Understanding the origins of the inverted cross, a Christian symbol? Or the symbol of the Anti-Christ
First off.. As most would agree.. The Christian religions are notorious for making up elaborate fictions, claiming them as fact, attributing new meanings with little to nothing backing up their beliefs.. This is just ANOTHER one of those ridiculous situations of “education” through ignorance with absolutely nothing backing the claims.
Lately there has been an epidemic of Christians trying to PROVE to non-believers that the inverted cross they are using is actually a Christian symbol.. when it obviously means nothing of the sort to the individuals they are trying to degrade. Why are Christians getting so agro about this? Its not like its even a symbol they are trying to “re-claim”, or would ever dare advertise for them selves, because they know society does not see it as a Christian symbol, and they know it doesn’t mean that to the person they are trying to belittle. Personally I find it down right disrespectful and idiotic.
Many people including myself promote the use of an inverted cross as a symbol of the rejection of Christianity & Organized religion as a whole, but more importantly a universal symbol of individualism, intellect, truth and freedom of thought and mind. But Christians and many others say we are idiots, wrong, and are ignorant of its meaning…(#Irony)
For anyone who sports an inverted cross, I’m sure you’ve heard people say a million times something in regards to St. Peter.. but those people don’t really know much at all about what they’re talking about. They’re just faithfully repeating what they have been told without questioning, or looking into it themselves. (and why wouldn’t they? Thats exactly what they have been Psychologically programmed to do since childhood.) #BrainWashed
Unfortunately the cross being a symbol of St peter’s will is absolutely the weakest and sadly the most common belief & argument brought up when the subject of an inverted cross comes up, when in fact if you really look deep into the St. Peter story, it only strengthens the argument that an inverted cross is, if not a “satanic” symbol, at the very least an extreme symbol of an anti-religious movement…
Christians claim, “An inverted cross is a Christian symbol and that St Peter was crucified upside down, because he didn’t feel worthy to be crucified the same way as Christ.” They also claim that it has nothing to do with any anti-religious statement, Satanism, or the Anti Christ as well as that those who use the symbol in that sense are moronic and don’t understand what it really means. So I’m here today to tell you what it really means, go through the origins and put the bashing from Christians and others to rest.
The Crucifixion of Peter
Although this belief of the symbol being that of a Christian saint is taught within Christianity and Catholicism when you look into it, it literally holds no grounds at all. Actually if you read the any of the original Holy Scriptures it says absolutely nothing about St. Peter choosing to be crucified upside down in respect to Christ anywhere, including the bible, (and I mean any Bible). You would think if this was truly the case, they would probably want to put that in there.
There are nine separate accounts of the crucifixion of St Peter, but only one account mentioning him not being worthy of Christ. You, may think well ok so it is mentioned somewhere even if only in one out of nine accounts… but you’d be wrong again, since even in the one single account nowhere did it state that his upside down crucifixion was at all at his own request, simply that he felt unworthy.
The whole statement that St. Peter was crucified upside down by his own requests is something the catholic church has added to the story, possibly seen as “reading between the lines”.. but is no where officially recorded anywhere at all, and wasn’t added to the story until hundreds of years after the fact.
Roman armies and Christian killings
Although Peter WAS “allegedly” crucified upside down and you may feel like this is an unusual and a note worthy point to recognize, in all honestly it’s a well documented fact that the romans of the time often crucified people in many bizarre and torturous ways with extreme frequency. To understand why this may be, this is where we introduce Emperor Nero into the story. If you know anything about the time period in which the crucifixion of St Peter took place you would also know that at the time the empire was under the rule of Emperor Nero. Nero was the most famed and savage of the Christian killing kings of rome and many call Nero the first true persecutor of Christians. He was known for extensively torturing and executing Christians as well as even having captured Christians to burn them in his garden for a source of light at night. Nero harshly persecuted Christian for crimes often by ordering them to be thrown to dogs, while others were crucified and burned. (why he hated Christians I’ll cover in a future post.)
Nero the Anti-Christ
Although Nero was a real man, who ruled during the time, Many 2nd- and 3rd-century theologians, among others, recorded their belief that Nero himself would return from death or exile, as “The Anti-Christ.”
The Ascension of Isaiah is the first text to suggest that Nero was in fact the Antichrist. Likewise the Sibylline Oracles, Book 5 and 8, written in the 2nd century, speak of Nero return bringing the resurrection of his wrath. Within Christian communities, these writings, along with others, fueled the belief that Nero would return as the Anti Christ. Additionally only fuelling theists belief that Nero was or would become “The Anti-Christ” was the fact that his name transliterated into Hebrew has the numeric value of 666. In Revelation’s narrative, the “mark of the beast” is used to identify the beast’s acolytes.
It is thought that Nero believed that the destruction of Christianity and all Christians would bring peace to the Roman empire, and with this vision, came a symbol of an inverted cross with broken arms. The symbol was used by Emperor Nero in efforts to suppress the rise of Christianity, slightly ironic since use of an upright cross was not even fully adopted by the Christians for another 2-3 hundred years after Nero’s inverted broken cross.
St peter Conclusion
With Nero’s Symbol against the Christians being an inverted cross during the time St peter was put to death, it only add more credence to the belief that the inverted cross pays far more homage to Nero and his armies then to St Peter or Christ. Saint Peter was crucified upside down at the hands of the roman army, lead by the supposed “Anti-Christ”, not by request of the Saint him self. If the idea that a Christian hating/killing army would allow him pay his own respects to Christ and actually honour those respects wasn’t absurd enough, to believe that this happened when all accounts show no record of it and Nero’s army already had an inverted cross in place to suppress the Christian uprise aaand were in fact known for crucifying people in all kinds of strange ways.. to believe that (for me anyways) is just ridiculous.. but then again I guess I shouldn’t be surprised when the theistic community vastly believes in far more outlandish things then that.
All in all, even if you do or don’t believe the St Peter story, who the fuck are you to tell me my interpretations of this symbol are wrong. Symbols are always changing there meaning, and symbols mean different things to different people. In modern society when it comes to people wearing inverted crosses or displaying them in other ways, how many of those people do you honestly believe are using the inverted cross to try to convey that they were unworthy of christ…?? Probably not many at all.. If you as a christian want to wear a inverted cross to symbolize “unworthiness” then go for it, but don’t tell me what it means to me is wrong.. Especially when the facts and general consensus is not even remotely in your favour. You’re just being an ass for the sake or being an ass, and making yourself look like an ass in the process. I’m not trying to convince you that your Christian Cross is actually a Pagan Symbol (which it actually is) because I know thats not what it means to you, despite what the historical facts say and honestly thats fine. I could seriously care less. Different symbols mean different things to different people. It’s the same sort of thing as the swastika, you don’t go around calling Hindu’s Nazi’s because they are adorned with swastikas. And if that confused you, the Swastika was once one of the most common symbols throughout virtually every culture across the globe symbolizing the sun, the stars and the cosmos, bringing good luck, joy and victory to all who embraced it. Today in the ignorance of western society, It’s primarily seen as a symbol of racism & white supremacy, wile in the east it a symbol of good fortune.
The word “swastika” comes from the Sanskrit svastika – “su”meaning “good” combined with “asti”,meaning “it is”, along with the diminutive suffix “ka.” The swastika literally means “it is good.”
The meaning of symbols change, and their meanings are defined by the different beliefs of those who use them. Get over it. The meaning of a symbol is only relevant to those who bear it for their perception may be different from your own.
So to me,(and most of society) no. Thats not the cross of St. Peter. And yes its probably a bit satanic. But for myself, and many others included, I promote the use of an inverted cross as a symbol of the rejection of Christianity and religion as a whole, but more importantly a universal symbol of independence truth and freedom, which in retrospect is what Satanism is all about, is it not?. In this day & age this is by far the most common usage of the symbol, regardless of the fact that it does share some minimal usage by the catholic church. And with this ideology stated, this may not be the sole meaning of an inverted cross since it’s subjective and varies with your own beliefs but,this idea of individualism, intellect and freedom of thought and mind is the true meaning indented behind my use and my designs for this is what it means to me.
(Sources) & Rebuttal – Update!
People have been trying to suggest that my statements in this matter hold no truth due to lack of sources with my original post, despite the fact this was only originally written on a whim as a rant on my personal tumblr years ago (Here), based on accumulative knowledge I’ve acquired through out my life. Although I do research these sort of topics extensively in my spare time at leisure, this was in no way ever intended to ever be a “scholarly article”. It was a rant responding to a similar meme claiming the cross was that of St. Peter, not Satanic and to DO YOUR RESEARCH. Although I couldn’t name the original sources of my information from when I originally wrote it, its seriously not hard to simply google it. So to satisfy the ignorance and laziness of the nay sayers, here are some sources of related and supporting content that I just looked up.. took 5 mins. (isn’t sloth a sin?) BUT First, I ask you this.. what are you even hoping for? A source that claims theres no sources for St. Peters Cross? You are asking me to find a source to tell you, that YOU are the one without a source? Ok sure… here you go.
– Your Brain. ( Most of what I’ve said is all just straight forward common sense and logic.)
– The Bible. (Any Bible. Any version just look, theres nothing there, read any one you want.)
– biblegateway.com (don’t have a bible? Bible Gateway is an amazing source for looking up any bible passages, from nearly any version)
– Just google it, I know trying to think for yourself is hard after Religion has re-wired your subconscious processing.. but rather then just expecting me to spoon feed you, try opening your eyes and looking for your self. It will do you some good.
– evidenceforchristianity.org (Here we have a Christian advisory network who’s sole purpose is to provide evidence for christianity but when presented with the question of St.Peter on a cross, they can barely even find any credible evidence to suggest that he was in fact crucified at all let alone upside down.)
– scriptureseeds.org (St. Peter, Martyr – claims: “Peter’s final days in Rome are not described in the Scriptures” )
– penelope.uchicago.edu (discussing the Nero Anti-christ connection)
– listverse.com/ (discussing torture methods of Christians)
– www.teachpeace.com (discussing Neros cross, the peace sign & Satanism )
– wikipedia.org/Nero (basic Nero info, Anti-christ connection at the bottom of the page)
Since writing this original rant years ago Ive very recently come across several sites online suddenly quoting (a very convincing quote) from “The New Testament Apocrypha” (first published in 1942….. oh. )… So completely confused, I figured this needed some looking into.
To find out more I went to BibleStudyTools.com, and heres a segment of their description of this source :
“The New Testament Apocrypha is an amorphous (Formless, unclear and inaccurate) collection of writings that are for the most part either about, or pseudonymously (Falsely) attributed to, New Testament figures. These books are generally modelled after the literary forms found in the New Testament: there are apocryphal gospels, acts, letters, and revelations. Unlike the Old Testament Apocrypha, the New Testament Apocrypha have Never been viewed as canonical (accurate) by any of the major branches of Christianity, nor is there any reason to believe that the traditions they record have any historical validity.”
Essentially its a mish-mash of different books, accounts, scriptures, and fragments of writings from all over, (most of which have not been authenticated, contradict established accounts and were written by random anonymous authors who later signed their work with the name of an apostle) all combined into a new work. Basically even the church says it has no credibility.
The quote that is being cited is: “I beseech you the executioners, crucify me thus, with the head downward and not otherwise: and the reason wherefore, I will tell unto them that hear.” taken from – The Vercelli Acts XXXVII
That account itself in the pre-text, claims to be based on a compilation of all 9 official accounts with the additional supplementation of “lost” fragments of various texts and related writings. Unfortunately it simply comes down to the fact that this is one single and obscure writing unvalidated or supported by any operating church and does not correspond with any official scriptural writings. According to the religious scholars, the passage has been embellished and is an un-authentic re-telling. Other embellishments include talking dogs and many bouts of magical contest amongst disciples, while true the Catholic church edited out a lot of content from the “official versions” without corroborating accounts, given that this is simply an un authentic re-telling written at a later date, Im not sure it stands for much.
Rebuttal 2 . Another Source you say?
Ok, theres one other similar “source” that comes up with slight variation, found on www.catholic.com, BibleAnswer.com as well as a couple other places if you search real hard, which is:
“Peter…finally coming to Rome, was crucified with his head downward, having requested of himself to suffer in this way.” Now that sounds semi legit right?.. well its found in a book called “Ecclesiastical History ” by Eusebius of Caesarea. (basically a christian history book, not by any means comparable to a bible, holy scripture or official account.) It’s not recognized as an official account, and was written about 3oo years after the fact… wait.. Isn’t that exactly what I said earlier? The upside down thing was added to the story hundreds of years after the fact?..hmm. Besides.. having “his head downward, and wanting to suffer” doesn’t exactly translate to he was full body upside down on a cross, nor that he asked to be upside down because unworthy of Christ. I just read that his head was down and he wanted to suffer like that, whatever that means. When looking at these accounts, I can see how someone may “read between the lines”, but to do so is making assumptions on a single unofficial document that does not correlate with any official account. I stick by my statement that you cant claim he was upside down or requested it because he “didn’t feel worthy of Christ” when theres no real evidence anywhere and is not mentioned in a single official account. And again, even if he was upside-down, theres no way it was by his own request to respect christ.
Either way even if there was an actual account of him being upside down, that doesn’t detract from anything I wrote at all.