Talk:Christian cross

message: Wesley, do you think we need separate articles for crucifix and Christian cross? (I support your decision in advance :-) --Ed Poor
I don't think the Iron Cross is a Christian Symbol, any more than the Victoria Cross. DJ Clayworth 17:15, 12 Aug 2003 (UTC)
replies: text: Just a little note: it should be noted that in heraldry, a few crosses are not Christian in origin, such as the "cross moline".  --Daniel C. Boyer 19:28, 17 Jun 2004 (UTC)

text: I think that for some Christians Jehovah's Witnesses are not really Christian? -- Error 02:31, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know any denomination which seems Jehova's Witnesses as Christian. Some Religiologists consider them as a very extraordinary but a Christian denomination. For NPOV we can add a phrase "there is some who claim they are Christian, but the Cross has been not a part of true Christian faith." or so. KIZU 06:55, 12 May 2004 (UTC)

text: I concur, User:MartinTurner. There is already a "Pre-Christian" section on the article called cross. To duplicate it here violates WP:CFORK. If there are no objections, I will go ahead and remove it. I hope this helps. With regards, AnupamTalk 18:26, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Non-Christian crosses

message: I thought that the Iron Crown was that of Hungary. -- Error 02:31, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: It belonged to the Lombards; see for example . --67.71.79.45 03:52, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)

text: The crown of the Kingdom of Hungary is Crown of St. Stephen. Wetman 10:11, 26 Apr 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Iron Crown

message: I would suggest that the editor of the new section provide some citations for the material there. Hopefully he will notice this comment and oblige readers. Trc | [msg] 16:23, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Please read Futher Reading. Rantaro 07:12, 11 Jun 2004 (UTC)

text: It may be correct, or may be incorrect, to assert that the chi-rho  was used by worshippers of Mithras (and/or Sol Invictus) rather than used exclusively by Christians, but it's neither an unusual nor an infrequent assertion. - Nunh-huh 06:34, 11 Jun 2004 (UTC)

text: Sorry,I don't think this is not biased. This article is bias to Catholic doctrine. If you are not permitted, I'll revert. (I don't think we need your permission)Rantaro 14:50, 11 Jun 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citations please? 

message: Of course I am not opposed in theory (nor in practice, done correctly) to a section of this article containing the Jehovah's Witness' view of the cross. There are several key problems with the text Rantaro is trying to add.
#The first part appears to contain facts which are not necessarily opposed to anything. Indeed the archealogy of the cross shows a great many uses of the cross over peoples and time. It is hopeless to state as "opposed" anything that is in fact factual.
#These facts are coming from him and would require a great deal of vetting.
#He cannot really arrange any factual content more reasonably because ...
#Rantaro evidently does not speak English, which further strongly implies that he is posting some material wholesale; with or without attribution this is not the way it is done.
#Rantaro knows perfectly well that he is stating some opinions as if they were facts, and can be required to learn to avoid that by properly scoping his views. For example, "Spinach is unhealthy" would not be appropriate content for spinach, but at the very least "Rantaro believes that spinach is unhealthy" is factual. Then all that is left is to ascertain whether Rantaro's belief is of interest; I think we can say that the beliefs of Jehovah's Witnesses are worth cataloguing. No problem there.
Trc | [msg] 16:43, 11 Jun 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rantaro's edits 

message: I disputed the page for you, since from what I saw both Trc and Rantaro seem to be disputing additions made by the other. I consider myself an impartial, relitively ignorant observer. If anyone would like to explain to me whats wrong w the current article, or what needs fixed/removed/added I'm all ears. I'd like to see us reach concensus and remove the dispute header ASAP, BTW. Sam [Spade] 06:21, 14 Jun 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Wow! I gave a chuckle when I saw what happened (in my watchlist I only saw Sam Spade and was surprised, but then sure enough, there was Rantaro in the history). I've already spoken my piece. The problems should be pretty clear. I do embrace a section detailing JW views of the cross; facts are always good. Trc | [msg] 06:28, 14 Jun 2004 (UTC)

text: I should clarify that I made no addition other than the notice at the top... at least not that I recall. I was only concerned about Rantaro's addition. Trc | [msg] 07:06, 14 Jun 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hi 

message: The sentence "At the time of this supposed event, he was an avid sun-god worshiper. His conduct after his so-called conversion also gave little evidence of real dedication to right principles. Christianity was little more than a political device to unite a fragmented empire for him." should really be in the Constantine I article. It is not directly related to the cross. I'd suggest taking it out - there is already a link to Constantine.
Also, the sentences "By the middle of the 3rd century, 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 by faith, and were permitted largely to retain their pagan signs and symbols." seems a bit biased, and actually it isn't directly relevant to the discussion about the Christian cross. This should also be taken out, mainly because it's unnecessary commentary. - Ta bu shi da yu 09:08, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reference to Constantine 

message: We have 12 pictures representing 3 types of crosses (Latin, Celtic, Double). Would anyone object to having one representative picture for each type of cross? Assuming they can be found. Stbalbach 06:23, 9 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds a good idea. It might be also nice to aim at keeping a historical spread from ancient to modern to provide some historical depth. Man vyi 06:46, 9 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Would these be photos to supplement the simple drawings/graphics?  A good Jerusalem Cross photo is already on Wiki at this link: Bozeat Cross.  --Dulcimerist 00:24, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

text: The Bozeat example of a Jerusalem Cross has been added.  Should we title each of these as to their type of cross, and where the photos were taken?  --Dulcimerist 05:54, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Excellent, excellent idea. The current "Forms of the Cross" section could be turned into a table with an image for each type. The columns of the table might be: photo/name of the cross/earliest known date of use/name of the organization which used it.AmateurEditor (talk) 23:28, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gallery 

message: To call the Latin cross "the traditional" form of the cross is not NPOV, IMHO. Many Eastern Catholics and Eastern Orthodox would disagree. It would, perhaps, be more appropriate for the caption to read "a traditional, especially in the West," or something to that effect. --Mm35173 20:40, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV on Illustration 

message: I think it would be appropriate to add to this article a snippet or two about how the cross has come to be venerated and used in Christian liturgy and prayer.
For example, exposition on the traditional placement of crucifixes in both Eastern and Western-style sanctuarys, the inclusion of the crucifix in the rosary, the Feast of the Veneration of the Cross (September 14, common to both East and West, Catholic, Orthodox, Lutheran and Anglican), the sign of the cross and blessing, mention of the inscription on the cross as definied by both the Johanine and Synoptic texts, etc. --Mm35173 20:49, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cross in terms of liturgical use 

message: Is that a heraldry cross? Stbalbach 02:03, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: A cross by this name isn't among the 175 crosses listed in the symbols book I own.  Could there possibly be an alternate spelling?  Is a description of this cross given?  Thanks.  --Dulcimerist 00:33, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Occitan cross? 

message: In the gallery of crosses, the first claims to be the high cross at cashel - I suspect that it is not!  The third cross is - --ClemMcGann 12:25, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Check the images by googling "Cashel cross" on Image mode. If you're right, by all means correct the captions. --Wetman 00:45, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Cashel High Cross

message: A legitimate Archeological observation, based on numerous physical examples from excavation and collections shows the gradual changing of the shape of the upper arm of the ankh cross, from a  circle or oval to a teardrop or "gothic-like" peak, in the first centuries of the Chistian era.This article should reflect archeological input as well as Catholic church tradition. There is a term for this style of Christian cross arising from the ankh tradition.It may have had some later influence of the flairing Maltese cross design of later times.The editor who removed the reference, and image, seems to want the article to only reflect church teachings and exclude common archeological secucular opinion. The bust in question was released by the Egyptian government for export in 1970. It has been examined, by various museums, including the Coptic Department at the British Museum in 1970. It is authentic, and conforms with other artifacts from the early christian era in Egypt, in every respect. The reference has been little altered for nearly a year. I would characterize the edit as rather "iconoclastic". The black cross that remained is not visually interesting.3dnatureguy 07:23, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Place for archeology in this "cross origin" subject 

message: This article is somewhat rambling and is mostly a lot of references strung together IMO. This was, afterall, the Roman world,
crucifixion was still a common form of execution by the empire. The "Crux Ansata" was a generalized symbol of unity within
Egyptian cosmology. Though purely pagan in its inception it may have taken on a christian significance very early, as it
had already began to reflect some influence of the growing sense of monotheism in the helenistic centuries just prior to the christian era. This significant because it comes from secular archeology, rather than the cited church text references.3dnatureguy 10:44, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Just edit as you think is best, no one is going to say anything unless it's wacko - most of this article was written by hit and run anon users. -- Stbalbach 15:28, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  I have to reinterate...Egypt deserves the historical credit

message: Please give reasons for removing referenced and verifable statements in this section? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Traveller74 (talk • contribs) 04:24, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: See WP:LEAD. The lead section is a summary of the article contents. Discussing a highly debated and debatable topic in a footnote in the lead section without proper balance of other points of view is not good. You could create a separate section, or separate article even. It is also possible this has been discussed already elsewhere on Wikipedia and can be linked to there in more detail. -- Stbalbach 17:01, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Your removal of the most recent additions strongly bias the article, possibly toward your own POV. For a truly NPOV, the lead section should include both for and against, which I've added. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 58.107.0.14 (talk) 03:10, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well you obviously have not read WP:LEAD. Please try to follow the rules and conventions of Wikipedia. Also thanks to User:Lima for making the effort to organize the article. -- Stbalbach 13:46, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Obviously someone did't read WP:LEAD, and I'll quote it to save your time "briefly describing its notable controversies, if there are any. It should be between one and four paragraphs long, should be carefully sourced as appropriate".--Traveller74 07:05, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Stbalbach, you're right, the lead section does fail based on the points you've mentioned above. Omission of controversy would also cause it to fail WP:LEAD. So, there must be middle ground that satisfies WP:LEAD. The middle ground is what I’m pushing for. I’m in no way asserting that what I’ve added is perfection. --Traveller74 22:49, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Perfection is subjective and never obtained, but lengthy footnotes in the lead section are clearly unusual for Wikipedia, in particular when it is not discussed (much) in the article body. -- Stbalbach 03:09, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Everything there was discussed in the article body but was kindly removed by Lima. Hopfully the most recent changes will satisfy your understanding of WP:LEAD. --Traveller74 06:18, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lead section 

message: I don't understand why these footnotes are so long. I mean, currently, footnote #1 and #2 are each longer than than the average article on Wikipedia. Is there some reason this material can not be incorporated into the article?  -- Stbalbach 15:54, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The second of the two mentioned is there to respond to the first. Instead of incorporating the two texts in the body of the article, where they would take up even more space, would it be better, provided the sponsor of the first footnote agrees, to omit the quotations and merely give the references?  Lima 16:35, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree possible a very short summary though you should see some of the footnotes on the Jehovah's Witnesses pages! George 19:36, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

text: OK i was wrong the footsin JW pages are not at the end sorry.George 19:38, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Footnotes 

message: 1. "This thesis is based in part on an improved understanding of the ancient languages."  What ancient languages?  The earliest accounts of the crucifixion of Jesus are only in just one language, Greek.  What new discovery has appeared (perhaps in 1930?) about the meaning of ?
2. Anonymous editor 216.79.140.195 says that three books, published respectively in 1629, 1878 and 1904, "provide support" (weasel words!) for the idea that Jesus was crucified on a stake.  The form of the alleged support in not indicated.  Is that because they really only state that  and crux can, but do not have to, mean a simple stake.  That was known long before 1629, and also before 1930, when somebody claimed to have discovered it.  Even if the writers of the 1629, 1878 and 1904 books had stated that Jesus was crucified on a stake - which seems extremely unlikely - it is hard to imagine how they could possibly know better than the writer of the probably first-century Epistle of Barnabas, who described it as shaped like the letter T, and second-century Irenaeus, who described it as having "five extremities, two in length, two in breadth, and one in the middle, on which [last] the person rests who is fixed by the nails"?
3. I could comment also on the gratuitous assertions in the paragraph, under the heading "Pre-Christian use of the cross symbol", that the same editor added, starting with the authoritative-sounding "It must be remembered that ..."  But what I have already said is enough for now.  Lima 13:47, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: adding to "scholarship", Jerome, who translated all the aramaic, hebrew, and greek texts into the Latin Vulgate, had unsurpassed access to ancient texts, speakers of the languages, and is considered the most achieved biblical scholar ever. He translated stauros as crux. Some find this apropos. No offense, and I'm American too, but JW founder - an american, w/ an inkling of the resources, material and intellectual - available to Jerome, questions his assertion. then we get all the modern (pseudo-)scholarship backing his claims. Some find that chronology apropos as well. The Jackal God 17:39, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with this conclusion, but not with the premisses.  1. "Crux" in Latin, at least at an early stage, had a wider meaning than "cross".  2. "Crux" was used in Latin of what Christ died on long before Jerome.  Tertullian, who was much earlier than Jerome, called it a "crux"; and Tertullian was one who used "crux" in the precise sense of "cross", distinguishing between "crux" (cross) and "stipes" (stake). See, for instance, Apology, chapter 12 ("Crucibus et stipitibus inponitis Christianos" - You put Christians on crosses and stakes).  Lima 20:02, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vague gratuitous assertions 

message: Will anonymous editor 71.31.236.121/67.140.125.195 please explain on what basis he/she thinks it justifiable to insist on putting in as fact false statements to the effect that the word "stauros" denotes only an upright pale or stake (when the great Liddell & Scott Greek lexicon expressly says it also means a cross); that the word "xulon" is never used of a live tree (when in fact it was frequently used of a live tree - see examples in Liddell & Scott); and that "xulon" must be interpreted as "a piece of a dead log of wood or timber, for fuel or for any other purpose" (when "xulon" was in fact used of constructed objects such as a wooden collar or stocks for the legs, or for legs, arms and neck together, a table, a bench, a gallows ... - see the same source).  The anonymous editor's statements are simply false; and the anonymous editor is also dishonest in implying that the 1911 Encyclopaedia Britannica supports these false statements, when it expressly says the opposite, namely that Jesus did die on a cross "formed of two transverse bars of wood" and was "executed by crucifixion".  Lima 14:45, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "He makes it clear that ..."! 

message: Just a thought. --Bentendo24 18:59, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: But how is this relevant to the article? 204.52.215.107 (talk) 03:53, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Isn't this idolatry? 

message: Much of the discussion above centers on a body of text in the article giving detailed arguments on the issue of whether Jesus died on a stake (as Jehovah's Witnesses believe) or on a cross.  This body of text has now been moved to Cross or stake as gibbet on which Jesus died, with only a brief summary and a link remaining on this page.  --BlueMoonlet 13:26, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  JW debate moved 

message: The above stauros debate is fascinating-ish. But I wandered onto this page after some information on the christian usage of crosses. I think we have established that many creeds of christians use them (and it seems some don't). 
There is however no mention of when the cross, or its inhabited form the crucifix, became widespread in churches. The histories here kind of peter out. My reason for searching for this info was, that I stumbled across an early work on the first crusade which asserted that crosses were first used on altars by the church, just prior to the schism, at about the same time that the Normans were exerting influence on the church. 
This seemed to make sense to me for several reasons, such as; the re-adoption of the constantine like use of a particular cross in battle by the crusaders (including a similarly visionary revelation by Raymond of Toulouse who tore strips from his cloak and sowed them as crosses on his supporters), and the apparent dissimilarity of crosses used by the east and west branches of the church. 
It seems most likely to me that of the two churches, the eastern one would be less likely to innovate a new style cross. Indeed the sudanese coptic church and it's cross is widely recognised as the most unbroken ancient christian tradition.  so is the common western cross a neolism? Simply something that we are so familiar with that we assume it has always been so? like pews in churches (a 19th century victorian development) or church bells (a 9th century christian response to islamic call to prayer, just as muslim mosque hammam tradition is a continuation of the roman bath, since lost by christianity). 
After searching the carvings in the numerous saxon and norman churches that exist in the uk, I have yet to find a single contemporary carved cross, there are lions and chevrons and green men and even the odd vescia piscis, not to mention monkeys. even the surviving frescos don't exhibit a single cross. I would really like to know when the cross started to become common in churches, was it a feature of the second millenium or not?
any ideas? 81.102.245.79 01:47, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That image may perhaps be the oldest image in a church of a crucifixion, or at least of the crucifixion of Jesus with the other two who were crucified along with him, but it is by no means the oldest cross in a Christian church.  The first specific ones that came to my mind are those in Ravenna.  See, for instance, [Ravenna Mosaics (6th - 7th century).  But there must be crosses in churches even earlier, dating from before when the English accepted Christianity.  Lima 04:50, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ok so what about the Christian cross then? 

message: The article on the Eastern Orthodox Christian Icon Corner has a link called "Blessing Cross" which leads here, where there is no mention of a blessing cross.  Will someone please remedy this? J S Ayer (talk) 02:32, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The link is for the word "cross", not for "Blessing Cross".  Lima (talk) 07:26, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

text: Most people viewing this page will only suppose that a "blessing cross" is simply a cross used for blessing, neither too big nor too small for that purpose.  Have you asked your question on the Talk page of the article in which the expression is used?  That's where you're more likely to find an editor familiar with the expression used in that article.  If you check the history of the article, you might even find out which editor inserted the phrase, and you could ask him/her.  Lima (talk) 11:03, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

text: I suppose that the reference was to the little cross (about 20 cm long) that the priest during the Liturgy in many Eastern Rites keep in his hand when he turns to the people, as for example in the dialogue "the Lord be with yuo" before the anaphota (= euchartic prayer). This cross is otherway placed on the altar and can easly be keep in hand. In Syrian use this cross has a decorated rope attached to the lower parte. A ntv (talk) 11:31, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Blessing Cross 

message: There should perhaps be discussion in the article on the controversial practice of spitting on crosses in Israel, which has been discussed in the newspaper Haaretz.  ADM (talk) 07:38, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Spitting on crosses in Israel

message: There should also be a note on why Muslims reject crosses. One of the reasons is that the Koran denies the whole crucifixion story, and denies that Jesus is the Son of God. ADM (talk) 06:12, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Rejection of crosses by Islam

message: The information in Vine's Expository Dictionary on the cross, is also valuable information on research:
"The shape of the latter had its origin in ancient Chaldea, and was used as the symbol of the god Tammuz (being in the shape of the mystic Tau, the initial of the name) in that country and in adjacent lands, including Egypt. 
By the middle of the 3rd century 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 (the Catholic type priest) pagans were received into the churches apart from regeneration by faith, and were permitted largely to retain their pagan signs and symbols. Hence the Tau or T. in its most frequent form, with the cross-piece lowered, was adopted to stand for the cross of Christ.  
As for the Chi, or X, which Constantine declared he had seen in a vision leading him to champion the Christian faith, the letter was the initial of the  word “Christ” and had nothing to do with “the Cross” (for xylon, a timber beam, a tree, as used for stauros, see under TREE). 
The method of execution (death on a single upright beam or tree) was borrowed by the Greeks and Romans from the Phoenicians. …
The judicial custom by which the condemned person carried his stake to the place of execution, was applied by the Lord to those sufferings by which His faithful followers were to express their fellowship with Him, e.g. Matt 10:38.Natural (talk) 15:21, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Cross - Vine's Expository Dictionary

message: Google Books gives hundreds of books in English that speak of the crucifix as composed of "cross" and "corpus".  It seems to give no book in English that speaks of the crucifix as composed of "cross" and "soma".  I think therefore that, following actual English usage, we cannot say that "the cross is shown with the figure of Christ (often referred to by the Greek soma) affixed to it, in which case the combination of the cross and the figure of Christ is typically called a crucifix".  Lima (talk) 10:13, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Crucifix = cross + corpus 

message: A Christian cross that has been omitted from the article is the Ouzo Cross, which is described in excruciating detail in "The Ouzo Prophecy".  69.27.9.34 (talk) 20:06, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Ouzo Cross

message: This material by a new user is an essay, I reverted it once, but can not be bothered to argue the case. Please read and hopefully remove. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 23:20, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Got it down to 4 lines. In fact we might mention the enthusiasm with which early Calvinists destroyed crosses too. Johnbod (talk) 23:46, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  I did not know that, so please add and explain there. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 23:56, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Essay by new users

message: I recall an episode of The Naked Archeologist that marking the forehead with the sign of the cross probably originated from a jewish tradition where the cross is realy the last letter of the jewish alphabet (tav) resembling an "X" and meant you where righteous. It's in the bilbe somewhere. Bloodkith (talk)
:You are probably thinking of Sign of the Cross, not the Christian cross. As for theories of origin, they are a dime a dozen, everyone and his uncle has one, none can prove it. History2007 (talk) 23:07, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: What Bloodkith had in mind is , which most English versions translate generically as "place a mark on the foreheads", but which in the Hebrew text uses the word "תו" (the last letter of the Hebrew alphabet, which at the time of Ezekiel was cross-shaped). A literal translation of the Hebrew is given in the Rheims version. Esoglou (talk) 11:45, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes, that is related to the a "sign on the forehead". But I have seen no evidence that the Christian practice is based on that, e.g. as stated here and here. There are, however, many far fetched theories and they are mostly unsubstantiated. In any case sign on the forehead relates to the other article and not this article.History2007 (talk) 13:08, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Bloodkith, in speaking of a Jewish tradition, was certainly not thinking of the Christian "sign on the forehead"; what was behind his enquiry was doubtless the mention in Ezekiel of a marking with the then cross-shaped last letter of the Hebrew alphabet, a mention that only in hindsight Christians have interpreted as a type or foreshadowing or prefiguration of the cross of Christ.  Esoglou (talk) 06:38, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  sign on the forehead 

message: Shouldn't we have the Biblical reasoning as to why Christians today use the symbol of the cross? There are areas in The Gospel that talk about the cross. Alliereborn (talk) 05:33, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: We'd draw opposition from Jehovah's Witnesses, who insist that the cross of Christ mentioned in the New Testament was a simple upright, although all the early Christians who speak of its shape describe it as having a crossbar as well as an upright (see Dispute about Jesus' execution method).  Esoglou (talk) 06:38, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Biblical reasoning 

message: Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources.  Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you.  Dana boomer (talk) 19:43, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copyright problem removed 

message: Whatever is the basis of the Watchtower's interest in claiming a simple torture pole instead of a cross, is difficult to prove.  Is the basis a desire to unsettle established convictions in hopes of proselyting or is it sincere theological reasoning?  For NPOV neither of such assertions should be in the article.  We don't know what the basis is, & it is contentious to maintain one.  Thus the fact that they argue from something, is the more objective term, & thus it has been changed. Now it is hoped that no one reverts this improvement unless there is some way that changing it is needed to improve the article.  (EnochBethany (talk) 07:35, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia just summarizes the sources, users do not get to engage in original research to argue against them.  If you have counter sources that demonstrate that that is not what Jehovah's Witnesses believe, then present them.  Sources that argue that the Jehovah's Witnesses are wrong aren't enough: the section is about what Jehovah's Witnesses believe (right or wrong). Ian.thomson (talk) 17:03, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Except this is not an article about Jehova's Witnesses or their beliefs, so this is at best a very marginal point related to a very marginal sect in a topic dealing with Christianity as a whole, so the question may not be one of "NPOV" but it is certainly one of WP:DUE. This page is about the symbol, not about random historicity debates. There is a dedicated place for this, and it is at Instrument_of_Jesus%27_crucifixion#View_advanced_by_Jehovah.27s_Witnesses. It may be best to not even mention this here, as the main article is already clearly linked. --dab (𒁳) 07:31, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  To Preserve Objectivity & NPOV "Based on " is change to "argued from" 

message: Is there a better source to cite than a bishop in the 1660s for the Roman method of execution? This would appear to be a relic from an earlier debate— it seems to be countering some claim about Christians traditionally seeing the cross shape as an execution device, but the claim it is countering has been removed (probably wisely). I would rather see an archaeological source, or a description from Roman times.Martin Turner (talk) 15:47, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citation for Roman Method of Execution 

message: "According to Swami Vivekananda the Christian cross is the Shivalinga converted into a cross.[4][5]" Both references only show that the swami claimed this absurd thing. The Shivalinga does not remotely resemble a cross, but looks like a large rounded pot turned upside down. That is as crazy as saying that the Star of David is Stonehenge converted into a hexagram. Wikipedia articles get zanier every day. This article severely needs to be edited and trimmed by an educated person.77Mike77 (talk) 12:59, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I've removed that claim under WP:FRINGE.  Tertiary academic sources would be needed to establish that this view is noteworthy (even if fringe).  Ian.thomson (talk) 14:40, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I've not removed any of the other material as it merely says the shape was used before Christianity (true).  Some of the sources are of poor-quality, however (though they're not being used to make outrageously fringe claims).  Ian.thomson (talk) 14:44, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why is the quack opinion of a single swami included here? 

message: A discussion is taking place to address the redirect :Christ's sacrifice on the Cross. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 October 4#Christ's sacrifice on the Cross until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion.  Hog Farm  Bacon 04:17, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Christ's sacrifice on the Cross" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]]