Great Educational Tool for those studying or thinking of studying with JWS

by sf 60 Replies latest jw experiences

  • Mary
    Mary
    reniaa said: i've even had laialeo on here rationalise using the word cross even though it never appears in the bible and shes very strict on correct bible translation

    Reniaa: Leolaia is one of the very, very few (if not the only) genuine scholars on this board who has a doctorate degree either in history or religious studies or something along those lines, so I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss her posts simply because they do not agree with what the WTS says. I don't think I've ever seen her post something that she cannot back up with evidence.

    You automatically assume that the Organization is right about how Jesus didn't die on a cross but on an "upright stake" without looking at any of the historical evidence yourself. The evidence does in fact show that Jesus would have died on a two-beamed 'cross' and before you dismiss it as simply being "pagan", you should weigh all the evidence.

    The Witnesses are partially right. While most movies always depict Jesus carrying a cross through the streets on the way to Golgatha, this is not what would have happened. He would have been carrying a single piece of wood that was fixed to another piece of wood when they got to the execution place as the following article from Biblical Archaeology Review (BAR Jan-Feb 1985) says:

    "During this early period, a wooden beam, known as a furca or patibulum was placed on the slave's neck and bound to his arms. The slave was then required to march through the neighborhood proclaiming his offense. This march was intended as an expiation and humiliation. Later, the slave was also stripped and scourged, increasing both the punishment and the humiliation. Still later, instead of walking with his arms tied to the wooden beam, the slave was tied to a vertical stake................A soldier at the head of the procession carried the titulus, an inscription written on wood, which stated the defendants name and the crime for which he had been condemned. Later, this titulus was fastened to the victims cross. When the procession arrived at the execution site, a vertical stake was fixed into the ground. Sometimes the victim was attached to the cross only with ropes. In such a case, the patibulum or crossbeam, to which the victims arms were already bound, was simply affixed to the vertical beam; the victims feet were then bound to the stake with a few turns of the rope.......If the victim was attached by nails, he was laid on the ground, with his shoulders on the crossbeam. His arms were held out and nailed to the two ends of the crossbeam, which was then raised and fixed on top of the vertical beam.

    Accounts of the suppression of the revolt of Spartacus in 71 B.C. tell how the Roman army lined the road from Capua to Rome with 6,000 crucified rebels on 6,000 crosses. After the Romans quelled the relatively minor rebellion in Judea in 7 A.D. triggered by the death of King Herod, Quintilius Varus, the Roman Legate of Syria, crucified 2,000 Jews in Jerusalem. During Titus?s siege of Jerusalem in 70 A.D., Roman troops crucified as many as 500 Jews a day for several months.

    Here are a couple of links that might help you understand that the WTS does not gather all their facts, takes things out of context and even outright lies if something doesn't fit with their preconceived ideas:

    http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/10/97358/1.ashx

    http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/10/92381/1.ashx

    http://www.frugalsites.net/jesus/crucifixion.htm

  • reniaa
    reniaa

    Its ok Me and laialeo agreed to disagree on this one mary

    Re: Re: Impalement or Crucifiction? Opinions please?

    I said it was more important to stay true to the original translation, and I still stand by that even if you could prove it was a latin cross which is very unlikely, a patibulum is not a cross its a tao shape btw, and stake shape is still a candidate no one can say definitively even biblical clues are not enough, the shape of it just wasn't important enough to them, On another discussion you and I discussed LORD and if after centuries of it being interchangeable between JHWH and Jesus makingf people get both mixed up it is understandable but with the word "Cross" it's not the same because it's an example of inserting a word to fit a faith, The translation is precisely "stake" or "execution stake" if you want to indicate full meaning (there isn't the same confusion as there is with Lord) , there is no reason to put the word cross at all and even if a word for cross existed there's no reason to use it as patibulum or stake are not crosses.

    laialeo is one of the most intelligent people I know but in the end it was an agree to disagree, she certainly is the scholar that I am not!

  • cab1000
    cab1000

    Who cares if Jesus died on a tree? LOL

    The point is on this thread that many of us are hurt by the whole shunning deal.

    If I believe this right, shunning is supposed to make the shunned ones realize that his error has caused him to miss everyone important to him. How many times does this BACKFIRE? Shunning worked one time for me, I was disfellowshipped, and due to the shunning, I went back and was re-instated. Several years after that, we faded.

    Now, our family hardly ever speaks with us. We are not disfellowshipped. They know that we do not go to meetings, and that we have done some "worldly" things. So, they are actively shunning us.

    So, we are supposed to be hurt (we are) and clawing our way back to the "truth" (we are not). If anything, we hate the WTS far more than ever! Seeing this treatment is reason enough to Never, Ever go back. It has backfired. No one is better off. Everyone loses.

    ~cab

  • BizzyBee
    BizzyBee

    Arrrggghh!

    The bottom line on all these types of arguments - shunning, cross, blood, etc., etc., - is

    Did God suddenly look around (after theoretically 18 hundred or so years of silence) in the late 19th century and say, "Supposing that I, the Almighty Creator of the Universe, needed a man-made organization to explain who I am and what I require of mankind on earth - ? Who would I choose?"

    "Hmmmmm.......The Bible Students of Pennsylvania? In existence for a couple of decades, their leader is into numerology, pyrimidology and hates modern medicine, politics, and has a little vanity press going and has and will yet, make some stupendously wrong-headed predicitions about the state of the world. And here I am, well, God, fer chrissakes! Are they gonna get it right? Or are they gonna embarrass Me? Are they going to help people or let the power go to their heads and hurt people?"

    And if they get it wrong, do I wipe them off the map and start over or just let them continue decade after decade to hurt and mislead people IN MY NAME?Under the guise that they are "imperfect men." Hell, I've ripped the gonads off CHILDREN who weren't even that bad. Shall I just let mankind look around, see the testament of the world I've created, noodle around with the Bible (such as it is - it is not exactly what I had in mind) and do the best they can?"

    He had nearly 2,000 pages of the Bible if He wanted to communicate His requirements - 1 page would've been enough if He really wanted it to be. Does He really need shelf after shelf after shelf of little brightly colored primary school books to explain His Grand Purpose? I think not.

  • reniaa
    reniaa

    I understand you cab, I didn't want to derail this thread to much there have been other threads were the shunning/disfellowship/excommunicate whichever word you use has been discussed like the cross issue more thoroughly.

    On a personal note I think shunning is one issue the WTS has gone wrong on, that it has become a way of being cruel to family and friends means it has gone beyond scriptorial presentation. And in fact is conflicting with other bible laws like respecting your parents and not making your children overburdenned, Love your enemy, the principle of jesus going to the tax collectors house is here as well even when his doing this really stumbled the appostles,

    Don't get me wrong if someone who was either df-d da-d or innactive was in my face when I met them on how evil wts is now and they had a clear agenda to make me question JW, I probably would shun them but if they respected my right to believe in God I would treat them as always, obviously nightclubs and boosing all night is out ^^ but you can still be warm and friendly. Theres no need for the shunning to become what people who have suffered at the hands of it on here have felt and experienced. It's to easy to become self-righteous and shun people without thought on your motivations and the hurt caused making them stumble even more at WTs

    There is a fine line between shunning and alllowing people to draw you into situations that mark you as a hypocrite, remember to far the opposite and you get marked as a lovebomber only being nice to get them back or as a hypocrite giving lipservice to jehovah, people will just as easily say "well they are a JW but I see them boozing all night with there friends etc"

  • BizzyBee
    BizzyBee

    I think shunning is one issue the WTS has gone wrong on, that it has become a way of being cruel to family and friends means it has gone beyond scriptorial presentation.
    Disfellowshipping became a JW doctrinal practice around 1946 and shows no sign of being corrected any time soon. Meaning that, for at least 70% of JW history, this cruel, heartless and scripturally uninformed practice has been allowed to continue unchecked.

  • reniaa
    reniaa
    I think shunning is one issue the WTS has gone wrong on, that it has become a way of being cruel to family and friends means it has gone beyond scriptorial presentation.
    Disfellowshipping became a JW doctrinal practice around 1946 and shows no sign of being corrected any time soon. Meaning that, for at least 70% of JW history, this cruel, heartless and scripturally uninformed practice has been allowed to continue unchecked.

    hmmm this is were disfellowshipping and shunning part ways for me, should someone be disfellowshipped? can you do one without the other? The bible sets up clear principles on certain actions that mean you are no longer walking according to God's word...If I was wanting loads of sex with different people wanted to get drunk all night etc I'd know that being a Witness wasn't for me and before you say I know there are witnesses that think they can do these things while staying witnesses leading a double-life I think they are just fooling themselves. There are biblical principles for disfellowshiping for want of a better word for those that want their 'cake and eat it',

    Should we then go on to shun someone? my only reason to shun someone would be as I said above if they made it clear they were trying to stumble me out of WTs too, they would also have to respect my right not to do activities that conflict with my bible ethics, but I personally think there is room to keep lines of love and friendship open without the cruelty of shunning.

  • berylblue
    berylblue

    my only reason to shun someone would be as I said above if they made it clear they were trying to stumble me out of WTs too ----------------- Renaia, then you really shouldn't be here, should you?

  • berylblue
    berylblue

    In what way is SF not allowing persons to make up their own minds? Where's the gun he's holding to their heads? I'm not seeing it.

  • carla
    carla

    reniaa,

    I guess in your usual thorough research you missed that they speak in 'tongues' not as you said "(they call it speaking in voices) "

    If ignorance is bliss you must be over the moon. Research, research, and research some more. ( see Acts & 1 Cor about this subject, then you might want to actually research a religion before you mispeak about them)

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit