The Cross

Originally posted by divegeester
Moreover have they considered that the cross is a pagan symbol.

There IS that contingent of Christians who claim this.

But I can't see any use in describing what it was before the Crucifixion.

Strong's definition follows:
"σταυρός staurós, stow-ros'; from the base of G2476; a stake or post (as set upright), i.e. (specially), a pole or cross (as an instrument of capital punishment); figuratively, exposure to death, i.e. self-denial; by implication, the atonement of Christ:—cross."

Also, from Strong, the outline of Biblical usage:
I. a cross

A. a well known instrument of most cruel and ignominious punishment, borrowed by the Greeks and Romans from the Phoenicians; to it were affixed among the Romans, down to the time of Constantine the Great, the guiltiest criminals, particularly the basest slaves, robbers, the authors and abetters of insurrections, and occasionally in the provinces, at the arbitrary pleasure of the governors, upright and peaceable men also, and even Roman citizens themselves

B. the crucifixion which Christ underwent

II. an upright "stake", esp. a pointed one, used as such in fences or palisades

Even so, defining the Greek word as a "torture-stake" is a bit misleading, as the Romans used a cross for death and torture, not a stake. They typically used stakes for fences. I assume that is why the JWs refer to it AS a "torture-stake" to drive their point home, so to speak.

Originally posted by Suzianne
Except it's incorrect.

Doesn't that even enter the picture for you?

Of course the fact that you merely assert that it's incorrect ~ and the fact that you merely assert that so and so is wrong and that you're right ~ enters into the discussion, and it is - of course - your right to have your opinion included in the discussion.

Originally posted by FMF
Of course the fact that you merely assert that it's incorrect ~ and the fact that you merely assert that so and so is wrong and that you're right ~ enters into the discussion, and it is - of course - your right to have your opinion included in the discussion.

It is a fact.

You can call it "your opinion" all day long but that doesn't negate its "factualness".

Originally posted by Suzianne
What do you think "crucified" means?

Clearly not what you think it means. And I happen to have actual references on my side:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crucifixion

Originally posted by Suzianne
It is a fact.

You can call it "your opinion" all day long but that doesn't negate its "factualness".

Obviously this is your viewpoint. I have not disputed your right to simply assert that your opinion is a "fact".

Originally posted by FMF
Obviously this is your viewpoint. I have not disputed your right to simply assert that your opinion is a "fact".

The scriptures speak of the messiah hanging on a tree. Doesn't a tree have branches? A stake does not have branches like a cross. And traditionally "impaling" is the term used for hanging someone on a stake. Also wasn't a sign saying "king of the Jews" hung above his head?

Originally posted by RJHinds
The scriptures speak of the messiah hanging on a tree. Doesn't a tree have branches? A stake does not have branches like a cross. And traditionally "impaling" is the term used for hanging someone on a stake. Also wasn't a sign saying "king of the Jews" hung above his head?

The word "stauros" means 'tree'?

Originally posted by Suzianne
] The concept of a "torture-stake" instead of a cross is a centerpiece of their invented dogma. Other Christians give it no credence whatsoever.

mmmm
Seems it has been debated for centuries.
The crux (pun intended!) of the matter is that there is no 1 to 1 correspondence
between Greek and English so translations are ambiguous.

It is historical fact that there were many forms of
crucifixion and the bible does not specify which was used.

My own opinion is that the practical Romans would have
used the most convenient and cheapest option: if a suitable
tree were available they would simply use that, else a simple stake.

Why on earth would they employ a carpenter to make a cross?
For what purpose?

And finally - would they waste nails when tying the victim up
was cheaper and led to a more painful (longer lasting) death?

Originally posted by twhitehead
Clearly not what you think it means. And I happen to have actual references on my side:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crucifixion

Yes, it IS what I "think it means". On that page you linked to, there is this, way down in the bibliography:
"The ... oldest depiction of a crucifixion ... was uncovered by archaeologists more than a century ago on the Palatine Hill in Rome. It is a second-century graffiti scratched into a wall that was part of the imperial palace complex. It includes a caption — not by a Christian, but by someone taunting and deriding Christians and the crucifixions they underwent. It shows crude stick-figures of a boy reverencing his 'God,' who has the head of a jackass and is upon a cross with arms spread wide and with hands nailed to the crossbeam. Here we have a Roman sketch of a Roman crucifixion, and it is in the traditional cross shape" (Clayton F. Bower, Jr: Cross or Torture Stake?). Some 2nd-century writers took it for granted that a crucified person would have his or her arms stretched out, not connected to a single stake: Lucian speaks of Prometheus as crucified "above the ravine with his hands outstretched" and explains that the letter T (the Greek letter tau) was looked upon as an unlucky letter or sign (similar to the way the number thirteen is looked upon today as an unlucky number), saying that the letter got its "evil significance" because of the "evil instrument" which had that shape, an instrument which tyrants hung men on (ibidem).

As well as this, in the main text, under "Cross shape":
"The New Testament writings about the crucifixion of Jesus do not speak specifically about the shape of that cross, but the early writings that do speak of its shape, from about the year 100 CE on, describe it as shaped like the letter T (the Greek letter tau) or as composed of an upright and a transverse beam, sometimes with a small projection in the upright."

In addition, and despite what the JWs say, the usual and most common meaning of stauros was "cross" and not "stake".

Originally posted by FMF
Obviously this is your viewpoint. I have not disputed your right to simply assert that your opinion is a "fact".

And you may have your viewpoint. It is unfortunate for you that your viewpoint is wrong.

Originally posted by FMF
The word "stauros" means 'tree'?

No, it means "cross". An alternate meaning is "stake".

Leave it to the JWs (who had the unfortunate weight of an agenda upon them) to grab the alternate meaning to "prove" their point.

Originally posted by Suzianne
And you may have your viewpoint. It is unfortunate for you that your viewpoint is wrong.

Isn't this just the same as what you said before? To which I said I don't dispute the fact that you are declaring your own views to be "true".

Originally posted by Suzianne
No, it means "cross". An alternate meaning is "stake".

And did the meaning "cross" get appended to the Greek word "stauros" after the early Christians incorporated the pagan cross symbolism into the NT parts of the Bible they wrote, or would you say the "cross" meaning of "stauros" pre-dated the "stake" meaning?

Originally posted by wolfgang59
mmmm
Seems it has been debated for centuries.
The crux (pun intended!) of the matter is that there is no 1 to 1 correspondence
between Greek and English so translations are ambiguous.

It is historical fact that there were many forms of
crucifixion and the bible does not specify which was used.

My own opinion is that the practical Romans would ...[text shortened]... e nails when tying the victim up
was cheaper and led to a more painful (longer lasting) death?

Firstly, all other references from the era (or about the era) suggest a cross, with a transverse section, was the most usual form. One reason why the Bible does not specify is because the cross with some form of traverse section was the most common form, by far; it was not mentioned because it was thought everyone would know what was meant. The Romans only crucified those who were not citizens, it was considered too barbaric (even for them) to use on Roman citizens. Affixing them to a traditional cross gave the condemned more pain, which, of course, was the entire point of the exercise. Of course, one would not need a carpenter to make a cross, as these beams were milled when forested. And finally, as for the nails, same reason, more pain, since they were often affixed through nerve junctions to maximize pain. Death through crucifixion was quicker than you think, a day or so at most, since being hung on a cross with arms outstretched limited breathing and many who were crucified died through suffocation, especially after having their legs broken, leaving them unable to reduce the pressure of their weight stretching their arms out from their nailed extremities.