Did Jesus Really Die on a Cross?

Look up at most  Christian church windows or somewhere on the building and you will usually see a cross. This is a reminder of how Jesus supposedly died on behalf of mankind, but is this idea accurate? Did he really die on a cross?


Some Bible translations convey the idea that  yes he did. Take Today's English Version for instance, say that the soldiers forced Simon from Cyrene, "...to carry the cross of Jesus.  The word cross
however is translated from stauros.  And that is a problem.


Greek scholar W. E. Vine tells us why.  He says  stauros "denotes primarily an upright pale or stake. One such malefactors were nailed for execution. Both the noun and the verb stauroo,  which means  tofasten to a stake or pale, are originally to be distinguished from the ecclesiastical form of a two beamed cross."


So what is it that Jesus was impaled on really an upright pole or a two-beamed cross? Another word Bible writers used when describing  what Jesus was impaled on. They said it was a xylon which it t urns out meant  a piece of timber or wooden stake that the Romans used to crucify criminals and those found guilty of sedition.


Although this picture of Jesus on a cross has been burned into our minds over the years it is wrong. This the conclusion of the editors of the  Critical Lexicon and Concordance.  Even  The Catholic Encyclopedia  admits: "Certain it is at any rate, that the cross originally consisted of a simple vertical pole, sharpened at its upper end."


Following the death of the last of the apostles apostates succeeded in getting church leaders to accept ideas adopted from Asian religions such as the Hindus and the Buddhists. According to Vine's  Expository Dictionary of New  Testament Words by the middle of the 3rd Century A.D. many such things had crept into the Christian church. Constantine, for example  was one who encourage his subjects and followers to accept such symbols in their worship.


Historians, however, have found no evidence  of the use of the  use of  a stake or a cross in the worship of early Christians. They used no idols. As a matter of fact Paul at 2 Cor 6: 14-16 asked: "What agreement does God's temple have with idols?" 


And it does not  make much sense, much sense as one 17th-century writer pointed out for Jesus followers to be worshiping the object on which  such an agonizing death does it?


So those who promote cross worship have it wrong on two counts: First of all   facts show that Jesus was impaled  on a stauros (xylon)  or stake not a two-beamed cross. Secondly the early Christians never  used any such thing to commemorate Jesus' execution.

"A Land Flowing with Milk and Honey"?

What exactly did God mean when he told Abraham's descendants  that they would inherit a land flowing with milk and honey?



There have been a number of explanations of this.Some of  have suggested that the refrence  was only  to a sweet syrup from dates, figs or grapes  or perhaps to the wild honey such as  Judge Samson on one occasion scooped from the carcass of a lion he had killed as described in Judges 14: 8, 9.


But fairly recently archaeologists have discovered an ancient apiary   at Tel Rehov in modern-day Israel which dates from the 10th to early 9th centuries B.C.E.  Here they found over 30 hives in three rows and scholars estimate that "as much as half a ton of honey could be culled each year from these hives.


This discovery proved that  that keeping busy was a highly developed industry by the time of Solomon. In addition to using the honey it itself  the Jews used the beeswax in both the manufacture of metal and leather products as well as for writing boards with panels filled with the beeswax which could be written down and then melted down and reused in other boards.


So the description of the land as a land" flowing with milk  (There was an abundant supply of wholesome milk from cows, sheep and goats as well.)and honey" was very true and and painted part of an accurate Biblical picture of The Promised Land.

Bricks Corroborate Accuracy of Moses' Writing

The making of bricks in the 15th-century  B.C.E. illustrates again the accuracy of the Biblical record.
Exodus 1 :14 and 5:10-14 Moses described the ancient making of bricks by the Egyptians using captive Hebrews  in the Nile River valley using clay mortar and straw is back. This account was accurate in all of its details.

 According to the International Standard Bible Encylopedia  the Israelite slaves in this case would have mixed water with this clay and then carried this to the spot where the brick maker was pouring this mixture into a mold on the ground.

When this had dried  to a consistency  where it would not run he would take this wooden mold or form away and leave the damp bricks to continue drying in the sun.

Further corroboration of both the Biblical account was found in two other sources, The first is  a wall painting of the 15th-century B.C.E. tomb of Reckhmire in Thebes illustrating the manufacture of bricks during the era covered in the Biblical account. The second is the papyrus documents from the second millennium B.C.E.  which describe the making of bricks in this way by slaves or serfs. including  the daily production quota that they  would have had to reach.

Esther Account Was Historically Accurate

Do you remember the story of Esther and how she was able to save her people from genocide as described in the Bible Book of Esther?


This account described how one of the King's princes, Haman the Agagite,  tried to have the Jews murdered  but he was thwarted by Mordecai and Esther who turned the tables on Haman by appealing her husband King Ahasuerus to pass an order arming the Jews so they could defend themselves against Haman's murderers as described in Esther chapter 8. In the end it was Haman and his cohorts who were destroyed.


But outside of the Bible is there any proof that this actually happened --  that this king actually existed? The Bible said he was Ahasuerus. But there is no King Ahasuerus of Persia. And this has caused  some to  question whether or not this Ahasuerus ever existed.


But eventually through their deciphering of Persian monuments  archaeologists found evidence that this Ahasuerus mentioned in Esther was Xerxes I the son of Darius the the Great. In their  transliteration of  Xerxes into Hebrew they found it  almost identical to the Ahasuerus mentioned in the book of Esther.


And everything  said in the book of Esther about Ahasuerus, his capital at Susa (Shusan) in Elam, his rule over Media and the extent of his empire from India to the island of the Mediterranean all agree with the facts about one Persian king: Xerxes.


Regarding this scholar Lewis Bayles Paton wrote, "The character of Ahasuerus, as portrayed in the Book of Esther also agrees well with the account of Xerxes given by  Herodotus and other Greek historians."


So yes, the Bible account was accurate -- further evidence of the accuracy and authenticity of the Bible.