Hi Everyone,

Offa has brought up a number of times that no where in the Gospels does it mention that Jesus's feet were pierced when he was crucified. So the other night I decided to look through the Canonical Gospels to see if this was true. (I did this because we had this guy come to High Point, NC (a nearby town to where I live) and give a presentation on the Shroud of Turin. So I was do a little research to give myself fodder for discussion. Turns out that I wasn't able to got to the presentation.)
And from what I can tell, there is no mention of the piercing of Jesus' feet as Offa asserts.

Ok, so my question to Offa and others, why then the persistence of presenting Jesus as being crucified with a nail through his feet/ankles? Is this an assumption on how crucifiction was done? What resources outside of the Bible do we find detailed descriptions of crucifiction practices? If this has all been discussed in a previous thread then please provide a link so I can go and read further. Thank you in advance for your input.

Without wax,
Spider

PS. I am not intending this to go into the historicity of the Shroud of Turin. Just interested in crucifiction practices. I'll draw my own conclusions about things from that.

Some skeletons have been recovered with nails embedded in the ankle area--the argument is that the nail went into a knot in the wood of the cross (or whatever they were crucified on) and couldn't be removed from the body, so they buried it that way.

I'll try to track down a reference for this.

Out of curiosity, why is the piercing of the feet disputed?

Spider;
To Offa and others: Piercing of Jesus' Feet.

Offa, in reply;

We are buried in dogma. Everybody pictures Jesus' feet
pierced when they were not. The bible tells us so.

The gospel of Peter tells us that they took the nails
out of his hands. 6 And they drew out the nails from
the hands of the Lord, and laid him upon the earth,

offa;
Peter tells about two men entering the tomb 9 ...
and the tomb was opened, and both the young men entered in.

offa;
Then Peter tells about three men leaving the tomb, 10 ...
again they see three men come forth from the tomb, two of
them supporting one, and a cross following them:

offa; It is in my opinion that the cross following them
is a stretcher that they did not need. Jesus was able to walk.

One of the gospels tells about a ransom being paid and a
message "the body was stolen" to those in enquiry. The tomb
was empty because Jesus survived the crucifixion and walked
to the monastery in Qumran (Galilee) known as Heaven.

What I am saying is that the gospels tell the truth (kind
of like what is is) and the The Lost Gospel According to
Peter is accurate.

Muad'dib;
Some skeletons have been recovered with nails embedded in
the ankle area

offa;
This crucifixion is a special case. Pilate asked if he was
dead already. There was a sponge and a poison administered.
They did not break Jesus' legs. He was on the cross for six
hours. Dogma says that every Roman crucifixion involved
nails in the feet?

Muad'dib;
why is the piercing of the feet disputed?

Offa; I am an atheist who believes the gospels and the Old
Testament are truth. The 185,000 cadavers under the command
of Sennacherib were quite alive but dead as far as Isaiah
was concerned. He could not convert them to Judaism.

Jesus was a real live body whose father was Cleophas and
whose mother was a perpetual virgin because she was a
Hebrew (you lose your virginity when you have sex with non-
Hebrews). Jesus was born in 7 b.c.e. and celebrated his bar
mitzvah in A.D. 6 at the age of 12. He was married to
Mary Magdalene and crucified in A.D. 33. He became
westernized and for that reason Mary Magdalene left him
(divorce) after she had given birth to a daughter (St.
Paul's wife) and a son (Justus). Jesus remarried and was
still alive in A.D. 70.

Ah man... You left out the best part of the story Offa!

That walking cross talks too.

Ish

Yes, and no more unbelievable than talking angels.

rodahi

Ish; Ah man... You left out the best part of the story
Offa! That walking cross talks too.

offa;

I do not believe in talking crosses or bad "Fig Trees". I have
been victimized by Christianity. I have suffered because of you
people that believe in the "Virgin birth". I do not dislike
you (I kind of like you Ish) but your Christianity has made my
family victims. Just like your remark about the "talking
crosses". Ish, listen, this life is real. I stood guard on
Rudolph Hess in 1968. I read where Rodahi was at Fort Gordon
in 1967. We fight for this country and do not have a
fantasyland, no Santa Claus and no tooth fairy. The cross does
not talk. Ish, I am not deluded. When I die, I am dead. Period.

Thanks, offa

Sorry Offa, I just find this story very interesting and a bit humorous... Here is what I was referring to (i.e. - the "walking, talking" cross):

Gospel of Peter 10:38-42
"When now those soldier saw this [the stone rolled away], they awakened the centurion and the elders - for they also were there to assist at the watch. And while they were relating what they had seen, they saw again three men come out from the sepulchre, and two of them sustaining the other, and a cross following them, and the heads of the two reaching to heaven, but that of him who was led of them by the hand overpassing the heavens. And they heard a voice out of the heavens crying, 'Hast thou preached to them that sleep?', and from the cross there was heard the answer, 'Yea'.

Don't know 'bout you, but that sends shivers down my spine.

I'm truly sorry Offa. I confess that I don't understand because the Christians that I know would never purposefully cause you or your family harm. Unfortunately, people can call themselves anything they want and then not necessarily live up to the ideals... There is no excuse for them. Whether you ever agree with any Christians again, I hope that future encounters are not bad.

BTW, you've gotten me to look deeper into my sources (e.g. - Jubilees, Dead Sea Scrolls, etc.) and opened my eyes to different ways of thinking, so thanks! I kinda like you too.

Sorry, I didn't mean anything offensive by it... I let my sarcastic humor go a little unchecked at times, but no harm meant.

Let's not jump to conclusions now. I know this life is very real, and I heartily thank you both for your service. I wish I had a story to tell about how I protected the nation in the military because I'm quite patriotic, but I don't. Instead, I worked in the defense industry and felt that I was protecting my country as well, at least indirectly.

I don't believe the cross talks either, but I do believe in God and life after death, Offa. Some here may think I'm crazy, but I'm honest when I say it and they can't say I haven't done my homework (though they may say I did it wrong )...

Quite sincerely,
Ish

No it doesn't! No where does the Bible say "Jesus feet were not peirced." NOt saying they were is not the same as saying they were not. One can assume they were becasue that's what they did in crucifiction.

Maybe they werer, maybe they weren't. Who cares? What difference does it make?

Of course the feet were pierced. The wounds of Jesus resemble the censorship of natural law which is necessary before we can be set free from the conviction of Judaic or religious laws. They include, the hands, the feet, the brow, the thirst and the desire of the heart for carnal and sensual pleasures.

I was the humanity, or the earthliness, of Jesus that was crucified and thus the senses had to be censored to set free the God-like of heavenly nature.

Amos



[This message has been edited by Amos123 (edited June 26, 2001).]

Are you saying the Romans crucified a common criminal in a ritual, symbolic manner? A criminal, no less, that they went out of their way to ensure no one would believe was "King of the Jews." (I refer to the posting of guards at the tomb.)

Does not compute.

diana