Anna

Interesting you noticed that. Although completely off topic here, I just want to mention that I have been doing some more research on the "cross" and it appears that much of the problem could be due to misstranslation, I will post my findings in the relevant thread some time soon.

Just being realistic 🙂

Yes, it puts it all into perspective: the problems in JW Org. are nothing!

I just noticed this topic here, and it's funny because I had recently been doing some research into things such as "deep state" etc. I am for the most part a complete political ignoramus. I mean the worst there could be. My husband had to explain to me what the difference between the right and left wing was. I thought it had something to do with birds. Just kidding, but almost. Politics has never interested me, probably because of my JW upbringing and because I have never really had the need to, until recently. I have met a very interesting person recently who is involved in a certain branch of expertise and they started hurling terms such as "the Globalists" "deep state" etc. at me. They are also very interested in what the Bible has to say. I realized than in order to carry on a fruitful conversation I will have to educate myself politically a little. So that at least I know what they are talking about. They mentioned they spoke with a JW many years ago who told them about Daniel's prophesy and the statue. They said that they can see all the things this person told them coming true. I cannot really say much more because, well, it can get a little dangerous. A colleague of theirs was recently found dead... I do not believe conspiracy theories. I do not think the Rothschild family is the mastermind over all of earth's affairs, for example, but logic tells me that those with money, automatically have an insurmountable amount of power. I like this quote: When a government is dependent upon bankers for money, they and not the leaders of the government control the situation, since the hand that gives is above the hand that takes… Money has no motherland; financiers are without patriotism and without decency; their sole object is gain.” – Napoleon Bonaparte Anyway, while I was researching I found out about the "Bilderberg Meetings" which some of you might be familiar with, but I knew nothing about. There are many conspiracy theories about the actual function of these "secret" meetings, which as I said I do not buy into, however, it is interesting to see how these meetings could in theory be a part of some kind of "deep state". It is also interesting to see the topics discussed each year, and the list of those who are invited, and even more interesting seeing members of the clergy involved, although it is to be expected (this year; Pietro Parolin, Cardinal, and secretary of Vatican state). One conspiracy website mentions the "trinity of Globalist control" as being: City of London Corporation – Financial power centre, established in 1067, District of Columbia – Military power centre, established in 1871, Vatican City – Religious power centre, sovereign in 1929. Kind of prophetic for us JWs wouldn't you say? Here is the official website for the Bilderberg Meetings: https://www.bilderbergmeetings.org/

Awwww, shame I'm going to miss you... So many of my friends have been lately, which is funny because our family was sheduled to go already last year in May, (friends that came to my son's wedding invited us) but it fell through because my visiting step dad was going to get hip surgery and it would have been too much for him. My hubby and I can still go any time, but I feel bad because I know my mom and step dad would like to try again, but it's a little harder for them coming all the way from Europe...

That's how I knew you first

Knowing TTH, it is a joke.

But you can beat someones' hide! Wait a minute that's tan. Ok you can beat the living daylights out of someone

I see @TrueTomHarley is getting very bored so called on his alter egos to mix things up a bit. I don't like vomit dog though. Never have.

Just because someone goes by their real name would that make them more genuine? I know your name but you could be saying a whole load of deceptive hogwash, lol. On these kind of forums it's the contents of what one says that is more important than who says them. It also helps to discuss ideas and comments rather than the people who make them. 😊

There's no smoke without fire.

Oh John....... I just read this comment and noticed this portion, and although I agree with you that we should stop this conversation as it is off topic here and we seem to be going around in circles, I feel I have to ask you this; What does reporting a suspect of child abuse to the police have anything to do with promoting apostasy???? It seems like you are all mixed up about what you should and shouldn't do. I know you are not stupid, I can tell you are intelligent, so I don't get this apparent mental block you have regarding this particular subject.

But it's not about you. It's about the children. But you don't know what "acting correctly" would have been at that time, do you, really?

I see you genuinely do not get it. Perhaps that is the crux of the problem. You do not seem to understand that just as you have a dilemma and reasons, then so do others. You do not know what the elders know. Could there perhaps be extenuating circumstances that you have no idea about that are preventing them from going to the police? You say they know more about the matter than you. As you see, there can be very complex issues involved. You mentioned a few yourself. Regardless though, you should still go to the Police/Social services and let them figure out whether they should take action. Several of us have already advised you of this. Also, read @Outta Here latest comments to you.

Hey, stop "dragging" me into this!

It seems like you are getting a taste of your own medicine

OK......So what if one day it was discovered that the accused has molested again. How would you feel if you could have perhaps prevented it? They would be talking about you on apostate forums saying this John Butler knew about it and didn't say anything. How would you defend yourself? Excuses? You ARE starting to sound as bad as the elders.

Excellent point

My only dispute with the disfellowshipping policy is being TOLD "how to treat loved ones living outside the home" by means of videos. No matter how I slice it, I cannot see what is right about TOTALLY ignoring a loved one and the loved ones innocent children (grandchildren) for years. The Israelites, under the mosaic law, were to stone those who broke God's laws, parents were to stone their children. Is this our version of stoning? The question is, were the Israelites also to stone the children (grandchildren) of someone who broke Gods law? Why was stoning done away with? What was to happen with those who would have previously been stoned now that stoning was no longer practiced? Is there specific admonition by Paul which deals with family? How would we be breaking our loyalty to God if we treated our loved ones like we are supposed to treat our neighbors, tax collectors and those of the nations? Didn't Paul say we should treat ones who have left as tax collectors? I would not advocate my views unless I was specifically asked about them. But I know how I would treat my son if he got Df'd. and it wouldn't be as is "recommended" in the video.

I haven't had time to read everyone's posts since the last time, but I have copied some interesting correspondence I found on "ibiblio.org" since I was researching Lucian's work, and especially its' translation. The topic was anaskolopisthenta vs.stauron: Lucian of Samosata's work "The Passing of Peregrinus" on pages 38-39 (paragraph 34, line 7), as found in The Loeb Classical Library, Lucian with an English Translation by AM Harmon Volume V, 1972, makes use of the word STAURON when he states that as Peregrinus was heading for his self emolation, he was enjoying the admiration of the crowds "...not knowing, poor wretch, that men on their way to the cross ( STAURON σταυρὸν ) οr in the grip of the executioner have many more at their heels." However earlier (pages 12-13, paragraph 11, line 11) Lucian used a different word when describing " the man who was crucified in Palestine ( Παλαιστίνῃ ἀνασκολοπισθέντα ANASKOLOPISTHENTA ) because he introduced this new cult into the world." Again in paragraph 13 Lucian talks of the "crucified sophist" ἀνασκολοπισμένον ἐκεῖνον σοφιστὴν ANASKOLOPISΜΕΝΟΝ. I also note that, according to Perseus Tuft, Lucian used ANASKOLOPISTHESOMAI in his Prometheus on Causasus paragraph 7. But I am unable to check a Greek text of this at present. Prometheus: Perhaps there has been some nonsense talked already; that remains to be seen. But as you say your case is now complete, I will see what I can do in the way of refutation. And first about that meat. Though, upon my word, I blush for Zeus when I name it: to think that he should be so touchy about trifles, as to send off a God of my quality to crucifixion, just because he found a little bit of bone in his share! http://www.sacred-texts.com/cla/luc/wl1/wl112.htm I am not sure what word Lucian used for crucifixion earlier in Prometheus on Causasus paragraph 1, where he states: Hermes:. The very thing. Steep rocks, slightly overhanging, inaccessible on every side; no foothold but a mere ledge, with scarcely room for the tips of one's toes; altogether a sweet spot for a crucifixion. Now, Prometheus, come and be nailed up; there is no time to lose. Could someone please tell me what word was used in this instance? Meier JP A Marginal Jew: Rethinking the historical Jesus. Vol.1, p. 102, note 20, states that anaskolopisthenta was probably used in paragraph 11 of Peregrinus scornfully ("mocking tone"), and that Lucian had an historical basis for using ANASKOLOPISTHENTA, "since crucifixion probably developed from impalement." Similar to Lucian's use of both words, I have found that STAURON was used for crucifixion by Polybius (Histories 1.86 Book 1, Chapter 86, section 6), "All the baggage fell into the rebels'º hands and they made Hannibal himself prisoner. 6 Taking him at once to Spendius' cross they tortured him cruelly there, and then, taking Spendius down from the cross, they crucified Hannibal alive on it.." An alternative reading found using Perseus tufts has: They at once took him up to the cross on which Spendius was hanging, and after the infliction of exquisite tortures, took down the latter's body and fastened Hannibal, still living, to his cross; and then slaughtered thirty Carthaginians Perseus tufts has the Greek as:touton men oun parachrêma pros ton tou Spendiou stauron agagontes kai timôrêsamenoi pikrôs ekeinon men katheilon, touton d' anethesan zônta kai perikatesphaxan triakonta tôn Karchêdoniôn tous epiphanestatous peri to tou Spendiou sôma, tês tuchês hôsper epitêdes ek paratheseôs amphoterois enallax didousês aphormas eis huperbolên tês kat' allêlôn timôrias. Later Polybius used anaskolopisthenta in this same work, namely in Histories (10.33.8)." Suddenly letting down the portcullis which they had raised somewhat higher by mechanical means, they attacked the intruders and capturing them crucified them before the wall." http:// penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Polybius/10*.html 27/12/07 Perseus tufts has the Greek as: Hoi de katarraktas, hous eichon oligon exôterô dia mêchanêmatôn anêmmenous, aiphnidion kathêkan kai epebalonto, kai toutous kataschontes pro tou teichous aneskolopisan. (1.11) Could someone tell me if there may be a grammatical pattern or reason as to why these two authors sometimes used ANASKOLOPISTHENTA, or inflections of it, and other times used STAURON? Perhaps there is another possible reason for the choice of words apart from those given by Meier. Are there any other ancient authors who used both terms to describe crucifixion? Although ANASKOLOPISTHENTA isn't used in the GNT, did any of the early christian writers use it, or inflections of it? Jonathan Clerke clerke at humanperformance.cc ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Anita Clerke wrote: > Although ANASKOLOPISTHENTA isn't used in the GNT, did any of the > early christian writers use it, or inflections of it? Using ANASKOLOPIS as my search term, I find: Herodotus Hist. Hist 9.78.15 Philo Judaeus Phil. Post 61.7; Som 2.213.5; Jos 96.3 Dio Chrysostomus Soph. Orationes 17.15.5 Lucianus Soph. Prom 2.3; Prom 7.9; Cont 14.10; Pisc 2.8; Peregr 11.11 Acta et Martyrium Apollonii Acta et martyrium Apollonii 40.4 Cassius Dio Hist. Historiae Romanae 62.11.4.3; S164.22 Heliodorus Scr. Erot. Aeth 4.20.2.8 Gregorius Nyssenus Theol. Orationes viii de beatitudinibus 44.1297.53 Eusebius Scr. Eccl. et Theol. Eccl Hist 2.25.5.4; 8.8.1.13 Epiphanius Scr. Eccl. Haer 1.260.14 Joannes Chrysostomus Scr. Ecc In epistulam i ad Corinthios 61.356.52; In Petrum et Paulum 59.494.68 Theodoretus Scr. Eccl. Historia religiosa 31.13.12; Interpretatio in xii prophetas minores 81.1956.18 Joannes Malalas Chronogr. Chron 473.10 Hesychius Lexicogr. Lexicon (A-O alpha.4583.1 20a; Lexicon (A-O alpha.4585.1 ‚20a; Jeffrey B. Gibson, D.Phil. (Oxon) ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Anita Clerke wrote: > Could someone tell me if there may be a grammatical pattern or reason > as to why these two authors sometimes used ANASKOLOPISTHENTA, or > inflections of it, and other times used STAURON? Perhaps there is > another possible reason for the choice of words apart from those > given by Meier. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- As you'll see from the LSJ entry on anaskolop-izô anaskolop-izô :--Pass., with fut. Med. -skolopioumai (in pass. sense) Hdt.3.132, 4.43, but Pass. A. -skolopisthêsomai Luc.Prom.7 : aor. -eskolopisthên ib.2,10: pf. -eskolopismai Id.Peregr.13 :--fix on a pole or stake, impale, Hdt.1.128, 3.159, al.; in 9.78 it is used convertibly with anastauroô, as in Ph.1.237,687, Luc.Peregr.11. the reason there might be alternating usage is that the terms are synonymous. Jeffrey B. Gibson, D.Phil. (Oxon) e-mail jgibson000 at comcast.net --------------------------------------------------------------------- I don't have access to this work by Lucian either and don't wish to spend the time to look for it since I have other work to accomplish. I will nevertheless give you some thoughts regarding this. It is customary to think of a cross in the fashion in which we see it in virtually every church as the form of a "t." The proper designation of σταυρός [STAUROS], however, is a stake. Although the word σταυρός [STAUROS] is not used in the passage, I refer you to MPol where it refers to Polycarp's execution ὅτε δὲ ἡ πυρκαϊὰ ἡτοιμάσθη, ἀποθέμενος ἑαυτῷ πάντα τὰ ἱμάτια καὶ λύσας τὴν ζώνην, ἐπειρᾶτο καὶ ὑπολύειν ἑαυτόν, μὴ πρότερον τοῦτο ποιῶν διὰ τὸ ἀεὶ ἕκαστον τῶν πιστῶν σπουδάζειν ὅστις τάχιον τοῦ χρωτὸς αὐτοῦ ἅψηται. ἐν παντὶ γὰρ ἀγαθῆς ἕνεκεν πολιτείας καὶ πρὸ τῆς πολιᾶς ἐκεκόσμητο. (3) εὐθέως οὖν αὐτῷ περιετίθετο τὰ πρὸς τὴν πυρὰν ἡρμοσμένα ὄργανα. μελλόντων δὲ αὐτῶν καὶ προσηλοῦν, εἶπεν· Ἄφετέ με οὕτως. ὁ γὰρ δοὺς ὑπομεῖναι τὸ πῦρ δώσει καὶ χωρὶς τῆς ὑμετέρας ἐκ τῶν ἥλων ἀσφαλείας ἄσκυλτον ἐπιμεῖναι τῇ πυρᾷ. Holmes, M. W. (1999). The Apostolic Fathers : Greek texts and English translations (Updated ed.) (236). Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Books. hOTE DE hH PURKAIA hHTOIMASQH, APOQEMENOS hEAUTWi PANTA TA hIMATIA KAI LUSAS THN ZWNHN, EPEIRATO KAI hUPOLUEIN hAUTON, MH PROTERON TOUTO POIWN DIA TO AEI hEKASTON TWN PISTWN SPOUDAZEIN hOSTIS TAXION TOU XRWTOS AUTOU hAYHTAI. EN PANTI GAR AGAQHS hENEKEN POLITEIAS KAI PRO THS POLIAS EKEKOSMHTO. (3) EUQEWS OUN AUTWi PERIETIQETO TA PROS THN PURAN hHRMOSMENA ORGANA. MELLONTWN DE AUTWN KAI PROSHLOUN, EIPEN, "AFETE ME hOUTWS. hO GAR DOUS hUPOMEINAI TO PUR DWSEI KAI XWRIS THS hUMETERAS ED TWN hHLWN ASFALEIAS ASKULTON EPIMEINAI THi PURAi Note the use here of PROSHLOW and hHLOS indicating that they had intended to nail him to an unstated object which was most likely a stake since it is doubtful that they intended to nail him to the firewood they place about him. I therefore think the answer to your question regarding why one or the other word might be used is that they were virtually interchangeable. George G F Somsel gfsomsel@yahoo.com

That's a good idea @JOHN BUTLER. They will give you advice on what to do if you are worried about going straight to the police.

@JOHN BUTLER This is funny, I had completely forgotten I had started this topic way back in 2017. Br. Rando alerted me to it. It seems like we didn't get very far in my topic. We got a lot further in yours! (Wait a minute, I just noticed it's Kurt's topic. Well you resurrected it then)

@JOHN BUTLERAnd a second thing I forgot to add: because you are worried the perpetrator might do this to other children

John, I understand why you have a dilema, but it still doesn't change anything about reporting all the information you have, even if second, third, or whatever hand, and even if you have heard the father of the victim doesn't want it reported. This is exactly the kind of situation that lands the JW's in trouble for not reporting, because they think about all those things that you are thinking about, and probably more, since they have even more details because they know of the situation first hand. So there may be very valid reasons why they have not gone to the police. But you don't know those reasons, just as you don't know the reasons for them not going to the police in all the other cases worldwide. It can be a lot more complicated that anyone on the outside realizes. But now you have had a some personal insight into how complicated one case can get without even having all the information! But still, it doesn't change why you shouldn't go to the police, even if it means could cause a lot of trouble for not only the perpetrators family, but also the victim and the victims family. So that's why I said hopefully the police will be prudent enough to conduct their investigation in a sensitive way. They may not even do anything, but you will have done your moral obligation from your vantage point: in other words because you are worried about the child.

I know this was for JTR, but if you don't mind me repeating what your moral obligation is in plain English: report everything you know to the police and let them decide what to do with it. I don't really understand John what the dilemma is for you, because you are the one who brought up the topic of the JW organization and their failure of not reporting to police. Now is your chance to demonstrate how it should be done, and you are not sure? I'm not trying to be mean, I just don't get it...