From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Christianity / Jesus (Rated C-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by Jesus work group (marked as High-importance).
WikiProject Heraldry and vexillology (Rated C-class)
WikiProject icon Cross is within the scope of the Heraldry and vexillology WikiProject, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of heraldry and vexillology. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.

Old discussions[edit]

Is my English giving away again, or shouldn't that be "the presumably discovery of the original cross"? Also, maybe some of the text should be moved or copied to Jesus. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Magnus Manske (talkcontribs) 08:04, 3 December 2001 (UTC)

'The Christian symbol for God and, especially, Jesus.' Not to engage in theological quibbles, but this just isn't thought through. I'll substitute 'The Christian cross identifies a Christian, or a Christian object or location and is a reminder of the redeeming sacrifice of the Crucifixion.' and hope not to raise too much dust. Wetman

The first was more accurate if one is concerned with objective fact rather than faith. Since this is an encyclopedia I would assume that to be the case.

In any case, presumably (an adverb) can't modify discovery (a noun). presumable (a rare word!) or presumed would fit, but I think purported more appropriate. —Tamfang (talk) 16:17, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

The famous Celtic Cross[edit]

Why isn't the Celtic Cross included in emblems and symbols???

Yeah, the Celtic Cross is definitely a symbol. It should be in there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:18, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
"High cross" and "sunwheel" are both in there, last time I looked... AnonMoos

Non christian crosses[edit]

There was a section that claimed that all modern crosses are either swastikas or christian I removed it. It seems a massive generalisation. Perhaps it was intended to say that christianity is the only modern religous denomination to use the cross a symbol (but I'm not sure this is the case). I also mentioned the spontaneous production of crosses by young children.

  • - The Aztec cross symbol for aztec mythological deity of the rains.
  • - The Egyptian ankh, the crux ansata.
  • - The cross of Venus.
  • - The cross of Mercury.
  • - The cross of Neptune.
  • - The cross of Saturn.
  • - The cross of Uranus.
  • - The Greek gammadion.
  • - The Indus cross.
  • - The Maya crosses: World tree cross, the foliated cross, Cross of Palenque, symbols of Quetzacoatl.
  • - The Solar Wheel cross.
  • - The symbol of Jupiter. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 03:43, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
  • - A version of Buddha's footprint
  • - Tibetan solar cross.
  • - Assyrian solar cross.
  • - The star of Ishtar.
  • - The babylonian cross of Tammuz. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Standforder (talkcontribs) 21:15, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

User: edits[edit]

Dear , there might be some pages on Wikipedia where the presence of your generalized abstract metaphysical pontifications on the essentially pagan nature of Christianity would be appropriate, but they're quite irrelevant on this page. Furthermore, the page you linked to ( uses a completely bogus and quite incorrect form of the name of Jesus -- which never existed in Hebrew -- so that this does not predispose one to place great trust in what it says about crosses. See page (particularly the second large image near the bottom) for correct information on the name of Jesus in Hebrew. AnonMoos 15:40, 16 October 2005 (UTC)


This article definitely needs a lot more work -- maybe the first step is deciding what it should be (because currently it's a heterogeneous jumbled grab-bag). AnonMoos 06:33, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Tried to do some clean-up, and separate the heraldry stuff out -- still needs work AnonMoos 07:36, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
I've expanded the heraldry section about as much as I'm going to; it's still far from comprehensive... AnonMoos 08:59, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
I could probably add a bunch more heraldry to this, using the Webber book I posted in the References section. Does each heraldry symbol need its own stub? I personally don't see the point of each individual symbol having its own stub page. --Dulcimerist 22:13, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Silence edits[edit]

Thanks for taking care of a lot of the formatting stuff (and no, I don't have the slightest clue either as to what the difference between "crosses as emblems" and "crosses as symbols" may be). But there were a few problems with the heraldic terminology ("ordinary" is a noun in heraldry, not an adjective), and the "see also" list at the end of the Heraldry section is a list of other cross types which are mainly used in heraldry (not the same as the general "see also" list). AnonMoos 23:02, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

P.S. Maybe if the non-mainly-heraldic crosses could be organized in some better way than "symbols" vs. "emblems", then this page could be on the way to being a good article... AnonMoos 23:17, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

Ah, thanks for correcting my edits, then; I'm largely unfamiliar with heraldry, so I might have taken as poor formations or descriptions what are actually the official names and terms for certain things. Thanks for taking the time to fix the bad edits I made! I made a couple more changes (including merging solar cross and sun cross after your edit clued me in to the redundancy of the two), and I think our next step should be: merge all the "symbols" and "emblems" into a single category, and list them alphabetically, then list the heraldic crosses alphabetically in a subsection.
Oh, and I'd say that this article is already pretty good. It's interesting and manages to present all the basic designs in a way that's pleasing to the eye. It could mainly be improved with some better organization and a little more information on the crosses; there's so much empty space for most of the crosses, we could easily provide twice as much info on each! -Silence 00:12, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
Alphabetize away, but the cross as heraldic ordinary should stay at the top of the heraldry section. In heraldry, that cross is the default which is used if no other words are added (i.e. if the word "cross" is used alone), so of course it doesn't have a handy name. Did you notice the Category:Heraldic ordinaries category? AnonMoos
OK, then the ordinary will be the only cross on the page we won't alphabetize. Or would you also like to have the "Greek cross" at the top of the other section? -Silence 03:55, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
Image:Cross.png is at the top of the page, and that's enough... AnonMoos 05:09, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

'Peace' Cross?[edit]

I have removed the following entry due to it's amateur sound, lack of references and ambiguous nature: -

"Peace Cross" A cross with horizontal arms that have pivoted down to the five and seven o'clock positions. In ancient times it was as a house and holding mark, used to mark possessions, including livestock. It came to be known as the Crow's Foot or Witch's Foot. It resembles a modern peace sign without the enclosing circle.

What the user appears to be refering to is the rune of protection, also known as Eolh or Algiz, 'the moose rune'. Contrary to the 'peace sign', the emblem is facing three prongs upwards, the inversion of the rune implies the opposite effect, which in this case would be a warning of danger, hazard or risk. The 'cross' the user is refering to appears as follows: -

 \ | /

Thus, whilst it could be argued to be a cross, I feel that unless it is address properly it should not be incorporated in this article (also an image would be handy). I would go as far as saying that comparing anything with a cross-section of some nature to a 'cross' is getting a little out of hand anyway.  :P Jachin 20:01, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

I don't have any fixed opposition to removing it from the page, but I assume that the reference for "Crow's Foot or Witch's Foot" (though not for the name "Peace Cross") was the Koch book... AnonMoos 17:44, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
Yes, I looked it up -- it's on p. 83 of "The Book of Signs" by Rudolf Koch -- though it's not called a cross there, and the name "Peace cross" counldn't have come into existence until the nuclear disarmament sign was invented about 45 years ago... AnonMoos 23:28, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
Although this discussion is long dead, I thought I'd add my findings. That Webber book I own illustrates 175 different designs and styles of crosses. None of them are called a Peace Cross, or even resemble the image described. --Dulcimerist 22:26, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
I stand corrected. I located a cross in my book, simply called The Pall. Its description reads, "A peculiar variation of the Tau cross, often found in catacombs. Its form resembles the letter Y." No illustration is provided, though. --Dulcimerist 00:37, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
Actually, the Pall is a "Y" (a.k.a. the Furka/Furca or "thieves' cross"), while the "Witch's foot" (occasionally called a "peace cross" after the mid 20th century) is like a peace sign, but with the enclosing circle removed. They're different. AnonMoos 03:32, 16 October 2006 (UTC)


Dear "Brookie", I'm sure that Image:BozeatCross.JPG is highly authentic, but it isn't really so appropriate for this page, since it doesn't display as clearly in 150-pixel-wide thumbnail form (due to consisting of dark gray on light gray, and having a lot of blank wall space surrounding the cross) -- and most importantly, it contains five cross potents, which is not the most normal or proptypical form of the Jerusalem Cross (see etc.). If there were a separate page devoted just to the Jerusalem or Crusaders' Cross, then BozeatCross.JPG would fit right in, but it doesn't work out so well as part of the summary table in this general amalgamated Cross page AnonMoos 00:08, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

The Jerusalem Cross should consist of a Cross Potent, and perhaps it orginally had four additional in lieu of the four Greek Crosses we see in the article page. More research should be done on this subject. A Crusaders' Cross consists of all Greek Crosses, so things do get a bit confusing. --Dulcimerist 22:54, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
The most commonly-seen version of the arms of the Crusader Kingdom of Jerusalem does not contain 5 cross-potents. AnonMoos 03:36, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
Yeah - This is the first 5-potent design I've seen. In case the above-mentioned photo would like to be used, I've replaced it with a lighter version. Currently, it's serving in the gallery on the Christian cross article. --Dulcimerist 05:19, 16 October 2006 (UTC)


By the way, someone removed the swastika from the "As emblems and symbols" section a little while back. I don't know if I care one way or the other about this, but other people might. AnonMoos 17:04, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Seems the swastika is back. I do not have a large collections of symbols on my computer, but does anyone? I would really want to suggest to use the Asian variant of the swastika and not show the nazi version. Some people take offence. Help me on this one. -- 08:29, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
Here's an alleged Hindu swastika, but I don't know that it would really make much difference... AnonMoos 11:15, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
I have access to quite a few symbol images. Are you still wanting an alternate? A normal swastika with its tines pointing counter-clockwise is actually safe, so you could use that. The Nazi swastika has its tines pointing clockwise only, as ordered by the Third Reich. --Dulcimerist 22:59, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
Something I forgot to mention is that in Germany it's illegal to display the Third Reich Swastika, and it might even be any swastika of any variety. If a Wikipedia user from Germany uses this page, there's a chance it could cause problems for them. Hopefully the current counter-clockwise version on the article page will be acceptable, according to the the national German laws. --Dulcimerist 19:55, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
The current English Wikipedia and Wikimedia Commons solution is to add warning templates to the image description pages, but not to censor article content. AnonMoos 03:39, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
A swastika isn't a type of cross, it's a completely different symbol. It doesn't belong here, it should have its own article. --RucasHost 23:29, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
According to this article ( it is the Gammate Cross. A quick Google search produces several pages of information. ( appears to have it indirectly (within the definition) classified as a cross as well noting that it is called the "Brigit's cross" for the Celtic goddess Brigit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Loosestring (talkcontribs) 19:11, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
The swastika is a cross (as mentioned in the article and needs to be mentioned in this article - like the cross fylfot. -- (talk) 23:13, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
Added back in. There's no denying that the Swastika is a cross. It does have an article of its own, as do many other crosses, but it does need to be mentioned here. uKER (talk) 05:06, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
Just came across this page and I think that the traditional fylfot cross (swastika) should be used instead of the corrupted version which was used by the Nazis. Using this version furthers the misleading connotation that all swastikas are "nazi symbols," and creates problems for people in spiritual traditions who still make use of the original swastika as a spiritual symbol. (talk) 03:58, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Um. First of all, the fylfot is already listed above in the article. Then, you're in a misconception. The fylfot isn't a swastika. It's the other way round. The swastika is a particular case of fylfot. Then, the version I added is not the Nazi swastika. The Nazi one is right-facing and the one I added is left-facing. Also, the article is explicitly conscious about the Nazi connotation being negative. I don't see any reason why anyone would be offended by it. IMHO making it a taboo and censoring it just adds to its stigmatization as a forbidden symbol. uKER (talk) 01:56, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
Might be important to note that the German word the Nazis used for the symbol was "Hakenkreuz", literally "hooked cross". -- (talk) 20:08, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Saint Peter's Cross[edit]

I've changed the phrase "based on the fact that Saint Peter was martyred by being crucified upside-down" to say "based on a tradition that holds that Saint Peter was martyred by being crucified upside-down." Our main article on Saint Peter describes this as a traditional belief, not as a fact. If there is proof that he was crucified upside-down please present it at the main article. FreplySpang (talk) 02:35, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

"In the Fullness of Time" by Dr. Paul Maier, page 354 - "The legend that Peter was crucified by Nero head-downward because he did not deem himself worthy to suffer exactly as Jesus did is possible, but seems an embellishment. It was Origen, as quoted by Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History iii, 1, who first commented on the head-downward position of the apostle. No early Roman tradition reports Peter as crucified this way, even if such a position was not unknown." --Dulcimerist 23:52, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
"Who's Who in the Bible" by Reader's Digest, pages 354-355 - Describes the legends surrounding Saint Peter's death, stemming from a pious fantasy called "The Acts of Peter." This is the earliest of many noncanonical works centering on the apostle, and was also discussed in the Dr. Paul Maier book mentioned above. "The Acts of Peter" has been proven by historians to be a fictional work, due to several inaccuracies; one of which being Latin/Aramaic language discrepancies. This noncanonical work is the original written source for the legend surrounding Saint Peter's head-downward crucifixion, with later sources utilizing this as their source. Although "The Acts of Peter" is extremely unreliable, it's still plausible that Saint Peter could've still been crucified in the head-downward manner. In the Wikipedia article the phrase "based on tradition which holds..." would be the appropriate phrase to use in this instance. --Dulcimerist 19:38, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
The Bible is proof that Saint Peter was crucified upside-down. Put it as a fact please-- (talk) 02:47, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
Really? The book of Acts ends with Paul still alive and nothing on the death of Peter. Could you point out a specific verse? AnonMoos (talk) 18:04, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Articles on Specific Crosses[edit]

the list of crosses contains some links to articles about the specific crosses. Most of these artical need work. I am posting here to bring attention to this fact. One example is the Cross or Lorraine article which contians many pictures of Patriarchal crosses incorrectly reffered to as Lorrain Crosses. Also, the specific articles do not contain links back to this artical, i feel these should be added. ScottW 04:44, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

What's the point behind having all of the various stub articles on the various crosses? This seems to be causing clutter and confusion. Should those stubs be removed, transferring their information to their images on the main Cross page? --Dulcimerist 23:06, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Ethiopian cross?[edit]

Requested articles page

is asking for "Ethiopian cross". Anybody? -- Writtenonsand 20:48, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Do they have a description of it? Ethiopian Cross is not listed amongst the 175 different designs and styles of crosses in the Webber book. Could they be referring to the Coptic Cross instead? Of the five ancient centers of Christianity, Alexandria (Egypt) would've been the closest to the Ethiopian Christians. Alexandria is the center of Coptic Christiandom and the Coptic Cross. On the other hand, it could've been Messianic Christiandom from Jerusalem that reached Ethiopia frist. The Book of Acts would suggest the latter. (I guess I didn't really answer the question.) --Dulcimerist 23:19, 12 October 2006 (UTC)


Should the word and a link to crucifix appear somewhere in the article? Seems odd that it does not. NjtoTX 22:18, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

There's a link to Christian cross, though... AnonMoos 00:31, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

"See also" Wiki links[edit]

What else from this section should be removed? The masonry one seems to not really fit, and a couple of the others I'm a bit iffy on. --Dulcimerist 21:41, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

After the trim a while ago in "See also," a few more have appeared. Two of them have no Wiki page. Is someone working on building those pages, or may I delete those two broken links? Thanks. --Dulcimerist 14:57, 29 March 2007 (UTC)


Could someone add this heraldic cross? It's on the old Spanish flag. --Dulcimerist 06:35, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Missing: Several Eastern European Variations[edit]

Specifically, I can think of the Victory over Islam Cross, which features a cresent moon at the foot of the cross. As well there are triple-bared crosses in which the bottom bar isn't slanted. I know there's more but that's all I can think of at the moment. Kevlar67 01:24, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Here's a crescent moon at the foot of a cross, though I don't know if it's exactly what you had in mind: Image:Flag_of_Odèn.svg -- AnonMoos 02:22, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
Here's another symbol which seems to show the cross triumphing over the crescent: Image:Wappen_Ruppichteroth.png -- AnonMoos (talk) 13:54, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
Others: Image:Bielański_POL_COA.svg , Image:Vícar coa.png... AnonMoos (talk)
File:Keleberda selo coa 1721.gif... AnonMoos (talk) 09:25, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
File:Ivanovice na Hane CZ flag.svg... AnonMoos (talk) 17:38, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
File:Coa fam ITA maccioni.jpg... AnonMoos (talk) 21:37, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
Also, apparently several flags of the Greek war of independence period, such as File:Halkidiki flag (1821).svg... -- AnonMoos (talk) 19:23, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Error on Byzantine Cross[edit]

There's a bit of a mix-up regarding the Byzantine Cross. What's pictured is the Eastern Cross, used primarily by the Russian Orthodox Church. The Byzantine cross looks different, and is generally used by the Greek Orthodox Church. Here are the examples of these two different crosses:

Example of Byzantine Cross ( )

Example of Eastern Cross ( )

Does anyone mind if I correct this in this article, as well as the Byzantine cross page? Thanks! --Dulcimerist 23:11, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Croatian cross[edit]

It was in use since early 9th century. It is used as symbol even today in some legal institutions. Croatian cross should be put on a list.

St James Cross[edit]

In my opinion the current representation of St James Cross does not fit the description appropriately as it does not fit the general depiction of the cross, nor are the cross ends true fleuries, nor is the pointed end a true sword blade. For a more complete discussion of my opinion see Talk:James,_son_of_Zebedee#Images. Please add comments there to keep a single location. Thanks Arnoutf 22:12, 7 April 2007 (UTC)


I think there also should be a link to crosshairs somewhere in the article, as many simple ones are actual crosses.-- 21:23, 6 May 2007 (UTC)


Could you sign me up in your external links:

subject: discovery of the cross

User name: andrea07

Andrea07 22:19, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

No because that would be against Wiki policy against the publication of any commercial link. Arnoutf 07:29, 7 June 2007 (UTC) (Cross Tattoos) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Memorylanetattooco (talkcontribs) 14:58, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Tallest cross "allegedly located" in IL?[edit]

Did the person who wrote this think the cross in question might actually be located elsewhere? Like they move it when nobody's looking? Hadda wonder. Zephyrad 21:38, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Inverted cross[edit]

Is there anyway to type an inverted cross, or the St. Peter's cross with text using the keyboard? Doppelganger (talk) 12:09, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

These are the ones I found in the Unicode standard... -- AnonMoos (talk) 23:45, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Jerusalem Cross? Question and comments--[edit]

I'm curious as to whether the "Order of Christ Cross" as illustrated is aka the "Jerusalem Cross," or if not, what does the Jerus c. look like? Any leads would be appreciated.

The diff. between an emblem and a symbol, IMO, is this: When I was in the Army, and wore a brass "US" on my collar, that was an emblem of the organization to which I belong. Scouts, athletes, even employees of any number of large business wear EMBLEMS meaning that they belong to a particular group. A SYMBOL, I think, is more abstract. A cross is a SYMBOL of self-sacrifice; the skull-and-crossbones was a SYMBOL of merciless combat in the abstract, though it could also be taken as an EMBLEM of a particular pirate crew. The Presbyterian cross and the Order of Christ Cross in that sense are emblems of that church and that order, as well as symbols of sacrifice. The Greek Orthodox cross with the crooked crosspiece at the bottom is a SYMBOL of mercy, since Jesus is said to have tilted it when he turned toward the 'Good Thief' to reassure him; it would also be an EMBLEM of the Orthodox churches.

And Zeph., I don't think the cross is allegedly in IL--you're right, I think we can see it pretty plain. I think the "allegedly" is meant to refer to it being the tallest one. There might be a taller one in Zamboanga or someplace where they don't have the internet. Even now, someone could be making his way across the Sahara in search of a library with a computer than he/she can log on to in order to edit that page. Kind of makes it worthwhile to get up in the morning, huh? Yes, I stretch things a bit.

Terry J. Carter (talk) 19:52, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Why was Drury's definition removed from the article?[edit]

This was removed March 13, 2008:

Nevill Drury's Dictionary of Mysticism and the Occult defines cross as:
An ancient pre-Christian symbol interpreted by some occultists as uniting the male phallus (vertical bar) and the female vagina (horizontal bar). It is also a symbol of the four directions and a powerful weapon against evil. (Drury, 1985)

I would like to know why as I feel it is relevant. Was it in the wrong place in the article? Note that the reference remains in the article even though the definition was removed. If it is determined that the definition has no place then the reference ought to be removed as well. Please discuss. Loosestring (talk) 16:37, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

I added the definition back in and consolodated it with the other definitions since there was no answer to my question. If there is a dispute please discuss. Loosestring (talk) 14:31, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Because his idea is (as far as I know) a fringe theory, which are not reported in Wikipedia. Arnoutf (talk) 16:48, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

As far as you know? Do you have proof of this? You can't remove it from the article based on something "as far as you know".Loosestring (talk) 19:09, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry but the burden of evidence is the other way around. Wikipedia reports mainstream theories, and mainstream theories have attention in reliable sources. The provided phrasing "some occultists" already makes it clear this is not a mainstream opinion. It is up to you to provide additional sources who support or at least acknowledge the importance of Drury's argument; rather than up to me to provide sources who say he is not serious. Especially in the light of his theory being rather extraordinary it requires extraordinary evidence, a single source which is not a scientific work does not qualify as such without a lot of supporting evidence. Arnoutf (talk) 20:21, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
RWS07 The-Chariot yoni-lingam Symbol.svg
Loosestring -- the 3D symbol seen in red in the "Chariot" card of the Waite-Rider Tarot deck seems to have very conscious phallic-yonic symbolism, but to say that it's the main meaning, original meaning, or "true" meaning of an ordinary basic 2D cross (two plain unadorned perpendicular intersecting lines) is pushing it... AnonMoos (talk) 23:54, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

It is written[edit]

Galatians 3:13, Christ by purchase released us from the curse of the Law by becoming a curse instead of us, because it is written: “Accursed is every man hanged upon a stake.” Paul was referring to a scripture in Deuteronomy 21:22, 23 “And in case there comes to be in a man a sin deserving the sentence of death, and he has been put to death, and you have hung him upon a stake, 23 his dead body should not stay all night on the stake; but you should by all means bury him on that day, because something accursed of God is the one hung up; and you must not defile your soil, which Jehovah your God is giving you as an inheritance. --JoshuaMD (talk) 18:31, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

- Also see Deuteronomy 7:26; Ezekiel 8:17; Acts 5:30; 10:39; 1 Corinthians 10:14; Galations 3:13. -- Anonymous IP
Does this have anything to do with the article, other than the JW "stake" misinterpretation? AnonMoos (talk) 23:33, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
With all due respect, (I am not the writer on the comment above but) this should not be call misinterpretation on their part. For many leaders in scholarly community noted long before and accepted by many that the cross was not the most likely candidate of the instrument of Jesus Christ's impalement. Here is an non exhaustive list of some sources.
  • - A Comprehensive Dictionary of the Original Greek Words with their Precise Meanings for English Readers (under the word stau•ros´).
  • - A Greek-English Lexicon, by Liddell and Scott, (under the word xy´lon).
  • - An Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words, by W. E. Vine. (London, 1962), W. E. Vine, p. 256 and 1981, Vol. 1, p. 256.
  • - Die Geschichte Jesu, (The History of Jesus), Vol. 2, Tübingen and Leipzig, 1904, pp. 386-394,
  • - Das Kreuz und die Kreuzigung, (The Cross and Crucifixion,) by Hermann Fulda.
  • - Dictionnaire Encyclopédique Universel (Encyclopedic Universal Dictionary).
  • - Dual Heritage—The Bible and the British Museum.
  • - History of the Christian Church - (New York, 1897), J. F. Hurst, Vol. I, p. 366.
  • - Gibbon’s History of Christianity, Eckler’s edition, 1891.
  • - Letters from Rome, Dean Burgon.
  • - Strange Survivals.
  • - The Ancient Church, by clergyman W. D. Killen says (1859 edition, page 316).
  • - The Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. 4, p. 191
  • - The Catholic Encyclopedia, edition of 1908, Vol. 4, page 517; the footnote on pages 312, 313.
  • - The Catholic Digest magazine, May, 1948, page 108.
  • - The Chambers’s Encyclopaedia, (1969 edition).
  • - The Companion Bible (published by the Oxford University Press, London, 1885), Appendix No. 162, on page 186 in the “Appendixes”.
  • - Cyclopædia of Biblical, Theological, and Ecclesiastical Literature.
  • - Dictionary of Subjects & Symbols in Art, J. Hall .
  • - The Ecclesiastical Review, of September, 1920, No. 3, of Baltimore, Maryland, page 275.
  • - The Encyclopædia Britannica (1946 edition), Vol. 6, p. 753. and Vol. 1, page 666)
  • - The Encyclopædia Britannica, 11th edition, Volume 7, p. 506.
  • - The Encyclopaedia of Religion and Ethics.
  • - The Encyclopedia Americana.
  • - The Greek Septuagint version.
  • - The Imperial Bible-Dictionary.
  • - The Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible, (under stau•ros´)
  • - The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia (1979)
  • - The Latin dictionary by Lewis and Short, (under crux).
  • - The New Encyclopædia Britannica.
  • - The New Catholic Encyclopedia, (1967), Vol. IV, p. 486.
  • - The New Schaff & Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge.
  • - The Non-Christian Cross, by J. D. Parsons (London, 1896) pp. 133-141.
A discussion on the origin of the cross introduction into worship.
  • - Amulets and Talismans, Sir E. A. Wallis Budge.
  • - A Short History of Sex-Worship (London, 1940), H. Cutner, pp. 16, 17;
  • - Curious Myths of the Middle Ages.
  • - Daily News, Ted Noffs, a Methodist minister in Sydney, Australia comments.
  • - Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine, by Cardinal Newman.
  • - Essays on the Worship of Priapus, by Richard Payne Knight.
  • - History of the Christian Church, J. F. Hurst, Vol. I, p. 366.
  • - History of the Conquest of Mexico, by William H. Prescott.
  • - Funeral Tent of an Egyptian Queen, by Villiers Stuart.
  • - Masculine Cross and Ancient Sex Worship, by Sha Rocco.
  • - M’Clintock and Strong’s Cyclopœdia, Vol. 4, page 503.
  • - New Light on the Most Ancient East, by archaeologist V. Childe (1957, p. 185).
  • - Presenze giudaiche e cristiane a Pompei (Jewish and Christian Presences in Pompeii)
  • - Sex and Sex Worship by O. A. Wall states on page 359.
  • - The Ancient Church by clergyman W. D. Killen says (1859 edition, page 316).
  • - The book Indian Antiquities.
  • - The Cross in Ritual, Architecture, and Art (London, 1900), G. S. Tyack, p. 2.
  • - The Mythology of All Races.
  • - The Rigvedic Culture of the Pre-Historic Indus.
  • - The Standard Dictionary of Folklore, Mythology and Legend
  • - The Worship of the Dead (London, 1904), Colonel J. Garnier, p. 226.
  • - Two Babylons, by Alexander Hislop. (page 245, footnote).
The book Great Religions of the World says: “Cortés and his followers recoiled from human sacrifices of the Aztecs and what seemed like satanic parodies of Christianity: . . . venerating crosslike symbols of wind and rain gods.”
—Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 04:51, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
It's rather unfortunate that you end with The Two Babylons by Alexander Hislop, which is pretty much universally considered by modern mainstream scholars to be a prime overripe example of fine 19th century crackpottery (see previous discussion at Talk:Ishtar). In any case, your extensive listing of sources more than 85 years old(!), with no specifics and no context, really proves nothing if the consensus of modern scholarship contradicts your position... AnonMoos (talk) 01:47, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree with your statement regarding the book entitled the Two Babylons, but I was menetioning a wide range of historic content & information. As for some the sources being older, it only ephasizing the point it has long known by scholars. It in no cancels the information. The reality is also the list is far from exhaustive. Plus not all others are that old. And even the fact modern encyclopedias are repeating the same information shows much of that information has remained the same, and been information has still very consistent.

  • De cruce libri tres, Antwerp, 1629, p. 19, one such (non-cross) instrument of torture is illustrated by Justus Lipsius - 1547-1606.
  • by Varus (Jos. Ant. XVII 10. 10), by Quadratus (Jewish Wars II 12. 6), by the Procurator Felix (Jewish Wars II 15. 2), by Titus (Jewish Wars VII. 1). Quote a reference source: "Anything other than a simple hanging is ruled out by the wholesale manner in which this execution was often carried out: 2000 at once by Varus"

The cross was a religious symbol of the Babylonian Tammuz.

  • Minucius Felix wrote: “Crosses, moreover, we neither worship nor wish for. You, indeed, who consecrate gods of wood, adore wooden crosses perhaps as parts of your gods.” -- 2008

Two points here. Firstly, the argument that older knowledge is in some way less trustworthy than newer assumptions is, to put it quite simply, naive. Older accounts are usually found to be the more accurate, simply because time passing allows for re-interpretation and the vagaries of handed-down information. Secondly, this page is really not the place to decide this. We have already a page (Dispute_about_Jesus'_execution_method) That discusses this. The most appropriate thing to do would be to indicate in the text that there is a dispute, and add a link to this page, or otherwise, remove the information entirely to the page on the Christian Cross, which already has a link to the previously mentioned page. (talk) 05:17, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

It wasn't so much the mentioning of older sources that was the problem, as that the original 2008 commenter(s) was/were highly selective in cherry-picking sources, and seemed to be having difficulty in coming up with any works of mainstream modern scholarship that fully supported their views (something which is almost always a bad sign). And I really don't see why this article can't include the fact the great majority of the world's Christians are affiliated with groups which use cross symbolism, without dwelling on JW controversies which are inspired by a group representing a rather tiny percentage of the world's Christians. Saying that the mainstream Christian view can't be mentioned without giving the JW view equal coverage is a form of false balance. AnonMoos (talk) 07:19, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
The preceding list of articles is hardly cherry-picked. It really sounds like you're just indulging in apologia, which is if I'm not mistaken, still not allowed. M’Clintock and Strong’s Cyclopœdia is one of the foremost authorities looked to by biblical researchers. Also high on the list is The Ecclesiastical Review, The Catholic Encyclopedia, The Encyclopædia Britannica, Gibbon’s History of Christianity, and A Greek-English Lexicon, by Liddell and Scott. As to the rest, I'm not all that familiar with, but what he has provided you with is a cross-section of references. It is decidedly -not- cherry-picking. Honestly, with as much as you're bringing up Jehovah's Witnesses (I believe that's the JW you keep mentioning?) it almost sounds as though you have an axe to grind. You should be aware if you've done any real research at all that the belief in question did not start with them. It existed long before they did. (talk) 02:28, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
If you're not aware that Edward Gibbon was a sometimes-eccentric 18th-century author notorious for his strong anti-Christian views, then I'm not sure that I'm greatly impressed with your scholarly credentials (and more than I was impressed by the inclusion of "The Two Babylons" by Alexander Hislop on the original list)... AnonMoos (talk) 15:12, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

I think we should split this article[edit]

The scope of this article is far too broad to be useful. I think it would be better to have a "List of Christian Crosses" article dedicated to the various forms and history of that set of symbols, rather than lumping everything together is one unfocused list. When people are looking for information on the Greek Cross, for example, they are redirected here, to a list which includes a skull-and-crossbones, among other things. The various forms of the Christian cross are significant in terms of the history of Christianity and the factionalism within it. I think it warrants its own separate article. (talk) 06:49, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Not a bad idea. We could then include 1 single "Christian cross" here, and give a redirect to the other main article for variations. That would clear up the matter. Arnoutf (talk) 15:29, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
Unfortunately, I don't know how to do it myself. But if someone else created the page and got the list started, I can follow the pattern to fill it out. (talk) 18:22, 1 June 2009 (UTC) here. I just created an account. I've started reading up on how to do this split, in case no one else does it, but I added a split template at the top of the article to hopefully get some more knowledgeable editor's attention.AmateurEditor (talk) 06:07, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
We already have a Christian Cross article. This article could be easily renamed to be "List of Crosses", but I don't see that a Christian vs. non-Christian split would be very useful. The most natural main division is actually between heraldic and non-heraldic, and the heraldic crosses can't be classified too easily based on a Christian/non-Christian opposition -- historically, they were mainly used by Christians, but most of them are not in fact specifically religious symbols... AnonMoos (talk) 18:04, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
I think it is good for this article to remain about the generic cross form. I'll take your word for it about the nature of the heraldic crosses (I don't know anything about it), but it seems to me that the other crosses shown on this page are mostly Christian variations (of the 35 non-heraldic forms, about 26 are solely Christian, only 5 are solely non-Christian, and 4 are both). I notice that the article Christian cross also includes a list (not in table form) of 39 forms of Christian cross. I think this list would be far more useful as a table so that an image of each can be shown along with some other information, such as place and date of origin, if known. Whether it would be a separate page or a section of the Christian cross page, I don't know. I note, however that there is a separate page for Flags with crosses.AmateurEditor (talk) 23:02, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
There can definitely be some rebalancing between this article and the Christian Cross article, or the creation of a separate list article, but the particular proposal to separate Christian vs. non-Christian doesn't seem too useful to me, since it might pose some difficult problems of categorization (as already alluded to for the heraldic crosses), and if everything Christian were strictly segregated, then what would be left would be a miscellanous grab-bag that it might be difficult to generalize about... AnonMoos (talk) 23:59, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Inca / Andean Cross / Chakana[edit]

This should be added but I don't know how... (talk) 04:22, 27 January 2011 (UTC) Ben

additional cross info[edit]

  • the greek cross is also called cross of St. George; patron saint of England.
  • cross of Lorraine. A cross having two horizontal arms, the lower one longer then the other the patriarchal cross is similar but its arms are closer together.
  • the swastika shape is also called the gammadion and based on the greek cross.
  • Geneva cross. red st. george or greek cross on white background worn as a badge of neutrality.
  • Calvary cross (her) a latin cross set on 3 graduated steps.
  • Latin cross aka crux immissa.
  • St. Andrews cross aka crux decussata.
  • cross formee (lil slash above 1st e) a cross havining arms that gradualy expand from the central crossing and nearly forming a square. the maltese cross is a modification of this.
  • St. Patrick's cross. a cross like the diagonal st. andrews cross.
  • Fiery cross. a cross of light wood whose ends are set on fire, formerly used as a call to arms in scotland.
  • Lighted cross. a latin cross wrapped in flamable material and set ablaze, used in ku klux klan ceremonies.
  • Gonfalon. a war banner set to a crosspiece rather then just a straight pole.

Bloodkith (talk) 00:15, 16 May 2011 (UTC) ps. ive seen pics of a salem cross with little crosslets on it's end. chic claimed it was a sign of baphomet but his info is biased. is this just a variant of the same cross or is it different.

maybe a gallery of MISC crosses photos? i'd nominate: crucifix, rosary pendant, iron cross, navy cross, neon 'jesus saves' sign --just to name a few. really. Cramyourspam (talk) 03:21, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
I'ld go for an extra gallery of designs that incorporate the cross shape, pieces of eight come to mind as well as cardinal compass point star. Bloodkith (talk) 05:51, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

missing crosses[edit]

ive noticed the cross with the rising flame on its side is not here. Methodist. is just considered the roman cross? Bloodkith (talk) 07:21, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

This article is (or should be) more about general cross types, rather than logos of specific churches or church bodies... AnonMoos (talk) 05:19, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

i was looking at online pics and saw a cross shape (plus sign) center made from four touching budhist type swastikas if i drew it up myself would it be usable or is the design itself subject to some sort of trademark/ copyright etc? Bloodkith (talk) 07:29, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

If your version is based on simple pure abstract geometry (without borrowing any artistic elaborations from the original), it's hard to see how there could be copyright problems. However, the question is whether it's "notable" by Wikipedia standards... AnonMoos (talk) 05:19, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Split heraldry content[edit]

It seems to me that there is plenty of content here to support spinning off the heraldry-related content to a new article (perhaps cross (heraldry) or crosses in heraldry - both of which currently redirect back the heraldry section here), with a summary paragraph left behind here and a link to the new article. It looks like the heraldry content here accounts for about 1/3 of the current article's content, and much more could be written about crosses in an heraldic context.

The current table of cross images with brief descriptions really does not do justice to the importance of crosses and their various forms to the field of heraldry. Indeed, the widespread European use of heraldry and the variety and colours of crosses painted on the shields and surcoats of Crusaders went hand in hand, but the current article doesn't even mention that, nor does it have room for it. Within a separate article, we can give due weight to the role of the cross in the development of heraldry, as well as the influence of heraldic applications on the development of various cross forms.

So my question is not only whether we should split the content to a new article, but also which title we should use for the new heraldry-focused article. Wilhelm Meis (☎ Diskuss | ✍ Beiträge) 15:32, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm generally favorable to the idea, but it would depend on the details... AnonMoos (talk) 03:13, 12 December 2013 (UTC)