Replies

The bare cross isn’t AS offensive to me and in places where a symbol is needed, I prefer an empty cross, but I would equally question a person who worshiped an empty cross.

The life, death and purpose of Jesus can not be contained on that cross.

And just as a side note, the star of David is annoying to me as well, for the same reasons as a crucifix bothers me.

I study a Messianic( baptist) interpertation, and I equally reject the Star of David as a symbol of my faith.

I read somewhere, where someone was blogging about their trip to Jerusalem, and this person’s observation that the early church did not use a cross, but a flower, as a symbol of their belief in Jesus.

I think there is something to learn there.

This surprises me. The only people I had previously encountered in my action-packed 62 years :o) --- who objected vehemently to the Cross --- were atheists and Muslims. So this is, admittedly, a new and unexpected line of argumentation for me.

Historical question: Did such an objection ever arise amongst Christians, in, say, the first 1800 years after the death and resurrection of Jesus?

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

I never heard this, and I'm inclined to doubt it. I don't, for instance, know of any particular floral theme from the catacombs --- the earliest extant examples of Christian art --- or from Dura-Europos (Link), the earliest identified Christian house church. Follow the link and see for yourself: no flowers. Do you have a link showing the flower, or explaining this notion that the early Christians used the flower and not the cross? ?