The bible states unambiguously that it was a cross and not a stake. And you can't say the bible is corrupted because then you would be contradicting your own belief that the bible is infallible. I once read in a JW pamphlet that saying the bible is corrupted is accusing God of weakness for not protecting his word. Isn't interesting that JW would believe in nonbiblical things like the 6,000 year old earth theory, a fabrication of some clergymen and young earth creationists, but deny things that are actually in the bible? I know you think the cross is a pagan symbol, but since the Romans were pagans and used crucifixtion, why would the origins of the cross rule out the possibility of Jesus dying on one? So the Romans just decided to use a stake instead of a cross in the case of Jesus to accomodate the beliefs of Jehovah's witnesses.
2007-03-23
18:23:14
·
14 answers
·
asked by
Anonymous