"Symbol of Christianity?"

[turnorburn]

And this is my 3 cents! :wink:

 

[Catholic Crusader]

The Bark Of Peter

The boat itself is a symbol for the Church, the Bark of Peter. The boat holds the apostles, and symbolically all of Christ's disciples. "The world is a sea in which the Church, like a ship, is beaten by the waves, but not submerged,". We are doing God's work, fishing for people, in Peter's boat, the Church.

 

[turnorburn]

I like this one, a screen shot from my computer

 

[Catholic Crusader]

Ah, the woman at the well. Very nice. How do you like this paragraph from the Catechism, in the section on "prayer":

2560 - "If you knew the gift of God!"(7). The wonder of prayer is revealed beside the well where we come seeking water: there, Christ comes to meet every human being. It is he who first seeks us and asks us for a drink. Jesus thirsts; his asking arises from the depths of God's desire for us. Whether we realize it or not, prayer is the encounter of God's thirst with ours. God thirsts that we may thirst for him (8).

7- St. Thérèse of Lisieux, Manuscrits autobiographiques, C 25r.
8- St. John Damascene, De fide orth. 3, 24: PG 94, 1089C.


link:
http://www.usccb.org/catechism/text/pt4sect1.htm

 

[turnorburn]

So that we may drink of him freely, isn't it beautiful how he loves us and shows his affection :D

 

[Imagican]

Let me offer this and I'm going to 'let it go':

I too TEACH Christ Crucified. But I do NOT dwell on HIS DEATH as much as the PURPOSE of His death. For He died so that we may live. And God could JUST as easily preordained Christ to die by the hand of a sword, starvation, stoning, etc.

The cross IS significant in that upon IT he SUFFERED. But NOW He LIVES. The cross is 'symbolic' in it's significance. But a 'graven image' of it SERVES the FLESH and NOT the Spirit. It offers SOME sort of COMFORT to THE FLESH for SOME reason and offers NO significant distinction between ONE LIVING IN SIN and one that HAS 'TRULY' accepted Christ INTO THEIR HEARTS.

IS THERE A WAY to USE the cross WITHOUT it being NOTHING other than a 'symbol' or 'graven image'. Paul stated that ALL things were LEGAL for Him. But then Paul had reached a point in His walk that he KNEW that he WAS following the WILL of God without a question in his mind. Are WE able to be AS faithful that WE are ABLE to discern the spirits as Paul was ABLE? And he ALSO stated that EVEN THOUGH ALL things were LEGAL, Some were NOT prudent. That there WERE things, IF so allowed, could very well have AFFECTED his walk.

The commandments offered to the Hebrews/Jews are NO longer ABLE to DESTROY us for their design was to TEACH. But WHAT was the PURPOSE of a 'teacher' but to TEACH us HOW to love without SELF 'getting in the way? So they are STILL able to TEACH in this day.

I offer here what I offer NOT for the edification of 'the flesh', but of the Spirit of those to which it is offered. If it is ABLE to fulfill this purpose then I have offered POSTIVE testimony and prophecy. If not, then it will affect NOTHING.

I have offered about ALL the information and understanding that I am ABLE at this point. Search your OWN heart and let the SPIRIT guide you to the ULTIMATE conclusion on the matter. I have and it has for ME.

All symbolism EVIL? I don't THINK so. But of what POSITIVE contribution does wearing a cross offer other than TO THE FLESH. Our EXAMPLE is not to be a 'symbol' that we wear around our necks but the OFFERINGS that WE make throughout our lives in the edification of our neighbors. So no matter HOW MUCH 'symbolism' you allow into your lives, NONE of it is able to offer ANYTHING of edification to YOUR NEIGHBOR. That is for your OWN personal edification and, so far as I am able to discern, pertains to THE FLESH. Many people seem ADDICTED to 'angels', 'crosses', 'pictures of a 'false' Christ', and the like. I just wonder what Spiritual edification these 'things that pertain to the senses of the FLESH' are able to offer, IF ANY.

That one may GET a 'warm fuzzy FEELING' when taking PART in the coveting of these symbols just FURTHER makes one WONDER as to their 'significance' in the scope of things. For God is NOT 'physical' but SPIRIT. And we MUST worship the TRUE God IN SPIRIT. Attempting to place PHYSICAL significane on items that WE have 'graven' ourselves seems NO DIFFERENT than the 'golden calf', REGARDLESS of what NAME you place on it. And I think that EVERYONE understands the SIGNIFICANCE of the incident that INSPIRED the writting of the SECOND commandment.

So, there ya go. I assume that IF one is ABLE to become Spiritually MATURE, then a cross or 'figure of an angel' would NOT be able to negatively affect their walk. But when these symbols become MORE important in your life than the WAY that you 'walk', then they are NOTHING but a 'fake symbol' that has NO significance other than to offer a 'false security' and a 'false testimony' to the WORLD.

If the cross WERE a 'true symbol of Christ', would ANY OF US BE WORTHY TO WEAR IT,.......or BEAR it?

Blessings folks,

MEC

 

[Catholic Crusader]

Hey keep posting bro. Just because I don't agree doesn't mean I don't want to read your posts. Hey, I'm a Catholic: If I cut out of a thread everytime the majority disagreed with me, I would NEVER post! LOL

I see you put a lot of time in your posts and I respect you zeal and desire to do what you think is right. I'm sure God does too. And please remember that, because I do the same thing, which is follow my conscience in obeying God in a way I believe to be correct.

 

[Imagican]

CC,

I'll 'be around'. But it's pretty clear that I am unable to articulate with a 'fair enough' ability to 'teach' what I have been offered concerning this subject. Perhaps I am approaching the subject without laying down the PROPER foundation FIRST. But the nature of this forum is NOT that there be but a few that follow and are mostly intent on focusing on their OWN 'understanding'.

I've DONE the homework. I pray for guidance and feel completely confident that my understanding IS offered THROUGH The Spirit of God.

I KNOW what 'being born again is. I think that it would be MORE prudent to offer encouragement in THAT direction than trying to get 'any deeper' in this particular medium of exchange. Too many people with too many different BELIEFS.

But if I could JUST convince ONE INDIVIDUAL to ACCEPT the love that God has to offer I have accomplished MORE than I could EVER have dreamed just a few short years ago. So the next focus of my attention will be in this direction. God ONLY offers what one is ABLE to accept and there is OBVIOUSLY a 'reason' for that. Why I cannot SEE, but that it IS His WAY is without a doubt.

I believe that I NOW have a MUCH better understanding of EXACTLY why Paul wrote to the churches the letters that he did. He simply offered what he was able and HOPED that 'it was ENOUGH'.

I ask that any that I may have offended forgive me FOR my passion. It was NOT meant to cause ANY harm. EVERYTHING that I have attempt to offer here is done out of the HOPE of edification of my brothers and sisters. That I may appear OVER Zealous at times is something that I cannot at this time control. I have SO much that I NEED to offer that it is overwhelming at times and quite frustrating that I am unable to put it in the words NEEDED for others to understand what I have been SHOWN, (and don't think that I am BLIND to the FACT that MOST others feel the SAME way, or at least I HOPE that that is the REASON for their participation on these forums).

So, I have little that I am able to offer to this particular subject without continuing to repeat myself. But I'll open a NEW one along the lines of something a 'bit more simple' to accept and see if IT is NOT able to LAY the foundation for a 'better understanding'.

So, thanks for the participation and that AT LEAST there were those that READ what I have to offer. You NEVER KNOW, God DOES 'work in mysterious ways'. I can ONLY 'plant seeds'. It will OBVIOUSLY take 'another' to nurture and water it so that it may grow and one day bloom into a 'better understanding'.

MEC

 

[nadab]

The issue of what Jesus died upon is critical. The apostle Paul wrote that "Christ by purchase released us from the curse of the Law by becoming a curse instead of us, because it is written: "Accursed is every man hung upon a stake (Greek xylon, "tree" King James Bible)."(Gal 3:13) Paul was here quoting from Deuteronomy 21:22,23, which says that a man "deserving of the sentence of death" must be ' hung him on a tree'.("tree", Hebrew ets, King James Bible) The online interlinear Scripture4all renders xylon, as used by Paul, as "wood, pole". At Acts 5:30, the apostle Peter said to the Jewish religious leaders, that "the God of our forefathers raised up Jesus, whom you slew, hanging him upon a stake (Greek xylon, meaning "wood, pole", online interlinear Scripture4all )

The Aramaic word ’a‘, corresponding to the Hebrew term ‛ets, appears at Ezra 6:11, where it is said regarding violators of a Persian king’s decree: “A timber will be pulled out of his house and he will be impaled upon it.†Obviously, a single timber would have no crossbeam.("timber", King James Version, Darby's Bible, Webster's Bible, "beam", American Standard Version )

It was Jewish law that those guilty of such heinous crimes as blasphemy or idolatry were first killed by stoning, by beheading, or by some other method, and then their dead bodies were exposed on stakes, or trees, as warning examples to others. (Deut 21:22, 23; Jos 8:29; 10:26; 2Sam 21:6, 9) The Egyptians may also have first killed their criminals before fastening them to stakes, as is indicated by Joseph’s prophetic words to Pharaoh’s chief baker: “Pharaoh will lift up your head from off you and will certainly hang you upon a stake." (Hebrew ‛ets, meaning "tree")â€â€Gen 40:19, 22; 41:13.

In rendering Deuteronomy 21:22, 23 (“stakeâ€Â) and Ezra 6:11 (“timberâ€Â), translators of the Septuagint Version employed the Greek word xy´lon, the same term that Paul used at Galatians 3:13. It was also the one employed by Peter, when he said Jesus “bore our sins in his own body upon the stake (Greek xy´lon ).†(1 Pet. 2:24) In fact, xy´lon is used several other times to refer to the “stake†on which Jesus was impaled. (Acts 5:30; 10:39; 13:29) This Greek word has the basic meaning of “wood.†There is nothing to imply that in the case of Jesus’ impalement it meant a stake with a crossbeam.

Thus, Jesus had to die upon a "tree" or upright "pole" for him to become the "accursed" one "instead of us". His death on a "tree" removed the Jews from the curse of the Mosaic Law. It is true that the Romans had a "cross", but these were used as symbols for their religious worship. Says The Companion Bible: “These crosses were used as symbols of the Babylonian sun-god . . . and are first seen on a coin of Julius Caesar, 100-44 B.C., and then on a coin struck by Caesar’s heir (Augustus), 20 B.C.†The Roman nature-god Bacchus was at times represented with a headband containing a number of crosses.

The Greek word xylon also has the same basic meaning as the Greek word stauros, which literally means "pale".(online interlinear Scripture4all, and "stake", The New Testament in the Original Greek by B. F Westcott and F. J. A. Hort) At Matthew 27:32, a certain Simon of Cyrene was "impressed into service to lift up (Jesus) torture stake". (Greek stauros, "pale" online interlinear Scripture4all ) The word "pale" means "fence stake: a pointed slat of wood for a fence".(2005 Encarta Dictionary) At Mark 15:32, the Greek word sustauroo is used and means literally "having been together impaled"(online interlinear Scripture4all ) or "having been put on stakes together".(The New Testament in the Original Greek, by scholars B. F.Westcott and F. J. A. Hort)

The Bible writers used the Greek noun stau·ros´ 27 times and the verbs stau·ro´o 46 times, syn·stau·ro´o (the prefix syn, meaning “withâ€Â) 5 times, and a·na·stau·ro´o (a·na´, meaning “againâ€Â) once. They also used the Greek word xy´lon, meaning “wood,†5 times to refer to the torture instrument upon which Jesus was nailed. Stau·ros´ in both the classical Greek and Koine carries no thought of a “cross†made of two timbers. It means only an upright stake, pale, pile, or pole, as might be used for a fence, stockade, or palisade. Says J. D. Douglas’ New Bible Dictionary of 1985 under “Cross,†page 253: “The Gk. word for ‘cross’ (stauros; verb stauroo . . . ) means primarily an upright stake or beam, and secondarily a stake used as an instrument for punishment and execution.â€Â

W. E. Vine said this: “STAUROS (ÃĀαÃ…ÃÂÃŒÂ) denotes, primarily, an upright pale or stake. On such malefactors were nailed for execution. Both the noun and the verb stauroo, to fasten to a stake or pale, are originally to be distinguished fr the ecclesiastical form of a two beamed cross.†Greek scholar Vine then mentions the Chaldean origin of the two-piece cross and how it was adopted from the pagans by Christendom in the third century C.E. as a symbol of Christ’s impalement.â€â€Vine’s Expository Dictionary of Old and New Testament Words, 1981, Vol. 1, p. 256.

Thus, Jesus was put to death on a "torture stake", a "pole" or "fence pale", not "cross", as the churches assert.

 

[Free]

No. It was a cross and I am certain that simple history shows this to be the case. In the end it is irrelevant anyway since it is his death and resurrection that matter.

 

[Vic C.]

What I believe is this:

The decision to crucify Him was hasty. There was only two uprights for the two thieves, one on each side of a tree, probably a dead or dying tree. (how appropriate) They nailed Jesus to a crossbar and hoisted up Him and the crossbar, then nailed said crossbar to the tree.

This view takes into account all references to a cross, tree, stake.. whatever. Nadab, you are relying on errant and obscure interpretations and are excluding historical context.

The preferred and accepted method of death during the Roman occupation was crucifixion. It could have been simply an upright piece of wood, called a palus. But the Bible does also mention a cross shaped object as does early writings from Josephus and others.

Free is correct though, it is irrelevant and this argument, as well as others, is used to dismiss much of historical Christianity. :-?

 

[nadab]

Hello Free and Vic C.,
There is much evidence that Jesus was put to death on a "stake" and not a "cross". Also at issue, is that nothing that comes from false religious teachings or ideas is accepted by God, such as the "cross". In the book, The Cross in Ritual, Architecture, and Art, it said that “it is strange, yet unquestionably a fact, that in ages long before the birth of Christ, and since then in lands untouched by the teaching of the Church, the Cross has been used as a sacred symbol. . . . The Greek Bacchus, the Tyrian Tammuz, the Chaldean Bel, and the Norse Odin, were all symbolised to their votaries by a cruciform device.â€Ââ€â€By G. S. Tyack, London, p. 1.

The book The Non-Christian Cross, by J. D. Parsons (London), adds: “There is not a single sentence in any of the numerous writings forming the New Testament, which, in the original Greek, bears even indirect evidence to the effect that the stauros used in the case of Jesus was other than an ordinary stauros; much less to the effect that it consisted, not of one piece of timber, but of two pieces nailed together in the form of a cross. . . . It is not a little misleading upon the part of our teachers to translate the word stauros as ‘cross’ when rendering the Greek documents of the Church into our native tongue, and to support that action by putting ‘cross’ in our lexicons as the meaning of stauros without carefully explaining that that was at any rate not the primary meaning of the word in the days of the Apostles, did not become its primary signification till long afterwards, and became so then, if at all, only because, despite the absence of corroborative evidence, it was for some reason or other assumed that the particular stauros upon which Jesus was executed had that particular shape.â€Ââ€â€Pp. 23, 24;

W.E. Vine, in An Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words, after saying that the "shape of the (cross) had its origin in ancient Chaldea, and was used as the symbol of the god Tammuz (being in the shape of the mystic Tau, the initial of his name)" gives further insight, saying: "By the middle of the 3rd cent. A.D. the churches had either departed from, or had travestied, certain doctrines of the Christian faith. In order to increase the prestige of the apostate ecclesiastical system pagans were received into the churches apart from regeneration by faith, and were permitted largely to retain their pagan signs and symbols. Hence the Tau or T, in its most frequent form, with the cross-piece lowered, was adopted to stand for the cross of Christ.â€Â(pg 256)

The Latin word used for the Greek word stauros is crux. The Companion Bible, under the heading “The Cross and Crucifixion,†notes: “Our English word ‘cross’ is the translation of the Latin crux; but the Greek stauros no more means a crux than the word ‘stick’ means a ‘crutch.’ Homer uses the word stauros of an ordinary pole or stake, or a single piece of timber. And this is the meaning and usage of the word throughout the Greek classics. It never means two pieces of timber placed across one another. . . . There is nothing in the Greek of the N[ew] T[estament] even to imply two pieces of timber.â€Â

In the Cyclopedia of Biblical, Theological, and Ecclesiastical Literature, by John McClintock, noted that "in Livy ( a Roman historian who lived from 59 B.C.E. to 17 C.E. and shortly before Jesus ministry that began in 29 C.E.) even, crux means a mere stake."(pg 576) The French Dictionnaire Encyclopédique Universel (Encyclopedic Universal Dictionary) says: “For a long time we believed that the cross, considered a religious symbol, was specifically for Christians. This is not the case.â€Â

The book Dual Heritageâ€â€The Bible and the British Museum states: “It may come as a shock to know that there is no word such as ‘cross’ in the Greek of the New Testament. The word translated ‘cross’ is always the Greek word [stau·ros´] meaning a ‘stake’ or ‘upright pale.’ The cross was not originally a Christian symbol; it is derived from Egypt and Constantine.â€Â

The New Catholic Encyclopedia says: “The representation of Christ’s redemptive death on Golgotha does not occur in the symbolic art of the first Christian centuries. The early Christians, influenced by the Old Testament prohibition of graven images, were reluctant to depict even the instrument of the Lord’s [death]. . . . The cross comes to be represented in the time of Constantine.â€Â

God required that His "only-begotten Son" die on a "stake", "becoming a curse instead of us",(Gal 3:13) fulfilling Deuteronomy 21:22,23. Jesus said that he came to "fulfill" the Mosaic Law. He further said that "sooner would heaven and earth pass away than for one smallest letter or one particle of a letter to pass away from the Law and not all things take place."(Matt 5:17,18) He did fulfill the Law by dying on a "torture stake", an upright pole or "fence pale" as a "criminal". Every detail concerning him had to take place. Otherwise, the Law would not have been fulfilled completely and the apostle's Paul quoting of Deuteronomy 21 would have no meaning, and we would still be without a hope.

 

[turnorburn]

You talked about a stake, stake cross all the same to Jesus, he had so much of his flesh removed just before that it wouldn't have mattered, it was what was in that cup in the garden, care to expound on the cup?

 

[Gzuz the Man Child]

My thoughts are these:

It seems that the obsession with symbols is very similar to that of holidays. Where do these holidays come from that we feel so obligated to join in on? Every single "Christian" holiday in fact is pagan at the beginning, yet you have Christians who feel obligated to conform to what is being re-labeled as a Christian holiday. As Christians, we don't have certain days to celebrate Christ, we have every single day to celebrate Christ. The idea that we need one day to celebrate Christ and give MORE honor to him on that day is an insult. We act as if he doesn't deserve the same celebration every single other day, what a shame indeed.
I liken that predicament to that of symbology. As Christians, why do we insist on having symbols to represent Christ and his sacrifice. As if we could ever do that justice. And what a horrible symbol to adopt, a cross, a symbol of death. The death is not the glorious part of Christs life, the glorious part was his resurrection from his death. Why no symbol of his resurrection if any? And not only that, but for those of you stuck in your ways, why is it right now you are looking for a way to defend the use of the cross as a symbol?
Where does that feeling come from? The one you are getting right now. Dig deep and question yourself right now, why do you need to use a cross for a symbol at all? The symbol of the cross is similar to that of crossbones, another symbol of death; crossbones do not carry a good meaning to those that recognize it and in fact, neither does the cross. It is just the same as crossbones that create the symbol of a cross, only without the bones and wood instead. How about an empty coffin? That's a better symbol in my opinion.
This is assuming you absolutely must continue to INSIST on using a symbol like the pagans do. So consider your motive Christian. Why is it you insist on having a symbol and defending your right to use one?
Why do you do it? If you don't worship it.

 

[Gzuz the Man Child]

Modern Christianity uses a symbol of death, but even CIA operatives are tortured and beaten in slow agonizing deaths for their country. Anyone can die a painful death for someone else, but what separates Christ from the rest of the dead gods is that he worked miracles while he walked the earth and he was resurrected after his death.

1 Corinthians 15
13 But if there is no resurrection of the dead, neither hath Christ been raised:
14 and if Christ hath not been raised, then is our preaching vain, your faith also is vain.

I know he wasn't speaking directly to what I am saying, and I don't mean to imply that.
Get the spirit of what is being said.
I think his resurrection is what we should look towards, don't you?

Romans 6:4 We were buried therefore with him through baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, so we also might walk in newness of life.

Galatians 2:20 I have been crucified with Christ; and it is no longer I that live, but Christ living in me:

If we must insist on a symbol, I think it's time for a new one.

How is this for a symbol?

1 Timothy 2
9 In like manner, that women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefastness and sobriety; not with braided hair, and gold or pearls or costly raiment;
10 but (which becometh women professing godliness) through good works.

Adorn yourselves with good works, not with apparel, otherwise known as, symbols.

Ephesians 6:11 Put on the whole armor of God

Revelation 19:8 And it was given unto her that she should array herself in fine linen, bright and pure: for the fine linen is the righteous acts of the saints.

Luke 8:16 And no man, when he hath lighted a lamp, covereth it with a vessel, or putteth it under a bed; but putteth it on a stand, that they that enter in may see the light.

John 13:35 By this shall all men know that ye are my disciples, if ye have love one to another.


There is the symbol Jesus gave.
You take your pick.

 

[Gzuz the Man Child]

A few more thoughts, in verse form.

Matthew 15:3 And he answered and said unto them, Why do ye also transgress the commandment of God because of your tradition?

Matthew 15:6 And ye have made void the word of God because of your tradition.

Mark 7:8 Ye leave the commandment of God, and hold fast the tradition of men.

Mark 7:9 And he said unto them, Full well do ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your tradition.

Colossians 2:8 Take heed lest there shall be any one that maketh spoil of you through his philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ:


2 Thessalonians 2:15 So then, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye were taught, whether by word, or by epistle of ours.

 

[Gabe]

....And what a horrible symbol to adopt, a cross, a symbol of death..... The symbol of the cross is similar to that of crossbones, another symbol of death; crossbones do not carry a good meaning to those that recognize it and in fact, neither does the cross. It is just the same as crossbones that create the symbol of a cross, only without the bones and wood instead. How about an empty coffin? That's a better symbol in my opinion.

I agree that we do not absolutely need a symbol, just like we do not need churches, priests, hymns, celebrations and many other things to be a Christian but that does not necessarily make them bad things and calling the cross a symbol of death is an exaggeration to say the least. When i see a cross it makes me think of first-aid, ambulances, charities, hospitals, pharmacies and Christ, all these have one thing in common: they save lives. A coffin on the other hand (even an empty one) is what i would recognise as a symbol of death and cannot be compared to the cross.

 

[Cornelius]

I think this may be a good way to be "identified" as a Christian, rather than a symbol. How about loosing the symbols and allowing people to know we are Christians, by our fruit?

Mat 7:16 By their fruits ye shall know them.

C

 

[Gzuz the Man Child]

Thanks C,
That was my whole point. The coffin thing was really a joke just to make a point.

 

[Gabe]

yes, i figured it was to make a point and answered accordingly.