Because Its very hard to nail someone to a rock.

Because it was the cruel death sentence method employed at the time by the Roman authorities. "Crucifixion was rarely performed for ritual or symbolic reasons, but usually to provide a death that was particularly painful (hence the term excruciating, literally "out of crucifying"), gruesome (hence dissuading against the crimes punishable by it) and public (hence the metaphorical expression "to nail to the cross"), using whatever means were most expedient for that goal. Crucifixion methods varied considerably with location and time period. The Greek and Latin words corresponding to "crucifixion" applied to many different forms of painful execution, from impaling on a stake to affixing to a tree, to an upright pole (what some call a crux simplex) or to a combination of an upright (in Latin, stipes) and a crossbeam (in Latin, patibulum)." Source and more: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crucifixion

That is what the Romans determined and it also just happens to have fulfilled perfectly what God promised would happen! Read Psalm 22

No-one knows exactly how Jesus died (there is no official record which is rather strange - there are records of loads of other messianic figures?) Much like his birth this was a nice was of fitting prophecy later on of gaining a potent symbol (the ankh has been around a long time). That Jesus was born in Bethlehem is pretty unlikely, it doesn't appear in Mark which is the oldest of the canonical gospels. Only in Luke and Matthew and it is thought by some historians this was "retro-fitted" to suit prophecy in the Old Testament. But the Roman's did use crosses to crucify people. Not exclusively but they did. So it could be true or maybe not. There is so little first hand evidence (Mark's gospel was written at least 60 years after Jesus' birth).

Crucifixion was a common Roman method of capital punishment, just as we now use lethal injection (in some states).

Because that is just the way the story goes.

It was the way of the times, if it were in our latter-days, he would be put to death in the methods we use now, and he still would have been willing.

How silly would churches look like if they had stones on them. It would be prurient if it was a church for stoners. Rock on!!!

Or nothing at all? Greg Griffin in his answer suggests "No-one knows exactly how Jesus died (there is no official record" HQ 4:157 says, "And because of their saying: We slew the Messiah Jesus son of Mary, God's messenger. They slew him not nor crucified him, but it appeared so unto them; and lo! those who disagree concerning it are in doubt thereof; they have no knowledge thereof save pursuit of a conjecture ; they slew him not for certain."

The cross was a commonly used method of execution for criminals opposed to the Roman government. Jesus was charged with being or claiming to be king of the jews. To deny Caeser in a Roman territory was punishable by death on the cross. Many many criminals died this way. To the Romans Jesus was no more than a common terrorist. (no offense intended just historical fact) Hence the execution on the cross. Look up the Roman historian Josephus a contemporary of Jesus.

Just a quick note: Jophesus was not contemporary (he was born around 37 AD/CE). There is also strong evidence that the writings of Jophesus as pertaining to Jesus are forgeries. There is a huge amount on this on the net well worth the research time as it is fascinating. As I said before no-one knows. Contemporary evidence is very poor. If Jesus was a messianic figure that was executed (possible) then I doubt he did the things claimed because why is there not contemporary mention of these rather special events? Crucifixion was certainly in place at the time but there is no evidence other than writings at least 70 years after Jesus supposed time of death. There is always the possibility of course that Jesus never existed in the first place and is a fictional character/amalgamation of other messianic/religious figures. Again the argument is fairly strong although I am not convinced.

That Christ did not die on the traditionally shaped cross is indicated by the Bible itself. It repeatedly tells of his dying on a tree, the Greek word being xylon. (See Luke 23:31; Acts 5:30;10:39.) Xylon simply means “timber,” and “by implication a stick, club or tree or other wooden article or substance.” That is why the Gospel writers all use xylon to refer to the staves or clubs that the mob carried when they came to take Jesus. (See Matthew 26:47, 55; Mark 14:43, 48; Luke 22:52.) By saying that Christ died on a xylon these indicated that Christ died on a timber, a piece of wood.

because they new italian's wouldnt want a gold rock around a chain....LOL...oh i'm funny

Because Crucifiction was the chief way of putting people to death at that time. The Romans found it efficient and also a way of keeping the people of the conquered countries under control.

Crucifixion was a public degradation ritual. Its intent was to UTTERLY disgrace, shame and humiliate the victim as well as kill him. Instrumental to this is the fact that the victim is held up for all to see and mock, naked, his arms pinioned, unable to even control his bowels, and struggling for hours in agony just to breathe. The point of the Gospel writers and of Christian theology - and by all accounts the teaching of Jesus himself - Jesus willingly submitted to this (which was even MORE disgraceful in Greek, Roman and Semitic eyes, as no *man* worthy of the name would ever willingly submit to humiliation under any circumstances). In so doing, he forever mocked all pre-Christian ideas of honor, disgracing them and all human presumptions and vanities. Also, if you understand Christ's willing submission to humiliation and obedience to God unto death as the antedote to Adam's sin of pride, self-exaltation, disobedience, and the attempt to become a law unto himself, the Biblical necessity of the crucifixion makes more sense. Unfortunately modern Christians, laymen and theologians alike, tend to obsess on the physical pain, and not the humiliation, and thereby miss the point. Adam's sin was not about pleasure, but pride.

Actually He did not die at all if you ask me. Now you can down rate me if you want to.

re. Anonymous: "Actually He did not die at all if you ask me." If there's one thing Historians of the 1st-5th centuries are sure of, it's that Jesus was crucified and died. None of the rest of the history that follows makes any sense if that wasn't true. No one would have ever invented the story if it hadn't happened. If Jesus had escaped or survived the crucifixion, everyone would have said so, and no one would have said that he died when he didn't. The very fact that he did die on a cross was why masses of Jews and pagans rejected him as the Messiah let alone God incarnate: to die on a cross was to die under "the ultimate curse of God" found in the Torah. It was to be utterly discredited and to be rendered utterly UNCLEAN, by both Jewish and pagan standards. So why would any of his followers, let alone all his followers, say that he had died on the cross, when in the 1st century that was tantamount to saying "we're wrong, he deserved what he got, and here's the proof!"?

HE had to be LIFTED UP..in death . I will try to find the scriptures/ prophecies for this...if anyone can help here?

The Romans had various punishments for those it considered criminals, such as death in the galleys from overwork and starvation, and beheading. Crucifixion was one of the very worst and added to the long-lasting and extreme pain was the disgrace factor. Crucifixion was the most shameful form of death, most often used for slaves and rebels. But God had a hand in this. Whatever else you think of Jesus, you'll have to admit that he had the most dramatic birth and death of any person in history. It is unforgettable and draws attention to him and his message.

Actually, that was the roman's choice. If there is a reason God had for allowing that particular ordeal, it is not very well documented anywhere. Basically Jesus only had to die like a man and, in my humble opinion, the cross vas just plain bad luck. (please, do not start a debate about the luck of God's son, I know you're capable, stop here and now!) Us humans have the habit of seeing pink elephants under every rock, so now we have crosses everywhere.

Crucifixion was primarily a public degradation ritual. It was the form of execution that most humiliated and disgraced the victim - which in an honor/shame culture is far more impotent than just killing him. It was not only a slow and painful way to die, but the method made a public mockery of the person for hours or even days, as they languished naked and pinioned in plain sight of all, unable to do anything, even unable to control their own bodily functions. In the ancient world, this was worse than death, especially for a man, as the essence of manhood and manly honor in the ancient world was to NEVER suffer (and certainly never submit to) public humiliation. To understand this better, try not to think of the ancients as modern enlightened adults, but as schoolboys and schoolyard bullies, with similar ideas about maintaining the social (pecking) order by - though far more bloody, lethal, and horrific, crucifixion was fundamentally akin to the BMOC pummeling some uppity pipsqueak, giving him a wedgy, and making him cry for mommy, while the whole class looks own chanting nyah-nyah, nyah-nyah-nyah! As to why a cross - it was the easiest way to crucify someone giving a 360 degree view. (People were also crucified on walls, doors, and gates, but reduced the number of spectators and so was usually only used to make a specific statement - like the garrison commander crucified on the gate to his own fortress.) Impaling on a blunt stake hadn't been invented yet, and the ancients thought a man pinioned spread-eagle was far more humiliating anyway. Other methods of execution (stoning, hanging, beheading, garroting, burning, roasting, etc.), tended to be quicker, less visible, and - by the standards of the time - less humiliating. Though that’s the historical answer, the theological answer is not unrelated. Pain and death were not the solution to man’s predicament, but humility (Christ’s willing submission to humiliation) and obedience (Christ’s obedience to the Father unto death) because it wasn’t pleasure and life that were at the root of the Fall, but pride and disobedience.

The cross is a symbol. The Line is the "I" and the cross is the crossing out of the I or ego. When we surrender the physical the divine manifests. When we cross out our self or ego and our desires or physical the spiritual comes through and can manifest as our true self.