by kgav8r 16 Replies latest jw friends
I'm going to try to word this carefully so that we may all understand. The writers of the bible used a word that the WTS interprets as stake. If this word does indeed mean stake, then what word should the bible writers have used to mean cross if it is not the word the WTS interprets as stake?
KG
Here is an article on the subject:
JWs and the Cross
The problem not only HOW they reason that Jesus died on a stake, but more importantly WHAT THEY USE THE CONCLUSION OF THE ARGUEMENT FOR!
The cross is used as a way to 'taint' other religions as being untrue, false, and part of the whore of Babylon. JW reasoning forces us to paint with a very broad brush, labeling many people we have never talked to or ever considered their opinions as 'evil' because they are marked from their use of the cross.
It's not just what they teach, but why they teach it that really counts.
See also: Facts on Crucifixion
This was a motivating topic for me to realize how rotten the WTS is...
Now tell me the truth - if count Dracula burst through your bedroom window in a thunderstorm, and you had nothing at hand, would you -
[ ] * A, cross your right index finger across your left index finger and imitate the Catholic cross symbol right in his face?
[ ] * B, optionally, also cross yourself across your chest with your right hand, thus indicating to higher powers the sign of the cross?
[ ] *C, flip him the bird, thus indicating total trust in the Witness torture stake?
hahahahaha - James...
This is why I madeup this 'joke' a while ago...
Q: Why do Vampires love Jehovah's Witnesses?
A: Because they don't believe in Crosses.
hahahahahaha
Regards,
Jim TX
Just a couple of pat questions that have yet to be answered by a J-Dub
1. If Jesus was put to deth on a torture stake, then why do the Gospel writers explicitely state that Pilate's sign was placed over his head & not his hands?
2. If crucifixion was not the method by which Jesus was executed, then why did Thomas want to see the imprints of the nails, plural, and not nail in the hands of Jesus?
3. Recent archeological excavations reveal that crucifixion was the common method of execution employed by the Romans in that day. Why would the Roman army change SOP for this one Jewish rabble rouser?
Edited to add: If someone has a response to these that you have heard or can think of, I would love to read it.
It's not just what they teach, but why they teach it that really counts.
That nails it Drew (no pun intended).
I always thought it to be a bit petty anyway, to say it was a stake not a cross. But as you say, they used this "interpretation" to damn the reas of christendom as idolaters because they had crosses in thier churches.
warning: gruesome description below
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impalement
"Impalement is an act of torture and/or execution whereby the victim is pierced by a long stake. The penetration can be through the sides, from the rectum, or possibly through the mouth. The stake would be usually planted in the ground, leaving the victim hanging to die. In addition, Jehovah's Witnesses believe that Jesus Christ was nailed through the hands and feet to an upright pale and also describe this form of execution as impalement."
Funny how the wikipedia writers put it:Jehovah's witnesses "believe" (as in exersise faith) - not jehovah's witnesses discovered, or have further proof or anything like that, just believe this word to mean something else.
When ya all search Bible definitions, just remember W. E. Vine was a minister in a Christian Church, he thought Jehovah's Witnesses were heretics and he staged rallies in opposition to them. W. E. Vine was an opposer. I can prove it.
1. If Jesus was put to deth on a torture stake, then why do the Gospel writers explicitely state that Pilate's sign was placed over his head & not his hands?2. If crucifixion was not the method by which Jesus was executed, then why did Thomas want to see the imprints of the nails, plural, and not nail in the hands of Jesus?
I've never cared for using these arguments to try to argue stake vs cross.
1. By saying that the sign was over his head does not provide proof either way of what position his hands were in. It's just a way of saying that the sign was placed up high on the main pole or stake.
2. To place the whole cross vs stake argument over the translation of a word that indicates plural holes or a singular one is about as weak as the WTS argument that it couldn't have been a cross because the word "staurous (sp)" means "tree" or "stake".
I'm not defending the stake over the cross...I'm just saying that using the Bible or a translation of it to try to prove either one is like using a cook book to prove the history of 20th century.
