Evidence for God from Science

Just wondering what you guys think?

There seems to be good arguements for suggesting he was.

Nessa wrote:Just wondering what you guys think?

There seems to be good arguements for suggesting he was.

I always wondered if Jesus was born naked.

I think there's a good argument for him being born naked.

I thought he had some loin cloth or robe on him. The robe was taken off later but idk about the loin cloth.

The soldiers who crucified him divided his clothes among themselves. Obviously he couldn't have been wearing them when they did this.

Amongst the questions we should focus on, this one is near the bottom of most lists.

Philip wrote:Amongst the questions we should focus on, this one is near the bottom of most lists.

Says who? You?

Nessa,

Maybe you could tell us why this question interests you?

It interests her because she's Kiwi.

To answer the question, Yes, probably since it was common practice to crucify people without clothes.
Do we know 100% ? Of course not but there is no reason to think that he would have been treated any different then any other criminal and enough reason to think that he was treated worse than the typical.

Knowing the Jewish view of nakedness especially in a public display, I'd say that the crucified in Jerusalem so close to the temple would've had privates covered. Yes it would be extreme humiliation to be totally nakedness but I suspect the Sanhedrin and observant Jews would've revolted at such a practice.

I've been reading Josephus and the Romans already had years of dealing with the Jews and how they would revolt in the blink of an eye. By the time of Jesus's crucifixion the Romans were very sensitive to avoiding things to trigger revolts among the Jews.

JButler wrote:Knowing the Jewish view of nakedness especially in a public display, I'd say that the crucified in Jerusalem so close to the temple would've had privates covered. Yes it would be extreme humiliation to be totally nakedness but I suspect the Sanhedrin and observant Jews would've revolted at such a practice.

I've been reading Josephus and the Romans already had years of dealing with the Jews and how they would revolt in the blink of an eye. By the time of Jesus's crucifixion the Romans were very sensitive to avoiding things to trigger revolts among the Jews.

According to that theory they wouldn't have crucified any jews since, for a jew, to be "hung on a tree" is worse than public nudity.
Public nudity is shameful but to be hung on a tree is to be cursed.

I understand what you're saying. The difference is the cursed angle is upon the individual themselves. The naked exposure is open to the public including little children. Being naked really would be low on the list of the condemned's list of concerns. Good point though.

PaulSacramento wrote:

JButler wrote:Knowing the Jewish view of nakedness especially in a public display, I'd say that the crucified in Jerusalem so close to the temple would've had privates covered. Yes it would be extreme humiliation to be totally nakedness but I suspect the Sanhedrin and observant Jews would've revolted at such a practice.

I've been reading Josephus and the Romans already had years of dealing with the Jews and how they would revolt in the blink of an eye. By the time of Jesus's crucifixion the Romans were very sensitive to avoiding things to trigger revolts among the Jews.

According to that theory they wouldn't have crucified any jews since, for a jew, to be "hung on a tree" is worse than public nudity.
Public nudity is shameful but to be hung on a tree is to be cursed.

Kurieuo wrote:It interests her because she's Kiwi.

Do i detect a hint of jealousy?

Philip wrote:

That sounds just like an Aussie footy player being interviewed as well.

Hmm, what does a kangaroo have to do with New Zealand?

Obviously an American town.

OK, that's not bad.