The Cross

I-CH-TH-U-S

I know there has probably been MANY discussions on this and ive been given answers with some confusing statements from JW's as well as Proffessors and i just want it SIMPLIFIED (if that is possible), i want to know if it is possible to prove the crucifixion was on a cross (in simple terms)

so far my own personal research which involves the biblical aspect combined with the scientific area has led me to believe the cross. my research:

John 20:25 -So the other disciples told him, "We have seen the Lord!"
But he said to them, "Unless I see the nail marks in his hands and put my finger where the nails were, and put my hand into his side, I will not believe it."

multiple nails to me infers that his arms were out and not above his head, doesnt make sense to use two nails when nailing his hands above him when only one will do

According to the research done by Frederick T. Zugibe..." Jesus did not die of asphyxiation, but rather from shock and trauma. Additionally, an impaled man with arms stretched straight over his head would suffocate in minutes, whereas a man with hands outstretched to the side at an angle of 60 70 degrees (as on a cross) could live for hours without suffocating.

Luke 23:44 It was now about the sixth hour, and darkness came over the whole land until the ninth hour

three hours he was on the "cross" so according to scientific research in relation to the bible, its not possible for Jesus to be on a steak.

I want to know if there is any historical data (documents, archeological finds, etc) pointing to death on a cross or death by steak.

Thanks for the help

Narkissos

Welcome ICHTHUS,

More than you want to know in Leolaia's thread: http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/10/92381/1.ashx

Narkissos

Oh, and I don't resist:

three hours he was on the "cross" so according to scientific research in relation to the bible, its not possible for Jesus to be on a steak.

He would have been overdone indeed.

inquirer

Putting aside the scientific analysis for a moment. John 20:25 doesn't prove it's a cross or stake! The nails would have obviously went in his feet as well. Or they would have had "supporting nails," just to make sure he would stand upright on the stake properly -- maybe they had a problem with erecting Jesus' stake!

Kristina

"Or they would have had "supporting nails," just to make sure he would stand upright on the stake properly -- maybe they had a problem with erecting Jesus' stake!" But the Bible doesn't say, or even imply they had any unusual difficulty in erecting Jesus. Given the documentation and detail given for the crucifixion, one would imagine the Bible would have mentioned this in one of the four gospels. Also, if He wasn't on a cross, why does the rest of the New Testament say cross? Surely the disciples would not have tolerated any inaccuracy regarding Him. The greek word in the New Testament is "stauros" which is "a stake or post (as set upright), that is, (specifically) a pole or cross (as an instrument of capital punishment)" Therefore, there is no way to say that it was a pole rather than a cross, and the fact that the Bible says nails rather than nail, and does not mention that the Romans had difficulty in erecting Jesus, it would make more sense that He hung from a cross rather than a stake. And since they had been doing this for quite some time, they obviously had some practice in the matter so I doubt they would have suddenly had difficulty with Jesus especially since He didn't resist them.

gumby

an impaled man with arms stretched straight over his head would suffocate in minutes

The bible says pilate hung a sign ABOVE his head....not his hands. Had his arms and hands been over his head, a sign would have had to hung above of his hands.....NOT his head.

Gumby

ozziepost

Had his arms and hands been over his head, a sign would have had to hung above of his hands.....NOT his head.

I'd like to see what JW apologists make of that!

gumby

I'd like to see what JW apologists make of that!

Well.....Scholar can't come out and play. His brain has been wired to ONLY discuss bible chronology and the year Jesus arrived in his kingdom. He might as well discuss it though since his chronolgy posts deal with non salvation issues, this would simply be another.

Gumby

TheListener

Read Leo's thread (link posted by earlier poster). It's comprehensive, convincing and full of detail.

stevenyc

Here is another link worth concideration.

http://www.religiousstudies.uncc.edu/jdtabor/crucifixion.html

kristina and I-CH-TH-U-S, welcome.

steve

The Cross

Share this