Christian Symbols

[Mike Reed]

Sorry, there isn't much goose stepping in the LDS faith. I never said that the LDS didn't believe this, I simply stated I didn't. I think Isaiah was discussing something else.

Fair enough... but the point still remains that Mormonism has a contradiction. On one hand it is asserted that the cross symbol is an inappropriate expression of the LDS faith because it represents the instrument that killed Jesus, but on the other hand symbolism of the nails that crucified Jesus (whether or not you believe properly taken from Isaiah 22:23) have a place in LDS symbolism, and canonized (if you will) in ritual. The reason given for the rejection of the cross symbol is therefore invalid.

So, whose stopping you? I really don't care. As to its appropriateness that is another thing entirely. Given its rather late introduction in Christian symbology I rather doubt it.

Late? You already admitted that Paul used the symbol of the cross.

Given your example I would be completely within my right to wear a swastika if I wanted to proclaim my Buddhism since that is distinctly a symbol of Buddhism of unity.

I am not following you here. Given what example?... and what is the point you are making? Swastika, a distinctly Buddhist symbol? By distinct, do you mean uniquely/exclusively? If so, I would disagree with you. The swastika (and the cross) has existed long before 600BC. But regarding whether or not it would be within your rights to wear a swastika to declare your Buddhism.... sure. Why not? You'd have a right to, as you would also have a right to wear inverted pentagrams to declare your Mormonism.

And bishops follow this doctrine. How would you know?

Which doctrine? Trace back through the thread and see which doctrine we are discussing right now. You wrote, "Christ's glory comes because of the resurrection not His death." This is the specific false doctrine that we are talking about here. Later you contradicted yourself by saying, "Christ's glory does indeed come from his suffering and death, but it wasn't only on the cross, but in the garden as well." Do you concede now that your initial claim was false?

Given my quote then it wasn't obviously the case.

"It"? What is it? The quote? The assertion that you made in the quote? The assertion that you were TRYING to make in the quote?

"Wasn't obviously the case"? The case for what?

It seems that you may be making a concession here, but I am unsure. Do you retract your initial claim "Christ's glory comes because of the resurrection not His death"? Yes or no?

The foremost testimony of all LDS is Jesus' resurrection not necessarily his death. In Moses 762 And righteousness will I send down out of heaven; and truth will I send forth out of the earth, to bear testimony of mine Only Begotten; his resurrection from the dead; yea, and also the resurrection of all men; and righteousness and truth will I cause to sweep the earth as with a flood, to gather out mine elect from the four quarters of the earth, unto a place which I shall prepare, an Holy City, that my people may gird up their loins, and be looking forth for the time of my coming; for there shall be my tabernacle, and it shall be called Zion, a New Jerusalem.

At the center of this is Jesus' atonement which was began in the garden and was finished on the cross.

Yes. I agree that this is representative of LDS doctrine. I never disputed otherwise. So now what? Does it therefore follow from this that Mormonism has good reason to reject the cross... simply because it isn't the central emphasis of Mormonism? Then why the beehives, stars of david, ctr rings, altars, pentagrams, all seeing eyes, moroni statues, nails that crucified Jesus, the Big Dipper... etc? Are you prepared to argue that each of these symbols represent the central message of Mormonism?

Read again..."Secondly, Christ's glory does indeed come from his suffering and death, but it wasn't only on the cross, but in the garden as well."

Yes... I am aware of this quote. I have no need to read it again. What you need to do, however, is concede that this statement contradicts the one you made earlier: "Christ's glory comes because of the resurrection not His death."

Only in the minds of Catholics and believers transubstantiation.

What the??? I am not promoting the doctrine of transubstantiation. Stop jousting at windmills.

Jesus stated to partake of these things in remembrance not "AS" anything.

As a symbolic representation.

Frankly, given the extreme prohibition of Jews toward blood I find this comment interesting.

Frankly, you misunderstood the comment that I was making. The bread and wine were symbolic of Jesusâ?? blood and body.

It is also an allegory or an analogy.

Right. Metaphor, allegory, analogy... whatever... it was symbolic. No matter how you look at it, Paul used the SYMBOL of the cross.

And where was the blood shed. In the garden and on the cross. Why not wear a symbol of a olive tree?

Sure. Wear oneâ?¦ along with your ctr rings, while you attend a temple that is decorated with all-seeing-eyes, inverted pentagrams, angel moroniâ??s, beehives, and altars. This discussion isnâ??t about the inclusion of additional symbols, but the exclusion of symbols. There is no reasonable basis for the no-cross protocol.

Neal Maxwell has reported,

I am unsure as to why you are quoting this. Have I said ANYTHING that would be undermined by what Maxwell has said?

And with the comments of the apostle M. Russell Ballard,

But while thoughts of the blood He shed for us in Gethsemane and on Calvary fill our hearts with profound appreciation, it isn't just the fact that He died that is so meaningful to us. Our hope and faith are rooted in the profound understanding that He lives today, and that He continues to lead and guide His Church and His people through His spirit. We rejoice in the knowledge of a living Christ, and we reverently acknowledge the miracles He continues to work today in the lives of those who have faith in Him. That is why we choose to place less emphasis on a symbol that can be construed to represent primarily His death.

And yet members of the church are symbolically reminded of the death of Jesus every Sunday, and every endowment session they attend.

I stated "propitiation" which is different than atonement. This was done in the garden. Bruce R. McConkie states..."

Fallacy: distinction without a real difference. â??To atone is to ransom, reconcile, reconcile, expiate, redeem, reclaim, absolve, propitiate, make amends, pay the penalty.â? Bruce R. McConkie, Mormon Doctrine, 62.

The cross sealed Jesus' life and testimony, but it was in the garden he took our sins. I am surprised you didn't know this!

Read my quotes!:

"Through the Atonementâ??performed by Jesus Christ with His suffering in the Garden of Gethsemane and by His suffering and the voluntary surrender of His life on the crossâ??He saves you from your sins as you sincerely repent and follow Him."

http://www.mormon.org/mormonorg/v/index.js...000176f620a____

"The Savior atoned for our sins by suffering in Gethsemane and by giving his life on the cross." Gospel Principles, 71.

"And I, Nephi, saw that he was lifted up upon the cross and slain for the sins of the world." (1 Nephi 11:33)

"Jesus was crucified by sinful men for the sins of the world, yea, for the remission of sins unto the contrite heart." (D&C 21:9)

"I am Jesus Christ, the Son of God, who was crucified for the sins of the world...." (D&C 35:2)

"To some it is given by the Holy Ghost to know that Jesus Christ is the Son of God, and that he was crucified for the sins of the world." (D&C 46:13)

"Behold, I, the Lord, who was crucified for the sins of the world, give unto you a commandment that you shall forsake the world." (D&C 53:2)

Andrew Skinner has written in his book, Gethsemane,

Skinner does not state in this quote that Jesus only took on our sins in the Garden, not on the cross.

Current Church doctrine rather teaches precisely what I have been telling you:

â??In Gethsemane and on the cross our Lord took upon him our sins.â? Robert L. Millet, Alive in Christ: The Miracle of Spiritual Rebirth, p. 50.

â??Jesus took upon himself the sins of all of us in Gethsemane and on the cross.â? Elder Robert L. Backman, Jesus the Christ, Ensign (CR), November 1991, p. 8.

â??Through his suffering in the Garden of Gethsemane and his death on the cross, Jesus Christ took upon himself the punishment for the sins of everyone who ever lived on the earth.â? Preparing for Exaltation Teacherâ??s Manual, p. 17.

â??And then he offered Himself, though in the greatest agony and pain ever known to mankind, upon the cross as a final witness of His love for you and me by taking our sins upon Himself, a pure and sinless Son of God, that we might have eternal life.â? Elder James M. Paramore, The Many Witnesses of Jesus Christ and His Work, Ensign (CR), November 1990, p. 62.

Jesus is the Christ, the Only Begotten of the Father born in the flesh, the Savior and Redeemer of mankind, who offered His life on Calvaryâ??s cross in atonement for the sins of all mankind.â? President Gordon B. Hinckley, Sacred Resolves, Ensign (CR), May 1990, p. 88.

â??Jesus Christ, the Son of God, gave His life on Calvaryâ??s cross as an atonement for the sins of mankind.â? President Gordon B. Hinckley, Rejoice in This Great Era of Temple Building, Ensign (CR), November 1985, p. 53.

â??He accordingly offered himself a sacrifice for sins, and through his death upon the cross took upon himself both Adamâ??s transgression and our individual sins, thereby redeeming us from the fall, and from our sins, on condition of repentance.â? Joseph Fielding Smith, Doctrines of Salvation, 1:26.

Again... your views are in conflict with the current doctrines of the Church.

[Ron Beron]

Mike Reed writes,

Late? You already admitted that Paul used the symbol of the cross.

I never said he used it as an actual physical symbol. That would have been dangerous. He did, however, reference it as a literary metaphor.

Yes. I agree that this is representative of LDS doctrine. I never disputed otherwise. So now what? Does it therefore follow from this that Mormonism has good reason to reject the cross... simply because it isn't the central emphasis of Mormonism? Then why the beehives, stars of david, ctr rings, altars, pentagrams, all seeing eyes, moroni statues, nails that crucified Jesus, the Big Dipper... etc? Are you prepared to argue that each of these symbols represent the central message of Mormonism?

Man thrives on symbols. I think that symbols are simply that; symbols. They are without any real power in and of themselves. Therefore, they all represent values and virtues found within Mormonism.

Do you retract your initial claim "Christ's glory comes because of the resurrection not His death"? Yes or no?

No. I don't. Jesus' death sealed his testimony, but it was through His resurrection that we are guaranteed eternal life.

What the??? I am not promoting the doctrine of transubstantiation. Stop jousting at windmills.

As a symbolic representation.

Frankly, you misunderstood the comment that I was making. The bread and wine were symbolic of Jesusâ?? blood and body.

I wasn't stating that you did only that Catholics did. If you believe that it was simply a symbol then we have no disagreement. I am only stating that cross, etc. have no vicarious power other than their inspirational value. Therefore, moot.

Sure. Wear oneâ?¦ along with your ctr rings, while you attend a temple that is decorated with all-seeing-eyes, inverted pentagrams, angel moroniâ??s, beehives, and altars. This discussion isnâ??t about the inclusion of additional symbols, but the exclusion of symbols. There is no reasonable basis for the no-cross protocol.

I wouldn't personally exclude the cross. In fact, I have two of them in my home. I reject the idea that they along with other symbolic artifice have any true power. The cross, especially, IMO celebrates a death and not something life-giving. To me it is more aesthetic.

And yet members of the church are symbolically reminded of the death of Jesus every Sunday, and every endowment session they attend.

Again, no argument, but the mode of execution is never amplified only the death.

Read my quotes!:

Current Church doctrine rather teaches precisely what I have been telling you:

There is no disagreement. I simply stated the same. The atonement began in the garden and was finalized on the cross. I simply do not think the cross is a apt form of remembrance.

Again... your views are in conflict with the current doctrines of the Church.

Since I have taught the same thing in church for over 30 years, without any objection and using materials approved of by the church then I think I am on safe ground. BTW, I am, from time to time, in conflicts with some teaching of the church, but not with this one.

[Mike Reed]

Getting back to original meaning of this thread, Mormons don't wear a cross because as Joseph Fielding Smith as written...

While we have never... felt that they [Catholics or Protestants] were doing something which was wrong

Smith is being disingenuous here, as indicated by his claim later, "To many, like the writer, such a custom is repugnant and contrary to the true worship of our Redeemer."

it is a custom that has never appealed to members of the Church.

Not true. For example, in 1916 the Church petitioned the Salt Lake City council to erect a cross monument on Ensign Peak.

However, to bow down before a cross or to look upon it as an emblem to be revered because of the fact that our Savior died upon a cross is repugnant to members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

Not ALL members of the Church.

THE CROSS WAS AN EGYPTIAN SYMBOL

As well as a symbol for many other cultures. The obelisks (an Egyptian symbol) is among the most popular designs for LDS monuments.

The use of the cross dates back to a very early time.

As is the case for all-seeing-eyes, squares, pillars, compasses/circles, and pentagrams.

Its early meaning is somewhat obscure. We are informed that the Egyptians used it as a symbol representing life and fertility of crops. However the general use throughout the Christian world comes from the crucifixion of our Redeemer. This custom of adoring the cross seems to have grown out of the purported vision given to Constantine when it is stated that he saw a cross in the heavens and was told that by it he was to conquer.

The reverence for the symbol of the cross predates Constantine. Although Christians had reservations for depicting it materially, they looked for its manifestation all around them.

To many, like the writer, such a custom is repugnant and contrary to the true worship of our Redeemer. Why should we bow down before a cross or use it as a symbol? Because our Savior died on the cross, the wearing of crosses is to most Latter-day Saints in very poor taste and inconsistent to our worship.

Then why are the nails that crucified Jesus appropriate symbols for the LDS Church?

We may be definitely sure that if our Lord had been killed with a dagger or with a sword, it would have been very strange indeed if religious people of this day would have graced such a weapon by wearing it and adoring it because it was by such a means that our Lord was put to death.

No... it would be no more strange than symbolically drinking the blood and eating the body of Jesus.

Humble, contrite spirit and sincere prayer of gratitude is a far better means of worship and acknowledgment of our love for the great blessings we receive through our Savior's voluntary sacrifice than to adore the cross.

False dichotomy. It is possible to do all of these things while adoring (loving and holding sacred) the symbol of the cross, is it not?

[Ron Beron]

Mike Reed writes,

Not true. For example, in 1916 the Church petitioned the Salt Lake City council to erect a cross monument on Ensign Peak.

Apparently the current administration feels otherwise, ""Now I'm glad to see that things are as they should be, in my judgment, with reference to the peak: a nature park, a place to which people may go leisurely, learning as they climb, and when they reach the summit, of pondering and thinking and reflecting as they look across this great valley, which has become a metropolis in the mountains."

Certainly the Church in 1916, in an attempt of assimilation may have wanted to place a cross there, but obviously they didn't. The KKK did place a cross there and promptly burned it in 1922.

What is with you and crosses, Mike? You brought up this same thing on Mormon Discussions a few months ago with the same even greater force than here.

While the LDS do not honor or give credence to the cross we certainly don't dismiss it's importance either symbolically or physically.

[Mike Reed]

I never said he used it as an actual physical symbol.

You said, â??Given its rather late introduction in Christian symbology I rather doubt it.â? Symbology isnâ??t limited physical occurrence. Therefore, your statement is falsified by your previous admission that Paul used â??the cross as a symbol of Jesus' suffering.â?

Nowâ?¦ as for the PHYSICAL image of the crossâ?¦ you think it was embraced as a symbol â??rather lateâ? in Christian history. Please give me an approximate time period that you think this began, and we can work from there.

Man thrives on symbols. I think that symbols are simply that; symbols. They are without any real power in and of themselves. Therefore, they all represent values and virtues found within Mormonism.

The power of symbols is irrelevant. Please respond to my post directly... in other words, ANSWER MY QUESTIONS: â??So now what? Does it therefore follow from this that Mormonism has good reason to reject the cross... simply because it isn't the central emphasis of Mormonism? Then why the beehives, stars of david, ctr rings, altars, pentagrams, all seeing eyes, moroni statues, nails that crucified Jesus, the Big Dipper... etc? Are you prepared to argue that each of these symbols represent the central message of Mormonism?â?

No. I don't. Jesus' death sealed his testimony, but it was through His resurrection that we are guaranteed eternal life.

The word â??notâ? is exclusive. The word â??andâ? is inclusive. I canâ??t believe that I have to explain this to you!

Lets put your quotes side by side:

A. "Christ's glory comes because of the resurrection not His death."

B. â??Christ's glory does indeed come from his suffering and deathâ?¦.â?

Now I will simplify:

A. Christâ??s Glory: R & ~D

B. Christâ??s Glory: D & S

Both of these propositions cannot both be true, as D and ~D are contradictory. If you cannot admit/understand thisâ?¦ sighâ?¦ then it would be pointless to continue our discussion any further.

I wasn't stating that you did only that Catholics did. If you believe that it was simply a symbol then we have no disagreement. I am only stating that cross, etc. have no vicarious power other than their inspirational value.

And your statement is irrelevant, since I have not asserted that the cross has vicarious power. Againâ?¦ you are jousting at windmills.

[in the temple ceremony] the mode of execution is never amplified only the death.

This is totally false and you know it, EnemyAce. You also know that if I were to prove you wrong on this point that I would be censored, since giving the details of the endowment is forbidden on this message board. While being forced to bite my tongue, I simply appeal to the honesty of Latter-day Saints who have been endowed, and to the intelligence of non-members who have read transcripts of the ceremony. You are losing credibility, EnemyAce.

There is no disagreement. I simply stated the same. The atonement began in the garden and was finalized on the cross. I simply do not think the cross is a apt form of remembrance.

YOU DID NOT STATE THE SAME!!!

You said: â??The cross sealed Jesus' life and testimony, but it was in the garden he took our sins.â?

When using as a conjunction, â??butâ? means â??on the contrary.â? You make the implication that Jesus did not take on our sins on the cross.

This implication is contradicted by the following quotes that I gave you:

â??In Gethsemane and on the cross our Lord took upon him our sins.â? Robert L. Millet, Alive in Christ: The Miracle of Spiritual Rebirth, p. 50.

â??Jesus took upon himself the sins of all of us in Gethsemane and on the cross.â? Elder Robert L. Backman, Jesus the Christ, Ensign (CR), November 1991, p. 8.

â??Through his suffering in the Garden of Gethsemane and his death on the cross, Jesus Christ took upon himself the punishment for the sins of everyone who ever lived on the earth.â? Preparing for Exaltation Teacherâ??s Manual, p. 17.

[Mike Reed]

Apparently the current administration feels otherwise

No doubt. But Smith's statement ("it is a custom that has never appealed to members of the Church") remains false.

Certainly the Church in 1916, in an attempt of assimilation may have wanted to place a cross there, but obviously they didn't. The KKK did place a cross there and promptly burned it in 1922.

Yep. In 1916 the church also was in the process of constructing the Hawaiian and Cardston Alberta temple in a cruciform design. Both of these were completed.

What is with you and crosses, Mike? You brought up this same thing on Mormon Discussions a few months ago with the same even greater force than here.

I am writing my MA thesis on the no-cross protocol.

While the LDS do not honor or give credence to the cross we certainly don't dismiss it's importance either symbolically or physically.

The Church has a no-cross protocol, and promotes the idea that the cross is an inappropriate expression of the LDS faith.

[alter idem]

First of all you are not up to deciding whether my views are consistent or not with LDS doctrine. That is in the discretion of my bishop and he is fine with it. So, enough of the baiting with codswallop. Secondly, Christ's glory does indeed come from his suffering and death, but it wasn't only on the cross, but in the garden as well. The atonement was made in the garden NOT on the cross.

You might want to check yourself--this is not true. LDS believe the Atonement took place in the garden AND on the cross, as well as at the Garden Tomb. As part human Jesus could die, but as part God, no one could take his life from him. He had to give it up voluntarily. If the atonement was finished in the garden, then why would Jesus have to hold out so long? Why not die during the scourging--at 39 lashes most did. He waited SIX hours after being nailed to the cross to give up his life. Why? Because the earthly part of his mission to fulfill the atonement was not completed until he declared, "It is finished".

The cross was no mere afterthought, or even a horrible way to die that people would remember, it was prepared as a symbol of Christ from the foundation of the world. The symbolism of the tree of life--a tree and the cross symbol are related in symbolic meaning. When moses put the brass serpent on a cross, it was to symbolize Jesus Christ's death by crucifixion. The idea that Jesus would be "lifted up" that he would draw all men to him--this is symbolic of his being lifted up on the cross. Jesus used the symbolism of the cross when telling us, to follow him (take up our crosses) or to "suffer his cross" as Jacob admonished his listeners.

Jesus taught us that we should observe and remember his death each week as we partake of the sacrament. During the week, we should emulate his life, through following his example and doing his works, but we are to "remember always" that his blood was spilt for us and his body broken. Ghastly and a bit morbid? Not to me. It was the greatest gift ever and we are asked to "view it" (Jacob 1:4), remember it through a ritual ordinance and not shirk from taking up our own "crosses".

I don't know how much clearer the scriptures need to be. If we have "eyes to see" and "ears to hear", then it should be obvious that we need to lose this aversion to the cross which is apparently fostered in some LDS minds.

I for one appreciate Mike's knowledge on this subject and his willingness to educate LDS about the cross. I think if we'll put our pride aside at being corrected, we might enjoy more understanding of the scriptures and the spirit might better be able to teach us.

[alter idem]

Mike, I thought you might be interested in this. I was discussing the topic of crosses with my mom and she agreed there was a "no cross protocol". She mentioned that when she was a teen (late forties to early 50's) growing up in Idaho, that the LDS girls were discouraged from wearing crosses. It sounds like they wanted to wear them because other girls wore them--I assumed they wanted to follow what was in fashion among their peers. It sounds to me like the LDS leaders might have spoken out at this time to discourage the practice.

[Mike Reed]

Mike, I thought you might be interested in this. I was discussing the topic of crosses with my mom and she agreed there was a "no cross protocol". She mentioned that when she was a teen (late forties to early 50's) growing up in Idaho, that the LDS girls were discouraged from wearing crosses. It sounds like they wanted to wear them because other girls wore them--I assumed they wanted to follow what was in fashion among their peers. It sounds to me like the LDS leaders might have spoken out at this time to discourage the practice.

Thanks for sharing, Alter Idem. It sounds like your mother may be remembering the instruction David O. McKay gave the Young Women of the Church in 1957. According to Gregory A. Prince and Wm. Robert Wright (in their David O. McKay and the Rise of Modern Mormonism, p. 121) McKay established "a policy that discouraged LDS girls from wearing crosses because 'this was a Catholic form of worship'...."

[Ron Beron]

alter idem writes,

You might want to check yourself--this is not true. LDS believe the Atonement took place in the garden AND on the cross, as well as at the Garden Tomb.

Checked and double checked...According to Ezra Taft Benson,

"... it was in the Garden of Gethsemane that Christ "suffered as only as God would suffer, bearing our griefs, carrying our sorrows, being wounded for our transgressions, voluntarily submitting Himself to the iniquity of us all, just as Isaiah prophesied."

Further

"It was in Gethsemane that Jesus took on Himself the sins of the world, in Gethsemane that His pain was equivalent to the cumulative burden of all men, in Gethsemane that He descended below all things so that all could repent and come to Him" (Teachings of Ezra Taft Benson, pg.15).

Bruce R. McConkie stated in the Promised Messiah,

"In a garden called Gethsemane, outside Jerusalem's walls, in agony beyond compare, he took upon himself the sins of all men on condition of repentance."

Later in the Moral Messiah he states

"And as he came out of the Garden, delivering himself voluntarily into the hands of wicked men, the victory had been won. There remained yet the shame and the pain of his attest, his trials, and his cross. But all these were overshadowed by the agonies and sufferings in Gethsemane. It was on the cross that he 'suffered death in the flesh,' even as many have suffered agonizing deaths, but it was in Gethsemane that "he suffered the pain of all men, that all men might repent and come unto him."

Marion G. Romney also discussed this,

"Jesus then went into the Garden of Gethsemane. There he suffered most. He suffered greatly on the cross, of course, but other men had died by crucifixion; in fact, a man hung on either side of him as he died on the cross. But no man, nor set of men, nor all men put together, ever suffered what the Redeemer suffered in the garden. He went there to pray and suffer'" (Conference Report, October 1953, Pg.35).

Obviously, some one is incorrect and I am not so sure it is any of us. Apparently, there are many diverse opinions even within the leadership of the church. Again, I am on safe ground with my comments.

I for one appreciate Mike's knowledge on this subject and his willingness to educate LDS about the cross. I think if we'll put our pride aside at being corrected, we might enjoy more understanding of the scriptures and the spirit might better be able to teach us.

What pride is that? I was raised Catholic and find the artifact fairly abominable. The only reason I have a cross in my house is because it belonged to my grandmother. Other than that the cross has little or no significance in my life. I remember Jesus during sacrament because I concentrate on his resurrection not his death.

[Ron Beron]

Mike Reed writes,

[in the temple ceremony] the mode of execution is never amplified only the death.]

This is totally false and you know it, EnemyAce. You also know that if I were to prove you wrong on this point that I would be censored, since giving the details of the endowment is forbidden on this message board. While being forced to bite my tongue, I simply appeal to the honesty of Latter-day Saints who have been endowed, and to the intelligence of non-members who have read transcripts of the ceremony. You are losing credibility, EnemyAce.

I wasn't referring to the temple ceremony. The inclusion is yours. I was referring to the sacrament. I don't discuss the temple here.

Nowâ?¦ as for the PHYSICAL image of the crossâ?¦ you think it was embraced as a symbol â??rather lateâ? in Christian history. Please give me an approximate time period that you think this began, and we can work from there.

The earliest known depiction of a crucifixion was of a second or third century graffitio that was scratched into a wall on Palantine Hill in Rome. It use was not devotional by any means, but represented a scene of derision by someone named Alexamenos worshipping "his God" showing a donkey head on a human body.

The cross was not used as a form of decoration or identification because of its association with Jesus' death. It's use, when used by Christians later in the 3rd and 4th century generally was of a bare cross sans the suffering body of Jesus.

Mike Reed writes,

Are you prepared to argue that each of these symbols represent the central message of Mormonism?â?

No

[alter idem]

Obviously, some one is incorrect and I am not so sure it is any of us. Apparently, there are many diverse opinions even within the leadership of the church. Again, I am on safe ground with my comments.

Thanks EnemyAce, those were all good quotes and I for one found nothing wrong with the statements you cited, They all state that the actual experience of Christ taking on our sins as his and suffering for us took place in the garden. However, not one of them made the statement that you made; that the atonement took place exclusively in the Garden and did not also include Christ's death on the cross. I think most would agree that the atonement was not one exclusive incident--it is described as an "infinite atonement" which is probably beyond our finite minds to comprehend. Also, one could say that the whole of Christ's mission encompasses the atonement--his sinless life, his suffering in the Garden, as well as the torture and death he suffered in the hands of the Romans and included his resurrection--his triumph over death.

... I remember Jesus during sacrament because I concentrate on his resurrection not his death.

I can understand where your past religious experience may be influencing your thinking on this subject, however, I would suggest that you might want to reread 3Ne 18 where Jesus Christ institutes the ordinance of the sacrament. I think if you'll do this, you might see that he desires us to think about his death and suffering--not just his resurrection.

[Ron Beron]

alter idem writes,

However, not one of them made the statement that you made; that the atonement took place exclusively in the Garden and did not also include Christ's death on the cross. I think most would agree that the atonement was not one exclusive incident--it is described as an "infinite atonement" which is probably beyond our finite minds to comprehend. Also, one could say that the whole of Christ's mission encompasses the atonement--his sinless life, his suffering in the Garden, as well as the torture and death he suffered in the hands of the Romans and included his resurrection--his triumph over death.

Actually in each case the writer diminishes the experience of the cross almost as if it was an afterthought. My comments were to shadow what the leaders of the church have said. If my intent was lost in the heat of the moment then I apologize it was not more clear. My personal belief is that Christ suffered for man's sins in the garden, but sealed his life and his testimony on the cross with his death. I don't diminish that death one iota.

[McKnight]

I have read about 90% of the posts on this thread and found them most interesting.

Awhile back I had the chance to see the movie 'The Lost Tomb of Jesus' and over the Tomb on the outside and at the top was a chevron with a dot at the bottom and in the middle of the chevron. Nobody had quite figured out what the chevron meant, unless of course it was some kind of symbol of early Christianity, but that was pure speculation from the people involved in the documentary.

On some of the Ossuaries were carved crosses which almost appeared as X's, to which the Jewish people who worked in the Antiquities depository (basically warehousmen of loads of Ossuaries) speculated it was a marking by the Masons, which was interesting in itself because of the fact that one of the Jewish scholors in the film pointed out the fact that the earliest of Jewish Christians of that era considered the cross a disgusting display in any shape or form. They compared it to our recent modern era of what displaying an electric chair would mean-- a tool of cruel and grusome punishment. The years passed and the cross has become what it has become, revered by many as a whole different symbol and meaning.

I have often wondered if the Saviour had been stoned to death would the wearing of a rock around the neck have become fashionable? But of course it was prophesied what was to be.

I have read Andrew Skinner's triology--'Gethsemane'-- 'Golgotha' and 'The Garden Tomb' and he proclaims there were in essence two bitter cups. One in the garden and one on the cross.

[Mike Reed]

I wasn't referring to the temple ceremony. The inclusion is yours. I was referring to the sacrament. I don't discuss the temple here.

The inclusion is not mine.

I wrote: And yet members of the church are symbolically reminded of the death of Jesus every Sunday, and every endowment session they attend.

And you respondonded: Again, no argument, but the mode of execution is never amplified only the death.

You were responding to my comments about both the sacrament and the endowment.

The cross was not used as a form of decoration or identification because of its association with Jesus' death.

What evidence do you have to justify your assumption that this is the reason for the absense of the cross? Do you have any?

Here is whay my research has led me to conclude:

--------------------------------------------------------------

In this post I will discuss the ironic absence of the cross image in early Christianity remainsâ??-not being found in their artwork (in reference to the passion event) prior to Constantineâ??s reignâ??-and then will explain the various reasons for this absence; not only because early Christianity had a rather small membership population, and also were at times forced to worship inconspicuously (these would certainly be factors for the absence), but there are two other reasons in particular that seem significant and intriguing to me. I will then show, using Christian literature, how some Christians got around those reasons, so that they could still embrace and revere the symbol of the cross.

A Universal Symbol?

The image of the cross has been used throughout antiquity. From Quetzalcoatlâ??s four cardinal points of the winds, to the Hammer of Thor, the cross shows up in nearly every culture. The universality of the symbol â??makes more poignant the striking lack of crosses in early Christian remains.â?(1) In fact, most scholars now concur that a Christian artistic use of the symbol, in reference to the passion event, cannot be found prior to the time of Constantine. (2)

The absence of the cross is quite ironic, as the symbol was used throughout Christian literature, and (by evidence of their literature) we know that it appealed particularly to their increasing regard for ideals of asceticism and martyrdom. The symbol, in fact, took on such a sacred nature, that traditions like Peter refusing to be crucified in the same way as Jesus, developed: â??for I am not worthy to be crucified like my Lord,â? declares Peter. (3)

Dispite the favorable interpretation of the cross that developed, Christians had significant reservations for depicting the symbol artistically. These reasons include:

1) A desire to worship inconspicuously, in order to avoid persecution.

2) It was a symbol of capital punishment to Jews and Gentiles, and therefore was not an effective tool for evangelizing.

3) Some Christians believed that it was a sin to materially depict an image.

Many Christians worshiped inconspicuously, in hopes that they would avoid drawing the attention of their enemies. Tertullian speaks to these Christians who are afraid to assemble â??in large numbers to the Church. You are afraid that we may awaken their anxieties.â? (4) Tertullian remarks further elsewhere,

But you [Christians] say, â??How will we assemble together [if we do not pay tribute to avoid persecution]?â?? To be sure, just as the apostles also didâ??-who were protected by faith, not by moneyâ?¦. Finally, if you cannot assemble by day, you have the nightâ??-the light of Christ luminous against its darknessâ?¦. Be content with a church of threes. It is better that you sometimes should not see the crowds [of other Christians], than to subject yourselves. (5)

This inconspicuous and sometimes â??nocturnalâ? worship, though, did not always ease persecutions, but instead (at times) bred further suspicion in the minds of their critics. The pagan Caecilius, for example, levels charges against Christians for â??the very obscurity which shrouds this perverted religion.â? He asks, â??Why else should they go to such pains to hide and conceal whatever it is they worship? One is always happy for honorable actions to be made public; crimes are kept secret.â? Caecilius continues to ask accusatory questions, â??Why do they have no altars, no temples, no publicly-known images? Why do they always assemble in stealth?â? (6) Caecilius apparently failed to understand that Christians worshiped inconspicuously in order to avoid persecution. Again, there were â??no publicly-known imagesâ? (like the cross) because Christians did not wish to be identified.

Another factor (which is related to the first above) explains the absence of the cross: To quote Paul, â??Christ crucified [is a] stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles.â? (7) The scholar Jack Tressider explains that the symbol was too controversial, being an image of capital punishment: â??In the Roman, Persian and Jewish world, the crucifixion cross was a brutal and humiliating instrument of execution for non-citizens such as slaves, pirates and foreign political agitators or other criminals. Thus, at the time of Christâ??s death, it hardly seemed an emblem likely to make many converts.â? (

Even the mere idea that Jesus was crucified for the salvation of mankind was an embarrassment, being an issue that attracted mockery from critics. (9) Writing to â??Those [Christians] who are ashamed of the cross of Christ,â? Bishop Methodius of Olympus proclaims that â??God Himself esteems [the cross] to be beautiful, even though it be contemned and despised by all elseâ?¦. [b}y this figure He hath willed to deliver the soul from corrupt affectionsâ?¦.â? Therefore, he says, â??we ought to receive it, and not to speak evil of it.â? (10) The oft repeated council and rebukes (as well as celebration and glorying about the cross) from religious leaders, to those Christians who are ashamed of the cross, underscores just how common this concern was.

There was also reservation in the Church about artwork in general. Like their Jewish contemporaries (11), Christians had varying ideas regarding the second commandment against engraved images. Origen remarks about Godâ??s command to Israel against engraved images, saying,

Neither painter nor image-maker existed in the nation of Israel, for the Law expelled all such persons from it. In that way, there was no pretext for the construction of images. For image-making is an art that attracts the attention of foolish men. It drags the eyes of the soul down from God to earth. Accordingly, there was among them a Law to the following effect: â??Do not transgress the Law and make to yourselves a carved image, or any likeness of male or female.' (12)

Elsewhere Origen proclaims, â??[Pagans], in imagining that the hand of lowly artisans can frame representations of divinity, are uneducated, servile, and ignorant.â? (13) Hippolytus of Rome (?-c. 326) also stresses the importance of Godâ??s second commandment, by criticizing the gnostic-Christian disciples of Carpocrates for making â??counterfeit images of Christ.â? (14)

Not only pagans and heretical religious movements made such controversial images, but even Christians themselves did. This is evident by the artistic expressions in the Christian catacombs. Jerome of the 4th century, in fact, reports that he visited a Christian church, where he saw a veil that had a depiction of Jesus or a disciple on it, and that upon seeing it, he tore it down and replaced it with a plain veil. (15) This occasion shows that even after the Milvian Bridge, there remained disagreement among some Christians over Godâ??s second commandment.

Clement of the second century, who was the most distinguished teacher of Alexandria, expresses his conservative view of the second commandment, insisting that works of art, by their nature, â??cannot be sacred and divine.â? (16) Clement explains that â??The senseless earth is dishonored by the makers of images, who change it by their art from its proper nature, and induce men to worship it.â? According to Clement, â??the image is only dead matter shaped by the craftsman's hand.â? Christians, therefore, â??have no sensible image of sensible matter, but an image that is perceived by the mind alone, â?? God, who alone is truly God.â? (17)

Clement makes an exception to the second commandment, however, allowing for necessary images:

But there are circumstances in which this strictness may relaxedâ?¦. f it is necessary for us, while engaged in public business, or discharging other avocations in the country, and often away from our wives, to seal anything for the sake of safety, He (the Word) allows us a signet [ring] for this purpose only. Other finger-rings are to be cast offâ?¦. [L]et our seals be either a dove, or a fish, or a ship scudding before the wind, or a musical lyreâ?¦ or a ship's anchorâ?¦.band if there be one fishing, he will remember the apostle, and the children drawn out of the water. For we are not to delineate the faces of idols, we who are prohibited to cleave to themâ?¦. (18)

The fact that Clement does not list the image of the cross as being suitable for seals, perhaps reveals that he had reservations about Christians openly depicting this symbol. What is particularly significant in this quote, however, is that Clement speaks of seeing a fisherman, and â??rememberingâ? the apostle (Jesus?). Such remembering seems to shed light on what Clement may have meant in the previous quote, regarding the image of God being perceived â??by the mind alone.â?

The Cross Made Manifest

Christians, rather than depicting sacred and spiritual realities materially, observed their natural occurrence. They looked for their natural manifestations around them. Such mystical observation was sought out for the cross, as noted by Minucius Felix. He states that although they do not outwardly use the physical image of the cross (â??we [Christians] neither worship nor wish for [the cross]â?), they brought it to mind when they saw its resemblance in other things:

We assuredly see the sign of a cross, naturally, in the ship when it is carried along with swelling sails, when it glides forward with expanded oars; and when the military yoke is lifted up, it is the sign of a cross; and when a man adores God with a pure mind, with hands outstretched. Thus the sign of the cross either is sustained by a natural reason, or your own religion is formed with respect to it. (19)

Consistent with the views of Clement, Minucius explains how Christians look for the manifestation of the cross, rather than (like pagans) create the outward image of it.

It is clear that many Christians refrained from using images that derived from an improper process of unnaturally manipulating dead matter, which would have (according to Clement and other Christians) dishonored nature and God, and broken the second commandment. Christians were not creating a religious symbol for the sake of its religious significance. Rather, the images they viewed were mere natural manifestations of spiritual realities, perceived by the mind.

This mystical viewing was a popular trend among early Christians. Jerome discovered the manifestation of the cross in a swimming man, flying bird, and a man praying with extended arms. (20) Justin Martyr proclaims that a shipâ??s sail, a plough, the banners and trophies of the government, and the human form (body posture, and profile of face head) each manifest â??no other form than that of the cross.â? (21) Tertullian speaks of the cross being manifested in the human posture, and by â??Every piece of timber which is fixed in the ground in an erect position.â? (22)

Christians similarly looked for hidden manifestation of the cross throughout the Old Testament. (23) Tertullian observes the way that Moses, â??at the time when Joshua was battling against Amalek, pray[ed] sitting with hands expandedâ?¦,â? and in the brazen serpent that Moses hung on a tree, in order to heal Israel. â??[H]e was exhibiting the Lord's cross,â? concludes Tertullian. (24)

The Epistle of Barnabas finds a manifestation of the crucifixion in the number of men that Abraham circumcised in his household:

For [the Scripture] saith, "And Abraham circumcised ten, and eight, and three hundred men of his household." What, then, was the knowledge given to him in this? Learn the eighteen first, and then the three hundred. The ten and the eight are thus denoted â?? Ten by I, and Eight by H. You have [the initials of the, name of] Jesus. And because the cross was to express the grace [of our redemption] by the letter T, he says also, "Three Hundred." He signifies, therefore, Jesus by two letters, and the cross by one. He knows this, who has put within us the engrafted gift of His doctrine. No one has been admitted by me to a more excellent piece of knowledge than this, but I know that ye are worthy. (25)

The Tau (T or +)(26) is the last Letter of the Greek alphabet, and has the numeric value of 300. Christians believed that the tau was equivalent to the Hebrew letter omega (being the last letter of the Hebrew alphabet, and name of God), and manifested the image of the cross in its form. Such symbolism was also found manifest in the proportions of Noahâ??s ark: â??Now there are some who say that three hundred cubits are the symbol of the Lord's sign,â? reports Clement of Alexandria. (27)

The mystical search and observation of the cross, allowed Christians to embrace the symbol without depicting it materially (breaking the second commandment) or drawing the attention of their persecutors. Christians also got around these obstacles by tracing the â??Lordâ??s sign,â?(T or +, which revealed the cross) upon their foreheads. Tertullian records:

We feel pained should any wine or bread, even though our own, be cast upon the ground. At every forward step and movement, at every going in and out, when we put on our clothes and shoes, when we bathe, when we sit at table, when we light the lamps, on couch, on seat, in all the ordinary actions of daily life, we trace upon the forehead the sign. (28)

The Christian act of tracing the sign was in fact a reenactment of Godâ??s command in Ezekiel 9:4. Tertullian explains this elsewhere:

He [Christ] signed them with that very seal of which Ezekiel spake: "The Lord said unto me, Go through the gate, through the midst of Jerusalem, and set the mark Tau upon the foreheads of the men." Now the Greek letter Tau and our own letter T is the very form of the cross, which He predicted would be the sign on our foreheads in the true Catholic Jerusalemâ?¦ Now, inasmuch as all these things are also found amongst you, and the sign upon the forehead, and the sacraments of the church, and the offerings of the pure sacrifice, you ought now to burst forth, and declare that the Spirit of the Creator prophesied of your Christ. (29)

Tracing the cross (tau) upon their forehead was not in conflict with the second commandment, since doing so did not manipulate dead matter. Nor did the private action draw the attention of critics, since the symbol was traced invisibly. By tracing the sign, rather than drawing it visibly Christians were able to worship inconspicuously, and get around their reservations for depicting the cross materially.

Conclusion

In conclusion, I repeat that the absence of the image of the cross in Christian artwork was due to three significant reasons. 1) Christians desired to worship inconspicuously. 2) The image was a stumbling block to Jews and Gentiles, and therefore was not used as an emblem for attracting converts. 3) Christians had reservations about depicting the cross materially, fearing that they would commit the sin of Idolatry.

One should not conclude from this absence that the visual sign of the cross wasnâ??t therefore sacred to Christians. Though they had reservations about creating material depictions of the cross, many of them got around those reservations by looking for its mystical manifestation, and tracing it upon their foreheads.

------------------------------------------------------

1 Graydon F. Snyder, Ante Pacem (Mercer University Press, 1991), 27.

2 Ibid. Those who reject todayâ??s general agreement among scholars may cite the 1938 excavation discovery of a cross engraved on a wall from an unearthed house in Herculaneum, or the so-called Paletine cross drawing, found in 1856, that depicts a donkey being crucified, with graffiti that reads â??Alexamenos, worship god.â? But though these â??evidencesâ? may both date after the rise of Christianity and prior to the reign of Constantine, there is much to dispute about them. Since the discovery of the cross at Herculaneum, â??Further consideration,â? says Everett Ferguson, â??has given a more utilitarian purpose: the imprint in the plaster was left by wooden brackets for a wall cabinet or perhaps a shelf or mantle with a supporting upright piece.â?(Backgrounds of Early Christianity [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans Publishing Co., 2003], 590.) Graydon Snyder agrees, â??[T]his so-called cross could have been anything attached to the wall by two cross pieces.â? (Snyder, 27.) But even if the new consideration is wrong, and that the engraving indeed marked where a Latin-style-cross was once displayed, there is no reason to believe that the cross was hung by a Christian, and not a Pagan. As already explained, the cross has been used throughout antiquity by nearly every known culture. Furthermore, outside this extremely questionable example, the underwhelming evidence that the Christians displayed the image of the cross during this period makes the idea â??simply appear to us as a surd in the development of early Christian art: it came three hundred years too soon.â? (Ibid.) The Paletine cross should also not count as â??evidenceâ? to debunk the conclusion that we cannot find the image of the cross (in reference to the passion) being used prior to the reign of Constantine. One problem is that â??no fixed date can be given for this drawing.â? (Snyder, 28.) Secondly, since the image is assumed to be drawn by an opponent of the faith, â??it hardly proves that the cross was an early Christian symbol.â? (Ibid.) Again, the opponent would have drawn it, not a Christian. Thirdly, though one today may be quick to assume that this derogatory cartoon mocked the Christian kerygma, there is a possibility that actually paganism is being mocked. Not only did pagans use the image cross, but also some even depicted an image of deity hanging on it. Minucius Felix, of the third century, denied, â??Crosses, moreover, we [Christians] neither worship nor wish for,â? and then criticized pagans, saying, â??You, indeed, who consecrate gods of wood, adore wooden crosses perhaps as parts of your godsâ?¦. Your victorious trophies not only imitate the appearance of a simple cross, but also that of a man affixed to it.â? (The Octavius of the Octavius of, ch 29.) Barbara G. Walker comments on Minucius Felixâ??s remarks, saying, â??From very ancient times, an effigy of a man hanging on a cross was set up in fields to protect the crops. The modern scarecrow is a survival of this sacrificial magic, representing the sacred king whose blood was supposed to fertilize the earth.â? (The Womanâ??s Encyclopedia of Myths and Secrets [san Francisco: Harper & Row, 1983], 188.) An example of such an image is the controversial second to third century amulet of Orpheus-Bakkikos Crucified. (Timothy Freke and Peter Gandy, The Jesus Mysteries: Was the "Original Jesus" a Pagan God? [Three Rivers Press, 2001], 52.)

3 Apocrypha of the New Testament: Acts of the Holy Apostles Peter and Paul, ANF v. VIII. The Acts of Peter (ch 38), which predates this text by a century, also tells of Peter being crucified head down, but does not explain that this was because he felt unworthy. Rather, Peter does so to explain the â??mystery of the cross,â? and how (unlike Jesus) him being crucified upside down represents the birth of man in his fallen state. See Bart D. Ehrmanâ??s Lost Scriptures: Books that Did Not Make It into the New Testament (Oxford University Press, 2003), 153.

4 Turtullian, ANF vol. 4, De Fuga In Persecutione, ch 3.

5 Ibid., ch 14.

6 Minucius Felix, Octavius, ch 10; as provided by Bart D. Ehrman, After The New Testament: A Reader In Early Christianity (Oxford University Press, 1999), 56.

7 1 Corinthians 1:23.

8 Jack Tresidder, Dictionary of Symbols (San Francisco: Chronicle Books, 1997), 56-57.

9 Paletine Cross graffiti mockingly displays a depiction of a person (presumably, a Christian) worshipping a man (with an *** head) handing on a cross.

10 Methodius, Three Fragments from the Homily on the Cross and Passion of the Christ.

11 See Carmel Konikoff, The Second Commandment and its Interpretation in the Art of Ancient Israel (Gen

[Ron Beron]

Mike Reed writes,

The inclusion is not mine.

I wrote: And yet members of the church are symbolically reminded of the death of Jesus every Sunday, and every endowment session they attend.

And you respondonded: Again, no argument, but the mode of execution is never amplified only the death.

You were responding to my comments about both the sacrament and the endowment.

Again, I wasn't and here again you are assuming my intent. The inclusion I was referencing was your response in brackets. However, I was discussing the sacrament. And again, we don't discuss the temple here, so why should I comment on it?

What evidence do you have to justify your assumption that this is the reason for the absense of the cross? Do you have any?

I have already posted why I personally felt it to absent as well as the church's position.

Here is whay my research has led me to conclude:

I'll be glad to read it. As I said I have no problem with the church being there or not. I personally don't need it.

[alter idem]

Actually in each case the writer diminishes the experience of the cross almost as if it was an afterthought. My comments were to shadow what the leaders of the church have said. If my intent was lost in the heat of the moment then I apologize it was not more clear. My personal belief is that Christ suffered for man's sins in the garden, but sealed his life and his testimony on the cross with his death. I don't diminish that death one iota.

I don't wish to belabor the point, but I feel strongly on this subject and so offer a few examples of statements where Church leaders placed the experience of the cross as part of the Atonement and in no way diminished the cross as some sort of "afterthought".

"He died on the cross to atone for the sins of all who will obey Him, and He broke the bands of death to provide a resurrection for us all." "To deny that He is the Creator is to deny that He wrought out an atonement on the cross at Calvary". Mark E. Petersen, â??Creator and Savior,â? Ensign, May 1983

"And my Father sent me that I might be lifted up upon the cross; and after that I had been lifted up upon the cross, that I might draw all men unto meâ? The agony of the Atonement was completed on the cross at Calvary" Russel M. Nelson "His Mission and Ministry" New Era Dec. 1999

"Even my Beloved Son died upon the cross. The magnificent substance of the story is His sacrifice, the totally selfless act of dying in pain on the cross of Calvary to atone for the sins of all of us." Gordon B. Hinckley "The Wondrous and True Story of Christmas" Liahona December 2000

"He staggered under the weight of the cross on which He was to hang. And further, and most important, He suffered on Calvaryâ??s cross as an atoning sacrifice for all mankind." Gordon B. Hinckley "The Son of God" Ensign December 1992

"It was the Redemption, which He worked out in the Garden of Gethsemane and upon the cross of Calvary, which made His gift immortal, universal, and everlasting. His was a great atonement for the sins of all mankind." Gordon B. Hinckley "Inspirational Thoughts" Liahona Feb. 2007

"In the garden and on the cross, Jesus suffered for each of us and not only bore our sins, but also experienced our deepest feelings so that he would know how to comfort and strengthen us. The Saviorâ??s atonement in the garden and on the cross is intimate as well as infinite." Merrill J. Bateman "Healing our Hearts" New Era April 1996

"Jesusâ?? coming and His Atonement, worked out in Gethsemane and on the cross, are surely more important than all other knowledge a person can gain." John K. Carmack "United in Love and Tesitmony Liahona July 2001

"And I looked and beheld the Lamb of God, that he was taken by the people; yea, the Son of the everlasting God was judged of the world; and I saw and bear record. â??And I, Nephi, saw that he was lifted up upon the cross and slain for the sins of the worldâ? His condescension, as part of the Atonement, is probably as essential to the redemption of mankind as was His suffering in the Garden of Gethsemane or on the cross." Richard C. Edgley "The Condescension of God" Ensign December 2001

This is from Gospel Library LDS.org on "Atonement of Jesus Christ:

"Jesus's atoning sacrifice took place in the Garden of Gethsemane and on the cross at Calvary. "

" The Savior continued to suffer for our sins when He allowed Himself to be crucifiedâ??"lifted up upon the cross and slain for the sins of the world" (1 Nephi 11:33).

On the cross, He allowed Himself to die. His body was then laid in a tomb until He was resurrected and became "the firstfruits of them that slept" (1 Corinthians 15:20). Through His death and Resurrection, He overcame physical death for us all. " Gospel Library--Atonement of Jesus Christ

And this comes from "Gospel Topics" at the same site on the topic of Sacrament; "The broken bread is a reminder of His body and His physical sufferingâ??especially His suffering on the cross. The water is a reminder that the Savior shed His blood in intense spiritual suffering and anguish, beginning in the Garden of Gethsemane and concluding on the cross."

[Mike Reed]

Mike wrote: Nowâ?¦ as for the PHYSICAL image of the crossâ?¦ you think it was embraced as a symbol â??rather lateâ? in Christian history. Please give me an approximate time period that you think this began, and we can work from there.

Enemy Ace: The cross was not used as a form of decoration or identification because of its association with Jesus' death. It's use, when used by Christians later in the 3rd and 4th century generally was of a bare cross sans the suffering body of Jesus

3rd century is the period that you are referring to?

"It is now generally accepted that there are no securely datable Christian archaeological remains before about A.D. 200 [the beginning of the 3rd century]. This applies to the catacomb paintings and the identifiable Christian inscriptions. There are some remains for which a first-century date is certain but the Christian character of which is dubious." Everett Ferguson, Backgrounds of Early Christianity, 589.

You seemingly conclude that since there is no archeological proof that Christians used the cross prior to the 3rd century, then this is evidence that they didn't use it. But in the light of the quote I am providing above, this reasoning would further demand that CHRISTIANITY didn't even exist prior to the 3rd century. Gasp!

If you are unwilling to accept this deduction, then we have a case of special pleading.

[Mike Reed]

I have already posted why I personally felt it to absent....

I know that you posted an explanation as to why you "feel" it was absent. But I am now asking you to provide evidence to support this "feeling." Provide evidence that supports your claim that the cross symbol wasn't embraced by Christians because it represents Jesus' death. So far you haven't given me any... that I am aware of anyway. If I have overlooked the evidence, then please repost it.

[Ron Beron]

I don't wish to belabor the point, but I feel strongly on this subject and so offer a few examples of statements where Church leaders placed the experience of the cross as part of the Atonement and in no way diminished the cross as some sort of "afterthought".

Without going over any of your quotes I can only surmise that there is no clear cut view even among the general authorities as to when and where the actual atonement took place. It would seem that any conclusions a reader would come to is dependent on who you read. From the collective understanding of these men I can only conclude that the atonement began in the garden where it was the apex of the salvific occasion and concluded on the cross. If I suggested that the cross was anything but the horrific event that it was then I was obviously wrong, but I doubt I would diminish its importance.

[Ron Beron]

You seemingly conclude that since there is no archeological proof that Christians used the cross prior to the 3rd century, then this is evidence that they didn't use it. But in the light of the quote I am providing above, this reasoning would further demand that CHRISTIANITY didn't even exist prior to the 3rd century. Gasp!

Ahhh...noooo. I was actually answering your question of when I believed the cross was first used.

Please give me an approximate time period that you think this began, and we can work from there.

Just because we don't have any archaeological proof of its use doesn't necessarily negate its existence prior to that date. I aware of pre-2nd century symbols of fish, boats, and anchors, but nothing that exists for crosses. I believe it is important to remember, and using your logical as the focus, that despite the fact that there weren't crosses there certainly were other artifacts that attested to a Christian community. For the 1st and 2nd century of Christianity the event of Jesus' death was so fresh it would be hard to think of them using the cross in anything but a derisive artifact. Incidentally, some would argue that Christianity as it was in apostolic era did not exist after the 2nd century and only after the 3rd century did Pauline Christianity come about.

[Ron Beron]

I know that you posted an explanation as to why you "feel" it was absent. But I am now asking you to provide evidence to support this "feeling." Provide evidence that supports your claim that the cross symbol wasn't embraced by Christians because it represents Jesus' death. So far you haven't given me any... that I am aware of anyway. If I have overlooked the evidence, then please repost it.

Just as a note there is some evidence that cross was used during the middle of the first century by worshippers in Herculaneum.

As can be plainly seen is a outline of cross that used to rest in the niche, but was removed prior to the disaster.

From a Jewish perspective death on the cross indicated the person was accursed by God. There were many who believed that a messiah could not be one who was publicly crucified. Perhaps this was the meaning behind Paul's comment that the cross was "a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles" (1 Corinthians 1:23). The shape of the cross did not offend people, but its function did.

Tertullian in defense of Christianity spoke out against comments negative towards the Christians by pagans who considered them "a priesthood of a cross" (Tertullian, To the Nationes 1.12) and rendering "superstitious adoration to the cross." (Tertullian, The Apology 16.6).

A 3rd century author in commenting on the cross stated, "We neither worship nor wish for crosses." (Mark Minucius Felix)

Obviously, this is not sufficient, but I will keep on looking.

[Mike Reed]

Ahhh...noooo. I was actually answering your question of when I believed the cross was first used.

If you were not making a negative argument, on what grounds to you make the following statement of fact?: "Given its rather late introduction in Christian symbology I rather doubt it."

I aware of pre-2nd century symbols of fish, boats, and anchors, but nothing that exists for crosses.... despite the fact that there weren't crosses there certainly were other artifacts that attested to a Christian community.

It seems that you didn't read my quote close enough. According to the Everett Ferguson, "It is now generally accepted that there are no securely datable Christian archaeological remains before about A.D. 200 [the beginning of the 3rd century]." This would include any remains depicting symbols of fish, boats, and anchors on them.

For the 1st and 2nd century of Christianity the event of Jesus' death was so fresh it would be hard to think of them using the cross in anything but a derisive artifact.

Have you heard of Cognitive Dissonance? Again... Paul embraced the symbol of the cross. So did other early Christians, as they looked for the physical manifestation of the cross around them. See lengthy post #65.

[Mike Reed]

Just as a note there is some evidence that cross was used during the middle of the first century by worshippers in Herculaneum.

I am a little confused. Does this mean that you are retracting your claim that there is no evidence that Christians used the cross symbol before the 3rd century?

And why have you not read post #65 yet? You should know that I adressed this "evidence" in it.

Gotta run for now... my friend is visiting. I'll respond to your posts later.

Till then... it would do you some good to read post #65.

[Ron Beron]

Mike Reed writes,

If you were not making a negative argument, on what grounds to you make the following statement of fact?: "Given its rather late introduction in Christian symbology I rather doubt it."

I consider late to be after the 2nd century.

It seems that you didn't read my quote close enough. According to the Everett Ferguson, "It is now generally accepted that there are no securely datable Christian archaeological remains before about A.D. 200 [the beginning of the 3rd century]." This would include any remains depicting symbols of fish, boats, and anchors on them.

I understand exactly what you wrote, but it is wrong. See the accompanying picture of a cross in Herculaneum. Additionally, symbols of fish, boats, anchors, and shepherds are quite replete before the 2nd century. Awhile back I posted a graffito that some feel was made around 68B.C. although it is generally thought to be much older.

Have you heard of Cognitive Dissonance?

If I have conflicting thoughts it can be no more than what I am getting from you.