It May Not Be Realized Yet

San Francisco Faith ^ | STEPHEN FRANKINI

[Aliska]

If John didn't cover his nakedness, I would have.

After I got off the computer last night, I went through all four gospels and cannot find where John did that. I may have missed it, but it's stuck in my mind. I may have seen it in an older film where the producer employed a little artistic license.

I definitely cannot find it in the crucifixion accounts in the bible.

[Aliska]

Careful with the "my Jesus" talk. Jesus is the Truth;

I accept the truth of his unavoidable nakedness on the cross. I also accept the truth that he was usually clothed, as was everyone else in that scenario other than the two thieves. In my meditations, I prefer the clothed version. I never thought of it much otherwise other than some really nasty thoughts about Jesus induced by the devil which I had to put out of my mind. I don't want to dwell there.

[Romulus]

If John didn't cover his nakedness, I would have.

You couldn't have.

I'm surprised that you don't say you would have tried to prevent the crucifixion itself. Look, it's important to get past the idea of the crucifixion as a human event that's up for grabs. You cannot judge the crucifixion of the Lord. It judges you.

[HarleyD]

It is absolutely WRONG to display Jesus naked on a cross. It's blasphemous-pure and simple.

[Romulus]

How can that be if Jesus allowed himself to be thus displayed? And if Paul preaches Christ crucified?

I see that you have strong feelings on the subject, but mere assertion isn't argument. What are your reasons?

[HarleyD]

Gen 9:20-23 "Then Noah began farming and planted a vineyard. He drank of the wine and became drunk, and uncovered himself inside his tent. Ham, the father of Canaan, saw the nakedness of his father, and told his two brothers outside. But Shem and Japheth took a garment and laid it upon both their shoulders and walked backward and covered the nakedness of their father; and their faces were turned away, so that they did not see their father's nakedness."

While Shem and Japheth had respect for Noah, Ham did not.

Jesus allowed it for the sin of mankind. We don't need to shame him over and over.

[Romulus]

A naked crucifix is disturbing, appalling It pierces us with shame and pity, and makes us want to look away. Not only because of the humiliation and powerlessness of the Crucified, but the plain display of Jesus’s malehood disturbs us profoundly. We don’t like to look at this. The key question is, WHY?

The shame in nakedness is a response to human sinfulness and humanity's disintegrated state after the Fall, in which body and soul are no longer aligned, and the soul itself is at war with itself. None of this applies to Jesus, however. Jesus being perfectly sinless has no need of clothes. His use of clothes in his earthly life was part of his willing subjection of self in all ways -- to his Father, to his parents, to the Law, just as he made himself subject to hunger and fatigue and death. The Lord used clothes is a manifestation of his humility, which, as Cardinal Newman points out, is about as far from the worldly conceit of "modesty" as you can get. The call to clothe Jesus in the artificial and unscriptural way you propose is ultimately an acknowledgment and in some sense a surrender to our sinfulness. Nakedness is a problem only for sinful people, not for the sinless.

We do not like to see Jesus humiliated, but we cannot reject his decision to reveal himself this way without rejecting the event that's central to our redemption.

Before God, we are all naked, and always have been.

[drstevej]

***Nakedness is a problem only for sinful people, not for the sinless.***

So is everybody buck naked in Heaven?

When the roll is called up yonder, I'll be Bare!

Alex, great idea for a parody here. :-)

[Aliska]

Everybody zeroed in on the naked crucifix, but there are other disturbing things in the posted article which I guess are pretty ho hum after all.

I suppose it is silly to get upset over funny bread.

[solitas]

"papal" audience of Wednesday, March 24, 2004

Gee, no WONDER he never has the time to say, for himself, whether or not he's seen 'that movie' and confirm/deny the comments that others have attributed to him...
< /surprise>

[Romulus]

I understand and sincerely sympathise with the spiritual warfare in which you find yourself. With all respect, I'd like to suggest that if the devil is tempting you with really nasty thoughts about the suffering of the naked Lord, it may be precisely because the devil hates the thought of anyone contemplating His Passion, and thus searches for ways to make it a stumbling block. The devil works by exploiting specific weakness in your spiritual defenses. It's the very nature of the devil to tempt you with lewd thoughts and then to accuse you of sin in entertaining those very thoughts, which you never asked for and do not want. Remember that the word "devil" comes from the Greek word for "slanderer", because he works by accusing us of our sinfulness, hoping to tempt us to despair. Do you remember the demon children in The Passion of the Christ who torment Judas with accusations of being under a curse? That's how the devil seeks to drive man to despair and death.

Go back to Genesis, where the Lord demands of Adam: "Who told you that you were naked?" The answer of course is the devil, who accuses us of our sinfulness and then tempts us to hide from God because of fear -- as if hiding from God were even possible. Recall that in Genesis it's God who even after the Fall goes looking for Man: "Where are you?" Finally, recall the message repeated at the Annunciation, the Nativity, and the Resurrection:

"Be not afraid."

[jude24]

Jesus despised the shame of the cross. Because of that, what was once a symbol of the degredation of a condmened criminal has become one of our most sacred symbols.

Having a naked Christ on a crucifix in no way insults Christ, but reminds us of the degredation his creation heaped upon him.

We need to be reminded of what, precisely, a crucifixion entails.

I would submit that celebrating communion in sight of a crucifix like that would give a fuller meaning behind "This is my body, broken for you."

I know I can't celebrate communion blithely after seeing The Passion.

[Romulus]

Don't be silly. Heaven's an eternal Wedding Feast. One way or another, everyone will be properly attired, albeit in ways none of us can comprehend.

[PayNoAttentionManBehindCurtain]

Are you becoming Catholic?

BigMack

[jude24]

No. Why would you ask that?

[drstevej]

Me be silly? You are the one who said, ***Nakedness is a problem only for sinful people, not for the sinless.***

Are there SINNERS at the eternal wedding feast? I think not. Ipso Romulo, we're all at the BUFFet in our birthday suits.

[PayNoAttentionManBehindCurtain]

Your last post sounds just like what a Catholic would say.

BigMack

[jude24]

Wouldn't any Christian say the same thing?

[Romulus]

The saints wear a wedding garment as witnesses and communicants in the Wedding Feast. Their nakedness is no longer indecent, just inadequate to the Occasion. It ain't that complicated.

[PayNoAttentionManBehindCurtain]

No, Christ paid the price on the cross and we can read about it in His Word and that should have a very large impact on us, He also was taken down buried and arose to life again, the gospel you know.

Thats what saves, we are saved, others need the gospel, that should be the focus.

BigMack