The Symbol of Christ

[_Coggins7]

The Symbol of Christ

Elder Gordon B. Hinckley
Of the Council of the Twelve

This has been a great meeting, and I humbly pray that the Spirit of the Lord will prompt me that the things I say may be complementary to the wonderful things which we have heard.

We recently held an open house in the Arizona Temple. Following a complete renovation of that building, nearly a quarter of a million people saw its beautiful interior. On the first day of the opening, clergymen of other religions were invited as special guests, and hundreds responded. It was my privilege to speak to them and to answer their questions at the conclusion of their tours. I told them that we would be pleased to answer any queries they might have. Many were asked. Among these was one which came from a Protestant minister.

Said he: "I’ve been all through this building, this temple which carries on its face the name of Jesus Christ, but nowhere have I seen any representation of the cross, the symbol of Christianity. I have noted your buildings elsewhere and likewise find an absence of the cross. Why is this when you say you believe in Jesus Christ?"

I responded: "I do not wish to give offense to any of my Christian brethren who use the cross on the steeples of their cathedrals and at the altars of their chapels, who wear it on their vestments, and imprint it on their books and other literature. But for us, the cross is the symbol of the dying Christ, while our message is a declaration of the living Christ."

He then asked: "If you do not use the cross, what is the symbol of your religion?"

I replied that the lives of our people must become the only meaningful expression of our faith and, in fact, therefore, the symbol of our worship.

I hope he did not feel that I was smug or self-righteous in my response. He was correct in his observation that we do not use the cross, except as our military chaplains use it on their uniforms for identification. Our position at first glance may seem a contradiction of our profession that Jesus Christ is the key figure of our faith. The official name of the church is The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. We worship him as Lord and Savior. The Bible is our scripture. We believe that the prophets of the Old Testament who foretold the coming of the Messiah spoke under divine inspiration. We glory in the accounts of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, setting forth the events of the birth, ministry, death, and resurrection of the Son of God, the Only Begotten of the Father in the flesh. Like Paul of old, we are "not ashamed of the gospel of [Jesus] Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation." (Rom. 1:16.) And like Peter, we affirm that Jesus Christ is the only name "given among men, whereby we must be saved." (See Acts 4: 12.)

The Book of Mormon, which we regard as the testament of the New World, setting forth the teachings of prophets who lived anciently in this Western Hemisphere, testifies of him who was born in Bethlehem of Judea and who died on the Hill of Calvary. To a world wavering in its faith, it is another and powerful witness of the divinity of the Lord. Its very preface, written by a prophet who walked the Americas a millennium and a half ago, categorically states that it was written "to the convincing of the Jew and Gentile that JESUS is the CHRIST, the ETERNAL GOD, manifesting himself unto all nations."

And in our book of modern revelation, the Doctrine and Covenants, He has declared himself in these certain words: "I am Alpha and Omega. Christ the Lord: yea, even I am he, the beginning and the end, the Redeemer of the world." (D&C 19:1.)

In light of such declarations, in view of such testimony, well might many ask, as my minister friend in Arizona asked, if you profess a belief in Jesus Christ, why do you not use the symbol of his death, the cross of Calvary?

To which I must first reply, that no member of this Church must ever forget the terrible price paid by our Redeemer who gave his life that all men might live the agony of Gethsemane, the bitter mockery of his trial, the vicious crown of thorns tearing at his flesh, the blood cry of the mob before Pilate, the lonely burden of his heavy walk along the way to Calvary, the terrifying pain as great nails pierced his hands and feet, the fevered torture of his body as he hung that tragic day, the Son of God crying out, "Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do." (Luke 23:34.)

This was the cross, the instrument of his torture, the terrible device designed to destroy the Man of Peace, the evil recompense for his miraculous work of healing the sick, of causing the blind to see, of raising the dead. This was the cross on which he hung and died on Golgotha's lonely summit.

We cannot forget that. We must never forget it, for here our Savior, our Redeemer, the Son of God, gave himself a vicarious sacrifice for each of us. But the gloom of that dark evening before the Jewish Sabbath, when his lifeless body was taken down and hurriedly laid in a borrowed tomb, drained away the hope of even his most ardent and knowing disciples. They were bereft, not understanding what he had told them earlier. Dead was the Messiah in whom they believed. Gone was their Master in whom they had placed all of their longing, their faith, their hope. He who had spoken of everlasting life, he who had raised Lazarus from the grave, now had died as surely as all men before him had died. Now had come the end to his sorrowful, brief life. That life had been as Isaiah had long before foretold: He was "despised and rejected of men; a man of sorrows, and acquainted with grief."

". . . He was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him." (Isa. 53:3, 5.) Now he was gone.

We can only speculate on the feelings of those who loved him as they pondered his death during the long hours of the Jewish Sabbath, the Saturday of our calendar.

Then dawned the first day of the week, the Sabbath of the Lord as we have come to know it. To those who came to the tomb, heavy with sorrow, the attending angel declared, "Why seek ye the living among the dead?

"He is not here. . . . he is risen, as he said." (Matt. 28:6.)

Here was the greatest miracle of human history. Earlier he had told them, "I am the resurrection and the life." (John 11:25.) But they had not understood. Now they knew. He had died in misery and pain and loneliness. Now, on the third day, he arose in power and beauty and life, the first fruits of all who slept, the assurance for men of all ages that "as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive." (1 Cor. 15:22.)

On Calvary he was the dying Jesus. From the tomb he emerged the living Christ. The cross had been the bitter fruit of Judas' betrayal, the summary of Peter's denial. The empty tomb now became the testimony of His divinity, the assurance of eternal life, the answer to Job's unanswered question: "If a man die, shall he live again?" (Job 14: 14.)

Having died, he might have been forgotten, or, at best, remembered as one of many great teachers whose lives are epitomized in a few lines in the books of history. Now, having been resurrected, he became the Master of Life. Now, with Isaiah, his disciples could sing with certain faith: "His name shall be called Wonderful, Counseller, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace." (Isa. 9:6.)

Fulfilled were the expectant words of Job: "For I know that my redeemer liveth, and that he shall stand at the latter day upon the earth:

"And though after my skin worms destroy this body, yet in my flesh shall I see God:

"Whom I shall see for myself, and mine eyes shall behold, and not another; though my reins be consumed within me." (Job 19:25-27.)

Well did Mary cry, "Rabboni!' (John 20:16) when first she saw the risen Lord, for master now he was in very deed, master not only of life, but of death itself. Gone was the sting of death, broken the victory of the grave.

The fearful Peter was transformed. Even the doubtful Thomas declared in soberness and reverence and realism, "My Lord and my God!" (John 20:28.) "Be not faithless, but believing" (John 20:27) were the unforgettable words of the Lord on that marvelous occasion.

There followed appearances to many, including, as Paul records, "above five hundred brethren at once." (1 Cor. 15:6.)

And in this Western Hemisphere were other sheep of whom he had spoken earlier. And the people there "heard a voice as if it came out of heaven . . . and it said unto them: Behold my Beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased, in whom I have glorified my name—hear ye him.

". . . And behold, they saw a Man descending out of heaven; and he was clothed in a white robe; and he came down and stood in the midst of them. . . .

"And it came to pass that he stretched forth his hand and spake unto the people, saying:

"Behold, I am Jesus Christ, whom the prophets testified [should] come into the world. . . .

"Arise and come forth unto me." (3 Ne. 11:3, 6, 8-10, 14.)

Then follows in this beautiful account many words of the ministry of the resurrected Lord among the people of ancient America.

And now finally there are modern witnesses, for he came again to open this dispensation, the dispensation of the prophesied fulness of times. In a glorious vision, he—the resurrected, living Lord—and his Father, the God of heaven, appeared to a boy prophet to begin anew the restoration of ancient truth. There followed a veritable "cloud of witnesses" (Heb. 12:1), and he who had been the recipient—Joseph Smith, the modern prophet—declared with words of soberness:

"And now, after the many testimonies which have been given of him, this is the testimony, last of all, which we give of him: That he lives!

"For we saw him, even on the right hand of God; and we heard the voice bearing record that he is the Only Begotten of the Father—

"That by him, and through him, and of him, the worlds are and were created, and the inhabitants thereof are begotten sons and daughters unto God." (D&C 76:22-24.)

To which may be added the witness of millions who, by the power of the Holy Spirit, have borne and now bear solemn testimony of his living reality. That testimony has been their comfort and their strength.

For instance, I have been thinking much of late of a friend in South Vietnam. I know not where he is or what his condition may be. I know only that he is a man of quiet and transcendent faith in God, our Eternal Father, and in his Son, the Living Christ. As the light of freedom flickers and dies in that land of sorrow, I think I can hear him sing, as I have heard him sing before,

When through the deep waters I call thee to go,
The rivers of sorrow shall not thee o'erflow;
For I will be with thee, thy troubles to bless,
And sanctify to thee thy deepest distress.
Hymns, no. 66

And so, because our Savior lives, we do not use the symbol of his death as the symbol of our faith. But what shall we use? No sign, no work of art, no representation of form is adequate to express the glory and the wonder of the Living Christ. He told us what that symbol should be when he said, "If ye love me, keep my commandments." (John 14:15.)

As his followers, we cannot do a mean or shoddy or ungracious thing without tarnishing his image. Nor can we do a good and gracious and generous act without burnishing more brightly the symbol of him whose name we have taken upon ourselves.

And so our lives must become a meaningful expression, the symbol of our declaration of our testimony of the Living Christ, the Eternal Son of the Living God.

It is that simple, my brethren and sisters. and that profound and we'd better never forget it.

I know that my Redeemer lives—
Triumphant Savior, Son of God,
Victorious over pain and death,
My King, my leader, and my Lord.

He lives, my one sure rock of faith,
The one bright hope of men on earth,
The beacon to a better way,
The light beyond the veil of death.

O give me Thy sweet spirit still,
The peace that comes alone from Thee,
The faith to walk the lonely road
That leads to Thine eternity.

In the name of Jesus Christ. Amen.

[_Mister Scratch]

Hey Loran---

Are you ever going to offer up commentary of your own, or are you just going to continue to post these lengthy essays as a kind of "crutch" to make up for your own lack of original thought?

[_skippy the dead]

Seems kinda pointless to post sermons without introducing a topic of discussion.

[_Coggins7]

I should add that I created a very lengthy response to Mike on the other cross thread but it was instantly sent into oblivion by a mistaken stroke of a key, and that I'm not going to reconstruct that text.

Suffice it to say, that the crux of it was to reiterate the question begging and logically weak kneed nature of his primary thesis regarding the alleged veneration of the cross by pre-fourth century Christians, and to point out that of the sources he used, only two of them, Justin Martyr and Barnabas, could be of any value in substantiating his basic claim. The remainder of them all date from the third to fourth centuries, after the thorough Hellenization of the church was long complete, and at precisely the moment when the veneration of the cross (among other accretions) was developing in the church. Barnabas, for his part, uses the cross symbolism of the Old Testament to substantiate the Christian contention that Christ was indeed the awaited Messiah and that salvation was to be found only through him. He mentions nothing from which could be drawn a justification for the use of the cross as it appeared in later centuries.

Justin was a Christian philosopher educated in Alexandria and Ephesus and who continued to wear the cloak of a professional philosophy teacher long after his conversion. Justin's major contribution to Christian theology was the idea that Platonism was a "schoolmaster" to lead us to Christ, much as the Old Testament Mosaic law was understood to be. This thorough commingling of Alexandrian philosophy with basic Christian concepts was to become the standard intellectual template for the mainstream church from that time on into later centuries. Justin's metaphysical or allegorical speculations on the cross and its potential symbolism are his own, and even if valid, still provide no necessary springboard to the use of the cross as the unique and settled symbol indicative of the Christian worldview.

That had to wait, as the historical evidence suggests, until roughly the fourth century.


Oh, and for the record, its true that the Didache does not use the word "sprinkle" in its material on baptism. The word used is "pour". I didn't consult the text directly when responding to Mike's comments about that document, and misstated it. If the difference between pouring and sprinkling is really of momentous importance to the argument, (and it isn't, because the New Testament word translated as "baptism" refers to being dipped or immersed) I'm sure Scratch can keep us occupied for several more pages working through the definitions.

[_Mike Reed]

I should add that I created a very lengthy response to Mike on the other cross thread but it was instantly sent into oblivion by a mistaken stroke of a key, and that I'm not going to reconstruct that text.

Shucks.

Suffice it to say, that the crux of it was to reiterate the question begging and logically weak kneed nature of his primary thesis regarding the alleged veneration of the cross by pre-fourth century Christians, and to point out that of the sources he used, only two of them, Justin Martyr and Barnabas, could be of any value in substantiating his basic claim.

I disagree. Explain with details, including just what you think my "claim" is.

The remainder of them all date from the third to fourth centuries, after the thorough Hellenization of the church was long complete, and at precisely the moment when the veneration of the cross (among other accretions) was developing in the church.

Third to fourth? Third century quotes are entirely appropriate for debunking your incorrect assessment that the cross wasn't venerated until the FOURTH century. You babbled, "the cross did not appear as a symbol of Christian discipleship or religious affiliation until the 4th century." Did you think that I wouldn't notice your reposturing?

Barnabas, for his part, uses the cross symbolism of the Old Testament to substantiate the Christian contention that Christ was indeed the awaited Messiah and that salvation was to be found only through him. He mentions nothing from which could be drawn a justification for the use of the cross as it appeared in later centuries.

I wasn’t attempting to draw a justification for the use of the cross. Still jousting windmills, I see. You need to read more carefully. By citing Barnabas, I was showing how he looked for the manifestation of the cross in scripture, as Clement and Hippolytus did in Mythology, and Minucius Felix, Tertullian, Jerome, and Justin Martyr did in the world around them. This behavior (along with the practice of tracing the cross on the forehead) illustrates that visual symbol of the cross was indeed sacred to Christians, despite the fact that they had reservations about depicting it materially.

Justin was a Christian philosopher educated in Alexandria and Ephesus and who continued to wear the cloak of a professional philosophy teacher long after his conversion. Justin's major contribution to Christian theology was the idea that Platonism was a "schoolmaster" to lead us to Christ, much as the Old Testament Mosaic law was understood to be. This thorough commingling of Alexandrian philosophy with basic Christian concepts was to become the standard intellectual template for the mainstream church from that time on into later centuries. Justin's metaphysical or allegorical speculations on the cross and its potential symbolism are his own, and even if valid, still provide no necessary springboard to the use of the cross as the unique and settled symbol indicative of the Christian worldview. That had to wait, as the historical evidence suggests, until roughly the fourth century.

You are STILL arguing out of context! When will the madness stop? I am not arguing that Justin’s remarks provide the “necessary springboard to the use of the cross as the unique and settled symbol indicative of the Christian worldview.” See above.

Oh, and for the record, its true that the Didache does not use the word "sprinkle" in its material on baptism. The word used is "pour". I didn't consult the text directly when responding to Mike's comments about that document, and misstated it.

Imagine that! So what do you learn from this experience? Next time will you think twice before spouting off drivel that you “doubtless [have read the Didache] more times than I have”?

If the difference between pouring and sprinkling is really of momentous importance to the argument, (and it isn't, because the New Testament word translated as "baptism" refers to being dipped or immersed) I'm sure Scratch can keep us occupied for several more pages working through the definitions.

What the New Testament says isn’t important. What is important is that you understand that there was no single mode of baptism among Christians. Christians adapted the baptism ritual to make allowance for existing conditions--conditions which include scarcity of water. It follows from the rationale presented in the Didache that desert communities could rightly sprinkle initiates in order to conserve water.

[_Mike Reed]

Said he: “I’ve been all through this building, this temple which carries on its face the name of Jesus Christ, but nowhere have I seen any representation of the cross, the symbol of Christianity. I have noted your buildings elsewhere and likewise find an absence of the cross. Why is this when you say you believe in Jesus Christ?”
I responded: “I do not wish to give offense to any of my Christian colleagues who use the cross on the steeples of their cathedrals and at the altars of their chapels, who wear it on their vestments, and imprint it on their books and other literature. But for us, the cross is the symbol of the dying Christ, while our message is a declaration of the Living Christ.”

This rationale (that death symbolism is inappropriate for Latter-day Saints who believe Jesus lives) is undermined by the fact that symbols that relate to the death of Jesus are found in both the LDS sacrament and endowment ritual. To say that the cross is not appropriate while the other symbols are okay… this seems to be a case of special pleading. It also seems inconsistent to me that the brethren on one hand encourage members to privately ponder symbolism in scripture and LDS ritual--that they may gain personal revelation in interpreting them--and yet on the other hand, they feel it necessary to interpret the cross in behalf of all membership… the interpreting has been done, so to speak.

He then asked: “If you do not use the cross, what is the symbol of your religion?”
I replied that the lives of our people must become the most meaningful expression of our faith and, in fact, therefore, the symbol of our worship.
I hope he did not feel that I was smug or self-righteous in my response.

Now why would the minister feel his response was smug or self-righteous? Perhaps because he might infer from his remarks an implied criticism that mainstream Christians are inappropriately expressing their faith by using the cross. Perhaps the minister might also see this PR reply as deflective, since the LDS Church has used other symbols to express their faith (Angel Moroni, Christus, Beehive, etc.)… not just their personal lives.

Our position at first glance may seem a contradiction of our profession that Jesus Christ is the key figure of our faith. …In light of such declarations, in view of such testimony, well might many ask, as my minister friend in Arizona asked, if you profess a belief in Jesus Christ, why do you not use the symbol of His death, the cross of Calvary?

In 1916 the Church petitioned (albeit in vein) the SLC council to erect a cross monument on ensign peek. At that time the cross was viewed as an appropriate symbol to express the LDS Gospel. Since that time, views have changed. As I have already noted, the informal policy seems to have sprung from a season of tension between the LDS and Catholic Church in the Mid-20th century. It was then that the idea of the Catholic Church being the “great abominable” was promoted most vocally. David O. McKay announced to parents that they should not allow their children to wear crosses because it is a “catholic” symbol. Since then, authorities have stopped identifying the Catholic church as the “church of the Devil” “mother of Harlots”, etc… however, the no-cross policy remains. It seems to me that the LDS church has some more pruning to do.

[Dr. Sunstoned]

Suffice it to say, that the crux of it was to reiterate the question begging and logically weak kneed nature of his primary thesis regarding the alleged veneration of the cross by pre-fourth century Christians, and to point out that of the sources he used, only two of them, Justin Martyr and Barnabas, could be of any value in substantiating his basic claim. [/quote]

I disagree. Explain with details, including just what you think my "claim" is.

That would be that:

The cross was revered by early Christians long before the 4th century. Although they had reservations about depicting the symbol materially, they looked for it's manifestation around them.

And:

The mainstream LDS view of the cross does not mirror the early Christian view.

Virtually none of the arguments you have adduced thus far have supported either of these two historically fragile contentions, unless by the term "Christian" or "early Christian" you mean a few thoroughly Hellenized Christian philosophers and theologians who happened, through time and chance and the fortunes of politics, to end up in the Roman orthodox church (as opposed to another "orthodox" church of the immediate post apostolic period) and hence, were pivitol in the creation and promulgation of the ideas that would later become the settled doctrines and practices of early medieval Christianity.

The remainder of them all date from the third to fourth centuries, after the thorough Hellenization of the church was long complete, and at precisely the moment when the veneration of the cross (among other accretions) was developing in the church.

Mike:

Third to fourth? Third century quotes are entirely appropriate for debunking your incorrect assessment that the cross wasn't venerated until the FOURTH century. You babbled, "the cross did not appear as a symbol of Christian discipleship or religious affiliation until the 4th century." Did you think that I wouldn't notice your reposturing?

Yes, it would be entirely appropriate for debunking my claims were any of even your mid to late first century sources (Martyr and Barnabas, respectively) to have any relevance to the claims you made above, which were that "The cross was revered by early Christians long before the 4th century" and " they looked for it's manifestation around them". Fifty to one hundred years after the last of the Apostles, a few Christian Platonists and one individual who, although not an Apostle himself, apparently knew at least some of them personally, speak of the cross in various ways that you claim implies a "revering" of something. Precisely what is "revered" in these texts? The object itself as a symbol? The concept of the cross (this is the burden of Barnabas's writing; the cross as symbolic of evidence for the legitimacy of Christian claims of Christ's divinity and messiahship)?

Now we have:

Barnabas 8:1

But what think ye meaneth the type, where the commandment is given
to Israel that those men, whose sins are full grown, offer an heifer
and slaughter and burn it, and then that the children take up the
ashes, and cast them into vessels, and twist the scarlet wool on a
tree (see here again is the type of the cross and the scarlet wool),
and the hyssop, and that this done the children should sprinkle the
people one by one, that they may be purified from their sins?

Barnabas 8:5

Then there is the placing the wool on the tree. This means that the
kingdom of Jesus is on the cross, and that they who set their hope on
Him shall live for ever.

Barnabas 11:8

Ye perceive how He pointed out the water and the cross at the same
time. For this is the meaning; Blessed are they that set their hope
on the cross, and go down into the water; for He speaketh of the
reward at his proper season; then, saith He, I will repay. But now
what saith He? His leaves shall not fall off; He meaneth by this
that every word, which shall come forth from you through your mouth
in faith and love, shall be for the conversion and hope of many.

Barnabas 12:1
In like manner again He defineth concerning the cross in another
prophet, who saith; And when shall these things be accomplished?
saith the Lord. Whenever a tree shall be bended and stand upright,
and whensoever blood shall drop from a tree. Again thou art taught
concerning the cross, and Him that was to be crucified.

Barnabas 8:1
But what think ye meaneth the type, where the commandment is given
to Israel that those men, whose sins are full grown, offer an heifer
and slaughter and burn it, and then that the children take up the
ashes, and cast them into vessels, and twist the scarlet wool on a
tree (see here again is the type of the cross and the scarlet wool),
and the hyssop, and that this done the children should sprinkle the
people one by one, that they may be purified from their sins?



The cross here, for Barnabas, as for Latter Day Saints, is an important prophetic symbol and type of the Lord's sacrifice and death, but I see nothing here indicating that Christians at the time this text was written "revered" the cross. Jesus Christ, yes. The cross? Not in this text.

And Justin? Justin did most of his writing between 150 and 160 A.D. Far too late to be of any use as evidence for what Christians believed during the last decades of the fist century and the first few of the second, and in any case, still of no use to you in substantiating a claim of a wide acceptance of cross veneration or reverence.

In the First Apology, the source you used, we have Justin speaking of "the power of the cross" in a classic Alexandrian allegorical interpretation of Judaic and Christian scriptures dealing with the future Messiah. Isaiah's statement "And the government shall be upon his shoulder" is interpreted allegorically so as to be saying "when He was crucified, He applied His shoulders".

In chapter Las Vegas, on the symbols of the cross, we have:

But in no instance, not even in any of those called sons of Jupiter, did they imitate the being crucified; for it was not understood by them, all the things said of it having been put symbolically. And this, as the prophet foretold, is the greatest symbol of His power and role; as is also proved by the things which fall under our observation. For consider all the things in the world, whether without this form they could be administered or have any community. For the sea is not traversed except that trophy which is called a sail abide safe in the ship; and the earth is not ploughed without it: diggers and mechanics do not their work, except with tools which have this shape. And the human form differs from that of the irrational animals in nothing else than in its being erect and having the hands extended, and having on the face extending from the forehead what is called the nose, through which there is respiration for the living creature; and this shows no other form than that of the cross. And so it was said by the prophet, "The breath before our face is the Lord Christ." And the power of this form is shown by your own symbols on what are called "vexilla" [banners] and trophies, with which all your state possessions are made, using these as the insignia of your power and government, even though you do so unwittingly. And with this form you consecrate the images of your emperors when they die, and you name them gods by inscriptions. Since, therefore, we have urged you both by reason and by an evident form, and to the utmost of our ability, we know that now we are blameless even though you disbelieve; for our part is done and finished.

This is not by any means the last time a Hellenic Christian philosopher wil attempt to amalgamate Pagan and Christian concepts and use the presence of similar symbols or ideas in Pagan religion or philosophy as a rhetorical wedge in argument with nonbelievers. Regardless of what Justin is attempting to do here in this argument, none of it suggests that Christians as a body at the time this was written, to the degree that they (and by now you are speaking of a plethora of factions and offshoots) accepted Martyr's theological speculations, revered the form of the cross or thought of it as somehow symbolizing their own beliefs in a singular or unique way. Justin himself was certainly exercised philosophically, about cross symbolism and allegorical allusions to it he thought he detected in Old Testament religious texts, but terming even this as a "revering" of the cross per se, as over against recognizing and emphasizing its spiritual and prophetic importance, is playing loose with Justin's own words, and still tells us nothing of the attitudes of various Christian groups then still struggling for supremacy as the true holders of the forty day teachings and apostolic authority.

Barnabas, for his part, uses the cross symbolism of the Old Testament to substantiate the Christian contention that Christ was indeed the awaited Messiah and that salvation was to be found only through him. He mentions nothing from which could be drawn a justification for the use of the cross as it appeared in later centuries.

Mike:

I wasn’t attempting to draw a justification for the use of the cross. Still jousting windmills, I see. You need to read more carefully. By citing Barnabas, I was showing how he looked for the manifestation of the cross in scripture, as Clement and Hippolytus did in Mythology, and Minucius Felix, Tertullian, Jerome, and Justin Martyr did in the world around them. This behavior (along with the practice of tracing the cross on the forehead) illustrates that visual symbol of the cross was indeed sacred to Christians, despite the fact that they had reservations about depicting it materially.

So did Paul. This is utterly beside the point. The fact is you have not a particle of evidence for any "revering" of the cross until the fourth century.


The Catholic Encyclopedia states:

Both the Latin and Greek crosses play an important part in the architectural and decorative styles of church buildings during the fourth and subsequent centuries. The church of Santa Croce at Ravenna, is in the form of a Latin cross; and on the pillars of a church built by Bishop Paulinus at Tyre in the fourth century the cross is carved in the Latin way. The façade of the Catholicon at Athens shows a large Latin cross. And this style of cross was adopted by West and East until the schism occurred between the two churches. Indeed, at Constantinople the church of the Apostles, the first church of S. Sophia, consecrated by Constantine, those of the monastery of St. John at Studium, of St. Demetrius at Salonica, of St. Catherine on Mount Sinai, as well as many churches at Athens, are in the form of the Latin cross; and it appears in the decorations of capitals, balustrades, and mosaics. In the far-off lands of the Picts, the Bretons, and the Saxons, it was carved on stones and rocks, with elaborate and complex Runic decorations. And even in the Catholicon at Athens, crosses no less lavishly ornamented are to be found. In out-of-the-way places in Scotland, too, it has been discovered (cf. Dictionnaire de 1'Académie des Beaux-Arts, V, 38).

And:

The Greek cross appears at intervals and rarely on monuments during the early Christian centuries.

Further, actual "revering" of the cross, and devotion to it, as well as other relics and iconic representations, doesn't appear until the 5th century.

The Greek cross isn't even well represented in the Roman catacombs until the first half of the 3rd century...long after any persecutions.

Justin was a Christian philosopher educated in Alexandria and Ephesus and who continued to wear the cloak of a professional philosophy teacher long after his conversion. Justin's major contribution to Christian theology was the idea that Platonism was a "schoolmaster" to lead us to Christ, much as the Old Testament Mosaic law was understood to be. This thorough commingling of Alexandrian philosophy with basic Christian concepts was to become the standard intellectual template for the mainstream church from that time on into later centuries. Justin's metaphysical or allegorical speculations on the cross and its potential symbolism are his own, and even if valid, still provide no necessary springboard to the use of the cross as the unique and settled symbol indicative of the Christian worldview. That had to wait, as the historical evidence suggests, until roughly the fourth century.

Mike:

ou are STILL arguing out of context! When will the madness stop? I am not arguing that Justin’s remarks provide the “necessary springboard to the use of the cross as the unique and settled symbol indicative of the Christian worldview.” See above.

Your primary problem here is not context, but that you very simply don't know what your talking about and are grasping at logically flaccid paper straws in an attempt to make it seem as if you do. You are out of evidence, out of facts, and going under for the third time.

I said:

Oh, and for the record, its true that the Didache does not use the word "sprinkle" in its material on baptism. The word used is "pour". I didn't consult the text directly when responding to Mike's comments about that document, and misstated it.

Mike:

Imagine that! So what do you learn from this experience? Next time will you think twice before spouting off drivel that you “doubtless [have read the Didache] more times than I have”?

Typical, typical, typical anti-Mormon demagogue with a sharp tongue but limited wit. You have failed to make your case, either logically or historically, your sources imply nothing approximating the claims you made regarding general Christian attitutes toward the cross, and the best you've done so far is a plausible but logically and historically problematic claim that it was the persecutions of early Christians that produced the dearth of cross symbolism we actually see, but you have conveniently ignored the obvious: most of the usage of the cross we do actually see; a smattering in the third and a rising popularity in art and as an article of clothing in the fourth century, all occur long after the great Christian persecutions were far in the past.

If the difference between pouring and sprinkling is really of momentous importance to the argument, (and it isn't, because the New Testament word translated as "baptism" refers to being dipped or immersed) I'm sure Scratch can keep us occupied for several more pages working through the definitions.

Mikey:

What the New Testament says isn’t important. What is important is that you understand that there was no single mode of baptism among Christians. Christians adapted the baptism ritual to make allowance for existing conditions--conditions which include scarcity of water. It follows from the rationale presented in the Didache that desert communities could rightly sprinkle initiates in order to conserve water.

[/quote]

And this is evidence of the very spreading apostasy the the Restored Gospel claims took place. Those Christians who had Priesthood authority and were still, at that point in time, following the teachings of the Apostles in a strict manner, weren't doing any such thing, nor were they authorized to do so.

You have still to provide one scrap of evidence for your claims that:

The cross was revered by early Christians long before the 4th century. Although they had reservations about depicting the symbol materially, they looked for it's manifestation around them.

The cross was understood by Christians in general as a significant symbol relating to Christ's prophetic mission and sacrifice, as well as our following of his example (bearing our crosses etc.), but I see no evidence for the reverencing or preoccupation of the object itself before the time periods before mentioned. Nor do you, as you very well know.


Now, even though I've gone this far with you in a civil and intellectually substantive manner, and put up with your smarmy, patronizing pomposity, I'm sure you'd like to get back to The Three Stooges Meet Dirty Harry on Pay Per View.

Right about your level, no doubt.

[_moksha]