Jesus not crucified on torture stake. Impossible!

by sacolton 250 Replies latest watchtower bible

  • Leolaia
    Leolaia
    leolaia I already quoted someone that clearly showed stake/pale lasted a lot longer as the way of reading the word stauros

    Of course the original sense of "stake, pale" continued; I never said it didn't. When a word acquires a new sense, the old one does not usually vanish (at least not right away). In the case of stauros, that new sense referred to an apparatus used in capital punishment. That is the semantic innovation (as can best be seen in the verbal form, anastauróo originally meant "build a palisade or fence" but the later technical meaning was "fasten a person to a crux"), which had execution in view. Even after crucifixion came into existence, people still built fences and palisades and stauros was still used in its original sense to refer to the posts used in such constructions. That people still built fences with posts has NOTHING to do with the form of the execution instrument that stauros also referred to. The reference was not beholden to the word's "original meaning" centuries earlier but to the technology of capital punishment at the time the word is used.

    How about the word "chair"? You know, people use chairs for all sorts of things; you find them in every house. But if you read about someone getting fried in the "chair" ... well, in that context you'd think of "chair" as referring to an execution instrument. Ah, "chair" as a specialized technical sense here. That doesn't mean you couldn't still use the word "chair" to talk about your rocking chair, or your comfort chair, or a wheelchair, or your dining room chairs. And it doesn't mean that the technological characteristics of the electric chair are somehow dependent on what the word "chair" originally meant.

    vines dictionary also agrees with this.

    So? Vine's Dictionary is completely wrong. Vine was unfamiliar with the linguistic facts and his speculations (especially the choice one about Tammuz) betray his dependence on dubious sources like Alexander Hislop.

    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.

    The Latin word referred to the execution instrument; unlike stauros it was not used outside the context of capital punishment (instead palus was used for this sense). It thus did not have the same "original meaning" that stauros had. The earliest references to crux occur in Plautus where the patibulum is explicitly referred to.

    the identifying these execution 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.

    What are you talking about? At the time of Jesus' death, execution with crosspieces WERE common and widely referred to. Stauros was the general term referring to crucifixion. There wasn't any OTHER word that referred instead to execution with crosspieces. Stauros was the word that referred to that! How many times do I have to say this?

    This all shows that at the time of writing these methods were identified as execution/torture stakes only,

    False, false, false, if by "stakes only" you mean only stakes without crosspieces. How can you say this when you have already seen the evidence that show that this is false? And how can you say this after acknowledging that the specialized denotation of stauros pertained to function and not form; you still want to limit the word to only one kind of cross, such that it pertains to form after all! Sorry, stauros was a general term for crucifixion, and if you artificially restrict its reference to only one kind, the composite cross is the form that is mentioned over and over as typical of the stauros -- not the crux simplex.

    and so this makes what the Jws version more accurate to what the writer meant, that when writing them they did 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.

    LOL, as other people have already asked you, what "other word that denoted crosspiece"?!?!? You are imagining a nonexistent word that the writers should have used if they pictured a composite cross. How many times in this thread alone have I told you that there wasn't an equivalent of patibulum in Greek? I lost count.

  • jws
    jws

    And by the way, Reniaa, you should be one to talk about using the most straight-forward interpretation of a word. Why don't you tell us about the most straight forward interpretation of the word parousia? What does it mean at 1 Cor 16:17, 2 Cor 7:6-7, and 2 Cor 10:10. Does the same word mean the same thing at Matt 24:26,27?

  • AllTimeJeff
  • Leolaia
    Leolaia

    Hi Earnest....I agree which is why I was careful to say that it was "very, very biased". But my point is this — you do know that there was a debate, that there was a controversy. You know something of what the other side said, even if all you have is the argumentation used by trinitarians to argue against them. Compare that with Tony Bushby's fantasy that the Council of Nicaea was convened to merge twin brothers Judas Khrestus and Jesus ben Panthera into a single deified figure. He talks about how this debate ripped the Church apart and how bishops conspired to suppress knowledge of Judas Khrestus. The lack of evidence, even the slightest shred of evidence substantiating this claim, is written off as the coverup and destruction of books that followed Nicaea. I suppose one could say that the early Church debated about whether Jesus was really a time traveller from the planet of Gallifrey and that all evidence of this debate was also obliterated. The point being that one cannot just posit a debate that there is no evidence of having occurred.

  • Narkissos
    Narkissos

    Btw we now have interesting cross-check references with archaeological discoveries such as the Nag Hammadi Library, Egyptian papyrii and so on; for a long time many varieties of Christian "Gnostics" were only known through quotation and debates from their "orthodox" adversaries like Irenaeus. Has our understanding of Gnosticism been radically transformed since we have a wealth of Gnostic texts? I doubt it. The orthodox picture of Gnosticism was biased (we sort of knew) and incomplete (we could have guessed), it implied many misunderstandings and simplifications. But the overall picture we could get (with a minimum of criticism) was correct. At the very least we knew what were the main issues at stake (if I dare say).

    Complete silence from NT / Patristic texts about any debate on a specific issue (such as the form of the stauros / crux or a Christian use of some specific divine name) which is only documented as a modern controversy is a very strong presumption for an artificial problem. This is definitely not the case with Christological or Trinitarian debates.

  • Leolaia
    Leolaia

    Here is another interesting text about the patibulum (albeit late) worth mentioning:

    "In year 474 [i.e. 280 BC], a man named Autronius Maximus had his slave beaten and driven around the Circus (verberatum per circum egit) while tied to a patibulum (patibulo constrictum) before the start of the Games. Jupiter was no angry at this that he ordered someone called Annius in a dream to announce to the Senate that this deed of extreme cruelty did not please him... As a result of a Senate Recommendation and a law proposed by Maenius, one day was added to these Circus Games in order to propitiate Jupiter; this day is called instauraticius, not as some think on account of the patibulum which is απο του σταυρου 'from the cross' in Greek (patibulo Graeco nomine apo tou staurou) but from a word meaning 'recovery' for according to Varro instaurare means 'to make as good as new'. So you see how much the highest of the gods cares for a slave" (Macrobius, Saturnalia 1.11.3-5).

    Here is yet another reference to the patibulum was carried by a condemned slave as punishment. But what is really interesting here is that the word patibulum is directly linked to stauros, such that the patibulum is pictured as "from the stauros", i.e. as a part of the stauros. Pretty fortuitous that a folk etymology for instauraticius prompted Macrobius to make this statement. (BTW, the same story occurs earlier in Arnobius, Adversus Nationes 7.39 who relates that it is "found in the writings of the annalists", and he also uses the term patibulum, so there is good reason to believe that Macrobius is drawing here on much older material)

    And it is probably worth posting here some other references to patibulum-bearing as a prelude to crucifixion:

    "He carries the patibulum through the city (patibulum ferat per urbem) and afterwards is nailed to the crux (deinde affigatur cruci)" (Plautus, Carbonaria, fr. 12; third century BC).

    "O sieve of flesh, your flesh will be made raw as you bear the patibulum through the streets (forabunt patibulatum per vias), once the old man returns....I'll give a talent to the first man who runs out to the crux (in crucem excucurrerit) on my behalf, on the condition that his legs and arms are double-nailed (offigantur bis pedes bis brachia)" (Plautus, Mostellaria, 55-57, 359; third century BC)

    "They are carried around (circumferuntur) bound to the patibulum (deligati ad patibulos) and then they are nailed to the crux (cruci defiguntur)" (Licinius Macer, Rerum Romanarum, 21; first century BC)

    "But if Saturn is found in conjunction with these, it shows us a deadly fate. For those who are detected in such crimes are punished with a severe sentence, fastened to a patibulum and taken away to the crux (patibulo subfixus in crucem tollitur)" (Firmicus Maternus, Mathesis 6.31.58; fourth century AD).

    And other references to the use of the patibulum in crucifixion itself:

    "The most notorious [pirates] were either hung from the mast (malo dependens) and flogged or fastened high up on a patibulum (patibulo eminens affigebatur) without being tortured first" (Sallust, Historiae fr. 3.9; first century BC)

    "Try as they may to release themselves from their crosses (refigere se crucibus), the very crosses each one of you nails (clavos) himself to with his own hands, once driven to their execution there they hang each man on his own stipes (stipitibus singulis pendent), but these men who bring their own punishment on themselves are racked by as many crosses (crucibus) as desires. Yet they pour our their abuse, and are witty in hurling insults at others. I could well believe they had time for such things, if some of them did not spit at onlookers from their own patibulum (ex patibulo suo spectatores conspuerent)" (Seneca, De Vita Beata, 19.3; first century AD).

    "Yonder I see crosses (cruces), not indeed of a single kind, but differently contrived by different peoples; some hang their victims with head toward the ground, some impale their private parts, others stretch out their arms on a patibulum (brachia patibulo explicuerunt)" (Seneca, De Consolatione, 20.3; first century AD).

    "Is it worth while to weigh down upon one's own wound and to be suspended on a patibulum (patibulo pendere)?....Can any man be found willing to be fastened to the accursed tree (infelix lignum), long sickly, already deformed, swelling with ugly tumours on chest and shoulders, and draw the breath of life amid long drawn-out agony? I think he would have many excuses for dying even before mounting the crux (crucem fuerant)" (Seneca, Epistula, 101.10-14; first century AD).

    "Behold all the leaders who have been handed down to posterity as instances of an evil fate-anger stabbed this one in his bed, struck down this one amid the sanctities of the feast, tore this one to pieces in the very home of the law and in full view of the crowded forum, forced this one to have his blood spilled by the murderous act of his son, another to have his royal throat cut by the hand of a slave, another to have his limbs stretched upon the crux (in cruce membra distendere)" (Seneca, De Ira 1.2.2; first century AD).

    "Your honest man is a man of this sort. He is not marked out by diadem or purple, or the attentions of lictors; he does not fall short in any way. When he sees death close at hand he is less perturbed than if he saw some novelty. If he has torture of his whole body to endure or flame to swallow or his hands to be outstretched on a patibulum (sive extendendae per patibulum manus), he asks not what he is to endure but how well" (Seneca, Moralia, fr. 124; first century AD).

    "The Tarracines, however, found comfort in the fact that the slave of Verginius Capito, who had betrayed them, was affixed to the patibulum (patibulo adfixus) wearing the very rings that he had received from Vitellius" (Tacitus, Historia, 4.3; second century AD).

    "One wanted the girl to be burned alive, another said she should be thrown to the beasts, a third thought she should be nailed to a patibulum (patibulo suffigi), and a fourth was all for torturing her to death; the one point on which they were unanimous was that die she must. Then, when the hubbub had died down, one quietly took up the running. 'It is repugnant,' he said, 'both to our principles as professionals and our humanity as individuals, not to mention my own ideas of moderation, to allow you to punish this crime more savagely than it merits. Rather than invoking the beasts or the crux (cruces) or fire or torture, or even giving her a quick death, ... the girl will [die slowly] torn by beasts when the worms gnaw her, she will be roasted when the blazing sun scorches the ass's belly, and she will be like one nailed to a patibulum (patibulo suffigitur) when the dogs and vultures drag out her entrails' " (Lucius Apuleius, Asinus Aureus 6.31-32; second century AD)

    "Who can be a martyr at the same time as an inhabitant of this world, negotiating favors by money and being dependent on doctors and usurers? Just fancy, his head trembling under the executioner's axe, or his body already stretched out on the patibulum (in patibulo corpore expanso), or at the pile, when the lion is already released, or at the pole when the flames gather?" (Tertullian, De Pudicitia 22.13; early third century AD).

    "Every piece of timber (omne robur) that is fixed into the ground in an erect position (derecta statione defigitur) is a part of the crux (pars crucis), indeed its major part. But of course we recognize the entire cross (tota crux) which has a crossbeam (antemna) and a projecting seat (sedilis excessu).... The truth is that your religion is wholly like a cross (integrae crucis), with your gods proceeding from the hated patibulum (de isto patibulo) as their place of origin" (Tertullian, Ad Nationes 1.12; early third century AD)

    "For this treachery, he [Bomiclar] was fastened to a patibulum (patibulo suffixus est) by the Carthaginians in the middle of the Forum, such that the same spot that had formerly been distinguished as the scene of his honors might also bear testimony of his punishment. But Bomiclar bore the cruelty of the citizens with such fortitude that he inveighed against the injustice of the Carthaginians from the top of his cross (de summa cruce) as if speaking from a tribunal.... After uttering these charges with a loud voice to a large assembly of the people, he expired" (Justinus, Historiarum Philippicarum, 22.7.8-10; third century AD).

    "His image was set up on a crux (in crucem sublata), while the mob pranced around as though they were looking at Celsus himself nailed to a patibulum (patibulo adfixus)" (Historiae Augustae, Tyrranni Triginta 29.4; fourth century AD)

  • Colton
    Colton

    Reniaa never addressed the fact that Jesus couldn't survive for more than 15 minutes with his arms above his head. Totally ignored the evidence.

  • isaacaustin
    isaacaustin

    hi isaac I did address those points but I reserved the right to address them my way :)

    I showed password that Jesus is our leader saviour and king and that authority was given him by God but also authority was given to our leaders by Jesus until he returns I proved this by showing a scripture that clearly says we should obey our leaders from the bible.

    My reply: And I clearly showed you the context that shows this to be a following of their faith and example to the point it is in line with the Bible- not the doctrine of man. You quoted Heb 11:17...I directed you right back to verse 7 which you conveniently ignored.

    I wonder who we should follow first? Christ or leaders on earth?

    so firstly it isn't a case of either/or. Obviously as a witness we put the bible first as inspiration from God anything we then bring in has to be in accordance with this even if it is principle based decision. Let the reader decide which religions are following the bible the most closely.

    My reply: This is not about religion. It was a simple question you have tried to muddy...because your obvious answer is that you obey your leaders who have set themself up in the place of Jesus.

    Your next question is basically the same but cleverly worded.

    My reply: No, it is quite a different question. This first addresses the type of submission one should give to their religious leaders while this one addresses whether God operates solely thru one organization. Nice backhanded attempt to try to take away from the importance of this question. My question was not worded cleverly at all. This was a very plain, direct question. Your answers to follow show the speciousness of you reasoning and blindness of your beliefs.

    Reniaa, can you show me even 1 verse where we are told we need to find the human channel that leads us to Jesus?

    Now show me how we can come to a knowledge of God atm without some human interaction but still we have the the bible as the measure by which christian Religions with holy spirit guidance should be testing doctrine by,

    My Reply: Umm...how about John 16:13

    John 16 "13 However, when that one arrives, the spirit of the truth, he will guide you into all the truth, for he will not speak of his own impulse, but what things he hears he will speak, and he will declare to you the things coming.

    look at the following.

    2 Timothy 3:16
    All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness,

    My reply: Scripture...yes

    but humans are still involved they are who teach each other and who make the bible translations from the original ones we read! the whole of the greek scriptures show this and also it shows this should be done with unity and with leaders. Jesus would not of bothered with the appostles if we didn't need men and leaders at this time. Why was peter sent to the ethopian? why was any disciple sent anywere to preach the gospel?

    My reply: Again, nothing objectionable here but all this shows is that Christians are to preach the Gospel. I asked you for a clear scripture that we need to identify and join a n organization that acts as God's sole channel of truth to mankind. Again you have provided irrelevant info. None of this shows the need or authorization for an org.

    It is clear from the bible scriptures that the dis-unity in faith we have now was forseen and written about.

    My reply: Irrelevant

    I'm still waiting for her to show me one verse from the Christian Greek Scriptures where the Father is referred to as Jehovah/YHWH.

    This was password cleverly wording a question that makes the reader think unless YHWH is in the greek scriptures it is invalid. I pointed out that because YHWH was in the hebrew scriptures that is valid enough for me as both are inspired words of God. I could also point out that since We have no original letters from greek scriptures especially the mathew Gospel written in hebrew it would be wrong to assume the name isn't there without more proof.

    My reply: Again, here is an attack on pswd to make his question lose its credibility. It is plainly worded. It would be wrong to assume that the Tetragrammeton is not in the NT without proof?? How about 5000+ manuscripts that do not contain it! That's overwhelming proof Reniaa. So let me see....we have the OT...we have the backup showing the Tetragrammeton. We have the NT and substantial backup showing no Tetragrammeton. Must have been stamped. They forgot to stmapt the part of it in Revelation out (Hallelujah). They also stamped it out so perfectly that all instances were uniformly replaced with Kyrios (Theos in a few cases) with no variant. It ocurred to every single manuscript....within perhaps decaded of the death of the last Apostle. Oh, and our proof that it belongs in the NT is not those ancient manuscripts from the 2nd and 3rd century! It is Hebrew translation from the 14th cent onward.

    1) Why did Jesus never pray using Jehovah's name...especially when he instructed his followers to address their prayers to the Father (no mention of Jehovah) in the model prayer at Matthew 6: 9-13?

    I'm failing to understand the point of this question If Jesus directs us to pray to the father which is clearly identified as YHWH, he is not saying the word father but he is saying 'pray to my father'? again is this somehow trying to invalidate the hebrew scriptures and their use of YHWH?

    My reply: Again a nonanswer and an irrelevant reply to a direct question that a 3rd grader could understand. Why did Jesus pray "Our Father who art in Heaven..." in the model prayer teaching his disciples how to pray? Why didn't he say "Jehovah God..."?

    as to the rest of your questions I answer as I always do that one

    Matthew 7:4
    How can you say to your brother, 'Let me take the speck out of your eye,' when all the time there is a plank in your own eye?

    Reniaa, you having the audacity to quote Matt 7:4 to pswd makes me think of one verse that fits you to a tee:

    2 Thes 2:11

    Because they did not receive a love of the truth, God sent them a strong delusion that they might believe a lie.

  • babel on
    babel on

    jesus said pray in this way our father.....Isaiah 9:6 however fortold that the savior would be called "wonderful counsler, mighty God, ETERNAL FATHER,".......Jesus in John 20: states not yet for I have not yet accended to the Father .....and when he did pray to the Father it was on our behalf or that he may be restored to the former Glory he had with the Father. JW teach that Jesus earned whatever Glory he has now after he was obedient to the point of death but Jesus in prayer shows he already existed in Glory and forsook it on our behalf! so reniaa if you want to get Hung up on Cross or Pole and miss out on an opprotunity to have a personal relationship with the Eternal Father through Jesus Christ then so be it! im glad you are spending so much time on here preaching your message to those that have heard and rejected it already. that way you wont catch one of the elect at a weak moment with this Crap!

  • mrsjones5
    mrsjones5

    "im glad you are spending so much time on here preaching your message to those that have heard and rejected it already."

    Rather pointless, eh?

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit