Did Jesus died on a cross?

[cascherman]

What people saw on the day when Jesus died was an illusion orchestrated by Allah to fool the rest of mankind.

and this fits in where with God’s plan?

-Create the universe, earth, creatures, and humans
-Teach them how to love me and obey me, knowing they will stumble and fall
-Make a promise to them that a Savior will be sent to make **the **sacrifice for any transgression we could possibly make.
-Send the Savior to earth with fulfillment of all the major OT prophecies.
-Finish it off by fooling everyone and lying about the Savior dying for us, and only making us believe we saw what we saw…

 

[BibleSteve]

That piled on top of the fact that the Watchtower has flipped its theology 180 degrees on this subject. From supporting the cross and using it, to ceasing use of it and disqualifying everyone else because they use it. If nothing else, this is a major problem for me, and should be for you as well. Theology flip-flopping cannot be explained by the light getting brighter. You can’t be entirely wrong and expect there to be any light at all.

Posts like yours continue to prove to me the futility of participating in discussions on this forum. I simply comment that I’ve seen good arguments presented for both sides of the issue and it leads to a disrespectful attack on JW’s.

I really think you should change your quote on your signature.

 

[cascherman]

Posts like yours continue to prove to me the futility of participating in discussions on this forum. I simply comment that I’ve seen good arguments presented for both sides of the issue and it leads to a disrespectful attack on JW’s.

I really think you should change your quote on your signature.

Please show me where I was disrespectful. I try hard to post by that signature, and as the sig says I want you to PM me if something I say is out of line. Not tell me to take it out. I mean the signature no less if I am disrespectful, I still would like to be informed if I offend, how would taking it out help me be informed?

But, again, I see no disrespect in that post. Anyone else here see any? Am I out of line or does he just not have an answer to my post? I am more than willing to acknowledge a mistake if others think I was disrespectful as well.

At least I don’t say the Falsetower like others do. That is disrespectful. If you took what I said as disrespect, I apologize, but I still don’t see any.

 

[cascherman]

Okay Steve,

I have looked over the posts again, combing for disrespectful comments about JWs and I have not found anything.

Seriously, help me out here… do you not like the fact that I said the Watchtower used to celebrate the cross and now they contradict themselves by condemning all others because of it?

 

[BibleSteve]

The Watchtower used a picture of the cross on their publications in the early days 1880’s onward and believed that the Greek word “stauros” should be translated as “cross” for many years (up to 1931 I believe).

Subsequent research has lead them to believe that “stauros” should be translated as “stake” or “torture stake”. They have provided many quotes from non-JW reference materials to indicate there is validity in this belief. Many non-JW scholars agree.

At this point, they do hold the opinion that “stake” is a much better translations and that “cross” is a left over from non-Christian pagan origins.

They also point out that many people have turned this “execution instrument” into an idol… bowing to it, kissing it, holding it in their hands as they pray, treating it as some “holy” item… I agree with their assessment, as I’ve personally seen people bow to it and kiss it.

In my investigation of the question, I have read everything the Watchtower has ever written and I see the validity of their opinion. I have also read much non-JW discussions that try to prove it really was some “cross-beam” sort of configuration.

My personal opinion? I stated it in the post. “I’ve read good arguments on both sides of the issue”. I also think the argument over the shape is overshadowing the really important issue of the value of the ransom sacrifice.

I shared my opinion that I had read good arguments on both sides of the issue. That’s about as vanilla as it gets.

The response I got from you was a dump about the Watchtower organization, flip-flopping, they’re all wrong, light getting brighter, etc.

My opinion and experience is that any post I make is simply a magnet for anti-JW insults…

Right or wrong, that is my opinion…

Since I am the only JW poster on this forum, I could be used as a resource to learn and discuss the similarities and differences(as per the purpose of this forum) or my comments could be used as an excuse to vent anti-Watchtower feelings.

All I’ve done in this thread is to simply provide references to what JW’s have written and links to interesting discussions on both sides of the issue.

 

[paarsurrey]

Thanks for answering my question but I think the muslin way is more confusing to me it leaves me with more question then answers, like I know muslins don’t believe Jesus is the son of the Living God and now they say that Jesus didn’t die on the cross that it was a illusion! isn’t that the reason they kill him because he said he was the son of God and that will make him equal to God?
and if Jesus didn’t die on the cross the prophecies in the OT would have been a lie and I don’t think so.

Hi

There is no confusion. Jesus was born and he died naturally. That is normal life which he lived. Jesus life accounts should be read irrespective of what has been written in the OT.

Thanks

 

[Wildgraywolf]

Hi

There is no confusion. Jesus was born and he died naturally. That is normal life which he lived. Jesus life accounts should be read irrespective of what has been written in the OT.

Thanks

lurdes was referring to this line:

but the resemblance of 'Īsā (Jesus) was put over another man (and they killed that man)

Which, quite honestly, doesn’t make a whole lot of sense.

 

[c659smith]

Hi

There is no confusion. Jesus was born and he died naturally. That is normal life which he lived. Jesus life accounts should be read irrespective of what has been written in the OT.

Thanks

So the Old Testament is wrong, the New testament is wrong, Historical accounts by Jews, Romans, and Greeks was wrong and Islam coming out of now-where and not being present during the crucification is right?

Now in Christ being crucified and buried as witnessed by the Apostles and witnessing to Jesus being resurrected. I recognize that just because the disciples think they saw Jesus doesn’t mean that they really did. There are three possible alternatives:

1. They were lying
2. They hallucinated
3. They really saw the risen Christ

People will often die for a lie that they believe is the truth. But on this view, if Jesus did not rise, the disciples knew it. Thus, they wouldn’t have just been dying for a lie that they mistakenly believed was true. They would have been dying for a lie that they knew was a lie. Ten people would not all give their lives for something they know to be a lie.

The hallucination theory is unintelligent because it cannot explain the physical nature of the appearances. The disciples record eating and drinking with Jesus, as well as touching him. This cannot be done with hallucinations. Second, it is highly unlikely that they would all have had the same hallucination.

So this leaves you with a reasonable person of sound mind would come to a conclusion that the Apostles were telling the truth that Christ died and and was resurrected.

 

[Wildgraywolf]

So the Old Testament is wrong, the New testament is wrong, Historical accounts by Jews, Romans, and Greeks was wrong and Islam coming out of now-where and not being present during the crucification is right?

Now in Christ being crucified and buried as witnessed by the Apostles and witnessing to Jesus being resurrected. I recognize that just because the disciples think they saw Jesus doesn’t mean that they really did. There are three possible alternatives:

1. They were lying
2. They hallucinated
3. They really saw the risen Christ

People will often die for a lie that they believe is the truth. But on this view, if Jesus did not rise, the disciples knew it. Thus, they wouldn’t have just been dying for a lie that they mistakenly believed was true. They would have been dying for a lie that they knew was a lie. Ten people would not all give their lives for something they know to be a lie.

The hallucination theory is unintelligent because it cannot explain the physical nature of the appearances. The disciples record eating and drinking with Jesus, as well as touching him. This cannot be done with hallucinations. Second, it is highly unlikely that they would all have had the same hallucination.

So this leaves you with a reasonable person of sound mind would come to a conclusion that the Apostles were telling the truth that Christ died and and was resurrected.

Yeah, what he said.

 

[Holly3278]

Hi

They were in a doubt that they had tried their best to kill Jesus; but for sure they could no succeed in killing him a cursed death on Cross. It is mentioned in Quran:

The Holy Quran : Chapter 4: Al-Nisa’

[4:156] So, for their breaking the covenant, and their denial of the Signs of Allah, and their seeking to slay the Prophets unjustly, and their saying: ‘Our hearts are wrapped up in covers,’ - nay, but Allah has sealed them because of their disbelief, so they believe not but little -
[4:157] And for their disbelief and for their uttering against Mary a grievous calumny;
[4:158] And for their saying, ‘We did slay the Messiah, Jesus, son of Mary, the Messenger of Allah;’ whereas they slew him not, nor did they bring about his death upon the cross, but he was made to appear to them like one crucified; and those who differ therein are certainly in a state of doubt about it; they have no certain knowledge thereof, but only pursue a conjecture; and they did not arrive at a certainty concerning it.
[4:159] On the contrary, Allah exalted him to Himself. And Allah is Mighty, Wise.
www3.alislam.org/showChapter.jsp?ch=4&verse=154

Thanks

The Quran is wrong. Both secular and religious sources of the time verify that Jesus Christ was indeed crucified on a Roman cross.

 

[Yerusalyim]

Bible Steve hints at an important point, the shape of the cross, and the Romans had several, doesn’t matter. However, it’s only the JWs that have turned this into a doctrinal issue and I can GUARANTEE that if BibleSteve announced in a public address at his local Kingdom Hall that he now believed that Christ was sacraficed on the traditional Latin Cross rather than on a pole that he would be drug before a Judicial Committee and probably Disfellowshipped if he didn’t repent. Bible Steve, if I’m wrong on that particular prove it.

It’s POSSIBLE that Christ was crucified on a simple STAKE…it’s more probable that he was crucified on a T shaped Cross. The Romans had set up regular sites for execution and usually had scaffolding already set up. The condemned would be whipped nearly to the point of death and then forced to carry the cross beam out to the site of execution.

One of the biggest arguments AGAINST a simple stake is that these executions were done as a form of terror and intimidation. A man afixed to a pole at a distance can be confused for several things…a man afixed to a T shaped cross, even at a distance, is UNMISTAKABLE.

The whole issue about how to translate “stauros” is RIDICULOUS. My first question for a JW who uses this line of reasoning is…then what greek word is used to indicate the traditional T shaped cross?

 

[cascherman]

Steve,

I understand what you are saying with you were just stating your opinion, and that was that there are good arguments on both sides. Which I think is going to ultimately be the case since the Romans executed both ways.

But, my main point is that, like a co-worker of mine who is a mainstream JW, I feel the majority of Jehovah’s Witnesses rule out any Church that uses a Cross as not Christian. The argument is silly when we think of the big picture and Christ’s sacrifice, as you said, but it is used as a disqualifying aspect for any Christian Church that uses it.

No one will say that you are not learned in the JW literature, and an obvious multitude of others sources as well, it is obvious. If a reasoning person like you can come to the conclusion that there are good arguments in both sides, and the argument is not so cut and dry like the NWT appendix would have you believe then is it not wrong for the elders and publications to teach a young JW (like my co-worker) that the cross is indeed a disqualifying aspect and there is no argument otherwise?

 

[paarsurrey]

Quote:
Originally Posted by paarsurrey

There is no confusion. Jesus was born and he died naturally. That is normal life which he lived. Jesus life accounts should be read irrespective of what has been written in the OT.

lurdes was referring to this line:

Quote:
but the resemblance of 'Īsā (Jesus) was put over another man (and they killed that man)

lurdes was referring to this line: Which, quite honestly, doesn’t make a whole lot of sense.

Hi

Lurdes has understood Quran incorrectly. I quote verses from Quran that clarify the matter.

The Holy Quran : Chapter 4: Al-Nisa’

[4:157] And for their disbelief and for their uttering against Mary a grievous calumny;
[4:158] And for their saying, ‘We did slay the Messiah, Jesus, son of Mary, the Messenger of Allah;’ whereas they slew him not, nor did they bring about his death upon the cross, but he was made to appear to them like one crucified; and those who differ therein are certainly in a state of doubt about it; they have no certain knowledge thereof, but only pursue a conjecture; and they did not arrive at a certainty concerning it.
[4:159] On the contrary, Allah exalted him to Himself. And Allah is Mighty, Wise.
www3.alislam.org/showChapter.jsp?submitCh=Read+from+verse%3A&ch=4&verse=152

I think Lurdes should understand Quran correctly, it is clearly his misunderstanding.

Thanks

 

[ZuzuBailey]

ANSWER IS NO

Hi There, Let me correct you here. JWS didn’t believes that he die on a cross Muslims do. And in Islam for adulter if he is not married we have 100 lashes for punishment and if he is married than its death for him. Let me quote verses from last testament from Allah.

Shouldn’t God judge and give punishment to that man and not another sinner?

 

[ZuzuBailey]

I’m sorry but I don’t believe this, God is not a God of illusion

100% AGREE!

 

[paarsurrey]

Originally Posted by **lurdes **

I’m sorry but I don’t believe this, God is not a God of illusion

100% AGREE!

Only Atheists or Agnostics would say that GodAllahYHWH is an illusion. Muslims would never say such a thing. That is why Muslim don’t believe that Jesus died on Cross or he could die a curse death on Cross as that would make god, in my opinion, an illusion. As for as the sins are concerned that GodAllahYHWH has been frogiving to the repentant humans even before since Adam’s time and when Jesus was born or when Jesus was on the Cross or when he died in India naturally and respectectfully and even afterwards.

It is not related directly related to Cross, in my opinion, so it matters a little whether Jesus was hanged on a tree or he was put on a Cross made of planks of wood. Sure it was a time of tribulations, that Jesus passed successfully and he was rewarded accordingly by his Lord GodAllahYHWH whom Jesus called on Cross and said, " O’ my God, O’ my God; why you have forsaken me?".

So there was no illusion, in my opinion, in Jesus mind when he called GodAllahYHWH on the Cross because he was a ChosenOne of GodAllahYHWH, he could not make such a mistake. Perhaps, the scribes misunderstood him, but Jesus was steadfast and he never waivered. Mistakes and misunderstandings are human; must be rectified, in my opinion, when one understands the correct scenario.

I love Jesus and Mary

Thanks

 

[BibleSteve]

Bible Steve hints at an important point, the shape of the cross, and the Romans had several, doesn’t matter. However, it’s only the JWs that have turned this into a doctrinal issue and I can GUARANTEE that if BibleSteve announced in a public address at his local Kingdom Hall that he now believed that Christ was sacraficed on the traditional Latin Cross rather than on a pole that he would be drug before a Judicial Committee and probably Disfellowshipped if he didn’t repent. Bible Steve, if I’m wrong on that particular prove it.

It’s POSSIBLE that Christ was crucified on a simple STAKE…it’s more probable that he was crucified on a T shaped Cross. The Romans had set up regular sites for execution and usually had scaffolding already set up. The condemned would be whipped nearly to the point of death and then forced to carry the cross beam out to the site of execution.

One of the biggest arguments AGAINST a simple stake is that these executions were done as a form of terror and intimidation. A man afixed to a pole at a distance can be confused for several things…a man afixed to a T shaped cross, even at a distance, is UNMISTAKABLE.

The whole issue about how to translate “stauros” is RIDICULOUS. My first question for a JW who uses this line of reasoning is…then what greek word is used to indicate the traditional T shaped cross?

For the record, I’ve seen more than enough evidence to bring into serious question whether the shape of the execution instrument was a cross.

I have looked at many non-JW reference books and find that multiple sources indicate the word meant “stake”. Vine’s Expositary Dictionary of New Testament Words for one, is a book on my bookshelf. As far as I know this is a well respected reference book and it points to “stake”.

Like many things in life and the Bible in particular, there are “experts” that line up on both sides of the issue. I have seen very well documented articles that point to “stake” and I’ve also seen well documented articles that say “cross”.

I also observe various people bowing to the cross, kissing it, and venerating it as if it’s some special, magical thing.

In my opinion, that’s idolatry.

I’m sure others will disagree, but frankly, who would ever say: “Sure, I’m committing idolatry”… and yet, the Bible indicates there are those who do.

 

[BibleSteve]

No one will say that you are not learned in the JW literature, and an obvious multitude of others sources as well, it is obvious. If a reasoning person like you can come to the conclusion that there are good arguments in both sides, and the argument is not so cut and dry like the NWT appendix would have you believe then is it not wrong for the elders and publications to teach a young JW (like my co-worker) that the cross is indeed a disqualifying aspect and there is no argument otherwise?

Dear Chris,

Thank you for the compliment.

You should know that on a Meyers-Briggs style test, I come up “P” for possibilities. In laymans terms that means I am always trying to see the possibility of other conclusions as compared to a “J” style person who make a judgement at “that’s it” without any other possibility.

When I previously said “I’ve seen a good argument for the cross configuration” what I meant is that I’ve seen an article in support of the cross that seemed to be well written and well thought out.

I didn’t dig into all the points anymore than I’ve dug into all the points of proving/disproving global climate change.

There are many things in life that “experts” line up on both sides of the argument…

From a practical perspective, I have to prioritize what issues are most important to make ultimate decisions on. Perhaps I’ll alot more time to review all the cross/stake evidence.

The shape of the execution instrument of Christ is not that big of an issue to me.

If he was executed by stoning, I certainly wouldn’t be in favor of religions putting rocks on poles and parading them around churches as members bowed their heads and kissed rocks in reverence of God or Christ, would you?

Or, if Christ had be executed by a knife, would you subscribe to the idea of putting representations of knives on top of your churches, or hanging knives around your neck?

Independant of the a conclusion on the shape of the execution instrument, I do feel very strongly about the traditional behavior of mainstream Christians regarding the symbol of the cross.

I think many have turn it into an idol.

 

[c659smith]

For the record, I’ve seen more than enough evidence to bring into serious question whether the shape of the execution instrument was a cross.

I have looked at many non-JW reference books and find that multiple sources indicate the word meant “stake”. Vine’s Expositary Dictionary of New Testament Words for one, is a book on my bookshelf. As far as I know this is a well respected reference book and it points to “stake”.

Like many things in life and the Bible in particular, there are “experts” that line up on both sides of the issue. I have seen very well documented articles that point to “stake” and I’ve also seen well documented articles that say “cross”.

I also observe various people bowing to the cross, kissing it, and venerating it as if it’s some special, magical thing.

In my opinion, that’s idolatry.

I’m sure others will disagree, but frankly, who would ever say: “Sure, I’m committing idolatry”… and yet, the Bible indicates there are those who do.

One carries one’s cross but kisses a crucifix with our Lords image. Get your facts straight.

And yes I do Idololize Jesus Christ. I am Guilty as charged.

Augustine answered this fallacious reasoning sixteen centuries ago by teaching that “abuse does not negate use.” Improper use of an object does not mean we abandon its proper use–and so we Catholics will reject prejudice and will continue to place upon ourselves the holy sign of the Triune God.

A piece of evidence comes from the New Testament: Examine John 20:25, where doubting Thomas speaks. The Witnesses’ New World Translation gives the verse as follows: “Unless I see in his hands the imprint of the nails, and put my finger into the place of the nails, and put my hand into his side, I will not believe.” Even in their your own translation John refers to hands (plural) and nails (plural). The inference is simple.

Lastly the Romans were the executioners of Christ and clearly history and archeology finds that crucification was carried out by them with a cross beam.

The prisoners were driven through the city streets and out to the place of execution. There they found in place a vertical beam, mounted in the ground. The Latin term stipes designates this beam. The prisoners were stripped, nailed to the crossbeams, and then mounted onto the vertical beams to complete the crucifixion. There were variants in some cases, depending on the capriciousness and sadism of the executioners. The crowning with thorns was such a variant.

NOTHING in the New Testament indicates a foregoing of the usual Roman use of stipes (vertical beam) and patibulum (crossbeam). The Gospel narratives speak of the soldiers whipping Christ, having him carry the cross, stripping him, nailing him, and gambling for his clothes. There is no mention of Christ or the soldiers digging a hole and placing into it the single (vertical) beam which he was forced to carry. The vertical beam already must have been in place, so it was the crossbeam (patibulum) that he carried and was nailed to.

Stauros " denotes an upright stake or pole." You wish to suggest (and the reader to understand) that it can mean only that. In fact, the word has a broader sense. It means cross as well as stake. You my friend are confined to a single definition.

(By the way, you refer to “classical Greek.”) The New Testament was not written in classical Greek, but in Koine Greek, which has a sense of its own, just as American English has a sense of its own, distinct from that of British English–but the difference between the two Greeks is greater.)

 

[cascherman]

Steve,

Any thoughts on what I said here? Specifically what is in bold.

If a reasoning person like you can come to the conclusion that there are good arguments in both sides, and the argument is not so cut and dry like the NWT appendix would have you believe then is it not wrong for the elders and publications to teach a young JW (like my co-worker) that the cross is indeed a disqualifying aspect and there is no argument otherwise?