Baby Jesus in religious pictures

Maybe a little of topic, but a similar thought about the view of old painters depiction of anatomy.

Although most depict the human form anatomically correct, how come whenever you see paintings of Adam and Eve they both have belly-buttons?

Weren't they the first people? ( Not forgetting Lilith.).

Although most depict the human form anatomically correct, how come whenever you see paintings of Adam and Eve they both have belly-buttons?

Weren't they the first people? ( Not forgetting Lilith.).

In religious mythology, a Deity can do whatever It wishes. There is no need need for logic or logical causality.

Many European artists were unfamiliar with what a circumcised penis actually looked like. Take Michelangelo's David. He is depicted as being uncircumcised. Also, Jewish boys are not circumcised until they are 8 days old.

*pushes up glasses* "AKSHEWALLY..."

Michelangelo's David is circumcised, but not 'radically'. Only the very tip was excised during that time, and is depicted as such. Jewish participants in the Greek Olympic games would hide their circumcised status easily by pulling the skin forward a bit and tying them with a bit of string called a 'kynodesme', so it's well documented. The more radical form of circumcision we're generally used to in the modern era with the full glans exposure and a scarline around the shaft became more common when surgical hygiene improved somewhere in the 19th century, although it still occurred before then too.

.

I doubt that a nail thru a hand would hold a body up either.

The nail through the wrist was to support the body so it would remain on the cross. The nail through the palm of the hand was to inflict more pain due to the many nerves on the back of the hand.

Many tens of thousands of people experienced death by crucifixion and everyone was entirely naked which added to their humiliation. Paintings that show a cloth over Christ's privates, as well as over the thieves' privates, are merely preserving their modesty for the viewer of the painting.

.

@CanD I read somewhere that circumcision as practiced by the Jews during the antiquity was indeed far less severe than what is currently done, and that the Jewish practice changed at some point in order to prevent circumcised men from hiding the fact that they were circumcised.

@CanD I read somewhere that circumcision as practiced by the Jews during the antiquity was indeed far less severe than what is currently done, and that the Jewish practice changed at some point in order to prevent circumcised men from hiding the fact that they were circumcised.

IIRC, the style in the days of David was just a nip-tip of the ridged band, and that was also the Egyptian style in the days when the Greeks responded to it with bemusement (and typical Greek derision of the foreign). The radical style became the requirement somewhere around the beginning of the so-called 'Hellenic' period around 300BCE after some rabbinical re-interpretation of scripture (officially), but I wouldn't be surprised if it was more of a socio/political thing as you describe. I'm probably missing a ton of details here, but I believe those are the broad strokes.

I lately saw a painting of young Jesus where there was a dash of pink at the position of the glans, standing out in the beige skin, which should mean circumcised. 😃

Again here, with history we never know. Don't think there was no 'propagande' included in all those paintings. All those paintings were painted by people who didn't really know the child Jesus. How the hell would they ever have known that he was circumcised or not!? And does it matter?

I have read books where it is stated that 'historically', who am I aver going to verify that fact, that Jesus was married and that Maria Magdalena was his bride/wife. Question : Why don't we see any paintings of them both together? Why don't we see paintings of the holy marriage?

Simply because someone within the church did decide that this wasn't a good thing for the institution "Church". So whether or not that was reality or not, the 'people' were not allowed to know it. So, no painting, no stories about it. Maybe some pointing to marriage parties, such as, the marriage of Kanaa...

By the way, the books I did read it were obviously "controversial" (still) and are "Genesis of the Grail Kings, Laurence Gardner" and "Bloodline of the holy grail, Laurence Gardner". The latter describes the bloodline of Jesus and his brother Jacobus and does litteraly states that Jesus was married and did have children ... It creates a complete different view upon "the holy Bible".

It's been awhile since I did read it, but it puts this whole religion-church relationship into a whole new/different perspective and makes clear that misinformation, creation of information that can or can't be known by the 'people in the streets' is something modern. It did exist then, simply because the bible is a collection of different stories delivered by mouth to mouth that has been written down and a complete story has been created in view of what was intended to be the thruth ...

Just as it happens now, but 'more' sofisticated.

Not saying it's not the thruth, but when you have read it, you do think a little different and you might take into account different POV's. It does start from the early beginnings, where the 'modern' religions started as one, did split several times and grew to what we know now. Very interesting, if you ask me

Maybe a little of topic, but a similar thought about the view of old painters depiction of anatomy.

Although most depict the human form anatomically correct, how come whenever you see paintings of Adam and Eve they both have belly-buttons?

Weren't they the first people? ( Not forgetting Lilith.).

@LordJim2 and @agracier Just a few thoughts . . .

Adam and Eve were not "born" into existence on Earth, as all the babies in their posterity were born. Stating the obvious, a baby in the womb has an umbilical cord which is cut after the baby is born. When the cord shrivels up and falls off, the remaining scar is known as the belly button.

So how did Adam and Eve get their belly buttons when Adam was formed from the dust of the Earth and Eve was formed from one of Adam's ribs, and neither formation involved an umbilical cord?

I see two possible explanations.

God wanted the original parents to be in the express likeness and image of their children so He formed them with belly buttons. It would be harder to explain the other way to curious children.

OR

In Genesis 1:26-27, we read, "And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth. So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them."

In this second possible explanation, God wanted His children, Adam and Eve, to be in the express likeness and image of Him so He formed Adam and Eve with belly buttons which means God has a belly button.

BONUS THOUGHT to consider: The scripture says, “And God said, Let US make man in OUR image, after OUR likeness: . . . . MALE and FEMALE.” Does this mean we have a Heavenly Mother, as well as a Heavenly Father?

.

I’ve never even thought about that. Every time that I go to church, or see paintings of Jesus, I just think that he’s the god that I pray to, and receive comfort from. And I’m not a holy roller.

Adam and Eve were not "born" into existence on Earth, as all the babies in their posterity were born. Stating the obvious, a baby in the womb has an umbilical cord which is cut after the baby is born. When the cord shrivels up and falls off, the remaining scar is known as the belly button.

So how did Adam and Eve get their belly buttons when Adam was formed from the dust of the Earth and Eve was formed from one of Adam's ribs, and neither formation involved an umbilical cord?

I see two possible explanations.

How about the obvious explanation: this story is a myth/legend/holy story not meant to be taken literally, but as a metaphorical and spiritual explanation for why/how we are alive and living in a physical world that defies explanation for its very existence. It's a story that tries to make sense of why we exist and why things are as they are.

Virtually all cultures have such stories that rationally and scientifically make no logical sense. But at their best, they are ultimately meant to give comfort and peace of mind to mankind.

Btw: this is what I was taught in Jesuit High School by Jesuit teachers themselves. Nothing heretical about it.

@FDNM-patient Here, I'm not discussing historical reality (was there a person known as Jesus who did this or that at that time, was this person circumcised, etc.) but how, depending on the time and place, and following such or such "lore" or "canon", a particular theme was depicted in art.