Cross vs. Stake: Does it REALLY friggin' matter?

by Funchback 42 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  BluesBrother

  It only matters because the WTBTS have decided to make an issue of the subject. Therefore the issue is one of credibility of that organisation , since they repudiate the teaching of a cross as the instrument of Christ's death

  It would quite easy to retain the record of a crucifiction but then reject the "Idolizing" of that instrument by the church, and not have the cross as a symbol of christianity in their organisation. But no, they have to find an argument to change the actual text as translated in the Bible.

  I think Dede is right. JFR hated "Old Babylon" so much that he wanted to put as much distance as possible between them and the WTBTS

  I have read some good stuff on the net about the subject and it makes the borg's scholarship look tattered and biased.Another nail in their coffin (No pun intended)
• 

  dustyb

  i find it the least bit important, because the fact is he died. who gives a shit how he died. anything that resembles DEATH shouldn't take too kindly to be portrayed, or even up for debate unless bible scholars want to debate the translation of stauros...
• 

  onacruse

  Re: the WTS history on this, the Proclaimers book says:

  *** jv chap. 14 "They Are No Part of the World" ***

  For years, Bible Students wore a cross and crown as a badge of identification, and this symbol was on the front cover of the "Watch Tower" from 1891 to 1931. But in 1928 it was emphasized that not a decorative symbol but one?s activity as a witness showed he was a Christian. In 1936 it was pointed out that the evidence indicates that Christ died on a stake, not a two-beamed cross

  I think the 1936 publication they're referring to is Riches, as Leolaia points out. There were a couple of other remarks between 1928 and 1936 that showed the evolution of their "thinking"--I'll try and dig up a couple of quotes (I'll start a separate thread, rather than sideswipe this one )

  edit to add: And, agreeing with others above--no, imo it doesn't matter one hoot, and yes, it has everything to do with the WTS just trying to be different.
• 

  Leolaia

  It only matters because the WTBTS have decided to make an issue of the subject. Therefore the issue is one of credibility of that organisation , since they repudiate the teaching of a cross as the instrument of Christ's death

  I agree completely with Blues Brother. Of course the issue has no significance in redemptive theology. How could it possibly matter in Jesus bearing the sins of the world whether his arms were above his head or to the side! It's a ridiculous question from that point of view. But it is an important matter if the Watchtower intentionally lies and distorts the facts (e.g. by claiming the two-beamed cross did not exist in the first century and that crux and stauros did not mean "cross" until the third century A.D.) to support a position that exists only to abolish any hint that Christianity had any relevance with the cross. It is the intellectual dishonesty that should be exposed. Plus the question is a valid historical question, lacking tho it is in theological impetus.
• 

  heathen

  I think it is an issue worthy of scholars attention . I've been listening to debates about this stuff since the gibson movie came out and it seems the mainstream religion hold the belief that the romans thought jesus was some sort of despot that was guilty of sedition , isn't it nice how the bible doesn't say that about the romans but about the jews . So they conclude that the romans liked hanging people on crosses for crimes of sedition . I think the romans would have left jesus hanging for days but instead he was taken down and buried before sun down just as it says in the mosaic law. Deuteronomy 21:22. Now I've never read that part in other translations but just curious here if the word stake is used as in the WTBTS interpretation . Sure you can argue over the greek word stauros if you want but there is plenty of other evidence to support the stake issue .
• 

  shamus

  Bah. No, it doesn't matter.

  I love the song where the verse says "he died on a tree". Why don't they just suck eggs. They swallow the whole camel but strain out the gnat.
• 

  Leolaia

  isn't it nice how the bible doesn't say that about the romans but about the jews . So they conclude that the romans liked hanging people on crosses for crimes of sedition.

  The gospels say the Romans scouraged Jesus, led him out to Golgotha, and nailed him to the stauros (which naturally refers to the Roman method of execution). They don't say the Jews did that. And it is known that the Romans crucified ppl for all sorts of capital offenses, including sedition, just read Livy, Cicero, Seneca, or Josephus (cf. especially Antiquities 20.5.2; Wars 2.5.2, 2.12.6, 2.14.9, 3.7.33, 4.5.2, etc.). As for the crime Jesus was executed for, this was usually written on the titilus which according to Matthew 27:37, John 19:19, Luke 23:38 stated Jesus' crime as claiming to be king of the Jews.

  Deuteronomy 21:22. Now I've never read that part in other translations but just curious here if the word stake is used as in the WTBTS interpretation . Sure you can argue over the greek word stauros if you want but there is plenty of other evidence to support the stake issue

  The word "tree" (xulon) does not occur in the gospels but only in Acts and the epistles (Acts 5:30, 10:39, 13:29; Galatians 3:13; 1 Peter 2:24). The texts on Galatians and Acts clearly refer to the scripture in Deuteronomy and understand Roman crucifixion in terms of the Law on hanging criminals on trees. The Dead Sea Scrolls similarly cited Deuteronomy 21:22-23 to refer to Roman crucifixion (11QT 64:6-13; 4QNah 3-4.1:1-11), the latter to refer specifically to the crucifixions of Alexander Janneus (cf. Josephus 13.14.2). So the use of the word xulon is not evidence of the kind of cross used -- only that the Jews understood Roman crucifixion in terms of the law in Deuteronomy. Josephus thus uses the terms xulon and stauros interchangeably (Antiquities 11.246-261). Philo of Alexandria similarly used xulon to refer to what the "crucified" are nailed to (De Somniis 2.213). The Romans also referred to their crosses figuratively as "trees" (arbor), and Seneca clearly indicated that such "trees" included crossbeams (Epistle 101,10-14). None of this necessarily means that Jesus' cross had a crossbeam. But this is what the Bible suggests. That the gospel writers pictured Jesus' cross as including a patibulum (crossbeam) is indicated by the tradition of him or Simon of Cyrene bearing his own cross (Matthew 27:32; Mark 15:21; Luke 23:36; John 19:17; cf. Plutarch, Sera Numinis Vindicta, 9; Artemidorus, Oneirocritica 2,56; Chareas and Callirhoe, 4; Plautus, Mostellaria, 55-57; Carbonaria, fr. 2).
• 

  Hunyadi

  While the instrument of death really does not matter since the result is the same. The only issue here might be the veneration of the intrument of Jesus' death.

  If Jesus had have died in an electric chair, would all those in the world claiming to be Christian be wearing one around their necks to symbolize belief and acceptance of him? It is morbid and a bit disgusting.

  The history of the cross has its roots in pegan crap and I don't suppose, just as the WT points out, its use in worship brings any glory to God.

  H
• 

  Atilla

  It does matter, because when those stake sales take off, the WT will hold the only patent. I wonder if I could just wear a stake to the KH and not get in trouble for it?
• 

  freedom96

  Another way that they just have to be different than everyone else, just for the sake of being different.