Posts by Robert_V

I haven't seen any WT literature since 1991, so I really don't know what they've said since or continue to say. I would really love it if someone can post post-1991 stuff where they justify their belief that crux and stauros did not mean cross.

There hasn't been all that much, and what there is just rehashes the same tired, refuted bilge as before. Here it is:

*** w92 11/15 p. 7 The Cross—Symbol of Christianity? ***
The Cross—Symbol of Christianity?
FOR centuries multitudes have accepted the cross as a symbol of Christianity. But is it really? Many who have sincerely believed so are quite surprised to learn that the cross is not at all unique to Christendom. On the contrary, it has been widely used in non-Christian religions all over the world.
For example, in the early 1500’s, as Hernán Cortés and his "Christian" army prepared to attack the Aztec Empire‚ they carried banners proclaiming, "Let us follow the sign of the Holy Cross in true faith, for under this sign we shall conquer." They must have been surprised to find that their pagan enemies venerated a cross not unlike their own. The book Great Religions of the World says: "Cortés and his followers recoiled from human sacrifices of the Aztecs and what seemed like satanic parodies of Christianity: . . . venerating crosslike symbols of wind and rain gods."
In an editorial in the newspaper La Nación, writer José Alberto Furque points out that in the second half of the 18th century, there began "a fiery and exciting debate among anthropologists and archaeologists on the origins and meaning of the cruciform signs" they were finding across much of Central and South America. Apparently some had been so eager to protect the status of the cross as a uniquely "Christian" symbol that they propounded the theory that somehow the Americas had been evangelized before Columbus’ landmark voyage! This farfetched notion had to be discarded as unfounded.
In time, further discoveries in the field put all such debate to rest. Furque notes: "In a work published in 1893 by the Smithsonian Institution, it was established that the cross was already venerated . . . long before the arrival of the first Europeans in North America‚ which confirms the theory . . . that such a symbol appeared in all communities as part of cultic worship of the forces that originate life."
The Bible shows that Jesus was not executed on a conventional cross at all but, rather, on a simple stake, or stau·ros´. This Greek word, appearing at Matthew 27:40‚ basically means a simple upright beam or pole, such as those used in building foundations. Hence, the cross never represented true Christianity. Jesus Christ identified the real symbol, or "mark," of true Christianity when he told his followers: "By this all will know that you are my disciples‚ if you have love among yourselves."—John 13:35.

*** w95 5/15 p. 20 Part 1—Flashes of Light—Great and Small ***
The Cross—Not a Christian Symbol
19
For many years the Bible Students made the cross prominent as a symbol of Christianity. They even had a "cross-and-crown" pin. According to the King James Version, Jesus asked his followers to take up their "cross," and many came to believe that he was executed on a cross. (Matthew 16:24; 27:32) For decades this symbol also appeared on the cover of the Watch Tower magazine.
20
The book Riches, published by the Society in 1936, made clear that Jesus Christ was executed, not on a cross, but on an upright pole, or stake. According to one authority, the Greek word (stau·ros´) rendered "cross" in the King James Version "denotes, primarily, an upright pale or stake. [It is] to be distinguished from the ecclesiastical form of a two beamed cross. . . . The latter had its origin in ancient Chaldea, and was used as the symbol of the god Tammuz." Far from being idolized, the instrument on which Jesus was impaled should be viewed with revulsion.
19, 20. Why can the cross not be a symbol of true Christianity?

*** rq (What Does God Require of Us?) lesson 11 p. 23 par. 6 Beliefs and Customs That Displease God ***
6. Cross: Jesus did not die on a cross. He died on a pole, or a stake. The Greek word translated "cross" in many Bibles meant just one piece of timber. The symbol of the cross comes from ancient false religions. The cross was not used or worshiped by the early Christians. Therefore, do you think it would be right to use a cross in worship?—Deuteronomy 7:26; 1 Corinthians 10:14.

*** bh (What Does the Bible Really Teach?) pp. 204-206 Why True Christians Do Not Use the Cross in Worship ***
Why True Christians Do Not Use the Cross in Worship
THE cross is loved and respected by millions of people. The Encyclopædia Britannica calls the cross "the principal symbol of the Christian religion." Nevertheless, true Christians do not use the cross in worship. Why not?
An important reason is that Jesus Christ did not die on a cross. The Greek word generally translated "cross" is stau·ros´. It basically means "an upright pale or stake." The Companion Bible points out: "[Stau·ros´] never means two pieces of timber placed across one another at any angle . . . There is nothing in the Greek of the [New Testament] even to imply two pieces of timber."
In several texts, Bible writers use another word for the instrument of Jesus’ death. It is the Greek word xy´lon. (Acts 5:30; 10:39; 13:29; Galatians 3:13; 1 Peter 2:24) This word simply means "timber" or "a stick, club, or tree."
Explaining why a simple stake was often used for executions, the book Das Kreuz und die Kreuzigung (The Cross and the Crucifixion), by Hermann Fulda, states: "Trees were not everywhere available at the places chosen for public execution. So a simple beam was sunk into the ground. On this the outlaws, with hands raised upward and often also with their feet, were bound or nailed."
The most convincing proof of all, however, comes from God’s Word. The apostle Paul says: "Christ by purchase released us from the curse of the Law by becoming a curse instead of us, because it is written: ‘Accursed is every man hanged upon a stake ["a tree," King James Version].’" (Galatians 3:13) Here Paul quotes Deuteronomy 21:22, 23, which clearly refers to a stake, not a cross. Since such a means of execution made the person "a curse," it would not be proper for Christians to decorate their homes with images of Christ impaled.
There is no evidence that for the first 300 years after Christ’s death, those claiming to be Christians used the cross in worship. In the fourth century, however, pagan Emperor Constantine became a convert to apostate Christianity and promoted the cross as its symbol. Whatever Constantine’s motives, the cross had nothing to do with Jesus Christ. The cross is, in fact, pagan in origin. The New Catholic Encyclopedia admits: "The cross is found in both pre-Christian and non-Christian cultures." Various other authorities have linked the cross with nature worship and pagan sex rites.
Why, then, was this pagan symbol promoted? Apparently, to make it easier for pagans to accept "Christianity." Nevertheless, devotion to any pagan symbol is clearly condemned by the Bible. (2 Corinthians 6:14-18) The Scriptures also forbid all forms of idolatry. (Exodus 20:4, 5; 1 Corinthians 10:14) With very good reason, therefore, true Christians do not use the cross in worship.
[Footnote]
For a more detailed discussion of the cross, see pages 89-93 of the book Reasoning From the Scriptures, published by Jehovah’s Witnesses.

Robert V Frazier

35

The NWT....

by Sunspot in

is it really a scholarly translation?.

(excerps taken from) .

http://www.xmark.com/focus/pages/jehovahs.html.

Robert_V_Frazier

inquirer:

Is there anyone on here that LIKES the NWT, apart from me?

I hope not!

I think the NIV is extremely biased, how that is one of the best selling Bibles, I'll never know. How people can read a Bible that says "thee" and "thou like the King James Version is beyond comprehension.

I think you must be confusing the NIV with the NASB. There are no "thees" or "thous" in the NIV. Nor is it "extremely biased". It was done with the deliberate intention of minimizing any doctrinal or denominational bias, and it does a good job on that score.

Robert V Frazier

6

A modest proposal

by Robert_V_Frazier in

no, all of you jonathan swift fans, i'm not proposing that we start eating jw's.

they probably taste terrible, anyway.. .

i propose that the society extend its disfellowshipping policy, and start formally disfellowshipping "old light" expired dogmas.

Robert_V_Frazier

That's true, ballistic, they do say that about certain dogmas. But then they said exactly the same about every one of the dogmas that are now rejected as obsolete, what we non-JW's call "old light". What guarantee is there that some future incarnation of the GB won't reject one or more of the dogmas the current GB regards as sacrosanct?

There is none!

Robert V Frazier The Watchtower is not the instrument of any man or any set of men, nor is it published according to the whims of men. No man's opinion is expressed in The Watchtower. (The Watchtower, 1931 November 1 p.327) If you believe that, you'll believe ANYTHING!

6

A modest proposal

by Robert_V_Frazier in

no, all of you jonathan swift fans, i'm not proposing that we start eating jw's.

they probably taste terrible, anyway.. .

i propose that the society extend its disfellowshipping policy, and start formally disfellowshipping "old light" expired dogmas.

Robert_V_Frazier

No, all of you Jonathan Swift fans, I'm not proposing that we start eating JW's. They probably taste terrible, anyway.

I propose that the Society extend its disfellowshipping policy, and start formally disfellowshipping "old light" expired dogmas. Instead of perpetually leaving people, both inside and outside of the JW's, wondering if this or that statement of belief in some WTBS publication that's older than last week is still operative, they could make a column in The Watchtower magazine which formally and officially disfellowships beliefs that are no longer to be believed.

The format could be:

1) A brief statement of the "old light" idea that is no longer operative.

2) An exact quote, with references, to where it was first published and most recently published (this would be the same quote, for some ideas, but two separate quotes for most).

3) The tagline, "This teaching is no longer among the official teachings of the Jehovah's Witnesses."

That way, everyone would know where they stand. JW's wouldn't have to wonder, "Has that idiotic teaching this opposer is bringing up been superceded by new light? Or should I still defend it as the Truth?" Opposers could choose not to bring up disfellowshipped doctrines, to save time and energy to discuss current ones. Think of what a great feature this would be!

And just think: each and every dogma, doctrine, hypothesis, guess, and fancy notion that JW's defend to their last dying breath today, could EASILY be printed in the "Disfellowshipped Doctrines" column of next week's Watchtower!

Robert V Frazier The Watchtower is not the instrument of any man or any set of men, nor is it published according to the whims of men. No man's opinion is expressed in The Watchtower. (The Watchtower, 1931 November 1 p.327) If you believe that, you'll believe ANYTHING!

9

My fellow frustrated computer users...I am making a short movie..need help

by DigitalFokus in

my laptop has restarted on me for the last time and its going to die.

from droping my internet connection after typing a long post out and then losing my entire post to freezing to the all the other horribly frustrating problems a pc has.. i have had enough.

this computer is going to die.

Robert_V_Frazier

I thought of Wagner's "Flight of the Valkeries" just before reading the opera suggestion. Robert V Frazier

12

Attacking Satan by drawing scary pictures

by hallelujah in

.

i was watching pictures of the stampedes at the haj and it occurred to me that throwing stones at the pillar of satan was a really ineffective way of dealing with evil in the world.

it occurs to me that drawing scary pictures of satan in the watchtower is similarly ineffective in combating evil.. any thoughts?

Robert_V_Frazier

Householder to JW: "So, if I buy one of your crappy magazines, will you get your multi-headed demon snake thingy pet off my lawn?" Robert V Frazier

24

WT Cover image needed - PUT FAITH IN A VICTORIOUS ORGANIZATION

by VM44 in

does anyone have a link to an image of the watchtower with the "put faith in a victorious organization" article?

.

--vm44

Robert_V_Frazier

With thanks to kid-A for inspiring this:

http://img142.imageshack.us/my.php?image=1914gen20244gc.jpg If anyone can get this to actually show up in a post in this thread, please do! I can't do it.

Robert V Frazier

5

JW botany

by Robert_V_Frazier in

http://www.christiandiscussionforums.org/v/showthread.php?p=27481#poststop .

in which a gung-ho jw apologist tells us that an adult plant has different dna from that of the seed it grew from.. .

because grown-up plants don't look like big seeds, and the watchtower once quoted from an article in the world book encyclopedia mentioning "chemical changes" in a germinating seed!.

Robert_V_Frazier

http://www.christiandiscussionforums.org/v/showthread.php?p=27481#poststop

In which a gung-ho JW apologist tells us that an adult plant has different DNA from that of the seed it grew from.

Because grown-up plants don't look like big seeds, and The Watchtower once quoted from an article in The World Book Encyclopedia mentioning "chemical changes" in a germinating seed!

Robert V Frazier

4

Remind you of anyone?

by Robert_V_Frazier in

http://www.ucomics.com/nonsequitur/2006/02/01/

robert v frazier

Robert_V_Frazier

http://www.ucomics.com/nonsequitur/2006/02/01/ Robert V Frazier

Robert_V_Frazier

Posts by Robert_V_Frazier