"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]

Unacceptable for JWs but for many of the Catholic leadership of that time apparently, it was acceptable.

You are confusing two issues. JWs were objecting NOT to Hitler and his regime but to taking oaths. You are using this to suggest that this action was a condemnation of Nazi doctrine. It wasn't; it was done through religious conviction. Others, including Catholics, had no problem with swearing loyalty to the State. This, at the time, was not an indication that they agreed with the internment and death of millions of people.

I don't see what purpose is served in wrongly ascribing brutality to non-JWs when many did sacrifice their lives to help the oppressed. There was no Catholic policy of accepting Hitler's creed.

[2timothy316]

There was no Catholic policy of accepting Hitler's creed.

Well, if they actually practiced the principles of the Bible they would have. "...for I, Jehovah your God, am a God who requires exclusive devotion." Ex 20:5

Also, I'm not confusing anything. Our course is clear as a bell. JWs don't pledge to be faithful to anyone other than Jehovah God. It doesn't matter the country or what they might or might not do. We can't look into the future and tell which ones will be murders. So rather than ever risk a human abusing people's allegiance to them, we hold fast to giving allegiance only to God. So long as man's laws don't interfere with God's laws than we will obey the laws of whatever land we are in. Yet, if the laws of that land require that we give executive devotion to something other than Jehovah's Word, we will refuse. Following Bible principles protect us spiritually from following the wrong ideas of men. It certainly protected JWs from spiritual corruption during WWII and because of their devotion to Jehovah didn't stain God's name with the Nazis seeking genocide.

[marco]

So long as man's laws don't interfere with God's laws than we will obey the laws of whatever land we are in. Yet, if the laws of that land require that we give executive devotion to something other than Jehovah's Word, we will refuse. Following Bible principles protect us spiritually from following the wrong ideas of men. It certainly protected JWs from spiritual corruption during WWII and because of their devotion to Jehovah didn't stain God's name with the Nazis seeking genocide.

Then perhaps the Pope and his flock should have become Jehovah's Witnesses. Fair enough.

The Bible's principles are notoriously steeped in past ideas, now discredited. We don't murder witches. The further complication, as we have seen, is that JWs make their own interpretation of Scriptural passages, one that suits them, not Jehovah perhaps. Let us not, then, claim to be following some divine plan when, on examination, it is clear JWs follow their own plan and attribute it to God. The RC Church does the same, but with a little more authority it would seem. But I am a mere observer.

Once again we have strayed far from the cross of Christ and this may be significant. When we try to bring discussion to Christ's cross, we get preoccupied by what JWs think, and it seems to run counter to talk of Christ. I wonder what that means.

[2timothy316]

So long as man's laws don't interfere with God's laws than we will obey the laws of whatever land we are in. Yet, if the laws of that land require that we give executive devotion to something other than Jehovah's Word, we will refuse. Following Bible principles protect us spiritually from following the wrong ideas of men. It certainly protected JWs from spiritual corruption during WWII and because of their devotion to Jehovah didn't stain God's name with the Nazis seeking genocide.

Then perhaps the Pope and his flock should have become Jehovah's Witnesses. Fair enough.

It's not being a JW that gives a person devotion to God. It's devotion to God that makes a person a JW.

The Bible's principles are notoriously steeped in past ideas, now discredited. We don't murder witches.

Who murders witches now? I know of no Bible principle that allows for the murdering of witches....or anyone for that matter.

Yet complete devotion to God is still part of the cross question. While it might not be sanctioned, people still look to idols such as crosses for salvation. Hitler used the earliest form of the cross, the swastika. It's symbolism is now linked to genocide. Would you have a swastika in your house? The cross too is linked to the murdering of innocent people. Yet that one is ok? Same disgusting thing. Why honor such a symbol of murder?

[marco]

It's not being a JW that gives a person devotion to God. It's devotion to God that makes a person a JW.

Hardly. Devotion to God is the mark of many Christians, and to deny this is a great unkindness, the sort that marked the Pharisee from the Publican. So I cannot believe that you hold this view.

Who murders witches now? I know of no Bible principle that allows for the murdering of witches....or anyone for that matter.

You miss the point completely. What you mean is your interpretation of a verse differs from the common sense interpretation. But that's okay.

Why honor such a symbol of murder?

Perhaps you should read the RC explanations. Why see God's sending his son to be killed as an act of love? Christianity is full of paradoxes. We must die to be born again. Nonsense, isn't it, in 2-dimensional thinking?

[onewithhim]

You can't ignore known FACTS.

I don't. I ignore myths.

Should a bishop be called to account for conspiring to shuttle Nazi war criminals out of Germany and across the sea to other lands? Or should we sit on our hands and not indict him because we would be "demonizing" him?

You demonised the Pope. I have no idea what you're talking about in this particular case but I guess there were Jehovah's Witnesses who collaborated with the Nazis. That has nothing whatsoever to do with that religion. When I pointed out that individual Catholic priests helped, you said this was irrelevant. Now you pick a case where some bishop acted badly and you tar the entire church. We can't win.

You have been shown figures, accepted by Jewish authorities, that indicate the Pope, all unknown to the world then, rescued nearly one million Jews. Does this alone not show that he was acting in a good and merciful way? Apparently not. You think he should have stopped the war.

How do you think the concentration camp victims felt when they were herded into railroad cars and hoped beyond all hope that they would be saved, only to be separated from their families and, if they were lucky.....

Then why didn't the combined army of Jehovah's Witnesses not save these victims? That's as sensible as suggesting the Catholic Church sent them to concentration camps.

In our determination to demonise Catholicism we're drawing an equivalence between Hitler and Pius, between Catholic and Nazi.

We have moved away from the OP long enough and I no longer wish to revisit the Pope's part in the Holocaust. The cross of Christ is our theme and Catholics believe in it, using the crucifix to remind them. When we move far from Christ's teaching, we see bad in good. So let's honour the crucifix as a healthy reminder of Christ.

You skirted my question about the bishop who stood alone against the Nazis and made a difference in his small territory. How much more the pope could have done. You didn't answer my questions about that.

You said you have no idea what I'm talking about....that is a great deal of my point. Do some research and see!

There is not one single example of JWs collaborating with the Nazis. Some people dig up an old 1931 letter of Joseph Rutherford's to Hitler, but that doesn't hold water. Rutherford had no idea at the time that Hitler was the ogre that he turned out to be. When it was clear what Hitler was doing, Rutherford was actively outspoken against the Nazis. The publications for the late 1930s and the 40s can be checked for that.

The bishop acting badly was not an isolated case! That was one example in an avalanche, as I said. Do you want me to write about many more examples? I can do that ad infinitum.

Wouldn't 10 million more people have been saved if the pope had exerted his influence? Not just less than 1 million. And where is the proof that the pope actually did save almost a million people? Individual Catholics did more, put together, than he did, and it is probably THEIR numbers you are reading about. I told you---his clergy around the world BEGGED him to make a stand against the Nazis and he would not. It would've made a tremendous difference, and I have heard many say that, including Jews.

JWs didn't have an army because they were practicing Jesus' teachings. If everyone had acted like they did, there would have been no war. Are you suggesting that JWs in Germany form an army along with Hitler's army? Wouldn't that have been something very dangerous for Americans, if JWs had fought in Germany's war? Christian teachings have always been this:

"For though we walk in the flesh, we do not wage warfare according to flesh. For the weapons of our warfare are not fleshly, but powerful by God for overturning strongly entrenched things. For we are overturning reasonings and every lofty things raised up against the knowledge of God; and we are bring every thought into captivity to make it obedient to the Christ." (2Corinth.10:3-5)

"We have a wrestling, not against blood and flesh, but against the governments, the world rulers of this [spiritual] darkness, against the wicked spirit forces in the heavenly places [entities that rule the world]." (Ephesians 6:12)


All right, I have gotten to the bottom of you post. You wish to turn a blind eye to evil. That is your prerogative. I won't press the issue further with you.


:pope: :bones:

[onewithhim]

Well, its just that these pictures are not helping. It's part of historical fact and it can't be erased that the Catholic church made a huge error in friends.

These pictures show two prelates submitting to the then authority, as St. Paul required them to do. I have already pointed out the benevolent actions of Pius xii which indicates he opposed Hitler's brutality. I've no idea at what stage the pictures you show were taken but I should imagine that when priests were told to salute, they saluted. Some didn't, and died.

Here is the text you have forgotten:



Romans 13:1

Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which is from God. The authorities that exist have been appointed by God.

No, Marco, we haven't forgotten that scripture. God doesn't usually do the actual appointing. He allows them to stay in place. When they order us to do something against God's will, then we must tell them as the Apostles once did: "We must obey God as ruler rather than men" in this situation. (Acts 5:29)

So the RCC showed support for Hitler, and in fact did support him. That bode ill for the rest of the world, as well as the 11 million people murdered in the concentration camps. How much better to have stood up to the Nazis and said, "No, we cannot side with such atrocities!"

That is Joseph Goebbels on the extreme right in that picture. He was Hitler's minister of propaganda, and called "the man behind Hitler." He helped carry out the "Final Solution" with intense eagerness, to say the least. He was a committed Nazi right up to his suicide, about the same time Hitler killed himself.


.

[onewithhim]

Unacceptable for JWs but for many of the Catholic leadership of that time apparently, it was acceptable.

You are confusing two issues. JWs were objecting NOT to Hitler and his regime but to taking oaths. You are using this to suggest that this action was a condemnation of Nazi doctrine. It wasn't; it was done through religious conviction. Others, including Catholics, had no problem with swearing loyalty to the State. This, at the time, was not an indication that they agreed with the internment and death of millions of people.

I don't see what purpose is served in wrongly ascribing brutality to non-JWs when many did sacrifice their lives to help the oppressed. There was no Catholic policy of accepting Hitler's creed.

No, you are wrong. JWs weren't against taking oaths, as it was common throughout Bible history. They were against what was contained in those oaths.

And there was no indication that the RCC did NOT agree with the internment and murder of millions of people. It is truly unfortunate that they swore loyalty to the Third Reich. Many sacrificed their lives for the oppressed, but individuals did this, showing their own integrity and commitment to what was right, without any backing from the Vatican.

.

[marco]

That was one example in an avalanche, as I said. Do you want me to write about many more examples? I can do that ad infinitum.

I believe you could if you read the right novels.

All right, I have gotten to the bottom of you post. You wish to turn a blind eye to evil. That is your prerogative. I won't press the issue further with you.

I am grateful for that.
You have your own agenda regarding Catholicism. If someone acted secretly so as not to attract Hitler's attention would this be right or wrong? When JWs refused to fight against Hitler was this simple cowardice or did they in fact agree with Hitler? Who knows? We can uncover many sins if we have a mind to. I don't.

Can we now return to the OP which deals with the crucifixion of Christ not that of Pius xii?

[Wootah]

t doesn't get you mad just a little when certain religions LIE? It gets me mad. Jehovah hates a "lying tongue." (Proverbs 6:16,17) A lying tongue gets me going too.

God alone knows whose tongue is inclined to untruths. JWs intend to follow the Bible and intend to interpret correctly. Sadly, the road to hell is paved with good intentions. There are millions of devout Catholics who honour God in a way that does not discredit other humans. When we think we are without blemish and have the one true interpretation of what God wants, we should remember Matthew:

Matthew 7:1-3 (KJV)

Judge not, that ye be not judged.

For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.

And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?

Christ warned against the Pharisee picking out pieces of law, claiming bright truth while ignoring the basic elements of humanity. And Demosthenes expressed it beautifully : “Nothing is easier than self-deceit. For what every man wishes, that he also believes to be true.�

Take care.

Yes, but people are being shepherded right toward a cliff. The leaders of the various religions are responsible for keeping their flocks fooled. There ARE many good people in various religions. Shouldn't we feel bad for them that they are being deceived?

We're not talking about judging our "brothers," our spiritual family, or even individuals within these various religions. We're talking about the deceitful, surreptitious leaders of the religions that play their vast flocks like a piano.

Moderator Comment
You could be right, you could be wrong, but what we moderate on is civility. Try not to post sweeping generalizations please.

Please review the Rules.


______________

Moderator comments do not count as a strike against any posters. They only serve as an acknowledgment that a post report has been received, but has not been judged to warrant a moderator warning against a particular poster. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.