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

[hatcheckgirl]

1 hour ago, Guri said:

Cross worshippers are milions in the world. 

Yeah, I used to be one of them. 🤭

My first question at my first meeting, which was an assembly was (indignantly) Where’s the cross???!!

[jayrtom]

14 hours ago, annakot said:

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 realized Burt already said similar, lol

See my post above on how how think you can understand what's written on the site

 

Anyway, I think @carlos last post nailed it 😉

And I'm sure the slave studied all the evidences presented here (there is no new discovery as far as I know) and the conclusion is that the evidence of the bible points to an upright stake

 

 

Edited November 21, 2018 by jayrtom

[Guri]

3 hours ago, hatcheckgirl said:

Yeah, I used to be one of them. 🤭

 

Me too. I used to be an Orthodox Christian from the early age. I used to worship cross, the same

way professed christians do today. Happily this is what happened to me. (Comp. John 8:32). Since 1993, I became one of JW’s and have no regret   

[carlos]

8 hours ago, Guri said:

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. 

Guri, we all agree on that. No one here is saying that we should belief whatever Justin Martyr believed. Rather, Anna's point is that, if justin Martyr, who lived in the 2nd century and was a Greek speaker, understood the stauros to be T-shaped, that means that was the common meaning of the word in his days. We're not evaluating his theology but his vocabulary.

 

Lynn mentioned that Justin Martyr's writing have been tampered with, in which case maybe those are not his words but were added at a later time. But there's also a work by Lucian from the final part of the 2nd century saying the stauros has the shape of a T. So it seems likely that 150 years after Jesus' death T-shaped stauroses were common. Which doesn't mean they were at the time of Jesus, though. It might be that T-shaped stauroses became a trend at the same time the great apostasy was thriving.

[Guri]

40 minutes ago, carlos said:

Guri, we all agree on that. No one here is saying that we should belief whatever Justin Martyr believed. Rather, Anna's point is that, if justin Martyr, who lived in the 2nd century and was a Greek speaker, understood the stauros to be T-shaped, that means that was the common meaning of the word in his days. We're not evaluating his theology but his vocabulary.

 

Lynn mentioned that Justin Martyr's writing have been tampered with, in which case maybe those are not his words but were added at a later time. But there's also a work by Lucian from the final part of the 2nd century saying the stauros has the shape of a T. So it seems likely that 150 years after Jesus' death T-shaped stauroses were common. Which doesn't mean they were at the time of Jesus, though. It might be that T-shaped stauroses became a trend at the same time the great apostasy was thriving.

Brother Carlos, 

 

I knew we don’t evaluate Jastin’s theology but what he believed was already far from what Bible teach, therefore his vocabulary can be influenced by his beliefs, that was the point I wanted to make.  

 

Whilst I like your reasoning and the conclusions you make in your abive comment about Justin and other sources, we clearly see that there is too many “maybe”s and “might be”s and that is another reason why we cannot be certain in word plays of ancient writers such as Justin or Lucian;  And again, nothing is conclusive.  

[Thesauron]

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.

Indeed. So it becomes a simple raised piece of timber, a log. In the Septuagint, xyʹlon is used at De 21:22, 23 to translate the corresponding Hebrew word ʽets (meaning “tree; wood; piece of wood”) in the sentence “and you have hung him on a stake.” When Paul quotes this scripture at Ga 3:13, xyʹlon is used in the sentence: “Accursed is every man hung upon a stake.” This Greek word is also used in the Septuagint at Ezr 6:11 (1 Esdras 6:​31, LXX) to translate the Aramaic word ʼaʽ, corresponding to the Hebrew term ʽets. There it is said regarding violators of a Persian king’s decree: “A timber will be pulled out of his house and he will be lifted up and fastened to it.” The fact that Bible writers used xyʹlon as a synonym for stau·rosʹ provides added evidence that Jesus was executed on an upright stake without a crossbeam, for that is what xyʹlon in this special sense means.

[hatcheckgirl]

Xylon (ξύλον) was also the word used at Esther 7:9 in the Septuagint for what Haman was hung up on.  That was a very tall pole.

 

εἶπεν δὲ Βουγαθαν εἷς τῶν εὐνούχων πρὸς τὸν βασιλέα ἰδοὺ καὶ ξύλον ἡτοίμασεν Αμαν Μαρδοχαίῳ τῷ λαλήσαντι περὶ τοῦ βασιλέως καὶ ὤρθωται ἐν τοῖς Αμαν ξύλον πηχῶν πεντήκοντα εἶπεν δὲ ὁ βασιλεύς σταυρωθήτω ἐπ᾽ αὐτοῦ.

[Guri]

16 hours ago, Thesauron said:

t is said regarding violators of a Persian king’s decree: “A timber will be pulled out of his house and he will be lifted up and fastened to it.” The fact that Bible writers used xyʹlon as a synonym for stau·rosʹ

True. I don’t think they were taking crosses out of their houses.  

[rocket]

On 11/21/2018 at 5:35 AM, carlos said:

Lynn mentioned that Justin Martyr's writing have been tampered with, in which case maybe those are not his words but were added at a later time. But there's also a work by Lucian from the final part of the 2nd century saying the stauros has the shape of a T. So it seems likely that 150 years after Jesus' death T-shaped stauroses were common. Which doesn't mean they were at the time of Jesus, though. It might be that T-shaped stauroses became a trend at the same time the great apostasy was thriving.

 

If Jesus was hanged upon a cross why did the writers of the Bible use stauros instead of word tau.  It is 19th letter of the Greek alphabet.

 

https://www.seiyaku.com/customs/crosses/antau.html

Edited November 23, 2018 by rocket

[ChocoBro]

On 2/22/2012 at 5:48 PM, moraavelo said:

The sacrifice was his perfect life not the spitting, blows, the degradation and thorn crown.

 

I understand your sentiment, but that seems incorrect to me. If this were true, Jesus could have just continued living for another few decades and then died in a random accident he didn't cause. The Bible prophesied that he would be mistreated and humiliated. This was the final test, and his torture and execution was what finally "sealed the deal" because he endured even through such a terrible ordeal.

 

Also, I disagree with this professor, though it is true there is no proof Jesus was nailed to a cross, there is a reference later on to the "holes in his hands". Doesn't that refer to the holes punched through his hands by the nails?

Oops I replied 6 years later to a comment made two years before my joing jwtalk...

 

Never mind.

Edited November 23, 2018 by ChocoBro

[jayrtom]

2 hours ago, ChocoBro said:

Oops I replied 6 years later to a comment made two years before my joing jwtalk...

Indeed, this thread is so old that, the way the conversation is going by some, should have the title changed to "Jesus may not have died on the stake!"

Edited November 23, 2018 by jayrtom

[Witness1970]

There is an interesting book that I read a few years ago. It was written apparently by a Catholic. In it he has various chapters discussing different aspects of the cross.  Part of the book discusses how Jesus was not hanged on a cross. He says that the word 'crux' does not have to mean a cross but could just be a beam. In one chapter, he shows various images of crosses from pagan religions. He devotes one chapter talking about the fact that there is no precedent for stylized crosses such as is seen today. He does a very good job of proving that the cross is of pagan origin.

 

The end of the book he defends use of the cross by claiming that since their is only one god (not capitalized on purpose, in my case), then all religions can lead only to that one god. He even talks about the time between the winter solstice and Christmas being 3 1/2 days, and talks about how much 3 1/2 is used in scripture. Basically, I enjoyed the book very much until he got to the end and started to defend the use of pagan emblems and celebrations.

[EccentricM]

16 minutes ago, Witness1970 said:

Basically, I enjoyed the book very much until he got to the end and started to defend the use of pagan emblems and celebrations.

Well, to that all we'd need to point to are the scriptures where Jehovah detested his people imitating other nations and religions, even in worship of him.

 

• “When you have entered into the land that Jehovah your God is giving you, you must not learn to imitate the detestable practices of those nations" - Deuteronomy 18:9
• "You must not behave as they do in the land of Egypt, where you were dwelling, and you must not do what they do in the land of Caʹnaan, where I am bringing you. And you must not walk in their statutes" - Leviticus 18:3
• "Stop bringing in any more worthless grain offerings.Your incense is detestable to me. New moons, sabbaths, the calling of conventions. I cannot put up with the use of magical power along with your solemn assembly". - Isaiah 1:13
   
• “You cannot be partaking of ‘the table of Jehovah’ and the table of demons.” - 1 Corinthians 10:21
• "And I heard another voice out of the sky say “Come out of her, my people, that you may not be a party to her sins and may not share in her scourges" - Revelation 18:4

 

Nope, doesn't look like Jehovah had the same reasonings as he did...

Edited November 29, 2018 by EccentricM

[Bruceq]

On 11/18/2018 at 5:42 PM, Pjdriver said:

As I said, it not conclusive. It could be understood each way. Who knows, maybe the sign created the confusion....but I doubt it.

I had a study who was quite a believer in the cross. After I showed him the video of Jesus death he noticed a "Cross" but on closer look it was a stake with a sign above it { in 3 languages so not just a small sticky note}. He then realized how people could have misinterpreted it as a cross [like he just did] similar to the game where you tell a story in a circle and when it comes back its different story but with similarities. Apostasy is like that. Starts off innocent like someones birth then becomes Christmas...or believing in the True God then creating a Calf because your expectations were not to your liking. Anyway he then noticed how easy it would be to think Jesus died on a cross rather than a stake after all the Gentiles who became believers already had crosses and wore such...why wear a stake when a cross is already in use.

Edited November 29, 2018 by Bruceq

[ChocoBro]

2 hours ago, Bruceq said:

I had a study who was quite a believer in the cross. After I showed him the video of Jesus death he noticed a "Cross" but on closer look it was a stake with a sign above it { in 3 languages so not just a small sticky note}. He then realized how people could have misinterpreted it as a cross [like he just did] similar to the game where you tell a story in a circle and when it comes back its different story but with similarities. Apostasy is like that. Starts off innocent like someones birth then becomes Christmas...or believing in the True God then creating a Calf because your expectations were not to your liking. Anyway he then noticed how easy it would be to think Jesus died on a cross rather than a stake after all the Gentiles who became believers already had crosses and wore such...why wear a stake when a cross is already in use. 

 

Ha. Maybe that's how the Crux Immissa came to be. Somebody drew Jesus on a stake with an oversized sign across the top, and it became the cross

[annakot]

Sorry, I know I started this debate and then I got so busy that I couldn't get on here until now. My main concern was what @carlos alluded to already which was finding evidence for/against what people living in Jesus' day understood under the meaning, or more precisely the word, "stauros" and I quoted an example with the word "gay". What gay meant in the past doesn't apply in the present. Thank you Carlos for bringing up the issue of translation bias, and/or tampering. With regard to translation, that was one of the things I could see as a problem.  I am not sure who translated the works of Lucian, but if it was someone who was convinced that Jesus died on a T shaped instrument then this is what he would have promoted. Translation is indeed a big problem, as anyone who speaks more than one language can appreciate. In the case of Lucian, we have to remember he was a "tongue in cheek" writer, a satirist, so most of what he wrote couldn't be taken seriously, or may have been misunderstood. He used terminology of that time that modern translators may not understand. For example, if a contemporary  English author wrote "they grilled him until he spilled his guts" how would someone who was not familiar with this type of "slang" understand that, and how would they translate that into their language? Would they think this was a horrifying case of torture, or would they know that it merely meant this person was interrogated until he told everything?

 

I just wouldn't want to be in a situation where I am insisting on Jesus dying on a simple stake, for the sole reason that we do not want to identify with anything to do with Christendom. Was this initially one of the main reasons why we dropped the cross? This is not a rhetorical question. I really do not know. All I am familiar with is that as Bible students we had as our "symbol" the cross and crown and then later, with Br. Rutherford, that was abolished. Does anyone know the full story behind that? Was it because someone had stumbled upon proof that Jesus did not die on a cross, or was it because we started distancing ourselves from Christendom and as the cross is Christendom's symbol, did someone start investigating whether Jesus really died on a cross to add weight to our reason for getting rid of it?

 

IMO,  most important thing, and I think most of us agree, that regardless what instrument of torture Jesus died on, we would not use the shape of that instrument in our worship anyway. 

 

Perhaps the discussion about cross or stake will remain a case of semantics

 

Edited December 10, 2018 by annakot
added a word

[rocket]

IMO - Personally I am not interested in going back and reading all the old publications but the reasoning is sound in my mind.  There is nothing in the Bible to suggest a "Cross" in any form.  Art work including a cross is totally absent from the catacombs used by Christians in the first two centuries. With the exception of Justin Martyr who's work is questionable due to corruptions, there is no record among the 1st-3rd century writers as to the shape of "starous."  If it was a "cross" why not use the Greek  "tau" as it was in common usage for a cross.  Constantine did not see a "cross" he saw (or so he said) an X.  Cross worship overcame the apostate Christian Church 4th-6th century by Christianizing pagan culture and religion. If we are going to stick to only what the Bible says then "starous" would be an upright stake/pole/tree. IMO - In the end what matters the most is not the shape of "starous" as much as distancing ourselves from cross worship. One good way to do that is to challenge the traditionally accepted form of "starous." 

Edited December 10, 2018 by rocket

[annakot]

On 11/21/2018 at 10:34 AM, Thesauron said:

The fact that Bible writers used xyʹlon as a synonym for stau·rosʹ provides added evidence that Jesus was executed on an upright stake without a crossbeam, for that is what xyʹlon in this special sense means.

The other synonyms for xylon which means wood, are timber and tree, which in itself does not exclude another piece of wood in my opinion, but could merely be describing the main piece to which whatever else (be it a person or another piece of wood) can be attached. There are many nouns naming something by its main component, but which is actually composed of more than that one thing. For example "wheel" in one language means "wheel" in English, but it also means "bicycle". The main component of the bicycle is obviously the wheel, but it also consists of several other parts. 

According to Strong's dictionary regarding the etymology of the word stauros: The word stauros comes from the verb ἵστημι (histēmi: "straighten up", "stand"), which in turn comes from the Proto-Indo-European root *steh2-u- "pole",[1] related to the root *steh2- "to stand, to set".

 

This also does not necessarily exclude another part to the "standing" instrument.

[Thesauron]

The Non-Christian Cross, by John Denham Parsons (quoted in Insight), says:

“It is not a little misleading upon the part of our teachers to translate the word stauros as ‘cross’ when rendering the Greek documents of the Church into our native tongue, and to support that action by putting ‘cross’ in our lexicons as the meaning of stauros without carefully explaining that that was at any rate not the primary meaning of the word in the days of the Apostles, did not become its primary signification till long afterwards, and became so then, if at all, only because, despite the absence of corroborative evidence, it was for some reason or other assumed that the particular stauros upon which Jesus was executed had that particular shape.”

[Thesauron]

The other synonyms for xylon which means wood, are timber and tree, which in itself does not exclude another piece of wood in my opinion, but could merely be describing the main piece to which whatever else (be it a person or another piece of wood) can be attached. There are many nouns naming something by its main component, but which is actually composed of more than that one thing. For example "wheel" in one language means "wheel" in English, but it also means "bicycle". The main component of the bicycle is obviously the wheel, but it also consists of several other parts. 
According to Strong's dictionary regarding the etymology of the word stauros: The word stauros comes from the verb ἵστημι (histēmi: "straighten up", "stand"), which in turn comes from the Proto-Indo-European root *steh2-u- "pole",[1] related to the root *steh2- "to stand, to set".
 
This also does not necessarily exclude another part to the "standing" instrument.

That’s true, but it complicates things more than necessary, especially when the primary meaning of stauros during the time of the apostles seems to have been a simple upright piece of wood.

[trottigy]

12 hours ago, annakot said:

 

I just wouldn't want to be in a situation where I am insisting on Jesus dying on a simple stake, for the sole reason that we do not want to identify with anything to do with Christendom. Was this initially one of the main reasons why we dropped the cross? This is not a rhetorical question. I really do not know. All I am familiar with is that as Bible students we had as our "symbol" the cross and crown and then later, with Br. Rutherford, that was abolished. Does anyone know the full story behind that? Was it because someone had stumbled upon proof that Jesus did not die on a cross, or was it because we started distancing ourselves from Christendom and as the cross is Christendom's symbol, did someone start investigating whether Jesus really died on a cross to add weight to our reason for getting rid of it?

 

https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1950805

 

This 1950 watchtower is the oldest I can find that speaks about the cross and why Christians wouldn't use it. It is mostly about translation, but it also adds in the pagan origins of the cross. It is more explicit about it being a phallic symbol than we can be today.

[EccentricM]

14 minutes ago, trottigy said:

It is more explicit about it being a phallic symbol than we can be today.

I've read about that in the "Babylon Mystery Religion" book.

 

https://jwtalk.net/forums/topic/32296-babylon-mystery-religion-ancient-and-modern/

 

Though it should be noted that not "all things" may be accurate in there, but it's interesting regardless.

Edited December 10, 2018 by EccentricM

[carlos]

17 hours ago, annakot said:

I just wouldn't want to be in a situation where I am insisting on Jesus dying on a simple stake, for the sole reason that we do not want to identify with anything to do with Christendom.

Anna, I don't think much more can be added here. For me this is a non-issue. The only reason why we are even discussing this is that some apostates adopted a pagan symbol three hundred years after Jesus' death and, some time later, they justified their worship of that idol by trying to convince us that it was the instrument of Jesus' execution.

 

What shape was Noah's ark? Since the Bible calls it an ark, we understand it was a rectangular box, which is what an ark means in both English and Hebrew. Other religions paint the ark as a keeled ship-like structure. Is there any remote possibility that such depictions are accurate? Well, the word "ark" is not very specific, and since none of us were there and no pictures were taken, we can't assure it 100 percent. But since the Bible calls it an ark, what shape do we think it had? A simple rectangular box! Why make an easy subject complicate?

 

The Bible describes the instrument of Jesus' execution with two different words that mean an upright stake. Then the apostle Paul compares that instrument to the simple upright stake the Jews used in ancient times. The LXX uses the same word to translate the stake where Haman was hanged. There's no record of anyone ever using any of those terms in pre-Christian times to refer to anything else than an upright stake. All evidence points to an upright stake. Why complicate it? Why juggle with the language and try to theorize an absolutely exceptional alternate translation that maybe existed or maybe not, but for which there is absolutely no proof? I don't see the point.

 

Rolf Furuli makes a good point about this in his book on chronology. If someone says "today is a radiant day", what would you understand? Well, someone could reason that, since "radiant" comes from a Latin word that may refer to "lightning", what the author means is that today there's stormy weather with thunderbolts and lightnings. Is such interpretation absolutely impossible? No, it's not. Along all the centuries probably someone somewhere used the word "radiant" in that sense. Now, do you think that's what the author of the sentence had in mind? Apply Occam's razor: the simplest, or the least speculative, explanation, is most likely the correct one. Keep it simple.

 

Yes, words change their meaning, and the word stauros did change its meaning to refer to a cross... between 200 and 400 years after it was used in the Bible.

 

17 hours ago, annakot said:

Was this initially one of the main reasons why we dropped the cross? This is not a rhetorical question. I really do not know. All I am familiar with is that as Bible students we had as our "symbol" the cross and crown and then later, with Br. Rutherford, that was abolished. Does anyone know the full story behind that? Was it because someone had stumbled upon proof that Jesus did not die on a cross, or was it because we started distancing ourselves from Christendom and as the cross is Christendom's symbol, did someone start investigating whether Jesus really died on a cross to add weight to our reason for getting rid of it?

This is from the 1975 Yearbook:

 

Quote

*** yb75 pp. 148-149 Part 2—United States of America ***
Another change in viewpoint involved the “cross and crown” symbol, which appeared on the Watch Tower cover beginning with the issue of January 1891. In fact, for years many Bible Students wore a pin of this kind. By way of description, C. W. Barber writes: “It was a badge really, with a wreath of laurel leaves as the border and within the wreath was a crown with a cross running through it on an angle. It looked quite attractive and was our idea at that time of what it meant to take up our ‘cross’ and follow Christ Jesus in order to be able to wear the crown of victory in due time.”
Concerning the wearing of “cross and crown pins,” Lily R. Parnell comments: “This to Brother Rutherford’s mind was Babylonish and should be discontinued. He told us that when we went to the people’s homes and began to talk, that was the witness in itself.” Accordingly, reflecting on the 1928 Bible Students convention in Detroit, Michigan, Brother Suiter writes: “At the assembly the cross and crown emblems were shown to be not only unnecessary but objectionable. So we discarded these items of jewelry.” Some three years thereafter, beginning with its issue of October 15, 1931, The Watchtower no longer bore the cross and crown symbol on its cover.
A few years later Jehovah’s people first learned that Jesus Christ did not die on a T-shaped cross. On January 31, 1936, Brother Rutherford released to the Brooklyn Bethel family the new book Riches. Scripturally, it said, in part, on page 27: “Jesus was crucified, not on a cross of wood, such as is exhibited in many images and pictures, and which images are made and exhibited by men; Jesus was crucified by nailing his body to a tree.”

So the reason why we stopped using the cross was because the brothers realized it was a pagan symbol that shouldn't be mixed with true worship. Only some years later we understood that, besides that, Jesus did not die on a cross.

 

So the main reason why Christians don't use the cross today is the same why we stopped using it: we don't venerate idols and much less pagan symbols.

Edited December 10, 2018 by carlos