Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Jesus never indicated for us to use the cross as an icon or symbol. What was done on the cross was what mattered, not the structure itself. But the church loves to add things, extraneous to the Bible, as promote them as though from the Bible or from God. And many willingly chase after them.
I'd rather expose and call out what the church creates, than adopt them, puppet-style.
Many wear and use these symbols - such as a fish on a car - but then live in a way that only denigrates Jesus and Christianity. Better to let your life be authentic, as the true symbol, than rely on artificial and superficial means.
If the stauros was a pole not a cross, then why did the Church adopt the cross and chi rho with Constantine? I assume the story about him seeing a cross was invented after the adoption of the cross symbol.
What good is a religion if it has fallen into false teachings virtually immediately for 2000 years or so? I happen to believe Christianity was invented in the 4th century.
I believe Christianity started with Jesus Christ and His followers. That Christianity, however, did undergo enormous changes during its first four centuries, so I know where you're coming from. You might possibly say that the Christianity practiced today was invented in the 4th century, and that it was re-invented in 1517 with the help of Martin Luther. If people who are so convinced that their doctrines and teachings have been around for 2000 years ever bothered to do some serious research into the history of the early Christian Church, they'd almost certainly come to realize that the Christianity they are practicing is not the Christianity the first-century Jewish converts to Christianity were practicing.
You were the one that made a statement that simply isn't historically accurate.
Not so fast.
"There are few extant examples of the cross in 2nd century Christian iconography. It has been argued that Christians were reluctant to use it as it depicts a purposely painful and gruesome method of public execution.A symbol similar to the cross, the staurogram, was used to abbreviate the Greek word for cross in very early New Testament manuscripts... The extensive adoption of the cross as a Christian iconographic symbol arose from the 4th century."
"There are few extant examples of the cross in 2nd century Christian iconography. It has been argued that Christians were reluctant to use it as it depicts a purposely painful and gruesome method of public execution.A symbol similar to the cross, the staurogram, was used to abbreviate the Greek word for cross in very early New Testament manuscripts... The extensive adoption of the cross as a Christian iconographic symbol arose from the 4th century."
Not the statement I was talking about when I said that specifically. His statement that Christianity was invented in the 4th century is patently wrong.
As for the question of the cross as an icon? So what? Honestly...I really don't care. I've never liked the crucifix, since Jesus is not on the cross anymore. My church has a cross on the building, because Jesus died on a cross. A JW seems to want to argue that, and they use the idea of it being a "torture pole" as a reason to divide. But it's just an icon. It's honestly not that important.
Not the statement I was talking about when I said that specifically. His statement that Christianity was invented in the 4th century is patently wrong.
Technically, you're right. But the Christianity of 2020 is closer to the Christianity of 400 AD than it is to the Christianity of 1 AD.
Quote:
As for the question of the cross as an icon? So what? Honestly...I really don't care. I've never liked the crucifix, since Jesus is not on the cross anymore. My church has a cross on the building, because Jesus died on a cross. A JW seems to want to argue that, and they use the idea of it being a "torture pole" as a reason to divide. But it's just an icon. It's honestly not that important.
My church doesn't use the cross as an icon at all (a fact which you would probably see as just more proof that my church isn't a Christian one at all). As you said, it's really not that important. On the other hand, if a church doesn't use the cross at all, it's not that important either.
Technically, you're right. But the Christianity of 2020 is closer to the Christianity of 400 AD than it is to the Christianity of 1 AD.
I'm assuming you made 33 AD, or right after Jesus rose.
But how would you know that? Remember, I'm the one arguing that we should use the Bible. The NT is comprised of historical narratives written by eyewitnesses and letters from his apostles.
Quote:
My church doesn't use the cross as an icon at all (a fact which you would probably see as just more proof that my church isn't a Christian one at all).
I honestly couldn't care less what icons your church uses. It isn't what determines if it's orthodox or not.
Quote:
As you said, it's really not that important. On the other hand, if a church doesn't use the cross at all, it's not that important either.
I'd personally prefer it to be in my church, as it does play a pivotal role and Jesus was crucified on one. But no, the absence of a cross doesn't necessarily indicate heresy.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
