The cross - Just a carpenters tool?

Originally posted by Suzianne
He doesn't know the NT. He knows the JW version of the NT, with all its "adding unto" and "taking away" warned about in Revelation 22.

yeah right, you are still stuck to a translation of a translation, translated in the middle ages from a handful of Greek manuscripts, here is news for you missy, the New world translation is the most accurate English translation on the planet, primarily because we have stuck to the Greek text, independently verified.

Originally posted by VoidSpirit
i'm trying to find the relevance of your question. the bible doesn't say jesus was crucified, it says jesus was staked. the stake could be an 'X' , it could be a 'T' ,it could be a 'I' beam or a tree, even a wall.

so what is the relevance of asking the meaning of a latin and/or english word that does not appear in the bible?

Indeed it does, the correct term is impaled, another point we agree upon, at this rate we could be friends.

Originally posted by VoidSpirit
i'm trying to find the relevance of your question. the bible doesn't say jesus was crucified, it says jesus was staked. the stake could be an 'X' , it could be a 'T' ,it could be a 'I' beam or a tree, even a wall.

so what is the relevance of asking the meaning of a latin and/or english word that does not appear in the bible?

Nice.

Atheists now use the JW arguments. Not sure if that says more about the atheists or more about JWs.

You want relevance?

In twhitehead's post, he also tried to use the JW arguments. The problem is that he also used the word 'crucify' or its forms at least as often as he used the Greek words.

He used the word Crucify, I use it, you use it, even robbie uses it when he tries to explain that "IT WAS A STAKE, MORON". That is the relevance. The conversation we're having unavoidably uses the word. I'm merely pointing out that you cannot have a "crucifixion" without a "crux".

BTW, those who use the argument that "X" is "not in the Bible", are usually those whose Lord is the Bible. Not a usual argument from an atheist. I also did not know you were an expert in Greek, to the point of knowing exactly what Greek words are in the original text. I don't often give advice to atheists, but I think an exception could be made here: JW arguments are not usually the best arguments. You'd do better to find another resource for your "facts".

Originally posted by Suzianne
Nice.

Atheists now use the JW arguments. Not sure if that says more about the atheists or more about JWs.

You want relevance?

In twhitehead's post, he also tried to use the JW arguments. The problem is that he also used the word 'crucify' or its forms at least as often as he used the Greek words.

He used the word Crucify, I use it, you use it, ...[text shortened]... e best arguments. You'd do better to find another resource for your "facts".

EPIC FAIL!

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
yeah right, you are still stuck to a translation of a translation, translated in the middle ages from a handful of Greek manuscripts, here is news for you missy, the New world translation is the most accurate English translation on the planet, primarily because we have stuck to the Greek text, independently verified.

Yeah, you keep telling yourself that, right up to the moment when your Maker wants you to explain what your religion doesn't understand about Revelation 22.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
EPIC FAIL!

It's okay, you should have plenty of time between now and then to apologize for getting it wrong. It's still not too late to let go of the arrogance and learn to actually have respect for Christ's commandments.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
Indeed it does, the correct term is impaled, another point we agree upon, at this rate we could be friends.

So I assume that now you'll stop using the word 'crucifixion' and start using the word 'impalement' whenever you would have before used the word 'crucifixion'?
I mean, you wouldn't want to be guilty of 'EPIC FAIL', now would you?

Good luck in getting people to understand just what you're going on about.

Originally posted by Suzianne
It's okay, you should have plenty of time between now and then to apologize for getting it wrong. It's still not too late to let go of the arrogance and learn to actually have respect for Christ's commandments.

I apologise when i am sorry not when i have the sacred text to back up every saying.
Its not my fault you are unaware of or ignoring the underlying text and the nuances of
meaning, is it, why should i apologise for your lack of understanding?

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
Indeed it does, the correct term is impaled, another point we agree upon, at this rate we could be friends.

Sorry, but I have to stop you right here.

Even if Christ was nailed to a stake instead of a cross, he still would have been nailed to it. Or do you really, really think that the Romans actually impaled their victims, like Vlad the Impaler, and then were so stupid that they called it a crucifixion, even though there was (supposedly) no cross involved?

Yeah, go on... "just the facts, ma'am", indeed.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
I apologise when i am sorry not when i have the sacred text to back up every saying.
Its not my fault you are unaware of or ignoring the underlying text and the nuances of
meaning, is it, why should i apologise for your lack of understanding?

No, as I said, the apology should be to your Maker for mangling His text.

Originally posted by Suzianne
Yeah, you keep telling yourself that, right up to the moment when your Maker wants you to explain what your religion doesn't understand about Revelation 22.

Inspiring! 😛

Originally posted by Suzianne
No, as I said, the apology should be to your Maker for mangling His text.

mangling his text??? my dear, we have produced the most accurate and sublime
translation on the planet, why would God be displeased with that, what are you going to
tell him when he asks why your translators have removed the divine name from their
translations where it occurs over 7,000 times, in whole or in part? its gonna be roasty
toasty for you.

Originally posted by Suzianne
Sorry, but I have to stop you right here.

Even if Christ was nailed to a stake instead of a cross, he still would have been nailed to it. Or do you really, really think that the Romans actually impaled their victims, like Vlad the Impaler, and then were so stupid that they called it a crucifixion, even though there was (supposedly) no cross involved?

Yeah, go on... "just the facts, ma'am", indeed.

the term comes from an accurate rendering of the Greek text, as has been pointed out
to you, not only from me, but others, sure you can ignore it, flick your petted lip, but it
wont go away.

here it is again,

Ancient Greek has two verbs for crucify: ana-stauro, from stauros, "stake", and
apo-tumpanizo "crucify on a plank." [4] together with anaskolopizo ; "impale"

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
the term comes from an accurate rendering of the Greek text, as has been pointed out
to you, not only from me, but others, sure you can ignore it, flick your petted lip, but it
wont go away.

here it is again,

Ancient Greek has two verbs for crucify: ana-stauro, from stauros, "stake", and
apo-tumpanizo "crucify on a plank." [4] together with anaskolopizo ; "impale"

You could print out the entire Greek dictionary in your postings and it would have no relevance without knowing the actual Greek words used in the original manuscripts. I am charging that the JW organization makes their claims and then chooses word forms and meanings thereof to fit their doctrines. There are many translators who disagree with the translators who were hand-picked for their jobs on the NWT by the JW authorities based on their opinions of archaic Greek word forms and other details which "prove" their case.

I'm pretty sure that if I was offered obscene amounts of money, that I could certainly provide a translation that said anything those offering the money wanted it to say. Umm, no, on second thought *I* couldn't. I have respect for Revelation 22. But *they* could.

One wonders why the NWT translators agreed with most other translators on the vast part of the NT except for those parts which highlight the differences in JW doctrine from traditional Christianity. After all, the JW organization used the KJV for years and years and it was certainly good enough then. Yes, I understand you can pull in more people if you offer something "different" than the mainstream, but come on. I mean really. Is it really worth getting the plagues visited upon you or getting written out of the Book of Life?

robbie, you can believe whatever you want. srsly. Whatever it is, is your choice, though.

Originally posted by Suzianne
In twhitehead's post, he also tried to use the JW arguments.

No, I did not. You asked for the meaning of 'crux' so I looked it up on Wikipedia and quoted what I found.

I'm merely pointing out that you cannot have a "crucifixion" without a "crux".
The same Wikipedia page also says:

The English term crucifix derives from the Latin crucifixus or cruci fixus, past participle passive of crucifigere or cruci figere, meaning "to crucify" or "to fix to a cross"

So crucifixion does not in fact come from 'crux' at all.

So, you have contradicted both my quotes from Wikipedia. Must we just take your word for it, or do you have any references to back up your claims?

Edit: Wikipedia got it from here:
http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=crucify