OMG. What was that all about?

On 11/11/2017 at 9:26 PM, Nicole said:

Everyone who has a PC knows how the key shortcut Ctrl+Alt+Delete is used. It is usually used to access the computer’s task manager when something doesn’t seem right.

The Ctrl+Alt+Delete key that Bill Gates "invented" did not access the task manager. It was the way to reboot a "DOS" "OS/2" or "Windows" computer up until Windows 95, when the function of Ctrl+Alt+Delete was changed to Task Manager, and then an "interrupt" that invoked a menu of functions (including the Task Manager).

Also, it is possible to complete the "3 finger salute" with one hand now that most PC keyboards include an Alt and Ctrl on the right side of the keyboard's Spacebar, closer to the Delete key.  

54 minutes ago, JOHN BUTLER said:

Oh I'm so glad I'm an Englishman in England.

I hope you at least have a Thanksgiving celebration and a July 4th fireworks celebration!?!?!?

😉

40 minutes ago, JOHN BUTLER said:

As for pushing for a special effort on a stupid day, well it seems like a way of actually celebrating that day to me. It's like saying they know that day is special to people. 

Spot on! Bingo! Good point. I've always felt the same way about treating one day as all others vs treating one day as more important than others.

• (Romans 14:5) . . .One man judges one day as above another; another judges one day the same as all others;. . .

40 minutes ago, JOHN BUTLER said:

And the Christmas day door to door witnessing is not a good thing. It's intrusive and rude.

But not so much worse than the way Black Friday has already intruded on Thanksgiving dinners by starting it at 5:00pm on Thursday and going until 1AM, so that our local "Best Buy" didn't open up again until 8AM on Friday. (Which also reminds me that "Best Buy" was playing Christmas music for persons on hold as early as October 30th this year.)

1 hour ago, The Librarian said:

This topic makes one reconsider MANY things:

I think that if we really understand the following point in the "Knowledge" book, true Christians need to treat EVERY DAY AS BLACK FRIDAY!!!

*** kl chap. 13 pp. 126-127 par. 17 Why Living a Godly Life Brings Happiness ***

• Of course, godly parents do not await a special day to show their children love. A 13-year-old Christian girl remarked: “My family and I have lots of fun. . . . I’m very close to my parents, and when other kids ask why I don’t celebrate holidays, I tell them that I celebrate every day.” Said a Christian youth aged 17: “In our house, gift-giving is all year long.” Greater happiness results when gifts are given spontaneously.

58 minutes ago, TrueTomHarley said:

I do know my Dylan fairly well, yet I was into my 40s when I began to develop a taste for him. I didn’t like him at all in my school days. Now in my ‘Musicians’ blog category, he pops up more often than anyone.

I see that now. I actually never liked Dylan's singing, and always wondered what was the draw. In fact, when you answered the question "Who is the best male artist?" with Dylan saying, "It's not me, babe," I was pretty sure you were just letting Dylan self-deprecate. I still think it's true that Dylan mumbles and can't hold a note very long. But I like his lyrics and sentiments, and have learned that people like his singing, too. Of course, I probably misinterpret most of his lyrics, as I thought that Mr. Jones was Dylan.

BTW, in case anyone thought I was trying to imply that I am in the same house as a major famous pop artist, my relative is actually a music producer who works with other musicians. He tried his own songs when he was a teenager, but they didn't chart for very long and certainly didn't make him much money. For 15 years, now, he has had his own label and a studio that pays the bills by taking money from Grammy-winning artists.

BTW, I have no respect for the "journalist" Maureen Dowd that he supposedly riled. Knowing her politics, she was probably just looking for an angle on China and thought she could catch a few more eyeballs by rolling some iconoclastic stones in Dylan's direction. 

 @TrueTomHarley ,  Although I won't name the person I'm here with right now, I can give you a quick sense of what we did all day yesterday when he had a day off. Here's a picture some of the books on my piano. It's every "Kingdom Songbook" we've used since 1927. 

13 hours ago, TrueTomHarley said:

Though THE counter-culture icon of the 60s, he writes that he was never into it. He wrote those type of songs because they sold.

You might not believe this, but I just read your post above and your blog article to a Grammy winner who has previously spoken to Bob Dylan.

After name-dropping a two-time national "Teacher of the Year" nominee, earlier today, I honestly hate to do this again. So I won't. But here's the thing. I'm literally sitting in my living room right now with the person I mentioned above: a two-time Grammy winner (and six-time nominee) who's spending the evening here with his wife and child. And, yes, they're close relatives of mine. My wife and I (and my sister and brother-in-law) attended the Grammys with them in 2014 and 2015. And might have to go back in 2019, because he is nominated again. 

Now I've never met Bob Dylan, but was in the audience when he was honored by MusicCares and gave a half-hour speech, which is rare for him. (For Dylan, even to show up at all to an award being given to him is rare.) Just an aside, but you might not know that going to the Grammys is actually a week-long affair attending a bunch of fairly boring and mundane meetings and minor awards shows that never make it to the famous prime-time TV broadcast. And before you judge too harshly, I could name at least 7 other Witnesses who were there in 2014 and 2015. At least I don't attend the weeknight parties, mostly because I'm not invited to any except the post-Awards parties, which have free food and tame entertainment.

We looked for Dylan's 2015 speech, and found it online. It's here: https://www.latimes.com/entertainment/music/posts/la-et-ms-grammys-2015-transcript-of-bob-dylans-musicares-person-of-year-speech-20150207-story.html  That's the whole speech written out which is quicker to read, but you'd have to watch it to understand the sense of humor.

I'm not here to defend Dylan, of course, but you had it much closer when you kept it simply as:

14 hours ago, TrueTomHarley said:

The more you read up on Dylan, the more intriguing he becomes.

If you have never seen or read the 2015 speech, you might be even more intrigued. I will say he derives some mileage out of a possible persecution complex, and knows that he receives this type of sell-out criticism all the time.

The Political Art of Bob Dylan by David Boucher, Gary Browning gives a similar POV, that it was all business, but even that book shows that if we look more closely at all the words Dylan said about his long love of folk music, that it was more than a business choice. He knew the artists Peter, Paul and Mary, each individually, before they were a group by that name. Sure, he might be rewriting his own autobiography, but folk music wasn't a choice for money, he says:

Just saying that people make Dylan the playlist of their entire philosophy because he has said a lot of things that people can take out of his context and put into their own. Same goes for things he's said in interviews about wanting a house with a white picket fence. Just sayin.'

1 hour ago, Outta Here said:

Sad news. Was he a colleague of your wife?

Yes. I spoke about him in one of TTH's threads, too:

I've only been to two concerts in my life, and both were while I was at Bethel in NYC. Dave Brubeck in 1977 (not a singer) and James Taylor (free concert in Central Park, 1979). Here's my favorite lesser-known song from JT. It's on one of my Spotify playlists, but I have no idea what's in this video:

3 hours ago, BillyTheKid46 said:

 

This little book packs a hard punch at Thanksgiving. My wife (and John Gatto) used it as a textbook for a History/English/Playwriting collaboration in a middle-school academy. It is especially good at comparing old Thanksgiving pageants done in schools and the actual (or at least the more historical) version of what happened. It's an eyeopener.

Depends on style, genre, stage presence, quality. The best reggae singer will not be the best jazz singer. This guy, below, has been around "for all time" during my lifetime. And I like what I have heard of his off-stage personality. A friend of ours saw him at a NYC dinner & music venue a couple years ago, and he was in the audience at a table with friends, making some very nice drawings of the stage artist, and greeting people with smiles and nice conversation. 

2 hours ago, Space Merchant said:

one example being Thanksgiving, whereas you can feast but on that same day it is a day of mourning for others. 

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

10 hours ago, Anna said:

I haven't had time to read everyone's posts since the last time

This is a very interesting subject, with a lot of good research surrounding it. Much of the research actually overlaps fairly consistently, but there is always plenty to learn. From your comments and questions over the last couple of years, I can tell you have given it more thought than most of us.

I think that the David W Chapman book http://khazarzar.skeptik.net/books/crux01.pdf Ancient Jewish and Christian Perceptions of Crucifixion is excellent, especially since it fills in a known gap from Hengel, that Hengel himself admitted: that he had not given so much attention to the Jewish history and perceptions. I think Chapman fills this gap well, with Hebrew language and literature from every possible relevant source. In addition to classical Latin and Greek sources, he spends much time on Hebrew, Aramaic, and Syriac sources.

Also, I think that BillyTheKid is correct in recommending "The Crosses of Pompeii: Jesus-Devotion in a Vesuvian Town" by Bruce W. Longenecker. It tries too hard to put Christian crosses in Pompeii itself, but it does a good job bringing in comparative ideas about how the cross symbol could likely have been used among "immature" Christians in this time and place. And it brings other known artifacts into the discussion. A pretty fair assessment of Longenecker's position on the historical development of the cross symbol is summarized here: https://www.thepostil.com/the-early-history-of-the-cross/#.W_YwbuhKjIU

There was something I was surprised at, which is related. It's the study of early Christian gemstones. I've looked at them before, but noticed something different when thinking about the history of the cross symbol. This is actually what had led me to the nearly unrelated "Biblica" article on JSTOR, The Letter Tau as the Cross: Ornament and Content in Hebrews 2,14 Thomas E. Schmidt. That's a place, of course, where the discussion of all the T's in Hebrews 2:14 comes up.

But back to gemstones.

-------------------------SOURCE----------------------

Studies in the History of Art

Vol. 54, Symposium Papers XXXII: Engraved Gems: Survivals and Revivals (1997), pp. 32-43 (12 pages)

Published by: National Gallery of Art

https://www-jstor-org.azp1.lib.harvard.edu/stable/42622183

------------------------------------------------------------------

What surprised me was the popularity of the story of Jonah, and I hadn't realized that it could have been a kind of "crucifixion" story for those who knew the significance of the execution and resurrection of Jesus, but who might not have wished to display Jesus humiliated and tortured. Of course, there is also the ship in the story (which bears the stauros) and was thought by these outsiders to have succeeded in ridding themselves of Jonah.

 

The following picture is from the article mentioned above, and is a sample of several gemstones from the 200's through the 300's CE.

 

Even the "IXTHYS" (the first one) could be just as much a Jonah reference (ixthys=fish) as a reference to Jesus' association with fishermen, the call to be fishers of men, and the miracles performed related to fish.

 

The third picture of the two fish on the sides of an anchor could also be a "stauros" reference, not just "Jesus the anchor of our faith." It is a bit like other images of two evildoers hanging next to Jesus.

 

Jonah is depicted in two of the gems. One of them has the story carved out in the way some churches depict the "stations of the cross" on stained glass. And it creates the cross-beamed stauros image with the ship.

 

And the last one is finally of Christ's "crucifixion" from the 300's CE.

 

 

On 11/20/2018 at 11:18 PM, BillyTheKid46 said:

However, here is an alternative to the stauros that is seldom seen. By A.T. Fomenko. . .  there are many unbelievable areas where ancient writers compared the stauros to a simple vertical line. 😏

No one else pointed it out yet, so I thought it good to mention that A.T. Fomenko is a crackpot conspiracy theorist who came up with a theory that became surprisingly popular in Russia. He does not believe Jesus ever existed, and that all the things we know from history actually happened from the Middle Ages until now. There was no written history prior to 800 A.D. and everything we might call history: the Babylonian cuneiform tablets, Egyptian hieroglyphics, The "Old Testament" and the "New Testament" comes from about the year 1000 A.D. to 1500 A.D.

He believes that "Jesus" was actually from the 12th century AD, and died just over 800 years ago. This means that we are, in effect, now actually living in the "9th century AD." Fomenko also says that "Solomon's Temple" was built almost exactly 500 years ago. So, Solomon's Temple was about 365 years AFTER Jesus died!

Here's a summary taken from Wikipedia, with some of the dates and footnote numbers removed for readability:

• According to Fomenko's claims, the written history of humankind goes only as far back as AD 800, there is almost no information about events between AD 800–1000, and most known historical events took place in AD 1000–1500.

• Fomenko claims that the most probable prototype of the historical Jesus was Andronikos I Komnenos (allegedly AD 1152 to 1185), the emperor of Byzantium, known for his failed reforms; his traits and deeds reflected in 'biographies' of many real and imaginary persons. The historical Jesus is a composite figure and reflection of the Old-Testament prophet Elisha, Pope Gregory VII, Saint Basil of Caesarea, and even Li Yuanhao (also known as Emperor Jingzong or "Son of Heaven" - emperor of Western Xia, . . . ), Euclides, Bacchus and Dionysius. Fomenko explains the seemingly vast differences in the biographies of these figures as resulting from difference in languages, points of view and time-frame of the authors of said accounts and biographies. He claims that the historical Jesus may have been born in 1152 and was crucified around AD 1185 on the Joshua's Hill, overlooking the Bosphorus.

  Fomenko also merges the cities and histories of Jerusalem, Rome and Troy into "New Rome" = Gospel Jerusalem (in the 12th and 13th centuries) = Troy = Yoros Castle. To the south of Yoros Castle is Joshua's Hill which Fomenko alleges is the hill Calvary depicted in the Bible.

  Fomenko claims the Hagia Sophia is actually the biblical Temple of Solomon. He identifies Solomon as sultan Suleiman the Magnificent (1494–1566).

It's true that he references "stauros" as a column, but as you saw in the quote you( @BillyTheKid46) provided he also showed that the final shape could look like a T (Tau), or even a more traditional "cross." But then he goes right on in the next paragraph to say that the Trojan War (usually dated to about 1250 BCE in the 13th century BCE), must have actually happened in the 13th century AD. That's a difference of about 2,500 years.

2 hours ago, Anna said:

I therefore think the answer to your question regarding why one or the other word might be used is that they were virtually interchangeable.

I've seen a word study on these two different basic terms that shows that they both went through a similar history, in both verb and noun forms, and both began with similar simple meanings and both developed and encompassed similar meanings when associated with punishments, and both took on the same prefix "ana."

Before I forget, what I really loved about the perseus.tufts.edu site was that in earlier versions, years ago, you could pick a classical Greek or Latin (or other) text, and then when you had to look up a word, the color would change from bluish to purplish (the old default HTML style for a "visited link"). This would give you kind of a visual feedback on how many words you had to look up, and also was a reminder that you had already looked up the word if you ran across the same word again later in the text. 

I think you have seen the 337-page David Chapman PDF for his book "Ancient Jewish and Christian Perceptions of Crucifixion." I'm pretty sure that someone already linked it here in this topic (might have been you?). Anyway, it had a pretty good summary of the Greek terms on page 9 through 13 (where the footnotes even include a point about the Witnesses).

It's in agreement with your post above, but I'll share a good part of it, except for the footnotes which take up half the page on average:

----------remainder of post from David Chapman PDF ---------------------

Greek Terminology

The familiar New Testament terms for the crucifixion of Jesus include the

verbs σταυρόω (46 times, though not all of Jesus), συσταυρόω (5 times),

and άνασταυρόω (in Heb 6:6), as well as the noun σταυρός. Also NT

authors speak of the event with προσπήγνυμι ("to affix"; in Acts 2:23)

or with the passive of κρεμάννυμι and έπϊ ξύλου ("to hang upon a tree"; cf.

Acts 5:30; 10:39; Gal 3:13).

Combining this terminology with that in Lucian's Prometheus*

and in other works of Greek antiquity, several more

words surface that, in context, can designate a crucifixion event: particularly

άνασκολοπίζω (verb) and σκόλοψ (noun), and including verbs such as

άνακρεμάννυμι, κατακλείω, καταπήγνυμι, πήγνυμι, προσηλόω, and

προσπατταλεύω (= προσπασσαλεύω).

Nevertheless, in Greek it is rare for the semantic range of any single term

to be confined to "crucifixion." For example, a σταυρός appears originally to

have referred to an upright pole. Thus a σταυρός can be a stake in a

σταύρωμα ("palisade"; e.g., Thucydides, Hist, vi.100) as well as a pole on

which a person is impaled or crucified. Hence it naturally follows that both

άνασταυρόω and σταυρόω can refer to the building of stockades as well as

to the setting up of poles (especially for the purpose of suspending people on

σταυροί). Elsewhere a σταυρός can be used as a place of scourging, with

the death following from some other method.

Α σκόλοψ likewise generally refers to "anything pointed" (Liddell &

Scott, s.v.), including pales, stakes, thorns, a point of a fishhook, and (in the

plural) a palisade. And similarly, the cognate verb άνασκολοπίζω need not

exclusively refer to "fix on a pole or a stake, impale.

However, the "fundamental" references to an upright pole in σταυρός and

its cognates, and to pointy objects in σκόλοψ and its cognates, does not

rightly imply such that terminology in antiquity, when applied to crucifixion,

invariably referred to a single upright beam. This is a common word study

fallacy in some populist literature. In fact, such terminology often referred

in antiquity to cross-shaped crucifixion devices. For example, Lucian, in a

brief dialogue that employs most Greek crucifixion vocabulary, refers to the

"crucifixion" of Prometheus, whose arms are pinned while stretched from one

rock to another. Such a cross-shaped crucifixion position in the Roman era

may actually have been the norm; nevertheless, the point to be sustained at

this stage is that this position was not the only one to be designated with these

Greek terms.

In addition to recognizing the broader semantic ranges of these terms, it is

helpful to note that different authors prefer certain terminology. Thus, while

Philo knows σταυρός as a "cross" (see Flacc. 72, 84; contrast σταυροί as

fortifications in Agr. 11; Spec. Leg. iv.229), he does not use the cognate verb

άνασταυρόω, preferring instead άνασκολοπίζω. Josephus, on the other

hand, employs only άνασταυρόω and σταυρόω but never άνασκολοπίζω.

Hengel contends that in the Classical period Herodotus utilized άνασταυρόω

and άνασκολοπίζω with different nuances from one another (άνασκολοπίζω

of the suspension of living men and άνασταυρόω of dead men), but that after

Herodotus these two verbs become synonymous. Such a picture may require

some more nuance, but it is certainly the case that after Herodotus some

authors use the terms interchangeably and that both verbs can designate acts

of crucifixion (even in the narrow English sense of the word).

1 hour ago, BillyTheKid46 said:

Unfortunately, I don’t cater to incompetence, as your research has shown.

Sorry about that last post. I tried to do the whole thing from my Dragon speech app on my phone, and every time I reworded something, or decided to change it, I couldn't find the previous version. Then I found it all bunched down there at the bottom of my post. I removed most of the gibberish.

1 hour ago, BillyTheKid46 said:

I won’t have any further discussions with a person that has but dissociated himself and trying very hard to discredit himself with logistics within that incompetence, just like the example you happened to find in google, jwcross or was that just the intent to prove the Watchtower wrong with such incompetent research. Happy Holidays.

I guess that was supposed to be me? LOL. I can assure you that I have never dissociated myself, nor have I ever been disfellowshipped. I did "step down" as we call it, but I am pretty sure that you yourself would most likely consider this to have been at least a "step" in the right direction. After all, I am now responsible for a lot less teaching assignments in the congregation. Your response to this has repeatedly been to call me someone who is "no longer in good standing," but surely this is better for everyone all around. (Turns out there are plenty of sacred service activities that don't require an "eldership" or "pioneership" etc.)

The jwcross.pdf by Leolaia does not prove the Watchtower wrong. It does not even say that the Watchtower is wrong about Jesus dying on a simple, upright pole. It does try a bit too hard to show up the dogmatism and research errors, in staking out a position, but without crediting the Watchtower for exposing a major flaw in Christendom's assumptions, too. Also, the article avoids the issue of improper veneration to objects and idols, which has been a major part of the history of the cross. I understand that this is not a real focus of a "cross vs. stake" discussion, but since it is obviously geared to a JW and ex-JW audience, it should therefore give more credit where credit is due.

14 hours ago, BillyTheKid46 said:

I don’t discredit anyone’s research other than to submit an area of incompetence.

That statement of yours reminded me of the way in which you tried to discredit Leolaia's research from 1990.

On 11/17/2018 at 12:45 AM, BillyTheKid46 said:

There are many other research points. Needless to say, the article was written by Leolaia in 1990, unfortunately, has no serious understanding of the original Classic Greek. Not to mention other areas of incompetence done with the research.

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.

2 hours ago, BillyTheKid46 said:

No correction needed when the picture is out of “Bruce W Longenecker” own book of Pompeii. It is shameful to discredit someone else’s work just because you believe it’s a mistaken representation.

Longenecker's work is OK. I just meant that when you copied from his book, you accidentally included his correct caption for Figure 6.6, but kept it attached to Figure 6.7, which has a different caption.

But back to the previous post . . .

7 hours ago, BillyTheKid46 said:

Therefore, the only thing that is demolished is in the personal views and heads of those that refuse to accept the ancient writings that confirm the Stauros as a simple pole . . .

I think you misunderstand. I believe that "stauros" referred initially to a simple pole, but became associated with punishments and executions, in large part because these acts were for many years associated mostly with simple poles. (whipping posts, hanging gallows, etc.)  And even when the apparatus and contraptions for punishment and execution became a little more complex, a standing pole was still a prominent feature. This is actually about the same thing that the 1963 Awake! said about the development of the word "stauros." Note that Awake! says the Greek term "stauros" could mean not just a stake or a pole, but also a "cross."

I perfectly accept that it initially meant an upright standing pole, stake, or could refer to palisade of stakes, etc. And I accept that it could very often have this meaning in Jesus' day, too. But "stauros" according to the Awake!, also had the meaning of "cross" and this was (according to the Awake!) one "modification of it [that] was introduced as the dominion and usages of Rome extended themselves through the Greek-speaking countries." So I do not think that the association of the idea of torture and execution by a stauros means that we are only talking only about a two-beamed cross, Latin cross, Tau-shaped, or Chi-shaped cross. I think that any of these shapes were possible, even a tree with random branches. And I still think there is a good possibility that Jesus was executed on a simple, upright pole.

As I've said before, in any case, I think it's good that we have pointed out to people the possibility of this possible choice, because it immediately makes people think twice about the traditional cross symbol used all over Christendom. The only thing I don't accept is the claim that the evidence is so overwhelming that we must all accept that this absolutely was the shape of the execution instrument. In fact, after a lot of study, especially over the last two years, I have finally decided that the evidence leans slightly in favor of a Tau-shaped or, even more likely, the traditional crux immissa shaped cross. This is mostly based on a common practice with the stauros/patibulum, and the Gospel writers' focus on Jesus carrying his "stauros." There are about 6 other factors (bits of evidence) which add slightly to the reasons I lean this way. I have mentioned most of them already.

I believe the X shape is interesting, but I am pretty sure it survived into Christian art and symbolism mostly because of the Hebrew Tau of Ezekiel 9, and its appearance that looks like a Greek Chi ("X") that would appear to match the first initial of Christ (Xristou/Xristos). I think the symbolism of the Chi-Rho is exactly this: not Christ in an X-shaped body position, but X on the stauros. It implies an single upright pole in this case, but was also superimposed on the crux immissa to produce a "star" shape. 

Longenecker explains the Ezekiel 9:4 connection where the KJV says:

• And the LORD said unto him, Go through the midst of the city, through the midst of Jerusalem, and set a mark upon the foreheads of the men that sigh and that cry for all the abominations that be done in the midst thereof.

Since the word for mark is TAU, it can be read or translated as:

• And the LORD said unto him, Go through the midst of the city, through the midst of Jerusalem, and set a TAU upon the foreheads of the men that sigh and that cry for all the abominations that be done in the midst thereof.

I haven't seen it proven yet, but I would guess that the fact that pre-Christian Jewish ossuaries sometimes have a TAU on them in the shape of either a + or x is because this was the shape of the TAU at the time:

• Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same; that through death he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil;

But in Greek it uses "alliteration" with the letter T more than any other Bible verse. If you thought the English translation "fight the fine fight of the faith" was alliterative, check out this verse in Greek, keeping in mind that the subject is death, and also keeping in mind that an opening "Theta" as in the word thanatos (death) was often pronounced at the time more like the th in hot-head, not the th in "the."

• ἐπεὶ οὖν τὰ παιδία κεκοινώνηκεν σαρκός καὶ αἵματος καὶ αὐτὸς παραπλησίως μετέσχεν τῶν αὐτῶν ἵνα διὰ τοῦ θανάτου καταργήσῃ τὸν τὸ κράτος ἔχοντα τοῦ θανάτου τουτ' έστιν τὸν διάβολον

The writer (Paul?) manages to keep at least one Tau in a string of 12 consecutive words, and offers a total of 19 Taus in the last 20 words.

There! Figured I'd give you some "low-hanging fruit" since I'm pretty sure you already consider everything I've ever said to be fairly worthless anyway. 😉

3 hours ago, BillyTheKid46 said:

 

Just saw this, and thought I should correct a mistake you made here, even though I won't have time to respond today to any of the other statements in your last post.

I looked at this picture and thought, how did anyone ever get the name Yehudah out of what is clearly the Shalamsion Ossuary, with the name Shalamsion repeated twice in the picture. Also, this is a recumbent (reclining) cross, not what's usually called a plain equilateral cross. So I looked up the original to see whether Longenecker made the error.

Here's what happened. You included the caption for an image that was above this one, and you didn't include the caption for the image you presented (which was below the image, not above it). Here are both of them, with the error corrected:

5 hours ago, BillyTheKid46 said:

Now as I mentioned earlier, if you're looking for a 21st-century outlook of the non-Christian cross, as I mentioned, space merchant makes a good point with Bruce W Longenecker.

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.

5 hours ago, BillyTheKid46 said:

There are other of course, that can give you a conservative view. The place to start, J. D. Parsons, James H. Cone, Robin M. Jensen, Gunnar Samuelsson, John Granger Cook

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.

6 hours ago, BillyTheKid46 said:

Aren't you missing something? It is also true that the majority of the time when this method was used, the prisoner would have been tied with rope or nailed to the patibulum. 

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.

6 hours ago, BillyTheKid46 said:

The ancient writers proposed that Jesus was raised above the other criminals. That would mean his torture stake (stauros) was longer. However, as depicted, the Romans used many forms of execution.

The Bible doesn't say Jesus was raised above the other criminals. Maybe he was; maybe he wasn't.

6 hours ago, BillyTheKid46 said:

 If the tau was used, most likely Jesus would have been tied to the crossbeam as indicated in history. Where in scripture does it state that or even hint on that?

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.

6 hours ago, BillyTheKid46 said:

When Peter was side to be crucified upside down at his own. The optic would certainly resemble a cross. died weight will fling the arms down to a certain point until someone stretches them outward. Does that mean he died on a Latin Cross? 

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.)

6 hours ago, BillyTheKid46 said:

Just be prepared to defend this take with Jesus having to carry a COMPLETE cross, as the false religion now stipulates.

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.

6 hours ago, BillyTheKid46 said:

cross as a sign of shame (alaxvvrj) (Hebrews 12.2),1 0 the 'infamous stake' (infamis stipes),11 the 'barren' (infelix lignum) or 'criminal wood' {iravovpyiKov (jvAov),

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:

"You hang Christians on crosses (crucibus) and stakes (stipitibus); what idol is there but is first moulded in clay, hung on a cross and stake (cruci et stipiti)? It is on a patibulum that the body of your god is first dedicated" (Apologeticus, 12.3).

"For this same letter TAU of the Greeks, which is our T, has the appearance of the cross (crucis)" (Apologeticus, 3.23.6)

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

On 11/17/2018 at 12:45 AM, BillyTheKid46 said:

Even though Bruce W Longenecker gives some good points for the 21^st century, I find the argument Martin Hengel will suffice to the 1990 article.

So far, the Greek-speaking world, Greece, Asia Minor, Egypt and Syria, has been deliberately kept at the periphery of our discussion. The sources for crucifixion, which in the period of the empire markedly appears as a Roman punishment, are much fuller in Latin literature than in Greek.

The book is here, and in other places: https://books.google.com/books?id=UDEPFqTiQhUC

But you'll notice that Martin Hengel does not propose a single upright stake, but also believes the arms were stretched apart, to the sides, nailed separately, and that the sign was directly above Jesus' head, not his hands. Some good research that Hengel does offer, was found in the Watchtower:

*** w10 8/15 p. 4 Resist the Pressure of Public Opinion ***

• Execution on a torture stake subjected the victim to the worst of all possible indignities. Such an execution was “the penalty for slaves,” says scholar Martin Hengel. “As such it symbolized extreme humiliation, shame and torture.” Social pressure to renounce a person who was dishonored in this way was brought upon his family and friends. Since Christ died in this manner, all who wanted to be Christians in the first century C.E. thus had to face the challenge of public ridicule. Most people likely considered it absurd for someone to identify himself as a follower of a man who suffered impalement.

Although a casual reader might think it's implied here that Hengel believed that Jesus' died on a "torture stake" as defined by the Watchtower, a careful reader will notice that this is not stated.

Hengel offers a lot of very good evidence showing how even the Romans were themselves embarrassed and scandalized over the atrocities they were promoting whenever they allowed a crucifixion. Historians were reticent to mention them. Roman governors and even Caesars themselves did not want to speak of this particular atrocity even if they had been responsible for some of them. It was considered too disgusting even for a nation of people (Romans) who had become famous for public bloodshed. Hengel thus says:

• An alleged son of god who could not help himself at the time of his deepest need (Mark 15.31), and who rather required his followers to take up the cross, was hardly an attraction to the lower classes of Roman and Greek society. People were all too aware of what it meant to bear the cross through the city and then to be nailed to it (patibulum ferat per urbem, deinde offigitur cruci, Plautus, Carbonaria, fr. 2) and feared it; they wanted to get away from it. Moreover, early Christianity was not particularly a religion of slaves; at the time of Paul, and much more so with Pliny and Tertullian, it embraced men of every rank, omnis ordinis. This basic theme of the supplicium servile also illuminates the hymn in Philippians 2.6-11. Anyone who was present at the wor­ship of the churches founded by Paul in the course of his mission, in which this hymn was sung, and indeed any reader of Philippians in ancient times, would inevitably have seen a direct connection between the 'emptied himself, taking the form of a slave' (ἑαυτὸν ἐκένωσεν μορφὴν δούλου λαβών) and the disputed end of the first strophe: 'he humbled himself and was obedient unto death, even the death of the cross'. Death on the cross was the penalty for slaves, as everyone knew; as such it symbolized extreme humilia­tion, shame and torture. Thus the θανάτου δὲ σταυροῦ is the last bitter consequence of the μορφὴν δούλου λαβών and stands in the most abrupt contrast possible with the beginning of the hymn with its description of the divine essence of the pre-existence of the cruci­fied figure, as with the exaltation surpassing anything that might be conceived (ὁ θεὸς αὐτὸν ὑπερύψωσεν). The one who had died the death of a slave was exalted to be Lord of the whole creation and bearer of the divine name Kyrios. If it did not have θανάτου δὲ σταυροῦ at the end of the first strophe, the hymn would lack its most decisive statement. 

5 hours ago, BillyTheKid46 said:

as depicted by the photo, the person with a crossbeam was usually tied or nailed already to be easily hoisted to a T. This isn’t written in scripture or hinted.

The use of the patibulum as a key part of the stauros, included parading the accused through the public as he was marched toward execution and sometimes flogged along the way. This idea is definitely hinted at in the scriptural accounts.

The imprint of multiple nails in the hands may also be a hint that the final form was more like a T, and the idea that the sign was over his head, not his hands, is also a hint that the final form was more like a T.

Also, as already pointed out, the scriptures say both things, that Jesus was "nailed" to the execution device, and that he was "hung" from the execution device. The type of patibulum attachment you describe would be a good solution to match both terms to a T.

5 hours ago, BillyTheKid46 said:

15^th century and 19th-century writings come from the same research done in the 4^th century and earlier.

By the term "15th century," I assume you mean the late 1500's (16th century) and early 1600's (17th century) when Lipsius was published. And yes it's true he used research from the 4th century and earlier. But he, Lipsius, also came to the conclusion after all that researech, that Jesus was crucified on a dual-beamed cross. Quoting from the same book you quoted, Crucifixion in Antiquity, by Gunnar Samuelsson:

• "It was on a crux immissa, Lipsius concludes, that Jesus had to suffer and die." [LIPSIUS, De Cruce, p.27-29]

Imagine! After all this research and discussion, and the fact that the Watchtower publications repeat his illustration of a crux simplex, our publications regularly leave out the fact that Lipsius concluded that it was a cross with a lowered crossbeam (patibulum).

Fulda, the 19th century researcher we have spoken about, is also criticized in the "Crucifixion in Antiquity" book, as a person who doesn't explain his own contradictions, and draws some of his conclusions without providing any of those quotes from the 4th century and prior. The most important point about Fulda made in this book is this:

5 hours ago, BillyTheKid46 said:

Lipsius places the use of patibulum in the section of modus rarus.

Historically, I would agree. Recall that, as you said, crucifixions on simple poles had been known since the 10th century BCE. I can't imagine the mass executions taking the time for a public flogging, a public riot, and a humiliating parade through the streets in the manner of the patibulum-associated two-beam executions. There were mass executions in the century or so prior to Jesus, and the first century itself. I believe, numerically, a simple-pole stauros/crux was clearly more common.

I would only expect the patibulum to be part of the process in those special cases where a public humiliation was part of the process, such as one might expect if the person had gained some notoriety, or if especially he had claimed to be a "King of the Jews" for example. 

Also, the April 8, 1963 Awake! magazine, referred to earlier, speaks of the evolution of the meaning of stauros over the centuries based on developing Roman execution practices. The research in that Awake! admits that the stauros could mean a dual-beamed cross, and therefore aligns with the research from Leolaia, but with the Biblical interpretation in the Awake! leaning more on xylon rather then stauros. This was why Leolaia pointed out the logical blunder made in that same Awake! in its incorrect explanation of xylon.

Still, notice that in spite of the very context you quoted, Lipsius still ends up putting the crucifixion of Jesus in this modus rarus category. In addition several of the styles of execution and "crux punishments" on a simple pole were also in the modus rarus category.

12 hours ago, Anna said:

So, is no one going to challenge Lucian of Samosata?

Prometheus, relief from the Temple of Aphrodite at Aphrodisias

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":

On 11/17/2018 at 12:45 AM, BillyTheKid46 said:

We know there was no original definition for the Latin word CRUX in Greek, just like there is no crossing wording for crucifixion in Aramaic and Hebrew. Greeks came up with ana-stauro.

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: