lol I didn't abandon this thread I still don't agree with leolaia I think the evolvement of stauros and xylon and crux show they were defined as a simple instrument of death and stake being it's defining point and that to in going beyond that to cross with crosspiece assumed, especially by the definition of cross as it stands now is beyond the bible wording. no one would ever assume it could mean Jesus did die on a stake without crosspiece but also it brings unwarranted attention to the shape of his death instrument.
The problem is the writers in using the term stauros were talking about Jesus death not about the shape of his death instrument. Cross takes it to a shape which is not what the context of the bible or what the writers intended shows. the fact Jesus used this ambiguous word before he even died shows it wasn't about a particular shape but about a his dying.
I'm trying to think of an example if you say someone dies in a car crash but then say actually he died by such and such car and start wearing the car that killed him around your neck as a symbol this is not hat the writer intended. It is clear leolaia that the writers did not want it to be clear on what Jesus died on other than he died executed roman style and at the time of Jesus's death this was defined as stake/pale /tree but with execution/torture thrown in. Cross goes beyond this and even you agree but your justify this by saying it is likely that he died with a crosspiece so it is ok to assume a crosspiece.
If you can prove leolaia that when people read cross they can know it also can mean simple stake nowadays maybe you have a point for saying cross is ok but you argue the opposite that stake is incorrect because it doesn't say crosspiece but as I showed they writers never thought in terms of the crosspiece in time they wrote that word so stake is more correct from the way they viewed the words then as stake/pale/tree.
