Duvduv

There is apparently lack of clarity what the term STAUROS means in the New Testament, such that the assumption that the cross was a + Latin Cross is suspect, as opposed to a T cross.
But a T cross in Latin would correspond to the X tau which formed part of the Chi-Rho that was attributed to Constantine.
But if the T cross was the form believed by Romans to be used for crucifixions in general, why would the Constantine legend use the Chi-Rho? Especially if the X represents the letter of the word Xristos BUT represents the letter T in the word Tammuz?
And of course early references don't even refer to a crucifixion, but only to a death of Jesus.
I guess the bottom line is that the mystery of the Cross is really a mystery, and may have non-earthly meanings to it, however the form of the cross in crucifixion really was.
I presume that when Josephus wrote about the crucifixion of the Pharisees by Jannaeus, he meant the Roman Latin cross, which may not at all be the correct form, and could have been in the form of an X.

Duvduv

Interestingly enough it was at the time of Justinian in the beginning of the SIXTH century that the LATIN CROSS, a + was represented on a coin with a depiction of the Emperor Justinian.
So we see in two hundred years ostensibly a move from the chi-rho tau cross to the latin cross, and does this represent theological changes??

Duvduv

What "the Cross" symbolizes for Christian theology, i.e. the sacrifice of the Christ, atonement for mankind prior to resurrection, could not apply to the Chi-Rho cross, but if Chi-Rho represented something more than the first two letters of the name Xristos, then does that present new questions about what the Constantinian beliefs really were, regardless of the official church histories and apologetics, and does it suggest that Jesus was thought to have been crucified on a Tau/Chi Rho style cross?

la70119

I'll tell you why they went to a 'T'. Because that's what Romans hanged criminals on. An execution pole with a crossarm at the top and a spike for a seat midway up, in case the nails might let go (they did have a tendency to break). And they HAD to have their MJ crucified by the Romans, ON EARTH, in RECENT HISTORY, instead of continuing with a Gnostic precedent, which is preach a celestial crucifixion.

Duvduv

So did the Constantinians believe that Christ was crucified in this world on a Chi-Rho cross, that then was changed to mean a Latin + cross??

Sheshbazzar

Doesn't matter much, as all old Scratch's 'mark' has ever needed was the two lines crossing, to identify what are his possessed possessions.
Whether branded upon flesh, or sticks upon a rope, or fashioned of pure gold, set with diamonds and dressed up with fancy filigrees, hung upon gold chains. It is all the same, and all 'mark' the same source, with all being destined to the same end.

Bingo the Clown-O

Ezekiel 37:16-17
“As for you, son of man, take one branch, and write on it, ‘For Judah, and for the Israelites associated with him.’ Then take another branch and write on it, ‘For Joseph, the branch of Ephraim and all the house of Israel associated with him.’ Join them as one stick; they will be as one in your hand.”

stephan huller

Where's the x?

mountainman

Helena discovered, for her son's people, very solid and very believable evidence.
There can only be the one true cross.

Duvduv

I don't understand how this answers my question.