Does The Orthodox Presbyterian Church use the Crucifix?

Catholics are against PROTESTANTS
and...
Protestants are against Catholics

but...

...they are united against Mormons...

I already said that your clock on this thread with me is run out.

Mmmmm... ha, except neither Adam nor Jesus is an alien.

Paul says Jesus is the "new Adam." Not saying reincarnation or clone of course, but there's that "image and likeness" thingie...

BTW, "Son of Man" and "Son of Adam" are,as I understand it, the same thing in Hebrew.

Some Hebrew-ista out there can correct me if I'm wrong!

Now THAT is the Calvin that I really love!

It makes perfect sense for them to have used a flower, since Jesus is the rose of Sharron.

I am sorry that you have not learned the very deep and beautiful things about Jesus. He told us about harvests and growing and seasons and to look to nature for the secrets of faith, love and His protection over his children.

Here is from a very fast google search on the topic: http://www.bennerfarms.com/symbol/

Most Christian believers are opposed to the dead body of Christ being worshiped. I am surprised that the idea is news to you at 62!! :)

That link you gave me shows a Catholic church. Christians are not all Catholics, in fact the Catholics have killed many Christians (in past history) because we do not believe the same things. Although I will guess, today, some Catholics are Christian beleivers.

The debate over the earliest church could go on and on, since the body of a believer is THE church.

the Prophet Isiah is an early believer, so is King David. THEY were the church. The woman with the red chord in the book of Joshua is the church. The Bible, the word of God, the Body of Christ is full of stories of believers who were the Church.

There are no google links with photos, however. ;)

" "the early church did not use a cross, but a flower, as a symbol of their belief in Jesus."

This is what you said. Of course I know that Jesus is called the Rose of Sharon --- as well as the Lion of Judah and many other images --- but what I said is that I did not know of Christians using a rose instead of a cross on top of their steeples, on their Bibles, or in a central place in their sanctuaries.

Church at is extraordinarily varied and rich in terms of pictorial symbolism. My point was, the early Christians cannot be shown to have used a rose instead of a cross.

Unless you have evidence. I am always ready to modify my opinions on the basis of evidence.

"Most Christian believers are opposed to the dead body of Christ being worshiped. I am surprised that the idea is news to you at 62!! :)"

Over 60% of the Christians on earth are Catholic/Orthodox (Link) and while we do not worship the dead body of Christ (He is not dead now, He is risen) we do venerate the Cross, and our crucifixes, stained-glass windows, murals, paintings, Bible-illustration and icons depict his sorrowful Passion and Death--- as well as His glorious Resurrection.

If you add in Lutheran (Link), and Anglican, and Methodist, and even Baptist, for Heaven's sake, I'd say that probably 90% of Christians have crosses with Christ in honored places on their steeples, in their churches and in their devotional art.

I never denied that believers "are" the Church. In fact, that is one definition of the Church: the people of God.

We --- meaning you and I, and all believers --- are, likewise, the Body of Christ.

Here's a video I highly recommend. A short fly-over on Mary in Scripture:

Very nice thank you.

Here's a video I highly recommend. A short fly-over on Mary in Scripture:

Very nice thank you.

With respect, I disagree with your reasoning and conclusions concerning the necessity of Jesus' mother, Mary, having to be a "perfect" human being - physically and spiritually. Of the many reasons why I disagree, the one that should stand out is the simple truth that Mary would have had to get her "perfection" from imperfect parents and, if this was so, there would be no reason why Jesus could not have also gotten his perfect humanity from an imperfect parent. The argument breaks down.

The prophecy about the Messiah coming from the "seed" of the woman has to do with Jesus' virgin birth and NOT about Mary needing to be perfect in order to bequeath perfection on her virgin-born son. In Hebrews, the "a body you have prepared for me" is not referring to Mary's body, but to that of the incarnate God. From Gill's Exposition of the Bible:

But a body hast thou prepared me; or "fitted for me"; a real natural body, which stands for the whole human nature; and is carefully expressed, to show that the human nature is not a person. This was prepared, in the book of God's purposes and decrees, and in the council and covenant of grace; and was curiously formed by the Holy Ghost in time, for the second Person, the Son of God, to clothe himself with, as the Syriac version renders it, "thou hast clothed me with a body"; and that he might dwell in, and in it do the will of God, and perform the work of man's redemption: in Psalm 40:6 it is, "mine ears thou hast opened"; digged or bored, the ear being put for the whole body; for if he had not had a body prepared, he could not have had ears opened: besides; the phrase is expressive of Christ's assuming the form of a servant, which was done by his being found in fashion as a man, Philippians 2:7 and of his being a voluntary servant, and of his cheerful obedience as such, the opening, or boring of the ear, was a sign, Exodus 21:5. And thus by having a true body prepared for him, and a willing mind to offer it up, he became fit for sacrifice.

Again, I respect your opinion, but I disagree with it as well as the reasonings the Roman Catholic Church has used to rationalize the veneration of Mary in attributing to her a sinlessness she did not receive nor did she need to receive. She was redeemed from her sins in the same way we all are - through faith in the Redeemer, Jesus Christ. Have a blessed day.

You are welcome! I think anyone seriously interested in Biblical themes would find it valuable. Feel free to pass it on to others when the subject arises.

This is my body" is figurative-literal language, the hearers knew that, as do spiritually mature people now.

What members of your church attended the Council of Nicea to fend off the gnostic and Arian heresies? Which of them put down the pelagius heresy.

Where was your church during the Council of Constantinople that settled the matter of the filoque?

Can you identify the members that helped to define the doctrine of the hypostatic union? Which of them was present at both Hippo and Carthage ordering the canon of the New Testament?

Feel free to pass it on to others when the subject arises.

I intend to pass it on to a Lutheran friend of mine at work. She is strongly considering joining the Catholic Church and has been asking me about my reversion. She already has a devotion to Mary so this will help. Thanks again

Dear boatbums, this discussion does go on and on and ONNN. Thank you for keeping it pleasant and respectful: I really, truly appreciate that.

It's nice to be reminded that it's possible! :o)

I 100% agree that in Hebrews, the "body you have prepared for me" refers that of the incarnate God. That is pretty clear, I think.

But the question is, how is His pure body "prepared"? The significance of all the "generation after generation" genealogical information in the OT --- in one sense, a major theme of the OT is the begetting of "generations" --- is that Jesus' ancestors are being prepared until a point, at the "fullness of time", when the human nature transmitted to Him --- the son of Adam, son of Abraham, son of David, son of Mary ---- will be perfect and without defect.

The reason we can't just "leave it at that," is that Jesus' entire human nature has to come from Mary: He has only a female human parent. His human nature can't be tweaked in the direction of perfection in the transition between Mary and Jesus, because there is no human father's contribution there to do the tweaking, to modify the information about human nature contained in the Mary's human genome.

Whatever Mary had, she had from her two parents. The mix-and-match of two imperfect parents could produce, in the final shuffle, a selection of perfect genes via the de-selection of imperfect genes. This "shuffle" could produce, after all the generations between Adam and her, a perfect offspring.

But if Mary was imperfect, there's no final "shuffle" to select perfection, because there's no male human contributor to the Child's human nature.

Do you see what I'm getting at?

Moreover, Mary's body during gestation (and maybe lactation) would have to be perfect, to preserve a perfect Offspring, since --- as we now know--- there is a significant exchange of persisting, living cells between pregnant mother and gestating baby. Including factors which modify gene expression (turn genes on and off.) In this case, these factors are all Mary's.

It's fascinating, to me, that this was unknown and even unimaginable back in the days when Moses --- under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit --- was recording Genesis. The ancients thought that the male, only, had a true seed, and the woman was a passive incubator: a "field" for his "seed." And yet Genesis speaks of "the seed of the woman."

It's strange and wonderful. It would be like Genesis referring to the moons of Jupiter. It's something they could not have even conceptualized, at that time, through unaided human knowledge.

Mary was redeemed --- rescued --- from the inheritance of Original Sin through the saving act of he Redeemer, Jesus Christ. This was done preveniently in her case, because she had to be a truly unique "favored daughter": the "Lady Full of Grace".

As the glorious (!) angel (!) announced (!)

And she gave credit where credit is due: "He Who is mighty has done great things for me, Holy is His Name: behold, all generations will call me Blessed."

Have a blessed day!

The link shows you evidence of the symbol of the flower and when it was used.

You have to look at it.

"But in Mary's womb, the placenta effectively isolates each from the other."

So it was believed, but erroneously. We now know about microchimerism (link) and other processes by which stem cells and other factors cross the placenta. Some of the mother's cells find they way into the gestating child, and some of the child's cells into the mother. Therefore, some of Mary's cells would be found in Jesus, and --- even more intriguing ---- some of Jesus' cells found in Mary! (Recent research shows that fetal stem cells help the mother's body repair damage. Something we moms can thank our kids for!)

I went to the link you provided and read the Wikipedia article concerning the microchimerism link and, though I am no medical expert, I don't think it means exactly what you imply it does. According to the article at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microchimerism:

In humans (and perhaps in all Placentals) the most common form is fetomaternal microchimerism (also known as fetal cell microchimerism or fetal chimerism) whereby cells from a fetus pass through the placenta and establish cell lineages within the mother. Fetal cells have been documented to persist and multiply in the mother for several decades.[1][2] The exact phenotype of these cells is unknown, although several different cell types have been identified, such as various immune lineages, mesenchymal stem cells, and placental-derived cells.[3] The potential health consequences of these cells are currently unknown. One hypothesis is that these fetal cells might trigger a graft-versus-host reaction leading to autoimmune disease. This offers a potential explanation for why many autoimmune diseases are more prevalent in middle-aged women.[4] The other main theory is that fetal cells home to injured or diseased maternal tissue where they act as stem cells and participate in repair.[5][6] It is also possible that the fetal cells are merely innocent bystanders and have no effect on maternal health.[7]

After giving birth, about 50-75% of women carry fetal immune cell lines. Maternal immune cells are also found in the offspring yielding in maternal→fetal microchimerism, though this phenomenon is about half as frequent as the former .[8]

Microchimerism had also been shown to exist after blood transfusions to a severely immunocompromised population of patients who suffered trauma.[9]

Animal[edit source | edit]Microchimerism occurs in most pairs of twins in cattle. In cattle (and other bovines), the placentae of fraternal twins usually fuse and the twins share blood circulation, resulting in exchange of cell lines. If the twins are a male-female pair, the male hormones from the bull calf have the effect of partially masculinising the heifer (female), creating a martin heifer or freemartin. Freemartins appear female, but are infertile and so cannot be used for breeding or dairy production. Microchimerism provides a method of diagnosing the condition, because male genetic material can be detected in a blood sample.[10]

Relationship with autoimmune diseases and breast cancer[edit source | edit]Microchimerism has been implicated in autoimmune diseases. Independent studies repeatedly suggested that microchimeric cells of fetal origin may be involved in the pathogenesis of systemic sclerosis.[2][11] Moreover, microchimeric cells of maternal origin may be involved in the pathogenesis of a group of autoimmune diseases found in children, i.e. juvenile idiopathic inflammatory myopathies (one example would be juvenile dermatomyositis).[12] Microchimerism has now been further implicated in other autoimmune diseases, including systemic lupus erythematosus.[13] Contrarily, an alternative hypothesis on the role of microchimeric cells in lesions is that they may be facilitating tissue repair of the damaged organ.[14]

Moreover, fetal immune cells have also been frequently found in breast cancer stroma as compared to samples taken from healthy women. It is not clear, however, whether fetal cell lines promote the development of tumors or, contrarily, protect women from developing breast carcinoma.[15][16]

I do not get the impression that this exchange of certain cells between mothers and their offspring is either as common or widespread nor as beneficial as stated. Something you say mothers should thank their kids for can turn out to be not such a good thing when autoimmune diseases are caused more often than facilitating tissue repair or when tumors are promoted instead of prevented. It sounds as if the jury is still out on this relatively new subject of biology.

Thanks very much for that link, it is quite interesting and the hexagon shape clearly goes back to pagan times (which is OK byh me, BTW.)

I notice that the article repeatedly says it is not a flower:

"Therefore, out of respect to the artisans who created the design, it is not a flower."

...
"Gravestone from 1797 in Christ Church, Littlestown, Pennsylvania... Note the flower engraved below the design. This dispels the belief that the design is a flower."

...
"Nicholaus Geihsel 1742-1777, St. Paul's Church in Cherryville, Pennsylvania Note the flower engraved below the design. This dispells the belief that the design is a flower."

...
"Is this design a Hex Sign, Flower of Life, of Morning Star?.. The terms Hex Sign and Flower of Life were created in the 20th century by those who did not understand the relationship of the design to Christianity."

...

As the illustrations in this article show, the hexagon motif often occurs together with a cross. I think it clearest Christian connection is this

which is a monogram of the first two letter of the name of Christ in Greek, Chi and Rho. Chi Rho (Link)

Thanks for this good discussion.

:)

They call it a flower, clearly a number of times, as it is clearly a geometrical flower.

And if you want to call Mary Magdalene a pagan.. well, you would not be the first Catholic to do that, would you?

Catholics have killed and hated many faithful Christians throughout the ages, and called them pagans and whatnot, so it isn’t surprising that you would see things you way you do.

Most Catholics are loyal to their religion, over instruction. It is talked about in the book of Revelation.

As I stated, those instructed in the Catholic Church are not always faithful followers or believers of Jesus.

THIS conversation is but one tiny example of the differences in our understanding, worship and knowledge.

It's pretty new research, and you're right that "the jury is still out" --- in fact, we're still just in the initial evidence-gathering stage.

Here's one study "Male Microchimerism in the Female Human Brain" (Link) that states:

"During pregnancy, genetic material and cells are bi-directionally exchanged between the fetus and mother... We report that 63% of the females (37 of 59) tested harbored male microchimerism in the brain....In conclusion, male microchimerism is frequent and widely distributed in the human female brain."

This male microchimerism in the female brains resulted from the women's pregnancies with male fetuses.

This particular study also suggests a connection to both favorable and unfavorable consequences for the female: on the one hand, a possible elevated risk for autoimmune complications; on the other, a possible enhanced protective effect for tissue repair and immune surveillance (improved immune function.)

I just love this kind of stuff!! The Creator of the human race is so clever!

>> “first, there was a need for Jesus the Messiah to be perfect in His human nature” <<

.
Yes, that required that his mother be a sinner as she was.

.
>> “We don’t grasp the full significance of this Scripture...” <<

.
The real significance is that Mary, like all humans was full of sin, and needed to be filled with grace to save her soul.