Bible Says Jesus Was Not Crucified - But Hanged On A Tree!

[Abiyoyo]

 

 

I only read what is in the book, I do not interpret the writings anyhow, and I am not an ancient Greek.

 

Okay. If you just read and don't interpret, then it could be a tree or a crucifixion, more likely the later, since that was the norm in Rome for death penalties.

 

 

Lu 24:20 And how the chief priests and our rulers delivered him to be condemned to death, and have crucified him.

Lu 24:20 And how the chief priests and our rulers delivered him to be condemned to death, and have crucified

Ac 2:36 Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly, that God hath made that same Jesus, whom ye have crucified, both Lord and Christ.

Joh 19:23 Then the soldiers, when they had crucified Jesus, took his garments, and made four parts, to every soldier a part; and also his coat: now the coat was without seam, woven from the top throughout.

Joh 19:32 Then came the soldiers, and brake the legs of the first, and of the other which was crucified with him. him.

Ac 4:10 Be it known unto you all, and to all the people of Israel, that by the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom ye crucified

2Co 13:4 For though he was crucified through weakness, yet he liveth by the power of God. For we also are weak in him, but we shall live with him by the power of God toward you., whom God raised from the dead, even by him doth this man stand here before you whole

[Guest marabod]

 

 

I only read what is in the book, I do not interpret the writings anyhow, and I am not an ancient Greek.

 

Okay. If you just read and don't interpret, then it could be a tree or a crucifixion, more likely the later, since that was the norm in Rome for death penalties.

 

 

Lu 24:20 And how the chief priests and our rulers delivered him to be condemned to death, and have crucified him.

Lu 24:20 And how the chief priests and our rulers delivered him to be condemned to death, and have crucified

Ac 2:36 Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly, that God hath made that same Jesus, whom ye have crucified, both Lord and Christ.

Joh 19:23 Then the soldiers, when they had crucified Jesus, took his garments, and made four parts, to every soldier a part; and also his coat: now the coat was without seam, woven from the top throughout.

Joh 19:32 Then came the soldiers, and brake the legs of the first, and of the other which was crucified with him. him.

Ac 4:10 Be it known unto you all, and to all the people of Israel, that by the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom ye crucified

2Co 13:4 For though he was crucified through weakness, yet he liveth by the power of God. For we also are weak in him, but we shall live with him by the power of God toward you., whom God raised from the dead, even by him doth this man stand here before you whole

 

Our difference is that I am neutral in religious sense, I do not believe in anything and feel no urge to believe. I simply read the NT and see it says two things at once. I do not need to "choose" which one is right and which one is wrong, because this would be the same as to argue if Tom the Thumb was really a size of a thumb or this was a poetic metaphor. With the books of such an old age, specially written by several alleged authors, which also passed multiple editing instances, this easily may happen.

 

For me it is entertaining to watch how the Christians coil like an eel on a frying pan, trying to prove that if someone was reported as "being hanged" then this must necessarily mean this person was crucified. I immediately visualise Saddam Hussein being crucifued too, as he also was reported being hanged...

 

Also the case presents a beautiful example of what brainwashing can do to us and how powerful it is. Languages change the dictionaries, trees become crosses, nations change their customs - but brainwashing remains. One may think if we from start would be telling our babies would that they would fly like birds after the age of 16, then in 15 years we would not need airplanes, the kids would take us anywhere...

[Abiyoyo]

 

 

I only read what is in the book, I do not interpret the writings anyhow, and I am not an ancient Greek.

 

Okay. If you just read and don't interpret, then it could be a tree or a crucifixion, more likely the later, since that was the norm in Rome for death penalties.

 

 

Lu 24:20 And how the chief priests and our rulers delivered him to be condemned to death, and have crucified him.

Lu 24:20 And how the chief priests and our rulers delivered him to be condemned to death, and have crucified

Ac 2:36 Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly, that God hath made that same Jesus, whom ye have crucified, both Lord and Christ.

Joh 19:23 Then the soldiers, when they had crucified Jesus, took his garments, and made four parts, to every soldier a part; and also his coat: now the coat was without seam, woven from the top throughout.

Joh 19:32 Then came the soldiers, and brake the legs of the first, and of the other which was crucified with him. him.

Ac 4:10 Be it known unto you all, and to all the people of Israel, that by the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom ye crucified

2Co 13:4 For though he was crucified through weakness, yet he liveth by the power of God. For we also are weak in him, but we shall live with him by the power of God toward you., whom God raised from the dead, even by him doth this man stand here before you whole

 

Our difference is that I am neutral in religious sense, I do not believe in anything and feel no urge to believe. I simply read the NT and see it says two things at once. I do not need to "choose" which one is right and which one is wrong, because this would be the same as to argue if Tom the Thumb was really a size of a thumb or this was a poetic metaphor. With the books of such an old age, specially written by several alleged authors, which also passed multiple editing instances, this easily may happen.

 

For me it is entertaining to watch how the Christians coil like an eel on a frying pan, trying to prove that if someone was reported as "being hanged" then this must necessarily mean this person was crucified. I immediately visualise Saddam Hussein being crucifued too, as he also was reported being hanged...

 

Also the case presents a beautiful example of what brainwashing can do to us and how powerful it is. Languages change the dictionaries, trees become crosses, nations change their customs - but brainwashing remains. One may think if we from start would be telling our babies would that they would fly like birds after the age of 16, then in 15 years we would not need airplanes, the kids would take us anywhere...

 

Well, for one welcome to the forums. Two, I am not coiled nor have I been brainwashed since a child. I have only been a Christian for 5-6 years.

 

YOU posted a topic about the word 'tree' being used, put out as it was a 'shocking' thing to have read.

 

Marabod. If you truly see a Christian 'coiling' over this childish topic of wording then,....Well, good for you. I see it as someone that is either completely ignorant or just wants to fit in on the Christian bashing

 

For future. Saying Ah! Ha! I got you with a topic this weak should be rethought before laid out. It is really just kind of silly. Who cares that in one passage it says hanged on a tree, or whether crucified in another. .....

 

Oh! Yeah, thats right, your OP's last question invited any opinions or 'discovered' support verses.

 

Anyway...Good job You got me!!!

 

The Greek is crucified. I don't get your brainwashing point It's a fairly simple translation.

 

I seriously, for the topic, want to ask you another question; but the last question I asked trying to figure out your point to all this was mused as ....No! I just read what it says, and go by that...blah blah.

 

So, Good luck with whatever point you are trying to make.

 

I guess for the record, I will ask the question anyhow.

 

Are you suggesting that the writings were altered throughout early Christianity to fit the story they wanted to conceive?

[Guest marabod]

 

 

Well, for one welcome to the forums. Two, I am not coiled nor have I been brainwashed since a child. I have only been a Christian for 5-6 years.

 

YOU posted a topic about the word 'tree' being used, put out as it was a 'shocking' thing to have read.

 

Marabod. If you truly see a Christian 'coiling' over this childish topic of wording then,....Well, good for you. I see it as someone that is either completely ignorant or just wants to fit in on the Christian bashing

 

For future. Saying Ah! Ha! I got you with a topic this weak should be rethought before laid out. It is really just kind of silly. Who cares that in one passage it says hanged on a tree, or whether crucified in another. .....

 

Oh! Yeah, thats right, your OP's last question invited any opinions or 'discovered' support verses.

 

Anyway...Good job You got me!!!

 

The Greek is crucified. I don't get your brainwashing point It's a fairly simple translation.

 

I seriously, for the topic, want to ask you another question; but the last question I asked trying to figure out your point to all this was mused as ....No! I just read what it says, and go by that...blah blah.

 

So, Good luck with whatever point you are trying to make.

 

I guess for the record, I will ask the question anyhow.

 

Are you suggesting that the writings were altered throughout early Christianity to fit the story they wanted to conceive?

 

I am not suggesting this, I KNOW this - and was only surprised that they left Acts unattended. missed them. This happened in AD 354 on Nicene Congress, which scrapped 80% of available Gospels and innumerate amount of their variations, used by early sects. Those manuscripts made canonical made up a book, known now as New Testament, others were defined as apocrypha and burned.

 

For me Jesus is a fairytale anyway, so I am not using this discrepancy to denounce him as there is nothing to denounce, one cannot deny existence to something already non-existent. Neither do I blame Nicene fathers in faking anything, as how is it possible to fake a myth? But they sure knew about the tree thing, as they also presented Nicene Creed, which specifically says "I... believe that....and was crucified under Pontius Pilate"... means not all believed in it.

 

For those whom I got used to call "Christians" this tree thing was not presenting any issue ever, as they follow not the Bible, but Nicene Creed, and "xylon" explanation was only made for the priests, because the followers were not reading the bible too much at all, and the church was hardly ever encouraging them to read it. But what about Sola Scripture people, who "follow" the Bible? It's THEM I see "coiling like an eel", not the traditional Christians at all. If you yourself are feeling uncomfortable when presented with this view, means your Symbol of Faith is not Nicene Creed.

[Abiyoyo]

 

Well, thats great if you KNOW what you think is the truth of the matter. Next time, don't be a puss about it and just say what the contention is and frame a discussion, not by saying you a just a 'chemist' that doesn't get into theology alot

[Abiyoyo]

 

 

I am not suggesting this, I KNOW this -

 

This goes back to my question then. Do you think the Jews really killed Jesus on a tree, and the crucifixion was later added to complete the Jesus Superman story?

 

You said No! to this question, yet you say you KNOW this when I asked if they had altered the scripts?

 

Then you say it is all a fairytale anyway Man of many faces we have here folks.

 

So, really you topic and point is that Jesus never existed and the early Christians altered the scripts to fit the mega mythological Christus image they wanted to use to govern New Rome. Right?

 

My question to you. Why didn't they just make another elaboration about an already renowned god, as Apollo? Why was Jesus Christ so popular that documents where forged, alterations where made, groups and sects developed, and eventually Rome was commissioned under Christ?

 

I mean, Apollo was the cream of the crop of gods then, Why didn't he just come and war off the Christians, or for that matter even reveal through the Oracle the truth of the matter, or even tell Rome that he was the One True God?

 

Now, remember, in Rome the Oracle where Apollo was consulted was working, revealed great prophecy to the Romans, and was the pinnacle of the governmental Roman council. Not because they liked to scare folks, but because supposedly the prophecies revealed through Apollo were accurate.

 

Why did Apollo say that he couldn't see clearly because of the 'just' on the Earth after Jesus was crucified?

[Guest marabod]

 

Well, thats great if you KNOW what you think is the truth of the matter. Next time, don't be a puss about it and just say what the contention is and frame a discussion, not by saying you a just a 'chemist' that doesn't get into theology alot

 

Are you suggesting that I may be a secret agent of World Evil Atheistic Conspiracy? To say this would be untrue, as I honestly learned about this tree story a bit less than 2 weeks ago. While knowledge about Nicene Congress and edited manuscripts belongs to common domain, and even Catholic Encyclopaedia explains that there was 20 Gospels of which the Congress left only 4... ( http://www.newadvent.com ). It does not present a challenge for me to see if some concept fails to have the ends meeting, because I am a chemist and trained to think as a professional engineer and scientist.

 

After all I hope you do not oppose the core of my OP - what if I have to ask you directly, if you agree that the Bible [in quoted verses] says that Jesus was hanged on a tree? What would you answer, if the question is of a boolean nature and your Yes must be for Yes, while your No must be for No? And certainly a smooth amorphous answer starting with "Yes, but..." is not allowed as it accounts for coiling like an eel.

 

Thank you in advance for answering, and if you feel uncertain in what to actually do with this question, then of course I would not be insisting.

[Guest marabod]

 

 

I am not suggesting this, I KNOW this -

 

This goes back to my question then. Do you think the Jews really killed Jesus on a tree, and the crucifixion was later added to complete the Jesus Superman story?

 

You said No! to this question, yet you say you KNOW this when I asked if they had altered the scripts?

 

Then you say it is all a fairytale anyway Man of many faces we have here folks.

 

So, really you topic and point is that Jesus never existed and the early Christians altered the scripts to fit the mega mythological Christus image they wanted to use to govern New Rome. Right?

 

My question to you. Why didn't they just make another elaboration about an already renowned god, as Apollo? Why was Jesus Christ so popular that documents where forged, alterations where made, groups and sects developed, and eventually Rome was commissioned under Christ?

 

I mean, Apollo was the cream of the crop of gods then, Why didn't he just come and war off the Christians, or for that matter even reveal through the Oracle the truth of the matter, or even tell Rome that he was the One True God?

 

Now, remember, in Rome the Oracle where Apollo was consulted was working, revealed great prophecy to the Romans, and was the pinnacle of the governmental Roman council. Not because they liked to scare folks, but because supposedly the prophecies revealed through Apollo were accurate.

 

Why did Apollo say that he couldn't see clearly because of the 'just' on the Earth after Jesus was crucified?

 

 

I am sorry to see such a poor state of your knowledge about the world of Antiquity, particularly about the late period of Hellenic cultures. Meanwhile, the large selection of the authors of antiquity report that since approximately end of 2nd century BC onwards the level of religiosity of Roman population was so low, that most of the Romans could be considered Atheists if not their high level of superstitions; while the most advanced from them (whom we know by names) were atheists in full sense and suffered no superstitions at all.

 

Due to political development after the fall of Principate (end 1st century AD), the newly-established Roman Empire required a unifying ideology, so the number of related religions were considered, including Mithraism, Christianity and cult of Apollonius of Tiana; the choice was finally made in favour of Christianity (in 4th century AD) - but before making it a State Religion, it had to be first cleansed from all chaos of the first centuries. Romans of 1st century AD were still only citizens of Rome itself, a hated minority of conquerors, and the other population of the empire were their colonies, subjects of Roman Senate lacking full civil rights. Romans of 4th century BC were already all Italians, Greeks, Gauls, Copts, Armenians, Ethiopeans and a bit of survived original Romans as EQUALS (Rome by that time was already a village with 1000 people population).

 

To unite these new people of a new Empire, new Christianity had to make them guilty and the same time not to insult too much - so the early, original Romans were blamed for actually executing the Christ, while the new Romans were invited to share sorrow and partially responsibility for this. Hence the story APPEARS about Pilate and Christ, supported in Nicene Creed and in the inserted phrase from Tacitus' Annuals, these two equally belong to 4th century, as they BOTH link Jesus with Pilate... Bishops must have missed the Acts, as the heresies took so much time on the Congress, that there was no time or no enough staff to address this part of Christian lore. Read Nietzsche! Anti-Christian shows the mechanisms how Christian priests make strong people weak and then suck their juices, first thing is to make them guilty - so this was done to the Romans through the fable of crucifixion...

 

As for Apollo, I think technically this God was more respected in Etruria and Greece than in Rome, where he was known as Phoebus and was just a borrowed foreign deity. Everyone in Mediterranean area knew that the Pythia in Delphi was getting high from inhaling the vapors from the cleft, over which her tripod was based, and after 3rd century when the cleft stopped producing volcanic gases, the Oracle was just a laughing stock.

[sheri butterfly]

 

Well, thats great if you KNOW what you think is the truth of the matter. Next time, don't be a puss about it and just say what the contention is and frame a discussion, not by saying you a just a 'chemist' that doesn't get into theology alot

 

 

I must say this did make me giggle.. the irony is that his interest is really a little side hobby of his that he really isn't all that interested in..none the less its a good find,I have to say its an important discrepancy hanged from a tree or flogged practically to death then stretched out over a cross and nailed through hands and feet to it left to a slow agonizing death.....

I think its a detail that perhaps should be consistent, after all the whole jesus lore is framed around this...... sheesh... ..

[Neon Genesis]

 

 

 

Are you suggesting that I may be a secret agent of World Evil Atheistic Conspiracy? To say this would be untrue, as I honestly learned about this tree story a bit less than 2 weeks ago. While knowledge about Nicene Congress and edited manuscripts belongs to common domain, and even Catholic Encyclopaedia explains that there was 20 Gospels of which the Congress left only 4... ( http://www.newadvent.com ).

 

But Acts and Luke are both written by the same author. If the author originally intended Jesus to be hanged on a tree and the crucifixion is a later addition to the mythology, why are there no early manuscripts of Luke that omit the crucifixion of Jesus? Luke was written before Acts, so if the crucifixion was a later addition, then surely we would have early manuscripts of Luke's gospel where Jesus is only hung on a tree and there's no mentioning of being crucuxified at all and Acts, which was written after Luke, would contain the crucifixion if it was added in later? If there were early Christians who believed Jesus was literally hanged on a tree, why don't we have any records of them? We have plenty of records of other Christian hearsays. Even the church fathers wrote about Christian hearsays like the Gnostics and the Marcionites.

 

If the issue of Jesus being literally hanged on a tree was such a controversial issue among the early church fathers formed the Nicene creed to refute it, why don't we have a single writing of the church fathers refuting this belief yet we have writings from the church fathers refuting other hearsays? Why don't we have a single extra-canonical gospel where Jesus was hanged on a tree among all those 20 extra-canonical gospels? You seem to want it both ways that you cite that the early church knew about other hearsays as proof that Jesus was literally hanged on a tree yet you turn around and argue that the lack of evidence of the early Christians believing this is proof it was surpessed and it sounds like an argument from silence to me.

[Guest marabod]

 

 

 

Are you suggesting that I may be a secret agent of World Evil Atheistic Conspiracy? To say this would be untrue, as I honestly learned about this tree story a bit less than 2 weeks ago. While knowledge about Nicene Congress and edited manuscripts belongs to common domain, and even Catholic Encyclopaedia explains that there was 20 Gospels of which the Congress left only 4... ( http://www.newadvent.com ).

 

But Acts and Luke are both written by the same author. If the author originally intended Jesus to be hanged on a tree and the crucifixion is a later addition to the mythology, why are there no early manuscripts of Luke that omit the crucifixion of Jesus? Luke was written before Acts, so if the crucifixion was a later addition, then surely we would have early manuscripts of Luke's gospel where Jesus is only hung on a tree and there's no mentioning of being crucuxified at all and Acts, which was written after Luke, would contain the crucifixion if it was added in later? If there were early Christians who believed Jesus was literally hanged on a tree, why don't we have any records of them? We have plenty of records of other Christian hearsays. Even the church fathers wrote about Christian hearsays like the Gnostics and the Marcionites.

 

If the issue of Jesus being literally hanged on a tree was such a controversial issue among the early church fathers formed the Nicene creed to refute it, why don't we have a single writing of the church fathers refuting this belief yet we have writings from the church fathers refuting other hearsays? Why don't we have a single extra-canonical gospel where Jesus was hanged on a tree among all those 20 extra-canonical gospels? You seem to want it both ways that you cite that the early church knew about other hearsays as proof that Jesus was literally hanged on a tree yet you turn around and argue that the lack of evidence of the early Christians believing this is proof it was surpessed and it sounds like an argument from silence to me.

 

This theme deserves a PhD work in Theology, not a forum reply. But I would try to explain at least parts of contradictions you name, though in schematic form.

 

We mainly do not have any other Gospels because the Church was managing the libraries where all manuscripts were stored - while Nicene Council recommended to destroy all apocryphal texts... We do not know what the early Gospels were saying at all, except for the 3rd party sources in which they (or something like them) can be occasionally mentioned - so who knows, maybe in 3rd century they all were saying about the hanging on a tree, how would we know this or the opposite? The texts we have were edited in AD354 - and what they said before this date we do not know, as there was no New Testament before this date at all.

 

Among the multiple Christian early Gospels was one Jewish Gospel, thoroughly MISSING but still often mentioned by Theologians - and even in Catholic Encyclopaedia. The details of it "remembered" 2000 years later are surprising, specially in the absence of the text itself... This was called The Gospel According to the Hebrews, it belonged to the Nazarethan sect of Ebionites, whose founders allegedly knew Jesus, Mary and Joseph in person as they were their neighbors. It is quite logical to suggest that this missing, but often mentioned, Gospel could contain the description of the true picture of the execution - because the Ebionites were supposed to follow Mary to take the body off the tree, as ordered in the quoted above passage from Torah (Deutoronomy).

 

Romans by the way were not allowing the bodies to be removed from the crosses for several weeks, as this was not worth the effort of soldiers digging the holes and making the crosses themselves, neither the public liked it, as they wanted to see the execution to the end (which sometimes was happening 2-3 days later). If the execution was somehow shortened (strange, but possibly possible) then the criminals were thrown into a mass grave somewhere in designated (and secret) location - not given to the relatives. Yet another feature - crucifixion in Rome was normally applied to the slaves only and to complete outlaws, while to use it for executing the free citizens of a colony was the same as to insult the entire nation by calling them all "slaves".

[Abiyoyo]

 

 

As for Apollo, I think technically this God was more respected in Etruria and Greece than in Rome, where he was known as Phoebus and was just a borrowed foreign deity. Everyone in Mediterranean area knew that the Pythia in Delphi was getting high from inhaling the vapors from the cleft, over which her tripod was based, and after 3rd century when the cleft stopped producing volcanic gases, the Oracle was just a laughing stock.

 

Whatever you say Doc. You are a Doc right? The community may not have been hands down followers of Apollo, but the Oracle was consulted by Rome, and the Apollo was the Oracle. So, your welcome to your own opinions.

[Neon Genesis]

 

 

 

 

 

We mainly do not have any other Gospels because the Church was managing the libraries where all manuscripts were stored - while Nicene Council recommended to destroy all apocryphal texts... We do not know what the early Gospels were saying at all, except for the 3rd party sources in which they (or something like them) can be occasionally mentioned - so who knows, maybe in 3rd century they all were saying about the hanging on a tree, how would we know this or the opposite? The texts we have were edited in AD354 - and what they said before this date we do not know, as there was no New Testament before this date at all.

 

 

 

But this still doesn't explain why the same author for Luke and Acts records the crucifixion in Luke before referencing the crucifixion in the sequel in Acts. If the author intended Jesus to have died on a literal tree, why didn't he have the reference mentioned in Luke which came first and have the crucifixion in Acts? You're also presuming Acts to be a historically accurate representation of the early church's history but most biblical scholars are in agreement that it is unreliable historically as it contradicts what Paul writes in his letters about the life of Paul and it was written centuries after the time of Jesus and Paul. And again, even if we accept that the church fathers were trying to suppress this heresy, why do we have recorded writings of the church fathers condemning other heresies yet no condemnation of this one at all? Your argument also doesn't meet the criteria of multiple attestation, which is a method secular scholars use to determine the historicity of a scripture.

[Guest marabod]

 

 

As for Apollo, I think technically this God was more respected in Etruria and Greece than in Rome, where he was known as Phoebus and was just a borrowed foreign deity. Everyone in Mediterranean area knew that the Pythia in Delphi was getting high from inhaling the vapors from the cleft, over which her tripod was based, and after 3rd century when the cleft stopped producing volcanic gases, the Oracle was just a laughing stock.

 

Whatever you say Doc. You are a Doc right? The community may not have been hands down followers of Apollo, but the Oracle was consulted by Rome, and the Apollo was the Oracle. So, your welcome to your own opinions.

 

No, I am not doc - I do not work in academic institutions and prefer more practical field of extractive metallurgy.

[Guest marabod]

 

 

 

 

 

We mainly do not have any other Gospels because the Church was managing the libraries where all manuscripts were stored - while Nicene Council recommended to destroy all apocryphal texts... We do not know what the early Gospels were saying at all, except for the 3rd party sources in which they (or something like them) can be occasionally mentioned - so who knows, maybe in 3rd century they all were saying about the hanging on a tree, how would we know this or the opposite? The texts we have were edited in AD354 - and what they said before this date we do not know, as there was no New Testament before this date at all.

 

 

 

But this still doesn't explain why the same author for Luke and Acts records the crucifixion in Luke before referencing the crucifixion in the sequel in Acts. If the author intended Jesus to have died on a literal tree, why didn't he have the reference mentioned in Luke which came first and have the crucifixion in Acts? You're also presuming Acts to be a historically accurate representation of the early church's history but most biblical scholars are in agreement that it is unreliable historically as it contradicts what Paul writes in his letters about the life of Paul and it was written centuries after the time of Jesus and Paul. And again, even if we accept that the church fathers were trying to suppress this heresy, why do we have recorded writings of the church fathers condemning other heresies yet no condemnation of this one at all? Your argument also doesn't meet the criteria of multiple attestation, which is a method secular scholars use to determine the historicity of a scripture.

 

But Luke was most likely written in the beginning of 2nd century AD, while the final versions of the Gospels appeared in mid-4th century AD! What was written by Luke was written 200 years before the final form was published. Luke never saw Jesus, he was a later convert, his Gospel is obviously from one the same source as Mathew and Mark, these three are simply handwritten copies of each other in many places. But it also can be Nicene Congress swapping the original text for the one based on the already approved texts... Note that I am at this stage not going into these details at all, as it must take time for some enthusiast to investigate how exactly the manuscripts were edited in 4th century AD.

 

All what I am saying is that the Bible says 3 times in a row, in the book, attributed to a respected Evangelist Luke, that Jesus was not crucified but hanged on a tree. I am actually surprised that it takes such a long time for me to extort a mere confirmation that the commonly known biblical text says precisely the words I mentioned in the majority of European translations. Please note, I simply go one step at a time - and for now I hardly have a single voice in admission that such statement exists repeatedly in the mentioned book of Acts, and also reflected in Peter 2 and Galatians, the latter linking this hanging on a tree procedure with Deuteronomy. I guess as soon as we clearly establish that everyone agrees that the Bible says exactly what it says, then we can move on and start investigating the reasons on why does it or may it say so. Or maybe we would not, and agree that for Jesus (as a God) it was quite normal to be executed several times - who knows, maybe he was doing resurrection show in every village? I, personally, have no idea - I am only reading the Bible, but cannot agree its texts with some other posters, as those instead of admitting or denying the text's existence and obvious nature, go straight to the explanation how the text has to be interpreted. Its like a road sign to the cafe shows left, and this is why I must understand it in a way that the cafe itself is to the right...

 

SO: Does the Bible say 3 times in one book that Jesus was hanged?

[mwc]

Up until now I haven't actually said anything. I've posted information, to which I have been initially praised and then criticized (mainly the latter) but I haven't actually said anything. I was actually more curious to see what the OP would actually present to support their own hypothesis. It turns out the answer to that is nothing...unless you count some assertions...which I won't.

 

However, returning to the beginning. The first post that "supported" your view was on the word "xulon" while the second post, the one that apparently was not in support of your view, was also on the word "xulon." Suddenly, I was informed the key word here was "xYlon" and not "xulon."

 

Okay. An important difference to be sure. Your word as an "Y" (I'm not going to insert the proper Greek character to make my typing easier) and the one I posted had an "u." More plainly your word has an upsilon while the one I posted only had an upsilon. Foolish me. So I thought I would post some simple information showing that a "Y" is the same as a "u" when transliterating these things. It's a simple matter for someone that doesn't care to know or understand Greek to grasp I would think. And you proved this by rightly not caring about how the "Y" entered into the English language.

 

I looked at two papyrus dated from ~600CE (p74) and ~250CE (p46) and both transliterate into "ξυλου" but neither image actually contains that one the written page. They both have "Y." Isn't that something? But you don't care. You've said as much in your other posts. You don't want to learn Greek. You want to base your ideas on translations. Very well. But the fact remains.

 

Since you also wished to continue on your fallacy of etymology I thought I'd just send you the very basics on Koine Greek versus later versions. Considering the NT is written in Koine I thought you might want to brush up on your terms but you just wished to mock. Okay. Your choice. Rather than actually present evidence of your own you simply chose to stand fast in your ignorance and the usual conspiracy theories.

 

Now, unfortunately, Seneca wrote in Latin, but he did write at the right time so I'll leave off with this:

T here he is, praying for that which, if it had befallen him, would be the most pitiable thing in the world! And seeking a postponement of suffering, as if he were asking for life! I should deem him most despicable had he wished to live up to the very time of crucifixion: "Nay," he cries, "you may weaken my body if you will ony leave the breath of life in my battered and ineffective carcass! Maim me if you will, but allow me, misshapen and deformed as I may be, just a little more time in the world! You may nail me up and set my seat upon the piercing cross!" Is it worth while to weigh down upon one's own wound, and hang impaled upon a gibbet, that one may but postpone something which is the balm of troubles, the end of punishment? Is it worth all this to possess the breath of life only to give it up? What would you ask for Maecenas but the indulgence of Heaven? What does he mean by such womanish and indecent verse? What does he mean by making terms with panic fear? What does he mean by begging so vilely for life? He cannot ever have heard Vergil read the words:

 

Tell me, is Death so wretched as that?

 

He asks for the climax of suffering, and - what is still harder to bear -prolongation and extension of suffering; and what does he gain thereby? Merely the boon of a longer existence. But what sort of life is a lingering death? Can anyone be found who would prefer wasting away in pain, dying limb by limb, or letting out his life drop by drop, rather than expiring once for all? Can any man be found willing to be fastened to the accursed tree, long sickly, already deformed, swelling with ugly tumours on chest and shoulders, and draw the breath of life amid long- drawn-out agony? I think he would have many excuses for dying even before mounting the cross! Deny, now, if you can, that Nature is very generous in making death inevitable. Many men have been prepared to enter upon still more shameful bargains: to betray friends in order to live longer themselves, or voluntarily to debase their children and so enioy the light of day which is witness of all their sins. We must get rid of this craving for life, and learn that it makes no difference when your suffering comes, because at some time you are bound to suffer. The point is, not how long you live, but how nobly you live. {longevity+} And often this living nobly means that you cannot live long. Farewell.

Perhaps I should have checked the actual Latin? But since we rely only on translations I didn't find the need. It seems to stand on its own and it makes my point. An "accursed tree" may well reference a place of crucifixion and not a literal tree.

 

mwc

[Guest marabod]

Can any man be found willing to be fastened to the accursed tree, long sickly, already deformed, swelling with ugly tumours on chest and shoulders, and draw the breath of life amid long- drawn-out agony?

 

MWC - what is that are you quoting from Seneca as written in Latin and using the word "accursed tree" for a cross? What is the title of this text?

 

By the way to continue I need to presume that you are actually answering "yes" to the important question offered above. So, the Bible does say 3 times in the Acts that Jesus was hanged on a tree. I would remember that your opinion. Thank you.

[Shyone]

Can any man be found willing to be fastened to the accursed tree, long sickly, already deformed, swelling with ugly tumours on chest and shoulders, and draw the breath of life amid long- drawn-out agony?

 

MWC - what is that are you quoting from Seneca as written in Latin and using the word "accursed tree" for a cross? What is the title of this text?

 

By the way to continue I need to presume that you are actually answering "yes" to the important question offered above. So, the Bible does say 3 times in the Acts that Jesus was hanged on a tree. I would remember that your opinion. Thank you.

Have you googled this to see if there are others that share your idea? I recall a lengthy article (or series) that claimed Jesus was impaled rather than crucified, but that was years ago.

 

I'm sure there are probably other theories as well.

[Neon Genesis]

 

 

SO: Does the Bible say 3 times in one book that Jesus was hanged?

Three whole times is all? Again, if this was a hearsay belief that was so prevelant among early Christians that the church fathers had to combat it with the Nicene creed, why is it only mentioned those few random times they're mentioned? Why didn't the church fathers condemn it in their writings like they did the other heresies that existed in the early church? You seem to again want to have it both ways by citing Luke as a reliable evangelist using this reference three times yet when Luke devotes multiple pages to the crucifixion and purposely embellishes on Matthew and Mark's accounts are not proof that Luke's author did not believe in the crucifixion? And if you're using Paul, Paul references "Christ crucified" more frequently than he does the tree, so that must mean Paul believed in the crucifixion. Also, it should be noted that Luke's gospel does not in itself say it was written by Luke. This authorship was attributed to it by the church fathers who are the same church fathers you're claiming are suppressing this hearsay but are also using to support that this depiction of Jesus' death is accurate.

[Guest marabod]

Shyone, I do not have any theories to date. For start I am trying to understand some psychological moments and mind control techniques. What has to be done to a human for this human to understand a short absolutely unambiguous phrase in exactly opposite sense? You may notice that no one so far actually admitted that the Bible repeats the same thing 3 times in one book and supports 3 times in the other books. "They" seem to be unable to say "Yes, the Bible says this but I think this is untrue", as this would mean that Bible either LIES, or talks POETRY, and how can one follow something that lies or talks poetry? Try following, say, Shakespeare! - as soon as you slay Malcolm, the cops would arrive and take you off the stage.

 

Well, if this is just poetical "cursed tree" instead of a cross - then immediately one may ask, where else in the Bible the poetry is used? How about the story of Creation? Of Abraham's human sacrifice? Of Jonah in a whale? Of virgin Mary? Of walking over waters? etc etc etc - many questions, and much less answers. "I follow the Bible" - this is what I mostly hear! So, I am intended to find out, how one can follow the Bible if the same someone de-facto agrees it says untrue things?

[Neon Genesis]

 

 

Well, if this is just poetical "cursed tree" instead of a cross - then immediately one may ask, where else in the Bible the poetry is used? How about the story of Creation? Of Abraham's human sacrifice? Of Jonah in a whale? Of virgin Mary? Of walking over waters? etc etc etc - many questions, and much less answers. "I follow the Bible" - this is what I mostly hear! So, I am intended to find out, how one can follow the Bible if the same someone de-facto agrees it says untrue things?

The book of Psalms and the Song Of Solomon? There's a whole literary genre in the bible called books of poetry or "Wisdom literature." Jesus himself speaks in metaphors, symbolic languages, and parables that are not intended to be literally true.

[Guest marabod]

 

 

SO: Does the Bible say 3 times in one book that Jesus was hanged?

Three whole times is all? Again, if this was a hearsay belief that was so prevelant among early Christians that the church fathers had to combat it with the Nicene creed, why is it only mentioned those few random times they're mentioned? Why didn't the church fathers condemn it in their writings like they did the other heresies that existed in the early church? You seem to again want to have it both ways by citing Luke as a reliable evangelist using this reference three times yet when Luke devotes multiple pages to the crucifixion and purposely embellishes on Matthew and Mark's accounts are not proof that Luke's author did not believe in the crucifixion? And if you're using Paul, Paul references "Christ crucified" more frequently than he does the tree, so that must mean Paul believed in the crucifixion.

 

Sorry, Neon - did I upset you somehow? All I asked was "do you agree that the Bible says Jesus was hanged?" - nothing else. I was never intended to plot complex theories (despite I think the explanation is very simple and is on the surface). I was only asking if this was in fact said in the Bible - expecting YES or NO. Not really expecting "but" in any form. "But" suggests explanations and theories, and a clash of opinions etc, as a result we all may lose our inner peace - but a simple yes or no cannot hurt too much!

 

Once again - "does the Bible say he was hanged?"

[Neon Genesis]

You're holding us to double standards. You want us to say yes or no if the bible says he was hanged. If we say yes, then you'll call victory and if we say no, you won't let us explain why it doesn't because that also means you're right. Then when we offer suggestions to learn more about biblical scholarship and history, you brush it aside and say you don't need facts, and are somehow too old to read books (huh?) and insult anyone who disagrees with you. Where in my post did I say I was upset by anything? Self-projecting much?

[Guest marabod]

Just watch this, brother Abiyoyo! Did you have any doubts when I said that Christians tend to coil like an eel on a frying pan? Watch it, watch it!

 

Poor Jesus and poor cursed tree, carpenter Josepphe carved him from... What was the point saying your Yes be for Yes and your No be for No?

[Guest marabod]

You're holding us to double standards. You want us to say yes or no if the bible says he was hanged. If we say yes, then you'll call victory and if we say no, you won't let us explain why it doesn't because that also means you're right. Then when we offer suggestions to learn more about biblical scholarship and history, you brush it aside and say you don't need facts, and are somehow too old to read books (huh?) and insult anyone who disagrees with you. Where in my post did I say I was upset by anything? Self-projecting much?

 

Some call this situation "checkmate". White start and win. E2-E4, and you are free to go to the church.