In pictures, it shows that Jesus was nailed to the cross by his palms. It would have been physically impossible for that to happen for the reason that his weight would cause his hands to rip from the nails. Yes, his feet were nailed too, but still impossible. A true crucifiction is when A person is nailed inbetween the two bones in the wrist.

do you call BS? I do



however, in The Passion (sorry, heh), they had a piece of wood underneath his feet as well. That could have supported him enough to prevent his palms from ripping.

You understand pictures of Jesus crucified aren't photographs... right?

Another method was tying their wrists to the planks of wood and then jamming spikes through their hands...

quote:Originally posted by Lovley:





however, in The Passion (sorry, heh), they had a piece of wood underneath his feet as well. That could have supported him enough to prevent his palms from ripping.

I am not trying to say this is true, but according to the Bible there WAS a wooden wedge underneath his feet, which helped support His body weight. Also, Jesus was not up on the cross for very long. He was crucified around 12 o'clock, and was taken down shortly after dying that same day, before nightfall.

Jesus wasnt crucified. The greek has been mistranslated. He wasnt tied/nailed to a cross, he was nailed to a post, or a tree. His hands would of been above his head.

Nevermind is correct on this one indeed. His crucifix was a tree, not a cross.

No, he was thrown off Niagara Falls in a barrel.

so what about the story of Simon of Cyrene who carries Jesus' cross? Only John mentions Jesus carrying his own cross. So they carried a tree instead?

The NT was written over a period of 250 years; whichever one was written closer to the time of the actual crucifiction is more likely to be accurate on the description of events.

Back in the day they did have the little things you stood on when you were being crucified, and you didn't actually die from blood loss, can you guess what killed you? go on, try, i dare you. Wrong! Victims of crucifiction died of suffocation, the way they were nailed up compressed their chest, and they broke their legs to hurry it up, because then they couldn't hold themselves up and they suffocated much faster. Thats actually one of the dodgey things about the crucifictions story, it only took 3-6 hours for jesus to die up on the cross, and they didn't have to break his legs. Usually it took crucified people much longer to die, they could last days. Don't you feel that much more learned now, go tell your friends!

the fact is that a nail through your palms will not hold your wieght, it will be torn out. it will hold through your wrists though.

alot of the pictures i have seen show a ledge they stood on. seems a bit pointless if they nail your feet, but whatever.

Jesus Christ was nailed through the hands, and was tied by his wrists to the post. Simple as that.

Can we hear a little more about this icorrect greek translation? sounds very interesting.

There's a lot that is pretty iffy when it comes to translation from Greek and Hebrew. For instance, read:

http://www.2think.org/hii/virgin.shtml

Could this mean that the Virgin Mary was intended to be known as a young woman, not necessarily a woman who has not had sex? If this was the case and it was indeed mistranslated, the whole concept of Mary having a child but not having sexual intercourse was totally made up by those who wrote the Christian Bible. Only makes you wonder what else they could have fucked up on translating..

To be honest, I do not believe in the bible. I think the bible is a large book of fairy tales with morals, that people are brainwashed to live by. If you think about it, Christianity is a cult. Think of it this way, pretend you do not know anything about Christianity and the "Holy Bible" for a second, and you run into a Christian missionary and you hear him/her preech. You would be thinking to yourself "What a bunch of wierdos they are, who in their right mind would believe they should worship some dead magician guy whose mother was a "virgin" and both died 2000 years ago, and also have the boldness to tell me that I will go to some kind of "hell" if I do not talk to an invisible entity (pray) every day?"

quote:In pictures

Catholicism, despite all Roman documentation follows the belief that Christ had the nails driven into his palms. Roman documentation states, however, that it was driven into the wrist (which has been proven to be sufficient to hold a body up on a cross).

Furthermore, in the 3rd Century AD, Emperor Constantine sent his mother into the Holy Land to retrieve Jesus' headboard that was attached to the cross (the one that says in 3 different languages 'Here is the king of the Jews' or something similar). His mother found it and brought it back, and we still have it today. Most scientists dismissed it as a fake, because all three languages were written right to left on it, when only Hebrew is written right to left, and Greek and Latin are left to right. However, an analysis using modern methods, and marking the phrasing, abbreviations and the like, put the writting as the same time as Jesus would have been crucified. Likewise, if the scribe had been Jewish (as is quite possible), then it's not unlikely for him to have written all three languages right to left. In fact, the headboard is now considered to be the genuine article, and proof of Jesus' crucifixion.

quote:Originally posted by Durell:

You understand pictures of Jesus crucified aren't photographs... right?

Another method was tying their wrists to the planks of wood and then jamming spikes through their hands...

Also, in the earliest known pictures of Jesus's supposed crucificion it does not show the nails in his palms; it shows them in his wrists with his thumbs folded over into his palms, just as they would be if he had been impaled through the wrists.

So, technically, the earliest dipictions of the famous crucificion were anatomically correct.

Cheers,

Lost

As Lost said- the wrist is a definate goer, as it can support the weight is nailed btwn. the two bones. The wrist has usually been considered part of the hand. The one gospel that actually talks about the method of crucifixtion, is Luke's, and he is elsewhere said to be a doctor.

The tying of the wrists with nailed hands also works.

The crucfixees generally carried the cross beam- which leaves the door open to either a tree or a prefab setup.

Hex again is using stupidly late dates for the NT. There is fairly good evidence for all the gospels being before AD70, not to mention the letters and very solid evidence for, at the least, being finished in the 1st century.

As ive mentioned before in crucifixtion threads there were multiple possible cause for death in an execution like Jesus'. As someone mentioned it includes asphyxiation, ruptured heart and massive blood loss (due to scourging- recipiants of Roman scourgings regularly did not survive).

Those that executed him knew what they where doing, the empire did thousands of crucifixtions. They didn't stuff this sort of thing up- especially in a case as high profile as this.

The concept of "the ledge" for the feet was to prolong the process- it allowed the victim to push themselves up to release the strain across the chest and diaphram and allow them to breathe. Once they could no longer raise themselves, they rapidly asphyxiate. Hence the breaking of the legs to hasten the process.

Translation fuckups:

People often ask why there are so many versions of the english bible. This is part of the reason. The important thing to remeber is that by comparing the earliest texts we have (some within 50 years of the time of writing), with what we have today, any mistranslations and "editing" are readily discernable to any scholar of greek or hebrew. I can get the stats on areas with questionable translations if anyone wants.

re:Virgin Mary, you are correct in that the term used is that for a "young woman". However is that this same word was used interchangably (from memory- i could be wrong) for woman who was not yet married i.e. a virgin. That Jesus' birth was being attributed to a virign is undoubted as throughtout his life his opponents often made reference to his birth being shady.