The Cross is taken out of history

I'm getting more confused, I think

It doesn't make sense to take out such a huge symbol of the faith

I base my point of view on these references: The Greek word rendered “cross” in many modern Bible versions is stau?ros'. In classical Greek, this word meant merely an upright stake, or pale. Later it also came to be used for an execution stake having a crosspiece. The Imperial Bible-Dictionary acknowledges this, saying: “The Greek word for cross, [stau?ros'], properly signified a stake, an upright pole, or piece of paling, on which anything might be hung, or which might be used in impaling [fencing in] a piece of ground. . . . Even amongst the Romans the crux (from which our cross is derived) appears to have been originally an upright pole.”—Edited by P. Fairbairn (London, 1874), Vol. I, p. 376. It is noteworthy that the Bible also uses the word xy'lon to identify the device used. A Greek-English Lexicon, by Liddell and Scott, defines this as meaning: “Wood cut and ready for use, firewood, timber, etc. . . . piece of wood, log, beam, post . . . cudgel, club . . . stake on which criminals were impaled . . . of live wood, tree.” It also says “in NT, of the cross,” and cites Acts 5:30 and 10:39 as examples. (Oxford, 1968, pp. 1191, 1192) However, in those verses KJ, RS, JB, and Dy translate xy'lon as “tree.” (Compare this rendering with Galatians 3:13; Deuteronomy 21:22, 23.) The book The Non-Christian Cross, by J. D. Parsons (London, 1896), says: “There is not a single sentence in any of the numerous writings forming the New Testament, which, in the original Greek, bears even indirect evidence to the effect that the stauros used in the case of Jesus was other than an ordinary stauros; much less to the effect that it consisted, not of one piece of timber, but of two pieces nailed together in the form of a cross. . . . It is not a little misleading upon the part of our teachers to translate the word stauros as ‘cross’ when rendering the Greek documents of the Church into our native tongue, and to support that action by putting ‘cross’ in our lexicons as the meaning of stauros without carefully explaining that that was at any rate not the primary meaning of the word in the days of the Apostles, did not become its primary signification till long afterwards, and became so then, if at all, only because, despite the absence of corroborative evidence, it was for some reason or other assumed that the particular stauros upon which Jesus was executed had that particular shape.”—Pp. 23, 24.

No, that's not how he was crucified. The language in which the NT was written in and the culture in which the tradition was past down, was a very poetic culture. They would have used the terms cross (taken from a tree) and tree interchangeably to refer to the crucifixion. It is very well known how Romans engaged in professional crucifixion and his arms would have been spread out across a beam. The only way he would have been crucified with his hands above him is if the Romans were going around doing mass crucifixions in the city like they did during the Jewish War...but even this was done with arms spread out.