JW Insider

9 hours ago, BillyTheKid46 said:

This picture is taken from Hermann Fulda's book, Das Kreuz und die Kreuzigung (The Cross and the Crucifixion). There is a site in Polish that covers this book in much more detail. Some of the pictures from this book are grotesque. The Polish site mentions the following about the picture that @BillyTheKid46 provided

• Należy też nadmienić, że Fulda nie wierzy, iż Jezusowi przybito gwoździem do krzyża stopy i uważa, że jego szybką śmierć spowodowało odsunięcie siedzenia:

Which translates (approximately):

• It is also worth noting that Fulda does not believe that Jesus' foot was nailed the nailed to the cross and considers that his rapid death resulted in the offset of the seat.

Technically, looking at John 20, it is only the hands that are spoken of as having "nails" (and Fulda offers a picture to show how both hands could have two separate nails on an upright stake). Note that the WT publications admit the same possibility, only saying it was "likely" that his feet were nailed:

*** nwtsty Luke Study Notes—Chapter 24 ***

• 24:39 -- my hands and my feet: As in Jesus’ case, nailing the hands (and likely the feet also) of the accused to a stake was customary among the Romans. (Ps 22:16; Joh 20:25, 27; Col 2:14) Some scholars believe that a nail or nails pierced Jesus’ feet, fixing them directly to the stake or to a small platform attached to the stake.
• 24:40 -- . . . and his feet: Some manuscripts do not include the words of this verse, but the verse has strong support in early authoritative manuscripts.

There is no Bible verse that mentions any nail or nails in Jesus' feet. But we speculate because Luke 24:39 mentions feet although doesn't mention holes or nails there.

Here is the site in Polish that covers some of the historical evolution of the Watchtower's cross/stake doctrine:

http://piotrandryszczak.pl/pal_cz1.html

A translation to English of some of the words but not the book images can be produced with this link: http://www.microsofttranslator.com/bv.aspx?from=&to=en&refd=www.bing.com&rr=DC&a=http%3a%2f%2fpiotrandryszczak.pl%2fpal_cz1.html

The entire original book in German may be found here:

https://archive.org/details/daskreuzunddiek01fuldgoog/page/n11

but the pictures which begin around p.349 (p.367 of the PDF) have been obscured in that version.

Here are some of them:

A portion related especially to the "rush to judgment" (already discussed in some previous posts) is interesting in Fulda's book, as translated German to Polish to English here:

• "That the PATIBULUM on his death was not used, the story itself the Gospel clearly and enough for a simple beam militate in favour of a single frame of the last moments of life, which cannot be overlooked. First I have to once again remind you of great haste with which this terrible execution has been made (paragraph 29). Even if artificially joined crosses here and there, and so in this case, he was allowed to deal on the difficult work, set in motion the first saw, hatchet, chisel and drill, because Pilate was not prepared for the crucifixion, however, Jesus immediately after the announcement of the sentence of death, without any delay, the led has been on the place of execution. In addition, a simple cross was in the Eastern countries for centuries widely adopted, for especially prepared instrument of death would have to be a separate determination, and STAUROS (pal, cross) and ETS (tree) does not fit the punishment ( See also paragraph 14). It is also impossible to the Prosecutor for this one case stubbornly insisted on a unique shape that would become his own invention.Instead, in this hour intensively think to invent a form of the cross, or the lead of pain, or increased infamy, as was the ordinary form of the cross, which was used for a long time. Zestermann (see Appendix C and D 52) confirms completely correctly (page 10), in contrast to the opinion of many others, that the Jews of crossing was not a common practice.However, this does not preclude the occasional withdrawal from their criminal code, although we can see that the High Council ordered the crucifixion of Jesus. Brands, najwiarygodniejszy of the Evangelists, he writes in 15:15: "he released them to Jesus to be flogged and crucified", and Luke 23:25-26: "handed over Jesus their will;". Similarly, J 19:16. If now not all take literally, as it is written, it is obvious that, according to the Gospels crucifixion of Jesus was more a matter of the Sanhedrin than attorney. As a small erected protest due to breach of this time his right, when time was short (paragraph 29), they showed also by failure according to the law of the seven-day deadline to comply with the judgment. And so the final application Zestermanna is too premature, because Jesus was crucified by the Romans, so Cross and how to cross could be just the usual way crosses on the Romans. The writers are holding too much by them known shape, assign also to Pilate too much sticking to the right on the way to Rome, in this case, which he entrusted to the Jews, to their satisfaction. However, the soldiers, the unskilled workers of the Jews, as usual, they fixed it as soon as possible."

Note that in Fulda's upright stauros, the 'King of the Jews" sign is placed above Jesus' hands, and not more specifically above his head as the Bible describes it.

The initial quotes from Fulda appeared with an odd reason for accepting them. In fact it is the only time that the Watchtower magazine itself has mentioned him (1957) as far as I have found so far.

*** w57 3/15 p. 166 Did Christ Die on a Cross? ***

• Certainly in view of the foregoing it cannot honestly be stated that Christ without doubt was nailed on the traditionally shaped cross. And it is of striking interest to note that it is those authorities that lean toward the view that Christ was nailed on such a cross that admit doubt. But those who hold that Christ died on a simple stake or pole are not in doubt. Says one such: “Jesus died on a simple deathstake: In support of this there speak (a) the then customary usage of this means of execution in the Orient, (b) indirectly the history itself of Jesus’ sufferings and (c) many expressions of the early Church fathers.”—The Cross and Crucifixion, Hermann Fulda.

From another perspective, that's the same as saying that scholars who are honest will rarely state that something is a definitely known fact, but will report the evidence rather than stating that something is "PROOF." And they quote the claim of Fulda written in such language here. (Actually in other portions of his book, he states that we are only left with two options, an upright stake, or a standard, traditional "crucifix.") Notice the emphasis on PROOF that the Reference Bible gave:

*** Rbi8 p. 1578 5C “Torture Stake” ***

• The book Das Kreuz und die Kreuzigung (The Cross and the Crucifixion), by Hermann Fulda, Breslau, 1878, p. 109, says: “Trees were not everywhere available at the places chosen for public execution. So a simple beam was sunk into the ground. On this the outlaws, with hands raised upward and often also with their feet, were bound or nailed.” After submitting much proof, Fulda concludes on pp. 219, 220: “Jesus died on a simple death-stake: In support of this there speak (a) the then customary usage of this means of execution in the Orient, (b) indirectly the history itself of Jesus’ sufferings and (c) many expressions of the early church fathers.”

The Awake! said:

*** g74 9/22 p. 28 Did Jesus Die on a Cross? ***

• Fulda also points out that some of the oldest illustrations of Jesus impaled depict him on a simple pole.

But this does not appear to be true.

Even the illustration of Justus Lipsius, often used in our publications, comes from the late 1500's and early 1600's. Just as with Fulda, this is during the time of what the Watchtower calls a period of "apostasy." 

11 hours ago, Manuel Boyet Enicola said:

Jesus carried the stauros or stake.

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.

19 hours ago, BillyTheKid46 said:

even though Lucian of Samosata is the one who referenced the shape of a cross, while Greek philosopher like Homer used the word Stavros as a surname for Christos.

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?

20 hours ago, BillyTheKid46 said:

Unfortunately, this was lost in the translation in modern time, since Stavros means “crown wreath” a direct image of the thorn crown placed on Jesus.

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."

20 hours ago, BillyTheKid46 said:

This became the fundamental bases for the Latin Cross. If this is accepted, then, the cross ancient writers were referring to was the thorn crown (Stavros)

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.

20 hours ago, BillyTheKid46 said:

We know the cross hire (+) is most likely indicative to the Sun God and played no role in the crucifixion of Christ.

This is like saying that the "|" is a pagan Baal and phallic symbol and played no role in the crucifixion of Christ.

20 hours ago, BillyTheKid46 said:

The TAU can be traced back to the Phoenician letter taw (X). This became the letter (T) in Roman time. If the T was used as a cross, the crossbeam most of the time would be secured to the convicted either by nails or rope. The crossbeam would be stretched to the back and shoulders of the convicted. This would allow to simply hoist the person to a prepared Crux simplex.

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.

19 hours ago, BillyTheKid46 said:



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.

19 hours ago, BillyTheKid46 said:

We know the Romans were not the originators of the crucifixion, but they did perfect the manner of cruelty to be imposed on criminals and slaves.

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:

19 hours ago, BillyTheKid46 said:

We know, the original word for crucifixion that was added later to symbolize an honorable and victorious death by Jesus Christ to inspire all of Christianity, cannot determine the manner of his execution, by modern understanding of the classic Greek pale, plank.

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?

19 hours ago, BillyTheKid46 said:

We know the first rendering of a torture stake was hidden for a very long time by those that couldn’t accept the original word to be at odds with a Christian symbol adopted by ancient paganism for Christianity. A symbol of worship (Idolatry)

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.

19 hours ago, BillyTheKid46 said:

      STRONGS NT 4716: σταυρός

σταυρός, σταυροῦ, ὁ (from ἵστημι (root sta); cf. Latin stauro, English staff (see Skeat, Etymological Dictionary, under the word); Curtius, § 216; Vanicek, p. 1126);
1. an upright stake, especially a pointed one (Homer, Herodotus, Thucydides, Xenophon).

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.

8 minutes ago, Anna said:

by Romans who started crucifying people as a punishment for their scenes.

Pretty rough on actors, I'd say. I guess everyone's a critic.

2 hours ago, BillyTheKid46 said:

Typo, I’m sure you not going to relate to your own typo’s when it is done.

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:

17 hours ago, BillyTheKid46 said:

Unfortunately, this was lost in the translation in modern time, since Stavros means “crown wreath” a direct image of the thorn crown placed on Jesus. John 19:2  This became the fundamental bases for the Latin Cross. If this is accepted, then, the cross ancient writers were referring to was the thorn crown (Stavros) the cross that Jesus bear John 19:17, and not a, cross that he was executed on.

Your source that said "Stavros" meant "thorn crown" was wrong. Probably mixed it up with "stephanos." Stavros is just another way to transliterate "stauros."

4 hours ago, BillyTheKid46 said:

I recall you mentioned something about getting an MA on theology. You will find in your course of historical linguistic studies, there is only one way to define 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:

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

We know that in the original language Sturous (Homeric) meant a single pole (upright stake) Palisade, fencing, or tree (xylon). Earlier versions defined it as a plank. As in walk the plank in Pirate times, bearing your own cross. 

Not so sure about this. First of all, it was never Sturous, but σταυρός / σταυροῦ which is transliterated as stauros, staurou, stauro, or sometimes stavros, stavrou, stavro. But why do you say "earlier versions" defined it as plank? Earlier version of Greek before Homer? And are you really implying the word "plank" as a punishment? 

Speaking of pirates and ships, however, this mainsail is the shape that some Greek / Roman writers described as the STAUROS:

One quote offered in Leolaia, p.5, is the following from about 160 C.E.:

Artemidorus Daldianus, a pagan soothsayer who flourished in the second century A.D. Sometime around A.D. 160, he wrote a dream interpretation manual named Oneiro critica. In one passage (2,53), Artemidorus remarked:

It would not surprise me in the least if evidence were discovered that indicated that Jesus died on a simple, upright pole, rather than a two-beamed traditional cross. It also wouldn't surprise me in the least if additional evidence were discovered that indicates that Jesus died on a traditional, two-beamed cross.

But up to this point, I'd have to admit that no evidence for a single-beamed upright pole with reference to Jesus' execution has yet been discovered. The evidence isn't very strong, but all of it, so far, points to a dual-beamed, traditional cross. 

8 hours ago, BillyTheKid46 said:

I would suggest further research for those that are interested in learning antiquity. The first thing to look for is the original language for the word crucifixion.

Good points. And if Jesus were executed on a traditional, dual-beamed cross, then what would have been the correct words to refer to this type of instrument?

"STAUROS" and "CRUX."

And these are the words used in the oldest known manuscripts of the Bible. These are the same words used in the Christian Greek Scriptures and the early Latin translations of those Greek Scriptures, which were translated at a time when Greek was still a living vibrant language spoken by hundreds of thousands of people in the Roman world.

It's true that the Greek and Latin words "stauros" and "crux" could also refer to a simple upright pole, but it's also still true that the words "stauros" and "crux" were also the CORRECT words the Bible would use to refer to a two-beamed cross, or even another shape altogether. There was no better word. 

Of course, the same could be said for the single-beam, upright pole.

9 hours ago, BillyTheKid46 said:

We know the cross was a pagan symbol.

While we have no direct evidence in the Bible that a traditional cross-shaped symbol was a pagan symbol, the Bible contains many direct examples showing that the single-beam, upright pole was a pagan symbol.

• (Deuteronomy 16:21, 22) 21 “You should not plant any sort of tree as a sacred pole near the altar of Jehovah your God that you make for yourself. 22 “Neither should you set up a sacred pillar for yourself, something Jehovah your God hates.
• (Judges 6:25) . . .tear down the altar of Baʹal that belongs to your father, and cut down the sacred pole next to it.
• (1 Kings 15:12, 13) . . .He expelled the male temple prostitutes from the land and removed all the disgusting idols that his forefathers had made. 13 He even removed Maʹa·cah his grandmother from her position as queen mother, because she had made an obscene idol for the worship of the sacred pole. Aʹsa cut down her obscene idol and burned it in the Kidʹron Valley.

• (1 Kings 16:33) 33 Aʹhab also made the sacred pole. Aʹhab did more to offend Jehovah the God of Israel than all the kings of Israel prior to him.

• (1 Kings 18:19) 19 And now summon all Israel to me at Mount Carʹmel, as well as the 450 prophets of Baʹal and the 400 prophets of the sacred pole, who are eating at the table of Jezʹe·bel.”

• (2 Kings 13:6) 6 (However, they did not depart from the sin of the house of Jer·o·boʹam that he had caused Israel to commit. They continued in this sin, and the sacred pole continued to stand in Sa·marʹi·a.)

• (2 Kings 17:16) 16 They kept leaving all the commandments of Jehovah their God, and they made metal statues of two calves and a sacred pole, and they bowed down to all the army of the heavens and served Baʹal.

• (2 Kings 18:4) 4 He was the one who removed the high places, smashed the sacred pillars, and cut down the sacred pole.. . .

14 minutes ago, Anna said:

Which KH will get sold, your parents hall or the one they attend now?

Their former permanent one near their home. It's being fixed up for a better resale price.

3 hours ago, Anna said:

The congregation my husband used to belong to sold their old KH 8 years ago and built a beautiful new one in a more prominent part of town. The old KH is being used by the Unity or something church. They put a little playground for kids in one part of the parking lot.

My parents' hall is being fixed up while they temporarily attend one a lot further away. It's likely that it gets sold soon and this arrangement becomes fairly permanent.

3 hours ago, Anna said:

Quite a number of these seem to be double or even triple entries of the same building, but slightly different price...

I tried to copy the website page which only had a couple of duplicates, but a when I pasted it almost every picture was on there two or three times. I didn't bother to delete more than about 5 of them because I didn't know which picture went with which bit of text. I just deleted a few more duplicates, but still didn't bother to see if the pictures go with the property description. It's probably an automated lookup that creates the page and it grabs updated and near duplicate listings as separate listings.

I have been hearing that there have been some legal issues with the WTS sale of so many halls after they turned ownership of all US KH's over to a WTS Trust.

https://www.loopnet.com/locations/kingdom-hall-of-jehovah's-witnesses/listings/

This LoopNet Kingdom Hall Of Jehovah's Witnesses tenant and owner information is organized and aggregated from public records and the millions of historical and current sale and lease listings provided by members of the LoopNet commercial real estate marketplace.

To see how to get complete access to all of this Kingdom Hall Of Jehovah's Witnesses listing and property information, register for free:

 

3161 Oro Bangor Highway

Oroville, CA

Very well maintained church building, with 171 padded seats, carpet, sound/video system with new very large cloth screen, office, room for n...

• $199,000
• 3,354 SF Bldg
• 1.14 AC
• Religious Facility

211 Spring Hill Road

Trumbull, CT

4.97 acre approved for 30,000 sqft. office complex. One 10,000 sqft building, one 20,000 sqft building. Some site work has been completed...

• $1,350,000
• 4.97 AC
• Office (land)

513 Rock Creek Rd

Toccoa, GA

Exceptionally Well Maintained. MOVE IN READY. New roof, less than a year old. New carpet and paint. 2 new AC units. Full price offer in...

• $199,900
• 2,880 SF Bldg
• 0.77 AC
• Religious Facility

23385 Patterson St

Clinton Township, MI

Meticulously Maintained Bldg-Beautifully Landscaped-Many Uses i.e. Office Bldg, Banquet Hall, Restaurant, Church, Funeral Home, etc. Ceramic...

• $387,000
• 4,471 SF Bldg
• 1.01 AC
• Religious Facility

23385 Patterson

Clinton Township, MI

Meticulously Maintained Commercial Bldg-Beautifully Landscaped Has Potential for Many Uses! Could be Office Bldg, Banquet Hall, Restaurant,...

• $387,000
• 4,471 SF Bldg
• 1.01 AC
• Office Building

 

23385 Patterson St

Clinton Township, MI

Currently being used as a place of Worship. Meticulously Maintained Bldg-Beautifully Landscaped-Many Uses i.e. Office Bldg, Dentist Office,...

• $259,900
• 4,471 SF Bldg
• 1.08 AC
• Office Building

4215 W. Carson City Rd.

Greenville, MI

Newer, well maintained, retail building. Which has been used as an automobile dealership. High traffic on M-57 corridor. Very pleasant surro...

• $249,900
• 5,300 SF Bldg
• 0.75 AC
• Office Building

2237 Sherwood Avenue

Tarboro, NC

Solid building with numerous potential uses. Currently used as a church, but could be office, fraternal or community building, funeral home,...

• $275,000
• 5,040 SF Bldg
• 1.10 AC
• Religious Facility

501 San Clemente NW

Albuquerque, NM

Recently (2004) remodeled 3430+/-SF Building, Fully Fenced & gated, newer cement parking lot. Refrigerated Air, open floorplan, up to date l...

• $425,000
• 3,430 SF Bldg
• 0.90 AC
• Religious Facility

 

 

312 Unser Blvd NE

Rio Rancho, NM

" Free standing building with lots of excess land for expansion " Signalized intersection - Great signage potential - 23,600 VPD on Un...

• $849,000
• 3,200 SF Bldg
• 1.20 AC
• Free Standing Bldg

 

 

104 Buckner Road

Dover, TN

Turn key church. Immediate possession. Could easily be converted to office or restaurant. Space to seat over 200. Central alarm and fire pr...

• $249,900
• 3,915 SF Bldg
• Religious Facility

4950 Williams Rd

Benbrook, TX

PRICE REDUCED $30,000 BELOW APPRAISAL!!! 2 Story Property being used for religious meetings, Main Level has an auditorium for about 150, and...

• $425,000
• 7,700 SF Bldg
• 1.10 AC
• Office Building

No Photo

23788 FM 1314

porter, TX

APPROX. 1.24 ACRES IN VERY, VERY BUSY TRAFFIC AREA. NEXT DOOR TO ESTABLISHED AUTO PARTS STORE. IT HAS APPROX 100 FT FM 1314 FRONTAGE AND 110...

• $215,000
• 1.24 AC
• Commercial/Other (land)

5 hours ago, Outta Here said:

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-Branabas may have got that bit right, we may have too. There the similarity ends.

I think it might be useful at some point to discuss the "Letter of Barnabas" ("Pseudo-Barnabas") in more detail. Not to defend it or even to defend its assumption that the Stauros was T-shaped. I think you will have noticed that there have been more statements recently from the WTS, even the recent JW Broadcast, that indicate that we can sometimes find points of value and interest in these "early Christian" writings. And even where clearly apostate, it should not hurt us to be able to discern some of the history of these apostate inroads into pure Christianity.

I read Pseudo-Barnabas and see a lot of problems with it, some of which you have mentioned, and which have been pointed out by scholars for more than a hundred years. But I also see some amazing parallels to the type of thinking that was popularized by Seiss, Russell and Rutherford, most of which later had to be discarded since their time. Most of the letter, as I read it, is tainted, but you can still see what Christianity must have meant to a large segment of Christian-associated society in the second century, who valued this letter. I think the second century was a critical one to understand, especially in light of how Jesus' prophecy about the visitation of judgment on Jerusalem (their synteleia/parousia) was seen in the context of the universal synteleia/parousia to follow. I don't find "Barnabas" to be inspired at all in his take on Jesus' prophecy, and I do find First and Second Peter to be inspired. Yet it's quite possible that Barnabas was written well before these two letters of Peter were completed, and they include a similar topic: a commentary on statements we can find in Matthew 24.

Treating it generally as a "rotting carcass" might make a certain amount of sense, but not so much sense when we compare it with the striking parallels in say Volume 3 or even Volume 7 of Studies in the Scriptures, or later comments of Rutherford. I think the latter were comparatively worse, when it comes to the amount of truth, or "signal to noise" ratio, one could glean from these later publications. And yet I would never think of those WTS volumes as a "rotting carcass," but rather a product of the thinking of a segment of Christian-associated society in the late 19th and early 20th centuries.

5 hours ago, Outta Here said:

They are as similar to true Christians as darkness is to light.

I hope no one was thinking that any comparison was being made (by Luke or Origen) to true Christians. The comparison was always between what was being practiced by the seven sons of Sceva, and what was being practiced by the "bad men" in Origen's reference. We don't know much about the success rate that the Scevason boys had in their exorcisms prior to their attempts to add the pronunciation of Jesus to their repertoire, but it doesn't matter.

We know that Jesus would reject some who claimed to cast out demons in his name and say he never knew them. We also have the verses in Mark saying:

• (Mark 9:38-40) John said to him: “Teacher, we saw a certain man expelling demons by the use of your name and we tried to prevent him, because he was not accompanying us.” 39 But Jesus said: “Do not try to prevent him, for there is no one that will do a powerful work on the basis of my name that will quickly be able to revile me; 40 for he that is not against us is for us.

Not really knowing anything about their motives, I'll limit my comparison the the original reason I gave for comparing them.

5 hours ago, Outta Here said:

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.

True. If, as we say, 99% of apostate Christianity calls itself Christian, then even the word "Christian" itself has become a brand mark of "Christian" apostasy. But it's also the term that true Christians should use. Apparently, a brand mark representing a small fish could have also survived as a brand mark of Christian apostasy, but I agree that dual-beamed cross symbol is the most popular brand mark, whether this was the incorrect version of the instrument of Jesus' death, or the correct version. You have already said that we don't know for sure. 

I sometimes wonder why no one ever thought to create a "compendium" (staurogram, christogram, etc) that made use of the letter "I" which was the actual initial of Jesus' name, and which would have been rationalized against the words of Paul:

• (1 Corinthians 1:17-18) For Christ dispatched me, not to go baptizing, but to go declaring the good news, not with wisdom of speech, that the [STAUROS] of the Christ should not be made useless. 18 For the speech about the [STAUROS] is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it [the STAUROS] is God’s power.

• (1 Corinthians 1:22-24) 22 For both the Jews ask for signs and the Greeks look for wisdom; 23 but we preach Christ's [STAUROS], to the Jews a cause for stumbling but to the nations foolishness; 24 however, to those who are the called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God.

• (1 Corinthians 2:2) For I decided not to know anything among you except Jesus Christ, and [his STAUROS].

Combining those words of Paul (which the unsteady were already twisting to their own destruction) it would have been easy to imagine creating a symbol from the "I" of "Iesous" and the possible "I" shape of the "STAUROS" and try to symbolize that they were following Jesus, who also, like Paul, is seen treating the STAUROS as a "symbol."

• (Mark 8:34) . . .“If anyone wants to come after me, let him disown himself and pick up his [STAUROS] and follow me continually.

Would it be right to assume that your primary reason for favoring a one-beamed cross is not so much about the variety of uses of the term STAUROS, but because the two-beamed cross has long been associated with apostate Chrsitianity? Associated with this might be the fact that the Watchtower displayed the two-beamed STAUROS, or cross, for about 52 years, and has since has dropped the symbol, due to its association with apostate Christianity. 

The original reason that Rutherford spoke out against the CROSS however, was that it was so closely associated with the cult of "Russell worshipers" and Russell often spoke about this need to remove the Russellite cult elements from the Bible Students. The Leolaia paper, on the first two pages, reminds us that Rutherford campaigned for 8 years against this symbol of the dual-beamed CROSS while still teaching that Jesus had died on a dual-beamed CROSS. The symbol was removed from Watchtower covers after 52 years of showing, but even this was at a time when the WTS still taught that Jesus had died on a traditional two-beamed CROSS.

That situation reminds of the time we are in now, where we don't like something because of its idolatrous associations, but we still haven't reached a point where the have the scholarship to back up our reasons to dismiss the possible "fact" of the stauros. But I have a feeling that, due to the way the Watchtower has worded the topic, that many Witnesses have already come to assume that the scholarship is there already. That could easily make other Witnesses think that even my own acceptance of the evidence in favor of a two-beamed stauros is somehow related to promoting the use of the symbol, or even promoting idolatrous worship.

So our current stance is understandable. "Flee from idolatry" should have a high priority and based on our correct prejudices against anything used in idolatry, it would be very difficult to imagine the WTS ever looking into whether the dual-beamed stauros might have more scholarly, historical and linguistic support. We might rightly hope that it does not.

4 hours ago, Outta Here said:

Similar to Origen's observation? Hardly! "Effectual" means : successful in producing a desired or intended result;

LOL! You are even pickier than I was about this phrase. Immediately after writing it, I looked back on it and literally said to myself, "Wait, I can't use the word 'similar' because @Outta Here might even point out that Origen referred to successful pronouncers of Jesus' name and Acts/Luke refers to failed pronouncers of Jesus' name." (Or words to that effect.)

In fact, I nearly re-edited the word "similar" on the spot to "related" but didn't because I had said:

• Similar idea in Acts from the seven sons of Sceva.

This idea "from" the seven sons of Sceva is that they, too, wanted to be successful and effective pronouncers of Jesus' name. And, of course, the Origen quote that you offered is from the same article that's attached to the picture of the coin-like amulet. And this particular quote from Origen starts immediately after the quote from Acts about the sons of Sceva. (Both references start 4 to 7 lines further down in the article from the point where the picture left off, but still seen here: https://larryhurtado.wordpress.com/2011/10/13/the-staurogram-correcting-errors/)

In any case, I was offering a point about how we do not immediately deny the accuracy of all information that comes from mystical or apostate sources. As you indicate, we might even expect that someone transforming themselves into an "angel of light" may get a lot of things right, while misusing and misapplying other things.

4 hours ago, Outta Here said:

But it does indicate that any seeming influence thay had over demonic spirits was just an illusion.

I believe you are here admitting that this is a similar idea between both Origen's examples and the seven sons of Sceva.

4 hours ago, Outta Here said:

and certainly by the time this amulet was produced, the apostate legends clustering around the Jesus account would be like maggots in rotten meat.

And the same point again that one of those apostate legends might have been that Jesus had been executed on a crux simplex, as the Watchtower has promoted for several years now. This does not mean that the Watchtower itself is apostate, but that we must always be on the lookout for mistakes in our teachings that might have been tainted by false or apostate thinking. Otherwise we would not need the following admonition:

• (Colossians 4:17) . . .“Pay attention to the ministry that you accepted in the Lord. . .
• (1 Timothy 4:16) Pay constant attention to yourself and to your teaching.. . .
• (Hebrews 2:1) . . . That is why it is necessary for us to pay more than the usual attention to the things we have heard, so that we never drift away.
• (Philippians 4:5) Let your reasonableness become known to all men.. . .

3 hours ago, Outta Here said:

Getting something wrong is not the same as being an apostate.

True. But standing for something that is right and then drifting away from that stand is the basic, simplest definition of "apostasy" based on the meaning of the word in Biblical Greek ("standing from").  We don't have to be an apostate to be affected by apostasy. You will recall that we now believe that when the Watch Tower publications promoted the celebration of Christmas and birthdays that they were not being apostate, but that it was a matter of getting something wrong due to the long effects of apostasy. Also, recall that you had said:

• "And whether consciously or not, given the spirit behind apostates, the inroads are far too subtle for humans to discern strategically. "

You were speaking of the writer of the Letter of Barnabas specifically and pointing out the possibility that he could have been consciously or unconsciously transforming himself into an angel of light, and therefore we would expect that misleading or false information would be combined with information that was very true. But your statement just quoted shows the difficulty in discerning such subtle inroads. Therefore, I never claimed that Rutherford was apostate, but that he got clearly got some things wrong due in part to the supposedly indiscernible inroads of apostasy. If they are not humanly discernible, then we must even more carefully follow those "pay attention" scriptures just quoted, and perhaps that's the best we can do. Your logic admits that there may still be much humanly indiscernible apostasy anywhere. 

Personally, I have stated my belief that choosing between one or the other direction based on the preponderance of evidence is merely a choice that comes out of "letting our reasonableness be known" "guarding our hearts and our mental powers" and "paying close attention to ourselves and our teaching." It does not mean that either choice is an apostate choice, yet you did bring up that one of the choices might be related to apostasy. So I merely state the obvious: that if it's humanly indiscernible, then we don't really know which set of evidence is the one that might be leading us in that direction. But we do know that by paying closer attention the Watch Tower publications could have avoided being led astray from a more correct stand on Azazel,* pyramids, the superior authorities, the "generation that will not pass away," 1874, 1878, 1881, 1910, 1914, 1915, 1918, 1925, the 6000 years, the Elder arrangement, the Gentile Times, Zionism in Palestine, the identity of the faithful and discreet slave, etc. And who is to say how many issues remain, if they are truly indiscernible?

*Azazel was just an example that "Letter of Barnabas" evidently had right, then J H Paton got wrong in Russell's Watch Tower magazine, then Russell himself came closer to our current teaching, then Rutherford drifted back in the direction of Paton's teaching, and now, today, by coincidence, we are closer to the "Letter of Barnabas" in our current teaching.

4 minutes ago, Outta Here said:

And whether consciously or not, given the spirit behind apostates, the inroads are far too subtle for humans to discern strategically.

That might be true, but then we'd have to be concerned if this was not also true of Rutherford who promoted the idea that Azazel referred to Satan instead of Jesus. Or even the idea promoted more recently that the stauros associated with the execution of Jesus was not a two-beamed stauros, but a ("cheap shot" alert) simple, phallic-shaped pole.

2 hours ago, Outta Here said:

no basis for contradicting a simple understanding of the scripturally termed implement of Jesus's execution.

I know what you mean, but to clarify, the Scriptures never term the implement of Jesus' execution as an upright stake. Interesting that this "Letter of Barnabas" not only mentions the T-shaped stauros, but he also mentions about Jesus: "for it was necessary that He should suffer on the tree." The WTS publications have sometimes implied that these terms stauros and xylon [wood/tree] must be restricted to their simple meanings. Of course, the WTS publications never insist on this simplicity when it doesn't fit an existing understanding. Something like that was already seen with the word "hand." But it even happens with the word xylon itself, which in classical Greek can refer to: logs, timbers, trees, benches, wood market, a length measurement, something disgraceful/shameful, a pillory, punishment stocks, wooden club, etc. (Leolaia, p.8). This idea, although claimed in WTS publications, is contradicted in our own KIT:

1 hour ago, Outta Here said:

Notwithstanding a possible chronological disconnect between the picture on one side and the lettering on the other

Turns out this was very common. I read in both Frank Shaw's and Larry Hurtado's and in reviews of other scholars' books that re-use and re-purposing of gemstones/jewelry for such purposes had a long history. Kind of like putting a copper penny into one of those machines that smashes it, stamps a message on it, and makes it ready for a charm bracelet.

1 hour ago, Outta Here said:

Origen, noted: "Such power, indeed, does the name of Jesus possess over evil spirits, that there have been instances where it was effectual, when it was pronounced even by bad men" (Against Celsus, I.6). 

Similar idea in Acts from the seven sons of Sceva.

• (Acts 19:13-15) But some of the Jews who traveled around casting out demons also tried to use the name of the Lord Jesus over those who had wicked spirits; they would say: “I solemnly charge you by Jesus whom Paul preaches.” 14 Now there were seven sons of a Jewish chief priest named Sceʹva doing this. 15 But in answer the wicked spirit said to them: “I know Jesus and I am acquainted with Paul; but who are you?”

And again, we don't automatically assume that they, for example, must have mispronounced Jesus' name or Paul's name just because they might have been doctrinally unsound, pseudohealers, who were contaminating the true message of Christianity. In fact, we might imagine that they were trying very hard to get their facts just right so that their magic would be effective. The use of a cross on a spiritistic gemstone can just be another piece of evidence of what some thought was common knowledge.

The comments on Hurtado's blog from outsiders make a similar point with reference to the Alexamenos Grafitti displayed earlier:

---------------remainder of post is excerpt taken from comments here: https://larryhurtado.wordpress.com/2011/10/13/the-staurogram-correcting-errors/

• 
  larryhurtado permalink

  Yes, although it isn’t a representation by a Christian, but by a pagan mocker. But I think it certainly suggests that Christians referred to Jesus’ crucifixion “on the street”, and that (contra some assertions) it was a part of popular-level Christian discourse and devotional practice, such that the anonymous pagan who drew this graffito knew of the centrality of Jesus’ crucifixion for Christians.

   
  • 
    David Coulter permalink

    I agree. The “artist” obviously sees the crucifixion as the iconic, immediately recognizable image of Christianity.

1 hour ago, Outta Here said:

A doctrinally unsound, anti-Judaism, pseudoscripture, formed well after the commencing of a time of successful, apostate, invasive, contamination of true Christian teaching  is no basis for contradicting a simple understanding of the scripturally termed implement of Jesus's execution.

True enough about the Letter of Barnabas. I pretty much agree with the assessment. But we don't find the Letter of Barnabas trying to convince anyone about the shape of the stauros. He does not produce a teaching about the stauros. So it really shows that someone associated with Christian teaching, in just a few decades following Christ's death, merely assumed that the shape of Jesus' stauros was already common knowledge. He didn't think it was necessary to discuss or overcome any teachings about an upright stake vs a T-shaped stauros.

So in this sense we aren't concerning ourselves with his teachings. And, besides that, we surely we don't dismiss all his teachings and interpretations either just because they weren't specifically described in the Bible. For example, "Barnabas" teaches that the "Goat of Azazel" pictures Jesus Christ. This is not specified in the Bible, and one might even think that the goat selected for the Atonement Day sacrifice is the one representing Christ, and the scapegoat represents something else. But we accept this teaching that "Barnabas" accepted not because he taught it, but because we assume it was common knowledge that fits the general view of those who associated themselves with the teachings of Christianity. Of course, at one time the Watchtower taught that the goat of Azazel represented those turned over to Satan the Devil for destruction with "no atonement." But we have gone back to full agreement with the Letter of Barnabas.

2 minutes ago, JOHN BUTLER said:

1. Are you agreeing with me that the picture in that book is wrong ? 

The picture in the book might be right. Based on the usual rules of evidence and logic, it is probably wrong (in my opinion, of course). I disagree with you that the Greek word with the basic meaning of hand cannot also include the wrist. I disagree that if the meaning of the term for "hand" can include the wrist that the translators must use the term "wrist" just because they think it's more likely to refer to the wrist portion of the hand. This is because it is not obvious that the term could ONLY have meant the wrist and not the rest of the hand. Sometimes in English we have these ambiguities between terms, and we may not understand that these ambiguities sometimes occur with words in other languages where they would not occur in English.

For example, we have the terms for fingers and thumbs. You have 5 fingers on a hand, so if we learned that someone in history had chopped off a finger, should we think of the possibility that it was the thumb? If a non-English speaker believes there was a 90% chance it was the thumb, should he translate it thumb, when finger is still accurate 100% of the time? The wrist could be included with the Greek "hand" in the same way that the thumb could be included with the English "fingers."

What is WRONG, in my opinion, is to make a statement that "Jesus died on an upright stake that did not have a crossbeam." Again, this might be true. But it is false and wrong to claim that it is true. It is false to even imply that there is no depiction of Jesus on a two-beamed cross until the 4th or 5th century, when there is evidence to the contrary.

1 hour ago, Outta Here said:

But I am not aware yet of a successful challenge to our view, despite the many learned attempts at such.

True. And neither am I aware of any successful challenge to the view depicted in the earliest known writings, descriptions and depictions of the stauros.

The earliest known view of Jesus' execution refers to the Tau shape. That's from the first or second century "Letter of Barnabas." All other subsequent references to the shape of Jesus' execution stauros also describe a T shape and/or a T shape with a lower crossbar.

All the Biblical references (which do not describe the shape) make perfect sense if it is depicting a T shape or a T shape with a lowered crossbeam. I am referring not only to the use of term "nails in his hands" but also the fact that the 'King of the Jews' sign was depicted as above his head, not above (or below) his hands. Also the fact that the description of the execution procession closely matches the Roman punitive use of the patibulum which invariably refers to the arms being stretched out to each side, perpendicular to the body.

So far, no one has successfully challenged this earliest known view. Also, it appears there are not even any hints of anyone ever attempting to challenge that view from any of the earliest centuries C.E. up until very recently. And we would have to say that the Watchtower has also been unable to successfully challenge that view due to apparently depending on statements which can be shown to be false, in order to reach that view. A successful challenge cannot be dependent on false statements.

14 minutes ago, JOHN BUTLER said:

And why would Jesus give inaccurate knowledge anyway ? 

Jesus gave accurate knowledge about the more important things. He gave that knowledge to the apostles and had it written down so that we would have the same access to the more important things through the Scriptures. Having accurate knowledge about a lot of other things is nice, but it wasn't what Jesus had in mind. The very fact that there are teachings of higher priority than others was already shown in this verse from John quoted earlier. Also, the point is made in more detail in Hebrews:

• (Hebrews 5:12-6:3) . . .For although by now you should be teachers, you again need someone to teach you from the beginning the elementary things of the sacred pronouncements of God, and you have gone back to needing milk, not solid food. 13 For everyone who continues to feed on milk is unacquainted with the word of righteousness, for he is a young child. 14 But solid food belongs to mature people, to those who through use have their powers of discernment trained to distinguish both right and wrong. 6 Therefore, now that we have moved beyond the primary doctrine about the Christ, let us press on to maturity, not laying a foundation again, namely, repentance from dead works and faith in God, 2 the teaching on baptisms and the laying on of the hands, the resurrection of the dead and everlasting judgment. 3 And this we will do, if God indeed permits.

I take it that we have most of the more important things in order. These additional details are just "nice-to-haves." And I see a lot of progress, not enough yet, but still a lot of progress on removing the less important things that we have admitted to getting wrong.

22 hours ago, Anna said:

In fact it would be a good idea if this statement was changed, and I may write a letter to Bethel to that effect. And not an anonymous letter, one with my name and return address on it.

I would not risk it. You have relatives in the organization. It's not that this one point on its own should get you disfellowshipped, but remember that you are dealing with imperfect judges. On questioning, even if you are in agreement with the current "cross/stake" understanding, someone could still believe that you're taking issue with this "little thing" and this means that you are therefore unfaithful in "big things." They might therefore ask you if you truly believe that the Governing Body is the equivalent of the Faithful and Discreet Slave that was appointed in 1919. You and I and others here could easily see what might be wrong with the question and explain a position that is perfectly in line with Scripture and should satisfy the elder. But it's an imperfect system and won't always work out as planned. You could easily let slip something that causes the elder not to hear anything else you say.

Anonymous is still safest.

And I'd look for an innocuous angle that could encourage a re-evaluation by the researchers or writers in the Writing Department. But it shouldn't admit that you yourself have researched the question and come to a different conclusion. That implication is worse for sisters than for elders. But couched in the question of a Bible student (if it's true) or if it is merely a question about  how something confused someone, then this might have a desired effect -- assuming that the desired effect is to encourage a new and more comprehensive evaluation of all available evidence.

I sent an anonymous letter earlier in the year to a specific member of the Governing Body. I did not admit to reading Hurtado, of course, because that could immediately prejudice this brother. As soon as he would look up the author he would find easily several reasons to reject anything related to his books. So, I based a question on the wording of this particular article:

*** w08 3/1 p. 22 Why Do Jehovah’s Witnesses Not Use the Cross in Worship? ***

• Why Do Jehovah’s Witnesses Not Use the Cross in Worship?
• Jehovah’s Witnesses firmly believe that the death of Jesus Christ provided the ransom that opens the door to everlasting life for those who exercise faith in him. (Matthew 20:28; John 3:16) However, they do not believe that Jesus died on a cross, as is often depicted in traditional pictures. It is their belief that Jesus died on an upright stake with no crossbeam.

I said that putting this reason right up there at the front as if it were the real foundation of why we don't use the cross in worship seems confusing. Surely, we don't deny the that the sun is a bright round object in the sky with rays of light beaming from it. Pagans might depict it this way and worship it, but the thing that is wrong is not how they depict the sun, but it's the fact that they feel a need to venerate the sun, a creation, as if it were itself a god or the creator. So what does it matter if more evidence might come to light that indicates that the "stauros" was actually a two-beamed cross as depicted in traditional pictures?