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

[guanophore]

the scriptures say five times that He was nailed in His hands.

Yes, and each time, the use of the word includes the part of the anatomy that exists from the elbow to the fingers.

In fact, when hands were chopped off as punishment, they were chopped at the base of the wrist where the radius and ulna converge.

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.

Yes, the brachion extends from the shoulder down. The loss of a whole arm (from the shoulder) would be called a brachial amputation.

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.

If you wish to interpolate your modern understanding, influenced by centuries of artwork, into where the nails pierced His flesh, then I suppose that is your perogative. It would seem to me that a better use of your energy would be in spreading the message to a dying world that He was pierced for our afflictions.

I would think that any Christian would be concerned that the accounts of His crucifixion are being chipped away by falsehoods.

Well, keep chipping away at them, and calling them falsehoods. I am sure eventually you can also distract a number of other Christians from what they should be doing also!

These depictions of the nails in the forearms are new, and we will, unfortunately, be seeing a lot more of this from now on.

I suppose you could expand your postings and complaints, to widen the degree to which this is an unfortunate problem!

 

[BoomerangToo]

Thanks for that link. It was very interesting and informative what patrick457 posted. My own research showed that the Greeks had many words, like we do, to describe the parts of the limbs.

brachion is the upper arm
pechus is the forearm from elbow to fingertips
olene is the ulna of forearm
kerkis is the radius of the forearm
omos is the shoulder
karpos is the wrist portion of the hand
cheir is the hand

I’m not going to claim I’m a Greek scholar, but contrary to what some have posted, I have not found any evidence that “cheir” means the entire lower arm. Seeing how all the translations of “cheir” is rendered “hand”, it is right to assume the nail was in His hand, which is what I have been saying throughout this thread. The modern depictions of nails in the forearm are innovations that don’t mesh with the scriptures or tradition. I found an article that expresses my feelings exactly: Was Jesus nailed to the cross by his hands or by his wrists?

I firmly think that Catholics need to guard our traditions from assaults like this, even if at first glance it seems small or petty. If the nails were in His arm, then the location of every legitimate stigmata is in error. Do we really want to tread into this territory? I think not. There is already enough doubt in this world.

Thanks everyone for participating in this lively thread! :crazy_face:

 

[BoomerangToo]

In fact, when hands were chopped off as punishment, they were chopped at the base of the wrist where the radius and ulna converge.

Well of course they were.

 

[dochawk]

I’ve also heard that the normal for Roman crucifixion was through the wrist.

The norm was not to use nails at all!

Crucifixion took days under normal circumstances, because . . .

Would the footrest make it so that if Christ was nailed in and through the palms, His body wouldn’t fall off the cross?

The vice

Would the footrest make it so that if Christ was nailed in and through the palms, His body wouldn’t fall off the cross?

The condemned had to push up against the footstep just to breathe. Death by asphyxiation occurred when he lost the strength to do so.

Death in only three hours wasn’t just “unusual”; it only could occur because He was scourged half to death beforehand.

But the scriptures say he was nailed in His hands and feet.

Congratulations! You are in high company with your insistence on using the eating of words in your own language rather than Greek!

This is exactly the same way we get the argument about the Filioque, except that you’ve chosen a different language than Latin.

hawk

 

[BoomerangToo]

eating of words

Eating words?

 

[guanophore]

Well of course they were.

But if the wrist bones are left intact, the recipient has more options and mobility in the end of the limb, where chopping out the wrist bones leaves a much more handicapped stump!

Death in only three hours wasn’t just “unusual”; it only could occur because He was scourged half to death beforehand.

Or, perhaps, because what needed to occur was finished, and He gave up His spirit. Perhaps He had the power to lay down His life, and the power to take it up again?

 

[dochawk]

Eating words?

grr. autocorrect.

“meaning” of words.

hawk

p.s. I guess bookworms would eat worms . . .

 

[dochawk]

Or, perhaps, because what needed to occur was finished, and He gave up His spirit. Perhaps He had the power to lay down His life, and the power to take it up again?

He was still truly man, and to die as a man required a mortal cause.

A healthy human body, let alone that of a laborer (carpenter, fisherman) doesn’t die after three hours in that situation, giving up the spirit or not.

Brutally scourged is another matter.

hawk

 

[BoomerangToo]

Or, perhaps, because what needed to occur was finished, and He gave up His spirit. Perhaps He had the power to lay down His life, and the power to take it up again?

I think God’s justice was satisfied, the debt was paid, so God said, “Enough!”