Posts by abelElElyon

175

The facts on crucifixion, stauros, and the "torture stake"

by Leolaia in

finally, i will look at biblical and patristic evidence bearing on the crucifixion of jesus in particular.

we need to examine the earliest known descriptions of the kind of crucifixion adopted by the romans and the specific terms they used to refer to it.

apparently the society believes that crux still meant "stake" in the second century a.d., when tacitus composed his annals.

abelElElyon

Oh. I just read your bio Kurt. Your the one with all the questions. I encourage critical thinking but appreciate politeness in the process.

abelElElyon

175

The facts on crucifixion, stauros, and the "torture stake"

by Leolaia in

finally, i will look at biblical and patristic evidence bearing on the crucifixion of jesus in particular.

we need to examine the earliest known descriptions of the kind of crucifixion adopted by the romans and the specific terms they used to refer to it.

apparently the society believes that crux still meant "stake" in the second century a.d., when tacitus composed his annals.

I don't have any agenda. I just came across this stuff on my own and it seemed to make since in the way I interpreted it. Either way you go, asherah or T shaped cross, you end up with an idol from babylon. At least with the asherah, one can go back farther and see, scripturally, that an asherah was actually meant to honor God and no other god. At least that is what appendix 42 from the Companion Bible is telling us. I can't go back and find a T shaped cross in the Bible anywhere. I can tell you one thing for sure. God doesn't waste a storyline. What came before is repeated today. The temple was a representation of our bodies flesh, soul, and spirit. The rod of Moses was a representation of the Word and power of God. The ram stuck tin he thicket was a representation Jesus. You get my meaning. If there is a T shaped cross in the OT and I missed it, someone please point me in the right direction.

abelElElyon

175

The facts on crucifixion, stauros, and the "torture stake"

by Leolaia in

finally, i will look at biblical and patristic evidence bearing on the crucifixion of jesus in particular.

we need to examine the earliest known descriptions of the kind of crucifixion adopted by the romans and the specific terms they used to refer to it.

apparently the society believes that crux still meant "stake" in the second century a.d., when tacitus composed his annals.

abelElElyon

Oh... and I am not affiliated with any denomination. I just love God and want to know Him more. If what I shared above is completely off and is shown to be so, please just regard it as an effort, from my part, to try to know Him better. We get it wrong sometimes but it doesn't mean we don't try again the next day. Something else I wanted to share dealing with this topic is Ecc. 3:15

"That which hath been is now; and that which is to be hath already been; and God requireth that which is past."

and Ecc. 1:9

"The thing that hath been, it is that which shall be; and that which is done is that which shall be done: and there is no new thing under the sun."

abelElElyon

175

The facts on crucifixion, stauros, and the "torture stake"

by Leolaia in

finally, i will look at biblical and patristic evidence bearing on the crucifixion of jesus in particular.

we need to examine the earliest known descriptions of the kind of crucifixion adopted by the romans and the specific terms they used to refer to it.

apparently the society believes that crux still meant "stake" in the second century a.d., when tacitus composed his annals.

abelElElyon

This topic came up in my personal life sort of out of no where so I came across this article because of googling the subject after having my own revelation on this topic and having a desire to see if anyone else had thought of the things I felt God was showing me. As of yet, I haven't seen the idea I'm about to share spoken anywhere else. I've seen many question why it even matters whether Jesus was crucified on a stake or T shaped post and no one has answered that question. I think it matters tremendously. I openly discuss scripture with non-believers all the time. Some of these people are new agers, atheists, or just agnostic but what I have encountered is that most of them, based on many books and articles out today, believe that Christianity is just a new form of an older religion. Who hasn't heard about the similarities between the roman, greek, and egyptian gods and those of the Bible? It was because of this argument that I began to do some research on what came first, the chicken (Christianity) or the egg (Babylonian style religions). I recently acquired the Companion Bible mentioned in this thread and it was some of the things I was reading there and my research into the arguments to support that Christianity is just a new form of more ancient faiths that things came together in the area of the cross.

I was reading an article dealing with Horus and Osiris, and what I think they were doing was using Christian "beliefs" (beliefs I felt may not be based on truth) to argue that the Christian faith is just an adoption of older belief systems such as Egyptians Horus and Osiris. I was finding that "beliefs" attributed to Biblical teachings could actually have been inserted later on by others who, for one reason or another, introduced a lie that, today, is being used to support this ideology, that is, that Christianity came from older cultures and religions.

The subject I was looking at specifically was the cross. I mean, who today questions that Jesus was crucified on a cross shaped piece of wood that had his hands lifted up to His sides? Very, very few. Yet it is this same belief, Jesus being crucified on a cross, that gives unbelievers the fodder they need to prove their point, that Jesus was just another form of a previous belief system, such as Horus and Osiris. Read the following article and you will understand what I mean. http://www.stellarhousepublish.....ified.html

Taken from the above article we find...

"It needs to be emphasized that the claim is not that Horus was a human being thrown to the ground and nailed to a piece of wood. In CIE, I discuss the etymology of the word "crucify," which comes from the Latin crucifigere, composed of cruci/crux and affigere/figere, meaning "cross" and "to fix/affix," respectively. Crucifigere and its English derivation "to crucify" mean "to fix to a cross," but not necessarily to throw down and nail to a piece of wood. What we are interested in, then, is whether or not pre-Christian gods and goddesses were depicted as fixed to a cross or in cruciform, appearing as a crucifix."

The article goes on to find many such examples and shows pictures with drawings of individuals with their arms stretched in the shape of a cross.

"It is evident that the Church fathers did not perceive the configuration of Christ on the cross to be anything unusual. Indeed, they insisted that the Pagans likewise worshipped gods on crosses or in "crucial frame," as Tertullian styles it. With such surprising declarations from early Christian authorities, we are justified in asking which of the "sons of Jupiter," i.e., the Greek and Roman gods, was thus depicted as "crucified?" What we discover is that both the cross and a deity or man on a cross were common sacred motifs long before the Christian era."

So, if this is the case, Jesus being crucified on a cross of wood, then the above argument holds much power to convince anyone of it's truth. I will tell you, though, that I don't think Jesus was crucified on a cross as is commonly believed, but was crucified on a single upright piece of wood. The following article uses the Companion Bible and presents some, if not all, of the same arguments you've seen in this thread already.

http://www.albatrus.org/englis....._cross.htm

I know the following has already been shared here but I want to copy these same statements here in order that you can look at the wording to see what I am saying below. The following was pulled from that above link and more specifically from the already mentioned Companion Bible.

"Says the Companion Bible, by Bullinger, "The word stauros denotes an upright pale or stake, to which the criminals were nailed for execution" (appendix 162, page 186). "The word xulon .denotes a piece of a dead log of wood, or timber, for fuel or for any other purpose." "The verb stauroo means to drive stakes."

Bullinger goes on, "Our English word ‘cross’ is the translation of the Latin cruz; but the Greek stauros no more means a cruz than the word ‘stick’ means a ‘crutch.’ Homer uses the word stauros of an ordinary pole or stake, or a single piece of timber. And this is the meaning and usage of the word throughout the Greek classics.

"It never means two pieces of timber placed across one another at any angle, but always of one piece alone. Hence the usage of the word xulon in connection with the manner of our Lord’s death and rendered ‘tree’ in Acts 5:39; 10:39; 13:29; Gal 3:13; 1Pe 2:24. This is preserved in our old English name rood, or rod. . . There is nothing in the Greek of the N.T. even to imply two pieces of timber. ""

The rod in the OT is a representation of Jesus being the Word of God in the flesh. How much more since does it make that Jesus was crucified on a rod then a cross? I think you will see that it has way more meaning than you can imagine. Let me continue though and share that it also says...

""The Catacombs in Rome bear the same testimony: ‘Christ’ is never represented there as ‘hanging on a cross,’ and the cross itself is only portrayed in a veiled and hesitating manner. In the Egyptian churches the cross was a PAGAN SYMBOL OF LIFE, borrowed by the Christians, and interpreted in the pagan manner. In his Letters from Rome Dean Burgon says: ‘I question whether a cross occurs on any Christian monument of the first four centuries.’ In Mrs. Jameson’s famous History of Our Lord as Exemplified in Works of Art, she says (vol.2, page 315): ‘It must be owned that ancient objects of art, as hitherto known, afford no corroboration of the use of the cross in the simple transverse form familiar to us, at any period preceding, or even closely succeeding, the tme of Chrysostom’; and Chrysostom wrote half a century after Constantine!" (p.186). Concludes Bullinger, "The evidence is thus complete, that the Lord was put to death upon an UPRIGHT STAKE, and not on two pieces of timber placed at any angle.""

Again, I know this has already been shared here, but what hasn't been shared, that is also included in the Companion Bible, is the word asherah. The word asherah, used in the OT gives much more symbolic meaning when you see Jesus being crucified on the same thing. Not only would it make since that the Jews at the time were horrified that He be crucified on such a thing (considering at that specific time that it was considered to be an idol phallic image), but it would make even more since if you consider what Bullinger believed it really meant before ancient Babylon took it and twisted it's meaning. Here is a link to Appendix 42 in the Companion Bible that deals specifically with this particular word.

http://www.biblestudysite.com/42.htm

From the above link.

"From a conspectus of the passages, we learn that it was either a living tree with the top cut off, and the stump or trunk fashioned into a certain shape (Deuteronomy 16:21); or it was artificially fashioned and set erect in the ground (Isaiah 17:8. 1 Kings 14:15; 16:33). It was made of wood (Judges 6:26) or stone."

and

"So with the 'Asherah. Originally a tree, symbolical of the "tree of life," it was an object of reverence and veneration. Then came the perversion of the earlier idea which simply honored the origin of life; and it was corrupted and debased into the organ of procreation, which was symbolized by the form and shape given to the 'Asherah. It was the Phallus image of Isaiah 57:8, and the "image of the male", Ezekiel 16:17."

I think anyone who has really researched the Bible should be getting an idea now of how significant of a difference it makes that Jesus be crucified on a single upright piece of wood. The belief that Jesus was crucified on a cross is perfect examples of making a lie to support another lie. It so fits what satan would do. As with most things in the Bible, much of the OT has symbolic/prophetic meanings for what happens in the NT and the idea that Jesus was crucified on the ashera/rod/tree of life makes much more since than to be crucified on a cross, who's roots come from Babylon. At the very beginning, we find many characters in the OT putting upright stones (asherah) in the ground to honor God in some form or fashion. The rod or staff was symbolic of the Word of God and the strongest rod or staff you could get would come from the center of the trunk of a tree. Have you ever looked at a picture of a tree showing the roots going into the ground and the branches full. In between the roots and the branches is the trunk. It is this center straight lined that a wooden asherah is taken from. I think I could almost write a thesis just on the tree of life and the root (Jesus) that feeds the water (Holy Spirit) to the trunk (us) to produce fruit. Now... I am not very good at all of this symbology stuff and I may have just mislabeled what parts of the tree represent what but I know that any of you who do know this better than I can see now the implications of what it means for Jesus to have been crucified on a stake and not a cross as thought of today. When looking at it from this angle, I am sure there is way more in the OT to support the idea of Jesus being crucified on the rod, His own Word.

abelElElyon

_________________
"He that is not liberal does not deserve the name."

St. John in Carmarthen