Anna

On 12/3/2018 at 1:28 AM, JW Insider said:

I have a tour of Warwick scheduled for 11:00am on Friday 12/7

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...

12 hours ago, TrueTomHarley said:

Sheepandgoats

That's how I knew you first

35 minutes ago, Melinda Mills said:

The language is probably too violent to be of use to anyone. Maybe they are locked forever. Quoting 2 Timothy 2:24 while doing what it doesn't recommend? It is useless.

Knowing TTH, it is a joke. 

2 hours ago, JOHN BUTLER said:

Ya cannot be beat if ya didn't compete  

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.

7 hours ago, JOHN BUTLER said:

Hiding behind a pussy cat  and no real name.  Doesn't quite show up as genuine really

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. 😊

11 minutes ago, James Thomas Rook Jr. said:

second hand, or third hand rumor

There's no smoke without fire.

 

14 hours ago, JOHN BUTLER said:

:"Many in the congregation must believe that your current motive is to promote such apostasy" 

Thank you, because that is one of the reasons I could not report to the police the information i had been given about Child Abuse. 

Anna, there is your answer from JW Insider. 

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.

25 minutes ago, JOHN BUTLER said:

I did say it would be a no win situation for me. Iws right.

But it's not about you. It's about the children.

25 minutes ago, JOHN BUTLER said:

And if the Elders had acted correctly at the time, then we would not be having this conversation

But you don't know what "acting correctly" would have been at that time, do you, really?

35 minutes ago, JOHN BUTLER said:

Explain in detail please. 

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.

27 minutes ago, TrueTomHarley said:

With the possible exception of @Anna, who may be a high-ranking brother in drag,

Hey, stop "dragging" me into this!

6 hours ago, JOHN BUTLER said:

I don't need excuses as i have true reasons, as i mentioned but you chose to ignore. 

Tell me what ounce / gram of proof do i have that i could present to the police or anyone else ?  Especially as I am in BAD standing with the congregation. It would just look like slander. 

And tell me, WHOSE duty was it to report it to the police in the FIRST PLACE ?  Maybe not legal duty but moral duty. 

As for 'apostate forums', who really cares from that viewpoint. Anna i am my own man, I need no approval from men. 

However, i have a wife that i love dearly, and she still attends meetings at that Kingdom Hall. Life is hard enough for her as it is. Why should i make more problems for her ? 

And as I said, on here, some were telling me do and some were telling me don't. So if i had, then it would be the other side nagging me on here instead of you ...

Of course, as I've mentioned earlier, if someone on here wishes to grass me up, then i might just get a police officer knocking on my door asking me questions. Then i would have to tell them wouldn't I ?  

So it snowballs. You now know, so is it your duty to report me for not reporting it ?  Have a good day. 

 

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

 

 

8 hours ago, JOHN BUTLER said:

So I've let it go by. 

It does not make me as bad as what I'm accusing the Elders of. Why ? Because the Elders have FIRST HAND INFORMATION FROM BOTH SIDES. They will know the accused and the victim. They will have taken notes from both sides. 

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. 

4 hours ago, JW Insider said:

The Governing Body says we have updated our understanding to that of the world here, and I think everyone knows that Brother Jackson is not so stupid as to think that the Bible was not really referring to physical beatings with these Hebrew expressions. It's time we progressed in our understanding of what it means to disfellowship, too. 

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

 

 

54 minutes ago, Outta Here said:

Childline number is available to anyone in Devon UK wanting to discuss problems of this nature: 0800 1111

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

31 minutes ago, JOHN BUTLER said:

Anna, all i have is third hand information.  And all i have is the name of the accused and his father.

I do not have the name of the young girl that was the victim, or the name of her family.

So if I report it to the police they would want the name of the person that informed me. 

In the situation with the Elders, they know the victim, they know the accused, they have details of the situation. The Elders have first hand information from both the accused and the victim..... 

What i have is third hand information that I assume is correct. I have no reason to disbelieve the person that told me. 

They told me because i was telling them the reason that i left the JW Org. Whilst i was telling them my reason, they assumed it was partly because of this 'situation' with the details here, that I left. They wrongly presumed that this 'happening' in 'our congregation', had triggered off my leaving. But even though i was part of the congregation at the time it must have happened, i had no knowledge of it then.

It seems to me that JTR says do not go to the police, whereas you say go to the police. 

I'm not trying to start a war here. If i had the name of the young girl I would indeed go to the police. Especially as it seems her father wants to keep it quiet. Why would a father of a young child that had just had such a terrible experience, and on her own bed too, want to keep it quiet ? That child may think about it every time she goes to bed. 

 

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.

1 hour ago, JOHN BUTLER said:

Over to you to explain in plain English what my moral obligation is...

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...

 

3 hours ago, JW Insider said:

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.

Yes. Also, I meant to reply to your other post where you mentioned someone experimenting with various forms of attachment and that it was found that a nail through the palm of the hand would not necessarily rip through. My point in defending the WT depicting the nail going through the wrists was made on the assumption that the WT used earlier experiments which stated that the palm of the hand was not strong enough. I suppose the WT has a point when it says that one could keep changing the illustrations depending on new ideas, so they will just stick to the one since it's only meant to be an approximate depiction anyway....

I am thinking, looking at it from a biological point of view, that the nail could find the point of least resistance and could slip between the carpal bones in the wrist without breaking them....

Someone must have experimentally tried that as well I'm sure...

Ps. Here is someone's idea of where the nail could have gone through. But this idea has been disputed by some.

https://en.m.wiktionary.org/wiki/space_of_Destot

2 hours ago, JW Insider said:

Interesting to look at the term used by Lucian, "anastauroo."

Lucian also used that term (not sure if it was exactly that term because I cannot check my sources right now) in his writings about the Christians and their "crucified sophist" referring to Jesus in "the death of Peregrine":

 

1 hour ago, BillyTheKid46 said:

but haters of the Watchtower to use such tactics out of spite and resentment.

Sure. But those kind of tactics would be self defeating for someone looking for the truth. I would think most on here are just looking for facts to establish the truth.

6 hours ago, JOHN BUTLER said:

  100 people that will not speak to me, not even to say hello. 

That is why I said try to get the police it keep it confidential, because some of those people might get the mistaken impression you are doing this out of a grudge.

In any case, if you explain exactly from what source you know this information, then the polic should be wise enough to handle it as possible "hearsay" and tread carefully when conducting their investigation so as not to falsely accuse someone. That is if they are competent.