Jesus was crucified upon...?

iBrian

Peace, Love and Unity
Veteran Member
Messages
6,542
Reaction score
30
Points
48
Location
Scotland
A tree? A stake?

A "T" cross? A "X" cross? The more familiar "+" cross?

What was Jesus actually crucified upon?
 
Or option "E": Was he crucified on an archetypal symbol of the Self with the two crosspieces representing the opposites that revolve around the center?
 
The historical evidence shows basically a whole assortment of different means of crucifixion. Wood would've been precious in that neck of the woods so it probably wasn't just a tree with a cross beam. The Romans sometimes used a pre-fab cruficixion set they brought with them into occupied territory. There's a plurality in mention of the nails so it probably wasn't a stake. There's the Toledoth Yesu that hints it had to be specially made because the evil Yesu had magic powers so that no oridinary wood would hold him. So who the hell knows.

Like ADD said, in the gospel it becomes very symbolic so maybe the authors didn't know and/or care. I can't imagine it was a full cross like in the Passion, but if tradition is any indication that might've been the earliest interpretation. There are traditional Christian cross symbols that date to the 1st century. There's the assumption that the hands were nailed separate, that there was a place to hang the indictment over his head and that he would've been high enough to require a spear to kill him rather than a sword. Erenaeus and Justin Martyr both wrote with the assumption that all execution crosses had three planks, including a plank used for a seat.
 
Is it Erenaeus or Irenaeus? Iranaeous? Which is more proper? And on a slightly related note, what would be a better rendering of Mohammed? Mahomet? Muhammed? Mahomed? Mohomed? M'ahmed?
 
I do hope that i am not going to annoy Mus Zibii here but again I return to the original words used.

The original Greek word stauros in its basic form means a stake. There was no woed in use at that time that meant 'cross' The cross is thought to have come about because of the corrisponding Latin word 'crux' which in its first meanings meant the same as stauros.

Scholars can not agree as to the just what Jesus died on. Serching the net i found people that were for it and scholares that were against it.

JWs stay by the term stake because of the original meaning and because the cross was used in pagon worship for many centries befroe Jesus, and many christians used it as part of worship thorough the centries.

Whether it means stake or cross JWs dont really care. The important thing for them is that he died.

They used to say like all other churches that Jesus died on a cross. But because the vast majority of people that were becoming JWs were catholic it was deemed oppropriate to not use the term cross to discourge the "worship" aspect that most catholiocs had of the cross.
 
You didn't annoy me! I was just saying the discussion was frustrating. Jeez, now I feel like a huge ass. I'm sorry if I offended you in the other thread. I sincerely apologize.
 
Those who are 'pro' cross point to symbols in ruined homes of Pompeii and Herculaneum. But others say these marks could've just been imprints from shelves. LOL

Then there's the crosses on tombs in Palestine. Those could just be later forgeries by the pious.

alexamenos2.jpg


Some Christians point to first century graffiti as proof, but the cross mark could've been added later. And some even claim it could've referred to a pagan god, and the ass pictured could in fact be a jackal.

The best argument for a cross-crucifixion comes from the remains of 'Yehohanan, the son of Hagakol' who's forearm wounds have the mark of pressure corresponding with arms being outstretched rather than suspended over the head.

But that's about it. Its significant that very little evidence on the subject of any sort of crucifixion exists.
 
I'm sure I've seen suggested somewhere that the "X" cross was a contender for a crucifix - either before - or because of - the obvious symbolic connection with the Chi-Rho symbol of early Christianity.

In fact, when I read about Imperial Rome and the Byzantine Empire, the Chi-Rho dominates my memory - I cannot recall a single modern crucifx shape appearing in the empire before the European Mediaeval period. Is that just my limited slant on iconic history?
 
Well, among the early Christian symbols was an anchor that apologists claim disguised a 'T' crucifix. Its surprising how little certainity surrounds the symbol. The cross salute has been said to pre-date the actual image - if you interpret Tertullian's comment of 'making the sign on the forehead' that way.
 
I've been all interested in this now. I found a quote by Seneca, and I'm assuming he used the latin word crux, but I don't have the original text. If anyone has a clue, I'd like to hear it:

I see crosses there, not just of one kind but made in many different ways: some have their victims with head down to the ground; some impale their private parts; others stretch out their arms on the gibbet Dialogue 6:20.3

What the hell's a 'gibbet'?
 
I should presume the "gibbet" would be the cross bar section -

- hang on, Oxford English dictionary to the rescue:

Gibbet: historical, noun "gallows" - an upright post with an arm on which the bodies of executed criminals were left hanging as a warning or deterrent to others. The Gibbet: execution by hanging.

So - that's serves to confuse more greatly. :)
 
LOL I'm rested now so I'll go look to Seneca in Latin (it'll be awhile, I suck at numerals and the numbering is never the same as the reference), but now I found another latin source that I can't find in the original language. Plutarch made a statement - supposedly, can't find the reference - that matches up with Mel Gibson if in fact he said it and the translation is okay: 'each criminal condemned to death bears his cross on his back' - supposedly in Moralia texts, but possibly only under his name.
 
Found the Latin for Seneca. It was Seneca's 'MARCIAM DE CONSOLATIONE' and wasn't the sixth section in either of the books I have nor, the html at Latin Library. That's what happens when numbnuts copy and paste until the reference loses its detail. Anyway..

Video istic cruces ne unius quidem generis sed aliter ab aliis fabricatas...

And..

...alii brachia patibulo explicuerunt...

My dictionary calls 'patibulo' fork-shaped gibbet or yoke. If Christianity flourished in Rome, then Jesus' comments on wearing 'his yoke' might be illuminated by that play on words.

I got a headache now. I'll see if I can find the other references later.
 
I'm still looking for an examination of the latin 'cruc' and its variations, but I found among the apologists reason to be concerned over whether the near-idoltary of the crucifix might be demanded by the holy writ. Why was the holy display of public execution so venerated? That's really a nuance that seems at least somewhat original to Christianity.

For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel: not with wisdom of words, lest the cross (plank, stake, etc) of Christ should be made of none effect. For the preaching of the cross (plank, stake, etc) is to them that perish, foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God.

For the Jews require a sign, and the Greeks seek after wisdom: But we preach Christ crucified (hung, impaled, etc), unto the Jews a stumblingblock, and unto the Greeks foolishness (and to others, heresy).

But God forbid that I should glory, save in the cross (plank, stake, etc) of our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom the world is crucified (hung, impaled, etc) unto me, and I unto the world.

Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross (plank, stake, etc).
 
Hi Mus Zibii

Mus Zibii said:
You didn't annoy me! I was just saying the discussion was frustrating. Jeez, now I feel like a huge ass. I'm sorry if I offended you in the other thread. I sincerely apologize.
Acutually you did not annoy me at all, I was afraid I was getting to you and that I was annoying you. Yes I found the discution a little frustarating as well, and I wished others would have made some form a comment so that I could have some idea of the effectivness or (lack of effectivness) of the way I handled the matter. I love well intentioned questions especially if they help me frase things better.
 
The picture below is interesting

Mus Zibii said:
Then there's the crosses on tombs in Palestine. Those could just be later forgeries by the pious.

alexamenos2.jpg


Some Christians point to first century graffiti as proof, but the cross mark could've been added later. And some even claim it could've referred to a pagan god, and the ass pictured could in fact be a jackal.
I have found articles that make the same assunption as you have just mentioned and other articles that say it is genuine. This tells me that the "learned world" do not agree on the subject.

Most authorities say that the "cross" was "officially" adopted by the "church" after Constitines vision. Otheres say it was used since the second centry and refere to a "church father" that was mentioned before I think it was spelt Iraneous or something like that.

Beside the original usage of the word stauros JWs do not think that a pagon symbol used for the worship of the God Tamuz and also as a phallic symbol of intercourse would have been an apropriate item to use for the most important event in the history of mankind. So in reality I think this deserves a
icon5.gif
 
The more I look at it, the less I know. Iranaeous' pre-Constantine description of a five-point cross would've been adverse to pagan ideals, but you don't see a five point cross in worship today. And how he came to that as the means of execution is unknown. The Tammuz tau was one of many pagan crosses, but not necessarily reflected by the Latin cross. But then you have the accounts of the usage of Christian symbols in pagan-ruled eras. The fish symbol which could be traced back to pagan fertility gods and said to symbolize the vagina would've been common among pagans and thus a means for Christians to hide their faith through acronym. A similiar argument could be made of the cross, anchor, the cross salute, etc.

Then you have Christmas which was situated around the seasonal holiday of Mithra, the Vatican and Catholic institutions that literally changed the doctrine, but kept the traditions. You have eggs on Easter, etc. The thing about bringing pagan influence into the equation - there's so much paganism ground into the bones of Judaism and Christianity. The term 'pagan' is such a disrespectful catch all. The influence is there on page one of genesis. Justin Martyr and everyone afterward has tried to reconcile that by saying the darker of the dualist gods (the devil) simply inspired these identical lies to confuse the faithful. That could be supported by saying that no group today mistakes the crucifix for a pagan fertility symbol. The problem with that is that virtually any 'pagan' practice or belief can be 'cleansed' if its embraced by a group.

Reading everything I have just in the last couple of days about crucifixion, there were so many damn ways doing it. And in Christendom there are so many ways Jesus has been crucified. One thought I've had is that stauros was probably adapted after crux rather than the other way around, but the neither denote 'cross' simply by point of origin. But then, either could imply as much in idiom form, (even after the fourth century there was no special word invented to refer to the cross, not until english and even 'cross' is an idiom adapted after crux) but there's no guaranteed interpretation.
 
Ben57 said:
Hi Mus Zibii


Acutually you did not annoy me at all, I was afraid I was getting to you and that I was annoying you. Yes I found the discution a little frustarating as well, and I wished others would have made some form a comment so that I could have some idea of the effectivness or (lack of effectivness) of the way I handled the matter. I love well intentioned questions especially if they help me frase things better.
Well, I'm glad. And I know exactly how you feel. Even if I (or anyone else) was a jerkass don't let it stop you from posting here or anywhere else.
 
I just now read in a simple article on the net that a 'cross' as a 'tau' was first mentioned in the Epistle of Barnabas. I've read it but never looked at it point by point or looked to see the original language (which I assume was Greek). Its late now, so I'l check it out in the morning.
 
I need to get out more or join the priesthood or something. I can't get my nose out of holy writ.

Anyway, the E of B uses numerology to find significance in the number of Abraham's band of soldiers - 318. In Greek numbers that's Tau (the cross) and Iota Eta (abbreviation of Jesus' name).

I feel embarrassed to mention that because I just said in error that greek has no word for cross. When in fact Greek and Hebrew have the word and its put to use in the Old Testament:

Ezekiel 9:4 And YHWH said unto him (the man with the ink-pen), Go through the midst of the city, through the midst of Jerusalem, and set a TAU upon the foreheads of the men that sigh and that cry for all the abominations that be done in the midst thereof.

That's obviously where Tertullian's Christians came up with the cross salute on the forehead. And maybe why Christians embraced a paganish Tau as the form of Jesus.

I think I might start a thread on E of B. Its got an interesting way of interpreting the Torah and Prophets that I've either forgotten or thought too mystic to care about the first time around.
 
Back
Top