If Jehovah's witnesses are always adhering to the bible, then why would they deny that Jesus died on a cross

Question

The bible states unambiguously that it was a cross and not a stake. And you can't say the bible is corrupted because then you would be contradicting your own belief that the bible is infallible. I once read in a JW pamphlet that saying the bible is corrupted is accusing God of weakness for not protecting his word. Isn't interesting that JW would believe in nonbiblical things like the 6,000 year old earth theory, a fabrication of some clergymen and young earth creationists, but deny things that are actually in the bible? I know you think the cross is a pagan symbol, but since the Romans were pagans and used crucifixtion, why would the origins of the cross rule out the possibility of Jesus dying on one? So the Romans just decided to use a stake instead of a cross in the case of Jesus to accomodate the beliefs of Jehovah's witnesses.

Answer 1

First of all, we believe that the creative days were thousands of years each or more, not that the earth is only 6,000 years old.

Second, this might help explain the origin of "stauros," the word that is rendered "cross" in many modern versions of the Bible:

In classical Greek the word (stau·ros′) rendered “torture stake” in the New World Translation primarily denotes an upright stake, or pole, and there is no evidence that the writers of the Christian Greek Scriptures used it to designate a stake with a crossbeam. The book The Non-Christian Cross, by John Denham Parsons, states: “There is not a single sentence in any of the numerous writings forming the New Testament, which, in the original Greek, bears even indirect evidence to the effect that the stauros used in the case of Jesus was other than an ordinary stauros; much less to the effect that it consisted, not of one piece of timber, but of two pieces nailed together in the form of a cross. . . . 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.”

Answer 2

One thing left out above is the difference in the death from being impaled on a cross as compared to a stake. The Romans favored the cross simply because it took days for the person to die, whereas with a stake, it took only hours.

The problem though is the Romans didn't begin using the cross as a regular form of execution until 40 years after Christ died. What Augustus did to the revolting slaves left a bad view of this type of execution for over a century. The Romans also didn't use it in their conquered countries. The Jews would never have allowed someone to hang for days while dying.

Being hung on a stake, your lungs are compressed, suffocating you. You can try to hold yourself up with your legs, but the solders are instructed to break them if you do. You can't beat the science of the human body.

Which ever the point, it still does come down to why you make a showy display of an execution device. If tradition was the cutting off of the head, would you than carry a cleaver around your neck?

Answer 3

Shibbole answered this question very well. But if you are still in doubt, why not do the research yourself. See what the Greek word stau-ros' actually means. And you say that the bible states that it was a cross and not a stake, that is because of mistranslations. The KJV is full of them.

Let's say for arguments sake that you are right and Jesus was crucified on a cross. You yourself said that the Romans were Pagans, so the possibility of Jesus being excuted on a cross could be a possibility. Knowing that the cross came from the Romans who were Pagans, WHY do you still wear or own crosses? Is that not like rubbing salt in God's eyes? So now I ask you, who is still doing the will of God?Exodus20:4

Answer 4

Sadly, this so-called question pretends that Jehovah's Witnesses believe and teach things which they plainly do not. For example, Witnesses believe that God is Almighty (rather than weak), that the bible is infallible (rather than corrupt), that the earth is likely millions of years old (rather than 6000), and that it is possible that Christ was impaled on a cross (rather than unequivocally impossible).


Regarding "the cross", Jehovah's Witnesses primarily believe and teach that the bible plainly forbids idolatry of any kind, including the worshipful use of icons such as crucifixes.
http://watchtower.org/bible/1jo/chapter_005.htm?bk=1jo;chp=5;vs=21;citation#bk21
http://www.watchtower.org/bible/ac/chapter_017.htm?bk=ac;chp=17;vs=29;citation#bk29

(1 John 5:21) Guard yourselves from idols.

(Acts 17:29) We ought not to imagine that the Divine Being is like gold or silver or stone, like something sculptured by the art and contrivance of man


The exact shape of Christ's instrument of death is hardly a central doctrine of the faith, but Jehovah's Witnesses do happen to believe that Jesus was almost certainly impaled on a simple stake, rather than a cross of two intersecting beams. Of course the Romans had the ability to create a cross, and probably did. But ask yourself: why they would have bothered when a simple stake would have worked just as well or better?

The bible most assuredly does NOT offer any proof that the stake was actually a cross of two intersecting beams. The actual facts of the bible may be enlightening to examine...

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.

It is also eye-opening to examine how the first-century Christians felt about idols of any kind, much less one that glorified an instrument of death.

Answer 5

Some people try tosay that the use of the word stauros in the Bible, identifying the instrument of Jesus' execution, was used due to the lack of a clear Greek term describing a cross. However, the argument that there is no word for "cross" in Greek is a very weak one. It is interesting that the on-line Liddell & Scott Greek Lexicon has some entries for the use of word cross. Some of these entries from the Greek "X" or Chi are:
>
> chi-asma [i_], atos, to, cross-piece of
> wood, Bito 54.3 (pl.).
> chi_azô, mark with two lines
> crossing like a X
> chi-asmos, ho, placing
> crosswise, diagonal
> arrangement
> chi-asti crosswise,
> diagonally
> chi_oô, ( [chi] ) mark with
> a Ch or cross,
> Tz.H.5.164.

The familar XULON or "tree" from the GNT is also
there, of course, with the obligatory reference to
"cross" in the NT usages. There is, however, another interesting entry which incorporates the Greek preposition DIA which means "through" This is the Greek word DIAXULON which is described in the online Liddell Scott as "cross-piece, Apollod.Poliorc.177.12."

One has to ask themself, "If there were indeed such words used in the Greek language, why did the Bible writers opt to use words describing a tree or upright stake or pale instead?

Answer 6

The second leader of Jehovahs Witnesses tried to separate JWs from everyone else by claiming as much of Christianity as possible was pagan. This included the cross. The Watchtower argumentation is a simple linguistic one, but is flawed. They claim that the word staurous did not start being translated as cross until some time after Jesus died. This is easily proven wrong.

There is ample evidence, lingustically, historically, medically and Biblically that Jesus died on a cross. For a detailed explanation see http://www.jwfacts.com/index_files/cross.htm

Answer 7

Did Jesus die on a stake or a cross?



One of the doctrines of the Jehovah's Witnesses that is wrong, though not an attack on an essential doctrine of scripture, is their teaching that Jesus died on a stake instead of a cross (Reasoning from the Scriptures, 1985, pp. 89-90). It really doesn't matter which Jesus died on. The issue is whether or not He shed His blood for our sins.
In support of their position, they accurately state that the Greek word used in many Bibles which is translated into "cross" is the Greek word "stauros" which means, "an upright stake, esp. a pointed one, a cross."1 If a stake were used, instead of a cross, then Jesus' hands would have been placed above His head with a nail driven through His wrists. Since the wrists would most likely overlap, only one nail is needed through both wrists. However, some Jehovah's Witnesses have maintained that Jesus' hands may have been placed one higher than another on the stake. The reason they say this is because of John 20:25,

"The other disciples therefore said unto him, We have seen the Lord. But he said unto them, except I shall see in his hands the print of the nails, and put my finger into the print of the nails, and thrust my hand into his side, I will not believe."

Notice the use of the word nails (plural) in reference to hands (plural). This is strong evidence that Jesus was crucified on a cross with outstretched hands -- one nail in each hand which would explain the plural nails. If Jesus was crucified on a stake then both hands would have been placed above his head and only one nail would have been needed to go through both hands. Again, it says "...in his hands the print of the nails..."
Again, this is not an issue of essential doctrine, but I do believe the evidence is sufficient to demonstrate that the Watchtower organization is incorrect in yet another matter.

Strongs # Hb/Gk Word Pronunciation English Equivalent
Old Testament (Hebrew)
06563 pereq {peh'-rek} crossway, robbery
New Testament (Greek)
4716 stauros {stow-ros'} cross

Answer 8

The Greek word rendered 'cross' is stau-ros'. In classical Greek, this word meant merely an upright stake, or pale.

JW don't believe in the 6,000 year old earth theory. The believe in Creationism not Evolution. Which regonising beyond doubt that it was more than 6,000 years ago.

The stake was not used for only Jesus' crucifixtion but for all the crucifixtions that happened in that period of time.

Answer 9

Herein lies the problem with the term 'religion'. It seems so many religions have such different beliefs and so many contradict themselves and have been proven to have false prophets and docterines. Some still worship saints and idols and other things besides God and people wonder why these athiests think and feel the way they do. Jesus died for our sins and then rose from the dead 3 days later. He said He would go away and prepare a place for you. He said he would be back to be with us and we would be with Him wherever He is. The basic fundamentals are in the Bible. The Bible is fact. God said 'If it were not true I would have told you.'
So, now we argue about whether it was a cross or a stake? People! Think how does one stretch his arms to the point of dislocating a shoulder if it was a stake? Of course it was a cross. He spread His arms and his hands were nailed.

Answer 10

Different bibilcal inturpritation. God knows there are MANY of those! Apparently something was lost in translation and many bibles mistakenly inserted "cross" where obviously "spike" should have been. Or some would say. Anyway, why are you so worried about it? They have their beliefs, you have yours and there is a damn good chance you're both wrong, but that is OK!