Author Topic: Evidence supporting Jesus did not die on a cross...  (Read 53394 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline jammindude

  • Posts: 15237
  • Gender: Male
Evidence supporting Jesus did not die on a cross...
« on: April 08, 2012, 12:00:50 PM »
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1289136/Jesus-died-cross-Christian-scholar-claims.html

I've believed this for quite some time....but I was wondering about everyone else's thoughts on this subject in light of evidence.   The article is a year and a half old...but still relevant. 

Something that was brought up in another thread just reminded me of how much public opinion and tradition about what happened to Jesus (and even what he looked like) is formed on artwork that was created *CENTURIES* after the fact, and not from the original writings of the Bible.  (which, even if you don't believe were *personal* eyewitnesses, you would have to admit that *at the very least, they are not as far removed from the original event)
"Better the pride that resides in a citizen of the world.
Than the pride that divides when a colorful rag is unfurled." - Neil Peart

The Jammin Dude Show - https://www.youtube.com/user/jammindude

Offline Dark Castle

  • DTF.org Member
  • *
  • Posts: 6532
  • Gender: Female
  • SmegmaPrincessX
Re: Evidence supporting Jesus did not die on a cross...
« Reply #1 on: April 08, 2012, 12:16:09 PM »
Isn't Dailymail the National Enquire of England?

Offline rumborak

  • DT.net Veteran
  • ****
  • Posts: 26664
Re: Evidence supporting Jesus did not die on a cross...
« Reply #2 on: April 08, 2012, 12:25:32 PM »
Quote
He said: 'The overwhelming number of texts only offer a noun "stauros" or a verb "anastauroun" or "anaskolopizein". In almost every dictionary these terms are said to mean "cross" or "to crucify".
'But as I show in my thesis they are used in a much wider sense than that. The verbs refer to some kind of suspension of a human being - living or dead - while the noun refer to the suspension device used in such suspension.'

Eh. This is the classic word mincing you see in a lot of these discussions, where people try to elevate commonplace words into semi-mythical concepts. Look at the "this generation will not have passed" discussion, or the 6 days of Creation. The internet is littered with supposed alternate meanings of the words, in the faint hope that the author's belief system can remain intact.

rumborak
"I liked when Myung looked like a women's figure skating champion."

Offline jammindude

  • Posts: 15237
  • Gender: Male
Re: Evidence supporting Jesus did not die on a cross...
« Reply #3 on: April 08, 2012, 12:31:09 PM »
I probably should have made the title more broad.   I do want to discuss this specifically...but I was also hoping it would springboard into the other ideas about what people hold onto as tradition vs. what the earliest writings actually say.  (i.e...Jesus was not, in fact, a frail Caucasian waif with long hair...) 
"Better the pride that resides in a citizen of the world.
Than the pride that divides when a colorful rag is unfurled." - Neil Peart

The Jammin Dude Show - https://www.youtube.com/user/jammindude

Offline rumborak

  • DT.net Veteran
  • ****
  • Posts: 26664
Re: Evidence supporting Jesus did not die on a cross...
« Reply #4 on: April 08, 2012, 12:39:54 PM »
There's definitely a giant layer of doctrine and tradition that only begrudgingly gets admitted to. E.g. the fact that all of those "gospel according to X" were just assigned to disciples at some point later. The texts never claim themselves to be from those authors. When I heard that one the first time my jaw essentially fell to the floor.

rumborak
"I liked when Myung looked like a women's figure skating champion."

Offline jammindude

  • Posts: 15237
  • Gender: Male
Re: Evidence supporting Jesus did not die on a cross...
« Reply #5 on: April 08, 2012, 01:14:27 PM »
There's definitely a giant layer of doctrine and tradition that only begrudgingly gets admitted to. E.g. the fact that all of those "gospel according to X" were just assigned to disciples at some point later. The texts never claim themselves to be from those authors. When I heard that one the first time my jaw essentially fell to the floor.

rumborak

See, and I would have *never* expected them to.   When I read about Jesus' teachings and the example of the angels, I would be suspect if they *did* claim authorship.   It would not have fit into the theme of what Jesus taught, and the example we are given.   

I look at the work as a whole, but it's not the standard for any Bible writer to claim authorship....because it's immaterial.   The Bible writers aren't trying to put the focus on themselves, they are giving all glory (and authorship) to God.    Even when a writer does claim authorship, it's a side note.  It's not completely UNimportant  (I'm not that black and white) but I do think that the "claiming" of "I WROTE THIS" is against the very spirit of what the rest of God's Word is all about.
"Better the pride that resides in a citizen of the world.
Than the pride that divides when a colorful rag is unfurled." - Neil Peart

The Jammin Dude Show - https://www.youtube.com/user/jammindude

Offline Scheavo

  • Posts: 5444
Re: Evidence supporting Jesus did not die on a cross...
« Reply #6 on: April 08, 2012, 01:30:18 PM »
Then why mention who wrote the Gospels? If they didn't matter at all, there wouldn't be names attached to them through tradition.

Offline rumborak

  • DT.net Veteran
  • ****
  • Posts: 26664
Re: Evidence supporting Jesus did not die on a cross...
« Reply #7 on: April 08, 2012, 01:33:17 PM »
Weeeell, I kinda have to disagree about that. Using the names of prominent disciples for the authorship of the gospels will have made a world of a difference in the early days. There was a very wide range of interpretations of purported events, and even the events themselves, and if you showed up with a gospel that most likely offered a different course of events or the interpretation thereof, the natural question would be "says who?". If you can say "well, says Luke", that's a big plus in terms of veracity.
Your point, that that is immaterial, is spoken from a position where the majority of doctrine and tradition is written in stone essentially, and has been for almost 2000 years. But even then, I would think that if you tell the average churchgoer that the gospels aren't by whom they claim to be, I think the majority would do a double-take, just like I did.

rumborak
"I liked when Myung looked like a women's figure skating champion."

Offline jammindude

  • Posts: 15237
  • Gender: Male
Re: Evidence supporting Jesus did not die on a cross...
« Reply #8 on: April 08, 2012, 02:46:49 PM »
That's a good point.   But my point was more that a lack of a claim should not immediate cause any questions to come to mind.   The attitude of those that followed Christ (after some pointed correction) was the opposite of self proclamation.   It was more an attitude of "I need not to be figured into the equation"... 

I did say that it wasn't completely UNimportant....I was only trying to make the point that not calling attention to oneself is *exactly* what the mark of a follower of Christ was all about.
"Better the pride that resides in a citizen of the world.
Than the pride that divides when a colorful rag is unfurled." - Neil Peart

The Jammin Dude Show - https://www.youtube.com/user/jammindude

Offline Ben_Jamin

  • Posts: 15690
  • Gender: Male
  • I'm just a man, thrown into existence by the gods
Re: Evidence supporting Jesus did not die on a cross...
« Reply #9 on: April 08, 2012, 03:00:58 PM »
Well on account of what Jesus looked like. He was a Jew so he most likely looked like one. And all that really should matter are his teachings. Basically saying live simple and prosper under a good heart.
I don't know how they can be so proud of winning with them odds. - Little Big Man
Follow my Spotify:BjamminD

Offline rumborak

  • DT.net Veteran
  • ****
  • Posts: 26664
Re: Evidence supporting Jesus did not die on a cross...
« Reply #10 on: April 08, 2012, 03:35:27 PM »
That's a good point.   But my point was more that a lack of a claim should not immediate cause any questions to come to mind.   The attitude of those that followed Christ (after some pointed correction) was the opposite of self proclamation.   It was more an attitude of "I need not to be figured into the equation"... 

I did say that it wasn't completely UNimportant....I was only trying to make the point that not calling attention to oneself is *exactly* what the mark of a follower of Christ was all about.

Oh, I agree, and it was most likely the reason why the gospels have no names attached to them. On the other hand, it's not as easy either; the gospels are written with the intent to persuade their target group and even demarkate themselves from different, "heretical" interpretations. So, one can equally as easy see the gospels as a "weapon" in order to assert one particular group's validity of interpretation. I don't think it's as easy and benign as some guy just sitting down to pay homage to Jesus' life by writing it down. Oral tradition had been in long standing; I think partially the point of writing down a gospel was to put one's particular oral tradition on the same level of authority as something like the Torah. If you got a piece of paper to show you have a very different authority than someone whose knowledge just derives from hearing it.

rumborak
"I liked when Myung looked like a women's figure skating champion."

Offline snapple

  • Dad-bod Expert
  • Posts: 5144
  • Gender: Male
Re: Evidence supporting Jesus did not die on a cross...
« Reply #11 on: April 08, 2012, 05:10:21 PM »
I skimmed. I saw rumby's "six days" and being taken literally. I find that I don't know what a day is to God, therefore, it isn't my business to know.

Offline rumborak

  • DT.net Veteran
  • ****
  • Posts: 26664
Re: Evidence supporting Jesus did not die on a cross...
« Reply #12 on: April 08, 2012, 05:24:47 PM »
"Day" is a rather specific word, with exactly one meaning. Had the writer wanted to get across that it was some obscure "godly timespan", a lot of words could have been chosen.
Same thing with "generation". I can't think of any other meaningful definition of the word than that 20-odd year span. Again, many other words could have been chosen.

Again, the wider point here is that I think it's a testament to some people's desperate attempts to maintain literal integrity of their belief system, by coming forth with linguistic contortions.

rumborak
« Last Edit: April 08, 2012, 05:31:28 PM by rumborak »
"I liked when Myung looked like a women's figure skating champion."

Offline jammindude

  • Posts: 15237
  • Gender: Male
Re: Evidence supporting Jesus did not die on a cross...
« Reply #13 on: April 08, 2012, 06:58:54 PM »
"Day" is a rather specific word, with exactly one meaning.

So, the phrase "...back in my day..." is considered to be a single 24 hour day?

EDIT: from the World English Dictionary - 4th definition: "4.   ( sometimes plural ) a period or point in time: he was a good singer in his day ; in days gone by ; any day now."

Your statement is incorrect.

Besides that, statements in Paul's letter's make clear that the seventh day was *still* ongoing in his time (some 4,000 years after it started)...   So even within the context of the Bible itself, there is no basis for the teaching that the creative days were literal 24 hour days.

On top of that, you are looking at a single definition of an English word that is a translation for a Hebrew word.   The Hebrew word is "yohm" and it's Greek equivalent is "he me' ra".   Both of these words have much broader definitions, and can be used figuratively, or even symbolically. 
"Better the pride that resides in a citizen of the world.
Than the pride that divides when a colorful rag is unfurled." - Neil Peart

The Jammin Dude Show - https://www.youtube.com/user/jammindude

Offline rumborak

  • DT.net Veteran
  • ****
  • Posts: 26664
Re: Evidence supporting Jesus did not die on a cross...
« Reply #14 on: April 08, 2012, 07:18:03 PM »
Are you really making the argument that "on the first day", "on the second day" is some kind of idiom? Seriously? :lol
And using Paul to argue Genesis, OK.

I dunno, as I said, I'm not sure what it says about a religion if linguistic acrobatics are required to make it work.

rumborak
"I liked when Myung looked like a women's figure skating champion."

Offline jammindude

  • Posts: 15237
  • Gender: Male
Re: Evidence supporting Jesus did not die on a cross...
« Reply #15 on: April 08, 2012, 07:22:35 PM »
Are you really making the argument that "on the first day", "on the second day" is some kind of idiom? Seriously? :lol
And using Paul to argue Genesis, OK.

rumborak

Yes...I am.   And I just presented evidence to back it up.  If you wish to laugh it off...more power to you.    To me the evidence is pretty black and white. 
"Better the pride that resides in a citizen of the world.
Than the pride that divides when a colorful rag is unfurled." - Neil Peart

The Jammin Dude Show - https://www.youtube.com/user/jammindude

Offline rumborak

  • DT.net Veteran
  • ****
  • Posts: 26664
Re: Evidence supporting Jesus did not die on a cross...
« Reply #16 on: April 08, 2012, 07:31:26 PM »
What do you say to the fact that up until recently (or more specificalky, when modern cosmology came around) the passage was interpreted to mean actual days? All of them wrong, for 2000 years?

Besides, seeing you're arguing these points I take it you're a Young Earther, why do you even bother trying to make it work? Can't you just stick to the days? It's never gonna be in line with modern cosmology anyway.

rumborak
« Last Edit: April 08, 2012, 07:38:40 PM by rumborak »
"I liked when Myung looked like a women's figure skating champion."

Offline jammindude

  • Posts: 15237
  • Gender: Male
Re: Evidence supporting Jesus did not die on a cross...
« Reply #17 on: April 08, 2012, 07:46:00 PM »
What do you say to the fact that up until recently (or more specificalky, when modern cosmology came around) the passage was interpreted to mean actual days? All of them wrong, for 2000 years?

Besides, seeing you're arguing these points I take it you're a Young Earther, why do you even bother trying to make it work? Can't you just stick to the days? It's never gonna be in line with modern cosmology anyway.

rumborak

I thought "Young Earthers" were the ones who take the "days" to mean 24 hour days.   I'm arguing exactly the opposite.

I don't know why people overlook the fact that Paul points out that we *ARE STILL* in the "day of rest" (the seventh day).   But religious leaders have kept the common people ignorant of what God's word has said for *CENTURIES*....so that's really nothing new. 

The Bible teaches that we are still living in the seventh day....and it's been going on for 6000 plus years.    Who knows how long the other six creative "days" were...but as science has shown, they were obviously very, very long.   The earth has been around for millions of years, and the Genesis account does NOT contradict that fact. 
"Better the pride that resides in a citizen of the world.
Than the pride that divides when a colorful rag is unfurled." - Neil Peart

The Jammin Dude Show - https://www.youtube.com/user/jammindude

Offline rumborak

  • DT.net Veteran
  • ****
  • Posts: 26664
Re: Evidence supporting Jesus did not die on a cross...
« Reply #18 on: April 08, 2012, 07:52:02 PM »
What I mean is, why all these alternate explanations in the first place? Whether you're arguing that God created Earth in 6 days or 6,000 years, it doesn't matter because it still flies in the face of what modern cosmology says (Earth coalesced out of a stellar gas cloud). So, why bother coming up with these alternate interpretations of passages? If you reject empirical evidence altogether anyway, then you might as well stick to the interpretation that's been valid for the last 2000 years, I.e. that God created the world in 6 literal days.

rumborak
"I liked when Myung looked like a women's figure skating champion."

Offline jammindude

  • Posts: 15237
  • Gender: Male
Re: Evidence supporting Jesus did not die on a cross...
« Reply #19 on: April 08, 2012, 07:59:09 PM »
What I mean is, why all these alternate explanations in the first place? Whether you're arguing that God created Earth in 7 days or 6,000, it doesn't matter because it still flies in the face of what modern cosmology says (Earth coalesced out of a stellar gas cloud). So, why bother coming up with these alternate interpretations of passages? If you reject empirical evidence altogether anyway, then you might as well stick to the interpretation that's been valid for the last 2000 years, I.e. that God created the world in 6 literal days.

rumborak

You're still not understanding me.   By the Bible's own definition, "day" can be an unspecified amount of time in which something specific took place.    The second "day" was however long it took for land to appear.   The third "day" was however long it took before grass and trees started to form...etc...etc..etc...    The Bible is not specific about how long these "days" were.   So I don't see how it could contradict science's time frame in any way.   They could have been millions of years long.    "Day" simply points to the unspecific period of time in which a specific event happened.
"Better the pride that resides in a citizen of the world.
Than the pride that divides when a colorful rag is unfurled." - Neil Peart

The Jammin Dude Show - https://www.youtube.com/user/jammindude

Offline rumborak

  • DT.net Veteran
  • ****
  • Posts: 26664
Re: Evidence supporting Jesus did not die on a cross...
« Reply #20 on: April 08, 2012, 08:03:50 PM »
Err, do you know how science says Earth came about? Even with the "day fix" Genesis is still totally at odds with it. So, the question remains, who are you doing this for? Yourself, so you can think your interpretation jibes with science? Well, it never will. You can't ever reinterpret Genesis enough to make that work. That's why I'm saying you might as well stick with the traditional interpretation.

rumborak
"I liked when Myung looked like a women's figure skating champion."

Offline orcus116

  • DT.net Veteran
  • ****
  • Posts: 9599
Re: Evidence supporting Jesus did not die on a cross...
« Reply #21 on: April 08, 2012, 08:05:16 PM »
Did the Bible actually define "day" as an unspecific amount of time? I thought, like rumborak is saying, that if the word day was being used then it means a 24 hour day because that is how a normal human would interpret such. I mean it's not slang or anything, it's a very real, common term with a very real, common definition.

Offline theseoafs

  • When the lights go down in the city, and the sun shines on the bayyyyy
  • Posts: 5573
  • Gender: Male
  • Hello! My name is Elder Price
Re: Evidence supporting Jesus did not die on a cross...
« Reply #22 on: April 08, 2012, 08:06:33 PM »
Are you really making the argument that "on the first day", "on the second day" is some kind of idiom? Seriously? :lol
And using Paul to argue Genesis, OK.

I dunno, as I said, I'm not sure what it says about a religion if linguistic acrobatics are required to make it work.

rumborak
Actually, rumby, the Hebrew word yom has many meanings outside of the traditional 24-hour day: it could mean a period of light, or a year, or a vague period of time. Your argument relies on the Hebrew word for day having the same meaning as the English word for day, which is fallacious, because entirely accurate translation is never really possible.

There are a lot of articles on this topic; do a search on Google. (Of course, this doesn't mean that Genesis' days were anything other than literal 24-hour days, but you could argue for each day's being thousands of years if you wanted to.)

Offline jammindude

  • Posts: 15237
  • Gender: Male
Re: Evidence supporting Jesus did not die on a cross...
« Reply #23 on: April 08, 2012, 08:10:18 PM »
Err, do you know how science says Earth came about? Even with the "day fix" Genesis is still totally at odds with it. So, the question remains, who are you doing this for? Yourself, so you can think your interpretation jibes with science? Well, it never will. You can't ever reinterpret Genesis enough to make that work.

rumborak

In what way?   Does science disagree that small life forms came before larger ones?   Not the last time I checked.   

I'm trying to say that the Genesis account is actually very vague.   *MEN* have tried to make it specific (the 6 literal day people, for example) but they are just claiming that the Bible said things that it never said.   

The primary theme of the Bible is NOT a detailed account of creation.   Millions of years are summed up in a few paragraphs on page one.   I think if you're looking for specific things for the Bible to be "wrong" about, you'll have a tough time...because it doesn't really give enough information to be wrong about. 

So what is it you're saying...that the order in which things appeared is out of harmony with science???   
"Better the pride that resides in a citizen of the world.
Than the pride that divides when a colorful rag is unfurled." - Neil Peart

The Jammin Dude Show - https://www.youtube.com/user/jammindude

Offline jammindude

  • Posts: 15237
  • Gender: Male
Re: Evidence supporting Jesus did not die on a cross...
« Reply #24 on: April 08, 2012, 08:13:02 PM »
Did the Bible actually define "day" as an unspecific amount of time? I thought, like rumborak is saying, that if the word day was being used then it means a 24 hour day because that is how a normal human would interpret such. I mean it's not slang or anything, it's a very real, common term with a very real, common definition.


See theseoafs' post.   He's spot on with your answer.   
"Better the pride that resides in a citizen of the world.
Than the pride that divides when a colorful rag is unfurled." - Neil Peart

The Jammin Dude Show - https://www.youtube.com/user/jammindude

Offline rumborak

  • DT.net Veteran
  • ****
  • Posts: 26664
Re: Evidence supporting Jesus did not die on a cross...
« Reply #25 on: April 08, 2012, 08:14:22 PM »
Jammin, I can only conclude that you either haven't read Genesis in a long time, or a lack of knowledge about cosmology. Genesis is very specific about things that are these days known to not be true. For example Genesis states the stars came after Earth. Totally wrong, no matter your interpretation.

rumborak
"I liked when Myung looked like a women's figure skating champion."

Offline jammindude

  • Posts: 15237
  • Gender: Male
Re: Evidence supporting Jesus did not die on a cross...
« Reply #26 on: April 08, 2012, 08:19:08 PM »
Jammin, I can only conclude that you either haven't read Genesis in a long time, or a lack of knowledge about cosmology. Genesis is very specific about things that are these days known to not be true.

rumborak

Rummy my friend...I read the Bible every day.

The only thing the Genesis account really does is give us an order in which things appeared...and then I asked you if that's what your scientific research disagrees with.   

If it does, we have have to agree to disagree, and that's fine.   But I'm actually looking at the book of Genesis as I read this, and I really don't see anything *that* terribly specific other than the order in which things happened. 
"Better the pride that resides in a citizen of the world.
Than the pride that divides when a colorful rag is unfurled." - Neil Peart

The Jammin Dude Show - https://www.youtube.com/user/jammindude

Offline rumborak

  • DT.net Veteran
  • ****
  • Posts: 26664
Re: Evidence supporting Jesus did not die on a cross...
« Reply #27 on: April 08, 2012, 08:22:38 PM »
What am I missing here? Genesis says the stars came into being after Earth. And that's obviously wrong. It also says fish came after land animals. Wrong again.

rumborak
"I liked when Myung looked like a women's figure skating champion."

Offline jammindude

  • Posts: 15237
  • Gender: Male
Re: Evidence supporting Jesus did not die on a cross...
« Reply #28 on: April 08, 2012, 08:32:14 PM »
What am I missing here? Genesis says the stars came into being after Earth. And that's obviously wrong. It also says fish came after land animals. Wrong again.

rumborak

No....it doesn't.   It never says the stars came into being after the earth AT ALL.

The fish were created in Genesis 1:20 on the fifth "day"...and land animals were created in verse 24 during the course of the sixth "day"....   I'm reading it right now.
"Better the pride that resides in a citizen of the world.
Than the pride that divides when a colorful rag is unfurled." - Neil Peart

The Jammin Dude Show - https://www.youtube.com/user/jammindude

Offline jammindude

  • Posts: 15237
  • Gender: Male
Re: Evidence supporting Jesus did not die on a cross...
« Reply #29 on: April 08, 2012, 08:34:37 PM »
It does give us a time period in which the heavenly bodies *became visible* from the earth....is that what you're talking about???
"Better the pride that resides in a citizen of the world.
Than the pride that divides when a colorful rag is unfurled." - Neil Peart

The Jammin Dude Show - https://www.youtube.com/user/jammindude

Offline rumborak

  • DT.net Veteran
  • ****
  • Posts: 26664
Re: Evidence supporting Jesus did not die on a cross...
« Reply #30 on: April 08, 2012, 08:36:06 PM »
Sorry, misread the land animals one. Still says birds came before land animals, which is wrong. And the stars are obviously 1:14, by which Earth already has plants. The stars have been around since time immemorial, long before Earth formed.

Also, apparently "light" came after Earth was created. How does that work with science? The sun had been around long before Earth, and light itself, well, since spacetime began.

rumborak
« Last Edit: April 08, 2012, 08:42:27 PM by rumborak »
"I liked when Myung looked like a women's figure skating champion."

Offline kirbywelch92

  • Posts: 352
  • Gender: Male
Re: Evidence supporting Jesus did not die on a cross...
« Reply #31 on: April 08, 2012, 08:38:31 PM »
Genesis 1:10 - "God called the dry land Earth, and the waters that were gathered together he called Seas. And God saw that it was good."

........

Genesis 1:16 - "And God made the two great lights-the greater light to rule the day and the lesser light to rule the night-and the stars.


So yeah, if you follow the Bible, Earth before the stars.

Offline kirbywelch92

  • Posts: 352
  • Gender: Male
Re: Evidence supporting Jesus did not die on a cross...
« Reply #32 on: April 08, 2012, 08:42:12 PM »
And how can you not say there isn't evidence in the Gospels that he was crucified? All four Gospels say that he was condemned in front of Roman officials to be crucified according to the will of the people. Unless there's some other meaning for crucify, which I don't believe there is.

Offline rumborak

  • DT.net Veteran
  • ****
  • Posts: 26664
Re: Evidence supporting Jesus did not die on a cross...
« Reply #33 on: April 08, 2012, 08:56:48 PM »
In conclusion, if you want Genesis to be a flowery *but accurate* account, you have to reject cosmology. Which brings me back to the point of why bother inventing those alternate interpretations. We're long past the point where Genesis could be considered an accurate account. If you still want to believe in it you have to reject all empirical evidence, at which point you might as well stay all literal.

rumborak
"I liked when Myung looked like a women's figure skating champion."

Offline jammindude

  • Posts: 15237
  • Gender: Male
Re: Evidence supporting Jesus did not die on a cross...
« Reply #34 on: April 08, 2012, 09:08:30 PM »
And how can you not say there isn't evidence in the Gospels that he was crucified? All four Gospels say that he was condemned in front of Roman officials to be crucified according to the will of the people. Unless there's some other meaning for crucify, which I don't believe there is.

Read the article.  The original Greek word that is translated "cross" in English is "Stauros"

From the Greek Lexicon:

1. an upright stake, esp. a pointed one
"Better the pride that resides in a citizen of the world.
Than the pride that divides when a colorful rag is unfurled." - Neil Peart

The Jammin Dude Show - https://www.youtube.com/user/jammindude