JW Insider

Actually, even though they have been "vewwy, vewwy quiet ...shhhhh", it seems they have it all under control.
(When you look at the attached videos ... look at them in the order posted ....)

JW.org _Publisher ID_ - leaked video 1-of-4.mp4 ....
....
 
JW.borg - Publisher ID...it has begun....mp4

I actually paid money to deliberately have five members of my family micro-chipped ..... an injection at their shoulder blades, and registered their RFID chip numbers with a National Organization.
It was not necessary for my wife and I, because WE ALREADY HAVE biological identifiers in our bodies as also do YOU ...called FINGERPRINTS ... that can identify us even if we have no I.D., and are DEAD.
The rest of our family do not have fingerprints ...... only paws.

I think that if we really understand the following point in the "Knowledge" book, true Christians need to treat EVERY DAY AS BLACK FRIDAY!!!
*** kl chap. 13 pp. 126-127 par. 17 Why Living a Godly Life Brings Happiness ***
Of course, godly parents do not await a special day to show their children love. A 13-year-old Christian girl remarked: “My family and I have lots of fun. . . . I’m very close to my parents, and when other kids ask why I don’t celebrate holidays, I tell them that I celebrate every day.” Said a Christian youth aged 17: “In our house, gift-giving is all year long.” Greater happiness results when gifts are given spontaneously.

If you are using a PC and you want to see the intended caption for the picture rather than the speculative interpretations commonly voiced at KHalls, then Right Click on the picture and choose Inspect from the menu. The caption will appear in the code window on the right, highlighted. Like this:

Although from the January 2019 study edition, these captions will will appear as footnotes for each study article, the method holds good for most illustrations in recent electronic publications.

I'm not going to say who I am with right now, and he has retired .. but he used to be a mild-mannered reporter for a daily metropolitan newspaper, and sang Kingdom Songs way back when they were published in Kryptonese.

Depends on style, genre, stage presence, quality. The best reggae singer will not be the best jazz singer. This guy, below, has been around "for all time" during my lifetime. And I like what I have heard of his off-stage personality. A friend of ours saw him at a NYC dinner & music venue a couple years ago, and he was in the audience at a table with friends, making some very nice drawings of the stage artist, and greeting people with smiles and nice conversation. 
 

...that's all they need... someone to come and visit them at a  ....uh ... "rest home" .... who keeps looking at their watch.

Yes. I spoke about him in one of TTH's threads, too:
 

Whitney Houston
 

True. And the entire idea of Thanksgiving was to try to instill a positive political message about an atrocious period of U.S. History.

I'll just throw out my #1 from my memory....
Karen Carpenter
 

Depends on style, genre, stage presence, quality. The best reggae singer will not be the best jazz singer. This guy, below, has been around "for all time" during my lifetime. And I like what I have heard of his off-stage personality. A friend of ours saw him at a NYC dinner & music venue a couple years ago, and he was in the audience at a table with friends, making some very nice drawings of the stage artist, and greeting people with smiles and nice conversation. 
 

For school children I would buy a Windows 10 system and teach them how to use it.
My wife teaches mathematics in the Public School System, and they universally have Chromebooks, because they cost so very much less, and are much simpler to use, but the Public School System in 85% of the cases is NOTHING to be used as an example of what should be done.
.... but a child that can naturally speak 5 languages just by being exposed to them, can also learn an adult operating system for a computer.
If I had it to do over, I would NOT have given my children Leggos ... I would have taught them to lay real  brick. 
(I have a Windows 10 system, but I prefer Windows 7, with a Classic XP Shell, which makes it LOOK like XP.)
 

..... too soon?
 
 
 
 

I've seen a word study on these two different basic terms that shows that they both went through a similar history, in both verb and noun forms, and both began with similar simple meanings and both developed and encompassed similar meanings when associated with punishments, and both took on the same prefix "ana."
Before I forget, what I really loved about the perseus.tufts.edu site was that in earlier versions, years ago, you could pick a classical Greek or Latin (or other) text, and then when you had to look up a word, the color would change from bluish to purplish (the old default HTML style for a "visited link"). This would give you kind of a visual feedback on how many words you had to look up, and also was a reminder that you had already looked up the word if you ran across the same word again later in the text. 
I think you have seen the 337-page David Chapman PDF for his book "Ancient Jewish and Christian Perceptions of Crucifixion." I'm pretty sure that someone already linked it here in this topic (might have been you?). Anyway, it had a pretty good summary of the Greek terms on page 9 through 13 (where the footnotes even include a point about the Witnesses).
It's in agreement with your post above, but I'll share a good part of it, except for the footnotes which take up half the page on average:
----------remainder of post from David Chapman PDF ---------------------
Greek Terminology
The familiar New Testament terms for the crucifixion of Jesus include the
verbs σταυρόω (46 times, though not all of Jesus), συσταυρόω (5 times),
and άνασταυρόω (in Heb 6:6), as well as the noun σταυρός. Also NT
authors speak of the event with προσπήγνυμι ("to affix"; in Acts 2:23)
or with the passive of κρεμάννυμι and έπϊ ξύλου ("to hang upon a tree"; cf.
Acts 5:30; 10:39; Gal 3:13).
Combining this terminology with that in Lucian's Prometheus*
and in other works of Greek antiquity, several more
words surface that, in context, can designate a crucifixion event: particularly
άνασκολοπίζω (verb) and σκόλοψ (noun), and including verbs such as
άνακρεμάννυμι, κατακλείω, καταπήγνυμι, πήγνυμι, προσηλόω, and
προσπατταλεύω (= προσπασσαλεύω).
Nevertheless, in Greek it is rare for the semantic range of any single term
to be confined to "crucifixion." For example, a σταυρός appears originally to
have referred to an upright pole. Thus a σταυρός can be a stake in a
σταύρωμα ("palisade"; e.g., Thucydides, Hist, vi.100) as well as a pole on
which a person is impaled or crucified. Hence it naturally follows that both
άνασταυρόω and σταυρόω can refer to the building of stockades as well as
to the setting up of poles (especially for the purpose of suspending people on
σταυροί). Elsewhere a σταυρός can be used as a place of scourging, with
the death following from some other method.
Α σκόλοψ likewise generally refers to "anything pointed" (Liddell &
Scott, s.v.), including pales, stakes, thorns, a point of a fishhook, and (in the
plural) a palisade. And similarly, the cognate verb άνασκολοπίζω need not
exclusively refer to "fix on a pole or a stake, impale.
However, the "fundamental" references to an upright pole in σταυρός and
its cognates, and to pointy objects in σκόλοψ and its cognates, does not
rightly imply such that terminology in antiquity, when applied to crucifixion,
invariably referred to a single upright beam. This is a common word study
fallacy in some populist literature. In fact, such terminology often referred
in antiquity to cross-shaped crucifixion devices. For example, Lucian, in a
brief dialogue that employs most Greek crucifixion vocabulary, refers to the
"crucifixion" of Prometheus, whose arms are pinned while stretched from one
rock to another. Such a cross-shaped crucifixion position in the Roman era
may actually have been the norm; nevertheless, the point to be sustained at
this stage is that this position was not the only one to be designated with these
Greek terms.
In addition to recognizing the broader semantic ranges of these terms, it is
helpful to note that different authors prefer certain terminology. Thus, while
Philo knows σταυρός as a "cross" (see Flacc. 72, 84; contrast σταυροί as
fortifications in Agr. 11; Spec. Leg. iv.229), he does not use the cognate verb
άνασταυρόω, preferring instead άνασκολοπίζω. Josephus, on the other
hand, employs only άνασταυρόω and σταυρόω but never άνασκολοπίζω.
Hengel contends that in the Classical period Herodotus utilized άνασταυρόω
and άνασκολοπίζω with different nuances from one another (άνασκολοπίζω
of the suspension of living men and άνασταυρόω of dead men), but that after
Herodotus these two verbs become synonymous. Such a picture may require
some more nuance, but it is certainly the case that after Herodotus some
authors use the terms interchangeably and that both verbs can designate acts
of crucifixion (even in the narrow English sense of the word).

I haven't had time to read everyone's posts since the last time, but I have copied some interesting correspondence I found on "ibiblio.org" since I was researching Lucian's work, and especially its' translation.
The topic  was  anaskolopisthenta vs.stauron:
 
Lucian of Samosata's work "The Passing of Peregrinus" on pages 38-39 
(paragraph 34, line 7), as found in The Loeb Classical Library, 
Lucian with an English Translation by AM Harmon Volume V, 1972, makes 
use of the word STAURON when he states that as Peregrinus was heading 
for his self emolation, he was enjoying the admiration of the crowds 
"...not knowing, poor wretch, that men on their way to the cross 
( STAURON σταυρὸν ) οr in the grip of the executioner have 
many more at their heels."
However earlier (pages 12-13, paragraph 11, line 11) Lucian used a 
different word when describing " the man who was crucified in 
Palestine  (  Παλαιστίνῃ   
ἀνασκολοπισθέντα ANASKOLOPISTHENTA ) because he 
introduced this new cult into the world."
 
Again in paragraph 13 Lucian talks of the "crucified sophist" 
ἀνασκολοπισμένον ἐκεῖνον σοφιστὴν 
ANASKOLOPISΜΕΝΟΝ.
 
I also note that, according to Perseus Tuft, Lucian used 
ANASKOLOPISTHESOMAI in his Prometheus on Causasus paragraph 7. But I 
am unable to check a Greek text of this at present.
 
Prometheus: Perhaps there has been some nonsense talked already; that 
remains to be seen. But as you say your case is now complete, I will 
see what I can do in the way of refutation. And first about that 
meat. Though, upon my word, I blush for Zeus when I name it: to think 
that he should be so touchy about trifles, as to send off a God of my 
quality to crucifixion, just because he found a little bit of bone in 
his share! http://www.sacred-texts.com/cla/luc/wl1/wl112.htm
 
I am not sure what word Lucian used for crucifixion earlier in 
Prometheus on Causasus paragraph 1, where he states:
 
Hermes:. The very thing. Steep rocks, slightly overhanging, inaccessible 
on every side; no foothold but a mere ledge, with scarcely room for 
the tips of one's toes; altogether a sweet spot for a crucifixion. 
Now, Prometheus, come and be nailed up; there is no time to lose.
Could someone please tell me what word was used in this instance?
 
Meier JP A Marginal Jew: Rethinking the historical Jesus. Vol.1, p.
102, note 20, states that anaskolopisthenta was probably used in 
paragraph 11 of Peregrinus scornfully ("mocking tone"), and that 
Lucian had an historical basis for using ANASKOLOPISTHENTA, "since 
crucifixion probably developed from impalement."
Similar to Lucian's use of both words, I have found that STAURON was  
used for crucifixion by Polybius (Histories 1.86 Book 1, Chapter 86, 
section 6), "All the baggage fell into the rebels'º hands and they 
made Hannibal himself prisoner. 6 Taking him at once to Spendius' 
cross they tortured him cruelly there, and then, taking Spendius down 
from the cross, they crucified Hannibal alive on it.."
 
An alternative reading found using Perseus tufts has:
They at once took him up to the cross on which Spendius was hanging, 
and after the infliction of exquisite tortures, took down the 
latter's body and fastened Hannibal, still living, to his cross; and 
then slaughtered thirty Carthaginians
 
Perseus tufts has the Greek as:touton men oun parachrêma pros ton tou 
Spendiou stauron agagontes kai timôrêsamenoi pikrôs ekeinon men 
katheilon, touton d' anethesan zônta kai perikatesphaxan triakonta 
tôn Karchêdoniôn tous epiphanestatous peri to tou Spendiou sôma, 
tês tuchês hôsper epitêdes ek paratheseôs amphoterois enallax 
didousês aphormas eis huperbolên tês kat' allêlôn timôrias.
 
Later Polybius used anaskolopisthenta in this same work, namely in 
Histories (10.33.8)." Suddenly letting down the portcullis which they 
had raised somewhat higher by mechanical means, they attacked the 
intruders and capturing them crucified them before the wall." http://
penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Polybius/10*.html 27/12/07
Perseus tufts has the Greek as:
Hoi de katarraktas, hous eichon oligon exôterô dia mêchanêmatôn 
anêmmenous, aiphnidion kathêkan kai epebalonto, kai toutous 
kataschontes pro tou teichous aneskolopisan. (1.11)
Could someone tell me if there may be a grammatical pattern or reason 
as to why these two authors sometimes used ANASKOLOPISTHENTA, or 
inflections of it, and other times used STAURON? Perhaps there is 
another possible reason for the choice of words apart from those 
given by Meier.
Are there any other ancient authors who used both terms to describe 
crucifixion?
Although ANASKOLOPISTHENTA isn't used in the GNT, did any of the 
early christian writers use it, or inflections of it?
Jonathan Clerke
clerke at humanperformance.cc
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Anita Clerke wrote:
> Although ANASKOLOPISTHENTA isn't used in the GNT, did any of the
> early christian writers use it, or inflections of it?
Using  ANASKOLOPIS as my search term, I find:
Herodotus Hist.
Hist 9.78.15
Philo Judaeus Phil.
Post 61.7; Som 2.213.5; Jos 96.3
Dio Chrysostomus Soph.
Orationes 17.15.5
Lucianus Soph.
Prom 2.3; Prom 7.9; Cont 14.10; Pisc 2.8; Peregr 11.11
Acta et Martyrium Apollonii
Acta et martyrium Apollonii 40.4
Cassius Dio Hist.
Historiae Romanae 62.11.4.3; S164.22
Heliodorus Scr. Erot.
Aeth 4.20.2.8
Gregorius Nyssenus Theol.
Orationes viii de beatitudinibus 44.1297.53
Eusebius Scr. Eccl. et Theol.
Eccl Hist 2.25.5.4;  8.8.1.13
Epiphanius Scr. Eccl.
Haer 1.260.14
Joannes Chrysostomus Scr. Ecc
In epistulam i ad Corinthios 61.356.52; In Petrum et Paulum 59.494.68
   Theodoretus Scr. Eccl.
Historia religiosa 31.13.12; Interpretatio in xii prophetas minores
81.1956.18
Joannes Malalas Chronogr.
Chron 473.10
Hesychius Lexicogr.
Lexicon (A-O alpha.4583.1 20a;  Lexicon (A-O alpha.4585.1 ‚20a;
Jeffrey B. Gibson, D.Phil. (Oxon)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Anita Clerke wrote:
> Could someone tell me if there may be a grammatical pattern or reason
> as to why these two authors sometimes used ANASKOLOPISTHENTA, or
> inflections of it, and other times used STAURON? Perhaps there is
> another possible reason for the choice of words apart from those
> given by Meier.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As you'll see from the LSJ entry on anaskolop-izô
anaskolop-izô :--Pass., with fut. Med. -skolopioumai (in pass. sense)
Hdt.3.132, 4.43, but Pass.
A. -skolopisthêsomai Luc.Prom.7 : aor. -eskolopisthên ib.2,10: pf.
-eskolopismai Id.Peregr.13 :--fix on a pole or stake, impale, Hdt.1.128,
3.159, al.; in 9.78 it is used convertibly with anastauroô, as in
Ph.1.237,687, Luc.Peregr.11.
the reason there might be alternating usage is that the terms are
synonymous.
Jeffrey B. Gibson, D.Phil. (Oxon)
e-mail jgibson000 at comcast.net
---------------------------------------------------------------------
I don't have access to this work by Lucian either and don't wish to spend the time to look for it since I have other work to accomplish.  I will nevertheless give you some thoughts regarding this.
It is customary to think of a cross in the fashion in which we see it in virtually every church as the form of a "t."  The proper designation of σταυρός [STAUROS], however, is a stake.  Although the word σταυρός [STAUROS] is not used in the passage, I refer you to MPol where it refers to Polycarp's execution
ὅτε δὲ ἡ πυρκαϊὰ ἡτοιμάσθη, ἀποθέμενος ἑαυτῷ πάντα τὰ ἱμάτια καὶ λύσας τὴν ζώνην, ἐπειρᾶτο καὶ ὑπολύειν ἑαυτόν, μὴ πρότερον τοῦτο ποιῶν διὰ τὸ ἀεὶ ἕκαστον τῶν πιστῶν σπουδάζειν ὅστις τάχιον τοῦ χρωτὸς αὐτοῦ ἅψηται. ἐν παντὶ γὰρ ἀγαθῆς ἕνεκεν πολιτείας καὶ πρὸ τῆς πολιᾶς ἐκεκόσμητο. (3) εὐθέως οὖν αὐτῷ περιετίθετο τὰ πρὸς τὴν πυρὰν ἡρμοσμένα ὄργανα. μελλόντων δὲ αὐτῶν καὶ προσηλοῦν, εἶπεν· Ἄφετέ με οὕτως. ὁ γὰρ δοὺς ὑπομεῖναι τὸ πῦρ δώσει καὶ χωρὶς τῆς ὑμετέρας ἐκ τῶν ἥλων
ἀσφαλείας ἄσκυλτον ἐπιμεῖναι τῇ πυρᾷ.
Holmes, M. W. (1999). The Apostolic Fathers : Greek texts and English translations (Updated ed.) (236). Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Books.
hOTE DE hH PURKAIA hHTOIMASQH, APOQEMENOS hEAUTWi PANTA TA hIMATIA KAI LUSAS THN ZWNHN, EPEIRATO KAI hUPOLUEIN hAUTON, MH PROTERON TOUTO POIWN DIA TO AEI hEKASTON TWN PISTWN SPOUDAZEIN hOSTIS TAXION TOU XRWTOS AUTOU hAYHTAI.  EN PANTI GAR AGAQHS hENEKEN POLITEIAS KAI PRO THS POLIAS EKEKOSMHTO. (3) EUQEWS OUN AUTWi PERIETIQETO TA PROS THN PURAN hHRMOSMENA ORGANA.  MELLONTWN DE AUTWN KAI PROSHLOUN, EIPEN, "AFETE ME hOUTWS.  hO GAR DOUS hUPOMEINAI TO PUR DWSEI KAI XWRIS THS hUMETERAS ED TWN hHLWN ASFALEIAS ASKULTON EPIMEINAI THi PURAi
Note the use here of PROSHLOW and hHLOS indicating that they had intended to nail him to an unstated object which was most likely a stake since it is doubtful that they intended to nail him to the firewood they place about him.  I therefore think the answer to your question regarding why one or the other word might be used is that they were virtually interchangeable.
George G F Somsel
gfsomsel@yahoo.com
 
 

That statement of yours reminded me of the way in which you tried to discredit Leolaia's research from 1990.
Were you able to find even one point yet in that particular research that is not supported by additional research?  Sometimes, or I could even say nearly all the time, when you do  try to point out an area of incompetence, so far I've only seen it fall flat because the research you offer will usually be often be found to exactly support the research you are trying to counter.
For example, the single item you offered in conjunction with this statement about Leolaia was a point about a Persian method of execution mentioned at Esther 5:14. It's true that Leolaia had mentioned the same point in footnote number 17 about Esther 7:9,10. But all that footnote pointed out was that the Greek word "stauros" was used to describe Persian methods of execution that could be more complex, comprised of boards or additional stakes according to the Greek.
You didn't say what the specific incompetence was, but yet in the same post you seemed only to be able to prove the correctness of the research by adding: "We know in Ancient Persia the gallows were equated to the cross, according to Ulfilas with the term “galga” used in the gothic testament. Gallows is in the shape of two T’s together. An (H) football goal post."
I'm not talking about people's conclusions and opinions based on their research. But when it comes to the research and evidence itself, I have not yet seen any particular item of research or evidence that you have offered that did not fully support what Leolaia had stated.
 

The relevant portions of Longenecker's Crosses of Pompeii are already available online. Of course Longenecker pretty much demolishes the Watchtower's position, that the cross was not in use by by persons associated with Christian religion prior to Constantine. Notice how the publisher promotes his book on Amazon, The Cross Before Constantine: The Early Life of a Christian Symbol:
This book brings together, for the first time, the relevant material evidence demonstrating Christian use of the cross prior to Constantine. Bruce Longenecker upends a longstanding consensus that the cross was not a Christian symbol until Constantine appropriated it to consolidate his power in the fourth century. Longenecker presents a wide variety of artifacts from across the Mediterranean basin that testify to the use of the cross as a visual symbol by some pre-Constantinian Christians. Those artifacts interlock with literary witnesses from the same period to provide a consistent and robust portrait of the cross as a pre-Constantinian symbol of Christian devotion. The material record of the pre-Constantinian period illustrates that Constantine did not invent the cross as a symbol of Christian faith; for an impressive number of Christians before Constantine's reign, the cross served as a visual symbol of commitment to a living deity in a dangerous world. Not looking for anyone's specific view, just good research and good evidence, good history, good linguistic analysis, etc. No one should go into a subject looking for authors who give a specific view.

No. Not missing anything on that count. We have already seen from several sources that the patibulum could be tied, or not tied, or nailed or not nailed. The gospel accounts show that Jesus was not nailed until he reached the place of execution. So, whatever he carried sounds like the same process associated with the carrying of the stauros/patibulum. If he carried such a patibulum, then according to the use of the term stauros, he could be said to be carrying/bearing his own stauros/xylon. And if Jesus were nailed to this patibulum, and it was quickly hoisted onto a standing pole, then the pole itself was also the stauros/xylon, because it was used in this type of execution (stauros). If a patibulum were discarded and Jesus was nailed directly to the standing stauros/xylon, then it would still of course be a stauros/xylon execution. If he were nailed to a tree (xylon) or some other gallows (xylon) or complex contraption (xylon) made up of one or more pieces in any of several different directions, it would still be a stauros/xylon execution.
The point is that the simplest and quickest of all these optionns, to me, would be to nail him to the stauros/xylon he was carrying and hoist it onto a standing stauros/xylon. This assumption appears to be the simplest way of reading the gospel accounts, and for me, requires the least number of additional assumptions left out of the text. It fits the rushed nature of the judgment, the fact that he was given a stauros to carry, and that he was executed between or among others who were evidently undergoing stauros/xylon executions on the same day. The text doesn't say if he was nailed to the piece he was carrying. It doesn't say if a pole were already standing when he was nailed to it, or if it was on the ground and then hoisted. It doesn't say if a new hole was dug, or how deep it would need to have been. It doesn't say how the pole or contraption was propped up. It doesn't say if a ladder was required, or additional timbers or wedges to prop up the stauros . It doesn't even say if Jesus' feet were nailed, or tied, or neither.
The Bible doesn't say Jesus was raised above the other criminals. Maybe he was; maybe he wasn't.
I think you are saying that if Jesus were nailed to a crossbeam, the scriptures should have told us that he was also tied, even though we don't even know if Jesus was ever tied to a crossbeam.
The Bible does not say that Peter was crucified or executed on any kind of stauros/xylon device. So there is no optic that is even necessarily related to a stauros execution here.
(John 21:18, 19) Most truly I say to you, when you were younger, you used to clothe yourself and walk about where you wanted. But when you grow old, you will stretch out your hands and another man will clothe you and carry you where you do not wish.” 19 He said this to indicate by what sort of death he would glorify God. After he said this, he said to him: “Continue following me.” This could just as well refer to a prisoner who is led around or carried around. With stauros executions, the victim was humiliated through complete nudity and could be contorted into obscene positions. So while the expression "stretch out your hands" was often associated with a stauros execution, it can also refer to a person who becomes an "invalid" or perhaps as a prisoner being led about. (This does not mean he was not "crucified." But speculating on the type of stauros is not going to get us anywhere.)
I covered this idea already in the first part of the post. There are no known examples of anyone carrying a two-beamed cross, or even a two beamed cross being erected on the spot for an execution. Doesn't mean it could never happen. However a well-researched historical understanding of stauros (n) and stauroo (v) is all one needs to make sense of the Biblical accounts. False religion comes up with a lot of things that make no sense: Christmas trees, Easter eggs, Pyramid measurements, eternal torment, justified warfare, wearing crosses around one's neck, kissing a Pope's ring, etc.
The Greek doesn't come out at all when the text is copied from sites like https://epdf.tips/crucifixion-in-the-ancient-world-and-the-folly-of-the-message-of-the-cross-facet.html or https://religiondocbox.com/72495443-Pagan_and_Wiccan/Martin-hengel-crucifixion-in-the-ancient-world-and-the-folly-of-the-message-of-the-cross-philadelphia.html or https://religiondocbox.com/Pagan_and_Wiccan/72495443-Martin-hengel-crucifixion-in-the-ancient-world-and-the-folly-of-the-message-of-the-cross-philadelphia.html for example. The OCR is pretty good for Latin, of course, but can't handle Greek. All three of the sites I mentioned will give you the "alaxvvrj" that you quoted, when the actual word is αἰσχύνη/αἰσχύνης [from: "endured the cross, despising the shame, and is set down at the right hand of the throne of God" -KJV].
A point of interest on the words used for this type of execution is that in the next century after Jesus, two different words were finally utilized in order to distinguish between a simple stake and a "Latin cross." The word crux (crucis/crucibus) was continued as the word for a Latin cross, and the simple stake was given a different word, rather than the other way around as one would expect if the Watchtower's view were correct.
About 100 years after Revelation was likely written, Tertullian says:
And of course, closer to only 50 years after Revelation was written, we have Justin Martyr describing the shape of the stauros:
And again the same prophet Isaiah, being inspired by the prophetic Spirit, said, "I have spread out my hands to a disobedient and gainsaying people, to those who walk in a way that is not good. They now ask of me judgment, and dare to draw near to God." And again in other words, through another prophet, He says, "They pierced My hands and My feet, and for My vesture they cast lots." And indeed David, the king and prophet, who uttered these things, suffered none of them; but Jesus Christ stretched forth His hands, being crucified by the Jews speaking against Him, and denying that He was the Christ. - First Apology, Chapter XXXV "God does not permit the lamb of the passover to be sacrificed in any other place than where His name was named; knowing that the days will come, after the suffering of Christ, when even the place in Jerusalem shall be given over to your enemies, and all the offerings, in short, shall cease; and that lamb which was commanded to be wholly roasted was a symbol of the suffering of the cross which Christ would undergo. For the lamb, which is roasted, is roasted and dressed up in the form of the cross. For one spit is transfixed right through from the lower parts up to the head, and one across the back, to which are attached the legs of the lamb." - Second Apology, Chapter XL The Tertullian and Justin quotes were taken from https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/questions/5595/jesus-and-the-cross/5646

No. Not missing anything on that count. We have already seen from several sources that the patibulum could be tied, or not tied, or nailed or not nailed. The gospel accounts show that Jesus was not nailed until he reached the place of execution. So, whatever he carried sounds like the same process associated with the carrying of the stauros/patibulum. If he carried such a patibulum, then according to the use of the term stauros, he could be said to be carrying/bearing his own stauros/xylon. And if Jesus were nailed to this patibulum, and it was quickly hoisted onto a standing pole, then the pole itself was also the stauros/xylon, because it was used in this type of execution (stauros). If a patibulum were discarded and Jesus was nailed directly to the standing stauros/xylon, then it would still of course be a stauros/xylon execution. If he were nailed to a tree (xylon) or some other gallows (xylon) or complex contraption (xylon) made up of one or more pieces in any of several different directions, it would still be a stauros/xylon execution.
The point is that the simplest and quickest of all these optionns, to me, would be to nail him to the stauros/xylon he was carrying and hoist it onto a standing stauros/xylon. This assumption appears to be the simplest way of reading the gospel accounts, and for me, requires the least number of additional assumptions left out of the text. It fits the rushed nature of the judgment, the fact that he was given a stauros to carry, and that he was executed between or among others who were evidently undergoing stauros/xylon executions on the same day. The text doesn't say if he was nailed to the piece he was carrying. It doesn't say if a pole were already standing when he was nailed to it, or if it was on the ground and then hoisted. It doesn't say if a new hole was dug, or how deep it would need to have been. It doesn't say how the pole or contraption was propped up. It doesn't say if a ladder was required, or additional timbers or wedges to prop up the stauros . It doesn't even say if Jesus' feet were nailed, or tied, or neither.
The Bible doesn't say Jesus was raised above the other criminals. Maybe he was; maybe he wasn't.
I think you are saying that if Jesus were nailed to a crossbeam, the scriptures should have told us that he was also tied, even though we don't even know if Jesus was ever tied to a crossbeam.
The Bible does not say that Peter was crucified or executed on any kind of stauros/xylon device. So there is no optic that is even necessarily related to a stauros execution here.
(John 21:18, 19) Most truly I say to you, when you were younger, you used to clothe yourself and walk about where you wanted. But when you grow old, you will stretch out your hands and another man will clothe you and carry you where you do not wish.” 19 He said this to indicate by what sort of death he would glorify God. After he said this, he said to him: “Continue following me.” This could just as well refer to a prisoner who is led around or carried around. With stauros executions, the victim was humiliated through complete nudity and could be contorted into obscene positions. So while the expression "stretch out your hands" was often associated with a stauros execution, it can also refer to a person who becomes an "invalid" or perhaps as a prisoner being led about. (This does not mean he was not "crucified." But speculating on the type of stauros is not going to get us anywhere.)
I covered this idea already in the first part of the post. There are no known examples of anyone carrying a two-beamed cross, or even a two beamed cross being erected on the spot for an execution. Doesn't mean it could never happen. However a well-researched historical understanding of stauros (n) and stauroo (v) is all one needs to make sense of the Biblical accounts. False religion comes up with a lot of things that make no sense: Christmas trees, Easter eggs, Pyramid measurements, eternal torment, justified warfare, wearing crosses around one's neck, kissing a Pope's ring, etc.
The Greek doesn't come out at all when the text is copied from sites like https://epdf.tips/crucifixion-in-the-ancient-world-and-the-folly-of-the-message-of-the-cross-facet.html or https://religiondocbox.com/72495443-Pagan_and_Wiccan/Martin-hengel-crucifixion-in-the-ancient-world-and-the-folly-of-the-message-of-the-cross-philadelphia.html or https://religiondocbox.com/Pagan_and_Wiccan/72495443-Martin-hengel-crucifixion-in-the-ancient-world-and-the-folly-of-the-message-of-the-cross-philadelphia.html for example. The OCR is pretty good for Latin, of course, but can't handle Greek. All three of the sites I mentioned will give you the "alaxvvrj" that you quoted, when the actual word is αἰσχύνη/αἰσχύνης [from: "endured the cross, despising the shame, and is set down at the right hand of the throne of God" -KJV].
A point of interest on the words used for this type of execution is that in the next century after Jesus, two different words were finally utilized in order to distinguish between a simple stake and a "Latin cross." The word crux (crucis/crucibus) was continued as the word for a Latin cross, and the simple stake was given a different word, rather than the other way around as one would expect if the Watchtower's view were correct.
About 100 years after Revelation was likely written, Tertullian says:
And of course, closer to only 50 years after Revelation was written, we have Justin Martyr describing the shape of the stauros:
And again the same prophet Isaiah, being inspired by the prophetic Spirit, said, "I have spread out my hands to a disobedient and gainsaying people, to those who walk in a way that is not good. They now ask of me judgment, and dare to draw near to God." And again in other words, through another prophet, He says, "They pierced My hands and My feet, and for My vesture they cast lots." And indeed David, the king and prophet, who uttered these things, suffered none of them; but Jesus Christ stretched forth His hands, being crucified by the Jews speaking against Him, and denying that He was the Christ. - First Apology, Chapter XXXV "God does not permit the lamb of the passover to be sacrificed in any other place than where His name was named; knowing that the days will come, after the suffering of Christ, when even the place in Jerusalem shall be given over to your enemies, and all the offerings, in short, shall cease; and that lamb which was commanded to be wholly roasted was a symbol of the suffering of the cross which Christ would undergo. For the lamb, which is roasted, is roasted and dressed up in the form of the cross. For one spit is transfixed right through from the lower parts up to the head, and one across the back, to which are attached the legs of the lamb." - Second Apology, Chapter XL The Tertullian and Justin quotes were taken from https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/questions/5595/jesus-and-the-cross/5646

Let's boil down to the 'practicality' of this discussion:  
1.  The Romans are not stupid.  They must have figured out after their first few executions that it is very tedious to plant a stake or cross each time somebody is executed.  It will be far more easier to use a dead tree or have a permanently planted pole (stake / xylon) and simply raise and attach on top a stauros / patibulum with the condemned nailed to it.  
2.  A whole cross would weigh well over 135 kg (300 lb), but the crossbeam would not be quite as burdensome, weighing around 45 kg (100 lb). (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2651675)  If Jesus was to carry the pole (stake / xylon) only, that would still amount to 90 kg (198 lb) and is no easy task.  Carrying the crossbeam (stauros / patibulum) is deemed more realistic.  But then, an exhausted person deprived of sleep would easily stumble even on the lighter weight, so that Simon the Cyrene was compelled by the soldiers to carry it for him. 
3.  While the bible is silent on the details, it is interesting to note that nailing is associated with stauros, and hanging with xylon. 
Bottom line:  there is no conflict on translating stauros as torture stake/stake and xylon as stake or tree.  Using the word cross for any of the Greek words mentioned likewise do not give a clear picture. 
 
 
 
 

Interesting to look at the term used by Lucian, "anastauroo."
*** Rbi8 p. 1577 5C “Torture Stake” ***
It was to such a stake, or pale, that the person to be punished was fastened, just as the popular Greek hero Prometheus was represented as tied to rocks. Whereas the Greek word that the dramatist Aeschylus used to describe this simply means to tie or to fasten, the Greek author Lucian (Prometheus, I) used a·na·stau·roʹo as a synonym for that word. In the Christian Greek Scriptures a·na·stau·roʹo occurs but once, in Heb 6:6. I'm not saying that @BillyTheKid46 was right (I don't think he is on this point) but note what he or one of his sources apparently claimed about that word "ana-stauroo":
If @BillyTheKid46 is right about this, it was not the original way in which anastauro was used, but I can see how it might have developed into quick way to distinguish a "crossing" cross with a simple, upright stake or pole. But this would never be claimed by the Watchtower because that would cause 'fits' with Hebrews 6:6 which uses the word and would therefore mean the following: 
(Hebrews 6:6) but who have fallen away, to revive them again to repentance, because they [ANASTAUROO - crucify on a dual-beamed, crossing cross] the Son of God afresh for themselves and expose him to public shame. Wikipedia mentions that Seneca The Younger (4BC - AD65) had observed the following during his life:
The Greek and Latin words corresponding to "crucifixion" applied to many different forms of painful execution, including being impaled on a stake, or affixed to a tree, upright pole (a crux simplex), or (most famous now) to a combination of an upright (in Latin, stipes) and a crossbeam (in Latin, patibulum). Seneca the Younger wrote: "I see crosses there, not just of one kind but made in many different ways: some have their victims with head down to the ground; some impale their private parts; others stretch out their arms on the gibbet".[14] Just another thought. Some large bones all come together in a smaller area at the wrist and there is therefore very little space at the wrist to pound a nail without the probability of breaking bones.

There was a posting on this topic, which seemed all wrong for this same reason:
 

Interesting to look at the term used by Lucian, "anastauroo."
*** Rbi8 p. 1577 5C “Torture Stake” ***
It was to such a stake, or pale, that the person to be punished was fastened, just as the popular Greek hero Prometheus was represented as tied to rocks. Whereas the Greek word that the dramatist Aeschylus used to describe this simply means to tie or to fasten, the Greek author Lucian (Prometheus, I) used a·na·stau·roʹo as a synonym for that word. In the Christian Greek Scriptures a·na·stau·roʹo occurs but once, in Heb 6:6. I'm not saying that @BillyTheKid46 was right (I don't think he is on this point) but note what he or one of his sources apparently claimed about that word "ana-stauroo":
If @BillyTheKid46 is right about this, it was not the original way in which anastauro was used, but I can see how it might have developed into quick way to distinguish a "crossing" cross with a simple, upright stake or pole. But this would never be claimed by the Watchtower because that would cause 'fits' with Hebrews 6:6 which uses the word and would therefore mean the following: 
(Hebrews 6:6) but who have fallen away, to revive them again to repentance, because they [ANASTAUROO - crucify on a dual-beamed, crossing cross] the Son of God afresh for themselves and expose him to public shame. Wikipedia mentions that Seneca The Younger (4BC - AD65) had observed the following during his life:
The Greek and Latin words corresponding to "crucifixion" applied to many different forms of painful execution, including being impaled on a stake, or affixed to a tree, upright pole (a crux simplex), or (most famous now) to a combination of an upright (in Latin, stipes) and a crossbeam (in Latin, patibulum). Seneca the Younger wrote: "I see crosses there, not just of one kind but made in many different ways: some have their victims with head down to the ground; some impale their private parts; others stretch out their arms on the gibbet".[14] Just another thought. Some large bones all come together in a smaller area at the wrist and there is therefore very little space at the wrist to pound a nail without the probability of breaking bones.

There was a posting on this topic, which seemed all wrong for this same reason:
 

Interesting to look at the term used by Lucian, "anastauroo."
*** Rbi8 p. 1577 5C “Torture Stake” ***
It was to such a stake, or pale, that the person to be punished was fastened, just as the popular Greek hero Prometheus was represented as tied to rocks. Whereas the Greek word that the dramatist Aeschylus used to describe this simply means to tie or to fasten, the Greek author Lucian (Prometheus, I) used a·na·stau·roʹo as a synonym for that word. In the Christian Greek Scriptures a·na·stau·roʹo occurs but once, in Heb 6:6. I'm not saying that @BillyTheKid46 was right (I don't think he is on this point) but note what he or one of his sources apparently claimed about that word "ana-stauroo":
If @BillyTheKid46 is right about this, it was not the original way in which anastauro was used, but I can see how it might have developed into quick way to distinguish a "crossing" cross with a simple, upright stake or pole. But this would never be claimed by the Watchtower because that would cause 'fits' with Hebrews 6:6 which uses the word and would therefore mean the following: 
(Hebrews 6:6) but who have fallen away, to revive them again to repentance, because they [ANASTAUROO - crucify on a dual-beamed, crossing cross] the Son of God afresh for themselves and expose him to public shame. Wikipedia mentions that Seneca The Younger (4BC - AD65) had observed the following during his life:
The Greek and Latin words corresponding to "crucifixion" applied to many different forms of painful execution, including being impaled on a stake, or affixed to a tree, upright pole (a crux simplex), or (most famous now) to a combination of an upright (in Latin, stipes) and a crossbeam (in Latin, patibulum). Seneca the Younger wrote: "I see crosses there, not just of one kind but made in many different ways: some have their victims with head down to the ground; some impale their private parts; others stretch out their arms on the gibbet".[14] Just another thought. Some large bones all come together in a smaller area at the wrist and there is therefore very little space at the wrist to pound a nail without the probability of breaking bones.

There was a posting on this topic, which seemed all wrong for this same reason:
 

What you generally describe does seem to work with the gospel accounts. There are some specific points I would still question, including the fact that Anna already pointed out: Jesus was not nailed until reaching the final place of execution.
Some have shown concern about whether Jesus could really have carried his stauros considering the weight. There is some evidence that the Roman execution process could include putting a notch in the patibulum beam of the stauros that was carried in public on the way to the execution site. 
Some have also shown concern about the extra time it would take to prepare a patibulum with a notch while in the midst of a "rush" to judgment. But if a stake/tree was already standing at the place of execution "Skull Place" it could have already contained the notch that the patibulum was merely hoisted onto.
The idea of the arms stretched wide across a patibulum to carry it, and then later having the hands nailed widely apart onto that same patibulum also solves an issue about whether a ladder was needed. If Jesus were already nailed to a patibulum then 2 or 3 soldiers who were 6-feet tall could easily hoist it to a notch (already prepared) about 8 feet off the ground. If the arms remain at about the same level as the head, then Jesus' feet are still a foot or two off the ground depending on his height. And they would need to be nailed, too.
Previously, some have speculated that the very fact that this Skull Place existed and two criminals were being executed there on the same day could be an indication that the scarce timber of this country was already standing in place ready for constant re-use without the need to dig new holes and hoist tall poles into them and shore them up so that they could not fall over. The patibulum practice of making someone march through the public carrying it on their back, makes perfect sense in such an environment. 
But it's still speculation. To me it's a matter of which way the overall evidence leans.