Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Adam and Eve and Bryan College: BioLogos strikes

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

Some say 20% of faculty are leaving.

Students and faculty at Bryan are upset at a move last month by the school’s board of trustees to “clarify” that the college believes Adam and Eve were historical figures created directly by God. The board says the clarification does not change the school’s historical position on origins. But some at Bryan believe the board’s action was intended to force out professors who may be sympathetic to evolution, and think it was unfair to do so at a time when faculty contracts are due for renewal. …

An English professor at the school, Whit Jones, said the timing of the clarification had been a “puzzle” to many on faculty, but might have been sparked by recent writings from two of his colleagues: Kenneth Turner, a Bible professor, and Brian Eisenback, an associate professor of biology who graduated from Bryan College in 2002. Together, Turner and Eisenback are writing science education materials under a grant from The BioLogos Foundation, an organization in Grand Rapids, Mich., that promotes theistic evolution.

Theistic evolution, also called “evolutionary creation,” posits God used evolution to create biological life, including humans. Bryan’s original belief statement would seem to preclude theistic evolution for humans because it says mankind’s sin “incurred physical … death”—death being a necessary component for evolution.

Though some proponents of creationism or intelligent design would argue the case for evolution is flimsy, Turner and Eisenback wrote otherwise in a two-part article that appeared on the BioLogos website in December: “Macroevolution is robust and has multiple lines of evidence in support of it, including the fossil record and molecular biology. … The reality is that evolution is not a theory teetering on the edge of collapse. More.

The obvious problem, for a person who has been following the news stream, is that the fossil record and molecular biology so often do not agree. And “evolution” is not so much “a theory teetering on the edge of collapse” as a theory that doesn’t explain anything. That is, we say “evolved to do” when we really mean “does.”

Darwin’s followers, including BioLogians, get marks for their Darwinian piety, talking this way.

Laszlo BenczeBut Laszlo Bencze comments:

Apparently some former graduates of Bryan College are writing a science curriculum that will cover the full spectrum of views from hard core evolution to hard core creation. As best I can tell, the authors favor “theistic evolution” although they prefer the term “evolutionary creationism” which is the same thing. Here’s a definition from the article: “Theistic evolution, also called ‘evolutionary creation,’ posits God used evolution to create biological life, including humans.”

Let’s translate that into straightforward English. “God used a process which works perfectly without any intelligent agent to create biological life.” Another way of saying it is “God used a completely self-contained process which is not accessible to any agent to create life.”

We start to see the problem with these statements. The problem is God. The statements work so much better if we simply eliminate God, whose role seems limited to creating a contradiction.

“A process which works perfectly without any intelligent agency created life.” There. Now there’s no contradiction and the statement makes sense.

Or, if you prefer, “God, an agent of unlimited intelligence and act, created life.” That statement, too, is shorn of contradiction and makes sense.

But there’s no way to combine these two statements into a coherent and logical proposition.

Like a figure which is both a circle and a square at the same time in the same way, theistic evolution is a flat out contradiction and makes no sense.

Maybe that’s what makes it somehow feel so right to so many people these days. 😉
Follow UD News at Twitter!

Comments
The Cross and Crucifixion in the New Testament World.
In shape we find three basic forms. The cross was a vertical, pointed stake (skolops -> 409, 4 ff.), or it consisted of an upright with a cross-beam above it (T, crux commissa), or it consisted of two intersecting beams of equal length (t, crux immissa). - TDNT VII:572
Jehovah's Witnesses of course must deny this. According to the doctrine they are required to follow, in the New Testament World there was only one form of a cross, a cross without a cross-beam. A cross that isn't actually a cross. A cross that's merely a vertical, pointed stake. A skolops. Barb claims the issue of skolops v stauros is a non-sequitur. We've shown that it is not.Mung
June 18, 2014
June
06
Jun
18
18
2014
06:09 PM
6
06
09
PM
PDT
Crucifixion took place as follows. The condemned person carried the patibulum (cross-beam) to the place of execution - the stake was already erected. - TDNT VII:573
Mung
June 15, 2014
June
06
Jun
15
15
2014
07:15 PM
7
07
15
PM
PDT
The Watchtower Society ignores the use of the Greek word skolops to refer to a "torture stake" because it fails to fit their narrative. If Jesus Christ was impaled on a "torture stake," as the Jehovah's Witnesses claim, and not on a cross (according to the historic understanding) why didn't the NT writers use the term skolops rather than the term stauros? Barb responds that this question is a non sequitur, without explaining why. I maintain that the question is quite relevant, and cite the Theological Dictionary of the New Testament (TDNT). Yet another source weighs in:
...the passage cited by Kuhn...mentioned crucifixion and impalement as being presumably the most gruesome forms of execution known to Plutarch...
Note the clear distinction between crucifixion and impalement. One guess as to which two Greek words are used, and which word is impalement and which word is crucifixion. Crucifixion p. 69 You may be in a cult if: 1. Make up a new doctrine. 2. Call it "new light." 3. Cherry pick some quotes to support the "new light." 4. Ignore all evidence to the contrary.Mung
June 13, 2014
June
06
Jun
13
13
2014
08:29 PM
8
08
29
PM
PDT
Barb:
Oh, and the 28 points I posted: responded to any of those? No?
No response to any of them anywhere in this thread? Really?Mung
June 13, 2014
June
06
Jun
13
13
2014
07:49 PM
7
07
49
PM
PDT
Jehovah's Witnesses cite W.E. Vine as an authority in defense of their doctrine that Jesus was not crucified on a cross, but rather impaled on a single upright stake. Earlier in this thread I demonstrated that W.E. Vine himself uses the term "cross" throughout his writings. The Watchtower Society teaches that stauros had the same meaning in Koine Greek that it has in Classical Greek. This claim is absurd on a number of counts, but let's just allow W.E. Vine to speak on that topic as well:
It has been well said that the Greek language is "the most subtle and powerful language that ever flowed from the tongue of man." Yet, comparatively speaking, it is easy, and particularly Biblical Greek. The language of the New Testament Greek was much simpler than what is known as Classical Greek, and is to be distinguished from the writings of men who aspire to literary fame. As the late Dr. J.H. Moulton wrote, "The New Testament writers had little idea that they were writing literature. The Holy Ghost spoke absolutely in the language of the people...The very grammar and dictionary cry out against men who would allow the Scriptures to appear in any other form than that 'understanded of the people.'" The language spoken throughout the Roman Empire in the first century of this era was Hellenistic Greek, otherwise known as the Koine, or the common dialect of the people. - W.E. Vine, The Collected Writings Volume 5, NTGG p.6
1. New Testament Greek is to be distinguished from Classical Greek. This is something the JW's fail to do and it contributes to their error. 2. The very grammar and dictionary cry out against men who would allow the Scriptures to appear in any other form than that ‘understanded of the people.’” Such as the JW's. Such as Classical Greek. 3. The language spoken throughout the Roman Empire in the first century of this era was Hellenistic Greek, otherwise known as the Koine, or the common dialect of the people. Hellenistic Greek, not Classical Greek. The more research one does the weaker the case appears for the "torture stake " doctrine of the Jehovah's Witnesses. And recall, this wasn't even a tenet of the JW faith until at least 1936. Before that, when they were still known as the IBSA, the cross regularly appeared on their publications! now they claim they have "new light." New light from where? One man decided to change their name to "Jehovah's Witnesses." One man decided Jesus was not hung on a cross but rather hung on a tree. Barb:
Cult implies following a human. Jehovah’s Witnesses do not claim to follow any man or any man made organization. If that were the case, they’d call themselves the Watchtower Society.
In these two cases, at least, they follow one man. Judge Rutherford.Mung
June 13, 2014
June
06
Jun
13
13
2014
05:37 PM
5
05
37
PM
PDT
Clearly essential to the Watchtower position on the shape of the cross is their claim that the cross was unknown to the Greeks. They claim that stauros meant one and only one thing in both classical and koine greek, an upright stake. Again, the facts contradict their position.
On the basis of the examples given here, which could certainly be multiplied further, we may conclude that in the Greek-speaking East crucifixion was no less well-known, feared and abhorred than in the Latin West... Crucifixion: In the Ancient World and the Folly of the Message of the Cross
Here's an interesting reference:
If [the moon] is between Ares on the left and Cronos on the right, the fugitive will be crucified.
Mung
June 12, 2014
June
06
Jun
12
12
2014
01:48 AM
1
01
48
AM
PDT
Mung continues,
So you still have no answer. Why did they use stauros and not skolops? Claiming that they used the word stauros because they used the word stauros is absurd.
Sorry if you misunderstood me. The word used by the gospel writers is stauros, which means stake or pole. You introduced another word, skolops, which is a non sequitur. The word that’s being discussed is the word the Bible writers used. Other Greek words, even if they have the same meaning, are irrelevant to the discussion.
What was Judge Rutherford’s bias that led him to change the form of the cross that had previously been accepted by Christians for two thousand years and turn the form of the cross into a doctrine that has to be accepted as truth by all JW’s?
Don’t know for sure. And the cross wasn’t accepted by all Christians, as I have previously noted. The early Christians (1st-2nd century) did not adorn their houses or persons with decorative crosses.
Hardly. Three basic forms.
We are only concerned with one. More non sequiturs?
1. a vertical, pointed stake (skolops), the form adopted by you and other JW’s, but not supported by the Greek.
The word used in the Bible is stauros, not skolops.
2. a form that you deny even existed in the first century 3. a form that you deny even existed in the first century
The cruxes commissa and immissa are non sequiturs. We are only concerned with what the word stauros is properly translated as. And you claim I have no answer? I answered this already, multiple times: stauros is translated as stake or pole, a fact evidenced not only by the NWT but also by the two Jewish Bibles (cited upthread). Are these translators also wrong? Again I refer you to a previous post where I outlined at least 28 references to translating the word stauros as stake. If you believe that all these historians, lexicographers, and writers are wrong, then prove it. KF:
I see you have cited Kittel and Zodiathes, both of which are additional authority. (On top of a by now quite long list of competent authorities brushed aside for no justifiable reason.)
I bolded the portions of Zodiathes referenced by Mung above. Disagree? Fine. Prove your point then. Oh, and the 28 points I posted: responded to any of those? No?
By now all of this is probably flogging the proverbial dead horse, but it is necessary to highlight that the accusation being made is that c 300 – 400 or thereabouts an alien pagan intrusion was made which inter alia introduced the hitherto unknown T or t symbol, probably from Tammuz, as a mark and sign of apostasy.
“Alien pagan intrusion”? Not quite. But the cross was used in civilizations other than the Greek and Roman ones, and eventually the cross was adopted as a symbol of Christianity. That it is also a pagan symbol is fact.
The scheme of polarising those indoctrinated under the Watchtower system to imagine they have superior knowledge and that this shows how the historic Christian churches have been corrupted by pagan influences and should be avoided like a plague, is undermined.
Actually, no, it’s not. I have provided plenty of references for my position, many of which you have completely ignored. That the Christian church has been corrupted by pagan influences is not simply a Watchtower doctrine, as you incorrectly assume. Please read Alexander Hislop’s The Two Babylons as well as Arthur Weigall’s The Paganism in Our Christianity for further references. I think Hislop’s arguments are stronger than Weigall’s, but the fact remains that much of what comprises modern Christianity has its roots in other religious beliefs.
…selective and unrepresenative evidence and claims to make it appear tot he indoctrinated that 5hose who accept the received understanding of the shape of Jesus’ cross are thereby showing pagan intrusion and apostasy.
Please respond, then, to the 28 points I made above. Show me where you believe these writers are wrong in their translating stauros, and show me where and why you believe they are wrong in writing that stakes were used for execution.
The known effect of such rhetorical tactics in an authoritarian system, is to polarise and isolate the in-group, setting up manipulation and programming, blocking correction from outside. Which fits with a wider pattern of longstanding concerns about this specific society.
“Blocking correction from outside”? What correction is needed? I’ve more than proved my point.Barb
June 11, 2014
June
06
Jun
11
11
2014
05:09 AM
5
05
09
AM
PDT
Mung (& attn Barb): Sadly, this undesirable discussion has to continue, in order to set the record straight. I see you have cited Kittel and Zodiathes, both of which are additional authority. (On top of a by now quite long list of competent authorities brushed aside for no justifiable reason.) The latter is a native speaker of Greek, and introduced a "new" system of pronunciation based on modern Greek. The former is perhaps THE guru on NT Greek, if we can call anyone such. Their reference to the T or t from cross is of course reinforced by the reference to people carrying crosses and in particular to Jesus carrying his cross then being helped by Simon of Cyrene. We know the standard historical praxis [cf repeatedly referenced discussion here again . . . not seriously responded to by B in terms of specifics of timeline and substance], i.e. that the upright would be kept there in situ, and the condemned would be whipped, forced to carry the cross-bar, would be led by a soldier with the placard of the crime or would have it hung around the neck, and would be nailed or tied up then erected unto the main cross-bar in a T or t. Where also given that there is a known common linguistic tendency of metonymy, word meanings can be reasonably expected to shift from part to whole or whole to part etc. Moreover, apart from dismissal, there has been no serious reckoning with the difference between carrying a patibulum that on reasonable density and size calcs would have weighed in at 40 - 60+ lbs, and an upright that would easily weigh in at 150 lbs. Where, remember, the STANDARD praxis was as described, according to various sources. We may multiply by the suggestion that the alleged introduction and imposition of this claimed alien pagan symbol was in the 300s or thereabouts at or beyond the time of Constantine. So, if we have reasonable evidence in hand from any materially earlier date, that points to the understanding that a cross-beam or patibulum was used from an earlier date or was understood to be so from such an earlier time, that materially goes to discredit such suggestions. This brings to the fore two key references, the Alexamenos graffito [cf my infographic here] and the Staurogram in P75 [illustration here . . . also in the previous link], both of which likely date c 200 AD. Cf here for the illustrations. The former is a bit of mockery against a young Christian by one of his juvenile peers, found in a building in the Palatine Hill area of Rome showing a man in front of an Ass-headed figure crucified on a cross. The inscription in crudely scratched and reportedly grammatically shaky Greek, is Alexamenos worships (his) god. The style of drawing is that of a child without drawing training, maybe 10 - 12 or so years, or maybe a bit less. The lettering is shaky enough to point to a struggling learner of maybe 7 - 8 or so years if this were a modern education system. He was probably older in those days. Reportedly there is also a nearby inscription in a different hand, Alexamenos is faithful. What is significant is the attempt to shame, by accusing Christians [as Jews before them] of worshipping an ass' head, and the specific representation of what a cross would be like. Lo and behold, the figure is crucified on a T (or just possibly a t) cross, with arms stretched out wide. If the cross is T form, the head is above the cross-bar. That goes to support the received understanding that Jesus' cross was a t instead, to hold the sign above his head. P75 shows of course the staurogram. The form is a nomina sacra style abbreviation, following a praxis in the Septuagint. Stauros is stylised with the Rho superposed on a Tau, showing something that looks like a T with a P standing on top of the vertical line. The visual effect is that of showing the head of a crucifixion victim on a t-shaped cross. (And no, this is not an Ankh, the Egyptian symbol of life based quite obviously on the womb and the birth canal. Rho, in "capital" form looks like a capital P, and so the head is not rounded and centred on the vertical stroke.) By now all of this is probably flogging the proverbial dead horse, but it is necessary to highlight that the accusation being made is that c 300 - 400 or thereabouts an alien pagan intrusion was made which inter alia introduced the hitherto unknown T or t symbol, probably from Tammuz, as a mark and sign of apostasy. So, if there is evidence that there is a known usage of actual crosses in T or t form beforehand, from literary, archaeological or historical references or that of the NT eyewitness descriptions, that strongly goes to undermine the alternative thesis. Such evidence is given, and is quite sufficient for the reasonable mind. There is no good reason to pretend that there is decisive evidence that crosses in the Roman era were of I form only, or that the cross as described in the NT must have been of I form, or that a cross of T or t form is ill supported historically and linguistically and is a marker of pagan intrusions 300 years later. The scheme of polarising those indoctrinated under the Watchtower system to imagine they have superior knowledge and that this shows how the historic Christian churches have been corrupted by pagan influences and should be avoided like a plague, is undermined. Where finally the point is ot that the shape of the cross s a creedal commitment of Christians generally. Hardly. But, the Watchtower Society, since the 1930's has made commitment to an I shape a creedal matter, and has used selective and unrepresenative evidence and claims to make it appear tot he indoctrinated that 5hose who accept the received understanding of the shape of Jesus' cross are thereby showing pagan intrusion and apostasy. The known effect of such rhetorical tactics in an authoritarian system, is to polarise and isolate the in-group, setting up manipulation and programming, blocking correction from outside. Which fits with a wider pattern of longstanding concerns about this specific society.kairosfocus
June 11, 2014
June
06
Jun
11
11
2014
01:49 AM
1
01
49
AM
PDT
2. The stauros is an instrument of torture for serious offenses. In shape we find three basic forms. The cross was a vertical, pointed stake (skolops, -> 409, 4 ff.), or it consisted of an upright with a cross-beam above it (T, crux commissa), or it consisted of two intersecting beams of equal length (t, crux immissa) - TDNT VII:572
Barb:
Except the word the gospel writers used was “stauros” not “skolops”. It’s a non sequitur.
Hardly. Three basic forms. 1. a vertical, pointed stake (skolops), the form adopted by you and other JW's, but not supported by the Greek. 2. a form that you deny even existed in the first century 3. a form that you deny even existed in the first centuryMung
June 10, 2014
June
06
Jun
10
10
2014
09:17 PM
9
09
17
PM
PDT
"The problem which elicited this dissertation was the claims by NWT itself - that it is an honest, reasonable, consistent, modern, unbiased, and scholarly translation." - The Jehovah's Witnesses' New Testament: A Critical Analysis of The New World Translation of the Christian Greek ScripturesMung
June 10, 2014
June
06
Jun
10
10
2014
08:04 PM
8
08
04
PM
PDT
Barb:
All authors have biases. It’s the job of critical thinkers to determine what the facts really are.
What was Judge Rutherford's bias that led him to change the form of the cross that had previously been accepted by Christians for two thousand years and turn the form of the cross into a doctrine that has to be accepted as truth by all JW's?Mung
June 10, 2014
June
06
Jun
10
10
2014
07:53 PM
7
07
53
PM
PDT
Barb:
Except the word the gospel writers used was “stauros” not “skolops”. It’s a non sequitur.
So you still have no answer. Why did they use stauros and not skolops? Claiming that they used the word stauros because they used the word stauros is absurd.Mung
June 10, 2014
June
06
Jun
10
10
2014
07:47 PM
7
07
47
PM
PDT
Mung,
Barb, is your professed desire for honest debate just a sham?
No, why would you think so? Oh, right, you dislike my religious beliefs.
Because the meaning [of stauros] in classical and Koine Greek was the same, as pointed out above. The meaning did not change until much later. This is simply false.
The meaning of stauros is upright pole or stake. This has been well established.
Even the JW’s own New World Translation acknowledges that it is false. They translate stauros as “torture stake,” a meaning that is completely absent from the Classical Greek. JW publication: The inspired writers of the Christian Greek scriptures wrote in the common (koine) Greek and used the word stauros to mean the same as in the classical Greek, namely, a stake or pole…There is no proof to the contrary.” JW publication: Stauros in both classical and koine Greek…means only an upright stake, pale, pile or pole. No Biblical evidence even intimates that Jesus died on a “torture stake.”
The word “stauros” for one thing, as used at Matthew 27:40. And the related word xylon, used by Peter when referencing impalement (as described in Deuteronomy). Oh, and have you even begun addressing the 28 points I made in my previous post?
This is yet another example of how JW’s want to have it both (contradictory) ways. The word stauros, they argue, never had any meaning at the time of Christ other than what it had in Classical Greek. Except when it doesn’t, as in their insistence as translating stauros as “torture stake.” Which of their sources claim that in Classical Greek stauros meant simply, a torture stake? None?
See my post above, with numerous lexicons, concordances, and historians who translate stauros as stake. Show me exactly where, when, how, and why you believe they are wrong in translating the word.
Further on Barb’s insistence that in Classical Greek, and therefore in Koine Greek, stauros means only an upright stake, pale, pile or pole. The earliest mode of crucifixion seems to have been by impalation, the transfixion of the body lengthwise and crosswise by sharpened stakes, a mode of death-punishment still well known among the Mongol race. – International Standard Bible Encyclopedia Lengthwise and crosswise by sharpened stakes. Hence, a cross.
The earliest mode of crucifixion, yes. But we aren’t discussing that. We are discussing whether or not Jesus was crucified or impaled. In this instance, it would depend on when the Romans invented the double-beamed cross and when the word crux began to refer to it. It’s possible that for the first few centuries after the Punic Wars, the Romans used the crux simplex and did not combine it with a patibulum until the 2nd century. In this circumstance, the word crux would be referred to as a simple stake.
The accounts given of the crucifixion of our Lord are in entire agreement with the customs and practices of the Roman in such cases. – Easton’s Bible Dictionary Romans. Not classical Greeks.
Yes, and the Bible was written in Greek. Which is why we are discussing the translation of a particular word and not Roman customs. Why does it seem that you are repeatedly moving the goalposts?
The forms in which the cross is represented are these: 1. The crux simplex (I), a “single piece without transom.” 2. The crux decussata (X), or St. Andrew’s cross. 3. The crux commissa (T), or St. Anthony’s cross. 4. The crux immissa (t), or Latin cross, which was the kind of cross on which our Saviour died. – Easton’s Bible Dictionary
Is Easton’s Bible Dictionary preferred over the numerous sources I cited, which discuss the actual translation of the word? The etymological meaning is “an object which stands firm”. Our English-via-Germanic word “stand”, “stern”, and “stem” arise from stauros. The word itself originally denoted a type of pointed stake used to build fences, as seen in Homer’s Odyssey (14.11). Thucydides (Historia, 4.90.2) also describes “fixing stakes” along a ditch, and stauros is used with the sense of a “palisade” or “piles” serving as a foundation (Herodotus, Historiarum 5.16; Thucydides, Historia 7.25-6.8). Seneca also described impalement with stauros. So it is certainly true that stauros meant only "stake" originally. It’s possible that the the semantic change occurred after the first century A.D. The historian Tacitus (c. A.D. 56-c. 120) has been quoted as saying that Roman Christians were martyred on flaming "crosses" during the A.D. 64 persecution (p. 235; cf. Tacitus, Annals 15.44) Remember, Peter used the term “xylon” to refer to a single piece of wood. So did another Roman writer: "A certain man had handed over one of his slaves, with orders to scourge him through the forum, and then put him to death. While they were executing this commission and tormenting the poor wretch, whose pain and suffering made him writhe and twist himself horribly, the sacred procession in honor of Jupiter chanced to come up behind....And it was a severe punishment for a slave who had committed a fault, if he was obliged to take the piece of wood (xulon) with which they prop up the pole of a wagon, and carry it around through the neighborhood. For he who had been seen undergoing this punishment no longer had any credit in his own or neighboring households. And he was called a 'furcifer' (phourkipher), for what the Greeks call a prop, or support, is called 'furca' (phourkan) by the Romans" (Plutarch, Coriolanus 24.4-5). Neither of these is referring to a cross.
Barb: 25. The woodcut illustration by Lipsius, showing clearly that the crux simplex (Latin, simple upright stake), was one method used by Romans to punish criminals. And the other methods of crucifixion were? No one here has ever denied the crux simplex. What other forms of crucifixion does Lipsius show?
That there were other methods of crucifixion is not what we’re debating. Moving the goalposts again?
Judge Rutherford, founder of the Jehovah’s Witnesses, decreed in 1936 that Jesus Christ was not crucified on a cross, but on a tree. Barb, which of your sources did Rutherford cite in coming to his conclusion? Or was Rutherford himself a Biblical scholar, or a Greek scholar, or an expert in Romans methods of crucifixion in the first century?
Ad hominem.
Barb (was Christ impaled?): 25. The woodcut illustration by Lipsius, showing clearly that the crux simplex (Latin, simple upright stake), was one method used by Romans to punish criminals. Do JW’s believe that Jesus was impaled on a single upright stake, as shown by Lipsius? There were numerous woodcuts. To which one are you referring?
Yes, we believe that Jesus was impaled on a single upright stake.
“‘Cross’ is only a later meaning of crux. A single stake for impalement of a criminal was called in Latin crux simplex. One such instrument of torture is illustrated by Justus Lipsius (1547-1606) in his book De cruce libri tres, Antwerp, 1629, p. 19, which we here present. … Crux simplex illustrated.” So in 1936 Rutherford wrote that Christ was hung on a tree, but now JW’s teach that Jesus was impaled? Yet more “new light”? New light from whom? Based upon what?
You do realize that “impaled” and “hung on a tree” are the same thing, right? Remember Peter referred to the punishment described in Deuteronomy.
Barb, did Justus Lipsius ever write that Jesus Christ was impaled on a crux simplex?
If he did not, then is that considered absolute proof that Jesus was crucified? No?
Barb, did Justus Lipsius ever create an illustration that showed Jesus Christ was impaled on a crux simplex?
If he did not, then is that considered absolute proof that Jesus was crucified? No? Your point is….?
But we’re talking about first century koine greek, not the greek classics.
We are talking about accurately translating a word. Stauros, as evidenced by historians in the first century and the gospel writers, is translated as “stake.”
False. A lie.
No. Try again.
As this latter word xulon is used for the former stauros, it shows us that the meaning of each is exactly the same. Hogwash.
Your proof of this is…? VJT:
Third, I think it’s a little misleading of Barb to say that some Christians worship the cross of Christ. The cross is a piece of wood, but like any created thing, it can be hallowed by God if God so chooses. Christians who venerate the Cross do not ascribe to it any magic powers.
Misleading? Based on the fact that both Mung and KF have attacked me in this thread in desperately trying to convince me that I’m a liar and that I’ve been lied to is proof enough that the cross is worshiped and its worshipers can get very, very pissy when you question their beliefs.
Finally, regarding the claim that veneration of the Cross did not begin until the fourth century A.D., I’d like to quote this passage from Wikipedia at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C....._Christian : During the first two centuries of Christianity, the cross may have been rare in Christian iconography, as it depicts a purposely painful and gruesome method of public execution and Christians were reluctant to use it.[1] A symbol similar to the cross, the staurogram, was used to abbreviate the Greek word for cross in very early New Testament manuscripts such as P66, P45 and P75, almost like a nomina sacra.[5] The extensive adoption of the cross as Christian iconographic symbol arose from the 4th century.[6] However, the cross symbol was already associated with Christians in the 2nd century, as is indicated in theanti-Christian arguments cited in the Octavius[7] of Minucius Felix, chapters IX and XXIX, written at the end of that century or the beginning of the next,[8] and by the fact that by the early 3rd century the cross had become so closely associated with Christ that Clement of Alexandria, who died between 211 and 216, could without fear of ambiguity use the phrase ?? ???????? ??????? (the Lord’s sign) to mean the cross, when he repeated the idea, current as early as the apocryphal Epistle of Barnabas, that the number 318 (in Greek numerals, ???) in Genesis 14:14 was interpreted as a foreshadowing (a “type”) of the cross (T, an upright with crossbar, standing for 300) and of Jesus (??, the first two letter of his name ??????, standing for 18),[9] and his contemporary Tertullian could designate the body of Christian believers as crucis religiosi, i.e. “devotees of the Cross”.[10] In his book De Corona, written in 204, Tertullian tells how it was already a tradition for Christians to trace repeatedly on their foreheads the sign of the cross.[11] It is important to note that the crucifix, that is a cross upon which an image of Christ is present, is not known to have been used until the 6th century AD.[12]
Mung once again proves my point for me.
The Jewish Encyclopedia says:[13] The cross as a Christian symbol or “seal” came into use at least as early as the second century (see “Apost. Const.” iii. 17; Epistle of Barnabas, xi.-xii.; Justin, “Apologia,” i. 55-60; “Dial. cum Tryph.” 85-97); and the marking of a cross upon the forehead and the chest was regarded as a talisman against the powers of demons (Tertullian, “De Corona,” iii.; Cyprian, “Testimonies,” xi. 21–22; Lactantius, “Divinæ Institutiones,” iv. 27, and elsewhere). Accordingly the Christian Fathers had to defend themselves, as early as the second century, against the charge of being worshipers of the cross, as may be learned from Tertullian, “Apologia,” xii., xvii., and Minucius Felix, “Octavius,” xxix. Christians used to swear by the power of the cross.
As a Christian symbol, yes; as an object of veneration, not until Constantine in the 4th century. See above.
I just hope that we can all agree to disagree, while respecting each other’s sincerity.
I have no problem with this; Mung, on the other hand…
VJT: Useful points. the issue is not primarily the shape of the cross, but the deleterious significance attached to the traditionally received shape by Jehovah’s Witnesses, used as a means of alienation and dismissal. All that stuff about Constantine and Tammuz etc, leading to an attitude that if there is a cross in evidence, minds are shut off.
You are right in that the issue is not primarily the shape of the cross. The ‘stuff” about Constantine and Tammuz are references showing that the cross as used today in churches around the world is, at its root, a pagan symbol.
. That is why it is important to highlight the primacy of reading text in context of the text, genre, grammar, history, language and usage of key words. In this case the reference of a patibulum creates a presumption in favour of T or t, and this is multiplied by several other references in the NT.
I have to disagree with you again here; the NT is very terse and brief in describing the execution of Jesus. And again, I would refer you to the scriptures cited earlier using either stauros or xylon.
With the sign over the head tipping it towards t. So, the traditional depictions are to be respected not reviled or used as a sign to shut off minds.
The traditional depictions are…the traditional depictions. My mind isn’t as closed as you think it is, but based on the research I’ve done, I don’t believe Jesus was executed on a cross as traditionally represented.
Beyond, this is a clear case in point of a strategy of psycho-social alienation and isolation that is not healthy. KF
So much for agreeing to disagree.
The Complete Word Study Dictionary: New Testament : Spiros Zodhiates : AMG Publishers : 1992 : p. 1308-1309 4716. stauros. A cross, a stake, often with a cross-piece … it was most common among the Romans for slaves and criminals, and was introduced among the Jews by the Romans. In biblical Gr., stauros … refers to: (I) A Roman cross consisting of a straight piece of wood erected in the earth often with a transverse beam … as was the cross on which the Lord Jesus suffered.
Bolded for emphasis.
2. The Critical Lexicon and Concordance, observes: “Both words (stauros and xylon) disagree with the modern idea of a cross, with which we have become familiarised by pictures.” Again, E.W Bullinger. Yet even Bullinger states: Stauron, merely means to drive stakes. p. 819 Stakes. Plural.
Stakes. Not crosses.
Bullinger’s bias is also clearly evident in that same article https://archive.org/stream/criticallexiconc00bull#page/818
All authors have biases. It’s the job of critical thinkers to determine what the facts really are.
Earlier in this thread I raised the question of whether the New Testament authors might have employed the Greek word skolops if they had wished to convey the idea that Jesus was impaled upon a stake, as the JW’s maintain according to the doctrine handed down to them as “new light” from the non-prophet Judge Rutherford. In the Theological Dictionary of the New Testament (TDNT) the entry for skolops appears in Volume 7 page 409 (TDNT 7:409). b. Killing by means of a skolops is one of the modes of execution… Since Barb is tracking points not answered, I felt it only fair to bring this one up again.
Great. Except the word the gospel writers used was “stauros” not “skolops”. It’s a non sequitur.Barb
June 9, 2014
June
06
Jun
9
09
2014
09:54 AM
9
09
54
AM
PDT
In the Theological Dictionary of the New Testament (TDNT) the entry for stauros appears in Volume 7 page 572 (TDNT 7:572). Now if I wanted to cherry pick and quote out of context, I could claim that the TDNT supports my position:
stauros is an upright stake.
Further:
The stauros is an instrument of torture...
Thus, if in my translation of the New Testament I want to translate stauros as "torture stake" I could claim justification for this translation from the TDNT. And it is precisely this sort of cherry-picking and misquoting that the Watchtower Society depends upon for their "torture stake" doctrine.Mung
June 8, 2014
June
06
Jun
8
08
2014
07:43 PM
7
07
43
PM
PDT
Earlier in this thread I raised the question of whether the New Testament authors might have employed the Greek word skolops if they had wished to convey the idea that Jesus was impaled upon a stake, as the JW's maintain according to the doctrine handed down to them as "new light" from the non-prophet Judge Rutherford. In the Theological Dictionary of the New Testament (TDNT) the entry for skolops appears in Volume 7 page 409 (TDNT 7:409).
b. Killing by means of a skolops is one of the modes of execution...
Since Barb is tracking points not answered, I felt it only fair to bring this one up again.Mung
June 8, 2014
June
06
Jun
8
08
2014
07:25 PM
7
07
25
PM
PDT
Barb:
2. The Critical Lexicon and Concordance, observes: “Both words (stauros and xylon) disagree with the modern idea of a cross, with which we have become familiarised by pictures.”
Again, E.W Bullinger. Yet even Bullinger states:
Stauron, merely means to drive stakes. p. 819 Stakes. Plural. Bullinger's bias is also clearly evident in that same article https://archive.org/stream/criticallexiconc00bull#page/818
Mung
June 8, 2014
June
06
Jun
8
08
2014
07:03 PM
7
07
03
PM
PDT
: The Complete Word Study Dictionary: New Testament : Spiros Zodhiates : AMG Publishers : 1992 : p. 1308-1309 4716. stauros. A cross, a stake, often with a cross-piece ... it was most common among the Romans for slaves and criminals, and was introduced among the Jews by the Romans. In biblical Gr., stauros ... refers to: (I) A Roman cross consisting of a straight piece of wood erected in the earth often with a transverse beam ... as was the cross on which the Lord Jesus suffered.Mung
June 8, 2014
June
06
Jun
8
08
2014
06:19 PM
6
06
19
PM
PDT
In this manuscript [Papyrus Bodmer II] the noun staurow (three instances) and at least seven uses of forms of the verb staurov are written in abbreviated forms, and with the tau and rho of these words written as a compendium. In each case, the statement in which the noun or verb appears refers to Jesus’ cross/crucifixion.
Mung
June 8, 2014
June
06
Jun
8
08
2014
10:50 AM
10
10
50
AM
PDT
VJT, thanks for those comments.
Among the several monograms used by early Christians to refer to Jesus, the so-called “staurogram” or “cross-monogram”, which is comprised of the Greek majuscule forms of the letters tau and rho, the vertical line of the rho superimposed on the vertical stroke of the tau, is of particular historical significance.
THE STAUROGRAM IN EARLY CHRISTIAN MANUSCRIPTS: THE EARLIEST VISUAL REFERENCE TO THE CRUCIFIED JESUS?Mung
June 8, 2014
June
06
Jun
8
08
2014
10:42 AM
10
10
42
AM
PDT
VJT: Useful points. the issue is not primarily the shape of the cross, but the deleterious significance attached tot he traditionally received shape by Jehovah's Witnesses, used as a means of alienation and dismissal. All that stuff about Constantine and Tammuz etc, leading to an attitude that if there is a cross in evidence, minds are shut off. That is why it is important to highlight the primacy of reading text in context of the text, genre, grammar, history, language and usage of key words. In this case the reference of a patibulum creates a presumption in favour of T or t, and this is multiplied by several other references in the NT. With the sign over the head tipping it towards t. So, the traditional depictions are to be respected not reviled or used as a sign to shut off minds. The use of special abbreviations in early MSS -- as you note -- is also significant, as this ante-dates the suggested date of alien, pagan imposition, so-called. So are Jerusalem Ossuaries from the 40s. In that light, there is a reason to respect rather than revile the traditional understanding, t. Similarly, reading in context and in light of the balance of relevant language etc factors, is an important issue in sound Bible study. Beyond, this is a clear case in point of a strategy of psycho-social alienation and isolation that is not healthy. KFkairosfocus
June 8, 2014
June
06
Jun
8
08
2014
03:43 AM
3
03
43
AM
PDT
Hi everyone, I'm very late to this discussion, but I'd just like to make a couple of very quick comments. First, I don't personally think it matters whether Jesus was crucified on a stake or on a T-shaped cross. Second, while I think the evidence presented to date heavily favors the traditional view that it was a cross, I don't think it's conclusive. Barb has raised a few good points in her spirited defense of the JW position, and I certainly wouldn't bet all my money on the proposition that Jesus was crucified on a cross. Third, I think it's a little misleading of Barb to say that some Christians worship the cross of Christ. The cross is a piece of wood, but like any created thing, it can be hallowed by God if God so chooses. Christians who venerate the Cross do not ascribe to it any magic powers. Finally, regarding the claim that veneration of the Cross did not begin until the fourth century A.D., I'd like to quote this passage from Wikipedia at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_cross#Early_Christian :
During the first two centuries of Christianity, the cross may have been rare in Christian iconography, as it depicts a purposely painful and gruesome method of public execution and Christians were reluctant to use it.[1] A symbol similar to the cross, the staurogram, was used to abbreviate the Greek word for cross in very early New Testament manuscripts such as P66, P45 and P75, almost like a nomina sacra.[5] The extensive adoption of the cross as Christian iconographic symbol arose from the 4th century.[6] However, the cross symbol was already associated with Christians in the 2nd century, as is indicated in the anti-Christian arguments cited in the Octavius[7] of Minucius Felix, chapters IX and XXIX, written at the end of that century or the beginning of the next,[8] and by the fact that by the early 3rd century the cross had become so closely associated with Christ that Clement of Alexandria, who died between 211 and 216, could without fear of ambiguity use the phrase ?? ???????? ??????? (the Lord's sign) to mean the cross, when he repeated the idea, current as early as the apocryphal Epistle of Barnabas, that the number 318 (in Greek numerals, ???) in Genesis 14:14 was interpreted as a foreshadowing (a "type") of the cross (T, an upright with crossbar, standing for 300) and of Jesus (??, the first two letter of his name ??????, standing for 18),[9] and his contemporary Tertullian could designate the body of Christian believers as crucis religiosi, i.e. "devotees of the Cross".[10] In his book De Corona, written in 204, Tertullian tells how it was already a tradition for Christians to trace repeatedly on their foreheads the sign of the cross.[11] It is important to note that the crucifix, that is a cross upon which an image of Christ is present, is not known to have been used until the 6th century AD.[12] The Jewish Encyclopedia says:[13]
The cross as a Christian symbol or "seal" came into use at least as early as the second century (see "Apost. Const." iii. 17; Epistle of Barnabas, xi.-xii.; Justin, "Apologia," i. 55-60; "Dial. cum Tryph." 85-97); and the marking of a cross upon the forehead and the chest was regarded as a talisman against the powers of demons (Tertullian, "De Corona," iii.; Cyprian, "Testimonies," xi. 21–22; Lactantius, "Divinæ Institutiones," iv. 27, and elsewhere). Accordingly the Christian Fathers had to defend themselves, as early as the second century, against the charge of being worshipers of the cross, as may be learned from Tertullian, "Apologia," xii., xvii., and Minucius Felix, "Octavius," xxix. Christians used to swear by the power of the cross.
The divinity of Christ is a substantive issue. The shape of the cross? Not so much. I just hope that we can all agree to disagree, while respecting each other's sincerity. That's all I wanted to say.vjtorley
June 8, 2014
June
06
Jun
8
08
2014
12:39 AM
12
12
39
AM
PDT
Barb (The Companion Bible):
1. The Companion Bible, published by the Oxford University Press. On page 186 in the “Appendixes” it says: “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.
But we're talking about first century koine greek, not the greek classics.
Here is a list of what I’ve posted that neither you nor KF have even mentioned:
False. A lie. The Companion Bible is aka "The Bullinger Bible." kf clearly addressed Bullinger's positon. But let's to what extent Bullinger supports the false doctrines of the JWs: Bullinger:
As this latter word xulon is used for the former stauros, it shows us that the meaning of each is exactly the same.
Hogwash. Bullinger:
Matthew's was the second, substituted for the first, in consequence of the arguments which took place, and was set up "over His head" after the garments had been divided, and before the revilings.
Bullinger:
then and there "crucified Him and the malefactors, one on the right hand and the other on the left" (verse 33).
Bullinger:
"THEN" were there two robbers crucified with Him, one on the right hand and the other on the left" (Matthew 27:38. Mark 15:27).
crossesMung
June 7, 2014
June
06
Jun
7
07
2014
10:05 PM
10
10
05
PM
PDT
Barb (was Christ impaled?):
25. The woodcut illustration by Lipsius, showing clearly that the crux simplex (Latin, simple upright stake), was one method used by Romans to punish criminals.
Do JW's believe that Jesus was impaled on a single upright stake, as shown by Lipsius? There were numerous woodcuts. To which one are you referring?
"'Cross' is only a later meaning of crux. A single stake for impalement of a criminal was called in Latin crux simplex. One such instrument of torture is illustrated by Justus Lipsius (1547-1606) in his book De cruce libri tres, Antwerp, 1629, p. 19, which we here present. ... Crux simplex illustrated."
So in 1936 Rutherford wrote that Christ was hung on a tree, but now JW's teach that Jesus was impaled? Yet more "new light"? New light from whom? Based upon what?
"Such a single stake for impalement of a criminal was called crux simplex, and the method of nailing him to such an instrument of torture is illustrated by the Roman Catholic scholar, Justus Lipsius, of the 16th century. We present herewith a photographic copy of his illustration on page 647, column 2, of his book De Cruce Liber Primus. This is the manner in which Jesus was impaled." ("New World translation of the Christian Greek Scriptures," [1950], Watchtower Bible & Tract Society of New York: Brooklyn NY, Second edition, 1951, p.769).
Barb, did Justus Lipsius ever write that Jesus Christ was impaled on a crux simplex? Barb, did Justus Lipsius ever create an illustration that showed Jesus Christ was impaled on a crux simplex?Mung
June 7, 2014
June
06
Jun
7
07
2014
08:34 PM
8
08
34
PM
PDT
Judge Rutherford, founder of the Jehovah's Witnesses, decreed in 1936 that Jesus Christ was not crucified on a cross, but on a tree. Barb, which of your sources did Rutherford cite in coming to his conclusion? Or was Rutherford himself a Biblical scholar, or a Greek scholar, or an expert in Romans methods of crucifixion in the first century?Mung
June 7, 2014
June
06
Jun
7
07
2014
07:58 PM
7
07
58
PM
PDT
Barb:
25. The woodcut illustration by Lipsius, showing clearly that the crux simplex (Latin, simple upright stake), was one method used by Romans to punish criminals.
And the other methods of crucifixion were? No one here has ever denied the crux simplex. What other forms of crucifixion does Lipsius show? You have at least implicitly denied that the Romans ever used anything but the crux simplex. Your own sources prove you wrong.Mung
June 7, 2014
June
06
Jun
7
07
2014
07:47 PM
7
07
47
PM
PDT
The accounts given of the crucifixion of our Lord are in entire agreement with the customs and practices of the Roman in such cases. - Easton's Bible Dictionary
Romans. Not classical Greeks.
The forms in which the cross is represented are these: 1. The crux simplex (I), a "single piece without transom." 2. The crux decussata (X), or St. Andrew's cross. 3. The crux commissa (T), or St. Anthony's cross. 4. The crux immissa (t), or Latin cross, which was the kind of cross on which our Saviour died. - Easton's Bible Dictionary
Mung
June 6, 2014
June
06
Jun
6
06
2014
09:16 PM
9
09
16
PM
PDT
Further on Barb's insistence that in Classical Greek, and therefore in Koine Greek, stauros means only an upright stake, pale, pile or pole.
The earliest mode of crucifixion seems to have been by impalation, the transfixion of the body lengthwise and crosswise by sharpened stakes, a mode of death-punishment still well known among the Mongol race. - International Standard Bible Encyclopedia
Lengthwise and crosswise by sharpened stakes. Hence, a cross.Mung
June 6, 2014
June
06
Jun
6
06
2014
04:45 PM
4
04
45
PM
PDT
Barb:
Because the meaning [of stauros] in classical and Koine Greek was the same, as pointed out above. The meaning did not change until much later.
This is simply false. Even the JW's own New World Translation acknowledges that it is false. They translate stauros as "torture stake," a meaning that is completely absent from the Classical Greek. JW publication:
The inspired writers of the Christian Greek scriptures wrote in the common (koine) Greek and used the word stauros to mean the same as in the classical Greek, namely, a stake or pole...There is no proof to the contrary.”
JW publication:
Stauros in both classical and koine Greek...means only an upright stake, pale, pile or pole.
No Biblical evidence even intimates that Jesus died on a "torture stake." This is yet another example of how JW's want to have it both (contradictory) ways. The word stauros, they argue, never had any meaning at the time of Christ other than what it had in Classical Greek. Except when it doesn't, as in their insistence as translating stauros as "torture stake." Which of their sources claim that in Classical Greek stauros meant simply, a torture stake? None?Mung
June 5, 2014
June
06
Jun
5
05
2014
06:05 PM
6
06
05
PM
PDT
Barb, is your professed desire for honest debate just a sham?Mung
June 5, 2014
June
06
Jun
5
05
2014
05:21 PM
5
05
21
PM
PDT
PS: Since you have directed a question on lying to me, I cite from a former excellent summary at Wiki:
To lie is to state something with disregard to the truth with the intention that people will accept the statement as truth . . . . even a true statement can be used to deceive. In this situation, it is the intent of being overall untruthful rather than the truthfulness of any individual statement that is considered the lie . . . . One can state part of the truth out of context, knowing that without complete information, it gives a false impression. Likewise, one can actually state accurate facts, yet deceive with them . . . . One lies by omission when omitting an important fact, deliberately leaving another person with a misconception. Lying by omission includes failures to correct pre-existing misconceptions. Also known as a continuing misrepresentation . . . . A misleading statement is one where there is no outright lie, but still retains the purpose of getting someone to believe in an untruth . . .
kairosfocus
June 4, 2014
June
06
Jun
4
04
2014
01:52 PM
1
01
52
PM
PDT
1 2 3 8

Leave a Reply