No need for crucifix's

[jssaxon]

Crucifix’s is the possessive form of the word. Crucifixes is the plural.

 

[Jguerra]

So why did men decide to make a man made image of the Lord Jesus on the cross? Is the making of a man made image of the Lord Jesus on the cross in effect saying that the Scriptural accounts of the Lord’s death aren’t good enough and that His followers need a man made image as well. I mean how can any mere man do better than what God has done and how can the terrible suffering of the blessed Lord Jesus be recreated by a mere human artist.

So there’s no command in the Sacred Scriptures to make an image of the Lord Jesus on the cross and there’s no need to make this image because the God inspired Sacred Scriptures perfectly describe to us what terrible suffering the Lord Jesus went through to save sinners.

Welcome Asa,

I can only recall that the use of a crucifix as a somber reminder of the Lord’s ultimate sacrifice to save mankind goes back to St. Paul as seen in Galatians: "You foolish Galatians! Who has bewitched you? Before your very eyes Jesus Christ was clearly portrayed as crucified. (Gal. 3:1)It appears to me that St. Paul used a crucifix, if not a drawing of the Crucifixion as a tool for evangelism.

Reading about the Passion and Death of the Lord is one thing and a good and noble practice. Meditating on these events by means of paintings or other media is no less valuable.

Peace,

Joe

 

[kleary]

The following is a very clear and perfect command from the Lord Jesus on how His followers should remember His perfect sacrifice;

And he took bread, and gave thanks, and brake it, and gave unto them, saying, This is my body which is given for you: this do in remembrance of me . Likewise also the cup after supper, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood, which is shed for you. Luke 22:19-20

Also in Matt, Mark, Luke & John there are God inspired accounts of the Lord Jesus’ death on the cross. So why did men decide to make a man made image of the Lord Jesus on the cross? Is the making of a man made image of the Lord Jesus on the cross in effect saying that the Scriptural accounts of the Lord’s death aren’t good enough and that His followers need a man made image as well. I mean how can any mere man do better than what God has done and how can the terrible suffering of the blessed Lord Jesus be recreated by a mere human artist.

So there’s no command in the Sacred Scriptures to make an image of the Lord Jesus on the cross and there’s no need to make this image because the God inspired Sacred Scriptures perfectly describe to us what terrible suffering the Lord Jesus went through to save sinners.

The four Gospel books were not available in all the Church until about the fourth century, and not until the Church decided as a whole if they were even “scripture” to begin with.

It was much easier to make a Gospel teaching aide than to write books now wasn’t it? And is not the Crucifix the BEST teaching aide yet to show the passion of Jesus Christ?

Your argument is the same as the Iconoclasts who arose in the fourth century to make a hillarius accusation against their fellow Christians who had images of Jesus Christ crucified, the Blessed mother and the saints in their gathering places. Thank God we are already “standing on the shoulders of giants” so to say- the answer lies in the Ecumenical Council of Nicea- where the entire Christian Church declared it to be heresy if you think that the statue images in churches is idolatry.

Shame on you. It is people like you who are responsible for the wreckovation of Catholic churches over the past 30 years.

Ken

 

[Pwrlftr]

Welcome Asa,

I can only recall that the use of a crucifix as a somber reminder of the Lord’s ultimate sacrifice to save mankind goes back to St. Paul as seen in Galatians: "You foolish Galatians! Who has bewitched you? Before your very eyes Jesus Christ was clearly portrayed as crucified. (Gal. 3:1)It appears to me that St. Paul used a crucifix, if not a drawing of the Crucifixion as a tool for evangelism.

Reading about the Passion and Death of the Lord is one thing and a good and noble practice. Meditating on these events by means of paintings or other media is no less valuable.

Peace,

Joe

JGuerra,

I am currently looking through several lexicons and haven’t found one scrap of evidence supporting the idea that in Gal 3:1 the word “portray” means anything other than vividly describing the event.

If you can find something else I would like to see it. The verses posted several posts ago have absolutely nothing to do with putting the image of Jesus on the cross or anywhere else for that matter.

Pretty much, every reference reads as:
Lexicon:

33.191 προγράφωb: to provide information in a vivid manner—‘to describe vividly, to portray.’ οἷς κατ̓ ὀφθαλμοὺς Ἰησοῦς Χριστὸς προεγράφη ἐσταυρωμένος ‘you before whose eyes Jesus Christ was portrayed as crucified’ Ga 3.1. It would be wrong to assume that προγράφω in Ga 3.1 refers to some kind of theatrical demonstration. The portrayal mentioned here was evidently a vivid verbal description.

Louw, Johannes P. ; Nida, Eugene Albert: Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament : Based on Semantic Domains. electronic ed. of the 2nd edition. New York : United Bible societies, 1996, c1989, S. 1:409

 

[cascherman]

The following is a very clear and perfect command from the Lord Jesus on how His followers should remember His perfect sacrifice;

And he took bread, and gave thanks, and brake it, and gave unto them, saying, This is my body which is given for you: this do in remembrance of me . Likewise also the cup after supper, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood, which is shed for you. Luke 22:19-20

Also in Matt, Mark, Luke & John there are God inspired accounts of the Lord Jesus’ death on the cross. So why did men decide to make a man made image of the Lord Jesus on the cross? Is the making of a man made image of the Lord Jesus on the cross in effect saying that the Scriptural accounts of the Lord’s death aren’t good enough and that His followers need a man made image as well. I mean how can any mere man do better than what God has done and how can the terrible suffering of the blessed Lord Jesus be recreated by a mere human artist.

So there’s no command in the Sacred Scriptures to make an image of the Lord Jesus on the cross and there’s no need to make this image because the God inspired Sacred Scriptures perfectly describe to us what terrible suffering the Lord Jesus went through to save sinners.

Can you provide evidence from scripture that it is forbidden to make an image of Christ on the Cross? You claim you’ve proven that we are not instructed to do it explicitly, but can you prove that we are forbidden to do it?

 

[cascherman]

JGuerra,

I am currently looking through several lexicons and haven’t found one scrap of evidence supporting the idea that in Gal 3:1 the word “portray” means anything other than vividly describing the event.

If you can find something else I would like to see it. The verses posted several posts ago have absolutely nothing to do with putting the image of Jesus on the cross or anywhere else for that matter.

Pretty much, every reference reads as:

I think the key words are, ‘Before you eyes…’

 

[Pwrlftr]

I think the key words are, ‘Before you eyes…’

Okay, but does that change anything?

 

[Pwrlftr]

The Haydock Commentary (not very pro-Protestant) has this to say about Galatians 3:1
Haydock:

Ver. 1. Before whose eyes Jesus Christ…crucified among you.[1] The common exposition is, that St. Paul had before described and set before them Christ crucified. Others, that it had been clearly foretold by the prophets that Christ was crucified for them. (Witham)

No mention of anything similar to a crucifix being used.

 

[Church_Militant]

Is it your position that the verses you mention above are about making images of Jesus on the cross? I would love to see you attempt to exegete them if it is your belief the verses are about making images of Jesus.

No…I am pointing out that there is a scriptural precedent for this form of portrayal.

Are you willing to assert that there is something wrong with it?

 

[Jguerra]

JGuerra,

I am currently looking through several lexicons and haven’t found one scrap of evidence supporting the idea that in Gal 3:1 the word “portray” means anything other than vividly describing the event.

If you can find something else I would like to see it. The verses posted several posts ago have absolutely nothing to do with putting the image of Jesus on the cross or anywhere else for that matter.

Pretty much, every reference reads as:

The very same verse: “You foolish Galatians! Who has bewitched you? Before your very eyes Jesus Christ was clearly portrayed as crucified.”

To portray a ‘vivid descripition’ ‘before your very eyes’ calls to mind some image perceptible by the sense of sight. I agree with others who indicated that Gospel preaching was very much an oral task (accompanied by signs and wonders).

You are quite correct that the Bible does not explicitly command the production of crucifixes. The same principle of interpretation applies however, when we can say that the Bible does not forbid the making of crucifixes. Since you haven’t found ‘one scrap of evidence’ to support the definition of ‘portray,’ I can safely conclude that the Bible itself does not limit the definition of that word.

You’re free to reach your own conclusion, and so am I. Asa will no doubt make his own decision.

Give Galatians 3:1 to any ten Bible-believing Christians (Baptist, Methodist, Pentecostal, Adventist, Methodist, etc.)and allow them to be inspired by the Holy Spirit and you will get ten different interpretations. There will be no consensus. Each one will claim to have the proper interpretation.

Joe

 

[Pwrlftr]

No…I am pointing out that there is a scriptural precedent for this form of portrayal.

Are you willing to assert that there is something wrong with it?

My only point is that the scriptures you quoted have nothing to do with images.

I personally don’t have an issue with crucifixes.

 

[Church_Militant]

The Haydock Commentary (not very pro-Protestant) has this to say about Galatians 3:1

No mention of anything similar to a crucifix being used.

You better go back in Christian history and look at all the forms of this portrayal that date back to the catacombs.

BTW, if Haydock was Pro-protestant it wouldn’t be Haydock…or worth having for Catholics.

 

[Church_Militant]

My only point is that the scriptures you quoted have nothing to do with images.

I personally don’t have an issue with crucifixes.

But then you will have to admit that the crucifix has no conflict with scripture then.

 

[Pwrlftr]

The very same verse: “You foolish Galatians! Who has bewitched you? Before your very eyes Jesus Christ was clearly portrayed as crucified.”

To portray a ‘vivid descripition’ ‘before your very eyes’ calls to mind some image perceptible by the sense of sight. I agree with others who indicated that Gospel preaching was very much an oral task (accompanied by signs and wonders).

You are quite correct that the Bible does not explicitly command the production of crucifixes. The same principle of interpretation applies however, when we can say that the Bible does not forbid the making of crucifixes. Since you haven’t found ‘one scrap of evidence’ to support the definition of ‘portray,’ I can safely conclude that the Bible itself does not limit the definition of that word.

You’re free to reach your own conclusion, and so am I. Asa will no doubt make his own decision.

Give Galatians 3:1 to any ten Bible-believing Christians (Baptist, Methodist, Pentecostal, Adventist, Methodist, etc.)and allow them to be inspired by the Holy Spirit and you will get ten different interpretations. There will be no consensus. Each one will claim to have the proper interpretation.

Joe

Joe,

I haven’t found any evidence that contradicts the lexical entry I posted earlier.

You are right, it does say “Before your very eyes…” but that doesn’t help your case.

The sentence simply reads:
“O foolish Galatians! Who has bewitched you? It was before your eyes that Jesus Christ was publicly aportrayed as crucified.”

…and with the lexicon’s help we have the following:
“O foolish Galatians! Who has bewitched you? It was before your eyes that Jesus Christ was publicly described as crucified.”

According to the lexicons, προγράφωb, does not refer to illustrating the crucifixion by some type of drawn, carved, engraved, or wrought image. It simply describes a vivid verbal description.

 

[Pwrlftr]

But then you will have to admit that the crucifix has no conflict with scripture then.

I kinda said as much. I don’t really have a problem with it but to be honest, I haven’t studied this issue enough to defend it either.

 

[Pwrlftr]

You better go back in Christian history and look at all the forms of this portrayal that date back to the catacombs.

To be fair, you earlier posted scripture and not evidence from the catacombs and it’s your use of the scripture that I object to.

 

[Pwrlftr]

Give Galatians 3:1 to any ten Bible-believing Christians (Baptist, Methodist, Pentecostal, Adventist, Methodist, etc.)and allow them to be inspired by the Holy Spirit and you will get ten different interpretations. There will be no consensus. Each one will claim to have the proper interpretation.

Joe

Joe,

I posted the lexical evidence that defines προγράφωb quite clearly and I suppose I can post more if you want me to. Your above post/point has nothing to do with our conversation. If you have access to a lexicon and can find another definition of the word in question, feel free to post it. If you have some other evidence that Paul used an image or crucifix in his ministry to describe Jesus as crucified, please post it and we will continue the discussion.

Now, I can post almost any scripture I choose to here at CAF and get as many interpretations as there are Catholic posters. Your church has prudently decided not to define every single verse in the Bible and in fact hasn’t defined all that many.

 

[cascherman]

Okay, but does that change anything?

meaning… it is something someone can see.

 

[Pwrlftr]

meaning… it is something someone can see.

Sure, you can see me vividly describe the crucifixion. Based on the lexical entries there is no reason to believe that Paul used “imagery”.

 

[hosemonkey]

Dance around lexicography all you like, what I know and what you should see is that Asa merely intended to throw the cat amongst the pigeons with his assertion or challenge for the portrayal of Our Lord on the cross. His intention was to ridicule the use by Catholics of the Crucifix, nothing more, nothing less. These threads are replete with these kinds of attacks by “Bible Christians”, who attempt to score a few cheap points and then move on. I refuse to bandy words with a poster who comes here merely to do a little sniping and then scurry back into hiding. I will gladly explain Catholic doctrine or practice with any honest seeker, but with these theological cowards I hold no brief.