Jesus may not have died on the cross, Christian scholar claims.

[annakot]

21 hours ago, Guri said:

annakot, 

 

It is interesting that RBi8 NWT Bible on p. 1577-1578 says: 

 

«It was to such a stake, or pale, that the person to be punished was fastened, just as the popular Greek hero Prometheus was represented as tied to rocks. Whereas the Greek word that the dramatist Aeschylus used to describe this simply means to tie or to fasten, the Greek author Lucian (Prometheus, I) used a·na·stau·roʹo as a synonym for that word.».

 

What do you think of this? 

 

 

The issue here is not the different naming of the same event or object. It is irrelevant in this case (that is why I said it was Lucian's (satirical) interpretation of a play that was written some 500 years earlier)  the issue is Lucian's description of the "fastening" ; that each arm was fastened separately "stretched from crag to crag", and that he called that "a·na·stau·roʹo" that was the important point.

 

Here is a depiction of it on a relief from the Temple of Aphrodite at Aphrodisias.

The question is; why did Lucian call it "a·na·stau·roʹo" when he could have called it anything else? Where did he get the idea from? Unless this was the actual position for those executed on a stake (stauros) in around 150 AD?

 

 

 

 

 

Edited November 19, 2018 by annakot

[jayrtom]

On 11/16/2018 at 6:20 PM, Pjdriver said:

This maybe one reason we can’t be sure..

John 20:25

So the other disciples were telling him: “We have seen the Lord!” But he said to them: “Unless I see in his hands the print of the nails and stick my finger into the print of the nails and stick my hand into his side, I will never believe it.

 

John 22:18...when you grow old, you will stretch out your hands....He said this to indicate by what sort of death he would glorify God.

 

So John indicates nails (plural) were used. This could understood to mean one nail in each hand as with a cross.

Also tradition is that peter was executed in the manner Jesus was. Note the expression “stretch out your hands” again could easily be understood as referring to a cross. 

But none of this is conclusive. So why be dogmatic.

If cornered I would say we can’t be certain but most evidence leans toward an upright stake. I wouldn’t bother arguing that point much. 

The matter of using it as an icon of worship is another matter. 

 

 

See this QFR:https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1984250?q=jesus+nails&p=par#h=11

Matthew 27:35 merely says: “When they had impaled him they distributed his outer garments by casting lots.” Little detail is given, as in Mark, Luke and John. After Jesus’ resurrection, Thomas said: “Unless I see in his hands the print of the nails and stick my finger into the print of the nails and stick my hand into his side, I will certainly not believe.” (John 20:25) So even though criminals sometimes were bound to a stake with ropes, Jesus was nailed. Some have also concluded from John 20:25 that two nails were used, one through each hand. But does Thomas’ use of the plural (nails) have to be understood as a precise description indicating that each of Jesus’ hands was pierced by a separate nail?

In Luke 24:39 the resurrected Jesus said: “See my hands and my feet, that it is I myself.” This suggests that Christ’s feet also were nailed. Since Thomas made no mention of nailprints in Jesus’ feet, his use of the plural “nails” could have been a general reference to multiple nails used in impaling Jesus.

 

As for "stretching hands" the understanding of the slave is that it means just streching upwoards...

https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1102014731?q=jesus+nails&p=par#h=9

Jesus is stretched out on the stake. (

Mark 15:25) The soldiers pound nails into his hands and his feet, piercing flesh and ligaments, causing intense pain. As the stake is swung upright,....

 

 

[EccentricM]

Some good points all around. What if a possibility is... a combination of the stake we know and refer to, and a form of cross bar, but not the shape of the Christendom cross that they use, which is an ancient pagan symbol (which could have easily been implemented into Christanity as an excuse "through" the means that they perhaps knew Jesus did have "some sort" of crossbar, but not the one they depict.)

 

For example. A form of T...

 

 

 

The bar also may have been just the "sign" at the top, and his arms nailed to that like above (this is what some call "St Anthony's cross"). So neither a cross, nor a straight stake with no bars, but perhaps something that resemebles a "tree", arching out at the very top, not sticking out on the sides like the pagan cross. As that would match both sides of the argument of the various descriptors people have raised. Arms stretched out, but also it being upright and stake-like. And then perhaps it was through "that" as I mentioned, the Romans managed to easily convince people to start worshipping "their cross", as people worshipped it before Jesus, and then all they need to say is "well, we can keep it in Christanity, as now it represents Jesus, he was hung on something very similar as we all know!". But who knows.

 

For now the evidence points to a plain stake it seems, and outstretched arms can easily refer to "stretched upward".

Edited November 19, 2018 by EccentricM

[Pjdriver]

2 hours ago, jayrtom said:

See this QFR:https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1984250?q=jesus+nails&p=par#h=11

 

 

 

As for "stretching hands" the understanding of the slave is that it means just streching upwoards...

https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1102014731?q=jesus+nails&p=par#h=9

 

 

 

 

Thank you, This is the whole point.....whether you lean toward a stake or the cross being the instrument of death, those words will have different meaning.

 

Notice the use of a question rather than a conclusive statement:

 

“does the use of nails (plural) have to be understood.....?

.......use of the plural “nails” could have been a general reference ...”

 

You use that quote in response to my saying “why be dogmatic?” But the quote is not dogmatic, so it  agrees with the other FS comment quoted earlier,  that “there’s no way to know for a certainty”

 

I've noticed this quite a bit; when the faithful slave says something “may be” or “could be” or “seems to be”, many of our dear friends assume it as fact.

 

 

[jayrtom]

7 minutes ago, Pjdriver said:

You use that quote in response to my saying “why be dogmatic?” But the quote is not dogmatic, so it  agrees with the other FS comment quoted earlier,  that “there’s no way to know for a certainty”

 

As I said before, the way I see it, we don't know for certainty the exact form. it not the same as not knowing for certainty if it was a cross or a stake.... Indeed it says that the evidence of the bible points to an upright stake.... I have no reason to think otherwise... The slave also made its detective work and keeps doing... They've also read all the references and secular works about it. It's not only them who believes that Jesus didn't die on a cross... most secular references agree with that conclusion

 

In this case there is no "it seems".... In the case of the nails, both conclusions are valid per si (one nail in each hand or nails considering hands and feet) but in view of all the other texts, that reference doesn't do nothing against the argument that it wasn't a cross but a stake

 

https://www.jw.org/en/bible-teachings/questions/did-jesus-die-on-cross/

The Bible’s answer

Many view the cross as the most common symbol of Christianity. However, the Bible does not describe the instrument of Jesus’ death, so no one can know its shape with absolute certainty. Still, the Bible provides evidence that Jesus died, not on a cross, but on an upright stake.

[Shawnster]

7 hours ago, annakot said:

The issue here is not the different naming of the same event or object. It is irrelevant in this case (that is why I said it was Lucian's (satirical) interpretation of a play that was written some 500 years earlier)  the issue is Lucian's description of the "fastening" ; that each arm was fastened separately "stretched from crag to crag", and that he called that "a·na·stau·roʹo" that was the important point

Just keep in mind the reference used is a translation or interpretation of Lucian's interpretation.  So we have an interpretation of an interpretation.  This should cause question about the use of the word anastauroo. Was it interpreted correctly?  We already have evidence that other works like the King James did not interpret the word correctly. 

[Guri]

On 11/9/2018 at 10:33 PM, SUNRAY said:

A sister posted this picture on Instagram..Not wanting to show her, I cropped it and the post..but you get the idea..

Same image from my old library: 

[Guri]

4 hours ago, Shawnster said:

Just keep in mind the reference used is a translation or interpretation of Lucian's interpretation.  So we have an interpretation of an interpretation.  This should cause question about the use of the word anastauroo. Was it interpreted correctly?  We already have evidence that other works like the King James did not interpret the word correctly. 

Good point.

 

And who knows maybe the English translation is not accurate either? 

 

For instance, I have contacted to a scholar who translated the Lucian’s ancient Greek text in Georgian and I gave her few questions about the words the text uses. In her translation we don’t read these words: “stretched from crag to crag”. Instead, translated text reads this way: 

 

“If it’s so,  hit the hummer with full power, chain  the hands and nail him (Prometheus) on the crags” (“crags” is in plural here). 

 

As we see even translators interprate text so much differently that I would be very careful to ise just this reference as only the evidence to prove the meaning of Stauros.  

 

Although the translator promised me to answer my questions, she gave me short reply saying:  

 

“Mind that the text (I mean the translation from Old Greek) has been changed little bit. Few things has been changed at the time comments were made.” 

 

 

 

Edited November 19, 2018 by Guri

[annakot]

1 hour ago, Guri said:

For instance, I have contacted to a scholar who translated the Lucian’s ancient Greek text in Georgian and I gave her few questions about the words the text uses. In her translation we don’t read these words: “stretched from crag to crag”. Instead, translated text reads this way: 

 

“If it’s so,  hit the hummer with full power, chain  the hands and nail him (Prometheus) on the crags” (“crags” is in plural here). 

Interesting. Thank you!

[annakot]

11 hours ago, Pjdriver said:

I've noticed this quite a bit; when the faithful slave says something “may be” or “could be” or “seems to be”, many of our dear friends assume it as fact.

The thing is, the "What does the Bible teach book" says this in the appendix:

THE cross is loved and respected by millions of people. The Encyclopædia Britannica calls the cross “the principal symbol of the Christian religion.” Nevertheless, true Christians do not use the cross in worship. Why not? An important reason is that Jesus Christ did not die on a cross.

---------------------------------------------

The "What does the Bible teach us" book in the end notes  says this:

2. Jesus did not die on a cross.

---------------------------------------------

We use both books in our Bible study with students. So what are we supposed to tell our students?

 

[EccentricM]

2 hours ago, annakot said:

The thing is, the "What does the Bible teach book" says this in the appendix:

THE cross is loved and respected by millions of people. The Encyclopædia Britannica calls the cross “the principal symbol of the Christian religion.” Nevertheless, true Christians do not use the cross in worship. Why not? An important reason is that Jesus Christ did not die on a cross.

---------------------------------------------

The "What does the Bible teach us" book in the end notes  says this:

2. Jesus did not die on a cross.

---------------------------------------------

We use both books in our Bible study with students. So what are we supposed to tell our students?

 

Easy to state that "The bible does not state anywhere Jesus died on a cross", as the book is "what does the BIBLE really teach?" And no specific mention of the cross (or shape of the stauros being such) is in the scriptures, so it is a true statement for the context of the book. Jesus did not die on the cross according to the Bible, as there is no explicit mention, it is but speculation.

Edited November 20, 2018 by EccentricM

[jayrtom]

8 hours ago, annakot said:

The thing is, the "What does the Bible teach book" says this in the appendix:

THE cross is loved and respected by millions of people. The Encyclopædia Britannica calls the cross “the principal symbol of the Christian religion.” Nevertheless, true Christians do not use the cross in worship. Why not? An important reason is that Jesus Christ did not die on a cross.

---------------------------------------------

The "What does the Bible teach us" book in the end notes  says this:

2. Jesus did not die on a cross.

---------------------------------------------

We use both books in our Bible study with students. So what are we supposed to tell our students?

 

Hi. I don't understand what you say... You mention 2 books and 2 sentences but what you write is the same in both cases...

[Pjdriver]

12 hours ago, annakot said:

The thing is, the "What does the Bible teach book" says this in the appendix:

THE cross is loved and respected by millions of people. The Encyclopædia Britannica calls the cross “the principal symbol of the Christian religion.” Nevertheless, true Christians do not use the cross in worship. Why not? An important reason is that Jesus Christ did not die on a cross.

---------------------------------------------

The "What does the Bible teach us" book in the end notes  says this:

2. Jesus did not die on a cross.

---------------------------------------------

We use both books in our Bible study with students. So what are we supposed to tell our students?

 

It is a little confusing because the statement that “we don’t know with certainty the shape” is on the website for the benefit of the public. 

So if you state dogmatically that Jesus was impaled on an upright stake....then your student runs across the website quote....how do you answer???? 

[jayrtom]

3 hours ago, Pjdriver said:

It is a little confusing because the statement that “we don’t know with certainty the shape” is on the website for the benefit of the public. 

So if you state dogmatically that Jesus was impaled on an upright stake....then your student runs across the website quote....how do you answer???? 

I really don't understand why you and others thake the site's quote to mean that we don't know if it was a stake or a cross...

I understand it to mean that we don't know the exact form, period! Then it says that the evidence from the bible is an upright stake. When there are evidences against some suspect he goes to Jail, the Judge doesn't say, we don't know for sure...

 

For example, below there are several forms of an upright stake... we don't know the exact form, but we do know it was an upright stake... The bible says so!

 

Tree like:

 

With angles:

 

Round:

 

Short:

 

Etc......

[annakot]

10 hours ago, jayrtom said:

Hi. I don't understand what you say... You mention 2 books and 2 sentences but what you write is the same in both cases...

Lol, that's because it's the same in both books. It's a quote from the two books one is out of print now (what does the Bible teach us) and is the replacement for the other one (What Does the Bible Teach Us). But which ever book you use to study with a student, it says Jesus did not die on a cross. The point being, as the our website says: "The Bible does not describe the instrument of Jesus’ death, so no one can know its shape with absolute certainty".

 

Just realied Burt already said similar, lol

Edited November 20, 2018 by annakot
Just realised Burt already said similar

[annakot]

 

"Evidence from the bible is an upright stake"

 

 However, the problem with that is that although the word STAUROS originally meant an upright stake in pre-Christian times, (BCE) there is evidence that the word STAUROS in the first century (AD) could have meant an upright stake with another piece of wood attached to it as well.

Remember, the Bible does not describe the torture device. It merely calls it a STAUROS.

BUT The meanings of words change.

 

Decades ago, the English word gay used to mean happy. Today it means homosexual. If someone read one of Shakespeare’s plays where he describes a couple as being gay, they would know he was talking about the couple being merry/happy. If you then read a similar sentence from a novel written today, you would know the author was talking about the couple being homosexual. Now just for the sake of an illustration, let’s say someone 2,000 years from now is reading both texts, the one by Shakespeare, and the one by our modern author, how do they decide what each author meant?

So similarly, how do we know what the Bible writers meant? One has to find out what the term STAUROS meant to people in general sometime before the first Century and after first Century. And the only way to do that is to look for evidence of some description or depiction of something termed a STAUROS in the First Century. We already have evidence that STAUROS meant an upright stake in the centuries prior to the first Century, nobody is disputing that.

 

So the really the issue is all about the later definition of the word STAUROS. Some say that the meaning of the word STAUROS didn't change until the 4th Century AD, but there is evidence that it may have been a lot earlier than that, because there are descriptions of it from the 2st Century.

For example Justin Martyr (100-165 AD) writes: " The sea is not traversed except that trophy which is called a sail abide safe in the ship; and the earth is not ploughed without it: diggers and mechanics do not their work, except with tools which have this shape. And the human form differs from that of the irrational animals in nothing else than in its being erect and having the hands extended, and having on the face extending from the forehead what is called the nose, through which there is respiration for the living creature; and this shows no other form than that of the STAUROS".

Not sure what he means by the nose though..

( I also mentioned Lucian of Samosta, describing outstretched arms..)

 

 

                                                  

 

 

 

 

 

[Guri]

2 hours ago, annakot said:

For example Justin Martyr

I knew this. One of the cross worshiper years ago, tried to base his arguments on Justin, a professed Christian. 

[annakot]

1 hour ago, Guri said:

I knew this. One of the cross worshiper years ago, tried to base his arguments on Justin, a professed Christian. 

Really, Justin Martyr are is no reason to be a cross worshipper. The Bible clearly says to avoid idolatry, doesn't matter what it is. 

Edited November 21, 2018 by annakot

[rocket]

Justin Martyr is not a reliable source because it is well known that his writings are corrupted. He is however the only source the Catholic encyclopedia gives for the shape of implement of christ death.

[carlos]

On 11/17/2018 at 9:35 PM, annakot said:

Back to Lucian. Lucian of Samosata, (circa 125-180 AD) was a satirical writer and in his work "Prometheus on Caucasus" he uses the Greek word stauros with its' various forms such as: Anestavrostho, stavromenos, and stavrosi etc. which  translators have translated as “let him be crucified” “crucified” and “crucifixion” respectively.

@annakot I understand your point about Lucian's quotation yet the translation is slightly colored by the Christendom notion of crucifixion. The original Greek text doesn't say "hands stretched across", but simply "spread out". The word in question is ἐκπετασθεὶς the aorist passive participle of ἐκπετάννυμι, which means "spread", "extend" or "scatter". A common use of that verb is to refer to a spread out sail (which is spread up down, not stretched out). The same verb is used in the Bible at Romans 10:21 "All day long I have spread out my hands toward a disobedient and obstinate people.” Obviously in that verse Jehovah is not stretching our his hands to right and left as in a cross, but spreading them forward to invite the Israelites to come to him.

 

So in that text it's not clear whether Prometheus has his arms open as in a cross or upward as in a stake as in this painting:

 

In any case, all of this is irrelevant since there's another work by Lucian, "Trial in the Court of Vowels" where he seems to mention (although his style is quite obscure) that the stauros had the shape of a tau, that is, T. So it seems likely that at the time of Lucian, 150 years after Jesus' death, T-shaped stauroses were being used. This agrees with your quotation of Justin Martyr (if it is not apochryphal) which is more or less from the same period. Interestingly, even if such T-shaped stauroses were common in Lucian's time, when he refers to Jesus' death in his work "The Passing of Peregrinus" he doesn't use the word stauros but "fastened to a skolops", which means "a pointed stake". So again, this shows what the widespread idea of Jesus' execution was among pagans in the 2nd century: That he died on a stake.

 

Older versions of the Prometheus' myth don't support the cross at all. For example, in that text by Aeschylus that you quote partially, five centuries before Christ, Prometheus hands are chained to the rock, not pierced, and then he's impaled a wedge driven through his chest into the rock.

[line 64] Now drive the adamantine wedge's stubborn edge straight through his chest with your full force.

Hesiod's version, from 700 years before Christ, has him chained to a pillar (which again agrees with the vertical stauros and xylon). This is an archaic depiction of Prometheus on a Greek vase from around 530 bce:

 

I don't think the way you evaluate evidence is fair when you suggest that there's 50/50 possibilities that Jesus died on a stake or a cross. With time, the term stauros included any execution instrument to which someone was nailed or tied, including X-shaped and svastika-shaped devices. But would you say that there are 50/50 possibilities that Jesus died on a svastika-shaped stauros?

 

IMO the available evidence is abundant. The Bible uses stauros which was a vertical stake. Even if on rare occasions an stauros could have another shape (of which there is no literary nor archaeological evidence at Jesus' time), the Bible then uses another word, xylon, that never means a cross. Then that device is compared to the Hebrew 'ets, which was an upright stake where dead criminals were hanged. All pre-Christian depictions of stauroses are stakes. And Lucian says Jesus was fastened to a skolops, a pointed stake. I would say there's more than enough basis for the Slave to say that Jesus was not killed on a cross but a stake.

 

What would I tell my student? Exactly what is written on the book. That no crosses are mentioned in the Bible. That Christians don't use the cross in worship because 1) Jesus didn't die on a cross and 2) because it would be idolatry to venerate an object.

 

 

Edited November 21, 2018 by carlos

[carlos]

On 11/16/2018 at 5:57 PM, 1MKnight said:

What is clear is that it is referring to a "god" that was crucified. 

Josephus, Origin and Tertullian show some sort of support for the idea that Christian opposers called Jesus a donkey or accused Christians of donkey worship to some degree. 

I don't see it that clear. The only thing I see clearly is a humanoid figure with the head of a donkey. There is a horizontal line that could be the crossbeam of a cross, but could also be a yoke or anything else.

 

Circular reasoning was used to relate this grafitti to Christians. Since it seems to depict a cross and Christians worship a crucified god, it has to be Christian. But consider this: If Christians at the time didn't believe Jesus died on a cross, then there is absolutely no reason to link that grafitti to Christians. It could refer to any one of the many pagan religions which use the cross as a symbol, or it could simply ridicule any god Alexamenos had calling him a donkey. It could belong to any ancient religion. Using it as a proof that Jesus died on a cross is stretching belief too much.

 

 

 

[Thesauron]

There is another Greek word, xyʹlon, that Bible writers used to describe the instrument of Jesus’ execution. A Critical Lexicon and Concordance to the English and Greek New Testament defines xyʹlon as “a piece of timber, a wooden stake.” It goes on to say that like staurosʹ, xyʹlon “was simply an upright pale or stake to which the Romans nailed those who were thus said to be crucified.”

In line with this, we note that the King James Version reads at Acts 5:30: “The God of our fathers raised up Jesus, whom ye slew and hanged on a tree [xyʹlon].” Other versions, though rendering staurosʹ as “cross,” also translate xyʹlon as “tree.” At Acts 13:29, The Jerusalem Bible says of Jesus: “When they had carried out everything that scripture foretells about him they took him down from the tree [xyʹlon] and buried him.”

In view of the basic meaning of the Greek words staurosʹ and xyʹlon, the Critical Lexicon and Concordance, quoted above, observes: “Both words disagree with the modern idea of a cross, with which we have become familiarised by pictures.” In other words, what the Gospel writers described using the word staurosʹ was nothing like what people today call a cross. Appropriately, therefore, the New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures uses the expression “torture stake” at Matthew 27:40-42 and in other places where the word staurosʹ appears. Similarly, the Complete Jewish Bible uses the expression “execution stake.”

Thus we can say with certainty that it is very unlikely that Christ died on a cross, and more likely that it was simply a stake, which is more than ‘we don’t know’. Now, does it matter? Not a lot, really. What matters is that we should not venerate the means of his execution. It is a fine symbol only for those on the side of his executors.

[Guri]

5 hours ago, annakot said:

Really, Justin Martyr are is no reason to be a cross worshipper. The Bible clearly says to avoid idolatry, doesn't matter what it is. 

Annakot,

 

In his work, Justin is the very samr person who articulated his beliefs, which combined Scripture with Greek philosophy. His beliefs included the idea that God has no proper name. Should we Witness accept Justin’s unscriptural view? In his Dialogue, he argued that Jesus was the Messiah and that Judaism was obsolete.

By combining Christianity with philosophy, Justin disregarded the inspired command to adhere to what is written. (1Co 4:6) Other so-called Church Fathers followed his example, accelerating the foretold apostasy. (Mt 13:38, 39; 2Pe 2:1) No matter what Justin believed, I wouldn’t use his views to prove what shape was the Stauro. He is unreliable. 

[hatcheckgirl]

2 minutes ago, Thesauron said:

xyʹlon

This word literally means "wood" in modern Greek usage.  I hear this word, and I immediately think of the tree the wood comes from.  But of course, whether this has the same meaning as ancient Greek, I don't know.  Just some further thoughts.

 

And as already mentioned, who really wants to venerate the instrument of our Lord's murder?  Only his enemies would want that.  He blinds the minds of the unbelievers to worship the most hateful thing ever.

[Guri]

2 minutes ago, hatcheckgirl said:

And as already mentioned, who really wants to venerate the instrument of our Lord's murder?

There are plenty Catholic and Orthodox believers in the world who knee before the crosses, kiss them, ask forgiveness and they treat crosses as holy as God himself. Cross worshippers are milions in the world. Unfortunately they don’t see how wrong it is to benerate objects such as Cross, skulls and other “holy” items used in Christendom’s churches.