Re: [TruthTalk] The cross of Christ
It's the 'left hand/right hand' thingy, DM. When I've heard from Judy concerning her daughter's plight (recently) or from Iz, concerning a block party (some time back), I see them as accounts of a different order. Believe me, DM, your 'light' is there for all to see. When not seen, you usually draw our attention to it so, not to worry about that. - Original Message - From: David Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: January 02, 2006 14:18 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] The cross of Christ Lance wrote: When the Mormons speak of 'a historical christ', David, they speak of THEIR HISTORICAL CHRIST. I think you are letting your bias and sectarianism get in the way. How many historical Christ's have their been? Do you really think the Mormons are speaking historically of someone other than Jesus of Nazareth? Lance wrote: Why is it, David, that you are inclined to 'trumpet' your good works? However, in spite of sounding a bit full of yourself, I have every confidence that all who benefitted from that which was done by you and your family are better for it. I guess I should have known better, Lance. However, I only shared the last few days of blessings, hoping to demonstrate to you that I have no reason to be ticked or angry. Sharing a small portion of my last few days is hardly being inclined to trumpet my good works. How sad it is that I cannot share any kind of praise report in this forum without fear of being rebuked for having Pharisaical inclinations toward self promotion and aggrandizement. For your sake, the good Lord willing, I will henceforth try to remember to remain silent concerning such good works (I don't think of them as such), but I do kind of wonder if this amounts to putting my candle under a bushel. Did not Jesus teach us the following? Matthew 5:14-16 (14) Ye are the light of the world. A city that is set on an hill cannot be hid. (15) Neither do men light a candle, and put it under a bushel, but on a candlestick; and it giveth light unto all that are in the house. (16) Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father which is in heaven. Peace be with you. David Miller. -- Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man. (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed. -- Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man. (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.
Re: [TruthTalk] The cross of Christ
David Miller wrote: The use of CE for a date kind of gives away their bias, doesn't it. :-) DAVEH: The way you said that, it somewhat implies you think you have no biases, DavidM. :-\ I'm biased toward naming our centuries after Christ our Creator. Any other bias is the wrong bias to have. :-) The theologians who adopted this CE (Common Era) and BCE (Before Common Era) in an effort not to offend non-Christians have done a great disservice to Jesus Christ, in my opinion. I say, let those who are offended at the name of Jesus Christ be damned. I think God has that perspective too. Peace be with you. David Miller. -- Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man. (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.
Re: [TruthTalk] The cross of Christ
Offended at the 'name' of WHICH JESUS CHRIST, DavidM? The Mormon jesus seems to cause you little offence! A 'word which you cannot in all good conscience repeat' does seem to. Kinda wacky. - Original Message - From: David Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: January 02, 2006 09:57 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] The cross of Christ David Miller wrote: The use of CE for a date kind of gives away their bias, doesn't it. :-) DAVEH: The way you said that, it somewhat implies you think you have no biases, DavidM. :-\ I'm biased toward naming our centuries after Christ our Creator. Any other bias is the wrong bias to have. :-) The theologians who adopted this CE (Common Era) and BCE (Before Common Era) in an effort not to offend non-Christians have done a great disservice to Jesus Christ, in my opinion. I say, let those who are offended at the name of Jesus Christ be damned. I think God has that perspective too. Peace be with you. David Miller. -- Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man. (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed. -- Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man. (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.
Re: [TruthTalk] The cross of Christ
Lance wrote: Offended at the 'name' of WHICH JESUS CHRIST, DavidM? The Mormon jesus seems to cause you little offence! I'm talking about the NAME Christ. Mormons use the same name, Lance, or haven't you noticed? Peace be with you. David Miller -- Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man. (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.
Re: [TruthTalk] The cross of Christ
Syntax/Semantics, DavidM. When the NAME is employed, it is filled out with a meaning. If your meaning and theirs (the Mormons) is one and the same then, that's your problem. Watch that anger, DavidM. - Original Message - From: David Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: January 02, 2006 11:11 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] The cross of Christ Lance wrote: Offended at the 'name' of WHICH JESUS CHRIST, DavidM? The Mormon jesus seems to cause you little offence! I'm talking about the NAME Christ. Mormons use the same name, Lance, or haven't you noticed? Peace be with you. David Miller -- Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man. (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed. -- Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man. (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.
Re: [TruthTalk] The cross of Christ
Lance wrote: Syntax/Semantics, DavidM. When the NAME is employed, it is filled out with a meaning. If your meaning and theirs (the Mormons) is one and the same then, that's your problem. In regards to our date system, when I say BC or AD, I think we are talking about the same historical person named Jesus Christ. Do you see it differently? Lance wrote: Watch that anger, DavidM. Are you upset today, Lance? What anger are you talking about? I'm having a very wonderful, peace filled, Christ centered day, thank you. Peace be with you. David Miller. -- Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man. (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.
Re: [TruthTalk] The cross of Christ
IFF BC/AD/BCE as employed by Mormon/Christian are absent CONTENT then, indeed you are correct. IMO, no word is employed without content, DavidM, therefore, you are INCORRECT. Y'all sound a little testy, David. That's why I mentioned anger. - Original Message - From: David Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: January 02, 2006 11:42 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] The cross of Christ Lance wrote: Syntax/Semantics, DavidM. When the NAME is employed, it is filled out with a meaning. If your meaning and theirs (the Mormons) is one and the same then, that's your problem. In regards to our date system, when I say BC or AD, I think we are talking about the same historical person named Jesus Christ. Do you see it differently? Lance wrote: Watch that anger, DavidM. Are you upset today, Lance? What anger are you talking about? I'm having a very wonderful, peace filled, Christ centered day, thank you. Peace be with you. David Miller. -- Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man. (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed. -- Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man. (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.
Re: [TruthTalk] The cross of Christ
Lance wrote: IFF BC/AD/BCE as employed by Mormon/Christian are absent CONTENT then, indeed you are correct. IMO, no word is employed without content, DavidM, therefore, you are INCORRECT. When the Mormons speak about the historical Christ, are they talking about a different person? I don't think so. Where we differ is in the same way that we differ with many in Christianity, concerning what was Jesus like, what is he like now, and how does he live through us by the power of the Holy Spirit. Lance wrote: Y'all sound a little testy, David. That's why I mentioned anger. Maybe you are having a little trouble reading between the lines. I am not testy in the least. My oldest daughter Christine is home from college for a few weeks. I love my family. She and her sisters accompanied me to the nursing home yesterday and performed a small concert for the residents on Cello, Viola, and Violin. What a blessing. I love it when my family is a blessing to others. I taught the Word of God afterward and prayed for them, receiving much positive feedback and words of appreciation. I received a phone call from a thankful man who was homeless that I had helped more than a year ago. He thanked me for saving his life and helping him, and told me how he was helping someone else because of what I had done for him. This other person was crying, not understanding why he would help so much, and he told the story about me helping him. Hallelujah for good soil. Then another man called who is presently homeless, but who has stayed at my home several times. He asked for me to come visit him in the hospital, which I did, helping him with some money and praying for him. I also received a phone call from an old college friend yesterday who spent some time first talking to Christine. After talking to her, he unloaded on me with a whole bunch of compliments about what a wonderful a person my daughter is. You can imagine how great that made me feel. This morning is a brand new day, the start of a new year, and I am feeling very blessed. Some say that circumstances should not effect us, but I must admit that all these things have added to my joy today. Also, I am in remembrance of a vision I had nearly 28 years ago that concerned me at age 46, which will begin this year. I am not testy in the least. I'm excited and full of joy, looking forward to a wonderful year in Christ. Peace be with you. David Miller. -- Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man. (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.
Re: [TruthTalk] The cross of Christ
When the Mormons speak of 'a historical christ', David, they speak of THEIR HISTORICAL CHRIST. There's never a Kevin around when you need one. Perhaps CPL can advise you offline so as not to embarrass you. Why is it, David, that you are inclined to 'trumpet' your good works? However, in spite of sounding a bit full of yourself, I have every confidence that all who benefitted from that which was done by you and your family are better for it. - Original Message - From: David Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: January 02, 2006 12:16 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] The cross of Christ Lance wrote: IFF BC/AD/BCE as employed by Mormon/Christian are absent CONTENT then, indeed you are correct. IMO, no word is employed without content, DavidM, therefore, you are INCORRECT. When the Mormons speak about the historical Christ, are they talking about a different person? I don't think so. Where we differ is in the same way that we differ with many in Christianity, concerning what was Jesus like, what is he like now, and how does he live through us by the power of the Holy Spirit. Lance wrote: Y'all sound a little testy, David. That's why I mentioned anger. Maybe you are having a little trouble reading between the lines. I am not testy in the least. My oldest daughter Christine is home from college for a few weeks. I love my family. She and her sisters accompanied me to the nursing home yesterday and performed a small concert for the residents on Cello, Viola, and Violin. What a blessing. I love it when my family is a blessing to others. I taught the Word of God afterward and prayed for them, receiving much positive feedback and words of appreciation. I received a phone call from a thankful man who was homeless that I had helped more than a year ago. He thanked me for saving his life and helping him, and told me how he was helping someone else because of what I had done for him. This other person was crying, not understanding why he would help so much, and he told the story about me helping him. Hallelujah for good soil. Then another man called who is presently homeless, but who has stayed at my home several times. He asked for me to come visit him in the hospital, which I did, helping him with some money and praying for him. I also received a phone call from an old college friend yesterday who spent some time first talking to Christine. After talking to her, he unloaded on me with a whole bunch of compliments about what a wonderful a person my daughter is. You can imagine how great that made me feel. This morning is a brand new day, the start of a new year, and I am feeling very blessed. Some say that circumstances should not effect us, but I must admit that all these things have added to my joy today. Also, I am in remembrance of a vision I had nearly 28 years ago that concerned me at age 46, which will begin this year. I am not testy in the least. I'm excited and full of joy, looking forward to a wonderful year in Christ. Peace be with you. David Miller. -- Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man. (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed. -- Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man. (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.
Re: [TruthTalk] The cross of Christ
I used to be bothered by the use of CE instead of AD until I realized that it can also mean Christian Era. However, I still prefer and use AD. Wikipedia: Common Era, Current Era, or Christian Era (this year is 2006 CE). Merriam-Webster: chemical engineer, civil engineer, Christian Era -- often punctuated; Common Era -- often punctuated Dictionary.com: Com·mon Era n. Abbr. C.E. The period coinciding with the Christian era. Perry From: Lance Muir [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] The cross of Christ Date: Mon, 2 Jan 2006 11:51:13 -0500 IFF BC/AD/BCE as employed by Mormon/Christian are absent CONTENT then, indeed you are correct. IMO, no word is employed without content, DavidM, therefore, you are INCORRECT. Y'all sound a little testy, David. That's why I mentioned anger. - Original Message - From: David Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: January 02, 2006 11:42 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] The cross of Christ Lance wrote: Syntax/Semantics, DavidM. When the NAME is employed, it is filled out with a meaning. If your meaning and theirs (the Mormons) is one and the same then, that's your problem. In regards to our date system, when I say BC or AD, I think we are talking about the same historical person named Jesus Christ. Do you see it differently? Lance wrote: Watch that anger, DavidM. Are you upset today, Lance? What anger are you talking about? I'm having a very wonderful, peace filled, Christ centered day, thank you. Peace be with you. David Miller. -- Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man. (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed. -- Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man. (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed. -- Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man. (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.
Re: [TruthTalk] The cross of Christ
Lance wrote: When the Mormons speak of 'a historical christ', David, they speak of THEIR HISTORICAL CHRIST. I think you are letting your bias and sectarianism get in the way. How many historical Christ's have their been? Do you really think the Mormons are speaking historically of someone other than Jesus of Nazareth? Lance wrote: Why is it, David, that you are inclined to 'trumpet' your good works? However, in spite of sounding a bit full of yourself, I have every confidence that all who benefitted from that which was done by you and your family are better for it. I guess I should have known better, Lance. However, I only shared the last few days of blessings, hoping to demonstrate to you that I have no reason to be ticked or angry. Sharing a small portion of my last few days is hardly being inclined to trumpet my good works. How sad it is that I cannot share any kind of praise report in this forum without fear of being rebuked for having Pharisaical inclinations toward self promotion and aggrandizement. For your sake, the good Lord willing, I will henceforth try to remember to remain silent concerning such good works (I don't think of them as such), but I do kind of wonder if this amounts to putting my candle under a bushel. Did not Jesus teach us the following? Matthew 5:14-16 (14) Ye are the light of the world. A city that is set on an hill cannot be hid. (15) Neither do men light a candle, and put it under a bushel, but on a candlestick; and it giveth light unto all that are in the house. (16) Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father which is in heaven. Peace be with you. David Miller. -- Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man. (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.
Re: [TruthTalk] The cross of Christ
Do you have confidence in this vision? If not, I will understand. jd -- Original message -- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Why notshare that vision with us, now? If it proves to be 100% accurate, you would most definitely make a believer out of me as to your claim to be an apostle andprophet. jd -- Original message -- From: "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] When the Mormons speak of 'a historical christ', David, they speak of THEIR HISTORICAL CHRIST. There's never a Kevin around when you need one. Perhaps CPL can advise you offline so as not to embarrass you. Why is it, David, that you are inclined to 'trumpet' your good works? However, in spite of sounding a bit full of yourself, I have every confidence that all who benefitted from that which was done by you and your family are better for it.- Original Message - From: "David Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <TRUTHTALK@MAIL.INNGLORY.ORG> Sent: January 02, 2006 12:16 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] The cross of Christ Lance wrote: IFF BC/AD/BCE as employed by Mormon /Christian are absent CONTENT then, indeed you are correct. IMO, no word is employed without content, DavidM, therefore, you are INCORRECT. When the Mormons speak about the historical Christ, are they talking about a different person? I don't think so. Where we differ is in the same way that we differ with many in Christianity, concerning what was Jesus like, what is he like now, and how does he live through us by the power of the Holy Spirit. Lance wrote: Y'all sound a little testy, David. That's why I mentioned anger. Maybe you are having a little trouble reading between the lines. I am not testy in the least. My oldest daughter Christine is home from college for a few weeks. I love my family. She and her sisters accompanied me to the nursing home yesterday and performed a small concert for the residents on Cello, Viola, and Violin. What a blessing. I love it when my family is a blessing to others. I taught the Word of God afterward and prayed for them, receiving much positive feedback and words of appreciation. I received a phone call from a thankful man who was homeless that I had helped more than a year ago. He thanked me for saving his life and helping him, and told me how he was helping someone else because of what I had done for him. This other person was crying, not understanding why he would help so much, and he told the story about me helping him. Hallelujah for good soil. Then another man called who is presently homeless, but who has stayed at my home several times. He asked for me to come visit him in the hospital, which I did, he l ping him with some money and praying for him. I also received a phone call from an old college friend yesterday who spent some time first talking to Christine. After talking to her, he unloaded on me with a whole bunch of compliments about what a wonderful a person my daughter is. You can imagine how great that made me feel. This morning is a brand new day, the start of a new year, and I am feeling very blessed. Some say that circumstances should not effect us, but I must admit that all these things have added to my joy today. Also, I am in remembrance of a vision I had nearly 28 years ago that concerned me at age 46, which will begin this year. I am not testy in the least. I'm excited and full of joy, looking forward to a wonderful year in Christ. Peace be with you. David Miller. -- g t; "Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man." (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed. -- "Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man." (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.
Re: [TruthTalk] The cross of Christ
DAVEH: If you don't mind speculating, DavidM...Do you feel that Mary would have felt comfortable wearing the cross as jewelery? David Miller wrote: Most of these comments are not concerning the primitive church (1st century / early 2nd century), and they tend to focus upon the symbol rather than the cross itself. I can post lots of quotes from the early church fathers if you like, those from the first andsecond century.There is absolutely no doubt that the cross was central in their theology and faith. These comments you share below are what I call spin. They prey upon the ignorance of those who have not read the early church fathers. Peace be with you. David Miller. - Original Message - From: Dave To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Wednesday, December 28, 2005 1:38 AM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] The cross of Christ There is no doubt that the cross was extremely important and emphasized by the primitive Christians, much more so than by most Christians today. DAVEH: I've found a few comments that suggest some early Christians were less than enamored by the cross The use of the cross as a symbol was condemned by at least one church father of the 3rd century CE because of its Pagan origins. The first appearance of a cross in Christian art is on a Vatican sarcophagus from the mid-5th Century. 11 It was a Greek cross with equal-length arms. Jesus' body was not shown. The first crucifixion scenes didn't appear in Christian art until the 7th century CE. The original cross symbol was in the form of a Tau Cross. It was so named because it looked like the letter "tau", or our letter "T". One author speculates that the Church may have copied the symbol from the Pagan Druids who made crosses in this form to represent the Thau (god). 7 They joined two limbs from oak trees. The Tau cross became associated with St. Philip who was allegedly crucified on such a cross in Phrygia. May Day, a major Druidic seasonal day of celebration, became St. Philip's Day. Later in Christian history, the Tau Cross became the Roman Cross that we are familiar with today. ** According to author Graydon F. Snyder: "[Today's]universal use of the sign of the cross makes more poignant the striking lack of crosses in early Christian remains, especially any specific reference to the event on Golgotha. Most scholars now agree that the cross as an artistic reference to the passion event cannot be found prior to the time of Constantine." ..The previous two comments are found at http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_symb.htm And Christian Symbols: Ancient and Modern by Child Colles claims.. In the first three centuries A.D. the cross was not openly used as a Christian symbol, for the early believers looked beyond the Crucifixion to the Resurrection, and the emphasis was not on the cross of suffering and humiliation but on the Promise of Life with Christ here in the world and hereafter in the life beyond the grave. ...which seems to contrast what you are claiming. David Miller wrote: DAVEH: Do you believe the Primitive Christians had that apprehension? Yes, absolutely. Just look at how much the New Testament writes about the cross. The earliest of the church fathers also wrote about the cross. Ignatius of the first century magnified the cross even more than Paul did. Polycarp, born in the first century and martyred in the middle of the second century, was a disciple of John. He said in one of his epistles that whosoever does not confess the testimony of the cross is of the devil. Justin Martyr of the early second century also wrote extensively on the cross. There is no doubt that the cross was extremely important and emphasized by the primitive Christians, much more so than by most Christians today. Peace be with you. David Miller. -- ~~~ Dave Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.langlitz.com ~~~ If you wish to receive things I find interesting, I maintain six email lists... JOKESTER, OPINIONS, LDS, STUFF, MOTORCYCLE and CLIPS. -- ~~~ Dave Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.langlitz.com ~~~ If you wish to receive things I find interesting, I maintain six email lists... JOKESTER, OPINIONS, LDS, STUFF, MOTORCYCLE and CLIPS.
Re: [TruthTalk] The cross of Christ
DAVEH: The way you said that, it somewhat implies you think you have no biases, DavidM. :-\ David Miller wrote: Terry wrote: What bis with this CE nonsense? It is Anno Domini, the year of our Lord..If you have a Lord. CE is for Lost sinners, not saved ones. Nice observation, Terry. The use of CE for a date kind of gives away their bias, doesn't it. :-) Peace be with you. David Miller. -- ~~~ Dave Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.langlitz.com ~~~ If you wish to receive things I find interesting, I maintain six email lists... JOKESTER, OPINIONS, LDS, STUFF, MOTORCYCLE and CLIPS.
Re: [TruthTalk] The cross of Christ
DAVID:I may have missed your reply to the 'spirit of freemasonry/mormonism' thingy. Did you reply? - Original Message - From: David Miller To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: December 29, 2005 17:57 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] The cross of Christ Most of these comments are not concerning the primitive church (1st century / early 2nd century), and they tend to focus upon the symbol rather than the cross itself. I can post lots of quotes from the early church fathers if you like, those from the first andsecond century.There is absolutely no doubt that the cross was central in their theology and faith. These comments you share below are what I call spin. They prey upon the ignorance of those who have not read the early church fathers. Peace be with you.David Miller. - Original Message - From: Dave To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Wednesday, December 28, 2005 1:38 AM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] The cross of Christ There is no doubt that the cross was extremely important and emphasized by the primitive Christians, much more so than by most Christians today. DAVEH: I've found a few comments that suggest some early Christians were less than enamored by the crossThe use of the cross as a symbol was condemned by at least one church father of the 3rd century CE because of its Pagan origins. The first appearance of a cross in Christian art is on a Vatican sarcophagus from the mid-5th Century. 11 It was a Greek cross with equal-length arms. Jesus' body was not shown. The first crucifixion scenes didn't appear in Christian art until the 7th century CE. The original cross symbol was in the form of a Tau Cross. It was so named because it looked like the letter "tau", or our letter "T". One author speculates that the Church may have copied the symbol from the Pagan Druids who made crosses in this form to represent the Thau (god). 7 They joined two limbs from oak trees. The Tau cross became associated with St. Philip who was allegedly crucified on such a cross in Phrygia. May Day, a major Druidic seasonal day of celebration, became St. Philip's Day. Later in Christian history, the Tau Cross became the Roman Cross that we are familiar with today.**According to author Graydon F. Snyder:"[Today's]universal use of the sign of the cross makes more poignant the striking lack of crosses in early Christian remains, especially any specific reference to the event on Golgotha. Most scholars now agree that the cross as an artistic reference to the passion event cannot be found prior to the time of Constantine."..The previous two comments are found at http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_symb.htm And Christian Symbols: Ancient and Modern by Child Colles claims..In the first three centuries A.D. the cross was not openly used as a Christian symbol, for the early believers looked beyond the Crucifixion to the Resurrection, and the emphasis was not on the cross of suffering and humiliation but on the Promise of Life with Christ here in the world and hereafter in the life beyond the gravewhich seems to contrast what you are claiming.David Miller wrote: DAVEH: Do you believe the Primitive Christians had that apprehension? Yes, absolutely. Just look at how much the New Testament writes about the cross. The earliest of the church fathers also wrote about the cross. Ignatius of the first century magnified the cross even more than Paul did. Polycarp, born in the first century and martyred in the middle of the second century, was a disciple of John. He said in one of his epistles that whosoever does not confess the testimony of the cross is of the devil. Justin Martyr of the early second century also wrote extensively on the cross. There is no doubt that the cross was extremely important and emphasized by the primitive Christians, much more so than by most Christians today. Peace be with you. David Miller. -- ~~~ Dave Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.langlitz.com ~~~ If you wish to receive things I find interesting, I maintain six email lists... JOKESTER, OPINIONS, LDS, STUFF, MOTORCYCLE and CLIPS.
Re: [TruthTalk] The cross of Christ
Terry wrote: What bis with this CE nonsense? It is Anno Domini, the year of our Lord..If you have a Lord. CE is for Lost sinners, not saved ones. Nice observation, Terry. The use of CE for a date kind of gives away their bias, doesn't it. :-) Peace be with you. David Miller. -- Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man. (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.
Re: [TruthTalk] The cross of Christ
DAVEH: OK Terry.I understand your feelings about that. I'll try to behave myself, as I sure don't want to be visited by the terminator again :-( Terry Clifton wrote: Yeah, I have a big problem viewing anything that minimizes Christ. In this case though, I will forgive you. If it happens again, expect a visit from Izzy, the terminator. Dave wrote: What bis with this CE nonsense? DAVEH: I'm just quoting from some who have a different perspective, Terry. Do you have a problem with viewing early Christianity from the other side of the fence? Note the third quote below In the first three centuries A.D. the cross was not openly used as a Christian symbol, ...in which the author uses AD rather than CE. Does that make his comments acceptable from your perspective? Terry Clifton wrote: What bis with this CE nonsense? It is Anno Domini, the year of our Lord..If you have a Lord. CE is for Lost sinners, not saved ones. Terry Dave wrote: There is no doubt that the cross was extremely important and emphasized by the primitive Christians, much more so than by most Christians today. DAVEH: I've found a few comments that suggest some early Christians were less than enamored by the cross The use of the cross as a symbol was condemned by at least one church father of the 3rd century CE because of its Pagan origins. The first appearance of a cross in Christian art is on a Vatican sarcophagus from the mid-5th Century. 11 It was a Greek cross with equal-length arms. Jesus' body was not shown. The first crucifixion scenes didn't appear in Christian art until the 7th century CE. The original cross symbol was in the form of a Tau Cross. It was so named because it looked like the letter "tau", or our letter "T". One author speculates that the Church may have copied the symbol from the Pagan Druids who made crosses in this form to represent the Thau (god). 7 They joined two limbs from oak trees. The Tau cross became associated with St. Philip who was allegedly crucified on such a cross in Phrygia. May Day, a major Druidic seasonal day of celebration, became St. Philip's Day. Later in Christian history, the Tau Cross became the Roman Cross that we are familiar with today. ** According to author Graydon F. Snyder: "[Today's]universal use of the sign of the cross makes more poignant the striking lack of crosses in early Christian remains, especially any specific reference to the event on Golgotha. Most scholars now agree that the cross as an artistic reference to the passion event cannot be found prior to the time of Constantine." ..The previous two comments are found at http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_symb.htm And Christian Symbols: Ancient and Modern by Child Colles claims.. In the first three centuries A.D. the cross was not openly used as a Christian symbol, for the early believers looked beyond the Crucifixion to the Resurrection, and the emphasis was not on the cross of suffering and humiliation but on the Promise of Life with Christ here in the world and hereafter in the life beyond the grave. ...which seems to contrast what you are claiming. David Miller wrote: DAVEH: Do you believe the Primitive Christians had that apprehension? Yes, absolutely. Just look at how much the New Testament writes about the cross. The earliest of the church fathers also wrote about the cross. Ignatius of the first century magnified the cross even more than Paul did. Polycarp, born in the first century and martyred in the middle of the second century, was a disciple of John. He said in one of his epistles that whosoever does not confess the testimony of the cross is of the devil. Justin Martyr of the early second century also wrote extensively on the cross. There is no doubt that the cross was extremely important and emphasized by the primitive Christians, much more so than by most Christians today. Peace be with you. David Miller. -- ~~~ Dave Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.langlitz.com ~~~ If you wish to receive things I find interesting, I maintain six email lists... JOKESTER, OPINIONS, LDS, STUFF, MOTORCYCLE and CLIPS.
Re: [TruthTalk] The cross of Christ
Most of these comments are not concerning the primitive church (1st century / early 2nd century), and they tend to focus upon the symbol rather than the cross itself. I can post lots of quotes from the early church fathers if you like, those from the first andsecond century.There is absolutely no doubt that the cross was central in their theology and faith. These comments you share below are what I call spin. They prey upon the ignorance of those who have not read the early church fathers. Peace be with you.David Miller. - Original Message - From: Dave To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Wednesday, December 28, 2005 1:38 AM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] The cross of Christ There is no doubt that the cross was extremely important and emphasized by the primitive Christians, much more so than by most Christians today. DAVEH: I've found a few comments that suggest some early Christians were less than enamored by the crossThe use of the cross as a symbol was condemned by at least one church father of the 3rd century CE because of its Pagan origins. The first appearance of a cross in Christian art is on a Vatican sarcophagus from the mid-5th Century. 11 It was a Greek cross with equal-length arms. Jesus' body was not shown. The first crucifixion scenes didn't appear in Christian art until the 7th century CE. The original cross symbol was in the form of a Tau Cross. It was so named because it looked like the letter "tau", or our letter "T". One author speculates that the Church may have copied the symbol from the Pagan Druids who made crosses in this form to represent the Thau (god). 7 They joined two limbs from oak trees. The Tau cross became associated with St. Philip who was allegedly crucified on such a cross in Phrygia. May Day, a major Druidic seasonal day of celebration, became St. Philip's Day. Later in Christian history, the Tau Cross became the Roman Cross that we are familiar with today.**According to author Graydon F. Snyder:"[Today's]universal use of the sign of the cross makes more poignant the striking lack of crosses in early Christian remains, especially any specific reference to the event on Golgotha. Most scholars now agree that the cross as an artistic reference to the passion event cannot be found prior to the time of Constantine."..The previous two comments are found at http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_symb.htm And Christian Symbols: Ancient and Modern by Child Colles claims..In the first three centuries A.D. the cross was not openly used as a Christian symbol, for the early believers looked beyond the Crucifixion to the Resurrection, and the emphasis was not on the cross of suffering and humiliation but on the Promise of Life with Christ here in the world and hereafter in the life beyond the gravewhich seems to contrast what you are claiming.David Miller wrote: DAVEH: Do you believe the Primitive Christians had that apprehension? Yes, absolutely. Just look at how much the New Testament writes about the cross. The earliest of the church fathers also wrote about the cross. Ignatius of the first century magnified the cross even more than Paul did. Polycarp, born in the first century and martyred in the middle of the second century, was a disciple of John. He said in one of his epistles that whosoever does not confess the testimony of the cross is of the devil. Justin Martyr of the early second century also wrote extensively on the cross. There is no doubt that the cross was extremely important and emphasized by the primitive Christians, much more so than by most Christians today. Peace be with you. David Miller. -- ~~~ Dave Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.langlitz.com ~~~ If you wish to receive things I find interesting, I maintain six email lists... JOKESTER, OPINIONS, LDS, STUFF, MOTORCYCLE and CLIPS.
Re: [TruthTalk] The cross of Christ
What bis with this CE nonsense? It is Anno Domini, the year of our Lord..If you have a Lord. CE is for Lost sinners, not saved ones. Terry Dave wrote: There is no doubt that the cross was extremely important and emphasized by the primitive Christians, much more so than by most Christians today. DAVEH: I've found a few comments that suggest some early Christians were less than enamored by the cross The use of the cross as a symbol was condemned by at least one church father of the 3rd century CE because of its Pagan origins. The first appearance of a cross in Christian art is on a Vatican sarcophagus from the mid-5th Century. 11 It was a Greek cross with equal-length arms. Jesus' body was not shown. The first crucifixion scenes didn't appear in Christian art until the 7th century CE. The original cross symbol was in the form of a Tau Cross. It was so named because it looked like the letter "tau", or our letter "T". One author speculates that the Church may have copied the symbol from the Pagan Druids who made crosses in this form to represent the Thau (god). 7 They joined two limbs from oak trees. The Tau cross became associated with St. Philip who was allegedly crucified on such a cross in Phrygia. May Day, a major Druidic seasonal day of celebration, became St. Philip's Day. Later in Christian history, the Tau Cross became the Roman Cross that we are familiar with today. ** According to author Graydon F. Snyder: "[Today's]universal use of the sign of the cross makes more poignant the striking lack of crosses in early Christian remains, especially any specific reference to the event on Golgotha. Most scholars now agree that the cross as an artistic reference to the passion event cannot be found prior to the time of Constantine." ..The previous two comments are found at http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_symb.htm And Christian Symbols: Ancient and Modern by Child Colles claims.. In the first three centuries A.D. the cross was not openly used as a Christian symbol, for the early believers looked beyond the Crucifixion to the Resurrection, and the emphasis was not on the cross of suffering and humiliation but on the Promise of Life with Christ here in the world and hereafter in the life beyond the grave. ...which seems to contrast what you are claiming. David Miller wrote: DAVEH: Do you believe the Primitive Christians had that apprehension? Yes, absolutely. Just look at how much the New Testament writes about the cross. The earliest of the church fathers also wrote about the cross. Ignatius of the first century magnified the cross even more than Paul did. Polycarp, born in the first century and martyred in the middle of the second century, was a disciple of John. He said in one of his epistles that whosoever does not confess the testimony of the cross is of the devil. Justin Martyr of the early second century also wrote extensively on the cross. There is no doubt that the cross was extremely important and emphasized by the primitive Christians, much more so than by most Christians today. Peace be with you. David Miller. -- ~~~ Dave Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.langlitz.com ~~~ If you wish to receive things I find interesting, I maintain six email lists... JOKESTER, OPINIONS, LDS, STUFF, MOTORCYCLE and CLIPS.
[TruthTalk] The cross of Christ
The power of the cross is found in the "turn the other cheek" doctrine of Christ. Jesus said that his disciples must take up their cross and follow him. It is the doctrine of self denial, illustrated most perfectly by Jesus going to the cross to die for us. Without the cross, you have just another religion. It is the doctrine of the cross and its power to bring salvation that makes Christianity unique. In my opinion, not understanding the cross and the power of the cross is a very serious error. An apprehension of the crossis so important that it truly makes a difference between those who are born from above and those who are not. Peace be with you.David Miller. - Original Message - From: Dave To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Tuesday, December 27, 2005 3:47 AM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Merry Christmas! I see power in the cross. You see defeat.DAVEH: The power of the cross as I see it was the ability of it to actually bring death to Jesus. That is not to say that I don't think Jesus had any power over the cross to prevent his death from occurring on it. Quite the contrary.I think Jesus could easily have avoided being nailed to the cross, as he could have called legions of angels to protect him from his enemies. But...that would not have permitted the plan of salvation to proceed as it had been planned from before the foundations of the world. You are right thoughI do not view the cross as having any good power at all. It was a tool of the enemies of Jesus, and he allowed himself to be subjected to it in order to become the perfect sacrifice. The power of Jesus is in his resurrection which brought life, not in the cross which brought death. The cross killed Jesus just as it killed those who were nailed to it before, since and at the same time. Nowyou have said that I view the cross as defeating Jesus. I don't perceive it that way at all. What temporary victory the enemies of Jesus may have felt by his death on the cross was certainly reversed by his subsequent resurrection. But his resurrection did not occur on the cross. From the time Jesus died on the cross and was subsequently resurrected on the 3rd day thereafter, Jesus experienced hell. By the time Jesus was resurrected, the cross was old history, so to speak. Do you think the cross had any power to resurrect Jesus? I'd be surprised if you do, DavidM. SO.why do you suggest the cross has any power? I view the cross as a symbol of death, whether it is the death of people buried in a cemetery or the cross worn by Christians or the cross that adorns Christian edifices which symbolizes the death of Jesus. It is a symbol of death, which I perceived you to say a cross, the symbol of the death of Jesus the Christ...which doesn't seem to different from what I said. I realize that many Christians use the cross to symbolize Jesus, effectively their view of his power over the cross. IF he had been stoned, would those same Christians be wearing a symbol of a stone around their neck, or adorning their edifices? Or, what if Jesus had been killed by a spearsay the spear that was used to lance his skin to make sure he was dead, had the cross not killed him? Would those same Christians then use a spear as their symbol? Just where does the power of Christ residein the device (whether it be a stone, spear or cross) used to kill him, or in his innate power as God? Do you believe Mary or any of the Primitive Christians used the cross as a symbol in the same way many do today? If not, then why do some Christians today feel differently than did the Primitive Christians?David Miller wrote: David Miller wrote: ... a cross, the symbol of the death of Jesus the Christ. Dave Hansen wrote: When I suggested similar, it brought a lot of chastisement. Why do you suppose the difference? Context. I don't think you understand the value of the cross. You raised its issue from skepticism concerning what value the symbol had. I raised the issue from using this symbol to illustrate the victory that Jesus wrought in the cross. I see power in the cross. You see defeat. Is this not true? Peace be with you. David Miller. -- ~~~ Dave Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.langlitz.com ~~~ If you wish to receive things I find interesting, I maintain six email lists... JOKESTER, OPINIONS, LDS, STUFF, MOTORCYCLE and CLIPS.
Re: [TruthTalk] The cross of Christ
An apprehension of the crossis so important that it truly makes a difference between those who are born from above and those who are not. DAVEH: Do you believe the Primitive Christians had that apprehension? David Miller wrote: The power of the cross is found in the "turn the other cheek" doctrine of Christ. Jesus said that his disciples must take up their cross and follow him. It is the doctrine of self denial, illustrated most perfectly by Jesus going to the cross to die for us. Without the cross, you have just another religion. It is the doctrine of the cross and its power to bring salvation that makes Christianity unique. In my opinion, not understanding the cross and the power of the cross is a very serious error. An apprehension of the crossis so important that it truly makes a difference between those who are born from above and those who are not. Peace be with you. David Miller. - Original Message - From: Dave To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Tuesday, December 27, 2005 3:47 AM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Merry Christmas! I see power in the cross. You see defeat. DAVEH: The power of the cross as I see it was the ability of it to actually bring death to Jesus. That is not to say that I don't think Jesus had any power over the cross to prevent his death from occurring on it. Quite the contrary.I think Jesus could easily have avoided being nailed to the cross, as he could have called legions of angels to protect him from his enemies. But...that would not have permitted the plan of salvation to proceed as it had been planned from before the foundations of the world. You are right thoughI do not view the cross as having any good power at all. It was a tool of the enemies of Jesus, and he allowed himself to be subjected to it in order to become the perfect sacrifice. The power of Jesus is in his resurrection which brought life, not in the cross which brought death. The cross killed Jesus just as it killed those who were nailed to it before, since and at the same time. Nowyou have said that I view the cross as defeating Jesus. I don't perceive it that way at all. What temporary victory the enemies of Jesus may have felt by his death on the cross was certainly reversed by his subsequent resurrection. But his resurrection did not occur on the cross. From the time Jesus died on the cross and was subsequently resurrected on the 3rd day thereafter, Jesus experienced hell. By the time Jesus was resurrected, the cross was old history, so to speak. Do you think the cross had any power to resurrect Jesus? I'd be surprised if you do, DavidM. SO.why do you suggest the cross has any power? I view the cross as a symbol of death, whether it is the death of people buried in a cemetery or the cross worn by Christians or the cross that adorns Christian edifices which symbolizes the death of Jesus. It is a symbol of death, which I perceived you to say a cross, the symbol of the death of Jesus the Christ. ..which doesn't seem to different from what I said. I realize that many Christians use the cross to symbolize Jesus, effectively their view of his power over the cross. IF he had been stoned, would those same Christians be wearing a symbol of a stone around their neck, or adorning their edifices? Or, what if Jesus had been killed by a spearsay the spear that was used to lance his skin to make sure he was dead, had the cross not killed him? Would those same Christians then use a spear as their symbol? Just where does the power of Christ residein the device (whether it be a stone, spear or cross) used to kill him, or in his innate power as God? Do you believe Mary or any of the Primitive Christians used the cross as a symbol in the same way many do today? If not, then why do some Christians today feel differently than did the Primitive Christians? David Miller wrote: David Miller wrote: ... a cross, the symbol of the death of Jesus the Christ. Dave Hansen wrote: When I suggested similar, it brought a lot of chastisement. Why do you suppose the difference? Context. I don't think you understand the value of the cross. You raised its issue from skepticism concerning what value the symbol had. I raised the issue from using this symbol to illustrate the victory that Jesus wrought in the cross. I see power in the cross. You see defeat. Is this not true? Peace be with you. David Miller.
Re: [TruthTalk] The cross of Christ
DAVEH: Do you believe the Primitive Christians had that apprehension? Yes, absolutely. Just look at how much the New Testament writes about the cross. The earliest of the church fathers also wrote about the cross. Ignatius of the first century magnified the cross even more than Paul did. Polycarp, born in the first century and martyred in the middle of the second century, was a disciple of John. He said in one of his epistles that whosoever does not confess the testimony of the cross is of the devil. Justin Martyr of the early second century also wrote extensively on the cross. There is no doubt that the cross was extremely important and emphasized by the primitive Christians, much more so than by most Christians today. Peace be with you. David Miller. -- Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man. (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.
Re: [TruthTalk] The cross of Christ
There is no doubt that the cross was extremely important and emphasized by the primitive Christians, much more so than by most Christians today. DAVEH: I've found a few comments that suggest some early Christians were less than enamored by the cross The use of the cross as a symbol was condemned by at least one church father of the 3rd century CE because of its Pagan origins. The first appearance of a cross in Christian art is on a Vatican sarcophagus from the mid-5th Century. 11 It was a Greek cross with equal-length arms. Jesus' body was not shown. The first crucifixion scenes didn't appear in Christian art until the 7th century CE. The original cross symbol was in the form of a Tau Cross. It was so named because it looked like the letter "tau", or our letter "T". One author speculates that the Church may have copied the symbol from the Pagan Druids who made crosses in this form to represent the Thau (god). 7 They joined two limbs from oak trees. The Tau cross became associated with St. Philip who was allegedly crucified on such a cross in Phrygia. May Day, a major Druidic seasonal day of celebration, became St. Philip's Day. Later in Christian history, the Tau Cross became the Roman Cross that we are familiar with today. ** According to author Graydon F. Snyder: "[Today's]universal use of the sign of the cross makes more poignant the striking lack of crosses in early Christian remains, especially any specific reference to the event on Golgotha. Most scholars now agree that the cross as an artistic reference to the passion event cannot be found prior to the time of Constantine." ..The previous two comments are found at http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_symb.htm And Christian Symbols: Ancient and Modern by Child Colles claims.. In the first three centuries A.D. the cross was not openly used as a Christian symbol, for the early believers looked beyond the Crucifixion to the Resurrection, and the emphasis was not on the cross of suffering and humiliation but on the Promise of Life with Christ here in the world and hereafter in the life beyond the grave. ...which seems to contrast what you are claiming. David Miller wrote: DAVEH: Do you believe the Primitive Christians had that apprehension? Yes, absolutely. Just look at how much the New Testament writes about the cross. The earliest of the church fathers also wrote about the cross. Ignatius of the first century magnified the cross even more than Paul did. Polycarp, born in the first century and martyred in the middle of the second century, was a disciple of John. He said in one of his epistles that whosoever does not confess the testimony of the cross is of the devil. Justin Martyr of the early second century also wrote extensively on the cross. There is no doubt that the cross was extremely important and emphasized by the primitive Christians, much more so than by most Christians today. Peace be with you. David Miller. -- ~~~ Dave Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.langlitz.com ~~~ If you wish to receive things I find interesting, I maintain six email lists... JOKESTER, OPINIONS, LDS, STUFF, MOTORCYCLE and CLIPS.
