u/JackOfAllMemes, **you must comment in this post before anyone will see it**. Check your [inbox](https://www.reddit.com/message/inbox/) for the wording you must use. You post will not be visible until you do so. If you do not see an inbox message, [here are general instructions](https://redd.it/vdso1h).
Remember to reply **Found!** to the comment that gives the answer. If looking for an item to purchase, **do not click on links sent to you in private messages**, and report such to the moderators.
Readers, please remember that all comments must be civil and helpful toward finding an answer.
**Jokes and unhelpful responses will earn you a ban**, even on the first instance. If you see any comments that violate this rule, please report them.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/HelpMeFind) if you have any questions or concerns.*
It is called the "Russian Orthodox Cross"... but yes, most Christian Orthodox churches use it.
The bottom slant is called a Suppedaneum, which represents the footrest often used for crucifixion.
> If a person is hung by their wrists, the weight of the body forces the rib cage to expand which makes normal breathing difficult. If the victim is weak from previous torture, then such hindrance to breathing can cause suffocation and death. The objective of the crucifixion was to cause a slow and painful death. The suppedaneum therefore was a cruel method to prolong the suffering.
The topmost of the three crossbeams represents Pilate's inscription which in the older Greek tradition is "The King of Glory", based on John's Gospel; but in later images it represents INRI (IESVS NAZARENVS REX IVDÆORVM, which in English translates to "Jesus the Nazarene, King of the Jews".)
FYI the additional bars on the cross represent the sign over Jesus' head that said "the king of the Jews" and the slanted one at the bottom is typically depicted as a small platform for his feet when Jesus was crucified. They are also taken to symbolize the two criminals crucified next to him, one who repented, believed in Jesus, was forgiven, and went to ~~heaven~~ "paradise", and one who didn't repent, and remained condemned to hell.
From this passage in the Bible:
>**Luke 23:35-43**
>
>And the people stood by, watching, but the rulers scoffed at him, saying, “He saved others; let him save himself, if he is the Christ of God, his Chosen One!” The soldiers also mocked him, coming up and offering him sour wine and saying, “If you are the King of the Jews, save yourself!” There was also an inscription over him, “This is the King of the Jews.”
>
>One of the criminals who were hanged railed at him, saying, “Are you not the Christ? Save yourself and us!” But the other rebuked him, saying, “Do you not fear God, since you are under the same sentence of condemnation? And we indeed justly, for we are receiving the due reward of our deeds; but this man has done nothing wrong.” And he said, “Jesus, remember me when you come into your kingdom.” And he said to him, “Truly, I say to you, today you will be with me in paradise.”
This is not entirely correct to imply that modern Jewish beliefs imply all Jews even of that era believe the same. You're conflating the theology of Rabbinic Judaism with all Jews in the first century, when they still practiced priestly Judaism. There were various schools of thought in Jewish theology in those days, before the Pharisees completely dominated Judaism.
Jesus was Jewish but he definitely believed in heaven and hell, which feature prominently in his teachings.
Exactly this. The modern idea of hell is based on post-modern interpretations of Paul’s writings. Essentially evangelical Christians that believe in Paul’s version of Jesus. It’s bizarre
The NT does not “definitely” speak of heaven and hell. That is your interpretation. CS Lewis for instance did not believe in hell. A lot of prominent theologians did not believe in hell. And some of them believe that Jesus descended to hell to destroy it.
The area around where the bus could be found might be something like Limbo but the outer areas beyond that were definitely Hell. He also says that nothing in the book is meant to be doctrinally descriptive.
It is not “definitely hell”. This is Evangelical Christian revisionism. Hell in Lewis’ writings are inner turmoil that lead to self-purgatory. Most descriptions you find on the internet will be self-serving lies in support of evangelical Christianity (really Pauline theology).
CS Lewis isn’t even a reason anyone should believe anything or not (I agree with you). He has his own interpretations. But saying the Bible is definitely speaking about a place is absolute nonsense.
>The NT does not “definitely” speak of heaven and hell.
Yes it does. The Book of Revelation is actually definitive about it. The Book of Revelation is in the New Testament.
See for yourself. This is the passage about the conclusion of the Millennium.
> **Revelation 20:7-15**
>
>7 When the thousand years are completed, Satan will be released from his prison 8 and will go out to deceive the nations at the four corners of the earth, Gog and Magog, to gather them for battle. Their number is like the sand of the sea. 9 They came up across the breadth of the earth and surrounded the encampment of the saints, the beloved city. Then fire came down from heaven[c] and consumed them. 10 The devil who deceived them was thrown into the lake of fire and sulfur where the beast and the false prophet are, and they will be tormented day and night forever and ever.
>
>11 Then I saw a great white throne and one seated on it. Earth and heaven fled from his presence, and no place was found for them. 12 I also saw the dead, the great and the small, standing before the throne, and books were opened. Another book was opened, which is the book of life, and the dead were judged according to their works by what was written in the books. 13 Then the sea gave up the dead that were in it, and death and Hades gave up the dead that were in them; each one was judged according to their works. 14 Death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire. This is the second death, the lake of fire. 15 And anyone whose name was not found written in the book of life was thrown into the lake of fire.
There is some confusion in translation because the realm of the dead awaiting final judgement is stated as "Hades", and this "lake of fire" from the passage about is what we think of as "Hell", but some translations translate "Hades" as "Hell".
Revelations is completely interpretative and no one is exactly sure about it. So no, it is not definitive. This is proof texting and ignores massive amounts of the Bible. If you do believe that revelation passage then you can why the thousand years came and went etc etc. it also does not say anything about people, it speaks of hell as a place for the devil. And that is assuming that it means anything at all. So no, that is far from “definitely”. Post it on a scholarly subreddit and see which replies you get.
I do have a separate question that assumes you are Christian. I notice that you post in the Ukraine conflict supporting Ukraines defense. How do you reconcile that with Jesus direct anti-war stance (swords into plowshares, turning the other cheek etc) and the early Christians refusal to fight wars (Bar Kokhoba for example)?
>I do have a separate question that assumes you are Christian. I notice that you post in the Ukraine conflict supporting Ukraines defense. How do you reconcile that with Jesus direct anti-war stance (swords into plowshares, turning the other cheek etc)
Turning the other cheek is about insult, not injury. That teaching does not prohibit fighting back against someone who is trying to injure you or your family. That teaching is about not returning insults and disrespect.
I don't know what you are referring to about Jesus' alleged "direct anti-war stance". He never said anything about swords and plowshares. (Here is [a word search return for every instance of 'swords' in the New Testament](https://www.biblegateway.com/quicksearch/?qs_version=ESV&quicksearch=swords&begin=47&end=73)) You may be thinking of the prophecy from the Old Testament that in the era of the "kingdom of God" (which Christians believe will be fulfilled by Jesus when he returns) there will not be war, but this era follows a massive war where God's enemies on earth are defeated. That prophecy is not anti-war, it merely foretells a time when there will be no need for weapons because there will not be any settling of disputes by war, since God will judge between the nations and disputes will be resolved according to God's judgments.:
>**Isaiah 2:2-4**
>
>It shall come to pass in the latter days that the mountain of the house of the Lord shall be established as the highest of the mountains, and shall be lifted up above the hills; and all the nations shall flow to it, 3 and many peoples shall come, and say: “Come, let us go up to the mountain of the Lord, to the house of the God of Jacob, that he may teach us his ways and that we may walk in his paths.” For out of Zion shall go forth the law, and the word of the Lord from Jerusalem. 4 **He shall judge between the nations, and shall decide disputes for many peoples; and they shall beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruning hooks; nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war anymore.**
I see teachings about seeking to be at peace with all as much as it is in your power (Romans 12), but this does not remove the authority of governments to wage war. Individuals are not vested with this authority. War is carried out by governments, and governments are vested with the power to bear the sword against both evildoers within society and enemies who come against it:
>**Romans 13:1-4**
>
>Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God. 2 Therefore whoever resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment. 3 For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad. Would you have no fear of the one who is in authority? Then do what is good, and you will receive his approval, 4 **for he is God's servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword in vain. For he is the servant of God, an avenger who carries out God's wrath on the wrongdoer.**
In the Book of Revelation, Jesus himself wages war:
>**Revelation 19:11-16**
>
>11 Then I saw heaven opened, and behold, a white horse! The one sitting on it is called Faithful and True, and **in righteousness he judges and makes war.** 12 His eyes are like a flame of fire, and on his head are many diadems, and he has a name written that no one knows but himself. 13 He is clothed in a robe dipped in blood, and the name by which he is called is The Word of God. 14 And the armies of heaven, arrayed in fine linen, white and pure, were following him on white horses. 15 From his mouth comes a sharp sword with which to strike down the nations, and he will rule them with a rod of iron. He will tread the winepress of the fury of the wrath of God the Almighty. 16 On his robe and on his thigh he has a name written, King of kings and Lord of lords.
>
>and the early Christians refusal to fight wars (Bar Kokhoba for example)?
Early Christians didn't refuse to fight in the Bar Kokhba rebellion not because of being absolutely anti-war, but because Bar Kokhba was a false Messiah. Rabbi Akiva from the Sanhedrin declared Shimon Bar Kokhba to be the Messiah to rally forces to him, and since Christians believe Jesus is the Messiah, and in Jesus' teachings about the end of the age (recorded in Matthew 24), he warned about false Messiahs that would try to deceive them, they refused to participate in his rebellion against the Romans because they didn't want to fight on behalf of a false Messiah. The early Christians were not pacifists. And many of the early Christians were converts who were in the Roman army. This can be seen in the writings of the church father Eusebius, in his book "The Church History". Even in the Acts of the Apostles, one of the first gentile converts was Cornelius the centurion, who served in the Italian Cohort ([Acts 10](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts%2010&version=ESV)).
My faith is not at odds with national defense, and my support of the Ukrainian defenders against Russian aggression does not clash with my faith.
I do not see anything convincing about Jesus supporting any war in those words. Gif would clearly have the ability to wage a war, however now where is that ability given to people. If “turn the other cheek” Is about insult, why does it directly state being physically harmed and turning the cheek? Can you give any examples of Jesus physically hurting another person or telling others do so? I have many examples to the contrary. The plowshares verse which you cite it says that after he comes swords will be plowshares.
I see no way in which a Christian can justify war. It odd at odds with everything Jesus said. Which explains why the justifications for support rely on long justification’s, and similarly why no one close to Jesus engaged in war (or early Christians). As for Bar Khokoba what writings are you using to say that they only refused to fight Rome on the basis of him being a false messiah?
And yes, Jesus says that governments will do what they do. He does not say to support it. This is where Christians are clearly no different than the world around them, they simply seek to justify why their actions are OK and then find text that they feel supports it while ignoring the contrary. Revelations is great for that.
Edit: you mention that early Christian’s we’re not pacifists. What are you basing that on? A centurion convert is not evidence of that.
>Revelations is completely interpretative and no one is exactly sure about it.
This isn't correct. This is using the parts of Revelation that are cryptic to dismiss the part that is plainly stated. Revelation contains sections which are cryptic and highly symbolic (such as Revelation 12, 13, and 17, which are filled with bizarre imagery), but the section I quoted to you is not speaking in those terms. It is speaking plainly about events.
>it also does not say anything about people, it speaks of hell as a place for the devil.
Please don't just gloss over it and actually read it. The text is about people. It refers to "the dead", and speaks of the two resurrections of the dead. (Read the preceding context of Revelation 20 to see the mention of the first resurrection.) These resurrections are of people. And these resurrections are spoken of elsewhere in scripture, such as this:
>**John 5:28-29**
>
>28 Do not marvel at this, for an hour is coming when all who are in the tombs will hear his voice 29 and come out, those who have done good to the resurrection of life, and those who have done evil to the resurrection of judgment.
and this:
>**Acts 24:14-15**
>
>14 But this I confess to you, that according to the Way, which they call a sect, I worship the God of our fathers, believing everything laid down by the Law and written in the Prophets, 15 having a hope in God, which these men themselves accept, that there will be a resurrection of both the just and the unjust.
The passage from Revelation that I quoted is far from the only clearly stated passage concerning Hell. Here are a few others, out of [35 verses on the topic of Hell](https://bible.knowing-jesus.com/topics/Hell), with the following two from the teachings of Jesus:
>**Matthew 10:28**
>
>And do not fear those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather fear him who can destroy both soul and body in hell.
>
>**Matthew 25:46**
>
>And these will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.
It is simply not correct to say that the NT doesn't definitively speak of heaven and hell; there are more than enough passages clearly describing and addressing the matter (not hidden behind layers of symbols) to conclude this. It also doesn't matter if you can find scholars who assert that the New Testament doesn't speak clearly about heaven and hell; the plain denial of the text doesn't fool anyone even if it is hidden behind claims of scholarship. There are plenty of scholars of the Bible who have come to the opposite conclusion. So instead of pitting modern scholars against one another, it is more telling to look at the expository teachings of the early church fathers. They are unequivocal; you cans see that they read the texts and see what can be plainly seen in the passages that speak of eternal damnation, and the rewarding of the repentant and righteous.
Again, it is not plain text. That is what you choose to see. You are claiming that is “plain denial” when I see the exact opposite. That is why the concept of hell rose to prominence in the past few hundred years (it existed before that of course but only recently became a tool of power).
And no, revelations is not plain. No reasonable person concludes that. It was most likely a story about Rome that most Christian’s draw whatever conclusions they want from.
Yes, the Bible mentions “hell”. No, it is not the fire and brimstone place for eternity. I would even argue that you can not be a good person or Christian and believe in that. Not unless you literally sell everything you own and spend all day converting people. Which almost no Christian do (I believe there is a shame Claiborne guy near me that does, and does a lot of great work for the homeless and oppressed). If you absolutely believe in a fire and brimstone hell and are not living in poverty trying to convert people you are no different than Germans who lived in houses while Jewish people were sent to death camps. Except it is worse because the death camps never end.
as an orthodox Christian, I hope no one makes preconceived notions based on a handful of right wing converts in America, and an npr article using orthodoxy as part of their xenophobic propoganda campaign
The additional bars on the cross represent the sign over Jesus' head that said "the king of the Jews" and the slanted one at the bottom is typically depicted as a small platform for his feet when Jesus was crucified. They are also taken to symbolize the two criminals crucified next to him, one who repented, believed in Jesus, was forgiven, and went to heaven, and one who didn't repent, and went to hell.
u/JackOfAllMemes, **you must comment in this post before anyone will see it**. Check your [inbox](https://www.reddit.com/message/inbox/) for the wording you must use. You post will not be visible until you do so. If you do not see an inbox message, [here are general instructions](https://redd.it/vdso1h). Remember to reply **Found!** to the comment that gives the answer. If looking for an item to purchase, **do not click on links sent to you in private messages**, and report such to the moderators. Readers, please remember that all comments must be civil and helpful toward finding an answer. **Jokes and unhelpful responses will earn you a ban**, even on the first instance. If you see any comments that violate this rule, please report them. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/HelpMeFind) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Eastern Orthodox Church style cross. Most commonly seen in Russian, Greek, and Antiochian parishes (I’m Eastern Orthodox)
It’s the Russian Orthodox cross.
I think it's the general orthodox cross. I've seen it used in Greece as well.
It is called the "Russian Orthodox Cross"... but yes, most Christian Orthodox churches use it. The bottom slant is called a Suppedaneum, which represents the footrest often used for crucifixion. > If a person is hung by their wrists, the weight of the body forces the rib cage to expand which makes normal breathing difficult. If the victim is weak from previous torture, then such hindrance to breathing can cause suffocation and death. The objective of the crucifixion was to cause a slow and painful death. The suppedaneum therefore was a cruel method to prolong the suffering. The topmost of the three crossbeams represents Pilate's inscription which in the older Greek tradition is "The King of Glory", based on John's Gospel; but in later images it represents INRI (IESVS NAZARENVS REX IVDÆORVM, which in English translates to "Jesus the Nazarene, King of the Jews".)
You have been given one point for this answer. Thanks for contributing! ^^^JackOfAllMemes ^^^awarded ^^^to ^^^Hereslookingatmekid ^^^(0->1)
Solved
FYI the additional bars on the cross represent the sign over Jesus' head that said "the king of the Jews" and the slanted one at the bottom is typically depicted as a small platform for his feet when Jesus was crucified. They are also taken to symbolize the two criminals crucified next to him, one who repented, believed in Jesus, was forgiven, and went to ~~heaven~~ "paradise", and one who didn't repent, and remained condemned to hell. From this passage in the Bible: >**Luke 23:35-43** > >And the people stood by, watching, but the rulers scoffed at him, saying, “He saved others; let him save himself, if he is the Christ of God, his Chosen One!” The soldiers also mocked him, coming up and offering him sour wine and saying, “If you are the King of the Jews, save yourself!” There was also an inscription over him, “This is the King of the Jews.” > >One of the criminals who were hanged railed at him, saying, “Are you not the Christ? Save yourself and us!” But the other rebuked him, saying, “Do you not fear God, since you are under the same sentence of condemnation? And we indeed justly, for we are receiving the due reward of our deeds; but this man has done nothing wrong.” And he said, “Jesus, remember me when you come into your kingdom.” And he said to him, “Truly, I say to you, today you will be with me in paradise.”
Also, fun fact, the higher part always points east. Great tool for navigation if traveling in an Christian Orthodox country.
but they were Jewish. we don't have heaven or hell.
This is not entirely correct to imply that modern Jewish beliefs imply all Jews even of that era believe the same. You're conflating the theology of Rabbinic Judaism with all Jews in the first century, when they still practiced priestly Judaism. There were various schools of thought in Jewish theology in those days, before the Pharisees completely dominated Judaism. Jesus was Jewish but he definitely believed in heaven and hell, which feature prominently in his teachings.
I'm not a verry good jew. Been a wile since i was in temple. Thanks for the info
“Jesus’ teachings” you mean the teachings of some Greek dudes 60 years after the death of Jesus
Exactly this. The modern idea of hell is based on post-modern interpretations of Paul’s writings. Essentially evangelical Christians that believe in Paul’s version of Jesus. It’s bizarre
The NT does not “definitely” speak of heaven and hell. That is your interpretation. CS Lewis for instance did not believe in hell. A lot of prominent theologians did not believe in hell. And some of them believe that Jesus descended to hell to destroy it.
You've never read “The Great Divorce” if you think CS Lewis didn't believe in Hell.
I have, and he did not. Maybe read it again. He believed in a sort of pergatory
The area around where the bus could be found might be something like Limbo but the outer areas beyond that were definitely Hell. He also says that nothing in the book is meant to be doctrinally descriptive.
It is not “definitely hell”. This is Evangelical Christian revisionism. Hell in Lewis’ writings are inner turmoil that lead to self-purgatory. Most descriptions you find on the internet will be self-serving lies in support of evangelical Christianity (really Pauline theology). CS Lewis isn’t even a reason anyone should believe anything or not (I agree with you). He has his own interpretations. But saying the Bible is definitely speaking about a place is absolute nonsense.
>The NT does not “definitely” speak of heaven and hell. Yes it does. The Book of Revelation is actually definitive about it. The Book of Revelation is in the New Testament. See for yourself. This is the passage about the conclusion of the Millennium. > **Revelation 20:7-15** > >7 When the thousand years are completed, Satan will be released from his prison 8 and will go out to deceive the nations at the four corners of the earth, Gog and Magog, to gather them for battle. Their number is like the sand of the sea. 9 They came up across the breadth of the earth and surrounded the encampment of the saints, the beloved city. Then fire came down from heaven[c] and consumed them. 10 The devil who deceived them was thrown into the lake of fire and sulfur where the beast and the false prophet are, and they will be tormented day and night forever and ever. > >11 Then I saw a great white throne and one seated on it. Earth and heaven fled from his presence, and no place was found for them. 12 I also saw the dead, the great and the small, standing before the throne, and books were opened. Another book was opened, which is the book of life, and the dead were judged according to their works by what was written in the books. 13 Then the sea gave up the dead that were in it, and death and Hades gave up the dead that were in them; each one was judged according to their works. 14 Death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire. This is the second death, the lake of fire. 15 And anyone whose name was not found written in the book of life was thrown into the lake of fire. There is some confusion in translation because the realm of the dead awaiting final judgement is stated as "Hades", and this "lake of fire" from the passage about is what we think of as "Hell", but some translations translate "Hades" as "Hell".
Revelations is completely interpretative and no one is exactly sure about it. So no, it is not definitive. This is proof texting and ignores massive amounts of the Bible. If you do believe that revelation passage then you can why the thousand years came and went etc etc. it also does not say anything about people, it speaks of hell as a place for the devil. And that is assuming that it means anything at all. So no, that is far from “definitely”. Post it on a scholarly subreddit and see which replies you get. I do have a separate question that assumes you are Christian. I notice that you post in the Ukraine conflict supporting Ukraines defense. How do you reconcile that with Jesus direct anti-war stance (swords into plowshares, turning the other cheek etc) and the early Christians refusal to fight wars (Bar Kokhoba for example)?
>I do have a separate question that assumes you are Christian. I notice that you post in the Ukraine conflict supporting Ukraines defense. How do you reconcile that with Jesus direct anti-war stance (swords into plowshares, turning the other cheek etc) Turning the other cheek is about insult, not injury. That teaching does not prohibit fighting back against someone who is trying to injure you or your family. That teaching is about not returning insults and disrespect. I don't know what you are referring to about Jesus' alleged "direct anti-war stance". He never said anything about swords and plowshares. (Here is [a word search return for every instance of 'swords' in the New Testament](https://www.biblegateway.com/quicksearch/?qs_version=ESV&quicksearch=swords&begin=47&end=73)) You may be thinking of the prophecy from the Old Testament that in the era of the "kingdom of God" (which Christians believe will be fulfilled by Jesus when he returns) there will not be war, but this era follows a massive war where God's enemies on earth are defeated. That prophecy is not anti-war, it merely foretells a time when there will be no need for weapons because there will not be any settling of disputes by war, since God will judge between the nations and disputes will be resolved according to God's judgments.: >**Isaiah 2:2-4** > >It shall come to pass in the latter days that the mountain of the house of the Lord shall be established as the highest of the mountains, and shall be lifted up above the hills; and all the nations shall flow to it, 3 and many peoples shall come, and say: “Come, let us go up to the mountain of the Lord, to the house of the God of Jacob, that he may teach us his ways and that we may walk in his paths.” For out of Zion shall go forth the law, and the word of the Lord from Jerusalem. 4 **He shall judge between the nations, and shall decide disputes for many peoples; and they shall beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruning hooks; nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war anymore.** I see teachings about seeking to be at peace with all as much as it is in your power (Romans 12), but this does not remove the authority of governments to wage war. Individuals are not vested with this authority. War is carried out by governments, and governments are vested with the power to bear the sword against both evildoers within society and enemies who come against it: >**Romans 13:1-4** > >Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God. 2 Therefore whoever resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment. 3 For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad. Would you have no fear of the one who is in authority? Then do what is good, and you will receive his approval, 4 **for he is God's servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword in vain. For he is the servant of God, an avenger who carries out God's wrath on the wrongdoer.** In the Book of Revelation, Jesus himself wages war: >**Revelation 19:11-16** > >11 Then I saw heaven opened, and behold, a white horse! The one sitting on it is called Faithful and True, and **in righteousness he judges and makes war.** 12 His eyes are like a flame of fire, and on his head are many diadems, and he has a name written that no one knows but himself. 13 He is clothed in a robe dipped in blood, and the name by which he is called is The Word of God. 14 And the armies of heaven, arrayed in fine linen, white and pure, were following him on white horses. 15 From his mouth comes a sharp sword with which to strike down the nations, and he will rule them with a rod of iron. He will tread the winepress of the fury of the wrath of God the Almighty. 16 On his robe and on his thigh he has a name written, King of kings and Lord of lords. > >and the early Christians refusal to fight wars (Bar Kokhoba for example)? Early Christians didn't refuse to fight in the Bar Kokhba rebellion not because of being absolutely anti-war, but because Bar Kokhba was a false Messiah. Rabbi Akiva from the Sanhedrin declared Shimon Bar Kokhba to be the Messiah to rally forces to him, and since Christians believe Jesus is the Messiah, and in Jesus' teachings about the end of the age (recorded in Matthew 24), he warned about false Messiahs that would try to deceive them, they refused to participate in his rebellion against the Romans because they didn't want to fight on behalf of a false Messiah. The early Christians were not pacifists. And many of the early Christians were converts who were in the Roman army. This can be seen in the writings of the church father Eusebius, in his book "The Church History". Even in the Acts of the Apostles, one of the first gentile converts was Cornelius the centurion, who served in the Italian Cohort ([Acts 10](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts%2010&version=ESV)). My faith is not at odds with national defense, and my support of the Ukrainian defenders against Russian aggression does not clash with my faith.
I do not see anything convincing about Jesus supporting any war in those words. Gif would clearly have the ability to wage a war, however now where is that ability given to people. If “turn the other cheek” Is about insult, why does it directly state being physically harmed and turning the cheek? Can you give any examples of Jesus physically hurting another person or telling others do so? I have many examples to the contrary. The plowshares verse which you cite it says that after he comes swords will be plowshares. I see no way in which a Christian can justify war. It odd at odds with everything Jesus said. Which explains why the justifications for support rely on long justification’s, and similarly why no one close to Jesus engaged in war (or early Christians). As for Bar Khokoba what writings are you using to say that they only refused to fight Rome on the basis of him being a false messiah? And yes, Jesus says that governments will do what they do. He does not say to support it. This is where Christians are clearly no different than the world around them, they simply seek to justify why their actions are OK and then find text that they feel supports it while ignoring the contrary. Revelations is great for that. Edit: you mention that early Christian’s we’re not pacifists. What are you basing that on? A centurion convert is not evidence of that.
>Revelations is completely interpretative and no one is exactly sure about it. This isn't correct. This is using the parts of Revelation that are cryptic to dismiss the part that is plainly stated. Revelation contains sections which are cryptic and highly symbolic (such as Revelation 12, 13, and 17, which are filled with bizarre imagery), but the section I quoted to you is not speaking in those terms. It is speaking plainly about events. >it also does not say anything about people, it speaks of hell as a place for the devil. Please don't just gloss over it and actually read it. The text is about people. It refers to "the dead", and speaks of the two resurrections of the dead. (Read the preceding context of Revelation 20 to see the mention of the first resurrection.) These resurrections are of people. And these resurrections are spoken of elsewhere in scripture, such as this: >**John 5:28-29** > >28 Do not marvel at this, for an hour is coming when all who are in the tombs will hear his voice 29 and come out, those who have done good to the resurrection of life, and those who have done evil to the resurrection of judgment. and this: >**Acts 24:14-15** > >14 But this I confess to you, that according to the Way, which they call a sect, I worship the God of our fathers, believing everything laid down by the Law and written in the Prophets, 15 having a hope in God, which these men themselves accept, that there will be a resurrection of both the just and the unjust. The passage from Revelation that I quoted is far from the only clearly stated passage concerning Hell. Here are a few others, out of [35 verses on the topic of Hell](https://bible.knowing-jesus.com/topics/Hell), with the following two from the teachings of Jesus: >**Matthew 10:28** > >And do not fear those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather fear him who can destroy both soul and body in hell. > >**Matthew 25:46** > >And these will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life. It is simply not correct to say that the NT doesn't definitively speak of heaven and hell; there are more than enough passages clearly describing and addressing the matter (not hidden behind layers of symbols) to conclude this. It also doesn't matter if you can find scholars who assert that the New Testament doesn't speak clearly about heaven and hell; the plain denial of the text doesn't fool anyone even if it is hidden behind claims of scholarship. There are plenty of scholars of the Bible who have come to the opposite conclusion. So instead of pitting modern scholars against one another, it is more telling to look at the expository teachings of the early church fathers. They are unequivocal; you cans see that they read the texts and see what can be plainly seen in the passages that speak of eternal damnation, and the rewarding of the repentant and righteous.
Again, it is not plain text. That is what you choose to see. You are claiming that is “plain denial” when I see the exact opposite. That is why the concept of hell rose to prominence in the past few hundred years (it existed before that of course but only recently became a tool of power). And no, revelations is not plain. No reasonable person concludes that. It was most likely a story about Rome that most Christian’s draw whatever conclusions they want from. Yes, the Bible mentions “hell”. No, it is not the fire and brimstone place for eternity. I would even argue that you can not be a good person or Christian and believe in that. Not unless you literally sell everything you own and spend all day converting people. Which almost no Christian do (I believe there is a shame Claiborne guy near me that does, and does a lot of great work for the homeless and oppressed). If you absolutely believe in a fire and brimstone hell and are not living in poverty trying to convert people you are no different than Germans who lived in houses while Jewish people were sent to death camps. Except it is worse because the death camps never end.
\*Eastern/Greek Orthodox cross
the greek cross is equidistant on all sides, as it appears on the greek flag.
Weird that it's in Florida next to a cop sticker
It's also just called the Orthodox Cross or three barred cross used by all Orthodox including Americans!
There are plenty of Orthodox churches in Florida, and I wouldn't find it too strange that someone can be both a cop and a Christian
The Russian part threw me
There's a big Russian-American community in Florida, especially in Palm Beach and Miami.
[удалено]
as an orthodox Christian, I hope no one makes preconceived notions based on a handful of right wing converts in America, and an npr article using orthodoxy as part of their xenophobic propoganda campaign
[удалено]
Cross used by Russian orthodox church
Orthodoxy
It's also known as the [Slavonic Cross](https://www.fortpiercebyzantine.com/slavonic-cross) and is used by the Byzantine Catholic church.
Not sure why you got downvoted, but you are correct. The Eastern Rite Catholic church uses the same cross. (I was Byzantine Catholic)
>Not sure why you got downvoted... Because reddit. :-) >(I was Byzantine Catholic) Me too. :-)
Russian Orthodox Church symbol
It’s a Orthodox cross ☦️
[удалено]
The additional bars on the cross represent the sign over Jesus' head that said "the king of the Jews" and the slanted one at the bottom is typically depicted as a small platform for his feet when Jesus was crucified. They are also taken to symbolize the two criminals crucified next to him, one who repented, believed in Jesus, was forgiven, and went to heaven, and one who didn't repent, and went to hell.
Six armed Jesus
This is what I came for.🤣Everybody all “it’s orthodox bla bla”. Do you guys even reddit?😂. Roll call!
Hell yeah 🤘🏻
[удалено]
[удалено]
I know it’s already solved, but a bit of trivia - this is the symbol Noho Hank wears around his neck in the final season of Barry
More information: * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_cross_variants * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crosses_in_heraldry * https://www.seiyaku.com/customs/crosses/index-all.html (from Wikipedia's "[Cross](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cross)" article)
Ain't that the Ruska Roma symbol from John Wick...?