Adam and Eve and Bryan College: BioLogos strikes

_{Denyse O'Leary

May 11, 2014

Christian Darwinism, News}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

Some say 20% of faculty are leaving.

Students and faculty at Bryan are upset at a move last month by the school’s board of trustees to “clarify” that the college believes Adam and Eve were historical figures created directly by God. The board says the clarification does not change the school’s historical position on origins. But some at Bryan believe the board’s action was intended to force out professors who may be sympathetic to evolution, and think it was unfair to do so at a time when faculty contracts are due for renewal. …

An English professor at the school, Whit Jones, said the timing of the clarification had been a “puzzle” to many on faculty, but might have been sparked by recent writings from two of his colleagues: Kenneth Turner, a Bible professor, and Brian Eisenback, an associate professor of biology who graduated from Bryan College in 2002. Together, Turner and Eisenback are writing science education materials under a grant from The BioLogos Foundation, an organization in Grand Rapids, Mich., that promotes theistic evolution.

Theistic evolution, also called “evolutionary creation,” posits God used evolution to create biological life, including humans. Bryan’s original belief statement would seem to preclude theistic evolution for humans because it says mankind’s sin “incurred physical … death”—death being a necessary component for evolution.

Though some proponents of creationism or intelligent design would argue the case for evolution is flimsy, Turner and Eisenback wrote otherwise in a two-part article that appeared on the BioLogos website in December: “Macroevolution is robust and has multiple lines of evidence in support of it, including the fossil record and molecular biology. … The reality is that evolution is not a theory teetering on the edge of collapse. More.

The obvious problem, for a person who has been following the news stream, is that the fossil record and molecular biology so often do not agree. And “evolution” is not so much “a theory teetering on the edge of collapse” as a theory that doesn’t explain anything. That is, we say “evolved to do” when we really mean “does.”

Darwin’s followers, including BioLogians, get marks for their Darwinian piety, talking this way.

But Laszlo Bencze comments:

Apparently some former graduates of Bryan College are writing a science curriculum that will cover the full spectrum of views from hard core evolution to hard core creation. As best I can tell, the authors favor “theistic evolution” although they prefer the term “evolutionary creationism” which is the same thing. Here’s a definition from the article: “Theistic evolution, also called ‘evolutionary creation,’ posits God used evolution to create biological life, including humans.”

Let’s translate that into straightforward English. “God used a process which works perfectly without any intelligent agent to create biological life.” Another way of saying it is “God used a completely self-contained process which is not accessible to any agent to create life.”

We start to see the problem with these statements. The problem is God. The statements work so much better if we simply eliminate God, whose role seems limited to creating a contradiction.

“A process which works perfectly without any intelligent agency created life.” There. Now there’s no contradiction and the statement makes sense.

Or, if you prefer, “God, an agent of unlimited intelligence and act, created life.” That statement, too, is shorn of contradiction and makes sense.

But there’s no way to combine these two statements into a coherent and logical proposition.

Like a figure which is both a circle and a square at the same time in the same way, theistic evolution is a flat out contradiction and makes no sense.

Maybe that’s what makes it somehow feel so right to so many people these days. 😉
Follow UD News at Twitter!

Comments

KF:
PS: At this point, all that has been achieved is to demonstrate just how one can get locked into a fallacy, driven by indoctrination.
Note that this also applies to yourself and Mung.
Having laid out more than adequate evidence several times to provide a corrective balance, I conclude that mere facts and reasoning will not be enough, absent something which opens the mind and heart to think afresh. A pattern that is all too familiar after years of back-forth on origins matters here at UD. Unfortunately the above will simply feed the “fundy” stereotypes. Sad.
Oddly enough, Jehovah’s Witnesses are not fundamentalists. They do not take the entire Bible literally. But I am not surprised that you don’t know that.
Barb: You are wrong, period.
Then so is W. E. Vine. So is Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance. So is Strong’s Cyclopedia, and any of the other sources cited here which translate “stauros” as stake or pole. That you ignore evidence which contradicts your worldview places you squarely in the group you deride above, those for whom mere facts and reasoning will not be enough.
There was a distinct Roman praxis of crucifixion, on T, t, X, Y (forked tree . . . ) and I shaped crosses, frequently mentioned in the literature. As a matter of mere fact, the NT documents give us the most detailed and specific account of such a case, within eyewitness lifetime.
Yet all the gospel writers use the term “stauros” which is properly translated as tree or stake. Did you bother checking any of the links I posted last night? No? Why or why not?
That information clearly implies flogging, carrying the patibulum and crucifixion on a T or t shaped cross, most likely t. The language used, stauros, is known from linguistic evidence to have the meaning of referring to crucifixion on such crosses, and does not demand only that he cross in use is I shaped.
The language used, as noted above many times, clearly shows that stauros is properly translated as stake.
This praxis of crucifixion and associated terms, crux, stauros etc, is so notorious that the UK flag has in it several X and + shaped crosses; cross being an obvious derivation of crux. For instance the Cross of St Andrew [said to have been crucified on it], X-shaped, is the main feature of the Scottish Flag, and also the Jamaican. The Swiss, Norwegian and other flags across Europe, reflect the same heritage and facts of a gruesome practice of execution turned on its head and taken as emblem of the crucified One who triumphed over death and changed our civilisation. Your flailing about to try to suggest otherwise — now amounting to citing a radical scholar who tries to revisionise history, to make crucifixion disappear — simply shows that something has gone deeply wrong. Please, think again.
Flags of various nations have little to do with the discussion. The discussion—as noted above—centers on how stauros is to be understood as the gospel writers used it. You have provided precious little evidence (at least in this post) to show why any of the scholars I cited are incorrect in their research. You refer to the term “crux” in Latin, which is translated as cross. Even amongst the Romans the crux (from which our cross is derived) appears to have been originally an upright pole.”—The Imperial Bible Dictionary, Edited by P. Fairbairn (London, 1874), Vol. I, p. 376. Is Fairbairn wrong in his assertion that the crux was originally an upright pole?Barb_{June 2, 2014
June
06
Jun
2
02
2014
05:08 AM
5
05
08
AM
PDT}

Barb: You are wrong, period. There was a distinct Roman praxis of crucifixion, on T, t, X, Y (forked tree . . . ) and I shaped crosses, frequently mentioned in the literature. As a matter of mere fact, the NT documents give us the most detailed and specific account of such a case, within eyewitness lifetime. That information clearly implies flogging, carrying the patibulum and crucifixion on a T or t shaped cross, most likely t. The language used, stauros, is known from linguistic evidence to have the meaning of referring to crucifixion on such crosses, and does not demand only that he cross in use is I shaped. This praxis of crucifixion and associated terms, crux, stauros etc, is so notorious that the UK flag has in it several X and + shaped crosses; cross being an obvious derivation of crux. For instance the Cross of St Andrew [said to have been crucified on it], X-shaped, is the main feature of the Scottish Flag, and also the Jamaican. The Swiss, Norwegian and other flags across Europe, reflect the same heritage and facts of a gruesome practice of execution turned on its head and taken as emblem of the crucified One who triumphed over death and changed our civilisation. Your flailing about to try to suggest otherwise -- now amounting to citing a radical scholar who tries to revisionise history, to make crucifixion disappear -- simply shows that something has gone deeply wrong. Please, think again. KFkairosfocus_{June 2, 2014
June
06
Jun
2
02
2014
04:12 AM
4
04
12
AM
PDT}

NOTICE: I give up on trying to get this thread back on main focus per the OP, which has been hardly discussed. KF PS: At this point, all that has been achieved is to demonstrate just how one can get locked into a fallacy, driven by indoctrination. Having laid out more than adequate evidence several times to provide a corrective balance, I conclude that mere facts and reasoning will not be enough, absent something which opens the mind and heart to think afresh. A pattern that is all too familiar after years of back-forth on origins matters here at UD. Unfortunately the above will simply feed the "fundy" stereotypes. Sad.kairosfocus_{June 2, 2014
June
06
Jun
2
02
2014
04:00 AM
4
04
00
AM
PDT}

You may also want to read these: Gunnar Samuelsson, biblical scholar, states: “"There is no distinct punishment called 'crucifixion,' no distinct punishment device called a 'crucifix' anywhere mentioned in any of the ancient texts including the Gospels," [http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/jesus-christ-died-cross-scholar/story?id=11066130] Link to Samuelsson’s thesis: http://www.hum.gu.se/english/current/news/Nyhet_detalj/what-do-we-really-know-about-the-crucifixion-of-jesus-.cid938216 Other non-Witness sites discussing the translation of “stauros”: http://www.yaim.org/web/literature/other-topics/163-didyahshuadieona http://www.albatrus.org/english/religions/pagan/origin_of_cross.htm http://www.devotedservants.com/cross.htmBarb_{June 1, 2014
June
06
Jun
1
01
2014
08:16 PM
8
08
16
PM
PDT}

Mung,
And yet you constantly quote not from the Bible, but from Jehovah’s Witnesses publications. So really, how do you know you obtain your truth from the Bible?
Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance is on my bookshelf and is not a WT publication. Any of the sources I cited are available at libraries (or online possibly) for you to double check, and the scholars I cited are not Witnesses, to my knowledge (W.E. Vine certainly isn’t). How do I know I obtain truth from the Bible? From reading the Bible. There’s even an example in the first century of the Beroeans. Paul indicated that they were “noble-minded” because they didn’t simply take his word for it, they examined their own scrolls to see if what he was saying was true. If you want to know what translations I have: the Jerusalem Bible, KJV (old 1911 version), Parallel Bible (four translations in one RSV, ASV, LB, NIV), the Bible in Living English and a Septuagint translation. Your irrational hatred for the Witnesses is really clouding your argument.
You quote W.E. Vine. W.E. Vine is not the Bible! You probably would not even be aware of W.E. Vine if it were not from JW publications.
No, he’s not. But he is a credible scholar. And I did know about him from research I did years ago.
Simple test. Try to debate without them. The proof, as they say, is in the eating thereof.
I have been. I have cited multiple scholars who are not Witnesses and whose work has been published outside of the organization.
Barb, You may not understand this, but you’ve already lost this debate.
Actually, I haven’t. I have provided more than enough proof for my position. You may not personally like it, but the evidence is there.
For it was only through JW publications that you learned that Jesus was not crucified on a cross. You’ve already admitted that this was “new light” not delivered until 1936 and that the prior teaching was false. And you’ve already admitted that this “new light” is not what JW’s always believed and taught. You’ve also admitted that the doctrine could change tomorrow as additional “new light” is revealed.
How do you know for a fact that I learned this only through JW publications? You don’t, of course. Asked and answered. The evidence—from biblical exegesis and translation to scholarly works—indicate that Jesus did not die on a cross. It’s doubtful that any new light will change this.
Wherever this teaching came from, it wasn’t from the Bible. And of course, though it should go without saying, it’s this “new light” that changes, not the Bible, which is yet further evidence that the doctrines of the JW’s are not Biblical.
Then refute any of the scriptures cited with the word “stauros” translated as “stake”.
So, what about the definition as provided by the other non-Witness sources I provided, like W. E. Vine and the various study Bibles and concordances? Are they incorrect in their rendering of the word stauros as well, or not? It depends. Why is that such an impossible concept for you to grasp?
Because you haven’t begun to address any of the scholars or scriptures cited. If you’re going to state that “stauros” is properly translated as cross, then you’re going to have to address the scholars who state otherwise.
It depends on context. You do understand, don’t you, that the meaning of a word can change based upon the context in which it is used (among other things)?
Yes. But what is the meaning of “stauros” as used by the Bible writers? That is what’s most important. Not that words can change over time. Don’t move the goalposts. What is the proper way “stauros” should be translated from the Greek to English when translating the NT, that is the question.
You do understand, don’t you, that the meaning of a word can change over time? Why do you and the Watchtower publications claim that the word stauros has only one “true” meaning and that it has never had any other meaning?
The question to be settled is not whether words change over time. The question is as to whether Christ was hung on a cross or not. To answer this, it is necessary to consult the original Hebrew and Greek languages in which the Bible was written; we do this by consulting manuscript copies of the original accounts, some of which copies date back to within fifty years of the originals, are available to scholars. Besides these, the original words are defined and explained in dictionaries or lexicons written in modern English. And, in addition, there are dependable encyclopedias, histories, etc., to which reference can be made (Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance; Strong’s Cyclopedia, etc).
Why do they also admit that the meaning of the word changed over time? Why is their position on the meaning of the word stauros self-contradictory? How can you trust an organization that contradicts itself? How can you trust yourself when you contradict yourself?
I’m not contradicting myself. You are moving the goalposts because, apparently, you have no answer for the scholars who translate “stauros” as anything but cross.
CRUCIFIXION. The act of nailing or binding a living victim or sometimes a dead person to a cross or stake (stauros or skolops) or a tree (xylon). … The verbstauron occurs frequently in the NT, which always employs stauros and neverskolops for the cross of Christ (see TDNT 7:572-84). A. Crucifixion among Non-Romans B. Crucifixion under the Romans C. Forms of Crucifixion D. Jesus’ Crucifixion E. Christian Interpretations of the Crucifixion – The Anchor Bible Dictionary, Volume 1, p. 1207
Yes, and…? Address the scholars first who state that “stauros” is properly translated as stake or pole.
Note the reference to skolops, a point I raised earlier before having even read this article.
Non sequitur. The word used by the gospel writers is “stauros”.
If the New Testament writers wanted to convey the idea that Jesus was crucified on a cross rather than a stake would they have used stauros? If not, what other Greek word would they have employed?
Yes, because, as evidence shows “stauros” is properly translated as stake or pole. Hence, the use of the word “cross” in the English-language Bibles is a mistranslation. On this, the New World Translation of the Christian Greek Scriptures, in its appendix, on pages 768-771, in commenting on Matthew 10:38, where the Greek word (stau•ros?) first appears and which is translated “cross” in most Bibles, states: “This is the expression used in connection with the execution of Jesus at Calvary. There is no evidence that the Greek word stau•ros? meant here a ‘cross’ such as the pagans used as a religious symbol for many centuries before Christ to denote the sun-god.”
Barb, where do the JW’s address these questions in their literature?
There are literally dozens of articles on the cross as used in worship dating back to 1950. Further from the appendix of the 1950 NWT, as an example: “In the classical Greek the word stau•ros? meant merely an upright stake or pale, or a pile such as is used for a foundation. The verb stau•ro?o meant to fence with pales, to form a stockade or palisade, and this is the verb used when the mob called for Jesus to be impaled. To such a stake or pale the person to be punished was fastened, just as when the popular Greek hero Pro•me?the•us was represented as tied to a stake or stau•ros?. The Greek word which the dramatist Aes?chy•lus used to describe this means to fasten or fix on a pole or stake, to impale, and the Greek author Lucian used a•na•stau•ro?o as a synonym for that word. In the Christian Greek Scriptures a•na•stau•ro?o occurs but once, at Hebrews 6:6. The root verb stau•ro?o occurs more than 40 times, and we have rendered it ‘impale’, with the footnote: ‘Or, “fasten on a stake or pole.’” “The inspired writers of the Christian Greek Scriptures wrote in the common (koi•ne?) Greek and used the word stau•ros? to mean the same thing as in the classical Greek, namely, a stake or pale, a simple one without a crossbeam of any kind or at any angle. There is no proof to the contrary. The apostles Peter and Paul also use the word xy?lon to refer to the torture instrument upon which Jesus was nailed, and this argues that is was an upright stake without a crossbeam, for that is what xy?lon in this special sense means. (Acts 5:30; 10:39; 13:29; Galatians 3:13; 1 Peter 2:24) At Ezra 6:11 we find xy?lon in the Greek Septuagint (1 Esdras 6:31), and there it is spoken of as a beam on which the violator of law was to be hanged, the same as at Luke 23:39; Acts 5:30; 10:39. “The fact that stau•ros? is translated crux in the Latin versions furnishes no argument against this. Any authoritative Latin dictionary will inform the examiner that the basic meaning of crux is a ‘tree, frame, or other wooden instrument of execution’ on which criminals were impaled or hanged. (Lewis-Short) A cross is only a later meaning of crux. Even in the writings of Livy, a Roman historian of the first century B.C., crux means a mere stake. Such a single stake for impalement of a criminal was called crux simplex, and the method of nailing him to such an instrument of torture is illustrated by the Roman Catholic scholar, Justus Lipsius, of the 16th century. We present herewith a photographic copy of his illustration on page 647, column 2, of his book De Cruce Liber Primus. This is the manner in which Jesus was impaled.” “Rather than consider the torture stake upon which Jesus was impaled a relic to be worshiped, the Jewish Christians like Simon Peter would consider it to be an abominable thing. At Galatians 3:13 the apostle Paul quotes Deuteronomy 21:23 and says: ‘It is written: “Accursed is every man hanged upon a stake.’” Hence the Jewish Christians would hold as accursed and hateful the stake upon which Jesus had been executed. Says the celebrated Jewish authority, Moses Mai•mon?i•des, of the 12th century: ‘They never hang upon a tree which clings to the soil by roots; but upon a timber uprooted, that it might not be an annoying plague: for a timber upon which anyone has been hanged is buried; that the evil name may not remain with it and people should say, “This is the timber on which so-and-so was hanged.” So the stone with which anyone has been stoned; and the sword, with which the one killed has been killed; and the cloth or mantle with which anyone has been strangled; all these things are buried along with those who perished.’ (Apud Casaub. in Baron. Exercitat. 16, An. 34, Num. 134) Says Kalinski in Vaticinia Observationibus Illustrata, page 342: ‘Consequently since a man hanged was considered the greatest abomination—the Jews also hated more than other things the timber on which he had been hanged, so that they covered it also with earth, as being equally an abominable thing.’ “The evidence is, therefore, completely lacking that Jesus Christ was crucified on two pieces of timber placed at a right angle. We refuse to add anything to God’s written Word by inserting the pagan cross into the inspired Scriptures, but render stau•ros? and xy?lon according to the simplest meanings. Since Jesus used stau•ros? to represent the suffering and shame or torture of his followers (Matthew 16:24), we have translated stau•ros? as ‘torture stake’, to distinguish it from xy?lon, which we have translated ‘stake’, or, in the footnote, ‘tree,’ as at Acts 5:30.”
CRUCIFIXION. C. Forms of Crucifixion Under the Roman Empire, crucifixion normally included a flogging beforehand. At times the cross was only one vertical stake. Frequently, however, there was a crosspiece attached either at the top to give the shape of a “T” (crux commissa) or just below the top, as in the form most familiar in Christian symbolism (crux immissa). The victims carried the cross or at least a transverse beam (patibulum) to the place of execution, where they were stripped and bound or nailed to the beam, raised up, and seated on a sedile or small wooden peg in the upright beam. – The Anchor Bible Dictionary, Volume 1, p. 1208 Of course, JW’s deny this, when they are not admitting it. They contradict themselves, as necessary, in order to preserve their doctrine and the “integrity” of their organization.
Bolded for emphasis. Again, refute the scholars (and scriptures) that state that the word is properly translated as “stake.”
“The inspired writers of the Christian Greek scriptures wrote in the common (koine) Greek and used the word stauros to mean the same as in the classical Greek, namely, a stake or pole, a single one without a crossbeam of any kind or at any angle. There is no proof to the contrary.” – New World Translation (1950), p. 769 “The evidence is, therefore, completely lacking that Jesus Christ was crucified on two pieces of timber placed at a right angle” (New World translation, 1950, p.771). “Stauros in both classical and koine Greek carries no thought of a “cross” made from two timbers. It means only an upright stake, pale, pile or pole.” – Aid To Bible Understanding (1971), p. 824 “No Biblical evidence even intimates that Jesus died on a cross.”
Great, thanks for proving my point for me. And yet you insist that I lost this debate.
“In classical Greek, this word [stauros] meant merely an upright stake or pale.Later it also came to be used for an execution stake having a crosspiece.” – Reasoning From the Scriptures (1987), p. 89
Later on, the word’s meaning changed. The point—which you repeatedly miss—is what did the gospel writers mean when they used the term “stauros”? Did they mean stake or cross? Because the original meanings of these words were later expanded to include the cross, that does not argue that the Bible writers meant cross when they spoke about Jesus’ death instrument. The Encyclopædia Britannica, 11th Edition, says: “Lipsius and other writers speak of the single upright stake to which criminals were bound as a cross, and to such a stake the name of crux simplex has been applied.” Here’s a response to a question sent to the organization, found in the 8/15/58 Watchtower: Where other Bible translations use “cross” the New World Translation usually uses “stake,” but in some places it uses “tree,” as at Acts 5:30 in the margin. Why is this?—W. M., United States. In the Bibles of Christendom in general the Greek word that is translated “cross” is the word staurós. Originally this was used to mean simply a stake or a pole, that is, one without a crossbeam. That this is the proper meaning of the word when referring to the instrument that Jesus was hung upon is shown by the fact that the apostles Peter and Paul sometimes referred to it as a tree, namely, in Acts 5:30, Acts 10:39, Acts 13:29, Galatians 3:13 and 1 Peter 2:24. The Greek word here translated “tree” is the word xylon, from which we get the word “xylophone,” an instrument of music made of wooden pieces. However, this Greek word xylon does not refer to a live tree growing in the ground and producing fruits. For a live, growing fruit-bearing tree the Greeks used another word, namely, dendron, from which we get the English word “dendrology,” meaning the science of trees. Dendron is the Greek word used in such verses as Matthew 3:10; 7:17, 18, 19; 12:33; 13:32; 21:8. Also Mark 8:24; 11:8; Luke 3:9; Jude 12; Revelation 7:1, 3; 8:7; 9:4. Interestingly enough, back in the late 1940s-early 1950s a church magazine called “The Baptist Record” complained that the NWT was mistranslating some words, including “stauros”. Here is the organization’s reply, from the 11/15/50 Watchtower: Your heading says, “The cross is not a stake,” and your paragraph four says it is fantastic to use “stake” instead of “cross”. Infected unwittingly as you are with Roman Catholic doctrine, you could be expected to speak that way. If you had not been so foolish as to blurt out before investigation but had gotten a copy of the New World Translation and read what pages 768-771 of the Appendix say on Matthew 10:38 and “torture stake”, you would have been more restrained in your editorial. You would have learned that the instrument of torture which the Greeks called staurós, and the Latins crux, was originally only a stake without a crossbeam at any angle. Consult your International Encyclopedia or other exhaustive reference work upon the subject for yourself. There is no factual, historical proof that Jesus was nailed to a cross such as Roman Catholics idolize. It is only a fiction that Helena, queen mother of Emperor Constantine, found by miraculous agencies the “true cross”. The New World Translation is not alone in maintaining that Jesus was executed upon a stake. If you have a copy of The Companion Bible Part V. The Gospels, published by the Oxford University Press, then turn to its Appendix No. 162 entitled “The Cross and Crucifixion” (page 186). After a lengthy discussion of considerable evidence the article concludes: “The evidence is thus complete, that the Lord was put to death upon an upright stake, and not on two pieces of timber placed at any angle.” Evidently you, in your reading of the Bible, have failed to attach due significance to the fact that the apostle Peter speaks of it only as a “tree” (Acts 5:30; 10:39; 1 Peter 2:24), and the apostle Paul speaks of it also as a “tree”, at Acts 13:29 and Galatians 3:13. It was easy for you to assert that it was not a simple stake upon which Jesus died, but your editorial fails to provide a shred of proof or argument that the New World Translation is fantastic, incorrect and unscriptural on this point. Also take a look at a statue found in the Louvre Museum in France: http://www.louvre.fr/en/oeuvre-notices/torment-marsyas. This provides a good example of true meaning of Greek words stauros in Matthew 27:40 and xylon in Acts 5:30.Barb_{June 1, 2014
June
06
Jun
1
01
2014
07:50 PM
7
07
50
PM
PDT}

Barb:
You and Mung have simply refused to engage in proper debate here.
Are you going to address my response?
What would you have us do? I’m willing to consider your terms of proper debate, as I am sure is kf. But you’ll need to tell us what they are.
Do you intend to address your misrepresentation of the Wikipedia article I quoted, are are you just going to pretend like it never happened?Mung_{June 1, 2014
June
06
Jun
1
01
2014
07:22 PM
7
07
22
PM
PDT}

CRUCIFIXION. C. Forms of Crucifixion Under the Roman Empire, crucifixion normally included a flogging beforehand. At times the cross was only one vertical stake. Frequently, however, there was a crosspiece attached either at the top to give the shape of a "T" (crux commissa) or just below the top, as in the form most familiar in Christian symbolism (crux immissa). The victims carried the cross or at least a transverse beam (patibulum) to the place of execution, where they were stripped and bound or nailed to the beam, raised up, and seated on a sedile or small wooden peg in the upright beam. - The Anchor Bible Dictionary, Volume 1, p. 1208
Of course, JW's deny this, when they are not admitting it. They contradict themselves, as necessary, in order to preserve their doctrine and the "integrity" of their organization. "The inspired writers of the Christian Greek scriptures wrote in the common (koine) Greek and used the word stauros to mean the same as in the classical Greek, namely, a stake or pole, a single one without a crossbeam of any kind or at any angle. There is no proof to the contrary." - New World Translation (1950), p. 769 "The evidence is, therefore, completely lacking that Jesus Christ was crucified on two pieces of timber placed at a right angle" (New World translation, 1950, p.771). "Stauros in both classical and koine Greek carries no thought of a "cross" made from two timbers. It means only an upright stake, pale, pile or pole." - Aid To Bible Understanding (1971), p. 824 "No Biblical evidence even intimates that Jesus died on a cross." - Awake!, 8 November 1972, p. 28 "In classical Greek, this word [stauros] meant merely an upright stake or pale. Later it also came to be used for an execution stake having a crosspiece." - Reasoning From the Scriptures (1987), p. 89Mung_{June 1, 2014
June
06
Jun
1
01
2014
07:06 PM
7
07
06
PM
PDT}

CRUCIFIXION. The act of nailing or binding a living victim or sometimes a dead person to a cross or stake (stauros or skolops) or a tree (xylon). ... The verb stauron occurs frequently in the NT, which always employs stauros and never skolops for the cross of Christ (see TDNT 7:572-84). A. Crucifixion among Non-Romans B. Crucifixion under the Romans C. Forms of Crucifixion D. Jesus' Crucifixion E. Christian Interpretations of the Crucifixion - The Anchor Bible Dictionary, Volume 1, p. 1207 Note the distinction in this article about who was conducting the crucifixion, and when. This distinction is obscured by JW's in their attempts to support their "torture stake" doctrine. Note the reference to skolops, a point I raised earlier before having even read this article. If the New Testament writers wanted to convey the idea that Jesus was crucified on a cross rather than a stake would they have used stauros? If not, what other Greek word would they have employed? Barb, where do the JW's address these questions in their literature?Mung_{June 1, 2014
June
06
Jun
1
01
2014
06:56 PM
6
06
56
PM
PDT}

Barb:
So, what about the definition as provided by the other non-Witness sources I provided, like W. E. Vine and the various study Bibles and concordances? Are they incorrect in their rendering of the word stauros as well, or not?
It depends. Why is that such an impossible concept for you to grasp? It depends on context. You do understand, don't you, that the meaning of a word can change based upon the context in which it is used (among other things)? You do understand, don't you, that the meaning of a word can change over time? Why do you and the Watchtower publications claim that the word stauros has only one "true" meaning and that it has never had any other meaning? Why do they also admit that the meaning of the word changed over time? Why is their position on the meaning of the word stauros self-contradictory? How can you trust an organization that contradicts itself? How can you trust yourself when you contradict yourself? YOU THEN:
So, if it never meant two pieces of timber, THEN WHY ARE YOU ARGUING FOR CRUCIFIXION?
YOU NOW:
We’ve already noted that the word “cross” stands for a number of shapes. There is the simple upright stake, called in Latin crux simplex; the crux commissa, which was shaped like the letter “T”; the crux decussata, which was shaped like the letter “X,” and the crux immissa, which was like the letter “T” but with the crossbar lowered.
Or are you just quoting yet another JW publication?Mung_{June 1, 2014
June
06
Jun
1
01
2014
06:40 PM
6
06
40
PM
PDT}

Barb:
I obtain my truth from the Bible, which presumably is where all Christians would do so (John 17:17).
And yet you constantly quote not from the Bible, but from Jehovah's Witnesses publications. So really, how do you know you obtain your truth from the Bible? You quote W.E. Vine. W.E. Vine is not the Bible! You probably would not even be aware of W.E. Vine if it were not from JW publications.
Suggesting that Witnesses are “lost” without WT publications is a hasty generalization fallacy and proves nothing.
Simple test. Try to debate without them. The proof, as they say, is in the eating thereof. Barb, You may not understand this, but you've already lost this debate. For it was only through JW publications that you learned that Jesus was not crucified on a cross. You've already admitted that this was "new light" not delivered until 1936 and that the prior teaching was false. And you've already admitted that this "new light" is not what JW's always believed and taught. You've also admitted that the doctrine could change tomorrow as additional "new light" is revealed. Wherever this teaching came from, it wasn't from the Bible. And of course, though it should go without saying, it's this "new light" that changes, not the Bible, which is yet further evidence that the doctrines of the JW's are not Biblical.Mung_{June 1, 2014
June
06
Jun
1
01
2014
06:26 PM
6
06
26
PM
PDT}

Without the divinity of Christ there is no hope of salvation for mankind. Without the supreme sacrifice of Christ (who is fully God and fully man) , there is no way of reconciling a fallen world to Almighty God. A Christian believes that Christ is God, in order to be saved, one of the conditions include accepting Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior. JWs believe a lot of things about Christ and so do Muslims, both deny the divinity of Christ, just as Muslims are not categorized as Christians, JWs cannot be categorized as Christians.Chalciss_{June 1, 2014
June
06
Jun
1
01
2014
06:09 PM
6
06
09
PM
PDT}

Axel @ 133:
If you, as a Jehovah’s witness, do not believe Christ was the son of God, while I agree with BA that it means you are not Christians in the mainstream,
You are incorrect here; Jehovah’s Witnesses believe that Christ is the son of God. We do not believe that he is equal to God. Mung @ 135:
Barb wonders why I would bother to address myself to JW’s posting here, and I think now we have ample evidence to demonstrate the wisdom of such action. Those who fail to reason, who are unreasonable, who reject all evidence that contradicts their claims, who obtain their truth from their religious organization’s publications and who are lost without those publications, who dare not disagree with their religious organization’s teachings are not exactly friends of intelligent design.
Poisoning the well: logical fallacy. Oh, and the Witnesses have written several articles on evolution and design over the years, including a special edition of the Awake! Magazine in September 2006. These can be accessed through their website. I obtain my truth from the Bible, which presumably is where all Christians would do so (John 17:17). Suggesting that Witnesses are “lost” without WT publications is a hasty generalization fallacy and proves nothing.
An example to keep in mind anythime a Jehovah’s Witness wants to tell you the “true meaning” of a word in Scripture. The “true meaning” is dictated by the watchtower organization, proclaiming to speak in the name of God as His “faithful slave,” often coming as “new light,” and frequently employs this artificial narrowing of meaning.
So, what about the definition as provided by the other non-Witness sources I provided, like W. E. Vine and the various study Bibles and concordances? Are they incorrect in their rendering of the word stauros as well, or not? We've already noted that the word “cross” stands for a number of shapes. There is the simple upright stake, called in Latin crux simplex; the crux commissa, which was shaped like the letter “T”; the crux decussata, which was shaped like the letter “X,” and the crux immissa, which was like the letter “T” but with the crossbar lowered. So when the English word “cross” is used in Bible translations made by the churches, how are you to know which of these forms is meant? The Greek word from which the English word “cross” is translated by the churches is stauros?, but to the Bible writers it did not stand for the cross that churches display as the symbol of Christianity. It meant a plain upright stake. On this the book An Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words by W. E. Vine states on page 256 of volume one: “Stauros denotes, primarily, an upright pale or stake. On such malefactors were nailed for execution. Both the noun and the verb stauro?, to fasten to a stake or pale, are originally to be distinguished from the ecclesiastical form of a two beamed cross. The shape of the latter had its origin in ancient Chaldea, and was used as the symbol of the god Tammuz.” Note also what is stated in The Companion Bible, published by the Oxford University Press. On page 186 in the “Appendixes” it says: “Homer uses the word stauros of an ordinary pole or stake, or a single piece of timber. And this is the meaning and usage of the word throughout the Greek classics. It never means two pieces of timber placed across one another at any angle, but always of one piece alone. Hence the use of the word xulon [which means a timber] in connection with the manner of our Lord’s death, and rendered tree in Acts 5:30; 10:39; 13:29; Gal. 3:13; 1 Pet. 2:24. . . . There is nothing in the Greek N.T. even to imply two pieces of timber. . . . The evidence is thus complete, that the Lord was put to death upon an upright stake, and not on two pieces of timber placed at any angle.” You suggested that the word usage changed over time, but the Bible writers used the term "stauros" which these scholars state means "stake" or "pole". Can you show me why they are wrong in their rendering of this word?
Yes, another point in which Watchtower depictions of the crucifixion are refuted by the Biblical evidence. “One of them ran and filled a sponge with sour wine, holding it up to him on a reed stick so he could drink” They had to put the sponge on a stick to raise it to his mouth. (Or perhaps this person was just very short.)</blockquote Refuted how? As explained before, we don’t know the exact size of the stake used by the Romans. All we know, from the Bible, is the Jesus required help in carrying it. Speculation is not refutation by a long shot. Most of the WT publications show Jesus being a few feet off the ground while impaled; many non-WT publications show this as well.
The time when it [stauros] “never means two pieces of timber placed across one another at any angle, but always one piece alone” ended almost half a millennium before the time the Gospels were written.
Yet that is the word used by the gospel writers. It was defined as, and continues to be defined as, a pole or stake. The Critical Lexicon and Concordance, observes: “Both words (stauros and xylon) disagree with the modern idea of a cross, with which we have become familiarised by pictures.” Admitting uncertainty as to whether Christ died on a cross, the church paper of the Evangelical-Lutheran State Church of Schleswig-Holstein, Die kirche der Heimat (The Church of the Homeland), remarked in its issue of August 2, 1951: “Whether the cross on Golgotha had a crossbar or not or whether it was just a plain stake, whether it had the T-form or whether it had a crossbar placed across the upright stake is hardly possible to determine now.”
In Homeric and classical Greek, until the early 4th century BC, stauros meant an upright stake, pole,[5][6] or piece of paling, “on which anything might be hung, or which might be used in impaling [fencing in] a piece of ground.”[7] Your insistence, and the insistence of the Watchtower, that at the time of Christ it could have one meaning is simply false.
And the Imperial Bible-Dictionary disagrees with this: “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. . . . 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. Their wording is that stauros “properly” signifies a stake or pole.
In Koine Greek, the form of Greek used between about 300 BC and AD 300, the word ??????? was already used to refer to a cross
The time period referenced above is centuries after the death of Christ, and of course, language changes over time. However, crosses were utilized by other nations in worship centuries prior to Christianity, and evidence was presented that these symbols were adopted into Christian worship. Remember also with Bible translation, accuracy is most important. If stauros means “stake”, as noted by Bible scholars, then a Bible translation (I cited a couple of them above) would have to examine its usage as well as other scriptures to make sure all the scriptures harmonized. Bear in mind that the cross has been revered from ancient times and credited with mystic powers. Observes the Cyclopædia of Biblical, Theological, and Ecclesiastical Literature: “The sign of the cross is found as a holy symbol among several ancient nations, who may accordingly be named . . . devotees of the cross. . . . The symbol of the cross appears to have been most various in its significations. Sometimes it is the Phallus [used in sex worship], sometimes the planet Venus.” Further examples: The authoritative Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible primary meaning for staurós “a stake or post,” and for xýlon “timber,” “tree” or “wood.” The New Bible Dictionary says: “The Gk. word for ‘cross’ (staurós, verb stauróo) means primarily an upright stake or beam, and secondarily a stake used as an instrument for punishment and execution.” Remember, we aren't disputing that words can mean more than one thing. The main thing that Bible translators are concerned with is accuracy. So if there is a primary meaning to a word, then that is most likely what that word will be translated as.
In A Critical Lexicon and Concordance to The English and Greek New Testament (1877), hyperdispensationalist E. W. Bullinger, in contrast to other authorities, stated …
So, we only believe the authorities that agree with our worldview? Or are we open-minded enough to listen to contrary opinions? Another question could arise: what about the early Christian congregation? Did they use it also? Showing that the cross was not a symbol used in early Christianity, the book Records of Christianity states: “Even the Cross was not directly employed in church decoration . . . The earliest symbol of Christ was a fish (second century); on the earliest carved tombs he is represented as the Good Shepherd (third century).” Also, J. Hall in his Dictionary of Subjects & Symbols in Art writes: “After the recognition of Christianity by Constantine the Great, and more so from the 5th cent., the cross began to be represented on sarcophagi [stone coffins], lamps, caskets and other objects.” Adds Sir E. A. Wallis Budge in Amulets and Talismans: “The cross did not become the supreme emblem and symbol of Christianity until the IVth century.” No, there is no record of the use of the cross by first-century Christians. I believe KF brought up one of the early church fathers, Justin Martyr (114-167 C.E.), who described in what he believed to be the type of stake upon which Jesus died: “For the one beam is placed upright, from which the highest extremity is raised up into a horn, when the other beam is fitted on to it, and the ends appear on both sides as horns joined on to the one horn.” This indicates that Justin himself believed that Jesus died on a cross. However, Justin was not inspired by God, as were the Bible writers. [emphasis mine] He was born more than eighty years after Jesus’ death, and was not an eyewitness of that event. It is believed that in describing the “cross” Justin followed an earlier writing known as the “Letter of Barnabas.” This non-Biblical letter claims that the Bible describes Abraham as having circumcised three hundred and eighteen men of his household. Then it derives special significance from a Greek-letter cipher for 318, namely, IHT. The writer of this apocryphal work claims that IH represents the first two letters of “Jesus” in Greek. The T is viewed as the shape of Jesus’ death stake. Concerning this passage, M’Clintock and Strong’s Cyclopædia states: “The writer evidently was unacquainted with the Hebrew Scriptures, and has [also] committed the blunder of supposing that Abraham was familiar with the Greek alphabet some centuries before it existed.” A translator into English of this “Letter of Barnabas” points out that it contains “numerous inaccuracies,” “absurd and trifling interpretations of Scripture,” and “many silly vaunts of superior knowledge in which its writer indulges.” Would you depend on such a writer, or persons who followed him, to provide accurate information about the stake on which Jesus died? In the second century C.E., for example, Minucius Felix wrote: “Crosses, moreover, we neither worship nor wish for. You, indeed, who consecrate gods of wood, adore wooden crosses perhaps as parts of your gods. Your victorious trophies not only imitate the appearance of a simple cross, but also that of a man affixed to it.” (The Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. 4, p. 191) The early Christians never revered the cross or regarded it as a symbol of true Christianity. Even if it had been a cross upon which Jesus was impaled, would that be a fitting religious symbol for Christians? No, no more than one would adore or worship a bullet or machete that had killed a loved one! No wonder the early Christians had no crosses in their homes! “There was no use of the crucifix,” says one historian of the early Christians, “and no material representation of the cross.” [History of the Christian Church, J. F. Hurst, Vol. I, p. 366.] There is plenty of evidence to suggest that stauros, properly translated, means “stake” or “pole” and not cross. There is plenty of evidence that the cross is a pagan symbol used by other religions before Christ. And the greatest evidence really comes from the Bible itself, for Christians are told to “flee from idolatry.” And Paul told the early Christians to “walk by faith, not by sight.”
Barb_{June 1, 2014
June
06
Jun
1
01
2014
04:56 PM
4
04
56
PM
PDT}

Hence, as preached by the followers of Christ, it [the cross] became the object of of scorn and derision by their persecutors. Witness the caricature of the Crucifixion, found on the walls of the Imperial Palace at Rome, with the following rough scrawl beneath the scene depicted, "Alexaminos worships his god," doubtless the sneer of some legionary at a Christian soldier of Caesar's household. - The Collected Writings of W. E. Vine, Volume 4, p. 126.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexamenos_graffitoMung_{June 1, 2014
June
06
Jun
1
01
2014
02:35 PM
2
02
35
PM
PDT}

Further on ignoring plain evidence to the contrary:
In Koine Greek, the form of Greek used between about 300 BC and AD 300, the word ??????? was already used to refer to a cross
and more:
In A Critical Lexicon and Concordance to The English and Greek New Testament (1877), hyperdispensationalist E. W. Bullinger, in contrast to other authorities, stated ...
Mung_{June 1, 2014
June
06
Jun
1
01
2014
12:11 PM
12
12
11
PM
PDT}

Barb, in the same post I reference in my @139, I also provided the following, which you ignored:
In Homeric and classical Greek, until the early 4th century BC, stauros meant an upright stake, pole,[5][6] or piece of paling, “on which anything might be hung, or which might be used in impaling [fencing in] a piece of ground.”[7]
Your insistence, and the insistence of the Watchtower, that at the time of Christ it could have one meaning is simply false. Your claim that kf and I have not addressed your "evidence from scholars" is likewise false.Mung_{June 1, 2014
June
06
Jun
1
01
2014
12:05 PM
12
12
05
PM
PDT}

Barb:
The same could be said of Mung and yourself. I post evidence from scholars that it was a pole or stake and not a cross and neither of you respond to that.
And that is patently false, a lie. In fact, you contradict yourself in your very next sentence:
I post evidence from scholars that it was a pole or stake and not a cross and neither of you respond to that. You simply keep repeating the same points over and over again.
Admitting that we have responded. Please, post a list of these points that we keep repeating over and over again.
You and Mung have simply refused to engage in proper debate here.
What would you have us do? I'm willing to consider your terms of proper debate, as I am sure is kf. But you'll need to tell us what they are. Are you engaged in proper debate here?
I quoted from Wikipedia:
In the literature of that time, which ended almost half a millennium before the time the Gospels were written, it never means two pieces of timber placed across one another at any angle, but always one piece alone.[8]
Here's your response:
So, if it never meant two pieces of timber, THEN WHY ARE YOU ARGUING FOR CRUCIFIXION? This quote proves my point, thanks for posting!
Because Christ wasn't crucified half a millennium before the time the Gospels were written. The time when it [stauros] "never means two pieces of timber placed across one another at any angle, but always one piece alone" ended almost half a millennium before the time the Gospels were written. That's what the articles says, it directly addresses your claim, and then you try to make it appear like it's saying the exact opposite of what it actually says, and assert that kf and I never respond to your "evidence from scholars." The time when the word never indicated two pieces of timber placed across one another at any angle, but always one piece alone, was long past. That's what the article actually says. So if you want to talk bad faith here, take a look at what you just did when contradictory evidence was presented to you.Mung_{June 1, 2014
June
06
Jun
1
01
2014
11:56 AM
11
11
56
AM
PDT}

kf:
4 –> We also know the flexibility of wood, and that we need a stout timber to bear the sorts of weights and twisting or bending forces that will be at work and remain adequately rigid. 6 x 6? is a reasonable minimum for the upright, 8 x 8? or more likely. Think, telephone pole here.
Yes, another point in which Watchtower depictions of the crucifixion are refuted by the Biblical evidence. "One of them ran and filled a sponge with sour wine, holding it up to him on a reed stick so he could drink" They had to put the sponge on a stick to raise it to his mouth. (Or perhaps this person was just very short.)Mung_{June 1, 2014
June
06
Jun
1
01
2014
11:22 AM
11
11
22
AM
PDT}

kairosfocus, In my literary travels I have come across cases where one source cites another and then another source cites that one, making it appear as if multiple independent sources attest to the same "fact." It is probably not too far fetched that some of these cited sources all trace back to Bullinger, but I haven't the time yet to investigate further. Just something to keep in mind. btw, you don't know Jack. ;)Mung_{June 1, 2014
June
06
Jun
1
01
2014
11:12 AM
11
11
12
AM
PDT}

So why my focus on the cross? It's a case in point. Orthodox Christianity does not stand and fall on the literal shape of the Cross. kairosfocus:
7 –> Pardon, but you are artificially narrowing the known, well documented range of meaning ... evidently because of a system of indoctrination that exploits the concept of avoiding pagan contamination; but facing evident facts of text, language and context is not to make anachronistic pagan impositions.
And it's not just in the case of stauros that they do this. But it's an instructive example to keep in mind anythime a Jehovah's Witness wants to tell you the "true meaning" of a word in Scripture. The "true meaning" is dictated by the watchtower organization, proclaiming to speak in the name of God as His "faithful slave," often coming as "new light," and frequently employs this artificial narrowing of meaning.Mung_{June 1, 2014
June
06
Jun
1
01
2014
11:03 AM
11
11
03
AM
PDT}

Barb wonders why I would bother to address myself to JW's posting here, and I think now we have ample evidence to demonstrate the wisdom of such action. Those who fail to reason, who are unreasonable, who reject all evidence that contradicts their claims, who obtain their truth from their religious organization's publications and who are lost without those publications, who dare not disagree with their religious organization's teachings are not exactly friends of intelligent design.Mung_{June 1, 2014
June
06
Jun
1
01
2014
10:49 AM
10
10
49
AM
PDT}

Oh, and her husband had asked the Almighty for permission to accompany Mary from the scene of the accident back to the heavenly realms, where she was to have a great conversation with Jesus. To which God acceded. The reason why he had been so joyful in his wife's dream.Axel_{June 1, 2014
June
06
Jun
1
01
2014
10:45 AM
10
10
45
AM
PDT}

Barb, was not a cogent refutation of the theme of Frazer's Golden Bough, precisely that the similarities between prior pagan myths and Christian lore, were that the former were preparatory and ancillary: a kind of obscure precognition of the object and theme of Christ's birth, life and death? So the fact of crosses, swastikas, etc, being a feature of older pagan religions, renders the assumption of the adoption of the cross (cruciform) by Christians as the preeminent Christian symbol disqualifying its plausibility an argument of questionable merit - to say the least. If you, as a Jehovah's witness, do not believe Christ was the son of God, while I agree with BA that it means you are not Christians in the mainstream, traditional sense, it strikes me that Pope Francis' remark that even atheists of good will, in good faith, as it were, may be saved by Christ is plainly attested to in the account of the Last Judgment in Matthew 25, related by Christ, himself - the sole description of the Last Judgment in the whole of the bible. Since Jehova's Witnesses were martyred by the Nazis, as in so many other idiosyncratic off-shoots of the Catholic Church, worshippers in good faith cannot be completely lacking in Christ's salvific, supernatural grace. BA, you may recall, if you read Mary C Read's book on her NDE, she wrote about a middle-aged surgical patient of hers who had been a very devout Mormon, as was his wife. The operation was perfectly successful, but, visiting Mary at her surgery, to cut a long story short - she told her that her husband had died four days after, although seemingly, at his own option, in accordance with a message given to them by their bishop. Both knew that his ardour would prompt him to choose 'an early bath', as they say in soccer. On the day of his death, he told her that he had been seeing angels all that day. When he visited her in a dream, he was very excited, and had told her about Mary's accident, of which she had been completely unaware. He gave details Mary said could only have been known by people who were there. So much for the people I had assumed were all 'nut jobs'. Maybe just most of them (Barb, the honourable exception, of course...). Or maybe most, not so far from the Way. Anyway(s), I know that does not absolve us, 'mainstreamers', from evangelising the poor souls, together with everyone else!Axel_{June 1, 2014
June
06
Jun
1
01
2014
10:33 AM
10
10
33
AM
PDT}

PS: I repeat, whatever may have happened with influences on Tammuz or the like in later centuries is utterly irrelevant to and an anachronism regarding what a cross was in C1 Palestine Roman judicial praxis. Roman crosses were most commonly in T-form for a reason: the make practical sense for horrific purpose. The t-shape accommodates a placard above the head, as was in this case. But most importantly, we have excellent eyewitness reasons to see that Jesus carried the patibulum as a yoke of shame, until he could not go farther, and Simon of Cyrene was then co-opted to carry it the rest of the way. With that there in the text,t here is no reason to go hunting for elaborate reasons to reject the well known praxis, especially when the key term used can be used to denote crosses and components in various forms. Especially, when what is read in is then used to polarise responses.kairosfocus_{June 1, 2014
June
06
Jun
1
01
2014
10:10 AM
10
10
10
AM
PDT}

Barb, with all due respect, take time to actually look above. I have spoken on evidence for record, and have addressed your key authorities and claims showing just why they are in error and why [with links that give far more] -- though it is not a big deal for me one way or another -- there is evidence that sustains a conclusion that on this point the traditional picture of the cross is more correct than not; The placard above his head was bigger than commonly thought, the nails were not through the middle of his palms, and there is a dispute as to just how the feet were nailed, also there was a "seat-peg" more than likely. Also, he would have carried the patibulum (having been whipped), in accordance with standard Roman judiciary procedure. But the basic picture -- T or t, most likely t -- is correct on the full range of relevant evidence, and so is well warranted. Even, I have shown why the weight estimate is reasonable, and why it fits well with the known historical pattern. Your attempt to impose an etymology that fails to reckon with the full range of actual well warranted meanings of stauros [which is easily accessible for all who just scroll up], and your action to further impose a projection of historically irrelevant pagan intrusions, sadly, speak quote plainly. I pointed out that this side track and pattern of argument simply feeds an already existing tendency on the part of objectors, and that it is high time to return to the proper focus for this thread and the blog. I therefore speak here only for record. KFkairosfocus_{June 1, 2014
June
06
Jun
1
01
2014
10:03 AM
10
10
03
AM
PDT}

In the end, on having evidence in front of you and reacting like this, all you manage to do . . . pardon directness, is come across as unreasonable, closed minded and dogmatic in the bad sense. Which reinforces stereotypes about the mythical war of religion against science and reason. The same could be said of Mung and yourself. I post evidence from scholars that it was a pole or stake and not a cross and neither of you respond to that. You simply keep repeating the same points over and over again. I post information showing that an ankh is a type of cross and in your next post, you deny this. You and Mung have simply refused to engage in proper debate here. If you want to debate or discuss the issue, then respond to my posts with specific statements about what I've posted. Don't simply gloss over my posts and claim victory. That really doesn't work. There is no good reason to go hunting for elaborate accounts of Tammuz to avoid that. The "elaborate accounts" of Tammuz proved my point about the cross being a pagan symbol. Did you read my post where I brought this point out, or not? 12 –> In short, your asserted rebuttal simply does not seriously respond to the evidence. My rebuttal was never seriously responded to by either you or Mung. My rebuttal contained plenty of evidence that you haven't even begun to respond to yet.Barb_{June 1, 2014
June
06
Jun
1
01
2014
06:47 AM
6
06
47
AM
PDT}

F/N: Courtesy Wiki: >> Metonymy (/m??t?n?mi/ mi-TONN-?-mee)[1] is a figure of speech in which a thing or concept is called not by its own name but rather by the name of something associated in meaning with that thing or concept.[2] The words "metonymy" and "metonym" come from the Greek: ?????????, met?nymía, "a change of name", from ????, metá, "after, beyond" and -??????, -?nymía, a suffix used to name figures of speech, from ?????, ónyma or ?????, ónoma, "name."[3] For instance, "Hollywood" is used as a metonym for the U.S. film industry because of the fame and cultural identity of Hollywood, a district of the city of Los Angeles, California, as the historical center of film studios and film stars.[4] The national capital is often used to represent the government of a country, such as "Westminster" for Parliament of the United Kingdom, "Ottawa" for Parliament of Canada, or "Washington" for United States government.[5] Metonymy and related figures of speech are common in everyday talk and writing. Synecdoche and metalepsis are considered specific types of metonymy. Polysemy, multiple meanings of a single word or phrase, sometimes results from relations of metonymy. Both metonymy and metaphor [--> = "a condensed simile"] involve the substitution of one term for another.[6] In metaphor, this substitution is based on some specific analogy between two things, whereas in metonymy the substitution is based on some understood association or contiguity.[7][8] In addition to its use in everyday speech, metonymy is a figure of speech in some poetry and in much rhetoric. Greek and Latin scholars of rhetoric made significant contributions to the study of metonymy. >>kairosfocus_{June 1, 2014
June
06
Jun
1
01
2014
05:28 AM
5
05
28
AM
PDT}

Back on track: Bencze summarises and excerpts the article:
Here’s a definition from the article: “Theistic evolution, also called ‘evolutionary creation,’ posits God used evolution to create biological life, including humans.”
1 --> This assertion in praxis means what Bencze goes on to say:
Let’s translate that into straightforward English. “God used a process which works perfectly without any intelligent agent to create biological life.” Another way of saying it is “God used a completely self-contained process which is not accessible to any agent to create life.”
2 --> The underlying ideas fail the vera causa test of empirically observed causal adequacy before use in explanations of a remote past we did not and cannot see. 3 --> Start with the empirical facts of cell based life, including codes, algorithms and algorithm implementing co-ordinated, irreducibly complex machines. 4 --> Codes are only observed to result from intelligence, which we know from adequate cases and can reason onwards on family resemblance. 5 --> We know the chemistry and thermodynamic tendencies of the sort of molecules involved and there is no known or empirically credible blind chance and mechanical necessity mechanism that would get us near to what is required, just the opposite, the tendency would be to break down. Life requires active, informational and algorithmic processes maintained by a metabolic flow and many otherwise improbably co-ordinated systems of molecular parts. 6 --> That is, the OOL root is cut off, and no roots, no shoots and no branches including us. Indeed, starting from protein fold domains, we know that islands of function in vast unsearchable by blind mechanisms on relevant scales, solar system or observed cosmos, config spaces, obtains. 7 --> So, apart from a priori question begging on materialist ideology or what is functionally equivalent to it, that degree of confidence we see above is simply unwarranted. 8 --> So, the issue becomes, ideological imposition on science, as Lewontin so tellingly admitted in his NYRB article of 1997:
To Sagan, as to all but a few other scientists, it is self-evident [[--> actually, science and its knowledge claims are plainly not immediately and necessarily true on pain of absurdity, to one who understands them; this is another logical error, begging the question , confused for real self-evidence; whereby a claim shows itself not just true but true on pain of patent absurdity if one tries to deny it . . ] that the practices of science provide the surest method of putting us in contact with physical reality, and that, in contrast, the demon-haunted world rests on a set of beliefs and behaviors that fail every reasonable test [[--> i.e. an assertion that tellingly reveals a hostile mindset, not a warranted claim] . . . . It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes [[--> another major begging of the question . . . ] to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute [[--> i.e. here we see the fallacious, indoctrinated, ideological, closed mind . . . ], for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door. [Billions and Billions of Demons. Review of Sagan's last book, NYRB, Jan 1997. If you imagine this is distorted by citing out of context, kindly cf the wider excerpt and discussion here.]
9 --> The hoped for compromise is pointless, it takes two to compromise. And that holds whatever errors may be in what Bryan College did at its founding, or is doing in its attempted clarification. KFkairosfocus_{June 1, 2014
June
06
Jun
1
01
2014
05:10 AM
5
05
10
AM
PDT}

PPS: I need to specifically address this from B:
As far as what Jesus carried, we do not know how much it weighed, nor its length, nor what kind of wood was used, nor the diameter of the pole. What we do know is that it was too heavy for Jesus to carry, so he had to have help from Simon of Cyrene. If it were a stake with a crossbeam, the cross would be heavier than a simple stake and much more uneven and difficult to carry. Either Simon carried the stake or a piece of wood used as a crossbeam. If it was just a crossbeam, then it’s remarkable that all four Gospel writers said it was the “stauros”.
1 --> We know, first the Roman praxis, carrying the patibulum, a STANDARD procedure to the point where Jesus used it and makes a chilling parallel to a man carrying a burden with a yoke and/or being yoked in a team. 2 --> We also know that the same standard praxis had the upright in place on a more or less permanent basis. The just above already describes the standard procedure of crucifixion, from a standard and wel known reference work. We are not talking here religious paintings by people who did not know better. 3 --> Next, we pretty well know that wood has a correlation between strength and density, making 0.7 g/cc a reasonable density estimate for the likely woods, perhaps towards the low end. 4 --> We also know the flexibility of wood, and that we need a stout timber to bear the sorts of weights and twisting or bending forces that will be at work and remain adequately rigid. 6 x 6" is a reasonable minimum for the upright, 8 x 8" or more likely. Think, telephone pole here. 5 --> For the cross-beam, patibulum, 6 x 4" and 6 ft [the arms are going to be a bit less than full outstretched, most likely] is a reasonable minimum. 40 - 60 lbs drops out of that, easily. The upright, 9 - 10 or more ft up in the air and at least 2 ft in ground with wedges or the like, would come in easily at 150 lbs. We are not talking about carrying a wobbly 2 x 4 here. 6 --> Carrying the upright is not feasible, carrying the upright and cross-beam together is not even in the reckoning [for historical reasons, to begin with, we have a known praxis]. 7 --> Synecdoche covers both part for whole and whole for part, so the mere existence of a word with an etymology does not suffice to dismiss the known historical praxis. 8 --> And that is the error you are making. In the teeth of a clear reason to see why carrying at minimum an 11 foot beam weighing in likely at 150 lbs, is not feasible physically, indeed it would not be reasonable for a single un-whipped man, even if he were dragging one end. Far too unwieldy. The soldiers would have got two or three or more to do that. 9 --> the history is, condemned men were whipped (and the whipping was horrific, tearing up the flesh) and forced to carry the cross-beam, known by the standard term, patibulum. 10 --> The evidence presented in the Gospels is quite consistent with that. And the linguistic actual usage is also consistent. 11 --> There is no good reason to go hunting for elaborate accounts of Tammuz to avoid that. 12 --> In short, your asserted rebuttal simply does not seriously respond to the evidence. I hope we can now lay this aside and focus the main issue, not contributing further tot he wider problem in our context, of feeding stereotypes and myths.kairosfocus_{June 1, 2014
June
06
Jun
1
01
2014
04:28 AM
4
04
28
AM
PDT}

Barb: And, sadly, again. Please read in light of context, 1 --> Jesus was crucified by order of a Roman Governor, by Roman Auxiliaries (Lancia not Pilum). 2 --> He was made to carry the patibulum. We know exactly what that meant. Where also 3 --> for excellent historical usage [as opposed to etymology] reason, stauros -- by metonymy -- INCLUDES crosses in various shapes, most commonly T and t. Where, 4 --> the patibulum (remember, a badly whipped man carrying 40 - 60+ lbs is feasible, barely; 150 lbs, not so] is decisive. 5 --> The only real debate would be T vs t, and for that his taking the literal place of a ringleader (with presumably two of the associates of Barabbas crucified on his left and right HANDS) and having an elaborate placard over his HEAD, making the most natural and reasonable sense, t. Where, 6 --> the remark, NAILS plural that left their holes in his hands (which includes the wrists), makes this again clear. 7 --> Pardon, but you are artificially narrowing the known, well documented range of meaning [which in the context of a gibbet includes T, t, X, Y as well as less likely I crosses . . . this latter more usual in a military campaign not a judicial action in a province nominally at "peace"], evidently because of a system of indoctrination that exploits the concept of avoiding pagan contamination; but facing evident facts of text, language and context is not to make anachronistic pagan impositions. 8 --> In C1 Palestine, Stauros was in a judicial context an instrument of execution, with T or t most likely. 9 --> Y would be an expedient -- a forked tree. X was apparently most used in Italy . . . and was notoriously the worst, most agonising form. I was most likely a military expedient, and on medical experiments in hand would normally be much shorter in taking the desired effect. 10 --> A permanently emplaced upright beam standing by a roadside outside a city, with arrangement to nail or tie the victim to a patibulum, then affix to the upright and nail or tie the feet in a position such that he would have to push up to breathe was most likely, and of course, place for a sign-board announcing the "crime" over his head [the Romans obviously believed in deterrence by ~~fear~~ horror], points to a t. ________________ In the end, on having evidence in front of you and reacting like this, all you manage to do . . . pardon directness, is come across as unreasonable, closed minded and dogmatic in the bad sense. Which reinforces stereotypes about the mythical war of religion against science and reason. And in the context of the OP, that is particularly regrettable. Please, pause and think again. KF PS: For those wanting backative for my notes above, cf. here and here for essays, essentially at undegrad theology level. In truth, this is not generally a serious matter for debate at technical level, it normally only comes up in contexts where something like Judge Rutherford's insistence leads to a partyline stance in a sect, or in cases where someone has a bee in the bonnet; or in a Bible Dictionary as a basic background. I guess I need to comment briefly. Vine (whose book BTW has been sitting next to me all along and has been regularly consulted . . . ) was clearly biased by his reaction to the dilution of the Faith that happened post Constantine, and did not focus on the proper historical judicial context, not to mention the force of the NT record by eyewitnesses, with the patibulum being decisive. The New Bible Dictionary, likewise within easy reach all along, summarises what I have noted, e.g. "It was the patibulum, not the whole cross, which Jesus [--> having been badly whipped] was too weak to carry . . . " Likewise, the Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels (also to hand), observes: "In the Roman world . . . the form of crucifixion was apparently more uniform: it included a flogging beforehand, and victims often carried the crossbeanm to the place of crucifixion, where they were nailed or bound tot he cross with arms extended, raised up and perhaps seated on a sedicula, or small wooden peg." Noting of the recovered case, it says "his heel bones had been pierced by a single iron nail . . . Wood fragments found at both ends of the nail indicated that the nail first passed through a small wooden plaque, then through the victim's feet, and then into a vertical, olivewood beam." It then goes on to note a later re-evaluation that suggests nailing or tying the feet astraddle the sides of the upright, and perhaps, for this case, tying of the arms to the crossbeam or patibulum. (In short, there is responsiveness to evidence and to diverse assessments not closed-minded dogmatism.) Also, that cross-shaped amulets came into use post Constantine has little to say to what was likely to have happened with Roman courts and execution squads in Palestine 300+ years earlier. They were not playing at Tammuz, but were about the grim business of executing those they deemed worthy of making into public examples, in well known horrific ways. Bullinger, likewise, spoke before the major discoveries of Koine Greek papyri in Egypt transformed understanding of NT Greek, and failed to read in context of the NT usage. (In determining meaning usage dominates over etymology. Cute, once meant bow-legged IIRC. Context is also vital in a world where words may take multiple meanings, e.g., notoriously, Jack. [In Barbados, for instance, I have heard Jack contrasted to John, the latter denoting a significantly larger fish offered for sale.])kairosfocus_{June 1, 2014
June
06
Jun
1
01
2014
03:47 AM
3
03
47
AM
PDT}

KF:
Sadly, there you go again. There is sufficient lexical and historical record that Cross, Crux, Stauros, in the context of executions could mean any of a T, t, X, Y (a handy forked tree), or I. So the attempt to impose just the I on language claims fails.
Lines of evidence against a “T” shaped cross: (1) From the NWT: The rendering of the Greek word stauros, meaning an upright stake or pole, such as the one on which Jesus was executed. There is no evidence that the Greek word meant a cross, such as the pagans used as a religious symbol for many centuries before Christ. “Torture stake” conveys the full intent of the original word, since Jesus also used the word stauros to indicate the torture, suffering, and shame that his followers would face. (Mt 16:24; Heb 12:2) (2) The Companion Bible Part V. The Gospels, published by the Oxford University Press, Appendix No. 162 entitled “The Cross and Crucifixion” (page 186). After a lengthy discussion of considerable evidence the article concludes: “The evidence is thus complete, that the Lord was put to death upon an upright stake, and not on two pieces of timber placed at any angle.” Please also don’t fail to attach due significance to the fact that the apostle Peter speaks of it only as a “tree” (Acts 5:30; 10:39; 1 Peter 2:24), and the apostle Paul speaks of it also as a “tree”, at Acts 13:29 and Galatians 3:13. (3) The Imperial Bible-Dictionary acknowledges this, saying: “The Greek word for cross, [stauros], 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. (4) It is noteworthy that the Bible also uses the word xy’lon to identify the device used. A Greek-English Lexicon, by Liddell and Scott, defines this as meaning: “Wood cut and ready for use, firewood, timber, etc. . . . piece of wood, log, beam, post . . . cudgel, club . . . stake on which criminals were impaled . . . of live wood, tree.” It also says “in NT, of the cross,” and cites Acts 5:30 and 10:39 as examples. (Oxford, 1968, pp. 1191, 1192) However, in those verses KJ, RS, JB, and Dy translate xy’lon as “tree.” (Compare this rendering with Galatians 3:13; Deuteronomy 21:22, 23.) (5) 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.” (Pages 23-4) Thus the weight of the evidence indicates that Jesus died on an upright stake and not on the traditional cross. (6) In view of the basic meaning of the Greek words stauros and xy’lon, the Critical Lexicon and Concordance, quoted above, observes: “Both words disagree with the modern idea of a cross, with which we have become familiarised by pictures.” In other words, what the Gospel writers described using the word stauros was nothing like what people today call a cross. Feel free, KF, to refute any of these scholars and their works. Feel free to explain why their scholarship should be ignored or dismissed. Also, feel free to dismiss the word of God, the Bible, which clearly uses terminology consistent with “pole” or “stake”.
Next, on eyewitness textual evidence, we have Jesus having NAILS, plural making holes in his HANDS. This is consistent with T,t,X or Y.
Not necessarily. His hands could have been extended above his head, with nails driven into either the palms or the wrists. Nail(s), plural, does not denote or signify a cross.
He carried the patibulum [until he had to be helped by Simon the Cyrene], which immediately points to T or t, as we know what that was historically. A simple density and reasonable size calc will show this weighed easily 40 – 60+ lbs, barely feasible for a badly whipped man. The upright easily would be 150 lbs, not feasible for the known march of humiliation practice. And not consistent with the known practice. Known.
Explained above. Try actually reading a post before commenting on it. We only know for a fact that Jesus needed help carrying it.
Going on, the recovered Christian ossuaries from Jerusalem from the 40?s on, show the Cross as an early definitively Christian symbol.
As pointed out above, it was a pagan symbol adopted into Christianity.
To say that is not to import a pagan symbol, it is simply to state that the evidence supports a conclusion.
See my post above with relevant quote from W. E. Vine, who acknowledges that it is a pagan symbol. Mung,
Barb, because stauros can mean an upright pale or stake, which no one here denies, how does it follow that it can only mean an upright pale or stake, as you and the watchtower society claim? Please explain the logic.
Because the definition fits. It corresponds with other scriptures (cited above) and also is verified by secular historians and scholars (also see above). The cross is a pagan symbol adopted into Christianity, according to W. E. Vine. Repeated for emphasis: The Companion Bible points out: “[Stauros] never means two pieces of timber placed across one another at any angle . . . There is nothing in the Greek of the [New Testament] even to imply two pieces of timber.” And again, repeated from an earlier post: Douglas’ New Bible Dictionary of 1985 under “Cross,” page 253: “The Gk. word for ‘cross’ (stauros; verb stauroo . . . ) means primarily an upright stake or beam, and secondarily a stake used as an instrument for punishment and execution.” The greatest evidence for the word being rendered as upright pale or stake comes from the Bible itself. The fact that Luke, Peter, and Paul also used xy’lon as a synonym for stauros gives added evidence that Jesus was impaled on an upright stake without a crossbeam, for that is what xy’lon in this special sense means. (Ac 5:30; 10:39; 13:29; Ga 3:13; 1Pe 2:24) Xy’lon also occurs in the Greek Septuagint at Ezra 6:11, where it speaks of a single beam or timber on which a lawbreaker was to be impaled. If you’re going to state that the word means something else, then you’re going to have to explain how these verses do (or do not) harmonize. We know the Bible harmonizes from beginning to end. It has been shown that the Greek word stauros is properly rendered “stake” or “pole”. It has been shown that translations other than the NWT adhere to this grammatical standard. It has been shown, repeatedly, that scholars believe that Jesus was impaled upon a stake, and not a traditional cross. It has been shown, repeatedly, that the cross is of pagan origin and was adopted into Christianity long after the death of Christ and the apostles. And it has been shown, from the Bible, that faith in Christ is not dependent upon symbols. Remember Paul wrote that early Christians “walked by faith, and not by sight.”
the more I look the more evidence there is that the orthodox Christian view is completely reasonable and is highly likely even the correct view and there was no need to change it.
Despite the evidence against it, which I posted? Or are you simply not reading anything that might conflict with your worldview. Are you close-minded or open-minded?
And Barb has yet to deal with the fact that early Christians (and yes even pagans) thought of the cross of Christ as having two pieces in the form of a T or t.
I’ve dealt with it already. The cross is a pagan symbol. Period. Full stop. Acknowledged by scholars. The early Christians did not believe it to be so, and I’ve posted relevant scriptures and citations to back this up. Too bad Mung didn’t read any of it.
What do scholars think of how Christ was crucified? Perhaps a look at some book covers.
Book covers do not prove anything.Barb_{May 31, 2014
May
05
May
31
31
2014
02:04 PM
2
02
04
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 4 5 … 8 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply