Why is Jesus shown with nails in his hands?

HemlockGrey · Post by **HemlockGrey** » 2003-01-06 03:33pm

Actually, Jesus couldn't have been a White Anglo-Saxon Protestant...at that time, their were neither Anglo-Saxons, nor Protestants!

RedImperator · Post by **RedImperator** » 2003-01-06 03:42pm

Lagmonster wrote: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.

I think someone earlier in the thread said that that was a mistranslation from the original Greek word, which could have meant any point between the fingertips and the elbow. It doesn't make sense that the writers of the Gospels would have thought he'd been crucified through his hands--they lived during a time when it was a common, and public, method of execution.

Post by **Lagmonster** » 2003-01-06 03:50pm

RedImperator wrote:It doesn't make sense that the writers of the Gospels would have thought he'd been crucified through his hands--they lived during a time when it was a common, and public, method of execution.

While you are, of course, likely to be correct, I would point out that those same writers of the gospels also thought the disciples were talking to the resurrected apparition of a dead man, complete with bloody holes in his body. 'Being wrong' is a state to which they could easily have descended.

RedImperator · Post by **RedImperator** » 2003-01-06 04:33pm

Lagmonster wrote:
RedImperator wrote:It doesn't make sense that the writers of the Gospels would have thought he'd been crucified through his hands--they lived during a time when it was a common, and public, method of execution.
While you are, of course, likely to be correct, I would point out that those same writers of the gospels also thought the disciples were talking to the resurrected apparition of a dead man, complete with bloody holes in his body. 'Being wrong' is a state to which they could easily have descended.

True enough. And Classical authors never troubled themselves much with getting details right unless they were critical to the story--likewise, readers of that era didn't concern themselves with accurate details either (to take a modern example, if we had Roman-era attitudes about factual accuracy in literature, none of us would care that Voyager once found a crack in a black hole's event horizon, so long as the story was entertaining).

Post by **Lagmonster** » 2003-01-06 04:36pm

RedImperator wrote:To take a modern example, if we had Roman-era attitudes about factual accuracy in literature, none of us would care that Voyager once found a crack in a black hole's event horizon, so long as the story was entertaining.

This is the part where we go, 'oh shit!' and realize that the fans of Star Trek don't care that they found a crack in an event horizon, because they on the whole know neither what an event horizon is nor that you cannot find a crack in one.

The Dark · Post by **The Dark** » 2003-01-06 09:30pm

kheegan wrote:
Stormbringer wrote:
Darth Pounder wrote: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

According to my theology professor (very liberal fellow), Jesus was probably about 5'2", semitic in coloring (similar to arab), and with dark hair and eyes. The whole tall, light-skinned, blue-eyed, curly-haired Jesus was (as best as I've been able to figure) popularized during the Crusades era, when the dark coloring was associated with the arabs being fought against by the crusaders.

Post by **Gandalf** » 2003-01-06 10:31pm

Why dad Jesus cross the road?

He was nailed to the chicken

I thought I'd add my 2 cents

Lord Pounder · Post by **Lord Pounder** » 2003-01-07 02:29pm

The Dark wrote:
kheegan wrote:
Stormbringer wrote: 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
According to my theology professor (very liberal fellow), Jesus was probably about 5'2", semitic in coloring (similar to arab), and with dark hair and eyes. The whole tall, light-skinned, blue-eyed, curly-haired Jesus was (as best as I've been able to figure) popularized during the Crusades era, when the dark coloring was associated with the arabs being fought against by the crusaders.

I agree that Jesus had to have been arabic, Tell that to a Rabid Fundie and wait for the steam to spout from his ears.

Setzer · Post by **Setzer** » 2003-01-07 05:16pm

Darth Pounder wrote:
According to my theology professor (very liberal fellow), Jesus was probably about 5'2", semitic in coloring (similar to arab), and with dark hair and eyes. The whole tall, light-skinned, blue-eyed, curly-haired Jesus was (as best as I've been able to figure) popularized during the Crusades era, when the dark coloring was associated with the arabs being fought against by the crusaders.

I agree that Jesus had to have been arabic, Tell that to a Rabid Fundie and wait for the steam to spout from his ears.[/quote]

It doesn't matter to me what color Jesus was. In fact, I'd prefer it if he were some Arabic looking guy. It would shut up all those white supremacists who claim to be loving Christians. But then again, this is my opinion, and any of you who've read my interpretation of the ten commandments know I'm a very moderate Christian.

Lord MJ · Post by **Lord MJ** » 2003-01-09 04:00pm

Most Christians are educated enough to accept the fact that Jesus was nailed through the wrists and not the hands.

Anyone who argues that he was nailed through the hands is so ignorant that there is no point arguing with them.

Lord_Xerxes · Post by **Lord_Xerxes** » 2003-01-09 05:05pm

I got into an arguement with a Christian about this once, and the person tried to insist that Jesus "Was a special case" and that "The rope around his waste shown in many depicition held him up". Yes. So solely the rope held him up, because Jesus is depicted crucified through the hands and feet and not wrists and ankles.

I'm sorry, but I don't think rope in that era was that strong. And at least, his body would be hung over, and not full erect on the crucifix.

It's just another historical inaccuracy of the bible. And another half-assed coverup by the person I aruged with.

Like Mike once said, the Bible and Star Trek are good examples of bad fiction.

RedImperator · Post by **RedImperator** » 2003-01-09 06:48pm

Lord_Xerxes wrote:I got into an arguement with a Christian about this once, and the person tried to insist that Jesus "Was a special case" and that "The rope around his waste shown in many depicition held him up". Yes. So solely the rope held him up, because Jesus is depicted crucified through the hands and feet and not wrists and ankles.

I'm sorry, but I don't think rope in that era was that strong. And at least, his body would be hung over, and not full erect on the crucifix.

It's just another historical inaccuracy of the bible. And another half-assed coverup by the person I aruged with.

Like Mike once said, the Bible and Star Trek are good examples of bad fiction.

Since the Bible did NOT state that Jesus was crucified through the hands, I fail to see how this qualifies as a historical innaccuracy. The person who argued with you is just stupid. He's not even a good fundamentalist, because he's confusing Medieval artistic tradition with the Bible.

InnerBrat · Post by **InnerBrat** » 2003-01-09 06:58pm

RedImperator wrote: Since the Bible did NOT state that Jesus was crucified through the hands, I fail to see how this qualifies as a historical innaccuracy. The person who argued with you is just stupid. He's not even a good fundamentalist, because he's confusing Medieval artistic tradition with the Bible.

John 20:27

HemlockGrey · Post by **HemlockGrey** » 2003-01-09 07:04pm

The original word can be translated as 'hands' or 'wrists' or 'forearm', IIRC

RedImperator · Post by **RedImperator** » 2003-01-09 07:26pm

Also Luke 24:39. But in both cases, it is not the third-person omnescient narrator describing the location of Christ's wounds. In Luke, it is Jesus himself saying "look at my hands and feet", and he makes no mention of the wounds, only that, "a ghost does not have flesh and bones as I have." In John, it is Thomas who says that he wants to put his hands into the wounds on his hands. In the specific verse John 20:27, Jesus says "Put your finger HERE and see my hands..." (The New American Bible, translated directly from the ancient texts into English by the Catholic Biblical Association in 1969). Not only does the third person narrator never say the wounds are in Christ's hands (in fact, the narrator never describes their location at all), but Jesus himself seems to be indicating that the wound is somewhere other than his hand (granted this is open to interpretation). Also, Pastor Andy stated that "hands" is a mistranslation from the original Greek, though I wouldn't be able to confirm that independently until next week (going to a Catholic college has its advantages in theological debates). In any event, I contend that at no point does the Bible state that Jesus's crucifixion nails were hammered through his hands. In the latest translation, all we have is Thomas's statement, and he's hardly an authoritative source.