Did Jesus Die on the Cross?

[James the Persian]

well for me i feel it would be offensive to the Almighty to use symbols in my worship but everyone to their owni just dont need them
1 Cor. 10:14: "My beloved ones, flee from idolatry." (An idol is an image or symbol that is an object of intense devotion, veneration, or worship.)

Thanks for the attempted language lesson, but an idol is actually an object that is worshipped as a god. Venerating something or someone is quite different from worship (and I'm not talking about the theological justifications here - the word has a different meaning) and devotion likewise is a weird thing to associate with idols. I'm devoted to my wife, child and even my cat - none of them are God. Are they idols? I've known people who are devoted to their cars, if you want an inanimate object - is that an idol? It seems to me that you are deliberately trying to broaden the definition of idolatry so that you can condemn all those (like Christians who wear crosses) that you disagree with. That's an impressively sectarian attitude.

James

 

[TashaN]

I'm devoted to my wife, child and even my cat - none of them are God. Are they idols? I've known people who are devoted to their cars, if you want an inanimate object - is that an idol? It seems to me that you are deliberately trying to broaden the definition of idolatry so that you can condemn all those (like Christians who wear crosses) that you disagree with. That's an impressively sectarian attitude.

James

* you are devoted to your wife and child because your intention is to love them and to care about them.

the one who devoted to thier cars it's just because they use thier cars and it's like a percious thing they bought.

but when you wear this cross and believe in it so that means you are seeking help through this cross and you are trying to reach to God through this cross and here is the thing that may wanted to tell and this is the thing that made it at the same level as an idol.(the intention of wearing it)

 

[Scott1]

but when you wear this cross and believe in it so that means you are seeking help through this cross and you are trying to reach to God through this cross and here is the thing that may wanted to tell and this is the thing that made it at the same level as an idol.(the intention of wearing it)

Nope... not even close... it's just a piece of jewlery... I've thrown several away in my lifetime... I would never suffer that treatment to an instrument used to "reach" God... it is a physical reminder (for me at least)... no more, no less.

Peace be with you,
Scott

 

[James the Persian]

Nope... not even close... it's just a piece of jewlery... I've thrown several away in my lifetime... I would never suffer that treatment to an instrument used to "reach" God... it is a physical reminder (for me at least)... no more, no less.

Peace be with you,
Scott

I agree completely.

James

 

[may]

Of interest is this comment in the New Catholic Encyclopedia: "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 Passion."—(1967), Vol. IV, p. 486

 

[James the Persian]

Of interest is this comment in the New Catholic Encyclopedia: "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 Passion."—(1967), Vol. IV, p. 486

Well, I don't find this terribly convincing. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence and, given the persecutions and their deliberate destruction of Christian homes, churches and liturgical items, it's not surprising that there should be little evidence left from the first few centuries (I'm not arguing here that they did use crosses, only that the evidence available does not settle the issue one way or the other). Certainly, the cross is mentioned in a liturgical setting by the early 3rd century (which seems pretty early to me).

It also seems to be stretching somewhat to attribute a lack of evidence for early Christian crosses to an unwillingness to create 'graven images'. There are early examples of Christian art, for instance in Rome's catacombs, that date to the first couple of centuries (though I admit that I know of no crosses) and the contemporary synagogue at Duros Europa (I hope, I'm not quite sure I've remembered the name quite correctly) is frescoed throughout. If early Christian era Jews saw no problem with such depictions, why should Christians have done so?

Of course, we'll probably never know if/what art the early Christians used as so little remains from the period of the persecutions and the last - Diocletian's - was particularly severe and destructive. I'm also pretty sure that the early and persecuted Christians had more important things on their mind than art and so I wouldn't be surprised to find they didn't produce much in the first place. You can't, however, make conclusions based purely on lack of evidence and so in this both sides of the argument are merely speculating.

James

 

[may]

Yes as you mentioned ,the cross came into the church later .which leaves us with the question

Does it really make any difference if a person cherishes a cross, as long as he does not worship it?

How would we feel if one of our dearest friends was executed on the basis of false charges? Would we make a replica of the instrument of execution? Would wecherish it, or would we rather shun it?

 

[James the Persian]

Yes as you mentioned ,the cross came into the church later .

I didn't say that. You're starting to develop a habit of reading what you want to see into my answers to you. What I actually said is that there is very little evidence of depictions of the cross in the early centuries (they do certainly spring up pretty rapidly as soon as the persecutions stop, though, which I feel is significant), but that the lack of evidence cannot be used to make valid conclusions as to either the use or otherwise of crosses during the pre-Constantinian period. I will say this again as clearly as I can: Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Trite, I know, but true nonetheless.

James

 

[may]

I didn't say that. You're starting to develop a habit of reading what you want to see into my answers to you. What I actually said is that there is very little evidence of depictions of the cross in the early centuries (they do certainly spring up pretty rapidly as soon as the persecutions stop, though, which I feel is significant), but that the lack of evidence cannot be used to make valid conclusions as to either the use or otherwise of crosses during the pre-Constantinian period. I will say this again as clearly as I can: Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Trite, I know, but true nonetheless.

James

so ,,as you say there is very little evidence of depictions of the cross in the early centuries..........so the depictions are later on .i am not saying this is evidence but it is something to think about,if like me, i am trying to base my worhip on what the early christians did,and not on later thoughts

 

[James the Persian]

so ,,as you say there is very little evidence of depictions of the cross in the early centuries..........so the depictions are later on .i am not saying this is evidence but it is something to think about,if like me, i am trying to base my worhip on what the early christians did,and not on later thoughts

In which case, surely you ought to be saying that they may or may not have used crosses, you simply don't know, and that therefore either using them or not should be up to the individual with neither position being condemened. At least, that would seem like a more logically consistent approach than excluding crosses because the evidence is insufficient for you to be certain that they were included.

James

 

[michel]

In which case, surely you ought to be saying that they may or may not have used crosses, you simply don't know, and that therefore either using them or not should be up to the individual with neither position being condemened. At least, that would seem like a more logically consistent approach than excluding crosses because the evidence is insufficient for you to be certain that they were included.

James

Heck, it's been crosses for me until now - I'm happy to stick with what I know.

 

[joeboonda]

* what if we found out there are many errors in the holy bible which makes this verse a fabricated verse?




This verse is the closest approximation to what the Christians call their Holy Trinity in the encyclopaedia called the BIBLE. This key-stone of the Christian faith has been scrapped from the RSV without even a semblance of explanation. It has been a pious fraud all along and well-deservedly has it been expunged in the RSV for the English-speaking people. But for the 1499 remaining language groups of the world who read the Christian concoctions in their mother tongues, the fraud remains. These people will never know the truth until the Day of Judgement.

You speak of I John 5:7 For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost, and these three are one.

It is in the King James, which used the Received Text, the text accepted by the majority of theologians. Even if you want to call it a fake verse, the ENTIRE bible talks of God as being in more than one form. I think of water, ice, vapor, 3 in 1.

Genisis 1:26 And God said let US make man in our own image...

I Timothy 3:16 And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: GOD was manifest in the FLESH, justified in the SPIRIT, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, RECEIVED UP INTO GLORY.

Ephesians 3:9 ...which from the beginning of the world hath been hid in God, who created all things by Jesus Christ:

John 1:1-5, 9-14 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made. In him was life; and the life was the light of men. And the light shineth in the darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not. That was the true Light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world. He was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not. He came unto his own, and his own received him not. But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name: Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God. And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth.

Colossians 1:12-20 Giving thanks unto the Father, which hath made us meet to be partakers of the inheritance of the saints in light; Who hath delivered us from the power of darkness, and hath translated us into the kingdom of his dear SON; In whom we have redemption THROUGH HIS BLOOD even the FORGIVENESS OF SINS. Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature; For by HIM were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers; all things were created by him, and for him; and he is before all things, and by HIM all things consist. For it pleased the Father that in HIM should all fullness dwell; And, having made peace through the blood of his cross, by him to reconcile all things unto himself;

Now if you read the Old Testament, you will find God filling someone with his Holy Spirit, and in the New, you will find that all who trust Christ are sealed, indwelt, and gifted by the Holy Spirit. There are so many verses, time does not permit, but the whole Bible is soaked with the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, and these three ARE one according to the Bible as read on the whole or by the verse, it is saturated with this doctrine. Now if you do not believe in the old or new testament, then that is to bad.

I will take the eyewitness accounts and books of people who were around to see Jesus' works and hear his words, and see him die, and see him alive again for 40 days. I will accept the Old Testament teaching that Isaac was the son that Abraham was willing to sacrifice, not Ishmael as Islam says. Our oldest old testament manuscripts once were only from around 1100a.d. but now we found the dead sea scrolls which are much older, and guess who Abraham was willing to sacrifice, it was still Isaac. All through the Old Testament it speaks of a suffering Messiah that would be called Emmanuel, meaning God with us. There are 100's of old testament prophecies telling of the coming of The Son of God, who would suffer to pay for our sins, Jesus himself said that was why he came, to fulfill scripture, But he is coming again in great glory, so be sure of yourself, of what you do with Jesus, because there is no other one who paid for your sins but him, and rose from the dead to prove it. I will not put more verses, read the Bible for yourself, and decide, and God bless you.

 

[jewscout]

Genisis 1:26 And God said let US make man in our own image...

there is much commentary on these opening verses, though i do not believe it is talking about G-d in a concept of having more than one part or form

Now if you read the Old Testament, you will find God filling someone with his Holy Spirit...

for G-d's presence to descend upon someone and for that presence (refered to as the Shechinah in Judaism) to be a divisible part of the One G-d is, again, debateable (sp)

There are 100's of old testament prophecies telling of the coming of The Son of God, who would suffer to pay for our sins...

again an issue that is up for some debate and is really a matter of personal and religious interpretation, not set in stone facts

but then that's just my personal opinion...i could be wrong

 

[joeboonda]

There ARE hundreds of prophecies of Christ in the Old Testament, 27 of which were fulfilled at his death, very specific, too, and many he , if only a man, would have no control over, like that he would be born in bethlehem, of the line of David, the line of Isaac, etc. You not only could be wrong, but are wrong, study the old testament prophecies of Jesus, I have listed a few before, but there is plenty of info available.

 

[jewscout]

You not only could be wrong, but are wrong, study the old testament prophecies of Jesus

riiiiiiiight
joe with all do respect i think we will find that our interpretations of what you believe to be prophetic writings talking specifically about Jesus are going to be very very different.

 

[Radar]

To put it quite simply, he didn't .

As for whats-his-name that took his place, I'm not sure that it really matters too much. Guy gets killed on piece of wood, people go "Holy crap!"

:biglaugh: Now that is funny and so true :biglaugh:

 

[michel]

riiiiiiiight
joe with all do respect i think we will find that our interpretations of what you believe to be prophetic writings talking specifically about Jesus are going to be very very different.

I'm not sure who you meant when you said 'our interpretations', but if you study the OT prophecies and don't see Jesus in it, then your going against the counsel of your own high priest, who, if he were here posting right now, would say to you: YE KNOW NOTHING AT ALL.

THEN GATHERED THE CHIEF PRIESTS AND THE PHARISEES A COUNCIL, AND SAID, WHAT DO WE? FOR THIS MAN DOETH MANY MIRACLES. IF WE LET HIM THUS ALONE, ALL MEN WILL BELIEVE ON HIM: AND THE ROMANS SHALL COME AND TAKE AWAY BOTH OUR PLACE AND NATION. AND ONE OF THEM, NAMED CAIAPHAS, BEING THE HIGH PRIEST THAT SAME YEAR, SAID UNTO THEM, YE KNOW NOTHING AT ALL, NOR CONSIDER THAT IT IS EXPEDIENT FOR US, THAT ONE MAN SHOULD DIE FOR THE PEOPLE, AND THAT THE WHOLE NATION PERISH NOT. AND THIS SPAKE HE NOT OF HIMSELF: BUT BEING HIGH PRIEST THAT YEAR, HE PROPHESIED THAT JESUS SHOULD DIE FOR THAT NATION; AND NOT FOR THAT NATION ONLY, BUT THAT ALSO HE SHOULD GATHER TOGETHER IN ONE THE CHILDREN OF GOD THAT WERE SCATTERED ABROAD. THEN FROM THAT DAY FORTH THEY TOOK COUNSEL TOGETHER FOR TO PUT HIM TO DEATH. - (John 11:47-53)

Your own high priest knew it, Jewscout, do you?

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Your own high priest knew it, Jewscout, do you?

Or, conversely, Paul was an anti-Judaic jerk spinning absurd 2nd-hand fabrications about something purported to have happened decades earlier.

 

[michel]

Or, conversely, Paul was an anti-Judaic jerk spinning absurd 2nd-hand fabrications about something purported to have happened decades earlier.

LOLOL --- try John --- not Paul --- your wit strikes before your research does.

 

[jewscout]

I'm not sure who you meant when you said 'our interpretations'

meaning how i interpret things and how joe would interpret things...

...then your going against the counsel of your own high priest...

that's funny because those same high priests of the Temple were the ones who set the stage for later Judaism, which doesn't accept Jesus as the Moshiach ben David:sarcastic

Your own high priest knew it, Jewscout, do you?

this based on writings set down long after the events of jesus took place and meant to undermine, ostracize and persecute the Jews and Judaism

have you seen the temple mount recently? If he's the Moshiach where's the Temple? What about that prophecy?:sarcastic
but the question of the nature of what Jesus was or wasn't is for another thread i believe.