Christianity Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for committed Christians, experts in Christianity and those interested in learning more. It's 100% free, no registration required.

Sign up
Here's how it works:
  1. Anybody can ask a question
  2. Anybody can answer
  3. The best answers are voted up and rise to the top

Simply stated, there is a large number of people who believe the cross had origins with the ancient god "Tamus", and is somewhat related to a phallic symbol.

Can this claim be backed with proof?

Example article. -- thus its stated the cross was 'adopted' by christians.

share|improve this question

closed as off-topic by fredsbend, Wikis, Steve, El'endia Starman Aug 11 '14 at 13:41

  • This question does not appear to be about Christianity within the scope defined in the help center.
If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.

Can you provide some links to those who are claiming this? – curiousdannii Aug 3 '14 at 7:10
I was told this by upbringing. – 1Up Aug 3 '14 at 7:33
This question appears to be off-topic because it is about paganism, not about Christianity. – Flimzy Aug 3 '14 at 18:58
1 would accept this, if you can find a link that says it. You need "a notable claim" to be verified or rejected. – fredsbend Aug 3 '14 at 20:22
I read the question as "How can one justify the Tamus origins of the cross." I basically see no relation to Christianity in that title. So.... basically christians have to defend that the cross is or is not from Tamus origins? On a QnA site about christianity? Hm. I think the better question to ask is if modern christianity adopted the cross from Tamus origins. But then the Bible clearly states..... – Zoe Aug 4 '14 at 5:10

The Christian/Latin cross predates Christianity by far (to think, historically, that only Christianity established the cross would be foolish).

Now, to the question as to Tammuz being it's origin point - no, it did not originate with Tammuz. Why? Because Tammuz was not associated with a cross, but a taw/tav - a Hebrew letter that, at the time (being more Phoenician, being in Babylon's time), represented more of an "x" than a lower-case "T".

Here is an image of the characters of the Phoenician alphabet, showing the "tav" as an "x"

And this is an image of Tammuz, wearing a headband with the "tav" on it.

As we see in the above cases, the "tav" was a symbol represented with an "x", not a cross. Even Paleo-Hebrew, which was the form Jesus would have written in, used the "x" for tav until 135 CE.

share|improve this answer
Do you suppose there's a connection to Ezekiel 9:4? "Pass through the city, through Jerusalem, and put a mark (tav) on the foreheads of the men who sigh and groan over all the abominations that are committed in it." – Mr. Bultitude Aug 3 '14 at 14:45
You're a bit too quick to dismiss @Mr.Bultitude 's comment - as the context of that passage is actually specifically Tammuzian idolatry - cf. Ez 8:14. It's not unknown in scripture for God to indict false religion (through prophetic language and imagery) by using it's very own language and forms. The particular judgment against the Baal-worshipping Israelites given by Elijah was significant given Baal's putative association with the clouds and rain - the Lord Almighty relieved Baal of his trope and showed that only He truly 'rides upon the clouds'. – bruised reed Aug 3 '14 at 16:11
@bruisedreed I accidentally deleted my original answer - but Ezekiel 9:4 is marking the foreheads of the people who are crying out because of the abominations being committed in Jerusalem, it's not them crying over Tammuz, as the woman in Ez 8:14. So my original response remains - no, it is not connected. The mark is not the same as the tav (being alone a symbol associated w/ Tammuz and indicating a wound in Hebrew). – Jesse Aug 3 '14 at 17:52
@Jesse it is apparant that you don't fully understand my comment. I'm quite aware that the people referred to in Ez 9:4 and Ez 8:14 are on opposite sides of the fence when it comes to living in a manner pleasing to the Lord - this does not negate what I said in any way. – bruised reed Aug 3 '14 at 18:04
I think we're butting heads for the wrong reason @bruisedreed - my answer was about the mark on those God had marked with probably not being a "tav", which was an "x" and used in worship of Tammuz. It would be like God marking those to be saved in Revelation with the Mark of the Beast. – Jesse Aug 3 '14 at 20:15

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.