Cross or Torture Stake?

[RR144]

Many have been plagued by the fruitless arguments of a well-known organization whose adherents make much of the question of what it was upon which Jesus was crucified (or "impaled"). One brother was accosted with the question at a fair booth: "Why do you have Jesus hanging on a pagan symbol?" His answer as classic: "Because it was pagans who killed him." Perhaps the matter is not worth the space for consideration. Yet, if any feel it is, there is both historical Scriptural support that Jesus was slain on a two-piece cross.

Strong's Concordance (as other lexicons) demonstrates that the Greek word is of no help in solving the question.

Archaeological findings of the period (see McClintock and Strong, Vol. 2, pp. 575-581) are strongly in favor of two piece crosses. One-piece crosses, when used, either had the victims tied to them, or the stake was run through the body. The descriptions of Jesus' death obviously do not meet these conditions. The term "impale" (used in a modern translation) is most unfortunate, as the term suggests running the pole through the person's body, not affixing the person to the stake. The Scriptural evidence, as usual, is the strongest available evidence. It is clear from John 20:25 that nails (plural) were used in Jesus' hands. (Also note prophetic references to plural nails, Psalm 22:16, and to piercing of hands and feet, Zechariah 12:10.) On a single upright the hands would have to be above the head and almost certainly upon each other fastened with a single nail. On a crosspiece, of course, plural nails are a necessity. Another evidence, a strong one, is suggested in Matthew 27:37 and John 19:19, 20.

A sign, large enough to be written clearly in three languages, was placed OVER HIS HEAD. Had Jesus been hanging with his arms over his head on a single-piece stake, the sign could not have been over his head, but over his hands. This problem disappears with a two-piece cross.

 

[Hopeful 2]

Many have been plagued by the fruitless arguments of a well-known organization whose adherents make much of the question of what it was upon which Jesus was crucified (or "impaled"). One brother was accosted with the question at a fair booth: "Why do you have Jesus hanging on a pagan symbol?" His answer as classic: "Because it was pagans who killed him." Perhaps the matter is not worth the space for consideration. Yet, if any feel it is, there is both historical Scriptural support that Jesus was slain on a two-piece cross.

Strong's Concordance (as other lexicons) demonstrates that the Greek word is of no help in solving the question.

Archaeological findings of the period (see McClintock and Strong, Vol. 2, pp. 575-581) are strongly in favor of two piece crosses. One-piece crosses, when used, either had the victims tied to them, or the stake was run through the body. The descriptions of Jesus' death obviously do not meet these conditions. The term "impale" (used in a modern translation) is most unfortunate, as the term suggests running the pole through the person's body, not affixing the person to the stake. The Scriptural evidence, as usual, is the strongest available evidence. It is clear from John 20:25 that nails (plural) were used in Jesus' hands. (Also note prophetic references to plural nails, Psalm 22:16, and to piercing of hands and feet, Zechariah 12:10.) On a single upright the hands would have to be above the head and almost certainly upon each other fastened with a single nail. On a crosspiece, of course, plural nails are a necessity. Another evidence, a strong one, is suggested in Matthew 27:37 and John 19:19, 20.

A sign, large enough to be written clearly in three languages, was placed OVER HIS HEAD. Had Jesus been hanging with his arms over his head on a single-piece stake, the sign could not have been over his head, but over his hands. This problem disappears with a two-piece cross.

Well thought out answer.

 

[Hidden In Him]

Many have been plagued by the fruitless arguments of a well-known organization whose adherents make much of the question of what it was upon which Jesus was crucified (or "impaled"). One brother was accosted with the question at a fair booth: "Why do you have Jesus hanging on a pagan symbol?" His answer as classic: "Because it was pagans who killed him." Perhaps the matter is not worth the space for consideration. Yet, if any feel it is, there is both historical Scriptural support that Jesus was slain on a two-piece cross.

Seems to me that arguments like this are just excuses for raising doubts. Too many people are easily manipulated into making a "name" for themselves posing arguments like this, when it's really nothing more than a senseless waste of time.

Nice little piece of work. You should post here more often when you have a chance, and thanks.

Blessings in Christ,
Hidden In Him

 

[journeymanisnothing]

A sign, large enough to be written clearly in three languages, was placed OVER HIS HEAD.

That described the crime He was accused of.

 

[RR144]

Seems to me that arguments like this are just excuses for raising doubts.

Raising doubts about what? Whether Jesus died on a cross or a "torture stake"?

Too many people are easily manipulated into making a "name" for themselves posing arguments like this, when it's really nothing more than a senseless waste of time.

Then maybe you should talk to the Jehovah's Witnesses who constantly make an issue of this issue.

Nice little piece of work. You should post here more often when you have a chance, and thanks.

Thanks

 

[follower]

Vain (empty) arguments with mountains historical falsified evidence - which few ever learn the truth about, including or especially on the internet.

 

[Hidden In Him]

Then maybe you should talk to the Jehovah's Witnesses who constantly make an issue of this issue.

Indeed. I forgot that was what they taught, but now that you mention it that's where I think it came from. Why do they teach that I wonder, to maybe distance themselves from Catholic crosses perhaps?

 

[RR144]

Indeed. I forgot that was what they taught, but now that you mention it that's where I think it came from. Why do they teach that I wonder, to maybe distance themselves from Catholic crosses perhaps?

The JW's are the primary force behind this view, however, I did find another group that also teaches the "torture stake" theory. As to your initial question, the JW's are taught by their Governing Body, that the cross is of pagan origin, and that we are to have nothing to do with pagan worship and idols. I guess they forget that the very ones who put Jesus to death were pagan worshippers. So, their argument doesn't hold water.

 

[KV-44-v1]

The JW's are the primary force behind this view, however, I did find another group that also teaches the "torture stake" theory. As to your initial question, the JW's are taught by their Governing Body, that the cross is of pagan origin, and that we are to have nothing to do with pagan worship and idols. I guess they forget that the very ones who put Jesus to death were pagan worshippers. So, their argument doesn't hold water.

JW also fail to recognize that unitarianism belittles Jesus Who is God.
The pagans had gods that were one-person, not three-person.

Under their logic, they have to be Trinitarians!
Under their logic, THEIR views are what's pagan!

 

[RR144]

The pagans had gods that were one-person, not three-person.

Not entirely true. It's a mistake to suppose that the doctrine of the Trinity is of Christian origin. Just about every nation of antiquity possessed a similar doctrine. Jerome wrote, 'All the ancient nations believed in the Trinity'" (p. 382).

Below are quotes documenting belief in a divine trinity in many regions and religions of the ancient world.

Sumeria​

"The universe was divided into three regions each of which became the domain of a god. Anu's share was the sky. The earth was given to Enlil. Ea became the ruler of the waters. Together they constituted the triad of the Great Gods" (The Larousse Encyclopedia of Mythology, 1994, pp. 54-55)

Babylonia​

"The ancient Babylonians recognised the doctrine of a trinity, or three persons in one god—as appears from a composite god with three heads forming part of their mythology, and the use of the equilateral triangle, also, as an emblem of such trinity in unity" (Thomas Dennis Rock, The Mystical Woman and the Cities of the Nations, 1867, pp. 22-23).

India​

"The Puranas, one of the Hindoo Bibles of more than 3,000 years ago, contain the following passage: 'O ye three Lords! know that I recognize only one God. Inform me, therefore, which of you is the true divinity, that I may address to him alone my adorations.' The three gods, Brahma, Vishnu, and Siva [or Shiva], becoming manifest to him, replied, 'Learn, O devotee, that there is no real distinction between us. What to you appears such is only the semblance. The single being appears under three forms by the acts of creation, preservation, and destruction, but he is one.'

"Hence the triangle was adopted by all the ancient nations as a symbol of the Deity . . . Three was considered among all the pagan nations as the chief of the mystical numbers, because, as Aristotle remarks, it contains within itself a beginning, a middle, and an end. Hence we find it designating some of the attributes of almost all the pagan gods" (Sinclair, pp. 382-383).

Greece​

"In the Fourth Century B.C. Aristotle wrote: 'All things are three, and thrice is all: and let us use this number in the worship of the gods; for, as the Pythagoreans say, everything and all things are bounded by threes, for the end, the middle and the beginning have this number in everything, and these compose the number of the Trinity'" (Arthur Weigall, Paganism in Our Christianity, 1928, pp. 197-198).

Egypt​

"The Hymn to Amun decreed that 'No god came into being before him (Amun)' and that 'All gods are three: Amun, Re and Ptah, and there is no second to them. Hidden is his name as Amon, he is Re in face, and his body is Ptah.' . . . This is a statement of trinity, the three chief gods of Egypt subsumed into one of them, Amon. Clearly, the concept of organic unity within plurality got an extraordinary boost with this formulation. Theologically, in a crude form it came strikingly close to the later Christian form of plural Trinitarian monotheism" (Simson Najovits, Egypt, Trunk of the Tree, Vol. 2, 2004, pp. 83-84).

Other areas​

Many other areas had their own divine trinities. In Greece they were Zeus, Poseidon and Adonis. The Phoenicians worshipped Ulomus, Ulosuros and Eliun. Rome worshipped Jupiter, Neptune and Pluto. In Germanic nations they were called Wodan, Thor and Fricco. Regarding the Celts, one source states, "The ancient heathen deities of the pagan Irish[,] Criosan, Biosena, and Seeva, or Sheeva, are doubtless the Creeshna [Krishna], Veeshnu [Vishnu], [or the all-inclusive] Brahma, and Seeva [Shiva], of the Hindoos" (Thomas Maurice, The History of Hindostan, Vol. 2, 1798, p. 171).

 

[KV-44-v1]

Not entirely true. It's a mistake to suppose that the doctrine of the Trinity is of Christian origin. Just about every nation of antiquity possessed a similar doctrine.

Similar. So NOT the Trinity, only a vague semblance.

Jerome wrote, 'All the ancient nations believed in the Trinity'" (p. 382).

The Biblical Trinity involves THREE Persons, ONE God.
Just because jerome asserted this doesnt make it true. How did he define "Trinity"?

Below are quotes documenting belief in a divine trinity in many regions and religions of the ancient world.

Sumeria​

"The universe was divided into three regions each of which became the domain of a god. Anu's share was the sky. The earth was given to Enlil. Ea became the ruler of the waters. Together they constituted the triad of the Great Gods" (The Larousse Encyclopedia of Mythology, 1994, pp. 54-55)

One sky god , an earth god, and a water god. Three gods, not one. Even the title admits its polythiesm. Biblical Trinitarianism is monothiestic.

I'd say that Sumerian beliefs had Three one-person gods!

Babylonia​

"The ancient Babylonians recognised the doctrine of a trinity, or three persons in one god—as appears from a composite god with three heads forming part of their mythology, and the use of the equilateral triangle, also, as an emblem of such trinity in unity" (Thomas Dennis Rock, The Mystical Woman and the Cities of the Nations, 1867, pp. 22-23).

Thomas gave no evidence, only baseless assertions and
reaching for connections (the triangle part).

India​

"The Puranas, one of the Hindoo Bibles of more than 3,000 years ago, contain the following passage: 'O ye three Lords! know that I recognize only one God. Inform me, therefore, which of you is the true divinity, that I may address to him alone my adorations.' The three gods, Brahma, Vishnu, and Siva [or Shiva], becoming manifest to him, replied, 'Learn, O devotee, that there is no real distinction between us. What to you appears such is only the semblance. The single being appears under three forms by the acts of creation, preservation, and destruction, but he is one.'

This sounds like a warping. As you see, still three *gods* are mentioned. Its that the gods (obvioulsy false ones) look all the same. The person seems to only want to accept one out of the three gods. And they seem to all be one-person gods!

"Hence the triangle was adopted by all the ancient nations as a symbol of the Deity . . . Three was considered among all the pagan nations as the chief of the mystical numbers, because, as Aristotle remarks, it contains within itself a beginning, a middle, and an end. Hence we find it designating some of the attributes of almost all the pagan gods" (Sinclair, pp. 382-383).

See further above.

Greece​

"In the Fourth Century B.C. Aristotle wrote: 'All things are three, and thrice is all: and let us use this number in the worship of the gods;

"All things are three" is what is said. A domino is a "thing" so it could be three, too.
This writing proves nothing.

for, as the Pythagoreans say, everything and all things are bounded by threes, for the end, the middle and the beginning have this number in everything, and these compose the number of the Trinity'" (Arthur Weigall, Paganism in Our Christianity, 1928, pp. 197-198).

Which Trinity? Again, more extrapolation and straw grasping from fallible men like Arthur attacking Christianity.

Egypt​

"The Hymn to Amun decreed that 'No god came into being before him (Amun)' and that 'All gods are three: Amun, Re and Ptah, and there is no second to them. Hidden is his name as Amon, he is Re in face, and his body is Ptah.' . . . This is a statement of trinity, the three chief gods of Egypt subsumed into one of them, Amon. Clearly, the concept of organic unity within plurality got an extraordinary boost with this formulation. Theologically, in a crude form it came strikingly close to the later Christian form of plural Trinitarian monotheism" (Simson Najovits, Egypt, Trunk of the Tree, Vol. 2, 2004, pp. 83-84).

Three gods. Typical strawmanning of the Biblical Trinity.
Fun fact, all three of those gods were one-person. right?

Other areas​

Many other areas had their own divine trinities.

All of which serverely missed the mark.

In Greece they were Zeus, Poseidon and Adonis.

The Phoenicians worshipped Ulomus, Ulosuros and Eliun. Rome worshipped Jupiter, Neptune and Pluto. In Germanic nations they were called Wodan, Thor and Fricco. Regarding the Celts, one source states, "The ancient heathen deities of the pagan Irish[,] Criosan, Biosena, and Seeva, or Sheeva, are doubtless the Creeshna [Krishna], Veeshnu [Vishnu], [or the all-inclusive] Brahma, and Seeva [Shiva], of the Hindoos" (Thomas Maurice, The History of Hindostan, Vol. 2, 1798, p. 171).

Three gods that were single in person AND in deity.
like islam. like.... UNITARIANISM!!!! (the one person part)

 

[RR144]

Similar. So NOT the Trinity, only a vague semblance.

3 in 1, sounds the same to me.

The Biblical Trinity involves THREE Persons, ONE God.

As the hymn goes "God in 3 persons, blessed trinity." Each person is God, but not 3 Gods, but one God. So, if the Father is God, the Son is God, the holy Spirit is God, that's 3 Gods. You admit, when Jesus was on earth, he was God, did he come down as Jesus or a Trinity?

Just because jerome asserted this doesnt make it true. How did he define "Trinity"?

That can be said of any ao-called "Church Father".

One sky god , an earth god, and a water god. Three gods, not one. Even the title admits its polythiesm. Biblical Trinitarianism is monothiestic.

I'd say that Sumerian beliefs had Three one-person gods!

Thomas gave no evidence, only baseless assertions and
reaching for connections (the triangle part).

This sounds like a warping. As you see, still three *gods* are mentioned. Its that the gods (obvioulsy false ones) look all the same. The person seems to only want to accept one out of the three gods. And they seem to all be one-person gods!

See further above.

"All things are three" is what is said. A domino is a "thing" so it could be three, too.
This writing proves nothing.

Which Trinity? Again, more extrapolation and straw grasping from fallible men like Arthur attacking Christianity.

Three gods. Typical strawmanning of the Biblical Trinity.
Fun fact, all three of those gods were one-person. right?

All of which serverely missed the mark.

Three gods that were single in person AND in deity.
like islam. like.... UNITARIANISM!!!! (the one person part)

Exactly, "which trinity? Seems there are so many views among Christians as to the true nature of God. So you want to believe in whatever you believe about His nature and make up, by all means do so. Just remember, belief or unbelief in the Trinity, is NOT a salvation issue. God bless!

 

[KV-44-v1]

3 in 1, sounds the same to me.

If they didnt teach that God was three Persons, it cannot be "same".

So, if the Father is God, the Son is God, the holy Spirit is God, that's 3 Gods.

They are different Persons, but one God.
Jesus' baptism.
Elohim is plural. The word Seraphim is too.

You admit, when Jesus was on earth, he was God, did he come down as Jesus or a Trinity?

Jesus is the Son of God, right? So the Son was the Person Who came down to earth.

But we can still say that God came down because the Son is God.

John 3:16-17
16 For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. 17 For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through Him.
The Son was sent, not the Father. The Bible clearly says that the Son was 'given'.