Question:
Cross or Torture Stake?
anonymous
1970-01-01 00:00:00 UTC
Cross or Torture Stake?
33 answers:
anonymous
2007-12-17 04:08:09 UTC
Going by the way the romans killed criminals back then. He was already attached to the crosspost and that was nailed or secured to a tree or other standing log that would support his weight. Due to his high profile and the fear his people would try a rescue they nailed his feet and hands to make him die faster, same reason they used the spear.
Bruce
2007-12-17 05:54:42 UTC
Cross.



It is the nature of a heretical sect, cut off from 2000 years of history, archaeology, art, patrology, liturgical tradition, etymology, paleography, and New Testament exegesis, to arrive at wrong answers from a single, misleading evidential source.



In this case, the JW's only looked at a word etymology, and did not consider the history, archaeology, art, patrology, liturgical tradition, paleography, and the New Testament itself.



Cheers,

Bruce
William B
2007-12-17 04:08:29 UTC
cruficitian was a form of torture, it caused you body to drown in its own fluids,
anonymous
2007-12-17 06:15:32 UTC
Putting aside for the moment the differences between "classical" Greek and the Koine Greek widely used and spoken in the first century ...



... and the fact that there is no poverty of terms in Latin, and if the "stauros" was indeed felt to mean a stake then it would have been translated into Latin as "stipes" rather than "crux" ...



... and the fact that first- and second-century writers, such as Seneca the Younger and Dionysius of Halicarnassus among others, in discussing executions by crucifixion clearly described stretching out of arms on a crossbeam (Seneca's word is translated into English as "gibbet" from the Latin "patibulum" which is indeed a crossbeam) ...



... putting aside all of this plus much, much more historical and archeological scholarship pointing unmistakably to a cross:



It is of little consequence what the instrument of Jesus' torture and death actually looked like. We are 2000+ years removed from the time. And what immediately comes to mind when someone sees a cross? Even unbelievers associate it with Christ. His death and subsequent resurrection are the significant events here; the rest is props.



I find it slightly amusing that a bunch of johnny-come-lately 20th century freelance interpreters of the Bible, having concluded that the cross was instead a "stake", think their opinion is some sort of revelation that's supposed to set the Christian world on its ear. What next, splitting hairs over the thickness and height of this "stake"? Or perhaps what type of wood was used? How far away are they going to get from what Christ did in their eagerness to dissect the event?



They also tell us repeatedly that they call God by his "proper name" and ask us why we don't. My response is always that I can call Him "Father", and for some reason that upsets them ...



I suppose if the most one can hope for is to be on a first-name basis with God instead of one of His children, this cross/stake business might be a way to feel one has superior knowledge as a consolation.
capitalctu
2007-12-17 04:22:34 UTC
A stake is not only unbiblical, it is unhistorical. Death by nailing to a stake is unreliable and slow. Roman soldiers were too interested in killing people quickly and efficiently. Especially one as high profile as Jesus considering the socio-political motivations/implications surrounding the execution.
Mandy
2007-12-17 04:09:23 UTC
Well, either way he met a nasty death by the wishes of his own people.
anonymous
2007-12-17 04:27:11 UTC
I will go for the stake.

The writer has is own agenda and of cause only input information that supports his view.

I am not a JW but they have got so much of the bible correct i would not even ague on this pointless argument.



Here is one of many non JW sites that question the cross.

http://www.abcog.org/nh/jesdie.htm
thankyou "iana"
2007-12-17 04:24:44 UTC
I didn't read the whole article, didn't really feel like I needed to. It would appear as the article stated that the whole point of going of such a word as "stauros" and belaboring it is to attack the Catholic church, and by proxy Protestant denominations. It would also seem to be another attempt by the Jehovah's Witnesses to establish themselves as the sole provider of truth... which in their estimation was given to their "holy witness" John Smith (?). I think that is his name.

In my opinion, they are similar to the church in Pergamum whom Jesus addressed this missive... "You have people there who hold to the teaching of Balaam, .... you also have those who hold to the teaching of the Nicolaitans." Revelations 2:14-15 At the least, at the most and perhaps most likely, they are apostate.



Further I think... what is the difference? Both are death by torture. Both involved being nailed to an upright wooden stake of some sort. Both would result ultimately in death by slow excruciating asphyxiation. Petty distinction in an effort to establish some form of credibility.
anonymous
2007-12-17 05:57:16 UTC
In Matthew:20:19

It reads, "...and shall deliver him to the gentiles to mock, and to scourge, and to "crucify"'... So I would think that a cross was involved
anonymous
2007-12-17 04:16:17 UTC
for one i like steak, as for our lord Jesus, he was crucified OK?
achtung_heiss
2007-12-19 14:18:14 UTC
Actually, Jehovah's Witnesses do not quibble over the term "crucified", since the term is honestly derived from the Latin "crux" (which means a torture stake)..



Further, Jehovah's Witnesses do not claim to be certain that Christ was impaled on a "crux simplex" rather than a "crux immissa". Of course, the English expression "torture stake" describes either.

http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/crux_simplex

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crucifixion#Cross_shape



Ironically, pro-cross activists seem to ignore the fact that they themselves actually believe that Christ was impaled on a torture stake, albeit a stake with a crossbeam ("patibulum") attached.



It seems ironic also that the Greek term "stauros" was used to refer to either a plain or crossed stake, and the Latin term "crux" was used to refer to either a plain or crossed stake, and the English term "torture stake" can be used to refer to either a plain or crossed stake. Yet, pro-cross activists seem intent on shouting down any possibility other than their cherished but unsupportable tradition.



True Christians (such as Jehovah's Witnesses) do not behave in such a closeminded manner, and in fact true Christians (such as Jehovah's Witnesses) spend little time arguing about the exact shape of Christ's instrument of impalement. As true disciples of Christ, Jehovah's Witnesses do not distract from his message of the good news by going around denouncing the cross and other idols. Instead, Witnesses believe that the bible plainly forbids idolatry of any kind, including the worshipful use of icons such as crucifixes. That information is not used to condemn the ignorant, but to help those who demonstrate an interest in bringing their lives into harmony with true Christianity.

http://watchtower.org/bible/1jo/chapter_005.htm?bk=1jo;chp=5;vs=21;citation#bk21

http://watchtower.org/bible/ac/chapter_017.htm?bk=ac;chp=17;vs=29;citation#bk29



(1 John 5:21) Guard yourselves from idols.



(Acts 17:29) We ought not to imagine that the Divine Being is like gold or silver or stone, like something sculptured by the art and contrivance of man





The exact shape of Christ's instrument of death is hardly a central doctrine of the faith, but Jehovah's Witnesses do happen to believe that Jesus was almost certainly impaled on a simple stake, rather than a cross of two intersecting beams. Of course the Romans had the ability to create a cross, and probably did. But ask yourself: why they would have bothered when a simple stake would have worked just as well or better?



The bible most assuredly does NOT offer any proof that the stake was actually a cross of two intersecting beams. The actual facts of the bible may be enlightening to examine...



You may be interested to see how your own copy of the bible translates Acts 5:30, Galatians 3:13, Deuteronomy 21:22, 23, and Acts 10:39. The King James, Revised Standard, Dyaglott, and Jerusalem Bible translate the instrument of Christ's death simply as "stake" or "tree" because the original wording simply does not support the idea that this was more than a piece of upright wood. The English word "cross" is an imprecise translation of the Latin word "crux". Note this image of crucifixion performed with a "crux simplex", such as seems to have been used to execute Jesus:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Justus_Lipsius_Crux_Simplex_1629.jpg



It is also eye-opening to examine how the first-century Christians felt about idols of any kind, much less one that glorified an instrument of death.



Learn more:

http://watchtower.org/e/200604a/article_01.htm

http://watchtower.org/e/20050508a/article_01.htm

http://watchtower.org/e/rq/index.htm?article=article_11.htm

http://watchtower.org/e/19960715/article_01.htm
anonymous
2016-03-16 05:37:23 UTC
"For I decided not to know anything among you except Jesus Christ, and him impaled." I Corinthians 2:2 (NWT). The Watch Tower paints a perverse picture of Jesus impaled by a stake. An upright phallic symbol that is much older than most of the cross-like imitations of the adversary We see these "impaling" phallic objects to this very day in obelisks, steeples, and maypoles. Of course the Watch Tower has not taught the cross. That would be teaching Jesus redemptive act and people coming to an understanding that that Watch Tower cannot have taught. The Cross is called a cross by early church leaders when writing to each other in their native languages in the first and second century. The impaling stake is one of the Watch Tower "Strongholds" Stronghold are two things. 1. Doctrine that has a strong hold on the follower and 2. A base tenent that the Watch Tower has set. These set deceptions are also so deeply ingrained that followers have a very difficult time seeing past them.
Danny H
2007-12-17 07:27:06 UTC
If after all of that someone persists in the "telephone-pole" execution, they're just being stubborn.



The article plainly and simply shows the myriad accounts and evidences PROVING that Jesus was CRUCIFIED on a CROSS.



I've also heard the reasoning from the JW's that the Jews had Him nailed to a torture stake in order to mock Him, saying the torture stake was representative of the male sex organ.



The stupidity of that is the Jews were not in charge of carrying out the executions. It would have been the Roman's job, and they would have been indifferent. To them, Jesus was just another troublemaker, and was going to be killed like any other criminal. They would have made no special provisions, nor changed their style of execution.



The JW insistence on the torture-stake execution is nothing more than another attempt by them to show that they are the "true" religion because they are the only ones that believe this, thereby giving them a separate identity from the rest of Christendom, to give them an identifying "mark" as the "true church".



It's a load. A little education, which the article provided, quickly dispels their stupidity. If only the JW members would do the same.



God bless.
Thinkpad User
2007-12-17 12:26:43 UTC
The Jehovah's Witnesses had to find some way to distant themselves from what they considered a worshipped idol (Cross). Keep in mind most of the converted JWs were former Catholics, so they desperately had to find a blind hill to keep the former Catholics from looking back at what JWs think was their former idol, the Cross. We do know why they had to do it, then they had to figure out a way how to make a convincing doctrine, which is to twist the stauros meaning into something less significant, that torture stake. We should all keep in mind that the Cross is a torture stake, only with a cross beam added with it, so they like to use the words 'simple torture stake'.



I would like the Jehovah's Witnesses figure out how Thomas mentioned 'nails' (plural) imprinted into Jesus' 'hands' (plural) in John 20:25 as it would read in Greek, so a singular 'nail' was not used in that verse. Then let them explain how a sign was erected on the Cross 'above His head' in Matthew 27:37, and this sign was written in 'Hebrew, Latin and Greek' in John 19:20, so how can such a large sign in three languages placed above His head leave enough room for His two hands to be nailed together with only 'one nail' (so they want to believe) above His head if this was a simple stake? The Bible DID NOT say the sign was above His hands, so face it, if we were to mention a sign somewhere we would say where exactly it is located. In this case, they erected the sign above His head, not above His hands. If the Jehovah's Witnesses can believe in this simple torture stake doctrine among many other false and illogical doctrines, they can believe in ANYTHING!!!
VMO
2007-12-17 04:50:17 UTC
Lion of Judah



Thats some pretty false logic there about the use of nails. Notice that he used the term "hands" shows that theres more than one nail print. Also, just because it uses the term "nails" doesn't mean he was put to death on a Cross.



Stauros never meant Cross, and even most Greek Scholars believe that. If its not the original meaning, then the obvious meaning of it is a stake or a pale.
Me, Too
2007-12-17 04:13:50 UTC
Now this is a very important question. It's worth spending your time worrying about. The end result is the same, since Jesus ends up dead, either way, but we may as well worry about that stake or cross, because it beats worrying about the hungry, the homeless, the jobless, the underpaid, the uninsured, the War!



Yes, why worry about piddly problems like those listed when you can worry about whether Jesus died on a stake or a cross, thus stirring up a little controversy between religions, naturally feeling that your own religion is better than any others, and always correct, no matter what anyone else says.



My advice is to ..get real! What would it matter how Jesus died, whether nailed or tied, whether stabbed or beaten? What matters is solving the many problems we are facing today and doing your best to alleviate them.
Patrick
2014-05-14 07:37:52 UTC
Actually, the cross fits the description of “a tree” because it alone has the “branch” that a tree has.

John 20:25 and Matthew 27:37 are clear proofs that the above picture of Jesus on a stake with one nail piercing his two wrists and the inscription above his hand are wrong.



John 20:25 says:



Consequently the other disciples would say to him: “We have seen the Lord!” But he said to them: “Unless I see in his hands the print of the nails and stick my finger into the print of the nails and stick my hand into his side, I will certainly not believe.” [New World Translation]



Thomas wants to see “in his hands” the print of the nails not the print of “the nail (singular)”. Isn’t this awful for the Watchtower Organization?



Matthew 27:37 says:



“Also, they posted above his head the charge against him, in writing: “This is Jesus the King of the Jews.”” [New World Translation]



According to the above picture, it is “above his hand”, Which is it?
anonymous
2007-12-17 04:14:03 UTC
maybe they mean the same thing? I don't know but I do know he was nailed to a cross. It was something that the romans did back then, they had it perfected. They knew how long it took for them to die while being up there, it was like a profession. It's not like Jesus was the only one to be ever crucified on a cross, He was just the most significant to do so because He took our sins away.
deacon
2007-12-17 04:11:34 UTC
Cross or Torture Stake?

JEHOVAH’S Witnesses say Jesus wasn’t crucified, but was put to death on a torture stake. What are your thoughts?



Answer: Your evil person walked the Precious Blood that Jesus sh ed for this person's sin on a cross after being scourge with 39 lashes of the whip called the cat of nine tails to the point of death with the metal and bone pieces tearing the skin of Jesus body horrible to the point that most people could not live through this scourging and the torturer would have to stop short of 39 lashes. Then the Roman soldiers plated a crown of thorn and beat it into the scalp of Jesus with rods. Put a robe of purple on Jesus and Mocked and spit on him then made Jesus carry the cross that Jesus would die on up Golgotha Hill outside of the City of Jerusalem to be crucified for this sinners evil deeds.

But this evil person walked the Precious Blood of Jesus under foot and rejected the Crucifixion where Jesus paid this persons Sin Debt and all of mankind as well.

God has every right to turn such a evil person in Hell because he was so arrogant and wicked that he rejected Jesus and the sacrifice that Jesus had made for him.



So Christians, how do you rationalize this as being fair and just?



Also, I'd like you guys to read this short article and tell me what you think:

http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/1991/91...
anonymous
2007-12-17 04:17:57 UTC
That article is interesting... but I have to add that just because religious people have ALL their attention on that event DOESN'T make it an important event. Jesus DID NOT indicate that the torture was good news for mankind.



He said "the light will be with you just a little while longer." Does that sound like good news for mankind?



He also inferred just before that event that the tree was about to DRY UP! Does that sound like good news to you?



Cross or stake... it doesn't matter, since the important things happened BEFORE the crucifixion... since Jesus said that his MISSION on earth was to PREACH THE GOSPEL. Luke 4:43.
russj
2007-12-17 04:21:38 UTC
With all the other problems in the world today, I'm just curious as to why anyone would be concerned over whether Jesus was crucified with arms outstretched or overhead. What difference does it make except to alienate another group of people who believe differently to yourself? I think the article seems very defensive and spends a lot of time defending something that is ultimately irrelevant. You belief isn't about how Jesus was killed, it's about the fact he was killed for your sins. Jesus could have been beheaded for all the difference it makes.
anonymous
2007-12-17 04:17:20 UTC
I don't see eye to eye with you on many things crusader, but at least here we can share thoughts



Jesus was persecuted by a Roman Governor

And executed by Roman soldiers

Using Roman techniques

and Roman materials

ON a Pagan roman symbol



which is a cross



there is no argumenet with regards to anyone else being executed on a cross, spartacus etc....

But Jw's claim differently, amongst other things



the question is, why would Roman soldiers go out of their way, to conduct their normal business in the most unroman like manner and not use a normal cross?



that's because they used a cross, and to them it was business as normal



The JW's and the WTS is going out of it's way to reveal that it and only it alone has the truth, by creating differing stories to what everyone else already knows



Peace in Christ Crusader and everyone else
LoyalOne
2007-12-17 04:08:38 UTC
The Companion Bible, under the heading “The Cross and Crucifixion,” notes: “Our English word ‘cross’ is the translation of the Latin crux; but the Greek stauros no more means a crux than the word ‘stick’ means a ‘crutch.’ Homer uses the word stauros of an ordinary pole or stake, or a single piece of timber. And this is the meaning and usage of the word throughout the Greek classics. It never means two pieces of timber placed across one another. . . . There is nothing in the Greek of the N[ew] T[estament] even to imply two pieces of timber.”



Another Greek word, xy′lon, is used in the Bible to refer to the instrument upon which Jesus died. This word helps to show that stau·ros′ was an upright stake without a crossbeam. As The Companion Bible states: “The word [xy′lon] . . . generally denotes a piece of a dead log of wood, or timber, for fuel or for any other purpose. . . . As this latter word [xy′lon] is used for the former stauros, it shows us that the meaning of each is exactly the same. . . . Hence the use of the word [xy′lon] . . . in connection with the manner of our Lord’s death, and rendered ‘tree’ in Acts 5:30; 10:39; 13:29; Galatians 3:13; 1 Peter 2:24 [King James Version].”



Lion of Judah, in Luke 24:39 the resurrected Jesus said: “See my hands and my feet, that it is I myself.” This suggests that Christ’s feet also were nailed. Since Thomas made no mention of nailprints in Jesus’ feet, his use of the plural “nails” could have been a general reference to multiple nails used in impaling Jesus.



Thus, it just is not possible at this point to state with certainty how many nails were used. Any drawings of Jesus on the stake should be understood as artists’ productions that offer merely a representation based on the limited facts that we have. Debate over such an insignificant detail should not be permitted to becloud the all-important truth that “we became reconciled to God through the death of his Son.” Romans 5:10.



Mr. Crusader, do you feel like a big man, sitting behind a computer keyboard and attacking religions that don't agree with yours? Yesterday, it was Muslims. Today, it is Jehovah's Witnesses. By downing others' beliefs, do you expect trurh seekers to forget the murderous ways of the Catholic Church? The disgusting and violent avatar you display identifies you as a supporter of a monsterous organization that used torture and murder to influence others to conform to the Catholic Church's twisted brand of "Christianity." Your user name, "Catholic Crusader," associates you with the Catholic Church's role during the Crusades, in which thousands of innocent people were mercilessly butchered.



So, please enlighten us as to the real reason behind your attacks of non-Catholic beliefs.
anonymous
2007-12-17 04:17:52 UTC
GUIDE TO COUNTERING JEHOVAH'S WITNESSES

http://www.jamaat.net/comp/jw/jw.html





YouTube - From Jehovah's Witnesses to Islam

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v-XFLF01UTw
anonymous
2007-12-17 04:12:04 UTC
One of the doctrines of the Jehovah's Witnesses that is wrong, though not an attack on an essential doctrine of scripture, is their teaching that Jesus died on a stake instead of a cross (Reasoning from the Scriptures, 1985, pp. 89-90). It really doesn't matter which Jesus died on. The issue is whether or not He shed His blood for our sins.

In support of their position, they accurately state that the Greek word used in many Bibles which is translated into "cross" is the Greek word "stauros" which means, "an upright stake, esp. a pointed one, a cross."1 If a stake were used, instead of a cross, then Jesus' hands would have been placed above His head with a nail driven through His wrists. Since the wrists would most likely overlap, only one nail is needed through both wrists. However, some Jehovah's Witnesses have maintained that Jesus' hands may have been placed one higher than another on the stake. The reason they say this is because of John 20:25,



"The other disciples therefore said unto him, We have seen the Lord. But he said unto them, except I shall see in his hands the print of the nails, and put my finger into the print of the nails, and thrust my hand into his side, I will not believe."



Notice the use of the word nails (plural) in reference to hands (plural). This is strong evidence that Jesus was crucified on a cross with outstretched hands -- one nail in each hand which would explain the plural nails. If Jesus was crucified on a stake then both hands would have been placed above his head and only one nail would have been needed to go through both hands. Again, it says "...in his hands the print of the nails..."

Again, this is not an issue of essential doctrine, but I do believe the evidence is sufficient to demonstrate that the Watchtower organization is incorrect in yet another matter.
EisforEverything
2007-12-18 17:16:54 UTC
I studied with a JW for a good while - we focused on the books of the bible about women because at the time we both needed to understand more about our (ahem) roles as women in the lives we led. Susan :) And I remember her last name I won't tell it here. Just suffice it to say I still remember you, Susan, often, with love...

But apparently a weekly-biweekly study wasn't enough for Susan's JW cohorts in the business of measuring her own deeds for Christ in terms of "souls converted" - So here comes some gray haired ol' lady to tell me the RC Churched is messed up because they say Jesus died on a cross when actually he died on a stake -- WHAT DIFFERENCE????

Does anyone realize that the crucifiction torture, focused on drowning a person in their own fluids, was WORSE if the victim was tortured upside down? Umm yah. So let's get really graphic here and even go to that Mel Gibson movie which I chalked up to fixation on gratuitous the graphic violence - until my very own brother told me the impact the movie had for him...Go figure - Some people need a 2 by 4 harder and bigger than I do...

Basically, my own reaction to this question is "SO WHAT?!? ~Jesus~ died a most un-imaginable death for the sake of **me** and everyone so who cares if he really died on a cross or a stake or even upside down? (and sorry, I'm a Catholic too, so my reply almost doesn't matter) Oh and hey, I'm fascinated by the upside down thing -- I read some book years ago that was "anti-christ" I wish I could remember its title - I gave it to my sainted Nana who was deeply concerned about what impact it had on me until I explained to her that alternate tellings of the Jesus story don't bother me - What matters is that God is Love, God Loves me, and I know this in large part thanks to the Jesus story in the bible....but I digress...

But then again -- let me digress some more --

Another book I had once (and I lost it somehow I didn't give it away or anything, I held on for the longest time because its analogies moved me so wonderfully) ... Another book I had once told some legend about the actual tree that Jesus died on. . . so acutally, I'm digressing back to another part of this question because you ask what I think of the article you linked... THat article talks about Jesus being crucified on olivewood - but this legend told about it being dogwood - and the legend was that dogwood used to be a tree, but when the dogwood learned it had been used to crucify the world's Savior, dogwood never grew as a tree again, but rather as a bush - and dogwood's flowers from then on bore the stains on its petals similar to the stains of blood on the hands and feet of Our Lord as he suffered and died.....



So I told the gray haired lady who tried to tell me all this fanciful stuff was "uv de DEBIL" that all the fanciful stuff to illustrate the beauty of what God did and does for us is actually a good thing - and it REMINDS us that none of us today were there 2000 + years ago with forensics teams to analyze and document exactly what happened how to the minutest grain - and the reason for that is because ~~None~~ of that matters!

Only thing that matters is that Christ Jesus lived, suffered, died, descended into hell, and then resurrected and ascended into heaven for us! In fact, all that almost doesn't matter beyond the ideas that it provokes in our hearts and minds -- The whole deepest truest crux (yes, play on words) of the matter is that God loves us all and each so much that what ever we can imagine God going through and doing for the sake of our salvation, He's going to do it. :)

Notice I say for the sake of salvation -- not for the sake of appeasing the idle-curious :)



Love and thanks for the great opportunity to launch off like this.

I hope it's helpful for someone.



-M



Ps Ohh! and "Mandy" based on your inverted five point star, I figure you to be a "satanist" of the purest kind....I respect that - honest.

You post:

"Well, either way he met a nasty death by the wishes of his own people."

Yah... That is ~~exactly~~ the point of it all :)

My kids wished "nasty" reprisals for me as I raised them often imperfectly.... and sometimes those children of mine reprised me for the not-imperfectly ways I raised them. Mandy -- how wonderful to be the child of someone who loves us in spite of and ~~even~~ through any "nasty" reprisals heaped upon that parent by their babies?

Mandy, do you see the beauty of God-Love in any of this?

:)
anonymous
2007-12-17 04:06:38 UTC
6 to 1 half a dozen to the other
raulinhovic
2007-12-17 04:10:18 UTC
Didn't read the article...I'm too lasy :P

But I can't tell anything about Jesus or stuff like that...you can't believe them...not just that u can't know wich one is right, but u can't be sure that what they are saying is right...so... see ya.

( be smart always)
vintagemale1951
2007-12-17 04:13:36 UTC
WELL THEY HAD TO STAKE HIM TO SOME THING.IT PROB . WAS A CROSS OF A DIFFERNT COLOR
anonymous
2007-12-17 04:19:06 UTC
its not jws saying it i wish all of u would listen to what your saying every thing that they say is from the bible so why blame them for telling u what the bible says i just think its reallt not fair if i were to say something about each one of u that wasnt true in one of these q and a or about something your religion doesnt really say u would blow up so i think u should not do it to them
drsam
2007-12-17 04:19:18 UTC
see this video debate than judge ur self

http://webcast.challengeyoursoul.com/index.php?categoryId=19&entryId=141



Read THis

8. JESUS (PBUH) DID NOT DIE



Question



Is it not true that your Qur’an mentions in Surah Maryam, Chapter 19 verse 33 that Jesus (pbuh) died and was resurrected?



Answer



JESUS (PBUH) SAID, "THE DAY THAT I DIE", NOT "THE DAY THAT I DIED"



It is mentioned in Surah Maryam, Chapter 19 verse 33



"So Peace is on me the day I was born, the day that I die and the Day that I shall be raised up to life (again)".

[Al-Qur’an 19:33]



The Qur’an mentions that Jesus (pbuh) said "Peace is on me the Day I was born, the day that I die". It is not stated "the day that I died". It is in the future tense and not in the past tense.



1. JESUS (PBUH) WAS RAISED UP ALIVE



The Qur’an further says in Surah Nisa, Chapter 4 verse 157-158:



"That they said (in boast), ‘We killed Jesus Christ the son of Mary, the Messenger of Allah’ – But they killed him not, Nor crucified him, but so it was made to appear to them, and those who differ therein are full of doubts, with no (certain) knowledge, but only conjecture to follow, for of a surety they killed him not –



Nay, Allah raised him up unto Himself; and Allah is exalted in Power, Wise."

[Al-Qur’an 4:157-158]
trustdell1
2007-12-17 09:25:00 UTC
If the arms were stretched up , the sign is above his hands, and ALSO above his HEAD. If the arms are side by side stretched up, the sign can also be above the head.





Jesus was impaled with NAILS. Because NAILS are used not only in his hands but also in his feet. The people who impaled Jesus can use more than one nail in his hands even his hands are stretched upward.





Numbers 21:8-9 states

"8 Then Jehovah said to Moses: “Make for yourself a fiery snake and place it upon a signal POLE. And it must occur that when anyone has been bitten, he then has to look at it and so must keep alive.” 9 Moses at once made a serpent of copper and placed it upon the signal POLE; and it did occur that if a serpent had bitten a man and he gazed at the copper serpent, he then kept alive."



Pole in Latin palus stake according to m-w.com. a long slender usually cylindrical object.



Please notice the parallel done in John 3:13-15.



And just as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, so the Son of man must be lifted up, that everyone believing in him may have everlasting life



Like the copper serpent that Moses placed on a pole in the wilderness, the Son of God was impaled or fastened on a stake, thus appearing to many as an evildoer and a sinner, like a snake, being in the position of one cursed



The serpent that Moses placed was not in a cross, not with two beams but just a single pole, so is Christ was impaled on a stake.





Just some comments about the “cross”. Thanks.



The Greek word “Stauros” according to the Strongs Dictionary is



a stake or post (as set upright), that is, (specifically) a pole or cross (as an instrument of capital punishment);



Notice stauros means either an 1. upright stake/pole/post or 2. cross.



According to the Imperial Bible Dictionary, stauros is “properly signified a stake, an upright pole, or piece of paling, on which anything might be hung, or which might be used in impaling a piece of ground”.



It also defines stauros as “cross” which was a MODIFICATION and introduced as the dominion and usages of Rome extended themselves into Greek-speaking countries.



So stauros which was ORIGINALLY an upright pole has a NEW ADDITIONAL MEANING which is the word cross.



The question now is, Is the STAUROS in which Jesus died the ORIGINAL meaning (upright pole) OR the new ADDED meaning which is CROSS?



Which meaning is supported by the Bible?



The STAUROS that Jesus CARRIED, and the STAUROS in WHICH Jesus was Impaled was either translated CONSISTENTLY as





A. CROSS



WHAT Jesus Carried:

Luke 23:26 - KJ

And as they led him away, they laid hold upon one Simon, a Cyrenian, coming out of the country, and on him they laid the cross, that he might bear it after Jesus.



WHERE JESUS was IMPALED

John 19:19 KJ

And Pilate wrote a title, and put it on the cross.





B. STAKE



WHAT Jesus Carried:

Luke 23:26 NWT

26 Now as they led him away, they laid hold of Simon, a certain native of Cy•re´ne, coming from the country, and they placed the torture stake upon him to bear it behind Jesus.



WHERE JESUS was IMPALED



John 19:19 NWT

Pilate wrote a title also and put it on the torture stake.





A BIG STAUROS is needed so that TWO persons (Jesus and Simon) have to carry it. Notice Simon carried the stauros behind Jesus. What Jesus carried and where he was impaled is the same, the stauros. So it cannot just be the crossbeam that Jesus carried.





One of the these prophecies which was fulfilled in Jesus in order for us to be released from the curse of the Law, was in :



Gal 3:13

13 Christ by purchase released us from the curse of the Law by becoming a curse instead of us, because it is written: “Accursed is every man hanged upon a stake/tree.” Which is taken from Deut 21:23. (his dead body should not stay all night on the stake/tree; but you should by all means bury him on that day, because something accursed of God is the one hung up)



The Greek word used there is XULON/XYLON (timber, tree, wood) which is a similar word as the STAUROS.



Even if the “cross” was used in Jesus’ time, I believe that in order for the prophecy/law to be fulfilled in Deut 21:23, Jesus MUST have died on the original meaning of the stauros which stake and not the modified meaning, which is the cross.



Acts 5:30 states “The God of our fathers raised up Jesus, whom ye slew and hanged on a tree.”





The book The Non-Christian Cross, by J. D. Parsons (London, 1896), says: “There is not a single sentence in any of the numerous writings forming the New Testament, which, in the original Greek, bears even indirect evidence to the effect that the stauros used in the case of Jesus was other than an ordinary stauros; much less to the effect that it consisted, not of one piece of timber, but of two pieces nailed together in the form of a cross. . . . It is not a little misleading upon the part of our teachers to translate the word stauros as ‘cross’ when rendering the Greek documents of the Church into our native tongue, and to support that action by putting ‘cross’ in our lexicons as the meaning of stauros without carefully explaining that that was at any rate not the primary meaning of the word in the days of the Apostles, did not become its primary signification till long afterwards, and became so then, if at all, only because, despite the absence of corroborative evidence, it was for some reason or other assumed that the particular stauros upon which Jesus was executed had that particular shape.”—Pp. 23, 24; see also The Companion Bible (London, 1885), Appendix No. 162.









Vine’s Complete Expository Dictionary of Old and New Testament Words provides telling insight into the "cross." It declares:



"stauros denotes primarily, ‘an upright pale or stake.’ On such malefactors were nailed for execution. Both the noun and the verb stauroo, ‘to fasten to a stake or pale,’ are originally to be DISTINGUISHED FROM the ecclesiastical form of a two beamed ‘cross.’ The shape of the latter had its origin in ancient Chaldea, and was used as the symbol of the god Tammuz (being in the shape of the mystic Tau, the initial of his name) in that country and in adjacent lands, including Egypt. By the middle of the third century A.D. had either departed from, or had travestied, certain doctrines of the Christian faith. In order to increase the prestige of the apostate ecclesiastical system pagans were received into the church apart from regeneration by faith, and were permitted largely to retain their pagan signs and symbols. Hence the Tau, or T, in its most frequent form, with the cross-piece lowered, was adopted to stand for the ‘cross’ of Christ" ("cross," page 138).





Bullinger points out that the symbol of crosses "were used as symbols of the Babylonian sun-god," and a cross with four equal arms, vertical and horizontal, was "especially venerated as the ‘Solar Wheel.’" He goes on:



"The Catacombs in Rome bear the same testimony: ‘Christ’ is never represented there as ‘hanging on a cross,’ and the cross itself is only portrayed in a veiled and hesitating manner. In the Egyptian churches the cross was a PAGAN SYMBOL OF LIFE, borrowed by the “Christians”, and interpreted in the pagan manner. In his Letters from Rome Dean Burgon says: ‘I question whether a cross occurs on any Christian monument of the first four centuries.’





Regarding the “nails” reasoning, anti-JWs say that it has to be a cross because the Bible says “Nails”. Their problem is that Jesus can be impaled on the stake and NAILS can be used also to impale him, not only thru the hands but also in the feet.



Try to put your two hands above your head, even try side by side. Notice that there's a space above your head in which a sign can be put. The people who impaled Jesus didn't care that he has a crown of thorns and putting his hands above his head which will cause more pain to Jesus is something that they don't care about also.





In LXX we find xy´lon in Ezr 6:11 (1 Esdras 6:31), and there it is spoken of as a beam on which the violator of law was to be hanged, the same as in Ac 5:30; 10:39.





In the writings of Livy, a Roman historian of the first century B.C.E., crux means a mere stake. “Cross” is only a later meaning of crux



The Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible states, with reference to stau•ros´: “Literally an upright stake, pale, or pole . . . As an instrument of execution, the cross was a stake sunk vertically in the ground. Often, but by no means always, a horizontal piece was attached to the vertical portion.” Another reference work says: “The Greek word for cross, stau•ros´, 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, and this always remained the more prominent part.”—The Imperial Bible Dictionary.





The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia (1979) states under the heading “Cross”: “Originally Gk. staurós designated a pointed, vertical wooden stake firmly fixed in the ground.





The Companion Bible, published by the Oxford University Press. On page 186 in the “Appendixes” it says: “Homer uses the word stauros of an ordinary pole or stake, or a single piece of timber. And this is the meaning and usage of the word throughout the Greek classics. It never means two pieces of timber placed across one another at any angle, but always of one piece alone.
Learn about the one true God
2007-12-17 06:30:05 UTC
Was Christ Hung on a Cross?



TO MANY millions of people the answer to this question seems as simple as the three-letter word “Yes”. To serious students of both ancient history and the Bible the answer is even simpler, as simple as the two-letter word “No!” But two answers as far apart as these open up between them a great gulf that all truth seekers must be able to bridge in order to stand on the solid ground of truth.



It is common knowledge in this enlightened age that the Bible was not first set down in English. Consequently, to settle the question as to whether Christ was hung on a cross or not it is necessary to consult the original Hebrew and Greek languages in which the Bible was written. By God’s grace manuscript copies of the original accounts, some of which copies date back to within fifty years of the originals, are available to scholars. Besides these, the original words are defined and explained in dictionaries or lexicons written in modern English, if that is the only language you read. And, in addition, there are dependable encyclopedias, histories, etc., to which reference can be made.



The Catholic Digest magazine, May, 1948, page 108, had the following to say on the subject of the cross: “Long before the birth of Christ the cross was a religious symbol. On the site of ancient Troy discs of baked clay stamped with a cross, were recently discovered. Two similar objects were found at Herculaneum. The Aztecs of ancient Mexico carved the cross on amulets, pottery, and temple walls. Many traces of use of the cross by North American Indians have been discovered. Buddhists of Tibet see in the cross a mark of the footprint of Buddha. The Mongolians draw a cross on paper and place it on the breasts of their dead. Egyptian inscriptions often have the Tau (T) cross. They considered the scarab (beetle) sacred because markings down the back and across the thorax form a T. A cross of this form was used as a support for the arms of Hindu ascetics in India who were wont to sit for days and nights in a Buddhalike attitude. The crux ansata (handled cross) has a loop serving as a handle. For the Egyptians this cross was a symbol of life and in their sign language meant ‘to live.’” See also The Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol. 4, page 517; the footnote on pages 312, 313, of Gibbon’s History of Christianity, Eckler’s edition, 1891.



But how was the cross a “symbol of life” to the pagans? Well, a father, the male, is life-giver to his children by and through the mother. Hence, those sex-worshiping pagans, under the inspiration of the Devil and his demons, constructed a phallic image of the erected male genitive organ, with a crossbar toward one end to represent the testes. Carrying the symbolism a step further in the crux ansata, the loop on the top, which pious religionists choose to describe as a “handle”, represented the female genitive organ joined to the masculine symbol. That these diabolical facts are true, see the following references: Funeral Tent of an Egyptian Queen, by Villiers Stuart; Masculine Cross and Ancient Sex Worship, by Sha Rocco; Two Babylons, by Alexander Hislop; Essays on the Worship of Priapus, by Richard Payne Knight.



Reference to the original languages in which the Bible was written will show beyond a question of doubt that Christ was never hung on any pagan cross. Hence, the use of the word “cross” in the English-language Bibles is a mistranslation. On this, the New World Translation of the Christian Greek Scriptures, in its appendix, on pages 768-771, in commenting on Matthew 10:38, where the Greek word σταυρός (stau·ros′) first appears and which is translated “cross” in most Bibles, states:



“This is the expression used in connection with the execution of Jesus at Calvary. There is no evidence that the Greek word stau·ros′ meant here a ‘cross’ such as the pagans used as a religious symbol for many centuries before Christ to denote the sun-god. On the ancient sculptures of Egypt may be seen representations of their gods bearing the so-called crux an·sa′ta, a T-cross with a loop at the top, it being a phallic symbol of life. In Babylonian inscriptions Tammuz was signified by a heart from which sprang a single or a double cross.



“India, Syria, Persia, as well as Babylon and ancient Egypt, have all yielded objects marked with crosses of various designs, including the swastika among the early Aryans. This betrays the worshiping of the cross to be pagan.



“In the classical Greek the word stau·ros′ meant merely an upright stake or pale, or a pile such as is used for a foundation. The verb stau·ro′o meant to fence with pales, to form a stockade or palisade, and this is the verb used when the mob called for Jesus to be impaled. To such a stake or pale the person to be punished was fastened, just as when the popular Greek hero Pro·me′the·us was represented as tied to a stake or stau·ros′. The Greek word which the dramatist Aes′chy·lus used to describe this means to fasten or fix on a pole or stake, to impale, and the Greek author Lucian used a·na·stau·ro′o as a synonym for that word. In the Christian Greek Scriptures a·na·stau·ro′o occurs but once, at Hebrews 6:6. The root verb stau·ro′o occurs more than 40 times, and we have rendered it ‘impale’, with the footnote: ‘Or, “fasten on a stake or pole.’”



“The inspired writers of the Christian Greek Scriptures wrote in the common (koi·ne′) Greek and used the word stau·ros′ to mean the same thing as in the classical Greek, namely, a stake or pale, a simple one without a crossbeam of any kind or at any angle. There is no proof to the contrary. The apostles Peter and Paul also use the word xy′lon to refer to the torture instrument upon which Jesus was nailed, and this argues that is was an upright stake without a crossbeam, for that is what xy′lon in this special sense means. (Acts 5:30; 10:39; 13:29; Galatians 3:13; 1 Peter 2:24) At Ezra 6:11 we find xy′lon in the Greek Septuagint (1 Esdras 6:31), and there it is spoken of as a beam on which the violator of law was to be hanged, the same as at Luke 23:39; Acts 5:30; 10:39.



“The fact that stau·ros′ is translated crux in the Latin versions furnishes no argument against this. Any authoritative Latin dictionary will inform the examiner that the basic meaning of crux is a ‘tree, frame, or other wooden instrument of execution’ on which criminals were impaled or hanged. (Lewis-Short) A cross is only a later meaning of crux. Even in the writings of Livy, a Roman historian of the first century B.C., crux means a mere stake. Such a single stake for impalement of a criminal was called crux simplex, and the method of nailing him to such an instrument of torture is illustrated by the Roman Catholic scholar, Justus Lipsius, of the 16th century. We present herewith a photographic copy of his illustration on page 647, column 2, of his book De Cruce Liber Primus. This is the manner in which Jesus was impaled.



“Religious tradition from the days of Emperor Constantine proves nothing. Says that monthly publication for the Roman Catholic clergy, The Ecclesiastical Review, of September, 1920, No. 3, of Baltimore, Maryland, page 275: ‘It may be safely asserted that only after the edict of Milan, A.D. 312, was the cross used as the permanent sign of our Redemption. De Rossi positively states that no monogram of Christ, discovered in the catacombs or other places, can be traced to a period anterior to the year 312. Even after that epoch-making year, the church, then free and triumphant, contented herself with having a simple monogram of Christ: the Greek letter chi vertically crossed by a rho, and horizontally sometimes, by an iota. [Artwork—Greek characters] The oldest crucifix mentioned as an object of public worship is the one venerated in the Church of Narbonne in southern France, as early as the 6th century.’



“After showing the pagan origin of the cross, The Encyclopædia Britannica, Vol. 7, of edition 11, page 506, says: ‘It was not till the time of Constantine that the cross was publicly used as the symbol of the Christian religion.’ That was but logical, for Emperor Constantine was a worshiper of the pagan sun-god, whose symbol was a cross. Other experts have pointed out that ‘before the fourth century the cross was not used as a Christian emblem in the East any more than in the West’.



“Rather than consider the torture stake upon which Jesus was impaled a relic to be worshiped, the Jewish Christians like Simon Peter would consider it to be an abominable thing. At Galatians 3:13 the apostle Paul quotes Deuteronomy 21:23 and says: ‘It is written: “Accursed is every man hanged upon a stake.’” Hence the Jewish Christians would hold as accursed and hateful the stake upon which Jesus had been executed. Says the celebrated Jewish authority, Moses Mai·mon′i·des, of the 12th century: ‘They never hang upon a tree which clings to the soil by roots; but upon a timber uprooted, that it might not be an annoying plague: for a timber upon which anyone has been hanged is buried; that the evil name may not remain with it and people should say, “This is the timber on which so-and-so was hanged.” So the stone with which anyone has been stoned; and the sword, with which the one killed has been killed; and the cloth or mantle with which anyone has been strangled; all these things are buried along with those who perished.’ (Apud Casaub. in Baron. Exercitat. 16, An. 34, Num. 134) Says Kalinski in Vaticinia Observationibus Illustrata, page 342: ‘Consequently since a man hanged was considered the greatest abomination—the Jews also hated more than other things the timber on which he had been hanged, so that they covered it also with earth, as being equally an abominable thing.’



“The evidence is, therefore, completely lacking that Jesus Christ was crucified on two pieces of timber placed at a right angle. We refuse to add anything to God’s written Word by inserting the pagan cross into the inspired Scriptures, but render stau·ros′ and xy′lon according to the simplest meanings. Since Jesus used stau·ros′ to represent the suffering and shame or torture of his followers (Matthew 16:24), we have translated stau·ros′ as ‘torture stake’, to distinguish it from xy′lon, which we have translated ‘stake’, or, ‘tree,’ as at Acts 5:30.”


This content was originally posted on Y! Answers, a Q&A website that shut down in 2021.
Loading...