In Defense of

The New World Translation
of the
Holy Scriptures

A BIBLE TRANSLATION PRODUCED BY JEHOVAH'S WITNESSES

 

Home

Most Recent Additions/Updates

Main Index

NWT Online

NWT Advantages

NWT Biased?

Dangerous Book?

Objections

Recommended Books

Benjamin Kedar and the NWT

"Truth in Translation: Accuracy and Bias in English Translations of the New Testament"
by
Jason Beduhn

John 1

"Does the N.T. call Jesus "God""

"Jesus as "theos.""

John 8.58

Cross or Stake?

Luke 23:43

Hebrews 1:8

Buchanan and Hebrews 1

Romans 9:5

Colossians 1:15 "all other things"?

Coming or Presence?

New World Translation Renderings.

On the form of the Divine Name 'Jehovah'.

Philippians 2:6

Acts 20:28 "...the blood of his own [Son]"

Revelation 3:14 "...the beginning of the creation by God."

Proskyneo: Always "worship"?

Hebrew 1:6
"proskyneo"-
'worship or obeisance'
and
does it matter?

Zechariah 12:10

John 17:3 "This means everlasting life...."

Pages of
interest

(Including: "Response to Lynn Lundquist's Criticisms
."
Anthony Byatt

Matthew 27:50-"pneuma," "yielded up his spirit."

Colossians 2:9 "divine nature."

Revelation 5:10

Minor Criticisms Answered.

1 John 5:20.
Who is the "only true God."?'

The 'Johannine
Comma'.-1 John 5:7

The Trinity Doctrine- Biblically Founded?

An Example of one Web critic of the NWT !

Trinity 'Proof Texts'
(as provided for us on a site that is pro-Trinity and anti-JW/NWT),refuted.

'Babylon' rebutted

Stafford's
"'ANI HU
and the
LXX of Isaiah"

John L. McKenzie
and the
'Trinity Brochure'

J.H.Thayer
and the
'Trinity Brochure'

H. Chadwick and the 'Trinity Brochure'

Translation Comparisons.
By the
Bible Museum and Biblical Research Foundation

Items for sale

 

Parsons The Non- Christian Cross

CHAPTER V.

ORIGIN OF THE PRE-CHRISTIAN CROSS.

HAVING in the foregoing chapters demonstrated that it is possible, if not indeed probable, that the instrument of execution to which Jesus was affixed was otherivise than cross-shaped ; and having also shown that it was not mainly, if indeed even partially, that the early Christians signified that instrument by the sign of the cross; it is now desirable that, as a preliminary to an enquiring into the circumstances under which the cross became the symbol of Christianity, we should enquire into the origin of the Pre-Christian cross.
That there was a pre-Christian cross, and that it was, like ours, a Symbol of Life, is generally admitted.
The authorities upon such subjects, however, unfortunately differ as to the reason why the Cross came to be selected by the ancients as the Symbol of Life. And not one of their suggestions seems to go to the root of the matter.
Let us therefore in thought go back tens of thousands of years, and conceive the genus Homo as a race gradually awakening to reason but as yet unfettered by inherited traditions and creeds. Let us imagine Man ere he began to make gods in his own image. Let us remember that what would strike him as the greatest of all marvels would of necessity be Life itself, and that far and away the next greatest marvel must have been the glorious Sun ; the obvious source of earth life, and Lord of the Hosts of Heaven.
Let us bear in mind, too, that though the Nature Worship of our remote ancestors had other striking features, the facts mentioned would lead to the predominance of the phallic idea, and to its association with Sun-God worship. And as Life, the greatest marvel of all, must have had a symbol allotted to it at a very early date, let us ask ourselves what the untutored mind of Man would be most likely to select as its symbol.
To this question there is, so far as the author can see, but one reasonable answer:-the figure of the cross :-because the figure of the cross is the simplest possible representation of that union of two bodies or two sexes or two powers or two principles, which alone produces life.
For the ancients cannot fail to have perceived that all life more immediately proceeds from the union of two principles ; and the first, readiest, simplest, and most natural symbol of Life, was consequently one straight line superimposed upon another at such an angle that both could seen ; in other words, a cross of some description or other.
It is evidently probable that this was the real reason why the figure of the cross originally came to be adopted as the Symbol of Life. But, course, whatever the original reason, as time rolled on other reasons for the veneration of the Cross were pointed out; nothing being more natural than that primitive Man should, or more certain than that he did, find pleasure in connecting with other objects of his regard than Life itself, that which as the Symbol of Life was pre-eminently a symbol of good omen.
The most notable instance of this is the way in which, or rather the different ways in which, the figure of the cross was connected with the Sun-God.
A good example of the last named fact, is the declaration of the philosophers of ancient Greece that the figure of the cross was the figure of the Second God " or " Universal Soul," the Ratio as well as the Oratio of the All-Father, which they called the Logos of God; a term badly translatcd in our versions of the Gospel of St. John as the Word of God, as if it signified the Oratio only.
It was this Logos or "Second God" whom Philo, who was born before the commencement of our era, described as the " Intellectual Sun," and even as God's "First Begotten" and " Beloved " offspring, and the " Light of the World terms afterwards made use of by the writers of our Gospels in describing the Christ, And, as will be shown in a chapter upon the subject, the reason the philosophers, among whom was Plato, crave for declaring the cross to be the figure of the Logos, was that the Sun creates this fig ure by crossing the Equator.
An even better illustration can be Seen in the fact that in days of old almost every civilised race held feasts at the time of the Vernal Equinox, in honour of the Passover or Cross-over of the Sun.
The fact that the ancients were thus at special pains to connect the symbol of Life with the Sun-God, and also, as we know, spoke of him as the "Giver of Life" and the only "Saviour," was doubtless due to their perceiving, not only that life is the result of the union of the two principles distinguished by the titles malc and female, but also that the salvation of life is due to the action of the sun in preserving the body from cold and in producing and ripening for its use the fruits of the earth.
As the Giver of Life, the Sun-God was of course considered to be bisexuals But when the two great lights of heaven, the Sun and the moon, were associated with each other, as was often and naturally the case, the Sun was considered to be more especially a personification of the Male Principle, and the waxing and wanirlg moon, as represented by the Crescent, a personification of the Female Principle. Hence the worship of the God associated with the radiate sun, as of that of the Goddess associated with the crescent moon and called the Sun-God's mother or bride, was phallic in character ; and their connection is repeatedly symbolised upon the relics which have come down to us from antiquity by the sign of the crescent containing within its horns either a disc or what we should consider a star-like object, which latter was almost as favouritc a mode with the ancients of representing the sun as it is with us of representing a star or planet, as will be shown further on.
Returning, however, to the symbol of the cross, as the first and simplest representation of that union of the Male and Female Principles which alone produces what we mortals call life, it is extremely curious that the selection of the figure of the cross in comparatively modern times as the simplest and most natural symbol both of addition and of multiplication, should have led no one to perceive that, being for these very reasons also the simplest and most natural symbol of Life, a probable solution of the mystery surrounding the origin of the pre-Christian cross as a symbol of Life, as it were stared them in the face.
As to the contention of not a few authorities, apparently founded upon the mistaken assumption that the Svaslika was the earliest form of cross to acquire importance as a symbol, that the pre-Christian cross was originally a representation of the wheel-like motion of the sun or a reference to the whcel of the Sun-God's chariot; it need only be remarked that evidence exists to show that the cross was a symbol of Life from a period so early, that it is doubtful if the Sun-God had then been likened to a charioteer, and not certain that either chariots or wheels had been invented. It is true that the Solar Wheel became a recognized symbol of the Sun-God, and that additional veneration was paid to it because the figure of the symbol of Life was from ot's form less discoverable in the spokes allotted to the Solar Wheel ; but it is putting the cart before the horse to suppose that the cross became the symbol of Life because its form was so discoverable.
It only remains to be added that there undoubtedly was a connection, however slight, between the pre-Christian Cross as the Symbol of Life, the Solar Wheel as a symbol of the Sun-God, and the Cross as the symbol of the Christ. And whatever the date at which the cross was first adopted as a Christian symbol, or whatever the reason for that adoption, there is no doubt that, as will be shown further on, our religion was considerably influenced by the facts that the Gaulish soldiers whose victories enabled Constantine to become Sole Emperor venerated the Solar Wheel, or ..., and that their leader, who was anxious to obtain the support of the Christians, allowed a loop to be added to the top of the vertical spoke so that the Christians might be able to interpret the victorious symbol as ....or ....,i.e., XP or XPI, the first two or three letters of the Greek word XPISTOS, Christos, Christ.

(Use back button to return to Stauros page)

NWT Online Home Main Index Most Recent Additions/Updates  NWT Biased? Dangerous Book? Objections Recommended Books Benjamin Kedar and the NWT "Truth in Translation: Accuracy and Bias in English Translations of the New Testament"  John 1 "Does the N.T. call Jesus "God"" "Jesus as "theos."" John 8.58 Cross or Stake? Luke 23:43 Hebrews 1:8 Buchanan and Hebrews 1 Romans 9:5 Colossians 1:15 "all other things"? Coming or Presence? New World Translation Renderings. On the form of the Divine Name 'Jehovah'. Philippians 2:6 Acts 20:28 "...the blood of his own [Son]" Revelation 3:14 "...the beginning of the creation by God." Proskyneo: Always "worship"? Hebrew 1:6 "proskyneo"- 'worship or obeisance' and does it matter? Zechariah 12:10 John 17:3 "This means everlasting life...." Pages of interest Matthew 27:50-"pneuma," "yielded up his spirit."  Colossians 2:9 "divine nature." Revelation 5:10 Minor Criticisms Answered. 1 John 5:20. Who is the "only true God."?' The 'Johannine Comma'.-1 John 5:7 The Trinity Doctrine- Biblically Founded? An Example of one Web critic of the NWT ! Trinity 'Proof Texts' refuted. 'Babylon' rebutted Stafford's "'ANI HU and the LXX of Isaiah" John L. McKenzie and the 'Trinity Brochure' J.H.Thayer and the 'Trinity Brochure' H. Chadwick and the 'Trinity Brochure' Translation Comparisons. Items for sale