Re: Jesus crucified or pole-ified?

Steven Carr (steven@bowness.demon.co.uk)
Tue, 1 Apr 1997 21:24:35 +0100

Thore Bjerklund Karlsen <tbk@sn.no> writes
1/4
Jehova's Witnesses claim Jesus was not nailed to a cross, but a pole.
Any truth to this? They have a whole chapter in their bible explaining
why they use 'pole' instead of 'cross' in their translations, so it's
too much to list here. I already did once in a Norwegian newsgroup, but
nobody seems to know.

CARR
Gosh, this takes me back. Dredging my memory from about 4/5 years ago
when I last looked at this, I believe that the JWs make great use of the
word 'stauros' which has the main meaning of pole. I believe that the
official JW jargon, which all JWs must use, is 'torture stake'.

It is true that the word does basically mean pole, but by 30 or so AD ,a
cross-bar was almost always added. The JWs give some misleading quotes.
Some of their quotes just miss out the parts which say that a cross-bar
was used. Typical JW dishonesty.

One reason that the insist that Jesus was crucified on a stake and not a
cross is simply to be different. They want to be different from other
Christians and this is one way of doing it. It helps them feel that they
have special knowledge.

It goes without saying that they have contradicted themselves on this
issue. Early Watchtowers had a cross on the cover. There is an early
Watchtower which not only says there was a cross, but tells you exactly
how much it weighed.

It is just possible that Jesus was not crucified on a cross. Most people
were though. I doubt if he cared much one way or the other at the time.

>Also, what does the word ksy'lon mean? This is used somewhere in the
>explanation, but it doesn't say what it means, only where it is used.

CARR
No idea, I'll see if I can look it up.

-- 
Steven Carr steven@bowness.demon.co.uk
Visit the UK's leading atheist Web page
 http://www.bowness.demon.co.uk/