Jesus WAS crucified on the CROSS, not a stake, why do some people believe that there were no CROSSES at the time?

greenspun.com : LUSENET : Catholic : One Thread

I want to put the last JW mith to rest. They said that Jesus could not have been crucified on a cross because the method of crucifiction was on "stakes" not crosses. Come on!! This is completely false, the Holy Cross is to be honored on high, it represents the Paschal mystery, in it, Our Lord is "Raised between Heaven and earth..", to draw all men to him. STAKES? Don't venerate the Cross?....What the heck are these JW's thinking. They truly are not Christians if they don't believe in the Holy Cross. Please, someone who actually knows history, please clarify that there WERE Crucifictions on crosses.

Thanks Again, God Bless, Tyler

-- Tyler (trinityone@sympatico.ca), January 05, 2001

Answers

Tyler,

I have heard conflicting stories on whether there was a cross or a stake, but the important thing really is, is what happened that day. For example, would you really worry about whether or not it was a 9mm or 38 special hand gun that killed your son? I too, believe as the JW's do that catholics tend to venerate the "cross". I find it somewhat confussing why people would hold so much esteem for an object that killed their messiah. To me it would be more appropriate to have a symbol that exemplifies his ressurection, like an open tomb. I believe the whole cross/crucifix thing was all designed by satan so he could get a big laugh. Oh, what is Babylon?

-- Israel (somewhere@home.com), January 06, 2001.


I think it's wrong to say someone isn't Christian just because they think Jesus was tortured a different way. I'm Catholic, but I do not venerate the cross. When I see a cross it's a reminder of what Jesus did for me. Everytime I think of doing something bad I stop and think, "Jesus suffered for me, he had nails driven into his hands and feet, his beard was plucked of his face, and his back was torn to ribbons by a wip with a lead ball at the end. He did all of this for me!" Then I end up not doing the evil thing I was thinking of doing. The way I see it, He did all of this for me, I can do this little thing for Him, and turn away from evil. If the cross was made up by Satan then he is definatly working against himself, because seeing it doesn't help tempt me in the least to do evil. The day Jesus died and sufferd for us was the worst thing that could happen to Satan, so why would he want people to remember it? Also, how could Jesus have been put on a stake? Didn't Thomas tuch His crucifixion wounds?

-- Chris Fox (martinaj@sprynet.com), January 06, 2001.

The CROSS.

Yes, the cross is the symbol of what Jesus suffered for us. It should be celebrated, for without it we have no hope. When Jesus rose on the third day, Satan was defeated forever. He can have no stronghold on us, if we believe that Jesus paid that heavy price for each of us.

I love YOU, JESUS, Thank You for the Cross.

-- SSM (follower of Christ) (heartwjesus@yahoo.com), January 06, 2001.


Some believe Jesus carried a whole cross and others that He carried the 'cross-piece' to which his hands were nailed. The croos-piece would then be attatched to a central stake or upright thus forming a completed cross. Perhaps this is where the JW's got their erroneous beliefs from.

I am not a Catholic but an anglican christian but I do believe in the centrality of the cross. The comment about not wanting to venerate the thing on which Christ was killed shows a common misunderstanding. Of course of it was an ordinary person who died in this way you would not want such a painful reminder, but without the cross there is no resurrection and no salvation. Jesus suffered and died to pay the cost of my sin and your sin. He could not return to the Father and claim his glory without first suffering the pain of the cross. He did this for us. Thus the cross is transformed into a thing of beauty, a reminder of the sacrifice God was willing to make on our behalf.

The cross is not a shameful thing and should be celebrated as a symbol of God's great love for humankind.

Hope that helps.

-- Sharon Guy (sharon@sguy.co.uk), January 12, 2001.


Very well put, Sharon.

-- matt veld (mahv@xtra.co.nz), January 13, 2001.


Would someone explain what St. Paul meant when he wrote:

"But God forbid that I should glory, save in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom the world is crucified unto me, and I uno the world." Gal 6,14. ?

Why should any Christian GLORY (capitals mine) in the cross?

Enrique

-- Enrique Ortiz (eaortiz@yahoo.com), January 13, 2001.


Galations 6:14

Paul says: As for me , God forbid that I should boast about anything except the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ. Because of that cross my interest in all the attractive things of the world was killed long ago, and the world's interest in me is also long dead.

May God's mercy and peace be upon all of you who live by this principle and upon those everywhere who are really God's own.

Susan

-- SSM (non-catholic follower of Jesus Christ) (heartwjesus@yahoo.com), January 13, 2001.


Jmj
Thanks, Susan. Hi, Enrique.
Did Susan's quoting of a different translation help you, or do you still have a question? I notice that you are using the King James Version, which comes from the year 1611. It often uses a very old style of English that is hard to understand. Many old words have become obsolete or have lost their old meanings, taking on new ones. In modern English, we almost never speak of "glorying" in anything. Most modern translations use the word "boast" instead of "glory." My dictionary says that the verb "to glory" can mean "to rejoice proudly" or "to exult."

I think that you have mentioned that you have just one English-language bible, so I assume that it is your KJV. If you would like to have the Internet URLs of some other (more modern) English translations, please let me know.

God bless you.
John

-- J. F. Gecik (jgecik@desc.dla.mil), January 13, 2001.


Thank you, John. My question still stands: Why should a Christian BOAST about the Cross if it was only an instrument to kill the Son of God? Do Americans BOAST about the gun that killed John F. Kennedy or Abraham Lincoln?

Enrique

-- Enrique Ortiz (eaortiz@yahoo.com), January 14, 2001.


Jmj

Dear Enrique:
It is necessary to start by reading the verse within context:
13: For even those who receive circumcision do not themselves keep the law, but they desire to have you circumcised that they may glory in [rejoice proudly in, boast about] your flesh.
14: But far be it from me to glory except in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, by which the world has been crucified to me, and I to the world. 15: For neither circumcision counts for anything, nor uncircumcision, but a new creation.

So, we can see that he is showing how the works of the Mosaic Law (especially circumcision) are of no avail and should not be the source of boasting. But the key is not to think only of the wooden cross when we read the word "cross" in verse 14. We need to see the word "cross" as a "shorthand" term for "the salvific work done on the cross." The irony is that an instrument of torture and death became an instrument used for our salvation -- and we may glory in (boast about) the work of Jesus alone. Through Christ's use of the cross, says St. Paul, "the things of the world have become dead to me, and I have become dead to the world." Our hearts are now set on things above.

No, Enrique. We do not boast about the presidential assassins' weapons. They are inanimate objects which performed no good deed. They bore no good fruit. The men whom they killed did not need to save anyone -- nor were they capable of saving anyone. The "holy cross," however killed a Man who wanted to save us and who was capable of saving. While the fruit of the tree of Eden led to man's expulsion from friendship with God, the fruit of the tree of Calvary led to man's reconciliation with God.

God bless you.
John

-- J. F. Gecik (jgecik@desc.dla.mil), January 14, 2001.



Enrique, instead of using the word "boast" when speaking of the Cross, I prefer to see Christians as displaying a special affection or veneration for the Cross. This feeling comes not so much from what the Cross is but rather what it represents. This instrument of death was transformed, into a life-giving one, much the same as if the guns that killed Kennedy and Lincoln were to be put on display to show the utter waste, ruin, destruction and loss that can result with the inappropriate use of firearms. These weapons of death could transformed into life-giving instruments if future lives were spared through education. It is no different with the Cross. Jesus died on the Cross; the passion and death of Jesus, Son of David, Son of God, Messiah, Savior of His people. Do we understand it? When Jesus was hung on the cross, Satan thought he had won. Finally, he had put God on the cross. Without knowing it, this was his defeat. Right there on Calvary, death was overcome with death, the death of the Son of God on a cross. We are told in scripture, that suffering and death, entered the world as a result of sin. What God did, by the glorious wounds of Christ on the Cross, is, He took what the enemy had done, and He changed it. He used the very tools that the enemy used to subjugate humanity, death and suffering on the Cross and He made something good of it! And so Saint Paul can say, "Oh death where is your sting, where is your power? It is gone. It is finished. It has been conquered by the passion, death, and resurrection of Jesus. This is what the passion says. This is what the cross says. This is the meaning of Jesus dying on the cross. This is why we glory in the passion of Jesus. Not because the cross reminds us of the torture, pain and death of Jesus, but because we understand that by suffering on the cross Jesus redeemed us all. At Easter, the new pascal candle will be lit representing the new light which Jesus gives us through His passion, death and resurrection. Then a cantor will intone that beautiful hymn the Exulte (hope I spelled it correctly). In the Exulte the cantor will proclaim the death of Christ on the cross in this way, "Oh happy fault!" .... Jesus dying on the cross is the result of the fault, the sin, of Adam and Eve, By something bad, their sin, we have now experienced something glorious, redemption. The whole Church can proclaim, "Blessed are we! Blessed is the fault of Adam and Eve! Blessed is that fault because we now experience a Divine Redeemer!" Because of what the Cross represents, the Church could equally proclaim, "sacred is the Cross!". The Cross then becomes not an instrument of death but a life-giving one. This is why we venerate the Cross. In venerating the Cross we celebrate life not death.

Ed

-- Ed Lauzon (grader@accglobal.net), January 14, 2001.


Excellent answers, John and Ed. While reading the posts of some of our separated brothers, I intended to show them why we venerated the Cross and also that there is a biblical basis for that veneration. But somehow I didn't feel up to the task. So I thank you both for the magnificent way in which you expressed what I had in mind. Wish these brothers understand the beautiful feeling of "glorying" or "boasting" about Jesus' Cross. I've heard some JW speak about the Cross as a satanic thing!!

Enrique

-- Enrique Ortiz (eaortiz@yahoo.com), January 15, 2001.


Jmj

Thank you, Enrique. (I had a feeling that you were not confused by Gal 6:14, but were trying to draw out the meaning for an ulterior, but good, motive. You were using the "Socratic method.")

This thread was started by our Canadian friend, Tyler, who wanted an assurance that Jesus died on a cross, rather than -- as claimed by the Watchtower Society (Jehovah's Witnesses) -- on an upright stake.

I encourage all, especially Tyler, to read the excellent illustrated essay by a former JW on this page.
[http://www.dreamwater.com/spotlight/cross.htm]
It should lay to rest the "stake" mistake. [That was a 19th-century invention, to try to make all Christian (non-JW) bodies seem to be teaching lies.]

God bless you
John

-- J. F. Gecik (jgecik@desc.dla.mil), January 15, 2001.


Ok...One step at a time here. The fact stands that roman crucifixion was not used or practiced until many, many, many, years after Jesus had passed away (And I'm not talking about 100 or 200 years). To majority of religions the crucifix is a symbolic means of remembering Jesus. However many religions also WORSHIP Jesus. Many WORSHIP Mary. But Jesus clearly states in the Bible not to worship Him but worship his father. So anyone who does worship Jesus is in a way not practicing the Bible correctly. Some religions also believe that God's name is Jehovah. I personally don't believe that His name is pronounced as so. The name Jehovah was derived from the Hebrew translation of letters YHVH. I believe that they just took a wild guess. What ever the dispute is about the bible, just remember that the bible is 70% Translation and 20% decoding...The other 10% is what a majority group decides that the biblical words mean.

Thank you for letting me rant.

Robert

-- Robert (vikingzell@hotmail.com), April 24, 2001.


"Thank you for letting me rant."
You're welcome, Robert, though I can't exactly see why you would want to get emotional before you wrote. It would make more sense for you to get emotional after reading what I am about to write!

To use your words, "One step at a time here."

(1) "The fact stands that roman crucifixion was not used or practiced until many, many, many, years after Jesus had passed away (And I'm not talking about 100 or 200 years). To majority of religions the crucifix is a symbolic means of remembering Jesus."
Oh, Robert, I think it slipped your mind to present your proofs for these allegations, which are commonly made by Jehovah's Witnesses. Please explain why you are more knowledgeable than the archaeologists, almost all of whom say the opposite of what you say. And please explain why the New Testament writers, penning the gospels and epistles in the first century A.D., repeatedly referred to "crucifixion" -- which was carried out by Roman soldiers. And please tell us what the crowd shouted to Pilate, under your theory -- "Stone him" or "Starve him," rather than "Crucify him"?
The Witnesses of Jehovah portray Jesus with one nail, pounded through both wrists, into a "torture stake." How foolish and false is that? An eyewitness at Calvary, St. John, wrote in chapter 20, of doubting St. Thomas: "So the other disciples told him, 'We have seen the Lord." But he said to them, 'Unless I see in his hands the print of the nails, and place my finger in the mark of the nails, and place my hand in his side, I will not believe." Even the JW bible says this, and it also says that a sign was attached above Jesus's head (Matt. 27), not above his hands. Clearly, Jesus was crucified, and the whole Watchtower empire is based on 19th-century fiction. This "stake" business is just a crude and obnoxious attempt to discredit every cross and crucifix seen all over the world, so that all truly Christian bodies would be depicted as fallible and stupid, in comparison with the infallible and brilliant JW religion.

(2) "[M]any religions also WORSHIP Jesus. Many WORSHIP Mary. But Jesus clearly states in the Bible not to worship Him but worship his father. So anyone who does worship Jesus is in a way not practicing the Bible correctly."
Please, Robert, list for us the "many religions" that "WORSHIP Mary," and give evidence of this adoration. To my knowledge, there is not a single, solitary religion of this kind!
Please prove that Jesus states that he should not be worshiped. Explain why he did not object when the following happened, concerning the cured blind man (John 9): "38: He said, 'Lord, I believe,' and he worshiped him."
Don't be troubled by the fact that Jesus told the devil, "You shall worship the Lord your God ..." Don't be troubled, Robert, because Jesus is the Lord our God. I realize that, as a JW (or member of a similar Arian heresy), you haven't yet come to realize the divinity of Jesus. But just keep reading the Bible (a real Bible, not the JW's New World "translation"), and you will come to realize it. Doubting St. Thomas realized it, saying to Jesus, "My Lord and my God!"
(3) "What ever the dispute is about the bible, just remember that the bible is 70% translation and 20% decoding ... The other 10% is what a majority group decides that the biblical words mean."
That may hold true for Christian bodies other than Catholicism, Robert. You can dispute that with them if you wish. But the Catholic Church does not "decode" or "decide" what the words mean. Instead, she preserves and hands down, from generation to generation (now for 2,000 years), the original and authentic meaning of the words. After all, it was Catholics who wrote the New Testament and first placed the books of the Old Testament under one cover, verifying them as divinely inspired. God made the Catholic Church his revelation's guardian and authoritative interpreter.

St. James, pray for us. Holy Mary, Mother of God, pray for us.
God bless you.
John

-- J. F. Gecik (jgecik@desc.dla.mil), April 24, 2001.



Alright, I'm not the most religious person out there, and i don't condemn anyones beliefs, but the catholics prey to/at statues, gamble in there church/bingo. Some religions believe God and Jesus were the same people, some believe in 3 heavens. Well The Watchtower is prob the closest to right i have heard, thay do none of this. But however Jesus died on the cross or the stake should be no concern, it should just be Jesus died for us. Also how are relegions going to prey to and cherish a cross and call it a symbol when many lives died upon it as well as the Son Of God!

-- Rico (fgregio@aol.com), May 21, 2001.

This is all great but nobody has answered the original question. Aside from religious beliefs I would like to hear an historical answer as to whether the ancient Romans used "crosses" or "stakes" to crucify criminals and such. This is a question that can be answered based purely on facts. If someone could answer this rather simple question it would put to rest a lot of this confusion regarding the cross. If crosses were never used in crucifictions then there would be no reason to venerate the cross, because it never existed, it was made up by the creative minds of the Catholic Church (or whoever). If on the other hand crosses were used in crucifictions then the JW's and other disbelievers would be proved wrong. Seems simple enough. Does anybody have any info regarding this, an encyclopedia, dictionary, surviving relative, something? Oh and references made to the Catholic Holy Bible are no good to me. Try to use something with a better middle ground like the King James.

-- Dave (davidq1017@yahoo.com), August 14, 2001.

Please, someone who actually knows history? KNOWS?

And, why isn't a Catholic Bible version suitable? Was anybody that collaborated in the printing of the KJV of the Bible present at the crucifixion?

I can present a description of the real cross of Jesus seen in her vision of the Passion of Our Lord--; By a Catholic nun who was a visionary, a ''seer'' for lack of a better word. It is probably as good a description as any ''surviving relative'' (of Jesus?) or dictionary.

After Pilate gives them a specially written inscription to be displayed on the cross saying *Jesus of Nazareth King of the Jews*, --this is the stigmatic Anne Catherine Emmerich's vision of the cross of Jesus Christ:

''They [the Jews] were likewise anxious that the cross of Our Lord NOT be higher than those of the two thieves. But it was necessary for it to be, because otherwise there would not have been sufficient place for Pilate's inscription. They then endeavored to persuade him not to have this obnoxious inscription be put up at all.

But Pilate was determined, and their words made no impression on him. The cross was therefore lengthened (obliged to) by a fresh bit of wood. Consequently the form of the cross was peculiar. The two arms stood out like the branches of a tree, growing from the stem (trunk), and the shape of it was very like that of the letter Y, with the lower part lengthened so as to rise between the arms, which had been put on separately, and were thinner than the body of the cross. A piece of wood was likewise nailed onto the bottom of the cross for the feet to rest on.'' It is in her testimony a few paragraphs following she describes Jesus accepting the Holy Cross: ''The archers led Jesus into the middle of the court, the slaves threw down the cross at His feet, and the two arms were forthwith tied onto the center-piece. Jesus knelt down by the side of it. He encircled it with His sacred arms and KISSED it three times, addressing at the same time a most touching prayer of thanksgiving to His Heavenly Father for that work of Redemption which He had now begun.''

Nobody claims this is to be strictly believed by the faithful. It isn't an inspired work, as we accept these. But it is in fact, an integral portion of the strange experiences related by Blessed Anne Catherine Emmerich; and I for one think they are genuine private revelations, not unworthy of belief by Catholics. It's a foregone conclusion these will be dismissed entirely by anti-Catholics and ''biblical scholars''. That's a shame, because no other witnesses outside of the gospels has left any testimony. And Emmerich's own visions in no way contradict any part of the gospel narratives. It is for God to determine if she saw anything objective and real in the visions. I don't presume to judge.

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), August 14, 2001.


Link

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), August 14, 2001.

Jmj

Thanks for that good link, Frank Someone, which you provided for all of us.

Actually, Dave (who loves the KJV) was mistaken in saying this:
"This is all great but nobody has answered the original question."

I DID answer the original question. He should have read my January 15 post more carefully, clicking on the link that I left there. It would have taken him to a page that describes real crucifixion. It's a page prepared by a former Jehovah's Witness who is debunking the myth of the stake (invented in the 1800s)!

St. James, pray for us.
God bless you.
John

-- (jgecik@amdg.ihs), August 14, 2001.


I understand the human need to find objects to which to attach our emotional feelings and I believe that most who venerate the cross are fulfilling that desire to make physical the feelings they have in their hearts. I believe in the sincerity of people that do that, but the bible clearly warns against venerating any sort of man made object. It was in fact the second of the ten commandments (Exodus 20:4, 5) that prohibited that very act. If anyone takes time to really think about it, it would not take long to realize it is a form of idolatry. However, it is very difficult to give up something we've been thought and believed in for as long as we can remember and that is why I think people become very defensive and passionate when such an issue is raised.

-- TF (sdragonl@yahoo.com), August 21, 2001.

TF,

You would be correct if Catholics were actually *worshipping* the cross, as the Jews worshipped the Golden Calf. However I don't think in this case that applies as the cross is used only as a visual aid in worshipping Jesus and reflecting on his sacrifice for us.

IOW, we don't *worship* the cross, we use the cross to worship Jesus, in the same way that we don't *worship* our bibles, but use them to worship Jesus.

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), August 21, 2001.


Why don't you people teach only what is in the bible and forget about all your foolish doctrins.I think the cross is a symbol of God's love for mankind. And I would never think of getting down in front of it and worshipping it, yet it remains a great sign to me of Gods love.

-- clarence baer (cebaer@sympatico.ca), April 13, 2002.

I can't believe the ignorance of some of you in not acknowledging the SACRIFICE Chrise made on the Cross for us all. We ARE NOT worshipping the cross itself. We are simply acknowledging the death of Christ on the Cross and if you take the time to realize that his body, seat, tears, blood and water which came off his body is upon the cross. It is who died we are worshipping for his sacrifice for us so we can have spiritual life. PLEASE wake up and stop making up excuses. The Veneration of the Cross on GOOD FRIDAY is one of the high points of our journey towards Easter. It is our symbol of the resurrection of Christ. He died on it to show us the WAY to salvation. I am ashamed of all of you for being so lax on your faith. Have any of you ever shed tears upon the mere sight of the Cross? I have many times.

-- Fred Bishop (fcbishop@globaleyes.net), April 13, 2002.

Hi, Clarence.

I can tell by your Bible comment, that you are confused!

Jesus died by crucifixion. Thus the cross was the instrument of redemption and it has become with death and suffering, and blood, one of the essential terms calling to mind our salvation. The cross is no longer a sign of disgrace, but a challenge and the way to glory, first for Christ, then for all Christians.

God bless you, my protestant friend.

David S

-- David S (asdzxc@aol.com), April 13, 2002.


As far as the JW's and others who have lost the true meaning of the Cross. I am very sorry for them all. It is our gain and their loss. All we can do now is pray for them.

-- Fred Bishop (fcbishop@globaleyes.net), April 13, 2002.

Dear David S. I am not confused I only find it very hard to get what I mean across so people understand me. I agree with you completely

-- clarence baer (cebaer@sympatico.ca), April 15, 2002.

Clarence, Welcome to the Catholic forum. David S

-- David (asdzxc@aol.com), April 15, 2002.

Did Jesus die on cross or stake, still think! If Jesus was executed by a giljotin or a gas chamber... would you hold a little giljotin on your neck, or a miniature gas chamber? And even kiss and worship somthing so terrible?

Many people think they are right even if they never studied a subject. I dont want to start a fight here, but just say its interesting to study how Jesus was executed. We can see that when the romans came to destroy Jerusalem 30 yrs after Jesus' death they made a wall around the city from wooden stakes or poles, in his propehcy in Mt 25 Jesus used same word for these poles, that apostles used for on what he died. Take also look at Gal 3:13; Acts 5:30 (can you see a cross mentioned?). Then think why do most who call them self 'christians' worship the cross? The cross in dozens of forms can be found basically in all ancient religion, from Egypt to Mesopotamia. And the origin? Well it does not take much imagination as these people worshipped fertility. Ten commandments, most of us know them, read carefully what it says about image worshipping.

-- James (email_janne@yahoo.com), March 31, 2004.


Yes, the stakes set about the city were indeed used as a means of execution. When the condemned person had been forced to carry the crosspiece to the place of execution, and had been affixed to it, the crosspiece was then lifted up and set upon the stake - thereby forming a cross.

Your quoting of two passages which do not happen to mention the cross by name are utterly irrelevant in light of the great many passages which DO mention the cross. (This is a basic difference between Protestant theology and Catholic theology. Protestants are satisfied if they can point to a single passage that seems to support their chosen belief. Catholic beliefs necessarily conform to every passage of scripture.) Try reading: Matt 16:24; Matt 27:32; Matt 27:40; Matt 27:42; Mark 15:32; John 19:17; John 19:19; John 19:25; John 19:31; 1 Cor 1:17; 1 Cor 1:18; Gal 5:11; Gal 6:14; Eph 2:16; Phil 2:8; Col 1:20; Col 2:14; Heb 12:2. Are you suggesting that these passages (and others) are irrelevant - or false - simply because you located a passage which substitutes the word "tree" for "cross"? (Incidentally, why does it say "tree", not "stake"?)

No Christian worships the cross. Christians worship nothing and no-one but the One True God. We do however reverence the cross, as it was the physical means of our salvation.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), March 31, 2004.


stake vs. cross debate

-this isssue in addition to many others has been argued by revisionist historians -- reasoning that disputes scripture is nothing new; additionally, attempting to transform reasoning into fact is nothing new...

the term for this is relative truth... conjecture...

-- Daniel Hawkneberry (dlm@catholic.org), April 01, 2004.


I can't believe some of these replies. I'm not religious but a historian by profession. The Israelites kept a concise record of events, even of the Greeks conquest before the Romans, and can still be studied today.

Through out the Israelite scripts are inserts of the awful sentence of crucifixion at the time before Christ and years after, primarily for bandits. Most actually happened in other parts of the Roman Empire, where a conquered person saw their “hero’s” every 50 meters till the flesh rotted or was scavenged off the bone by maggots or ravens.

More important are the records kept by the Romans who were fanatical about records of their presence where they went. They also mentioned that the most terrifying method to control a population was by crucifixion, where leaders were nailed in front of the populace to give up the fight.

Was the Christ crucified, if he hadn't been Pontius would have been if Caesar had found out the Israelites had a King in the making. Had Christ not been at that precise time his presence would have grown to the point where he would have either eventually been or been assassinated by the religious order of the day.

Behavior currently even in today’s world and more often towards those that follow him.

-- Joan (doesitmatter@itdoesn't.com), April 03, 2004.


5-20-04 IN REGARDS TO "STAKE OR CROSS?" EVERYBODY GO TO YOUR SEARCH ENGINE AND TYPE "STAKE OR CROSSBEAM?" THERE YOU WILL FIND MANY SITES ON THE HISTORICAL,ARCH.,MEDICAL PROOFS THAT IT WAS PROBABLY A STAKE WITH A CROSS PIECE,BEAM,MEMBER ETC. WE WILL NEVER NO FOR SURE.BUT THERE ARE SCRIPTURES THAT POINT TO A CROSS(+)NOT JUST A STAKE. I'M DOING A SEARCH ON THIS SUBJECT NOW. BUT IN THE END IT REALLY DOESN'T MATTER,JUST THE FACT THAT JESUS DIED FOR OUR SINS!!. NOBODY SHOULD VENERATE A CROSS,KISS IT,KNEEL TO IT,PRAY TO IT,ETC!! OR AS FAR AS I AM CONCERNED DISPLAY OR WEAR ONE!!! THE CROSS THAT JESUS DIED ON IS NOT AN "HOLY CROSS" JUST A MEANS TO AN END!! NOBODY SHOULD WORSHIP THIS IMPLEMENT OF DEATH!! THE MAIN THING IS THAT CHRIST DIED FOR US!! HAPPY SEARCHING!! RON HOOVER --DENVER/ RH7HOOVER@YAHOO.COM

-- ronald hartwell hoover (rh7hoover@yahoo.com), May 20, 2004.

MAY 20,2004==== THIS IS FOR DAVE(DAVIDQ1017@YAHOO.COM).START SEARCHING FOR "STAKE OR CROSSBEAM?" ON "GOOGLE" FOR HIST.,ARCH.,MEDICAL PROOFS -THERE ARE MANY SITES HERE. THE EVIDENCE TILTS MORE TOWARDS A STAKE WITH A CROSSBEAM ADDED AT THE FINAL DESTINATION OF EXECUTION!! HAPPY SEARCHING---MY FRIEND!! RON HOOVER--- -DENVER// RH7HOOVER@YAHOO.COM

-- RONALD HARTWELL HOOVER (RH7HOOVER@YAHOO.COM), May 20, 2004.

It's good to read the passion on this thread but the facts seemed all off on a tangent.

Two facts are this, the middle east as we know it had more rainfall, especially in Egypt and Lebanon. Egypt was conquered because it was a bread basket to the surrounding lands and Rome needed cereals for it's expanding population.

Lebabnon from the mountain winter melts had far ranging forests of Ceder. Today thru climate change and mans evolution thru time has left this region with fewer areas under forest & foliage.

Timber was abundant to the Romans, who needed it for the huge construction schemes of the time and for war ship building, the demand was also met by the greeks.

Historical facts show that the cross was used more to pacify a stubborn nation. Expanding Roman armies would have locals all along the Balkan route to what is today Turkey, cut down pine and build crosses. As they moved north and east towards Israel, this method of death went with the Roman armies.

It worked, every 1 kilometer, especially along the adriatic at the time. partisan's fighting the Romans were nailed and left to die and eventually ravens and rats would remove the flesh leaving the skeleton to view. Psychologically it left the locals to respect the brute nature of the Romans.

Not being religious I can only say from Roman historical facts of the time, Historical facts left by the coptics and historical facts left by the Israelite & Greek scholars of the time as well as archeological remains from that period the crucifix was a common chose of Romans. As for the stake it was also used. The arms were crossed over the stake and one nail was hammered into the hands behind the stake. The stake was about 1 meter in height and usually the person was kneeling.

How ever Romans like to show off and more often chose the crucifix.

Was Jesus crucified as we know it, I believe so otherwise how would the idea of a cross over a stake be recorded. Acknowledge this that Greeks were plentiful in Israel as was many other forward thinking people's, who spent hours in debate on issues of the day.

The greeks probably with Israelite accdemics wrote and debated the whole event of this man Jesus, his prosecution and his method of death, that was made more of an event than other executions of the time.

Discussion was as broad as it has ever been in communities that grew in civilisation.

I would like to mention that when ever I see a cross or crucifix on a person it does leave a feeling that the man Jesus probably knew that of all the signs this one would remind those who chose to wear it in rememberance would be reminded of him and be remembered.

-- lauren (lauren4@opal.com), May 22, 2004.


lauren,

That was terrific. Are you sure you're not religious? That last paragraph is very eloquent. Thanks!

-- Brian Crane (brian.crane@cranemills.com), May 22, 2004.


maybe if you learned how to spell, and maybe if you opened your eyes, you would not sound so ignorant. mith- myth crucifiction-crucifixion and sorry, but i highly doubt that this will be the last "JW mith" it would just kill you to be wrong, would it not? i feel sorry for you.

-- lauren (agnosticanswer@aol.com), February 17, 2005.

"lauren"

Your statment about spelling is harsh (not to say ironic, since in English we capitalize the first letter of the sentence, proper names, and "I" when it stands alone). I respect the anger you seem to have about this subject, but saying "learn how to spell" is in my mind at the same level as saying:

(And yes, I left the 'e' out of 'statement' intentionally!)

-- Pat Thompson (pat.thompson.45@gmail.com), February 17, 2005.


Moderation questions? read the FAQ