Ann O'Maly
-
Posts
839 -
Joined
-
Days Won
6
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Store
World Wiki
Events
Posts posted by Ann O'Maly
-
-
Meanwhile, I'm watching the developments of the Fessler vs Watchtower, et al trial with interest ...
-
Queen Esther, I don't understand. Are not threads posted on a discussion forum meant to be discussed or commented on? Is there a forum rule I've overlooked somewhere? I was alerting Bible Speaks to the problem of relying on faulty sources. We always want to "trace all things with accuracy" like Luke did, do we not?
I'm not one for flowery language so I may come across as blunt sometimes. Please be assured that my exasperation is directed at the long-lasting influence Hislop's work has had rather than at BS. If my manner has upset BS, then I am sorry.
-
3 hours ago, Bible Speaks said:
Ann; My research on Nimrod and how he in fact had one is his name, Lupercus, Cupid, St Valentine, as you see from chart most of these pagan holidays in fact go back to ancient Babylon and Nimrod. The book; The Two Babylons is also very interesting on history of false teachings.
Sorry to break it to you, but the Two Babylons book has been discredited as pseudo-history. Not even the Org quotes from it any more.
A detailed and scathing review of Two Babylons was written in an old British journal: The Saturday Review, Sept. 17, 1859 (link to full review):
"We should not have thought it worth while to notice Mr. Hislop's lucubrations if his book had not reached a second edition, and thus revealed the melancholy intellectual condition of a portion at least of the British public. For the sake of this class of readers, it may perhaps not be amiss to state gravely why we dissent from his line of argument.
"In the first place, his whole superstructure is raised upon nothing. Our earliest authority for the history of Semiramis wrote about the commencement of the Christian era, and the historian from whom he drew his information lived from fifteen hundred to two thousand years after the date which Mr. Hislop assigns to the great Assyrian Queen. The most lying legend which the Vatican has ever endorsed stands on better authority than the history which is now made the ground of a charge against it.
"Secondly, the whole argument proceeds upon the assumption that all heathenism has a common origin. Accidental resemblances in mythological details are taken as evidence of this, and nothing is allowed for the natural working of the human mind.
"Thirdly, Mr. Hislop's reasoning would make anything of anything. By the aid of obscure passages in third-rate historians, groundless assumptions of identity, and etymological torturing of roots, all that we know, and all that we believe, may be converted, as if by the touch of Harlequin's wand, into something totally different.
"Fourthly, Mr. Hislop's argument proves too much. He finds not only the corruptions of Popery, but the fundamental articles of the Christian Faith, in his hypothetical Babylonian system. ...
"... But it is idle to speak seriously of a book which only claims attention by its matchless absurdity, and by the fact that it apparently finds readers. We take leave of Mr. Hislop and his work with the remark that we never before quite knew the folly of which ignorant or half-learned bigotry is capable."
- p. 340 [paragraphs added for ease of reading]
It's remarkable that 2 centuries later, Hislop's misinformation still suckers people in.
Also worth a peep - the story of one man who fell for it hook, line and sinker, and wrote a bestseller based on it, but was then told he'd been had: http://www.apologeticsindex.org/2808-a-profile-in-integrity-ralph-woodrow
-
"There is no evidence of any link between St. Valentine's Day and the rites of the ancient Roman festival [Lupercalia], despite many claims by many authors.[18][42][notes 1] The celebration of Saint Valentine did not have any romantic connotations until Chaucer's poetry about "Valentines" in the 14th century.[24]" - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Valentine's_Day#Connection_with_romantic_love
-
8 hours ago, Anna said:
As you see in the docket link it says: “letter dated June 22, 2015, notifying the court that petitioners, Watchtower and Fremont Congregation have reached a settlement with respondent, Conti”.
You are correct. I was mistaken. My apologies.
QuoteIn any case whether settled in or out of court the result is exactly the same. Candace gave up on her “noble” quest to change WT policies. Why?
She could have settled out of court at the very beginning but she made it crystal clear that she wasn't going to do that. She wanted them publicly accountable which she hoped would put pressure on them to change their policies. She saw it through. Straight after the appeal, Candace stated in interview with Lloyd Evans,
"that she is prepared to take this matter all the way to the Supreme Court if she must in order to see children protected and justice fully served.
"Referring to the ruling on Monday [4/13/2015], Candace told me: 'This is just another step. It will not change the amount of money but it might help change the laws. And you know me, I’m all about the laws. We have the chance to make positive changes in the Supreme Court for how children are protected. We may have another year and a half to go.'
"When I pressed her on whether she is definitely taking her case to the Supreme Court, Candace replied: 'It’s questionable now but we are trying to make the best case, and we might only take it to the Supreme Court if Watchtower takes it there. Other than that we are waiting. The ball is still unfortunately in their court.'” - Source
According to the docket, Watchtower petitioned to have the case reviewed at Supreme Court but withdrew it after a settlement was reached. Candace was also willing to carry on fighting. Why did Watchtower give up the fight to exonerate themselves of all liability? I'm guessing that pursuing it further would have benefited neither party in the end.
So. The Appeal Court's final decision that Watchtower and Fremont Congegation were negligent stands.
9 hours ago, Anna said:Yes, supervise Kendrick's field service, and as I said, I believe they DID supervise Kendrick's field service by NOT assigning Candace to work with him in field service. This portion was the next step WT would have appealed/ defended as that is the only thing the the court concluded, as you said. The elders could not be expected to monitor Kendrick after field service. They were not expected to watch Kendrick's every move in his private life.
This was addressed in p. 22 of the Appeal Decision:
QuoteSo, I say again: " Is it believable that the elders purposefully arranged for someone whom they believed to be a danger to children, to be assigned to be alone with children in the congregation and in field service? This assumption is illogical and NO ONE in their right mind would even suggest otherwise except of course if you have ulterior motives; such as opposers, certain news reporters, and certain lawyers….
And I say again: If the elders did not assign Candace and Kendrick to perform FS together, yet they ended up in FS together, then they were not properly monitoring him. Grossly negligent.
The Appeal Court affirmed that Watchtower and Fremont Congregation were indeed negligent here.
OK. I'm sure we've picked over the remains of this dead horse more than enough now. Time to move on.
-
"For there will be hurricanes and volcanoes in one place after another, earth-wide pollution and a constant state of global war," said Jesus, never.
-
"The Money's Always Right!"
-
Oh boy, oh boy! James Thomas Rook Jr. is back!
-
On 2/9/2017 at 11:16 PM, Eoin Joyce said:
I can see similarities in the use of jw.org logos as trinkets or ornaments or badges in the way that others might use crosses without religious significance.
Or even with religious significance ... as the Organization has religious significance to the JW, does it not?
On 2/9/2017 at 11:16 PM, Eoin Joyce said:However, I can't really see a similarity between the way many witnesses view trinkets and cakes etc. bearing the jw.org symbol and the way in which the cross is treated religiously by diverse members of Christendom. ...
[links to pics of people kissing crosses, etc.]
Give it time.
Anyway, I was suggesting, in response to 'Is veneration of the cross a scriptural practice?', that veneration (or great respect, reverence) for an object of religious significance can occur in many forms. So I posed the question of whether it was a matter of degree to which one venerates a religious artifact and where the line might be drawn before scriptural principles are seen to be violated. Yes, maybe another thread.
On 2/9/2017 at 11:16 PM, Eoin Joyce said:Anyway, I apologise for deviating a bit from your topic ...
It's OK. I'm not cross (geddit?).
- JW Insider and Evacuated
-
2
-
10 hours ago, Anna said:On 2/5/2017 at 8:41 PM, Ann O'Maly said:
The case was not settled out of court. It was settled in a trial by jury. Watchtower (as was their right) appealed, and a panel of appeal judges overturned a part of the trial judgment. An appeal focuses on trial procedures and points of law, that they were applied properly in the trial. They don't determine again the validity of the evidence and testimony by witnesses.
You are wrong. The entire case ended up being settled out of court, ... ... ... ...
I'm not really a fan this new era of 'alternative facts' so I'll just say this:
The case was tried in court; the case was appealed in court; both Watchtower and Conti decided not to appeal the Appeal Court's decision. There has been no 'out of court settlement' because the entire case was settled in court.
10 hours ago, Anna said:On 2/5/2017 at 8:41 PM, Ann O'Maly said:If the elders did not assign Candace and Kendrick to perform FS together, yet they ended up together, then they were not properly monitoring him. Grossly negligent.
This would have be thrown out of court immediately as it was established that the elders had no duty to watch Kendrick. And it makes logical sense as the elders could not be expected to constantly monitor Kendrick. Very silly to even suggest that this would have been gross negligence.
Have you forgotten the Appeal Court's judgment? Here it is again:
"We therefore conclude that defendants had a duty to use reasonable care to restrict and supervise Kendrick's field service to prevent him from harming children in the community and in the Congregation." - p. 23
-
11 hours ago, Arauna said:
.It is not smart to reject a large body of work done by many scholars over more than a hundred and forty years for the researcher that you quoted above - who tells you what you want to hear. It is your choice.
The researcher was debunking a work because of his shoddy research. You make it out like there is a consensus of scholarship that takes the view that Muslims worship a moon god called Allah. There isn't. It's a smear campaign against Islam propagated by some fundamentalist, evangelical groups.
12 hours ago, Arauna said:What about the connected history if Ishmael (who Mohammad connected himself to) with half moon crescents!
What about it? It doesn't mean Allah was considered a moon god.
12 hours ago, Arauna said:... in the bible... You call it 'trinkets' ... but most archeology scientists first look in the trash of civilizations to find the "trinkets" or pottery shards with pictures or symbols on, to try to understand the culture? This is a major part of archeology!
OK. So where is the archaeological evidence for Allah being identified as the moon god?
12 hours ago, Arauna said:Why the moon and stars on their flags and the moon on their minarets?
It was inherited and taken over from the Ottoman empire in the middle ages. How do the symbols on a flag prove that Muslims worship the moon god?
12 hours ago, Arauna said:And what about the verse (which is left out of modern qur'ans) which refer to Allah and his three daughters?
What about it? How is this relevant?
12 hours ago, Arauna said:If ever there is a smoking gun it is in their own writings ...
The smoking gun from their own writings is that Allah cannot be a moon god and that Muslims are not permitted to worship the moon.
"And of His signs are the night and day and the sun and moon. Do not prostrate to the sun or to the moon, but prostate to Allah, who created them, if it should be Him that you worship." - Quran 41:37
-
22 hours ago, Arauna said:
I am sorry to say that in the academic world it has become fashion to bend the research to deny that Allah is in fact the moon god.
The 'research' that allegedly says Allah is the moon god is apparently bogus, as indicated above. Or do you know of an archaeological 'smoking gun' that directly links them? I only saw in your post hops, skips and wide jumps to tenuous connections between crescent shaped trinkets which were the fashion among some ancient Semitic civilizations and to some modern-day, controversial, work of fiction.
-
Wow! I saw this only once - a long, long time ago. Of course, this was in the days when it was all or nothing, black and white - no compromises, no blood fractions, zip, and I heard this movie caused quite a stink at the time.
Thanks for posting this, Jay.
-
8 hours ago, Eoin Joyce said:
However, there's nothing here to say that Jesus was not nailed to an upright stake, ...
The evidence suggests that an upright stake is the least likely option. But as was said, we cannot be certain what shape stauros Jesus died on. The problem is how the Org. has made it look as if the upright stake was the most likely (or only) option and ignored the rest of scholarship on the matter that demonstrates the opposite likelihood.
Quote... or that the symbol does not have pre-christian, pagan association.
Various depictions of cross shapes exist in all sorts of cultures, past and present, Christian and non-Christian. So?
QuoteAlthough the Society's illustrations still depict Jesus death on an upright stake, our current view is this:
The Bible doesn't describe it directly, but there are hints. Unfortunately, the rest of the Society's article stumbles into the same pitfalls as the Reasoning book does.
QuoteI'm not sure how this correlates to Christendoms veneration of the cross no matter how tacky the uses of what is simply part of a url.
I thought I explained. What is it you are unclear on?
-
On 2/6/2017 at 9:35 PM, Susan Ramirez said:
Dear Sisters,
At the risk of starting another firestorm, (which is not my intention), I would like to include some information about the crux ansata in this discussion.
rs p. 89- p.93
I started a new thread on this here:
-
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.
QuoteDear Sisters,
At the risk of starting another firestorm, (which is not my intention), I would like to include some information about the crux ansata in this discussion.
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.
Quoters p. 89- p.93
Cross
Definition: The device on which Jesus Christ was executed is referred to by most of Christendom as a cross. The expression is drawn from the Latin crux.
Why do Watch Tower publications show Jesus on a stake with hands over his head instead of on the traditional cross?
The Greek word rendered “cross” in many modern Bible versions (“torture stake” in NW) is stau·rosʹ. In classical Greek, this word meant merely an upright stake, or pale. Later it also came to be used for an execution stake having a crosspiece. The Imperial Bible-Dictionary acknowledges this, saying: “The Greek word for cross, [stau·rosʹ], 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. . . . Even amongst the Romans the crux (from which our cross is derived) appears to have been originally an upright pole.”—Edited by P. Fairbairn (London, 1874), Vol. I, p. 376.
"(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:
https://archive.org/stream/imperialbibledi00fairgoog#page/n402/mode/2upSo 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.
QuoteWas that the case in connection with the execution of God’s Son? It is noteworthy that the Bible also uses the word xyʹlon to identify the device used. A Greek-English Lexicon, by Liddell and Scott, defines this as meaning: “Wood cut and ready for use, firewood, timber, etc. . . . piece of wood, log, beam, post . . . cudgel, club . . . stake on which criminals were impaled . . . of live wood, tree.” It also says “in NT, of the cross,” and cites Acts 5:30 and 10:39 as examples. (Oxford, 1968, pp. 1191, 1192) However, in those verses KJ, RS, JB, and Dy translate xyʹlon as “tree.” (Compare this rendering with Galatians 3:13;Deuteronomy 21:22, 23.)
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.
QuoteThe book The Non-Christian Cross, by J. D. Parsons (London, 1896), says: “There is not a single sentence in any of the numerous writings forming the New Testament, which, in the original Greek, bears even indirect evidence to the effect that the stauros used in the case of Jesus was other than an ordinary stauros; much less to the effect that it consisted, not of one piece of timber, but of two pieces nailed together in the form of a cross. . . . It is not a little misleading upon the part of our teachers to translate the word stauros as ‘cross’ when rendering the Greek documents of the Church into our native tongue, and to support that action by putting ‘cross’ in our lexicons as the meaning of stauros without carefully explaining that that was at any rate not the primary meaning of the word in the days of the Apostles, did not become its primary signification till long afterwards, and became so then, if at all, only because, despite the absence of corroborative evidence, it was for some reason or other assumed that the particular stauros upon which Jesus was executed had that particular shape.”—Pp. 23, 24; ...
"(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.
Quote... see also The Companion Bible (London, 1885), Appendix No. 162.
"(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).
QuoteThus the weight of the evidence indicates that Jesus died on an upright stake and not on the traditional cross.
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.
QuoteWhat were the historical origins of Christendom’s cross?
“Various objects, dating from periods long anterior to the Christian era, have been found, marked with crosses of different designs, in almost every part of the old world. India, Syria, Persia and Egypt have all yielded numberless examples . . . The use of the cross as a religious symbol in pre-Christian times and among non-Christian peoples may probably be regarded as almost universal, and in very many cases it was connected with some form of nature worship.”—Encyclopædia Britannica (1946), Vol. 6, p. 753.
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.
Quote“The shape of the [two-beamed cross] had its origin in ancient Chaldea, and was used as the symbol of the god Tammuz (being in the shape of the mystic Tau, the initial of his name) in that country and in adjacent lands, including Egypt. By the middle of the 3rd cent. A.D. the churches had either departed from, or had travestied, certain doctrines of the Christian faith. In order to increase the prestige of the apostate ecclesiastical system pagans were received into the churches apart from regeneration by faith, and were permitted largely to retain their pagan signs and symbols. Hence the Tau or T, in its most frequent form, with the cross-piece lowered, was adopted to stand for the cross of Christ.”—An Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words (London, 1962), W. E. Vine, p. 256.
"(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:
http://www.hebrew4christians.com/Grammar/Unit_One/Pictograms/pictograms.html#Shocking, hey?
Quote“It is strange, yet unquestionably a fact, that in ages long before the birth of Christ, and since then in lands untouched by the teaching of the Church, the Cross has been used as a sacred symbol. . . . The Greek Bacchus, the Tyrian Tammuz, the Chaldean Bel, and the Norse Odin, were all symbolised to their votaries by a cruciform device.”—The Cross in Ritual, Architecture, and Art (London, 1900), G. S. Tyack, p. 1.
"(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.
Quote“The cross in the form of the ‘Crux Ansata’ . . . was carried in the hands of the Egyptian priests and Pontiff kings as the symbol of their authority as priests of the Sun god and was called ‘the Sign of Life.’”—The Worship of the Dead (London, 1904), Colonel J. Garnier, p. 226.
Around and around we go. This information is straight out of Two Babylons! Look:
https://archive.org/stream/worshipdeadoror00garngoog#page/n268/mode/2up
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.
Quote“Various figures of crosses are found everywhere on Egyptian monuments and tombs, and are considered by many authorities as symbolical either of the phallus [a representation of the male sex organ] or of coition. . . . In Egyptian tombs the cruxansata [cross with a circle or handle on top] is found side by side with the phallus.”—A Short History of Sex-Worship (London, 1940), H. Cutner, pp. 16, 17; see also The Non-Christian Cross, p. 183.
Again, what does this have to do with how Christians view the cross Jesus is believed to have died on?
Quote“These crosses were used as symbols of the Babylonian sun-god, [See book], and are first seen on a coin of Julius Cæsar, 100-44 B.C., and then on a coin struck by Cæsar’s heir (Augustus), 20 B.C. On the coins of Constantine the most frequent symbol is [See book]; but the same symbol is used without the surrounding circle, and with the four equal arms vertical and horizontal; and this was the symbol specially venerated as the ‘Solar Wheel’. It should be stated that Constantine was a sun-god worshipper, and would not enter the ‘Church’ till some quarter of a century after the legend of his having seen such a cross in the heavens.”—The Companion Bible, Appendix No. 162; see also The Non-Christian Cross, pp. 133-141.
This is a quote from the same Bullinger work discussed above.
QuoteIs veneration of the cross a Scriptural practice?
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.
QuoteIn ancient Israel, unfaithful Jews wept over the death of the false god Tammuz. Jehovah spoke of what they were doing as being a ‘detestable thing.’ (Ezek. 8:13, 14) According to history, Tammuz was a Babylonian god, and the cross was used as his symbol. From its beginning in the days of Nimrod, Babylon was against Jehovah and an enemy of true worship. (Gen. 10:8-10; Jer. 50:29) So by cherishing the cross, a person is honoring a symbol of worship that is opposed to the true God.
Here we go again. An allusion to Hislopian baloney.
QuoteAs stated at Ezekiel 8:17, apostate Jews also ‘thrust out the shoot to Jehovah’s nose.’ He viewed this as “detestable” and ‘offensive.’ Why? This “shoot,” some commentators explain, was a representation of the male sex organ, used in phallic worship. How, then, must Jehovah view the use of the cross, which, as we have seen, was anciently used as a symbol in phallic worship?" End of quotation.
And an upright stake is NOT phallic?
'Some commentators' - who? The Reasoning book doesn't enlighten us.
QuoteSo dear sisters, let's be careful to keep our worship to Jehovah clean and free from any influence of pagan worship that is detestable to him. I hope you all agree.
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.
- Srecko Sostar and JW Insider
-
1
-
1
-
1 hour ago, Arauna said:
A lot of people debunk things when it does not agree with their vision.
And a lot of people debunk things when they are unsubstantiated or based on false premises - like with many of Hislop's and Velikovsky's 'things.' It's a good exercise tracing their sources to see how much they've misused, misunderstood, or manipulated them to form an argument, or just simply made things up.
QuoteHe was smart enough to tie ancient Babylon and Sumerian culture to many of the ideas in modern Babylon
He may have been 'smart,' but his 'study' was colored by his utter hatred of the Catholic church and his 'Babylonian connections' were specious or plain fictional.
1 hour ago, Arauna said:I am glad you agree with me on one thing - that there were universal symbols for many things which was accepted by many countries. A good example today is the wedding ring - originally pagan - but we still use it as a symbol to show that we are married. Some countries they wear it on the left hand and in other on the right....This does not mean that we are pagans. Since it does not involve pagan rituals or participation in pagan rituals it has evolved as a universal symbol - we accept it as a sign of marriage. Same with the days of the month. We cannot throw absolutely everything out of the window - we are still in this world and we share it with people who do not believe in God.
Yes, happily we are on the same page here.
-
On 2/5/2017 at 7:30 AM, Arauna said:
there were also certain international symbols that had universal meaning.
... Consequently - one must not be quick to jump to conclusions about the unfaithfulness of Hezekiah. Remember that he was not a perfect servant of Jehovah and he was definitely not living in a vacuum.
Exactly! The ankh was simply an ideogram that meant 'life' in Egyptian writing. It's like a ❤️️ - a universal ideogram for 'love.' It doesn't mean Hezekiah attached any idolatrous significance to it. Of interest, an Israeli news site wrote:
"The symbols on the seal impression from the Ophel suggest that they were made late in Hezekiah’s life, after he had recovered from the life-threatening illness of shehin (boils), when the life-symbol became especially significant for him (ca. 704 BCE)."
Read more at https://www.breakingisraelnews.com/55293/jerusalem-excavation-reveals-2700-year-old-seal-israelite-king-jerusalem/#fOUaVM5mU1LcVpeM.99But we don't know to what kind of letter the bulla was attached. Maybe it was thrown away like an envelope is. Maybe the letter, complete with seal, was thrown away after the recipient had finished with it or in a clear out. We can only speculate. What we do know is that it is from King Hezekiah's time and has his name on it.
On 2/5/2017 at 7:30 AM, Arauna said:A few years back I read a translation of a tablet wherein it was written that the Assyrian army suddenly died out from 'pestilence'. That was their explanation for what happened to their soldiers. It also was faith strengthening to realize that this really happened.
You're perhaps thinking of Josephus, Antiquities X. 20-21, where he quotes from Berossus. Unfortunately, this extract from Berossus' work is otherwise lost. Herodotus, Histories II.142 says it was a plague of mice that gnawed through their weapons to render them useless, but in this account the event took place at Pelusium.
3 hours ago, Arauna said:there is much controversy about the Carbon dating of artifacts.
Carbon dating works well for the era under discussion here. The method works up to about 50,000 ya.
3 hours ago, Arauna said:If you want to check out the meanings of the symbols on this find you can read parts of the book: The Two Babylons by Alexander Hyslop.
... Dr Velikovsky's books were some of the first that created a furore! ... and there are more scholars who agree with Velikovsky!
Both of these authors books have been debunked. Pseudo-history. Pseudo-science. And not even the Organization quotes Hislop any more - not for decades now. I checked Hislop's claims about different kinds of cross signs and their origins in detail and found that he'd just cobbled together some similar-looking symbols from across several civilizations' artifacts and imagined a Babylonian connection. Complete nonsense.
Regarding David Rohl, his departure from conventional dating is much further back in time than Hezekiah's and is often dealing with patchier timelines. Chronology from particularly 8th century BCE onwards is pretty well established.
-
On 1/30/2017 at 11:45 PM, Anna said:On 1/17/2017 at 8:46 PM, Ann O'Maly said:
I don't know how you conclude that the police believed this was a one-time occurrence. Do you have documentation stating this?
So they let him lose knowing he would re-offend? That he would go on to molest other children?
You don't have documentation, then. You do not know what the police concluded. No matter what they concluded, they could only act according to the law at the time.
Quote[Ann] As I keep saying, if they really believed that, they would not have testified that they were keeping a close eye on him. There's no need to closely watch an individual's interactions with children if you don't think the individual poses any potential danger.
[Anna] And as I keep saying, they did this as an extra precaution
An extra precaution for a non-existent danger? Your conclusion doesn't make sense. We shall leave it there as we cannot agree on this point.
Quote[Ann] See Abrahamson's and Clarke's testimonies on Day 1, May 29, 2012 transcript, pp. 114, 207-8. Day 2, May 30, 2012 transcript, p. 26. Their acknowledgement of Kendrick's potential to abuse again are implicit in their answers.
[Anna] On Page 117 of the aforementioned transcript Abrahamson is asked : “Were they the (cong) aware of the fact that he (Kenddrick)posed a threat to children of sexual abuse?
Abrahamson: “We didn't see that he posed a threat to children”
Page 207
Q Did you consider Jonathan Kendrick, then, to be a child molester after this meeting with the family in 1993?
A. Child molester?
Q. Yes
A: Well, he abused his daughter. So, yes, he is a child molester.This is no proof that Abrahamson believed Kendrick would molest again. He merely stated a fact, that Kendrick was a child molester because he had molested a child.
Abrahamson acknowledged the possibility that Kendrick would molest Andrea again on page 114.
Q. What did you do to protect Andrea from further abuse?
A. We removed Jonathan as a ministerial servant. And at that meeting, we tried to comfort Andrea and let her know that she was simply a victim. She wasn't at fault. She wasn't the reason. But we are very sad that she had become a victim of child abuse.
Q. Because this abuse occurred in the home of a congregation member and members, how would removing Mr. Kendrick as a ministerial servant have protected Andrea from further abuse?
A. Well, we hoped that our meeting protected Andrea from further abuse.
Q. Did you provide any advice to Evelyn Kendrick in how to keep Andrea safe in the future?
A. I can't -- it is hard to remember everything way back there. But I would assume that I told her that it is important to set propriety in the house, rules of conduct, and that it would be inappropriate for Jonathan to be in a room alone with Andrea. But I can't remember saying that. But I hope I would have.Despite Abrahamson's further testimony on p. 117 that the elders didn't consider Kendrick to pose a threat to children, when questioned, the other elders indicated otherwise (references already cited).
Quote... there May 30, 2012 transcript, p. 26 doesn’t indicate anything about any elder believing Kendrick would re-offend. You must have got your page wrong
Here is Clarke's testimony on p.26 of the May 30, 2012 transcript:
Q. Now, you mentioned that you and Mr. Abrahamson and the other elders were going to keep a close eye on Jonathan Kendrick, after you learned in 1993, of his abuse of his stepdaughter. Correct?
A. Correct.
Q. And you took it upon yourselves to protect other children in the congregation from further abuse by Mr. Kendrick?
A. I don't think that is a fair statement.
Q. Okay. You don't agree with that?
A. No. We don't just take it upon ourselves. We educate the families. They have to be aware too.Note that Clarke does not contradict Simons' assessment that the elders considered there was a potential for further abuse. Clarke objected to Simon's assessment that the elders were taking it upon themselves to prevent it. Therefore, Clarke implicitly agreed that there was potential for Kendrick to further abuse the congregation's children.
Quote[Ann] Lamerdin said he didn't consider Kendrick to be a danger to children in the congregation (and here comes the important bit) because they were keeping an eye on him to make sure everything was fine (Day 2, May 30, 2012 transcript, pp. 179, 199). He doesn't suggest that he thought Kendrick would not try it again.
[Anna] Q. Did you consider Mr. Kendrick, in 1993 until he left the congregation, to be a danger to children in your congregation?
A.No. As a matter of fact, we kept an eye on him to make sure that everything was fine, and there was no issue that came up after that, that warranted anything to lead us to think that way.Again, it is evident that the elders did not think Kendrick would molest again or even try.
Your conclusion doesn't follow from what Lamerdin answered. He answered that the elders were keeping an eye on Kendrick (unnecessary if he posed no further danger).
The reason for Lamerdin's belief that Kendrick posed no further danger to congregation children was expressed on p. 199:
Q. Now, you mentioned that you did not consider Mr. Kendrick to be a danger before the molestation of his stepdaughter?
A. Right.
Q. And you did not consider him to be a danger to molest other children afterwards because you were keeping an eye on him?
A. Yes.
Q. Did you consider him to be a danger to molest children after 1993, after the stepdaughter report, at times when you, perhaps, didn't keep an eye on him?
A. I really couldn't comment on that.Lamerdin confirms that the reason Kendrick posed no further danger, in his view, was due to the elders 'keeping an eye on him.' He refused to comment on whether he or the elders considered Kendrick to be a danger when they weren't looking. That refusal to answer is also an answer.
Quote[Ann] No such legal duty to watch over Kendrick that included warning the parents. The extract continues: ...
[Anna] Regardless whether it included warning the parents, it still stands the same, they had no legal duty to watch Kendrick.
I provided the extract of the appeal judgment that says the opposite.
QuoteHowever, the elders were responsible to make sure that during so called "Church sponsored activities" a child would be safe.
Right.
QuoteBut this is my point of contention, I do not believe that Kendrick was allowed to work in field service with a child,- as one of the elders said - to do so would have been suicide. I have no doubt that WT would have been able to defend that part of the accusation. Unfortunately, the whole case concentrated so much on the issue of supposed duty to warn, so much so that the appellant (WT) was not given a chance to refute the field service situation. This is why WT appealed, and after wining that appeal for punitive damages, it was going to appeal again, and this time defend the field service point properly and present proof and arguments as to why it was impossible for Kendrick to have molested Candace during field service. However, before anyone could appeal, the case was settled out of court.....Interestingly...
The case was not settled out of court. It was settled in a trial by jury. Watchtower (as was their right) appealed, and a panel of appeal judges overturned a part of the trial judgment. An appeal focuses on trial procedures and points of law, that they were applied properly in the trial. They don't determine again the validity of the evidence and testimony by witnesses.
The bare bones of the matter are these:
Candace testified that,
- her dad would sometimes drop her off at the KH to meet with the FS group (who officiated at the KH group?);
- sometimes Kendrick volunteered to take her to meet with the FS group (so they arrived together - were they ever split up?);
- the FS groups were predetermined by the elders (FS is, therefore, an elder-directed activity);
- they would get their territories and go out (who assigned the territories?).Carolyn Martinez verified that,
- Candace and Kendrick were together in FS on more than one occasion;
- people knew where to go for FS because the elders made the assignments (therefore, it's an elder-directed activity).The elders testified that,
- there was a written policy that prohibited molesters working with children in FS (although this claim could not be substantiated);
- the congregation would never have allowed Kendrick to partner Candace in FS (indicating they had control over who Kendrick paired up with);
- Kendrick was not allowed to go out in FS without an elder present (again, indicating they personally monitored Kendrick's FS activity).Conclusions:
If the elders had the level of monitoring they claim they had over Kendrick's interaction with children during congregation-sponsored FS, yet Kendrick and Candace were seen together in FS, then logically, the elders must have assigned Candace and Kendrick to perform FS together. Grossly irresponsible.
If the elders did not assign Candace and Kendrick to perform FS together, yet they ended up together, then they were not properly monitoring him. Grossly negligent.
-
On 1/25/2017 at 4:40 AM, Fmadriaga said:
it may be a seal for a gift to King Hezekiah from Egypt. who knows, will it matter?
Who knows, someone might find that's its a fraud or whatever.
A seal was to authenticate the identity of the sender. If it was a gift from Egypt to Hezekiah, it would have the Egyptian sender's name on it - not Hezekiah's.
"The seal of the king was so important. It could have been a matter of life or death, so it's hard to believe that anyone else had the permission to use the seal," Eilat Mazar, who directs excavations at the City of David's summit, told CNN."Therefore, it's very reasonable to assume we are talking about an impression made by the King himself, using his own ring."... Other bullas bearing the name of King Hezekiah have been seen on the antiquities market. However, the others are not as important because they were not found by archaeologists and therefore may not be genuine, according to Mazar. - http://edition.cnn.com/2015/12/03/middleeast/king-hezekiah-royal-seal/So it looks like this seal's the real deal. -
On 1/25/2017 at 1:38 AM, Susan Ramirez said:
In the meantime, we can only rely on the information that the governing body has provided for us.
Why?
"The Governing Body is neither inspired nor infallible. Therefore, it can err in doctrinal matters or in organizational direction." - Par. 12, https://www.jw.org/en/publications/magazines/watchtower-study-february-2017/who-is-leading-gods-people-today/
Different thread, I guess.
On 1/25/2017 at 1:38 AM, Susan Ramirez said:W 10 7/15 pp. 12-15
"... Rabshakeh’s accusation was false, for Hezekiah had not made an alliance with Egypt.
On 1/25/2017 at 2:59 AM, Bonny Sanders said:To the person who suggests Hezekiah could have compromised with Egypt, this is what the 2005 Watchtower says on the subject:
18:19-21, 25—Had Hezekiah made an alliance with Egypt? No. Rabshakeh’s accusation was false, ...
These are merely assertions. On what scriptural or archaeological evidence were these assertions based?
On 1/25/2017 at 1:38 AM, Susan Ramirez said:W 10 7/15 pp. 12-15
"... Also, remember that Eliakim, Shebna and Joah were told not to reply to the Rabshekah at all. "But they kept silent and did not say a word to him in reply, for the order of the king was, “You must not answer him.” ... So perhaps that is why his claims were not refuted."
The writer(s) of Kings and Isaiah didn't refute it either - and he/they could have done. Perhaps the claims were true. And we have the seals that are suggestive of an alliance.
On 1/25/2017 at 1:38 AM, Susan Ramirez said:it-2 893-895 Sennacherib
[...]
This area was in a state of general rebellion against the Assyrian yoke. Among those who had rejected such domination was King Hezekiah of Judah (2Ki 18:7), though there is no evidence to show that he was in coalition with the other kingdoms in revolt.
[...]
An Assyrian inscription accuses the people and nobles of the Philistine city of Ekron of having handed their king Padi over to Hezekiah, who, according to Sennacherib, “held him in prison, unlawfully.” (Ancient Near Eastern Texts, p. 287; compare 2Ki 18:8.) The inhabitants of Ekron are described as having petitioned Egypt and Ethiopia for help to stave off or thwart the Assyrian attack."
Well, if Hezekiah was keeping pro-Assyrian king Padi locked up in a Jerusalem prison, then Hezekiah must have been "in coalition with other kingdoms in revolt"! Why was Assyria punishing Judah if Hezekiah had been meekly submitting to the Assyrian yoke all that time?
-
I can't believe nobody's said this yet:
THAT'S NO MOON ...
-
When you do the math, the majority of Jewish exiles were stuck in Babylonia for about 60 years (or 80 years according to WT time). So what do you mean 'one-year period'?
-
22 hours ago, Susan Ramirez said:
Please check out this info on JW.org. It appears that Hezekiah did not make an alliance with Egypt. If you can find something else that confirms he did, please post it here. Thanks
Hi Susan. I'll refer you to my reasoning here:
We have the seals with Hezekiah's name and Egyptian symbols on which are suggestive. We have Rabshakeh in the Bible who used Judah's alliance with Egypt (as well as Judah's trust in YHWH) as part of his psychological manipulation to argue that both supports were useless. It would have been ineffective to use an argument intended to reduce the enemy to jelly-kneed submission based upon bad intel. And nobody contradicted him. There's nothing in the text to indicate Hezekiah had not formed an alliance. Thus, the evidence is weighted to the 'alliance' side.
Or can you provide evidence that he did not?
ALLAH – the Moon God
in Topics
Posted
Vaguely waving your finger around at 140 years' worth of archaeology and saying I'm uniformed tells me nothing. Which archaeological findings directly indicate Allah was considered a moon god by Muslims? Are you able to cite any credible research?
This also tells me nothing. Where are the links between crescent-shaped trinkets that ancient, pre-Islamic polytheists wore on the one hand, and Allah and moon worship in monotheistic Islam on the other? There is a huge evidential and logical chasm you need to fill here.
So show me the verse in the Quran that is inconsistent with the thoughts in 41:37 (also cf. 7:54 and 13:2). Does the Quran suggest anywhere that moon worship is OK and that Allah is a moon god?
This isn't consistent with your claim about Allah = moon god. If Mohammad was trying to get his people away from idol worship, why make the moon an idol, and why distinguish between the two?
He didn't change god's name. As was mentioned before, Allah is etymologically related to the Semitic El - a generic designation for 'god' or 'deity.' See http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=allah. So Al-ilah literally just means 'the God.'
Of course not. The moon and stars are part of humanity's collective memory. They are constants in the night sky. And the Arabs, incidentally, were phenomenally good astronomers who contributed to our scientific understanding of the cosmos.
Anyway, so far, I've found your arguments for an Allah-moon god identity to be based on little more than thin air, I'm afraid.