Cross, Stake, Tree....which?

[Quietfire]

thicke,
not harsh, just honest.

I'll take an honest answer that knocks me on my kiester, rather than a partial truth that leads me to perdition.

[Quietfire]

Yeah, I realize Im bumping an old, old thread.

On another thread (a current one) I had stated that when I go looking for answers sometimes I look,look and look until I am fustrated and that the truth usually taps me on the shoulder when I am not looking. (Like finding a lost item in your house)

Well, after cruisin the internet a few weeks ago I came across a Jewish site and found some interesting stuff. After reading through alot of their laws I think I finally see the connection of the "why" as in "why a cross?" I apologize for not remembering the name of the site but I am sure someone here can back me up on this info.

Jewish law states that death by hanging from a stake and being slowly strangled was the ultimate death for those who blasphemied against God.

Jewish law also states that no man could be put to death from a living tree. Because it is a living thing. Therefore, the idea of crucifiction from a tree is moot.

So therefore a stake was the only allowable way to put a man to death.

Now, in the case of Christ, this would have normally been the way to condemn Him. But because of the prophecies concerning the Messiah, the Jews didnt want to later 'fulfill' these prophecies by having Jesus crucified and put to death according to their laws. Now remember, these are Jewish laws and not specifically Gods Laws. God allowed the Jews to put in place their own laws to govern their own. This law above is their law and not Gods.

In the case of Jesus, by turning Him over to the Romans for execution, the Jews would not be fulfilling the prophecy concerning the Messiah. It would be a Roman execution in their minds. (these are my thoughts)

BUT...they did fulfill the prophecy, just as Scripture said they would.
Why? The Jews, while Jesus was on trial, made it clear to Pilate that they had no King other than Csesar, and that by not following the rules of Csesar, then Pilate was no friend of Csesars. They claimed that because Jesus claimed He was and is King, then that is a claim against the seat of power of Csesar.
They, the Jews, in that one statement, shifted the power of blame from Pilate and Csesar alone, to the power of blame to all.
They, the Jews, through this very statement put themselves under the yoke and rule of Csesar and thus fulfilled the prophesy.


Below the words in bold are done by me.
[quote]St. Augustine of Hippo on TRACTATE 116 (JOHN 19:1-16)

1. ON the Jews crying out that they did not wish Jesus to be released unto them all the passover, but Barabbas the robber; not tim Saviour, but the murderer; not the Giver of life, but the destroyer,--"then Pilate took Jesus and scourged Him." We must believe that Pilate acted thus for no other reason than that the Jews, glutted with the injuries done to Him, might consider themselves satisfied, and desist from madly pursuing Him eve, unto death. With a similar intention was it that, as governor, he also permitted his cohort to do what follows, or even perhaps ordered them, although the evangelist is silent on the subject. For he tells us what the soldiers did thereafter, but not that Pilate ordered it. "And the soldiers," he says, "platted a crown of thorns, and put it on His head, and they clothed Him with a purple robe. And they came to Him and said, Hail, King of the Jews! And they smote Him with their hands." Thus were fulfilled the very things which Christ had foretold of Himself; thus were the martyrs moulded for the endurance of all that their persecutors should be pleased to inflict; thus, by concealing for a time the terror of His power, He commended to us the prior imitation of His patience; thus the kingdom which was not of this world overcame that proud world, not by the ferocity of fighting, but by the humility of suffering; and thus the grain of corn that was yet to be multiplied was sown amid the horrors of shame, that it might come to fruition amid the wonders of glory.

2. "Pilate went forth again, and saith unto them, Behold, I bring him forth, that ye may know that I find no fault in him. Then came Jesus forth, wearing the crown of thorns and the purple robe. And he saith unto them, Behold the man!" Hence it is apparent that these things were done by the soldiers not without Pilate's knowledge, whether it was that he ordered them or only permitted them, namely, for the reason we have stated above, that His enemies might all the more willingly drink in the sight of such derisive treatment, and cease to thirst further for His blood. Jesus goes forth to them wearing the crown of thorns and the purple robe, not resplendent in kingly power, but laden with reproach; and the words are addressed to them, Behold the man! If you hate your [b]king[/b], spare him now when you see him sunk so low; he has been scourged, crowned with thorns, clothed with the garments of derision, jeered at with the bitterest insults, struck with the open hand; his ignominy is at the boiling point, let your ill-will sink to zero. But there is no such cooling on the part of the latter, but rather a further increase of heat and vehemence.

3. "When the chief priests, therefore, and attendants saw Him, they cried out, saying, Crucify, crucify him. Pilate saith unto them Take ye him and crucify him; for I find no fault in him. The Jews answered him, [b]We have a law, and by the law he ought to die because he made himself the Son of God."[/b] Behold another and still greater ground of hatred. The former, indeed, seemed but a small matter, as that shown towards the usurpation, by an unlawful act of daring, of the royal power; and yet of neither did Jesus falsely claim possession, but each of them is truly His as both the only-begotten Son of God, and by Him appointed King upon His holy hill of Zion; and both might He now have shown to be His, were it not that in proportion to the greatness of His power, He preferred to manifest the corresponding greatness of His patience.

4. "When Pilate, therefore, heard that saying, he was the more afraid; and entered again into the judgment hall, and saith unto Jesus, Whence art thou? But Jesus gave him no answer." It is found, in comparing the narratives of all the evangelists, that this silence on the part of our Lord Jesus Christ took place more than once, both before the chief priests and before. Herod, to whom, as Luke intimates, Pilate had sent Him for a hearing, and before Pilate himself; so that it was not in vain that the prophecy regarding Him had preceded, "As the lamb before its shearer was dumb, so He opened not His mouth," especially on those occasions when He answered not His questioners. For although He frequently replied to questions addressed to Him, yet because of those in regard to which He declined making any reply, the metaphor of the lamb is supplied, in order that in His silence He might be accounted not as guilty, but innocent. When, therefore, He was passing through the process of judgment, wherever He opened not His mouth it was in the character of a lamb that He did so; that is, not as one with an evil conscience who was convicted of his sins, but as one who in His meekness was sacrificed for the sins of others.

5. "Then saith Pilate unto Him, Speakest thou not unto me? knowest thou not that I have power to crucify thee, and have power to release thee? Jesus answered: Thou wouldest have no power against me, except it were given thee from above: therefore he that delivered me unto thee hath the greater sin." Here, you see, He replied; and yet wherever He replied not, it is not as one who is criminal or cunning, but as a lamb; that is, in simplicity and innocence He opened not His mouth. Accordingly, where He made no answer, He was silent as a sheep; where He answered, He taught as the Shepherd. Let us therefore set ourselves to learn what He said, what He taught also by the apostle, that [b]"there is no power but of God; [/b]" and that he is a greater sinner who maliciously delivereth up to the power the innocent to be slain, than the power itself, if it slay him through fear of another power that is greater still. Of such a sort, indeed, was the power which God had given to Pilate, that he should also be under the power of Caesar. Wherefore "thou wouldest have," He says, "no power against me," that is, even the little measure thou really hast, "except" this very measure, whatever its amount, "were given thee from above." But knowing as I do its amount, for it is not so great as to render thee altogether independent, "therefore he that delivered me unto thee hath the greater sin." He, indeed, delivered me to thy power at the bidding of envy, whilst thou art to exercise thy power upon me through the impulse of fear. And yet not even through the impulse of fear ought one man to slay another, especially the innocent; nevertheless to do so by an officious zeal is a much greater evil than under the constraint of fear. And therefore the truth-speaking Teacher saith not, "He that delivered me to thee," he only hath sin, as if the other had none; but He saith, "hath the greater sin," letting him understand that he himself was not exempt from blame. For that of the latter is not reduced to nothing because the other is greater.

6. "Hence Pilate sought to release Him." What is to be understood by the word here used, "hence," as if he had not been seeking to do so before? Read what precedes, and thou wilt find that he had already for some time been seeking to release Jesus. By the original word, therefore, we are to understand, on this account, that is, far this reason, that he might not contract sin by slaying an innocent man who had been delivered into his hands, even though his sin would be less than that of the Jews, who delivered Him to him to be put to death. "From thence," therefore, that is, for this reason, that he might not commit such a sin, "he sought" not now for the first time, but from the beginning, "to release Him."

7. "But the Jews cried out, saying, If thou let this man go, thou art not Caesar's friend: whosoever maketh himself a king, speaketh against Caesar." They thought to inspire Pilate with greater fear by terrifying him about C sar, in order that he might put Christ to death, than formerly when they said, "We have the law, and by the law he ought to die, because he made himself the Son of God." It was not their law, indeed, that impelled him through fear to the deed of murder, but rather it was his fear of the Son of God that held him back from the crime. But now he could not set C sar, who was the author of his own power, at nought, in the same way as the law of another nation.

8. As yet, however, the evangelist proceeds to say: "But when Pilate heard these sayings, he brought Jesus forth, and sat down before the tribunal, in a place that is called the Pavement, but in the Hebrew, Gabbatha. And it was the preparation of the passover, and about the sixth hour." The question, at what hour the Lord was crucified, because of the testimony supplied by another evangelist, who says, "And it was the third hour, and they crucified Him," we shall consider as we can, if the Lord please, when we are come to the passage itself where His crucifixion is recorded. When Pilate, therefore, had sat down before the tribunal, "he saith unto the Jews, Behold your king! But they cried out, Away with him, away with him, crucify him.

Pilate said unto them, [b]Shall I crucify your king?"[/b] As yet he tries to overcome the terror with which they had inspired him about C sar, by seeking to break them from their purpose on the ground of the ignominy it brought on themselves, with the words, "Shall I crucify your king?" when he failed to soften them on the ground of the ignominy done to Christ; but by and by he is overcome by fear.

9. For [b]"the chief priests answered, We have no king but C sar.[/b] Then delivered he Him therefore unto them to be crucified." [b]For he would have every appearance of acting against C sar if, on their declaration that they had no king hut C sar, he were wishing to impose on them another king by releasing without punishment one whom for these very attempts they had delivered unto him to be put to death.[/b] "Therefore he delivered Him unto them to be crucified." But was it, then, anything different that he had previously desired when he said, "Take ye him, and crucify him;" or even earlier still, "Take ye him, and judge him according to your law?" And why did they show so great reluctance, when they said, "It is not lawful for us to put any man to death," and were in every way urgent to have Him slain not by themselves, but by the governor, and therefore refused to receive Him for the purpose of putting Him to death, if now for the same purpose they actually do receive Him? Or if such be not the case, why was it said, "Then delivered he Him therefore unto them to be crucified?" Or is it of any importance? Plainly it is. For it was not said, "Then delivered he Him therefore unto them" that they might crucify Him, but "that He might be crucified," that is, that He might be crucified by the judicial sentence and power of the governor. [b]But it is for this reason that the evangelist has said that He was delivered to them, that he might show that they were implicated in the crime from which they tried to hold themselves aloof; for Pilate would have done no such thing, save to implement what he perceived to be their fixed desire.[/b] The words, however, that follow, "And they took Jesus, and led Him away," may now refer to the soldiers, the attendants of the governor. For it is more clearly stated afterwards, "When the soldiers therefore had crucified Him," although the evangelist properly does so even when [b]he attributes the whole to the Jews, for they it was that received what they had with the utmost greediness demanded, and they it was that did all that they compelled to be done.[/b] But the events that follow must be made the subject of consideration in another discourse.

Electronic version copyright © 1997 by New Advent, Inc.[/quote]

Of course, this is my own personal theory.
As far as the whole tree, stake, cross issue. It is obvious that Jesus died on a cross. A Roman cross, since this was the execution of choice for the Romans. It was slow and torturous, which was the whole point. By implicating Pilate, there is another point.
Jesus didnt simply die for the sins of only the Jews, but for the sins of all mankind. He died once for all.

Jesus could not have died on a stake. Had the Jews carried out execution by hanging from a stake it would have required strangulation as well, as this is part of the execution of the Jewish law. Nothing in Scripture indicates that Jesus was strangled.

There is also the fact of the placard above the head of Jesus. This would have been impossible if he died from a stake. Also, there is nothing in Jewish law to show that this was customary. It was placed there by the Romans to mock the Jews and their accusation against Jesus. The Jews were not happy with the words on the placard, because the words dont state that Jesus was claiming to be God, but rather stating that Jesus was, in fact, God.

The arguement that Jesus died from a tree is again, as stated above, a moot subject.

Pax.

[Socrates]

"Cross," "stake," and "tree" refer to the same thing. The cross it as stake with a cross-bar, and it can also be called a "tree." The "tree," as noted by others, adds poetic meaning.

[Quietfire]

My point above is solely based on the whole tree, stake, cross issue.

I am in no way condemning any particular people alone in Jesus' death. We are all to blame. We all placed him there.

To argue this, one need only realize that it was through hate, fear (like Pilates), pride, jealousy, loss of power(as attributed through sloth- for sloth does not simply mean too much food or drink. Although they can apply. Sloth in this sense means that power is given, but also taken and abused when it shouldnt be, the Saddacees and Phariseez became lazy in their power and abused it. Not wanting to show any compassion and claiming to live according to "the Law". It means abuses of it also, such as the Corbin's rule.

We all possess these faults.

I think pretty much all the 7 deadly sins were involved here. I need to check on that though.

Pax.

[Quietfire]

Ok, yeah I checked.

I can honestly state that IMHO, all 7 capital (deadly) sins were involved in the crucifixion of Jesus Christ.

Pax

Edited July 18, 2005 by Quietfire

[EcceNovaFacioOmni]

Couldn't a scientist determine if there were any trees on Golgotha that could have been used for crucifixtion at the time of Christ?

[Laudate_Dominum]

We don't have to posit trees or stakes, it is clear that Christ was crucified on a cross. A cross can be called other things and still mean a cross. One way to hang a man from a stake (and the common way in those times) was to have a beam attached to it from which the man is crucified. Hence there is no issue here.

As far as verses that refer to Christ hanging from a tree, these are allusions to the Old Testament and the Jewish Law. By putting it in this way (which is a bit stylized, but not an unusual way to speak given the idiom in question), the speaker is highlighting the Theological significance of the crucifixion. It would be innappropriate to infer that Christ hung from a big green tree. Besides the fact that you won't find that sort of American style lynching in the courts of ancient Rome, a correct reading of the Bible doesn't make any such suggestion.

Anyone who is hung from a tree is cursed, or so the Bible says. Referring to the Cross as a tree is a way of saying that Christ took the curse of Adam upon Himself. It is saying that He died for the sins of humanity.

[curtins]

It was some sorta wood

[Laudate_Dominum]

[quote name='curtins' date='Jul 18 2005, 09:37 PM']It was some sorta wood
[right][snapback]648916[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
This is true. I wonder what kind of three the wood of the True Cross relics is made of.

[Laudate_Dominum]

I know there is a legend that the tree used to make the cross grew on the spot where Adam died. Not sure where it started or anything. It may be true, you never know. I wish we could know somehow for sure.

[Laudate_Dominum]

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

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

[Quietfire]

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

It is obvious that Jesus hung from a roman cross.

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

The only possible answer is a roman cross.

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

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

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

They were wrong on both counts.

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

Pax

Edited July 19, 2005 by Quietfire

[Laudate_Dominum]

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

[Quietfire]

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

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

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

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

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

Pax

[Quietfire]

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

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

[b]The Second Beast[/b]

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

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

"The Lamb's Supper" by Scott Hahn.

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

Respect does not equal worship.

Thank you Mr. Hahn.

[Quietfire]

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

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

[Guest T-Bone]

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

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

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

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