Jesus not crucified on torture stake. Impossible!

by sacolton 250 Replies latest watchtower bible

• 

  Leolaia

  When someone read an original translation from the first century reading the word stauros would they know it was an excecution instrument with a crossbeam as cross assumes or would they know it was a generis term like execution stake and didn't indicate what type of method or if crossbeam was used like torture stake which doesn't show a crossbeam was used?

  If nothing specific were related in a given text, the reader probably would have pictured the kind of stauros that was common at the time or from the person's own experience. Since the crux simplex was rather exceptional and not the usual form of the instrument by the first century AD, it is unlikely that this would have been the first thing that would have popped in the head of the average reader. The average reader would probably have pictured a cross that had a patibulum. That Lucian could talk about the stauros as having its shape and name borrowed from that of the Greek letter Tau shows that a cross with a patibulum is what Lucian thought of as the "typical" form of the stauros. It is hard to imagine an ancient reader of the gospels, coming upon the references to Jesus' carrying his stauros, as picturing something other than a crux compacta, unless the reader had no knowledge whatsoever of how the Romans forced the condemned to carry the patibulum to the execution site. As I mentioned before, the Latin word was not borrowed into Greek, so how did the Greeks refer to it? The literary evidence points to them simply using stauros to refer to it.
• 

  reniaa

  Outlaw as usual you have a nice line in insults I agree leolaia is more learned than I am but I think she is more influenced by secular sources than I am, I take my cue from only the bible.

  secular sources are all well and good but the writers could easily have given description to the shape of Jesus's death instrument that would have silenced all this debate but they didn't.

  This is were the idolatry point comes in. given shape to Jesus's death instrument was influential in it becoming an idol on all the church altars.

  Wts are tools like the letters for encouragement that the first century christians used some were inspired but the bible clearly shows those letters included many that weren't inspired to. If these letters were idols then so is the watchtower!
• 

  Leolaia

  then you are saying leolaia that patibulum was the only method used then and stauros meant this method only and not cruz simplex?

  Of course not, I never said that. If that is what you think, you are not understanding what I am saying.

  xylon and stauros in both cases do not assume a crossbeam is used or indicate a crossbeam shape is used as 'cross' does.

  Again, please distinguish between denotation and connotation ("a word's denotation is the collection of things it refers to; its connotation is what it implied about the things it is used to refer to"). There is a big difference between saying that stauros does not assume the use of a patibulum and saying that stauros could not refer to crosses with crossbeams.

  Are you sure you are not being influenced by secular evidence by saying patibulum was a popular method therefore they must have meant this by saying stauros?

  What are you talking about? "Secular evidence" is the best indication of what the words referred to. Crucifixion was a secular form of capital punishment. The NT is talking about the practices of execution done by the Romans in Judea. Jesus was one out of thousands of men crucified by the Romans. The crux was a piece of technology invented by the Romans. And yet one should set aside what the Romans say about their own form of punishment because they were somehow "secular"?
• 

  reniaa

  leolaia to back up my point I got this quote that says more accurately the point I am trying to make in my poor way lol

  stauros, ho, upright pale or stake>>staur-oô, (stauros) fence with pales>>staur-ikos, ê, on, of or by a cross,>>>>So I see two possible meanings here.>>Did it mean two different things or did one meaning possibly "evolve"

  Is cross an evolve meaning? I think so but consider the following.

  Please consider Matthew 20:19, the first occurrence of STAUROW. If we
  accept that Matthew renders a real utterance of Jesus, the words must have
  been uttered either in Hebrew or Aramaic. Neither of the languages had a
  word for "cross" or "crucify", so Jesus could simply not have used such a
  word! But if speaking Hebrew, he must have used the verb TALA (to hang) or
  the noun ETS (tree). Matthew used the verb STAUROW, and while this verb can
  refer to a stake with a crossbar, it can also refer to all other kinds of
  stakes. So without further specification there is no reason to render
  STAUROW in the specific sense "cross". Even more important is the fact that
  Jesus uttered the words long before anybody had seen the the STAUROS to
  which he was nailed and its shape.

  In the Talmud and in the Rabbinic literature we find the verb tsalab (or
  the corresponding noun) which refers to the instrument on which people were
  hanged It is interesting to note that the rabbis did not use tsalab with
  the modern meaning "crucify". According to Marcus Jastrow (1989, "A
  Dictionary of the Targumim, The Talmud Babli and Yerushalmi", and the
  Midrashic Literature, p 1282) the verb both in Hebrew and Aramaic means «to
  hang, impale». Some of the examples he gives and his translation is as
  follows: Tosefta Gittin 4:11: "nailed to the stake"; Midrash Rabba to
  Esther where Deuteronomy 28:66 is refered to: "who is taken out to be
  impaled"; Midrash Rabba to Leviticus "is going to be hanged". Thus the
  Jewish literature after the time of Jesus continued to use terms for
  hanging (on a stake) which did not point to a particular shape of the
  instrument on which one was hanged. As late as the 14th century the Hebrew
  noun TSALAB did not signify a stake with a particular shape. In 1380 Shem
  Tob ben Shaprut copied the gospel of Matthew in Hebrew. In Matthew 27:32 he
  used the noun TSELIBA where the Greek text has STAUROS. Shem Tob realized
  that this word would not be understood as "cross", and therefore he added
  SHETI WA' EREB which means "cross". Howard's translation (George Howard,
  1987, The Gospel of Matthew According to a Primitive Hebrew Text) is as
  follows: "They compelled him to carry the gallows (TSELIBA), that is, "The
  Cross"."

  A similar ambiguity as is found in TSELAB/TSELIBA, seems to have existed
  regarding the latin word "crux" whose basic meaning also was "pole" or
  "stake".
  Seneca (c.4 BC-65 CE) wrote: "I see crosses (plural of crux) there, not
  just of one kind, but made in many different ways; some have their victims
  with head down to the ground; some impale their private parts; others
  stretch out their arms on the gibbet." As late as the 16th century the word
  "crux" could signify different shapes. In my copy of "De Cruce Liber
  Primus" by Justus Lipsius who wrote in the 16th century there are many
  illustrations of different "crosses", including three illustrations of
  "crux simplex" which is an upright pole to which the victims could be
  nailed or bound in different ways. As to STAUROS, its original and generic
  meaning has even reached Norwegian. The first meaning assigned to STAUROS
  in "Dictionnaire Etymologique de la Langue Greque, 1980, by P Chantraine,
  is pole (pieu). It also says: "The word corresponds exactly to the Norse
  "staurr" (pole)." In modern Norwegian "staur" means "pole" or "stake". We
  also find the word in Sanskrit as "sthavara", and in Gothic as "stiurjan"
  with the meaning "something standing upright". So the original meaning of
  STAUROS evidently was strong and continued for a long time, even spreading
  to other languages

  Cross is simply to specific to be accurate and like I said Jesus's own words here indicate Pole/stake shape in prediction.

  John 3:14
  Just as Moses lifted up the snake in the desert, so the Son of Man must be lifted up,
• 

  OUTLAW

  Reniaa..Your very fragile when some one speaks truthfully to you..Your going to have to get over it..This is not a Day Care Centre for children........Everyone on this board has been patient with you,yet you behave like a fool at every opportunity...............Leolaia actually has an education on this subject.....All you have is what the WBT$ teach`s,which is absolute garbage..Then you try to back it up with your limited self-education..It won`t work here......Thats not an insult,it`s the truth.........................................

  "Wts are tools like the letters for encouragement"..More uneducated Nonsense ..................that the first century christians used some were inspired but the bible clearly shows those letters included many that weren't inspired to...What does that have to do with the Watchtower Logo,that many JW`s wear as Jewelery,just as Christians wear a Cross?.....................If these letters were idols then so is the watchtower!..The subject is about the Cross,not letters........You don`t have the presense of mind to be able to stay on topic,much less instruct people on the topic......How can you possibly expect to debate Leolaia,who is educated on this subject?.....Your arrogance is staggering..................................OUTLAW
• 

  Leolaia

  With respect to your cut-and-paste:

  Dan Mattsson is entitled to his opinion, of course, but there isn't much he brings forward. Most of the post speculates on retroverting stauros in Matthew into Hebrew or Aramaic which is not only unwarranted but also does not constitute any sort of new evidence. The latter part of his post focuses on the etymological origin of the term which is also irrelevant with respect to crucifixion.

  We could go back and forth all day and I have other things to do, so I think I have said enough on this subject for now.
• 

  Satanus

  Perhaps jesus was humming jewish lullibies, to fill the hours until death finally relieved him. Care to check that out, rainna? I learnt a nice one in scholl, called the litlle hatikva, or something like that. It will keep us from getting all secular and shit.

  S
• 

  tenyearsafter

  Reniaa...

  I am not arguing the validity of the shape of Jesus' instrument of death...I said, "What does it matter?!"

  You have chosen to ignore that question with a smattering of red herring comments about wearing or worshipping a "pagan" symbol. With the exception of Catholic or certain Orthodox churches, I am unaware of ANY christian churches that burn incense, worship or even look to the cross as anything more than a symbol of the sacrifice that Jesus made. If a person wears a cross (and I am not advocating it), does that make them a worshipper of the cross??...or might it act as reminder to them of the importance of the sacrifice Jesus made for them?

  To avoid the relevancy of the means of that death by arguing the type of execution device is nonsense. If your favorite child were executed, would it matter to you whether it was by gun, blade or noose??...no, it is the fact that they were executed. You mention that this is all about mis-translation of original renderings...again, irrelevant!

  I would like you to answer the question as to the relevance of the instrument of death. Please do that and then we can look at other issues that are necessary for salvation. Do you believe that if you are right about the stauros being an upright pole, it makes you anymore elgible for eternal life? If someone believed that Christ was sacrificed for mankind, but believed it was on a cross, would that automatically exclude them from eternal life?

  I also noticed that you did not comment on the physical logistics of Jesus dragging the torture stauros through the streets on his way to execution...please explain that for me.
• 

  Leolaia

  Here is a recent comment worth quoting:

  "Nevertheless, in Greek it is rare for the semantic range of any single term to be confined to 'crucifixion.' For example, a stauros appears originally to have referred to an upright pole. Thus a stauros can be a stake in a stauróma ('palisade'; e.g., Thucydides, Hist. vi. 100) as well as a pole on which a person is impaled or crucified.... However, the 'fundamental' references to an upright pole in stauros and its cognates, and to pointy objects in skolops and its cognates, does not rightly imply such that terminology in antiquity, when applied to crucifixion, invariably referred to a single upright beam. This is a common word study fallacy in some populist literature [footnote: "Thus, falling prey to the etymological fallacy, some assume that stauros can only designate a single upright pole, as does W. E. Vine, An Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words, 4 vols. (London: Oliphants, 1939), s.v. This error is often found in Jehovah's Witnesses literature"]. In fact, such terminology often referred in antiquity to cross-shaped crucifixion devices. For example, Lucian, in a brief dialogue that employs most Greek crucifixion vocabulary, refers to the 'crucifixion' of Prometheus, whose arms are pinned while stretched from one rock to another. Such a cross-shaped crucifixion position in the Roman era may actually have been the norm; nevertheless, the point to be sustained at this stage is that this position was not the only one to be designated with these Greek terms" (David W. Chapman, Ancient Jewish and Christian Perceptions of Crucifixion, 2008, pp. 10-11).
• 

  Earnest

  The argument that it would have been the cross-piece rather than the upright pole that was dragged to Golgotha does seem more likely as I think the estimation of 60-110 lbs is probably an underestimate of the weight involved (based on the mass of different species of wood). In addition, the fact that the place of execution is called the "Skull Place" suggests that it was a place known for execution and so the upright poles would most likely already be in place. On the other hand, whatever it was that was dragged to the place of execution it was quite clearly heavy as a comparison of Matthew 27:32, Mark 15:21 & Luke 23:26 with John 19:17 suggests Jesus had to be assisted by Simon of Cyrene.