Did the apostles have a problem with the cross symbol?

[Higher Truth]

Many have said that the cross as a symbol of Christianity was instituted by Constantine, but does archaeology prove this to be true? Was the cross offensive to first century Jewish believers?

http://www.leaderu.com/theology/burialcave.html

[Higher Truth]

HT:

I found these quotes to be of interest:



A "head stone", found near the entrance to the first century catacomb, is inscribed with the sign of the cross.

Inside, the sign of the cross was found on numerous first-century coffins.

A first-century coffin bearing cross marks as it was found by archaeologist P. Bagatti in the catacomb on the Mt. of Olives.

"One coffin, also bearing cross marks on it, was inscribed with the name "Shlom-zion" followed by the designation "daughter of Simon the Priest."

In addition, he found one ossuary with crosses and the unusual name "Shappira" - which is a unique name not found in any other first-century writtings except for the Book of Acts (5:1).

All together, more than 100 first-century coffins were found on the Mount of Olives, many bearing additional names and cross marks.


HT:

Many today are arguing that the Messiah was crucified on a stake, not a cross. How does this find affect this belief? Also, Constantine did not become involved with the "church" as it is known today until 313 ce. How does this affect the teachings of Hislop, and others that Constantine was the one who initiated the cross as a symbol of the faith as a move to blend paganism and Christianity?


It also appears that there was a separate cemetary for the Jews who were not believers:

http://holylandphotos.org/browse.asp?s=1,2,6,19,44&img=IJNTML03

[theseed]

Many today are arguing that the Messiah was crucified on a stake, not a cross.

That's b/c they can't accept that he was accursed of God.

[BenTsion]

Death on a stake concept comes from a different interpretation of the greek word used
to describe the cross. In order to believe such a thing, though, one must completely
overlook the amount of evidences showing that Roman execution was conducted on
a T-shaped cross. Since Yeshua's cross had the title 'King of the Jews' on top of His
head, one comes to the conclusion that it must have looked exactly as we believe it
to be. There is absolutely NO archaeological support of the 'stake' theory, though I
know that oftentimes Messianic Jews refer to the cross as a 'stake' in order to avoid
offending or startling non-believing Jews - if it helps to share the Word, then I'm all
for it.

In Messiah,
Ben Tsion

[Higher Truth]

BT:

if it helps to share the Word, then I'm all for it.

HT:

I understand what you are saying, but if it is not historically correct, then it is a lie.
This has been promoted as fact by Jehovah's witnesses, sacred name teachers, hebrew roots teachers, and even David Stern used the term stake in his CJB.

[Higher Truth]

John 20

25 Then the other disciples said to him, We have seen the Lord. But he said to them, Unless I see the mark of the nails in His hands, and thrust my finger into the mark of the nails, and thrust my hand into His side, I will not believe, never!


HT:

If it were a stake, would it not be singular [nail] instead of nails [plural] ?

[Henaynei]

That's b/c they can't accept that he was accursed of G-d.
No, you are mistaken. Please be more careful jumping to conclusions.

Scripture says "cursed is him who is hanged on a tree." Therefore it matters little if the "tree" had "branches" (i.e. like a cross) or was just a "trunk" (like a stake) - the curse stands nonetheless. The curse is necessary to our ultimate redemption!

However, the exact instrument of Messiah's sacrifice is not nearly as important as the FACT of His sacrifice.

When Rav Sha'ul said "Messiah and Him crucified" the Greek word means only "to stake." All usages of "crucify(ied)" in the Ketuvim Natzrim (NT) mean either "to stake" or to "to fasten" - or are from those roots. NONE of the words in the Ketuvim Netzrim mean "attach to a cross." (check your concordances) Also, the Greek word translated "cross" is primarily meaning "a upright stake - especially a pointed one," although it also is translated as "a cross" - but without further description. The root word means only "to stand" or "to make firm."

Again, I state that the exact instrument of Messiah's sacrifice (which even the best biblical scholars admit is not truly clear) is not nearly as important as the FACT of His sacrifice (which G-d in His wisdom has made sure is abundantly clear). It makes NO difference if it was a stake or "crossed" stakes. And if you choose to recognize and wear a cross as a symbol of your devotion to and appreciation of Messiah, none should charge you otherwise!!

But, one of our many purposes as Messianic Jews is to remove the stumbling block that "Christian" history has placed in the path of the Jewish community as relates to their ability to approach the truth of Messiah.

In a great many and horrific cases those carrying the label of "christian" used the "cross" as both the visible symbol, the physical tool of and the spiritual motivation for their hatred, abuse and murder of vast numbers of Jews. Even to this day. You and I *know* that those who do such things are NOT followers of Messiah. But to the non-Christian person one who says he is a Christian, whose community says he is a Christian, IS a Christian. Whether he wears a white hood, or swastika tatoos, or puts arches over the gates to hell that say "This is what you get for killing our G-d" or wear belt buckles that say "in G-d we trust" in German while unloading cattle cars of humans.

The Fact and Purpose of His Sacrifice is the Good News!! IF the benighted symbol of the (unverified) specific instrument on which that sacrifice took place would keep people from being able to hear that Good News, should we not be able to speak of His sacrifice and the instrument thereof in terms that remove a disgraceful and shameful stumbling block in the path of Freedom and Truth for the people G-d calls His own?

humbly
henaynei

[ShirChadash]

Most excellent reply Henaynei.:clap:

[sojeru]

the cross was a symbol of death in that time- and since the believers mashiach had also died on such a thing- they used it for their own death symbols on graves- it seems pretty simple to me...
I dont think that they had the symbol of the cross everywhere in their synagogues however, i do see that they had it on the tombs.

[Higher Truth]

There are three words that should be looked at for the cross / "stake" consideration. Two are NT Greek, and one is OT Hebrew.

Greek for 4716

stauros {stow-ros'}

Outline of Biblical Usage

1) a cross

a) a well known instrument of most cruel and ignominious punishment, borrowed by the Greeks and Romans from the Phoenicians; to it were affixed among the Romans, down to the time of Constantine the Great, the guiltiest criminals, particularly the basest slaves, robbers, the authors and abetters of insurrections, and occasionally in the provinces, at the arbitrary pleasure of the governors, upright and peaceable men also, and even Roman citizens themselves

b) the crucifixion which Christ underwent

2) an upright "stake", esp. a pointed one, used as such in fences or palisades

This word is found 28 times in the NT and is translated as "cross". We also find this word below which is translated as "tree":

Act 5

30 The God of our fathers raised up Jesus, whom you seized, hanging Him on a tree.

Act 10

39 And we are witnesses of all things which He did, both in the country of the Jews, and in Jerusalem. They did away with Him, hanging Him on a tree.

Greek for 3586

xulon {xoo'-lon}

Outline of Biblical Usage

1) wood

a) that which is made of wood

1) as a beam from which any one is suspended, a gibbet, a cross

2) a log or timber with holes in which the feet, hands, neck of prisoners were inserted and fastened with thongs

3) a fetter, or shackle for the feet

4) a cudgel, stick, staff

2) a tree

Total: 19 - tree 10, staff 5, wood 3, stocks 1; 19

Then we have the OT Hebrew version:

Deuteronomy 21

23 his body shall not remain all night on the tree; but burying you shall bury him the same day. For he that is hanged is a reproach to God. And you shall not defile your land which YHVH your God is giving to you as an inheritance.

Joshua 8

29 And he hanged the king of Ai on the tree until evening time. And at sundown Joshua commanded, and they took his dead body down from the tree, and threw it into the opening of the gate of the city; and raised over it a great heap of stones until this day.

Esther 2

23 And when the matter was searched into, it was found out; and the two of them were hanged on a tree. And it was written in the Book of the Matters of the Days before the king.


Hebrew for 06086

`ets {ates}

Outline of Biblical Usage

1) tree, wood, timber, stock, plank, stalk, stick, gallows

a) tree, trees

b) wood, pieces of wood, gallows, firewood, cedar-wood, woody flax

Total: 328 - tree 162, wood 107, timber 23, stick 14, gallows 8, staff 4,
*****stock 4, carpenter + 02796 2, branches 1, helve 1, planks 1,
*****stalks 1; 328


HT:

It appears that the OT prophecy is pretty clear that it is not a stake, as stake would be a last choice of words for the translation.

[Henaynei]

HT:

It appears that the OT prophecy is pretty clear that it is not a stake, as stake would be a last choice of words for the translation.Using that as criteria would be very source dependant - as differing linguists/concordances/sources would, and do, have different "order" of choices.

Most NT translations are colored not a little by the politics, as well as the colloquial and contempory theology, at the time of their writing - they certianly tend to run toward an ethnocentric Hellenism rather than Judaism :)

[simchat_torah]

HT:

It appears that the OT prophecy is pretty clear that it is not a stake, as stake would be a last choice of words for the translation.


As well, no where does it state 'cross'. In other words, this argument is somewhat a moot point.

In fact, one could draw the opposite conclusion.... Cross is less likely than stake.

shalom,
yafet.

[Henaynei]

As well, no where does it state 'cross'. In other words, this argument is somewhat a moot point.

In fact, one could draw the opposite conclusion.... Cross is less likely than stake.

shalom,
yafet.
LOL - yeah, that too :)

[Higher Truth]

Simchat stated:

As well, no where does it state 'cross'. In other words, this argument is somewhat a moot point.

In fact, one could draw the opposite conclusion.... Cross is less likely than stake.

HT:

Let's look at the Scripture again:

Deuteronomy 21

23 his body shall not remain all night on the tree; but burying you shall bury him the same day. For he that is hanged is a reproach to God. And you shall not defile your land which YHVH your God is giving to you as an inheritance.


Hebrew for 06086

`ets {ates}

Outline of Biblical Usage

1) tree, wood, timber, stock, plank, stalk, stick, gallows

a) tree, trees

b) wood, pieces of wood, gallows, firewood, cedar-wood, woody flax

Total: 328 - tree 162, wood 107, timber 23, stick 14, gallows 8, staff 4,
*****stock 4, carpenter + 02796 2, branches 1, helve 1, planks 1,
*****stalks 1; 328


First line translation is "tree", which is nothing like a sharpened stake.

ets is translated as tree almost half the time. Stake would be a last line translation. Then we have to refer to the archaelogy at the beginning of the thread and historical writings. Many do not like the cross because they figure it is Christian, when in fact it was a torture instrument used by pagans. It all boils down to what is the truth, who cares about the symbol.

[simchat_torah]

First line translation is "tree", which is nothing like a sharpened stake.
Now, I don't mind if you want to dispute the idea that it isn't like a 'pale' (which by the way does not mean 'sharpened stick'), however, I would dispute the idea that the logical conclusion is a cross.

tree, wood, timber, stock, plank, stalk, stick, gallowsAll of these perfectly describe a pale. You may disagree, but in no way does it support a 'cross' in the interpretation.

Granted, you can then argue that NT words support a 'cross', I haven't touched upon that. I'm merely pointing out that it is illogical to denounce a pale (or stake) based on the Old Testament lingustic word usage and uphold a cross interpretation.

It simply doesn't make sense.

Shalom,
Yafet.

[simchat_torah]

While I tend to agree with Henaynei, the device of torture is not important, it is the sacrafice that deems worth. However, this device of torture has come to represent and become a symbol to so many that I think it is worth investigating.

shalom,
yafet.

[simchat_torah]

I understand what you are saying, but if it is not historically correct, then it is a lie.
This has been promoted as fact by Jehovah's witnesses, sacred name teachers, hebrew roots teachers, and even David Stern used the term stake in his CJB.

Under this same line of reasoning, if it turns out that the Messiah did not die on a cross, but in fact a stake/pale, would it not be as important to you? Would you not consider it such a lie and deception? Would you not denounce it and reject this symbol?

I tend to think you wouldn't. Maybe I'm wrong, but I would tend to think you would not be so quick to reject it if it were shown to be true.

Yet, you are quick to denounce those who interpret it differently. You are quick to call them liars, etc.

What if historical evidence was shown to you otherwise? Would you believe and accept it? Or do you love the symbol of torture so much that you would not cast it off? Where do you honestly stand?

These are intended to be rhetorical questions for you to examine your own heart. While you are quick to denounce many messianics who earnestly seek truth, would you really do the same if you found that any particular object/theology you clung to was found to be a fraud?

Shalom,
Yafet.

[Henaynei]

What if historical evidence was shown to you otherwise? Would you believe and accept it? Or do you love the symbol of torture so much that you would not cast it off? Where do you honestly stand?

These are intended to be rhetorical questions for you to examine your own heart. While you are quick to denounce many messianics who earnestly seek truth, would you really do the same if you found that any particular object/theology you clung to was found to be a fraud?

Shalom,
Yafet.
It is also worth noting that there were those who disagreed with the "cross" translation long before MJism came around. Not that that "proves" corss or stake - just that it is not specificly some MJ issue trying to re-translate to fit some view point.

[Higher Truth]

How do we deal with this then? Did these first century Jewish believers just randomly choose to put a cross on these ossuaries for no reason?

A "head stone", found near the entrance to the first century catacomb, is inscribed with the sign of the cross.

Inside, the sign of the cross was found on numerous first-century coffins.

A first-century coffin bearing cross marks as it was found by archaeologist P. Bagatti in the catacomb on the Mt. of Olives.

"One coffin, also bearing cross marks on it, was inscribed with the name "Shlom-zion" followed by the designation "daughter of Simon the Priest."

In addition, he found one ossuary with crosses and the unusual name "Shappira" - which is a unique name not found in any other first-century writtings except for the Book of Acts (5:1).

All together, more than 100 first-century coffins were found on the Mount of Olives, many bearing additional names and cross marks.

[Henaynei]

The original thread question: "Did the apostles have a problem with the cross symbol?" begged the question (perhaps unintended, but I don't think so) about the reluctance of many to use that specific symbol in varoius ministries, especially to Jewish people.

The apostles had no problem with shape of what ever tool was used for Messiah's sacrifice, period.

But, because for the centuries of "christian" persecution using and hallmarked by the "cross," there are literally millions of people (specifically the Jews - G-d's own people) who have been barred fro access to salvation - "ain't Satan thinking that's jus'a hoot?"

No one is suggesting, neither is there any danger that we "deny the crucifiction." In chosing an alternate wordage to represent the instrument of the cruicifiction we are in no way denying any facet of His execution.

So, I return to my original point: the specific shape of the symbol is vastly less important than the act (Messiah's sacrifice) and it's purpose (redemption of all people, "to the Jew first"). If the use of a corrupted symbol bars the path to salvation and redemption of so many, why the animosity and resistance to accepting the symbol, in a slightly different shape, that allows the entrance to the Good News to so many previously barred?

I wonder which Yeshua would say was the most important??

[simchat_torah]

Before I actually debate the usage of the cross, I wanted to mention one thing:
I have read in numerous places that these 'crosses' found in the supposed first century were added later by christians in the Middle Ages.

[Higher Truth]

Henaynei:

I wonder which Yeshua would say was the most important??

HT:

To always promote the truth, without allowing the feelings get involved as He always did.

[Higher Truth]

Simchat:

I have read in numerous places that these 'crosses' found in the supposed first century were added later by christians in the Middle Ages.

HT:

If this is true, it is easy to prove by dating. The archaeologists, many of them secular, have stated the opposite. History also tells us that at the time of Messiah, the cross was what was being used by the romans. Once again, I do not use it, or any symbol, as a symbol of faith.

[simchat_torah]

History also tells us that at the time of Messiah, the cross was what was being used by the romans.
While crosses were in use at this time, it was very very limited. Mainly there were two types of execution stakes, one which was an upside down Y, and another was simply a pole. Crosses began to be used widely circa 160 c.e. and later.

If this is true, it is easy to prove by dating. The archaeologists, many of them secular, have stated the opposite.
The Discovery channel did a special on this about 3-4 months ago with 'scholars' stating just the opposite... that these (very few first century) crosses were obviously added later. These 'scholars' stated that they type of handwriting was blatantly different than the original on many of these sarcophaguses (sp?) and other such archeological findings, and were obviously redacted by later christians.

I guess it boils down to whose 'scholarship' one is willing to accept.

Shalom,
Yafet.

[ShirChadash]

[/font]
sarcophaguses (sp?)
:idea: (popping in to say)That's acceptable, and also, sarcophagi.


Back to your regularly scheduled discussion :)

[Henaynei]

Henaynei:

I wonder which Yeshua would say was the most important??

HT:

To always promote the truth, without allowing the feelings get involved as He always did.
/me thinks what passes for "higher criticism" is the P'rushim of today - a great many of the charges against the P'rushim fit the "higher critics" like a glove.

[Higher Truth]

Henaynei:

* Henaynei thinks what passes for "higher criticism" is the P'rushim of today - a great many of the charges against the P'rushim fit the "higher critics" like a glove.

I have heard some on this forum say that the "ancient" magen david / fish symbol was what the Jewish believers used. Let's see if that is correct:

www.us-israel.org/jsource/Judaism/star.html

[ShirChadash]

Bump bump :pink:

[LADY DI]

Here we go again!!!!:sigh:


Why are we arguing over what words is used to describe the word "cross" in greek? Or what the word is in hebrew.

S.T. said in his last post that" While crosses were in use at the time, it was very, very limited. Mainly there were two types of execution stakes, on which was an upside down Y, and another was simply a pole. Crosses began to be used widely circa 160 c.e. and later"

Executions on crosses were not limited. The Romans executed 2000 slaves that rebelled against Rome under Sparticus and lined their bodies along the road that entered into the city, to be a "reminder" of what happens to those who go against Rome!!!
Crucifixions were "common thing" in Roman society. This is how they kept the "masses" in control. Crucifixions were only used against non-roman citizens, criminals and those who rebelled against Roman authority. Also the body of the crucified victum was to remain on the "cross" until the body rotted away.

The fact that Yeshua's followers were allowed to remove the body the same day in accordance to Torah ( i.e. the body is to be removed the same day) was truely the hand of G-d!!! Because the Romans would of had it remain there to set an example for the others.

I dont go along with idea that the cross was a pole or a stake, basing it on the words for in greek, hebrew.

For one how would the body be supported on a pole/stake?

We know that Yeshua couldn't have been crucified upside down, because a notice was placed "over his head" reading King of the Jews. And also he was given something to drink. Also the fact that he was "concious" for so long to be able to speak.. If he was crucified upside down the blood would have rushed to his head and caused him to "pass out" quickly.
I dont think there is any archaeological evidence to support the "pole" theory."

I read a long time ago that when Kefa ( Peter) was to be crucified he wanted to be cricified "upside down", because he felt "he was not worthy to die the same way as Yeshua died". I dont know how true this statement was,it was supposely given by "eyewitness" accounts. But if it is true then, we know that Yeshua did not die upside down.

There could have been a "stationary" pole that was securely mounted in the ground and then a "cross beam" may have been slid on it to hold the victum and it would have made a "cross" .
We know from scripture that Yeshua carried his "cross" , it could have been this "cross beam" or maybe it could have been an actual cross/pole/stake/tree/etc.

The idea of a stationary pole would make sense because the victums weight would also be a factor. You cant just dig a hole and stick a large, tall object with a considerable amount of weight on it and expect it to stay up.

And if it were a pole, how would you "nail" the wrist together, without breaking a bone? No bones could not be broken.! You'd have to nail the wrist behind the body on the pole, so the wrist would have to over lap one another. But still, how would the body be supported???
At least with the "cross" beam there would be support.

Well I just wanted to share my thoughts on the subject!!!
Shalom,
Di:angel:

[Higher Truth]

First of all wood was and is at a premium in any desert. When they describe Yeshua as a carpenter, a better description would probably be a mason. Take a look at the buildings in Jerusalem and other places in Israel and what do you see? How about the tombs? All stone. History tells us that the vertical pole remained at the place of execution, while the condemned carried the crossbeam. If you read the scripture, you will find that Simon carried it for Yeshua following behind Him. The Hebrews of the day were small in stature according to forensic study of graves in the region. A full cross would have weighed more than any man could carry. So much for the Passion movie, and it's historical accuracy.

[visionary]

For the Jews, the cross with the snake from the wilderness had been broken in to pieces thus ridding them of the fixation for the symbolism.

The people may not have realized the connection between the brass objects in the outer court, but Jesus pointed to the brass (bronze) as said that it pointed to Him. He was made like sin so that we who look to Him for salvation may be saved from the serpent’s bite.

John 3:14 And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up: 15 That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life.

It was not the graven serpent that healed but the faith that if you looked upon it as the God told Moses to tell the people to do that healed them, by faith they knew God would heal them if they obey and God did the healing. Just as Jesus who was a curse on the tree, and many believed that He was the son of G-d are still today healed. They looked up Jesus repent and believe. They are fully forgiven and healed. Those who look upon the pole and see Jesus, the innocent guiltless lamb, made sin for us represented by the serpent, will get a glimmer of what Jesus was telling them. Placing the snake on the crucifix and its descent with Christ into death, hell, the place where there is no return we get a glimpse of the depths that Christ went to for us. Christ, who bore our iniquity as he bears the snake with Him into the eternal destruction of Hell, and then resurrects. No mere mortal is capable of resurrection, cut off as we had been from the Tree of Life, only a God can do this. Only because Jesus is G-d Himself can this be so. As it happened later, people missed the message and worshiped the serpent on the pole and it had to be torn down.

2 Kings 18:3 And he did that which was right in the sight of the LORD, according to all that David his father did. 4 He removed the high places, and brake the images, and cut down the groves, and brake in pieces the brasen serpent that Moses had made: for unto those days the children of Israel did burn incense to it: and he called it Nehushtan. 5 He trusted in the LORD God of Israel; so that after him was none like him among all the kings of Judah, nor any that were before him.


Let us not miss this message and worship the serpent. Satan is one brazen, bold, deceitful, conniving, instigator of malicious devious lies. Hopefully you understand how repentance in our hearts brings the promises of God to our life, so that healing of your mind and body from the bites of Satan will happen as God promised.

There is the crux of the matter. Focus in not on the cross, which is just a piece of wood, but rather Christ who will lead you out of the wilderness of sin.

[simchat_torah]

Executions on crosses were not limited. Crucifixions were "common thing" in Roman society.
Yes, but what was later referred to as a "crucifixion" included all types of devices ranging from cross, to pole (pale), to the upside down Y, to an X shaped set of crossbeams.

Unfortunately today, when you mention the word crucifix, people have conjured up in their minds the idea of a cross, and soley a cross. The romans used a wide variety of torture devices.

Historically, the pale (pole) was used until circa 160 ce. We have evidence that there was an upside down Y used during that time as well.

Also the body of the crucified victum was to remain on the "cross" until the body rotted away.

Actually, they would break the legs ensuring the person's inevitable death. Without the use of their legs to lift themselves up and breathe, they would suffocate. They would then remove the bodies and often burn them. At times, they would dig one large ditch and toss as many bodies as possible into it.

Why are we arguing over what words is used to describe the word "cross" in greek? Or what the word is in hebrew.

Because those are the texts we have that describe the death of Y'shua. I'm not going to turn to the Koran, am I?

Because the Romans would of had it remain there to set an example for the others.

Typically a day or two, but not till it 'rotted away'.

For one how would the body be supported on a pole/stake?
Easy. You nail the hands up above the head and the feet at the bottom. Maybe I'll draw a picture and attach it to a post. With the upside down Y, you would nail the hands above the head, and one foot to each of the bottom posts. These two formations were very common for a couple hundred years.

I dont go along with idea that the cross was a pole or a stake, basing it on the words for in greek, hebrew.
I use what texts we have available to shed light on history.

We know that Yeshua couldn't have been crucified upside down, because a notice was placed "over his head" reading King of the Jews.
I don't recall anyone stating he was crucified upside down.

I dont think there is any archaeological evidence to support the "pole" theory."
The fact is, many many many people were crucified upon a pole. There simply isn't any "evidence" of which type Y'shua died upon, we have to rely upon our manuscript resources.

I suggest reading a bit more about Roman history before declaring there is 'no evidence'. Ignorance can be bliss, but it can also be... well... ignorance ;)

I read a long time ago that when Kefa ( Peter) was to be crucified he wanted to be cricified "upside down", because he felt "he was not worthy to die the same way as Yeshua died". I dont know how true this statement was,it was supposely given by "eyewitness" accounts. But if it is true then, we know that Yeshua did not die upside down.

Records indicate he was crucified on an upside down Y, with his feet nailed at the top pole, and each hand nailed to a bottom beam.

This is why I have never eliminated the possiblity that Y'shua died on an upside down Y (with his hands nailed above his head, and one foot on each lower beam). But, from historical use, and linguistic evidence, I tend to think he died on a pale (pole).

We know from scripture that Yeshua carried his "cross" , it could have been this "cross beam" or maybe it could have been an actual cross/pole/stake/tree/etc.

OR, rather than trying to fit the scriptures to our theology, we could fit our theology to the scriptures and believe that he carried the whole kit and kabuddle. He probably carried the single pole that he was executed on.

The idea of him carrying the 'cross beam' was invented later to dispel the disputes concerning his execution device. You see, it didn't fit... so theologians came up with the idea that he carried a crossbeam.
And if it were a pole, how would you "nail" the wrist together, without breaking a bone? No bones could not be broken.! You'd have to nail the wrist behind the body on the pole, so the wrist would have to over lap one another. But still, how would the body be supported???
I would reccomend checking out a plethera of videos from the history channel. They have discussed this in many episodes where doctors from both sides argue that a man's weight could and/or could not be supported by nailing through the hands. This is where the 'wrist' idea was introduced. Ironically, in Hebrew, the word hand includes the portion of the wrist as well.

Anywho...

On a final note...Lady Di, might I remind you that non-messianics aren't allowed to debate here? If you want to take it to a formal debate in the IDD section that is quite acceptible. However, in the MJ section, only MJ's are allowed to debate.



Shalom,
yafet

[simchat_torah]

First of all wood was and is at a premium in any desert. When they describe Yeshua as a carpenter, a better description would probably be a mason. Take a look at the buildings in Jerusalem and other places in Israel and what do you see? How about the tombs? All stone.
Actually, there are some wooden furnishings. But, I've never thought about the idea of him being a mason.

One thing that I've put a lot of thought to... the word 'carpenter' was also a Jewish idiom for a teacher of the Torah. Many times throughout the Tenach we see people referred to as 'trees'. "The trees of the field clap their hands", etc. People are often referred to as trees in prophecy.
Anyway, there is a Jewish idiom that is used circa first century Judaism that one who teaches at a Yeshivah is/was called a carpenter.

Its just something to mull over. There's so much symbollism, that who knows, eh?

History tells us that the vertical pole remained at the place of execution, while the condemned carried the crossbeam.
All it states in the Brit Chadasha is that he carried his 'cross' (again, in Greek/Aramaic... pole). It does not state 'crossbeam'. This was a later invention to explain away the fact he could not have carried a full 'cross'. But why couldn't he have carried his pole? Why twist scripture to fit our theology?

A full cross would have weighed more than any man could carry. So much for the Passion movie, and it's historical accuracy.
While I agree with your assessment of the Passion's accuracy ;)
I might have to interject and state... why could he have not carried the pole he was executed on? Why go the distance to create this 'crossb eam' story?

Shalom,
yafet

[Sephania]

That's b/c they can't accept that he was accursed of God.
Who is "They"?

[Sephania]

Oh how I wish we could teach and speak to others of Y'shua with the love that he spoke and taught with. :sigh:

[Higher Truth]

Yafet stated:

While I agree with your assessment of the Passion's accuracy
I might have to interject and state... why could he have not carried the pole he was executed on? Why go the distance to create this 'crossbeam' story?

HT:

Quite simple Yafet. The pole would have weighed more than He did. [and simon] and probably more than the both of them put together. The average male was approx 5'5 approx 140 lbs. Ever try to even drag, much less carry a 10' section of telephone pole. Now imagine trying to do that with extensive blood loss and exhaustion. The crossbeam concept came from Roman historical sources. I have to accept that over other sources such as "Too Long in the sun", "Come out of her my people", and "Fossilized customs", or writings / teachings by Jehovah's witnesses , YATI, The Way international , Michael Rood , Norman Willis, and others who all push the stake teaching. ;)

P.S. The cross is an execution device used by pagan Rome. People have to get over the fact that Christians [and Rap artists, and Madonna, and etc] use it as a symbol. Symbols are for the "symbol" minded. :)

[ShirChadash]

Why 10', HT? Why not 6 or 7? why not even 5 feet, since the knees of the man hanging could be bent before nailing. :confused: How radically might a shorter length of pole caused a decrease in the pole's weight? Any insight into how heavy it would have been had it been 10', 9', 8', maybe 6 or 5'?

Or is this an historical issue -- as in, are you assuming a height of ten feet because 10' is the recorded standard height of a crucifixion stake... ?

[simchat_torah]

and why must it be X number of inches thick to make it so heavy, etc...


all these unanswered questions ;)

[Higher Truth]

Zemmy:

Any insight into how heavy it would have been had it been 10', 9', 8', maybe 6 or 5'?

HT:

First of all, three feet of that would be in the ground for stability. Have you ever tried lift, or drag even a 3' section of telephone pole? I am quite a bit taller, and quite a bit denser weight wise than your average person living in Israel at that time. Because of the nature of my work, I train heavily on a regular basis, and I am quite strong in the lower and upper body. I have tried to move sections of a telephone pole on a few occasions. It is not that easy. Now try carrying it uphill for a quarter of a mile or so, [Simon actually carried it according to scripture]

[ShirChadash]

When my forester husband gets over his bout of the flu (nice how it takes a good two-three weeks to cycle through everyone in our large family) I'll ask him for his insights on the discussion.

[rooster]

When i was in the army, we had this evil thing called log PT. A piece of log that is the girth of 2 stout man(or maybe30inches thick might be a closer estimate) and about 10 feet long(more like 7 feet) could be carried by two persons over a comfortable distance under the eyes of a big fat sargaent.


But of course the input of a forrester would be much more helpful.

[ShirChadash]

But of course the input of a forrester would be much more helpful. heh heh!


Okay -- he says, supposing it was olive wood, which is fairly heavy and dense, if it's dried well an 8' pole would have been around the weight of 100 lbs. Could have been heavier, could have been lighter as well had the wood been a different type... definitely something that would need to be dragged, depending.

A 4x4"', 10' long pole would easily hold 140+ pounds, and would have weighed a reasonable amount to be dragged, albeit exhaustingly.

About 18 years ago, DH carried 4x4 beams (@ 12-14 ft long) a mile+ back into a remote nature area to build a trail for the county he was working for -- each man carried a beam at a time, over and over. It was hard work and very exhausting, but they got it done.

:)

[ShirChadash]

HM -- I suppose I'm not so great at taking oral dictation. :D

That's supposed to be a 4x4", 10' long pole.

[simchat_torah]

A 4x4"', 10' long pole would easily hold 140+ pounds, and would have weighed a reasonable amount to be dragged, albeit exhaustingly.
A 4x4 would be more than thick enough to support my weight, I weigh 275+. I have carried 4x4's for years with my dad as a carpenter. I have carried them around all day on numerous occasions, 10 foot lengths, 12 foot lengths, 8 foot lengths. Its not that heavy. Granted, I'm a big boy ;) but still, it's not that tough of a task. Since I am a big boy, I can carry multiple 4x4's at once, usually a small number of them on each shoulder.

As far as the railroad poles, and this is just to brag, I've had one on each shoulder before (each of decent length)... hehehe.

[Asaph]

Just a thought, but if our Lord had been executed in the twentieth century, would anyone be worried that the dimensions of the Electric Chairs they wore around their necks were just right?

SIGH...nevermind. Now that I think about it, yeah, I can imagine it happening!...:D

Grace, Mercy and great Joy to you today in the Lord, Jesus the Messiah,
Asaph

[ShirChadash]

*shrug* It's true -- DH and I lofted our big, full-sized bed when he was in grad school. We built our own loft, using 4x4 posts @6+ ft (I insisted on the 4x4's though he told me 2x4's would have done nicely -- that bed held us, and often two children who clamored to be up on the "big bed") and *I* was able to carry them around fairly easily -- but I wouldn't have been keen on carrying them far!


typos, typos!!! :mad:

[rooster]

As far as the railroad poles, and this is just to brag, I've had one on each shoulder before (each of decent length)... hehehe.

The army engineers wants you!

[Sephania]

If you are speaking of cresoted ties Simchat that is impressive.

[ShirChadash]

About 18 years ago, DH carried 4x4 beams (@ 12-14 ft long) a mile+ back into a remote nature area to build a trail for the county he was working for -- each man carried a beam at a time, over and over. It was hard work and very exhausting, but they got it done.


I should also mention, he was slight, only about 120 lbs at the time, @ 5'9" tall.

[simchat_torah]

The army engineers wants you!
Haha.. you have no idea. Not only am I the size of a small bull, but I scored the highest score possible on the entry exam to the Navy. The kept telling me I could go anywhere and do anything.

But the life of the armed forces is not for me.

I'm too much of a free spirit to have so many rules. ;)

[simchat_torah]

I should also mention, he was slight, only about 120 lbs at the time, @ 5'9" tall.
hehe... I'm more than twice his weight, and probably would displace twice the water in a pool ;)

[ShirChadash]

Heh! Well, he's 150 now -- a testimony to my fabulous cooking. (we need the lil "whistling dude" (as in... "wasn't me!") icon here :D.

[LADY DI]

[/font]
On a final note...Lady Di, might I remind you that non-messianics aren't allowed to debate here? If you want to take it to a formal debate in the IDD section that is quite acceptible. However, in the MJ section, only MJ's are allowed to debate.
Shalom,
yafet
To all at MJ forum,
I deeply apologize for breaking the rules here:(
I honestly did not post to debate, only to give "another veiw" of this issue.
I promise not to debate here in the future.

As to making this a formal debate in the IDD section, I dont think I want to debate this issue any further. You S.T. and I have differences of opinion. I respect your opinion.
Shalom
Di:angel:

[simchat_torah]

As to making this a formal debate in the IDD section, I dont think I want to debate this issue any further. You S.T. and I have differences of opinion. I respect your opinion.
Shalom
Di:angel:
This is really why I left the subject alone in the other thread. I merely noticed I was being challenged here as well, otherwise I would have (and probably should have) shut up here too ;)


shalom,
yafet

[Higher Truth]

Zemmy:

A 4x4"', 10' long pole would easily hold 140+ pounds, and would have weighed a reasonable amount to be dragged, albeit exhaustingly.

HT:

That would be great if there was a sawmill turning out finished PT 4x4's, but let's keep in mind that this is first century Palestine. Let's look at some historical facts:



Crucifixion Practices

Crucifixion probably first began among the Persians. (34) Alexander the Great introduced the practice to Egypt and Carthage, and the Romans appear to have learned of it from the Carthaginans. (11) Although the Romans did not invent crucifixion, they perfected it as a form of torture and capital punishment that was designed to produce a slow death with maximum pain and suffering. (10,17) It was one of the most disgraceful and cruel methods of execution and usually was reserved only for slaves, foreigners, revolutionaries, and the vilest of criminals. (3,25,28) Roman law usually protected Roman citizens from crucifixion, (5) except perhaps in the case of desertion by soldiers.

In its earliest form in Persia, the victim was either tied to a tree or was tied to or impaled on an upright post, usually to keep the guilty victim's feet from touching holy ground. (3,11,30,34,38). Only later was a true cross used; it was characterized by an upright post (stipes) and a horizontal crossbar (patibulum), and it had several variations (11). Although archaeological and historical evidence strongly indicates that the low Tau cross was preferred by the Romans in Palestine at the time of Christ, (2,7,11) crucifixion practices often varied in a given geographic region and in accordance with the imagination of the executioners, and the Latin cross and other forms also may have been used. (26)

It was customary for the condemned man to carry his own cross from the flogging post to the site of crucifixion outside the city walls. (8,11,30) He was usually naked, unless this was prohibited by local customs. (11) Since the weight of the entire cross was probably well over 300 lb. (136 kg), only the crossbar was carried. (11) The patibulum, weighing 75 to 125 lb. (34 to 57 kg), (11,30) was placed across the nape of the victim's neck and balanced along both shoulders. Usually, the outstretched arms then were tied to the crossbar. (7,11) The processional to the site of crucifixion was led by a complete Roman military guard, headed by a centurion. (3,11) One of the soldiers carried a sign (titulus) on which the condemned man's name and crime were displayed. (3,11) Later, the titulus would be attached to the top of the cross. (11) The Roman guard would not leave the victim until they were sure of his death. (9,11) Outside the city walls was permanently located the heavy upright wooden stipes, on which the patibulum would be secured. In the case of the Tau cross, this was accomplished by means of a mortise and tenon joint, with or without reinforcement by ropes. (10,11,30) To prolong the crucifixion process, a horizontal wooden block or plank, serving as a crude seat (sedile or sedulum), often was attached midway down the stipes. (3,11,16) Only very rarely, and probably later than the time of Christ, was an additional block (suppedaneum) employed for transfixion of the feet. (9,11)


You can find this article, that was published in the Journal of the American Medical Association in it's entirety here:

http://www.geocities.com/alokonsen/death4.htm

Click on the pictures to enlarge them and see the size of the crosses. Ironically, this is posted on a catholic site advertising the Passion Movie. Guess no one read the info on how the cross wasn't carried, only the crossbeam. :) You can also find this paper posted on other sites.

[ShirChadash]

Zemmy:


That would be great if there was a sawmill turning out finished PT 4x4's, but let's keep in mind that this is first century Palestine. Let's look at some historical facts:



:doh:

I'm sure I expected too much when I hoped you would get the point that a 4x4 beam can hold far more than 140 pounds... and it can also be carried/dragged reasonably. It is certainly no stretch to think that a pole (yes -- that's a tree) at least 4" in diameter and probably a bit more generous, of a wood that is as dense and heavy as olive wood or another similar wood they may have had available, could have been carried/drug by a 140 pound healthy man... and naturally, Yeshua was already worn by beatings, etc, by the time He struggled to carry His. And it most certianly could have supported His weight at anywhere from 8' on up. Please, don't patronize me, and attempt to insinuate that I meant any such stupidity as "well, don'tcha know they hewed them there logs right up into 4x4's for their victims". You know perfectly well (I hope) I never stated nor intended such nonsense. I never for a moment assumed we were talking about anything but ISRAEL (not Palestine, Thank you very much) in Yeshua's day. I don't like to get snitty, but I also do not appreciate being spoken down to -- and while your intent may not have been such, your words left much room for me to see it as such.

Thank you.

[Higher Truth]

Zemmy:

Please, don't patronize me

HT:

Sorry if you felt that I was. I guess it is my dry presentation style.

[Higher Truth]

Palestine (Latin (http://www.wordiq.com/definition/Latin) Syria Palestina, Hebrew (http://www.wordiq.com/definition/Hebrew_language) Palestina [פלשתינה] or Eretz Yisrael (http://www.wordiq.com/definition/Eretz_Yisrael) [ארץ־ישראל], Arabic (http://www.wordiq.com/definition/Arabic_language) Filasteen [فلسطين]), is a region in the Middle East (http://www.wordiq.com/definition/Middle_East) extending inland from the eastern shore of the Mediterranean Sea (http://www.wordiq.com/definition/Mediterranean_Sea).

This is a common term used among scholars, archaeologists, etc, and most Jews have no problem with the term as evidenced here:

http://www.jhom.com/topics/money/first_century_2.htm

[ShirChadash]

I reject the term "Palestine". I know the history of the term BTW, understand fully well that it is accepted and widely used within the "scholarly" world. And, I would just guess that to say most Jews have no problem with it, is a stretch.

[simchat_torah]

Since the weight of the entire cross was probably well over 300 lb.

-emphasis mine ;)


While the above article discusses crosses, it completely ignores all other forms of execution stakes, ranging from a single pole, to upside down Y's, to X's. As well, it makes many assumptions (example highlighted: probably). Thus making two grevious mistakes:
1) Assuming it was a cross.
2) too many assumptions


Shalom,
yafet

[Higher Truth]

Sources for the paper that I posted the link to:



The source material concerning Christ's death comprises a body of literature and not a physical body or its skeletal remains. Accordingly, the credibility of any discussion of Jesus' death will be determined primarily by the credibility of one's sources. For this review, the source material includes the writings of ancient Christian and non-Christian authors, the writings of modern authors, and the Shroud of Turin. (1-40) Using the legal-historical method of scientific investigation, (27) scholars have established the reliability and accuracy of the ancient manuscripts. (26,27,29,31)

The most extensive and detailed descriptions of the life and death of Jesus are to be found in the New Testament gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. (1) The other 23 books of the New Testament support but do not expand on the details recorded in the gospels. Contemporary Christian, Jewish, and Roman authors provide additional insight concerning the first-century Jewish and Roman legal systems and the details of scourging and crucifixion. (5) Seneca, Livy, Plutarch, and others refer to crucifixion practices in their works. (8,28) Specifically, Jesus (or his crucifixion) is mentioned by the Roman historians Cornelius Tacitus, Pliny the Younger, and Suetonius, by non-Roman historians Thallus and Phlegon, by the satirist Lucian of Samosata, by the Jewish Talmud, and by the Jewish historian Flavius Josephus, although the authenticity of portions of the latter is problematic. (26)

The Shroud of Turin is considered by many to represent the actual burial cloth of Jesus, (22) and several publications concerning the medical aspects of his death draw conclusions from this assumption. (5,11) The Shroud of Turin and recent archaeological findings provide valuable information concerning Roman crucifixion practices. (22-24) The interpretations of modern writers, based on a knowledge of science and medicine not available in the first century, may offer additional insight concerning the possible mechanisms of Jesus' death. (2,17) When taken in concert, certain facts -- the extensive and early testimony of both Christian proponents and opponents, and their universal acceptance of Jesus as a true historical figure; the ethic of the gospel writers, and the shortness of the time interval between the events and the extant manuscripts; and the confirmation of the gospel accounts by historians and archaeological findings (26,27) -- ensure a reliable testimony from which a modern medical interpretation of Jesus' death may be made.

HT:

I am still waiting for Yafet's sources........ ;)

[simchat_torah]

For this review, the source material includes the writings of ancient Christian and non-Christian authors, the writings of modern authors, and the Shroud of Turin.
ahhh... yes... the most accurate peice of historical evidence to date.

*insert hysterical laughter*

[simchat_torah]

*instert more uncontrollable hysterical laughter*

[ShirChadash]

How, may I ask, would the shroud of turin remotely prove Yeshua died on a cross rather than a stake/pale/pole/whatever. Frankly, as an ex-catholic, I can't believe anyone would use theshroud of turin to try to prove anything about Yeshua and His death. If this is considered a highly reputable source (for inference and speculation, no less) I would suspect the assertions being made.


FTR (sorry, that's For The Record) I don't know... I don't honestly care personally either, at this point, so I am able to see both sides... it matters little to me whether Yeshua died on a Tav-shaped cross, a pole or whatever else may be contended. I haven't the slightest bit of emotional attachment, and not an overwhelming amount of intellectual preference for either stand at this point in time. What I do care about is that the things done supposedly in the sign of the cross -- in the name of "Jesus", and connected with that cross... make it a very hurtful symbol for the people G-d says are, and will always be, His. That's enough for me to see why it isn't the best thing to use to identify the REAL Yeshua, a Jew, the Jewish Moshiach. And as a follower of HIS, I do not esteem the symbol of a cross, for that reason as well.

So to answer the OP, did the apostles have a "problem" with the cross symbol? I doubt it since 1) it was most likely not widely used as an identifying symbol during their lives, and 2) it was not used as a malreasoned excuse for (and a sign connected with) incredible persecution and hatred of Jews during the apostles' lifetime.

[Higher Truth]

Did you miss this paragraph Yafet?

The most extensive and detailed descriptions of the life and death of Jesus are to be found in the New Testament gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. (1) The other 23 books of the New Testament support but do not expand on the details recorded in the gospels. Contemporary Christian, Jewish, and Roman authors provide additional insight concerning the first-century Jewish and Roman legal systems and the details of scourging and crucifixion. (5) Seneca, Livy, Plutarch, and others refer to crucifixion practices in their works. (8,28) Specifically, Jesus (or his crucifixion) is mentioned by the Roman historians Cornelius Tacitus, Pliny the Younger, and Suetonius, by non-Roman historians Thallus and Phlegon, by the satirist Lucian of Samosata, by the Jewish Talmud, and by the Jewish historian Flavius Josephus, although the authenticity of portions of the latter is problematic. (26)


HT:

Still waiting....

[simchat_torah]

No, I didn't miss it HT. Its just that there seems to be so much weight given to... *insert absolute hysterical laughter*... breathe... *more laughter*.... to... (I can't stop... laughing...)... the ... *trying to breathe*...... Shroud of Turin, that it can't be overlooked that these sources are anything but, hmmm... what's the right word?

unreliable?

no, that's going too easy on them...


Anyway, I can't think of a better word at the moment, so we'll stick with unrelaible.

Now... you really want my response to the previous statements you made earlier? Ok, fine... have it your way. You referred to:
A "head stone", found near the entrance to the first century catacomb, is inscribed with the sign of the cross.

Inside, the sign of the cross was found on numerous first-century coffins.

A first-century coffin bearing cross marks as it was found by archaeologist P. Bagatti in the catacomb on the Mt. of Olives.

"One coffin, also bearing cross marks on it, was inscribed with the name "Shlom-zion" followed by the designation "daughter of Simon the Priest."

In addition, he found one ossuary with crosses and the unusual name "Shappira" - which is a unique name not found in any other first-century writtings except for the Book of Acts (5:1).

All together, more than 100 first-century coffins were found on the Mount of Olives, many bearing additional names and cross marks.
All of which were discovered by the great and infamous P. Bagetti (a well known Italian Catholic scholar). P. Bagetti is best known for using these devices to 'fake' the finding of St. Peter, the first pope's burial. What Higher Truth conveniently left out of the story is that supposedlyp Mary's body, Martha's, and Lazarus' were discovered here as well. Why don't historians accept this? Because it was a fake. This wonderful Catholic priest who desperately needed to bring proof of St. Peter's body, 'discovered' many of these items.

Milik, the co-author of the Italian book which makes the claims Higher Truth is referring to, admitted that he knew that the bones of St. Peter are not in Rome. He goes on to state: "There is a hundred times more evidence that Peter was buried in Jerusalem than in Rome." The Pope himself currently does not accept Baggeti's claims!

These 'proofs' are under much controversy and for the better part are not accepted by the scholastic world. Many protestant christians have blindly bought into this proof because it shows the useage of the cross. Yet, many don't realize, or want to assume, that this was a hoax put on to prove various Catholic beliefs.

Shall we really examine them HT? Or do you want to save face and let it drop?

These are fakes at best. I can detail them if you'd like, but you'll be sorry that we even addressed the issue. I really don't care to go through it all, its a rather confusing and time consuming discussion that would dominate an entire thread. I don't care to bring in that many 'big guns' over such a silly matter...

just my preference,
Yafet

ps. Besides, you've made the numerous claims without proof texts, so why am I being held to another standard? oh well... its probably best we let the issue go, nu?

[Higher Truth]

Zemmy:

2) it was not used as a malreasoned excuse for (and a sign connected with) incredible persecution and hatred of Jews during the apostles' lifetime

HT:

Hitler forced anyone of Jewish heritage to wear the magen David to identify them so that they could be ridiculed and persecuted in their own towns, and eventually murdered. What are your feelings about that?

[simchat_torah]

If you want to look into it more, check out:
The Rise And Fall Of The Roman Catholic Church
By the Author, F. Paul Peterson

and the article:
The Discovery of Peter's Tomb in Jerusalem
Peter’s Tomb Recently Discovered In Jerusalem
By F. Paul Peterson

[Higher Truth]

Simchat:

Shall we really examine them HT? Or do you want to save face and let it drop?

These are fakes at best. I can detail them if you'd like, but you'll be sorry that we even addressed the issue. I really don't care to go through it all, its a rather confusing and time consuming discussion that would dominate an entire thread. I don't care to bring in that many 'big guns' over such a silly matter...

HT:

Please do Yafet, but only after you supply your scholarly proof behind you stake theories.

[simchat_torah]

As well, André Lemaire has an excellent article titled "James Ossuary: A Fake? - Israel Antiquities Authority’s Report Deeply Flawed"

He references the ossuary found by Bagetti in the article.

[simchat_torah]

Please do Yafet, but only after you supply your scholarly proof behind you stake theories.
The ole switch and bait?

Let's see... you made claims that certain artifacts were discovered, which you did not document. I stated those were fakes, etc. You demaned that I provide proof while you are free from this requirement, which I have given reference to a few articles, etc. Then you want to say forget that and provide proof on a seperate issue (bait and switch), you can't seem to make up your mind.

Higher Truth, you are baiting me, and I'm not bitting... sorry.

-yafet

[simchat_torah]

I now dismiss myself from this pointless conversation. I have provided numerous arguments, etc. No one will seem to change their minds, everyone is set in their ways. No one is willing to truly weigh out evidence provided, so oh well.

The discussion has degraded to bait and switch tactics, and I'm not going to play ball like that.

Have fun, and shalom,
yafet

[Higher Truth]

Simchat:

No, I didn't miss it HT. Its just that there seems to be so much weight given to... *insert absolute hysterical laughter*... breathe... *more laughter*.... to... (I can't stop... laughing...)... the ... *trying to breathe*...... Shroud of Turin, that it can't be overlooked that these sources are anything but, hmmm... what's the right word?

unreliable?

no, that's going too easy on them...

HT:

The shroud was one of the many things mentioned. This is from a peer reviewed paper published in the most highly acclaimed medical journal in the world. It is written by secular scientists and doctors, not religious people with a bias. If you would like to list some of your peer reviewed papers, I would be happy to read them.

[visionary]

How, may I ask, would the shroud of turin remotely prove Yeshua died on a cross rather than a stake/pale/pole/whatever. Frankly, as an ex-catholic, I can't believe anyone would use theshroud of turin to try to prove anything about Yeshua and His death. If this is considered a highly reputable source (for inference and speculation, no less) I would suspect the assertions being made.


FTR (sorry, that's For The Record) I don't know... I don't honestly care personally either, at this point, so I am able to see both sides... it matters little to me whether Yeshua died on a Tav-shaped cross, a pole or whatever else may be contended. I haven't the slightest bit of emotional attachment, and not an overwhelming amount of intellectual preference for either stand at this point in time. What I do care about is that the things done supposedly in the sign of the cross -- in the name of "Jesus", and connected with that cross... make it a very hurtful symbol for the people G-d says are, and will always be, His. That's enough for me to see why it isn't the best thing to use to identify the REAL Yeshua, a Jew, the Jewish Moshiach. And as a follower of HIS, I do not esteem the symbol of a cross, for that reason as well.

So to answer the OP, did the apostles have a "problem" with the cross symbol? I doubt it since 1) it was most likely not widely used as an identifying symbol during their lives, and 2) it was not used as a malreasoned excuse for (and a sign connected with) incredible persecution and hatred of Jews during the apostles' lifetime.

Christianity is the only religion that wants the symbol of the weapon that killed their leader on their door, their church door, hanging on walls, around their necks, as if that will bring them closer to Yeshua. Stupid, that is what Yeshua did not want to happen. Idolatry if they think praying to the cross will save them.

[ShirChadash]

Zemmy:

2) it was not used as a malreasoned excuse for (and a sign connected with) incredible persecution and hatred of Jews during the apostles' lifetime

HT:

Hitler forced anyone of Jewish heritage to wear the magen David to identify them so that they could be ridiculed and persecuted in their own towns, and eventually murdered. What are your feelings about that?
I... haven't any. :scratch: I don't wear, use, own, connect with a Magen David -- I'm not a Jew (yet ;) :D ). But if Jews were forced to wear the Magen then -- and it doesn't keep Jews from choosing to wear it now with pride, then why on earth should *I* protest? ("what man hath ordained for evil, G-d hath turned to good" something along those lines, eh?) What I cannot do is UNDO hundreds upon hundreds of years of persecution of Jews under that symbol of a cross, and the affect of that on the Jewsih reaction to that symbol... and naturally the negative reaction to a man in whose name (supposedly) people persectued the Jews.

I'll tell ya what... I reject that "Jesus" -- the one in whose name people were persecuted, tortured, wiped out, hunted down for disagreeing with the supposed authority of his church... the one who has been nearly entirely stripped of his Jewishness, His true identity, and made over and re-presented as a hellenized Jesus who hates Jews and Judaism and decided to call a new people -- Christians -- cuz the Jews didn't "work out" or something. I reject that "Jesus" -- That is not who Yeshua is. But THAT is the "Jesus" Jews see when they see the "cross".

My Yeshua -- the REAL Yeshua, a Jew, a Jewish Moshiach, is not that man -- but if I go around wearing a cross and claiming I follow a Jewish Messiah -- what might that be saying to Jews, I'm wondering. I think I would be telling Jews that my Yeshua really IS that man in whose name Jews were hated.

[Higher Truth]

While everyone wants to talk about the shroud, which is minor, no one is talking about the other sources.

[ShirChadash]

It is written by secular scientists and doctors, not religious people with a bias.
*cough* *choke*

Uh, may I say that these secular scientists and doctors have biases of their own. "Religious people" are most absolutely, without one doubt, undeniably NOT the only people with BIAS of some sort. Bank on it.

HT -- are you Messianic, by the way? I've always wondered, but forgot to ask before.

[ShirChadash]

While everyone wants to talk about the shroud, which is minor, no one is talking about the other sources. Sorry -- my point was that -- anyone who accepts the Shroud as being among a list of reputable sources, and mentions it along with what they consider reputable sources, has IMO negated any interest I might have had in reading their assertions. While I recognize there are many reasonable sources "out there" on history, and germane to this discussion... frankly I am quite convinced that *particular* treatment of the issue isn't worth my consideration.

I've answered your OP. It doesn't matter. Nope I don't think the apostles had one problem with it -- because until later centuries, the cross as a SYMBOL wasn't made an issue in any way, shape or form.

Shalom HT. :wave:

[Higher Truth]

The shroud is a burial cloth of a Jew that was crucified. I do not believe that it belonged to Yeshua, but that does not eliminate it from being admissable as forensic evidence. This is the way that real science approaches an investigation of this type.

[ShirChadash]

HT -- you haven't answered my question. How does the shroud of Turin remotely tell you that Yeshua was hung on a cross, not a pole? Frankly -- this is not at all "real science". I would like an answer to all my many questions to you -- which you have ignored throughout this entire thread even while baiting Yafet to answer to yours. :|

[Higher Truth]

Zemmy:

HT -- you haven't answered my question. How does the shroud of Turin remotely tell you that Yeshua was hung on a cross, not a pole?

HT:

The shroud is a burial cloth from the same period. I do not believe that it is the burial cloth of Yeshua any more than you do. What the paper that I posted was trying to put forth, was to demonstrate the techniques used by the Romans for execution at the time of Messiah. The writers of this paper took into account all relevent historical and forensic evidence available. They used the imprint on the shroud to illustrate the method of fastening one to the cross.If we want to know the application of an instrument of execution, it is usually best to go to those who implemented that device, which was the Romans.You are welcome to believe what ever you want to fulfill your theology Zemmy. I prefer to go with Roman historical information put forth by researchers in a peer reviewed enviroment. If you have any documents of that caliber that you are willing to produce, I will be happy to review them.

[Sephania]

You are welcome to believe what ever you want to fulfill your theology Zemmy

Do we need to drop to this level? Let us post according to 1 Thes. 5:11 :)

[muffler dragon]

Just wanted to let you know that you have my support Zayit. I have never seen you post anything just to support your own theology.

As far as I'm concerned, this drops the level of respect I have for this poster.

Nathan

[ShirChadash]

Zemmy:

You are welcome to believe what ever you want to fulfill your theology Zemmy. Well -- first of all


^_^



*wiping brow* gosh, I'm glad to hear that. I was quite afraid I didn't have your permission to believe whatever I will, seeing as how I need your permission and all. :D

Secondly -- you haven't the first bit of a clue what I believe about much of anything, nor my criteria for determining what I shall accept and reject, thank you very much. So you can keep your snide comments to yourself.

Thirdly, you have presented nothing... absolutely not one ounce of evidence that it had to have been a crossbeam Yeshua carried and not a pole/pale/stake. What you have done -- is exactly what Yafet has claimed, and your "evidence" and "proofs" have ranged from the weak to the utterly laughable. As re: the shroud ( ^_^ )Yafet already mentioned to you that the widespread action of crucifying on a Tav-cross didn't begin until at least a century later


While crosses were in use at this time, it was very very limited. Mainly there were two types of execution stakes, one which was an upside down Y, and another was simply a pole. Crosses began to be used widely circa 160 c.e. and later.

and I won't even begin to get into the issue of carbon dating. Oy.

I say again. Show me one ounce of proof anyone has that Yeshua was on a Tav-shaped cross. You can't. Neither can anyone show me any proof that He wasn't. *I* haven't any theology on this one, but you certainly seem to -- and you seem to be willing to hold onto the tiniest shred of "evidence" in the hopes of foisting your view onto me and others here who may disagree with you, or at least (like me) simply take a middle road. Read my posts again HT, *I* am not the one desperately trying to prove my theology correct. :wave:

I prefer to go with Roman historical information put forth by researchers in a peer reviewed enviroment. If you have any documents of that caliber that you are willing to produce, I will be happy to review them.

Now that -- that's just funny. You probably don't know why that is funny, but alas...

Lastly, your above post to me is indicative of your attitude, as usual, toward others posting here. So I will, along with others who have done so, bid you au revoir on this thread.

What was the answer again to my question HT -- are you Messianic? :confused: You care to answer that one, or are you just into playing "posting" dodgeball?

[simchat_torah]

HT -- are you Messianic, by the way? I've always wondered, but forgot to ask before.
Many have asked this question literally dozens of times. HT has only said negative comments concerning MJ'ism and has never once answered this question. I have pointedly asked multiple times, as well have moderators.


It is fruitless to ask.

Yet he makes threads demanding to know who is jewish? lol... oh well.

[ShirChadash]

Rofl -- I saw that and almost posted a ^_^ but I figure I don't need to be getting warnings over this stuff LOL. Of course -- I find it interesting he takes it upon himself to set so many "straight" here if he isn't in fact a Messianic, eh?

OH my, I must neeeeeed a lot of setting straight... ^_^

[Higher Truth]

Zemmy:


Yafet already mentioned to you that the widespread action of crucifying on a Tav-cross didn't begin untilat least a century later


HT:


He mentioned, but once again did not site any sources


Zemmy:


Show me one ounce of proof anyone has that Yeshua was on a Tav-shaped cross. You can't.




Let’s take a look at the Epistle of Barnabas. We all know that this is not part of the cannon, but early church fathers such as Eusebius and Origen have referenced it. It is dated late first century or so. I have had other discussions on this forum where people cited the writing of Eusebius to prove that there was an “original” Hebrew book of Matthew, and an “original” Hebrew book of Hebrews, so I can not see any problem submitting this as evidence. Here are three different translations:

Barnabas 9:7For the scripture saith; And Abraham circumcised of his householdeighteen males and three hundred. What then was the knowledgegiven unto him? Understand ye that He saith the eighteen first,and then after an interval three hundred In the eighteen 'I'stands for ten, 'H' for eight. Here thou hast JESUS (IHSOYS). Andbecause the cross in the 'T' was to have grace, He saith also threehundred. So He revealeth Jesus in the two letters, and in theremaining one the cross.

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/barnabas-lightfoot.html (http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/barnabas-lightfoot.html)



9:8 For he saith, And Abraham circumcised out of hishousehold eighteen and three hundred. What, then, wasthe knowledge that was given by this? Learn ye, thathe mentioneth the eighteen first, and then, havingmade an interval, he mentioneth the three hundred. Inthe eighteen, IH, you have Jesus; and because thecross in the letter T was about to convey the grace ofredemption, he mentioneth also the three hundred.Therefore, he showeth Jesus in the two letters, IH,and the cross in the one, T.

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/barnabas-hoole.html (http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/barnabas-hoole.html)



8 For it says, "And Abraham circumcised from his household eighteen men and three hundred." What then was the knowledge that was given to him? Notice that he first mentions the eighteen, and after a pause the three hundred. The eighteen is I (=ten) and H (=8) -- you have Jesus -- and because the cross was destined to have grace in the T he says "and three hundred." So he indicates Jesus in the two letters and the cross in the other.

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/barnabas-lake.html (http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/barnabas-lake.html)



In the above quotes, he clearly defines the execution device as being in the shape of a “T”.





BTW:

The hunting in packs is a getting old. Please support your own arguments with your own proof.

[ShirChadash]

*shaking head*

Be well, HT.

[iitb]

Okay, it seems that the responses in this thread are starting to turn into personal attacks. Either discuss the issue at hand without attacking each other, or this thread will be closed.

Justin
Senior Moderator

[Higher Truth]

Zemmy:

Oh gosh -- yes, and Eusebios and Origen are at the top of my list, for trusted sources.

HT:

Might want to defer to Simchat on that one, because the basis for the "validity" of the HRV translation that he uses comes from the writings of Eusebius.

[simchat_torah]

I don't accept the HRV btw.

But it looks like Justin's request isn't being adhered to.

Wanna close it up justin?

[iitb]

Wanna close it up justin?Eh, I think we were posting at the same time. My warning, however, still stands.

[ShirChadash]

My apologies for getting a bit snitty myself. I'm having a bit of a rough time of it, right now, in unrelated-to-online things and I'll just smile and say, peace folks.

[Higher Truth]

Simchat:

I don't accept the HRV btw.

HT:

Okay, sorry. I guess you do not use that translation anymore. At one time you were defending it, you said you had two copies, so I assumed that it was your main translation.

My mistake

[simchat_torah]

I still have two copies. I use them to study, but that doesn't mean I accept them. I also have copies of the Koran, the Mormon bible, Catholic translations, etc...

I study many things.

I accept the idea of Aramaic original manuscripts, but not necessarily the HRV. But I do use it as a reference tool.

Nice try at being coy though.

[blessed2]

the specific shape of the symbol is vastly less important than the act (Messiah's sacrifice) and it's purpose (redemption of all people, "to the Jew first") Amen! Just what I was thinking!

I think that the evil one must delight when we get so drawn into nit picking over the gnat that we stop seeing the camel.......or nit picking at the letter and missing the heart.

To always promote the truth, without allowing the feelings get involved as He always did.
He who?
I think "love" is abundantly feeling. A search of scriptures concerning Love, His want of our love, His love for us, love for each other, could be enlightening.
Mercy is an application of love....if G-d gave us what we deserved mankind wouldn't have gotten beyond Eden.


Galatians 5

For all the law is fulfilled in one word, even in this; Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.

But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith,Meekness, temperance: against such there is no law

Let us not be desirous of vain glory, provoking one another, envying one another.

1 John 4
16 And we have known and believed the love that God hath to us. God is love; and he that dwelleth in love dwelleth in God, and God in him.

1 John 4
7 Beloved, let us love one another: for love is of God; and every one that loveth is born of God, and knoweth God.

Furthermore:

Philippians 2
3 Let nothing be done through strife or vainglory; but in lowliness of mind let each esteem other better than themselves.
Titus 3
9 But avoid foolish questions, and genealogies, and contentions, and strivings about the law; for they are unprofitable and vain.

[simchat_torah]

He who?
I think "love" is abundantly feeling.
Love is a choice, not a 'feeling'.

[Henaynei]

Love is an act, see 1 cor 13 - everything listed there is an act. WHEN we *choose* how to act, THEN feelings follow.

4 Love is patient and kind, not jealous, not boastful, 5 not proud, rude or selfish, not easily angered, and it keeps no record of wrongs. 6 Love does not gloat over other people's sins but takes its delight in the truth. 7 Love always bears up, always trusts, always hopes, always endures.

BeWare - whether with HaShem or our earthly relationships - if the measure of our love is based on whether we have feelings of love the relationship is doomed to an early demise. The adversary has more access to our feelings than any other part of our personhood and is extremely adept at manipulating our feelings.

There are several groups today within the Body of Messiah whose entire relationship with the person and "power" of HaSham is almost entirely based on their feelings - they know when something "is of G-d" because they can "feel it in their spiritman" - they determine what is and is not sin by the indication the "the spirit tells me - I can feel it" and so on.

Yirmeyahu 17: 9"The heart is more deceitful than anything else and mortally sick. Who can fathom it?

[Higher Truth]

So one thing that we all can agree on, is that some Jews are offended by the sign of the cross. We also know that this came about by the abuse that was put on the Jews by people calling themselves "Christian", but by their fruit it is obvious that they were not. In Isreal, if there is a procession where someone is carrying a cross, the orthodox Jews will stop their car, and put their head down so that they do not have to look at it. It has been said, that the derogatory name "kike", came from the fact that when Jewish immigrants entered Ellis Island, they could not write in English, so the immigration people told them to sign their name with an "X". Because the X looked too much like a cross, they decided to use a circle instead. The Yiddish word for circle is "keikl". So the Jews became known to the Immigration people as "kiekl men" or "kikes"

[Higher Truth]

Simchat:


HT has only said negative comments concerning MJ'ism and has never once answered this question

HT:

For the record, the only criticism that I have made, is of this forums "brand" of MJ, which is mixed up with all sorts of other doctrine such as kabballah etc.

[adriel]

I think we should take a harder look at the archeloogy! It's not wonderfully convincing and what of the dating process! It this another fraud like the messianic seal?

[blessed2]

Love is a choice, not a 'feeling'.</FONT></FONT>
You miss my point.

everything listed there is an act. WHEN we *choose* how to act, THEN feelings follow
This is the point.

There are several groups today within the Body of Messiah whose entire relationship with the person and "power" of HaSham is almost entirely based on their feelings I totally agree, but can we throw the baby out with the bath water?

Love for others is usually first an act of obedience then the heart follows. This is the goal no? Changing the heart.....Create in me O G-d a pure heart.