JW Insider

Hi folks. Just tuned in late, but this is how I see it: 
1.  Jesus carried the stauros or stake. 
2.  Both of his HANDS were nailed to it while grasping it, a meter or a yard apart.  That is, nails were driven from the back, not from the palms.  
3.  He was then HANGED on a stake, creating a letter "T" cross.  Probably the stauros (patibulum) had a notch that would fit nicely at the top of the already upright stake. 
4. The feet were then nailed or tied tight to prevent a further escape. 
With the above, we can reconcile the following: 
1.  Jesus was nailed to a STAKE (stauros). 
2.  He was HANGED upon a tree. 
3.  With arms outstretched and gripping the 'cross beam', he could last for hours until exhaustion did its job. Otherwise, any healthy person hanged with both hands tied together won't last an hour owing to a compressed lungs.
4.  Finally, we get to understand the implication of John 21:18,19 regarding 'arms outstretched' and the 'manner of death' mentioned. 
Cheers everyone!
 

I think that put the Kid in his place.  
Just shows how well the JW Org had trained him, to use one meaning but deliberately leave out the second meaning. Oh dear. 
Thank you for this well thought out comment. 
 

It should be noted that none of the pictures you showed, not even this one of pagan Marsyas, were from sources giving evidence that Jesus died on an upright pole. I only mention this fact because some people might see such pictures and get a sense that there is historical evidence about an upright pole as a method for the execution of Jesus. It should probably also be noted that you have found no pictures of pagan persons on crosses prior to Christ, but have found several images of pagans on poles. Yet, these ideas about pagans and idolatry still seem to be the key to your complete rejection the earliest known evidence about the shape of the stauros upon which Jesus was executed. Of course, you have the right to accept or reject whatever evidence you wish on whatever grounds you wish. I'm just looking for the logic behind it.
You have used the term crucifixion to indicate execution on a traditional cross-shaped device. If this is what you mean, then who do you think originated crucifixion on such a device before the Romans? And for how many years, decades, centuries, etc., do you think these other persons were executing people on crosses before the Romans. Also, I note that you describe it as "cruelty imposed on criminals and slaves," which is true, but which appears to be at odds with the logic in the next statement:
Crucifixion itself was cruelty imposed on criminals/slaves, but you say the original word for it was added later to symbolize an honorable and victorious death. What was that original word that was added later? How original could it have been if it was added later?
And now you say it was the first rendering of "torture stake" that wasn't available until a very long time later because it was hidden. Again, what was this first rendering and how could it have been first if it came along a very long time later after being hidden?
Because you are repeatedly using the term "we know" about all these points, I don't think you should have trouble answering any of the questions that come up about them.
And of course, you included the first definition as taken from classical Greek and "pagan" authors, but left off the second definition which aligns with the examples found in the Christian Greek Scriptures.
Here is definition 2 from STRONGS NT 4716:
2. a cross;
a. the well-known instrument of most cruel and ignominious punishment, borrowed by the Greeks and Romans from the Phoenicians; to it were affixed among the Romans, down to the time of Constantine the Great, the guiltiest criminals, particularly the basest slaves, robbers, the authors and abetters of insurrections, and occasionally in the provinces, at the arbitrary pleasure of the governors, upright and peaceable men also, and even Roman citizens themselves; cf. Winers RWB, under the word Kreuzigung; Merz in Herzog edition 1 ((cf. Schaff-Herzog) also Schultze in Herzog edition 2), under the word Kreuz; Keim, iii., p. 409ff. (English translation, vi. 138; BB. DD., see under the words, Cross, Crucifixion; O. Zöckler, Das Kreuz Christi (Gütersloh, 1875); English translation, Lond. 1878; Fulda, Das Kreuz u. d. Kreuzigung (Bresl. 1878); Edersheim, Jesus the Messiah, ii. 582ff). This horrible punishment the innocent Jesus also suffered: Matthew 27:32, 40, 42; Mark 15:21, 30, 32; Luke 23:26; John 19:17, 19, 25, 31; Colossians 2:14; Hebrews 12:2; θάνατος σταυροῦ, Philippians 2:8; τό αἷμα τοῦ σταυροῦ, blood shed on the cross; Colossians 1:20.
b. equivalent to the crucifixion which Christ underwent: Galatians 5:11 (on which see σκάνδαλον, under the end); Ephesians 2:16; with the addition of τοῦ Χριστοῦ, 1 Corinthians 1:17; the saving power of his crucifixion, Philippians 3:18 (on which see ἐχθρός, at the end); Galatians 6:14; τῷ σταυρῷ τοῦ Χριστοῦ διώκεσθαι, to encounter persecution on account of one's avowed belief in the saving efficacy of Christ's crucifixion, Galatians 6:12; ὁ λόγος ὁ τοῦ σταυροῦ, the doctrine concerning the saving power of the death on the cross endured by Christ, 1 Corinthians 1:18. The judicial usage which compelled those condemned to crucifixion themselves to carry the cross to the place of punishment (Plutarch, de sara numinis vindict. c. 9; Artemidorus Daldianus, oneir. 2, 56, cf. John 19:17), gave rise to the proverbial expression αἴρειν or λαμβάνειν or βαστάζειν τόν σταυρόν αὐτοῦ, which was usually used by those who, on behalf of God's cause, do not hesitate cheerfully and manfully to bear persecutions, troubles, distresses — thus recalling the fate of Christ and the spirit in which he encountered it (cf. Bleek, Synop. Erkl. der drei ersten Evangg. i, p. 439f): Matthew 10:38; Matthew 16:24; Mark 8:34; Mark 10:21 (R L in brackets); Mark 15:21; Luke 9:23; Luke 14:27.

Please do take in consideration reality about the fact, how not only people who oppose to WT doctrines are the one who talking about WT wrongs. This same WT periodically talking about own previous "errors". That says, how i am not the only one who "making judgement of what another thinks" is true or wrong. WT scholars of today/present time "judging" WT scholars of past time. By doing so they annuls past hard working of dedicate brothers. How they doing this? By introducing "new teachings"!
To using  your expression and way of logic; Both group of WT scholars has done nothing else but showed  an opinion on some, on many issues. Both group are not making any "true or wrong". They just "rowing" .... as You or Me doing now. ;))))) 
And yes, WT also "making a judgement of what another thinks as "true"", and announcing publicly how those "another" are apostate, pagans, false Christendom etc.   

This hypothesis is based on the false premise that the use of a two beam cross has been established as a fact which, patently, it has  not.
We do not reject fact in preference to fiction, that is just the allegation of opposers. But we do reserve the right to support an alternative, where such exists, regardless of it being popularly accepted or not. When possibilities are established as facts, we will adjust our thinking. This is something which is not always the case with opposers, and is the subject of much of their crticism.

Your research is interesting but this statement detracts from it's quality because if nothing else, there remains the fact that the implement used to execute Jesus is not clearly defined in scripture. So to ridicule those who chose one alternative over another does not enhance your position.
Whilst the many details outlined above can be found rummaging through the rubbish, there is one point you raise in passing that I have considered although not mentioned so far: 
Research and experiment have indicated that a T-beam execution could be a long drawn out affair, even lasting days. A single pale execution however would be over much more quickly, estimates ranging from minutes to hours. Regardless of Pharisees and scribes desires in this matter, we also need to consider the will of Jesus's Father, Jehovah God. He has made a promise to those carrying their own (symbolic, thankyou @JW Insider) torture stake.  Even if subjected to the ultimate sacrifice along with their trials at the hands of the "ruler of the world" (John 14:30), Jehovah promised that "he will not let you be tempted beyond what you can bear, but along with the temptation he will also make the way out so that you may be able to endure it." 1Cor.10:13. Jesus cry of “It has been accomplished!” (John 19:30) after 3 hours of hanging on the stake obviated his hanging there any longer. A single stake method of execution was enough to achieve this purpose.

Matter of preference ?
Consider for a moment that cross is true fact. But JW are ready to firmly rejecting this fact ONLY because of reality how all other "FALSE" (apostate?) religions using that fact/symbol for own religious beliefs, doctrines and customs. 
Such idea is similar to those verses in Bible 
Luke 7:31-35 New International Version (NIV)
31 Jesus went on to say, “To what, then, can I compare the people of this generation? What are they like? 32 They are like children sitting in the marketplace and calling out to each other:
“‘We played the pipe for you,
    and you did not dance;
we sang a dirge,
    and you did not cry.’
33 For John the Baptist came neither eating bread nor drinking wine,and you say, ‘He has a demon.’ 34 The Son of Man came eating and drinking, and you say, ‘Here is a glutton and a drunkard, a friend of tax collectors and sinners.’ 35 But wisdom is proved right by all her children.
 

A Greek philosopher like Homer? Does your source even know who Homer was supposed to have been? Does he or she know that works attributed to Homer were supposed to have been written around 800 B.C.E.? Some say he might have actually been a witness to the Trojan War dated to around 1200 B.C.E. How likely is it, then, that he used "Stavros" (stauros) as a surname for Christos?
This was covered already. If your source had done real research in Greek, they would not have made such a mistake in thinking that Stauros means "crown wreath." Stephan can mean that, but not Stauros or Stavros -- the word meaning "cross," or person's name meaning "cross."
It can't be accepted by anyone who has done any research or study of the facts. Stavros is not related to thorn crown. Stavros is stauros, the upright pole or cross shaped object for execution. Some of these poles or crosses might have had an extra piece called a "horn" or "thorn" added to them, (the sedile) but this is unrelated to a crown wreath, or a crown of thorns.
This is like saying that the "|" is a pagan Baal and phallic symbol and played no role in the crucifixion of Christ.
Not sure why you added this. It's true, but it appears to be evidence in favor of a major feature of the scriptural account. Thanks for the support, even if inadvertent.

It should be noted that none of the pictures you showed, not even this one of pagan Marsyas, were from sources giving evidence that Jesus died on an upright pole. I only mention this fact because some people might see such pictures and get a sense that there is historical evidence about an upright pole as a method for the execution of Jesus. It should probably also be noted that you have found no pictures of pagan persons on crosses prior to Christ, but have found several images of pagans on poles. Yet, these ideas about pagans and idolatry still seem to be the key to your complete rejection the earliest known evidence about the shape of the stauros upon which Jesus was executed. Of course, you have the right to accept or reject whatever evidence you wish on whatever grounds you wish. I'm just looking for the logic behind it.
You have used the term crucifixion to indicate execution on a traditional cross-shaped device. If this is what you mean, then who do you think originated crucifixion on such a device before the Romans? And for how many years, decades, centuries, etc., do you think these other persons were executing people on crosses before the Romans. Also, I note that you describe it as "cruelty imposed on criminals and slaves," which is true, but which appears to be at odds with the logic in the next statement:
Crucifixion itself was cruelty imposed on criminals/slaves, but you say the original word for it was added later to symbolize an honorable and victorious death. What was that original word that was added later? How original could it have been if it was added later?
And now you say it was the first rendering of "torture stake" that wasn't available until a very long time later because it was hidden. Again, what was this first rendering and how could it have been first if it came along a very long time later after being hidden?
Because you are repeatedly using the term "we know" about all these points, I don't think you should have trouble answering any of the questions that come up about them.
And of course, you included the first definition as taken from classical Greek and "pagan" authors, but left off the second definition which aligns with the examples found in the Christian Greek Scriptures.
Here is definition 2 from STRONGS NT 4716:
2. a cross;
a. the well-known instrument of most cruel and ignominious punishment, borrowed by the Greeks and Romans from the Phoenicians; to it were affixed among the Romans, down to the time of Constantine the Great, the guiltiest criminals, particularly the basest slaves, robbers, the authors and abetters of insurrections, and occasionally in the provinces, at the arbitrary pleasure of the governors, upright and peaceable men also, and even Roman citizens themselves; cf. Winers RWB, under the word Kreuzigung; Merz in Herzog edition 1 ((cf. Schaff-Herzog) also Schultze in Herzog edition 2), under the word Kreuz; Keim, iii., p. 409ff. (English translation, vi. 138; BB. DD., see under the words, Cross, Crucifixion; O. Zöckler, Das Kreuz Christi (Gütersloh, 1875); English translation, Lond. 1878; Fulda, Das Kreuz u. d. Kreuzigung (Bresl. 1878); Edersheim, Jesus the Messiah, ii. 582ff). This horrible punishment the innocent Jesus also suffered: Matthew 27:32, 40, 42; Mark 15:21, 30, 32; Luke 23:26; John 19:17, 19, 25, 31; Colossians 2:14; Hebrews 12:2; θάνατος σταυροῦ, Philippians 2:8; τό αἷμα τοῦ σταυροῦ, blood shed on the cross; Colossians 1:20.
b. equivalent to the crucifixion which Christ underwent: Galatians 5:11 (on which see σκάνδαλον, under the end); Ephesians 2:16; with the addition of τοῦ Χριστοῦ, 1 Corinthians 1:17; the saving power of his crucifixion, Philippians 3:18 (on which see ἐχθρός, at the end); Galatians 6:14; τῷ σταυρῷ τοῦ Χριστοῦ διώκεσθαι, to encounter persecution on account of one's avowed belief in the saving efficacy of Christ's crucifixion, Galatians 6:12; ὁ λόγος ὁ τοῦ σταυροῦ, the doctrine concerning the saving power of the death on the cross endured by Christ, 1 Corinthians 1:18. The judicial usage which compelled those condemned to crucifixion themselves to carry the cross to the place of punishment (Plutarch, de sara numinis vindict. c. 9; Artemidorus Daldianus, oneir. 2, 56, cf. John 19:17), gave rise to the proverbial expression αἴρειν or λαμβάνειν or βαστάζειν τόν σταυρόν αὐτοῦ, which was usually used by those who, on behalf of God's cause, do not hesitate cheerfully and manfully to bear persecutions, troubles, distresses — thus recalling the fate of Christ and the spirit in which he encountered it (cf. Bleek, Synop. Erkl. der drei ersten Evangg. i, p. 439f): Matthew 10:38; Matthew 16:24; Mark 8:34; Mark 10:21 (R L in brackets); Mark 15:21; Luke 9:23; Luke 14:27.

It should be noted that none of the pictures you showed, not even this one of pagan Marsyas, were from sources giving evidence that Jesus died on an upright pole. I only mention this fact because some people might see such pictures and get a sense that there is historical evidence about an upright pole as a method for the execution of Jesus. It should probably also be noted that you have found no pictures of pagan persons on crosses prior to Christ, but have found several images of pagans on poles. Yet, these ideas about pagans and idolatry still seem to be the key to your complete rejection the earliest known evidence about the shape of the stauros upon which Jesus was executed. Of course, you have the right to accept or reject whatever evidence you wish on whatever grounds you wish. I'm just looking for the logic behind it.
You have used the term crucifixion to indicate execution on a traditional cross-shaped device. If this is what you mean, then who do you think originated crucifixion on such a device before the Romans? And for how many years, decades, centuries, etc., do you think these other persons were executing people on crosses before the Romans. Also, I note that you describe it as "cruelty imposed on criminals and slaves," which is true, but which appears to be at odds with the logic in the next statement:
Crucifixion itself was cruelty imposed on criminals/slaves, but you say the original word for it was added later to symbolize an honorable and victorious death. What was that original word that was added later? How original could it have been if it was added later?
And now you say it was the first rendering of "torture stake" that wasn't available until a very long time later because it was hidden. Again, what was this first rendering and how could it have been first if it came along a very long time later after being hidden?
Because you are repeatedly using the term "we know" about all these points, I don't think you should have trouble answering any of the questions that come up about them.
And of course, you included the first definition as taken from classical Greek and "pagan" authors, but left off the second definition which aligns with the examples found in the Christian Greek Scriptures.
Here is definition 2 from STRONGS NT 4716:
2. a cross;
a. the well-known instrument of most cruel and ignominious punishment, borrowed by the Greeks and Romans from the Phoenicians; to it were affixed among the Romans, down to the time of Constantine the Great, the guiltiest criminals, particularly the basest slaves, robbers, the authors and abetters of insurrections, and occasionally in the provinces, at the arbitrary pleasure of the governors, upright and peaceable men also, and even Roman citizens themselves; cf. Winers RWB, under the word Kreuzigung; Merz in Herzog edition 1 ((cf. Schaff-Herzog) also Schultze in Herzog edition 2), under the word Kreuz; Keim, iii., p. 409ff. (English translation, vi. 138; BB. DD., see under the words, Cross, Crucifixion; O. Zöckler, Das Kreuz Christi (Gütersloh, 1875); English translation, Lond. 1878; Fulda, Das Kreuz u. d. Kreuzigung (Bresl. 1878); Edersheim, Jesus the Messiah, ii. 582ff). This horrible punishment the innocent Jesus also suffered: Matthew 27:32, 40, 42; Mark 15:21, 30, 32; Luke 23:26; John 19:17, 19, 25, 31; Colossians 2:14; Hebrews 12:2; θάνατος σταυροῦ, Philippians 2:8; τό αἷμα τοῦ σταυροῦ, blood shed on the cross; Colossians 1:20.
b. equivalent to the crucifixion which Christ underwent: Galatians 5:11 (on which see σκάνδαλον, under the end); Ephesians 2:16; with the addition of τοῦ Χριστοῦ, 1 Corinthians 1:17; the saving power of his crucifixion, Philippians 3:18 (on which see ἐχθρός, at the end); Galatians 6:14; τῷ σταυρῷ τοῦ Χριστοῦ διώκεσθαι, to encounter persecution on account of one's avowed belief in the saving efficacy of Christ's crucifixion, Galatians 6:12; ὁ λόγος ὁ τοῦ σταυροῦ, the doctrine concerning the saving power of the death on the cross endured by Christ, 1 Corinthians 1:18. The judicial usage which compelled those condemned to crucifixion themselves to carry the cross to the place of punishment (Plutarch, de sara numinis vindict. c. 9; Artemidorus Daldianus, oneir. 2, 56, cf. John 19:17), gave rise to the proverbial expression αἴρειν or λαμβάνειν or βαστάζειν τόν σταυρόν αὐτοῦ, which was usually used by those who, on behalf of God's cause, do not hesitate cheerfully and manfully to bear persecutions, troubles, distresses — thus recalling the fate of Christ and the spirit in which he encountered it (cf. Bleek, Synop. Erkl. der drei ersten Evangg. i, p. 439f): Matthew 10:38; Matthew 16:24; Mark 8:34; Mark 10:21 (R L in brackets); Mark 15:21; Luke 9:23; Luke 14:27.

A Greek philosopher like Homer? Does your source even know who Homer was supposed to have been? Does he or she know that works attributed to Homer were supposed to have been written around 800 B.C.E.? Some say he might have actually been a witness to the Trojan War dated to around 1200 B.C.E. How likely is it, then, that he used "Stavros" (stauros) as a surname for Christos?
This was covered already. If your source had done real research in Greek, they would not have made such a mistake in thinking that Stauros means "crown wreath." Stephan can mean that, but not Stauros or Stavros -- the word meaning "cross," or person's name meaning "cross."
It can't be accepted by anyone who has done any research or study of the facts. Stavros is not related to thorn crown. Stavros is stauros, the upright pole or cross shaped object for execution. Some of these poles or crosses might have had an extra piece called a "horn" or "thorn" added to them, (the sedile) but this is unrelated to a crown wreath, or a crown of thorns.
This is like saying that the "|" is a pagan Baal and phallic symbol and played no role in the crucifixion of Christ.
Not sure why you added this. It's true, but it appears to be evidence in favor of a major feature of the scriptural account. Thanks for the support, even if inadvertent.

A certain Allen Smith has stated here that he has two PhD's in theology, and when answering further questions about it, he confirmed that at least one of his multiple PhD's is in the area of Theology. I have never mentioned any similar specific degrees, except to say that I got a bachelor's degree in Computer Science after leaving Bethel. I do not have an MA in Theology or anything like that. My wife does have an MA degree is in Linguistics, but I don't remember ever mentioning it.
I have read the writings of persons with both an MA and PhD in Theology, and all of them who have studied the historical use of "stauros" have made it very clear that there is certainly NOT only one way to define stauros.
Also, you would be claiming that the Watchtower publications are wrong, too, when they claim that the word "stauros" could refer to a plain pole, a stake or a cross:

Pretty rough on actors, I'd say. I guess everyone's a critic.

I didn't know for sure if it was a typo. I knew it was factually wrong, but thought it might be from whatever source you got your information. In fact, the majority of your research is wrong, especially when it referred to Greek definitions. And it couldn't all be typos. Here was another example:
Your source that said "Stavros" meant "thorn crown" was wrong. Probably mixed it up with "stephanos." Stavros is just another way to transliterate "stauros."

A certain Allen Smith has stated here that he has two PhD's in theology, and when answering further questions about it, he confirmed that at least one of his multiple PhD's is in the area of Theology. I have never mentioned any similar specific degrees, except to say that I got a bachelor's degree in Computer Science after leaving Bethel. I do not have an MA in Theology or anything like that. My wife does have an MA degree is in Linguistics, but I don't remember ever mentioning it.
I have read the writings of persons with both an MA and PhD in Theology, and all of them who have studied the historical use of "stauros" have made it very clear that there is certainly NOT only one way to define stauros.
Also, you would be claiming that the Watchtower publications are wrong, too, when they claim that the word "stauros" could refer to a plain pole, a stake or a cross:

Not so sure about this. First of all, it was never Sturous, but σταυρός / σταυροῦ which is transliterated as stauros, staurou, stauro, or sometimes stavros, stavrou, stavro. But why do you say "earlier versions" defined it as plank? Earlier version of Greek before Homer? And are you really implying the word "plank" as a punishment? 
Speaking of pirates and ships, however, this mainsail is the shape that some Greek / Roman writers described as the STAUROS:
One quote offered in Leolaia, p.5, is the following from about 160 C.E.:
Artemidorus Daldianus, a pagan soothsayer who flourished in the second century A.D. Sometime around A.D. 160, he wrote a dream interpretation manual named Oneiro critica. In one passage (2,53), Artemidorus remarked:
Being crucified is auspicious for all seafarers. For the σταυρος [stauros], like a ship, is made of wood and nails, and the ship's mast resembles a σταυρος.[stauros]  
 

It would not surprise me in the least if evidence were discovered that indicated that Jesus died on a simple, upright pole, rather than a two-beamed traditional cross. It also wouldn't surprise me in the least if additional evidence were discovered that indicates that Jesus died on a traditional, two-beamed cross.
But up to this point, I'd have to admit that no evidence for a single-beamed upright pole with reference to Jesus' execution has yet been discovered. The evidence isn't very strong, but all of it, so far, points to a dual-beamed, traditional cross. 
Good points. And if Jesus were executed on a traditional, dual-beamed cross, then what would have been the correct words to refer to this type of instrument?
"STAUROS" and "CRUX."
And these are the words used in the oldest known manuscripts of the Bible. These are the same words used in the Christian Greek Scriptures and the early Latin translations of those Greek Scriptures, which were translated at a time when Greek was still a living vibrant language spoken by hundreds of thousands of people in the Roman world.
It's true that the Greek and Latin words "stauros" and "crux" could also refer to a simple upright pole, but it's also still true that the words "stauros" and "crux" were also the CORRECT words the Bible would use to refer to a two-beamed cross, or even another shape altogether. There was no better word. 
Of course, the same could be said for the single-beam, upright pole.
While we have no direct evidence in the Bible that a traditional cross-shaped symbol was a pagan symbol, the Bible contains many direct examples showing that the single-beam, upright pole was a pagan symbol.
(Deuteronomy 16:21, 22) 21 “You should not plant any sort of tree as a sacred pole near the altar of Jehovah your God that you make for yourself. 22 “Neither should you set up a sacred pillar for yourself, something Jehovah your God hates. (Judges 6:25) . . .tear down the altar of Baʹal that belongs to your father, and cut down the sacred pole next to it. (1 Kings 15:12, 13) . . .He expelled the male temple prostitutes from the land and removed all the disgusting idols that his forefathers had made. 13 He even removed Maʹa·cah his grandmother from her position as queen mother, because she had made an obscene idol for the worship of the sacred pole. Aʹsa cut down her obscene idol and burned it in the Kidʹron Valley. (1 Kings 16:33) 33 Aʹhab also made the sacred pole. Aʹhab did more to offend Jehovah the God of Israel than all the kings of Israel prior to him.
(1 Kings 18:19) 19 And now summon all Israel to me at Mount Carʹmel, as well as the 450 prophets of Baʹal and the 400 prophets of the sacred pole, who are eating at the table of Jezʹe·bel.”
(2 Kings 13:6) 6 (However, they did not depart from the sin of the house of Jer·o·boʹam that he had caused Israel to commit. They continued in this sin, and the sacred pole continued to stand in Sa·marʹi·a.)
(2 Kings 17:16) 16 They kept leaving all the commandments of Jehovah their God, and they made metal statues of two calves and a sacred pole, and they bowed down to all the army of the heavens and served Baʹal.
(2 Kings 18:4) 4 He was the one who removed the high places, smashed the sacred pillars, and cut down the sacred pole.. . .

Not so sure about this. First of all, it was never Sturous, but σταυρός / σταυροῦ which is transliterated as stauros, staurou, stauro, or sometimes stavros, stavrou, stavro. But why do you say "earlier versions" defined it as plank? Earlier version of Greek before Homer? And are you really implying the word "plank" as a punishment? 
Speaking of pirates and ships, however, this mainsail is the shape that some Greek / Roman writers described as the STAUROS:
One quote offered in Leolaia, p.5, is the following from about 160 C.E.:
Artemidorus Daldianus, a pagan soothsayer who flourished in the second century A.D. Sometime around A.D. 160, he wrote a dream interpretation manual named Oneiro critica. In one passage (2,53), Artemidorus remarked:
Being crucified is auspicious for all seafarers. For the σταυρος [stauros], like a ship, is made of wood and nails, and the ship's mast resembles a σταυρος.[stauros]  
 

Not so sure about this. First of all, it was never Sturous, but σταυρός / σταυροῦ which is transliterated as stauros, staurou, stauro, or sometimes stavros, stavrou, stavro. But why do you say "earlier versions" defined it as plank? Earlier version of Greek before Homer? And are you really implying the word "plank" as a punishment? 
Speaking of pirates and ships, however, this mainsail is the shape that some Greek / Roman writers described as the STAUROS:
One quote offered in Leolaia, p.5, is the following from about 160 C.E.:
Artemidorus Daldianus, a pagan soothsayer who flourished in the second century A.D. Sometime around A.D. 160, he wrote a dream interpretation manual named Oneiro critica. In one passage (2,53), Artemidorus remarked:
Being crucified is auspicious for all seafarers. For the σταυρος [stauros], like a ship, is made of wood and nails, and the ship's mast resembles a σταυρος.[stauros]  
 

At last we have joined the land of the civilized again! I sure hope that our "flight" may not occur in the winter time 😨
So drum roll.............
The etymology of stauros: The R. S. P. Beekes, Etymological Dictionary of Greek, Brill, 2009, says on page 601: The word stauros comes from the verb ἵστημι (histēmi: "straighten up", "stand"), which in turn comes from the Proto-Indo-European root *steh2-u- "pole",[1] related to the root *steh2- "to stand, to set"
Lucian of Samosata, (circa 125-180 AD) a satirical writer in the 2nd century mentions the word stauros with its' various forms such as: Anestavrostho, stavromenos, and stavrosi etc. which  translators have translated as “let him be crucified” “crucified” and “crucifixion” respectively.
ἀνεσταυρώσθω   (Anestavrostho - let him be crucified)
σταυρωμένος (stavromenos – crucified)
σταύρωση (stavrosi- crucifixion)
In his writing about Prometheus he apparently gives us an idea of what he thought the stauros looked like:
Hermes: This, Hephaestus, is the Caucasus, to which it is our painful duty to nail our companion. We have now to select a suitable crag, free from snow, on which the chains will have a good hold, and the prisoner will hang in all publicity.
Hephaestus: True. It will not do to fix him too low down, or these men of his might come to their maker's assistance; nor at the top, where he would be invisible from the earth. What do you say to a middle course? Let him hang over this precipice, with his arms stretched across from crag to crag.
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.
Prometheus: Nay, hear me; Hephaestus! Hermes! I suffer injustice: have compassion on my woes!
Hermes: In other words, disobey orders, and promptly be gibbeted in your stead! Do you suppose there is not room on the Caucasus to peg out a couple of us? Come, your right hand! clamp it down, Hephaestus, and in with the nails; bring down the hammer with a will. Now the left; make sure work of that too.--So!--The eagle will shortly be here, to trim your liver; so ingenious an artist is entitled to every attention.
This website shows the Greek version with the English translation. Unfortunately I wanted to go to the next page as well and then couldn’t go back because I had reached my limit for pages (which seems to be one (!). So don’t make the same mistake as me, unless you want to subscribe.
https://www.loebclassics.com/view/lucian-prometheus/1915/pb_LCL054.241.xml
------------------------------------------------
The Greek playwright Aeschylus (circa 525 -456 BCE) wrote (supposedly) the original play Prometheus Bound* and does not mention a stauros but that doesn’t change the idea that stauros could have been a stake with a cross beam as per Lucian’s satirical interpretation of the Prometheus mythology/legend. In one of his other writings "the death of Peregrine" he mentions the stauros with relation to Jesus: "Peregrine, all this time, was making quite an income on the strength of his bondage; money came pouring in. You see, these misguided creatures start with the general conviction that they are immortal for all time, which explains the contempt of death and voluntary self-devotion which are so common among them; and then it was impressed on them by their original lawgiver that they are all brothers, from the moment that they are converted, and deny the gods of Greece, and worship the crucified sage, and live after his laws.
 
So the questions are: Where did Lucian get his idea for the shape of the stauros?
Or was it translation bias? Or tampering with the original writing? Or were people already executed on a cross beam in the 2nd Century as opposed much later (4th century)?
You might think of other questions....
 
*Prometheus Bound - Aeschylus
"But forcibly to bind a brother God, In chains, in this deep chasm raked by all storms........In bonds of brass not easy to be loosed, Nailing thee to this crag where no wight dwells"
http://www.sacred-texts.com/cla/aesch/promet.htm
 
 

I've used this argument at the door and with Bible studies, too: that supposedly Christians, even if they claim they are not worshiping the item, should still find it wrong to carry around a model of the "murder weapon" that killed Jesus Christ! I've even heard the additional example from other Witnesses, such as: "If your own father had been murdered with an AK-47, or a .38 revolver, would you ever think about carrying around a small model of an AK-47, or a .38 revolver, on a chain around your neck?"
Of course, this seemed quite fair until I learned that a member of the Governing Body who had worn a cross in the past, remembered that it was the way in which they felt they were showing their agreement with the idea in Mark:
(Mark 8:34) . . .“If anyone wants to come after me, let him disown himself and pick up his [STAUROS] and follow me continually." It was the Bible that treated the STAUROS as a "symbol." And we would never have complained that Jesus was saying (Mark 8:34) . . .“If anyone wants to come after me, let him disown himself and pick up his [MURDER WEAPON] and follow me continually."
Similarly, the apostle Paul would have been saying:
(1 Corinthians 2:2) For I decided not to know anything among you except Jesus Christ, and [his MURDER WEAPON]. Jesus and Paul knew that the STAUROS (whether cross or stake) was a proper symbol that could remind us of Christ's sacrifice, and it would remind us of our own need for daily sacrifice, and even a similar sacrifice to the death if need be. But this is not an external symbol like baptism by which we show we have dedicated our lives to God and associate ourselves with Christians of like faith. For we walk by faith and not by sight, and need no ongoing piece of jewelry to state our Christian status.

I've used this argument at the door and with Bible studies, too: that supposedly Christians, even if they claim they are not worshiping the item, should still find it wrong to carry around a model of the "murder weapon" that killed Jesus Christ! I've even heard the additional example from other Witnesses, such as: "If your own father had been murdered with an AK-47, or a .38 revolver, would you ever think about carrying around a small model of an AK-47, or a .38 revolver, on a chain around your neck?"
Of course, this seemed quite fair until I learned that a member of the Governing Body who had worn a cross in the past, remembered that it was the way in which they felt they were showing their agreement with the idea in Mark:
(Mark 8:34) . . .“If anyone wants to come after me, let him disown himself and pick up his [STAUROS] and follow me continually." It was the Bible that treated the STAUROS as a "symbol." And we would never have complained that Jesus was saying (Mark 8:34) . . .“If anyone wants to come after me, let him disown himself and pick up his [MURDER WEAPON] and follow me continually."
Similarly, the apostle Paul would have been saying:
(1 Corinthians 2:2) For I decided not to know anything among you except Jesus Christ, and [his MURDER WEAPON]. Jesus and Paul knew that the STAUROS (whether cross or stake) was a proper symbol that could remind us of Christ's sacrifice, and it would remind us of our own need for daily sacrifice, and even a similar sacrifice to the death if need be. But this is not an external symbol like baptism by which we show we have dedicated our lives to God and associate ourselves with Christians of like faith. For we walk by faith and not by sight, and need no ongoing piece of jewelry to state our Christian status.

I've used this argument at the door and with Bible studies, too: that supposedly Christians, even if they claim they are not worshiping the item, should still find it wrong to carry around a model of the "murder weapon" that killed Jesus Christ! I've even heard the additional example from other Witnesses, such as: "If your own father had been murdered with an AK-47, or a .38 revolver, would you ever think about carrying around a small model of an AK-47, or a .38 revolver, on a chain around your neck?"
Of course, this seemed quite fair until I learned that a member of the Governing Body who had worn a cross in the past, remembered that it was the way in which they felt they were showing their agreement with the idea in Mark:
(Mark 8:34) . . .“If anyone wants to come after me, let him disown himself and pick up his [STAUROS] and follow me continually." It was the Bible that treated the STAUROS as a "symbol." And we would never have complained that Jesus was saying (Mark 8:34) . . .“If anyone wants to come after me, let him disown himself and pick up his [MURDER WEAPON] and follow me continually."
Similarly, the apostle Paul would have been saying:
(1 Corinthians 2:2) For I decided not to know anything among you except Jesus Christ, and [his MURDER WEAPON]. Jesus and Paul knew that the STAUROS (whether cross or stake) was a proper symbol that could remind us of Christ's sacrifice, and it would remind us of our own need for daily sacrifice, and even a similar sacrifice to the death if need be. But this is not an external symbol like baptism by which we show we have dedicated our lives to God and associate ourselves with Christians of like faith. For we walk by faith and not by sight, and need no ongoing piece of jewelry to state our Christian status.

I've used this argument at the door and with Bible studies, too: that supposedly Christians, even if they claim they are not worshiping the item, should still find it wrong to carry around a model of the "murder weapon" that killed Jesus Christ! I've even heard the additional example from other Witnesses, such as: "If your own father had been murdered with an AK-47, or a .38 revolver, would you ever think about carrying around a small model of an AK-47, or a .38 revolver, on a chain around your neck?"
Of course, this seemed quite fair until I learned that a member of the Governing Body who had worn a cross in the past, remembered that it was the way in which they felt they were showing their agreement with the idea in Mark:
(Mark 8:34) . . .“If anyone wants to come after me, let him disown himself and pick up his [STAUROS] and follow me continually." It was the Bible that treated the STAUROS as a "symbol." And we would never have complained that Jesus was saying (Mark 8:34) . . .“If anyone wants to come after me, let him disown himself and pick up his [MURDER WEAPON] and follow me continually."
Similarly, the apostle Paul would have been saying:
(1 Corinthians 2:2) For I decided not to know anything among you except Jesus Christ, and [his MURDER WEAPON]. Jesus and Paul knew that the STAUROS (whether cross or stake) was a proper symbol that could remind us of Christ's sacrifice, and it would remind us of our own need for daily sacrifice, and even a similar sacrifice to the death if need be. But this is not an external symbol like baptism by which we show we have dedicated our lives to God and associate ourselves with Christians of like faith. For we walk by faith and not by sight, and need no ongoing piece of jewelry to state our Christian status.

LOL! You are even pickier than I was about this phrase. Immediately after writing it, I looked back on it and literally said to myself, "Wait, I can't use the word 'similar' because @Outta Here might even point out that Origen referred to successful pronouncers of Jesus' name and Acts/Luke refers to failed pronouncers of Jesus' name." (Or words to that effect.)
In fact, I nearly re-edited the word "similar" on the spot to "related" but didn't because I had said:
Similar idea in Acts from the seven sons of Sceva. This idea "from" the seven sons of Sceva is that they, too, wanted to be successful and effective pronouncers of Jesus' name. And, of course, the Origen quote that you offered is from the same article that's attached to the picture of the coin-like amulet. And this particular quote from Origen starts immediately after the quote from Acts about the sons of Sceva. (Both references start 4 to 7 lines further down in the article from the point where the picture left off, but still seen here: https://larryhurtado.wordpress.com/2011/10/13/the-staurogram-correcting-errors/)
In any case, I was offering a point about how we do not immediately deny the accuracy of all information that comes from mystical or apostate sources. As you indicate, we might even expect that someone transforming themselves into an "angel of light" may get a lot of things right, while misusing and misapplying other things.
I believe you are here admitting that this is a similar idea between both Origen's examples and the seven sons of Sceva.
And the same point again that one of those apostate legends might have been that Jesus had been executed on a crux simplex, as the Watchtower has promoted for several years now. This does not mean that the Watchtower itself is apostate, but that we must always be on the lookout for mistakes in our teachings that might have been tainted by false or apostate thinking. Otherwise we would not need the following admonition:
(Colossians 4:17) . . .“Pay attention to the ministry that you accepted in the Lord. . . (1 Timothy 4:16) Pay constant attention to yourself and to your teaching.. . . (Hebrews 2:1) . . . That is why it is necessary for us to pay more than the usual attention to the things we have heard, so that we never drift away. (Philippians 4:5) Let your reasonableness become known to all men.. . . True. But standing for something that is right and then drifting away from that stand is the basic, simplest definition of "apostasy" based on the meaning of the word in Biblical Greek ("standing from").  We don't have to be an apostate to be affected by apostasy. You will recall that we now believe that when the Watch Tower publications promoted the celebration of Christmas and birthdays that they were not being apostate, but that it was a matter of getting something wrong due to the long effects of apostasy. Also, recall that you had said:
"And whether consciously or not, given the spirit behind apostates, the inroads are far too subtle for humans to discern strategically. " You were speaking of the writer of the Letter of Barnabas specifically and pointing out the possibility that he could have been consciously or unconsciously transforming himself into an angel of light, and therefore we would expect that misleading or false information would be combined with information that was very true. But your statement just quoted shows the difficulty in discerning such subtle inroads. Therefore, I never claimed that Rutherford was apostate, but that he got clearly got some things wrong due in part to the supposedly indiscernible inroads of apostasy. If they are not humanly discernible, then we must even more carefully follow those "pay attention" scriptures just quoted, and perhaps that's the best we can do. Your logic admits that there may still be much humanly indiscernible apostasy anywhere. 
Personally, I have stated my belief that choosing between one or the other direction based on the preponderance of evidence is merely a choice that comes out of "letting our reasonableness be known" "guarding our hearts and our mental powers" and "paying close attention to ourselves and our teaching." It does not mean that either choice is an apostate choice, yet you did bring up that one of the choices might be related to apostasy. So I merely state the obvious: that if it's humanly indiscernible, then we don't really know which set of evidence is the one that might be leading us in that direction. But we do know that by paying closer attention the Watch Tower publications could have avoided being led astray from a more correct stand on Azazel,* pyramids, the superior authorities, the "generation that will not pass away," 1874, 1878, 1881, 1910, 1914, 1915, 1918, 1925, the 6000 years, the Elder arrangement, the Gentile Times, Zionism in Palestine, the identity of the faithful and discreet slave, etc. And who is to say how many issues remain, if they are truly indiscernible?
*Azazel was just an example that "Letter of Barnabas" evidently had right, then J H Paton got wrong in Russell's Watch Tower magazine, then Russell himself came closer to our current teaching, then Rutherford drifted back in the direction of Paton's teaching, and now, today, by coincidence, we are closer to the "Letter of Barnabas" in our current teaching.