Jesus not crucified on torture stake. Impossible! (page 5)

reniaa

Hi leolaia lets get to brass tacks! would the writers have known that the word they used gave no indication of shape beyond it's first translation? which indicated a pale of wood/tree used for execution that would be taken as upright stake with possible additions like you said of a T patibulum or none as in the case of crux simplex? both in my opinion being viable options of Jesus's death instrument at that time?

Latin cross which both you and I know from research has never been an option.

You cannot change the fact that 'cross' indicates a specific shape to the unlearned reader and they would never realise it can mean just a simple upright beam and that indicating shape was not the purpose of the word used originally. 'Cross' used as a english translation is like let me think of an example

stick and crutch both mean a piece of wood, a stick can be a crutch but it is harder to realise a crutch back to a stick by usage the person is saying it is a crutch which is specific in usage beyond just a stick.

you are saying cross can still mean many types including just a stake and yet no one reading the word cross would realise this.

I say stauros/torture stake can mean that a crossbeam can be used or not and the writers knew that the word indicated in no way whether further crossbeams were used and in what way, unlike cross which is the assumption that a crossbeam is DEFINITELY used in the readers mind.

NWT torture stake word has senority in my book as being a closer rendering of the original words used.

in all the dictionaries stake (aka torture stake is the foremost translation as apposed to the secondary cross in this the NWT is has the greater accuracy.

we are saying stake that could have had further beams or not! but there is no further biblical indication beyond what I myself researched on jesus's words themselves only indicating in prediction a pole/crux simplex/single stake except it says there was a board above Jesus's head something I don't think possible with patibulum cross which is ready made with hole in patibulum to fit over the upright stake, itself carved ready to be slotted into patibulum with the victim on it with that version there is no above head and no way to attach it before the victim is on it did someone scramble up Jesus's body to fix the sign on?

metatron

Another excellent analysis by Leolaia.

The Bible says:

a) they hung a sign above Jesus' hands

b) they hung a sign above Jesus' head

The Bible reports that Thomas:

a) wanted to see the imprint of the nail in Jesus' hands

b) wanted to see the imprint of the nails in Jesus' hands

metatron

ex-nj-jw

There is a show coming on right now on the history channel about crucifiction

nj

OUTLAW

NWT torture stake word has senority in my book as being a closer rendering of the original words used...........NWT..New world Translation..A bible written and distorted by the WBT$..The most discredited Bible on the planet...........LOL!!...OUTLAW

reniaa

My second problem with cross is that it has become distorted over time to only mean a latin cross and so has through the use of association with latin cross become unviable as a translation option.

You cannot change leolaia that the first thing a reader thinks of when reading 'cross' is the picture of Jesus arms stretched out on a latin cross in every church today. Time has made the cross a complete distortion of the original word now indicating a specific shape that the original writers never had in mind.

So your saying it can mean many types of crosses no longer applies accept to theologians or people prepared to do the type of research you do. a bad translation that has become more so over time and a support for idolatry in christianity today.

reniaa

metatron i refer you to my above point a patibulum cross has no above head at all! and a sign above head could be so even if hands also above head beneath it. the nail argument is weak because it indicates only more than one nail used nothing more or less, it is circumstantial at best and as I said Jesus's own words now have greater weight with me he predicted a pole not a cross for himself

Finally-Free

The JW insistance that Jesus died on a stake rather than a cross is merely an attempt to create an issue where there is none. It's an attempt to distance themselves from traditional Christianity, and an excuse to find fault with the beliefs of others.

I also noticed, while I was a JW, that they placed the most emphasis on the memorial, less on Jesus' death, and even less on his resurrection. For most people, sharing a meal is an every day event, certainly nothing worthy of a "celebration". Everyone dies, so Jesus' death, in itself, is nothing unique. Sooner or later we all do that. His resurrection was something unique, yet the JWs give it the least recognition. Hell, they talk about Peter's "impetuousness" more than they talk about Jesus' resurrection. Why is that?

W

metatron

This dates me but....

Anyone remember slide rules? before calculators existed? Students would get yelled at for announcing answers that exceeded the accuracy of the device. Such answers were nonsense.

Saying that the New World Translation "has superior accuracy" is foolishness because the original language is too inexact and broadly simple to allow such accuracy. It just isn't there. The whores and soldiers who created the common Greek didn't bother with the sort of legalistic and technical precision that we take for granted as part of our 20th century speech.

Another example of this studity is xylon - which can mean a dead timber or live bush or living tree. There's no precision in its use.

The weight of evidence lies with Christendom and Roman tradition. The cross is yet another example of situations in which the Society can't admit that it's likely wrong - whatever the evidence. And in that spirit, they are no different from the world, as with nations that cannot admit defeat, such as with the former war in Vietnam.

metatron

tenyearsafter

Reniaa, why are you ignoring my question/comment and continuing to focus on the shape of the stauros??

Good point Earnest...that might be one argument for a stake, but I still think it is unreasonable to believe that he would have been able to drag a "tree" through the streets of the city in his weakened condition. Pure physics would argue against his ability to do that:

Average weight of wood is 6-11 pounds per cubic foot. Assume that the stauros used is 10 feet tall (assumption is that Jesus was 6 feet tall and the stake required a minimum of 3 feet in the ground to support the weight of a man). Assume that the stauros 12"x12" (again to support a man's weight). This would mean that that stauros had a volume of 10 cubic feet (I hope my less than stellar math skills are correct here!). A ten foot pole then would have a volume of 10 cubic feet and weigh anywhere from 60-110 pounds. I don't know too many strong, uninjured and rested men that could drag something that heavy and awkward any distance, much less an injured, exhausted man. I realize that alot of this measurement is conjecture, but it is definitely something to stimulate thought!

In any case, we do agree on the key point...it is the death that is key, and not the shape of the instrument of death that matters!

metatron

So, the Bible is false if Jesus died on a cross and not a pole? You strain for accuracy about a pole but dismiss plain and simple statements about the sign and nails? "My stuff is precise but your stuff is circumstantial and weak"? Accuracy where you want it, inaccuracy where it's convenient.

Watchtowerism = straining for accuracy where there is none or asserting obscurities over good common sense. Typical for an organization frightened by pagan customs and hints of spiritism but eager to collect millions of documents printed with occult symbolism. (dollars)

metatron

Jesus not crucified on torture stake. Impossible!

Share this