Why is Jesus shown with nails in his hands?

[Setzer]

A lot of the crucifixes I've seen show jesus with nails through his hands.
But Why?
The Romans didn't crucify people like that, the bones in the human hands aren't strong enough to support the rest of the body. The Romans nailed through the wrists. This brain bug has spread to Eva too. Both Lillith and unit 01 are crucified through the hands.

[jaeger115]

Because it was such a tortrous practice that people just had to feel sorry for him, therefore go to his side. Christianity got a lot of morons that way.

[Alyrium Denryle]

The romans nailed people to the cross, where the radius and the ulna meet. Anywhere else on the hand wouldnt have worked. Those christians are fools, it simply shows their ignorance better

[Howedar]

The romans nailed people to the cross, where the radius and the ulna meet. Anywhere else on the hand wouldnt have worked. Those christians are fools, it simply shows their ignorance better

Wow, how inane.


People got confused over 2000 years. Big friggin deal.

[Alyrium Denryle]

Yes, but I have had cases, where the christian INSISTED that I was wrong....

[ArmorPierce]

Yeah, unless he there was extra support a person would be able to hung like that by nails in his palms

[Durandal]

People were nailed through the wrists to be crucified. Nailing them through the hands wouldn't provide enough support, and they'd fall off, ripping their hands open. Nailing them through the wrists would put the spike between two bones, so they could stay there quite a while.

[Pastor Andy]

The best archaeological evidence demonstrates that Romans indeed nailed crucified victims through the wrists, not the palms of the hands.

The confusion arose over the wording of the Gospels. The Greek word used in such scriptures as Luke 24:39 and John 20:27 is khire, which can reference any part of the hand or arm from fingers to elbow.

The placement of the nails is really a non-issue. It's sad that some will make a point of argument out of it...

[Stormbringer]

It's a nit pick at best. But it's further proof that the word of god is only as reliable as the guy holding the pen.

[Captain Cyran]

The romans nailed people to the cross, where the radius and the ulna meet. Anywhere else on the hand wouldnt have worked. Those christians are fools, it simply shows their ignorance better

Wow, how inane.


People got confused over 2000 years. Big friggin deal.

I agree, now I think you guys are just looking for small things to flame Christians on, even though yes some of them are dipshits.

And by the way I have seen pictures which depict Jesus with the nails through his wrist.

The only reason the nails are on the palms in most cases is because of artists, the spike can be better seen in the palm than it can in the wrist.

[Lord Pounder]

I can confrim that a nail through a hand/wrist cannot hold. Several weeks ago a drug dealer/joy rider was crucified in my area. The nobel paramilitaries </sarcasm> nailed him to a 7ft high fence and left him. Apparently after half an hour his own weight caused him to fall, ripping his hands apart in the process. Incidently the Dealer survived but stealing cars is the last thing on his mind now.

[Wicked Pilot]

This whole issue is a nonissue. There is no point having discussion over such triviality.

I can confrim that a nail through a hand/wrist cannot hold. Several weeks ago a drug dealer/joy rider was crucified in my area. The nobel paramilitaries </sarcasm> nailed him to a 7ft high fence and left him. Apparently after half an hour his own weight caused him to fall, ripping his hands apart in the process. Incidently the Dealer survived but stealing cars is the last thing on his mind now.

That's fucked up.

[Robert Treder]

The best archaeological evidence demonstrates that Romans indeed nailed crucified victims through the wrists, not the palms of the hands.

Archaeological evidence plus common sense. It won't work through the palm. It's not as though crucifixion is unique to 30 AD Palestine; people have done this all over the world many times (Boxcar Bertha, anyone?). It doesn't work through the palm. You can try it yourself, or you can look at the bones in a human hand and ask yourself what the fuck would keep a Nine Inch Nail in place. No archaeological evidence required.

The confusion arose over the wording of the Gospels. The Greek word used in such scriptures as Luke 24:39 and John 20:27 is khire, which can reference any part of the hand or arm from fingers to elbow.

That's actually pretty interesting.

The placement of the nails is really a non-issue. It's sad that some will make a point of argument out of it...

I don't really think it is a non-issue. If most brands of Christianity claim unerring truth, then even something this small is important to levy against them. If your particular flavor of Christianity allows for inerrancies like this, then more power to you, and stop defending the fucking idiots who insist the nails were in the palms.

[Lord Pounder]

This whole issue is a nonissue. There is no point having discussion over such triviality.

I can confrim that a nail through a hand/wrist cannot hold. Several weeks ago a drug dealer/joy rider was crucified in my area. The nobel paramilitaries </sarcasm> nailed him to a 7ft high fence and left him. Apparently after half an hour his own weight caused him to fall, ripping his hands apart in the process. Incidently the Dealer survived but stealing cars is the last thing on his mind now.

That's fucked up.

Thats life in Northern Ireland, for the IRA and UVF being on ceasefire more people died this year due to the troubles than any other year since it all started, a ceasefire has just forced them to be more creative.

[NecronLord]

The Romans were no fools. They did it throught the forearm. The intention is for the victim to die of exposure. That said they usually just tied them to the bloody thing. Less blood loss = more time.

[Pastor Andy]

I don't really think it is a non-issue. If most brands of Christianity claim unerring truth, then even something this small is important to levy against them. If your particular flavor of Christianity allows for inerrancies like this, then more power to you, and stop defending the fucking idiots who insist the nails were in the palms.

The non-issue I referred to was the single-minded insistence of those who would make a theological issue out of the placement of Christ's nails. The error is not the fault of the text; the semantic range of the word in question easily allows for both placements. Their error is, as has already been amply demonstrated, one of common sense.

It's a sad day when the defenders of Christianity take their stand on such a relative grain of sand as this...

[Darth Wong]

It's a sad day when the defenders of Christianity take their stand on such a relative grain of sand as this...

This is no worse than creationism, upon which the defenders of Christianity have been making a public stand for more than a hundred years.

[Darth Yoshi]

I don't like seeing spoilers for something I'm interested in. I've only seen the first four episodes so far. This one would seem to be a relatively minor spoiler, since it doesn't give any information other than that Lilith and 01 are crucified, but it's still a spoiler, and I oppose it on principle.

Relax. It's not like the plot's been given away.

[RedImperator]

If I recall correctly, the nail through the hands tradition got started in Medieval representations of Christ, long after crucification ceased to be a common practice in Europe. The artists may or may not have realized that nails through the hands wouldn't hold the weight of a human body; Medieval artists considered realism at best a secondary concern and would take many artistic liberties with their subjects if they felt they could express their message better. If nails in the palms were more easily visible or just looked more painful, the artist would paint nails in the palms. The tradition became deeply embedded in Western artistic thought, and though there are lots of depictions of Jesus with the nails in their proper position, the nails through the palm remains a common image. This is NOT a point of theological contention. In the original Greek, so far as I know, the Gospels never stated the nails went through the hands, so for combatting fundamentalists, this issue is useless (unless he's arguing that the translation he's using is ALSO inerrant, in which case you can dismiss him as a poor theologian on top of his other faults).

[Lord Pounder]

Common interperation of christ also have him as a white guy. You can't trust a fundie racist church.

[Stormbringer]

Common interperation of christ also have him as a white guy. You can't trust a fundie racist church.

I'd assume he looked the same as any other Jew of that time and region.

[kheegster]

Common interperation of christ also have him as a white guy. You can't trust a fundie racist church.

I'd assume he looked the same as any other Jew of that time and region.

I suspect his looks have more in common with modern day Palestinians than with your typical WASP.

KG

[ArthurDent]

The Romans were no fools. They did it throught the forearm. The intention is for the victim to die of exposure. That said they usually just tied them to the bloody thing. Less blood loss = more time.

Actually, many who were crucified died from asphyxiation. Those crucified were placed on the cross with their knees slightly bent and their arms slightly behind them. That way they either had to stand on their nailed feet to support themselves or hang by their wrists. When they stood, the pain and pressure on their feet would be tremendous. They would stand until they couldn't take the pain in the feet and then they would shift positions to hang from their wrists. Then after a while that pain would become unbearable and they would stand again. This would continue until the individual could no longer muster the strength to change positions anymore. Many would loose so much strength that they could no longer draw breath and they died from the lack of oxygen to the brain. In fact, Christ had it easy. He died within hours, not days as was usual for crucifictions.

As for the placement of the nails, what difference does it make where some painting shows them? The point is that he was crucified, not that he had nails through His hands or wrists...and why couldn't the Romans have driven nails through both His hands and wrists?

[Stormbringer]

Common interperation of christ also have him as a white guy. You can't trust a fundie racist church.

I'd assume he looked the same as any other Jew of that time and region.

I suspect his looks have more in common with modern day Palestinians than with your typical WASP.

That was kind of my point. That there is no reason to assume he was a lily-white WASP or on the converse assume he was black as well. It's rather obnoxious to see the two sides fighting to "claim" historical figures and disreagrding the facts to do it.

[Lagmonster]

Aha!

I was thinking about the whole 'Jesus had nails in his hands' thing, when I remembered where I had heard the whole thing start. A few posts above someone mentioned that medieval sculptors were to blame, changing the position of the nails as necessary, but that's not the ticket.

the Skeptics Annotated Bible helped me with this: John 20:27 is the part where Jesus appears to Doubting Thomas and shows him the holes in his hands. A few lines before Thomas demands to see said holes. So, the Bible itself seems to think that you could get crucified through the hands.