Sacred Images

Ridiculing the empty cross now are you? How does Jesus on the cross mean more than the empty cross? With no understanding a person wouldn't get it either way. But if someone told them the significance of both, the empty cross and the empty tomb means something was completed. Do you know what that something was/is?
the empty cross does not

the empty tomb does!!!
 
Ridiculing the empty cross now are you? How does Jesus on the cross mean more than the empty cross? With no understanding a person wouldn't get it either way. But if someone told them the significance of both, the empty cross and the empty tomb means something was completed. Do you know what that something was/is?
Are you really asking this? Which one shows you what Jesus endured for love of us?
 
Its all important. But we know that without the resurrection we are all still in our sin.

1 Cor 15
16 For if the dead are not raised, then not even Christ has been raised; 17 and if Christ has not been raised, your faith is worthless; you are still in your sins.
I'll answer it ... the crucifix.
 
Nondenom40 said:
Ridiculing the empty cross now are you? How does Jesus on the cross mean more than the empty cross? With no understanding a person wouldn't get it either way. But if someone told them the significance of both, the empty cross and the empty tomb means something was completed. Do you know what that something was/is?
Are you really asking this? Which one shows you what Jesus endured for love of us?
you were asked 3 questions and didn't answer any of them. your just 'dodged away' again. why is that?
 
Are you really asking this? Which one shows you what Jesus endured for love of us?
Both the empty cross and crucifix show what Jesus endured for us. Since I have never seen necklaces that show an open tomb, the empty cross would show that Jesus was no longer on the cross, but had risen from the dead.

But someone who didn't know the significance of the cross at all would need both crosses to be explained to him. It is really much ado about nothing, which one is better. As a pastor, my husband wore both styles.
 
Last edited:
Both the empty cross and crucifix show what Jesus endured for us. Since I have never seen necklaces that show an open tomb, the empty cross would show that Jesus was no longer on the cross, but had risen from the dead.

But someone who didn't know the significance of the cross at all would need both crosses to be explained to him. It is really much ado about nothing, which one is better. As a pastor, my husband wore both styles.
The cross symbol shows two pieces of wood. The crucifix is an image of Jesus' Passion.
 
The cross symbol shows two pieces of wood. The crucifix is an image of Jesus' Passion.
So what? The cross is a universally recognized symbol of the Christian church, and has been from at least the second century--the cross, not a crucifix. But a pagan who never heard of Christianity would not know what either meant, so your point is moot.
 
I knew that ;)

(y) cross/crucifix
The plain cross used as a symbol of Christianity predates the later use of the crucifix. Look it up. My husband has worn both when he was actively a pastor. He is retired now.

This may be the first true cross image ever found; I have seen pictures of it in one of our books:


I have no objection to crucifixes, just to the dogmatic assertion that the crucifix is better than a plain cross, or is the only symbol for Christianity that should be used.
 
Last edited:
So what? The cross is a universally recognized symbol of the Christian church, and has been from at least the second century--the cross, not a crucifix. But a pagan who never heard of Christianity would not know what either meant, so your point is moot.
How is my point moot? The crucifix shows what happened on the cross. The empty cross explains nothing to the pagan.
 
How is my point moot? The crucifix shows what happened on the cross. The empty cross explains nothing to the pagan.

To atheists, a cross, whether there is a Jesus on it, or plain-- is merely Christian jewelry, that says the wearer likes necklaces that have a pretty cross on it. Without the gospel message, and a life that shows a regenerated life; no atheist will understand the purpose of wearing a cross. To them, someone wearing a cross is someone merely wearing jewelry. In this case, a necklace.
 
How is my point moot? The crucifix shows what happened on the cross. The empty cross explains nothing to the pagan.
Neither does the crucifix, to a pagan who has never heard of Christianity.

The early church used empty crosses as a symbol of their faith. Crucifixes came several hundred years later. How ever did the early church manage to spread the gospel without crucifixes!?! In fact, it managed to do so, in the first century, without using crosses of any kind!

So, the point is moot. You are making an issue out of a non issue. But I guess you must disagree with us about everything, even on something as minor as this, eh?
 
Last edited:
To atheists, a cross, whether there is a Jesus on it, or plain-- is merely Christian jewelry, that says the wearer likes necklaces that have a pretty cross on it. Without the gospel message, and a life that shows a regenerated life; no atheist will understand the purpose of wearing a cross. To them, someone wearing a cross is someone merely wearing jewelry. In this case, a necklace.
Years ago I was going out with a woman who manifested absolutely no indications of any religious inclination whatsoever. One day she put on a crucifix necklace at which point I asked her if she were a Christian. She said that she wasn't, and that it was a gift from someone, and that she thought it looked nice with her dress. it appeared to be made of silver.

Again, this appears to show justification for the meme of Christ in the cross yelling, "I hope you make some really cool jewelry out of this!"
 
Back
Top