[quote=PMV]This is one Protestant claim against Catholicism; that our crosses have an image of Jesus on it, and He has a robe on him - therefore, our cross is supposedly incorrect and should not be recognized. Notice that their crosses do not have any image of Jesus. Was Jesus naked on the cross?
What is a good response to this Protestant objection?
To His executioners He wold have been just another Jewish gallowsbird. There’s no reason to suppose He would have been treated any better than other.
It was a cruel, bloody, obscene, humiliating, slow, disgraceful, and shameful method of execution reserved for the dregs of society, such as slaves and those who were not Roman citzens. He was lucky not to have a bear set loose upon him, as happened to a robber crucified in the Colosseum in 90 or so.
Crucifixion was not decorous, tidy, bloodless, nice, hygienic. His Love for us, and His obedience to His Father, is nowhere more apparent than in His readiness to suffer so horrible & degrading a form of death. The Cross was an an obscenity and a scandal 1900 years ago - it still is. That is why its shamefulness and its glory should never be diluted.
For more delightful facts about crucifixion, read the book by Martin Hengel. A strong stomach is needed.
I think He should be shown as He was, as nearly as we can know this. If people are shocked, that may do great good: for that is what He went through for us. Crucifixion was shocking, vile, disgraceful, senseless, when St. Paul preached a crucified Messiah: why should the Cross be sanitised now ?
If Christ Crucified could be preached by St. Paul, when crucifixion was still a fate with which low-class Christians might meet - it was not abolished until 315 - it is impossible to understand why we today should not hear and see an equally uncomfortable Gospel. A prettified, sanitised, inoffensive Gospel is no Gospel at all. ##