Is the cross christian?

[path_of_one]

Originally Posted by mee

How would you feel if one of your dearest friends was executed on the basis of false charges? Would you make a replica of the instrument of execution? Would you cherish it, or would you rather shun it?

There is something lacking here in your story. Christ was not just executed on the basis of false charges, at least not to most Christians. He sacrificed Himself for the betterment of us all. It was Christ's choice to show us the way to peace and love, in the face of evil. He had the capacity to save Himself, but He chose saving us instead through His teachings and example of following His own Divine nature to death. Jesus wasn't just a person condemned on false pretenses- otherwise He'd be just like the thousands of others that have this happen to them. He wasn't the only Jew by a long shot who was executed for His beliefs and political trouble-making either. So what sets Him apart from the others? The power He had, His teachings, and who He really was. He had the power to save Himself, and yet He did not, and in so doing, He showed us the Divine nature in the face of evil and injustice. He showed us that goodness, peace, and love overcome even death and cruelty.

I think that it is appropriate to have a symbol that reminds us of that sacrifice. Indeed, my favorite Celtic cross that I own was forged by a blacksmith from horseshoe nails, sautered together in the center with copper. It is a symbol that ever helps me to remember the gift I have in Christ, and the outpouring of the Holy Spirit that springs from this gift (the bright copper in the center- representative of the Awen or inspiration from God).

Furthermore, as the Hawaiian example illustrates (and thank you, P, for that post- very interesting and similar to my own beliefs), the Celtic cross is not simply a symbol of Christ's cruxifiction for me. It also symbolizes the goodness of all creation, the unity of heaven and earth, divinity and humanity, us and God.

If you feel the cross is a symbol you don't like or doesn't fit with your beliefs, so be it. I do not wish to get the entire world to use the same symbol I do to represent their faith. But you'll get very little swaying on my part in this matter as to my own beliefs. As a mystic, I am primarily concerned with my relationship with God. The opinions and doctrines of any one church concern me very little. I have had the cross as a symbol of my faith for years, and I have never felt God to be displeased or upset about it. Indeed, over the years, He has only blessed me with a more rich meaning of this symbol.

[wil]

I think the basic question here is one of reality....is the cross made up?

Was Jesus nailed to a cross or a pole?

Was it converted from a pole, to a cross as a marketing tool, a familiar logo that others around the world were already familiar with and that which would allow them to accept this christianity thing all while keeping their foot into their Celtic, or Egptian, or Roman or whatever else theology?

And like the move to SUNday, and the Winter Solstice, and the Spring Equinox, and Santa, and the Christmas Tree and Wreaths...is the cross yet another dilution of Jesus's word?

aside: (thou shall not commit adultery...ad-ult (add another) don't dilute your principles)

ps I was just trying to copy mee's original thread starter onto to this post and low and behold it has disappeared and it looks like I started this thread....what is up with that?

[path_of_one]

Yeah, I too have noticed this thread is doing strange things.

As far as I know, Jesus was nailed to a pole.

I think all symbols are, well, symbols. And having Sabbath on Sunday, celebrating Christ's birth erroneously around Winter Solstice, etc. does not necessarily dilute Christ's message. I would hate to reduce Jesus' teachings and example to his birthdate, what the "cross/pole/whatever" looked like, or whether or not we have a Christmas tree. The message of Christ is much deeper and stands independently of the cultural traditions, symbols, and heritages that non-Jewish people possess. I do not think I'm meant to be Jewish in order to be Christian. I can maintain my Celtic heritage (just as others could maintain their Native American heritage or whatever) and still believe fully in Christ's message and sacrifice, and find it holy.

Besides, it is bad marketing for a symbol to just be a pole. I don't think the symbol of Christianity has ever really been the literal "cross." It's always been more than that. Which makes sense given that the Christian message is more than Jesus' execution.

Personally, I am completely in agreement that one should not dilute their principles. But I don't think a symbol is a principle- the principles are what the symbol stands for, which each person defines for him/herself. Same goes for the other stuff- a Christmas Tree is not a principle. Neither is a wreath, holly, mistletoe, etc. (all Pagan stuff- and stuff, might I add, that I love and carries meaning for me). None are principles. All have the capacity to be symbols, if we give them such meaning. For most people, they are neither principles nor symbols- they're just traditions and fun things to do and decorate the house with. Symbols, in my opinion, don't have a life of their own. We give them meaning, we choose the principles that we associate with them.

Or maybe I'm just a heretic. But I'm a joyful and peaceful heretic.

[bob x]

No, Jesus was nailed to a structure with a cross-beam. Every physical description of the execution implements includes the cross-beam, although there variations in the structure.

And Tammuz was never represented by a "tau" since the Babylonians used the cuneiform script (and pronounced the name du-mu-zi, there being no resemblance whatsoever between the du logogram and any kind of cross). That pseudo-fact was invented by a fellow named Hislop, back before anything was really known about Babylonian so that he could invent anything without fear of contradiction. The repetition of Hislop's fantasies a century and a half later is not excusable.

[wil]

Every physical description of the execution implements includes the cross-beam, although there variations in the structure.

Can you provide a few...

I can maintain my Celtic heritage (just as others could maintain their Native American heritage or whatever) and still believe fully in Christ's message and sacrifice, and find it holy.

amen...

I think that nails the question....just because we are aware of the changes and modifications...doesn't mean we have throw the baby out with the bath water...as it were. It's the message.

ps. thanx for glueing 'mee' back on to her thread.

[mee]

It is noteworthy that the Bible also uses the word xy´lon to identify the device used. A Greek-English Lexicon, by Liddell and Scott, defines this as meaning: "Wood cut and ready for use, firewood, timber, etc. . . . piece of wood, log, beam, post . . . cudgel, club . . . stake on which criminals were impaled . . . of live wood, tree." It also says "in NT, of the cross," and cites Acts 5:30 and 10:39 as examples. (Oxford, 1968, pp. 1191, 1192) However, in those verses KJ, RS, JB, and Dy translate xy´lon as "tree." (Compare this rendering with Galatians 3:13; Deuteronomy 21:22, 23.)

[pohaikawahine]

Originally Posted by mee

It is noteworthy that the Bible also uses the word xy´lon to identify the device used. A Greek-English Lexicon, by Liddell and Scott, defines this as meaning: "Wood cut and ready for use, firewood, timber, etc. . . . piece of wood, log, beam, post . . . cudgel, club . . . stake on which criminals were impaled . . . of live wood, tree." It also says "in NT, of the cross," and cites Acts 5:30 and 10:39 as examples. (Oxford, 1968, pp. 1191, 1192) However, in those verses KJ, RS, JB, and Dy translate xy´lon as "tree." (Compare this rendering with Galatians 3:13; Deuteronomy 21:22, 23.)

mee - you have given some of the most fascinating insights into the symbol of the cross .... I deeply appreciate what you have researched and shared .... the connection of the word xy'lon to a live tree I have never known, but you have just pulled together an understanding of a very ancient symbol for me .... since I have always connected the cross with the human body, and also the tree of life in all its manifestations with the human body .... it now makes sense .... aloha nui, pohaikawahine

[Tao_Equus]

The Greek for cross is staffros, for crucifix estaffromenos. Quite clearly this is the origin of the English word staff. A staff of course has no crosspiece. Greek for staff is rathdos. It does seem as though translation is the cause of the ambiguity seen here. I know its not exactly relevant but just thought I'd add it as an aside.

In spoken modern Greek Xylo is the everyday word for wood of any description.

TE

[I, Brian]

Originally Posted by mee

yes the cross goes right back to a babylonian God
According to history, Tammuz was a Babylonian god, and the cross was used as his symbol. From its beginning in the days of Nimrod, Babylon was against Jehovah and an enemy of true worship. (Gen. 10:8-10; Jer. 50:29) So by cherishing the cross, a person is honoring a symbol of worship that is opposed to the true God

Is the chi-rho symbol really a representation of the tau symbol??

[I, Brian]

Originally Posted by mee

yes the cross goes right back to a babylonian God
According to history, Tammuz was a Babylonian god, and the cross was used as his symbol. From its beginning in the days of Nimrod, Babylon was against Jehovah and an enemy of true worship. (Gen. 10:8-10; Jer. 50:29) So by cherishing the cross, a person is honoring a symbol of worship that is opposed to the true God

Can the chi-rho symbol really be said to be a representation of the tau symbol??

[Thomas]

When Christians refer to the cross, they refer to the instrument of torture used by the Romans, by which he was killed, after the Temple Authorities manoeuvred Pilate into doing their dirty work for them.

As a form of execution the cross travelled the world with the Romans. The Jews killed by stoning, the Greeks used the stake or a gibbet, but the Romans excelled in its use. It was the punishment for slaves found guilty of any serious crime, although also used on provincials convicted of brigandage (Cicero XIII Phil., xii; Verr., V, xxvii).

It was absolutely forbidden to inflict this degrading and infamous punishment on a Roman citizen (Cic., Verr. Act., I, 5; II, 3, 5; III, 2, 24, 26; IV, 10 sqq.; V, 28, 52, 61, 66), but this immunity was modified when the poorer citizens (humiliores) were declared subject to the punishment of the cross (Paul., "Sent.", V, xxii, 1; Sueton., "Galba", ix; Quintil., VIII, iv).

It was inflicted for a wide range of crimes. According to Roman custom, the penalty of crucifixion was always preceded by scourging (virgis cædere, Prud., "Enchirid.", xli, 1); after this preliminary punishment, the condemned person had to carry the cross, or at least the transverse beam of it, to the place of execution (Plut., "Tard. dei vind.", ix, "Artemid.", II, xli), exposed to the jibes and insults of the people (Joseph., "Antiq.", XIX, iii; Plaut., "Most.", I, 1, 52; Dion., VII, 69). On arrival at the place of execution the cross was uplifted (Cic., Verr., V, lxvi). The sufferer was bound to it with cords (Plin., "Hist. Nat.", XXVIII, iv; Auson., "Id.", VI, 60; Lucan, VI, 543, 547), he was then, as Plautus tells us, fastened with four nails to the wood of the cross ("Lact.", IV, 13; Senec., "Vita beat.", 19; Tert., "Adv. Jud.", x; Justus Lipsius " De Cruce", II, vii; xli-ii). Finally, a placard called the titulus bearing the name of the condemned man and his sentence, was placed at the top of the cross (Euseb., "Hist. Eccl", V, 1; Suet., Caligula", xxxviii and "Domit." x; Matthew 27:37; John 19:19).

Slaves were crucified outside of Rome in a place called Sessorium, beyond the Esquiline Gate. Eventually this locality became a forest of crosses (Loiseleur, Des peines), while the bodies of the victims were the pray of vultures and other rapacious birds (Horace, "Epod.", V, 99, and the scholia of Crusius; Plin., "Hist. Nat.", XXXVI, cvii).

The condemned often lingered on the cross for several days (Isid., V, 27; Senec., Epist. ci). To shorten his punishment therefore, and lessen his terrible sufferings, his legs were were sometimes broken (crurifragium, crura frangere; Cic., XIII Philipp., xii). This custom, exceptional among the Romans, was common with the Jews. In this way it was possible to take down the corpse on the very evening of the execution (Tert., "Adv. Jud.", x; Isid., V, xxvii; Lactant., IV, xvi).

Among the Romans, on the contrary, the corpse could not be taken down, unless such removal had been specially authorized in the sentence of death. The corpse might also be buried if the sentence permitted (Valer. Max., vi, 2; Senec., "Controv.", VIII, iv; Cic., "Tusc.", I, 43; Catull., cvi, 1; Horace, "Epod.", I, 16-48; Prudent., "Peristephanon", I, 65; Petron., lxi sqq.).

The punishment of the cross remained in force throughout the Roman Empire until the first half of the fourth century. Later Constantine abolished its use, in honour of the Passion of Jesus Christ (Eus., "Hist. Eccl.", I, viii; Schol. Juvenal., XIV, 78; Niceph., VII, 46; Cassiod., "Hist. Trip.", I, 9; Codex Theod., IX, 5, 18).

The cross as 'tree' is spoken of by Cicero (Pro, Rabir., iii sqq.) and by Livy. This primitive form of crucifixion on trees was long in use, as Justus Lipsius notes ("De cruce", I, ii, 5; Tert., "Apol.", VIII, xvi; and "Martyrol. Paphnut." 25 Sept.). Such a tree was known as a cross (crux). On an ancient vase is shown Prometheus bound to a beam which serves the purpose of a cross.

On an ancient cist at Præneste (Palestrina), Andromeda is represented bound by the feet to a military yoke - i.e. two parallel, perpendicular stakes, surmounted by a transverse bar. Certain it is, at any rate, that the cross originally consisted of a simple vertical pole, sharpened at its upper end. Mæcenas (Seneca, Epist. xvii, 1, 10) calls it acuta crux; it could also be called crux simplex. To this upright pole a transverse bar was afterwards added to which the sufferer was fastened with nails or cords, and thus remained until he died, whence the expression cruci figere or affigere (Tac., "Ann.", XV, xliv; Potron., "Satyr.", iii)

Thomas

[Thomas]

The symbol of the cross is, like the circle, spiral, square, triangle and star, among the lexicon of symbols that are universal and as old as man.

At one level these symbols can and often do have a personal and specific significance for the culture in question; at another level as 'foundational' symbols they manifest the 'first order' metaphysical principles that are common to all spiritual traditions precisely because these traditions all deal with man as a human being.

The determination then is according to degree. Some, the 'Great Religions', address all men and are properly universal, others fall outside of this and according to their own intrinsic limitations address, not so much 'a part of man' (which nevertheless is the case), but 'man in part', and in the most inferior cases are obliged to deny or simply ignore those aspects of the human nature which they are powerless to address.

The Cross is a symbol of Realisation, and has its application in one or more modes of being belonging to a human nature, physical, mental, emotional, cosmological, spiritual, etc., according to the principles and end in view.

By any measure the cross, as a spiritual symbol, finds an expression in Christianity which stands pre-eminent among all and every means, manner and method of its exegesis - a fact recognised by Spiritual Masters of every tradition - the Christian interpretation of the Cross, clearly evidenced by exegetes throughout the ages, conveys the highest metaphysical principle in absolute purity, whilst equally, and simultaneously, expresses these principles in a most direct and immediate fashion for even the humblest can understand and identify.

The Cross in Christianity, moreover, as symbol and as a reality, not only sheds light on the principial mystery of life - the mystery of being - it offers a way and a means by which that mystery, at a level which transcends being itself, might be realised by all any any who align their mind and heart and being towards it.

Thomas

[wil]

Did you also post your info on wikepedia?

it was absolutely forbidden to inflict this degrading and infamous punishment ON A Roman citizen (Cic., Verr. Act. and I, 5; II and 3, 5; III and 2, 24, 26; IV and 10 sqq.; V, 28, 52, 61, 66);

or did you get it from the above?

Thomas wrote: It was absolutely forbidden to inflict this degrading and infamous punishment on a Roman citizen (Cic., Verr. Act., I, 5; II, 3, 5; III, 2, 24, 26; IV, 10 sqq.; V, 28, 52, 61, 66),

It would be quite handy if we identified our sources to assist others in thier study....

[Thomas]

I should have given the reference source:

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04517a.htm


Thomas

[mee]

Originally Posted by I, Brian

Is the chi-rho symbol really a representation of the tau symbol??

was it something to do with sun worship?
By the middle of the 3rd cent. A.D. the churches had either departed from, or had travestied, certain doctrines of the Christian faith. In order to increase the prestige of the apostate ecclesiastical system pagans were received into the churches apart from regeneration by faith, and were permitted largely to retain their pagan signs and symbols. Hence the Tau or T, in its most frequent form, with the cross-piece lowered, was adopted to stand for the cross of Christ."—An Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words (London, 1962), W. E. Vine, p. 256