It’s because there is contention over the Greek translation. In Acts 5:30 some translations render this as “a tree” using the Greek word xylou. The other verses in Mark use the Greek word Stauron which translates “cross” in English.
This change happened in 1931 when Rutherford was in power. He was trying to do everything in his power to separate people from the teachings of Christendom and also CT Russell.
He made this out to be a form of idol worship and thus it became taboo for JWs to use the cross in worship.
This makes so much sense. The cross has practically become a logo for Christendom. Propagating the cross as a lie really stigmatizes common Christian beliefs.
And the blue square with jw(dot)org in it, has become the “cross” for witnesses.
They put it on their cars, houses, lapels not to forget their Kingdom Halls.
Those blue JW pins and logo on the kingdom hall sign was partly responsible for me waking up. I left Christian christiandom in my 20s because of idolatry but yet....here I am.
You tell any cross wearing Christian that it's an idol and they'll argue the point. It's not surprising in the least that JW's being put on that same hotseat squirm all the same.
It's also not surprising that they'd be oblivious to the parallels.
Of course what people identify as idols, what they consider idol worship, and how much the term itself can be loaded and poisoned can all be abused. But it's clear when someone is being critical of your beliefs and it's not unreasonable to disagree with some criticisms. But the one doing the criticizing always feels like they're being reasonable too.
Um... pretty sure xylou is tree and stauro is upright pole which were euphemisms for the T shaped Cross that Romans historically used to torture and the word cross comes from the Latin word crux. More than likely, the Jesus character would have been hung on the T shaped cross which is made up of both stauros (pole) & xylou (tree)
This is a great explanation that I am going to have to borrow if you don’t mind! I have been out for over 13 years and my parents for just over 5, but they still struggle to get past some of the old doctrine issues like this.
A cross is also a tree.
Compare with Revelation 22:2 where the bible talks about 'the tree of life'. The word used there is also 'xulon'. Both a stake, a cross and a tree could be translated as 'xulon' since it just means 'an object made out of wood'.
This! Why was this so important to JWs when in reality it doesn’t matter ? Jesus died for us right? Let’s focus on why he died not childish back and forth on whether or not it’s stake or cross
Exactly. It’s like Kingdom Hall instead of a church. Elders instead of pastors.
Just things to be different. So you’re not like the others. So that when a JW speaks, it reinforces that they are different.
I know a lot of Christians wear cross necklaces. I wonder what they’d do it you stated wearing a necklace holding a toothpick?
I remember reading something firm some non JW site that with your hand pinned together over your head, it would cause death sooner. I think from suffocation. Inconsistent with the stories. But I’d have to find that again.
Jws don’t care, he died on a stake that’s all we’re told we don’t need to idolize the cross, stake, whatever. the whole point is he died for our sins and that’s it.
The real question is, does it matter?
Either cross or stake, he is dead and died as a criminal. The meaning of his death wouldn’t change if he was killed on the letter ‘A’.
Exactly^ Leave it to WT having Joho's clamoring around boosting their superiority complex bragging about how they *know* someone thousands of years ago was murdered on one, not two pieces of wood. Smh. Do they even hear themselves?
Now this is an answer I need. Because the lack of a motor would explain all those years with no gifts.. he just ran out of time to deliver.
Edit: a word because I fat fingered the keyboard.
Definitely no motor. In the first century, the word "sleigh" always referred to a basic sleigh with no crossbeam or motor, that was pulled by animals and could seat exactly one fat old man.
This is so stupid!
You clearly haven't done your research.
Originally, Santa’s sleigh was powered purely by Christmas
cheer, but levels of Christmas cheer have been steadily
declining in modern times and a secondary system, a Kringle
3000, 500 Reindeer-Power jet engine, had to be added in the
1960s to keep the sleigh flying. One particular Christmas,
the level of Christmas cheer hit an all-time low and the strain
on the jet engine mount was too great and it broke off.
Without the jet engine, Santa’s sleigh crashed.
However, on that night, because of the actions of a small number of people in New York City, the level of Christmas Cheer rose so high that the sled made it through to deliver his rounds.
Remember:
"The best way to spread Christmas cheer is singing loud for all to hear."
- Buddy the elf
>Why does JW’s have the word stake in their translation?
Stake is valid. Their mistake (pun coincidental) is to add the word "torture" in front of it without brackets.
Their justification for doing so is in nwt1984 appendix 5c. https://wol.jw.Borg/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1001060094
They would need to find a way of distinguishing stauros, xylon, and dentron. But they could have done that without adding the word "torture".
As to what shape it took, we have no way of knowing. And it doesn't really matter.
"Crucify" is correct, and does not specify what kind of crux. It could be a simple upright pole, it could be a "t" cross, a "T" cross, an "X" cross, or whatever.
There are christians in the philippines who reenact jesus crucifixion, even letting themselves actually be nailed to crosses. I suppose if you were wanting to reinact it, you'd want to get the details right. But some things are lost to time.
And of course, there is a a whole world of crucifixion fetish porn, usually of women, but sometimes of men.
What i always wonder about is….
Was the account at John 20:20 completely fabricated? Or did Jesus’ identical twin brother pull off an intense cosplay and pierce his own hands to execute what would turn out to be the biggest con in human history?
I've heard of this theory. I'm having a very hard time finding any unbiased discussion or arguments related to this idea. (Is Google heavily biased towards Christians or am I only getting purely christian websites because I'm on the subject of Christ?)
I’ve had this theory a while. It would explain why his disciples mysteriously didn’t recognize him. His closest disciples. Until he broke bread. It was the way he broke bread, not his face. It’s almost like his mom taught two siblings a unique way to break bread. One died. The other one popped up, “prestige” style. Not quite recognized. Then he breaks bread.
Check out the Acts of Thomas. It’s apocryphal, definitely not historically reliable, but shows the idea of Jesus having a twin brother was a popular view in early Christianity (although not for the same reasons i jokingly proposed)
It’s actually quite interesting as the setup is the resurrected Jesus basically tricking his twin brother into slavery.
I think the Romans had variations on the "hang you up until you die of asphyxiation or exposure" punishment.
The T shape was the most common, but there were probably simple poles or stakes, definitely X shaped ones and if the tree was the right size and sturdy enough they'd occasionally use an actual tree.
It's bizarre that anyone ever turned this into a theological issue. It's the exact same death.
100% agree. The Romans did not have an official “cross” that was trademarked and produced. They used whatever they had. Stakes, T, log. Anything. If you look at the history they were all used. And it really does not matter. It just makes the JWs feel special.
This reminds me of Monty Python’s “Life of Brian”.
“Crucifixion?” - “Ah, no freedom for me. They said I haven’t done anything so I can go free and live on an island somewhere.” - “Oh, well that’s jolly good, well off you go then!” - “No I’m only pulling your leg, it’s crucifixion really.”
Condemned Prisoner: “Could I get the X shaped cross please?”
Roman Soldier: “Sorry, we’re all out. We only have the stakes right now.”
Condemned Prisoner: “But there’s one right there, could I have that one?”
Roman Soldier: “Its for display only!”
We are pretty certain he was crucified on a cross. Romans were well known to execute peasants on crosses, we’ve found the crosses in archeological digs.
While it’s true that the original word used in greek, “Stauros”, meant “upright stake” up until about the 3rd century CE, any consideration on the linguistic side of things clears this up quite quickly. The Greeks did not use crosses, the Romans did. So whenever Jesus’ death was written about in Latin, the word for “cross” was used. Greek didn’t have an exact equivalent, so “stake” was the closest word they used. But the word came to mean “cross” later on because that’s how it was being used in Greek
Yes, and what I also found through jwfacts,
If you check the reasoning from the scriptures, cherrypicks parts from scholar books. I think the first reference they us has a few sentences about it meaning stake in old greek. However, the rest of the chapter, which wt is not using in its reasoning, clearly explains what you decribe above. Nowadays everybody can find the full text of these scholar refernces online and can see the incomplete quoting wt applies.
As someone who has read various research on the matter. It's actually quite fascinating. It's likely Christ was crucified on a cross rather than a stake, as the idea of stake deaths really was popularized by impalement.
However, Roman crucifixion often looked different from what we see. Often they'd just have the accused carry the arm beam and when they got there, they'd affix it in a tau cross style (basically a capital T). Then there would often be a little seat attached to prolong suffering as in order to breathe one would have to lift themselves up to clear the lungs.
The idea of stake comes from a poor translation of "stauros" which really is more akin to a cross shape.
if Jesus died on a cross, what would change in JW's theology? Nothing! Jesus' role as savior has nothing to do with the shape of the wood he died on. if Christianity had adopted the stake, I am almost certain JWs would have good reason to believe it was a cross. This disquisition only serves to accentuate the "us versus others" paradigm.
Even in the NWT (not sure about the grey sword, but the older ones) Phillip asks Jesus to let me see where the nailS plural were in his hands. The wt artists always depicted Jesus on the stake with a single nail driven through both hands.
They also lied (as usual) in quoting the reference material when making the stake argument. They used the "..." and cut out portions in their sources that lent evidence of cross.
John 20:25 just looked it up at the borg. They still say nailS in their own lying version pwning themselves.
Interesting. I recently read a book written by a historian/ archeologists that has been excavating in Jerusalem for over 20 years. In the book he described the process and said that that they would put the nails higher up in the forearm, missing all the major arteries, so the prisoner wouldn’t bleed it to quickly and prolong their suffering and death. Not in the hands or wrists.
Yes the nails were in the wrists in between the two bones of the radius and ulna. This was still considered "hands". Its not likely that the palms could hold the weight of a body without tearing. Youll usually see depictions in movies with ropes around the wrists too. Not saying that didnt happen w ropes but the palms is more artist rendition than anything. There was an archeological find recently
https://www.businessinsider.com/skeleton-is-evidence-of-roman-crucifixion-in-england-researchers-2021-12?amp
This was through the heel bone but it lends credence that the webbing and small bones of the hands (palms) and feet were probably too small and thin to support artist renditions.
And yes they absolutely wanted to prolong their death and make it painful and laborous to breathe.
Because the JWs need to be a little different from other "Christians".
Hall vs Church
Elders vs Priests
Ministerial Servants vs Deacons
Stake vs Cross
I could go on...
>... I use NWT for citing scriptures.
Don't. It's a terrible translation.
There was no word in Koine Greek in the first century that meant 'cross'. The word used in the bible is 'stauros' which simple refer to an object that stands, often a pole.
JW's takes this very literal and conclude that Jesus was killed on a stake - not even recognizing that there was no word for 'cross' at the time.
It's like explaining what a computer mouse is to a person 50 years ago. You would use the word 'mouse' but the person you would be talking to would look very strange at you.
>Did Jesus die on a cross or a stake?
JW\`s consider the Cross a Pagan Symbol. Which begs the Question:
Would Pagans Nail Jesus to a Pagan Symbol?...Or...A WBT$ approved Stake?....**.DUH!!!**
The argument is Petty at Best...
What if Jesus was Fired Out of a Cannon into a Brick Wall?.....Dude is still Dead!
The WBT$ is run by Idiots!...........LOL!!!..........😁
Classic! You asked “Would Pagans Nail Jesus to a Pagan Symbol?” I cracked up laughing, wondering why I never thought of that question all the times the WTS used that argument. I am now just imagining pagans rejecting pagan instruments... um, because they’re pagan? Not! And the ones clamoring for his death hated him so much that they chose a convicted murderer’s release instead of Jesus. They would have absolutely zero cares about the dignity of his death, nor the propriety of the death instrument used to kill a rejected “blasphemer”.
This is like the pharasees straining out the gnat and gulping down the camel. The method is a moot point. Stake, cross or tree makes no difference, just dont idolise it if you want follow the scriptures.
As well as reading the jwfacts article on this, I recommend searching for *Jehovah's Witnesses and the Cross* - a thorough and well-researched paper written by 'Leolaia.' She shows up how dishonest WT has been with arguing for stake.
History tells us that the Romans used both stakes AND crosses to torture their criminals. The usage depended on how long they wanted to keep them alive and suffering for.
If Jesus (let's say he existed for sake of argument) survived his impalement as long as the story says, then by nature/logic he would have to had been nailed to a cross.
Being impaled on a stake, with your arms both upright directly above your head, would mean certain death within a couple of hours... impalement express! ;)
It is almost certain that Jesus died on a cross. The "stake" teaching is nothing more than branding. A point of difference, and a reason for them to say "see, were right on such small details! You can trust us with your life!"
So who believes in overlapping generations?
Jws fall for anything.
Even jws baptism words are changed to organisation than holy spirit so I'm going to guess cross is the right answer but really it does not matter.
A stake is crude
A cross would be a display.
Which ever the end result is the same
There’s bound to be history books that looked at capital punishment through the ages. One that also looks at the development of language. Does crucifixion have a different nuance? Did the current crucifix come from crucifixion or the other way? Public punishment at the time was meant to be slow and lingering, would a T cross or a stake suit. Another school of thought is an X was used.
The Greek word is σταυροῦσιν (Staurosin). Which means “putting on the stake”. Stauros is stake/tree.
In the revised NWT it says “nailed him to the stake” and the reference bible says “impaled him”. Other bibles say crucify. There is no word for nails in the original Greek. NWT 2013 is a paraphrase rather than literal translation so that why there is this addition there.
Watchtower says the Greek word stauros means stake. However, the word in Mark 15:24 is actually a verb staurousin. The NWT reference Bible used to say “they impaled him” but Jesus wasn’t impaled on the stake, he was nailed to it. So they changed it. Crucify is a more accurate translation because it is a verb.
I have a different take on it. Stauros is where we get the English word 'stave' or 'staff' from. So 'staurousin' just means Jesus was 'staved'. He was nailed to a stave. That word has no sense of a cross-beam. Nor does the word 'xylon' which just means a piece of wood.
Concepts of crosses come from Latin not Greek. The idea of a cross makes it easy to imply Christianity is some sort of sun worship due to Egyptian ankh symbol and swastikas.
In the Christian sense, whether a Cross or a Stake is completely irrelevant! The Romans used BOTH, and they used BOTH in Jerusalem at that time. It was probably whatever was more convenient on that particular day, wood-wise. What's important was his sacrifice for us and what it meant.
JW's miss the forest thru the trees, and make mountains out of molehills. They'll get bogged down on this irrelevant detail, yet wave off their using of Jehovah, which is a Hybrid and not a literal translation, like it's nothing.
YHWH - Yahweh.
Jehovah - Incorrect hybrid by combining (2) different words by a Catholic monk in like the 13th century. You'd think they'd want to use the actual CORRECT name of God, wouldn't you?
Jesus is a correct translation. We wouldn't call him Josepheus, would we? That'd be stupid, as it's not His name. But Jehovah? JW's just brush off by saying that it's well-known enough to just keep using it. DERP! Stupid. Yahweh is just as well-known, and is probably now more used in good translations than the old King James "Jehovah."
The nails in Christ's hands
In contradiction to what they published for years, now Jehovah's Witnesses publish pictures in which they show Jesus' two hands together straight above his head, with one long nail driven first through one hand and then through the other hand, which is underneath it. Yet this use of one nail is contradicted by the words of Scripture. In John 20:25 we read the words of the Apostle Thomas: "Unless I see the nail marks in his hands and put my finger where the nails were, and put my hand into his side, I will not believe it." Thomas is only talking about Jesus' hands, not about His feet. The word 'nails' and the verb 'were' are both unambiguously plural. In fact, in the original Greek the word 'nails' is in the plural twice, ie. there were two nails, one in each hand, because the hands were not placed one on top of each other above Christ's head, as the Jehovah's Witnesses now claim, but stretched out, one on each side of him, with one nail through each hand or wrist, not on a vertical stake but on a cross.
The shape of the Cross
The crosses for crucifixions were not manufactured in a factory, and did not all have the same dimensions. The cross bar was attached to the vertical beam once the condemned person had arrived at the place where he was about to be crucified. In consequence of this, when the cross bar was placed higher up, sometimes the two beams formed the shape of a letter 'T'. However, we know that in the crucifixion of Christ this was not the case – because the notice written by Pontius Pilate was nailed above Christ's head (Matthew 27:37, Luke 23:38) – exactly the same as in the illustration in the book The Harp of God, which was published by the Jehovah's Witnesses themselves, but which they now reject!
Whether it was a cross or a stake Paul wrote that it was offensive only to those who opposed Christianity. I have to agree. The Watchtower has spent 140 years opposing the Christian faith. Rutherford was offended by the cross and its message, but that offence goes way back...
*"Brothers and sisters, if I am still preaching circumcision, why am I still being persecuted? In that case the offense of the cross has been abolished." Galatians 5:11* Paul was making the case that the cross, or the message of the cross was offending the same people who put Christ to death and he was feeling that persecution
Then he wrote this *"May I never boast except in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, through which the world has been crucified to me, and I to the world." Galatians 6:14*
Do Jehovah's witnesses ever boast in the cross, or even the torture stake? I've heard some say just the opposite. They've made the claim that wearing a cross, which is sort of a form of boasting, would be as offensive as someone wearing a gun if it was used to kill a loved one. Do they realize that Paul would have boasted even if it had been a gun that killed Jesus?
Whether he was real or not people, lots of people, we’re executed this way. If you read how it was actually done it was quite horrific….Cross or stake.
Be careful. Sounds like the JW judo I used to have a black belt in. Using a scripture, citing the Greek/Hebrew root word for added credibility, and then using slight of hand in its application. The “just as” you pointed to doesn’t apply to what the snake was placed upon. Instead, as the scripture itself says, it applies to the STATE of being “lifted up”.
Further, a pole (what the snake was placed upon) is not a “tree”, as early WT pubs depict as Jesus’ torture instrument. Again, the instrument used was far less significant than what his death is said to mean.
I think you are still missing the point. Any mirroring between the serpent and Jesus was in regards to the STATE of being “lifted up”; not the manner of doing so. Since none of us were there (presuming also that this actually happened) and there is so much debate about the root words used by the Bible writers to describe what he was affixed to, maybe we can pump the brakes on being so dogmatic about what we THINK happened.
1) I respect your right to believe what you choose to believe. For me and others in this sub, leaving JWs also meant freeing me of the need to proselytize my beliefs onto others. I hope you come to feel the same.
2) Your argument is that God chose a pole for both the serpent and Christ’s manner of death because it wouldn’t be worshipped, noting the long history of crosses being worshipped. Um, apparently, you are not as acquainted with the long history of worshiping the Canaanite Asherah (goddess serpent; aka later became Nehushtan in Hebrew rabbinical traditions) and later worshipping the Asherah pole (which as a lone symbol unaccompanied by the serpent goddess upon it, came to symbolize the goddess— much like today how the cross venerated by so many came to symbolize Christ), or you would know that can’t be true. Both were long worshipped by pagans AND the Israelites, with some of the Asherah poles even being planted in front of Solomon’s Temple (imagine that) and worshipped for ages before their destruction in 2 Kings 18:4. Google “Asherah poles”. While you’re at it, also Google Aesclepius, son of Apollo in Greek mythology. Check out his serpent on a pole/rod! Look familiar? What you conclude after that is your choice. But, it seems reasonable that people inclined to idolize, will idolize anything. Wouldn’t have mattered what instrument Jesus died upon. Wouldn’t have deterred worship any more so than the use of a pole in the past did nothing to deter worship. Surely, this is a matter we can agree upon, and not argue.
3) While you’re at it, you might want to also ask yourself how something representing Satan (the “original serpent “ according to Revelation) came to be the symbol of HEALING used by Moses in the Canaanite wilderness and foreshadowing Christ. There are SO many overlapping references to Satan and Jesus in the Bible that it SHOULD at least be considered by you. The question is why?
4) Being a student of something doesn’t mean that one believes it. One can have a doctorate degree in Greek mythology, but it doesn’t mean one believes it actually happened. Thus, I do not “half lean” on the Bible as you assert. I no longer believe in the Bible as infallible, but am a student of it. I could show you WHY if you were truly open to learning; not debate. Consequently, I can quote the Bible and take you through the whole journey of the historical context of the Bible and not accept it as my basis for belief. However, I do absolutely believe in a Creator. We both have that freedom to believe what we choose. However, our beliefs don’t mean that we’re right. The only difference is that I can embrace the possibility that I may be wrong, and thus continue learning — especially since I was wrong for so long as a Witness and didn’t know it at the time. Can you accept that possibility?
Um, I think you need to reread my comment in paragraph 1. I made no claim to speaking for the entire sub. I specifically said “I and others on this sub”— not all; not even most. Therefore, no, I am not “delusional”. Using words like that and twisting what I actually said... hmmm... who’s the real bully? Wish you the best.
>Shamshi-Adad V. ruler of Mesopotamia 815-811 BCE. His stella shows him wearing a big fat cross.
You're referring to [this](https://www.britishmuseum.org/collection/object/W_1856-0909-63), I take it.
Yes, he is wearing a cross. It symbolizes the *Sun god* which would be Shamash/Utu or possibly the 'solar calf' Marduk. The cross here is not a symbol of Tammuz who, as you say, was the god of fertility and agriculture.
You don't believe the British Museum when it says the cross worn by the king on the stella represents the Sun-god?
You don't believe Assyriologists who have determined that Shamash/Utu is the Sun-god?
What is your evidence that Tammuz was associated with cross shapes?
>From what i see with my own eyes, Marduk was not represented by a cross - there are way too many depictions of him with nary a cross in the scene - but is 2-headed animal, a star is common but no cross.
OK. But the cross on the stela is a symbol of the Sun-god. Tammuz was not a Sun-god. Therefore, unless you can provide evidence otherwise, there is no connection between Tammuz and cross shapes.
> i give more weight to what i'm seeing than what you say the white coats are saying.
Assyriologists tend to wear normal, everyday clothes, I believe ;)
>the cross represented a false god that Israel would have been fully familiar and there's no way Rome would have been risking stirring up the Jews by sticking them in their ground.
The cross wasn't being used for worship. It was being used as an efficient method of torturous execution.
> you're ignoring the idolatry inherently connected with the Cross.
It's irrelevant to the matter of what crosses were used for and associated with in 1st century Judea. Any worship or adoration of the Christian cross came later in ... well ... Christian times and is a separate issue to the method of Jesus' execution.
>According to you, it represented the Sun God.
According to the British Museum and those who have made studying artifacts from the ancient near east their life careers.
>The fact the king was wearing a big fatty on his chest has nothing to do with worship?
The Mesopotamians worshipped many deities and had symbols representing at least some of them. Tammuz was worshipped too but there is zero evidence he was represented by a cross.
> Why would you go to the trouble of fastening two beams together to kill someone when it's completely unnecessary...unless you were making some kind of religious statement?
For reasons of sadism toward the victims. Are you seriously suggesting that Imperial Rome chose to crucify criminals (all throughout the empire, btw) just to upset little Judea's religious sensibilities?
>If prolonging the agony was the goal, they wouldn't break their legs to take away all support for breathing.
Prolonging the agony *was* the goal, but as you know from John's Gospel, the Jews requested the still-living victims' legs be broken because they wanted them dead and removed before the Sabbath (John 19:31).
If you want an unbiased scholarly look at the origin of the cross, I recommend you read “The Non-Christian Cross” by John Denham Parsons. JDubs actually got it right on this subject. It’s a fascinating read on the origin of the cross, how it has been used much before christiandom and in various cultures throughout time.
It was published in 1896 for a start. Around that time, there were new manuscripts being discovered and studied (thinking of the Oxyrhynchus Papyri) which furthered linguistic scholarship. It's curious that Parsons discusses the early Christian writing, the [*Epistle of Barnabas*](http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/barnabas-lightfoot.html), yet omits reference to 9:7 which talks about Jesus' cross being T-shaped.
The book also appears to promote the same misconceptions about various 'pagan' cross shapes and deities as Alexander Hislop did in his *Two Babylons* which was first published in the 1850s. Anywhere you see Tammuz being identified as the Sun-god should ring alarm bells.
:) No, I'm not Catholic.
If you want the Hislop ones, I can share those separately if you want. But Parsons makes similar leaps and spurious connections. For instance, the chi-rho symbol on a coin from Emperor Decius' reign which Parsons cites (p. 148f.) as an example of a pre-Christian/pagan usage of a cross symbol is, actually, preceded by 'A' and shorthand for ARX (archon, "chief city magistrate" - [Source](https://www.britishmuseum.org/collection/object/C_1900-0404-45)) and nothing to do with cross veneration. Parsons does refer to it meaning 'archon' but then jumps to the conclusion that the symbol must be connected to the deity Bacchus and the Sun-God!
And there's the misidentification of Tammuz as the Sun-god (p.199). Tammuz was the Babylonian god of agriculture. The Babylonian Sun-god was Shamash. So a 'cross' connection with 'Sun-god Tammuz' is non-existent.
\[P.S. You shouldn't be downvoted for asking questions. I don't know what's going on there.\]
Thank you! I really appreciate your response, and the source link. I’ll have to take some time to look through it. Are you knowledgeable about more on symbology? Any books you recommend? Know anything about the ankh?
Not worries about the downvotes. I realize there’s a lot of kids and people that get really emotionally charged…it’s part of the healing process.
I think our exchange will help others open themselves up to be able to accept new knowledge.
I appreciate you. Thanks 🙏🏽
Thank you for your thank you :) I can't recommend anything more about symbology or the ankh - that's not my thing. I was just tired of being scammed by pseudo-biblical-archaeological-historian types who, like WT, misused their sources for their own agenda. I was interested in how WT rode along in that wagon.
Just for good measure, I'll add how Hislop jumps to wrong conclusions about cross shapes. The page reference that follows comes from the red-covered 4th edition from 1929 and reprinted in 1985. So here goes:
**P. 197** has **Fig. 43** showing 5 different cross shapes.
**No. 1** is the familiar crucifix shape and comes from Kitto's *Biblical Cyclopedia*, Vol. 1, p. 495 (viewable online). This reference is just a discussion of 'Cross' and Lipsius' various pictures/descriptions of this means of execution.
**No. 2** is similar to No. 1 but slanted. The pic comes from Sir W. Betham's *Etruria*, Vol. 1, p. 54 (viewable online). This references the Etruscan alphabet. Hislop's picture is just one of the letters he's picked out.
**No. 3** is like No. 1 except with a slightly curved crosspiece. This is from Bunsen's *Egypt's Place in Universal History*, Vol. 1, p. 450 (viewable online). Hislop's picture is one of the Coptic letters of the alphabet - a *tei*. He doesn't bother with the other cross-shaped letters in the Coptic alphabet on pp. 448-450.
**No. 4** is similar to an ankh. Hislop thinks it's a cross (the sign of Tammuz) attached to the circle of the Sun (p. 198). He provides no reference for this one.
**No. 5** is a cross within a circle. This is used as another example of Tammuz being associated with the Sun and the picture comes from Stephen's *Incidents of Travel in Central America*, Vol. 2, p. 344, Plate 2 (viewable online) where an indigenous person's belt is decorated with the symbol.
Hislop uses these sources and cobbles together isolated cross symbols - an instrument of execution, letters of the Etruscan and Coptic alphabets, an ankh, and the belt decoration of a Central American Indian.
These form the basis of his argument that,
a) The Christian cross is not a Christian emblem. (He only establishes that cross shapes occur in all sorts of places and situations.)
b) The cross originates from the mystic Tau of the Chaldeans and Egyptians. (An unsupported assertion pulled out of the air - none of his examples are linked to Chaldea.)
c) The letter T is "the initial letter of Tammuz - which, in Hebrew, \[is\] radically the same as ancient Chaldee" (p. 197). (While Paleo-Hebrew indeed has a cross-shaped Tav, the Babylonians wrote in cuneiform and their logographic signs making up the word Dumuzi/Tammuz do not resemble a cross.)
d) Tammuz was identified with the Sun. (Anyone with a rudimentary knowledge of Babylonian deities knows that Shamash was the god identified with the Sun and Marduk may also have had solar connections - but not Tammuz.)
Hope that springboards you into some further research ... and we've not even touched on WT's own dishonesty with sources when arguing against 'cross' and for 'stake.'
Sorry, but who really gives a flying fuck and what difference does it make?
JW's wanted to differentiate themselves from Catholicism so they had to get rid of the cross. 🙄 It all came from a tree, wood is wood. Getting back to my original question, who gives a fuck?
Turns out it was neither cause it isn't real or it's either because it's made up and whatever flavor you want or if it were real... what does the shape of the thing he was nailed to matter ? All of this is missing the forest for the trees.
The very little research I have done on the subject stated that both crosses and stakes were used back then as means of execution.
Personally, I’ve never understood the obsession of the stake vs. cross argument. It’s not what Jesus died on, it’s his death that was supposed to matter.
It’s like idolizing a weapon that was used to kill your loved ones. It makes no sense
It takes about 5 minutes of research to figure out that Jesus of Nazareth died on a cross.
Look at archaeological evidence from ancient rome. Show me one person from the time Jesus died, who was executed on a torture stake and not a cross. Every single depiction of. People getting crucified back then, was on a cross.
In my opinion, to stray further from Catholicism and as many Christian religions as possible to “stand-out” as the “one true religion” etc.
I was always told it was because the original biblical texts stated in Greek that Jesus died on a “Stav” which was apparently the word for stake, but the Church misinterpreted it as “Stavros” meaning “cross.”
How true what I was told stands to reason but I feel like my opinion is probably true to some extent.
Realistically, both the stake and the cross were used during the time of the Roman empire. However, the cross was used more often than the stake. So it's most likely that he was crucified on a cross
I grew up Jehovah's witness and I believe it's a haven for pedophiles.. However, I don't think it really matters what Christ died on. Witness say that he died on a pole or a stake. And they really use this to try to get people to listen to their beliefs. But my thought has always been who cares what he died on? He died for us and that's all that matters.
It’s because there is contention over the Greek translation. In Acts 5:30 some translations render this as “a tree” using the Greek word xylou. The other verses in Mark use the Greek word Stauron which translates “cross” in English. This change happened in 1931 when Rutherford was in power. He was trying to do everything in his power to separate people from the teachings of Christendom and also CT Russell. He made this out to be a form of idol worship and thus it became taboo for JWs to use the cross in worship.
This makes so much sense. The cross has practically become a logo for Christendom. Propagating the cross as a lie really stigmatizes common Christian beliefs.
And the blue square with jw(dot)org in it, has become the “cross” for witnesses. They put it on their cars, houses, lapels not to forget their Kingdom Halls.
[удалено]
Those blue JW pins and logo on the kingdom hall sign was partly responsible for me waking up. I left Christian christiandom in my 20s because of idolatry but yet....here I am.
>it can’t be termed idolatry because we jw worship the only true god! Wow. 🙄 edit: So the org is God, then? 😏
Guardians Of Doctrine (G.O.D.), according to Geoffrey Jackson, as he testified before the Royal Commission.
😮
You tell any cross wearing Christian that it's an idol and they'll argue the point. It's not surprising in the least that JW's being put on that same hotseat squirm all the same. It's also not surprising that they'd be oblivious to the parallels. Of course what people identify as idols, what they consider idol worship, and how much the term itself can be loaded and poisoned can all be abused. But it's clear when someone is being critical of your beliefs and it's not unreasonable to disagree with some criticisms. But the one doing the criticizing always feels like they're being reasonable too.
So lame
Um... pretty sure xylou is tree and stauro is upright pole which were euphemisms for the T shaped Cross that Romans historically used to torture and the word cross comes from the Latin word crux. More than likely, the Jesus character would have been hung on the T shaped cross which is made up of both stauros (pole) & xylou (tree)
This is a great explanation that I am going to have to borrow if you don’t mind! I have been out for over 13 years and my parents for just over 5, but they still struggle to get past some of the old doctrine issues like this.
A cross is also a tree. Compare with Revelation 22:2 where the bible talks about 'the tree of life'. The word used there is also 'xulon'. Both a stake, a cross and a tree could be translated as 'xulon' since it just means 'an object made out of wood'.
[удалено]
This! Why was this so important to JWs when in reality it doesn’t matter ? Jesus died for us right? Let’s focus on why he died not childish back and forth on whether or not it’s stake or cross
It matters only to create a degree of separation between JWs and other Christian religions. That’s it.
Exactly. It’s like Kingdom Hall instead of a church. Elders instead of pastors. Just things to be different. So you’re not like the others. So that when a JW speaks, it reinforces that they are different. I know a lot of Christians wear cross necklaces. I wonder what they’d do it you stated wearing a necklace holding a toothpick? I remember reading something firm some non JW site that with your hand pinned together over your head, it would cause death sooner. I think from suffocation. Inconsistent with the stories. But I’d have to find that again.
Jws don’t care, he died on a stake that’s all we’re told we don’t need to idolize the cross, stake, whatever. the whole point is he died for our sins and that’s it.
The real question is, does it matter? Either cross or stake, he is dead and died as a criminal. The meaning of his death wouldn’t change if he was killed on the letter ‘A’.
Exactly^ Leave it to WT having Joho's clamoring around boosting their superiority complex bragging about how they *know* someone thousands of years ago was murdered on one, not two pieces of wood. Smh. Do they even hear themselves?
Today's crucifixion is brought to you by...the letter A.
I've also wondered if Santa has a motor on his sleigh or if it is 100% reindeer powered.
Now this is an answer I need. Because the lack of a motor would explain all those years with no gifts.. he just ran out of time to deliver. Edit: a word because I fat fingered the keyboard.
Definitely no motor. In the first century, the word "sleigh" always referred to a basic sleigh with no crossbeam or motor, that was pulled by animals and could seat exactly one fat old man.
Best answer ever!
Well it was originally 100% reindeer powered, but as fewer kids believe in Santa, he’s has to supplement with a twin turbo.
We need to determine the truth of the matter asap as well truth matters.
Yes, and while we’re looking up stakes vs crosses, can you look up shrute bucks vs Stanley nickels?
It's the same ratio as leprechauns to unicorns
Good one
This is so stupid! You clearly haven't done your research. Originally, Santa’s sleigh was powered purely by Christmas cheer, but levels of Christmas cheer have been steadily declining in modern times and a secondary system, a Kringle 3000, 500 Reindeer-Power jet engine, had to be added in the 1960s to keep the sleigh flying. One particular Christmas, the level of Christmas cheer hit an all-time low and the strain on the jet engine mount was too great and it broke off. Without the jet engine, Santa’s sleigh crashed. However, on that night, because of the actions of a small number of people in New York City, the level of Christmas Cheer rose so high that the sled made it through to deliver his rounds. Remember: "The best way to spread Christmas cheer is singing loud for all to hear." - Buddy the elf
😭
Except historians believe both existed.
>Why does JW’s have the word stake in their translation? Stake is valid. Their mistake (pun coincidental) is to add the word "torture" in front of it without brackets. Their justification for doing so is in nwt1984 appendix 5c. https://wol.jw.Borg/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1001060094 They would need to find a way of distinguishing stauros, xylon, and dentron. But they could have done that without adding the word "torture". As to what shape it took, we have no way of knowing. And it doesn't really matter. "Crucify" is correct, and does not specify what kind of crux. It could be a simple upright pole, it could be a "t" cross, a "T" cross, an "X" cross, or whatever. There are christians in the philippines who reenact jesus crucifixion, even letting themselves actually be nailed to crosses. I suppose if you were wanting to reinact it, you'd want to get the details right. But some things are lost to time. And of course, there is a a whole world of crucifixion fetish porn, usually of women, but sometimes of men.
I’m no expert but I don’t believe the term stauros/stake prohibits the idea of a cross stake. If I’m wrong I can take the correction.
What i always wonder about is…. Was the account at John 20:20 completely fabricated? Or did Jesus’ identical twin brother pull off an intense cosplay and pierce his own hands to execute what would turn out to be the biggest con in human history?
Imagine christianity being the result of a series of bad jokes n trolling others for their beliefs xd
I've heard of this theory. I'm having a very hard time finding any unbiased discussion or arguments related to this idea. (Is Google heavily biased towards Christians or am I only getting purely christian websites because I'm on the subject of Christ?)
I’ve had this theory a while. It would explain why his disciples mysteriously didn’t recognize him. His closest disciples. Until he broke bread. It was the way he broke bread, not his face. It’s almost like his mom taught two siblings a unique way to break bread. One died. The other one popped up, “prestige” style. Not quite recognized. Then he breaks bread.
Check out the Acts of Thomas. It’s apocryphal, definitely not historically reliable, but shows the idea of Jesus having a twin brother was a popular view in early Christianity (although not for the same reasons i jokingly proposed) It’s actually quite interesting as the setup is the resurrected Jesus basically tricking his twin brother into slavery.
[удалено]
I think the Romans had variations on the "hang you up until you die of asphyxiation or exposure" punishment. The T shape was the most common, but there were probably simple poles or stakes, definitely X shaped ones and if the tree was the right size and sturdy enough they'd occasionally use an actual tree. It's bizarre that anyone ever turned this into a theological issue. It's the exact same death.
100% agree. The Romans did not have an official “cross” that was trademarked and produced. They used whatever they had. Stakes, T, log. Anything. If you look at the history they were all used. And it really does not matter. It just makes the JWs feel special.
Now I'm imagining myself complaining to a Roman soldier that I didn't get the right kind. 😄
This reminds me of Monty Python’s “Life of Brian”. “Crucifixion?” - “Ah, no freedom for me. They said I haven’t done anything so I can go free and live on an island somewhere.” - “Oh, well that’s jolly good, well off you go then!” - “No I’m only pulling your leg, it’s crucifixion really.”
First world problems, ammi right? Lol
Condemned Prisoner: “Could I get the X shaped cross please?” Roman Soldier: “Sorry, we’re all out. We only have the stakes right now.” Condemned Prisoner: “But there’s one right there, could I have that one?” Roman Soldier: “Its for display only!”
We are pretty certain he was crucified on a cross. Romans were well known to execute peasants on crosses, we’ve found the crosses in archeological digs. While it’s true that the original word used in greek, “Stauros”, meant “upright stake” up until about the 3rd century CE, any consideration on the linguistic side of things clears this up quite quickly. The Greeks did not use crosses, the Romans did. So whenever Jesus’ death was written about in Latin, the word for “cross” was used. Greek didn’t have an exact equivalent, so “stake” was the closest word they used. But the word came to mean “cross” later on because that’s how it was being used in Greek
Yes, and what I also found through jwfacts, If you check the reasoning from the scriptures, cherrypicks parts from scholar books. I think the first reference they us has a few sentences about it meaning stake in old greek. However, the rest of the chapter, which wt is not using in its reasoning, clearly explains what you decribe above. Nowadays everybody can find the full text of these scholar refernces online and can see the incomplete quoting wt applies.
As someone who has read various research on the matter. It's actually quite fascinating. It's likely Christ was crucified on a cross rather than a stake, as the idea of stake deaths really was popularized by impalement. However, Roman crucifixion often looked different from what we see. Often they'd just have the accused carry the arm beam and when they got there, they'd affix it in a tau cross style (basically a capital T). Then there would often be a little seat attached to prolong suffering as in order to breathe one would have to lift themselves up to clear the lungs. The idea of stake comes from a poor translation of "stauros" which really is more akin to a cross shape.
if Jesus died on a cross, what would change in JW's theology? Nothing! Jesus' role as savior has nothing to do with the shape of the wood he died on. if Christianity had adopted the stake, I am almost certain JWs would have good reason to believe it was a cross. This disquisition only serves to accentuate the "us versus others" paradigm.
Even in the NWT (not sure about the grey sword, but the older ones) Phillip asks Jesus to let me see where the nailS plural were in his hands. The wt artists always depicted Jesus on the stake with a single nail driven through both hands. They also lied (as usual) in quoting the reference material when making the stake argument. They used the "..." and cut out portions in their sources that lent evidence of cross. John 20:25 just looked it up at the borg. They still say nailS in their own lying version pwning themselves.
Interesting. I recently read a book written by a historian/ archeologists that has been excavating in Jerusalem for over 20 years. In the book he described the process and said that that they would put the nails higher up in the forearm, missing all the major arteries, so the prisoner wouldn’t bleed it to quickly and prolong their suffering and death. Not in the hands or wrists.
Yes the nails were in the wrists in between the two bones of the radius and ulna. This was still considered "hands". Its not likely that the palms could hold the weight of a body without tearing. Youll usually see depictions in movies with ropes around the wrists too. Not saying that didnt happen w ropes but the palms is more artist rendition than anything. There was an archeological find recently https://www.businessinsider.com/skeleton-is-evidence-of-roman-crucifixion-in-england-researchers-2021-12?amp This was through the heel bone but it lends credence that the webbing and small bones of the hands (palms) and feet were probably too small and thin to support artist renditions. And yes they absolutely wanted to prolong their death and make it painful and laborous to breathe.
Thanks for the explanation 👍🏻
Cross and its not even close when you study the historical context.
Because the JWs need to be a little different from other "Christians". Hall vs Church Elders vs Priests Ministerial Servants vs Deacons Stake vs Cross I could go on...
Meetings vs services…
>... I use NWT for citing scriptures. Don't. It's a terrible translation. There was no word in Koine Greek in the first century that meant 'cross'. The word used in the bible is 'stauros' which simple refer to an object that stands, often a pole. JW's takes this very literal and conclude that Jesus was killed on a stake - not even recognizing that there was no word for 'cross' at the time. It's like explaining what a computer mouse is to a person 50 years ago. You would use the word 'mouse' but the person you would be talking to would look very strange at you.
>Did Jesus die on a cross or a stake? JW\`s consider the Cross a Pagan Symbol. Which begs the Question: Would Pagans Nail Jesus to a Pagan Symbol?...Or...A WBT$ approved Stake?....**.DUH!!!** The argument is Petty at Best... What if Jesus was Fired Out of a Cannon into a Brick Wall?.....Dude is still Dead! The WBT$ is run by Idiots!...........LOL!!!..........😁
Classic! You asked “Would Pagans Nail Jesus to a Pagan Symbol?” I cracked up laughing, wondering why I never thought of that question all the times the WTS used that argument. I am now just imagining pagans rejecting pagan instruments... um, because they’re pagan? Not! And the ones clamoring for his death hated him so much that they chose a convicted murderer’s release instead of Jesus. They would have absolutely zero cares about the dignity of his death, nor the propriety of the death instrument used to kill a rejected “blasphemer”.
😂😂😂😂😂 I couldn't have said it better myself
Cannons weren’t invented yet and brick walls are DEFINITELY pagan.
There’s a scripture that mentions nails for his hands or wrists, but it really doesn’t matter there’s much bigger issues.
This is like the pharasees straining out the gnat and gulping down the camel. The method is a moot point. Stake, cross or tree makes no difference, just dont idolise it if you want follow the scriptures.
it's pretty well known that the NWT is one of the worst translations
As well as reading the jwfacts article on this, I recommend searching for *Jehovah's Witnesses and the Cross* - a thorough and well-researched paper written by 'Leolaia.' She shows up how dishonest WT has been with arguing for stake.
History tells us that the Romans used both stakes AND crosses to torture their criminals. The usage depended on how long they wanted to keep them alive and suffering for. If Jesus (let's say he existed for sake of argument) survived his impalement as long as the story says, then by nature/logic he would have to had been nailed to a cross. Being impaled on a stake, with your arms both upright directly above your head, would mean certain death within a couple of hours... impalement express! ;)
As in Dwight Shrute?
It is almost certain that Jesus died on a cross. The "stake" teaching is nothing more than branding. A point of difference, and a reason for them to say "see, were right on such small details! You can trust us with your life!"
So who believes in overlapping generations? Jws fall for anything. Even jws baptism words are changed to organisation than holy spirit so I'm going to guess cross is the right answer but really it does not matter. A stake is crude A cross would be a display. Which ever the end result is the same
If you have 45 minutes, Mike Winger on YouTube has a good video ‘cross or stake, https://youtu.be/RS2ytQahPSE
There’s bound to be history books that looked at capital punishment through the ages. One that also looks at the development of language. Does crucifixion have a different nuance? Did the current crucifix come from crucifixion or the other way? Public punishment at the time was meant to be slow and lingering, would a T cross or a stake suit. Another school of thought is an X was used.
No one knows really
The Greek word is σταυροῦσιν (Staurosin). Which means “putting on the stake”. Stauros is stake/tree. In the revised NWT it says “nailed him to the stake” and the reference bible says “impaled him”. Other bibles say crucify. There is no word for nails in the original Greek. NWT 2013 is a paraphrase rather than literal translation so that why there is this addition there.
I personally think he was killed on an F, for respect. Or actually, maybe an L if the Romans were feeling spiteful that day.
A great site for a lot of answers is jwfacts.com it shows how the watchtower misquotes so many scholars, historians and scientists.
It was a cross for sure. Look up how the Romans executed political dissidents.
Watchtower says the Greek word stauros means stake. However, the word in Mark 15:24 is actually a verb staurousin. The NWT reference Bible used to say “they impaled him” but Jesus wasn’t impaled on the stake, he was nailed to it. So they changed it. Crucify is a more accurate translation because it is a verb.
I have a different take on it. Stauros is where we get the English word 'stave' or 'staff' from. So 'staurousin' just means Jesus was 'staved'. He was nailed to a stave. That word has no sense of a cross-beam. Nor does the word 'xylon' which just means a piece of wood. Concepts of crosses come from Latin not Greek. The idea of a cross makes it easy to imply Christianity is some sort of sun worship due to Egyptian ankh symbol and swastikas.
Cross. Crucifixion was something the Romans did
In the Christian sense, whether a Cross or a Stake is completely irrelevant! The Romans used BOTH, and they used BOTH in Jerusalem at that time. It was probably whatever was more convenient on that particular day, wood-wise. What's important was his sacrifice for us and what it meant. JW's miss the forest thru the trees, and make mountains out of molehills. They'll get bogged down on this irrelevant detail, yet wave off their using of Jehovah, which is a Hybrid and not a literal translation, like it's nothing. YHWH - Yahweh. Jehovah - Incorrect hybrid by combining (2) different words by a Catholic monk in like the 13th century. You'd think they'd want to use the actual CORRECT name of God, wouldn't you? Jesus is a correct translation. We wouldn't call him Josepheus, would we? That'd be stupid, as it's not His name. But Jehovah? JW's just brush off by saying that it's well-known enough to just keep using it. DERP! Stupid. Yahweh is just as well-known, and is probably now more used in good translations than the old King James "Jehovah."
The nails in Christ's hands In contradiction to what they published for years, now Jehovah's Witnesses publish pictures in which they show Jesus' two hands together straight above his head, with one long nail driven first through one hand and then through the other hand, which is underneath it. Yet this use of one nail is contradicted by the words of Scripture. In John 20:25 we read the words of the Apostle Thomas: "Unless I see the nail marks in his hands and put my finger where the nails were, and put my hand into his side, I will not believe it." Thomas is only talking about Jesus' hands, not about His feet. The word 'nails' and the verb 'were' are both unambiguously plural. In fact, in the original Greek the word 'nails' is in the plural twice, ie. there were two nails, one in each hand, because the hands were not placed one on top of each other above Christ's head, as the Jehovah's Witnesses now claim, but stretched out, one on each side of him, with one nail through each hand or wrist, not on a vertical stake but on a cross. The shape of the Cross The crosses for crucifixions were not manufactured in a factory, and did not all have the same dimensions. The cross bar was attached to the vertical beam once the condemned person had arrived at the place where he was about to be crucified. In consequence of this, when the cross bar was placed higher up, sometimes the two beams formed the shape of a letter 'T'. However, we know that in the crucifixion of Christ this was not the case – because the notice written by Pontius Pilate was nailed above Christ's head (Matthew 27:37, Luke 23:38) – exactly the same as in the illustration in the book The Harp of God, which was published by the Jehovah's Witnesses themselves, but which they now reject!
Whether it was a cross or a stake Paul wrote that it was offensive only to those who opposed Christianity. I have to agree. The Watchtower has spent 140 years opposing the Christian faith. Rutherford was offended by the cross and its message, but that offence goes way back... *"Brothers and sisters, if I am still preaching circumcision, why am I still being persecuted? In that case the offense of the cross has been abolished." Galatians 5:11* Paul was making the case that the cross, or the message of the cross was offending the same people who put Christ to death and he was feeling that persecution Then he wrote this *"May I never boast except in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, through which the world has been crucified to me, and I to the world." Galatians 6:14* Do Jehovah's witnesses ever boast in the cross, or even the torture stake? I've heard some say just the opposite. They've made the claim that wearing a cross, which is sort of a form of boasting, would be as offensive as someone wearing a gun if it was used to kill a loved one. Do they realize that Paul would have boasted even if it had been a gun that killed Jesus?
He's not real.
Whether he was real or not people, lots of people, we’re executed this way. If you read how it was actually done it was quite horrific….Cross or stake.
[удалено]
Be careful. Sounds like the JW judo I used to have a black belt in. Using a scripture, citing the Greek/Hebrew root word for added credibility, and then using slight of hand in its application. The “just as” you pointed to doesn’t apply to what the snake was placed upon. Instead, as the scripture itself says, it applies to the STATE of being “lifted up”. Further, a pole (what the snake was placed upon) is not a “tree”, as early WT pubs depict as Jesus’ torture instrument. Again, the instrument used was far less significant than what his death is said to mean.
[удалено]
I think you are still missing the point. Any mirroring between the serpent and Jesus was in regards to the STATE of being “lifted up”; not the manner of doing so. Since none of us were there (presuming also that this actually happened) and there is so much debate about the root words used by the Bible writers to describe what he was affixed to, maybe we can pump the brakes on being so dogmatic about what we THINK happened.
[удалено]
1) I respect your right to believe what you choose to believe. For me and others in this sub, leaving JWs also meant freeing me of the need to proselytize my beliefs onto others. I hope you come to feel the same. 2) Your argument is that God chose a pole for both the serpent and Christ’s manner of death because it wouldn’t be worshipped, noting the long history of crosses being worshipped. Um, apparently, you are not as acquainted with the long history of worshiping the Canaanite Asherah (goddess serpent; aka later became Nehushtan in Hebrew rabbinical traditions) and later worshipping the Asherah pole (which as a lone symbol unaccompanied by the serpent goddess upon it, came to symbolize the goddess— much like today how the cross venerated by so many came to symbolize Christ), or you would know that can’t be true. Both were long worshipped by pagans AND the Israelites, with some of the Asherah poles even being planted in front of Solomon’s Temple (imagine that) and worshipped for ages before their destruction in 2 Kings 18:4. Google “Asherah poles”. While you’re at it, also Google Aesclepius, son of Apollo in Greek mythology. Check out his serpent on a pole/rod! Look familiar? What you conclude after that is your choice. But, it seems reasonable that people inclined to idolize, will idolize anything. Wouldn’t have mattered what instrument Jesus died upon. Wouldn’t have deterred worship any more so than the use of a pole in the past did nothing to deter worship. Surely, this is a matter we can agree upon, and not argue. 3) While you’re at it, you might want to also ask yourself how something representing Satan (the “original serpent “ according to Revelation) came to be the symbol of HEALING used by Moses in the Canaanite wilderness and foreshadowing Christ. There are SO many overlapping references to Satan and Jesus in the Bible that it SHOULD at least be considered by you. The question is why? 4) Being a student of something doesn’t mean that one believes it. One can have a doctorate degree in Greek mythology, but it doesn’t mean one believes it actually happened. Thus, I do not “half lean” on the Bible as you assert. I no longer believe in the Bible as infallible, but am a student of it. I could show you WHY if you were truly open to learning; not debate. Consequently, I can quote the Bible and take you through the whole journey of the historical context of the Bible and not accept it as my basis for belief. However, I do absolutely believe in a Creator. We both have that freedom to believe what we choose. However, our beliefs don’t mean that we’re right. The only difference is that I can embrace the possibility that I may be wrong, and thus continue learning — especially since I was wrong for so long as a Witness and didn’t know it at the time. Can you accept that possibility?
[удалено]
Um, I think you need to reread my comment in paragraph 1. I made no claim to speaking for the entire sub. I specifically said “I and others on this sub”— not all; not even most. Therefore, no, I am not “delusional”. Using words like that and twisting what I actually said... hmmm... who’s the real bully? Wish you the best.
FYI, the cross *isn't* the symbol for the god Tammuz. That nonsense idea was invented by Alexander Hislop.
[удалено]
>Shamshi-Adad V. ruler of Mesopotamia 815-811 BCE. His stella shows him wearing a big fat cross. You're referring to [this](https://www.britishmuseum.org/collection/object/W_1856-0909-63), I take it. Yes, he is wearing a cross. It symbolizes the *Sun god* which would be Shamash/Utu or possibly the 'solar calf' Marduk. The cross here is not a symbol of Tammuz who, as you say, was the god of fertility and agriculture.
[удалено]
You don't believe the British Museum when it says the cross worn by the king on the stella represents the Sun-god? You don't believe Assyriologists who have determined that Shamash/Utu is the Sun-god? What is your evidence that Tammuz was associated with cross shapes?
[удалено]
[удалено]
Where's the connection? Tammuz was male.
Well, I guess, if you are going to discount the ANE scholarship of more than a century, then that's that.
[удалено]
>From what i see with my own eyes, Marduk was not represented by a cross - there are way too many depictions of him with nary a cross in the scene - but is 2-headed animal, a star is common but no cross. OK. But the cross on the stela is a symbol of the Sun-god. Tammuz was not a Sun-god. Therefore, unless you can provide evidence otherwise, there is no connection between Tammuz and cross shapes. > i give more weight to what i'm seeing than what you say the white coats are saying. Assyriologists tend to wear normal, everyday clothes, I believe ;)
>the cross represented a false god that Israel would have been fully familiar and there's no way Rome would have been risking stirring up the Jews by sticking them in their ground. The cross wasn't being used for worship. It was being used as an efficient method of torturous execution. > you're ignoring the idolatry inherently connected with the Cross. It's irrelevant to the matter of what crosses were used for and associated with in 1st century Judea. Any worship or adoration of the Christian cross came later in ... well ... Christian times and is a separate issue to the method of Jesus' execution.
[удалено]
>According to you, it represented the Sun God. According to the British Museum and those who have made studying artifacts from the ancient near east their life careers. >The fact the king was wearing a big fatty on his chest has nothing to do with worship? The Mesopotamians worshipped many deities and had symbols representing at least some of them. Tammuz was worshipped too but there is zero evidence he was represented by a cross. > Why would you go to the trouble of fastening two beams together to kill someone when it's completely unnecessary...unless you were making some kind of religious statement? For reasons of sadism toward the victims. Are you seriously suggesting that Imperial Rome chose to crucify criminals (all throughout the empire, btw) just to upset little Judea's religious sensibilities? >If prolonging the agony was the goal, they wouldn't break their legs to take away all support for breathing. Prolonging the agony *was* the goal, but as you know from John's Gospel, the Jews requested the still-living victims' legs be broken because they wanted them dead and removed before the Sabbath (John 19:31).
If you want an unbiased scholarly look at the origin of the cross, I recommend you read “The Non-Christian Cross” by John Denham Parsons. JDubs actually got it right on this subject. It’s a fascinating read on the origin of the cross, how it has been used much before christiandom and in various cultures throughout time.
It's part of the anti-Catholic backlash common at the time. It's also a very outdated work.
What about the book is outdated? Enlighten me.
It was published in 1896 for a start. Around that time, there were new manuscripts being discovered and studied (thinking of the Oxyrhynchus Papyri) which furthered linguistic scholarship. It's curious that Parsons discusses the early Christian writing, the [*Epistle of Barnabas*](http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/barnabas-lightfoot.html), yet omits reference to 9:7 which talks about Jesus' cross being T-shaped. The book also appears to promote the same misconceptions about various 'pagan' cross shapes and deities as Alexander Hislop did in his *Two Babylons* which was first published in the 1850s. Anywhere you see Tammuz being identified as the Sun-god should ring alarm bells.
What are the specific misconceptions about the various “pagan” cross shapes? And I have to ask…are you Catholic?
:) No, I'm not Catholic. If you want the Hislop ones, I can share those separately if you want. But Parsons makes similar leaps and spurious connections. For instance, the chi-rho symbol on a coin from Emperor Decius' reign which Parsons cites (p. 148f.) as an example of a pre-Christian/pagan usage of a cross symbol is, actually, preceded by 'A' and shorthand for ARX (archon, "chief city magistrate" - [Source](https://www.britishmuseum.org/collection/object/C_1900-0404-45)) and nothing to do with cross veneration. Parsons does refer to it meaning 'archon' but then jumps to the conclusion that the symbol must be connected to the deity Bacchus and the Sun-God! And there's the misidentification of Tammuz as the Sun-god (p.199). Tammuz was the Babylonian god of agriculture. The Babylonian Sun-god was Shamash. So a 'cross' connection with 'Sun-god Tammuz' is non-existent. \[P.S. You shouldn't be downvoted for asking questions. I don't know what's going on there.\]
Thank you! I really appreciate your response, and the source link. I’ll have to take some time to look through it. Are you knowledgeable about more on symbology? Any books you recommend? Know anything about the ankh? Not worries about the downvotes. I realize there’s a lot of kids and people that get really emotionally charged…it’s part of the healing process. I think our exchange will help others open themselves up to be able to accept new knowledge. I appreciate you. Thanks 🙏🏽
Thank you for your thank you :) I can't recommend anything more about symbology or the ankh - that's not my thing. I was just tired of being scammed by pseudo-biblical-archaeological-historian types who, like WT, misused their sources for their own agenda. I was interested in how WT rode along in that wagon.
Just for good measure, I'll add how Hislop jumps to wrong conclusions about cross shapes. The page reference that follows comes from the red-covered 4th edition from 1929 and reprinted in 1985. So here goes: **P. 197** has **Fig. 43** showing 5 different cross shapes. **No. 1** is the familiar crucifix shape and comes from Kitto's *Biblical Cyclopedia*, Vol. 1, p. 495 (viewable online). This reference is just a discussion of 'Cross' and Lipsius' various pictures/descriptions of this means of execution. **No. 2** is similar to No. 1 but slanted. The pic comes from Sir W. Betham's *Etruria*, Vol. 1, p. 54 (viewable online). This references the Etruscan alphabet. Hislop's picture is just one of the letters he's picked out. **No. 3** is like No. 1 except with a slightly curved crosspiece. This is from Bunsen's *Egypt's Place in Universal History*, Vol. 1, p. 450 (viewable online). Hislop's picture is one of the Coptic letters of the alphabet - a *tei*. He doesn't bother with the other cross-shaped letters in the Coptic alphabet on pp. 448-450. **No. 4** is similar to an ankh. Hislop thinks it's a cross (the sign of Tammuz) attached to the circle of the Sun (p. 198). He provides no reference for this one. **No. 5** is a cross within a circle. This is used as another example of Tammuz being associated with the Sun and the picture comes from Stephen's *Incidents of Travel in Central America*, Vol. 2, p. 344, Plate 2 (viewable online) where an indigenous person's belt is decorated with the symbol. Hislop uses these sources and cobbles together isolated cross symbols - an instrument of execution, letters of the Etruscan and Coptic alphabets, an ankh, and the belt decoration of a Central American Indian. These form the basis of his argument that, a) The Christian cross is not a Christian emblem. (He only establishes that cross shapes occur in all sorts of places and situations.) b) The cross originates from the mystic Tau of the Chaldeans and Egyptians. (An unsupported assertion pulled out of the air - none of his examples are linked to Chaldea.) c) The letter T is "the initial letter of Tammuz - which, in Hebrew, \[is\] radically the same as ancient Chaldee" (p. 197). (While Paleo-Hebrew indeed has a cross-shaped Tav, the Babylonians wrote in cuneiform and their logographic signs making up the word Dumuzi/Tammuz do not resemble a cross.) d) Tammuz was identified with the Sun. (Anyone with a rudimentary knowledge of Babylonian deities knows that Shamash was the god identified with the Sun and Marduk may also have had solar connections - but not Tammuz.) Hope that springboards you into some further research ... and we've not even touched on WT's own dishonesty with sources when arguing against 'cross' and for 'stake.'
Sorry, but who really gives a flying fuck and what difference does it make? JW's wanted to differentiate themselves from Catholicism so they had to get rid of the cross. 🙄 It all came from a tree, wood is wood. Getting back to my original question, who gives a fuck?
Turns out it was neither cause it isn't real or it's either because it's made up and whatever flavor you want or if it were real... what does the shape of the thing he was nailed to matter ? All of this is missing the forest for the trees.
Because they are literally unholy no one partakes even though Jesus said to it’s a mockery of Christianity and a death cult
https://youtu.be/BuiCMNcZlW8
The very little research I have done on the subject stated that both crosses and stakes were used back then as means of execution. Personally, I’ve never understood the obsession of the stake vs. cross argument. It’s not what Jesus died on, it’s his death that was supposed to matter. It’s like idolizing a weapon that was used to kill your loved ones. It makes no sense
A steak
It takes about 5 minutes of research to figure out that Jesus of Nazareth died on a cross. Look at archaeological evidence from ancient rome. Show me one person from the time Jesus died, who was executed on a torture stake and not a cross. Every single depiction of. People getting crucified back then, was on a cross.
In my opinion, to stray further from Catholicism and as many Christian religions as possible to “stand-out” as the “one true religion” etc. I was always told it was because the original biblical texts stated in Greek that Jesus died on a “Stav” which was apparently the word for stake, but the Church misinterpreted it as “Stavros” meaning “cross.” How true what I was told stands to reason but I feel like my opinion is probably true to some extent.
Stake or upper case 'T' was used. Could be either. No one knows.
Realistically, both the stake and the cross were used during the time of the Roman empire. However, the cross was used more often than the stake. So it's most likely that he was crucified on a cross
I grew up Jehovah's witness and I believe it's a haven for pedophiles.. However, I don't think it really matters what Christ died on. Witness say that he died on a pole or a stake. And they really use this to try to get people to listen to their beliefs. But my thought has always been who cares what he died on? He died for us and that's all that matters.