About Brandon Harper Expertise I was raised as one of Jehovah's Witnesses and was baptized for 21 years. I was a 4th generation Jehovah's Witness both paternally and maternally and am qualified to answer many questions regarding doctrine, doctrinal changes, historical basis for various doctrines, as well as offer rebuttal responses from the perspective of a former Jehovah's Witness. I can also answer questions from the perspective of an ardent Jehovah's Witness.
Experience I am 33 years old, became a publisher and gave my first public talk at age 4, was baptized at age 12, became an inactive publisher at age 32, and disassociated myself at age 33. My father has served as a congregation servant/elder continuously from the age of 17 on. Of my 9 uncles, 6 are elders. Of my 9 aunts, four are regular pioneers. My father is the presiding overseer of a congregation. When I began seriously investigating this religion I had to prepare for conversations with a very large extended family steeped in the history and doctrine of Jehovah's Witnesses. I have thoroughly studied many Watchtower Society publications that most Jehovah's Witnesses have never even read, if they have heard of them at all, seeking the origins of various doctrinal points. I knew I would need to have this knowledge to discuss the issues in detail with my family when I decided to disassociate myself.
Education/Credentials I read every Watchtower and Awake! magazine from at least age 8 through age 32. According to the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society I have the equivalent of several four-year degrees (Reference available on request). I would hope that education would qualify me as an expert.
Question It has been about one week since I joined the All Experts board here and started talking with “experts” about the JW faith. Since I have done so I have seen nothing but ridicule and prejudice against me as a Christian. Why is that so? I just don’t understand why someone who claims to be speaking directly from God can be so condemning?
I have read some of your past answers and you seem to be more level headed than Brenda and Janko, so I’ll ask you if you can answer what they failed too.
This is in regards to the cross vs. the torture stake. The initial question was many parts and there seems to be two parts that all the JW “experts” I have come across so far refuse to answer.
#1
The work of Justus Lipius (a wood cut) is shown in the index of the NWT bible. Originally the wood cut was referenced back to Lipius’ work. The reference was later removed because when going back to his work you’ll find 15 other wood cuts (most of them crosses), and one of them that even depicts a cross and says “this is the type of CROSS that our Lord was crucified on”. What is puzzling is why the WT would choose to use a depiction from a book to prove their point, yet remove the reference of that book to avoid being wrong?
#2
There have been many scientific and medical studies that have shown us that a healthy person (not beaten half to death) would die of asphyxiation in a matter of minutes if hung in the manner the WT claims. On the other hand when people were hung with arms out at 60-70 degrees they were able to hang for hours on end. The problem with this would be that the bible tells us Jesus hung on the cross for many hours before his eventual death making the upright stake theory impossible at best.
This information has led me to the conclusion that either the WT is right or the bible is right. They both can’t be right because they contradict each other.
What do you think is right?
Answer Shaun,
As a quick followup to this question, have you considered the words Thomas chose to express the extent of proof he would require in order to believe that Jesus was resurrected?
In the New World Translation, John 20:24-25 reads:
"But Thomas, one of the twelve, who was called The Twin, was not with them when Jesus came. Consequently the other disciples would say to him: 'We have seen the Lord!' But he said to them: 'Unless I see in his hands the print of the nails and stick my finger into the print of the nails and stick my hand into his side, I will certainly not believe.'"
Twice Thomas specifically chooses the plural form of the word for nail. Why would there have been more than one nail through the hands for someone crucified on a crux simplex? Only one nail would have been used, as in the wood cut in Appendix 5C. I do not believe this line of reasoning be countered.
Thanks for persevering in asking. I have also noticed a trend toward rudeness on the part of some experts in this category, and you are not the first questioner to bring this to my attention. I apologize.
The purpose of the forum has always been to get answers to questions from people who claim to be able to answer them. Judging the questioner's motives is not one of the responsibilities of an expert who volunteers for this service.
You asked: "What is puzzling is why the WT would choose to use a depiction from a book to prove their point...?"
I will take this portion of question #1, first. The reason they would depict a drawing from a secular source is to lend credibility to their statements. The legend beneath the copy of the wood cut read "crux simplex" which is to say, simple cross. It is not a stake as Appendix 5C suggests, it is a "crux simplex."
In Appendix 5C (p. 1577-78) the cross is referred to repeatedly as a pagan symbol. However, an upright pole without crosspiece has been used as a pagan phallic symbol from the earliest origins of civilization, a remarkable fact given that the modern cross did not ever receive wide popularity among pagans as a substitute for the upright pole as a symbol of fertility and phalli. Even the symbol of the Ankh was more popular than the modern cross among pagans.
In a study of anthropology with a focus on symbology, one finds remarkably consistent application of the upright pole to pagan fertility worship across all cultural and temporal boundaries from the earliest known instances of hunter gatherer tribes down to our modern day. As a pagan symbol an upright pole is pandemic to pagan ritual; the prevalence a more complex cross as a pagan symbol is insignificant by comparison. Whatever other phallic symbols the culture may have used, without exception, the upright pole was also used.
This reality makes the argument of Jehovah's Witnesses false on its face, that they rendered stauros as torture stake to avoid the insertion of a "pagan symbol into the inspired Scriptures." The implication that Jesus would not have been killed on a pagan symbol by a group of pagan people—pagans who delighted in prolonged and multi-faceted human misery—is absurd in the extreme.
The word "crux" in Latin is further mischaracterized in the Appendix as only coming to mean cross at a later date. This is simply not true. That crux can ALSO mean an upright pole (in the rarely used case of the crux simplex) it always has meant cross. The usage of crux by Livy does not negate the MANY other usages by other contemporary writers.
You asked: "What is puzzling is why the WT would choose to use a depiction from a book to prove their point, yet remove the reference of that book to avoid being wrong?"
I think you might have meant a different question than you asked, but I want to answer the one you asked before taking a stab at answering what I think you meant to ask.
Removing a reference does not make someone right, so doing so cannot eliminate their being wrong. They are either right or wrong.
Now to answer what I think you meant to ask. They removed it to make it more difficult for the casual student to discover that they were wrong and to add confidence to the casual student's repitition of the claims in Appendix 5C regarding the "crux simplex". I was once such a student. I was sure I had the truth. I was raised as a JW and never knew anything else.
The practice you have questioned is not an uncommon practice applied to the publications used by Jehovah's Witnesses. The Watchtower Bible and Tract Society frequently revises publications to edit out the citation of references that (considered contextually) are damaging to their claims. Also, they will claim that a given publication stated a certain thing and use a very outdated example of said publication without citing the full reference for verification and contextual analysis.
You asked: "What do you think is right?"
I think the Bible is right. Also, the Bible account mentioning that the legs of the iniquitous ones to the right and left Jesus had to be broken come sundown adds significant weight to the conclusion that the "crux simplex" was NOT the form of cross used.
The crux simplex was considered to be a mercifully swift way to kill someone by the Romans, while still making a spectacle of their dying body as a reminder to others. According to the Bible account, Jesus had time to (and sufficient oxygen) to speak to John, to be wept over, to have lots cast for his garments and, lastly, to ask for a drink. He could not have spoken if hung on a crux simplex, and had they given him a drink he could not have swallowed it.
I hope this has answered your question satisfactorily. Again, I appreciate your perseverance in the asking.
