Nails in the palms or the wrists?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Sir_Knight
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
The Shroud of Turin only shows the wounds through one hand and it appears on the wrist - but the Hebrew word for hand includes the wrist.

The second hand is underneath the first and so is hidden. According to the mystical writer of the Poem of the Man-God this other wound went through the palm. Apparently, there is a small indentation on the crossbeam for the wrist to rest against but Our Lord’s shoulder was dislocated and so only the palm reached this point.

So, Jesus was wounded through the hands - one being the wrist and the other the palm.
 
There is also another possibility – that Christ’s arms were twisted so the palms were against the cross, and the nails entered through the wrists and exited through the palms. Consider also the vision of Anne Emmerich that the cross wasn’t a plus sign but rather that the cross beam was more of a V – stretching Christ’s arms across the “V” rather than His arms dropping below the cross beam.

I’ve never seen anything in the Bible or visions of saints about a dislocated shoulder. Where does this come from?

When I was a child, listening to dramatic recordings which my mother always played on Good Friday, I remember crying and asking her to play one where He doesn’t die.

Here’s a final question: knowing ALL that we know now, and how essential Christ’s death was for our own individual redemption and for the salvation of the world, if you could return in time to the scene, would you really try to stop the crucifixion, or would you shout “Crusify Him!”, ???
 
thistle said:
What your pastor said is not correct. Previous experiments which showed the palms could not hold the weight of an adult man have been proven to be wrong. Go to EWTN catalogue and you’ll find a good book on this called The Crucifixion of Jesus: A Forensic Enquiry by Dr Frederick Zugibe. He also appeared in a program about this on EWTN.
Click to expand...
That’s a kinda whacked out theory. A simple examination of the hands show that it doesn’t have the necessary stuctural strength to support a man’s body. The bones in the wrist, however, do.

Nevertheless, Zugibe didn’t advocate nailing through the palms, but rather at that angle at the lower base of the hand, exiting the wrist via the carpal tunnel.

Nailing at that certain angle through the wrist, right through the carpal tunnel would have yielded the most excruciating pain, more so than the hands.

If the Shroud of Turin is genuine, it also supports the nails-through-the-wrist or palm-base theory.
 
hopefull said:
Here’s a final question: knowing ALL that we know now, and how essential Christ’s death was for our own individual redemption and for the salvation of the world, if you could return in time to the scene, would you really try to stop the crucifixion, or would you shout “Crusify Him!”, ???
Click to expand...
I wouldn’t shout Crucify him! but I wouldn’t do anything to stop it either. Temporal Prime Directive applies. 🙂
 
The Jesus I have a personal relationship with is a Jesus unique to me because my relationship with him is unique to me.

Hi Ut
this one sentence bothrs me a little-- seems a little relativistic- like you have your Jesus and I have mine-- I don’t think that is what you meant.
Help me out here - my understanding is that Jesus did have a particular human body an that that particular body is glorified–
 
Okay the Roman church is not infallible. I will grant you that. But it is closer to the catholic church in heaven then your own church. The Roman Catholic Church is the earthly extension of that church that is based in heaven.

The Churches interpretation is more correct in context then your own.

So I ask again, why should I believe your context (which btw in my opinon is demon given ) over that which has withstood the gates of hell for nearly 2000 years?
Click to expand...
 
porthos11 said:
That’s a kinda whacked out theory. A simple examination of the hands show that it doesn’t have the necessary stuctural strength to support a man’s body. The bones in the wrist, however, do.

Nevertheless, Zugibe didn’t advocate nailing through the palms, but rather at that angle at the lower base of the hand, exiting the wrist via the carpal tunnel.

Nailing at that certain angle through the wrist, right through the carpal tunnel would have yielded the most excruciating pain, more so than the hands.

If the Shroud of Turin is genuine, it also supports the nails-through-the-wrist or palm-base theory.
Click to expand...
The base of the thumb is still on the hand in modern definition of hand.
 
thistle said:
The base of the thumb is still on the hand in modern definition of hand.
Click to expand...
Yes, and it accounts for both the “hand” and “wrist” theories. However, no way did the nails go straight into the middle of the palms.

The feet being nailed doesn’t help. Other studies (sorry, sources slip me right now) indicate that the idea of nailing the feet was also to cause a vicious cycle of pain; i.e., to relieve the pain on the wrist/carpal tunnel, the prisoner would exert pressure on the nail. Of course, that would also hurt a lot, so he would need to relieve the pressure on the feet, therefore transferring the pain back to the wrists. If the nails went into the palms straight through, they would have torn at this point in the cycle.

Zugibe’s theory makes the most sense: hit the carpal tunnel.

Makes me appreciate more the pain Jesus felt as he died for me.
 
Hi Sir Knight, I think they simply faked the wounds of Christ. also, his side wound medically speaking would have been in his chest where the rib cages comes together in the middle. This chest wound would have been just off center of the chest, not in the side like we would think of it today. Also, many of the so-called euthesitic miracles have conflicting blood types, and recently I read somewhere that dieseases that were unknown in Jesus day, were found among those so-called miracles too.
 
Since the Greek word for hands includes up to the elbow, it really doesn’t matter from a point of doctrine where the actual wounds were. In fact, it has nothing to do with doctrine at all. The doctrine involved here is the one that teaches us that he suffered this passion for our sake. By his wounds, we are made whole.

There’s an even better word for a person who thinks he/she can selectively observe Catholic doctrine. It’s spelled h-u-m-a-n
b-e-i-n-g. Since most Catholics (how about upwards of 95% don’t know all the doctrines of the church, they couldn’t possibly observe them all.🙂
 
Hello, first post here (though I joined a while ago.)

Anyway, my brother-in-law is a medical student (as well as a Catholic) and he said that there is no way that anyone could have survived what Jesus went through before getting nailed to the cross itself, as it was portrayed in the film The Passion of the Christ.

I’m not a medical student myself, so I can’t argue either way. Just passing along what he said.
 
lakme said:
Hello, first post here (though I joined a while ago.)

Anyway, my brother-in-law is a medical student (as well as a Catholic) and he said that there is no way that anyone could have survived what Jesus went through before getting nailed to the cross itself, as it was portrayed in the film The Passion of the Christ.

I’m not a medical student myself, so I can’t argue either way. Just passing along what he said.
Click to expand...
As I have said before, Gibson’s portrayal of the scourging was restrained compared to what actually happened to people. Your brother is brother right and wrong.

He is right in that some people did not survive the scourging and never made it to the cross. The cross was so brutal that families used to actually bribe the scourgers to use particularly injurious tools so that the condemned would die quickly.

He is wrong in that not everyone died during scourging – even severe scourging. It depended on how much of the chest cavity was opened up by the scourging, how much blood was lost, if the lungs collapsed, if the body temperature fluctuated wildly: a lot of variables.

Please remember two things about the Crucifixion of Christ:


  1. *]Christ himself fell as he carried the Cross to Calvary. The Cyrenean carried the Cross part of the way with Jesus.
    *]It only took a few hours for Christ to give up the Ghost on the Cross.
 
Sir_Knight said:
Our parish church recently installed a beautiful, HUGE cross on the main altar with a statue of Jesus on it and on that statue He is nailed through the WRISTS. When I asked our Pastor about it, he pointed out that based on what we know about the body, this was mostlikely how Jesus was nailed to the cross because modern science tells us that if Jesus was nailed to the cross with the nails through His palms, it would not be able to support His weight on the cross and that instead, He was nailed to the cross through the wrists.

An earlier thread and the the American Association of Ophthalmology also seems to support this position.

If that is so, then why did Padre Pio and others who have received the stigmata, received them on the palms and not the wrists?
Click to expand...
 
Numero uno…if those who receive the wounds got them in the wrist the would bleed to death…its all symbolic anyway…but the shroud shows a Jesus with only four fingers…thats because when a spike is nailed thru the wrist it turns the thumb inward towards the palm…Nino
 
Some commentaries I have read say that the word used that we translate as ‘hands’ actually covers both the hand and the wrist. The nail was driven through the wrist at an angle to come out in the back of the hand, so both are true!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top