Moron Claims Jesus never existed because crucifixion is impossible

[Pegg]

You're missing some rather important words in that. I'll highlight them.

Originally. As in, when first put into practice. But both the word and the practice had altered by the time of the Nazarene. Much the same way the notion of a "slave" and all that entailed changed between Roman times and Antebellum Southern America.

if the meaning had changed by the time of Jesus, why did the apostles use a word that meant 'upright pole'

Shouldnt they have used whatever word meant crossbeam?

 

[Nietzsche]

if the meaning had changed by the time of Jesus, why did the apostles use a word that meant 'upright pole'

Shouldnt they have used whatever word meant crossbeam?

Greek is a funny language like that, it's extremely poor at incorporating new words, and tends to retain archaic terms for things that have clearly changed. The problem bled over into Latin because of the cross-pollination between the two cultures.

You seem to be an English speaker, so it's difficult to understand, given that English might be the most-adaptable language on the planet. Look at Hebrew for another example of a language that remains obtuse & archaic despite ages of development.

 

[Kolibri]

Greek is a funny language like that, it's extremely poor at incorporating new words, and tends to retain archaic terms for things that have clearly changed. The problem bled over into Latin because of the cross-pollination between the two cultures.

You seem to be an English speaker, so it's difficult to understand, given that English might be the most-adaptable language on the planet. Look at Hebrew for another example of a language that remains obtuse & archaic despite ages of development.

Sometimes it is good to see look at what word the Greek means by cross-referencing with what is used in it's place in the Hebrew.

In the Septuagint, Gr., third and second cent. B.C.E., H.S. (A. Rahlfs, Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, Stuttgart, 1935) at Ezra 6:11 it is xy'lon to denote an upright pole with no crossbeam.

Galatians 3:13 (which does talk about the Christ's death) references Deuteronomy 21:23. Since xy'lon and stau·rosʹ is used to describe the same event, and xy'lon replaces Hebrew word for tree - ʽets, it makes sense to understand stau·rosʹ as still being the most efficient design at the time of Jesus' death, that of an upright pole with no crossbeam.

 

[Nietzsche]

Sometimes it is good to see look at what word the Greek means by cross-referencing with what is used in it's place in the Hebrew.

In the Septuagint, Gr., third and second cent. B.C.E., H.S. (A. Rahlfs, Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, Stuttgart, 1935) at Ezra 6:11 it is xy'lon to denote an upright pole with no crossbeam.

Galatians 3:13 (which does talk about the Christ's death) references Deuteronomy 21:23. Since xy'lon and stau·rosʹ is used to describe the same event, and xy'lon replaces Hebrew word for tree - ʽets, it makes sense to understand stau·rosʹ as still being the most efficient design at the time of Jesus' death, that of an upright pole with no crossbeam.

There wouldn't be a word for cross-beam crucifixion(or crucifixion at all) in Hebrew because they(the Jews) never adopted crucifixion to begin with.

Also, trees have branches. Again, all the records we have of crucifixions are of the cross-beam variety. The Spartacus uprising was dealt with that way, do you think they(the Roman Empire) would change anything about how they decide to punish someone who to them is nothing but another rabble-rousing illiterate from one of the further backwater reaches of the Imperium?

Edit;

Another thing. The 'stake' design isn't more efficient. Not when you factor in the soldiers who have to stake him to it and then raise it up. A crossbeam aids with the balance, and it's easier to drive in the stakes if you only have to go through one wrist at a time rather than both.

 

[catch22]

Did Jesus die on a stake or a cross? | CARM - The Christian Apologetics & Research Ministry

I'm with Nietzsche, and well, everyone else on this one.

Rain, Reign, Rein.

 

[Pegg]

Greek is a funny language like that, it's extremely poor at incorporating new words, and tends to retain archaic terms for things that have clearly changed. The problem bled over into Latin because of the cross-pollination between the two cultures.

You seem to be an English speaker, so it's difficult to understand, given that English might be the most-adaptable language on the planet. Look at Hebrew for another example of a language that remains obtuse & archaic despite ages of development.

I think its more a case of people not wanting to break with tradition and too proud and stubborn to admit their error.

They are more emotionally connected to their symbols and traditional beliefs then they are to the truth of the matter. And lets be honest, the church have been wrong before.

 

[Nietzsche]

I think its more a case of people not wanting to break with tradition and too proud and stubborn to admit their error.

I should point out; I'm not a Christian(if my name and 'Heathen King' thing didn't give it away). My argument for the crossbeam has nothing to do with tradition, it's simply all the material I've read from historians(both members of the faith and very much not members of the faith) overwhelmingly agree with 'crossbeams'. The argument in Academia boils down to what kind of crossbeam. Small 't' or big 'T'.

They are more emotionally connected to their symbols and traditional beliefs then they are to the truth of the matter. And lets be honest, the church have been wrong before.

Indeed they have. I assume of course, you're referring to churches other than your own. But I have some advice for you;

Do not go around casting stones when you live in glass houses. You're arguing that your church, which was founded in historical terms less than the blink of an eye ago and was initially(and largely remains) made up by people best described as latter-day puritans, is somehow a better authority than any others? Do I need to trot out the shopping-list of failed predictions? "No guys, for serious & realsies this time.."

 

[Pegg]

I should point out; I'm not a Christian(if my name and 'Heathen King' thing didn't give it away). My argument for the crossbeam has nothing to do with tradition, it's simply all the material I've read from historians(both members of the faith and very much not members of the faith) overwhelmingly agree with 'crossbeams'. The argument in Academia boils down to what kind of crossbeam. Small 't' or big 'T'.

and the church and theologians all agreed that the bible says the earth is the center of the universe too.... it didnt make them right.

The best evidence we have that Jesus did not die on a crossbeam is found in the bible by the fact that the words used to describe the instrument of death was not crossbeam....it was upright pole/stake.

The so-called experts can believe what they like but it doesnt make it so. The eyewitnesses know what they saw and they saw an upright pole. Go figure!

 

[Nietzsche]

and the church and theologians all agreed that the bible says the earth is the center of the universe too.... it didnt make them right.

The best evidence we have that Jesus did not die on a crossbeam is found in the bible by the fact that the words used to describe the instrument of death was not crossbeam....it was upright pole/stake.

The so-called experts can believe what they like but it doesnt make it so. The eyewitnesses know what they saw and they saw an upright pole. Go figure!

You should be using the singular, not the plural there. I believe that it's John which dates back the furthest, with the two other depictions in the Bible being slightly altered copies of John(or whichever the original is).

However, geocentrism is hardly comparable to the crossbeam-side here. When one looks at the sun, regardless of what planet you're on, so long as you understand how to compensate for your perspective you can quickly deduce that you're going around the sun, not the other way around. This observation is true everywhere in the solar system, even if you're on a moon(which would actually make it easier to realize that the sun isn't orbiting you).

However, the stake argument? You must ignore almost every significant & documented Roman use of crucifixion. This would be like being told that while it looks like the sun orbits us, if you factor in the perception problem of being on a spinning sphere it becomes apparent that is not the case, and yet you still choose to think geocentrism is the actual situation. You have to ignore every bit of what we know about Rome.

 

[Pegg]

You should be using the singular, not the plural there. I believe that it's John which dates back the furthest, with the two other depictions in the Bible being slightly altered copies of John(or whichever the original is).

However, geocentrism is hardly comparable to the crossbeam-side here. When one looks at the sun, regardless of what planet you're on, so long as you understand how to compensate for your perspective you can quickly deduce that you're going around the sun, not the other way around. This observation is true everywhere in the solar system, even if you're on a moon(which would actually make it easier to realize that the sun isn't orbiting you).

However, the stake argument? You must ignore almost every significant & documented Roman use of crucifixion. This would be like being told that while it looks like the sun orbits us, if you factor in the perception problem of being on a spinning sphere it becomes apparent that is not the case, and yet you still choose to think geocentrism is the actual situation. You have to ignore every bit of what we know about Rome.

I think the people who lived in the first century knew a lot more about Rome and its executions then the so-called 'experts' do today.

 

[Skwim]

there are plenty of scholars who have made it known that the instrument was an upright pole....where do you think we got the information from???

Greek scholar W. E. Vine, stauros′ “denotes, primarily, an upright pale or stake. On such malefactors were nailed for execution. Both the noun and the verb stauroō,to fasten to a stake or pale, are originally to be distinguished from the ecclesiastical form of a two beamed cross.”

This comes from Vine's An Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words published in 1940. Vine died in 1949.

And according to Strong's Concordance σταυρός, stauros, can mean either "a cross" or "an upright 'stake'."

The ImperialBible-Dictionary

says that the word stauros′ “properly signified a stake, an upright pole, or piece of paling, on which anything might be hung, or which might be used in impaling a piece of ground....Even amongst the Romans the crux(Latin, from which our cross is derived) appears to have been originally an upright pole.”

If you're going to quote a source please do it properly. The bolded script below are the relevant parts you've left out (It should also be noted that your source truncates the last sentence it quotes with a period, where as the dictionary uses a comma and continues on---something that would earn any high school English student a bad mark. )

"The Greek word for cross, (stauros), 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. But a modification was introduced as the dominion and usages of Rome extended themselves through Greek-speaking countries. Even amongst the Romans, the crux (from which the word cross is derived) appears to have been originally an upright pole, and always remained the more prominent part. But from the time that it began to be used as an instrument of punishment, a traverse piece of wood was commonly added: not however always then.
… There can be no doubt, however, that the later sort was the more common, and that about the period of the Gospel Age, crucifixion was usually accomplished by suspending the criminal on a cross piece of wood.
… But the commonest form, it is understood, was that in which the upright piece of wood was crossed by another near the top, but not pricisely at it, the upright pole running above the other, thus "a cross" and so making four, not merely two right angles. It was on a cross of this form, according to the general voice of tradition, that our Lord suffered.
… It may be added that crucifixion was abolished around the time of Constantine, in consequence of the sacred associations which the cross had now gathered around it." - The imperial Dictionary p.376​

The Catholic Encyclopedia

states: “Certain it is, at any rate, that the cross originally consisted of a simple vertical pole, sharpened at its upper end.”

Again your source cherry picks its evidence.(See Below) And note how the Catholic Encyclopedia here echos what The Imperial Bible-Dictionary says about how the stake was replaced by the cross.

"The penalty of the cross goes back probably to the arbor infelix, or unhappy tree, spoken of by Cicero (Pro, Rabir., iii sqq.) and by Livy, apropos of the condemnation of Horatius after the murder of his sister. According to Hüschke (Die Multa, 190) the magistrates known as duoviri perduellionis pronounced this penalty (cf. Liv., I, 266), styled also infelix lignem (Senec., Ep. ci; Plin., XVI, xxvi; XXIV, ix; Macrob., II, xvi). This primitive form of crucifixion on trees was long in use, as Justus Lipsius notes ("De cruce", I, ii, 5; Tert., "Apol.", VIII, xvi; and "Martyrol. Paphnut." 25 Sept.). Such a tree was known as a cross (crux). On an ancient vase we see Prometheus bound to a beam which serves the purpose of a cross. A somewhat different form is seen on an ancient cist at Præneste (Palestrina), upon which Andromeda is represented nude, and bound by the feet to an instrument of punishment like a military yoke — i.e. two parallel, perpendicular stakes, surmounted by a transverse bar. Certain it is, at any rate, that the cross originally consisted of a simple vertical pole, sharpened at its upper end. Mæcenas (Seneca, Epist. xvii, 1, 10) calls it acuta crux; it could also be called crux simplex. To this upright pole a transverse bar was afterwards added to which the sufferer was fastened with nails or cords, and thus remained until he died, whence the expression cruci figere or affigere (Tac., "Ann.", XV, xliv; Potron., "Satyr.", iii)
Nonnus confirms the statement that Jesus Christ was crucified on a quadrilateral cross.

​

A Critical Lexicon and Concordance to the English and Greek NewTestament defines xy′lon (another word used in the scriptures) as

“a piece of timber, a wooden stake.”

A dated lexicon from from 1895. In any case the following clears up the word xy′lon

1. 1. mIn the Hebrew Bible Deuteronomy 21:23 states that "cursed of God is everyone who hangs on a tree." In the Septuagint this became epi xylon "upon a piece of wood," and usage for "hanging" (Joshua 8:29; 10:24), then passing into New Testament usage such as Peter's 3 uses of xylon (in English Bibles "tree") compared to Paul who only uses xylon "piece of wood" once.
2. In Liddell and Scott, the meanings of the word "ξύλον" [xylon] are classified under five headings: :I. wood cut and ready for use, firewood, timber (in these senses the word is usually in the plural); :II. piece of wood, log, beam, post or an object made of wood, such as a spoon, the Trojan horse, a cudgel or club, an instrument of punishment (a collar for someone's neck, stocks to confine his feet or to confine his neck, arms and legs, a gallows to hang him, or a stake to impale him), a table, a bench as in the theatre; :III. a tree :IV. a blockhead or a stubborn person; :V. a measure of length. (source: Wikipedia)

And the fact that this is so well known just goes to show the cognitiive dissonance among members of the clergy and church teachers. They put tradition before truth.

And I would say this just goes to show how dishonest the Watchtower society is by selectively quoting sources so as to back up their agenda. It should be ashamed of what its done here and to its followers. Leaving out critical information, as its done with its supposed evidence, is an outright lie.

Why the Society chose to abandon the cross for a spike may be anyone's guess, but ever the reason it's not supported by the evidence it cites in its Online Library.

Oh yes, when quoting the work of others its proper to quote YOUR source, in which case was The Watchtower Online Library

 

[Pegg]

This comes from Vine's An Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words published in 1940. Vine died in 1949.

And according to Strong's Concordance σταυρός, stauros, can mean either "a cross" or "an upright 'stake'."

If you're going to quote a source please do it properly. The bolded script below are the relevant parts you've left out (It should also be noted that your source truncates the last sentence it quotes with a period, where as the dictionary uses a comma and continues on---something that would earn any high school English student a bad mark. )

"The Greek word for cross, (stauros), 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. But a modification was introduced as the dominion and usages of Rome extended themselves through Greek-speaking countries. Even amongst the Romans, the crux (from which the word cross is derived) appears to have been originally an upright pole, and always remained the more prominent part. But from the time that it began to be used as an instrument of punishment, a traverse piece of wood was commonly added: not however always then.
… There can be no doubt, however, that the later sort was the more common, and that about the period of the Gospel Age, crucifixion was usually accomplished by suspending the criminal on a cross piece of wood.
… But the commonest form, it is understood, was that in which the upright piece of wood was crossed by another near the top, but not pricisely at it, the upright pole running above the other, thus "a cross" and so making four, not merely two right angles. It was on a cross of this form, according to the general voice of tradition, that our Lord suffered.
… It may be added that crucifixion was abolished around the time of Constantine, in consequence of the sacred associations which the cross had now gathered around it." - The imperial Dictionary p.376​

Again your source cherry picks its evidence.(See Below) And note how the Catholic Encyclopedia here echos what The Imperial Bible-Dictionary says about how the stake was replaced by the cross.

"The penalty of the cross goes back probably to the arbor infelix, or unhappy tree, spoken of by Cicero (Pro, Rabir., iii sqq.) and by Livy, apropos of the condemnation of Horatius after the murder of his sister. According to Hüschke (Die Multa, 190) the magistrates known as duoviri perduellionis pronounced this penalty (cf. Liv., I, 266), styled also infelix lignem (Senec., Ep. ci; Plin., XVI, xxvi; XXIV, ix; Macrob., II, xvi). This primitive form of crucifixion on trees was long in use, as Justus Lipsius notes ("De cruce", I, ii, 5; Tert., "Apol.", VIII, xvi; and "Martyrol. Paphnut." 25 Sept.). Such a tree was known as a cross (crux). On an ancient vase we see Prometheus bound to a beam which serves the purpose of a cross. A somewhat different form is seen on an ancient cist at Præneste (Palestrina), upon which Andromeda is represented nude, and bound by the feet to an instrument of punishment like a military yoke — i.e. two parallel, perpendicular stakes, surmounted by a transverse bar. Certain it is, at any rate, that the cross originally consisted of a simple vertical pole, sharpened at its upper end. Mæcenas (Seneca, Epist. xvii, 1, 10) calls it acuta crux; it could also be called crux simplex. To this upright pole a transverse bar was afterwards added to which the sufferer was fastened with nails or cords, and thus remained until he died, whence the expression cruci figere or affigere (Tac., "Ann.", XV, xliv; Potron., "Satyr.", iii)
Nonnus confirms the statement that Jesus Christ was crucified on a quadrilateral cross.

​

A dated lexicon from from 1895. In any case the following clears up the word xy′lon

1. 1. mIn the Hebrew Bible Deuteronomy 21:23 states that "cursed of God is everyone who hangs on a tree." In the Septuagint this became epi xylon "upon a piece of wood," and usage for "hanging" (Joshua 8:29; 10:24), then passing into New Testament usage such as Peter's 3 uses of xylon (in English Bibles "tree") compared to Paul who only uses xylon "piece of wood" once.
2. In Liddell and Scott, the meanings of the word "ξύλον" [xylon] are classified under five headings: :I. wood cut and ready for use, firewood, timber (in these senses the word is usually in the plural); :II. piece of wood, log, beam, post or an object made of wood, such as a spoon, the Trojan horse, a cudgel or club, an instrument of punishment (a collar for someone's neck, stocks to confine his feet or to confine his neck, arms and legs, a gallows to hang him, or a stake to impale him), a table, a bench as in the theatre; :III. a tree :IV. a blockhead or a stubborn person; :V. a measure of length. (source: Wikipedia)

And I would say this just goes to show how dishonest the Watchtower society is by selectively quoting sources so as to back up their agenda. It should be ashamed of what its done here and to its followers. Leaving out critical information, as its done with its supposed evidence, is an outright lie.

Why the Society chose to abandon the cross for a spike may be anyone's guess, but ever the reason it's not supported by the evidence it cites in its Online Library.

Oh yes, when quoting the work of others its proper to quote YOUR source, in which case was The Watchtower Online Library

You said it yourself.... "stake was replaced by the cross."

The original implement was a stake or upright pole as told by the apostles. Why can't people handle that??

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

I have just made a new cross and stand for our Church
We use it leading up to easter Draped in Greenery. Not sure where the tradition came from, but It has gone on long enough for the previous one to break at the base.

I came to a few conclusions when making it... although it is 2 meters tall and far from full size The torque at the base is tremendous To support a sagging man it would need to be an absolute minimum of 3 meters high. with at least one and a half meters to sink in to the ground. to support a squirming man of moderate weight.
I find it hard to believe that such a cross could be erected with out considerable effort to both Dig a suitable hole in rocky ground and to lift the cross and man into position.
I also do not believe the cross piece could have been fixed with a halving joint, but more likely roped, Rigging fashion. The Cross piece would be even more unlikely to have been fixed at the very top ,T, fashion, because of the difficulty of fixing it there.
A single pole would work but would need to be longer still. The Victim could be hauled to the top with a rope round both hands and Nailed there through the wrists. Or between them, supporting the rope round the hands.
The Feet would be no problem.

I think it far more likely that a Cross or more likely stake. would be a permanent feature, like a later gallows. Rather than being carried by the victim to the place of execution, as digging a suitable supporting hole and mounting the victim would be a real issue.

Rather than carry his cross, the victim would be immersed in a hostile crowd , much like a lynching to the place of execution, hauled into position and spiked in place.

 

[metis]

Archaeologists have a much greater understanding about this issue than even what we knew several decades ago. One is that crucifixions were not performed on a stake but on a cross. The Romans did use stakes but only for impaling, as far as what can be determined.

Secondly, the upright portion of the cross was permanent put in the ground and the cross-member was eventually attached to it in some undeterminable manner. If Jesus had carried the entire cross, he probably would never have been crucified because it would weigh several hundred pounds.

Thirdly, if nails were used, they would have most likely gone through the wrist, which is actually what the oldest drawing indicates, although that was several hundred years after the fact. Death was normally by asphyxiation, and a healthy person could spend days dying.

 

[Nietzsche]

I have just made a new cross and stand for our Church
We use it leading up to easter Draped in Greenery. Not sure where the tradition came from, but It has gone on long enough for the previous one to break at the base.

I came to a few conclusions when making it... although it is 2 meters tall and far from full size The torque at the base is tremendous To support a sagging man it would need to be an absolute minimum of 3 meters high. with at least one and a half meters to sink in to the ground. to support a squirming man of moderate weight.
I find it hard to believe that such a cross could be erected with out considerable effort to both Dig a suitable hole in rocky ground and to lift the cross and man into position.
I also do not believe the cross piece could have been fixed with a halving joint, but more likely roped, Rigging fashion. The Cross piece would be even more unlikely to have been fixed at the very top ,T, fashion, because of the difficulty of fixing it there.

A single pole would work but would need to be longer still. The Victim could be hauled to the top with a rope round both hands and Nailed there through the wrists. Or between them, supporting the rope round the hands.
The Feet would be no problem.

I think it far more likely that a Cross or more likely stake. would be a permanent feature, like a later gallows. Rather than being carried by the victim to the place of execution, as digging a suitable supporting hole and mounting the victim would be a real issue.

Rather than carry his cross, the victim would be immersed in a hostile crowd , much like a lynching to the place of execution, hauled into position and spiked in place.

Mmm, one could not carry the entire cross, no. But the crossbeam? That's quite doable.

You said it yourself.... "stake was replaced by the cross."

The original implement was a stake or upright pole as told by the apostles. Why can't people handle that??

I got something for you. Here are a set of images depicting various crucifixions.

The first one dates back to the 3rd century BCE.

This one is 2nd Century CE graffiti, depicting a woman(the picture does not show it, but there is a name above it, 'Alcimilla')

This one is one of the earliest depictions of the Nazarene's crucifixion from roughly the 3rd Century(the words are mocking a Christian named Alexamenos)

And this here is a 2nd/3rd century CE talisman of sorts, depicting Jesus

Still sure it was a stake/spike?

 

[catch22]

It's humorous this JW is arguing about people being too attached to their traditions to change their mind... to a Jew, an agnostic, and the heathen king. In other words, no one who even revers/holds onto some cross tradition?

I'm not sure it gets more ironic. Guys, really, let go of your cross tradition. All your use of history and archeology and proper citation of scholars. Just let it go and get with the times.

Sheesh! The Watchtower says so, and there's no hint of hidden agenda or outright bible fraud in that organization!

 

[Skwim]

You said it yourself.... "stake was replaced by the cross."

The original implement was a stake or upright pole as told by the apostles. Why can't people handle that??

They can. It's just that the apostles weren't referring to a stake because the cross was in place at the time of Jesus' crucifixion.

From your own source, The Imperial Bible-Dictionary

"There can be no doubt, however, that the later sort was the more common, and that about the period of the Gospel Age, crucifixion was usually accomplished by suspending the criminal on a cross piece of wood."​

And from your other source: The Catholic Encyclopedia

(Seneca, Epist. xvii, 1, 10) calls it acuta crux; it could also be called crux simplex. To this upright pole a transverse bar was afterwards added to which the sufferer was fastened with nails or cords, and thus remained until he died, whence the expression cruci figere or affigere (Tac., "Ann.", XV, xliv; Potron., "Satyr.", iii)
Nonnus confirms the statement that Jesus Christ was crucified on a quadrilateral cross.​

Both of which immediately follow the quoted material in the Watchtower Online Library entry, but were conveniently left out. Why is that? Why would the Library deliberately create a falsehood; a lie? No need to answer, because we all know what it is, and what it makes JW: an organization that has no compunctions about deceiving others, even its own members. All of which raises the question; where else has it done the same; deliberately changing evidence so as to conform to its claims? Think this "stake issue" is the only instance? Only a fool would think so. So, the question comes down to trustworthiness. How much can one trust the Society? For myself, the answer is evidenced by this simple instance of purposeful deception: NOT AT ALL. If the Society is willing to fabricate evidence over such a minor issue as the shape of the cross it wouldn't hesitate to do the same with more weighty concerns.

Then there's problem of present day mistakes. That the Society's previous teaching that Jesus was crucified on a cross was a mistake means that its present teachings may be equally in error. Can't say it isn't an issue because the precedent has been set that the Society is prone to error.
What next?

​

Oh yes, I can't close without mentioning your irrelevant citing of A Critical Lexicon and Concordance to the English and Greek NewTestament . Believe me, this sorry tactic of filling the ballot box with rocks hasn't gone unnoticed.

 

[Nietzsche]

I have just made a new cross and stand for our Church
We use it leading up to easter Draped in Greenery. Not sure where the tradition came from, but It has gone on long enough for the previous one to break at the base.

I came to a few conclusions when making it... although it is 2 meters tall and far from full size The torque at the base is tremendous To support a sagging man it would need to be an absolute minimum of 3 meters high. with at least one and a half meters to sink in to the ground. to support a squirming man of moderate weight.
I find it hard to believe that such a cross could be erected with out considerable effort to both Dig a suitable hole in rocky ground and to lift the cross and man into position.
I also do not believe the cross piece could have been fixed with a halving joint, but more likely roped, Rigging fashion. The Cross piece would be even more unlikely to have been fixed at the very top ,T, fashion, because of the difficulty of fixing it there.

I did some looking around and saw something brought up that I think might give the 'T' shape, or Crux Commissa, some more support;

There is a problem with the Crux Immissa(t shape). Because it would be a piece of wood added to the front of the main beam, there would be immense stress on where it was placed, because it would be holding whatever weight of the victim that wasn't on the 'step'. However, by notching the crossbeam and allowing it to slip on top of the main beam, you have the main beam supporting all the weight. It's going straight down. You could then get away with a shorter(albeit combined still too heavy for a man to move) main-beam, making it easier to lift into the air as well.

So, I think this might be how it happened(gonna just use Jesus here because it's shorter than saying condemned):

A beam is either fashioned, or if they just kept them on hand, with a notch in the center. Jesus' wrists are staked(again not nailed) to the crossbeam, and he is made to walk to the mainbeam, which is in a sort-of-trench that allows the mainbeam to lie flat. Jesus arrives, and is laid down onto the mainbeam and the crossbeam is 'slotted' in, after ropes are tied to the crossbeam. The structure is then pulled up, and a large stone or such is placed to prevent the cross from falling over.

 

[outhouse]

The original implement was a stake or upright pole as told by the apostles. Why can't people handle that??

Because it Is unknown.

Your position remains unsubstantiated.

Crucifixion of Jesus - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

However, early Christian writers who speak of the shape of the particular gibbet on which Jesus died invariably describe it as having a cross-beam. For instance, the Epistle of Barnabas, which was certainly earlier than 135,[131] and may have been of the 1st century AD,[132] the time when the gospel accounts of the death of Jesus were written, likened it to the letter T (the Greek letter tau, which had the numeric value of 300),[133] and to the position assumed by Moses in Exodus 17:11–12.[134] Justin Martyr (100–165) explicitly says the cross of Christ was of two-beam shape: "That lamb which was commanded to be wholly roasted was a symbol of the suffering of the cross which Christ would undergo. For the lamb, which is roasted, is roasted and dressed up in the form of the cross. For one spit is transfixed right through from the lower parts up to the head, and one across the back, to which are attached the legs of the lamb."[135] Irenaeus, who died around the end of the 2nd century, speaks of the cross as having "five extremities, two in length, two in breadth, and one in the middle, on which [last] the person rests who is fixed by the nails."[136] For other witnesses to how early Christians envisaged the shape of the gibbet used for Jesus, see Dispute about Jesus' execution method.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

An easier way would be to use the technology they knew very well , that of raising a yard arm on a mast with a rope.
the victim could have his arms fixed to the yard which would then be easily hoisted like a sail.
The Romans used such structures for many forms of lifting.
the upright could be a fixture.
It would have the advantage of suiting people of any height as you could hoist them till their feet were at the correct hight for fixing.