Was Our Lord wearing clothing during the crucifixion?

[Miriam_M]

I think that is beautifully put, Ches, and I understand, at least intellectually, your point.  Thank you for posting it.

[Chestertonian]

Thirst is another one of those thinfs that Our Lord rxperienced on the Cross...his experience of thirst had many layers of meaning to it but when I have to wait for someone to spray my mouth with this gel stuff because I can't drink water anymore I feel like our Lord truly understands and it's easier to offer this up.  I remember when I was able to drink water and I would feel so thirsty because I was in a fluid restriction of 16oz of water a day and I would pass a water cooler at the school where I worked and would get this sudden urge to rip off the jug at the top and drink the whole thing.  It gave me a lot of empathy for drug addicts and alcoholics.  Controlling my thirst was so hard it made overcoming sexual temptation look really easy.  I would go to sleep and dream about water.

Just knowing it was something that our Lord literally experienced makes it easier to bear than some of the other things I've been through that don't seem to have any similarity to the life of our Lord or the saints

[Miriam_M]

Again, lovely.

[Vetus Ordo]

This means Christ was naked on the cross. It can't get any clearer than this but if you can't interpret the plain meaning of a text, that's not my fault.

Sola scriptura has spoken and that's that.

If you can't understand the meaning of the text when you read it, that's your problem.

And "that's that."

[Philip G.]

[Markus]

We know from historical accounts that the Romans crucified people fully naked. We have no historical or scriptural reason to believe this was different for Christ. All we have is private revelation which contradicts everything we know to be historically true. Now, granted, Christ could have willed an exception. But why?

Steve Ray covers both sides in this article:
https://www.catholicconvert.com/blog/2017/04/12/was-jesus-naked-when-crucified/

Make note of St. Melito of Sardis' explanation.

An obscene comment that is complemented by your irritating pretentious profile picture

[Gardener]

We know from historical accounts that the Romans crucified people fully naked. We have no historical or scriptural reason to believe this was different for Christ. All we have is private revelation which contradicts everything we know to be historically true. Now, granted, Christ could have willed an exception. But why?

Steve Ray covers both sides in this article:
https://www.catholicconvert.com/blog/2017/04/12/was-jesus-naked-when-crucified/

Make note of St. Melito of Sardis' explanation.

An obscene comment that is complemented by your irritating pretentious profile picture

What's obscene about it?

I unfortunately look nothing like the profile gif. I wish I did, but alas I'm blond and blessed with 20/20 eyesight.

[Mono no aware]

What's obscene about it?

I cannot of course speak for Markus, but in my estimation it's the fact that it's a "GIF."  The repetitive movement is kind of a peripheral eyesore and irritation when one is reading text.  And even though the movement in yours is relatively mild (Arun had a cartoon wrestler that was the pinnacle of obnoxiousness), it is the problem with any GIF that there is a herky-jerky movement when it completes its cycle and lurches back to the first frame.  It's not seamless.

My own avatar has been criticized for being off-putting, so I offer the above purely constructively.  I would only add that the grin being offered by the gentleman with the glasses does, for some reason, for me, carry a smarmy, unserious vibe that lends your posts a little note of sass that they probably wouldn't otherwise have.  (I do consider you a good and serious poster).  You should by all means keep it if you like it, though.  "Obscene" is an overboard criticism.

In any case, Markus' new avatar is far better than either yours or mine.

[Gardener]

What's obscene about it?

I cannot of course speak for Markus, but in my estimation it's the fact that it's a "GIF."  The repetitive movement is kind of a peripheral eyesore and irritation when one is reading text.  And even though the movement in yours is relatively mild (Arun had a cartoon wrestler that was the pinnacle of obnoxiousness), it is the problem with any GIF that there is a herky-jerky movement when it completes its cycle and lurches back to the first frame.  It's not seamless.

My own avatar has been criticized for being off-putting, so I offer the above purely constructively.  I would only add that the grin being offered by the gentleman with the glasses does, for some reason, for me, carry a smarmy, unserious vibe that lends your posts a little note of sass that they probably wouldn't have otherwise.  (I do consider you a good and serious poster).  You should by all means keep it if you like it, though.  "Obscene" is an overboard criticism.

In any case, Markus' new avatar is far better than either yours or mine.

He said a dispassionate comment, quoting a saint, was obscene; as I am not in the grip or throes of the TIA thought process, he'll have to explain that one for me to "get" it. My avatar of the amused gentleman was merely described as an "irritating [...ly, or ","; either way - sic] pretentious profile picture."

[Mono no aware]

He said a dispassionate comment, quoting a saint, was obscene; as I am not in the grip or throes of the TIA thought process, he'll have to explain that one for me to "get" it. My avatar of the amused gentleman was merely described as an "irritating [...ly, or ","; either way - sic] pretentious profile picture."

You're right; I misread.  In that case, I agree with him on the "irritating" descriptor, but it is a very mild irritant.  Almost any avatar that isn't a picture of the user is "pretentious," strictly speaking, but this aspect can be forgiven, as an avatar conveys a tone of self-expression that an ordinary yearbook photo or "selfie" cannot.

Neither your quoted comment nor your avatar are obscene in my opinion.

[Gardener]

Maybe I could change it to one of the following:
https://i.redd.it/sondoftuo4ey.jpg (not embedding since it's so large)

(with the bottom text in the white block removed)

[Mono no aware]

No. 3 (St. José Sánchez del Río) would be a supremely good avatar (IMO).  But if you have the  greater devotion to St. Moses, that would certainly not be a problematic one at all.  The first one is the kind of silly "meme avatar" that, for me, is an irritant in its own way—but to each their own.

If you do use St. José, you might want to crop the picture into a square, and make it so his face is centered.  It would be more aesthetically pleasing that way.

[Gardener]

No. 3 (St. José Sánchez del Río) would be a supremely good avatar (IMO).  But if you have the  greater devotion to St. Moses, that would certainly not be a problematic one at all.  The first one is the kind of silly "meme avatar" that, for me, is an irritant in its own way—but to each their own.

If you do use St. José, you might want to crop the picture into a square, and make it so his face is centered.  It would be more aesthetically pleasing that way.

Bringing it back around to Our Lord, it is almost assured that St. Jose was somewhat clothed during his martyrdom.

What I can say for sure is that 14 year old boy was the sort of man I hope to be.

but he probably wasn't up to TIA standards, frankly. He was a Mexican country bumpkin.

[mikemac]

Yeah Markus' avatar is much better because it's of "Saint" Plinio Corrêa de Oliveira, the patron saint of Tradition In Action. 

[Mono no aware]

De gustibus non est disputandum.