Thursday

Cross or Stake: a response to Watchtower doctrine

The question is: on what did Jesus die? – a stake with, or without, a cross-bar? The Watchtower organization, of the Jehovah’s Witnesses, teaches as doctrine that Jesus was crucified with his arms above his head on a single pole or stake, rather than arms outstretched, as is otherwise universally understood. The matter seems inconsequential, but accuracy matters – it justifies authority. There is sufficient evidence to see which position is sound, and when error is taught as dogma, credibility must be denied. I’ll deal with some of the biblical data, historical evidence, and the question of whether the issue is even important. All references are documented and strictly in context.

A. Biblical Evidence


1. Nails

(Jn 20:25 — ASV) “The other disciples therefore were saying to him, ‘We have seen the Lord!’ But [Thomas] said to them, ‘Unless I shall 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.’”

(NWT) “‘Unless I see in his hands the print of the nails and stick my finger into the print of the nails and stick my hand into his side, I will certainly not believe.’”

The Bible affirms, not once but twice, that at least two nails were used in nailing Jesus' hands to the cross. If His hands were above His head, only one nail would have been used: when so crucified, this alone is the practice that historical sources reveal. But two must have been used if His arms were outstretched.

2. Head

(Mt 27:37 — ASV) “And they put up above His head the charge against Him, ‘THIS IS JESUS THE KING OF THE JEWS.’”

(NWT) “Also, they posted above his head the charge against him, in writing: ‘This is Jesus the King of the Jews.’”

Matthew does not say above His "hands", but "head". The other gospel writers say the accusation was "written above" (Mk 15:26), "over Him" (Lk 23:38), and "on the cross" (Jn 19:19). The specific contribution that Matthew makes is to tell us what exactly the writing was directly above. Being above, the writing was above His whole body, and one might as well have said it was above His toes, if "head" is not a specific and meaning­ful detail. Looking at the picture on page 18 of Should You Believe in the Trinity, a fair way to describe the inscription would be as being above His hands, but this is not how Jehovah has chosen to have Matthew, the eye-witness, describe it. A standard depiction of the crucifixion would show the writing above His head, which is how the Matthew describes it.


3. Hands outstretched

(Jn 21:18 — ASV) “Truly, truly, I say to you, when you were younger, you used to gird yourself, and walk wherever you wished; but when you grow old, you will stretch out your hands, and some­one else will gird you, and bring you where you do not wish to go.”

(NWT) “But when you grow old you will stretch out your hands and another (man) will gird you and bear you where you do not wish.”

Peter was crucified, arms outstretched, upside down; and this pro­phecy of Jesus' refers to the manner of Peter's death, as v. 19 states. If the stretching out of hands has reference only to having someone dress Peter, then the prophecy merely says that Peter will be feeble and lead where he wishes not to go, which is a pretty unimpressive predic­tion, since many old people are feeble and lead about. In being dressed, one can just as easily raise one's hands up, as stretch them out — but a distinction is maintained in the Bible, as in Mt 12:3 (and similar passages) and Acts 4:30, compared to Rev 10:5. Since the outstret­ched hands is a specific prophecy of the means of “what death he would glorify God” (Jn 21:19), then this is a prediction of the exact manner, and shape, of Peter's death by crucifixion.


4. Right/left hand

(Mk 15:27 — ASV) “And they crucified two robbers with Him, one on His right [dexion] and one on His left [ek euonumon].”

(NWT) “Moreover, they impaled two robbers with him, one on his right and one on his left.”

(Lk 23:33 NWT) “there they impaled him and the evildoers, one on his right [dexion] and one on his left [aristeron].”

Vine's says[1] that euonumos is, “with the preposition ex (for ek), signifying ‘on the left hand’...” If this is unimpressive, consider that Mt 6:3, as well as 2 Cor 6:7, are very clear indeed in using ‘aristera’ to mean ‘left hand,’ as it always does in the NT, and dexia to mean ‘right hand. Dexios is often clearly used to mean, specifically, the right hand — as in Mt 27:29, “a reed in His right hand”; or Gal 2:9, “the right hand (dexias) of fellowship”; and throughout Revelation: 1:17 (NKJV) — “But He [Jesus] laid His right hand (dexian) on me, saying, ‘Do not be afraid; I am the First and the Last.’” Rev 1:20 — “The mystery of the seven stars which you saw in My right hand (dexias)”; 2:1 — “These things says He who holds the seven stars in His right hand (dexia)”; 5:1, 7 — “And I saw in the right (hand) [dexian] of Him who sat on the throne a scroll... . Then He came and took the scroll out of the right hand (dexias) of Him who sat on the throne.”

Does this prove outstretched hands on the cross? Of course not — these terms (in Mk 15, etc.) could be used to signify ‘right-hand side,’ similar to the English usage. But had ‘side’ specifically been meant rather than ‘hand,’ there were perfectly good Greek words available for the gospel writers: in the noun pleura, meaning side, as in Jn 20:25; and in the adjective peran; or the preposition para;[2] and plesion, ‘near,’ would do, as in Jn 4:5. The point is that the words translated as ‘right’ and ‘left’ have, as cited, the natural implication, and indeed the outright demand, of right and left hand, and it is a fair understanding that the thieves were closest to His hands, as the charges were closest to His head. It does no violence to the text, and indeed is consistent with the usage, to render Mk 15:27 as: “And they crucified two robbers with Him, one at His right hand and one at His left hand.”


5. Cross/yoke

(Mt 10:38, 11:29-30 — NKJV) “And he who does not take his cross and follow after Me is not worthy of Me.” “Take My yoke upon you, and learn from Me, for I am gentle and humble in heart, and you will find rest for your souls. For My yoke is easy, and My burden is light.”

Jer 6:16 says, “Thus says the LORD, ‘Stand by the ways and see and ask for the ancient paths, / Where the good way is, and walk in it; / And you shall find rest for you souls. / But they said, ‘We will not walk in it.’” Is it fair to notice that what Jesus calls His "yoke", is called "the good way" in Jeremiah? Or that Christianity was called "The Way" (Acts 9:2)? Or that the yoke and the cross are effectively equated by Jesus? Or that Paul and Peter call that other, legalistic yoke, "hard­ship" (Gal 5:1), and "bondage" (1 Tim 6:1), and "unbearable" (Acts 15:10)? Or that the cross was seen by the world as "foolishness" (1 Cor 1:18), and a "stumbling block" (Gal 5:4), and "shameful" (Heb 12:2)? — so that what makes a person worthy and is easy according to Jesus, is viewed as foolish and unbearable by the world.

So what's my point? How is a yoke carried, and where are one's arms? The answer is obvious. In like manner, the cross (patibulum, as I will discuss below) was ‘laid on’ Simon of Cyrene (Lk 23:26),[3] so that he ‘ca­rried’ it (Mt 27:32), as did Jesus (Jn 19:17).[4] This, then, is my point: that Jesus was using a metaphor when he referred to His yoke — the similarity between the two images, yoke and cross (patibulum), immedia­tely suggests itself. That stauros (“stake”) is used to indicate the cross-bar is an example of synecdoche — using the whole to represent a part; I will discuss this in depth below.

We know Jesus made this sort of illustration, as with the Herodium, a high fortress built by remov­ing and leveling the top of the mountain — the rubble was carried away and dumped in the sea. Jesus, standing on the Mount of Olives, with the Herodium visible in the distance, tells us how faith (trust that acts) is enough to cause a mountain to be thrown into the sea (Mk 11:23, not to be confused with Mt 17:20). Jesus uses plainly visible things to illustrate his points — a kind of tangible parable (parables are real things and possible situations used to ex­plain moral truths); He needed only to gesture to the Herodium from where He stood, and His listeners would have understood what He meant. And He would have had only to gesture to some passing laborer, carrying a load with a yoke, for the visual cognate of a condemned criminal to suggest itself as a subtext.

It is in the context (Mt 11:20-30) of His denouncing the cities for their unbelief in Him, of the Father's hiding things from the ‘wise and learned,’ and of Jesus' absolutely unique relationship with the Father, that Jesus all of a sudden starts talking about His yoke. If there is a connection, it must be that the yoke has something to do with belief in, humbleness toward, and the uniqueness of, Jesus Christ. And we know that the cross is the reason Jesus came into the world: “‘Now My soul has become troubled; and what shall I say, "Father, save Me from this hour"? But for this purpose I came to this hour. And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men to Myself.’ But He was saying this to indicate the kind of death by which he was to die (Jn 12:27, 32-33).” The cross is absolutely central to the gospel, as I will later demonstrate scripturally.

So, is a cross — or rather its cross-bar — really like a yoke? Yes, as the discussion below will prove.

B. Historical Evidence


1.
Stauros or Crux

There is no question but that the Greek stauros originally meant ‘stake’ — that aspect of its etymo­logy is clear. However, a word means more than its etymology, as the English word "nice" demonstrates, ori­ginally meaning ‘ignorant’ or ‘foolish’; or in Greek, a word for ‘punis­hment,epitimia, originally meant ‘a citizen's privileges and rights.[5] So to under­stand the biblical stauros, we must look at the historical as well as the linguistic context.

Who crucified Jesus, the Greeks or the Romans? Under whose judi­cial system, using whose methods of execution, did Jesus die? The Romans, of course. So it is immaterial how Greeks execu­ted crimi­nals — the issue is how Romans did. Since both cultures used some sort of ‘lifting up’ and ‘nailing,’ they both had some sort of word to describe their own practices. And even if it were true that the Greeks never used a cross-bar, it is certainly true that the Romans used them. Speaking etymo­logically, it is not for nothing that the universal deri­vation of ‘crux’ is ‘something that crosses’; even the expression ‘the crux of the mat­ter’ speaks of the ‘heart’ of the matter, defined by an intersection.

Let's look first at the Greeks, however, and then at the Romans. “Respecting the origin of ... [stauros] there is some diversity of opinion. According to Eustathius and Hesychius, the Greek ‘stauros,’ cross, is so called from its standing erect, or from its standing with its arms horizontal.”[6] Stauros “means properly a stake, and is the tr. not merely of the Lat. ‘crux’ (cross) but of ‘palus’ (stake) as well. As used in NT, however, it refers evidently not to the simple stake used for impaling, for which widespread punishment crucifixion was a refine­ment, but to the more elaborate cross used by the Romans in the time of Christ. In favour of the latter is not only the testimony of the oldest tradition, which in such a matter is entitled to great weight, but also the statement of the evangelists concerning the title nailed to the cross [above his head]...”[7]

We know Jesus was not "impaled", because, without appealing to ignorant or illiterate usage, the word properly means: “To pierce with a pale; to torture or punish by fixing on a sharp stake...”[8] It does not mean to fix to, but upon, a stake. Histori­cally, in impaling (infixio) a long and sharp­ened piece of wood (‘pale’) was employed, on which the criminal was put as on a spit.”[9] To be explicit, if vulgar, it was stuck up the backside. Seneca, wri­ting circa 45 AD, tells us of current Roman practice: “I see three crosses, not indeed of one sort, but fashioned in different ways; one sort sus­pending by the head persons bent toward the earth [something like the Puritans' stocks], others transfixing them through their secret parts [impaling], others extending their arms on a patibulum.”[10] After citing this quotation, Fairbairn immediately says, “There can be no doubt, however, that the latter sort was the more common, and that about the period of the gospel age crucifixion was usually accomplished by suspen­ding the criminal on a cross piece of wood.” Notice that Seneca makes no reference to crucifixion with hands above the head — all the historic evidence indicates such was not Roman practice in Seneca's, and Jesus', time.

“The upright post to which alone the name [stauros] properly be­longs, was usually a piece of some strong, cheap wood, pine or oak, of such length that when firmly planted in the ground the tip was from 7 1/2 to 9 ft. high. erected on some spot out-side the city, con­venient for the execution, and remained there as a permanent fixture, only the cross-bar or ‘patibulum’ being carried to the spot, usually by the person who was to suffer death. This [cross-bar] consisted some­times of a single piece of wood, more often of two parallel bars joined at one end [like a hair pin], between which the head of the victim passed, and to the ends of which his hands were fastened.”[11] We know this second type was not used on Jesus, because “when Jesus had received the sour wine, He said, ‘It is finished!’ And bowing His head, he gave up His spirit.” (Jn 19:30)

The first time the simple upright stake was suggested as the true cross of Jesus seems to have been in 1878, by Herman Fulda, a pastor in Germany. His revisionism is evidently based on the etymology of the Greek ‘stauros’ in the original sources.[12] Vine makes this same error, in looking at etymological theory rather than historical fact. Jesus, however, was crucified by the Romans, who knew, if not used, four types of crosses: 1) ‘crux simplex’ — a simple upright stake; 2) ‘crux commis­sa’ — St. Anthony's, Tau or T; 3) ‘crux decussata’ — St. Andrew's, Chi or X; and 4) ‘crux immissa’ or ‘crux capitata’ — the familiar, tradi­tional, lower-case t; a variation of this last is the equal-armed, so-called ‘Greek cross,’ resembling a plus sign, +.

“The initial variation in form of the primitive cross was apparent­ly the addition of the cross-beam. This development, in the Roman world at least, may be related to the carrying of the patibulum (a yoke-like instru­ment of punishment fastened to the neck) by convicted slaves. By the Imperial period crucifixion had become the ‘slaves' punishment’ (‘servile supplicium’...)”[13] A condemned criminal “was made to carry the cross-beam (patibulum) to the scene of his torture and death, always outside the city, while a herald carried in front of him the ‘title,’ the written accusation. It was this patibulum, not the whole cross, which Jesus was too weak to carry...”[14] Hastings adds that the condemned was ‘accom­panied by the centurion and four soldiers detailed to conduct the execu­tion. The title [was] a piece of wood covered with white gypsum on which the nature of his offence was set forth in letters of black...’

“The condemned man was stripped naked, laid on the ground with the cross-beam under his shoul­ders, and his arms or his hands tied or nailed (Jn 20:25) to it. This cross-bar was then lifted and secured to the upright post, so that the victim's feet, which were then tied or nailed, were just clear of the ground, not high up as so often depicted.”[15] Hastings says that the condemned was “bound to the ‘patibu­­lum,’ and both were raised on ladders until the cross-bar rested on the notch prepared to receive it. This was the more common custom. …in a few cases the cross piece was fastened to the upright lying on the ground, and the whole then raised together. After the ‘patibulum’ was firmly fastened, the hands were nailed to its extremities, and possibly the feet to the upright, although this was less frequent.”[16]

There is some evidence to suggest that this second, less common method was used with Jesus. Jesus says, “And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of Man be lifted up, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have eternal life.” (Jn 3:14-15.) Practically, Moses would not have lifted up the serpent before it was on the pole, but rather would first have attached it, and then raised it (Num 21:8-9); it was large enough to have been seen from a distance, and was worshiped as an idol (2 K 18:4). And Barnabas says, “In like manner again He defineth concerning the cross in another [oral] prophet, who saith; ‘And when shall these things be accomplished? saith the Lord. Whensoever a tree shall be bended and stand upright, and when­soever blood shall drop from a tree.’ Again thou art taught concer­ning the cross, and Him that was to be crucified”.[17] This sug­gests the lowering of an upright post, and then its being raised again, to drip blood. In the absence of more primary evidence, however, this conclusion can only be tentative


2. Earliest Records

a. Barnabas, even earlier then Irenaeus, states in The Epistle of Barnabas, written circa 70-79 AD[18], of the cross in the OT:

“In like manner He [the Lord] points to the cross of Christ.... [Here we] have an intimation concer­ning the cross, and Him who should be crucified. ...the Spirit saith to the heart of Moses, that he should make a type of the cross and of Him that was to suffer. ...Moses therefore placed one weapon above another in the midst of the hill, and standing upon it, so as to be higher than all the people, he stretched forth his hands, and thus again Israel acquired the mastery. But when again he let down his hands, they were again destroyed. For what reason? That they might know that they could not be saved unless they put their trust in Him [or, as some read, ‘in the cross’[19]]. And in an­other prophet He declares, ‘All day long I have stretched forth My hands to an unbelieving people, and one that gainsays My righteous ways.’ And again Moses makes a type of Jesus...”[20]

Recall the biblical distinction between "stretched out" and "raised up" hands.

If this were not plain enough, in citing Abraham's circumcising 318 of his household, ‘which act pointed to Jesus,’ Barnabas says:

“In the eighteen ‘I’ stands for ten, ‘H’ [eta] for eight. Here thou hast Jesus (IHSOUS). And because the cross in the ‘T’ [Tau - 300] was [for us] to have grace, He saith also ‘three hun­dred.’ So He revealeth Jesus in the two letters, and in the remaining one [T] the cross. He who placed within us the innate gift of His covenant knoweth; no man hath ever learnt from me a more genuine word; but I know that ye are worthy.”[21]


b. Josephus, writing in the last third of the first century, tells us of the siege of Jerusa­lem, that Roman “soldiers, out of the wrath and hatred they bore the Jews, nailed those they caught, one after one way, and another after another, to the crosses, by way of jest...”[22] How many ways are there to nail someone to a stake? A proper cross allows for more creativity in their "jests", and frankly better suits Jose­phus's implica­tions, as well as Roman custom.


c. Ignatius, student of John, Peter, and Paul, and made bishop of
Antioch by them — wrote c. 108 AD on his way to martyrdom, of those who deny Jesus' life and resurrection in the flesh:

“Shun ye therefore those vile offshoots that gender a deadly fruit, whereof if a man taste, forth­with he dieth. For these men are not the Father's planting: for if they had been, they would have been seen to be branches of the Cross, and their fruit impe­rishable — the Cross whereby He through His passion inviteth us, being His members.”[23]

Note that trees, and crosses, have branches.


d. Justin Martyr (b. 100 AD — younger contemporary of Polycarp, and taught by men who had learned from Apostles) says of the cross:

“...Moses first exhibited this seeming curse [of cruci­fixion] of Christ's by the signs which he made ... stretching out both hands ... (and) if he gave up any part of this sign, which was an imitation of the cross, the people were beaten. ...and he who prevailed, prevailed by the cross ... he himself made the sign of the cross.”[24]

And again, of the cross:

“For the one beam is placed upright, from which the highest extre­mity is raise up into a horn, when the other beam is fitted on to it, and the ends appear on both sides as horns joined on to the one horn. And the part [seat] which is fixed in the center, on which are suspended those who are crucified, also stands out like a horn...”[25]

And again, Justin says of the universal importance of “this form” of the cross: “And the human form differs from that of the irrational animals in nothing else then in its being erect and having the hands extended ... and this shows no other form than that of the cross.”[26] And again: “the power of this form is shown by your own [Roman] symbols on what are called ‘vexilla’ (banners) [which shape is a pole with a cross-bar] and trophies, with which all your state possessions [sic — "processions"] are made, using these as the insignia of your power and government, even though you do so unwittingly.”

And again: “the sea is not traversed except that the trophy which is called a sail abide safe in the ship.” (Trophy: “A memorial of a victory... It consisted originally of armor, weapons, etc., of the defeated enemy fixed to the trunk of a tree or to a post on an elevated site, with an inscription, and a dedication to a divinity.”[27]) Romans of this period used “a primitive form of rectangular sail”[28], utili­zing a "yard", which is: “A long spar ... designed to support and extend a square ... sail. A yard of a square sail is usually hung by the center to the mast.”[29] This shape describes the traditional cross.

Justin considers prophecy to be decisive on the manner of crucifixion: “‘the government shall be upon His shoulders’; which is sig­nifi­cant of the power of the cross, for to it, when He was crucified, He applied His shoulders, as shall be more clearly made out in the ensuing discourse. And again the same pro­phet Isaiah, being inspired by the prophetic Spirit, said, ‘I have spread out my hands to a disobedient age gainsaying people...’ And again in other words, through another prophet, He says, ‘They pierced My hands and My feet, and for My vesture they cast lots.’”[30]


e. Minucius Felix, writing perhaps as early as 166 AD, in his ‘Octavius’ refers to standards, banners, flags, trophies, masts, yokes, and prayer with outstretched arms, as representing the cross, and adds, “Thus the sign of the cross either is sustained by a natural reason, or your own religion is formed with respect to it.”[31]


f. Irenaeus (c. AD 130-200 — student of Polycarp, student of John) indicates that it is on the familiar ‘immissa’ that Christ died: “The very form of the cross, too, has five extremities, two in length, two in breadth, and one in the middle, [a seat] on which the person rests who is fixed by the nails.”[32] El­sewhere, he says:

“For as we lost it [or Him — the word or Word] by means of a tree [in Eden], by means of a tree again was [He] made manifest to all, show­ing the height, the length, the breadth, the depth in [Him­self]; and, as a certain man among our predecessors ob­served, ‘Through the extension of the hands of a divine per­son, gathering together the two peoples to one God.’ For these were two hands, because there were two peoples scat­tered to the ends of the earth; but there was one head [Jesus Christ] in the middle...”[33]

Notice that by means of the tree His breadth is shown, and that the hands nailed to the tree are not "in the middle". We are not given the name of the "predecessor", but Irenaeus consistently uses the term for those most elder of elders who learned from the Apostles, or who saw the Lord in the flesh.


g. Tertullian says, in speaking of the need for prayer, that “birds too, rising out of the nest, upraise themselves heaven-ward, and, in­stead of hands, expand the cross of their wings, and say somewhat to seem like prayer.”[34] He says, of the Romans: “But you also worship victories, for in your trophies the cross is the heart of the trophy. The camp religion of the Romans is all through a worship of the standards, a setting [of] the stan­dards above all gods. Well, as those images decking out the standards are ornaments of crosses ... [so all] those hangings of your standards and banners are robes of crosses. I praise your zeal; you would not consecrate crosses unclothed and unadorned.”[35]

In the same place he says: “And yet how far does the Athenian Pallas differ from the stock of the cross, or the Pharian Ceres as she is put up uncarved to sale, a mere rough stake and piece of shapeless wood? Every stake fixed in an upright position is a portion of the cross...” Using similar reasoning in his ‘Ad Nationes, he adds, “Every piece of timber which is fixed in the ground in an erect position is a part of a cross, and indeed the greater portion of its mass. But an entire cross is attributed to us, with its transverse beam, of course, and its projecting seat.”[36] And speaking of Christian “an­cient practice”, which “custom — which without doubt flowed from tradi­tion — has confirmed”, Tertullian refers to “all the ordinary actions of daily life, [in which] we trace upon the forehead the sign [of the cross].”[37]

Again, Tertullian says:

“For Joseph is withal blest by his father [sic — Moses] after this form: ‘His glory is that of a bull; his horns, the horns of an unicorn...’ But Christ was therein signified: ‘bull,’ by reason of each of His two characters, — to some fierce, as Judge; to others gentle, as Saviour; whose ‘horns’ were to be the extremities of the cross. For even in a ship's yard — which is part of a cross — this [word, i.e., ‘horn’] is the name by which the extremities are called; while the central pole of the mast is a ‘unicorn.’ By this power, in fact, of the cross, and in this manner horned, He does now, on the one hand ‘toss’ the univer­sal nations...”[38]

And in the same place, he asks why Moses prayed “with hands expanded, when, in circumstances so critical, he ought rather, surely, to have ... hands beating his breast, and a face prostrate on the ground; except it was that ... the figure of the cross was also necessary”.


h. Novatian, writing about 257, says:

“But He [God] cannot be received as God the Father; but as God and Angel, as Christ, He can be received. And Him [Christ], as the author of this blessing, Jacob also signi­fied by placing his hands crossed [in the sign] upon the lads, as if their father was Christ, and showing, from thus placing his hands, the figure and future form of the passion. Let no one, therefore, who does not shrink from speaking of Christ as an Angel, thus shrink from pronouncing Him God also, when he perceives that He Himself was invoked in the blessing to these lads, by the sacrament of the passion, intimated in the type of the crossed hands, as both God and Angel.”[39]

Even such strange works as the apocryphal ‘Gospel of Nicodemus’ has Jesus in Hades making ‘the sign of the Cross.[40] This speaks of the utterly universal belief that the stauros was cross-shaped.

I really could go on, but the pattern has been established. What this proves is that the very earliest authorities (the apostle Barnabas; John's student Ignatius; Justin Martyr and Irenaeus, who were taught by those who knew apostles; Minucius Felix and Tertullian, second century apologists, and Novatian) affirm the traditional shape of, specifically, Jesus' cross. The historical record presents an unbroken chain of cross-shaped crosses, while, in a good-faith effort, I can find not one single word about its being a simple upright stake. Even the secular writers Seneca and Josephus affirm the traditional shape. There is a pseudo-scholarly myth that the Council of Nicea corrupted the teachings of the original, true church. This is an ignorant and unhistorical teaching, however no ancient historical documents support such a belief. Rather, we have seen that the documents support the traditional picture of the cross.

So why would the Gospel writers use the Greek word ‘stauros, instead of the more specific Latin ‘crux immissa’? Because it was the appropriate Greek word (the language in which the New Testament was written), already in contemporary usage describing that specific form of Roman execution — Rome had ruled in Judea from Herod's day. Does its etymology exactly describe how Jesus died? No. But the word ap­proxi­mates the event closely enough to communicate the method. It was a problem of trans­lation; should the writers intro­duce a foreign word, ‘crux, with which most Greek readers would have been unfamiliar, in order to preserve some technical exactitude?

Every Jew and Greek was familiar with the method of Roman crucifix­ion, if not the Latin word; they would have had a graphic mental picture to amend any linguistic shortcomings. They certainly would have remem­bered the sight of the 2,000 men which Varus, governor of Syria, had crucified in 6 AD, outside Jeru­salem. During the reign of Claudius, the pro­curator Florus crucified so many that Josephus said he behaved more like an executioner than a governor (Wars, ii, 14). And as noted, Josephus says that during the siege of Jerusalem, Roman “soldiers, out of the wrath and hatred they bore the Jews, nailed those they caught, one after one way, and another after another, to the crosses, by way of jest; when their multitude was so great, that room was wanting for crosses, and crosses wanting for the bodies.”[41]

It is simply a matter of indisputable historic fact that the Romans used a cross-beam, ‘patibulum,’ in crucifixions of the gospel period — no evidence is found to suggest a ‘stake’; and since it was the Romans, not the Greeks or Jews, who crucified Jesus, it is their customs that must be considered.


3. Pagan Influence?

That pagans used the Tau symbol is irrelevant: that Hitler ate dinner says nothing about whether we should eat dinner. Pagans no more dictate truth than they should forbid our recognizing it. If we were to abstain from everything with which pagans had any part, we would stop breathing. And if they imitate biblical institutions, must we abandon the Bible? If another's uncleanness makes us unclean, then we, and the very Apostles themselves, must abstain from even the sight of communion, since the Mithraic cult had a similar supper, and before the Church did. Is Jesus risen? — let us never speak of it, since Adonis was first said to be back from the dead. Dionysus was a dying and saving divinity before Jesus ever was born, so what of our for­give­ness? Is there a Last Judg­ment or eternal reward or any personal immortality? — the Egyptians predate Abraham with such doctrine ... shall we then forsake these teachings? Persia held to the idea of a Millen­nium, a final conflag­ra­tion, the conflict between good and evil, God and Satan. Can there be no such things, for this? Odin hung on a tree and came back glorified; Baldir was betrayed and pier­ced. Need I continue?

Satan sets his traps, even foreshadowing God's truth. Justin Martyr (First Apology, ch. 54) says that myths: “have been uttered by the influence of the wicked demons, to deceive and lead astray the human race. For having heard it proclaimed through the prophets that the Christ was to come, and that the ungodly among men were to be punished by fire, they put forward many to be called sons of Jupiter, under the impression that they would be able to produce in men the idea that the things which were said with regard to Christ were mere marvelous tales, like the things which were said by the poets.”

Shall we fall into the Liar's snare, and call unclean what God has made clean (Acts 10:15)? Even food sacrificed to an idol is fit for those with strong consciences ... it is the weak for whom we must be solicitous (1 Cor 8).


C. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION

So, let's look at the facts: Biblically, Jesus was crucified with nails in His hands; the sign was above His head, not His hands; He prophesied Peter's outstretched hands at his death; the thieves may be described as being at either of Jesus' actual hands; Jesus equated His yoke with the ‘patibulum, the crux's cross-bar. Historically, there is no question but that the Romans in Jesus' day used the ‘crux, not the ‘stauros’ — and where any earliest writer describes Jesus' cross, it is always and clearly the ‘crux. Linguis­tically, ‘stauros’ is simply the Greek word for the Latin ‘crux. Theologically, that Satan has mocked and corrupted Bible teachings — both before they were instituted, and after — can have no effect on the very truth of those teachings. Final­ly, if it is permissible to "restore" the word ‘Jehovah,’ against the authority of the Greek manuscripts, which actually say ‘Lord,’ then is it not also permissible to translate, with much evidence, ‘stauros’ as ‘cross’?

Paul says there must be disagreements, that those who are ap­proved may be recognized (1 Cor 11:19). He also says that those who are ob­sessed with disputes and arguments over words are proud and know nothing (1 Tim 6:4), and that we are not to strive over words, which is useless and leads to ruin, but rather to shun profane and vain babblings (2 Tim 2:14-16) and refuse foolish and ignorant speculations which produce quarrels (2 Tim 2:23), and not to dispute over doubtful things (Rom 14:1). So is the issue really important? Well, it's not a matter of dogma ... any who would make it so are simply disobedient. Right knowledge is important, but basically irrelevant to salvation: Christianity is not a gnostic sect. Knowledge is relevant to sanctification, which follows salvation, as 1 Tim 2:3-4 says: “For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Savior, who desires all men [first] to be saved and [second] to come to the knowledge of the truth.”

That the cross was a stake is a disputable point, and overwhelmingly likely to be wrong; but if solid evidence is adduced against the ‘crux, fine its shape may be more a point of historical, than spiritual, interest. As for the spiritual importance of the cross itself, let the Bible speak for itself:

“Moreover, brethren, I declare to you the gospel, which I preached to you ... in which you stand, by which also you are saved, if you hold fast that word which I preached to you ... For I delivered to you first of all that which I also received: that Christ died for our sins ... that He was buried, and that He rose again ... and that He was seen...” (1 Cor 15:1-5.)

“For Christ sent me ... to preach the gospel: not in cleverness of speech, lest the cross of Christ should be made void. For the word of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us who are saved it is the power of God. ...it was God's good pleasure through the foolishness of the preaching to save them that believe. For indeed Jews ask for signs, and Greeks seek after wisdom ... but we preach Christ crucified — unto Jews: a stumbling-block; and unto Gentiles: foolish­ness; but unto them that are called, both Jews and Greeks: Christ the power of God, and the wisdom of God (1 Cor 1:17-24).”

“I have been crucified with Christ; and it is no longer I that live, but Christ living in me: and that which I now live in the flesh, I live in faith — which is in the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself up for me. O foolish Galatians, who did bewitch you, before whose eyes Jesus Christ was openly set forth cruci­fied? This only would I learn from you: Received ye the Spirit by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith? Are ye so foolish? having begun in the Spirit, are ye now perfected in the flesh?” (Gal 2:20-3:3)

“But far be it from me to glory, save in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, through which the world hath been crucified unto me, and I unto the world.” (Gal 6:14)

“For I determined not to know anything among you, save Jesus Christ, and him crucified.” (1 Cor 2:2)

“For many walk, of whom I told you often, and now tell you even weeping, (that they are) the enemies of the cross of Christ: whose end is perdition, whose god is the belly, and glory is in their shame, who mind earthly things. For our citizenship is in heaven; whence also we wait for a Saviour, the Lord Jesus Christ: who shall fashion anew the body [soma] of our humiliation, (that it may be) con­formed to the body [soma] of his glory, according to the working whereby he is able even to subject all things unto himself.” (Phili 3:18‑21)

It isn’t the shape of the cross, but the work of the cross, that matters.

J



[1]. Vine's, p. 363, "Left", 2, [b].

[2]. See Vine's, p. 574, "Side", A., B., and Notes.

[3]. See Thayer's, p. 245, # 2007, 1., epitithemi: "to put or lay upon."

[4]. See Vine's, p. 52, "Bear", 1.: bastazo does not mean ‘drag.

[5]. Vine's, "Punishment," 2.

[6]. Quoted from The Popular and Critical Bible Encyclopaedia and Scriptural Diction­ary, ed. S. Fallows (The Howard-Severance Co., 1922), p. 472.

[7]. A Dictionary of the Bible, ed. J. Hastings (T & T Clark, 1951), "Cross," p. 528.

[8]. Webster's Unabridged; `impale', def. 3.

[9]. Fallows, loc. cit.

[10]. Consol. ad Marciam, xx. — quoted in The Imperial Bible-Dictionary, ed. P. Fairbairn (Blackie & Sons, n.d.), Vol. 2, "Cross" p. 84.

[11]. Hastings, loc. cit.

[12]. Fallows, loc. cit.

[13]. The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, ed. G. W. Bromiley (Eerdmans, 1980), Vol. 1, "Cross", p. 826.

[14]. The New Bible Dictionary, ed., J.D. Douglas (Eerdmans [also Tyndale, in a later edition]), "Cross," p. 279.

[15]. Douglas, loc. cit.

[16]. Source material can be found in Livy, 33. 36; Lucian, Judic. Voc., xii; and Val. Max., i., 7.

[17]. Lightfoot, p.148.

[18]. See Lightfoot, The Apostolic Fathers, p. 135. Clement of Alexandria, Irenaeus, and Origin are the first to attribute authorship, and it is to Barnabas. Liberal critics habitually ascribe the latest possible date for all manuscripts, often on poor and highly speculative evidence.

[19]. Footnote in text, of variant reading.

[20]. Ante-Nicene Fathers, ed. A. Roberts, Vol. 1, p 144-145.

[21]. Barnabas, 9.

[22]. Josephus, Wars, Vol. 11, 1.

[23]. Trallians, 11, and Smyrnaeans, 2-3; Lightfoot, pp 74-75, 83.

[24]. Dialogue with Trypho, ch. xc; comma added between ‘prevailed’.

[25]. Op. cit., ch. xci.

[26]. First Apol., ch. lv.

[27]. Webster's Unabridged, 1934, def. 1.

[28]. Enc. Brit., 1980, Vol. 16, p. 688.

[29]. Webster's, def. 6.

[30]. Justin Martyr, First Apology, ch. 35, ANF, Vol. 1, p. 174.

[31]. Ch. xxix; ANF, Vol. iv, p. 191.

[32]. "Haer." ii. 24. 4, ANF, Vol. 1, p 395.

[33]. "Haer.," Vol. 17. 4; ANF, Vol. 1, pp. 545-546.

[34]. ANF, Vol. 3., p. 691; On Prayer, ch. 29.

[35]. "Apology," ch. xvi; ANF, Vol. 3, p. 31.

[36]. Ch xii; ANF, Vol. 3, p. 122.

[37]. "De Corona," ch iii; ANF, Vol. 3, pp. 94, 95.

[38]. "An Answer to the Jews"; ANF, Vol. 3, pp. 165 and 166.

[39]. "De Trinitate," ch. xix; ANF, Vol. 5, p. 631.

[40]. Also known as "The Acts of Pilate"; F.F. Bruce says of this work in his Jesus and Christian Origins Outside the New Testament, p. 94, that "there is reason to think that its core goes back to the second century.

[41]. Wars, Vol. 11, 1.

27 Comments:

At January 17, 2014, Blogger Kenneth McIntire said...

You are in serious error. Jerome started the whole cross thing when he translated the Latin Vulgate, he mistranslated the Greek word stauros for the Latin word crux instead of the Latin word stauro. The first cross was the cross of Tammuz of ancient Babel. Yahuah said "Do not warship Me in their ways." If you want to read the truth, please check out the article "Is the Cross a Lie" at this address. http://www.fellowshipoftheway.com/is-the-cross-a-lie

 
At January 21, 2014, Blogger Jack H said...

Your claim is shown to be false so easily that I wonder if you're serious. If the Christian idea and tradition of the Cross "started" with Jerome's Vulgate, than it would have started in the early Fifth Century, when Jerome finished his work. Since there are first century representations of the Christian cross, your claim is invalid on its face. The fact that pagans used an analogous symbol -- well, reexamine the commonly-known rules of logic and you'll answer the confusion for yourself.

In any case, this would not be a serious error, since the issue is not serious -- just interesting. Matters of salvation are serious. Everything else is just truth or error, showing who is favored.

J

 
At January 21, 2014, Blogger Kenneth McIntire said...

Yes it is a serious error, because the cross has become an idol, and the first century crosses you speak of are counterfeit. The cross is in fact the image of the beast. If you knew real history, you would know the Roman style of execution was to nail criminals to a stake or even to trees or walls of cities for display. The cross is a lie straight from Satan, and the Catholic Church has blinded the people. It is said that Constantine prayed and had a vision of the cross which said conquer in this sign, what they dont tell you is that Constantine was praying to his sun god Apollos when he got that vision. Christianity itself is based on sun worship of the Babylonian sun god Tammuz. I am just telling historical fact. Get rid of your crosses its evil, and it idolatry. all this claims of the cross of Jesus, which is not His Name, and the shroud, is all lies. His Name is Yahusha, the letter J was not even invented until the early 1600,s which is another fact. I only deal in real facts not hearsay or witchcraft. Come out of her, she is the whore of Babel.

 
At January 21, 2014, Blogger Kenneth McIntire said...

First of all, the crosses from the first century are counterfeit. So is the shroud and the cup of Christ, and so on, its just more Catholic idolatry. And it is a big deal because the cross has become an idol people bow down to and worship, and it is not even the means of execution for the Messiah. The fact is Roman execution was either nailing them to a pole or stake or tree. One of their favorate ways was to nail them to the outside of a city wall and display them there until they rotted away. If you knew real history at all you would know the truth about Constantine. The Catholics say Constantine prayed and had a vision of the cross and it said conquer under this sign. What they don’t tell you is he was praying to his sun god Apollo. The cross originated from Babylonian Messiah, who was the original anti-Messiah. He was fatally injured in the head by a wild boar, and was resurrected after a ritual of weeping for 40 days.
The Scriptures records the weeping for Tammuz in Ezekiel 8:12-14, "And He said to me, 'Son of man, have you seen what the elders of the house of Yisra'el are doing in the dark, each one in the room of his idols? For they say, 'Yahuah does not see us, Yahuah has forsaken the land.' And He said to me, 'You are to see still greater abominations which they are doing.' And He brought me to the door of the north gate of the House of Yahuah, and I saw women sitting there, weeping for Tammuz."
Let us look at Scripture for the real truth. Yahusha Messiah said Himself in John chapter 3 verses 14 and 15, “And as Mosheh (Moses) lifted up the serpent in the Wilderness, even so the Son of Adam has to be lifted up, so that whoever is believing in Him should not perish but possess everlasting life.” He is saying just as Mosheh lifted up the serpent in the wilderness the Son of Adam must be lifted up. How was the serpent lifted up? In Numbers chapter 21 verses 8 and 9 the Scriptures say, “And Yahuah said to Mosheh, ‘Make a fiery serpent, and set it on a pole. And it shall be that everyone who is bitten, when he looks at it, shall live.’ So Mosheh made a bronze serpent, and put it on a pole and it came to be, if a serpent had bitten anyone, when he looked at the bronze serpent, he lived.” It was lifted on a pole, not a cross. But, the pole was not what mattered, because it is the blood of Yahusha Messiah, which covers our sin. In other words we are to look to Yahusha Messiah, not a cross or pole.

 
At January 21, 2014, Blogger Jack H said...

You got to it before I could correct it, Second Century crosses, not First. You have heard no comment in these pages regarding cups or spears or splinters or bones or other relics.

In Old Testament terms, it is a big deal. But that's not now. If it weren't the Cross, it would be the Fish, or some other symbol, to worship. Idols do not create idolaters -- rather, the contrary.

I have the feeling you haven't actually read these pages. Please refrain from the boilerplate. Your ideas are not new, and seem not to be responsive. Are you cutting and pasting from a file?



 
At January 21, 2014, Blogger Kenneth McIntire said...

No I am not pasting from a file. The things I have said in these comments are from articles I have written. Because I did years of research, and wrote many articles, i know the information by heart and I don't need to click and paste. I am an ordained minister, and actually I have a Doctorate in Biblical Studies, but I don't put Dr. in front of my name anymore because most of what I learned in seminary was based or error anyway. The articles I have written most of them a while back were based on years of research. The only symbol Yahusha Messiah endorsed was the Menorah. I can see my words are falling on deaf ears, so I will leave you with one finial thought and question. Acts Chapter 4 verse 12 the KJV says, “Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved.” How could His Name, the only Name men must be saved in be Jesus, when the letter J was not invented until the early 1600. If you want to see and read the real truth check out my site fellowship of the Way. I have scripture studies. I have put years into studying scripture and made a new translation from the original Hebrew to English. You will see three columns the first is the original Hebrew and the middle column is a word for word verse by verse translation the last is The Way Translation, which is the word for word translation just put in proper English grammar. I do not click and paste, and I do not plagiarize this is my work through Yahusha Messiah and my work is ongoing to spread the real truth and to set the captive free, for if the truth sets you free you will be free indeed. Those who have ears let them hear.

 
At January 21, 2014, Blogger Jack H said...

Yes, well, we've all been doing years of research and writing articles. I cited the very verse you've quoted from John, and you seem to be unaware of that fact, in that you have allowed the point to go unaddressed. This is not the practice of serious scholarship. Address and rebut.

Yes, I believe I will seem somewhat deaf to your new-old doctrine. You seem to think that the fact there was no letter J has spiritual significance. Something about jots and tittles, no doubt.

Go in peace.

J

 
At January 21, 2014, Blogger Kenneth McIntire said...

Its interesting that you would say jots and tittles, since the Master said in Mt 5:18, Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill. For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. All has not been fulfilled, just the laws of sacrifice. The Old Covenant pointed to the New Covenant, and no where did it say the Ten Commandments are done away with in fact Paul said we establish the law, to answer what you said about in the Old Testament it mattered but not now. Is it ok then to make idols to bow down to them, or bring His name to ruin, or profane the Sabbath. The Master said he who does and teaches the Torah, Ten Commandments will be called great in the Kingdom of heaven and he who does not and teaches men not to is least in the Kingdom of heaven. I am not a JW, or a Christian, I am not even religious, nor do i believe in religion. I am a follower of the way. The Master said I am the Way the Truth and the Life. And as far as spiritual significance. I did not say it the Scriptures did. Jesus is not even a good rendition of His Name, and the original New Covenant Scriptures were not written in Greek, except for Paul letters, and they were letters to churches he started, so he already told them the Master true Name, which was Yahusha Messiah, not Jesus Christ. When Names are translated to other languages they translate them by how they sound. Yahusha's Name in Hebrew is spelled Yod-hay-uau-shin-arin. some people say waw or vav but this is incorrect Paleo Hebrew is uau. Anyway Greek has no Ya sound or sh sound so His name was ruined in Greek but translates perfectly in English. Do you think the emissaries would have put His Name to ruin and broke the third commandment. There is only One Name given under heaven where by a man must be saved and that Name is Yahusha Messiah, not my words, His words. He who has ears let him hear. I will shake the dust of my sandals now.

 
At January 21, 2014, Blogger Jack H said...

Kenneth. It's not interesting, it's obvious.

You seem like a very isolated person. Perhaps not. But the way you miss the point suggests that conversation is alien to you, and lecturing is natural. We must not be, simply, natural men. We must be both gentle and subtle.

Pronouncing on frankly obscure points of philology, while missing the point of communication, is counter productive and unconducive to happiness, fulfillment and enlightenment.

You do understand that transliteration is not a doctrine of the historic Christian faith, correct? Because you're pointing at the moon as if it were the finger that was important. Alphabets are immaterial, for all that there is an alpha and an omega. I enjoy Peleo Hebrew and have some original insights into it. I would never use it to make a spiritual point. Really, Kenneth -- the letter "J"? I really do mean no disrespect to you, but maybe there's a bit of Aspergers at play here?

I do not think it is wisdom for you to be proud of not having religion or of not being "Christian". There is no virtue in the affectation of calling Jesus "Master". It's frankly adolescent.

But I see you're cleaning your feet. For other readers who come to these pages, you will have seen how thorough and how careful I've been to present, analyse and document my arguments. Some are strong and some are weak. The totality is clear. Cross or stake is trivial. It's only those who magnify such issues to doctrine who need to be corrected.

J

 
At January 21, 2014, Blogger Kenneth McIntire said...

In one way you are correct, cross or stake does not matter, only faith in the blood of Yahusha Messiah. And its not doctrine or dogma its fact. The reason the cross is a big deal, is because the cross is the image of the Beast, which is another fact. I did not answer you about the second century crosses because I already answered that. The Romans never used a cross in executions period, and any cross found in the second third or fourth centuries were religious relics like the Egyptian Ankh, and the Celtic Cross, and the cross of Tammuz, and the cross of Mithra which look just like the Catholic crucifix and predates the execution of the Messiah by 500 years. The point is as it has always been Rome never used a cross to execute, at least not before the 4th century. I am not claiming dogma or dotorine I am just quoting Scriptures so maybe someone will see the truth. Im so sorry its not you, but Yahuah decides who sees and who does not. He said if you love Me keep My Commandments. I do not keep commandments or study, or do anything else to go to heaven, because I am already there, seated with Him. I keep His Commandments, because I love Him, because He loved me before the foundations of time. He said if you love Me keep My commandments. I love Him with all my strength, all my heart, all my being, and all my mind, so i have no one or nothing before Him! I do not make any image and bow down to it! I do not put His Name to ruin or shame! I keep His Sabbath set-apart which is Saturday not the pagan sun worship day of Sunday! I honor my parents! I do not murder! I do not commit adultery!I do not steal! I do not give false testimony against my neighbors! I do not covet anything my neighbor has! After the Reformation, and average people had access to Scripture, most of the Reformers made the same error as the Catholic Church by telling the people what they should read and what it really means. They said, the Old Testament is done away with, and you cant understand what the Old Testament says until you read and understand the New Testament, which is completely wrong. To understand the New Testament you have to understand the Old Testament and the customs of the ancient Hebrew, because everything in the Old Testament points to Yahusha Messiah. To Hebrew, a name is everything, it says who that person is, their good name. The name is important, that is why the Yahudim (ruling Jews) made it a stoning offense to say the Fathers Name, because when they were taken captive to Babylon the Babylonians and surrounding nations made fun of the Fathers Name so they started calling Him Hashim which means The Name! This is not made up it is facts. The Messiah's Name is important, and its above all other Names and it is the only Name we can be saved in period! not my words His Word. If you cant hear you cant hear, but my job is done either way. I have said what I was sent to say, so now I am doing what I was told to do, "figuratively" Knock the dust off my sandals as a testimony against them. I am not trying to bash Christians at all, I am trying to free you from the lies of the evil one, he is so deceptive. If you are correct its no big deal, but if I am correct it is a very big deal. And by the way I am not isolated or that other stuff, I just love spending most of my time with my Father and other true believers. Nothing else really matters to me. If that means there is something wrong with me, then that is great, because i am not of this world. Amen.

 
At January 22, 2014, Blogger Kenneth McIntire said...

Ok, if you want to do this we can. Part one! You said,
“1. Nails
(Jn 20:25 — ASV) “The other disciples therefore were saying to him, ‘We have seen the Lord!’ But [Thomas] said to them, ‘Unless I shall 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.’”
(NWT) “‘Unless I see in his hands the print of the nails and stick my finger into the print of the nails and stick my hand into his side, I will certainly not believe.’”
The Bible affirms, not once but twice, that at least two nails were used in nailing Jesus' hands to the cross. If His hands were above His head, only one nail would have been used: when so crucified, this alone is the practice that historical sources reveal. But two must have been used if His arms were outstretched.”
You are correct that they used nails, but they used more than one nail. They used several nails and also used ropes and straps, because if they would have used just one nail, whether it was a stake or cross the weight of his body would have ripped out his hand. So your theory about one nail is highly improbable. Again, true Historical fact that has not be tampered with my the Jesuits or the Catholic Church says Romans of the first century did not use crosses as a means of execution, they used either upright poles or simply nailed them to a tree or wall.
Next you said,
“2. Head
(Mt 27:37 — ASV) “And they put up above His head the charge against Him, ‘THIS IS JESUS THE KING OF THE JEWS.’”
(NWT) “Also, they posted above his head the charge against him, in writing: ‘This is Jesus the King of the Jews.’
Matthew does not say above His "hands", but "head". The other gospel writers say the accusation was "written above" (Mk 15:26), "over Him" (Lk 23:38), and "on the cross" (Jn 19:19). The specific contribution that Matthew makes is to tell us what exactly the writing was directly above. Being above, the writing was above His whole body, and one might as well have said it was above His toes, if "head" is not a specific and meaning­ful detail. Looking at the picture on page 18 of Should You Believe in the Trinity, a fair way to describe the inscription would be as being above His hands, but this is not how Jehovah has chosen to have Matthew, the eye-witness, describe it. A standard depiction of the crucifixion would show the writing above His head, which is how the Matthew describes it.”
You are correct, they put the sign in three different languages above His head, but it did not say whether His arms were stretched out to the sides or His arms were stretched out above His head. They could have very easily slide the sign between His head and His hands underneath His arm which were stretched out above his head. This theory proves nothing.

 
At January 22, 2014, Blogger Kenneth McIntire said...

Part 2
Next you said,
“3. Hands outstretched
(Jn 21:18 — ASV) “Truly, truly, I say to you, when you were younger, you used to gird yourself, and walk wherever you wished; but when you grow old, you will stretch out your hands, and some­one else will gird you, and bring you where you do not wish to go.”
(NWT) “But when you grow old you will stretch out your hands and another (man) will gird you and bear you where you do not wish.”
Peter was crucified, arms outstretched, upside down; and this pro­phecy of Jesus' refers to the manner of Peter's death, as v. 19 states. If the stretching out of hands has reference only to having someone dress Peter, then the prophecy merely says that Peter will be feeble and lead where he wishes not to go, which is a pretty unimpressive predic­tion, since many old people are feeble and lead about. In being dressed, one can just as easily raise one's hands up, as stretch them out — but a distinction is maintained in the Bible, as in Mt 12:3 (and similar passages) and Acts 4:30, compared to Rev 10:5. Since the outstret­ched hands is a specific prophecy of the means of “what death he would glorify God” (Jn 21:19), then this is a prediction of the exact manner, and shape, of Peter's death by crucifixion.”
Where does it say in any of these Scriptures that His arms were stretched out to the sides on a cross? It would have read the same if He was nailed to a pole or stake, His arms would be stretched out, just above His head. All we can do is go by the original Scriptures, and the Greek Textus Receptus is the oldest one available and it used the word stauros, which means stake, in fact it is where we get our word stake from. When Homer told his stories it was about a thousand years before the Messiah was executed, and he used the word stauros for stake, or stave, or stick, but never crosses, and they had lots of crosses from many religions in Homers day. As I said before, Jerome started the error on purpose when he used the Latin word crux for the Greek stauros, when he had a Latin equivalent stauro. The st component in the Latin word stauro is the root, and gives the meaning of an upright pole as we see in other words like stake, staff, post mast and so on. If you look in a thesaurus, and look up stake, you will get all these words and others, but you won’t get the word cross. Just like if you look up cross you won’t get any of the st root words. The only think stake and cross have to do with each other is they are both made out of wood. So here again your theory is not proven.

 
At January 22, 2014, Blogger Kenneth McIntire said...

Part 3
Next you said,
4. Right/left hand
(Mk 15:27 — ASV) “And they crucified two robbers with Him, one on His right [dexion] and one on His left [ek euonumon].”
(NWT) “Moreover, they impaled two robbers with him, one on his right and one on his left.”
(Lk 23:33 NWT) “there they impaled him and the evildoers, one on his right [dexion] and one on his left [aristeron].”
Vine's says[1] that euonumos is, “with the preposition ex (for ek), signifying ‘on the left hand’...” If this is unimpressive, consider that Mt 6:3, as well as 2 Cor 6:7, are very clear indeed in using ‘aristera’ to mean ‘left hand,’ as it always does in the NT, and dexia to mean ‘right hand.’ Dexios is often clearly used to mean, specifically, the right hand — as in Mt 27:29, “a reed in His right hand”; or Gal 2:9, “the right hand (dexias) of fellowship”; and throughout Revelation: 1:17 (NKJV) — “But He [Jesus] laid His right hand (dexian) on me, saying, ‘Do not be afraid; I am the First and the Last.’” Rev 1:20 — “The mystery of the seven stars which you saw in My right hand (dexias)”; 2:1 — “These things says He who holds the seven stars in His right hand (dexia)”; 5:1, 7 — “And I saw in the right (hand) [dexian] of Him who sat on the throne a scroll... . Then He came and took the scroll out of the right hand (dexias) of Him who sat on the throne.”
Does this prove outstretched hands on the cross? Of course not — these terms (in Mk 15, etc.) could be used to signify ‘right-hand side,’ similar to the English usage. But had ‘side’ specifically been meant rather than ‘hand,’ there were perfectly good Greek words available for the gospel writers: in the noun pleura, meaning side, as in Jn 20:25; and in the adjective peran; or the preposition para;[2] and plesion, ‘near,’ would do, as in Jn 4:5. The point is that the words translated as ‘right’ and ‘left’ have, as cited, the natural implication, and indeed the outright demand, of right and left hand, and it is a fair understanding that the thieves were closest to His hands, as the charges were closest to His head. It does no violence to the text, and indeed is consistent with the usage, to render Mk 15:27 as: “And they crucified two robbers with Him, one at His right hand and one at His left hand.”
Let us look at Mark 15:27 in the Greek of the Textus Receptus in a word for word translation: kai-and; sun-together; auto-to him; staurousin-they-are-impaling; duo-two; Istas-robbers; hena-one; ek-out; dexion-of right; kai-and hena-one; ex-out euonumon-of left: autou-of Him.
Let us look at the Strong’s definition of the Greek word desion: G1188: dexios dex-ee-os; the right side or (feminine) hand (as that which usually takes);(dexion the “n” instead of the s just adds the word “of” to dexios)
When the Strong’s or any language dictionary describes the meanings of word, it list the most used definition first. It said right side first, and hand was last and feminine.
Lets look at euonumon in the Strong’s. G2176 euomumos yoo-o-noo-mos; properly, well-named (good-omened), i.e. the left (wich was the lucky side among the pagan Greeks) neuter as adverbial, at the left hand. (again euonumon end with the letter “n” instead of “s” because it adds “of” to the word, as in “of left”, just like dexion is “of right”)
As we see the left hand is the very last meaning for this word too. Your theory just went down in flames my brother. They were talking about right and left side, not right and left hand.

 
At January 22, 2014, Blogger Kenneth McIntire said...

Part 4
Next you said,
5. Cross/yoke
(Mt 10:38, 11:29-30 — NKJV) “And he who does not take his cross and follow after Me is not worthy of Me.” “Take My yoke upon you, and learn from Me, for I am gentle and humble in heart, and you will find rest for your souls. For My yoke is easy, and My burden is light.”
Jer 6:16 says, “Thus says the LORD, ‘Stand by the ways and see and ask for the ancient paths, / Where the good way is, and walk in it; / And you shall find rest for you souls.’ / But they said, ‘We will not walk in it.’” Is it fair to notice that what Jesus calls His "yoke", is called "the good way" in Jeremiah? Or that Christianity was called "The Way" (Acts 9:2)? Or that the yoke and the cross are effectively equated by Jesus? Or that Paul and Peter call that other, legalistic yoke, "hard­ship" (Gal 5:1), and "bondage" (1 Tim 6:1), and "unbearable" (Acts 15:10)? Or that the cross was seen by the world as "foolishness" (1 Cor 1:18), and a "stumbling block" (Gal 5:4), and "shameful" (Heb 12:2)? — so that what makes a person worthy and is easy according to Jesus, is viewed as foolish and unbearable by the world.
So what's my point? How is a yoke carried, and where are one's arms? The answer is obvious. In like manner, the cross (patibulum, as I will discuss below) was ‘laid on’ Simon of Cyrene (Lk 23:26),[3] so that he ‘ca­rried’ it (Mt 27:32), as did Jesus (Jn 19:17).[4] This, then, is my point: that Jesus was using a metaphor when he referred to His yoke — the similarity between the two images, yoke and cross (patibulum), immedia­tely suggests itself. That stauros (“stake”) is used to indicate the cross-bar is an example of synecdoche — using the whole to represent a part; I will discuss this in depth below.
So, is a cross — or rather its cross-bar — really like a yoke? Yes, as the discussion below will prove.
Ok then, you are mixing apples and oranges my brother. His Yoke has nothing to do with the stake. His yoke is light. We are born under the heavy burden or bondage or yoke of sin. If you want to get technical a yoke is a leather and wood collar that goes around the neck of a oxen or horse or mule and connects two of them together. When you yoke an animal its always in pairs. You never Yoke a single animal by itself. What’s the point, because the whole idea of yoking to animals together is to get twice the pulling power. You have missed the whole point to what the Master was saying. His yoke is light, leave the heavy yoke of sin, and come be yoked with Him and live forever. Amen! I am sorry but to think yoke meant like the stocks type punishment of the middle ages where they would be put in the town square with their heads and arms in stocks is a big error, and not even what the master was talking about. And besides He said pick up your stauros and follow me. Stauros is stake not cross.

 
At January 22, 2014, Blogger Kenneth McIntire said...

Part 5
Next you said,
B. Historical Evidence
1. Stauros or Crux
There is no question but that the Greek stauros originally meant ‘stake’ — that aspect of its etymo­logy is clear. However, a word means more than its etymology, as the English word "nice" demonstrates, ori­ginally meaning ‘ignorant’ or ‘foolish’; or in Greek, a word for ‘punis­hment,’ epitimia, originally meant ‘a citizen's privileges and rights.’[5] So to under­stand the biblical stauros, we must look at the historical as well as the linguistic context.
Who crucified Jesus, the Greeks or the Romans? Under whose judi­cial system, using whose methods of execution, did Jesus die? The Romans, of course. So it is immaterial how Greeks execu­ted crimi­nals — the issue is how Romans did. Since both cultures used some sort of ‘lifting up’ and ‘nailing,’ they both had some sort of word to describe their own practices. And even if it were true that the Greeks never used a cross-bar, it is certainly true that the Romans used them. Speaking etymo­logically, it is not for nothing that the universal deri­vation of ‘crux’ is ‘something that crosses’; even the expression ‘the crux of the mat­ter’ speaks of the ‘heart’ of the matter, defined by an intersection.
Let's look first at the Greeks, however, and then at the Romans. “Respecting the origin of ... [stauros] there is some diversity of opinion. According to Eustathius and Hesychius, the Greek ‘stauros,’ cross, is so called from its standing erect, or from its standing with its arms horizontal.”[6] Stauros “means properly a stake, and is the tr. not merely of the Lat. ‘crux’ (cross) but of ‘palus’ (stake) as well. As used in NT, however, it refers evidently not to the simple stake used for impaling, for which widespread punishment crucifixion was a refine­ment, but to the more elaborate cross used by the Romans in the time of Christ. In favour of the latter is not only the testimony of the oldest tradition, which in such a matter is entitled to great weight, but also the statement of the evangelists concerning the title nailed to the cross [above his head]...”[7]
Ok, first of all if you search the web, and do real searches of documented historical and educational sites you will find several volumes on ancient Roman style executions, and cross was not one of them. The Romans were very wicked when it came to killing their enemies, that is why there enemies did not live long. Romans nailed them to stakes or poles or trees or walls, sometime the would impale the dead bodies on a pole to show them off as a warning. But not a cross, at least not until the third century when Constantine invented his Christian religion.

 
At January 22, 2014, Blogger Kenneth McIntire said...

Part 6
Next you said,
The first time the simple upright stake was suggested as the true cross of Jesus seems to have been in 1878, by Herman Fulda, a pastor in Germany. His revisionism is evidently based on the etymology of the Greek ‘stauros’ in the original sources.[12] Vine makes this same error, in looking at etymological theory rather than historical fact. Jesus, however, was crucified by the Romans, who knew, if not used, four types of crosses: 1) ‘crux simplex’ — a simple upright stake; 2) ‘crux commis­sa’ — St. Anthony's, Tau or T; 3) ‘crux decussata’ — St. Andrew's, Chi or X; and 4) ‘crux immissa’ or ‘crux capitata’ — the familiar, tradi­tional, lower-case t; a variation of this last is the equal-armed, so-called ‘Greek cross,’ resembling a plus sign, +.
First you are correct, the Messiah was not impaled to a stake like what you are saying, but he was impaled ie nailed to a stake. The Greek word is staurousin in the verse we looked at earlier, which was translated “they are impaling.” The Strong’s word is stauro stow-ro-o; to impale on the cross; figuratively, to extinguish (subdue) passion or selfishness. The letters “usin at the end of the word means “they are.” Strong’s is however incorrect about this word, because in his day it was not yet brought to light that stauros means stake. He was still fooled by the Catholic Church. My point is impaled in a biblical since means nailed, not impaled like the Babylonians did. As far as the writings of Seneca, almost all scholars know they have been tampered with, just like Josephus, and his comment about the Christian sect still being around. That is a clear forgery just like a lot of others of the time. Other works by noted historians of that time do not mention anything about a cross for execution. And as far as Herman Fulda being the first to say the Messiah was nailed to a stake instead of a cross is in error as well. The first one since Jerome started the error and to point the error out was Ethelbert William Bullinger who wrote the “Companion Bible” about the time of the Civil War. He did not change the KJV, but what he did was point out all the errors of the KJV in the foot notes. He was the first to catch the stauros/crux error, along with many others, like Jacob’s coat of many colors, it was many hand breadths not many colors, it was a wide long sleeved tunic, not a coat of many colors. There are too many errors to talk about, but these are just two. If you want to find out the rest read the Besorah or check out The Way Translation. Did I answer that? Stauros means stake not cross, nothing with proven un-tampered with history says anything about a cross. E.W. Bullinger first to catch the stauros/crux error. Read his Companion Bible and you will see he is at least 25 years ahead of Herman Fulda, and Bullinger is a theologian and linguist, not just a preacher.

 
At January 22, 2014, Blogger Kenneth McIntire said...

Part 7
Next you said,
“The initial variation in form of the primitive cross was apparent­ly the addition of the cross-beam. This development, in the Roman world at least, may be related to the carrying of the patibulum (a yoke-like instru­ment of punishment fastened to the neck) by convicted slaves. By the Imperial period crucifixion had become the ‘slaves' punishment’ (‘servile supplicium’...)”[13] A condemned criminal “was made to carry the cross-beam (patibulum) to the scene of his torture and death, always outside the city, while a herald carried in front of him the ‘title,’ the written accusation. It was this patibulum, not the whole cross, which Jesus was too weak to carry...”[14] Hastings adds that the condemned was ‘accom­panied by the centurion and four soldiers detailed to conduct the execu­tion. The title [was] a piece of wood covered with white gypsum on which the nature of his offence was set forth in letters of black...’

Again you are using tampered with historical documents, and comparing yoke with crosses, which is what Catholics would do, especially Jesuits, who were the ones who defrauded most of the historical documents of the 1st through the 3rd centuries. Yoke is to yoke two animals together to get more out of them not like a stock for punishment. A yoke goes around the neck, not a stock that is stationary and the head and hands go through. All this is just more Catholic dogma from the Beast. It is all lies to deceive the set-apart ones if he can. I have answered this, Yoke and stock completely different, and Yoke has nothing to do with cross at all. Now cross and stock yes, close to the same.
First you state Historians who are known to have been tampered with by the Jesuits, then you use the The Epistle of Barnabas which is a known Catholic forgery, that’s why it was not even considered for the Protestant Cannon. Does not count, it’s a forgery, written like in the 7th century. Josephus, as I said before known to be tampered with. Did I miss something? Are you Catholic? You like using their propaganda.

 
At January 22, 2014, Blogger Kenneth McIntire said...

Part 8
Next you said,
c. Ignatius, student of John, Peter, and Paul, and made bishop of Antioch by them — wrote c. 108 AD on his way to martyrdom, of those who deny Jesus' life and resurrection in the flesh:
“Shun ye therefore those vile offshoots that gender a deadly fruit, whereof if a man taste, forth­with he dieth. For these men are not the Father's planting: for if they had been, they would have been seen to be branches of the Cross, and their fruit impe­rishable — the Cross whereby He through His passion inviteth us, being His members.”[23]
Note that trees, and crosses, have branches.
d. Justin Martyr (b. 100 AD — younger contemporary of Polycarp, and taught by men who had learned from Apostles) says of the cross:
“...Moses first exhibited this seeming curse [of cruci­fixion] of Christ's by the signs which he made ... stretching out both hands ... (and) if he gave up any part of this sign, which was an imitation of the cross, the people were beaten. ...and he who prevailed, prevailed by the cross ... he himself made the sign of the cross.”[24]
And again, of the cross:
“For the one beam is placed upright, from which the highest extre­mity is raise up into a horn, when the other beam is fitted on to it, and the ends appear on both sides as horns joined on to the one horn. And the part [seat] which is fixed in the center, on which are suspended those who are crucified, also stands out like a horn...”[25]
Ok, Im not even going to answer these, except for the Moses comment, because they are more Catholic nonsense, with no historical value at all. No non-Catholic educated biblical scholar would ever use any of this stuff for historical proof. Now about Moses. That is just silly, because he was holding up his staff, not his outstretched arms. When he lowered his staff they lost, that’s why they held his arms up so his staff would stay up so they would win the battle. It had nothing to do with his arms, it was his staff. I don’t understand how any believer could get this confused, let alone compare yoke and stocks to get cross.

 
At January 22, 2014, Blogger Kenneth McIntire said...

Part 9
Im going to skip the rest of this section and go straight to 3 pagan influences. You said,
3. Pagan Influence?
That pagans used the Tau symbol is irrelevant: that Hitler ate dinner says nothing about whether we should eat dinner. Pagans no more dictate truth than they should forbid our recognizing it. If we were to abstain from everything with which pagans had any part, we would stop breathing. And if they imitate biblical institutions, must we abandon the Bible? If another's uncleanness makes us unclean, then we, and the very Apostles themselves, must abstain from even the sight of communion, since the Mithraic cult had a similar supper, and before the Church did. Is Jesus risen? — let us never speak of it, since Adonis was first said to be back from the dead. Dionysus was a dying and saving divinity before Jesus ever was born, so what of our for­give­ness? Is there a Last Judg­ment or eternal reward or any personal immortality? — the Egyptians predate Abraham with such doctrine ... shall we then forsake these teachings? Persia held to the idea of a Millen­nium, a final conflag­ra­tion, the conflict between good and evil, God and Satan. Can there be no such things, for this? Odin hung on a tree and came back glorified; Baldir was betrayed and pier­ced. Need I continue?
Satan sets his traps, even foreshadowing God's truth. Justin Martyr (First Apology, ch. 54) says that myths: “have been uttered by the influence of the wicked demons, to deceive and lead astray the human race. For having heard it proclaimed through the prophets that the Christ was to come, and that the ungodly among men were to be punished by fire, they put forward many to be called sons of Jupiter, under the impression that they would be able to produce in men the idea that the things which were said with regard to Christ were mere marvelous tales, like the things which were said by the poets.”
Shall we fall into the Liar's snare, and call unclean what God has made clean (Acts 10:15)? Even food sacrificed to an idol is fit for those with strong consciences ... it is the weak for whom we must be solicitous (1 Cor 8).
I have only one thing to say about this. Yahuah, the one you call Jehovah, said “Do not worship Me in their ways! Do not do it! This is plain and to the point do not worship Me like they worship their mighty ones, with their rituals and relics. Do not do it. Period! No crosses in your congregations, not statues of saints, no virgin Mary’s no crosses around your neck and around your wrist like the pagan Ankh, and the sun dial which is the first cross other than the Babylonian Tau. And as far as the unclean food, and food offered to idols, you did not finish it, it says its ok as long as you don’t make a weaker brother stumble.

 
At January 22, 2014, Blogger Kenneth McIntire said...

Part 10 conclusion.
Number one, His Name is not Jehovah, and it never has been. Jehovah was another translation error by a Catholic Bishop in about the 1500 to 1600 and just stuck. Jehovah is actually a compound word. Yah –Hovah. The Strong’s H3050; Yah (yaw) Jah, the sacred Name. Now let us look at H1943; Hovah (ho-vaw) ruin. So when you say Jehovah you are saying Yah is ruin. This is plain and simple he was not executed on a cross, because Constantine and Jerome just added the cross to make it easier to get my pagans evolved in and to accept their new religion Christianity. The believers of Alexandria were the first, because they wanted to incorporate the Egyptian Ankh into the religion. The Germanic and Celtic tribes, which is by the way were the term God came from. It was an ancient Germanic sun god named Gott, which was translated to English as God. Yes when you call Yahuah “God” You are calling Him by the proper name of a Germanic sun god. I think I have shown enough of your errors. You have no real proof at all that the Messiah was executed on the cross. I did not want to do this. I don’t like picking beliefs apart like this a piece at a time, I hope you will see the error now, but I doubt it. Look up yoke and look up stocks they don’t have anything to do with each other. The Masters yoke is light, because we are yoked with Him, and He has already done the work on the stake, and shed His blood for our sins. So when we are yoked with Him we are at peace with the Father. Amen!

 
At January 22, 2014, Blogger Kenneth McIntire said...

I see, you can't argue against my rebuttals so you attack me personally. That is fine with me. And again you miss the point, because He said My yoke is light, not hard. Just like Paul said "Do not be unequally yoked to a non-believer." Why, because animals are equally yoked, to oxen together of the same size and strength, to "yoke their strength." I am not the one in the cult, I call Him by His true Hebrew Name, and some how that makes me a fanatic? I read and study the Scriptures everyday, just like Paul instructed us too, but yet that make me a member of a cult and a fanatic? Say what you will, and what you believe makes no difference to me. I can't help it you are using non-canonical books for your proof. And yes it is a fact that Jerome stated the whole cross thing, go to Youtube and look for image of the Beast. Lew White the author of "fossilized customs", explains it a lot better then i can. I know the truth, and the truth has set me free. Keep going with your pagan beliefs, and your hard yoke, I just hope your not one of those who will hear, Depart from Me you who work lawlessness.

 
At January 22, 2014, Blogger Kenneth McIntire said...

Here is the link to the seminar "Image of the Beast"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=njF885uxh4I&list=PL794515E7EF4E6DA4&index=25

 
At January 22, 2014, Blogger Jack H said...

Kenneth, I think you have too much time on your hands. I do not want to do this. We are not pals. Ah well. I think your point is that the cross is pagan and Jesus was, uh, crucified on a stake. Your first claim was that Jerome invented the idea, but that is amply falsified by the early Church Fathers. I expect that your rebuttal would be that everything is a forgery and a fraud. We’d just have to move on.

You’ll want to bear in mind that mental illness frequently takes the form of religious monomania, so you’d make a more persuasive argument if you toned down the self righteous Him-Not-Me and I’m-so-holy rhetoric and the massive quotation dumps; standard scholarly usage dictates you quote only what you actually respond to directly.

Your claim that Rome never used a cross to execute is historically ignorant. Inform yourself as to the meaning of patibulum.

Regarding your point 1: “but they used more than one nail.” Yes, that would have been my point, actually stated explicitly. You missed it. “This theory proves nothing.” – the sign about his head, while no mention made of hands. It’s not about proof, here, it’s about support.

2. You’re making an argument from silence. An excellent book on logic you may profit from was written by Norman Geisler – Come Let U Reason. Recommended for you.

3. Good lord. I leave it to the disinterested reader to weigh the relative merits of our respective argumentation.

4. I think you’re in a cult. You’ve ignored where the yoke is called hard. You laps into too-close examination of a word alone without examining context. Or maybe I’m missing the point.

5 I wrote this before there was an internet, and did my research in the Fuller library. Consult Seneca the Younger, Plautus, Plutarch, references to patibulum.

6. Most scholars do not maintain Seneca and Josephus have been tampered with in this context. The Josephus matter is well known. Stauros does not mean stake; it means upright post.

7. Right, everything that argues against you is a fraud. Cuz the most important thing to Satan is to engender confusion on this specific point.

8. “Ok, Im not even going to answer these...” I know how you feel. Crosses with branches – the very idea!

9. I trust you keep the Law, perfectly.

10. “Number one, His Name is not Jehovah...” Do you know what ‘word-magic’ is?

I was feeling guilty last night because my tone was short with you and I displayed some arrogance. I’m still doing it, but, well, answer a fool according to his folly. I really don’t wish to be insulting, but you’re perhaps insulated from my bluntness. You think you’re right. Re the Cross, who cares. Re all this nonsense about alphabets and pronunciations, it is a thing of childhood. Go teach yourself what is important.

J

 
At January 22, 2014, Blogger Jack H said...

Yes, he's in a cult. I googled Lew White, and apparently there's a whole new movement I never heard of. Sacred Name. Yep, that’s Kenneth. Maybe not a formal member, but a profound lack of critical thinking.

Just search lew white cult.

http://www.ltwinternational.org/AmericanHebrewCults.htm
http://www.christianmediaresearch.com/sacredname.html
http://www.messianichallofshame.com/zlewwhite.html

It may be – one never knows for sure – that Lew White owns Satanist New Age Head Shops. Wouldn’t that be rich.

Communication ended.

 
At January 22, 2014, Blogger Kenneth McIntire said...

I am not in a cult. He said if you love Me keep My commandments. So I keep His commandments, to keep myself from going to hell, but simply because I love Him. I call Him by His true Name, If you want to call this a cult, then call it whatever you want. The truth is i am doing what He says to in His word, but if you want to ignore His commandments and call Him by Names which are not His that is up to you. As for me and my house we will serve Yahuah! Amen!

 
At January 22, 2014, Blogger Jack H said...

Ugh. A dog returneth to its vomit. It's like a car wreck. I should have more self control. But it's gnawing: K says our word god comes from the German. Huh. I've done a bit of work on, well, frankly everything K is talking about.

http://theserpentinbabel.blogspot.com/

The whole work isn't up, but this first chapter does something with etymology. God. None of the charts worked out, but I'm unmotived to fix it. And, anyway, I know, why bother. But maybe I'll put myself on YouTube? Become famous. Get disciples. Open a head shop. Groovy.

J


 
At August 19, 2015, Anonymous Marellus said...

@Jack H,

Well done sir. I like what you write.

 

Post a Comment

<< Home

Humor Blog
Top Sites

  • Copyright © 2009