jewhovas witness deny the important doctrines of christianty and jesus

  • Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.

    If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!

    To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.

NWL

Senior Member
Jul 24, 2012
433
9
18
#41
Re: Jehovah's Witness deny the important doctrines of christianty and jesus

The OP does not make this distinction....only you do.
Why do you always have to try and be right Bowman?

The OP said "
also jw believe that jeus died not on cross but on a stake" this is what JW's belief at present, not in the past. A clear distinction from what Jw's use to believe, that he died on a cross. Why try and argue this point?

We would ask you to properly define your terms, but then you would simply regurgitate some internet JW propaganda....and no one really wants that.

Here is where your JW polemic fails...in the very definition of the term(s) in question...


σταυρος = ‘stauros’

‘stauros’ definition:


Strong’s #G4716. In Biblical Greek, stauros only in the NT and refers to a Roman cross consisting of a straight piece of wood erected in the earth, often with a transverse beam fastened across its top and another piece nearer the bottom on which the crucified person’s feet were nailed, as was the cross on which the Lord Jesus suffered (Matt 27.32, 40, 42; Mark 15.21, 30, 32; Luke 23.26; John 19.17, 25, 31; Phil 2.8; Col 1.20, 2.14).An upright stake, especially a pointed one. A cross. An instrument of torture for serious offences.In shape we find three basic forms.The cross was a vertical, pointed stake, or it consisted of an upright with a cross beam above it, or it consisted of two intersecting beams of equal length.Crucifixion took place as follows.The condemned person carried the patibulum (cross-beam)to the place of execution – the stake was already erected.Then on the ground he was bound with outstretched arms to the beam by ropes, or else fixed to it by nails.The beam was then raised with the body and fastened to the upright post.The cross which the Romans set up to execute Jesus was like any other, consisting of an upright post with cross beam.


References:

Thayer’s Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, Joseph H. Thayer, p. 586

The Complete Wordstudy Dictionary of the New Testament, Warren Baker, based on the lexicons of Edward Robinson & John Parkhurst, pp. 1308 - 1309
The New Strong’s expanded exhaustive concordance of the Bible (red-letter edition), James Strong, LL.D., S.T.D., p. 233
Theological Dictionary of the New Testament (TDNT), Gerhard Kittel, Gerhard Friedrich, & Geoffrey W. Bromiley, volume seven, pp. 572 - 580
A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and other early Christian Literature, 3[SUP]rd[/SUP] edition (BDAG), Frederick William Danker, p. 941

Even in Koranic Arabic, the Cross in which Jesus was crucified upon had a cross-beam...


يخرج من بين الصلب والترائب

Yakhruju min bayni alssulbi waalttara-ibi

86.7 He emerges from amidst the Cross and the grave.

صلب= sulbi’

‘sulbi’ definition:

Genitive case, singular masculine noun.
Hard, firm, rigid, stiff, tough, strong, robust, sturdy, or hardy. A rugged, stony place: a rugged, extending place of earth or ground; a hard part of the earth or ground: a tract of rugged depressed land stretching alone between two hills: or acclivities of hills.


The backbone; i.e. the bone extending from the base of the neck to the rump bone; the bone upon which the neck is set, extending to the root of the tail (in a beast), and in a man to the coccygis: or a portion of the back: and any portion of the back containing vertebrae: and particular the lumbar portion; the loins: and the back (absolutely).Loins; spine. The middle of a page.Rank or quality, and power or strength.

In prayer means the placing the hands upon the flanks, in standing, and separating the arms from the body; a posture forbidden by the prophet because resembling that of a man when he is crucified, the arms of the man in this case being extended upon the timber.

A hard stone, the hardest of stones, and whetstones.A spear-head sharpened; or a thing polished and sharpened with whetstones: or a spear-head sharpened upon the whetstone.

To cause to be crucified. Signifies also ichor, or watery humor, mixed with blood, that flows from the dead. A cross; a certain thing pertaining to Christians, which they take as an object to which to direct the face in prayer. The figure of a cross upon a garment.A banner or standard; properly, in the form of a cross.

الصلب= ‘al’ + ‘sulbi’ =‘alssulbi’ = The Cross

It comes from the root “salaba” (sad-lam-ba), which means he crucified him; to put to death by crucification; to put to death in a certain well known manner; extract marrow from bones. To crucify. Said of a thing, (and of a man), it (and he) was, or became, hard, firm, rigid, stiff, tough, strong, robust, sturdy, or hardy.

References:

An Arabic-English Lexicon, E.W. Lane, volume four, pp. 1711 - 1713
The Dictionary of the Holy Qur’an, 1st edition, Abdul Mannan Omar, p. 318
A Dictionary and Glossary of the Koran, John Penrice, p. 85

Concordance of the Koran, Gustav Flugel, p. 109


You haven't answered the question Bowman, I specifically asked for your views, according to your understanding of Greek grammar and language what was the instrument that Jesus was hung on, was it a cross or could it of been a simple upright stake/pole?
 

NWL

Senior Member
Jul 24, 2012
433
9
18
#42
Re: Jehovah's Witness deny the important doctrines of christianty and jesus

What exactly is your definition of "referring to the One God, as Triune" really entail, as what your claim is, seems very far from what John said in John 1. I see nowhere in the verses you gave John referring to God as being three separate persons, I see mention of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit mentioned, but I see nowhere in these verse as John referring to them as truine. Maybe you could show me where John referred to the One God as being truine in John 1.
Three Persons; One Being.

This is clearly shown in John 1.
So in other words you either won't or can't show us, nice strong defense.

However the renderings, "what God was, the Word was also", "the nature of the Word was the same as the nature of God", "the Word has the same nature as God" both instantly separate the persons God and the word/Jesus as distinct persons, in other words the word was not God but had the same nature as God. This is in complete harmony that Jesus is the charaktér/copy of God as Heb 1:3 demonstrates.
Who, besides you, ever thought that The Son was The Father in the first place?
This is what happens when someone who doesn't have common sense starts interfering too much. I wasn't speaking to you when making those comments, I was speaking with williamjordan. I don't know if he understands God in John 1:1 to be God the trinity or God the Father. You would be correct in your thinking if I was speaking to you, as I know you understand the God in John 1:1 to be the Father, but I wasn't. He might understand it to be the trinity which many many trinitarians I've spoken to and met have stated. Hence the reason why I addressed the issue stated.

Even you fall foul to this bowman because if you read what I actually wrote I referred to Hebrews 1:3 which states Jesus is the image of God. You do not believe the God in Hebrews 1:3 to be the Father like in John 1:1 as you know it would create huge implications on other texts such as Rev 3:14. However others like
williamjordan have seemed to imply that they understand the God in Heb 1:3 to be referring to the Father, hence my unbiased reasoning. Hopefully now you can see why you were too hasty about questioning my comments made to another.

You still don't even know what The Trinity is
As I've shown before, I do. Your dp is a prime example of the trinity. Just because I don't accept it doesn't mean I don't understand it.
 

NWL

Senior Member
Jul 24, 2012
433
9
18
#43
Re: More of your tripe...


What you deceitfully attempted to do was to reverse-translate Heb 1.3 and use the term 'image' as imparting the same meaning as used in any ordinary English dictionary!.

What you failed to realize, because you don't know how to exegete, is that Heb 1.3 uses a completely different word than used ANYWHERE else in the entire NT.

Thus...if you were cognizant, then you would have known that this Greek word does NOT impart the same meaning as 'image' anywhere else in scripture....nor in a modern English dictionary.
If you actually understood what I wrote you'd realize I wasn't trying to express they had the exact same meaning of the word c[FONT=Trebuchet, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]haraktér, but that the English translations of the words by definition carry the same unspoken rule of [/FONT]charaktér, that the thing which it was a charaktér of wasn't that thing.

[FONT=Trebuchet, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]You're more than welcome to deny my initial statement and explain in your books how Jesus was the very thing he was [/FONT]charaktér of.
 

oldhermit

Senior Member
Jul 28, 2012
9,144
614
113
70
Alabama
#44


Neither do I accept such a view. But one does not have to accept polytheism to accept other persons "a god". For example Humans are called 'gods', Satan is even called a 'god'. The Greek word for God has more than one definition and can refer to Almighty God and also persons who are mighty and powerful namely 'gods'.

(John 10:34) "...Jesus answered them: “Is it not written in your Law, ‘I said: “You are gods”’?

(2 Corinthians 4:4) "...among whom the god of this world has blinded the minds of the unbelievers..."

(Exo 7:1) "...And the LORD said unto Moses, See, I have made thee a god to Pharaoh..."

Jesus by context and grammar can be referred to as "a god" or "divine" without the need for polytheism as it does not change the fact of there being only one God (capital G) in the fullest sense.

So as you can see accepting John 10:34, Cor 4:4 and Exo 7:1 obliviously doesn't make a need to believe in more than one God (almighty). So viewing Jesus as "a god" in John 1:1 should can be viewed in the same light, that's if one accepted such a rendering.
The construction of the Greek in John 1:1 simply will not support your contention for the use of the indefinite. If you know the Greek then you should know better than this, if not then you should not argue points you do not understand.
 
Last edited:
Aug 15, 2009
9,745
179
0
#45
jeus is only one god this is the truth....
John 14:15-17 (KJV) [SUP]15 [/SUP]If ye love me, keep my commandments. [SUP]16 [/SUP]And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever; [SUP]17 [/SUP]Even the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you.

Pleeeze tell me you're not one of those who believe Jesus is talking to himself about himself. :rolleyes:
 
Nov 19, 2012
5,484
27
0
#46
Re: Jehovah's Witness deny the important doctrines of christianty and jesus

Why do you always have to try and be right Bowman?

The OP said "
also jw believe that jeus died not on cross but on a stake" this is what JW's belief at present, not in the past. A clear distinction from what Jw's use to believe, that he died on a cross. Why try and argue this point?

You just proved the point.

You admit to adhering to an ever-evolving theology.





You haven't answered the question Bowman, I specifically asked for your views, according to your understanding of Greek grammar and language what was the instrument that Jesus was hung on, was it a cross or could it of been a simple upright stake/pole?

Here we go again...as you make the same dumb adnausea reply from your smart phone....but 'you haven't answered the question'...

Yes, I have.

I provided verifiable lexical definitions for the term; you provided NO verifiable definition.

Thus...you have no choice but to go with what I posited.

Further, if you had read the meanings, the question boils-down to what type of Cross - as it is already called a Cross.



You're stuck.
 
Nov 19, 2012
5,484
27
0
#47
Re: Jehovah's Witness deny the important doctrines of christianty and jesus

So in other words you either won't or can't show us, nice strong defense.
I already provided the verses.

Ignoring them won't make it a no-reply...





Even you fall foul to this bowman because if you read what I actually wrote I referred to Hebrews 1:3 which states Jesus is the image of God. You do not believe the God in Hebrews 1:3 to be the Father like in John 1:1 as you know it would create huge implications on other texts such as Rev 3:14. However others like
williamjordan have seemed to imply that they understand the God in Heb 1:3 to be referring to the Father, hence my unbiased reasoning. Hopefully now you can see why you were too hasty about questioning my comments made to another.
Lets see you utilize....'grammar'....'Greek....'context'.....like you claimed that you could...

Rotflol!!!
 
Nov 19, 2012
5,484
27
0
#48
Re: More of your tripe...

If you actually understood what I wrote you'd realize I wasn't trying to express they had the exact same meaning of the word charaktér, but that the English translations of the words by definition carry the same unspoken rule of charaktér, that the thing which it was a charaktér of wasn't that thing.

You're more than welcome to deny my initial statement and explain in your books how Jesus was the very thing he was charaktér of.

You don't even understand what you wrote...
 

WebersHome

Senior Member
Dec 9, 2014
1,940
32
0
#49
-
According to Watch Tower Society theology, there are two kinds of
resurrections; neither of which is a true resurrection but rather a re-creation
because its theology supports the notion that human life is entirely physical;
viz; when people die, they go completely out of existence.

One of the Society's re-creation resurrections brings people back in a solid
body, and the other brings them back in a spirit body; which is based upon
passages like Matt 22:30 and portions of the 15th chapter of first Corinthians.

I'm going to deliberately misquote 1Cor 15:44. Watch for the changes.

"It is sown a solid body; it is raised a spirit body. There is a solid body, and
there is a spirit body."

I did it like that to bring out the point that the koiné Greek word for
"spiritual" is ambiguous; viz: it doesn't always indicate spirit. Below is a list
of spiritual things that bear absolutely no resemblance whatsoever to things
consisting of spirit.

Spiritual gifts (Rom 1:11)
Spiritual law (Rom 7:14)
Spiritual things (Rom 15:27)
Spiritual people (1Cor 2:15)
Spiritual nourishment (1Cor 10:3)
Spiritual water (1Cor 10:4)
Spiritual rock (1Cor 10:4)
Spiritual blessings (Eph 1:3)
Spiritual music (Eph 5:19)
Spiritual understanding (Col 1:9)
Spiritual housing (1Pet 2:5)
Spiritual sacrifices (1Pet 2:5)

So, with all that under our belts; I propose that we paraphrase 1Cor 15:44
to read as follows:

"It is sown a normal body, it is raised up a superhuman body. There is a
natural body, and there is a supernatural body."

That works for me because "supernatural" implies a human body similar in
some respects to the man of steel popularly known at Comic Con as
Superman. The heroic figure from the planet Krypton isn't constructed of
spirit; but rather; of some sort of indestructible tissue. It looks like ordinary
human tissue; but in his case, appearances can be deceiving.

I sincerely believe that the spiritual body spoken of at 1Cor 15:44 is in no
way composed of spirit. Of what material it is composed I don't know; but I
do know at least three things about it. One is that the material is totally
unknown to modern physics, and two; it's living tissue, and the third is that
it's impervious to death and putrefaction.

The spiritual body is a glorious body.

†. Matt 16:28-17:2 . .Truly I say to you, there are some of those who are
standing here who shall not taste death until they see the Son of Man
coming in His kingdom. And six days later Jesus took with Him Peter and
James and John his brother, and brought them up to a high mountain by
themselves. And He was transfigured before them; and His face shone like
the sun, and His garments became as white as light." (Matt 16:28-17:2)

A glorious body is capable of dining upon ordinary foods.

†. Luke 22:15-16 . . I have eagerly desired to eat this Passover with you
before I suffer. For I tell you: I will not eat it again until it finds fulfillment in
the kingdom of God.

A glorious body is capable of imbibing ordinary beverages.

†. Matt 26:29 . . I tell you: I will not drink of this fruit of the vine from now
on until that day when I drink it anew with you in my Father's kingdom.

A glorious body is a heavenly body.

†. Php 3:20-21 . . Our citizenship is in heaven. And we eagerly await a
savior from there, the Lord Jesus Christ, who, by the power that enables him
to bring everything under his control, will transform our lowly bodies so that
they will be like his glorious body.

Q: How do you get around 1Cor 15:50 "flesh and blood cannot inherit the
kingdom of God"

A: The answer to that question is located in 1Cor 15:35-44.

All of the natural elements listed on the periodic table are those that God
created in the first chapter of Genesis. But those elements were custom
crafted for the current cosmos with all of its forms of life, matter, and
energy. Heavenly elements are not of this cosmos. They are unknown to
modern physics; and it is those elements that God used to construct Christ's
glorious body. His body resembles normal flesh and blood, but that's where
the resemblance ends..

=====================================
 

NWL

Senior Member
Jul 24, 2012
433
9
18
#50
Re: Jehovah's Witness deny the important doctrines of christianty and jesus


You just proved the point.

You admit to adhering to an ever-evolving theology.
When did I deny it Bowman? Change is always needed. Have you never changed a single belief of your own, or were you born with all the right answers?

I've never understood why a change in understanding in religion has been a bad thing. If a person, group or organisation believed in a falsehood and realized their error and changed their way of thinking to what they perceived to be the most correct, and always strove to change their line of thought to what was right, shouldn't praise instead of ridicule be given?

I'd rather be in a faith which was humble enough to change doctrine rather than faith spending hundreds or thousands of years believing in a lie simply because of their pride and arrogance.

Here we go again...as you make the same dumb adnausea reply from your smart phone....but 'you haven't answered the question'...

Yes, I have.

I provided verifiable lexical definitions for the term; you provided NO verifiable definition.

Thus...you have no choice but to go with what I posited.


Further, if you had read the meanings, the question boils-down to what type of Cross - as it is already called a Cross.

You're stuck.
Forgive me if you believe in what the lexicon stated Bowman, you do have a way of stating something without actually confirming it's is what you actually believe.

So can I take it that with your understanding of the Greek language you believe Jesus undoubtedly died on a cross, with no chance of him dying on a stake with no cross beam? Confirm please.

And I don't own a smart phone Bowman. I know it's hard for you but please do stop assuming things.
 

NWL

Senior Member
Jul 24, 2012
433
9
18
#51
The construction of the Greek in John 1:1 simply will not support your contention for the use of the indefinite. If you know the Greek then you should know better than this, if not then you should not argue points you do not understand.
My intention in giving those verses was not a claim to say that John 1:1 was written in the same way as them -to express Jesus identity as theos or a god like the examples given- but rather, it was so the person could understand that if Jesus was not God he could still be understood as being divine or like God/a god without depriving Almighty God of his sovereignty. The construction of John 1:1 certainly does support the view that Jesus was like God as it also supports the view he was God, the latter is simply the more widely accepted rendering.
 

NWL

Senior Member
Jul 24, 2012
433
9
18
#52
Re: Jehovah's Witness deny the important doctrines of christianty and jesus

I already provided the verses.

Ignoring them won't make it a no-reply...
I know you did, but along with your verse you provided a very significant statement, which was "John 1 is referring to the One God, as Triune" your explanation of how John refers to the One God as truine was "as [he] then lists-out Father, Son & Holy Spirit" in the context of the chapter. If you didn't realize, John simply listing out the Father, Son and Holy Spirit is hardly him referring to One God as truine. Nowhere in the whole chapter do I see evidence of this. Throughout my time here on CC and other forums you constantly dish out verses along with significant statements which don't actually agree with one another. Like the last time we spoke, you claimed you had verses which directly stated the Holy Spirit as sitting on the Throne in heaven, yet the only thing the verses given referred to was an unidentified God sitting on the Throne with no mention of that God being the Holy Spirit. Upon confrontation all you kept saying was "I've provided the verse, I've provided the verses".

So please show us in John 1 where the context clearly expresses that the One God is three separate persons, truine in nature.
 

nnrukshan15

Senior Member
Mar 16, 2015
178
31
28
#53
Re: Jehovah's Witness deny the important doctrines of christianty and jesus

jesus is the only one loard we have ....but if you deny this you will never have eternal life my friend ...1 god works in 3
god the father
god the son
god the holysprit
these all are one
this is the truth and we are witness for the truth because we are born again chrstian...we have overcome all faulse prophets in the world
 

oldhermit

Senior Member
Jul 28, 2012
9,144
614
113
70
Alabama
#54
My intention in giving those verses was not a claim to say that John 1:1 was written in the same way as them -to express Jesus identity as theos or a god like the examples given- but rather, it was so the person could understand that if Jesus was not God he could still be understood as being divine or like God/a god without depriving Almighty God of his sovereignty. The construction of John 1:1 certainly does support the view that Jesus was like God as it also supports the view he was God, the latter is simply the more widely accepted rendering.
I guess I misunderstood the intent of your post but, John 1:1 does not imply that Jesus is like God but that he is God. It is an emphatic.
 
Nov 19, 2012
5,484
27
0
#55
Re: Jehovah's Witness deny the important doctrines of christianty and jesus

When did I deny it Bowman? Change is always needed. Have you never changed a single belief of your own, or were you born with all the right answers?

I've never understood why a change in understanding in religion has been a bad thing. If a person, group or organisation believed in a falsehood and realized their error and changed their way of thinking to what they perceived to be the most correct, and always strove to change their line of thought to what was right, shouldn't praise instead of ridicule be given?

I'd rather be in a faith which was humble enough to change doctrine rather than faith spending hundreds or thousands of years believing in a lie simply because of their pride and arrogance.





The interesting thing is that your cult actually had Jesus' Cross depicted correctly, originally.





Forgive me if you believe in what the lexicon stated Bowman, you do have a way of stating something without actually confirming it's is what you actually believe.

So can I take it that with your understanding of the Greek language you believe Jesus undoubtedly died on a cross, with no chance of him dying on a stake with no cross beam? Confirm please.
I have no reason to doubt the lexicography of two separate languages.

Jesus died on a cross-beam Cross.



You will be hard-pressed to rebut this...



And I don't own a smart phone Bowman. I know it's hard for you but please do stop assuming things.

Ok...then what is your excuse for not providing an exegetical rebuttal?

Too lazy?

Just claiming 'you're wrong' (aka the JW way) is not going to win any converts...
 
Nov 19, 2012
5,484
27
0
#56
Re: Jehovah's Witness deny the important doctrines of christianty and jesus

I know you did, but along with your verse you provided a very significant statement, which was "John 1 is referring to the One God, as Triune" your explanation of how John refers to the One God as truine was "as [he] then lists-out Father, Son & Holy Spirit" in the context of the chapter. If you didn't realize, John simply listing out the Father, Son and Holy Spirit is hardly him referring to One God as truine. Nowhere in the whole chapter do I see evidence of this. Throughout my time here on CC and other forums you constantly dish out verses along with significant statements which don't actually agree with one another. Like the last time we spoke, you claimed you had verses which directly stated the Holy Spirit as sitting on the Throne in heaven, yet the only thing the verses given referred to was an unidentified God sitting on the Throne with no mention of that God being the Holy Spirit. Upon confrontation all you kept saying was "I've provided the verse, I've provided the verses".

So please show us in John 1 where the context clearly expresses that the One God is three separate persons, truine in nature.

John does not mention three gods, only one.

The Father, The Son & The Holy Spirit are each treated as the One God.

Even you acknowledge this...
 
Aug 15, 2009
9,745
179
0
#57
Re: Jehovah's Witness deny the important doctrines of christianty and jesus

jesus is the only one loard we have ....but if you deny this you will never have eternal life my friend ...1 god works in 3
god the father
god the son
god the holysprit
these all are one
this is the truth and we are witness for the truth because we are born again chrstian...we have overcome all faulse prophets in the world
Thanks for judging 90+% of all christianity to Hell.....
 

WebersHome

Senior Member
Dec 9, 2014
1,940
32
0
#58
-
The Watchtower Society's form of theology is called monolatrism, which
basically alleges that all gods are actual deities; though not all deities are
deemed worthy of worship. This is not quite the same as polytheism where
numerous gods are all considered worthy of worship.

Monolatrism is distinguished from monotheism (asserts the existence of only
one god) and distinguished from henotheism-- a religious system in which
the believer worships one god alone without denying that others may
worship different gods of equal value.

While traditional Christianity recognizes but two categories of gods; the
Watch Tower Society's theologians took the liberty to create a third category
of gods sandwiched between the true and the false called "mighty ones".
The mighty-one category is a sort of neutral zone where qualifying
personages exist as bona fide deities without violating the very first of the
Ten Commandments. For example:

"I myself have said: You are gods (Ps 82:6)

The gods referred to in that statement are human beings; which everybody
knows are not true deities; so in order to avoid stigmatizing human beings
as false gods, the Society classifies them as mighty ones.

This gets kind of humorous when we plug "mighty one" into various
locations. For example:

"In the beginning the Word was, and the Word was with God, and the Word
was a mighty one." (John 1:1)

And another.

"No man has seen God at any time; the only-begotten mighty one who is in
the bosom position with the Father is the one that has explained him." (John
1:18)

The neutral zone was an invention of necessity. In other words: without it,
the Society would be forced to classify the Word and the only-begotten as
false gods seeing as how John 17:3, and a host of other passages, testify
that there is only one true god.

If I was to say that Mr. Obama is the only true man in America, I'd get
laughed out of town because we don't have any artificial men in my country;
they're all actual men. But that's exactly what Christ said about his Father
because it happens to be a fact that there are no other true gods but He.

============================================
 
I

IvoryTusk

Guest
#59
Re: Jehovah's Witness deny the important doctrines of christianty and jesus

I quote the following post from this thread-----
The interesting thing is that your cult actually had Jesus' Cross depicted correctly, originally.
I have no reason to doubt the lexicography of two separate languages.
Jesus died on a cross-beam Cross.
You will be hard-pressed to rebut this...
Ok...then what is your excuse for not providing an exegetical rebuttal?
Too lazy?
Just claiming 'you're wrong' (aka the JW way) is not going to win any converts..."

I Read over this thread carefully. I did research research about the cross.
What should be our goal when searching the bible and other research material for answers? What do you think it should be?

In order to settle once and for all the issue of the cross we must consider several angles. For example...

What do scholars and authorities on the original languages have to say about translating the word Stauros into English or any other language?

what does the bible say about using images in worship?

Why did people who called themselves Christians find it acceptable to revere the object Jesus was murdered with?

The answers to all of these questions are extremely interesting and will leave us in no doubt about whether or not the God of the bible wants us to worship the cross! No doubt at all actually.

Where in the bible does God tell us to worship the cross? It may surprise many that actually nowhere in the bible does God suggest we should worship the cross nor indeed any image or object. In fact the bible says this...
(Ex 20:4, 5; Le 26:1; Isa 42:8
De 4:16-19, 23-25; 27:15; Nu 33:52; Isa 40:19, 20; 44:12, 13; Eze 7:20)

That is quite a bit of information do you not think? It really tells us clearly how God feels about worshiping images, even ones that we claim are images representing him as Israel did with the golden calf!
So perhaps then it does not matter whether Jesus died on a cross or not? After all both would be unacceptable images to use in our worship according to the bible.

But let us continue so our coverage of this topic is final.

So if the bible never tells us to breaks Gods law and worship the instrument that the Romans chose to murder his son, then why do so many calling themselves Christian do this?
The answer should truly interest us.

Constantine, the Roman ruler was a sun worshiper. While he did convert to Christianity on his death bed, and freed Christians from oppression during his reign, there is no doubt that history teaches us he worshiped the sun and other pagan images.


Why is this information useful? Because Constantine said he saw a vision of a cross in the sun! This claim led to all the crosses we see on churches today! How so? Well Constantine had a big hand in setting up what became the Catholic church. It was he who appointed religious figures and we know he gave his input into settling debates about the bible!

The cross was a pagan symbol or worship long before Jesus. Think about that. Egypt and Babylon are world famous for their worship of the cross. The cross has also been found in many pagan societies.
So if not for a pagan worshiper nobody would have ever thought to worship the image Jesus was murdered with. Ask yourself, would you worship an Axe if your child was murdered with one?

IT was from the time of the setting up of the Catholic church with Constantine's guidance that many pagan teachings were mixed into Christianity.
I will go over those in detail soon in a new thread!


What though about the translation of the "Stauros"? I found so many references that prove that the Greek word Stauros was a stake or tree it is not funny. I decided though to copy and paste the following as it has many references in one article...


"According to Greek scholar W. E. Vine, stauros′ “denotes, primarily, an upright pale or stake. On such malefactors were nailed for execution. Both the noun and the verb stauroō, to fasten to a stake or pale, are originally to be distinguished from the ecclesiastical form of a two beamed cross.”The Imperial Bible-Dictionary says that the word 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 a piece of ground.” The dictionary continues: “Even amongst the Romans the crux (Latin, from which our cross is derived) appears to have been originally an upright pole.” Thus, it is not surprising that The Catholic Encyclopedia states: “Certain it is, at any rate, that the cross originally consisted of a simple vertical pole, sharpened at its upper end.”
There is another Greek word, xy′lon, that Bible writers used to describe the instrument of Jesus’ execution. A Critical Lexicon and Concordance to the English and Greek New Testament defines xy′lon as “a piece of timber, a wooden stake.” It goes on to say that like stauros′, xy′lon “was simply an upright pale or stake to which the Romans nailed those who were thus said to be crucified.”
In line with this, we note that the King James Version reads at Acts 5:30: “The God of our fathers raised up Jesus, whom ye slew and hanged on a tree [xy′lon].” Other versions, though rendering stauros′ as “cross,” also translate xy′lon as “tree.” At Acts 13:29, The Jerusalem Bible says of Jesus: “When they had carried out everything that scripture foretells about him they took him down from the tree [xy′lon] and buried him.”
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. Appropriately, therefore, the New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures uses the expression “torture stake” at Matthew 27:40-42 and in other places where the word stauros′ appears. Similarly, the Complete Jewish Bible uses the expression “execution stake."


research, from sources such as ENCYLOPEDIA BRITANICA to many Catholic sources agree, the cross in incorrect.
Still though, we have seen why it does not matter. That God has never once told us to worship any such image and that he is against using any worship of images period.

So the question is settled. But we have seen in the bible that people will mostly choose to serve God how they wish and not how he wishes, even when God is telling them directly like he did with the Israelite's.

Some will argue against the bible anyway, they will continue the Catholic teaching or worship of pagan things and will answer for it. They will never though be able to use the bible to justify thier beliefs. Imagine them arguing to Jesus about why they worship what he was murdered with and Jesus reply. Jesus taught we should worship God, his father with truth and spirit, not images his father was offended by.

Satan is delighted when people worship the images his fellow former angels got people to worship thousands of years ago. God is delighted when we worship him the way he instructs us to. The answer is clear.

I will never argue with those that refuse to accept the bible, as Jesus taught us to never do that, but rather to search for those looking for truth. I will however seek to be honest in my heart and worship the true God in the way he instructs me and not the "traditions of men" Jesus condemned.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Nov 19, 2012
5,484
27
0
#60
Re: Jehovah's Witness deny the important doctrines of christianty and jesus

I quote the following post from this thread-----
The interesting thing is that your cult actually had Jesus' Cross depicted correctly, originally.
I have no reason to doubt the lexicography of two separate languages.
Jesus died on a cross-beam Cross.
You will be hard-pressed to rebut this...
Ok...then what is your excuse for not providing an exegetical rebuttal?
Too lazy?
Just claiming 'you're wrong' (aka the JW way) is not going to win any converts..."

I Read over this thread carefully. I did research research about the cross.
What should be our goal when searching the bible and other research material for answers? What do you think it should be?

In order to settle once and for all the issue of the cross we must consider several angles. For example...

What do scholars and authorities on the original languages have to say about translating the word Stauros into English or any other language?

what does the bible say about using images in worship?

Why did people who called themselves Christians find it acceptable to revere the object Jesus was murdered with?

The answers to all of these questions are extremely interesting and will leave us in no doubt about whether or not the God of the bible wants us to worship the cross! No doubt at all actually.

Where in the bible does God tell us to worship the cross? It may surprise many that actually nowhere in the bible does God suggest we should worship the cross nor indeed any image or object. In fact the bible says this...
(Ex 20:4, 5; Le 26:1; Isa 42:8
De 4:16-19, 23-25; 27:15; Nu 33:52; Isa 40:19, 20; 44:12, 13; Eze 7:20)

That is quite a bit of information do you not think? It really tells us clearly how God feels about worshiping images, even ones that we claim are images representing him as Israel did with the golden calf!
So perhaps then it does not matter whether Jesus died on a cross or not? After all both would be unacceptable images to use in our worship according to the bible.

But let us continue so our coverage of this topic is final.

So if the bible never tells us to breaks Gods law and worship the instrument that the Romans chose to murder his son, then why do so many calling themselves Christian do this?
The answer should truly interest us.

Constantine, the Roman ruler was a sun worshiper. While he did convert to Christianity on his death bed, and freed Christians from oppression during his reign, there is no doubt that history teaches us he worshiped the sun and other pagan images.


Why is this information useful? Because Constantine said he saw a vision of a cross in the sun! This claim led to all the crosses we see on churches today! How so? Well Constantine had a big hand in setting up what became the Catholic church. It was he who appointed religious figures and we know he gave his input into settling debates about the bible!

The cross was a pagan symbol or worship long before Jesus. Think about that. Egypt and Babylon are world famous for their worship of the cross. The cross has also been found in many pagan societies.
So if not for a pagan worshiper nobody would have ever thought to worship the image Jesus was murdered with. Ask yourself, would you worship an Axe if your child was murdered with one?

IT was from the time of the setting up of the Catholic church with Constantine's guidance that many pagan teachings were mixed into Christianity.
I will go over those in detail soon in a new thread!


What though about the translation of the "Stauros"? I found so many references that prove that the Greek word Stauros was a stake or tree it is not funny. I decided though to copy and paste the following as it has many references in one article...


"According to Greek scholar W. E. Vine, stauros′ “denotes, primarily, an upright pale or stake. On such malefactors were nailed for execution. Both the noun and the verb stauroō, to fasten to a stake or pale, are originally to be distinguished from the ecclesiastical form of a two beamed cross.”The Imperial Bible-Dictionary says that the word 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 a piece of ground.” The dictionary continues: “Even amongst the Romans the crux (Latin, from which our cross is derived) appears to have been originally an upright pole.” Thus, it is not surprising that The Catholic Encyclopedia states: “Certain it is, at any rate, that the cross originally consisted of a simple vertical pole, sharpened at its upper end.”
There is another Greek word, xy′lon, that Bible writers used to describe the instrument of Jesus’ execution. A Critical Lexicon and Concordance to the English and Greek New Testament defines xy′lon as “a piece of timber, a wooden stake.” It goes on to say that like stauros′, xy′lon “was simply an upright pale or stake to which the Romans nailed those who were thus said to be crucified.”
In line with this, we note that the King James Version reads at Acts 5:30: “The God of our fathers raised up Jesus, whom ye slew and hanged on a tree [xy′lon].” Other versions, though rendering stauros′ as “cross,” also translate xy′lon as “tree.” At Acts 13:29, The Jerusalem Bible says of Jesus: “When they had carried out everything that scripture foretells about him they took him down from the tree [xy′lon] and buried him.”
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. Appropriately, therefore, the New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures uses the expression “torture stake” at Matthew 27:40-42 and in other places where the word stauros′ appears. Similarly, the Complete Jewish Bible uses the expression “execution stake."


research, from sources such as ENCYLOPEDIA BRITANICA to many Catholic sources agree, the cross in incorrect.
Still though, we have seen why it does not matter. That God has never once told us to worship any such image and that he is against using any worship of images period.

So the question is settled. But we have seen in the bible that people will mostly choose to serve God how they wish and not how he wishes, even when God is telling them directly like he did with the Israelite's.

Some will argue against the bible anyway, they will continue the Catholic teaching or worship of pagan things and will answer for it. They will never though be able to use the bible to justify thier beliefs. Imagine them arguing to Jesus about why they worship what he was murdered with and Jesus reply. Jesus taught we should worship God, his father with truth and spirit, not images his father was offended by.

Satan is delighted when people worship the images his fellow former angels got people to worship thousands of years ago. God is delighted when we worship him the way he instructs us to. The answer is clear.

I will never argue with those that refuse to accept the bible, as Jesus taught us to never do that, but rather to search for those looking for truth. I will however seek to be honest in my heart and worship the true God in the way he instructs me and not the "traditions of men" Jesus condemned.

You seem to be the only one here arguing that Christians worship the Cross.

The point JWs are trying (unsuccessfully) to make is that the cross-beam Cross is pagan in origin....thus, they think that they can magically come to the rescue and somehow 'correct' this misconception.

They can't even make headway into 'correcting' ANYTHING in orthodox Christianity.

Zero.

Not even the shape of the Cross.

As we can see, the only JW in this thread (NWL) is the quintessential scriptural ignorant and talks in circles after his initial propaganda assertion...then comes the typical...'you're not answering the question'....'show me where'...that he is known for...