Jesus Did Not Die on a Cross Says 'Scholar'

"Read all about it! Controversial, headline grabbing assertion made by unknown university academic questions Gospel accounts of the Passion of Christ!"

A 'scholar' from a Swedish University has suggested that Our Lord may not have died (which is a somewhat different construction on his view than the headline makes out) nailed to a Cross because there is 'no evidence' that the Romans crucified prisoners two thousand years ago.

According to a rather ropey report in The Telegraph, with my comments in bold...

'The legend (King Arthur, Robin Hood, Atlantis, Our Lord Jesus Christ) of his execution is based on the traditions of the Christian church and artistic illustrations rather than antique texts, according to theologian Gunnar Samuelsson.

He claims the Bible has been misinterpreted (Something always gets lost in translations...) as there are no explicit references to the use of nails or to crucifixion (Oh, really?) - only that Jesus bore a "staurus" towards Calvary which is not necessarily a cross but can also mean a "pole".(Perhaps He did, but does it actually say that Our Lord carried a pole in any of the Gospel narratives, or, actually, anywhere?)

Mr Samuelsson, who has written a 400-page thesis (Is this 'thesis' intended for sale, by any chance?) after studying the original texts, said: "The problem is descriptions of crucifixions are remarkably absent in the antique literature (Is this guy an antique dealer or a theologian?). The sources where you would expect to find support for the established understanding of the event really don't say anything." (Did he think of asking a theologian from, say, the Vatican for some pointers? I sink not!)

The ancient Greek, Latin and Hebrew literature from Homer to the first century AD describe an arsenal of suspension punishments but none mention "crosses" or "crucifixion." Mr Samuelsson, of Gothenburg University, said: "Consequently, the contemporary understanding of crucifixion as a punishment is severely challenged. And what's even more challenging is the same can be concluded about the accounts of the crucifixion of Jesus. The New Testament doesn't say as much as we'd like to believe."

('...And they gave him to drink wine mingled with myrrh; but he took it not. And crucifying him, they divided his garments, casting lots upon them, what every man should take.  And it was the third hour, and they crucified him.', Gospel of St Mark, Douay-Rheims)
The article continues...
Any evidence that Jesus was left to die after being nailed to a cross is strikingly sparse - both in the ancient pre-Christian and extra-Biblical literature as well as The Bible.
It is actually a rather misleading headline for the anonymously penned article since the author of the 'thesis', a 'theologian', suggests that Our Lord may have died upon a staurus or pole. It is plausible and many respected theologians, I think, hold the view that Our Blessed Lord carried a staurus or pole to the site of His Crucifixion, but it is unlikely that on his arrival there that He was not crucified as the Evangelists make plain. All of the Gospel narratives, I think, testify to Our Lord's Passion and Crucifixion. The Gospel of St Matthew further testifies...

'And they put over his head his cause written: THIS IS JESUS THE KING OF THE JEWS. 38 Then were crucified with him two thieves: one on the right hand, and one on the left.' (Douay-Rheims)
What is more, proper historians rather than opportunistic chancers are in little doubt as to the use of crucifixion by the Roman authorities in putting down Jewish rebellion while also using it as a off-putting punishment for a range of crimes, like those of Barrabas who got let off only for the Son of God to take his place. Seneca the Younger, Josephus, Cicero and Tacitus all wrote about crucifixion as you will see by this nicely written Wikipedia article. How did this guy miss them? He needs to go online more!

What Gunnar is saying is that despite the Gospel accounts of Our Lord's Death on the Cross and the historical evidence at our disposal for crucifixion being a common form of torturous execution by the Romans of the time, all of which he has chosen to ignore totally, Our Blessed Lord may have died on a pole. Well, the man is welcome to his opinion but where is his evidence? Anyway, I'm off now to bash my Bible some more! Everything the Catholic Church understands about the Life, Ministry, Death, Resurrection and Ascension of Christ has been passed down by the Apostles to their Successors to their Successors to their Successors unto today and that includes the Holy Gospels which include narratives of the Passion of Our Saviour. If you ignore the Holy Tradition of the Church then everything is most certainly in doubt and I mean everything. Any thoughts?

Comments

Mundusscenesit said…
"If you ignore the Holy Tradition of the Church then everything is most certainly in doubt and I mean everything" - Not sure I agree. Didn't various cardinals advance that as an argument for ignoring the heliocentric system of the universe? Didn't they also tie the Earth's centrality to the necessity of man's dignity? Both plausible arguments ('it's in the Bible' and 'man is dignified') but they recanted when it became clearly untenable. As far as I am aware most scholarship accepts Christ was not crucified int he manner we have become accustomed to. Similarly it is hightly unlikely Mary undertook a long journey on a donkey while heavily pregnant so that her husband could fill in a Roman census in the city of his bitrh (just think about all the unlikely/dubious elements to that story!).

The essential element, that Man killed the Saviour, is not changed if we accept that it may not have been a cross that killed him. Anyway, symbolism is symbolism, the cross still stands as Christ's symbol.

P.s., just to give you an example (see link below) - there are no early (up to the the 4th century) depictions of the cross as a part of Christian symbolism. The argument is that Roman crucifixion was only practiced later, when the popular mythologies were cemented

As the Catholic Encyclopaedia says:

"In the earlier period no representations of the Crucifixion are found, and hardly any of the cross, at least in a large and conspicuous form; neither are the episodes of Christ's life commonly depicted realistically and historically, but only conventionally. But the type of the Good Shepherd carrying the sheep on his shoulders occurs frequently, and this preference may well be due to its resemblance to the pagan figures of Hermes Kriophorus or Arist├Žus, which at this period were much in vogue."

In fact, there is an argument that the early 'crucifix' was actually a shepherd's crook (hence it initially appears in the corner of paintings as a slightly bent cross)

http://www.utexas.edu/courses/ancientfilmCC304/lecture27/detail.php?linenum=9


Not sure why you're getting your nickers in a twist over this one, you don't have to irrationally shout down any enquiry into matters of fact! That, as far as I am aware, is not the Church's position
paramedicgirl said…
He's probably a JW. They think Jesus died on a torture stake.
Patricius said…
And of course there are those who maintain that he didn't die. He just felt poorly but got better after a rest. I kid you not! There are any number of crackpot theories out there, few of them original but guaranteed to provide a jounalist with some cheap copy from time to time.
As Paramedic Girl says, the Jehovah's Witnesses had this one earlier. I think they link the cross to the ancient Egyptian ankh as part of their "Catholic Church is really pagan" line.
Physiocrat said…
How does this clever dick expert explain the fact, as we can vouch for, that we meet the Risen Christ every time we are present at the Mass?
Ludolphus said…
I recall Herodotus spoke of crucifixion by the Persians and that was c.500 BC.

"On the basis of the writings of the Greek author Herodotus, it seems that the Persians were the first to use crucifixion (Herodotus 1:128.2; 3:125.3; 3:132.2; 3:159.1). For example, Herodotus tells us that King Darius (mentioned in the Bible) had 3000 Babylonians crucified in about 519 B.C."

http://www.orlutheran.com/html/crucify.html
stacknef said…
Why does the "author" of this blog put quotation marks around the word scholar?
Probably his juvenile way of disparaging the author for even considering alternative views on the ancient words used.

The fact remains that neither the "author" of this blog or the "scholar" who wrote his thesis were there. The difference is that the blog was written with no research over a few days or hours and the thesis took 3 years to develop...so, who has more information to work with?
J.P. Douglas said…
I don't agree with the "scientist" who wrote the article about Jesus not dying on the cross. But as a historian he seems to be blind to the story of Constantine who saw the cross in the sky and "the omen informed Constantine that he would conquer under the sign of Christ". Which he did and the cultural center of the ancient world Constantine probably influenced the future symbolism of the cross that we understand today. Why would Constantine see the "cross" in the sky and put it together with Christ?
It never ceases to amaze me that poeple of the Body seem to want to discredit the depictions of the gospels. My first pastor instructed me that if one portion of the bible is a lie, then it is all a lie. I do believe that there is something healthy in debate by scolars, but when that debate spills over into the secular world it works to undermine the cause of Crist. What the seculars get out of this is that Jesus death accounts are not true, no matter how you explain it. Dangerous to say the least. When I write the question that I ask myself is, does what I am writing glorify Christ and does it align with scripture, tradition and evidence of the withnesses. The only withnesses are the gospels. History is unreliable due to the fact that history is written by or on behalf of the victors. the reformation began the distuction of the church and liberalism will finish the job.
Janice said…
Our Lord Jesus Christ was not "put to death" by anyone; He willingly gave up His life for us and our salvation.
Anonymous said…
Janice put it plaine and simple right from the scripture.
Physiocrat said…
The main point surely is that Jesus is alive today. Including here in Uppsala, even, this morning.
Roc said…
Why are Jewsih theolgians and scholars so determined to destroy the Christian beliefs?

A Jew should no more question Christian beliefs or written records than we christians should question the Moses ascending Mount Sinai,or the parting of the Red sea or even belittling Abraham that he would kill his son for a questionable Old testament God.

Question Islam if you wish,it is that religion that threatens your very existence not the Christians or our beliefs who have sacrifgiced for many of you.
NotWhatYouThink said…
It is a sign of weakness to criticize the work of someone else then to do our own research.
Ellelaine said…
I am wondering if one impaled on a stake would be able to make conversation? Also, it took Jesus six hours to die, one of the fastest times on record; however, I would think that being impaled on a stake would be rather immediate? Then there is the fact that the legs of the two thieves on either side of him were broken, a redundant course of action if they were impaled. The reason for breaking the legs was because crucified men died from suffocation when their weakend legs could no long lift their weight off of their diaphragms in order to draw air. In order to rush the death process it was then customary to break the legs. At any rate, quoting Greek does not a scholar make and anyone with common sense should understand that you can't bring a valid arguement to the table with only an implied defition to one word. Seriously, how was the rest of the story so easily disgarded?
D Pressler said…
A read of the Gospel of Peter indicates the Cross spoke?
kmsmithmd said…
It strikes me that the "scholar" (and I use that term loosely) doesn't seem to put any weight on the Gospels that say Jesus told Phillip to put his finger or hand into the nail holes in Christ's hands. Excuse me, but if that doesn't point to nail crucifixion on a cross and not just "impaling on a pole", then you also have to be of a mind to discount the Gospels as untruths as well as the crucifixion on the cross. And why would there be nails in the feet if He was just impaled? Also how did the sign get nailed above Jesus' head if he was just impaled. Does that not also point to a cross which extended above the head? It seems to me that there are more Biblical indications of a true Crucifixion than an impaling. Jesus knew how He was going to die and I believe that is why He said "take up your cross and follow me"
Kirk M. Smith MD
Anonymous said…
Much ado about nothing. A supposed scholar writes some drivel and the world responds in an uproar.

I once read a scholarly work by a PHD whose research convinced him our earth was a hollow globe, complete with an alternate civilization who occasionally commuted out of a hole at the north pole in flying saucers.

Just because one has a Doctorate and works at a University doesn't necessarily make one a scholar.

Check the man's credentials. Lots and lots of crackpots are employed by Universities around this old world of ours.
Anonymous said…
I recall seeing on the History Channel that the Celtic cross,(the cross within a circle), was a joining of the cross with the circle representing the pagan sun worship of our Celtic anestors. If the Church of our ancestors saw no problem with allowing the blending of pagan symbols of the Celts, should it surprise us that the Church had earlier blended the stake with the pagan symbols from Egypt and Babylon? The Rev. Alexander Hislop in his book,"The Two Babylons", made some interesting observations on pages 198-205.

That such a corruption would take place in the Christian Congregation, was well foretold by our Lord, and his Apostle Paul. Matthew 13:24-43, Acts 20:17,25-30
Jaime said…
I remember reading an encyclical or something else with nihil obstat as well as imprimatur that said clearly that " between the Bible and the tradition of the church" (meaning R.C.C.) "That the Tradition is more reliable".. I wonder what that Pope meant by that???
Barry Mitchell said…
A couple of things to remember regarding Christ's means of death and Scripture.

It was according to God's plan.

Galatians 3:13 Christ has redeemed us from the curse of the law, having become a curse for us(for it is written, "Cursed is everyone who hangs on a tree")

And the form of death involved nails in His hands.

John 20:25..."Unless I see in His hands the print of the nails, and put my finger into the print of the nails, and put my hand into His side, I will not believe."
PastorRD said…
When Jesus appeared to Thomas, He invited Thomas to place his fingers into the print of the "nails" (plural). If Jesus had been cruicified on a torture stake, He would have said "nail" (singular). We also have an excavation of a 1st century dwelling with a drawing on the wall that appears to be mocking Christianity - it pictures an ass (donkey) nailed to a cross, not a stake. It is most likely that Jesus only carried the patibulum (crossbeam) because the whole cross would have been too heavy to carry - and the stipes (posts) were used over and over again and were probably already into the ground. Thus the cross that Jesus was naiuled to most probably resembles a capitol T as the patibulum was raised and placed on top of the stipes.
Anonymous said…
What I want to know is why so many self proclaimed Christians are reacting so violently to what this man is proposing? As followers of Christ teachings shouldn't the tones of some of these comments be less hostile and as followers of him shouldn't people keep an open mind and try to consider every possibility to try and accurately determine what his life and death may have actually been like?

No one knows what really happened, there isn't anyone left from that time to accurately describe it and what has been written has been interpreted and reinterpreted in countless languages over centuries. Isn't it at all possible that what we have come to believe may be slightly different from what actually happened?

History gets revised CONSTANTLY as new evidence emerges. At one point people thought Columbus was the first European in America, now we know before him came Leif Erikson. People once believed the Earth was flat and that it was the center of the universe, now we know that's not true. Taking all of that into consideration I firmly believe that there are details in the bible that might not be 100% accurate and can certainly benefit from more research.
Anonymous said…
If you look at Scripture as a whole and in context, you would not come to the conclusion that Jesus Christ died on anything other than a cross. Old Testament Scripture depicts the crucifixion as far back as Moses leading the Israelites out of Egypt. Remember God told them to place the blood of the animal on the sides and over top of the door posts thus the death angel would "Passover" their home and their first born would not die. This is symbolic of Crucifixion by the cross; the blood on the sides of the door post representing the hands of Christ. The blood over the door post representing the crown of thorns thrust upon His head, and the blood which dripped to the ground representing Christ's feet being pierced. What a wonderful thing Christ did for us. Praise be God! Also, I believe it was Peter who requested to be crucified upside down because he considered himself unworthy to be crucified as Christ was.
phil m said…
I truly believe we must be in the last days. With studies like this one , I understand that prophesy is being fulfilled.
gbhsecret said…
this is messed up,,,,you let me type a discertation commenting on the topic at hand, and THEN inform me i have to have an account, and to top it off, my comments are automatically deleted/erased and thereby lost ..... you couldn't say upfront that an account is needed and that anything you type won't be retained while you are getting the account set up??? that is 2nd rate,,,,i could have printed my comments before i lost them if i had known they would be deleted,,,,,that's worse than 2nd rate......that's just plain sorry.
Anonymous said…
look people jesus and all that stuff isnt real come on now. People where deffinatly liers back then to
Say we didnt know about jesus or God or whatever and a guy comes and says he is this son of God or whatever and you must believe are you really telling me your going to believe that guy. If you do why dont you just give your children to complete strangers then.
Christopher said…
The article claims that this "pastor" has done extensive research concerning this topic.Ive been studying historical Christianity for 20 years and can honestly say their is a tremendous amount of evidence from history that.
1.The Romans didnt invent crucifixion but they certainly perfected it and used it frequently.
2.The New Testament in many places says Jesus was crucified
3.Many non-Christian sources claim Jesus was crucified
lastly, what would be the motivation for a "pastor" who claims to believe in the inspiration of scripture to do such an exhausted study concerning this topic, sounds like a Jehovah Witness or someone who has a dog in the race already
revvid123 said…
This is just one example of what can happen when you do a word study in the wrong language. It is true that the Biblical languages are Greek, Hebrew and Aramaic. But the Romans spoke neather. They spoke Latin. This is why they shouted "Crucify him." this only makes for sound reason as the jews at this time did not have the authority to use capitol punishment. (Mk.15:13,14 and 20). This is also where the word cross comes from.
kevinr said…
It is entirely likely that Herod and/or the Sanhedrin requested of Pilate that Jesus be crucified to end the threat to their reign, since impaling would end rather quickly, and they wanted Him to suffer. Regardless, He is still the Lord.
thelittlesttheologian said…
I think it's important to your argument that you understand that the New Testament writings were not in English, and have been translated, and re-translated from a number of different languages into the book that we call the Bible today. Translating doesn't necessarily diminish its meaning, however, you are right, something always gets 'lost.'
Therefore, your arguments regarding the language in the Bible do little to provide proof for your stance. You cite "crucifixion" many times, without noting that this specific word was translated into English from another source.
I do not in any way intend to challenge the Christian belief that Jesus died and rose again, that he was, in fact, put to death at the hands of the Roman government, or that he carried his method-of-murder before all the people. Every day scholars discover more information about antiquity - information that may bring us closer to understanding Jesus as the Messiah, the son of God, and as a historical figure. Study and understanding of Him, may bring us closer to God - it certainly cannot hurt.

-A Fellow Theologian
Ollie said…
Yes, the bibles say in MODERN LANGUAGE that Jesus was crucified. But the scholar's point was that the gospels were mistranslated. So it doesn't make any sense to say that Jesus did die on a cross because the bible says so when, in fact, the bible was mistranslated.
Anonymous said…
Pastor Loren Sauers - it isn't liberalism that will kill the Church, it is us staying ignorant in the face of fact. Former classmates of mine who no longer attend regular Church say "they can't speak to me" because I am close-minded. To an extent they are correct because I try to lead my life in step with God and will not stray from that. But for me to disrespect them, their learning, and their life experience just because of their opinion (or, even sillier, their political affiliation) is just as bad as being one of them and that's a road I no longer go down. From what I've seen and apart from their stance on abortion, the liberals are the only ones who seem interested in caring about the least among us - the Mary Magdelenes of this world that would be cast out and left for dead by uncaring conservatives. Why is one life more precious than the other?
TulsaDavid said…
One more little-evidence-Swedish-guy-who-come-up-with-this-and-thinks-he-has-a-brain. Thankfully, God's Word has by thousands of years outlasted these types of people who come and go into obscurity.
Tim said…
The fact is that the author correctly indicates that the greek word stauros rarely if ever indicated a cross as such IN THE FIRST CENTURY... more likely an upright pole or stake... Another word Xylon is usued in Acts 5:30.. it never means "Cross" ... more often Tree or Stake.
Bob Johnson said…
So....Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Peter, Paul, James and Jude all lied. How about all of the witnesses to Christ dying on the "cross"....Pastor get your head out of your.....bleep and look at that evidence.
Anonymous said…
What I find astonishing is the number of comments posted here by people who think the Gospels were written in English.

Those of you who provide quotes from the KJV need to wake up.

The scholar who did this careful and painstaking research isn't reading the KJV, he's reading the ORIGINAL Bible, the REAL documents, in their ORIGINAL languages. Greek. Hebrew. Latin.

Why is it so impossible to believe that a word that we know for sure has multiple meanings might, in fact, have been used in a different meaning than we are used to today?

Does it change the nature of Christ's sacrifice if the wooden structure he died on was shaped differently than you think it was? Not one bit.

When Joseph rolled the stone in front of Christ's tomb, was it an igneous rock, a sedimentary one, or a metamorphic one? Shall we have a raging flame war over which type of rock it was? No. That would be stupid. And it's just as stupid to argue over what specific shape the cross was.
John said…
Dr. Matthew Smith Th.D., Ph.D.
(THEOLOGIAN)

John 20:25 & 27
Thomas one of the 12 disciples of Jesus could not believe that Christ had risen until he
1) SEES FOR HIMSELF THE PRINT OF THE NAILS IN JESUS' HANDS
AND
2) PUT HIS FINGER INTO THE PRINT OF THE NAILS
3) thrust his hand into Jesus' side.
The Bible clearly records the historical eye witness account of what Thomas SAW on Jesus' Hands as evidence as to "HOW" Jesus HUNG on the CROSS and died and could not wait to confirm it was His Lord, Jesus, by
seeing IN JESUS' HANDS "again" THE PRINT OF THE NAILS and PUT his finger INTO THE PRINT OF THE NAILS

WHICH....
JESUS IN VERSE 27
ENCOURAGES THOMAS TO DO, when He appeared to him.
TO LOOK UPON HIS NAIL PRINT HANDS and to thrust his hand into His Side,
BUT He also added and said, BLESSED ARE THEY WHO HAS NOT SEEN YET BELIEVE.

THE PRINT OF THE NAILS on Jesus' Hands (BIG ENOUGH TO PUT A FINGER THROUGH...)are the very mark of JESUS HANGING from the CROSS at Calvary.
John 19:25
The MOTHER OF JESUS stood by the CROSS of JESUS...!
Johnny33405 said…
Hi, For goodness sake no, of course he did not die on a cross. I heard from one friend that said he was there he had died at a frat party from an overdose of alcohol before drowning in the swimming pool skinny dipping.
Although a couple years back a gal I know who was also there told me something a bit different. Said when she was serving the whole gang of Apolstles and Jesus at the frat party/BBQ, some call it the "last supper", he had not been eating enough of the four food groups recommended by the FDA, refused BBQ, drank too much, ate some bread which had boleweavels in it, got sick, threw up, THEN stumbling, he tripped and fell into the swimming pool and drown but was not naked (ie:skinny dipping).
Come to think of it anyway, as much as I like my college buddies and usually trust em too, I change my mind. They have stretched their stories a bit at times. I still am believing the Pope. I like our Cathloic Pope too. He is into real world solutions and actively involved with us and that is nice and very brave for one of his Holyness.
Anonymous said…
Maybe one should take a closer look at why Jehovah's witnesses for years have maintained that Jesus died on a stake rather than a cross. Does not take away from Jesus or his life rather debukes much of non-christian tradition that has crept into religion. One can rant and rave but truth is often much simpler and pure. Stick to the recorded history rather than trying to rewrite what the Gospels say.
face in the crowd said…
Maybe one should take a closer look at why Jehovah's witnesses for years have maintained that Jesus died on a stake rather than a cross. Does not take away from Jesus or his life rather debukes much of non-christian tradition that has crept into religion. One can rant and rave but truth is often much simpler and pure. Stick to the recorded history rather than trying to rewrite what the Gospels say.
People talk about Islam being hijacked by radicals...Christianity was hijaked centuries ago...
Mel Kizadeck said…
And I suppose that next they'll tell us that there really isn't much evidence of him being buried in a tomb! Duh! He's alive!

To the first commenter:
Of course there aren't any depictions of a cross as a symbol for Christ in the early church, because it was still being used as a means of exceution. It didn't become a symbol until after the Romans made it illegal to crucify someone.
SteveF said…
In any case, it does not affect my faith or my salvation.

"Scripture, Tradition, Reason." The three tenets to be used in Faith.

In other words, (yawn) who really cares how Jesus died. The important thing is that he did, and rose again on the third day.
Anonymous said…
to all the idiotic and closed minded people who say "no evidence 'theologian'" Grow up. He's not questioning you're religion and he wrote a 400 page thesis I am pretty sure he has some evidence into what he is saying there. Don't act like that tiny article = his whole thesis, all he is saying is that he found that words were vaguely translated and mean other things so that Jesus may have not died on a cross exactly but what does it matter? he died for your sins and that's the real point not if he died on a pole, or a spike or some other bs stop attacking the theologian for no reason, you look ignorant and idiotic
Bryce said…
First off no im not christian, im not any religion but seriously guys read the damn article and maybe you could actually understand this. And honestly does it matter if he was crucified to a pole or a cross, things happen with translations and get changed, always have, wake up and stop being ignorant.
Physiocrat said…
Well at least nobody is suggesting He stepped in front of a bus. I suppose it is only a matter of time...
vesey said…
The word stauros does imply a strait up pole or pale. When not used as a impaling device to execute prisoners the victim would have his hands put above him and crossed at the wrist then having a nail or spike driven through the wrist. The feet would be crossed below at the ankles and the nail or spike would be driven through the ankles. Likely this was the way Christ was executed. As the Catholic Encyclopedia and many Bible scholars point out, the cross was not used as a Christian religious symbol until into the 4th century.Interestingly there have been many works of art over the centuries depicting Christ's death as mentioned above. This is not a new concept and many Bible scholars have felt this was the actual method used for centuries. The important thing is the act of sacrifice that Christ made for us and our faith need not rest on a symbol that is likely inaccurate.God is interested in what's in our hearts not what is around our necks.......
Anonymous said…
To avoid confusing the incurious the title of the article should read:

"Jesus Did Not Die on a Latin Cross Says Scholar"
Anonymous said…
Jesus didn't die on one of Pontius' ready made execution cross as such but on an object shaped like a cross. He died on a tree! The vertical beam being the trunk. The horizontal beam was another piece of timber fixed upon the trunk to form the cross shaped contraption on which Jesus was nailed. This log was the one Jesus carried on the way to Calvary.
wattox said…
The Greek Christians have always and still believe that Jesus died on a cross. The NT is written in ancient Greek, the Greeks that the Greeks at that time understood at 100%. That's just one argument I never read about. No doubt it was a cross.

God bless!
Samwell said…
Dear Friends,

If you want further information about my doctoral thesis, Crucifixion in Antiquity, please visit my website http://www.exegetics.org.

Regards,
Gunnar Samuelsson
Rainey said…
It seems that this subject is in such debate because people want to make sure they are putting their faith in the right thing and the cross is a symbol of most Christians' faith. It is a very interesting discussion but I feel that one point is being missed. It’s not how he died it’s why he died. Also that he was here to teach us to LOVE EACH OTHER. You may want to argue with each other but you cannot argue with the scriptures. Something interesting to remember is that the piece of wood Jesus died on is not of the upmost importance. It seems to be getting in the way of us growing closer to God and his wonderful son Jesus
Exodus 20:4
4 “You must not make for yourself a carved image or a form like anything that is in the heavens above or that is on the earth underneath or that is in the waters under the earth
Leviticus 26:1
1 “‘YOU must not make valueless gods for yourselves, and YOU must not set up a carved image or a sacred pillar for yourselves, and YOU must not put a stone as a showpiece in YOUR land in order to bow down toward it;
So if we are not to concern ourselves with these things why is it in such controversy what he died on? If you must continue to seek the right answers; please do so for God wants us to keep seeking him as if seeking a treasure. Pray about it my friends
James 1:5, 6
5 So, if any one of YOU is lacking in wisdom, let him keep on asking God, for he gives generously to all and without reproaching; and it will be given him. 6 But let him keep on asking in faith, not doubting at all, for he who doubts is like a wave of the sea driven by the wind and blown about.
Luke 11:9, 10
9 Accordingly I say to YOU, Keep on asking, and it will be given YOU; keep on seeking, and YOU will find; keep on knocking, and it will be opened to YOU. 10 For everyone asking receives, and everyone seeking finds, and to everyone knocking it will be opened

Just one of many but I liked the ease of this one.

http://www.albatrus.org/english/religions/pagan/origin_of_cross.htm
Katy said…
I couldn't have said it better Rainey.