A Basic Introduction to Christian Symbols

Easter is coming soon and you will see various symbols related to it. One of the most frequent is the Easter egg. Christians adopted the egg as a symbol of Jesus' resurrection from the dead very early. As the egg's shell appears lifeless and a live chick comes out of it, so also the sealed tomb broke open and Jesus emerged alive.

The eggs are colorfully decorated as an expression of joy at the resurrection and the confident hope it gives Christians that they, too, shall rise.

Not only will you see various Christian symbols in churches; but you will also see them on greeting cards, decorations, jewelry, and on gravestones in cemeteries. It helps to be a bit familiar with Christian symbols and their meaning.

(The images used in this Instructable are from Google Images.)

Step 1: Some Easter symbols are not Christian

The familiar Easter bunny is not a Christian symbol. For Christians Easter is properly "the Festival of Our Lord's Resurrection from the Dead," but that is a mouthful and Christians usually just say 'Easter.' The word "Easter" properly refers to springtime, fertility, and new life associated with the passing of the deadness of winter and the rejuvenation of the earth. Rabbits multiply rapidly and the Easter bunny is really a symbol of fertility. Bunnies and fertility have more in common with a pagan worship of the earth than they do with a Christian celebration of Easter.

Comments

[WrshpMzshn]

Is the "P" part of this symbol also indicative of the shepherd's crook?

[Phil B]

That is an interesting deduction to make, and it would make an interesting connection, even if somewhat allegorical. "P" in this case is actually the standard Greek letter "rho," which corresponds to our "R," whether in lower case or in capital. These are simply the first two letters of Christ in Greek. Thank you for looking and for asking.

[cfullerton]

What about the scripture that says "No Images"??? How do you respond to people that use that scripture?

[shikaku]

yeah, sorry dude. My little brother went on my computer yesterday, he's in a philosophy class with a liberal teacher, and so he thinks he knows what he's talking about. Ignore those, sorry. I am however going to leave the upside down cross comment, as it is relevant, and you did take care of that in your comment.

Again, I apologize, and I'm not allowing him near my computer for a while.

[Phil B]

Thank you for the clarification. I am deleting my responses to your brother's posts.

[shikaku]

Also, why not have the upside down cross on here? It's a christian symbol. Of when Peter was crucified upside down cuz he didn't feel worthy of being killed in the same way as jesus. so in more ancient times it was more pious to carry aroud an upside down cross, to show that you weren't worthy of jesus. it's only recently been misconstrued into a satanist symbol, while it's really not.

[Phil B]

I tried to keep to more common Christian symbols a person is likely to encounter on an everyday basis. While the upside down cross does represent Peter's alleged crucifxion, it is not frequently encountered.

[shikaku]

(removed by author or community request)

[shikaku]

(removed by author or community request)

[Mirime]

Or my fav. the Darwin fish holding a hammer

[skunkbait]

Phil, Another great ible! How did I ever miss this one?? I guess I grew up with an aversion to Christian symbols. (It's been soooo many years, but) I think I was taught that they were perilously close to "icons" and thus linked to idolatry. But as I've matured, I see that that was certainly not the original purpose or intent. About 15 years ago (before it became so mainstream), I got an "Ichtys" tattoo on my shoulder. It was done in New Guinea, in the traditional way, with soot from a fire being used as ink. Some folks would see that as a breach of Lev. 19:28, but in that context, the markings were "for the dead". My Ichthys is for the LIVING......Jesus!

[Phil B]

Thanks, Barry. Back in the 9th Century there was actually a controversy over whether symbolism is appropriate or a form of idolatry. I just did a little Internet search to refresh myself and found they ended it by making a distinction between using an image as an object of worship versus letting it serve as a mere reminder. I know similarities to that controversy can be found in some parts of North American Christianity. It seems that if 1st Century Christians could make use of the fish or Ichthus symbol as they did, images as reminders should not be a big problem.

[Jack A Lopez]

Is this a true Christian symbol?  Perhaps it's just a figment of Monty Python's imagination?

"Oh no! Bad, bad Zoot! She has been setting light to our beacon, which, I've just remembered, is Grail shaped. It's not the first time we've had this problem."
;-)

[Phil B]

The chalice is a Christian symbol, sometimes referred to as the Grail.  In my experience it is not as widely used as some of those I showed here.  I did not follow Monty Python, but did they not do a film called, "Monty Python and the Quest for the Holy Grail?"

[Jack A Lopez]

There is indeed such a film. The quote in my comment is taken from a scene in "Monty Python and the Holy Grail"   It was produced by the Monty Python crew in 1975, and IMHO one of the funniest movies of the twentieth century, or even all time.  IMDB summary here:
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0071853/

Regarding the use of the Grail, or a 2D projection of it, as a Christian symbol, I haven't seen too many of them in the wild, not nearly as common as crosses, or fish symbols.  In fact, the only instance I can think of, is that of me seeing one in the form of an actual metal chalice, as part of a Catholic Communion ritual.

I'm not all that familiar Christian symbols and rituals, but somehow I thought the Grail/Chalice shape, as a symbol, might be worth mentioning as a comment to this 'ible.

Also I thought it was worth mentioning just because the quote from MPATHG was really funny. 
;-)

By the way, I probably wouldn't have found my way to this 'ible at all if it weren't for a robot-suggested "related" link in a sidebar of this question:
http://www.instructables.com/answers/Is-there-any-actual-proof-that-Jesus-was-a-real-hu/

[unihope]

The holy grail refers to the chalice that Jesus drank from during the last supper.It was a common quest for the knights of the middle ages to find and drink from it to receive ever lasting life.

The most popular reference of the grail itself that  I can think of is the Indiana Jones movie the last crusade.

but the HPATHG quote was funny ;) 

[JohnJY]

I thought the holy grail was the cup in which the water and wine that had spilled from Jesus side, when the stabbed him, was caught in.

[agis68]

Also the Lion and the 2head eagle

[porcupinemamma]

Thanks! I am going to print out your well done instructable and share it with my students. (if that is o.k with you) I know they will find it interesting and informative

[Phil B]

Thanks for your interest. Feel free to use it.

[trike road poet]

I for one found the information interesting and informative, and to tell the truth, I found the discussion equally so. There was even more information, informed views, interesting viewpoints and interaction that was as informative as the original work. While some may disagree, this has been a most rewarding instruct-able, and learning is what this is all about. While not a new idea for building a Steampunk Catapult or a new circuit to pull power off the phone lines, it taught, and I liked that. Thanks for the posting and thanks to all who added to this one.

[Norm101]

For the REAL history of the Easter celebration and egg:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Easter_egg

The relationship between Christianity and the egg is amusing. it is obvious that the early Christians celebrated pagan holidays and tried to make connections to Jesus. It is pretty funny.

[Headhunter]

Was not the Easter egg a remnant of the "Eostara" (for Ishtar) Holiday, which gives us the Anglicized name "Easter", whose other fertility symbol was the rabbit (i.e. Easter Bunny and Eggs)? Much like the symbolism of the "Christmas Tree" and Yule log borrowed from indigenous culture and integrated into Christian lore. Excellent compilation of symbology, well done Instructable. Headhunter

[Phil B]

I think you are probably correct. Early Christians had a habit of appropriating non-Christian symbols and events in order to invest them with Christian meaning. Some then regard the Christian event or symbol as proof of pagan origins. It always seemed more reasonable to me that the Christians sought to cover over the pagan aspects in order to bury them and replace them with Christian meaning. Thanks for the kind words. I tried to choose symbols one is likely to encounter in ordinary settings. I had the thought that it may be a bit like when you buy a particular model of automobile. Before that you never noticed them on the road much, but once you buy one, you see them all over.

[Norm101]

"It always seemed more reasonable to me that the Christians sought to cover over the pagan aspects in order to bury them and replace them with Christian meaning." Yes because they didn't want people to recognize how much they had stolen. since once people did, they would realize the similarities between Christianity and other mythology, and Christianity's complete plagarism.

[Norm101]

Nike was an ancient Greek goddess... I find it interesting how this religion has co-opted, changed, and outright stolen images from other religions and cultures, yet they are the "defining" images of the belief system. To me, that merely says that the entire belief system is an amalgamation of other, older beliefs.

[Phil B]

Yes, Nike was a Greek goddess, but you do not need to go that far to find a reason for its use by Christians. It is also a word meaning "victory" that occurs several times in the New Testament. In 1 Corinthians 15:57 it refers to Jesus' victory over death through the resurrection. If you give serious consideration to its use in the New Testament, you should also reconsider your assumption that "the entire belief system is an amalgamation of other, older beliefs." By the way, that assumption grows out of the History of Religions movement of a century ago, and it has been pretty much discredited in the meanwhile.

[Norm101]

Despite your statement that you aren't proselytizing, it has become obvious that is exactly what you are trying to do. You've made the statement that early Christians essentially wrote-over other's holidays, yet that isn't something that matters. Somehow, despite the fact that the actual meanings and symbols of Christian holidays can be traced back long before Jesus and to non Judaic belief's, you persist in arguing that their creations and origins don't matter until Christians used them belies your repeated statements of non-preaching. This is the same flaw that your reference used. This is not the place for your preachings. This is not an instructable. If it were you would use a less biased basis. This is nothign more than a sermon.

[Norm101]

"..but you do not need to go that far to find a reason for its use by Christians." I would argue that for more than 400 years, people had been praying to Athena Nike, and that is a FAR more logical reason for early Christians to adopt that. How convenient that they take a religious figure, one that is actively celebrated and worshiped, and use it to refer to a new entity, another so-called deity. That isn't coincidence, nor is it merely semantic. Your argument that a word like Nike can be taken and used without any meaning is without merit. There is no way a common usage phrase that has existing religious meaning can be co-opted and used without carrying with it the original meaning. And your whole argument is based upon this. As if ignoring the past and TRUE origins of something somehow makes the end-result pure. Since you only cite one reference and use it almost exclusively in your arguments, I started reading it. The author makes staements that actually strengthen my point. In the foreword from March 31, 1958 he states "The radiation of liturgy has created many symbols, customs, and traditions that have enriched the observance of festive days and seasons in home and community, and remnants of a pre-Christian lore have, in most cases, assumed new meanings and motivations through the influence of liturgical thought and celebration." The author HIMSELF argues my point. The pre-Christian myths have been used but have been given new names and "meanings". In fact, all of the earliest Christian traditions and holidays are taken from other religions and local celebrations. The author also make the illogical arguments that Church Law (which didn't exist that the time of Constantine) wasn't a motivation for Constantine's actions. Well of course not. It was his action, by taking other religion's holidays, that laid the foundation of Church Law. It is as though saying that the author of a book could not have been motivated by the book he was yet to write and using that as an argument that the author's prior actions are somehow unrelated to the product of his actions that he will somehow inspire. Though I am not finished with this book, I must say that, so far, is rife with logical errors. There is a distinct lack of chronology given, which when trying to make an arugment about the origins of holidays, is nothing less than disreputable. He gives dates AFTER the birth/death of Christ, but when referring to things that he is using as a basis for his "research", those of a more ancient nature, he is glib and unspecific.

[Norm101]

So the early Christians appropriated ancient Gods, traditions, other religion's holidays, symbols, meanings, and celebrations and you expect people to believe this was innocuous? It is an obvious attempt to incorporate so-called "pagan" beliefs in an attempt to bastardize Christianity to make it more palatable to those around. They increased their numbers by adopting other religions under the guise of evolving Christianity. They took phrases and celebrations that had been around for thousands of years so as to make them familiar to others. It is nothing new, nor unique, despite the attempt to call it the one "true" word. Constantine made up most of the rituals and holidays in an attempt to appease the pagans while trying to convert them. Conveniently, he kept their holidays and traditions, but just gave them new names. Like Saturnalia, being renamed to be Jesus' birtday, Easter, etc. So they kept celebrating their own holidays while their meaning was changed. A few generations pass and everyone thinks they've always been that way. Nice bit of Orwellian "Eastasia/"Eurasia". And I challenge you on your statement that this has been discredited. In fact, quite the opposite. The myths told in the Bible are directly comparable to MANY other mythological figures, like Hercules, Egyptian gods, Krishna, etc. ALL of which are recorded long before Jesus was supposedly born. That can't be discredited.

[Cycrolus]

Ok so while you may be correct in stating that most of these symbols have been adopted from other religions. You cannot just declare the bible as myths. Everyone presumably bundles the Catholic and Christian religions together stating that they are the same. And while the majority of all common denominations stem from Catholicism this is not how the true christian religion is supposed to be. And really the only religious text older than that of the Judaic is the Sumerian text.

[kelseymh]

Well constructed and well researched, Phil. It'd be nice (speaking as a working academic) if you could provide at least one source for each of your explanations; but that's not critical. Congratulations on getting an explicitly Christian I'ble featured by an agnostic :-)

[Phil B]

Kelsey, Thank you. I am a working Lutheran pastor. Some of these symbols are familiar to me from nearly as long as I can remember. Where my recollections were a little vague I did a quick search on the Internet to sharpen up the accuracy of what I remembered, especially Wikipedia. I know academics are not always fond of Wikipedia, but I used it as a check against what I remember from other sources I cannot now remember well enough to identify. A lot comes from the Francis Weiser book I mentioned in responses to some comments. The explanations of Greek things are just a matter of things related to the language's alphabet, etc. I wish you were not an agnostic, but thank you for the featured status. Your comment made me smile.

[kelseymh]

I use Wikipedia frequently, as a resource akin to an encyclopedia or dictionary. I would never cite it as a formal source in a paper, but I have found it extremely helpful to pass to others (see many of my comments around here :-) when a lay-person explanation of something is needed. My agnosticism is based on a couple of decades of thoughtful contemplation. I am a working particle physicist :-) To borrow a phrase, "I have no need of that hypothesis" (i.e., a Creator) to explain the workings of the universe and the world. Physics, chemistry and biology are all explicable with entirely natural (if extremely complex) interactions. The converse is equality true: naturalistic science, by definition, is inadequate -- perhaps even useless -- to investigate the existence or nature of any supernatural deity (Christian God, Allah, the Shinto spirits, the Directions, whatever). Their existence or non-existence is outside the realm of scientific inquiry. Therefore, I have no method available to identify a deity, nor do I have to hypothesize (take on faith) one to explain the world around me. I do not, and cannot, be certain that God exists. I equally well have no justification for claiming that He does not. Hence my agnosticism.

[Phil B]

Thanks for your reply. If you ever want to discuss it further, feel free to contact me with a private message at any time.

[homba]

A well-reasoned view. I have gone through that same thought process and come to the same conclusion. Any religious event I attend, I go because I enjoy it, not because I think it's true. It does make things awkward at times with the more proselytizing religions when they assume I believe exactly the same way as they do - I don't attend their stuff much, though. Not a big fan of this 'ible, to be honest. Doesn't really show how to do anything, plus most of these symbols aren't christian. I realize that they've been co-opted and used, but you'll piss off the less easy-going pagans.

[Phil B]

I have thought for a while about your contention that this Instructable does not really show how to do anything. I did not know we are defining "Instructable" that narrowly. A few months ago I did an Instructable on how 3-way and 4-way switches work. It does not show anyone how to do anything. It only explains something. But, it got very favorable responses from quite a number of people who never before understood them.

[homba]

That's a good point, but I would content that 3- and 4-way switch instruction would allow you to use them to make something. Religious instruction doesn't really have any practical use (other than as an opiate). Please understand that I'm probably coming off more negatively than I'm intending - nobody is forcing me to read this if I don't want to. My feeling is that if I want to know about metaphysical stuff, I'll go to wikipedia or a website from whatever religion I'm interested in, but if I want to build a bike-mounted steampunk Van de Graaf generator made out of pop tart boxes and hamster pelts, I come to Instructables. Just my 2 fractional monetary units ... obviously, the moderator who featured this feels otherwise :)

[Phil B]

An explanation of religious symbols has several very practical applications I did mention in my responses to various comments and in the body of the Instructable. Let us assume you attend no church. Someday you will be at a wedding or a funeral in a church. You will visit a cemetery someday for any one of a variety of reasons. You will visit an art museum or watch a PBS special on great art of the Western world. In all of these places you will encounter many of the symbols I described. I saw them on 1st Century grave markers in a public museum in Athens, Greece. If you have read my Instructable, you will be somewhat fluent with the symbols and can interact with people in those settings more intelligently. You will not be like Hillary Clinton who viewed a painting in Mexico believed by Roman Catholics to have been painted by God, Himself; and glibly asked, "Who painted that?" It resulted in an embarrassing diplomatic faux pas. Thanks for clarifying that you are sounding more negative than you mean to be.

[homba]

I think we'll have to agree to disagree here. I often find that the case with differences in faith. Neither side will be convinced by any argument unless they want to be.

This information can certainly be useful when trying to understand another's faith. It just doesn't help me make anything, which is my reason for being here. But it's here, and featured, so good on you :)

believed by Roman Catholics to have been painted by God, Himself

I wouldn't really consider this intelligent conversation ... I don't think Secretary Clinton should have been the one who was embarrassed. Belief's a funny thing, I guess.