Or so says Gunnar Samuelsson, reported by Macleans.

I'm a bit tired and not so much knowledgeable of the Bible but I would definitely like to see what both sides (i.e. christians and atheists) have to say about this.

http://www2.macleans.ca/category/nee...150#post136150

This is hardly a new theory, Jehovah's Witnesses have always claimed the Christ did not die on a cross, but on an upright pole.

I'd also caution against taking the "some sweedish guy said it, it must be true!" line of reasoning.

Sometimes people were crucified with nails on a cross, sometimes they were tied up on a cross, sometimes they were tied up on a pole. Sometimes right side up, sometimes upside down, sometimes stabbed to speed things up, other times not. The Romans were pretty inventive when it came to that kind of thing.

I personally think that reading the Biblical text in particular, it's easy to conclude he was probably crucified in generally the way it's described today (that is, it's certainly possible). You can speculate that it was done in some other way, and surely that is a possibility, but there's no evidence (using the word in the loosest possible way) that would imply, if he was crucified in a different way, how exactly it was done.

who cares how he was put to death? it makes no difference

Considering a big part of some interpretations of Christianity is the manner with which he died I would have thought it might make a small difference.

Not sure Mel Gibson could have got his usual kicks out of filming hardcore visceral violence in The Passion of The Christ anyway...

Samuelson is saying more than that. He is questioning that crucificiations were widely used, or event that they were used at all.

Not that I automatically think he is right, but this is definitely not common material.

I would agree, but still...if you remove "swedish" then you have the foundation for Christianity right there...so it becomes a weird comment.

The standard Jehovah's Witness line of thinking is that crucifixions as we think of them were impossible (that nails cannot be placed in the human hand to hold up a body, it would tear).

Indeed, and being an atheist (maybe agnostic, depending on definition), I'd also caution someone from believing something that some Jewish guy said, too.

Maybe they were doing it wrong?

Is it not accepted that standard representation of nails going through hands is wrong, and it was much more likely that nails in the wrists were standard during execution, also some support for feet so said tearing does not occur.

With Swedish guys, all things are possible.

(true story)

I dont know why i should trust the biblical description and ignore non canonical descriptions. Its all speculation imo.

It would make stigmatas interesting if Jesus wasn't crucified through the hands though.

FYP

LOL at your Swedish guy comment, and LOL at this thread.

Would you care to give arguments as to why you think this thread is worthy of a LOL ?

Nah.

Gunth usually makes some dumbass comment then waits for Splendour, Pletho, or someone more well versed in apologetics to show up and cite some cyclical sermons or verses then says "Yeah!".

You'll get used to it.

Also Gunth, I know. I'm close to ignore. You'll pray for me. I'm a liar. etc.

I know. I might not have posted a lot but I have read quite a few threads in this section. Enough to have a rough idea of the most noticeable posters. I'm just politely asking him to actually prove his point, which I hope he does because I am genuinely interested in the point this research is trying to make.

You are lying here buddy. Feel free to provide an example of this claim and prove me wrong.

Archeological evidence lends credence to the idea that the nails were driven through the forearm and not the hands.

In addition to this, when mentioned in the bible, they use the word χείρ which often refers to the hand and arm, if they were to mention the hand only, it was usually written as χεῖρα.

Yeah ive read the same thing. Didn't know about the bible stuff though.

Correct it was a tree actually, which was the standard at that time.

He was having fun with the previous statement about taking one guys word for something this profound.... not making fun of your topic or the fact the guy is Sweedish.
Most of the people in here...not me or Howard... are pretty smart and learned people and usually require more than 1 persons belief. If that's all the evidence they needed to be persuaded to believe in something...they would all be Christians.

I actually saw a documentary on this once... Discovery channel I think... where a guy tested the weight theory .... he actually hung a body (made of a skeleton and ballistics gel) and determined that it would be possible if they also bound the wrists.
I know there is no talk of binding the wrists in the Bible but it's one possibility.


As others have stated.... doesn't really matter other than the fact that Catholics may want a refund on all the crucifixes they have purchased.

I heard a comedian once say "All these Christians are waiting for Jesus to return and they wear these crucifixes around their neck. If He does return...you really think He's going to be happy to see a bunch of people with crucifixes coming towards him? That didn't work out to good for him 2,000 years ago...he's liable to run the other way!"

Well that would in fact render meaningless what I consider is perhaps the most powerful / recognizable symbol of Christinanity. Just think of all the churches, bibles, all forms of jewelry (crosses, necklaces...).

It should seem just as speculation to someone who hasn't studied it.

Sources?

This is one of the many examples of JW ignorance. A couple points of refutation:

1. Hands can surely hold a body, as the ligaments are stronger than rope, cf. http://www.bibleserralta.com/JesusNailedByHisHands.html .

2. Crucifixion in the first century was such that the feet would be tied (or nailed in severe cases-and one nail would usually penetrate both feet as they overlapped), the hands would be tied (or nailed through the palms of outstretched arms-you know the pictures), and the person would push up from his feet using his arms as well in order to breath (it was mostly the feet bearing the weight of the body as I'm sure you can picture). When the person lacked the strength and/or energy to push anymore, he would die of asphyxiation. This is why John 19:31ff says the Roman soldiers would break the legs of men who survived on the cross for longer than expected-because without the legs to push up, the person would be unable to breath air into his lungs.

There has been much scholarly work on this entire subject. Jesus certainly died on the cross and was pierced in his hands and feet. No claim has stood up to close scrutiny which presents another view.

For clarity's sake, I'll point out that while JW's believe this, I don't personally endorse it. IMHO, JW's are a joke, and most of what they believe is demonstrably man made and incorrect, and can be simply refuted by someone with even a casual understanding of Greek and Hebrew.

It shouldn't.

The cross is a symbol of Crucifixion. Jesus was crucified. Whether is was a nice one like we see in the pictures and of 6x6 straight pieces of lumber...doesn't matter.
The look of the object isn't the point. The act is the point and far from meaningless.