Jehovah`s Witness/Yes Eddie, The Case Was "Closed" Long Ago...You Never Answered Anything
Finally! I was actually considering writing to Eddie G, to see if he was going to make good on his promise to write another post on the topic of the cross. I was going to respond to his last post of nearly a month ago on this topic, but since he left off in that post by saying that he had another one coming, I decided to simply wait until he was done. Now, nearly a month later, we finally have his remarks.
Only problem…this post was no different than the other ones. More of the same emotional appeals without basis in fact, more of the same threats of destruction, to anyone who doesn’t just accept what he has TOLD us (in the absence of any facts given) is the truth. More of the feeble attempts to manipulate the readers into seeing things his way, even though he still never bothered to address the evidence that has been presented.
Basically, long posts that say absolutely nothing.
I’ve noticed a certain characteristic in many of Eddie’s writings. Not just once or twice…you could chalk that up to just having a bad day. But a continual pattern. Eddie displays an “I’m your boss, and I will tell you who to write, and what to believe. If I tell you something is true, never mind if I don’t give you any evidence….I wouldn’t say it if it wasn’t true, so just accept it! And if you don’t listen to what I say because I say it, then you will lose out on life”.
Now, that just doesn’t work here. The fact is, Mr. Ed, that most of the readers don’t know who you are, or who I am. So WHY in the name of common sense, should they listen to EITHER of us, or just ACCEPT what we say, because we say it??
That is why we have discussions…where both of us present evidence. Evidence from the Scriptures, and from the facts of history, and archaeological discoveries. And ALL of those lines of evidence have been on the side of the cross. ALL of them. And you know this, and that is the reason for this post of yours, that can only be described as an emotional melt-down.
Eddie, I find it intriguing that you follow the same pattern that others like Rando, and even some before him, have followed. In your zeal to paint me a “liar”, people like you ALWAYS resort to twisting my words, in order to set up your “straw man” argument, which proves me a “liar”. You have done it before, and you did it in your latest rants on the cross. Telling people that Mr. Holland WANTS them to believe a lie. You are lying yourself when you say that, Eddie. It is your side that has shown that they have no problem with lies and slander, as of late. But you simply are not going to make comments like that, and get away with it.
May I just tell you something, Eddie? When you have to twist someone’s words in order to make those words a lie, then you don’t have much of a case. Now, I know you WISH this case was “closed” and you the victor, but that just isn’t the way it has worked out for you. I know that’s tough to swallow.
You would think by reading Eddie G’s “case closed” post regarding the cross, that he has a problem with lies being told, and is very zealous for truth. Unfortunately, we have seen as of late, that when real lies are being told and proven, then the FBI couldn’t find Eddie G. We don’t hear a “peep” out of him. Like he has entered into the “Witness Protection Program”, or something.
However, in his hatred for me, and his zeal to prop up his demolished belief about Jesus not dying on a cross, he all of a sudden now comes out with a vengeance on the topic of the cross, denouncing what he perceives as “lies”…both from me, and in the Bible.
So, once again, I will respond to Eddie G’s posts, which never addressed any of the evidence presented. In fact, to prove this, my answer will show my 2 MAIN posts, which presented the evidence, as well as every “response” Eddie has posted on the cross, since my posts appeared. And anyone can see that he never addressed the issues. He ignored the Scriptures, he ignored the facts of history, he ignored discoveries validating the cross, he ignored contradictions in his OWN literature as to when the cross was believed by Christians, and he ignored repeated challenges to answer the evidence, and produce his own.
Furthermore, he kept repeating like a broken record, how that the cross had pagan uses prior to the crucifixion, but NEVER ONCE told us what relevance that had to whether Jesus was executed on one, or not. Furthermore, he had to ADMIT that poles/torture stakes had the SAME sexual connotations, but never really wanted to talk about that in great detail.
In addition, he continued, right up until his most recent post, to continue LYING about Christians “worshipping” and “venerating” crosses. In fact, he repeated it so much, that even one of his own fellow JW readers grew tired of it, and put the following “Add On” to one of his answers….
“Eddie you keep missing the point that Derrick makes in that he does not believe that Christians use the cross in worship. You keep going on about that to no avail because he does not believe it. You need to change your approach otherwise he will get get annoyed at you for not reading his comments properly.”
So, we have seen Eddie type all these posts since the facts were presented, and never address any of the pertinent points. Instead, he focused on attacking me. Not very effective, Eddie. But you have been taught well.
In the place of answering these facts with facts of his own, Eddie G lied about how the KJB translated “xylon” (on several occasions), quoted and misquoted from either PARTIAL AND EDITED sources, or from sources who were involved with the demonic and the paranormal, insisted that ONLY his definition of “xylon” (while ignoring the broad scope of the word) be used, and informed us that all Bibles “CONTAINED A LIE ABOUT THE CROSS”, prior to the New World Translation.
And knowing deep-down that he was not really answering the facts, he attempts to intimidate the readers into accepting what he says, with the threat of destruction if they don’t.
So ONCE AGAIN, instead of sitting down and having an intelligent discussion about the FACTS of this matter, I have to devote several hours this evening, addressing personal attacks, and DISTORTIONS of my prior comments, all because this is the only tactic left to a man who was unable to back up his claims with real facts.
Not much of a case, Eddie. If I were you, I’d want it “closed” to….
Okay, this response will deal with statements from Eddie G, from his last TWO posts on this topic. One from 9/18/2013, and the other one which posted on Monday, 10/14/2013. Most of it is redundant, because Eddie merely keeps recycling the same arguments over and over again, instead of giving us anything concrete, in the way of facts.
But before starting, I simply want to address a very important point to keep in mind. SAYING something repeatedly, does not make it true. I say that, because Eddie is playing a little game here, of attempted manipulation. He waits for nearly a month, before posting his “Case Closed” article, and tells us several times, to the effect of…
“Since it has been proven that Jesus did not die on a cross”
Really? When was this proven? I will post the links below, to let the readers see for themselves, that he never “proved” any such thing. In fact, he never even gave us any EVIDENCE for this claim, let alone proof. In fact, its been “proven” that Jesus DID die on a cross.
It was your JOB to prove it, Eddie! You were supposed to prove it by giving us SCRIPTURE that showed the “stake/pole” was correct, and you were to address the Scriptures I used in defense of the cross. You failed to do this. You were to disprove the facts from archaeology that I listed, but you failed to ever even address them.
But we see continually in his post, in various places, comments such as:
“Since it has been proven…”
“Since it has now been established…”
“Since we now know….”
The problem is, he is trying to give the false impression, that these things he calls “facts”, have been proven or established, when in fact, they have not. Maybe that explains why he waited a month, before posting this….so any new readers would just assume that it has been proven, and any who have been following, might have forgotten that he never addressed the evidence. Very clever, but I’ve been doing this for too long, to let him get away with that.
SO…I am going to make it easy. I will post the links to my 2 MAIN articles, where I dealt with the Biblical, the historical, and the archaeological evidence, that shows that Jesus died on a cross.
Following those 2 links, I will give the links to EACH of Eddie’s “replies” on this topic, SINCE the time that mine appeared. I will let the readers see for themselves, just how much time he spent attacking me and the King James Bible, and never giving us any evidence to substantiate his position, instead of “proving” and “establishing” his point, like he was SUPPOSED to do.
MY POSTS, showing the overwhelming evidence, that Mr. Eddie G never addressed:
Now, EVERY POST of Eddie’s on this subject, since the above 2 posts from me:
And this week’s gem (actually, just more of the same)….
Count em’…1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7...That’s right, SEVEN posts, and NONE of them even attempted to address the historical, archaeological, or SCRIPTURAL facts that I presented in the above links. Outside of more emotional rants, continuously repeating himself over and over, and attacking me, he actually answered nothing.
Now Eddie, several points were brought out, that you did your best to completely ignore. I will summarize those points here….
You did not attempt to refute ANY of the historical findings, the archaeological discoveries, OR the Scriptural arguments. In fact, you didn’t even address those posts, with the exception of Exodus 12.
Nor did you ever once address the manner in which crucifixions were carried out, with the pole being stationary in place, and the cross-beam being carried to the execution site.
Nor did you ever explain, or answer, why you think that adding a cross-beam, means a pole is no longer a pole. (See my other posting in today's forum, for help with this one).
Nor did you ever attempt to explain your how your redundant point about the cross having other pagan uses, somehow is evidence that Jesus could not have died on one.
Neither did you ever address the fact of the Watchtower’s deception, in trying to convince people that the cross was not believed in until centuries after Christ’s death, although they contradicted themselves in other articles, showing it WAS believed in before that.
And along those lines, you also did not bother to address the fact that “stauros” was already commonly in use as a CROSS, by the time of Christ. Perhaps you guys can quote the WIKI article, and remove the letters “BC” again, to try and make it appear that “stauros” didn’t come to mean “cross” until the 4th century, instead of the 4th century BC, as the facts show….Oh yeah, that didn’t work so well last time, did it?
All of these facts were clearly and thoroughly brought out in my posts, and Eddie, you never addressed any of it. We all know why…you were completely stumped. So, you tried to pick up the pieces as best you could, and then make emotional appeals, threatening people’s chances of life, if they don’t do what you tell them.
So yes, I’d say its “case closed”…Just not the way you had hoped it would be, or the way you are trying to fool the readers into thinking, when they can see for themselves. Your arguments are built on emotion, and THREATS to people, if they don’t agree with you. My arguments were built on facts, history, and Scripture.
Sorry, Eddie…but you DID issue the challenge, remember.
Eddie doesn’t seem to understand a few basic things….
1. Just because you shout loudly, over and over, that “I have proven”, or “I have shown”, or “We have now seen”….doesn’t make it true. Its impossible to refute the evidence, when you completely ignore it, and hope enough time has lapsed, so that viewers don’t go back and read all the things you didn’t bother to answer.
That is why I went ahead and re-posed the links, both of my evidence, and YOUR 7 attempts at a diversion, er, I mean, a “reply“. No wonder it took you so long, Eddie. You were hoping to wait until the posts containing the evidence were out of view, and then come on here and try to give a false impression. But now, since I have re-posted all the links, they can see for themselves.
Funny, you never did address the historical findings. Instead, your best evidence came from PARTIAL quotes (and YOU talk about half-truths…lol), misquotes, and willfully ignoring all the mountains of evidence that didn’t support your view.
Futhermore, you never ONCE addressed the post, containing the Scriptural arguments. The only passage you even MENTIONED, was the one from Exodus, where I pointed out the shape of the cross, in the way the blood was applied. And even then, all you did was tell us it DIDN’T mean that. You spent 2 or 3 posts telling us how stupid the notion was, that placing the blood above the door and on the side posts, formed the shape of a cross. But when I asked you several times to give us a better explanation, you failed to even give us an explanation AT ALL…let alone a “better one”. You offered us none. And aside from Exodus 12, you did not even attempt to address ANY of the other Scriptures listed….not even once.
Eddie also doesn’t understand….
2. That highly shrill emotional rants, do not constitute “fact”. Saying something forcefully, doesn’t make what you are saying, factual. Nor does saying it over and over, like a broken record. If it’s a lie the first time, its likely to still be a lie the 50th time.
3. That diversions are not very effective….especially when your tactic is to accuse your opponent, of what you yourself have been doing. That makes it very easy for your opponent to SHOW where you have been doing it.
Like where you accuse me of making the topic about the KJB vs. the NWT. No Ed, YOU did that by LYING about how the KJB translates things, on TWO separate topics. My remarks on that topic, were RESPONSES to YOUR statements. Then, you proceeded to use your misinformation, as a foundation for showing the superiority of the NWT…and it was based on your typical “straw man” arguments, that weren’t even true. And you were forced to admit they weren’t true. Had I not have called you out on it, you would have been very happy to let your false statements stand, and deceive some reader who didn’t know the difference. I see you have been taking lessons from a fellow JW, on that count….
So, had you not lied about the KJB and its translation of “xylon”, then that issue would not have had to come up. Its not “thanks to Mr. Holland”….Its thanks to you not knowing what you’re talking about.
Like where you claim that “Mr. Holland made this discussion about the Cross vs. Stake“…Again, this was already done by YOU, before I ever entered the conversation. But hey, what are facts, anyway? But again, this was in response to your prior comments, about the “lie that is the cross”, and how Jesus didn’t die on one. Do you need the link where you said this, before I ever posted anything on the subject, Ed?
Try telling the truth for a change.
4. That picking only the definition of a word that you LIKE, does not mean that is the only definition.
Your response proves that you really were not ready, nor qualified, to discuss “xylon”
, because you try to limit it to JUST a “pole”. Again, it has been pointed out by qualified sources, that “xylon”
refers to ANY wooden object, be it a pole, a cross, a canoe, or a wooden bench.
And again, this ties in with the point about a pole ceasing to be a pole, because a cross-beam is attached. It is obvious you were not prepared for that question, because you never satisfactorily dealt with it.
But Eddie, just for good measure, I am going to attach FOUR pictures in a separate post, and I want you to follow up and tell me which of these are NOT “poles”. I have tried to understand why a grown man, would be so foolish to continue arguing a point that a 4th grade child wouldn’t even fall for, and do so, evidently convinced that he’s right. And that point is….that a cross does not constitute a “pole”.
So, I took the liberty of GOOGLING the words “telephone pole”. NOT “telephone cross”, but “telephone pole”. The attachments are 4 of the many “results” of my search.
Now Ed, I would like you to take a deep breath, look at the pictures of telephone POLES, and tell me which of these objects is not really a POLE….
Take your time…no rush. Let it sink it.
Now, to address some of your nonsensical quotes, and point out how you have no problem distorting the facts, or trying to twist things to your own advantage.
EDDIE WRITES: Mr. Holland, have you ever heard this reasoning?
"All red trucks are firetrucks because all firetrucks are red"?
If so, do you know what it's called?
And what does this have to do with the lie that is the CROSS?
Furthermore, what have you to do with it?
Plenty - as you will see.
“In other words, what you're 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.
Am I correct?
No Eddie, you are not correct. Not even close. I resent this attempted TWISTING of my words, when my actual statements speak AGAINST this type of illogic.
Where did you make your mistake here? Simple…When you made the statement that Mr. Holland “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.
One of the dumbest things I have read from you, to date. And that’s saying a lot. But of course, you NEEDED to do this, in order to try and make your “logical fallacy” charge, stick.
So many errors here…First one, is that nobody said a “pole is made of wood, and a “xylon” is also made of wood”
Goodness! No Ed, you’re WAY off….A “xylon”
IS an object made of wood, the product of a tree, and ANY pole, cross, canoe, or wooden building made from wood, IS a “xylon”
. Get it now?
Again, your attempt at a diversion here, and to manipulate my words, needs to be brought to light. So, let’s just set it straight. And I will quote my earlier statement, to do it.
ME (From a previous post): “Xylon” is a much broader word. Kind of like “fornication” and “adultery”. All adultery is fornication, but not all fornication is adultery. I hope this doesn’t confuse you.
By the same token, ALL wooden “crosses” are “xylon”s, but not all “xylon”s are crosses. “xylon” could be a cross, pole, a wooden shingle, a wooden table, or a wooden canoe. We all know that Jesus wasn’t crucified on a canoe, or an a table. He was crucified on a cross, which was made of wood, making it a “xylon”.
Now, I realize that it flew right over your head, that the above comment from me, actually REFUTES your charge of an “logical fallacy”, in that you think I believe that “all red trucks are fire trucks”.
I would suggest you learn to READ, before making such a dense comment.
Completely ignoring what the above quote actually says, Eddie proceeds with his nonsense, out of desperation….
Isn't it Mr Holland? That was the intention. Yes? To convinced everyone into believing that a CROSS is a POLE because both are made of WOOD? If so, clever!
Now, how's that for a logical fallacy, a play on words! I must congratulate you, cunning indeed, this 'play on words' of yours (if that was your intention).
But is anyone buying it? I hope not because it's like saying 'all red trucks are firetrucks because firetrucks are red'.
Ed, what is it about HONESTY, that you guys detest so much? Is it because you can’t even make a valid point, without twisting and manipulating people’s words?
Would you mind telling us how dense, or dishonest, a person has to be, to read where I said…“"ALL wooden “crosses” are “xylon”s, but NOT all “xylon”s are crosses”
, and then lie, and CLAIM that I actually said the exact opposite, in this statement of yours….
“The reason is very obvious - 'a POLE is a CROSS and a CROSS is a POLE' because Mr. Holland's entire premise lies on a mistaken belief that Jesus died on a CROSS.
So, it is perfectly fine and honest for you to claim that I am saying that “a pole is a cross and a cross is a pole”
, when I actually said “not all “xylon”s are crosses”
Eddie, I am the wrong person to try these types of lying misquotes and distortions with…Have you learned nothing, by watching your fellow JW get pounded for doing this very thing? Don’t twist my words, Eddie. That’s not very Christian.
And you, the guy who is always talking about “half-truths”….Why did you tell a “half-truth”, by only getting HALF of the quote correct? Yes, I said that ALL wooden crosses are “xylons”
, but I also said that NOT all “xylons” are crosses”
. Yet, you intentionally tried to claim that I said “xylons are crosses”
That junk doesn’t work with me, Pal. Its not my fault you have taken a position that is indefensible from history and Scripture. But you aren’t going to twist my words, to make your invention of a “logical fallacy”, stick….just because you’re losing the debate.
So AGAIN, Eddie…I will now spell it out in as simple terms for you, as I know how….
refers to ANY object made from a tree, and that is why Jesus’ dying on a cross as the facts show, do not detract in any way, from the word “xylon”
being used. And what we KNOW about how crucifixions were carried out, with a pole already in place, completely obliterates your entire argument that a cross is not a “xylon”
. A cross-beam being attached to an existing "xylon", does not make the "xylon" cease to be a "xylon". How ridiculous can you get?
So YES, all wooden crosses are “xylons”
, but NOT all “xylons”
are necessarily crosses. Don’t come back on here again, trying to invent a logical fallacy, and claim that I said that “crosses are poles, and poles are crosses”
. You should be able to make your point stick, without misquoting and distorting.
Notice how much nonsense Eddie types here, in the hopes that the readers will forget the actual issue, and not notice that he isn’t addressing ANY of it? Eddie’s attempt to invent a “logical fallacy” where there isn’t one, due to the fact that he completely failed to grasp the point about “xylon”, is his way of retaliating because of my showing him his own debate “fallacies” of “straw men”, “red herring”, and “ad hominem” arguments time and time again.
Breaking an intense sweat each time this was pointed out in the public, Eddie HAD to try and find a flaw in my reasonings, so he invents a logical fallacy where there was none, based upon his own failure to READ and comprehend what was right under his nose. Either that, or he’s just lying and twisting….
Now, in this next one, Eddie tries what amounts to an underhanded attempt to get out of ADMITTING that he posted at least 2 lies about the King James Bible, BOTH of which he was called out on, and was completely wrong about.
Eddie writes…“Simple (in Scriptural context as well as historical/archeological context) - a "xylon" is a pole or (as accurately translated in the NWT) a stake!
Which answers your next challenge / question to me, namely:
"WHERE are the passages in the KJB, that translate “xylon” as “cross?”" "
Answer: None! Obviously NONE, because to quote again what I've been saying all along:
Now, let’s just post this LAST quote from Eddie ONCE MORE, just so it doesn’t get missed….
“Answer: None! Obviously NONE, because to quote again what I've been saying all along:
So here, Eddie ADMITS the KJB does NOT translate “xylon”
ANYWHERE. And this, after previous telling us several times, that it DOES. So, in addition to Eddie falsely claiming that “xylon”
was used in Acts 10:39, which he was called out on, and proven wrong, Eddie then tried to imply that the KJB was inaccurate for translating “xylon”
in several places. He even asked me WHY the KJB would do this. And guess what…It DIDN’T. Big “OOOOPS“!
After my asking him SEVERAL times to show us one instance where the KJB did this, and his continually ignoring the question, he finally realized I was going to ask it until he answered it. So, what does he do? ADMIT like a Christian would, that he made yet another blunder? Why, No! Of course not…Eddie just ADMITS that the KJB really DIDN’T do as he had been claiming, and tried to make it APPEAR that was his point the whole time, like he knew it all along!
There is a name for that, coming from someone who claims to be a Christian…But I’ll just leave it unsaid for the time being. But let’s just say that I wouldn’t do that, because I have to look at myself in the mirror when I shave….
At any rate, Eddie’s entire argument is based on ALL “bibles” prior to the NWT, being wrong, and containing lies.
If he is foolish enough to bank on that notion, then he is going to regret it when he gives account to His Creator.
I find it interesting that Eddie G gives us this little gem of valuable advice…
“And if you're using such translation, may I suggest to replace it with the NEW WORLD TRANSLATION OF THE HOLY SCRIPTURES - by Jehovah's Witnesses.”
Ah yes, of course. But I have a question…Do we need to get the NWT that they have been using for the past 50+ years, or the NWT that just came out less than 2 weeks ago?
So understand….Eddie’s premise is NOT built upon facts of history, archaeology, or the Scriptures. ALL of those lines of evidence, have proven his position wrong. No…Eddie’s premise, after hypocritically quoting God’s promise to PRESERVE (not RESTORE) His Word, is to tell everyone that EVERY Bible before the NWT has been lying to them about Jesus’ instrument of death.
Now, notice how ridiculous Eddie’s comment here is, on this subject…
“To repeat, since the CROSS is a LIE thus any Bible that has it on its pages must then CONTAIN the LIE! It's not as you put it: "all Bibles up until the 20th century were LYING".
Can anybody read this statement, and do anything but shake their head in amazement?
Uh Eddie, would you be so kind as to explain the “big difference” between the Bibles “containing the lie”
, and “lying”
? So, if I wrote a post tomorrow which CONTAINED lies about JW beliefs, then I wouldn’t be LYING? Like when Rando posts things CONTAINING lies about the Trinity, and about me, his posts merely CONTAIN lies…but he’s not lying?
Ed, I think the topic we were talking about, was the word “CROSS”. The word you claimed was a LIE, in every Bible up until the NWT. So yes, I believe it is the same as saying that you were claiming that all of these Bibles were LYING, on the subject of the cross, which IS the topic under discussion here.
Unless of course, you are going to come up with some ridiculous comment about how a Bible is an inanimate object, and therefore, incapable of “telling a lie”. Otherwise, I have no idea what little hair-splitting objection you have to that comment.
Again, these are the type of silly diversions that have become synonymous with Eddie G, and his posts. This is vintage Eddie, right there. They TEACH a lie…but they weren’t LYING. Oh, okay.
“What must a Christian like YOU do then about the CROSS? Should you still continue to use it - as a part of your worship to God and as a Christian symbol?”
“It must be abandoned along with all the falsehoods associated with it. Abandon it like the plague, like a detestable idol that must be burned and discarded in the dust bin of history. Yes the CROSS, the Pagan CROSS that you've come to know and venerated must never be a part of a Christian's way of worship to the Living God! This is NOT me telling you but God himself!”
Notice again, how Eddie just keeps repeating the same foolish lie, about Christians “worshipping” and “venerating” the cross. As stated in the “Question” part of this posting, even a fellow JW tried to point out to Eddie how redundant and ineffective this comment is, but its really about all Ed has.
When his premise is based on a falsehood, then it only shows the weakness of the position.
For the hundredth time now….Bible-believing, born again Christians, do not “worship/venerate” the cross. We worship the Savior Who hung on the cross.
EDDIE: “He pleads:
“Turn away, turn away, get out of there, touch nothing unclean; get out from the midst of her, keep yourselves clean, YOU who are carrying the utensils of Jehovah.” (Isaiah 52:11)
Now, this quote from Eddie, comes in conjunction with his false claim that we Christians “worship” the cross.
So, let me just agree here, that it is UNCLEAN, DETESTABLE, and IDOLATROUS, to worship a cross, or any other object, for that matter.
But unfortunately for Eddie, we don’t do that. And even if some (like Catholics) do, that still doesn’t prove that Jesus wasn’t crucified on one.
Seems like Eddie can never just present FACTS, tell the TRUTH, and stick to the subject.
EDDIE: “Now that it has been established (according to history, archeology and the Scripture) that:
1. The Cross is pagan and of Pagan Origin.
2. The Cross was used and still being used in various forms of worship including as a symbol of sex.
4. The Voice of Tradition was the source for believing that Jesus died on the CROSS.
5. The Greek word 'Xylon" can only mean a pole or tree not the traditional CROSS (with two crossbeam) in connection with Jesus' death.
6. The Latin word 'Crux' (from which the word cross was derived from) also means a pole or a beam, not the traditional CROSS (with two crossbeam)in connection with Jesus' death.
7. The Greek word 'stauros' can only mean a pole or a torture stake (in the scriptures)in connection with Jesus' death..
Again, more of Eddie’s redundant “red herring” arguments…And this is the guy who likes to talk about “half-truths”. Actually, points 4-7 are not even HALF-true…they are completely false. Anyone who would make the claim that “xylon” and “stauros” ONLY mean “poles”, is completely ignorant, or is lying. Sources have already been listed which refute this, and I can give more, if need be. I would like to see Eddie’s “source”, that these words can ONLY mean “pole”. Especially since Eddie has already admitted that “stauros” did mean “cross”, in some cases, although he claims it was much later than it actually was.
Point #1 is ridiculous, saying the “cross is pagan”. No Eddie, a cross is simply 2 pieces of wood, placed at 90 degree angles with each other. Nothing “pagan”, holy, or UNholy about that.
Perhaps you MEANT to say that the cross has BEEN USED for pagan purposes?
Point #2 is a half-truth. But again, it has no relevance to whether Jesus died on a cross or not, because Eddie’s “stake/pole” was ALSO used for sexual purposes. Why he keeps harping on this point, while NEVER telling us how it is relevant to the discussion, is anybody’s guess. Its like somebody keeps hitting his “rewind”
EDDIE: “Since it's already been proven that the CROSS is a lie and that Jesus did not die on a traditional CROSS, thus the case against the lie that is CROSS is now close.”
Once again, this point has been dealt with. Eddie using the word “since”
, is an attempt to convince readers of an ASSUMPTION he is making. In reality, Eddie never once “proved” any such thing. In facts, all the “proof” we have seen thus far, proves just the opposite.
I am quite sure there is a DEBATE FALLACY, which entails making a false assumption (“Since its been proven”
) as the foundation, and then drawing a false conclusion (“the case is now closed”
), based on the under-lying false assumption. This is exactly what his above comment is doing.
EDDIE: “It's a blatant lie and it doesn't make it right in God's sight EVEN IF - to quote Mr. Holland - "you believe that Jesus died for you". There's no justification at all, especially NOW that you KNOW the truth!
In addition what good is it in believing that Jesus died for your sins if you continue to live in a lie which is sin? Nothing but the height of hypocrisy.”
Now, I just want to say, in plain terms, what Eddie is saying here. I want the readers to get this, and not miss it.
Eddie is here saying, that you can do EVERYTHING the Scripture tells you to do, to not only be saved, but to also live a Christian life. You can repent of your sins, place your complete trust in the blood that Jesus shed for your sins, and you can live your entire lives in obedience to the Word of God. You can be HONEST (not a huge priority among some of these JW experts here), you can remain pure until marriage and be faithful to your spouse for your entire life, you can love God with your entire being….
But if you DARE TO believe all of the evidence that suggests that Jesus died on an object with a cross-beam….Never mind that you don’t WORSHIP or VENERATE that object….But if you BELIEVE it happened that way, after Eddie G has yelled and screamed at the top of his lungs and told you that it didn’t, then you are doomed for destruction. You will be deemed “detestable” to Jehovah God.
Cult mentality, and mind manipulation, at its finest.
Well, unfortunately for Eddie, that sword cuts both ways. You see, the EVIDENCE thus far presented, from history AND the Scriptures, indicate that Jesus died on a cross. So conversely, if Eddie G’s position is wrong, then could it also be said that a person who believes in the “stake/pole” notion, is detestable to God?
Ed, you had better hope that I’m right when I say that the REASON and FACT of His death, is far more important than the INSTRUMENT which it was carried out upon. Because the facts are against you.
EDDIE: “And that's exactly what Mr. Holland would like you to believe. That the God of Truth will still accept you even if you believe in a lie. That it won't matter much to God whether the CROSS is a LIE ...as long as... (to quote him again) ... "you believe that Jesus died for you".
Now, I’m addressing this, because WHO does this clown think he is, that he is going to make his complete failure to back up his point, become an attack on my character?
Another JW tried this same shenanigan awhile back, falsely claiming that I WANT people to believe a lie. I dealt with it harshly then, and I will now.
Eddie, you just reveal the complete impotence of your arguments and your position, when you stoop to your friend Rando’s methods, of LYING and using “ad hominem” attacks.
Just know this….You people have had hundreds of invitations from me, to prove ANY lie that you claim I tell. And I have no fear in issuing these challenges, because I don’t lie, and I know that you don’t have any examples of a lie.
That is why your friend Rando ran off into the woods, when he was challenged. He has spent the past several months lying, claiming “Derrick teaches this”, and providing FALSE links, but when he was exposed and challenged for a real quote, he all of a sudden wants to “be silent like Jesus”
. Funny…he wasn’t being “silent like Jesus”
when he was lying. That only came after he got exposed, and challenged for a real quote.
Now, I do not appreciate your lying, and telling people that I want them to “believe a lie”, and that I think its no big deal to believe a lie. You are lying yourself, when you make a claim like that.
Just because you have to INVENT facts as you go along, does not mean I am going to sit back and let you attack my character, just because you cannot refute me. If you don’t like the way this debate has gone, then don’t pick fights with people who know the Scriptures, and the facts, better than you do. I’m not impressed by all your chest-thumping, and fist-pumping. I’ve seen it before, and I know the cult mentality behind it. It just doesn’t work with me.
EDDIE: “The fact that he even admitted that such truths (about the CROSS) is NOT a BIG DEAL is proof enough that the man doesn't know and doesn't realize the dangerous path he's in and the danger he's leading people to "a wide road to leading off to destruction" (Matthew 7:13, 14).”
This is a lie. I never said the “truths about the cross” are no big deal. I said the INSTRUMENT is not nearly as important as the FACT of His death.
Funny…Eddie uses this statement, to prove that I want people to believe a lie, and he assures us that it IS a HUGE deal of eternal consequences, if we think that the instrument of Jesus’ death in no way detracts from the purpose of it. But interestingly, he says NOTHING when a JW says the SAME thing….
Brenton Hepburn- “For me, what Jesus died on is of no relevance. I do not care if it was a plain upright pole or a two beamed cross of some description. Even the Watchtower is NOT DOGMATIC about this.”
Now, Mr. Hepburn DOES believe it was a pole. But Mr. Hepburn also said “it is of no relevance”. I guess Eddie G thinks that is just terrible.
I have had other JWs make this same comment to me, about how the instrument is not significant, to which I always point out that it is THEM, not us, who has made it such a matter of contention.
But notice how Eddie says NOTHING when a fellow JW makes this comment, but then uses the same comment, to attack me?
Such hypocrisy, Eddie.
EDDIE: “No wonder, he tried hard and will try harder to justify the lie in order to divert everyone's attention from knowing the truth. He mixes truth with half truth to confuse and hide the truth from everyone.”
Nope…don’t “justify lies”, Eddie. I expose them. That is why both you, and your buddy Rando, are in such a predicament right now.
A word of advice….JUST STOP LYING.
But about the cross…I don’t have to “try harder”. I have already given evidence for which you have given no answer.
Yes, I’d say its “case closed”
EDDIE: “And the one who loses IS the one who continually believe the LIE that is the CROSS - YOU.”
The one who is not humble enough to admit a lie - YOU is the one who loses.
No Eddie, the one who “loses”, is the one who is arguing with the facts of history, and the facts of Scripture…YOU.
The one who “loses”, is the one who has the gall to claim that HE is right, and the BIBLE “contains a lie”, and the NWT came into being in the 1950s, to save the day….YOU.
The one who “loses”, is the one who has tried to create every diversion possible, to make people forget that he has answered nothing….YOU.
You lost, Eddie. Sorry. And you will remain the “loser”, until you address the facts presented.
In closing, we see a Scripture in the Bible, written by the Apostle Paul. In that Scripture, we see something that made Paul weep....
Philippians 3:18- "(For many walk, of whom I have told you often, and now tell you even weeping, that they are the enemies of the cross of Christ:"
Sadly, Eddie G's posts would've made Paul weep. I wonder what they do to the heart of our Savior, Who humbled Himself to endure the death of the cross, only to have someone like Eddie come along and demonstrate that he is truly an "enemy of the cross"?