J
JesusReigns
Guest
If the Shroud of Turin is real, how come the victim has his pierced wounds in the wrists and not the palms like Our Lord?
- Status
S
Spyridon
Guest
Au contraire.
It was common practice to tie the victim to the cross with rope - the piercing with nails was an additional way of making it worse.
In all likelihood, Jesus was nailed in each palm, and one nail placed through his feet laid atop each other, and his back/arms would’ve been tied to the cross with rope as well as being nailed to it.
Here’s a depiction that is probably very close to being fully historically accurate of Jesus in his last moment of agony:
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
It was common practice to tie the victim to the cross with rope - the piercing with nails was an additional way of making it worse.
In all likelihood, Jesus was nailed in each palm, and one nail placed through his feet laid atop each other, and his back/arms would’ve been tied to the cross with rope as well as being nailed to it.
Here’s a depiction that is probably very close to being fully historically accurate of Jesus in his last moment of agony:
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
B
BoomerangToo
Guest
You only see the exit wound, not the entrance wound. If the nail was driven in on an angle, it would be in the palm. It looks like the exit wound is in-between the bottom of the hand and the top of the arm, not actually in the arm, so the entrance wound could easily been in the thick part of the palm.
Also, the nails did not have to hold up under the full weight of the victim. The victim was given a platform to stand on, a seat to sit on, and/or was tied to the cross with ropes or any/all of the above combination. The nails were just there for torture. Jesus was not nailed through His arm bones. They were in His hands just as the Bible says.
Also, the nails did not have to hold up under the full weight of the victim. The victim was given a platform to stand on, a seat to sit on, and/or was tied to the cross with ropes or any/all of the above combination. The nails were just there for torture. Jesus was not nailed through His arm bones. They were in His hands just as the Bible says.
B
BoomerangToo
Guest
Agreed. These new theories that Jesus was nailed through His arms because the nails in the hands could not support His weight is just another attempt to discredit the Biblical narrative. The Alexamenos Graffito is the earliest depiction of Jesus on the cross. You can see He is tied by His arms and possibly around His waist, and He is supported by a platform.
J
JesusReigns
Guest
But you see, i lean towards scripture where it says it was in the hands. What do you think of this? -----> The Wounds in Christ's Hands: a common misunderstanding
These are visions of the crucifixion to Blessed Anne Catherine Emmerich, i do not say she was false. It just doesn’t make sense that God is gonna contradict scripture.
These are visions of the crucifixion to Blessed Anne Catherine Emmerich, i do not say she was false. It just doesn’t make sense that God is gonna contradict scripture.
E
ErraticFaith
Guest
As a scientist, the above about the hands themselves (palms) not working isn’t technically true.
At the right angle the tissue of the hand can actually support the weight.
You’d think we don’t have a valid reference for the hands, and yes although there were some forensic studies done to investigate this with ‘suggestions’ that it was possible. The reality is much more bleak. We now have live examples
A few of us were sadly there with the Red Cross recently taking down people that the Islamic State (ISIS) have subjected to crucifixion in Iraq, along side many small villages and towns. In many cases the connective tissue did hold the weight. Of children and of grown men. And they had been there over a week.
If I had to guess, looking at records from Alexander (the great) and others that fathered the technique, the wrist was common. Running between ulna and radius.
Plenty to suggest the same online, with a good case being made for the ease of use. In alexanders day the practice was common and efficiency was key.
Far easier to nail someone at the wrists, than potentially drop them or have to fumble around with rope and straps to aid in load bearing (as was done in some cases).
Either is valid. Perhaps another case of ‘faith guides you which you believe’.
At the right angle the tissue of the hand can actually support the weight.
You’d think we don’t have a valid reference for the hands, and yes although there were some forensic studies done to investigate this with ‘suggestions’ that it was possible. The reality is much more bleak. We now have live examples
A few of us were sadly there with the Red Cross recently taking down people that the Islamic State (ISIS) have subjected to crucifixion in Iraq, along side many small villages and towns. In many cases the connective tissue did hold the weight. Of children and of grown men. And they had been there over a week.
If I had to guess, looking at records from Alexander (the great) and others that fathered the technique, the wrist was common. Running between ulna and radius.
Plenty to suggest the same online, with a good case being made for the ease of use. In alexanders day the practice was common and efficiency was key.
Far easier to nail someone at the wrists, than potentially drop them or have to fumble around with rope and straps to aid in load bearing (as was done in some cases).
Either is valid. Perhaps another case of ‘faith guides you which you believe’.
Last edited:
J
JesusReigns
Guest
Its definitely possible to say it was the heel of hand or wrist, but then why the ropes needed? Perhaps i havent read into these Visions enough, but dont they depict the nails in the palms usually? This wouldnt back up the shroud for me. Although i will say the scientific evidence for it is astounding
H
Hope1960
Guest
Do you mean that both Scripture and the Shroud are correct? That the nails were driven in the hand, exiting out the wrist, which is where we see it on the Shroud?
Last edited:
M
Melodeonist
Guest
In my opinion, of course it’s legit. To this day nothing has come close to producing a replica. The blood on it is also a rare type if I’m not mistaken.
Last edited:
B
BoomerangToo
Guest
The shroud does not contradict the scriptures. We don’t see the entry wound on the man in the shroud. It could be in His palms. Here is a perfect example:
Nail gun entry wound:
Nail gun exit wound:
The exit wound on this unfortunate man’s hand matches the exit wound on Our Lord’s hand in the Shroud.
Here is a picture of a cadaver with a wound through the hand. It enters the palm and exits the wrist. This woman had been stabbed in the hand. The forensic examiner placed a needle in her hand to show the trajectory of the wound:
H
Hope1960
Guest
2 things are bothering me.
- I read an old post on CAF about the Shroud that pointed out Jesus has a full beard on theShroud but in Isaiah 56:6 Scripture says they “plucked out His beard.”
B
BoomerangToo
Guest
The wrist is in the hand.
H
Hope1960
Guest
Ok, thanks. At that time, didn’t they use the same word for wrist and hands?
J
JesusReigns
Guest
Wow! Never heard of it this way! Thank you. This surely helps me understand the shroud better! It also gave me the honor of reading Blessed Saint Catherines account for the crucifixion, such a passionate depiction…
B
BoomerangToo
Guest
As far as I know, the ancients did not have a separate word for “wrist”. I think it was either “hand” or “arm”.
B
BoomerangToo
Guest
I’m glad you found that edifying!
M
Mintaka
Guest
Jesus apparently didn’t wear a full beard to start with; all the ancient descriptions agree on this. (There were actually a few statues of Jesus which supposedly dated back to before his death, in a couple of Middle Eastern villages, and which were put up as thanks by Gentiles helped by him. Eusebius talks about this in his Church History.)
However, people differ on whether the Roman soldiers or the high priest’s guards pulled at his beard hair, and a lot of people think they did. That could be very painful, and yet not result in a lot of bloodshed or injury.
The important part of Isaiah is that the Suffering Servant is described as turning his cheeks toward the people who are going to yank out his beard hairs. So Jesus turning the other cheek was a thing prophesied by Isaiah.
However, people differ on whether the Roman soldiers or the high priest’s guards pulled at his beard hair, and a lot of people think they did. That could be very painful, and yet not result in a lot of bloodshed or injury.
The important part of Isaiah is that the Suffering Servant is described as turning his cheeks toward the people who are going to yank out his beard hairs. So Jesus turning the other cheek was a thing prophesied by Isaiah.
Last edited:
H
Hope1960
Guest
But if Scripture is correct about that, shouldn’t the Shroud show that?
J
JesusReigns
Guest
That’s where I’m still skeptical. Honestly, for me it’s the visions I’m trusting as more valid. Whether they add up with the shroud is to be determined
Last edited:
H
Hope1960
Guest
Maybe the Shroud does show some of His beard pulled out. It’s hard to tell everything on it.
This book says something about the Shroud appearing to show part of Jesus’ beard plucked out. It doesn’t say it herein my link, but some pages of the book can be seen in Google, where it says that about His beard.
This book says something about the Shroud appearing to show part of Jesus’ beard plucked out. It doesn’t say it herein my link, but some pages of the book can be seen in Google, where it says that about His beard.
Last edited:
- Status