17th Angel
לבעוט את התחת ולקחת שמות
- Messages
- 9,437
- Reaction score
- 11
- Points
- 0
nevermind.
Last edited:
The Meaning of Symbol
Hi Kim –
St Irenaeus, the first systematic theologian after the Apostles, spoke of "rectifying that disobedience which had occurred by reason of a tree, through that obedience which was upon the tree (of the cross)" (Adv. Haers. V, 16, 3).
+++
The very ambiguity of the term 'symbol' is a key to its understanding — the term is most commonly defined in the context of a greater hermeneutic — and so the term will take on different meanings according to its deployment in context.
The origin of the term is from the Greek sumbalon which literally means “thrown together.”
When two people were making a business deal, they would break the sumbolon in half, and each person would get a piece. Upon completion of the deal, before the final money traded hands, the two pieces were brought back together to confirm that the original parties were in fact whom they said they were or were their representatives.
So this broken token became the word for symbol: two pieces of reality, 'I' and 'thou', 'self' and 'other', 'man' and 'God' — the visible and the invisible, brought together in unity.
In the very early church, the horrors of crucifixion was known to most Christians, probably having known of someone who had been killed this way, or some other equally brutal method. It is not surprising to learn that the earliest extant visual image of the crucifixion is around 420, a good 100 years after the practice was discontinued. When Christians first began using the symbol, it was not the literal, brutally crucified Christ but the victorious Christ as King.
The cross no longer symbolized the shame and utter annihilation the Romans intended. For them it was Christ’s victory over sin and death that was the important thing to symbolize, not how horribly He suffered.
Now, two millennia removed, in the hands of the world the symbol has become ubiquitous and innocuous, representing neither suffering nor life ... in fact representing nothing at all ... modernity wears symbols to highlight the self, not the object symbolised ... another case of the inversion of traditional wisdom.
+++
Christian metaphysics draws a distinction between 'sign' and 'symbol' — the former represents (literally re-presents) something which stands in the place of something else. The function of the sign is to direct one to the object, or indicate the the object is here. Thus a sign is never what it signifies — and this is the crucial distinction.
A symbol not only signifies something (ie directs towards it), it also immanently connected to it, or put another way, the thing symbolised is present and or accessible in and through the symbol.
This may sound pure fantasy to modern ears, but we live in an age where the literal and empirical takes precedence over all. What I have just said regarding symbols is the common stock of every spiritual tradition of the planet ... indeed it is fundamental to magic (which works by the law of correspondence) and magic — in itself — is a sub-spiritual practice.
The veneration of the Sacred Name for example, is a clear example of a symbol (without it, prayer becomes nothing more than talking to oneself). The contemplation of an ikon is another.
Contemplation of a symbol therefore opens the possibility of connecting to the essence of the thing symbolised. The symbol then becomes 'real', indeed more real than the world! The Cross is the portal to Eternal Life.
+++
Path of One has written of the Celtic Cross ... I should like to mention another, the carving of a 'rose' at axis of the vertical and the horizontal ... this aspect of the symbol traces its origin to the Sacred Heart, the blood poured forth ...
+++
Thomas
Hi Kim –
St Irenaeus, the first systematic theologian after the Apostles, spoke of "rectifying that disobedience which had occurred by reason of a tree, through that obedience which was upon the tree (of the cross)" (Adv. Haers. V, 16, 3).
+++
The very ambiguity of the term 'symbol' is a key to its understanding — the term is most commonly defined in the context of a greater hermeneutic — and so the term will take on different meanings according to its deployment in context.
The origin of the term is from the Greek sumbalon which literally means “thrown together.”
When two people were making a business deal, they would break the sumbolon in half, and each person would get a piece. Upon completion of the deal, before the final money traded hands, the two pieces were brought back together to confirm that the original parties were in fact whom they said they were or were their representatives.
So this broken token became the word for symbol: two pieces of reality, 'I' and 'thou', 'self' and 'other', 'man' and 'God' — the visible and the invisible, brought together in unity.
In the very early church, the horrors of crucifixion was known to most Christians, probably having known of someone who had been killed this way, or some other equally brutal method. It is not surprising to learn that the earliest extant visual image of the crucifixion is around 420, a good 100 years after the practice was discontinued. When Christians first began using the symbol, it was not the literal, brutally crucified Christ but the victorious Christ as King.
The cross no longer symbolized the shame and utter annihilation the Romans intended. For them it was Christ’s victory over sin and death that was the important thing to symbolize, not how horribly He suffered.
Now, two millennia removed, in the hands of the world the symbol has become ubiquitous and innocuous, representing neither suffering nor life ... in fact representing nothing at all ... modernity wears symbols to highlight the self, not the object symbolised ... another case of the inversion of traditional wisdom.
+++
Christian metaphysics draws a distinction between 'sign' and 'symbol' — the former represents (literally re-presents) something which stands in the place of something else. The function of the sign is to direct one to the object, or indicate the the object is here. Thus a sign is never what it signifies — and this is the crucial distinction.
A symbol not only signifies something (ie directs towards it), it also immanently connected to it, or put another way, the thing symbolised is present and or accessible in and through the symbol.
This may sound pure fantasy to modern ears, but we live in an age where the literal and empirical takes precedence over all. What I have just said regarding symbols is the common stock of every spiritual tradition of the planet ... indeed it is fundamental to magic (which works by the law of correspondence) and magic — in itself — is a sub-spiritual practice.
The veneration of the Sacred Name for example, is a clear example of a symbol (without it, prayer becomes nothing more than talking to oneself). The contemplation of an ikon is another.
Contemplation of a symbol therefore opens the possibility of connecting to the essence of the thing symbolised. The symbol then becomes 'real', indeed more real than the world! The Cross is the portal to Eternal Life.
+++
Path of One has written of the Celtic Cross ... I should like to mention another, the carving of a 'rose' at axis of the vertical and the horizontal ... this aspect of the symbol traces its origin to the Sacred Heart, the blood poured forth ...
+++
Thomas
Dondi
Well-Known Member
The Cross to me is not so important as the person which hung upon it. Crucifixion is a Roman institution. It was merely the tool in which the Savior committed His Life to us. Had Christ been slained with a sword I suppose we would be hanging a Gladius around our necks instead of a cross.
Really, the empty tomb ought to be our symbol of victory, but I guess that's hard to make into an ornament out of it. But if I had to chose a cross, it wouldn't be a crucifix (no offense to our Catholic brethren). An empty cross reminds me that He is risen, He is no more hanging onto death.
But if I had to choose a c
Really, the empty tomb ought to be our symbol of victory, but I guess that's hard to make into an ornament out of it. But if I had to chose a cross, it wouldn't be a crucifix (no offense to our Catholic brethren). An empty cross reminds me that He is risen, He is no more hanging onto death.
But if I had to choose a c
17th Angel
לבעוט את התחת ולקחת שמות
- Messages
- 9,437
- Reaction score
- 11
- Points
- 0
Dondi, that has acutally always been my view as well. For me, the crucifix seems to focus on the pre-death moments of absolute suffering, as opposed to the fullness of the life Jesus was preaching and displaying. Of course, many religious traditions centrally discuss the common existential condition of suffering. So I supppose depicting suffering certainly has its place in spiritual tradiitons. Just never understood why so many Christian traditions want to feature it so exclusively. Earl
N
Nick_A
Guest
The Crucifixion was essential for the intended Resurrection the purpose of Jesus' life on earth. Even Peter couldn't understand it and Jesus tried to explain. Peter was thinking like a secular man and felt that it was Jesus' LIFE that was essential: a very natural mistake. The idea of "quality of death" seemed wrong to him.
17th Angel
לבעוט את התחת ולקחת שמות
- Messages
- 9,437
- Reaction score
- 11
- Points
- 0
Yeah sure it was esential to happen, but not so essential to dwell on ;/ Yes he died for our sins... Now lets say thank you and dwell on his teachings not his death... His death opened the gateway... To a dark path, but his teachings our the lamp. Stick close to that light... It will guide your foot agaisn't obstacles that may trip you.
Dondi
Well-Known Member
When Paul spoke of 'the Cross' in passages such as I Corinthians 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.", he is using it as synonymous with 'the Gospel', the completeness of the death, burial and resurrection of Christ as stated in I Corinthians 15:1-3. The point here being that something so despictable to those who witness a crucifixion, with all the gore and bloody mess that it entails and the shame of the one who is hung, in which some delight in, becomes the very thing that God will show His power in. "But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty; And base things of the world, and things which are despised, hath God chosen, yea, and things which are not, to bring to nought things that are:" - I Cor 1:27-28 It puts everyone on a level playing field. We come without boasting, without anything but our own indignatation of ourselves. For the hope of the resurrection comes out of the Cross. And like the Jews must meet at Mount Sinai, believers in Christ must be at the foot of the Cross, before they find themselves at the foot of the Throne.
It is no coincidence that Jesus said that we must deny ourselves, take up our own Cross, and follow Him. This speaks of the humility of forsaking our ego in order to gain it back, this time in the transforming spirit of a sacrificial life in God. "For whosoever will save his life shall lose it: and whosoever will lose his life for my sake shall find it." - Matt. 16:25. When we are so intent at trying to save our own lives in trying to get to heaven, we miss the point of what God is trying to do. God isn't saving you just so you have that seasonal pass in Heaven, but to transform you into something that will make you fit for heaven.
N
Nick_A
Guest
The whole fall of Christianity into Christendom was produced through interpretations of what to DO. John the Baptist taught what to DO. Jesus teaches what TO BE. To DO is behaviour while To BE is psychological affirmation. What does it mean to stick close to the light?
If Christianity is spiritual, why be poor in spirit? We interpret so that it feels right and the deeper essential meaning becomes secularized and lost.
17th Angel
לבעוט את התחת ולקחת שמות
- Messages
- 9,437
- Reaction score
- 11
- Points
- 0
In my opinion? To imitate, mirror image as best one can the actions of jesus. Surley he was the best example? And through his teachings that is possible... Right?
Dondi
Well-Known Member
True, but even Jesus relied on the power the Spirit of God. He often spent early morning hours upon a mountain in prayer and meditation.
17th Angel
לבעוט את התחת ולקחת שמות
- Messages
- 9,437
- Reaction score
- 11
- Points
- 0
So at times he looked to the heavens for advice?... So as I said... Good example... 
N
Nick_A
Guest
Suppose a robot was invented that looked in every way like a real man. It was programmed to react just as Jesus is described to act during his life. Would the imitations of the robot make it a Christian?
17th Angel
לבעוט את התחת ולקחת שמות
- Messages
- 9,437
- Reaction score
- 11
- Points
- 0
Can this robot understand choice? Is this robot not just like man... But does it act and feel like man? Has it's "eyes been opened"?
N
Nick_A
Guest
Yes, the robot is programmed to consider recognized morality and immorality so considers choice. It has eyes to digest visual impressions just as a man. Is it now a Christian?
17th Angel
לבעוט את התחת ולקחת שמות
- Messages
- 9,437
- Reaction score
- 11
- Points
- 0
So it has choice... It has free will.... Eyes opened meaning it knows difference between good and bad. Imitates christ. It certainly then acts like a christian sure Only one in this universe can say for certain if it is a christian though lol.... (obviously not being alive, but it has come to accept christ on it's own free will...so toughy eh?) And that, ain't me nor you. Out of interest though what would your opinion be?
You seen I Robot?
Only one in this universe can say for certain if it is a christian though lol.... (obviously not being alive, but it has come to accept christ on it's own free will...so toughy eh?) And that, ain't me nor you. Out of interest though what would your opinion be?You seen I Robot?
N
Nick_A
Guest
So it has choice... It has free will.... Eyes opened meaning it knows difference between good and bad. Imitates christ. It certainly then acts like a christian sure
You seen I Robot?
I will borrow from Jacob Needleman's book "Lost Christianity" to illustrate what I believe to be an important point:
Secularism concerns itself with the shell of the acorn and Christianity refers to the kernel of life the shell surrounds. A robot is only a shell and has no living kernel within so cannot be Christian.
We are out of balance. The shell should serve to provide nourishment and protection for our essential qualities and allow them to grow so that the kernel of life can become free of the need for the shell and can create its own personality and be all things to all people. Instead of the shell being a tool, it has become the master.
Secularism having forgotten this relationship glorifies the shell and society itself becomes an idol.
Romans 2
28A man is not a Jew if he is only one outwardly, nor is circumcision merely outward and physical. 29No, a man is a Jew if he is one inwardly; and circumcision is circumcision of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the written code. Such a man's praise is not from men, but from God.
"Outwardly" is the domain of the shell. The inner man or kernel of life has the potential for maturity: "TO BE. The Cross represents both. The horizontal line represents the personality or what lives our daily life. The vertical line represents the quality of "NOW." This kernel of life has a place within this line. If it grows it acquires a higher place within this line of "being." If we become a complete slave to our personality, the inner man can be killed. This is what Jesus meant be letting the dead bury their dead.
It's all about the Cross. This is the implicit message of St John's Gospel. Christ's whole life, His every word and His every deed, led towards this point ... that day, that hour ... He Himself says it:
"And Jesus saith to her: Woman, what is that to me and to thee? my hour is not yet come" (John 2:4). Jesus says it another nine times, and John affirms it three more. In Christ's final words in this life: "Father, the hour is come, glorify thy Son, that thy Son may glorify thee" (John 17:1).
+++
In prayer, Jesus said:
"Now is my soul troubled. And what shall I say? Father, save me from this hour. But for this cause I came unto this hour" (John 12:27).
And we should politely turn away from His moment of Glory?
Christ didn't preach to save man, He didn't teach to save man, He didn't heal or perform other miracles to save man ... He died to save man, and everything else, before and after that momentous event, ever word and every deed, leads towards the absolute centrality of that act.
+++
The Cross is a scandal. Howso? According to the measure of human hypocrisy.
We are not enlightened to the wisdom of His words, we are drawn into His very being, into the living heart from which wisdom springs. "Thanks for the gift," we might say, "but I find it all rather horrific, actually. I'd rather not talk about it."
Deep inside I wonder if man is not turned away by a sense of shame: I am not worthy of this Sacrifice, I can't live up to it! Or: This is too much! What did I do that you deserve this?
St Matthew understood it deeply: "And blessed is he that shall not be scandalized in me" (Matthew 11:6), for where there is no scandal, no hypocrisy, in those who recognise their own poverty, that they have sunk so low that this is the price of their redemption, "Blessed are the poor in spirit: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven" (Matthew 5:3).
And wherein lies the source of that hypocrisy? In saying "You are my God, but I will do as I will". This was the first offense, the Origin of Sin itself ... by our will we disfigured and defiled the world. And that is how we die, disfigured and defiled, on the cross of the world ... brought down by our own sin.
A fault of such magnitude requires something of equal magnitude to negate it, but something of an even greater magnitude to overcome it. Man, having rent the very fabric of his being, is incapable of self-repair. The simple solution, the quick and easy way, is to undo it ... dismantle creation, uncreate it, and start again ...
... But here is a paradox. To do so would require God overthrow Himself, a total inversion of all that is, God becomes subject to of man's actions. We control the Cosmos, and God is our hostage.
The Will of God will not be defied. Even so, the punishment He seems to inflict upon man is nothing other than the self-inflicted result of natural justice — he knew the consequence of his action.
The Mercy of God knows no measure. What man has done, God will take upon Himself to put right, and what man has done to himself, God will take upon Himself to make right. This is the Mystery of the Incarnation, of the Hypostasis — that God joined Himself to corruption, not just to savour it, but to swallow it, to take it into Himself and remake it anew in His own perfect image.
"That which is not assumed is not saved" (St Gregory Nazianzus).
"God became man," the Fathers say "that man might become God" (by filiation, the doctrine of theosis).
This is the via dolorosa. The old man must die to realise the new ... but God does not ask this of man, rather He offers Himself as man's ransom. Christ, in His humanity stands in solidarity with humanity, He goes ahead, takes all mans' sin upon Himself, and offers Himself up to the Father in the sure and certain knowledge that "Amen I say to thee, this day (this hour!) thou shalt be with me in paradise" (Luke 23:43).
Lose sight of the Cross, and we hang alongside that other villain, "... one of those robbers who were hanged, blasphemed (scandalised!) him, saying: If thou be Christ, save thyself and us" (Luke 23:39).
If we turn away, we as good as say, "do it another way ... not like this." If we turn away, paradise is lost.
Oh blessed tree, upon which He hung His life for me,
Take Thee my life, that I may live in He.
Thomas
"And Jesus saith to her: Woman, what is that to me and to thee? my hour is not yet come" (John 2:4). Jesus says it another nine times, and John affirms it three more. In Christ's final words in this life: "Father, the hour is come, glorify thy Son, that thy Son may glorify thee" (John 17:1).
+++
In prayer, Jesus said:
"Now is my soul troubled. And what shall I say? Father, save me from this hour. But for this cause I came unto this hour" (John 12:27).
And we should politely turn away from His moment of Glory?
Christ didn't preach to save man, He didn't teach to save man, He didn't heal or perform other miracles to save man ... He died to save man, and everything else, before and after that momentous event, ever word and every deed, leads towards the absolute centrality of that act.
+++
The Cross is a scandal. Howso? According to the measure of human hypocrisy.
We are not enlightened to the wisdom of His words, we are drawn into His very being, into the living heart from which wisdom springs. "Thanks for the gift," we might say, "but I find it all rather horrific, actually. I'd rather not talk about it."
Deep inside I wonder if man is not turned away by a sense of shame: I am not worthy of this Sacrifice, I can't live up to it! Or: This is too much! What did I do that you deserve this?
St Matthew understood it deeply: "And blessed is he that shall not be scandalized in me" (Matthew 11:6), for where there is no scandal, no hypocrisy, in those who recognise their own poverty, that they have sunk so low that this is the price of their redemption, "Blessed are the poor in spirit: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven" (Matthew 5:3).
And wherein lies the source of that hypocrisy? In saying "You are my God, but I will do as I will". This was the first offense, the Origin of Sin itself ... by our will we disfigured and defiled the world. And that is how we die, disfigured and defiled, on the cross of the world ... brought down by our own sin.
A fault of such magnitude requires something of equal magnitude to negate it, but something of an even greater magnitude to overcome it. Man, having rent the very fabric of his being, is incapable of self-repair. The simple solution, the quick and easy way, is to undo it ... dismantle creation, uncreate it, and start again ...
... But here is a paradox. To do so would require God overthrow Himself, a total inversion of all that is, God becomes subject to of man's actions. We control the Cosmos, and God is our hostage.
The Will of God will not be defied. Even so, the punishment He seems to inflict upon man is nothing other than the self-inflicted result of natural justice — he knew the consequence of his action.
The Mercy of God knows no measure. What man has done, God will take upon Himself to put right, and what man has done to himself, God will take upon Himself to make right. This is the Mystery of the Incarnation, of the Hypostasis — that God joined Himself to corruption, not just to savour it, but to swallow it, to take it into Himself and remake it anew in His own perfect image.
"That which is not assumed is not saved" (St Gregory Nazianzus).
"God became man," the Fathers say "that man might become God" (by filiation, the doctrine of theosis).
This is the via dolorosa. The old man must die to realise the new ... but God does not ask this of man, rather He offers Himself as man's ransom. Christ, in His humanity stands in solidarity with humanity, He goes ahead, takes all mans' sin upon Himself, and offers Himself up to the Father in the sure and certain knowledge that "Amen I say to thee, this day (this hour!) thou shalt be with me in paradise" (Luke 23:43).
Lose sight of the Cross, and we hang alongside that other villain, "... one of those robbers who were hanged, blasphemed (scandalised!) him, saying: If thou be Christ, save thyself and us" (Luke 23:39).
If we turn away, we as good as say, "do it another way ... not like this." If we turn away, paradise is lost.
Oh blessed tree, upon which He hung His life for me,
Take Thee my life, that I may live in He.
Thomas
N
Nick_A
Guest
Thomas writes a fine description of meaning associated with the Cross.
Now we go back to "Piss Christ"
Piss Christ - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
You can say that Serrano is making a statement as Wendy Beckett said as to "what we've done to Christ." I still see it as primarily degrading a sacred symbol. You can say I am exaggerating but answer me honestly.
If I decided to make a plastic image of a black man being hung from a tree as has happened in the past, and put it in a jar of my own urine as a symbol of what we've done to black people in the past, would I get financial support? Would it be displayed or removed as offensive or as intended racism? Why would people object to this symbol of my creation that isn't even a sacred symbol? If Piss Christ is artistic and my creation racist, what does this selective morality say about us?
Protest is one thing and respect is another? How many can find the balance?
Perhaps if we understood what Simone suggests, there would not be so much selective morality and rather an accepted value of respect for that which is greater than ourselves.
Now we go back to "Piss Christ"
Piss Christ - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
You can say that Serrano is making a statement as Wendy Beckett said as to "what we've done to Christ." I still see it as primarily degrading a sacred symbol. You can say I am exaggerating but answer me honestly.
If I decided to make a plastic image of a black man being hung from a tree as has happened in the past, and put it in a jar of my own urine as a symbol of what we've done to black people in the past, would I get financial support? Would it be displayed or removed as offensive or as intended racism? Why would people object to this symbol of my creation that isn't even a sacred symbol? If Piss Christ is artistic and my creation racist, what does this selective morality say about us?
Protest is one thing and respect is another? How many can find the balance?
Perhaps if we understood what Simone suggests, there would not be so much selective morality and rather an accepted value of respect for that which is greater than ourselves.
seattlegal
Mercuræn Buddhist
I have to agree with you. Idolatry leads to all sorts of ridiculousness, such as this:
Video--Crucified Frog Angers Pope
Italian museum defies pope over crucified frog - Yahoo! News
How about drawing attention to people abusing people over symbols, a malignant side-effect of idolatry? Isn't that what this kind of art draws attention to? Abusing a symbol? Big deal. Abusing people? There is absolutely no honor in that.