Throw out that cross

You know what is amazing? Some of these "Bible scholars" can quote the Bible backwards and forwards, tell you the different theological stands, the history behind the various interpretations, and even know Hebrew and Greek -- but the book itself is something they have locked out of their hearts.

"Professing to be wise....."

 

Matthew 16
17 Jesus answered and said to him, “Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jonah, for flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but My Father who is in heaven.

1 Corinthians 2
13 These things we also speak, not in words which man’s wisdom teaches but which the Holy Spirit teaches, comparing spiritual things with spiritual. 14 But the natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; nor can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.

2 Timothy 4
3 For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine, but according to their own desires, because they have itching ears, they will heap up for themselves teachers; 4 and they will turn their ears away from the truth, and be turned aside to fables. 5 But you be watchful in all things, endure afflictions, do the work of an evangelist, fulfill your ministry.

Unless God Himself reveals scripture, people will use it to make it mean whatever they want it to mean.

 

I think it even goes beyond that, James. They are refusing to give to the Bible the respect they give to all other literature, even as literature. For instance: they refuse to take it on its own terms; they dispute its historical record; they dispute its scientific record; they dispute its theological message -- it's a clear and present danger to their chosen way of thinking, so they literally insult it the way they would do no other piece of literature.

So it is not just a matter of it not being revealed to them, but of them consciously and systematically trashing it any way possible.

 

Agreed. They're sure gonna have a hard time explaining their actions. It'll probably go something like,
"Lord... Lord... did we not cast out demons in your name..."

 

Some years ago, Billy Graham was preaching in Vancouver, British Columbia. A University of BC professor struck up a conversation with Dr. Graham about becoming a Christian. The professor remarked, "If he became a Christian, he would have to change too much of his lifestyle." I just wonder if that isn't the crux of the matter? We have to change too much!

The way around it is to modify the word and create exegetical gymnastics to justify the modifications.

Cheers,

Jim

 

I have had a few different people suggest that it was a stake rather than a cross. And that Christian Symbolism is basically pagan.

I dont agree. It seems to me that He was crucified on a Cross rather than a stake. basic roman history tells us that.

The Celtic church had a number of symbols signifing spirituality. I would be concerned about sitting around making up new symbols in order to be more relevant / popular to the community.

Ultimatley the church is the people in the building, not the building and all of its associated regalia. Those who dont know Jesus need Love and Friendship from the Christian community. Not some new multi-media presentation.

 

Greetings all,

It clearly states in the book of Matthew chapter 27 verse 40.

40. And saying, Thou that destroyest the temple, and buildest it in three days, save thyself. If thou be the Son of God, come down from the cross.

Matthew 10:38

38. And he that taketh not his cross, and followeth after me is not worthy of me.

John 19:17

17. And he bearing the cross went forth into a place called the place of a skull, which is called in the Hebrew Golgotha;

1 Corinthinans 1:17-18

17. For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel: not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of none effect.
18. For the preaching of the cross is to htem that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God.

Galatians 5:11

11. And I, brethren, if I yet preach circumcision, why do I yet suffer persecution? then is the offence of the cross ceased.

 

I have had a few different people suggest that it was a stake rather than a cross.

Even if it was, what does it matter? Some think it was possibly a crossbeam, not an entire cross. Some say he was crucified on a full cross, but carried just the crossbeam. Some say he carried the whole cross, beam and post intact.

To me it's one of those "were the nail holes in the palms, or wrists" arguements, which, while making interesting conversation, doesn't have significance on the outcome of the Gospel, and doesn't compromise Jesus' divine or historic outcome.

It's interesting to note, however, that the cross has not always been the prevailing Christian symbol. It has been for hundreds of years. But for a while, it was a pentagram, and early on in the Christian movement, it was the icthus (fish). While the ichthus is still around in some circles, the pentagram is typically associated with the Christmas season.

 

The Worldwide Church of God and its Splinter groups that follow the teachings of Herbert Armstrong along with the Jehovahs witnesses also teach that it was a stake rather than a cross.

 

I know this is a bit off topic, but its in response to the Worldwide Church of God.

The Worldwide Church of God initially followed the teachings of Herb Armstrong. However, at least a few scholars (Walter Martin, Daniel Akins) confess that after his(Armstrong's) death, the Worldwide Church of God has come out of the cults and into Christian Orthodoxy. Its a great example of how God can move in the cults.

I don't know if they still hold to a stake philosophy, but I don't think that they should be lumped with Jehovah's Witnesses.