Did the apostles have a problem with the cross symbol?

[Higher Truth]

Many have said that the cross as a symbol of Christianity was instituted by Constantine, but does archaeology prove this to be true? Was the cross offensive to first century Jewish believers?

http://www.leaderu.com/theology/burialcave.html

 

[Higher Truth]

HT:

I found these quotes to be of interest:



A "head stone", found near the entrance to the first century catacomb, is inscribed with the sign of the cross.

Inside, the sign of the cross was found on numerous first-century coffins.

A first-century coffin bearing cross marks as it was found by archaeologist P. Bagatti in the catacomb on the Mt. of Olives.

"One coffin, also bearing cross marks on it, was inscribed with the name "Shlom-zion" followed by the designation "daughter of Simon the Priest."

In addition, he found one ossuary with crosses and the unusual name "Shappira" - which is a unique name not found in any other first-century writtings except for the Book of Acts (5:1).

All together, more than 100 first-century coffins were found on the Mount of Olives, many bearing additional names and cross marks.


HT:

Many today are arguing that the Messiah was crucified on a stake, not a cross. How does this find affect this belief? Also, Constantine did not become involved with the "church" as it is known today until 313 ce. How does this affect the teachings of Hislop, and others that Constantine was the one who initiated the cross as a symbol of the faith as a move to blend paganism and Christianity?


It also appears that there was a separate cemetary for the Jews who were not believers:

http://holylandphotos.org/browse.asp?s=1,2,6,19,44&img=IJNTML03

 

[theseed]

Many today are arguing that the Messiah was crucified on a stake, not a cross.

That's b/c they can't accept that he was accursed of God.

 

[BenTsion]

Death on a stake concept comes from a different interpretation of the greek word used
to describe the cross. In order to believe such a thing, though, one must completely
overlook the amount of evidences showing that Roman execution was conducted on
a T-shaped cross. Since Yeshua's cross had the title 'King of the Jews' on top of His
head, one comes to the conclusion that it must have looked exactly as we believe it
to be. There is absolutely NO archaeological support of the 'stake' theory, though I
know that oftentimes Messianic Jews refer to the cross as a 'stake' in order to avoid
offending or startling non-believing Jews - if it helps to share the Word, then I'm all
for it.

In Messiah,
Ben Tsion

 

[Higher Truth]

BT:

if it helps to share the Word, then I'm all for it.

HT:

I understand what you are saying, but if it is not historically correct, then it is a lie.
This has been promoted as fact by Jehovah's witnesses, sacred name teachers, hebrew roots teachers, and even David Stern used the term stake in his CJB.

 

[Higher Truth]

John 20

25 Then the other disciples said to him, We have seen the Lord. But he said to them, Unless I see the mark of the nails in His hands, and thrust my finger into the mark of the nails, and thrust my hand into His side, I will not believe, never!


HT:

If it were a stake, would it not be singular [nail] instead of nails [plural] ?

 

[Henaynei]

That's b/c they can't accept that he was accursed of G-d.

No, you are mistaken. Please be more careful jumping to conclusions.

Scripture says "cursed is him who is hanged on a tree." Therefore it matters little if the "tree" had "branches" (i.e. like a cross) or was just a "trunk" (like a stake) - the curse stands nonetheless. The curse is necessary to our ultimate redemption!

However, the exact instrument of Messiah's sacrifice is not nearly as important as the FACT of His sacrifice.

When Rav Sha'ul said "Messiah and Him crucified" the Greek word means only "to stake." All usages of "crucify(ied)" in the Ketuvim Natzrim (NT) mean either "to stake" or to "to fasten" - or are from those roots. NONE of the words in the Ketuvim Netzrim mean "attach to a cross." (check your concordances) Also, the Greek word translated "cross" is primarily meaning "a upright stake - especially a pointed one," although it also is translated as "a cross" - but without further description. The root word means only "to stand" or "to make firm."

Again, I state that the exact instrument of Messiah's sacrifice (which even the best biblical scholars admit is not truly clear) is not nearly as important as the FACT of His sacrifice (which G-d in His wisdom has made sure is abundantly clear). It makes NO difference if it was a stake or "crossed" stakes. And if you choose to recognize and wear a cross as a symbol of your devotion to and appreciation of Messiah, none should charge you otherwise!!

But, one of our many purposes as Messianic Jews is to remove the stumbling block that "Christian" history has placed in the path of the Jewish community as relates to their ability to approach the truth of Messiah.

In a great many and horrific cases those carrying the label of "christian" used the "cross" as both the visible symbol, the physical tool of and the spiritual motivation for their hatred, abuse and murder of vast numbers of Jews. Even to this day. You and I *know* that those who do such things are NOT followers of Messiah. But to the non-Christian person one who says he is a Christian, whose community says he is a Christian, IS a Christian. Whether he wears a white hood, or swastika tatoos, or puts arches over the gates to hell that say "This is what you get for killing our G-d" or wear belt buckles that say "in G-d we trust" in German while unloading cattle cars of humans.

The Fact and Purpose of His Sacrifice is the Good News!! IF the benighted symbol of the (unverified) specific instrument on which that sacrifice took place would keep people from being able to hear that Good News, should we not be able to speak of His sacrifice and the instrument thereof in terms that remove a disgraceful and shameful stumbling block in the path of Freedom and Truth for the people G-d calls His own?

humbly
henaynei

 

[ShirChadash]

Most excellent reply Henaynei.

 

[sojeru]

the cross was a symbol of death in that time- and since the believers mashiach had also died on such a thing- they used it for their own death symbols on graves- it seems pretty simple to me...
I dont think that they had the symbol of the cross everywhere in their synagogues however, i do see that they had it on the tombs.

 

[Higher Truth]

There are three words that should be looked at for the cross / "stake" consideration. Two are NT Greek, and one is OT Hebrew.

Greek for 4716

stauros {stow-ros'}

Outline of Biblical Usage

1) a cross

a) a well known instrument of most cruel and ignominious punishment, borrowed by the Greeks and Romans from the Phoenicians; to it were affixed among the Romans, down to the time of Constantine the Great, the guiltiest criminals, particularly the basest slaves, robbers, the authors and abetters of insurrections, and occasionally in the provinces, at the arbitrary pleasure of the governors, upright and peaceable men also, and even Roman citizens themselves

b) the crucifixion which Christ underwent

2) an upright "stake", esp. a pointed one, used as such in fences or palisades

This word is found 28 times in the NT and is translated as "cross". We also find this word below which is translated as "tree":

Act 5

30 The God of our fathers raised up Jesus, whom you seized, hanging Him on a tree.

Act 10

39 And we are witnesses of all things which He did, both in the country of the Jews, and in Jerusalem. They did away with Him, hanging Him on a tree.

Greek for 3586

xulon {xoo'-lon}

Outline of Biblical Usage

1) wood

a) that which is made of wood

1) as a beam from which any one is suspended, a gibbet, a cross

2) a log or timber with holes in which the feet, hands, neck of prisoners were inserted and fastened with thongs

3) a fetter, or shackle for the feet

4) a cudgel, stick, staff

2) a tree

Total: 19 - tree 10, staff 5, wood 3, stocks 1; 19

Then we have the OT Hebrew version:

Deuteronomy 21

23 his body shall not remain all night on the tree; but burying you shall bury him the same day. For he that is hanged is a reproach to God. And you shall not defile your land which YHVH your God is giving to you as an inheritance.

Joshua 8

29 And he hanged the king of Ai on the tree until evening time. And at sundown Joshua commanded, and they took his dead body down from the tree, and threw it into the opening of the gate of the city; and raised over it a great heap of stones until this day.

Esther 2

23 And when the matter was searched into, it was found out; and the two of them were hanged on a tree. And it was written in the Book of the Matters of the Days before the king.


Hebrew for 06086

`ets {ates}

Outline of Biblical Usage

1) tree, wood, timber, stock, plank, stalk, stick, gallows

a) tree, trees

b) wood, pieces of wood, gallows, firewood, cedar-wood, woody flax

Total: 328 - tree 162, wood 107, timber 23, stick 14, gallows 8, staff 4,
*****stock 4, carpenter + 02796 2, branches 1, helve 1, planks 1,
*****stalks 1; 328


HT:

It appears that the OT prophecy is pretty clear that it is not a stake, as stake would be a last choice of words for the translation.

 

[Henaynei]

HT:

It appears that the OT prophecy is pretty clear that it is not a stake, as stake would be a last choice of words for the translation.

Using that as criteria would be very source dependant - as differing linguists/concordances/sources would, and do, have different "order" of choices.

Most NT translations are colored not a little by the politics, as well as the colloquial and contempory theology, at the time of their writing - they certianly tend to run toward an ethnocentric Hellenism rather than Judaism

 

[simchat_torah]

HT:

It appears that the OT prophecy is pretty clear that it is not a stake, as stake would be a last choice of words for the translation.

As well, no where does it state 'cross'. In other words, this argument is somewhat a moot point.

In fact, one could draw the opposite conclusion.... Cross is less likely than stake.

shalom,
yafet.

 

[Henaynei]

As well, no where does it state 'cross'. In other words, this argument is somewhat a moot point.

In fact, one could draw the opposite conclusion.... Cross is less likely than stake.

shalom,
yafet.

LOL - yeah, that too

 

[Higher Truth]

Simchat stated:

As well, no where does it state 'cross'. In other words, this argument is somewhat a moot point.

In fact, one could draw the opposite conclusion.... Cross is less likely than stake.

HT:

Let's look at the Scripture again:

Deuteronomy 21

23 his body shall not remain all night on the tree; but burying you shall bury him the same day. For he that is hanged is a reproach to God. And you shall not defile your land which YHVH your God is giving to you as an inheritance.


Hebrew for 06086

`ets {ates}

Outline of Biblical Usage

1) tree, wood, timber, stock, plank, stalk, stick, gallows

a) tree, trees

b) wood, pieces of wood, gallows, firewood, cedar-wood, woody flax

Total: 328 - tree 162, wood 107, timber 23, stick 14, gallows 8, staff 4,
*****stock 4, carpenter + 02796 2, branches 1, helve 1, planks 1,
*****stalks 1; 328


First line translation is "tree", which is nothing like a sharpened stake.

ets is translated as tree almost half the time. Stake would be a last line translation. Then we have to refer to the archaelogy at the beginning of the thread and historical writings. Many do not like the cross because they figure it is Christian, when in fact it was a torture instrument used by pagans. It all boils down to what is the truth, who cares about the symbol.

 

[simchat_torah]

First line translation is "tree", which is nothing like a sharpened stake.

Now, I don't mind if you want to dispute the idea that it isn't like a 'pale' (which by the way does not mean 'sharpened stick'), however, I would dispute the idea that the logical conclusion is a cross.

tree, wood, timber, stock, plank, stalk, stick, gallows

All of these perfectly describe a pale. You may disagree, but in no way does it support a 'cross' in the interpretation.

Granted, you can then argue that NT words support a 'cross', I haven't touched upon that. I'm merely pointing out that it is illogical to denounce a pale (or stake) based on the Old Testament lingustic word usage and uphold a cross interpretation.

It simply doesn't make sense.

Shalom,
Yafet.

 

[simchat_torah]

While I tend to agree with Henaynei, the device of torture is not important, it is the sacrafice that deems worth. However, this device of torture has come to represent and become a symbol to so many that I think it is worth investigating.

shalom,
yafet.

 

[simchat_torah]

I understand what you are saying, but if it is not historically correct, then it is a lie.
This has been promoted as fact by Jehovah's witnesses, sacred name teachers, hebrew roots teachers, and even David Stern used the term stake in his CJB.

Under this same line of reasoning, if it turns out that the Messiah did not die on a cross, but in fact a stake/pale, would it not be as important to you? Would you not consider it such a lie and deception? Would you not denounce it and reject this symbol?

I tend to think you wouldn't. Maybe I'm wrong, but I would tend to think you would not be so quick to reject it if it were shown to be true.

Yet, you are quick to denounce those who interpret it differently. You are quick to call them liars, etc.

What if historical evidence was shown to you otherwise? Would you believe and accept it? Or do you love the symbol of torture so much that you would not cast it off? Where do you honestly stand?

These are intended to be rhetorical questions for you to examine your own heart. While you are quick to denounce many messianics who earnestly seek truth, would you really do the same if you found that any particular object/theology you clung to was found to be a fraud?

Shalom,
Yafet.

 

[Henaynei]

What if historical evidence was shown to you otherwise? Would you believe and accept it? Or do you love the symbol of torture so much that you would not cast it off? Where do you honestly stand?

These are intended to be rhetorical questions for you to examine your own heart. While you are quick to denounce many messianics who earnestly seek truth, would you really do the same if you found that any particular object/theology you clung to was found to be a fraud?

Shalom,
Yafet.

It is also worth noting that there were those who disagreed with the "cross" translation long before MJism came around. Not that that "proves" corss or stake - just that it is not specificly some MJ issue trying to re-translate to fit some view point.

 

[Higher Truth]

How do we deal with this then? Did these first century Jewish believers just randomly choose to put a cross on these ossuaries for no reason?

A "head stone", found near the entrance to the first century catacomb, is inscribed with the sign of the cross.

Inside, the sign of the cross was found on numerous first-century coffins.

A first-century coffin bearing cross marks as it was found by archaeologist P. Bagatti in the catacomb on the Mt. of Olives.

"One coffin, also bearing cross marks on it, was inscribed with the name "Shlom-zion" followed by the designation "daughter of Simon the Priest."

In addition, he found one ossuary with crosses and the unusual name "Shappira" - which is a unique name not found in any other first-century writtings except for the Book of Acts (5:1).

All together, more than 100 first-century coffins were found on the Mount of Olives, many bearing additional names and cross marks.

 

[Henaynei]

The original thread question: "Did the apostles have a problem with the cross symbol?" begged the question (perhaps unintended, but I don't think so) about the reluctance of many to use that specific symbol in varoius ministries, especially to Jewish people.

The apostles had no problem with shape of what ever tool was used for Messiah's sacrifice, period.

But, because for the centuries of "christian" persecution using and hallmarked by the "cross," there are literally millions of people (specifically the Jews - G-d's own people) who have been barred fro access to salvation - "ain't Satan thinking that's jus'a hoot?"

No one is suggesting, neither is there any danger that we "deny the crucifiction." In chosing an alternate wordage to represent the instrument of the cruicifiction we are in no way denying any facet of His execution.

So, I return to my original point: the specific shape of the symbol is vastly less important than the act (Messiah's sacrifice) and it's purpose (redemption of all people, "to the Jew first"). If the use of a corrupted symbol bars the path to salvation and redemption of so many, why the animosity and resistance to accepting the symbol, in a slightly different shape, that allows the entrance to the Good News to so many previously barred?

I wonder which Yeshua would say was the most important??