Can somebody please explain to me BIBLICALLY where it says Jesus died on a stake and not a cross? Need theological details, please. Prove your stakely beliefs...
Cross or Stake, which is biblically true??
by butalbee 60 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
-
-
plmkrzy
wasn't the cross a fairly new term added to the bible?
It will be interesting to see the replies.
plm -
aChristian
Jehovah's Witnesses tell us that Jesus died on a "torture stake" and not on a cross. They point out that the Greek word used in the New Testament which is commonly translated as "cross" primarily means an upright stake or pole. However, it is also known from several reliable historical sources that the Romans did in fact often attach a cross piece to a stake or pole when using that stake or pole as an instrument of torture and execution. So, how can we know if the Romans attached a cross piece to the stake or pole which Jesus was nailed to? I believe there are several indications in the Bible that Christ did, in fact, die on a "cross."
First of all, John 20:25 indicates that "nails" (plural) were driven through Jesus' hands at the time of his execution. Two nails, one through each hand, would have been required to nail Jesus to a cross, but only one nail would have been needed to hold both of Jesus' hands to a torture stake, if his arms were raised over his head with his hands together. For this reason, pictures in the Society's publications of Jesus on a torture stake always show only one nail through both of Christ's hands. So, John 20:25 seems to point to a cross as the instrument used to put Jesus to death.
Also to be considered is the fact that the Bible tells us a sign was placed "over his head" at the time of Christ's death. (Mt. 27:37) However, the Society's pictures of Christ on a torture stake always show this sign placed over Christ's hands, not directly over his head. Why? Because if Christ's arms were raised over his head and his hands were then nailed to a torture stake there would have been no room to attach such a sign "over his head." Now, I suppose it may be said that any sign that was attached to a torture stake over Jesus' hands would have also been "over his head." But if that sign was actually attached over Christ's hands, as the Society's pictures of Jesus on a torture stake illustrate, why did Matthew say that sign was placed "over his head" rather than "over his hands?"
Then there are the Old Testament symbolisms which many believe point to the fact that Christ would die on a cross. One is the blood that was splashed "upon the two doorposts and the upper part of the doorway" during the Jews' Passover celebration. (Ex.12:7) This cross of blood is believed by many Christians to have pointed to the fact that Jesus Christ would later shed his blood on a cross at Passover time for the forgiveness of our sins.
Many also believe that another historical account in the Old Testament was meant to prefigure the fact that Christ would die on a cross. That account is found in Exodus 17:11,12. There we read how the Israelites were only victorious in battle when Moses' hands were held up for him, "one on one side and one on the other." It is said that this account was meant by God to point to the time when mankind would gain victory over sin and death, a victory which would only be gained when Jesus' hands were held up for him on the cross, "one on one side and one on the other."
"Two Questions About Crucifixion" reads the title of a fascinating article in the April 1989 issue of Bible Review. Below it were two subheadings, "Does the Victim Die of Asphyxiation," and "Would Nails in the Hand Hold the Weight of the Body?"
In it the author discredits the previous theory of crucifixion as formulated by A. A. LeBec in 1925 and given widespread publicity by Dr. Pierre Barbet from 1953 on, that (1) Jesus died of asphyxiation due to being unable to raise himself up to breathe, and (2) the nails through his hands were actually through his wrists (assuming the palms of the hands could not hold the body weight). It now appears that the evidence does not support Barbet's theory.
Medical research for this project was done by Frederick T. Zugibe, who is adjunct associate professor of pathology at Columbia University College of Physicians and Surgeons, as well as author of The Cross and the Shroud--A Medical Examiner Investigates the Crucifixion. Zugibe demonstrates quite conclusively that:
(1) Jesus did not die of asphyxiation, but rather from shock and trauma. Additionally, an impaled man with arms stretched straight over his head (as the Watchtower depicts) 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.
(2) There are two locations in the PALM of each HAND that will allow a nail to penetrate and carry the full body weight up to several hundred pounds, making the "wrist theory" unnecessary to explain how Christ's arms were attached to the cross.
Years ago, LeBec and Barbet had concluded that a person hung by his arms overhead would suffocate in a manner of minutes, due to the inability of the lungs to expand and contract in such a position. Additionally, an Austrian radiologist, Hermann Moedder, experimented with medical students in the 40's, hanging them by their wrists with their hands directly above their heads (much like the Watchtower pictures Jesus on a stake). In a few minutes, the students became pale, their lung capacity dropped from 5.2 to 1.5 liters, blood pressure decreased and the pulse rate increased. Moedder concluded that inability to breathe would occur in about six minutes if they were not allowed to stand and rest.
The same would apply to Christ, IF he were suspended on a stake as the Watchtower depicts him, hung from hands bound directly overhead. He would have suffocated in a matter of minutes.
Zugibe, however, discovered that if students were hung by hands outstretched to the side at 60-70 degrees, they would have no trouble breathing for hours on end. Since Luke 23:44 and Matthew 27:45,46 show that Christ was on the cross for about three hours, the evidence points again to death on a traditional cross.
Zugibe carried out his experiments using a number of volunteers who were willing to try hanging from a cross with several variations, none requiring the mutilation of their flesh or bodily damage. Special leather gloves were used to attach the hands to the crossbeam. To demonstrate that a nail through the hand could hold several hundred pounds, Zugibe, in another experiment, used the severed arms of fresh cadavers, nailing them through either of two locations in the palm of the hands (see illustration) and suspending weights from the arms (a rather gruesome experiment, to say the least!).
If Jesus did not die of asphyxiation, then what was the cause of his death? Let's review the events of the day Christ died.
First, Jesus experienced loss in blood volume both from perspiration and from the sweating of blood, due to his mental anguish. After being arrested, he was scourged with a leather whip that had metal weights or bone chips at the ends. As the tips penetrated the skin, the nerves, muscles and skin were traumatized. Exhaustion with shivering, severe sweating, and seizures would follow. Much body fluid would be lost. Even before being hung on the cross, Jesus may have already entered a state of shock, due to the scourging, the irritation of the nerves of the scalp due to the crown of thorns, and by being struck several times. Finally, he was nailed to the cross by large, square iron nails driven through both hands, as well as his feet. The damage to the nerves brought incredible pain, adding to the shock and loss of water. Over a period of three hours, every slight move would have brought excruciating pain. Death would result from extreme shock due to a combination of exhaustion, pain and loss of blood.
Jan H posted the following material [which I have here edited for length and repitition] a while back.
First, let us note that the WTS is quite alone in asserting this view that Jesus was killed on a simple stake. No religious denomination that I know of supports the WTS here, except some very few "Name"-groups in the United States. More importantly, no historian in the world (secular or religious) currently agrees with the WTS that there is any evidence whatsoever that Jesus died on a stake without a crossbeam. Neither have the WTS ever presented the slightest bit of real evidence for its claims.
Early Written Sources
A fact quite ignored by the WTS, is that there is definite extrabiblical evidence to the exact shape of the "stauros," and this shape is the cross, a T with a lowered crossbeam.
First, there are quite a few descriptions in early Christian texts. Note that these were written while the Biblical Greek language was still alive, and while the cruel execution practice we call crucifixion was still carried out by the Romans.
The Christian apologist Justin, writing about 160 CE (long before Constantin) made mention of the shape of the cross at least twice:
"And the human form differs from that of the irrational animals in nothing else than in its being erect and having its hands extended . .. and this shows no other form than that of the cross." (Justin Martyr: "First Apology" in Roberts & Donaldson (ed): Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol I, Eerdmans 1969, p. 181)
"For the one beam is placed upright, from which the highest extremity is raised up into a horn, when the other beam is fitted on to it, and the ends appear on both sides as horns joined on to the one horn." (Justin's "Dialogue With Trypho", Chap XC in ANF, p. 245)
A few decades later Irenaeus wrote:
"The very form of the cross, too, has five extremities, two in length, two in bredth, and one in the middle, on which [last] the person rests who is fixed by the nails." (Irenaeus' "Against Heresies", Chap XXIV in ANF p. 395)
In 197 AD the Christian writer Tertullian wrote:
"Every piece of timber which is fixed in the ground in an erect position is a part of a cross, and indeed the greater portion of its mass. But an entire cross is attributed to us, with its transverse beam, of course, and its projecting seat." (Tertullian in "Ad Nationes" Chap XI in ANF, Vol III, p. 122)
Note that these writers lived in a period when Crucifixions were still carried out, and could see these horribly executions firsthand. Both Justin and Tertullian referred to cases where Christians were crucified (See ANF, Vol I, p. 254; Vol III, p. 28).
We even find testimony about the form of the cross by early non-Christian writers. The Greek writer Lukianos (c. 120-180 AD) wrote that the letter T had received its "evil meaning" because of the "evil instrument tyrants put up to hang people upon them. (Lukianos in "Iudicium Vocalium 12", in Martin Hengel in Crucifixion, Fortress Press, 1982, pp. 8,9)
As if this was not sufficient do we have evidence from the early Bible manuscripts themselves. The manuscripts P66 and P75, that are traditionally dated around AD 200, but may date from as early as the last part of the first century. (See BIBLICA , Vol. 69:2, 1988; which dates the much related P46 this early, and preliminary information from Professor George Howard by letter stated P75 and P66 are "not far behind" in date.)
Anyway, in P75 the word "stauros" is changed so the T and R together depict a cross with a person on in three places where it occurs, and P66 put a cross into the word "stauros."
Together, this overwhelming evidence speaks for itself. Why the Watchtower Society has gone to such great lengths to create a completely imaginary case for a "stauros" with no crossbeam is puzzling, but it no doubt have something to do with a need to distinguish itself from other denominations. It should also demonstrate for all how little regard the WTS have for truth. All this information has been made available to the WTS many times.
Is the Cross a Pagan Symbol?
Sure. And among these ancient pagan nations who had crosses were the Romans, who selected the torture device that was used to kill Jesus.
It's very strange that the WTS has this obsession with the cross being a "pagan phallic symbol", and then argues that a pole which is described many times as a pagan fertility symbol in the very Bible, was used to kill Jesus.
-
gumby
http://caic.org.au/zcross.htm
This is a must read on the cross.
The society has admitted that we really do not know how Jesus was crucified and that it dosen't matter.However do you think they would ever show Jesus on a cross in any publication? Do you think you would be in trouble if you firmly believed it was a cross and not a stake and you vocalized it?
Isn't it funny how they see everything different than everyone else.
Josephus told how crucifiction was used in Jesus day but he dosen't count unless his stories jive with the society's. -
butalbee
what is that greek or hebrew word JW have translated to mean upright and not cross??? Anyone know? Thanks!!!!!
-
gumby
Greek word...xylon(i think) hebrew (stauros)
-
ElijahTheThird
Actually it is an argument only of religions, not realy of much concern.
The "sacrifice" was duly made and the ransom paid.
What he was impaled upon isn't the point, (pardon the pun) be it an
X, or an T, or an t, or an l. -
plmkrzy
I remember everything, well almost everything, that
I was taught regarding the cross and what it had to
do with Jesus and the whole cross thing was more on
the lines of something not to obsess over
because it doesn't matter, in those days when they
killed people that way they used both. Some may have
had cross beams and some may not have. As for the
nails,plural, he could have had a nail through both
hands and another nail, making it plural, through
both feet. But in any event the point in not making
a big woop dee do over it, was it a cross or was it a
steak, is insignificant and nothing more than a
distraction away from the whole point of him dieing.
Example, if a very dear and close friend of mine was
killed, say shot to death, the last thing I would
want to do is have a miniture repleca of the gun that
killed him made into jewerly and wear it around my neck.
And as for the idea that
JWs believe that he died on a pagan symbol, i've
never heard it that way. However they did publish
many times that the cross was in fact used in ancient
pagan ritchuals(spell ck) as a fertitity symbol
and if i'm not mistaken you can find this in some
encyclopedeas.A Christian, I did enjoy reading the information you
and JanH supplied, it was very interesting.
plm -
JanH
aC,
Thanks for posting "my" material.
There is no reasonable doubt whatsoever that the torture & execution instrument used by the Romans in 1st century Palestine was a cross, a T-shaped instrument with the crossbeam lowered. I know of no historians today who doubt this. JWs have created a totally absurd claim with no support whatsoever in the historical sources.
- Jan
--
The believer is happy. The doubter is wise. -
Adonai438
This is gonna be long but I just wrote this up for a relative of mine and has some good info---let me know if you have any questions or comments
CROSS
First and foremost, whether it was a cross or a stake is really no big deal to Christians. We just go by what the Bible and Archeology says about the use of a cross in the death of Jesus.Those who hold to the torture stake theory usually base their
conclusion on three arguments:
Argument #1: "Prior to the time of Christ, various crosses were used as religious symbols to represent the sun god or even
'Tammuz,' the false messiah of Babylon. This proves that Christianity derived its cross from paganism."
Answer: The Babylonians also believed that Tammuz died and was resurrected from the dead (A Dictionary of Non-Christian Religions by Geoffrey Parrinder, pg. 273). But rather than conclude that the Christian belief in Jesus and his resurrection originated in paganism, Christians can conclude that Satan counterfeited the birth and resurrection of Jesus just as he counterfeited the Christian cross in pagan religions. One of Satan's most effective schemes is to counterfeit God's truth (Exodus 7:8-12).Argument #2: "The cross did not become a permanent symbol of redemption until the Edict of Milan in A.D. 313"
Answer: The Edict of Milan removed the need for secrecy among Christians which had stood in the way of open symbols and worship. (Handbook to the History of Christianity, 1977, pp. 38, 150).Argument #3: "The Greek word stau ros means 'stake' or 'pale.' This proves Jesus was impaled on a torture stake rather than crucified on a cross. Bible translators are being dishonest in rendering stau ros as cross."
Answer: Early usage of the word stau ros together with research into the manner of Roman executions shows that Jesus died on a cross, and stau ros can refer to either a stake or cross, depending on the context.
Roman crucifixion went in this manner: The condemned man was forced to drag his own stau ros (John 19:17) to the place of punishment where the other stau ros already was upright in the ground. The victim's arms then were outstretched to the stake, or crossbeam, that he had dragged, and then nailed to it through the wrists. The crossbeam then was lifted up, with the body on it, to the vertical stau ros and attached by a long spike. Last, the feet of the condemned man were nailed to the upright post (Encyclopedia Britannica - Vol. 6, 1973, pg. 825; Encyclopedia Americana - Vol. 8, 1984, pp. 260-261; Jesus And His Times, 1954, Daniel Rops, pp. 540-541).
Thus, the two stakes together make a cross. Stau ros is used in the Bible to describe the crossbeam (Matthew 27:32; Mark 15:21; Luke 23:26; John 19:17). It also is used to describe the cross after both stakes were joined (Matthew 27:40, 42; Mark 15:30, 32; John 19:19, 25, 31).
The testimony of two early historical witnesses is quite
strong in favor of the Christian cross.
*Ireneaus (130-200AD) 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)
*Barnabas (90-120AD)testified that the cross of Jesus was in the shape of a Greek letter Tau [which is ‘T‘]. (Epistle of Barnabas, X, 8.)Finally, an examination of this subject would be incomplete without the testimony of Thomas. Had Jesus been impaled on a stake, there would be only one nail going through both hands (De Cruce Liber Primus, pg. 1155; also see The Watchtower, April 1, 1965, pg. 211). Yet Thomas stated: "Unless I shall see in his hands the imprint of the NAILS and put my finger into the place of the nails, and put my hand into his side, I will not believe" (John 20:25, NASV). Thomas' statement clearly indicates a cross!
Some think that Christians idolize or worship the symbol of the cross. That is not true. Christians use the symbol of the cross for what it represents. It is the ‘alter’ on which the perfect Lamb of God was sacrificed for our sin so that we could be forgiven. It represents salvation and victory over the enemy. It represents how much God loves us, that he sent his own son.
I’ve also heard an argument that goes something like this: Question: “Why do you wear a cross around your neck? It’s a weapon! If your child was shot to death would you wear the gun around your neck?”
It sounds logical but the circumstances are not equal.
ANSWER: “No, because my child was not God incarnate sent to die for the sins of the world. My child did not raise themselves from the dead to offer eternal Life.You see, Jesus overcame the cross- that’s why it’s a symbol of God’s victory.”***God uses symbols in the Bible so there is no moral reason to not use a symbol. Think of how many symbols God uses to describe himself like fire, wind, light, bread, water, etc…
***In fact, the cross was used as a symbol of faith and the Gospel in Biblical times as well. (See: 1 Cor.1:18, Gal. 6:12, Phil. 3:18, Luke 9:23 etc…)CONGRATULATIONS! You made it through this
<>< Angie