JW Insider

Constantine was not an emperor in the 3rd century.

I appreciated the fact that you wrote this. You say you are neutral and I believe you. And I would agree that being neutral should not mean that neutral people should be ignorant of current history. Unfortunately, many people in the United States at least appear to be ignorant of current history, but are not neutral in most senses of the word. Still, relatively few vote, and even those who do mostly believe that they have no say or power in any form of national government. This makes them feel "neutered" but not neutral. The partisan swings that happen every 4 to 8 years since Roosevelt have at least given most of the US population a sense that "it's their turn" and they will be at least partly represented (to the extent that their views have been incorporated into the talking points of either one of the two major parties). But this election, just like many in Europe and elsewhere, was a call to populism by the winning politicians. Populism is full of anger, tribalism (nativism), progressivism, and hopefulness. It's not easy to define. Bernie Sanders was the big winner of the progressive and angry hopefulness, and not really a Democrat. Donald Trump was the big winner of the nativist and angry hopefulness, and not really a Republican. Both groups hoped for an economic fix. Both groups knew deep-down, that such a fix would include trillions less spent on wars, and trillions more spent on the homeland (infrastructure, for example). There were a lot of things that people from all sides of the "populist hopes" could have agreed on from either populist candidate (Trump or Sanders). But the swamp remains because it is funded by corporate greed, mostly military contractors who want to sell weapons. It takes a lot of energy and will to drain such a swamp, and in the end, of course, it appears that the swamp has already drained Trump.

Please start a new thread.

I like the pictures and I like the scriptures. They usually go together well, as this one does. I am concerned about the content of the "contributed" article however. If that article had been contributed to the Watchtower for publication, it would have been thrown out on the grounds of "apostasy." It has some ideas in it that are well worth discussing, and I think that others have brought up these ideas here already. But when an idea is brought up for discussion, we should know the source, so as not to be confused. There is nothing wrong with a Bible-based discussion of any ideas, even apostate ideas. After all, several of the things we now believe were once considered to be "apostasy." The problem is that people should be aware when something is written in a way that it provides a basis for a potentially controversial discussion. It shouldn't be styled in a way that just makes a statement without any warning that this could be controversial. Otherwise, it can give the impression that it was intended to "trick" people into believing it is what all of us already believe. I suspect, @Bible Speaks, that you didn't realize the apparently "apostate" points in the article. And it's possible they were worded that way accidentally. As you probably were not aware, I will try to summarize the way this article would have likely been read by a Watchtower editor. I'll flag some points in red and add some bracketed explanations. Up to this point it might not have been clear that this really about the upcoming Memorial celebration. However, watch the real point of the article become clearer. So the basic idea, as it is written in this article, is to cast doubt on the authority of men we have accepted. The last few paragraphs therefore are really intended, I think, to cast doubt on the organization and portray it as a false prophet: So, it's always good to watch out where we get things from. If we wish to discuss the issues brought up here, that's great, but we shouldn't have these types of posts thrust upon everyone completely unaware.

???? Edited to add. While I was writing something here and before I pressed 'submit' I saw a message pop up that Eoin was just then already responding so I quickly removed everything I had written so that I could first read what Eoin's take on this had been. It sounds like Eoin was thinking about the same thing that I was. It has always been my experience that Eoin is one of most careful to avoid actually attacking the messenger. It has been my experience that he makes the forum a pleasure because he deals with the subject matter rather than the personalities. It's not that I don't know what it might have sounded like he was saying, but the very fact that it might have sounded like he meant something that he didn't actually say is an opportunity to check our own pre-judgments about what was meant. My original response was going to include: Why does my current response in this topic remind me of Proverbs 27:17? (Proverbs 26:17) 17 Like someone grabbing hold of a dog’s ears Is the one passing by who becomes furious about a quarrel that is not his. Of course, I was happy to remove it (initially) because I didn't want anyone to think I was calling them a dog.

Ecclesiastes 7:16 NLT - "So don’t be too good or too wise! Why destroy yourself?" This translation makes it easier to see in it the expression: "Perfect is the enemy of good." (Which might be a difficult meaning to grasp for non-native speakers of English.) It might not be about what we "show" but about putting too much effort into being good or wise. Your point @Eoin Joyce is appreciated.

There are ways to use this fact to better effect than the stack of letters themselves.

Do you really think we should be comparing world leaders to animals? (Luke 13:31, 32) 31 In that very hour some of the Pharisees came up and told him: “Get out and go away from here, because Herod wants to kill you.” 32 And he said to them: “Go and tell that fox, . . . Sounds right to me.

The "Russia thing" as you called it, has the potential to rekindle the kind of spirit that brings more closeness and awareness of each other both in the congregations and around the world, and a lot more excitement to greater activity, fuller and more active Kingdom Halls, etc. Some other points however: I don't think it's fair to say we are forbidden to speculate. Speculating is a natural way to learn and think. You say there has been an increase of Witnesses in the 3rd world as if this is a problem. I don't get it. This means we are not blessed?

“The Governing Body of Jehovah’s Witnesses wants to heighten attention to this critical situation,” states David A. Semonian, a spokesman at the Witnesses’ world headquarters. “Prosecuting non-violent, law-abiding citizens as if they were terrorists is clearly a misapplication of anti-extremist laws. Such prosecution is based on completely false grounds.” This is 100% correct, and anyone interested in religious freedom, Jehovah's Witnesses or not, should be interested in what we are doing here. We could probably find people to join us in the campaign who are not even JWs. I am concerned, though, that there might be a Rutherfordization effort going on here, too. Included in the campaign is the name of a Russian Supreme Court judge. The WTS is aware of the law being broken by attempting to directly sway a judge assigned to a case. For those who don't already know, I'll explain what is meant by Rutherfordization is after the dust settles. (Assuming it settles.)

You think that's funny? ...Yes, I do, too. Actually my original response (up there about Santa and Mt Everest and pushing the envelope) was going to be part of a dumb joke which I realized wasn't going to be very funny or easily understood. So I thought better of it, and only left a portion of my response, which makes even less sense on its own. Carry on. Nothing to see here.

@Anna Sounds almost exactly right to me. How did they "fall for it."

@Arauna OK, Thanks. No argument from me. It's just that you said it so definitively I wondered if there was some additional resource you might have known about. (Hoping there was some related tradition from Islam, or something like that.) As far as traditions handed down from Josephus, that was in the original post, too. We usually treat Josephus with some skepticism when he adds things that aren't indicated in the Bible record.

You make some good points in your post, but where did you get this information that he was between 18 and 25? The exact same word can be used of someone 18 to 25, but near this same context of Genesis it's also used like this: (Genesis 21:15-19) 15 Finally the water in the skin bottle was used up, and she pushed the boy under one of the bushes. 16 Then she went on and sat down by herself, about the distance of a bowshot away, because she said: “I do not want to watch the boy die.” So she sat down at a distance and began to cry aloud and to weep. 17 At that God heard the voice of the boy, and God’s angel called to Haʹgar from the heavens and said to her: “What is the matter with you, Haʹgar? Do not be afraid, for God has heard the voice of the boy there where he is. 18 Get up, lift the boy and take hold of him with your hand, for I will make him a great nation.” 19 Then God opened her eyes and she saw a well of water, and she went and filled the skin bottle with water and gave the boy a drink. and: (Exodus 2:5-7) 5 When Pharʹaoh’s daughter came down to bathe in the Nile, her female attendants were walking by the side of the Nile. And she caught sight of the basket in the middle of the reeds. She immediately sent her slave girl to get it. 6 When she opened it, she saw the child, and the boy was crying. She felt compassion for him, but she said: “This is one of the children of the Hebrews.” 7 Then his sister said to Pharʹaoh’s daughter: “Shall I go and call a nursing woman from the Hebrews to nurse the child for you?”

Bible believers have anguished over this account about Abraham and Isaac for thousands of years. Some have tried to soften the impact, because it jars our sensibilities. It's like reading about David having his enemies hacked up, or Jephthah offering his daughter as a burnt offering. Or Hosea being asked to marry a prostitute, or Ezekiel being asked to cook with human excrement, or Isaiah being asked to father a child by a prophetess who isn't described as his wife, and to walk around completely naked for three years. The list could go on and on. For centuries, Bible translators have often made decisions to soften the ideas from the original languages to protect more modern readers. But this particular account is the most disturbing. How many of us would kill our child because we heard a voice and we had faith was God's voice. Abraham had the faith to go through with it. And we have no idea if the already weaned child was 5 years old, 6 years old, 10 years old, or even 20 years old, which is about the maximum age that the Hebrew word for "boy" is generally used of someone's son. We know he could speak, and that he could carry a bundle of sticks. It's hard to say if Isaac really had faith in the resurrection at the time. Abraham lied to him or misled him when Isaac asked where the animal for sacrifice was. If Abraham was not misleading him when he told Isaac that God would provide the sheep, then that would mean that Abraham did not really have faith to offer up his son, because he expected a replacement all along. The Bible does not say that Isaac was willing to be bound. If Isaac was really willing to have a knife plunged into him, there might be no need to bind him anyway. At any rate, this is not a story that we should just think of as another story for a book of children's Bible stories. It should make us anguish over what it really means to have faith. What is the difference in following a voice and dreams that tell you to murder, or voices and dreams that really come from God? The difference in Abraham's case seems to be a relationship with Jehovah that was undeniably real and close, as if he were speaking to a friend. And yet it wasn't completely based on things actually seen, but things unseen: faith.

I read in some commentary in the Bethel Library that the Bible never speaks of the Bible as the "word of God" or "God's word." This always bothered me a bit because I had always thought of Hebrews 4:12. At the time we always used it this way: *** w80 3/15 pp. 22-23 pars. 7-8 Living Up to Our Choice *** 7 When the apostles proclaimed the “good news,” whom did God through his Word commend? The people in the synagogue at Beroea, for, the Bible says, “they received the word [of the good news spoken by Paul and Silas] with the greatest eagerness of mind, carefully examining the Scriptures daily as to whether these things [that even the apostle Paul said] were so.” (Acts 17:10, 11) They made these things their own, not merely listening with agreement but also examining the firm Scriptural basis for the things they eagerly received into their minds and hearts. 8 We should follow the course of those sincere Beroeans. Why? Because we may hear the truth preached or taught by human teachers, but when we read it in the Bible it becomes a fully founded, permanent motivating force in our hearts, for “the word of God is alive and exerts power and is sharper than any two-edged sword and pierces even to the dividing of soul and spirit, and of joints and their marrow, and is able to discern thoughts and intentions of the heart.” (Heb. 4:12) Constant study of the Bible prevents us from remaining spiritual babies. God’s Word infuses his spirit into our hearts, making us strong, mature. The same principle is in operation when we declare the “good news” to others. It has greater force if we let people read it in the Bible than if we use our own words. It is obvious, even from the Greek and the context of Hebrew 4:12 that this isn't the Bible, specifically, being spoken about, but I was still surprised to see it stated this way in the more recent 2011 Watchtower. @Bible Speaks is quoting above from the Simplified Edition. *** w11 7/15 p. 32 par. 20 God’s Rest—Have You Entered Into It? *** When Paul wrote that “the word of God is alive,” he was not referring specifically to God’s written Word, the Bible.

I use the Bible as the sources, so I'm called "Bible Speaks." I put together myself. I pray for the correct words. If I use a "quote" you will see jw.org. Or you could just say that it was taken from here: http://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/402011526

I'm sure I am not the only one who appreciates your attitude toward these types of things, things we may witness first hand, but which cannot be shared. I believe I have been where you are, and I can share some of the scriptural points that have helped me. If we are concerned to do our best to help keep the local and the world-wide congregation clean, there are cases where direct evidence is not shareable. We often must focus on general principles or even "lesser" issues or different issues, which may only be similar in their effect or the way in which they show that corruption can be insidious or reach to surprising levels of authority. I have no idea how it happens, in your case, that elders from all over the place might be asking you about a specific situation. This tells me that whatever the problems, they might have already been sufficiently exposed - as far as it depends upon you. (Ephesians 5:10-13) 10 Keep on making sure of what is acceptable to the Lord; 11 and stop sharing in the unfruitful works that belong to the darkness; rather, expose them for what they are. 12 For the things they do in secret are shameful even to mention. 13 Now all the things that are being exposed are made evident by the light, for everything that is being made evident is light. Of course, I have no idea if it is sufficient to follow the Bible's counsel to expose by trying to bring attention to mistakes in a semi-anonymous forum, with a random audience of readers. I'm sure it's not sufficient for my own conscience. But I also realize that if I were to speak out in the congregation itself, I would lose not only privileges, which matter very little in the long run, but would also lose all further opportunities for fellowship with the brotherhood -- that is, unless I was also willing to dishonestly apologize and repent for speaking the truth. To the extent possible, I believe that we need to address issues first with the person(s) responsible for the wrongdoing, especially in light of Matthew 18, when we are a party or direct witness to the wrongdoing. If he doesn't listen then we take it to the congregation, whether the global congregation or the local congregation, whichever is more appropriate. Then there comes a point when you might realize you have done all you can. "As far as it depends upon you...." (1 Timothy 5:24, 25) 24 The sins of some men are publicly known, leading directly to judgment, but those of other men become evident later. 25 In the same way also, the fine works are publicly known and those that are otherwise cannot be kept hidden. Some Witnesses keep things hidden only for the short-term reputation of the congregation, but this does nothing for both the short-term and the long-term protection of the congregation. If there is any question or doubt about whether an issue needs to be exposed, however, we can apply what Paul said here: (1 Corinthians 4:5) 5 Therefore, do not judge anything before the due time, until the Lord comes. He will bring the secret things of darkness to light and make known the intentions of the hearts, and then each one will receive his praise from God. We need not carry a burden of guilt that we did not personally expose something, or bring it to light. We can throw such burdens on Jehovah.

One problem might be the continuing support of Rutherford's remarks. Note how we understand expressions like "a third of the sea became as blood" in Revelation 8:8,9: *** re chap. 21 pp. 134-135 pars. 21-22 Jehovah’s Plagues on Christendom *** 21 “And the second angel blew his trumpet. And something like a great mountain burning with fire was hurled into the sea. And a third of the sea became blood; and a third of the creatures that are in the sea which have souls died, and a third of the boats were wrecked.” (Revelation 8:8, 9) What does this frightful scene picture? 22 We may best understand it against the background of the convention of Jehovah’s people held in Los Angeles, California, U.S.A., on August 18-26, 1923. The featured Saturday afternoon talk by J. F. Rutherford was on the topic “Sheep and Goats.” The “sheep” were clearly identified as those righteously disposed persons who would inherit the earthly realm of God’s Kingdom. A resolution that followed drew attention to the hypocrisy of “apostate clergymen and ‘the principal of their flocks,’ who are worldly men of strong financial and political influence.” It called on the “multitude of the peace and order loving ones in the denominational churches . . . to withdraw themselves from the unrighteous ecclesiastical systems designated by the Lord as ‘Babylon’” and to ready themselves “to receive the blessings of God’s kingdom.” . . . Meantime, with the blast of the second trumpet, Jehovah pronounces judgment against a third of it—the unruly part that is in the realm of Christendom herself. In the context of our current beliefs about Revelation, we are quick to include what amounts to death threats especially to all of Christendom's denominations, and continue to believe that when Revelation speaks of "trumpets" and "plagues" and "woes" that these often came through the very words of Rutherford. That's current belief, not past belief.

Sad. Looks like it will be difficult even to have 'home church services' if groups are caught advertising such services without permission. Based on this report from a few weeks ago. Odd that they will still allow a business bank account but with only enough money in it to pay fines and taxes.

Don't know if it's all true, but I shouldn't be too surprised considering the other kinds of hidden crimes that we already know about.

That's an interesting take. It might suggest the reverse of a picture I saw somewhere where Jesus was on the traditional cross and the two men at his sides were both tied to poles. However, I was thinking of how "stauros" may have changed its meaning from a simple one-piece stake and appears to have begun referring more often to the standard cross-beamed crosses by the time that word first appears in the Bible. But the word that Paul used in Galatians 3:13 was 'xylon' which is usually just the word for TREE. I don't think there was a similar transitional development of that word.over time as there was with stauros. 'Xylon' always had a variety of lesser-used meanings, but the use that looked like it might mean "stake" was rare compared to the meaning of tree and wood (i.e., made from trees). The Hebrew word Paul quoted was just like it, and usually meant tree or wood, too. In fact one of the meanings was the use in the case of Abraham and Isaac where it obviously means wooden branches. (Genesis 22:9) 9 Finally they reached the place that the true God had indicated to him, and Abraham built an altar there and arranged the wood ['etz] on it. He bound hais son Isaac hand and foot and put him on the altar on top of the wood. ['etz, same word in Deut 21:22,23.] - NWT Because it just meant wood or tree it could also refer to a horizontal board, as it evidently does here: (Ezekiel 41:25, KJV) And there were made on them, on the doors of the temple, cherubims and palm trees, like as were made upon the walls; and there were thick planks ['etz] upon the face of the porch without. - KJV The NWT goes an entirely different way with the same word here and makes it mean "overhang" which doesn't seem to agree with the way the LXX translators understood it. (Ezekiel 41:25) . . .. There was also a wooden overhang on the front of the porch on the outside. - NWT Same here. I am happy to hold the same view. It's interesting that we don't have to be dogmatic to be right. Well it really does, if we apply the definition of every secular dictionary and encyclopedia with the Greek word " stauros σταυρός” versus “crossbeam τραβέρσα" therefore, Jesus didn't drag a crossbeam and according to secular evidence suggest those who did, would have that crossbeam attached to the accused back with their arms extended and either by tying that crossbeam with rope or nails voids any conclusion being "dogmatic" to argue against the Watchtowers understanding. Now am I being definitive? No! but its the most "probable". I'm commenting on your post mostly because I needed to change the line breaks to read what you said. For some reason it stayed on a single line in my browser. Anyway, I agree that what you are saying is possible. But it appears that the sign was made after Jesus arrived at Golgotha. Jesus apparently dragged a beam behind him. Whether it was to become a crossbeam or an upright beam, the Bible doesn't say. But in either case, he would be nailed to that beam, and that beam even if a crossbeam, could still be referred to as either a xylon or a stauros.

I think the best way to address it is to look carefully at the word used for "stake" and see how else it gets used in the Bible. This is mostly from the NWT Appendix 5C: Of course, Paul is quoting from Deut 21:22,23 which says: (Deuteronomy 21:22, 23) 22 “And in case there comes to be in a man a sin deserving the sentence of death, and he has been put to death, and you have hung him upon a stake*, [*footnote: tree, wood] . . . something accursed of God is the one hung up; - NWT In the Hebrew Scriptures, the word translated "stake" is used about 328 times, and over 300 of those times it can be correctly translated as "tree" or "wood" or (when plural) "trees" or "timber" So it could easily mean "tree" in this case. (Deuteronomy 21:22, 23, KJV) And if a man have committed a sin worthy of death, and he be to be put to death, and thou hang him on a tree: But in the few times when it can be translated as something else, it clearly means wooden things like stick, branch, staff, gallows, plank. In the context of hanging someone up, "stake" does not always appear to be the most appropriate, but it's still possible. In the context of hanging from it, we have a description of Haman and Mordecai's gallows: (Esther 7:9, 10) . . .“Haʹman also prepared a stake for Morʹde·cai, whose report saved the king. It is standing at Haʹman’s house, 50 cubits high.” At that the king said: “Hang him on it.” 10 So they hanged Haʹman on the stake that he had prepared for Morʹde·cai, and the king’s rage subsided. - NWT (Esther 6:4) . . .having Morʹde·cai hanged on the stake that he had prepared for him. - NWT A 75-foot high "gallows" sounds like more than a single, simple stake, and the Hebrew gives a sense that it was prepared, (produced, worked on, fashioned, wrought) not merely "put up." (Esther 7:9, ESV)Then Harbona, one of the eunuchs in attendance on the king, said, “Moreover, the gallows that Haman has prepared for Mordecai, whose word saved the king, is standing at Haman’s house, fifty cubits high.” But here below we have what is apparently a single beam, probably from a vertical beam from 8 to 12 feet in height. (Ezra 6:11) And by me an order has been put through that, as for anybody that violates this decree, a timber will be pulled out of his house and he will be impaled upon it, and his house will be turned into a public privy on this account. - NWT The Greek word for all these Hebrew items in the LXX is 'xylon' and it's, of course, the word Paul uses in Galatians 3:13. And here again, it is can be translated "tree" or "wood" in most other places in the Greek. 13 of 19 times. (Acts 13:29) And when they had fulfilled all that was written of him, they took him down from the tree,and laid him in a sepulchre. - KJV (Gal 3:13) Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us: for it is written, Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree - KJV (Revelation 2:7) 7 Let the one who has an ear hear what the spirit says to the congregations: To the one who conquers I will grant to eat of the tree of life, which is in the paradise of God.’ - NWT But it can even be the word for stocks: (Acts 16:24) . . .Because he got such an order, he threw them into the inner prison and fastened their feet in the stocks. For what it's worth, my take on this is that there is such a wide range of possibility, that this is just more evidence that it didn't really matter what the instrument looked like exactly, and there was definitely no specific description that we could or should "draw" from to create an important symbol. The description of how words like stauros were used is also informative in that in earlier Greek, it seems to refer more often to a simple stake, as it was used especially by Greek writers hundreds of years before the Bible was written in Greek. But as the world got more acquainted with the Roman form of "crucifixion" the word tends to connote an upright pole and crossbeam. But we have seen that this is only suggestive of a more likely form used in Jesus' day, nothing definitive. I like what Allen included that showed that the standard upright and crossbeam form was more popular and the quote from Seneca and Josephus, below, because it implies a wide variety of postures which are much more likely if the crossbeam were employed: 'So the soldiers, out of the rage and hatred they bore the prisoners, nailed those they caught, in different postures, to the crosses, by way of jest Much of the book Allen quoted from is available on Google. https://books.google.com/books?isbn=1451414196 Crucifixion: In The Ancient World And The Folly Of The Message Of The Cross (Facets) by Martin Hengel and John Bowden I am glad Allen quoted from it and brought it to our attention. It seems to be an excellent source, and it also speaks to the wide variety that keeps us from saying anything dogmatic or definitive.

I thought the idea was that Jesus carried the stake and someone else carried the cross beam (or vice versa). Then these two pieces of wood were nailed together on site... Note that the Insight book says the following... *** it-1 p. 1191 Impalement *** Most Bible translations say Christ was “crucified” rather than “impaled.” This is because of the common belief that the torture instrument upon which he was hung was a “cross” made of two pieces of wood instead of a single pale, or stake. Tradition, not the Scriptures, also says that the condemned man carried only the crossbeam of the cross, called the patibulum, or antenna, instead of both parts. In this way some try to avoid the predicament of having too much weight for one man to drag or carry to Golgotha. As Allen has already mentioned, there are traditions that the trees and poles that Romans used were often already in place, and were often re-used. I can't help but think of the amount of work we used to put into making a five foot high fence. Anyone who has tried it knows that even when you have wedged rocks or concrete to add to the hole, you still need to start with a 7 or 8 foot pole, and then use a sledge to drive two or three feet of it into the ground at least a foot deeper than the original hole. And you might still need some extra wooden supports. Now imagine a pole that needs to stand at perhaps 7 feet or more in the air for purposes of display and humiliation, and hold up to 200 pounds. It could not fall over during wind and rain, and no one should be able to push it over. It would need to start out like a 10 foot telephone pole. This is another reason that a victim might carry his cross, or board, or stake in the form of a crossbeam or patibulum. If the executed person was first nailed to the crossbeam, which could be a board, plank, pole, beam or tree branch, he could then be raised up onto the pole or tree to which that patibulum was also then nailed or fastened. Therefore, the crossbeam becomes the instrument of his execution in the same was that a lynched person might be said to executed by the instrument of a rope, even though a tree or wooden gallows might also be utilized. The Bible gives us the impression that Jesus was nailed to a tree, although this doesn't necessarily mean it was a living tree with branches. But if he was carrying one thing (like a beam) and then attached to something else, like a tree, then it would make sense that he might have been carrying a crossbeam of some kind. Whether his hands were nailed to one single place on that crossbeam (like the middle), or in two different places on that crossbeam (like each of the ends), it wouldn't matter because in either case his arms would be above his head when that beam was nailed or attached to the tree. Either way makes sense from the perspective of the Bible text.

Thanks. I'm looking forward to it.