Trinity? Stake Vs Cross Vs Tree

[Quahom1]

Now see, that took me three posts to say what you did in one...


v/r

Q

[E99]

Hello Thomas

Your quote:
"Early Christian writers without exception wrote the language of their time, the Greek Koine... The New Testament has very little relationship to the artificial representation of the language of Attic [Greek] prose in the literature and rhetoric of the Roman imperial period... [With the exception of the Epistle to the Hebrews,] the other books of the New Testament... as well as other early Christian writings, are dominated by the vernacular language."
(Introduction to the New Testament, Volume One: History, Culture, and Religion of the Hellenistic Age, Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1982, page 107)."

Scholars do have enough understanding of the Koine Greek so as to give a fairly good translation and to obtain the concept found from the original Koine Greek. If we say that they don't, then we might as well discount all of the NT scriptures as never attaining the original sense and not only where the word stauros (stake) is used.

Along with this, as believers in God and his written word, we all alike believe that the scriptures are inspired of God, (I think !) and we should have confidence in him that he will make certain that the correct sense of the scriptures is be passed onto us. So the original word for stake... stauros, context etc. can be looked into in-depth.


Your quote:
To understand what the bible says, one must first understand the language, and the Greek of the NT is vernacular. I would suggest that if you asked anyone of the day what was the most common method of Roman punishment execution they would describe the cross as we know it,a cross-piece attached to a vertical stake.


Vernacular, relatively speaking in the sense that Koine Greek was different than classical Greek. True the most common form of death torture was on a cross shape, various shapes, it seems, but a stake was also known to have been used in death and torture, in fact the upright pole was the original form. It seems that the stake as a means of death by torture was handed down by previous civilisations and empires and taken up by the Romans, cross forms are a variation of this. The Greeks used it, and there is a stone frieze in the Assyryian king Sennacheribs palace at Ninevah showing many impaled on posts, amongst other historical pointers.


Your quote:
There is a piece of anti-Christian graffiti from the 3rd century depicting a man kneeling in prayer before the image of a man with an ass's head crucified on a cross. The point is, the graffiti ridicules what must by then have been a common practice - prayer addressed to a crucified Christ. The cross depicted is just as we know it, and as it was used up until abolished by Constantine in the fourth century.


I've seen this picture, its a rough line drawing...scrawl, and this is not evidence of a crucifixion.
This drawing was discovered in 1856 on the walls of the Roman palatine building in the servants quarters. It dates from around 200 A.D. ( Not confirmed) This "crucified ass" is a human figure but with an animals head. The arms are extended. Two lines that form a cross appear in front, not behind this graffito, traversing the arms and legs. There is an accompanying inscription which says: "Alexamenos adores his God." It has been pointed out that the lines that form this 'cross' may very well not be a part of the original graffito. Also, the head is more like a jackal than an ass and so the drawing could very well be a representation of the Egyptian god Anubis. This is certainly no evidence of a cross or a crufixion as drawn by Christians in the early 3rd century. No fixed date can be given for this drawing, again one can easily assume such a derogatory cartoon did indeed mock the Christian, but its conjecture. It's use by an opponent of the faith hardly proves that the cross was a very early Christian symbol.

Either way it is centuries later than from the actual time of the death of Jesus. Later cross symbols only reflect that the cross was a later superimposed symbol deriving from ancient history, and that a cross could have indeed been used for other Christians, but there is no evidence that any cross was used for Jesus.


Stauros:
The verb is stauroo and it means 'to impale' it is used in the scriptures to denote the impalement.... form: to impale ...on a pale or stake. The noun stauros is used for the stake. The word "stauros" occurs 27 times in the Christian Greek Scriptures.


Sometimes the word xylon is also used which denotes a piece of wood or even a tree. It is not like dendron, which is used of a living, or green tree, as in Matt.21: 8; Rev.7: 1, 3; 8:7; 9: 4.


There is never any Greek word used in the scriptures to imply that it was a cross of any form. Outside of the scriptures a cross is known to have been used, but also a stake was a known means of death torture. The word in the bible is more indicative of a stake, because its more direct to its actual true meaning, an upright pale, stake, palisade or pole. The subject goes a lot deeper though and the origination of the words and history on the matter are more involved than that seen on the surface. It is debatable.

[Quahom1]

Originally Posted by E99

Hello Thomas

Your quote:
"Early Christian writers without exception wrote the language of their time, the Greek Koine... The New Testament has very little relationship to the artificial representation of the language of Attic [Greek] prose in the literature and rhetoric of the Roman imperial period... [With the exception of the Epistle to the Hebrews,] the other books of the New Testament... as well as other early Christian writings, are dominated by the vernacular language."
(Introduction to the New Testament, Volume One: History, Culture, and Religion of the Hellenistic Age, Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1982, page 107)."

Scholars do have enough understanding of the Koine Greek so as to give a fairly good translation and to obtain the concept found from the original Koine Greek. If we say that they don't, then we might as well discount all of the NT scriptures as never attaining the original sense and not only where the word stauros (stake) is used.

Along with this, as believers in God and his written word, we all alike believe that the scriptures are inspired of God, (I think !) and we should have confidence in him that he will make certain that the correct sense of the scriptures is be passed onto us. So the original word for stake... stauros, context etc. can be looked into in-depth.


Your quote:
To understand what the bible says, one must first understand the language, and the Greek of the NT is vernacular. I would suggest that if you asked anyone of the day what was the most common method of Roman punishment execution they would describe the cross as we know it,a cross-piece attached to a vertical stake.


Vernacular, relatively speaking in the sense that Koine Greek was different than classical Greek. True the most common form of death torture was on a cross shape, various shapes, it seems, but a stake was also known to have been used in death and torture, in fact the upright pole was the original form. It seems that the stake as a means of death by torture was handed down by previous civilisations and empires and taken up by the Romans, cross forms are a variation of this. The Greeks used it, and there is a stone frieze in the Assyryian king Sennacheribs palace at Ninevah showing many impaled on posts, amongst other historical pointers.


Your quote:
There is a piece of anti-Christian graffiti from the 3rd century depicting a man kneeling in prayer before the image of a man with an ass's head crucified on a cross. The point is, the graffiti ridicules what must by then have been a common practice - prayer addressed to a crucified Christ. The cross depicted is just as we know it, and as it was used up until abolished by Constantine in the fourth century.


I've seen this picture, its a rough line drawing...scrawl, and this is not evidence of a crucifixion.
This drawing was discovered in 1856 on the walls of the Roman palatine building in the servants quarters. It dates from around 200 A.D. ( Not confirmed) This "crucified ass" is a human figure but with an animals head. The arms are extended. Two lines that form a cross appear in front, not behind this graffito, traversing the arms and legs. There is an accompanying inscription which says: "Alexamenos adores his God." It has been pointed out that the lines that form this 'cross' may very well not be a part of the original graffito. Also, the head is more like a jackal than an ass and so the drawing could very well be a representation of the Egyptian god Anubis. This is certainly no evidence of a cross or a crufixion as drawn by Christians in the early 3rd century. No fixed date can be given for this drawing, again one can easily assume such a derogatory cartoon did indeed mock the Christian, but its conjecture. It's use by an opponent of the faith hardly proves that the cross was a very early Christian symbol.

Either way it is centuries later than from the actual time of the death of Jesus. Later cross symbols only reflect that the cross was a later superimposed symbol deriving from ancient history, and that a cross could have indeed been used for other Christians, but there is no evidence that any cross was used for Jesus.


Stauros:
The verb is stauroo and it means 'to impale' it is used in the scriptures to denote the impalement.... form: to impale ...on a pale or stake. The noun stauros is used for the stake. The word "stauros" occurs 27 times in the Christian Greek Scriptures.


Sometimes the word xylon is also used which denotes a piece of wood or even a tree. It is not like dendron, which is used of a living, or green tree, as in Matt.21: 8; Rev.7: 1, 3; 8:7; 9: 4.


There is never any Greek word used in the scriptures to imply that it was a cross of any form. Outside of the scriptures a cross is known to have been used, but also a stake was a known means of death torture. The word in the bible is more indicative of a stake, because its more direct to its actual true meaning, an upright pale, stake, palisade or pole. The subject goes a lot deeper though and the origination of the words and history on the matter are more involved than that seen on the surface. It is debatable.

I find irony in anyone who refuses to read the entire passage. However, I will ask you E99, what did the Messiah carry to His death? Perhaps you can enlighten us.

Stauros meant stake, agreed. What is the cross beam called? And why would Jesus be forced to carry it?

And why are you ignoring my questions?

Q

[Quahom1]

Greek for Stauros does not mean to impale. It means stake, pole, stud. Not pike, or strike for impaling one upon. Please Cut me some slack.


Q

[E99]

Hello Quahom


Your quote:
I find irony in anyone who refuses to read the entire passage. However, I will ask you E99, what did the Messiah carry to His death? Perhaps you can enlighten us.

Stauros meant stake, agreed. What is the cross beam called? And why would Jesus be forced to carry it?

And why are you ignoring my questions?


Sorry Quahom. I did intend to answer your question. Its a challenging one and requires some thought. If you look at my last posting time, you will notice that the time says 1.45 a.m....Late ! I had to get up to work....Ran out of time. Working now, so I will get back to you later.


Your quote:
Greek for Stauros does not mean to impale. It means stake, pole, stud. Not pike, or strike for impaling one upon. Please Cut me some slack.


I know. I did say that the scriturally used word 'stauros' is a noun and means upright pole, paling, , palisade or stake, generally a single piece of wood. Impale comes from the word pale...stauros. Please check my posts. I said that the verb form 'stauroo' means ' to impale.'

Please note: Although it is part of our JW theology, I can see that it is not 100% clear cut that it was a stake, especially so with the verbal usage of languages, idioms etc. Could the word stauros during the Roman era in particular have meant only a cross ? Realistically I don't think so, but who knows. This is why I said that it is debatable...up for debate.

[Quahom1]

Naw, You're right. I should have cut and run too. My apologise.

For all we know, He could have been hung on a tree. I guess it really doesn't matter because He died an ignoble death by any event, simply for preaching good news and telling the truth.

That is the problem with translations. Sometimes the meaning gets lost in the wording...

v/r

Q

[E99]

Hi Quahom

Sorry, a late reply, I've been busy......also delayed by three extra minutes on getting to this site through a plethora of dialogue boxes..." Do you want to remortgage ? Only $800.00 admin fees...You've won a holiday in Bermuda.....send us £3000.00 to claim your prize." etc...



Your quote:
I believe you will find that He specifically carried a "cross piece" or "cross beam", not the whole of the cross, or even the Stauros (which is already buried in the ground like a fence post. Also we know He would not have carried the entire cross...He couldn't carry it (as it would weigh in excess of 300 lbs). He couldn't even carry the cross beam (weighing in at 75-120 lbs), because He was so weak from the flogging.

I will ask you E99, what did the Messiah carry to His death? Perhaps you can enlighten us.


Stauros meant stake, agreed. What is the cross beam called? And why would Jesus be forced to carry it?



Greek: 'Stauros'...A stake, pale, palisade, upright post.

Crossbeam..... I cannot seem to find that the original Greek word found in all of the gospel accounts can justify that a crossbeam is being carried. Again, the Greek word 'Stauros' is used each and everytime when referring to the item used for the execution of Jesus. This word is used for the item that Jesus is carrying and also at Golgotha where he is impaled. It is one singular stauros...." If you are the son of God, come down of the (stauros)" ....It always means stake, pale or single upright pole etc...... a meaning without variation found in the NT scriptures and outside of the bible in classical Greek literature.

As impaling on a single stake was another method used by the Romans along with the more popular fixing to a cross form; the literal words here seem to be reasonably implying that it was actually this time round an impaling on a stake.

If we assume that 'stauros' does mean an upright pole, which is logical, regarding the direct transliteration of the word, then if it was this that Jesus carried, then this pole would have been around say 220lbs. I could carry and drag that in my younger days. I can still bench press it....just about escaping a recurring hernia. I think that it would not have been a big problem for Jesus, but still a problem nonetheless. If it was a whole cross then maybe it would have been too heavy. Although Jesus was weakened, it has been said that he, being perfect would have had a good amount of strength, but as he was weakened through his flogging, it would have been a great effort.... but he was not alone. The account reads....

"And as they came out they found a man a Cyrene, Simon by name: Him they compelled to bear his <cross.>" (stauros...stake) Matthew 27: 32.


It seems that the Romans put Simon to service, (as it says in some bibles) to either aid Jesus to carry the weight, or they expected Simon to do it himself ! It could be that Simon was an extra large sized man and the Roman soldiers picked him for that reason.


Whatever, the word found here in many bibles translates the word 'stauros' as cross without any confirmed foundation to its meaning to do so. This is a gross mistransliteration, as the literal original word stauros is generally recognised amongst many to mean a single piece of wood...a pole. It has never been used to mean two crossed pieces.


Following on from this, most bibles translate the verb stauroo...'to impale or fasten to a stake' as crucified. Again this is a misguiding use of the verb, as crucified gives the impression that Jesus is put on a cross, (from the latin Crux.) At Matthew 27: 22,23 the crowd cry out...."Let him be >Stauroo<...Impaled" and not crucified. IMHO that it should be an affixion and not a crucifixion.

Whatever, as you pointed out, it was his agonising and ignoble death, to have died for us all that has a greater meaning.


Shalohm

[Quahom1]

Dude, you need to get rid of the spam and trojan horses in your computer...

No, I'm serious. You should not have pop ups or other stuff slowing you down. Your system is infected...

[17th Angel]

Originally Posted by Quahom1

Dude, you need to get rid of the spam and trojan horses in your computer...

No, I'm serious. You should not have pop ups or other stuff slowing you down. Your system is infected...

The sound of the words, Trojan and Horses, 17th ears perk like a wild cougar's his eyes turn predertory and his sight locks upon the infected and weak like the tight fatal grasp of a hawk upon a small unfortunate rodent....

*snaps out of his dramatic narrator fit*

Ugh sorry, yeah you should get any Troji viri fixed as soon as... I clearly remember in my younger years online messing around with Troji's fair enough they were fun.... but it wasn't so fun for the health status of the poor people we used to inflict our boredom upon....

[Quahom1]

Originally Posted by 17th Angel

The sound of the words, Trojan and Horses, 17th ears perk like a wild cougar's his eyes turn predertory and his sight locks upon the infected and weak like the tight fatal grasp of a hawk upon a small unfortunate rodent....

*snaps out of his dramatic narrator fit*

Ugh sorry, yeah you should get any Troji viri fixed as soon as... I clearly remember in my younger years online messing around with Troji's fair enough they were fun.... but it wasn't so fun for the health status of the poor people we used to inflict our boredom upon....

I meant the bad programs hackers try to install on your computer while you are on the internet... They can really slow your computer down.

[Thomas]

Consider:
In reference to the English martyrs, say, or other victims of the Reformation, we refer to them as 'having died at the stake', then according to the logic of this argument, which is the truth must endorse the opinion held, this can only mean they died by impaling.

If, however, we examine all the evidence available to us, we know that they were tied to the stake, and burnt alive.

I suggest that by saying 'death at the stake' everyone knows what is meant, and likewise the Greek stauros everyone knew they meant the Roman form of execution - the 'crux' as the Rromans called it, or cross.

Thomas

[Thomas]

Crucifixion: An especially grim description of this punishment, meted out to murderers, highwaymen, and other gross offenders, is the following from a didactic poem:
"Punished with limbs outstretched,
they see the stake as their fate;
they are fasted, nailed to it with sharpest spikes,
an ugly meal for birds of prey and grim scraps for dogs."

Much later in Latin speech "Crux!" became a curse, to indicate the way the speaker thought the one accursed should end. Other epithets among the lower classes found in Plautus, Terence, and Petronius are "Crossbar Charlie" (Patibulatus) and "Food for Crows" (Corvorum Cibaria).
http://www.infidels.org/library/mode...omb/roman.html

Thomas

[Quahom1]

Originally Posted by Thomas

Consider:
In reference to the English martyrs, say, or other victims of the Reformation, we refer to them as 'having died at the stake', then according to the logic of this argument, which is the truth must endorse the opinion held, this can only mean they died by impaling.

If, however, we examine all the evidence available to us, we know that they were tied to the stake, and burnt alive.

I suggest that by saying 'death at the stake' everyone knows what is meant, and likewise the Greek stauros everyone knew they meant the Roman form of execution - the 'crux' as the Rromans called it, or cross.

Thomas

True, there is a distinction between being burnt or hung from a "stake" and being impaled on a "Pike". Hence the term "Pike men", who's job was to impale the enemies' horses in battle, and "Gaffers" who's job was to pull the enemy from the horse's back (again by impaling).

v/r

Q

[E99]

Hello Thomas


Your quote:
Consider:
In reference to the English martyrs, say, or other victims of the Reformation, we refer to them as 'having died at the stake', then according to the logic of this argument, which is the truth must endorse the opinion held, this can only mean they died by impaling.

If, however, we examine all the evidence available to us, we know that they were tied to the stake, and burnt alive.

I suggest that by saying 'death at the stake' everyone knows what is meant, and likewise the Greek stauros everyone knew they meant the Roman form of execution - the 'crux' as the Rromans called it, or cross.


Similarly, under this reasoning, in a reversal of assumptions regarding the broader meaning of impale and stake. If it was said that the 'heretics' of the inquisitions etc died by the cross, we could therefore assume that it could mean a stake also. But we shouldn't and wouldn't do this because the noun 'cross' makes it specific to what item of execution would have been used by which the 'heretics' died. The same can be said of the death of Jesus. The bible is specific, it clearly says a stake and we shouldn't change it to mean a cross.


A distinction....burning on the stake of innocents under the persecutions of those that held up the cross as their symbol of Christ....

"Then the Holy Inquisition was born...thousands of torn and mutilated heretics shrieking under the torture, and other thousands and thousands of heretics and witches
burning at the stake, "always in the pleasant shade flung by the peaceful banner of the cross," as Satan remarked. And in the midst of these fearful spectacles, as an incidental matter, we had a marvelous nightshow, by the light of fitting and flying torches the butchery of Christian by Christian in France on Bartholomew's Day."---

Mark Twain

Rather than referring to them as 'having died at the stake, generally the saying was recognised as 'Having been burnt at the stake.' The 'burning' negates the idea of the impaling, similarly the Greek noun stauros 'stake' negates the impaling on a cross. I think that anyone could get the gist of the manner of death on a stake in these cases, especially those 'heretics' that were burning in their last death throes and in the scriptures by the those that observed the death of Jesus.


The tortured must have wondered that those torturers holding up the 'banner of the cross' in the name of Christ really held the true symbol of Christ, or did they wonder that they were carrying an adopted symbol from an ancient pagan origin where torture was as rampant as with the inquisitions and 'heretical' slayings of their own time ?

However, if we take the saying 'Having died at the stake' and apply it to the gospel accounts by assuming that impale could have referred to impaling on a cross also......

The Greek verb stauroo...'impaling' is taken from the understanding about fixing to a pale...stauros, thus fixing a human to a stauros, pale, stake etc, in the case of ancient executions.
The noun stauros (stake) used in the scriptural accounts gives strength to the way in which the verb 'to impale or fix to an upright pole' is being applied in the bible. It is definate....on a single piece of wood. The context of all of the scriptures, and all of the uses of stauros, or at times 'xylon' (piece of wood) makes it clear to what Jesus was fixed upon. It has no other meaning, least of all a cross. Impaling on a stake was also used by the Romans as a means of execution, and there is no reason for some to make speculations that Jesus was put on anything different to what the scriptures indicate.


Is stauroo 'impaling' an idiom ? It may be seemingly open as to how it is applied, but stauros isn't. Koine Greek was an idiomatic Greek language, unlike classical Greek. The Greek literature and koine scriptural Greek both use stauros to mean a singular piece. Homer uses the word stauros of an ordinary pole or stake, or a single piece of timber. It tends to show that it has a definate literal meaning everywhere it crops up.


In fact what you say about everyone knowing what impale or stake could have meant can be illustrated regarding the way the noun stauros is thought of today, but this is a distorted view of the original word.
I have a Danish friend who's husband worked for the Cypriot government around the time of the '73 war. Having once lived in Cyprus she assured me that stauros, or stav-a-ros, as she pronounced it, meant cross, everyone living there with their crosses around their necks believed that stauros meant cross. Considering that the primary meaning at the time of the apostles was a single one piece stake. The cross is an extrapolation from what some historians recognise as coming from third and fourth century thought. The people have come to believe that stauros means cross by theological slant, after centuries of an imposed idea. This is an example of how the actual meaning of a noun can be perverted, likewise the verb can also be distorted to fit the perverted noun.

Originally the latin 'crux' (now taken to mean cross ) only meant a stake.

Quote:

The Latin word used for the instrument on which Christ died was crux which, according to Livy, a famous Roman historian of the first century C.E., means a mere stake. The Cyclopædia of Biblical, Theological, and Ecclesiastical Literature says that the crux simplex was a "mere stake of one single piece without transom [crossbar].'"

[Quahom1]

Originally Posted by E99

Originally the latin 'crux' (now taken to mean cross ) only meant a stake.

Quote:

The Latin word used for the instrument on which Christ died was crux which, according to Livy, a famous Roman historian of the first century C.E., means a mere stake. The Cyclopædia of Biblical, Theological, and Ecclesiastical Literature says that the crux simplex was a "mere stake of one single piece without transom [crossbar].'"

Not quite. The term you are looking for is cruxus simplex. Hence more than one cross...

I find this rather disturbing that Christians would go to such lengths to throw "stumbling blocks" in front of other Christians.

I thought we were thoughtful individuals...now I wonder.

As a Catholic Christian, I do not care for another variation to imply that my faith is in error. overtly or covertly. I particularly do not care for my own cruxious to be attempted as a force against me. I find that disturbing (to say the least).

You have your own way of thinking, and I have mine. I leave your's alone, now you leave mine the same...

This has gone way beyond Mee's/17th Angel's straight up issues, and is bordering on an attack against what?..another "Christian's faith"?

I think this thread has served it's purpose.

v/r

Q