View points on Jehovah's Witnesses contesting the Christian beliefs?

Question

I am a Christian belonging to the Methodist denomination. In reading some literature, I learned some that a lot of what the Jehovah's say is documented in the Bible. How can we really be sure the Bible is accurate? Who is correct? I even heard that Christ was nailed and died on a stake- not the cross. The cross is derived from mixing Christianity with Paganism who worshiped the God whose name started with a "T," hence the symbolism of the cross.

Answer 1

Please do not be too quick to accept impressive sounding quotations from Bible dictionaries such as Dr. Bullinger. There are many other references that disagree with his conclusion.

In the writings of Seneca of the first century, he tells us that stauroses (Gr word translated as 'cross' or 'torture stake') were fashioned in different ways. He describes three of them. They weren't all the same, so how can anyone know for sure if Jesus' stauros had a crosspiece? (Does it really matter anyway?)

It is a fact that a stauros was ORIGINALLY only a stake, but by the time Jesus came to earth, stauroses sometimes had a crosspiece added, which formed a cross-shape. The Greeks called them all stauroses, so if someone says a stauros MUST be a stake only , they are misinformed.

Tradition says it was a cross. Since there were eyewitnesses to the crucifixion, it's entirely possible that the tradition is correct. We know from historical documents that within a century of Jesus' death, Christians accepted it as a cross shape. There is no record that anyone in the early Christian church disputed that it was a cross-shape or objected to saying that it was. It sees to have been unquestioned until the 19th century.

I'm not saying that it was a cross, because I don't know. Jehovah's Witnesses don't really know either, but that doesn't stop them from saying that they do.

By the way, don't let them tell you that it was all Constantine's idea to say that Jesus died on a cross. Christians were writing about it before Constantine was even born. (Letter of Barnabas, Apology of Justin Martyr, Minucius Felix)

EDITED:

As a perfect example of why you shouldn't be too quick to accept everything you read, I would like to point out a few things in reference to Trustdell's comments.

1. He says that the writers of the Christian Greek Scriptures used the word 'stauros' to mean a simple stake without a crossbeam. That is not a fact, that is merely an opinion which he states as if it were a fact. I could just as easily write that they used it to mean a stake WITH a crosspiece. I would have just as much proof as he does. However, I would not make such a dogmatic statement since I - unlike Trustdell - do not profess to know things that can't be proven.

2. The word 'xylo' means 'wood' and simply means something made of wood. A cross is made of wood. So the use of the word xylon only proves that something is made of wood. It can be a wooden beam, such as at Ezra 6:11, or it can be a wooden cross, or many other things. So just because a xylon at Ezra 6:11 refers to a timber, does not mean it couldn't refer to a wooden stake with a wooden crosspiece in another scripture. That's like saying the word vegetable referred to a 'carrot' in one place, so it can't refer to an onion anywhere else.

3. A crux is the Latin word for a torture stake. They can be a stake with or without a crosspiece, the word does not just mean a cross. Livy may have referred to one without a crosspiece, but that doesn't change the fact that other ones DID have crosspieces.

4. During the time of Homer, crosses were not used. That was centuries before Jesus was born.

5. Although Trustdell quoted the Imperial Bible Dictionary, he left out the part that said that in Jesus day, most of the stakes DID have a crosspiece. I will be happy to post the FULL QUOTE if you like, not just the part that supports a certain point of view.

EDITED - AGAIN

The Hebrew word "aw" is translated as "xylon" in the Septuagint because it means wood. It is sometimes translated as tree (the source of wood) and sometimes it is used of objects made of wood. The New World Translation uses different words to translate "xylon". They translate it as "stocks" because Paul and Silas were confined to wooden stocks which had holes for their feet.

Did the timber spoken of in Ezra have holes for one's feet? Evidently not. So if a xylon can't refer to anything but a piece of timber, why would the NWT translate it as "stocks"?

They also translate it as "stake" , "clubs", and "tree". They aren't all the same thing, but the same word is used to describe them because they have one thing in common - wood.

The timber in Ezra was a xylon because it was made of wood, not because it was a particular shape. The fact that the NWT translates xylon for objects made of wood, nullifies the argument that structures made of wood aren't xylons. A xylon is not necessarily a piece of timber - it can also be a living tree - because it is WOOD.

A "cross" is nothing more than two xylons - two pieces of timber - nailed together. One is vertical, one is horizontal.

EDITED - YET AGAIN

I'm not sure what Trustdell is trying to prove. I think he's trying to prove that the word xylon doesn't indicate "cross". If so, I agree. It also doesn't indicate "holes"; nevertheless there were holes in the xylon (stocks) that confined Silas and Paul.

Even the Watchtower admits that a xylon means a tree or something made of wood from a tree. If we're arguing that point, I will be happy to post a quotation from the WT.

In any case, the primary part of the cross is the stake on which the person hung and would be no different than any other stake. The crosspiece, if added, would be a timber (wood) and would not contradict the use of the word xylon.

Like I say, I'm not sure what the point is so I may not be addressing it directly.

EDITED...........AND EDITED SOME MORE

A wooden stake (with or without a wooden crosspiece) would meet Strong's definition of 'other wooden article or substance", would it not?

A wooden stake (with or without a crosspiece) also meets one definition of a "stauros" - a stake used for punishment or execution. The Greeks didn't differentiate between the two, just as in Latin, the word "crux" could mean a simple stake or one with a crosspiece. The English word "cross" and "stake", however, are not interchangeable which has caused a lot of confusion.

Yes, if you make wood into a table, you call it a table. If you fashion wood into stocks, you call them stocks. But you can also call them xylons as we see from the Bible because although we use the English word stocks, the Greek word that was used was xylon. And you can call a wooden death stake (crosspiece or not) a stauros. Or a xylon.

Most crucifixion authorities would agree that Jesus did not drag a "cross" to Golgotha, but merely a xylon - a piece of wood - that served as a crossbar and was nailed to a stationary stake or tree at the place of execution.

Final Edit....

Trustdell, I noticed that you deleted the rest of Strong's definition ...you deleted the words " or other wooden article or substance". I checked my Strongs and it's still there. Actually, I was pleasantly surprised that you were honest enough to post it the first time.

You can hide the truth from others, but not from yourself.

FINAL EDIT......................MAYBE

Imagine this scenario and tell me why it couldn't have happend this way:

Jesus carried a xylon - a piece of wood - on his back (actually Simon carried it) to Golgotha

At the place of execution, the xylon was nailed to a stake or tree and Jesus was nailed to it

When a Bible writer says that Jesus was nailed to a xylon, he could be referring to the crosspiece or to the stake itself since his hands were nailed to the crosspiece and his feet to the stake

When a Bible writers says that Jesus was hung on a stauros, he was referring to the instrument of torture - in this case, the stake with the attached xylon. Remember that a stauros is an instrument (BASICALLY) a stake that is used to execute criminals. We don't have an exact match in English , but "cross" and "stake" are the closest words to convey the idea of a criminal being tortured and executed

A cross is no more of a "structure" than a stake. If you point to a stake and ask someone what it is, they'll say " a stake", not "wood", so your point is really moot since the stake is the same whether or not a crosspiece was added.

You're also speaking from an English point of view again. A first century person would not identify what we call a "cross" by the Greek word for "cross". He would have called it a "stauros" because it was an instrument of execution. And very likely he may have referred to it as a xylon.

You can't deny that the stake could be called a xylon, and you can't deny that the crosspiece could be called a xylon.

Where is it written that once you attach the crosspiece, it can't be called a xylon?

Perhaps it happened that way....perhaps not. I don't have to prove anything because I'm not the one insisting that I KNOW whether the stake had a crosspiece.

Oh, and one more thing. Although the Watchtower draws the picture of the copper serpent with the serpent wrapped around the pole, most other people draw it as a pole (vertical) with a serpent mounted horizontally across the top, thus creating a "cross" effect. Some people try to read something into that. I don't but how do we know for sure which way it was?

Also, next time you drive down the highway, notice how many poles look like crosses. Do you refer to them as crosses? Or do you just call them poles?

EDITED.....EDITED........EDITED

The Bible uses two words to describe Jesus' instrument of death - xylon and stauros. Beyond that, it gives us no description at all. It doesn't say that it had a crosspiece and it doesn't say that it didn't have one. All we can do is to research the usage of those two words and try to determine if those words were only used to refer to stakes without crosspieces or if those words also were used to refer to stakes that had crosspieces.

I'm sure that your research has led you to the same conclusion as mine - originally a stauros was only a stake, but as the methods of staurooing a person changed, the usage of the word stauros also changed. (I'm sure you're aware that orginally a stauros was not a pole, but a sharp pointed stake on which the criminal was actually impaled - without nails. The stake was thrust through the person's inward parts.) That isn't the way Jesus was impaled, though, was it?

If you will research WT articles, you will see that both stauros and crux were used to describe "crosses". Of course it isn't possible to know exactly WHEN the practice of adding a crosspiece started, but since Seneca seems to describe a cross in the first century, it is entirely POSSIBLE that they were being used in 33 CE.

By the early part of the second century the writer of the Letter of Barnabas alludes to Jesus stauros as being in the shape of a cross. Some of the Christians living at that time had known the apostles or known people who had known the apostles and/or eyewitnesses of the crucifixion. If crosses were not in use at that time, it would be unlikely that anyone would believe Jesus died on one.

You seem to be really confused over the English use of "cross" and "stake". To us, they are different - we use two different words to mean two different things. But in the koine Greek one would use the word "stauros" to describe Jesus' death stake whether it was a plain stake or a "cross". . One word, but it included ALL types of stauroses, including the sharp pointed stake that was originally used which was NOT used in the case of Jesus.

If you stop thinking about "stake" and "cross" and just think "stauros", you would be better equipped to understand the usage of the word in the first century.

Answer 2

How do Jehovah witnesses view people outside of their beliefs? 1 Timothy 2:3 This is fine and acceptable in the sight of our Savior, God, 4 whose will is that all sorts of men should be saved and come to an accurate knowledge of truth.

Answer 3

One thing not mentioned is what comes from Jewish traditional methods of execution, compared to Roman. First, according to the History Channel, the cross didn't become a common form of execution until 30 years after the death of Christ. After its use in the put down of the slave revolt lead by Spartacus, some 70 years before the birth of Christ, it was considered an extreme form of punishment. On a cross, a person takes days to die, very slowly, and usually from lack of food and water. Some 30 years after Christ, such practices became a common public spectacle.

This practice was unacceptable to the Jews, in light of God's teachings. A condemned person was to die before the sun sets, which is when a new day starts in Israel. This simply is not possible using the cross, but it is with a stake. With a stake, a persons hands are nailed or bound above their heads, causing them to from them. This position of the arms causes the lungs to compress, suffocating the person. They can use their legs, wrapped around the post, to try and push up, to relieve the press on their lungs, but when they do this their legs are broken. Actually, under today's standards, this is a brutal form of execution, as it still takes minutes to hours to achieve.

Christ died before sun set. He did not suffer for several days.

Aside from this, even as a stake, what is the purpose of carrying the instrument of death of ones Savior around ones neck, or display prominently in other locations? The Bible, every Bible, clearly teaches against the use of idolic symbols. Remember when the Jews created a symbols of God at the foot of Mount Sinai?

Answer 4

I am a Christian, and I am one of Jehovah's Witnesses.

Strong's 4716. stauros stow-ros' from the base of 2476; a stake or post (as set upright),

is the Primary meaning of the Greek.

Dr Jason BeDuhn states

==
"On "torture stake," again, I think that the NWT is a bit heavy handed in trying to make a point. Certainly "stake" would be sufficient, and more desirable.

The JW's are trying to shock Christians away from their devotion to the cross. It is, after all, an instrument of execution.

They are right that STAUROS does not necessarily mean the cross form as Christianity has thought of it.

It can be just a plain stake in the ground to which someone is nailed. But I think "torture" is too much and misses the point: it is meant to be a form of execution and not torture."
==

As to torture, I think anyone who died that way would argue the point.

A Critical Lexicon and Concordance to the English and Greek New Testament, p819. E.W.Bullinger states:

"Used here[cross] for the stauros on which Jesus was crucified. Both words[stauros, xylon]disagree with the modern idea of a cross, with which we have become familiarized by pictures. The stauros was simply an upright pale or stake to which the Romans nailed those who were thus said to be crucified. Stauroo[the verb], merely to drive stakes. It never means two pieces of wood joining each other at any angle. Even the Latin word crux means a mere stake."

Do the research, go to

http://www.watchtower.org/

and decide for yourself.

Answer 5

I studied with JW's for a while and I agree that some of what they say is right. But they are wrong about some things, too. They had me convinced that Jesus didn't die on a cross. I researched it a lot and found out that it was a stake and it MIGHT have had a crosspiece added.

The way they explained it, it seemed so clear that it had to be a stake and not a cross. But it turned out they hadn't given me the complete information, only the part that made it sound like it had to be a stake.

The god you're referring to is Tammuz and I haven't been able to find any real proof that the initial of his name was his 'symbol' . Even if it was, I found out that the ancient Babylonians and Hebrews T wasn't shaped like our T in English. It's more like an X, so even if it was his symbol, it's irrelevant.

And the most important thing is what the Bible says. In the book of Ezekiel, God told Ezekiel to put a taw or 'cross-mark' (like I said, more like an x) on the foreheads of his righteous people. In the preceding chapter, it speaks of women worshipping Tammuz. So if the taw was the sign of Tammuz, then God was telling Ezekiel to mark his people with the sign of Tammuz.

That proves to me that the taw almost certainly wasn't the symbol of Tammuz. Still, I'm willing to accept some proof if someone has any. But it would still be hard for me to understand why God would want to mark his people with the symbol of a pagan god.

Answer 6

i studied with a Methodist for a while.we really enjoyed looking up from the bible her questions.and it was her study bible from the Methodist church.every question was answered and she was amazed at what she learned in such a short amount of time. she has since moved to Florida.if your honest with yourself and ask all the questions you have you will find the truth of gods word

Answer 7

Jehovah's Witnesses are Christians; they teach biblical true Christianity, rather than human traditions and 'Christendomisms'.
The bible is reliable and accurate.
http://watchtower.org/e/t13/
http://watchtower.org/e/pr/index.htm?article=article_03.htm
http://watchtower.org/e/dg/index.htm?article=article_04.htm
http://watchtower.org/e/lmn/index.htm?article=article_03.htm


Incidentally, Jesus almost certainly died while impaled on a simple stake, rather than a cross of two intersecting beams. Of course the Romans had the ability to create such devices, and probably did. But ask yourself: why they would have bothered when a simple stake would have worked just as well or better?

It is also enlightening to examine other relevant Scriptures.

You may be interested to see how your own copy of the bible translates Acts 5:30, Galatians 3:13, Deuteronomy 21:22, 23, and Acts 10:39. The King James, Revised Standard, Dyaglott, and Jerusalem Bible translate the instrument of Christ's death simply as "stake" or "tree" because the original wording simply does not support the idea that this was more than a piece of upright wood.

It is also eye-opening to examine how the first-century Christians felt about idols of any kind, much less one that glorified an instrument of death. Jehovah's Witnesses do not insist that Jesus could not have died on a cross, but do believe the evidence seems to indicate that it was a simple stake.

Learn more:
http://watchtower.org/e/2005058a/article_01.htm
http://watchtower.org/e/rq/article_11.htm
http://watchtower.org/e/19960715/article_01.htm

Answer 8

Each Christian needs to search out the scriptures and make sure that their beliefs are taught in the bible.

John 17:3 "This means everlasting life, their taking in knowledge of the only true God and the one whom you sent forth Jesus Christ."

We all have the opportunity to find the truth in the bible. I feel that Jehovah's Witnesses have found that truth and practice living their lives as the bible tells us, or at least as far as humanly possible for imperfect humans.

Answer 9

I suspect that the literature in question is the Watchtower or some similar publication from the Witnesses. I have looked at a number of these things too and have found that they were highly selective in the things covered. When people of that persuasion have sought to engage me in conversation I have brought up wider issues, including the doctrine of the Trinity, and have found that they were only too anxious to back away, as they do not accept that Jesus and the Holy Spirit are part of the Godhead, despite the fact that this is borne out by many Scriptural references. They seem to want to discuss only blood transfusions and their chances of being among the 144,000 witnesses referred to in the Book of Revelation, ignoring the fact that these are stated to be male and that most people who go around proselytising are female. I think that you must search the Scriptures prayerfully to find out what God is saying to you. Meanwhile, you may find this link useful for probing behind what you have been reading so far about the JWs. http://72.14.253.104/search?q=cache:WjryZFE81nwJ:www.carm.org/witnesses.htm+Jehovah%27s+witnesses&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=4

Answer 10

You have brought up too many issues to address in a short post on Y!A. For a complete list of rebuttals to common Jehovah's Witnesses objections to Christianity, check out the articles at the website below.

[Quite a few thumbs down! I guess that JWs do not like this particular website]

------------------------------------------------------------
...If you are a Jehovah's Witness please understand that I am not against you as an individual. I am not an apostate from the Watchtower organization and, of course, I was never baptized as a Jehovah's Witness. However, when I was 17, I studied with the Jehovah's Witnesses for a couple of months, but quit. Unfortunately, they used the Watchtower Magazine equally, and sometime more than the Bible and they couldn't answer all my questions. All I wanted to study was the Bible since that is God's word.
As a Jehovah's Witness you have been taught from the Bible and the Watchtower organization. You’ve attended numerous meetings, and are convinced that what you believe is the truth. You also believe the Trinity is a demonic doctrine and that Christendom is an apostate group preaching a false gospel. Additionally, you are taught the Watchtower organization is the true channel of God’s revelation to His church on earth. You are taught that you are in "The Truth."
But believing it does not make it so. I am sure you agree with this and respond by saying that your beliefs are in agreement with the Bible. After all, you study it deeply and often and have validated your beliefs with the word of God. I don’t deny that you study. But when you study, you study under the Watchtower's guidance and allow it to shape your understanding and thinking of the Bible and its doctrines....

...In short, you are led by what the Watchtower says the Bible says. But if the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society is from God, then...

Why has it made false prophecies?

Why has it altered the translation of the Bible?

Why does the Watchtower say you will fall into apostasy if you read the Bible without the Watchtower? See their quotes

Why are you not allowed to examine your own organization and its problems?

Why does it tell you what to think and do?


Have you checked the documentation from the Watchtower Magazine? How do you know that the Watchtower is correct? Because it says it is?

Please don’t be offended by this. But when a group claims to be the prophet of God, yet mistranslates the Bible, takes verses out of context, makes false prophecies, and misquotes authorities all to make its position valid, its credibility is lost. It cannot be from God....

Answer 11

Teddy Bear I"m not a specialist on the subject, but I do know in ny 48 years mankind has a way of altering and destroying everything you hold dear. The less you learn from those people the better you'll be. My best friend grew up in a jehovah witness thing and like so many others it's a cult and please leave it alone. I grew up Baptist but still ran across the "nuts" from time to time. Just from experiance, leave the argueing to the fools and keep being the good person you are.