Jump to content
The World News Media

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


Guest Kurt

Recommended Posts


  • Views 17.2k
  • Replies 208
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

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

Interesting stuff, especially the difference between Chi Rho and Tau Rho. Howeve,r he states: "2)............the earliest uses of the tau-rho are not as such free-standing symbols, but form

The PDF linked earlier, "Jehovah's Witnesses and the Cross" Leolaia, 1990, speaks of semantic restriction by which some Watchtower doctrines have developed by focusing on only the simplest etymologica

Posted Images

  • Member

This is one topic that I would not be dogmatic about when @JOHN BUTLER asked about "when I go into the ministry do I tell people that I might have the truth but I might not"  because as @Outta Here rightly remarked, we cannot know it's shape with absolute certainty. So when covering the cross/stake issue in the Bible teach book with a student, I just simply say that we cannot know what it was 100% either way.

My personal view is there is no reason it couldn't have been a cross, since this is what the Romans traditionally used, but they may not have used it every time, so it easily could have been a stake as well. The early Bible students used the crown and cross emblem, until they decided the cross was not a suitable symbol. One reason why I think that was because as time went on they realized that they must distance themselves from counterfeit Christianity, and since Christendom used the cross and they did not want to be identified with anything that Christendom used,  they dug deeper and discovered its pagan origins etc. But just because it was pagan didn't mean it couldn't have been used in Jesus' execution, after all the Romans WERE pagan! In my opinion the  whole bad thing about the cross is that not only is it pagan and used by supposed Christians as a symbol of Christianity (!) but that it is used in a way which God clearly condemns. If it was a stake (or anything else for that matter) and used in the same way as a cross, it would be the same thing.

To be truthful, personally I really don't think its important to know exactly what shape the instrument of Jesus' death was.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member

I love the way you both jump to the defence of the Gb and the JW Org. 

They say a picture paints a thousand words, so please look at the picture. Now tell me is this truth of lies ? Or guesswork ? 

Where is that nail ? What were Thomas' words ?  Nails in the hands.

Not using the cross because the church used it ? Um, they use Jehovah's name and wasn't it a Catholic monk that started that name ? 

The name Jehovah already occurs repeatedly in the 13th Century in the Latin form of Jehovah. The Spanish monk Raymond Mantini, translated about 1270 different parts of the Bible from the Hebrew. In his manuscripts is on the right side the Hebrew text and on the left the Latin with Iehovah.

Cardinal Nikolaus of Kues used the Tetragrammaton vocalized as Jehovah in several of his works, 1428, in his Sermon In Principio Erat Verbum.

Petrus Galatinus published in the year 1518 his work "De Arcnis catholicae veritatis".

As William Tyndale, translated the Pentateuch 1530, he transferred the Tetragrammaton also by using the word Jehovah.

So, is the name Jehovah a false name ?   It seems the Bible Students used the name Jehovah because it was already known so people could relate to it. 

But I digress, the point here is the lie that picture tells. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member
40 minutes ago, JOHN BUTLER said:

here is the lie that picture tells

"Evil be to him that evil thinks"

As the single stake is a possibility as to the method of execution Jesus experienced, we prefer to illustrate thus. Mainstream Chistendom prefers its own version. Jehovah is a pronunciation of the name of God that is widely recognised and appropriately associated. We are happy using this alternative, especially as it provides a convenient separation of the Father from the Son, something NOT preferred by mainstream Christendom.

The significance of both (far more importantly) is appropriately summed up in the commonly quoted words:

“For God loved the world so much that he gave his only-begotten Son, so that everyone exercising faith in him might not be destroyed but have everlasting life" John 3:16

"This means everlasting life, their coming to know you, the only true God, and the one whom you sent, Jesus Christ." John 17:3

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member
1 hour ago, Outta Here said:

"Evil be to him that evil thinks"

As the single stake is a possibility as to the method of execution Jesus experienced, we prefer to illustrate thus. Mainstream Chistendom prefers its own version. Jehovah is a pronunciation of the name of God that is widely recognised and appropriately associated. We are happy using this alternative, especially as it provides a convenient separation of the Father from the Son, something NOT preferred by mainstream Christendom.

The significance of both (far more importantly) is appropriately summed up in the commonly quoted words:

“For God loved the world so much that he gave his only-begotten Son, so that everyone exercising faith in him might not be destroyed but have everlasting life" John 3:16

"This means everlasting life, their coming to know you, the only true God, and the one whom you sent, Jesus Christ." John 17:3

 

A couple of points here :-

There is no mention in either of those scriptures of needing a Governing Body of 8 men to rule over others. 

And, you completely FAIL to answer the questions about THOMAS and the amount of NAILS used, and where those NAILS were PLACED. 

COMPLETE FAILURE ON YOUR PART.  

One more point. You and Anna say that it is not important 'what shape instrument was used' when Jesus was killed. However your GB must think it is important enough because they show a whole page picture of it, and even then they get it wrong.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member
11 hours ago, Anna said:

My personal view is there is no reason it couldn't have been a cross,

I agree with your personal view. Give me permission to remind you how Watchtower OFFICIAL teaching is stake, torture stake and nothing else. Because cross is pagan symbol and JW not support nothing that has pagan origin.

You walking on red line of dfd. :)))  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member
Reasoning from the Scriptures, page 89, Cross;
The Imperial Bible-Dictionary acknowledges this, saying: “The Greek word for cross, [stau·rosʹ], properly signified a stake, an upright pole, or piece of paling, on which anything might be hung, or which might be used in impaling [fencing in] a piece of ground. . . . Even amongst the Romans the crux(from which our cross is derived) appears to have been originally an upright pole.”—Edited by P. Fairbairn (London, 1874), Vol. I, p. 376.
 
Text in red color is missing text in Reasoning book. Very important CONTEXT. Oh, context always problem with you :)))
_____________________________________________________
The Imperial Bible-Dictionary acknowledges this, saying: “The Greek word for cross, [stau·rosʹ], properly signified a stake, an upright pole, or piece of paling, on which anything might be hung, or which might be used in impaling [fencing in] a piece of ground. But a modification was introduced as the dominion and usages of Rome extended themselves through Greek speaking countries.
Even amongst the Romans the crux (from which our cross is derived) appears to have been originally an upright pole and this always reminded the more prominent part. But from the time that it began to be used as an instrument of punishment a transverse piece of wood was commonly added; not, however, always even than.....  The following text continues, describing the types of crosses and the ways in which the convicts were murdered...,others extending their arms on a patibulum. There can be no doubt, however, that the later sort was the more common and that about the period of the gospel age crucifixion was usually accomplished by suspending the criminal on a cross piece of wood. But this does not itself determine the precise form of the cross; ....  the text continues to describe 3 types of crosses.—Edited by P. Fairbairn (London, 1874), Vol. I, p. 376.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member
7 hours ago, JOHN BUTLER said:

They say a picture paints a thousand words, so please look at the picture.

I think you are missing the point. The simple answer is if you are going to depict Jesus at his moment of sacrificial death, then you have to decide what you are going to depict him on. The GB's preference is obviously a stake, and why not?  There is evidence that the word "stauros" could have meant just one piece of timber. So really it comes down to the interpretation of what "stauros" meant at the time it was used. As @Srecko Sostar shows; the The Imperial Bible-Dictionary talks about both possibilities, one piece of timber or two pieces of timber. Take your pic. It's quite possible that "a modification was introduced as the dominion and usages of Rome extended themselves through Greek speaking countries" after the death of Jesus. The dictionary goes on to say that that "a cross beam was more common in Jesus day", but still, that is no proof that Jesus was indeed put on a cross. And if it was a cross, we don't even know "the precise form of the cross" as the dictionary puts. So if most of Christendom depict Jesus on a cross beam, what if in actual fact it was a T shape? 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member
1 hour ago, Srecko Sostar said:

I agree with your personal view. Give me permission to remind you how Watchtower OFFICIAL teaching is stake, torture stake and nothing else. Because cross is pagan symbol and JW not support nothing that has pagan origin.

You walking on red line of dfd. :)))  

Unless someone shows me a photograph from the actual event from the 1st Century, and I argue about it, then there is absolutely no reason for me to be worried about treading a red line or being dfd xD. In any case, I am not even arguing now, I am just saying we can't be sure 100%. If the GB feel like they are sure 100% then that is their prerogative, but changes nothing about how I feel. I would need a lot more proof first.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member
3 hours ago, JOHN BUTLER said:

You and Anna say that it is not important 'what shape instrument was used' when Jesus was killed. However your GB must think it is important enough because they show a whole page picture of it, and even then they get it wrong.

I fail to see the relevance of your GB jibes in this.They are like a sort of phonic tic that keeps appearing in your postings, regardless of subject matter.

Anyway, what has been said is that the shape of the instrument used to torture and kill Jesus Christ is of insignificance in that it was not deemed necessary by Jehovah to have this detail preserved in his word. The account in the gospels is very particular on certain details, but this I am afraid is just not one of them. So, to say that the illustrations in various WT publications are "wrong" is just not sensible unless you can indicate with certainty what is "right " so as to draw the distinction.This has not been done as far as I can see, although there are many interesting (and uninteresting) hypotheses on the matter.

As the world is awash with depictions of Jesus nailed to a two stave instrument of execution (almost 16 million Google results on crucifixion will yield untold numbers of images), I cannot presently see a problem with presenting an alternative view. Image result for Jesus on a stake

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member
24 minutes ago, Anna said:

I think you are missing the point. The simple answer is if you are going to depict Jesus at his moment of sacrificial death, then you have to decide what you are going to depict him on. The GB's preference is obviously a stake, and why not?  There is evidence that the word "stauros" could have meant just one piece of timber. So really it comes down to the interpretation of what "stauros" meant at the time it was used. As @Srecko Sostar shows; the The Imperial Bible-Dictionary talks about both possibilities, one piece of timber or two pieces of timber. Take your pic. It's quite possible that "a modification was introduced as the dominion and usages of Rome extended themselves through Greek speaking countries" after the death of Jesus. The dictionary goes on to say that that "a cross beam was more common in Jesus day", but still, that is no proof that Jesus was indeed put on a cross. And if it was a cross, we don't even know "the precise form of the cross" as the dictionary puts.

 

So you disbelieve the account of Thomas and his words ? So be it , you turn against God's word. 

The GB have obviously turned against God's word by using that picture. Remember : NAILS = PLURAL, HANDS PLURAL 

NOT WRIST WITH ONE NAIL.  HANDS  NAILS...    It could not be any clearer.  

Luke 16 v 10.

The person faithful in what is least is faithful also in much, and the person unrighteous in what is least is unrighteous also in much. 

Have a good day. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites





  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Popular Contributors

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • That was convoluted and strange. I assume it was that way on purpose. I have not tried to refute anything from VAT 4956. My "acceptance" of the evidence from VAT 4956 is not the same thing as "refuting" it. Unless you are doing that thing again where you say you can use words to mean whatever you want. Now you are doing that thing again where you hope to imply that the stance of 100% of the current "authorities" and "experts" the Watchtower has quoted just happen to agree with COJ. So, in order to make it easier to dismiss the conclusions of all those experts, you need to point out that those experts agree with COJ, therefore you can dismiss their conclusions.  This is not just stupid. It's dishonest because you have done it before. It's also hypocritical because you have never once ever been able to point out even one sentence from his GTR book that was wrong. When you finally did attempt to prove he was wrong about something, you picked his reference to Nabopolassar's years mentioned in the "Chronicles," you ended up inadvertently showing that COJ was perfectly accurate. That must have been embarrassing. As you know, COJ has nothing to do with this discussion. From now on, instead of referring to COJ directly, I think we should just refer call him, "the person that George88 has shown to be accurate." In fact, until you can show even one inaccurate sentence, that's how I will refer to "COJ, the person that George88 has shown to be accurate."
    • Try not to manipulate my words with your usual tactics. I said: "I’m sure you know by now that there is absolutely nothing in the diary indicating the year 588." I said this in direct response to your claim that the events on the tablet indicated 588. You said that the events on the tablet indicated 588. You said: "You can reference VAT 4956." . . .  "Why is this so significant? Pay extremely close attention to the language inscribed on this tablet" . . . "Year 37 of Nebukadnezzar, King of Babylon. Month I," . .  "Additional reports in this Diary include . . . Borsippa, . . . .This indicates that the conflict in that region in 588 . . . " No, you didn't actually say that. Besides I have no argument about 587. I only point out that ALL the astronomical evidence from the entire period shows that this was Nebuchadnezzar's 18th year. You have never made an argument (either valid or invalid) that "my argument about 587 can also be interpreted as 588."  Not that it matters in the least, but Borsippa is NOT way further in distance from Jerusalem. It's about 10 miles CLOSER "as the crow flies" and nearly the same distance using the usual travel routes of the time. Perhaps that's why no one mentioned it before. However, even here, I have already posted the entire contents of the tablet, including the reference to Borsippa. Not that it matters.  I certainly hope so!
    • That's completely false. You invariably attempt to weasel your way out of your false statements by claiming that someone has distorted your words. You make false claims about them and claim that they are the ones in the wrong. Then you bluster with some barely-related material hoping it impresses someone (or yourself) into thinking you are some kind of expert or authority. That barely-related material you make use of invariably says nearly the opposite of what you had claimed, which you should have known had you just read the context, or understood what you were reading.  I'll get to the specifics at a later time on this particular point, but it is nearly the same as with almost all these matters. I have learned to expect you to NEVER admit an error, no matter how much evidence is shown. I don't expect you to admit your error on these recent points, but your "style" provides a revealing display of the lengths people will go to, in order to support a pseudo-chronology.   
    • In response to your email, it is important to note that the Watchtower chronology begins at 4026, adhering closely to the numerical indications in scripture. The significant distinction lies in the fact that not everyone begins at 4026; some might commence their chronology at 4004, for instance. Consequently, this creates a noticeable gap between those who employ different starting points for their chronologies. Consider that the new Bible Students have rejected Russell's starting point and instead adjusted it to align with Modern Israel. They have suggested a year around 3954, or something like that, I can't remember, but it seems unfounded. Some of their sects started Criticizing Russell about this matter, and it appears unjustified, as their own knowledge may be limited. Following the Watchtower's guidance is straightforward: align events with their corresponding numerical values. It is important to remember that the Watchtower does not view its chronology as an absolute, unlike secular chronology which seeks to impose its perspective. According to the Watchtower, the pivotal date for the divided kingdom is 997. Look it up in our archives and publications.  The Watchtower's chronology will always diverge from conventional chronology due to its distinctive starting point. The organization holds steadfast to the numbers in the Bible, guided by faith in scripture rather than human interpretations. Despite persistent challenges, the unwavering stance of the Watchtower remains unchanged, as it is grounded in divine guidance, not the opinions of anonymous and faithless individuals.
    • Consider this: if we assume that the tablet dated back to 568 refers to Nebuchadnezzar, and that the king issued an order for Borsippa, a city 12-15 miles from Babylon, then it suggests that King Nebuchadnezzar might have been in his palace giving that order, since logically it would have taken weeks or a month or so for a runner to dispatch such an order from Judah that was for Borsippa in 588/587, as historically suggested, since we can use the same date 588/587 for that event.
  • Members

    No members to show

  • Recent Status Updates

  • Forum Statistics

    • Total Topics
      65.4k
    • Total Posts
      159.3k
  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      17,679
    • Most Online
      1,592

    Newest Member
    Techredirector
    Joined
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Terms of Service Confirmation Terms of Use Privacy Policy Guidelines We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.