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

[Space Merchant]

32 minutes ago, Anna said:

That is what I was trying to explain to you in an earlier post @JOHN BUTLER, so similarly in Greek, the word hand can include the wrist.

Yes. Because in Scripture hands and or wrist [χειρῶν (cheirōn)] can sometimes be used, depending on translation also, but there is no issue. They both point to the same Greek Strong's accordance - Strong's 5495. It is a feminine plural so either using Hand or Wrist does not cause any violation of the Greek Strong's and only those who lack in this sense will not be able to see that. I saith, happy are who understand.

 

[Space Merchant]

7 minutes ago, James Thomas Rook Jr. said:

I agree with this.... we have some VERY REAL problems concerning witch hunts, power struggles and retribution, obscene paranoias and complete lack of Justice and Mercy .... outside of several million words on the subject that never seem to apply to real world situations.

I do know the real answer, which is actually found in studying the Cult of Mithra, the sect of the worship of "Sol Invictus", the invincible sun, and have read about 11 pounds of books to discover what is and is not the case ... which if I felt like writing seven pages of text, I could prove, but:

In the immortal words of Rhett Butler .....

"Frankly Scarlet ... I don't give a damn!"

 

This guy?

He reminds me of this guy Sean Connery.

[Evacuated]

4 hours ago, JW Insider said:

Jesus gave accurate knowledge about the more important things

This is an interesting statement because it begs (for me) the question as to what is "accurate knowledge" as opposed to "knowledge"? And also are "false" or "wrong" necessarily antonyms of "accurate" in connection with knowledge?

I suppose the principles behind statements such as:

• 1Cor 8:1"If anyone thinks he knows something, he does not yet know it as he should know it."
• 1Cor.13:8 "For we have partial knowledge"

would have a part to play in answering these questions, as well as a comprehension of the Greek word "epignosko".

Ah well, no time to toss it around now. Maybe better in it's own thread.  🌙ZZZZZZZZZZZ...............

[Evacuated]

5 hours ago, Space Merchant said:

Outta Here There's this also

Santa Sabina 5th Century door panel. Said to be one of the oldest depictions of the "crucifixion". But I am not sure what I am looking at. What are the triangular bits?

[Evacuated]

10 hours ago, Anna said:

The Greek word is HAND, so to translate it correctly, one must say hand in English also. 

This is perfectly valid. As the acount in Luke  23:39 was written by a physician, it would be curious that he would intentionally confuse matters anatomically if the specific word for "wrist"  in Greek (karpos) was in common usage. After all, he was quite specific regarding the healing of the lame man a few weeks later, when he described this at Acts 3:7, using the terms "feet" and "ankles". But, he didn't use the word "palm" which was in common use (Mark 14:65) to desribe the nail positions. It has been theorized that Luke was sticking more to  the account as relayed to him, not being an eye-witness, and if karpos was not in general use particularly among Galileans of the time, then his use of the word for "hand" which. in the parlance of the day included the "wrist", (wheras "palm" did not) is quite acceptable. However, this no argument to definitely ascertain the positioning of the nail (s).

With regard to the notion of the palm's inability to support the weight of the body, this appears to be based on the suspect experiments carried out by Pierre Barbet (1884–1961), subsequently challenged rather thoroughly, if bizarrely, by Frederick Zugibe (1928-2002. Notwithstanding the Shroud of Turin theories being the object of attention, his conclusions are considerably relevant.

Altering illustrations to show Jesus nailed through the wrists is quite a generous step to take, given the weight of academic opinion however, and for the Governing Body to take this step shows a perfectly reasonable approach in view of the lack of concrete information -  concession without compromise.

On 11/14/2018 at 5:17 AM, Anna said:

As for the plural nails, I don't really have an answer for that one.

Jesus words (recorded again by physician Luke) at Luke 24:39-40 may well give us a clue to a more complete account of  his response to the doubts of Thomas, the details of which may have only been partially reported by John (John 20:25). The reference of Jesus to hands and feet as an evidence of his being the one resurrected  would necessitate the minimum of two nails, hence the use of the plural.

I do not have a uncompromising view of this matter however, because, as noted frequently, the Scriptures are not definitive on the matter. But I am not aware yet of a successful challenge to our view, despite the many learned attempts at such. 😊

 

 

[JW Insider]

1 hour ago, Outta Here said:

But I am not aware yet of a successful challenge to our view, despite the many learned attempts at such.

True. And neither am I aware of any successful challenge to the view depicted in the earliest known writings, descriptions and depictions of the stauros.

The earliest known view of Jesus' execution refers to the Tau shape. That's from the first or second century "Letter of Barnabas." All other subsequent references to the shape of Jesus' execution stauros also describe a T shape and/or a T shape with a lower crossbar.

All the Biblical references (which do not describe the shape) make perfect sense if it is depicting a T shape or a T shape with a lowered crossbeam. I am referring not only to the use of term "nails in his hands" but also the fact that the 'King of the Jews' sign was depicted as above his head, not above (or below) his hands. Also the fact that the description of the execution procession closely matches the Roman punitive use of the patibulum which invariably refers to the arms being stretched out to each side, perpendicular to the body.

So far, no one has successfully challenged this earliest known view. Also, it appears there are not even any hints of anyone ever attempting to challenge that view from any of the earliest centuries C.E. up until very recently. And we would have to say that the Watchtower has also been unable to successfully challenge that view due to apparently depending on statements which can be shown to be false, in order to reach that view. A successful challenge cannot be dependent on false statements.

[James Thomas Rook Jr.]

I just noticed something about the picture of a foot with a spike through it, that Space Merchant posted several thread pages back.

1.) I believe if arrested, I would have fought with every ounce of my strength, to be killed on the spot .. rather than try to stay alive a few more hours and have to endure THAT.

2.) The Jews have a reputation of being a very ... uh ...  FRUGAL people.

Notice how the end of that spike is bent over after they nailed a second person to the other side of the .... uh ... "cross"?

 

[JOHN BUTLER]

1 hour ago, JW Insider said:

True. And neither am I aware of any successful challenge to the view depicted in the earliest known writings, descriptions and depictions of the stauros.

The earliest known view of Jesus' execution refers to the Tau shape. That's from the first or second century "Letter of Barnabas." All other subsequent references to the shape of Jesus' execution stauros also describe a T shape and/or a T shape with a lower crossbar.

All the Biblical references (which do not describe the shape) make perfect sense if it is depicting a T shape or a T shape with a lowered crossbeam. I am referring not only to the use of term "nails in his hands" but also the fact that the 'King of the Jews' sign was depicted as above his head, not above (or below) his hands. Also the fact that the description of the execution procession closely matches the Roman punitive use of the patibulum which invariably refers to the arms being stretched out to each side, perpendicular to the body.

So far, no one has successfully challenged this earliest known view. Also, it appears there are not even any hints of anyone ever attempting to challenge that view from any of the earliest centuries C.E. up until very recently. And we would have to say that the Watchtower has also been unable to successfully challenge that view due to apparently depending on statements which can be shown to be false, in order to reach that view. A successful challenge cannot be dependent on false statements.

My head goes fuzzy after reading so many comments. So please answer in a very simple way

1. Are you agreeing with me that the picture in that book is wrong ?  

2. And that the GB has no real honest basis to give them reason to produce such a picture ?

Remembering that the GB expect everyone of the JW's to believe everything they say or put in print. 

[JW Insider]

2 minutes ago, JOHN BUTLER said:

1. Are you agreeing with me that the picture in that book is wrong ? 

The picture in the book might be right. Based on the usual rules of evidence and logic, it is probably wrong (in my opinion, of course). I disagree with you that the Greek word with the basic meaning of hand cannot also include the wrist. I disagree that if the meaning of the term for "hand" can include the wrist that the translators must use the term "wrist" just because they think it's more likely to refer to the wrist portion of the hand. This is because it is not obvious that the term could ONLY have meant the wrist and not the rest of the hand. Sometimes in English we have these ambiguities between terms, and we may not understand that these ambiguities sometimes occur with words in other languages where they would not occur in English.

For example, we have the terms for fingers and thumbs. You have 5 fingers on a hand, so if we learned that someone in history had chopped off a finger, should we think of the possibility that it was the thumb? If a non-English speaker believes there was a 90% chance it was the thumb, should he translate it thumb, when finger is still accurate 100% of the time? The wrist could be included with the Greek "hand" in the same way that the thumb could be included with the English "fingers."

What is WRONG, in my opinion, is to make a statement that "Jesus died on an upright stake that did not have a crossbeam." Again, this might be true. But it is false and wrong to claim that it is true. It is false to even imply that there is no depiction of Jesus on a two-beamed cross until the 4th or 5th century, when there is evidence to the contrary.

 

[JOHN BUTLER]

1 hour ago, JW Insider said:

The picture in the book might be right. Based on the usual rules of evidence and logic, it is probably wrong (in my opinion, of course). I disagree with you that the Greek word with the basic meaning of hand cannot also include the wrist. I disagree that if the meaning of the term for "hand" can include the wrist that the translators must use the term "wrist" just because they think it's more likely to refer to the wrist portion of the hand. This is because it is not obvious that the term could ONLY have meant the wrist and not the rest of the hand. Sometimes in English we have these ambiguities between terms, and we may not understand that these ambiguities sometimes occur with words in other languages where they would not occur in English.

For example, we have the terms for fingers and thumbs. You have 5 fingers on a hand, so if we learned that someone in history had chopped off a finger, should we think of the possibility that it was the thumb? If a non-English speaker believes there was a 90% chance it was the thumb, should he translate it thumb, when finger is still accurate 100% of the time? The wrist could be included with the Greek "hand" in the same way that the thumb could be included with the English "fingers."

What is WRONG, in my opinion, is to make a statement that "Jesus died on an upright stake that did not have a crossbeam." Again, this might be true. But it is false and wrong to claim that it is true. It is false to even imply that there is no depiction of Jesus on a two-beamed cross until the 4th or 5th century, when there is evidence to the contrary.

 

Um, so where does this leave us with the GB being guided or nor guided by Holy Spirit ?

The GB put that picture in the book as a statement of fact. A full page picture. JW's are not supposed to question it at all.

BUT in their NWT they have translated it as hands=plural and nails=plural.  Now it is obvious to anyone that both things cannot be true. 

Although this is only a small matter it does relate to the scripture at Luke 16 v 10 that states 

New International Version "Whoever can be trusted with very little can also be trusted with much, and whoever is dishonest with very little will also be dishonest with much. New Living Translation "If you are faithful in little things, you will be faithful in large ones. But if you are dishonest in little things, you won't be honest with greater responsibilities. English Standard Version “One who is faithful in a very little is also faithful in much, and one who is dishonest in a very little is also dishonest in much. Berean Study Bible Whoever is faithful with very little will also be faithful with much, and whoever is dishonest with very little will also be dishonest with much. Berean Literal Bible The one faithful in very little is also faithful in much, and the one unrighteous in very little is also unrighteous in much. New American Standard Bible  "He who is faithful in a very little thing is faithful also in much; and he who is unrighteous in a very little thing is unrighteous also in much. King James Bible He that is faithful in that which is least is faithful also in much: and he that is unjust in the least is unjust also in much.

Just a few translations for anyone that doesn't like me keep using the NWT.   

 

[Space Merchant]

@JOHN BUTLER If I may add, since you are using Biblehub, have you even checked the commentary? If this is regarding John 20:20, 25, then plurality is in use here. Nail(s) is a Masculine Plural whereas Hand(s) is a Feminine Plural (also including a Feminine Singular) - both of them being nouns, which is going with Strong's Concordance.

[Space Merchant]

3 hours ago, James Thomas Rook Jr. said:

I just noticed something about the picture of a foot with a spike through it, that Space Merchant posted several thread pages back.

1.) I believe if arrested, I would have fought with every ounce of my strength, to be killed on the spot .. rather than try to stay alive a few more hours and have to endure THAT.

2.) The Jews have a reputation of being a very ... uh ...  FRUGAL people.

Notice how the end of that spike is bent over after they nailed a second person to the other side of the .... uh ... "cross"?

 

Romans were brutal. You'd have to leave town before they can capture you, perhaps go overseas and go full incognito. But then you may have a bounty on your head so if you have hear and a beard, best to shave it all off, try to blend in, so this way bounty hunters and assassins will not find you to hand you over to those who want to crucify you.

Other than that, Roman punishment was swift, cruel and ridiculously unusual.

Aside from Crucifixion (that is if they do not get unique with hanging someone upon side on a good day for them), you can be

• Bee Basket'd
• Eaten through the middle by starving animals
• be cauldron tortured
• Public Executions
• buried alive, (something of which Nero took delight in)
• nailed to barrels
• The Arena
• Being burned alive, while bonded
• Fed to Lions
• toured by means of being forced to walk on hot coal that is always burning.
• tied off
• cut in half
• fed to wild hogs
• sewn into a donkey
• tossed to wild barbaric beasts
• possibly decapitation, but they are the types to have enduring pain rather than an instant execution

To them in ancient history regarding Roman, death was not a punishment, it is a release, for torture was punishment, and death was only allowed after a certain amount of pain and terror had been felt.

They got a variety, that for sure.

That being said, it was a brutal time, and if one was Crucified, wait til they go for your legs, they'll break them if you are still somehow barely alive if they need to speed up death, it is that crazy.