[353FMG]

“At that time, to look upon such an image erected on a pole would have been considered repulsive, and many would instinctively look away.”

.
Is that also perhaps the reason that people (except for Catholics and Orthodox Christians) are embarrassed or repulsed to see a cross with a corpus on it?

Before the Reformation every crucifix had a corpus.

[wbarmy]

If you are speaking of Protestants or Baptists, it is not the corpus, but the fact that we usually use an empty cross, to show that He is alive for evermore. His power is in his resurrection, not in His death. The death was accursed and pays for sin, but the Miracle in the Garden proves He is who He said He was.

[Uri’el-2012]

Is that also perhaps the reason that people (except for Catholics and Orthodox Christians) are embarrassed or repulsed to see a cross with a corpus on it?

Before the Reformation every crucifix had a corpus.

But years later the bronze snake on a pole
was destroyed because it had become an IDOL
which was worshiped instead of the ONE true YHvH.
(2 Kings 18:4)

shalom b'SHEM Yah'shua HaMashiach

[OneVike]

I would say yes

[metmom]

. Is that also perhaps the reason that people (except for Catholics and Orthodox Christians) are embarrassed or repulsed to see a cross with a corpus on it?

They're not embarrassed or repulsed by it.

The objection is that Jesus work on the cross is done, finished. The cross is empty for a reason.

It's not Jesus dying that saved us, it's His death (past tense) that saves us.

Having the image of Jesus on the cross indicates that His work isn't finished and that is not the gospel.