The Romans did not crucify robbers
Caleb you are a total asset to this forum.
I believe they the Romans let a Roman terrorist go to replace him with Jesus so asked the crowd, this would of never happened. Also this idea that the Jewish leadership would be involved with and pushing for the execution of Jesus during Passover week is preposterous. They would have broken over 7 of their own laws to have Jesus killed during this time.
Thanks, Faye. I got some help from some exJWs when I first left that helped me healed and move on some 20 years ago. Just passing it on.
Maybe this is a dumb question, and I admit that I have done zero research. I'm super busy right now, sorry.
The Roman army, if I understand it, was the shizz back in the day. It was a well oiled machine. What I have never understood is the JW belief that Jesus carried his stake and then somehow it was sunk in the ground and he was nailed to it.
The latest JW Video shows Jesus hauling his stake and the bottom of the stake is braced against a pre-made hole, like a pole vaulting hole, at Golgatha. Now I've seen old woodcarvings of various methods of crucifixions, and the WTBTS deliberately omits pictures of stakes with crossbeams to support their doctrine.
Anyway, wouldn't the Romans have left stakes permanently buried all year long? Why dig a new hole or cut a new stake for every single execution? That's not very streamlined. If you are executing people all the time, it makes more sense to leave stakes in the ground and then make the victim carry the crossbeam. Then you just nail their hands, raise them up, fix the crossbeam to the upright and nail the feet.
Disgusting, yes, but efficient. I can't imagine getting new lumber all the time. It wasn't like today. You just couldn't run to Home Depot.
The JWs missed the logical step of remembering that Greek is merely a translation of the events and that the words used were archaic or at least not always compatible with what was happening in the first century. Anyone can look up anything in a book, but that doesn't make you a scholar unless you can use it like a scholar.
Thanks Caleb. That is the best explanation I have ever seen. This information will go into my library.
Data dog you make a very good point there, I have to say I've often thought that myself
I've heard two theories and they are both based on reliable data:
1. Often criminals carried only the crossbeam to an area where an upright pale had been raised earlier.
2. Just as often, because the idea was to strike terror into the hearts of others, the Romans had criminals carry the entire cross.
Some ancient traditions claim that Jesus was made to carry a cross made specifically for him while the criminals alongside him carried only a crossbeam. While there is little if any empirical evidence behind the tradition in relation to Christ, it seems to have been a real alternative practice in some instances.
The Jews were not allowed to execute criminals under Roman rule.
How is it then Stephen managed to get stoned to death?
How is it Jesus interrupted the imminent stoning of a woman taken in adultry?
You see--there are worse problems in the NT than you might imagine!
In addition to what CalebinFloroda said, the JW faith was heavily influenced during the early to mid 20th century by the writings of Alexander Hislop, a Scottish minister and author of the book, The Two Babylons: The Papal Worship Proved to Be the Worship of Nimrod and His Wife
So why do Jehovah's witnesses "Swear" that Jesus did not die on a cross but instead a Tree or stake with no crossbeams.
Hislop maintained that veneration of the cross, such as is common in orthodox flavors of Christianity crept in during an alleged great apostasy and that the cross was actually a pagan symbol for Tammuz.
Back in the 50's and 60's, this book was one of a handful of non-JW writings that could be obtained at Kingdom Hall literature counters, but it's become something of an embarrassment and I doubt if they carry it anymore.
Hislop's scholarship was very amateurish and sloppy, as time after time, he assumed connections based on fascile appearances without actually bothering to prove them.
All of which--at this distant remove of years--strikes me as lunatic reasoning.
After all, the Romans were Pagans!
Would you expect Romans to use non-Pagan means of execution??
It's all so laughable.