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 
For those who are religious, do you get offended by people who wear cross-shaped jewelry for cosmetics? (Page 2)
Anonymous
(18-24) 
Click "Show More" for your mentions
Most Helpful Opinion(mho) Rate.
Learn more
Learn more
We're glad to see you liked this post.
You can also add your opinion below!
What Girls & Guys Said
Opinion
24Opinion
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.
@Exterminatore www.jw.org/.../
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."
![For those who are religious, do you get offended by people who wear cross-shaped jewelry for cosmetics?]()
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.
![For those who are religious, do you get offended by people who wear cross-shaped jewelry for cosmetics?]()
![For those who are religious, do you get offended by people who wear cross-shaped jewelry for cosmetics?]()
"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.
Yes, it's bizarre that so-called "Christians" should want to hang a cross around their necks as a sacred object of devotion when it really was an abhorrent instrument of torture on which Jesus was supposedly executed.
@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