You are here:

Jehovah`s Witness/No Mr. Holland I was illustrating the absurdity of your example.


Telephone CROSS or Telephone Pole? Which?
Telephone CROSS or Tel  
So Mr. Holland, why the run around?

Why the play on words?

Why not just say it out-loud, that a telephone pole is a cross?

After all that's exactly what you're trying to say - in a round about way.


“Does the fact they look like crosses, mean they have CEASED to be poles?”

Why not just say 'Telephone Poles are CROSSES'?  

Why not?

Traditional CROSS or Telephone Pole? Which?
Traditional CROSS or T  

Traditonal CROSS or Masts? Which
Traditonal CROSS or Ma  
Why Not?

Because you can't!

Thus you have no choice but to 'play on words' in order to make it appear the the traditional CROSS is a POLE - a xylon because telephone poles are to quote you:

"...the fact they look like crosses...", thus it doesn't "mean they have CEASED to be poles"

Isn't it? That's exactly what you're implying if not saying.

That "'Telephone Poles are CROSSES' - as in the traditional CROSS.

Now, how absurd is that?

But to further illustrate the absurdity of your premise.

I'll approach it this way:

- If a truck is red does it mean that it's a firetruck?

Or that does it CEASED to be a truck because firetrucks are red?

Or do all red trucks become firetrucks because firetrucks are red?

What do you think Mr. Holland?

Absurd? Of course!

If so, then why not yours?

Yes, why not your illustration?

But going further, what about the mast on a boat or a yacht?

“Does the fact they look like crosses, mean they have CEASED to be poles?”

In other words, will you call them MASTS - CROSSES because they"...look like crosses..."?

Or poles since they don't "CEASED to be poles" just for "the fact they look like crosses"?

But in the same vain, will you call a traditional cross a telephone pole for the fact that a telephone pole "look like crosses"?

See what I mean? I can take this ridiculousness of yours to another level, but since the point is already made there's no need to.

Instead, I'll just answer your question about telephone poles:

You asked:


“Does the fact they look like crosses, mean they have CEASED to be poles?”


Well, just because telephone poles looked like crosses, it doesn't mean they AUTOMATICALLY become CROSSES. No, they are still telephone poles because that's what they are.

Otherwise calling them CROSSES will make you a laughing stock.

So no, Mr. Holland, come on, we call telephone poles - telephone poles because that's what they are. They were MADE and named that WAY - telephone poles (sometimes they are called utility poles). We don't call them CROSSES because they are NOT. We don't call them  xylon also (even if you're a Greek (τηλεφωνικό στύλο) because they are not. We don't call them staurus either because they are not. They are just that - telephone poles, a modern invention. Unless it's a pole with no crossbeam then you can strictly call it a pole (xylon). But since they have a cross-beam from which to hold the wires up in the air - thus it's a telephone pole or a utility pole.

Need I go further?

But the fact is, back in the days of the NT (Greek Scriptures) the Greek words Xylon (ξύλον) and Staurus were understood and known to simply mean a tree or a pole, a club, a fence, a stake, etc or a torture stake in the case of Staurus. It never meant to be a CROSS with cross-beam.

No, they never meant to mean that way.

Instead when "THE VOICE OF TRADITION" made the implication that the Lord Jesus Christ died on a two pieces wooden cross-beams, people like you back then started believing and calling it a CROSS.

Yes, it was in fact TRADITION (the "voice" of the Church Fathers) that changed the meaning of the Greek words Xylon and Staurus into the commonly known and accepted word CROSS. It was tradition that was the foundation for believing that Christ died on a CROSS.

That is your foundation! Tradition not the Scripture.

But if you insist that telephone poles are a CROSSES because "they look like crosses", what then are you complaining about when I replaced your Church's traditional crosses with a telephone pole?

Is it because it "looks" absurd?

If so, then my point is made - illustrating the absurdity of the absurd - your illustration.

So you can shout all you want, rant all you want, make long replies, make so many long winded posts, dissect every word I said, dissect every letter I write and comment on it word for word, letter by letter, it doesn't change the fact that your case against the TRUTH about the pagan CROSS is weak if not absurd, not based on the Scripture but "THE VOICE of TRADITION".

And none of your so called "HUGE list" of questions will and can change this fact.

Now back to my ONE simple question:

Was the prophecy fulfilled if Jesus didn't die on a "tree/pole" but on a traditional cross?

If so how?


As to correcting what you said about my post to David (staurus vs xylon), I'm glad that you did (somewhat).

But the fact still remain (even after your very long dissected post): Xylon or Staurus never meant to mean - CROSS as in the traditional CROSS.

It was always known in the Scripture as "a tree", a pole or a stake or a torture stake, etc - never as a CROSS as in the traditional CROSS. It always remained that way...

.... until like I already stated ...."THE VOICE OF TRADITION" changed its meaning.

To quote your source as proof, here's what it said:

"It was on a cross of this form, according to the general VOICE OF TRADITION, that our Lord suffered." -- The Imperial Dictionary. (caps mine)

Contradict it all you want but it's your source.

Case close.


Now to correct your lies again on pretty much majority of what I said, I'll just quote the following statements:

Mr. Holland you said:

>>>"So yes, Eddie, it was a misquote.  Better yet, a distortion of my comments, into something that you could try and MAKE into a logical fallacy.  Unfortunately for you, you failed, because you had to impose your own idea onto my words, just to create the fallacy.

But the problem with the above, is that you lied.  You claimed I was saying just the opposite of what I said.

You claim that I was saying “crosses are xylons and xylons are crosses” …A complete fabrication, and you KNEW it.  No logical fallacy on my part....just a lie on yours." <<<<

But in actuality here's what i said:

--> Using your own analogy, you're basically saying that since a telephone pole is the same as the traditional cross, thus it should be proper to use it in the "Christian" Church.

That is, it can be placed in the altar, in the sanctuary, in front of the church, or anywhere, because per your statement - the telephone pole - is xylon and xylon is a cross and a pole is a cross with a crossbeam. <---

See the difference? See the context? - your telephone pole.

yours: “crosses are xylons and xylons are crosses”

mine: the telephone pole - is xylon and xylon is a cross and a pole is a cross with a crossbeam.

prompted by these statements of yours:

>>"As promised, I am attaching images of my recent Google search of "telephone POLES". <<</b>

>>">>Eddie has been asked repeatedly, just WHY he believes that attaching a cross-beam to a POLE, would cause the pole to CEASE being a pole?  So far, he has not given us a good answer to that question."<<

But if you really are honest with yourself, it's was actually you who said:

“crosses are xylons and xylons are crosses”

Don't believe me, well take a look again at the pictures you included in your post link below.

>>Telephone POLES<<

Then read your questions:

>>Is THIS a "xylon"?
Telephone Pole<<

>>How About These?
Are THESE "Poles"?<<

then connect them to these statement:

>>"just WHY he believes that attaching a cross-beam to a POLE, would cause the pole to CEASE being a pole?"<<


And like I said:

Since you like to beat around the bush by using so many long winded words and context manipulation and play on words, it was time for me to show the readers what YOUR REAL and TRUE INTENTIONS were.”

That is,...

What you're trying to do is to make a connection between the Greek word "xylon" - a pole / stake to the traditional CROSS so that by default both will appear as though they are one and the same.

And that is the reason why you brought up what trees are made of - wood. Why you brought up what a pole is made of - wood and what a 'XYLON' is made of - wood. You did this in order to, if I may say so, show that if: a POLE is made of wood and a 'xylon' is also made of wood THEREFORE a pole is a cross and cross is a pole.


Now since you already concluded in your mind that:

>>>Eddie, bottom line…You are in a conversation you are simply not qualified to be in.  You either have NO IDEA what a “xylon” was, or you are willfully lying.  Either way, you are completely, and a million miles off base.<<<

Why do you then keep coming back and keep beating yourself in the head and further revealing your weakness?

Didn't I say case close? yet here you are again and again on this subject.

Can't you see that you can't win this argument since the CROSS is simply it - a lie?

What more can I say?

Give it up.  

Jehovah`s Witness

All Answers

Answers by Expert:

Ask Experts


Eddie G


What the Bible Teaches under the leadership of the Lord Jesus Christ and his Faithful Slave and the guidance of the Sovereign Lord and the ONLY True God - Jehovah. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>


I will not tolerate any rivalry against my God! “No weapon formed against you will have any success, And you will condemn any tongue that rises up against you in the judgment. This is the heritage of the servants of Jehovah, And their righteousness is from me,” declares Jehovah.” (Isaiah 54:17) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>



Education/Credentials >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Note to readers: If an annoying advertisement or inappropriate advertisement pops up - you can turn it off by clicking on the X mark at the top right corner of the advertisement window. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Awards and Honors

Past/Present Clients

©2017 All rights reserved.