John 1:1

[teak421]

A good question, Michael. Dan’s claim of already having all the manuscripts still doesn’t get to who had the authority from God to determine just which manuscripts put forward as inspired are inspired and thus to be included in the canon.

EXACTLY!!! Maybe I’m simple… but, if Dan accepts the Bible he holds in his hands (although the Watchtower’s translation is laughable) but rejects that same authority that denied his heretical views, he rejects. Something doesn’t jive here.

Take care.

• Michael

 

[FCEGM]

Just my 2cents here,
The JW,s believe that Jesus was nailed to the stake with his arms over his head. I guess they forgot about the sign over Jesus head. I don’t know why they make such a big deal over this any way.

Jeanne

Jeanne, I think it’s a desire to set themselves apart from “apostate Christendom” that has made them embrace some decidely quirky understandings of Scripture - a bit like the snake-handling Fundamentalists of the Appalachians.

 

[JeanneH]

Jeanne, I think it’s a desire to set themselves apart from “apostate Christendom” that has made them embrace some decidely quirky understandings of Scripture - a bit like the snake-handling Fundamentalists of the Appalachians.

Yes, and this too shall change when the “governing body” gets enlightened again.

 

[humble_maid]

2 Tim 2:14-17 Go on reminding people of this, and charge them solemnly before God to stop disputing about mere words; it does no good, and is the ruin of those who listen…be straightforward in your proclamation of the truth.

 

[Dan_Parker]

And note that Dan’s quote states that it was “after” Justin Martyr that a T-shaped cross was identified as the form for Christ’s Crucifixion, when Justin Martyr himself gives the form in the quote I twice presented to Dan - unless Justin’s connecting the shape of the Cross with the shape of a man indicates a man who has just a head, torso and legs, but has no arms to extend.

You did quote large portions of Justin’s words to whichI said the following:

Here is why I am confused. The New Schaff & Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge, Vol. 3, p. 313 (ccel.org/ccel/schaff/ency…xiii-Page_313) says:

no definite data are found in the New Testament concerning the nature of the cross on which Jesus died. **It is only the Church writers after Justin Martyr who indicate the composite four-armed cross as Christ’s vehicle of torture**

So that is why I ask exactly to what you refer in Justin’s writings. BTW, Schaff & Herzog is not a publication of the WTB&TS. Perhaps you have heard of it.

Just so you know, I don’t really have a horse in this race. What I mean by that is that I claim Justin’s teachings had already progressed away from the apostles. You might say I have a Mule in the race, a hybrid

That being said, I am very interested in exactly which part of Justin’s description you feel supports your view contra New Schaff & Herzog

 

[Danno2281]

You did quote large portions of Justin’s words to whichI said the following:

Just so you know, I don’t really have a horse in this race. What I mean by that is that I claim Justin’s teachings had already progressed away from the apostles. You might say I have a Mule in the race, a hybrid

That being said, I am very interested in exactly which part of Justin’s description you feel supports your view contra New Schaff & Herzog

Ther is no “contra New Schaff etc.” They make a simple statement of fact, the reason for which, as I posted earlier, is: The New Testament does not indicate the shape of the “stauros” because there was no need to. The Romans brought crucifixion with them, and they even had a name for the crosspiece (patibulum). Those within the empire knew well what “stauros” meant in a Roman context. The person whose figure is on the shroud ot Turin was crucified on a Roman cross, not a stake. See e-forensicmedicine.net/ShroudBibliog.htm

 

[Dan_Parker]

Ther is no “contra New Schaff etc.” They make a simple statement of fact, the reason for which, as I posted earlier, is: The New Testament does not indicate the shape of the “stauros” because there was no need to. The Romans brought crucifixion with them, and they even had a name for the crosspiece (patibulum). Those within the empire knew well what “stauros” meant in a Roman context. The person whose figure is on the shroud ot Turin was crucified on a Roman cross, not a stake. See e-forensicmedicine.net/ShroudBibliog.htm

That is not what they said was the reason. They cited the use of a sedile. See the link here with the entire quote.

 

[FCEGM]

That being said, I am very interested in exactly which part of Justin’s description you feel supports your view contra New Schaff & Herzog

All of it, Dan.

But for example:

Sailing ships:

sailingships.us/ShipsEvolution/RomanAndEarlyChristianEra.htm

Roman “vexilla”

crwflags.com/fotw/images/i/it_leg2.gif

And then there’s also:

“God does not permit the lamb of the passover to be sacrificed in any other place than where His name was named; knowing that the days will come, after the suffering of Christ, when even the place in Jerusalem shall be given over to your enemies, and all the offerings, in short, shall cease; and that lamb which was commanded to be wholly roasted was a symbol of the suffering of the cross which Christ would undergo. For the lamb,(1) which is roasted, is roasted and dressed up in the form of the cross. For one spit is transfixed right through from the lower parts up to the head, and one across the back, to which are attached the legs of the lamb.” Dialogue, ch. 40

“There are the following predictions: - Unto us a child is born, and unto us a young man is given, and the government shall be upon His shoulders;” which is significant of the power of the cross, for to it, when He was crucified, He applied His shoulders, as shall be more clearly made out in the ensuing discourse. And again the same prophet Isaiah, being inspired by the prophetic Spirit, said, “I have spread out my hands to a disobedient and gainsaying people, to those who walk in a way that is not good. They now ask of me judgment, and dare to draw near to God.” And again in other words, through another prophet, He says, “They pierced My hands and My feet, and for My vesture they cast lots.” And indeed David, the king and prophet, who uttered these things, suffered none of them; but Jesus Christ stretched forth His hands, being crucified by the Jews speaking against Him, and denying that He was the Christ." First Apology, ch. 35.

 

[Danno2281]

That is not what they said was the reason. They cited the use of a sedile. See the link here with the entire quote.

If you had continued to read the whole article, you would have seen that they make a strong case for a cross rather than a sedile, according to what is written in the scriptures. Again, go to the link on the shroud of Turin and see why the ME ascertains that a man impaled upon a sedile could not have survived for three hours.,

 

[Dan_Parker]

If you had continued to read the whole article, you would have seen that they make a strong case for a cross rather than a sedile, according to what is written in the scriptures. Again, go to the link on the shroud of Turin and see why the ME ascertains that a man impaled upon a sedile could not have survived for three hours.,

I agree the article presented multiple points of view. However my question deal specifically with Justin. The article makes a distinction between what theologians wrote up to and including Justin and those after him. I found this boundary fascinating and wanted to explore it further, particularly the claim of some on this board that Justin himself taught that the implement of Jesus’ death was contrary to the article.

 

[humble_maid]

The current WatchTower objections to the cross are:

1. The Biblical Greek doesn’t suggest a cross, but rather a “pole” or “stake.”
2. The cross was a pagan symbol later adopted by the “apostate” church.
3. Archaeology proves that Jesus died on an upright stake rather than a cross.
4. The cross is to be shunned rather than mentioned or displayed.

Let’s consider the answer to these objections: (visit site to view the 3 remaining arguments)
freeminds.org/doctrine/jesus/did-jesus-die-on-a-cross-or-a-stake.html

The Greek stauros has the primary meaning of a pole or stake, as the WT points out. What they don’t mention is that the word often refers to more complex constructions, such as the cross. The Latin word crux usually translated “cross,” was also at times used to refer to a mere stake. What the WT specifically ignores is that the Romans DID execute prisoners on crosses–an issue they are careful to sidestep in their presentation. The horizontal bar of such crosses was called the patibulum, and the slaves to be executed were customarily made to carry the patibulum to the place of execution. (Seneca, De Vita Beata 19:3; Epistola 101:12; Tacitus, Historiae, IV, 3)2

What kind of cross was Jesus crucified on? christiananswers.net/q-abr/abr-a013.html

Crux Immissa Known as the Latin Cross
• **crux sublimis **- tall cross, where the victim was high off the ground. This would not mean that the victim had commanded a high rank in society; the elite were rarely subject to corporal punishment. Instead, in the not-so-often cases where the rich and powerful were convicted of crime, the normal chastisement was exile or a fine - pretty much like today. Crucifixion was normally reserved for slaves and others of a low social status. The 1st century Jewish historian Flavius Josephus mentions high ranking Jews who had their status removed by their crucifixion. This was one reason that crucifixion was the chosen method for putting Jesus to death.

 

[Danno2281]

I agree the article presented multiple points of view. However my question deal specifically with Justin. The article makes a distinction between what theologians wrote up to and including Justin and those after him. I found this boundary fascinating and wanted to explore it further, particularly the claim of some on this board that Justin himself taught that the implement of Jesus’ death was contrary to the article.

That Justin et al. mention only the sedile is no indication that there was no patibulum involved. Absence of evidence is hardly evidence of absence.

 

[Dan_Parker]

FCEGM:

“God does not permit the lamb of the passover to be sacrificed in any other place than where His name was named; knowing that the days will come, after the suffering of Christ, when even the place in Jerusalem shall be given over to your enemies, and all the offerings, in short, shall cease; and that lamb which was commanded to be wholly roasted was a symbol of the suffering of the cross which Christ would undergo. For the lamb,(1) which is roasted, is roasted and dressed up in the form of the cross. For one spit is transfixed right through from the lower parts up to the head, and one across the back, to which are attached the legs of the lamb.” Dialogue, ch. 40

Dan:
I had time to look up this one, and as I have time I will continue. I find this fascinating. I can see why you would think from this quote that Justin is speaking about two pieces of wood in the shape of a cross to roast a lamb. I think this is an unlikely translation as well as anatomically impossible

Anatomically Impossible
The first thing I did was look up how lambs are customarily roasted on a spit. This is from e-how to roast a lamb on a spit. (ehow.com/how_2145452_roast-lamb-spit.html)

Note the following:
If you plan to roast the lamb open style, you need two crossbars attached to your spit to secure the legs.

Why two crossbars? One for the front legs and one for the back. I have seen two configurations. One has a single pole or skewer that is fit through the lamb from the back end through the mouth. There is no other pole. In this case the front legs are tied to the front and the back to the pole extending out the back. This would be the classic crux simplex for the crucifixion where the arms are straight above the head and the legs below.

If there were one cross piece somewhere across the back neither the front legs or the back legs could reach the cross-pole. It is Anatomically Impossible.

Grammatically Indefensible
I wanted to see where the word across came from in the English translation and so looked it up on Mignes Greek.

Here is what I found from Justin Trypho chapter 40:
For the lamb, which is roasted, is roasted and dressed up in the form of the cross. For one spit is transfixed right through from the lower parts up to the head, and one across the back, to which are attached the legs of the lamb.

The part which I translated was “and one across the back.” The Greek is:
KAI hEIS PALIN KATA PROSARTWNTAI KAI hAI XERES TOU PROBATOU

Here are the words in interlinear form:
KAI = and
hEIS = one
PALIN = in the same manner
(BDAG = 2. pert. to repetition in the same (or similar) manner, again, once more, anew )
KATA (w. accusative) = along
BDAG - a. of extension in space, along, over, through, in, upon

TO METAFRENON = the back (accusative)
PROSARTWNTAI = to which are attached
KAI hAI XERES TOU PROBATOU = the legs of the lamb.

My translation is:
and one in the same manner along the back to which are attached the legs of the lamb.

I cannot find a lexicon which renders KATA as “across.” Bauer-Danker-Arndt-Gingrich does not. Liddell Scott does not.

I can understand why someone who already has a pre-conceived notion of the shape of the cross could render it this way, but is is anatomically impossible and grammatically indefensible.

I invite any Greek scholars to review this. This took me a couple of hours, I am ashamed to admit.

 

[twb1621]

FCEGM:

From non-Catholic Christian research

What was roman crucifixion like?

Roman crucifixion was a form of capital punishment reserved for individuals considered to be the very worst criminals. Jesus of Nazareth was executed in this way. That this punishment was reserved for the most odious was also supported by Hebrew culture, “Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us, for it is written: ‘Cursed is everyone who is hung on a tree’” (Galatians 3:13).

Roman crucifixion was a particularly severe execution. The cross, the instrument of execution, consisted of two beams of wood called the stipes and the patibulum. The stipes was the upright beam which remained implanted in the ground at the place of execution. The patibulum or crossbeam was carried across the shoulders of the prisoner to the execution site. This crossbeam generally weighed approximately 110 pounds.

Scourging of prisoners was a separate form of punishment which consisted of flagellating the prisoner with a short, heavy whip made of leather thongs with lead balls at the end of each thong. That Jesus of Nazareth was both scourged and then crucified reveals the enormity of the price He paid for the ransom of sinners. “For even the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many” (Mark 10:45).

Once the prisoner had made the journey to the place of execution, exhausted and chaffed from moving under the extreme weight and discomfort of the patibulum, he was then laid on the ground. The prisoner’s wrists were nailed to each end of the patibulum by iron spikes five to seven inches long. These spikes were driven in by hammer through the median nerve as the prisoner’s arms were stretched wide across the beam. The arms were not stretched utterly tight; a small amount of flexibility and movement was allowed to better enable the hanging process. The sufferer, nailed to the crossbar is hoisted up so that the patibulum can be attached to the vertical stipes. A sign called a titulus is placed at the top of the stipes which identifies the prisoner.

Now with the criminal’s left foot pressed behind the right, another spike is driven through the arches and heels going through the lower portion of the upright beam. The knees are slightly bent; the body is turned unnaturally sideways. The prisoner is allowed a small seat, called a sedile, a small board attached to the cross. It offered little assistance, actually causing more pain as the person attempted to actually sit on it. As the prisoner writhes in response to each new painful atrocity, each movement causes a counter pain and torment. As excruciating as the agony was that the prisoner suffered, Roman crucifixion sometimes lasted for hours, even days before the individual succumbed to the torture, and finally died. The method for ending the crucifixion was the breaking of the bones of the legs, called crurifracture. This act was done to hasten the criminal’s death as was done to the two other criminals executed on the day Jesus of Nazareth was crucified. This was performed that day in response to the concern that the Sabbath was approaching.

The prisoner could not push up as a result and would quickly succumb to suffocation. Suffocation was due to the prisoner’s inability to exhale air once it had been inhaled; the muscles of the chest had been incapacitated as he sagged down from the nailed wrist and then attempted to push up from the nailed feet. The bones of Jesus were not broken, however, because He gave up His life; when the Roman soldiers came to Him, they found Him already dead. "But when they came to Jesus and found that he was already dead, they did not break his legs. These things happened so that the Scripture would be fulfilled: “Not one of his bones will be broken. . .” (John 19:33, 36).

Roman crucifixion was a heinous, barbarous act; it served, however, the purposes of holy God. Through it the penalty for sin was forever paid when the Son of Man was lifted up on the cross. “And they crucified him. . .” (Mark 15:24).

allaboutjesuschrist.org/roman-crucifixion-faq.htm

Continued next post…

 

[twb1621]

Continued from previous post…
It should be noted that many of the scholars who made such finds and determinations were not of any specific religious beliefs.

Archeological proof of the cross, as opposed to a stake.

Historical findings have substantiated the traditional cross. One finding is a graffito1 dating to shortly after 200 A.D., taken from the walls of the Roman Palatine. It is a drawing of a crucified ***; a mockery of a Christian prisoner who worships Christ. The Romans were no doubt amused that Christians worshiped this Jesus whom they had crucified on a cross.

In June of 1968, bulldozers working north of Jerusalem accidentally laid bare tombs dating from the first century B.C. and the first century A.D. Greek archeologist Vasilius Tzaferis was instructed by the Israeli Department of Antiquities to carefully excavate these tombs.

Subsequently one of the most exciting finds of recent times was unearthed - the first skeletal remains of a crucified man. The most significant factor is its dating to around the time of Christ. The skeleton was of a man named Yehohanan son of Chaggol, who had been crucified between the age of 24 and 28. Mr. Tzaferis wrote an article in the Jan/Feb. 1985 issue of the secular magazine Biblical Archaeology Review (BAR), and here are some of his comments regarding crucifixion in Jesus’ time:
At the end of the first century B.C., the Romans adopted crucifixion as an official punishment for non-Romans for certain limited transgressions. Initially, it was employed not as a method of execution, but only as a punishment. Moreover, only slaves convicted of certain crimes were punished by crucifixion. During this early period, a wooden beam, known as a furca or patibulum was placed on the slave’s neck and bound to his arms.

…When the procession arrived at the execution site, a vertical stake was fixed into the ground. Sometimes the victim was attached to the cross only with ropes. In such a case, the patibulum or crossbeam, to which the victim’s arms were already bound, was simply affixed to the vertical beam; the victim’s feet were then bound to the stake with a few turns of the rope.

If the victim was attached by nails, he was laid on the ground, with his shoulders on the crossbeam. His arms were held out and nailed to the two ends of the crossbeam, which was then raised and fixed on top of the vertical beam. The victim’s feet were then nailed down against this vertical stake.

In order to prolong the agony, Roman executioners devised two instruments that would keep the victim alive on the cross for extended periods of time. One, known as a sedile, was a small seat attached to the front of the cross, about halfway down. This device provided some support for the victim’s body and may explain the phrase used by the Romans, “to sit on the cross.” Both Eraneus and Justin Martyr describe the cross of Jesus as having five extremities rather than four; the fifth was probably the sedile. (p. 48,49)

In a followup article on this archeological find in the Nov/Dec. issue of BAR, the statement is made:

In a followup article on this archeological find in the Nov/Dec. issue of BAR, the statement is made:
According to the (Roman) literary sources, those condemned to crucifixion never carried the complete cross, despite the common belief to the contrary and despite the many modern re-enactments of Jesus’ walk to Golgotha. Instead, only the crossbar was carried, while the upright was set in a permanent place where it was used for subsequent executions. As the first-century Jewish historian Josephus noted, wood was so scarce in Jerusalem during the first century A.D. that the Romans were forced to travel ten miles from Jerusalem to secure timber for their siege machinery. (p. 21)

Other archeological finds:

Aside from the most recent discoveries, there are a few others of interest we will note. Here is one involving a discovery in 1873:
In 1873 a famous French scholar, Charles Clermant-Ganneau, reported the discovery of a burial chamber or cave on the Mount of Olives. Inside were some 30 ossuaries (rectangular chests made of stone) in which skeletal remains were preserved after their bodies had disintegrated. . . . One (ossuary) had the name “Judah” associated with a cross with arms of equal length. Further, the name “Jesus” occurred three times, twice in association with a cross. . . .

It would be unlikely that Christian Jews would have been buried in that area after 135 A.D. since the Romans forbade Jews to enter Aelia Capitolina . . . after the second Jewish revolt. (from Ancient Times, Vol. 3, No. 1, July 1958, p. 3.)

In 1939 excavations at Herculaneum, the sister city of Pompeii (destroyed in 78 A.D. by volcano) produced a house where a wooden cross had been nailed to the wall of a room. According to Buried History, (Vol. 10, No. 1, March 1974 p. 15):
Below this (cross) was a cupboard with a step in front. This has considered to be in the shape of an ara or shrine, but could well have been used as a place of prayer. . . .

If this interpretation is correct, and the excavators are strongly in favor of the Christian significance of symbol and furnishings, then here we have the example of an early house church.

continued next post…

 

[twb1621]

Continued from previous post.

In 1945 a family tomb was discovered in Jerusalem by Prof. E.L. Sukenik of the Museum of Jewish Antiquities of the Hebrew University. Prof. Sukenik is the world’s leading authority on Jewish ossuaries. Note his findings:
Two of the ossuaries bear the name “Jesus” in Greek. . . . The second of these also has four large crosses drawn. . . . (Prof. Sukenik) concluded that the full inscriptions and the crosses were related, being expressions of grief at the crucifixion of Jesus, being written about that time. . . . Professor Sukenik points out . . . (that) the cross may represent a “pictorial expression of the crucifixion, tantamount to exclaiming `He was crucified!’” As the tomb is dated by pottery, lamps and the character of the letters used in the inscriptions–from the first century B.C. to not later than the middle of the first century A.D. this means that the inscriptions fall within two decades of the Crucifixion at the latest. (Ancient Times, Vol. 3, No. 1, July 1958, p. 35. See also Vol. 5, No. 3, March 1961, p. 13.)

http://www.bible.ca/d-history-archeology-crucifixion-cross.htm

“we may note, in regard to the material form of the cross that somewhat different ideas prevailed in Greece and Italy. The cross, mentioned even in the Old Testament, is called in Hebrew, `êç , i.e. “wood”, a word often translated crux by St. Jerome ( Genesis 40:19 ; Joshua 8:29 ; Esther 5:14 ; 8:7 ; 9:25 ). In Greek it is called, which Burnouf would derive from the Sanskrit stâvora . The word was however frequently used in a broad sense. Speaking of Promotheus nailad to Mount Caucasus, Lucian uses the substantive and the verbs and, the latter being derived from which also signifies a cross. In the same way the rock to which Andromeda was fastened is called crux , or cross. The Latin word crux was applied to the simple pole, and indicated directly the nature and purpose of this instrument, being derived from the verb crucio , “to torment”, “to torture” (Isid., Or., V, xvii, 33; Forcellini, s. vv. Crucio, Crux). It is also to be noted that the word furca must have been at least partially equivalent to crux . In fact the identification of those two words is constant in the legal diction of Justinian (Fr. xxviii, 15; Fr, xxxviii, S. 2; Digest. “De pnis”, xlviii, 19).

http://www.catholic.org/encyclopedia/view.php?id=3523

 

[humble_maid]

Please can you tell me Dan in the oppinion of the JW’s, who do you say Jesus is?

 

[FCEGM]

I had time to look up this one, and as I have time I will continue. I find this fascinating. I can see why you would think from this quote that Justin is speaking about two pieces of wood in the shape of a cross to roast a lamb. I think this is an unlikely translation as well as anatomically impossible. . .[etc.]

First, you assume the description of roasting a lamb on a spit is exactly the method Justin has in mind.

Second, you have conveniently overlooked Justin’s vexing examples of the vexilla and the sailing ships which he likewise sees as representations of the manner of Christ’s crucifixion.

Third, we have Justin’s further description of the Cross:

Now, no one could say or prove that the horns of an unicorn represent any other fact or figure than the type which portrays the cross. For the one beam is placed upright, from which the highest extremity is raised up into a horn, when the other beam is fitted on to it, and the ends appear on both sides as horns joined on to the one horn. And the part which is fixed in the centre, on which are suspended those who are crucified, also stands out like a horn; and it also looks like a horn conjoined and fixed with the other horns. And the expression, ‘With these shall he push as with horns the nations from one end of the earth to another,’ is indicative of what is now the fact among all the nations. Dialogue, ch. 91

And even the JWs accept that Justin held (though erroneously) to the Christian knowledge of the form of the Cross:

“But do not writers early in the Common Era claim that Jesus died on a cross? For example, Justin Martyr (114-167 C.E.) described in this way what he believed to be the type of stake upon which Jesus died: “For the one beam is placed upright, from which the highest extremity is raised up into a horn, when the other beam is fitted on to it, and the ends appear on both sides as horns joined on to the one horn.” This indicates that Justin himself believed that Jesus died on a cross. However, Justin was not inspired by God, as were the Bible writers.” Awake! 1976 November 22 p. 27

And then there is the perennial deceptive practice of the JWs in quoting only what suits their purposes:

“The Greek word rendered “cross” in many modern Bible versions (“torture stake” in NW) is stau·ros´. In classical Greek, this word meant merely an upright stake, or pale. Later it also came to be used for an execution stake having a crosspiece. The Imperial Bible-Dictionary acknowledges this, saying: “The Greek word for cross, [stau·ros´], properly signified a stake, an upright pole, or piece of paling, on which anything might be hung, or which might be used in impaling [fencing in] a piece of ground. . . . Even amongst the Romans the crux (from which our cross is derived) appears to have been originally an upright pole.” Edited by P. Fairbairn (London, 1874), Vol. I, p. 376.” Reasoning from the Scriptures p.89

Giving a fuller quote would have contradicted JW intent:

“The Greek word for cross, (stauros), properly signified a stake, an upright pole, or piece of paling, on which anything might be hung, or which might be used in impaling (fencing in) a piece of ground. But a modification was introduced as the dominion and usages of Rome extended themselves through Greek-speaking countries. Even amongst the Romans, the crux (from which the word cross is derived) appears to have been originally an upright pole, and always remained the more prominent part. But from the time that it began to be used as an instrument of punishment, a traverse piece of wood was commonly added: not however always then. … There can be no doubt, however, that the later sort was the more common, and that about the period of the Gospel Age, crucifixion was usually accomplished by suspending the criminal on a cross piece of wood. … But the commonest form, it is understood, was that in which the upright piece of wood was crossed by another near the top, but not pricisely at it, the upright pole running above the other, thus “a cross” and so making four, not merely two right angles. It was on a cross of this form, according to the general voice of tradition, that our Lord suffered. … It may be added that crucifixion was abolished around the time of Constantine, in consequence of the sacred associations which the cross had now gathered around it.”

The original quote in its entirety can be viewed here: jwfacts.com/watchtower/cross-or-stake.php

This took me a couple of hours, I am ashamed to admit.

Good! Anything to keep you off the streets.

 

[Dan_Parker]

FCEGM:
First, you assume the description of roasting a lamb on a spit is exactly the method Justin has in mind.

Dan:
No, I translated his words from the Greek and looked at the anatomy of the lamb. The Greek KATA does not mean “across” it means “along.” If you think you can put a lamb on a spit that is shaped like a cross, please describe it. It is anatomically impossible.

FCEGM:
Second, you have conveniently overlooked Justin’s vexing examples of the vexilla and the sailing ships which he likewise sees as representations of the manner of Christ’s crucifixion.

Dan:
No, I am taking your examples one at a time and taking enough time to research it thoroughly. Here is your next one. Once again I got the Greek from Mignes.

For the sea is not traversed except that trophy
QALASSA MEN GAR OU TEMNETAI HN MH TOUTO TO TROPAION

which is called a sail abide safe in the ship;
hO KALEITAI ISTION EN TH NHI SWON MEINH

Justin uses the word TROPAION. Notice it is translated trophy? There is a reason for that. Liddell Scott Greek Lexicon says of that word:

TROPAION, TO, a trophy, Lat. tropaeum, Trag., etc.; i.e. a monument of the enemy’s defeat (troph, ii), consisting of arms taken from the enemy, hung on trees or posts;

Justin was describing the mast of a ship, and illustrated it with a word that means tree or post. The Romans made more elaborate trophies or monuments of their military conquests. Here is a picture of one. (flickr.com/photos/andreeainjapan/3380553210/)

That’s two down. Your evidence on Justin is dwindling to nothing.

 

[Dan_Parker]

Please can you tell me Dan in the opinion of the JW’s, who do you say Jesus is?

Dan:
I reply as did Peter. Jesus is the Messiah of God, the Son of Man and the Son of the living God.

NAB Luke 9:20 Then he said to them, “But who do you say that I am?” Peter said in reply, “The Messiah of God.” 21 He rebuked them and directed them not to tell this to anyone. 22 He said, “The Son of Man must suffer greatly and be rejected by the elders, the chief priests, and the scribes, and be killed and on the third day be raised.”

NAB Matthew 16:15 He said to them, “But who do you say that I am?” 16 Simon Peter said in reply, “You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God.” 17 Jesus said to him in reply, "Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah. For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my heavenly Father. 20 Then he strictly ordered his disciples to tell no one that he was the Messiah.