They did. It’s obscure, but it exists.
Nitpick: The possessive form of “Jesus” would be “Jesus’.”
About ten years back, my parents were having the bathroom torn out and replaced. One of the guys doing the framing slipped and drove a four inch nail clean through the palm of his hand with his nail gun. He just pulled it out with his other hand, washed and bandaged it, and went back to work. Did even touch the bone.
Of course, I imagine the nails used in crucifixtion would be a significantly wider gauge. But like Shoshana said, they would have been nailed in through the wrist, not the hand. The palm of the hand can’t support the weight of a human body hanging from it by a nail. It’d just tear right out.
Well when Jesus uttered ‘it is finished’, at that time all things were/are/will be complete - complete in a way that those things now HAVE to come true, though in the future. And yes that is a Christian view.
FWIM’s there is a way to support a body through the palms, you have to get the nail through the carpal tunnel. That said the wrist was much more likely.
My wrist has a bone in it. Even if they nailed Jesus a bit further up the arm than the wrist, where the arm bones divide, how did this hold a man to a crossbeam? And how is it the Romans were so careful not to break any of Jesus’ bones, particularly since he was beaten and ravaged nearly to death at that point? I would think they wouldn’t actually care if they nailed thru a bone, as long as the nail held. It’s kinda like protesting that a man about to be executed for murder shouldn’t have a last cigarette because it’s bad for his health. Were his arms and hands examined for brokenness after his death, to make sure he was “whole”? What about the tradition of Thomas the Doubter and the holes in Jesus’ palms?
Not to hijack my own thread, but I have to agree with DtC, altho I am not well-versed in the OT, that I haven’t read in any traditional tales of Jesus’ crucifixion the “no broken bones” thing, and I have to think the lines in the OT must have referred to something else. I’m always open-minded however, and if you know of a tradition I should read, please tell me about it.
Your information was excellent. This IS my question. Thanks so much!
The romans would care because it would make their job harder if Jesus’ arm broke loose, and who ever nailed him would never live it down with his piers. Again as I pointed above, if you ever have a animal joint with 2 bones coming from it (in the same direction), you can see how tough is it to break away the bone, or tear the tendons. If you try to seperate the bones by forcing something inbetween what will probably happen is the cartilage will fail while the bones and tendons stay intact.
Here is John 19:
(The part about pierced is cross referenced in Zech. 12:10). It is unclear what part of scripture John is referring to, but most likely either the one that DtC states or the 2 that I do, or a combination of the 3.
Traditionally, yes, but “Jesus’s” is becoming more frequent. I know, I’m wary of it too, but it does follow the rule.
The true messiah denies his divinity…
And consider the fact that it wasn’t John the Baptist or his followers that wrote the book-it was a Christian with an obvious bias.
True, consider how important John the Baptist as more gospels were written
First Mark: John baptized Jesus.
Then Matthew modified it: John protested, that he really didn’t need to baptise.
By the time Luke was written: Now its more of a passive baptism; John didn’t explicitly do it
John the Baptist didn’t create a religion that was persecuted as the Christians were. Even if there were religions still around now based on JTB, they require you to be born to his religion’s parents (as already posted by someones link to wikipedia). According to Christianity: Go and baptize all nations… Either Christianity had some great PR or it had some divine help. I do admit that this religion has commited some grevious sins, i.e. spanish inquision, persecution of galileo, crusades, and many more. There must be a reason this religion survived although many similar cults proclaiming almost the same things around the time of jesus proclaimed died out long ago. I say this only IMHO. I welcome all responses to this if they present facts different to my mindset
As pointed out above, the messiah was not expected to be divine, just divinely anointed, so denying his divinity is not the same as denying he is the messiah.
Christianity had Constantine,and the backing of the Roman empire;before that Christianity was not united,and since the Reformation it is the most divided of all religions.
Buddhism is 500 years older than Christianity, and Judaism still exists so I do not see why age should make a difference. Christianity sent out missionaries while Buddhism and Judaism do not,yet both are growing.
Monavis
So you are saying that Jesus was not divine-just a normal human being?
Define divine.
Ask kanicbird-it’s her statement I’m questioning.
Well, yeah. Except in Luke 24:40 it quite plainly says that Jesus showed them His hands and His feet to prove that it was He who had been crucified.
Kanicbird is a she? I’ll be damned. All these years I’ve thought she was a guy.
Her statement to HubZilla is true, though. Hub said that “The true messiah denies his divinity,” which is true under Jewish expectation (The Jewish conception of the Messiah would deny being God), but John the Baptist denied being the Messiah, which is not the same thing as denying personal divinity (and not something either the Jewish or Christian conception of the Messiah would be expected to do).
It was just a blind guess. I could be wrong, but saying “she/he” is awkward.