The "Christian" Cross up to the fourth century CE

A reply to a poster on the BBC Christian message board who believes that the early Christians of the first century onwards used the cross.

Here is the original post by the poster:

"letusreason, in response to your posts about whether Jesus was crucified on a crucifix or a stick:

"The earliest writings that speak specifically of the shape of the cross on which Jesus died describe it as shaped like the letter T (the

Greek letter tau),[11] or composed of an upright and a transverse beam, together with a small peg in the upright.[12]"
from en.wikipedia.org/wik..."

Reply,

crossorstake2.blogsp...

crossorstake.blogspo...

What the poster doesn't realise, is that these "earliest writings" were written later in the period of the "Church", in fact two or three hundreds years later.

The wikipedia is a favourite site that is used to try to prove the the implement of Christ's death was a cross.

The cross is much older than people think. The ancient Hindus, Buddhists... in fact (as far as I'm aware) nearly all ancient civilizations utilised some form of a cross in their religious worship.

Apostate Jews over the god Tmmuz "T".

This was a religious symbol/object and part of false worship. Faithful Jews detested any form of "cross".

The cross was an object of worship, religious devotion and was used thus by religious aherents of religion down through time, even today.

The Golden Calf

The Israelites who made a golden calf back in the time of Moses were put to death not so much for making a golden calf, but because they made athe golden calf an object of worship, an instrument for religious devotion, to aid them in their worship.

The "cross" is a religious symbol and (for many) an aid to worship. The word used throughout the NT with reference to Christ's death is not "crucify" or "crucifiction" but, "impale".

Cross is a mistranslation of the Latin "crux" simplex, as used by the translators of the KJV of the bible and modern translations, but it is not correct. The Greek reads rather diferently.



Dean Burgon, in his "Letters from Rome", wrote:

“I question whether a cross occurs on any Christian monument of the first four centuries.”


Mons Perret

Mons Perret, who spent fourteen years doing research in the catacombs of Rome, counted in all a total of 11,000 inscriptions among the millions of tombs.

According to him:

“not until the latter years of the fourth century does the sign of the cross appear.” Among the signs that do appear are the dove, a symbol of the holy spirit; the lyre, a symbol of joy; the anchor, a symbol of hope and the fish. Why the fish? Because the letters of the word “fish” in Greek are the same as the first letters of “Jesus Christ, God’s Son, Savior.”



Vines Complete Expository Dictionary of Old and New Testament Words says:


"STAUROS....denotes, primarily, an upright pale or stake. On such malefactors ware nailed for execution. Both the noun 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 it's origin in ancient Chaldea, and was used of the symbol of of the god Tammaz(being in the shape of the mystic Tau, the initial of his name in that country and adjacent lands, including Egypt.

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 of faith, and were permitted largely to retain their pagan signs and symbols. Hence the Tau or T, in it's most frequent form, with the cross-piece lowered, was adopted to stand for the cross of Christ".

Notice what Vine 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."

And what else did Vine say?


"...In order to increase the prestige of the apostate ecclesiastical system pagans were received into the churches apart from regeneration of faith, and were permitted largely to retain their pagan signs and symbols..."


The truth of the matter is this. The "professed" Christian churches had either departed from, or had travestied, certain doctrines of the Christian faith and in order to increase the prestige of the apostate ecclesiastical system pagans were received into the churches apart from regeneration of faith, and were permitted largely to retain their pagan signs and symbols..."


And one of the symbols of the pagans that they were permitted to retain by the "apostate ecclesiastical system" was the "CROSS", the sacred "T".


The "Christian" leaders of the centuries after Christ and his apostles watered down the truth to accomodate the pagans, just as certain religious denominations/sects within Christendom today allow people in certain parts of the world (example, Africa, South America...) to retain their customs and symbols etc and are thus absorbed and then tolerated and all in the name of Christ.


One would think that Mons Perret, who after spending some fourteen years doing his research in the catacombs of Rome, counted in all a total of 11,000 inscriptions and among the the how many? Millions of tombs. After his fourteen years of research, what conclusion did he come to? "...“not until the latter years of the fourth century does the sign of the cross appear.”

One would think, that at least he would have found at least one cross inscription dating back to the first century. But he didn't! As he himself said, “not until the latter years of the fourth century does the sign of the cross appear.”


So, it was the latter part of the fourth century that the cross began to appear. But what was it that Vine said:

"...By the middle of the 3rd cent. A.D. the churches had either departed from, or had travestied, certain doctrines of the Christian faith."


And what was one of the reasons given by Vine?:


"...In order to increase the prestige of the apostate ecclesiastical system pagans were received into the churches apart from

regeneration of faith, and were permitted largely to retain their pagan signs and symbols..."

Even scholars and historians, many of whom are Trinitarian and openly oppose us (JW's) readily admit the above and they have nothing to do with Jehovah's Witnesses or the WB&TS (Watchtower). Someone said to "elvis" that they wouldn't believe anything coming from Jehovah's Witnesses! That being the case, do they believe their own, even when their own disagree with them?

If you are not going to believe them, who are you going to believe?


letusreason