Anna

There is something else and very interesting I have found regarding the shape of the "cross/stauros" but I will have to wait until our power is back (Ice storm) and I can get on the computer because typing this on the phone is a pain.

Thank you Srecko for your concern. This is a very tactful and correct way to ask for a reason for something. I will probably be very concise and to the point. But why I really mentioned this was because you implied that not believing the claim made by the GB, that Jesus did not die on a cross, would get me in some kind of trouble, and I was saying no, it would not.

No John, lol. The Greek word is HAND, so to translate it correctly, one must say hand in English also. But yes, you are right, the picture is a contradiction, unless of course you include the wrist when you say hand Good night!

That is what I was trying to explain to you in an earlier post @JOHN BUTLER, so similarly in Greek, the word hand can include the wrist.

I didn't have any of your points in mind actually Some years ago the WT did depict Jesus with a nail through his hands, but there has been a debate among scholars whether it could have really been the palms of the hands because they recon that the weight of the body would have ripped through the flesh as there are no transverse bones across the metacarpals, whereas if the nail was in the wrist (carpals) then there would be more resistance because it's all bone. That may be one reason why the WT changed it to the wrist. Then the other reason we already talked about on here is that the noun hand, can also include the wrist, and not only that, but biologically the wrist is part of the hand, because really it's just where the hand bends at the forearm. I don't know........were you really expecting Thomas to say " “Unless I see in his wrists the print of the nails"? Or perhaps when we say someone is bound "hand and foot" we should really say bound "wrist and foot"? Or how about "wrist cuffs" instead of "hand cuffs"? As for the plural nails, I don't really have an answer for that one. Perhaps it was an oversight and there should be 2 nails. Perhaps one going through the wrist and one through the palm of the hand? ....Apparently sometimes the Romans used up to 14 nails (!) in an execution such as this. If you do more research on this subject then eventually you will come to the conclusion that nowhere, absolutely nowhere is there conclusive historical proof that Jesus died on a stake with a cross beam.

What if..... But what if the simple reason is that as we learn new evidence for things we grow in knowledge and so we are able to correct previous ideas? I agree, perhaps some of the mistakes are because of the influence of Satan, because he does not want anyone to know the TRUTH, but for me (at least) the important thing is that the fundamental truths remain he same. Those are the important truths and they are very simple. The rest is just "frills" (like frilly petticoats on a dress). If we get some "frills" wrong then to me it is not really important. For example in this particular discussion: Knowing whether Jesus died on a cross or died on a stake is just "frills", the important fundamental truth is that we do not use whatever object we think it was in worship, because that is idolatry.

... and here comes to surface, to day light our own, personal Conscience Integrity, Intellect Honesty, Freedom of Speech among/inside WT Organization who, with GB, are standing on Dogmatic Standpoint, dogmatic stance that is ready to declare such, a different opinion as apostasy, and to dfd person because of that. I don't know....I will have to try that. But I very much doubt if I made it known that I don't agree with the point made in the What does the Bible really teach book or the What does the Bible teach us book (which replaces the Bible teach book) where it categorically states on page 213 that Jesus did not die on a cross that I would get disfellowshipped or be declared an Apostate. In fact it would be a good idea if this statement was changed, and I may write a letter to Bethel to that effect. And not an anonymous letter, one with my name and return address on it. And I will let you know what reply I get, ok?

I have trouble finding evidence of that. Can you post some links? It interests me because so far I have seen plenty of evidence that cross like symbols (especially the Ankh and Greek) are found in ancient artifacts, of the near east, and far east, but they never seem to be connected to any type of implement for torture or execution, but rather to jewellery, decoration, literature, and ritualistic and religious aspects. If a cross was used in execution I would have expected to see at least one representation of it, since people had no qualms about representing other gruesome scenes, such as people impaled (through the body) on a stake etc. I take it back, I did see one, which is supposed to be Dionysus/Bacchus but I haven't been able to find out exact information about it only that it is supposed to be from 500 BCE. And a Vase, which is supposed to be also depicting Dionysus/Bacchus crucified. But I can't see that. I agree with the explanation given in that thread "It's significance was to antropomoriphize the idol as it would allow Dionysus to return to the world and participate in the ritual sacrifice and marriage to a queen. Before the idol are loaves of bread and jugs of wine, blessed by Dionysus himself". Also: " There's other vases from around the same period in which a choir of dithyrambs gather around a cross-shaped altar, and children carry a cross behind the carriage of the soon to be married queen". It looks like the thread has quite an interesting discussion, but I have not really had the time to read all the posts, just a couple. http://earlywritings.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=4387 So I am still looking for an artifact depicting torture/execution involving a cross or cross like shape. There seems to be plenty of talk of Romans having adopted the cross for execution from the Assyrians and Babylonians, but I can't find anything resembling a cross used in that way in those cultures. Assyrian execution - impalement through body on upright stakes (cir 911-612 BCE)

Yes. This is what I was trying to explain to @JOHN BUTLER

Well then we have nothing to worry about! For instance, before these days Theuʹdas rose up, saying he himself was somebody, and a number of men, about 400, joined his party. But he was done away with, and all those who were following him were dispersed and came to nothing. After him, Judas the Gal·i·leʹan rose up in the days of the registration, and he drew followers after himself. That man also perished, and all those who were following him were scattered. So under the present circumstances, I say to you, do not meddle with these men, but let them alone. For if this scheme or this work is from men, it will be overthrown; but if it is from God, you will not be able to overthrow them. Otherwise, you may even be found fighters against God himself. (Acts 5: 36 -39)

It is interesting to note that the (presumably) earliest forms of Christian art (Catacombs in Rome) date from late 2nd century and there is no depiction of a cross. But there is no depiction of a upright stake either (!) It has been argued that this omission could be because the early Christians didn't want to depict anything to do with Jesus' instrument of death for fear of idolatry. Which says a lot about the "Christians" that came after. They did a 180 degree turn and put crosses everywhere.

"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" https://www.gotquestions.org/nails-hands-wrists.html Of course this assumption is not 100% fool proof either.... Also there is an interesting debate here including an interesting comment "If one wants to get anatomically picky, the eight bones of the human wrist are counted among the 27 hand bones". I can verify that in some languages there is no distinction between the whole arm or just the hand. In order to specify what one means you have to say either arm*, or forearm. Usually the context clarifies what one means; for example "wash your hands" wouldn't mean wash your whole arm, but it can get confusing if you say you broke your arm, because that could mean your hand. Of course there are exact terms for the parts of the upper limb just as there are in English: shoulder, arm, elbow, forearm, wrist and hand. But as you can see the word arm* in English could include all those parts, excluding the hand . When I fractured my knee, people would say I broke my leg. Languages are interesting! @JOHN BUTLER Bones of the hand include the wrist

Perhaps he meant; " unless I see the nail marks in his hands * (one nail would put marks in both) and put my finger where the nails have been in his hands and feet and put my hand into his side"...? *apparently the Greek word for hand also includes the wrist.

Unless someone shows me a photograph from the actual event from the 1st Century, and I argue about it, then there is absolutely no reason for me to be worried about treading a red line or being dfd . In any case, I am not even arguing now, I am just saying we can't be sure 100%. If the GB feel like they are sure 100% then that is their prerogative, but changes nothing about how I feel. I would need a lot more proof first.

I think you are missing the point. The simple answer is if you are going to depict Jesus at his moment of sacrificial death, then you have to decide what you are going to depict him on. The GB's preference is obviously a stake, and why not? There is evidence that the word "stauros" could have meant just one piece of timber. So really it comes down to the interpretation of what "stauros" meant at the time it was used. As @Srecko Sostar shows; the The Imperial Bible-Dictionary talks about both possibilities, one piece of timber or two pieces of timber. Take your pic. It's quite possible that "a modification was introduced as the dominion and usages of Rome extended themselves through Greek speaking countries" after the death of Jesus. The dictionary goes on to say that that "a cross beam was more common in Jesus day", but still, that is no proof that Jesus was indeed put on a cross. And if it was a cross, we don't even know "the precise form of the cross" as the dictionary puts. So if most of Christendom depict Jesus on a cross beam, what if in actual fact it was a T shape?

This is one topic that I would not be dogmatic about when @JOHN BUTLER asked about "when I go into the ministry do I tell people that I might have the truth but I might not" because as @Outta Here rightly remarked, we cannot know it's shape with absolute certainty. So when covering the cross/stake issue in the Bible teach book with a student, I just simply say that we cannot know what it was 100% either way. My personal view is there is no reason it couldn't have been a cross, since this is what the Romans traditionally used, but they may not have used it every time, so it easily could have been a stake as well. The early Bible students used the crown and cross emblem, until they decided the cross was not a suitable symbol. One reason why I think that was because as time went on they realized that they must distance themselves from counterfeit Christianity, and since Christendom used the cross and they did not want to be identified with anything that Christendom used, they dug deeper and discovered its pagan origins etc. But just because it was pagan didn't mean it couldn't have been used in Jesus' execution, after all the Romans WERE pagan! In my opinion the whole bad thing about the cross is that not only is it pagan and used by supposed Christians as a symbol of Christianity (!) but that it is used in a way which God clearly condemns. If it was a stake (or anything else for that matter) and used in the same way as a cross, it would be the same thing. To be truthful, personally I really don't think its important to know exactly what shape the instrument of Jesus' death was.

When the Bible talks clearly about certain fundamental things like the future for mankind then I would hope that was correct enough for me to try and impart that same hope to others, in this wicked hopeless world.

But they cannot know for sure, can they? No one is infalible.

I think it's kind of simple. The GB have decided they cannot be dogmatic and claim what God's thoughts are on fractions one way or other, so they have left it up to the peeps.

I would think Jehovah can use any channel he pleases. For example even stones (Luke 19:14). So it would indeed be presumptuous on anyone’s part to assume THEY were the ONLY channel. The GB recognize themselves as the fds who is to provide spiritual food at the proper time on a global scale. Who is to say Jehovah isn’t using some individual in a remote part of the world to explain Bible truths, even if they are not one of Jehovah’s Witnesses per se. The Bible is available for everyone to read, and if they are not influenced by false religious teachings, then individuals can find the truth, and can share it with others. So I think the criterion for being a channel God uses is that this channel has to impart basic truths from the Bible. So I would say any organization or person who for example teaches the trinity cannot be a channel used by God. But they do not have to know everything, as was evident in the case of Apollos (Acts 18: 24-26) where Priscilla and Aquila had to fill in the gaps for him. However, the Christian congregation was set up by Jesus to accomplish the ministry and for encouraging one another. So from then on followers of Christ were gathered together for that activity and purpose and came to be known as the Christian congregation (Acts 11:26). To keep such an ever growing congregation of people sticking to the original beliefs would be quite a challenge and Jesus knew that eventually the Christian congregation would become corrupted until in the last days the when the true christian congregation would be revived again. The fundamental truths that every JW is familiar with was made known by the early Bible students from Russell onward. I posted the following article several times before because it epitomizes the abdication of responsibility by Christendom to keep their Churches morally and spiritually clean. In contrast, Jehovah's Witnesses have not abdicated that responsibility and through the fda, as "guardians of the doctrine", are persevering in keeping the worldwide congregation of Jehovah's Witnesses as close to the first Christian congregation as possible. QUESTION: How does the first century church compare to the church today? ANSWER: In his letters to the first century church, the Apostle Paul commended each for excelling in the graces of God. Specifically, these first century churches were known for their faith, love, zeal, giving, knowledge, and intolerance for sin, as well as false doctrines. The first century church was united in spirit. Consequently, they were a conduit for the power of God as manifested in the miraculous signs and wonders performed through the apostles and for the apostles, in response to the prayers of the saints. The gospel of grace spread like wildfire, at tremendous cost to the early followers of Christ. The first century church was beset with persecution, torture, and martyrdom. In spite of this, Christian churches were being established throughout the Mediterranean region, Asia Minor, and into Europe. Today's world is characterized by the last days events foretold by the Lord Jesus Christ in the twenty-fourth chapter of the Matthew's Gospel. Specifically, we are hearing of the "wars and rumors of wars," earthquakes, famines, and pestilences of which our Lord warned. It was foretold of the church in these last days, that (among many other things): The "love of many" would "grow cold." Many in the church would be "lovers of self" rather than lovers of God. Many in the faith would be "offended." The church would "have a form of godliness, but deny the power thereof." Last day Christians would have "itching" ears, would not "endure sound doctrine" and would have "many teachers." In other words, the end times church (the organization) will include those who profess belief in Christ but who are, in fact, children of disobedience. The Lord Jesus Christ foretold of this reality in His parable of the "wheat and the tares." Certainly, the early church had its problems, just as the church today. However, the early church was more diligent to identify and eradicate false doctrines than today's multi-denominational church. It was easier for the early church to discipline, or rid itself of those engaged in immoral activity. This could be because the early church was not as fragmented, or divided as the church of today." From: allaboutreligion.org

Non of the quotes you posted say anything about the faithful and discreet slave being the ONLY chanel. They merely say they are a chanel which Jesus is using to feed his sheep. Br. Jackson admits that it would be presumptuous to say the fds are the ONLY chanel because really the scripture in Matt 24:45 does not specifically say that the fds would be the only chanel.

I am sorry, there was no one announced at our hall for such a long time so I don't know how exactly the announcement is made anymore. I can assure you though it will be known that you are no longer one of Jehovah's Witnesses because you do not agree with the organization. I remember someone was announced years ago, and everyone knew it was because he had differing views, and not because he had committed immorality or something like that. Yes, it is best we agree to differ. I am just trying to be fair. I do not think everything they say is right, but I do believe we have the core important things right. The apostles in the first century also didn't have things right and had to change and adjust some things. We are a work in progress, and this will always be the case as long as we are imperfect. By the way I noticed in my previous reply that the quote from Br. Jackson got messed up and some things were missing, so I went and put the missing bits back. But so that you don't have to go looking for it I will repost it here: Q. By what mechanism would you understand God's spirit to direct your decisions? Br. Jackson: Well, what I mean by that is, by prayer and using our constitution, God's word, we would go through the scriptures and see if there was any biblical principle at all that would influence our decision - and it could be that in our initial discussions there was something that maybe we were missing and then in another discussion that would come to light. So we would view that as God's spirit motivating us because we believe the Bible is God's word and came by means of holy spirit.

John here is the rest of my reply. I will try and be as concise as possible The instance I gave you was from the 80’s when there was much more leeway in how some congregational matters were handled. The DOCUMENT we have now on the website enables anyone to check if things are being handled the right way or not. I printed mine out. For practicalities sake it makes sense that only a handful of people make up the FDS. Anointed ones are scattered all over the world and it would be hard for them to contribute in any meaningful way unless they were all present together, which is impossible. None of the anointed are above another anointed and nor is anyone anointed above someone who isn’t. Anyone who asks, can receive holy spirit as helper. The difference between one who is anointed and one who isn’t is only in their final destination. Faithful and discreet slave is not a title, merely a function that someone has to perform. The qualifications are no different to the qualifications of an Elder, except perhaps these men have a longer period of service before they are elected to be on the governing body. I am not quite sure what you mean by that. I wouldn’t know what the GB thought and whether they pretended something. I cannot read their thoughts.... Every human that has ever lived has been fallible. Every human that has been God’s true servant has been fallible. Countless Bible accounts testify to this fact. The only time a human has been able to say something that has been infallible was when under the influence of holy spirit, but ONLY in Bible times. This kind of privilege served its purpose for writing the Bible and for establishing the Christian congregation. Since then the holy spirit does not act in the same way. There is no miraculous interception, nor any inspiration. One simple reason is that everything we need is already in the pages of the Bible. The right food at the right time really is the presentation of the right scriptures at the right time. Not someone’s ideas. Yes, the information comes from God because the Bible is from God. But interpretation or the understanding of it is subject to the fallibility of man. Especially when it comes to prophecies. Br. Jackson was asked about the operation of the holy spirit during the ARC hearing. Here is a short excerpt from the transcript: Q. By what mechanism would you understand God's spirit to direct your decisions? Br. Jackson: Well, what I mean by that is, by prayer and using our constitution, God's word, we would go through the scriptures and see if there was any biblical principle at all that would influence our decision - and it could be that in our initial discussions there was something that maybe we were missing and then in another discussion that would come to light. So we would view that as God's spirit motivating us because we believe the Bible is God's word and came by means of holy spirit. However, there are fundamental doctrines or truths which are clear and simple. It is these fundamental truths that have been the backbone of our faith and these have never changed. As long as we are clear on those fundamental truths, the other stuff is just frills that we may or may not change, or that we may or may not understand, or even personally consider important for the time being. This is the paragraph you must be quoting from: Gods Kingdom Rules page 101: “The Bible Students long acknowledged that Christmas has pagan roots and that Jesus was not born on December 25. Zion’s Watch Tower of December 1881 stated: “Millions were brought into the church from Paganism. But the change was mostly in name, for the pagan priests became christian priests and the pagan holidays came to be called by christian names—Christmas being one of these holidays.” In 1883, under the title “When Was Jesus Born?” the Watch Tower reasoned that Jesus was born about the beginning of October.* Yet, the Bible Students did not at the time clearly see the need to stop celebrating Christmas. It continued to be celebrated even by members of the Brooklyn Bethel family. After 1926, however, things began to change. Why? As a result of careful, closer scrutiny of the subject, the Bible Students came to realize that the origin of Christmas and the practices associated with it actually dishonor God. It seems that they did make the necessary changes as soon as they realized. Prior to that they couldn’t have been convinced enough to take the decisive action necessary. I would hope I was given some leeway and patience if I took a little longer to making adjustments in my lifestyle. Life is progressive, experiences are progressive, knowledge is progressive. Rarely do things happen right from the get go. What is one person’s positive action is another person’s holding back. There is no one size that fits all cases. Yes, I agree, some cases were woefully mishandled, and these are the cases that are reported on in the media. Other cases were handled well. I am sure you are aware that “successful” cases do not get reported in the media. Yes, most active JWs were unaware of a problem unless they were directly involved and/or unless they had children. Many JWs were under the impression that this cannot happen in our org. despite publications which said that indeed these things CAN happen in the org. I explained the gist of the reasoning “we are better than anyone else” in my previous post. The intentions are in Acts 3:19 If I understand correctly, your main concern is that people are aware that you left of your own volition because you no longer agree with some of the ways things are done in the organization. You are right, reasons for disfellowshipping are not given, out of regard for the dissfelliwshipped person and their family. But if you have disassociated yourself, and the announcement is made that "John Buttler has disassociated himself and therefore is no longer one of Jehovah's Witnesses" then people will know it was because of something you did not agree with, and not because you necessarily committed some moral wrong. If people ignore you, then it is because you are no longer of "their sort" (1John 2:19) and will view you as a man of the nations, because you are no longer a part of the Christian congregation. I am sure this magazine is intended for those who have “drifted” and become inactive as Jehovah's Witnesses. They are still considered JW to a certain extend. Not sure what you mean by that. Do you mean organized?

I understand your points and you have expressed them very well. I will address each point you raised separately, but first I just want to mention a few general things which have perhaps shaped the perception of people like you and me. I grew up in the "truth" in the early 80's when the GB was mostly an anonymous mystery, at least to many who were living outside of America. The "truths" people like me assimilated during those years were turned into dogmatic doctrines by people like me. We always talked starting a phrase with "we KNOW....." as if we could never make a mistake. We had a general attitude of superiority. WE had the truth and therefor WE were somehow better than other people. WE had an answer for "everything". And then came the age of the internet. It was a kind of "Internet enlightenment". It had been around for a while before that, but soon everybody had access to it, and was using it. Information that the ordinary person wouldn't have had before, became available to them at the touch of a button. There were things that were "discovered" by the ordinary brother and sister that were there all along, but that were only known by more prominent brothers and sisters, which included those involved with Bethel, but also ordinary brothers and sisters which happened to live closer to the "source" . But now the ordinary brother came to know things that at times "shocked" him, because in their little personal world they had built a picture, but that picture wasn't always correct. As I mentioned, dogmatic opinions on various subjects were formed, which actually were not intended to be understood that way. Here is an example of what I mean; I am sure you know of instances yourself, where a elder giving a talk would expound on something he felt strongly about. A kind of "pet" subject of his. Most of the time the audience would take what he said as gospel truth, and talk about it like it was fact and part and parcel of "official" teachings. But all it actually was, was the brothers opinion. This happened many times in the days of only a brief outline of a talk, giving the speaker much freedom to practically say anything he wanted. A classic and famous example is that of Charles Sinutko giving the talk about 1975. He wasn't just an elder, but a district overseer, and he gave that misleading talk in front of an audience of thousands. Similar talks were given around the world no doubt. I was too young at the time but @Outta Here remembers such talks, and also the almost "fanatical" approach of some in the congregations. Was this all the GB's doing? It wasn't, but it shows the freedom that existed with regard to expressing ones opinion in an "official" setting, by means of talks etc. As you probably know, now there are strict outlines for talks. Not only that, but elders are instructed to Only give the Bible's advice when serving in a shepherding or judicial capacity, and never give their personal opinions. I am sure this new approach became a necessity because of the damage personal opinions had caused in the past. One I want to focus on specifically is the handling of child abuse. The congregation was well equipped to prevent child abuse on the surface. But it was all contingent on members actually reading and applying what was in the publications that discussed those issues. The JW congregation has always been very strict on upholding moral standards. In comparison, the rest of the world was in a moral decline (think "free love" that started in the 60's) and with it no doubt came problems associated with loose morals. Secular authorities were ill equipped to handle accusations of rape and child sexual abuse, as you yourself can testify. In this environment Elders were trying to handle something that was disgusting and shocking and should have never occurred in the Christian congregation in the first place! Some Elders got confused and misapplied WT 1973/11/15 "question from readers" regarding the application of 1 Cor 6:1-7, and the interpretation of 1Timothy 5:19. Many Elders were stuck between a rock and a hard place with regard to reporting to the police because of the way the police handled (or not handled) these cases, and because many victims and their families did not want to report to the police. It was almost like an attitude of: "this is our private problem, and we will handle it as our private problem". Finally today, secular authorities are educated and equipped enough to address these issues properly, and I would say we are at the pinnacle of "enlightenment" with regard to CSA, at least in the western world. Victims are at last able to come forward and be heard. Abusers are being tried and punished. This has also spilled into historic sexual abuse of women as in the #metoo brigade. BUT despite all this, CSA and the abuse of women is as rampant as ever unfortunately.... You have a good heart John and I feel you have unnecessarily thrown the baby out with the bathwater. But I do want to address those issues individually that you mentioned, but I will have to do that tomorrow now as I am running out of time and have to go and cook dinner....

What interests me John, what things will need to be cleaned out? You must have specific things in mind.