JW's and the cross?

Question

JW's say that Jesus was hang in a pole( which is a lie) . they say that his hands were put together on top of his head. Which of course its not true either. The reason is this. On 20:25 Thomas says"'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' ".Now if Jesus were crucified not on a cross, but on a stake, then only one nail would have been used for his hands. Our text, however, says that nails were used (one for each hand). This verse is extremely problematic for the Watchtower position - especially since their own New World Translation has the plural form of "nails". JW's what do you believe now?

Answer 1

This argument is not even mildly "problematic".

On what basis would one assume that a lone, single, solitary nail would have been used to impale a prisoner's hands on a 'crux simplex'?

In any event, Jehovah's Witnesses do not distract from the message of the good news by going around denouncing the worshipful use of the cross and other idols. Instead, Witnesses believe 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. The English word "cross" is an imprecise translation of the Latin word "crux". Note this image of crucifixion performed with a "crux simplex", such as seems to have been used to execute Jesus:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Justus_Lipsius_Crux_Simplex_1629.jpg

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.

Learn more:
http://watchtower.org/e/200604a/article_01.htm
http://watchtower.org/e/20050508a/article_01.htm
http://watchtower.org/e/rq/index.htm?article=article_11.htm
http://watchtower.org/e/19960715/article_01.htm

Answer 2

The original Greek words used in the Bible, stauros and xylon, mean stake and tree, respectively. There is really not any debate about their meaning. Greek lexicons list the primary meaning of stauros as stake, not cross. Furthermore, the New World Translation is not the only Bible that uses tree instead of cross. In fact, King James and the popular NIV even translate xylon at Acts 5:30 using the word tree.

Also, there are ancient engravings and statues that depict men hanging from upright poles planted in the ground without cross-beams. There is no evidence that crosses where used as a means of execution. However, the use of the cross as a pagan religious symbol predates Christianity by many centuries and was only later adopted by the Catholic Church as a symbol of Christianity.

The use of the word torture stake to describe the means by which Christ was executed is not based upon the number of nails that may have been used to fasten him to it.

Answer 3

Number of nails in an artist rendering doesn't prove anything.

Even the History Channel states that to die on a cross takes days for the indivual to die.

Even breaking their legs didn't speed death, only prolonged it.

The only way to die in less than one day by hanging on a stake is with the hands raised above their head.

The number of nails in Jesus' hands is not a problem.

As a carpenter I would never use only one nail to hold up something that weights over 100 pounds.

The eyewitness (John) said "stake, stauros", why would anyone want to argue with him?

John and Paul both said that after the apostles died, people would bring lies into the congregation.

So why would we want to place importance on a document that may or may not be written by the person who's name has been placed on it.

So why would we want to place importance on a document that disagrees with the inspired writters?

Paul warned about going beyond what is written.

Why should we insist on a 'cross' when stake is the more generic term, and the term that was actually used.

As to your comments about what is true or not, Where you there?

Did you see what was used?

The apostle John was.

Even to make crux mean cross you have to add other words.
(Lat. crux commissa) or of a + (crux immissa)

A Critical Lexicon and Concordance to the English and Greek New Testament, p819. E.W.Bullinger states:

"Used here[cross] for the stauros on which Jesus was crucified. Both words[stauros, xylon]disagree with the modern idea of a cross, with which we have become familiarized by pictures. The stauros was simply an upright pale or stake to which the Romans nailed those who were thus said to be crucified. Stauroo[the verb], merely to drive stakes. It never means two pieces of wood joining each other at any angle. Even the Latin word crux means a mere stake."

The Concordant Literal New Testament with the Keyword Concordance states:

"stauros STANDer: cross, an upright stake or pole, without any crosspiece, now, popularly, cross..."

also

"stauroo cause-STAND, crucify, drive a stake into the ground, fasten on a stake, impale, now by popular usage, crucify, though there was no crosspiece."- pp. 63, 64, Greek-English Keyword Concordance, Concordant Publishing Concern, 1983, 3rd printing of 6th edition of 1976.

The Anchor Bible Dictionary says about crucifixion: "The act of nailing or binding a living victim or sometimes a dead person to a cross or stake(stauros or skolops) or a tree(xylon)...Under the Roman Empire, crucifixion normally included a flogging beforehand. At times the cross was only one vertical stake. Frequently, however, there was a cross-piece attached..."- Volume 1, pp.1207, 1208

The book Dual Heritage-The Bible and the British Museum states: “It may come as a shock to know that there is no word such as ‘cross’ in the Greek of the New Testament. The word translated ‘cross’ is always the Greek word [stauros] meaning a ‘stake’ or ‘upright pale.’ The cross was not originally a Christian symbol; it is derived from Egypt and Constantine.”




edit ----

Browneyes, I missed this proof. I only remember your comment about it. Where is this proof?

'As I already proved from the quotation from "Barnabas", the word stauros was used by ancient writers to mean a cross, not just a stake."

Scholars agree that "Barnabas" is full of errors and therefore is not inspired.

What other errors does it contain?

Just as 'utility pole' defines the poles on the side of the road.

Cross defines a specific stauros.

Just as you need to add words to make a simple 'pole' into a 'utility pole'

You need to add words to make stauros and crux into a cross


If I had 2 poles in my back yard, a simple pole and a utility pole, and I told you to stand by the pole.

Which pole would you go stand by?

edit - - -

Is this the quote?

8:5 And why was the wool put on the wood? Because the kingdom of Jesus is on the wood, and because those who hope on him shall live for ever.

8:5 And why was the wool [placed] upon the wood? Because by wood Jesus holds His kingdom,

I couldn't find a verse 8:13.
I couldn't find a verse that discribes a cross.

------

In answer to your question "Which pole?"

"If I meant the utility pole, that is what I would say."


email me if you want.


edition -----

Thanks I found it, I also found this:

Modern critics unanimously deny the genuineness of the letter. When the Epistle was written, St. Barnabas was certainly no longer alive and, even if he had been, he would not have adopted the violent and severe attitude evinced throughout this document.

Alexandria and Egypt are commonly designated as the birthplace of the Letter of Barnabas. It is there we find it first quoted (by Clement of Alexandria) and there it was held in great veneration. We could suspect this also from the strong allegorism displayed throughout the work. The author sees, for instance, in the 318 slaves of Abraham the figure of Christ and of His cross (T = 300, ih = 18).

I find it interesting that one of the reasons 'critics' find it to be a fraud, is because they say Barabas wouldn't use this allegorism.

Date of writting: Veil, Harnack, and Oger, under the Emperior Hadrian (117-131). One reference even said prior to 190 CE.


Again my question Why place the writtings of a fraudulent writer over an eyewitness?


.

Answer 4

You should know that this understanding of the instrument of Christ’s death is not restricted to Jehovah’s Witnesses, although that rumor continues to abound.

Consider the information below: an excerpt from an exhaustive work by John Denham Parsons back in the 1800’s. The work is entitled: THE NON-CHRISTIAN CROSS AN ENQUIRY INTO THE ORIGIN AND HISTORY OF THE SYMBOL EVENTUALLY ADOPTED AS THAT OF OUR RELIGION. Mr. Parsons most assuredly considered himself a Christian and he was most assuredly not a Jehovah's Witness.

BY
JOHN DENHAM PARSONS

" . . . As it is, in any case, well known that the Romans very often despatched those condemned to death by affixing them to a stake or post which had no cross-bar, the question arises as to what proof we have that a cross-bar was used in the case of Jesus.

". . . What the ancients used to signify when they used the word stauros, can easily be seen by referring to either the Iliad or the Odyssey.1

It will there be found to clearly signify an ordinary pole or stake without any cross-bar. And it is as thus signifying a single piece of wood that the word in question is used throughout the old Greek classics.2

"The stauros used as an instrument of execution was (1) a small pointed pole or stake used for thrusting through the body, so as to pin the latter to the earth, or otherwise render death inevitable; (2) a similar pole or stake fixed in the ground point upwards, upon which the condemned one was forced down till incapable of escaping; (3) a much longer and stouter pole or stake fixed point upwards, upon which the victim, with his hands tied behind him, was lodged in such a way that the point should enter his breast and the weight of the body cause every movement to hasten the end; and (4) a stout unpointed pole or stake set upright in the earth, from which the victim was suspended by a rope round his wrists, which were first tied behind him so that the position might become an agonising one; or to which the doomed one was bound, or, as in the case of Jesus, nailed.

"That this last named kind of stauros, which was admittedly that to which Jesus was affixed, had in every case a cross-bar attached, is untrue; that it had in most cases, is unlikely; that it had in the case of Jesus, is unproven.

"Even as late as the Middle Ages, the word stauros seems to have primarily signified a straight piece of wood without a cross-bar. For the famous Greek lexicographer, Suidas, expressly states, "Stauroi; ortha xula perpégota," and both Eustathius and Hesychius affirm that it meant a straight stake or pole. "



Hannah J Paul

Answer 5

I would like to comment on the book The Non-christian Cross by J D Parsons which is quoted above. The aforementioned quote did not mention that Mr Parsons admits that "the stauros to which Jesus was affixed may have been in the shape of a cross".

Although it can't be proven that it was a cross, - just as Mr. Parson says - it also can't be proven that it wasn't.

Likewise, the person who quoted the Imperial Bible Dictionary left out the part that says : "about the period of the Gospel Age, crucifixion was usually accomplished by suspending the criminal on a cross piece of wood."

They also didn't mention that the word "stauros" was not limited to a "stake", but that a stake with a crosspiece was also called a "stauros" Here is one example written about the time the apostle John died, or shortly thereafter:

"And because the stauros was that by which we were to find grace; therefore he adds, three hundred; the note of which is T (the figure of his stauros). Wherefore by two letters he signified Jesus, and by the third his stauros. " Letter of Barnabas 8:13.

One can argue that the Letter of Barnabas wasn't an inspired book, but that doesn't make any difference. Inspired or not, it proves that "stauros" was used to describe a cross.

Thus, when ALL the evidence is weighed, and not just the evidence for the stake only, it can be seen that there is as much evidence for the cross, as there is for the stake.

EDITED TO ADDRESS REMARKS BY TeeM

As I already proved from the quotation from "Barnabas", the word stauros was used by ancient writers to mean a cross, not just a stake. So it is possible the Bible writers did the same thing - used the word "stauros" in speaking of a cross.

A dictionary definition of "pole" is: A long, comparatively slender piece of wood or metal. " That doesn't describe a cross. And yet as you drive along the road, you will see many poles that are shaped like crosses. Everyone calls them "poles" whether they look like a cross, have something attached, or not. So a dictionary definition is not as important as the actual usage of a word. And the word stauros was used to describe crosses. The Letter of Barnabas is proof, and there are other instances, also.

Writings that were written in close proximity to the first century are much more important in determining whether "stauros" could be a cross, than opinions about the word, written by men who lived centuries - even milleniums - after the fact.

EDITED AGAIN

TeeM

The proof is quoted above in my answer, prior to the first edit. Barnabas 8:13 describes a "stauros" as shaped like a T. I already addressed the fact that Barnabas isn't an inspired book, but one doesn't have to be inspired to be able to observe the shape of a stauros that he has seen prisoners executed on. And living at the time that he did, he no doubt actually witnessed such executions.

Perhaps he was wrong that Jesus' particular stauros was shaped like a cross, but obviously it was a known fact that a stauros was sometimes shaped liked a T. There is simply no other word in Greek that was used to describe a cross, unless it was xylon.

As for the pole, I would ask "which pole"?

If I said to you, "Don't back into that pole", you would turn around, observe a tall cylinder shaped object of wood or metal, and you would know exactly what I was referring to. If, on getting out of the car, you observed that it had a crossbar, would you say "Oh, I thought that was a pole, but I guess I was wrong."

Stauros was used to refer to crosses, and there is written proof of that. It doesn't matter that it wasn't the "primary" meaning of the word at that time - secondary meanings are valid, also. What matters is that people actually used the word in reference to crosses, which means that it's POSSIBLE that the Bible writers did also.

THIRD EDIT

TeeM

Different translators number them differently, apparently. Try Chapter 9, verse 7. Of course, most translations into English will translate "stauros" as "cross", but just remember that Barnabas didn't write "cross", he wrote "stauros".

FOURTH EDIT

Someone said "Barnabas" is fraudulent? Why would they say that? Do they think that the writer claimed to be Barnabas the apostle? If so, they aren't much of an authority. The writer doesn't identify himself; he doesn't claim to be the apostle Barnabas, or even that his name was Barnabas. It's a book similar to Hebrews, in that it was a treatise and written anonymously . Hebrews was attributed to Paul, though he is unnamed. In this case, the writing was attributed to the apostle Barnabas. That wasn't fraudulent on the part of the writer. To say that it isn't a genuine work of the apostle Barnabas is one thing ; but if a person calls it a "fraud", that seems to be an attempt on the part of that person simply to discredit evidence they don't want to believe.

The writer was apparently a highly regarded Christian brother - YOUR brother? - whose work was received by the early churches and though not considered inspired by Eusebius, a copy of "Barnabas" was discovered along with the New Testament, and most of the Old Testament, in the Codex Sinaiticus which you've probably heard of. As I said before, he was living when stauroses were in use and he used the word "stauros" in the shape of a T. He wasn't a witness at Jesus' execution, so we can't be sure he was right about Jesus' stauros being a T, but there's certainly no reason to doubt that he had seen other stauroses. And obviously some of them were T's. He didn't disagree with any "eyewitness" because no eyewitness said that a stauros could NOT have a crosspiece.

Time of writing is usually thought to be be after 70 and before 133 AD. Associates of John the apostle, would have still been living.

Are your preconceived ideas causing you to disregard weighty evidence?

(Yes, his "types" and allegories are silly, but I've read similar interpretations about "types" in your Watchtower. )

Answer 6

does it matter how he was crucified? All that matters to me is that you believe he died for your sins. NOW in the defense of the JW's, they never crucified someone else with a "cross" why do Jesus that way. They never specificily say how he was nailed on just that he was. They never say he carried a wooden cross and describe it. They do say "stake" what do you interpret that to be. And part of the issue with the cross is wearing it, displaying it in your home.. The cross can be a false idol.

Answer 7

JWs have a problem with the 3 foundational truths of the Gospel.

Jesus Christ, the Son of the Living God.
The cross.
The resurrection.

Jesus is the Son of the Living God, so that makes Jesus God.
Jesus died on the cross, and this is sufficient atonement for our sins & gives us the gift of the Kingdom of heaven & restoration with God.
Jesus raised up whole, body soul & spirit & stands at the right hand of God.

Jesus isn't Michael the Archangel. Michael is bigger than Jesus. In the vision of Daniel. He is a huge Angel.

Back to the question. Instead of looking at what Jesus did for us on the cross, they divert the conversation by saying Jesus didn't die on the cross & argue that it was a pole.

So? Maybe the question to JWs should be, "Why did Jesus die on the 'stauros'?"

Answer 8

If it was a pole or a cross is the least of their worries.
edit
NatrGrrl, Mt 27:32 "And as they came out, they found a man of Cyrene, Simon by name: him they compelled to bear his cross." Mt 27:40 "And saying, Thou that destroyest the temple, and buildest it in three days, save thyself. If thou be the Son of God, come down from the cross." Mt 27:42 "He saved others; himself he cannot save. If he be the King of Israel, let him now come down from the cross, and we will believe him." Mk 15:30-32 " 30 Save thyself, and come down from the cross.
31 Likewise also the chief priests mocking said among themselves with the scribes, He saved others; himself he cannot save.
32 Let Christ the King of Israel descend now from the cross, that we may see and believe. And they that were crucified with him reviled him." There are at least a dozen more verses about the cross of Christ. It matters because they are changing God's word to suit there own purposes.
edit
HJP, We do not look to the Odyssey, or the Iliad for our understanding of scripture. There is no use of the Greek word stauros that is not associated with a cross in the bible

Answer 9

they are partially right, they use the word starous, which is an upright pale/stake, but they are also wrong because u if they read further in the vines expository doctionary(which they use for the word starous)they'd read later that it was fixed on a crossbeam. I have left the orginization over 2 months ago & now attend a non-denominational church again.I never really bought the stake deal.

Answer 10

if he was on a pole, wouldn't there be a nail for the hands, and another for the feet?

seems like plural nails to me.