Found this online, it may have been posted before, but it basically details why Prince & The JWs in general are mistaken about the stauros thing & why PRINCE SHOULD HAVE NOT CHANGED THE TITLE AND LYRICS OF A DARN GOOD SONG:

The Watchtower gives a nice history of how criminals were often impaled on stakes in various pagan cultures, then without flinching, carries over into the "impalement" of Jesus as if it were done on the same type of instrument. No mention is made of Justus Lipsius' descriptions of the different ways persons were impaled and crucified, or that there is even a possibility that Jesus might have hung on a cross. Formerly, in both editions of The Kingdom Interlinear Translation of the Greek Scriptures, they made use of Lipsius' materials. But since a translation of Lipsius reveals he said Jesus died on a cross, they very well may stop using him as a reference, much as they have stopped using Johannes Greber's translation of John 1:1 to prove that Jesus is "a god."

The Watchtower says, "As in the case of Jesus, nailing the hands (and likely the feet also) of the accused to a stake was customary among the Romans." They fail to mention that modern archaeologists believe almost unanimously that the Romans in Jesus' time nailed or tied criminals to a crosspiece, which was then mounted on an upright stake fixed permanently in the ground. (See "Cross" in Defending The Faith, Bethel Ministries, 1987, and the Bethel Ministries Newsletter, March/April 1986.) If the arms were draped over the crosspiece for support, the actual hands could be nailed, rather than the wrists as the Watchtower claims (which would be necessary on an upright stake). No mention at all is made of the Bible's description of their being more than one nail in his hands (they always picture one nail through both of Jesus' hands-see John 20:25).

The Watchtower then belabors the point that the Greek word stauros is used in the New Testament, which has the meaning of an upright stake or pole. They make the statement, "Stauros in both the classical Greek and Koine carries no thought of a `cross' made of two timbers. It means only an upright stake, pale, pile or pole, as might be used for a fence, stockade, or palisade." This is a partial or half-truth. Stauros does primarily mean stake. But historically, it was used to describe the cross as well! Similarly, a truck is an automobile primarily, and a truck secondarily. But trucks are often classed as cars in our country. There is no common word for the cross (upright stake plus crosspiece) in the Greek, as crux is Latin and would not have been used in a Greek manuscript. Stauros could just as easily be interpreted as a cross during the Roman era, and was so interpreted at times.

The Watchtower quotes Vine's Expository Dictionary of Old and New Testament Words in an attempt to discredit the cross. Though Vine criticizes the early church for adopting the cross as a symbol of the faith, he still refers to it as a cross: "The method of execution was borrowed by the Greeks and Romans from the Phoenicians. The stauros denotes (a) the cross, or stake itself, e.g., Matt. 27:32; (b) the crucifixion suffered...." (Vine's An Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words, 1966 edition, Sec. I, p. 256)

Finally, they quote from The Non-Christian Cross, a book published in 1896, that says there is no evidence Jesus died on a cross. The very fact they had to go back so far indicates that no recent works acquainted with archaeology makes such claims.

http://www.freeminds.org/...nsight.htm

re"why PRINCE SHOULD HAVE NOT CHANGED THE TITLE AND LYRICS OF A DARN GOOD SONG"
yes yes yes, even for non christian it was, Ithink, a metaphor of hope, now it's just propaganda IMO

I agree. This song is called THE CROSS!!!!

You know what? It really doesn't bother me that Prince is changing the lyrics to his old songs.The reason? I can just play the old songs anytime I like! Musical history cannot be rewritten,and it won't, as long as we still have the old albums to listen to and enjoy.

BRING BACK THE CROSS!!! Tweaking a song is one thing, but COME ON!!!

all religous spewing aside...Stick with the original lyrics Prince...if you no longer believe the message you created...DONT SING THE SONG!!!!!

his momma named him The Cross....so I'm a call him The Cross.....

"The Cross" is my favorite song- period. If Prince wants to change the lyrics, that is fine, but I prefer the old version.

As much as I respect the man, I can't stand censorship...much less self-censorship. Gah!

I have horrible visions of edited remasters.

I've never understood the cross as a symbol. I toured the Mormon temple in Salt Lake a few years back, and one of the tour guides was saying, "If he had been killed with a gun, would we put a gun on the top of our church?" So why a cross or steeple (stake)? Morbid.

On the flip side, I studied with the JWs for years, and I never really understood why that detail mattered to them so much. Cross or stake, the result was the same. (But then, there was a lot about what they believe that I could never agree with.)

As for the song, I think that lyrically the change shouldn't really bother me -- the meaning is essentially the same. But still it bothers me a great deal. It just doesn't FEEL right to change a song that was just so perfect. It's like renaming one of your kids a few years later.

I for one really hope he doesn't go back and remaster everything -- who knows what he'd do to other songs.

I just don't see why he would have to change the lyrics of this song.

The message is still the same. The actual fact of the aparatus used is obliterated by the religious overtones projected un2 it in the passing of nearly 2000 years.

It's like when U don't believe in god and visit a church. Eventhough U might not believe in the god that people pray 2 in there, U r struck by a kind of devotion simply bcuz of the energy in the structure.

If so many people believed, hoped, dispaired and prayed in there for such a long time, than an essence of divinity, however materialised will undoubtedly still remain within those walls.

And so, I just don't see why he'd even want to change those lyrics. Fcuz, he has every right to do so and if he's happy with it that should b enough.

But I just don't see why telling people about things like these would make a great difference. There are some things you cannot fight. And this is one of them. The powers that be are not going 2 allow anyone 2 overthrow a 2000 year old belief that still works 2day. Even if it does lack in some part or even if it is based on false information or downright lies.

And in all fairness, why should we? It all boil down 2 an idea and a feeling. Will your faith and the way you look at it change dramatically when one or the other is true?

Look at the new garde of archeologists in Egypt. For every one of them that makes a new groundbreaking discovery about the ancient rites, there are 10 conformed 'old' ones who'll stand up and ridicule or even slander the person in question and completely deny all facts of their discovery.

Unfair, yes, but you just can't change the whole order overnight, even if you are right.

I don't think that there is an actual backroom where the people whom have the power 2 decide over such things meet up and decide 2 keep the masses mute and dumb, it's just that they actually seem 2 believe that sometimes people just aren't ready 2 hear the truth, so it has 2 b infiltrated in2 society gradually, by means of eccentric publishings, then very small articles on the 7th page of the newspapers, and the occasional documentary. Until U reach a point where there r 2 truths xisting besides one another. And U r left with the choice of which one U'll follow.

Come 2 think of it, Prince actually did have a good point in changing the lyrics.

"Come 2 think of it, Prince actually did have a good point in changing the lyrics."

Or, you could actually read the post & see why the change was uttterly moronic & wrong.

IrishEcho said:

As with the rest of your post and the quotes U've used, they are all 1d projections of a larger multiple layered story.

U use the xample of cars and trucks 2 basically say that cross & stauros r pretty much the same.

So an 'alien' from outerspace is the same as an 'alien' from another country?

B-sides, U don't even make a real point.

First U state that he should not have changed the lyrics, calling it utterly moronic and wrong and then U proceed 2
justify that claim with a post full of doubtful statements.

As always when people start quoting and throwing around other people's thesis, I wonder how much of this U've actually studied in depth urself and how much U just cut and pasted 2 get 2 a point -which isn't even a point.


Flame away, be my guest.

His 'faith' dictates that he HAS to change the song if he still wishes to perform it.

Jehovah's Witnesses view the cross as pagan and part of 'Babylon the Great' the world empire of 'false religion'.

He is free to perform the original version, but if he does publicly he would automatically dissasociate himself.

For the record, I don't mind the changes at all. I appreciate the symboloism of the cross itself, but I think 'The Christ' is more appropriate and universal.

I like BOTH versions.
It's his song and he can sing it like he wants.

P.S.
I think that the reason to change the song has less to do with the JWs than with the fact that singing about CHRIST was still taboo in 86-87. See the VH-1 interview w/Chris Rock to see where Im coming from.

I've only heart The Christ performed once, on the Rave Un2 The Year 2000 DVD. Lyrically, it's okay I suppose, although to change such a classic song is tantamount to vandalism. Worse was the inclusion of Larry's horrible voice in the performation which makes me wanna hurl.

I do not think, however, even with Prince's views, that a renaming was necessary. As someone said above, the cross is a symbol of hope for many people. It is the SYMBOL that is the important part, not its actual relation to the way Jesus might have died.

Why didn't Prince just rename the song "The Stake"? Hmm... steak...

DigitalShogun said:

Oh, someone else who wants to look like they're a victim? FYI, responding to your desperate defense of anything Prince says or does is not "flaming." Get a grip, you tosser.
[This message was edited Sun Apr 14 3:41:09 PDT 2002 by IrishEcho]

IrishEcho is correct,

The whole Cross/Stake debate is pretty pointless. None of us were actually there at the crucifiction, so we will never know 100% whether it was a cross or a stake, but if you do your research you'll find there's more evidence in favour of a cross. in fact if we're going to be pedantic, it's most likely that the cross actually looked more like a letter 'T' than a traditional cross.

Does this mean that all churches should chop the top off their crosses to be more historically accurate? Of course not, because the modern use of the cross is as a SYMBOL, in the same way that the first Christians used the symbol of a fish.

The JW's preoccupation with minutae is something I've always found perplexing. Surely it's exactly the kind of pointless sidetracking that they, by their own doctrine, should be against. It's the same as arguing about what colour clothes Jesus wore! The TRUTH will not be found by endlessly debating ultimately pointless details. It's the MESSAGE that counts.

and also...

Personally I think Prince shouldn't go changing the lyrics to his old songs, the way he's done with 'The Christ'. If he feels one of his old songs is wrong or innacurate, then he just shouldn't perform it anymore. He should've just written a NEW song called 'The Christ' to express his current feeling about the matter.

It's like Leonardo daVinci deciding that the Mona Lisa should have been blonde after ten years, and breaking into the gallery where it hangs and re-painting it! When all he had to do is paint a new portrait of a blonde woman 'gazing mysteriously'.

I agree that Prince should've never changed the lyrics to "The Cross". But having said that, it's his choice - AND we still all have the original to listen to.

But I don't think that's the point here. Prince said that the image of the Cross is not historically true - and he based this on A WORD.

Stauros, which is Greek for stake/pole, is accurate. What isn't accurate in relation to Jesus is that there would've also been a cross-member to attach the pole to. Faith is faith - there was indeed a Cross. If there wasn't, we probably wouldn't still have this worldwide image of it 2000 years later.

As for the word game, it's silly. Here's one: a square is a rectangle, but a rectangle is NOT a square.

But I do agree that it is weird that we wear crosses and crucifixes around our necks. If someone killed my family member with a gun, I would not wear a gun around my neck.

The first time I heard "The Christ," when Prince performed it with Larry Graham on tv for some special, the new lyrics didn't even make sense, or at the very least strained to connect with the rest of the song. Silliness.