Jehovah's Witnesses Why do you believe that Jesus died on a stake?

Even YOUR Bible says that there were NAILS (more than one) driven thru His hands. If he was hung on a stake, only ONE nail would have been necessary. You changed your Bible so it said stake instead of cross on all the verses necessary but I guess you were not careful when it came to this verse huh?

John 20:25

Consequently the other disciples would say to him: “We have seen the Lord!” But he said to them: “Unless I see in his hands the print of the nails and stick my finger into the print of the nails and stick my hand into his side, I will certainly not believe.”

NEW WORLD TRANSLATION

Update:

EDIT: @Simple Truth

So you are saying that the historian has proven GOD's word to be INCORRECT? The only explanation for the Bible to say NAILS is that there were MORE than one. This can only be possible if you are nailed on BOTH hands: ON A CROSS

Update 2:

EDIT: @Abernathy the Dull

SOOOO wrong... Do your research: anatomists and medical experts have concluded that a nail set through the middle of the palm of a hand would not be sufficient to hold most of the weight of an adult male on a cross. The nail would tear through the ligaments and tendons in the hand. Therefore, it is unlikely that Christ was crucified through the middle of the palm of the hand.

Jesus also could not have been nailed thru His wrists because there is bone in there and the Scripture says:

John 19:36

"In fact, these things took place in order for the scripture to be fulfilled: “Not a bone of his will be crushed.” "

So it had to have been thru the radius and urna bones where only ONE nail could have been used. Try to put your arms in a straight position mimicking the stake... there is no way you can drive more than one nail in that position, the arms can not overlap straightly enough to drive TWO nails UNLESS it is done on a T shape cross.

Update 3:

EDIT: @ Rolando

The verse in question clearly states "unless I see in his hands the print of the nails" He never said " and feet."

At best, you have only proven that there was more than ONE nail used in Jesus' crucifixion.

Update 4:

EDIT: @Elijah

Yes, that's what your "higher ups" say in their literature. But you still did not provide any logical answer for the verse in question. And at no point did I say that it was okay to worship the cross because as you well mentioned, it would be a sin.

Here a little something else for you that the New World Translation says:

Matthew 27:37

"Also, they posted above his head the charge against him, in writing: “This is Jesus the King of the Jews.”" Why doesn't it say "above his hands"? It paints a clear picture to the one that wants to see it...

Update 5:

EDIT: @Don Key

Nope. This proves they DID change some things but WERE NOT careful to change EVERYTHING... and unless you have an explanation that satisfies the two, then the lies become apparent

14 Answers

Relevance
  • X
    Lv 7
    1 decade ago
    Favorite Answer

    Nobody changed anything......as is usual with you and your fellow hate group friends, your claims aren't only wrong, but they're ridiculous.

    Jesus was put to death on a stake, with his hands together over his head, and his feet together beneath him. One nail/spike went through both hands into the stake, and one nail/spike went through both feet beneath him and then the entire stake was swung upright. There were nails (plural) used for the impalement.....one for the hands, and one for the feet. So the usage of the word "nails" is appropriate.

    Numerous Bible scholars also attest to the fact that the Biblical terms used to describe the implement of Jesus' death IN NO WAY indicate a stake with a separate cross-beam attached to it.

    - If you choose to live in fantasyland and reject sound logic and continue to believe Christ died on a cross, that's your right. But you'll always be wrong in thinking so.

  • 1 decade ago

    'Even YOUR Bible says that there were NAILS (more than one) driven thru His hands. If he was hung on a stake, only ONE nail would have been necessary.'

    At least two were probably used. A stake doesn't demand only one nail.

    An archeological find of a victim of crucifixion found that two nails were used for his feet, instead of one, which 'wouldn't have been necessary,' according to you. But the fact is two were used.

    'The Bible to say NAILS is that there were MORE than one. This can only be possible if you are nailed on BOTH hands: ON A CROSS.'

    Now how is that? It is certainly possible that someone nailed to a stake could have multiple nails in his hands.

    @ upyr1

    Actually, 'crux' in Latin had a similar meaning to Greek 'stauros' - a pole or wooden instrument. 'Cross' is not inherent to the original Latin meaning.

    [edit]

    'The nail would tear through the ligaments and tendons in the hand.'

    The nails could have gone between the bones of the forearm. The Greek word for 'hand' encompasses our modern hand and forearm.

    'Try to put your arms in a straight position mimicking the stake... there is no way you can drive more than one nail in that position, the arms can not overlap straightly enough to drive TWO nails UNLESS it is done on a T shape cross.'

    The Bible never said the arms overlapped. That is not a requirement on a stake.

    [edit]

    @ Rustic B -

    How could pictures in Watchtowers be cited as evidence as one nail for the arms, when none of the artists were eyewitnesses of the crucifixion?

    Also, the Watchtower has printed: 'It just is not possible at this point to state with certainty how many nails were used. Any drawings of Jesus on the stake should be understood as artists’ productions that offer merely a representation based on the limited facts that we have.' 4-1-84 Watchtower, pg 31.

    Clearly, JWs do not insist only one nail was used, as you imply.

  • 1 decade ago

    Question: Why do you believe that Jesus died on a stake?

    Jehovah's Witnesses agree with the questioner that more then one nail was used. However the word cross does not take nails into consideration. For example: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cross

    "A cross is a geometrical figure consisting of two lines or bars perpendicular to each other, dividing one or two of the lines in half."

    So to prove a cross was used the questioner would need to show two perpendicular wood parts. Instead, the bible only mentions one tree was used or one [stauros].

    Acts 5:30 "The God of our fathers raised up Jesus whom you murdered by hanging on a tree."

  • Elijah
    Lv 7
    1 decade ago

    Is having nails driven into the hands while on a cross REALLY "the only explanation"?

    This is hardly what could be considered as 'conclusive proof'. The human hand (...and wrist. Since the wrists have always been considered by anatomists as part of the hands, some medical men think the nails were driven BETWEEN the small bones of the wrists to prevent the stripping out that could have occurred if they had been driven through the palms. This would be consistent with the Bible’s own use of the word “hand” to include the wrist in such texts as Genesis 24:47, where bracelets are said to be worn on the “hands,” and Judges 15:14, where reference is made to fetters that were on Samson’s “hands.”) is large enough to have multiple nails driven into it whether with arms outstretched or stretched above.

    The word "Stau·ros´ in both the classical Greek and Koine carries no thought of a "cross" made of two timbers. It means only an upright stake, pale, pile, or pole:

    "The Greek word for `cross' (Stau·ros´) means primarily an upright stake or beam, and secondarily a stake used as an instrument for punishment and execution." - Douglas' New Bible Dictionary of 1985 under "Cross," page 253.

    And noted Greek scholar W. E. Vine mentions the following concerning this subject:

    "STAUROS denotes, primarily, an upright pale or stake. On such malefactors were nailed for execution. Both the noun and the verb stauroo, to fasten to a stake or pale, are originally to be distinguished from the ecclesiastical form of a two beamed cross." - Vine's Expository Dictionary of Old and New Testament Words, 1981, Vol. 1, p. 256. Vine also goes on to describe the Chaldean origin of the two-piece cross and how it was adopted from the pagans by Christendom in the third century C.E. as a symbol of Christ's impalement.

    An additional related news article:

    'Jesus did not die on cross, says scholar'

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/religio...

    But even IF we ignore the evidence and assume that Jesus WAS killed on a cross, the most important thing is that the cross should not be venerated. No instrument, whether it was an upright single torture stake, a cross, an arrow, a lance, or a knife, should be used in worship.

    Not only should the thought of venerating the very instrument of Jesus' execution be abhorrent in itself, but the symbol of the cross is also a pagan symbol...idolatry that God commands us to "guard ourselves" from:

    “Guard yourselves from idols.” (1 John 5:21)

    “What agreement does God’s temple have with idols?” (2 Corinthians 6:16)

    Further reading:

    Did Jesus Really Die on a Cross?

    http://www.watchtower.org/e/200604a/article_01.htm

    Why True Christians Do Not Use the Cross in Worship

    http://www.watchtower.org/e/bh/appendix_05.htm

  • How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago

    A catholic scholar/Historian recently said that he can find no Historical proof that Jesus or anyone at the time was crucified on a cross.

    He said that he did numerous researches on Crucifixions by the Romans but couldn't find any ancient document concerning Roman Crucifixion.

    So maybe the Jehovah's witnesses are correct this time.

    @ Sam.....

    Sam, I am not saying anything; I was just quoting what the Great Historian said.

    @ upyr1...

    first of all, I am not a guy.

    I was only quoting a Christian Historian. Can't you read?

    Personally, I think Jesus was a good guy who had a fantastic message 'LOVE ONE ANOTHER" I also think he died on some gadget designed by the Romans. Whether it was a cross, a stake or a pick axe, it's not important to me.

  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago

    THe guy calling himself simple truth- has his argument shot out of the water due to the word Crucify for to crucify which is crucifigere- which is a compound word made by the words for cross and to fix. So it literally means to fix to a cross if they used a stake- Palus in Latin they would have said palusfixtion from palus faigere- or to fix to a stake. They will claim the Bible was changed I believe their objection to the cross is that they believe it is some sort of a peg an phallus symbol- which if I'm right about that would make their use of a stake really funny.

  • 1 decade ago

    Actually Sam makes a good argument that helps support JW's.

    When people claim that they have there own translation

    and that they twist it to fit there own teachings, this point proves that they don't.

    I mean don’t you think that if they twist scriptures

    wouldn't they have re-written it to have read "Nail" to further there teaching of an upright stake rather the a cross

    Source(s): Heres a Big HEE HAAAA for you Sam
  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago

    Here is Jesus’ crucifixion as depicted in Watchtower Bible & Tract Society publications, e.g. "Knowledge That Leads to Everlasting Life," 1995, p.67.

    Note Jesus' arms above his head transfixed by a single nail and the inscription above Jesus' hands.

    http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_dTSEBZ7tOe0/R8pcB7jeJuI/...

    They clearly believe it was just one nail.

  • 1 decade ago

    Unless I see in his hands the print of the nails ( that bore through his feet and hands compare with Luke 24;39 ) and stick my finger into the print of the nails and stick my hand into his side ,I will certainly not believe.

  • 1 decade ago

    Gotta love how the NWT refers to the Holy Spirit as he.

Still have questions? Get your answers by asking now.