Why is Jesus never on the cross in a Protestant church?

[Claudius]

This is news to me. Can you show me in some church document like the catechism that Catholics are required to rest on Saturday?

CATECHISM CATHOLICAE ECCLESIAE 2175

Catholics maintian that Sunday is the Holier of the two days

2174 <Because it (Sunday) is the “eighth day” following the sabbath, it symbolizes the new creation ushered in by Christ’s Resurrection.>

The word for Saturday in Ecclesiatical Latin is Sabbato. All the names of Roman gods that were previously used being banned. This is why even in Portugese they do not use them in their modern language. Sunday is Domini. Monday is Feria Secunda and it counts all the way until Saturday which is called, officially by the Church, Sabbato, The Sabbath.

It is best if a Catholic should rest on Saturday and worship on Sunday but if it is not possible to observe both days then Sunday takes precedent.

2176 <The celebration of Sunday observes the moral commandment inscribed by nature in the human heart to render to God an outward, visible, public, and regular worship “as a sign of his universal beneficence to all.” Sunday worship fulfills the moral command of the Old Covenant, taking up its rhythm and spirit in the weekly celebration of the Creator and Redeemer of his people.>

I can see how some people might be confused on this issue as the Church is very lax about Saturday and much more strict about Sunday but both are in fact observed by the Church. I have even heard stories of priest before the second Vatican Council who would tell people not to cut their grass on Saturday because of this rule.

 

[paarsurrey]

Why is Jesus never on the cross in a Protestant church?

Hi

I being an Ahmadi peaceful Muslim believe that Jesus did not die a cursed death on Cross, he died a natural death in India and is stated to have been buried there in a tomb at Sirinagar Kashmir. After his death his soul was exalted to heavens as mentioned in Quran.
The Holy Quran : Chapter 4: Al-Nisa’

[4:158] And for their saying, ‘We did slay the Messiah, Jesus, son of Mary, the Messenger of Allah;’ whereas they slew him not, nor did they bring about his death upon the cross, but he was made to appear to them like one crucified; and those who differ therein are certainly in a state of doubt about it; they have no certain knowledge thereof, but only pursue a conjecture; and they did not arrive at a certainty concerning it.**
[4:159] On the contrary, Allah exalted him to Himself. And Allah is Mighty, Wise.**www3.alislam.org/showChapter.jsp?submitCh=Read+from+verse%3A&ch=4&verse=157

So ,in my opinion, there is no point in showing Jesus on the Cross all the time in a Protestant church .

Thanks

 

[Righteousone]

CATECHISM CATHOLICAE ECCLESIAE 2175

Catholics maintian that Sunday is the Holier of the two days

2174 <Because it (Sunday) is the “eighth day” following the sabbath, it symbolizes the new creation ushered in by Christ’s Resurrection.>

The word for Saturday in Ecclesiatical Latin is Sabbato. All the names of Roman gods that were previously used being banned. This is why even in Portugese they do not use them in their modern language. Sunday is Domini. Monday is Feria Secunda and it counts all the way until Saturday which is called, officially by the Church, Sabbato, The Sabbath.

It is best if a Catholic should rest on Saturday and worship on Sunday but if it is not possible to observe both days then Sunday takes precedent.

2176 <The celebration of Sunday observes the moral commandment inscribed by nature in the human heart to render to God an outward, visible, public, and regular worship “as a sign of his universal beneficence to all.” Sunday worship fulfills the moral command of the Old Covenant, taking up its rhythm and spirit in the weekly celebration of the Creator and Redeemer of his people.>

I can see how some people might be confused on this issue as the Church is very lax about Saturday and much more strict about Sunday but both are in fact observed by the Church. I have even heard stories of priest before the second Vatican Council who would tell people not to cut their grass on Saturday because of this rule.

Also there are two Masses on Saturdays, four on Sunday…did you know in Mexico they have a Mass every hour every day from 7 a.m. until the evening?

 

[moondweller]

Most of this post is really just “WA WA WA, I am protestant and I am not going to listen to you Catholics because I believe that ALL CATHOLICS ARE GOING TO HELL”

It is also a fine example of the protestant mentality to completely ignore history and huge parts of the Bible whenever it proves them wrong, which it does on all issues where they differ with Catholicism.

However, I will respond briefly to just a hand full comments even though most are not worthy of a resonse.

The ORIGINAL Aramaic version of Matthew is part of the New Testament that is used by the Maronite Catholic Church, the Syrian Catholic Church, the Chaldean Catholic Church as well as their counterparts that are not in communion with Rome. This version of Matthew has been retained from ancient times and is believed by leading Biblical scholars and the Church itself as the original.

Proof?

In the West we still prefer to make translations from the Greek as it is also considered an original considering who it came about. Matthew would preach the Gospel, and he would preach it consitantly from day to day. He preached the Gospel in Aramaic. One of his students wrote down his words in Aramaic which means that it is probably very close to the actual words that Matthew used when he preached. The Greek came about by another of Matthew’s students listening to the Gospel in Aramaic but rendering it into Greek on the fly. As such, it to is an original in terms of documents but a translation considering that documents production.

And you have historical proof of how these two “originals” came about?

The Latin word Purgere, is used to translate several different Greek word, the closest one to the theology of Purgatory being εσται. In English, these words should be translated as Clean, Cleansing, Cleaned. I hope you get the idea.

Oh sure, I get the idea. You just pour into a Greek word any fully formed doctrine you want.

No Macabees in your Bibles,

No purgatory taught in Macabees.

 

[graceandglory]

Take the rosary, for example? I believe that for every time the Lord’s Prayer is said, there are ten Hail Marys. That strikes Protestants as a lack of proper perspective.

That’s because protestants have only one definition of the word “prayer.” Catholics know of at least three. Prayer, meditation, and contemplation. Saying the Hail Mary’s actually helps us to move into a deeper level of prayerful communication with the Lord. It’s a whole 'nother subject, I don’t mean to derail this thread. Just something to think about.

 

[Righteousone]

Why is it when Protestants don’t like the answer you give them, know that it is the correct answer, yet insist with always the word ‘proof’, and when you give them proof, they say ‘prove it again’…

 

[moondweller]

Why is it when Protestants don’t like the answer you give them, know that it is the correct answer, yet insist with always the word ‘proof’, and when you give them proof, they say ‘prove it again’…

This isn’t true. Not all Protestants ask for proof. This one does, however. The reason I ask for “proof” is because one can’t just assert something and expect all to believe it. Supply adequate documentation if need be.

Case in point, how do the “leading Bible scholars” Claudius refers to know that the Aramaic manuscript in question is truly the “original?” What scientific proof do they supply after examining the manuscript? He said they “believe” it is, but one can’t just “believe” it to be the “original,” there must be scientific proof.

Think about what else Claudius stated: Matthew preached the gospel in Aramaic daily. One student listening to him wrote the gospel account of Matthew in Matthew’s native language. But another student listening to Matthew preaching the gospel in Aramaic translated what he heard into Greek. Miraculously, they both wrote the exact same words but in two, completely different languages (hence, per Claudius, both are “originals”). Both (one must assume) being Holy Spirit inspired (which I suppose is the reason that both accounts, written by two entirely different people, are exactly identical except for the languages). This, of course, would make Matthew’s account far more unique than the other three.

But then, we know that Mark and John were Jews and also spoke Aramaic. So how do we know that their accounts (Mark’s through Peter) weren’t also first written in Aramaic and at the same time in Greek (producing two Holy Spirit inspired “originals”), but also, subsequently, the Aramaic manuscripts got lost (there’s no proof that Luke wasn’t a Jew - he more than likely was).

This is all quite a fantastic story just to try and prove that in the Aramaic “Petros” and “petra” are the same word. But there is scholarly work available which suggests that even in the Aramaic this was not necessarily true. And if one was to argue, rather, that our Greek text is actually a translation of Matthew’s alleged “original” Aramaic (which presents great problems in and of itself), then the fact that the translators used two different Greek words would show us that in the alleged Aramaic text two different Aramaic words were also used - for the Greek translation to be accurate.

But until proved otherwise, I must contend that the original Greek text is the, Holy Spirit inspired text (like the whole N.T.). And I am content to believe it. And in the Greek, two different words are used.

 

[MawmawRae]

Since Jesus arose —it is obvious He isn’t any longer on the Cross.
The Bible says He is at the right hand of the Father in Heaven.
We serve a Risen Saviour!!! Hallelujah!!!

 

[JonNC]

Since Jesus arose —it is obvious He isn’t any longer on the Cross.
The Bible says He is at the right hand of the Father in Heaven.
We serve a Risen Saviour!!! Hallelujah!!!

Was Paul, then, wrong when he wrote, “we preach Christ crucified”? As I’ve said before, both the empty cross and the crucifix are proper Christian images.

 

[Righteousone]

Since Jesus arose —it is obvious He isn’t any longer on the Cross.
The Bible says He is at the right hand of the Father in Heaven.
We serve a Risen Saviour!!! Hallelujah!!!

But Jesus died for you. He died before he was resurrected. You need to concentrate on the Passion of our Lord and not always like it’s a party to have known he suffered and died.
I just don’t get all the singing and clapping…

 

[JonNC]

But Jesus died for you. He died before he was resurrected. You need to concentrate on the Passion of our Lord and not always like it’s a party to have known he suffered and died.
I just don’t get all the singing and clapping…

The singing and clapping and rejoicing are great - on Easter Sunday. They simply don’t have the same power, though, if we don’t recognize the suffering and death of the Passion.

 

[MawmawRae]

In Jesus we have a new life.
Jesus is alive making intercession for us to the Father.
What is better than knowing we are saved from sin and praising
the wonderful love and mercy of God?
Paul reminds of of what saved us, the death, burial, AND resurrection of our Lord!!!
We have a Living Savior. If He was remained on the cross we would still be in sin and the wages of sin is death.
We are saved by His death and justified by His RESURRECTION,
Praise the Lord~~~~~

 

[RebeccaJ]

Of course. I practice in an area where there are lots of Latino immigrants, mostly Catholic and lots are illiterate. Lots of them just do not understand much about religion, but they think they are good Catholics. What the heck, maybe they are!

I suggest attending a Spanish mass…you’ll see.

 

[Bible_Believer]

I do not have a crucifix because I know my Lord is a living risen saviour who sits at the right hand of God. I do not fail to remember daily what He did for me though, by giving His life on the cross to pay my sin debt. I agree with what I saw many of you say…you do have to think of that and be thankful for what He did, but I am thankful that because He lives, I can have eternal life

 

[MawmawRae]

Bless you Bible believer!!!

 

[HannahLisa]

I went to an Anglican church for years. Jesus was on the cross.

I have gone to Catholic churches that have crosses without Jesus depicted on them.

Does it really matter?

 

[Bible_Believer]

This is to JonNC. Of course Paul was right when he spoke of preaching Christ crucified. It was His shed blood on Calvary’s cross that gives us the hope of eternal life. You are absolutely right, and I, like I said already…thank my Lord every day for what he did by dying on the cross. We cant ever let that stray from our mind, but also, MawmawRae and I are on the same page, that He is not on the cross anymore. He is risen, and that does give us something to sing praises about…as does his death on the cross. Im just glad he is a risen saviour. I am not putting down anyone with a crucifix…He DID die on the cross.
Bless ya!

 

[Righteousone]

I went to an Anglican church for years. Jesus was on the cross.

I have gone to Catholic churches that have crosses without Jesus depicted on them.

Does it really matter?

Can you tell me these Catholic churches that don’t have our Lord on the cross? Where exactly have you gone? And what are the names of them?

 

[cradlecathlic26]

I do not have a crucifix because I know my Lord is a living risen saviour who sits at the right hand of God. I do not fail to remember daily what He did for me though, by giving His life on the cross to pay my sin debt. I agree with what I saw many of you say…you do have to think of that and be thankful for what He did, but I am thankful that because He lives, I can have eternal life

The Catholic Church praises, bare crosses, risen crosses, and crucifixes. They all have meaning and the cross is a symbol of what jesus did for us. There should be nothing wrong with this, and im puzzled to why this is even being debated.

 

[Namesake]

The Catholic Church praises, bare crosses, risen crosses, and crucifixes. They all have meaning and the cross is a symbol of what jesus did for us. There should be nothing wrong with this, and im puzzled to why this is even being debated.

Because the OP has a thing about Protestants and wants to stir things a bit. Wants to show people how empty Protestants are, like their crosses.