Originally posted by SuzianneUmmm I have already produced the reasons why we translate the term 'stauros', as a torture stake. I have provided references from independent sources which reiterate the fact that it was in all probability a crux simplex.
No, it means "cross". An alternate meaning is "stake".
Leave it to the JWs (who had the unfortunate weight of an agenda upon them) to grab the alternate meaning to "prove" their point.
You by contrast have publicly asserted that we (Jehovahs Witnesses) paid persons (whom you cannot name or specify) to translate the term to fit in with what you term 'dogma'. When asked to produce any evidence relating to this you could not and we are therefore left with no choice other than to conclude that in all probability you simply made it up.
Further fictional aspects are evident in other posts as well, almost too numerous to mentions. For example, 'its misleading', to translate the term as torture stake when the definition that you yourself gave of 'stauros' means, an upright "stake".
Here is another glaring falsehood, you state and I quote that 'the Romans did not use a stake, ' Oh really?
The Romans continued to use the crux simplex method in exceptional cases. Referring to mass executions by the Romans Professor Herman Fulda wrote in 20th-century: "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.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crux_simplex
No we can either believe your fictional and at times outright false statements or we can apply the scientific method and attempt to ascertain what we know and what in all probability was the instrument upon which Jesus was put to death.
You have demonstrated here nothing but a religious prejudice the basis of which seems to be firmly rooted in a kind of delusional willingness to reject any kind of empirical evidence which refutes your beliefs. I believe its termed close mindedness.
Originally posted by SuzianneYour reasoning amounts to, it was a cross because its translated as a cross and its true because I say its true. Wow.
It is a fact.
You can call it "your opinion" all day long but that doesn't negate its "factualness".
logically fallacious, uncorroborated by scripture or any known factual evidence.
21 Jan 16
Originally posted by FMFNo, there was no "incorporation of the pagan cross symbolism" into the NT. They reported what they saw happening.
And did the meaning "cross" get appended to the Greek word "stauros" [b]after the early Christians incorporated the pagan cross symbolism into the NT parts of the Bible they wrote, or would you say the "cross" meaning of "stauros" pre-dated the "stake" meaning?[/b]
As to stauros, I'd say the alternate meaning of "stake" was concomitant with the usual meaning of "cross". It's just that "cross" was used when you meant to crucify someone, and "stake" was used when you were talking about building a fence.
Why do you ask after I've already said? Yes, I get it that it was so that you could insert the magic phrase "the early Christians incorporated the pagan cross symbolism into the NT parts of the Bible they wrote", but that simply was not the case.
21 Jan 16
Originally posted by robbie carrobieAnd you, my "friend", are a liar.
Your reasoning amounts to, it was a cross because its translated as a cross and its true because I say its true. Wow.
logically fallacious, uncorroborated by scripture or any known factual evidence.
After uncovering your collusion as a clan leader, I'm not really believing anything you say anymore, and in fact, neither should anyone else. And you call yourself a Christian. Wow.
Originally posted by SuzianneLOL that has to be the most blatant shameful attempt at deflection in the entire history of shamefaced deflectionism. Calling me a liar doesn't make anything you have said any more plausible.
And you, my "friend", are a liar.
After uncovering your collusion as a clan leader, I'm not really believing anything you say anymore, and in fact, neither should anyone else. And you call yourself a Christian. Wow.
It was unpleasant to have to take you apart piece by piece, trust me i did not want to do it, but you left me no alternative. If you are going to fabricate values, blatantly deny evidence and chase reality away as it tries to make inroads, then sorry dude, you have to be schooled.
21 Jan 16
Originally posted by SuzianneYou have totally failed to make your case. You have not in any way provided any evidence in your post that the word crucifixion implies a cross. If anything the text you quote contradicts your claim that 'crucifixion' implies a cross and makes it clear that the word is not definitive. It may be the case that early Christians believed Jesus was crucified on a cross, but that is not equivalent to saying that the word 'crucifixion' implies a cross.
Yes, it IS what I "think it means". On that page you linked to, there is this, way down in the bibliography:
"The ... oldest depiction of a crucifixion ... was uncovered by archaeologists more than a century ago on the Palatine Hill in Rome. It is a second-century graffiti scratched into a wall that was part of the imperial palace complex. It includes a c ...[text shortened]... at the JWs say, the usual and most common meaning of stauros was "cross" and not "stake".
21 Jan 16
Originally posted by SuzianneWhy would that be when one bears in mind that the Romans used to execute people by nailing them to simple stakes?
As to stauros, I'd say the alternate meaning of "stake" was concomitant with the usual meaning of "cross". It's just that "cross" was used when you meant to crucify someone, and "stake" was used when you were talking about building a fence.
21 Jan 16
1 edit
Originally posted by robbie carrobieYou, school me? BWAhahahahaha!!
LOL that has to be the most blatant shameful attempt at deflection in the entire history of shamefaced deflectionism. Calling me a liar doesn't make anything you have said any more plausible.
It was unpleasant to have to take you apart piece by piece, trust me i did not want to do it, but you left me no alternative. If you are going to fabricate ...[text shortened]... ce and chase reality away as it tries to make inroads, then sorry dude, you have to be schooled.
You are the one fabricating, along with your scheming masters.
The person you need to school is yourself.
The post that was quoted here has been removedThanks even Vine who was a trinitarian held that it was a crux simplex,
W. E. Vine and E. W. Bullinger, as well Henry Dana Ward, considered that the "cross" (Greek stauros, in its original sense literally an upright pale or stake) had no crossbar, and that the traditional picture of a cross with a crossbar was incorrect.
Originally posted by wolfgang59I think many would care if it turned out that the symbol of their religion was in fact of Egyptian origin and that they had been praying to, wearing and promoting a symbol that was incorrect.
Nobody knows and most don't care. Does your faith
really depend upon the minutiae of how your saviour died?
Those are the dangers of idolatry.
I remember when I was young there was a big fight in the Anglican church my parents went to between the traditionalists and a youth group over whether or not much of the traditional symbols in the church counted as idolatry or not. The youth for example wanted the eagle pulpit removed. I don't think anyone actually did practice idolatry, but the older members were very attached to their traditions and the younger people were very concerned that symbolism would lead to idolatry.
22 Jan 16
Originally posted by twhiteheadMaybe I'm wrong (certainly not my field!!)
I think many would care if it turned out that the symbol of their religion was in fact of Egyptian origin and that they had been praying to, wearing and promoting a symbol that was incorrect.
.
I thought that they prayed to god and the cross (or whatever) was a focus for them
but not part of the religion per se. Is there any instruction in the bible to use a cross?