• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

On or Off the Cross?

Ormiston

Well-Known Member
I'm at work and I've been driving my coworker, Kenny crazy all day. We've been slow and I've been on the forum all morning and rambling at him too. Anyways, here's my question: should the cross have Jesus portrayed on it or not? It seems to me that putting him on it is a bad idea. I thought the important element of the crucifixion was his resurrection, not his death. And, on top of that, isn't the image of a man being crucified somewhat frightening?
 

nutshell

Well-Known Member
Ormiston said:
I'm at work and I've been driving my coworker, Kenny crazy all day. We've been slow and I've been on the forum all morning and rambling at him too. Anyways, here's my question: should the cross have Jesus portrayed on it or not? It seems to me that putting him on it is a bad idea. I thought the important element of the crucifixion was his resurrection, not his death. And, on top of that, isn't the image of a man being crucified somewhat frightening?
Nice post. The LDS faith does not use crosses at all. This leads many in mainstream Christianity to call us un-Christian, but for many of the reasons you posted above, we choose to focus on the living Christ. His death was important, but what's even more is that he is alive today and guiding his church (at least from an LDS POV).
 

Ormiston

Well-Known Member
Just curious Nutshell, what do you mean with your last statement "alive today and guiding his church"? Do you mean that he can be seen?
 

Smoke

Done here.
Ormiston said:
Anyways, here's my question: should the cross have Jesus portrayed on it or not? It seems to me that putting him on it is a bad idea. I thought the important element of the crucifixion was his resurrection, not his death.
It seems to me like a matter of taste more than anything else. Catholics generally wear crucifixes, Protestants and Orthodox generally wear crosses without the corpus, but there are no hard and fast rules, and I can't think of any logical reason for rejecting one in favor of the other. The important thing about the cross is that Jesus was crucified on it. Otherwise, you might as well have a little gold electric chair hanging from a chain around your neck.

I've often heard that the bare cross is preferable because Jesus rose from the dead, but it's never made sense to me. He didn't rise from the cross, after all, and the significance of the cross is in his being crucified on it.
 
A

angellous_evangellous

Guest
Ormiston said:
I'm at work and I've been driving my coworker, Kenny crazy all day. We've been slow and I've been on the forum all morning and rambling at him too. Anyways, here's my question: should the cross have Jesus portrayed on it or not? It seems to me that putting him on it is a bad idea. I thought the important element of the crucifixion was his resurrection, not his death. And, on top of that, isn't the image of a man being crucified somewhat frightening?
I don't think that we should worry about it. It is following the teachings of Jesus that matters.

He didn't say, "If you love me, you will keep an image of me on [or off] the cross." He said, "If you love me, you will keep my commandments." John 14.15
 

Ormiston

Well-Known Member
MidnightBlue said:
It seems to me like a matter of taste more than anything else. Catholics generally wear crucifixes, Protestants and Orthodox generally wear crosses without the corpus, but there are no hard and fast rules, and I can't think of any logical reason for rejecting one in favor of the other. The important thing about the cross is that Jesus was crucified on it. Otherwise, you might as well have a little gold electric chair hanging from a chain around your neck.

I've often heard that the bare cross is preferable because Jesus rose from the dead, but it's never made sense to me. He didn't rise from the cross, after all, and the significance of the cross is in his being crucified on it.
But why is it important that Jesus was crucified? Why is the sad part of the story the most important part? The resurrection is more like a sidenote to the crucifixion than the climax.
 

Smoke

Done here.
Ormiston said:
But why is it important that Jesus was crucified? Why is the sad part of the story the most important part? The resurrection is more like a sidenote to the crucifixion than the climax.
Two points:

1) I didn't say that the crucifixion was the important part of Jesus' story. I said the significance of the cross was that Jesus was crucified on it. Otherwise, what's the point of wearing an image of an instrument of torture and death?

2) To many Christians, the crucifixion is indeed the most important part of Jesus' story. They believe that his crucifixion is what redeems them and makes it possible for them to be saved. It's the very reason he was born in the first place. The resurrection is a joyous event, and "proves" his triumph over the devil and death, but when it comes down to it, the crucifixion is really the most important part: the substitutionary atonement for the sins of humankind.

I don't believe in substitutionary atonement, and didn't believe in it when I was a Christian, either, but it's the normative belief in Western Christianity.

The Protestant preference for a cross without a corpus probably really has more to do with the general Protestant reaction against veneration of images in the Catholic Church than with the resurrection. But the cross is an image as surely as the corpus is, and can be venerated with or without the corpus.
 

Squirt

Well-Known Member
Ormiston said:
But why is it important that Jesus was crucified? Why is the sad part of the story the most important part? The resurrection is more like a sidenote to the crucifixion than the climax.
Good point. The one thing I didn't like about "Passion of the Christ" is that the Resurrection got about 10 seconds of time devoted to it. It was like, "Oh, by the way, here's what happened next... Watch carefuly or you'll miss it." The fact that Jesus died is only significant because He rose again.
 

sojourner

Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
Ormiston said:
I'm at work and I've been driving my coworker, Kenny crazy all day. We've been slow and I've been on the forum all morning and rambling at him too. Anyways, here's my question: should the cross have Jesus portrayed on it or not? It seems to me that putting him on it is a bad idea. I thought the important element of the crucifixion was his resurrection, not his death. And, on top of that, isn't the image of a man being crucified somewhat frightening?
Paul said, "We preach Christ, and him crucified." As someone else said, the sacrifice is seen as the pivotal event in salvation -- not necessarily even the death.
 

sojourner

Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
Squirt said:
Good point. The one thing I didn't like about "Passion of the Christ" is that the Resurrection got about 10 seconds of time devoted to it. It was like, "Oh, by the way, here's what happened next... Watch carefuly or you'll miss it." The fact that Jesus died is only significant because He rose again.
I agree. On the other hand...the movie was called, "The Passion of the Christ," not "The Triumph of Christ Over Death"... Mel had a theological reason for focusing on the passion, and not the resurrection, which was not necessarily anyone else's reason.
 

mormonman

Ammon is awesome
Ormiston said:
Just curious Nutshell, what do you mean with your last statement "alive today and guiding his church"? Do you mean that he can be seen?
God the Father and Jesus Christ appeared to Joseph Smith in a grove in Palmyra, NY. Christ appeared to Joseph and others(prophets and apostles) many other times. He is the one guiding our church and He does give revelations to His prophets.
 
Why not an olive branch, the crucifixion happened to millions of people for simple or no crimes. Now I understand jesus on the cross died pure and without sin but christ did not come to pay for our sins by dieing he had done that already in the garden. His death was only neccassary for his resurection. If anything we should be wearing olive branches as a resemblance of the price he paid for us in gethsamane. Wasnt the purpose for christ to be the mediator from us to god by taking upon the sins of the world. I think we should at least represent his purpose.

luke 22
 
What I see sadly portrayed in most movies on Christ is that it spends 90 percent of the time focusing on his death, and not what he did for us while he lived. The passion of the Christ had about five minutes of Gethsamane in it, which is where he took upon the sins of the world.
 

dawny0826

Mother Heathen
Stick of Joseph said:
What I see sadly portrayed in most movies on Christ is that it spends 90 percent of the time focusing on his death, and not what he did for us while he lived. The passion of the Christ had about five minutes of Gethsamane in it, which is where he took upon the sins of the world.
It is by his death and resurrection that we are saved...not by his teachings alone.

Not all interpret scripture discussing Christ in the garden as being the moment where he took on the sins of the world.
 

sojourner

Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
dawny0826 said:
It is by his death and resurrection that we are saved...not by his teachings alone.

Not all interpret scripture discussing Christ in the garden as being the moment where he took on the sins of the world.
Correct! The traditional interpretation has it that the sin was taken on in the sacrifice. This appears to be a point of departure for the LDS and traditional Christians.
 

nutshell

Well-Known Member
sojourner said:
Correct! The traditional interpretation has it that the sin was taken on in the sacrifice. This appears to be a point of departure for the LDS and traditional Christians.
I believe his sacrifice encompasses both the garden and the cross. The experience began in the garden and ended on the cross.

Either way, the effect is the same.
 

fromthe heart

Well-Known Member
Actually both have their fine points...with Christ on the cross it shows the crown of thorns,nail peirced hands/feet and the agony He endured on our behalf.... by just the cross alone we are given reassurance that death no longer need to have a sting but the reward for our service as His children will be the fact that we too will be reserected to be in the clouds with Him. I prefer to not see crosses with Him there...it hurts my feelings...when I watched the 'Passion of Christ' it was so filled with pain that I almost forgot to breathe...I understand the movie to be set to show us just what He endured in His sacrifice for OUR sins. I have to wonder how many who claim to be His children could see that movie and not be struck with something indescribable...I had tears roll down my face and had no way to stop them from coming...I was so awestruck by His pain for OUR pitiful souls. It just seemed as though He went above and beyond what we deserve.
 

Ormiston

Well-Known Member
fromthe heart said:
Actually both have their fine points...with Christ on the cross it shows the crown of thorns,nail peirced hands/feet and the agony He endured on our behalf.... by just the cross alone we are given reassurance that death no longer need to have a sting but the reward for our service as His children will be the fact that we too will be reserected to be in the clouds with Him. I prefer to not see crosses with Him there...it hurts my feelings...when I watched the 'Passion of Christ' it was so filled with pain that I almost forgot to breathe...I understand the movie to be set to show us just what He endured in His sacrifice for OUR sins. I have to wonder how many who claim to be His children could see that movie and not be struck with something indescribable...I had tears roll down my face and had no way to stop them from coming...I was so awestruck by His pain for OUR pitiful souls. It just seemed as though He went above and beyond what we deserve.
Anyone, regardless of their religious beliefs would feel compassion for Jesus in the movie. It was heart-wrenching. But, don't go too far. Many people have suffered worst fates than his. We all have to cope with dying (albeit most without the torture and suffering and humiliation). But, sincerely, what is pitiful about our souls?
 

nutshell

Well-Known Member
Ormiston said:
Anyone, regardless of their religious beliefs would feel compassion for Jesus in the movie. It was heart-wrenching. But, don't go too far. Many people have suffered worst fates than his.
I must completely disagree with the part in bold. Christ's suffering was beyond what any movie can show. He took upon him all the sins of the world. Not only that, he took upon himself all the pain and sickness and depression and negative experiences any person on this earth might experience. Such was his pain, it would have killed any of us, but he could take it all because he was the Son of God.

No one has ever suffered a fate worse than Jesus Christ's.
 

Ormiston

Well-Known Member
nutshell said:
I must completely disagree with the part in bold. Christ's suffering was beyond what any movie can show. He took upon him all the sins of the world. Not only that, he took upon himself all the pain and sickness and depression and negative experiences any person on this earth might experience. Such was his pain, it would have killed any of us, but he could take it all because he was the Son of God.

No one has ever suffered a fate worse than Jesus Christ's.
Does it describe this experience in the Bible or are you just giving an opinion? I've never heard of such a description. "He died for our sins." I'm familiar with but I've never heard it expressed that he physically suffered through sin or sickness or depression. Please elaborate (because it's intriguing).
 
Top