Jesus crucified or hanged?

summing up what the others said...

'tree' is not much of a metaphoric stretch for 'cross'. they are both made of wood and stand upright.

if jesus had been hanged, the line would make more sense by reading 'hung FROM a tree" (as he would be dangling FROM the tree)

whereas, if he was crucified, he would be tied/nailed to the cross. in other words, he would be 'hung ON a tree".


granted, your interpretation makes sense also.
a chrstmas ornament is hung ON a tree, but could be said to be hung FROM a tree.

the fact that it can be correctly interpreted either way clearly shows that neither way can be certainly correct.

why hasnt anybody said anything yet?


he was crucified and all apostles give account of this. but first.



"" upon the tree ""


crucifictions were made of two peices of long tree bark back then. they didn't have fancy smooth sanded wood in the old days, but even if they did its still made out of a tree. So this comparison is irrelevant in my opinion.



John 19:15 (note) this was the apostle which witnessed his death.



" Shall I crucify your king? The chief priests answered: We have no king but Ceaser. Then therefore he delivered him to them to be Crucified. Where they crucified him, and with him two others, one on each side
and Jesus in the midst "




Mark 15:24

" And Crucifying him, they divided his garments, casting lots upon them, what every man should take "




Peace.

benedicta Deus.

Well, I think Illmatic's point was that there are DIFFERING accounts. If even ONE account says he was hung, then yes, it does throw a bit of doubt on the others....doesn't nullify it, but certainly casts doubt....

im gonna have to dig into the history and see if hangings were even around in this time

How did Judas die again???

Thanks for the quote from the Quron, Ill (for those who didn't know, it's the holy book of Islam, i.e. Muslims). Not only does it imply not being crucified, but also not being killed (which fits other accounts of Jesus in Europe later).

Originally posted by Illmatic67
Peter wrote to people who didn't witness the crucifiction of Christ.

But he didn't say nailed to a cross, he said hung on a tree.

What would the reader think? You think they will know Jesus was really nailed to a cross from reading "hung on a tree"

And people have been hung on trees ever since the dawn of civilization. Every civilization, empire, country has used it.

Wow, I think you're REALLY stretching too hard to find something that "doesn't make sense" or that is contradictory. So, how do you "HANG" pictures on your wall? With rope on a branch? Maybe you do, but I use nail to hang it on. Don't make me have to type out the definition of hung to you. Also, about the tree part, yeah the cross WAS a tree. They probably used the trunks of a certain kind, or however they shaped it, it is wood. If the cross was stone in reality, and the passage STILL said that, THEN you would have an argument. But yeah, you're definitely trying too hard.

Originally posted by Illmatic67
"That they rejected Faith; That they uttered against Mary A grave false charge; That they said (in boast): 'We killed Christ Jesus The son of Mary, The Messenger of Allah.' But they killed him not, Nor crucified him, but so it was made to appear to them, and those who differ therein are full of doubts, with no (certain) knowledge, but only conjunction to follow, for of a surety they killed him not." Quran, 4:156-159


Christians don't even seem to agree on Jesus' death


Acts 5:29-30

29 Peter and the other apostles replied: We must obey God rather than men!
30 The God of our fathers raised Jesus from the dead--whom you had killed by hanging him on a tree.


1 Thessalonians 2:15 - Jews killed the Lord Jesus.

And what do you EXPECT the quran to say? Of course it's going to claim what it does about Jesus not being actually killed or that it was a conspiracy of sorts. But let me ask you this my friend: Was not the quran written hundreds of years AFTER the fact? Isn't Islam newer? If you have trouble believing the gospels, then HOW can you believe the quran, because if anything, after all that time wouldn't the story be messed up? That's if we are to use the excuse that time has skewed the original writings or what really happened. But if you DO use that, then the quran would be even LESS legitimate.

Well at least the Quran doesn't contradict itself, hehe.... I can respect it for that. My point was, Ill pointed out a contradiction in the BIBLE, and then reinforced it with an account from another source (in this case, the Quran, or as we used to spell it, Koran, I think both are acceptable....)

Well, the Quran is not a legitimate source for anything in the Bible. To quote it in some attempt to discredit the Bible is outright laughable (if it weren't so irritating).

Word up! The Quran was written in 600 a.d. by a camel salesman who got lucky enough to marry a rich widow and have spare time on his hands...I don't think he was around when Jesus "hung on the tree".

Yeah, he hung by the nails on a cross made from wood...no conspiracy here...move along.

I have heard it argued that Jesus was not crucified with his arms to the side, like on a cross, but rather with his arms over his head, like an I shape. Maybe this shows that he was indeed hanging, from his hands. Yes crucifixtion eventually suffocates the victim, don't know why but we were discussing that at work this week.

Originally posted by intrepid
I have heard it argued that Jesus was not crucified with his arms to the side, like on a cross, but rather with his arms over his head, like an I shape. Maybe this shows that he was indeed hanging, from his hands. Yes crucifixtion eventually suffocates the victim, don't know why but we were discussing that at work this week.

The initial act of crucifixion, in fact, does NOT cause suffocation. They would allow the condemned to hang, crucified, for a period of time as punishment, and then they would come around and break the legs. This took away the ability of the person's body weight to be supported by the fixed feet. Once the legs were broken, the weight of the body would literally hang from the fixed arms and then suffocation would ensue.

One of the prophecies fulfilled by Christ was that no bone would be broken. When they came around to break his legs they found that he had already died and there was no need to perform this act.

Originally posted by intrepid
I have heard it argued that Jesus was not crucified with his arms to the side, like on a cross, but rather with his arms over his head, like an I shape. Maybe this shows that he was indeed hanging, from his hands. Yes crucifixtion eventually suffocates the victim, don't know why but we were discussing that at work this week.

Crucifixion is not possible without the "cross member"; that would be the board the victims arms were nailed to. This is what would cause the shoulders to dislocate and pressure to be applied to the diaphragm.


Crucifixion was devised by the Phoenicians in about 1,000 BC, and eventually exported to the Greeks, Assyrians, Egyptians, Persians, and Romans. Crucifixion was considered the most humiliating form of death in Ancient Rome. The victim was stripped down to the loincloth then either bound or nailed through the hands and feet to the cross of wood. Occasionally the victim's limbs would be broken to hasten the death. Death was slow, being left in the beating desert sun, flies feasting on the victim's sweat, and more importantly, the hanging by outstretched arms produced slow suffocation as the ribs, lungs and diaphragm were restricted.

What would place a greater strain on the midsection, arms at the side or over the head, where you are stretched out even more?

Originally posted by Gazrok

im gonna have to dig into the history and see if hangings were even around in this time

How did Judas die again???

very sorry, silly question on my part

Still missing the point....

The initial inconsistency, is in the BIBLE itself... The Koran was only given as ANOTHER source, not the ONLY source.

It was the authors of the BIBLE, that didn't agree...

The point being, if one account differs from another, it casts SOME doubt... Doesn't make it untrue, but does cast doubt. Likewise, just look at the number of times Christ is said to visit Jerusalem.... Some authors in the Bible say twice, another says 7, another says never...(something to that effect)...

But the Bible does NOT contradict itself.

To take the phrase "hung on the tree" and try to make that a contradiction to the crucifixion story is almost as bad as quoting the Quran to try to discredit it.

I don't think that the problem is with the writing of the bible, but with the translation of it. Not only do you have one language trying to word something into your tongue, you also have men that would like to put their own spin on it. I'm refering to the middle ages when the church was subjegating the masses.

Originally posted by Gazrok
Still missing the point....

The initial inconsistency, is in the BIBLE itself... The Koran was only given as ANOTHER source, not the ONLY source.

It was the authors of the BIBLE, that didn't agree...

The point being, if one account differs from another, it casts SOME doubt... Doesn't make it untrue, but does cast doubt. Likewise, just look at the number of times Christ is said to visit Jerusalem.... Some authors in the Bible say twice, another says 7, another says never...(something to that effect)...

Yes Gazrok, I would have to agree with valhall. You may say there are inconsistencies in the bible, but this example has no merit to credit that. You'll have to come up with something a little more provocative then the tree example.

intrepid, you are exactly right.

Let's look at the Greek word used here:

xulon - used in all three places in Acts that refer to the crucifixion.

xulon - timber (as fuel or material); by implication a stick, club or tree or other wooden art or substance: - staff, stocks, tree, wood.

In comparison, let's look at the Greek word used in references by Christ to a "tree" - i.e. those big bushy things.

dendron - a tree.

hmmm....seems to be a big difference here.

The writer Cicero described crucifixion as �the most cruel and hideous of tortures�.
Jesus was stripped and tied to a whipping post. He was flogged with four or five thongs of leather interwoven with sharp jagged bone and lead. Eusebius, the third century church historian, described Roman flogging in these terms: the sufferer�s �veins were laid bare, and � the very muscles, sinews, and bowels of the victims were open to exposure�. He was then taken to the Praetorium where a crown of thorns was thrust upon his head. He was mocked by a battalion of 600 men and hit about the face and head. He was then forced to carry a heavy cross bar on his bleeding shoulders until he collapsed, and Simon of Cyrene was press-ganged into carrying it for him.
When they reached the site of crucifixion, he was again stripped naked. He was laid on the cross, and six-inch nails were driven into his forearms, just above the wrist. His knees were twisted sideways so that the ankles could be nailed between the tibia and the Achilles tendon. He was then lifted up on the cross which was then dropped into a socket in the ground. There he was left to hang in intense heat and unbearable thirst, exposed to the ridicule of the crowd. He hung there in unthinkable pain for six hours while his life slowly drained away.
Yet the worst part of his suffering was not the physical trauma of torture and crucifixion, or even the emotional pain of being rejected by the world and deserted by his friends, but the spiritual agony of being cut off from his father for us � as he carried OUR sins.

if you read the previous paragraph you will see that people hang from a cross, saying Jesus was hung upon a tree is not a contradiction in scripture. It is talking of a concept which was basic to them but is complicated to us. Your views that Jesus was hung have no backing or proof. Scripture is constant with the fact that was hung upon a cross and never does it state otherwise.

The bible is accurate, scientists even agree with that.

'I know of no finding in archaeology that�s properly confirmed which is in opposition to the Scriptures. The Bible is the most accurate history textbook the world has ever seen.�
Dr Clifford Wilson, formerly director of the Australian Institute of Archaeology, being interviewed by radio by the Institute for Creation Research (ICR radio transcript No. 0279�1004).

Tell me on what grounds can you say Jesus was hung?

Read Isaiah 53 if you need some proof for who jesus is. 700 years before he was born we hear about him here.

Some people are so eager to point out things they think are 'contradictions' in the Bible. why? does it give you some sort of odd satisfaction?

I think yea, that could mean he hung from a tree as in 'he hung on wood'. If someone was on a cross, what would you say they were doing? theyre hanging.

jesus was hung by his hands from nails in the cross, made out of wood nails = hung cross = tree.

and to answer the question about acutally hangings back then, thats how Judas killed himself,

Matthew 27

Judas Hangs Himself

1Early in the morning, all the chief priests and the elders of the people came to the decision to put Jesus to death. 2They bound him, led him away and handed him over to Pilate, the governor.
3When Judas, who had betrayed him, saw that Jesus was condemned, he was seized with remorse and returned the thirty silver coins to the chief priests and the elders. 4"I have sinned," he said, "for I have betrayed innocent blood."
"What is that to us?" they replied. "That's your responsibility."
5So Judas threw the money into the temple and left. Then he went away and hanged himself.