I don’t see the cross being holy either. Why gloify what killed you Savior? But like the Shroud of Turin, some need the physical
There is a small voice of dissent with Christianity which is echoed by the books of Bishop John Shelby Spong. I think the current term is Humanist Christianity or something like that. Anyway some Christians are now questioning the accepted teachings of mainstream Christian Churches.
For example some Christians are asking if God really did command His Son to die on the Cross. And even “was Jesus really born the Son of God or was He adopted by God as His Son when He showed His faith by dying on The Cross?”
What would be holy about a lance used to kill the alleged messiah?
It would supposedly have the blood of god on it.
Actually, as the story goes, it did not kill Jesus. He was dead already. Supposedly, it was the custom to break the legs of those hanging on crosses to cause the hanger to suffocate and die quicker. I assume this would have been after a certain amount of time. The Roman guards noted that Jesus was dead already so instead of breaking his legs they stuck him with a spear. When this was done a mixture of blood and water came out.
This is supposed to fulfill some prophecy about none of his bones being broken or something like that. The truth of the matter is, since this is only found in John which was the last of the gospels, and most spiritual, to be written, this was probably added later to the myth to try and make a false fulfillment of prophecy to add more credibility to the idea of Jesus being the messiah.
I don’t see the cross being holy either. Why gloify what killed you Savior? But like the Shroud of Turin, some need the physical
Didn’t the cross only become holy after the “In this sign, thou shalt conquer” thing?
That sounds like you’re referring to Emperor Constantine at the Battle of the Milvian Bridge, where he saw the chi and rho symbol. Which isn’t quite a cross, exactly, and also happened in the early 4th Century. The Alexandrians, at the very least, were already referring to the cross as a holy object by the 3rd Century (if we’re to believe St. Clement, which I don’t see why we shouldn’t on this account at least).
I don’t see the cross being holy either. Why gloify what killed you Savior? But like the Shroud of Turin, some need the physical
Didn’t the cross only become holy after the “In this sign, thou shalt conquer” thing?
That sounds like you’re referring to Emperor Constantine at the Battle of the Milvian Bridge, where he saw the chi and rho symbol. Which isn’t quite a cross, exactly, and also happened in the early 4th Century. The Alexandrians, at the very least, were already referring to the cross as a holy object by the 3rd Century (if we’re to believe St. Clement, which I don’t see why we shouldn’t on this account at least).
Yeah, I just learned about it once in middle school, when we did our unite on the Byzantine Empire. Thanks! ^^;
