Another instance of pagan influence.
The veneration of the cross is pagan? Well in that case, it is better to be a believing 'pagan' Christian than an anti-Christ Mormon polytheist.
... Anglican theologian E. W. Bullinger, in The Companion Bible (which was completed and published in 1922, nine years after his 1913 death), was emphatic in his belief that stauros never meant two pieces of timber placed across one another at any angle, "but always of one piece alone ... There is nothing [of the word stauros] in the Greek of the N.T. even to imply two pieces of timber."
Interesting. To the other Mormon people who replied to my other post about "Where does this idea come from?", it's probably an undercurrent in Mormon thought, as demonstrated by this poster's ready quotations about its supposed 'invention', saying that it was really a stake, etc. So if that idea is truly in error, it looks like it's something you'll have to discuss with your fellow Mormons such as Super14LDS. Perhaps it is in error, perhaps it is not, or perhaps both opinions are acceptable within your religion. I have no idea.
Bullinger wrote that in the catacombs of Rome Christ was never represented there as "hanging on a cross" and that the cross was a pagan symbol of life (the ankh) in Egyptian churches that was borrowed by the Christians.
Um...I belong to the Egyptian Church, and you and this Bullinger guy are talking absolute nonsense. If the ankh were the source of the Christian cross, then why did the Egyptians use the more standard t-shaped cross in addition to it? If we have the original, why would we do that, particularly if there really is some kind of problem with the t-shaped cross (which is found far more often in Egyptian churches than the ankh-shaped one)? Rather, both exist (and always have, since the beginning of Christianity in Egypt with St. Mark) because our fathers recognized this ankh/crux ansata symbol in the tombs and such as a foreshadowing of what St. Mark preached to them, and so connected the old meaning of life everlasting in the next world with the truth of life everlasting in Christ. There's no shame in that, as the same thing happened in every case (recall St. Paul preaching to the pagan Greeks about the "unknown God"...had they not made the same connection, probably the Greeks would still be pagan today).
This is why Christianity spread as quickly as it did in Egypt, not due to a 'contamination' of Christianity with paganism. You'd have a hard time suggesting otherwise in a Church which greatly venerates the likes of St. Shenouda the Archimandrite, who is recorded with pride by his biographer Besa as getting into physical confrontations with pagans!
It is a peculiar Western fear of 'paganism' that has moved various kinds of Christians to reject, at different times, the celebration of the Nativity, the veneration of saints, the veneration of icons, and all kinds of other things that are normative to the Christian life. Rather than making them more Christian, though, it moves these people further and further away from historic Christianity, until eventually you end up with things like Mormonism which claim to be restoring the true Church and yet by their doctrine and practices prove themselves to be outside of Christianity entirely. It is closer to early Christian practice to recognize what can be recognized as fertile soil for the Word to take root via other philosophies (as St. Justin Martyr did in the second century with his idea of "seeds of the Word" found in pre-Christian religion), and even to see the study of such philosophies as beneficial to that end (as St. Basil of Caesarea did in the fourth century with his treatise on the edifying use of pagan literature by Christians) than to attempt to reinvent the wheel and to fall into so many heresies as a result.
He cited a letter from English Dean John William Burgon, who questioned whether a cross occurred on any Christian monument of the first four centuries and wrote: "The 'invention' of it in pre-Christian times, and the 'invention' of its use in later times, are truths of which we need to be reminded in the present day. The evidence is thus complete, that the Lord was put to death upon an upright stake, and not on two pieces of timber placed in any manner." ...
How is this one nobody's idea evidence of anything? That St. Clement of Alexandria in the second century could refer to the cross as "the Lord's symbol" in his
Stromata shows how early on it was considered a symbol of Christianity, even if it didn't actually show up in Christian art until around the fourth century (notably, it did show up in
anti-Christian art earlier than that, in the Alexamenos graffiti c. 200 AD, so you might want to rethink your idea of who is supporting what by their stance on this). I don't remember anyone arguing that it was invented by Christians, so that part of the quote is immaterial.
Really, this is just garbage. As though it's not possible to find similar quotes from other dead English people who say the exact opposite. Since you left me with a Wiki link, here's a bit from Wiki's page on the Christian cross that shows that earlier Anglican theologians disagree with the other gentlemen whose objections you apparently endorse:
John Pearson, Bishop of Chester (c. 1660) wrote in his commentary on the
Apostles' Creed that the Greek word
stauros originally signified "a straight standing Stake, Pale, or Palisador", but that, "when other transverse or prominent parts were added in a perfect Cross, it retained still the Original Name", and he declared: "The Form then of the Cross on which our Saviour suffered was not a simple, but a compounded, Figure, according to the Custom of the
Romans, by whose Procurator he was condemned to die. In which there was not only a straight and erected piece of Wood fixed in the Earth, but also a transverse Beam fastned unto that towards the top thereof".
