2006-06-11 05:18:12 · 22 answers · asked by tom tom 2 in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
Because technically he didn't.... when the KJV was translated, the latin word 'crux' was mistranslated as 'cross', probably because the pagan symbol was so widely in use at the time. But history shows that the romans actually used big stakes or sometimes even just the whole tree itself.
2006-06-11 05:25:22 · answer #1 · answered by ~Donna~ 3 · 0⤊ 4⤋
Because if he didn't die, we can't be saved.
God came down from heaven and entered a human body so that he could be sacrificed on the cross. Being GOD as well as man, this would be a PERFECT sacrifice which did away with all the laws of animal sacrifices for the forgiveness of sins which the Israelites made on The Day of Atonement.
It is for this reason that muslim preachers try so hard to refute the fact that it was Jesus on the cross, despite the fact that some of his friends and his mother were at the cross and that he actually spoke to his mother and his disciple John.
2006-06-11 12:57:41 · answer #2 · answered by Palamino 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Just btw- Jesus was crucified- the method the Romans used to kill people in those days- which was that they took 2 boards (shape of a cross) and sliced the body.Sorry if that is too gory but its the truth. Christians (Jesus's followers- Peter and Paul) took this and expanded on it and made it their religious symbol....Most Christians today don't even know why the cross represents Christianity! ... what a gory symbol... its like wearing a noose as a necklace! (if ur leader was hanged)
2006-06-11 12:37:49 · answer #3 · answered by unknown 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Because the only foundation for Christianity is the idea that Jesus died for sin.
If Jesus did not die, Christians are really, really screwed because they sin and do not atone in any way other than praying to Jesus.
Which means they are all going to hell.
Additional comment:
There is no historical evidence of any kind (outside the bible) that Jesus existed, much less evidence that he was crucified.
2006-06-11 12:41:50 · answer #4 · answered by Left the building 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
do you mean the possibility that he had a double who took the fall, so the rightful king of israel could get away? a lot of politicians have had doubles that look a lot like them. they didn't have photographs then so it wasn't as easy as it is now to get a posative id on someone you wanted to arrest. even if he had gotten away there is a good chance that he was killed in the later rebellion against rome. maybe he had kids. they may have been killed too, maybe not. you see, a respectable jew didn't go unmarried.
2006-06-11 13:02:21 · answer #5 · answered by Stuie 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
according to both jewish and roman records, he did die on the cross. this is a historical fact..... people get upset when others believe the opposite of what the facts show...i personally would not get upset, because it does not matter to me what anyone else believes...
2006-06-11 12:48:12 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
May be because they would like to say tht he did not die but went to heaven.If you asked those who were upset they would have told you many things.You may have known why they said.It may not have been what I wrote or any one other thing.
2006-06-11 12:34:15 · answer #7 · answered by einsteinilango 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
That is the cornerstone of his marterdom. Take away that and all that is left is the illegitimate son of a cheating wife.
2006-06-11 12:31:28 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
They might have eaten a bowl full of salad.Ask something
relevant & dont waste Yahoo's webspace.
2006-06-11 13:04:11 · answer #9 · answered by ryscik 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
unless you are a Jehovahs Witness who beleive that he died on a steak then that could be understood. however the scriptures says nails not nail which would signify that his arms had to be out-stretched
2006-06-11 13:25:22 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋