Well, certainly not in the way you wrote it, but some of it comes close.
I mean no offense, but how could you know that? Honestly, i’m more prepared to take BigT’s word for it, given that he at least knows his Aunt. Why should I be more convinced by you than he?
Your language choice seems to indicate that you are being deliberately provocative. As I have no desire to argue (or even really debate, as I mostly stay out of GD) this will likely be my last correspondence with you on this subject.
You made an “always” statement. I provided a (admittedly anecdotal) counterexample. Since believing my statement would make your statement false, I conclude that you do not believe me. That is your prerogative. I hope you do not believe I made a deliberately false statement, as that would be tantamount to calling me a liar.
Also, I’m not quite sure how I’m supposed to “show you” that the apostles celebrated Easter. The easiest way is to point out that they did get quite celebratory in the Bible the day Jesus was resurrected, although no mention of making it an annual celebration is given. The use of the word Easter may have been poor choice on my part, as there seems to be contention that what the disciples celebrated should not be called Easter and was not originally celebrated on a Sunday, but on the day after Passover. As I consider Easter to merely mean the annual celebration of the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ, that is the term I used.
I see no reason to continue arguing about holidays and Christians, as Romans 14 makes all of that irrelevant. AS I pointed out before, the only reason I even brought it up was to help explain why someone might think that Jehovah’s Witnesses were not Christians. Their practice Abstaining from things almost universally regarded as Christian might easily confuse an outsider.
Finally, if you really want to debate this subject or anything else about Jehovah’s Witnesses, I would suggest opening a topic in GD. (As I already mentioned, I won’t participate, though.) As it is, we have gotten so far off topic it isn’t even funny.
Jehovah’s Witnesses believe that Jesus is God’s first creation, not God himself. They therefore do not accept the Trinity. In this sense, they do not self-identify as “Christian,” and in fact do not accept fellowship with any other church. However, they do accept the Bible as scripture, and Jesus as the legitimate ruler of the world, and they believe that an elect of 144,000 shall be saved (as described in the Revelation somewhere), and all of them will be JWs. In that sense, they self-identify as the only Christians.
In addition to the Bible, they accept as authoritative (and apparently give greater weight in day-to-day thought) various revelations, as well as the guidance of the Holy Spirit. It is probably one of these revelations that is the source of their certainty that Jesus was executed on a stake, not a cross.
The other business about what JWs believe is irrelevant to this thread, but I’ll say this: to say “Jehovah’s Witnesses … aren’t even (by their own estimation) Christians” is misleading. The closest one can correctly come is to say they’re not Christians as most Christians see it.
If you believe God sent his son down to be persecuted and to die, it is his fault. The Romans were just instruments he used to achieve his ends. God killed Jesus for some reason or plan he had. His fault.
Jehovahs Witnesses are Christians for starters as they beleive in Jesus.
This thread has nothing to do with Jehovahs Witnesses.
I dispute the fact that it was common for people of that time to die on a cross.
I beleive that he was killed on a stake. From the research Ive done, not only have I found that killing someone on a stake was the common practice of the day, but that it was also “PHYSICALLY” impossible for Jesus to have died in the manner he had if he had been on a cross.
As far as the Jews pressuring the Romans to kill Jesus, not all of the Jews of that time wanted Jesus dead. Some of the Jews were Christians themselves.
Anyone that feels the need to persecute the Jews because of any involvement they had with Jesus death is ignorant.
Wow your assuming a whole lot here. Because Jehovahs Witnesses dont beleive in the trinity makes them not christian?
I thought you guys were intelligent? Do I need to quote a definition of the word Christian?
And JW’s came by way of there explanation of Jesus dying on a cross by means of holy spirit? A scholar and a comedian. Who would of thought?
Ha! We actually have a thread in Great Debates debating the definition of the word “Christian”. I’ve come away with the understanding that a Christian is someone who calls him/herself a Christian.
Care to share any of this research with us? As in sources, citations, etc.?
Muslims believe in Jesus. He is considered one of the great prophets. Are Muslims Christians?
I’ll second the request for your research. Josephus and Seneca both describe multiple configurations, from the simple stake to X- and Y-shapes. Certainly the crux simplex was used commonly. But there’s plenty to suggest that numerous other configurations were widely used. I’m thinking that your belief that Josh was killed on a stake is just that–a belief. But I’d like to see the evidence that led you to that belief.
More of interest to me, however, is your assertion that Josh wouldn’t have died “in the manner he had” on a cross. Crucifixion on an upright, with a transom, or in an X- or Y-shape will all certainly result in death. Some more quickly than others, granted, but circumstances vary. As the purpose to crucifixion was not merely to kill but to humiliate (and make an example of), it seems quite reasonable to me that faster or slower methods might be in order depending on the circumstances.
So what on earth do you mean? Obviously, Josh would have died on a cross. He would have died on a stake, too. What “manner” are you talking about?
.
MODERATOR INTERJECTS:
Whoa, folks. This thread is about “who killed Jesus.”
Any discussion of Jehovah’s Witnesses is irrelevant to this thread (unless you want to argue that they killed Jesus.) Please, if you want to start a discussion of Jehovah’s Witnesses, go the Great Debates forum and start a thread on whether Jehovah’s Witnesses are “Christian.”
OK, now I’m posting as a poster, not as moderator.
Contrapuntal: please, try reading the Staff Report that this thread is supposedly in discussion about. There was no “Supreme Leader of the Jews” but there was the high priest and his political faction/cronies. So far as I am aware, no one else argues that Jesus was killed by any army, let alone a Jewish one. Similarly, he was tried, convicted, sentenced and executed by the ROMAN courts and soi-disant legal system, not the Jewish one.
If the Iraq example must come up, when future generations asked about “Who invaded Iraq?” I hope that the answer will be that it was George W. Bush who masterminded the invasion and bears responsibility. So, with Jesus, the High Priest and his cronies, and Pilate and his political position, bear responsibility. The notion of holding an entire nation guilty for the crimes of a few individuals is distasteful to most of us.
It was the raindog who compared the Jews to “the Japanese” and “the federal government”, not me.
The divinity of Christ is the central dogma of Christianity for the vast majority of Christians. Thus, JW’s don’t identify with the vast majority of Christians, and vice versa. That is all I said, as evidenced by the words “in that sense”; any other interpretation of what I said is your assumption, not mine.
A better question to have asked would be: Who invented Jesus?