- physical/literal= a method of Roman executions
- physical/ literal= an object sometimes worn as and ornament
- symbolic/ meta narrative = Jesus’ sacrifice for humanity
- symbolic/ meta narrative= conjunction of linear time with timelessness
- symbolic/ meta narrative= the reach toward God (vertical) and the reach of man to man (horizontal)
The Latin cross is a phallic symbol.
Of all the scenes in the Bible, the one that was chosen to be worn and be central is Jesus on the cross. I take it that this is seen as his highest act, his acceptance/use of his own specific torture death. REssurecting someone was not it. Hanging out with prostitutes was not it. Stopping the stoning was not it. People do not wear an image of Jesus speaking,w hich is much of what he does in the Bible. Nor walking on water. Of course these acts are less easily turned into an abstraction, simple pattern symbol, so this could be a factor. You don’t need an artist, even. You can just tie two pieces of wood together, or whittle it. His death is more important than his life. Or his acceptance of dying or courage or sacrifice or following of orders.
Some thoughts:
if you wear the cross, you are being like Jesus, bearing a cross, albeit a light one.
You are acknowledging his sacrifice - for those who interpret his death as a sacrifice (for our sins)
it centers martyship.
It devalues life and points to the afterlife
it is a bearing of guilt since we humans killed God and he suffered for our sins or took them on
I have to say it is rather sinister from my perspective since I think it has weighed heavy on people. Yes, it implies life after, but it really acts in shaming ways. God saying look what you did to me, look what you owe me, I did this horrible thing to myself for you, mingled with you did this to a great person or me.
Moreno … you artistically paint … with words … the consequence of the crucifixion story. Fact or fiction … the consequences would likely be the same. The learning by osmosis (inherent in culture) you mentioned in one of your earlier posts.
Have you considered the author(s) … or those who controlled the writing and propagation of the story … intentions?
IOW … do the consequences dovetail with the original intentions?
Not necessarily and good point. In fact I think it is hard to 1) determine 2) separate out intentions. In this case we may have all sorts of factors going in. One person’s or group’s intentions choose the cross. Others take over the use and interpret it differently. Trends in how Jesus and the Bible are interpreted change the meanings further. I tried to respond as a mix. I gave up immediately on trying to determine what they originally intended - and one can even call into question their intentions - let’s say if they wrote them down - since unconscious factors may have been at play. So I tried to combine what I think the attachment and interpretations are around the cross are in general in more or less neutral terms, then give my reaction. But of course interpretations vary.
Perhaps there is a growing likelihood that the original intentions will surface some day. Certainly there is no proof that credible evidence supporting the original intentions does not exist somewhere in some form. Archaeologists continue to discover tangible evidence that supports long surviving myths and legends.
Recent discoveries have revealed cracks in the dam … the Nag Hammadi Library … Gnostic Gospels … the Dead Sea Scrolls.
Descent hints … that are part of the story … also seem to point to at least the source/geography of the original intentions:
- The road to Damascus event
- The Saul to Paul event … the Roman Citizen
- The earliest writings by Saul and company … Pauline Christianity
- The final earthly destination of Saul … and Peter
- The generally accepted attribution to Saul as the individual who opened the doors to the Christian version of Judaism to the gentiles.
- The upside down crucifixion of Saul may be a literary device that points to an upside down version of truth.
More emerging thoughts …
The “author community” responsible for the Jesus story may be the same “author community” (and it’s descendants) responsible for the world’s major socio-political, economic and financial systems.
The same “author community” may be responsible for the recent introduction of world wide population control programs.
The irony is this last program may cause their other systems … socio-political, economic and financial systems … to implode. It’s fast becoming increasingly difficult to maintain perpetual economic growth with declining populations.
When the “author community” persistently fails to “turn those stones into bread” the “lemmings” will get really restless.
Perhaps the only way out of this mess is the “Armageddon” scenario.
I hope not!
Why would you think that?
Why would you think that?
I don’t know!
Should I seek safety in the Fifth Amendment … claiming that I’m not responsible for the thoughts that pop into my head. 
Only snag is I’m not American.
Can’t argue with that.
Phyllo … in the past month or so … in this forum … the notions of Noosphere and Collective Consciousness were mentioned a few times.
Perhaps these notions really exist … like enormous thought farms … and some farmer up there poops a thought or two from the farm into somebody’s head every once in a while.
Or are present as minority. But I see no reason to assume that the original intentions were good ones.
If the original intentions can be said to be products of direct experience, could not these intentions in the present day be the same or similar, if one has the same or similar experience? All religions rest on the assumption that this can be the case. Otherwise, the religions would have died out from lack of personal meaning.
I am not sure if the cross came out of the direct experience of Jesus. It seems to have arisen later, a good while after he was dead. As far as your last point: just because the meaning changes does not mean that there would be no meaning that followers could hand onto. New meaning and new reasons to hang on. Or simply that as long as the interpretations change gradually, it will still be a tradition. People will grow up, not noticing the changes, or not being so shocked by them that they leave. Frog in slowly heated up water as a kind of analogy, though over generations.
We are told that the direct idea came from John’s experience with Jesus and Paul’s experience with Jesus’ spirit. Who are we to say it wasn’t so? If this spirit is the same yesterday, today and tomorrow, it is identical today with the original interpretations of it.
Statements 4. and 5.(OP) may explain some of the preChristian views of the cross as a symbol. These seem to be primordial human concerns. The cross as a symbol predates Christianity. It could be used to express human connections with their Gods (Energies). I prefer the Boethius explanation–that time’s flat line was intersected by eternity. This fits the Christian concept of God intervening in human affairs at a point in history, an intervention with repercussions before and after the event. The OT God is not the god of all humanity. His interventions into human affairs was local, for the Hebrews only. It took Paul to proclaim that his vision of God included the salvation of all people.
That can also be seen as Paul’s practical (or cynical) attempt to get converts.
We were told that the crucifix should be the central symbol of Christianity? It could be true, I don’t know much about it, but is it the case?
The best symbol for Christianity was the fish - simple and honest. It was commonly used until Christianity became organized and institutionalized… that’s when the simple and honest message of Jesus was lost.
Jesus’ message was never simple, it was a series of convoluted and twisted riddles. Anyone who solved the riddles was wise, anyone who was not wise would go to hell, but hell again, was another riddle. Jesus was very gangsterish and bullied his disciples into submission, insulting their intellects any chance he could get. He also told them that only real men would die for Him, ending His own life to seal the deal.