JW Insider

True. And the entire idea of Thanksgiving was to try to instill a positive political message about an atrocious period of U.S. History.

This is a very interesting subject, with a lot of good research surrounding it. Much of the research actually overlaps fairly consistently, but there is always plenty to learn. From your comments and questions over the last couple of years, I can tell you have given it more thought than most of us. I think that the David W Chapman book http://khazarzar.skeptik.net/books/crux01.pdf Ancient Jewish and Christian Perceptions of Crucifixion is excellent, especially since it fills in a known gap from Hengel, that Hengel himself admitted: that he had not given so much attention to the Jewish history and perceptions. I think Chapman fills this gap well, with Hebrew language and literature from every possible relevant source. In addition to classical Latin and Greek sources, he spends much time on Hebrew, Aramaic, and Syriac sources. Also, I think that BillyTheKid is correct in recommending "The Crosses of Pompeii: Jesus-Devotion in a Vesuvian Town" by Bruce W. Longenecker. It tries too hard to put Christian crosses in Pompeii itself, but it does a good job bringing in comparative ideas about how the cross symbol could likely have been used among "immature" Christians in this time and place. And it brings other known artifacts into the discussion. A pretty fair assessment of Longenecker's position on the historical development of the cross symbol is summarized here: https://www.thepostil.com/the-early-history-of-the-cross/#.W_YwbuhKjIU There was something I was surprised at, which is related. It's the study of early Christian gemstones. I've looked at them before, but noticed something different when thinking about the history of the cross symbol. This is actually what had led me to the nearly unrelated "Biblica" article on JSTOR, The Letter Tau as the Cross: Ornament and Content in Hebrews 2,14 Thomas E. Schmidt. That's a place, of course, where the discussion of all the T's in Hebrews 2:14 comes up. But back to gemstones. -------------------------SOURCE---------------------- Early Christian Gems and Their Rediscovery JEFFREY SPIER Studies in the History of Art Vol. 54, Symposium Papers XXXII: Engraved Gems: Survivals and Revivals (1997), pp. 32-43 (12 pages) Published by: National Gallery of Art https://www-jstor-org.azp1.lib.harvard.edu/stable/42622183 ------------------------------------------------------------------ What surprised me was the popularity of the story of Jonah, and I hadn't realized that it could have been a kind of "crucifixion" story for those who knew the significance of the execution and resurrection of Jesus, but who might not have wished to display Jesus humiliated and tortured. Of course, there is also the ship in the story (which bears the stauros) and was thought by these outsiders to have succeeded in ridding themselves of Jonah. The following picture is from the article mentioned above, and is a sample of several gemstones from the 200's through the 300's CE. Even the "IXTHYS" (the first one) could be just as much a Jonah reference (ixthys=fish) as a reference to Jesus' association with fishermen, the call to be fishers of men, and the miracles performed related to fish. The third picture of the two fish on the sides of an anchor could also be a "stauros" reference, not just "Jesus the anchor of our faith." It is a bit like other images of two evildoers hanging next to Jesus. Jonah is depicted in two of the gems. One of them has the story carved out in the way some churches depict the "stations of the cross" on stained glass. And it creates the cross-beamed stauros image with the ship. And the last one is finally of Christ's "crucifixion" from the 300's CE.

No one else pointed it out yet, so I thought it good to mention that A.T. Fomenko is a crackpot conspiracy theorist who came up with a theory that became surprisingly popular in Russia. He does not believe Jesus ever existed, and that all the things we know from history actually happened from the Middle Ages until now. There was no written history prior to 800 A.D. and everything we might call history: the Babylonian cuneiform tablets, Egyptian hieroglyphics, The "Old Testament" and the "New Testament" comes from about the year 1000 A.D. to 1500 A.D. He believes that "Jesus" was actually from the 12th century AD, and died just over 800 years ago. This means that we are, in effect, now actually living in the "9th century AD." Fomenko also says that "Solomon's Temple" was built almost exactly 500 years ago. So, Solomon's Temple was about 365 years AFTER Jesus died! Here's a summary taken from Wikipedia, with some of the dates and footnote numbers removed for readability: According to Fomenko's claims, the written history of humankind goes only as far back as AD 800, there is almost no information about events between AD 800–1000, and most known historical events took place in AD 1000–1500. Fomenko claims that the most probable prototype of the historical Jesus was Andronikos I Komnenos (allegedly AD 1152 to 1185), the emperor of Byzantium, known for his failed reforms; his traits and deeds reflected in 'biographies' of many real and imaginary persons. The historical Jesus is a composite figure and reflection of the Old-Testament prophet Elisha, Pope Gregory VII, Saint Basil of Caesarea, and even Li Yuanhao (also known as Emperor Jingzong or "Son of Heaven" - emperor of Western Xia, . . . ), Euclides, Bacchus and Dionysius. Fomenko explains the seemingly vast differences in the biographies of these figures as resulting from difference in languages, points of view and time-frame of the authors of said accounts and biographies. He claims that the historical Jesus may have been born in 1152 and was crucified around AD 1185 on the Joshua's Hill, overlooking the Bosphorus. Fomenko also merges the cities and histories of Jerusalem, Rome and Troy into "New Rome" = Gospel Jerusalem (in the 12th and 13th centuries) = Troy = Yoros Castle. To the south of Yoros Castle is Joshua's Hill which Fomenko alleges is the hill Calvary depicted in the Bible. Fomenko claims the Hagia Sophia is actually the biblical Temple of Solomon. He identifies Solomon as sultan Suleiman the Magnificent (1494–1566). It's true that he references "stauros" as a column, but as you saw in the quote you( @BillyTheKid46) provided he also showed that the final shape could look like a T (Tau), or even a more traditional "cross." But then he goes right on in the next paragraph to say that the Trojan War (usually dated to about 1250 BCE in the 13th century BCE), must have actually happened in the 13th century AD. That's a difference of about 2,500 years.

I've seen a word study on these two different basic terms that shows that they both went through a similar history, in both verb and noun forms, and both began with similar simple meanings and both developed and encompassed similar meanings when associated with punishments, and both took on the same prefix "ana." Before I forget, what I really loved about the perseus.tufts.edu site was that in earlier versions, years ago, you could pick a classical Greek or Latin (or other) text, and then when you had to look up a word, the color would change from bluish to purplish (the old default HTML style for a "visited link"). This would give you kind of a visual feedback on how many words you had to look up, and also was a reminder that you had already looked up the word if you ran across the same word again later in the text. I think you have seen the 337-page David Chapman PDF for his book "Ancient Jewish and Christian Perceptions of Crucifixion." I'm pretty sure that someone already linked it here in this topic (might have been you?). Anyway, it had a pretty good summary of the Greek terms on page 9 through 13 (where the footnotes even include a point about the Witnesses). It's in agreement with your post above, but I'll share a good part of it, except for the footnotes which take up half the page on average: ----------remainder of post from David Chapman PDF --------------------- Greek Terminology The familiar New Testament terms for the crucifixion of Jesus include the verbs σταυρόω (46 times, though not all of Jesus), συσταυρόω (5 times), and άνασταυρόω (in Heb 6:6), as well as the noun σταυρός. Also NT authors speak of the event with προσπήγνυμι ("to affix"; in Acts 2:23) or with the passive of κρεμάννυμι and έπϊ ξύλου ("to hang upon a tree"; cf. Acts 5:30; 10:39; Gal 3:13). Combining this terminology with that in Lucian's Prometheus* and in other works of Greek antiquity, several more words surface that, in context, can designate a crucifixion event: particularly άνασκολοπίζω (verb) and σκόλοψ (noun), and including verbs such as άνακρεμάννυμι, κατακλείω, καταπήγνυμι, πήγνυμι, προσηλόω, and προσπατταλεύω (= προσπασσαλεύω). Nevertheless, in Greek it is rare for the semantic range of any single term to be confined to "crucifixion." For example, a σταυρός appears originally to have referred to an upright pole. Thus a σταυρός can be a stake in a σταύρωμα ("palisade"; e.g., Thucydides, Hist, vi.100) as well as a pole on which a person is impaled or crucified. Hence it naturally follows that both άνασταυρόω and σταυρόω can refer to the building of stockades as well as to the setting up of poles (especially for the purpose of suspending people on σταυροί). Elsewhere a σταυρός can be used as a place of scourging, with the death following from some other method. Α σκόλοψ likewise generally refers to "anything pointed" (Liddell & Scott, s.v.), including pales, stakes, thorns, a point of a fishhook, and (in the plural) a palisade. And similarly, the cognate verb άνασκολοπίζω need not exclusively refer to "fix on a pole or a stake, impale. However, the "fundamental" references to an upright pole in σταυρός and its cognates, and to pointy objects in σκόλοψ and its cognates, does not rightly imply such that terminology in antiquity, when applied to crucifixion, invariably referred to a single upright beam. This is a common word study fallacy in some populist literature. In fact, such terminology often referred in antiquity to cross-shaped crucifixion devices. For example, Lucian, in a brief dialogue that employs most Greek crucifixion vocabulary, refers to the "crucifixion" of Prometheus, whose arms are pinned while stretched from one rock to another. Such a cross-shaped crucifixion position in the Roman era may actually have been the norm; nevertheless, the point to be sustained at this stage is that this position was not the only one to be designated with these Greek terms. In addition to recognizing the broader semantic ranges of these terms, it is helpful to note that different authors prefer certain terminology. Thus, while Philo knows σταυρός as a "cross" (see Flacc. 72, 84; contrast σταυροί as fortifications in Agr. 11; Spec. Leg. iv.229), he does not use the cognate verb άνασταυρόω, preferring instead άνασκολοπίζω. Josephus, on the other hand, employs only άνασταυρόω and σταυρόω but never άνασκολοπίζω. Hengel contends that in the Classical period Herodotus utilized άνασταυρόω and άνασκολοπίζω with different nuances from one another (άνασκολοπίζω of the suspension of living men and άνασταυρόω of dead men), but that after Herodotus these two verbs become synonymous. Such a picture may require some more nuance, but it is certainly the case that after Herodotus some authors use the terms interchangeably and that both verbs can designate acts of crucifixion (even in the narrow English sense of the word).

Sorry about that last post. I tried to do the whole thing from my Dragon speech app on my phone, and every time I reworded something, or decided to change it, I couldn't find the previous version. Then I found it all bunched down there at the bottom of my post. I removed most of the gibberish. I guess that was supposed to be me? LOL. I can assure you that I have never dissociated myself, nor have I ever been disfellowshipped. I did "step down" as we call it, but I am pretty sure that you yourself would most likely consider this to have been at least a "step" in the right direction. After all, I am now responsible for a lot less teaching assignments in the congregation. Your response to this has repeatedly been to call me someone who is "no longer in good standing," but surely this is better for everyone all around. (Turns out there are plenty of sacred service activities that don't require an "eldership" or "pioneership" etc.) The jwcross.pdf by Leolaia does not prove the Watchtower wrong. It does not even say that the Watchtower is wrong about Jesus dying on a simple, upright pole. It does try a bit too hard to show up the dogmatism and research errors, in staking out a position, but without crediting the Watchtower for exposing a major flaw in Christendom's assumptions, too. Also, the article avoids the issue of improper veneration to objects and idols, which has been a major part of the history of the cross. I understand that this is not a real focus of a "cross vs. stake" discussion, but since it is obviously geared to a JW and ex-JW audience, it should therefore give more credit where credit is due.

That statement of yours reminded me of the way in which you tried to discredit Leolaia's research from 1990. Were you able to find even one point yet in that particular research that is not supported by additional research? Sometimes, or I could even say nearly all the time, when you do try to point out an area of incompetence, so far I've only seen it fall flat because the research you offer will usually be often be found to exactly support the research you are trying to counter. For example, the single item you offered in conjunction with this statement about Leolaia was a point about a Persian method of execution mentioned at Esther 5:14. It's true that Leolaia had mentioned the same point in footnote number 17 about Esther 7:9,10. But all that footnote pointed out was that the Greek word "stauros" was used to describe Persian methods of execution that could be more complex, comprised of boards or additional stakes according to the Greek. You didn't say what the specific incompetence was, but yet in the same post you seemed only to be able to prove the correctness of the research by adding: "We know in Ancient Persia the gallows were equated to the cross, according to Ulfilas with the term “galga” used in the gothic testament. Gallows is in the shape of two T’s together. An (H) football goal post." I'm not talking about people's conclusions and opinions based on their research. But when it comes to the research and evidence itself, I have not yet seen any particular item of research or evidence that you have offered that did not fully support what Leolaia had stated.

Longenecker's work is OK. I just meant that when you copied from his book, you accidentally included his correct caption for Figure 6.6, but kept it attached to Figure 6.7, which has a different caption. But back to the previous post . . . I think you misunderstand. I believe that "stauros" referred initially to a simple pole, but became associated with punishments and executions, in large part because these acts were for many years associated mostly with simple poles. (whipping posts, hanging gallows, etc.) And even when the apparatus and contraptions for punishment and execution became a little more complex, a standing pole was still a prominent feature. This is actually about the same thing that the 1963 Awake! said about the development of the word "stauros." Note that Awake! says the Greek term "stauros" could mean not just a stake or a pole, but also a "cross." I perfectly accept that it initially meant an upright standing pole, stake, or could refer to palisade of stakes, etc. And I accept that it could very often have this meaning in Jesus' day, too. But "stauros" according to the Awake!, also had the meaning of "cross" and this was (according to the Awake!) one "modification of it [that] was introduced as the dominion and usages of Rome extended themselves through the Greek-speaking countries." So I do not think that the association of the idea of torture and execution by a stauros means that we are only talking only about a two-beamed cross, Latin cross, Tau-shaped, or Chi-shaped cross. I think that any of these shapes were possible, even a tree with random branches. And I still think there is a good possibility that Jesus was executed on a simple, upright pole. As I've said before, in any case, I think it's good that we have pointed out to people the possibility of this possible choice, because it immediately makes people think twice about the traditional cross symbol used all over Christendom. The only thing I don't accept is the claim that the evidence is so overwhelming that we must all accept that this absolutely was the shape of the execution instrument. In fact, after a lot of study, especially over the last two years, I have finally decided that the evidence leans slightly in favor of a Tau-shaped or, even more likely, the traditional crux immissa shaped cross. This is mostly based on a common practice with the stauros/patibulum, and the Gospel writers' focus on Jesus carrying his "stauros." There are about 6 other factors (bits of evidence) which add slightly to the reasons I lean this way. I have mentioned most of them already. I believe the X shape is interesting, but I am pretty sure it survived into Christian art and symbolism mostly because of the Hebrew Tau of Ezekiel 9, and its appearance that looks like a Greek Chi ("X") that would appear to match the first initial of Christ (Xristou/Xristos). I think the symbolism of the Chi-Rho is exactly this: not Christ in an X-shaped body position, but X on the stauros. It implies an single upright pole in this case, but was also superimposed on the crux immissa to produce a "star" shape. Longenecker explains the Ezekiel 9:4 connection where the KJV says: And the LORD said unto him, Go through the midst of the city, through the midst of Jerusalem, and set a mark upon the foreheads of the men that sigh and that cry for all the abominations that be done in the midst thereof. Since the word for mark is TAU, it can be read or translated as: And the LORD said unto him, Go through the midst of the city, through the midst of Jerusalem, and set a TAU upon the foreheads of the men that sigh and that cry for all the abominations that be done in the midst thereof. I haven't seen it proven yet, but I would guess that the fact that pre-Christian Jewish ossuaries sometimes have a TAU on them in the shape of either a + or x is because this was the shape of the TAU at the time: I haven't read it anywhere yet, but I assume that some scholar somewhere has already tied this letter to ossuaries in a similar way that Jesus is the Alpha and Omega. Where Omega is the LAST letter of the alphabet, and in Hebrew, TAU is the last letter, and a good letter to represent Death, מָוֶת which also ends in TAU in Hebrew. The association of Tau with Death is also possibly done in Hebrews 2:14 which says in the KJV: Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same; that through death he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil; But in Greek it uses "alliteration" with the letter T more than any other Bible verse. If you thought the English translation "fight the fine fight of the faith" was alliterative, check out this verse in Greek, keeping in mind that the subject is death, and also keeping in mind that an opening "Theta" as in the word thanatos (death) was often pronounced at the time more like the th in hot-head, not the th in "the." ἐπεὶ οὖν τὰ παιδία κεκοινώνηκεν σαρκός καὶ αἵματος καὶ αὐτὸς παραπλησίως μετέσχεν τῶν αὐτῶν ἵνα διὰ τοῦ θανάτου καταργήσῃ τὸν τὸ κράτος ἔχοντα τοῦ θανάτου τουτ' έστιν τὸν διάβολον The writer (Paul?) manages to keep at least one Tau in a string of 12 consecutive words, and offers a total of 19 Taus in the last 20 words. There! Figured I'd give you some "low-hanging fruit" since I'm pretty sure you already consider everything I've ever said to be fairly worthless anyway. 😉

Just saw this, and thought I should correct a mistake you made here, even though I won't have time to respond today to any of the other statements in your last post. I looked at this picture and thought, how did anyone ever get the name Yehudah out of what is clearly the Shalamsion Ossuary, with the name Shalamsion repeated twice in the picture. Also, this is a recumbent (reclining) cross, not what's usually called a plain equilateral cross. So I looked up the original to see whether Longenecker made the error. Here's what happened. You included the caption for an image that was above this one, and you didn't include the caption for the image you presented (which was below the image, not above it). Here are both of them, with the error corrected:

The relevant portions of Longenecker's Crosses of Pompeii are already available online. Of course Longenecker pretty much demolishes the Watchtower's position, that the cross was not in use by by persons associated with Christian religion prior to Constantine. Notice how the publisher promotes his book on Amazon, The Cross Before Constantine: The Early Life of a Christian Symbol: This book brings together, for the first time, the relevant material evidence demonstrating Christian use of the cross prior to Constantine. Bruce Longenecker upends a longstanding consensus that the cross was not a Christian symbol until Constantine appropriated it to consolidate his power in the fourth century. Longenecker presents a wide variety of artifacts from across the Mediterranean basin that testify to the use of the cross as a visual symbol by some pre-Constantinian Christians. Those artifacts interlock with literary witnesses from the same period to provide a consistent and robust portrait of the cross as a pre-Constantinian symbol of Christian devotion. The material record of the pre-Constantinian period illustrates that Constantine did not invent the cross as a symbol of Christian faith; for an impressive number of Christians before Constantine's reign, the cross served as a visual symbol of commitment to a living deity in a dangerous world. Not looking for anyone's specific view, just good research and good evidence, good history, good linguistic analysis, etc. No one should go into a subject looking for authors who give a specific view.

No. Not missing anything on that count. We have already seen from several sources that the patibulum could be tied, or not tied, or nailed or not nailed. The gospel accounts show that Jesus was not nailed until he reached the place of execution. So, whatever he carried sounds like the same process associated with the carrying of the stauros/patibulum. If he carried such a patibulum, then according to the use of the term stauros, he could be said to be carrying/bearing his own stauros/xylon. And if Jesus were nailed to this patibulum, and it was quickly hoisted onto a standing pole, then the pole itself was also the stauros/xylon, because it was used in this type of execution (stauros). If a patibulum were discarded and Jesus was nailed directly to the standing stauros/xylon, then it would still of course be a stauros/xylon execution. If he were nailed to a tree (xylon) or some other gallows (xylon) or complex contraption (xylon) made up of one or more pieces in any of several different directions, it would still be a stauros/xylon execution. The point is that the simplest and quickest of all these optionns, to me, would be to nail him to the stauros/xylon he was carrying and hoist it onto a standing stauros/xylon. This assumption appears to be the simplest way of reading the gospel accounts, and for me, requires the least number of additional assumptions left out of the text. It fits the rushed nature of the judgment, the fact that he was given a stauros to carry, and that he was executed between or among others who were evidently undergoing stauros/xylon executions on the same day. The text doesn't say if he was nailed to the piece he was carrying. It doesn't say if a pole were already standing when he was nailed to it, or if it was on the ground and then hoisted. It doesn't say if a new hole was dug, or how deep it would need to have been. It doesn't say how the pole or contraption was propped up. It doesn't say if a ladder was required, or additional timbers or wedges to prop up the stauros . It doesn't even say if Jesus' feet were nailed, or tied, or neither. The Bible doesn't say Jesus was raised above the other criminals. Maybe he was; maybe he wasn't. I think you are saying that if Jesus were nailed to a crossbeam, the scriptures should have told us that he was also tied, even though we don't even know if Jesus was ever tied to a crossbeam. The Bible does not say that Peter was crucified or executed on any kind of stauros/xylon device. So there is no optic that is even necessarily related to a stauros execution here. (John 21:18, 19) Most truly I say to you, when you were younger, you used to clothe yourself and walk about where you wanted. But when you grow old, you will stretch out your hands and another man will clothe you and carry you where you do not wish.” 19 He said this to indicate by what sort of death he would glorify God. After he said this, he said to him: “Continue following me.” This could just as well refer to a prisoner who is led around or carried around. With stauros executions, the victim was humiliated through complete nudity and could be contorted into obscene positions. So while the expression "stretch out your hands" was often associated with a stauros execution, it can also refer to a person who becomes an "invalid" or perhaps as a prisoner being led about. (This does not mean he was not "crucified." But speculating on the type of stauros is not going to get us anywhere.) I covered this idea already in the first part of the post. There are no known examples of anyone carrying a two-beamed cross, or even a two beamed cross being erected on the spot for an execution. Doesn't mean it could never happen. However a well-researched historical understanding of stauros (n) and stauroo (v) is all one needs to make sense of the Biblical accounts. False religion comes up with a lot of things that make no sense: Christmas trees, Easter eggs, Pyramid measurements, eternal torment, justified warfare, wearing crosses around one's neck, kissing a Pope's ring, etc. The Greek doesn't come out at all when the text is copied from sites like https://epdf.tips/crucifixion-in-the-ancient-world-and-the-folly-of-the-message-of-the-cross-facet.html or https://religiondocbox.com/72495443-Pagan_and_Wiccan/Martin-hengel-crucifixion-in-the-ancient-world-and-the-folly-of-the-message-of-the-cross-philadelphia.html or https://religiondocbox.com/Pagan_and_Wiccan/72495443-Martin-hengel-crucifixion-in-the-ancient-world-and-the-folly-of-the-message-of-the-cross-philadelphia.html for example. The OCR is pretty good for Latin, of course, but can't handle Greek. All three of the sites I mentioned will give you the "alaxvvrj" that you quoted, when the actual word is αἰσχύνη/αἰσχύνης [from: "endured the cross, despising the shame, and is set down at the right hand of the throne of God" -KJV]. A point of interest on the words used for this type of execution is that in the next century after Jesus, two different words were finally utilized in order to distinguish between a simple stake and a "Latin cross." The word crux (crucis/crucibus) was continued as the word for a Latin cross, and the simple stake was given a different word, rather than the other way around as one would expect if the Watchtower's view were correct. About 100 years after Revelation was likely written, Tertullian says: "You hang Christians on crosses (crucibus) and stakes (stipitibus); what idol is there but is first moulded in clay, hung on a cross and stake (cruci et stipiti)? It is on a patibulum that the body of your god is first dedicated" (Apologeticus, 12.3). "For this same letter TAU of the Greeks, which is our T, has the appearance of the cross (crucis)" (Apologeticus, 3.23.6) And of course, closer to only 50 years after Revelation was written, we have Justin Martyr describing the shape of the stauros: And again the same prophet Isaiah, being inspired by the prophetic Spirit, said, "I have spread out my hands to a disobedient and gainsaying people, to those who walk in a way that is not good. They now ask of me judgment, and dare to draw near to God." And again in other words, through another prophet, He says, "They pierced My hands and My feet, and for My vesture they cast lots." And indeed David, the king and prophet, who uttered these things, suffered none of them; but Jesus Christ stretched forth His hands, being crucified by the Jews speaking against Him, and denying that He was the Christ. - First Apology, Chapter XXXV "God does not permit the lamb of the passover to be sacrificed in any other place than where His name was named; knowing that the days will come, after the suffering of Christ, when even the place in Jerusalem shall be given over to your enemies, and all the offerings, in short, shall cease; and that 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." - Second Apology, Chapter XL The Tertullian and Justin quotes were taken from https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/questions/5595/jesus-and-the-cross/5646

The book is here, and in other places: https://books.google.com/books?id=UDEPFqTiQhUC But you'll notice that Martin Hengel does not propose a single upright stake, but also believes the arms were stretched apart, to the sides, nailed separately, and that the sign was directly above Jesus' head, not his hands. Some good research that Hengel does offer, was found in the Watchtower: *** w10 8/15 p. 4 Resist the Pressure of Public Opinion *** Execution on a torture stake subjected the victim to the worst of all possible indignities. Such an execution was “the penalty for slaves,” says scholar Martin Hengel. “As such it symbolized extreme humiliation, shame and torture.” Social pressure to renounce a person who was dishonored in this way was brought upon his family and friends. Since Christ died in this manner, all who wanted to be Christians in the first century C.E. thus had to face the challenge of public ridicule. Most people likely considered it absurd for someone to identify himself as a follower of a man who suffered impalement. Although a casual reader might think it's implied here that Hengel believed that Jesus' died on a "torture stake" as defined by the Watchtower, a careful reader will notice that this is not stated. Hengel offers a lot of very good evidence showing how even the Romans were themselves embarrassed and scandalized over the atrocities they were promoting whenever they allowed a crucifixion. Historians were reticent to mention them. Roman governors and even Caesars themselves did not want to speak of this particular atrocity even if they had been responsible for some of them. It was considered too disgusting even for a nation of people (Romans) who had become famous for public bloodshed. Hengel thus says: An alleged son of god who could not help himself at the time of his deepest need (Mark 15.31), and who rather required his followers to take up the cross, was hardly an attraction to the lower classes of Roman and Greek society. People were all too aware of what it meant to bear the cross through the city and then to be nailed to it (patibulum ferat per urbem, deinde offigitur cruci, Plautus, Carbonaria, fr. 2) and feared it; they wanted to get away from it. Moreover, early Christianity was not particularly a religion of slaves; at the time of Paul, and much more so with Pliny and Tertullian, it embraced men of every rank, omnis ordinis. This basic theme of the supplicium servile also illuminates the hymn in Philippians 2.6-11. Anyone who was present at the wor­ship of the churches founded by Paul in the course of his mission, in which this hymn was sung, and indeed any reader of Philippians in ancient times, would inevitably have seen a direct connection between the 'emptied himself, taking the form of a slave' (ἑαυτὸν ἐκένωσεν μορφὴν δούλου λαβών) and the disputed end of the first strophe: 'he humbled himself and was obedient unto death, even the death of the cross'. Death on the cross was the penalty for slaves, as everyone knew; as such it symbolized extreme humilia­tion, shame and torture. Thus the θανάτου δὲ σταυροῦ is the last bitter consequence of the μορφὴν δούλου λαβών and stands in the most abrupt contrast possible with the beginning of the hymn with its description of the divine essence of the pre-existence of the cruci­fied figure, as with the exaltation surpassing anything that might be conceived (ὁ θεὸς αὐτὸν ὑπερύψωσεν). The one who had died the death of a slave was exalted to be Lord of the whole creation and bearer of the divine name Kyrios. If it did not have θανάτου δὲ σταυροῦ at the end of the first strophe, the hymn would lack its most decisive statement.

The use of the patibulum as a key part of the stauros, included parading the accused through the public as he was marched toward execution and sometimes flogged along the way. This idea is definitely hinted at in the scriptural accounts. The imprint of multiple nails in the hands may also be a hint that the final form was more like a T, and the idea that the sign was over his head, not his hands, is also a hint that the final form was more like a T. Also, as already pointed out, the scriptures say both things, that Jesus was "nailed" to the execution device, and that he was "hung" from the execution device. The type of patibulum attachment you describe would be a good solution to match both terms to a T. By the term "15th century," I assume you mean the late 1500's (16th century) and early 1600's (17th century) when Lipsius was published. And yes it's true he used research from the 4th century and earlier. But he, Lipsius, also came to the conclusion after all that researech, that Jesus was crucified on a dual-beamed cross. Quoting from the same book you quoted, Crucifixion in Antiquity, by Gunnar Samuelsson: "It was on a crux immissa, Lipsius concludes, that Jesus had to suffer and die." [LIPSIUS, De Cruce, p.27-29] Imagine! After all this research and discussion, and the fact that the Watchtower publications repeat his illustration of a crux simplex, our publications regularly leave out the fact that Lipsius concluded that it was a cross with a lowered crossbeam (patibulum). Fulda, the 19th century researcher we have spoken about, is also criticized in the "Crucifixion in Antiquity" book, as a person who doesn't explain his own contradictions, and draws some of his conclusions without providing any of those quotes from the 4th century and prior. The most important point about Fulda made in this book is this: Historically, I would agree. Recall that, as you said, crucifixions on simple poles had been known since the 10th century BCE. I can't imagine the mass executions taking the time for a public flogging, a public riot, and a humiliating parade through the streets in the manner of the patibulum-associated two-beam executions. There were mass executions in the century or so prior to Jesus, and the first century itself. I believe, numerically, a simple-pole stauros/crux was clearly more common. I would only expect the patibulum to be part of the process in those special cases where a public humiliation was part of the process, such as one might expect if the person had gained some notoriety, or if especially he had claimed to be a "King of the Jews" for example. Also, the April 8, 1963 Awake! magazine, referred to earlier, speaks of the evolution of the meaning of stauros over the centuries based on developing Roman execution practices. The research in that Awake! admits that the stauros could mean a dual-beamed cross, and therefore aligns with the research from Leolaia, but with the Biblical interpretation in the Awake! leaning more on xylon rather then stauros. This was why Leolaia pointed out the logical blunder made in that same Awake! in its incorrect explanation of xylon. Still, notice that in spite of the very context you quoted, Lipsius still ends up putting the crucifixion of Jesus in this modus rarus category. In addition several of the styles of execution and "crux punishments" on a simple pole were also in the modus rarus category.

Interesting to look at the term used by Lucian, "anastauroo." *** Rbi8 p. 1577 5C “Torture Stake” *** It was to such a stake, or pale, that the person to be punished was fastened, just as the popular Greek hero Prometheus was represented as tied to rocks. Whereas the Greek word that the dramatist Aeschylus used to describe this simply means to tie or to fasten, the Greek author Lucian (Prometheus, I) used a·na·stau·roʹo as a synonym for that word. In the Christian Greek Scriptures a·na·stau·roʹo occurs but once, in Heb 6:6. I'm not saying that @BillyTheKid46 was right (I don't think he is on this point) but note what he or one of his sources apparently claimed about that word "ana-stauroo": If @BillyTheKid46 is right about this, it was not the original way in which anastauro was used, but I can see how it might have developed into quick way to distinguish a "crossing" cross with a simple, upright stake or pole. But this would never be claimed by the Watchtower because that would cause 'fits' with Hebrews 6:6 which uses the word and would therefore mean the following: (Hebrews 6:6) but who have fallen away, to revive them again to repentance, because they [ANASTAUROO - crucify on a dual-beamed, crossing cross] the Son of God afresh for themselves and expose him to public shame. Wikipedia mentions that Seneca The Younger (4BC - AD65) had observed the following during his life: The Greek and Latin words corresponding to "crucifixion" applied to many different forms of painful execution, including being impaled on a stake, or affixed to a tree, upright pole (a crux simplex), or (most famous now) to a combination of an upright (in Latin, stipes) and a crossbeam (in Latin, patibulum). Seneca the Younger wrote: "I see crosses there, not just of one kind but made in many different ways: some have their victims with head down to the ground; some impale their private parts; others stretch out their arms on the gibbet".[14] Just another thought. Some large bones all come together in a smaller area at the wrist and there is therefore very little space at the wrist to pound a nail without the probability of breaking bones. There was a posting on this topic, which seemed all wrong for this same reason:

This picture is taken from Hermann Fulda's book, Das Kreuz und die Kreuzigung (The Cross and the Crucifixion). There is a site in Polish that covers this book in much more detail. Some of the pictures from this book are grotesque. The Polish site mentions the following about the picture that @BillyTheKid46 provided Należy też nadmienić, że Fulda nie wierzy, iż Jezusowi przybito gwoździem do krzyża stopy i uważa, że jego szybką śmierć spowodowało odsunięcie siedzenia: Which translates (approximately): It is also worth noting that Fulda does not believe that Jesus' foot was nailed the nailed to the cross and considers that his rapid death resulted in the offset of the seat. Technically, looking at John 20, it is only the hands that are spoken of as having "nails" (and Fulda offers a picture to show how both hands could have two separate nails on an upright stake). Note that the WT publications admit the same possibility, only saying it was "likely" that his feet were nailed: *** nwtsty Luke Study Notes—Chapter 24 *** 24:39 -- my hands and my feet: As in Jesus’ case, nailing the hands (and likely the feet also) of the accused to a stake was customary among the Romans. (Ps 22:16; Joh 20:25, 27; Col 2:14) Some scholars believe that a nail or nails pierced Jesus’ feet, fixing them directly to the stake or to a small platform attached to the stake. 24:40 -- . . . and his feet: Some manuscripts do not include the words of this verse, but the verse has strong support in early authoritative manuscripts. There is no Bible verse that mentions any nail or nails in Jesus' feet. But we speculate because Luke 24:39 mentions feet although doesn't mention holes or nails there. Here is the site in Polish that covers some of the historical evolution of the Watchtower's cross/stake doctrine: http://piotrandryszczak.pl/pal_cz1.html A translation to English of some of the words but not the book images can be produced with this link: http://www.microsofttranslator.com/bv.aspx?from=&to=en&refd=www.bing.com&rr=DC&a=http%3a%2f%2fpiotrandryszczak.pl%2fpal_cz1.html The entire original book in German may be found here: https://archive.org/details/daskreuzunddiek01fuldgoog/page/n11 but the pictures which begin around p.349 (p.367 of the PDF) have been obscured in that version. Here are some of them: A portion related especially to the "rush to judgment" (already discussed in some previous posts) is interesting in Fulda's book, as translated German to Polish to English here: "That the PATIBULUM on his death was not used, the story itself the Gospel clearly and enough for a simple beam militate in favour of a single frame of the last moments of life, which cannot be overlooked. First I have to once again remind you of great haste with which this terrible execution has been made (paragraph 29). Even if artificially joined crosses here and there, and so in this case, he was allowed to deal on the difficult work, set in motion the first saw, hatchet, chisel and drill, because Pilate was not prepared for the crucifixion, however, Jesus immediately after the announcement of the sentence of death, without any delay, the led has been on the place of execution. In addition, a simple cross was in the Eastern countries for centuries widely adopted, for especially prepared instrument of death would have to be a separate determination, and STAUROS (pal, cross) and ETS (tree) does not fit the punishment ( See also paragraph 14). It is also impossible to the Prosecutor for this one case stubbornly insisted on a unique shape that would become his own invention.Instead, in this hour intensively think to invent a form of the cross, or the lead of pain, or increased infamy, as was the ordinary form of the cross, which was used for a long time. Zestermann (see Appendix C and D 52) confirms completely correctly (page 10), in contrast to the opinion of many others, that the Jews of crossing was not a common practice.However, this does not preclude the occasional withdrawal from their criminal code, although we can see that the High Council ordered the crucifixion of Jesus. Brands, najwiarygodniejszy of the Evangelists, he writes in 15:15: "he released them to Jesus to be flogged and crucified", and Luke 23:25-26: "handed over Jesus their will;". Similarly, J 19:16. If now not all take literally, as it is written, it is obvious that, according to the Gospels crucifixion of Jesus was more a matter of the Sanhedrin than attorney. As a small erected protest due to breach of this time his right, when time was short (paragraph 29), they showed also by failure according to the law of the seven-day deadline to comply with the judgment. And so the final application Zestermanna is too premature, because Jesus was crucified by the Romans, so Cross and how to cross could be just the usual way crosses on the Romans. The writers are holding too much by them known shape, assign also to Pilate too much sticking to the right on the way to Rome, in this case, which he entrusted to the Jews, to their satisfaction. However, the soldiers, the unskilled workers of the Jews, as usual, they fixed it as soon as possible." Note that in Fulda's upright stauros, the 'King of the Jews" sign is placed above Jesus' hands, and not more specifically above his head as the Bible describes it. The initial quotes from Fulda appeared with an odd reason for accepting them. In fact it is the only time that the Watchtower magazine itself has mentioned him (1957) as far as I have found so far. *** w57 3/15 p. 166 Did Christ Die on a Cross? *** Certainly in view of the foregoing it cannot honestly be stated that Christ without doubt was nailed on the traditionally shaped cross. And it is of striking interest to note that it is those authorities that lean toward the view that Christ was nailed on such a cross that admit doubt. But those who hold that Christ died on a simple stake or pole are not in doubt. Says one such: “Jesus died on a simple deathstake: In support of this there speak (a) the then customary usage of this means of execution in the Orient, (b) indirectly the history itself of Jesus’ sufferings and (c) many expressions of the early Church fathers.”—The Cross and Crucifixion, Hermann Fulda. From another perspective, that's the same as saying that scholars who are honest will rarely state that something is a definitely known fact, but will report the evidence rather than stating that something is "PROOF." And they quote the claim of Fulda written in such language here. (Actually in other portions of his book, he states that we are only left with two options, an upright stake, or a standard, traditional "crucifix.") Notice the emphasis on PROOF that the Reference Bible gave: *** Rbi8 p. 1578 5C “Torture Stake” *** The book Das Kreuz und die Kreuzigung (The Cross and the Crucifixion), by Hermann Fulda, Breslau, 1878, p. 109, says: “Trees were not everywhere available at the places chosen for public execution. So a simple beam was sunk into the ground. On this the outlaws, with hands raised upward and often also with their feet, were bound or nailed.” After submitting much proof, Fulda concludes on pp. 219, 220: “Jesus died on a simple death-stake: In support of this there speak (a) the then customary usage of this means of execution in the Orient, (b) indirectly the history itself of Jesus’ sufferings and (c) many expressions of the early church fathers.” The Awake! said: *** g74 9/22 p. 28 Did Jesus Die on a Cross? *** Fulda also points out that some of the oldest illustrations of Jesus impaled depict him on a simple pole. But this does not appear to be true. Even the illustration of Justus Lipsius, often used in our publications, comes from the late 1500's and early 1600's. Just as with Fulda, this is during the time of what the Watchtower calls a period of "apostasy."

What you generally describe does seem to work with the gospel accounts. There are some specific points I would still question, including the fact that Anna already pointed out: Jesus was not nailed until reaching the final place of execution. Some have shown concern about whether Jesus could really have carried his stauros considering the weight. There is some evidence that the Roman execution process could include putting a notch in the patibulum beam of the stauros that was carried in public on the way to the execution site. Some have also shown concern about the extra time it would take to prepare a patibulum with a notch while in the midst of a "rush" to judgment. But if a stake/tree was already standing at the place of execution "Skull Place" it could have already contained the notch that the patibulum was merely hoisted onto. The idea of the arms stretched wide across a patibulum to carry it, and then later having the hands nailed widely apart onto that same patibulum also solves an issue about whether a ladder was needed. If Jesus were already nailed to a patibulum then 2 or 3 soldiers who were 6-feet tall could easily hoist it to a notch (already prepared) about 8 feet off the ground. If the arms remain at about the same level as the head, then Jesus' feet are still a foot or two off the ground depending on his height. And they would need to be nailed, too. Previously, some have speculated that the very fact that this Skull Place existed and two criminals were being executed there on the same day could be an indication that the scarce timber of this country was already standing in place ready for constant re-use without the need to dig new holes and hoist tall poles into them and shore them up so that they could not fall over. The patibulum practice of making someone march through the public carrying it on their back, makes perfect sense in such an environment. But it's still speculation. To me it's a matter of which way the overall evidence leans.

A Greek philosopher like Homer? Does your source even know who Homer was supposed to have been? Does he or she know that works attributed to Homer were supposed to have been written around 800 B.C.E.? Some say he might have actually been a witness to the Trojan War dated to around 1200 B.C.E. How likely is it, then, that he used "Stavros" (stauros) as a surname for Christos? This was covered already. If your source had done real research in Greek, they would not have made such a mistake in thinking that Stauros means "crown wreath." Stephan can mean that, but not Stauros or Stavros -- the word meaning "cross," or person's name meaning "cross." It can't be accepted by anyone who has done any research or study of the facts. Stavros is not related to thorn crown. Stavros is stauros, the upright pole or cross shaped object for execution. Some of these poles or crosses might have had an extra piece called a "horn" or "thorn" added to them, (the sedile) but this is unrelated to a crown wreath, or a crown of thorns. This is like saying that the "|" is a pagan Baal and phallic symbol and played no role in the crucifixion of Christ. Not sure why you added this. It's true, but it appears to be evidence in favor of a major feature of the scriptural account. Thanks for the support, even if inadvertent.

It should be noted that none of the pictures you showed, not even this one of pagan Marsyas, were from sources giving evidence that Jesus died on an upright pole. I only mention this fact because some people might see such pictures and get a sense that there is historical evidence about an upright pole as a method for the execution of Jesus. It should probably also be noted that you have found no pictures of pagan persons on crosses prior to Christ, but have found several images of pagans on poles. Yet, these ideas about pagans and idolatry still seem to be the key to your complete rejection the earliest known evidence about the shape of the stauros upon which Jesus was executed. Of course, you have the right to accept or reject whatever evidence you wish on whatever grounds you wish. I'm just looking for the logic behind it. You have used the term crucifixion to indicate execution on a traditional cross-shaped device. If this is what you mean, then who do you think originated crucifixion on such a device before the Romans? And for how many years, decades, centuries, etc., do you think these other persons were executing people on crosses before the Romans. Also, I note that you describe it as "cruelty imposed on criminals and slaves," which is true, but which appears to be at odds with the logic in the next statement: Crucifixion itself was cruelty imposed on criminals/slaves, but you say the original word for it was added later to symbolize an honorable and victorious death. What was that original word that was added later? How original could it have been if it was added later? And now you say it was the first rendering of "torture stake" that wasn't available until a very long time later because it was hidden. Again, what was this first rendering and how could it have been first if it came along a very long time later after being hidden? Because you are repeatedly using the term "we know" about all these points, I don't think you should have trouble answering any of the questions that come up about them. And of course, you included the first definition as taken from classical Greek and "pagan" authors, but left off the second definition which aligns with the examples found in the Christian Greek Scriptures. Here is definition 2 from STRONGS NT 4716: 2. a cross; a. the well-known instrument of most cruel and ignominious punishment, borrowed by the Greeks and Romans from the Phoenicians; to it were affixed among the Romans, down to the time of Constantine the Great, the guiltiest criminals, particularly the basest slaves, robbers, the authors and abetters of insurrections, and occasionally in the provinces, at the arbitrary pleasure of the governors, upright and peaceable men also, and even Roman citizens themselves; cf. Winers RWB, under the word Kreuzigung; Merz in Herzog edition 1 ((cf. Schaff-Herzog) also Schultze in Herzog edition 2), under the word Kreuz; Keim, iii., p. 409ff. (English translation, vi. 138; BB. DD., see under the words, Cross, Crucifixion; O. Zöckler, Das Kreuz Christi (Gütersloh, 1875); English translation, Lond. 1878; Fulda, Das Kreuz u. d. Kreuzigung (Bresl. 1878); Edersheim, Jesus the Messiah, ii. 582ff). This horrible punishment the innocent Jesus also suffered: Matthew 27:32, 40, 42; Mark 15:21, 30, 32; Luke 23:26; John 19:17, 19, 25, 31; Colossians 2:14; Hebrews 12:2; θάνατος σταυροῦ, Philippians 2:8; τό αἷμα τοῦ σταυροῦ, blood shed on the cross; Colossians 1:20. b. equivalent to the crucifixion which Christ underwent: Galatians 5:11 (on which see σκάνδαλον, under the end); Ephesians 2:16; with the addition of τοῦ Χριστοῦ, 1 Corinthians 1:17; the saving power of his crucifixion, Philippians 3:18 (on which see ἐχθρός, at the end); Galatians 6:14; τῷ σταυρῷ τοῦ Χριστοῦ διώκεσθαι, to encounter persecution on account of one's avowed belief in the saving efficacy of Christ's crucifixion, Galatians 6:12; ὁ λόγος ὁ τοῦ σταυροῦ, the doctrine concerning the saving power of the death on the cross endured by Christ, 1 Corinthians 1:18. The judicial usage which compelled those condemned to crucifixion themselves to carry the cross to the place of punishment (Plutarch, de sara numinis vindict. c. 9; Artemidorus Daldianus, oneir. 2, 56, cf. John 19:17), gave rise to the proverbial expression αἴρειν or λαμβάνειν or βαστάζειν τόν σταυρόν αὐτοῦ, which was usually used by those who, on behalf of God's cause, do not hesitate cheerfully and manfully to bear persecutions, troubles, distresses — thus recalling the fate of Christ and the spirit in which he encountered it (cf. Bleek, Synop. Erkl. der drei ersten Evangg. i, p. 439f): Matthew 10:38; Matthew 16:24; Mark 8:34; Mark 10:21 (R L in brackets); Mark 15:21; Luke 9:23; Luke 14:27.

Pretty rough on actors, I'd say. I guess everyone's a critic.

I didn't know for sure if it was a typo. I knew it was factually wrong, but thought it might be from whatever source you got your information. In fact, the majority of your research is wrong, especially when it referred to Greek definitions. And it couldn't all be typos. Here was another example: Your source that said "Stavros" meant "thorn crown" was wrong. Probably mixed it up with "stephanos." Stavros is just another way to transliterate "stauros."

A certain Allen Smith has stated here that he has two PhD's in theology, and when answering further questions about it, he confirmed that at least one of his multiple PhD's is in the area of Theology. I have never mentioned any similar specific degrees, except to say that I got a bachelor's degree in Computer Science after leaving Bethel. I do not have an MA in Theology or anything like that. My wife does have an MA degree is in Linguistics, but I don't remember ever mentioning it. I have read the writings of persons with both an MA and PhD in Theology, and all of them who have studied the historical use of "stauros" have made it very clear that there is certainly NOT only one way to define stauros. Also, you would be claiming that the Watchtower publications are wrong, too, when they claim that the word "stauros" could refer to a plain pole, a stake or a cross:

Not so sure about this. First of all, it was never Sturous, but σταυρός / σταυροῦ which is transliterated as stauros, staurou, stauro, or sometimes stavros, stavrou, stavro. But why do you say "earlier versions" defined it as plank? Earlier version of Greek before Homer? And are you really implying the word "plank" as a punishment? Speaking of pirates and ships, however, this mainsail is the shape that some Greek / Roman writers described as the STAUROS: One quote offered in Leolaia, p.5, is the following from about 160 C.E.: Artemidorus Daldianus, a pagan soothsayer who flourished in the second century A.D. Sometime around A.D. 160, he wrote a dream interpretation manual named Oneiro critica. In one passage (2,53), Artemidorus remarked: Being crucified is auspicious for all seafarers. For the σταυρος [stauros], like a ship, is made of wood and nails, and the ship's mast resembles a σταυρος.[stauros]

It would not surprise me in the least if evidence were discovered that indicated that Jesus died on a simple, upright pole, rather than a two-beamed traditional cross. It also wouldn't surprise me in the least if additional evidence were discovered that indicates that Jesus died on a traditional, two-beamed cross. But up to this point, I'd have to admit that no evidence for a single-beamed upright pole with reference to Jesus' execution has yet been discovered. The evidence isn't very strong, but all of it, so far, points to a dual-beamed, traditional cross. Good points. And if Jesus were executed on a traditional, dual-beamed cross, then what would have been the correct words to refer to this type of instrument? "STAUROS" and "CRUX." And these are the words used in the oldest known manuscripts of the Bible. These are the same words used in the Christian Greek Scriptures and the early Latin translations of those Greek Scriptures, which were translated at a time when Greek was still a living vibrant language spoken by hundreds of thousands of people in the Roman world. It's true that the Greek and Latin words "stauros" and "crux" could also refer to a simple upright pole, but it's also still true that the words "stauros" and "crux" were also the CORRECT words the Bible would use to refer to a two-beamed cross, or even another shape altogether. There was no better word. Of course, the same could be said for the single-beam, upright pole. While we have no direct evidence in the Bible that a traditional cross-shaped symbol was a pagan symbol, the Bible contains many direct examples showing that the single-beam, upright pole was a pagan symbol. (Deuteronomy 16:21, 22) 21 “You should not plant any sort of tree as a sacred pole near the altar of Jehovah your God that you make for yourself. 22 “Neither should you set up a sacred pillar for yourself, something Jehovah your God hates. (Judges 6:25) . . .tear down the altar of Baʹal that belongs to your father, and cut down the sacred pole next to it. (1 Kings 15:12, 13) . . .He expelled the male temple prostitutes from the land and removed all the disgusting idols that his forefathers had made. 13 He even removed Maʹa·cah his grandmother from her position as queen mother, because she had made an obscene idol for the worship of the sacred pole. Aʹsa cut down her obscene idol and burned it in the Kidʹron Valley. (1 Kings 16:33) 33 Aʹhab also made the sacred pole. Aʹhab did more to offend Jehovah the God of Israel than all the kings of Israel prior to him. (1 Kings 18:19) 19 And now summon all Israel to me at Mount Carʹmel, as well as the 450 prophets of Baʹal and the 400 prophets of the sacred pole, who are eating at the table of Jezʹe·bel.” (2 Kings 13:6) 6 (However, they did not depart from the sin of the house of Jer·o·boʹam that he had caused Israel to commit. They continued in this sin, and the sacred pole continued to stand in Sa·marʹi·a.) (2 Kings 17:16) 16 They kept leaving all the commandments of Jehovah their God, and they made metal statues of two calves and a sacred pole, and they bowed down to all the army of the heavens and served Baʹal. (2 Kings 18:4) 4 He was the one who removed the high places, smashed the sacred pillars, and cut down the sacred pole.. . .

I've used this argument at the door and with Bible studies, too: that supposedly Christians, even if they claim they are not worshiping the item, should still find it wrong to carry around a model of the "murder weapon" that killed Jesus Christ! I've even heard the additional example from other Witnesses, such as: "If your own father had been murdered with an AK-47, or a .38 revolver, would you ever think about carrying around a small model of an AK-47, or a .38 revolver, on a chain around your neck?" Of course, this seemed quite fair until I learned that a member of the Governing Body who had worn a cross in the past, remembered that it was the way in which they felt they were showing their agreement with the idea in Mark: (Mark 8:34) . . .“If anyone wants to come after me, let him disown himself and pick up his [STAUROS] and follow me continually." It was the Bible that treated the STAUROS as a "symbol." And we would never have complained that Jesus was saying (Mark 8:34) . . .“If anyone wants to come after me, let him disown himself and pick up his [MURDER WEAPON] and follow me continually." Similarly, the apostle Paul would have been saying: (1 Corinthians 2:2) For I decided not to know anything among you except Jesus Christ, and [his MURDER WEAPON]. Jesus and Paul knew that the STAUROS (whether cross or stake) was a proper symbol that could remind us of Christ's sacrifice, and it would remind us of our own need for daily sacrifice, and even a similar sacrifice to the death if need be. But this is not an external symbol like baptism by which we show we have dedicated our lives to God and associate ourselves with Christians of like faith. For we walk by faith and not by sight, and need no ongoing piece of jewelry to state our Christian status.

Their former permanent one near their home. It's being fixed up for a better resale price.

My parents' hall is being fixed up while they temporarily attend one a lot further away. It's likely that it gets sold soon and this arrangement becomes fairly permanent.