dUSt Posted November 17, 2003 Share Posted November 17, 2003 Like Don John said, even though science says that a body can't be supported solely by stakes driven through the hands, it is still very possible (and in my opinion, very likely) that Jesus was nailed through the base of his palms. I say this because of Catholic tradition in art depicting this, and because of the saints who experienced stigmata, where their wounds were in the palms of their hands. A platform supporting the feet would have allowed the stakes to be driven through the hands. It's also possible that the wrists were tied to the cross. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jake Huether Posted November 17, 2003 Share Posted November 17, 2003 Theresa Noiman (sp?), a stigmatist, had visions of Christ's Passion. Among other things, she notes, Christ was nailed through the hands (base of the palm), and his wrists / forarms were tied to the posts for support. I realize however that a.) the Church hasn't "okayed" her and b.) visions aren't the same as the real deal. Also, the Shroud of Turin shows that the nail went through the rists/ base of the palm at best. As a side note: Theresa states that the greatest suffering that Christ endured was due to his shoulder wound. The soldiers had pre-made holse on the cross beam, and so after they nailed one hand in, they had to dislocate his other arm in order to reach the other hole. Imagine, if they had to dislocate one arm in order to reach the hole, then when they lifted the cross, and his body weight caused his arms to "sag", that must have been excrushiating! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
God Conquers Posted November 17, 2003 Share Posted November 17, 2003 wow. I hadn't even considered that before. I'm hurting just thinking about it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Don John of Austria Posted November 17, 2003 Share Posted November 17, 2003 Of course we also must remember that no bones were broken so the nails must have been driven where they wouldn't break any bones. And of course if it was neccesary Christ was God his hands would hold the weight of the world if that is what was needed so that Scripture would be fulfilled. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Don John of Austria Posted November 17, 2003 Share Posted November 17, 2003 Of course we also must remember that no bones were broken so the nails must have been driven where they wouldn't break any bones. And of course if it was neccesary Christ was God his hands would hold the weight of the world if that is what was needed so that Scripture would be fulfilled. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Uncle Gus Posted November 18, 2003 Share Posted November 18, 2003 That's kind of a nonsense argument, though. The very reason He was being crucified (wrongly) was that he was not God, so the Romans would have crucified Him in the same way as they crucified any man. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Don John of Austria Posted November 18, 2003 Share Posted November 18, 2003 actually it is not a nonsense arguement. First the romans crusified him to keep the Jews happy nothing more, second many things where differant about His crucifixion than was standerd for starters, they didn't break his legs near the end of the day , they speared him. Tis was not normal and was done just so that the Scriptures would be fulfilled, God can intercede and make people do what ever he wants, furthermore there were lots of differant ways of crucifing people, and the meathod used would very from place to place and by the roman in charge. St andrew was Crucified on a big X. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Donna Posted November 18, 2003 Share Posted November 18, 2003 (edited) MP 15, good to see you! The base of the palm...to me this means toward the wrist...I can't remember the term Barbet used...by the way he studied the Holy Shroud extensively and did the experiments of crucifiction in the hand (center of palm proper, but also at the base). The hand is considered to include up to the wrist, right?. When indicating our forearm, we don't include the wrist. Isn't this so, too, w/ the ankle? It's not quite leg... but extention of the foot? At the palm's base is a place where no bones are, only many nerves (where is that Shroud book when ya need it?). But DJ is right, God could make it however so as not to break Our Lord's bones. Jake, I'm sure Theresa Numan will be "Okay-ed". Isn't she venerable? I think the Stigmatists (save Padre Pio) may take a little longer (ie Ven. Anne Catherine Emmerich). Edited November 18, 2003 by Donna Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cmotherofpirl Posted November 18, 2003 Share Posted November 18, 2003 THey didn't break his legs because he was already dead. THat was a procedure to speed up the suffocation in case the victim didn't die quickly enough. The spear thrust confirmed his death, blood and water came out because he had drowned. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Uncle Gus Posted November 18, 2003 Share Posted November 18, 2003 It rather defeated the "nice gesture" of not breaking his legs to go and stab his heart with a lance now, didn't it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PedroX Posted November 18, 2003 Share Posted November 18, 2003 The not breaking of legs was more than just a "nice gesture". Old Testament prophecy said that not a bone would be broken. Hence, no breaking of legs. peace... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Don John of Austria Posted November 19, 2003 Share Posted November 19, 2003 “he had drowned" What? You don't drown when you are crucified; you suffocate because you can't lift your chest anymore. The Water was also to fulfill Old Testament prophecy. And usually they broke the legs anyway that was the confirmation of your death, that you made no sound when your legs were broken, if you did you would soon die because of the inability to support yourself. I am, well versed in the Romans use of Crucifixion thank you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azriel Posted November 19, 2003 Share Posted November 19, 2003 I am, well versed in the Romans use of Crucifixion thank you. Which scares me more than just a little. :P Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
God Conquers Posted November 19, 2003 Share Posted November 19, 2003 Actually your lungs fill with blood and water, so you kinda do drown. It's a kind of drowning/suffocating combo. A "double whammy". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nikkan_hanil Posted November 19, 2003 Share Posted November 19, 2003 Holy carp. O_O Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now