The Cross is taken out of history

Canada
April 13, 2009 11:46pm CST
During Easter mass they said Jesus was hung from a tree. This is the second year they've said this. Last year they explained that the cross is made of wood; wood is made from a tree; therefor he was put to death by hanging from a tree. Why would they take the cross out of it? Without the cross, then Jesus walking through the streets of Jerusalem carrying the cross he was later hung from, doesn't make sense. The nailing of the hands and feet to the cross, wouldn't exist. The sign of the cross, cross pictures, statues, jewelry, and the sign of the cross that represents the cross and the trinity -- all would lose their meaning. Are other churches doing this as well, or is it just this one?
1 person likes this
6 responses
@murderistic (2279)
• United States
14 Apr 09
I believe it is more historically accurate to believe that the cross was T shaped rather than t shaped. But I have to agree with you, if Jesus was hung on a tree, he wouldn't have much to carry. He could've carried a 2x4 that was nailed to the tree or something.. but that doesn't seem Biblically accurate to me.
1 person likes this
• Canada
6 May 09
I'm getting more confused, I think
@redhotpogo (4436)
• United States
14 Apr 09
ya alot of churches have started saying this. Not sure exactly when or why it started. The cross of course being wooden was made from a tree, they say. But they must realize that when you say "Hung from a tree" it doesn't make one think of a cross. People think of someone tied up to a tree limb with a noose. Its like they are trying to make the event less then it was. Take out all the suffering. Ya some guy was hung from a tree.
1 person likes this
• Canada
14 Apr 09
It doesn't make sense to take out such a huge symbol of the faith
@1hopefulman (41143)
• Canada
18 Apr 09
Acts 5:30 (King James Version) 30The God of our fathers raised up Jesus, whom ye slew and hanged on a tree. Acts 10:39 (King James Version) 39And we are witnesses of all things which he did both in the land of the Jews, and in Jerusalem; whom they slew and hanged on a tree: It seems that Jesus was nailed to a post with his hands above his head instead of his hands spread across.
@randis1 (112)
• United States
19 Apr 09
No, that's not how he was crucified. The language in which the NT was written in and the culture in which the tradition was past down, was a very poetic culture. They would have used the terms cross (taken from a tree) and tree interchangeably to refer to the crucifixion. It is very well known how Romans engaged in professional crucifixion and his arms would have been spread out across a beam. The only way he would have been crucified with his hands above him is if the Romans were going around doing mass crucifixions in the city like they did during the Jewish War...but even this was done with arms spread out.
@1hopefulman (41143)
• Canada
19 Apr 09
I base my point of view on these references: The Greek word rendered “cross” in many modern Bible versions is stau?ros'. In classical Greek, this word meant merely an upright stake, or pale. Later it also came to be used for an execution stake having a crosspiece. The Imperial Bible-Dictionary acknowledges this, saying: “The Greek word for cross, [stau?ros'], properly signified a stake, an upright pole, or piece of paling, on which anything might be hung, or which might be used in impaling [fencing in] a piece of ground. . . . Even amongst the Romans the crux (from which our cross is derived) appears to have been originally an upright pole.”—Edited by P. Fairbairn (London, 1874), Vol. I, p. 376. It is noteworthy that the Bible also uses the word xy'lon to identify the device used. A Greek-English Lexicon, by Liddell and Scott, defines this as meaning: “Wood cut and ready for use, firewood, timber, etc. . . . piece of wood, log, beam, post . . . cudgel, club . . . stake on which criminals were impaled . . . of live wood, tree.” It also says “in NT, of the cross,” and cites Acts 5:30 and 10:39 as examples. (Oxford, 1968, pp. 1191, 1192) However, in those verses KJ, RS, JB, and Dy translate xy'lon as “tree.” (Compare this rendering with Galatians 3:13; Deuteronomy 21:22, 23.) The book The Non-Christian Cross, by J. D. Parsons (London, 1896), 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; 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. . . . It is not a little misleading upon the part of our teachers to translate the word stauros as ‘cross’ when rendering the Greek documents of the Church into our native tongue, and to support that action by putting ‘cross’ in our lexicons as the meaning of stauros without carefully explaining that that was at any rate not the primary meaning of the word in the days of the Apostles, did not become its primary signification till long afterwards, and became so then, if at all, only because, despite the absence of corroborative evidence, it was for some reason or other assumed that the particular stauros upon which Jesus was executed had that particular shape.”—Pp. 23, 24.
@randis1 (112)
• United States
16 Apr 09
It is simply a poetic way of saying "cross". The picture of the "tree" is taken from Deuteronomy where it states that anyone hung on a tree is cursed (this is another reason the early Christians would not have made up a "messiah" that "hung on a tree", thus showing the historical plausibility that the kurios matches pre-apostolic tradition). The cross would have been a T, not a t and would have mostly been a carved out piece of a trunk with another beam up top--hence, resembling more of a tree than today's "cross". I see nothing wrong with it.
@Adoniah (7515)
• United States
16 Apr 09
Interesting! This is how history continually gets twisted and changed to suit someone. We will see someday who this misstatement suits. The Romans always hung on a cross shape of some kind. They didn't nail people to trees because they cut down all the trees close to their cities. They cleared the land for great distances as a precaution for invasion. When they hung people from the cross, they did it close to the city for all to see. There were not trees close to the city, so they had to go out and cut wood from trees to use to hang folks with. They may have been crudely formed poles but they were not growing trees. Shalom~Adoniah
• India
14 Apr 09
There is a passage that says something like that. I think it's in Galatians, quoting OT. Historically speaking the Romans would often crucify those they considered as hardcore criminals on the cross. I am sure Jesus was crucified on the cross.