H
Hope1960
Guest
Yes, He suffered greatly.
- Status
P
PetraG
Guest
I fail to see what difference it would make if the stigmata of saints were or weren’t all in exactly the same location on their bodies. They would allow Providence to decide how essential that is, because it is a symbolic consolation not ironclad proof of sanctity. I can do that.
Those who want to make the stigmata a proof of something should remember the Church does not. The Church is more concerned with being on the lookout for those who have lied about this out of human frailty. There have been very convincing case who were discovered because they were convicted not by human discovery but by conviction by the Spirit, and they confessed.
Those who want to make the stigmata a proof of something should remember the Church does not. The Church is more concerned with being on the lookout for those who have lied about this out of human frailty. There have been very convincing case who were discovered because they were convicted not by human discovery but by conviction by the Spirit, and they confessed.
Last edited:
D
Dlee
Guest
John 20:26, Thomas says he won’t believe unless he sees Jesus’ nail scarred hands. Jesus shows him his hands and tells him to put his hand in His side. Thomas believed.
H
Hope1960
Guest
Wasn’t the Greek word for hand and wrist the same word?
D
Dlee
Guest
I’ve heard that also. My point was that mdgspencer says “If you look at the Gospels you will see that they just say Jesus was crucified. They don’t say where the nails went. To show that they went through his hands is just a fiction.” It wasn’t fiction to Thomas. I’ve also heard that the normal for Roman crucifixion was through the wrist.
G
giuseppe96
Guest
Scientists seem to think that it’s more plausible. But most depictions of the Crucifixion show Our Lord with the nails through His palms, and his feet nailed to a footrest. I also take into consideration that stigmatics bled from their palms, not their wrists.
H
Hope1960
Guest
Would the footrest make it so that if Christ was nailed in and through the palms, His body wouldn’t fall off the cross?
B
BoomerangToo
Guest
“See my hands and my feet, that it is I myself. Touch me, and see. For a spirit does not have flesh and bones as you see that I have.” And when He had said this, He showed them His hands and His feet.” Luke 24:39-40
B
BoomerangToo
Guest
The three photos show the nails in His arms, between the ulna and radius. The wrist is part of the hand:
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
Depicting Jesus with nails in His arms is not historical or traditional and to depict Him this way casts doubt on the veracity of the gospel accounts. It is a slippery slope that can lead to denying the entire Gospel. These depictions in pop culture are new and disturbing.
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
Depicting Jesus with nails in His arms is not historical or traditional and to depict Him this way casts doubt on the veracity of the gospel accounts. It is a slippery slope that can lead to denying the entire Gospel. These depictions in pop culture are new and disturbing.
B
BoomerangToo
Guest
I agree. It could have been that way. The Shroud seems to show that.
G
giuseppe96
Guest
Most likely
B
BoomerangToo
Guest
I have read that the Greeks did not have a word for wrist. It was hand or arm.
No it’s not and you’re obsessing over nothing. The Greek word covers everything from elbow to fingertips. It is neither new nor disturbing. It casts doubt on nothing and does not contradict the Gospels in any way.
And since this is clearly an obsessive issue rather than anything based on reason i will bow out now.
B
BartholomewB
Guest
The words “hand,” “wrist,” “nail,” and “rope” appear nowhere in connection with the Crucifixion in any of the four Gospels (Luke 23:33 and parallels).
After the Resurrection, Jesus shows the disciples his hands and his feet (in Luke) or his hands and his side (in John), but as others have pointed out on this thread, the Greek word χειρ can mean “wrist” as well as “hand.”
Last edited:
P
PetraG
Guest
Let’s just say that of all the truly disturbing things having to do with the faith, this one does not even make the list. It is not just low on the list. It does not belong on the list.
Here is why: No one who had actually seen a crucifixion with their own eyes–let alone seen the Crucifixion itself–saw any need whatsoever to depict this form of execution graphically or with literal precision. Such a depiction is not given in any of the four Gospel accounts, nor anywhere in the New Testament. That there were five wounds: yes. That there was water and blood from the side of Christ. Yes. The exact location of the wounds relative to precise anatomical markers: no. Such details were not important to those spreading the Gospel, such details were not even included in the Gospels, and we should not invest them with an importance they do not have and were very obviously never intended to have. Even the stigmata are about a whole-person relationship between a member of the faithful and “Jesus Christ, and him crucified” (1 Cor. 2:2), not about the particularity of the outward sign of that.
Our Lord has been depicted looking as if he were a fat baby born in Germany. Our Lady has been depicted as a woman of a people native to Mexico. It is out of place to categorize these iconic depictions as anything that “casts doubt on the veracity of the gospel accounts.” That is because they don’t…quite the opposite.
Having said that, I think the artwork that is upsetting the OP is itself ironically believing itself to be “fixing” depictions that the artists believe strain credulity and therefore harm the catechetical value of traditional crucifixes. Nothing could be farther from the truth. The later artists themselves do not get the point that these details were never the point…that is, that meditations on the Passion are off the mark if the viewer is distracted by decisions made by an artist concerning details deemed irrelevant, not even included in the inspired accounts.
Last edited:
B
BoomerangToo
Guest
I’m not debating whether Jesus was nailed through His palms, wrist or arm. I am pointing out the current trend, and that is what it is, a current trend, to depict Him nailed by the arms, thereby ignoring 2000 years of Christian tradition. This is just another chipping away of the legacy of Jesus for an unbelieving world and I don’t like it.
None of which is of any relevance. It’s simply art. The first depiction of crucifixion did not come around till 300 years after the fact, after crucifixion had been abolished. The depiction of Jesus in the crucifixion is simply artistic. The Church does not derive any dogmatic teachings from paintings. For all we know, the nails were driven through Jesus’ heels at a side angle, a very painful way to position a crucified body.
Mountain out of molehill. Of all the things to obsess about. Really.
P
phil19034
Guest
Good articleA nice brief article written by Father Kenneth Doyle and published in the Arlington Catholic Herald entitled Nailed Through Wrists or Hands ? which appears to integrate most of what has been posted thus far on the thread (precluding any personal propensities or idiosyncrasies)
K
Kei
Guest
Various languages refer to the wrist as the hand. English is really specific and technical.
B
BartholomewB
Guest
Naturally your personal likes and dislikes are nobody’s business but your own. However, you posted your OP to be read and, presumably, to be replied to. That’s what comments threads are for. You must have been aware, when you posted it, that some commenters might disagree with you.
- Status