Was Jesus really naked on the cross?

  • Thread starter Thread starter PMV
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I saw Bob and Penny Lord (EWTN) do the Stations and they said, yes, He was. But, they also said that there was some sort of way He was veiled, mysteriously. Also, in St. Bridget’s visions, she said He was crucified as He came into the world. Have not gotten to the crucifixion in Anne Catherine Emmerich’s book yet. Maybe someone else has.

SFX
 
40.png
PMV:
This is one Protestant claim against Catholicism; that our crosses have an image of Jesus on it, and He has a robe on him - therefore, our cross is supposedly incorrect and should not be recognized. Notice that their crosses do not have any image of Jesus. Was Jesus naked on the cross?
What is a good response to this Protestant objection?
Click to expand...

As others have already said, it is hard to see why this should be important.​

Do any of those who say this as an objection, explain why this is important to them ? They must have some reason - otherwise they would not say it.

Jesus was probably not Caucasian; but many crucifixes show a very un-Semitic Christ.

It is very unlikely that the upright bar of the Cross was as long as many depictions of the Passion suggest - it’s much more likely that the upright was just long enough for the victim to be crucified so that his feet would clear the ground.

The number of nails depicted has varied - Jesus may even have been nailed and bound with ropes.

But none of the uncertainties alter the fact, that Jesus was crucified. They do not alter the meaning of His death, they do not dilute “the scandal of the Cross”. We do not need to know every last detail of that death, in order to contemplate what God in Christ has done by suffering this vile and degrading form of death - a death which is essential to the meaning of Who Jesus is. Any more than we need to know what he looked like - the NT does not even touch on this question.

Our faith in Christ Crucified and Risen, is not founded on knowledge of Roman penal practice - it is founded on the Apostolic preaching of Jesus the Christ, Crucified, Raised, Glorified, and to come again. Roman penal practice in Judaea, though interesting and important, is not as important as knowing that Jesus was Crucified, and that His Crucifixion is central to Who He is and what He does. Which is probably one of the reasons that the Gospels goive a more detailed account of death by crucifixion than any other document so far known. Most references to such a death are very brief - the Passion is described at length because it is central to the mystery of Who Jesus is, and to how He was received.

Crucifixion in the Ancient World and the Folly of the Message of the Cross ##
 
A very interesting, well-researched book that sheds light on many matters regarding the Passion is “Pontius Pilate” by Ann Wroe. While it doesn’t neatly fit into any categories, the closest description would be historical fiction, at least as far as being a biography of Pilate goes. Aside from the biographical aspect, it speaks extensively about Roman culture and life at the time of Christ, and Wroe states that the Romans actually had a sense of modesty (which is more than a bit ironic) and would have afforded the prisoners their undergarments. The typical Catholic crucifix would be perfectly accurate.

As some of the others have stated, this ultimately doesn’t really matter in terms of the enormity of our Lord’s sacrifice. However, often doubters will respond to reliable historical scholarship even if they reject all sorts of other plausible arguments. I’m no expert in Roman history but I’m the daughter of one, and he gave me Wroe’s book with a glowing recommendation. It’s a good primer for the rest of us, and the bibliography alone would give you plenty of ammunition.
 
You know Jesus probably didn’t look like he is portrayed on the crucifixes either. He might have had darker skin or curly hair, heck he might have even been bald, so I don’t think any representation can be completely accurate. That’s just what it is a representation, a reminder of how Jesus suffered and died for our sins. If people want to focus on what he was wearing or what Jesus might have looked like they aren’t getting the real picture of what kind of sacrafice was made for our salvation.
 
If you read

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crucifix_%28Michelangelo%29

you will see that this great master of the Renaissance opted as a teenager to depict Jesus of Nazareth as fully nude and with penis clearly visible as a part of a proper artistic anatomical study during his teen years. He created two such works of art and one is prominently on display at the Italian church of

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Santo_Spirito,_Florence

While the academic question of whether Jesus of Nazareth was nude at his death might appear silly, these two works have survived the centuries despite ever-present notions of modifying or destroying them by the intolerant and the impulsive.
 
PMV said:
This is one Protestant claim against Catholicism; that our crosses have an image of Jesus on it, and He has a robe on him - therefore, our cross is supposedly incorrect and should not be recognized. Notice that their crosses do not have any image of Jesus. Was Jesus naked on the cross?
What is a good response to this Protestant objection?
Click to expand...
You must be thinking of the Risen Christ on the Cross where he has a full robe. That is definitely misleading and something I do not like because Christ died on the Cross. He rose from the tomb, not the Cross.

On the other hand, if you are talking about a normal crucifix with Christ only wearing a loin cloth that IS considered naked. Naked at that time meant unclothed, scantily or poorly clad, or clad in undergarment only.
 
thistle said:
You must be thinking of the Risen Christ on the Cross where he has a full robe. That is definitely misleading and something I do not like because Christ died on the Cross. He rose from the tomb, not the Cross.

On the other hand, if you are talking about a normal crucifix with Christ only wearing a loin cloth that IS considered naked. Naked at that time meant unclothed, scantily or poorly clad, or clad in undergarment only.
Click to expand...
Mind you, there was actually an artistic convention in ancient Eastern (and to a lesser extent, Western) art of showing the crucified Jesus clothed with either a long-sleeved or sleeveless tunic, either out of pious respect or to highlight the symbolism of Christ as being simultaneously Priest and Victim.

http://img441.imageshack.us/img441/4188/vestimenta.jpg

http://img231.imageshack.us/img231/1736/23breliqlatercrucifixs.jpg
 
patrick457 said:
Mind you, there was actually an artistic convention in ancient Eastern (and to a lesser extent, Western) art of showing the crucified Jesus clothed with either a long-sleeved or sleeveless tunic, either out of pious respect or to highlight the symbolism of Christ as being simultaneously Priest and Victim.

http://img441.imageshack.us/img441/4188/vestimenta.jpg

http://img231.imageshack.us/img231/1736/23breliqlatercrucifixs.jpg
Click to expand...
Interesting. I didn’t know that.
 
Tell him to go look at Crocifisso di Santo Spirito, if that makes him feel better. I think the loin cloth/covering is for common decency. If he prefers he can order one with genitalia showing to wear himself.
 
PMV said:
This is one Protestant claim against Catholicism; that our crosses have an image of Jesus on it, and He has a robe on him - therefore, our cross is supposedly incorrect and should not be recognized. Notice that their crosses do not have any image of Jesus. Was Jesus naked on the cross?
What is a good response to this Protestant objection?
Click to expand...
A good response to it would be to dust off your sandals and walk away from this insanity, because at this point reasoning and the use of intelligence will not help at all.
 
bmullins said:
Tell him to go look at Crocifisso di Santo Spirito, if that makes him feel better. I think the loin cloth/covering is for common decency. If he prefers he can order one with genitalia showing to wear himself.
Click to expand...
Or Max Klinger’s 1891 painting of the Crucifixion or Lovis Corinth’s 1907 The Great Martyrdom. Both show a fully-naked crucified Jesus. 🤷
 
Even if Jesus Christ, our Lord, God, and Savior, was crucified completely naked and I do mean without any clothing at all, even a loin cloth, would it really be respecting Jesus by portraying him on a crucifix like that? I think it would be disrespectful of Jesus Christ to portray him on the cross completely and totally in the nude. So I do think that we portray him on our crucifixes with a loin cloth on simply out of respect for Him who died for us. I mean, even if He didn’t even have a loin cloth when He was crucified, we still shouldn’t depict him without one because to me, that would be incredibly disrespectful of the Lord.
 
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top