I always found it hard to believe that Jesus died from being nailed to a cross..I read -->..superficial reading of the gospel narratives concerning the death of Jesus will show that He was nailed to the cross at 9 o'clock in the morning, and was dead by 3 in the afternoon. His terrible ordeal, it would seem, was over in a mere six hours....

But even so...if he was nailed to the cross..a nail through the hands and feet, is not going to kill you!!!...yea you will bleed, but the weight of your body will soon split your hands OPEN, and you will fall to the ground fast!!!

So i took a closer look, and found this...

“it was normal Roman practice to bind the convict to the cross by ropes, not to nail him to it.” (Cohn, 1963, p. 219)

"These obiter dicta by Justin, Tertullian, and Origen set the mold for Western artists to portray Jesus nailed to the cross instead of bound to it." (Dimont, 1991, p. 122)

"...of the three oldest representations of the crucifixion...one, a brown jasper...shows Jesus hung by his wrists from the cross...These triats correspond to Roman practice..." (Morton Smith, 1978, p. 61)

Is it Possible to Secure Someone to a Cross by Driving Nails Through their Hands?


While it was not uncommon for someone to be nailed to the cross, nailing through the hands was rarely done because the composition of the hands was not sufficient to support a person’s body weight. Thus, nailing through the hands would result in a person’s hands splitting and the person would fall to the ground.

If not through their hands, through their wrists or forearms?

If nailed, a person was nailed between the bones of the forearm or the wrist. The executioner had to be careful not to sever an artery, but when done successfully, a person could be suspended in this manner, assuming there was support from a sedula. Despite this being the only way to nail someone to a cross, most graphic depictions of Jesus’ death still show the nails being driven through his hands.

How Likely is it that Jesus Would be Nailed to the Cross?


It seems that the normal way to fix Jesus to the cross would have been to tie him, not nail him. Yet the traditional view is that he was nailed. Where did this come from? Neither the Gospels of Mark nor Matthew nor Luke mention anything about Jesus being nailed to the cross.
John’s description of the crucifixion also omits any reference to being nailed to the cross, but the Gospel of John does say that Jesus “…showed them his hands and his side (20:20).” It is only when Thomas says: “Unless I see the mark of the nails in his hands, and put my finger in the mark of the nails and my hand in his side, I will not believe (20:25).” Later (20:27) Jesus replies - "Reach here with your finger, and see My hands; and reach here your hand and put it into My side; and do not be unbelieving, but believing." Thus, only from John 20:20-27 comes the tradition.



What can we infer from this? Why is the issue of Jesus being nailed to the cross absent from the first three gospels, and only present in the Gospel of John? And why does the Gospel of John claim that Jesus is nailed through the hands, when we know this is not physically possible, and if he were nailed at all, it would be through the wrists?

More on this ---> http://www.jesuspolice.com/common_error.php?id=15



What do you guys think??


Remember this is not an attack or anything....its just trying to se what others think...I found it intresting, as i has always wondered how on earth could his hands support his body like that, after being nailed, and how could one die from it??..after a number of hours

Your thoughts??

thanks!!

I think the part about Jesus showing Thomas the holes in his hand pretty much explains that he was nailed to the cross otherwise wouldn't the other guys doubt it was Jesus saying "Hey where'd you get those from???" But it was probably through his wrists.


I saw a special about this years ago on PBS and they said it was probably his wrists.

http://www.konnections.com/kcundick/crucifix.html

I didnt know it wasnt mentioned in other gosples!!

From the link you provided..I found this intresting....

About a decade ago, reading Jim Bishop's The Day Christ Died, I realized that I had for years taken the Crucifixion more or less for granted -- that I had grown callous to its horror by a too easy familiarity with the grim details and a too distant friendship with our Lord. It finally occurred to me that, though a physician, I didn't even know the actual immediate cause of death. The Gospel writers don't help us much on this point, because crucifixion and scourging were so common during their lifetime that they apparently considered a detailed description unnecessary. So we have only the concise words of the Evangelists: "Pilate, having scourged Jesus, delivered Him to them to be crucified -- and they crucified Him."

http://www.gnpcb.org/esv/search/?q=Mark+15

found this

I read all of it thanks

It says he was crucified, but doesn't say how for some reason

In the OP, from the artical I posted, it reads, how back in those days, they traditionaly tied them to the cross.


I am now wondering, from the beatings he had to suffer, the trauma to the head, could that have been the real cause of death??to add to that, there was a crown of thorns jammed into his head, so he may well have died from head injuries!!???

Here is another thing I was thinking about, why would people want someone like Jesus, put to death, just for claiming he was king of the Jews? I mean it is not a crime, or was it? even so, the men on ethier side of him, did commit harsher crimes, and were not nailed like he was, I found that really strange!

Back then it would have been a crime to say you were the KING when there was a king.

I'm not sure what the term is but its a crime.

I thought that it was intersting that they stated there was no need to break his legs but that they plunged a sword into his heart.

BM, you have to remember that Jesus was crucified AFTER being beaten and flogged severely. Have you seen the movie "The Passion"?

It is one of the most painful movies I have ever seen. And in it you clearly get the idea that Jesus was already mostly dead by the time he was actually nailed to the cross.

I have read two versions of that also, they plunged a sword into his side, to make sure he was dead!! <--was the other version

True, if you look at the 1st link --> It is only when Thomas says: “Unless I see the mark of the nails in his hands, and put my finger in the mark of the nails and my hand in his side, I will not believe (20:25).� Later (20:27) Jesus replies - "Reach here with your finger, and see My hands; and reach here your hand and put it into My side; and do not be unbelieving, but believing." Thus, only from John 20:20-27 comes the tradition.

The mark on his side to indicate the sword was plunged into his side to see if he was dead or not

I took this from your 1st link also...it seems to make a lil sense... --> That is, there was an escape of water fluid from the sac surrounding the heart, giving postmortem evidence that Our Lord died not the usual crucifixion death by suffocation, but of heart failure (a broken heart) due to shock and constriction of the heart by fluid in the pericardium.

could have been possible!!

Mel Gibson, one of hollywoods biggest catholics, makes a horrid look at how Jesus died..and it turned my stomach..too squeamish lol

But IAMS I have taken into consideration...he could well have been half dead..but the head injrrues alone may have been a big part of it.....then from one of the links posted by true...read about the heart...it could also have been, heart failure

Going by this very logic that you used Iams.......I have watched all six of the Star Wars movies.....is this "PROOF" for the Star Wars universe?

Zandore~

Long time no see!!!!


I think Iams is just using that as an illustration of what an actual crucifixion at that time entails. Not as proof!

Zannie lol quit comparing scifi with religion lol

Proof?

I was not talking about proof of anything, zan. I was just using the movie, because from what I read they did a great deal of research into the torture and beatings that may have been part of the system in those days, and also in the way that crucifictions may have been carried out. Why would you think I was trying to use it as proof? Do you think I'm that stupid?

Don't you hate when you make a spelling mistake when you are talking about your intelligence! LOL

I tawt I taw a putty TAT! I did! I did taw a putty tat! LOL

Yeah, and it's also great when your friends immortalize it by making a whole post just to QUOTE your misspelling and point it out!

BTW, I have no idea why you would go to the trouble of quoting me and misspelling a word in the quote just to try to embarrass me.

If you will look at the quote you will see no such misspelling!

According to what I read on that people who were nailed to crosses in Roman times died of asphyxiation. Read the site below. It was written by a doctor who looked into the crucifixion.

http://www.konnections.com/Kcundick/crucifix.html



Maybe because the gospel of John is not an account by someone who witnessed Jesus's crucifixion but a story Christians came up with years after he died. Apparently whoever wrote the story didn't know the hands couldn't support a human's weight.

The Crucifixion
Prior to crucifixion the victim was subjected to scourging (Barbet 1953, Holoubek and Holoubek 1995).

The technique of crucifixion used for Jesus, in which the Roman executioners were very well trained, due to its repeated use, consisted in placing the victim hanging from the horizontal mobile part of the cross (patibulum) by putting a nail in each wrist of his extended upper limbs. Then the patibulum was lifted from the ground at the top of the stirpes (the upright post of the cross), which was generally permanently fixed in the ground. Finally, one or two nails were driven through the feet and the crucifixion was complete (Holoubek and Holoubek 1995).

In repeated experiments that Barbet (1953) carried out on corpses, it was proven that no matter in which point of the wrists the nail was put in, once the nail had passed through the soft parts and entered fully into the wrist, it was automatically guided in such a way that it emerged through the skin at the back of the wrists, at about one centimetre above the point of entry passing through a free space enclosed by the capitate, the lunate, the triquetral and the hamate bones, without fracturing any one of them. If the nails were positioned among the metacarpal bones, because of the weight of the body, the tissues would be torn and the body would fall head down, held back only by the nail or nails that were pinned in the feet between the second and third metatarsal bones. The only point in a man's hand where a nail can be introduced is the wrist, because its bones are connected with numerous strong ligaments (Gray's Anatomy, 1973) that can hold the weight of the body.

The crucified person's most burdensome symptom is the inability to breathe and particularly to exhale (Davis 1965, Edwards et al. 1986). This is due to the fact that, because of the downward pull of the weight of the body, the contraction of the respiratory muscles (diaphragm and thoracic muscles which connect adjoining ribs) becomes impossible. Thus the crucified person is obliged to rest on the nail/nails of the feet in order to lift up his body. By this action, the respiratory muscles can contract, in spite of the terrible pains caused by the nail/nails. This is repeated continuously until, exhausted, he cannot lift himself up any more and dies from asphyxia.

Nevertheless the seriousness of suffocation depends very much on the position that the arms have on the patibulum. The closer the arms are to the stirpes the more severe becomes the suffocation. Surely the Romans well knew the results of positioning the hands and used this knowledge to achieve their desired results (Barbet 1953, Ball 1989). Another symptom is the excruciating pain due to the damage of the, median nerve lacerated by the nail (Barbet 1953, Davis, 1965, Edwards etal. 1986, Ball 1989) each time the victim tries to change his wrists' position in order to find some relief. Terrible cramps seize the muscles worsening even more the victim's effort to breathe.

For the duration of the victim's life on the cross, the positioning of the feet is of even greater importance. If he can push up his body and breathe, he can prolong his life for some time; if not, life will be accordingly shortened. Each time though he makes an effort to lift up and because of the weight of the body that is transferred on the tarsal bones, terrible pains will be produced.

Can you believe the things mankind is capable of? Just reading all of that made every bit of my body hurt.

Who cares. What a boring thread.

If it bored you so much, why bother posting?

Because I was bored

I believe the Romans, knowing that the wrists would not easily support a crucified body's weight, would attach a block beneath the feet, which would cause the knees to bend and support some of a body's weight.



Link

And how long can a single person, hold their entire body weight up like that, while going through pain, and only standing on one tiny lil block??

Still find it hard to believe...........................sorry!!!

Not sure what it is you find hard to believe BM. There is plenty of evidence that the Romans crucified criminals.

Romans loved that stuff...

Another interesting guy that was crucified...

Apollonius of Tyana, who, in the first century, was claimed, by his followers, the he healed the sick, he raised the dead, he was able to walk through walls and buildings, that he was, in fact, persecuted for his religious beliefs, he was brought to trial by the local Roman courts, he was crucified, and after he died, we are told, and ascended to Heaven, and he came back where his followers saw him.

The part I find hard to believe is exactly what I wrote in the post you just quoted!!!!!!!!!!!! didnt you read it??

The small block..the lengh of time spent in PAIN...able to hold up the weight of the body <---------------didnt you read that??

I KNOW romans crucified criminals..but all tied them to the cross..is what I have read...if you read the OP IAMS..you will see the artical on how it was impossible to have nails in your hands to support the body weight, it would split your hands and the body would fall!!!

this is what I am talking about................someone then added the lil block of wood that the feet rested on...but I then added...HOW..could one possibly hold their body weight, while in great anony..for so long...without the nails splitting their hands open??
that makes sense to me IAMS

I was NOT saying no one was crucified back then...................why did you even suggest this??

There's no reference to the little block in the bible is there? I don't remember reading about the little block.

Neither do I..but have seen it on catholic crosses...*shrugs*

Well the purpose of the crucifixion was to kill the person. I am sure that through trial and error they figured out the way to do it.

If the person ripped off the cross it was probably gross, in fact maybe this is why it drew crowds because it was so gory.

Isn't that a horrible thought... that people went to executions to see the blood and gore. Can you imagine choosing to go to see someone put to death that way. People are... odd doesn't even cover it.

For all the sickos in this world that dearly deserve it, I'd go and hope they would also have a hotdog vendor in the crowd. Hotdogs and bad people dying... That would be awesome... Throw a beer vendor in there and I think it would just be simply too much for the brain joy system to handle.

I am too squeemish... and a vegetarian. I'll take the beer though.

I still stop in when I can.




Why.....they both have about as much truth.....and sci-fi has more potential of becoming reality.

There seems to be a lot of evidence suggesting that crucifixions (correct spelling BTW) did not happen quite like Christians portray it....but THAT aside it did happen.



Good call True


Iams.......you said it not me!

During the French Revolution, Madame Guillotine was a huge crowd pleaser.

The Romans, contrived many forms of public execution-as-entertainment.

Public hangings, up until the 20th century were also festive affairs for all concerned. Well, maybe not so much for the guest(s) of honor, but you get the idea.

That's what I was thinking of when I posted.

Humans seem to be drawn to blood and gore. It is a part of our savage nature. I would go so far as to say that many people, in a sadistic way, enjoy watching the suffering of other creatures, including ( or especially) their fellow humans.

zannie (((HUGS))) I miss you ALOT....stop by naked some time say hey..((HUGS)))

Just to quickly clarify something: you are absolutely correct - the hands would split, as you suggest, assuming that nails were driven directly through the palms. Common belief at the moment is split two ways though - on one hand (no pun intended) is that the nails were in fact driven through the wrists, between the two bones that connect the arm with the hand (I was never good at biology, so i don't know their technical names). The other interpretation is that the nails were indeed driven through the palms, and Jesus' wrists were lashed to the cross with ropes to hold the weight. I tend to hold to the former explanation, because as far as I can tell, this was the usual way in which the Romans conducted crucifixions (I could be wrong on that point though, i haven't looked it up for quite some time now). The Romans were quite accomplished at crucifixions, if you look at their history. Either interpretation fits the facts we have.

But don't you think, that, if nailed through the wrists, the chances of bleeding to death, would be stronger?? and they would also hold the body up a lot more

Sorry, I just found it hard to believe he was nailed up like that...

Jesus did not bleed to death. Dying as a result of crucifixion, as brutal as it is, is not a result of blood loss. Jesus was beaten and bloodied, with a crown of thorns rammed on to his head , whipped, and more. And then to be put up on a cross, he would have been too tired to hold his weight, which was why he died after a measly few hours on the cross.

ummm I didnt say he did bleed to death PA...why did you suggest that??


But in all seriousness though..............................we don't know the ACTAUL cause of death....it could well have been head injuries...............heart failure ect...not bleeding to death...hardly possible, with just a couple of nails through the hands and feet...I doubt anyone could bleed to death with that LMAO

But I still don't believe he was nailed up like that...

I have read through a lot of articals on it....and you must remember PA...3 of the gosples does NOT mention him being nailed up....only the gosple of John mentiones him being cruicified...that's it

Back in those days, they only ever tied you to the cross..

Maybe I'm misunderstanding.

There have been remains found from the first century of people who were crucified who had nail holes in their feet and arms. One find even included a man whose feet still had the spike in it. Also, the Romans weren't the only ones who liked to nail people up... the Japanese had a thing for cruifixtion too. It's true there aren't a ton of archeological finds of people who had been crucified, if only because it was a death and punishment reserved for the lowest of low and their bodies were not often formally buried making them almost impossible for scholars to discover.

It's probable the the spikes were driven through the wrists, between the radius and ulna arm bones or through the carple bones in the wrists. The term "hands" might be somewhat misleading because the word "hands" probably was used to describe both hands and forearms.

Yes, a gruesome death... although probably not as gruesome as drawing and quartering used by the English in the 12th and 13th centuries *shudders*.

Can you provide any sources on this MissMels??

BTW good to see you back

Seems they did find it fun in those days, the whole Roman entertainment industry was one big gore fest.

Ya, I'd have to dig up a Roman history book I have left over from school, I'll see if I can find it tonight. The man with the spike in his feet was found several years ago in an ossuary in the middle east, I saw that on a show on History International, I can't remember which one, I'll have to look that up too. I think it's the same documentary that TrueThat was talking about earlier in this thread.

And thanks, I am back, been fighting off a terrible head cold. Blech. And I am going to be gone for a whole 5 this week and next... heading off to Sin City (Las Vegas) this week for some sun and pool side drinks with my girlfriends! Wo0t!

I often wondered how this could kill you and all the answers given are good but my opinion is Jesus didn't die on the Cross, he may have looked dead, unconscious. The Romans then put him in the cave or tomb and boarded it up with boulders. I then think he came to and was helped out of the cave and nicked off. If he was so good at performing miracles he could have done it easy. Missing from the cave, rose from the dead, it's all too suss for me.

Nasty head colds, were your head just feels like a brick...I use Vicks...put into a bowl of hot bioling water and with a towel over my head..inhale it..it helps!!!

I hope your head cold gets better again MissMels..........but umm don't let on to Texas, you are off on a vacation LMAO..she told me NO NO LOL cuz I told her I too was on Vacation this week, but today, im off to the beach for a while and again, as its much hotter tomorrow (not as hot as vegas lol)...we are off again!!...........psssssssstt remember not a dickie bird to Texas


So i'll say this low...so she can't hear me...........have a great time wont you chick!!

Remember that according to the accounts he also had a spear driven into his side, and there was a contingent of Roman soldiers guarding his tomb. Additionally, the Roman soldiers would have been the ones who took Him off the cross and they would have had experience insuring a crucified man was dead, so it is very doubtful thy would have lowered Him if He was not dead.

How come no Roman soldiers gave any evidence??