|
|
|
|
|
| The noose or the cross.....which is it? Acts 10:39
Posted: 8/16/2008 9:52:19 PM | While it is commonly accepted by most Christians that JC was crucified (carried out by Roman soldiers) as is noted in the Gospels, but this is not what is being stated by (Saint) Peter, JC's right hand man in the book of Acts 10;39 where he states that JC was killed by hanging him on a tree!......this is in clear contrast to being nailed or tied onto a cross!
The books of the Gospels Mark, Matthew and Luke were all put together notably later after JC was put to death, however, Peter was his contemporary and was presumably "around when it happened".........yet JC's death is described as a crucifixion, and the cross is the symbol of his sacrifice!
For non-believers, this is probably further reason to doubt the veracity of the scriptures.....those who feel that the NT was flawed or tampered with are left to explain why such an obvious statement was NOT "doctored" by the early editors so as to have it "fit in" with the common belief!...........but for those who believe, discrepancies such as this can perhaps serve to question the accuracy of these accounts!
Although in spite of the method of execution, Peter goes on to say that JC was "resurected 3 days later"......so the outcome itself didn't change; however, if indeed he was 'hung' rather than crucified then did he really couldn't have lingered on suffering as long as would have had he been nailed to the cross, nor would he have been able to keep conversing!....additionally, if he was 'hung' then the irony is that he may have died by the same way as Judas! | |
|
| The noose or the cross.....which is it? Acts 10:39
Posted: 8/17/2008 5:48:07 AM | The verse in question says, "We are witnesses of everything he did in the country of the Jews and in Jerusalem. They killed him by hanging him on a tree" (NIV).
This is also repeated in Acts 5:30, "Peter and the other apostles replied, 'We must obey God rather than men! The God of our fathers raised Jesus from the dead--whom you had killed by hanging him on a tree'" (NIV).
Please note that the preposition used is "on" which denotes that Jesus was nailed to the tree. This refers to a cross or a pole, a wooden beam, or some other similar wooden object.
In order to use a noose and hang a person, he is hanged "from" the tree. There is no mention that Jesus was hanged from the tree. Also it clearly states in the Gospels that nails were pounded into Jesus hands and feet. Peter clearly understood that Jesus was crucified rather than hanged.
Perhaps the reason Peter calls the cross a tree is that trees were chopped down especially for this execution and they were not stripped of their bark. They were brought to a specific place of execution. If it was a hanging, they would have gone to where trees were naturally growing in my opinion. People remember significant ocassions according to their own life's experiences. Even while writing under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, I believe that the personality of the writer comes through.
I believe it is a stretch to even suggest that Jesus was hanged when you consider the dozens if not hundreds of references to Jesus dying by crucifixion. | |
|
| The noose or the cross.....which is it? Acts 10:39
Posted: 8/17/2008 11:10:30 AM | There is no "clear contrast" (maybe you actually meant "clear conflict"?) except in your mind because you think that the technical modern use of "hang" (execute by hanging with a noose-shaped rope) is the same as the ancient use of "hang". It's not. Less than a few minutes of basic word study would sort that out for you. So is it further reason to doubt the veracity of the account? Only if you really, really want it to and address it to those who are also incapable of figuring out the different uses of a word.  | |
|
| The noose or the cross.....which is it? Acts 10:39
Posted: 8/17/2008 1:12:23 PM |
While it is commonly accepted by most Christians that JC was crucified (carried out by Roman soldiers) as is noted in the Gospels, but this is not what is being stated by (Saint) Peter, JC's right hand man in the book of Acts 10;39 where he states that JC was killed by hanging him on a tree!......this is in clear contrast to being nailed or tied onto a cross!
Sometimes crucifixions were done on trees. So this could be a way of saying that Jesus was crucified on a tree. However, this contradicts GLuke which says that Simon the Cyrene carried the cross for Jesus). GLuke and Acts were written by the same person so this would be an odd contradiction.
There are a number of ways of resolving this contradiction. It could be that Acts and GLuke were written by two different people. This doesn't really resolve the contradiction, but explains why it could exist. Or maybe Peter was using "tree" as a metaphor for cross. Or maybe the story of Simon carrying the cross didn't originally occur in GLuke but was later added to be more in line with GMatthew and GMark. It could also be that Peter was unaware of the details about how Jesus died and Luke is faithfully recording his statements even though they are in error.
Personally I have a hard time accepting any of these resolutions, but I can't understand why Luke would contradict himself in such a blatant way either. | |
|
| The noose or the cross.....which is it? Acts 10:39
Posted: 8/17/2008 3:15:51 PM | I was curious about the expression "hanging him on a tree" because it does seem somewhat out of place. Even the phrase seems out of place. Here's what I found:
1) It only occurs twice and only in one book - Acts 5:30 and 10:39
2) The speaker each time is the apostle Peter. No-one else uses the expression.
3) Peter also uses "tree" in 1 Peter 2:24
4) Each time he uses it it is part of his summary apologetic of why Jesus Christ is the Messiah and should be worshipped and obeyed.
At first I thought that the expression would have a special significance to a Jewish audience, that maybe it was a quote from a Messianic prophecy or a reference to a now lost Jewish writing, but the first time he's speaking to a Jewish audience and the second time to a Gentile audience. In fact, the second time, this is traditionally seen as the initial fulfilment of the "Gospel to the Gentiles" (read the chapter for context) so that doesn't really make sense.
Paul refers to Christ's death on as "tree" in Galatians 3:13, but that is to support a point he's making and it's clearly a metaphorical use of "tree" for "cross". He also uses "hang" but it's clear from the reference that he is referring to a dead body being hung (displayed) on a tree. Otherwise Paul is consistent with all the other writers in using "cross". That said, I don't think Peter is using "tree" metaphorically.
I dunno. This needs more study. | |
|
| The noose or the cross.....which is it? Acts 10:39
Posted: 8/17/2008 4:08:21 PM | | hung on a tree = hung on wood he was nialed up there and left to hang until dead he carried his own cross beam the same as any other person sentenced to that type of death. | |
|
| The noose or the cross.....which is it? Acts 10:39
Posted: 8/17/2008 6:07:34 PM | Actually..... It was neither.
Jesus could easily see into the future, and saw how the Church & others would corrupt most of his true messages, how there would be massive religious wars over all of it, and that (in the far future) there would be others spending endless hours talking to an electronic screen & arguing about it all....
So in theory, he died from a "massive headache", about it all.  | |
|
| The noose or the cross.....which is it? Acts 10:39
Posted: 8/17/2008 6:23:39 PM |
Paul refers to Christ's death on as "tree" in Galatians 3:13, but that is to support a point he's making and it's clearly a metaphorical use of "tree" for "cross". He also uses "hang" but it's clear from the reference that he is referring to a dead body being hung (displayed) on a tree. Otherwise Paul is consistent with all the other writers in using "cross". That said, I don't think Peter is using "tree" metaphorically.
Here's some rampant speculation: I know that the bodies of the crucified were left on their crosses to rot. Perhaps his body was removed from the cross and put on display on a tree. I know of no precedence for this though.
Also, I wonder if Luke got the expression "hung on a tree" from 1 Peter. | |
|
| The noose or the cross.....which is it? Acts 10:39
Posted: 8/17/2008 9:14:45 PM | | originally we ate from the tree of knowledge of good and ev il and were deprived of everlasting life from the tree of immortality in the garden but then Christ hung on a tree and died so we could eat of the body of christ and drink of his blood and were given everlasting life from that god delivered tree just a speculation. so maybe though it isn't really mentioned much it was a way of saying the cross and jesus were the tree of life .. I have no clue.. but it is a thought.. | |
|
| |
| The noose or the cross.....which is it? Acts 10:39
Posted: 8/18/2008 7:56:30 AM | Dont forget that later on the ine Gospel, Thomas requires proof of ressurection, and then Jesus shows him the nail wounds in his hands. Also note that he showed Thomas the wound in his side. It was customary to spear the side of crucifixtions, since there was the possibility of them playing dead.
John 20:27
NIV - New International Version 1973, 1978, 1984.
...Then he said to Thomas, "Put your finger here; see my hands. Reach out your hand and put it into my side. Stop doubting and believe." | |
|
| The noose or the cross.....which is it? Acts 10:39
Posted: 8/19/2008 7:15:45 PM | | Throwing in another conspiracy theory - because Pilate knew he would have trouble with mob control, Jesus flew against what the organized majority wanted to believe, Pilate arranged to try to save him. Even Kings are afraid of an unruly angry mob. Pilate honestly believed he had failed, however his disciples did manage to safely smuggle him to France after reviving him in the tomb then making it appear that his body had disappeared. Jewish customs concerning death were very peculiar. There was also a book written on the discovery of the Jesus tomb. Jesus was born, lived, and died as a Jew. Jews believe that their remains are required to be able to be resurrected which is why their bodies are left to decay for a year then the remains placed in a stone box that will set with the other boxes containing family members to await judgement day together. After he died in France his remains and the remain of his family were believed to have been returned to a tomb in the Holy City. "The Jesus Tomb," was a pretty cool book. | |
|
| The noose or the cross.....which is it? Acts 10:39
Posted: 8/19/2008 8:00:09 PM | After some research, here's what I came up with:
The Greek word translated "tree" or "cross" in various English translation is the same word. Presumably the translators had some reason for choosing "tree" over "cross" in those passages. Why I still don't know, but either is valid in those passages -- and some English translations do use "cross" and not "tree". Go figure. | |
|
| The noose or the cross.....which is it? Acts 10:39
Posted: 8/20/2008 4:10:55 PM | | A "gallows tree" could mean a tree within the local townsquare or at a crossroads. Gallows were usually not constructed unless there was no handy tree in order to use as "string 'em up post". Remember...executions were usually a public spectacle with people coming from miles around to see the show. The parents would bring their kids to teach them the lesson that criminals ended up here. That would be a deterrent for many right there, and was used as such for centuries. Why? Because it worked! That is not to say there was no criminals...of course there was...but far fewer, simply because they knew what would be happening to them, in public, when they got caught. | |
|
| The noose or the cross.....which is it? Acts 10:39
Posted: 8/20/2008 5:41:05 PM |
The Greek word translated "tree" or "cross" in various English translation is the same word.
I double checked Strong's Concordance. They're actually two different words, but you were on the right track. The word for cross is stauros (which literally means stake or pole). The word for tree in Acts is xulon which means timber, but in a more general sense is anything made of wood. I'm not sure why the translators decided to use tree. Maybe they thought it was the best word even though it doesn't convey the right meaning.
Anyway, I think that clears it up. | |
|
| The noose or the cross.....which is it? Acts 10:39
Posted: 8/20/2008 10:38:23 PM | ^
I'm not sure why the translators decided to use tree. Maybe they thought it was the best word even though it doesn't convey the right meaning.
...........probably because the execution of JC wasn't widely specified as a 'crucifixion' by the earliest of christians!.........this is exemplified by the writings of Peter & Paul...for the early christians, the method of execution was not as much of an issue as was the REASON for the execution.........and the reason was for them to shown that was had been written in Isaiah 53 had been fullfilled......and in no way does it specify in Isaiah 53 that the method had to be by outright crucifixion!
In Acts 10;39 (KJV)Peter is quoted as: "..........whom they slew and hanged on a tree"
...in which one can be led to conclude that JC was first slain, then his corpse was 'hung' on some tree to be viewed!......and in Acts 13;29(KJV)Pauls says "....they took him down from a tree.....", and this would not be inconsistent with what is written in Isaiah 53
Now, if the word for tree (in Acts) is xulon, and 'xulon' is a non specific word for some type of timber, then it could have been any kind of wood structure whatsoever.......such as an actual tree trunk, a simple vertical post.......or he could have been possibly hung by tying and/or nailing his arms on a sturdy tree branch....and he could have certainly been beaten and lanced prior to him being "hung"
To me, it would have been very unlikely that the Romans would have taken the time to fashion (or specially construct) a well measured and evenly cut plank with a well fitted cross beam........ to create the 'classical' crucifix form that we are all familiar with in the many paintings and church images.......I don't think that the Romans or the pharasees would have gone to that much trouble for a simple execution of an ill reputed figure!
In terms of sources!.......if we are to believe that the quote in Acts 10;39 was indeed made by Peter, then given the notion that he was "there when it all happened", they i see no reason to assume that "hang" or "hung" automatically means an actual crucifixion. | |
|
| The noose or the cross.....which is it? Acts 10:39
Posted: 8/21/2008 6:51:48 AM | Of course there's no mention of crucifixion in Isaiah. Why would there be? It didn't exist as a form of execution in his day. It came with the Romans. And they didn't make a special effort to fashion beams and posts just for Jesus. They executed ALL who were sentenced to death in this way ALL of the time. They recycled the crosses, if you like.
I've been thinking about Peter's "hanging from a tree" and the only thing that makes sense is that he's using the phrase to indicate something known to the audience but unknown to us. In other sections he specifies "crucified" and "cross" but his audience is different. The first time it's Jews, the second time it's Gentiles but they are the "god-fearing" gentiles of Cornelius' household - Gentiles who believed in, obeyed, supported, and probably knew Jewish scriptures.
One thing I am certain of is the idea that Jesus was "hung' using a rope noose is completely unsupported. So tho answer the question posed in the subject: the cross. | |
|
| The noose or the cross.....which is it? Acts 10:39
Posted: 8/22/2008 9:33:11 AM | | Many crucificxions were done via a pole...no "cross tree". When the cross tree was impliments during some executions, it would have been called a "tree"...much as a crossbrace used on a gallows. | |
|
| The noose or the cross.....which is it? Acts 10:39
Posted: 8/25/2008 2:17:55 PM |
Of course there's no mention of crucifixion in Isaiah. Could you all tell me what the heck you are talking about? I'm familiar with Isaiah 53, in both the original Hebrew and the various English translations. The English translations may, by a stretch, be refering to an execution, and by a further stretch, be referring to Jesus.
But as is frequently the case, it's a quote out of context. Start reading from Isaiah 52:1. The He being refered to is the "captive daughter of Zion from 52:2, in 52:13, "Behold, My servant shall prosper, he shall be exalted and lifted up, and shall be very high", but not without difficulty, since in 53:3 "He was despised, and forsaken of men, a man of pains, and acquainted with disease, and as one from whom men hide their face: he was despised, and we esteemed him not", etc.
I really suggest those of you who are Bible readers, read your Bibles for context. Frequently the numbering is arbitrary and does not represent where the thought starts. I suggest you look around and see if the surrounding verses shed light on the verse you are looking at. If so, they may be relevant. | |
|
| The noose or the cross.....which is it? Acts 10:39
Posted: 8/25/2008 11:40:18 PM |
I said: Of course there's no mention of crucifixion in Isaiah.
bear said: Could you all tell me what the heck you are talking about?
Msg 16: "and in no way does it specify in Isaiah 53 that the method had to be by outright crucifixion!"
HTH | |
|
| The noose or the cross.....which is it? Acts 10:39
Posted: 8/26/2008 10:36:23 AM |
Msg 16: "and in no way does it specify in Isaiah 53 that the method had to be by outright crucifixion!"
HTH Isaiah 53 is not talking about an execution, Read Isaiah 52-53 as a whole. | |
|
| The noose or the cross.....which is it? Acts 10:39
Posted: 8/26/2008 6:58:23 PM |
Isaiah 53 is not talking about an execution, Read Isaiah 52-53 as a whole.
Here is a pretty good read on this topic, I have quoted this before, however..play it again Sam....
Is it not plain also that Christ's three and thirty years on earth was a living death,-the real death he suffered, after sacrificing his pre-existent life? and "out of that death" (Heb. 5:7, N.V.*, margin), he was not delivered until "God raised him from the dead, now no more to return to corruption." (Acts 13:34). When was Jesus in the corruptible state? not while he was in the grave, for we are expressly told that he "saw no corruption" there. Acts 13:37; and yet he was in the corruptible state at some period of his earthly career, for he was "raised from the dead no more to return to corruption." He was in the corruptible condition all the while he tabernacle in the flesh; in the "bondage of corruption," like the "whole creation," for he was "made sin" and a "curse" for us; (2 Cor. 5:21, and Gal. 3:13), and this was the corruption,-the corruption of this fallen state, that he was raised from, now no more to return thereto.
In conclusion I will notice some more passage that incidently con firms the above view. Read Isa, 53:9, and notice the margin on the word "death'' that it is plural, deaths; is not that rather curious? "in his deaths"? Did Christ die more than one death? Yes! We have seen that he entered a condition of death when he laid down his pre-existent life and became incarnate; and he also died physically. Now the passage above cited would not be true if it referred only to his physical death; for he did not make his grave with the wicked in his physical death. He was buried in the tomb of Joseph of Arimathæa who was a "good man,'' "who also himself waited for the kingdom of God," and was one of "Jesus' disciples" (Luke 23:50, 51 and Matt. 27:57), and yet "he made his grave with the wicked and with the rich in his deaths;" how clear this passage is in the light of the view presented above; when he laid down his pre-existent life and entered into the charnel house of this fallen state "he made his grave with the wicked;" and when he died physically he was laid in the tomb of the wealthy Arimathæan, and thus made his grave "with the rich;" thus the deeper we dig, the more carefully we search, the more firmly is the truth established; we need not be afraid of the most thorough investigation if we are seeking the truth; the smallest particulars as well as the more weighty propositions will equally be found to be in the most perfect accord with any individual truth, and each separate truth will strengthen every other truth.
The article discusses a deeper understanding regarding the 'cross of Christ' and how mankind is reconciled to God through the cross...
Ephesians 2
14For he himself is our peace, who has made the two one and has destroyed the barrier, the dividing wall of hostility, 15by abolishing in his flesh the law with its commandments and regulations. His purpose was to create in himself one new man out of the two, thus making peace, 16and in this one body to reconcile both of them to God THROUGH THE CROSS, by which he put to death their hostility. | |
|
| The noose or the cross.....which is it? Acts 10:39
Posted: 8/26/2008 10:02:00 PM | @bear
But as is frequently the case, it's a quote out of context. Start reading from Isaiah 52:1. The He being refered to is the "captive daughter of Zion from 52:2,
...what??......a "He" that is referring to a "she"????........i seriously think you ought to review Isaiah 52!
---------------------------
52;1 Jerusalem = the 'holy city'
52;2 Oh Jerusalem (loose thyself from thy bands of thy neck) = Oh 'captive daughter of Zion'
.....^...this verse implies that Jerusalem has been spiritually steered off course by false leadership( as indicated by the wording....."bands of thy neck!")
---------------------------
52;3 ........and yee shall be redeemed without money (yee refers to 'jerusalem')
52;7....the feet of him that bring good tidings, that publish peace, that bring good tidings of good that publish salvation that sayeth unto ZION!
52;10 ...(this verse speaks for itself!)....holy arm = messiah
52;11....go ye out of the midst of her....(her = the 'captive' Jerusalem...held by its false leadership)
52;12.....aimed at those of Zion who have freed themselves from the 'falseness' of the leadership (of Zion).....who are implored to now stand for 'truth'...and become 'vessels' for the Lord....and who will be guided by the 'spirit'!
52;13, 14, & 15......all refer to the servant in the 3rd person singular, masculine!
------------------------------
Isaiah 53(kjv)
clearly written in the 3rd person singular !
53;5........"wounded (kjv) for our transgressions".... (other versions say 'pierced'....which is a more specific type of wound) | |
|
| The noose or the cross.....which is it? Acts 10:39
Posted: 8/27/2008 8:26:23 AM | ^^^ "Oh 'captive daughter of Zion'", is used to refer to the Jewish people, then captive in Babylon. I understand that the verses in Isaiah are controvertial. However many people read it without the context at all, in which case it does indeed seem to refer to Jesus' execution. However, I think a closer reading, in particular, as you have done, reading it within the context, helps a lot. In verse 52:10, this simply says that God will use His power. God is not powerless without the Messiah. As to the use of 3rd person singular, this is true, but would be a natural way to refer to the people of Israel when speaking in this way.
There is an article in Wiki on Isaiah 53 which may be worth looking at:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isaiah_53
In 53:5 the Hebrew does tend to support "pierced", as I looked this up myself.
In 53:10 "He will see His offspring," seems to speak against this being about Jesus.
While I respect sincere Christians, and understand their belief in Jesus, I think many have overdone the search for Jesus in the Old Testament. Perhaps disappointingly to you kind folks, the Old Testament is mostly about Jews, of all things! There is not the overwhelming preoccupation with the Messiah that is central to Christianity. Sorry about that. That doesn't mean that Christianity is not a fine religion. It also does not mean that there is not much to be gleaned from the Old Testament.
As history showed, biblical Judaism resulted in a corrupt theocracy, under Roman rule. This caused both Rabbinic Judaism to come into being, and a small sect by a Jewish man named Jesus, which seems to have done well for itself!  What is unfortunate is that Christians didn't realize that they had much more in common with Rabbinic Judaism than the Rabbis had with the Theocracy. Might have been a different world if they had. | |
|
| The noose or the cross.....which is it? Acts 10:39
Posted: 8/27/2008 8:49:35 AM |
While I respect sincere Christians, and understand their belief in Jesus, I think many have overdone the search for Jesus in the Old Testament. Perhaps disappointingly to you kind folks, the Old Testament is mostly about Jews, of all things! There is not the overwhelming preoccupation with the Messiah that is central to Christianity. Sorry about that. That doesn't mean that Christianity is not a fine religion. It also does not mean that there is not much to be gleaned from the Old Testament.
Bear, the Christian doctrine of faith and grace begins in Genesis for me...there is no division between the Old and New Testaments, as I see the separation of these two books, as being done by mankind, after the facts. I do see a difference between the Old Covenant of the law and the new covenant of grace ...but without the law being established in the first place, then the covenant of grace could not have taken effect. So the law is all part and parcel and a stepping stone, towards the fulness of the Christian doctrine of grace. Though the Israelites were the only nation that was placed under the law of God, the law of the Israelites is just as much a part of the Christian doctrine as the new covenant of grace is...However the law is only perceived as being a shadow for the purpose of revealing grace to us, and not the entirety of what the scriptures reveal.
Why the mystery regarding the Messiah in the Old testament? This is explained in Paul's letters, why God kept the Messiah a hidden mystery until the time would come for the Messiah's purposes to be fulfilled. For the Christian, the doctrine of grace is prophesied in Isaiah 53...
Isaiah 53:5
But he was pierced for our transgressions, he was crushed for our iniquities; the punishment that brought us peace was upon him, and by his wounds we are healed.
and this is confirmed also by Peter...
1 Peter 2:24
He himself bore our sins in his body on the tree, so that we might die to sins and live for righteousness; by his wounds you have been healed.
And as I understand, this making of man into the image of God through grace in Christ, was prophesied to become fulfilled in Genesis...
Genesis 1:26
Then God said, "Let us make man in our image, in our likeness, | |
|
|
|
Home
login 
