Crucifix

I see your point, Ed. Although you don't have this picture (http://www.anderson.edu/sallman/garden.html) in your building, would you hang it if someone gave you a nice framed print? If not, would you hang any picture in your building? Maybe a rendition of Da Vinci's The Last Supper? And if two dimensional pictures are OK, what is wrong with three dimensional statues? Is it that statues are "graven images" and pictures are not? Not trying to bait anyone, just curious about your thoughts on this.

 

Explain this away now,

 

What false accusation would that be, relying scripture? I posted scripture, you wrote it off.

You have not addressed this,

I don't expect much, as thats what you usually give.

 

If you had read my posts, I have already addressed. I have never said a "cross" is an image of God. That is a false accusation. Quote me where I have said that. That is where I demand that you use quotes. Otherwise you sit there and make false accusations without proof. Is this your manner of debate?

 

Donna, Check my answer here:
http://www.baptistboard.com/showpost.php?p=1220924&postcount=34

 

Well I have a necklace which is a fish with the cross in the middle and I never take it off It reminds me how the Lord worked in my life and the fish to me reminds me to keep swimming no matter how bad things get.

 

I guess I would say this is OK so far as I can tell. And someone has already correctly noted that the cross is not the same as a "crucifix", with which distinction, I fully agree.

We do have an 'artwork' of 'Christ', done by, Joe Castillo, a long time friend of mine, that I bought my bride for a present, one time. The artwork is actually several Biblical 'scenes', that taken together, resemble the traditional picture of Christ, very much. Does that picture qualify as a "likeness", in your mind? Does the "Sand Art" done by Joe Castillo, in his presentations of the gospel message, equal a "carved image"?

(Anyone?? How about the stained glass mosaic windows of many churches that feature versions of Biblical scenes, including the Lord Jesus Christ? Are these by your definitions, "idols"? I don't know but would like to hear your answers.)

A 3 minute "clip" of Joe drawing the above can be seen here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lRjDQhNmzK0

The cross is wrong by association?? C'mon. How can one say that? Nothing is more properly associated with the Lord Jesus, than is the cross on which He died for your and my sins, and the empty tomb from which He arose, not even the manger where He lay, nor the land or sea on which He walked and sailed. And it is properly associated with us as followers of Christ, as well. Here are just a few of the verses that speak to this. (All NKJV)

Just because someone misuses "the cross", does not, in any way, mean that we should not "associate" its proper use and meaning.

For that matter, was the instrument of torture of the Lord even a "cross" that resembles a giant letter "T" or "t"? That may be what comes to mind, but was it necessarily that? We are nowhere told what it looked like. (And in fact, the Bible does not give any of the actual details of events of the physical act of crucifixion of the Lord, save the crown of thorns, two offerings of 'drink' and that his side was pierced, after he was dead, and the blood and water ensued. Even the 'nails' that were mentioned only by Thomas, were only spoken after Lord was risen. The Bible merely says "crucify" or "stauroO".) Biblically, it was a "stauros" (wood, a 'stake') or "Xulon" (tree). The "shape" of the cross could be anywhere as varied as a giant "l", "T", "t", "+" "X", or "Y", or anything in between, and could have been nothing more than an actual tree, with some of branches cut off. (There are historical references to all of these types, to be found.) I have even heard one person offer that it may have actually been a thorn tree, and the thorns that were removed, were only enough to allow this to be lifted into the socket in the ground, and the body nailed to it, without injury to the soldiers, thus multiplying the agony of the Lord, and making the crucifixion even many times more gruesome than we normally see it. Picture these poisonous thorns cutting into his back, which had already been ripped apart by the "cat o' nine tails" scourging, arms, hips and legs, to see what I mean.

But I could never say that "The cross is wrong by association.", but would say that "There is nothing more right, by asociation, for the Christian, than is the cross."

Ed

 

And at least in this much I will not argue with you, brother, but agree to disagree. That is the beauty of soul liberty (a doctrine which the Catholics so dearly hate).

 

Sorry, don't visit often enough and when I come back there are a gazillion posts. Most Christians have seen that image. I think all those with a conviction about having no images of Christ need to give much grace and act with much patience with their brethren who do not share that conviction.

I know folks who have an issue with a cross let alone an image of Christ. I, at this point, fail to see how the cross breaks the Law of God in making an image of God.

However, I believe all attempted images of Christ do violate the Law of God in making an image of Him. Jesus Christ is to be held up for all to see in the preaching of the Word of God. Because many churches do participate with the promotion of images doesn't make it right.