Church of God "logic" is never boring...
What does the Second Commandment forbid?
The Second Commandment forbids anyone from making or displaying visual images with the goal of incorporating them into their worship of God. Many Christian churches and homes display revered religious images, including crosses, crucifixes, statues and paintings that are supposed to be of Jesus or Mary or a “saint,” mystical symbols, steeples, special shapes, stained glass windows with religious designs, etc. Especially problematic is the practice of directing one’s prayers to God through Mary the mother of Jesus or some other “saint.”
Many religious people don’t understand the Second Commandment and the intent behind using images in their worship is sincere. They feel that the images inspire them and help them to feel closer to God. We can admire their good intentions, sincerity and zeal, but we must understand the problem with this practice.
Adding to the issue is the fact that many “Christian” images are in fact inherited from ancient pagan religions! For example, some pagan religions worshipped a “Madonna and child.”
Please understand that the Second Commandment does not forbid artwork showing people and animals or even artwork showing biblical scenes. God commanded intricate artwork to be engraved in God’s temple and elsewhere. But none of that artwork was regarded as representing God.
Why shouldn’t we use religious images?
It is human nature to desire to see, hear or touch God. That explains why people are naturally tempted to look at something they can see to represent God. Furthermore, human nature is lazy. It is mentally challenging to contemplate God as invisible and infinite. The human mind desires to bring God “down to earth” in some tangible form.
Such practices enormously diminish God in people’s minds. The Creator of all things cannot be equated with anything in His creation! To read how strongly God feels about this issue, see Deuteronomy 4:12, 15-19, 23-29; 7:5; 12:1-5!
By that "logic," the symbols of their "Passover" service are also lazy and diminish God. The Church of God has always looked at the symbols of bread and wine as pointing to Christ and his sacrifice. Yet a person who has a cross in their home is a deceived, unclean pagan who secretly abhors God and is deliberately diminishing God.
What about the Feast of Tabernacles, a "symbol" of the millennium to come? Was it co-opted from the surrounding pagan harvest cultures the Israelites were next to because they were lazy and did not know how to relate to God?
These are all symbolizing God coming to earth in a tangible way.
What about the Azazel goat that symbolized the sins of Israel being placed upon it which it carried out into the wilderness during Atonement? It is an important part of Armstrongism, yet Christians are lazy.
Then there is the fish symbol that early Christians used as a secret way of identifying themselves to other Christians. I guess they were too lazy to proudly proclaim they were Christians in the surrounding pagan Roman world. It would have meant an instant death sentence, but shame on them! They were too ashamed to talk bout Jesus, much like Herbert Armstrong was.
Symbolism in Armstrongism has always been important. The Church of God has its own set of symbols, myths, and legends that make it who it is as a church today.
And while we are on symbols in Armstrongism, lets not forget Ambassador Auditorium! Hoo doggie!
The auditorium has its worshippers facing Eastward to the rising sun for worship services.
Or, the fact it was a Masonic cube that also had an interior room up in the ceiling that symbolized the 33rd degree. This was relayed to me by a construction worker who helped build the building when I gave him a tour years ago, He said the auditorium was filled with Masonic symbolism.
27 comments:
Some "conspiracy theories" are true. Some are not. Each has to be examined and, only then, accepted or rejected on its own merits.
How many of those people who would never tolerate a cross or a painting of Jesus have instead a photo or painting of HWA hanging in their home?
I have always thought the concept of the cross as breaking the second commandment as wrong and extreme. One is not worshiping the cross or likening God the Father or Christ as a cross. People having crosses in their home or around their necks act as a reminder of Christs supreme sacrifice for all of us so that we can be forgiven of all our sins and be reconciled to God.in the WCG I fear extremism replaced common sense
There are certain things the haters of truth do not want you to know.
A concensus of opinion, even among experts, proves nothing. Experts, like others, are sheep.
I've heard rumors for years that HWA was a Mason. Now we have a construction worker, who was probably a Mason, telling NOHWA that the AA is imbedded with Masonic symbolism. Will wonders never cease?!
Religious images do not "diminish God in people’s minds"; they lift up our minds and hearts to God and to heavenly things -- pointing to things greater than ourselves.
Are we to think it is better to look at fake trees and plants behind a COG preacher during a sermon? (I thought setting up trees were "pagan," by the way!)
The article says "many 'Christian' images are in fact inherited from ancient pagan religions! For example, some pagan religions worshipped a “Madonna and child.”
The problem with this statement is that images of Mary and Jesus are straight from the Bible (having nothing to do with pagan worship!).
Matthew 2:11: "And going into the house, they saw the child with Mary his mother, and they fell down and worshiped him. Then, opening their treasures, they offered him gifts, gold and frankincense and myrrh."
Did the Bible inherit ancient pagan religions? Or does it simply tell the truth of what happened? And are they not the inspiration for such images?
If it's wrong to have an image of Mary and Jesus together, then it's also wrong to have an image of Noah's ark on the water, or Abraham about to sacrifice Isaac, or the Israelites crossing the Red Sea.
If "revered religious images" are wrong, then why did WCG's corporate seal have a lion, a lamb, and a child in it -- which symbolized the reign of Christ during the thousand years of Revelation (with imagery from the prophet Isaiah)?
The mentality of these folks is simply foolishness (dare I say "retarded").
I have all the patience in the world with people who may think these things because of what they were taught, but very little patience for their teachers who promote this stuff.
The cross was a Christian symbol from the beginning - long before Constantine claimed to have seen that one in his vision. The Greek word (stauros) translated into English as "cross" appears 28 times in the New Testament canon (17 times in all four Gospels and 11 Times in the epistles). But don't take my word for it, let's take a look:
1Co 1:17 - For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel: not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of none effect.
1Co 1:18 - For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God.
Gal 5:11 - And I, brethren, if I yet preach circumcision, why do I yet suffer persecution? then is the offence of the cross ceased.
Gal 6:12 - As many as desire to make a fair shew in the flesh, they constrain you to be circumcised; only lest they should suffer persecution for the cross of Christ.
Gal 6:14 - But God forbid that I should glory, save in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom the world is crucified unto me, and I unto the world.
Eph 2:16 - And that he might reconcile both unto God in one body by the cross, having slain the enmity thereby:
Phl 2:8 - And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross.
Phl 3:18 - (For many walk, of whom I have told you often, and now tell you even weeping, that they are the enemies of the cross of Christ:
Col 1:20 - And, having made peace through the blood of his cross, by him to reconcile all things unto himself; by him, I say, whether they be things in earth, or things in heaven.
Col 2:14 - Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross;
Heb 12:2 - Looking unto Jesus the author and finisher of our faith; who for the joy that was set before him endured the cross, despising the shame, and is set down at the right hand of the throne of God.
The cross is an idolatrous image that is NOT Christian - I call B.S.!!!
The human mind is very resourceful. Anything can be an idol! Even a toxic cult.☠️☠️☠️
I would say none.
Once again, HWA did not just teach what he called "restored truths". This is further evidence that he also taught a pattern of logic which, like aversion therapy, repels any alternative. It is based on extremism, anal retentivism, obsessive compulsiveness. It's been my observation that many people, even when they shake the Armstrongism, retain that pattern of logic, sometimes even finding an entire new set of "facts" but continuing to apply the Armstrong pattern of logic to them.
It's good to occasionally carry on a discussion with an Armstrongite who just won't quit. An experience such as that can remind us of that pattern of logic and to be thankful to have been one who recognized it and managed to escape its tentacles. Ooh! That almost sounds as if I'm praying the Pharisee's prayer, but, no, this is entirely different!
BB
I have known several AC grads who do that.
This is a stretch and simple justification for doing what you want rather than what God wants.
In June 1982, GTA gave a sermon, "Is the Cross Christian?", that was taken from Bullinger's Companion Bible Appendix 162. Based on the NT Greek and supporting external sources, Bullinger concludes:
" there is nothing in the Greek NT that implies 2 pieces of timber placed across one another ". " The evidence is thus complete that the Lord was put to death upon an upright stake, and not two pieces of timber placed at any angle".
Bullinger's sources, which are many, include Eusebius, Helena, the mother of Constantine, the Encyclopedia Brit. 11th (Camb.) ed. and the Holy Scriptures (Acts 5:30, 10:39, 13:29, Galatians 3:13, 1 Peter 2:24).
You be the judge!
''In Armstrongism, the cross is the most despised symbol of Christianity''
The Armstrong cult is like the Jehovah Witnesses, who say the cross is pagan. Armstrong would have copied from somewhere.
HWA was 100% not a Mason...... Yet everything he did and achieved is 33rd degree Scottish Masonry..... How about that..
Nck
John 20:25: "But he said to them, “Unless I see in his hands the mark of the nails...."
"Nails" (plural) is evidence in favor of a cross -- not a mere upright pale.
There is a TON of other, explicit historical evidence that it was a cross, but the argument is silly anyway: COGs would argue about it whether it was a T or a figure 8 or the letter Q. Because they want to have a problem with most any traditional Christian image or doctrine. Always looking for a speck in someone else's eyes.
BP8,
According to the World History Encyclopedia, "Based on Roman literature as well as descriptions in the provinces, crucifixion was an established routine. There were special military teams led by a centurion, and in the provinces, the soldiers were selected from the local auxiliaries (natives who had joined the Roman army). The victim was stripped and then lashed (scourged). As part of the public humiliation, he/she was led through the streets and remained naked. Christian art portrays Jesus with a decent loincloth on the cross, but the nakedness was maintained as part of the humiliation. There was a public plaque (titulus) indicating the crime. The shedding of blood and the concept of corpse contamination meant that the executions took place outside the city walls. The most popular spot was along one of the main roads leading into the city. This also served as propaganda purposes to demonstrate Roman law and order."
Continuing in that source, we read: "These killing fields contained permanent, upright poles. The victim did not carry the whole cross, but only the cross-beam. The combined pole and cross-beam weighed approximately 135-180 kg (300-400 pounds). After scourging (the trauma and the loss of blood), there was a risk that the victim could die before arriving at the site of execution. The necessity of keeping the victim alive led to the practice of the legions commandeering someone from the crowd to help carry the beam when the victim succumbed. This is the role of Simon of Cyrene in the gospel versions."
https://www.worldhistory.org/crucifixion/
At Blue Letter Bible, we read this for the Greek "stauros":
I. a cross
1. a well known instrument of most cruel and ignominious punishment, borrowed by the Greeks and Romans from the Phoenicians; to it were affixed among the Romans, down to the time of Constantine the Great, the guiltiest criminals, particularly the basest slaves, robbers, the authors and abetters of insurrections, and occasionally in the provinces, at the arbitrary pleasure of the governors, upright and peaceable men also, and even Roman citizens themselves
2. the crucifixion which Christ underwent
II. an upright "stake", esp. a pointed one, used as such in fences or palisades
https://www.blueletterbible.org/lexicon/g4716/kjv/tr/0-1/
Hence, while the Greek word can indicate an upright stake, within the context of a Roman Crucifixion, it clearly contained a cross beam.
The UCG Home Office conference room does.
"Nails" (plural) is evidence in favor of a cross -- not a mere upright pale.
That is a huge leap to make such a conclusion and is one of the dumbest things I've ever read on this blog. There is no reason it couldn't also mean the Romans used more than one nail in each hand.
Actually, there is so much written by recognized historians from this period, and even surviving graffiti, that it is obvious this is another area where Armstrongism embraced a definitive which is possible (there actually were different methods of crucifixion because soldiers and other executioners made a sport of it and attempted to outdo one another in their cruelty) but questionable when compared to the overwhelming trends and more official methods. In traditional Roman crucifixion, the upright poles were permanent fixtures in the ground at the execution site, and the crucified would be fastened to the crosspiece, or be made to carry it as he did the "perp walk" to the site, and then it would be attached to the pole. A fully assembled cross weighed nearly 300 lbs, while the crosspiece weighed in at about 100 lbs. Crucifixion was not an approved form of Jewish capital punishment (they used stoning, burning, strangulation, and beheading, but were not permitted by the Romans to conduct capital cases.)
If, as in the case of drinking water, the pagans had traditions involving T (tau) shapes, or cross shapes, would Jesus have been permitted by God to have been executed on a device shaped in this manner? Of course! Crucifixion was designed to be a humiliating form of execution. It would be extremely humiliating to be executed on a pagan symbol. That's right up Satan's alley. Remember, Jesus cried out and asked Father God why He had forsaken Him. It's quite amazing that the cross has become such a powerful, triumphant symbol of Christianity. It's a defiant and powerful tradition which the originator of Armstrongism has deliberately attempted to deflate in order to destroy traditional, historic Christianity, facillitating the sale of his own package of heretical doctrines.
BB
BP8 comment has reminded me that some (I'd rather not name names) speakers/writers believed strongly in original CGI that Jesus Christ was crucified on a tree. That the wooden stake he struggled to carry was attached to a tree in the ground on which Jesus was crucified.
The event of the cross is the event of our salvation. The cross alone can save. So of course keeping people from considering what the Lord God did is of utmost importance to holding people captive.
If the issue is historical accuracy, sure, there's a pretty good chance that it wasn't the familiar "Latin cross" of today (resembles a lowercase "t"). Though it's still possible, maybe there were a couple lying around at the time and the Romans stationed in Jerusalem said hey, lets pull these outta storage. Or, for all we know, it was a really ramshackle cross they threw together on the spot, not even having good right angles. Or perhaps it was a "Tau" style cross (capital "T" shape), or a huge stake featuring some creative nailing.
(I am familiar with the old JAMA article detailing the crossbar practice as well as the Nazi experiments with crucifixion.)
Lonnie 621/827
I do not dispute what you and Byker Bob have written. I just remember being a 29 year old zealot, driving down the highway listening to a cassette tape and thinking, GTA is the MAN! It made sense at the time although he was taking this from Bullinger verbatim.
Like COG Catholic says, by comparison to what's really important (the sacrifice of Christ), this subject can be distracting and get silly. Regardless if it was a cross or a pole, we should not be beating each other over the head with it! (pun)
That is a huge leap to make such a conclusion and is one of the dumbest things I've ever read on this blog. There is no reason it couldn't also mean the Romans used more than one nail in each hand.
I was careful to say "evidence" and not "proof." But I'd say it's stronger evidence than looking up Greek word definitions.
Do a Google search for "telephone pole," for example, and tell me whether you see a mere pole -- or if the pole also has a cross beam. Whether Greek or English, strict word definitions are not the best means of interpretation.
Another piece of biblical evidence (not proof) includes Matthew 27:37:
"And over his head they put the charge against him, which read, 'This is Jesus, the King of the Jews.'” (Note: I suppose putting the sign over his hands would also be over his head, but is that really the natural reading of it?)
Also, there is the issue of Jesus carrying his cross, yet Scripture nowhere mentions anyone digging or finding a hole in the ground to place the "stake." (Not that it has to.) I suppose it was possible, but it seems to go against practical Roman efficiency to nail a man and his "King of the Jews" sign to pole laying on the ground, and then try to awkwardly lift and maneuver the single pole up and into the hole while having Jesus face the right direction.
These evidences are on top of evidence found in Roman history and in Early Church history -- including enemies of the Church ridiculing Christians who worshiped a crucified Man (they depicted Him in graffiti as on a cross). Further evidence is found in early Christian artwork, traditions, and liturgical practices.
I maintain it's much more of a stretch to say, "Yeah, but look up stauros in Strong's Concordance for proof!" in support of a mere pole without any kind of crossbeam.
We don't impose that kind of strict definitional standard when we read books, articles, or letters in English. (If we did, we would rightly be seen as morons.) The same courtesy should be extended toward any other language, ancient or modern.
My living room, when I was a kid, featured a folding picture frame. Displayed on the left was a portrait of HWA, and on the right was Joe Tkach. It seems those religious images were fine.
But our children's picture Bibles had the face of Jesus scribbled out, because we're not supposed to have images. At least not faces. Or at least not Jesus faces. Angel faces, however, never got scribbled out.
Post a Comment