I would never impose my thoughts or beliefs on someone else such as this.
In elementary school age I was going through a skater/goth thing where I would rotate snake and cross earrings. I wasn’t disrespecting anything. I was finding my own path and fashion.
I had so many adults tell me during that time it was a sacrilege to wear a cross on the person.
That is incredibly out of line. Not keeping their own religious views to themselves, and pushing them on someone else's child. I would have a big problem with the person with a problem coming at my own children.
GaG is funny like this. I hadn’t thought of that since fifth/sixth grade.
Thanks for the mhg.
I wear crosses as well as other faith symbols we can't worry what people think, as women we have to do what makes us feel beautiful not them ❤️
Opinion
24Opinion
I don’t care what people wear, I wanted to buy a religious Buddhist chanting CD for cultural reasons when I’m not Buddhist, it’s fair game to me.
Jesus did not die on a cross. The cross is a pagan symbol, it is not Christian.
“From its simplicity of form, the cross has been used both as a religious symbol and as an ornament, from the dawn of man’s civilization. Various objects, dating from periods long anterior to the Christian era, have been found, marked with crosses of different designs, in almost every part of the old world. India, Syria, Persia and Egypt have all yielded numberless examples, while numerous instances, dating from the later Stone Age to Christian times, have been found in nearly every part of Europe. The use of the cross as a religious symbol in pre-Christian times, and among non-Christian peoples, may probably be regarded as almost universal, and in very many cases it was connected with some form of nature worship,” Encyclopedia Britannica, 11th ed., pg. 506.
According to author Ralph Woodrow, "Centuries before the Christian era, the cross was honored as a religious symbol by the people of Babylon. It is seen on their oldest monuments. Historians say that it was a symbol associated with Tammuz" (Babylonian Mystery Religion, p. 51).
In ancient times, each false god had his own cross. “In their temples, in their houses, on their images, etc., the worshippers [of pagan gods] were accustomed to see the peculiar Cross, or Crosses, dedicated to each [individual deity]. Bacchus had his, Serapis his, and so forth.” (Brock)
"Further proof of its pagan origin is the recorded evidence of the Vestal Virgins (Koster) of pagan Rome having the cross hanging on a necklace, and the Egyptians doing it too, as early as the 15th century B. C."
Dr. Bullinger, in the Companion Bible, appx. 162, states, "crosses were used as symbols of the Babylonian Sun-god (Tammuz).
Worship of the pagan sun god Tammuz was condemed by God in the Bible and called "detestable" . "Then he brought me to the door of the gate of the LORD's house which was toward the north; and, behold, there sat women weeping for Tammuz." (Ezekiel 8:14).
It was the custom of pagan women in ancient times to wear little crosses around their necks in honor of Tammuz.
https://www.thesimpleanswers.com/articles/2012/02/18/the-christian-cross-is-pagan/
https://www.sabbathcovenant.com/mysteryreligion/TheCrossofTammuz.htm
The funny thing is that the symbol of the cross predates Christianity by a few thousand years. It originated in ancient Chaldea, and was used as the symbol of the god Tammuz (being in the shape of the mystic Tau, the initial of his name) in that country and in adjacent lands, including Egypt.
The religious symbolism of the cross has is rooted in paganism. It became a symbol of Christianity only after the time of Constantine. The historical records show that Christianity adapted the influences of pagan worship, which included the symbol of the cross.
I think its kind of funny that a lot of Christians believe that they are honoring Christ with the cross but instead are using the symbol of a pagan god.
Oh, yeah. Christians adopted some pagan symbolism from a Chaldean deity. Of course! …because a cross is not associated with Christ, at all. There isn’t any logical connection there—except for the misappropriation of “the mystic tau.” It’s a good thing you are here to put all those Christians in their place.
@Paul_in_Indy do you have an issue with historical facts or something? Lol
Clearly, there is no other historic connection between Christianity and the cross—only that thing you came up with. Crosses aren’t even mentioned in the New Testament.
@Paul_in_Indy you mean the tool in which the Roman’s used to crucify Yahshua of Nazareth? It’s kind of weird to use the murder weapon of your god as a symbol of your religion. It’s also kind of weird that it was a Roman 300 years after the death of Yahshua who incorporated a lot of pagan tradition and rituals into Christianity who also decided to used the symbol of Tammuz as well.
@Subaru
So let me get this straight. The ancient Chaldeans used the Roman alphabet before it was invented?
You know the letter “t” is Roman. The Chaldeans did not use this alphabet. Therefore the “T” cannot stand for Tammuz as you claim.
This is the Chaldean alphabet:
omniglot.com/writing/chaldeanneoaramaic.htm
@Paul_in_Indy
Well said.
@Exterminatore lol I think you mean Latin…. And I didn’t claim anything. Historians did… because of evidence found.
@Subaru
Latin or Roman alphabet. The terms are interchangeable. You did claim it. You stated it as a fortune cookie bit of wisdom that was fact, when in fact I just proved right here irrefutably that it is false.
This is exactly what I was referring to in our conversation on a different post on this thread with @CalmMind.
These scholars hate Jesus and Christianity and will make up all manners of nonsense to try to refute Christianity. They do it because whether or not the know or admit it, they hate God. How many people have see or heard the same information you shared about this here or elsewhere and took their word for it?
As I stated the cross cannot stand for Tammuz’s initial because they did not even know what the letter “T” was and certainly would not have spelled his name with the Latin or Roman alphabet. They would have used their own alphabet and their equivalent of a “T” looks nothing like the one we are familiar with.
To further demonstrate folly here, you mention the word tao. Tao is the Greek word for the letter “T.” There is noting mystic about it.
Further more as @Paul_in_Indy stated, Christians did not adapt pegan symbols. All Jews and Christians are familiar with the 10 commandments and particularly the one about having no other gods. It is probably the foremost command. Honoring another god would constitute idolatry.
This is certainly more crap made up by supposedly learned men to defame Jesus, the Bible and Christianity. They make these claims and people believe them. How many times has this happened in history, archeology, science and anthropology? Even you believed it and recited this fortune cookie bit of psudowisdom as fact.
Nope, there's nothing wrong with it. In fact I'm more than happy that you chose to honour God this way.
What do you mean?
You're jewelry are beautiful and i don't think that there's anything wrong wearing a cross!
Now about you're outfits, well as long as you're modest than it's okay, not showing too much skin and for sure your female private parts are always well hidden!
Nope. I'd be lying if I said I always understood it or found it appropriate, but it's not my call to make; I can (and do) tell others to question their actions in light of their professed faith, but "examine your conscience" is hardly the same thing as "you're wrong".
I got no problem at all whatsoever, my girlfriend and her mum are background was Muslim but they don't practise any more but wear cross jewelry for fashion the look good, also wear belly button jewellery too.
Looking good on them
In my face the cross is a sign of death. We Believe that God is alive he was resurrected and that we can be resurrected as he was. But also I see that when people wear the sign of the cross it shows they are believers of God. So we should respect them for their beliefs and views as they should respect our beliefs and views.
I’m not religious and i’m not easily offended. However, i do notice and i sometimes ask. I’m not sure why the non-religious would choose such charms.
Not really offended. Usually I just assume that they are in some way religious. Even when they are clearly not and are acting like people of a lower lifestyle it's not really offensive, just mildly annoying.
I do not care because it's their business with their maker. It really doesn't hurt nor does it benefit me.
I want to wear so awfully! Crosses are so aesthetic.
I'm an atheist tho. My mum wouldn't mind.
I am not religious but I just don't get it. If I see someone wearing a cross I'll assume they're religious. Unless they're in the mafia.
But really I don't get the point unless you wore it since you were young and your parents would notice something weird if you take it down
How would I know what she or he feels deep in their souls? Anyone that wears a Cross is showing Love for Christ... and if not... I am not the Judge of their soul...
I'm not fussed, I'm probably the only Catholic, that finds the crucifix ugly, and uninspiring. I just don't like looking at it.
Nah, just a fashion symbol to me at this point really lol. chases away vampires too... supposedly so thats a plus
haha wth? whoever disagreed if it means a lot to you then hey cool!
No. Without knowing I would assume they’re religious but it’s no one’s business to dictate whos allowed to wear it
I always assumed they were believers too. Very strange to were a symbol of Jesus's sacrifice as just a accessory.
I wore a cross for a long time. I wore the thing out. I often wonder if the looks you get are not just people checking you out.
It’s both. It’s always a bit weird to see people who obviously don’t follow their religious teachings or take religion seriously wearing religious symbols.
Right? All this people wearing they symbol of Tammuz but call them selves Christian, it’s funny.
That’s a bunch of crap Subaru. The cross of Tammuz looked a lot more like a plus sign (+) than a Roman cross.
They’re clearly different. Also you and me are probably the only people on this site who even know who Tammuz is. I’m pretty sure no one is claiming Tammuz.
@Exterminatore The religious symbolism of the cross has is rooted in paganism. It became a symbol of Christianity only after the time of Constantine. The historical records show that Christianity adapted the influences of pagan worship, which included the symbol of the cross.
@Exterminatore Obviously there's some key differences in iconography but as an example the Celtic Cross so commonly associated with Catholicism was originally used for sun god worship that predates Christianity's arrival to Western Europe. While there's extra adornments the "t" shaped structure is there. Not much of a leap to say that the structure itself was used elsewhere prior to Christianity. Not to mention the fact that the Christian importance of the symbol itself is predated by the associated practice for which it got its meaning in Christendom, i. e. being crucified, and this was after many years of it being practiced by many different cultures who were never even exposed to Christianity at the time. Symbols, holidays, religious practices, etc. get co-opted by dominant religions all the time. The general understanding of Christian religious practices and holidays as being original is flawed as they molded themselves to better suit those groups they were proselytizing to and/or conquering. Bit off topic/tangent but she does have a point in her second response post. I don't know shit about Tammuz so no comment there.
@calm
The symbol or like symbols may have been used elsewhere but Christianity was not influenced by paganism.
Prior to the Roman Empire being converted there were no religions in the regions controlled by Rome that had any similarities to Christianity besides Judaism.
@Exterminatore lol is that so? Where did Christmas and Easter come from?
@Subaru
12/25 was the date of the winter solstice on the Roman calendar which corresponds to 3/25 being the spring equinox and the annunciation of the birth of Christ to Mary.
Easter is set according to the Passover feast of the Jews. We know when that is and when it occurred at the time of Jesus The Romans wanted Jesus and the 2 others who were crucified with him off the crosses and in the ground or tomb before Sun down because that’s when the Passover started. The Romans wanted this so as not to anger the Jews and illicit a revolt, which the Jews did often enough.
Are you going to try to tell me Easter Is connected to Ishtar and Christmas to some feast to Saturn?
That’s just more nonsense from the oh so learned academics who in fact hate Christianity and invent reasons to defame Jesus, and his followers.
After all, if we can convince ourselves that all this Jesus business is rubbish we can sin to our hearts content. That’s what they’re really after. It’s what their hearts long for. That’s why we have the the THEORY of evolution taught as ABSOLUTE FACT. That’s why we have the fanciful Big Bang Theory with its self existent densely packed atom. It’s all science of course. Atoms just appearing on their own. Which defies the laws of thermodynamics, but I digress from my point.
No God = no guilt = no condemnation = living as we damn well please without having to answer to this pesky God who condemns much of our hearts desires.
No condemnation = living in sin without fear of eternal consequences.
So, fanciful tales using “science”, well more like pseudoscience and delightful tales of Christianities origins have been created, all to cast doubt on this annoying Jesus person so we can sin freely…and encourage everyone else to do likewise. After all, what good is it to live a lie on our own, so we’ve told these lies to everyone under the false consensus that the more people who nod in agreement with our fairy tales the likelihood of eternal damnation is a myth.
@Exterminatore You're implying a lot as to my motives without actually knowing me. You're also making a lot of assertions without evidence. I don't hate Christianity or Christians. It is however a matter of historical record that many of their holidays in terms of DATES and PRACTICES as we know them are co-opted from other sources. I don't think this really has anything to do with the concept of Christianity in and of itself. I think that has A LOT to do with what power religion gives a select few people, like Emperors or Popes for example, over the masses as a tool for societal conversion and cohesion. Religion isn't really the issue, it's what people do with it that is. And I'm saying this as someone who thinks the ancient Islamic world had the crusades coming for a long time given the centuries they raided, enslaved and actually conquered Southern Europe/Spain in the run up to the Crusades. You can't ignore/change history because if doesn't shine a good light on a group of people you happen to belong to.
@calm
I was replying to sabarugirl and referring to academics not you personally.
Academics, meaning the scholars who come up with absurd scientific theories that contradict the Bible and have very little in terms of valid science to support them, or archeologists and other supposedly learned men who want me to believe Easter got into Christianity because of Ishtar or Isis or some other pegan deity.
You are right. I do not no you, but I do know the motivations of many of these people, starting with Darwin himself who was a psychopath who loved torturing animals in his youth.
@calm
Which holidays are co opted. Christmas was set in the 3rd century by the Christian church and corresponds to the Roman calendar. We now use the Gregorian calendar. I also explained Easter. We know Jesus was crucified on a Fri, and that Sat, the Sabbath immediately following the day he was crucified was Passover, so we know the timing of his death. Christians celebrate the entire week leading up to Easter Sunday, to include the preceding Sunday, Palm Sunday.
Which holidays are you referring to?
You are quite right about the Crusades. They were not some fanaticized movement of barbarian Christian’s who came to the Levant to beat up Muslims and steal their land and gold. Rather, the Byzantine Empire was under the relentless assault of the Seljuk Turks, new converts to Islam and Emperor Alexis Komonos I appealed to pope Urban II for help. The pope knew if the Byzantine Empire fell, just as Spain did around 700 to the Muslims and Sicily after that, that the whole of Europa was in danger. Yes, there were also atrocities committed against the pilgrims going to and from Jerusalem. It’s funny how these things are not mentioned in history class and instead mentioned are the greed and blood lust of the evil racist Christians who participated in the crusades.
So, the Muslims had already been invading Europe and conquering many lands 500 years before the crusades and 400 years before them Jerusalem was a Christian city before the Fatamyds took it from them. I’m glad you can see the Crusades, however unfortunate we’re necessary.
That is just another subject liberal minded and anti God minded academics and scholars have managed to twist.
@calm
In regards to certain practices, I know the Catholics incorporated a few pegan rituals. For example the advent candle. That was one of many reasons for the Protestant reformation. Or after the reformation, Our Lady of Guadalupe, I believe that was an Aztec goddess which made its way into Catholicism.
I’m Protestant and abhor these things the Catholics have incorporated into their theology. This was one of the 95 grievances Martian Luther had against Catholicism.
However in terms of holidays, I think you won’t find any that were deliberately transferred. The Saturn/Christmas and Ishtar/Easter fairy tale is just that, regardless of which scholar or group of scholars claim it’s so.
I am always surprised by how many cross necklaces are visible in naked selfies shared online.
Why? It’s a pagan symbol
@Subarugirl You know that symbols change meanings with time? Swastica doesn't symbolise luck anymore (like it used to), because of National Socialists.
What's the difference? That's all it really is.
Yes you should be arrested for looking that gorgeous 😜
No, it's none of my business to judge what other people wear.
Why be catholic if you sit here and admit you don't give a shit
You should only wear a cross if you’re religious not for jewelry
Who cares what they think?
No coz I wear them too.
Nope. Wear what you want.
nice hair style and colour, congr. :)
It is good to see girls wear this
If it offend people that makes it mandatory
Jesus died on a stake.
When the Roman’s used the crux simplex they typically did not normally nail the feet.
“For dogs have compassed me: The assembly of the wicked have inclosed me: They pierced my hands and my feet.”
Psalm 22:16 KJV
According to this, Jesus was mailed through both hands and feet.
Crux immissa was the method used because there was also a sign hanging above him that read Jesus king of the Jews in Latin, Hebrew, and Greek.
Therefore, Jesus did not die on a steak (crux simplex) as scripture would indicate it was the traditional Latin or Roman cross (crux immissa) that was used.
That’s not all together unreasonable but here’s another issue. The crucifixions had to be completed by sundown.
Crus Simplex would need to be pounded into the ground.
Too much work.
Jesus probably carried the crossbeam of crux immissa to Calvary where there were wooden slits in the ground for the upright to slide right into.
It is fair to say that we know crus commissa wasn’t used because there would be no place to hang the sign saying he was king of the Jews. We know crus decussata also was not used because again there was no place to hang the sign.
That leaves crus simplex or crus immissa. I think crus immissa would be favored due to what I mentioned. Crus simplex would already be there waiting for him. No one has time to dig a whole and pound a log into the ground. Also trees were sparse around Jerusalem in those days.
Crus immissa fits the criteria best.
@Exterminatore Not likely. It took only 6 hours for Jesus to die. Someone nailed to a crucifix with their arms stretched out on either side could expect to live longer, for up to about 24 hours.
The Bible generally uses the Greek word stau·rosʹ when referring to the instrument of Jesus’ execution. (Matthew 27:40; John 19:17) Although translations often render this word “cross,” many scholars agree that its basic meaning is actually “upright stake.” According to A Critical Lexicon and Concordance to the English and Greek New Testament, stau·rosʹ “never means two pieces of wood joining each other at any angle.”
The Bible also uses the Greek word xyʹlon as a synonym for stau·rosʹ. (Acts 5:30; 1 Peter 2:24) This word means “wood,” “timber,” “stake,” or “tree.” The Companion Bible thus concludes: “There is nothing in the Greek of the N[ew] T[estament] even to imply two pieces of timber.”
@Exterminatore "Homer uses the word stauros of an ordinary pole or stake, or a single piece of timber. And this is the meaning and usage of the word throughout the Greek classics. It never means two pieces of timber placed across one another at any angle, but always of one piece alone. Hence the use of the word xulon in connection with the manner of our Lord’s death, and rendered “tree” in Acts 5:30; 10:39; 13:29. Galatians 3:13. 1 Peter 2:24. This is preserved in our old English name rood, or rod….
The Catacombs in Rome bear the same testimony : ‘Christ’ is never represented there as ‘hanging on a cross’".
yrm.org/.../
@Exterminatore Another Biblical picture of what the so-called “cross” looked like is revealed in John 3:14.
"And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up."
So Jesus was to be lifted up in the same fashion as Moses lifted up the brass serpent. What was that brass serpent lifted up on? Was it a cross?
Numbers 21:9. "And Moses made a serpent of brass, and put it upon a pole…"
And in the exact same way, Jesus was lifted up – not on a cross, but on a stauros… a POLE or STAKE.
@Kasabiian and besides... let's say he died on a cross... think about what statement you're REALLY making.
@Kasabiian
That’s some pretty thorough scholarship. Thank you for such a thorough answer. I greatly appreciate it.
Just one question. Think of the weight that an upright pole capable of having a human body nailed to it must weigh. How did Jesus carry that most of the way from where he was scourged to where he was crucified? Yes, I know Simon of Cyrene helped him for a bit of that distance. That said you’re probably talking about something roughly the size of a telephone pole, but maybe only 12 feet long. It must be remembered a good portion must be put in the earth to stabilize it and balance the weight. How was he able to carry that with the massive blood loss from the scourging? Seems a bit unlikely.
I could see a cross beam from crus immissa style of crucifixion being carried or drug, but the girth from a pole - crus simplex would be nearly impossible to carry or drag. It is difficult to believe he was crucified in that manner because of that.
“I am poured out like water, and all my bones are out of joint: My heart is like wax; It is melted in the midst of my bowels.”
Psalm 22:14 KJV
“All my bones are out of joint.”Again, the type of crucifixion you’re describing - crus simplex is not going to produce that type of injury in most cases.
@Exterminatore Jesus would have dragged the stake, so he wouldn't be carrying the full weight. I think it would have been more unlikely that he would have needed help had he been carrying only a crossbeam.
Psalm 22:14 is a poem using poetic language. Many Bible commentaries unanimously agree on the meaning. Barnes: "The Hebrew word - פרד pârad - means "to break off, to break in pieces, to separate by breaking;" and then, to be separated, or divided. It is not necessary to suppose here that his bones were literally dislocated or "put out of joint," anymore than it is necessary to suppose that he was literally "poured out like water," or that his heart was literally "melted like wax" within him. The meaning is that he was utterly prostrated and powerless; he was as if his bones had been dislocated, and he was unable to use his limbs." Another commentary compares this verse with the poetic language used in Psalm 6:2: "Have mercy on me, LORD, for I am faint; heal me, LORD, for my bones are in agony."
@Kasabiian
I don’t not agree with Barns there. Obviously those are descriptions of torment. Perhaps if I was hot I’d say: “I’m burning up.” Obviously not literally. I think that’s very poor commentary.
Ok, so how would you get an arm around something like the size of a telephone pole to drag it. The answer is you can’t.
@Exterminatore Ellicott's Commentary: "The state of hopeless prostration into which the victim of these terrible foes is brought could not be more powerfully described. It is a state of entire dissolution."
Benson Commentary: "My bones are out of joint — I am as unable to help myself, and as full of pain, as if all my bones were disjointed."
Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Bible Commentary: "Utter exhaustion and hopeless weakness".
Matthew Poole's Commentary: "All my bones are out of joint; I am as weak and unable to move or help myself."
Gill's Exposition of the Entire Bible: "and all my bones are out of joint; not through the stretching of his body on the cross, which seems to be designed in Psalm 22:17; but as it is with persons in a panic, their joints seem to be loosed, and their bones parting asunder, their legs tremble, no member can perform its office, but as if everyone was dislocated and out of its place; see Psalm 6:2".
"Ok, so how would you get an arm around something like the size of a telephone pole to drag it."
Over the shoulder, like so: 
Or how about it means literally that. Bones were dislocated to be nailed to the cross, the cross you’re saying wasn’t used. How about the heart melting like wax maybe describing the physical pain since his side was pierced and water came out? Makes more sense right? Instead of trying to explain it away as poetic, how about more literally. How about the joints literally being dislocated as was often the case with crus immissa, as the nail holes were pre made typically with that type of crucifixion. If the arm doesn’t reach…. make it. Not to mention when the up right was dropped into the ground, the shoulders were probably often dislocated as a result.
That picture you showed is one of the cross beam of the type of cross I think Christ was crucified on. That is no where near large enough for a human. Needs to be tripper that size in circumstance or more.
Like this one:
commons.m.wikimedia.org/.../...ux_Simplex_1629.jpg
And functionally the one in that drawing is probably too thin.
How will a brass serpent hang from a pole without a cross section?
@Exterminatore "Makes more sense right? " No, it makes no sense at all. You are saying that the first part of the verse should be taken literally, but the rest of the verse is metaphorical. And if it is to be taken literally, you are going to have to explain how ALL of Jesus bones became dislocated. There are 206 bones in the human body.
"Instead of trying to explain it away as poetic.." It is not trying to "explain it away", Psalm 22 IS a poem. And, as I have shown, every Bible commentary on the verse agrees that it is using poetic language; it is patently obvious given the context of the passage. And, as I have also demonstated, the exact same poetic language is used in Psalm 6:2, and in the very same chapter at Psalm 22:17.
I do not see why you think that stake is no where near large enough for a human. The Crux Simplex in your link is essentially the same width. It only needs to be large enough to support a man, it is not built for comfort. 
"How will a brass serpent hang from a pole without a cross section?"
It says Moses put the brass serpent on a pole, no mention at all of a cross section.
time-space-perceptions.blogspot.com/2017/08/
@kasaniian
I have to say, I’m very impressed with your answers. I think you may well be right. Thank you once again for your thorough scholarship regarding this matter. You have caused me to reevaluate my position regarding this matter. Thank you for educating me. I greatly appreciate it. Have a wonderful day and God bless!
@Exterminatore Thank you for your kind words. It's only because I have put in some thorough research on this subject in the past, being unsure myself. There are arguments for both sides, and no one can know its shape with absolute certainty. But the weight of evidence indicates that Jesus died not on a cross, but on an upright stake.
You presented some additional points to consider with Psalm 22 which required further research on my part, so thank you for that.
Regardless of the shape of the instrument on which Jesus died, the important point is that the cross has pagan origins, first-century Christians did not use the cross in worship, and Christians today should likewise not use the cross in worship or as decoration.
@Kasabiian not to mention that the worship of the cross indicates that you worship the tool that supposedly was used to kill him.
@Kasabiian though, I suppose it makes sense... considering the last few years of this MAGA cult.
@Kasabiian
You’re most welcome. It shows you have put through study into the material and I think there’s a very good chance you are right.
I’m glad I was able to challenge you. You certainly did me.
I do not agree however about the cross having pegan origins.
The claim is it was a symbol of Tammuz and is in the shape of a “T” for his initial. There just one problem. The letter “T” comes from the Latin or Roman alphabet, which was not invented yet for the ancient Chaldeans to be familiar with it, and further more they had their own alphabet and the equivalent of a “t” looked completely different than the “t” we know.
@Sabretooth
Who is actually worshiping the cross itself? No one. That’s silly.
@Exterminatore false Christians.
@Exterminatore "The letter “T” comes from the Latin or Roman alphabet, which was not invented yet for the ancient Chaldeans to be familiar with it..."
No, it doesn't. The letter "T" comes from Egyptian hieroglyphs, which obviously pre-date the Chaldean alphabet.
"... and further more they had their own alphabet and the equivalent of a “t” looked completely different than the “t” we know."
The Chaldeans used Proto-Sinaitic, Phoenician and Paleo-Hebrew alphabetic writing. In all three it looks exactly the same as the "t" we use today.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taw
I emphatically do not agree on that. You are dead wrong.
@Exterminatore that's your opinion. But, I suppose neither yours nor mine really matters. So, you'd beat be damned sure.
Not my opinion.
www.pinterest.ca/.../
@Exterminatore do you love your family?
@Exterminatore You've just posted some random photo from pinterest. I don't even know what it is supposed to be. Chaldean 13, 14, 15? Where's Chaldean 1 - 12? Did you even bother to look at the link I posted?
"The 20th LETTER of the Roman ALPHABET as used for English. It originated as the Phoenician symbol taw, which the Greeks adopted and adapted as tau (τ), which was in turn adopted by the Etruscans and then the Romans as T."
"Taw, tav, or taf is the twenty-second and last letter of the Semitic abjads, including Phoenician Tāw Phoenician taw."
"Taw is believed to be derived from the Egyptian hieroglyph representing a tally mark (viz. a decussate cross)"
"Tau was derived from the Phoenician letter taw. Letters that arose from tau include Roman T and Cyrillic Te (Т, т)."
"The symbolism of the cross was connected not only to the letter chi but also to tau, the equivalent of the last letter in the Phoenician and Old Hebrew alphabets, and which was originally cruciform in shape".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taw
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tau
@Kasabiian
The Phoenician alphabet is not the Chaldean alphabet.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suret_language
The Chaldean language was known as Suret.
What the Greeks adopted from Phoenician is irrelevant also. Greek and Roman alphabet are not even similar.
The bottom line is the Roman alphabet was not in use in Chaldea, they had a different alphabet, there for the “T” in our alphabet cannot be used as the initial “T” for Tammuz. The Chaldeans would not know that letter of our alphabet, therefore the cross symbol cannot have been used as a reference to Tammuz first initial.
Their problem, not yours,
No not at all
You can also add your opinion below!
Girl's Behavior 
Guy's Behavior 
Flirting 
Dating 
Relationships 
Fashion & Beauty 
Health & Fitness 
Marriage & Weddings 
Shopping & Gifts 
Technology & Internet 
Break Up & Divorce 
Education & Career 
Entertainment & Arts 
Family & Friends 
Food & Beverage 
Hobbies & Leisure 
Other 
Religion & Spirituality 
Society & Politics 
Sports 
Travel 
Trending & News 
Most Helpful Opinions