Stake or Cross? How did Jesus die? What proof do we have?

[JOHN BUTLER]

53 minutes ago, Srecko Sostar said:

If you by Christians means only JW, then i would make this kind of observation. JW members in each period of time received and accepted "The Truth" as it was in the specific moment when they became JW.

So, if someone been baptized in 1940 period, for him "The Truth" was been in one shape and form. For those in 1970 period, shape and form looks different then few decades before. For those in 1990 era, "The Truth" also changed shape and form in comparison to generations before, ....and until today same process is going on as well. We can call it "new light", "new understanding", "rowing" or with any other terminology that can arise and be invented, incorporated for justification why new interpretations are better, more accurate than old one.

To connect your comment and mine. Strategy by satan is to much perfidious for humans, to be able aware of apostasy. If JW of 1940 era thought how they clearly saw difference between two teachings and was sure how they had "The Truth", then how is possible that JW from 1970 era saw false teaching about 1940 JW brothers, and how is possible that 1990 era brothers was also been able to detected all false teaching that satan used in JW past periods for purpose to undermine and pollute previous periods of pure teachings of WT? And now modern JW also can see how his brothers from 1990 period was been under influence of teachings that was been undermined and polluted by satan, again.

What if process of never ending "new understanding" is nothing else but constantly present impact and process caused by devil and his influence by which he "poisoning" every "new understanding" in different proportions ?

Very well worded and to the point. Fabulous comment. Thank you Srecko. 

[Equivocation]

19 hours ago, Space Merchant said:

I am referring to when the cross not even being considered in the church of Christendom until the days of Constantine whereas he himself during the Battle of the Milvian Bridge had a vision, had seen a cross in the sky. It is said that the vision was instructing him to fight in the name of Christ, with his soldiers’ shields bearing the symbol of Christ. On the other side of the spectrum, the writer Eusebius, an apologist of Constantine, described the event in the Life of Constantine, which he wrote after Constantine’s death. Eusebius wrote that Constantine saw a vision of a cross rather than the letters of Christ. That he saw with his own eyes the trophy of a cross of light in the heavens, above the sun, and bearing the inscription, which says conquer by this. At the sight of this he himself was struck with amazement, and his whole army also, which followed him on this expedition, and witnessed the miracle, according to Eusebius.

 

There is more information out there, but I'd have to look some more for it.

Jesus's crucifixion being a public image an acceptable one. After 400 years this came to pass. Scholars traditionally believed that the cross didn't originally begin to function has a Christian symbol.

Guessing very later on after Constantine and only then it was accepted perhaps?

 

Your quote I looked it up once Insider mentioned it. Traced it back to Biblical Archaeology site.

The source leads to George Willard Benson, The Cross: Its History and Symbolism.  An account of the symbol for universal in its use in more important in its significance. Then any other in the world.... yada yada yada.

Other names are included. And cititaions.

[Evacuated]

3 hours ago, Srecko Sostar said:

Strategy by satan is to much perfidious for humans, to be able aware of apostasy.

I think you mean that Satan is too clever for humans for them to detect his subtle "machinations?

Yes, if that is what you meant. Certainly Adam amd Eve were overcome although Adam was not deceived. Jesus was not deceived either, and his defence of "It is written" stood him in good stead. Those who acted as a restraint in the 1st Century were not deceived, thanks to Jehovah's existing word and the gift of discernment. But some others of their contemporaries and eventually the vast majority of their successors were deceived..

Your focus of 1940, 70, 90, etc is too narrow for me, although i presume you are just using those decades as an example to illustrate your point that yesterday's "truth" becomes tomorrow's "lies"?. I suppose the most prominent example would be how adherents to the Mosaic Law, once God's "chosen people", became his enemies by clinging on once that arrangement became redundant. The new system scrolls and their impact will be interesting, (Rev 20:12), and of course the implications of Christ's subjecting himself even more so. (1Cor.15:28).

I would like to see a chart indicating the relevant proportionate value of teachings whilst at the same time indicating what has changed, what has remained constant from the first Century. I might put it together myself one of these days. ?

[Space Merchant]

2 hours ago, Equivocation said:

Jesus's crucifixion being a public image an acceptable one. After 400 years this came to pass. Scholars traditionally believed that the cross didn't originally begin to function has a Christian symbol.

Guessing very later on after Constantine and only then it was accepted perhaps?

 

Your quote I looked it up once Insider mentioned it. Traced it back to Biblical Archaeology site.

The source leads to George Willard Benson, The Cross: Its History and Symbolism.  An account of the symbol for universal in its use in more important in its significance. Then any other in the world.... yada yada yada.

Other names are included. And cititaions.

 

The quote is of this website: https://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/daily/biblical-topics/crucifixion/jesus-and-the-cross/

Some of which has been posted is presented by several so far.

What it refers to is this:

See George Willard Benson, The Cross: Its History and Symbolism. An Account of the Symbol More Universal in Its Use and More Important in Its Significance Than Any Other in the World (Buffalo: George Willard Benson, 1934), pp. 28–29; for another opinion, see Bruce W. Longenecker, The Cross Before Constantine: The Early Life of a Christian Symbol (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2015), p. 11.

 

 

[Srecko Sostar]

6 hours ago, JOHN BUTLER said:

Very well worded and to the point. Fabulous comment. Thank you Srecko. 

Thank you John. I was in fear of grammar. Will it be understandable enough. That worried me more than reactions of readers. :))))

[Anna]

13 hours ago, JW Insider said:

the dual-beamed cross itself (as an instrument of torture/execution) is well-known from pre-Christian usage.

I have trouble finding evidence of that. Can you post some links? It interests me because so far I have seen plenty of evidence that cross like symbols (especially the Ankh and Greek) are found in ancient artifacts, of the near east, and far east, but they never seem to be connected to any type of implement for torture or execution, but rather to jewellery, decoration, literature, and ritualistic and religious aspects. If a cross was used in execution I would have expected to see at least one representation of it, since people had no qualms about representing other gruesome scenes, such as people impaled (through the body) on a stake etc. I take it back, I did see one, which is supposed to be Dionysus/Bacchus but I haven't been able to find out exact information about it only that it is supposed to be from 500 BCE.

 

And a Vase, which is supposed to be also depicting Dionysus/Bacchus crucified. But I can't see that. I agree with the explanation given in that thread "It's significance was to antropomoriphize the idol as it would allow Dionysus to return to the world and participate in the ritual sacrifice and marriage to a queen. Before the idol are loaves of bread and jugs of wine, blessed by Dionysus himself". Also: " There's other vases from around the same period in which a choir of dithyrambs gather around a cross-shaped altar, and children carry a cross behind the carriage of the soon to be married queen". It looks like the thread has quite an interesting discussion, but I have not really had the time to read all the posts, just a couple. http://earlywritings.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=4387

So I am still looking for an artifact depicting torture/execution involving a cross or cross like shape. There seems to be plenty of talk of Romans having adopted the cross for execution from the Assyrians and Babylonians, but I can't find anything resembling a cross used in that way in those cultures.

Assyrian execution -  impalement through body on upright stakes (cir 911-612 BCE)

[Anna]

On 11/12/2018 at 3:11 AM, Srecko Sostar said:

On 11/11/2018 at 6:01 PM, JW Insider said:

there is no reason for anyone to claim proof or insist on any particular shape based on any of the evidence so far.

... and here comes to surface, to day light our own, personal Conscience Integrity, Intellect Honesty, Freedom of Speech among/inside WT Organization who, with GB, are standing on Dogmatic Standpoint, dogmatic stance that is ready to declare such, a different opinion as apostasy, and to dfd person because of that. 

I don't know....I will have to try that. But I very much doubt if I made it known that I don't agree with the point made in the What does the Bible really teach book or the What does the Bible teach us book (which replaces the Bible teach book) where it categorically states on page 213  that Jesus did not die on a cross that I would get disfellowshipped or be declared an Apostate. In fact it would be a good idea if this statement was changed, and I may write a letter to Bethel to that effect. And not an anonymous letter, one with my name and return address on it. And I will let you know what reply I get, ok?

[Anna]

10 hours ago, Srecko Sostar said:

What if process of never ending "new understanding" is nothing else but constantly present impact and process caused by devil and his influence by which he "poisoning" every "new understanding" in different proportions ?

What if.....

But what if the simple reason is that as we learn new evidence for things we grow in knowledge and so we are able to correct previous ideas? I agree, perhaps some of the mistakes are because of the influence of Satan, because he does not want anyone to know the TRUTH, but for me (at least) the important thing is that the fundamental truths remain he same. Those are the important truths and they are very simple. The rest is just "frills" (like frilly petticoats on a dress). If we get some "frills" wrong then to me it is not really important.

For example in this particular discussion: Knowing whether Jesus died on a cross or died on a stake is just "frills", the important fundamental truth is that we do not use whatever object we think it was in worship, because that is idolatry. 

[Space Merchant]

51 minutes ago, Anna said:

What if.....

But what if the simple reason is that as we learn new evidence for things we grow in knowledge and so we are able to correct previous ideas? I agree, perhaps some of the mistakes are because of the influence of Satan, because he does not want anyone to know the TRUTH, but for me (at least) the important thing is that the fundamental truths remain he same. Those are the important truths and they are very simple. The rest is just "frills" (like frilly petticoats on a dress). If we get some "frills" wrong then to me it is not really important.

For example in this particular discussion: Knowing whether Jesus died on a cross or died on a stake is just "frills", the important fundamental truth is that we do not use whatever object is was in worship, because that is idolatry. 

Pretty much Restorationism to the roots. You learn and apply just as the church has done in the past.

[JOHN BUTLER]

2 hours ago, Anna said:

What if.....

But what if the simple reason is that as we learn new evidence for things we grow in knowledge and so we are able to correct previous ideas? I agree, perhaps some of the mistakes are because of the influence of Satan, because he does not want anyone to know the TRUTH, but for me (at least) the important thing is that the fundamental truths remain he same. Those are the important truths and they are very simple. The rest is just "frills" (like frilly petticoats on a dress). If we get some "frills" wrong then to me it is not really important.

For example in this particular discussion: Knowing whether Jesus died on a cross or died on a stake is just "frills", the important fundamental truth is that we do not use whatever object we think it was in worship, because that is idolatry. 

You think it is just frills because you do not understand or do not want to understand the point i was making.

Is seems that most on here have missed the whole point of it. 

In the JW bible NWT, the GB have used the words hands and nails. But in that picture they have used wrists and one nail. 

Only one of those can be right. I prefer to believe the Bible.  The GB approves the Bible translation so I presume they believe it too.

So the picture must be wrong. Artistic licence should not be used to try to pretend lies are true. GB failure.   

 

[Evacuated]

 

14 hours ago, JOHN BUTLER said:

So the picture must be wrong. Artistic licence should not be used to try to pretend lies are true. GB failure. 

I wish people could make their mind up!!!

Where did this idea come from ?

QUIZZTIME!!

And where are these from??? EDIT: Well done @JWInsider who got the one above pretty quickly!

EDIT: And now he's got the other one (below), the old clever-cloggs!

[Anna]

6 hours ago, JOHN BUTLER said:

You think it is just frills because you do not understand or do not want to understand the point i was making.

I didn't have any of your points in mind actually

6 hours ago, JOHN BUTLER said:

In the JW bible NWT, the GB have used the words hands and nails. But in that picture they have used wrists and one nail. 

Some years ago the WT did depict Jesus with a nail through his hands, but there has been a debate among scholars whether it could have really been the palms of the hands because they recon that the weight of the body would have ripped through the flesh as there are no transverse bones across the metacarpals, whereas if the nail was in the wrist (carpals) then there would be more resistance because it's all bone. That may be one reason why the WT changed it to the wrist. Then the other reason we already talked about on here is that the noun hand, can also include the wrist, and not only that, but biologically the wrist is part of the hand, because really it's just where the hand bends at the forearm. I don't know........were you really expecting Thomas to say " “Unless I see in his wrists the print of the nails"? Or perhaps when we say someone is bound "hand and foot" we should really say bound "wrist and foot"? Or how about "wrist cuffs" instead of "hand cuffs"?

As for the plural nails, I don't really have an answer for that one. Perhaps it was an oversight and there should be 2 nails. Perhaps one going through the wrist and one through the palm of the hand? ....Apparently sometimes the Romans used up to 14 nails (!) in an execution such as this.

If you do more research on this subject then eventually you will come to the conclusion that nowhere, absolutely nowhere is there conclusive historical proof that Jesus died on a stake with a cross beam.