[Monkey Face]

...Regardless of how the two exchanged places, what difference does it make?

I don't know. Should it? I suspect there is an answer for you somewhere, but since the Resurrection indicates that Christ is alive, and a cross is a symbol of death, I would say it's just a symbol that some people need, for whatever reason.

I have no clue what kind of answer you're expecting, but I bet this isn't it...;o]

Have a safe weekend! And remember the reason for the Day.

[Das Outsider]

I don't know. Should it? I suspect there is an answer for you somewhere, but since the Resurrection indicates that Christ is alive, and a cross is a symbol of death, I would say it's just a symbol that some people need, for whatever reason.

If you don't mind, I may have to commandeer this one. There has been debate in Protestant circles as to whether congregations and individual believers should use crucifixes or crosses. Some of the more mainline branches see the former as being too "Catholic." Others view the crucifix--and these are the lib, social gospel churches--find the image too disturbing.

What few grasp is this: The crucifix is a vivid reminder of Christ's suffering at Calvary--for you, for me, for everyone. The cross, however, is empty. While it was the instrument of death that God chose, it need not be merely that. If one starts with the crucifix, the empty cross is the next stage. You can figure that one out: it's the Resurrection. We don't proclaim that Christ died for the world and end it there.

The Resurrection was preached from the very beginning of the Church. In fact, the very existence of the Church today points towards the event. There is no doubt about this, only ad hoc rationalizations.