These words seem to make sense, but what you’re talking about is an omnipotent God deciding the only way to forgive us for things we didn’t do is to sacrifice his son to himself. Do you realize how insane or drunk he must be?
It was sort of required for him to be hung on a tree in some way (removing the curse), so that that leaves out beheading. But hanging could be, and perhaps hanging would take on a stigma and not to have been done so late in history, as those to be hanged would not have the honor of dying as Christ did.
So perhaps a noose? IDK
Nope.
I’m sorry, but…where are you getting this “tree-curse” stuff from??
What a great idea for a movie!!
Well, I’d say you likely couldn’t have one without the other. As in the teaching flows into the death & resurrection of Christ and the death & resurrection of Christ is the lens in which we read His teaching.
To put it another way, His death and resurrection, freeing humanity from the chains of sin and death (in whichever atonement theory you believe in), allows people to freely follow His commands to love others without worrying if they are following the laws enough. That lack of anxiety is meant to free people to do the mission message.
I believe it’s Old Testament prophecy, IIRC.
Show me.
edited to add: I’ve gone through all the standard prophesies for the coming of a Jewish messiah, and none of them mention “…and He shall then be killed using tree products.”
For many years, I tried to get Christians interested in the “what if” question: what would have happened if Jesus had succumbed to Satan’s temptation on the tower.
For many years, Christians refused to engage with the hypothetical. Most simply said, “It could not have happened.” Jesus was not tempted. Satan could not have succeeded. No interest at all in the “what if” concept.
Then, to my delight, I found a nice chap who thought about it, and gave a solid, cogent answer. “Jesus would have become emperor of the world – and probably a very good one. And, one day, he would have died, and his ministers and generals would probably all start fighting with each other. Also, there would be no salvation, so we’d all go to hell.”
So, with one very sterling exception, my experience backs up Czarcasm’s observation.
This is hardly a serious debate. It might have worked in IMHO, but I suspect that its appropriate home uis The BBQ Pit.
[ /Moderating ]
Deuteronomy 21:22–23 which says that a man who is executed by being hung from a tree is cursed by God.
Some Jews at the time of Jesus’ death said that his crucifixion was the equivalent of being hanged from a tree and therefore it proved Jesus was cursed by God and couldn’t have been a manifestation of God.
Jesus’ followers turned it around. They said that it showed how seriously God took Jesus’ execution because it was done in a way that was both physically painful and spiritually debasing. Jesus’ death, in this view, had to be accomplished by the worst possible means.
God, however, is more powerful than anything, including his own laws. So Jesus could be hanged from tree and not be cursed because God chose this. This, according to Christians, is proof that Jesus’ new message overruled the Old Testament when the two appeared to conflict.
[Mr Peabody]Quiet, you.[/MP] 
Grew up with a hagiography (Lives of the Saints) as my bathroom reading. You think I’m joking when I say that I was born with Future Jesuit stamped on my forehead. Nope. Was always impressed with Sebastian, and his arrows. Significantly less impressed with Roman archery.
ROFL
There was a comedian - I forget who - who speculated how it would be if Jesus had died slipping on a bar of soap in the shower. Instead of making the sign of the cross, people would whirl their arms around wildly while making “whoo-whoo-whhhooooooops” sounds.
Well what do you know:
22 If someone guilty of a capital offense is put to death and their body is exposed on a pole, 23 you must not leave the body hanging on the pole overnight. Be sure to bury it that same day, because anyone who is hung on a pole is under God’s curse. You must not desecrate the land the Lord your God is giving you as an inheritance.
Also fun from Deuteronomy 21:
10 When you go to war against your enemies and the Lord your God delivers them into your hands and you take captives, 11 if you notice among the captives a beautiful woman and are attracted to her, you may take her as your wife. 12 Bring her into your home and have her shave her head, trim her nails 13 and put aside the clothes she was wearing when captured. After she has lived in your house and mourned her father and mother for a full month, then you may go to her and be her husband and she shall be your wife. 14 If you are not pleased with her, let her go wherever she wishes. You must not sell her or treat her as a slave, since you have dishonored her.
Harrumph! Am I the only one here who thinks the whole question is in poor taste?
Look. I am somebody who criticizes fundamentalist evangelicals to the point that I sometimes wonder if I am crossing the line into being a bad person. But it is always supposed to be connected to the same things: these guys need to stop expecting their religion to be reflected in law or public policy, as it is trivially easy to show that our system is pointedly designed to prevent that; and, these guys need to stop trying to damage the lives of people who won’t join their cult, the way they did me and so many other people wrong. It casts them as dicks and manufactures lifelong critics of their ignorant, rank hypocrisy.
But, see? My objection is to being a dick, and this OP is pretty dickish. Why insult religions for its own sake? I think you need something more- we have a 1st Amendment after all (which permits anyone to be a dick in this way, just for its own sake- but why do that?)
Ok, enough lecturing. To answer the question, I don’t think it would have made much difference. As the story goes, God comes in the form of a man to have a transaction with us all, but human society is overly dominated by dicks and He gets tossed in a sack full of animals into a river and dies. It’s a humiliating and barbaric death, only it makes little sense compared to the story handed down to us. This is a punishment for killing one’s parents- Jesus never killed anybody, so wtf? But otherwise, execution is execution, so I don’t see how anything essential changes.
I think it might place Jesus even more squarely as a victim of the Roman legal system, so maybe it would be harder to blame the Jews for it? Maybe the holocaust does not proceed with such vigor because of this difficulty? Then again, haters, fundamentalists and hardcore partisans never let facts get in the way…
I think it would be better to subject all trolls who ask stupid ass “what if” questions, such as this, to bilateral orchiectomies and thereafter hang their nuts from the lowest branches of the national Christmas tree.
And we can all get back to the reason for the season…worshipping Cybele.
I don’t believe that I was being dickish or insulting religion for it’s own sake (and believe me, I can be dickish and insulting about religions, but I originally didn’t post this in the pit and wasn’t particularly savoring or asking for personal attacks against me–if that’s the way the thread will go, then I’m done with it–I have no taste for flame wars, and will have no part of it.) I simply thought that it would make an interesting alternate reality–what would the imagery and traditions of Christianity have been like if this creative method of execution had been used. What kind of metaphors would pastors ascribe to the various animals? Would the animals used become taboo? Etc. I thought that some people would like to play around with the world building.
No, you were being dickish. You also seem to have a familiarity with the board and board policy that transcends your three weeks and handful of posts here. I’d call you more of a codpiece than a sock as it’s more fitting. (no pun intended) The result is the same though,<troll>.