So what's up with Jesus? For the sake of a good portrait?
2007-04-08 09:31:12 · 15 answers · asked by crypt 1 in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
yup...
More suffereing via embarrasment.
its the messed up sexaul attiudes of christians that appear to go back to Peters attiude to jesus girlfriend Mary Magdelen that are probably responsible.
Ie think the typical reglious freak whos hates sex and sees it as a sin
2007-04-08 09:36:18 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 2⤋
It all depended on how much the family could put up in bribes. Those that did the crucifying considered all of condemned peoples' articles as part of their pay. There were also those who were crucified and walked away alive to disappear if enough money changed hands. Some were so open in this practice that the "crucifixion" was accomplished with rope rather than spikes and a large enough piece of wood to stand on.
Remember, those who painted the early paintings of Jesus on the cross only knew the scene by hearsay and their knowledge of a crucifixion. They would have presumed that one of His followers would come up with enough bribe money to allow Jesus a loin cloth.
2007-04-08 16:44:07 · answer #2 · answered by Terry 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
The bible says that the soldiers who crucified Jesus took his clothes. If the purpose of crucifiction was both punishment and humiliation, I can't think of any reason why he would have a loincloth. I believe it was simply modesty of the artists who depicted him throughout history. Most of these people obviously never read the bible, since they made him a long-haired European guy, when the bible clearly says that he was born in Judea, and that wearing the hair long is a disgrace to a man.
2007-04-08 16:40:41 · answer #3 · answered by Dan X 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Modesty. Besides, Jesus wasn't European. And the average man at that time and part of the world was about 5 ft. Jesus wouldn't look like the rest of how he was artistic represented anyway.
2007-04-08 16:34:37 · answer #4 · answered by Underground Man 6 · 2⤊ 1⤋
Romans did, yes. Early or not. Realism would offend the modesty of Christianity.
2007-04-08 16:35:33 · answer #5 · answered by Contemplative Monkey 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Yes, Crucifixition was a shameful death.
The Roman soldiers divided His clothes.
2007-04-08 17:23:34 · answer #6 · answered by Spoken4 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
According to Christianity
yes they crucify Jesus naked
but we Muslims believe that Jesus is holy so nobody crucify him
2007-04-08 16:37:50 · answer #7 · answered by hado 4 · 0⤊ 2⤋
Yes, and they would also prevent anyone from taking the corpse down until it rotted away, leaving it up as a message.
2007-04-08 16:35:45 · answer #8 · answered by Michael 5 · 1⤊ 1⤋
So the sculptures wouldn't have to worry about proportions.
2007-04-08 16:34:41 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
So I've heard. We couldn't show disrespect to our Savior to portray Him without being somewhat covered, now, can we?
2007-04-08 16:39:45 · answer #10 · answered by hillbilly 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋