Cross, Stake, Tree....which?

[Laudate_Dominum]

Another thing to note is that within the Roman Empire at that time the cross (a common instrument of torture and execution) had a nickname, 'infelix lignum', which means 'the accursed tree'. And I believe you could refer to a cross as a tree and no one would think it was odd.

Even in spite of this, the primary reason for this usage in some passages of Scripture is the Theological significance it implies. The Cross is even alluded to as the Tree of Life, which is phat.

[Quietfire]

But the main arguement of this discussion originally was whether Jesus hung from a stake (as per Jewish law), a tree(actual) or roman cross.

It is obvious that Jesus hung from a roman cross.

My learning has taught me that Our Lord could not have hung from an actual stake as per Jewish law.
And, as per Jewish law, no matter how terrible the crime, no man could be hung from an actual tree.

The only possible answer is a roman cross.

I know for most here this is a moot point.
But when dealing with folks who argue otherwise, I needed for my own understanding to explain this to them that the other ways were not only impossible, but untrue.

I am dealing with one particular person in general who feels that it was impossible for Jesus to have been hung from a cross, because it would not have fulfilled prophecy. In other words, this person may be denying Christs divinity, although that person has not, nor will not make that arguement as yet. (if at all)
This person feels that since Jesus did not die "according to the law" then no prophecy was fulfilled.
Im not sure, since they are being vague, but I think they think that He should have died by stoning. Which is not an option here according to the laws of the Jews concerning someone who claims to be God. The Jewish law was specific in that if someone claimed as such, then that person must be hung from a stake and slowly strangled to death. (this was considered humanitarian-the person would then, by their death, have paid their price, and would then receive a proper Jewish burial.)

Its obvious also, that the Jews would not do this since it would have martyrized Jesus in the eyes of His followers. It was also impossible for this sentence to be followed out by the Jews because of the Passover. Their laws were specific, and since we know they twisted those laws to suit their needs, the law stated that no man could be put to death by them during such a Holy time.
By deferring the punishment to the Romans, the Jews were able to put to death, so to speak, the blasphemer (Jesus) without violating any of their own laws. Plus the fact that by deferring punishment to be carried out by the Romans, [b][i]I[/i][/b] think they thought it would eliminate any arguement later that Jesus fulfilled the prophecies.

They were wrong on both counts.

So?
Does anyone have anything to add.
I spent a year studying this, and although I am not as learned or well versed, or ever eloquent in my wording as most here...I am wondering what ya'll think.

Pax

Edited July 19, 2005 by Quietfire

[Laudate_Dominum]

Since the cross is so well established, I would like to see the arguments of those who say it was a stake, and engage them directly. Otherwise I feel I would be striking at thin air. It's a fairly interesting topic, but since I haven't really encountered many people who challenge the cross, I haven't thought about it too much. Maybe some JW's would go against that, but I don't know who else.. What kind of folks have you been debating with?

[Quietfire]

Actually, I do think there are references in Scripture which state "stake" or "tree". But these are poetic, although some dont see it that way.

[i]What kind of folks have you been debating with?[/i]

I no longer debate with them, since it became obvious that they were only on a soapbox and when I tried to engage them to give proof, they refused (not openly, but by simply 'ignoring' me and continuing in their discourse) They only wished to plant seeds of confusion and cause people to question their faith. Once people started to no longer respond to them they would leave that particular board and find another.

But I still wanted, for my own self, to find an answer for this. Since in reality, I do get alot of JW's at my door, this is good for all of us to know. After all, this is one of their strongest beliefs. If one could show them honestly why their belief is incorrect, then maybe they will start to realize that they are being duped in everything else.

Laudate_Dominum, you're a scholar. Does anything in my posts make sense to you?

Pax

[Quietfire]

I just finished reading "The Lamb's Supper" by Scott Hahn.
When I reached page 83 I broke down in tears, then got up and started doing 'the happy dance'.

There was my answer to this persons arguement, put in words more understandable and eloquent than my own. If I may quote:

[b]The Second Beast[/b]

This beast comes from the earth and has horns like a lamb. The lamb imagery is jarring, as we've come by now to associate it with sacred things. John's use of it, I believe, is intentional, for I believe that this beast is meant to suggest the corrupted prieshood in first-century Jerusalem.
The initial clue is that this beast comes out of "the earth," which in the original Greek could also mean "the land" or "the country", as opposed to "the sea", which brings forth the gentile beast (see Dan 7). Further, John was likely bearing witness to the ultimate compromise of priestly authority, which had occurred only a few years before. In a dramatic historical moment, religious authority had given its allegiance to corrupt government authority instead of God. Jesus, the Lamb of God, High King and High Priest, stood before Pontius Pilate and the chief priests of the Jews. Pilate said to the Jews, "Here is you King!" They cried out, "Away with Him, away with Him, crucify Him!" Pilate replied, "Shall I crucify your King?" The chief priests answered, "We have no king but Caesar" (see Jn19:15). Indeed it was the high priest himself, Caiaphas, who first spoke of Jesus' sacrifice as politically "expedient" for the people.(see Jn 11:47-52)

So they rejected Christ and elevated Caesar. They rejected the Lamb and worshipped the beast. Certainly Caesar was the government's ruler and as such deserved respect (see Lk 20: 21-23). But Caesar wanted more than respect. He demanded sacrificial worship, which the chief priests gave him when they handed over the Lamb of God.

"The Lamb's Supper" by Scott Hahn.

While this might not seem like much to many of you, this means everything to me.
The original arguement that was put before me didnt make sense.
The claims that 1st...Mary was the woman who rides the beast; could not be correct as Mary never had an allience to anyone other than God Himself. Sciptures proves that and anyone claiming her as that statement above must ultimately admit that they then deny the divinity of Christ since they would be claiming that Mary's allegience lies with Satan.
2nd....the Church is the woman who rides the beast. This is also impossible since never has the Church elevated any ruler above God.
The Church has always shown respect towards any ruler of any country, but this is not worship. Respect is given to authority, but ultimately all authority is given by God. With the Church showing respect (not worship) towards authority, she is "render(ing) unto Ceasar what is ceasars".

Respect does not equal worship.

Thank you Mr. Hahn.

[Quietfire]

The second arguement put before me was the "cross" issue.

The first answer above answers the second arguement as well.
By rejecting the Christ, the Jews put themselves under the authority of Caesar, not God.
By allowing Jesus to be put to death by way of Roman Cross, the Jews fulfilled the prophecy in Scripture.

[Guest T-Bone]

[quote name='Quietfire' date='Apr 22 2004, 11:16 AM']thicke,

You are right.  I realized that same thing after my second post here.  Plus to boot.[b].If he were stoned, someone would argue as to what type of stone was used.[/b]
The point is not how or on what but the fact that he did...for us all.
Its fruitless dialogue, and I apologize to all.

Polar,
yes. I did read that.  It was my one defense along with 'whats the point?'
Again, My sincere apologies to all.
Somebody hit me!
[right][snapback]172566[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Igneous, definatly igneous. Have you ever tried to kill somone with sandstone?