Is the Cross Just Another Lie? (Revised)

Originally posted by MatrixProphet
reply to post by rizla

 

From what I understand, Constantine was a follower of Mithras before he 'converted' to Christianity. The Tau T (literally a 'T') is the symbol of Mithras. Hmmm.

Kinda blows the whole crucifix thing out of the water.

Here is an interesting quote by: Manley P. Hall who authored, "The Secret Teachings of all Ages: An Encyclopedic Outline of Masonic, Hermetic, Qabbalistic, and Rosicrucian Symbolical Philosophy" said:

"Yet the cross itself is the oldest of phallic emblems - The very structure of the church itself is permeated with (sexual symbolism) phallicism. Remove from the Christian Church all emblems of Priapic origin and nothing is left."

Other scholars have linked the cross to; the Greek Bacchus (Babylonian Bacchus who was in irony; their Messiah), the Tyrian Tammuz (I mentioned earlier), the Chaldean Bel, and the Norse Odin.

With all respect, I think most religious symbols can be explained as sexual--either phallic or vaginal. And that is not to say that it is not valid to do so.

Personally I'm interested in the direct source of the crucifix. After all, it didn't exist in early christianity at all. And according to your initial post, the earliest and most authentic versions of the bible do not say Christ was crucified. I find this shocking.

reply to post by rizla


Thank you for your post! I substantiate the phallic part with documented information to complete a spiritual viewpoint: Jesus fulfilled prophesies that had to fit what was already written regarding him - before he came to earth. The pagan aspect of the cross would not have fit the Jewish law. Considering the fact that so much of his life and meaning centered around the Jewish faith and beliefs and that they fit into so many prophesies, it would be spiritually essential that "they would not be let off the hook!" I am sure that the Gods would assure; that they would be connected to his death, and so as to; not be able to shift all the blame onto the Romans. I have read some of the letters of Herod & Pontius Pilate(worth reading) from his viewpoint.

Personally I'm interested in the direct source of the crucifix. After all, it didn't exist in early christianity at all. And according to your initial post, the earliest and most authentic versions of the bible do not say Christ was crucified. I find this shocking.

I find it interesting that in the time of King James they left the Bible record as is, supporting the Jewish law regarding the hanging of someone on a tree! I used my KJ Version (I use many Bibles, but for the sake of the majority I am using this one) to validate that Jesus did indeed die on a tree:

Acts 10:39, Acts 5:30, Galatians 3:13, 1Peter 2:24

He obviously did not go against the definition of stauros', crux, or xy'lon in creating his version of the Bible. And it is interesting to note that no where in the original writings of the NT did they refer to anything different, nor the addition of the patibulum. I have questioned scholars that could read & write ancient Greek regarding these words.

Thank you everyone for your comments and civility!

Originally posted by MatrixProphet
reply to post by dk3000

 

I believe the message from Jesus is not to be codependent- and the corruption of this message was designed to keep us codependent.

Very clever! I would agree. All religion requires allegiance in one form or another. How many would be accepted in their religion if they started to renounce the cross? Many original beliefs or doctrines become adulterated and when one rallies against them are called a "false prophet."

I would rather be called a false prophet than experience this dilemma:

"A man said to the universe:
"Sir, I exist."
"However," replied the Universe,
"The fact has not created in me a sense of obligation."
- Stephen Crane from "War is Kind" 1899

I cannot stop laughing! Its so true! We are not supposed to be concerned with the universe and how it works. We are only supposed to be concerned with our humanity and how it works to benefit all. Once we achieve this simple yet arduous task- I believe the universe may in fact have a different response!

I stopped squashing spiders and moths. I also stopped feeding moths to spiders hoping the spiders wouldn't catch on that I was manipulating them into doing my "dirty" work for me. Suddenly I realized that my rationalization that I was doing the spider a favor by feeding it and making its life a little easier- vanished.

I find now that the only side effect of this lesson is some of my sweaters have holes in them- but I can live with it now! As well as apply this lesson to nearly everything!



[edit on 29-3-2008 by dk3000]

Let me start by saying I am a Christian and I believe the Bible. However, I am not against questioning things that don’t seem quite right. As to the shape of the cross, we simply don’t know. The disciple saw Jesus after his resurrection and took note of the wounds in his hands, feet and side. This does suggest a cross beam.

Jesus was heavily scourged before the crucifixion and could have died from the trauma induced from the whipping. This could have taken place in only a few hours. Nat Geo had a special recently which suggested this scenario as viable.

As a Christian, it is not the death of Jesus that I find most important, but His resurrection and victory over death and hell. So the shape of the cross, whether a simple pole or one with a cross beam, has no affect on my faith. As to the pagan origins of Christianity, that is another thread entirely.

reply to post by darkelf


I tend to think the word "crucified" suggests a cross.
As for the resurrection, it is important.
Anyone who has seen the Passion should know how different the movie would be without the last scene.
I do not think Jesus raised himself.
No more than Lazerous coud have raised himself.
The vicrory over death belongs to all of us, but it was won by the work of Jesus.
It was done a long time ago and we had nothing to do with it.
But it does exist, by the fact that Jesus is alive and stands for us in the Temple of God that is in heaven.

I would like to see more highly-informed Christian advocates on this board contribute to this thread. As such, I have messaged one (who seems to know his stuff) to see what he says.

reply to post by MatrixProphet


Matrix, are you saying Christ was not crucified?

reply to post by rizla


I am saying that he died a sacrificial death. But upon a pole, stake, pile or tree. Crucifixion implies one dying on a cross.

reply to post by jmdewey60

Anyone who has seen the Passion should know how different the movie would be without the last scene.

That movie really moved me. Yes, his death is very significant. But the cross has been too venerated and IMO has been too much the focus. How more humbling is the thought of a tree? Jesus rode into town on an ass, not a stallion!

I just watched a movie depicting the Church hierarchy during the Spanish Inquisition holding or wearing crosses doing their torture of innocents. The cross represents something horrible and not at all representative of Christ. How it has been used and portrayed symbolizes pagandom further.

reply to post by dk3000

We are only supposed to be concerned with our humanity and how it works to benefit all. Once we achieve this simple yet arduous task- I believe the universe may in fact have a different response!

As always - I love your posts! You add humor to a serious subject which is needed!

I have become a truth seeker in every sense of the word. Again, that is why I call myself a spiritual scientist. A person who looks for answers where others don't even know what to question.

I ask: if someone's faith is so determined by the method or weapon that Jesus was slaughtered on - what does that say about Him? Is he all of a sudden different? Does it change what he did for us? Does it make him any less lovable or righteous? Or any less a savior?

Or...is it the idea that religious mankind, maybe, just maybe has been duped, or manipulated?

"A discovery is said to be an accident meeting a prepared mind."
- Albert Szent-Gyorgyi

Originally posted by MatrixProphet
reply to post by rizla

 

I am saying that he died a sacrificial death. But upon a pole, stake, pile or tree. Crucifixion implies one dying on a cross.

Sure. You state there is no mention of a patibulum or cross-beam, so it wasn't a cross.

But tell me, how what were crosses and crucifixes and death by crucification called at that time? Did they have specific words to describe them? If so, were those words used to describes Christ's death?

[edit on 29-3-2008 by rizla]

reply to post by rizla


[quote]THE LATIN- OR ROMAN CROSS
the latin cross or ‘crux immissa’ is the most popular form of crosses.
during the first three centuries of christianity, the cross was
rare in christian iconography (although it is found on coins,
medals, and ornaments anteriour to the christian era and
descriptions of it are found in christian writings from the
early 2nd century onwards. the cross first became prominent
in christian imagery during the late 3rd century).
the upper arm of the latin cross and the two side arms are of
equal length while the lower arm is twice as long as any of the
other three. it was on this cross that christ is said to have been
crucified, and thus it became accepted as the christian cross.
- "The Sign of Signs: The Many Permutations of the Cross"

In addition to the patibulum which is part of the cross we have the following words applied to the cross (remember there is the Latin, Greek & Aramaic and I cannot tell you all):

crux ansata, crux ordinaria, crux immissa, crux immissa quadrata, chi-rho.

Chi-Rho are the Greek letters that make up the cross.

None of these words are connected with Christ and his execution according to all the research I have done reading the scholars. My research involved the actual words applied to his method of death. Perhaps one of our resident language experts could respond?

John 20: 25 The other disciples therefore said unto him, We have seen the LORD. But he said unto them, Except I shall see in his hands the print of the nails, and put my finger into the print of the nails, and thrust my hand into his side, I will not believe.

Thomas was not with the disciples when they saw Jesus after the resurrection. He refused to believe until he saw the prints of the nails in his hands. Notice that he did not say the rope marks on His wrist or the nail marks. He said nails, the plural form. This would suggest that Jesus had more than one nail used in His hands. This would also suggest that the cross we are investigating did have a cross piece. The single pole would only require one nail through the wrist or that the wrists were tied above the head. The Romans were known to have used all these methods in their crucifixions.

Good topic.

Originally posted by MatrixProphet
…and were permitted largely to retain their pagan signs and symbols. Hence the Tau or T, in its most frequent form, with the crosspiece lowered, was adopted to stand for the cross of Christ.”

Jung had another take on this, which surprises me because he frequently cited Mithraism. He stated that the cross was originally a normal, centered cross (as in a celtic cross or a swastika). He stated that the elevation (as opposed to the lowering) of the cross-beam symbolized man's attempt to distance himself from nature and instinct, and to further make distinct and develop the ego. This was happening in a time of mass suicides, superstition and brutality, and Jung contends christianity was a rejection of these things. In his opinion, the elevation of the 'cross-bar' reflected an evolutionary psychic process. Not sure how this balances with the Tau T.

reply to post by darkelf


Matrixprophet states that the ancient writings use a Greek word to describe Jesus dieing on a 'stake, pale or pile', while the words associated with crosses and crucifixes were not used at all. IMO the case for the use of a cross in Christ's death is circumstantial.

I applaud you for the ability to discuss topics central to your religion. The lack of strong evidence of a cross in no ways detracts from the death of the historical Jesus Christ, which has not been questioned here. Only the method. However, it does make me question how the Christian religion has developed--what it originally was, and what it has become.

well some speculate that the cross was integrated into christianity because it was a formation commonly seen amongst ET ships (ufos).
Allegedly they would fly in a cross shaped formation while arriving to earth in a massive fleet.
it goes into detail in this very interesting documentary.
check it fellas-
youtube.com...
thats the first of 25 clips, i think its somewhere towards the middle/end.
sorry i cant be more exact, so just watch the entire thing. its interesting!
True or not, its an interesting theory.

reply to post by rizla


The Greek word for cross is stauros. According to Strong’s Greek Lexicon stauros is defined as:

1. an upright stake, esp. a pointed one
2. a cross
a. a well known instrument of most cruel and ignominious punishment, borrowed by the Greeks and Romans from the Phoenicians; to it were affixed among the Romans, down to the time of Constantine the Great, the guiltiest criminals, particularly the basest slaves, robbers, the authors and abetters of insurrections, and occasionally in the provinces, at the arbitrary pleasure of the governors, upright and peaceable men also, and even Roman citizens themselves
b. the crucifixion which Christ underwent
Source

Notice that stake and cross are both listed as definitions of this Greek word.

The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology says this about the Greek stauros:
Corresponding to the vb. (stauroo) which was more common, stauros can mean a stake which was sometimes pointed on which an executed criminal was publicly displayed in shame as a further punishment. It could be used for hanging (so probably Diod. Sic., 2, 18, 2), impaling, or strangulation. stauros could also be an instrument of torture, perhaps in the sense of the Lat. patibulum, a crossbeam laid on the shoulders. Finally it could be an instrument of execution in the form of a vertical stake and a crossbeam of the same length forming a cross in the narrower sense of the term. It took the form either of a T (Lat. crux commissa) or of a + (crux immissa). (Vol. 1, page 391)
Source

Although the cross may have been previously known as a pagan symbol, the Apostle Paul glorified it as a symbol of victory. That is why many Christians wear the cross. The Catholic crucifix emphasizes the pain of a suffering Jesus, while Protestants wear the empty cross to emphasize victory over death and hell. Neither view is wrong as long as we don’t forget the other.

reply to post by darkelf


It is interesting to note that the very argument you used regarding the Lexicons was a point of contention amongst the scholars of the 19th century. Here is a quote:

"The Non-Christian Cross" -1896 by J. D. Parsons, London says: "There is not a single sentence in any of the numerous writings forming the NT, which in the original Greek, bears even indirect evidence to the effect that the stauros used in the case of Jesus was other than an ordinary stauros, much less to the effect that it consisted, not of one piece of timber, but of 2 pieces nailed together in the form of a cross...It is not a little misleading upon the part of our teachers to translate the word stauros as 'cross' when rendering the Greek documents of the church into our native tongue, and to support that action by putting 'cross' in our lexicons as the meaning of stauros without carefully explaining that that was at any rate not the primary meaning of the word in the days of the apostles, did not become its primary signification tell long afterwards, and became so then, if at all, only because despite the absence of corroborative evidence, it was for some reason or other assumed that the particular stauros upon which Jesus was executed had that particular shape."

If we use our reasoning faculties and our education it is an easy one to refute, that being; the definition of stauros'. Any time you change the structure or meaning of a word it will change the word. Stauros', crux, xy'lon, all mean the same thing! A straight pole or pile or stake. You add anything to that definition - it will change the word. Example; crux, add ansata or any of the other words onto it, like my previous post, - it changed not only the word, but also the definition.

We have to use common sense and realize that there are many who needed to maintain the idea of the cross - related to Jesus, as whole religious foundations are based on this lie. It would not be hard to see that they needed to cover up their lie about Jesus and the cross and so had to alter or change the lexicons to support it. This is why it is considered a conspiracy!

As I have documented many times - there is real discrepancy as to the time frame of the inception of the cross and the fact that it did not enter in the Church until much later! Why didn't King James fall into this lie? His Bible has been used more than any other through the centuries.

The Church fathers had control over the translating of the original texts and could have pluralized anything (nail vs. nails) to their satisfaction. It would have been very easy for them to do so, they had the power!

I am finding it very interesting that this is the bone of contention and not any of my other reasoning points.

reply to post by rizla

The lack of strong evidence of a cross in no ways detracts from the death of the historical Jesus Christ, which has not been questioned here. Only the method. However, it does make me question how the Christian religion has developed--what it originally was, and what it has become.

Does not the light grow brighter as the end draws near? Should we be surprised that there are ones such as myself that are spiritual messengers questioning everything, so as to enlighten? There are many, many that are questioning the past related to religion and Christ and so forth. Many books are being written that are aiming to reveal the real Truth. It is our choice as to what we personally want to believe.

12 Step programs have the saying: "Take what you want and leave the rest!"

"Once your mind has been stretched to a new idea, it never returns to original dimension"
- Oliver Wendell Holmesl

[edit on 30-3-2008 by MatrixProphet]

I'm just responding to this by request. If any of the following has already been mentioned, my apologies. I haven't read the entire thread.

Originally posted by MatrixProphet
1. Jesus is said to actually have died (in the ancient writings) on a stake, pale or pile according to the original Greek word. The writers of the NT or Greek Scriptures wrote in the common loine' Greek, and used the word stauros' to mean the same thing as in the classical Greek, namely, a simple stake, or pale, without a crossbeam of any kind at any angle. The Greek word xy'lon was also used and had the same meaning as stauros'.

2. Where does it speak of a cross bar or beam in the scriptures? The cross beam had a different word attached to it: patibulum'. No where does it say that Jesus died on a stauros' with a patibulum' attached!

Although I see where you are coming from, it must be asked: Why would the shape of Jesus' cross really, really matter? The Romans used four different methods for crucifixion: A 'T' shaped cross, an 'X' shaped cross, a stake, and sometimes the victim was marched right up to a tree and nailed at eye level.

The fact remains, He was crucified. Being that the T shaped cross was indeed used by the Romans in antiquity, it is very possible this was used. If it was an X shape or stake, then it really doesn't matter IMO.

But what about the references in the original Greek? Here you go:

Xulon (HERE, HERE, and HERE).
Stauros (See pretty much all the scriptural passages in the link).

Looking at the actual Greek, it appears to either refer to a stake or cross. But again, the shape is not that important in the scheme of things. But a few things should be mentioned:

If it was a stake, it would not change things. He was crucified (more on this in a moment). Second, there are 1st century engravings of crosses on Christian sarcophagi. It would stand to reason 1st century Christians would be more aware of the shape of the cross than us who can only speculate 2,000 years later. Third, we know the Romans did indeed use T shaped instruments. Lastly, when Jesus was prophesying Peter's death, we are told He stretched out His arms to demonstrate a crucifixion.

3. “Vines Expository dictionary of Old and New Testament Words” – Mentions the Chaldean origin of the 2 piece cross and how Christendom adopted it from the pagans in the 3rd century C.E. as a symbol of Christ’s impalement. “In order to increase the prestige of the apostate ecclesiastical system, pagans were received into the churches…and were permitted largely to retain their pagan signs and symbols. Hence the Tau or T, in its most frequent form, with the crosspiece lowered, was adopted to stand for the cross of Christ.” The lexicons then altered the word stauros’ to mean a cross to the ire of many scholars! (“The Non-Christian Cross” by J.D. Parsons 1896.)

If the first century 't' carvings are authentic (no reason to believe they are not at this time), then we can see the cross was known prior to the 4th century. Also, See: HERE. The cross as a pagan symbol is refuted in a section of this longer article.

4. We all know that the Jews were reported to have instigated the death of Jesus and used the Romans to facilitate it. It is actually a strong possibility that the Sadducees with Ca'iaphas being the High Priest that year, was involved in the plot against Jesus with the Pharisees being the lackeys("I'll sit in the car while you rob the store"). It went against Jewish law to pass a death sentence of crucifixion. The Jewish Encyclopedia states under “Crucifixion” - “Among the modes of Capital Punishment known to the Jewish penal law, crucifixion is not found; the “hanging” of criminals “on a tree” mentioned in Deuteronomy 21:22, was resorted to in New testament times only after lapidating (stoning)."

This is true. First of all, 'hanging from a tree' was shameful according to OT Jewish Law. This shame Jesus suffered is mentioned in the New Testament about being 'cursed' for hanging on a tree. As for the Jewish appeal to the Romans: This was done for very specific reasons. Under the rule of Rome, the Jews lost their ability to perform capitol punishment. In order to have a criminal executed, they had to appeal to Roman authority.

This is even part of a fascinating Messianic prophecy. A prophecy was given that the Messiah would come before the Jews (particularly the 'scepter of Judah') lost their judicial power. Their lament is even mentioned in their Talmud when they say 'Woe unto us for the scepter has departed from Judah [an idiom for the loss of Jewish judicial power] but the Messiah has not yet come!' Oops. Little did they realize, their Messiah was there and His name was Jesus.

5. It was the Roman policy to break the limbs of the criminals after hours or days of being on the cross to expedite the asphyxiation process. But according to prophesy the "Lamb of God" was to fulfill the Jewish Passover requirement of; no bones were to be broken in order to fulfill the anti-typical Passover sacrifice - a like for a like. He needed to die quickly and the cross wouldn’t have sufficed.

True. And this is the way it occurred according to our sources.

6. Medical evidence showing the likelihood that Christ did not die on the cross: Joseph Zias who was the Curator of Archaeology/Anthropology for the Israel Antiquities from 1972-1997 wrote under "Crucifixion in Antiquity:-

Not sure about this study but similar studies have actually affirmed such things so I'm not sure how this curator would be heeded over the others. In fact, not much he says disproves anything. The asphyxiation, support, etc., actually helps verify our stance. Also don't forget He was flogged as well as just coming off a fast and His body was in an extremely weakened state. It is not surprising at all He expired quickly.

7. The idea of Christ dying on a cross did not really enter the religious picture until the time of Constantine in the 4th century. He was said to have had dreams involving crosses and is said to have seen crosses in the sky. He took this as an omen and added this philosophy to the Church beliefs (apparently not knowing the pagan history behind it). His mother Helena could have contributed to the sanctifying of this emblem by incorporating this into Christianity.

The Constantine thing might be true (concerning his visions) but there are a few problems. First of all, we have 5,000-25,000 first century Greek Texts and fragments that thoroughly record Jesus' death on the cross. Therefore, prior to Constantine.

8. There were not any historians recording the death of Christ. Historian Josephus was not around yet. He did speak of ones surviving a sentence of death on a cross and actually living (with medical help). Other historians such as Livy defined crux as a stake.

Yes there were, including Josephus, but here are two Roman examples:

"Christus, the founder of the [Christian] name, was put to death by Pontius Pilate, procurator of Judea in the reign of Tiberius. But the pernicious superstition, repressed for a time, broke out again, not only through Judea, where the mischief originated, by through the city of Rome also."

Tacitus, Roman Historian

"The Christians, you know, worship a man to this day- the distinguished personage who introduced their novel rites, and was crucified on that account... It was impressed on them by their original lawgiver that they are all brothers from the moment they are converted and deny the gods of Greece, and worship the crucified sage, and live after his laws..."

Lucian of Samosata

reply to post by AshleyD

I'm just responding to this by request. If any of the following has already been mentioned, my apologies. I haven't read the entire thread.

So you have been sent in as a heavy hitter? Yes, most of what you are saying has been discussed already. Please excuse me if I do not rehash it all again.

Second, there are 1st century engravings of crosses on Christian sarcophagi. It would stand to reason 1st century Christians would be more aware of the shape of the cross than us who can only speculate 2,000 years later. Third, we know the Romans did indeed use T shaped instruments.

Of course! There are engravings of the cross on sarcophagi that goes back to ancient Egypt. And it was used in their worship. Many Christians adopted beliefs from other pagan societies and incorporated them into Christianity...eventually.

we can see the cross was known prior to the 4th century

Ditto!

The Constantine thing might be true (concerning his visions) but there are a few problems. First of all, we have 5,000-25,000 first century Greek Texts and fragments that thoroughly record Jesus' death on the cross. Therefore, prior to Constantine.

It might behoove you to study more about Constantine and his connection to the cross and the establishment of Christianity. Here is further information regarding the cross. I do not know how much more proof you all need but it is getting redundant!

"These crosses were used as symbols of the Babylonian sun-god, and are first seen on a coin of Julius Caesar, 100-44 B.C. and then on a coin struck by Caesar's heir (Augustus), 20 B.C. On the coins of Constantine their most frequent symbol is (an x with a circle), but; the same symbol is used without the surrounding circle, and with the four equal arms vertical and horizontal; and this was the symbol specially venerated as the 'Solar Wheel.' It should be stated that Constantine was a sun-god worshiper, and would not enter the 'Church' till some quarter of a century after the legend of his having seen such a cross in the heavens." -The Companion Bible, see also "The Non-Christian Cross."

I am sorry but I do not accept elusive comments like: 5,000 -25,000 first century Greek texts that confirm that Jesus died on a cross, especially when I read what the scholars have written or discovered, especially without documented proof. Ambiguous comments do not ring true.

And please remember, there was much apostasy in the first century amongst the Christians and dispute among them regarding what was actual truth. They were being hit with philosophy from many segments - Hellenism, Roman beliefs, gnosticism, etc. etc. For anyone to assume or to imply that none actually got incorporated into the Christian doctrine (along with the cross) would be showing a sign of ignorance.

I thought you were aware; there was very little actually recorded in the first century as most information was transmitted orally! To say that there were as many as 5,000 to 25,000 texts? There are many books that would inform you otherwise. Actually to hear actual scholars speak (there have been many documentaries lately), they say that there was very little recorded in the first century, and that what was actually recorded is; being questioned as to their authority or origin. I am surprised you did not know this!

Yes there were, including Josephus, but here are two Roman examples:

Yes, there were many historians within the first three centuries. Unfortunately none were around at the time of Jesus death. Anything said about his death would be conjecture. Here are some other historians and some were Christians:

Clemens, Alexandrinus, Eusebius, Origen, Jerome, Epiphanius, Athanasius, Irenaeus, Theodoret, Justin Martyr.

Note: I feel that I have given an abundant amount of research and reasoning!



[edit on 30-3-2008 by MatrixProphet]