[ Post a Response | Mystical Rose Message Board ]
The banner ad is placed here by Boardhost.com, the host of this free message board.
The Mystical Rose Catholic Page has no control over which ad banners appear on this page.
Posted by stella
on 3/21/2008, 6:08 pm
78.93.92.69
"On the theory that Christ was crucified, how shall we explain the fact that during the first eight centuries of the evolution of Christianity, Christian art represented a lamb, and not a man, as suffering on the cross for the salvation of the world? Neither the paintings in the Catacombs nor the sculptures on Christian tombs pictured a human figure on the cross. Everywhere a lamb was shown as the Christian symbol -- a lamb carrying a cross, a lamb at the foot of a cross, a lamb on a cross. Some figures showed the lamb with a human head, shoulders and arms, holding a cross in his hands -- the lamb of God in process of assuming the human form -- the crucifixion myth becoming realistic. At the close of the eighth century, Pope Hadrian I, confirming the decree of the sixth Synod of Constantinople, commanded that thereafter the figure of a man should take the place of a lamb on the cross. It took Christianity eight hundred years to develop the symbol of its suffering Savior. For eight hundred years, the Christ on the cross was a lamb. But if Christ was actually crucified, why was his place on the cross so long usurped by a lamb? In the light of history and reason, and in view of a lamb on the cross, why should we believe in the Crucifixion? "
a txt taken from a writer..If so is there any meaning in representation of the crusified christ?
Message Thread:
« Back to thread
The opinions expressed on this board are those of the individuals who post them.
They do not necessarily represent the beliefs of the Mystical Rose Catholic Page, its
webmaster, or the official teaching of the Holy Catholic Church!