by lostlantern 24 Replies latest jw friends
the FIRST THING I advise is to get another bible version and read it away from any "bible aids" that tend to color your thinking. I was told this right after I left, and really didn't quite believe it---but it's true. Reading the New Testament (Greek Scriptures) after the scales have fallen off your eyes---is pure joy!
Excellent advice. And once you see it clearly, you can never go back. We imagined we lived by the 'sword' and our belief in dubdom dies by the same sword.
Thank you!
I appreciate what everyone had to say. Your words struck a chord and it is good to know that I can talk to someone. Again thank you.
Midget Sasquatch....LOL, is that it? I'm so shocked...but then not really. That is about the shortest and fluffiest treatment of the subject I have seen in quite a long time. I suppose it is another sign of the "simplication" that the Society has been undergoing.
Long before the Christian era, crosses were used by the ancient Babylonians as symbols in their worship of the fertility god Tammuz. The use of the cross spread into Egypt, India, Syria, find China. Then, centuries later, the Israelites adulterated their worship of Jehovah with acts of veneration to the false god Tammuz.
This is not based on any archaeological evidence or textual evidence whatsoever, but rather on a statement by Alexander Hislop (who is uncredited here): "That which is now called the Christian cross was originally no Christian emblem at all, but was the mystic Tau of the Chaldeans and Egyptians -- the true original form of the letter T -- the initial of the name of Tammuz -- which, in Hebrew, radically the same as ancient Chaldee, as found on coins" (1916 ed., p. 197). Hislop goes on to refer to Tammuz as a sun god and then associate him with the Egyptian ankh, (mis)interpreting it as a combination of Tammuz' cross and the sun disk. This is typical of Hislop's mischaracterization of Near Eastern mythology and symbols that bear little relation to reality (in part, this was due to the fact that Hislop wrote in the 1850s, and with apologetic motives, before much was known about actual Canaanite/Akkadian/Egyptian mythology). Tammuz (= Dumuzi) was not a sun god, had nothing to do with an ankh (which itself is a stylization of the hieroglyphic sa "protect"), and I know of no evidence that associates Dumuzi/Tammuz with a cross symbol at all.
The word stauros' refers to an upright pole, stake, or post.
As well as a cross! The Society repeatedly gets fixated on a word's etymological or original (i.e. in pre-Hellenistic Greek) meaning, and not the meaning as it was when the NT was being written. There are many first and second century sources that show this to be the case (i.e. especially Epictetus, Artemidorus, Lucian, and possibly Plutarch, Josephus).
The book The Non-Christian Cross, by J. D. Parsons, explains
Attentive readers will note that the Society mainly quotes from a limited number of non-JW sources to support its view on the cross, including Parsons (who published in 1896), and Bulinger/Welch (who published after 1913), and W. E. Vine (who published in 1940). Vine, Bulinger, and Welch were members of the Plymouth Brethren (a group that was influential to the Watchtower Society since the days of Russell, particularly in its two-stage parousia doctrine), and Bulinger/Welch in the Companion Bible essay either plagiarize the earlier Parsons book or Parsons himself was the author of the Companion Bible piece). The Society does not quote contemporary scholarship or the scores of other works of scholarship that disagree with its point of view.
There is not a single sentence in any of the numerous writings forming the New Testament, which, in the original Greek, bears even indirect evidence to the effect that the stauros used in the case of Jesus was other, than an ordinary stauros
Matthew 27:27 would constitute indirect evidence, and John 19:17 supplies direct evidence that the stauros carried by Jesus either was the patibulum alone or the patibulum attached to the upright stake. The significance of this verse could not be appreciated without knowing descriptions of Roman crucifixion in extrabiblical sources, which show that the practice of "bearing the cross" before crucifixion involved the carrying of a patibulum across one's shoulders or back.... not the dragging of a timber behind oneself...the whole practice of crossbearing on the way to execution arose because an earlier (pre-Republican) patibulum-bearing punishment was combined with simple crucifixion by the Romans.
As recorded at Acts 5:30, the apostle Peter used the word xy'lion, meaning "tree," as a synonym for stauros', denoting, not a two-beamed cross, but an ordinary piece of upright timber or tree.
This phrasing suggests that xulon could not refer to a "two-beamed cross". This is false (Barnabas uses it in this way, for instance). The Romans also referred to their two-beamed crosses with the term arbor inflex "unhappy tree"...this term was used by Seneca (first century AD) who was very explicit that the cross he was describing was two-beamed.
It was not until about 300 years after Jesus' death that some professed Christians promoted the idea that Jesus was put to death on a two-beamed cross.
This is completely and utterly FALSE. Quite an unbelievable statement, especially since the Society in earlier works acknowledged that Barnabas (written either AD 70-79 or AD 135) and Justin Martyr (writing c. 155) were very clear about the shape of Jesus' cross. There are actually many other similar sources as well saying the same thing from the second and third centuries. No way was this delayed until Constantine's time (i.e. 325-330), as implied here. I'm actually quite amazed they think they can get away making this statement.... unless the Watchtower writers are truly dreadful researchers and never even bothered to check the facts.
However, this view was based on tradition and a misuse of the Greek word stauros'.
Misuse? How in the world could it have been a "misuse" if it was the long-established meaning of the word. This just goes to show how little acquainted the Society is with the linguistic facts and how it basically makes things up rather than researching the facts. Any good Greek lexicon will show (with citations!) that the term stauros meant "cross" long before the fourth century.
It is noteworthy that some ancient drawings depicting Roman executions feature a single wooden pole or tree.
Telling only half the story again. Do they also find it noteworthy that "ancient drawings" also depict crucifixion on a two-beamed cross (e.g. the Palatino graffito)? Apparently they do not find it noteworthy that Roman writers from the third century BC onward depicted Roman executions on two-beamed crosses.
The actual historical question of what Jesus died on is not that important. What stinks is the sloppy and dishonest way the Society insists on their theory while either ignoring the evidence or making generalizations that are completely untrue.
For more details, see my thread that thoroughly discusses the issue (with many more examples of either dishonest or incredibly slopppy/erroneous statements)
I am impressed with your research, well done.
Firstly, welcome to the discussion group Amazing Grace, have only been here a short time and the help and support has been amazing. Great research and information Leoleia, I am already looking forward to the thread that you linked in your writeup.
It amazes me the selectivity of the wt, I am amazed that the awake a few months ago did not have an article on watching the Olympics since the original intent of them was to worship the greek gods.
