What are your thoughts on Stigmata? I'll post more on this later. I'm making this topic as I watch "Is it real?: Stigmata" on National Geographic. So far my opinion on the entire subject is a bit skepticle, but I have no sure answer. I don't disbelieve it and I don't believe it. The only thing I find funny is that the only explaination [so far in the show] science can give is "the mind" is doing. And people talk about Christians assigning something to God when they can't understand it. They don't even know if the mind is capable of burning holes through your hands and feet, and they don't even understand the brain fully but yet they still assign things to being done through the mind when they don't have an explaination. Come on now! Hopefuly by the end of the show they'll be a better explaination.

Well on another thread someone pointed out that stigmata has appeared both on the wrists and the hands. And my response was that there was a documentary that stigmata may be related to the mind. And scientists were doing tests with hypnosis I think. To me, the subconscious mind can be powerful. I hope we fully understand it in the future.

Well, show is over, and yes they discussed how some peopel had them on their hands and others on their wrists, but most stayed on the hands. Then, a scientists tested an older theory that, if nailed on the cross through his hands, Jesus' hands would wrip, but, the theory was incorrect and Jesus could have been nailed through his hands. The weight is mostly put on his legs, and not his hands. [most stigmata cases are in the hands and not the wrist]. The only conclusion they could come up with is "self affliction" and/or "the mind". The first one in my opinion is the only valid one, since we don't even know exactly what the mind can do. We shouldn't assign things to the mind when we don't even know if it's capable of doing so. There was one scientists, however, who admitted to watching stigmata happen right in front of his eyes.

But it had to be one or the other either way. Unless Jesus had both lol.

I hate to disagree with you Zero, but thats wrong, even if his feet where nailed to the cross his hands still would have been pulling downwards and yes they would have torn right through, so he had to have been nailed by the wrists, it makes sense!! Seriusly you have to imagine being in that situation!

That is why I don't believe in the stigmata, where they are supposed to have bled from their hands...

Some people also report marks on the head (crown of thorns) and even the piercing on the side. But this has been on both sides. I hope no one *tries* that sort of self-mutilation for attention.

Becky's_Mom, they did a test on a man [he wasn't really nailed to it but they simulated]. The first theory was that it would produce about 200+ pounds of weight on the hands [the hands on average can handle about 80] if he were nailed to it by his hands, therefore ripping the hands. A later test showed that this was only the case during "free hanging" when the feet/legs weren't supported. When the feet were supported [nailed to the cross] the weight pulling down on the hands was only around 60-70 pounds. His hands wouldn't have ripped. Even when the person they were testing on grew tired out and let himself hang a bit more, the weight was still focused on his LEGS.

Yele, you're right, it was only one and not both. So that would rule out the people who had the marks on the wrists. One women had a cross on her forehead and they tested the blood and it really was hers, and the wound was real, they just could't explain how it happend. She contacted the crew right when it started to happen but right when they got there it had stopped bleeding. That's when they brought her in for testing but couldn't pinpoint any explainations.




Seriously. They need help.

His hands wouldn't rip if he didn't have support. But then why did he die so quickly is what I'm wondering. Weren't there people on crossed that hung for days? I thought they died because of something to do with the lungs (too much weight) and dehydration or something. Also, Jesus was whipped many times (think to Passion of the Christ). I forget how many lashes, but people with stigmata rarely show this.

Well, how does that matter? [Hypothetically] Why would God have to show other marks on the person just because he showed the holes in the hands and feet?

I've had something similar to a stigmata happen to me that ive explained on this board. It wasnt the wounds of Jesus, it was a cross that appeared on my right hand while sitting on a bus looking at a church- at that exact moment i was very confused about God and religion and suddenly my right hand had a cross with blood on it. I was shocked at first, wiped the blood off, when i arrived at school i had 4 scabs on each tip of the cross that lasted a few days, so it wasnt my "imagination". It was a sign. I think stigmatas are possible- spiritually and physically.

Well then it's not consistent with the wounds Jesus had.

Yeah it is. It's some of the wounds. I'm sure if he'd inflic all of his wounds upon someone they'd be nearly dead.


How's that not consistant with his wounds? It's only the fact that they don't have ALL of his wounds.




Awsome story, too bad you didn't take pictures.

I think the hands would rip with the weight. There's just nothing to hold the body together. Here are some theories though to work around that:

The nails were put through the wrists (my favoured belief).
The nails were put through the hands, with rope lashed around the wrists for support (plausible).
There were two sets of nails, one driven through the hands and one driven through the wrists (I was told this by a Mormon missionary, I think that's their standard belief - I am skeptical of this belief, but it might explain why stigmatics [is that what you call someone who's had stigmata?] sometimes have bleeding from the wrist, and sometimes from the hands).

Overall, I am skeptical of stigmata. Though i guess it might be possible (anything is for my God), but I just don't see a point to it really. Of course, in the end, it doesn't really matter I don't think. Whether it is real or not is not going to affect how I believe or behave.

Just my thoughts on the matter

Regards, PA

My favored belief always was nails through the wrist also. But, they did test it, and the conclusion was that the hands wouldn't rip.

The Bible never says how many lashes he receives. People theorize that it was 31 (I think, though I can't remember the exact number). Gideon or Lord Um can probably tell you better, but it's the Jewish Law that that is the maximum number of lashings under their Law (or was it Roman Law, I can't remember - I haven't studied this in sooooo long).

Sorry I can't give more details, but the general idea is that Jesus would have received the maximum lashes the Law would allow.

But the lashings could have just as easily been administered under Roman Law as Jewish. One of those (as I said, I can't remember which) doesn't have a limit, so he could have literally been beaten unto death, and barely clinging to life when he was placed on the cross. That would explain the quick death.

But I'm rambling. You get the idea.

Regards, PA

Sorry Zero but I still believe that he was nailed by the wrists, and I still believe that the hands couldn't hold the weight

THERE IS SO MUCH WE DON'T KNOW ABOUT THE MIND AND WHAT IT CAN DO- I suspect that, if a person really believes in such manifestation, it can happen. It doesn't mean it is from God, but, if it enhances your spirituality to will yourself to bleed, who am I to judge. I will state that this, and any other psychic abilities, come from God, but it is the believer that makes it happen, and not God directly. It's right up there with levitation (found in christian and buddhist lore, both). I'd love to see either one. I have seen other stuff, whether you believe it or not. I have been to Passover Seders where a portion of the wine in Elijah's cup visibly disappeared when the door was opened for him.The best manifestation I saw was at a picnic. One of my occultist friends I used to hang out with was supposed to be a "pyrotic" (fire starter). I had always assumed it was some kind of inside joke. We got rained out at the picnic, and the coals were wet, as in, I checked them myself, cold and wet. What to do. If I had not seen it myself, I would have doubted. With empty hands, the guy stepped up to the barbecue, closed his eyes, and touched the edge of the barbecue with both hands. As the Gods and Goddesses are my witnesses, it burst into flames! It really happened, and I was standing right in front of him, on the other side of the barbecue. If someone can make that happen with their mind, why not stigmata?

It's not "consistent" because they don't necessarily have all of them.


Yes, that would, I'll look into it.

I did a thread on this back in the day. Check it out if ya want.

Thread

i liked the movie "stigmata", but "dogma" was funnier.

And what makes you think God would want to inflict ALL of the wounds? And not just the nail marks as a sign to that person?


Gideon, so, if we can't explain something, it's ok to attribute it to the mind, but it's wrong to attribute it to God? We don't have any proof of either and we don't even know that the mind can make holes through your hands and feet.

not even what I said. let's review:


are you asking me what i meant? Did you read the whole thing about the fire? I've seen miracles happen right in front of me.read it again.it comes from god, but it is manifested by the believer, whatever the faith.

If you read my posts you'll notice I say not all. Some people get those marks, some don't. Hence, not consistent.

because it is caused by the bearer, according to their beliefs, as i said.

Of course if they are subconsciously creating these (according to scientists). That's why there are different wounds (some on the hands, some on the wrists). It was on a documentary.

That is my point. Re-read that post carefuly. You're saying that it's not consistant with Jesus' wounds because they don't have all of the wounds. I'm asking, what makes you think God needs to inflict ALL of the wounds for it to be consistant with Jesus' wounds? Holes in their hands, holes in Jesus' hands, that's consistant enough for me. If they'd have all of Jesus' wounds they'd probably die.


And again, what proof do Scientists have that your mind can cause you to put holes through your body? It seems the more logical explaination is that they're causing these wounds purposeley and physicaly.

I'm explaining why it isn't consistent. Not to have all the wounds is not consistent given that some people have it and others do not. See what I mean? That's an inconsistency.

But some have holes in the wrists, another inconsistency.

Not necessarily. We weren't there when it happened. We don't know exactly what caused his death. It was speculated that there was far too much weight on his lungs causing slow asphyxiation I believe.

They were doing a test with hypnosis and they suggested that a person's hand was being burned with a cigarette (it wasn't) and marks appeared.

I never thought that
It was just weird to me that some people got all of them and others not. That's the consistency I was trying to refer to.

thanks.at least someone followed me.

i agree with you gideon that any effect is an observer created effect. the "gods" are in the brain only, but thinking they are real makes them real to the observer. it is like voodoo: voodoo only works on one if they believe in it. the power of thought, and it is all of thought, all in the brain, all in the individual, that the power lies. "gods" are just one prop used to harness the potential within.

ever see someone start a fire by will power? I have. And voodoo-the real thing-works whether the "victim" knows or not. Just like healing; same principle. It doesn't even matter whether you believe in it or not. The "power" is granted from "above" according to intention. It makes no difference which. the fact that the "gods" are in the brain doesn't make them any less real; ask any buddhist or kabbalist. believe what you want; my learning is based on experience and training, not faith.

i say the power comes from within, not above, below, beside, the guy next door.....

shall we discuss the inaccuracies of observation? you like to point them out to the christians...

I hear very strange stories voodoo from my aunt who was caught up in it and she never believed in voodoo. She was going out with this guy, and his mom would do voodoo [louisiana is famous for it]. His mom became very fond of my aunt. She told her "no matter what, I'll always watch over you, and you and my son will be together as long as I live". She also told her she'd visit her in the form of a bird [forgot what it's called]. Well, everything was good, but right after his mom died, him and my aunt broke up. After that, she claims that EVERY time she went outside there would be a black gird that would stare at her and follow her. Even if she'd leave a window open in the house the bird would land near the window seal[whatever it's called]. Then one night, she got into her car and looked into her rear view member and who else was sitting there but... HIS MOM!!!!. She ran out of the car screaming. Next time she went to the car, no one was there. And she NEVER believed in voodoo. She always thought his mom was "full of sh**".

I do not mean to make light of your story, ZeroShadow, but this just may be an example of how strong the power of suggestion can be.

As for voodoo, there is a reason they say it can't hurt you if you don't believe in it. It is all power of suggestion. Fear is a powerful tool.

i will repeat what i said-voodoo works, whether you are aware you are the victim or not.

Power of suggestion is a good explaination, only to a certain extent. I think skeptics over use it. Big time... It's as if everything we hear we see these days. Just like they use "mind over matter". When they have no other explainations that's what they toss at you. They spend alot of time studying the subject, but if they can't find another answer "Here's your sign!.. And the sign reads "Mind over matter".

was this intended for me?
my answer: to the occultist it really doesn't matter. it's the validity of the experience that matters, and yes, I mean subjectively. One of the early xian authors said (Aquinas?) that unless Jesus was xified and resurrected in your heart, it wouldn't matter. Then again, he may have been an initiate, just maybe.

the validity of the experience.....


in other words, if you believe it, it is true to you. put another way, voodoo only works if you beleive it does. its like "looking for signs" for the christians: one only finds these doomsday signs when one is looking with a preconception that such signs do exist.

So for you, voodoo works on those that don't believe because you interpret things as signs of it working when it is all subjective interpretation. If you think it is more than "mindgames", show me a real study on these effects that account for observer bias. (for some reason it never bores me listening to the attribution errors of humans....)

Same goes for you. You may think it's not signs, others may.


I'd think if you see a dead person in your backseat, you'd believe in it regardless of what anyone tells you. I think the BEST evidence you can possibly have is personal experience. [best evidence to proove it to yourself].

personal experience is deceptive. the way humans process information is not like a "computer", and information is not recorded like on a "videocamera".

Humans are very bad at making correct attributions. The obersever's preconceptions skew observation. You see the signs because you have preconditioned yourself to interpret observation as signs. "You get what you want" is another way of putting it. That is why in experiments it is best to use the double blind methodology to account for exerimenter bias. Unfortunately, that is not present when somebody claims they saw a sign, or voodoo working, or magic work, or whatever other "trick of the mind" the subject swears by.

When it comes to determining reality, humans are quite pathetic actually.

Ah so, personal experience is deceptive. Well, how exactly are we suppose to believe ANYTHING? See it with our own two eyes, but let a scientists make the decision for us? If I see a frog hop across my room, clear as can be, I won't think twice if I really saw a frog or not. Yes it can be deceptive, but that's not an excuse for many many things. How the hell do you happen to see a dead person in your backseat when it really wasn't that? And to the point where you jump out of a car and run? Wouldn't you look twice if it wasn't a dead person sitting there?

There are tons of cases where people really do beleive they've seen something paranormal. If 100% of these are all misunderstandings of human perception[via eyes], why do we even have eyesight? =P

Just rambbling.

But I have to agree that it CAN be deceptive. Not to the point where I attribute it to every single paranormal case in existance.

Remember, my aunt thought voodoo was "bull sh**". That's pretty skepticle.