----- Original Message -----
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 and second
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 -----
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.
