Listen here, the issue is quite simple. Did Jesus die on a stake or cross? Never mind the maybe's or the couldbe's.
It is a maybe, could be question. The literary and historical evidence is not unambiguous. That doesn't mean we can't say which alternative is more or less probable. But it means that "dogmatism" (like the dogmatism you are displaying and the "dogmatism" you falsely ascribed to me) is inappropriate here.
The biblical and lexival evidence proves overwhelmingly that it was a stake that was the instrument of our Lord's execution and the ancient sources demonstrate that stakes and impalement were contemporary with that early Christian era.
What does the lexical evidence show? Stauros = "stake" AND "cross". Crux = "stake" AND "cross". I provided the texts that prove this. You can only be willfully stupid not to grasp such a "simple" concept.
"Stakes and impalement were contemporary with that early Christian era". Well, duh Sherlock. So were crosses and cruxificion with composite crosses.
Now of course lexicons and refernce works give cross as a secondary or alternate meaning to cross but this is the result more of tradition than anything else
I have to ask this. Who do you think you are fooling? I've presented the primary sources extensively. I've presented scans of the original texts. Everyone here who cares to look at them KNOWS you're full of it. Tradition my ass. I've posted text after text of stauros and crux being used with reference to composite crosses. There's no tradition in that....they were describing crucifixion as it was practiced in their own time. Why do you go on acting the part of a dishonest, disingenuous idiot? Doesn't trolling get boring after a while?
even though a cross wouls have been used in ancient times.
Well of course they were, and stauros and crux were used to refer to them. Can you manage to get just a few brain cells around this concept?
But because stauros is a synonym with xulon it was definitely a piece of wood or tree that our Lord hung and he was impaled
So certain you are. Yet the Romans referred to their crosses -- yes, even two-beamed crosses (cf. Seneca, Epistle 101.12-14) -- as "trees". And a stake is a "piece of wood" and a cross is not? Xulon was used to refer to wooden objects made out of several pieces of wood, such as "tables, benches" or what not. This was a word that referred to an incredible range of different wooden items. Barnabas (early second century AD) refers to the two-beamed cross as a xulon. So much for your uninformed insistance that xulon must necessarily refer to simple stakes.
But most importantly, as scholars have generally noted, the use of xulon in the NT and in the Dead Sea Scrolls to refer to the execution instrument is due to midrashic interpretation of the law in Deuteronomy 21:22-23 which of course did not originally refer to crucifixion (or "impalement" as the Society uses the word) but which was subsequently extended to the practice of crucifixion in the Second Temple period. Since you place great importance on published and peer-reviewed "scholarly" articles, I am sure you would appreciate reading Max Wilcox's "Upon the Tree -- Deut 21:22-23 in the New Testament," Journal of Biblical Literature (1977), the TDNT entry on xulon, Yigal Yadin's "Pesher Nahum Reconsidered," Israel Exploration Journal (1971), Joseph Fitzmyer's "Crucifixion in Ancient Palestine, Qumran Literature, and the New Testament," Catholic Biblical Quarterly (1978), etc. All of these papers discuss how the use of xulon is due to allusion to the law in Deuteronomy which was felt to be binding to the crucifixion practices of the day. If the crux simplex was felt to fall under this law, why not the crux compacta? Why would the addition of another piece of wood to the stake suddenly nullify the application of the law? No matter what its shape (e.g. whether it had a patibulum, sedile, titilus, etc. attached), if a man was "hanged" on such an apparatus, such a man was probably felt to be "accursed" and must be buried the same day.
Leolaia's theory is pointless because it cannot circumvent the obvious scriptutral and lexical facts.
It's not "Leolaia's theory". I'm presenting information that can be found in countless sources.
Scholar is only interested in facts, hard raw data is what impresses scholar not wishful, feminist theories because some one has a girly fascination with Marti n Hengel.
pseudo-scholar needs to take a swim in the delightful waters of New Orleans and think about finding better ways to spend his time....