Proof of Crucifiction on a "Cross"

[davebelk]

I have recently been bothered by the claim that Christ was not crucified on a "cross" (t shape) but rather a stake or vertical pole. I am not a Greek student by any means, but it would appear that the Greek word that is used where "cross" is refered to means "stake" not "cross". Do any of you know of any archeological or manuscriptual evidence that would prove the "cross" as the device of torture used in Jerusalem during the time of Christ?

[Sparko]

There is a already a pretty good thread on the subject in the Watchtower society area

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?t=15465

which gives you a good overview from all sides.

But basically, the word Stauros can mean Pole or Stake or Cross.

But, think of a Telephone Pole. It is a Pole but it can have a cross piece on it, right?

The Romans used several different style of crosses. One was like an X, one like a lower case 't' and one was like a capital 'T' - as far as I know they very rarely used just a pole by itself.

But since the gospels mention the fact that Jesus had a sign nailed on the cross above his head, that seems to eliminate the X or T shape and leaves the 't' shape as the most likely style.

There is also some graffiti from the first century that shows somoene making fun of a Christian and has a donkey headed man drawn on a cross with the caption
Alexamenos worships his god

Which supports the idea that the Romans did use crosses.
http://www.spotlightministries.org.uk/cross.htm

[Tladatsi]

I don't know what difference it makes, but the Romans did not crucify anyone on a lower case t shaped cross. Rather, they used a upper case T shapped cross. If you have ever worked with wood it is clear that a t shape does not work. It is very difficult to nail a beam accross an upright stake and then suspend a full grown man on the cross member. Rather, what the Romans did was have a semi-permanent post in the ground with tenon on top. The tenon is in this cases is where the post has been narrowed to a square peg-like projection. Then the cross member has a square hole cut in the center, called a mortise. The condemned individual carries the the cross member (with a mortise already cut into it) and this then lift onto the upright post, forming a upper case T. This was structurally more sound and required no nails. Further, the cross member could be reused and it did not require raising and lowering the upright post. Mortise and tenon joinery was well known to the Romans.

On top of that, typically crosses had two other cross memeber, one to act as seat and one for the feet. The feet were not nailed to the upright post through the top of the feet. Rather, the feet were placed on each side of the upright post and nailed through (or tied around) the ankles (this is known from the only known skeleton of a crufied individual every found. There was a large nail going sidewise through the heel bone). Simiarly, the wrists (not palms) were nailed (or tied) to the top crossmember. Finally, the victim sat on a seat, the middle cross member. This actually allowed the victim to live, and suffer, even longer, releaving pressure on the wrists.

This can be seen in the oldest known reference to Jesus on the cross. This appears as a bit of graffito in Pompeii on a wall of a building. There is a picture of man knelling in prayer. He is praying to a man on a cross. The cross is a upper case T, with two smaller cross members below. The man is clearly seated on the middle cross member and his feet rest on the lowest cross member. The man has the head of a donkey. The text says "Alexander worships God"in Koine Greek. Alexander's co-workers knew of his belief in the crucified savior and were making fun of him. Crucification was a horrible and humiliating punishment. It was a difficult concept for anyone familiar with crucification to understand how a god could allow himself to suffer that fate.

It is important to note that christians did not use the cross (t or T) as their symbol. The fish and chi rho were the most common symbols. Rather the lower case t cross was the symbol of the rival religion of Sol Invictus (The Invincible Sun, aka Mithras). The t cross in question was actually the sun's sword, point down and handle up. The ancients believed that the shortest day of the year was December 25. All days after that were thought to grow longer. That was the day that the sun's birthday.

It was only after a follower of Sol Invictus, Flavius Valerius Constantius - aka the Emporer Constantine the Great, accepted Christianity as an official state religion that christians began to use the lower case t as their symbol. Constantines mother Helena had gone to Jerusalem and found the true cross, which was t shaped. In the official story is that Constantine converted to Christianity after the battle of Milvian Bridge when he saw a cross above the sun. Above the cross was were the words In hoc signo vinces (by this sign conquer). However, it is pretty clear that if this in fact occured, he interpreted as a sign of Sol Invictus, not Christ. In 313 the Roman Senate built a triumphial arch to Constantine and his victory at Milvain Bridge. It makes no reference to Christ but honors Jupiter, Mars, Hercules, and Mithras (aka Sol Invictus).

That is what I know. I don't know if it helps or not. I hope so. :teeth:

[davebelk]

Thank you both for the responses.

[NonTrinitarian]

I have recently been bothered by the claim that Christ was not crucified on a "cross" (t shape) but rather a stake or vertical pole. I am not a Greek student by any means, but it would appear that the Greek word that is used where "cross" is refered to means "stake" not "cross". Do any of you know of any archeological or manuscriptual evidence that would prove the "cross" as the device of torture used in Jerusalem during the time of Christ?

Can I ask why you are so bothered by it? Personally I am not sure what the shape of the instrument Jesus was put to death on was. I know officially JW's teach it was a pole. I see no reason to be so adamant about it because I believe the only argument is for the meaning of stauros. I am not an expert so as to say it could also mean a cross-beamed member.

But the cross was definitely a pagan symbol in use long before Jesus came to the earth. I can except Jesus dying on a cross. But who cares? If the Romans wanted to hang him on a pagan symbol they could have.

My question is why it "bothered" you? Does the shape of a piece of wood hold special importance in your life? To me it's obvious, blatant idolatry and I have a hard time understanding why professed Christians are so quick to try and justify their carrying a piece of wood or plastic around in a certain shape. And it's almost like my not wanting to carry it around makes me deny Jesus. It really puzzles me.

[davebelk]

Can I ask why you are so bothered by it? Personally I am not sure what the shape of the instrument Jesus was put to death on was. I know officially JW's teach it was a pole. I see no reason to be so adamant about it because I believe the only argument is for the meaning of stauros. I am not an expert so as to say it could also mean a cross-beamed member.

But the cross was definitely a pagan symbol in use long before Jesus came to the earth. I can except Jesus dying on a cross. But who cares? If the Romans wanted to hang him on a pagan symbol they could have.

My question is why it "bothered" you? Does the shape of a piece of wood hold special importance in your life? To me it's obvious, blatant idolatry and I have a hard time understanding why professed Christians are so quick to try and justify their carrying a piece of wood or plastic around in a certain shape. And it's almost like my not wanting to carry it around makes me deny Jesus. It really puzzles me.


I do not worship the cross, therefore it is not idolatry.

The cross stands as a reminder of how Jesus died to pay the penalty for my sins and yours. It bothered me that as Christians we would use a symbol that was an inaccurate representation of what it represented.

But, like you said, who cares?

The important thing is that Jesus did die as the only perfect sacrifce that could pay the price for our sin. Whatever we use to remind ourselves of that is sort of irrelevant I suppose. It is sort of like tying a string around your finger to remind you to go to the grocery store on the way home.

I don't think that you or anyone else has to carry a cross around to confirm Jesus. For some people, however, it helps them to keep things in perspective as they are distracted by the everyday things in life.

[NonTrinitarian]

I do not worship the cross, therefore it is not idolatry.

The cross stands as a reminder of how Jesus died to pay the penalty for my sins and yours. It bothered me that as Christians we would use a symbol that was an inaccurate representation of what it represented.

But, like you said, who cares?

The important thing is that Jesus did die as the only perfect sacrifce that could pay the price for our sin. Whatever we use to remind ourselves of that is sort of irrelevant I suppose. It is sort of like tying a string around your finger to remind you to go to the grocery store on the way home.

I don't think that you or anyone else has to carry a cross around to confirm Jesus. For some people, however, it helps them to keep things in perspective as they are distracted by the everyday things in life.

Thanks for your viewpoint. How do you feel about the Catholic church and the rosary, the statues, etc? Do you see any form of idolatry in the Catholic church?

[davebelk]

Thanks for your viewpoint. How do you feel about the Catholic church and the rosary, the statues, etc? Do you see any form of idolatry in the Catholic church?


I really don't know that much about the Catholic church. It does seem that they hold to some non-bilical traditions and beliefs. For example, praying to Mary and the idea that she remained a virgin and was herself without sin.

[NonTrinitarian]

I really don't know that much about the Catholic church. It does seem that they hold to some non-bilical traditions and beliefs. For example, praying to Mary and the idea that she remained a virgin and was herself without sin.

The reason I ask is many protestants accuse the catholics of idolatry because of the rosary, statues, etc. The catholics of course deny this charge and basically use the same argument. 'We are not praying to the idol nor worship it so it is not idolatry.'

I just see it hypocritical for some protestants to charge the catholics with idolatry when they do the same thing with the cross. Personally I think it's all idolatry.

[Sparko]

I don't know of any protestants (or catholics) that pray to the cross or worship it. I consider it a symbol of what Jesus did for us. A reminder of what he overcame (death) and even a 'logo' representing Christianity. I have a cross necklass somewhere, but I don't wear it often and I don't have crosses all over my house or any altars or pictures of crosses hanging on my wall. Its just a symbol.

[bandecoot]

I don't know of any protestants (or catholics) that pray to the cross or worship it. I consider it a symbol of what Jesus did for us. A reminder of what he overcame (death) and even a 'logo' representing Christianity. I have a cross necklass somewhere, but I don't wear it often and I don't have crosses all over my house or any altars or pictures of crosses hanging on my wall. Its just a symbol.


In case you care sparko, I have no arguments with your initial explanation. You might have noted the Malus connection to a Tree but thats something fairly obscure that only sad gits like me know.


The unlucky tree was an apple tree that had never borne fruit. That was the initial cross. the others were representations of that original(probably legendary) Tree.

But you covered things quite well. You saved me from having to read the rest of the off topic stuff that came up. Thanks!

[Sparko]

In case you care sparko, I have no arguments with your initial explanation. You might have noted the Malus connection to a Tree but thats something fairly obscure that only sad gits like me know.


The unlucky tree was an apple tree that had never borne fruit. That was the initial cross. the others were representations of that original(probably legendary) Tree.

But you covered things quite well. You saved me from having to read the rest of the off topic stuff that came up. Thanks!

Thanks. As someone who studies roman history, do you know if the romans did use crosses shaped like lower case t's (with the center extending upwards from the cross piece) or not? I thought they did but someone else above said they didn't.

[bandecoot]

Thanks. As someone who studies roman history, do you know if the romans did use crosses shaped like lower case t's (with the center extending upwards from the cross piece) or not? I thought they did but someone else above said they didn't.


They did. The pole "malus" was a permant fixture with either a mortice or a set of iron hooks for the crossbrace. The Victim was tied or nailed, depending on what they had the most of at the time, to the cross brace and lifted or hauled onto the hooks or into the mortice.

The X shaped cross was later IIRC but was still used. The capital T shaped one was also used. It really depended on the whim of the engineer who was ther at the time.

[NonTrinitarian]

I don't know of any protestants (or catholics) that pray to the cross or worship it. I consider it a symbol of what Jesus did for us. A reminder of what he overcame (death) and even a 'logo' representing Christianity. I have a cross necklass somewhere, but I don't wear it often and I don't have crosses all over my house or any altars or pictures of crosses hanging on my wall. Its just a symbol.

Do you view anything the Catholics do as idolatry? Many protestants do. I know this thread is about the cross, not catholocism, but I'm not really trying to take it off topic. My point in asking is I have seen many protestants attack catholics for "idolatry" and the catholics respond that they are not worshipping the object, just using it to assist them in their worship. Like a reminder. IE, the rosary helps them count. Thus, in their eyes it is not idolatry though many protestants say it is. I am trying to see the difference between a protestant saying a catholic practices idolatry because of their images and why they (protestants) think that is different from their use of the cross.

[NonTrinitarian]

They did. The pole "malus" was a permant fixture with either a mortice or a set of iron hooks for the crossbrace. The Victim was tied or nailed, depending on what they had the most of at the time, to the cross brace and lifted or hauled onto the hooks or into the mortice.

The X shaped cross was later IIRC but was still used. The capital T shaped one was also used. It really depended on the whim of the engineer who was ther at the time.
I read somewhere (can't remember right now) that the Romans would often impale their captured enemies and that wood was scarce so they would often only use an upright stake instead of a cross beam because the extra wood was not necessary. Is there any evidence that the Romans ever used just an upright stake?

[bandecoot]

I read somewhere (can't remember right now) that the Romans would often impale their captured enemies and that wood was scarce so they would often only use an upright stake instead of a cross beam because the extra wood was not necessary. Is there any evidence that the Romans ever used just an upright stake?


This is why I stay out this board. Romans never impaled people. That was an eastern thing.


If You are ging to say anything back it up.

[NonTrinitarian]

This is why I stay out this board. Romans never impaled people. That was an eastern thing.


If You are ging to say anything back it up.

What's with the attitude dude? I was only asking (because you seemed to know something about it) whether you ever heard of the romans using a single pole in place of a crossed beam pole.

Apparently I said something that threatened you. Care share what it is I said that set you off?

[Sparko]

The reason I ask is many protestants accuse the catholics of idolatry because of the rosary, statues, etc. The catholics of course deny this charge and basically use the same argument. 'We are not praying to the idol nor worship it so it is not idolatry.'

I just see it hypocritical for some protestants to charge the catholics with idolatry when they do the same thing with the cross. Personally I think it's all idolatry.

I am not a Catholic so I don't know what they actually think. I do find it disturbing that they seem to pray to the saints and Mary as if they were sorts of gods themselves (but that is just how I see it. They may not actually be doing it that way) - But I don't know of anyone who prays to a cross. About statues... If they just have a statue of Mary or a Saint as a reminder of that person, just like we would have photos of loved ones in the house, then that is not a problem. But if they offer prayers to the saints and use the statues as 'conduits' to help their prayer, then that would be bordering not only on idolotry but on polytheism.

But again, I preface that with "IF" and "how it looks to me" -- not being Catholic I can't say for sure what they do or think, or if something like that would be a fringe thing or a mainstream thing.

I personally don't pray to saints or to a cross. I don't worship a cross. I see the cross as a symbol of what Jesus did. Just like the fish symbol reminds me of his miracles. It is a logo and a reminder and that's all. Jesus OVERCAME the cross and defeated death. I remember a JW asking me once if my loved one was killed with a gun would I go around wearing a gun symbol or a bullet around my neck? I said, "If my loved one defeated death and came back to life after three days, I probably would!"

[bandecoot]

What's with the attitude dude? I was only asking (because you seemed to know something about it) whether you ever heard of the romans using a single pole in place of a crossed beam pole.

Apparently I said something that threatened you. Care share what it is I said that set you off?


No not really. I was talking to sparko. Your contributions dont really count as far as i'm concerned.

[NonTrinitarian]

No not really. I was talking to sparko. Your contributions dont really count as far as i'm concerned.

You're not a very good liar. You quoted me when you responded. The value of your contributions just hit the floor too.:ahem:

[NonTrinitarian]

I have recently been bothered by the claim that Christ was not crucified on a "cross" (t shape) but rather a stake or vertical pole. I am not a Greek student by any means, but it would appear that the Greek word that is used where "cross" is refered to means "stake" not "cross". Do any of you know of any archeological or manuscriptual evidence that would prove the "cross" as the device of torture used in Jerusalem during the time of Christ?

Here is some information I found:

Vines Complete Expository Dictionary of Old and New Testament Words says:

"STAUROS....denotes, primarily, an upright pale or stake. On such malefactors ware nailed for execution. Both the noun and the verb stauroo, to fasten to a stake or pale, are originally to be distinguished from the ecclesiastical form of a two beamed cross. The shape of the latter had it's origin in ancient Chaldea, and was used of the symbol of of the god Tammaz(being in the shape of the mystic Tau, the initial of his name in that country and adjacent lands, including Egypt. By the middle of the 3rd cent. A.D. the churches had either departed from, or had travestied, certain doctrines of the Christian faith. In order to increase the prestige of the apostate ecclesiastical system pagans were received into the churches apart from regeneration of faith, and were permitted largely to retain their pagan signs and symbols. Hence the Tau or T, in it's most frequent form, with the cross-piece lowered, was adopted to stand for the cross of Christ"

Vines Complete Expository Dictionary of Old and New Testament Words has under the word Tree:

"2.XULON.....(b) of the Cross, the tree being the stauros, the upright pale or stake to which the Romans nailed those who were to be executed, Acts 5:30; 10:39; 13:29; Gal.3:13; 1 Pet.2:24;"

According to a Greek-English lexicon by Liddell and Scott, this word means "Wood cut and ready for use, firewood, timber, etc. . . . piece of wood, log, beam, post . . . cudgel, club . . . stake on which criminals were impaled . . . of live wood, tree." "wood . . . " Hence in the Authorized Version/King James Version this word is rendered as "tree" at Acts 5:30. The Complete Jewish Bible by D. Stern has here "stake." See also Acts 13:29; Galatians 3:13; 1 Peter 2:24

Also, the Companion Bible in it's Appendix 162 remarks:

"In the Greek N.T. two words are used for "the cross", on which the Lord was put to death.1. The word stauros; which denotes an upright pale or stake, to which the criminals were nailed for execution. 2. The word xulon, which generally denotes a piece of a dead log of wood, or timber, for fuel or for any other purpose. It is not like dendron, which is used of a living, or green tree, as in Matt.21: 8; Rev.7: 1, 3; 8:7; 9: 4, &c. As this latter word xulon is used for the former stauros it shows us the meaning of each is exactly the same. The verb stauroo means to drive stakes. Our English word "cross" is the translation of the Latin crux; but the Greek stauros no more means a crux than the word "stick" means a "crutch". Homer uses the word stauros of an ordinary pole or stake, or a simple piece of timber.[ftnote, Iliad xxiv.453. Odyssey xiv.11] And this is the meaning and usage of the word throughout the Greek classics.[ftnote, eg.Thucydides iv.90. Xenophon, Anabasis v.2.21] It never means two pieces of timber placed across one another at any angle, but of always one piece alone. Hence the use of the word xulon(No.2 above)in connection with the manner of our Lord's death and rendered "tree" in Acts 5:30; 10:39; 13:29; Gal.3:13, 1 Pet.2:24. This is preserved in our old English name rood or rod. See Encycl.Brit., 11th (Camb)ed., vol.7, p.505d. There is nothing in the Greek of the N.T. even to imply two pieces of timber."

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."

"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

Based on these quotes and particularly the last quote, I would submit that it is impossible to be dogmatic about whether Jesus was impaled on a single stake or a cross. Apparently both could have been options.

Violation of fair use laws. You may cite a small section of a web page or site, but not the whole thing.

[Sparko]

well I think I will go with what Bandecoot says since he studies Roman history directly and has archeological background. Dictionaries are OK but they are biased too. I can find many more dictionaries that say Stauros can mean a traditional cross and not just a pole or upright stake.

Like I mentioned before we use the word "pole" today and it can have a cross piece attached. Just go outside and look at a telephone pole. If you looked up the definition of pole in the dictionary it probably wont mention anything about cross pieces even though they are commonly attached.

Same with "stake" - A tent stake has a cross piece attached to tie the rope to. Don't be so literal with dictionary definitions.

And don't cut and paste from other websites without giving reference to it and keep it down to two paragraphs.

[Bill the Cat]

And don't cut and paste from other websites without giving reference to it and keep it down to two paragraphs.


I think that almost all of the commentaries he quoted were not copyrighted unless he copied and pasted it in its entirety from another web site.

[Sparko]

I think that almost all of the commentaries he quoted were not copyrighted unless he copied and pasted it in its entirety from another web site.

that's exactly what he did.

[bandecoot]

You're not a very good liar. You quoted me when you responded. The value of your contributions just hit the floor too.:ahem:



I quoted an idiot. What can I say? My contributions stand based on the consistant drubbing I give idiots like you.


I spend a good deal of time answering historical questions in PM because these boards are full of Pryamidologists and numerologists. If you call me a liar you better back it up. Check the rules and decorum. I have paid my dues and given this board historical info when asked. You on the other hand have not and do not.

[NonTrinitarian]

I quoted an idiot. What can I say? My contributions stand based on the consistant drubbing I give idiots like you.


I spend a good deal of time answering historical questions in PM because these boards are full of Pryamidologists and numerologists. If you call me a liar you better back it up. Check the rules and decorum. I have paid my dues and given this board historical info when asked. You on the other hand have not and do not.
I called you a liar because that's excatly what you did. And I'm the idiot?:lol:
You said you were not even talking to me when you clearly quoted my words. How's that for backing it up?

It's also interesting with all the ranting Sparko and Bill the Cat did about the information I quoted, from respected sources I might add. That's right guys, rather than address the information you turn tail and worry about whether I quoted it from another website or not. (actually I cut and pasted from several)

Sparko did attempt to address it but it was a poor attempt at it. Like I care if you value bandecoot's opinion or respected scholars. The irony of the whole thing is I was not even arguing with bandecoot, I was simply adding information about the FACT that Romans executed on both single poles and cross poles. But you guys are soooo worried about someone attacking your idol that you were too blind to even notice I wasn't disagreeing with you, I was just adding additional information. Zheesh.

[One Bad Pig]

If you want to take issue with a moderating decision, do so via PM or in the Locker Room, not in the thread involved. As a reminder, you need to link to material quoted from other web pages.

[serapha]

I have recently been bothered by the claim that Christ was not crucified on a "cross" (t shape) but rather a stake or vertical pole. I am not a Greek student by any means, but it would appear that the Greek word that is used where "cross" is refered to means "stake" not "cross". Do any of you know of any archeological or manuscriptual evidence that would prove the "cross" as the device of torture used in Jerusalem during the time of Christ?

Hi there!

:hi:


Read Josephus Wars....

http://bible1.crosswalk.com/History/BC/FlaviusJosephus/?book=War_6&chapter=1

$$War.5.11.0. HOW THE JEWS WERE CRUCIFIED BEFORE THE WALLS OF THE CITY CONCERNING ANTIOCHUS EPIPHANES; AND HOW THE JEWS OVERTHREW THE BANKS THAT HAD BEEN RAISED BY THE ROMANS, $$War.5.11.1


....So the soldiers, out of the wrath and hatred they bore the Jews, nailed those they caught, one after one way, and another after another, to the crosses, by way of jest, when their multitude was so great, that room was wanting for the crosses, and crosses wanting for the bodies.


~serapha~

[stevegb]

We Do Not Take Into Account That The Romans Where At That Time Very Stringent On The Use Of Wood. Mainly Because Most Of The Wood At The Time Of Christ's Death Was Used For Road And Building Constuction In The Roman Empire. It Was Probably More Likely That Crosses Were Repeatly Used For Maximum Effecentcy.
But For The Believer It Should Not Mater What Type Of Cross Was Used Because The Focus Is On Christ Not The Death Of Christ. The Living Christ In Us Today Right Now Is The Christ That Is And Was In Human Form. You Have To Move Past The Crucifiction To Fully Understand That There Is More To Christ Than Story. Every Thing About Christ Live Can Be Verified In The Old Testement. Starting As Early As Genisis So Get Back To The Book And Try And Unstand That What Paul Is Saying Also Because The Fish Is More A Accurate Reprisention Of Our Faith In The Miracle That Christ Preforms In Our Lifes If We Let Him.

[The Curtmudgeon]

We Do Not Take Into Account That The Romans Where At That Time Very Stringent On The Use Of Wood. Mainly Because Most Of The Wood At The Time Of Christ's Death Was Used For Road And Building Constuction In The Roman Empire. It Was Probably More Likely That Crosses Were Repeatly Used For Maximum Effecentcy.

Do you have any supporting evidence for any of this? Roman roads were built of stone, which is why many of them are still in existence and still being used. As for building construction, yes, a lot of wood was used, but then there was a lot of wood at the time. Pretty much all of northern Europe was one enormous forest at the time, as well as heavily-wooded parts of southern Europe as well. Wood was not scarce at all, and there was no reason for the Romans to be chary with it.

It is true, and documented, that in places of frequent executions (e.g., territorial or provincial capitals in tumultuous provinces like Judaea), that the upright portion of the cross was left in place and re-used. It is even possible that the crossbeam was re-used, since after a particular crucifixion was done, what else were you going to do with it? But to claim that the Romans were "Very Stringent On The Use Of Wood" is merely an unsupported claim. Following Spartacus' slave rebellion (the Third Servile War), more than 6,000 rebels were crucified along the Appian Way, and their bodies left in place -- and therefore, the crosses also left in place -- for years. That doesn't sound like Rome had any particular shortage of wood problem.

But For The Believer It Should Not Mater What Type Of Cross Was Used Because The Focus Is On Christ Not The Death Of Christ. The Living Christ In Us Today Right Now Is The Christ That Is And Was In Human Form. You Have To Move Past The Crucifiction To Fully Understand That There Is More To Christ Than Story. Every Thing About Christ Live Can Be Verified In The Old Testement. Starting As Early As Genisis So Get Back To The Book And Try And Unstand That What Paul Is Saying Also Because The Fish Is More A Accurate Reprisention Of Our Faith In The Miracle That Christ Preforms In Our Lifes If We Let Him.

And the rest of your post is just idiotic, and supremely non-Christian. "Moving past the crucifixion" means that you've totally missed out on the whole purpose of Christ's coming into the world in the first place. You need to "Get Back To The Book And Try And Un[der]stand What Paul Is Saying" if you want to even have Christ in your life:

17 For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel: not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of none effect. 18 For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God.
22 For the Jews require a sign, and the Greeks seek after wisdom: 23 But we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumblingblock, and unto the Greeks foolishness; 24 But unto them which are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God, and the wisdom of God.
For I determined not to know any thing among you, save Jesus Christ, and him crucified.
I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me.
O foolish Galatians, who hath bewitched you, that ye should not obey the truth, before whose eyes Jesus Christ hath been evidently set forth, crucified among you?
But God forbid that I should glory, save in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom the world is crucified unto me, and I unto the world.
14 For he is our peace, who hath made both one, and hath broken down the middle wall of partition ; 15 Having abolished in his flesh the enmity, [even] the law of commandments [contained] in ordinances; for to make in himself of twain one new man, [so] making peace; 16 [b]And that he might reconcile both unto God in one body by the cross, having slain the enmity thereby: 17 And came and preached peace to you which were afar off, and to them that were nigh.
18 (For many walk, of whom I have told you often, and now tell you even weeping, [that they are] the enemies of the cross of Christ: 19 Whose end [is] destruction, whose God [is their] belly, and [whose] glory [is] in their shame, who mind earthly things.)

The ("Jesus Christ, and him crucified" is the whole Gospel in a nutshell) Curtmudgeon

[LambofElohim]

Greetings,

There is a problem with that theory. There is only one book that stavros is used for cross; the other three books use cruxis I believe.

The main problem is that when Matthew would have taken place as 4 AD thru 37 AD would be 0000 thru 33 AD give or take a year or so. Being that Matthew should be the third book of the gospels; the Jesus in Luke would have been born around what would be 33 BC thru 0000 and should be second; this would make the time of the coming of God as His own Son of John 66 BC to 33 BC. King Herod the Great would not be King yet until after John; there is no Herod at all in John. King Herod becomes king just before the birth of the first false christ in Luke.

This would mean that there would be no way that the Jesus in John would have been crucified on a cross or "T". Crucifixion did not exist in this method this early in time. Crucifixion actually began as man has it 4 BC which would be 8 BC using the 0000 time line. The only Jesuses who were crucified on a cross were the antiJesues. The Jesus in Mark would have already been almost 33 years old at the time of the second Jesus' crucifixion and he was not born from a virgin either as nor was God as His own Son in John.

God as His own Son in John was hung from a stake; hands nailed together and one nail driven through both wrists and is the only Jesus not to ask for a drink. They left His feet to hang until they decided to do the same thing with them. So the JWs are somewhat right, but Jehovah is not Elohim and Michael is not Jesus!..oh do they mentioned that the Pharisees stoned Him to death after all just before the Sabbath began? How could that be? The Pharisees said that they couldn't put a man to death on the Sabbath, but the day after the Saabath they come to the tomb...don't they? So how is that 3 days?

Reverend Carlton

[Bill the Cat]

Greetings,

There is a problem with that theory. There is only one book that stavros is used for cross; the other three books use cruxis I believe.

The main problem is that when Matthew would have taken place as 4 AD thru 37 AD would be 0000 thru 33 AD give or take a year or so. Being that Matthew should be the third book of the gospels; the Jesus in Luke would have been born around what would be 33 BC thru 0000 and should be second; this would make the time of the coming of God as His own Son of John 66 BC to 33 BC. King Herod the Great would not be King yet until after John; there is no Herod at all in John. King Herod becomes king just before the birth of the first false christ in Luke.

This would mean that there would be no way that the Jesus in John would have been crucified on a cross or "T". Crucifixion did not exist in this method this early in time. Crucifixion actually began as man has it 4 BC which would be 8 BC using the 0000 time line. The only Jesuses who were crucified on a cross were the antiJesues. The Jesus in Mark would have already been almost 33 years old at the time of the second Jesus' crucifixion and he was not born from a virgin either as nor was God as His own Son in John.

God as His own Son in John was hung from a stake; hands nailed together and one nail driven through both wrists and is the only Jesus not to ask for a drink. They left His feet to hang until they decided to do the same thing with them. So the JWs are somewhat right, but Jehovah is not Elohim and Michael is not Jesus!..oh do they mentioned that the Pharisees stoned Him to death after all just before the Sabbath began? How could that be? The Pharisees said that they couldn't put a man to death on the Sabbath, but the day after the Saabath they come to the tomb...don't they? So how is that 3 days?

Reverend Carlton

Simply wrong Carlton. I don't even know where to begin... I'll ignore the insanity of your "multiple Christs" and go for the attempt at facts you present...

Crucifixion didn't exist at the time?


Mass executions in which hundreds and thousands died – such as the well known crucifixion of 6,000 followers of Spartacus as part, of a victory celebration along the Appian Way in 71 BCE – appear in the literature.
Bella Civilia 1.120


Alexander the Great had 2,000 survivors from the siege of Tyre crucified on the shores of the Mediterranean
Curtius Rufus, Hist. Alex. 4.4.17.

Jesus hung on a stake with hands over His head?


If, however, the victims are tied with their hands extended over their heads and left hanging, death can occur within an hour or, in minutes if the victims legs are nailed so that he cannot use his arms to elevate the body to exhale.
14 F.T. Zugibe, 1984 "Death by Crucifixion, Canadian Society of Forensic Science 17(1):1-13.6.

[LambofElohim]

Greetings,

Again these dates are not accurate. These dates were given by men who believed that the world was flat if they even knew what the earth was! Yes crucifixion of a certain type did exist, but not the type in where a person is raised from the ground on a cross-like beam. They were more or less like an X as has been said. It is the cross type of crucifixion that had not been used until after 8 BC.

Yes it does only take an hour to die with ones hands stretched up over their head if their hands and feet were nailed, but you are forgetting one thing...that was not just your average everyday person...that was God as His own Son and He could have hung around and took stone after stone for eternity if He wanted to. Instead after 6 hours He left that flesh and it died in a matter of 10 minutes being stoned to death. Just Him being alive that long in that position should have been enough for them to get the picture, but it didn't.

Yes! 4 Jesuses...4...gospels...3 antichrists...1 Messiah!

The Lamb

[Bill the Cat]

Greetings,

Again these dates are not accurate. These dates were given by men who believed that the world was flat if they even knew what the earth was! Yes crucifixion of a certain type did exist, but not the type in where a person is raised from the ground on a cross-like beam. They were more or less like an X as has been said. It is the cross type of crucifixion that had not been used until after 8 BC.

Yes it does only take an hour to die with ones hands stretched up over their head if their hands and feet were nailed, but you are forgetting one thing...that was not just your average everyday person...that was God as His own Son and He could have hung around and took stone after stone for eternity if He wanted to. Instead after 6 hours He left that flesh and it died in a matter of 10 minutes being stoned to death. Just Him being alive that long in that position should have been enough for them to get the picture, but it didn't.

Yes! 4 Jesuses...4...gospels...3 antichrists...1 Messiah!

The Lamb

Do you like cocoa puffs?

[Sparko]

Do you like cocoa puffs?

wouldn't that be cannibalism?

...oh you said "cocoa" not "cuckoo"

never mind.

[LambofElohim]

Greetings,

Oh yes I do as a matter of fact like Cocoa Puffs, but that has little do do with anything that I write on these threads. The only things I am Coo-Coo over is Elohim and My Brother Jesus Christ, letting the whole world know The Truth about both of them, exposing the devil for the cursing, killing, plaguing, sacrifice demanding, evil tyrant warLORD he is as YeHeVeH and taking down the stronghold he has on man's religions and churches!

The Lamb