Jump to content
The World News Media

The 'Reasoning' book's discussion of the 'Cross'


Recommended Posts

  • Member

The following post quotes originally came from this thread: 

Rather than take the thread totally off topic, I thought I would make some comments in a new one.

Quote

Dear Sisters,

At the risk of starting another firestorm, (which is not my intention), I would like to include some information about the crux ansata in this discussion. 

I'm commenting on this post, likewise not to create a firestorm, but to flag up how we ought to check sources of information rather than automatically taking on trust that what is written is sound.

Regarding information on the internet, the August 15, 2011 Watchtower put forward some criteria by which we can critically assess its factuality:

"Before trusting it, ask: (1) Who published this material? What are the author’s credentials? (2) Why was this published? What motivated the writer? Is there any bias? (3) Where did the author get the information? Does he supply sources that can be checked? (4) Is the information current?" - p. 4 

It's good practice to apply these basic principles to anything we read - even material produced by the Organization. 

It's also worth remembering Christians do not claim Jesus was executed on a crux ansata or ankh-shaped cross (think of the practical problems for a start). But let's look at how the Reasoning book approaches the wider question of whether Jesus was executed on a cross at all.

 

Quote

rs p. 89- p.93

Cross

Definition: The device on which Jesus Christ was executed is referred to by most of Christendom as a cross. The expression is drawn from the Latin crux.

Why do Watch Tower publications show Jesus on a stake with hands over his head instead of on the traditional cross?

The Greek word rendered “cross” in many modern Bible versions (“torture stake” in NW) is stau·rosʹ. In classical Greek, this word meant merely an upright stake, or pale. Later it also came to be used for an execution stake having a crosspiece. The Imperial Bible-Dictionary acknowledges this, saying: “The Greek word for cross, [stau·rosʹ], properly signified a stake, an upright pole, or piece of paling, on which anything might be hung, or which might be used in impaling [fencing in] a piece of ground. . . . Even amongst the Romans the crux (from which our cross is derived) appears to have been originally an upright pole.”—Edited by P. Fairbairn (London, 1874), Vol. I, p. 376.

"(2) ... Is there any bias?"

Absolutely. The Reasoning book's quote from the Imperial Bible Dictionary is chopped up, and omits key information that would allow the reader to understand that, while stauros originally had one meaning, by the time of Jesus the word had evolved and was understood differently. The omitted parts from the quote are in red.

"The Greek word for cross, [stau·ros′], properly signified a stake, an upright pole, or piece of paling, on which anything might be hung, or which might be used in impaling [fencing in] a piece of ground. But a modification was introduced as the dominion and usages of Rome extended themselves through Greek-speaking countries. Even amongst the Romans the crux (from which our cross is derived) appears to have been originally an upright pole, and this always remained the more prominent part."

The quote continues to cite Seneca's (4 BC-65 AD) eye-witness testimony about 3 different kinds of crucifixion regularly employed, the last of which was where the victim's arms were extended on a patibulum. The dictionary then adds:

"There can be no doubt, however, that the latter sort was was the more common, and that about the period of the gospel age crucifixion was usually accomplished by suspending the criminal on a cross piece of wood." - p. 376

You can read the Imperial Bible Dictionary article for yourself here:

    Hello guest!

So why do Watch Tower publications show Jesus on a stake with hands over his head instead of on the traditional cross? Reading an extended quote from the Imperial Bible Dictionary makes the reason for Watchtower's divergence on this matter unclear.

Quote

Was that the case in connection with the execution of God’s Son? It is noteworthy that the Bible also uses the word xyʹlon to identify the device used. A Greek-English Lexicon, by Liddell and Scott, defines this as meaning: “Wood cut and ready for use, firewood, timber, etc. . . . piece of wood, log, beam, post . . . cudgel, club . . . stake on which criminals were impaled . . . of live wood, tree.” It also says “in NT, of the cross,” and cites 

    Hello guest!
 and 
    Hello guest!
 as examples. (Oxford, 1968, pp. 1191, 1192) However, in those verses KJ, RS, JB, and Dy translate xyʹlon as “tree.” (Compare this rendering with 
    Hello guest!
    Hello guest!
.)

There's no problem with this section as crosses were made of wood from trees. Not only that, but trees had branches upon which arms could be outstretched either side of the body, above it, upside-down or however the executioner wanted to position the poor victim. 

Of course, the Org. no longer translates Jesus' mode of execution as 'impaling' because, well, he wasn't impaled; he was suspended from a stauros by being nailed to it. Impaling is an entirely different kind of torturous end. 

This reference, then, doesn't help explain why Watch Tower publications depict Jesus on an upright stake either.

Quote

The book The Non-Christian Cross, by J. D. Parsons (London, 1896), says: “There is not a single sentence in any of the numerous writings forming the New Testament, which, in the original Greek, bears even indirect evidence to the effect that the stauros used in the case of Jesus was other than an ordinary stauros; much less to the effect that it consisted, not of one piece of timber, but of two pieces nailed together in the form of a cross. . . . It is not a little misleading upon the part of our teachers to translate the word stauros as ‘cross’ when rendering the Greek documents of the Church into our native tongue, and to support that action by putting ‘cross’ in our lexicons as the meaning of stauros without carefully explaining that that was at any rate not the primary meaning of the word in the days of the Apostles, did not become its primary signification till long afterwards, and became so then, if at all, only because, despite the absence of corroborative evidence, it was for some reason or other assumed that the particular stauros upon which Jesus was executed had that particular shape.”—Pp. 23, 24; ...

"(1) ... What are the author’s credentials? ... (3) Where did the author get the information? Does he supply sources that can be checked? (4) Is the information current?" 

Not only is this another outdated source, but psychical research enthusiast J.D. Parsons does not provide references for his comments here (

    Hello guest!
). Historical, linguistic and gospel evidence contradicts him. It's a pity he didn't consult works like the Imperial Bible Dictionary before he wrote his book.

Quote

...  see also The Companion Bible (London, 1885), Appendix No. 162.

"(3) Where did the author get the information? Does he supply sources that can be checked? (4) Is the information current?" 

This is another old work, this time one edited by E.W. Bullinger. Appendix No. 162 does supply some sources, but it also repeats some of Alexander Hislop's and others' mistaken ideas, e.g. the Babylonian sun-god cross. Not only that, but Bullinger (or whoever the author of Appendix No. 162 was) was evidently unaware of the Oxyrhyncus discoveries which showed that the understanding of stauros as being a two-pieced cross shape occurred in 2nd (and possibly 1st) century Christian writings.

See the Companion Bible entry here:

    Hello guest!

In fact, many of these old publications the Org. uses as support, and that are contemporaneous with one another, seem to feed off each other's sources, regurgitating them in their own works. The Two Babylons was published in book form in 1858. It's always good to keep this in mind when reading older references after that time because it often influenced other theologians' work - especially if their theology was less mainstream. Vine's Expository Dictionary's entry on 'Cross' is another notable example (see below).

Quote

Thus the weight of the evidence indicates that Jesus died on an upright stake and not on the traditional cross.

That's assuming that all the available evidence has been presented to the Reasoning book reader. As we've seen, it hasn't but has been cherry-picked from flawed, out-of-date works, which often recycle the same sources, in order to force a predetermined conclusion. When we dig into those sources a little deeper, we find that Watchtower's rejection of the cross and adoption of an upright stake to depict Jesus' execution is based on insubstantial grounds. If we research the subject more thoroughly, although we will never be certain what shape stauros Jesus died on, we will find that the weight of evidence indicates the opposite view to that of the Organization. 

 

Quote

What were the historical origins of Christendom’s cross?

“Various objects, dating from periods long anterior to the Christian era, have been found, marked with crosses of different designs, in almost every part of the old world. India, Syria, Persia and Egypt have all yielded numberless examples . . . The use of the cross as a religious symbol in pre-Christian times and among non-Christian peoples may probably be regarded as almost universal, and in very many cases it was connected with some form of nature worship.”—Encyclopædia Britannica (1946), Vol. 6, p. 753.

What does this have to do with how Christians regard the cross? Cross shapes occur in different cultures, times and contexts. Whatever significance non-Christians placed on cross shapes (4 cardinal points, 4 year markers, 4 key stages in the Sun's apparent seasonal or daily paths around the Earth, circle of life, etc.) has nothing to do with any symbolism Christians attach to the cross Jesus was believed to have been executed on.

Quote

“The shape of the [two-beamed cross] had its origin in ancient Chaldea, and was used as the symbol of the god Tammuz (being in the shape of the mystic Tau, the initial of his name) in that country and in adjacent lands, including Egypt. By the middle of the 3rd cent. A.D. the churches had either departed from, or had travestied, certain doctrines of the Christian faith. In order to increase the prestige of the apostate ecclesiastical system pagans were received into the churches apart from regeneration by faith, and were permitted largely to retain their pagan signs and symbols. Hence the Tau or T, in its most frequent form, with the cross-piece lowered, was adopted to stand for the cross of Christ.”—An Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words (London, 1962), W. E. Vine, p. 256.

"(2) ... Is there any bias? (3) Where did the author get the information? Does he supply sources that can be checked? (4) Is the information current?"

Vine's comment about the two-beamed cross's Chaldean origin actually came from Hislop (Two Babylons, p. 197-8). It is false

Hislop was rabidly anti-Catholic and grasping at anything to discredit it, no matter how outlandish. However, in doing so, he was undermining aspects of biblical Christianity too. So, yes, one could say he was biased - so much so that he imagined ancient pagan-Catholic connections everywhere. He provides no historical evidence that the Babylonian god Tammuz was represented by a Tau and besides, the Babylonians didn't write in Greek! Their writing was logographic and the signs for Tammuz (Dumuzi) don't look anything like crosses. 

03eec4c2f3500341b2c65cc3d18b9bb4.jpg
 
On the other hand, the Paleo-Hebrew script has a letter tav. Guess what it looks like:

    Hello guest!
#

Shocking, hey?

Quote

“It is strange, yet unquestionably a fact, that in ages long before the birth of Christ, and since then in lands untouched by the teaching of the Church, the Cross has been used as a sacred symbol. . . . The Greek Bacchus, the Tyrian Tammuz, the Chaldean Bel, and the Norse Odin, were all symbolised to their votaries by a cruciform device.”—The Cross in Ritual, Architecture, and Art (London, 1900), G. S. Tyack, p. 1.

"(3) Where did the author get the information? Does he supply sources that can be checked? (4) Is the information current?"

Again, a 19th/early 20th century work. Tyack doesn't provide any sources for his statements. However the concepts seem to be from the Two Babylons book. These connections between the cross and Tammuz plus other ancient near eastern deities don't go back beyond the 1850s and Hislop's book - not that I've been able to trace, anyway.

Quote

“The cross in the form of the ‘Crux Ansata’ . . . was carried in the hands of the Egyptian priests and Pontiff kings as the symbol of their authority as priests of the Sun god and was called ‘the Sign of Life.’”—The Worship of the Dead (London, 1904), Colonel J. Garnier, p. 226.

Around and around we go. This information is straight out of Two Babylons! Look:

    Hello guest!

Please pay particular notice to the references in the footnotes on that page.

I'll post separately about all those cross symbols and the conclusions Hislop jumps to.

Quote

“Various figures of crosses are found everywhere on Egyptian monuments and tombs, and are considered by many authorities as symbolical either of the phallus [a representation of the male sex organ] or of coition. . . . In Egyptian tombs the cruxansata [cross with a circle or handle on top] is found side by side with the phallus.”—A Short History of Sex-Worship (London, 1940), H. Cutner, pp. 16, 17; see also The Non-Christian Cross, p. 183.

Again, what does this have to do with how Christians view the cross Jesus is believed to have died on? 

Quote

“These crosses were used as symbols of the Babylonian sun-god, [See book], and are first seen on a coin of Julius Cæsar, 100-44 B.C., and then on a coin struck by Cæsar’s heir (Augustus), 20 B.C. On the coins of Constantine the most frequent symbol is [See book]; but the same symbol is used without the surrounding circle, and with the four equal arms vertical and horizontal; and this was the symbol specially venerated as the ‘Solar Wheel’. It should be stated that Constantine was a sun-god worshipper, and would not enter the ‘Church’ till some quarter of a century after the legend of his having seen such a cross in the heavens.”—The Companion Bible, Appendix No. 162; see also The Non-Christian Cross, pp. 133-141.

This is a quote from the same Bullinger work discussed above.

Quote

Is veneration of the cross a Scriptural practice?

Now, this is a whole different issue.

And is it a matter of degree? Remember how obsessed many JWs are nowadays with the JW.org logo, maybe because of its associations in the JW's mind with true worship, brotherhood, divine blessings, etc. They put it on anything from tiepins to cake. Likewise, many Christians associate the cross with Jesus' love for humankind, victory over death/Satan, hope, etc., and so they like to have a symbolic reminder of that or use it as a visible expression of their faith. I guess it depends on whether one considers a line has been stepped over between expression of faith and worshipful veneration, and there is a certain level of subjectivity in that assessment.

Quote

In ancient Israel, unfaithful Jews wept over the death of the false god Tammuz. Jehovah spoke of what they were doing as being a ‘detestable thing.’ (

    Hello guest!
) According to history, Tammuz was a Babylonian god, and the cross was used as his symbol. From its beginning in the days of Nimrod, Babylon was against Jehovah and an enemy of true worship. (
    Hello guest!
    Hello guest!
) So by cherishing the cross, a person is honoring a symbol of worship that is opposed to the true God.

Here we go again. An allusion to Hislopian baloney.

Quote

As stated at 

    Hello guest!
, apostate Jews also ‘thrust out the shoot to Jehovah’s nose.’ He viewed this as “detestable” and ‘offensive.’ Why? This “shoot,” some commentators explain, was a representation of the male sex organ, used in phallic worship. How, then, must Jehovah view the use of the cross, which, as we have seen, was anciently used as a symbol in phallic worship?" End of quotation.

And an upright stake is NOT phallic?

'Some commentators' - who? The Reasoning book doesn't enlighten us.

Quote

So dear sisters, let's be careful to keep our worship to Jehovah clean and free from any influence of pagan worship that is detestable to him. I hope you all agree. :)

While I agree that idolatry is against biblical principles, the Org's reluctance to entertain at least the possibility that Jesus historically died on a cross is based on deeply flawed, outdated, and circular reasoning.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Regarding Hislop's discussion of various cross shapes on p. 197 of the Two Babylons book:

Fig. 43 shows 5 different cross shapes.

No. 1 is the familiar crucifix shape and comes from Kitto's Biblical Cyclopedia, Vol. 1, p. 495 (viewable online - as with all of these references, just Google). This reference is just a discussion of 'Cross' and Lipsius' various pictures/descriptions of this means of execution.

No. 2 is similar to No. 1 but slanted. The pic comes from Sir W. Betham's Etruria, Vol. 1, p. 54 (viewable online). This references the Etruscan alphabet. Hislop's picture is just one of the letters he's picked out.

No. 3 is like No. 1 except with a slightly curved crosspiece. This is from Bunsen's Egypt's Place in Universal History, Vol. 1, p. 450 (viewable online). Hislop's picture is one of the Coptic letters of the alphabet - a tei. He doesn't bother with the other cross-shaped letters in the Coptic alphabet on pp. 448-450 - not even the tau on p. 449!

No. 4 is similar to an ankh. Hislop thinks it's a cross (the sign of Tammuz) attached to the circle of the sun (p. 198). He provides no reference for this one.

No. 5 is a cross within a circle. This is used as another example of Tammuz being associated with the sun and the picture comes from Stephen's Incidents of Travel in Central America, Vol. 2, p. 344, Plate 2 (viewable online) where an indigenous person's belt is decorated with the symbol.

Hislop uses these sources and cobbles together isolated cross symbols - an instrument of execution, letters of the Etruscan and Coptic alphabets, an ankh and the belt decoration of a Central American Indian. These all form the basis of his argument that,

a) The Christian cross is not a Christian emblem.

(He only establishes that cross shapes occur in all sorts of places and contexts.)

b) The cross originates from the mystic Tau of the Chaldeans and Egyptians.

(An unsupported assertion pulled out of the air - none of his examples are linked to Chaldea.)

c) The letter T is "the initial letter of Tammuz - which, in Hebrew, [is] radically the same as ancient Chaldee" (p. 197).

(It's already been discussed on this thread that, while Paleo-Hebrew indeed has a cross-shaped Tav, the Babylonians wrote in cuneiform and their logographic signs making up the word Dumuzi/Tammuz do not resemble a cross.)

d) Tammuz was identified with the sun.

(Anyone with a rudimentary knowledge of Babylonian deities knows that Shamash was the god identified with the sun and Marduk may also have had solar connections - not Tammuz. Tammuz was a shepherd-god of agriculture, fertile lands, food and vegetation.)

Hislop's conclusions about how the Christian cross originates in Babylonian worship are therefore founded on ... nothing.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Views 2k
  • Replies 37
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Actually, it is not known on the basis of current evidence. So it is really a hiding to nothing or, more graphically, like flogging a dead horse to try and prove definitively what the instrument was on the basis of current evidence. Heroic attempts however, and ingenious argument all round!!

The following post quotes originally came from this thread:  Rather than take the thread totally off topic, I thought I would make some comments in a new one. I'm commenting on this post, likewise not to create a firestorm, but to flag up how we ought to check sources of information rather than automatically taking on trust that what is written is sound. Regarding information on the internet, the August 15, 2011 Watchtower put forward some criteria by which we can critical

I can see similarities in the use of jw.org logos as trinkets or ornaments or badges in the way that others might use crosses without religious significance. However, I can't really see a similarity between the way many witnesses view trinkets and cakes etc. bearing the jw.org symbol and the way in which the cross is treated religiously by diverse members of Christendom. The links below might illustrate my point: Hello guest! Please register or sign in (it's free) to view the hi

Posted Images

  • Member

Thanks for the interesting research which is very relevant, particularly on cherry picking of quotes., However, there's nothing here to say that Jesus was not nailed to an upright stake, or that the symbol does not have pre-christian, pagan association.

Although the Society's illustrations still depict Jesus death on an upright stake, our current view is this:

    Hello guest!

9 hours ago, Ann O'Maly said:

Remember how obsessed many JWs are nowadays with the JW.org logo, maybe because of its associations in the JW's mind with true worship, brotherhood, divine blessings

I'm not sure how this correlates to Christendoms veneration of the cross no matter how tacky the uses of what is simply part of a url. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Member
8 hours ago, Eoin Joyce said:

However, there's nothing here to say that Jesus was not nailed to an upright stake, ...

The evidence suggests that an upright stake is the least likely option. But as was said, we cannot be certain what shape stauros Jesus died on. The problem is how the Org. has made it look as if the upright stake was the most likely (or only) option and ignored the rest of scholarship on the matter that demonstrates the opposite likelihood.

Quote

... or that the symbol does not have pre-christian, pagan association.

Various depictions of cross shapes exist in all sorts of cultures, past and present, Christian and non-Christian. So? 

Quote

 

Although the Society's illustrations still depict Jesus death on an upright stake, our current view is this:

    Hello guest!

 

 

The Bible doesn't describe it directly, but there are hints. Unfortunately, the rest of the Society's article stumbles into the same pitfalls as the Reasoning book does. 

Quote

I'm not sure how this correlates to Christendoms veneration of the cross no matter how tacky the uses of what is simply part of a url. 

I thought I explained. What is it you are unclear on?

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Member
2 hours ago, Ann O'Maly said:

I thought I explained. What is it you are unclear on?

I can see similarities in the use of jw.org logos as trinkets or ornaments or badges in the way that others might use crosses without religious significance.

However, I can't really see a similarity between the way many witnesses view trinkets and cakes etc. bearing the jw.org symbol and the way in which the cross is treated religiously by diverse members of Christendom.

The links below might illustrate my point:

    Hello guest!

    Hello guest!

    Hello guest!

Anyway, I apologise for deviating a bit from your topic which I note is about the quality of research in the 1985 Reasoning Book article on the Cross. I am sure this line of discussion will come up more appropriately somewhere else so will leave it until then.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Member
On 2/9/2017 at 11:16 PM, Eoin Joyce said:

I can see similarities in the use of jw.org logos as trinkets or ornaments or badges in the way that others might use crosses without religious significance.

Or even with religious significance ... as the Organization has religious significance to the JW, does it not?

On 2/9/2017 at 11:16 PM, Eoin Joyce said:

However, I can't really see a similarity between the way many witnesses view trinkets and cakes etc. bearing the jw.org symbol and the way in which the cross is treated religiously by diverse members of Christendom. ...

[links to pics of people kissing crosses, etc.]

Give it time. ;)

Anyway, I was suggesting, in response to 'Is veneration of the cross a scriptural practice?', that veneration (or great respect, reverence) for an object of religious significance can occur in many forms. So I posed the question of whether it was a matter of degree to which one venerates a religious artifact and where the line might be drawn before scriptural principles are seen to be violated. Yes, maybe another thread.

On 2/9/2017 at 11:16 PM, Eoin Joyce said:

Anyway, I apologise for deviating a bit from your topic ...

It's OK. I'm not cross (geddit?). :) 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...
  • Member
You say either and I say either
You say neither and I say neither
Either, either neither, neither
Let's call the whole thing off
You like potato and I like potahto
You like tomato and I like tomahto
Potato, potahto, tomato, tomahto
Let's call the whole thing off
You say laughter and I say larfter
You say after and I say arfter
Laughter, larfter after arfter
Let's call the whole thing off
You like vanilla and I like vanella
You saspiralla, and I saspirella
Vanilla vanella chocolate strawberry
Let's call the whole thing off
I say father, and you say pater
I saw mother and you say mater
Pater, mater uncle, auntie let's call the whole thing off
I like bananas and you like banahnahs
I say havana and I get havahnah
Bananas, banahnahs havana, havahnah
Go your way, I'll go mine
So if I go for scallops and you go for lobsters
So all right no contest we'll order lobseter
For we know we need each other so we
Better call the calling off off
Let's call the whole thing off

 

Cross or Stake .....................................So what ! Did Jesus die ? Surely that's the important question !

So Lets call the whole thing .......Orff !

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Member
On 2/25/2017 at 5:57 AM, INTREPID TRAVELLER said:

Cross or Stake .....................................So what ! Did Jesus die ? Surely that's the important question !

Indeed. But the focus of this thread is on how historical and linguistic scholarship can be misused or ignored to influence readers to a preordained conclusion (namely, that Jesus didn't die on a cross). The shape of the stauros Jesus died on shouldn't be an issue, but the Org has stuck its neck out and made it one.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...
  • Member

The Org. did not make it an issue, we are doing that by all this fluffing arguing. Why? The REAL issue, is of JESUS death, is dying shedding his blood, correct? How, is not a priority. That he died, he fulfilled his purpose for,his Father. We are fussing over .gnats in the wine and missing out on the dinner prepared for us! Don't think the host has more wine!?! 

Remember Peter's words..."Only you have words of everlasting life."

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Member

We cannot be dogmatic about the shape, size or other physical characteristics of the instrument on which our Lord was hung but the linguistic, biblical and historical evidence favours the stake as the most likely form. This is what the eyewitnesses saw on that occasion and it was a stauros  which simply means a stake even though at that time the word evolved into a different shape, a cross. WT writers have certainly used older sources to support our argument but this is simply due to the fact that scholarship has not had much to say on this subject with the exception of Gunnar Samuelson's thesis that Jesus was hung on a suspension device which differed to the traditional 'cross'.

scholar JW

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Member

I don't know, but has it occurred to anyone that because the Romans were pagan, and it was the Romans who executed Jesus, that perhaps they may have used a pagan symbol, or at least the type of torture device that was popular in those days for THEM, and if the cross was what was popular in those days, then there is no reason why it couldn't have been a cross. Really, it is irrelevant whether it was a cross or something else since it wasn't Jesus or Jehovah who were deciding.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Similar Content

    • Guest Kurt
      By Guest Kurt
      Was Jesus Crucified on a Cross NO..mp4
       
    • By Brother Rando
      In order for the following prophecy to be fulfilled, "He is guarding all his bones; Not one of them has been broken." (Psalm 34:20)  Which method of death is true?  A or B?

    • By Anna
      Maybe this is not completely relevant to the discussion, but has anyone noticed in today's WT study (WT January2017 ) the illustration of Jesus on the stake, with the nails going through his wrists rather than through the palm of his hands? I haven't noticed this before, perhaps we have always drawn it this way and I just didn't pay enough attention. I remember reading somewhere some technicalities about the actual physical possibilities or impossibilities, and one argument was that the victim could not be nailed to a stake through the hands as the weight of the body would rip through the palms (sorry, this is so morbid) and the only way it could be through the palms is if the downward weight was distributed with the arms tied to a cross beam and the then the palms nailed (I guess for added anguish). In any case, when Thomas needed confirmation of Jesus' resurrection he said at John 20:25 .....“Unless I see in his hands the print of the nails and stick my finger into the print of the nails and stick my hand into his side, I will never believe it.” Is this a case of a broad usage for "hand"? And could it mean anything from the fingers to the wrists, including the wrists? In some languages the translation of hand can be a little confusing because it can also mean the whole arm in another language. Only the context can give a clue as to what is meant, whether it is a hand, and arm, the forearm or the whole arm including the hand...This also got me to thinking about the translation of stauros, could that also encompass  not just a vertical beam but some horizontal beams?
    • By Jack Ryan
      "The story of God" shows His blood trickle down through the rocks into Adam giving him life.
      What was the origin of this teaching?




  • Recently Browsing

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Popular Contributors

  • Topics

  • Posts

  • Members

    • Srecko Sostar

      Srecko Sostar 1,922

      Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • Esther

      Esther 0

      Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • TrueTomHarley

      TrueTomHarley 4,524

      Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • 4Jah2me

      4Jah2me 733

      Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • xero

      xero 178

      Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • César Chávez

      César Chávez 411

      Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
  • Recent Status Updates

    • Eric Ouellet

      L'amour de Jéhovah nous modèle vers l'excellence de notre être 
      Ô Jéhovah, tu es notre Père. Nous sommes l’argile, et tu es notre Potier ; nous sommes tous l’œuvre de ta main. Isaie 64 :8  » Un potier a le pouvoir de faire avec l’argile le récipient qu’il désire. L’argile n’a pas son mot à dire. Il en va de même de l’homme par rapport à Dieu. Il n’est pas plus en droit de contester les actes de Dieu que l’argile du potier, qui, de ses mains, lui donne forme (lire Jérémie 18:1-6).
      Jéhovah a montré sa capacité d’agir sur l’Israël antique comme le potier agit sur l’argile. Nous notons cependant une grande différence. Le potier peut transformer sa motte d’argile en n’importe quelle sorte de récipient. Mais Jéhovah façonne-t-il arbitrairement les personnes, ou les nations, faisant les unes bonnes et les autres mauvaises ? D’après la Bible, ce n’est pas le cas. Jéhovah a doté l’homme d’une faculté très précieuse : le libre arbitre. La manière dont il exerce son autorité souveraine ne nous prive pas de cette faculté. Chacun doit décider s’il se laissera façonner par le Créateur (lire Jérémie 18:7-10).
      Et si un humain refuse obstinément de se laisser modeler, comment le Grand Potier exerce-t-il son autorité ? Pense au sort d’une argile qui devient impropre à l’usage que le potier veut en faire. Eh bien, il peut soit en faire un autre récipient soit la jeter ! Toutefois, quand l’argile est inutilisable, c’est généralement de la faute du potier. Mais en ce qui concerne notre Potier, ce n’est jamais le cas (Deut. 32:4). Quand une personne ne cède pas au modelage de Jéhovah, c’est toujours de sa faute à elle. Le Grand Potier exerce son autorité sur les humains en s’adaptant à la manière dont ils réagissent à son modelage. Ceux qui réagissent bien sont façonnés en récipients utiles. Par exemple, les chrétiens oints sont des « vases de miséricorde » qui ont été façonnés en « récipient[s] pour un usage honorable ». En revanche, ceux qui s’opposent obstinément à Dieu finissent par être des « vases de colère devenus dignes de destruction » (Rom. 9:19-23).
      Jéhovah modèle les humains notamment en les conseillant ou en les corrigeant. Voyons comment il exerce son autorité sur ceux qu’il façonne en nous intéressant aux deux premiers rois d’Israël : Saül et David. Quand David a commis l’adultère avec Bath-Shéba, il a causé du tort tant à lui-même qu’à d’autres. Jéhovah ne s’est pas retenu de le reprendre avec fermeté, il fut ainsi avec les hommes qui furent sous Sa direction. Par le prophète Nathân, il lui a adressé un message sévère (2 Sam. 12:1-12). Comment David a-t-il réagi ? Touché en plein cœur, il s’est repenti et a bénéficié de la miséricorde divine (lire 2 Samuel 12:13).
      Par contre, Saül, le roi qui a précédé David, a mal réagi aux conseils. Par l’intermédiaire du prophète Samuel, Jéhovah lui avait formellement ordonné de vouer à la destruction tous les Amaléqites et tout leur bétail. Mais Saül a désobéi. Il a épargné le roi Agag ainsi que les meilleures bêtes. Pourquoi ? Notamment pour s’attirer des louanges (1 Sam. 15:1-3, 7-9, 12). Quand il a été conseillé, il aurait dû être malléable, se laisser façonner par le Grand Potier. Mais il a résisté. Il s’est justifié, prétextant qu’il avait agi à bon droit parce que les bêtes seraient offertes en sacrifice. Il a minimisé le conseil de Samuel. Il a donc été rejeté par Jéhovah. Il ne méritait plus d’être roi et n’a jamais retrouvé de bonnes relations avec le vrai Dieu (lire 1 Samuel 15:13-15, 20-23).
      DIEU N’EST PAS PARTIAL
      Jéhovah offre la possibilité d’être façonné non seulement à des individus mais aussi à des nations. En 1513 av. n. è., les fils d’Israël, libérés de l’esclavage en Égypte, sont entrés dans une relation d’alliance avec Dieu. Étant sa nation choisie, Israël avait l’honneur d’être modelé par lui, d’être en quelque sorte sur le tour du Grand Potier. Cependant, le peuple n’a pas cessé de faire ce qui est mauvais aux yeux de Jéhovah, allant même jusqu’à rendre un culte aux dieux des nations voisines. Maintes et maintes fois, Jéhovah a envoyé des prophètes pour le ramener à la raison, mais il n’a pas écouté (Jér. 35:12-15). Son obstination lui a valu d’être sévèrement repris. Comme des « vases » devenus « dignes de destruction », le royaume du Nord, formé de dix tribus, et celui du Sud, formé de deux tribus, ont été vaincus l’un par l’Assyrie et l’autre par Babylone. Quelle leçon puissante ! Nous ne tirerons profit du façonnage de Jéhovah qu’à condition de bien y réagir.
      Jéhovah a également offert aux habitants de Ninive, la capitale assyrienne, la possibilité de tenir compte de ses avertissements. Il a dit à Jonas: « Lève-toi, va à Ninive la grande ville, et proclame contre elle que leur méchanceté est montée devant moi. » Ninive était vouée à la destruction (Jonas1:1, 2 ; 3:1-4).
      Cependant, quand Jonas a annoncé son message de condamnation, « les hommes de Ninive se mirent à avoir foi en Dieu ; ils proclamèrent alors un jeûne et se revêtirent de toiles de sac, du plus grand d’entre eux au plus petit d’entre eux ». Leur roi « se leva de son trône, ôta son vêtement officiel de dessus lui, se couvrit d’une toile de sac et s’assit dans la cendre ». Réceptifs à la tentative de modelage de Jéhovah, les Ninivites se sont repentis. Jéhovah n’a donc pas fait venir le malheur sur eux (Jonas 3:5-10).
      Bien qu’étant une nation choisie, Israël n’a pas été exempté de la correction. Les Ninivites, quant à eux, n’étaient pas dans une relation d’alliance avec Dieu. Pourtant, Jéhovah leur a adressé un message de condamnation et leur a fait miséricorde quand ils sont devenus de l’argile malléable entre ses mains. Ces deux exemples ne prouvent-ils pas que Jéhovah « ne se montre partial envers personne » ? (Deut. 10:17).
      JÉHOVAH EST RAISONNABLE ET SOUPLE
      La manière dont Dieu est disposé à nous modeler indique qu’il est raisonnable et souple. Témoin des situations où il prononce des jugements justes mais les révise ensuite selon la réaction des concernés. Au sujet du premier roi d’Israël, les Écritures déclarent que Jéhovah a « regrett[é] d’avoir fait régner Saül comme roi » (1 Sam. 15:11). La Bible dit encore que, lorsque les habitants de Ninive se sont repentis et sont revenus de leur voie mauvaise, « le vrai Dieu regretta le malheur qu’il avait parlé de leur causer ; et il ne le causa pas » (Jonas 3:10).
      Le terme hébreu traduit par « regretta » se rapporte à un changement de point de vue ou d’intention. Jéhovah a changé de point de vue à l’égard de Saül : il l’avait choisi pour être roi, mais il a fini par le rejeter. Ce changement s’est produit non parce que Jéhovah avait fait un mauvais choix, mais parce que Saül a manqué de foi et est devenu désobéissant. Le vrai Dieu a éprouvé du regret dans le cas des Ninivites : son intention à leur égard a changé. Quel réconfort de savoir que Jéhovah, notre Potier, est raisonnable et souple, compatissant et miséricordieux, prêt à réviser son jugement quand un transgresseur se réforme !
      NE REJETONS PAS LA DISCIPLINE DE JÉHOVAH
      Aujourd’hui, Jéhovah nous façonne principalement par sa Parole, la Bible, et par son organisation (2 Tim. 3:16, 17). Ne devrions-nous pas accepter tout conseil ou toute correction que nous recevons par ces moyens ? Quelles que soient les années que nous avons passées à servir Dieu, ou nos attributions de service, continuons d’accepter les conseils de Jéhovah, laissons-nous façonner en vases pour un usage honorable. 
      Le Grand Potier est notre Père. Et ne l’oublions jamais, « celui que Jéhovah aime, il le reprend, comme un père reprend le fils en qui il prend plaisir ». Alors, « ne rejettons pas [...] la discipline de Jéhovah, et n’ayons pas son blâme en aversion » (Prov. 3:11, 12).

      · 0 replies
    • folens  »  Eric Ouellet

      Hello Eric, merci pour tes bons sujets. Bonne journée Michel
      OUI certains jours.mp4
      · 1 reply
    • Eric Ouellet

      Bâtissons chaque but de notre vie avec amour
      L'homme à toujours chercher le sens véritable de l'amour. L'homme réfléchissant à cette vertu, il sépara cette qualité en trois phases et uni en une seule.  Les millénaires passèrent et l'homme à compris que les trois phases de l'amour sont des étapes que l'on ne peut trépasser.
      La première partie est appelé" L'Éros."
      L'éros fut le premier chemin que Dieu entama dans son Esprit ( pensée en action) (verbe) intérieur avant de faire ce monde magnifique que nous vivons. L'Éros est le feu qui nous anime dans le début d'une pensée qui nous traverse l'esprit.
      L'Amour éros est une énergie très puissante, car d'elle, d'une seule image non réalisée, l'éros active cette image en rêve, uni à notre pensée et propulse dans notre vision, un rêve ultime qui nous pousse à chercher au fond de nous, le sentiment qui nous anime puissamment.
      Nous recherchons en nous d'autres images pour connaitre d'avantage cette vibration qui se manifeste, telle un feu ardent.
      D'un rêve, l'amour de ce but te pousse à créer et fonder ce rêve dans ta réalité, construire le but ultime de ta vie.
      La flamme de Yah, s'anime en toi ( Chant de Salomon)
      Le désir sexuelle ne fait pas parti de cet Amour.
      L'Éros te propulse dans tout les côtés des variantes d'un but non réalisé, dont tu ne connais point comment construire ce but qui s'anime en toi; et même comment pourrais-je réaliser ce but?
      Quand le rêve d'un projet d'avenir est dans l'Éros, il ne faut pas qu'il devienne en nous une obsession intense. Nous ne savons pas comment contrôler notre feu intérieur de ce but, de cette vision qui anime nos pensées, jour après jour et souvent dans les images de notre sommeil, elles peuvent envahir nos nuits.
      L'amour " Éros" nous confrontes à plusieurs désirs qui nous anime et qu'avec le temps nous apprenons à assembler le casse tête de la réalisation de notre vie, les pièces maîtresses de notre rêve qui nous poussent sans cesse à trouver les outils et l'instructions nécessaires à notre cheminement qui s'accomplit pendant une grande période de notre vie, pour atteindre l'objectif premier de notre vie, le vrai but que nous voulons accomplir.
      Quand notre but est assemblé, telle un film intérieur, de sa première image (début), à son dénouement et cela jusqu'à son accomplissement , alors notre rêve se voit construit dans notre esprit alors nous sommes prêt; nous pouvons commencer la deuxième étapes de l'amour qui construit notre but.
      L'AMOUR PHILIA UNE ÉTAPE TRÈS IMPORTANTE DE L'AMOUR
      La connaissance de l'amour apporte à réaliser le rêve de notre but vers la réalisation de notre projet en ce monde au bonheur de chacun.
      Les étapes de réalisation de chaque but, doit être construit avec l'Amour philia à (suivre)...

      · 1 reply
    • Eric Ouellet

      Pour guérir notre personnalité, une petite recette intérieure doit être préparé avec minutie et avec conviction, en voici la composition:
      En premier, prend le temps de prendre conscience de l'amour que tu t'attribues à toi même. L'amour désintéressé, celle qui te lie en toi le mérite vrai de la beauté intérieure, celle de la lumière qui vibre dans ton coeur. Cette amour doit être le fondement de ta personnalité, car plus tu consacres le temps nécessaire à épanouir tes forces et que tu perpétues cette puissance universelle envers autrui. Ainsi, tu t'élèveras au-dessus de la souffrance et Il te guidera vers le chemin de l'accomplissement de ta vie.
      En deuxième, prend le temps de travailler la qualité de la patience. La patience est une vertu primordiale à ta personnalité, car elle te fait comprendre les étapes de la vie et que pas à pas, une chose à la fois tu redresseras tes faiblesses. La patience te guidera vers la maîtrise des étapes à la victoire des buts, que tu entreprends. Cette vertu t'aidera à accepter les erreurs de ta personne et de celle des autres.
      Troisièmement, trouve en toi la joie de vivre. La joie est une petite qualité à quatre lettres. Elle se situe en toi, car chaque moment de ton quotidien elle se manifeste et elle vibre de tout ton être. Elle se manifeste, dans les moments où tu vois un coucher de soleil éblouissant, dans les activités avec tes amis qui te sont chère. Quand tu réussis un travail qui t'inspire et que tu réussis l'accomplissement avec brio. À plusieurs moment la joie se manifeste et tu dois prendre conscience de ces moments, car il font parti de la positivité de ta vie. Elle t'aide à oublier les épreuves que tu dois traverser.
      Quatrièmement, une clé primordiale doit être insérée en toi, celle de la confiance. La confiance est la synergie de l'amour désintéressé. Sans la confiance ton amour vacillera avec le temps. Bâtir la confiance est un travail acharné à ton travail personnel. Cette vertu t'aide à prendre conscience de tes mérites, de te rassurer que les actions que tu fais son juste et t'empêche de regarder constamment en arrière. La confiance te donnera la force d'avancer vers l'horizon de la lumière et croire en toi. 
      Cinquièmement, le courage, est le courant qui aide à te reprendre dans les moments difficiles où la vision de tes buts que tu entreprends devient très ardu. Il t'aide à ne pas baisser les bras dans les moments où tu ne vois plus la manière de franchir une étape, un examen de conscience qui illumine ta pensée à trouver une solution réfléchit et te dire, je vais être capable de réussir. Le courage est le deuxième souffle dans ta course vers le sommet de ta personnalité intérieure.
      Sixièmement, La force fait partie du courage, l'un ne va pas sans l'autre. Le courage est le souffle, l'oxygène qui activera ta force intérieure. La force t'aide à gravir les montagnes et même à certaine étape de ta vie à soulever les montagnes pour trouver les trésors qui y sont enfouis. La force te donne la chance à balayer les nuages de la tempête et de retrouver la chaleur du soleil du bonheur venant de Dieu.
      La septième étapes , la maîtrise de soi, une vertu qui est au sommet de ces étapes intérieures. La maîtrise de soi est l'étape ultime de ta vie  (les actions justes) car par cette vertue plus rien ne fera barrière dans le chemin que tu auras voulu suivre, car les épreuves que tu auras surmonté, te guidera à devenir maître de toi même et ne faire qu'un avec toi même, unis à Dieu et à son Roi.
      La maîtrise de soi te donnera un trésor inestimable qui est celui de l'harmonie. Équanimité ( équilibre parfait) dans tous les sens de ton âme. Tu trouveras la beauté ultime de chaques éléments de la vie, ta conscience sera dans ta pensée comme un métronome parfait; La vrai vie celle de nos rêves deviendra réalité, nous deviendrons un être de lumière. La lumière qui sommeillait en toi jaïllira de toute ta personne.
      Même dans la nuit des plus grandes tempêtes, tu seras un phare éblouissant de Dieu.
       
      SUIVRENT LES INSTRUCTIONS DE NOTRE DIEU JÉHOVAH NOUS MÈNE VERS LE VRAI BONHEUR CELUI DE LA VIE ÉTERNELLE.
      2 Timothée 3: 16-17, Proverbes chapitre 1-3,Galantes 5:22,23  1Corinthien 13: 4-(8 premier phrase)
       



      · 0 replies
  • Forum Statistics

    • Total Topics
      63,529
    • Total Posts
      130,193
  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      16,882
    • Most Online
      1,592

    Newest Member
    Juan carlos Sanchez
    Joined
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Terms of Service Confirmation Terms of Use Privacy Policy Guidelines We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.