T
thistle
Guest
I don’t agree with that. Scientist can easily do various experiments to determine which means of crucifixion make more or less sense than others.
- Status
T
thistle
Guest
In those days wrists were considered part of the hands.
C
cjforJesus
Guest
I am inclined to believe what Jesus said to Thomas. “Put your fingers in my hand and put your hand in my side.” I am pretty sure he meant the hand.
It is part of private revelation,but I think the original divine mercy image showed wounds in the backs of His hand as did the statue of Mary at Akita(an approved apparition)
Regardless it is not part of the deposit of faith as to where the nails went but I do believe the crude nails they used then would fracture the wrist bones.
T
thistle
Guest
I’m not saying they nailed the wrists. I’m just saying they were considered part of the hands. The logical way was to nail the hand part and also tie the arm with rope to prevent the person falling or being ripped from the cross. Just because Scripture does not mention ropes you should absolutely not assume no ropes were used. It was the common way for the Romans to crucify people and it does not change the crucifixion story.
S
St_Redemption
Guest
Are you guys aware of any stigmatics who received the wounds through the wrist?
P
pianistclare
Guest
No, now that you mention it…
M
Memaw
Guest
Of course he wasn’t there at the foot of the Cross, but read the book and you’ll understand. The wrist was considered part of the hand. Artists later portrayed it as they wanted. God Bless, Memaw
C
cjforJesus
Guest
I am not particularly interested in that author,but I appreciate the recommendation.
I still believe what Jesus said to Thomas "put your fingers in my hand and your hand in my side. It is self explanatory.
As far as stigmatists who display the wounds in the wrist there are at least 3 I know of. Fr Sudac of Croatia. Fr James Bruse(though his appears to be more the forearm),and Natuzza Evolo.
C
cjforJesus
Guest
FR Sudac, Fr Bruse and Natuzza Evolo.
P
pianistclare
Guest
thank you. I’ll have to read up on them.
O
otjm
Guest
Then it helps to read the orgininal work in Greek, and understand Aramaic, as your assumption that the word “hand” as we understand it today in the western world is not identical to what Jewish people 2,000 years ago described.
The Bible went from Aramaic to Greek to Latin to a multitude of languages, and simply picking up several idfferent English translations will show that the process of translation is not what one would call exact.
And I have no idea why someone with an M.D. could not make assumptions - people who obtain doctoral degrees make assumptions every day. They also learn on cadavers.
T
The_Serpent
Guest
St. Bridget of Sweden had visions on the crucifixion. I believe she claimed the Lord’s arms were bound to the cross with ropes, … thus allowing the nails to go through the hands. THe ropes providing extra support to his body.
O
otjm
Guest
Well, she had visions, and the Shroud seems to indicate otherwise (and most likely will never be authenticated, which does not imply that it is not the original Shroud; the tilma of Our Lady of Guadalupe has not been authenticated either as best I know), as well as other scholarship.St. Bridget of Sweden had visions on the crucifixion. I believe she claimed the Lord’s arms were bound to the cross with ropes, … thus allowing the nails to go through the hands. THe ropes providing extra support to his body.
As noted by research on cadavers, piercing the palm through the wrist, consistent with the Shroud, appears sufficient to hold the weight of n adult without the necessity of ropes. Additionally, ropes would tend to prolong death rather than hasten it, as hanging only by nails through the wrists causes excruciating pain as it rubs the major nerve going through the wrist, causing the victim to lift himself up on the feet, which are likewise impaled with a nail. the pain of the nail in the feet causes him to try to take the weight off the feet and the process begins all over. with the arms extended up somewhat near head level or slightly above, the victim ends up in a position where air is trapped in the lungs and he is not able to exhale. Eventually, as the pain becomes so intense and he wears out between the pain and the lifting by the arms alternating with the feet, the victim can no longer lift himself up to exhale, and dies of asphyxiation.
Nails were not regularly used in crucifixions - hint: the soldiers could not diddy bop on down the Home Depot to get another set. They were not items in abundant supply, so often crucifixions were not a three hour process as Our Lord went through, but a multi day process resulting in death either through eventual asphyxiation, or dehydration, or a combination. Death could be hastened by breaking the legs of the victim, resulting in the hanging effect which caused asphyxiation. They broke the legs, because the victim was not nailed to a cross but rather strapped onto it with ropes.
But for the cruelest and most tortuous method of execution, nails were used because of the intense pain, aggravated all the more by the alternation between hanging by the hands, and alternating to standing on the nail which pierced the feet.
There are no paintings from the time of Christ; in fact, His method of execution was so brutal and so close in time that crucifixes, with or without a corpus, were not to be found until quite some time after.
How artists later painted the Crucifixion is no credible evidence as to how it actually occurred, but is simply an artistic rendering. The most credible evidence is the Shroud, which shows a male who bore scars of a brutal whipping, evidence of wounds to the head consistent with a cap (or crown) of thorns, and indications of piercings consistent with a nail being driven through the palms and wrist area.
And Aramaic did not have a word for “hand” and a separate one for “wrist”, so the translation of “hand” is not inconsistent with the Gospel narratives, but is being read with a language which does distinguish between the two.
As the matter is not a subject of faith or morals, the Church does not have a dissertation on it, and if one wishes to believe that it was through the palm only, one is free to see the mystics which have had the stigmata as evidence of how Christ was crucified.
But perhaps God is trying to show, through the stigmatists, not evidence of exactly how the execution was carried out, but rather something entirely different.
Likewise, attempting to find scientifically verifiable information on the method and process of execution through a visionary’s comments is missing what the visionary is trying to convey. God most likely is not trying to give you or me authentication of the issue. He is trying to convey something far removed from that; and while the Church has said that certain visionaries testimony is worthy of belief as to its overall message, no one is required to accept it. Recommended to, but not required to.
C
cjforJesus
Guest
Yes,people with doctoral degrees makes assumptions, yet they are not infallible.
I do not think Jesus meant for Thomas to put his wrist in the wound in his side though.
T
The_Serpent
Guest
Sorry, it was Catherine Emmerich and Theresa Neumann for the ropes on the arms. A good pamphlet that I reference is “The Holy Shroud and Four Visions”, it uses the Shroud and four visionaries to examine the crucifixion.
tanbooks.com/index.php/holy-shroud-and-four-visions.html
tanbooks.com/index.php/holy-shroud-and-four-visions.html
C
cjforJesus
Guest
The most credible evidence as to the crucifixion of Jesus is the Shroud of Turin?
In 1988 the Shroud was carbon dated and all 3 labs arrived at very similar dates.
The Vatican accepted this and St John Paul 2 had the results published. No further carbon dating has been allowed and in 2002 it was extensively restored and repaired.
The Shrouds custodian and most scientists do not dispute the dating of the cloth.
I believe ,based on the bible, that the crucifixion was through the hand (palm) probably toward the base of the thumb.
O
otjm
Guest
Carbon dating of the shroud has already been addressed elsewhere, and the dating has been and continues to be disputed; additionally, no one anywhere has been able to propose any sort of process which would provide an image such as exists on the shroud. There have been multiple theories, and none of them have been able to duplicate the image.
Neither the shroud nor the issue of the translation of words and concepts from Aramaic to Greek to Latin to English are matters of faith.
And no, you missed the point entirely about the wrist. I’ll try it once more: at the time of Christ, Jewish people did not distinguish body parts into “hand” and “wrist”. The hand and wrist was all one part of the body, not considered or spoken of as two parts. So putting the “hand” into Christ’s side might have meant sticking the fingers in. sticking in more up to mid-level palm, or clear in to the point where the wrist might have been at the outer edge of the flesh.
Christ’s point was not how much was to be stuck in; it was that He had a real body, that He was not some vision or ghost or the result of group hysteria.
He also did not point out or say how the Resurrected Body was different from that of someone who had not died; but He showed it. From the Gospel Narratives and Acts we know that the Resurrected Body was both the same and different.
If you wish to believe that Christ was nailed through the palm, you are welcome to do so; it is not a matter of Faith. The better evidence points elsewhere, but neither conclusion is a matter of Faith.
The comment attributed to Padre Pio is well worth considering. Some have disputed his marks because the wound appeared on the “wrong” side; his comment is worth considering.
The evidence which has been shown concerning methods of crucifixion lead to a conclusion that the most brutal method, and one that is entirely consistent with Christ’s death as shortly after being nailed up as it was (with the note that the Romans were surprised - and did not break His legs) supports the conclusion that the nails pierced the bottom of the palm and proceeded out the other side through the wrist, and that He was not roped up to the cross beam.
Ultimately, because the Gospel accounts were written not to give a line-by-line description of the method of execution, but rather were written to convey faith, we do not have the exact details; and the exact details are not a matter of faith.
But the method which I have described details how much more brutally His execution would be, compared to details as seen in paintings and in visions. Too often, unthinkingly we have, within our own minds, sanitized Christ’s execution. And I only would point to how people - Catholic, Protestant, and anything else or nothing else - reacted to Mel Gibson’s movie. I do not mention the movie for whether or not the movie itself “got it all right”, but rather to show that we all have had a very sanitized mental and emotional image of the execution.
And the bottom line is that we are not, as a matter of faith, required to believe exactly how Christ was executed; nor are we required to believe that the stigmata as they appear on hands and feet are exactly a replicate of Christ’s wounds; in fact, we are not required as a matter of faith to even believe that they are from God; just as we are not required to believe what visionaries have related. For visionaries who have been approved by Rome, we are allowed to believe what they have related; particularly as it relates to matters of Faith. Or we can choose to ignore them, and they are not part of Divine Revelation. So also, we can choose to believe those parts of visionaries statements which relate to Faith, and ignore those which are peripheral.
- Status