"Or they would have had "supporting nails," just to make sure he would stand upright on the stake properly -- maybe they had a problem with erecting Jesus' stake!" But the Bible doesn't say, or even imply they had any unusual difficulty in erecting Jesus. Given the documentation and detail given for the crucifixion, one would imagine the Bible would have mentioned this in one of the four gospels. Also, if He wasn't on a cross, why does the rest of the New Testament say cross? Surely the disciples would not have tolerated any inaccuracy regarding Him. The greek word in the New Testament is "stauros" which is "a stake or post (as set upright), that is, (specifically) a pole or cross (as an instrument of capital punishment)" Therefore, there is no way to say that it was a pole rather than a cross, and the fact that the Bible says nails rather than nail, and does not mention that the Romans had difficulty in erecting Jesus, it would make more sense that He hung from a cross rather than a stake. And since they had been doing this for quite some time, they obviously had some practice in the matter so I doubt they would have suddenly had difficulty with Jesus especially since He didn't resist them.
Kristina
JoinedPosts by Kristina
-
14
The Cross
by I-CH-TH-U-S ini know there has probably been many discussions on this and ive been given answers with some confusing statements from jw's as well as proffessors and i just want it simplified (if that is possible), i want to know if it is possible to prove the crucifixion was on a cross (in simple terms) .
so far my own personal research which involves the biblical aspect combined with the scientific area has led me to believe the cross.
my research: .
-
-