instruction to Levitcal priests or misinterpretations in Judaism. It is due to this realization in that Conservative, Reform, Reconstructionist and Post Denominational Jews have welcomed gays among their groups and why the Orthodox are left struggling with the issue.

The Bible is not necessarily the problem.

16

Contradicting Governing Body Members

by Illuminated in

so we've heard from three different governing body members this year regarding child sexual abuse.. the latest one on the rc admitted there's a sexual abuse problem within the cult, yet lett and morris swept the dirt under the carpet stating they have a great reputation as far as sex abuse is concerned, and pointed their fingers at "apostate lies".

.

i'm left totally confused at the contradiction of this "organization"..

CalebInFloroda

In a way I found all the contradictions and lies as somewhat reassuring on a level I never expected.

Mind you, I've not been anywhere near these people in about 20 years, and I had even ignored them until 2014 came around and I suddenly remembered that a JW told me that it would be impossible for Jehovah or Jesus to let this system of things last anywhere near 2014. I've known they lie and cheat and hate for some time.

But hearing Jackson contradict what other Governing Body members had said about the sexual child abuse crimes in their midst and listening to him say how it would be "presumptuous" of them to claim what they have been claiming all this time, that they are Jehovah's mouthpiece and the only true religion--that did something further for me.

I've lost all care about them as human beings. All respect, all concern, everything that is there inside of me for people I do not even know, all that disappeared and it was like the door finally closed on this chapter in my life--and again I thought the door was closed for me 20 years ago when I left!

While the Catholic Church no longer considers itself the only conduit of truth, it still claims to be the original historical church body Jesus founded and the Pope still claims to be the Vicar of Christ. Hearing Jackson lie about what the Governing Body claims it is and contradicting statements of other Governing Body members would be like the Pope saying: "It would be preposterous for us to believe we are the historical church founded by Christ and for me to claim to be Christ's Vicar."

I'm not a Christian as most of you know, but that would unwind everything about the Church and its claims for the past 2000 years, wouldn't it? And I don't think any pope is cowardly enough to back down from testifying to what they believe about themselves and their religion.

To hear Jackson do that made me see him and the rest of the Governing Body and their followers as dead. Their religion is more than proven false now to me, it is finished. It's over. They are now just some crazy folks. They are as nutty as that Orthodox Jew who went through the gay pride parade in Israel several days back stabbing people because he believed it was G-d's will (for those who don't know, I'm both gay and a practicing Jew). These fanatical Jews who live as if time has stood still (or should stand still) are the JWs of Jewry, and we often sigh over them just like many do the JWs.

What Jackson did was just like that. It was as if he went through a crowd of his own people, those who have believed in and have pride in every word the Governing Body teaches and stabbed them in the back. He did more than deny his faith, he denied those who have put so much faith in him and the Governing Body and the whole JW set-up. He stabbed all those people, his fellow Governing Body members, and then cut his throat in front of everybody with his "Us? The ones Jehovah speaks through? Preposterous!" comment.

It was like there was one lone lamp left on in a hidden room in my attic, a lamp I had forgotten that spread a very weak and wasted light. And suddenly, with Jackson's words, the lamp went out--but it went out because the lamp managed to push itself off a table and smash its own lightbulb. Stupid lamp!

I don't know how to really put it, but it's like they don't exist anymore. I know they do, but those people just don't matter anymore.

To me they have proven themselves nothing but impotent.

15

New Catholic tribunal formed

by OrphanCrow in

this happened in the month prior to the jws giving testimony for the royal commission - the article was published june 10, 2015. it is interesting to note that this catholic tribunal is for addressing those priests who cover up child abuse.

pope francis makes catholic bishops who cover up for paedophile priests accountable for first time with new tribunal system.

pope francis has taken a major step towards stamping out paedophilia in the catholic church, approving a new system of tribunals designed to make bishops accountable for the priests under them.the new and unprecedented vatican legal mechanism will hear the cases against bishops accused of covering up paedophile priests who abuse children on their watch.the church has previously faced criticism for failing to hold those in higher positions accountable for what goes on in their bishoprics.the vatican said pope francis was presented with the tribunal proposals by cardinal sean omalley, who he appointed as head of a new sex abuse advisory commission in december 2013.francis and his cardinal advisers approved the plans and allocated funding for full-time personnel to staff the new office.the vatican spokesman, rev federico lombardi, said this means there is now a specific process by which the vatican can deal with bishops who are negligent in handling cases of abuse in their territories.canon law already does provide sanctions for bishops who are negligent in their duties, but the vatican has never been known to mete out punishment for a bishop who covered up for an abuser.previously, the closest francis had come was in april, when he accepted the resignation of a us bishop found to have failed to report a suspected child abuser.

CalebInFloroda

@Vidiot

You are correct.

The belief that one's religion is the "one true faith" is called "triumphalism," and it is now forbidden in the Roman Catholic Church as is proselytism, which is evangelizing by employing techniques that compares "our true religion" with "your false religion."

The Roman Catholic Church, since Vatican II and especially since the reigns of St. Pope John Paul the Great and now Pope Francis teaches that G-d is not limited by denominational lines or any particular means in G-d's distribution of "truth," which the RCC refers to as "the economy of salvation."

This change in doctrine includes the view that people can fulfill G-d's purpose in ways not understood by the Church, and that the Church relies on the fact that the covenant between G-d and the Jews is still intact (which is also why attempts to convert the Jews is a big "no-no" now in Catholic circles).