It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by crazyewok
I dont know what the facination is with the shape of the cross is.
Does it matter if it was a cross, X, VT, or a plane vertical stake? The important thing is WHY he died.
And the the fact that the big christian denominations use the cross as a symobol makes me sick as it clearly states in the bible idolatry is bad.edit on 10-8-2013 by crazyewok because: (no reason given)
The crux simplex (I). An upright pole (called the crux simplex) was used for the purpose of crucifixion. A combination of the upright pole and a crossbeam formed another simple type of cross. The person to be crucified would carry the crossbeam to the place of execution. The crossbeam would then be attached to the post.
The crux decussata (X), also called the crux Andreana, because according to tradition St. Andrew was said to have suffered upon it.
The crux commissa (T), or St. Anthony's cross. This type of cross was formed like a T.
The crux immissa (t), or Latin cross, which was the kind of cross on which Jesus Christ died. The Latin cross had a longer descending arm associated with the cross of Jesus crucifixion.
The New Testament writings about the crucifixion of Jesus do not speak specifically about the shape of that cross, but the early writings that do speak of its shape, from about the year 100 AD on, describe it as shaped like the letter T (the Greek letter tau)[27] or as composed of an upright and a transverse beam, sometimes with a small ledge in the upright.
Originally posted by crazyewok
reply to post by theRhenn
But how he died is not really what Jesus wanted to be rembered is it why he died.
Rather than remembering his execution we should be remembering his life and what it stood for.
Cross shape
The gibbet on which crucifixion was carried out could be of many shapes. Josephus describes multiple tortures and positions of crucifixion during the Siege of Jerusalem as Titus crucified the rebels;[24] and Seneca the Younger recounts: "I see crosses there, not just of one kind but made in many different ways: some have their victims with head down to the ground; some impale their private parts; others stretch out their arms on the gibbet
"Stauros" interpreted as ambivalent in meaning
The Greek-English Lexicon of Liddell and Scott reports that the meaning of the word "σταυρός" in the early Homeric form of Greek, possibly of the eighth to sixth century BC, and also in the writings of the fifth-century BC writers Herodotus and Thucydides and the early-4th century BC Xenophon, is "an upright pale or stake" used to build a palisade[16] or "a pile driven in to serve as a foundation"[17] It reports that in the writings of the first-century BC Diodorus Siculus, first-century AD Plutarch and early second-century Lucian—as well as in Matthew 27:40, Luke 9:23, 14:27—the word "σταυρός" is used to refer to a cross, either as the instrument of crucifixion or metaphorically of voluntary suffering; "its form was indicated by the Greek letter T". It also reports that Plutarch used the word with regard to a pale for impaling a corpse.[18] Of the writers whom Liddell and Scott gives as using "σταυρός" to mean a cross, the New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology holds that in Diodorus Siculus the word probably means a stake for hanging.[19] Plutarch (in An vitiositas ad infelicitatem sufficiat) distinguishes crucifixion on a stauros from impalement on a skolops.[20]
Originally posted by GeneralMishka
ahem, His death as reconcilation for the sins of His people is th emost important part
Originally posted by crazyewok
Originally posted by GeneralMishka
ahem, His death as reconcilation for the sins of His people is th emost important part
Its the reasons WHY he died that important. Not wether he was hung on a cross or whatever other shape.edit on 10-8-2013 by crazyewok because: (no reason given)
reply to post by GeneralMishka
ahem, His death as reconcilation for the sins of His people is th emost important part
Originally posted by jiggerj
reply to post by GeneralMishka
ahem, His death as reconcilation for the sins of His people is th emost important part
This is quite a common misconception. The crucifixion of Jesus did nothing. No ritualistic killing could magically force a god into doing something that he didn't want to do. If the biblical god wanted to forgive sins, he would simply have done it. If anything, the death of Jesus was nothing but a symbolic gesture, though what that gesture meant is flawed. The murder of someone does not suggest the forgiving of sins. It does not prove a god's love for us, especially since the proof of god's love would have been for Jesus to live on earth forever as a guide and inspiration to us all.
Only a perfect sacrifice could reconcile us back to God
Originally posted by jiggerj
reply to post by GeneralMishka
ahem, His death as reconcilation for the sins of His people is th emost important part
This is quite a common misconception. The crucifixion of Jesus did nothing. No ritualistic killing could magically force a god into doing something that he didn't want to do. If the biblical god wanted to forgive sins, he would simply have done it. If anything, the death of Jesus was nothing but a symbolic gesture, though what that gesture meant is flawed. The murder of someone does not suggest the forgiving of sins. It does not prove a god's love for us, especially since the proof of god's love would have been for Jesus to live on earth forever as a guide and inspiration to us all.