Talk:Christian cross

"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?

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)Reply

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)Reply

What is with the Egyptian cross? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.130.218.5 (talk) 16:28, 28 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

Agreeing with the note on 'straying from the topic'. Why is there a section entitled 'pre-Christian crosses' prominently in an article called 'Christian cross'? Surely this should be under disambiguation. I don't think anyone would want to argue that Christians invented the symbol of two lines crossing each other, which is visually one of the simplest possible forms and was already in use in alphabets, but in an article specifically about the Christian cross it would seem superfluous. I also note that the most prominent example, the ankh, isn't a form of cross at all, and the other sources are all from the earliest years of the 20th century, before modern archaeology. Part of my concern is that I've seen almost exactly this same text in polemic from groups that want to argue that the cross is not a Christian symbol. Without presupposing that they are wrong, that rather begs the question in an article entitled 'Christian cross'.Martin Turner (talk) 15:27, 21 August 2018 (UTC)Reply

I concur, User:MartinTurner. There is already a "Pre-Christian" section on the article called cross. To duplicate it here violates WP:CFORK. If there are no objections, I will go ahead and remove it. I hope this helps. With regards, Anupam^Talk 18:26, 21 August 2018 (UTC)Reply

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)Reply

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) 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. As for the debate of what kind of Christianity was practiced in the early days of Christianity is up for debate. We don't know what was practiced in the early days of Christianity other than from the writings in the library of the Catholic Church. Sorry folks, they were around the longest so they know the most about the early Christian church. ColdRedRain (talk) 12:46, 17 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

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)

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)

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)

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)

• 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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

Excellent, excellent idea. The current "Forms of the Cross" section could be turned into a table with an image for each type. The columns of the table might be: photo/name of the cross/earliest known date of use/name of the organization which used it.AmateurEditor (talk) 23:28, 6 June 2009 (UTC)Reply

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)

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)

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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).Reply

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)Reply

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).Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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

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).Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

I agree that JW views are not a majority view by any streach of the imagination but because their view exists and l feel that though l am most definatly not a JW their view is nevertheless a concideration in this article. (SWP)

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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

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

Yes, During the reformation the use of crosses was firmly discouraged because they were an object of veneration even worship. (SWP) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.25.166.194 (talk) 18:30, 6 July 2009 (UTC)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

The article on the Eastern Orthodox Christian Icon Corner has a link called "Blessing Cross" which leads here, where there is no mention of a blessing cross. Will someone please remedy this? J S Ayer (talk) 02:32, 30 November 2008 (UTC)Reply

The link is for the word "cross", not for "Blessing Cross". Lima (talk) 07:26, 30 November 2008 (UTC)Reply

All right, can someone explain to this heathen what a blessing cross is? because I'd like to know. J S Ayer (talk) 03:02, 1 December 2008 (UTC)Reply

Most people viewing this page will only suppose that a "blessing cross" is simply a cross used for blessing, neither too big nor too small for that purpose. Have you asked your question on the Talk page of the article in which the expression is used? That's where you're more likely to find an editor familiar with the expression used in that article. If you check the history of the article, you might even find out which editor inserted the phrase, and you could ask him/her. Lima (talk) 11:03, 1 December 2008 (UTC)Reply

Thank you. J S Ayer (talk) 02:26, 2 December 2008 (UTC)Reply

I suppose that the reference was to the little cross (about 20 cm long) that the priest during the Liturgy in many Eastern Rites keep in his hand when he turns to the people, as for example in the dialogue "the Lord be with yuo" before the anaphota (= euchartic prayer). This cross is otherway placed on the altar and can easly be keep in hand. In Syrian use this cross has a decorated rope attached to the lower parte. A ntv (talk) 11:31, 2 December 2008 (UTC)Reply

There should perhaps be discussion in the article on the controversial practice of spitting on crosses in Israel, which has been discussed in the newspaper Haaretz. [8] ADM (talk) 07:38, 30 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

There should also be a note on why Muslims reject crosses. One of the reasons is that the Koran denies the whole crucifixion story, and denies that Jesus is the Son of God. ADM (talk) 06:12, 1 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

The information in Vine's Expository Dictionary on the cross, is also valuable information on research:

"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 the name) in that country and in adjacent lands, including Egypt. By the middle of the 3rd century 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 (the Catholic type priest) 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.

As for the Chi, or X, which Constantine declared he had seen in a vision leading him to champion the Christian faith, the letter was the initial of the word “Christ” and had nothing to do with “the Cross” (for xylon, a timber beam, a tree, as used for stauros, see under TREE).

The method of execution (death on a single upright beam or tree) was borrowed by the Greeks and Romans from the Phoenicians. …

The judicial custom by which the condemned person carried his stake to the place of execution, was applied by the Lord to those sufferings by which His faithful followers were to express their fellowship with Him, e.g. Matt 10:38.Natural (talk) 15:21, 4 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

Google Books gives hundreds of books in English that speak of the crucifix as composed of "cross" and "corpus". It seems to give no book in English that speaks of the crucifix as composed of "cross" and "soma". I think therefore that, following actual English usage, we cannot say that "the cross is shown with the figure of Christ (often referred to by the Greek soma) affixed to it, in which case the combination of the cross and the figure of Christ is typically called a crucifix". Lima (talk) 10:13, 22 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

A Christian cross that has been omitted from the article is the Ouzo Cross, which is described in excruciating detail in "The Ouzo Prophecy". 69.27.9.34 (talk) 20:06, 3 July 2010 (UTC)Reply

The gallery at the end looks like a graveyard really and is also very repetitive. There is a trim flag as well, by another user. And really there is no need for "click to enlarge". Nowhere in Wikipedia do we see that. I will trim these all, unless there are good reasons not to. History2007 (talk) 01:15, 21 August 2010 (UTC)Reply

Agreed, though in fact the main article could do with more, & better, pics. Some of the crosses listed in the table are not Christian & should go. Johnbod (talk) 03:38, 21 August 2010 (UTC)Reply

Could you mention which are not Christian crosses, so I can remove them? Or it may even be easier just to DIY it. I think Basque cross and the Nazi type symbol are not. Is that right? The living cross is blank. What is it? In fact what is the "formal test" here for being a Christian cross? The article should mention that. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 16:17, 21 August 2010 (UTC)Reply

The gallery is ill-structured, and contains some fantasy; most notably the so called "gnostic" cross lacks sources or a backing article that support it. Galleries are usually for Wikimedia Commons, so all except the most principal cross form should be ported there and not steal my cable bandwidth for some cross form variant of minimal interest. Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 08:27, 16 April 2011 (UTC)Reply

A confusion of mine, sorry: Galleries are usually for Wikimedia Commons. Since the section Forms of crosses describes forms of crosses, the gallery is most definitely and perfectly truthfully superfluous. Remove it!!. The gnostic cross is unverified. The rest of the Forms of crosses needs some cleanup. Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 08:50, 16 April 2011 (UTC)Reply

No the gallery can stay, galleries are used all over EnglishWiki as a summary of the rummage sale called Commons. History2007 (talk) 08:58, 16 April 2011 (UTC)Reply

This is not just a fancy of mine. Citing the policy on galleries:

"However, Wikipedia is not an image repository. A gallery is not a tool to shoehorn images into an article, and a gallery consisting of an indiscriminate collection of images of the article subject should generally either be improved in accordance with the above paragraph or moved to Wikimedia Commons."

I prefer a calm discussion before simply adding

This section contains an unencyclopedic or excessive gallery of images. Please help improve the section by removing excessive or indiscriminate images or by moving relevant images beside adjacent text, in accordance with the Manual of Style on use of images. (Learn how and when to remove this message)

and I prefer the current unorganized indiscriminate gallery being organized and cleaned up before removed, because I'm actually interested in having a list of the main types of crosses. Praetere censeo sunt imagines phantasticos delendas, especially the fantasy "gnostic" one. Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 22:05, 26 April 2011 (UTC)Reply

Yes, yes, yes, we all know those messages. But gallery tags exist because galleries are not in general against policy. It is a question of deciding where they fit. E.g. see the galleries at: Flora, Munich, Rose, etc., etc. etc. So there is no "hard rule" in Wikipedia that galleries must be banished from everywhere, else please rapidly remove the other 3 galleries I mentioned here. The gallery needs better organization, and please feel free to research and organize it yourself, because I am busy now. But I may get to it later. History2007 (talk) 22:12, 26 April 2011 (UTC)Reply

Yes, they exist. They're even pretty common, and often also pretty bloated and annoying, since they drag down the loading time of the web page. And there's no absolute prohibition against galleries, there even are some approved usages, such as the one demonstrated in Wikipedia:PIC#Galleries giving a specific time sequence about arts. A similar gallery of crosses could give one characteristic example of a cross type, but ...

in the previous section, "Forms of the Cross", of the article, there is already a wild-grown list of images. The gallery is superfluous then and illogical. (All personal prestige of the phototakers sadly evaporates in a cloud of logical utility. Sob!) The images in the gallery should preferrably be moved to the previous section and get an appropriate name and description – if they're not simply superfluous. The previous wild-grown table of images should be cleaned:

1. I think cross type (= form, Andrew cross, T-cross) might be one important dimension based on my own interests,
2. another important dimension might be usages, such as nonportable/portable altar crosses, cross necklages, cross lights on the church building etc..

Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 07:00, 27 April 2011 (UTC)Reply

I don't see it as a huge issue myself. How many people get that far? The "Bozeat" Jerusalem pic is better than that in the previous section & might be substituted, the Cross of Sacrifice should be added to the "types", as perhaps should "Colossal cross" - we should certainly have a picture of one of those somewhere in the article. Not all the other photos are the best available. I think the previous section might usefully be sorted and divided into forms=shapes and types=contexts (altar cross etc). Johnbod (talk) 12:20, 27 April 2011 (UTC)Reply

Yes, I agree. But this takes work, and is not immediate. History2007 (talk) 13:13, 27 April 2011 (UTC)Reply

This material by a new user is an essay, I reverted it once, but can not be bothered to argue the case. Please read and hopefully remove. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 23:20, 7 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

Got it down to 4 lines. In fact we might mention the enthusiasm with which early Calvinists destroyed crosses too. Johnbod (talk) 23:46, 7 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

I did not know that, so please add and explain there. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 23:56, 7 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

I recall an episode of The Naked Archeologist that marking the forehead with the sign of the cross probably originated from a jewish tradition where the cross is realy the last letter of the jewish alphabet (tav) resembling an "X" and meant you where righteous. It's in the bilbe somewhere. Bloodkith (talk)

You are probably thinking of Sign of the Cross, not the Christian cross. As for theories of origin, they are a dime a dozen, everyone and his uncle has one, none can prove it. History2007 (talk) 23:07, 28 April 2011 (UTC)Reply

What Bloodkith had in mind is Ezekiel 9:3–11, which most English versions translate generically as "place a mark on the foreheads", but which in the Hebrew text uses the word "תו" (the last letter of the Hebrew alphabet, which at the time of Ezekiel was cross-shaped). A literal translation of the Hebrew is given in the Rheims version. Esoglou (talk) 11:45, 29 April 2011 (UTC)Reply

Yes, that is related to the a "sign on the forehead". But I have seen no evidence that the Christian practice is based on that, e.g. as stated here and here. There are, however, many far fetched theories and they are mostly unsubstantiated. In any case sign on the forehead relates to the other article and not this article.History2007 (talk) 13:08, 29 April 2011 (UTC)Reply

Bloodkith, in speaking of a Jewish tradition, was certainly not thinking of the Christian "sign on the forehead"; what was behind his enquiry was doubtless the mention in Ezekiel of a marking with the then cross-shaped last letter of the Hebrew alphabet, a mention that only in hindsight Christians have interpreted as a type or foreshadowing or prefiguration of the cross of Christ. Esoglou (talk) 06:38, 20 July 2011 (UTC)Reply

Shouldn't we have the Biblical reasoning as to why Christians today use the symbol of the cross? There are areas in The Gospel that talk about the cross. Alliereborn (talk) 05:33, 20 July 2011 (UTC)Reply

We'd draw opposition from Jehovah's Witnesses, who insist that the cross of Christ mentioned in the New Testament was a simple upright, although all the early Christians who speak of its shape describe it as having a crossbar as well as an upright (see Dispute about Jesus' execution method). Esoglou (talk) 06:38, 20 July 2011 (UTC)Reply

The article discusses pre-Christian and early Christian use of the cross, but it doesn't mention when or why the cross eventually took over as the predominant Christian symbol. I think this is a significant omission that aught to be included. Rklawton (talk) 14:53, 30 May 2012 (UTC)Reply

Yes. And I do not know the answer. But I think maybe Esoglou, Johnbod etc. may know. So I support that addition. History2007 (talk) 15:02, 30 May 2012 (UTC)Reply

If we don't consider the staurogram and some contested inscriptions, the Christian cross as common graphic symbol came in use not earlier than the 4th century. It was however earlier known as literary symbol. I've the references at home.A ntv (talk) 16:01, 30 May 2012 (UTC)Reply

Ok, Thanks. History2007 (talk) 16:14, 30 May 2012 (UTC)Reply

Should the present text be modified to avoid the impression that the cross was not at all used as a Christian symbol before the 4th century or that it was used before the 4th century but secretly? The second paragraph in the section and the quotation from the Jewish Encyclopedia that follows it clearly show that these two ideas are false. Should it be modified to something like "Archaeological evidence of extensive use of the cross in Christian iconography is found only from the 4th century"? Stranger's contribution to the book deals, as far as I know, only with archaelogical evidence, not literary evidence.

Besides, Rklawton's query was about "when and why the cross took over (from what, I wonder) as the predominant Christian symbol". That double question has not in fact been answered. When did any symbol whatever become predominant? The ΙΧΘΥΣ (fish) is often mentioned as an early Christian symbol, but I doubt if there is either archaeological or literary evidence to support the idea that it was ever dominant. The literary evidence already in the article seems to show that as early as the second century the cross (not the crucifix) was a dominant, if not the dominant, symbol of Christianity. Esoglou (talk) 21:11, 30 May 2012 (UTC)Reply

Dear Esoglou, we shall differentiate the symbol of the cross as liturgical/literary sign and the cross as graphic sign. If the use of the cross as liturgical/literary sign is well attested from the 2th century, its use as graphic symbol is not unambiguous till the 4th century (when Christianity became legal, and so also arose the need to have open Christian symbols): from the 4th century the cross became openly and extensively used. If the question is when the cross became the "trademark" of Christianity, the answer is still later: in both the 4 and 5th century, the more used Christian symbol was the chi-rho.A ntv (talk) 21:28, 30 May 2012 (UTC)Reply

I have not had time to research this in detail, but Christianity: An Introduction by Alister E. McGrath says late 2nd century on page 320. Everett Ferguson's book even suggests some in the late 1st century - but not certain.

International Standard Bible Encyclopedia: A-D by Geoffrey W. Bromiley supports that it was used before Constantine, but could be used in public after then, page 827. He also refers to Tertllian's confirmation of its use by the 2nd century - not in public. Here is Tertullian in Wikisource so you guys can ref him if you like. So it seems that it was pretty early. But I should leave it to you guys really. History2007 (talk) 21:37, 30 May 2012 (UTC)Reply

"The extensive adoption of the cross as Christian symbol arose openly from the 4th century" is not limited to using a cross as a "graphic sign": it says nothing about writing. By the beginning of the 3rd century the physical cross shape was spoken of as τὸ κυριακὸν σημεῖον, the sign or symbol of the Lord. There was nothing secret about its use by Christians. So I think the sentence needs to be rewritten and made refer to iconography only. Symbols are not necessarily iconographical.

If the chi-rho was more common than the cross as a Christian symbol in the 4th and 5th centuries, Rklawton's question has not yet been answered, at least not completely. Rklawton asked when and why did the cross "take over" as the predominant Christian symbol. It is now suggested that the 6th century was the "when", but for this to be put in the article a reliable source must be cited. No answer has been proposed to the question "why?" Esoglou (talk) 06:46, 31 May 2012 (UTC)Reply

 

I've added "iconographic". It was not explicitly in the source, but the source was dealing with iconographic symbols. I don't remember the source where I've read "when and why" the chi-rho left the place to the cross, so I've not added such statement.If I remembered well it was connected to the reduction of the extension of Greek speaking areas and to the growing illiteracy of such centuries.A ntv (talk) 07:27, 31 May 2012 (UTC)Reply

I'm still worried about the presence of the adverb "openly". Did "the extensive adoption of the cross as Christian iconographic symbol" arise secretly before the 4th century? Esoglou (talk) 06:46, 1 June 2012 (UTC)Reply

• I think the finding of the True Cross by Helena in 326-28 was the turning-point; it then gradually took over from the Labarum, which continued essentially as a symbol used by the Emperor rather than more generally (Constantine's supposed labarum was an Imperial relic). For example the apse mosaics in Santa Pudenziana in Rome essentially date from 384-9 (though wholly reworked) & have a large crux gemmata above the figures - the crux gemmata was probably the key early form. Before legalization, use was at least discreet, for example in the disguised form of the anchor in the Catacombs, if not exactly secret most of the time. Johnbod (talk) 08:06, 1 June 2012 (UTC)Reply

I think this phrase "...god (a god of an empire that ended in 539 B.C.) that had a tau (a cross shaped like the letter T)" should be simply: "...god that had the cross (a tau)". I think that all the other information are simply redundant. -- pvasiliadis  16:32, 1 January 2013 (UTC)Reply

I think the dating element has importance in reporting a claim that the Babylonian symbol was adopted by Christians eight centuries later ("the middle of the 3rd cent. A.D."). And, strictly speaking, Vine does not say that the Babylonians used a cross as a symbol for their god. He says they used as a symbol "the mystic Tau, the initial of [Tammuz's] name". Later, speaking of the middle of the 3rd cent. A.D., he says that "the Tau or T, in its most frequent form, with the cross-piece lowered, was adopted to stand for the 'cross' of Christ". Esoglou (talk) 17:21, 1 January 2013 (UTC)Reply

At the article Tau we read: "The symbolism of the cross was connected not only to the letter chi, but also to tau, the equivalent of the last letter in the Phoenician and Old Hebrew alphabets, and which was originally cruciform in shape; see Cross of Tau." So, Tau is a form of cross, and in religious use it is not something different than the sacred cross.

Some religious elements are running all across the history and across many cultures. The divine trinity, the mother-god, and of course the sign of the mystical life-giving cross are some of them, according to points of view. The Book of Revelation mentions symbols used in Babylon so many centuries later and we don't feel the need to mention the centuries elapsed since the fall of the Babylonian empire (that did not mean that its religion fell as well). I still hold that the reference is not assisting in this point. -- pvasiliadis  17:37, 1 January 2013 (UTC)Reply

The Babylonians did not write in the Phoenician and Old Hebrew alphabet (still in unbroken use by the Samaritans). The Babylonians used cuneiform script.

There seems to be no evidence of any supposed unbroken bridge across those eight centuries. Esoglou (talk) 17:58, 1 January 2013 (UTC)Reply

This is the proof itself: The Sumerian Dumuzid / Akkadian Tammuzi transformed to the Phoenician Tammuz in the religious worship. The first letter of the Phoenician name was a taw, a later greek tau--both of them being cross-shaped letters.

At the Tammuz (deity) article you can see yourself a many-centuries lasting deity across many civilizations. With common religious practices across all of them. -- pvasiliadis  19:09, 1 January 2013 (UTC)Reply

Sorry for not being able to see what you see. Would you spell it out for me? Jeremiah was of Babylonian times, so you are not referring to him. Are you referring to the Arabic sources? I may have missed something, but the fact that Greeks call the first month of the year Ιανουάριος and follow certain customs at the beginning of that month does not mean that they worship the Roman god Janus. The Phoenician and old Hebrew letter taw/tav/tau still had the cross shape at the time when Ezekiel wrote of marking that letter on the foreheads of those who did not participate in the pagan abominations of the people of Jerusalem (Ezekiel 9:4-6), surely a sign that the cross shape was by no means associated with pagan worship, quite the contrary. This fact was commented on as early as the time of Tertullian, who may not have been the first to do so. In 208 he wrote: "afterwards all of the faithful, sealed with the mark of which Ezekiel speaks ... for this same letter tau of the Greeks, which is our T, has the appearance of the Cross, which he (Ezekiel) foresaw we should have on our foreheads". So I still cannot discern the unbroken bridge that you envision as spanning the 8-century gap. Esoglou (talk) 06:51, 2 January 2013 (UTC)Reply

Probably you should make these questions to scholars like W. E. Vine and Abram Herbert Lewis who mentioned that. I don't think that I am so qualified to judge their works. The matter of what you yourself can/cannot discern could probably be written down and publishized to the scientific community regarding the status quaestionis of this subject. Till then you have every bit of the puzzle as is. -- pvasiliadis  15:08, 2 January 2013 (UTC)Reply

Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. Dana boomer (talk) 19:43, 19 February 2013 (UTC)Reply

Article says, "During the first two centuries of Christianity, the cross may have been rare in Christian iconography, as it depicts a purposely painful and gruesome method of public execution and Christians were reluctant to use it." The secondary source is not reliable here. This should be deleted as speculation. We simply don't have enough evidence for the time period to generalize like that. "Christians were reluctant to use it." How many instances of reluctance do you have? In the 1000's of cities in the Roman empire, how many do you have evidence for as to the reluctance quotient of Christians living there? Is it even legitimate to speak of "Christian iconography" in that time period? Can you really establish the commonality of iconography for that period? How many icons from how many cities do you have? I don't think there is any way whatsoever to establish the validity of such assertions. History & particularly Christian history is plagued with speculations. (EnochBethany (talk) 19:23, 28 February 2015 (UTC))Reply

The source in question is by Alister McGrath and published by John Wiley & Sons. It is, as far as Wikipedia is concerned a reliable source.

You completely misunderstand what sort of speculation is not allowed. User speculation is not allowed. In other words, your speculation is not allowed, even about the book. If you had counter sources that specifically countered McGrath, then you'd have a point, but you have not cited a source.

Even if the source was speculation, McGrath is an accredited theologian, so his speculation would be fine. The statement he's providing is not speculation, however, it is his professional assessment.

You not being a professional historian is no reason to remove a source. Ian.thomson (talk) 19:39, 28 February 2015 (UTC)\Reply

I have a university major in history and a graduate degree earned in the Classics Dept of a major university -- and your ad hominem is inappropriate. There is no such thing as "an accredited theologian." Theology is a matter of dispute in every area and theologians of any particular persuasion are disaccredited by opponents. Wikipedia does not accredit theologians. And who are you to say what "Wikipedia" considers a reliable source? Wikipedia is not a person to consider anything. The claim demonstrates that the source is not reliable. To be reliable would require that the secondary source had citations from primary sources to prove its point. And it is obvious that it cannot be proven. Neither can you show that this author answers my questions in a way that would make him reliable. He may be ble, but not reliable. Nobody's speculation is fine. Those whose profession consists of writing baloney do not have professional assessments worthy of belief. Statements about what Christians were reluctant to use, requires knowledge of Christians in many cities throughout the Roman empire, and there simply is no such evidence extant. There is no extensive record of even 1 percent of what Christians said in this era. (EnochBethany (talk) 07:41, 3 March 2015 (UTC))Reply

Here is how Wikipedia works: We summarize and paraphrase academic secondary sources (without our own research modifying anything). That's it.

Credentials are irrelevant, noone here cares about them, we will ignore them -- These apply to users. Wikipedia sticks to sources, and does take into account author credentials. Your claim that there are no accredited theologians is just plain silly.

Alister McGrath "...currently holds the Andreas Idreos Professorship in Science and Religion in the Faculty of Theology and Religion at the University of Oxford" and "was previously Professor of Theology, Ministry, and Education at King's College London and Head of the Centre for Theology, Religion and Culture., Professor of Historical Theology at the University of Oxford, and was principal of Wycliffe Hall, Oxford, until 2005. He is an Anglican priest and is ordained within the Church of England." -- That's an accredited theologian as far as Wikipedia is concerned. Saying that Wikipedia doesn't accredit totally misses the point.

In addition to us being able to verify that McGrath has credentials (which we can't do for you or anyone else here), McGrath is published, and his work has to meet certain standards. If you wish to provide additional sources that counter McGrath on this, do so. If you do not have such sources, then the source stands. Ian.thomson (talk) 17:01, 3 March 2015 (UTC)Reply

I rephrased the claim to take account of this discussion without actually removing the information. If someone can see a more elegant way of doing this, please go ahead and revise my edit.Martin Turner (talk) 15:41, 21 August 2018 (UTC)Reply

Whatever is the basis of the Watchtower's interest in claiming a simple torture pole instead of a cross, is difficult to prove. Is the basis a desire to unsettle established convictions in hopes of proselyting or is it sincere theological reasoning? For NPOV neither of such assertions should be in the article. We don't know what the basis is, & it is contentious to maintain one. Thus the fact that they argue from something, is the more objective term, & thus it has been changed. Now it is hoped that no one reverts this improvement unless there is some way that changing it is needed to improve the article. (EnochBethany (talk) 07:35, 3 March 2015 (UTC))Reply

Wikipedia just summarizes the sources, users do not get to engage in original research to argue against them. If you have counter sources that demonstrate that that is not what Jehovah's Witnesses believe, then present them. Sources that argue that the Jehovah's Witnesses are wrong aren't enough: the section is about what Jehovah's Witnesses believe (right or wrong). Ian.thomson (talk) 17:03, 3 March 2015 (UTC)Reply

Except this is not an article about Jehova's Witnesses or their beliefs, so this is at best a very marginal point related to a very marginal sect in a topic dealing with Christianity as a whole, so the question may not be one of "NPOV" but it is certainly one of WP:DUE. This page is about the symbol, not about random historicity debates. There is a dedicated place for this, and it is at Instrument_of_Jesus'_crucifixion#View_advanced_by_Jehovah.27s_Witnesses. It may be best to not even mention this here, as the main article is already clearly linked. --dab (𒁳) 07:31, 4 August 2016 (UTC)Reply

Is there a better source to cite than a bishop in the 1660s for the Roman method of execution? This would appear to be a relic from an earlier debate— it seems to be countering some claim about Christians traditionally seeing the cross shape as an execution device, but the claim it is countering has been removed (probably wisely). I would rather see an archaeological source, or a description from Roman times.Martin Turner (talk) 15:47, 21 August 2018 (UTC)Reply

"According to Swami Vivekananda the Christian cross is the Shivalinga converted into a cross.[4][5]" Both references only show that the swami claimed this absurd thing. The Shivalinga does not remotely resemble a cross, but looks like a large rounded pot turned upside down. That is as crazy as saying that the Star of David is Stonehenge converted into a hexagram. Wikipedia articles get zanier every day. This article severely needs to be edited and trimmed by an educated person.77Mike77 (talk) 12:59, 16 September 2017 (UTC)Reply

I've removed that claim under WP:FRINGE. Tertiary academic sources would be needed to establish that this view is noteworthy (even if fringe). Ian.thomson (talk) 14:40, 16 September 2017 (UTC)Reply

I've not removed any of the other material as it merely says the shape was used before Christianity (true). Some of the sources are of poor-quality, however (though they're not being used to make outrageously fringe claims). Ian.thomson (talk) 14:44, 16 September 2017 (UTC)Reply

Thanks. Re your second comment, I don't doubt that the shape was used in ancient times, and likely in pre-history as well, because + and X are about the simplest possible symbols next to | and - , so it seems to me that a cave person placing one stick across another, or making two crossing scratches on a surface, will make that symbol. A common (and irritating) practice is to say that every symbol is copied from an earlier source, while ignoring the obvious fact that simple shapes are discovered independently by numerous societies that have never been in contact. It's like the fact the other societies have used circles, triangles, etc., and people mistakenly "connect dots" when there is no connection between the dots.77Mike77 (talk) 01:26, 17 September 2017 (UTC)Reply

  A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Christ's sacrifice on the Cross. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 October 4#Christ's sacrifice on the Cross until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Hog Farm _Bacon 04:17, 4 October 2020 (UTC)Reply