By The Librarian
The Holy Bible > List of Biblical Persons > Jesus Christ
Jesus (/ˈdʒiːzəs/; Greek: Ἰησοῦς Iesous; 2 B.C.E. (timeline) to 33 C.E.), also referred to as Jesus of Nazareth, is the Son of Jehovah God and the awaited Messiah of the Hebrew Scriptures.The name Jesus (Gr., I·e·sous′) corresponds to the Hebrew name Jeshua (or, in fuller form, Jehoshua), meaning “Jehovah Is Salvation.” The name itself was not unusual, many men being so named in that period. He is also referred to as Jesus Christ, from the Greek Khri·stos′, the equivalent of the Hebrew Ma·shi′ach(Messiah), and means “Anointed One.” Our Modern day, most widely used Gregorian calendar uses the terms B.C. (Before Christ) and A.D. (Anno Domini = Year of our Lord in Latin) basing our current year of 2014 as the year since his supposed birth according to a medieval estimate.
The person who became known as Jesus Christ did not begin life here on earth. In heaven he was known as Michael the Archangel. He himself spoke of his prehuman heavenly life. (Joh 3:13; 6:38, 62; 8:23, 42, 58) John 1:1, 2 gives the heavenly name of the one who became Jesus, saying: “In the beginning the Word [Gr., Lo′gos] was, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god [“was divine,” AT; Mo; or “of divine being,”Böhmer; Stage (both German)]. This one was in the beginning with God.” Since Jehovah is eternal and had no beginning (Ps 90:2; Re 15:3), the Word’s being with God from “the beginning” must here refer to the beginning of Jehovah’s creative works. This is confirmed by other texts identifying Jesus as “the firstborn of all creation,” “the beginning of the creation by God.” (Col 1:15; Re 1:1; 3:14) Thus the Scriptures identify the Word (Jesus in his prehuman existence) as God’s first creation, His firstborn Son. This is direct opposition to the popular and later teaching of the Trinity by the Nicean Council.
Sir Isaac Newton weighed in on the identity of Michael the Archangel
That Jehovah was truly the Father or Life-Giver to this firstborn Son and, hence, that this Son was actually a creature of God is evident from Jesus’ own statements. He pointed to God as the Source of his life, saying, “I live because of the Father.” According to the context, this meant that his life resulted from or was caused by his Father, even as the gaining of life by dying men would result from their faith in Jesus’ ransom sacrifice.—Joh 6:56, 57.
Logically, it was to this firstborn Son that Jehovah said: “Let us make man in our image, according to our likeness.” (Ge 1:26) All these other created things were not only created “through him” but also “for him,” as God’s Firstborn and the “heir of all things.”—Col 1:16; Heb 1:2.
Jesus began his life billions of years before the first human ever existed (Compare Mic 5:2.) and was used by his father in the creation of all of the universe (Joh 1:3; Col 1:16, 17) and the other angels and spirit creatures in heaven (Da 7:9, 10; Re 5:11),
Jesus was conceived by Holy Spirit being transferred from his heavenly life as Michael the Archangel into the womb of a virgin named Mary who was engaged to Joseph. He was born in Bethlehem as a human baby in the year 2 B.C.E.. A star shined above his birthplace guiding astrologers to pay tribute to him.
He was later raised in Nazareth where archaeologists claim to have discovered his childhood home.
Jesus Face Drawn by Medical Artist based on Forensic Evidence Is Jesus a "Mediator" for God and All Men?
The Memorial of the Death of Jesus Christ
Was Jesus Crucified on a Cross NO..mp4
By Brother Rando
In order for the following prophecy to be fulfilled, "He is guarding all his bones; Not one of them has been broken." (Psalm 34:20)Â Which method of death is true?Â A or B?
via .ORGWorld News
By Brother Rando
The Memorial of Christ is not the Last Supper that the world continues to celebrate. The Last Supper can also be rendered the Last Passover Meal. The Jewish Day began at Sunset. Since the Sun sets at various times, the Passover Supper would begin after the Sun disappeared from the Horizon with darkness setting in. The Last Passover Meal was Nisan 14th, 33 CE with the abolishment of the Old Covenant.
When evening came, he was reclining at the table with the 12 disciples. ?While they were eating, he said: Â“Truly I say to you, one of you will betray me.Â” (Matthew 26:20-21)Â Â The event that concluded the Last Passover Meal was the dismissal of an unfaithful apostle.Â Jesus answered: Â“It is the one to whom I will give the piece of bread that I dip.Â” So after dipping the bread, he took it and gave it to Judas, the son of Simon Iscariot. ?After Judas took the piece of bread, then Satan entered into him. So Jesus said to him: Â“What you are doing, do it more quickly.Â”Â (John 13:26-28)Â Â“So after he received the piece of bread, he went out immediately. And it was night.Â” (John 13:30)
After dismissing the betrayer from the midst of the Faithful Disciples, Jesus instituted a new teaching for His Faithful Followers.Â Notice, the whole world wasnÂ’t invited, but those who proved to be faithful and trustworthy up to this point.Â Since the founding of the Christian Congregation on Pentecost 33 CE, Christians have been commemorating the death of Jesus Christ every Nisan 14th.Â With one simple command,Â his faithful sheep Â“Keep doing this in remembrance of me.Â” (Luke 22:19)
Please join us for the annual observance of the death of Jesus Christ. This year it will be held onÂ Saturday, MarchÂ 31.Â Â Â Search for yourÂ Language and Place.
By Guest Nicole
By Ann O'Maly
The following post quotes originally came from this thread:
Rather than take the thread totally off topic, I thought I would make some comments in a new one.
I'm commenting on this post, likewise not to create a firestorm, but to flag up how we ought to check sources of information rather than automatically taking on trust that what is written is sound.
Regarding information on the internet, the August 15, 2011 Watchtower put forward some criteria by which we can critically assess its factuality:
"Before trusting it, ask: (1) Who published this material? What are the author’s credentials? (2) Why was this published? What motivated the writer? Is there any bias? (3) Where did the author get the information? Does he supply sources that can be checked? (4) Is the information current?" - p. 4
It's good practice to apply these basic principles to anything we read - even material produced by the Organization.
It's also worth remembering Christians do not claim Jesus was executed on a crux ansata or ankh-shaped cross (think of the practical problems for a start). But let's look at how the Reasoning book approaches the wider question of whether Jesus was executed on a cross at all.
"(2) ... Is there any bias?"
Absolutely. The Reasoning book's quote from the Imperial Bible Dictionary is chopped up, and omits key information that would allow the reader to understand that, while stauros originally had one meaning, by the time of Jesus the word had evolved and was understood differently. The omitted parts from the quote are in red.
"The Greek word for cross, [stau·ros′], properly signified a stake, an upright pole, or piece of paling, on which anything might be hung, or which might be used in impaling [fencing in] a piece of ground. But a modification was introduced as the dominion and usages of Rome extended themselves through Greek-speaking countries. Even amongst the Romans the crux (from which our cross is derived) appears to have been originally an upright pole, and this always remained the more prominent part."
The quote continues to cite Seneca's (4 BC-65 AD) eye-witness testimony about 3 different kinds of crucifixion regularly employed, the last of which was where the victim's arms were extended on a patibulum. The dictionary then adds:
"There can be no doubt, however, that the latter sort was was the more common, and that about the period of the gospel age crucifixion was usually accomplished by suspending the criminal on a cross piece of wood." - p. 376
You can read the Imperial Bible Dictionary article for yourself here:
So why do Watch Tower publications show Jesus on a stake with hands over his head instead of on the traditional cross? Reading an extended quote from the Imperial Bible Dictionary makes the reason for Watchtower's divergence on this matter unclear.
There's no problem with this section as crosses were made of wood from trees. Not only that, but trees had branches upon which arms could be outstretched either side of the body, above it, upside-down or however the executioner wanted to position the poor victim.
Of course, the Org. no longer translates Jesus' mode of execution as 'impaling' because, well, he wasn't impaled; he was suspended from a stauros by being nailed to it. Impaling is an entirely different kind of torturous end.
This reference, then, doesn't help explain why Watch Tower publications depict Jesus on an upright stake either.
"(1) ... What are the author’s credentials? ... (3) Where did the author get the information? Does he supply sources that can be checked? (4) Is the information current?"
Not only is this another outdated source, but psychical research enthusiast J.D. Parsons does not provide references for his comments here (publication viewable online). Historical, linguistic and gospel evidence contradicts him. It's a pity he didn't consult works like the Imperial Bible Dictionary before he wrote his book.
"(3) Where did the author get the information? Does he supply sources that can be checked? (4) Is the information current?"
This is another old work, this time one edited by E.W. Bullinger. Appendix No. 162 does supply some sources, but it also repeats some of Alexander Hislop's and others' mistaken ideas, e.g. the Babylonian sun-god cross. Not only that, but Bullinger (or whoever the author of Appendix No. 162 was) was evidently unaware of the Oxyrhyncus discoveries which showed that the understanding of stauros as being a two-pieced cross shape occurred in 2nd (and possibly 1st) century Christian writings.
See the Companion Bible entry here: https://archive.org/stream/CompanionBible.Bullinger.1901-Haywood.2005/CompBib.Bull.Hay.NT.Append.24.#page/n797/mode/2up
In fact, many of these old publications the Org. uses as support, and that are contemporaneous with one another, seem to feed off each other's sources, regurgitating them in their own works. The Two Babylons was published in book form in 1858. It's always good to keep this in mind when reading older references after that time because it often influenced other theologians' work - especially if their theology was less mainstream. Vine's Expository Dictionary's entry on 'Cross' is another notable example (see below).
That's assuming that all the available evidence has been presented to the Reasoning book reader. As we've seen, it hasn't but has been cherry-picked from flawed, out-of-date works, which often recycle the same sources, in order to force a predetermined conclusion. When we dig into those sources a little deeper, we find that Watchtower's rejection of the cross and adoption of an upright stake to depict Jesus' execution is based on insubstantial grounds. If we research the subject more thoroughly, although we will never be certain what shape stauros Jesus died on, we will find that the weight of evidence indicates the opposite view to that of the Organization.
What does this have to do with how Christians regard the cross? Cross shapes occur in different cultures, times and contexts. Whatever significance non-Christians placed on cross shapes (4 cardinal points, 4 year markers, 4 key stages in the Sun's apparent seasonal or daily paths around the Earth, circle of life, etc.) has nothing to do with any symbolism Christians attach to the cross Jesus was believed to have been executed on.
"(2) ... Is there any bias? (3) Where did the author get the information? Does he supply sources that can be checked? (4) Is the information current?"
Vine's comment about the two-beamed cross's Chaldean origin actually came from Hislop (Two Babylons, p. 197-8). It is false.
Hislop was rabidly anti-Catholic and grasping at anything to discredit it, no matter how outlandish. However, in doing so, he was undermining aspects of biblical Christianity too. So, yes, one could say he was biased - so much so that he imagined ancient pagan-Catholic connections everywhere. He provides no historical evidence that the Babylonian god Tammuz was represented by a Tau and besides, the Babylonians didn't write in Greek! Their writing was logographic and the signs for Tammuz (Dumuzi) don't look anything like crosses.
On the other hand, the Paleo-Hebrew script has a letter tav. Guess what it looks like:
"(3) Where did the author get the information? Does he supply sources that can be checked? (4) Is the information current?"
Again, a 19th/early 20th century work. Tyack doesn't provide any sources for his statements. However the concepts seem to be from the Two Babylons book. These connections between the cross and Tammuz plus other ancient near eastern deities don't go back beyond the 1850s and Hislop's book - not that I've been able to trace, anyway.
Around and around we go. This information is straight out of Two Babylons! Look:
Please pay particular notice to the references in the footnotes on that page.
I'll post separately about all those cross symbols and the conclusions Hislop jumps to.
Again, what does this have to do with how Christians view the cross Jesus is believed to have died on?
This is a quote from the same Bullinger work discussed above.
Now, this is a whole different issue.
And is it a matter of degree? Remember how obsessed many JWs are nowadays with the JW.org logo, maybe because of its associations in the JW's mind with true worship, brotherhood, divine blessings, etc. They put it on anything from tiepins to cake. Likewise, many Christians associate the cross with Jesus' love for humankind, victory over death/Satan, hope, etc., and so they like to have a symbolic reminder of that or use it as a visible expression of their faith. I guess it depends on whether one considers a line has been stepped over between expression of faith and worshipful veneration, and there is a certain level of subjectivity in that assessment.
Here we go again. An allusion to Hislopian baloney.
And an upright stake is NOT phallic?
'Some commentators' - who? The Reasoning book doesn't enlighten us.
While I agree that idolatry is against biblical principles, the Org's reluctance to entertain at least the possibility that Jesus historically died on a cross is based on deeply flawed, outdated, and circular reasoning.
Regarding Hislop's discussion of various cross shapes on p. 197 of the Two Babylons book:
Fig. 43 shows 5 different cross shapes.
No. 1 is the familiar crucifix shape and comes from Kitto's Biblical Cyclopedia, Vol. 1, p. 495 (viewable online - as with all of these references, just Google). This reference is just a discussion of 'Cross' and Lipsius' various pictures/descriptions of this means of execution.
No. 2 is similar to No. 1 but slanted. The pic comes from Sir W. Betham's Etruria, Vol. 1, p. 54 (viewable online). This references the Etruscan alphabet. Hislop's picture is just one of the letters he's picked out.
No. 3 is like No. 1 except with a slightly curved crosspiece. This is from Bunsen's Egypt's Place in Universal History, Vol. 1, p. 450 (viewable online). Hislop's picture is one of the Coptic letters of the alphabet - a tei. He doesn't bother with the other cross-shaped letters in the Coptic alphabet on pp. 448-450 - not even the tau on p. 449!
No. 4 is similar to an ankh. Hislop thinks it's a cross (the sign of Tammuz) attached to the circle of the sun (p. 198). He provides no reference for this one.
No. 5 is a cross within a circle. This is used as another example of Tammuz being associated with the sun and the picture comes from Stephen's Incidents of Travel in Central America, Vol. 2, p. 344, Plate 2 (viewable online) where an indigenous person's belt is decorated with the symbol.
Hislop uses these sources and cobbles together isolated cross symbols - an instrument of execution, letters of the Etruscan and Coptic alphabets, an ankh and the belt decoration of a Central American Indian. These all form the basis of his argument that,
a) The Christian cross is not a Christian emblem.
(He only establishes that cross shapes occur in all sorts of places and contexts.)
b) The cross originates from the mystic Tau of the Chaldeans and Egyptians.
(An unsupported assertion pulled out of the air - none of his examples are linked to Chaldea.)
c) The letter T is "the initial letter of Tammuz - which, in Hebrew, [is] radically the same as ancient Chaldee" (p. 197).
(It's already been discussed on this thread that, while Paleo-Hebrew indeed has a cross-shaped Tav, the Babylonians wrote in cuneiform and their logographic signs making up the word Dumuzi/Tammuz do not resemble a cross.)
d) Tammuz was identified with the sun.
(Anyone with a rudimentary knowledge of Babylonian deities knows that Shamash was the god identified with the sun and Marduk may also have had solar connections - not Tammuz. Tammuz was a shepherd-god of agriculture, fertile lands, food and vegetation.)
Hislop's conclusions about how the Christian cross originates in Babylonian worship are therefore founded on ... nothing.
By Guest Nicole
What’s the best way to wash your hands?
The world’s two leading public-health bodies list different instructions on their websites for getting your hands clean. A new study found that the six-step hand-hygiene technique recommended by the World Health Organization (WHO) killed greater numbers of germs than the more general, three-step instructions of the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
Still, the outcome of the throw-down isn’t clean-cut. The CDC says its hand-cleaning method isn’t different from that of the WHO, it is just less specific. “We’re on the same page here. We just do not get into that kind of detail in our guideline,” says Clifford McDonald, a CDC medical epidemiologist.
The study—published online last week in the journal Infection Control & Hospital Epidemiology—looked specifically at the use of alcohol-based hand rub, or sanitizer, by doctors and nurses in a hospital. The technique is similar to hand washing with soap and water. But hand sanitizer is often used in hospitals and other health-care settings to prevent the transmission of infections because it is faster.
The WHO method includes interlacing the fingers and rubbing palm to palm, and focusing on the backs of the fingers. It also involves rubbing the thumb creases and pressing the fingertips into the palms.
“It’s quite a complex maneuver, I describe it as a ballet dance,” saysJacqui Reilly, a professor of infection prevention at Glasgow Caledonian University in Scotland and lead author of the study.
In the randomized controlled trial of 120 doctors and nurses, the researchers found that many fewer bacteria remained on the hands of those who used the WHO method compared with others following the more general CDC instructions.
The result was a surprise. “Our theory at the start was, ‘Do we really need to make hand hygiene so complicated?” says Dr. Reilly. The answer is yes, they found out. “The six-step method in our study was demonstrated to be superior,” she says.
The researchers also measured hand-cleaning compliance rates and the amount of time each method took. The six-step method took on average 42.5 seconds to complete, versus 35 seconds for the more general, three-step instructions. Only 65% of the study participants who were instructed to use the six-step method did it properly, even though they were observed and had instructions in front of them. By contrast, compliance for those using the three-step method was 100%.
Still, more bacteria were killed using the six-step method, even when it wasn’t done properly, says Dr. Reilly. This may be because the three-step technique often missed bacteria that were on the back of the index and middle fingers of the right hand, she says. The researchers used an ultraviolet light box to measure how well the sanitizer was distributed across the hands.
Hand-cleaning in a hospital setting is a major public-health issue because of the potential to spread infections. Studies have found that only 40% to 50% of most hospital workers wash their hands when they are supposed to.
The WHO’s six-step method was created in 2009 for health-care settings, but more than 50 countries, and some U.S. states, have used it in national hand-hygiene campaigns, says Benedetta Allegranzi,acting coordinator of the WHO’s infection, prevention, and control global unit in Geneva. “If you go to museums in Canada you find the posters in the toilet,” she says, as an example.
Dr. Allegranzi says the WHO technique aims to make sure the parts of the hand that potentially could infect a patient easily, such as the palms, fingers and fingertips, are thoroughly cleaned.
“There are spaces between the nails and skin which can harbor germs more easily,” she says. “The WHO technique is meant to cover all surfaces and all spaces.” Dr. Allegranzi says the organization hasn’t received major concerns about the number of steps and time it takes to follow the hand-cleaning method.
Dr. McDonald, of the CDC, says the agency next month is launching a new hand-hygiene campaign that will emphasize the importance of not missing certain parts of the hand, such as the fingers, fingernails and crevices. “I think this study focuses on how important it is to get people to cover all of their hands,” he says.
At Vanderbilt University Medical Center, about 250 trained observers monitor each unit in the hospital and outpatient clinics to ensure staff wash their hands when they’re supposed to, and remind them when they don’t. Since the hand-hygiene program started seven years ago, hand-cleaning compliance rates have gone to 96% from less than 50%, and infection rates have dropped significantly, says Tom Talbot, Vanderbilt’s chief hospital epidemiologist.
Vanderbilt staff are trained annually on hand washing basics and the importance of reminding each other. The method used is the more simple three-step method, Dr. Talbot says.
“I think in practice folks wouldn’t adhere to the six steps unless you’re tracking and monitoring it,” he says. And although the study showed a significant reduction in bacteria with the six steps, whether that is clinically relevant in terms of reducing infections isn’t known, Dr. Talbot says. He also says the few seconds difference between the two methods could make a difference in time-sensitive areas, such as the emergency room.
Most OnlineNewest Member