BillyTheKid46

Kosonen, you said, “Similarly when today's holy place, the JW complex at Warwick, will be desacrated by political simbols by the authorities, that will be the sign to start fleeing literaly as did the jewish christians to safety. Because that will be the begining of the persecution that will last till the end.”
 I just want to mention again that your interpretation of Revelation and Matt 24 is no different than Watchtower’s worldly view of looking at politics for fulfillment, but with possibly different players.   
If we are to be “no part of the world”, our attention would not be on the world at the time of Jesus’ return. We would be looking into ourselves.   We would be desiring to gather as a Body once leaving a wicked slave’s rule, up-building and helping them be successful at defeating Satan’s deception.  I can’t take in your worldly views when it is very clear that the “holy place” is not Warwick, but is the Temple of God. 1 Cor 3:16,17; Eph 2:20-22   I believe I’ve given you many scriptures to verify this, but I have not really seen scriptures to support your ideas.
Please, try to comprehend the words:
“ Now when He was asked by the Pharisees when the kingdom of God would come, He answered them and said, “The kingdom of God does not come with observation; 21 nor will they say, ‘See here!’ or ‘See there!’ For indeed, the kingdom of God is within you.”  Luke 17:20,21
Observation!  You believe the world will observe Warwick being plastered with political symbols! 
“Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits, whether they are of God; because many false prophets have gone out into the world. 2 By this you know the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is of God, 3 and every spirit that does not confess that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is not of God. And this is the spirit of the Antichrist, (Man of Lawlessness) which you have heard was coming, and is now already in the world.
4 You are of God, little children, and have overcome them, because He who is in you is greater than he who is in the world. 5 They are of the world. Therefore they speak as of the world, and the world hears them. 6 We are of God. He who knows God hears us; he who is not of God does not hear us. By this we know the spirit of truth and the spirit of error.  1 John 4:1-6
Pearl Doxsey – “First the wall – then the entire Temple” 4womaninthewilderness
 

Quote : " It appears by this statement that a corporation like “Walmart” runs the lives of its employees".   Yes Walmart does run the lives of it's employers whilst they are being paid to work at Walmart. That is quite obvious. It would be do the work or get out. And there would be rules as to manner of clothing, lunch breaks, smoke breaks, language used, and much more. 
Quote : "It appears the United Kingdom runs every aspect of its citizens' personal life."  The government of the UK does run people's lives, via the local councils, the police force, the Laws passed in parliament,  etc... Once again that is obvious. They even have spy cameras everywhere. Speed cameras on every main road. They even know when a vehicle enters London if it should not be there.  They know what everyone is earning, they know how much pension everyone is getting that has retired. They have full rights, it seems, to come into your home and check on your computer, check your bank accounts,  check your Paypal account, etc ... And yes i do know as it's happened to me. They even go around, what we call, car boot sales, and check registration numbers, to see which people are making a living by selling things at car boot sales. Yep, the government have control and they let us know it..... 
So it is with the Governing Body of JW Org. The GB make the rules. The GB rule over the congregants, via management, down to the policemen, oh sorry Elders. The Elders lord it over the congregations, because they know that the congregants, well most of them, are frightened of being disfellowshipped. The Elders do not show love to the congregation, they rule over them. 
Quote : "That has “nothing” what’s so ever to do with what the sheep do in its personal life" . Now that is funny.  So why all the fuss about a man and a woman spending time together in a house ?  And then accusing them of fornication without any witnesses. 
Why are congregants frightened to talk to ones that have left the Org ?  Fear of getting caught. 
The elders seem to have spies out watching people. Unless you think the angels are reporting congregants to the Elders. 
You, Kid, are in denial. Or you are blind. And there are none so blind as those that do not want to see.  

The 'Watchtower' is just a magazine. The Watchtower Bible and Tract Society is :-
The Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of Pennsylvania is a non-stock, not-for-profit organization[4] headquartered in Warwick, New York. It is the main legal entity used worldwide by Jehovah's Witnesses to direct, administer and disseminate doctrines for the group and is often referred to by members of the denomination simply as "the Society". It is the parent organization of a number of Watch Tower subsidiaries, including the Watchtower Society of New York and International Bible Students Association.[5][6] The number of voting shareholders of the corporation is limited to between 300 and 500 "mature, active and faithful" male Jehovah's Witnesses.[7] About 5800 Jehovah's Witnesses provide voluntary unpaid labour, as members of a religious order, in three large Watch Tower Society facilities in New York;[8] nearly 15,000 other members of the order work at the Watch Tower Society's other facilities worldwide.[8][9][10
The Governing Body of the CCJW are the ones that GOVERN, GIVE ORDERS, MAKE RULES, CONTROL PEOPLE.  
I suppose that is why you always use the 'Watchtower' not the GB or JW Organisation. Using the word 'Watchtower' is a cop out, as the Watchtower is just a magazine, not a human. 
And your point about my local government has no meaning, because my local government will not 'disfellowship me' nor will it stop hundreds, well thousands, of people talking to me. 
You know why i left, it was because of the large amount of CHILD ABUSE Earthwide within the JW organisation, caused by the GB and Elders in the JW Org. No confusion there. 

@Srecko Sostar   Srecko, your words are true. Of course we can express our feelings in words and it is not blasphemy. 
And in my opinion the scriptures were written for the Anointed, we are just the other sheep, not of that fold.  So again in my opinion only the Anointed can blaspheme against the Holy Spirit as they have a special relationship with God. 
Much more is therefore expected of the Anointed.  Matthew 5 v 45 
" so that you may prove yourselves sons of your Father who is in the heavens, .... "
The sons are the ones with that special inheritance, the Anointed 
Matthew 5 v 48  You must accordingly be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect.
As for me I an neither anointed or perfect, so I'm sure God understands my shortcomings. Is this the same with you ? 

My mother started studying with Jehovah's Witnesses in the late 1950's, and we used to celebrate Christmas.
I think I was seven years old when I heard that Santa Clause had been shot down over North Korea, in late December 1952, by a Soviet pilot flying a MIG25 Fighter plane. I remember thinking about those machine gun bullets strafing the sled full of toys, and the exploding reindeer, and Santa falling over the side, spinning to Earth over ten thousand feet below, almost cut in half.
Later, I listened to the recording of what United Nations Intelligence had recorded from the MIG pilot, in Russian, and he shredded the hopes for Christmas that year  'Eat Lead, Capitalist Toymonger!".
As a toddler, after the end of World War II, I too had sung Christmas Caroles ...
"Oh little town of Hiroshima, how still we see thee lie ...
Beneath those cold and bombed out seas, the strontium clouds roll by.
And in the twilight's gleaming, the Bombs's unearthly light ...
The hopes and fears of all the years, were blown to hell, tonite. "
Happy New Year Billy!!
I still have a freezer full of those old guys from previous years passed, in the togas.
 

True. And the entire idea of Thanksgiving was to try to instill a positive political message about an atrocious period of U.S. History.

"Is the holiday based on an unscriptural teaching?" -https://www.jw.org/en/jehovahs-witnesses/faq/jw-celebrate-holidays/
This question from their web is interesting. Because all of us who are familiar with WT history knows very well many of WT "unscriptural" teachings.
Also, all WT teachings together, scriptural and unscriptural, living and influencing in parallel mode the whole life of JW members.     

But then you have to deal with other Christians, be it a group or a single soul who do not obverse such holidays, one example being Thanksgiving, whereas you can feast but on that same day it is a day of mourning for others.

That statement of yours reminded me of the way in which you tried to discredit Leolaia's research from 1990.
Were you able to find even one point yet in that particular research that is not supported by additional research?  Sometimes, or I could even say nearly all the time, when you do  try to point out an area of incompetence, so far I've only seen it fall flat because the research you offer will usually be often be found to exactly support the research you are trying to counter.
For example, the single item you offered in conjunction with this statement about Leolaia was a point about a Persian method of execution mentioned at Esther 5:14. It's true that Leolaia had mentioned the same point in footnote number 17 about Esther 7:9,10. But all that footnote pointed out was that the Greek word "stauros" was used to describe Persian methods of execution that could be more complex, comprised of boards or additional stakes according to the Greek.
You didn't say what the specific incompetence was, but yet in the same post you seemed only to be able to prove the correctness of the research by adding: "We know in Ancient Persia the gallows were equated to the cross, according to Ulfilas with the term “galga” used in the gothic testament. Gallows is in the shape of two T’s together. An (H) football goal post."
I'm not talking about people's conclusions and opinions based on their research. But when it comes to the research and evidence itself, I have not yet seen any particular item of research or evidence that you have offered that did not fully support what Leolaia had stated.
 

The relevant portions of Longenecker's Crosses of Pompeii are already available online. Of course Longenecker pretty much demolishes the Watchtower's position, that the cross was not in use by by persons associated with Christian religion prior to Constantine. Notice how the publisher promotes his book on Amazon, The Cross Before Constantine: The Early Life of a Christian Symbol:
This book brings together, for the first time, the relevant material evidence demonstrating Christian use of the cross prior to Constantine. Bruce Longenecker upends a longstanding consensus that the cross was not a Christian symbol until Constantine appropriated it to consolidate his power in the fourth century. Longenecker presents a wide variety of artifacts from across the Mediterranean basin that testify to the use of the cross as a visual symbol by some pre-Constantinian Christians. Those artifacts interlock with literary witnesses from the same period to provide a consistent and robust portrait of the cross as a pre-Constantinian symbol of Christian devotion. The material record of the pre-Constantinian period illustrates that Constantine did not invent the cross as a symbol of Christian faith; for an impressive number of Christians before Constantine's reign, the cross served as a visual symbol of commitment to a living deity in a dangerous world. Not looking for anyone's specific view, just good research and good evidence, good history, good linguistic analysis, etc. No one should go into a subject looking for authors who give a specific view.

No. Not missing anything on that count. We have already seen from several sources that the patibulum could be tied, or not tied, or nailed or not nailed. The gospel accounts show that Jesus was not nailed until he reached the place of execution. So, whatever he carried sounds like the same process associated with the carrying of the stauros/patibulum. If he carried such a patibulum, then according to the use of the term stauros, he could be said to be carrying/bearing his own stauros/xylon. And if Jesus were nailed to this patibulum, and it was quickly hoisted onto a standing pole, then the pole itself was also the stauros/xylon, because it was used in this type of execution (stauros). If a patibulum were discarded and Jesus was nailed directly to the standing stauros/xylon, then it would still of course be a stauros/xylon execution. If he were nailed to a tree (xylon) or some other gallows (xylon) or complex contraption (xylon) made up of one or more pieces in any of several different directions, it would still be a stauros/xylon execution.
The point is that the simplest and quickest of all these optionns, to me, would be to nail him to the stauros/xylon he was carrying and hoist it onto a standing stauros/xylon. This assumption appears to be the simplest way of reading the gospel accounts, and for me, requires the least number of additional assumptions left out of the text. It fits the rushed nature of the judgment, the fact that he was given a stauros to carry, and that he was executed between or among others who were evidently undergoing stauros/xylon executions on the same day. The text doesn't say if he was nailed to the piece he was carrying. It doesn't say if a pole were already standing when he was nailed to it, or if it was on the ground and then hoisted. It doesn't say if a new hole was dug, or how deep it would need to have been. It doesn't say how the pole or contraption was propped up. It doesn't say if a ladder was required, or additional timbers or wedges to prop up the stauros . It doesn't even say if Jesus' feet were nailed, or tied, or neither.
The Bible doesn't say Jesus was raised above the other criminals. Maybe he was; maybe he wasn't.
I think you are saying that if Jesus were nailed to a crossbeam, the scriptures should have told us that he was also tied, even though we don't even know if Jesus was ever tied to a crossbeam.
The Bible does not say that Peter was crucified or executed on any kind of stauros/xylon device. So there is no optic that is even necessarily related to a stauros execution here.
(John 21:18, 19) Most truly I say to you, when you were younger, you used to clothe yourself and walk about where you wanted. But when you grow old, you will stretch out your hands and another man will clothe you and carry you where you do not wish.” 19 He said this to indicate by what sort of death he would glorify God. After he said this, he said to him: “Continue following me.” This could just as well refer to a prisoner who is led around or carried around. With stauros executions, the victim was humiliated through complete nudity and could be contorted into obscene positions. So while the expression "stretch out your hands" was often associated with a stauros execution, it can also refer to a person who becomes an "invalid" or perhaps as a prisoner being led about. (This does not mean he was not "crucified." But speculating on the type of stauros is not going to get us anywhere.)
I covered this idea already in the first part of the post. There are no known examples of anyone carrying a two-beamed cross, or even a two beamed cross being erected on the spot for an execution. Doesn't mean it could never happen. However a well-researched historical understanding of stauros (n) and stauroo (v) is all one needs to make sense of the Biblical accounts. False religion comes up with a lot of things that make no sense: Christmas trees, Easter eggs, Pyramid measurements, eternal torment, justified warfare, wearing crosses around one's neck, kissing a Pope's ring, etc.
The Greek doesn't come out at all when the text is copied from sites like https://epdf.tips/crucifixion-in-the-ancient-world-and-the-folly-of-the-message-of-the-cross-facet.html or https://religiondocbox.com/72495443-Pagan_and_Wiccan/Martin-hengel-crucifixion-in-the-ancient-world-and-the-folly-of-the-message-of-the-cross-philadelphia.html or https://religiondocbox.com/Pagan_and_Wiccan/72495443-Martin-hengel-crucifixion-in-the-ancient-world-and-the-folly-of-the-message-of-the-cross-philadelphia.html for example. The OCR is pretty good for Latin, of course, but can't handle Greek. All three of the sites I mentioned will give you the "alaxvvrj" that you quoted, when the actual word is αἰσχύνη/αἰσχύνης [from: "endured the cross, despising the shame, and is set down at the right hand of the throne of God" -KJV].
A point of interest on the words used for this type of execution is that in the next century after Jesus, two different words were finally utilized in order to distinguish between a simple stake and a "Latin cross." The word crux (crucis/crucibus) was continued as the word for a Latin cross, and the simple stake was given a different word, rather than the other way around as one would expect if the Watchtower's view were correct.
About 100 years after Revelation was likely written, Tertullian says:
And of course, closer to only 50 years after Revelation was written, we have Justin Martyr describing the shape of the stauros:
And again the same prophet Isaiah, being inspired by the prophetic Spirit, said, "I have spread out my hands to a disobedient and gainsaying people, to those who walk in a way that is not good. They now ask of me judgment, and dare to draw near to God." And again in other words, through another prophet, He says, "They pierced My hands and My feet, and for My vesture they cast lots." And indeed David, the king and prophet, who uttered these things, suffered none of them; but Jesus Christ stretched forth His hands, being crucified by the Jews speaking against Him, and denying that He was the Christ. - First Apology, Chapter XXXV "God does not permit the lamb of the passover to be sacrificed in any other place than where His name was named; knowing that the days will come, after the suffering of Christ, when even the place in Jerusalem shall be given over to your enemies, and all the offerings, in short, shall cease; and that lamb which was commanded to be wholly roasted was a symbol of the suffering of the cross which Christ would undergo. For the lamb, which is roasted, is roasted and dressed up in the form of the cross. For one spit is transfixed right through from the lower parts up to the head, and one across the back, to which are attached the legs of the lamb." - Second Apology, Chapter XL The Tertullian and Justin quotes were taken from https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/questions/5595/jesus-and-the-cross/5646

Let's boil down to the 'practicality' of this discussion:  
1.  The Romans are not stupid.  They must have figured out after their first few executions that it is very tedious to plant a stake or cross each time somebody is executed.  It will be far more easier to use a dead tree or have a permanently planted pole (stake / xylon) and simply raise and attach on top a stauros / patibulum with the condemned nailed to it.  
2.  A whole cross would weigh well over 135 kg (300 lb), but the crossbeam would not be quite as burdensome, weighing around 45 kg (100 lb). (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2651675)  If Jesus was to carry the pole (stake / xylon) only, that would still amount to 90 kg (198 lb) and is no easy task.  Carrying the crossbeam (stauros / patibulum) is deemed more realistic.  But then, an exhausted person deprived of sleep would easily stumble even on the lighter weight, so that Simon the Cyrene was compelled by the soldiers to carry it for him. 
3.  While the bible is silent on the details, it is interesting to note that nailing is associated with stauros, and hanging with xylon. 
Bottom line:  there is no conflict on translating stauros as torture stake/stake and xylon as stake or tree.  Using the word cross for any of the Greek words mentioned likewise do not give a clear picture. 
 
 
 
 

Thank you again for all your help, on this matter and on the other matter. 

Interesting to look at the term used by Lucian, "anastauroo."
*** Rbi8 p. 1577 5C “Torture Stake” ***
It was to such a stake, or pale, that the person to be punished was fastened, just as the popular Greek hero Prometheus was represented as tied to rocks. Whereas the Greek word that the dramatist Aeschylus used to describe this simply means to tie or to fasten, the Greek author Lucian (Prometheus, I) used a·na·stau·roʹo as a synonym for that word. In the Christian Greek Scriptures a·na·stau·roʹo occurs but once, in Heb 6:6. I'm not saying that @BillyTheKid46 was right (I don't think he is on this point) but note what he or one of his sources apparently claimed about that word "ana-stauroo":
If @BillyTheKid46 is right about this, it was not the original way in which anastauro was used, but I can see how it might have developed into quick way to distinguish a "crossing" cross with a simple, upright stake or pole. But this would never be claimed by the Watchtower because that would cause 'fits' with Hebrews 6:6 which uses the word and would therefore mean the following: 
(Hebrews 6:6) but who have fallen away, to revive them again to repentance, because they [ANASTAUROO - crucify on a dual-beamed, crossing cross] the Son of God afresh for themselves and expose him to public shame. Wikipedia mentions that Seneca The Younger (4BC - AD65) had observed the following during his life:
The Greek and Latin words corresponding to "crucifixion" applied to many different forms of painful execution, including being impaled on a stake, or affixed to a tree, upright pole (a crux simplex), or (most famous now) to a combination of an upright (in Latin, stipes) and a crossbeam (in Latin, patibulum). Seneca the Younger wrote: "I see crosses there, not just of one kind but made in many different ways: some have their victims with head down to the ground; some impale their private parts; others stretch out their arms on the gibbet".[14] Just another thought. Some large bones all come together in a smaller area at the wrist and there is therefore very little space at the wrist to pound a nail without the probability of breaking bones.

There was a posting on this topic, which seemed all wrong for this same reason:
 

Lucian also used that term (not sure if it was exactly that term because I cannot check my sources right now) in his writings about the Christians and their "crucified sophist" referring to Jesus in "the death of Peregrine":
The poor wretches have convinced themselves, first and foremost, that they are going to be immortal and live for all time, in consequence of which they despise death and even willingly give themselves into custody; most of them. Furthermore, their first lawgiver persuaded them that they are all brothers of one another after they have transgressed once for all by denying the Greek gods and by worshipping that crucified sophist himself and living under his laws. 
 

So, is no one going to challenge Lucian of Samosata?
Prometheus, relief from the Temple of Aphrodite at Aphrodisias

 
And/or comments about the ship's mast?

 

After carefully considering the matter I would have to adopt the philosophy of winter combat in North Korea during the 1950's.
" ... is this the hill you want to die on?"
I have completely solved this quandary by not caring either way ...... BECAUSE ... of all the infinite things in the Universe one could care about ... or SHOULD care about ... this does not even make it to the list.
This is, figuratively speaking, not a hill worth  the effort.
Not really.

What you generally describe does seem to work with the gospel accounts. There are some specific points I would still question, including the fact that Anna already pointed out: Jesus was not nailed until reaching the final place of execution.
Some have shown concern about whether Jesus could really have carried his stauros considering the weight. There is some evidence that the Roman execution process could include putting a notch in the patibulum beam of the stauros that was carried in public on the way to the execution site. 
Some have also shown concern about the extra time it would take to prepare a patibulum with a notch while in the midst of a "rush" to judgment. But if a stake/tree was already standing at the place of execution "Skull Place" it could have already contained the notch that the patibulum was merely hoisted onto.
The idea of the arms stretched wide across a patibulum to carry it, and then later having the hands nailed widely apart onto that same patibulum also solves an issue about whether a ladder was needed. If Jesus were already nailed to a patibulum then 2 or 3 soldiers who were 6-feet tall could easily hoist it to a notch (already prepared) about 8 feet off the ground. If the arms remain at about the same level as the head, then Jesus' feet are still a foot or two off the ground depending on his height. And they would need to be nailed, too.
Previously, some have speculated that the very fact that this Skull Place existed and two criminals were being executed there on the same day could be an indication that the scarce timber of this country was already standing in place ready for constant re-use without the need to dig new holes and hoist tall poles into them and shore them up so that they could not fall over. The patibulum practice of making someone march through the public carrying it on their back, makes perfect sense in such an environment. 
But it's still speculation. To me it's a matter of which way the overall evidence leans.

I think that put the Kid in his place.  
Just shows how well the JW Org had trained him, to use one meaning but deliberately leave out the second meaning. Oh dear. 
Thank you for this well thought out comment. 
 

It should be noted that none of the pictures you showed, not even this one of pagan Marsyas, were from sources giving evidence that Jesus died on an upright pole. I only mention this fact because some people might see such pictures and get a sense that there is historical evidence about an upright pole as a method for the execution of Jesus. It should probably also be noted that you have found no pictures of pagan persons on crosses prior to Christ, but have found several images of pagans on poles. Yet, these ideas about pagans and idolatry still seem to be the key to your complete rejection the earliest known evidence about the shape of the stauros upon which Jesus was executed. Of course, you have the right to accept or reject whatever evidence you wish on whatever grounds you wish. I'm just looking for the logic behind it.
You have used the term crucifixion to indicate execution on a traditional cross-shaped device. If this is what you mean, then who do you think originated crucifixion on such a device before the Romans? And for how many years, decades, centuries, etc., do you think these other persons were executing people on crosses before the Romans. Also, I note that you describe it as "cruelty imposed on criminals and slaves," which is true, but which appears to be at odds with the logic in the next statement:
Crucifixion itself was cruelty imposed on criminals/slaves, but you say the original word for it was added later to symbolize an honorable and victorious death. What was that original word that was added later? How original could it have been if it was added later?
And now you say it was the first rendering of "torture stake" that wasn't available until a very long time later because it was hidden. Again, what was this first rendering and how could it have been first if it came along a very long time later after being hidden?
Because you are repeatedly using the term "we know" about all these points, I don't think you should have trouble answering any of the questions that come up about them.
And of course, you included the first definition as taken from classical Greek and "pagan" authors, but left off the second definition which aligns with the examples found in the Christian Greek Scriptures.
Here is definition 2 from STRONGS NT 4716:
2. a cross;
a. the well-known instrument of most cruel and ignominious punishment, borrowed by the Greeks and Romans from the Phoenicians; to it were affixed among the Romans, down to the time of Constantine the Great, the guiltiest criminals, particularly the basest slaves, robbers, the authors and abetters of insurrections, and occasionally in the provinces, at the arbitrary pleasure of the governors, upright and peaceable men also, and even Roman citizens themselves; cf. Winers RWB, under the word Kreuzigung; Merz in Herzog edition 1 ((cf. Schaff-Herzog) also Schultze in Herzog edition 2), under the word Kreuz; Keim, iii., p. 409ff. (English translation, vi. 138; BB. DD., see under the words, Cross, Crucifixion; O. Zöckler, Das Kreuz Christi (Gütersloh, 1875); English translation, Lond. 1878; Fulda, Das Kreuz u. d. Kreuzigung (Bresl. 1878); Edersheim, Jesus the Messiah, ii. 582ff). This horrible punishment the innocent Jesus also suffered: Matthew 27:32, 40, 42; Mark 15:21, 30, 32; Luke 23:26; John 19:17, 19, 25, 31; Colossians 2:14; Hebrews 12:2; θάνατος σταυροῦ, Philippians 2:8; τό αἷμα τοῦ σταυροῦ, blood shed on the cross; Colossians 1:20.
b. equivalent to the crucifixion which Christ underwent: Galatians 5:11 (on which see σκάνδαλον, under the end); Ephesians 2:16; with the addition of τοῦ Χριστοῦ, 1 Corinthians 1:17; the saving power of his crucifixion, Philippians 3:18 (on which see ἐχθρός, at the end); Galatians 6:14; τῷ σταυρῷ τοῦ Χριστοῦ διώκεσθαι, to encounter persecution on account of one's avowed belief in the saving efficacy of Christ's crucifixion, Galatians 6:12; ὁ λόγος ὁ τοῦ σταυροῦ, the doctrine concerning the saving power of the death on the cross endured by Christ, 1 Corinthians 1:18. The judicial usage which compelled those condemned to crucifixion themselves to carry the cross to the place of punishment (Plutarch, de sara numinis vindict. c. 9; Artemidorus Daldianus, oneir. 2, 56, cf. John 19:17), gave rise to the proverbial expression αἴρειν or λαμβάνειν or βαστάζειν τόν σταυρόν αὐτοῦ, which was usually used by those who, on behalf of God's cause, do not hesitate cheerfully and manfully to bear persecutions, troubles, distresses — thus recalling the fate of Christ and the spirit in which he encountered it (cf. Bleek, Synop. Erkl. der drei ersten Evangg. i, p. 439f): Matthew 10:38; Matthew 16:24; Mark 8:34; Mark 10:21 (R L in brackets); Mark 15:21; Luke 9:23; Luke 14:27.

A Greek philosopher like Homer? Does your source even know who Homer was supposed to have been? Does he or she know that works attributed to Homer were supposed to have been written around 800 B.C.E.? Some say he might have actually been a witness to the Trojan War dated to around 1200 B.C.E. How likely is it, then, that he used "Stavros" (stauros) as a surname for Christos?
This was covered already. If your source had done real research in Greek, they would not have made such a mistake in thinking that Stauros means "crown wreath." Stephan can mean that, but not Stauros or Stavros -- the word meaning "cross," or person's name meaning "cross."
It can't be accepted by anyone who has done any research or study of the facts. Stavros is not related to thorn crown. Stavros is stauros, the upright pole or cross shaped object for execution. Some of these poles or crosses might have had an extra piece called a "horn" or "thorn" added to them, (the sedile) but this is unrelated to a crown wreath, or a crown of thorns.
This is like saying that the "|" is a pagan Baal and phallic symbol and played no role in the crucifixion of Christ.
Not sure why you added this. It's true, but it appears to be evidence in favor of a major feature of the scriptural account. Thanks for the support, even if inadvertent.

You do not have a truth by which you are able to define what is false in this matter.

I didn't know for sure if it was a typo. I knew it was factually wrong, but thought it might be from whatever source you got your information. In fact, the majority of your research is wrong, especially when it referred to Greek definitions. And it couldn't all be typos. Here was another example:
Your source that said "Stavros" meant "thorn crown" was wrong. Probably mixed it up with "stephanos." Stavros is just another way to transliterate "stauros."

A certain Allen Smith has stated here that he has two PhD's in theology, and when answering further questions about it, he confirmed that at least one of his multiple PhD's is in the area of Theology. I have never mentioned any similar specific degrees, except to say that I got a bachelor's degree in Computer Science after leaving Bethel. I do not have an MA in Theology or anything like that. My wife does have an MA degree is in Linguistics, but I don't remember ever mentioning it.
I have read the writings of persons with both an MA and PhD in Theology, and all of them who have studied the historical use of "stauros" have made it very clear that there is certainly NOT only one way to define stauros.
Also, you would be claiming that the Watchtower publications are wrong, too, when they claim that the word "stauros" could refer to a plain pole, a stake or a cross: