Stauros- cross or stake

This blogpost is meant to be very specific and will not have wide distribution. For those who are Jehovahs Witnesses or those who work reaching out to them, this will be of great interest.  The Pop Star Prince talks about 'stauros' in an attempt to communicate his JW background beliefs, so there may be a wider audience than perhaps I think.  Most of the material below is not mine, I make no apologies for that, sometimes rather than writing ones own material promoting another persons work is the best way forward. I may condense this into a shorter pamphlet soon.   Enjoy.........!

As is widely known, the Watchtower Society insists that Jesus did not die on a two-beamed cross but on a single-timber "torture stake". I agree with most people that this issue is pretty pointless and amounts only to a historical curiosity. As most Christians of faith would say, "It doesn't matter what he died on; it matters that he died for us". The purpose of this discussion is not to detract from that theological issue but instead to show that this subject is yet another instance of the Society's intellectual dishonesty and failure to represent the sources they quote. It will also provide a fairly interesting survey of what is historically known about the most heinous form of capital punishment in the Roman world.

The principal argument the Society furnishes is a linguistic one: that the Greek terms stauros and xulon and the Latin term crux (which translates stauros in the Latin Vulgate) did not mean "cross" in the first century. If the words used by the Bible writers referred only to a simple single-timber stake, then Jesus would not have died on a stake that had a crossbeam. So where Christendom get the idea that Jesus was put to death on a cross? The Society claims that the early Catholic church imported the cross symbol from neighboring pagan religions as part of its apostasy from original apostolic Christianity and their use of the cross in worship led them to claim that Jesus had in fact died on one. Of course, if Jesus did die on a cross (or was believed to have done so by the earliest Christians), then the use of the cross symbol by later Christians is certainly intelligible. The following quotation from the Society's literature is quite typical:

***w92 11/15 p. 7 The Cross-Symbol of Christianity? ***

The 'New' New world translation... A review .

The 'new' New world  translation: A review

Known as the silver sword because of its colour, this is not an update it is a new translation. With a new translation philosophy and approach. We will look at various features of this edition and make comments from more than one perspective.

The bare facts

Sturdy but soft grey cover, with the wording inset into the binding and not printed on it. A new WT invented font and crisp layout with even presentation. This is different to the old NWT which originally had uneven and untidy typesetting. Launched with an 'app'  (JW app )which also includes other bibles from the watchtower, this NWT is not just a revision it is effectively a new translation.

Features of the Bible

Full bible with centre references, summary (outline of contents) of each book in advance. At the front is a section of 20 questions  that people ask with colour drawings and short answers. at the rear is a concordance and a glossary of terms. following this the usual various charts and maps with two important (for the JWs) chapters on the divine name in the Hebrew and. Greek scriptures.
Differences to the 'old' NWT.

A sunny bank holiday, Four Jehovah's Witnesses, three ties and a Chocolate milkshake.

My 'journey' of apologetics saw me  originally involved with Mormons JWs and other similar groups   to reach them with the Gospel.  This 'connection' has never left me and here is a brief story of some encounters this last Bank holiday....enjoy!

 It was a beautiful sunny day. I was strolling along the Millennium seafront prom in Llanelli. LO and behold I came across three Jehovah's witnesses sitting on a wall in shirts and ties  with some display shelves of Watchtower material.   I asked my wife permission to talk (it was a family walk after all, I was with my wife Janet, daughter Caris and son in law James.) she said they would go for a coffee.

I stood waiting to get into the convo  but an Old Guy from a local Church was doing a good job  so I waited for him to finish. I sat next to one of the JW's and asked him why was he a JW, he explained he was brought up as one but had as an adult made his decisions.  As usual I began to question the organisation whilst affirming his genuine faith. He asked me why he shouldn't trust the organisation , I talked briefly about false prophesies,changes in doctrine and other stuff, he said the organisation is progressive and changes as time goes on. He also said he had checked it all out...I asked him 'If his checking out involved WT books, WT reference material, WT magazines, translations and interlinears....his silence was mute testimony to a 'yes' answer!  I encouraged him to check out by googling  '4jehovah'  which will lead him to some helpful material.....pray for him.  My parting thought to all three of them was 'could you all say Jesus is  'my Lord and my God'  (Jn 20v28)  they blubbered about 'a god'  but I asked again  and the answer was no    its good enough for Thomas in the Bible and for me.....  why not for you, think about it guys! My final word was 'hey guys how can you cope with shirt and ties in this weather ..the bible doesn't say you must wear a tie you know'!!    the youngest guy said to me he was going to take his tie off later.

Quick Question for Jehovah's Witnesses on Christmas

Keith Walker of Evidence Ministries challenges the Jehovah's Witnesses on their current abstinence from Christmas.

The Truth about the Council of Nicaea

What Really Happened at Nicea?

For many years, the council of Nicea has been the subject of much confusion among laypeople. The misapprehensions which have come to be associated with the council of Nicea have, in part, been fuelled by popular fictional novels such as Dan Brown's notorious The Da vinci Code. No matter what group you are dealing with in your apologetic exploits (including atheists, Muslims, Jehovah's witnesses and unitarians), you are almost guaranteed to encounter some of these misconcepts. For this reason, it is important for Christians to study and learn church history, so that they might correct common myths and falsehoods.

The council of Nicea was famously convened on May 20, 325 AD, at the request of Emperor Constantine (pictured above). What did the council of bishops meet to discuss? Contrary to common misconception (popularised particularly in Muslim circles) that has been widely circulated via the internet, the council of Nicea did not meet to discuss the canon of Scripture -- that is, the decision about which books should make up the New Testament. In fact, there is not a shred of evidence that the canon of Scripture was even brought up at Nicea. Another misconception is that the council of Nicea, at the encouraging of Constantine, "invented" the deity of Christ or, at the very least, that the bishops in attendance at Nicea were significantly divided on the issue, the matter being decided with a vote. This too, however, is completely inaccurate. In 325 AD, when the bishops convened at Nicea, the deity of Christ had been affirmed almost unanimously by the Christian movement for close to three hundred years!

Did Jesus Deny His Deity When He Said He Didn't Know The Day or Hour of the Second Coming?

Does Colossians chapter one mean Jesus is a created being?

This post comes from a recent discussion with a Jehovahs Witness regarding Jesus deity and Colossians 1:15.

So to give some clarification, the JW's don't use the same Bible many of us do. The organisation released their own version of the scriptures that was finished in 1961 which came to be known as the New World Translation (NWT). The NWT is best known for its rendering of John 1:1 but for those that have dug a little deeper or engaged in discussion with any JW's you may be aware of their controversial rendering of Colossians chapter 1, verses 15-17. It reads as the following:

15 He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation; 16 because by means of him all [other] things were created in the heavens and upon the earth, the things visible and the things invisible, no matter whether they are thrones or lordships or governments or authorities. All [other] things have been created through him and for him. 17 Also, he is before all [other] things and by means of him all [other] things were made to exist...

Now as you read through this portion of scripture you will notice that contained within brackets is the word other, this is probably the clearest example of how we can see how their translation has been corrupted and changed intentially to support their theological assumptions. What this shows us is that they have clearly translated and added to scripture to support their doctrines which have no space for Jesus being the fathers ontological (Equality in nature, essence and attributes.) equal as part of the trinity.

The Trinity Defended

The doctrine of the Trinity has come under increasing attack over recent years from a variety of groups. Some of these groups (such as Muslims and Jehovah's witnesses) deny that this doctrine is even found in Scripture. They are often quick to point out that the word "trinity" is to be found nowhere in the Bible. This is correct. While the phraseology is not found in Scripture, however, the concept most certainly is.

In this article, I want to provide a definition of this important doctrine, explaining what exactly the Trinity is, as well as what is isn't. I shall then examine the Scriptures to see whether they provide adequate substantiation of this concept.

So, what exactly do we mean when we talk about the Trinity? Writing in the early third century, in his Against Praxeas, Tertullian is credited with first employing the words "Trinity", "person" and "substance" to convey the idea of the Father, Son and Spirit being "one in essence -- but not one in person". Indeed, Tertullian writes,

"Thus the connection of the Father in the Son, and of the Son in the Paraclete, produces three coherent Persons, who are yet distinct One from Another. These Three are, one essence, not one Person, as it is said, "I and my Father are One," in respect of unity of substance not singularity of number."

This concept was established as church orthodoxy at the famous Council of Nicaea in A.D. 325. The Nicene Creed speaks of Christ as "God of God, Light of Light, very God of very God, begotten not made, being of one substance with the Father."

It is this definition that I am going to assume in the discussion that follows. Succinctly, then, the doctrine of the Trinity may be defined thusly: Within the one being or essence that is God, there exists three co-equal and co-divine distinct persons -- namely the Father, Son and Holy Spirit -- who share that essence fully and completely. This concept is not to be confused with polytheism, which maintains that there are multiple gods. While orthodox Christianity emphatically holds there to be only one God, we nonetheless understand God to be complex in his unity. The concept is also not to be confused with the ancient heresy of modalism, which maintains that God exists in three different modes. The Son has never been the Father and the Holy Spirit has never been the Son or the Father. Modalism is refuted by the picture given to us in all four gospels (Matthew 3:16-17; Mark 1:9-11; Luke 3:21-22; John 1:32-34) in which the Holy Spirit descends on Jesus in the form of a dove and a voice is heard from Heaven "This is my beloved Son. With him I am well pleased." Similarly, it should be noted that the Father, Son and Spirit do not each make up merely a third of the Godhead. Rather, each of the three persons is God in the full and complete sense of the word.

Having shown that Scripture emphatically rejects the notion that the Father, Son and Spirit are synonymous persons, only five propositions remain to be demonstrated in order to provide Biblical substantiation for the concept of the Trinity. Those propositions are:

1. There is only one eternal God.
   
2. The Father is the eternal God.
3. The Son is the eternal God.
4. The Holy Spirit is the eternal God.
5. Although the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are non-synonymous persons, the concept of the Trinity does not violate the law of non-contradiction.

Let's take a look at each of these in turn.