Why did the Watchtower change from Cross to Stake?

[Bill the Cat]

From the JW website:
http://www.watchtower.org/library/jt/index.htm?article=article_03.htm
Belief: Christ died on a stake, not a cross
Scriptural Reason Given: Gal. 3:13; Acts 5:30


http://www.picknowl.com.au/homepages/rlister/jw/jrharp.htm
The following is an excerpt from that site

Has the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society always held that Jesus Christ was tortured on a stake? Apparently not!! There is a book by judge Rutherford called "The Harp of God" written in 1921 and published in 1928. Judge Rutherford was the President of the Watchtower Society, the voice of the Jehovah's Witnesses, and his word is beyond despute to any Jehovah's Witness. There is not one mention of a torture stake to be found in this book. It can only be taken that judge Rutherford, although denying many biblical truths and doctrines, did believe in the cross of Christ. This is also true of the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society who supply the "preface" in the book.

Finally, there is only one picture of the crucifixion in this book, found on page 113. The following scan is of that picture.

[Captain Ochre]

It's "new light", silly.

:smile:

The amazing thing is that sometimes "new light" supplants new light that had supplanted the newest light right before it.

If you can follow that.
:smile:

I've got a birthday record book published by the Watchtower organization not long after 1900, so that Bible Students could keep track of the birthdays of all their friends.

[AVmetro]

Now that's something I'd like to get my hands on, CO. JPHolding, I believe has a short bit on the 'cross' in refutation of Dan Barker's argument. I'll see if I can't find it and post it later.

-AV

[dizzle]

In isolation there is no issue with changing one's position but in an autocratic society such as the WTBTS, it is a definite problem. It would be (and not to associate my Catholic friends with the WTBTS) like one Pope contradicting another Pope, while both speaking Ex Cathedra. Now I know the WTBTS makes certian ways to avoid this pickle but they are not convincing. They hold themselves as the authorative interpreter of the text yet they have reversed themselves on very distinctive doctrines and some quite sober such as whether or not Jesus should be worshipped.

[barryrob]

From the JW website:
http://www.watchtower.org/library/jt/index.htm?article=article_03.htm
Belief: Christ died on a stake, not a cross
Scriptural Reason Given: Gal. 3:13; Acts 5:30


http://www.picknowl.com.au/homepages/rlister/jw/jrharp.htm
The following is an excerpt from that site

Has the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society always held that Jesus Christ was tortured on a stake? Apparently not!! There is a book by judge Rutherford called "The Harp of God" written in 1921 and published in 1928. Judge Rutherford was the President of the Watchtower Society, the voice of the Jehovah's Witnesses, and his word is beyond despute to any Jehovah's Witness. There is not one mention of a torture stake to be found in this book. It can only be taken that judge Rutherford, although denying many biblical truths and doctrines, did believe in the cross of Christ. This is also true of the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society who supply the "preface" in the book.

Finally, there is only one picture of the crucifixion in this book, found on page 113. The following scan is of that picture.Hi
I did my own digging to see if what thw WBTS said was credable on this point and found it to be so, here are just a few of my notes:-


WHO EXECUTED JESUS CHRIST; THE ROMANS OR THE JEWS?










Matt 2 7:24 Seeing that it did no good but, rather, an uproar was arising, Pilate took water and washed his hands before the crowd, saying: "I am innocent of the blood of this [man]. YOU yourselves must see to it." 25 At that all the people said in answer: "His blood come upon us and upon our children." 26 Then he released Bar·ab´bas to them, but he had Jesus whipped and handed him over to be impaled.

Luke 23:20 Again Pilate called out to them, because he wanted to release Jesus. 21 Then they began to yell, saying: "Impale! Impale him!" 22 The third time he said to them: "Why, what bad thing did this [man] do? I found nothing deserving of death in him; I will therefore chastise and release him." 23 At this they began to be urgent, with loud voices, demanding that he be impaled; and their voices began to win out. 24 So Pilate gave sentence for their demand to be met:

John 18:29 Therefore Pilate came outside to them and said: "What accusation do YOU bring against this man?" 30 In answer they said to him: "If this man were not a wrongdoer, we would not have delivered him up to you." 31 Hence Pilate said to them: "Take him yourselves and judge him according to YOUR law." The Jews said to him: "It is not lawful for us to kill anyone."

John 19:6 "Pilate said to them: "Take him yourselves and impale him, for I do not find any fault in him." 7 The Jews answered him: "We have a law, and according to the law he ought to die, because he made himself God's son."

The common held idea is that Jesus was executed by the Romans according to their laws and traditions, but, this is not what the Bible shows (see above). The scriptures state that Pilate GAVE JESUS OVER TO THE JEWS for execution ACCORDING TO THEIR LAW, THE MOSAIC LAW, NOT ROMAN LAW!


"The Messiah redeemed us from the curse pronounced in the Torah by becoming cursed on our behalf; for the Tanakh says, Everyone who hangs from a stake (K.J.V. "tree") comes under a curse."-'The Jewish N.T.' by David H. Stern.
The above is a quote taken from Deut 21: 22-23 which reads:-

"If a man is guilty of a capital offence and is put to death, and you impale him on a stake, [K.J.V. "tree"] you must not let his corpse remain on the stake [K.J.V. "tree"] overnight, but must bury him the same day. ..."-TANAKH - The Holy Scriptures. The Jewish Publication Society.

also

The Five Books of Moses By Everett Fox renders Deut 21:22-23 thus:-

"Now when a man has sin-gulit, (resulting in) a sentence of death and is put to death, and you hang him up on a wooden-stake, [K.J.V. "tree"] you are not to leave his carcass overnight on the stake, [K.J.V. "tree"] . . ."

"Stake" in the Hebrew Scriptures, O.T.:-

J. Strong's No. 06086 `ets {ates} from 06095; TWOT-1670a; n m AV - tree 162, wood 107, timber 23, stick 14, gallows 8, staff 4, stock 4, carpenter + 02796 2, branches 1, helve 1, planks 1, stalks 1; 328

1) tree, wood, timber, stock, plank, stalk, stick, gallows

1a) tree, trees

1b) wood, pieces of wood, gallows, firewood, cedar-wood, woody flax

The following are comments by various scholars, theological and secular, on the origin of the Cross in Christendom's iconology etc..

A brief examination of the Greek word:-

"TREE 2. xulon (xulon, [Strong's No. 3586]) " wood, a piece of wood, anything made of wood" (see staff, stocks) , is used, with the rendering " tree," (a) in Luke 23:31, where "the green tree" refers either to Christ, figuratively of all His living power and excellencies, or to the life of the Jewish people while still inhabiting their land, in contrast to "the dry," a figure fulfilled in the horrors or Roman massacre and devastation in A.D. 70 (cf. the Lord's parable in Luke 13:6-9; see Ezek 20:47, and cf. 21:3); (b) of "the cross," the tree being the stauros, the upright pale or stake to which Romans nailed those who were thus to be executed, Acts 5:30; 10:39; 13:29; Gal 3:13; 1 Pet 2:24; (c) of "the tree of life," Rev 2:7; 22:2 (twice), 14, 19, RV, KJV, "book." Also see 'WOOD'"-'Vine's Expository Dictionary of Biblical Words' p.642







"CROSS (Gk. Stauros, a "stake"; Lat. crux). The cross that was used as an instrument of death (see Crucifixion) was either a plain vertical stake to which the victim was fastened, with hands tied or nailed above the head or a stake provided with a crossbar, to which the victim was fastened with arms outstretched. Of the latter kind three varieties were known, so that there were four forms of cross : (1) simple (Lat. simplex), I ; (2) St. Andrew's (decussata), 5 ; (3) St. Anthony's (commissa), T ; (4) the Latin (immissia), † ."-'The New Unger's Bible Dictionary by M.F. Unger p.263







In the above quotation No's.2 & 3 can be ruled out as they are called after the 'saints' that lived numerous years after the death of Christ and are from pagan sources, and No.4 as will be shown in the following material is from a very ancient and pagan origen and was not used by the Jews as an instrument of punishment, leaving No.1 a "stake", 'I' as will be shown, later was the instrument used in the case concerning the murder of Jesus Christ the Son of God.






"CROSS, CRUCIFIXION. The Gk. word for 'cross' (stauros; verb stauroo; Lat. crux, crucifigo, 'I fasten to a cross') means primarily and upright stake or beam, and secondarily a stake used as an instrument for punishment and execution. . . ."-'New Bible Dictionary' 2nd Ed. p.253





"stauroV Stake : O Nor. Staurr, Sk. Stavaras firm. isthmi."-'Etmological Lexicon of Classical Greek' by E.R. Wharton p.118

In view of the following statements about the origin of the "cross" and how it is view by the Church it must be looked at in greater depth:-

Therefore Jesus as a Jew was to be executed according to JEWISH LAW to fulfil prophecy, thus he was put to death of a an upright pole or "wooden stake" and NOT a Pagan Cross as the Jews would not have allowed the use of pagan items! Herein are some theological points that I consider need your serious attention in view of the history of the pagan theology involved and how it has effected the Churches in the past and today!! How can we consider the theology of the Churches as purely Christian with all these pagan elements therein and excepted en mass?

BarryRob

[barryrob]

In isolation there is no issue with changing one's position but in an autocratic society such as the WTBTS, it is a definite problem. It would be (and not to associate my Catholic friends with the WTBTS) like one Pope contradicting another Pope, while both speaking Ex Cathedra. Now I know the WTBTS makes certian ways to avoid this pickle but they are not convincing. They hold themselves as the authorative interpreter of the text yet they have reversed themselves on very distinctive doctrines and some quite sober such as whether or not Jesus should be worshipped.

When infomation such as follows it requires though and action to correct the error:-

Vine's Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words

A. Noun


stauros (http://www.antioch.com.sg/cgi-bin/bible/vines/#A1)
A1. Cross, Crucify [Noun]

stauros denotes, primarily, "an upright pale or stake." On such malefactors were nailed for execution. Both the noun and the verb stauroo, "to fasten to a stake or pale," are originally to be distinguished from the ecclesiastical form of a two beamed "cross." The shape of the latter had its origin in ancient Chaldea, and was used as the symbol of the god Tammuz (being in the shape of the mystic Tau, the initial of his name) in that country and in adjacent lands, including Egypt. By the middle of the 3rd cent. A.D. the churches had either departed from, or had travestied, certain doctrines of the Christian faith. In order to increase the prestige of the apostate ecclesiastical system pagans were received into the churches apart from regeneration by faith, and were permitted largely to retain their pagan signs and symbols. Hence the Tau or T, in its most frequent form, with the cross-piece lowered, was adopted to stand for the "cross" of Christ.

As for the Chi, or X, which Constantine declared he had seen in a vision leading him to champion the Christian faith, that letter was the initial of the word "Christ" and had nothing to do with "the Cross" (for xulon, "a timber beam, a tree," as used for the stauros, see under TREE (http://www.antioch.com.sg/cgi-bin/bible/vines/get_defn.pl?num=3076)).

The method of execution was borrowed by the Greeks and Romans from the Phoenicians. The stauros denotes
(a) "the cross, or stake itself," e.g., Matt_27:32 (http://www.antioch.com.sg/cgi-bin/bible.pl?Matt+27:32);
(b) "the crucifixion suffered," e.g., 1_Cor_1:17,18 (http://www.antioch.com.sg/cgi-bin/bible.pl?1+Cor+1:17,18), where "the word of the cross," RV, stands for the Gospel; Gal_5:11 (http://www.antioch.com.sg/cgi-bin/bible.pl?Gal+5:11), where crucifixion is metaphorically used of the renunciation of the world, that characterizes the true Christian life; Gal_6:12,14 (http://www.antioch.com.sg/cgi-bin/bible.pl?Gal+6:12,14); Eph_2:16 (http://www.antioch.com.sg/cgi-bin/bible.pl?Eph+2:16); Php_3:18 (http://www.antioch.com.sg/cgi-bin/bible.pl?Php+3:18).

The judicial custom by which the condemned person carried his stake to the place of execution, was applied by the Lord to those sufferings by which His faithful followers were to express their fellowship with Him, e.g., Matt_10:38 (http://www.antioch.com.sg/cgi-bin/bible.pl?Matt+10:38).

SEE http://www.antioch.com.sg/cgi-bin/bible/vines/get_defn.pl?num=0616Barryrob

[n0rstar]

good post barryrob. I was scrolling to see if anyone was going to bring up the fact of the greek meaning and context of Stauros.

To add also, the WTBTS has changed their views on other things. Such as praying to Jesus, as well as in the late 1800's early 1900's they use to wear a pin, which was later deemed idolotry and was no longer worn. Smoken cigarettes was also allowed up to a certin point, but then also exiled due to the fact it was deemed a sinful act. The more they learn and research the closer they get to an accurate knowledge and life style proposed. Like Proverbs points out.

Proverbs 4:18But the path of the righteous ones is like the bright light that is getting lighter and lighter until the day is firmly established.

its like perfecting anything. THe more you learn, the more you tweak it to make it as perfect as possible.

[Xavier]

Like Proverbs points out.

Proverbs 4:18But the path of the righteous ones is like the bright light that is getting lighter and lighter until the day is firmly established.

its like perfecting anything. THe more you learn, the more you tweak it to make it as perfect as possible.

I don't know what's funnier...

CO's parody of this argument or the fact that nOrstar seems oblivious to the fact that it has already been parodied...

Either way, :rofl:

Yours,
Xavier

[Sparko]

I always thought it funny that the JW's insist that the word "stake" or "pole" must mean an upright piece of wood without a cross beam.

They see examples of poles with cross beams every day...

[barryrob]

I always thought it funny that the JW's insist that the word "stake" or "pole" must mean an upright piece of wood without a cross beam.

They see examples of poles with cross beams every day...
You are quite right but not in Churches:-


Ancient pagan Celtics & THE wheel cross
Being as the peoples of ancient Europe, Scandinavia, Britain, Ireland etc. where Celts and used the + inside a O and O as an important religious symbols of great importance as they are found all over ancient pagan Europe etc., what did they symbolise, the following comments will explain, as they are based around their veneration of these pre-christian crosses as Sun symbols. It as has been shown by many scholars and theologians that the Celtic church utilised pagan concepts, as stated by Geoffrey Ashe "Celtic Christians certainly has a character of its own. Profoundly important was the way it left the door open for the adaptation of pagan deities and motifs" from his book 'Mythology of the British Isles' page 271, this influance is also added to in the following in connection with the cross:-
". . . in a brochure by Dr. Oscar Montelius on rock-sculptures of Sweden we find a reproduction (also given in Du Chaillu's "Viking Age") of a rude rock-carving showing a number of ships with men on board and a circle quartered by a cross--unmistakably a solar emblem--just above them. That theses ships . . . were drawn so frequently in conjunction with the solar disk merely for amusement or for purely decorative objects seems to me most improbable. In the days of megalithic folk a sepulchral monument, the very focus of religious ideas would have hardly have been covered with idle and mindless scrawls."-Celtic Myths and Legends by T.W. Rolleston p.72-3
As recorded by Caesar:-
"Caesar says the Celtic Juppiter governed heaven. A god who carries a wheel, probably a sun-god, and another a god of thunder, called Tarauis, seem to have been equated with Juppiter,. The sun-god with the wheel was not equated with Apollo, who seems to have represented Celtic sun-gods only in so far as they were also gods of healing. In some cases the god with the wheel carries also a thunder bolt, and on some alters, dedicated to Juppiter, both a wheel and a thunderbolt are figured. Many races have symbolised the sun as a circle or wheel, later assimilated to Juppiter, had as his emblem a wheel. The Celts had the same symbolism, and used the wheel symbol as an amulet,* while at the midsummer festivals blazing wheels, symbolising the sun, were rolled down a slope. Possibly the god carries a thunderbolt because the Celts, like other races, believed that lightning was a spark from the sun. *ftn. "Gaidoz, Le Dieu Gaulois de Soleil; Reinach, CS 93, BF 35, B;anchet, i. 27."-'The Religion of the Ancient Celts by J.A. MacCulloch p.29 [also pp.271, 327-8]
Note: from the previous material, the Canaanite god Hadad, their storm and was symbolised by the Wheel Cross and thus would also be associated with Thunder!
"The Cross was a mystical symbol among northern people long before Christianity, as it was among the peoples of the South. It is a symbol of incalculable antiquity and of an origin not to be determined. It is even found in the religious art of pre-Columbian America. So that, though the sign of the Cross is often used in Protestant Scandinavia and Germany as "a protection against uncanny visitors," and though it is marked with chalk or tar on gates and doors, made of straw to be hung in stables and byres, and even smeared with the wax of Yule-candle on the udders of the cattle, it would be a hardy man who would dare affirm that the sign is of Christ's Cross and not that of Miolnir, the Hammer of Thor.
The chief purpose of the runes-the letters of the ancient Teutonic script-seems to have been in casting spells or making predictions, and though the runes themselves have gone, divinatory practices have lasted as a popular amusement in the northern countries, as they used to be popular amusement among the people of Britian."-'The Story of Christmas' by Michael Harrison p.245
Also see:-
'The Gods of the Celts' by Miranda Green pp.39-54
+ inside a O
Celtic Cross
Above is the "Celtic cross n a cross consisting of a Latin cross with a ring centred on the intersection of the crossbar and upright shaft."-'Longman Dictionary', Infopedia UK96
"The worship of nature, of sky, sun, earth, sea, rivers, mountains, trees, or of the spirits of these, has been widespread and we have seen it as it existed among the Celts. . . . The Sun, Sol, was female, and Snorri includes her among the Asynjur. She must have been an object of worship from early times, . . . From early times the sun was symbolized by a disc or wheel, and a bronze disc representing the sun, set on a chariot with six wheels, on the axles of the first four of which stands a horse, was found in Iceland some years ago. According to Snorri, horses draw the chariot of the sun and this might be connected with the bronze relic, save that the horse itself is also on the wheels. In all probability the bonfires in Scandinavia, at early or mid-summer, as among the Celts and elsewhere in Europe, were lit to aid the sun in its progress-a magical rite."-'The Celtic & Scandinavian Religions' by J.A. MacCulloch pp.130-1
"The "one wheel" of Mithra's Chariot is not for traction, but is the flaming wheel or nimbus nearly always behind the shown behind the god of celestial light-behind Mithra-Varuna and Mithra-Ahurs as he drives in chariot. . . . some part of this tradition of the halo or nimbus comes from Assyria, where the Sun God Assur in shown in the midst of one, and before them the Babylonia where a king of the first dynasty of Babylon brought into the sun temple (E-babbara) 'great sun disks gate', the solar wheel from the Indo-European sun chariot must have been coalesced with it. In need not insist how readily it passed into Christianity. How many thousands of hours must have been devoted by monks to drawing the disk with equal-armed cross behind the head of Christ, the disciples and saints, and lovingly spreading them with gold? The halos were often identical in every detail with those little gold disks buried with Bronze Age ladies on Salisbury Plain.
In Christian iconography Christ passes from the cross of suffering to the cross of glory, the latter being shown with tremendous sun rays radiating from the centre. One of the greatest of these, a huge golden sunburst, shrine on the high alter of St. Peter's in Rome. Again in the Catholic church the monstrance in which the Host in placed for adoration on the high alter is made in the likeness of the radiant sun."-'Man and the Sun' by Jacquetta Hawkes pp.180-181
Is the Celtic [Wheel] Cross Celtic?
The following quote throw some light on that question:
"Goldsmiths [c. Neolithic age] working around Ireland's Wicklow Mountains were especially found of one which has endured right up to the present day. It is so-called Celtic Cross, a simple cross within a circle. In its origins there was there is nothing Irish, or British, or 'Celtic', about it. It developed in the Western Carpathian region around 3000 BC, upon pottery. During the next millennium it spread slowly across Europe, being especially popular upon metalwork of the so-called beaker culture. Traditionally it has been regarded as a sun symbol, and the particular frequency with which it appears upon prehistoric gold objects would perhaps strengthen that supposition." -''The Pagan Religions of the Ancient British Isles', Their Nature & Legacy by Ronald Hutton p.103

Hot Cross Bun
A classic example of the use of the pagan Solar Wheel is its incorporation in the 'Hot Cross Buns', + inside a O, during Easter (named after the pagan Anglo-Saxon Goddess Eostre*) time. This following comment is made about the pagan use of special foods marked with a cross "In modern times Good Friday is remembered primarily for the eating of hot cross buns. The custom goes back to pre-Christian times, when pagans offered their God, Zeus, a cake baked in the form of a bull, with a cross upon it to represent its horns. When the Romans settled down in Britain they also introduced the idea of making spiced buns marked with the sign of the cross."- Origins of Festivals and Feasts by Jane Harrownen pp.*29, 33

A little more light.
Barryrob

[Sparko]

...And your cutting and pasting a copious amount of trivia means what exactly?

[barryrob]

...And your cutting and pasting a copious amount of trivia means what exactly?

Not if its true and veneration given to the cross goes the Satan The Devil as it is one of his symbols and not from the God of The Bible!
Barryrob

[Sparko]

The cross is a symbol of satan? because people put X's on hot cross buns? I am sorry but we have evidence that Romans used Crosses to crucify people with. Some were T's, some were X shaped, and some were crosses.

Since you like to cut and paste, I will do so for you. Here is an excellent article on the cross:



Whenever Jesus is depicted in His crucifixion on the crosss, Jehovah's Witnesses always show Him as being nailed to an upright pole, with one nail through both hands (eg. Watchtower, 15 August, 1987, p. 29) rather than has been traditionally and historically understood - on a cross with two nails through His hands. Furthermore, they will often contend that the cross is actually a non-Christian pagan symbol.

Jehovah's Witnesses argue that the Greek word for "cross" (stauros) simply means 'an upright pole or stake'. However, it should be noted that this interpretation is severely limiting, and most probably incorrect of Jesus' own crucifixion, as will be seen by other evidence later. Robert Bowman observes that the Greek word stauros appears to have been used to represent a wide range of wooden executional structures (Robert Bowman, Understanding Jehovah's Witnesses, p. 143). Concerning the actual shape of the structure which Christ was crucified on, The Lutterworth Dictionary of the Bible has this to say: "It is believed that three different kinds of crosses were used for Roman executions - the crux commissa which had the form of a T, the crux decussata whose shape was X and the crux immissa or capitata which is generally believed to be the type of cross on which Jesus died." (p. 185). So with the Greek word open to interpretation and debate, and the fact that there were many different structures in existence by which people were crucified on, is there other evidence which indicates that Christ died on a cross?

Biblical Evidence
In their representations of Christ on the torture stake, the Watchtower society of Jehovah's Witnesses, always show 'one nail' through both of Christ's hands. However, in contrast to this, the Bible clearly states that Christ's crucifixion bore the marks of two nails and not one. This is seen in John 20:25 which records Thomas as saying: "...Unless I see in His hands the imprint of the nails, and put my finger into the place of the nails, and put my hand into His side, I will not believe.". In addition to this text, further biblical evidence that Christ was crucified on a cross, rather than a torture stake, can be gleaned from Matthew 27:37, which describes the charge placed "above" Chirst's "head": "This is Jesus The King of the Jews". This charge would have been difficult to read if Christ had been crucified on a torture stake as His hands would have obstructed the words. If it was placed higher up the pole, it may have been easier for the Gospel writer, Matthew, to have written that the charge was placed above His hands. However, the traditional historic view of Christ being crucified on a cross, would both make the charge easier for all to have seen, and, as the text says, been placed above His head.

Archaeological Evidence
Michael Green has observed the following: "Some experts doubt whether the cross became a Christian symbol so early, but the recent discoveries of the cross, the fish, the star, and the plough, all well known from the second century, on ossuaries of the Judaeo-Christian community in Judae put the possibility beyond all reasonable cavil." (Michael Green, Evangelism in the Early Church, pp. 214-215).

In June of 1968 1st century tombs were accidently unearthed by bulldozers working north of Jerusalem. Archaeologist, Vasilius Tzaferis excavated the tombs and unearthed the skeletal remains of a young man who had been crucified. Mr Tzaferis, who is not a Christian, wrote an article on his findings in the Biblical Archaeological Review. Writing of what he discovered, part of the Review states: "At the end of the first century BC, the Romans adopted crucifixion as an official punishment for non-Romans for certain limited transgressions. Initially, it was employed not as a method of execution, but only of punishment. Moreover, only slaves convicted of certain crimes were punished by crucifixion. During this early period, a wooden beam known as a 'furca' or 'patibulum' was placed on the slave's neck and bound his arms. The slave was then required to march through the neighbourhood proclaiming his offence. This march was intended as an exipiation and humiliation. Later, the slave was also stripped and scourged. increasing both the punishment and the humiliation. Still later, instead of walking with the arms tied to the wooden beam, the slave was tied to a vertical stake...Following the beating, the horizontal beam was placed upon the condemned man's shoulders, and he began the long, gruelling march to the execution site, usually outside the citywalls...When the procession arrived at the execution site, a vertical stake was fixed into the ground...If the victim was attached by nails, he was laid on the ground, with his shoulders on the cross-beam. His arms were held out and nailed to the two ends of the cross-beam, which was then raised and fixed on top of the vertical beam. The victim's feet were then nailed down against this vertical stake...In order to prolong the agony, Roman executioners devised two instruments that would keep the victim alive on the cross for extended periods of time. One known as the 'sedile', was a small seat attached to the front of the cross, about half way down. This device provided some support for the victim's body and may explain the phrase used by the Romans, 'to sit upon the cross'. Both Erenaeus and Justin Martyr describe the cross as having five extremities rather than four; the fifth was probably the 'sedile'." (Biblical Archaeological Review, January/February, 1988, pp. 48-49, as quoted by Doug Harris in Awake to the Watchtower, pp. 309-310.).

Further archaeological evidence for the cross can be seen in the picture below which is of some first century graffiti, which depicts a believer worshipping an ass headed god on a cross.



[attachment=1]
click for larger image
The inscription reads: "Alexamenos worships his god."

It is interesting to know that in a similar way to Jehovah's Witnesses, there are some who have previously believed that Christ died on a torture stake rather than the cross, but then have changed their position. This has been seen most notably with the Worldwide Church of God, publishers of the magazine The Plain Truth. This group used to believed that Christ was crucified on an upright pole or torture stake. However this position has been abandoned in recent times in favour of the traditional belief that the implement of crucifixion was a cross. It has been my own observation, as I have observed the behaviour of, and talked with Jehovah's Witnesses over the years, that many have an almost superstitious dread and fear of the cross shape. So convinced are they, of what the Watchtower has told them regarding this image, that many instantly associate it with paganism. This is most unfortunate because, as was seen, the evidence seems to clearly be in favour of this shape. When Christians use the cross of Christ in their decorations of churches etc. they use it as a symbol of victory over the forces of paganism. It also reminds Christians of the suffering which Christ endured for our sins. Some Witnesses may even think that Christians worship the cross. While there may be some individuals who may do this, this is certainly something which is not the norm in Christianity (particularly Protestant Christianity) and certainly something to be rejected, as indeed it is by the vast majority of Christendom.

Some may object that it is not important what shape the structure was upon which Christ was crucified, but rather what happened there. Christians would certainly agree with this. Certainly, theologians and scholars have no doubt pondered on the shape of the implement of crucifixion, but it has never been an issue of primary concern. However, it should be remembered that it was not the Christian Church who began to attack the shape of the cross, and reject it as a pagan symbol, but rather the Watchtower Society. Christians are simply defending a symbol which reminds them of an event which is important to them.

[barryrob]

Yes I know and agree that the Romans used all types of Crosses, I have no problem with that as they where pagans.

BUT then Jesus was NOT executed by Romans, he was put to death by his own people*, the Jews, and they would have found the use of the Cross, a pagan symbols to them as beaking God's Laws**:-




*Matthew 27:24-26 Seeing that it did no good but, rather, an uproar was arising, Pilate took water and washed his hands before the crowd, saying: "I am innocent of the blood of this [man]. YOU yourselves must see to it." 25 At that all the people said in answer: "His blood come upon us and upon our children." 26 Then he released Bar·ab´bas to them, but he had Jesus whipped and handed him over to be impaled.



**Deut 4:15-19 "And YOU must take good care of YOUR souls, because YOU did not see any form on the day of Jehovah’s speaking to YOU in Ho´reb out of the middle of the fire, 16 that YOU may not act ruinously and may not really make for yourselves a carved image, the form of any symbol, the representation of male or female, 17 the representation of any beast that is in the earth, the representation of any winged bird that flies in the heavens, 18 the representation of anything moving on the ground, the representation of any fish that is in the waters under the earth; 19 and that you may not raise your eyes to the heavens and indeed see the sun and the moon and the stars, all the army of the heavens, and actually get seduced and bow down to them and serve them, which Jehovah your God has apportioned to all the peoples under the whole heavens.



The Cross was a symbol of the pagan Sun gods and a sex symbol so the Jews would not use it.

Watchtower 1960 2/15 p. 126 The Cross in Worship

This linking of the cross with sun worship is not surprising, as that was what the Chaldeans of Mesopotamia did, and it was from there that mankind was dispersed to all parts of the earth after the great Flood. Their god Tammuz was associated with the sun, and, according to Alexander Hislop, "the mystic Tau of the Chaldeans and Egyptians" was "the initial of the name of Tammuz." Although Tammuz was given different names by other peoples his symbol, the tau cross, continued in general use. Since Constantine was a pagan Roman, among whom the cross was a religious symbol, it is significant that he had a vision of this symbol in the sky beneath the sun.


Ezekiel 8:13-16 And he continued on to say to me: "You will yet see again great detestable things that they are doing." 14 So he brought me to the entrance of the gate of the house of Jehovah, which is toward the north, and, look! there the women were sitting, weeping over the [god] Tam´muz. 15 And he further said to me: "Have you seen [this], O son of man? You will yet see again great detestable things worse than these." 16 So he brought me to the inner courtyard of the house of Jehovah, and, look! at the entrance of the temple of Jehovah, between the porch and the altar, there were about twenty-five men with their backs to the temple of Jehovah and their faces to the east, and they were bowing down to the east, to the sun.


Sorry it would seem that you are going against scripture.

Barryrob

[Sparko]

Yes I know and agree that the Romans used all types of Crosses, I have no problem with that as they where pagans.

BUT then Jesus was NOT executed by Romans, he was put to death by his own people*, the Jews, and they would have found the use of the Cross, a pagan symbols to them as beaking God's Laws**:-

*Matthew 27:24-26 Seeing that it did no good but, rather, an uproar was arising, Pilate took water and washed his hands before the crowd, saying: "I am innocent of the blood of this [man]. YOU yourselves must see to it." 25 At that all the people said in answer: "His blood come upon us and upon our children." 26 Then he released Bar·ab´bas to them, but he had Jesus whipped and handed him over to be impaled. Hi barry,

The Jews did not execute by crucifixion, or impalement. That would be against their law. The jewish way to execute a heretic would be stoning him to death.

Read your sentence above "Then he released Barabbas to them, BUT he had Jesus whipped and...." If the Jews were the ones who killed Jesus then why does it say he released Barabbas to them, BUT not Jesus? He wanted to release Jesus to them, but they refused, saying they wanted Barabbas. So he gave them Barabbas and said that he was not taking the responsibility of Jesus' death. He would carry out their wishes, but he was not doing it of his own accord. He was doing it to pacify the crowd.

If you keep reading...

27Then the governor's soldiers took Jesus into the Praetorium and gathered the whole company of soldiers around him. 28They stripped him and put a scarlet robe on him, 29and then twisted together a crown of thorns and set it on his head. They put a staff in his right hand and knelt in front of him and mocked him. "Hail, king of the Jews!" they said. 30They spit on him, and took the staff and struck him on the head again and again. 31After they had mocked him, they took off the robe and put his own clothes on him. Then they led him away to crucify him.

The Crucifixion

32As they were going out, they met a man from Cyrene, named Simon, and they forced him to carry the cross. 33They came to a place called Golgotha (which means The Place of the Skull). 34There they offered Jesus wine to drink, mixed with gall; but after tasting it, he refused to drink it. 35When they had crucified him, they divided up his clothes by casting lots.[2 (http://www.biblegateway.com/cgi-bin/bible?language=english&passage=matt%2027&version=NIV#footnote_842751361_2)] 36And sitting down, they kept watch over him there.


--

But back to my article above. Did you notice that 1st Century graffitti? It shows someone making fun of a Christian, and clearly shows two things.

1. The christians were already using a cross as their symbol in the first century. Not a stake. This is too early to be influenced by pagans, people would still be alive who actually witnessed the crucifixion.

2. That the christians considered that the person (Jesus) who was crucified was GOD.

The inscription says: "Alexamenos worships his god."


Also, if as you say, the cross was a pagan symbol and the jews would never use such a symbol, they why did the early christians ever adopt the cross as a symbol, the first christians were jews and would have had a tizzy over that, wouldn't they? And yet, here we have an graphic example of a Christian God being crucified on a cross within years of Jesus' death.

[Oldmonk]

From the JW website:
http://www.watchtower.org/library/jt/index.htm?article=article_03.htm
Belief: Christ died on a stake, not a cross
Scriptural Reason Given: Gal. 3:13; Acts 5:30


http://www.picknowl.com.au/homepages/rlister/jw/jrharp.htm
The following is an excerpt from that site

Has the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society always held that Jesus Christ was tortured on a stake? Apparently not!! There is a book by judge Rutherford called "The Harp of God" written in 1921 and published in 1928. Judge Rutherford was the President of the Watchtower Society, the voice of the Jehovah's Witnesses, and his word is beyond despute to any Jehovah's Witness. There is not one mention of a torture stake to be found in this book. It can only be taken that judge Rutherford, although denying many biblical truths and doctrines, did believe in the cross of Christ. This is also true of the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society who supply the "preface" in the book.

Finally, there is only one picture of the crucifixion in this book, found on page 113. The following scan is of that picture.
GREAT point:) I think it was the oft UNsober Judge that wanted to distance the organization from the rest of Christianity...Much like the Adventists do...for the same reasons that Zeraboam changed the spot of worship for the 10 tribes of Israel:)

[wfaber]

The common held idea is that Jesus was executed by the Romans according to their laws and traditions, but, this is not what the Bible shows (see above). The scriptures state that Pilate GAVE JESUS OVER TO THE JEWS for execution ACCORDING TO THEIR LAW, THE MOSAIC LAW, NOT ROMAN LAW!
But is that talking about the penalty (being death for blasphemy according to Jewish law) or the method of execution?

My understanding the mode is that Jesus be taken outside the gates of the city and stoned to death. Since this isn't the method that they performed, I would assume that the passage was talking about the penalty for blasphemy.

Remember also that there were two criminals executed alongside Jesus at the same time and with the same method. Were they handed over to the Jews for execution according to their law? I don't believe so. They were criminals under Roman law.

[shunyadragon]

From the JW website:
http://www.watchtower.org/library/jt/index.htm?article=article_03.htm
Belief: Christ died on a stake, not a cross
Scriptural Reason Given: Gal. 3:13; Acts 5:30


http://www.picknowl.com.au/homepages/rlister/jw/jrharp.htm
The following is an excerpt from that site

Has the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society always held that Jesus Christ was tortured on a stake? Apparently not!! There is a book by judge Rutherford called "The Harp of God" written in 1921 and published in 1928. Judge Rutherford was the President of the Watchtower Society, the voice of the Jehovah's Witnesses, and his word is beyond despute to any Jehovah's Witness. There is not one mention of a torture stake to be found in this book. It can only be taken that judge Rutherford, although denying many biblical truths and doctrines, did believe in the cross of Christ. This is also true of the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society who supply the "preface" in the book.



I read some place in the distant past that described cruxifiction as a very non-specific practice where the cross shape was never likely an intended practice, and that it may have been a cross, post, T, or a tree, and it was a common practice to use a scaffolding like structure where the person was tied and possibly nailed tp a timber and then hoisted up onto the scafolding. The scaffolding argument has merit, because Christ was cruxified next to others. Given the nature of the punishment I doubt that cruxifiction was ever deliberately intended to use a neat sculptured cross.

[Oldmonk]

I read some place in the distant past that described cruxifiction as a very non-specific practice where the cross shape was never likely an intended practice, and that it may have been a cross, post, T, or a tree, and it was a common practice to use a scaffolding like structure where the person was tied and possibly nailed tp a timber and then hoisted up onto the scafolding. The scaffolding argument has merit, because Christ was cruxified next to others. Given the nature of the punishment I doubt that cruxifiction was ever deliberately intended to use a neat sculptured cross.
This may be true. The Witnesses are quite wrong in their dogmatic view however. There is even archeological evidence of the cross being used. In any case the cross became the symbol of the church from a very early age!!!

[shunyadragon]

This may be true. The Witnesses are quite wrong in their dogmatic view however. There is even archeological evidence of the cross being used. In any case the cross became the symbol of the church from a very early age!!!

I agree, the cross is a symbol, which is okay. There are more questionable symbols and statues hanging about in the sanctuaries and the around the necks of the faithful to be concerned about.

When I grew up in South America a very common pagan symbol called the 'Fash' (sp?) was worn and used for healing and protection against evil spirts. If my memory serves me right it was a hand with one finger extended.

When dogmatism tries to define things that are conjecture, the result is a egocentric blindness that erects a mindless wall around a belief.

[NonTrinitarian]

I agree, the cross is a symbol, which is okay.

"And you must take good care of your souls, because you did not see any form on the day of Jehovah's speaking to you in Horeb out of the middle of the fire, that you may not act ruinously and may not really make for yourselves a carved image, the form of any symbol..." Deut 4:15,15

The cross is as much an idol as a statute of Budha. I can't tell you how many churches I've been to where the preacher will turn around and face the cross in prayer. How many people I've seen kneel down in front of a cross and pray.

History testifies Christians didn't use the cross as a symbol until the third century. Apparently something happened then that made idolatry ok.

Now I will get the flood of arguments all saying the same basic thing. The cross reminds you of Jesus and/or what he did for you. But why do you need to risk going against God's command of idolatry when you have all of the creation around you to remind you of Jesus? I don't think anyone dares deny the cross was a pagan religious symbol before Jesus died. How did a pagan symbol turn good because God's Son was put to death on it? And whether people want to admit it or not, they hold special value to a piece of wood, plastic or metal because of its shape. That is idolatry, no matter how much one denies it. If you think the cross is a "special shape", you've made it an idol.

[Bill the Cat]

"And you must take good care of your souls, because you did not see any form on the day of Jehovah's speaking to you in Horeb out of the middle of the fire, that you may not act ruinously and may not really make for yourselves a carved image, the form of any symbol..." Deut 4:15,15

you mean 4:15-16??
so nice of you to cut the verse off to suit your need...
:hrm:

15 "So watch yourselves carefully, since you did not see any form on the day the LORD spoke to you at Horeb from the midst of the fire,

16 so that you do not act corruptly and make a graven image for yourselves in the form of any figure, the likeness of male or female,

17 the likeness of any animal that is on the earth, the likeness of any winged bird that flies in the sky,

18 the likeness of anything that creeps on the ground, the likeness of any fish that is in the water below the earth.


No mention of inanimate objects like a Cross. Just things that the existing pagans were worshipping. In fact, He DOES instruct man to make an image of something in heaven:


18 "You shall make two cherubim of gold, make them of hammered work at the two ends of the mercy seat.

19 "Make one cherub at one end and one cherub at the other end; you shall make the cherubim of one piece with the mercy seat at its two ends.

20 "The cherubim shall have their wings spread upward, covering the mercy seat with their wings and facing one another; the faces of the cherubim are to be turned toward the mercy seat.


The cross is as much an idol as a statute of Budha.

What a crock of :gas:

I can't tell you how many churches I've been to where the preacher will turn around and face the cross in prayer. How many people I've seen kneel down in front of a cross and pray.

Well I ain't one, although my church does sport a cross. Hamster summed it up properly here (http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showpost.php?p=1081968&postcount=8):

Using a cross is not an idol, anymore than writing is an idol. It only becomes an idol if, for whatever reason, you start to believe that the cross around your neck or on your wall is God himself localized in that shape, and begin to worship it.


History testifies Christians didn't use the cross as a symbol until the third century. Apparently something happened then that made idolatry ok.

Tertullian is clear at the very beginning of the 3rd century that the "sign of the corss" was commonly used already.


Tertullian says: "Frontem crucis signaculo terimus" (De Cor. mil. iii), i.e. "We Christians wear out our foreheads with the sign of the cross." The practice was so general about the year 200, according to the same writer, that the Christians of his time were wont to sign themselves with the cross before undertaking any action. He says that it is not commanded in Holy Scripture, but is a matter of Christian tradition, like certain other practices that are confirmed by long usage and the spirit of faith in which they are kept.


Now I will get the flood of arguments all saying the same basic thing. The cross reminds you of Jesus and/or what he did for you. But why do you need to risk going against God's command of idolatry when you have all of the creation around you to remind you of Jesus?

If it were really against the command of God, then you may have a point. But it isn't as I showed your selective prooftexting above and Hamster's apt dismissal.

I don't think anyone dares deny the cross was a pagan religious symbol before Jesus died. How did a pagan symbol turn good because God's Son was put to death on it?

How do Pagans turn good because God's Son was put to death for them?

And whether people want to admit it or not, they hold special value to a piece of wood, plastic or metal because of its shape.

No, it is what that shape symbolizes that we remember.


14 But may it never be that I would boast, except in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, through which the world has been crucified to me, and I to the world.


The Cross is synonymous with the death of Jesus, which, without it, I would still be a lost sinner with no hope.

That is idolatry, no matter how much one denies it. If you think the cross is a "special shape", you've made it an idol.

Wrong. We look to the cross, and crosses in general, as a reminder of our being crucified with Him, so we no longer live, but He who lives within us. Your religion spurns the cross, and by default, the symbolism Paul draws from it. Sad indeed :no:

[shunyadragon]

"And you must take good care of your souls, because you did not see any form on the day of Jehovah's speaking to you in Horeb out of the middle of the fire, that you may not act ruinously and may not really make for yourselves a carved image, the form of any symbol..." Deut 4:15,15

The cross is as much an idol as a statute of Budha. I can't tell you how many churches I've been to where the preacher will turn around and face the cross in prayer. How many people I've seen kneel down in front of a cross and pray.

History testifies Christians didn't use the cross as a symbol until the third century. Apparently something happened then that made idolatry ok.

Now I will get the flood of arguments all saying the same basic thing. The cross reminds you of Jesus and/or what he did for you. But why do you need to risk going against God's command of idolatry when you have all of the creation around you to remind you of Jesus? I don't think anyone dares deny the cross was a pagan religious symbol before Jesus died. How did a pagan symbol turn good because God's Son was put to death on it? And whether people want to admit it or not, they hold special value to a piece of wood, plastic or metal because of its shape. That is idolatry, no matter how much one denies it. If you think the cross is a "special shape", you've made it an idol.

Actually, I am not a Christian, therefore the only meaning to me is it is simply a symbol used by many, but not all Christians. Hanging on particular words or specific passages of ancient scripture in a very foreign language to ours is very trappy and problematic as Bill the Cat illustrated in his post.

This problem is also illustrated by the reality of the cruxifiction in Roman times. There is no specific way to justify any argument that it was a post, T or cross, it was a cruxifiction Roman style without any concern to the shape of object used.

[NonTrinitarian]

you mean 4:15-16??
so nice of you to cut the verse off to suit your need...
:hrm:

15 "So watch yourselves carefully, since you did not see any form on the day the LORD spoke to you at Horeb from the midst of the fire,

16 so that you do not act corruptly and make a graven image for yourselves in the form of any figure, the likeness of male or female,

17 the likeness of any animal that is on the earth, the likeness of any winged bird that flies in the sky,

18 the likeness of anything that creeps on the ground, the likeness of any fish that is in the water below the earth.


No mention of inanimate objects like a Cross. Just things that the existing pagans were worshipping.

I'm only addressing the first argument in your reply because it demonstrates the desperateness of your arguments and the obvious inability I have to convince you to stop your pagan practice.

That you think Deuteronomy 4 was drawing a line in the sand between animate and inanimate idols is what is sad. But I won't be able to convince you otherwise. Tertullian is in the third century and I have quotes from several encyclopedias that clearly say crosses don't appear until the third century. So it is a fact that Peter, James and John didn't walk around with a cross around their neck. It's a disgusting idol you attempt to rationalize away. It's Jesus death that saves us, not the piece of wood he died on. The idolatry in Christendom is repulsive and she will be punished for it.

[Bill the Cat]

I'm only addressing the first argument in your reply because it demonstrates the desperateness of your arguments

The argument is sound, and your song and dance is not even close to a rebuttal.

and the obvious inability I have to convince you to stop your pagan practice.

If it were a pagan practice, then you'd have me, but it is not, and your out of context quote was very telling as to how weak your and the JW claims really are.


That you think Deuteronomy 4 was drawing a line in the sand between animate and inanimate idols is what is sad.

No, you missed the whole point that Hamster made. When people begin to worship the thing as if it WERE the God itself, which contextually, Deuteronomy was showing, then it is idolatry. Please try to read before you make such foolish comments.

But I won't be able to convince you otherwise. Tertullian is in the third century

And he shows that the practice of signing the cross on their forehead was already common by his time . He didn't start it and it didn't just spring into existence over night.

and I have quotes from several encyclopedias that clearly say crosses don't appear until the third century.

And I provided a quote from a Church Father that showed that BY the 3rd century, forming the sign of the cross on one's forehead was a common occurrence passed down by CHURCH tradition, not Pagan tradition.

And as far as openly displaying a cross, what idiot would openly wear a sign that says "feed me to the lions"? :duh:

So it is a fact that Peter, James and John didn't walk around with a cross around their neck.

So what? It is not essential for our or their faith, just as the Chi-Rho or fish symbol used by the earliest Christians to communicate their faith with each other was not used by Peter James and John. You make it seem as if we believe we HAVE to wear a cross or have one with us wherever we go... :no:

It's a disgusting idol you attempt to rationalize away.

You wish. You and your religion attempt to rationalize away the Cross and its significange to Paul, whose word I'll trust a million times over the heretical words of the Watchtower.

It's Jesus death that saves us, not the piece of wood he died on.

No duh. And where did anyone say that the cross is what saved us? Nowhere! So fry that red herring elsewhere... :fish:

The idolatry in Christendom is repulsive and she will be punished for it.

And the heresy of the Watchtower will be properly punished with all other anathemas. :flaming::fire2:

[NonTrinitarian]

I guess we'll just have to wait this one out and see which one is right.

[Topherlee]

I guess we'll just have to wait this one out and see which one is right.


I guess what people fail to see is that the cross began as an idol. People knelt down, and still do, in front of the idol, made the symbolic figure of the cross across their chests, and prayed as if it were God himself they were praying to. This is idolatry - this is history. Pagan pracitices mixed into Christianity. Christians at a later date recognized this and no longer kneel before the cross. It is no longer an idol to them but a 'symbol'. This is how people choose to be known as Christians by wearing this symbol.
I have been told that the cross is their salvation or a symbol of their salvation. Which is totally incorrect - wishful - human thinking at it's best. The cross is no other than a symbol of torture and death. Jesus was crucified as a criminal upon the cross. And yet, people wield it as salvation.
It is not the cross that should be venerated, but the act that took place upon the cross.
If you want to show someone you are a Christian, show them by example and how you treat others. Is this not how Jesus taught?

Deut 7:26 Neither shalt thou bring an abomination into thine house, lest thou be a cursed thing like it: but thou shalt utterly detest it, and thou shalt utterly abhor it; for it is a cursed thing.
Yeah, I know, this does not pertain to the cross.

1 Cor 10:14 Wherefore, my dearly beloved, flee from idolatry.
It says flee from it - it doesn't say to change it into what you think would make it right.

[Bill the Cat]

I guess what people fail to see is that the cross began as an idol.

Just because pagans used it in the past does not necessarilt mean that it is forbidded. Baptism was practiced by pagans long before Christ was baptized.

People knelt down, and still do, in front of the idol, made the symbolic figure of the cross across their chests, and prayed as if it were God himself they were praying to.

I disagree. Prayers are directed to God. Idols were seen as channels and had deity powers of their own. Again, see Hamster's reply

This is idolatry - this is history. Pagan pracitices mixed into Christianity.

Kinda like Baptism?

Christians at a later date recognized this and no longer kneel before the cross. It is no longer an idol to them but a 'symbol'. This is how people choose to be known as Christians by wearing this symbol.

some do, but it is not what defines them as Christians.

I have been told that the cross is their salvation or a symbol of their salvation. Which is totally incorrect - wishful - human thinking at it's best. The cross is no other than a symbol of torture and death.

Which we would have deserved, had Christ not taken it for us. It is a reminder for us, and for Paul as I quoted above, of what He did take for us.

Jesus was crucified as a criminal upon the cross. And yet, people wield it as salvation.

Those that do are dead wrong, although I have never met a Christian that says that the cross they were wearing is their salvation.

It is not the cross that should be venerated, but the act that took place upon the cross.

You can not separate Jesus' death from the cross that He hung on. Wearing a cross is a silent identifier, nothing more.

If you want to show someone you are a Christian, show them by example and how you treat others. Is this not how Jesus taught?

Sure it is. But there is nothing wrong with sporting a piece of jewelry. It neither defines someone as a Christian, nor makes them one upon donning it. It also does not make a church Christian by having one there.

Deut 7:26 Neither shalt thou bring an abomination into thine house, lest thou be a cursed thing like it: but thou shalt utterly detest it, and thou shalt utterly abhor it; for it is a cursed thing.
Yeah, I know, this does not pertain to the cross.

Exactly, it does not pertain to the cross. It pertains to the graven images that the nations had that they believed were their gods. They worshipped these images as if they WERE the gods themselves. We do not attribute any divinity or divine power to the cross.


1 Cor 10:14 Wherefore, my dearly beloved, flee from idolatry.
It says flee from it - it doesn't say to change it into what you think would make it right.

Again, please understand the meaning of an idol. You create a mighty bright burning strawman when you ignore this fact. Idols were said to actually BE the god they represented. The prime example was:


4 He took this from their hand, and fashioned it with a graving tool and made it into a molten calf; and they said, "This is your god, O Israel, who brought you up from the land of Egypt."

We do not claim the cross IS Christ, but represents an ACT He accomplished for us.

[Oldmonk]

I'm only addressing the first argument in your reply because it demonstrates the desperateness of your arguments and the obvious inability I have to convince you to stop your pagan practice.

That you think Deuteronomy 4 was drawing a line in the sand between animate and inanimate idols is what is sad. But I won't be able to convince you otherwise. Tertullian is in the third century and I have quotes from several encyclopedias that clearly say crosses don't appear until the third century. So it is a fact that Peter, James and John didn't walk around with a cross around their neck. It's a disgusting idol you attempt to rationalize away. It's Jesus death that saves us, not the piece of wood he died on. The idolatry in Christendom is repulsive and she will be punished for it.
I think you should familiarize yourself with the Jewish 13 laws of Interpretation!! It would CLEARLY show you that the essence of BILL THE CAT'S argument is quite sound!! To say that the prohibition extends itself to non animate objects is adding to the text, dishonest, and shows a HUGE bias on your look at what scripture says. BILL THE CAT also showed you plainly that GOD COMMANDED Moses to make an image of something living in Heaven yet you ignored this. Why?? It is quite plain in scripture that images of living things COULD be made under the right conditions and attitudes. The prohibition was in the context of worship.

[Oldmonk]

Just because pagans used it in the past does not necessarilt mean that it is forbidded. Baptism was practiced by pagans long before Christ was baptized.



I disagree. Prayers are directed to God. Idols were seen as channels and had deity powers of their own. Again, see Hamster's reply



Kinda like Baptism?



some do, but it is not what defines them as Christians.



Which we would have deserved, had Christ not taken it for us. It is a reminder for us, and for Paul as I quoted above, of what He did take for us.



Those that do are dead wrong, although I have never met a Christian that says that the cross they were wearing is their salvation.



You can not separate Jesus' death from the cross that He hung on. Wearing a cross is a silent identifier, nothing more.



Sure it is. But there is nothing wrong with sporting a piece of jewelry. It neither defines someone as a Christian, nor makes them one upon donning it. It also does not make a church Christian by having one there.



Exactly, it does not pertain to the cross. It pertains to the graven images that the nations had that they believed were their gods. They worshipped these images as if they WERE the gods themselves. We do not attribute any divinity or divine power to the cross.



Again, please understand the meaning of an idol. You create a mighty bright burning strawman when you ignore this fact. Idols were said to actually BE the god they represented. The prime example was:


4 He took this from their hand, and fashioned it with a graving tool and made it into a molten calf; and they said, "This is your god, O Israel, who brought you up from the land of Egypt."

We do not claim the cross IS Christ, but represents an ACT He accomplished for us.
Amen my friend. ALL in all a GREAT reply:)

[Joe Gofish]

From the JW website:
http://www.watchtower.org/library/jt/index.htm?article=article_03.htm
Belief: Christ died on a stake, not a cross
Scriptural Reason Given: Gal. 3:13; Acts 5:30


http://www.picknowl.com.au/homepages/rlister/jw/jrharp.htm
The following is an excerpt from that site

Has the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society always held that Jesus Christ was tortured on a stake? Apparently not!! There is a book by judge Rutherford called "The Harp of God" written in 1921 and published in 1928. Judge Rutherford was the President of the Watchtower Society, the voice of the Jehovah's Witnesses, and his word is beyond despute to any Jehovah's Witness. There is not one mention of a torture stake to be found in this book. It can only be taken that judge Rutherford, although denying many biblical truths and doctrines, did believe in the cross of Christ. This is also true of the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society who supply the "preface" in the book.

Finally, there is only one picture of the crucifixion in this book, found on page 113. The following scan is of that picture.
HE ALSO HAD A CROSS IN HIS OFFICE

[NonTrinitarian]

HE ALSO HAD A CROSS IN HIS OFFICE

Then through further research they discovered the meaning of stauros and that Romans also executed persons on straight poles. So they changed their stance. Big deal. It's better than carrying an idol around ones neck.

[Sparko]

Then through further research they discovered the meaning of stauros and that Romans also executed persons on straight poles. So they changed their stance. Big deal. It's better than carrying an idol around ones neck.

I think the problem is that the WTBTS claims to be the comforter spoken of in the bible, the mouthpiece of Jehovah and his prophet class. And they claim that new light will never contradict old light, since God will never give false messages to his followers and contradict himself later. New light can only enhance old light and reveal more. Why didn't God give Russell the info that the Cross was pagan back then? And if you think that God will let his prophet class be misled about something so central to Chrisitanity for so long before correcting them, what else do you have wrong NOW that God will reveal new light on later? Maybe the Trinity? HMMM???

So to say that the Cross is fine and dandy back then and then to completely flip flop and say that it is pagan is to have new light contradict old light. Not to mention the whole pyramid fiasco. Russell was claiming that the Great Pyramid revealed the Gospel and predicted when Jesus would come back and the Watchtower supported him up until the 1970's I believe, and then turned around and said that Pyramids had nothing to to with God and were of Satanic and pagan origins. Complete flip flop.

THAT's the problem, Nontrin.

[NonTrinitarian]

I think the problem is that the WTBTS claims to be the comforter spoken of in the bible, the mouthpiece of Jehovah and his prophet class. And they claim that new light will never contradict old light, since God will never give false messages to his followers and contradict himself later. New light can only enhance old light and reveal more. Why didn't God give Russell the info that the Cross was pagan back then? And if you think that God will let his prophet class be misled about something so central to Chrisitanity for so long before correcting them, what else do you have wrong NOW that God will reveal new light on later? Maybe the Trinity? HMMM???

So to say that the Cross is fine and dandy back then and then to completely flip flop and say that it is pagan is to have new light contradict old light. Not to mention the whole pyramid fiasco. Russell was claiming that the Great Pyramid revealed the Gospel and predicted when Jesus would come back and the Watchtower supported him up until the 1970's I believe, and then turned around and said that Pyramids had nothing to to with God and were of Satanic and pagan origins. Complete flip flop.

THAT's the problem, Nontrin.

Firstly, I don't think the brothers in Bethel have a red phone that they can pick up and speak to God. Russell was wrong on a number of things. It wasn't "new light" that gave him his strange fascination with a pyramid. It was new light that he was wrong on it. It wasn't "new light" that let him and others venerate the cross. It was new light that it should not be venerated. It wasn't "new light" that said it was ok to celebrate Christmas. It was new light that said it was not. Actually, not sure how "new" that idea was as Christians in Europe and the US banned Christmas as an unholy holiday unfit for Christians to celebrate long before Charles Russell. So your "new light" contradicting old light examples are bogus. Personally I think there are some teachings of JW that are still wrong and will be corrected. (No, not the Trinity. It's so obvious who Jesus is a child can figure it out.)

Now to your question of "Why didn't God give Russell the info that the Cross was pagan back then? And if you think that God will let his prophet class be misled about something so central to Chrisitanity for so long before correcting them, what else do you have wrong NOW that God will reveal new light on later?"

Take that same question and replace 'cross was pagan' with the words "should be circumcised" and apply it to the first century. Look how many years God allowed them to circumcise each other before they all finally figured out that circumcision was done away with at Jesus' death YEARS EARLIER!

JW witnesses do not claim to be "prophets" in the sense of Ezekial, Elijah, etc. But I am a prophet and so are the other JW's in the sense that we pronounce the words found in God's Word. From time to time we misunderstand these words because we are infalliable and we are not inspired like Moses or Daniel. You simply misunderstand what we mean by being prophets.

[Armor of God]

Ah, that explains a lot, huh Sparko. They're not really prophets. They're just, you know, prophets.

Wow. In that case, there are a bunch of prophets running around in this world. Anyone who stands on a street corner and reads the Word out loud is a prophet. I'm a prophet, you're a prophet, the Pope is a prophet, heck even atheists are prophets.

Just another example of the WTS taking a biblical term and pouring their own meaning into it.

What does this mean for the number of cases that the WTS pinpointed specific dates in the future for significant events, only to have them fall flat on their face when said date passed? Apparently the WTS thought of themselves as true prophets only to blame things on Satan or "over-active imaginations" when stuff didn't pan out.

Maybe you're right...maybe the new light keeps revealing things, and it doesn't really contradict the old teachings (even after numerous flip-flops).

Or maybe there's some kid playing with the light switch at headquarters.

[NonTrinitarian]

Ah, that explains a lot, huh Sparko. They're not really prophets. They're just, you know, prophets.

Wow. In that case, there are a bunch of prophets running around in this world. Anyone who stands on a street corner and reads the Word out loud is a prophet. I'm a prophet, you're a prophet, the Pope is a prophet, heck even atheists are prophets.
Since they all preach either no God or a three-headed freak god, they would be classified as false prophets.


Just another example of the WTS taking a biblical term and pouring their own meaning into it.
If you want to call it that. We certainly don't mean we are prophets in the sense of those in the Bible. But we do pronounce God's judgements that come from his word.

[Krusader]

Since they all preach either no God or a three-headed freak god, they would be classified as false prophets.


If you want to call it that. We certainly don't mean we are prophets in the sense of those in the Bible. But we do pronounce God's judgements that come from his word.

Three-headed God comes right out of the Watchtower. Try thinking for yourself for a change.

And, of course the Watchtower would rather forget 1975 and "Life Everlasting in the Freedom of the Sons of God," right? After all, if they remembered it, they'd have to admit they are the very false prophets they condemn.

[Sparko]

Firstly, I don't think the brothers in Bethel have a red phone that they can pick up and speak to God. Russell was wrong on a number of things. It wasn't "new light" that gave him his strange fascination with a pyramid. It was new light that he was wrong on it. It wasn't "new light" that let him and others venerate the cross. It was new light that it should not be venerated. It wasn't "new light" that said it was ok to celebrate Christmas. It was new light that said it was not. Actually, not sure how "new" that idea was as Christians in Europe and the US banned Christmas as an unholy holiday unfit for Christians to celebrate long before Charles Russell. So your "new light" contradicting old light examples are bogus. Personally I think there are some teachings of JW that are still wrong and will be corrected. (No, not the Trinity. It's so obvious who Jesus is a child can figure it out.)

Now to your question of "Why didn't God give Russell the info that the Cross was pagan back then? And if you think that God will let his prophet class be misled about something so central to Chrisitanity for so long before correcting them, what else do you have wrong NOW that God will reveal new light on later?"

Take that same question and replace 'cross was pagan' with the words "should be circumcised" and apply it to the first century. Look how many years God allowed them to circumcise each other before they all finally figured out that circumcision was done away with at Jesus' death YEARS EARLIER!

JW witnesses do not claim to be "prophets" in the sense of Ezekial, Elijah, etc. But I am a prophet and so are the other JW's in the sense that we pronounce the words found in God's Word. From time to time we misunderstand these words because we are infalliable and we are not inspired like Moses or Daniel. You simply misunderstand what we mean by being prophets.

If the watchtower didn't claim to be prophets who speak directly for Jehovah as his mouthpiece on earth, then yeah I would not be making a big deal about it but they DO and have done so for as long as the watchtower has been in existance. (see below)

That you have admitted that Russell was wrong on so much and did not speak for Jehovah and did not have light means that you disagree with the watchtower and can get disfellowshipped for that. did you know that?

Also if Russell was so full of paganism and false beliefs, and he is the one who started the watchtower society, then why would you want to follow them at all? Can a poison tree bear good fruit? How do you know what they teach NOW is any more accurate than what they taught so long ago, especially if you don't believe they actually speak for Jehovah directly but are fallable human beings?

And here are some quotes where they DO claim to be speaking directly for Jehovah:


Zion’s Wt, 7/15/1906, pg 382, reprint,.....the truths I present, as God’s mouthpiece.....
(this is from Russell himself! He claimed to be God's mouthpiece!)


Wt, 1/15/1959, pg 40, 41 ....Jehovah thrust out his hand of power and touched their lips and put his word in their mouths.


Wt, 10/15/1980, pg 17 God gives his humble servants special knowledge that others do not have... having advance knowledge from Jehovah, his servants are equipped .....

more at: http://www.jwfiles.com/outline.htm

Also Russell claimed that Angels gave the watchtower and him information direct from God:

"Certain duties and kingdom interests have been commited by the Lord to his Angels, which include the transmission of information to God's annointed people on the earth for their aid and comfort....."

(scanned image at: http://www.jwfiles.com/angels-transmit.htm )

[Armor of God]

[Insert canned response about that information being false because it's from an "apostate" website]

[NonTrinitarian]

If the watchtower didn't claim to be prophets who speak directly for Jehovah as his mouthpiece on earth, then yeah I would not be making a big deal about it but they DO and have done so for as long as the watchtower has been in existance. (see below)

That you have admitted that Russell was wrong on so much and did not speak for Jehovah and did not have light means that you disagree with the watchtower and can get disfellowshipped for that. did you know that?

You know even less about JW's than I thought you did. You are utterly wrong on what you said above. Read the book "JW's: Proclaimers of God's Kingdom" published by JW's. It talks about Russells erronous fascination with the pyramid, etc. It clearly discusses his and others mistaken viewpoints. So I guess the JW's are all going to have to disfellowship themselves for that huh?

And FYI, AOG, JW's never did come out and say 1975 was THE year. They always said it was possible it could be. And it was possible. Of course, so was 1974,76,85,and 2006. I challenge you to show me one article where JW's said the end WAS going to happen in 1975. Just one. (Hmm. Do you think maybe I've handled this subject before?) Surely you can find one since you appear to know so much about JWs.

[Armor of God]

You know even less about JW's than I thought you did. You are utterly wrong on what you said above. Read the book "JW's: Proclaimers of God's Kingdom" published by JW's. It talks about Russells erronous fascination with the pyramid, etc. It clearly discusses his and others mistaken viewpoints. So I guess the JW's are all going to have to disfellowship themselves for that huh?

And FYI, AOG, JW's never did come out and say 1975 was THE year. They always said it was possible it could be. And it was possible. Of course, so was 1974,76,85,and 2006. I challenge you to show me one article where JW's said the end WAS going to happen in 1975. Just one. (Hmm. Do you think maybe I've handled this subject before?) Surely you can find one since you appear to know so much about JWs.
LoL, come on now, NonTrin. Let's be intellectually honest here. Maybe there is no quote in your literature that says '75 or whatever year was "the" year. But you and I both know that was certainly the implication. Otherwise, why even mention a specified date? Heck, tomorrow could be "the" day.

But let's see how many of your own members viewed 1975:
Reports are heard of brothers selling their homes and property and planning to finish out the rest of their days in this old system in the pioneer service. Certainly this is a fine way to spend the short time remaining before the wicked world's end.—1 John 2:17
Kingdom Ministry May 1974 pg.3
Gee whiz, NonTrin, not only did some of your people react as if they understood the WTS to be saying the end was definitely coming in '75, but they were commended for it! And seeing as how WTS is supposed to be the mouthpiece of Jehovah, it's no wonder people reacted this way. So how did the WTS position change after '75 passed?
Did Jesus mean that we should adjust our financial and secular affairs so that our resources would just carry us to a certain date that we might think marks the end? If our house is suffering serious deterioration, should we let it go, on the assumption that we would need it only a few months longer? Or, if someone in the family possibly needs special medical care, should we say, 'Well, we'll put it off because the time is so near for this system of things to go'? This is not the kind of thinking that Jesus advised.
Watchtower 7/15/76 pg.440

Wow. You just can't get it right. First they pat you on the back, then they show their collective back to you.

Maybe it's true that we as apostate goats doesn't really understand your organization like you implied. But apparently neither do a whole lot of people within your kingdom hall walls. I'm sure it was just Satan indulging their fantasies, or their own over-active imaginations that were to blame.

And BTW, I figure you've handled this subject dozens of times, if not more. I just like to see if your story matches up with the other friendly neighborhood JW's that I've talked at length with. It's always interesting to get multiple views on an event.

[NonTrinitarian]

But let's see how many of your own members viewed 1975:

Gee whiz, NonTrin, not only did some of your people react as if they understood the WTS to be saying the end was definitely coming in '75, but they were commended for it! And seeing as how WTS is supposed to be the mouthpiece of Jehovah, it's no wonder people reacted this way.

Hmm, and JW's STILL are urged to forsake this materialistic world and serve as regular pioneers. And what message do the STILL proclaim? That there is a short time remaining. How odd, huh? You imply that they used that phrase BECAUSE of 1975 and yet that phrase appears in just about every WatchTower today, with no date attached. That clearly deomstrates that those words did not hinge on 1975. Today JW's are still encouraged to spend more time in the ministey because the time remaining is short.


Maybe it's true that we as apostate goats doesn't really understand your organization like you implied. But apparently neither do a whole lot of people within your kingdom hall walls. I'm sure it was just Satan indulging their fantasies, or their own over-active imaginations that were to blame.

Perhaps a little of both. I know that in the same articles that speculated on 1975 they also made this statement. 'Jesus said no man would know the time of the end so don't go around saying the world IS going to end in 1975.' The few years before 1975 many people got baptized. Some of them made great debts, assuming they wouldn't have to pay them. But what was their motive? Appears they were materialistic and only wnated to serve God for a short time when they thought it would end. Those who truly love Jesus don't serve for a date. So 1975 effectively weeded out those who had selfish motives for serving God.

[Armor of God]

I'll reply to the rest when I have time, but until then, can you post the article containing the quote you mentioned?

Perhaps a little of both. I know that in the same articles that speculated on 1975 they also made this statement. 'Jesus said no man would know the time of the end so don't go around saying the world IS going to end in 1975.'

I bolded the part I'm particularly interested in.

Thanks.

[Krusader]

And FYI, AOG, JW's never did come out and say 1975 was THE year. They always said it was possible it could be. And it was possible. Of course, so was 1974,76,85,and 2006. I challenge you to show me one article where JW's said the end WAS going to happen in 1975. Just one. (Hmm. Do you think maybe I've handled this subject before?) Surely you can find one since you appear to know so much about JWs.

You must be a young JW who has never read "Life Everlasting in the Freedom of the Sons of God." Many young cult members are unaware that many of their co-religionists put off having children, sold their businesses, etc., so that they could pedddle JW propaganda door to door in anticipation of Oct. 1975 when Armageddon was scheduled to begin. And why? Because according to the book, Oct. 1975 would begin the 7,000th year of creation.....and it was made very clear, indeed, that this would be the appropriate time for the end time events to begin.

Well, when Oct., 1975 came and went without the anticipated destruction of everything JWs hate (Christianity, governments, etc.), the Society put out the phoney excuse that perhaps the Oct. date would have to be adjusted because the Society wasn't sure how much time had elapsed between the creation of Adam and the creation of Eve. Oh, yeh, that makes sense, right?

Then, of course, they tried to blame everything on the members who had over-anticpated exactly what would happen in Oct., 1975. Oh, sure, blame the poor suckers who believed that the anointed leaders were being led by Jehovah - that will always work. Kind of like blaming the holocaust on the Jews.

Many, many JWs became disillusioned with the cult and left the group. Today's JWs don't really have much memory of those days and the Oct. 1975 fiasco. They believe all the excuses of the false prophet of Brooklyn, and continue to peddle Watchtower heresies door to door.

Here's a good link examining the whole mess:

http://docbob1.home.comcast.net/apologies.htm

[Sparko]

You know even less about JW's than I thought you did. You are utterly wrong on what you said above. Read the book "JW's: Proclaimers of God's Kingdom" published by JW's. It talks about Russells erronous fascination with the pyramid, etc. It clearly discusses his and others mistaken viewpoints. So I guess the JW's are all going to have to disfellowship themselves for that huh?

Again, if your fearless founder, Pastor Russell was such a pagan and wrong about just about everything including him claiming to be the mouthpiece of God, then why do you follow a cult started by him? Can good fruit come fro m a poison tree? Your cult was started by a pagan and was full of pagan practices and yet you think it is the one true religion in the world? Get real.


And FYI, AOG, JW's never did come out and say 1975 was THE year. They always said it was possible it could be. And it was possible. Of course, so was 1974,76,85,and 2006. I challenge you to show me one article where JW's said the end WAS going to happen in 1975. Just one. (Hmm. Do you think maybe I've handled this subject before?) Surely you can find one since you appear to know so much about JWs.


According to the Bible timetable, man's history on earth has been nearly 6,000 years. Adam was created in 4026 B.C.E., which means that six thousand years of human history end about the fall of 1975 C.E. We are in the great 7,000-year rest day of God, starting at the time he rested after the creation of Adam and Eve. There are, therefore, a thousand years left to run. Without Satan and his demons to disturb mankind it will indeed be a restful time. It will be like a sabbath.
Watchtower 7/15/67 pg.446-7
The actually narrowed it down to the FALL of 1975!!!!!!

But that was not the first time either!! They confidently said that 1925 was the end...

"Therefore we may confidently expect that 1925 will mark the return of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob and the faithful prophets of old...."
-- Millions now Living Will Never Die pg. 89, 90
(scan version) (http://www.jwfiles.com/scans/MillionsLiving-p89-90.htm)

[NonTrinitarian]

You must be a young JW who has never read "Life Everlasting in the Freedom of the Sons of God." Many young cult members are unaware that many of their co-religionists put off having children, sold their businesses, etc., so that they could pedddle JW propaganda door to door in anticipation of Oct. 1975 when Armageddon was scheduled to begin. And why? Because according to the book, Oct. 1975 would begin the 7,000th year of creation.....and it was made very clear, indeed, that this would be the appropriate time for the end time events to begin.

I'm not a young JW. And that book doesn't say 1975 WILL be the end, it just said it was possible. Based on the chronology of the Bible, it appeared the 6000 years ended in 1975. But that doesn't mean the end would come then. They were simply wishful thinkers who ALL ALONG warned persons, or reminded them I should say, that JW's were NOT to go around and say the world would end in 1975. The people who fell away grasped onto the phrase 'it would be appropriate for it to end in 1975' and totally ignored the other phrase about not being definite about it and quoting Jesus' words at Matt 24:36. If 1975 accomplished anything, it weeded out those who only served Jehovah for what they could get and failed to heed Jesus' words. Personally I think the WTS was a little irresponisble in their suggesting 1975 as a possibility but they were simply trying to keep on the watch. But I know for a fact they never said 1975 was the year and they repeatedly warned people about not saying it was. I'll post the articles later today hopefully.

[NonTrinitarian]

Again, if your fearless founder, Pastor Russell was such a pagan and wrong about just about everything including him claiming to be the mouthpiece of God, then why do you follow a cult started by him? Can good fruit come fro m a poison tree? Your cult was started by a pagan and was full of pagan practices and yet you think it is the one true religion in the world? Get real.

Let me restate my faith another way. First of all, I think I've made it clear that I do think JW's are wrong in certain areas and no, I'm not going to say which ones. However, I am a JW because their teachings most closely reflect my understanding of the Bible. Additionally, by their fruits you will recognize them and their fruitage far surpasses any other religion in my opinion (and I don't care if you beg to differ as I have MANY people tell me they don't want to be a JW but they wish their religion was as zealous and concerned about others as we are). Also, JW's standards of morals are significantly higher, on average, than other religions. If I left the JW, I would still believe what I believe. It is blatantly obvious to me the Trinity was satanic doctrine that dishonors both God and Jesus. That fact alone knocks out maost churches. It is obvious to me Christians would not support a country in war but look at the world wars where baptists killed baptists, catholics killed catholics, lutherans killed lutherans. And each country was firmly convinced that God was on their side. What a shameless act by false Christians.

So yes, I think JW's are wrong in a few areas but they're right in most so where else would I go? There is no other religion that has the teachings, the fruitage and the obedience to Jesus Christ than JW's.

[Armor of God]

Where else would you go? That sounds exactly like the nice ladies that visited me. It sounds exactly like the programming of a person that is so steeped in one style of teaching that they can't even fathom looking elsewhere. Where else would you go? Out. Think for yourself. Hold to whatever teachings you believe are correct, but don't rely on some organization to define who you are able to associate and be friends with. I'm sure you have a whole group of "friends" who you believe will always be there for you, but what would happen if they found out that you didn't agree with everything that Jehovah's one true organization had to say? Would they be there for you to listen to your frustrations? Most likely not, unless there is a pocket of half-hearted believers like yourself.

BTW, if you do such obedience to Jesus Christ, then why aren't you called Jesus' Witnesses? In all my studies with JW's the only times Jesus was even mentioned was when I brought Him up to ask a question. Considering the focus of the entire NT is Jesus, and the Gospel that you teach is not His, I would be hard-pressed to see this obedience that you speak of.

[NonTrinitarian]

Where else would you go? That sounds exactly like the nice ladies that visited me. It sounds exactly like the programming of a person that is so steeped in one style of teaching that they can't even fathom looking elsewhere. Where else would you go? Out. Think for yourself. Hold to whatever teachings you believe are correct, but don't rely on some organization to define who you are able to associate and be friends with. I'm sure you have a whole group of "friends" who you believe will always be there for you, but what would happen if they found out that you didn't agree with everything that Jehovah's one true organization had to say? Would they be there for you to listen to your frustrations? Most likely not, unless there is a pocket of half-hearted believers like yourself.

BTW, if you do such obedience to Jesus Christ, then why aren't you called Jesus' Witnesses? In all my studies with JW's the only times Jesus was even mentioned was when I brought Him up to ask a question. Considering the focus of the entire NT is Jesus, and the Gospel that you teach is not His, I would be hard-pressed to see this obedience that you speak of.

"Where would I go" is a take on the words Peter said to Jesus. And go out to where? A false religion that distorts just about every Bible teaching there is? I don't know what JW's you've been talking to but we talk about Jesus non-stop. I have a hard time believing you've 'studied' with JW's because you can't get through one chapter of a book without talking about Jesus. The focus of the NT is NOT on Jesus. It's on how Jesus can lead us to his God. We are witnesses of Jesus as is highlighted many times in our publications. But we are also witnesses of Jehovah, of whom Jesus is also a witness of.

BTW, JW's know that we don't have everything correct. Even the brothers in Bethel in the WT magazine admit that we will get a better understanding of items later. In the magazines from time to time they address the fact that we may not fully understand everything. That is fine. The admonition we are given is to wait on Jehovah. Either we will eventually see it the way the official JW teaching is or we may be correct and the official teaching is incorrect and will change.

People at this board are getting their information on JW's from some very bad sources. Probably apostates who greatly exagerate things. True, there are fundamental doctrines that need to be understood. But doctrines about dates, prophecies, etc., are not of that caliber. And it isn't the organization that defines my associates. God's word does. Or do you need scriptural references for that?

One last thing, I was "programmed" in the false doctrine of the Methodist and Baptist churches until my 20s. It was when I began to 'think for myself 'and stopped the bologna of 'accepting the trinity as a mystery that has been accepted by churches for centuries and by millions of people' that I was set free. I have several preachers and former church members become frustrated at their inability to answer to my satisfaction questions on Jesus and God. Finally I was told, 'Well, you gotta have faith and one day the Lord will open your eyes up.' Yeah, and I'm the brain washed one? Again, this isn't some minor doctrine about 1975 or who the king of the north is in Daniel chapter 11. This was about the identity of God.

Many JW's are JW's because they looked into the Bible and studied it. They made a consciouse decision to leave their old religion, even in the face of family opposition. My whole family thought I lost it when I became a JW. And yet they know SQUAT about the Bible. They go to their Church of Christ, Methodist and Baptist churches and half of them don't even believe the Trinity. Of course, they would never tell their preachers that. Most protestants are protestants because their parents were. Same with catholics. So you tell me whose the real brainwashed group here.

[Krusader]

I'm not a young JW. And that book doesn't say 1975 WILL be the end, it just said it was possible. Based on the chronology of the Bible, it appeared the 6000 years ended in 1975. But that doesn't mean the end would come then. They were simply wishful thinkers who ALL ALONG warned persons, or reminded them I should say, that JW's were NOT to go around and say the world would end in 1975. The people who fell away grasped onto the phrase 'it would be appropriate for it to end in 1975' and totally ignored the other phrase about not being definite about it and quoting Jesus' words at Matt 24:36. If 1975 accomplished anything, it weeded out those who only served Jehovah for what they could get and failed to heed Jesus' words. Personally I think the WTS was a little irresponisble in their suggesting 1975 as a possibility but they were simply trying to keep on the watch. But I know for a fact they never said 1975 was the year and they repeatedly warned people about not saying it was. I'll post the articles later today hopefully.

Well, if you don't believe that "Life Everlasting in the Freedom of the Sons of God," teaches that the Kingdom would be established at the conclusion of the 6,000 years of man's existence, you are either illiterate and cannot understand plain English or you are obviously practicing deception.

Why did thousands of JWs leave the Society after the 1975 fiasco? Were they all just falling into immorality, or were they convinced they were following a false prophet? What does it take to convince one that a prophet is false - hey, maybe if what they say doesn't come to pass!

The "organization" claims to be directed exclusively by Jehovah, being the only organization on the face of the whole earth guided by Jehovah's angels. If that is so, why so many glaring "mistakes?"

And, in the immortal words found in the 4/1/72 Watchtower, "Of course, it is easy to say that this group acts as a 'prophet' of God. It is another thing to prove it." pg. 197. So true! Let's look at some of the Tower's false prophecies:

http://www.carm.org/jw/false_prophecies.htm

[NonTrinitarian]

Well, if you don't believe that "Life Everlasting in the Freedom of the Sons of God," teaches that the Kingdom would be established at the conclusion of the 6,000 years of man's existence, you are either illiterate and cannot understand plain English or you are obviously practicing deception.

Why did thousands of JWs leave the Society after the 1975 fiasco? Were they all just falling into immorality, or were they convinced they were following a false prophet? What does it take to convince one that a prophet is false - hey, maybe if what they say doesn't come to pass!

The "organization" claims to be directed exclusively by Jehovah, being the only organization on the face of the whole earth guided by Jehovah's angels. If that is so, why so many glaring "mistakes?"

And, in the immortal words found in the 4/1/72 Watchtower, "Of course, it is easy to say that this group acts as a 'prophet' of God. It is another thing to prove it." pg. 197. So true! Let's look at some of the Tower's false prophecies:

http://www.carm.org/jw/false_prophecies.htm

You know, If I posted a link to another site the mods would be all over me. Anyway, apparently you can't read because I already answered your question. Don't worry, I'll quote these same 1975 articles and tell you what JW's REALLY said.

[Krusader]

You know, If I posted a link to another site the mods would be all over me. Anyway, apparently you can't read because I already answered your question. Don't worry, I'll quote these same 1975 articles and tell you what JW's REALLY said.

You know, NT, in 1975 I wrote the Watchtower and quetioned them about their book, "Life Everlasting, etc." Since I lived back east at the time, they actually sent out two guys from Brooklyn to my home to answer my inquiry. There is nothing you can tell me that the guys from Brooklyn haven't tried - but, in the end, it's all a cover-up for false prophecy!

PS: You can always post a link - what moderator said that you could not?

[Bill the Cat]

You know, If I posted a link to another site the mods would be all over me.

:stop2: :redcard:

Non-Trin,

You may or may not know this, but if you perceive a decorum violation, please use the report button on the post in question. The area mod will be glad to review whether the link is in violation of decorum or not. We rely on our members to watch this for us, as we can't be everywhere and read every post.

[Sparko]

nontrin,

I am 45 years old (almost) and when I was a teenager back in the mid 70's my mom started "studying" with the JW's, so I was right there when the whole 1975 fiasco was happening. It was not a "it MIGHT happen" it was "it's gonna happen" mentality in the Kingdom Halls and the elders all preached it and the "faithful" all teached it and the watchtower and awake kept bringing it up over and over and I even posted a quote to you earlier where they claimed it would be in the FALL of 1975. They had it pegged down to the very season it would happen!! You conveniently ignored that.
But I didnt get my info from apostate members or bad books, I got it from the horse's mouth. I was THERE. I saw it all going down. I saw it NOT happen and how it devistated the JW's at the time and I saw the coverup that the Watchtower trotted out which actually BLAMED the members for believing what the Watchtower taught!!

Just wait till they do it again, NT. I think they might be shooting for 2034 this time.
They are adding 120 years (how much time God gave Noah) to the 1914 date. See the December 2003 issue of the Watchtower.

I pray you will have your eyes opened.

[Oldmonk]

Ah, that explains a lot, huh Sparko. They're not really prophets. They're just, you know, prophets.

Wow. In that case, there are a bunch of prophets running around in this world. Anyone who stands on a street corner and reads the Word out loud is a prophet. I'm a prophet, you're a prophet, the Pope is a prophet, heck even atheists are prophets.

Just another example of the WTS taking a biblical term and pouring their own meaning into it.

What does this mean for the number of cases that the WTS pinpointed specific dates in the future for significant events, only to have them fall flat on their face when said date passed? Apparently the WTS thought of themselves as true prophets only to blame things on Satan or "over-active imaginations" when stuff didn't pan out.

Maybe you're right...maybe the new light keeps revealing things, and it doesn't really contradict the old teachings (even after numerous flip-flops).

Or maybe there's some kid playing with the light switch at headquarters.


LMGO !!! GOOD post!!!

[Oldmonk]

nontrin,

I am 45 years old (almost) and when I was a teenager back in the mid 70's my mom started "studying" with the JW's, so I was right there when the whole 1975 fiasco was happening. It was not a "it MIGHT happen" it was "it's gonna happen" mentality in the Kingdom Halls and the elders all preached it and the "faithful" all teached it and the watchtower and awake kept bringing it up over and over and I even posted a quote to you earlier where they claimed it would be in the FALL of 1975. They had it pegged down to the very season it would happen!! You conveniently ignored that.
But I didnt get my info from apostate members or bad books, I got it from the horse's mouth. I was THERE. I saw it all going down. I saw it NOT happen and how it devistated the JW's at the time and I saw the coverup that the Watchtower trotted out which actually BLAMED the members for believing what the Watchtower taught!!

Just wait till they do it again, NT. I think they might be shooting for 2034 this time.
They are adding 120 years (how much time God gave Noah) to the 1914 date. See the December 2003 issue of the Watchtower.

I pray you will have your eyes opened.
A GREAT post!!!! I am glad that there are people like you telling it as it was and not just what the WTBTS WANTS us to believe. In the book " You Can Live For Ever In Paradise On Earth ( They had TWO editions) they flip floped , as they often do, on who would be raised from the dead in the end times. The FIRST edition of the book says that the dead of Sodom and Gamorah WILL be raised... in the second book they argue that they wouldn't be raised... Conveniently for them they left all the pictures and the formating the same so when the second edition was searched it wouldn't show the flip flop... at least with just a glance. The WTBTS uses tacticts like this to hide many errors the "modern day prophets" have made:)

[Oldmonk]

A GREAT post!!!! I am glad that there are people like you telling it as it was and not just what the WTBTS WANTS us to believe. In the book " You Can Live For Ever In Paradise On Earth ( They had TWO editions) they flip floped , as they often do, on who would be raised from the dead in the end times. The FIRST edition of the book says that the dead of Sodom and Gamorah WILL be raised... in the second book they argue that they wouldn't be raised... Conveniently for them they left all the pictures and the formating the same so when the second edition was searched it wouldn't show the flip flop... at least with just a glance. The WTBTS uses tacticts like this to hide many errors the "modern day prophets" have made:)


If you want to take a look at Rutherfords LIFE book. On page 199 we see a CROSS
If you want to look go; http://www.strictlygenteel.co.uk/life/life9.html

[Sparko]

If you want to take a look at Rutherfords LIFE book. On page 199 we see a CROSS
If you want to look go; http://www.strictlygenteel.co.uk/life/life9.html


They try to claim that that they have new light now that replaced the old light Russell had.

The problem is that the new light is not just adding to the knowledge like it would be if God were revealing it. It actually contradicts the old light.

If God were truly revealing things to them then they would just get MORE 'light' and it would open up things with more revelation and build on the older light. But when the new light contradicts or condemns the old light then that either means that the old light was false, so why trust anythng Russel taught, or the New Light is false, meaning the Watchtower has led its members astray, or BOTH are false (my opinion)

[NonTrinitarian]

They try to claim that that they have new light now that replaced the old light Russell had.

The problem is that the new light is not just adding to the knowledge like it would be if God were revealing it. It actually contradicts the old light.

If God were truly revealing things to them then they would just get MORE 'light' and it would open up things with more revelation and build on the older light. But when the new light contradicts or condemns the old light then that either means that the old light was false, so why trust anythng Russel taught, or the New Light is false, meaning the Watchtower has led its members astray, or BOTH are false (my opinion)

The early Christians, for YEARS, required circumcision, though that requirement was really done away with when Jesus died. God eventually revealed to them their error. It wasn't "old light" that Christians had to be circumcised. It was just wrong. I already addressed Sparko on this before. I need to hunt back and find that post because I think he just ignored it. Probably will this one too.

Early JW's venerating the idol of a cross was not light from God. It was an error. The new light revealed the cross as a pagan instrument used in false worship long before Jesus came to the Earth. Thus, the belief that Jesus died on a cross was not "old light", it was no light.

[Krusader]

The early Christians, for YEARS, required circumcision, though that requirement was really done away with when Jesus died. God eventually revealed to them their error. It wasn't "old light" that Christians had to be circumcised. It was just wrong. I already addressed Sparko on this before. I need to hunt back and find that post because I think he just ignored it. Probably will this one too.

Early JW's venerating the idol of a cross was not light from God. It was an error. The new light revealed the cross as a pagan instrument used in false worship long before Jesus came to the Earth. Thus, the belief that Jesus died on a cross was not "old light", it was no light.

How could early Christians have required circumcision - but it was done away when Christ died. Putting the cart before the horse there, NT.

In actuality, it was Paul who said that circumcision availeth nothing - so Gentiles who accepted Christ were not required to be circumcised. It was the Judaizers who were demanding that Gentiles be circumcised.

Also, if you've researched modern archeological discoveries, you'll note that they have actually uncovered the remains of crucifixions which prove beyond doubt the use of the cross.

Probably people are ignoring your posts because you make outlandish statements that you do not document. Telling people to look on the internet doesn't cut it.

[NonTrinitarian]

How could early Christians have required circumcision - but it was done away when Christ died. Putting the cart before the horse there, NT.
Because the early Christians were wrong and didn't realize it was done away with. Peter thought he still had to follow the dietarty laws of the Mosaic law until God corrected him. Zheesh.

In actuality, it was Paul who said that circumcision availeth nothing - so Gentiles who accepted Christ were not required to be circumcised. It was the Judaizers who were demanding that Gentiles be circumcised.
Paul, who was years past Jesus' death. Go read Acts 15. The whole body of older men in Jerusalem heard all of the evidence (because it OBVIOUSLY had not been figured out yet else they would have just said it to begin with) and then decided it was not necessary. This was years after circumcision was done away with and yet Christians had not figured it out yet.

Also, if you've researched modern archeological discoveries, you'll note that they have actually uncovered the remains of crucifixions which prove beyond doubt the use of the cross.

Go to the World History section and read the posts on "proof of crucifixtion on the cross". There I discuss that evidence shows they impaled on both a cross and an upright pole. Better yet, go here.

http://mysite.wanadoo-members.co.uk/newworldtranslation/stauros.htm

[Oldmonk]

They try to claim that that they have new light now that replaced the old light Russell had.

The problem is that the new light is not just adding to the knowledge like it would be if God were revealing it. It actually contradicts the old light.

If God were truly revealing things to them then they would just get MORE 'light' and it would open up things with more revelation and build on the older light. But when the new light contradicts or condemns the old light then that either means that the old light was false, so why trust anythng Russel taught, or the New Light is false, meaning the Watchtower has led its members astray, or BOTH are false (my opinion)


Cannot deny your logic on that one:)

[Oldmonk]

Because the early Christians were wrong and didn't realize it was done away with. Peter thought he still had to follow the dietarty laws of the Mosaic law until God corrected him. Zheesh.


Paul, who was years past Jesus' death. Go read Acts 15. The whole body of older men in Jerusalem heard all of the evidence (because it OBVIOUSLY had not been figured out yet else they would have just said it to begin with) and then decided it was not necessary. This was years after circumcision was done away with and yet Christians had not figured it out yet.



Go to the World History section and read the posts on "proof of crucifixtion on the cross". There I discuss that evidence shows they impaled on both a cross and an upright pole. Better yet, go here.

http://mysite.wanadoo-members.co.uk/newworldtranslation/stauros.htm


You jump to confussions my friend. It must be remembered that ,until the conversion of Cornelius, ALL christians were JEWISH and thus under the laws of the Old Testament! GOD HIMSELF says that circumcision will be a sign of His covenent with Israel forever! So it was not an issue until gentiles showed signs of having recieved the HolySpirit. The Old Testament says that those gentiles that wanted to live with Israel and accept there ways needed to also be circumsised...thus this was what the Jewish Christians believed was the case even in the apostle age. This was so mainly because there was nothing writen in scripture that removed this requirement!!! Paul agrues however that the gentiles need not be circumcised because they recieved the Holy Spirit and it was this Holy Spirit that was the sign of God's acceptance of them and nothing else was required. This all went to the Apostles in Antioch where in Acts 15 the things the gentile believers should do is listed. If you note from Acts 10- 15 didn't take years as you stated. It was dealt with rather quickly. To ALL that are christians the Holy Spirit is the sign of acceptance by God.

[NonTrinitarian]

You jump to confussions my friend. It must be remembered that ,until the conversion of Cornelius, ALL christians were JEWISH and thus under the laws of the Old Testament! GOD HIMSELF says that circumcision will be a sign of His covenent with Israel forever! So it was not an issue until gentiles showed signs of having recieved the HolySpirit. The Old Testament says that those gentiles that wanted to live with Israel and accept there ways needed to also be circumsised...thus this was what the Jewish Christians believed was the case even in the apostle age. This was so mainly because there was nothing writen in scripture that removed this requirement!!! Paul agrues however that the gentiles need not be circumcised because they recieved the Holy Spirit and it was this Holy Spirit that was the sign of God's acceptance of them and nothing else was required. This all went to the Apostles in Antioch where in Acts 15 the things the gentile believers should do is listed. If you note from Acts 10- 15 didn't take years as you stated. It was dealt with rather quickly. To ALL that are christians the Holy Spirit is the sign of acceptance by God.

Do I need to quote the numerous scriptures that show the law was done away with at Christ's death, not the conversion of Gentiles? Same with eating certain meats like pork. Only God had not revealed to the Christians yet that these were done away with. The only figured it out after they started seeing evidence of HS being given to these gentiles but the requirement was done away much earlier. This is a perfect example of Christians mistakenly thinking one thing and then being corrected later by God. It was new light.

[Oldmonk]

Do I need to quote the numerous scriptures that show the law was done away with at Christ's death, not the conversion of Gentiles? Same with eating certain meats like pork. Only God had not revealed to the Christians yet that these were done away with. The only figured it out after they started seeing evidence of HS being given to these gentiles but the requirement was done away much earlier. This is a perfect example of Christians mistakenly thinking one thing and then being corrected later by God. It was new light.


With that particular view point you will also have problems!!! How about the verses that say that the law is everlasting??? Do you forget those verses???
What we have here is what some theologens call "dynamic tension". Yes I believe that the law was totally fulfilled in Christ some how; yet the law still is and exists by the very words of YHWH. It is one of those things we would need a Divine viewpoint to resolve. The same can be said of grace and works. Though the GIFT ( Gift by definition is something given with no cost or effort on the receivers part) of salvation is free for all we have to do our part as well( which I see simply as accepting it in the name of the LORD).

[NonTrinitarian]

With that particular view point you will also have problems!!! How about the verses that say that the law is everlasting??? Do you forget those verses???
What we have here is what some theologens call "dynamic tension". Yes I believe that the law was totally fulfilled in Christ some how; yet the law still is and exists by the very words of YHWH. It is one of those things we would need a Divine viewpoint to resolve. The same can be said of grace and works. Though the GIFT ( Gift by definition is something given with no cost or effort on the receivers part) of salvation is free for all we have to do our part as well( which I see simply as accepting it in the name of the LORD).

So you think it is not ok to eat pork and that you must be circumcised? Obviously you cannot have it both ways. Either it is gone or it is not gone. Also, the hebrew word you are refering to as "everlasting" is more accurately translated "time indefinite" meaning an unspecified time, not eternally. I think the NT expresses the Divine viewpoint clearly. The law was abolished at the death of Christ. It served its purpose, that of leading people to Christ.

[Sparko]

So you think it is not ok to eat pork and that you must be circumcised? Obviously you cannot have it both ways. Either it is gone or it is not gone. Also, the hebrew word you are refering to as "everlasting" is more accurately translated "time indefinite" meaning an unspecified time, not eternally. I think the NT expresses the Divine viewpoint clearly. The law was abolished at the death of Christ. It served its purpose, that of leading people to Christ.

The Law was never abolished. It was fulfilled.

And you are talking ceremonial law versus moral law. Moral law has never gone away (e.g. 10 commandments) but ceremonial law was given to the Israelites for specific purposes and for a specific time.

The moral law shows us where we stumble and what sin is. All mankind will be judged by these laws and conscience. Christians are forgiven for our transgressions and the penalty we are judged was paid by Christ. The law was never abolished.

[NonTrinitarian]

The Law was never abolished. It was fulfilled.

Read Eph 2:15. Specifically says "abolished". Besides, you're arguing over semantics. The end result is that the law is gone, no longer required. It was gone at Jesus' death but the Christians didn't realize it until years later.

And you are talking ceremonial law versus moral law. Moral law has never gone away (e.g. 10 commandments) but ceremonial law was given to the Israelites for specific purposes and for a specific time.
10 commandments are gone too. Paul specifically mentioned one of them right after he said it was gone. In another passage he mentions the law written on stone tablets and Moses' face glowing and said that was gone. Unless there's another episode I'm not aware of where Moses had laws written on stone tablets and his face glowed, that is clearly in reference to the 10 commandments.

This is when you ask me if it's ok to murder, commit adultery, etc.

The moral law shows us where we stumble and what sin is. All mankind will be judged by these laws and conscience. Christians are forgiven for our transgressions and the penalty we are judged was paid by Christ. The law was never abolished.

Paul specifically said "abolished" at Eph 2:15 and the idea of it being abolished is mentioned elsewhere in the NT several times.

[Sparko]

Read Eph 2:15. Specifically says "abolished". Besides, you're arguing over semantics. The end result is that the law is gone, no longer required. It was gone at Jesus' death but the Christians didn't realize it until years later.


10 commandments are gone too. Paul specifically mentioned one of them right after he said it was gone. In another passage he mentions the law written on stone tablets and Moses' face glowing and said that was gone. Unless there's another episode I'm not aware of where Moses had laws written on stone tablets and his face glowed, that is clearly in reference to the 10 commandments.

This is when you ask me if it's ok to murder, commit adultery, etc.



Paul specifically said "abolished" at Eph 2:15 and the idea of it being abolished is mentioned elsewhere in the NT several times.


Matthew 5:17 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=47&chapter=5&verse=17&version=31&context=verse)
"Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.

When Paul talks about Jesus "abolishing in his flesh the law with its commandments and regulations." in Eph 2, he is talking about the consequences of the law to Christians. We are no longer under the law. The law will never be used to condemn us. The law still exists, as fullfulled by Jesus. The Law is restated in the NT as "Love your God with all your heart, mind and spirit, and love your neighbor as yourself" - it still exists.

[NonTrinitarian]

Matthew 5:17 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=47&chapter=5&verse=17&version=31&context=verse)
"Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.

When Paul talks about Jesus "abolishing in his flesh the law with its commandments and regulations." in Eph 2, he is talking about the consequences of the law to Christians. We are no longer under the law. The law will never be used to condemn us. The law still exists, as fullfulled by Jesus. The Law is restated in the NT as "Love your God with all your heart, mind and spirit, and love your neighbor as yourself" - it still exists.

Again, this is a play on words on your part. A semantic game, like Crusader saying I lower God by saying his is not omnipresent though she cannot name one thing her supposed omnipresent God can do that my God cannot.

Once the law was fulfilled in Christ, it is no longer bearing on God's servants. It is, in effect, abolished, as Paul clearly stated it was at Eph 2:15. No amount of word twisting can overturn that clear statement.

[Sparko]

Again, this is a play on words on your part. A semantic game, like Crusader saying I lower God by saying his is not omnipresent though she cannot name one thing her supposed omnipresent God can do that my God cannot.

Once the law was fulfilled in Christ, it is no longer bearing on God's servants. It is, in effect, abolished, as Paul clearly stated it was at Eph 2:15. No amount of word twisting can overturn that clear statement.

It is NOT semantecs. If the Law was 'abolished' then no one could be judged by the law, not even unbeleivers, or jews who still follow the law today. There would be no standard by which God could point and say "you sinned" - the consequences of the law are done away with FOR CHRISTIANS.

So back to the original point. God did not suddenly give "new light" and wipe away the law. He gave us Jesus who fulfilled the law. It is still sinful to break any of the 10 commandments. As a JW, you should know that. You guys take legalism to new heights. What about 'eating blood?' - if God abolished the law, then you should be able to get blood transfusions, eh?

God's "new light" can never make a 'lie' out of 'old light' - If the cross was fine before, God would never say it is now pagan. If pyramids were once OK, God would never later say that they are "pagan" - Russell was either WRONG about using the cross and pyramids and therefore he was pagan and not someone you should follow, or he was right and there is nothing wrong with wearing a cross or using a cross as symbolism for Christianity and the watchtower is wrong NOW about it.

[Krusader]

[QUOTE=NonTrinitarian]Again, this is a play on words on your part. A semantic game, like Crusader saying I lower God by saying his is not omnipresent though she cannot name one thing her supposed omnipresent God can do that my God cannot.


QUOTE]

Once you take away the quality of omnipresence from God, you have a deminished god who is different from that Deity proclaimed in Scripture....hence, you have Jehovah of the Watchtower, as Martin rightly stated....not Jehovah of the Bible.

[NonTrinitarian]

It is NOT semantecs. If the Law was 'abolished' then no one could be judged by the law, not even unbeleivers, or jews who still follow the law today. There would be no standard by which God could point and say "you sinned" - the consequences of the law are done away with FOR CHRISTIANS.
The law was not given to anyone but the Jews so the rest of the unbelievers are not going to be judged as to whether they eat pork or not. Christians are the only ones who are God's people. Funny, God had the ability to say 'you sinned' long before the Law came around so that blows the idea of there being "no standard"

So back to the original point. God did not suddenly give "new light" and wipe away the law. He gave us Jesus who fulfilled the law.

It was new to Peter and the other apostles when they found out they could eat pork.

It is still sinful to break any of the 10 commandments.
Paul mentioned the 10 commandments when he discussed things that have passed away.

As a JW, you should know that. You guys take legalism to new heights. What about 'eating blood?' - if God abolished the law, then you should be able to get blood transfusions, eh?

Shows your NT ignorance. Twice in the NT the prohibition against blood is mentioned as binding on Christians. Read your Bible more.

God's "new light" can never make a 'lie' out of 'old light' - If the cross was fine before, God would never say it is now pagan. If pyramids were once OK, God would never later say that they are "pagan" - Russell was either WRONG about using the cross and pyramids and therefore he was pagan and not someone you should follow, or he was right and there is nothing wrong with wearing a cross or using a cross as symbolism for Christianity and the watchtower is wrong NOW about it.

The examples you mentioend were not "old light", they were simply wrong. They never was "new light". The "new light" in the NT is an example of circumcision and dietary laws beign done away with. However, they did not know that for several years so during that period they were just flat out wrong on their understanding of the Mosaic Law still being in effect, like Russell was on the pyramid.

[Oldmonk]

So you think it is not ok to eat pork and that you must be circumcised? Obviously you cannot have it both ways. Either it is gone or it is not gone. Also, the hebrew word you are refering to as "everlasting" is more accurately translated "time indefinite" meaning an unspecified time, not eternally. I think the NT expresses the Divine viewpoint clearly. The law was abolished at the death of Christ. It served its purpose, that of leading people to Christ.


I know Hebrew and your use of the NWT translation of the word is a GROSS mistranslation. Also your thinking about "everlasting " is faulty because the SAME WORD IS USED IN DISCRIBING GOD HIMSELF!!! Are you to say that God Himself is not eternal???!!! That is the LOGICAL conclusion of your argument!!!

[NonTrinitarian]

I know Hebrew and your use of the NWT translation of the word is a GROSS mistranslation. Also your thinking about "everlasting " is faulty because the SAME WORD IS USED IN DISCRIBING GOD HIMSELF!!! Are you to say that God Himself is not eternal???!!! That is the LOGICAL conclusion of your argument!!!

I should have clarified what I meant. The word can mean everlasting but it is also has the meaning of an unspecified period of time that is not necessarily everlasting. If you know Hebrew, you ought to know that. Or do I need to provide examples to prove the point?

And of course, the most obvious fact is that the law is not everlasting. The law included animal sacrifices which are clearly no longer needed. So much for it being eternally binding.

[Oldmonk]

The law was not given to anyone but the Jews so the rest of the unbelievers are not going to be judged as to whether they eat pork or not. Christians are the only ones who are God's people. Funny, God had the ability to say 'you sinned' long before the Law came around so that blows the idea of there being "no standard"



It was new to Peter and the other apostles when they found out they could eat pork.


Paul mentioned the 10 commandments when he discussed things that have passed away.



Shows your NT ignorance. Twice in the NT the prohibition against blood is mentioned as binding on Christians. Read your Bible more.



The examples you mentioend were not "old light", they were simply wrong. They never was "new light". The "new light" in the NT is an example of circumcision and dietary laws beign done away with. However, they did not know that for several years so during that period they were just flat out wrong on their understanding of the Mosaic Law still being in effect, like Russell was on the pyramid.




PLEASE read these verses;
Gen 9:12,16
Gen 17:9-13
Ex. 31:13,16,17
Lev. 24:8
2 Sam. 23:5
1 Chr 16:15-17 along with Ps. 105:8-10
Isa 24:5
Isa 55:3
Isa 61:8
Jer 32:40
Ezek 37:26

All of these verses talk about things that God says will last Forever ie. be perpetual. Now we see in Gen 17:9-13 That one of those things was circumcision. Remember UNTIL the time of Cornelius gentiles were not expected to be in a close covenental relationship with God. ALL of the church were JEWISH. Without the New Testament being writen as of yet what would give a Jewish person the slightest idea to go against the EXPLICID words of God in Genesis 17:9-13 and stop being circumcised?? So there was NO CONFLICT until NON-Jewish people entered into the church... THEN the question of them being circumcised would arise and was. It was Paul who seems to make a desission here and he gets backed by the Apostles in Antioch. That is the focus of my argument with you and it is up to YOU to show how or why I might be wrong from SCRIPTURE.

[NonTrinitarian]

Now we see in Gen 17:9-13 That one of those things was circumcision. Remember UNTIL the time of Cornelius gentiles were not expected to be in a close covenental relationship with God. ALL of the church were JEWISH. Without the New Testament being writen as of yet what would give a Jewish person the slightest idea to go against the EXPLICID words of God in Genesis 17:9-13 and stop being circumcised?? So there was NO CONFLICT until NON-Jewish people entered into the church... THEN the question of them being circumcised would arise and was. It was Paul who seems to make a desission here and he gets backed by the Apostles in Antioch. That is the focus of my argument with you and it is up to YOU to show how or why I might be wrong from SCRIPTURE.

Thanks. I was fixing to use Gen 17 to demonstrate that the term does not always mean eternal as it is obvious no longer required for Abraham's seed.

I fully agree with your explanation of WHY the Christians didn't know that circumcision was done away with. But that is not the point. My point is that circumcision was done away with when Christ was killed. Peter, etc. did not realize this until LATER. But keep in mind that what done away with circumcision was not the act of them finally figuring it out, it was the act of Christ's death. That they realized that later demonstrates that they were incorrect in their viewpoint that it was a requirement, not just for Jews but also Gentiles. (Jewish Christians don't need to be circumcised either.) So WHEN the FINALLY realized this (via holy spirit according to Jame's words in Acts 15), this was new light to them. It doesn't mean that the belief that 'christians had to get circumcised' was "old light". It means they were just wrong and God didn't see the need to correct them on it immediately following Jesus' death even though no doubt during those years Jewish Christians were still circumcising their children, and needlessly at that.

[Krusader]

Thanks. I was fixing to use Gen 17 to demonstrate that the term does not always mean eternal as it is obvious no longer required for Abraham's seed.

I fully agree with your explanation of WHY the Christians didn't know that circumcision was done away with. But that is not the point. My point is that circumcision was done away with when Christ was killed. Peter, etc. did not realize this until LATER. But keep in mind that what done away with circumcision was not the act of them finally figuring it out, it was the act of Christ's death. That they realized that later demonstrates that they were incorrect in their viewpoint that it was a requirement, not just for Jews but also Gentiles. (Jewish Christians don't need to be circumcised either.) So WHEN the FINALLY realized this (via holy spirit according to Jame's words in Acts 15), this was new light to them. It doesn't mean that the belief that 'christians had to get circumcised' was "old light". It means they were just wrong and God didn't see the need to correct them on it immediately following Jesus' death even though no doubt during those years Jewish Christians were still circumcising their children, and needlessly at that.

However, Jews living under the Old Covenant were still mandated to have their children circumcised. Christians, under the New Covenant were not so mandated. This was not new light versus old light. Those who refuse to embrace the New Covenant and salvation by grace are still judged by the Law, and the Law continues to judge them to this very day.

[Sparko]

The law was not given to anyone but the Jews so the rest of the unbelievers are not going to be judged as to whether they eat pork or not. Christians are the only ones who are God's people. Funny, God had the ability to say 'you sinned' long before the Law came around so that blows the idea of there being "no standard"

Talking to you is like :argh:

Eating pork was a dietary law. Yes God relaxed that for Christians, but they were never part of the MORAL LAW to begin with. The 10 Commandments is the MORAL LAW and they are still in effect. If somoene lies, they sin and break the Law. If a Christian lies, he is still breaking the LAW but he is forgiven because of Christ.

God gave ceremonial and dietary laws to the Hebrews and they were for various reasons such as he wanted them to be separate from the rest of humanity. Kept apart and holy.

But I tire of beating my head against the wall of your ignorance, so I am gonna drop this. Regardless of whether you think the law is still around or not is a side issue to the "new light" junk you JW's toss out.

Shows your NT ignorance. Twice in the NT the prohibition against blood is mentioned as binding on Christians. Read your Bible more.

so? WHY is it still in effect? Wasn't that part of the "Law?" -- If the Law has been abolished then why is the prohibition of eating blood still in effect? Gee I guess the LAW wasn't abolished after all, huh?


The examples you mentioend were not "old light", they were simply wrong. They never was "new light". The "new light" in the NT is an example of circumcision and dietary laws beign done away with. However, they did not know that for several years so during that period they were just flat out wrong on their understanding of the Mosaic Law still being in effect, like Russell was on the pyramid.


Ah, so you are saying that Russell was wrong? That he was a pagan? He practiced pagan ceremonies like birthdays, he worshipped a pagan symbol (the cross) and he was flat out wrong about the pyramid stuff. So the watchtower was started by a pagan and run by a pagan who was teaching pagan stuff. And from that you think that God blessed the watchtower with "new light?" and it is Jehovah's organization? Why? Russell claimed he was Jehovah's voice and his watchtower organization was right about everything. If he was wrong how do you know that today's watchtower is not wrong about stuff? Maybe the cross is NOT pagan. Maybe it is OK to celebrate birthdays. Maybe they will get "new light" that will overturn all the stuff they currently believe. Why follow such a fallable organization that claims to be speaking for Jehova but has a history of being wrong abotu that?

[NonTrinitarian]

NT said the prohibition against blood was mentioned twice in the NT (because apparently Sparko was not aware of that) and Sparko replied

so? WHY is it still in effect? Wasn't that part of the "Law?" -- If the Law has been abolished then why is the prohibition of eating blood still in effect? Gee I guess the LAW wasn't abolished after all, huh?
So you need to read your Bible more. It's obvoius you were totally unaware of the NT prohibition against blood. But ignorance suits you well. So NOW you finally get to the argument of 'well, if the law is gone then their is no law', in so many words. The 10 commandments are gone, as Paul stated twice, specifically referencing them when he said they were gone. But 9 of the 10 were repeated in the NT as binding on Christians. (Care to guess which one isn't mentioned as binding on Christians?)

So parts of the law that was abolished (according to Paul's on words at Eph 2:15) were restated. And actually, the prohibition against blood PREDATES the law. I'm not going to debate you anymore on it either. If you want to ignore, not just Eph 2:15 but numerous other scriptures then go ahead. The law is complete, fulfilled, no longer having bearing on Christians. Problem was the early Christians didn't figure that out for awhile until the were corrected (ie., received new light.)


0quote]Ah, so you are saying that Russell was wrong? That he was a pagan? He practiced pagan ceremonies like birthdays, he worshipped a pagan symbol (the cross) and he was flat out wrong about the pyramid stuff. So the watchtower was started by a pagan and run by a pagan who was teaching pagan stuff. And from that you think that God blessed the watchtower with "new light?" and it is Jehovah's organization? Why? Russell claimed he was Jehovah's voice and his watchtower organization was right about everything. If he was wrong how do you know that today's watchtower is not wrong about stuff? Maybe the cross is NOT pagan. Maybe it is OK to celebrate birthdays. Maybe they will get "new light" that will overturn all the stuff they currently believe. Why follow such a fallable organization that claims to be speaking for Jehova but has a history of being wrong abotu that?[/QUOTE]
yeah, Russell was wrong. He himself admitted he didn't have all the knowledge so obvously he wasn't claiming inspiration. But Russell isn't the one from whom I learned God is not a trinity. So if the man was a bonnafide, pagan practicing, child molesting, priest, it wouldn't have any effect on who the True God is.

What religion are you? Maybe I'll go dig up some junk on its founders too. Two can play this game.

[Sparko]

So you need to read your Bible more. It's obvoius you were totally unaware of the NT prohibition against blood.

:duh: of course I knew about the prohibition against eating blood. It suits my side of the arguement perfectly. If as you say, the law was abolished, the there would be NO SUCH PROHIBITION, would there? HMMMMM?????

The consequences of the LAW are abolished for Christians. Even if we were to eat blood we would be forgiven. Even if we bear false witness we will be forgiven. Both are LAW and we should not be doing them. Get it?


yeah, Russell was wrong. He himself admitted he didn't have all the knowledge so obvously he wasn't claiming inspiration. But Russell isn't the one from whom I learned God is not a trinity. So if the man was a bonnafide, pagan practicing, child molesting, priest, it wouldn't have any effect on who the True God is.

Are you a Jehovah's Witness? You don't sound like one. You could get excommunicated for even saying something like that. If you are not a Jehovah's witness then why are you arguing for their wacky belief that the cross is pagan?

Russell claimed to speak for God! If he didn't then that makes him a false prophet and that means he is condemned by God and the Jehovah's Witnesses was founded by a false prophet and is a tool of Satan. Regarding 1914 being the end of tribulation:
"We see no reason for changing the figures - nor could we change them if we would. They are, we believe, God's dates, not ours. But bear in mind that the end of 1914 is not the date for the beginning, but for the end of the time of trouble." (Zion's Watchtower, Can It Be Delayed until 1914? C. T. Russell July 15, 1894, Also in Watchtower Reprints, l894 p. 1677)

"But I am not willing to admit that this calculation is even one year out" (Barbour and Russell in Three Worlds and The Harvest of This World, 1877, p 84)
http://members.aol.com/beyondjw/itow.htm

Did the end of the world come in 1914? Did the end of trouble come then? Has all been peaceful since? He is a false prophet. He claimed that they were God's dates and they did not come to pass. And the watchtower continued to follow in Russell's footsteps, crying wolf every few years and then claiming afterward that it wasn't God who told them the dates. Well, THAT'S certainly true. But it doesn't get Russell or the Watchtower off the hook. Because the DID and DO claim to speak for Jehovah:
http://www.jwfiles.com/light.htm
Nothing is interpreted but the interpretation comes from God and is then published. (WT 1943 July 1 pp. 202-203) Angels deliver what is published.
(PREPARATION 1933 pp. 36-37, 64)

THE WATCHTOWER publishes "no man's opinion".
(WT 1931 November 1 p. 327; 1936 March 15 p. 85)

C. T. Russell founder of the WTS, called himself "God's mouthpiece" (WT 1906 July 15 p. 229); claimed that compared to reading his books Bible reading is "a waste of time" (WT 1910 September 15 p. 298), and that his books "harmonize...every statement in the Bible." (DIVINE PLAN OF THE AGES 1886 p. 348) By their very OWN standards they are false prophets. Here are some of their own words regarding false predictions:



Light 1930, pg 47, They have been prophesying particularly since 1918, and everyone knows that their prophecies to date have not come to pass; and that alone is strong evidence that they are false prophets.
Wt, 10/15/1958, pg 613, “Sometime between April 15 and 23, 1957, Armageddon will sweep the World!...” So prophesied a certain California pastor Mihran Ask, in January 1957.....Such false prophets tend to......
Aw, 10/8/1968, pg23, ...those in times past who predicted an “end of the world”, even announcing a specific date...they were guilty of false prophesying.

http://www.jwfiles.com/outline0.htm


What religion are you? Maybe I'll go dig up some junk on its founders too. Two can play this game.

I am Christian. Go dig up some junk on Jesus. :lmbo:

[NonTrinitarian]

:duh: of course I knew about the prohibition against eating blood. It suits my side of the arguement perfectly. If as you say, the law was abolished, the there would be NO SUCH PROHIBITION, would there? HMMMMM?????

How can anyone be this stupid? I just said the prohibition was before the law. I didn't say the law was abolished. Paul did. Some of the commands in the abolished law are restated as applying to Christians. (except the Sabbath, which I bet you didn't know)


The consequences of the LAW are abolished for Christians. Even if we were to eat blood we would be forgiven. Even if we bear false witness we will be forgiven. Both are LAW and we should not be doing them. Get it?
Problem is Eph 2:15 doesn't say "consequences". You read that in to it to suit your beliefs.

Are you a Jehovah's Witness? You don't sound like one. You could get excommunicated for even saying something like that. If you are not a Jehovah's witness then why are you arguing for their wacky belief that the cross is pagan?
You're an idiot and obviously know very little about JW's. I can't talk to you anymore. I can get more intelligent responses from my cat.

[Krusader]

How can anyone be this stupid? I just said the prohibition was before the law. I didn't say the law was abolished. Paul did. Some of the commands in the abolished law are restated as applying to Christians. (except the Sabbath, which I bet you didn't know)


Problem is Eph 2:15 doesn't say "consequences". You read that in to it to suit your beliefs.


You're an idiot and obviously know very little about JW's. I can't talk to you anymore. I can get more intelligent responses from my cat.

Soooooo.....it's your cat that is the Jehovah's Witness, right?

[Sparko]

How can anyone be this stupid? I just said the prohibition was before the law. I didn't say the law was abolished. Paul did. Some of the commands in the abolished law are restated as applying to Christians. (except the Sabbath, which I bet you didn't know)

Law is Law. Or do you mean only the specific laws that God gave the Israelites but never gave the gentiles in the first place?

you are quite hilarious. So God didn't tell the Israelites not to eat blood? It was not part of the Law?

Leviticus 7:26 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=3&chapter=7&verse=26&version=31&context=verse)
And wherever you live, you must not eat the blood of any bird or animal.

or maybe you are saying that if God gave a law before giving it again to the Israelites, then it doesn't count as "the Law?"

Look, no matter how many times you try to twist it, Jesus himself said that the Law would not pass away and that he did not come to abolish it. I will take HIS word over yours anyday.

Matthew 5:17"Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. 18I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished.





Problem is Eph 2:15 doesn't say "consequences". You read that in to it to suit your beliefs.

You read what Jesus said and reconcile that with what Paul said.


You're an idiot and obviously know very little about JW's. I can't talk to you anymore. I can get more intelligent responses from my cat.

Well at least now I know where you get your doctrine from.

:lmbo:

[NonTrinitarian]

Matthew 5:17"Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. 18I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished.

"After this, when Jesus knew that by now all things had been accomplished, in order that the scriptures might be accomplished he said..."It has been accomplished", and bowing his head, he delivered up his spirit."-John 19:28-30

I believe Jesus' words too. All of them. Sparko just picked the part out that suited him. It is clear Jesus wasn't going to abolish the law until after it was fulfilled. Not one word would pass away until everything was accomplished. Task completed at his death. Heaven and Earth hadn't passed away, all the words were fulfilled. The law is done. It is no more.

[Sparko]

"After this, when Jesus knew that by now all things had been accomplished, in order that the scriptures might be accomplished he said..."It has been accomplished", and bowing his head, he delivered up his spirit."-John 19:28-30

I believe Jesus' words too. All of them. Sparko just picked the part out that suited him. It is clear Jesus wasn't going to abolish the law until after it was fulfilled. Not one word would pass away until everything was accomplished. Task completed at his death. Heaven and Earth hadn't passed away, all the words were fulfilled. The law is done. It is no more.

Then why do you live by it NT? Why do you not eat blood? Why is are the Jehovah's Witnesses so legalistic? Why do you feel you have to obey all these rules or you will not be resurrected? You talk out of both sided of your mouth. You say there is no law and yet you live by it and think that if you don't you will be forsaken by Christ. Your faith is in living right and following the "law" as given by the watchtower, not in what Jesus has done. You are condemning yourself. Because when you live by the law you will be judged by the law.

And what was accomplished on the cross was Jesus defeating the condemnation of the law for his people, not the law being abolished. and all has not been accomplished. Jesus still has to return to claim his church.

Romans 2:12
All who sin apart from the law will also perish apart from the law, and all who sin under the law will be judged by the law.

James 2:8
If you really keep the royal law found in Scripture, "Love your neighbor as yourself," you are doing right. 9But if you show favoritism, you sin and are convicted by the law as lawbreakers. 10For whoever keeps the whole law and yet stumbles at just one point is guilty of breaking all of it. 11For he who said, "Do not commit adultery," also said, "Do not murder." If you do not commit adultery but do commit murder, you have become a lawbreaker.

Romans 8:8
If you really keep the royal law found in Scripture, "Love your neighbor as yourself," you are doing right. 9 But if you show favoritism, you sin and are convicted by the law as lawbreakers. 10For whoever keeps the whole law and yet stumbles at just one point is guilty of breaking all of it. 11For he who said, "Do not commit adultery," also said, "Do not murder." If you do not commit adultery but do commit murder, you have become a lawbreaker.

--
PS: I thought you were leaving and not going to respond to me anymore?

[Krusader]

"After this, when Jesus knew that by now all things had been accomplished, in order that the scriptures might be accomplished he said..."It has been accomplished", and bowing his head, he delivered up his spirit."-John 19:28-30

I believe Jesus' words too. All of them. Sparko just picked the part out that suited him. It is clear Jesus wasn't going to abolish the law until after it was fulfilled. Not one word would pass away until everything was accomplished. Task completed at his death. Heaven and Earth hadn't passed away, all the words were fulfilled. The law is done. It is no more.

And, if you smoked cigarrettes, would you make it through Armaggedon or be resurrected after death?

[NonTrinitarian]

Then why do you live by it NT? Why do you not eat blood? Why is are the Jehovah's Witnesses so legalistic? Why do you feel you have to obey all these rules or you will not be resurrected? You talk out of both sided of your mouth. You say there is no law and yet you live by it and think that if you don't you will be forsaken by Christ. Your faith is in living right and following the "law" as given by the watchtower, not in what Jesus has done. You are condemning yourself. Because when you live by the law you will be judged by the law.
Sparko clearly doesn't understand that when I say "law" has been abolished, I mean the Mosaic Law. I live by the Law of the Christ. Part of that Law states in Acts 15 to "abstain from blood" so I abstain from blood, not because the Mosaic Law says to as that has been abolished, but because the Law towards Christians says to.

And what was accomplished on the cross was Jesus defeating the condemnation of the law for his people, not the law being abolished. and all has not been accomplished. Jesus still has to return to claim his church.
This is a good example of why I'm not worried about convincing Sparko anymore. His head is too thick to reason on the most simplest of matters. Of course, you note that he immediately contradicts Jesus' words at John 19 when Jesus clearly says "everything has been accomplished." If you look at Matthew 5, you can see why Sparko is so confused. Jesus is talking about everything regarding the mosaic law being accomplished. That's why Jesus said "from the Law until everything is accomplished". Furthermore, at his death Jesus clarified what he was referencing when he said "accomplished" when John wrote "in order that the scriptures might be accomplished he said..."It has been accomplished", and bowing his head, he delivered up his spirit."-So Jesus was meaning when the scriptures (OT) had been accomplished. One may wonder why Sparko wants to throw in Christ's return into the mix when the Law doesn't mention Christ's return. The law led to Christ's death, not his return. In fact, the OT doesn't mention Christ's return. But side stepping issues and throwing in arguments that have nothing to do with the subject at hand seems to be a skill for Sparko.

So for those of you who think I am advocating no law, don't be dupped by Sparko's trickery. I advocate the Laws that apply to Christians, which include 9 of the 10 commandments. (Only the Sabbath is not mentioned in the NT as being binding on Christians.) There are also other laws that apply to us as well, such as abstaining from blood and not eating animals that have been strangled. These can be found in the book of Acts.

Anyway, the point of my interchanging with Sparko, as frustrating as that was, was to demonstrate that the law regarding circumcision was abolished when Christ died. However, this point was not made known to christians until years later. Then they were enlightened by God. This is an example of "new light". The Jewish Christians were wrong to believe God required them to circumcise their children and God allowed them to be wrong until he felt ready to enlighten them. It wasn't new light contradicting old light. It was new light correcting an error in their understanding.

[Krusader]

Sparko clearly doesn't understand that when I say "law" has been abolished, I mean the Mosaic Law. I live by the Law of the Christ. Part of that Law states in Acts 15 to "abstain from blood" so I abstain from blood, not because the Mosaic Law says to as that has been abolished, but because the Law towards Christians says to.


This is a good example of why I'm not worried about convincing Sparko anymore. His head is too thick to reason on the most simplest of matters. Of course, you note that he immediately contradicts Jesus' words at John 19 when Jesus clearly says "everything has been accomplished." If you look at Matthew 5, you can see why Sparko is so confused. Jesus is talking about everything regarding the mosaic law being accomplished. That's why Jesus said "from the Law until everything is accomplished". Furthermore, at his death Jesus clarified what he was referencing when he said "accomplished" when John wrote "in order that the scriptures might be accomplished he said..."It has been accomplished", and bowing his head, he delivered up his spirit."-So Jesus was meaning when the scriptures (OT) had been accomplished. One may wonder why Sparko wants to throw in Christ's return into the mix when the Law doesn't mention Christ's return. The law led to Christ's death, not his return. In fact, the OT doesn't mention Christ's return. But side stepping issues and throwing in arguments that have nothing to do with the subject at hand seems to be a skill for Sparko.

So for those of you who think I am advocating no law, don't be dupped by Sparko's trickery. I advocate the Laws that apply to Christians, which include 9 of the 10 commandments. (Only the Sabbath is not mentioned in the NT as being binding on Christians.) There are also other laws that apply to us as well, such as abstaining from blood and not eating animals that have been strangled. These can be found in the book of Acts.

Anyway, the point of my interchanging with Sparko, as frustrating as that was, was to demonstrate that the law regarding circumcision was abolished when Christ died. However, this point was not made known to christians until years later. Then they were enlightened by God. This is an example of "new light". The Jewish Christians were wrong to believe God required them to circumcise their children and God allowed them to be wrong until he felt ready to enlighten them. It wasn't new light contradicting old light. It was new light correcting an error in their understanding.

The law of circumcision was given to the Jews only. As long as a Jew is under the law they must follow the law requiring cirumcision of their male children on the 8th day.

Now, the only reason that you would not take a blood transfusion has nothing to do with Mosaic law or the New Testament. It is because you are under the thumb of the "anointed" who have told you that blood transfusions are the same as eating blood. If they changed their view tomorrow, so would you.

In fact, you do eat blood - probably every day. Do you drain your steaks and chickens? Are you eating kosher meats? If not, you are eating blood every day, NT, regardless of whether you believe in blood transfusions.

Answer me this: if you continued to smoke cigarrettes until you die, would you be resurrected?

[NonTrinitarian]

The law of circumcision was given to the Jews only. As long as a Jew is under the law they must follow the law requiring cirumcision of their male children on the 8th day.
Even Jewish Christians? I don't believe God has any dealings with the jews as a whole.

Now, the only reason that you would not take a blood transfusion has nothing to do with Mosaic law or the New Testament. It is because you are under the thumb of the "anointed" who have told you that blood transfusions are the same as eating blood. If they changed their view tomorrow, so would you.
What an idiotic statement, like so many others. I didn't realize you could read my heart.

In fact, you do eat blood - probably every day. Do you drain your steaks and chickens? Are you eating kosher meats? If not, you are eating blood every day, NT, regardless of whether you believe in blood transfusions.
Then explain to me what Acts 15 meant and how you are not violating it.


Answer me this: if you continued to smoke cigarrettes until you die, would you be resurrected?

Answer my question above and I'll answer this.

[Krusader]

Even Jewish Christians? I don't believe God has any dealings with the jews as a whole.


What an idiotic statement, like so many others. I didn't realize you could read my heart.


Then explain to me what Acts 15 meant and how you are not violating it.



Answer my question above and I'll answer this.

Read Acts 15 in context. It was giving advice to the Gentiles about not offending the Jewish believers. As Gentiles were coming into the Church, the leaders gave them advice about "what seemeth good." It was not a law, they were not promulgating some new Christian law, but asking the Gentiles not to offend Jewish believers by eating things involved with idolatry. The drinking of blood was often part of pagan celebrations, and if these new believers were attending any of these pagan feasts, they were to abstain from this particular practice since it offended the Jews. Isn't it clear. It had nothing whatsoever to do with blood transfusions - and nobody would ever get that from the verse unless they were being influenced by a cult.

Also, you have to realize that the Jews who have failed to accept the New Covenant are still under the Old Covenant of law. Jesus did not do away with the Old Covenant, which is our school master. The Old Covenant convicts us of sin, the New Covenant brings us salvation by grace. But under both Covenants, men were always saved by grace apart from works, since all our righteousness is as filthy rags. Men can only be saved by grace because men can never, and have never, merited salvation.

[Sparko]

I am curious too NT. will a JW not make the resurrection because they eat red meat that still has a bit of blood in it? If not, why? Are they not eating blood? What about when you get a cut in your mouth?

And I wish you would not ignore huge chunks of my and Crusader's posts. Like all the stuff about the Watchtower and Russell being false prophets even according to their own standards (how they judged others who set dates).

I really don't want to fight with you NT. I want you to open your eyes and see the truth that the watchtower is brainwashing you. I am not trying to be beligerant and I apologize for letting myself slip into that mode earlier. I get frustrated sometimes too, just like i know you do.

[NonTrinitarian]

Read Acts 15 in context. It was giving advice to the Gentiles about not offending the Jewish believers. As Gentiles were coming into the Church, the leaders gave them advice about "what seemeth good." It was not a law, they were not promulgating some new Christian law, but asking the Gentiles not to offend Jewish believers by eating things involved with idolatry. The drinking of blood was often part of pagan celebrations, and if these new believers were attending any of these pagan feasts, they were to abstain from this particular practice since it offended the Jews. Isn't it clear.



Crusader,

As much as you make me mad sometimes, I really do feel sorry for you. And I do appreciate that you feel sorry for me, or at least you act like you do. What you wrote above has only strengthened my convictions even more. I am so thankfull to have met JW's and even more thankfull I tried to prove them wrong so many years ago. I don't know, maybe back then my attitude was closer to yours than I originally thought. The difference though, is that I was willing to admit when my viewpoint was wrong. You though, apparently either will not see how foolish your comment above was or maybe God simply isn't drawing you right now ("No man can come to me (Jesus), unless the Father, who sent me, draws him."



Let's test your theory above because you surely didn't think it through and I know you didn't read it out of any reputable Bible-based book by any reputable theologian. Acts 15

And the apostles and the older men gathered together to see about this affair. 7 Now when much disputing had taken place, Peter rose and said to them: "Men, brothers, YOU well know that from early days God made the choice among YOU that through my mouth people of the nations should hear the word of the good news and believe; 8 and God, who knows the heart, bore witness by giving them the holy spirit, just as he did to us also. 9 And he made no distinction at all between us and them, but purified their hearts by faith. 10 Now, therefore, why are YOU making a test of God by imposing upon the neck of the disciples a yoke that neither our forefathers nor we were capable of bearing? 11 On the contrary, we trust to get saved through the undeserved kindness of the Lord Jesus in the same way as those people also.



Note here that Peter is talking to the JEWS, not the Gentiles. It is the JEWS who were adding this burden on to the Gentiles. He wasn't counciling the Gentiles to be considerate of the Jews, he is telling the JEWS to quite impossing burdens on the Gentiles.



Then James says this:



19 Hence my decision is not to trouble those from the nations who are turning to God, 20 but to write them to abstain from things polluted by idols and from fornication and from what is strangled and from blood.



Note he isn't telling the Jews to quite troubling the Jews by practicing things that would be offensive to the Jews. He is telling the JEWs to quite troubling the NATIONS. The exact opposite of your argument. In fact, nothing in those verses even suggests your argument. You just made it up rather than have to admit Christians are to abstain from blood. Why did you do that? Because of John 6:44



Let's continue. They write a letter to the Gentile congregations.

“The apostles and the older men, brothers, to those brothers in Antioch and Syria and Ci·li´cia who are from the nations: Greetings! 24 Since we have heard that some from among us (Jews) have caused YOU (Gentiles) trouble with speeches, trying to subvert YOUR souls, although we did not give them any instructions, 25 we have come to a unanimous accord and have favored choosing men to send to YOU together with our loved ones, Bar´na·bas and Paul, 26 men that have delivered up their souls for the name of our Lord Jesus Christ. 27 We are therefore dispatching Judas and Silas, that they also may report the same things by word. 28 For the holy spirit and we ourselves have favored adding no further burden to YOU, except these necessary things, 29 to keep abstaining from things sacrificed to idols and from blood and from things strangled and from fornication.



This proves your argument is bogus. Again, it wasn't 'please don't offend the Jews anymore by practicing these things' it was 'we are sorry for some of us trying to make you do things you don't need to do. But, these are some necessary things you must do.

Now note two verses again.

For the holy spirit and we ourselves have favored adding no further burden to YOU, except these necessary things, 29 to keep abstaining from things sacrificed to idols and from blood and from things strangled and from fornication

And

20 but to write them to abstain from things polluted by idols and from fornication and from what is strangled and from blood.

Instead of highlighting blood, I highlighted fornication. Now if abstaining from blood was only meant to be a suggestion so they wouldn't offend the Jews, then fornication would have to fall in that same category. Tell me, Crusader, are you saying fornication is only a suggestion? That as long as their are no Jews around to offend it would be ok for a Gentile to practice? Do you practice fornication? If not, do you practice abstaining from blood as well? If so, how?





(This is when you post excerpts of articles that have nothing to do with the question at hand and try to divert the subject back to Russell's fascination with a pyramid or some other subject)

[Krusader]

I think if you really researched the Acts 15 prohibitions, you'll note that what I told you is the accepted understanding of the vss. For instance, go to any commentary and you'll find that the traditional understanding of James' statement regarding blood was in relationship to idolatry - and it was probably understood, by the way, by the Church Father, Clement, a disciple of John, to refer to idolatry. See http://www.searchgodsword.org (http://www.searchgodsword.org/) for verification.


" Clement said:




The things which pollute both the soul and the body are these: to partake of the table of demons, that is, to taste things sacrificed, or blood, or a carcase which is strangled. F9 (http://www.searchgodsword.org/com/bcc/view.cgi?book=ac&chapter=015&verse=001#9) Although from the Pseudo-Clementine writings, the above quotation states rather clearly that the eating of blood and things strangled was also connected with idolatrous feasts. "

[Sparko]

NonTrinitarian, I just wanted to post some commentaries on Ephesians 2:15

I was using e-sword and all of the commentaries seem to say the same thing. That Jesus 'abolished' the ceremonial law by being the fullfilment of what it looked forward to: the messiah. He did NOT abolish the moral law.

Verse: Eph 2:15 Having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances; for to make in himself of twain one new man, so making peace;

Commentaries:
Gill:
Eph 2:15 - Having abolished in his flesh the enmity,.... The ceremonial law, as appears by what follows,

Clarke:
The law of commandments - Contained in, or rather concerning, ordinances; which law was made merely for the purpose of keeping the Jews a distinct people, and pointing out the Son of God till he should come. When, therefore, the end of its institution was answered, it was no longer necessary; and Christ by his death abolished it.

[I think that one above says it best. Christ fulfilled the law]

Barnes:
Even the law of commandments - The law of positive commandments. This does not refer to the “moral” law, which was not the cause of the alienation, and which was not abolished by the death of Christ, but to the laws commanding sacrifices, festivals, fasts, etc., which constituted the uniqueness of the Jewish system. These were the occasion of the enmity between the Jews and the Gentiles, and these were abolished by the great sacrifice which the Redeemer made; and of course when that was made, the purpose for which these laws were instituted was accomplished, and they ceased to be of value and to be binding.

Wesley:
Eph 2:15 - Having abolished by his suffering in the flesh the cause of enmity between the Jews and gentiles, even the law of ceremonial commandments, through his decrees - Which offer mercy to all; see Col_2:14. That he might form the two - Jew and gentile. Into one new man - one mystical body.

[Oldmonk]

NT said the prohibition against blood was mentioned twice in the NT (because apparently Sparko was not aware of that) and Sparko replied

So you need to read your Bible more. It's obvoius you were totally unaware of the NT prohibition against blood. But ignorance suits you well. So NOW you finally get to the argument of 'well, if the law is gone then their is no law', in so many words. The 10 commandments are gone, as Paul stated twice, specifically referencing them when he said they were gone. But 9 of the 10 were repeated in the NT as binding on Christians. (Care to guess which one isn't mentioned as binding on Christians?)

So parts of the law that was abolished (according to Paul's on words at Eph 2:15) were restated. And actually, the prohibition against blood PREDATES the law. I'm not going to debate you anymore on it either. If you want to ignore, not just Eph 2:15 but numerous other scriptures then go ahead. The law is complete, fulfilled, no longer having bearing on Christians. Problem was the early Christians didn't figure that out for awhile until the were corrected (ie., received new light.)


Ah, so you are saying that Russell was wrong? That he was a pagan? He practiced pagan ceremonies like birthdays, he worshipped a pagan symbol (the cross) and he was flat out wrong about the pyramid stuff. So the watchtower was started by a pagan and run by a pagan who was teaching pagan stuff. And from that you think that God blessed the watchtower with "new light?" and it is Jehovah's organization? Why? Russell claimed he was Jehovah's voice and his watchtower organization was right about everything. If he was wrong how do you know that today's watchtower is not wrong about stuff? Maybe the cross is NOT pagan. Maybe it is OK to celebrate birthdays. Maybe they will get "new light" that will overturn all the stuff they currently believe. Why follow such a fallable organization that claims to be speaking for Jehova but has a history of being wrong abotu that?
yeah, Russell was wrong. He himself admitted he didn't have all the knowledge so obvously he wasn't claiming inspiration. But Russell isn't the one from whom I learned God is not a trinity. So if the man was a bonnafide, pagan practicing, child molesting, priest, it wouldn't have any effect on who the True God is.

What religion are you? Maybe I'll go dig up some junk on its founders too. Two can play this game.



The trouble with Russell being wrong and a pagan is that HE was the one that espoused the 1914 date that the Watchtower STILL persists as a date of Christ's invisable return to set up the kingdom. Without that 1914 date most of what the watchtower belives also falls with it. Not only that we see that Rutherford was wrong, Knorr was probably wrong as well, Franz... well he ADMITED they were wrong in court... There you go. A good question would be to ask WHEN were they RIGHT!?!?
Oh by the way did the Watchtower EVER tell its followers that it was a member of the UNITED NATIONS ( read THE BEAST here). It was as a non voting entity BUT they were in leauge with THE HARLOT and the BEAST.

[Oldmonk]

As for the Hebrew word 'Olam please see these verses ; 1 Chron.16:36
1 Chron. 29:10
Neh. 9:5
Ps. 41:13
Ps. 90:2
Jer. 32:40
Hab. 1:12
It is very dangerous to say that 'olam is NOT ETERNAL because you are then saying that GOD Himself isn't of nesessity Eternal.

[NonTrinitarian]

As for the Hebrew word 'Olam please see these verses ; 1 Chron.16:36
1 Chron. 29:10
Neh. 9:5
Ps. 41:13
Ps. 90:2
Jer. 32:40
Hab. 1:12
It is very dangerous to say that 'olam is NOT ETERNAL because you are then saying that GOD Himself isn't of nesessity Eternal.

What part of my earlier post where I said it can mean eternal did you not understand dude?

From Insight on The Scriptures, published by Jehoavh's Witnesses


The Hebrew word `oh·lam´ carries the thought of indefinite or uncertain time. Lexicographer Gesenius defines it as meaning "hidden time, i.e. obscure and long, of which the beginning or end is uncertain or indefinite." (A Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old Testament, translated by E. Robinson, 1836, p. 746) Accordingly, expressions such as "time indefinite" (Ps 25:6), "indefinitely lasting" (Hab 3:6), "of old" (Ge 6:4), "a long time ago," "of long ago" (Jos 24:2; Pr 22:28; 23:10), and "long-lasting" (Ec 12:5) appropriately convey the thought of the original-language term.





The word `oh·lam´ is at times associated with that which is everlasting. (1Ki 2:45, ftn) The prophet Isaiah wrote: "Jehovah, the Creator of the extremities of the earth, is a God to time indefinite." (Isa 40:28) Jehovah is "from time indefinite to time indefinite." (Ps 90:2) Since Jehovah is immortal and does not die, he will continue to be God for all eternity. (Hab 1:12; 1Ti 1:17) However, the Hebrew expression `oh·lam´ does not in itself mean "forever." It often refers to things that have an end, but the period of such things’ existence can be said to be ‘to time indefinite’ because the time of their end is not then specified. For example, the ‘indefinitely lasting’ Law covenant came to an end with Jesus’ death and the bringing in of a new covenant. (Ex 31:16, 17; Ro 10:4; Ga 5:18; Col 2:16, 17; Heb 9:15) And the ‘indefinitely lasting’ Aaronic priesthood similarly came to an end.—Ex 40:15; Heb 7:11-24; 10:1.

[Krusader]

What part of my earlier post where I said it can mean eternal did you not understand dude?

From Insight on The Scriptures, published by Jehoavh's Witnesses


[left]




"Insight on the Scriptures," right up there with Grimm's Fairey Tales!

[Oldmonk]

"Insight on the Scriptures," right up there with Grimm's Fairey Tales!
Yes I have a copy of the second volume... If you want interesting reading look up their definition of a "lie"!!! :lol:

[Oldmonk]

What part of my earlier post where I said it can mean eternal did you not understand dude?

From Insight on The Scriptures, published by Jehoavh's Witnesses


[left]





May I suggest you look up the word in a Hebrew/ English dictionary. An inquiry to a rabbi might also enlighten you.My faith in the Watchtower Hebrew is MUCH lacking when they can take a simple word like "degal" and make it say "three tribe division " when the word CLEARLY denotes a FLAG or Standard ( A Flag on a pole with a cross bar)

[NonTrinitarian]

May I suggest you look up the word in a Hebrew/ English dictionary. An inquiry to a rabbi might also enlighten you.My faith in the Watchtower Hebrew is MUCH lacking when they can take a simple word like "degal" and make it say "three tribe division " when the word CLEARLY denotes a FLAG or Standard ( A Flag on a pole with a cross bar)

Well, firstly, in the quote I just mentioned it has one dictionary. I also have Strong's Exhaustive Concordance and it has a range of defintions from eternal or everlasting to a long period of time. Besides, I don't need a dictionary to look at when I can see circumcision was o'lam and then done away with when Christ died. Pretty much takes the wind out of the eternalality always being the meaning of o'lam. (Didn't you even mention that fact in an earlier post? What? Did you forget what you wrote?)

[Oldmonk]

Well, firstly, in the quote I just mentioned it has one dictionary. I also have Strong's Exhaustive Concordance and it has a range of defintions from eternal or everlasting to a long period of time. Besides, I don't need a dictionary to look at when I can see circumcision was o'lam and then done away with when Christ died. Pretty much takes the wind out of the eternalality always being the meaning of o'lam. (Didn't you even mention that fact in an earlier post? What? Did you forget what you wrote?)



Nope. I looked !!! Not once in any of my posts did I say 'olam could mean anything else but eternal.
About circumcision we see that it NEVER really went away or else Paul wouldn't have said "circumcision made without hands" when he refered to the PRESENT reality. Yes Circumcision in the form it was practiced is now superceeded , to those that believe, by a better and more profound view of what circumcision was. Same as the law...it didn't evaporate but changed in form. The same thing could be said for attonement for sin. A PERPETUAL sacrifice is now in place( See Hebrews). So all of these things ARE ETERNAL...not necissarily in the same form but eternal none the less. Do you think there will come a time when even God passes away???? That God's kingdom is only for " time indefinate" and that the plug could be pulled at any time??? Not ME!!

[Oldmonk]

While you are at it look up in a Hebrew New Testament and you will find that 'olam is the word most often used for aionion [the Greek word for everlasting, ever etc.]. I know the Watchtower likes to use the Hebrew New Testament to prop up its divine Name restoration... The problem with that is two things(which your own K.I.T. will tell you) 1) The Hebrew is only a translation from the Greek anyway. 2) The dates are all in the mid to late 19th century.