Jesus died on a stake or a cross? (page 3)

RWC

For someone who has never been a JW could you please explain why they go to these lengths to say that Jesus was killed on a stake and not a cross? Is it simply the idea that crosses are pagan and they don't want to be associated with them?

SYN

RWC: It's a control thing - if they are different from the world, then it almost seems to 'vindicate' the Governing Body's 'research'. This is then used to prove the case to outsiders, ie. 'worldly' people.

But the instant the GB is ever proved wrong about anything it simply gets swept under the carpet. That is why most younger Dubs today are encouraged not to read very old Watchtowers, and not to read any of the really old books that the WTBTS published. Are you familiar with the farcical practice of "New Light" which the WTBTS seems to introduce to cover their asses every now and then? I suggest you read the archived threads on this board a bit, and do a search for the WTBTS on Google. Your questions will then be answered.

The earlier in the forenoon you take the sun bath, the greater will be the beneficial effect, because you get more of the ultra-violet rays, which are healing. - The Golden Age

MoeJoJoJo

Here's a excerpt from the webpage I mentioned earlier:

< http://members.tripod.com/sosoutreach/phone/crossx.html

"The WT further explores this idea in their 1985 publication "Reasoning from the Scriptures" on pg. 89 where The Imperial Bible-Dictionary is referred to and I Quote: "The Greek word for cross, [stauros], properly signified a stake, an upright pole, or piece of paling, on which anything might be hung, or which might be used in impaling [fencing in] a piece of ground…. Even amongst the Romans the crux (from which our cross is derived) appears to have been originally an upright pole." End of Quote.

Upon reading this explanation from "Reasoning from the Scriptures" one might come to the conclusion that Jesus was in fact executed on an upright pole. But what does the "The Imperial Bible Dictionary" say in-between the WT's ellipses or the "…."? Is it possible that in this quotation, the WT failed to inform us of any pertinent information about Jesus death?

As I speak, I have in front of me the very dictionary quoted in "Reasoning from the Scriptures", that is, "The Imperial Bible Dictionary". It seems that within the ellipses or "….", the WT has indeed neglected to include some crucial information about the "stake" or "upright pole";"

AND HERE'S ANOTHER QUOTE FROM THE SAME ARTICLE

"You see, we can now clearly see that the authors from the WT's book "Reasoning from the Scriptures" have knowingly excluded crucial information essential for you and I to formulate a reasonable conclusion on the means by which Jesus was executed."

WHEN YOU COMPARE THE QUOTE IN THE REASONING BOOK WITH HOW THE IMPERIAL DICTIONARY ACTUALLY READ, YOU WILL SEE THAT THE IMPERIAL BIBLE DICTIONARY WAS COMPLETELY TAKEN OUT OF CONTEXT.

Will Power

Mojo
EXACTLY RIGHT!

This is the reason that I will never give them (wt) the benefit of the doubt in ANYTHING that they print. Their theocratic war stategy is WAY TO BLATANTLY DECEPTIVE.

THEY SAY THAT GOD DOESN'T LIE so R&F naturally think that the WT doesn't lie. Imperfect men sure, fine,
deliberate deception no thanks.

Kenneson

In 1945 two ossuaries (receptacles for bones) were found in the vicinity of Jerusalem. These ossuaries were found in a tomb used before A.D. 50. Graffiti contained the words "Jesous iou" and "Jesous aloth." Also present were four crosses.

The Jewish historian Josephus (37-100?) in his Antiquities of the Jews, 18.3.3 gave a brief description of Jesus and his mission, wherein he writes: "...and when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross..." Notice, he speaks of a cross and not a torture stake. Also, immediately after the time of Christ, several non-Christian groups flourished in loose connection with the church. One of the more successful were known as Gnostics. In the second-century they wrote about Jesus that "He was nailed to a tree; he published the edict of the Father on the cross..." It is clearly seen, then from the earliest times, it was understood that crucifixion took place on a cross and not on a stake as so often maintained by JWs. Nor is the cross an invention of Constantine, for it was already there when he came on the scene.

gumby

NICE, WELL WRITTEN REPLY KENNESON. IT WILL BE NICE TO HAVE YOU HERE.

chezza

Here is a link to an article i was reading about it myself, bearing in mind that it was pagans that crucified jesus and not jw's
http://www.letusreason.org/JW42.htm

ChristianObserver

Hello!

The following question appeared on the Christianity Board of an internet server.

>Did Jesus die impaled on a single stake as the Jehovah Witness affirm or did Jesus die on a cross beam?

The response to which was as follows:

>I would start by being 'picky' ;), and saying that Jesus was not 'impaled' on a 'stauros'. Although the Greek classics refer to people being killed by 'impalement' on pointed objects, the Gospel accounts are not of an 'impalement' on a 'stauros', so I wouldn't choose that word in connection with the death of Jesus (see below). OED definition for 'impale' - 'transfix or pierce with a sharp instrument: his head was impaled on a pike and exhibited for all to see'. The verb 'impale' does not give an accurate description of the event imo. Jesus had nails (plural) in hands/ wrists/ forearms (the Greek allows for any of these) - and also in his feet/ankles/heels which affixed him to the implement of execution - he was not 'impaled' on it.

The Non-Christian Cross by John Denham Parsons is often cited as support for the single stake theory, but the examples from the Iliad and Odyssey cited therein state: 'The stauros used as an instrument of execution was (1)a small pointed pole or stake used for thrusting through the body, so as to pin the latter to the earth, or otherwise render death inevitable; (2)a similar pole or stake fixed in the ground point upwards, upon which the condemned one was forced down till incapable of escaping; (3)a much longer and stouter pole or stake fixed point upwards, upon which the victim, with his hands tied behind him,was lodged in such a way that the point should enter his breast and the weight of the body cause every movement to hasten the end; and (4)a stout unpointed pole or stake set upright in the earth, from which the victim was suspended by a rope round his wrists, which were first tied behind him so that the position might become an agonising one; or to which the doomed one was bound, or, in the case of Jesus, nailed.'

Unfortunately, the first 3 cases cited from the classics as support for the single stake theory ('stauros') by the author do not bear any resemblance to the Gospel accounts at all. The 4th example primarily relates to a rope bound victim with arms behind him suspended from an upright (thus giving an indication of the length of upright required for the average man to be suspended in that way from a beam sunk to a sufficient depth to be stable and the weight implications of such a beam bearing in mind that Jesus was expected to carry this object a distance of 2 miles) which again is not the case according to the Gospel narratives - and the author has to add the words 'or, in the case of Jesus, nailed' which is his own addition without quoted evidence for this form of affixation in the classical literature from which he is drawing his information. Furthermore, the examples are of 3 Greek methods of impalement and a 4th Greek method of 'suspension' by rope, not of Roman methods. If the experts are correct and the Iliad and Odyssey date from the 9th/8th century BC although in 'oral' form, how accurate would be the scholarship which relies on the descriptions of Greek methods of execution from this period to form conclusions about the method of execution of an entirely different civilisation some 800 years later?

Originally the organisation which became the WBTS held to the traditional view of crucifixion and the cross appeared on literature and on the pyramid which marks the plot of ground owned by the society in the Rosemont United Cemetery where Charles T. Russell's grave is to be found. But briefly, it was in the 1930's that Rutherford started to question the traditional teaching that Jesus was put to death on a cross, and by the 1950's, the translation of 'torture stake' appeared in the NWT.

The appendix to the translation stated: 'We refuse to add anything to God's written Word by inserting the pagan cross into the inspired Scriptures, but render stauros and xylon according to the simplest meanings.'

Given that explanation, I would then have problems with the accuracy of the translation which includes 'torture' with 'stake' as I do not consider that this is supported in the Greek and it does not accord with the statement 'simplest meanings'. The inclusion of the word 'torture', for me, places emphasis on the 'physical' aspect of the death of Jesus and draws away from the redemptive and soteriological qualities of the event and the resurrection. The Romans executed Jesus in a humiliating, agonising and public way - they did not merely 'torture' Him - it was a 'torturous' death - but it was, nevertheless, for the purpose of ending life. The inclusion of the word 'torture' also poses problems for me in passages such as Mark 8 v 34 where Jesus talks of taking up our 'stauros'. If we were then to translate 'stauros' at this point consistently within the New Testament, we have 'take up his 'torture' stake' which for me places the emphasis wrongly. My thoughts though!

For me with the knowledge that we have of the Roman method of execution whereby uprights were kept in place in execution sites outside the city walls - but often near highways so that the death was very public; the Gospel accounts that Jesus was required, but failed, to carry His 'stauros' to the execution site - unnecessary if the uprights were already in place unless this 'stauros' was to be affixed to one already in position; the eye witness acounts of the use by the Romans of different shapes of wooden implements on which the victims were bound or nailed; the practice of affixing the outstretched arms of prisoners to a 'patibulum' (or 'furca') which was a piece of wood sometimes hollowed out slightly for the neck (sometimes slightly v-shaped like a yoke, so that the outstretched arms were not always at right angles to the side, but slightly forward - our 'traditional' view of how prisoners were bound as shown in films is likely to be incorrect!); the gospel accounts that Jesus failed to carry his 'stauros' (Gk) 'patibulum' (Latin) and Simon of Cyrene did so; the practicalities of carrying the upright the 2 mile journey - bearing in mind the weight and length of such a beam, making it far more plausible that it was the much lighter cross member which was carried - this accords with the knowledge about the wooden beam placed across the shoulders of prisoners; medical knowledge about the length of time that someone can live when their feet are fixed down and their arms are stretched above their head; the affixation of the 'titulus' carried in front of prisoners en route to the execution site above Jesus' head according to the Gospel accounts - it would have been above His hands if they had been affixed above His head; the use of nails (plural) for Jesus' hands could imply that they were nailed separately (the crucifixion victim from Giza had one nail only through both feet and a nail in each arm); historical knowledge that wood was in short supply in 1st century Palestine; the fact that 'stauros' can still apply to a 'stauros' with another 'stauros' fixed to it - and many other considerations make me favour the traditional view of a cross.

Irenaeus, in 'Traditions of the Elders' in 'Against Heresies' written in about 180 AD: 'Since it was through a tree that we lost the LOGOS in paradise, it was through a tree again that the LOGOS was made manifest to all when he showed in himself the length, the height, the depth and the breadth and, as one of the oldest Christians said, 'He gathered together the two peoples to one God by stretching out both his hands.' which implies not a stretching up of the hands, but a stretching out in order to gather together bearing in mind the view of the 'right hand(side)'/'left hand(side)' and the scriptural references relating to this.

Ireneaus spoke of the cross of Jesus as having five ends as follows: two longitudinal, two latitudinal, and a fifth to support the weight of the victim (Adversus Haereses, II, 24, 4). This fits with knowledge of the cross - the 'sedile' or 'sedulum' being a piece of wood placed so that the victim could 'rest' between raising the body and letting it fall to relieve prssure and from which we gain our expressions of 'sitting/seated on the cross'.

In the Septuagint, 'xylon' is used for fuel, building material and to denote an instrument of torture (shackles) or execution (gallows) but it is also used atypically of its usage in Classical Greek to mean 'tree', and I think that this is relevant when considering the New Testament applications. Jesus is recorded at Luke 23 v 31 (RSV) 'For if they do this when the wood 'xylon' is green, what will happen when it is dry?" Although I think that Jesus is here referring to Himself as the living tree, trees are not usually trunks alone - and the 'living' branches and tree imagery run throughout the New Testament.

It has been argued that the christian cross was a post-Constantinian symbol. There is, however, a graffito on the wall of the imperial 'Paedagogium' which was the school for Roman pages. This has been dated to late 2nd century, early 3rd century, and shows a young man and a man with an asses head fixed on a cross. The graffito reads: 'Alexamenos sebete theon' - 'Alexamenos worships [his] God.' The Roman lawyer Minucius Felix who was a christian refers in his dialogue 'Octavius' to the accusation that christians worshipped an ass-headed god - chapters IX Argument: the Religion of the Christians is Foolish, Inasmuch as They Worship a Crucified Man, and Even the Instrument Itself of His Punishment. They are Said to Worship the Head of an Ass and XXVIII - Thence arises what you say that you hear, that an ass's head is esteemed among us a divine thing. Who is such a fool as to worship this? Who is so much more foolish as to believe that it is an object of worship? Also Tertullian 'Apologia' 16.>

On the question of the height of the cross, we have some information in:
John 19 v 29: Now there was set a vessel full of vinegar: and they filled a spunge with vinegar, and put [it] upon hyssop, and put [it] to his mouth

An average hyssop stalk is about 18" long - this gives an idea of the height that it would have to have been raised presuming an outstretched arm - but we do not know if the one who offered the vinegar stood on anything.

At the end of the day, the implement of execution is not of major importance imo. Jehovah's Witnesses and orthodox Christians would agree that it was made of wood and that there was an upright. This could have been a tree trunk - the reference to 'xylon' has been thought by some to suggest that. If this is the case, and it was a trunk already in situ - the 'stauros' carried to the site would be the cross member.

Hope this helps :o)

ChristianObserver

Sorry - that should have read 18" for the length of the hyssop stalk!

hoo

Wrong focus!!!

The death of Jesus, the only perfect man after Adam, should be the focus, not the tool that killed him. The tool that killed him won't save us. It is his precious life and blood that will help us to gain everlasting life.

Regards,
Hoo of Malaysia

Jesus died on a stake or a cross?

Share this