Is wearing jewellery with the cross or crucifix a form of idolatry?

[epostle1]

Biblical Evidence for Worship of God Via an Image

Sometimes we miss things in the Bible, though they are right in front of us. Some of our Protestant brethren (mainly Calvinists but some other denominations as well) have an almost obsessive fear of any image associated with worship at all, thinking that all such manifestations are examples of idolatry and undue exaltation of a “graven image”. This has led some fanatical elements to oppose even crucifixes and statues of Christ as idols. In other words, all images whatsoever are collapsed in this wrongheaded mentality into the category of the “graven image” in the Ten Commandments. But the Bible doesn’t take this view at all. Here is one striking example:

Exodus 33:8-10

Note that the pillar of cloud is:
1) a creation (water, if a literal cloud);

2) visual, hence an image;

and

3) thought to directly represent God Himself.


It’s also a supernatural manifestation, which is a major difference compared to any true idol made by the hands of men; but that would make no difference for those who mistakenly hold that any image whatsoever associated with God is impermissible. The problem comes when God Himself expressly sanctions such images, and worship in conjunction with them, as here.

The same iconoclasts (opposers of images) have to explain away things like the burning bush (Ex 3:2-6), which is not only fire, but also called an “angel of the Lord” (Ex 3:2), yet also “God” (3:4, 6, 11, 13-16, 18; 4:5, 7-8) and “the LORD” (3:7, 16, 18; 4:2, 4-6, 10-11, 14) interchangeably. An angel is a creation (as is fire and cloud); yet God chose to use a created being and inanimate objects to visibly represent Him. Several similar instances occur in the Old Testament. Moreover, the Jews “worshiped” fire as representative of God in the following passage:

2 Chronicles 7:1-4

Biblical Evidence for Worship of God Via an Image

 

[epostle1]

REFORMATION WALL

Good Protestant Idols
John Calvin, William Farel, Théodore de Bèze and John Knox
Worshiped by Protestants since 1908
The letters at the base stands for Egyptian deities Isis, Horus and Seth,
in honor of the great historian Alexander Hislop!

Good idols found in millions of Protestant homes at Christmas time

Redeemer in the Womb

bad "pagan" statue

bad "pagan" statues worshiping a statue
​

 

[Truth]

Speaking of Hislop, he clearly showed how the pagans were using the TAU in a manner similar to people using the crucifix today.

YES, the Babylonian's had the TAU, and when the Romans Conquered them they took upon themselves the Sun god Mithra, which in turn they adopted the Cross, they even had it on their battle standards, or shields. This is why they Crucified their enemies on crosses, they were sacrificing to their new found god, Mithra. the Romans Adopted many gods from those they Conquered especially the one's that were hard to subdue, thinking that the god of their enemies was a strong god. Rome was extremely Polytheistic in the time of Christ!

 

[epostle1]

YES, the Babylonian's had the TAU, and when the Romans Conquered them they took upon themselves the Sun god Mithra, which in turn they adopted the Cross, they even had it on their battle standards, or shields. This is why they Crucified their enemies on crosses, they were sacrificing to their new found god, Mithra. the Romans Adopted many gods from those they Conquered especially the one's that were hard to subdue, thinking that the god of their enemies was a strong god. Rome was extremely Polytheistic in the time of Christ!

Using a cross/crucifix does not mean you are a polytheist pagan Roman. The internet is loaded with such absurdities.

Humans are similar to each other and live in similar (i.e., terrestrial) environments, leading them to have similar cultural artifacts and views. For example, Fundamentalists have made much of the fact that Catholic art includes Madonna and Child images and that non-Christian art, all over the world, also frequently includes mother and child images. There is nothing sinister in this.

The fact is that, in every culture, there are mothers who hold their children! Sometimes this gets represented in art, including religious art, and it especially is used when a work of art is being done to show the motherhood of an individual. Mother-with child-images do not need to be explained by a theory of diffusion from a common, pagan religious source (such as Hislop’s suggestion that such images stem from representations of Semiramis holding Tammuz). One need look no further than the fact that mothers holding children is a universal feature of human experience and a convenient way for artists to represent motherhood.

Circumcision and the symbol of the cross might be termed "neutral" Jewish and Christian counterparts to pagan parallels. It is quite likely that the early Hebrews first encountered the idea of circumcision among neighboring non-Jewish peoples, but that does not mean they regarded it as a religiously good thing for non-Jews to do. Circumcision was regarded as a religiously good thing only for Jews because for them it symbolized a special covenant with the one true God (Gen. 17). The Hebrew scriptures are silent in a religious appraisal of non-Jewish circumcision; they seemed indifferent to the fact that some pagans circumcised.

Similarly, the early Christians who adopted the cross as a symbol did not do so because it was a pagan religious symbol (the pagan cultures which use it as a symbol, notably in East Asia and the Americas, had no influence on the early Christians). The cross was used as a Christian symbol because Christ died on a cross—his execution being regarded as a bad thing in itself, in fact, an infinite injustice—but one from which he brought life for the world. Christians did not adopt it because it was a pagan symbol they liked and wanted to copy.

In the final analysis, nobody has been able to prove the pagan influence fallacy.
The charge of paganism just doesn’t work.
Is Catholicism Pagan? | Catholic Answers

 

[epostle1]

Tau is the last letter of the Hebrew alphabet and was used symbolically in the Old Testament. It was already spoken of in the Book of Ezekiel: “The Lord said to him, ‘Go through the city, through Jerusalem, and put a mark upon the foreheads of the men who sigh and groan over the abominations… (Ez. 9:4). The Tau is the sign placed upon the foreheads of the poor of Israel, it saves them from extermination.

It was then adopted by the very first Christians, for a twofold reason:

1. As the last letter of the Hebrew alphabet, it prophesied the Last Day and had the same function as the Greek letter Omega as it appears in the Book of Revelation: “I am the Alpha and the Omega, the beginning and the end. To the thirsty I will give water without price from the fountain of the water of life … I am the Alpha and the Omega, the first and the last, the beginning and the end” (Rev. 21:6;22:13).

2. The Christians adopted the Tau, because its form reminded them of the Cross on which Christ was immolated for the salvation of the world.

What it is not
The Tau is not a magic amulet.

It is not a fetish, much less a trinket.

Nor is it a charm that is hung only because it “brings good luck.”

What is it a sign of?

It is a concrete sign of Christian devotion, but above all it is a sign of the commitment of one’s life to following the poor and crucified Christ.

It is a sign of the awareness of a Christian, i.e. of a child of God, a child who has escaped danger, of one who has been redeemed and saved. It is a sign of powerful protection against evil (Ez.9,6).

It is a sign willed by God for me, it is a divine privilege (Rev.9:4; Rev.7:1-4; Rev.14:1).

It is the sign of the Lord’s redeemed, of the unblemished, of those who trust Him, of those who see themselves as beloved children and who know that they are precious to God (Ez.9:6).

It is a symbol of the dignity of the children of God, for it is the Cross that held Christ.

It is a sign that reminds me that I too must be strong in time of trial, ready to obey the Father, and docile in submission, as Jesus was docile before the Father’s will.
What is the meaning of the Tau cross, so loved by St. Francis?

A.Hislop has demonized the cross, and poisoned many good Christians with lies. The internet is loaded with Hislop's false histories. If the Babylonians or pagan Romans had a tau symbol, it had nothing to do with the tau in the Bible.

 

[amadeus]

I havn't read the whole Bible throughly yet but I know that it states throughout The Bible including verse Leviticus 26:1 which says "You shall make you no idols nor graven image neither rear you up a standing image neither shall ye set up any image of stone in your land to bow down unto it: for I am the LORD your God". Leviticus 26:1

I believe that making graven images of things in Heaven & on Earth is also one of the 10 commandments. I think it was the second commandment.

Is wearing jewellery with the cross or crucifix, may it be a necklace, earrings or bracelet etc a form of idolatry? Is doing this going against scripture? I wear a necklace with the cross on it but I am beginning to believe that wearing a cross or owning a statue etc of the cross, crucifix or even of Jesus alone is committing idolatry. I used to believe that wearing a cross or crucifix around my neck or another form of jewellery was a representation of Jesus dying for our sins but now I am starting to believe that it is the wrong thing to do and I am thinking about removing the cross from my necklace.

If you believe what I am saying is correct, please explain why and if you believe otherwise , why do you believe that wearing the cross or crucifix is not committing idolatry?

If wearing an ornament or jewelry of a cross or a crucifix makes you uncomfortable before God then don't do it, but the things in themselves are not evil. Remember how God created everything?

"And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day." Gen 1:31

Things may be evil because man misusing all of those very good things made by God has made them evil.

We also need to consider that whatever we do is likely to influence other people around us either for good or for evil. Sometimes we may need to avoid doing something because a friend or relative or an acquaintance will be unnecessarily offended by our actions. We must obey God first but within that obedience we need to remember the feelings of other people as well. Remember that Jesus brought everything down to two basis commandments:

"Master, which is the great commandment in the law?
Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.
This is the first and great commandment.
And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.
On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets." Matt 22:36-40

 

[Truth]

Using a cross/crucifix does not mean you are a polytheist pagan Roman. The internet is loaded with such absurdities.

Humans are similar to each other and live in similar (i.e., terrestrial) environments, leading them to have similar cultural artifacts and views. For example, Fundamentalists have made much of the fact that Catholic art includes Madonna and Child images and that non-Christian art, all over the world, also frequently includes mother and child images. There is nothing sinister in this.

The fact is that, in every culture, there are mothers who hold their children! Sometimes this gets represented in art, including religious art, and it especially is used when a work of art is being done to show the motherhood of an individual. Mother-with child-images do not need to be explained by a theory of diffusion from a common, pagan religious source (such as Hislop’s suggestion that such images stem from representations of Semiramis holding Tammuz). One need look no further than the fact that mothers holding children is a universal feature of human experience and a convenient way for artists to represent motherhood.

Circumcision and the symbol of the cross might be termed "neutral" Jewish and Christian counterparts to pagan parallels. It is quite likely that the early Hebrews first encountered the idea of circumcision among neighboring non-Jewish peoples, but that does not mean they regarded it as a religiously good thing for non-Jews to do. Circumcision was regarded as a religiously good thing only for Jews because for them it symbolized a special covenant with the one true God (Gen. 17). The Hebrew scriptures are silent in a religious appraisal of non-Jewish circumcision; they seemed indifferent to the fact that some pagans circumcised.

Similarly, the early Christians who adopted the cross as a symbol did not do so because it was a pagan religious symbol (the pagan cultures which use it as a symbol, notably in East Asia and the Americas, had no influence on the early Christians). The cross was used as a Christian symbol because Christ died on a cross—his execution being regarded as a bad thing in itself, in fact, an infinite injustice—but one from which he brought life for the world. Christians did not adopt it because it was a pagan symbol they liked and wanted to copy.

In the final analysis, nobody has been able to prove the pagan influence fallacy.
The charge of paganism just doesn’t work.
Is Catholicism Pagan? | Catholic Answers

Sorry, I was not referring to the RCC, I should have expressed that, I was relating to the Time during Christ Ministry. And at that time Crucifixion was pretty Predominant. It was quite some time after that RCC was Instituted For Christ, and or Christianity! Big Difference!!
I did mention," During Christ's Ministry" in my post. Peace

 

[epostle1]

Sorry, I was not referring to the RCC, I should have expressed that, I was relating to the Time during Christ Ministry. And at that time Crucifixion was pretty Predominant. It was quite some time after that RCC was Instituted For Christ, and or Christianity! Big Difference!!
I did mention," During Christ's Ministry" in my post. Peace

"It was quite some time after that RCC was Instituted For Christ, and or Christianity! Big Difference!! "
Some time after? Really? That is an opinion, not a fact. False origins of the CC are constantly asserted, and the facts of history get re-written. They are easily disproven. There are plenty of reputable Protestant historians that don't accept this kind of revisionism. It's an inflammatory remark that belongs on another thread.

 

[Enoch111]

Remember how God created everything?

Except artifacts such as crosses for jewellery.

 

[Truth]

"It was quite some time after that RCC was Instituted For Christ, and or Christianity! Big Difference!! "
Some time after? Really? That is an opinion, not a fact. False origins of the CC are constantly asserted, and the facts of history get re-written. They are easily disproven. There are plenty of reputable Protestant historians that don't accept this kind of revisionism. It's an inflammatory remark that belongs on another thread.

OK! Is the Decree of Milan, a False Document? Is it a Fact that Constantine was responsible for giving Christians the freedom to observe their Faith without Persecution, especially within the area of Rome! How can a statement be Inflammatory when the statement was about a time when 80+ % of the civilized world was into some form of Pagan Worship, including Israel, Egypt, China, so on and so on, So I would say they all used some form of imagery weather it was a cross, a star, a serpent, a fish, or any other shape of anything as a symbol of their god! If you want to take it Personal then deal with it!

 

[epostle1]

OK! Is the Decree of Milan, a False Document? Is it a Fact that Constantine was responsible for giving Christians the freedom to observe their Faith without Persecution, especially within the area of Rome! How can a statement be Inflammatory when the statement was about a time when 80+ % of the civilized world was into some form of Pagan Worship, including Israel, Egypt, China, so on and so on, So I would say they all used some form of imagery weather it was a cross, a star, a serpent, a fish, or any other shape of anything as a symbol of their god! If you want to take it Personal then deal with it!

The Edict of Milan had nothing to do with the beginning of the Church. Myths and lies of Constantine has been beaten to death on this board. ANTI-CATHOLIC MYTHS AND LIES: #1 EMPEROR CONSTANTINE FOUNDED THE CATHOLIC CHURCH | PagadianDiocese.org

The emblem of the fish, ichthys, was frequently used in the catacombs. It is a symbol of the Lord Jesus, for the Greek word ichthys means “fish” and its letters are the initials for “Jesus Christ, God’s Son, Savior.” When Christians spoke of “receiving the fish”, they meant to receive Jesus in Holy communion.

The archaeological evidence clearly shows the fish symbol originated in the 1-3rd century catacombs MADE BY CHRISTIANS. You can argue about the urban legends concerning the origins of the ichthys if you want, I don't care. The bottom line is you are divorced from the early church, you have nothing to do with it.

 

[epostle1]

Except artifacts such as crosses for jewellery.

It's always a good idea, when posting in any thread, to go over the previous 1 or 2 pages, to avoid making asinine comments.

 

[amadeus]

Except artifacts such as crosses for jewellery.

I quoted the verse [Gen 1:31]. There were no exceptions.

 

[Enoch111]

I quoted the verse [Gen 1:31]. There were no exceptions.

No exceptions for what is in nature. Artifacts are man-made.

 

[epostle1]

Except artifacts such as crosses for jewellery.

Man made artifacts are not forbidden in the Bible. Worshiping them is. Only an idiot thinks ALL man made artifacts are forbidden, and a total moron thinks Christian jewelry is idolatry. God created the materials formed into a cross, yet Gen. 1:31 flies over your head like a Boeing 747.

 

[amadeus]

No exceptions for what is in nature. Artifacts are man-made.

But not all of the things men have made with their hands are evil. If that were so we would not be communicating via Internet on our electronic devices today. If there is a line to be drawn between intrinsically evil artifacts, who but God is qualified to draw that line? If there really is a black and white to God, who but Him is really able to tell which is which?

"Yea, the darkness hideth not from thee; but the night shineth as the day: the darkness and the light are both alike to thee." Psalm 139:12

 

[Enoch111]

Provide chapter and verse forbidding the use of crosses. There is no such verse. They are not a fashion statement, ya know.

Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth (Exod 20:4).

The "likeness" of anything in the universe would be any artifact, and crosses are artifacts. The actual cross of Christ is nowhere to be found, even though some claim they have *relics* from this cross.

 

[Enoch111]

But not all of the things men have made with their hands are evil.

You are perfectly correct. Only those artifacts which take on a spiritual or superstitious meaning are to be avoided.

 

[amadeus]

You are perfectly correct. Only those artifacts which take on a spiritual or superstitious meaning are to be avoided.

You should read about Nehushtan. In itself it was not evil. Its purpose was not evil when it was made. Quite the contrary, yet when Hezekiah was king he had it broken into pieces.

 

[Truth]

The Edict of Milan had nothing to do with the beginning of the Church. Myths and lies of Constantine has been beaten to death on this board. ANTI-CATHOLIC MYTHS AND LIES: #1 EMPEROR CONSTANTINE FOUNDED THE CATHOLIC CHURCH | PagadianDiocese.org

The emblem of the fish, ichthys, was frequently used in the catacombs. It is a symbol of the Lord Jesus, for the Greek word ichthys means “fish” and its letters are the initials for “Jesus Christ, God’s Son, Savior.” When Christians spoke of “receiving the fish”, they meant to receive Jesus in Holy communion.

The archaeological evidence clearly shows the fish symbol originated in the 1-3rd century catacombs MADE BY CHRISTIANS. You can argue about the urban legends concerning the origins of the ichthys if you want, I don't care. The bottom line is you are divorced from the early church, you have nothing to do with it.

YOU did not answer my question. Is the Edict of Milan a False Document? a simple yes or no will do!