[MADwanker]

I'm very interested to know what constitutes scholarship nowadays. Of course most theological schools whether orthodox or not are quite lacking. Now myself, as a short order cook, I will like to share some real scholarship with this scholar. First off how is it that the gospel story of doubting Thomas is ovberlooked? Thomas specifically mentions nails in the plural as the instruments which affixed his hands to the cross. Obviously the story dates to the first century, isnt that ancient enough.

Secondly how is it that this scholar claims that the gospel only mentions that Christ carried a stauron, when scholars already know that when prisoners carried a stauro they actually were carrying the crossbeam! To carry the actual upright pole would mean Christ (and later the man from Cyrene) actually carried a 12-15 foot long pole that weighed hundreds of pounds. Unless Christ was on steroids rather than a bloody mess perhaps he would have been able to pull it off. Even a person who lays down the wooden beams for train tracks can conclude that this scholar is way offbase.

This scholar who "reads alot", should instead put down his books and go to the patriarchal museum in Jerusalem where on display is an unearthed 1st century nail going thru a wristbone, belonging to an unlucky victim of crucifixion.

Hi Kosta

I came across some Jehovah witnesses saying Tha Jesus was not crucified on a cross but rather a upright pole
They even showed me a srcipture refering to a Tree. I looked up the Greek Word for Tree and Looked into the meaning of the word: It is either a {1} Tree {2} piece of wood. {3} two pieces of Wood.

I went to wikapedia on Roman Crucifixtion: There it says: That the Upright pole is already at the place of Execution because
It is too heavy to carry: Because it is 300lb in weight. It says people who were crucified were made to carry a piece of wood the cross member which is 100lb in weight. The bible says Jesus carried something to where he was to be executed.

I have come to the conclusion Jesus did not carry a whole Cross to the place of Execution; So he must have carried a piece
of wood, you can problably call it his torcher stick. but it was the piece of wood used as the cross beam.
So Jesus Must have been crucfied on the CROSS.

[Kk21pwa9]

I was amused by the line "Not everybody is convinced" by his arguments.Well, my guess is virtually no one is convinced.

[Ebjjrxrd]

Matthew 27:32 "Now as they came out, they found a man of Cyrene, Simon by name. Him they compelled to bear His cross."

[somozasayre]

Matthew 27:32 "Now as they came out, they found a man of Cyrene, Simon by name. Him they compelled to bear His cross."

What's the Greek for "cross" here?

[biannaruh]

What's the Greek for "cross" here?

Stauron, a declension of stauros.

[popsicesHoupe]

I was amused by the line "Not everybody is convinced" by his arguments.Well, my guess is virtually no one is convinced.

I'll bet a big part of that, is that people aren't reading far enough to understand what his arguments are. As was said in the article (emphasis added):

Samuelsson wants to be very clear about what he is saying and what he is not saying. Most importantly, he says, he is not claiming Jesus was not crucified - only that the Gospels do not say he was. "I am a pastor, a conservative evangelical pastor, a Christian," he is at pains to point out. "I do believe that Jesus died the way we thought he died. He died on the cross."
But, he insists, it is tradition that tells Christians that, not the first four books of the New Testament. I still love that here we have an Evangelical scholar claiming that a major belief of the faith can only be supported by tradition, not Scripture alone. It's a start...

In Christ,
Michael

[hwood]

I still love that here we have an Evangelical scholar claiming that a major belief of the faith can only be supported by tradition, not Scripture alone. It's a start...

In Christ,
Michael

One day at a time taking baby steps.

[wepoiyub]

I would compare this 'scholar', who spent 12 hours a day reading the Gospels in order to find out that Jesus was not crucified, with one of our grandmas who repent that she had not found 20 minutes to read her daily chapter from the Gospel, because she had to clean the dishes...but she prayed all the time like this 'As I clean these dishes You clean my soul' ...
guess whom of the two went home justified before God...

[somozasayre]

I would compare this 'scholar', who spent 12 hours a day reading the Gospels in order to find out that Jesus was not crucified, with one of our grandmas who repent that she had not found 20 minutes to read her daily chapter from the Gospel, because she had to clean the dishes...but she prayed all the time like this 'As I clean these dishes You clean my soul' ...
guess whom of the two went home justified before God...

The scholar hasn't died yet.

[Lilji]

In my opinion, if Christ were killed by other means, we would see that in other early gnostic cults, but no such thing is found. Only recently we see the Jehovah's Witnesses believing that Christ was killed on a torture stake, but that's doesn't have any historical, traditional or scriptural basis.

[vodaPlaps]

It is very sad indeed that some christians will read this article and start having doubts about it. That is exactly what the author and scholar wants to happen. This is evil. For the last 2000 years we have believed in the crusifiction and now someone comes and proclaims without any foundation that Christ was not crusified, and that is supposed to humble
christians? the cross is the symbol of our faith! St. Constantine had the vision of the cross.Our history is full of examples of the cross and the symbolism. Are we going to rewrite the christian history? I would not be surprised if a few years from now text books appear in schools teaching just that! Lord have mercy!

[popsicesHoupe]

OK, one more time...

The scholar is not saying that Christ was not crucified.

He takes pains in the article to reiterate that he believes that Christ was indeed crucified.

His whole thesis is that the Gospels do not say specifically that Christ was crucified - that this belief has to come from tradition and not merely the text.

[MADwanker]

OK, one more time...

The scholar is not saying that Christ was not crucified.

He takes pains in the article to reiterate that he believes that Christ was indeed crucified.

His whole thesis is that the Gospels do not say specifically that Christ was crucified - that this belief has to come from tradition and not merely the text.

Hi Michael

His Argument was the way Christ was Crucified
A cross or a upright stake.

[popsicesHoupe]

His Argument was the way Christ was Crucified
A cross or a upright stake.

That's not what was said in the article. It said (emphasis added):

Most importantly, he says, he is not claiming Jesus was not crucified - only that the Gospels do not say he was. "I am a pastor, a conservative evangelical pastor, a Christian," he is at pains to point out. "I do believe that Jesus died the way we thought he died. He died on the cross."

He does argue that the word used in the Gospels to refer to Christ's death could and did refer to other kinds of execution:

He found very little evidence of crucifixion as a method of execution, though he did find corpses being suspended, people being hanged from trees, and more gruesome methods of execution such as impaling people by the belly or rectum. The same Greek word was used to refer to all the different practices, he found. That's what led him to doubt that the Gospels specify that Jesus was crucified.

But the article adds (emphasis added):

It's only after the death of Jesus - and because of the death of Jesus - that the Greek word "stauroun" comes specifically to mean executing a person on the cross, he argues.

I see no evidence in this article, that this scholar believes anything other than that Christ's death was by crucifixion, on a cross. He simply argues that this belief cannot be supported solely by the literal text of the Gospels.

[MP+4]

That's not what was said in the article. It said (emphasis added):



He does argue that the word used in the Gospels to refer to Christ's death could and did refer to other kinds of execution:

I see no evidence in this article, that this scholar believes anything other than that Christ's death was by crucifixion, on a cross. He simply argues that this belief cannot be supported solely by the literal text of the Gospels.

I agree with your assessment. I disagree with the scholar's conclusion that a literal reading is not supporting death by a cross. The evidence supplied to us by the gospels are:

1. he carried a crossbeam.
2. two nails (or more) were used to affix his hands only.
3. this 'torture device' was tall enough for Christ to say He will be lifted up.
4. the torture device had enough room above his head to post up a sign in multiple languages.
5. The torture device was not by impaling or lynching since the 2 others crucified were still alive and needed their legs broken to die quicker.

All this circumstantial evidence from the gospel supports a cross. A person crucified (suspended) would try to lift himself up eventually dying from exhaustion and asphyxiation. This would take some time, thus the legs were broken so they can no longer attempt to lift themselves for comfort and die from choking. The further details in the gospel that nails were involved and that Christ carried a cross leaves the logical conclusion of a cross.

[popsicesHoupe]

Now we're getting somewhere! That's a good rebuttal of the argument the guy was actually making. Unfortunately, the article doesn't have enough detail to know if he even attempted to address those points.