Jump to content
Seriously No Politics ×

The Cross and Religious Symbols


Recommended Posts

Not sure if anyone brought this up, another symbol for the cross/crucifix is suffering.  There are Crucifixes that have the parts where the parts where Christs arms are nailed bending down to signify the heaviness of the sins he died for.  This is more of a personal appeal Christianity has for me, that ultimatly life is suffering because of the vile nature of people.  Many of us do not have nor will ever have nice stable middle class life in the burbs, not to mention esp. here in the states those who make it worse by voting down measures that would benefit the poor.  Look at prisons, here in CO we have HEP C outbreaks in prisons but because they're prisoners few care, real Christian behavior.  A personal example, I look at the life I had handed to me and the horrible, racist things people here did to my mom but because we are "Outsiders" we don't count, the Jesus of suburbia does not care about us, so what's left?  I know the LDS are big on family, more power to them.  I wish I could have had something that stable but life is what it is and well, I don't.  Society is so materialistic and I'm very set in my ways, emotional damage and all and since I don't make a 6 figure income and have loaded parents I'm left out of the equation so for me the idea of the Crucifix, the triumph of good over evil and a sound church based in classical theology that is open to all people is very appealing.  At the very least, it's honest and real, something your average entitled suburbanite cannot handle.

Link to comment
On ‎9‎/‎7‎/‎2018 at 4:17 PM, bluebell said:

For me, my aversion to the cross comes from pop culture/movies/t.v. shows.  

I have no experience with the cross as being spiritually significant, and all the experience i do have with it is when it shows up on movies or in t.v. shows, usually in shows about demons or something evil, and how the person brandishing the cross is almost always ultimately overpowered by the evil presence.  Now, I certainly don't take those shows seriously, but since that has pretty much been my only exposure to the cross, it definitely impacts the way that I feel about it.

I can see that. Lack of spiritual experience with a symbol would certainly color the way it is viewed. If a person only sees it in demonic movies then that would be a problem and I think it goes towards what I was saying about misunderstanding the symbol. I think the aversion to the cross in the church is a learned response. It doesn't have to be that way and I think it's a shame that it is. I felt the same way until I challenged myself to overcome my prejudice against the symbol.

Link to comment
On 9/6/2018 at 4:49 AM, MiserereNobis said:

In a different thread, the issue of the symbol of the cross came up. I thought it would make a good topic for a separate thread, especially because the talk/article linked to explain the LDS view of the cross was controversial to me. The issue, as I see it, is not just about the cross but also about external religious symbols.

What is it about religious symbols that makes this general authority look down on them? Why the negative view of the cross?

Here is my post:

 

   12 hours ago,  pogi said: 

The downplay of the cross as a symbol in the LDS church really stems from a personal preference of one of our prophets rather than from any theological reasons related to the atonement.  

Here is a pretty good article on the cross and the LDS church:

https://www.lds.org/ensign/2011/07/the-meaning-of-the-cross-for-latter-day-saints?lang=eng

I don't much care for the ideas expressed in that article, honestly. You preface it by saying it comes from a personal preference of one of your leaders, yet the article justifies not using the cross as being a better choice, as being inherently better than wearing or using a cross. That's more than just a personal preference -- it is moral bordering on theological.

The article sets up the false dichotomy between symbols and what the symbols represent. He says:

  Quote

It is the preaching of what happened on the cross that is more important than the symbol of the cross.

Not a single Christian wearing a cross would dispute that. In fact, religious symbols are often used to "preach" because they represent so much -- a picture is worth a 1000 words sort of thing.

  Quote

The message of the gospel of Jesus Christ includes what happened on the cross, but this message and meaning is within each of us and requires no external symbol to manifest our faith. Our cross is the giving up of worldly sins and following the Savior with a humble heart and an obedient spirit.

My faith requires no external symbol to be manifest, but the external symbol increases it. I can pray just fine kneeling in a forest. I can also pray just fine kneeling in front of an altar with a crucifix, but the latter deepens my prayer because it shows me symbols of what my faith is and through those symbols I can further understand my faith, in a way that often transcends words.

There seems to be an inherent dislike of symbols underlying this talk. Does it come from the LDS protestant/puritan historical background? (Upstate New York early 1800s...) He then goes on to quote scriptures about God not looking on the outside but looking on the inside. No Christian would dispute that. No priest wearing his full vestments would dispute that.

Again, it sets up a false dichotomy. Either I have faith without symbols or I have no faith with symbols. Either my faith is real on the inside with nothing on the outside or all I have is the outside with nothing on the inside. That is a false choice. I can have real faith on the inside AND show my faith on the outside, too.

  Quote

We are Christians in the true inward sense, and we display Christ to the world through our lives, our message, and our love rather than through a symbol whereby we are identified.

You can absolutely have both. He keeps up with the idea that having no symbols on the outside is superior to having symbols on the outside but the only justification he gives is the assumption that symbols on the outside means one's faith is lesser on the inside. And that is a terribly false assumption which is rather offensive.

It closes with a harsh barb against the symbol of the cross by President Hinckley:

  Quote

“I do not wish to give offense to any of my Christian colleagues who use the cross on the steeples of their cathedrals and at the altars of their chapels, who wear it on their vestments, and imprint it on their books and other literature. But for us, the cross is the symbol of the dying Christ, while our message is a declaration of the Living Christ. …"

You can preface anything you want with "I do not with to give offense" but if what you say is offensive that preface doesn't mean anything.

Read closely what he said. He goes in details the various places that crosses show up in Christianity, to make sure to include almost all Christianity, then says that the LDS message is superior because it is of the Living (notice the capital letter) Christ and the message of Christianity is of the dying (lowercase) Christ.

Like a living religion versus a dying religion. A living faith versus a dying faith.

This is profoundly offensive AND a complete straw man of Christianity. There is NO way to separate the death of Christ from the resurrection of Christ and it is through His death, His suffering, His pains that we are redeemed. If He had not died for us there would be no atonement. If He had not allowed Himself to suffer one of the cruelest executions, there would be no atonement. He was/is God -- of course He is living. The miracle and beauty of His absolute mercy is that as God, He chose to suffer and die as a mortal for us.

The symbol of the cross and of the crucifix is powerful indeed. Our infinite God chose to incarnate as a human, suffer as human, die as a human for us. A living God is a given. The miracle of Christianity is that a living God chose to die for us.

I do not say that those who choose to eschew Christian symbols have a lesser faith but that is what was seriously implied in this talk about those who choose to use Christian symbols.

This reminds me of the bias that Protestants have against the iconostasis in Orthodox and Byzantine RCC. Overall, I believe it to be a theological misunderstanding. I trust the 7 Ecumenical Councils canons concerning the Cross and icons.

Link to comment
On 9/11/2018 at 2:34 PM, Robert F. Smith said:

Here is a Mormon view of crucifixion, but is not advertised as such (I know the guy who made it, Daniel Smith, no relation):

 

He did a very good job on that video. It echoes things I have been saying on this thread. I give it an A. I would add that Yeshua was crucified on a small hill to the east of the temple mount just outside the city gate. It is readily discernible from the cemetery. Here is Golgotha ie Cranium Hill:

Image result for cranium hill

The temple would have been readily visible from the south side of this hill, and the crucified would be readily visible to all entering the east gate.

Here is another picture of it showing its proximity to the temple mount and the ancient Lion's Gate. Our Savior, the lion of the tribe of Judah, was crucified right outside the Lion's Gate of the city walls.  The watch had to come into the city - meaning Golgotha was outside the city (Matt. 28:11; Heb. 13:12) but close to the city (John 19:20).

Skulltotemple.jpg

The gate on the left (just to the right of the Dome of the Rock) was the ancient temple gate, but has been walled up by the Muslims. The Lion Gate is just behind cranium hill. Golgotha is from Aramaic gulgulta - literally "(place of the) skull." 

The traditional Church of the Holy Sepulchre is another in a list of errors selected by the Orthodox("True") Churches as the place of Yeshua's tomb. It was the site of the temple of Aphrodite built by the Romans in the NW quadrant of the city, and chosen by Constantine for the Church. Tourists go to see a small cliff face to the north of it they call Golgotha. 

Edited by RevTestament
Link to comment
12 hours ago, RevTestament said:

He did a very good job on that video. It echoes things I have been saying on this thread. I give it an A. I would add that Yeshua was crucified on a small hill to the east of the temple mount just outside the city gate. It is readily discernible from the cemetery. Here is Golgotha ie Cranium Hill:

Image result for cranium hill

The temple would have been readily visible from the south side of this hill, and the crucified would be readily visible to all entering the east gate.

Here is another picture of it showing its proximity to the temple mount and the ancient Lion's Gate. Our Savior, the lion of the tribe of Judah, was crucified right outside the Lion's Gate of the city walls.  The watch had to come into the city - meaning Golgotha was outside the city (Matt. 28:11; Heb. 13:12) but close to the city (John 19:20).

Skulltotemple.jpg

The gate on the left (just to the right of the Dome of the Rock) was the ancient temple gate, but has been walled up by the Muslims. The Lion Gate is just behind cranium hill. Golgotha is from Aramaic gulgulta - literally "(place of the) skull." 

The traditional Church of the Holy Sepulchre is another in a list of errors selected by the Orthodox("True") Churches as the place of Yeshua's tomb. It was the site of the temple of Aphrodite built by the Romans in the NE quadrant of the city, and chosen by Constantine for the Church. Tourists go to see a small cliff face to the north of it they call Golgotha. 

The basic problem  with all these proposals is that the city and its immediate environment have changed so much over time that only an archeologist has any hope of establishing what the area was like two thousand years ago.  The Church of the Holy Sepulchre is now inside the city, but was an area outside the city at the time of the Crucifixion -- it includes both Calvary/Golgotha and the tomb of Jesus in one holy setting.  Are they authentic?  How would we establish that?

See a professional assessment at http://www.biblearchaeology.org/post/2010/01/11/Golgotha-A-Reconsideration-of-the-Evidence-for-the-Sites-of-Jesuse28099-Crucifixion-and-Burial.aspx .  Joan Taylor concludes that Jesus' tomb may well be in the Holy Sepulchre, but that Golgotha was not -- probably further to the south.

Link to comment
5 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

The basic problem  with all these proposals is that the city and its immediate environment have changed so much over time that only an archeologist has any hope of establishing what the area was like two thousand years ago. 

Yes, and no. There are definitive features that place Old Jerusalem where maps show it. For instance the Gihon spring and Hezekiah's tunnel tell us where the original City of David was. 

Quote

The Church of the Holy Sepulchre is now inside the city, but was an area outside the city at the time of the Crucifixion -- it includes both Calvary/Golgotha and the tomb of Jesus in one holy setting.  Are they authentic?  How would we establish that?

See a professional assessment at http://www.biblearchaeology.org/post/2010/01/11/Golgotha-A-Reconsideration-of-the-Evidence-for-the-Sites-of-Jesuse28099-Crucifixion-and-Burial.aspx .  Joan Taylor concludes that Jesus' tomb may well be in the Holy Sepulchre, but that Golgotha was not -- probably further to the south.

You are right that the city changed, but I disagree that the site of the Church of the Holy Sepulchre was outside the city in Yeshua's day. After the Assyrians conquered ancient Israel, the west section of Jerusalem swelled with immigrants from Israel. A new wall was built to the east to enclose this new part of the city. The Church of the Holy Sepulchre is located well within this area, and is considered part of Old Jerusalem. The original city of Jerusalem was really quite small - located on the top of one ridge. As the city expanded west, it apparently expanded over an area used for tombs. Bones of the deceased would have been moved. While I am open to strong evidence that there was no city wall around the Church of the Holy Sepulchre in Yeshua's day, I strongly doubt that, because by that time the city had swelled to a size of some 40,000-60,000 people, and would have easily included that locale. It is hard to date the placement of walls, but even if there was no wall enclosing that locale, I am confident that archaeology will show that area was indeed populated with city houses. Why? Because they couldn't build to the south. I am sure orthodox churches do not now like that conclusion, but the site is just highly dubious. 

The Romans did not take down the eastern wall of the city. It is still there. Since Yeshua was both crucified and resurrected in the vicinity of Golgotha, this limits possible locales. Further, the road leading east was a major thoroughfare because the King's Hwy was to the east. Since the prince entered the temple from the east, this is highly corroborative. 

Link to comment
5 minutes ago, RevTestament said:

Yes, and no. There are definitive features that place Old Jerusalem where maps show it. For instance the Gihon spring and Hezekiah's tunnel tell us where the original City of David was. 

What you say here is completely irrelevant and has nothing to do with establishing the initial locations of Calvary and the Tomb of Jesus.  I spent years in Jerusalem as an archeology student, several of my teachers excavated in Jerusalem, and I have visited all the relevant sites multiple times -- including the Gihon Spring and Hezekiah's Tunnel.

5 minutes ago, RevTestament said:

You are right that the city changed, but I disagree that the site of the Church of the Holy Sepulchre was outside the city in Yeshua's day. After the Assyrians conquered ancient Israel, the west section of Jerusalem swelled with immigrants from Israel. A new wall was built to the east to enclose this new part of the city. The Church of the Holy Sepulchre is located well within this area, and is considered part of Old Jerusalem. The original city of Jerusalem was really quite small - located on the top of one ridge. As the city expanded west, it apparently expanded over an area used for tombs. Bones of the deceased would have been moved. While I am open to strong evidence that there was no city wall around the Church of the Holy Sepulchre in Yeshua's day, I strongly doubt that, because by that time the city had swelled to a size of some 40,000-60,000 people, and would have easily included that locale. It is hard to date the placement of walls, but even if there was no wall enclosing that locale, I am confident that archaeology will show that area was indeed populated with city houses. Why? Because they couldn't build to the south. I am sure orthodox churches do not now like that conclusion, but the site is just highly dubious. 

The Romans did not take down the eastern wall of the city. It is still there. Since Yeshua was both crucified and resurrected in the vicinity of Golgotha, this limits possible locales. Further, the road leading east was a major thoroughfare because the King's Hwy was to the east. Since the prince entered the temple from the east, this is highly corroborative. 

The desires of the members of the various churches which occupy the Holy Sepulchre have no bearing on the question of authenticity, which is solely an archeological question.  Scholars have generally found good reasons for the authenticity of the Holy Sepulchre, and that it was outside Jerusalem at the time of Jesus' Crucifixion.

ritmeyer-old-city

Marcel Serr and Dieter Vieweger, “Golgotha: Is the Holy Sepulchre Church Authentic?” Biblical Archaeology Review, 42/3 (May/June 2016):28ff, online at https://members.bib-arch.org/biblical-archaeology-review/42/3/11 .

Biblical Archaeology Society Staff, “Where Is Golgotha, Where Jesus Was Crucified?  Does the Church of the Redeemer hold the answer?” Bible History Daily, April 7, 2017, online at https://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/daily/biblical-sites-places/jerusalem/where-is-golgotha-where-jesus-was-crucified/

Samuel Pfister, “Virtually Explore Jesus’ Tomb at the National Geographic Museum:  3-D technology brings Jerusalem’s Church of the Holy Sepulchre to life,” Bible History Daily, Jan 8, 2018, online at https://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/daily/biblical-sites-places/biblical-archaeology-sites/virtually-explore-jesus-tomb-national-geographic-museum/ .

Link to comment
13 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

What you say here is completely irrelevant and has nothing to do with establishing the initial locations of Calvary and the Tomb of Jesus.  I spent years in Jerusalem as an archeology student, several of my teachers excavated in Jerusalem, and I have visited all the relevant sites multiple times -- including the Gihon Spring and Hezekiah's Tunnel.

It certainly is not irrelevant, if the place of the crucifixion is indeed to the east of the temple mount. I suppose it would be irrelevant if one has preconceived notions about where Yeshua's tomb is, such as you seem to have. Since you have been there do you concede that the present east wall is located in essentially or exactly the same place as in Yeshua's day? Do you believe Hezekiah's tunnel and the Gihon spring help to locate the eastern wall in Yeshua's day?

Quote

The desires of the members of the various churches which occupy the Holy Sepulchre have no bearing on the question of authenticity, which is solely an archeological question.  Scholars have generally found good reasons for the authenticity of the Holy Sepulchre, and that it was outside Jerusalem at the time of Jesus' Crucifixion.

ritmeyer-old-city

Marcel Serr and Dieter Vieweger, “Golgotha: Is the Holy Sepulchre Church Authentic?” Biblical Archaeology Review, 42/3 (May/June 2016):28ff, online at https://members.bib-arch.org/biblical-archaeology-review/42/3/11 .

Biblical Archaeology Society Staff, “Where Is Golgotha, Where Jesus Was Crucified?  Does the Church of the Redeemer hold the answer?” Bible History Daily, April 7, 2017, online at https://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/daily/biblical-sites-places/jerusalem/where-is-golgotha-where-jesus-was-crucified/

Samuel Pfister, “Virtually Explore Jesus’ Tomb at the National Geographic Museum:  3-D technology brings Jerusalem’s Church of the Holy Sepulchre to life,” Bible History Daily, Jan 8, 2018, online at https://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/daily/biblical-sites-places/biblical-archaeology-sites/virtually-explore-jesus-tomb-national-geographic-museum/ .

I disagree with you once again. I do not believe it is a solely archaeological question, and I doubt archaeology can solve it. There are other scriptural hints:

Ezekiel 47:1-8 tell us that the river of YHWH flows through the Kidron Valley from the mount of Olives until it reaches the Jordan. This river originates from the Throne of YHWH (Revelation 22:1)

Another hint comes from the person pressed into service to assist Yeshua -  Simon the Cyrenian. Since it was the Passover Simon the Cyrenian was probably carting ashes from the Temple Altar from out of the Temple and the city of Jerusalem (lest they defile the Temple) earlier in the day. Simon would have been coming north on the Dung Gate road as Yeshua was heading east on the Siloam Gate Road. Simon was probably pressed into service to carry the crossbeam for Yeshua. Yet, another indicatjor Golgotha had to be to the east.

Link to comment
5 hours ago, RevTestament said:

It certainly is not irrelevant, if the place of the crucifixion is indeed to the east of the temple mount. I suppose it would be irrelevant if one has preconceived notions about where Yeshua's tomb is, such as you seem to have. Since you have been there do you concede that the present east wall is located in essentially or exactly the same place as in Yeshua's day? Do you believe Hezekiah's tunnel and the Gihon spring help to locate the eastern wall in Yeshua's day?

Once again you miss the point. There has not been any dispute about the locus of the Spring and Tunnel.  Your comments are merely tendentious.  The changes to Jerusalem which have occurred since the Crucifixion have not changed the location of that Spring & Tunnel, and are not at issue.  They are merely "givens." 

Quote

I disagree with you once again. I do not believe it is a solely archaeological question, and I doubt archaeology can solve it. There are other scriptural hints:

Ezekiel 47:1-8 tell us that the river of YHWH flows through the Kidron Valley from the mount of Olives until it reaches the Jordan. This river originates from the Throne of YHWH (Revelation 22:1)

Another hint comes from the person pressed into service to assist Yeshua -  Simon the Cyrenian. Since it was the Passover Simon the Cyrenian was probably carting ashes from the Temple Altar from out of the Temple and the city of Jerusalem (lest they defile the Temple) earlier in the day. Simon would have been coming north on the Dung Gate road as Yeshua was heading east on the Siloam Gate Road. Simon was probably pressed into service to carry the crossbeam for Yeshua. Yet, another indicatjor Golgotha had to be to the east.

Archeology does not exclude textual evidence.  However, speculative interpretation of prophetic and historical texts does not provide us with definitive answers.  It is far more important to marshal all possible evidence concerning the location of the walls of the city in Jesus' day, and to closely examine all claimed candidate sites to determine whether they fit the textual descriptions and known history.  Since I first came to Jerusalem in 1965, and throughout all subsequent years, I have yet to find good evidence supporting your various claims here.

Edited by Robert F. Smith
Link to comment
9 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Once again you miss the point. There has not been any dispute about the locus of the Spring and Tunnel.  Your comments are merely tendentious.  The changes to Jerusalem which have occurred since the Crucifixion have not changed the location of that Spring & Tunnel, and are not at issue.  They are merely "givens." 

I will accept your avoidance of my questions as  an admission that the spring and tunnel do help locate the original east wall in about the same place as they are now. Therefore, the hill I pictured is an excellent candidate for the site of Golgatha. It meets all the particulars - being near the city, but outside of the wall. Being in the shape of the cranium of the human skull. Being near a known cemetery. And lastly, corresponding well with numerous scriptural points. None of these can readily be said for the site of the Church of the Holy Sepulchre.

Quote

Archeology does not exclude textual evidence.  However, speculative interpretation of prophetic and historical texts does not provide us with definitive answers.  It is far more important to marshal all possible evidence concerning the location of the walls of the city in Jesus' day, and to closely examine all claimed candidate sites to determine whether they fit the textual descriptions and known history.  Since I first came to Jerusalem in 1965, and throughout all subsequent years, I have yet to find good evidence supporting your various claims here.

And I find no good evidence to support any belief that The Church of the Holy Sepulchre is the site of Yeshua's burial. Perhaps you just believe that Constantine was more inspired than God's prophets? You do know that a LDS Church Pres. felt the garden tomb was a likely spot for His burial, right?

Link to comment
38 minutes ago, RevTestament said:

I will accept your avoidance of my questions as  an admission that the spring and tunnel do help locate the original east wall in about the same place as they are now.

There are many undisputed loci in old Jerusalem, and they have not been at issue, so that bringing them up is just irrelevant.  They are already taken into account in every effort to produce a basic plan for the city.  Going over the already accepted loci avoids dealing with the disputed loci.  

38 minutes ago, RevTestament said:

Therefore, the hill I pictured is an excellent candidate for the site of Golgatha. It meets all the particulars - being near the city, but outside of the wall. Being in the shape of the cranium of the human skull. Being near a known cemetery. And lastly, corresponding well with numerous scriptural points. None of these can readily be said for the site of the Church of the Holy Sepulchre.

And I find no good evidence to support any belief that The Church of the Holy Sepulchre is the site of Yeshua's burial. Perhaps you just believe that Constantine was more inspired than God's prophets? You do know that a LDS Church Pres. felt the garden tomb was a likely spot for His burial, right?

The Garden Tomb is indeed a beautiful place.  I have been there many times.  Problem is that the track for the rolled stone cover is really a manger or trough, and that the skull-looking hill above it (facing the old bus station) is a recent result of erosion.  It looked nothing like that two thousand years ago.  I don't depend upon Constantine or his mother, or General Chinese Gordon, or anyone else who gushes about this or that location.  These are solely archeological matters, not dependent upon emotions of the moment.

Link to comment
On 9/14/2018 at 10:31 AM, Robert F. Smith said:

There are many undisputed loci in old Jerusalem, and they have not been at issue, so that bringing them up is just irrelevant.  They are already taken into account in every effort to produce a basic plan for the city.  Going over the already accepted loci avoids dealing with the disputed loci.  

The Garden Tomb is indeed a beautiful place.  I have been there many times.  Problem is that the track for the rolled stone cover is really a manger or trough, and that the skull-looking hill above it (facing the old bus station) is a recent result of erosion.  It looked nothing like that two thousand years ago.  I don't depend upon Constantine or his mother, or General Chinese Gordon, or anyone else who gushes about this or that location.  These are solely archeological matters, not dependent upon emotions of the moment.

According to the Zondervan Handbook of Biblical Archaeology in the vicinity of Jerusalem there are 1,000 or more rock-cut tombs. Israeli archaeologist Amos Kloner, who has examined more than 900 such tombs, found only four tombs dating from the late Second Temple period (the time of Jesus) that were closed by a rolling stone:
1.the tomb of the Queen Helena of Adiabene
2.the family tomb of King Herod of Jerusalem
3.one nearby Herod’s Family Tomb
4.another located in the upper Kidron Valley
This fourth tomb is located where the temple priests would have had their tombs - east of the Temple - and is the most logical known candidate for the tomb of Joseph of Arimethea. Even if this tomb in the upper Kidron Valley is not the tomb of Joseph of Arimethea and hence the tomb of Yeshua, it is in the vicinity of the true Golgotha, dates to the correct time, and shows that such tombs were in the area.
Thus, the last particular of the scriptural account is met with the location of the true Golgotha. The true Golgotha is also at the beginning of the road to Damascus, which is a subject of Yeshua's parables, such as the Good Samaritan. It is also the road on which Yeshua appeared to Paul/Saul. As you note the so-called Garden tomb has several archaeological issues with it. Yeshua began to suffer in the Garden of Gethsemane as He overlooked the area of His mortal death, and it's no wonder He sorrowed nigh unto death as He meditated and prayed there.
 

Edited by RevTestament
Link to comment
  • 4 weeks later...
On 9/6/2018 at 10:36 AM, bluebell said:

I've always wondered, is there a difference between a crucifix and a cross?  (I mean, besides one has Christ on it and the other doesn't).  Do all other christians view them as being the same, or is a crucifix Catholic?  Would a Baptist wear a crucifix?

Personally, I'm pretty neutral on crosses.  They are a symbol and their power is in what they symbolize.  I don't see them as bad and I don't see them as necessary.  I'd like to learn more about them though.

Yes, there is a difference between the crucifix and a cross ... but in my experience, that difference is becoming less and less, and I think that's a good thing.

Speaking from my own experience again, I definitely "preferred" the empty cross at one point as a Protestant, and would have pointed out that for us Protestants, Christ has risen from the cross and is not still hanging on it.  I would have known that Roman Catholics also believed in the risen Christ, but I would have seen in their preference of the 'crucifix' that they thought something further was needed ... their own works, perhaps ... and so, in my thinking, they didn't completely trust in Jesus' atonement for full and free salvation.

Now, I think I was wrong-headed in that, but I also think a number of Protestants think/thought as I did.  In fact, as I think about what my own attitude was, it seems to me a lot like what MiserereNobis saw and objected to in the article that explained the LDS view of the cross in the other thread that you started on the Atonement.  I agreed with his thoughts and assessment there.  What he didn't say (but implied, I think) is that there was some arrogant prejudice in the statements downplaying the centrality of the cross as a Christian symbol.  I say that because i recognize the arrogance and near-sightedness of my former views.

I have come to deeply appreciate the crucifix as it symbolizes so powerfully the "passion"  (i.e. the suffering) of Christ on our behalf.  And while I'm still a Protestant (albeit one who values and has learned much from Catholic teaching and practices), I've repented of my former prejudice, even while I still acknowledge the differences in Catholic and Protestant theology.  Over the years, I've gravitated toward books written by Catholic priests (Henri Nouwen) and former Catholic priests (Brennan Manning), and have been involved in Christian healing ministries (emotional/spiritual healing) where it's really helpful to have a deep understanding of what Jesus did for us on the cross.  Focusing on Jesus on the cross, and on His work after His ascension because of the cross, are both essential.

Now, I really love both symbols, the cross and the crucifix.  Paul talked about 'boasting' in the cross of Christ (Galatians 6:14) and he spoke of the power of the cross (1 Corinthians 1:17) and of wanting to know only the cross (1 Corinthians 2:2).

So for me, there is no difference now in the symbols of the cross and the crucifix.  And I would say that is true in most institutions and most people in my own context.  I hope the differences (and often the attendant prejudices) are more and more a thing of the past.

Link to comment
20 hours ago, Paloma said:

Yes, there is a difference between the crucifix and a cross ... but in my experience, that difference is becoming less and less, and I think that's a good thing.

Speaking from my own experience again, I definitely "preferred" the empty cross at one point as a Protestant, and would have pointed out that for us Protestants, Christ has risen from the cross and is not still hanging on it.  I would have known that Roman Catholics also believed in the risen Christ, but I would have seen in their preference of the 'crucifix' that they thought something further was needed ... their own works, perhaps ... and so, in my thinking, they didn't completely trust in Jesus' atonement for full and free salvation.

Now, I think I was wrong-headed in that, but I also think a number of Protestants think/thought as I did.  In fact, as I think about what my own attitude was, it seems to me a lot like what MiserereNobis saw and objected to in the article that explained the LDS view of the cross in the other thread that you started on the Atonement.  I agreed with his thoughts and assessment there.  What he didn't say (but implied, I think) is that there was some arrogant prejudice in the statements downplaying the centrality of the cross as a Christian symbol.  I say that because i recognize the arrogance and near-sightedness of my former views.

I have come to deeply appreciate the crucifix as it symbolizes so powerfully the "passion"  (i.e. the suffering) of Christ on our behalf.  And while I'm still a Protestant (albeit one who values and has learned much from Catholic teaching and practices), I've repented of my former prejudice, even while I still acknowledge the differences in Catholic and Protestant theology.  Over the years, I've gravitated toward books written by Catholic priests (Henri Nouwen) and former Catholic priests (Brennan Manning), and have been involved in Christian healing ministries (emotional/spiritual healing) where it's really helpful to have a deep understanding of what Jesus did for us on the cross.  Focusing on Jesus on the cross, and on His work after His ascension because of the cross, are both essential.

Now, I really love both symbols, the cross and the crucifix.  Paul talked about 'boasting' in the cross of Christ (Galatians 6:14) and he spoke of the power of the cross (1 Corinthians 1:17) and of wanting to know only the cross (1 Corinthians 2:2).

So for me, there is no difference now in the symbols of the cross and the crucifix.  And I would say that is true in most institutions and most people in my own context.  I hope the differences (and often the attendant prejudices) are more and more a thing of the past.

Thanks for your thoughts Paloma.  I would love to hear from a Catholic whether or not they also view the cross and the crucifix as the same thing with no difference.

Link to comment

Wearing a cross does not make one a Christian. Not wearing a cross does not make one not a Christian. 

Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...