Talk:Christian cross

Citation?

"Except for kings, which were crucified on the traditional latin crosses. No doubt Jesus, to mock him as "King of the Jews" was crucified on a Cross of this shape."

This certainly seems fanciful. Citation?

Non-Christian crosses

Wesley, do you think we need separate articles for crucifix and Christian cross? (I support your decision in advance :-) --Ed Poor

I don't think the Iron Cross is a Christian Symbol, any more than the Victoria Cross. DJ Clayworth 17:15, 12 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Just a little note: it should be noted that in heraldry, a few crosses are not Christian in origin, such as the "cross moline". --Daniel C. Boyer 19:28, 17 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I agree that the Iron Cross and Victoria Cross are not used as Christian symbols. As far as whether to merge the articles... *shrug*. To be honest, we probably don't need separate articles for crucifix and Christian cross, but I wouldn't want to merge them unless there was also a picture or photo of a plain non-crucifix cross, just to be visually NPOV. It's not that big an issue to me personally since I'm fine with either form, but obviously some people feel stronger. Since "crucifix" is a subset or type of Christian cross, I would think it would be incorporated into the cross article, rather than vice versa. Wesley 17:28, 12 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Though I'm a secular rationalist myself, I know there are strong divisions of feeling about crosses vs. crucifixes: they do need to be kept separate. As for the other issue, it is quite certain that not all crosses are Christian. Do we have Cross (symbol) then? User:Wetman

The Christian cross is NOT a familiar religious symbol of ALL Christianity. Jehovah's Witnesses are of Christianity, but they do NOT use the Christian cross. Thank you. ja:利用者:K.M.

I think that for some Christians Jehovah's Witnesses are not really Christian? -- Error 02:31, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I don't know any denomination which seems Jehova's Witnesses as Christian. Some Religiologists consider them as a very extraordinary but a Christian denomination. For NPOV we can add a phrase "there is some who claim they are Christian, but the Cross has been not a part of true Christian faith." or so. KIZU 06:55, 12 May 2004 (UTC)

No true Scotsman, ja? I don't think so. Sorry to comment more than a year after the fact, but clearly whether a religion is Christian or not is based (1) on whether the religion considers itself Christian, and (2) on whether it fits the dictionary definition of "Christian" ("Professing belief in Jesus as Christ or following the religion based on the life and teachings of Jesus."). Whether other Christians consider that denomination part of the "true Christian faith" is beyond irrelevant. The same applies to all religions; countless Islamic sects, for example, would be characterized as "not Islamic" by mainstream Muslims, but that's how they see themselves. To not label a religion as it clearly ought to be just because other religions want to define it out of existence would be as absurd as having Wikipedia say that a certain religion isn't a religion because it claims to not be one (i.e. it claims to be the absolute, non-religious truth). -Silence 01:26, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

---

Saint Paul

Some one says it was referred to constantly in early Christian writings, especially the epistles of Saint Paul. What sentences support your idea? Please explain here.ja:利用者:K.M.

With pleasure. Here are all the references in Paul's epistles; here is Irenaeus (2nd century); here's Justin Martyr (ditto); here's Tertullian (late 2nd - early 3rd century) and that should be enough for now. The Catholic Encyclopedia article from which I pinched the above has many, many more, although its archaeology is a bit dated. For some more modern evidence, this page contains references to recent archaelogical writings on the matter. (If you're looking at this from a Jehovah's Witness perspective, as I surmise, you might want to expand on their beliefs; I'm not sure that I got that section right.) --67.71.79.45 02:46, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I think that KJV is wrong. My Bible uses stake instead of cross. And I think your suggested site quote from Catholic Dictionary, and it's not a true theory.ja:利用者:K.M.

The use of that term in the NWT is dubious. It is based on the claim that stauros is never rendered cross. This is countered by works of the period that use use the term for implements of impaling using a cross beam (see Trail of the Vowels). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.126.152.20 (talk) 20:44, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

That's fine, the Greek stauros can be translated as either "stake" or "cross", so your Bible isn't technically inaccurate; however, the other references I quoted are unambiguous on the matter, and the Catholic Encyclopedia is very well-referenced, so checking its assertions is a simple matter. I've expanded the section on Jehovah's Witnesses a bit; is that part accurate now? --67.71.79.45 03:52, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I don't think my Bible isn't inaccurate, but thank you for your writing.K.M.

---

Jehovah's Witnesses claim that they do not believe, that Jesus was the Christ, as well the Son of God. How does that make them a sect of Christianity ? The whole faith of jehovah's witnesses is based upon believe and hope in ransom sacrifice of Jesus Christ...—Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.238.213.194 (talk)

Iron Crown

I thought that the Iron Crown was that of Hungary. -- Error 02:31, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)

It belonged to the Lombards; see for example [1]. --67.71.79.45 03:52, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)

The crown of the Kingdom of Hungary is Crown of St. Stephen. Wetman 10:11, 26 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Jehovahs Witnessess absolutely believe that Jesus Christ was the son of God. jehovahs witnesses are actually the only proven christians who practice the same type of christianity as did the early christians did,the same christians who were with Christ his apostles.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.238.213.194 (talk)

They believe Jesus was just the son of god, not god in the flesh. I.E., classical unitarianism. ColdRedRain (talk) 12:46, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Citations please?

I would suggest that the editor of the new section provide some citations for the material there. Hopefully he will notice this comment and oblige readers. Trc | [msg] 16:23, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)

"Stamped on many coins Constantine subsequently had minted are X-shaped crosses with a "P" superimposed. This style of cross is nearly identical to the pagan symbol for the sun." This naive editor is unaware of the chi-rho symbol. His connection with supposed solar symbols is sheer invention. I haven't removed this statement because I detect fanaticism that I don't want to get involved with. Wetman 17:23, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I removed the addition, which I think was bizarre enough to require extensive citation so encyclopedia users will know what propaganda they are getting. Citations are extremely useful in any case, and I wish more people would provide sources for their work... Trc | [msg] 06:25, 11 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Please read Futher Reading. Rantaro 07:12, 11 Jun 2004 (UTC)

It may be correct, or may be incorrect, to assert that the chi-rho was used by worshippers of Mithras (and/or Sol Invictus) rather than used exclusively by Christians, but it's neither an unusual nor an infrequent assertion. - Nunh-huh 06:34, 11 Jun 2004 (UTC)

"This article is POV." This article is not biased. People of diverse religious persuasions have edited it. The reason why your edit is not permitted is because you are unable to differentiate between wild opinion and factual presentation. I believe that you know perfectly well that you are trying to propagandize, and it won't wash. It is also likely that you know rather little about the subject, because you labeled a whole section "Catholic" that is not Catholic, that is fed by a wide range of opinions. Trc | [msg] 09:24, 11 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Sorry,I don't think this is not biased. This article is bias to Catholic doctrine. If you are not permitted, I'll revert. (I don't think we need your permission)Rantaro 14:50, 11 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Incidentally, are you plagiarizing any of the material you are posting to the Wikipedia? I ask because your English is troubled, yet some of your sentences are florid — without attribution. Trc | [msg] 09:40, 11 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Rantaro's edits

Of course I am not opposed in theory (nor in practice, done correctly) to a section of this article containing the Jehovah's Witness' view of the cross. There are several key problems with the text Rantaro is trying to add.

1. The first part appears to contain facts which are not necessarily opposed to anything. Indeed the archealogy of the cross shows a great many uses of the cross over peoples and time. It is hopeless to state as "opposed" anything that is in fact factual.
2. These facts are coming from him and would require a great deal of vetting.
3. He cannot really arrange any factual content more reasonably because ...
4. Rantaro evidently does not speak English, which further strongly implies that he is posting some material wholesale; with or without attribution this is not the way it is done.
5. Rantaro knows perfectly well that he is stating some opinions as if they were facts, and can be required to learn to avoid that by properly scoping his views. For example, "Spinach is unhealthy" would not be appropriate content for spinach, but at the very least "Rantaro believes that spinach is unhealthy" is factual. Then all that is left is to ascertain whether Rantaro's belief is of interest; I think we can say that the beliefs of Jehovah's Witnesses are worth cataloguing. No problem there.

Trc | [msg] 16:43, 11 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Hi

I disputed the page for you, since from what I saw both Trc and Rantaro seem to be disputing additions made by the other. I consider myself an impartial, relitively ignorant observer. If anyone would like to explain to me whats wrong w the current article, or what needs fixed/removed/added I'm all ears. I'd like to see us reach concensus and remove the dispute header ASAP, BTW. Sam [Spade] 06:21, 14 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Wow! I gave a chuckle when I saw what happened (in my watchlist I only saw Sam Spade and was surprised, but then sure enough, there was Rantaro in the history). I've already spoken my piece. The problems should be pretty clear. I do embrace a section detailing JW views of the cross; facts are always good. Trc | [msg] 06:28, 14 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I should clarify that I made no addition other than the notice at the top... at least not that I recall. I was only concerned about Rantaro's addition. Trc | [msg] 07:06, 14 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Moved from article

• Opposed View

Christian Cross was used by both Hindus and Buddhists in India and China, and by the Persians, Assyrians, and Babylonians from the ancient time. 1st Century. The Roman nature-god Bacchus was at times represented with a headband containing a number of crosses.

In 312 A.D., Constantine I, ruling the area now known as France and Britain, headed out to war against his brother-in-law, Maxentius, of Italy. En route he reportedly saw a vision ― a cross on which were the words "Hocvince," meaning, "By this conquer." After his victory, he made the cross the standard of his armies. When Christianity later became the state religion of the Roman Empire, the cross became the symbol of the church.

At the time of this supposed event, he was an avid sun-god worshiper. His conduct after his so-called conversion also gave little evidence of real dedication to right principles. Christianity was little more than a political device to unite a fragmented empire for him.

There is also little evidence that the type of cross Constantine saw really represented the instrument used to put Christ to death. Stamped on many coins Constantine subsequently had minted are X-shaped crosses with a "P" superimposed. This style of cross is nearly identical to the pagan symbol for the sun. -- An Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words, by W. E. Vine

By the middle of the 3rd century, Catholic church 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 was adopted to stand for the cross of Christ.

I find this portion very dubious, and would likely require a very different wording (including counterclaims) even if there are sound references. citations and verifiability please?Sam [Spade] 06:54, 14 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Sure. An Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words, by W. E. Vine, says: "(Greek) Stauros . . . denotes, primarily, an upright pale or stake. On such malefactors were nailed for execution. Both the noun [stau?ros?] and the verb stauroo, to fasten to a stake or pale, are originally to be distinguished from the ecclesiastical form of a two beamed cross. The shape of the latter had its origin in ancient Chaldea, and was used as the symbol of the god Tammuz (being in the shape of the mystic Tau, the initial of his name) in that country and in adjacent lands, including Egypt."

Vine goes on to say:"As for the Chi, or X, which Constantine declared he had seen in a vision leading him to champion the Christian faith, that letter was the initial of the word 'Christ' [in the Greek language] and had nothing to do with 'the Cross,'"

This also says: "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."

The Companion Bible, under the heading "The Cross and Crucifixion," notes: "Our English word 'cross' is the translation of the Latin crux; but the Greek stauros no more means a crux than the word 'stick' means a 'crutch.' Homer uses the word stauros of an ordinary pole or stake, or a single piece of timber. And this is the meaning and usage of the word throughout the Greek classics. It never means two pieces of timber placed across one another. . . . There is nothing in the Greek of the N[ew] T[estament] even to imply two pieces of timber."

This also says: "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."

Chambers's Encyclopaedia (1969 edition) says that the cross "was an emblem to which religious and mystical meanings were attached long before the Christian era."

The Encyclopaedia of Religion and Ethics says: "With the 4th cent[ury] magical belief began to take a firmer hold within the Church."

The Non-Christian Cross says: "There is not a single sentence in any of the numerous writings forming the New Testament, 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 [pole or stake]; much less to the effect that it consisted, not of one piece of timber, but of two pieces nailed together in the form of a cross." Rantaro 06:51, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC)

"Various objects, dating from periods long anterior to the Christian era, have been found, marked with crosses of different designs, in almost every part of the old world. India, Syria, Persia and Egypt have all yielded numberless examples . . . The use of the cross as a religious symbol in pre-Christian times and among non-Christian peoples may probably be regarded as almost universal, and in very many cases it was connected with some form of nature worship."-Encyclopaedia Britannica (1946), Vol. 6, p. 753.

"It is strange, yet unquestionably a fact, that in ages long before the birth of Christ, and since then in lands untouched by the teaching of the Church, the Cross has been used as a sacred symbol. . . . The Greek Bacchus, the Tyrian Tammuz, the Chaldean Bel, and the Norse Odin, were all symbolised to their votaries by a cruciform device."- The Cross in Ritual, Architecture, and Art (London, 1900), G. S. Tyack, p. 1

"The cross in the form of the 'Crux Ansata' . . . was carried in the hands of the Egyptian priests and Pontiff kings as the symbol of their authority as priests of the Sun god and was called 'the Sign of Life.'" - The Worship of the Dead (London, 1904), Colonel J. Garnier, p. 226.

"Various figures of crosses are found everywhere on Egyptian monuments and tombs, and are considered by many authorities as symbolical either of the phallus [a representation of the male sex organ] or of coition. . . . In Egyptian tombs the crux ansata [cross with a circle or handle on top] is found side by side with the phallus.- A Short History of Sex-Worship (London, 1940)", H. Cutner, pp. 16, 17. Rantaro 07:20, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Here is a source from where he is drawing this material (or an equivalent source): [2] (http://www.menfak.no/bibelprog/vines.pl?all=1) Trc | [msg] 07:51, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC) Something else of interest: http://mb-soft.com/believe/txn/cross.htm. That's a set of blurbs or articles culled from different sources; the last one should be familiar. Some of the material being discussed is not in question: the cross ante-dates Christianity, and symbolism did evolve. One interesting point made in the mb-soft collection is that under early oppression the cross was disguised and couldn't be depicted openly. Another is OT use of a cross symbol. The Cath.Ency. article [3] indicates that signing oneself with the cross was a very early tradition.

I think Catholic Encyclopedia is based on Catholic faith, not on historical fact.Rantaro 09:28, 16 Jun 2004 (UTC)

It is puzzling that Rantaro appears obstinately indifferent to the problem of stating an opinion vs. stating the fact that an opinion exists. I realize that there are a number of sources that argue that the Catholic faith diverged from the original Christian faith, but to simply assert that is unacceptable. It would be like me trying to make an article assert that Jesus is God: I say He is God, but in a general encyclopedia we must state that it is Christian dogma that Jesus is God.

"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."

If one studies the faith of the earliest Church Fathers one finds a profound consistency in faith and practice across the centuries. I suspect that the material re church receiving pagans without true conversion is fantasy, brought on by the author's [Vine?] desire to reject the symbolism that evolved within the Catholic faith, because that symbolism is attached to faith principles that he wanted to abandon. In other words, there are multiple layers of assertions here that seem irreconciliable with the use attempted. It is also largely plagiarized (used wholesale without attribution) although is it all Vine? That may be public domain, although I think Thomas-Nelson wants it, and has bought rights to at least some of Vine. Trc | [msg] 08:36, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC)

This article is NOT based on YOUR faith. Don't revert by your faith. Rantaro 09:28, 16 Jun 2004 (UTC)

+++ I don't believe it is reasonable to say that I must not revert based on my faith, as I have not done so. I have been concerned for the facticity of your contributions, the neutrality of their expression, and the possibility that the source is not correctly attributed and possibly (apparently) used wholesale from what may not be a private source ([4]). The Catholic Encyclopedia is packed with relevant facts, and I have acknowledged that the one you are trying to use wholesale also contains information that may well be factual (I am not up on my cross archeology).

Christian Cross was used by both Hindus and Buddhists in India and China, and by the Persians, Assyrians, and Babylonians from the ancient time. It was the pagan Romans who used the cross in the 1st Century. The Roman nature-god Bacchus was at times represented with a headband containing a number of crosses.

It is true that the cross, as a symbol, ante-dates Christianity. This section may well be okay, although it is stated in an argumentative fashion: "It was" is intended to stress difference in POV, rather than simply to report facts. It is believed that the early followers of Christ gave a special meaning to the cross, as their leader died upon a cross, a commonly-used device.

In 312 A.D., Constantine I, ruling the area now known as France and Britain, headed out to war against his brother-in-law, Maxentius, of Italy. En route he reportedly saw a vision -- a cross on which were the words "Hocvince," meaning, "By this conquer." After his victory, he made the cross the standard of his armies. When Christianity later became the state religion of the Roman Empire, the cross became the symbol of the church.

This is a mixture of possible fact and likely fantasy: yes, this vision may be reported, but, this paragraph is intended to insinuate that the cross only comes from this, and it plainly ante-dates this within Christianity.

At the time of this supposed event, he was an avid sun-god worshiper. His conduct after his so-called conversion also gave little evidence of real dedication to right principles. Christianity was little more than a political device to unite a fragmented empire for him.

There is some truth to this, but it is irrelevant. Nothing here appears to relate to the development of the cross as iconography within Christianity.

There is also little evidence that the type of cross Constantine saw really represented the instrument used to put Christ to death. Stamped on many coins Constantine subsequently had minted are X-shaped crosses with a "P" superimposed. This style of cross is nearly identical to the pagan symbol for the sun.

This is still about his vision, which is small potatoes in the exposition of the source and use of the cross within Christianity. It also almost surely gives very short shrift to many aspects of symbological development.

By the middle of the 3rd century, 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 was adopted to stand for the cross of Christ.

This sounds more like the belief of a specific sect, and again assumes that the cross was not important to early Christians.

There is already a paragraph in this article addressing the views of Jehovah's Witnesses. Are you User:K.M., by the way? Your first edit was to that user's talk page ([5]). I think you were discussing this matter above, in March.

I am not sure that you have the, perhaps one might say, research or intellectual maturity or neutrality to handle the subject matter. Ideas deserve a space to be clearly expounded, but facts matter and should be handled with care. There is no sense in which I am eager to suppress the Jehovah's Witness view of the cross. I just don't think your contribution is helping that project. Trc | [msg] 05:47, 17 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I'm not User:K.M., but he is my friend and my (religious) brother. K.M. and I are very angry about these comments. We think this is a provocation for Jehovah's Witnesses. Rantaro 03:01, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC)

There is, in principle, nothing amiss in having a sockpuppet; and indeed, when a user has run into trouble and made mistakes, it is not unwelcome to see such a person turn over a new leaf. I just thought the behavioral profile was comparable so I wondered. In any event, I don't think you have reasonably answered the points raised. Trc | [msg] 05:41, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC)

So, what's the plan? Any more thoughts? Trc | [msg] 06:26, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)

• • • CUTTING***

Removed the profanity and the religious diatribe. Religious people are welcome as long as they follow the rules.68.126.152.20 20:48, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Reference to Constantine

The sentence "At the time of this supposed event, he was an avid sun-god worshiper. His conduct after his so-called conversion also gave little evidence of real dedication to right principles. Christianity was little more than a political device to unite a fragmented empire for him." should really be in the Constantine I article. It is not directly related to the cross. I'd suggest taking it out - there is already a link to Constantine.

Also, the sentences "By the middle of the 3rd century, 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." seems a bit biased, and actually it isn't directly relevant to the discussion about the Christian cross. This should also be taken out, mainly because it's unnecessary commentary. - Ta bu shi da yu 09:08, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I see from messages posted that a lot of argument about this was almost 2 years ago, but I just thought that, due to a few puzzling messages, I should clear something up. There seems to be quite a lot of confusion over Constantine's use of the Cross and the Chi-Rho symbol. This is very easy to explain; certain contributors are wrongly mxing up three separate accounts of Constantine's vision from two different authors.

Lactantius was tutor to Constantine's son. He gives a specific time and date of a dream experienced by Constantine, which (briefly) describes "a slanted letter X with the top of its head bent round" (from On the Deaths of the Persecutors written about AD318)

Eusebius was a Christian bishop who wrote two accounts of the vision, the second after becoming a close friend of the Emperor. He wrote "About the time of the midday sun," clearly different from Lactantius' dream, he saw "resting over the sun, a cross-shaped trophy formed from light, and a text attached to it which said 'By this conquer'"

Later on in the same translation, the Chi-Rho symbol appears on top of a pole carrying an Imperial tapestry, "the monogram of the Saviour's title, rho being intersected in the middle by chi." (Quotes from Eusebius' Life of Constantine)

As for Constantine's true belief, historians have argued different points of view for many hundreds of years so anything stating his position or belief as a fact can easily be spotted as untrue.--Jim Brennan 22:33, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Gallery

We have 12 pictures representing 3 types of crosses (Latin, Celtic, Double). Would anyone object to having one representative picture for each type of cross? Assuming they can be found. Stbalbach 06:23, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

Sounds a good idea. It might be also nice to aim at keeping a historical spread from ancient to modern to provide some historical depth. Man vyi 06:46, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

Would these be photos to supplement the simple drawings/graphics? A good Jerusalem Cross photo is already on Wiki at this link: Bozeat Cross. --Dulcimerist 00:24, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

The Bozeat example of a Jerusalem Cross has been added. Should we title each of these as to their type of cross, and where the photos were taken? --Dulcimerist 05:54, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

NPOV on Illustration

To call the Latin cross "the traditional" form of the cross is not NPOV, IMHO. Many Eastern Catholics and Eastern Orthodox would disagree. It would, perhaps, be more appropriate for the caption to read "a traditional, especially in the West," or something to that effect. --Mm35173 20:40, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Cross in terms of liturgical use

I think it would be appropriate to add to this article a snippet or two about how the cross has come to be venerated and used in Christian liturgy and prayer.

For example, exposition on the traditional placement of crucifixes in both Eastern and Western-style sanctuarys, the inclusion of the crucifix in the rosary, the Feast of the Veneration of the Cross (September 14, common to both East and West, Catholic, Orthodox, Lutheran and Anglican), the sign of the cross and blessing, mention of the inscription on the cross as definied by both the Johanine and Synoptic texts, etc. --Mm35173 20:49, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Occitan cross?

Is that a heraldry cross? Stbalbach 02:03, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

A cross by this name isn't among the 175 crosses listed in the symbols book I own. Could there possibly be an alternate spelling? Is a description of this cross given? Thanks. --Dulcimerist 00:33, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Cashel High Cross

In the gallery of crosses, the first claims to be the high cross at cashel - I suspect that it is not! The third cross is - --ClemMcGann 12:25, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

Check the images by googling "Cashel cross" on Image mode. If you're right, by all means correct the captions. --Wetman 00:45, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Place for archeology in this "cross origin" subject

A legitimate Archeological observation, based on numerous physical examples from excavation and collections shows the gradual changing of the shape of the upper arm of the ankh cross, from a circle or oval to a teardrop or "gothic-like" peak, in the first centuries of the Chistian era.This article should reflect archeological input as well as Catholic church tradition. There is a term for this style of Christian cross arising from the ankh tradition.It may have had some later influence of the flairing Maltese cross design of later times.The editor who removed the reference, and image, seems to want the article to only reflect church teachings and exclude common archeological secucular opinion. The bust in question was released by the Egyptian government for export in 1970. It has been examined, by various museums, including the Coptic Department at the British Museum in 1970. It is authentic, and conforms with other artifacts from the early christian era in Egypt, in every respect. The reference has been little altered for nearly a year. I would characterize the edit as rather "iconoclastic". The black cross that remained is not visually interesting.3dnatureguy 07:23, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

I have to reinterate...Egypt deserves the historical credit

This article is somewhat rambling and is mostly a lot of references strung together IMO. This was, afterall, the Roman world, crucifixion was still a common form of execution by the empire. The "Crux Ansata" was a generalized symbol of unity within Egyptian cosmology. Though purely pagan in its inception it may have taken on a christian significance very early, as it had already began to reflect some influence of the growing sense of monotheism in the helenistic centuries just prior to the christian era. This significant because it comes from secular archeology, rather than the cited church text references.3dnatureguy 10:44, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Just edit as you think is best, no one is going to say anything unless it's wacko - most of this article was written by hit and run anon users. -- Stbalbach 15:28, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Lead section

Please give reasons for removing referenced and verifable statements in this section? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Traveller74 (talk • contribs) 04:24, 17 February 2007 (UTC).

See WP:LEAD. The lead section is a summary of the article contents. Discussing a highly debated and debatable topic in a footnote in the lead section without proper balance of other points of view is not good. You could create a separate section, or separate article even. It is also possible this has been discussed already elsewhere on Wikipedia and can be linked to there in more detail. -- Stbalbach 17:01, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Your removal of the most recent additions strongly bias the article, possibly toward your own POV. For a truly NPOV, the lead section should include both for and against, which I've added. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 58.107.0.14 (talk) 03:10, 18 February 2007 (UTC).

Well you obviously have not read WP:LEAD. Please try to follow the rules and conventions of Wikipedia. Also thanks to User:Lima for making the effort to organize the article. -- Stbalbach 13:46, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Obviously someone did't read WP:LEAD, and I'll quote it to save your time "briefly describing its notable controversies, if there are any. It should be between one and four paragraphs long, should be carefully sourced as appropriate".--Traveller74 07:05, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Keep reading, Traveller. Let me show the way:

1. In general, specialized terminology should be avoided in an introduction.
2. The lead section should concisely reflect the content of the article as a whole.
3. In the lead try to have a sentence, clause, or at least a word devoted to each of the main headlines in the article.
4. The relative weight given to points in the lead should reflect the relative weight given to each in the remainder of the article.
5. A significant argument not mentioned after the lead should not be mentioned in the lead.
6. Avoid lengthy, detailed paragraphs.

Currently the lead for this article fails on every one of these. The lengthy detailed footnotes about the "wooden stake" are more fully discussed in the lead section than they are in the body of the article! The lead section is supposed to summarize the article, providing proportional balance to the article contents. It is supposed to be a summary reflection of the article contents. Further, delegating a controversy to a footnote that is so long and detailed is wrong - that should all be moved into the article proper - lengthy detailed footnotes like that are just poor and makes it very difficult for other editors to provide balance. -- Stbalbach 15:26, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Stbalbach, you're right, the lead section does fail based on the points you've mentioned above. Omission of controversy would also cause it to fail WP:LEAD. So, there must be middle ground that satisfies WP:LEAD. The middle ground is what I’m pushing for. I’m in no way asserting that what I’ve added is perfection. --Traveller74 22:49, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Perfection is subjective and never obtained, but lengthy footnotes in the lead section are clearly unusual for Wikipedia, in particular when it is not discussed (much) in the article body. -- Stbalbach 03:09, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Everything there was discussed in the article body but was kindly removed by Lima. Hopfully the most recent changes will satisfy your understanding of WP:LEAD. --Traveller74 06:18, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Glossing over facts

An Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words, by W. E. Vine, says: "(Greek) Stauros . . . denotes, primarily, an upright pale or stake. On such malefactors were nailed for execution. Both the noun [stau?ros?] and the verb stauroo, to fasten to a stake or pale, are originally to be distinguished from the ecclesiastical form of a two beamed cross. The shape of the latter had its origin in ancient Chaldea, and was used as the symbol of the god Tammuz (being in the shape of the mystic Tau, the initial of his name) in that country and in adjacent lands, including Egypt."

Vine goes on to say:"As for the Chi, or X, which Constantine declared he had seen in a vision leading him to champion the Christian faith, that letter was the initial of the word 'Christ' [in the Greek language] and had nothing to do with 'the Cross,'"

This also says: "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."

The Companion Bible, under the heading "The Cross and Crucifixion," notes: "Our English word 'cross' is the translation of the Latin crux; but the Greek stauros no more means a crux than the word 'stick' means a 'crutch.' Homer uses the word stauros of an ordinary pole or stake, or a single piece of timber. And this is the meaning and usage of the word throughout the Greek classics. It never means two pieces of timber placed across one another. . . . There is nothing in the Greek of the N[ew] T[estament] even to imply two pieces of timber."

This also says: "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." Chambers's Encyclopaedia (1969 edition) says that the cross "was an emblem to which religious and mystical meanings were attached long before the Christian era."

The Encyclopaedia of Religion and Ethics says: "With the 4th cent[ury] magical belief began to take a firmer hold within the Church."

The Non-Christian Cross says: "There is not a single sentence in any of the numerous writings forming the New Testament, 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 [pole or stake]; much less to the effect that it consisted, not of one piece of timber, but of two pieces nailed together in the form of a cross."

Why is it that these facts are glossed over in the article? They were brought up by an editor some time ago yet they were argued and edited right out of the article. Too much sensitivity regarding traditional beliefs is the problem I think. George 20:17, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

George, you'll find that there are a few individuals behind it. One in particular is Lima, who is brilliant at re-wording virtually any text to suite his ends. Cunning is the only word to describe him, he actively removes, modifies, or obscures text (that is perfectly valid according to wikipedia guidelines, and sourced) that does't agree precisely with the Catholic church. Such devotion is to be admired, but does not make for a NPOV. We all have a POV, some of us can look past it to write a NPOV, or at least leave others work alone, Lima goes well beyond this, and is actually using wikipedia as a soap box for catholic church views.

Goodness me Lima, are you going to declare wikipedia heresy, and have us all burned at the stake(Bit off topic, but I wonder why the Catholic church burned people on a stake, rather than a cross?) as the Catholic church did to many owning/reading a bible. --Traveller74 02:42, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Wow I just complimented Lima above without realizing what was happening. It would be nice to have a version of this article that was not polemic and (re)incorporated the things mentioned by George above. -- Stbalbach 14:57, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Like what? The article has a whole section on pre-Christian crosses. What else is wanted? Though I never saw this article until yesterday, I am willing to help. As for polemics, it is people like Traveller who insert one-sided polemics and who then object when balancing sourced responses are added. Lima 15:57, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Seems like there is some consensus here. That seemed almost too easy. :p George 21:41, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Who removed opposing POV from the opening statement(Lima)? Time and time again (in other articles), Lima has pushed opposing POVs by tactics mentioned above. He has a strong bias toward Catholicism that prevents him having a NPOV? Wikipeda is not a soapbox for Catholicism or any other religion. Please try and contain your devotion Lima! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Traveller74 (talk • contribs) 23:40, 19 February 2007 (UTC).

Thank you, George. As for Traveller's accusations, Matthew 7:5.

Did Traveller not read the article and see that the opposing POVs have a whole special section immediately after a lead in line with Wikipedia norms (see what Stbalbach wrote above)? I must now remove from that lead section Traveller's insertion into it of a lengthy exposition of one particular POV, not of opposing POVs. Lima 04:51, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Obviously someone did't read WP:LEAD, and I'll quote it to save your time "briefly describing its notable controversies, if there are any. It should be between one and four paragraphs long, should be carefully sourced as appropriate". Seems Stbalbach isn't the only one. --Traveller74 07:07, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps Lima should follow his own advice (Matthew 7:5). And while he's there perhaps can read a couple more Matthew 15:8–9, Revelation 18:4–8. --Traveller74 07:19, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I do not wish to get into a personal dispute with Traveller. I say Amen to her(?) Bible citations. I leave to the Wikipedia community to decide whether to keep her(?) insertion in the lead. Lima 08:01, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Hopefully the updated lead will satisfy Lima's view of WP:LEAD. If for some reason it doesn't, please discuss.--Traveller74 06:16, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Jesus' death

I just made some small changes to the section on the death of Jesus and the cross. ONe thing I did was remove the last two sentence-paragraphs. One of them is actually the topic discussed in the next section. That section could be expanded rahter than appearing to 'refute' JW's for better form. The other paragraph had two links in it which is what it was dedicated to. One link was to Crucifixion which is already in the article uned see also. The other is an outside link which I added to the external links section. We need to move the footnotes to the very bottom of the page also. George 17:34, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I am sorry, I do not see how Irenaeus's description of the cross of Jesus as having five ends can be considered unrelated to the question "cross or stake?" He is describing the historical object, as he thinks it was, not the symbol (what the next section is about). Does he even say that the symbol was already in use?

I also do not see why the footnotes should be at the very end, where George has now moved them. In other articles, the footnotes (usually described as "References") are put before "See also" and "External links". For my part, I think they should be put immediately after the text of the article, even before the gallery of pictures. What do others think?

I almost forgot: I do not see why the opinion of one extremely small group deserves mention, and the view of practically the totality of Christians should be censored out. Lima 18:39, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

It seemed like the comment by Iraneus was being used to argue the point which didn't need to be done IMO. I may not be correct, which is often the case. :D I didn't realize foots were being put before the see also's in other articles. They are at the end of all the JW articles. (scratches head) I can understand why you would think JW's are an extremely small group, but they are among the top ten religious groups worldwide in membership and are known everywhere in the world. Although I didn't put the comment in, it seems in a review of cross or stake, their (our) relevance to the debate can hardly be ignored.George 19:37, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Iraneus was a second century writer, and the archaeological essay quoted in support of the crux thesis did not state that this meant Jesus was hung on a crux, not being translated from greek I assume the writer used cross as a common term not even thinking aBout the stake vs cross debate.George 09:22, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I do not understand this last comment. Irenaeus certainly did not use the Latin word "crux". He wrote in Greek and must have used the word "σταυρός". He said the σταυρός had five ends ("extremities"). Can anyone imagine a single stake with five ends? Since the sedile has never, as far as I know, been represented in the cross symbol, Irenaeus obviously was not talking about the symbol, which only has four ends, but about the cross of Jesus. Lima 10:52, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

I was actually discussing two different references in the paragraph. Irenues being a second century writer who is being used to support assertions regarding the first century. (nitpicking) Second was the essay about the crucifixion victim. (nitpicking again) Sorry for the confusion.George 13:15, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

A second century educated writer who was educated in the classics pre-dating the first century, one would hope, would have a far better under understanding of Greek than you. One would hope anyway. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.44.178.253 (talk) 18:10, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Footnotes

I don't understand why these footnotes are so long. I mean, currently, footnote #1 and #2 are each longer than than the average article on Wikipedia. Is there some reason this material can not be incorporated into the article? -- Stbalbach 15:54, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

The second of the two mentioned is there to respond to the first. Instead of incorporating the two texts in the body of the article, where they would take up even more space, would it be better, provided the sponsor of the first footnote agrees, to omit the quotations and merely give the references? Lima 16:35, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree possible a very short summary though you should see some of the footnotes on the Jehovah's Witnesses pages! George 19:36, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

OK i was wrong the footsin JW pages are not at the end sorry.George 19:38, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

It's really simple: State the question, pronounce clearly that it is controversial, and then list the pro and counter views with supporting citations. Verifiability, not truth. Make it a sub-section of its own, and if it gets long enough, spin it off as a separate article. -- Stbalbach 03:15, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Undue Weight Given to JW View

I am concerned this article is giving undue weight to the JW view that Christ died on a stake instead of a cross. While it is true there are some scholars that believe this it is obviously the minority view as can be seen by the countless number of Bible versions which use cross. Wikipedia is a valued resource and while a minority view should be mentioned it should not be given prominence in an article. The JW view is enunciated in the article torture stake. Dtbrown 00:03, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

I would make a mention of the JW view, with a link to torture stake. However, you're quite correct that the overwhelming majority of historians accept at least some form of gibbet with a crosspiece. Justin Eiler 00:08, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Wikipedia policy states that giving a minority a view disproportional representation is itself an NPOV violation:

We need not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views, in articles comparing the views. We should not attempt to represent a dispute as if a view held by only a small minority of people deserved as much attention as a very popular view. That would in fact be misleading as to the shape of the dispute. If we are to represent the dispute fairly, we should (in most if not all cases) present various competing views in proportion to their representation among experts on the subject, or among the concerned parties. http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Neutral_point_of_view--draft&oldid=756#Executive_summary

--GFrege 01:09, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

I can understand why you would think JW's are an extremely small group, but they are among the top ten religious groups worldwide in membership and are known everywhere in the world. Although I didn't put the comment in, it seems in a review of cross or stake, their (our) relevance to the topic can hardly be ignored considering JW's are the most active proponents of the upright pale only doctrine.George 01:49, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

I wonder on what basis George calculates that JWs are "among the top ten religious groups worldwide". Major Denominational Families of Christianity puts JWs as tenth (and "tenth" can be taken to mean "among the top ten") largest denomination family of Christianity, at 14,800,000, well behind the 64,000,000 ninth-place Lutherans. (Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox are lumped together as if they were one, and are put in second place, with 240,000,000.) World's Largest Churches (Religious Bodies) puts JWs in fourteenth place, with 15,597,746 adherents. This higher figure of adherents is still only 0.74% of the 2,100,000,000 Christians in the world. I do not mean to argue. I am only curious about the origin of the "among the top ten religious groups worldwide" statement. I suppose there must be another source of statistics. Lima 18:03, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I see I'm not the only one to notice the undeserved prominence given to the decidedly fringe belief that the cross is not a valid symbol of Christianity. Nearly all Christians—Orthodox, Catholic, and Protestant alike—recognize the cross as the paramount symbol of their religion; I would hazard that most non-Christians also see it as such. The belief that it is not (or should not be) is held only by a few small sects of mainly English-speaking Protestant origin.

In light of this, it seems most unusual to devote about 1/3 of the article to arguing over whether the cross a valid Christian symbol, and to water down the lead sentence to "The Christian cross is the religious symbol used by a majority of Christians." (editorial boldface). (There is nothing wrong with long descriptions of the views of Jehovah's Witnesses and whatever other denominations hold the same opinion of the cross, but mention in this article ought to be kept brief—a paragraph at most—and the details relegated to an appropriately-linked article, such as torture stake or Beliefs and practices of Jehovah's Witnesses.) —Charles P._(Mirv) 22:05, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Vague gratuitous assertions

1. "This thesis is based in part on an improved understanding of the ancient languages." What ancient languages? The earliest accounts of the crucifixion of Jesus are only in just one language, Greek. What new discovery has appeared (perhaps in 1930?) about the meaning of σταυρός?

2. Anonymous editor 216.79.140.195 says that three books, published respectively in 1629, 1878 and 1904, "provide support" (weasel words!) for the idea that Jesus was crucified on a stake. The form of the alleged support in not indicated. Is that because they really only state that σταυρός and crux can, but do not have to, mean a simple stake. That was known long before 1629, and also before 1930, when somebody claimed to have discovered it. Even if the writers of the 1629, 1878 and 1904 books had stated that Jesus was crucified on a stake - which seems extremely unlikely - it is hard to imagine how they could possibly know better than the writer of the probably first-century Epistle of Barnabas, who described it as shaped like the letter T, and second-century Irenaeus, who described it as having "five extremities, two in length, two in breadth, and one in the middle, on which [last] the person rests who is fixed by the nails"?

3. I could comment also on the gratuitous assertions in the paragraph, under the heading "Pre-Christian use of the cross symbol", that the same editor added, starting with the authoritative-sounding "It must be remembered that ..." But what I have already said is enough for now. Lima 13:47, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

adding to "scholarship", Jerome, who translated all the aramaic, hebrew, and greek texts into the Latin Vulgate, had unsurpassed access to ancient texts, speakers of the languages, and is considered the most achieved biblical scholar ever. He translated stauros as crux. Some find this apropos. No offense, and I'm American too, but JW founder - an american, w/ an inkling of the resources, material and intellectual - available to Jerome, questions his assertion. then we get all the modern (pseudo-)scholarship backing his claims. Some find that chronology apropos as well. The Jackal God 17:39, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree with this conclusion, but not with the premisses. 1. "Crux" in Latin, at least at an early stage, had a wider meaning than "cross". 2. "Crux" was used in Latin of what Christ died on long before Jerome. Tertullian, who was much earlier than Jerome, called it a "crux"; and Tertullian was one who used "crux" in the precise sense of "cross", distinguishing between "crux" (cross) and "stipes" (stake). See, for instance, Apology, chapter 12 ("Crucibus et stipitibus inponitis Christianos"[6] - You put Christians on crosses and stakes). Lima 20:02, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

"He makes it clear that ..."!

Will anonymous editor 71.31.236.121/67.140.125.195 please explain on what basis he/she thinks it justifiable to insist on putting in as fact false statements to the effect that the word "stauros" denotes only an upright pale or stake (when the great Liddell & Scott Greek lexicon expressly says it also means a cross); that the word "xulon" is never used of a live tree (when in fact it was frequently used of a live tree - see examples in Liddell & Scott); and that "xulon" must be interpreted as "a piece of a dead log of wood or timber, for fuel or for any other purpose" (when "xulon" was in fact used of constructed objects such as a wooden collar or stocks for the legs, or for legs, arms and neck together, a table, a bench, a gallows ... - see the same source). The anonymous editor's statements are simply false; and the anonymous editor is also dishonest in implying that the 1911 Encyclopaedia Britannica supports these false statements, when it expressly says the opposite, namely that Jesus did die on a cross "formed of two transverse bars of wood" and was "executed by crucifixion". Lima 14:45, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Isn't this idolatry?

Just a thought. --Bentendo24 18:59, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

But how is this relevant to the article? 204.52.215.107 (talk) 03:53, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

JW debate moved

Much of the discussion above centers on a body of text in the article giving detailed arguments on the issue of whether Jesus died on a stake (as Jehovah's Witnesses believe) or on a cross. This body of text has now been moved to Cross or stake as gibbet on which Jesus died, with only a brief summary and a link remaining on this page. --BlueMoonlet 13:26, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Ok so what about the Christian cross then?

The above stauros debate is fascinating-ish. But I wandered onto this page after some information on the christian usage of crosses. I think we have established that many creeds of christians use them (and it seems some don't).

There is however no mention of when the cross, or its inhabited form the crucifix, became widespread in churches. The histories here kind of peter out. My reason for searching for this info was, that I stumbled across an early work on the first crusade which asserted that crosses were first used on altars by the church, just prior to the schism, at about the same time that the Normans were exerting influence on the church.

This seemed to make sense to me for several reasons, such as; the re-adoption of the constantine like use of a particular cross in battle by the crusaders (including a similarly visionary revelation by Raymond of Toulouse who tore strips from his cloak and sowed them as crosses on his supporters), and the apparent dissimilarity of crosses used by the east and west branches of the church.

It seems most likely to me that of the two churches, the eastern one would be less likely to innovate a new style cross. Indeed the sudanese coptic church and it's cross is widely recognised as the most unbroken ancient christian tradition. so is the common western cross a neolism? Simply something that we are so familiar with that we assume it has always been so? like pews in churches (a 19th century victorian development) or church bells (a 9th century christian response to islamic call to prayer, just as muslim mosque hammam tradition is a continuation of the roman bath, since lost by christianity).

After searching the carvings in the numerous saxon and norman churches that exist in the uk, I have yet to find a single contemporary carved cross, there are lions and chevrons and green men and even the odd vescia piscis, not to mention monkeys. even the surviving frescos don't exhibit a single cross. I would really like to know when the cross started to become common in churches, was it a feature of the second millenium or not?

any ideas? 81.102.245.79 01:47, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

as a footnote I have just done some searching for the oldest cross in a christian church and have come up with this, care of the vatican. The bronze doors at St Giovanni Lateran shows the oldest cross in a Christian church. They were made by Uberto and Pietro da Piacenza in 1196. [[7]] 81.102.245.79 02:17, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

That image may perhaps be the oldest image in a church of a crucifixion, or at least of the crucifixion of Jesus with the other two who were crucified along with him, but it is by no means the oldest cross in a Christian church. The first specific ones that came to my mind are those in Ravenna. See, for instance, [Ravenna Mosaics (6th - 7th century). But there must be crosses in churches even earlier, dating from before when the English accepted Christianity. Lima 04:50, 23 October 2007 (UTC)