• 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!

Ideas concerning the cross. || JESUS ADHERENTS ONLY.

Shiranui117

Pronounced Shee-ra-noo-ee
Premium Member
Perhaps, but why does it matter? It's where the symbol of the cross originated that is of historical interest.....and it wasn't Christianity.
And the symbol of the stake, or the pole, didn't originate with Christianity either. If you try hard enough, literally everything is pagan. Even the idea of there being one almighty God didn't originate with Christianity, or even Judaism. Atenism might be the first recorded instance of people having the idea of monotheism, or "only one god" in history.

Apostate Jews adopted the worship of Tammuz in Ezekiel's day and that carried with it the symbol of the sacred "tau"...the initial of his name. What was the shape of "the cross" from the second century, up until Roman Catholicism altered it? It was a "T"....not a " t " and its origins were not Christian.
Apostate Jews adopted the worship of Asherah throughout the days of all the prophets, setting up sacred poles. The pole symbolized her union with the Canaanite god El, the sky god. So the pole erected on the earth symbolizes the archetypal union between the Sky Father and the Earth Mother, and thus the fertility of the earth. This union between the Sky Father and Earth Mother is an archetype we see throughout world mythology--Thor and Sif, Uranus and Gaia, Tengri and Eje, and so on.

So in the end, you have Jesus being crucified on a symbol of Asherah's fertility. At least the Cross wasn't a widely-used symbol within the land of Israel like the simple vertical pole was.

In reading why a pagan Roman Emperor changed Christianity forever, it is interesting to note why.
Christian History Institute
I read that account with a filter. You perhaps would not.
Yeah, that isn't exactly scholarly by any stretch of the imagination. It maaayyyybe touches on about 10% of the story.

It is also interesting that Constantine was a worshipper of Zeus, all his life. He accepted "Christianity" but under his own terms. He was not baptized until shortly before his death. Constantine was an astute politician whose only aim was to consolidate his divided empire under one "universal" (Catholic) religion.....it was not, however the same Christianity that was taught by Jesus and his apostles. In no Christian scripture is there sanction for bloodshed, nor is there approval for any of Christ's disciples to be "part of this world". Constantine had a foot in both camps.
. . ."According to Christian polemicists writing after his death, Constantine I was baptized on his deathbed, which would make him the first emperor to become a baptized Christian."

This also confirms that he was not a committed Christian until he had to face death. Baptism in this instance was more like a bit of 'spiritual insurance'....as if God counts such a baptism as authentic.
You conveniently ignore the fact that Constantine was baptized by Eusebius of Nicomedia, an Arian. Constantine's son, Constantius II, was also an Arian, as was Emperor Valens. Arians were favored by the Roman Empire up until Emperor Theodosius I in 381, when Orthodoxy was finally vindicated at the First Council of Constantinople.

A pagan to his death, this is the man that changed the course of "the Church"....but hardly for the better. History tells us why.

In the year 313 C.E, Constantine ruled over a pagan Roman Empire and made an apostate form of Christianity a legal religion. After that, the Church began working closely with the Roman government, which Christ said Christians cannot do. (John 18:36) For example, Constantine's meeting with religious leaders, (the Council of Nicaea)....after that meeting, the emperor sent a priest named Arius into exile because he refused to believe that Jesus is God.
And then several years later, Constantine did an about-face, recalled Arius from his exile, and instead exiled St. Athanasius of Alexandria. You can't claim that Constantine somehow shoved orthodox Christianity down everyone's throat when he ended up turning against the Church. This is why I literally laugh every time someone tries to claim that Constantine somehow drastically changed Christianity and suppressed "the true faith". I laugh because such conspiracy theories are based off of (at best) complete ignorance of history.

(He was right! Nowhere in scripture does Jesus ever claim to be God.)
To be continued in a relevant thread.

Jesus said of the religious leaders of his day that....."they strained out gnats but gulped down camels". This is what I see in responses like this. You have missed the point entirely. It isn't the shape of the "stauros" that matters
Then why do you insist on the idea that Jesus was crucified on a stake and not on a cross, especially in the face of writers both before and after Christ who testify to the use of a T-shaped cross, and crosses of various shapes?

.....it is the fact that God forbade the "making" of "images of anything" to be used in worship....period! (Exodus 20:4-5)
Are you just deliberately ignoring massive chunks of the Bible now because it doesn't fit in with your ideas? Are you ignoring Exodus 28:31-35, Exodus 25:10-22, Exodus 25:31-40, Exodus 26:1-6, Exodus 26:31-36 and other passages where God explicitly orders the Israelites to make images to be used in worship?

Or what about 1 Kings 6 and 1 Kings 7, where Solomon completely covers the Temple with images without any instruction from God, and yet God still blessed the Temple and sees fit to dwell within it?

In Catholicism, images are an integral part of worship as these pictures clearly show....
Yup, and it's perfectly Biblically sound.

I am so pleased that you brought this up......pagan stone pillars.
In the middle of St. Peter's Square is an obelisk and it stands in the middle of a Babylonian sun wheel. Do you know why?

The re-erection of the first obelisks during the reign of Pope Sixtus V (1585-90) was accompanied by exorcisms and blessings, as well as the sprinkling of holy water and the burning of incense. A Catholic bishop said before the obelisk.....

“I exorcise you to bear the holy Cross and remain devoid of all pagan impurity and all assaults of spiritual iniquity.”
So what you're telling me is that this thing was exorcised and purified, and now stands as nothing more than a glorified lawn ornament in St. Peter's Square. Catholics beware, the Vatican has a tasteless sense of exterior decoration.

But, tell me your opinion of how pagan ritual sites were exorcised and had churches built overtop them. Do you think these churches are sacrilegious and should be torn down because they stand on ground which was once used to honor pagan gods, or should they remain because they have been purified and now serve God's purpose, not that of any pagan god's?

For that matter, should the Jews have destroyed or abandoned their own Temple after Antiochus IV set up an altar to Zeus and had pigs slaughtered to Zeus within the Temple?

I will leave you to ponder these things in the light of scripture rather than Catholic justification for disobedience. (2 Corinthians 6:14-18; Exodus 20:4-5; 1 Corinthians 10:14)
And I will leave you to ponder Scripture in the light of Scripture.

"Xylon" - "ξύλον" is "wood" a "tree", "timber". It doesn't mean a "cross".
As you just pointed out, xylon can just mean "wood". So Jesus was crucifed to "wood", but this gives us no conclusive evidence to assume that He was crucified on a simple stake, rather than a vertical stake with a horizontal crossbeam (the words for both of these beams of wood would be xylon, by the way).[/QUOTE]
 
Last edited:

Deeje

Avid Bible Student
Premium Member
And the symbol of the stake, or the pole, didn't originate with Christianity either. If you try hard enough, literally everything is pagan. Even the idea of there being one almighty God didn't originate with Christianity, or even Judaism. Atenism might be the first recorded instance of people having the idea of monotheism, or "only one god" in history.

You are correct.....there was no symbol of anything used in either Judaic or Christian worship.....it was against God's law to even "make" images let alone use them in worship. We obviously have different interpretations of the words "make" and "worship".
297.gif


So in the end, you have Jesus being crucified on a symbol of Asherah's fertility. At least the Cross wasn't a widely-used symbol within the land of Israel like the simple vertical pole was.

Ummm....I don't have a symbol at all, so I don't have Jesus being put to death on anything but an execution stake provided by the pagan Romans who executed him. They chose the method.

Yeah, that isn't exactly scholarly by any stretch of the imagination. It maaayyyybe touches on about 10% of the story.

"Scholarly"? Or do you mean not Catholic enough? :shrug:

You conveniently ignore the fact that Constantine was baptized by Eusebius of Nicomedia, an Arian. Constantine's son, Constantius II, was also an Arian, as was Emperor Valens. Arians were favored by the Roman Empire up until Emperor Theodosius I in 381, when Orthodoxy was finally vindicated at the First Council of Constantinople.

There is a lot written about Constatine and people can assess his contribution to Christianity for themselves.

As for the time of his baptism, the Encyclopedia Britannica says..."Constantine had hoped to be baptized in the Jordan River, but perhaps because of the lack of opportunity to do so—together possibly with the reflection that his office necessarily involved responsibility for actions hardly compatible with the baptized state—he delayed the ceremony until the end of his life."

Constantine I | Biography, Accomplishments, Death, & Facts


If one's activities are incompatible with the Christian standard of behavior, then one is not a Christian simply because they declare themselves to be. Those not "doing the will of the Father" are rejected by Jesus. (Matthew 7:21-23)

Then why do you insist on the idea that Jesus was crucified on a stake and not on a cross, especially in the face of writers both before and after Christ who testify to the use of a T-shaped cross, and crosses of various shapes?

OMgoodness! Do you ever listen? There is no point in insisting on the shape of the instrument used to murder Jesus. Do you understand that it is a bizarre concept to make and idolize the thing that killed your best friend?
jawsmiley.gif


If Jesus had been hung, would the image be of a gallows instead of a cross.....would Jesus be hanging from the rope? if he had been shot with an arrow or run through with a spear.....what would the imagery be? Do you see that it is the making and use of any image to which devotion is given, that is out of step with scripture? :facepalm:

Please tell me how is this not idolatry?

images
images
images
images
images
 

Deeje

Avid Bible Student
Premium Member
Are you just deliberately ignoring massive chunks of the Bible now because it doesn't fit in with your ideas? Are you ignoring Exodus 28:31-35, Exodus 25:10-22, Exodus 25:31-40, Exodus 26:1-6, Exodus 26:31-36 and other passages where God explicitly orders the Israelites to make images to be used in worship?

OK....lets take these verses one at a time.

Exodus 28:31-35 is a description of Aaron's official priestly garment to be worn only when he enters the sanctuary. Specifically prescribed by God in every detail....not men.

Exodus 25:10-22 is the details of the construction of the ark of the covenant. Very specific instructions that God gave Moses for something that was to be kept inside the most holy compartment of the temple and not seen by the people under any circumstances, under penalty of death. This too was commanded by God...not men.

Exodus 26:1-6 was instructions for the construction of the tabernacle. Every detail of the way it was made was prescribed by God, not men.

Exodus 26:31-36 is the specific instructions for the curtain that separated the most holy compartment of the temple or tabernacle from the other holy compartment so that the ark of the covenant concealed there would never be seen by anyone but the High Priest....and only once a year.

That is a whole lot different to the making and adoration of man-made images and vestments commanded by the church...not God.
no.gif


Yup, and it's perfectly Biblically sound.

I'm sorry but there is no way that images used in worship are Biblically sound. The church just found ways to justify them.

But, tell me your opinion of how pagan ritual sites were exorcised and had churches built overtop them. Do you think these churches are sacrilegious and should be torn down because they stand on ground which was once used to honor pagan gods, or should they remain because they have been purified and now serve God's purpose, not that of any pagan god's?

For that matter, should the Jews have destroyed or abandoned their own Temple after Antiochus IV set up an altar to Zeus and had pigs slaughtered to Zeus within the Temple?

I guess we can answer that question by asking what kind of activities the Canaanites were engaged in prior to Israel inheriting their Promised Land? God cleansed it by means of Israel's leader, Joshua. (Judges 2:2-3) But it didn't take many generations for Israel to forget the activities of their God and to keep his worship unpolluted. History repeats.

Judges 2:6-14:
"When Joshua sent the people away, each of the Israelites went to his inheritance to take possession of the land. 7 The people continued to serve Jehovah all the days of Joshua and all the days of the elders who outlived Joshua and who had seen all of Jehovah’s great deeds in behalf of Israel. 8 Then Joshua the son of Nun, the servant of Jehovah, died at the age of 110. 9 So they buried him in the territory of his inheritance in Timʹnath-heʹres, in the mountainous region of Eʹphra·im, north of Mount Gaʹash. 10 All that generation were gathered to their ancestors, and another generation arose after them that did not know Jehovah or what he had done for Israel."

11 So the Israelites did what was bad in the eyes of Jehovah and served the Baʹals. 12 Thus they abandoned Jehovah, the God of their fathers, who brought them out of the land of Egypt. And they followed other gods, the gods of the peoples who were all around them, and they bowed down to them and offended Jehovah. 13 They abandoned Jehovah and served Baʹal and the Ashʹto·reth images. 14 At this Jehovah’s anger blazed against Israel, so he handed them over to plunderers who pillaged them. He sold them into the hand of the enemies around them, and they were no longer able to hold their own against their enemies."


As you just pointed out, xylon can just mean "wood". So Jesus was crucifed to "wood", but this gives us no conclusive evidence to assume that He was crucified on a simple stake, rather than a vertical stake with a horizontal crossbeam (the words for both of these beams of wood would be xylon, by the way).

Once again....because we are not to make images...it doesn't matter. Can I get that through....? Suffice it to say the instrument upon which Jesus was sacrificed was made of wood.....end of story. The shape is inconsequential. We are not to idolize it anyway.
 

12jtartar

Active Member
Premium Member
What ever Jesus was killed on makes no difference to Christians, because no symbol is to be used in worship. One problem is: many Bibles are used to prove things, but many Bibles use different words to describe the same things. To prove anything you must go back to the Original Autographs an find out what was written.
At Deuteronomy 21:22,23 the word for a person being hung up was TREE. That exact word for tree was used many times in the Hebrew Scriptures for many other trees. Now, a tree has limbs, a stake does not. The same word is used at Acts 5:30 and Revelation 22:2,14.
To me the most important indication as to what Jesus was hung on was what did the Romans use as a form of execution, and especially on ones who they considered, were extremely wrong doers.
All information that I can find seems to indicate they used a cross of some kind. At John 20:25 Jesus said to see the print of the Nails on his hands, which would indicate the he was nailed to a patibulum, that was then put on the upright stake.
Remember, the Roman soldiers were not stupid, they would not have nailed a criminal to a pole and then tried to lift the pole, with the person hanging on the end of it, and then put the stake in a hole. They would have had to be very careful, because it the stake dropped into the hole too hard the person on the stake would be torn from it.
The Romans already had the stake put in the ground, in the place of execution, and then nailed the criminal to the transom, and then attached the transom bar to the stake that was already in the ground. This would be much easier!!
Several other early writers wrote about Jesus crucifiction, such as Josephus, and they said it was on a cross. I believe they knew the difference between a stake and a cross.
Just as a sidelight, the most infamous thief of history, was a man names Khosru, who was supposed to have stolen the cross of Jesus. The stake of Jesus would be hard to find!!!
 

Faithofchristian

Well-Known Member
In the bible, Scriptures, a Pole, a stakes, the substance of them are wood and wood does come from trees.
Therefore a pole is called a tree, a stake is called a tree, because they are a tree. Not in the since we see a tree, they are wood and wood is what makes up a tree.

The cross is made from wood and wood comes from a tree, therefore the cross is a tree.
Cross = wood and wood = Tree
Pole = wood and wood = Tree
A stake = wood and wood = Tree

Whether it's a cross or a pole or a stake, they all are made from the wood of a tree.
Go Figure
 

DavidFirth

Well-Known Member
Yes, but the Resurrection demonstrates the results of that love. Anyone could have died, and many people did die by the same horrible means that Jesus did, but only Christ could have conquered death by rising from the dead in glory.

True. But the cross is the reminder of the penalty Christ paid that we owed. The death of Christ is the miracle, not the resurrection. Christ never sinned so He should not have ever had to die.
 

Faithofchristian

Well-Known Member
In Acts 5:30 The God of our fathers raised up Jesus, whom you killed and hanged on a tree"

The substance of the cross is wood, and wood comes from a tree.
Therefore when Jesus hanged on a tree.

Jesus nailed to the cross and the cross being wood, Jesus being nail on a tree.
 

metis

aged ecumenical anthropologist
Because it is covered so often in the gospels, Jesus' main message appears to be mainly one of compassion and justice for all. We especially see this coming out in no uncertain terms with the Sermon On the Mount and the Parable of the Sheep & Goats (Matthew 25).
 

Faithofchristian

Well-Known Member
Man's teachings will say, what Jesus was doing upon the mountain, was giving a sermon, man's teachings also calls this the Beatitudes.
But there is no where in Matthew chapter 5 that Jesus was giving a sermon or it's called the Beatitudes. This is man's teachings.

Jesus went up into a mountain and taught the people and the disciples. Matt 5:1,2.

The Question is, What was it that Jesus was in teaching, the people and the disciples?
 

Shiranui117

Pronounced Shee-ra-noo-ee
Premium Member
You are correct.....there was no symbol of anything used in either Judaic or Christian worship.....it was against God's law to even "make" images let alone use them in worship. We obviously have different interpretations of the words "make" and "worship".
297.gif
I will let you answer your own objection:

OK....lets take these verses one at a time.

Exodus 28:31-35 is a description of Aaron's official priestly garment to be worn only when he enters the sanctuary. Specifically prescribed by God in every detail....not men.

Exodus 25:10-22 is the details of the construction of the ark of the covenant. Very specific instructions that God gave Moses for something that was to be kept inside the most holy compartment of the temple and not seen by the people under any circumstances, under penalty of death. This too was commanded by God...not men.

Exodus 26:1-6 was instructions for the construction of the tabernacle. Every detail of the way it was made was prescribed by God, not men.

Exodus 26:31-36 is the specific instructions for the curtain that separated the most holy compartment of the temple or tabernacle from the other holy compartment so that the ark of the covenant concealed there would never be seen by anyone but the High Priest....and only once a year.
Enough said.

Ummm....I don't have a symbol at all, so I don't have Jesus being put to death on anything but an execution stake provided by the pagan Romans who executed him. They chose the method.
And yet it seems to me that your primary objection to Jesus being crucified on a cruciform cross is due to allegations that the Christian cross is actually a pagan symbol (please correct me if I'm wrong), whereas a stake isn't pagan, therefore Jesus was clearly crucified on a stake. I was attempting to get you to understand the point that a stake is just as much a pagan symbol as a cross, so it really makes no difference. But it seems the point went straight over your head.

"Scholarly"? Or do you mean not Catholic enough? :shrug:
By "scholarly", I mean a source which cites primary documents and draws their conclusions based off of those, not devotional, feel-good fluff.

There is a lot written about Constatine and people can assess his contribution to Christianity for themselves.
Agreed.

As for the time of his baptism, the Encyclopedia Britannica says..."Constantine had hoped to be baptized in the Jordan River, but perhaps because of the lack of opportunity to do so—together possibly with the reflection that his office necessarily involved responsibility for actions hardly compatible with the baptized state—he delayed the ceremony until the end of his life."

Constantine I | Biography, Accomplishments, Death, & Facts


If one's activities are incompatible with the Christian standard of behavior, then one is not a Christian simply because they declare themselves to be. Those not "doing the will of the Father" are rejected by Jesus. (Matthew 7:21-23)
It was actually a common practice even among devout Christians during certain periods in early Church history to forego their baptism until their deathbed, because baptism is for the remission of sins. Christians were terrified that if they were baptized, they could then subsequently "stain" their baptism with sin and thus be hopelessly doomed. It took the Church a good while to straighten that fear out.

OMgoodness! Do you ever listen? There is no point in insisting on the shape of the instrument used to murder Jesus. Do you understand that it is a bizarre concept to make and idolize the thing that killed your best friend?
jawsmiley.gif
Alright, then why insist that Jesus was crucified on a stake and not a cross? You're the one who originally brought up this whole thing, not me.

If Jesus had been hung, would the image be of a gallows instead of a cross.....would Jesus be hanging from the rope? if he had been shot with an arrow or run through with a spear.....what would the imagery be?
Yes, that would then be the imagery, because it shows Christ's sacrifice of Himself for us.

Please tell me how is this not idolatry?

images
images
images
images
images
I believe I made a thread where you can ask these questions: Jehovah's Witnesses' problems with the Catholic Church I'd be happy to answer this there.

That is a whole lot different to the making and adoration of man-made images and vestments commanded by the church...not God.
no.gif
Images are never adored. Adoration is for God and God alone, but holy images are honored. But then again, you wouldn't understand anything about honoring a symbol to honor the thing which it represents--you don't salute the flag, and I wouldn't be surprised to find that you don't keep family heirlooms, you don't have treasured family albums that you treat with great respect or that you don't give customary gestures of respect to elders, such as bowing in Asian cultures.

I'm sorry but there is no way that images used in worship are Biblically sound. The church just found ways to justify them.
The Ark of the Covenant begs to differ.

Once again....because we are not to make images...it doesn't matter. Can I get that through....? Suffice it to say the instrument upon which Jesus was sacrificed was made of wood.....end of story. The shape is inconsequential. We are not to idolize it anyway.
And I apparently can't get through to you that God saw fit to dwell in a Temple covered in images that He never commanded to be made, so obviously images are fine. It's idols that are forbidden. I'd encourage you to go read 1 Kings 6 through 1 Kings 8.
 

Deeje

Avid Bible Student
Premium Member
I will let you answer your own objection:

Enough said.

God commanded that his temple be built and he specifically prescribed the way he wanted it to be adorned, the holiest parts of which no one was permitted to enter except the High Priest, and you want to quibble about what men decide to do to decorate their own (uncommissioned) temples using images that came out of their own imaginings? You really want to place them on the same level? I'm sorry, but I can't do that.
no.gif


The parts of the temple that are described in the Bible were not open to the people at all. They never saw the ark of the covenant or the angels on the cover or even the curtain that separated the compartments. You don't seem to appreciate the difference. The people never saw idolatry practiced because it never was. The people who attend the Catholic churches are exposed to statues and images everywhere....even in their own homes. Its hardly the same.

By "scholarly", I mean a source which cites primary documents and draws their conclusions based off of those, not devotional, feel-good fluff.

You mean the "Church Fathers"?
Whether we profess to be Christians or not, our perception of the God of the Bible, of Jesus, and of Christianity was probably influenced by them. They were the ancient religious thinkers, writers, theologians, and philosophers who have shaped much of today’s “Christian” thinking. But how scripturally reliable are their writings?

The Catholic Church claims that the Bible is not the totality of God’s word. According to a Greek Orthodox professor of religious studies Demetrios J. Constantelos. “The Holy Spirit that reveals the word of God cannot be confined to the pages of a book.” What could possibly be another reliable source of divine revelation? Constantelos asserts in his book Understanding the Greek Orthodox Church: “Holy Tradition and Holy Scriptures [are] viewed as two sides of the same coin.” But are they?

In the middle of the second century C.E, professed Christians were defending their faith against Roman persecutors and heretics alike. Religious debates regarding the “divinity” of Jesus and the nature and workings of the holy spirit caused more than just intellectual rifts. Bitter disagreements and irreparable divisions over “Christian” doctrine spilled over into the political and cultural spheres, at times causing riots, rebellion, civil strife, even war.

The core Catholic “Holy Tradition” includes the teachings and writings of the Church Fathers. They were prominent theologians and “Christian” philosophers who lived between the second and fifth centuries C.E. How much have they influenced modern “Christian” thought? Did they hold faithfully to the Bible in their teaching? What should be the solid basis of Christian truth for a follower of Jesus Christ?

The central and eastern Mediterranean in the first and second centuries C.E. swarmed with an infinite multitude of religious ideas, struggling to gain acceptance. From the start, then, there were numerous varieties of Christianity which had little in common. What do we see today?

Writers and thinkers of that period, who felt that it was imperative to interpret “Christian” teachings using philosophical terms began to flourish. To satisfy educated pagans who were new converts to “Christianity,” such religious writers relied heavily on earlier Greek and Jewish literature. Beginning with Justin Martyr (c. 100-165 C.E.), who wrote in Greek, professed Christians became increasingly sophisticated in their assimilation of the philosophical heritage of the Greek culture, drifting away from the Bible.

I place no great store in the writings of the Church Fathers....only in God's word.

It was actually a common practice even among devout Christians during certain periods in early Church history to forego their baptism until their deathbed, because baptism is for the remission of sins. Christians were terrified that if they were baptized, they could then subsequently "stain" their baptism with sin and thus be hopelessly doomed. It took the Church a good while to straighten that fear out.

Please tell me where they would have gleaned this idea from scripture? Probably from the same people who told them that unbaptized babies would go to hell. In the NT, those who embraced Christianity were baptized without delay.
Because "self-control" was a fruit of God's spirit, no one had to worry about acting in an unchristian manner and being "hopelessly doomed" because they failed follow the teachings of Jesus Christ. They relied on God to help them refrain from doing what God condemned. Even God's own son relied on God to get him through the hard times.

Baptized or not, sin is sin. Those who sin with a knowledge of God and scripture are doubly accountable....condemning themselves.

Hebrews 10:26-27:
"For if we practice sin willfully after having received the accurate knowledge of the truth, there is no longer any sacrifice for sins left, 27 but there is a certain fearful expectation of judgment and a burning indignation that is going to consume those in opposition."

No excuses. If the apostles knew this why didn't the church teach it?

 

Deeje

Avid Bible Student
Premium Member
Alright, then why insist that Jesus was crucified on a stake and not a cross? You're the one who originally brought up this whole thing, not me.

As I have said many times.....it matters not what you idolize....whatever shape, if an image becomes something used in your worship....it is wrong. But to adopt something that was used by worshippers of false gods and cherish something with such grubby roots is IMO, to offend the God who told you not to use images in the first place.

Yes, that would then be the imagery, because it shows Christ's sacrifice of Himself for us.

You can see yourself before a gallows and Jesus hanging from a rope? Really? What if he was shot by firing squad? would rifles be hanging up in church and and dangling from the rear view mirror of your car?
291.gif


Images are never adored. Adoration is for God and God alone, but holy images are honored.

There is no such thing as a 'holy image' in Christian worship......you missed the memo. Honor is reserved for the living. Not for lifeless statues. Can you tell me what Jesus looked like? Mary? How do you know that those images are anything like them? They could be images of God's worst enemies and you wouldn't even know it.

Psalm 115:2-8 describes the situation well I think....
"Why should the nations say:
“Where is their God?”
3 Our God is in the heavens;
He does whatever he pleases.
4 Their idols are silver and gold,
The work of human hands.
5 A mouth they have, but they cannot speak;
Eyes, but they cannot see;
6 Ears they have, but they cannot hear;
A nose, but they cannot smell;
7 Hands they have, but they cannot feel;
Feet, but they cannot walk;
They make no sound with their throat.
8 The people who make them will become just like them,
As will all those who trust in them."


If I had an photo of some random woman and someone asked if I had a picture of my mother and I said "oh yes, here she is".....would that picture of the woman accurately reflect the person of my mother? What makes Catholic people think that a statue of some random woman can be the mother of Jesus? No more so than the golden calf was a statue of Jehovah. (Exodus 32:1-6)

But then again, you wouldn't understand anything about honoring a symbol to honor the thing which it represents--you don't salute the flag, and I wouldn't be surprised to find that you don't keep family heirlooms, you don't have treasured family albums that you treat with great respect or that you don't give customary gestures of respect to elders, such as bowing in Asian cultures.

We give honor where it is due, because that is what the Bible commands. (Romans 13:7)

We don't salute the flag of any nation because that is legally classed as an act of worship. We will not give acts of worship or honor to any person or thing that does not deserve it. Customary gestures are empty unless we follow through with acts of love. That was the identifying mark of Christians. (John 13:34-35)

The Ark of the Covenant begs to differ.

No it doesn't, for all the reasons already given.

And I apparently can't get through to you that God saw fit to dwell in a Temple covered in images that He never commanded to be made, so obviously images are fine. It's idols that are forbidden. I'd encourage you to go read 1 Kings 6 through 1 Kings 8.

The original temple was built at God's command and to his specifications. There were no Christian temples. Nor was there ever a command to build one. The reasons why are all in the Bible, but if you don't read it you will never know. I have to wonder how much of the Bible is ever used in Catholic teaching, because it is obvious that their dogma is not based on the Bible. :(
 

Shiranui117

Pronounced Shee-ra-noo-ee
Premium Member
God commanded that his temple be built and he specifically prescribed the way he wanted it to be adorned, the holiest parts of which no one was permitted to enter except the High Priest, and you want to quibble about what men decide to do to decorate their own (uncommissioned) temples using images that came out of their own imaginings?
Alright then, tell me where it is in the Bible that God gave King Solomon the blueprints and the design plan for the Temple. God didn't tell King Solomon to build two massive statues of cherubim ten cubits high whose wingspans spread across the entire wall of the Temple. God didn't tell King Solomon to carve the walls of the Temple with cherubim, plants and flowers. And yet God saw fit to bless the Temple and dwell within it.

The people who attend the Catholic churches are exposed to statues and images everywhere....even in their own homes. Its hardly the same.
This goes back to the times where Christians would have to celebrate the Liturgy in the catacombs or else risk being found out, especially once the imperial persecutions began. You can learn more about it here.

You mean the "Church Fathers"?

Whether we profess to be Christians or not, our perception of the God of the Bible, of Jesus, and of Christianity was probably influenced by them. They were the ancient religious thinkers, writers, theologians, and philosophers who have shaped much of today’s “Christian” thinking. But how scripturally reliable are their writings?
Very reliable. These are, after all, the students of the Apostles, and their students' students. So either the Apostles were incompetent teachers and Jesus failed to deliver in His promise to have the Holy Spirit guide the Church into all truth, or the writings of the Fathers are worth reading to see just what it was that the first Christians taught.

The Catholic Church claims that the Bible is not the totality of God’s word. According to a Greek Orthodox professor of religious studies Demetrios J. Constantelos. “The Holy Spirit that reveals the word of God cannot be confined to the pages of a book.”
I'm noting the incredible lack of context here. Quoting from another However, I did find Dr. Constantelos' full words in The Oxford Companion to the Bible. I'll just type out the full context of what he said in case you have trouble viewing it on Google Books.

The Eastern Orthodox churches consider the Bible as the written memory of God's activity in history and of God's relationshio to humankind. It does not reveal everything that God is or is not; in may respects, it is a mystery, and the main purpose why it was written is so that human beings may believe and have life (John 20:30).​

Skipping a bit to parts more pertinent to this discussion (emphasis mine)...

As a partial memory recorded in history by human beings, the Bible cannot be understood divorced from the historical experience and the consciousness of the communities of believers, whether ancient Israel and Judaism or Christianity. It is for this reason that the Bible is considered the book of the community, depending on the community's authority and approval of its authenticity, its inspiration, and interpretation. It was written for practical needs and under different historical circumstances. This means that the Bible is not the totality of God's word or revelation. God's word has been revealed "in many and various ways" (Heb. 1:1), including the order and beauty of the cosmos, human conscience and natural law, the words of philosophers, poets, and prophets of many peoples, culminating in the words of the God-made-man, the incarnate Logos of God. Thus the word of God can be discerned within but also outside the Bible. Natural revelation, however, is propaedeutic and preparatory to the supernatural, more direct revelation given through God's chosen prophets and finally through God's Son. . . .

Whether in the Old or the New Testament, divine revelation was recorded under the inspiration of God's Holy Spirit. But inspiration is understood in a dynamic way. The writers of the biblical books were not passive receivers of messages, but energetic and conscious instruments recording the revealed message in their own styles, and through their own intellectual and linguistic presuppositions. For the Orthodox, inspiration (theopneustia) is an elevated state of being that makes it possible to grasp and record revelation. The Holy Spirit inspires the writers, but it is the writers who write and speak, not as mechanical, passive instruments but in full control of their senses. Thus, biblical authors may display human shortcomings, broad or limited education, and their own specific intellectual backgrounds.

For the Eastern Orthodox, then, the Bible is the inspired word of God in terms of content rather than style, grammar, history or frame. Very few if any Orthodox theologians accept the word-by-word inspiration of Scripture. It is for this reason that the Orthodox church has never had serious disputes concerning the application of the historical-critical method in its approach to exegesis and hermeneutics.
And now we get to the paragraph from whence your quote comes:
The Orthodox Church continues in its teaching that revealed truth is incorporated in the apostolic tradition, in the decisions of the ecumenical councils, in the theological consensus of the church fathers, and in the sacramental life and worship of the church. The Holy Spirit that reveals the word of God cannot be confined to the pages of a book. Nevertheless, all facets of belief and life of the church have been saturated with the teachings of the scriptures. Doctrines, ethical teachings, and liturgical worship have scriptural foundations and are always in agreement with the scripture.

The distinction between revealed truth as written word and as tradition explains the reason why Eastern Orthodoxy emphasizes the importance of ecclesial authority. The church is the "pillar and bulwark of the truth" (1 Tim. 3:14 [sic]); it proclaims and guards those divine truths, written and unwritten, scripture and tradition, which coexist in complete harmony with each other. The ekklesia as a people called out by God to be God's instrument and witness existed long before the Bible's writing and codification. Whether as "the people of God" in ancient Israel or as "the new people of God" in the Christian Church, it was God's people who first witnessed to God's mighty deeds in history through his prophets and finally his own Logos, who became human in order to save humanity. The Bible itself was produced within the ekklesia for specific reasons and for the needs of its members. What was not incorporated in the book remained a fluid living testimony that found its way in the experience of the church as writings and commentaries of church fathers, prayers and liturgical texts, and decisions of ecumenical councils. The totality of that part of God's revelation necessary for salvation saturates the life of the Church.

Notwithstanding this holistic understanding of revelation, the Bible still occupies the central position in the Orthodox Church's faith and life. Doctrinal truths, ethical teachings, liturgical and prayer life all have biblical foundations. The Bible's authority is not minimized by ecclesial authority. The church, however, remains the lawful custodian and authentic interpreter of revelation, whether it presents itself as holy scripture or sacred tradition. The indwelling Holy Spirit guides and directs the church, specially when it is assembled in a council (Matt 18:20), an ecumenical council in particular, which the supreme authority on matters of doctrinal truth.[/quote]​

What could possibly be another reliable source of divine revelation? Constantelos asserts in his book Understanding the Greek Orthodox Church: “Holy Tradition and Holy Scriptures [are] viewed as two sides of the same coin.” But are they?
Yes. Do you imagine that all the Apostles' instructions about how to worship were found in the Bible? All of the Epistles were written to specific communities or people to discuss specific problems. The Bible doesn't tell us everything about how to worship. How do we know how the early Christians worshipped, how they prayed, and what exactly they believed about Who it was that they were called to follow? We look at what the first Christians were saying. We look at archaeology and historical studies.
 

Shiranui117

Pronounced Shee-ra-noo-ee
Premium Member
In the middle of the second century C.E, professed Christians were defending their faith against Roman persecutors and heretics alike. Religious debates regarding the “divinity” of Jesus and the nature and workings of the holy spirit caused more than just intellectual rifts. Bitter disagreements and irreparable divisions over “Christian” doctrine spilled over into the political and cultural spheres, at times causing riots, rebellion, civil strife, even war.
Nothing new to me here. I can tell you in great detail about many of these things off the top of my head.

The core Catholic “Holy Tradition” includes the teachings and writings of the Church Fathers. They were prominent theologians and “Christian” philosophers who lived between the second and fifth centuries C.E. How much have they influenced modern “Christian” thought?
They introduced the concept of Biblical commentaries. Despite your enormous differences with the Church Fathers in terms of theology and eschatology, you owe a great deal to the Church Fathers for how you interpret the Bible. Do you view anything in the Old Testament as a typology for something in the New Testament? You owe that to the Fathers. Do you look at the creation stories of Genesis and see great spiritual wisdom hidden below the literal physical meaning? You owe that to the Fathers. I'm willing to bet cash money and my right ear that if you read St. John Chrysostom's commentaries on various books in the Old Testament, you would find yourself nodding in agreement at just about every word.

Did they hold faithfully to the Bible in their teaching? What should be the solid basis of Christian truth for a follower of Jesus Christ?
The Bible and the life of the Church, which is the pillar and ground of the truth (1 Timothy 3:15).

The central and eastern Mediterranean in the first and second centuries C.E. swarmed with an infinite multitude of religious ideas, struggling to gain acceptance. From the start, then, there were numerous varieties of Christianity which had little in common. What do we see today?

Writers and thinkers of that period, who felt that it was imperative to interpret “Christian” teachings using philosophical terms began to flourish.
And despite the overwhelming odds, the Church Fathers all agree with one another about Who Christ is, how to worship, how the Church should be structured, what the place of baptism is, the nature of the Eucharist, and the place of the Bible in the Church. They may have quibbled a bit about a few issues of church discipline, such as how to receive apostate Christians back into the Church, but in terms of doctrine, they are all of one accord.

To satisfy educated pagans who were new converts to “Christianity,” such religious writers relied heavily on earlier Greek and Jewish literature. Beginning with Justin Martyr (c. 100-165 C.E.), who wrote in Greek, professed Christians became increasingly sophisticated in their assimilation of the philosophical heritage of the Greek culture, drifting away from the Bible.
So Christians develop a robust repertoire of defenses of the Faith and of the Bible, and you call that drifting away from the Bible? If you want to make the hill you're standing more defensible, you cut down the surrounding trees and use the wood to create fortifications. That's what Christians did by adapting our apologetics to the intellectual vocabulary of the day. I can almost guarantee without even knowing that the Jehovah's Witnesses also adapt their presentation of the Bible to use terminology with which people would be familiar, rather than using your own set of lingo which no one but you understands. That is, assuming you guys know the first thing about public speaking.

Please tell me where they would have gleaned this idea from scripture? Probably from the same people who told them that unbaptized babies would go to hell. In the NT, those who embraced Christianity were baptized without delay.
The Fathers were asking the very same question and making the very same points. This is exactly why they worked to educate lay Christians in the truth of the matter.

Because "self-control" was a fruit of God's spirit, no one had to worry about acting in an unchristian manner and being "hopelessly doomed" because they failed follow the teachings of Jesus Christ. They relied on God to help them refrain from doing what God condemned. Even God's own son relied on God to get him through the hard times.

Baptized or not, sin is sin. Those who sin with a knowledge of God and scripture are doubly accountable....condemning themselves.

Hebrews 10:26-27:
"For if we practice sin willfully after having received the accurate knowledge of the truth, there is no longer any sacrifice for sins left, 27 but there is a certain fearful expectation of judgment and a burning indignation that is going to consume those in opposition."

No excuses. If the apostles knew this why didn't the church teach it?
So wait, are you saying that it IS possible to defile your baptism and screw yourself permanently out of salvation without hope of recovery, or that it isn't? I'm confused. Because the teaching of the Church is that there is forgiveness of sins, as many times as we return to God in repentance, baptized or not.

As I have said many times.....it matters not what you idolize....whatever shape, if an image becomes something used in your worship....it is wrong. But to adopt something that was used by worshippers of false gods and cherish something with such grubby roots is IMO, to offend the God who told you not to use images in the first place.
…So your opposition to Jesus being crucified on a cross is due to fears that Jesus was crucified on something which you view as purely a pagan symbol, and not due to any archaeological or historical evidence that He was, in fact, crucified on a stake. Duly noted.

Psalm 115:2-8 describes the situation well I think....
No, that describes idols, things that are worshipped. We never worship icons, not even icons of Christ.

The original temple was built at God's command and to his specifications.
The Tabernacle was built to His specifications. The Temple in 1 Kings wasn't. There is a big difference there.
 

Faithofchristian

Well-Known Member
First of all God gave Moses the blue prints to build the temple.
In Exodus Chapters 25 - 27.

Then in the book of 1 kings chapter 6 king Solomon began to build the house of God.
 

Shiranui117

Pronounced Shee-ra-noo-ee
Premium Member
First of all God gave Moses the blue prints to build the temple.
In Exodus Chapters 25 - 27.

Then in the book of 1 kings chapter 6 king Solomon began to build the house of God.
Again, the Tabernacle was not the Temple. The Temple replaced the Tabernacle. Many of the furnishings were moved from the Tabernacle to the Temple (such as the veil, the lampstands, the Ark, etc, which were the things detailed in Exodus 25-27.) but otherwise, the towering cherubim mentioned in 1 Kings 6:23-28, and all the decorations in the walls of the Temple mentioned in 1 Kings 6:29-35 were Solomon's own creation.
 

Faithofchristian

Well-Known Member
Again, the Tabernacle was not the Temple. The Temple replaced the Tabernacle. Many of the furnishings were moved from the Tabernacle to the Temple (such as the veil, the lampstands, the Ark, etc, which were the things detailed in Exodus 25-27.) but otherwise, the towering cherubim mentioned in 1 Kings 6:23-28, and all the decorations in the walls of the Temple mentioned in 1 Kings 6:29-35 were Solomon's own creation.

Those were not of Solomon's own creation.
Have you not read in 1 kings chapter 5 how God gave unto Solomon to build his house.

1 kings 5:5--"And, behold, I purpose to build an house unto the name of the Lord my God, As the Lord spake unto David my father, saying, Your son , whom I will set upon your throne in your room, he shall be ideal an house unto my name"

Therefore God gave unto Solomon to build the house. And then in chapter 6 Solomon built the house of his God. As God gave unto Solomon to build his house.
 

Shiranui117

Pronounced Shee-ra-noo-ee
Premium Member
Those were not of Solomon's own creation.
Have you not read in 1 kings chapter 5 how God gave unto Solomon to build his house.

1 kings 5:5--"And, behold, I purpose to build an house unto the name of the Lord my God, As the Lord spake unto David my father, saying, Your son , whom I will set upon your throne in your room, he shall be ideal an house unto my name"

Therefore God gave unto Solomon to build the house. And then in chapter 6 Solomon built the house of his God. As God gave unto Solomon to build his house.
God gave Solomon the go-ahead to build the Temple, but 1 Kings 5:5 doesn't mention any account of God telling Solomon how to build the Temple.
 
Top