Was Jesus Christ Crusified On Two Stakes forming a cross, or was it really a single stake like history shows.?

Question

History books and scriptures Shows that crusifing was one single stake. Could it be possible that the new bibles translated to english from aramaic, greek, and hebrew, were mistakenly translated, does the possibility exsist that maybe Catholics were wrong in translation?

Answer 1

No one has the slightest physical evidence to support a historical Jesus; no artifacts, dwelling, works of carpentry, or self-written manuscripts. All claims about Jesus derive from writings of other people. There occurs no contemporary Roman record that shows Pontius Pilate executing a man named Jesus. Devastating to historians, there occurs not a single contemporary writing that mentions Jesus. All documents about Jesus got written well after the life of the alleged Jesus from either: unknown authors, people who had never met an earthly Jesus, or from fraudulent, mythical or allegorical writings. Although one can argue that many of these writings come from fraud or interpolations, I will use the information and dates to show that even if these sources did not come from interpolations, they could still not serve as reliable evidence for a historical Jesus, simply because all sources derive from hearsay accounts.

Hearsay means information derived from other people rather than on a witness' own knowledge.

Courts of law do not generally allow hearsay as testimony, and nor does honest modern scholarship. Hearsay provides no proof or good evidence, and therefore, we should dismiss it.

If you do not understand this, imagine yourself confronted with a charge for a crime which you know you did not commit. You feel confident that no one can prove guilt because you know that there exists no evidence whatsoever for the charge against you. Now imagine that you stand present in a court of law that allows hearsay as evidence. When the prosecution presents its case, everyone who takes the stand against you claims that you committed the crime, not as a witness themselves, but solely because other people said so. None of these other people, mind you, ever show up in court, nor can anyone find them.

Hearsay does not work as evidence because we have no way of knowing whether the person lies, or simply bases his or her information on wrongful belief or bias. We know from history about witchcraft trials and kangaroo courts that hearsay provides neither reliable nor fair statements of evidence. We know that mythology can arise out of no good information whatsoever. We live in a world where many people believe in demons, UFOs, ghosts, or monsters, and an innumerable number of fantasies believed as fact taken from nothing but belief and hearsay. It derives from these reasons why hearsay cannot serves as good evidence, and the same reasoning must go against the claims of a historical Jesus or any other historical person.

Authors of ancient history today, of course, can only write from indirect observation in a time far removed from their aim. But a valid historian's own writing gets cited with sources that trace to the subject themselves, or to eyewitnesses and artifacts. For example a historian today who writes about the life of George Washington, of course, can not serve as an eyewitness, but he can provide citations to documents which give personal or eyewitness accounts. None of the historians about Jesus give reliable sources to eyewitnesses, therefore all we have remains as hearsay.

Answer 2

It's true that there is no photographic or videographic evidence proving whether Jesus was impaled on a cross or on a simple stake. That's why the larger issue is whether one views and worships any object in a way that dishonors God.

(1 Cor 10:14) Therefore, my beloved ones, flee from idolatry.


It is troublesome to true Christians that the cross was used by pagan false worship long before Jesus walked the earth, and it was not introduced into so-called "Christianity" until centuries after the apostles had died.

You may also wonder: While the Romans certainly had the ability to create a death device of two intersecting beams (and probably did on occasion) ask yourself: why they would have bothered when a simple stake would have worked just as well or better?

It is also enlightening to examine other relevant Scriptures.

You may be interested to see how your own copy of the bible translates Acts 5:30, Galatians 3:13, Deuteronomy 21:22, 23, and Acts 10:39. The King James, Revised Standard, Dyaglott, and Jerusalem Bible translate the instrument of Christ's death simply as "stake" or "tree" because the original wording simply does not support the idea that this was more than a piece of upright wood.

Learn more:
http://www.watchtower.org/library/g/2005/5/8a/article_01.htm

Answer 3

This is called "splitting hairs". Some evidence may point one way and other evidence, another. You may also ask, "Were the nails in the palm of the hands or in the wrists?". "Was Jesus crucified on a Wednesday or a Friday?" Why is this important? Who cares!! He was crucified and died for the remission of sins.

There are some who like to point out inconsistencies in the Bible, especially in the Gospels, THINKING THAT THIS PROVES THE BIBLE WRONG. Nothing could be further from the truth: Four witnesses of an accident WILL give four different accounts of that accident as it relates TO DETAILS but the main point still stand : the first vehicle braked suddenly and the vehicle behind it rear-ended it. Recent research shows that eyewitness accounts of an incident vary about 10 - 30 % in details. This is about the same variation in the Gospels.

Have you considered that the details may be harmonized?

Answer 4

The Bible has been translated so many times that there have to be some mistakes somewhere but I doubt it matters on what he was crusified.

Answer 5

Check your history again.