Freethought & Rationalism Archive

PJPSYCO · 07-24-2002, 09:18 AM

Jesus was nailed to the cross. So, why did just he show the people his palms?

If he was nailed to the cross, he could have showed them any,or both side of his hand since the nail would have gone all the way through (ie or he would have falled off). If there was some other attachment then it actually wouldn't have been as much suffering since the nails would move with your hand (no pain from adjustment). Now, I have impaled myself before, and I can confirm that its the implaing that hurts, but until the object is removed there is little pain(unless you play with it), and only some stiffness (barring of course loss of blood.) Loss of blood causes a bit more stiffness but notably bleeding would would be very slow from ones palms if you were hung from them - since the extremities are the last to get blood, esspecially when they are above your heart. Seeing also that the feet would be bleeding profuselly, and the extemities would feel numb, from loss of blood.

FunkyRes · 07-24-2002, 09:29 AM

What are you referring to?

CX · 07-24-2002, 09:32 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by PJPSYCO:
<strong>Jesus was nailed to the cross. So, why did just he show the people his palms?

If he was nailed to the cross, he could have showed them any,or both side of his hand since the nail would have gone all the way through (ie or he would have falled off). If there was some other attachment then it actually wouldn't have been as much suffering since the nails would move with your hand (no pain from adjustment). Now, I have impaled myself before, and I can confirm that its the implaing that hurts, but until the object is removed there is little pain(unless you play with it), and only some stiffness (barring of course loss of blood.) Loss of blood causes a bit more stiffness but notably bleeding would would be very slow from ones palms if you were hung from them - since the extremities are the last to get blood, esspecially when they are above your heart. Seeing also that the feet would be bleeding profuselly, and the extemities would feel numb, from loss of blood.</strong>

Minor quibble. Crucifixion was through the wrists. The palms are not strong enough to hold up a grown man.

One of the last sane · 07-24-2002, 03:59 PM

Quote:

The palms are not strong enough to hold up a grown man

Particularly since the crucified (crucifees?) apparently had to push (and probably also pull) themselves up every time they wanted to breathe. People didn't hang motionless on crosses, they had to rise and fall. That's why when the Romans got bored and wanted to go home, they would go around and break the legs of those still alive. Unable to push themselves up to inhale, the victims then suffocated.

Repeatedly bobbing up and down against nails, with the victim's weight crashing back onto the nails every time they had grabbed a breath and flopped down again to exhale, would soon cause the nails to tear out between the metacarpals if the nails were through the palms.

Quite ingeniously cruel really. It would be excruciating to lift yourself up, but the alternative would be suffocation, and the urge to breathe is very strong.

[ July 24, 2002: Message edited by: One of last of the sane ]</p>

PJPSYCO · 07-26-2002, 06:58 PM

My point is that the writers of the crucifixion seem to only know of it form a spectators point of view. They get not only one but many things wrong. My simple question, 'why did he only show him one side of his hands?'(I know about the wrists thing). To pound him up to the cross one would have to put nails the whole way through. They don't seem to have any intimate knowledge of this notable point, and have him show the side of the hand that we would see if we were looking at someone on the crucifix. This, not to critique their lack of procedural knowledge, when they sugest that jesus was taken down rather quickly compared to everyone else. When I look at the story, it seems as if the writers only know of the practice, and don't know the practice itself(like if you were there).

Ted Hoffman · 07-27-2002, 06:12 AM

Most crucifiction victims had their weight supported by some wood passing between their legs or had some form of footrest, so the argument that the hands cant hold up the weight of a man is not exactly correct.
Look at this drawing :

This indicates that the body weight did not just need support from the arms/ hands: some were distributed to the foot which was held against the wood by nails.

This picture makes it clearer:

Other images:

[ July 27, 2002: Message edited by: IntenSity ]</p>

07-24-2002, 09:18 AM	#1
PJPSYCO Senior Member Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: Rolla, Missouri Posts: 830	bleeding palms Jesus was nailed to the cross. So, why did just he show the people his palms? If he was nailed to the cross, he could have showed them any,or both side of his hand since the nail would have gone all the way through (ie or he would have falled off). If there was some other attachment then it actually wouldn't have been as much suffering since the nails would move with your hand (no pain from adjustment). Now, I have impaled myself before, and I can confirm that its the implaing that hurts, but until the object is removed there is little pain(unless you play with it), and only some stiffness (barring of course loss of blood.) Loss of blood causes a bit more stiffness but notably bleeding would would be very slow from ones palms if you were hung from them - since the extremities are the last to get blood, esspecially when they are above your heart. Seeing also that the feet would be bleeding profuselly, and the extemities would feel numb, from loss of blood.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

07-24-2002, 09:29 AM	#2
FunkyRes Regular Member Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Antioch, CA Posts: 173	What are you referring to?

07-26-2002, 06:58 PM	#5
PJPSYCO Senior Member Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: Rolla, Missouri Posts: 830	My point is that the writers of the crucifixion seem to only know of it form a spectators point of view. They get not only one but many things wrong. My simple question, 'why did he only show him one side of his hands?'(I know about the wrists thing). To pound him up to the cross one would have to put nails the whole way through. They don't seem to have any intimate knowledge of this notable point, and have him show the side of the hand that we would see if we were looking at someone on the crucifix. This, not to critique their lack of procedural knowledge, when they sugest that jesus was taken down rather quickly compared to everyone else. When I look at the story, it seems as if the writers only know of the practice, and don't know the practice itself(like if you were there).

07-27-2002, 06:12 AM	#6
Ted Hoffman Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2001 Location: "" Posts: 3,863	Most crucifiction victims had their weight supported by some wood passing between their legs or had some form of footrest, so the argument that the hands cant hold up the weight of a man is not exactly correct. Look at this drawing : This indicates that the body weight did not just need support from the arms/ hands: some were distributed to the foot which was held against the wood by nails. This picture makes it clearer: Other images: [ July 27, 2002: Message edited by: IntenSity ]</p>

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.