I found this in a book and thought it would be interesting enough to start a good argument.

The Greek word rendered "cross" in many modern Bible versions ("torture stake" in NW) is stau-ros'. In classical Greek, this word meant merely ian upright stake, or pale. Later it also came to be used for an execution stake having a crosspiece. The Imperial Bible Dictionary achknowledges this, saying "The Greek word for cross, {stau-ros'}, properly signified a stake, an upright pole, or piece of paling, on which anything might be hung, or which might be used in impaling [fencing in] a piece of ground...Even amongst the Romans the crux (from which the word cross is derived) appears to have been originally an upright pole."

Was that the case in connection with the execution of God's son? It is noteworthy that the Bible also uses the word xy'lon to identify the device used. A Greek-English Lexicon, by Lidell and Scott, defines this as meaning: "wood cut, and ready for use, firewood, tember,, etc... piece of wood, log, beam, post...cudgel, club.. stake on which criminals were impaled... of live wood, tree." It also says " in NT, of the cross," and cites Acts 5:30 and 10:39 as examples. However, in those verses KJ, RS, JB, and DY translate xy'lon as "tree."

The book The Non-Christian Cross, by J.D. Parsons, says: "There is not a single sentence in any of the numerous writings forming the New Testament, which, in original Greek, bears even indirect evidence to the effect that the stauros used in the case of Jesus was other then an oridinary stauros; much less to the effect that it consisted, not of one piece of timber, but of two pieces nailed together to form a cross... It is not a little misleading upon the part of our teachers to translate the word stauros as 'cross' when rendering the Greek documents of the Church into our native tongue, and to support that action by putting 'cross' in our lexicons as the meaning of stauros without carefully explaining that that ws at any rate not the primary meaning of the word in the days of the Apostles, did not become its primary signification till long afterwards, and became so then, if at all, only because despite the absence of corroborative evidence, it was for some reason or other assumed that the particular stauros upon which Jesus was executed had that particular shape."

Thus the weight of the evidence indicates that Jesus died on an upright stake and not on the traditional cross.

Have you read the most informative part of this forum? It has to do with conspiracies in religion, NOT repetitious BS of religionists arguing religiosity.

EDITED TO ADD:
from: drunk
sent: 24-3-2004 at 05:54 AM
Your comment you made to the thread starter LetsBusto.

Please cool it

ohhhhhhh my most deepest appologies. How unsensitive of me.

Actually this should be in BELOW top secret, but that is only an opinion. Still a good post about the cross vs stake, but it aint conspiracy.

[Edited on 24-3-2004 by ET3]

[Edited on 24-3-2004 by ET3]

And exactly why do you believe it is a BTS post rather than where it is????


I think it fits fine here. Shows the posibility of a conspiracy to hide the truth of how JC died. I have read this in many places actually. And, from what I gather, the cross is just a mere symbol derived from the post that JC was killed on. It was something to the effect of, the word CRUCIFY was Combined with the word stau-ros' and an extra S was added, making C-rucify stau-ROSS. Then the capitol parts combined for CROSS. Then the big selling piece of Kristjianity became what is now the cross.

What I don't understand is, if he died on a post rather than the cross depicted, why is it that the current cross is so sacred to the followers of JC (or the trinity or whatever for whichever denomination you follow)???

Good post Letsbusto

Blessed Be

Whitewolf

I'm glad you have arrived at the pinnacle of ATS so quickly.

Please, don't ever do that sort of thing again. He has posted a legitimate topic for the forum, and just because you don't happent to like the christian religion does not give you license to come in here, and bash this quite interesting topic.

I for one practice Asatru, and you don't see me coming in here and debasing christianity. Bottom line is that this is a perfectly viable topic, no matter what you think of it, and I for one believe that you should in fact, cool it.

Originally posted by ET3
Have you read the most informative part of this forum? It has to do with conspiracies in religion, NOT repetitious BS of religionists arguing religiosity.

ohhhhhhh my most deepest appologies. How unsensitive of me.

Actually this should be in BELOW top secret, but that is only an opinion. Still a good post about the cross vs stake, but it aint conspiracy.

[Edited on 24-3-2004 by ET3]

[Edited on 24-3-2004 by ET3]

Conspiracy of how Jesus really died perhaps? You don't see that? Ok then. You need to chill, you're well out of order as he's a new member and needs to get used where things go.

Your attitude stinks man, you need to seriously re-evaluate it.

[Edited on 24-3-2004 by John Nada]

The church needed to tell people it was a cross. A big sharp pointy stick is not as symbolic and is not as useful to the church.

Could the Bible authors have purposefully created the ambiguity to create a sympathy amongst worshippers of other religions?

I think that is possible, consider that they have also changed a few dates, moved them to fit already existant pagan holidays, december 25th for example.

I have to agree with LetsBusto, from the research I did when first reading the bible (different versions) the method used at those times was a stake. Also those stakes would have an added spike that was inserted in the rectum to add pain etc. as the body under fatigue would slump thus causing the spike to insert more pain etc.

I have to agree with ET3 also, this is not a conspiracy issue but a religionosity one. Such as why do the religions have to have symbols? Why do beginners in seeking answers post threads in conspiracy if they are just asking beginner relevant questions?

Everyone’s derogatory statements so far are unfounded including Drunks u2u to ET3, if someone has done research into the ancient writings they would have a better knowledge base that does not include religious dogma.

I would also add, I you are not part of the solution, you are part of the problem.

There's a fundimental flaw in believing the cross was actually a stake. It is likely it started out as a stake, however, the romans were intent on making crucifixion (SP?) as tortous as possible. You die of asphixiation when your crucified. (really sorry about my spelling!) The reason for this is that your arms are held out parallel to your shoulders, and when you relax, you can't inhale air because that position causes 2 muscles (can't remember their names) to paralyze your diaphram. If it was just a stake, you'd die from the elements, thirst, and hunger.

Another aspect of the torture was flogging the prisioner with a whip which had 9 lengths of leather covered in blades and iron balls. This would flay the flesh on your back. Then you would be nailed to the cross. Every time you would lift yourself by your arms, you would rip open the wounds again, causing lots of pain. They also didn't sand the cross, so you'd get all kinds of splinters sticking into those wounds as well. If it was just a stake, you wouldn't be able to lift yourself. They would have to secure your arms somehow, to keep you upright, and would probably do it either behind your back or above your head. That wouldn't give you the leverage to push yourself up to get a breath. Plus you wouldn't have to push yourself up to get a breath because you could breath just fine in your prone position.

So in short, I believe it may have started with a stake, and they added the cross bar to cause even more suffering.

Now that is just about the most BS I have read about why you cant die on a stake, Jake.

Originally posted by ET3
Now that is just about the most BS I have read about why you cant die on a stake, Jake.

Reread my post, that's not what I said at all.

It doesnt matter how he died, it doesnt change who he was and what he did. If this is true it just adds more fuel to the cruxifix being an idol or something.

The question of whether Jesus would have died on a stake or a two beamed cross is relevant to conspiracy when the next logical question is then asked... why the symbol and worship of a two beamed cross?

First of all, most people don't glorify the instrument of death that was used -- or at least believed to have been used -- in taking the life of a loved one. We no more see people today wearing hand gun pendants or electric chair necklaces than early Christians saw each other wearing either a stake or a cross. It was morbid and would have been irreverent.

The cross, however, was a common symbol used among other faiths before and at the time Christianity began to blossom in the region. Used as a symbol of Tammuz and ultimately connected to the worship of the sun (as Christianity ultimately is), early Christians adopted it as their own as they did many other pagan beliefs and rituals.

For a non-believer or person who has studied the history of the bible and the faith, this may not seem like much of an issue. But for a Christian who looks with reverence upon the cross while damning paganism in their everyday life, the true origins of the Christian cross most certainly would be construed differently.

Jehovah's Witnesses are one group who promote this theory. They always depict Jesus being executed on an upright pole, hands overhead with a single nail through them.

The question then, of course, is Why did Thomas say "nails" (plural) when referring to the wounds in Jesus hands?
- John 20:25