I have been discussing with my friend David about the following question these last two days:
"Is there any significance of the cross (as opposed to a stake) other than being historically and biblically accurate, and more torturous?"
Please understand that the question is not asking about which one is historically/biblically accurate, but what sets the cross apart. David has found information on the web which have all been debates over cross versus stake, not what sets a cross apart. One of an intersting sites David suggested is called Jerusalem Burial Cave Reveals:Names, Testimonies of First Christians, although it was merely referring to crosses as being an early-christian symbol.
Hi Kitty, I am not sure that there is any significance to it being a cross rather than a stake other than biblical/historical accuracy.
ReplyDeleteI know that legends have endowed crucifixes, etc., with supernatural power, but there is nothing in the Bible which supports this.
The O.T. prophecies simply referred to the Messiah dying on a "tree". As it turned out, the Roman version of that tree was the cross.
God bless.
I just saw your comment on Gordon's blog. You mention Worldteam. I was with West Indies Mission, which later became WorldTeam...I taught missionary kid's in Haiti for a term before being married.
ReplyDeleteThe blogging world really brings people together, doesn't it.
Sis I agree with Gordon. I knew of nothing so I did some research and found nothing scriptural. I think the only thing that makes it so special is what God accomplished on it.
ReplyDeleteGordon, yes it's interesting how a "tree" in the O.T. was actually the cross isn't it?
ReplyDeleteHi Beverly, yes praise God for the blogosphere. Very nice to meet you sis.
ReplyDeleteKc, I agree with you brother.
ReplyDelete