For the JW's here

[Bill the Cat]

Why have the WTBTS (JW's) changed their view on the crucifixion from Judge Rutherford's day? He belived in a cross, not a stake.

"The Harp of God" written in 1921 and published in 1928. PG 113

http://www.picknowl.com.au/homepages/rlister/jw/jrjesus.jpg

[Bill the Cat]

bump

[OldShepherd]

06-28-2003 @ 03:53 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=134229#post134229)
Bill the Cat:

Why have the WTBTS (JW's) changed their view on the crucifixion from Judge Rutherford's day? He belived in a cross, not a stake.

"The Harp of God" written in 1921 and published in 1928. PG 113

http://www.picknowl.com.au/homepages/rlister/jw/jrjesus.jpg

It has been said that the most dangerous position to be in, in the WBTS is president, they seem to be renounced and condemned after they die.
15. Since the Jehovah's Witness organization currently rejects most of the teachings of its founder Charles Taze Russell (who was president of the organization from 1879-1916), and since they also reject "Judge" Joseph Franklin Rutherford, who succeeded Russell as president from 1916 - 1942, how can we be sure that in 25 more years, Jehovah's Witnesses won't also reject the current president, Milton G. Henschel (1992 - present), as they did Russell and Rutherford?
16. What kind of confidence can anyone have in an organization that rejected its founder and first two presidents for the first 63 years of its existence? This represents about 53% of the time they have existed!

http://www.bible.ca/jw-questions.htm

[Uriah-]

I don't care if JW's contradict themselves, but it was truly a stake.

[OldShepherd]

Today @ 11:46 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=139101#post139101)
Uriah-:

I don't care if JW's contradict themselves, but it was truly a stake.

In NAZI Germany they conducted experiments on prisoners, mostly Jews. They proved that a person hung with their hands over their head and their feet tied down only lived 10-15 minutes. But a person hung with their hands over their head and the feet not tied down lived for several hours.

Beside which, every writer in the early church who wrote about the crucifixion described it as a cross, +, NOT a stake.

There is only one word in the Greek language to describe this shape, +, that is "stauros," the word used in the GNT. There is only one word in modern Greek to describe that shape it is "stauros"

According to the Roman historian, Seneca, who lived during the first century. The Romans used three forms of crosses, one the vicitm was hung by the neck, another the victim was impaled through the privates parts up through his body, and the last, the victims arms were spread on a "cross"

The term "torture stake" did NOT exist until it was created by the JW about 60 years ago.

Even the Jewish Encyclopdia acknowledges that Jesus was crucified on a cross. That is why Jews will not use a plus sign, +, instead they use an inverted T.

[OldShepherd]

A very compelling argument against "torture stake" is inadvertently given to us by Nazi Germany. It seems that people who are bound/nailed hand and foot with the hands above the head, the position a "torture stake" would require, die in 10 minutes, and at the most one hour, if the feet are not nailed/tied down. They cannot breathe in that position!

We know from the Biblical record that Yeshua HaMaschiach was nailed hand and foot. If He was on a so-called "torture stake" it is virtually impossible for Him to have lived more than 10 minutes, let alone three hours! If by some miracle YHWH permitted Him to defy the laws of physics and live, breathe, and talk for three hours, that does not explain the two criminals crucified alongside him living that long also.
"Eyewitness accounts by prisoners of war in Dachu during WWII reported that victims suspended from beams by their wrist, which were tied, expired within ten minutes if their feet were weighted or tied down and within one hour if their feet were unweighted and the victim was able to raise and lower himself to permit respiration. Death in this manner, which is one form of crucifixion, was the result of suffocation.17"

http://www.uncc.edu/jdtabor/crucifixion.html

The Jewish Encyclopedia, KTAV Publishing House, Isodore Singer Ed., 1901, Vol. 4,

CROSS, pp. 368-9

1. The stake; stauros= Tzalob(tsadheh, lamed, waw, beth) or tzloba'(tsadheh, lamed, yod, beth, aleph) used by Romans at crucifixion. This was so familiar to Jews in New Testament times that they spoke frequently of, "men carrying their cross before them while going to be executed"( Gen. R. lvi.; Pesik. R. xxxi., ed. Buber, 143b), as did Jesus (Matt. x. 38, xvi. 24, and parallels; see CRUCIFIXION).

2. A specific Christian symbol; Termed by the Jews, Shtiwarb (shin, tav, yod - waw, ayin, resh, beth) ("warp and woof"); also Tslem (tsadheh, lamed, mem) ("idol"). . . (Isserles, Shulhan 'Aruk, Yore De'ah, 141, 1; R. Mordecai to 'Ab. Zarah iii. in the name of R. Eleazar b. Jacob of Worms)

The cross as a Christian symbol or "seal" came into use at least as early as the second century (see "Apost. Const." iii. 17; Epistle of Barnabas, xi-xii.; Justin, "Apologia." i. 55-60, "Dial. cum Tryph." 85-97); and marking of a cross upon the forehead and the chest was regarded as a talisman against the power of demons (Tertullian, "De Corona." iii. Cyprian, "Testimonies," xi. 21-22; Lactantius, "Divine Institutiones," iv. 27, and elsewhere). Accordingly the Christian Fathers had to defend themselves as early as the second century, against the charge of being worshippers of the cross, as may be learned from Tertullian, "Apologia," xii., xvii., and Minucius Felix, "Octavius," xxix."

Several forms of the cross appear to have been used: the simple form, like a plus sign, the so-called St Andrew's cross and the Latin cross, which is mentioned in Ezek. ix. 4. (Hebr.) as the "mark of life set upon the men to be saved." (compare Aquila, Symmachus, Theodotion, and Vulgate, or St. Jerome, to Ezek l.c.; and Tertullian, "Adversus Marcum," iii. 22; compare Job xxxi. 35)

CRUCIFIXION, pp. 373-4

The crosses used were of different shapes. Some were in the form of a T, others in that of a St Andrews cross, X, while others again were in four parts,+. The most common kind consisted of a stake ("palus") firmly embedded in the ground ("crucem figere") before the condemned arrived at the place of execution. (Cicero, "Verr" v.12; Josephus, "B.J." vii, 6, ' 4) and a cross-beam ("patibulum") bearing the "titulus" the inscription naming the crime (Matt. xxvii. 37; Luke xxiii. 38; Suetonius, "Cal" 38)* * *

This cruel way of carrying into effect the sentence of death was introduced into Palestine by the Romans. Josephus brands the first crucifixion as an act of unusual cruelty ("Ant." xiii. 14, ' 2) and as illegal. But many Jews underwent this extreme penalty (ib. xx. 6, '' 2; "Vita," ' 25; "B.J." ii, 12, ' 6, 14, ' v. 11, ' 1; Philo, ii, 529). * * *

These facts show that the crucifixion of Jesus was an act of the Roman government. . .But many of the Jews suspected of Messianic ambitions had been nailed to the cross by Rome. The "Messiah" "king of the Jews" was a rebel in the estimation of Rome, and rebels were crucified (Seutonius, "Vespas.", 4; "Claudius," xxv.; Josephus, "Ant." xx. 5, ' 1; Acts v. 36, 37) The inscription on the cross of Jesus reveals the crime for which, according to Roman law, Jesus expired. He was a rebel. Tacitus ("Annales," 54, 59) reports therefore without comment the fact that Jesus was crucified."

http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=899&letter=C

http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=905&letter=C

The Roman philosopher Seneca, 4 BC- 65AD.

"At the time of Christ, however, there were THREE BASIC MODES of crucifixion referred to by the Roman philosopher Seneca: "I see," he says, "THREE CROSSES, not indeed of one sort, but fashioned in different ways; one sort suspending by the head persons bent toward the earth, others transfixing them through their secret parts [crux simplex], others extending their arms on a PATIBULUM (crux composita)." (Consol. ad Marciam, XX).

[Bill the Cat]

Thanks OS, but Uriah completely dodged the question. It was intended to see how much stock they put in the words of their former leaders and their present leader.

[barryrob]

I don't care if JW's contradict themselves, but it was truly a stake.
Very true as Jesus was put to death according to Jewish Law NOT Roman Law.
BarryRob

[bar Jonah]

Reminds me of how the Mormons will excommunicate a member of the church who preaches openly some of the things prophecied by Brigham Young, although they won't go so far as to actually denounce Young completely.

[NonTrinitarian]

Why have the WTBTS (JW's) changed their view on the crucifixion from Judge Rutherford's day? He belived in a cross, not a stake.

"The Harp of God" written in 1921 and published in 1928. PG 113

http://www.picknowl.com.au/homepages/rlister/jw/jrjesus.jpgRussell, Rutherford, Knorr, Franz, Henschel, and the current president (don't recall his name at the moment) don't have a red phone they can pick up and talk to God. Rutherford and Russell believed in a cross because at the time they didn't know all of the information on the cross and its pagan origin. As others did more research on the subject, JW's recognized things that caused them to see the cross as a pagan instrument.

The apostles went a long time not eating certain meats and requiring circumcision when they didn't have to do such. They changed their viewpoint eventually but this didn't make them less Christian.

And to the OS remarks, I have a comment (though obviously belatd as I had not seen this post until now.)


A very compelling argument against "torture stake" is inadvertently given to us by Nazi Germany. It seems that people who are bound/nailed hand and foot with the hands above the head, the position a "torture stake" would require, die in 10 minutes, and at the most one hour, if the feet are not nailed/tied down. They cannot breathe in that position!

We know from the Biblical record that Yeshua HaMaschiach was nailed hand and foot. If He was on a so-called "torture stake" it is virtually impossible for Him to have lived more than 10 minutes, let alone three hours! If by some miracle YHWH permitted Him to defy the laws of physics and live, breathe, and talk for three hours, that does not explain the two criminals crucified alongside him living that long also.

Jesus was nailed hand and feet to the stake. The normal cause of death was suffication. However, the person could prolong his life by pushing up on his legs to keep the weight off his throat. Since his feet were nailed to the stake, he would be able to do this. If his feet were NOT nailed to the stake, he would not be able to do it. OS' information is backwards. Since it was against Jewish custom to keep someone on the stake past sundown, they would then break the prisoner's legs so he could no longer keep the weight off his neck, leading to suffication. Jesus died before they had to break his legs. Note this in the gospels. Furthermore, RI made this comment:

Reminds me of how the Mormons will excommunicate a member of the church who preaches openly some of the things prophecied by Brigham Young, although they won't go so far as to actually denounce Young completely.

Reminds me of how the apostles forbade the eating of certain meats and required circumcision but then later renounced that. Seems I remember the apostle Paul later denouncing those who still taught that.

[bar Jonah]

Russell, Rutherford, Knorr, Franz, Henschel, and the current president (don't recall his name at the moment) don't have a red phone they can pick up and talk to God. Rutherford and Russell believed in a cross because at the time they didn't know all of the information on the cross and its pagan origin. As others did more research on the subject, JW's recognized things that caused them to see the cross as a pagan instrument.

The apostles went a long time not eating certain meats and requiring circumcision when they didn't have to do such. They changed their viewpoint eventually but this didn't make them less Christian.

And to the OS remarks, I have a comment (though obviously belatd as I had not seen this post until now.)

[/b]

Jesus was nailed hand and feet to the stake. The normal cause of death was suffication. However, the person could prolong his life by pushing up on his legs to keep the weight off his throat. Since his feet were nailed to the stake, he would be able to do this. If his feet were NOT nailed to the stake, he would not be able to do it. OS' information is backwards. Since it was against Jewish custom to keep someone on the stake past sundown, they would then break the prisoner's legs so he could no longer keep the weight off his neck, leading to suffication. Jesus died before they had to break his legs. Note this in the gospels. Furthermore, RI made this comment:



Reminds me of how the apostles forbade the eating of certain meats and required circumcision but then later renounced that. Seems I remember the apostle Paul later denouncing those who still taught that.
That was a doctrinal change handed down by God to His Church, and it sure wasn't the first time God had changed the rules for His people. It happened a number of times in the OT, as you may recall. Eat, don't eat, eat, don't eat. No death penalty, then there's a death penalty.... Sacrifice.... sacrifice this exact way.... don't sacrifice... ok sacrifice again....

Somehow, I don't think that applies to the Watchtower. :rihrm:

[NonTrinitarian]

That was a doctrinal change handed down by God to His Church, and it sure wasn't the first time God had changed the rules for His people. It happened a number of times in the OT, as you may recall. Eat, don't eat, eat, don't eat. No death penalty, then there's a death penalty.... Sacrifice.... sacrifice this exact way.... don't sacrifice... ok sacrifice again....

Somehow, I don't think that applies to the Watchtower. :rihrm:No, of course not. Only to your church huh? The "rule" that abolished the Mosaic law was in effect at the death of Jesus. It was several years later before the apostles knew that. Until then they taught the wrong thing. God, in His due time, corrected them. They were only condemend if they continued to teach the wrong thing after getting a clearer understanding on it. Setting aside your belief that JW's are not the true church, how does this differ from the discussion at hand? I don't see any difference accept that you believe the church in the NT was the true church and was thus okay to get enlightened after they were incorrect while the cultic-group JW's are not.

JW's at one time thought Jesus died on a cross. Later new evidence came up that caused us to think it was a stake. They changed their belief. We don't condemn those who before that time thought the way they did because they didn't have all the facts. Now that we know more, we have a different viewpoint.

For all that, I bet your church once taught that the LXX didn't have the Divine Name in it. Once new evidence was found to show otherwise, did you go back and condemn your church for their error? Probably not. Would you if they continued to teach that the LXX didn't have the Divine Name? Yes.

Now explain to me again the difference.

[bar Jonah]

The Hebrew scribes used the Greek word "kurios" as the appropriate translation of YHWH in the Septuagint, that word meaning "lord" or one who has the highest authority. They intentionally did not leave it as what you claim to be the true name of God. So, how did they include YHWH in the Septuagint? Some kind of "Bible code?"

[NonTrinitarian]

The Hebrew scribes used the Greek word "kurios" as the appropriate translation of YHWH in the Septuagint, that word meaning "lord" or one who has the highest authority. They intentionally did not leave it as what you claim to be the true name of God. So, how did they include YHWH in the Septuagint? Some kind of "Bible code?" This argument would have been halfway decent back in the 1930's. Unfortunately in the 40's articles now referred to as the Dead Sea Scrolls were found in caves. With those articles were found numerous MSS of the LXX that dated before and during Christ. These older LXX use the Divine Name YHWH. It was sometime after this period that YHWH was removed and replaced with kurios. Who removed it? Either Jews who were no longer God's People because of their rejection of Jesus or apostate Christians who had a conflict with two names for God, YHWH and Jesus. It would be much easier to make Jesus the name for God if you got rid of YHWH.

Either way, the LXX that do not have the divine name are from the 2nd and 3rd centuries after Christ. The LXX with the Name are from 2nd century before Christ up into the 1st century after Christ.

[Cherith]

I found one of Bill the Cat's posts online last night where he included this link http://www.picknowl.com.au/homepages/rlister/jw/jrharp.htm and will employ the short excerpts and scans. Thanks Bill!

Today I found another gem and thought I would include it here. It is from a Watchtower website and gives the quote as coming from: Jehovah's Witnesses -- Proclaimers of God's Kingdom chap. 14 p. 200 "They Are No Part of the World". With the subheading: "Practices That Have Been Abandoned".

For years, Bible Students wore a cross and crown as a badge of identification, and this symbol was on the front cover of the "Watch Tower" from 1891 to 1931. But in 1928 it was emphasized that not a decorative symbol but one's activity as a witness showed he was a Christian. In 1936 it was pointed out that the evidence indicates that Christ died on a stake, not a two-beamed cross.

Further up the same page was the following:

Jehovah God used some forty writers over a period of sixteen centuries to provide us with his Word. Is it reasonable to conclude ... God caused a massive structure to be built that was to corroborate his Word? Rather, is it not an insult to God to hold that he felt it necessary to corroborate his inspired Word by some mute edifice? And that its meaning should be hidden from man for several thousand years and revealed only at a time when the structure had been robbed of all its external beauty?

The "mute edifice" in the quote is the Great Pyramid of Giza. For those who argue against the Cross in favor of a "torture stake" some 2,000 yrs removed from the actual implement seems to ring hollow in light of the last quote. That is, "is it not an insult to God to hold that He [feels] it necessary to corroborate His inspired Word by some mute ? And that its meaning should be hidden from man for several thousand years" until some JW "[i]scholars" should admit to a "revolutionary translation"?

Both JW quotes were taken from: http://quotes.watchtower.ca/pyramid.htm

The "revolutionary translation" admission comes from the 1969 Kingdom Interlinear.

But, as OS pointed out on this thread, the very word cross = † or "two pieces of timber placed at right angles" to each other and, to my knowledge, has NEVER carried the idea of a stake...

[Krusader]

I found one of Bill the Cat's posts online last night where he included this link http://www.picknowl.com.au/homepages/rlister/jw/jrharp.htm and will employ the short excerpts and scans. Thanks Bill!

Today I found another gem and thought I would include it here. It is from a Watchtower website and gives the quote as coming from: Jehovah's Witnesses -- Proclaimers of God's Kingdom chap. 14 p. 200 "They Are No Part of the World". With the subheading: "Practices That Have Been Abandoned".



Further up the same page was the following:



The "mute edifice" in the quote is the Great Pyramid of Giza. For those who argue against the Cross in favor of a "torture stake" some 2,000 yrs removed from the actual implement seems to ring hollow in light of the last quote. That is, "is it not an insult to God to hold that He [feels] it necessary to corroborate His inspired Word by some mute ? And that its meaning should be hidden from man for several thousand years" until some JW "[i]scholars" should admit to a "revolutionary translation"?

Both JW quotes were taken from: http://quotes.watchtower.ca/pyramid.htm

The "revolutionary translation" admission comes from the 1969 Kingdom Interlinear.

But, as OS pointed out on this thread, the very word cross = † or "two pieces of timber placed at right angles" to each other and, to my knowledge, has NEVER carried the idea of a stake...

JWs spurn the cross for the same reason that Mormns do - they are trading salvation by grace for the works of their flesh. Satan always has hated the sign of the cross, which is why the earliest Christians used it constantly, even at their burial sites:

http://www.leaderu.com/theology/burialcave.html

Jehovah's Witnesses, doubtless, were not among these early Christians, who loved the cross!!!!!