GROK on the meaning of "stauros" in first century greek literature

n first-century Greek non-Christian literature, the term stauros (σταυρός) primarily referred to an upright stake or pole. Its usage was rooted in its basic meaning: a wooden object driven into the ground, often for practical or punitive purposes. The word itself derives from the verb histemi (ἵστημι), meaning "to stand" or "to set up," reflecting its function as something erected vertically.

Outside of Christian contexts, stauros appears in various Greek texts with a consistent focus on its physical form rather than any symbolic or religious connotation. For example, in historical accounts or descriptions of punishment, it denoted an instrument of execution or torture, typically a single upright beam on which a person could be impaled, tied, or otherwise affixed. This aligns with its use in the ancient world, where such devices were employed by Greeks, Persians, and later Romans (who adapted it into the more familiar cross shape, crux, in Latin).

In the works of authors like Herodotus (fifth century BCE, but influential in later Greek usage), stauros is used to describe executions involving stakes or impalement, as seen in his Histories (e.g., Book 3.159, where a Persian official is executed on a pole). By the first century CE, writers like Diodorus Siculus (e.g., Bibliotheca Historica 2.18) and Plutarch occasionally reference stauros in the context of punishments, though the term remained broad enough to encompass variations in execution methods—sometimes a simple stake, sometimes a structure with a crossbeam, depending on cultural practices.

Importantly, in non-Christian Greek literature of this period, stauros carried no inherent theological meaning. It was a utilitarian term, tied to construction, boundary marking, or, most commonly, execution. The Roman influence on Greek-speaking regions by the first century likely began associating stauros more frequently with crucifixion (a practice Rome standardized), but the word itself retained its original, simpler sense of an upright pole in many contexts.

So, in summary, stauros in first-century Greek non-Christian literature was a practical term for an upright wooden stake, often linked to execution or punishment, without the symbolic weight it later gained in Christian writings.

GROK on Joseph's use of stauros:In The Jewish War 5.11.1 (5.449–451), during the siege of Jerusalem in 70 CE, Titus crucifies Jewish captives to demoralize the defenders: "τοὺς δὲ αἰχμαλώτους οἱ στρατιῶται...ἀνεσταύρουν...ἐπὶ σταυρῶν" ("the soldiers crucified the prisoners...on stauroi"). Josephus notes the scale—hundreds daily—highlighting stauros as the instrument of execution, likely a vertical stake with or without a crossbeam (the exact shape isn’t specified).

The Roman war machine was known for its ruthless efficiency, it would certainly be a waste of resources to use more when less would work at least as well and likely better than more. 

Against Litigious XVIII

 Litigious:You condemn the Catholic Church for “tolerating” scandal while defending the Watchtower

Me:It is not my place to condemn or exonerate anyone: Like my Lord and Savior I let JEHOVAH'S Word do the condemning or exonerating.

John ch.5:45NIV"But do not think I will accuse you before the Father. Your accuser is Moses, on whom your hopes are set."

Litigious:an organization with a long list of failed predictions (1914, 1925, 1975), doctrinal reversals, and disfellowshippings over teachings that were later changed. You appeal to 1 Corinthians 13:9 to justify this (“we know in part”), but then claim that none of the changes were doctrinally significant. That’s simply not true:

What I actually said was that they had no theological significance,that is no impact on the proper identifying and worship of JEHOVAH God the first century church and your own church has also made adjustments to its beliefs so having an incomplete understanding of certain matters does not disqualify one from sacred service,tolerating mass murder esp. of fellow believers and open rebellion of JEHOVAH'S Law especially by teachers/by those taking the lead is clearly disqualifying. 

Revelation ch.2:5NIV"Consider how far you have fallen! Repent and do the things you did at first. If you do not repent, I will come to you and remove your lampstand from its place."

•Litigious: You once forbade organ transplants as cannibalism. Now they’re allowed.

Me this is a lie it was a conscience issue both then and now,

https://aservantofjehovah.blogspot.com/2025/03/an-oversimplification-examined.html

• litigious:You once condemned vaccinations. Now you require them.

More lies it was a conscience issue and vaccines aren't a religious requirement we are required to obey the law.

•litigious; You once taught that millions alive in 1914 would never die. Now that generation has passed.

And Jesus disciples expected a restoration of the kingdom of David in there lifetime see luke ch.24:21,

Your governing body has reversed itself on major life-altering teachings. These are not small “clarifications,” but authoritative doctrines you claim were taught by Jehovah’s spirit-directed organization. If your organization can be “spirit-led” while teaching error, then your accusation against the Catholic Church collapses. You can’t demand perfection from the Catholic Church while excusing continual revision and contradiction in your own group.

Our major doctrines deal with the correct identity of the one true God and his only priest not interpreting prophesy which the brothers have ALWAYS understood to be a gradual pitfalls ridden process Daniel ch.12:8,,9, the idea that our having the same incomplete understanding of recorded prophecy that ALL of JEHOVAH'S Servants have had throughout sacred issue is disqualifying and that Christendom's bloodstained history and tolerance for open not secret mind you but open and obstinate defiance of JEHOVAH'S Law is laughable.

Litigious;You quote Revelation 3:19—“Those whom I love I rebuke and discipline.” That’s true. But WHO has the authority to rebuke and discipline in the name of Christ? The Watchtower? A committee of men claiming to speak for Jehovah? Christ gave that authority to Peter and the apostles (Matthew 16:18–19, Luke 22:32, John 21:15–17). He promised that the gates of hell would not prevail against His Church, and that the Holy Spirit would lead her into all truth (John 16:13). The Catholic Church, through apostolic succession and the Magisterium, has preserved that authority for 2,000 years. You have no priesthood, no sacraments, and no succession. And your governing body, unlike the apostles, makes anonymous, reversible decisions, often with deadly consequences (such as the blood transfusion ban or medical doctrine errors). How is that consistent with Christ’s promise?

Your mass murdering thuggery clearly exposes you as a tool of Satan and not the prince of peace we are the only global Christian community enjoying the peace JEHOVAH Promised at Isaiah ch.2:1-4.

There is no statistical evidence at all that shows that people are more likely to die if they opt for bloodless surgeries,far more have been killed by christendom violence and the deaths here are malicious.

The Bible is my guide respecting all my beliefs, the murderous hypocrisy of christendom and her tolerance for open moral corruption among her teachers plainly disqualifies her as any counselor from JEHOVAH.

In conclusion, you’ve judged the Catholic Church based on the sins of her members while ignoring the doctrinal instability, historical scandals, and contradictions of your own organization. You’ve quoted Scripture selectively and interpreted it apart from the very Church through which Christ intended it to be understood. If anything, your arguments prove the need for an authoritative, Spirit-led Church—not a decentralized group of self-appointed interpreters. The Catholic Church acknowledges sin, calls for repentance, and has the historical, biblical, and theological grounding to correct error without contradicting the truth entrusted to her by Christ.

No the Bible plainly disqualifies you for your tolerating of defiant,obstinate rebellion against JEHOVAH'S Law makes the Church guilty,if the sinning were happening in secret it would be one thing but your teachers are advocating for sin and moral corruption openly and your church refuses to act my brothers and I are united by JEHOVAH'S Spirit in our determination to keep JEHOVAH's TRUE CHURCH as pure as his humanly possible,we certainly aren't going to be tolerating open defiance of JEHOVAH'S Law,or involvement in the wars and corrupt politics, we are one just as JEHOVAH promised through our Lord.

John ch.17:22NIV" have given them the glory that you gave me, that they may be one as we are one—"

You do not protect truth by abandoning the Church Christ founded. You protect it by remaining faithful to her, even when her members fall.

That cabal of mass murdering thugs called christendom is Satan's horde not JEHOVAH'S Church.

The unchristian cross II

 Did Jesus die on a cross?

Good Morning America reported this week on a thesis by Swedish theologian Gunnar Samuelsson http://www.exegetics.org/ in which he claims there is no historical support for the notion that Jesus died on a cross. If this is true, what effect should it have on Christians?

"There is no distinct punishment called 'crucifixion,' no distinct punishment device called a 'crucifix' anywhere mentioned in any of the ancient texts including the Gospels," he told ABCNews.com.

For his thesis, Crucifixion in Antiquity: An Inquiry into the Background of the New Testament Terminology of Crucifixion, Samuelson analyzed thousands of ancient texts to compare their wording with the wording of the gospel accounts and what he found is that there is simply no proof that Jesus was nailed to a cross.

There are two Greek words in question: stauros (stow-rose or stav-rose) and xylon (ksee-lon). Peter seems to favor xylon. For example, in his speech recorded at Acts 5:30 Peter says, "The God of our fathers raised up Jesus, whom you slew and hanged on a [xylon]." Some bibles translate that as "cross" and some as "tree." Which is correct?

Genesis 40:19 talks about the execution of an Egyptian, his body being 'hung on a tree.' When the passage was translated into the Greek Septuagint version, the translators used a form of the word xylon. Jerome's Latin Vulgate says the baker was to be hanged on a cruce, a form of the word crux. In English, some bibles say the baker was hanged on a cross, but the primary definition of crux is tree, not cross. Further, there is no historical evidence that the Egyptians crucified people, There is, however, historical evidence that they displayed the dead bodies of people with whom they were displeased by hanging them on trees or impaling them on poles.

Joshua 10:24 relates an account of Joshua winning a victory over 5 kings, and says he put their dead bodies on display. Again, the translators of the Greek Septuagint used the word xylon. Jerome translated it stipites - posts or poles - in his latin Vulgate. Are we to believe Joshua hung the bodies of the 5 kings on crosses, 1500 years before Jesus was executed? Or is it more likely he followed an Egyptian practice with which he was familiar?

Esther 5:14 refers to Haman preparing a stake 75 feet high on which to hang Mordecai. The Greek translates it xylon, the Latin trabem (beam). What purpose would have been served by a crossbeam 75 feet in the air?

What about stauros?

The gospel accounts, Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, use stauros about 10 times with reference to Jesus' executional implement. The remainder of the Bible uses it another dozen times. Several reputable Greek dictionaries advise that the definition of stauros is 'a stake or pole.' For example, Vine's Expository Dictionary of Greek Words says of stauros: "Primarily, an upright pale or stake. On such malefactors were nailed for execution." Paul Schmidt's The History of Jesus says stauros "means every upright standing pale or tree trunk.” The Greek-English Lexicon of Liddell and Scott gives the first definition of stauros as "an upright stake or pole."

In spite of this, you would be hard pressed to find an English bible that doesn't translate stauros as "cross" when referring to Jesus' execution. (I looked at over a dozen online, and the only one that didn't translate stauros as "cross" was the Jehovah's Witnesses New World Translation.) http://www.watchtower.org/e/bible/index.htm

One of the most telling points in Samuelsson's research is this: he points out that in the ancient literature, the word stauros is used with reference to hanging fruit or animal carcasses up to dry. It's rather silly to think of fruit being crucified.

The fact of Jesus' execution is far more important than the implement on which he died. The fact that translators allowed their preconceptions to sway them to translate stauros as cross instead of stake or pole has to make one wonder about the accuracy of the rest of their translations.

And a serious Christian should also wonder where the "cross" idea came from. If, as Alexander Hislop suggested, it originated as the symbol for the god Tammuz, it is certainly inappropriate for Christians. Even if it didn't, isn't wearing a little gold copy of someone's murder weapon on a chain around your neck a little gruesome? -Phoenix Signs of the Times Examiner

Bad blood indeed.

 

A glimpse inside the spaceX engine room

 

On the other two Reich.

 

Higher ed. is at the point of diminishing returns?

 

More on why the new world translation is scholarly and accurate