Did Jesus Die On a Stake or a Cross?

by Sea Breeze 41 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  PetrW

  @peacefulpete

  I think the NT has its own, unmistakable origin that is not dependent on any other text (outside of the OT). But that doesn't mean there aren't arguments for the opposite claim - like what you cite above. For me, it's a matter of choice. I choose the Bible...

  So I am answering "theologically", not based on the results of literary analysis, as that may indicate otherwise. I would liken it to the question of creation and evolution; the question of finality of life and eternal life, etc. etc.

  ***

  Going back to the cross or stake with the JWs, I think they are "trapped" in their methods of dealing with the NT-text. If I compare the issue of the cross and, for example, the exile of John on the Isle of Patmos, at their core, both are (relatively) insignificant issues that do not change the meaning and implications for salvation, then regarding the cross, JWs will strenuously "argue" about how Jesus did not die on the cross, but if you ask them where in Revelation it says anything about the exile of John on the Isle of Patmos, they will remain silent. Because there is no mention of exile anywhere. Yet they claim he was there in exile. Remember the picture of John in bonds, in their commentary on Revelation? How can they portray something that is not in the NT text? They wave their hands that it is irrelevant. But it's like they're depicting Christ on the cross...
• 

  peacefulpete

  Just to be clear I wasn't suggesting Plato was responsible for the Gospels.

  As a personal project, I'm collecting relevant information regarding the religious and ethical climate of the early days of Christianity. Every Christian is aware of how today's forms of Christianity are in part an adaptation to the age we live in. Some embrace change others get dragged along, but change comes either way. The Reformation was in a large way the product of political struggles, increasing literacy and scientific progress. The faith grew differently in different soil. Similarly, the Second Great Awakening of the 19th century (WT included) was triggered and fostered under a new spirit of individualism and socio-economic change.

  In the same way, the so-called intertestamental period events and cultural pressures spawned new ideas about God and salvation. Some of these ideas are very surprising. The more we learn the less surprising the birth of Christianity becomes. No religion is an island.
• 

  peacefulpete

  Going back to the cross or stake with the JWs, I think they are "trapped" in their methods of dealing with the NT-text.

  Couldn't agree more. The same is true of every sect, past and present.
  
  
• 

  joey jojo

  Just another topic where the WT has taken a different stance, for no other reason than to set them apart from 'Christendom'.

  The evidence indicates that crucifixion was not the same for everyone. There were various styles- some punishments involved a simple stake, others used a cross beam. Some people were hung upside down, others in different ways for amusement. Some used ropes and not nails, Sometimes there was a seat- or horn that protruded into the persons private areas, to make the ordeal more excruciating.

  There is evidence in a crucified skeleton from around the time of Jesus that had the nails driven into the sides of the ankles and therefore, no footrest was used.

  In summary, there were various methods of crucifixion and and no one can say for certain which crucifixion method was used on Jesus and it doesnt really matter. Even the gospels are not eyewitness accounts.
• 

  Acluetofindtheuser

  It all boils down to Matthew 24:30. What that sign is, only the heavens know.
• 

  Sea Breeze

  I think the early Christians knew, and they wrote about it. What the early Church Elders believed:
  

  Lipsius quotes Iraneus (Bishop of Lyons in 177AD):

  "The construction itself of the cross has five ends, two on the vertical and two on the horizontal, and one in the middle where the person attached with nails rested".

  Also on page 661 Lipsius has an illustration of a cross with a cross-beam and a foot-rest, upon which a man is nailed, arms outstretched. This is under the heading "De Cruce Liber Secundus".

  Irenaeus (early 2nd century – AD 202) remarks that "the very form of the cross, too, has five extremities, two in length, two in breadth, and one in the middle, on which [last] the person rests who is fixed by the nails".

  The same remark is made by Justin Martyr (100–165) when commenting on the Book of Deuteronomy 33:17: "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. And the part which is fixed in the centre, on which are suspended those who are crucified, also stands out like a horn; and it also looks like a horn conjoined and fixed with the other horns".

  To the pagan jibe about Christians being devotees of the cross, Tertullian (c. 155 – c. 240) responds by saying the pagans no less adored images of wood, with the difference that they worship what is only part of a cross, while the Christians are credited with "an entire cross complete with a transverse beam and a projecting seat". He then adds that "the very structure of our body suggests the essential and primal outline of a cross. The head ascends to the peak, the spine stands upright, the shoulders traverse the spine. If you position a man with his arms outstretched, you shall have created the image of a cross."

  Justin Martyr also states: "That [passover] lamb which was commanded to be wholly roasted was a symbol of the suffering of the cross which Christ would undergo. For the lamb, which is roasted, is roasted and dressed up in the form of the cross. For one spit is transfixed right through from the lower parts up to the head, and one across the back, to which are attached the legs of the lamb.
• 

  peacefulpete

  Just to appraise the value of Irenaeus testimony, a few paragraphs earlier he is insistent that Jesus was 50 years old. Arguing passionately that the Apostles taught this. Reality is, the traditions were all in flux yet.

  On completing His thirtieth year He suffered, being in fact still a young man, and who had by no means attained to advanced age. Now, that the first 392stage of early life embraces thirty years,3140 and that this extends onwards to the fortieth year, every one will admit; but from the fortieth and fiftieth year a man begins to decline towards old age, which our Lord possessed while He still fulfilled the office of a Teacher, even as the Gospel and all the elders testify; those who were conversant in Asia with John, the disciple of the Lord, [affirming] that John conveyed to them that information.3141 And he remained among them up to the times of Trajan.3142 Some of them, moreover, saw not only John, but the other apostles also, and heard the very same account from them, and bear testimony as to the [validity of] the statement. Whom then should we rather believe? Whether such men as these, or Ptolemæus, who never saw the apostles, and who never even in his dreams attained to the slightest trace of an apostle?
• 

  peacefulpete

  It's also worth mentioning that the cross shape was perceived as fulfillment of OT passages (Ps 22:20-2; Deut 33:17) that described the horns of an auroch (Martyr and Tertullian). As such it's not impossible the idea was drawn from scripture not the other way around.

  Anyway, as I said earlier, I think it's obvious that in some texts, as they exist today, the writers were envisioning a cross shape from the incidental description.
• 

  Sea Breeze

  the traditions were all in flux

  I don't believe the evidence supports such a sweeping statement. People make mistakes. Irenaeus' writings were not inspired, infallible or perfect.

  From Orthodox Christian Theology:

  "There are several problems with Irenaeus’ chronology. First, secular historians are aware that Pontius Pilate served specifically during the reign of Tiberius and perhaps the very beginning of Caligula’s reign—not Claudius. Additionally, this obviously does not align with modern conceptions of the Lord being approximately 33 years old before the resurrection.

  Most importantly to those looking at the earliest Christian sources on the question, Irenaeus’ chronology does not match that of his contemporaries. Saint Justin Martyr, writing before Irenaeus, placed the Lord’s death under the reign of Tiberius. (First Apology, Chap 13) Saint Hippolytus, writing a generation after Irenaeus, explicitly held to a chronology of Christ having an approximately 33-year life before the resurrection. Other near-contemporaries such as Tertullian (Apology, Chap 21), the author of the Acts of Pilate (Prologue), and Julius Africanus (Fragment 18) concur. Hence Irenaeus is contradicted on this specific chronological view by a consensus of Christian saints and thinkers in his own time."

  But none of this changes the overwhelming evidence that Jesus was crucified on a cross and not a pole. JW's just love being contrarians to bolster their pseudo-intellectualism.
• 

  peacefulpete

  But none of this changes the overwhelming evidence that Jesus was crucified on a cross and not a pole. JW's just love being contrarians to bolster their pseudo-intellectualism.

  As I made clear, the NT seems to support that at least some writers did envision a cross shape. I'm not certain that we can say all early Christians felt that way nor can we say whether the concept was born from history or an early tradition. But on that matter, we will likely never agree. You can say I'm being a contrarian.

  AS to Martyr's comments about Jesus being 50, what concerns me most is not an error but the appeal to the authority of 'Apostles" to make his point. Either he was making that up that story in an effort to silence his opponents or this view really was held by many others who apparently had inherited that understanding.