"Torture stake" vs. "Cross"

[Elijah John]

Jehovah's Witness changed the word "cross" to "torture stake" and the word "crucified" to "impaled" in their New World Translation of the Bible.

This seems to be the only translation that does so.

And JW illustrations of the crucifixion depict Jesus not on the cross, but hanging from a pole, a "torture stake".

For debate: Why did their translators do this?

What theological or doctrinal clarification could this change possibly convey?

Does this change defy history, or did the Romans "impale" it's criminals as opposed to crucifying them?

Also, do these changes enchance or detract from the NWT's credibility?

[marco]

I'm just reading it as it says. So no images of Mary or of a symbol like a cross should be made. There is no extrapolating on my part. Are you trying to extrapolate it's ok to have images of symbols and people?

First of all, you misunderstood what I meant by extrapolation. We are discussing the cross; you say there's a danger people might unduly admire the cross so that it becomes an object of reverence. The extrapolation here is that those branches of Christianity that commemorate Christ's cross encourage cross worship, which they don't. What individuals wrongly do is neither here nor there. People err.

Your next point: images are expressly forbidden in the Bible, takes the prohibition out of context and would anachronistically censure things like photograph albums, unknown then. The prohibition was against making images of false gods, as was done in pagan times. It was never forbidden to build things in honour of holy people or for God. Take what happened at the transfiguration of Christ.

There is a danger that one will read a verse of the Bible and apply it literally to modern times when comparison is inappropriate. As for Mary not being prayed to; the Bible is about events in the life of Christ and Mary was alive then. It is commendable that people would want to follow biblical practice to the letter, but one has to accept that we are 2000 years on from NT times and we must adjust accordingly. We already make the adjustment over some OT prohibitions. Thankfully.

[onewithhim]

Even if Jesus did died on a cross, the love of the cross and it's use as divine symbol is, according to the Bible, idolatry.

This is correct, though we moving away from the original question.

An image in the 'form of any figure' used for worship is not acceptable by God.

You are incorrectly extrapolating. The cross and the figure placed upon the crucifix are not worshipped. This is verified in the catechism which explicitly states that such things can "neither hear, nor see, nor help us." God forbids the use of idols to be worshipped in place of him.

I actually work with a woman that has a cross on every wall in her house. When I made note of it she told me the reason she does this is so to keep demons and evil spirits out of her house. To think that some piece of wood will protect her, this is dangerous thinking.

I'm not sure where the danger comes in but the lady's actions are idiosyncratic, certainly not endorsed by any church I know. Catholics are often accused of worshipping Mary when in fact she is paid honour in recognition of the great favour God bestowed on her. Only God is worshipped. To adore anything else would, as you say, be idolatry. This is well known.

You're not understanding the point. timothy is saying that to use ANYTHING that takes the place of true reliance on Jehovah is idolatry. Like that woman with a cross on every wall. It could just as well have been a crown of thorns or a single pole or sand from Israel. People put too much credence in inanimate objects to help them.

It is not true that "only God is worshipped" by people who use idols in their worship. The very leader of the RCC has for many years shown clearly that Mary is indeed worshiped. I don't know how you missed that. And just who is the "God" that you say is "only" worshiped? It isn't the Father! I communicated with a nun some years ago and she said to me, "Yes, I know that the Father is basically ignored." Let's be real.


.

[onewithhim]

I'm just reading it as it says. So no images of Mary or of a symbol like a cross should be made. There is no extrapolating on my part. Are you trying to extrapolate it's ok to have images of symbols and people?

First of all, you misunderstood what I meant by extrapolation. We are discussing the cross; you say there's a danger people might unduly admire the cross so that it becomes an object of reverence. The extrapolation here is that those branches of Christianity that commemorate Christ's cross encourage cross worship, which they don't. What individuals wrongly do is neither here nor there. People err.

Your next point: images are expressly forbidden in the Bible, takes the prohibition out of context and would anachronistically censure things like photograph albums, unknown then. The prohibition was against making images of false gods, as was done in pagan times. It was never forbidden to build things in honour of holy people or for God. Take what happened at the transfiguration of Christ.

There is a danger that one will read a verse of the Bible and apply it literally to modern times when comparison is inappropriate. As for Mary not being prayed to; the Bible is about events in the life of Christ and Mary was alive then. It is commendable that people would want to follow biblical practice to the letter, but one has to accept that we are 2000 years on from NT times and we must adjust accordingly. We already make the adjustment over some OT prohibitions. Thankfully.

If I could go out on a limb here..... I ask, what could the pope, for example, be doing by carrying around that awful stick he has with a poor skinny Jesus hanging on a cross, if he didn't want to encourage image-worship? That seems to be right where he wants Jesus to stay--dead on a cross. Does he ever speak about the LIVE Jesus and what He is doing today? No. The pope goes and visits The Black Madonna and a site of some saint's healing waters. Attention is NEVER drawn to the Father or the living Jesus.

Why do we now have to "adjust" to modern thinking? Does God adjust His way of thinking? Homosexuality, murder of babies, women taking the lead, sex outside of marriage.....all these things now should be O.K. because the Bible is old-fashioned? You haven't looked around lately? You haven't noticed what a mess the world is in? And you know what? It's mainly because the religions haven't taught the principles of God Almighty. They all dropped the ball millennia ago.


.

[marco]

You're not understanding the point.

There is nothing difficult to misunderstand in the point being made.

It is not true that "only God is worshipped" by people who use idols in their worship. The very leader of the RCC has for many years shown clearly that Mary is indeed worshiped. I don't know how you missed that.

I didn't miss anything. It is an impossibility for the Pope to believe this since it is expressly forbidden in Roman Catholicism. Mary is honoured; the type of honour she's given is called hyperdulia, and she is honoured in recognition of her highly favoured place - highly favoured, that is, by God. This honour is celebrated. The Pope, being of reasonable intelligence, will know that latria - worship -is given to God alone. Others who have no knowledge of what Roman Catholicism teaches frequently make this mistake. They also think that the Immaculate Conception means parthenogenesis.

The crucifix serves merely to remind believers of the person around whom their faith is built. There is no attempt to worship the crucifix. When people look at a picture of a dead relative they are not worshipping the picture, simply remembering. We have no pictures of Jesus as he truly was in life.

And just who is the "God" that you say is "only" worshiped? It isn't the Father! I communicated with a nun some years ago and she said to me, "Yes, I know that the Father is basically ignored." Let's be real.

One must not make sweeping generalisations from casual conversations. It would be absurd for me to try to interpret the snippet of conversation you seem to have remembered, so I won't try. Catholics of course believe in the Trinity, not in three Gods.

[Elijah John]

If I could go out on a limb here..... I ask, what could the pope, for example, be doing by carrying around that awful stick he has with a poor skinny Jesus hanging on a cross, if he didn't want to encourage image-worship? That seems to be right where he wants Jesus to stay--dead on a cross. Does he ever speak about the LIVE Jesus and what He is doing today? No. The pope goes and visits The Black Madonna and a site of some saint's healing waters. Attention is NEVER drawn to the Father or the living Jesus.

Why do we now have to "adjust" to modern thinking? Does God adjust His way of thinking? Homosexuality, murder of babies, women taking the lead, sex outside of marriage.....all these things now should be O.K. because the Bible is old-fashioned? You haven't looked around lately? You haven't noticed what a mess the world is in? And you know what? It's mainly because the religions haven't taught the principles of God Almighty. They all dropped the ball millennia ago.


.

There are enough reasons to oppose Roman Catholic theology without believing lies and misconceptions about the Church. From my pov, Jesus-worship for one reason, and blood atonement theology for another.

That "awful stick" as you say, is a symbol Symbols are not worshiped.

The prohibition on graven images can be misapplied to just about anything. Keep in mind, even the Ark of the Covenant includes images of angels.

Yes, the Pope, (like most if not all RC leaders )speak of the Living Jesus. Known as the "Risen Christ". The Risen Christ is often used interchangibly with the Holy Spirit.

But yes, Jesus is very much alive in RC thought. The Church itself is considered the "mystical body of Christ", and Jesus is thought to be alive in the Eucharist.

As for the Father, the whole Mass is directed TO the Father, and offers up Jesus to the Father.

And the moral decline you allude to is a concern to the RCC as well. Like it or not, the RCC has much in common with JWs, value-wise.

Both groups oppose abortion and gay marriage,, for example.

And in effect, JW acceptance of blood atonement theology, is actually a Roman Catholic theology. Catholics were teaching this Pauline theology even before Protestants, Evangelicals or before the JW orgainizaion was even incorporated.

[onewithhim]

[Replying to post 25 by Elijah John]

O.K., E.J., your support of the RCC is duely noted. I never thought you would totally dis the arguments I have put forth. It has been explained that JWs did not start up in the 1800s.....they were the people who went back to the first century and took up the teachings of Christ and the earliest Church Fathers (Peter, John, James, etc.). Before the RCC came up with the Trinity and Hell-fire and the Immortal Soul. All those things came later, after the 4th century. JWs have never believed those pagan doctrines. Now you are comparing us with other religions, even suggesting that we are wrong. I'm surprised.

I don't quite see how the angels on the Ark of the Covenant can be correlated with the icon of a pathetic dead Jesus hanging on a cross, looking like he is about to come loose from his nails, being flung around by the pope. If your brother died, would you carry around an image of his dead body hanging on a stick?

No, the RCC does not speak of the living Jesus and what he is actually doing right now. Ask a priest. I'll almost bet you that he will say something to the effect of "I don't know." The Bible informs us as to what he is doing now. Your average RC doesn't know the Bible, and the RCC doesn't teach them. Neither does any other religion, aside from Christ's true Church.

Instead, Jesus' body is supposed to ACTUALLY be in the wafers and wine that the church serves at every mass. That is as far as you get with the reality of Jesus, and it isn't even true.

What of Jesus' role as appointed King of God's Kingdom? Is THAT taught in the RCC or any other church claiming to represent God? They'll say, "yes Jesus is a King," but of what? They say the Kingdom is something in our hearts, when actually it is a real government that will rule the whole earth one day soon. (Isaiah 9:6,7; Daniel 2:44)

[Elijah John]

[Replying to post 25 by Elijah John]
If your brother died, would you carry around an image of his dead body hanging on a stick?

No, but that is not a good analogy. How bout this, what about your literature that depicts Jesus nailed to a pole?

If that happened to your brother, would you have a painting or an illustration like that?

Also, have you actually asked a Catholic priest what Christ is doing now?

If not, please don't speculate.

And what of Jesus as present in the "mystical body of Christ"? I e the Church? To Catholics, Christ is very much alive. And not just theoretical inhabitant of Heaven, he is Immanuel here with us.

I say this as one who dissents from my native Catholicism, but still has great affection for the Church. I say this as one who actually thinks JW is more correct in the understanding of the importance of God's name, and the oneness of God in the Father alone.

I disagree with BOTH JWs and RCs about blood theology, which you have in common with them, like it or not.

I agree, JWs are probably close to primitive Christianity. But if you are interested in primitive Christianity, please note the first century training manual for new Christian converts, the Didache, makes no mention of blood atonement, or the "essential" necessity to believe it.

I just don't like seeing lies and misconceptions embraced and/or perpetuated about ANY group or individual.

There's a name for that, it's called "demonization of the other".

I don't think that is pleasing to God who taught us not to bear false witness.

[onewithhim]

[Replying to post 25 by Elijah John]
If your brother died, would you carry around an image of his dead body hanging on a stick?

No, but that is not a good analogy. How bout this, what about your literature that depicts Jesus nailed to a pole?

If that happened to your brother, would you have a painting or an illustration like that?

Also, have you actually asked a Catholic priest what Christ is doing now?

If not, please don't speculate.

And what of Jesus as present in the "mystical body of Christ"? I e the Church? To Catholics, Christ is very much alive. And not just theoretical inhabitant of Heaven, he is Immanuel here with us.

I say this as one who dissents from my native Catholicism, but still has great affection for the Church. I say this as one who actually thinks JW is more correct in the understanding of the importance of God's name, and the oneness of God in the Father alone.

I disagree with BOTH JWs and RCs about blood theology, which you have in common with them, like it or not.

I agree, JWs are probably close to primitive Christianity. But if you are interested in primitive Christianity, please note the first century training manual for new Christian converts, the Didache, makes no mention of blood atonement, or the "essential" necessity to believe it.

I just don't like seeing lies and misconceptions embraced and/or perpetuated about ANY group or individual.

There's a name for that, it's called "demonization of the other".

I don't think that is pleasing to God who taught us not to bear false witness.

I have asked a priest, "what is the Kingdom of God?" and he said, "I don't know."

And our literature is one thing....making a SPECTACLE of Jesus hanging on a cross is another.

Is the Didache part of the Bible? If not, I don't consider it to be an authority.

JWs are demonized. Do you defend us?

I have feelings about the RCC and other churches by observing them. No righteous God that I can imagine would support the demonic actions of the churches, that I have mentioned. Have you done research on the Crusades, the Inquisition, the Holocaust, even the stands of the churches during the Balkan wars? It's hideous.


.

[Elijah John]

JWs are demonized. Do you defend us?

Yes I know that JWs are often demonized. So it also disturbs me when you/your group, demonizes others.

Yes I have defended JWs here on these boards. Both in my role as a moderator, and as a participant.

I have done so in my personal life too. With some anti-JW Evangelicals I know.

I have attended several meetings, as well had many pleasant conversations with JWs in my home.

Like I said, I just don't like to see anyone demonized. Not Catholics, not JWs, not anybody.

[marco]

I don't quite see how the angels on the Ark of the Covenant can be correlated with the icon of a pathetic dead Jesus hanging on a cross, looking like he is about to come loose from his nails, being flung around by the pope. If your brother died, would you carry around an image of his dead body hanging on a stick?

It is very easy to make a caricature of what people believe. This is done also with the seeming absurdity of the theology round the number 144,000. The dead Christ is the paradoxical symbol of life: dying he destroyed death and rising he restored life is the core belief.

No, the RCC does not speak of the living Jesus and what he is actually doing right now. Ask a priest. I'll almost bet you that he will say something to the effect of "I don't know." The Bible informs us as to what he is doing now. Your average RC doesn't know the Bible, and the RCC doesn't teach them. Neither does any other religion, aside from Christ's true Church.

The priest doesn't know but of course you do. The average RC doesn't know about the Bible - how would you know this? Knowing the Bible is less important than doing what Jesus advocates - love thy neighbour, even if he's a Catholic. The Pharisees knew their book too, but they earned scant praise from Christ for their trouble. It is very sad when one follower of Christ belittles another.

What of Jesus' role as appointed King of God's Kingdom? Is THAT taught in the RCC or any other church claiming to represent God? They'll say, "yes Jesus is a King," but of what? They say the Kingdom is something in our hearts, when actually it is a real government that will rule the whole earth one day soon. (Isaiah 9:6,7; Daniel 2:44)

To whom will they say this? You seem to have an inexhaustible supply of RC sayings. The word "King" introduces a metaphor, since kingship is a human invention. There are many misapprehensions in all religions, I suppose, and JWs are not without their own. For many the concept of horses and hedgehogs happily continuing in the days beyond the last in part of the perishable solar system is as foolish as transubstantiation. We laugh at the follies of others and forget our own, says Christ.
Matthew 7:3
King James Bible
And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?

My best wishes.