The Solar Cross

Homer sent this to me yesterday.  Most I had heard before, but had not seen the "four season" approach before.  Something to ponder:

ORIGIN OF THE CROSS?

As a general rule, crosses are shown with a vertical member and a horizontal member. Some crosses include a circle around the point where the vertical member and horizontal members intersect. An example of each is shown.

Is it possible that the cross could represent the yearly orbit of the earth around the sun? If so, the year can be divided into 4 seasons of 3 months each and the seasons can be identified by the solstices & equinoxes.

By comparing the illustration to the left with the picture of the cross at the beginning of this article, one should be able to see the similarity between the two.  The orb in the center represents the sun and the orbs at the
solstices and equinoxes represent the earth at those 4 times of the year.  The majority of crosses seen today are generally displayed without the sun and the orbit of the earth.

Many today accept the cross as a religious symbol of the death of Jesus.  Some say this is a “pagan” symbol and should not be used for that purpose.  (The actual understanding of the word “pagan” is a subject for another time.)

However, if the cross is simply an illustration, or metaphor, that represents the orbit of the earth around the sun, whether or not the sun and the earth’s path are shown, why is this considered a bad thing?  It is realized of course, if any person or organization chooses to use that symbol as an item of worship, that may not be a good thing to do, but does that make the illustration a bad thing.  Unfortunately, many things are considered evil and “pagan” (there’s that word again).  It may be that those in charge of religious organizations promote misunderstanding, knowingly or not, in order to gain control the people.

Is it possible that Leonardo da Vinci understood this metaphor when he painted the “Last Supper”? Could the following represent the 4 seasons of 3 months each with the “sun of god” in the middle?

 

Let each individual decide for himself. There is MUCH more to this subject if one has to desire  investigate.

 

Prophet Thiel Is Not Happy With "Christianity Today" Magazine

God's greatest gift to the Church of God and particularly the Living Church of God is NOT happy that another cross is being forced upon him that offends his delicate LCG beliefs. He is not happy that a "cross" from the World Trade Center support beams is being placed in the WTC Memorial site.

Prophet Thiel points out that an atheist group has filed suit to stop it's display.  Prophet Thiel is kind of glad they did, but for reasons other than what you would think.

Thiel despises crosses.  Remember when the LCG shootings happened and sympathetic citizens in Milwaukee erected a few small crosses in the snow bank in sympathy for the people killed?  Thiel went ballistic over that and made a complete ass of himself and brought more ridicule on the Living Church of God and it's aberrant non biblical beliefs.

Thiel wrote:

While I am sure that Greg Zanis (the man who made the crosses) must have meant well, all need to understand that since we in the Living Church of God do not use crosses for worship in anyway, that we would prefer they not be used to honor our dead. All of the victims would have agreed. Flowers, prayers on behalf of the survivors, etc. would be considered appropriate.

 Christianity Today magazine had this to say about Thiel tirade:

"At the same time, believers in the midst of tragedy should be patient with the media and the world at large. One member of the Meredith organization, on a website to which I will not link, takes great issue with the erection of memorial "crosses" outside the hotel where the shooting took place. Why? Because Meredith and his followers do not believe the "cross" is anything other than a pagan invention; they assert that Christ was crucified on an upright stake or tree, and that crosses were introduced later. Another objection was to the view that the deceased are, at this moment, "in a better place," i.e., heaven. The Meredith-supporting writer emphasized his church's view that the dead are "asleep" and unconscious until the resurrection, casting aspersions on a heartfelt expression from people who are presumably of good will. Neither the symbolism of the cross nor the question of the state of the dead is a debate I wish to enter here. Nor do I wish to disparage the sincerity of the other writer's convictions. However, it could easily be viewed by the general public as ungracious at best for people in one church to disavow a kind gesture from another, different church because those other people didn't know the etiquette that the first church follows. In a time of tragedy, when emotions are raw and hearts are wounded, I believe it is better for all concerned to merely accept whatever condolences are offered with the words, "Thank you," and then move on. This isn't the time for an "educational message" about paganism, so-called "soul sleep" or anything else. It's a time to accept what is offered with thanks, and in so doing perhaps opening the door to further discussion at a later time.

Thiel responds:

But I did, and still, feel that the public should understand that the use of crosses is not something that the deceased would have preferred. I consider that for proper respect for the dead, as well as the survivors, most of whom are members of the Living Church of God, our position was a good thing to point out--especially BEFORE the funerals. My comments were not intended to be ungracious. I considered my comments to be the courteous thing to do for those unfamiliar with our beliefs.

And now, yet again, we get to see the Prophet angry again at a cross.

First off, he gets a dig in at Christianity Today magazine.  According to him the magazine is falsely labeled because everyone knows there are no REAL Christians outside the Living Church of God!!!!!!!!!!  How dare they pretend to be Christians!

The improperly named publication Christianity Today (CT) currently has the following headline and subheadline at its website:

 He goes on to write:

No Christian in the New Testament is ever described as having or wearing a cross. This is not to say that all who own a cross are active idolators, but that the historical facts should give people pause to ask themselves if they should own or wear one.

The Bible simply does not teach that Jesus had to have been killed on a cross

If the cross is a symbol of the future Antichrist/Beast power as Roman Catholic Priest P. Huchedé indicates it will be (and it is in a book with an official imprimatur), perhaps those who come from faiths descended from Emperor Constantine should be concerned about their religion now–before it becomes even further removed from the original faith. The Bible indicates that the true Christians will NOT have the symbol/mark needed to buy or sell when the two beasts of Revelation 13 are in power, but only those that will follow those beasts will (Revelation 13:16-17)–and while crosses may not necessarily be required everywhere, other Catholic writings suggest that in certain places, they will be.

CT is correct that all should be offended about using the cross as a 9/11 symbol.  Idolatry is a serious problem and many today do not realize that most who profess Christianity practice it.  Some type of cross possibly could be related to the mark of the beast.  All of this was all left out of the CT article, so I thought that those interested in the truth may find this of value.

This is part of what Christianity Today said:

The Book of Acts records that upon hearing this indictment for the first time, many of Peter's listeners were "cut to the heart." Understandably so—the charge is enough to turn the stomach, darken the mind, and plunge the heart into despair. Or, in other words, Peter's words were enough to cause "dyspepsia, symptoms of depression, headaches, anxiety, and mental pain and anguish." The atheist litigants have called the 9/11 cross "an ugly piece of wreckage," arguing that it speaks of "horror and death." On the basis of the New Testament, these statements are difficult to contradict.

But if the image of the cross represents humanity's greatest collective failure, why would a nation cling to it as a sign of hope in the days after 9/11? The exchange that follows Peter's sermon sheds some further light.

When asked to suggest a course of action, Peter advised his hearers, "Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins"—advice which makes little sense unless one assumes certain premises. These premises, implicit in the Christian religion from day one, were intricately explored over the next several decades in the writings of St. Paul, who advanced what would become the best-known but least-understood tenet of Christian theology: that somehow the death of the perfectly sinless Christ was itself the event which atoned for all the wrongdoing of the sinful human race.

If true, this turns the cross into a profound paradox. The same event that condemns humanity also justifies it, standing at once as damning evidence of guilt and a doorway to forgiveness and innocence. What's more, the very episode that shows humanity at its worst shows God at his best, as he transforms an act of wickedness into a display of mercy and love. It is difficult to imagine themes more relevant to the attacks of September 11. 

Suppose God himself has suffered and died at the hands of evil men. Suppose God himself has shown the capacity for taking what was intended for harm and using it for good. Might this affect the way we ourselves face evil and suffering? Might this be a source of strength to someone who is waist-deep in ash and rubble, trying to loosen bodies from steel and concrete?

For the person who accepts this narrative, the cross is the only thing that makes sense in the face of a senseless tragedy. But for the person who rejects it, the cross serves as a reminder of an offensive and seemingly absurd accusation, adding insult to injury. The trouble with the cross is that it refuses to be the universal symbol of beauty that some would make it out to be—it speaks life to those who believe, but death to those who do not.

No wonder people disagree about where it should be displayed.

Thiel is not happy because of the above excerpts.  He seems to still be bitter that CT nailed his ass years ago with his "cross" comments.  That is why the above comments from CT  stick a knife into the heart of everything Thiel writes.  It damns him and he is not happy!  How dare pagan "Christians" expose him for what he is! Satan is at work in the world condemning the COG.