You are here:

Jehovah`s Witness/The Pagan Cross and Mr. Holland_and Traditions of Men.

Advertisement


Question
Continuing the discussion about the Pagan Cross with the addition of TRADITIONS of men.

Q: Did the TRADITION of men play some role or a MAJOR role in the translation of the Greek word "STAUROS" into the traditional "Christian Cross"?

Answer
OK Mr. Holland.

Since you agree that:

1. The cross is connected to the symbol of male and female genital organs.  
2. That it is connected with sex worship.  
3. That it is connected with sun-worship.  
4. That it already existed way before the advent of Christianity.

What then is to be made of it?

Simple. If you're a true follower of Christ and consider yourself a Christian, avoid it at all cost, no matter what the so called experts say.

You MUST obey this command:

“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.

But since you've convinced yourself into believing that such FACTS (above) don't matter, thus you have no choice but to keep on proving me wrong or for that matter proving Jehovah's Witnesses are wrong. However on this I can assure you, you will fail. You and those who agree with will fail for the simple fact that the truth is not in your side. In addition you will fail because you've based your proof on IMPLIED things (that are not there) as though they are facts. And most of all you will not succeed as your evidence of your traditional cross is based on TRADITIONS of men rather than the scriptures.

Case in point: Exodus 12

You said:

<"This is significant, in that God specifies the exact manner in which the blood of the lamb (a foreshadowing of Jesus Christ), was to be placed on the door.  In the form of a CROSS.  Granted, the word “cross” is not used here, but the shape of it is certainly implied. " >


So are you saying, no are you IMPLYING the two door posts IMPLIED a cross - specifically the TRADITIONAL "Christian Cross"? Is that what your saying?


<"I believe we have a hint at what the answer is, if we read the next verse….

Exodus 12:23-  “For the LORD will pass through to smite the Egyptians; and when he seeth the blood upon the lintel, and on the two side posts, the LORD will pass over the door, and will not suffer the destroyer to come in unto your houses to smite you.”

It says here that the LORD would pass over WHEN HE SAW THE BLOOD UPON THE LINTEL, AND THE 2 SIDE POSTS.  Why would this matter?  If the blood were somewhere else, surely He would have seen it also.  But would the protection have been provided?  It seems that it would not have been, and there is a definite reason why this particular shape was specified.

As a Christian, I believe the logical answer to that, would be because He knew that years later, His only begotten Son would be crucified on a cross as the ULTIMATE Lamb, for the atonement for our sins.  And that is what these instructions from Jehovah Himself, were foreshadowing. "  >

So it's HINTED and IMPLIED that the two door posts is the traditional cross that you claim Jesus was impaled on? Really? How did you arrived at this conclusion? A stretch of imagination might I surmised?

I guess so when one is desperate enough to prove such thing as the CROSS. Sure why not (for your sake)?

But the fact is, the Hebrew Scriptures commonly known as "Old Testament" doesn't contain the word CROSS - as in the traditional CROSS (that Christ was supposedly nailed on).

In fact the word for the traditional CROSS (an instrument of death) is NOT even in the Hebrew language.

In fact if such object of implement is being described, the words “warp and woof,” are used alluding to yarns running lengthwise in a fabric and others going across it on a loom.

IN addition at Deuteronomy 21:22, 23, the Hebrew word translated “stake” is ‛ets', meaning primarily "a tree or wood", specifically a wooden post.

Notice how the NWT accurately renders it. It says:

““And in case there comes to be in a man a sin deserving the sentence of death, and he has been put to death, and you have hung him upon a stake , 23 his dead body should not stay all night on the stake ; but you should by all means bury him on that day, because something accursed of God is the one hung up; and you must not defile your soil, which Jehovah your God is giving you as an inheritance.” (Deuteronomy 21:22, 23)

Interestingly enough even your favorite Bible Mr. Holland is in agreement with the Watchtower and NWT by using "tree" for 'ets'.

Notice:

[Deu 21:22-23 KJV] 22 And if a man have committed a sin worthy of death, and he be to be put to death, and thou hang him on a tree : 23 His body shall not remain all night upon the tree , but thou shalt in any wise bury him that day; (for he that is hanged [is] accursed of God;) that thy land be not defiled, which the LORD thy God giveth thee [for] an inheritance."

Thus:
NWT: 'ets' = "stake"
KJV: 'ets' = "tree"

Below are additional references to support my claim:

http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=Deu&c=21&t=KJV#s=t_conc_174022

That:

עֵץ`ets'


stands for:

 tree, wood, timber, stock, plank, stalk, stick, gallows

       tree, trees

       wood, pieces of wood, gallows, firewood, cedar-wood, woody flax


http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=H6086&t=KJV

(Note: in using the Strongs Concordance you have to make sure that the context matches the Scriptures.)

Now, why did the translators of KJV not use the traditional word CROSS instead of using  "tree" for 'ets'?

Simple. As already mentioned, it's because there's no Hebrew word that corresponds to the "traditional Christian CROSS". Even in Aramaic you will not find a word for it.


Search the scriptures you will not find it, except the word "tslav (צלב)" which has nothing to do with the "traditional cross" in which Jesus was supposedly "impaled" on.

And to say that this word also IMPLIES the traditional CROSS (of impalement) will again require a stretch of imagination. Something that you Mr. Holland will probably have no problem doing. After all, a two "door post" IMPLY that it is a cross.

But to further support my claim, here are additional scriptures where the KJV did NOT render/translate the word "Xylon" into the traditional "CROSS".

They are:

Act 5:30 KJV - The God of our fathers raised up Jesus, whom ye slew and hanged on a tree .

Act 13:29 KJV - And when they had fulfilled all that was written of him, they took [him] down from the tree , and laid [him] in a sepulchre.

Gal 3:13 KJV - Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us: for it is written, Cursed [is] every one that hangeth on a tree :


1Pe 2:24 KJV - Who his own self bare our sins in his own body on the tree , that we, being dead to sins, should live unto righteousness: by whose stripes ye were healed.


So again:

Why did the KJV translators left the original Gr word Xylon as "the/a tree " in the above verses while saw fit to change it as "a cross" on others?

Any idea why?

Your answer Mr. Holland?

<"REPLY:  I would simply like to call Eddie G out on this accusation of his, and ask him to please explain where he got the idea that the KJV uses “stauros” in Acts 10:39.  Everything I have researched on this, shows the word to be “xylon” .

Please, if you are going to level a charge at the King James Bible of dishonesty, why not be honest yourself?

Is the word in Acts 10:39 REALLY “stauros” , Eddie?  Or is it “xylon” ? >


Your answer was: ask a question to answer my question. Brilliant! Is this what you call "obfuscation"? I think so.

But just to let you know - the "stauros" and "xylon" are both Greek words. Unfortunately when I realized that I used "stauros" in Acts 10:39 instead of "xylon", it was already too late. The website was already locked and I was unable to correct it. In any case I corrected it in my next post.

Here:
===

David,

Just in case you want to know if there are additional instances (besides Acts 10:39) where the translators of the KJV did NOT or forgot to change the Greek word Xylon into "a cross" but instead left it as is - "a tree"

Here they are:

Act 5:30 KJV - The God of our fathers raised up Jesus, whom ye slew and hanged on a tree .

Act 13:29 KJV - And when they had fulfilled all that was written of him, they took [him] down from the tree , and laid [him] in a sepulchre.

Gal 3:13 KJV - Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us: for it is written, Cursed [is] every one that hangeth on a tree :


1Pe 2:24 KJV - Who his own self bare our sins in his own body on the tree , that we, being dead to sins, should live unto righteousness: by whose stripes ye were healed.


Q: Why did the KJV translators left the original Gr word Xylon as "the/a tree " in the above instances while saw fit to change it as "a cross" on others?

Any idea David?

===


But since you didn't answer my questions as to WHY the KJB was not consistent and why it did not used the traditional "Christian CROSS" in its renderings (on the above mentioned texts), the answer is OBVIOUS!

XYLON stands for a "tree" not a "CROSS" or to be VERY ACCURATE "XYLON" stands for a STAKE!


In fact translating it into the traditional "Christian Cross" would be a BIG mistake because the expression itself (in the NT) was quoted from the Hebrew Scriptures (OT) where it said:

[Deu 21:22-23 KJV] 22 And if a man have committed a sin worthy of death, and he be to be put to death, and thou hang him on a tree : 23 His body shall not remain all night upon the tree, but thou shalt in any wise bury him that day; (for he that is hanged [is] accursed of God;) that thy land be not defiled, which the LORD thy God giveth thee [for] an inheritance."

where Paul applied it to Jesus at Gal 3:13 KJV:

"... being made a curse for us: for it is written, Cursed [is] every one that hangeth on a tree " (xylon).

See also Matthew 26:47, 55; Mark 14:43, 48; Luke 22:52 where 'Xylon' was used as staves or clubs that the mob carried when they came to take Jesus.


Now here's where things get interesting.

If "Xylon" stands for a "tree" (torture stake - NWT), why would it be correct / acceptable to translate "stauros" into the traditional CROSS when describing the same thing?

Like in here:
[Mat 27:42 KJV] 42 He saved others; himself he cannot save. If he be the King of Israel, let him now come down from the cross, and we will believe him.
[Mar 15:30 KJV] 30 Save thyself, and come down from the cross.
[Luk 9:23 KJV] 23 And he said to [them] all, If any [man] will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross daily, and follow me.
[Jhn 19:25 KJV] 25 Now there stood by the cross of Jesus his mother, and his mother's sister, Mary the [wife] of Cleophas, and Mary Magdalene.

Might it be that TRADITION is the big factor and the one at play here rather than Biblical Truth?

Also, why wouldn't God say in the prophecy that His son will be "crucified on a cross" rather than "hangeth on a tree" or a "stake" at Deut 21:22-23)?

Why all of a sudden (in the NT) the apostles would say that Jesus was "crucified on a cross" if they knew that he will be "hanging on a tree" or "stake"?

Were the apostles somehow didn't know the difference between a "tree" / "stake" with the "traditional Christian CROSS"?

Really? Were the writers (of the NT) so unaware of their own writing that in some instances they wrote "tree" / "stake" while "CROSS" on others (when describing the same thin?)?

Who's lying to whom here?


Is that what you're leading people to believe Mr. Holland? That the writers of the Bible we're NOT aware of the difference between "stauros" and "xylon" (if there's even one)?

That "xylon" stands for a "tree" or "stake" while "stauros" stands for the traditional cross?


Furthermore, how would you explain that the prophecy about Jesus "hanging on a tree" (stake NWT) was fulfilled when IN FACT he was "crucified / nailed to a cross"?

(Surely you wouldn't want say that a tree is the same as the traditional CROSS? Would you Mr. Holland?)

And how likely will this happen under the watchful eyes of God?


Impossible if you really want to know the truth!


Of course if one believes in TRADITION of men then why not?

Like you Mr. Holland, because you've fully convinced yourself that "stauros" means the traditional CROSS, you have no choice but to defend it no matter what the facts are.

The problem though with this thinking and belief is that you've now put TRADITION above the Bible - which is in contradiction with God's word.

As Sister T correctly put it:

“The Bible has the last word!”

So how are you making the Bible as the LAST word if your basis of proof is the tradition of men?


In short, your entire belief about the traditional Christian CROSS stands or falls whether the word "stauros" means - a "tree" a "stake" or a "cross" based on two premise:

1. The Traditions of men
2. Scriptures

Based on your posts -  what do you think?

Hint:
If someone uses the Roman Catholic Church's champion (i.e. Constantine The Great) as evidence (for the traditional "Christian" cross), you know right away that they are in a deep ...!



Ok - I'll stop here and continue it in another post so as not make this one longer than I intended to.

In the next post I'll delve further as to why the Greek word STAUROS can not mean the "traditional Christian Cross" according to the Scriptures and debunk the following statements:

"The primary argument the Watchtower Society uses to disprove a cross is a linguistic one. They claim that the Greek terms stauros and xulon and the Latin term crux did not mean "cross" in the first century, but came to mean cross in later centuries. This comment is regularly just thrown out there, hoping it will stick.  However, they have made almost no effort to back up this claim, and the overwhelming majority of the evidence is against them.

The main “evidence” the WT uses to support the false claim that “stauros” came to mean a cross much later than Jesus' time, is VINE’S EXPOSITORY DICTIONARY OF THE NEW TESTAMENT, comments from back in 1948. The Watchtower concentrates on Vine's linguistic argument, but does not mention to its readers the body of evidence that Vine‘s commentary has been refuted on this point.  To examine the full body of historical evidence, we see that the cross certainly WAS in common use, in Jesus’ day. "




note:

I'll try cover as many as I can in the next post so as not to get accused by Mr. Holland of "ignoring this or that because i don't know why or what the answer is". Just hang loose I'll get to all of it eventually including item#5 of my list.







(btw - if you haven't realized it yet and so as not to get flamed, English is not my native  language so please bare with me)  

Jehovah`s Witness

All Answers


Answers by Expert:


Ask Experts

Volunteer


Eddie G

Expertise

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. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.jw.org/en/free-bible-study/ https://www.jw.org/en/free-bible-study/

Experience

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) https://www.jw.org/en/free-bible-study/ https://www.jw.org/en/free-bible-study/ >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Organizations
https://www.jw.org/en/free-bible-study/

Publications
https://www.jw.org/en/free-bible-study/

Education/Credentials
https://www.jw.org/en/free-bible-study/ >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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
https://www.jw.org/en/free-bible-study/

Past/Present Clients
https://www.jw.org/en/free-bible-study/

©2016 About.com. All rights reserved.