[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Sign-in] [Mail] [Setup] [Help]
Status: Not Logged In; Sign In
|
Religion See other Religion Articles Title: Was Jesus Christ crucified on a cross? - The Explanation I was, frankly, amazed at the responses to the first post; Was Jesus Christ crucified on a cross? 952 views, 178 comments! And the wide divergence of opinions given begins to show how little most people understand the Bible, and, how few have actually read it. And, I mean read it, as opposed to listening to someone who claims to have read it. Part of the answer about this subject I supplied in the first post. Namely; "Holy Bible From the Ancient Eastern Text (George M. Lamsa's Translation from the Aramaic of the Peshitta); Galatians 3:13; Christ has redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming accursed for our sakes (for it is writtenm Crused is everyone who hangs on a cross). OOPS! WOW! Boy, do we need that second witness now! Second Witness; Deuteronomy 21:22; And if any man has committed a sin worthy of death, and he is crucified on a tree, and thus put to death; (23) His body shall not remain all night upon the tree but you shall bury him the same day (for he who shall revile God shall be crucified), ... " The quote from Galatians 3:13 is a direct quote from the Old Testament. It is not open to change, as it is a quote. But you will find in various Bibles, that the word 'cross' is substituted. This is not acceptable when a Quote is being made. When you begin to find things such as this, then you begin to realize that someone has an agenda, and you must be doubly careful as to what is going on. Why, in particular, are details such as this important? First off, it helps you to identify those who are liars. If they change things, it is done to decieve. Are we to assume that any deception is an isolated event? I would hope we do not! Liars are liars, and seldom change their spots. Quite frankly, if people really began to pay attention to what is actually in the Bible, most of the problems of the world would go away. And most of the non-sense that plagues Christianity would also go away. I have said this before; just because someone claims to be Christian does not make it so. A man is known by his actions, and not by his words. And if so-called Christian congregations are praying for a war with Iran, and for success in Iran, while waiting for the so-called Rapture.... well, they ain't Christian. And that is as simple as it gets. This is the explanation for this post. And by the way, I am not a Jehovah's Witness; I just use the best material available wherever I may find it. +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Did Jesus Die on a Cross? WAS it a mistake? Had church leaders erred? Such questions might well have occurred to residents of Cartagena, Spain, not long ago. Why? Because of a Holy Week poster that depicted Jesus Christ impaled, not on a cross, but upon an upright stake that lacked a crossbeam. For centuries, professing Christians have been taught that Jesus Christ was put to death on a cross. Among many Christians "representations of Jesus nailed to a cross" have special importance. Yet, is it possible that Christ did not die on a cross? Crosses of various kinds have been common from early times. Says The Encyclopedia Britannica: "From its simplicity of form, the cross has been used both as a religious symbol and as an ornament, from the dawn of man’s civilization. Various objects, dating from periods long anterior to the Christian era, have been found, marked with crosses of different designs, in almost every part of the old world." (Eleventh Edition, Vol. VII, p. 506) Hence, the cross does not have what some might term a "Christian" origin. Of course, that does not mean that Jesus did not die on a cross. Some people have been executed by being impaled on crosses. However, the Romans often put individuals to death on posts having no crossbars. Could that have happened in Jesus’ case? If a contemporary artist had stood before the dying Jesus on Golgotha, he might have left us an authentic portrayal of that highly significant event. But no artwork of this kind is in existence, and certainly later tradition is not conclusive. Nevertheless, we do have the recorded words of an eyewitness. Who was he? As Jesus looked down from that implement of torture and death, he saw "the disciple whom he loved," the apostle John. To him Jesus committed the care of his mother, Mary. (John 19:25-30) So, John was there. He knew whether Jesus died on a cross. To designate the instrument of Christ’s death, John used the Greek word stawros rendered "torture stake" in the New World Translation. (John 19:17, 19, 25) In classical Greek, stawros’ denotes the same thing that it does in the common Greek of the Christian Scriptures-primarily an upright stake or pole with no crossbar. Interestingly, John Denham Parsons wrote in the book The Non-Christian Cross: "There is not a single sentence in any of the numerous writings forming the New Testament, which, in the original Greek, bears even indirect evidence to the effect that the stauros used in the case of Jesus was other than an ordinary stauros; much less to the effect that it consisted, not of one piece of timber, but of two pieces nailed together in the form of a cross." The Jnterpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible states, with reference to stauros’: "Literally an upright stake, pale, or pole... As an instrument of execution, the cross was a stake sunk vertically in the ground. Often, but by no means always, a horizontal piece was attached to the vertical portion." Another reference work says: "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.... Even amongst the Romans the crux (from which our cross is derived) appears to have been originally an upright pole, and this always remained the more prominent part."-The Imperial Bible Dictionary. In the book The Cross and Crucifixion, by Hermann Fulda, it is said: "Jesus died on a simple death-stake: In support of this there speak (a) the then customary usage of this means of execution in the Orient, (b) indirectly the history itself of Jesus’ sufferings and (c) many expressions of the early church fathers." Fulda also points out that some of the oldest illustrations of Jesus impaled depict him on a simple pole. The Christian apostle Paul says: "Christ by purchase released us from the curse of the Law by becoming a curse instead of us, because it is written: ‘Accursed is every man hanged upon a stake."’ (Gal. 3:13) His quotation was from Deuteronomy, which mentions placing the corpse of an executed person on a "stake," then adds: "His dead body should not stay all night on the stake; but you should by all means bury him on that day, because something accursed of God is the one hung up; and you must not defile your soil."-Deut. 21:22, 23. Was this "stake" a cross? No. In fact, the Hebrews had no word for the traditional cross. To designate such an implement, they used "warp and woof," alluding to yarns running lengthwise in a fabric and others going across it on a loom. At Deuteronomy 21:22, 23, the Hebrew word translated "stake" is ‘ets, meaning primarily a tree or wood, specifically a wooden post. Executional crosses were not used by the Hebrews. The Aramaic word ‘a’, corresponding to the Hebrew term ‘ets, appears at Ezra 6:11, where it is said regarding violators of a Persian king’s decree: "A timber will be pulled out of his house and he will be impaled upon it." Obviously, a single timber would have no crossbeam. In rendering Deuteronomy 21:22, 23 ("stake") and Ezra 6:11 ("timber"), translators of the Septuagint Version employed the Greek word xylon, the same term that Paul used at Galatians 3:13. It was also the one employed by Peter, when he said Jesus "bore our sins in his own body upon the stake." (1 Pet. 2:24) In fact, xy’lon is used several other times to refer to the "stake" on which Jesus was impaled. (Acts 5:30; 10:39; 13:29) This Greek word has the basic meaning of "wood." There is nothing to imply that in the case of Jesus’ impalement it meant a stake with a crossbeam. So, the evidence indicates that Jesus did not die on the traditional cross. Hence, Jehovah’s witnesses, who once had a representation of the cross on the front cover of their journal The Watchtower, no longer use such a symbol. Nor do they give the stake veneration. Surely, the instrument of Jesus’ suffering and death no more merits such reverence than would the gallows on which a beloved one might have died unjustly. Moreover, God’s Word prohibits such veneration, for it says, "flee from idolatry" and "guard yourselves from idols." (1 Cor. 10:14; 1 John 5:21). Does this mean that Jehovah’s witnesses care little about the death of Jesus Christ? No. They know that by means of it God provided the ransom that releases believing mankind from bondage to sin and death. (1 Tim. 2:5, 6) These matters often are discussed at our meetings. And, like the early Christians, annually they commemorate Jesus’ death during celebration of the Lord’s evening meal. (1 Cor. 11:23-26) At all of such gatherings in the local Kingdom Hall you will find a hearty welcome. Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 25.
#6. To: richard9151 (#0)
Uh on this youre so wrong.. it's not that they've substituted anything.. it's how the word itself may have been translated not that they 'changed God's word'..
True. It's that absolute belief that the right words are exactly the one a religious person thinks they are which makes everything else wrong. Let us assume that Jesus was really here, and the story told in the gospels in essentially correct. If it is the word of God, and if it is intended as instruction for us, then we have to ask why God would allow two different apostles who lived with Jesus quote him differently when he was giving the same speech. If God intended us to see every word as exact, he would have made sure that all apostles told exactly the same story using exactly the same words. They didn't. There are several instances of apostles using different words to describe the same SERMON Jesus spoke. THEREFORE, we can reasonably know that the exact words are not important, for if they were, there would be no difference in the way one apostle quotes Jesus and the way another does. That is, if God was the New Testament's editor and designer, and if every word is exactly as he intended. A more reasonable conclusion is that men remember things differently absent a recording device, and they write those memories fully believing they are telling the absolute truth. Everything about Jesus, his words, and the life he is said to have lived say this was a man who never wrote anything down because that's how he wanted it. The story of his lessons lives, and that was what he cared about, not all this worship nonsense, not all the holier than thou attitudes that ARE modern Christendom.
Well for one thing .. the apostles wrote from different perspectives.. just as anyone who is witness to an event will do.. based upon their history or their socioeconomic and/or educational or religious background.
My problem with those who hover over the Bible is their failure to see the forest for the trees. Most Christians actively avoid doing the things Jesus actually told them to do. 99% of them have never been to visit a prisoner. Most wouldn't dream of being the Samaritan in similar circumstances. And where do they get all this outrageous pride and arrogance? Where do they get the big church buildings, the success doctrine, and the political activism? There is almost none of Jesus to be found at most churches bearing his name.
I dont disagree.. Maybe the question should be asked.. where in scripture is the blueprint for the type church we see today? I've not seen it.
I do not believe in the creed professed by the Jewish church, by the Roman church, by the Greek church, by the Turkish church, by the Protestant church, nor by any church that I know of. My own mind is my own church. All national institutions of churches, whether Jewish, Christian or Turkish, appear to me no other than human inventions, set up to terrify and enslave mankind, and monopolize power and profit. (hint: not my quote)
There are no replies to Comment # 25. End Trace Mode for Comment # 25.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest |
||
|
[Home]
[Headlines]
[Latest Articles]
[Latest Comments]
[Post]
[Sign-in]
[Mail]
[Setup]
[Help]
|
||