Evacuated

The particular artwork came from Ethiopia, probably around 1900 using a style/format for religious art that had been current since the 1500's. The idea comes from John 19:1 which says:
(John 19:1-2) Pilate then took Jesus and scourged him. 2 And the soldiers braided a crown of thorns and put it on his head . . . Then, near the end of the same chapter, John refers to a later event from the same day:
(John 19:25) . . .By the [STAUROS] of Jesus, however, there were standing his mother and his mother’s sister; Mary the wife of Cloʹpas and Mary Magʹda·lene. This is depicted on the very next panel of the same folded parchment.

 

I wish people could make their mind up!!!

Where did this idea come from ?

QUIZZTIME!!
And where are these from??? EDIT: Well done @JWInsider who got the one above pretty quickly!
EDIT: And now he's got the other one (below), the old clever-cloggs!

By "however" I mean that whilst Hurtado draws strongly held conclusions from the arguments he presents, we need tp keep in mind that  he recognises that:
by "the earliest use"  he means "the earliest use" by Bible copyists he points out that "the device (adapted from pre-Christian usage)" also proposes that "this scribal device employed by ca. 200 CE" Anything that implies a tampering with the Scriptural text (other than chapters and verses and obvious technical devices for ease of use), I treat with suspicion.
Christians are fully aware of the subtle strategy employed by Satan and his agents to undermine and pollute pure teachings of true Christianity through apostasy, (likened to "gangrene" 2Tim.2:17). Paul at Gal.2:4 speaks of apostates as having been  "smuggled in" (pareisaktous), having "crept in" (pareiselthon).  2Pet. 2:1 speaks of them "smuggling in" (pareisaxousin) their "sects" (haireseis). The fact that this infiltration was well under way long before the employment of "staurogram" in the Scripture text, undermines the integrity of drawing conclusions on doctorine based on what indisputedly are later additions. 
Attractive though "schadenfreude" may be to those prone to such indulgences, it is really against the sprit of true worship and has long been identified as an undesirable trait, (compare "You should not gloat over your brother’s day on the day of his misfortune" Ob.12). I am quite sure we can say in confidence that we "did not learn the Christ to be like this" Eph.4:20. 
Nevertheless, this does not detract from the fascinating nature of the detail on this topic, bearing in mind the one who is often likely to be found in there! Thanks for the research tips. ?

I think you mean that Satan is too clever for humans for them to detect his subtle "machinations?
Yes, if that is what you meant. Certainly Adam amd Eve were overcome although Adam was not deceived. Jesus was not deceived either, and his defence of "It is written" stood him in good stead. Those who acted as a restraint in the 1st Century were not deceived, thanks to Jehovah's existing word and the gift of discernment. But some others of their contemporaries and eventually the vast majority of their successors were deceived..
Your focus of 1940, 70, 90, etc is too narrow for me, although i presume you are just using those decades as an example to illustrate your point that yesterday's "truth" becomes tomorrow's "lies"?. I suppose the most prominent example would be how adherents to the Mosaic Law, once God's "chosen people", became his enemies by clinging on once that arrangement became redundant. The new system scrolls and their impact will be interesting, (Rev 20:12), and of course the implications of Christ's subjecting himself even more so. (1Cor.15:28).
I would like to see a chart indicating the relevant proportionate value of teachings whilst at the same time indicating what has changed, what has remained constant from the first Century. I might put it together myself one of these days. ?

Interesting stuff, especially the difference between Chi Rho and Tau Rho.
Howeve,r he states:
"2)............the earliest uses of the tau-rho are not as such free-standing symbols, but form part of a special way of writing the Greek words for “cross” (stauros) and “crucify” (stauro-o), in NT texts which refer to the crucifixion of Jesus.
3) The tau-rho is not an allusion to the word “christos“.  Indeed, the letters have no relation to any terms in early Christian vocabulary.  Instead, the device (adapted from pre-Christian usage) seems to have served originally as a kind of pictographic representation of the crucified Jesus, the loop of the rho superimposed on the tau serving to depict the head of a figure on a cross.
4) So, contra the common assumption taught in art history courses, the earliest visual reference to the crucified Jesus isn’t 5th century intaglia, but this scribal device employed by ca. 200 CE. 
There's no denying that this scribal device is employed in some early Greek Scripture manuscripts. How early? With occurences, for example,  at Luke 9:23; 14:27,  P75 of the Bodmer Papyrii (imaged earlier) was originally dated as 175-200CE,. This early assignment has been recently challenged, where some favour a later date closer to the 4th Century. Other evidences, such as Chester Beatty's P45 manuscript is dated about 250CE, and contains this device at Matt.26:2 and also Luke 14:27. A further papyrus in the Bodmer colllection, P66, contains the staurogram in at least ten places in the papyrus (corresponding to chapter 19 of John's Gospel. Like P75, this papyrus is subject to similar discussion on it's antiquity, being more recently proposed as originating "in the early or middle part of the fourth century."
So, basically, we have a scribal insertion of a contemporary "Christian " symbol some 135-300 years after the establishing of the Christian congregation at Pentecost 33CE .
However, a disturbing comment is made regarding the staurogram on the Bible History Today page cited in the earlier post by @JWInsider at
https://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/daily/biblical-topics/crucifixion/the-staurogram/:
"The tau-rho staurogram, like other christograms, was originally a pre-Christian symbol. A Herodian coin featuring the Staurogram predates the crucifixion. Soon after, Christian adoption of staurogram symbols served as the first visual images of Jesus on the cross."
Larry Hurtado confirms this when discussing the Tau-Rho among other "Christian" symbols as he states: "these are all pre-Christian devices and were appropriated by early Christians." He also says "P45, P66 and P75 offer us evidence of a Christian appropriation of the tau-rho device that (whatever and whenever its origin) was already becoming familiar in Christian circles at the time that these copyists worked."  (Quotes from The Staurogram in Early Christian Manuscripts: The Earliest Visual Reference to the Crucified Jesus?)
Reference is made to Herodian coins issued about 37 BCE where the Tau Rho appears (apparently as some sort of date code?)
,
Jack Finegan, (The Archaeology of the New Testament. 1969) is referenced by Hurtado. In his book section The Cross. Abbreviations and Monograms, among other things, he cited Egyptian influences on the development and use of the Staurogram, likening it to the Egyptian ankh, a symbol of life. He presents an memorial inscription from a 4th Century tomb at Armant near Luxor on the NIle. Here the staurogram symbol is presented on the bottom 3rd right in line with the ankh and the Chi Rho symbol, (another "christogram). 

An additional aspect is the proposed influence of the use of isosephy in formulating the staurogram. This practice,  known also as gematria, seeks to find numeric relationships in words and concepts by assigning numeric values to letters and thus to words, then looking for parrallel meanings. An attempt is made to equate this to the reckoning of the wild beast's number of 666 in Rev.13:18. "Christian" Isosephists equate this number to the value determined for the name "Nero", their interpretation then misinterpreting the scripture. The staurogram is thus said by some to have a mystical significance in this regard. The whole practice has a ring of divination about it. Although Hurtado does not promote this view, it is not rejected as a contributory factor.
Whilst interesting and formidably detailed, these speculations on the early uses of staurogram symbols are not very convincing as to their relevance to genuine Christianity. It just cannot be that difficult to find the truth, if it is actually there. 
It seems that an early date for the use of these symbols as some propose is not clear at all, as the relevant papyrii whilst significantly old, are of disputed antiquity. There appears to be a pagan and superstitious influence at work in the appropriation of these symbols, for obscure reasons. It is clear from scripture that definite attempts to distort and corrupt the true Christian faith were well under way from earliest times, prior to the adoption of the "staurogram". Paul warns that "the mystery of this lawlessness is already at work", Peter warns that "the ignorant and unstable are twisting the...Scriptures", and John warns that "even now, many antichrists have appeared".  (Before we even get to Rev. Ch.2-3). The scriptures have no word for cross as such. Both stauros and xylon are simple words to understand, as is the background for the necessity of the use of this method for Christ's execution. There is no definitive way to conclude the exact nature of the instrument of Christ's death. The existence of the dispute complicates and obscures the very reason for Christ's sacrifice, a paucity of understanding on this matter being a prominent feature of many two-beamed cross promoters. On that basis, I remain satisfied  with the scriptural description as far as it goes, and the conclusion we draw on the likelihood of a single stake being the instrument of Christ's death. I will not be adding an extra beam to the account at this stage. ?

Tell me about. Ever had a guy threaten you with a Machete up close, moving about in a sword dance like fashion? Believe me, it took some time to calm the guy down because he came talking about things he read online and painted a crazy picture of us in his head.
Some brothers and sisters get it bad, even back in the day during the 1940s some were hunted in the same sense the KKK hunted African Americans. I believe one brother had been cut in a way that part of him had been removed. 
Even today it is bad and for some brothers and sisters on the other side of the globe it is far worse.

I think you mean that Satan is too clever for humans for them to detect his subtle "machinations?
Yes, if that is what you meant. Certainly Adam amd Eve were overcome although Adam was not deceived. Jesus was not deceived either, and his defence of "It is written" stood him in good stead. Those who acted as a restraint in the 1st Century were not deceived, thanks to Jehovah's existing word and the gift of discernment. But some others of their contemporaries and eventually the vast majority of their successors were deceived..
Your focus of 1940, 70, 90, etc is too narrow for me, although i presume you are just using those decades as an example to illustrate your point that yesterday's "truth" becomes tomorrow's "lies"?. I suppose the most prominent example would be how adherents to the Mosaic Law, once God's "chosen people", became his enemies by clinging on once that arrangement became redundant. The new system scrolls and their impact will be interesting, (Rev 20:12), and of course the implications of Christ's subjecting himself even more so. (1Cor.15:28).
I would like to see a chart indicating the relevant proportionate value of teachings whilst at the same time indicating what has changed, what has remained constant from the first Century. I might put it together myself one of these days. ?

Interesting stuff, especially the difference between Chi Rho and Tau Rho.
Howeve,r he states:
"2)............the earliest uses of the tau-rho are not as such free-standing symbols, but form part of a special way of writing the Greek words for “cross” (stauros) and “crucify” (stauro-o), in NT texts which refer to the crucifixion of Jesus.
3) The tau-rho is not an allusion to the word “christos“.  Indeed, the letters have no relation to any terms in early Christian vocabulary.  Instead, the device (adapted from pre-Christian usage) seems to have served originally as a kind of pictographic representation of the crucified Jesus, the loop of the rho superimposed on the tau serving to depict the head of a figure on a cross.
4) So, contra the common assumption taught in art history courses, the earliest visual reference to the crucified Jesus isn’t 5th century intaglia, but this scribal device employed by ca. 200 CE. 
There's no denying that this scribal device is employed in some early Greek Scripture manuscripts. How early? With occurences, for example,  at Luke 9:23; 14:27,  P75 of the Bodmer Papyrii (imaged earlier) was originally dated as 175-200CE,. This early assignment has been recently challenged, where some favour a later date closer to the 4th Century. Other evidences, such as Chester Beatty's P45 manuscript is dated about 250CE, and contains this device at Matt.26:2 and also Luke 14:27. A further papyrus in the Bodmer colllection, P66, contains the staurogram in at least ten places in the papyrus (corresponding to chapter 19 of John's Gospel. Like P75, this papyrus is subject to similar discussion on it's antiquity, being more recently proposed as originating "in the early or middle part of the fourth century."
So, basically, we have a scribal insertion of a contemporary "Christian " symbol some 135-300 years after the establishing of the Christian congregation at Pentecost 33CE .
However, a disturbing comment is made regarding the staurogram on the Bible History Today page cited in the earlier post by @JWInsider at
https://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/daily/biblical-topics/crucifixion/the-staurogram/:
"The tau-rho staurogram, like other christograms, was originally a pre-Christian symbol. A Herodian coin featuring the Staurogram predates the crucifixion. Soon after, Christian adoption of staurogram symbols served as the first visual images of Jesus on the cross."
Larry Hurtado confirms this when discussing the Tau-Rho among other "Christian" symbols as he states: "these are all pre-Christian devices and were appropriated by early Christians." He also says "P45, P66 and P75 offer us evidence of a Christian appropriation of the tau-rho device that (whatever and whenever its origin) was already becoming familiar in Christian circles at the time that these copyists worked."  (Quotes from The Staurogram in Early Christian Manuscripts: The Earliest Visual Reference to the Crucified Jesus?)
Reference is made to Herodian coins issued about 37 BCE where the Tau Rho appears (apparently as some sort of date code?)
,
Jack Finegan, (The Archaeology of the New Testament. 1969) is referenced by Hurtado. In his book section The Cross. Abbreviations and Monograms, among other things, he cited Egyptian influences on the development and use of the Staurogram, likening it to the Egyptian ankh, a symbol of life. He presents an memorial inscription from a 4th Century tomb at Armant near Luxor on the NIle. Here the staurogram symbol is presented on the bottom 3rd right in line with the ankh and the Chi Rho symbol, (another "christogram). 

An additional aspect is the proposed influence of the use of isosephy in formulating the staurogram. This practice,  known also as gematria, seeks to find numeric relationships in words and concepts by assigning numeric values to letters and thus to words, then looking for parrallel meanings. An attempt is made to equate this to the reckoning of the wild beast's number of 666 in Rev.13:18. "Christian" Isosephists equate this number to the value determined for the name "Nero", their interpretation then misinterpreting the scripture. The staurogram is thus said by some to have a mystical significance in this regard. The whole practice has a ring of divination about it. Although Hurtado does not promote this view, it is not rejected as a contributory factor.
Whilst interesting and formidably detailed, these speculations on the early uses of staurogram symbols are not very convincing as to their relevance to genuine Christianity. It just cannot be that difficult to find the truth, if it is actually there. 
It seems that an early date for the use of these symbols as some propose is not clear at all, as the relevant papyrii whilst significantly old, are of disputed antiquity. There appears to be a pagan and superstitious influence at work in the appropriation of these symbols, for obscure reasons. It is clear from scripture that definite attempts to distort and corrupt the true Christian faith were well under way from earliest times, prior to the adoption of the "staurogram". Paul warns that "the mystery of this lawlessness is already at work", Peter warns that "the ignorant and unstable are twisting the...Scriptures", and John warns that "even now, many antichrists have appeared".  (Before we even get to Rev. Ch.2-3). The scriptures have no word for cross as such. Both stauros and xylon are simple words to understand, as is the background for the necessity of the use of this method for Christ's execution. There is no definitive way to conclude the exact nature of the instrument of Christ's death. The existence of the dispute complicates and obscures the very reason for Christ's sacrifice, a paucity of understanding on this matter being a prominent feature of many two-beamed cross promoters. On that basis, I remain satisfied  with the scriptural description as far as it goes, and the conclusion we draw on the likelihood of a single stake being the instrument of Christ's death. I will not be adding an extra beam to the account at this stage. ?

I'm trying to figure out the reason for the word "however" as if these points indicate some potentially different conclusions.
Going to a part of his blog where some of these statements are made https://larryhurtado.wordpress.com/2011/10/13/the-staurogram-correcting-errors/ I see that his first point is simple: Contrary to the idea 100 years ago when Tau-Rho was considered just another Christogram like Chi-Rho, we now have textual evidence that Tau-Rho is much older:
We have instances of the Christian use of the tau-rho considerably earlier than any instances of the chi-rho. These earliest uses of the tau-rho are in Christian manuscripts palaeographically dated ca. 200-250 CE. In fact, as you quoted: tau-rho served a very different purpose from chi-rho. They are not freestanding symbols that one would use to represent a symbol for Christ, but were clearly a way to depict and represent the word for CROSS and CRUCIFY within some of the earliest texts of the Christian Greek Scriptures. This is what is significant and different about the staurogram. You quoted point #3 that stated this again more directly.
It's possible you are concerned here, as you show yourself to be later, that a superimposed tau-rho was adapted from pre-Christian usage. Of course, the dual-beamed cross itself (as an instrument of torture/execution) is well-known from pre-Christian usage. Even the "nomina sacra" were adapted from the pre-Christian usage, where Jewish copyists sometimes wrote Theos in Greek with only the beginning Theta and the closing Sigma, skipping the vowels -- or perhaps even the Yod-Yod, to abbreviate a Hebrew Tetragrammaton.This is similar to the practice some Jewish writers still follow in English when they write G-d for God. That practice predated the practice in Christian texts of doing the same for Theos, and something similar for Lord, and Jesus and Christ. And the practice of using abbreviations was most well-known on coinage where space is at a premium. I'm not sure if this bit of knowledge means something to you, one way or another. You call it "disturbing" later. Why?
I'd like to know, too. Those who actually study the age of manuscripts based on their materials and style of lettering and clues from the contents (including vocabulary and abbreviations) will put most of these examples in the 200 to 250 CE range. Some of the arguments that would place at least one of them to a later century are often the same arguments that could place them even earlier. They are often just arguments for the lack of accuracy of paleographic methods.
But the exact date of the manuscripts is not so important to the overall evidence. The point is that the shape of the stauros associated with Jesus' execution is depicted and described very few times that we know of in the first 4 centuries. Basically, it's the Letter of Barnabas, Clement of Alexandria, Justin Martyr, Tertullian, Eusebius, and these staurograms in texts that might date between 175 to 300 CE. In every case where the shape is discussed, the consensus is a Tau-shaped or t-shaped stauros for the execution of Jesus Christ. And this is not ALL the evidence, of course. The way that words are translated into other languages during the earliest translations of the CGS/NT can also provide good information. Archaeology can tell us a few things, including a probable cross found at Pompeii, and the graffiti depicted earlier. Even the lack of discussion or controversy about the shape can be revealing. And contemporary historical references about Roman execution practices can have a bearing, too.
Remember, too, that if it were somehow important to note that this date is closer to the fourth century than the first century, then what does this say about the earliest known discussions of a "I" shaped, or pole-shaped stauros with reference to Jesus' execution? For all I can tell, those discussions might first be known only from many centuries later than the fourth century. Therefore, whatever importance we give to the "lateness" of these depictions of a two-beamed cross only further hurts the argument for a one-beamed cross.
In addition, if the shape of the stauros were a double-beamed cross shape, then it seems very reasonable that idolatry-oriented associates of Christians would adapt it to the existing ankh symbol for life, and the existing tau-rho symbol. Related somewhat to the ankh symbol ("life" etc.) Hurtado, in the book I quoted, also believes that IH, the first two letters of Jesus in Greek formed an adaption of the Hebrew word for life which also could appear quite similar to IH, read in the opposite direction. And while Hurtado is not a promoter of gematria, he sees the possibility that it may have been intentional in some NT texts. He even mentions that Matthew's attempt to split the genealogical groups before and after David to conform to a mnemonic of 14 generations each, could very well be because "David" in Hebrew is 14.
But we  do know for sure that "Barnabas" was big on gematria, and he would have had a much easier time if the stauros could have been considered in the shape of an upright pole that would therefore represent "10". Too bad for him that he was stuck trying to fit the stauros in somewhere --anywhere!-- as a "300" instead of a "10." All he had available was an obscure reference to the number of Abram's slaves in Genesis, and he could do very little with it except make a note of it. There would have been dozens of interesting options available if the stauros were some other shape.
Beyond those points I agree with all your later points. Pushing for a specific answer one way or another is not useful as we still have no way of knowing for sure. There were already simple meanings of stauros and xylon which never got expanded upon much in the Bible text itself, and speculating in any way that insists on a specific conclusion will end up in nothing useful.
I have to admit that there is a certain iconoclastic satisfaction that I probably held inside for many years when I thought about how so many people had it wrong, and I just knew we had it right based on unquestioning acceptance of our own publications. Perhaps it would be somewhat satisfying to get that feeling back again, but it's probably for the wrong reasons. There's just a hint of pride and presumptuousness and judgmentalism, bordering on schadenfreude, in that idea that we are right about something and 99% of Christendom has been wrong about one of their major symbols. Besides, we would still know better than to make a big deal about the shape or the symbol even if we did accept that Jesus was executed on a stauros of the two-beamed variety.

Who says this?
Are they not?
Why would they need permission? Who from?
Who is it who makes the assessment of who is or is not important? And who is it that is considered unimportant?
Sorry to be picky, but I think you need to get your ducks in a line if you are going to start firing out these kind of questions.
This is just insulting. I think you must really be in pain. It just isn't healthy to be so obsessed with jibing the GB all the time and others too. Are you trying to cause pain to people or something? I just don't get it. 'Spose it's a social media inadequacy really.

Interesting stuff, especially the difference between Chi Rho and Tau Rho.
Howeve,r he states:
"2)............the earliest uses of the tau-rho are not as such free-standing symbols, but form part of a special way of writing the Greek words for “cross” (stauros) and “crucify” (stauro-o), in NT texts which refer to the crucifixion of Jesus.
3) The tau-rho is not an allusion to the word “christos“.  Indeed, the letters have no relation to any terms in early Christian vocabulary.  Instead, the device (adapted from pre-Christian usage) seems to have served originally as a kind of pictographic representation of the crucified Jesus, the loop of the rho superimposed on the tau serving to depict the head of a figure on a cross.
4) So, contra the common assumption taught in art history courses, the earliest visual reference to the crucified Jesus isn’t 5th century intaglia, but this scribal device employed by ca. 200 CE. 
There's no denying that this scribal device is employed in some early Greek Scripture manuscripts. How early? With occurences, for example,  at Luke 9:23; 14:27,  P75 of the Bodmer Papyrii (imaged earlier) was originally dated as 175-200CE,. This early assignment has been recently challenged, where some favour a later date closer to the 4th Century. Other evidences, such as Chester Beatty's P45 manuscript is dated about 250CE, and contains this device at Matt.26:2 and also Luke 14:27. A further papyrus in the Bodmer colllection, P66, contains the staurogram in at least ten places in the papyrus (corresponding to chapter 19 of John's Gospel. Like P75, this papyrus is subject to similar discussion on it's antiquity, being more recently proposed as originating "in the early or middle part of the fourth century."
So, basically, we have a scribal insertion of a contemporary "Christian " symbol some 135-300 years after the establishing of the Christian congregation at Pentecost 33CE .
However, a disturbing comment is made regarding the staurogram on the Bible History Today page cited in the earlier post by @JWInsider at
https://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/daily/biblical-topics/crucifixion/the-staurogram/:
"The tau-rho staurogram, like other christograms, was originally a pre-Christian symbol. A Herodian coin featuring the Staurogram predates the crucifixion. Soon after, Christian adoption of staurogram symbols served as the first visual images of Jesus on the cross."
Larry Hurtado confirms this when discussing the Tau-Rho among other "Christian" symbols as he states: "these are all pre-Christian devices and were appropriated by early Christians." He also says "P45, P66 and P75 offer us evidence of a Christian appropriation of the tau-rho device that (whatever and whenever its origin) was already becoming familiar in Christian circles at the time that these copyists worked."  (Quotes from The Staurogram in Early Christian Manuscripts: The Earliest Visual Reference to the Crucified Jesus?)
Reference is made to Herodian coins issued about 37 BCE where the Tau Rho appears (apparently as some sort of date code?)
,
Jack Finegan, (The Archaeology of the New Testament. 1969) is referenced by Hurtado. In his book section The Cross. Abbreviations and Monograms, among other things, he cited Egyptian influences on the development and use of the Staurogram, likening it to the Egyptian ankh, a symbol of life. He presents an memorial inscription from a 4th Century tomb at Armant near Luxor on the NIle. Here the staurogram symbol is presented on the bottom 3rd right in line with the ankh and the Chi Rho symbol, (another "christogram). 

An additional aspect is the proposed influence of the use of isosephy in formulating the staurogram. This practice,  known also as gematria, seeks to find numeric relationships in words and concepts by assigning numeric values to letters and thus to words, then looking for parrallel meanings. An attempt is made to equate this to the reckoning of the wild beast's number of 666 in Rev.13:18. "Christian" Isosephists equate this number to the value determined for the name "Nero", their interpretation then misinterpreting the scripture. The staurogram is thus said by some to have a mystical significance in this regard. The whole practice has a ring of divination about it. Although Hurtado does not promote this view, it is not rejected as a contributory factor.
Whilst interesting and formidably detailed, these speculations on the early uses of staurogram symbols are not very convincing as to their relevance to genuine Christianity. It just cannot be that difficult to find the truth, if it is actually there. 
It seems that an early date for the use of these symbols as some propose is not clear at all, as the relevant papyrii whilst significantly old, are of disputed antiquity. There appears to be a pagan and superstitious influence at work in the appropriation of these symbols, for obscure reasons. It is clear from scripture that definite attempts to distort and corrupt the true Christian faith were well under way from earliest times, prior to the adoption of the "staurogram". Paul warns that "the mystery of this lawlessness is already at work", Peter warns that "the ignorant and unstable are twisting the...Scriptures", and John warns that "even now, many antichrists have appeared".  (Before we even get to Rev. Ch.2-3). The scriptures have no word for cross as such. Both stauros and xylon are simple words to understand, as is the background for the necessity of the use of this method for Christ's execution. There is no definitive way to conclude the exact nature of the instrument of Christ's death. The existence of the dispute complicates and obscures the very reason for Christ's sacrifice, a paucity of understanding on this matter being a prominent feature of many two-beamed cross promoters. On that basis, I remain satisfied  with the scriptural description as far as it goes, and the conclusion we draw on the likelihood of a single stake being the instrument of Christ's death. I will not be adding an extra beam to the account at this stage. ?

This was very interesting. The reference to Matt.22:13 particularly because it says "bind him hand and foot". Now when hands are bound as a restraint, we assume it is the wrists that are tied becuse it would be easy to slip out of literal hand ties. (Similarly with feet and ankles) So this seems confirm that,  in the lack of a specific word for "wrist", the Greek word for hand has a broader application.
I like the comment that said :
"And it’s true that Luke and John imply that Jesus was nailed in His “hands,” but then again the Bible also says that Rebeka wore bracelets on her “hands” (Genesis 24:22,30, 47), that the chains fell off of Peter’s “hands”(Acts 12:7), that when Nebuzaradan declared Jeremiah freed: “I release you today from the chains on your hands” (Jeremiah 40:4), that “the ropes that were on [Samson’s] arms became like flax that is burned with fire, and his bonds broke loose from his hands” (Judges 15:14) If you’re reading a more literal translation, that is.
In Hebrew and biblical Greek, bracelets and fetters are something put on someone’s yad/cheir ‘hands’, though we might be more precise and say ‘wrist’ or ‘forearm’. (Also see Ezekiel 16:11 “And I adorned you with ornaments, put bracelets on your hands and a necklace around your neck”; 23:42 “And they put bracelets on the hands of the women and beautiful crowns on their heads”)
I mean, even today, handcuffs are put on the wrists, right?"
Seems that some advocates point to the "Shroud of Turin" as evidence in this matter.  ?

Screening

Witness, 
I am a former Jehovah's witness and anointed. And I understand the prophecies not at all as Pearl Doxey. In my opinion are her explanations even worse than the Watchtower's. 

It is not recommended where I live either as an organised activity. Where I live many know each other and funerals are a big well attended affair. ain fact locally raised brothers will not call on someone who has been recently bereaved as it is seen to be highly distasteful and insensitive.
Meeting someone informally is different however, and striking up a one to one when visiting a cemetery would not be objectionable. I recently conducted a funeral for a brother whose very large family are mostly not witnesses. About 75 in attendance had no Bibles so the scriptural part of the talk I put on the screens in the kingdom hall. They were very appreciative, I could see everyone focussed on the scriptures and got excellent feedback after. One said they are not used to going home from a funeral feeling happier. They usually feel worse than when thay went in.
So there we are. The scriptures do their work. It is up to us to ensure the apples of gold are set attractively. Pro. 25:11.
 

Oh dear! Not sure that he did actually: 
"So the military commander approached and said to him: “Tell me, are you a Roman?” He said: “Yes.” The military commander responded: “I purchased these rights as a citizen for a large sum of money.” Paul said: “But I have them by birth.”" Acts 22:27-28.

You beat me to it. I had to be out for most of today, but hoped to come back to @JOHN BUTLER to remind him that this is just my opinion based on the evidence. I lean one way because the evidence I've seen is slightly more convincing to me in that direction. But this does not mean that someone else (GB?) can't see the same evidence, and the majority of them lean the other way, per our own traditional stance on it since Rutherford's time.
To John, I would say that this Staurogram, and graffiti evidence too, cannot take us back much before 200 CE even if the evidence is exactly as old as some scholars still claim. As you point out from the words of Paul, even if evidence showed that this was as early as 50 CE, it still wouldn't be "proof." It could very well have been one of the ways in which "lawlessness" was already at work. After all, there is no doubt that the veneration of a cross symbol crosses the line into idolatry. And through syncretism with older traditions, the cross would have been a much more recognizable symbol with a richer history for veneration than a plain "I" symbol. And warnings about idolatry run from Paul's letters right up through (and througout) Revelation. 
You hit upon most (perhaps all) of the weaknesses of the Staurogram evidence, and these might have already been taken into consideration by those who have researched the current position as outlined in the WT publications.
The actual earliest evidence appears to be the argumentation in the Letter of Barnabas which scholars have not tried to date much later than 120 or 130. And there is no solid evidence to claim it was later than 75 or 80 either. "Barnabas" is big on gematria, of course, and this could even be one of the areas that letters to Titus and Timothy reference when they speak of things like being "obsessed with arguments and debates about words." (1 Tim 6:4). There's even a slim chance that it was this very book (and books like it) that were being challenged here and in Titus 3:9, etc.
Even so, it would not change the fact that a T shaped stauros is built into the argument as an aside, along with this early discussion of how T and then IH would create the number 318  (T=the stauros and the IH symbol which was already in use as a reference to IHSOUS -Jesus.)  Many years later in Christian copy of Genesis, the numer 318 comes up as the number of Abram's slaves:
(Genesis 14:14) 14 Thus Aʹbram heard that his relative had been taken captive. With that he mobilized his trained men, 318 servants born in his household, and went in pursuit up to Dan. The much later Genesis manuscript treats the number 318 here as a "nomina sacra" just as Barnabas had discussed upwards of 300 years earlier. BTW, I also wanted to mention that Hurtado deals with the fact that just because a scholar gave these terms the name "nomina sacra" it doesn't mean that they were all considered to be the equivalent of a Divine Name. Obviously, this is true of Stauros, which is nothing like a "divine name," but we also know that this was a development over many years, and there is no evidence that "Spirit" (pneuma) was added to the list until 400 or so. Also, there were many other names that only reminded them of Jesus or God, such as "Joshua the son of Nun" or even Moses, Abraham and David. So this wasn't intended as a complete discussion of "nomina sacra" by any means.
Although there are some weaknesses and flexibility as to the exact dates scholars try to pin on things, it doesn't (for me) change the balance of the evidence favoring one meaning over the other. And as we've already covered, there is no reason for anyone to claim proof or insist on any particular shape based on any of the evidence so far.

Interesting stuff, especially the difference between Chi Rho and Tau Rho.
Howeve,r he states:
"2)............the earliest uses of the tau-rho are not as such free-standing symbols, but form part of a special way of writing the Greek words for “cross” (stauros) and “crucify” (stauro-o), in NT texts which refer to the crucifixion of Jesus.
3) The tau-rho is not an allusion to the word “christos“.  Indeed, the letters have no relation to any terms in early Christian vocabulary.  Instead, the device (adapted from pre-Christian usage) seems to have served originally as a kind of pictographic representation of the crucified Jesus, the loop of the rho superimposed on the tau serving to depict the head of a figure on a cross.
4) So, contra the common assumption taught in art history courses, the earliest visual reference to the crucified Jesus isn’t 5th century intaglia, but this scribal device employed by ca. 200 CE. 
There's no denying that this scribal device is employed in some early Greek Scripture manuscripts. How early? With occurences, for example,  at Luke 9:23; 14:27,  P75 of the Bodmer Papyrii (imaged earlier) was originally dated as 175-200CE,. This early assignment has been recently challenged, where some favour a later date closer to the 4th Century. Other evidences, such as Chester Beatty's P45 manuscript is dated about 250CE, and contains this device at Matt.26:2 and also Luke 14:27. A further papyrus in the Bodmer colllection, P66, contains the staurogram in at least ten places in the papyrus (corresponding to chapter 19 of John's Gospel. Like P75, this papyrus is subject to similar discussion on it's antiquity, being more recently proposed as originating "in the early or middle part of the fourth century."
So, basically, we have a scribal insertion of a contemporary "Christian " symbol some 135-300 years after the establishing of the Christian congregation at Pentecost 33CE .
However, a disturbing comment is made regarding the staurogram on the Bible History Today page cited in the earlier post by @JWInsider at
https://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/daily/biblical-topics/crucifixion/the-staurogram/:
"The tau-rho staurogram, like other christograms, was originally a pre-Christian symbol. A Herodian coin featuring the Staurogram predates the crucifixion. Soon after, Christian adoption of staurogram symbols served as the first visual images of Jesus on the cross."
Larry Hurtado confirms this when discussing the Tau-Rho among other "Christian" symbols as he states: "these are all pre-Christian devices and were appropriated by early Christians." He also says "P45, P66 and P75 offer us evidence of a Christian appropriation of the tau-rho device that (whatever and whenever its origin) was already becoming familiar in Christian circles at the time that these copyists worked."  (Quotes from The Staurogram in Early Christian Manuscripts: The Earliest Visual Reference to the Crucified Jesus?)
Reference is made to Herodian coins issued about 37 BCE where the Tau Rho appears (apparently as some sort of date code?)
,
Jack Finegan, (The Archaeology of the New Testament. 1969) is referenced by Hurtado. In his book section The Cross. Abbreviations and Monograms, among other things, he cited Egyptian influences on the development and use of the Staurogram, likening it to the Egyptian ankh, a symbol of life. He presents an memorial inscription from a 4th Century tomb at Armant near Luxor on the NIle. Here the staurogram symbol is presented on the bottom 3rd right in line with the ankh and the Chi Rho symbol, (another "christogram). 

An additional aspect is the proposed influence of the use of isosephy in formulating the staurogram. This practice,  known also as gematria, seeks to find numeric relationships in words and concepts by assigning numeric values to letters and thus to words, then looking for parrallel meanings. An attempt is made to equate this to the reckoning of the wild beast's number of 666 in Rev.13:18. "Christian" Isosephists equate this number to the value determined for the name "Nero", their interpretation then misinterpreting the scripture. The staurogram is thus said by some to have a mystical significance in this regard. The whole practice has a ring of divination about it. Although Hurtado does not promote this view, it is not rejected as a contributory factor.
Whilst interesting and formidably detailed, these speculations on the early uses of staurogram symbols are not very convincing as to their relevance to genuine Christianity. It just cannot be that difficult to find the truth, if it is actually there. 
It seems that an early date for the use of these symbols as some propose is not clear at all, as the relevant papyrii whilst significantly old, are of disputed antiquity. There appears to be a pagan and superstitious influence at work in the appropriation of these symbols, for obscure reasons. It is clear from scripture that definite attempts to distort and corrupt the true Christian faith were well under way from earliest times, prior to the adoption of the "staurogram". Paul warns that "the mystery of this lawlessness is already at work", Peter warns that "the ignorant and unstable are twisting the...Scriptures", and John warns that "even now, many antichrists have appeared".  (Before we even get to Rev. Ch.2-3). The scriptures have no word for cross as such. Both stauros and xylon are simple words to understand, as is the background for the necessity of the use of this method for Christ's execution. There is no definitive way to conclude the exact nature of the instrument of Christ's death. The existence of the dispute complicates and obscures the very reason for Christ's sacrifice, a paucity of understanding on this matter being a prominent feature of many two-beamed cross promoters. On that basis, I remain satisfied  with the scriptural description as far as it goes, and the conclusion we draw on the likelihood of a single stake being the instrument of Christ's death. I will not be adding an extra beam to the account at this stage. ?

Well then, why not stsrt a thread on that topic and see if  you can there achieve your objective?. 

I'm going to give the simple answer.
Yes, of course they are.
A better question might be "What issues do Jehovah's Witnesses conscientiously refrain from voting on?"

Place me like a seal over your heart,
    like a seal on your arm;

This was very interesting. The reference to Matt.22:13 particularly because it says "bind him hand and foot". Now when hands are bound as a restraint, we assume it is the wrists that are tied becuse it would be easy to slip out of literal hand ties. (Similarly with feet and ankles) So this seems confirm that,  in the lack of a specific word for "wrist", the Greek word for hand has a broader application.
I like the comment that said :
"And it’s true that Luke and John imply that Jesus was nailed in His “hands,” but then again the Bible also says that Rebeka wore bracelets on her “hands” (Genesis 24:22,30, 47), that the chains fell off of Peter’s “hands”(Acts 12:7), that when Nebuzaradan declared Jeremiah freed: “I release you today from the chains on your hands” (Jeremiah 40:4), that “the ropes that were on [Samson’s] arms became like flax that is burned with fire, and his bonds broke loose from his hands” (Judges 15:14) If you’re reading a more literal translation, that is.
In Hebrew and biblical Greek, bracelets and fetters are something put on someone’s yad/cheir ‘hands’, though we might be more precise and say ‘wrist’ or ‘forearm’. (Also see Ezekiel 16:11 “And I adorned you with ornaments, put bracelets on your hands and a necklace around your neck”; 23:42 “And they put bracelets on the hands of the women and beautiful crowns on their heads”)
I mean, even today, handcuffs are put on the wrists, right?"
Seems that some advocates point to the "Shroud of Turin" as evidence in this matter.  ?

Well then we have nothing to worry about!
For instance, before these days Theuʹdas rose up, saying he himself was somebody, and a number of men, about 400, joined his party. But he was done away with, and all those who were following him were dispersed and came to nothing.  After him, Judas the Gal·i·leʹan rose up in the days of the registration, and he drew followers after himself. That man also perished, and all those who were following him were scattered. So under the present circumstances, I say to you, do not meddle with these men, but let them alone. For if this scheme or this work is from men, it will be overthrown;  but if it is from God, you will not be able to overthrow them. Otherwise, you may even be found fighters against God himself. (Acts 5: 36 -39)

"The Greek word translated “hands” is cheir, which means literally “hands.” There is no Greek word for “wrists” in the New Testament, even though some versions translate Acts 12:7 to say that the chains fell off Peter’s wrists. But the Greek word in this verse is also cheir"
https://www.gotquestions.org/nails-hands-wrists.html
Of course this assumption is not 100% fool proof either....
Also there is an interesting debate here including an interesting comment "If one wants to get anatomically picky, the eight bones of the human wrist are counted among the 27 hand bones".
I can verify that in some languages there is no distinction between the whole arm or just the hand. In order to specify what one means you have to say either arm*, or forearm. Usually the context clarifies what one means; for example "wash your hands" wouldn't mean wash your whole arm, but it can get confusing  if you say you broke your arm, because that could mean your hand. Of course there are exact terms for the parts of the upper limb just as there are in English: shoulder, arm, elbow, forearm, wrist and hand. But as you can see the word arm* in English could include all those parts, excluding the hand . When I fractured my knee, people would say I broke my leg. Languages are interesting!
@JOHN BUTLER Bones of the hand include the wrist

 

It is interesting to note that the (presumably) earliest forms of Christian art (Catacombs in Rome) date from late 2nd century and there is no depiction of a cross. But there is no depiction of a upright stake either (!) It has been argued that this omission could be because the early Christians didn't want to depict anything to do with Jesus' instrument of death for fear of idolatry. Which says a lot about the "Christians" that came after. They did a 180 degree turn and put crosses everywhere.