Cross, Stake, Tree....which?

[Quietfire]

Hi Ya'll,

Ok. Its time to start fessin' up.
I have heard that Christ was crucified on a stake or tree, which differs from my understanding which is the cross.
People have read it in scripture, etc. etc.

Ive heard it argued and debated elsewhere.
Since this phorum provides Catholic and Christian views, my first bet would be the Catholic view and why.

Dont take this the wrong way. I am so tired of hearing about it but it seems EVERYBODY has proof.
No wonder there are so many denominations, faiths, religions etc.
(sorry, just me complaining on and on.)

So....let the arguements begin!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Edited April 21, 2004 by Quietfire

[p0lar_bear]

Ummm....not sure it really makes a difference, I think it's just different ways of saying the same thing...

Tree:

In the time of Jesus, it was not uncommon for the Romans to use an already existing tree as the base for a cross. The branches were cut off and the cross piece added. Even so, one could argue that because wood was used, it could be said He was hung upon a tree even if they did not use a tree, roots and all.

Stake:

Well, if the base of the cross was not a real tree, it would kind of necessarily be a stake... Driven into the ground to make it stand upright and hold the weight of a man.

Cross:

The shape made by the tree/stake and the cross-piece...so that kind of works either way.



Do people actually argue about this?

[Quietfire]

I realize I may be beating the proverbial horse, but I gotta ask. For my own understanding as well as debuking others.

Quoting scripture is fine, but if its explained to me like breaking down a cardboard box...well, thats gravy.

[p0lar_bear]

Do you want me to find verses and stuff, or is what I posted sufficient?

[willguy]

Christ died on a cross. Paul sometimes calls the cross a tree, but this seems to be poetic license and a way to draw a connection between the Cross and the tree in the Garden of Eden. As for a stake, that is something that the Jehovah's Witnesses believe. I've read before a refutation of it, but don't remember it off the top of my head. I'll dig it up.

[God Conquers]

If it's made of wood, the cross is literally a tree. If it's in the ground, it is also a stake.

[Quietfire]

ok. Polar bear,
people DO actually argue about this. Because in doing so, and supposedly proving it, they are showing that we heathens are worshipping a lie. we have crosses (or crucifix's) in our churchs, around our necks, etc.al.

willguy,
Jehovahs are not the only groups that believe this.

Also remember, they pull this stuff from scripture, although I am not sure which particular bible they are using.
The reason I post these questions here is,
1. phatmass reps the church.
2. all are welcome.
3. being that catholicism is 2,000 years old. I am sure there is some definite proof to the question.
4. if it isnt important...then why.

Personally, part of me says it isnt important, while the other part says it is. Maybe the church feels it isnt important, but then I'd want to know their reason why.

[Quietfire]

Hi Godconquers,
So you are saying that if its a wooden CROSS it may be referred to as a tree? (because it is made from wood?)
And if the CROSS (or tree) is put into the ground it may be referred to as a stake?
(Because it is being placed,dropped, or hammered into the ground?)

[God Conquers]

Exactly! So essentially, all three mean the same thing.

A stake is the placement of the object as a whole.

A cross is the shape of the object.

A tree is the material essence of the object, in that it is wood from a tree.

[willguy]

But there is a disagreement in that some people say He was killed on a stake (as in a single upright post) and others say a cross.

[God Conquers]

there is no question that there was a "crossbeam", else, where would His hands go? So the point is moot really. I think every Roman crucifixion necessitated this piece.

[Quietfire]

point taken, willguy.

also, since it is an ACTUAL stake, his hands were raised and placed open handed above his head.

Like I said, we may not think it is a big deal (in the scheme of things) but others have argued this point. And feel that since we are wrong on this point, then our entire religion is wrong.
Now we need proof.

I dont ever remember ever reading anything about the Romans using an actual stake for crucifixion. I do think that they may have used trees though, but Im not sure.

[Dave]

Personally, I really don't give a poot as to whether it's rightfully called a cross, a stake, or a tree. Just the fact that Jesus was crucified to redeem us is enough for me.

[thicke]

I agree with Dave, the emphasis should be on "died", not on "on the cross". Anyone who really thinks a church is wrong because of the statement of what he died on is missing the point. I think Ironmonk has a thread running somewhere about fruitless dialogs. This would be a fruitless dialog, because it doesn't matter really what he died on, just what he died for.

Let me ask this, if he was stoned to death instead of crucified, would we still be redeemed?

[p0lar_bear]

Ok, so I did a little reading...

JW's and others maintain that Jesus was crucified on a "torture stake" (Can one be crucified if not on a cross (crux)?) Anyway, the image they have is one stake with Jesus' hands straight above Him, nailed with one nail through both.

So, aside from the fact that there is no historical evidence for this..if this is how it happened, how did they put the sign "Jesus the Nazarene King of the Jews" above His head? Wouldn't His arms have gotten in the way? Also, why did Thomas speak of the holes in Jesus' hands where the "nails" (plural) went through?

[Fiat_Voluntas_Tua]

I am pretty sure it was "custom" that when people were executed, they were crucified on a cross and not just on a single stake. I am pretty sure there is eairly writtings that prove this...but I am not sure...look into it, if you need more information.

[Quietfire]

thicke,

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

Polar,
yes. I did read that. It was my one defense along with 'whats the point?'


Again, My sincere apologies to all.
Somebody hit me!

[thicke]

This argument just gets to me. I guess my main point is that people who try to disprove the validity of the Roman Catholic Church by this argument are so obviously desperate that I doubt there is any chance for a fruitful dialog.

[God Conquers]

Although thicke is correct, there's no need to apologize Quietfire!

[thicke]

[quote name='God Conquers' date='Apr 22 2004, 06:20 PM'] Although thicke is correct, there's no need to apologize Quietfire! [/quote]
He's right, it's not you who should apologize quitefire. I don't know. It's just the type of thing that frustrates me. I hope I did not come off as being harsh against you. That was not my intent.

I love you and just wanted to let you know why I think it's a useless argument.