YHWHtruth

From the point of view of lexical semantics it is clear that the STAUROS means "pole" or "stake." With reference to classical Greek we read: "The exact technical form and significance of execution are not conveyed by the words STAUROS and [ana) stauroo without further definition." Is the same true regarding the use of STAUROS in the NT? A translator has two ways to find the answer: 1) He or she can look for clues in the NT itself regarding the shape of STAUROS, and 2) archaeological and historical evidence can be considered.

Regarding the NT, there is no hint that STAUROS had changed from being a generic word that could refer to pieces of wood in any shape to become a technical word denoting a pole with a crossbeam. To the contrary, there are five examples where the instrument on which Jesus died is referred to as XULON, which is also a generic word for tree.

One Bible dictionary defines "crucifixion" as "the act of nailing or binding a living victim or sometimes a dead person to a cross or stake (STAUROS or SKOLOPS) or tree (XULON). Seneca ( 4BC-65 CE) wrote:

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

Commenting on what happened at the time Jerusalem fell in 70 CE, Josephus wrote:

The soldiers out of rage and hatred amused themselves by nailing their prisoners in different postures; and so great was their number that space could not be found for the crosses [plural of STAUROS] nor crosses for the bodies.

Because of the huge numbers of bodies it is likely that for economical reasons they used one piece of timber for each victim rather than two pieces.

We should also take note of the act that while the instrument on which Haman was hanged was called ETS ("tree") in the Hebrew text, the Septuagint uses the verb STAUROO ("hang" on a stake") and the Latin Vulgate uses CRUX ("stake" or "cross"). To the best of my knowledge the first one to mention the shape of the instrument on which Jesus was hanged is the author of the Letter to Barnabas from teh first part of the second century CE. He says that the shape was that of a T. As a matter of fact, there is absolutely no evidence from the first century showing the shape of the instrument on which Jesus died!

How, then, should STAUROS be translated? We find that "cross" does not represent the meaning of STAUROS, but is more like a reference. There can be little doubt that the rendering "cross" is a theological anachronism. It is a word with one of the heaviest bundles of theological and Christian connotations in our vocabulary, and most, if not all, of these connotations were completely lacking when the NT was written. Consequently, a modern reader of the NT will get images in his mind which are foreign to the NT when he reads the word "cross."

Something to an even greater extent than that just discussed above prevents the reader from having a part in the translation process, and it is this: some proponents of the "semantic domain" approach suggest that yet another Greek word used for the instrument of Jesus' execution (XULON) should also be translated "cross." Louw suggests for instance that XULON ("a piece of wood") in ACTS 5:30 and the four other instances it is used should be translated as "cross." But if XULON is translated literally, the alert reader may learn that all is not well with the rendering "cross." This would at least encourage the reader to look deeper into the subject. If XULON is translated as "cross" the reader is at the mercy of the translators.

The "torture stake" of the NWT is neither anachronistic nor does it have theological overtones; it is neutral as to the shape of STAUROS. But some readers might criticize it. There is no problem using the reference of a word in translation, but when a neutral expression of that reference (the thing in the world) exists, as well as several words stressing different sides of the reference, the interests of the readers are best served by using the neutral alternative. Thus, by using the epithet "torture" the reader may get the impression that pain or suffering is part of the lexical meaning of STAUROS, while it is just one important consequence of being fastened to the instrument denoted by the world. The neutral terms "stake" or "pole" would have better served the interests of the readers in this instance.

To an Unknown God

Stake, cross, christmas tree, whatever. It's really just semantics.

On the original post, basically this is dancing all around the whole "Trinity" concept.

Basically you can have one of 2 opinions about the Trinity:

1)It makes no sense and shows just how non-credible the whole story is.

2)It makes no sense but believing it makes the rest of the story credible.

If the former is what you believe then thanks for your insight into another facet of the bible story that makes no sense. That's really all we can say is yeah, you're right.

If you are wondering if the latter is true, then things get complicated of course.

The Trinity is weird because Jesus was God as it says. But Jesus was also a man. First skeptic comment is "well, how can you be 2 things at once? You can't".

All we can say to that is that assuming there is a God he can do whatever he wants. Hell can really be defined as seperation from God- so to pay for sin Jesus had to experience that seperation from God so that the believer would not have to.

Basically, it's God forsaking himself for us.

That would more or less be the "christian" description imo.

Hope this helps.

Magus55

The Trinity makes sense to me, why are you having such a problem?

God is in 3 forms, yet all are One God. When Jesus cries out to God the Father, "why have you forsaken me?" he is stating Psalm 22, showing the fullfillment of the prophecy.

Jesus' acceptance of the worlds sins at that moment, severed the unity between Jesus and God the Father, until His ressurection. So Jesus was also crying out to why God the Father turned from Him. Jesus still remained God, but the sin overwhelmed Him - something He has never experienced before - Jesus felt abandoned.

Here is that explanation in a little more detail. http://www.carm.org/questions/why_forsake_me.htm

Read Psalm 22 - its the Crucifixtion prophecy in detail and Jesus states the opening of that prophecy on the cross showing its fullfillment. But I guess the Apostles just made Jesus say that line right?

To an Unknown God

Magus,
thanks for the reply- that is a good explation and clearer than my own.

I understand the Trinity but I was posting in the context of the original poster since they clearly were not understanding.

Infidelettante

Hi Darth Dane,
You might know that much of the NT was written in a way that absolved the Romans of any participation in the death of Jesus. Indeed the Romans are all but non-existent in the NT despite their occupation of Israel and the brutal repression they used to control an unruly population.

There are hints of zealotry and rebellion in the Gospels but for the most part the tensions between the Jews and the Romans are completely absent from the texts and it is the Jews who take the brunt of the blame for the arrest and execution of Jesus.

To have the Jesus call out in supplication from the cross is to place the execution in the hands of the God of the Jews and so stain the hands of the Jews with the blood of Jesus and do it with the words of Jesus himself.

JT

jdlongmire

hmmm, how about H2O?

steam/cloud = gas
solid = Ice
liquid = water

can exist simultaneously...even if temporarily...

mark9950

Elohim is a uniplural which is like a last name you last name is jones.The jones family is many members the father, the son,etc.

The truth is this God is from a family of many Gods that is why they would use elohim not elowah.They were referring to two distinct gods of the God.

YHWHtruth

The Hebrew word ´elo·him´ (gods) appears to be from a root meaning “be strong.” ´Elo·him´ is the plural of ´eloh´ah (god). Sometimes this plural refers to a number of gods (Ge 31:30,_32; 35:2), but more often it is used as a plural of majesty, dignity, or excellence. ´Elo·him´ is used in the Scriptures with reference to Jehovah himself, to angels, to idol gods (singular and plural), and to men.

To an Unknown God

"hmmm, how about H2O?

steam/cloud = gas
solid = Ice
liquid = water

can exist simultaneously...even if temporarily..."

No it can't. Think about what's happening on a molecular level.

That's like being 3 distances away from something, all at the same time. if you were moving very fast you could *almost* be, but to actually be instantaneously in 3 places at the same time you would have to move at an infinite speed.

YHWHtruth

Sure it can, its called the triple point. That's what makes skater's slide on the ice.

Incidentally, Athanasius did the same thing with HOMOOUSIOUS(of the same substance/essence). He used 2 coins to show that they were made of the same stuff(copper), but the problem was still the fact that it was 2 coins

Did you know that the Pagan world before Christ had its Trinities also?

By mixing Paganism with Chrisitianity, the pure message of God has become ....INSOLUBLE.

Max