Was it a "stake" as in CROSS tie or was it a CROSS as in two intersected peices of wood? How did the Romans crucify people back then. I've heard that they used just a log or post that was called a cross TIE and that the cross of today is an invention of the "church".

Well... As far as the symbolism of the cross goes, it doesn't matter how it was actually done. The cross symbolizes the intersection between humanity and divinity. Christ was that intersection, true God and true man. That intersection occurs at the level of the head, of the mind. Having a device of any other shape would put the intersection at another part of the body and hence the symbolism would change.

The Christian cross doesn't symbolize a method of execution, but a culmination of the soul; a completion of the soul.




It always gets me when Christians don't understand their own symbols.

Well... As far as the symbolism of the cross goes, it doesn't matter how it was actually done. The cross symbolizes the intersection between humanity and divinity. Christ was that intersection, true God and true man. That intersection occurs at the level of the head, of the mind. Having a device of any other shape would put the intersection at another part of the body and hence the symbolism would change.

The Christian cross doesn't symbolize a method of execution, but a culmination of the soul; a completion of the soul.




It always gets me when Christians don't understand their own symbols

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Just curious what part of the bible you come to this conclusion from. Ive never realized it as any other symbol other than Jesus dying for our sins.

Quoted: Well... As far as the symbolism of the cross goes, it doesn't matter how it was actually done. The cross symbolizes the intersection between humanity and divinity. Christ was that intersection, true God and true man. That intersection occurs at the level of the head, of the mind. Having a device of any other shape would put the intersection at another part of the body and hence the symbolism would change. The Christian cross doesn't symbolize a method of execution, but a culmination of the soul; a completion of the soul. It always gets me when Christians don't understand their own symbols.

Well, I'm not in to symbloism. As a Christain I don't have ANY symbols. Exodus 20:3

When Jesus said to pick up your cross and follow him ,Matt 10:38,  what did he mean by cross? What is a CROSS?

Crucifixion was done on a "cross," as in an upright timber with a cross peice.  Could be a "T" or a conventional cross, but either way, there were two intersecting pieces of wood.  Having the arms extended on the cross beam is essential to the process.  It's being hung up like that that makes breathing difficult and hastens death.

I think that perhaps what you're referring to is the claim that the condemned only carried the horozontal portion of the cross--the cross beam--which was then affixed to the vertical portion at the place of execution.  That is the position taken in the Oxford Classical Dictionary, among other sources.  The crucifixion itself, however, was carried out on an actual "cross."

ETA:  However, the Greek work for cross, as in the instrument of execution, is (transliterated) Stauros, which also means an upright stake.  All the historical and archeological evidence I've ever seen indicates that the "cross" is a real cross, not just a stake.  

ETA:  Jehovah's Witnesses are proponents of the stake theory.  You can read a critique of the JW position here.

Quoted: Quoted: Well... As far as the symbolism of the cross goes, it doesn't matter how it was actually done. The cross symbolizes the intersection between humanity and divinity. Christ was that intersection, true God and true man. That intersection occurs at the level of the head, of the mind. Having a device of any other shape would put the intersection at another part of the body and hence the symbolism would change. The Christian cross doesn't symbolize a method of execution, but a culmination of the soul; a completion of the soul. It always gets me when Christians don't understand their own symbols. Well, I'm not in to symbloism. As a Christain I don't have ANY symbols. Exodus 20:3 When Jesus said to pick up your cross and follow him ,Matt 10:38,  what did he mean by cross? What is a CROSS?

It's a metaphor.  He didn't mean that you were literally supposed to pick up a cross and follow him to Golgotha.  All you have to do is give up your life and follow Him.
 
I sometimes think that crucifixion would be easier.  It would hurt like hell for a while, but it would all be over in a day.

I have a stupid question. What if there had been firing squads in Roman times? would we all have little rifles on our necks and on top of our churches? What if Christ was hanged with a rope? would we reverence the noose? Told you it was a stupid question.

Quoted: I have a stupid question. What if there had been firing squads in Roman times? would we all have little rifles on our necks and on top of our churches? What if Christ was hanged with a rope? would we reverence the noose? Told you it was a stupid question.

You're not the only one who is not entirely comfortable with the cross as a symbol.  Especially when it's worn merely as an ornament.  The early church preferred the Jesus fish thing.  In addition to being a Greek acrostic for "Jesus Christ son of God, saviour," it symbolized feeding the people, the "fishers of men" thing, etc.  Seems like a better symbol to me.  To bad it was ruined by bumperstickers.

Quoted: Quoted: I have a stupid question. What if there had been firing squads in Roman times? would we all have little rifles on our necks and on top of our churches? What if Christ was hanged with a rope? would we reverence the noose? Told you it was a stupid question. You're not the only one who is not entirely comfortable with the cross as a symbol.  Especially when it's worn merely as an ornament.  The early church preferred the Jesus fish thing.  In addition to being a Greek acrostic for "Jesus Christ son of God, saviour," it symbolized feeding the people, the "fishers of men" thing, etc.  Seems like a better symbol to me.  To bad it was ruined by bumperstickers.

Here, again, Christians don't understand their own symbols.

The "Jesus fish" is also a symbol for the intersection between God and man, between divinity and humanity (although that name thingie is pretty cool and just as applicible). Draw a Jesus fish. Draw a circle from the tip of the nose to the top of the tail. Draw another one from the tip of the nose to the bottom of the tail. It's two intersecting circles. Here, again, is that whole intersection thing.

Guys, this is not unorthodox stuff I'm telling you here. There is nothing in these interpretations of these symbols which should ruffle y'all's feathers. It's just stuff they're not going to teach you in Sunday school. But I'm going to toss some unorthodox thought in here just for poops and giggles.

It is said that the birth of Christ also ushered in the Picean age and that is also (as in addition to) the reason for the fish symbol.

Quoted: Here, again, Christians don't understand their own symbols.

Maybe that's because we spend more time on the Word then some symbol.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: I have a stupid question. What if there had been firing squads in Roman times? would we all have little rifles on our necks and on top of our churches? What if Christ was hanged with a rope? would we reverence the noose? Told you it was a stupid question. You're not the only one who is not entirely comfortable with the cross as a symbol.  Especially when it's worn merely as an ornament.  The early church preferred the Jesus fish thing.  In addition to being a Greek acrostic for "Jesus Christ son of God, saviour," it symbolized feeding the people, the "fishers of men" thing, etc.  Seems like a better symbol to me.  To bad it was ruined by bumperstickers. Here, again, Christians don't understand their own symbols. The "Jesus fish" is also a symbol for the intersection between God and man, between divinity and humanity (although that name thingie is pretty cool and just as applicible). Draw a Jesus fish. Draw a circle from the tip of the nose to the top of the tail. Draw another one from the tip of the nose to the bottom of the tail. It's two intersecting circles. Here, again, is that whole intersection thing. Guys, this is not unorthodox stuff I'm telling you here. There is nothing in these interpretations of these symbols which should ruffle y'all's feathers. It's just stuff they're not going to teach you in Sunday school. But I'm going to toss some unorthodox thought in here just for poops and giggles. It is said that the birth of Christ also ushered in the Picean age and that is also (as in addition to) the reason for the fish symbol.

That's a nice interpretation of the symbol too.  But I'm talking about it's actual historical usage in the early church.  And the historical evidence indicates that the popularity of the fish symbol derived principally from the Greek acrostic and also from the "fishers of men" and "loaves and fishes" stuff.  

Quoted: Quoted: Here, again, Christians don't understand their own symbols. Maybe that's because we spend more time on the Word then some symbol.

Hold up just a second there.

Don't you get that the human mind deals almost exclusively in symbols? "The Word", "the Logos" is a symbol in and of itself, for crying out loud! Our culture, our language, almost everything we do involves symbolism in one form or another. Look at this very page! Each letter you're reading right now is a symbol representing something else, a sound or a combination of sounds. The arfcom logo is a symbol. Every icon is a symbol. Look around you. Symbolism is freakin' everywhere. Do not underrate its importance.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Here, again, Christians don't understand their own symbols. Maybe that's because we spend more time on the Word then some symbol. Hold up just a second there. Don't you get that the human mind deals almost exclusively in symbols? "The Word", "the Logos" is a symbol in and of itself, for crying out loud! Our culture, our language, almost everything we do involves symbolism in one form or another. Look at this very page! Each letter you're reading right now is a symbol representing something else, a sound or a combination of sounds. The arfcom logo is a symbol. Every icon is a symbol. Look around you. Symbolism is freakin' everywhere. Do not underrate its importance.

Do you also belive in the whole "Holy Grail" and "Da Vinci Code" thing also?

Crucifiction was done outside the city's perimeter utilizing Olive trees that lined the paths leading up to the gates as the vertical piece.  Some sort of available timber was fashioned to it to nail the prisoner's hands to.  This timber was also usually not of any groomed nature as wood was a precious comodity in the area.  

This symbol was utilized in several different ways until the traditional cross that we know now came to be.  

I have some pictures from outside Bethlehem where I visited a first century working farm/ museum type area which had examples of what would have been options for the time.  I'll try to dig them up.  I've been planning to share my visit to the holy land in this forum anyway.  

Remember though its just a symbol, and a symbol that came to be centuries after the fact.  It's not supposed to be accurate, it's supposed to be symbolic.

Quoted: Crucifixion was done on a "cross," as in an upright timber with a cross peice.  Could be a "T" or a conventional cross, but either way, there were two intersecting pieces of wood.  Having the arms extended on the cross beam is essential to the process.  It's being hung up like that that makes breathing difficult and hastens death. I think that perhaps what you're referring to is the claim that the condemned only carried the horozontal portion of the cross--the cross beam--which was then affixed to the vertical portion at the place of execution.  That is the position taken in the Oxford Classical Dictionary, among other sources.  The crucifixion itself, however, was carried out on an actual "cross." ETA:  However, the Greek work for cross, as in the instrument of execution, is (transliterated) Stauros, which also means an upright stake.  All the historical and archeological evidence I've ever seen indicates that the "cross" is a real cross, not just a stake.   ETA:  Jehovah's Witnesses are proponents of the stake theory.  You can read a critique of the JW position here.

Very good explanation regarding crucifiction.

Yes, the person was nailed to a literal cross for crucifiction.  Nails were put through the feet, hands, and often through the wrists too because the nails through the hands could tear through more easily.

The position created considerable agony.  The position of the arms, as JohnTheTexican mentioned, made breathing more difficult.  To take the stress off of the lungs, the crucified would have to "stand" up on his/her nailed feet (ouch).  So there was really no relief to be had.  It could take several excrutiating hours, if not longer, for a person to die in this manner.

To hasten death the Romans would break the legs of the crucified after a few hours.  This would hasten the suffocating effects.

In Jesus' case, the Romans needed the three crucified individuals on Golgatha to die relatively quickly because of the upcoming Jewish holy day.  The Romans went to each person and broke their legs.  When they reached Jesus the Romans noted that he already looked dead, so they pierced his side with a spear to check.  As blood flowed out of Jesus it had already "settled" into it's plasma and cell portions, evidence of death.  Thus, the Romans didn't break Jesus' legs which actually fulfilled prophesy.

Quoted: Remember though its just a symbol, and a symbol that came to be centuries after the fact.  It's not supposed to be accurate, it's supposed to be symbolic.

Beautiful!

Except for the "just" part.

And for the "centuries after the fact" part. Other systems have used the same or similar symbols to mean the same thing for centuries *before* Christianity used it. The ankh is a variation of it, believe that or not.

I think George Carlin said it best when he said "I leave symbols to the symbol minded".

I read somewhere that the "cross" christians worship so much was origionaly (B.C.) the sign of the DEVIL/saten.....REALLY!

mags that would be a upside down cross. Or the broken cross

Crux - cross roads.... We have to look to the Latin, not the greek.

Secondly, while they used many different forms of + and X and T, even on rare occasions I stakes, the most common form was the T shape.

If it had been a post rather than a cross beamed T or +, the early Church would have fought hard to keep the definition, as it did fighting tooth and nail against all the other heresies. That Christians had been drawing pictures of the T and + shape since the 100's tells me that the JWs are full of hot air, not exegesis or history.

The church I attend is is pretty barren of Christian icons. The ONLY reason there is even a cross outside is so others who may be seeking will know where they may come to learn.

Its not a big cross, but without it the building looks just like any other.

Quoted: The church I attend is is pretty barren of Christian icons. The ONLY reason there is even a cross outside is so others who may be seeking will know where they may come to learn. Its not a big cross, but without it the building looks just like any other. www.ebcfl.org/images/photo_gallery/building/ebc_100102_final_14.jpg

Pretty meetinghouse/church.