The Cross

by I-CH-TH-U-S 14 Replies latest watchtower bible

• 

  robhic

  I didn't write this but had it saved for reference. Good info plus some websites:

  http://www.forananswer.org/Top_JW/jwcross.pdf

  QUOTE..........MISQUOTE:

  In its "Reasoning From the Scriptures" book, the Watchtower Society quotes from several sources to support their "torture stake" theory.

  These publications not only seem authoritative, but also seem to support the Society's claims regarding the "torture stake" rather than the traditional cross. However, unbeknownst to many, the Watchtower Society has not been honest in its quotations of its sources.

  For example, one publication that the Society quotes in its "Reasoning..." book on page 89 is The Imperial Bible Dictionary. Below is the Watchtower quotation, with the words that they omitted in RED:
  

  "The Imperial Bible Dictionary acknowledges this, saying: "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. But a modification was introduced as the dominion and usages of Rome extended themselves through Greek-speaking countries. Even amongst the Romans, the crux (from which the word cross is derived) appears to have been originally an upright pole, and always remained the more prominent part. But from the time that it began to be used as an instrument of punishment, a traverse piece of wood was commonly added...about the period of the Gospel Age, crucifixion was usually accomplished by suspending the criminal on a cross piece of wood."

  ===========================================================

  http://www.frugalsites.net/jesus/crucifixion.htm

  (http://www.freeminds.org/doctrine/cross.htm)

  Below are 6 cites taken from 12 in the Bible in which the word crucify (verb: Crucify to kill by affixing to a cross) is specifically used:

  Matthew 27:31

  And after that they had mocked him, they took the robe off from him, and put his own raiment on him, and led him away to crucify him.

  Mark 15:13

  And they cried out again, Crucify him.

  Mark 15:20

  And when they had mocked him, they took off the purple from him, and put his own clothes on him, and led him out to crucify him.

  Mark 15:27

  And with him they crucify two thieves; the one on his right hand, and the other on his left.

  John 19:6

  When the chief priests therefore and officers saw him, they cried out, saying, Crucify him, crucify him. Pilate saith unto them, Take ye him, and crucify him: for I find no fault in him

  To the Hebrews 6:6

  If they shall fall away, to renew them again unto repentance; seeing they crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh, and put him to an open shame.

  Crucifixion:

  Crucify is a verb meaning to kill by crucifixion. Crucifixion is explained below by a scholar and student of Biblical matters and supported by archaeolgical and historical fact:

  Roman crucifixion was a gruesome form of capital punishment. The victim suffered excruciating pain for hours, even days, before the rigors of the cross finally snuffed out his life. In its most common form, the cross consisted of two pieces of wood. The upright, called the stipes, was permanently fixed in the ground (1). The crosspiece, called the patibulum, was carried to the site of execution by the condemned man (2). This task was in itself an ordeal, since the patibulum was a stout beam weighing more than a hundred pounds (3). After the crucifixion, the crosspiece was taken down and removed from the site, perhaps as a precaution against thievery (4). Literary sources suggest that the familiar picture of Jesus' cross is inaccurate. It is likely that the crosspiece rested on the upright, instead of being fastened to it at some distance below the top. That is, the cross of Jesus probably had the shape of a capital "T" (5).

  In 1968, archaeologists discovered the remains of a Jew who had been crucified during the era of Christ (6). It was possible from the skeletal evidence to determine exactly how the man had been fastened to a cross. The new information, debunking many old guesses about the method of crucifixion, left no doubt that this form of punishment was hideously and cruelly efficient. A crude iron spike from five to seven inches long had been driven through each wrist (7). Also, after both feet with heels and toes together had been turned sideways against the cross, a third spike had been driven through a board and then through both heels (8). When the man hung on his cross, the lower part of his body must have been twisted to one side. (Josh McDowell, The Resurrection Factor (San Bernardino, Calif.: Here's Life Publishers, 1981), 45. (http://www.uncc.edu/jdtabor/crucifixion.html)
• 

  jgnat

  I can't resist either.

  not possible for Jesus to be on a steak.

  I'd be all over a well-turned steak. Mmmmmmm.

  I like Leolaia's analysis best, already linked.
• 

  inquirer

  @I-CH-TH-U-S

  Ok, I am sure of this "scientific analysis" but I asked the author of Truth in Translation -- Jason Beduhn on whether it should be "cross" or "stake," and he said "stake," not even torture stake! He should knows Biblical Greek.

  As for someone to die in minutes, you are forgetting that this Jesus who they impaled was no ordinary man! He didn't eat in the wilderness for 40 days, remember? So one would imagine that if he can do that, he can die on the stake for hours too! This, I'd doubt it would be possible, to fast for that long -- that's about 6 weeks -- our longest holiday break for all the school kids in Australia!* (*School kids have seasonal holiday breaks.) Think about the burning Middle Eastern heat, even though it was Jesus' climate -- no ordinary man could do that. So I reject this research done by Frederick T. Zugibe.

  @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.

  It just goes to show how little most people know about Jesus when we don't even on what instrument he died on!!!

  The Bible doesn't discuss a lot of things. We know hardly anything about even Jesus 12 disciples! We don't know much about what he did as a little boy either.

  Also, if He wasn't on a cross, why does the rest of the New Testament say cross?

  "Stauros" primarily means "stake," and so why did the Apostle Paul say he died on a tree in Acts 5:30? Why didn't he just use the same word to discribe it as it does in the other parts of the Bible?

  Why does the gospels have 3 different ways of writing the sign?

  (Matthew 27:37) Also, they posted above his head the charge against him, in writing: "This is Jesus the King of the Jews."

  (Mark 15:26) And the inscription of the charge against him was written above,"The King of the Jews."

  (Luke 23:38) There was also an inscription over him: "This is the king of the Jews."

  (John 19:19) Pilate wrote a title also and put it on the torture stake. It was written: "Jesus the Naz-a-rene´ the King of the Jews."

  Even that part's a bit odd! As a Bible-believing Christian, I wonder about that at times.

  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.

  Discussed above... There are other issues like the Talmud which says he was hung and doesn't mention anything remotely that resembles a cross.

  I am still not convinced that he was crucified. I would like somene to explain to me how anyone can draw from this so-called evidence in John 20:25 which says about the "print of the nails?" Why can't more than one nail be used (I discussed earlier about the Bible not mentioning a lot of things) -- in any case they would have to use more than one nail because of the additional nail for the sign post that tells everybody he is the "king of the Jews." Even that's a bit strange because the sign posts are read slightly differently each gospel!

  It could also mean that Thomas was talking the type of "common nail" used for Jesus and the criminal beside him. So at times we "plurarlize" even though we might be talking about one particular item. For example, if I said "the trains are really bad today," I am not necessarily talking about all the trains on the network, but merely showing disappointment that my train didn't take me to work on time. It could mean "trains" in general, but not always.

  If you got the"print of the nails" -- is irrelevant because a "common" torture stake nail was used in this capital punishment. To somehow think "nails" (plural) means "cross" is not using proper evidence -- as said before an extra nail would have been used for the sign post anyway. It also in addition Thomas could have meant it to meant it to mean "the print from those KIND of nails. Also... HOW MANY NAILS DID HE USE? Thomas does not say! It could be one nail, two, three, four, maybe even ten nails!!

  Another examples of singular (meaning plural) when Jesus said "Man does not live on bread alone." He is talking about mankind -- not just one "special man," as if there were any. And unfortunately until about 15- 20 years ago (when these no brainers decided to get offended and think everything was sexist) man meant "men and women." It's a lot easier to say "fireman," "policeman," "storeman," than it is to say "fireperson" (I am not even sure there is such a term!!! -- it doesn't even sound that good!!) "policeperson," "storeperson." Quite seriously, most women don't even take these jobs!!! It shows you how retarded this political correctness is!!
• 

  Leolaia

  I asked the author of Truth in Translation -- Jason Beduhn on whether it should be "cross" or "stake," and he said "stake," not even torture stake! He should knows Biblical Greek.

  He is right about "torture stake" being wrong (as the device was used primarily to execute, not torture), but I do not agree that stauros is best rendered as "stake". The main distinction in the use of the word is between "stake" as an ordinary pole having nothing to do with execution, and "cross" as the device used in the capital punishment known as crucifixion. The shape of the "cross", or crux (its Latin etymon), can vary between that of the crux simplex to that of the composite crux compacta; the shape of the device is not a crucial part of the word's meaning but rather its function, i.e. whether it is used to execute living people through nailing or tying of the limbs. The meaning was originally only "stake" simply because Greeks came into contact with crucifixion as a method of execution only through their involvement with the Persians, Phoenicians, and later the Romans. Translators of classical and Hellenistic Greek literature generally render stauros as "pale", "stake", "palisade" when the word clearly had nothing to do with execution, and as "cross" when execution is meant. In most of these cases, the text gives no indication of the shape of the instrument; the use of the word "cross" in English translations reflects the device's function, not shape. Some writers, such as Artemidorus and Lucian, were quite specific about stauros including a transverse beam. The same thing could be said of the use of the word in Barnabas and Justin Martyr, with respect to Jesus' cross. The reference to stauros-bearing in the gospels are especially indicative of a cross that includes a patibulum. So on both counts, the use of the term "cross" is more appropriate than the alternative.

  It just goes to show how little most people know about Jesus when we don't even on what instrument he died on!!!

  No, we know what instrument it was...it was an execution apparatus called stauros in Greek and crux in Latin, that may have varied widely in its actual form (according to the whims of the executioner, as Martin Hengel puts it), but which had a consistent function. We also know that the particular kind of crucifixion that Jesus experienced included a distinctly Roman patibulum-bearing prelude (as described by Plautus, Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Plutarch, Chariton, and many others), and this is a very strong indicator that Jesus' stauros included a patibulum.

  "Stauros" primarily means "stake," and so why did the Apostle Paul say he died on a tree in Acts 5:30?

  By the first century, stauros did not any longer "primarily" mean "stake", it was also the main term used to refer to the device called crux in Latin, in its various forms (as crux referred to the device in its many forms; like stauros the meaning pertained not to the shape of the device but its function). And as for it being called a xulon "tree, wooden object" in Acts, Galatians, and 1 Peter, I have already discussed this in detail in prior comments to you and in my thread devoted to the subject. Basically: (1) xulon referred to wooden objects in general, including "tables", "benches", and especially those used in punishment like "clubs", "stocks", "pillories", the cross fits into this semantic range quite well, (2) the Romans referred to their crosses, even two-beamed crosses, as "trees" (arbor), (3) the use of xulon in the NT to refer to Jesus' stauros are all manifest allusions (or even explicit citations) of Deuteronomy 21:22-23, which even in the Dead Sea Scrolls is applied to the practice of crucifixion. John 19:31 also reflects influence from Deuteronomy, as the Jews understood crucifixion in light of the older law (which originally referred to post-mortem hanging of corpses, not crucifixion).

  If you believe that Jesus' stauros did not include a crossbeam, and if you believe that a literal tree is meant in Acts 5:20, then what did Jesus carry to Golgotha?

  Why does the gospels have 3 different ways of writing the sign?

  The Passion narratives in John and the two synoptic gospels are dependent on Mark (or the underlying passion narrative that Mark uses, according to Crossan). If you look at the version in Mark, it is simply "The King of the Jews". All the other versions incorporate this original element from Mark, but elaborate it in different ways: Luke adds houtos "this one", Matthew adds houtos estin Iésous "this one is Jesus", and John (lying outside of the synoptic tradition) elaborates it uniquely by adding Iésous ho Nazóraios "Jesus the Nazarene". All are simply elaborating the same phrase originally found in Mark.

  There are other issues like the Talmud which says he was hung and doesn't mention anything remotely that resembles a cross.

  The Talmud does not preserve any authentic reminiscence of Jesus apart from Christian tradition (see Craig Evans' article "Jesus in Non-Christian Sources"). Morever, the Semitic words for "hang" (Hebrew tlh "hang", chnq "strangle", Aramaic tslb) was the way Roman crucifixion was generally referred to in Jewish writings. This does not mean that the Romans practiced strangulation (i.e. the original meaning of "hang"; cf. Targum Ruth 1:17, Sanhedrin 7:3, Bereshith Rabbah 65:22) in Judea instead of crucifixion; simply the older words were adapted to refer to the new form of execution, just as the older law in Deuteronomy 21:22-23 was applied to Roman crucifixion tho it did not originally refer to it. The Dead Sea Scroll references to the crucifixions under Alexander Janneus (cf. Josephus, who uses to the word stauros to refer to the crucifixions) thus use tlh as the verb referring to the method of execution. Just as "car" originally meant "chariot" and then "horse-drawn carriage", this does not mean that a 1990s advertisement of the latest Lexis cars refers to Lexis chariots or Lexis horse-drawn carriages. The opposite change in meaning occurred with the word patibulum in Latin. Originally it referred to the fork device that slaves and victims had to bear around the city, and then when crucifixion had been adopted by the Romans it referred to the crossbeam that was usually carried beforehand. But when the Roman Empire became Christianized and crucifixion was outlawed as a form of execution, the word patibulum by the fourth century AD came to refer to the device used to "hang" people by strangulation.

  I would like somene to explain to me how anyone can draw from this so-called evidence in John 20:25 which says about the "print of the nails?" Why can't more than one nail be used (I discussed earlier about the Bible not mentioning a lot of things) -- in any case they would have to use more than one nail because of the additional nail for the sign post that tells everybody he is the "king of the Jews."

  LOL, that's really reaching. If you read the actual text of John 20:25, it refers to the tupon "print" (singular) in his khersin "hands" (plural) of the hulón "nails" (plural). These are nails that were involved in making physical marks on the body, not holding up the titilus (sign post). And since the prints were on the hands, nail prints on the feet were not in view. But as I pointed out in my essay, this verse is not particularly strong since it leaves open the possibility that the mark on each hand was made by two nails (cf. the "double-nailing" of Plautus, Mostellaria 55-57), or that the hands were nailed to the sides of a crux simplex, necessitating one nail through each hand, rather than in the manner depicted in Watchtower art (i.e. the hands being nailed together).
• 

  TheListener

  hehehehehehe, I knew it was only a matter of time until Leo repsonded.