1. Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.

    You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

What tree was Jesus crucified on?

Discussion in 'Christian Theology Forum' started by TallMan, Oct 9, 2009.

  1. TallMan

    TallMan New Member

    Messages:
    432
    Likes Received:
    1
    The bible doesn't actually say but given what it does say what would you expect?I have read here that they found the remains of a 1st Century AD crucifixion with a nail with Olive tree splinters on it. I know Olive trees can live to great age, but how old are they when olive farmers typically cut them down to make way for younger trees?Now and in those days.Was it normal practice to burn the condemned with the wood?
     
  2. HammerStone

    HammerStone Well-Known Member Staff Member

    Messages:
    5,101
    Likes Received:
    183
    Faith:
    Christian
    Country:
    United States
    I'm afraid my knowledge is horticulture is limited, so I will defer to an expert.The Bible is silent as far as I know on one type of tree this was. I think most Christians would want to think that it would be the Olive tree. It makes sense because it was common to the area. However, I think it could potentially be cedar as well. Satan himself is known as the box cedar at times desiring to be like the cedars of Lebanon that belong to YHVH. In that case, it could be an insult to injury type of thing...
     
  3. Christian Commando

    Christian Commando New Member

    Messages:
    53
    Likes Received:
    0
    Well, as for "type of tree", what difference does it make? Secondly- Were bodies burned with the trees- (crosses)? Depends- If Jews, no, because after physical death if body was claimed, they were taken down and buried. If Pagans, it depended upon religious practices according to race of people or religion belonged to. So yes, in some cases bodies were burned with them, while in others, no. Actually, as for the "trees"- (crosses), many times they were used over and over until too chewed up from nailing so many people to them, then burned. But remember now, crucifixtion was not the only method Romans used for killing people in sentences. There were "beheadings", hanging of them by the neck. As for penalties of torment for crimes, there could be beatings with clubs, flogging with "cat-anine tails", stretching of limbs many times causing joint dislocation, plus more. Other ones could be imprisonment or exiled on an island for seperation from the rest of the world, etc. God Bless!!
     
  4. Moses

    Moses New Member

    Messages:
    62
    Likes Received:
    0
    If it's not in the Bible then we don't need to know it.Moses
     
  5. Faithful

    Faithful New Member

    Messages:
    373
    Likes Received:
    6
    Hi Tallman,They did not burn the bodies of those crucified. Jews had to be buried quickly and none were ever burned. I suppose as with anything that produces crops. As long as the tree is healthy and producing a good healthy crop the trees will remain.Faithful.:)
     
  6. Christian Commando

    Christian Commando New Member

    Messages:
    53
    Likes Received:
    0
    Well, historical records show, that some of the bodies from crucifixtion, if not claimed after physical death on the cross, were burned, to help keep the smell down, from having rotting bodies building up near the area where crucified. Romans were not known to bury the dead of those unclaimed, with the exception of thier own native people. And while the Romans had enough respect for other races of people when took them over, to leave a lesser level of self governing to that race while Roman Rule still being the major Governing body over them, when it came to thier particular method of punishment, if death, the remains of the dead of other races were left to those races to deal with, but if not claimed and enough bodies started causing too much stench in the area, they were burned to end it. The Romans never took the time to dig mass graves for the dead they killed. And being the largest and most powerful of all the major Nations to conquer the most land area to thier time in history, there was alot of punishmnet at all levels being administered to keep so many smaller nations under thier control. As for whats in the bible and not, its true, such things are not important what the Trinity does not tell us in God's Word, for the bible is related to helping us become a Child of God and developing a relationship with God only. But, God is not against his people learning more about the history of things to help support proof of his Word, even tho some are against that. Why? Be cause of "Doubting Thomas." Other than being seen of the Disciples, no other ones did Jesus have to prove He was ressurrected. but... to "Doubting Thomas", Jesus supplied the physical proof by walking up to him and telling him, "touch Me, touch My wounds and BELIEVE". Therefore, wether Christian or Secular sources that share historically written or physical archeological proofs found to prove God's Word, they are as acceptable as well, for helping to prove God's existance and His Word true. Yes, God warns us against listening to the "vain babblings of science so called". But thats only the info used, to try to discredit/disprove God's existance or Word being True. Thats all it means. But there are those, who read more into it and claim we cannot use outside sources at all for backing up God or his Word. Why? For instance- Not many decades ago, an arguement scientists had with Christians that not every element etc found in dirt, was found in man's human body, came to a "head". So, Secular scientists finally did an extensive study of this. In the end, they made themselves look silly, finding each had all identical elements in, the other had. This was "physical proof". did not God create everything that exists? Did He not then put His "Signature" into everything that exists? Yes He did. Therefore, all we have to do, is just what God's Word teaches us- "read and learn His Word, to show ourselves approved, in rightly dividing Truth". This includes then, worldly Sources as well. Besides that, who is going to say, we cannot use physical evidence for proving God's Word true, when Jesus, countless times, use physical evidence for giving us examples for spiritual understanding? so, if we can take His Parables involving physical people, actions, events, conversations, etc for understanding God's Word and His "Concepts" taught, how can we refuse then to accept other physical sources for such as well. Not to mention all the physical examples of His direct dealings with the Sanhedrin and the general populace as well? Lastly- What is "God's Word" these days? A "Book" right? Well, set the "Bible" down next to a history book, or ancient manuscripts of historical writings, or archeological pieces found. Is the "Bible/Book" any different than them? No. So lets not get so picky about things here, when comes to how God supplies proof for His Word. Compared to the considerably less numbered population of the Earth 2,000 years ago to now, in the Billions, maybe Trillions, there are alot more "Doubting Thomas' " out there now, than back when. And so long as we stay in context to God's word, which declares to go beyond what is taught in His word telling us to think on those things of honor, respect, of virtue, plus more, He is telling us, where things we come across not covered directly in his Word, to consider how God teaches us to view such things to accept or reject them, as according to what Glorifies God and what does not. God Bless!!
     
Loading...