why do people think jesus died on a cross? (page 2)

MikeMusto

Becuase the italian boys who live in bensonhurst brooklyn would feel stupid wearing an upright pole gold necklace..

that's all.

libra_spirit

I was raised a JW and used to believe the stake thing also.

One of the things that made me wonder about the stake thing as not really valid. Now if Jesus was showing doubting Thomas his hands and made the comment "holes from the nails in his hands" did this not mean 2 nails. Now if Jesus was on a stake would it not be one nail through both his hands as pictured in the literature, he would have said "nail through his hands" singular. Read the Bible, the quote says nail(s) in his hands. To me I had to question this doctrine, because it really is not what the evidence indicated to me after carefull study of the issue. Also other historians of the time peroid have indicated that Jesus died on a cross.As far as I know this whole concept of Jesus on a cross has never been questioned untill the JW's came up with this idea sometime after Russell died. Charles Taze Russell has a cross on his grave stone! He obviously believed it to be true.

onacruse

The previous posters have provided plenty of historical and logical evidence to raise serious questions regarding the JW teaching about the stake vs cross.

From a different perspective, I would ask: What difference does it make? The historical Jesus did indeed die, billions of people have believed/believe that, and history has been made. What if some heretofore undiscovered document proved beyond all doubt that Jesus was stoned to death instead of impaled? So what? He still died. The Christian conviction that Jesus died for human sins would remain unchanged.

IMHO, this is the type of doctrinal nit-picking that accomplishes nothing other than to separate people from one another.

Craig

Edited by - onacruse on 3 August 2002 7:9:51

watermelon

onacruse, well sorry for asking if you feel like that, I was only wondering...

LittleToe

Watermelon, you just keep on asking questions and leave Mr.Grumpyboots alone!

Welcome to the board, both of you

If it was of such little worth, why did Paul make it a major part of his ministry? (1 Cor.2:2)
Further, the prophecies relating to messiah's death did not involve stoning and bone breaking.
There are a pile of other things, relating to him being lifted up, as was the copper serpent, etc.
To those that are interested in that kinda stuff it does matter and is worthy of debate.

Earnest

BluesBrother:

Although the AV usually uses the word "cross" it speaks of it as a "tree" in Acts 5:30; 10:39 and 13:29 as the Greek word used is "xylon", not "stauros", in these verses.

Both words can be translated as "stake" and there are instances where the Romans did use stakes without crossbars e.g. when executing Jews at the time they destroyed Jerusalem. We cannot know for sure but some of the arguments presented incline me to think it probably was a cross on which he died.

Earnest

onacruse

Mr. Grumpyboots here!! LOL

Watermelon, I didn't mean in any way to diminish the value of your question or to affront you. I was trying to express my thoughts in the 3rd person, as one who has spent literally decades as a JW arguing about various doctrines that I now feel are relatively unimportant insofar as our daily lives and relationships with other people are concerned.

You asked a sincere question, and I apologize if my admittedly emotional response put you off.

Welcome to the board! I look forward to more of your posts.

Sincerely,

Craig (of the foot in mouth class)

edited for PS: Toe, of course you are absolutely right that the impalement of Jesus is a central theme of Christian belief. I was using the "stoning" scenario as hyperbole.

Edited by - onacruse on 3 August 2002 17:43:57

NewWay

I agree with onacruse here. As has been shown in graphic detail above, the Romans had all sorts of ways to execute people. Some time ago I found a web site that had similar pictures. I have come to the conclusion that although 'stauros' does in its basic sense mean 'an upright pole' that does not preclude it from having also been used with regard to all sorts of 'cruxes'. It no longer matters to me which type of 'crux' was used, but I am not comfortable with the use of a cross as a symbol of Christianity, since I don't want to be reminded of the barbaric method in which Jesus was executed. To my mind it is more important to consider what was achieved by the sacrifice rather than how it was achieved. But then that's my personal opinion.

pomegranate

The OT covered EVERYTHING about Christ's life including what position his
body would be in when he was executed. It is important and it is in the Bible.

Moses life being an image and likeness of Christ's life is very well known. If you examine
Moses closely, you will see how Christ would die. Look here:

Ex 17:10-1310 So Joshua fought the Amalekites as Moses had ordered, and Moses, Aaron and Hur went to the top of the hill. 11 As long as Moses held up his hands, the Israelites were winning, but whenever he lowered his hands, the Amalekites were winning. 12 When Moses' hands grew tired, they took a stone and put it under him and he sat on it. Aaron and Hur held his hands up--one on one side, one on the other--so that his hands remained steady till sunset. 13 So Joshua overcame the Amalekite army with the sword.

Moses hands were upheld (by two men Aaron and Hur) ON EACH SIDE (not over his head), TILL SUNSET.

So it was with Christ:

Christ's hands were upheld (by two nails) ON EACH SIDE, TILL SUNSET.

There's another that shows the method of Christ's execution.

typo

Edited by - pomegranate on 3 August 2002 18:14:12

watermelon

onacruse, thats ok, maybe I went a bit over the top anywayz

why do people think jesus died on a cross?

Share this