1. Why did they enlarge the ends of the crosses in early time from the time of Constantine, since we see coins with such cross? Thanks in advance. [Amazing colorful mosaics at the basilica of Almyrida, of the early byzantine era (6th century bC), in Apokoronas, Crete, Greece.](https://www.alamy.com/amazing-colorful-mosaics-at-the-basilica-of-almyrida-of-the-early-byzantine-era-6th-century-bc-in-apokoronas-crete-greece-image568479165.html) [Croix Christianisme (Wikipedia)](https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Croix_(christianisme)) [The Christogram in the mosaic may look like a cross, but it's actually more like a "chi rho" symbol, which puts together the first two captial letters in the Greek word for Christ.](https://www.livescience.com/42761-ancient-church-mosaics-uncovered-israel.html) https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/see-the-greek-biblical-inscription-embedded-in-an-ancient-mosaic-floor-discovered-in-israel-180985849/ https://wowcappadocia.com/aidesim-mosaic-basilica.html https://www.dailysabah.com/history/2017/03/03/1600-year-old-byzantine-mosaics-in-kilis-to-attract-tourists [A Church Beyond Compare - The Nea Church, or the Basilica of Saint Mary the New in Jerusalem (543-614)](https://www.johnsanidopoulos.com/2017/11/a-church-beyond-compare-nea-church-or.html) https://www.wildwinds.com/coins/ric/constantine/t.html I mean this - the enlarged ends of the crosses. It looks like the ankh and the equal sided cross from the near east have enlarged ends, not exactly sure why, there is similarity. https://www.pinterest.com/pin/353884483203978736/ https://www.wildwinds.com/coins/ric/constantine/t.html How can there be sol invictus with Christian cross? [Ancient Numismatic Coins](http://numismatics.org/ocre/id/ric.7.tic.45?lang=hu)

1. https://dzen.ru/a/ZXNFALUrMW9CfeYc https://www.pravenc.ru/text/2459015.html 2. I am not really sure if this is Christian. Some say it is. https://herculaneum.uk/Ins%205/Herculaneum%205%2015%20p4.htm 3. https://www.livescience.com/42761-ancient-church-mosaics-uncovered-israel.html 3. https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Croix_(christianisme) 4. https://www.pravenc.ru/text/2459015.html 5. Why are there so many cross variants, and are there ancient writers that describes them? Why do we see so rare in the early time the standard latin cross without enlarged ends? But instead we see with enlarged ends. Thanks in advance.

Catholic tradition tells us that Jesus fell three times under the weight of the cross on His way to Calvary. I wish to know if any studies based on historical evidence have been conducted by Catholic Church on the dimensions and weight of the cross that Jesus bore. For instance, was the cross made of dry wood or out of freshly felled tree ?

In the approbation given the 1854 edition of St. Alphonsus Liguori's [*Preparation for Death (or Considerations on the Eternal Maxims)*](https://ia803105.us.archive.org/20/items/preparationforde00ligu/preparationforde00ligu.pdf) one finds: QUESTION: Does anyone know the name of this cross? It seems neither to be an iron cross nor a maltese cross. I would like to know what it is called because I am hoping to reproduce it with LaTeX and make use of it in a current work of mine. Thank you.

Was Jesus The Lamb of God or the High Priest (whom offers the lamb as a sacriffice)? John the baptist said " Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world" John 1:19 And in Hebrews 4:14 it is written "Seeing then that we have a great high priest, that is passed into the heavens, Jesus the Son of God".

Horatio G. Stafford wrote lyrics for the hymn that has the chorus, ***"It is well, it is well with my soul"***. It may be more quickly recognised by that chorus than its title, *"It Is Well".* Verse 3 starts off well, and ends well, but there's a bit in the middle that disturbs me (put in bold) as this seems to show a muddling up of two different theological points about what happened at the cross. Here is all of verse 3: > My sin, O the bliss of this glorious thought! > > **My sin**, not in part but in whole, > > **Is nailed to His cross**, and I bear it no more: > > Praise the Lord, praise the Lord, O my soul! But does not Colossians 2:14 state that it was the handwriting of ordinances which were contrary to us that was nailed to the cross, removing them - "in whole"? Yes, 1 Peter 2:24 says that Christ, on the tree, bore in his own body our sins. However, the handwritten commands were perfect, not sinful, yet the time came for them to be removed. This seems to have happened alongside Christ bearing our sins in his body on the tree. That which was not perfect (our sins) was borne by Christ in his body, while the perfect law of God was nailed to the cross, to be removed. Does this not conflate those two truths, by fusing bits of both together, so that both truths are corrupted? Our sins are ours, personally. The law of God is perfect and is his. Is it not critically important for the sake of biblical theology to know how both those things were dealt with - one nailed to the cross, the other borne in Christ's body? (Note: this related question deals with Colossians 2:14 and may be helpful in clarifying the doctrine of that scripture, but it does not deal with the hymn in question and the other scripture it incorporates. https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/80218/whose-hand-wrote-the-document-that-listed-my-transgressions-colossians-214 )

Jehovah's Witnesses unlike any other Christian sects believe that Jesus Christ was not crucified on a cross but was instead crucified on a torture stake, did the Early Church Fathers believe that Jesus was crucified on a cross or on a stake?

The Jehovah's Witnesses state that Jesus was not nailed on a cross, but on a torture stake. The New World Translation of the Bible is phrased accordingly. For example: > **Matthew 10:38 (NWT)** > And whoever does not accept his torture stake and follow after me is not worthy of me. (All the other translations (that I know of) translate *cross* instead.) What is significant about the difference between a **torture stake** and a **cross**, and on which one was Jesus crucified? --- An illustration of what might be a *torture stake:*

Master Jesus was crucified on a tree, according to Apostle Peter. >**Acts 5:30** 30 The God of our fathers raised up Jesus, whom ye slew and **hanged on a tree**. >**Acts 10:39** 39 And we are witnesses of all things which he did both in the land of the Jews, and in Jerusalem; whom they slew and **hanged on a tree**: >**Acts 13:29** 29 And when they had fulfilled all that was written of him, **they took him down from the tree**, and laid him in a sepulchre. >**1 Peter 2:24** 24 Who his own self bare our sins in **his own body on the tree**, that we, being dead to sins, should live unto righteousness: by whose stripes ye were healed. On some accounts, He was crucified on the cross. >**Matthew 27:40** 40 And saying, Thou that destroyest the temple, and buildest it in three days, save thyself. If thou be the Son of God, come down **from the cross.** >**Matthew 27:42** 42 He saved others; himself he cannot save. If he be the King of Israel, let him now come down **from the cross**, and we will believe him. >**Mark 15:30** 30 Save thyself, and come down **from the cross.** >**Mark 15:32** 32 Let Christ the King of Israel descend now **from the cross**, that we may see and believe. And they that were crucified with him reviled him. >**Luke 23:26** 26 And as they led him away, they laid hold upon one Simon, a Cyrenian, coming out of the country, and **on him they laid the cross**, that he might bear it after Jesus. >**John 19:19** 19 And Pilate wrote a title, and put it **on the cross**. And the writing was JESUS OF NAZARETH THE KING OF THE JEWS.

The plain Cross is perhaps the most frequently used symbol on the earth. One can see a distinct pattern in the dimensions of the horizontal and vertical beams of the Cross . Many years ago, I heard that the ideal ratio of the length of the vertical arm and each of the horizontal arms measured from the junction is 2:3. To elaborate, if the vertical arm above the junction is two feet long, each of the horizontal arms should be of three feet. One is not sure if a proportion is fixed for the vertical beam running downwards from the junction. The question is :Is there a standard ratio fixed for the dimensions of arms of the plain Cross ? If there is one, does it have a historical backdrop, or is it just a matter of aesthetic considerations ? PS: a typical example of aesthetic considerations is the dimensions of National Flags. The Indian National Flag has the prescribed ratio of 2:3 for width and length. The American Flag has 1:1.9 .The ratio is determined by the features of the flag and the prospects of the best look.

Apropos [Ken Graham's Question of 18th August](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/96729/looking-for-sources-of-mediaeval-church-architecture-that-shows-and-or-explains) on medieval church architecture. One rarely comes across literature on the big crosses constructed around churches. For instance, you find an obelisk, a construction that traces its origin to Egyptian culture, at the centre of St Peter's Square, Rome. Of course, it has a cross on the top. Curious enough, the churches of Southern India, some of which trace their origin to the first century, have such peculiar constructions. St Thomas, the Apostle is believed to have reached India in 52 AD and established a few churches. The Portuguese who landed in 1498 rebuilt many such ancient churches, supplementing the local architecture with their own (See [Christianity in Kerala: Church Architecture](https://www.keralatourism.org/christianity/church-architecture/24)) . One particular feature is that of three crosses on a pedestal—erected on the south, north, and west of prominent churches, which almost invariably faced east. Some of these crosses, erected at a distance of say, half a mile, from the church, are accompanied by a small chapel locally called 'Kappela', the word tracing its root to the Portuguese language. These chapels would not host the Holy Eucharist and would be used for devotions like rosary and novena. Historians say that the construction of such an extension of the main church by way of crosses, was in vogue even before the arrival of the Portuguese since some of them have inscriptions in Syriac language. That would imply that the custom had originated with the Jews or any other people like the Chinese, Persians, and Arabs who had settled in India for trade. I am not aware if the tradition can be seen in the West. From where did the tradition of erecting three crosses around a church originate?

According to An Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words (London, 1962), W. E. Vine, p. 256. : >The shape of the [two-beamed cross] 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 his name) in that country and in adjacent lands, including Egypt. By the middle of the 3rd cent. 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 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.” There are many other references that agree that prior to 3rd or 4th century only non Christian groups ever used the symbol of the cross in their worship. There is also the matter of whether or not Jesus was put to death on a cross or a single upright stake as the Ancient Greek words stauros indicates. Thus I am asking: How does the Catholic Church explain the cross becoming acceptable to use and venerate as a symbol of Christianity?

In the following YouTube video clip (Messe à Notre-Dame de Paris du 20 janvier 2019 ) in which it is clearly visible that the priest celebrating mass in the Paris Notre Dame is wearing some kind of *Order* or special 5-star or cross medallion. What is this cross or star? What does it mean?

On the Crosses in Parishes, Cathedrals, Rosaries, and any other place that there is a Catholic image of a Cross, you will find Jesus on the cross. But this is not true for Eastern Orthodox or Protestant groups. Why is this? Related: https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/5476/why-the-difference-in-depiction-of-the-cross-between-catholics-and-protestants

Notice the bottom of the cross, with the diagonal line. What does it represent/symbolize (if anything)?

I was wondering if there are any prominent or otherwise named group of Christians who believe that Jesus did away with our debt by legally canceling our debt instead of actually paying for the entire amount due. In other words, are there those who believe that it wasn't required that Jesus' suffering was equal to or exceeded all the suffering of punishment that each one of us is due because he dealt away with the legal requirement, period, through the cross? This follows from passages like Col 2:14 where the consequences of our trespasses are merely set aside because of Christ's offering at the Cross: >Colossians 2:13-14 And you, who were dead in your trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, God made alive together with him, having forgiven us [liberating us from] all our trespasses, 14 **by canceling the record of debt that stood against us with its legal demands. This he set aside, nailing it to the cross.** (ESV) See also Romans 7:1-6 where our freedom from the legal obligation to be punished by law for sin is effectuated in Christ's death the same way that woman may be freed from the legal obligation to her husband through death. >Romans 7:1-6 ​Or do you not know, brothers—for I am speaking to those who know the law—that the law is binding on a person only as long as he lives? 2 For a married woman is bound by law to her husband while he lives, but if her husband dies she is released from the law of marriage. 3 Accordingly, she will be called an adulteress if she lives with another man while her husband is alive. But if her husband dies, she is free from that law, and if she marries another man she is not an adulteress. > >4 Likewise, my brothers, you also have died to the law through the body of Christ, so that you may belong to another, to him who has been raised from the dead, in order that we may bear fruit for God. 5 For while we were living in the flesh, our sinful passions, aroused by the law, were at work in our members to bear fruit for death. 6 But now we are released from the law, having died to that which held us captive, so that we serve in the new way of the Spirit and not in the old way of the written code. (ESV) And Ephesians which describes the law being abolished in Christ's flesh. >Ephesians 2:14-16 For he himself is our peace, who has made us both one and **has broken down in his flesh the dividing wall of hostility 15 by abolishing the law of commandments expressed in ordinances,** that he might create in himself one new man in place of the two, so making peace, 16 and might reconcile us both to God in one body through the cross, thereby **killing the hostility.** (ESV)

David Thurman in his book, "From Vines to Wines in Classical Rome " writes about a very common first century practice (testified by Pliny and Columella) of establishing vineyards with a post and a single cross bar, from 4 to 7 feet high, with (among other options) reeds acting as wires connecting vine branches with the props (posts) for a trellis system. This understanding from Pliny & Columella in the first century, of how a typical trellis system was set up, goes against the conventional understanding of vineyard management in Bible times. For example, John Dominic Crossan depicts sprawling grape vines on the ground in his, "Interpretive painting of first century Nazareth. The view from the ridge ." (scroll down to the 5th picture) - Illustration from Crossan and Reed, Excavating Jesus (2003). It occurred to me that a high wooden prop (post) with a cross bar would look very much like a cross with a grape vine draped over it, especially if sheep or other animals were to eat the leaves below. The significance is that, if Jesus were walking past vineyards speaking about the vine and branches, it would be a very cruciformish experience. That is to say, it would have an added existential impact of being both Christ centered and cross focused - e.g. believers connect with Christ on the cross to bear spiritual fruit. The Gospel of John was composed in Ephesus and universally ascribed by the custodians of the early canon to John the son of Zebedee - an eyewitness of Jesus. Ephesus was an area known for grape growing. When Anthony entered the city of Ephesus, Plutarch says, “women arrayed like Bacchanals, and men and boys like Satyrs and Pans led the way before him and the city was full of ivy and thyruswands and harps and pipes and flutes, the people hailing him as Dionysus, giver of Joy and Beneficent.” Some have argued that both Osiris and Dionysus were hung on trees and crosses. If so, the *praeparatio evangelica* impact of John 15 in relationship to a crucifixion, would be an extraordinary illustration for the initial readers of the Gospel - who were coming from a Dionysian background. Here is an example of a modern trellis system in Baja Mexico that looks like a cross. It would be similar to those in Bible times. However, in Bible times, the grape vines would have been higher up on the trellis wires (reeds in this case). They would appear draped around the cross bar post like linens on a cross during Holy Week. What are the earliest artistic examples of grape vines depicted on a cross in church history? A modern Easter clip art example can be found here. Are there other examples of a modern trellis system post looking like a cross, besides the one in Baja Mexico? Postscript: **Sheep have been used by "wine shepherds" to do leaf thinning, eating suckers off the vines, fertilizing and eating cover crops, etc. It is highly likely that they were used in Bible times for crop management. Therefore Crossan's view of ground sprawling vines is a dubious portrayal of viticulture in Nazareth. Jesus growing up in Nazareth, where a first century wine press has been found, would likely have been familiar with raising sheep in a vineyard context. The picture below shows sheep in a vineyard. Although pigs, not being kosher, would not have been raised by Jesus! Also, goats are too aggressive with the vines and so the sheep would need to be separated from them.* *

Mary is the mother of Jesus. Salome is mentioned twice in Scripture. >There were also women looking on afar off: among whom was Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James the less and of Joses, and Salome; Mark 15:40 >And when the sabbath was past, Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James, and Salome, G4539 had bought sweet spices, that they might come and anoint him. Mark 16:1 Even though she is only mentioned twice, it appears the assumption is Salome is Mary's sister. >Σαλώμη (Hebrew 'peaceful'), Σαλωμης, ἡ, Salome, the wife of Zebedee, and the mother of the apostles James the elder and John: Mark 15:40; Mark 16:1. Thayers Here is one explanation of the relationship by comparing gospel accounts at the cross. >We further notice that, the name of the Virgin-Mother being omitted, the other three are the same as mentioned by St. John; only, Mary of Clopas is now described as ‘the mother of James and Jose,’6124 and Christ’s Mother’s Sister’ as ‘Solome’6125 and ‘the mother of Zebedee’s children.’6126 Thus Salome, the wife of Zebedee and St. John’s mother, was the sister of the Virgin, and the beloved disciple the cousin (on the mother’s side) of Jesus, and the nephew of the Virgin. This also helps to explain why the care of the Mother had been entrusted to him. -source- So, were Mary and Salome sisters? What would a denomination (Catholic, Orthodox, Protestant) survey say? PS. As a bit of background, some will say that Elizabeth (mother of John the Baptist) and Mary were either sisters or cousins (related somehow by blood). Perhaps then, another question to ponder, whether Elizabeth, Mary, and Salome were all blood sisters.

I understand "knowing Jesus" as understanding Jesus who accepts the Cross, ie reasons why He did it and the suffering He took upon himself. And when I accept Him, I accept that suffering, ie I accept the possibility of the same burden to receive salvation. I can't comprehend letting someone suffer for me. I feel evil accepting His suffering for mine. I don't know if that is wrong since protestants claim I should accept (legally) his sacrifice or I go the hell. That is my core belief. Maybe it's the God complex or my ego. But I really want to understand this. Simply, my intuition prevents me from blindly believing that I have to just accept His sacrifice and be happy that he is suffering for me and not me. How can I stand in front of Him without shame after that?

Many oriental rites of Catholic Church have the plain cross signifying the Risen Lord, on their altar, whereas others use the crucifix signifying the Redemption. Of course, these days one sees churches of even oriental rites using the crucifix. My question therefore is: Does the Catholic Church have a standard instruction on placing of crucifix or plain cross on the altar of its churches across the world?