• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Cross or Upright Stake

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
not going to say cant be done .fencing would just be a hole doug ,pole dropped into it
One can do it quickly with a fence post like this:

1680059923327.png


It can be pounded into the ground with the appropriate tool. The problem is that one cannot do that with an upright for a cross. It would not be stable. The same goes for a wooden fence post. Some serious tamping is needed and then I would let it set a while before putting any stress on it. Even if you have concrete that will not set quickly, at least not in those days. The poles would have been permanent fixtures.
 

David Davidovich

Well-Known Member
not going to tell you no one has ever die on a cross. in fact people have died that way . it can take days to die . jesus died in hours
So, are you implying that crosses may have taken longer to die on and therefore, this indicates that Jesus died on an upright stake?

Also, I looked up that:
Crucifixion in Roman times was applied mostly to slaves, disgraced soldiers, Christians and foreigners--only very rarely to Roman citizens. Death, usually after 6 hours--4 days, was due to multifactorial pathology: after-effects of compulsory scourging and maiming, haemorrhage and dehydration causing hypovolaemic shock and pain, but the most important factor was progressive asphyxia caused by impairment of respiratory movement. Resultant anoxaemia exaggerated hypovolaemic shock. Death was probably commonly precipitated by cardiac arrest, caused by vasovagal reflexes, initiated inter alia by severe anoxaemia, severe pain, body blows and breaking of the large bones. The attending Roman guards could only leave the site after the victim had died, and were known to precipitate death by means of deliberate fracturing of the tibia and/or fibula, spear stab wounds into the heart, sharp blows to the front of the chest, or a smoking fire built at the foot of the cross to asphyxiate the victim.
The history and pathology of crucifixion
 

David Davidovich

Well-Known Member
Very interesting aside from actual translations, this pastor did a good examination of whether Jesus died on a cross or a stake:

"Jesus Christ May Not Have Died on Cross​

No evidence in Ancient sources backs up defining symbol of Christianity"​


(hmm, very interesting...)
Thank you for your response, YourTrue, but it looks like you didn't read my OP and that your guy Gunnar is out of touch with the archaeological discovery from 1968 that is mentioned. Therefore, he should be a bit more studious.
 

David Davidovich

Well-Known Member
People were typically crucified with the crossed "t" or "T" formation. But, some on a simple stake and others on an "x" formation. If it says cross it's safe to assume it was the "t" or "T" formation, as that is the slowest and most meticulously brutal way to execute by planks.
The Romans typically employed one of four shapes:

I – Crux Simplex
Sometimes they used a single upright stake or post and either nailed or tied their victim (in some cases this may have simply been to the trunk of a tree). With this shape of wood, the victim’s hands could be tied or nailed quite simply with a single piece of rope or a single nail, as many Jehovah’s Witnesses suggest.

T – Crux Commissa
Sometimes the Roman soldiers used a Crux Commissa (“connected cross”). This is also referred to as “St. Anthony’s Cross” or the “Tau Cross” (after the Greek letter “Tau” it resembles). This structure was constructed from a horizontal beam connected at the top of the vertical stake, forming a “T” shape. Victims were nailed to the T with arms outstretched on either side of the horizontal beam. Their feet were either nailed together or separately to the bottom of the vertical post.

+ – Crux Immissa
Similar to the Crux Commissa, this third shape is the traditional form Christians observe for the cross (“Immissa” means “inserted”). This cross was constructed from a vertical stake with a horizontal cross beam (called a “patibulum”) inserted across the upper portion, leaving a “tip” extending above the patibulum. Sometimes this tip was little more than a small extension, resulting in a structure still resembling a “T” more than a “+”. Victims were nailed to the structure with arms outstretched on either side of the patibulum. Their feet were either nailed together or separately to the bottom of the vertical post.

X – Crux Decussata
This “X” shaped cross (also known as “St. Andrew’s Cross”) borrowed its name from the Roman numeral ten (“decussis”). Two wooden planks were fastened together in an X configuration
and the victim’s were nailed to the cross with arms outstretched on top ends of the X. Their feet were either nailed or tied separately to the bottom ends of the X.
What Was The Shape Of Jesus’ Cross?
Also, I don't know why some people think that this is not historical and that this is from pagan imagination. :confused:
 

David Davidovich

Well-Known Member
The point is the word stauros / stavros wwhich originally referred to wood or a tree but then its meaning shifted. In modern Greek, Ερυθρός Σταυρός (Erythrós Stavrós) is the word for the Red Cross.
Excellent!
So, which of these shapes were used for Jesus’ cross? While the data is limited, I do think the traditional shape (the “Crux Immissa”) is the best inference from evidence for the following reasons:

The Limits of Linguistic Evidence:
The Greek words used in the New Testament place no restrictions on which shape we must infer. Like other languages, the original meaning of the terms “stauros” and “xulon” changed over time. Homer, for example, lived sometime between the 12th and 9th Centuries BC. In his day, the term “stauros” simply meant “pole”. But by the time of Christ, the Romans were still using the Greek language even though they modified many of the words to give them broader meaning. The Greeks did not use crucifixion as a form of execution. When the Romans used this method of punishment, they had to modify the existing Greek terminology to suit their purposes. As New Testament Greek scholar, Dr. David Black says:

“(The original meaning of a word) used alone, cannot adequately account for the meaning of a word since meaning is continuously subject to change.… It is therefore mandatory for the New Testament student to know whether the original meaning of a word still exists at a later stage.… Hence it is not legitimate to say that the ‘original’ meaning of a word is its ‘real’ meaning” (David Alan Black Linguistics for Students of New Testament Greek Baker Books, Grand Rapids, 1988, 1995, p.122).

For this reason, Kittel’s Theological Dictionary defines “stauros” in the following way:

In shape we find three basic forms. The cross was a vertical, pointed stake… or it consisted of an upright with a cross-beam above it… or it consisted of two intersecting beams of equal length…” (Gerhard Kittel, Theological Dictionary of the New Testament: Volume 7, 1971, p. 572).

In order to know precisely which shape of wood was used to crucify Jesus, we need to look at the cumulative case from other evidences.
What Was The Shape Of Jesus’ Cross?
 

cataway

Well-Known Member
One can do it quickly with a fence post like this:

View attachment 73931

It can be pounded into the ground with the appropriate tool. The problem is that one cannot do that with an upright for a cross. It would not be stable. The same goes for a wooden fence post. Some serious tamping is needed and then I would let it set a while before putting any stress on it. Even if you have concrete that will not set quickly, at least not in those days. The poles would have been permanent fixtures.
the pic. thats called a t post. you might use it to make a trellis in a garden .note where the T is.. not much good for making a corral to keep sheep goats cattle or horses . a set of posts and bracing is used in the corners to make a substantial corner
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
the pic. thats called a t post. you might use it to make a trellis in a garden .note where the T is.. not much good for making a corral to keep sheep goats cattle or horses . a set of posts and bracing is used in the corners to make a substantial corner
It works fine if you know what you are doing. It has no problem holding barb wire. You can attach insulators to it, wire it up and you have an electric fence.
 

cataway

Well-Known Member
It works fine if you know what you are doing. It has no problem holding barb wire. You can attach insulators to it, wire it up and you have an electric fence.oug
sure if you are running a straight line. make a 90-degree corner and it soon fails .been there done that
 

David Davidovich

Well-Known Member
The learned Catholic Justus Lipsius (1547-1606) represents this instrument of torture as such in his book De Cruce Libri Tres. The Greek word stauros that we translate by ‘cross’ had the initial meaning of ‘pile’ (forming part of a palisade), ‘stake’ (already used by the Assyrians and Persians), or even ‘post’ from which the victim was suspended. . .

I think, when we consider, how the "Church" changed many things, and why, around the 4th century, we should appreciate, that this would be one of those things.
So, I'm curious, @nPeace, what is your view concerning the historical claims that Roman executions were performed by means of crucifixion on a cross? >>>>

The representation of death of the Christ

does not appear in symbolic art of original Christianity.

The cross did not become the supreme emblem and symbol of Christianity
until the fourth Century. Sir Wallis Budge
There is nothing to confirm that the original terms designated the traditional cross,
all the more so as this religious symbol
was used by non-Christians long before Christ. Throughout the centuries, approximately 400 sorts of cross have come to light.
The Ankh cross was the Egyptian symbol of life, representing eternity.
 

cataway

Well-Known Member
consider what happens when a man is attached to a pole . a pole is laid down then a man is laid down on top of it hands a feet are then nailed to the pole.
as soon as the pole has begone to be lifted it flips .the man was facing up but now he is facing downward. pushing a pole to an upright position with a man in the way more than doubles the effort needed to stand it upright. if a T handle is added to the pole below the feet or knees it would keep the pole from twisting . the T handle would also aide in standing up the pole and in Jesus case aide in lifting the pole up out of the hole the pole was set in
 

David Davidovich

Well-Known Member
So, I'm curious, @nPeace, what is your view concerning the historical claims that Roman executions were performed by means of crucifixion on a cross? >>>>
Well, I wanted to give @nPeace props for doing a great job in answering my thread questions, however, apparently, he must feel that I am unworthy of being replied to since I was either once a Jehovah's Witnesses or once associated with them. ;) (And please no saying to tell that guy that I don't live on Religious Forums because I already clicked on you profile and saw where you are already off somewhere else spreading your gospel ;)). But I guess there's something irresistible about the internet because even those who claim to be faithful and strong Jehovah's Witnesses disobey the counsel from Jehovah's Witnesses Governing Body, which to them is equivalent to counsel coming from Jehovah God himself:
Satan and those under his influence often mix lies with truths in an attempt to undermine our faith. (2Co 11:3) For example, the Assyrians used half-truths and outright lies to discourage Jehovah’s people. (2Ch 32:10-15) Apostates use similar tactics today. How should we react to apostate teachings? Treat them as the poison they are! Never read them, reply to them, or repeat them. Be quick to detect information that is designed to raise doubts about Jehovah and his organization—and reject it!—Jude 3, 4.
Protect Yourself From Apostasy
And this is NEW LIGHT from 2023. Therefore, I guess I'm not the only one. ;)
 

David Davidovich

Well-Known Member
P.S. And by the way, even though that was very good and enlightening information about the cross, Jehovah's Witnesses need a lot more work with understanding reality as far as creation and evolution goes. You guys do a VERY poor job with your outdated information and deceptive and embarrassing arguments. ;) click here
 

cataway

Well-Known Member
Wrong. I doubt if you have ever been in movies. You are an ape in real life. Do you think that you are a giraffe? Or an aardvark? Please try to be serious.

If God is real and if he cannot lie then Genesis cannot be read literally.
gen. 1:25

And God made the beasts of the earth after their kind, and the cattle after their kind, and everything that creepeth upon the ground after its kind: and God saw that it was good.
cattle are still cattle. horses are still horses apes are still apes and the fish Cilacap is still a Cilacap
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
gen. 1:25

And God made the beasts of the earth after their kind, and the cattle after their kind, and everything that creepeth upon the ground after its kind: and God saw that it was good.
cattle are still cattle. horses are still horses apes are still apes and the fish Cilacap is still a Cilacap
Yes, so what? That is one of the dumbest arguments that creationists can make because you are still an ape, you are still a mammal, you are still a tetrapod, you are still a member of vertebrata (I am assuming that you do have a backbone) you are still a chordate, you are still an animal, and you are still a eukaryote.

Try to make a claim that at least seems to help your argument.

Tell me, why do you think that God is a liar? All of the evidence supports the theory of evolution. It is written in the stones. It is written in our genes. Since the evidence all supports evolution you would have to explain how it got there. The only tenable excuse that I have ever heard is that God is a liar.

Even when I was a Christian, unlike you apparently, I did not believe that God was a liar so of course I read Genesis as a series of morality tales. It still works if one does that.
 

cataway

Well-Known Member
Yes, so what? That is one of the dumbest arguments that creationists can make because you are still an ape, you are still a mammal, you are still a tetrapod, you are still a member of vertebrata (I am assuming that you do have a backbone) you are still a chordate, you are still an animal, and you are still a eukaryote.

Try to make a claim that at least seems to help your argument.

Tell me, why do you think that God is a liar? All of the evidence supports the theory of evolution. It is written in the stones. It is written in our genes. Since the evidence all supports evolution you would have to explain how it got there. The only tenable excuse that I have ever heard is that God is a liar.

Even when I was a Christian, unlike you apparently, I did not believe that God was a liar so of course I read Genesis as a series of morality tales. It still works if one does that.
theory of evolution?? and not law of evolution.
 
Top