Why all of a sudden is Jesus nailed through His arms?

  • Thread starter Thread starter BoomerangToo
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
What evidence have you of stigmata in the palms? I have heard there have been both; in my looking at pictures it is hard to tell but I think they could be in the wrist.
 
I’ve just tonight watched an interesting TV programme about this - it was actually trying to work out exactly how Jesus died.

To cut a long story short, the experts on this programme concluded that crucifixions were probably carried out by driving the nails through the back of the hands, the arms having been draped back over the crosspiece. They also concluded that the feet were nailed individually on either side of the upright pole, with a footrest. This would have prolonged the execution.
 
It is a “current trend” which is as old as the shroud of Turin, my friend …
BoomerangToo said:
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.
Click to expand...
 
I even started a thread about why stigmatist holes were in different places on the body, the response I got was that it would make sense to be where they thought it was.

For St Pio, it’s a tad far into the hand, not exactly to the wrist but not like in the middle of the hand.
 
Kei said:
I even started a thread about why stigmatist holes were in different places on the body, the response I got was that it would make sense to be where they thought it was.

For St Pio, it’s a tad far into the hand, not exactly to the wrist but not like in the middle of the hand.
Click to expand...
Check out the posts from CRM Brother in the thread Was a Padre Pio A Fraud?
 
BoomerangToo said:
This is just another chipping away of the legacy of Jesus for an unbelieving world and I don’t like it.
Click to expand...
Honestly.

How does whether the nail went in above the carpal bones, or below them, or between them change anything about what Jesus did for an unbelieving world? You should be much more concerned about the practice of displaying the cross without the body of Jesus on it!
 
I am concerned about that too. But the scriptures say he was nailed in His hands and feet. The Psalms say it as well. So if the current thinking is that He was nailed in between the ulna and radius in the forearm (what most incorrectly call the “wrist”) then both accounts in the scriptures are wrong, tradition is wrong and 99% of stigmatas are wrong. I just think this is a slippery slope that should be resisted. If the biblical accounts of Jesus are not seen as accurate, that is going to be a problem down the road.

We now have the Jesus-on-a-stake (JWs), the “ascended master” Jesus, and even the Jesus-that-never-existed-at-all. Where the nails were driven is just one more erosion of the facts. I’m sure this topic bothers others as well. We have to be able to trust scripture and tradition as being a factual account of the life, death and resurrection of Our Lord. Apparently discrepancies don’t seem to bother most of those who posted here.
 
BoomerangToo said:
I am concerned about that too. But the scriptures say he was nailed in His hands and feet. The Psalms say it as well. So if the current thinking is that He was nailed in between the ulna and radius in the forearm (what most incorrectly call the “wrist”) then both accounts in the scriptures are wrong, tradition is wrong and 99% of stigmatas are wrong. I just think this is a slippery slope that should be resisted. If the biblical accounts of Jesus are not seen as accurate, that is going to be a problem down the road.
Click to expand...
You must have missed some posts in the thread. It’s already been pointed out here, several times, that the word used for “hand” didn’t just mean what we think of as the hand, that it also included the forearm. So, the nails going between the ulna and radius would NOT mean that scripture and tradition were wrong.
 
BoomerangToo said:
But the scriptures say he was nailed in His hands and feet.
Click to expand...
Actually, they don’t.
BoomerangToo said:
The Psalms say it as well.
Click to expand...
Say what? That His wrist was not part of his hand? You are trying to project YOUR modern assumptions into the past!
BoomerangToo said:
both accounts in the scriptures are wrong, tradition is wrong and 99% of stigmatas are wrong.
Click to expand...
No.

Art is art. It is not part of the doctrine of the faith. Stigmatas appear wherever God wants them to appear.
BoomerangToo said:
I just think this is a slippery slope that should be resisted.
Click to expand...
I think your thinking process could use a little more oil. Maybe it would not work so rigidly?
BoomerangToo said:
If the biblical accounts of Jesus are not seen as accurate, that is going to be a problem down the road.
Click to expand...
So far, you are the only person here asserting that the Biblical accounts are not accurate. You appear to be doing this because you have a pre-conceived notion about what they ought to say?
BoomerangToo said:
We now have the Jesus-on-a-stake (JWs), the “ascended master” Jesus, and even the Jesus-that-never-existed-at-all. Where the nails were driven is just one more erosion of the facts.
Click to expand...
It seems to me that you are making a mountain out of a molehill.
BoomerangToo said:
We have to be able to trust scripture and tradition as being a factual account of the life, death and resurrection of Our Lord.
Click to expand...
Yes, but the trust we need is in Sacred Tradition, not human customs such as artistic representations.

Are you also bothered by the fact that Paul may not have been riding a horse when He fell to the ground?

The bottom line is that whether the nails went in above the wrist or below, it does not change the factual account of the life, death, and resurrection of our lord.
BoomerangToo said:
Apparently discrepancies don’t seem to bother most of those who posted here.
Click to expand...
Well, for us, there is no discrepancy, because we all accept that the Greek word can refer to any part of the arm below the elbow to the tips of the fingers!

Here is a photo of a recent archeological find of a nail driven through the heelbone.
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

answersingenesis.org

Depicting the Crucifixion of Jesus Christ

Portraying well-known scenes from the life of Jesus Christ at the Creation Museum required much research and careful attention to detail.
answersingenesis.org answersingenesis.org

If the feet were nailed with two small nails through the heel rather than one through the top of the foot would that change the doctrine of the faith?

The truth is that crucifixion was common, and most crucifixions were done with what was close at hand. In some cases it was a pole of wood, and most of the soldiers did not carry large quantities of rope with them to tie up the bodies. They were attached to the wood in the most expedient way possible.

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

zainabslounge.blogspot.com

Mass crucifixion: The Saudi Arabian Rome

Sheik Baqir Al-Nimr " Washington’s closest ally in the Arab world, the dictatorial monarchy of Saudi Arabia, ushered in the New Ye...
zainabslounge.blogspot.com zainabslounge.blogspot.com
 
Last edited:
guanophore, my friend, the scriptures say five times that He was nailed in His hands.
“Unless I see the nail marks in his hands and put my finger where the nails were, and put my hand into his side, I will not believe.” John 20:25

“Then he said to Thomas, “Put your finger here; see my hands.” John 20:27

“Look at My hands and My feet. It is I Myself.” Luke 24:39

“And when He had said this, He showed them His hands and feet.” Luke 24:40

“For dogs have encompassed me; an assembly of evil-doers have surrounded me: they pierced my hands and my feet.” Psalm 22:16
Click to expand...
The Greeks have a word for “hand”: Cheira. It is used in all the above NT quotes. The Greeks also have a word for “arm”: Brachión. They did make a distinction between the hand and the arm.

I never, ever said the biblical accounts are not accurate. I said the modern depictions of Christ’s crucifixion are not accurate. The bible is clear. He was nailed in His hands.

I would think that any Christian would be concerned that the accounts of His crucifixion are being chipped away by falsehoods. These depictions of the nails in the forearms are new, and we will, unfortunately, be seeing a lot more of this from now on.
 
And cheira encompasses the entire segment from elbow to fingers not merely wrist to fingers.

You’re solo on this one. Mountain out of molehill. Non issue. Obsession.
 
porthos11 said:
cheira encompasses the entire segment from elbow to fingers not merely wrist to fingers.
Click to expand...
How then did the NT translators decide to translate ‘cheira’ as ‘hand’ rather than ‘forearm’, ‘wrist’, or ‘fingers’? How did they decide which part of the lower limb this referred to if the term can mean anything below the elbow?
 
Last edited:
Context and tradition I suppose.

Acts 12:7 Suddenly an angel of the Lord appeared and a light shone in the cell. He struck Peter on the side and woke him up. “Quick, get up!” he said, and the chains fell off Peter’s wrists.

The word translated as wrists in the Gk is the same word - cheira.
 
Last edited:
BartholomewB said:
Peter was handcuffed with chains? Not wristcuffed?
Click to expand...
The translation I quoted was the NIV.

The KJV translates it thus: And, behold, the angel of the Lord came upon him, and a light shined in the prison: and he smote Peter on the side, and raised him up, saying, Arise up quickly. And his chains fell off from his hands.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top