Did Jesus Die on the Cross?

[ThisShouldMakeSense]

I've read that Jesus died on a stake or a poll and not on a cross. it has to do with the root word, 'stauros.
The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology says this about the Greek stauros:

Corresponding to the vb. (stauroo) which was more common, stauros can mean a stake which was sometimes pointed on which an executed criminal was publicly displayed in shame as a further punishment. It could be used for hanging (so probably Diod. Sic., 2, 18, 2), impaling, or strangulation. stauros could also be an instrument of torture, perhaps in the sense of the Lat. patibulum, a crossbeam laid on the shoulders. Finally it could be an instrument of execution in the form of a vertical stake and a crossbeam of the same length forming a cross in the narrower sense of the term. It took the form either of a T (Lat. crux commissa) or of a + (crux immissa). (Vol. 1, page 391)

The Greek word xylon can mean "wood, a piece of wood, or anything made of wood," and can refer to a cross as well, as pointed out in Vine's Expository Dictionary, Vol. 4, p. 153.


how do you feel about this? do you think it's not really important what he died on for example? thoughts please...

 

[DreamQuickBook]

The is a ton of evidence that the historical jesus died on a cross. Of course, the cross didn't look the way it is pictured today. It was a long structure upon which many "crosses" were stationed.

 

[fromthe heart]

I think most things despite their shape are considered a stake when put into the ground where some part remains out...but that would just be my impression.

 

[Scott1]

Jehovah’s Witnesses allege that "Christendom" became apostate back in the fourth century A.D. They believe that the true religion founded by Christ was corrupted by the introduction of pagan philosophies and customs, and consequently they reject many of the doctrines and practices of the Catholic Church. A conspicuous example of this is their denial that our Lord was put to death on a cross—that is, an upright stake with a crossbeam attached. Witnesses assert that Christ was put to death on a simple upright stake with both his hands nailed with one nail above his head.

An examination of their literature will demonstrate their utter rejection of the cross. In fact, so pervasive and resolute is their denial of the cross that their own Bible version, the New World Translation, goes so far as to translate "cross" and "crucify" as "torture stake" and "impale."

The Fathers had quite a different view of the instrument of Jesus’ death. Their writings steadfastly confirm the historic view that Jesus died on a cross with armed stretched out to the sides, as the following excerpts readily attest:

Read the excerpts here.

 

[michel]

heh; I never even knew there was any dispute...........

 

[Dayv]

I think it's funny that's such a miniscule (IMO) detail is debated so intensly. Would it really change your core beliefs if he was hung on one or the other?

 

[Ronald]

The one and only importaint thing is that he be lifted up. Fulfilling his purpose and the design of His Father. You and I were not there, so, we can argue till he comes to no real purpose. He died for you!
Your penalty is paid, go and sin no more.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

The is a ton of evidence that the historical jesus died on a cross.

Really? A "ton"? Perhaps you could provide a couple of the more probative examples?

 

[DreamQuickBook]

Really? A "ton"? Perhaps you could provide a couple of the more probative examples?

I cannot think of a single respectable historical source which does not hypothesize the death by crucifiction of Christ at the hands of Romans in order to prevent Jewish riots.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

I cannot think of a single respectable historical source which does not hypothesize the death by crucifiction of Christ at the hands of Romans in order to prevent Jewish riots.

Speaking of respectable, please answer the question asked.

 

[DreamQuickBook]

Speaking of respectable, please answer the question asked.

No. I do not need to spend my time coming up with sources for you. I don't look for sources for people who take positions that are completely contrary to academic knowledge. Don't take offense. I don't go looking up sources for people who say that the Holocaust didn't happen either. It's nothing personal. Maybe you can give me sources that argue that Jesus didn't exist and that the historical record is incorrect.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

So, when you said There is a ton of evidence that the historical jesus died on a cross, you were making an assertion in a debate forum that you adamately refuse to substantiate.

 

[DreamQuickBook]

So, when you said There is a ton of evidence that the historical jesus died on a cross, you were making an assertion in a debate forum that you adamately refuse to substantiate.

I've made two kinds of claims. Ones that are obvious and ones that need substantiation. This one is obvious. If you believe that Jesus Christ did not exist, then show cause. If you have no cause for that belief, then what does it matter if I accept standard academic interpretations of history?

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

I've made two kinds of claims. Ones that are obvious and ones that need substantiation. This one is obvious.

Your claim of "tons of evidence" is baseless. You can huff and puff and wax indignant all you wish, but the claim remains baseless.

 

[DreamQuickBook]

Your claim of "tons of evidence" is baseless. You can huff and puff and wax indignant all you wish, but the claim remains baseless.

ok... then, if it's a problem of semantics, I will rephrase the statement.

The evidence for the existence and crucifixtion of Jesus Christ is accepted by an overwhelmingly large majority of academics as being solid. Both Cornelius Tacitus and Sutonus (sp?) are sighted by academics as being reliable sources. There is both Jewish and Roman accounts of the existence of Christ. Now, whether or not the Gospels are accurate or even slightly true, I don't know and I don't care; but the existence of Christ is extremely difficult to question.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

ok... then, if it's a problem of semantics, I will rephrase the statement.

This should be interesting ...

The evidence for the existence and crucifixtion of Jesus Christ is accepted by an overwhelmingly large majority of academics as being solid. Both Cornelius Tacitus and Sutonus (sp?) are sighted by academics as being reliable sources.

Really? Let's see ...

• Suetonius
• Tacitus

Writing in 115 CE there is no evidence here for the crucifixian of an historical Jesus, much less compelling evidence.

There is both Jewish and Roman accounts of the existence of Christ. Now, whether or not the Gospels are accurate or even slightly true, I don't know and I don't care; but the existence of Christ is extremely difficult to question.

Jewish references, such as the Babylonian Talmud (Sanhedrin 43) are centuries later. They are evidence of nothing. If you have Roman accounts other than those suggested above, please suggest them.

Now, whether or not the Gospels are accurate or even slightly true, I don't know and I don't care; but the existence of Christ is extremely difficult to question.

In your case, that is perfectly clear.

 

[DreamQuickBook]

If you believe that Jesus Christ did not exist, then show cause. If you have no cause for that belief, then what does it matter if I accept standard academic interpretations of history?

 

[Shadow Wolf]

I read somewhere when Jesus was crucified, he was hung on a tree and had a board to stretch his arms out. Obviously this can't be if the Bible is correct in retelling the crucifixion because it was wrote that Jesus carried his cross.

 

[Dayv]

um, Jocose, you present a challenge that others have also put forward, but there is a big problem with it. If our point is that there is no legit historical documentation of Jesus' existance, what kind of evidence are you wanting us to show that he didn't? Our point is is that there is a lack of any evidence, so what are you wanting to come up with?
I have never seen real documented evidence that jesus existed as he is said to have. I am willing to bet that at some point around that time there was at least one man named Jesus, seeing as it is a name, but not all (or likely any) of these jesuses were anything more than men as any other. The only 'evidence' that ever is presented is supposed observations written many years after the mentioned events.

 

[Zephyr]

To put it quite simply, he didn't .

As for whats-his-name that took his place, I'm not sure that it really matters too much. Guy gets killed on piece of wood, people go "Holy crap!"