JW Insider

I tried to copy the website page which only had a couple of duplicates, but a when I pasted it almost every picture was on there two or three times. I didn't bother to delete more than about 5 of them because I didn't know which picture went with which bit of text. I just deleted a few more duplicates, but still didn't bother to see if the pictures go with the property description. It's probably an automated lookup that creates the page and it grabs updated and near duplicate listings as separate listings. I have been hearing that 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.

https://www.loopnet.com/locations/kingdom-hall-of-jehovah's-witnesses/listings/ This LoopNet Kingdom Hall Of Jehovah's Witnesses tenant and owner information is organized and aggregated from public records and the millions of historical and current sale and lease listings provided by members of the LoopNet commercial real estate marketplace. To see how to get complete access to all of this Kingdom Hall Of Jehovah's Witnesses listing and property information, register for free: 250 miles 500 km Terms © 2018 HERE, © 2018 Microsoft Corporation 3161 Oro Bangor Highway Oroville, CA Very well maintained church building, with 171 padded seats, carpet, sound/video system with new very large cloth screen, office, room for n... $199,000 3,354 SF Bldg 1.14 AC Religious Facility 211 Spring Hill Road Trumbull, CT 4.97 acre approved for 30,000 sqft. office complex. One 10,000 sqft building, one 20,000 sqft building. Some site work has been completed... $1,350,000 4.97 AC Office (land) 513 Rock Creek Rd Toccoa, GA Exceptionally Well Maintained. MOVE IN READY. New roof, less than a year old. New carpet and paint. 2 new AC units. Full price offer in... $199,900 2,880 SF Bldg 0.77 AC Religious Facility 23385 Patterson St Clinton Township, MI Meticulously Maintained Bldg-Beautifully Landscaped-Many Uses i.e. Office Bldg, Banquet Hall, Restaurant, Church, Funeral Home, etc. Ceramic... $387,000 4,471 SF Bldg 1.01 AC Religious Facility 23385 Patterson Clinton Township, MI Meticulously Maintained Commercial Bldg-Beautifully Landscaped Has Potential for Many Uses! Could be Office Bldg, Banquet Hall, Restaurant,... $387,000 4,471 SF Bldg 1.01 AC Office Building 23385 Patterson St Clinton Township, MI Currently being used as a place of Worship. Meticulously Maintained Bldg-Beautifully Landscaped-Many Uses i.e. Office Bldg, Dentist Office,... $259,900 4,471 SF Bldg 1.08 AC Office Building 4215 W. Carson City Rd. Greenville, MI Newer, well maintained, retail building. Which has been used as an automobile dealership. High traffic on M-57 corridor. Very pleasant surro... $249,900 5,300 SF Bldg 0.75 AC Office Building 2237 Sherwood Avenue Tarboro, NC Solid building with numerous potential uses. Currently used as a church, but could be office, fraternal or community building, funeral home,... $275,000 5,040 SF Bldg 1.10 AC Religious Facility 501 San Clemente NW Albuquerque, NM Recently (2004) remodeled 3430+/-SF Building, Fully Fenced & gated, newer cement parking lot. Refrigerated Air, open floorplan, up to date l... $425,000 3,430 SF Bldg 0.90 AC Religious Facility 312 Unser Blvd NE Rio Rancho, NM " Free standing building with lots of excess land for expansion " Signalized intersection - Great signage potential - 23,600 VPD on Un... $849,000 3,200 SF Bldg 1.20 AC Free Standing Bldg 104 Buckner Road Dover, TN Turn key church. Immediate possession. Could easily be converted to office or restaurant. Space to seat over 200. Central alarm and fire pr... $249,900 3,915 SF Bldg Religious Facility 4950 Williams Rd Benbrook, TX PRICE REDUCED $30,000 BELOW APPRAISAL!!! 2 Story Property being used for religious meetings, Main Level has an auditorium for about 150, and... $425,000 7,700 SF Bldg 1.10 AC Office Building No Photo 23788 FM 1314 porter, TX APPROX. 1.24 ACRES IN VERY, VERY BUSY TRAFFIC AREA. NEXT DOOR TO ESTABLISHED AUTO PARTS STORE. IT HAS APPROX 100 FT FM 1314 FRONTAGE AND 110... $215,000 1.24 AC Commercial/Other (land)

I think it might be useful at some point to discuss the "Letter of Barnabas" ("Pseudo-Barnabas") in more detail. Not to defend it or even to defend its assumption that the Stauros was T-shaped. I think you will have noticed that there have been more statements recently from the WTS, even the recent JW Broadcast, that indicate that we can sometimes find points of value and interest in these "early Christian" writings. And even where clearly apostate, it should not hurt us to be able to discern some of the history of these apostate inroads into pure Christianity. I read Pseudo-Barnabas and see a lot of problems with it, some of which you have mentioned, and which have been pointed out by scholars for more than a hundred years. But I also see some amazing parallels to the type of thinking that was popularized by Seiss, Russell and Rutherford, most of which later had to be discarded since their time. Most of the letter, as I read it, is tainted, but you can still see what Christianity must have meant to a large segment of Christian-associated society in the second century, who valued this letter. I think the second century was a critical one to understand, especially in light of how Jesus' prophecy about the visitation of judgment on Jerusalem (their synteleia/parousia) was seen in the context of the universal synteleia/parousia to follow. I don't find "Barnabas" to be inspired at all in his take on Jesus' prophecy, and I do find First and Second Peter to be inspired. Yet it's quite possible that Barnabas was written well before these two letters of Peter were completed, and they include a similar topic: a commentary on statements we can find in Matthew 24. Treating it generally as a "rotting carcass" might make a certain amount of sense, but not so much sense when we compare it with the striking parallels in say Volume 3 or even Volume 7 of Studies in the Scriptures, or later comments of Rutherford. I think the latter were comparatively worse, when it comes to the amount of truth, or "signal to noise" ratio, one could glean from these later publications. And yet I would never think of those WTS volumes as a "rotting carcass," but rather a product of the thinking of a segment of Christian-associated society in the late 19th and early 20th centuries.

I hope no one was thinking that any comparison was being made (by Luke or Origen) to true Christians. The comparison was always between what was being practiced by the seven sons of Sceva, and what was being practiced by the "bad men" in Origen's reference. We don't know much about the success rate that the Scevason boys had in their exorcisms prior to their attempts to add the pronunciation of Jesus to their repertoire, but it doesn't matter. We know that Jesus would reject some who claimed to cast out demons in his name and say he never knew them. We also have the verses in Mark saying: (Mark 9:38-40) John said to him: “Teacher, we saw a certain man expelling demons by the use of your name and we tried to prevent him, because he was not accompanying us.” 39 But Jesus said: “Do not try to prevent him, for there is no one that will do a powerful work on the basis of my name that will quickly be able to revile me; 40 for he that is not against us is for us. Not really knowing anything about their motives, I'll limit my comparison the the original reason I gave for comparing them. True. If, as we say, 99% of apostate Christianity calls itself Christian, then even the word "Christian" itself has become a brand mark of "Christian" apostasy. But it's also the term that true Christians should use. Apparently, a brand mark representing a small fish could have also survived as a brand mark of Christian apostasy, but I agree that dual-beamed cross symbol is the most popular brand mark, whether this was the incorrect version of the instrument of Jesus' death, or the correct version. You have already said that we don't know for sure. I sometimes wonder why no one ever thought to create a "compendium" (staurogram, christogram, etc) that made use of the letter "I" which was the actual initial of Jesus' name, and which would have been rationalized against the words of Paul: (1 Corinthians 1:17-18) For Christ dispatched me, not to go baptizing, but to go declaring the good news, not with wisdom of speech, that the [STAUROS] of the Christ should not be made useless. 18 For the speech about the [STAUROS] is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it [the STAUROS] is God’s power. (1 Corinthians 1:22-24) 22 For both the Jews ask for signs and the Greeks look for wisdom; 23 but we preach Christ's [STAUROS], to the Jews a cause for stumbling but to the nations foolishness; 24 however, to those who are the called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. (1 Corinthians 2:2) For I decided not to know anything among you except Jesus Christ, and [his STAUROS]. Combining those words of Paul (which the unsteady were already twisting to their own destruction) it would have been easy to imagine creating a symbol from the "I" of "Iesous" and the possible "I" shape of the "STAUROS" and try to symbolize that they were following Jesus, who also, like Paul, is seen treating the STAUROS as a "symbol." (Mark 8:34) . . .“If anyone wants to come after me, let him disown himself and pick up his [STAUROS] and follow me continually. Would it be right to assume that your primary reason for favoring a one-beamed cross is not so much about the variety of uses of the term STAUROS, but because the two-beamed cross has long been associated with apostate Chrsitianity? Associated with this might be the fact that the Watchtower displayed the two-beamed STAUROS, or cross, for about 52 years, and has since has dropped the symbol, due to its association with apostate Christianity. The original reason that Rutherford spoke out against the CROSS however, was that it was so closely associated with the cult of "Russell worshipers" and Russell often spoke about this need to remove the Russellite cult elements from the Bible Students. The Leolaia paper, on the first two pages, reminds us that Rutherford campaigned for 8 years against this symbol of the dual-beamed CROSS while still teaching that Jesus had died on a dual-beamed CROSS. The symbol was removed from Watchtower covers after 52 years of showing, but even this was at a time when the WTS still taught that Jesus had died on a traditional two-beamed CROSS. That situation reminds of the time we are in now, where we don't like something because of its idolatrous associations, but we still haven't reached a point where the have the scholarship to back up our reasons to dismiss the possible "fact" of the stauros. But I have a feeling that, due to the way the Watchtower has worded the topic, that many Witnesses have already come to assume that the scholarship is there already. That could easily make other Witnesses think that even my own acceptance of the evidence in favor of a two-beamed stauros is somehow related to promoting the use of the symbol, or even promoting idolatrous worship. So our current stance is understandable. "Flee from idolatry" should have a high priority and based on our correct prejudices against anything used in idolatry, it would be very difficult to imagine the WTS ever looking into whether the dual-beamed stauros might have more scholarly, historical and linguistic support. We might rightly hope that it does not.

LOL! You are even pickier than I was about this phrase. Immediately after writing it, I looked back on it and literally said to myself, "Wait, I can't use the word 'similar' because @Outta Here might even point out that Origen referred to successful pronouncers of Jesus' name and Acts/Luke refers to failed pronouncers of Jesus' name." (Or words to that effect.) In fact, I nearly re-edited the word "similar" on the spot to "related" but didn't because I had said: Similar idea in Acts from the seven sons of Sceva. This idea "from" the seven sons of Sceva is that they, too, wanted to be successful and effective pronouncers of Jesus' name. And, of course, the Origen quote that you offered is from the same article that's attached to the picture of the coin-like amulet. And this particular quote from Origen starts immediately after the quote from Acts about the sons of Sceva. (Both references start 4 to 7 lines further down in the article from the point where the picture left off, but still seen here: https://larryhurtado.wordpress.com/2011/10/13/the-staurogram-correcting-errors/) In any case, I was offering a point about how we do not immediately deny the accuracy of all information that comes from mystical or apostate sources. As you indicate, we might even expect that someone transforming themselves into an "angel of light" may get a lot of things right, while misusing and misapplying other things. I believe you are here admitting that this is a similar idea between both Origen's examples and the seven sons of Sceva. And the same point again that one of those apostate legends might have been that Jesus had been executed on a crux simplex, as the Watchtower has promoted for several years now. This does not mean that the Watchtower itself is apostate, but that we must always be on the lookout for mistakes in our teachings that might have been tainted by false or apostate thinking. Otherwise we would not need the following admonition: (Colossians 4:17) . . .“Pay attention to the ministry that you accepted in the Lord. . . (1 Timothy 4:16) Pay constant attention to yourself and to your teaching.. . . (Hebrews 2:1) . . . That is why it is necessary for us to pay more than the usual attention to the things we have heard, so that we never drift away. (Philippians 4:5) Let your reasonableness become known to all men.. . . True. But standing for something that is right and then drifting away from that stand is the basic, simplest definition of "apostasy" based on the meaning of the word in Biblical Greek ("standing from"). We don't have to be an apostate to be affected by apostasy. You will recall that we now believe that when the Watch Tower publications promoted the celebration of Christmas and birthdays that they were not being apostate, but that it was a matter of getting something wrong due to the long effects of apostasy. Also, recall that you had said: "And whether consciously or not, given the spirit behind apostates, the inroads are far too subtle for humans to discern strategically. " You were speaking of the writer of the Letter of Barnabas specifically and pointing out the possibility that he could have been consciously or unconsciously transforming himself into an angel of light, and therefore we would expect that misleading or false information would be combined with information that was very true. But your statement just quoted shows the difficulty in discerning such subtle inroads. Therefore, I never claimed that Rutherford was apostate, but that he got clearly got some things wrong due in part to the supposedly indiscernible inroads of apostasy. If they are not humanly discernible, then we must even more carefully follow those "pay attention" scriptures just quoted, and perhaps that's the best we can do. Your logic admits that there may still be much humanly indiscernible apostasy anywhere. Personally, I have stated my belief that choosing between one or the other direction based on the preponderance of evidence is merely a choice that comes out of "letting our reasonableness be known" "guarding our hearts and our mental powers" and "paying close attention to ourselves and our teaching." It does not mean that either choice is an apostate choice, yet you did bring up that one of the choices might be related to apostasy. So I merely state the obvious: that if it's humanly indiscernible, then we don't really know which set of evidence is the one that might be leading us in that direction. But we do know that by paying closer attention the Watch Tower publications could have avoided being led astray from a more correct stand on Azazel,* pyramids, the superior authorities, the "generation that will not pass away," 1874, 1878, 1881, 1910, 1914, 1915, 1918, 1925, the 6000 years, the Elder arrangement, the Gentile Times, Zionism in Palestine, the identity of the faithful and discreet slave, etc. And who is to say how many issues remain, if they are truly indiscernible? *Azazel was just an example that "Letter of Barnabas" evidently had right, then J H Paton got wrong in Russell's Watch Tower magazine, then Russell himself came closer to our current teaching, then Rutherford drifted back in the direction of Paton's teaching, and now, today, by coincidence, we are closer to the "Letter of Barnabas" in our current teaching.

That might be true, but then we'd have to be concerned if this was not also true of Rutherford who promoted the idea that Azazel referred to Satan instead of Jesus. Or even the idea promoted more recently that the stauros associated with the execution of Jesus was not a two-beamed stauros, but a ("cheap shot" alert) simple, phallic-shaped pole.

I know what you mean, but to clarify, the Scriptures never term the implement of Jesus' execution as an upright stake. Interesting that this "Letter of Barnabas" not only mentions the T-shaped stauros, but he also mentions about Jesus: "for it was necessary that He should suffer on the tree." The WTS publications have sometimes implied that these terms stauros and xylon [wood/tree] must be restricted to their simple meanings. Of course, the WTS publications never insist on this simplicity when it doesn't fit an existing understanding. Something like that was already seen with the word "hand." But it even happens with the word xylon itself, which in classical Greek can refer to: logs, timbers, trees, benches, wood market, a length measurement, something disgraceful/shameful, a pillory, punishment stocks, wooden club, etc. (Leolaia, p.8). This idea, although claimed in WTS publications, is contradicted in our own KIT:

Turns out this was very common. I read in both Frank Shaw's and Larry Hurtado's and in reviews of other scholars' books that re-use and re-purposing of gemstones/jewelry for such purposes had a long history. Kind of like putting a copper penny into one of those machines that smashes it, stamps a message on it, and makes it ready for a charm bracelet. Similar idea in Acts from the seven sons of Sceva. (Acts 19:13-15) But some of the Jews who traveled around casting out demons also tried to use the name of the Lord Jesus over those who had wicked spirits; they would say: “I solemnly charge you by Jesus whom Paul preaches.” 14 Now there were seven sons of a Jewish chief priest named Sceʹva doing this. 15 But in answer the wicked spirit said to them: “I know Jesus and I am acquainted with Paul; but who are you?” And again, we don't automatically assume that they, for example, must have mispronounced Jesus' name or Paul's name just because they might have been doctrinally unsound, pseudohealers, who were contaminating the true message of Christianity. In fact, we might imagine that they were trying very hard to get their facts just right so that their magic would be effective. The use of a cross on a spiritistic gemstone can just be another piece of evidence of what some thought was common knowledge. The comments on Hurtado's blog from outsiders make a similar point with reference to the Alexamenos Grafitti displayed earlier: ---------------remainder of post is excerpt taken from comments here: https://larryhurtado.wordpress.com/2011/10/13/the-staurogram-correcting-errors/ David Coulter permalink Actually, one of the very earliest pictures of Jesus we have is a satirical piece of graffiti depicting a man worshipping the crucified Christ (though Christ is portrayed with a donkey’s head): http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c2/Jesus_graffito.jpg It’s thought to date from somewhere between the first to third century, and includes the caption “Alexamenos worships God.” larryhurtado permalink Yes, although it isn’t a representation by a Christian, but by a pagan mocker. But I think it certainly suggests that Christians referred to Jesus’ crucifixion “on the street”, and that (contra some assertions) it was a part of popular-level Christian discourse and devotional practice, such that the anonymous pagan who drew this graffito knew of the centrality of Jesus’ crucifixion for Christians. David Coulter permalink I agree. The “artist” obviously sees the crucifixion as the iconic, immediately recognizable image of Christianity.

True enough about the Letter of Barnabas. I pretty much agree with the assessment. But we don't find the Letter of Barnabas trying to convince anyone about the shape of the stauros. He does not produce a teaching about the stauros. So it really shows that someone associated with Christian teaching, in just a few decades following Christ's death, merely assumed that the shape of Jesus' stauros was already common knowledge. He didn't think it was necessary to discuss or overcome any teachings about an upright stake vs a T-shaped stauros. So in this sense we aren't concerning ourselves with his teachings. And, besides that, we surely we don't dismiss all his teachings and interpretations either just because they weren't specifically described in the Bible. For example, "Barnabas" teaches that the "Goat of Azazel" pictures Jesus Christ. This is not specified in the Bible, and one might even think that the goat selected for the Atonement Day sacrifice is the one representing Christ, and the scapegoat represents something else. But we accept this teaching that "Barnabas" accepted not because he taught it, but because we assume it was common knowledge that fits the general view of those who associated themselves with the teachings of Christianity. Of course, at one time the Watchtower taught that the goat of Azazel represented those turned over to Satan the Devil for destruction with "no atonement." But we have gone back to full agreement with the Letter of Barnabas.

The picture in the book might be right. Based on the usual rules of evidence and logic, it is probably wrong (in my opinion, of course). I disagree with you that the Greek word with the basic meaning of hand cannot also include the wrist. I disagree that if the meaning of the term for "hand" can include the wrist that the translators must use the term "wrist" just because they think it's more likely to refer to the wrist portion of the hand. This is because it is not obvious that the term could ONLY have meant the wrist and not the rest of the hand. Sometimes in English we have these ambiguities between terms, and we may not understand that these ambiguities sometimes occur with words in other languages where they would not occur in English. For example, we have the terms for fingers and thumbs. You have 5 fingers on a hand, so if we learned that someone in history had chopped off a finger, should we think of the possibility that it was the thumb? If a non-English speaker believes there was a 90% chance it was the thumb, should he translate it thumb, when finger is still accurate 100% of the time? The wrist could be included with the Greek "hand" in the same way that the thumb could be included with the English "fingers." What is WRONG, in my opinion, is to make a statement that "Jesus died on an upright stake that did not have a crossbeam." Again, this might be true. But it is false and wrong to claim that it is true. It is false to even imply that there is no depiction of Jesus on a two-beamed cross until the 4th or 5th century, when there is evidence to the contrary.

True. And neither am I aware of any successful challenge to the view depicted in the earliest known writings, descriptions and depictions of the stauros. The earliest known view of Jesus' execution refers to the Tau shape. That's from the first or second century "Letter of Barnabas." All other subsequent references to the shape of Jesus' execution stauros also describe a T shape and/or a T shape with a lower crossbar. All the Biblical references (which do not describe the shape) make perfect sense if it is depicting a T shape or a T shape with a lowered crossbeam. I am referring not only to the use of term "nails in his hands" but also the fact that the 'King of the Jews' sign was depicted as above his head, not above (or below) his hands. Also the fact that the description of the execution procession closely matches the Roman punitive use of the patibulum which invariably refers to the arms being stretched out to each side, perpendicular to the body. So far, no one has successfully challenged this earliest known view. Also, it appears there are not even any hints of anyone ever attempting to challenge that view from any of the earliest centuries C.E. up until very recently. And we would have to say that the Watchtower has also been unable to successfully challenge that view due to apparently depending on statements which can be shown to be false, in order to reach that view. A successful challenge cannot be dependent on false statements.

Jesus gave accurate knowledge about the more important things. He gave that knowledge to the apostles and had it written down so that we would have the same access to the more important things through the Scriptures. Having accurate knowledge about a lot of other things is nice, but it wasn't what Jesus had in mind. The very fact that there are teachings of higher priority than others was already shown in this verse from John quoted earlier. Also, the point is made in more detail in Hebrews: (Hebrews 5:12-6:3) . . .For although by now you should be teachers, you again need someone to teach you from the beginning the elementary things of the sacred pronouncements of God, and you have gone back to needing milk, not solid food. 13 For everyone who continues to feed on milk is unacquainted with the word of righteousness, for he is a young child. 14 But solid food belongs to mature people, to those who through use have their powers of discernment trained to distinguish both right and wrong. 6 Therefore, now that we have moved beyond the primary doctrine about the Christ, let us press on to maturity, not laying a foundation again, namely, repentance from dead works and faith in God, 2 the teaching on baptisms and the laying on of the hands, the resurrection of the dead and everlasting judgment. 3 And this we will do, if God indeed permits. I take it that we have most of the more important things in order. These additional details are just "nice-to-haves." And I see a lot of progress, not enough yet, but still a lot of progress on removing the less important things that we have admitted to getting wrong.

I would not risk it. You have relatives in the organization. It's not that this one point on its own should get you disfellowshipped, but remember that you are dealing with imperfect judges. On questioning, even if you are in agreement with the current "cross/stake" understanding, someone could still believe that you're taking issue with this "little thing" and this means that you are therefore unfaithful in "big things." They might therefore ask you if you truly believe that the Governing Body is the equivalent of the Faithful and Discreet Slave that was appointed in 1919. You and I and others here could easily see what might be wrong with the question and explain a position that is perfectly in line with Scripture and should satisfy the elder. But it's an imperfect system and won't always work out as planned. You could easily let slip something that causes the elder not to hear anything else you say. Anonymous is still safest. And I'd look for an innocuous angle that could encourage a re-evaluation by the researchers or writers in the Writing Department. But it shouldn't admit that you yourself have researched the question and come to a different conclusion. That implication is worse for sisters than for elders. But couched in the question of a Bible student (if it's true) or if it is merely a question about how something confused someone, then this might have a desired effect -- assuming that the desired effect is to encourage a new and more comprehensive evaluation of all available evidence. I sent an anonymous letter earlier in the year to a specific member of the Governing Body. I did not admit to reading Hurtado, of course, because that could immediately prejudice this brother. As soon as he would look up the author he would find easily several reasons to reject anything related to his books. So, I based a question on the wording of this particular article: *** w08 3/1 p. 22 Why Do Jehovah’s Witnesses Not Use the Cross in Worship? *** Why Do Jehovah’s Witnesses Not Use the Cross in Worship? Jehovah’s Witnesses firmly believe that the death of Jesus Christ provided the ransom that opens the door to everlasting life for those who exercise faith in him. (Matthew 20:28; John 3:16) However, they do not believe that Jesus died on a cross, as is often depicted in traditional pictures. It is their belief that Jesus died on an upright stake with no crossbeam. I said that putting this reason right up there at the front as if it were the real foundation of why we don't use the cross in worship seems confusing. Surely, we don't deny the that the sun is a bright round object in the sky with rays of light beaming from it. Pagans might depict it this way and worship it, but the thing that is wrong is not how they depict the sun, but it's the fact that they feel a need to venerate the sun, a creation, as if it were itself a god or the creator. So what does it matter if more evidence might come to light that indicates that the "stauros" was actually a two-beamed cross as depicted in traditional pictures?

I have trouble finding evidence of that. Can you post some links? Not much, so perhaps I shouldn't have said "well-known." But I think this is a place to start, based on the "Leolaia" PDF: The second semantic expansion probably occurred around the second century B.C. or sometime thereafter. During the Punic Wars (264-146 B.C.), the Romans encountered the Phoenician version of crucifixion and swiftly appropriated it as a means of capital punishment for slaves. . . . the Romans converted it into a brutal torture machine. This was accomplished by adding a second piece of wood called the patibulum to the execution stake, as well as a thorn-shaped sedile upon which the victim rested his weight. [J. B. Torrance, The New Bible Dictionary, ed. by J. D. Douglas, et. al., (Grand Rapids, M.I.: Eerdmans, 1962), p. 279.] Then the Leolaia article gives an example of the use of the patibulum alone for a slave's torture in the first century BC from Dionysius of Halicarnassus quoted from "Roman Antiquities." (which is very similar to the description given in the Bible about Jesus' punishment). There is no evidence here of the patibulum also being suspended on an upright pole, although the practice of displaying executed slaves and criminals on a pole as a warning for years prior to this had been known. But Plutarch spoke of the the patibulum attached to the pole of a wagon to prop it up. This easily produces an image of a two beamed cross as a method of torture. Even though the wagon's beam is kept basically horizontal to the ground, and not upright, the slave would still need have the patibulum attached as a crossbeam. Otherwise he would need to walk sideways if his arms (stretched out on the patibulum) were attached to the wagon in the same direction, rather than nearer to a perpendicular angle. The entire idea of the word patibulum as used in Latin implies a certain "perpendicular" use when used as a torture device, but this was probably because it is perpendicular to the upright standing body. I see that the same Leolaia author has provided a few pages worth of references on the Latin word patibulum here: https://www.jehovahs-witness.com/topic/211929/patibulum-fragile-theory?page=6 Part of the idea shows how common it was in the first centuries after Christ's execution, and then uses these proven connotations of the associated vocabulary to show how the same meaning makes perfect sense of quotes that come from a century or so prior to Christ's execution. That's not a perfect method, but the evidence favors the conclusion, especially because some of these ideas were built into the language associated with executions as far back as the third century BCE. I'll reproduce a chunk of the quotation below for those who would prefer not to go an "apostate" source. But first just three of the quotes found in the PDF. (I have not taken the time to double-check the longer quotes I added to the end of the post.) The primary quotes to indicate a two-beamed torture device would come from Plautus who lived mostly in the third century B.C.E. The PDF contains a few quotes that give the full picture when pieced together. Frateor, manus vobis do. Et post dabis sub furcis. Abi intro--in crucem. I admit it, I hold up my hands! And later you will hold them up on a furca. Do go along in for crucifixion! Credo ego istoc extemplo tibi esse eundum actutum extra portam, dispessis manibus, patibulum quom habebis. I suspect you're doomed to die outside the gate, in that position: Hands spread out and nailed to the patibulum. Patibulum ferat per urbum, deinde adfigatur cruci. I shall bear the patibulum through the city; afterwards I shall be nailed to the crux. ---------------- Here are some longer relevant quotes from jehovahs-witness.com forum to finish off this post -------------------- Thus within the story, the character threatened with patibulum-bearing understood it as pertaining to crucifixion. And just before this scene, immediately before the entrance of the character who would threaten him with patibulum punishment, Sceledrus stated his fear that his master would "put me up on the cross (sustollat in crucem)" (line 309). So it is clear here that patibulum-bearing is connected with crucifixion. The second reference to patibulum-bearing in Plautus can be found in Mostellaria, where the jealous slave Grumio threatens his rival Tranio: "Oh sieve of the executioners (carnuficium cribrum), I believe they will pierce you with goads through the streets (per vias) with you attached to a patibulum (patibulatum), as soon as the old man returns" (Mostellaria, 55-57). The reference to executioners indicates that capital punishment is in view here. Then in line 352, Tranio announces the return of his master Theopropides (the old man referred to by Grumio) and he is sure that he is doomed to execution, just as predicted by Grumio (erus advenit peregre, periit Tranio). Then he offers money to anyone at the party willing to take his place: "I’ll give a talent to that man who shall be the first to run to the cross (in crucem excucurrerit) for me but on the condition that his arms and legs are double-nailed (offigantur bis pedes bis brachia)" (lines 359-360). The context thus relates Tranio’s expected carrying of a patibulum through the streets with Tranio’s expected hastening forwards (excurrere) to the crux where his arms and legs would be nailed. And then at that end of the play, Theopropides himself declares that Tranio would be crucified: "I’ll have you carried to the cross (ego ferare faxo in crucem), as you deserve" (line 1133). All of this shows that Grumio’s reference to patibulum-bearing pertains to crucifixion. The third reference is in the play Carbonaria (Fragmenta, 2) "Let him carry his patibulum through the city (patibulum ferat per urbem), and then be fastened to the cross (deinde adfigatur cruci)". This makes explicit what was implicit in the other two passages; patibulum-bearing for the punished slave ends with crucifixion. The historian Licinius (first century BC) also made a similar comment: "Bound to patibula they are led around (deligati ad patibulos circumferuntur) and they are fastened to the cross (et cruci defigntur)" (Historiae Romanae, 21). If these people are fastened to the cross while still bound to patibula, then this implies the addition of the patibula to the cross; there is no mention here of their removal. Since Plautus describes patibulum-bearing as involving a pose of hands spread out to the side, the addition of the patibulum to the cross would produce the same pose on the cross itself, which is precisely the kind of pose described in crucifixion on a stauros or crux by Seneca, Lucian, Tertullian, and others. The Lex Puteoli Inscription (first century BC) is somewhat ambiguous because it is unclear whether it describes patibulum-bearing or workers bringing patibula to the execution site: "Whoever will want to exact punishment on a male slave or female slave at private expense, as he who wants the punishment to be inflected, he exacts the punishment in this manner: If he wants to bring the patibulum to the cross (in crucem patibul[um] agere), the contractor will have to provide wooden beams (asseres), chains, and cords for the floggers and the floggers themselves. And anyone who will want to exact punishment will have to give four sesterces for each of the workers who bring the patibulum (patibul[um] ferunt) and for the floggers and also for the executioner. Whenever a magistrate exacts punishment at public expense, so shall he decree; and whenever it will have been ordered to be ready to carry out the punishment, the contractor will have gratis to set up crosses (cruces statuere), and will have gratis to provide nails, pitch, wax, candles, and those things which are essential for such matters" (II.8-12). As you point out, this may simply be a matter of workers bringing the patibulum along with other materials to set up the execution apparatus, in which case it wouldn't refer to patibulum-bearing. Even if this is the case, this is still a matter of the patibulum being brought to the crux, which is itself set up (statuere) at the execution site, so it is clear here that patibulum is not synonymous with crux. But John Cook (NT, 2008) makes a pretty convincing case that the inscription refers to patibulum-bearing by the victim. The verb agere, which is loosely translated "bring" by Cook, has more of a sense of "impel, push", which is intelligible in the case of forced patibulum-bearing involving floggers (indeed, it is the usual word for referring to the driving of animals under a harness or yoke). The floggers may thus have been the workers who move or impel the patibulum to the cross by flogging the slave carrying it. Since patibul[um] is incomplete in the text, it is also possible that the word was patibulatum and the sense is "If he wants to impel the person attached to the patibulum to the cross". The phrase in crucem agere, in fact, occurs elsewhere, where it pertains to the person condemned to the cross: "You dared to lead someone off to the cross (in crucem tu agere ausus es)" (Cicero, In Verram 2.5.163), "He was led off to the cross (in crucem ageretur)" (Cicero, In Verram 2.5.165), "The student is led off to the cross (agitur paedagogus in crucem)" (Calpurnius Flaccus, Declamationum 23), "A prostitute leads off to the cross her slave who is in love with her (meretrix servum suum amantem se in crucem agit)" (Calpurnius Flaccus, Declamationum 33), etc. As for Seneca, he describes (in Consolatio ad Marciam 20.3) the spreading out of the arms on a patibulum as a pose that can be beheld in crosses (cruces), and as mentioned earlier, he also mentions this same pose when referring to the crux itself (De Ira 1.2.2). In your reply to my post, you make reference to Seneca's De Vita Beata, 19.3 as using the word crux interchangeably with stipes. If true this does not militate against viewing the patibulum as an object brought to the crux, for we have already seen that Plautus, Licinius, and the Lex Puteoli speak of the patibulum being brought to the cross, whether bound to a prisoner or not, and since crucifixion did not necessarily involve crossbeams either, the simple stipes was just as legitimately a crux as a cross with a crossbeam. But as argued above, I do not believe that Seneca conceives of a simple cross in this passage nor is necessarily using the word stipes interchangeably with crux. The stipes was mentioned in a reference to the compelling of prisoners to the crucifixion site: "When brought to punishment (ad supplicium acti) they suspend each individual on a stipes (stipitibus singulis pendent)". This uses a form of agere, the same verb used in Cicero, Calpurnias Flaccus, and in the Lex Puteoli. If Seneca was thinking of the compelling of a patibulatum (a person bound to a patibulum), as suggested by the use of patibulum later in the same passage, then indeed the patibulatum would have probably been taken to a stake (stipes) set up at the execution site (cf. Cicero, In Verram 2.5.66, 169 on the rather permanent installation of crosses at execution sites outside the city). At any rate the stipes is what the person was suspended on, whether bound to a patibulum or not. And since Seneca elsewhere used the term patibulum in connection with hand-stretching and since the given passage uses the word distrahere "to draw in different directions, divide apart" to describe the stretching out of the victim on the crux (reminiscent of the use of distendere in reference to the stretching apart of limbs on the crux in De Ira), I do think indeed that Seneca is envisioning a crux that has a crossbeam in place. Finally, it is not clear that Seneca had a crux simplex in mind in Epistula 101. If he did, it would not have been a reference to suspension on a stake by nailing the hands and feet but rather a literal impaling of the body internally on a pointed stake (which Seneca did call a crux in in Consolatio ad Marciam 20.3), for Maecenas' prayer and Seneca's comment on it concern the victim sitting (sedere) on the piercing cross (acutam crucem). But Justus Lipsius' interpretation of this passage as pertaining to internal impalement on a sharpened stake is not conclusive. It is equally feasible to interpret the passage as relating to the thorn-like sedile ("seat") on which the victim rested his or her weight. Justin Martyr (Dialogue, 91) described the crucified (hoi stauroumenoi) as riding atop a horn (keras) in the middle (en tò mesò), Irenaeus (Adversus Haereses 2.24.4) similarly referred to the victim as reposed (requiescat) on one of the five points of the cross (crucis summitates habet quinque), and Tertullian (Adverses Nationes 1.12) described the cross as having both a crossbeam (antemna) and a "projecting seat" (sediles excessu). A cross with such a resting block installed would appropriately be a "piercing cross". Maecenas also uses the verb suffigere in his reference to crucifixion (suffigas licet et acutam sessuro crucem subas, "You may nail me up and set my seat upon the piercing cross"), which could feasibly refer to impalement but which normally (along with adfigere and figere) has reference to nailing in crucfixion contexts. In his comment on Maecenas, Seneca describes this kind of execution as a "lingering death" (diu mori), where one would "waste away in pain (tabescere), dying limb by limb (perire membratim), letting out his life drop by drop, rather than expiring once for all" (Epistula 101.13-14). This too seems like a more appropriate description of crucifixion (which most agree involved a rather long, gradual death) instead of internal impalement (which probably brought death quickly). The reference to "dying limb by limb" is also indicative of crucifixion, as it involves the nailing of limbs, something not involved in internal impalement.

I suppose you are referring to the fact that most Witnesses think that "spirit-directed organization" refers to the idea that the persons responsible for directing the WT organization would therefore have a greater measure of Jehovah's holy spirit, or at least a special measure of holy spirit specifically for the work of guiding and directing what counts as "spiritual food." *** wp17 No. 1 p. 15 Is It Just a Small Misunderstanding? *** The holy spirit also moves more knowledgeable Christians to come to the aid of those seeking greater understanding.—Acts 8:26-35. *** w17 February p. 24 par. 5, 10-14 Who Is Leading God’s People Today? *** Christians in the first century recognized that the governing body was directed by Jehovah God through their Leader, Jesus. How could they be sure of this? First, holy spirit empowered the governing body. (John 16:13) Holy spirit was poured out on all anointed Christians, but it specifically enabled the apostles and other elders in Jerusalem to fulfill their role as overseers. For example, in 49 C.E., holy spirit guided the governing body . . . . In 1919, three years after Brother Russell’s death, Jesus appointed “the faithful and discreet slave.” For what purpose? To give his domestics “food at the proper time.” (Matt. 24:45) Even in those early years, a small group of anointed brothers who served at headquarters in Brooklyn, New York, prepared and distributed spiritual food to Jesus’ followers. . . . . the Governing Body to focus on providing spiritual instruction and direction. Evidence of holy spirit. The holy spirit has helped the Governing Body to grasp Scriptural truths not previously understood. . . . Surely, no human deserves credit for discovering and explaining these “deep things of God”! The Governing Body echoes the apostle Paul, who wrote: “These things we also speak, not with words taught by human wisdom, but with those taught by the spirit.” . . . . can anything other than holy spirit explain the rapid increase in spiritual understanding since 1919? Evidence of angelic assistance. The Governing Body today has the colossal task of overseeing an international preaching work involving over eight million evangelizers. Why has that work been so successful? For one, angels are involved. What I think that many persons might find confusing here is that the article specifically used examples of how wrong we have been in the past as proof of the direction of holy spirit, otherwise how would the Governing Body have been able to make so many changes to its own false doctrines. The same article included these words: The Governing Body is neither inspired nor infallible. Therefore, it can err in doctrinal matters or in organizational direction. In fact, the Watch Tower Publications Index includes the heading “Beliefs Clarified,” which lists adjustments in our Scriptural understanding since 1870. Of course, Jesus did not tell us that his faithful slave would produce perfect spiritual food. So how can we answer Jesus’ question: “Who really is the faithful and discreet slave?” (Matt. 24:45) What evidence is there that the Governing Body is filling that role? Let us consider the same three factors that directed the governing body in the first century. 13 Evidence of holy spirit. The holy spirit has helped the Governing Body to grasp Scriptural truths not previously understood. For example, reflect on the list of beliefs clarified that was referred to in the preceding paragraph. Surely, no human deserves credit for discovering and explaining these “deep things of God”! I think the biggest source of confusion is the contradiction between the idea that we don't yet have perfect knowledge and yet Jesus promised his disciples: (John 15:26-16:13) 26 When the helper comes that I will send you from the Father, the spirit of the truth, which comes from the Father, that one will bear witness about me; 27 and you, in turn, are to bear witness, because you have been with me from the beginning. . . . . For if I do not go away, the helper will not come to you; but if I do go, I will send him to you. . . . 13 However, when that one comes, the spirit of the truth, he will guide you into all the truth, for he will not speak of his own initiative, but what he hears he will speak, and he will declare to you the things to come. The contradiction is pretty obvious: The Governing Body claims to be directed by holy spirit; The holy spirit was supposed to guide Christians into all the truth when it was poured out in 33 CE after Jesus was no longer present; The Governing Body admits to a long list of errors going back over 100 years; Many of these new errors and false doctrines were introduced after Jesus was supposed to be present again in 1914. The Second Adventists (and Seventh Day Adventist branch) resolved the issue by calling their false doctrines "Present Truth." If doctrines were found to be false and therefore changed, then the new doctrines were "present truth" and those past false doctrines were "present truth" at the time, even if time proved them to actually be false. Clever! It was based on a mistranslation/misinterpretation of 2 Peter 1:12. But in the tradition of Second Adventists, we (Bible Students/JWs) also needed to adopt the same solution, especially because we were promoting pieces of a chronology that was continually being proven false. For many years, the Watchtower used 2 Peter 1:12 to defend the idea of "present truth." We now admit that it was based on a mistranslation/misinterpretation. But it remained in Watchtower vocabulary for many years. At one time the doctrine has been so important it was capitalized. *** w52 4/1 p. 219 An International Assembly in Rome *** those who had already come to the truth must keep up with present truth. They must appreciate what the Lord provides through his organization and study diligently. *** yb88 p. 139 Korea *** The Watch Tower of August 15, 1914, printed a fascinating letter addressed to Brother Russell, stating: “I am a stranger to you in one sense; but I came to a knowledge of Present Truth through your writings just twenty-two months ago. For some time I have been anxious to write and tell you of my special appreciation of the Truth, but circumstances did not permit until now. The real solution, I think, is found in Jesus' words about what the "spirit of truth" would lead them to. Truth is not the same as "accurate knowledge." Jesus said it would focus on three things: the truth about sin, righteousness and judgment: (John 16:7-11) . . .For if I do not go away, the helper will not come to you; but if I do go, I will send him to you. 8 And when that one comes, he will give the world convincing evidence concerning sin and concerning righteousness and concerning judgment: 9 first concerning sin, because they are not exercising faith in me; 10 then concerning righteousness, because I am going to the Father and you will see me no longer; 11 then concerning judgment, because the ruler of this world has been judged. For other things, like this issue of cross vs stake, we should have absolutely no problem telling the truth about it. The truth is that we cannot be dogmatic. The truth is that we don't really have proof one way or another. It is NOT the truth to say that "Jesus was therefore executed on a single upright stake." But the truth is very accessible. All we have to do is say that, based on current evidence, Jesus may have been executed on a single upright stake, but there is also evidence that he may have been executed on a dual-beamed cross. It appears that both of these methods, and several others, could fall within the meaning of the term "stauros" found in the Scriptures. So we have no reason to believe that holy spirit has not already led Christians "into all the truth." We even know the truth about cross versus stake.

The PDF linked earlier, "Jehovah's Witnesses and the Cross" Leolaia, 1990, speaks of semantic restriction by which some Watchtower doctrines have developed by focusing on only the simplest etymological meaning of a word like parousia or stauros or xylon, etc. In the case of "hand" there was found good reason to go with semantic expansion to fit our traditional beliefs on the subject. Of course, this is not the only way that we (and, frankly, all Christian-associated religions and others, too) solve problems of textual understanding. We could have used the method of resolving apparent contradictions by merely making up a third story that allows for a strict sense of the text to be true. For example, we have two versions of the death of Judas in the gospel accounts: (Matthew 27:5-8) . . .So he threw the silver pieces into the temple and departed. Then he went off and hanged himself. 6 But the chief priests took the silver pieces and said: “It is not lawful to put them into the sacred treasury, because they are the price of blood.” 7 After consulting together, they used the money to buy the potter’s field as a burial place for strangers. 8 Therefore, that field has been called Field of Blood to this very day. (Acts 1:18, 19) 18 (This very man, [Judas] therefore, purchased a field with the wages for unrighteousness, and falling headfirst, his body burst open and all his insides spilled out. 19 This became known to all the inhabitants of Jerusalem, so that the field was called in their language A·kelʹda·ma, that is, “Field of Blood.”) To accommodate a strict-sense reading of both versions, we merely make up a third story that makes both versions true. We say that Judas bought the field in the sense that he provided the money even though others bought it. We also say that Judas hung himself but since there is no mention of falling in the first, and no mention of hanging in the second, we say that while hanging himself the branch broke and he died from the fall when his body burst open.* So the WTS could have solved the supposed problem created by a strict-sense use of the word "hands" by merely adding a third story, not in the text, that Jesus may also have been bound to the stake in addition to being nailed. I read of a Roman slave carrying the patibulum through the public streets on their way to execution and having that patibulum tied to the arms of the slave. The patibulum of course, could become the crossbeam of an upright stake. The fact that no third story like this, however plausible, has been suggested tells me that "semantic expansion" has been the solution, and this is the easiest idea to support from the Greek and from Scriptural usage of "hand." *I think it's "funny" that when Papias (60 AD - 130 AD?) went to Palestine hoping to find first-hand corroboration of some of these early accounts he discovered completely different versions. For example, Judas was supposed to have blown up so big and fat, like a balloon, that he burst asunder and all his guts (fecal matter) were spread around. (His weight could have been part of a "third story" solution that explained a breaking branch!) The versions Papias learned told of Judas in this same condition, I think, being run over by a chariot (so that his fecal matter spread around on the ground). Mentioning the spread of someone's fecal matter as a most disgusting death was not limited to pagans. It is very explicit in the account of how Ehud kills "fat king, Eglon." And it's implicit in the idea that dogs ate up the body of Jezebel in the plot of Jezreel. I saw this at https://www.gotquestions.org/nails-hands-wrists.html While historical scholars are uncertain of the nail placement in Jesus’ crucifixion, or anyone else’s for that matter, the Bible simply says that Jesus had wounds in His hands (John 20:25-27). The Greek word translated “hands” is cheir, which means literally “hands.” There is no Greek word for “wrists” in the New Testament, even though some versions translate Acts 12:7 to say that the chains fell off Peter’s wrists. But the Greek word in this verse is also cheir. It's possible that the nails may have been angled to enter through the hand and exit through the wrist, but it's just as likely that the nails were driven straight through the hand somewhere near the base of the thumb. Experiments have shown that both ways do work and either way could have been used in the crucifixion of Jesus. I have also read that the "experiments" were some "scientist" nailing up cadavers to test the theory. Evidently just the hands alone actually could support the weight of any corpse he tried. Weird science.

Based on information from one of the sources of this image collection, evidently these are "images of Christian martyrs tortured (not executed) at poles or pillars, in Migne's Patrologia Latina, vol. 60."

The particular artwork came from Ethiopia, probably around 1900 using a style/format for religious art that had been current since the 1500's. The idea comes from John 19:1 which says: (John 19:1-2) Pilate then took Jesus and scourged him. 2 And the soldiers braided a crown of thorns and put it on his head . . . Then, near the end of the same chapter, John refers to a later event from the same day: (John 19:25) . . .By the [STAUROS] of Jesus, however, there were standing his mother and his mother’s sister; Mary the wife of Cloʹpas and Mary Magʹda·lene. This is depicted on the very next panel of the same folded parchment.

Interesting that the Hebrews would have called it "warp and woof." Wiktionary says of this term (red emphasis mine): Noun. warp and woof (countable and uncountable, plural warps and woofs) The threads in a woven fabric, composed of the warp (threads running lengthwise) and woof (threads running crosswise) to create the texture of the fabric. In other words criss-cross, using two different directions at 90 degrees. Makes you wonder how much experience at that time they had with crosses made of criss-crossed beams as opposed to a simple upright stake. The reference of warp and woof comes from creating cloth material on a loom, which also required conspicuous crossbeams at 90 degrees to the rest of the apparatus.

I'm trying to figure out the reason for the word "however" as if these points indicate some potentially different conclusions. Going to a part of his blog where some of these statements are made https://larryhurtado.wordpress.com/2011/10/13/the-staurogram-correcting-errors/ I see that his first point is simple: Contrary to the idea 100 years ago when Tau-Rho was considered just another Christogram like Chi-Rho, we now have textual evidence that Tau-Rho is much older: We have instances of the Christian use of the tau-rho considerably earlier than any instances of the chi-rho. These earliest uses of the tau-rho are in Christian manuscripts palaeographically dated ca. 200-250 CE. In fact, as you quoted: tau-rho served a very different purpose from chi-rho. They are not freestanding symbols that one would use to represent a symbol for Christ, but were clearly a way to depict and represent the word for CROSS and CRUCIFY within some of the earliest texts of the Christian Greek Scriptures. This is what is significant and different about the staurogram. You quoted point #3 that stated this again more directly. It's possible you are concerned here, as you show yourself to be later, that a superimposed tau-rho was adapted from pre-Christian usage. Of course, the dual-beamed cross itself (as an instrument of torture/execution) is well-known from pre-Christian usage. Even the "nomina sacra" were adapted from the pre-Christian usage, where Jewish copyists sometimes wrote Theos in Greek with only the beginning Theta and the closing Sigma, skipping the vowels -- or perhaps even the Yod-Yod, to abbreviate a Hebrew Tetragrammaton.This is similar to the practice some Jewish writers still follow in English when they write G-d for God. That practice predated the practice in Christian texts of doing the same for Theos, and something similar for Lord, and Jesus and Christ. And the practice of using abbreviations was most well-known on coinage where space is at a premium. I'm not sure if this bit of knowledge means something to you, one way or another. You call it "disturbing" later. Why? I'd like to know, too. Those who actually study the age of manuscripts based on their materials and style of lettering and clues from the contents (including vocabulary and abbreviations) will put most of these examples in the 200 to 250 CE range. Some of the arguments that would place at least one of them to a later century are often the same arguments that could place them even earlier. They are often just arguments for the lack of accuracy of paleographic methods. But the exact date of the manuscripts is not so important to the overall evidence. The point is that the shape of the stauros associated with Jesus' execution is depicted and described very few times that we know of in the first 4 centuries. Basically, it's the Letter of Barnabas, Clement of Alexandria, Justin Martyr, Tertullian, Eusebius, and these staurograms in texts that might date between 175 to 300 CE. In every case where the shape is discussed, the consensus is a Tau-shaped or t-shaped stauros for the execution of Jesus Christ. And this is not ALL the evidence, of course. The way that words are translated into other languages during the earliest translations of the CGS/NT can also provide good information. Archaeology can tell us a few things, including a probable cross found at Pompeii, and the graffiti depicted earlier. Even the lack of discussion or controversy about the shape can be revealing. And contemporary historical references about Roman execution practices can have a bearing, too. Remember, too, that if it were somehow important to note that this date is closer to the fourth century than the first century, then what does this say about the earliest known discussions of a "I" shaped, or pole-shaped stauros with reference to Jesus' execution? For all I can tell, those discussions might first be known only from many centuries later than the fourth century. Therefore, whatever importance we give to the "lateness" of these depictions of a two-beamed cross only further hurts the argument for a one-beamed cross. In addition, if the shape of the stauros were a double-beamed cross shape, then it seems very reasonable that idolatry-oriented associates of Christians would adapt it to the existing ankh symbol for life, and the existing tau-rho symbol. Related somewhat to the ankh symbol ("life" etc.) Hurtado, in the book I quoted, also believes that IH, the first two letters of Jesus in Greek formed an adaption of the Hebrew word for life which also could appear quite similar to IH, read in the opposite direction. And while Hurtado is not a promoter of gematria, he sees the possibility that it may have been intentional in some NT texts. He even mentions that Matthew's attempt to split the genealogical groups before and after David to conform to a mnemonic of 14 generations each, could very well be because "David" in Hebrew is 14. But we do know for sure that "Barnabas" was big on gematria, and he would have had a much easier time if the stauros could have been considered in the shape of an upright pole that would therefore represent "10". Too bad for him that he was stuck trying to fit the stauros in somewhere --anywhere!-- as a "300" instead of a "10." All he had available was an obscure reference to the number of Abram's slaves in Genesis, and he could do very little with it except make a note of it. There would have been dozens of interesting options available if the stauros were some other shape. Beyond those points I agree with all your later points. Pushing for a specific answer one way or another is not useful as we still have no way of knowing for sure. There were already simple meanings of stauros and xylon which never got expanded upon much in the Bible text itself, and speculating in any way that insists on a specific conclusion will end up in nothing useful. I have to admit that there is a certain iconoclastic satisfaction that I probably held inside for many years when I thought about how so many people had it wrong, and I just knew we had it right based on unquestioning acceptance of our own publications. Perhaps it would be somewhat satisfying to get that feeling back again, but it's probably for the wrong reasons. There's just a hint of pride and presumptuousness and judgmentalism, bordering on schadenfreude, in that idea that we are right about something and 99% of Christendom has been wrong about one of their major symbols. Besides, we would still know better than to make a big deal about the shape or the symbol even if we did accept that Jesus was executed on a stauros of the two-beamed variety.

Do you have a citation for this? I'm not saying he didn't do this, I just never saw the evidence. It makes sense that Christians would not necessarily advertise their Christianity with an open symbol until they had a legal standing in the Roman Empire. Of course, they were also known to preach their Christian faith, so this could imply a contradiction. I suppose it's possible considering he was an Emperor and had access to all Roman records, some still written on tablets, scrolls and kept in libraries. He would have had the full works of known historians along with those long since lost and forgotten. But if he did not know, he apparently would have accepted the word of Christians like Eusebius who had himself bragged about his own large library of historical works, and that of other historians and scholars. And potentially he still had access to speak with the very grandchildren of first century Christians. In fact, Eusebius speaks of the experiences of Papias a Christian who lived between 60 CE and 160 CE, and who made visits to Palestine for the very purpose of finding witnesses to first century events. That could be true. Of course, we already have a record of what was done specifically to humiliate Jesus in great detail. If this use of an upright stauros instead of a two-beamed stauros was such a powerful symbolic feature of the humiliation, then it certainly seems worthy of recording in the Bible, rather than leaving us to speculate beyond what is written. That's exactly right. We should really explore the entire range of meaning of the Greek word, similar to how we have explored the range of meaning of the Greek word for "hand." I think that a discussion of the PDF that the Librarian referenced provides meanings and utilization of the word, in addition to the basic meanings you provided. In addition we have resources quoted that give us a better context for the rituals of execution that have been related to execution by stauros. I hadn't seen all of this before when Ann O'maly linked it, but I just finished it, and might have time to discuss tomorrow.

OK. But this was not 400 years after Christ, it was supposed to be October 27, 312, which is about 279 years after Christ and only about 213 years after the traditional death of last apostle (John).

Per the Greek, the translation is correct, and matches most others in this regard. They assume there were two nails, and that there was a place through "the hands" where one of those two nails passed through. The assumption about the wrist is very possible. Evidently the traditions about washing of hands refers to a practice of washing the hand and arm up to the elbow. And other examples from the Bible have already been given. From years ago, I remember discussions of an assumption that a nail in the hand(s) would not hold Jesus weight and would rip through. This is probably assumed to be true whether stretched out like a traditional cross or upright. Personally, I think the "physics" problem goes away with two nails, one in each hand, and therefore wrists aren't a necessary assumption. I give weight to the written Biblical evidence the same as you apparently do, but it is not unusual for Christians of all backgrounds in every generation to make certain assumptions about the meaning of a word or phrase, when that meaning can vary. I think the assumptions in this case are unnecessary, but this is only one of literally hundreds of places where the meaning could be ambiguous even if it can (and should?) be read in a more straightforward way, too. I think about the arguments early Christians must have had over whether the Hebrew word for "young woman" needed to be translated "virgin." (LXX vs Hebrew) Or how Christians since the beginning have looked at two slightly divergent accounts and had to come up with an assumed third story to try to resolve the apparent contradiction. Assumptions and acceptance of variations in meaning have been a part of interpreting and translating since the beginning of Christianity. No one can avoid it, and it might be much more common than you think. Being different is no doubt considered very important, and this was a good opportunity with some evidence behind it. The clearly correct point is that we don't venerate objects like a cross. Another point of difference is that we look for ways to see Jesus Christ himself in a different light compared to the other religions of Christendom. Others venerate Jesus himself, taking away from the devotion due to the Creator himself. Turning the ideas of Christendom "upside down" is one reason "the GB" have looked so hard for evidence that contradicts the common views of other religions. That picture is an interpretation based on some assumptions. The assumptions might be valid.

At least he's not just "phoning it in." (Perhaps you were looking for "phone-y" witnessing. )

You beat me to it. I had to be out for most of today, but hoped to come back to @JOHN BUTLER to remind him that this is just my opinion based on the evidence. I lean one way because the evidence I've seen is slightly more convincing to me in that direction. But this does not mean that someone else (GB?) can't see the same evidence, and the majority of them lean the other way, per our own traditional stance on it since Rutherford's time. To John, I would say that this Staurogram, and graffiti evidence too, cannot take us back much before 200 CE even if the evidence is exactly as old as some scholars still claim. As you point out from the words of Paul, even if evidence showed that this was as early as 50 CE, it still wouldn't be "proof." It could very well have been one of the ways in which "lawlessness" was already at work. After all, there is no doubt that the veneration of a cross symbol crosses the line into idolatry. And through syncretism with older traditions, the cross would have been a much more recognizable symbol with a richer history for veneration than a plain "I" symbol. And warnings about idolatry run from Paul's letters right up through (and througout) Revelation. You hit upon most (perhaps all) of the weaknesses of the Staurogram evidence, and these might have already been taken into consideration by those who have researched the current position as outlined in the WT publications. The actual earliest evidence appears to be the argumentation in the Letter of Barnabas which scholars have not tried to date much later than 120 or 130. And there is no solid evidence to claim it was later than 75 or 80 either. "Barnabas" is big on gematria, of course, and this could even be one of the areas that letters to Titus and Timothy reference when they speak of things like being "obsessed with arguments and debates about words." (1 Tim 6:4). There's even a slim chance that it was this very book (and books like it) that were being challenged here and in Titus 3:9, etc. Even so, it would not change the fact that a T shaped stauros is built into the argument as an aside, along with this early discussion of how T and then IH would create the number 318 (T=the stauros and the IH symbol which was already in use as a reference to IHSOUS -Jesus.) Many years later in Christian copy of Genesis, the numer 318 comes up as the number of Abram's slaves: (Genesis 14:14) 14 Thus Aʹbram heard that his relative had been taken captive. With that he mobilized his trained men, 318 servants born in his household, and went in pursuit up to Dan. The much later Genesis manuscript treats the number 318 here as a "nomina sacra" just as Barnabas had discussed upwards of 300 years earlier. BTW, I also wanted to mention that Hurtado deals with the fact that just because a scholar gave these terms the name "nomina sacra" it doesn't mean that they were all considered to be the equivalent of a Divine Name. Obviously, this is true of Stauros, which is nothing like a "divine name," but we also know that this was a development over many years, and there is no evidence that "Spirit" (pneuma) was added to the list until 400 or so. Also, there were many other names that only reminded them of Jesus or God, such as "Joshua the son of Nun" or even Moses, Abraham and David. So this wasn't intended as a complete discussion of "nomina sacra" by any means. Although there are some weaknesses and flexibility as to the exact dates scholars try to pin on things, it doesn't (for me) change the balance of the evidence favoring one meaning over the other. And as we've already covered, there is no reason for anyone to claim proof or insist on any particular shape based on any of the evidence so far.