Talk:Jehovah's Witnesses view of Jesus' death
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is part of WikiProject Jehovah's Witnesses, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Jehovah's Witnesses. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. | |
| Start | This article has been rated as Start-Class on the Project's quality scale. (If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.) |
|
 |
This article was nominated for deletion on 1/12/2006. The result of the discussion was keep. |
[edit] Unsatisfactory references
I believe the quoted references are not satisfactory. First they are from anti-witness source which straight away introduce NPOV. The reference basically quote witness theology regarding the cross and then rebuffs it. If these sources are to be used they should be used as a criticism of these beliefs not to support them!! Lunacy!
Ideally a watchtower reference is needed for text defining beliefs. Jamie 17:05, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
- yes, better references is needed, but it is not OR, i can know it after having many JW proudly asserting this view to me. --Striver 23:23, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
- Sounds like your modivation for this article is your biased interactions with your enemies. This is an Encyclopedia and the wrong form for your pride bashing. GabrielVelasquez (talk) 07:17, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Nom for deletion
This article is unnecessary. It only makes one point (i.e., that Jesus was supposedly crucified on a stake), which is already included in the articles Jehovah's Witnesses, Doctrines of Jehovah's Witnesses and Controversies regarding Jehovah's Witnesses. BenC7 12:03, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
this article is unbalanced. it is very heavy against JW belief even though the title suggests it will explain JW beliefs it does not. I will attempt to repair.
[edit] Needs references : Josephus reported seeing hundreds of victims that were crucified simultaneously
Any proof of that ?
The author should quote Josephus to confirm what he writes. Otherwise that sentence should be removed.
What I found on my part, in the accounts of "crucifixion" by Josephus is that : "But the best men, and those of the noblest souls, did not regard him, but did pay a greater respect to the customs of their country than concern as to the punishment which he threatened to the disobedient; on which account they every day underwent great miseries and bitter torments; for they were whipped with rods, and their bodies were torn to pieces, and were crucified, while they were still alive, and breathed. " (Book 12, Chapter 5, Paragraph 4 or Book 12, 255)
But the word used here by Josephus for "crucified" is, guess what, "anestaurômenôn" which contains the word "stauros" of course. And as the article says, the word "stauros" basically means "a pole".
Look at Jewish antiquities in greek, searche for the word "anestaurômenôn", the online lexicon assiocated gives as definition for this word : "to impale".
--Bartol78 23:30, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
- Thank you for exposing the deception; quoting Jews to support anti-JW beliefs seems very biased indeed. This writer is using the word crucified at every opportunity instead of impale to insinuate their point of view is the only correct view. GabrielVelasquez (talk) 06:20, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Jehovah's Witnesses don't lie, other so-called Christians do (Ho Theon/theos - John 1:1)
It strikes me that everyone who voted on deletion for this long ago did so because they didn't care about the subject and on the other hand the people who chose to keep it have very anti-Jehovah's-Witnesses biases in their comments, just as the article itself is written. Jehovah's witnesses don't care what you write about them unless it is outright slander or libel. So the third catagory was of course missing; there were no Jehovah's witnesses who were in favor of keeping this article to have thier view considered sans the bias of fanatically anti-Jehovah's-Witness. As it stands, without the appropriate citations or references it is nothing more than anti-Jehovah's-Witness propaganda. Case in point, the reference to the description of a cross by a Jewish historian. It is moot as the it is the Latin Crux that is being considered there not the Greek Stauros, which is the real issue. Greek Stauros means Stake: what more need be said, unless you call Bible writers liers. I am neither JW or Christian, but I know deception when I see it. Once it is admitted what the original greek says, then it doesn't matter what the (fraudulent) Latin translations say about it. And that's what makes this article biased and useless, clearly written by anti-JWs. GabrielVelasquez (talk) 06:59, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
[edit] RfC: Is this article and vote not lacking in a bias and sockpuppet check?
Is this article and vote not lacking in a bias and sockpuppet check?
GabrielVelasquez (talk) 07:08, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
[edit] one Watchtower magazine is not enough!
I studied with these people and I know you would be lucky and glad to have them writing for this Encyclopedia.
I am not a Christian nor a JW (no religious bias), but I know for a fact how thorough their referencing and verification of fact is.
As they publish their own referenced encyclopedia and publish the Watchtower magazine on a bi-monthly basis,
one Wachtower magazine issue as a reference here is a joke, and obvious evidence of bias here.
GabrielVelasquez (talk) 07:40, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
[edit] bias evidence
Notice that the box has a link to the islamic view of Jesus, but there is a non-link right under it for "Jehovah's Witnesses" which is tantamount to an admission of a block on Jehovah's Witnesses.
GabrielVelasquez (talk) 08:13, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
