Jesus not crucified on torture stake. Impossible!

by sacolton 250 Replies latest watchtower bible

• 

  undercover

  Good illustration, Colton.

  And to expand on that...do you think it possible that in thousands of years from now, researchers may be puzzled at our use of the word pole when there was obviously more to the pole than just the upright part?
• 

  Colton

  My point exactly, undercover. Thanks! Will the future generations think our telephone lines were lined up on a single upright pole without a cross beam? How embarrassing if that should happen! Who do we blame?

  Reniaa, I hope you are teaching your children that the telephone POLE has a cross beam!
• 

  Leolaia

  Narkissos....I meant to also address that earlier comment by reniaa, as it is such a nice example of special pleading. She suggests that there was really a debate on whether Jesus died on a cross in the first centuries of the Church (retrojecting, I suppose, an issue from 19th and 20th-century Protestant groups like the Plymouth Brethren and Jehovah's Witnesses into pre-Nicene Christianity), but that evidence of it vanished through Constantine's church purging books and other "coverups". When in fact, we know lots and lots about Arianism because of what the Church has preserved, just as the apologists preserved tons of material from early gnostics through their Adversus Haereses literature. Of course the sources are very, very biased, but the kind of scenario she pictures is just not what one finds. It doesn't legitimize crank ideas like "the Church stamped out all evidence of Mary Magdalene as Jesus' wife at the Council of Nicaea" either. Rather, the earliest statements on the subject outside the NT are more like, "Duh, Jesus died on a cross; it's prophesied in the OT". Exodus 17:11-12 and Isaiah 65:2 were part of the repertoire of messianic prooftexts that were applied to Jesus in the early church (cf. Isaiah 65:2 quoted by Paul in Romans 10:21), and were no more controversial than Jesus being given gall and vinegar (cf. Psalm 69:21-22) or having his garments divided among his persecutors (cf. Psalm 22:18).
• 

  purplesofa

  The History Channel aired a show on Easter Sunday of death on the cross, and it brought out about the death being faster with the hands over the head, than outstretched. And how painful each breath was, how one could not live long that way. It was pretty descriptive.

  Given the passage in the bible chronicalling Jesus death, I don't see how he could have been on a torture stake(upright pole) and not died almost immediately, given his condition before he was ever hung.
• 

  reniaa

  leolaia I already quoted someone that clearly showed stake/pale lasted a lot longer as the way of reading the word stauros, vines dictionary also agrees with this. also the latin choice of word agrees with this too. latin is not a bible language so when they translated into latin they chose crux a word that also mean stake originally.

  Identifying these execution stakes with crosspieces came from later centuries at the time of Jesus's death the writers used a word that made no indication of cross piece under inspiration from God.

  This all shows that at the time of writing these methods were identified as execution/torture stakes only, and so this makes what the Jws version more accurate to what the writer actually meant. When they wrote them they knew they were not using a word that denoted crosspiece even if one existed and that is the important bit when we are talking about being true to the original wording.
• 

  Colton

  Reniaa, is there ANYTHING you disagree with that the Watchtower teaches? Anything at all?
• 

  Earnest

  Leolaia, while I don't see any evidence or any reason that there should have been controversy about the shape of the stauros amongst the early Christians (although later Jewish tradition holds he was executed on a cabbage stalk), it is certainly true that what we know of Arius and his theology is a quite twisted misrepresentation. And so I have a very genuine question regarding the accuracy of what we know of the writings of the early Christians. We know there is evidence of subtle changes to scripture in order to support or damage the understanding we have of the nature of Christ, but I would think the manuscript evidence for the early Fathers is much weaker than the manuscript evidence for scripture. So just how sure are we that we are reading the original text (or close to it) when it comes to extracanonical writings?
• 

  AllTimeJeff

  These are some thoughts on Reinaa (with apologies to Reinaa, who will no doubt read this....)

  I have followed her pro-JW postings for a while. She has certainly been a lightning rod. With that in mind, I hope that I will be permitted in this controversial thread to give some observations.

  First off, it is clear to me that many of us in our own way (and I include myself) respond to her in a way that we wish we could have done while we were still in. There might be limited value in this for us, but it is limited....

  I am in no way defending her dodging questions. Nor am i defending much of anything she has to say. It is clear that she is indoctrinated.

  Reinaa, since it is rude to pretend you are not here, let me say it to you directly: it is clear that you are indoctrinated. I mean nothing bad by that, its just so clearly the truth.

  The simple reason I write this is that while I can easily appreciate the irritation and bad memories she engenders, I must say very simply: She is here!

  She is breaking Governing Body law. That in itself is remarkable. Say what you want, but she is a bit of "herself". Even if it is to defend JW dogma.

  My humble suggestion is simply to point out where her inconsistencies lie, but don't make it too personal. Remember, at one time or another, we were tricked and misled as well. No amount of "Hey, dumass!" would have worked on us....

  I don't know what, if anything, it will take for Reinaa to see the truth about the truth. I will say that our responses here sometimes reveal a truth about the truth about the truth. (i.e. our little community here) That is to say, we are all still pretty raw. But I don't think it right to give into the frustration too much.

  Take heart. No one but an indoctrinated JW will ever consider what she has to say. There is no need to over argue our points. She is as wrong as the day is long, and her own responses show that. Trust the readers here... They are smart enough to not be tricked....

  Reinaa (this is for you) I read this before posting and can see that I come across a bit condescending to you. That isn't my intent and I apologize for it. I did the best I could with this tone. I fully expect nothing to change from you, but I hope one day your epiphanies will lead you in a positive direction.

  Now, I will eat more pizza and watch this debate further, if there is more to be said....
• 

  mrsjones5

  I love all the information that is posted...especially by Leolaia...always clear and easy to understand
• 

  jws

  history is written by the winners with christianity this is definitely the case since death to heretics was the norm. What has to be remembered is all these theologians you quote leolaia had to support trinitarian Christianity and the writings kept would all be in support of the current doctrines, what would happen to anything written that supported anything different?

  The Bible as we know it is mostly the result of the Catholic Church (the winners I guess). If you're going to go down that road, who's to say what books of the Bible we're missing and why do you even trust what you have today?

  This was basically the criteria for making the Bible canon:

  1. Apostolic Origin — attributed to and based on the preaching/teaching of the first-generation apostles (or their close companions).
  2. Universal Acceptance — acknowledged by all major Christian communities in the ancient world (by the end of the fourth century).
  3. Liturgical Use — read publicly when early Christian communities gathered for the Lord's Supper (their weekly worship services).
  4. Consistent Message — containing a theological outlook similar or complementary to other accepted Christian writings.

  None of this proves any of the writings we have were inspired by God or that others that didn't make the canon weren't. Particularly for #2, as long as most churches accepted it, it became canon. Martin Luther thought Hebrews, James, Jude, and Revelations should be removed from the Bible because they weren't consistent with other books. So there was not necessarily a concensus. And who knows what may have been written by Jesus' apostles but was considered "too out there"? There are other books we know are lost to history.

  Your point is that history is written by the winners. It was religions that the Jehovah's Witnesses claim are under the control of Satan that chose which books to include and which books to exclude from the Bible you believe in today. If the books of that Bible were essentially chosen by Satan's organizations, why do you believe it?