DescentBB

Has anybody ever done research on this particular topic? I thought it was rather interesting when I happened to stumble across it. Figured it might be an interesting discussion considering the background of many of you guys here.

http://www.thewordsofeternallife.com/cross.html

Why would it matter?

Crosses took several forms. wiki But they all had the same general purpose and end result.

The cross certainly could have been the shape that the church has traditionally attributed to it, but it might have been different. I'm not certain why it is signifigant.

WHATEVER the actual shape of the cross was, we must not treat it as an idol, so the entire pagan symbol issue simply doesn't enter into it. The cross WAS a pagan symbol. Whatever its shape, it was the roman symbol for punishment of criminals.

WHATEVER the actual shape of the cross was, we must not treat it as an idol, so the entire pagan symbol issue simply doesn't enter into it

So Christians can take ANYTHING, even though if it was considered disgusting to Christianity, and convert it to a Christian symbol and apply their own meaning to it?

Admiral Thrawn wrote:So Christians can take ANYTHING, even though if it was considered disgusting to Christianity, and convert it to a Christian symbol and apply their own meaning to it?

What I said had 3 basic parts.
1: The cross could have been any of several shapes, the traditional cross, a capitol T shape, an X shape, or even just a single pole (although this last option seems the least likely).
We can't say for certain which symbol it was, so it doesn't really matter which one is used in Christian art. There are LOTS of details we do not know for certain about Christs life, as long as what an artist uses doesn't contradict the biblical account, I don't see much room for Christians to complain.

2: The ten commandments warn strictly against idolatry of any form. Whether the traditional cross is pictured correctly or not is unimportant for this issue. We are not to treat it as an idol.

3: The cross, WHATEVER its form was, WAS a pagan symbol that meant horrible things. EVERYONE of the time period knew that a cross was "the emblem of suffering and shame". That point is beyond dispute. And yet, from the very earliest (arguably, from even BEFORE the crucifixion) the church chose to take that cross as a symbol and "its shame and reproach gladly bear".
Again, the inevitable conclusion must be that whatever pagan imagery the cross had previously, Christ gave it new meaning.

Symbols are not magic, they are just symbols. Some symbols still retain bad meanings, other symbols meanings have changed over time, or can even be deliberatly changed. Judging between the good and the bad requires the discerning of spirits (and a good dose of common sense)

Kilarin wrote: 3: The cross, WHATEVER its form was, WAS a pagan symbol that meant horrible things. EVERYONE of the time period knew that a cross was "the emblem of suffering and shame". That point is beyond dispute. And yet, from the very earliest (arguably, from even BEFORE the crucifixion) the church chose to take that cross as a symbol and "its shame and reproach gladly bear".
Again, the inevitable conclusion must be that whatever pagan imagery the cross had previously, Christ gave it new meaning.

Christ's use of the Roman means of execution as a metaphor is without dispute. His statement continues in verse 24:

"For whosoever will save his life shall lose it: but whosoever will lose his life for my sake, the same shall save it."

He is stressing self-sacrifice, sacrifice even unto death, for those who really want to serve God. He is not adopting a pagan symbol, he his using the popular, and very public, Roman form of execution as a metaphor.

This is quite different from creating icons of metal to wear around your neck as a religous symbol .