Hands or Wrists?

[pentecostal girl]

I got into a discussion with one my friends the other day, and she was talking about it wouldn't have been possible to be nailed to the cross by his hands because it would break through the tissue. The bible states otherwise I also have evidence to back up what the bible says, but I would like to everyone's thoughts first. Then I'll state mine

God Bless

 

[rwl]

IIRC I did read some where that they actually drive the nails through the wrist. Between the ulna and radius bones.

 

[Beoga]

your friend is right, if it Jesus were nailed in the hands AS WE SPEAK of hands then it would slip out. He was nailed in the wrist.
I say "as we speak" of hands because back then and in that writing, the hand was considered from i think the fore-arm to the hand, at least from the wrist to hand.

 

[pentecostal girl]

your friend is right, if it Jesus were nailed in the hands AS WE SPEAK of hands then it would slip out. He was nailed in the wrist.
I say "as we speak" of hands because back then and in that writing, the hand was considered from i think the fore-arm to the hand, at least from the wrist to hand.

The thing about the nails slipping through his hands, is incorrect Let me tell you why! Back then they would break their legs, so that they would be unable to breathe, so I could see how that would tear trough their hands, but the thing is that Jesus's legs were not broken. In the OT is was prophicized that none of Jesus's bones would be broken, that's why that they stabbed in his side. Since his legs were not broken then it is fully possible for him to support his weight on his legs, and not tear through his hands The bible also says that it was in his hands. I think maybe they could have done it to other people, but I think Jesus was the exception to that rule I hope this makes sense, and if it doesn't then please ask and I'll try to clear it up

God Bless

 

[Oblio]

Except for the fact that after He collapsed and died, he would no longer be supporting Himself by His legs.

 

[Crazy Liz]

PG, it seems like this is important to you. What difference does it make whether it was the palms of his hands or his wrists?

I have a feeling there is something more important than this fact that you are trying to prove, but I'm having trouble guessing what it might be.

 

[Dad Ernie]

I got into a discussion with one my friends the other day, and she was talking about it wouldn't have been possible to be nailed to the cross by his hands because it would break through the tissue. The bible states otherwise I also have evidence to back up what the bible says, but I would like to everyone's thoughts first. Then I'll state mine.

Greetings Pentecostal girl,

http://mrmom.amaonline.com/crucifixion.htm
"The crucifixion begins...Jesus is quickly thrown backward with His shoulders against the wood. (Crucifixes today show the nails through the palms. Roman historical accounts have shown that the nails were driven between the small bones of the wrists and not through the palms. Nails driven through the palms will strip out between the fingers when they support the weight of a human body. The misconception may have come about through a misunderstanding of Jesus' words to Thomas, "Observe my hands". Anatomists, both modern and ancient, have always considered the wrists as part of the hand.)

You may want to do a search on the internet with these words: Jesus hands nails anatomy wrist.

You can use google.com and just put ALL the words in the search line. I had known the wrist was considered as part of the hand a long time ago and this is just one excerpt to examine.

Blessings,

Dad Ernie

 

[Crazy Liz]

You might also be interested in this article in the Catholic Encyclopedia about the cross in art. Realistic depictions of the crucifixion did not begin to appear in Christian art until long after the use of crucifixion as a means of execution had been abolished. Few crosses appear in Christian art before the time of Constantine, who abolished the practice as a means of execution, and it was century after that before any figures (disguised) appear on crosses in art. Realistic figures do not appear until a century or two after this.

Our ideas about the crucifixion are heavily influenced by religious art, but the art itself was not necessarily realistic. As far as we know, no crucifix was ever painted by any artist who had witnessed an actual crucifixion. Like most religious art, these representations come from the artist's imagination applied to the verbal story with greater or lesser amounts of knowledge of realistic details and artistic license.

 

[Reformationist]

PG, it seems like this is important to you. What difference does it make whether it was the palms of his hands or his wrists?

I was wondering the same thing...

/me walks away wondering what it means that he wonders about the same things as someone named Crazy Liz...

God bless

 

[rwl]

The thing about the nails slipping through his hands, is incorrect Let me tell you why! Back then they would break their legs, so that they would be unable to breathe, so I could see how that would tear trough their hands, but the thing is that Jesus's legs were not broken.

You are right and wrong.

Jesus's legs wern't broken because he wasn't alive long enough for them to break his legs. A person being crusified could actually 'last' longer then one might expect. The persons legs were broken when/if they proved to be living longer then expected on the cross. That way they would only be able to pull themselves up to breath, not pull with the arms and push with the legs. The spear in the side was what was done as a 'check' to be certain the person was dead.

Jesus physically could have held out longer on the cross. He decided when it was his time.

 

[LilAngelHeart]

Hi there,

I agree with most of the others, it was most likely His wrists that the nails went through, not the hands as we think of it. The wrist was considered part of the hand back then. That still doesn't take away from what Jesus did for us dying on the cross. When it comes to how Biblical things are potrayed in pictures, it's not to be taken literally, just like how the traditional pic of how Jesus is pictured is not accurate, niether are pics of the devil as red with 2 horns and a pitch fork. Also, just like how Jesus' birthday is not really on Dec 24th either. The Bible says hands, but back then the wrosts were part of the hands to them. How it's shown in pictures or art is to be taken symbolically, not as literal true depictions.

 

[Reformationist]

niether are pics of the devil as red with 2 horns and a pitch fork.

Here's some trivia. The "picture" of the devil in a red suit with horns and a pitchfork was devised by...the church. Back in the Middle Ages they believed that the best way to fight against the devil was to attack his pride and so they tried to ridicule him by conceptualizing him in some comical outfit. The image stuck with the public and is often used to this day to depict satan.

Also, just like how Jesus' birthday is not really on Dec 24th either.

Umm...don't you mean December 25th?

God bless

 

[LilAngelHeart]

Here's some trivia. The "picture" of the devil in a red suit with horns and a pitchfork was devised by...the church. Back in the Middle Ages they believed that the best way to fight against the devil was to attack his pride and so they tried to ridicule him by conceptualizing him in some comical outfit. The image stuck with the public and is often used to this day to depict satan.



Umm...don't you mean December 25th?

God bless

Wow, that is interesting! I didn't know that. LOL!

And yes, I meant Dec 25th. Hahahahaha! I didn't realize I had written 24th. LOL! My brother's birthday is on the Dec 24th, that's probably what made me say that LOL!

 

[n2wolves]

I saw a study on the Discovery Channel claiming that if he was nailed thru his palm's and also thru his feet with his knees slightly bent, his legs would bare most of the weight and his hands would remain intact.

 

[Crazy Liz]

* Reformationist walks away wondering what it means that he wonders about the same things as someone named Crazy Liz...

Then may I conclude you are not a Dostoevsky fan?

 

[Reformationist]

Then may I conclude you are not a Dostoevsky fan?

I guess not. I don't know who that is. Sorry.

God bless

 

[Oblio]

I guess not. I don't know who that is. Sorry.

God bless

Is Outrage !

 

[Reformationist]

Is Outrage !

Okay, I feel sufficiently unintelligent.

So who is he?

God bless

 

[rwl]

He wrote Crime And Punishment and many other books.

Check him out. http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&q=Dostoevsky

 

[Crazy Liz]

Crazy Lizaveta is a character in Dostoevsky's The Brothers Karamazov.