Posts by pirata

27

The letter I promised earlier from the Society on Blood

by ldrnomo in

there are four different links on sendspace.com .

each link is one of the pages of the letter here are the links.

page 1 http://www.sendspace.com/file/03vk19.

References for "Did Jesus Really Die on a Cross?", Watchtower 2010, Mar pp.18-20

by pirata in

i thought i'd dig up some of the references made in the.

"did jesus really die on a cross?

", watchtower 2010, mar pp.18-20interestingly 2 references are honestly quoted, but the other 2 are misquoted.. what are your thoughts on the credibility of each reference source used and why?

pirata

@Leolaia, thanks so much! I am going to take a close look at your original thread.

27

The letter I promised earlier from the Society on Blood

by ldrnomo in

there are four different links on sendspace.com .

each link is one of the pages of the letter here are the links.

page 1 http://www.sendspace.com/file/03vk19.

pirata

ldrnomo, did you ever get a chance to white out the private information and re-post the letters? I would be interested in seeing them.

29

I asked my best friend how the GB makes its decsions last night...

by dontplaceliterature in

jw
friends

my best friend does not know about my recent mental defection from the watchtower, but i am having trouble keeping my feelings from him completely....so, last night, i asked my him if he thought the governing body was always in 100% agreement about every policy/doctrine decision they make.

" i asked him how he thought they went about making those decisions and he said that, "they probably discuss it as a group, research it, read the bible together, and discuss it some more until they come to a conclusion...just like a boe would when deciding a judicial matter.

" i said: "don't you think that if they were jehovah's 'mouth-piece' and they are indeed being guided by jesus christ and holy spirit, that there would be no doubt about what the right course of action is?

pirata

Regular family worship is a good opportunity to discuss a lot of issues and build rapport.

Look at Blood doctrine, from the beginning, tracing it's development to current day.

Based on that watchtower that says it's okay to accept minor blood fractions because minor blood fractions are "naturally" passed from mother to fetus, do a bit of side research and discover that white blood cells are passed from mother to infant in breast milk. Also discover, on the side, the societies changing stand on organ transplants.

You may find these threads useful:

http://www.jehovahs-witness.net/watchtower/medical/189478/1/Blood-Question

http://www.jehovahs-witness.net/watchtower/medical/189484/1/The-meaning-of-abstain-from-blood

http://www.jehovahs-witness.net/watchtower/medical/191562/1/Why-does-Acts-15-29-differentiate-things-strangled-from-blood

http://www.jehovahs-witness.net/jw/friends/198908/1/Watchtower-Letter-Shows-Blood-Doctrine-Is-False

http://www.jehovahs-witness.net/jw/friends/85467/1/Need-help-in-discussing-the-blood-issue-with-some-friends

http://www.jehovahs-witness.net/jw/friends/193560/1/Monkeys-in-a-Cage

Also, The chapter on Blood Transfusions in "In Search of Christian Freedom" has a good scriptural discussion as well. Available as PDF @ http://www.commentarypress.com/

Good luck. I've been trying to share these "interesting discoveries" with my mate for over a year with seemingly little effect. Drip, drip, drip and see what happens.

32

References for "Did Jesus Really Die on a Cross?", Watchtower 2010, Mar pp.18-20

by pirata in

i thought i'd dig up some of the references made in the.

"did jesus really die on a cross?

", watchtower 2010, mar pp.18-20interestingly 2 references are honestly quoted, but the other 2 are misquoted.. what are your thoughts on the credibility of each reference source used and why?

pirata

I think it does matter for one reason, it shows the academic integrity of the Watchtower's presentation. The argumentation is one-sided, there is not a fair comparison between opposing references, and the opposing references that are used are cherry-picked to look like they support the opposite view of what they actually do.

Growing up, I thought that this was how you were supposed to right essays. Then in high school I learned that you are supposed to consider both sides of the issue and make up your mind from those. I got a really poor mark in one assignment because I presented both sides of the argument, then said I agree with stand A because I am a JW. The teacher gave me a zero on that section because he said I didn't even bother thinking about the two sides. That was a wake up call for me that I would continue to remember over the years.

My focus was mainly about the integrity of the sources:

W.E. Vine presents a 3rd C. Apostasy theory that the cross symbol was pagan and borrowed. But no evidence presented. E.W. Bullinger argues that the word never meant two pieces of wood at an angle, but provides no evidence to back up that statement. He says the T comes form the pagan God Tammuz, but with no evidence to back that up either.

Patrick Fairburn and the Catholic Encyclopaedia cite some evidence to show that crosses were in use as execution devices in the 1st c.

32

References for "Did Jesus Really Die on a Cross?", Watchtower 2010, Mar pp.18-20

by pirata in

i thought i'd dig up some of the references made in the.

"did jesus really die on a cross?

", watchtower 2010, mar pp.18-20interestingly 2 references are honestly quoted, but the other 2 are misquoted.. what are your thoughts on the credibility of each reference source used and why?

pirata

I thought I'd dig up some of the references made in the

"Did Jesus Really Die on a Cross?", Watchtower 2010, Mar pp.18-20

Interestingly 2 references are honestly quoted, but the other 2 are misquoted.

What are your thoughts on the credibility of each reference source used and why? I noticed that the references that assert that 'stauros' was only a pole or stake in the 1st century did not include any references to back them up.

My impression so far is that the t shape cross was likely already in use by the 1st century and Jesus may have dies on a pole, or maybe a cross (though I'm not sure how one guy could have carried that friggin long pole by themselves). Whether or not it was a stake or a cross doesn't really matter at all because their shouldn't be idols of either... anyways here's the references (the direct quote is in bold):

"Did Jesus Really Die on a Cross?", Watchtower 2010, Mar pp.18-20

'The Imperial Bible Dictionary' (p.18)

"Cross", Reverend Patrick Fairburn, The Imperial Bible Dictionary, London, 1866, p.376

The Greek word for cross, oravpos, properly signified a stake, and upright pole, or piece of paling, on which anything might be hung, or which might be used in impaling a piece of ground. But a modification was introduced as the dominion and usages of Rome extended themselves through Greek-speaking countries. Even amongst the Romans the crux (from which our cross is derived) appears to have been originally an upright pole, and this always remained the prominent part. But from the time that it began to be used as an instrument of punishment, a transverse piece of wood was commonly added; not, however, always even then. For it would seem that there were mored kinds of death than one by the cross: this being sometimes accomplished by transfixing the criminal with a pole, which was run through his back and spine, and came out at his mouth. (adactum per medium hominem, qui per os emergat, stipitem, Seneca, Ep. XIV) In another place (Consol, ad Marciam, xx.) Seneca mentions three different forms: "I see", says he, "three rent ways: one sort suspending by the head persons bent towards the earth, others transfixing them through their secret parts, others extending their arms on a paibulum." There can be no doubt, however, that the latter sort was the more common, and that abou the period of the gospel age, crucifixion was usually accomplished by suspending the criminal on a cross piece of wood.

'A Critical Lexicon and Concordance to the English and Greek New Testament' (p.18)

"TREE", E. W. Bullinger, A Critical Lexicon and Concordance to the English and Greek New Testament, pp.818-819

wood i.e. for fuel, timber; 'then' anything made of wood; 'here' a piece of timber, a wooden stake (a) ['used here for the oravpos' on which Jesus was crucified. Both words disagree with the modern idea of a cross, with which we have become familiarised by pictures. The oravpos was simply 'an upright pole or stake' to which the Romans nailed those who were thus said to be crucified, 'Eravpow, merely means to drive through stakes.' It never means two pieces of wood joining each other at any angle. Even the latin word 'crux' means a mere stake. The initial letter X (chi) of Xpioros (Christ) was anciently used for his name, until it was displaced by the T, the intial of the Pagan God Tammuz, about the end of cent. iv.]

'The Catholic Encyclopedia' (p.19)

"Cross and Crucifix in Archæology", The Catholic Encyclopedia, 1914 ed. Jan 9 2011, http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04517a.htm

The penalty of the cross goes back probably to the arbor infelix, or unhappy tree, spoken of by Cicero (Pro, Rabir., iii sqq.) and by Livy, apropos of the condemnation of Horatius after the murder of his sister. According to Hüschke (Die Multa, 190) the magistrates known as duoviri perduellionis pronounced this penalty (cf. Liv., I, 266), styled also infelix lignem (Senec., Ep. ci; Plin., XVI, xxvi; XXIV, ix; Macrob., II, xvi). This primitive form of crucifixion on trees was long in use, as Justus Lipsius notes ("De cruce", I, ii, 5; Tert., "Apol.", VIII, xvi; and "Martyrol. Paphnut." 25 Sept.). Such a tree was known as a cross (crux). On an ancient vase we see Prometheus bound to a beam which serves the purpose of a cross. A somewhat different form is seen on an ancient cist at Præneste (Palestrina), upon which Andromeda is represented nude, and bound by the feet to an instrument of punishment like a military yoke -- i.e. two parallel, perpendicular stakes, surmounted by a transverse bar. Certain it is, at any rate, that the cross originally consisted of a simple vertical pole, sharpened at its upper end. Mæcenas (Seneca, Epist. xvii, 1, 10) calls it acuta crux; it could also be called crux simplex. To this upright pole a transverse bar was afterwards added to which the sufferer was fastened with nails or cords, and thus remained until he died, whence the expression cruci figere or affigere (Tac., "Ann.", XV, xliv; Potron., "Satyr.", iii) The cross, especially in the earlier times, was generally low. it was elevated only in exceptional cases, particularly whom it was desired to make the punishment more exemplary or when the crime was exceptionally serious. Suetonius (Galba, ix) tells us that Galba did this in the case of a certain criminal for whom he caused to be made a very high cross painted white -- "multo præter cætteras altiorem et dealbatam statui crucem jussit".

'Greek Scholar W.E. Vine' (p.18), 'Vine's Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words' (p.19)

"Cross, Crucify [Noun], W.E. Vine, 'Vine's Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words', 1997, Thomas Nelson, pp.248-249

stauros denotes, primarily, "an upright pale or stake." On such malefactors were nailed for execution. Both the noun and the verb stauroo, "to fasten to a stake or pale," are originally to be distinguished from the ecclesiastical form of a two beamed "cross." The shape of the latter had its origin in ancient Chaldea, and was used as the symbol of the god Tammuz (being in the shape of the mystic Tau, the initial of his name) in that country and in adjacent lands, including Egypt. By the middle of the 3rd cent. A.D. the churches had either departed from, or had travestied, certain doctrines of the Christian faith. In order to increase the prestige of the apostate ecclesiastical system pagans were received into the churches apart from regeneration by faith, and were permitted largely to retain their pagan signs and symbols. Hence the Tau or T, in its most frequent form, with the cross-piece lowered, was adopted to stand for the "cross" of Christ.

As for the Chi, or X, which Constantine declared he had seen in a vision leading him to champion the Christian faith, that letter was the initial of the word "Christ" and had nothing to do with "the Cross" (for xulon, "a timber beam, a tree," as used for the stauros, see under TREE).

44

The Phasing Out Of The Public Watchtower Magazine

by dontplaceliterature in

i've been thinking about this for a while now.

it seems to me that the wtbts is taking steps towards phasing out public editions of the watchtower.. here are a couple of points of evidence to see there is a real possibilty for a move in this direction:.

1. the monthly "start bible studies on the initial call service day" is evidence of a more direct drive to recruit new members.

pirata

I wouldn't be suprised to see the Public Edition of the Watchtower and Awake merged together. There's no real need to keep them seperate since they both target the general public.

51

New Board members within the last 1 year.....

by stuckinamovement in

jw
friends

i can't believe the amount of new posters this board is getting.

it seems as if every day there are at least 2 to 3.. if you are a new poster, what made you decide to stop lurking and start posting?

how many of us are there that have joined in the last year?.

pirata

I joined 12/31/2009, close enough to 2010?

A while back I, in one day, I learned more about my religion from wikipedia than I had ever known. I honestly think that if it was not for Wikipedia's fair and neutral POV articles, I might not have made my way here. I then started to google topics mentioned for which I could not find any balanced information on (ie. considers both sides of the arguments) in the Watchtower Library. Google led me here. I lurked for a while until I learned enough to lose my fear of joining and posting.

18

Awake 2010 claims Canadian University can't find young men who haven't seen Porn....Witnesses?

by Witness 007 in

i read this and had a good laugh!!

awake 2010 p.13 "canadian researchers want to find out the effects of pornography on men.

- "we started our research seeking men in their twenties who had never consumed pornography, but we couldn't find any.