Now the cross is banned

merlinxi · Jan 1, 2006, 06:36 AM

The word Stauros occrus 27 times in the original Greek Scriptures of the "New Testament" that has nothing to do with symbolism.

BWX · Jan 1, 2006, 06:39 AM

And actually I still think you are wrong...

.....let's for a moment consider how the Roman crucifixion procedure was carried out when used for capital punishment. The term "crucifixion" is based on the Latin word crux, which means cross. In English versions of the Bible, we read that Jesus was crucified on a cross (stauros in Greek).

Stauros refers to a wooden pole or timber with or without a crosspiece. Acts 5:30 and 10:39 and 1 Peter 2:24 tell us that Jesus was put to death on a tree (xulon in Greek). The reason this word was used in a few places is because the authors were making a point to the Jews. Traditionally, the Jews viewed an individual who was hung on a tree as one who was under God’s curse (Galatians 3:13, quoting Deuteronomy 21:23). But the authors of Acts and Peter, when they used xulon did not mean Jesus was crucified on a living tree. He was crucified on some kind of apparatus fashioned from the timber of a tree.

The worst aspect of crucifixion, from a Jewish perspective, is that it indicated the person was accursed by God. Most Jews could not accept the fact that someone who had been publicly hung up to die could be the Messiah, God's Anointed One. Paul preached a Lord who did die such a cursed death—and his gospel was "a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles" (1 Corinthians 1:23). The shape of the cross did not offend people, but its function did.

Though information is limited, historical and archaeological evidence shows that the Romans generally used a crossbar, not a vertical post alone, when crucifying individuals. This crossbar either sat on top of the vertical post or traversed it somewhere along its upper quadrant. The beam that Jesus was made to carry (John 19:17), and that Simon from Cyrene carried for him after Jesus collapsed in exhaustion (Luke 23:26), was most likely the crosspiece that was later affixed to an upright pole that was already in place. __________________

merlinxi · Jan 1, 2006, 06:40 AM

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" The Classic Greek Dictionary, Greek-English and English-Greek, With an Appendix of Proper and Geographical Names prepared by George Ricker Berry reads under "stauros": "..an upright pale, stake or pole; in plu. a palisade. II. the Cross.(p.648). Although this lexicon seems to give "the Cross" as a meaning for "stauros" it seems rather as a reference than a meaning("the Cross" rather than "a cross")and to that of Jesus Christ. Hence definition II is somewhat 'suspect' and may only reflect the lexicons belief that the stauros in the NT was cross-shaped or it may be giving it as a reference, that is, that when we read in the English Bibles "cross" this is from the Greek stauros and no indication it was actually cross-shaped. In its definition 1 though there is no doubt the meaning of stauros and anything other than that stauros meant more than one piece of wood, whether it was a "pale, stake or pole" is not mentioned and certainly none of which were 'cross-shaped.' This is its meaning in all the Greek classics such as Homer. There is no evidence that the from or shape of the stauros in Jesus Christ's case was any different.

This is not biblical information yet. This is purely historical.

merlinxi · Jan 1, 2006, 06:46 AM

"In the Greek N.T. two words are used for "the cross", on which the Lord was put to death.1. The word stauros; which denotes an upright pale or stake, to which the criminals were nailed for execution. 2. The word xulon, which generally denotes a piece of a dead log of wood, or timber, for fuel or for any other purpose. It is not like dendron, which is used of a living, or green tree, as in Matt.21: 8; Rev.7: 1, 3; 8:7; 9: 4, &c. As this latter word xulon is used for the former stauros it shows us the meaning of each is exactly the same. The verb stauroo means to drive stakes. <br>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 simple piece of timber.[ftnote, Iliad xxiv.453. Odyssey xiv.11] And this is the meaning and usage of the word throughout the Greek classics.[ftnote, eg.Thucydides iv.90. Xenophon, Anabasis v.2.21] It never means two pieces of timber placed across one another at any angle, but of always one piece alone. Hence the use of the word xulon(No.2 above)in connection with the manner of our Lord's death and rendered "tree" in Acts 5:30; 10:39; 13:29; Gal.3:13, 1 Pet.2:24. This is preserved in our old English name rood or rod. See Encycl.Brit., 11th (Camb)ed., vol.7, p.505d. There is nothing in the Greek of the N.T. even to imply two pieces of timber."

BWX · Jan 1, 2006, 06:47 AM

Quote:

This is not biblical information yet. This is purely historical.

Biblical information is historical.. if you don't think so then I guess you shouldn't be debating about JESUS ON THE CROSS..

Also- what do you say about the work Crucify?

The term "crucifixion" is based on the Latin word crux, which means cross.

Quote:

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" The Classic Greek Dictionary, Greek-English and English-Greek, With an Appendix of Proper and Geographical Names prepared by George Ricker Berry reads under "stauros": "..an upright pale, stake or pole; in plu. a palisade. II. the Cross.(p.648). Although this lexicon seems to give "the Cross" as a meaning for "stauros" it seems rather as a reference than a meaning("the Cross" rather than "a cross")and to that of Jesus Christ. Hence definition II is somewhat 'suspect' and may only reflect the lexicons belief that the stauros in the NT was cross-shaped or it may be giving it as a reference, that is, that when we read in the English Bibles "cross" this is from the Greek stauros and no indication it was actually cross-shaped. In its definition 1 though there is no doubt the meaning of stauros and anything other than that stauros meant more than one piece of wood, whether it was a "pale, stake or pole" is not mentioned and certainly none of which were 'cross-shaped.' This is its meaning in all the Greek classics such as Homer. There is no evidence that the from or shape of the stauros in Jesus Christ's case was any different.

This is not biblical information yet. This is purely historical.

Is the Cross a Pagan Symbol?

You wondered if the word "cross" or any items representing a cross should be used by Christians. Some people believe that since a cross symbol was used in some pagan religions, Jesus could not possibly have been crucified on a cross. They believe Jesus was crucified on a simple upright stake.

The objection to the cross is usually summarized in the following words: "My Lord and Savior was not crucified on a ‘cross,’ the symbol of a pagan deity." The problem with this reasoning is that a stake or upright pole, such as an obelisk, was also used as a symbol in pagan religions. That means, no matter on what instrument Jesus was crucified—cross or stake—it could be said that it was used as a pagan symbol. Prior pagan usage of the cross symbolism, then, cannot be the deciding factor regarding what instrument was used in Jesus’ crucifixion.

With that in mind, let's for a moment consider how the Roman crucifixion procedure was carried out when used for capital punishment. The term "crucifixion" is based on the Latin word crux, which means cross. In English versions of the Bible, we read that Jesus was crucified on a cross (stauros in Greek).

merlinxi · Jan 1, 2006, 06:51 AM

The four words in question are the words prospegnumi, anastauroo, sustauroo, and stauroo.
"The word prospegnumi, though translated in our Bibles as "crucify" or "crucified," meant to "fix" to or upon, and meant that only. It had no special reference to the affixing of condemned persons either to a stake, pale, or post, or to a tree, or to a cross; and had no more reference to a cross than the English word "fix" has.
The word anastauroo was never used by the old Greek writers as meaning other than to impale upon or with a single piece of timber.
The word sustauroo does not occur in pre-Christian writings, and only five times in the Bible against the forty-four times of the next word to be dealt with. Being obviously derived in part from the word stauros, which primarily signified a stake or pale which was a single piece of wood and had no cross-bar, sustauroo evidently meant affixion to such a stake or pale. Anyhow there is nothing whatever either in the derivation of the word, or in the context in either of the five instances in which it occurs, to show that what is referred to is affixion to something that was cross-shaped.
The word stauroo occurs, as has been said, forty four times; and of the four word in question by far the most frequently. The meaning of this word is therefore of special importance. It is consequently most significant to find, as we do upon investigation, that wherever it occurs in the pre-Christian classics it is used as meaning to impalisade, or stake, or affix to a pale or stake; and has reference, not to crosses, but to single pieces of wood.

Yes but other prisoners were crucified to not just Jesus.

BWX · Jan 1, 2006, 07:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by merlinxi

The four words in question are the words prospegnumi, anastauroo, sustauroo, and stauroo.
"The word prospegnumi, though translated in our Bibles as "crucify" or "crucified," meant to "fix" to or upon, and meant that only. It had no special reference to the affixing of condemned persons either to a stake, pale, or post, or to a tree, or to a cross; and had no more reference to a cross than the English word "fix" has.
The word anastauroo was never used by the old Greek writers as meaning other than to impale upon or with a single piece of timber.
The word sustauroo does not occur in pre-Christian writings, and only five times in the Bible against the forty-four times of the next word to be dealt with. Being obviously derived in part from the word stauros, which primarily signified a stake or pale which was a single piece of wood and had no cross-bar, sustauroo evidently meant affixion to such a stake or pale. Anyhow there is nothing whatever either in the derivation of the word, or in the context in either of the five instances in which it occurs, to show that what is referred to is affixion to something that was cross-shaped.
The word stauroo occurs, as has been said, forty four times; and of the four word in question by far the most frequently. The meaning of this word is therefore of special importance. It is consequently most significant to find, as we do upon investigation, that wherever it occurs in the pre-Christian classics it is used as meaning to impalisade, or stake, or affix to a pale or stake; and has reference, not to crosses, but to single pieces of wood.

Yes but other prisoners were crucified to not just Jesus.

Yeah everyone that knows anything about the subject knows others were crucified... hmm, there's that word again..

Staroo... that must mean the whole bible is wrong.

Or maybe to "fix" and the thing they were "fixing" to it, was another piece of wood. As your copy/paste said, it doesn't say what was affixed to it.

Believe me I could copy/paste all morning long... but I'm not going to because as you said, it is irrelevant.

Quote:

sustauroo evidently meant affixion to such a stake or pale.

Big leap there.

Or this-- the guy whgo did all the research on all these "pagans" was a moron.

A well-known encyclopedia describes the Labarum (Chi-Rho) as, "The labarum was also an emblem of the Chaldean (Babylonian) sky-god and in Christianity it was adopted..." Emperor Constantine adopted this Labarum as the imperial ensign and thereby succeeded in "uniting both divisions of his troops, pagans and Christians, in a common worship... [15]

According to Suicer the word (labarum) came into use in the reign of Hadrian, and was probably adopted from one of the nations conquered by the Romans." It must be remembered that Hadrian reigned in the years 76-138 C.E., that he was a pagan emperor, worshipped the Sun-deity Serapis when he visited Alexandria, and was vehemently anti-Judaistic, beign responsible for the final near-destruction of Jerusalem in the year 130 C.E. [16]

Another dictionary relates the following about the Chi-Rho, "However, the symbol was in the use long before Christianity, and X (Chi) probably stood for Great Fire or Sun, and P (Rho) probably stood for Pater or Patah (Father). The word labarum (la-baar-um) yields everlasting Father Sun." [17]

Let me give you one last thing to dwell on. In Ezekial 9, it speaks of a mark that was placed upon the foreheads of the men that sigh and that cry for all the abominations that be done in the midst thereof (Eze 9:4). The Pulpit Commentary says that According to the best interpretation of the text the mark seems to have been a cross. According to Harper's Bible Commentary the letter tau in Near Eastern languages could be written as "+" or "T" and so it was not unnatural for early Christian writers, such as Origen and Tertullian, to see in this a type of the cross of Christ. Now remember, it was the Lord who had commanded that the mark (or "T") be placed on the forehead of the righteous. If this was a symbol of Tammuz which God despised, then why would He have this mark put on the foreheads of those men? If the pagans who worshipped Tammuz whose symbol was a cross, as Hislop tells us, then placing this mark on the righteous would be inconsistent when looking at the context, for only eight verses earlier (Eze 8:14) Tammuz worshipped was condemned! [18]

There are a number of interesting things I could point to about the so-called history of these pagan origins. The sad truth is that most “pagan origin” claims come from the work of an Alexander Hislop. For those who have taken the time to check out Hislop, they will discover that his research on the pagan origins is often contradictory. Read what “The Saturday Review” dated September 17, 1859, p. 340. had to say about Hislop’s work:

In the first place, his whole superstructure is raised upon nothing. Our earliest authority for the history of Semiramis wrote about the commencement of the Christian era, and the historian from whom he drew his information lived from fifteen hundred to two thousand years after the date which Mr. Hislop assigns to the great Assyrian Queen. The most lying legend which the Vatican has ever endorsed stands on better authority than the history which is now made the ground of a charge against it.

Secondly, the whole argument proceeds upon the assumption that all heathenism has a common origin. Accidental resemblances in mythological details are taken as evidence of this, and nothing is allowed for the natural working of the human mind.

Thirdly, Mr. Hislop’s method of reasoning would make anything of anything. By the aid of obscure passages in third-rate historians, groundless assumptions of identity, and etymological torturing of roots, all that we know, and all that we believe, may be converted…into something totally different.

Fourthly, Mr. Hislop’s argument proves too much. He finds not only the corruptions of Popery, but the fundamental articles of the Christian Faith, in his hypothetical Babylonian system…

We take leave of Mr. Hislop and his work with the remark that we never before quite knew the folly of which ignorant or half-learned bigotry is capable. [19]

Now about C.J. Koster's book "Come Out Of Her, My People", Roy Ingle, a Christian book reviewer, had the following to say:

C.J. Koster's COME OUT OF HER, MY PEOPLE was given to me by a lady who left our church for the radical Messianic Jewish followers such as Koster and Michael Rood. I read the book with great doubts about the book since most serious Messianic Jewish Gentiles I have met were simply bizarre. This book did nothing more than confirm this view.

Koster appears to have taken most of his information from the cult, the Assemblies of Yahweh. His insistance upon using the various Hebrew names for God, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit go from poor understandings of the Greek language to flat out denials. His writing style is poor and the structure of the book appears to not have been very well thought out. Koster appears mad throughout the book at the "established Church" and he seems mad enough to essentially condemn anyone who calls the holy Scriptures "the Bible" or calls Yahushua "Jesus" or has a cross up in their meetings or calls their assemblies "church" or who worship on Sunday (or some other day other than Saturday and dare not call the days or months by its Greek names!) than they are going to burn forever. Further, any follower of the Messiah not keeping the entire Law of Moses is lost! Ironically, few Jews have "converted" to Messianic Jewish roots despite Koster's belief that this will usher in a great harvest of Jews into the kingdom of Elohim. Could it be they see the error of the Sacred Name Movement as do many Gentiles such as I?

We aren't going to solve it here, that's for sure.

Captn · Jan 2, 2006, 12:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by merlinxi

No the Greek word was improperly translated in the orginal Scriptures. The word "staurros" comes from the greek meaning "stake or pole" it wasn't CRUX like some trasnlations say. You can do some Encylopedia research.

You're right and you're wrong. The Greek word "stauros" (the proper spelling) is used 28 times in the New Testament. Every time it's translated cross. What your(merlinxi) is not telling everyone is that almost every Greek word, just like many English words, can have more than one meaning. This word is one of those cases. The word can be translated "an upright stake," but it can also be translated "cross," which is what it was translated as. Why did they translate it that way? Archaeologists know that crucifixion on a cross was a popular means used by the Romans to execute criminals. It's common knowledge. Therefore, it's totally compatible with history to translate the Greek word "cross." The OVERWHLEMING collective Greek minds who have translated the scriptures have translated stauros "cross." You(merlinixi) just conveniently failed to tell everyone the whole story. (A bit of intellectual dishonesty).

Hey merlinixi,

Which translation in English translates it according to your argument. There are hundreds of English translations. If your so correct then the majority of Greek scholards would agree with you. How about you list just five English translations that translate the Greek word as something other than cross.

Callandor · Jan 17, 2006, 06:18 AM

Why did I have to be born in this day and age? This world is becomming more and more a sad place to live. They say they're trying to bring about tolerance, but in doing so are bringing about more and more intolerance than ever, I see a world war comin out of all of this that will end most if not all of our lives.

YAYitsAndrew · Jan 26, 2006, 08:52 AM

You fucking racists it's called a chalkboard!

Kidding...I think it's crap that you can't call them blackboards anymore. I'm in college and most of our classrooms have dry-erase boards that are the color white. We call them whiteboards. It is a good way to describe them. The board that is the color white. The white board. I am not offended.

violat3 · Jan 26, 2006, 01:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zardon

Or maybe the "coal coloured board" or the "non racist but im darker than grey board".

such a lot of arse.

in Scotland our problems is different, we have a sizeable minority of plastic paddies (plastic irish = ethnic irish ie through a single grandparent or further back) who for some reason refuse to integrate into scottish society and insist that they are irish and not scottish, so you say what is the problem in that every different culture has made a great attempt at integrating into scottish society including muslims bar 1 ethnic group: the ethnic irish the minute you are critical of anything about ireland you are labelled anti irish with a anti irish agenda, you are instantly labelled a bigot and another thing they keep prattling on about Scotland's secret shame, if you ask me Scotland's secret shame is 83% of the population being dictated to by 17% of the population

a lot of the problems revolve around Scotland's largest two football teams Glasgow Rangers (Protestant) & Glasgow Celtic (Catholic) yes theese two clubs historically are based on their fans religous and ethnic backgrounds, Celtic was formed in 1888 by a irishman called brother walfrid for the irish living in Glasgow, he got the idea from Hibernian of Edinburgh formed in 1874 Scotland's first ethnic irish team, Rangers we're formed in 1873, Scotland had been up til that point been suspicous of catholics and irish people in general due to Scotland being a Presbyterian country after the reformation. In short Celtic fans fly the flag of Ireland exclusively over their own country because they say they are a Irish club, point out to them that Celtic park is in Glasgow and Glasgow is Scotland's largest city and that they play in the Scottish league so they must be Scottish you are labelled a anti irish bigot going by that logic the United States Navy should be flying the Saltire seen it was formed by Scotsmen

Hibernian fans now consider themselves to be a Scottish club as does Dundee utd (formely Dundee Hibernian)

on another note for thoose that do not know this after WW2 the Irish tri colour in Scotland was akin to the swastika (i will go into that another time) and in 1953 Celtic football club we're threatened with closure if they did not take down their irish tri colour and they were only saved by the intervention of Rangers their biggest rivals because every other club wanted them kicked out of the league

now that was way more than i intended to post originally

Al_Vampyre · Feb 11, 2006, 12:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by violat3

United States Navy should be flying the Saltire seen it was formed by Scotsmen

You sure about that? I know the Russian Navy was formed by a guy from Inverkeithing in Fife but I didn't know that about the US Navy...ironic if its true though, makes the Cold War seem vaguely ridiculous.

Cultural identity is very important to some people, but for some reason people of Irish descent seem particularly prone to it, almost every American I meet claims to be Irish in some way.

Scotland and America were the two biggest destinations for people streaming out of Ireland (conversely there was also a lot of migration from Scotland to Ireland in the 17th and 18th century).

Football is football, its always been a hotbed of political and religious differences, in almost every country but its just an excuse for people that feel the need to argue about something...