if the Watchtower Bible Tract Soc, is perfect then why did they change Christ's Crucifixion on a Cross?

Question

The early publications of the watchtower had crosses all over it.

http://e-watchman.com/storage/wt_1912_color1.jpg?__SQUARESPACE_CACHEVERSION=1274378089220

Look in the upper left corner and all over the "watchtower"

They have a bigger problem with their bible. They forgot to remove the verse where Jesus tells St. Peter he will be crucified (Hands stretched out)

(NWT) John 21:18 Most truly I say to you, When you were younger, you used to gird yourself and walk about where you wanted. But when you grow old you will stretch out your hands and another [man] will gird you and bear you where you do not wish.”

And here it says the print of the "nails" (Plural) in his hands (Plural).... this means that was a nail for each hand and not 1 nail for 2 hands as the JW's say he was place in a Stake.

(NWT)John 20:25 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.”

--In ancient Greek "stauros" did mean "pole, stake", as in part of a fence. In the Odyssey Eumaeus surounds his pigsty with "staurous" -- poles. But even in antiquity it also meant a cross for crucifixion, especially when used in the singular "stauros." For this reason the symbol for "stauros" became the Greek letter tau -- T --and not the letter iota -- I -- which would have represented a stake.

If you want to insist that Christ died on a stake, how was he attached to it? The New Testament says nothing about ropes or impalement. What it talks about is *nails*. So, a T-bar construction is the most likely, and this would be consistent with the Greek tau symbolizing the stauros of torture, arms outstretched with nails for the ultimate humiliation. If he had been nailed to a vertical stake, both hands would have been affixed with a single nail, but tradition speaks of three: two for the hands, and one for crossed fee -- possible only on a T shape.-- (By Chi Girl)

In their publications that have Jesus pierced through the wrists which is incorrect.

Answer 1

Gods Word is unchanging,but they changed it in many ways. They will have to face God on this one of these days!

Answer 2

if the Watchtower Bible Tract Soc, is perfect then why did they change Christ's Crucifixion on a Cross?



--In ancient Greek "stauros" did mean "pole, stake", as in part of a fence. In the Odyssey Eumaeus surounds his pigsty with "staurous" -- poles. But even in antiquity it also meant a cross for crucifixion, especially when used in the singular "stauros." For this reason the symbol for "stauros" became the Greek letter tau -- T --and not the letter iota -- I -- which would have represented a stake.



You answered your own question. Now at what point in time did it mean cross?

Answer 3

Just as "@Abernathy the Dull" and "@un born" have said.



I am not a Greek scholar, but most of the experts do agree with STAKE and not cross. If you really want to know the TRUTH about the cross then you need to be opened minded See:



The New Testament uses the word 'tree' five times to refer to Christ's death. The references are found in Acts 5:30, 10:39, 13:29, Galatians 3:13 and 1 Peter 2:24.



In rendering Deuteronomy 21:22, 23 ("stake") and Ezra 6:11 ("timber"), the translators of the Septuagint Version employed the Greek word xylon, the same term that Paul used at Galatians 3:13. It was also the one employed by Peter,when he said that Jesus "bore our sins in his own body upon the stake." (1 Pet. 2:24)



Here are what the experts are saying:



"The New Testament word 'cross' is an incorrect translation of the Greek word stauros. The word "stauros" referred to any upright wooden stake firmly fixed in the ground. A stauros could serve a variety of purposes as, for example, a pole in a picket fence. The word stauros also represented a pointed stake used for impalement of human beings.This was an ancient form of punishment used to publicly display the bodies of executed criminals."

-The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology



"A tradition of the Church which our fathers have inherited, was the adoption of the words "cross" and "crucify." These words are nowhere to be found in the Greek of the New Testament. These words are mistranslations, a "later rendering,"of the Greek words stauros and stauroo."

-The New International Dictionary

of New Testament Theology



"It may come as a shock to know that there is no word such as 'cross' in the Greek of the New Testament. The word translated 'cross' is always the Greek word [stau•ros'] meaning a 'stake' or 'upright pale.' The cross was NOT originally a Christian symbol; it is derived from Egypt and Constantine." -Dual Heritage-The Bible and the British Museum



"There is not a single sentence in any of the numerous writings forming the New Testament,which, in the original Greek,bears even indirect evidence to the effect that the stauros used in the case of Jesus was other than an ordinary stauros; much less to the effect that it consisted, not of one piece of timber,but of two pieces nailed together in the form of a cross."

- The Non-Christian Cross;

John Denham Parsons



"Homer uses the word 'stauros' - of an ordinary pole or stake, or a single piece of timber. And this is the meaning and usage of the word throughout the Greek classics. It never means two pieces of timber placed across one another at any angle, but always of one piece alone. Hence the use of the word 'xulon' [which means a timber] in connection with the manner of our Lord's death,

and rendered tree in Acts 5:30; 10:39; 13:29; Gal. 3:13;

and 1 Pet. 2:24.



. . .There is nothing in the Greek N.T. even to imply two pieces of timber. . . The evidence is thus complete, that the Lord was put to death upon an upright stake, and not on two pieces of timber placed at any angle."

- The Companion Bible,

published by the Oxford University Press.On page 186 in the "Appendixes"



"'In the Egyptian churches, the cross was a pagan symbol of life borrowed by the Christians and interpreted in the pagan manner'." -The Encyclopedia Britannica, 11th edition, vol. 14, p. 273



"It was not until Christianity began to be PAGANIZED that the cross came to be thought of as a Christian symbol."- Babylon Mystery Religion; Ralph Woodrow (pg 50)



The 'crux simplex' was a "a mere stake 'of one single piece WITHOUT transom [crossbar]. "

-The Cyclopædia of Biblical, Theological,

and Ecclesiastical Literature



"Trees were not everywhere available at the places chosen for public execution. So a simple beam was sunk into the ground.On this the outlaws, with hands raised upward and often also with their feet, were bound or nailed....Jesus died on a simple death-stake."

- Das Kreuz und die Kreuzigung (The Cross and the Crucifixion),

by Hermann Fulda, Breslau, 1878, p.109,



"Most scholars now agree that the cross,as an artistic reference to the passion event(Jesus' death)

cannot be found prior to the time of Constantine."--Archaeological Evidence of Church Life Before Constantine (1985), by Professor Graydon F. Snyder, page 27



"It was not until Christianity began to be PAGANIZED that the cross came to be thought of as a Christian symbol."- Babylon Mystery Religion; Ralph Woodrow (pg 50)

Answer 4

I'm not a JW but you are aware that there is a prophecy mentioning that during the last days there wold be an increase of knowledge right? When jesus was around, his apostles were learning and understanding, they didn't have the answers to everything, they weren't "perfect". Similarly JW started off as "bible students" learning, understanding, and studying the bible. In the beginning they followed typical christian paradigms i.e. cross. After research they decided that the instrument used for Christs' death most likely resembled a timber/stake/pole/tree. They made changes just like the apostles made changes when they learned knowledge from Jesus. Just like in the science, there are constant revisions made once further understanding/evidence is understood. Nails? Really? who said you can't be hung on a stake with or without nails? Who said you can't be hung on a cross with or without nails? Poor argument.

Answer 5

Greetings,



You are seriously misled. Witnesses have never said that the WBTS is perfect. Such an question is ludicrously mistaken.



Next, every argument cited in support of Christ being hung on a two beamed "cross" must force a presupposition into the Bible while ignoring all other logical interpretations. PeaceLilly's answer is a good example of this!



For example:



1. There very well could have been more than one nail in his hands: one in each hand as archaeological finds indicate.



Witnesses are not dogmatic about how many nails were used in the arms. In fact, there is actually archeological evidence that four nails could have been used, two in the hands placed on both sides of a stake and two similarly in the feet. This was pointed out in a WT article: w87 8/15 (The archaeological evidence was of an leg bone with one nail stuck *sideways* into the ankle. Israel Exploration Journal 1985, v. 35, pgs 22-7).



Further, grammatically the plural "nails" could have meant a nail through each hand, or might have simply included both nail prints in ‘his hands and his feet' (See Lk. 24:39).



The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia comments: "The exact number of nails used ... has been the subject of considerable speculation. In the earliest depictions of the crucifixion Jesus' feet are shown separately nailed, but in later ones they are crossed and affixed to the upright with one nail."



So, Thomas' statement cannot be used to show the Jesus was executed upon a cross since it is just as reasonable to believe Christ was impaled to a stake with a separate nail in each arm.





2. Hands could also be "stretched out" over his head on a stake! In fact your cited verse at John 21:18 regarding Peter’s hands being “stretched out” actually argues against your position. First, it has NOTHING to do with Christ’s impalement and the interpretation that it spoke of Peter being “crucified” is pure anachronistic theological garbage. Reading a later tradition back into the Bible is ludicrous. Further, this verse is speaking of Peter having his hands being “bound” which ordinarily would be in front or behind.



“Stretch forth thy hands. The allusion to the extending of the hands on the cross, which some interpreters have found here, is fanciful.”–Vincent’s Word Studies



So, claiming that these verses MUST mean crucifixion on a cross is to illogically force our favored interpretation while ignoring the evidence for other conclusions. This is a fallacious form of reasoning and eisogesis.





The original Greek words rendered in most Bibles as "cross" are STAUROS and XYLON. They refer to a post or the trunk of a tree respectively.



John Denham Parsons states:



"There is not a single sentence in the NT, which, in the original Greek, bears even indirect evidence to the effect that the stauros used in the case of Jesus was other than one piece of timber. It is not a little misleading upon the part of our teachers to translate the word stauros as "cross"...honesty demands that we should no longer translate as "cross" a word which at the time our Gospels were written did not necessarily signify something cross-shaped."--The Non-Christian Cross"



Therefore, the original words used in the Bible do not support the modern cross as the instrument Christ died upon.



How did the cross come to be used by Christendom?



Vines Expository Dictionary says:



"STAUROS....denotes, primarily, an upright pale or stake...Both the noun and the verb stauroo, to fasten to a stake or pale, are originally to be distinguished from the ecclesiastical form of a two beamed cross. The shape of the latter had it's origin in ancient Chaldea, and was used of the symbol of the god Tammaz (being in the shape of the mystic Tau)... By the middle of the 3rd cent. A.D. the churches had either DEPARTED FROM, OR HAD TRAVESTIED, CERTAIN DOCTRINES OF THE CHRISTIAN FAITH ...pagans were received into the churches apart from regeneration of faith, and were permitted largely to retain their pagan signs and symbols."



So the use of the cross was a corruption of true Christianity.



Two hundred years after Christ the Christian writer Minucius Felix wrote to the pagans and revealed the attitude that early Christians had toward the cross. He said: "Crosses, moreover, we neither worship nor wish for. You, indeed, who consecrate gods of wood, adore wooden crosses perhaps as parts of your gods ... Your victorious trophies not only imitate the appearance of a simple cross, but also that of a man affixed to it." The Ante-Nicene Fathers, v.4, p. 191



Notice, that this early church father said that Christians did not have crosses and never thought of having one. Only pagans at that time used it.



The apostate Christianity that arose several hundred years after Christ decided to adopt the pagan symbol for the god Tammuz and use it for worship in their religion.



Yours,



BAR-ANERGES

Answer 6

Salutations!



The WTB&BS never claimed to be perfect, so your argument attacks a straw man.



The problem with your reference to Peter is that the verse never mentions crucifixion. It is only an assumption that he was crucified, based on a possibly incorrect tradition concerning Peter. Nevertheless, the term for "hands outstretched" doesn't demand that they be outstretched in a cross like fashion, so this reasoning has multiple flaws.



Your other points are irrelevant or incorrect.



Yours,



Abernathy the Dull.

Answer 7

He probably had a word with them.



I am not too sure about this stake business. The traditional method of putting criminals up on stakes in the Egyptian province of the Roman Empire, was to insert it vertically into the backside. It would put a whole new set of expressions onto the divine images we see in works of devotional art...