Ship of Fools: Can we go back to a fish?

Thread: Can we go back to a fish? Board: Purgatory / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=2;t=020168

Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :

Should the cross, a symbol adopted some centuries after Jesus, once Christianity won endorsement in the Roman Empire, be the Christian symbol? It emphasizes the crucifixion doesn't it? To quote a German phrasing "If your mother would be killed by a hammer, would you than put a hammer on your wall to remember your mother?"

Maybe we should go back to a fish? De-emphasize the violence torture death device of the cross. Or a dove, or the cup of wine, loaf of bread. Something else.

What other symbols might replace the crucifix? Which I guess is technically with the dead Jesus hanging on the cross. Which seems quite a bit more in your face and the wrong symbol. Is there something warped about Christianity that the instrument of death is the symbol? How about a symbol of life?

[thread title now less mysterious, more comprehensible with added "to"]

[ 30. April 2017, 06:00: Message edited by: Eutychus ]

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

The paradox of the Christian faith is that an instrument of execution is a symbol of life.

Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
The paradox of the Christian faith is that an instrument of execution is a symbol of life.

Today, yes it can be. It wasn't for several centuries. Did we warp it?

Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on :

quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
Should the cross, a symbol adopted some centuries after Jesus, once Christianity won endorsement in the Roman Empire . . . .

There are references to Christian use of the cross—and particularly use of the sign of the cross (though on the forehead rather than head and torso)—at least 100 years before the Roman Empire endorsed Christianity.

quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
Did we warp it?

Somewhat the opposite, I think.

The cross as a symbol is much, much older than Christianity, and was found in some form in most if not all parts of the world. Its very simple form of two intersecting lines make it able to carry lots of meanings. In various uses it's a symbol of the sun, of the world, of the 4 directions, of the intersection of earth and heaven, etc. In slightly modified form, it's the Egyptian ankh, which symbolized life, as did the cross-shaped Greek letter Tau. The related Hebrew tav also symbolized life—in Ezekiel 9, it was the mark placed on the foreheads of the righteous, to mark and protect them as the "executioners" went through Jerusalem.

Given all of that, I suspect it was inevitable that the cross would become a prominent symbol for Christians—one that could take a variety of forms and carry some fairly deep and archetypal meaning.

[ 30. April 2017, 00:26: Message edited by: Nick Tamen ]

Posted by The5thMary (# 12953) on :

My problem with the crucifix is that we, at least in the U.S.A., have CHOCOLATE crosses at Easter!! Who in Hell dreamed this one up? Okay, I know this is a serious subject but I had to throw this in...because the cross as a symbol doesn't bother me, it keeps me humble. But a chocolate cross is juvenile and sickening.

Posted by Og, King of Bashan (# 9562) on :

It seems to me that this is asking the same question as "focus on the teachings" and "was the resurrection a historic event."

You either think that the death and resurrection narratives are a critical part of the story or you don't. And you attitude about the cross acting as a symbol for the whole operation will probably be flavored by that.

Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on :

quote:
Originally posted by The5thMary:
! Who in Hell dreamed this one up?

Venerable old Hershey's, it would seem.

Without getting too theoretical(or omitting my debt to Harold Bloom), it can be argued that there is a sense in which America is not really a Christian nation. I can't quite imagine a similarly prominent European company manufacturing a chocolate cross; it's more like something you would see in Charlie Hebdo or some such venue, where it would be recognized as a blasphemous putdown.

But across the pond at Hershey's, it's like "Well, crosses and chocolate both go with Easter, so why not put them together?"

The Reader''s Digest Bible might be another example of the cultural phenomenon I'm talking about. Though, admittedly, it bombed.

[ 30. April 2017, 04:07: Message edited by: Stetson ]

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

That's not an evolutionary rewind and wind forward I would want, unless it were as a manta ray or whale shark perhaps.

Posted by Jay-Emm (# 11411) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Stetson:
[QUOTE]
The Reader''s Digest Bible might be another example of the cultural phenomenon I'm talking about. Though, admittedly, it bombed.

I think there my main problem would be the title (and any implicit messages in the description) and I can't think of a better one really.

After all the BofCommon Prayer, Lectionary and the Psalter kind of due this to much greater extents. And if it does make it easier to carry, it provides slightly greater flexibility to read different bits than the above, with the understanding if you need to check who Salmon's father was wait till you get home.
The issue is of course what you put in that bracket, how much you make it seem unimportant.

I guess technically you *could* do something with a choc cross in potential, as well (any complaints reading a bit hollow with the Eucharist on the same day, and it's a bit wierd to insist Easter isn't a christian festival), but the assumption that it's probably tacky seems much better placed.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

People are commended for "signing themselves with the cross" back in the Didache, if I'm remembering right. It has been a symbol of our faith for about as long as people have been writing about our faith.

Posted by sharkshooter (# 1589) on :

The empty cross is a representation of the ressurection: The cross did not defeat Jesus, He is risen.

Of course, a symbol of the empty tomb would also work, but it would be much more difficult to draw.

Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :

As an evangelical, I'm keenly aware of the need for "rebranding", the way my tribe has perhaps permanently tarnished a historic name. But I'm failing to see how the cross is anything but an wonderful and apt symbol of the faith-- a provocative invitation to question why this symbol, a symbol of death, becomes the central point of a faith in the notion that "life doesn't have to be like this"? I think it's lasted because it is so effective a summary of what in fact we believe.

otoh:

quote:
Originally posted by The5thMary:
My problem with the crucifix is that we, at least in the U.S.A., have CHOCOLATE crosses at Easter!! Who in Hell dreamed this one up? Okay, I know this is a serious subject but I had to throw this in...because the cross as a symbol doesn't bother me, it keeps me humble. But a chocolate cross is juvenile and sickening.

Yes. This is just one of a number of really questionable uses of the cross-- rock stars making huge crosses encrusted with gaudy gems a trendy fashion accessory with no apparent thought to meaning, etc. Once I was leafing thru a catalogue of mostly tacky-but-innoculous overpriced "nature themed" giftware-- penguin patterned socks, kitten tote bags, flower bedecked t-shirts, that sort of thing. I was caught short when I came across a gold cross with a dolphin on it. Flipper died for your sins??? Egad. [Confused]

Couldn't get the "Reader's Digest Bible" link to work, but assuming it's an "edited" version of the Bible-- in essence, that's what the lectionary and the creeds are about-- summarizing and editing Scripture to it's key essential elements. Of course, the lectionary and creeds arguably have a stronger and more honorable vetting process.

[ 30. April 2017, 15:06: Message edited by: cliffdweller ]

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
Is there something warped about Christianity that the instrument of death is the symbol?

It is bizarre when looked at too closely. This offends many Christians, but it shouldn't.

Posted by Jay-Emm (# 11411) on :

quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:

Couldn't get the "Reader's Digest Bible" link to work, but assuming it's an "edited" version of the Bible-- in essence, that's what the lectionary and the creeds are about-- summarizing and editing Scripture to it's key essential elements. Of course, the lectionary and creeds arguably have a stronger and more honorable vetting process.

As far as I could tell from the link it was edited (beyond that involved in the initial RSV) to keep half the OT and three quarters of the NT.
I don't know what the pattern was, if it excised entire books*, repeated bits, non-flowing bits (e.g. genealogies), or vetting unsound/unPC bits.

*our school gideons are just the NT (&Psalms), a catholic one just has the gospels. I think the WWI Tommies were just given one gospel, and UCCF similarly gave out just one, (and I heard of one person who was given 1&2 Timothy in isolated texts [Big Grin]

). So there is some precedent.

Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on :

in the OP -

quote:
Should the cross, a symbol adopted some centuries after Jesus, once Christianity won endorsement in the Roman Empire...

Just as a point of information - the staurogram (the tau-rho figure used as shorthand for the divine name) is found in the earliest manuscripts from the second century. The staurogram is a kind of crucifix.

Yes, of course it is supposed to be in your face. If you were crucified you stayed crucified, and the process was one of excruciating (that word again!) agony. If discussion of electric chairs and hammers opens the mind to realisation of the enormity of the symbol then so much the better. Death means death, to cite a certain politician. Unless...

Posted by HCH (# 14313) on :

I think some Protestants would distinguish between the empty cross, empty because Christ has risen, and the crucifix including a Christ figure. Is Christianity defined by his suffering or by his rising?

Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on :

The empty cross is making a rather different point I think. The crucifix is intended to show he truly suffered and died. Both cross and crucifix have figured in earlier times.

Posted by Gramps49 (# 16378) on :

Are we talking about te Cross or the Fish? When did the fish stop being used as a Christian Symbol? I used it on my calling card back in the 60's.

The fish appears to have been in use by the 2nd century in Christian circles. The only other symbol that had an earlier use was the Chi Rho if my memory of Christian history is right

It was Augustine who liked to use the letters of IXTHYS to spell out:

Iota (i) is the first letter of Iēsous (Ἰησοῦς), Greek for "Jesus".
Chi (ch) is the first letter of Christos (Χριστός), Greek for "anointed."
Theta (th) is the first letter of Theou (Θεοῦ), Greek for "God's", the genitive case of Θεóς, Theos," Greek for "God."
Upsilon (y) is the first letter of (h)yios[7] (Υἱός), Greek for "Son".
Sigma (s) is the first letter of sōtēr (Σωτήρ), Greek for "Savior."

There are other symbols that were also used, that have fallen into disfavor such as an eight-spoked wheel or an anchor?

Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jay-Emm:

quote:
Originally posted by Stetson:
[QUOTE]
The Reader''s Digest Bible might be another example of the cultural phenomenon I'm talking about. Though, admittedly, it bombed.
I think there my main problem would be the title (and any implicit messages in the description) and I can't think of a better one really.

Well, in pondering the RDB over the years(yes, I do have my peculiar obsessions), it has occured to me that no one usually objects to Stories From The Bible sorta books, where the original narratives are re-written for their target audience, and which don't make a pretense of actually being Bibles.

The RDB probably has a greater claim to being a real Bible than those Uncle Art style books. Which I suppose might be part of the problem. It's too close to the original to claim "Well, it's not meant to be a Bible".

quote:
I guess technically you *could* do something with a choc cross in potential, as well (any complaints reading a bit hollow with the Eucharist on the same day, and it's a bit wierd to insist Easter isn't a christian festival), but the assumption that it's probably tacky seems much better placed.

re: the chocolate cross/Eucharist comparison...

Well, the Eucharist is eaten for a very specific theological reason, ie. it is what Jesus at the Last Supper asked his followers to do. Whereas, if someone eats a chocolate cross, it's not to enact a solemn ritual, but rather just because chocolate is one of the nifty things that you do at Easter, so why not in the form of a cross?

As for anyone arguing that Easter is not really a Christian festival, I guess you could say that's what I was arguing about how it's treated in a lot of places these days, specifically the US, but maybe elsewhere as well. The Christian content is still there, but it's been subsumed into something larger, much in the same way, for example, that certain Theosophists make the biblical figure of Jesus into an Ascended Master, which still technically referring to the same guy that Christians refer to.

Though in the case of the chocolate Jesus, the cultural behemoth is probably less consciously theological than that of Elizabeth Clare Prophet.

[ 01. May 2017, 02:06: Message edited by: Stetson ]

Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on :

I have not encountered chocolate crosses (and for that mercy I give thanks). But I do wonder—in concept, at least, are chocolate crosses all that different from hot cross buns?

Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
I have not encountered chocolate crosses (and for that mercy I give thanks). But I do wonder—in concept, at least, are chocolate crosses all that different from hot cross buns?

That's a valid question.

I think a point might be, though, that hot cross buns are a food that "point you in the direction" of the cross, by having a reminder of that symbol carved into them. Whereas chocolate crosses, at least as designed by Hershey, point you more in the direction of secular Easter-ish shennanigans(chocolate eggs, bunnies etc), thus situating the symbol in that particular, highly commercialized cultural tendency.

Or maybe it IS just my own squeamishness, being accustomed to seeing hot cross buns, but not to seeing chocolate crosses.

Posted by Lyda*Rose (# 4544) on :

The cross is symbolic of just how revolutionary Christianity was from the word go. Contemporary Roman pagans couldn't believe a group of worshipers would glory in their deity's death by the most degrading form of execution at the time. The Christ-cross connection was widely known. So if you wanted to paint a target on your back, wear a cross or put one on your house church. If you didn't want to have the target, doodle little fishies instead.

Our church's Lent study was lead by an African American deacon, who lead the discussion on the cross to the subject of lynchings. Would we feel the same about wearing a symbol of a "lynching tree" as matter-of-factly as we often wear crosses? It wasn't that he was against crosses. (He admitted he has a pretty good collection of his own.) He wanted us to keep to the forefront what Christ's work means to us every day. Some of that work is plainly uplifting and hopeful, but some of it is grizzly and shaming to humanity. It's not one or the other, it is both.

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
I have not encountered chocolate crosses (and for that mercy I give thanks). But I do wonder—in concept, at least, are chocolate crosses all that different from hot cross buns?

I don't have any particular aversion to chocolate crosses. Nor hot cross buns, elaborate jewelry worn by rappers or most other uses of crosses in church or secular settings.

Crosses set on fire in someone else's yard as an act of intimidation, on the other hand [Mad]

Posted by Jay-Emm (# 11411) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Stetson:

quote:
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
I have not encountered chocolate crosses (and for that mercy I give thanks). But I do wonder—in concept, at least, are chocolate crosses all that different from hot cross buns?
That's a valid question.

I think a point might be, though, that hot cross buns are a food that "point you in the direction" of the cross, by having a reminder of that symbol carved into them. Whereas chocolate crosses, at least as designed by Hershey, point you more in the direction of secular Easter-ish shennanigans(chocolate eggs, bunnies etc), thus situating the symbol in that particular, highly commercialized cultural tendency.

Or maybe it IS just my own squeamishness, being accustomed to seeing hot cross buns, but not to seeing chocolate crosses.

I think it might be, my first thought was vaguely on the second lines (and I think it probably is at least the case). But when I was going to post that as being a clear example (against the R.D*) but then I thought there was a lot of me realised my reasons didn't really match (or as you say not accustomed to seeing them).

*incidently I looked a bit more into the RDB, all the books are there, and nominally it's short bits (I can see how the description of mana, in Numbers 11 is longer than it needs for a first reading)

It's also not as much a tangent as I thought, so here's another question I was thinking this morning. There's quite a few passages where the cross does stuff "He triumphed by the cross over death" type passages. But you could just as easily have "He triumphed over the cross and death" but (except possibly 'hung on a tree' in Peter's speech in Acts) I can't think of any of the top of my head.

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Stetson:
... The Christian content is still there, but it's been subsumed into something larger, much in the same way, for example, that certain Theosophists make the biblical figure of Jesus into an Ascended Master, which still technically referring to the same guy that Christians refer to. ...

No Stetson. Subsumed into something smaller, infinitely smaller.

Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on :

In this mainly secular age, where Churches around here are either closed or used as community centres as much as places of worship, some do find carvings of a person nailed to a frame a little distasteful.

A cross is a symbol meaningful to some not others. Sticks in the craw of some and not others. Change it to a smiling fish or an electric chair and you will probably offend a few, doubtful that any gimmicks will bring new sheep to the fold.

Posted by Pangolin Guerre (# 18686) on :

Lyda Rose wrote:
some of it is grizzly

That's unbearable.

Now, to return to our regular programming....

I remember reading years ago (can't recall the source - sorry) that the fish was a cryptic reworking of the cross, so adopting the fish doesn't help you escape the cross. Metaphorical significance in that. That's your fish to bear.

[ 01. May 2017, 16:56: Message edited by: Pangolin Guerre ]

Posted by Lyda*Rose (# 4544) on :

Pangolin Guerre:

quote:
Lyda Rose wrote:
some of it is grizzly

That's unbearable.

Groan!

Posted by Al Eluia (# 864) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
People are commended for "signing themselves with the cross" back in the Didache, if I'm remembering right. It has been a symbol of our faith for about as long as people have been writing about our faith.

Perhaps signing with the sign of the fish would look something like this.

Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Lyda*Rose:
Pangolin Guerre:
quote:
Lyda Rose wrote:
some of it is grizzly

That's unbearable.
Groan!

Yeah, that joke was pretty polarizing.

Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on :

..... but nevertheless almost a necessity.

Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on :

quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
To quote a German phrasing "If your mother would be killed by a hammer, would you than put a hammer on your wall to remember your mother?"

If my mother had been the Messiah, came back from the dead as the first-fruits of the Resurrection, and saved the world; yes, I wouldn't have a problem with that.

However, Jesus got there first, and he did it with a cross.

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Anselmina:
If my mother had been the Messiah, came back from the dead as the first-fruits of the Resurrection, and saved the world; yes, I wouldn't have a problem with that.

However, Jesus got there first, and he did it with a cross.

Well said Anselmina. That aptly and authoritatively answers both the OP and the whole of the rest of this thread. I give it a [Overused]

Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :

Is this accurate?

It says that a dove, fish, ship, lyre, an anchor and an abbreviation for Christ were early symbols, in additionl to a cross, or perhaps by different groups. It also states that if wasn't until about 400 AD that Christians used a cross with a crucified effigy of Jesus as a symbol.

The crucifixion symbology is interesting with consideration of stigmata, which without the representations of a crucified man with clear wounds, would not have had a model for that physical expression.

Posted by Pangolin Guerre (# 18686) on :

quote:
Originally posted by rolyn:
..... but nevertheless almost a necessity.

The misspelling invited a jab. No?

Back to the subject at hand...

I agree with Alan Creswell's 's initial comment, regarding the central paradox of Christianity. The apparent conflict between a shameful, gory, grisly means of execution and a soteriological significance to that shame creates (I hesitate to say this, but...) a creative aporia for faith.

Posted by Gramps49 (# 16378) on :

The CT (Christianity Today) article is about right. I had previously mentioned the anchor.

Posted by Pangolin Guerre (# 18686) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gramps49:
The CT (Christianity Today) article is about right. I had previously mentioned the anchor.

Could you say where that article might be found? Thanks much.

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

The problem today is that the cross as a symbol has such weight that attempting to remove it has as many or more problems as keeping it.

AFAIR there was a movement by the Moonies to pay churches to take down their crosses. I wonder what happened to that programme.

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

The Moonie programme is mentioned on this WP page (final paragraph)

Posted by fletcher christian (# 13919) on :

In early Irish Christianity - as much as we can say anything about it accurately - the two dominant forms of symbol before the dominance of the cross (and especially the high cross) seem to have been the Tau (although technically speaking a cross of a type but with slightly different meaning) and the fish. The early monks were particularly good at linking Christian concepts with pagan stories and the fish slotted into this quite well, especially with regards to salmon. The bell also had a powerful significance but this one is a little lost in the mists of time and may be more to do with the authority of an abbot more than anything else.

Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:

AFAIR there was a movement by the Moonies to pay churches to take down their crosses. I wonder what happened to that programme.

I believe that campaign was supposed to work in tandem with Moon's campaign to convince Jews to apologize for killing Jesus, ie. Jews apologize for the deicide, Christians stop reminding Jews about it via the cross, everyone comes together for a big hug and unites under Moon.

The donations Moon made to participating churches(many of them African-American) may have played some role in getting those congressmen to show up for that event in DC, where he duped them into appearing to put a crown on his head.

[ 02. May 2017, 11:11: Message edited by: Stetson ]

Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on :

Moonie leader crowned in Senate

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Stetson:

The donations Moon made to participating churches(many of them African-American) may have played some role in getting those congressmen to show up for that event in DC, where he duped them into appearing to put a crown on his head.

I'd love to know how he persuaded those church men to get involved.

Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Pangolin Guerre:

quote:
Originally posted by Gramps49:
The CT (Christianity Today) article is about right. I had previously mentioned the anchor.
Could you say where that article might be found? Thanks much.

no prophet linked to it a few posts up, in his question "Is this accurate?"

Posted by Pangolin Guerre (# 18686) on :

Thank you, NT. Somehow I kept missing the link.

Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Anselmina:

quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
To quote a German phrasing "If your mother would be killed by a hammer, would you than put a hammer on your wall to remember your mother?"

If my mother had been the Messiah, came back from the dead as the first-fruits of the Resurrection, and saved the world; yes, I wouldn't have a problem with that.

However, Jesus got there first, and he did it with a cross.

<Bad pun warning>

Just to say; if the symbol for Christian salvation had been a hammer, would that mean worship would've been called 'Hammer Time'?

I'll get me coat...

Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on :

Too bad the hammer as a religious symbol was already taken.

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

It would be a thorny issue to sort out, likely to get people cross.

Posted by Pigwidgeon (# 10192) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
It would be a thorny issue to sort out, likely to get people cross.

Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:

quote:
Originally posted by Stetson:

The donations Moon made to participating churches(many of them African-American) may have played some role in getting those congressmen to show up for that event in DC, where he duped them into appearing to put a crown on his head.
I'd love to know how he persuaded those church men to get involved.

Yeah, I dunno. But you can read more about the movement here.

Apparently, one of the churches involved was the Imani Temple African American Catholic Congregation, founded by that defrocked priest who had gotten married by Moon in a mass wedding back in the 90s some time. Obviously, not a really mainstream group.

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

Wow, that American Clergy Leadership Conference (ACLC) is a whole load of weird.

Sidenote: the Unification Church has a lot of political clout. And some serious goods on a range of religious figures if it can get them to sign up to doing that loony stuff. I think that's a pretty good reason to keep the cross - if only to avoid anyone thinking that we're anything to do with the Moonies.

Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
[QB] Wow, that American Clergy Leadership Conference (ACLC) is a whole load of weird.

Sidenote: the Unification Church has a lot of political clout. And some serious goods on a range of religious figures if it can get them to sign up to doing that loony stuff.

My guess would be that the truth is somewhat more prosaic.

The Moonies were probably targeting smaller churches in poorer areas, who needed the money. Plus, things like the "Imani Temple African American Catholic Congregation" probably don't have strong ties to any larger denomination, so the clergy there are freer to do whatever they want about the crosses, without provoking much complaint from higher-ups.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

According to this expert, the cross goes right back to baptisms in the communities of St. Paul.

Posted by Zappa (# 8433) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gramps49:
...
It was Augustine who liked to use the letters of IXTHYS to spell out:

Iota (i) is the first letter of Iēsous (Ἰησοῦς), Greek for "Jesus".
Chi (ch) is the first letter of Christos (Χριστός), Greek for "anointed."
Theta (th) is the first letter of Theou (Θεοῦ), Greek for "God's", the genitive case of Θεóς, Theos," Greek for "God."
Upsilon (y) is the first letter of (h)yios[7] (Υἱός), Greek for "Son".
Sigma (s) is the first letter of sōtēr (Σωτήρ), Greek for "Savior."

There are other symbols that were also used, that have fallen into disfavor such as an eight-spoked wheel or an anchor?

Which always amuses me as 95% of Christians with a fish on the car (etc) have it back to front ...

SYHTXI

except without the letters, but nevertheless with the tail to the right ... which may mean they're expert in Grebrew, may mean they're dumb, or may mean there is a deep demonic plot on-going, by which gullible Christians are being demonically deceived to the point that they believe evil is good and good is evil, and vote for ...

Oh wait, that's a different thread.

Nevertheless, for many reasons cited by others above, I fear we remove the cross, empty or enfleshed, from our symbolism and our narratives at deep peril. When we do that, and forget this powerful symbol of the meeting place of heaven and earth, resurrection and crucifixion, holiness and sin, we might just aid and abet even more readily a demonic deception and believe evil is good and good is evil.

[ 11. May 2017, 19:08: Message edited by: Zappa ]

Posted by Lyda*Rose (# 4544) on :

Why does it matter where the tail is in relationship to the word? [Confused]

Posted by Pangolin Guerre (# 18686) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Lyda*Rose:
Why does it matter where the tail is in relationship to the word?

Wouldn't tail-backward be like an inverted cross?

Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Pangolin Guerre:

quote:
Originally posted by Lyda*Rose:
Why does it matter where the tail is in relationship to the word?
Wouldn't tail-backward be like an inverted cross?

But why is it backward for the tail to be on the right?

Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on :

Aficionadi of such things will of course note that Hungarians seem to be specialists of religious edibles including a resurrection cake. I also found a marzipan reliquary featuring an edible skeletal hand but was challenged by pinterest in finding a usuable URL.

[ 12. May 2017, 20:35: Message edited by: Augustine the Aleut ]

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:

quote:
Originally posted by Pangolin Guerre:

quote:
Originally posted by Lyda*Rose:
Why does it matter where the tail is in relationship to the word?
Wouldn't tail-backward be like an inverted cross?
But why is it backward for the tail to be on the right?

A fish with the tail to the right is swimming towards the left. That's against the flow of modern society, and hence backwards. Though, going against the flow seems much more appropriate to me.

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :

I think you need to put it on your car in this position () so it looks like a rocket taking off.

Posted by Pigwidgeon (# 10192) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
A fish with the tail to the right is swimming towards the left. That's against the flow of modern society, and hence backwards. Though, going against the flow seems much more appropriate to me.

Perhaps it's a salmon, swimming upstream to spawn.
[Biased]

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

Or, a carp - which in Japanese culture symbolises strength and courage (for jumping up waterfalls).

Posted by Zappa (# 8433) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:

quote:
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:

quote:
Originally posted by Pangolin Guerre:

quote:
Originally posted by Lyda*Rose:
Why does it matter where the tail is in relationship to the word?
Wouldn't tail-backward be like an inverted cross?
But why is it backward for the tail to be on the right?
A fish with the tail to the right is swimming towards the left. That's against the flow of modern society, and hence backwards. Though, going against the flow seems much more appropriate to me.

but really because the tail is the chi [Roll Eyes]

Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Zappa:
... but really because the tail is the chi

Source please? And if that is the case, where are the other letters—the iota in front of the chi, and the theta, upsilon and sigma after it? Sorry, but that sounds like a really recent retro-interpretation to me, especially given that the oldest Christian images of the fish show the fish (sometimes one, sometime two or more) swimming in every direction, and frequently they're portrayed more like real fish, not like the two arcs where the intersection at the tail resembles a chi or a cross.

Yes, Augustine, possibly relying on an older tradition, described the Greek word for "fish" as an acronym. But I've never heard that any part of the symbol of the fish itself (unlike the ichthus wheel) was supposed to suggest any letter in the word "ichthus."

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0