Is the Cross a Christian Symbol?

Much of the world associates the symbol of the cross with Christianity. While many who profess Christ carry and/or venerate crosses, did early Christians use crosses? If not, where did the cross originate? Does the Bible tell Christians to wear or venerate crosses? Is the cross the mark of the beast as some have claimed?

How much do you really know about the cross, its origin, the Bible, and possible future uses for the cross?

This article will try to supply answers to these issues and more (a related YouTube video would be Origin of the Cross).

The "Cross" and the New Testament

The first place to state for those interested in Christianity and the cross may wish to consider some facts about the Bible.

Well, amongst other reasons, the Greek word commonly translated as "cross" in the New Testament is stauros, which means pole or stake.

It should be noted that according to Strong's Exhaustive Concordance every time in the NT (KJV) the word cross appears, it comes from word 4716.

But, some may ask, what about the word "crucify" or "crucified"? Does this mean being killed on a cross? While that is how people interpret that in English, the two Greek words translated as crucify in the NT (KJV) come from stauros and mean impale:

(There is a third word once incorrectely translated as"crucify" in the KJV NT, but it means to kill again, and thus has nothing to do with an actual cross.)

Neither the apostles nor their immediate followers--who would know first century koine Greek better than any currently alive--ever were recorded using or wearing or honoring any cross. The fact is that modern scholars know that stauros meant a stake, but many have chosen because of tradition to translate it as "cross." In Greece now, because of 'tradition' (see also Tradition and Scripture: From the Bible and Church Writings) the word stauros is now considered to mean 'cross' even though it clearly did not originally.

Furthermore, consider that in the second half of the second century, a Greek satirst and anti-Christian named Lucian wrote in his The Death of Peregrinus about Christians:

Lucian used the Greek word anaskolopizien, which means to impale (McDowell J, McDowell S. Evidence that Demands a Verdict. Thomas Nelson, 2017, p. 148). Impalement had been understood by many after Jesus' death. This seems to mean that Jesus was on a single stake and/or He died from the impalement of a spear being shoved up His side.

Please understand that the Bible simply does not teach that Jesus had to have been killed on a cross. Also notice:

Dr. Samuelsson did a lot of research into ancient 'crucifixion' techniques and practices and has written that it was not likely that Jesus was killed on a cross. I read over his extensive doctoral dissertation and basically he concludes that a 'stauros' is a pole, that the ancient 'crucifixions' in much of the Greek literature did not support the view of a person suspended with nails on an actual cross, that researchers who claim Romans commonly used crosses were mainly referring to a single pole as a cross (the so-called crux simplica, a term apparently invented by the 16th century Justus Lipsius, to refer to a single pole), the New Testament does not teach a cross-type crucifixion, and that the idea of a cross developed in the Greco-Roman religious world mainly after the first century A.D.

Here is something Dr. Samuelsson concluded about writings of the Latin historian Tacitus:

I quoted the above, because people have cited Tacitus as proof that the type of 'cross crucifixion' that many claim Jesus went through was the common practice--yet research does not confirm that claim.

Additionally, it should be noted that no one in the New Testament is ever described as wearing a cross (or even a stauros). Even though this is known, most translators seem to use the word "cross" based upon their particular religious traditions, as opposed to the literal Greek. And while it is possible that Jesus was crucified on some type of a cross as opposed to simply a pole, that does not mean that a symbol of torture (which also has pagan religious origins) should necessarily be worn or revered by those who profess Christ.

A Heel?

One or more nails used on Jesus' body may have gone through His heels instead of feet as commonly portrayed:

Many people had a particular perception of how Jesus was nailed to a tree and killed in the first century A.D. Scripture shows He was impaled on a tree. Since putting a nail through the heel was used in the first century A.D. (and the above Italian example is not the only one), plus the prophecy in Genesis 3:15, it certainly is reasonable to think that one or more nails through His heel was used.

The Typical Cross Appears to be a Myth

And while Jesus was executed, the idea He was on the type of crosses most think is extremely unlikely.

But Didn't Jesus Say He Would be Crucified?

In English translations of the Bible, the word 'crucified' is often found. Notice the following Protestant and Catholic translations of a statement from Jesus:

The word commonly translated as 'crucified' is the Greek word stauroo which is impalement on a stake or pole. Actually, that term is mistranslated as 'crucified' 46 times in the NKJV.

So, no, Jesus did not teach that He would be 'crucified' in the sense He did not specify if a cross bar would be part of the instrument of His punishment by the Romans.

Did Not the Romans Often Use Crosses?

While Romans did sometimes use a type of cross as part of capital punishment, what they tended to use was a tree or pole. Not something that looks like the type of crosses in most churches (Samuelsson, p. 338).

So, even the Latin word did not have to mean a cross. Crosses, as seen in Greco-Roman churches, were not as common of a capital punishment device as many seem to think.

The Cross was Not an Early Christian Symbol: They Knew Jesus was Killed on a Tree

He, like others, referred to Jesus being killed on a tree. Notice some passages from the New Testament:

The Greek word 'xulon' (ξúλον) translated as 'tree' above, basically means tree, stick or piece of timber. As far as Galatian 3:14 goes, that contains a reference to Deuteronomy 21:23--and the Hebrews were NOT crucifying people on crosses then.

Even though Greco-Romans titled it THE DISCOURSE ON THE CROSS, Melito of Sardis (late second century) actually wrote Jesus was killed on a tree:

Notice an accusation against those who professed Christ in the second/third century (date uncertain) in a supposed argument between the heathen Caecilius and the claimed Christian Octavius:

If the cross was an oft used symbol or sacred image for early Christians, the above accusation would not have been made against them.

In what appears to be circa 135 in Jerusalem, there was a group of compromised, Roman supporting "Christians" that wrote down what they thought were the gospel accounts. Yet, according to a later source, "In all this there was no mention of the cross or crucifix." (Pines S. The Jewish Christians of the Early Centuries of Christianity according to a New Source. Proceedings of the Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities, Volume II, No.13; 1966. Jerusalem, p. 16).

According to the historical records, no real Christian prior to the late second or early third century is ever described as carrying an idol, having images in any worship services, or even wearing a cross (though some apostates started to advocate crosses in the second and third centuries).

What About Nails? Don't Nails Prove Jesus was Crucified on a Cross?

Looking over ancient impalements, it has been found that NAILs were used (Samuelsson G. Crucifixion in Antiquity: An Inquiry into the Background and Significance of the New Testament Terminology of Crucifixion. ©2011 by Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen, Germany, p. 286) and sometimes there were no nails in the feet (Ibid, p. 289).

It was more common for nails to be placed in the wrist as the palms of the hands could not support the body (Ibid, p. 293).

Since, in Jesus' case, there were nail prints in His hands, this would have necessitated two nails. One each in the palm of both hands. His hands could have been above His head right next to each other or just above each other.

Two nails simply is NOT proof that a cross beam had to have been used as various ones have tried to insist.

What About Catacombs and Burial Displays?

Some have suggested that catacombs and funeral-related items for Christians proves an early acceptance of the cross. But this is not the case. As one who has personally viewed various catacombs and funeral-related items, I have yet to run across an early (pre-third century) one with crosses in Rome or other places (like 'Monks Valley' in Cappadocia, Turkey) I have visited (I have not visited Egypt).

While The Catholic Encyclopedia states that the cross “appears at an early date as an element of the liturgical life of the faithful”—actually the fact that it does not appear until 100 years or so after Jesus was crucified should show all that will think about it that this obviously was NOT an original Christian practice. And as Tertullian admits, nor was it a biblically-commanded one.

Furthermore, while some have pointed to the letter “X” or other symbols on certain Christian documents and/or artifacts as a sign for the cross and/or proof of the early widespread acceptance of crosses, notice what Catholic priest and scholar B. Bagatti discovered:

When did "Christians" first begin using the cross as a sign of their religion? Did the apostles use a cross? Did the use of the cross come from the Bible?

The use of the cross for Christians is never mentioned in the Bible. The apostles left no record of ever using or the endorsing the use of the cross.

Does anyone think that real Christians were using “magic words” with crosses? As far as a ‘staurogram’ goes:

So, no, a ‘Staurogram’ was not originally a Christian symbol, but a pagan one that was later adopted by the Greco-Romans. While a ‘tau’ (τ) resembles the letter T (which some claim is the symbol of the cross), the fact that the staurogram contains a ‘rho’ (ρ) should show the discerning that it had nothing to do with Jesus, but was a pagan symbol that also resembled ancient Egyptian ankh ‘crosses.’ The first known staurograms associated with Christian literature were from Alexandrian Egypt.

Furthermore, Jesus, likely was not even crucified on a cross, as the word normally translated as cross (stauros) in the New Testament means a stake.

Here is what Vine's Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words reports on the meaning of stauros and the adoption of crosses amongst professors of Christ (bolding in electronic source):

So as the above indicates, pagan influence slowly introduced the cross as a symbol. After Emperor Constantine, it became widely adopted by the Greco-Romans.

The cross, which greatly predates Christianity, apparently did not become a symbol for even apostate Christians, until about the time it was discussed by the major heretic, Clement of Alexandria as The Catholic Encyclopedia records the following:

While The Catholic Encyclopedia states that the cross "appears at an early date as an element of the liturgical life of the faithful"--actually the fact that it does not appear until 100 years or so after Jesus was crucified should show all that will think about it that this obviously was NOT an original Christian practice. And as Tertullian admits, not a biblically-commanded one.

Since Clement of Alexandria was clearly not faithful to biblical Christianity in so many ways, it is not astounding that he may be among the first to write about the cross being a symbol among some who professed Christ (the words cited in The Catholic Encyclopedia actually do not have to mean 'cross'--it is only astounding that any could claim Clement of Alexandria seriously had anything to do with those Christians who were "faithful."

Here is something that Clement wrote where the word "cross" is found (this is the only place in this book, Stromata VI, a word is translated in this version as cross):

Though the above is a translation of what Clement wrote, there is no evidence that Peter preached the above--hence Clement appears to be relying on unscriptural sources (Origen also referred to this "Preaching," but not approvingly as Clement did. http://www.ntcanon.org/Preaching_of_Peter.shtml viewed 04/13/12). I have made some attempts to find the actual Greek (thus far without success).

Notice that both Catholic and Protestant scholars acknowledge that Clement of Alexandria had problems:

Perhaps it should also be mentioned where Clement of Alexandria Egypt got the cross was probably from Egyptian paganism and/or Gnostic teachings, according to Catholic sources:

Gnostics used heretical principles of Platonic or Pythagorean origin and tried to combine them with Christianity.

The apostate Justin Martyr tried to indicate that Moses invented the cross, and that it was a biblically-appropriate symbol that also influenced the pagan philosopher Plato:

The Bible does not show that Moses intended for the serpent symbol to be a cross, or that Plato got his ideas from Moses. Furthermore, when some Israelites did treat the serpent symbol like many compromisers today treat the cross, King Hezekiah had it destroyed (2 Kings 18:4). One claimed to be as educated as Justin should have known that.

While he did cite Justin as a type of cross advocate, notice the following view from the late French Catholic Cardinal Jean-Guenolé-Marie Daniélou:

Now, the so-called Gospel of Peter is a false gospel (even according to the Church of Rome) and was being used in parts of Egypt and Rome until around the start of the third century. Saint Serapion of Antioch condemned those who used that book--later the Churches of Rome and Alexander dropped it (see also The New Testament Canon - From the Bible and History). Yet, sadly they may have been influenced from it as several of their early leaders accepted it for some time.

Although some have claimed that Irenaeus pointed to "the sign of the cross," that is not what he wrote. Here is the quote:

Again, the word translated as cross originally would have been stauros. Nor did Irenaeus teach the "sign of the cross" as some have preferred to claim that quote stated.

Tertullian of Carthage (Egypt), an area not too far from Alexandria, used some version of the cross around the beginning of the third century:

In the area of Palestine, there were apparently no images until the time of Theodosius II (5th century)--thus strongly suggesting that this was NOT an original custom or practice of the early church:

Of course, the Luke of the Bible did not paint that image. And even Greco-Romans who professed Christ were not supporters of images for centuries.

But with Emperor Constantine, things changed. Notice the accounts from four historians:

Many claim that Emperor Constantine was, or became, a Christian no later than in 312 A.D. when he supposedly had a vision that contained a cross.

Yet, this is not quite so. It is not that he did not claim to have a militaristic vision then, but he had not renounced his connections to the sun god Sol or Mithras.

Constantine personally claimed to see an apparition of the sun god Sol in a grove of Apollo in Gaul two years before in 310 (discussed in Rodgers, Barbara S. “Constantine’s Pagan Vision, ”Byzantion, vol. 50, 1980, pp. 259–78)--and he continued with sun-god worship the rest of his life.

Even after his alleged conversion to his claimed version of the Christian faith in 312 (if he was ever baptized, it was supposedly on his death bed in 337 A.D., despite him declaring himself a lay “Christian” bishop by 325), Emperor Constantine still put the sun god Sol on his coins.

Below is a coin from 317 A.D. which shows his likeness on one side and the sun-god on the other side:

The expression SOLI INVI-C-TO COMITI in English means “In honor of the unconquered Sun (god)”. Hence it is clear that in 317 Constantine was still honoring the sun-god.

Emperor Constantine had been (and remained) a worshipper of the sun-god Mithras (see also Do You Practice Mithraism?). Notice something about that religion:

Thus, it is not surprising that Emperor Constantine believed in and promoted crosses. In a move that got them more widely accepted, his mother Helena went to Jerusalem, claimed to have discovered Jesus' cross' on September 14, 326, and bring back part it (along with other relics). The veneration of this relic, led to broader acceptance and veneration of crosses by those of the Greco-Roman faiths outside of Egypt.

Notice that even Roman Catholic scholars know that the early church was against idols and images and that the reason given to accept them appears to contradict the Bible (bolding mine)as The Catholic Encyclopedia states:

In other words, long after the apostles died, once non-biblical "Christianity" attained power, it allowed the veneration of images and crosses to develop. Shouldn't everyone associated with the Roman and Orthodox Catholic churches understand that there veneration of images is NOT consistent with the Bible or the practices of the "faith once for all delivered to the saints (Jude 3)?

There Were Early Opponents to Crosses

While I have not seen a first century representation of Dionysus being crucified, here is a link to an amulet, c. 300 A.D. that shows that: http://cogwriter.com/dionysus-crucified.jpg, plus here is a link to a 403 A.D. coin that has a cross of Dionysus: http://www.cogwriter.com/Dionysus-cross-coin.jpg (Although original tales of Dionysus had him torn apart, the 300 A.D. amulet shows him on a cross.)

Dionysus is also known as Bacchus. And I have seen a drawing of him with crosses in a band around his head. Alexander Hislop, in his book Two Babylons, said that Bacchus was the "Babylonian Messiah," hence this may be another part of why many religious people (as opposed to actual Christians) were comfortable with crosses.

Once the use of crosses had became somewhat widespread, some stood up against them as The Catholic Encyclopedia notes:

A 10th-11th century Islamic Arab document professes to have a Judeo-Christian perspective of the Council of Nicea. Here is some of what Shlomo Pines summarized from that Arabic report of that Council and what preceded it:

The following is apparently from the work History of Armenia by Chamich and is from a 1054-1058 A.D. letter written by Gregory Magistros against the Manichaeans (note I have left out additions by the editor/translator F. Conybeare):

In Italy, and elsewhere, others (whether truly faithful Christians or not is unclear) objected to crosses:

It is of historical interest to note the following doctrinal admissions in the article on the Paulicians in The Catholic Encyclopedia (bolding mine):

History records that crosses were used centuries before Jesus was born. For one example, the British Museum holds an Assyrian statue of King Samsi-Vul, son of Shalmaneser, wearing a cross around his neck (more on Assyria can be found in the articles Germany's Assyrian Roots Throughout History and Germany in Biblical and Catholic Prophecy ). German and other soldiers in the Crusades wore crosses.

In 1733, Sir Isaac Newton published the following where he claimed the mark was three small Maltese crosses:

The Greek goddess Diana was often portrayed with a cross above her head looking very much like later medieval portrayals of the "Virgin Mary." But the original usage seems to be even older.

Perhaps, a few statements from the 19th century historian Alexander Hislop may be helpful for some:

These statements hopefully show everyone that the use of the cross can clearly be an idol for billions of people on the earth today. Does anyone really feel that God wanted Christians to venerate the object that was used to torture His Son? (Note the idea of Jeus being killed on an 'accursed tree' comes from Galatians 3:13).

Is there a Connection Between Nimrod, Tammuz, and Crosses?

There are various ones who believe that Tammuz mentioned in Ezekiel 8:14, whose symbol basically was a type of cross (called a Tau which looks like a T,), was originally Nimrod of Genesis 10:8-11 (see also 1 Chronicles 1:10). While the Bible does not specify that there are reasons to believe that the connection is valid.

The above shows a connection between the Hebrew word for Tammuz and a river called Adonis. It also ties this in with Osiris of Egypt.

(Some other legends say that Nimrod was killed by a sword.) But the above is tying Nimrod to Adonis and Tammuz.

The Bible warns about adopting pagan practices with the worship of the true God:

Crosses do not come from the Bible. They are not Christian symbols and should not be used as part of Christian worship.

The Murderous Crusaders Were Cross Bearers

The Catholics also called for the crusades which killed Muslims and eventually others:

The Crusaders were murderous ones promised remission of sins for killing while wearing crosses. This is not biblical, yet there are Catholic prophecies that seem to align with biblical ones that teach something like this will happen again.

Might Some Type of Cross May End Up as a Symbol of Antichrist? Is the Cross the Mark of the Beast?

Some type of cross has been used by many religions in the world. Most who profess Christ do not seem to consider that the final Antichrist may use some type of cross or crucifix as a sign or mark. Decades ago, I recall watching an old black and white rerun of the old William Tell show. In it, the Austro-Hungarian empire wanted all to bow or kneel before some flag or standard of the empire. The common people refused. So, the authorities called the locals to a square and threatened to kill them all if they would not kneel or bow down before it. After the standard was raised, no one bowed down, then several seconds later, all the people knelt. The local government official began to smile as he felt that now all would accept his authority. Yet, he looked behind himself and saw a priest who had just raised a crucifix. The government official was disappointed but kept it to himself, while the local people were happy and comfortable kneeling before a cross.

Could a type of cross/crucifix be a symbol for the final Antichrist or even the image of the beast in Revelation 13?

As quoted earlier, some of the Cathari and Patrines claimed that the cross was "the mark of the Beast."

Various Greco-Roman Catholic writings suggest that some type of cross may be a symbol for the conquering of the world prior to the return of Jesus Christ, apparently by the Beast (666) and False Prophet (Antichrist).

While that may seem to be a bold assertion, there are many reasons to take warnings against crosses seriously. People need to remember that the swastika is a type of cross and it was used as a symbol by Adolph Hitler--hence there is recent historical precedent.

There is also older precedent. The type of cross that Emperor Constantine had his soldiers wear is known as a labarum:

So, the Chi-Rho existed from at least the time of Plato (a pagan philosopher), but was adopted by Constantine centuries after Christ died. The heretic Justin was probably one who originally encouraged its adoption, and he apparently got it from Plato.

It is possible that religious icons, such as crosses may be involved in the interfaith movement. Many religions use crosses, and although they were not an original symbol of Christianity, many of the world's churches have adopted them. The use of a symbol like a cross may make those of the Greco-Roman and other religions comfortable enough so that they will not think that the final Babylonian Antichrist power has risen up. Many religions have long used a cross and it may end up as a symbol in an attempted "one-world" religion (see also Will the Interfaith Movement Lead to Peace or Sudden Destruction?).

Some version of a cross seems to have been warned against by a Roman Catholic mystic:

There was also another Catholic writer who indicates that the image or perhaps mark of the Beast may be something that resembles that Constantinian cross:

Crosses are a symbol of Greco-Roman Catholic baptisms. If the cross is a symbol of the future Antichrist/Beast power as Priest P. Huchedé indicates it could be (and it is in a book with an official imprimatur), perhaps those who come from faiths descended from Emperor Constantine should be concerned about their religion now–before it becomes even further removed from the original faith. The Bible indicates that the true Christians will NOT have the symbol/mark needed to buy or sell when the two beasts of Revelation 13 are in power, but only those that will follow those beasts will (Revelation 13:16-17)–and while crosses may not necessarily be required everywhere, other Catholic writings suggest that in certain places, they will be.

Although all real scholars admit that the original Christians would not kill or intentionally participate in military service, yet after Emperor Constantine claimed to see a spear in the sky with a traverse bar (see Constantine is Why “Christians” War), the group that accepted his authority then allowed him to convene what is known as the Council of Nicea in 325. A.D.

Yet, since the time of Emperor Constantine, cross-bearers who claim Christ have been involved in military and persecutory actions.

Here is some information from the Latin Tiburtine Sibyl about that leader and crosses:

Much of the above will not happen (like a reign of 112 years). But some parts, like the cross and forced conversion, are consistent with Catholic writings on the Great Monarch. And the idea that the two witnesses will be around during that time of the Great Monarch is consistent with scriptures (see Who Are The Two Witnesses?)--yet it is backers of the Great Monarch, which include the Antichrist, who will kill them.

The Bible teaches that the Beast will war against with many, including God's saints:

The Bible does NOT tell of a good power who wars for 3 (or as the Bible teaches, 3 1/2) years. See also Persecutions by Church and State.

Historically, understand that the Crusaders (crusader meant 'cross-bearer') had crosses on their shields when they later killed and plundered.

The cross was a concern in the Middle Ages to some opposed to the Church of Rome.

The famous Catholic inquisitor, Bernard Gui claimed the following about the Albigenses:

So perhaps not as astoundingly, there are Roman Catholic writings that indicate that some in the future who wear crosses will be persecutors:

Of course, Jesus (e.g. Matthew 5:11-12; 10:23) taught that Christians would be the persecuted, not the persecutors (see also Persecutions by Church and State).

The Bible warns about the rider of the white horse (Revelation 6:1-2; Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse), who represents the final Antichrist.The Bible also warns that those who refuse the ‘mark of the beast’ (Revelation 13:16-17) are subject to be being killed by those with a mark on their forehead (Revelation 14:9) through the direction of the Antichrist (Revelation 13:11-15). The fact that Catholic prophecy points to people who are persecuting wearing a cross and going against “Jewish” sects (which Catholics tend to consider the COG to be) and “heretics” is consistent with the view that a cross may well be a mark or image of the Beast and Antichrist.

Furthermore, notice what one claimed to be “Mary” allegedly stated in an apparition Pfaffenhofen, Germany on June 25, 1946:

Real Christians would not pray and sacrifice through Mary as the Bible only shows such practices as appropriate for God.

Thus, according to various Greco-Roman Catholic mystics and writers, those that follow a persecuting power will wear some type of cross. And according to at least one Catholic priest, it is similar to the type of cross that Emperor Constantine used, and according to that same priest, it may be an important symbol for the beasts of Revelation 13 and their followers:

There is no place in the Bible that says that Christians should have or bow down before any idol, statue, or "holy icon" (nor is the term "holy icon" ever used in the Bible). Instead, we see warnings throughout the Bible NOT to be part of those that participate in those practices. Whether or not any type of cross will be one of the icons of the Beast can be debated, but the fact that the Bible warns against worshiping images cannot be. The Bible suggests that even the appearance of worshiping before statues is wrong (cf. 1 Thessalonians 5:10).

The 17th century Anglican Bishop Ezekiel Hopkins claimed, "the cross is our mark" (Hopkins E. The works of the Right Reverend Father in God, Ezekiel Hopkins...now first collected, Volume 3. L. B. Seeley, 1809, p. 356).

Real Christians would not follow the Beast and False Prophet and hence should not wear crosses nor bow down before any statues or icons now. (For more information, and even a picture, please see Persecutions by Church and State.)

While some might think that the use of a cross by the Beast is far-fetched, consider the following:

So, the head of the World Council of Churches, the head of the Vatican's Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity, and other ecumenists are promoting the cross as an ICON and a symbol of their ecumenical plans.

Crosses are part of various pagan religions, and hence some type of cross could appeal to many who do not profess Christianity.

In 2018, Bavaria’s premier Markus Söder announced that Bavarian state buildings would get crosses added to them. Some have concerns about this placement of crosses in Bavarian state buildings, while others favor this:

Consider that a church-state alliance using crosses is consistent with much of this.

Now interestingly, the Bible tells that the beast supporters will turn against the harlot woman (Revelation 17:16-17), who may have employed crosses and images that somehow speak (cf. Revelation 13:15).

Although the originator probably had a different intention in his comments, notice what the following truncated Catholic private prophecy states:

I wonder if Satan may admit to this type of thing, and perhaps do this, around the time of the fulfillment of Revelation 17:16-17). The fact is that the images that people bow down before and pray are inspired by Satan.

Chrislam Symbol Has a Cross

In the fourth century, Emperor Constantine claimed to see a spear in the sky with a bar (or sword) crossing the spear.

What has been called a Chrislam symbol that the Vatican put out, contains a type of two element cross (not a cross made of one material like the same type of wood):

(Logo from Vatican News)
Vatican releases program for Apostolic Journey to Morocco

February 9, 2019

Among the stages of the visit to Morocco is a meeting with migrants at the headquarters of the diocesan branch of Caritas; and encounter with priests, religious men and women, and ecumenical leaders at the Cathedral in Rabat.

By Vatican News

Pope Francis will travel to the North African country at the end of March. On Saturday 30 March, the Holy Father will be received by King Mohammed VI, before meeting with the Moroccan people, the civil authorities, and the diplomatic corps. https://www.vaticannews.va/en/pope/news/2019-02/vatican-releases-program-for-apostolic-journey-to-morocco.html

The official logo of the Pope’s visit was chosen from about 50 entries in a competition. An explanatory note accompanying the logo’s release says that a cross and a crescent in the logo are symbols of Christianity and Islam which highlight the inter-religious relations between Christians and Muslims.

In fact, during the 2-day trip, Pope Francis will meet the leader of Moroccan Muslims, 800 years after the meeting between St. Francis of Assisi and Sultan Al-Malik al-Kāmil of Egypt.

The logo has the colours of the two countries: green and red for Morocco, yellow and white (background) for the Vatican.

Under Pope Francis’ name is the motto of the visit: “Servant of Hope” because the Pope is known as the Servant of the Servants of God. … Pope Francis said that his visit to the 2 predominantly Muslim countries, “represent two important opportunities to advance interreligious dialogue and mutual understanding between the followers of both religions, in this year that marks the eight-hundredth anniversary of the historic meeting between Saint Francis of Assisi and Sultan al-Malik al-Kāmil.” https://feliciancjpo.wordpress.com/2019/01/10/pope-francis-servant-of-hope/

Catholics have gotten mad at me over the years whenever I talk about how the Vatican is pushing the hybrid bastard religion of Chrislam, which is to say the merging of apostate Christianity with the religion of castaway Ishmael, who is the father is Islam. Yet just this week, the Vatican rolled out a new logo for Pope Francis’ upcoming visit to the Muslim nation of Morocco, and what is the design? Chrislam.

“And there came one of the seven angels which had the seven vials, and talked with me, saying unto me, Come hither; I will shew unto thee the judgment of the great whore that sitteth upon many waters: With whom the kings of the earth have committed fornication, and the inhabitants of the earth have been made drunk with the wine of her fornication.” Revelation 17:1,2 (KJV)

The pope’s new logo shows a New Age style cross that is encircled about with the crescent moon of Islam, with the colors of yellow and white for the Vatican, and red and green for Islam. That, my friends, is not only the pope’s new logo, it will also serve as the official logo for Chrislam. 02/10/19 https://www.nowtheendbegins.com/vatican-officially-releases-chrislam-logo-for-pope-francis-upcoming-servant-of-hope-tour-to-the-muslim-nation-of-morocco/

While it is not likely that this Chrislam symbol is the Mark of the Beast, its use of the type of cross with differing elements reminds me of Emperor Constantine and his attempt to come up with an empire-wide religion.

The Continuing Church of God (CCOG) is pleased to announce the following video on our Bible News Prophecy YouTube channel related to the Chrislam Cross:

20:30

The Chrislam Cross and the Interfaith Movement

What is Chrislam? What are the two forms of it? Did the Vatican unveil the Chrislam Cross? How does it look? Are Christianity and Islam theologically compatible? What does the ‘Catechism of the Catholic Church’ say? What about the Bible and the Quran? Did Pope Francis and Sunni Imam Sheikh Ahmed al-Tayeb sign an important interfaith document on February 4, 2019? Do biblical and Islamic prophecies point to a deal between the Europeans and Arabs that will be broken? Do Catholic and Islamic writings support the view that Mary and/or apparitions of ‘Mary’ may lead to temporary cooperation between the Arabs and Europeans? Will such cooperation bring lasting peace or war? Have any of the Eastern Orthodox warned of the danger in using ‘Mary’ to push the interfaith and ecumenical movements? Is there a ‘Mary, Mother of Jesus mosque? Should you wish to be part of the Chrislam movement? What does the Bible teach? Dr. Thiel addresses these issues and more.

Here is a link to the sermonette video: The Chrislam Cross and the Interfaith Movement.

The Vatican is pushing for a type of one world religion, and seemed to confirm that with Pope Francis and leading Sunni Imam Sheikh Ahmed al-Tayeb signing what some have called a step towards a one world religion. Here is a related video on this:

15:31

Pope Francis signs ‘one world religion’ document!

On February 4, 2019, at the ‘ Global Conference on Human Fraternity,’ Pope Francis and leading Sunni Imam Sheikh Ahmed al-Tayeb signed a document that some suspect may lead towards a “one world religion.” The World Council of Churches (WCC) General Secretary, Dr Olav Fykse Tveit, who also attended, pushed for religious leaders and institutions to push towards a particular cooperative agenda to help bring world peace. Will there will be real peace or just a temporary one? Will destruction come to the USA and nations in the Middle East and North Africa? What will be some characteristics of this “one world religion’? Will all have the same religious practices? Might it have commonalities with ancient Roman Empire? The Grand Mosque in the UAE was renamed “Mary, Mother of Jesus.” “Will Catholic, Islamic, and even Hindu reverence for Marian figures pay a role? Is that part of the plan? Should real Christians support the interfaith and ecumenical agendas or remain separate from them? What does the Bible teach? What did Jesus teach? Dr. Thiel addresses these issues and more.

Here is a link to that video: Pope Francis signs ‘one world religion’ document!

The Bible opposes the interfaith agenda:

14 Do not be unequally yoked together with unbelievers. For what fellowship has righteousness with lawlessness? And what communion has light with darkness? 15 And what accord has Christ with Belial? Or what part has a believer with an unbeliever? 16 And what agreement has the temple of God with idols? For you are the temple of the living God. As God has said:

“I will dwell in them And walk among them. I will be their God, And they shall be My people.”

17 Therefore

“Come out from among them And be separate, says the Lord. Do not touch what is unclean, And I will receive you.” (2 Corinthians 6:14-17)

Real Christians are NOT to support the interfaith plans.

Consider now that a cross is part of a Chrislam symbol. There are interfaith and ecumenical uses for crosses and we are seeing that in the 21st century.

The Great Monarch May Be Annnounced with Signs Like a Cross and May Uses Crosses for His Army

An Orthodox Catholic prophetic document, called the Anonymou Paraphrasis (10th century) seems to suggest that a king that sounds a lot like the Beast of Revelation and King of the North of Daniel 11 will be revealed with signs including a cross:

Did Jesus Leave With a Cross? Will Jesus Return With a Cross?

It should also be mentioned that one reason that Jesus will not be recognized when He returns by Catholics is that Catholics expect Him to come with a cross.

Based on several false books which the Church of Rome teaches are non-canonical (such as the Apocalypse of Peter and the Epistle of the Apostles), the late French Catholic Cardinal Jean-Guenolé-Marie Daniélou wrote:

It must be added that the Bible does not teach that a cross accompanied Jesus into heaven, but that Cardinal Daniélou cites the discredited Gospel of Peter (Ibid, p. 267) as his source for that claim.

This is based upon not only false gospels, but a wrong interpretation of Matthew 24:30:

There is nothing in the Bible that says a luminous cross is the sign of Jesus. Furthermore, early Christians DID NOT use a cross as a Christian sign. Yet, because the Church of Rome teaches that a cross will appear in the sky to show that Jesus is about to come, if one associated with the 'man of sin' in 2 Thessalonians appears as Eastern Orthodox prophecy teaches, Catholics and others will sadly be inclined to falsely believe it is a sign from God (see also Who is the Man of Sin of 2 Thessalonians 2?).

I would also add that it is not proper to teach that Ignatius associated the 'cross' "with the power of the Holy Spirit" as the late Cardinal Danielou did (Danielou, Cardinal Jean-Guenole-Marie. The Theology of Jewish Christianity. Translated by John A. Baker. The Westminister Press, 1964, p. 278 and many mistranslators have. Ignatius used the word staros/stake, not the word cross, in his writing in his letter to the Ephesians, Chapter IX.

What About the Tau in Ezekiel and the Marking of Revelation 14?

Some believe that instead of possibly being a symbol of Antichrist, that the wearing of crosses may instead distinguish those that follow God from those that follow Antichrist. While, intuitively, that would appear to go against the Bible and practices of the early Christians, proponents of this view cite a passage in Ezekiel for their proof.

As a rule, Catholics tend to believe that they are SUPPOSED to be MARKED with a cross. The Catechism of the Catholic Church states:

Now, it should be noted that Revelation does not mention any cross as a 'paschal sign' like Pope Francis seemingly indicated. Here are the two verses pointed to:

Catholics, including Eastern Orthodox ones (Seymour WW. The cross in tradition, history, and art. pp. 423-427), are specifically “marked” with the sign of the cross upon baptism (Thurston, Herbert. Sign of the Cross. The Catholic Encyclopedia. Vol. 13. Nihil Obstat. February 1, 1912. Remy Lafort, D.D., Censor. Imprimatur. +John Cardinal Farley, Archbishop of New York. Robert Appleton Company, 1912. 22 May 2010 <http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13785a.htm>) and confirmation (Morrisroe, Patrick. Chrism. The Catholic Encyclopedia. Vol. 3. Nihil Obstat. November 1, 1908. Remy Lafort, S.T.D., Censor. Imprimatur. +John Cardinal Farley, Archbishop of New York. Robert Appleton Company, 1908. 25 May 2010 <http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03696b.htm>). The sign is normally made with the right hand touching the forehead and then other parts of the body.

It may be of interest to note that the Geneva Commentary on Revelation 13:16 (a Protestant source) believes that confirmation, which it neglects to mention is a cross on the forehead with oil, is the mark of the beast:

A writing that may have been improperly ascribed to Hippolytus claimed, “Ye were marked with the seal of my cross, but ye deleted it by your hardness of heart” (Hippolytus. On the End of the World. Appendix to part II. Of the works of Hippolytus. Containing dubious and spurious pieces. Section XLVIII. Ante-Nicene Christian library: translations of the writings of the Fathers down to A.D. 325, Volume 9. T. and T. Clark, 1872. Original from Oxford University. Digitized, Aug 22, 2008, p. 129). This seems to suggest that the author considered that a cross was a good mark. But Jesus never said anything like that.

The implication is that believers will be signed with a Tau/Thau cross and followers of the Beast another mark. Before addressing that, it is important to realize that the Bible nowhere teaches that the cross is the sign of the living God--the cross has long been a pagan symbol. Certain other Catholics also believe that God had His people in the Old Testament marked with a cross:

Yet, it needs to be understood that a thau/tav (ת or

or possibly possibly shaped like an "x") does not really look like a typical Catholic cross, but this is the interpretation of Ezekiel 9:4 that many Catholics hold to.

Here is a somewhat related teaching about supposedly why/when crosses entered Catholicism per The Catholic Encyclopedia:

So, basically at the time of the end, many Catholics consider that their people will have crosses, despite the fact that this was not really a symbol for Christians until a century or so after Jesus was crucified. However the word that is often translated as mark in Ezekiel 9:4 is not translated that way another time it is used in the Old Testament (one Protestant and then two Catholic translations are shown):

The fact that the Douay Old Testament does not even translate the same word as “mark” or indicate a type of cross when it is also used in Job 31:35 is something that they seemed to have generally missed. The term seems more to mean word.

Cross on Mars?

Some believe that a NASA photo shows a cross/crucifix on Mars. A reader sent me a link to the following in 2016:

Whether or not this is an actual cross or a shadow issue is unclear. No human has been to Mars and it is not likely that a land-vehicle sent from Earth would have constructed it.

Thus, this Mars' 'cross' may have ecumenical and interfaith appeal. It may be that those that do may consider the Mars' 'cross ' (presuming it is not a shadow or something) as proof of its 'universal' nature. This may encourage some to embrace the interfaith and ecumenical agendas that the Church of Rome is promoting. Especially if the Vatican ever accepts the possible existence of this Mars' cross as valid.

Crosses Should Not be Part of Christian Worship

Early Christians did not use crosses in their churches. Early Christians did not wear crosses. While it is true that various ones in Egypt adopted crosses from paganism, it was not until the fourth century that most professors of Christ accepted the cross as a symbol. And those that did, accepted it as a symbol of war, which is in direct contradiction to the beliefs and practices of early Christians.

The truth is that God did not tell people to use crosses to worship Him. Crosses are physical objects that came from paganism that were adopted by many professors of Christ because various ones compromised with Mithraism. Egyptian paganism, and/or the old Babylonian mystery religion.

Christians should not mix pagan practices with their faith (1 Corinthians 10:19-20; 2 Corinthians 6:14-16). And we are now also seeing this with a Chrislam cross!

This is not to say that all who own a cross are active idolators. Some countries use crosses on their flags and national identification cards, which are not wrong to own. Nor is it wrong to own something from groups such as the Red Cross, which feature crosses on a lot of medical supplies. Nor is it wrong to accept awards that some groups give out that have some type of a cross.

Yet, as far as Christianity goes, the historical facts should give people pause to realize that crosses should not be part of true Christian worship. But because many do not realize this, many are subject to being deceived by the final Beast power, a power that may well utilize one or more cross symbols.

Thiel B. What is the Origin of the Cross as a Claimed 'Christian' Symbol? http://www.cogwritr.com/cross.htm (c) COGwriter 2012/2014/2015/2016/2017/2018/2019/2020 2024 0506

What is the Origin of the Cross as a Claimed 'Christian' Symbol?

Did early Christians use crosses? Where did crosses originate? Can the cross be considered an idol?