The way the arms are positioned – and the chains – make it look like he’s barely restrained from busting free and doing some severe face-munching.
Hey, he’s Jesus. He could just miracle some Twinkies out of stones or something.
Yeah, its kinda funny. If you went out of your way to come up with the grossest thing to venerate, you’d have a tough time surpassing a crucifix.
This thread made me wonder. Is there any generally accepted understanding as to whether Jesus is represented as alive or dead on the crucifix? I guess for some reason I kinda assumed he was almost-dead. I seem to remember seeing him with his eyes open, looking upwards, and assumed he was looking toward God/heaven/whatever. But he could have died with his eyes open. And even if his eyes are closed, he could just be resting…
Given how little most christians actually care about or try to follow the teachings of Jesus, I’ve always assumed they want him dead on the crucifix. That way he can’t open his mouth.
Like cher3, my Protestant upbringing focused more on the resurrection than the suffering and death. Yes, those were incredibly important, but they would have been more-or-less just plain ol’ martyrdom like any other saint without the resurrection part.
Yeah, but it was lean protein like grilled fish, and unleavened bread. The wine would contain some calories, but even that might have been watered down.
Really? Driven by baser instincts but reminded of Way he would like to follow instead? Seems reasonable.
If He has the wound in His side, He’s being represented as dead. The centurions came to break His legs to ensure His death, but saw that He was already dead. So they stabbed Him in the side. Thus fulfilling the prophesy that they would break none of His bones, but look upon Him whom they have pierced.
Cool. So are you saying that there is no generally accepted practice, and the viewer must examine each crucifix to decide whether the figure is supposed to be dying or dead? I wonder how many believers or church designers go to what lengths to decide whether they want to choose a dead or a dying Jesus.
I noticed the original article quoted the museum curator as saying the crucifix in question depicted “pain and suffering.” My initial interpretation of this suggested the figure was still alive such that he was viewed as he experienced pain and suffering. But I guess he could just as well be saying that it depicted an incident in which pain and suffering had been inflicted/experienced.
It’s about time they get over it. He suffered for what, 2 or 3 days? Like 2000 years ago. And he’s spent the last couple millennia either at God’s side or as God or both (never got that straight). I’m not sure why people make such a big deal out it, to be honest. Many of us reading this very thread may suffer much longer on our deathbeds, or in other ways.
Well, it depends what it is depicting. There’s the crucifix by itself, but then it may also be portrayed in relation to the thieves, or Mary and John, as in paintings.
I’m sure it’s covered much more eloquently in the “Jesus gave up a weekend for my sins” thread, but there’s a difference when someone all-powerful who could escape suffering doesn’t for the sake of others.
We have and we will. That is our cross to bear. To each his own. You don’t have a clue what I’ve seen nor do I know what you’ve seen.
You know Reverend, judging others is the spark that ignites the inferno of hate.
That’s considered scary? I’ve seen much more graphic stuff in older Catholic churches… heck, in the homes of older Catholics for that matter. Depictions of the Sacred Heart images of Mary and Jesus have been freaking out little Catholic kids for generations. And that’s not even bringing the more gruesome martyred saints into it.
I was pretty much thinking of just the physical crucifix - a cross with the figure nailed to it. Whether in the front of a church, hanging on someone’s wall, on a rosary, whatever.
I guess this is the kind of niggling distinction that seems more significant to a non-believer than a believer. In my mind, if I were praying to or seeking solace or whatever from an icon, I would want a clear idea of exactly what that icon was supposed to represent. But I guess I take this and other things too literally and concretely to permit for belief.
Believers don’t pray to paintings, statues, crucifixes, or any other images. They pray to God.
Which saint was it who had all the arrows sticking out of him? Yuck.
My reaction, too. I was expecting a lot more when I clicked on the link. I think it’s quite a nice crucifix, personally.
Same way I know he didn’t have two heads. If he were that hideously emaciated, the Gospels would have remarked upon it. “Lo! A miracle! He walks upright, even in high wind!”
I didn’t say he was fat, I suggested that he wasn’t the living skeleton depicted on the cross in the OP. As FriarTed cited earlier, the Gospels testify that Jesus wasn’t averse to a good meal when the opportunity presented itself. It’s not like he was living out in the desert subsisting on a diet of bugs like his cousin. I expect he was fit but wiry.
Saint Sebastian. Weirdly enough, that wasn’t how he was martyred. He supposedly survived being shot through with arrows, was nursed back to health, then went right back to preaching Christianity. The Roman authorities found out about it and had him executed a second time-- this time bludgeoning him to death instead.
In church art he’s always depicted stuck with arrows though. I guess “The Skull-Caving-In of St. Sebastian” isn’t as artistically inspiring.
Or you could take the image and reflect on the various aspects of it. Instant subject matter for meditation when you can’t think of other things!
Look, matey, I know a dead Savior when I see one, and I’m looking at one right now. The only reason he’s sitting on his perch is because he’s been nailed there!
Which Gospel writer ever saw Jesus?
No, you said he wasn’t skinny, and suggested that if he had been that skinny, the previous day’s feast would have left sufficient meat on his bones even after dragging a cross.
I suppose you mean suspect, not expect. But you don’t know. Which is what I asked you. And since no one who was alive when Jesus (presumably) was alive has written anything about his physical appearance, suspect is the best you will be able to do.
I suspect he never existed at all.