Your Cross May Be in Vain

What if I told you that the cross that many Christians like to wear around their necks—as well as bumper stickers, tattoos, wall art, and whatnot—may have nothing to do with Christ’s death? A scholar has controversially declared just that.

Gunnar Samuelsson, of Gothensburg University, says that there’s no evidence to support that Romans crucified anyone on a cross—and instead of being based on fact, the story of Jesus dying on a cross came from Christian traditions instead, as well as historical illustrations. The Bible itself, he maintains, makes no reference to a cross, either, but only to a “staurus,” which could also mean “pole.” None of the bloody nails or other equipment we learned to sing about so gruesomely in Sunday school are mentioned, either.

Many Christians will likely argue that this is outrageous, as they often do when faced with possible new information and interpretations of their doctrine. Indeed, it is hard to change—and if evidence supporting, say, the bones of Christ’s body being found, or the presence of his own consort—both of which have been raised before—it would certainly change much in how the religion exists (offering more empowerment for women and less scorn toward sex, for example). It would be difficult to face for any religion, for sure.

This claim, of course, could itself be in vain. After all these years, one man has suddenly declared that thousands of people were not punished on the cross and left for death? I find it strange that we’re just now figuring that out, if at all. Some might argue that even if the claim is found to be true, they could still wear their crosses as a symbol, in solidarity, and such.

However, I’ve always had a problem with wearing a cross as a symbol. It is a torture device, right? How does wearing the device the son of your god was tortured on represent your faith to you? That doesn’t symbolize the loving, caring, nonjudgmental lifestyle that people claim Christianity is about.

(And I would argue that perhaps while Jesus himself would have spread such teachings, the religion itself certainly is not those things, and instead has paved the way for much bloodshed—so perhaps the symbol is fitting, after all.)

Wearing the cross, to me, is very much like a pagan wearing an iron maiden, or perhaps a Jewish person sporting a swastika (I do realize that this was first a positive symbol from Tibet before it was warped for Hitler’s use; still, the symbol of death remains with it from such abuse of power today). Why on earth would you wear something that served to torture and kill your ancestors—or, in this case, your most important religious figure—as a symbol of your faith? Would a fish, or a simple pair of sandals, or anything else vaguely associated with the figure not be better? And to sport an image of him dead on the cross itself as so many do is even more gruesome and ghastly. No wonder we can’t get past the historical bloodshed and violence associated with the religion and still continue to perpetuate it in the name of a god today.