2006-06-09 00:39:06 · 14 answers · asked by Anonymous in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
Of course not. A cross wasn't a religious symbol--it was just 2 pieces of wood held together and convenient to use to murder people. Jesus wasn't *nearly* the first--nor the last--person the Romans tortured to death. It would have been the equivalent of someone wearing a guilloutine or an electric chair around her/his neck!
2006-06-09 00:45:50 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
No, Jesus didn't wear a cross. Remember Jesus isn't Christian, he is a Jew. Did you think He was Christian? then He would've been a follower of Himself. People who follow Jesus are Christians and THEY wear crucifixes. Jesus' disciples didn't either since that would be very bold of them to do so since it would definitely make them conspicuous to the Roman soldiers and get arrested. Besides, Jesus their teacher just died on the cross and it would've made them sad wearing something that will remind them of their master's death.
2006-06-09 15:16:58 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Jesus did and some of his followers too "When the Roman Empire crucified a criminal or captive, the victim was often forced to carry his cross part of the way to the crucifixion site, carrying his cross through the heart of the city." so in a way they did
2006-06-09 00:48:08 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Unlikly, since a cross in that time was associated with pain and suffering. Jesus had not yet died on a cross. It was His doing so that gave the symbol meaning and value, hence the desire to wear one today.
2006-06-09 00:46:27 · answer #4 · answered by hiheaven5 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Jesus? Use your brain for just a few seconds.
If Jesus died, he could NOT have been God.
Do Gods die? Do they?
If Jesus 'died' on Friday and 'undied' on Sunday, what else besides a few hours was sacrificed?
What's the BIG deal?
David Blaine can almost do that.
Why be a Christian who has to accept this type of thinking?
2006-06-09 00:48:34 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
No, the cross was a sign of death back then. Today, it would be equifilant to someone wearing an electric chair or a needle around their neck.
But, our Savior didn't die in the electric chair, or by lethal injection, so Its all good.
God Bless.
2006-06-09 00:42:54 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
the worst insult in latin is 'furcifer'.
a 'furcifer' is basically someone who wears or carries a cross (more specifically the cross-bar to a cross). condemned criminals were forced to carry the cross-bar of their cross through the streets before they were crucified.
wearing a cross in first century jerusalem would have been far more offensive than an 'i like saddam hussein' tee would be at a republican convention.
2006-06-09 01:08:53 · answer #7 · answered by synopsis 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No! Crosses came in with the catholic church 300 years after they lived.
2006-06-09 00:43:16 · answer #8 · answered by oldguy63 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
There is no bible reference to this.
Besides, wearing a cross is unscriptural - not a bible teaching - nor is it found that any one in the New testament times were wearing it.
It is not a bible requirement.
2006-06-09 00:47:44 · answer #9 · answered by PC man 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The cross would have been repugnant to them. They did not see it as jewelry but as a symbol of suffering and shame.
2006-06-09 00:44:24 · answer #10 · answered by williamzo 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋