6748_smith_w

Is "+" only a crucifix if it depicts a representation of the crucified body of Jesus, or are the 2 words interchangeable?
Thanks.

trientalis

According to Merriam-Webster Online, a crucifix is "a representation of Christ on the cross", so I guess technically the words are not interchangeable. You have to have the body and the cross to have a crucifix.

Amos

Correct, except that Jesus was crucified and not Christ.

I ate Pascal's Wafer

Yeah, that's how I have always understood it. It's only a crucifix when the big JC is on it. If it doesn't have anyone on it, then it's a cross.

Hey, this brings up another question. I have two crucifixes from my old Catholic days. One has a dead Jebus hanging from it, and the other a Jebus in a robe holding his hands toward the sky. Are both of these considered crucifixes, or is there a special term for the latter? I never bothered to check into this...

-Nick

I ate Pascal's Wafer

I'm not sure what names are in use for the scholarly, but in average language "Christ" and "Jesus" are used interchangeably. Even the dictionary defines "Christ" as "Jesus of Nazareth". While you may have theological reasons for believing otherwise, do understand that the rest of us go by the common meaning for these words.

-Nick
-edited to add: it just occurred to me that you might be saying that Jesus didn't become "Christ" until after crucifixion. I'm not really so sure I can agree with that, but I can see where you would be coming from. If this is what you believe, then for you it would be an important distinction worth bringing up. If this is what you were referring to, then never mind the paragraph above.

Amos

The second one is a Vatican II invention to show those damn protestants that our Jesus was raised from the dead. The objection here was that their cross was empty because they worship a risen Christ . . . which of course is nonsense because Christ never descended and therefore did not have the need to rise nor did he ever have that option.