tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6574858940069385599.post3339285287743233501..comments2023-04-17T21:27:49.092+08:00Comments on Jesus <i>is</i> Jehovah!: Jesus was executed on a cross, not a stake! #2: BiblicalStephen E. Joneshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16183223752386599799noreply@blogger.comBlogger8125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6574858940069385599.post-63311629507131299442011-04-10T11:44:44.160+08:002011-04-10T11:44:44.160+08:00Anonymous
>The whole point is that NOWHERE in ...Anonymous<br /><br />>The whole point is that NOWHERE in the Bible does it say that Jesus' arms were put on the cross piece ...<br /><br />>Also, there is a possibility that the teaching that the "pole" was BEHIND him is not correct ...<br /><br />Thanks for your comments. But since they raise too many points to be answered by a comment, I will answer them in a separate post.<br /><br />Stephen E. JonesStephen E. Joneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16183223752386599799noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6574858940069385599.post-45636622198910622512011-04-10T07:03:14.342+08:002011-04-10T07:03:14.342+08:00Also, there is a possibility that the teaching tha...Also, there is a possibility that the teaching that the "pole" was BEHIND him is not correct (but is an ASSUMPTION). He may have faced the pole, with his arms wrapped around the pole on the other side above his head (inner wrists touching the wood). That would allow the sign to be put directly above his HEAD, on the side of the pole opposite his hands. That would even allow for easier nailing of his heels with two separate nails to the pole. Then, the part that would allow him to sit would be simply a rod of wood, or a narrow plank sticking out of the pole. Very well could have been done that way.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6574858940069385599.post-72401278603626183972011-04-10T06:21:42.977+08:002011-04-10T06:21:42.977+08:00The whole point is that NOWHERE in the Bible does ...The whole point is that NOWHERE in the Bible does it say that Jesus' arms were put on the cross piece, so it is more likely than not that the "crosspiece" was only used to put the name of the "criminal" and his charges on. Jesus' own words in John 3:14 says that "just as Moses lifted up the serpent (on a pole) in the wilderness so must the Son of Man be lifted up....". When God (Jesus) makes a prophecy that prophecy HAS TO EXACTLY come true, as God is PERFECTLY consistent. So, there is a good possibility that the teaching that his arms were put on the crosspiece is calling God (Jesus) a liar, and is a FABRICATION of the Catholic church, which is ANTI-CHRIST (The Pope has latin words on his mitre and throne "Vicarious Filli Dei", which means, "Instead of the Son of God", and in the latin words are the Roman numerals that add up to 666).Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6574858940069385599.post-61771123836423880662011-01-28T15:32:56.205+08:002011-01-28T15:32:56.205+08:00Ed-M
>Guess which cross the Church adopted in ...Ed-M<br /><br />>Guess which cross the Church adopted in its crucifixes? You guessed it! The "tropaeum!"<br /><br />The "Church" doesn't have "crucifixes", i.e. <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crucifix" rel="nofollow">a cross with Jesus hanging on it</a>. Only some denominations, mainly the <i>Roman Catholic</i> church does.<br /><br />And as we shall see, the two-beamed Latin cross is amply attested by the evidence: Biblical, linguistic, historical, patristic and archaeological.<br /><br />>The standard Roman "crux," on the other hand, had an attached 'horn' that impaled the prisoner through his anus, even if only when he hung in the "down" position. <br /><br />Disagree. No doubt the Romans did have such a variation, but there is no evidence (<a href="http://rudhro.wordpress.com/2010/06/27/little-evidence-jesus-died-on-a-cross-says-scholar/" rel="nofollow">apart from the odd crackpot theologian trying to make a name for himself</a>) that this was "The standard Roman "crux" or the type of cross Jesus died on. <br /><br />>But my response to this installment #2 is too much for one post, it will have to be broken up!<br /><br />Save your fingers. As I have said <i>many</i> times before, my policy on comments to my blogs are for readers to comment only on the topic of my post that they are under. <br /><br />They are NOT a vehicle for someone else to USE my blog to effectively turn it into THEIR blog by posting long multi-part comments, pushing their own barrow.<br /><br />I just don't have the time or inclination to respond to such long comments. It would then become like my old Yahoo debating forum that I shut down so I could spend more time posting and less time debating.<br /><br />So after having read your next comment, which I found <i>unconvincing</i> (to put it mildly!) I deleted it. I have also since deleted the `bombing run' of comments you posted before I had a chance to answer your first comment.<br /><br />Any other posts from you (or anyone-as previously stated) that have only a tangentially connection with the topic of my post it is under, will be deleted as off-topic. <br /><br />And `bombing runs' of multi-part comments from you (or anyone) will be deleted on principle. That is not commenting. It is just being RUDE and INCONSIDERATE.<br /><br />Stephen E. JonesStephen E. Joneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16183223752386599799noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6574858940069385599.post-13713344956448957672011-01-28T14:48:00.273+08:002011-01-28T14:48:00.273+08:00Stephen, complicating matters is the fact that the...Stephen, complicating matters is the fact that the ancient Roman Empire had two different types of crosses: a 'crux' used for execution and a 'tropaeum,' used for victory celebrations and other votive purposes. Guess which cross was simpler? The 'tropaeum,' even though it ws a two-beamed cross. (Minucius Felix, "Octavian" 29)<br /><br />Guess which cross the Church adopted in its crucifixes? You guessed it! The "tropaeum!"<br /><br />The standard Roman "crux," on the other hand, had an attached 'horn' that impaled the prisoner through his anus, even if only when he hung in the "down" position. I have found to my satisfaction sufficient linguistic, archaeological, historical, patristic and even biblical evidence to back me up (although the biblical is actually slimmest). Since this is installment #2 on your new cross-not-a-stake series, I'll go with the Biblical for now and can give you more information later on if you wish.<br /><br />But my response to this installment #2 is too much for one post, it will have to be broken up!Ed-Mhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10443227448010363586noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6574858940069385599.post-78543462350394511422011-01-25T19:40:20.559+08:002011-01-25T19:40:20.559+08:00>This admission by the WT completely destroys i...>This admission by the WT <i>completely destroys</i> its claim that the Romans used only an upright stake up to the time of Christ, and began to use the stake with a crossbar only after Jesus' death.<br /><br />I have now added this very important point to my post above.<br /><br />Stephen E. JonesStephen E. Joneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16183223752386599799noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6574858940069385599.post-34340165564676486842011-01-25T08:02:58.245+08:002011-01-25T08:02:58.245+08:00Anonymous
Thanks for your comment.
>...if Jes...Anonymous<br /><br />Thanks for your comment.<br /><br />>...if Jesus hands were above his head then anything nailed above his hands would neccessarily be above his head also. So whats you point? <br /><br />On that `reasoning' it would be above His <i>toes</i> also! The "point" is that if the charge was above Jesus' hands <i>it would say so</i>, because His hands would then have been the <i>nearest part of Jesus' body</i> to it. <br /><br />>Also the greek word stauros which you are desperatly trying to prove is a cross, means 'upright stake or pole'.<br /><br />As will be seen in my next part #3 Linguistic, I do not deny that <i>stauros</i> primarily means "upright stake or pole." But well before Jesus' time, <i>stauros</i> had taken on a <i>secondary</i> meaning of "cross." <br /><br />>You also tell on yourself when you admit that the 'tau' is the word for the cross of which you speak, yet that is not the word in the original greek. <br /><br />I did NOT "admit that the 'tau' is the word for the cross." I quoted the WT that the "the tau cross," i.e. a T-shaped cross, "a cross with a crossbar," "continued in general use" from well before the time of Christ through to the time of "Constantine." <br /><br />This admission by the WT <i>completely destroys</i> its claim that the Romans used only an upright stake up to the time of Christ, and began to use the stake with a crossbar only after Jesus' death.<br /><br />>Please stick to the correct translation ... <br /><br />I actually DID use the NWT to show that the WT's teaching that Jesus was executed on a single-beamed stake, not a cross, is <i>contradicted by its own Bible</i>!<br /><br />>... if anyone has any doubts as to the correctness of the translators<br /><br />Which raises the point that, as ex-Governing Body member, the late Ray Franz revealed, the NWT "translators" were effectively <i>only one man</i>, his uncle, Fred Franz, who had NO qualifications in Biblical languages:<br /><br />"The <i>New World Translation</i> bears no translator's name and is presented as the anonymous work of the `New World Translation Committee.' ... Fred Franz, however, was the only one with sufficient knowledge of the Bible languages to attempt translation of this kind. He had studied Greek for two years at the University of Cincinnati but was only self-taught in Hebrew." (Franz, R., 2002, "<a href="http://tinyurl.com/4de92oe" rel="nofollow">Crisis of Conscience</a>," Commentary Press: Atlanta GA, Fourth edition, p.56).<br /><br />>please read the secular book called 'THE TRUTH IN TRANSLATION'<br /><br />It is always possible for the WT to find some scholar who agrees with it on some things. But the author of that book, Jason BeDuhn, is not a New Testament Greek specialist, but "an <i>historian of religion and culture</i>" ("<a href="http://tinyurl.com/4n22qqt" rel="nofollow">Jason BeDuhn</a>," Wikipedia, 26 December 2010). <br /><br />And New Testament Greek specialists <i>overwhelmingly</i> (if not <i>unanimously</i>) reject the NWT as an inferior and inaccurate translation. <br /><br />Indeed, BeDuhn himself, in that very book of his, criticised the NWT as "<i>not accurate translation</i> by the <i>most basic principle of accuracy</i>" for its insertion of "Jehovah" 237 times into the New Testament when it isn't there in the Greek:<br /><br />"BeDuhn said the introduction of the name `Jehovah' into the New Testament 237 times was `not accurate translation by the most basic principle of accuracy', and that it `violate[s] accuracy in favor of denominationally preferred expressions for God', adding that for the NWT to gain wider acceptance and prove its worth its translators might have to abandon the use of `Jehovah' in the New Testament." ("<a href="http://tinyurl.com/4hbl72z" rel="nofollow">New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures: Critical review</a>," Wikipedia, 23 January 2011). <br /><br />Stephen E. JonesStephen E. Joneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16183223752386599799noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6574858940069385599.post-48596049882175500802011-01-24T23:20:16.449+08:002011-01-24T23:20:16.449+08:00Let's reason on this.....if Jesus hands were a...Let's reason on this.....if Jesus hands were above his head then anything nailed above his hands would neccessarily be above his head also. So whats you point? Also the greek word stauros which you are desperatly trying to prove is a cross, means 'upright stake or pole'. (See Strongs Concordance) This is why it is an upright stake that Jesus was hung on. You also tell on yourself when you admit that the 'tau' is the word for the cross of which you speak, yet that is not the word in the original greek. Please stick to the correct translation, and if anyone has any doubts as to the correctness of the translators, please read the secular book called 'THE TRUTH IN TRANSLATION' (available at Barnes and Noble). In it they compare many of the current modern english translations of the scripture and concluded that the New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures is the most accurate translation of the Cristian Greek Scriptures available today.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com