Anna

6 hours ago, JOHN BUTLER said:

@Anna Thank you for this information.

It would be nice if you could tell me exactly what 'page 24' refers to 

   

You are welcome!

Page 24 is of that same WT and since I do not have an actual copy of it, I cannot see the illustration. WT library (where I got the quote from) does not have illustrations in it. My mum used to have all the bound volumes, I don't know if she still does, but that would be the place to look. Otherwise you have to get a hold of a pdf file of the magazine. I am assuming page 24 will have Jesus on an upright stake, with either his hands or his wrists nailed to it. Someone else might have a copy. Or if I find a reference I will let you know.

I found this for you @JOHN BUTLER

Watchtower 1987/ 8/15, page: 29

"We do know that his hands or arms were not simply bound, for Thomas later said: “Unless I see in his hands the print of the nails.” (John 20:25) That could have meant a nail through each hand, or the plural “nails” might have reference to nail prints in ‘his hands and his feet.’ (See Luke 24:39.) We cannot know precisely where the nails pierced him, though it obviously was in the area of his hands. The Scriptural account simply does not provide exact details, nor does it need to. And if scholars who have directly examined the bones found near Jerusalem in 1968 cannot even be sure how that corpse was positioned, it certainly does not prove how Jesus was positioned.
We thus recognize that depictions of Jesus’ death in our publications, such as you see on page 24, are merely reasonable artistic renderings of the scene, not statements of anatomic absolutes. Such depictions need not reflect the changing and conflicting opinions of scholars, and the drawings definitely avoid religious symbols that stem from ancient paganism.

I would tell the Police everything you know, and leave it in their hands, i.e. let them decide where they want to go with that information. Remember, they are supposed know the right thing to do.

Personally, I would want to remain anonymous, not with the police, but with everyone else. But I am not sure if that's possible.

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

Prometheus, relief from the Temple of Aphrodite at Aphrodisias

And/or comments about the ship's mast?

On 11/17/2018 at 9:40 PM, Manuel Boyet Enicola said:

 

1.  Jesus carried the stauros or stake. 

2.  Both of his HANDS were nailed to it while grasping it, a meter or a yard apart.  That is, nails were driven from the back, not from the palms. 

16 hours ago, Manuel Boyet Enicola said:

Jesus carried it initially.  Later, the Roman soldiers "compelled" Simon of Cyrene to carry it for him....

Yes, I realised that, I must have misunderstood you. I though you meant that Jesus was nailed to the patibulum while he was carrying it, so I wondered how Simon could have got a hold of it... You must have meant that they nailed Jesus to it once they got to the site.

7 minutes ago, James Thomas Rook Jr. said:

Roger Moore?

Roger Moore!

ROGER MOORE!!

ROGER MOOOOOORRREEEE!!

 

 

 

 

 

I guess you don't agree with me, lol

3 hours ago, Manuel Boyet Enicola said:

1.  Jesus carried the stauros or stake. 

2.  Both of his HANDS were nailed to it while grasping it, a meter or a yard apart

Wait a minute, I thought Simon of Cy·reʹne carried the torture stake

2 hours ago, James Thomas Rook Jr. said:

Of course this brings up the raging and long term theological debate as the whether or not Sean Connery is the only REAL James Bond.

I guess you say "theological" because some women think Sean Connery is a god? Anyway, I think the real Bond was Roger Moore. Sean is far to Scottish for an Englishman like Bond.

2 hours ago, JW Insider said:

2 hours 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.

I didn't even notice that part of the quote, I read it really quickly. Just shows how easy it is for someone not to translate very well, or whoever wrote that website is not a native English speaker. I noticed some more "errors" such as ; " He [Stavros]  is very good in hands and he is usually an exceptionally good husband and friend".

They must have meant crimes. I wonder if Greek for crime is similar to scene in English......after all, there was a lot of crime scenes in Greek plays....

3 hours ago, JW Insider said:

Your source that said "Stavros" meant "thorn crown" was wrong.

While vacationing one year in Greece we got stuck in Athens for a couple of days waiting for our friends who were arriving by car from central Europe. In the meantime we decided to do some sightseeing and while doing our touristy thing we got joined by a jolly and friendly young Greek man. This was quite a long time ago, before the days of paranoia, plus my mum and I were rather laid back. Anyway, this young man, in his late teens or early twenties, decided he was going to show us around. I won’t go into detail, he did a great job, (although he smoked like a chimney), and like practically every Greek I have ever heard of was called Stavros. It was just now while reading this it suddenly dawned on me that the name Stavros must be connected to Stauros. And sure enough  HERE  it says this about the origin of the name: “Name Stavros is a rather common Greek male name and as we said comes from the Greek word “stavros” which means cross. Of course in the ancient years the word cross was referring to the item of this shape, with no political or religious meaning. The cross was used by barbarians and then by Romans who started crucifying people as a punishment for their scenes. The cross became a sacred item and symbol for Christianity when Christ was crucified on it by the Romans. The Greek Orthodox Church celebrates the name Stavros in memory of those important moments for Christianity on September 14th, the day of the Holy Cross".

I don’t know how that claim can be made “that in ancient years the word cross was referring to the item of this shape” when the etymology of that word is said to originate from  ἵστημι histēmi: meaning "straighten up", "stand" . (Besides, excuse the smuttiness, I think if I was a guy I’d rather be likened to an upright pole than some other shape).  On the other hand, an upright pole or stake doesn't necessarily have to exclude some other piece of wood attached to it, if the main part is the upright stake.  I mean when the Bible talks about stauros and if it had a cross beam, would it then have to call it "a stauros with another piece of wood horizontally attached at the top of it" ? As everyone knows, the meanings of words change through the centuries, even just decades. eg. gay meant happy not that long ago, now it means homosexual. Hypothetically it could be difficult for someone who discovered a text 2,000 years from now, to know what the author was speaking about if he wrote about a "gay couple". Were the couple happy, or were they homosexual?.....In the same token, was it a single upright stake, or a stake with a cross beam? Sorry, I think I'm just rambling....

15 minutes ago, JOHN BUTLER said:

I thought they wanted people's money online these days ? And in monthly payments through your bank. Or cell phone/mobile phone. 

That wouldn't matter because people not going to meetings will become demotivated and eventually not bother with anything to do with the Witnesses, and especially giving money to them.....in my opinion anyway..

At last we have joined the land of the civilized again! I sure hope that our "flight" may not occur in the winter time 😨

So drum roll.............

The etymology of stauros: The R. S. P. Beekes, Etymological Dictionary of Greek, Brill, 2009, says on page 601: The word stauros comes from the verb ἵστημι (histēmi: "straighten up", "stand"), which in turn comes from the Proto-Indo-European root *steh2-u- "pole",[1] related to the root *steh2- "to stand, to set"

Lucian of Samosata, (circa 125-180 AD) a satirical writer in the 2nd century mentions the word stauros with its' various forms such as: Anestavrostho, stavromenos, and stavrosi etc. which  translators have translated as “let him be crucified” “crucified” and “crucifixion” respectively.

ἀνεσταυρώσθω   (Anestavrostho - let him be crucified)

σταυρωμένος (stavromenos – crucified)

σταύρωση (stavrosi- crucifixion)

In his writing about Prometheus he apparently gives us an idea of what he thought the stauros looked like:

Hermes: This, Hephaestus, is the Caucasus, to which it is our painful duty to nail our companion. We have now to select a suitable crag, free from snow, on which the chains will have a good hold, and the prisoner will hang in all publicity.

Hephaestus: True. It will not do to fix him too low down, or these men of his might come to their maker's assistance; nor at the top, where he would be invisible from the earth. What do you say to a middle course? Let him hang over this precipice, with his arms stretched across from crag to crag.

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.

Prometheus: Nay, hear me; Hephaestus! Hermes! I suffer injustice: have compassion on my woes!

Hermes: In other words, disobey orders, and promptly be gibbeted in your stead! Do you suppose there is not room on the Caucasus to peg out a couple of us? Come, your right hand! clamp it down, Hephaestus, and in with the nails; bring down the hammer with a will. Now the left; make sure work of that too.--So!--The eagle will shortly be here, to trim your liver; so ingenious an artist is entitled to every attention.

This website shows the Greek version with the English translation. Unfortunately I wanted to go to the next page as well and then couldn’t go back because I had reached my limit for pages (which seems to be one (!). So don’t make the same mistake as me, unless you want to subscribe.

https://www.loebclassics.com/view/lucian-prometheus/1915/pb_LCL054.241.xml

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

The Greek playwright Aeschylus (circa 525 -456 BCE) wrote (supposedly) the original play Prometheus Bound* and does not mention a stauros but that doesn’t change the idea that stauros could have been a stake with a cross beam as per Lucian’s satirical interpretation of the Prometheus mythology/legend. In one of his other writings "the death of Peregrine" he mentions the stauros with relation to Jesus: "Peregrine, all this time, was making quite an income on the strength of his bondage; money came pouring in. You see, these misguided creatures start with the general conviction that they are immortal for all time, which explains the contempt of death and voluntary self-devotion which are so common among them; and then it was impressed on them by their original lawgiver that they are all brothers, from the moment that they are converted, and deny the gods of Greece, and worship the crucified sage, and live after his laws.

So the questions are: Where did Lucian get his idea for the shape of the stauros?

Or was it translation bias? Or tampering with the original writing? Or were people already executed on a cross beam in the 2nd Century as opposed much later (4th century)?

You might think of other questions....

*Prometheus Bound - Aeschylus

"But forcibly to bind a brother God, In chains, in this deep chasm raked by all storms........In bonds of brass not easy to be loosed, Nailing thee to this crag where no wight dwells"

http://www.sacred-texts.com/cla/aesch/promet.htm

2 hours ago, Outta Here said:

That is why our website states (for those inclined to research the matter): 

• "However, the Bible does not describe the instrument of Jesus’ death, so no one can know its shape with absolute certainty."

Thanks, I needed to see that, because both the Bible teach book and its simplified replacement; The teach us book unequivocally state that Jesus did not die on a cross.

We still don't have electricity, so I am still not able to get to my stuff on the computer. The jaws theme is still rolling!!

7 minutes ago, JOHN BUTLER said:

No, it's all about the money. 

Hmmmm.....if that was the case then it would be very short sighted because if members don't attend meetings, eventually that will lead to less donations. So how about a more frugal use of Kingdom Halls?

3 hours ago, JW Insider said:

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

What kind of issues specifically?

54 minutes ago, JW Insider said:

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.

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

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

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.

4 hours ago, Anna said:

Thank you Srecko for your concern. This is a very tactful and correct way to ask for a reason for something. 

I will probably be very concise and to the point. But why I really mentioned this was because you implied that not believing the claim made by the GB, that Jesus did not die on a cross, would get me in some kind of trouble, and I was saying no, it would not. 

You are confused @Srecko Sostar. Sorry. What I mean to say is that I do not have to beat about the bush or tread carefully because of fear of disfellowshipping just because I think we should not categorically claim that Jesus did not die on a cross. You seemed to imply earlier that one could get disfellowshipped for that and be branded an apostate.

2 hours ago, JOHN BUTLER said:

And you think the GB would actually receive any letters from us folks ? Surely they have 'office staff' that open all the mail ? 

Yes, of course they have office staff that open the mail. And as any office staff they will filter letters according to relevance. If a letter is directly addressed to the GB, then I am assuming that if this letter is not something ridiculous, then it will get passed onto the relevant department. I think @JW Insider will know better than me. As far as I am aware, for example, if it is a doctrinal issue, then this would be passed onto and handled by the writing department. If it is something worth considering, then it would become part of the GB agenda for the weekly meeting. If it is something that the writing department can answer, then you would most likely get an answer from that department. 

5 hours ago, JOHN BUTLER said:

He claimed in a speech that if a person finds a fault in WT doctine and can show it from the Bible, then absolutely the WT organization will change the doctrine. 

It seems you were barking up the wrong tree when you approached the elders then. Who is it that would change the doctrine? The WT org, not the elders.

There is something else and very interesting  I have found regarding the shape of the "cross/stauros" but I will have to wait until our power is back (Ice storm) and I can get on the computer because typing this on the phone is a pain.

On 11/14/2018 at 3:45 AM, Srecko Sostar said:

Hi. You do not need to declare in all details how you got information's. Just say; some people around me in some situations while talking about Bible, give me some evidence and reasoning about issue, so this was disturbed me and intrigued me in measure that i have to hear from you what you thinking about it. Do you have some new historical and scientific research? Do brothers making any new research on subjects? :))))

Thank you Srecko for your concern. This is a very tactful and correct way to ask for a reason for something. 

I will probably be very concise and to the point. But why I really mentioned this was because you implied that not believing the claim made by the GB, that Jesus did not die on a cross, would get me in some kind of trouble, and I was saying no, it would not.

8 minutes ago, JOHN BUTLER said:

I think we've been over this point already.  So the GB could have used the word wrist in the NWT if they were sure that it was the wrist not the hands. But no, they used 'hands' plural and nails plural.     You are still a mile away from the truth of it all. They still contradicted themselves. 

YOUR GB ARE NOT THE FAITHFUL AND DISCREET SLAVE CLASS, AND THEY KEEP MAKING IT SO SO SO CLEAR. 

Nearly 10 pm here in Devon England. Goodnight to you all. 

No John, lol. The Greek word is HAND, so to translate it correctly, one must say hand in English also. But yes, you are right, the picture is a contradiction, unless of course you include the wrist when you say hand

Good night!

1 hour ago, Srecko Sostar said:

In Croatian, word "ruka" (as equivalent (i think) to English word arm), arm is upper limb in man with a shoulder joint connected to the body. It consists of the upper arm, forearm and hand. The upper arm and the forearm together form the elbow joint. And the forearm with the fist forms hand wrist.

When in Croatian we said "ruka" , that can mean all limb (arm) and  also one particular part,  hand (palm, fingers, and thumb=fist). When you shake in greetings you practically moves all limb (arm) but one part making this main meaning, your hand (again "ruka" in Croatian). 

That is what I was trying to explain to you in an earlier post @JOHN BUTLER, so similarly in Greek, the word hand can include the wrist.

6 hours ago, JOHN BUTLER said:

You think it is just frills because you do not understand or do not want to understand the point i was making.

I didn't have any of your points in mind actually

6 hours ago, JOHN BUTLER said:

In the JW bible NWT, the GB have used the words hands and nails. But in that picture they have used wrists and one nail. 

Some years ago the WT did depict Jesus with a nail through his hands, but there has been a debate among scholars whether it could have really been the palms of the hands because they recon that the weight of the body would have ripped through the flesh as there are no transverse bones across the metacarpals, whereas if the nail was in the wrist (carpals) then there would be more resistance because it's all bone. That may be one reason why the WT changed it to the wrist. Then the other reason we already talked about on here is that the noun hand, can also include the wrist, and not only that, but biologically the wrist is part of the hand, because really it's just where the hand bends at the forearm. I don't know........were you really expecting Thomas to say " “Unless I see in his wrists the print of the nails"? Or perhaps when we say someone is bound "hand and foot" we should really say bound "wrist and foot"? Or how about "wrist cuffs" instead of "hand cuffs"?

As for the plural nails, I don't really have an answer for that one. Perhaps it was an oversight and there should be 2 nails. Perhaps one going through the wrist and one through the palm of the hand? ....Apparently sometimes the Romans used up to 14 nails (!) in an execution such as this.

If you do more research on this subject then eventually you will come to the conclusion that nowhere, absolutely nowhere is there conclusive historical proof that Jesus died on a stake with a cross beam.