Discussion Jumpstarter
Study leader reference - not a definitive answer
Question 10
David challenges the Watchtower claim about “no archaeological wooden crosses” by arguing “wood rots” and “wood gets reused,” and he connects this to Jesus carrying the cross as a temporary instrument; what does this teach about how Christians should weigh physical archaeology versus textual and historical testimony, and how might this reshape the way you evaluate apologetic arguments you’ve trusted?
Another way to ask: What does David’s point about wood rotting or being reused teach us about weighing archaeology against written and historical sources? How might that change how you judge apologetics arguments you’ve believed before?
Discussion Jumpstarter
Direct Answer
Based on the speaker’s teaching, the absence of surviving wooden artifacts is weak evidence because wood naturally decays and was reused, so archaeology has limits. Christians should weigh textual and historical testimony (including early writings and contextual reasoning) more heavily than an argument from “we haven’t found one.”
- David reports the Watchtower claim: “no archaeologists have ever unearthed an ancient wooden cross… used for an execution.”
- His main explanation is simple: “wood rots,” and museums often replace missing wooden parts because originals “rotted away.”
- He argues crosses were not permanent: crucifixion was “temporary… on special occasions,” not the “ordinary form of execution.”
- He connects to the Gospel narrative: “Jesus carried his cross to Golgotha. It wasn’t there waiting for him.”
- He reasons the wood was reused: “after an execution, a cross was taken down and the wood was reused.”
- He adds a reductio: if the argument worked, it would also “disprove the existence of torture stakes,” since none have been found either.