Evacuated

This hypothesis is based on the false premise that the use of a two beam cross has been established as a fact which, patently, it has  not.
We do not reject fact in preference to fiction, that is just the allegation of opposers. But we do reserve the right to support an alternative, where such exists, regardless of it being popularly accepted or not. When possibilities are established as facts, we will adjust our thinking. This is something which is not always the case with opposers, and is the subject of much of their crticism.

Your research is interesting but this statement detracts from it's quality because if nothing else, there remains the fact that the implement used to execute Jesus is not clearly defined in scripture. So to ridicule those who chose one alternative over another does not enhance your position.
Whilst the many details outlined above can be found rummaging through the rubbish, there is one point you raise in passing that I have considered although not mentioned so far: 
Research and experiment have indicated that a T-beam execution could be a long drawn out affair, even lasting days. A single pale execution however would be over much more quickly, estimates ranging from minutes to hours. Regardless of Pharisees and scribes desires in this matter, we also need to consider the will of Jesus's Father, Jehovah God. He has made a promise to those carrying their own (symbolic, thankyou @JW Insider) torture stake.  Even if subjected to the ultimate sacrifice along with their trials at the hands of the "ruler of the world" (John 14:30), Jehovah promised that "he will not let you be tempted beyond what you can bear, but along with the temptation he will also make the way out so that you may be able to endure it." 1Cor.10:13. Jesus cry of “It has been accomplished!” (John 19:30) after 3 hours of hanging on the stake obviated his hanging there any longer. A single stake method of execution was enough to achieve this purpose.

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

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

This hypothesis is based on the false premise that the use of a two beam cross has been established as a fact which, patently, it has  not.
We do not reject fact in preference to fiction, that is just the allegation of opposers. But we do reserve the right to support an alternative, where such exists, regardless of it being popularly accepted or not. When possibilities are established as facts, we will adjust our thinking. This is something which is not always the case with opposers, and is the subject of much of their crticism.

Why would anyone have a religion they did not think was the truth?

This hypothesis is based on the false premise that the use of a two beam cross has been established as a fact which, patently, it has  not.
We do not reject fact in preference to fiction, that is just the allegation of opposers. But we do reserve the right to support an alternative, where such exists, regardless of it being popularly accepted or not. When possibilities are established as facts, we will adjust our thinking. This is something which is not always the case with opposers, and is the subject of much of their crticism.

I've used this argument at the door and with Bible studies, too: that supposedly Christians, even if they claim they are not worshiping the item, should still find it wrong to carry around a model of the "murder weapon" that killed Jesus Christ! I've even heard the additional example from other Witnesses, such as: "If your own father had been murdered with an AK-47, or a .38 revolver, would you ever think about carrying around a small model of an AK-47, or a .38 revolver, on a chain around your neck?"
Of course, this seemed quite fair until I learned that a member of the Governing Body who had worn a cross in the past, remembered that it was the way in which they felt they were showing their agreement with the idea in Mark:
(Mark 8:34) . . .“If anyone wants to come after me, let him disown himself and pick up his [STAUROS] and follow me continually." It was the Bible that treated the STAUROS as a "symbol." And we would never have complained that Jesus was saying (Mark 8:34) . . .“If anyone wants to come after me, let him disown himself and pick up his [MURDER WEAPON] and follow me continually."
Similarly, the apostle Paul would have been saying:
(1 Corinthians 2:2) For I decided not to know anything among you except Jesus Christ, and [his MURDER WEAPON]. Jesus and Paul knew that the STAUROS (whether cross or stake) was a proper symbol that could remind us of Christ's sacrifice, and it would remind us of our own need for daily sacrifice, and even a similar sacrifice to the death if need be. But this is not an external symbol like baptism by which we show we have dedicated our lives to God and associate ourselves with Christians of like faith. For we walk by faith and not by sight, and need no ongoing piece of jewelry to state our Christian status.

Thanks, I needed to see that, because both the Bible teach book and its simplified replacement; The teach us book unequivocally state that Jesus did not die on a cross.
We still don't have electricity, so I am still not able to get to my stuff on the computer. The jaws theme is still rolling!!

Can you at least get the research right when you do this sort of stuff....please
Yes
Watchtower 7/1879 page 8
 
No
Watchtower Oct 15 1936 p313
 
Yes
Watchtower Jan 1 1939 p13.
 
No
Watchtower December 1 1941. p367
 
No
Watchtower July 15 1948 p219
 
No
Watchtower 6/1/52 page 338
 
Yes
Watchtower 8/1/65, page 479 
 
Yes
Aid to Bible Understanding 1971 page 1519
 
Yes
Live Forever (old Ed.)1982  page 179 p9,10.
 
No
Live Forever (new Ed. 1982) chap. 21 p. 179 par. 9
 
No
Watchtower 6/1/88, page 31
 
Yes
Insight, vol. 2.,1988 page 985
 
No
Revelation book, 1988 page 273
 
No
Insight, vol. 2., page 985 revised 2017
 

Can you at least get the research right when you do this sort of stuff....please
Yes
Watchtower 7/1879 page 8
 
No
Watchtower Oct 15 1936 p313
 
Yes
Watchtower Jan 1 1939 p13.
 
No
Watchtower December 1 1941. p367
 
No
Watchtower July 15 1948 p219
 
No
Watchtower 6/1/52 page 338
 
Yes
Watchtower 8/1/65, page 479 
 
Yes
Aid to Bible Understanding 1971 page 1519
 
Yes
Live Forever (old Ed.)1982  page 179 p9,10.
 
No
Live Forever (new Ed. 1982) chap. 21 p. 179 par. 9
 
No
Watchtower 6/1/88, page 31
 
Yes
Insight, vol. 2.,1988 page 985
 
No
Revelation book, 1988 page 273
 
No
Insight, vol. 2., page 985 revised 2017
 

Can you at least get the research right when you do this sort of stuff....please
Yes
Watchtower 7/1879 page 8
 
No
Watchtower Oct 15 1936 p313
 
Yes
Watchtower Jan 1 1939 p13.
 
No
Watchtower December 1 1941. p367
 
No
Watchtower July 15 1948 p219
 
No
Watchtower 6/1/52 page 338
 
Yes
Watchtower 8/1/65, page 479 
 
Yes
Aid to Bible Understanding 1971 page 1519
 
Yes
Live Forever (old Ed.)1982  page 179 p9,10.
 
No
Live Forever (new Ed. 1982) chap. 21 p. 179 par. 9
 
No
Watchtower 6/1/88, page 31
 
Yes
Insight, vol. 2.,1988 page 985
 
No
Revelation book, 1988 page 273
 
No
Insight, vol. 2., page 985 revised 2017
 

They are as similar to true Christians as darkness is to light. The aim of their attempt to be "successful" in their abuse of Jesus' name was to further their charlatan career. Their complicity with the demons was with or without their full knowledge of what they were doing. Many who work with the demons in their deception think they are actually controlling the activity of these creatures. All they are doing is furthering that illusion. Jesus wasn't theorising when he asked the scribes who enabled their sons to expel demons. Luke 11:19.
Neither do we deny that sewage contains water.
Absolutely. But I think we would by now have agreed fully on that? It still doesn't change the fact that the apostasy associated with the two bar cross is far greater than a crux simplex which has not become the brand mark of "Christian" apostasy.
Agreed, but we have Jehovah's spirit to enable us to discern apostasy. That is what I was driving at. Apostasy against Jehovah is Satanic in origin and is actively promoted by him. That is why it is difficult, even impossible to discern humanly. It is like carbon monoxide. We can only discern and protect our thinking from it's influence by means of God's spirit. And Jehovah will decide on how and when erroneous thinking will be corrected. He assesses the priorities and directs our action accordingly.
I think this is a mistake. The Letter of Barnabas is like a car driven over a cliff. Any shred of truth in it is not a touchstone to evaluate our understanding  today. At best, it is just a piece of untainted flesh in an otherwise rotting carcass. If the teaching is "true", it is because God's word is true. Psuedo-Barnabas may have got that bit right, we may have too. There the similarity ends.
As for the stocks/xylon thing? well it appears the wheel has already been invented on that one. The Septuagint apparently equates xylon with the Hebrew word for stocks (Job 33:11) and even the classical greek of Aristophanes gives a clue in referring to this instrument of restraint. "Sometimes it was what Aristophanes calls πεντεσύριγγον ξύλον, "stocks with five holes," two for the feet, two for the hands, and one for the neck." (Pulpit Commentary).
So somewhere a while back I indicated that my instincts lean me toward the single stake view of Jesus' executional implement. The fascinating and at times obscure detail unearthed in this discussion has not swayed my preference on this issue yet, but I recognise at the end of it all we cannot be definitive on what it was .....yet.
This whole excercise reminds me of those poor people who make a living scavenging for gold on the streets of Mumbai. They do find some, but I think we can agree there are better ways to make a living.
😊
 
 

They are as similar to true Christians as darkness is to light. The aim of their attempt to be "successful" in their abuse of Jesus' name was to further their charlatan career. Their complicity with the demons was with or without their full knowledge of what they were doing. Many who work with the demons in their deception think they are actually controlling the activity of these creatures. All they are doing is furthering that illusion. Jesus wasn't theorising when he asked the scribes who enabled their sons to expel demons. Luke 11:19.
Neither do we deny that sewage contains water.
Absolutely. But I think we would by now have agreed fully on that? It still doesn't change the fact that the apostasy associated with the two bar cross is far greater than a crux simplex which has not become the brand mark of "Christian" apostasy.
Agreed, but we have Jehovah's spirit to enable us to discern apostasy. That is what I was driving at. Apostasy against Jehovah is Satanic in origin and is actively promoted by him. That is why it is difficult, even impossible to discern humanly. It is like carbon monoxide. We can only discern and protect our thinking from it's influence by means of God's spirit. And Jehovah will decide on how and when erroneous thinking will be corrected. He assesses the priorities and directs our action accordingly.
I think this is a mistake. The Letter of Barnabas is like a car driven over a cliff. Any shred of truth in it is not a touchstone to evaluate our understanding  today. At best, it is just a piece of untainted flesh in an otherwise rotting carcass. If the teaching is "true", it is because God's word is true. Psuedo-Barnabas may have got that bit right, we may have too. There the similarity ends.
As for the stocks/xylon thing? well it appears the wheel has already been invented on that one. The Septuagint apparently equates xylon with the Hebrew word for stocks (Job 33:11) and even the classical greek of Aristophanes gives a clue in referring to this instrument of restraint. "Sometimes it was what Aristophanes calls πεντεσύριγγον ξύλον, "stocks with five holes," two for the feet, two for the hands, and one for the neck." (Pulpit Commentary).
So somewhere a while back I indicated that my instincts lean me toward the single stake view of Jesus' executional implement. The fascinating and at times obscure detail unearthed in this discussion has not swayed my preference on this issue yet, but I recognise at the end of it all we cannot be definitive on what it was .....yet.
This whole excercise reminds me of those poor people who make a living scavenging for gold on the streets of Mumbai. They do find some, but I think we can agree there are better ways to make a living.
😊
 
 

As you point out, the 1920 WT article gives no examples of these.
Copyist and translator error, tampering, falsifications, additions etc. are still a possibility. Also, Luke 4:9-11 could be cited as a bona-fide misapplication. Luke 19:16 and Acts 1:6 are examples of genuine misunderstanding.
The erroneous logic process you refer to is an example in itself of how a mistake can be made, but, in the absence of a response from the writer himself, we can only assume or guess, (educated or otherwise), at what was meant by "misunderstanding or misapplication".
The basic argument in the WT appears to be that mistakes in text or explanation occur in all human writings. This is extended to include the Bible. The existence of such in the so called Vol7 of Studies in the Scriptures was not felt (at the time) to constitute sufficient reason for rejecting it outright, any more than the BIble would be rejected on the same basis due to any (unidentified)"misunderstanding or misapplication" .
On reflection, using the Bible as a basis for this argument without considerable clarification regarding what was meant seems risky. (I would have cited the Encyclopedia Brittannica as an example more easily identified with), but I can see that Rutherford was using a rather extreme example to support his point
An affirmed acceptance of the substance of that Bible study aid was seen at the time as a necessary criteria for those serving in a representative way within the publishing organisation of Bible Students ("The Society"). I believe it was a time when loyalties were being tested, with some similarities to the events recorded at 1Ki.18:1-40.
I have always liked the thought expressed at Ps 119:160 which seems to allow for the accumulation of a "patina" due to human imperfection, even in the transmission of the word of God: 
"The very essence ("substance" NWT 1984) of your word is truth,"
 
 

Cue the Jaws theme yet again! Can't wait.  😁

Cue the Jaws theme yet again! Can't wait.  😁

This is perfectly valid. As the acount in Luke  23:39 was written by a physician, it would be curious that he would intentionally confuse matters anatomically if the specific word for "wrist"  in Greek (karpos) was in common usage. After all, he was quite specific regarding the healing of the lame man a few weeks later, when he described this at Acts 3:7, using the terms "feet" and "ankles". But, he didn't use the word "palm" which was in common use (Mark 14:65) to desribe the nail positions. It has been theorized that Luke was sticking more to  the account as relayed to him, not being an eye-witness, and if karpos was not in general use particularly among Galileans of the time, then his use of the word for "hand" which. in the parlance of the day included the "wrist", (wheras "palm" did not) is quite acceptable. However, this no argument to definitely ascertain the positioning of the nail (s).
With regard to the notion of the palm's inability to support the weight of the body, this appears to be based on the suspect experiments carried out by Pierre Barbet (1884–1961), subsequently challenged rather thoroughly, if bizarrely, by Frederick Zugibe (1928-2002. Notwithstanding the Shroud of Turin theories being the object of attention, his conclusions are considerably relevant.
Altering illustrations to show Jesus nailed through the wrists is quite a generous step to take, given the weight of academic opinion however, and for the Governing Body to take this step shows a perfectly reasonable approach in view of the lack of concrete information -  concession without compromise.
Jesus words (recorded again by physician Luke) at Luke 24:39-40 may well give us a clue to a more complete account of  his response to the doubts of Thomas, the details of which may have only been partially reported by John (John 20:25). The reference of Jesus to hands and feet as an evidence of his being the one resurrected  would necessitate the minimum of two nails, hence the use of the plural.
I do not have a uncompromising view of this matter however, because, as noted frequently, the Scriptures are not definitive on the matter. But I am not aware yet of a successful challenge to our view, despite the many learned attempts at such. 😊
 
 

Romans were brutal. You'd have to leave town before they can capture you, perhaps go overseas and go full incognito. But then you may have a bounty on your head so if you have hear and a beard, best to shave it all off, try to blend in, so this way bounty hunters and assassins will not find you to hand you over to those who want to crucify you.
Other than that, Roman punishment was swift, cruel and ridiculously unusual.
Aside from Crucifixion (that is if they do not get unique with hanging someone upon side on a good day for them), you can be
Bee Basket'd Eaten through the middle by starving animals be cauldron tortured Public Executions buried alive, (something of which Nero took delight in) nailed to barrels The Arena Being burned alive, while bonded Fed to Lions toured by means of being forced to walk on hot coal that is always burning. tied off cut in half fed to wild hogs sewn into a donkey tossed to wild barbaric beasts possibly decapitation, but they are the types to have enduring pain rather than an instant execution To them in ancient history regarding Roman, death was not a punishment, it is a release, for torture was punishment, and death was only allowed after a certain amount of pain and terror had been felt.
They got a variety, that for sure.
That being said, it was a brutal time, and if one was Crucified, wait til they go for your legs, they'll break them if you are still somehow barely alive if they need to speed up death, it is that crazy.

😱 At last....I think I am starting to understand you. That is simply outrageous.

😱 At last....I think I am starting to understand you. That is simply outrageous.

This is an interesting statement because it begs (for me) the question as to what is "accurate knowledge" as opposed to "knowledge"? And also are "false" or "wrong" necessarily antonyms of "accurate" in connection with knowledge?
I suppose the principles behind statements such as:
1Cor 8:1"If anyone thinks he knows something, he does not yet know it as he should know it." 1Cor.13:8 "For we have partial knowledge" would have a part to play in answering these questions, as well as a comprehension of the Greek word "epignosko".
Ah well, no time to toss it around now. Maybe better in it's own thread.  🌙ZZZZZZZZZZZ...............

This is an interesting statement because it begs (for me) the question as to what is "accurate knowledge" as opposed to "knowledge"? And also are "false" or "wrong" necessarily antonyms of "accurate" in connection with knowledge?
I suppose the principles behind statements such as:
1Cor 8:1"If anyone thinks he knows something, he does not yet know it as he should know it." 1Cor.13:8 "For we have partial knowledge" would have a part to play in answering these questions, as well as a comprehension of the Greek word "epignosko".
Ah well, no time to toss it around now. Maybe better in it's own thread.  🌙ZZZZZZZZZZZ...............

Based on information from one of the sources of this image collection, evidently these are "images of Christian martyrs tortured (not executed) at poles or pillars, in Migne's Patrologia Latina, vol. 60."

I wish people could make their mind up!!!

Where did this idea come from ?

QUIZZTIME!!
And where are these from??? EDIT: Well done @JWInsider who got the one above pretty quickly!
EDIT: And now he's got the other one (below), the old clever-cloggs!