"Jesus Christ May Not Have Died on Cross"
The theologian says that he believes that Jesus Christ died and resurrected. He also states that He does believe that Jesus Christ was suspended, which fulfills the prophecy that He would be lifted up. He also acknowledges the cross beam and the nails. It is just a debate on whether it was actually a T-shaped cross beam. I had read years ago in other literature that the “lower t” shape now commonly depicted was historically incorrect, and that such symbolism evolved later. I do believe that the “lower t” cross symbols were firmly in place by the time of Constantine, however.
Solo Christo, Soli Deo Gloria, Sola Fide, Sola Gratia, Sola Scriptura http://healtheland.wordpress.com
I thought the way the news headline was stated was very misleading. Immediately, I assumed that the article was another “let’s criticize Christianity” article attacking the death and resurrection of Christ, but when I read the article, I realized the scholar believed Jesus died and rose again. A more accurate headline would be along the lines of “Scholar questions shape of cross” or “What did the Romans use to crucify Jesus?” I really think the headline was written to purposefully inflame people.
I daren't come and drink, said Jill. "Then you will die of thirst," said the Lion. "Oh dear!" said Jill, coming another step nearer. "I suppose I must go and look for another stream then." "There is no other stream," said the Lion.
Here’s some clarification on what the scholar is suggesting.
http://evangelicaltextualcriticism.blogspot.com/2010/06/jesus-did-not-d…
http://evangelicaltextualcriticism.blogspot.com/2010/06/jesus-did-not-d…
Striving for the unity of the faith, for the glory of God ~ Eph. 4:3, 13; Rom. 15:5-7 I blog at Fundamentally Reformed. Follow me on Twitter.
Looks like it’s really about what the shape of the “cross” was (ie mayb not “cross shaped”). It only matters to the umpteen millions over the centuries who have thought of the cross shape in a superstitious way… you know, to ward off vampires and stuff. All the same, I hope he’s wrong. I like traditions, especially really old ones.
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
One other oddity is the position the Jehovah’s Witnesses have maintained, that the cross was a stake that Jesus was nailed to. They make a big deal about that and all, but ultimately the most important thing is Jesus died and shed his blood for our sins.
Striving for the unity of the faith, for the glory of God ~ Eph. 4:3, 13; Rom. 15:5-7 I blog at Fundamentally Reformed. Follow me on Twitter.
I agree the headline was incendiary, but I’m not sure how much leeway I should take in toning those down rather than just reporting them. Perhaps I should have just tried to find a similar article with a headline that was not trying to be sensational. Still I think it’s interesting when things like this are debated or discussed. As Aaron and others have said, it’s not really crucial to our salvation what the shape of the cross/tree was, but like Aaron, I sometimes hate to have certain traditions be destroyed, even if they are just traditions are not particularly meaningful in and of themselves.
Dave Barnhart
@ dcbii, I’m sorry if it sounded like I was criticizing your “sharper iron” headline! I meant the original headline to which I knew you were referring. I’d seen it earlier on abcnews.com under that headline, and my adrenalin started pumping! Then of course when I read the actual article, I realized that the scholar was not attacking a fundamental of the Christian faith. I just really thought that abcnews had written it that way on purpose to rile people up. Then again,maybe it was just a rather misleading way to get people to read the article. I guess it worked - I read it!
I agree with those of you who said it’s interesting, but I hope that tradition is right. But, yes, in the end, what matters is that Jesus gave His life for me and rose again!
I agree with those of you who said it’s interesting, but I hope that tradition is right. But, yes, in the end, what matters is that Jesus gave His life for me and rose again!
I daren't come and drink, said Jill. "Then you will die of thirst," said the Lion. "Oh dear!" said Jill, coming another step nearer. "I suppose I must go and look for another stream then." "There is no other stream," said the Lion.
[Lisa R] @ dcbii, I’m sorry if it sounded like I was criticizing your “sharper iron” headline! I meant the original headline to which I knew you were referring. I’d seen it earlier on abcnews.com under that headline, and my adrenalin started pumping!
No worries, I didn’t take it as a personal insult. I actually agree with you that the ABC News headline *was* misleading. I still thought the article was worth reading anyway (i.e. “news of interest to fundamentalists”), but although I’ve thought about changing or adding comments to some headlines, in the end, I just use them the way they appear for “journalistic honesty.”
Dave Barnhart
Dave Barnhart
[Bob Hayton] One other oddity is the position the Jehovah’s Witnesses have maintained, that the cross was a stake that Jesus was nailed to. They make a big deal about that and all, but ultimately the most important thing is Jesus died and shed his blood for our sins.It is also important that Jesus Christ was “lifted up” or “suspended” because that fact fulfilled various prophecies and typology, see John 3:14. However, the shape of what he was lifted up on does not matter much, and was never meant to be an object of veneration, iconography, worship or historical significance to Christianity anyway. Note the contrast in the detailed descriptions of the ark of the covenant, tabernacle, temple, priestly garments etc. to the lack of information about the cross. Scripture tells us as much or more about the tomb that Jesus Christ was laid in, the robe that He was crucified in, and the preparation of His body for burial than it does about the cross.
Solo Christo, Soli Deo Gloria, Sola Fide, Sola Gratia, Sola Scriptura http://healtheland.wordpress.com
I believe I noticed a reference to this image called the [URL=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexamenos_graffito] “Alexamenos Graffito”[/URL] on the Evangelical Textual Criticism blog. It’s dated as early as the 1st century and if so would kind of blast this paper away. Not that the actual “t’ shaped cross in of itself is important.
Discussion