Probably every single picture ever made about Our Lord Jesus Christ has His hands, His palms that is, as being the ones pierced by nails, NOT the wrists. All the Saints who have received the visible stigmata are depicted as having their palms pierced as well. Padre Pio had his palms pierced too.

So how come they say that the Shroud of Turin looks like it has the wrists pierced? Most people contend that, but i think that if you look closely, it is still the palms that are pierced, not the wrists.

Some also say that if the palms were the ones that were pierced, then it "wouldn't work" because of the weight of the person etc. and that nailing the wrists is more secure and stable.

But shouldn't you die quickly if they nail your wrists? Wouldn't it be the same as slitting your wrists?

And if indeed the Shroud has the wrists nailed, then every single painting and picture ever made and the tradition of the Church has been dead wrong, because the Shroud is definitely authentic.

I don't see how some people can believe that the wrists were nailed and not the palms, and i have seen even traditionalists believe that.

.

Why would the Roman executioners, who were quite well-practiced at this form of execution, have used a style of nailing that was entirely useless, and different from all the other men they had nailed to crosses, when it came to Our Lord Jesus?  

If they had done so, which would have been so unlikely as to have been a kind of 'miracle' in itself, then Our Lord's hands, if they had remained affixed, would have been yet a second kind of 'miracle' -- which would have detracted from the believability of the whole event, instead of making it more believable.  

Furthermore, the location of the wounds on the Shroud of Turin would have been incorrect.  The Shroud shows the wrists nailed, not the palms.  As for why people would think it was the palms, that's just uncritical popular sentiment with no basis in reality, and it's not to be held as any kind of evidence.  It's just subjective sentiment.

The Crucifixion was a real thing and Roman crucifixions were an everyday reality.  We just have no idea what it would be like to have multiple executions along public roads like that today.  The closest thing was in Mexico when the Cristeros were hung from telephone poles like effigies and shot at until their bodies fell apart.  Some places had a man strung up on each pole, going down the road, a reminder to anyone who passes by of what happens to those who oppose the Freemason Federales.  

.

Neil?

I was always taught that a regular crucifixion had you tied at the wrists, no nailing of the hands was involved. Jesus was both tied at the wrists and nailed to the cross.

Why? I'm not 100% sure. Maybe it was so Jesus wouldn't come off the cross or something.

Quote from: Solidus

I was always taught that a regular crucifixion had you tied at the wrists, no nailing of the hands was involved. Jesus was both tied at the wrists and nailed to the cross.

Why? I'm not 100% sure. Maybe it was so Jesus wouldn't come off the cross or something.

There can be no denying that nailing the victim to the cross is a lot more difficult to do than tying him with ropes or straps.  And the Roman soldiers were not out for making their job more difficult.  

Add to that the fact that whatever goes WRONG at an execution, the soldiers in attendance would bear responsibility for it, and so, since the nailing of the hands and feet provide a LOT more things that could go wrong (such as the nails tearing through the hands and the victim thus perhaps able to escape his crucifixion or whatever), the nailing operation is going to be done in a way that makes SURE things don't go wrong.  

This wouldn't be the first time the soldiers had done this and it wouldn't be the last. One thing's for sure:  they were not doing anything they did not HAVE to do.  Nailing Our Lord down to the cross must have been in the ORDERS.  They wanted no mistakes and they wanted no unnecessary difficulty.

There is a lot of chatter on the Internet you can read about this question, but to be honest, the most obvious thing seems to escape far too many commentators.  

If a man were being nailed to the cross, and if he had the opportunity of pulling himself off of the nails, why would he not do so?  In the very least, he could then make a lot of trouble for the soldiers, who would become punishable themselves for having failed in their duty.  Therefore, a nail going through the center of the palm, where there are no wrist bones but only the metacarpal bones,



would be a place where the victim would be able to pull his hands off of the nail heads.  Sure, it would be most painful to do so, but after all, being crucified isn't exactly a walk in the park.  

Add to that the fact that such an experience would likely drive the victim crazy, with all the pain, and the physical possibility of pulling himself off of the nails could be enough to ensure that it might happen.  

Add to that the fact of the prophesy that not a bone would be broken, and so driving nails into the area where the wrist bones are located might well risk breaking one or more of those bones.  And that was not something that could happen to Our Lord.  

One website has the nails passing at a steep angle through Our Lord's palms, which would have required the hammer to drive long nails into a heavy beam at a 50-degree angle to the surface.  Only a person who has never attempted to do such a thing would suggest it.

.


.

You only theorized with what MIGHT have happened but didn't address a single thing i said.

Respond specifically to what i said.

Why in the world would a prisoner want to obliterate his hands if his feet will still be nailed? How will he get off the cross anyways? And if he does, what for? Will he not be surrounded by guards anyways?

What you said was just a bunch of malarkey.

Pelele, these essays confirm what Neil has been saying . The second paragraph below explains that the medical experts mean the anatomical wrist (which is located in the bottom part of the palm of the hand), not the forearm. It appears that Our Lord was nailed through what we call the bottom part of the palm, but in reality, it is actually the wrist.

This obviously does not explain why stigmatists receive the imprint through their palms.

http://www.shroud.com/meacham2.htm

"The wounds of the crucifixion itself are seen in the blood flows from the wrists and feet. One of the most interesting features of the Shroud is that the nail wounds are in the wrists, not in the palm as traditionally depicted in art. Experimenting with cadavers and amputated arms, Barbet (1953:102-20) demonstrated that nailing at the point indicated on the Shroud image, the so-called space of Destot between the bones of the wrist, allowed the body weight to be supported, where-as the palm would tear away from the nail under a fraction of the body weight. Sava (1957:440) holds that the wristbones and tendons would be severely damaged by nailing and that the Shroud figure was nailed through the wrist end of the forearm, but most medical opinion concurs in siting the nailing at the wrist. Barbet also observed that the median nerve was invariably injured by the nail, causing the thumb to retract into the palm. Neither thumb is visible on the Shroud, their position in the palm presumably being retained by rigor mortis."


This paragraph from this essay should clear up the matter for you on the WRIST/PALM confusion:

"Many people think that the wounds in Christ's hands must have been made in His wrists, that is, in the location most people call the wrist, where one might wear a wristwatch. This is a widespread misunderstanding. All 8 bones of the wrist (the carpal bones) are located in the heel of the hand, at the part of the palm of the hand closest to the forearm. Wristwatches are actually worn on the anatomical forearm (even though it is called the wrist), not on one's anatomical wrist. When medical experts claim that the nails of Christ's Crucifixion must have been driven through His wrists, they mean the anatomical wrist in the heel of the hand. (See the labeled x-rays of a human hand on this web site: http://www.pixelworks.com.ph/shroud/crucifixion.htm#nailed)."

From: http://www.catholicplanet.com/articles/article16.htm

I agree, the pixel works link does not work.

I also tried to access the full article from the "catholicplanet.com and can't reach it so here it in full:

The Wounds in Christ's Hands 
Correcting a common misunderstanding

I am writing this article to clear up a common misunderstanding about the wounds in Christ's hands. Often in artwork, statues, and crucifixes the wounds in Christ's hands are depicted as being in the middle of the palm of the hand. A number of anatomists and medical experts have disputed this common assumption. The reason is that a nail through the middle of the palm of a man's hand would not be sufficient to hold most of the weight of a man on a cross. The nail would tear through the hand.
The placement of the nails in crucifixion was most likely in the wrist, in a place between the wrist bones which is called the "space of Destot" (Barbet, Pierre. 1963. A Doctor at Calvary. New York: Image). This location would allow the nails to support the weight of an adult man because the ligaments which join the 8 wrist bones (carpal bones) are thicker and stronger than those which connect the bones of the palm (metacarpal bones). (See the AMA's web site on anatomy: http://www.ama-assn.org/insight/gen_hlth/atlas/newatlas/hand.htm)

An analysis of the Shroud of Turin, which many believe to be the actual burial shroud of Jesus Christ, shows a blood print in the location of the bones of the wrist (see the shroud.com web site: http://www.shroud.com/meacham2.htm). This analysis is in agreement with those medical experts who conclude that the nails of crucifixion would have to be placed between the wrist bones in order to support the weight of a man. Furthermore, a nail placed through the space of Destot (between the wrist bones) would injure the Median nerve and likely cause the thumb to turn inward. On the Shroud of Turin, Christ's thumbs are not visible, perhaps for this very reason.

Many people think that the wounds in Christ's hands must have been made in His wrists, that is, in the location most people call the wrist, where one might wear a wristwatch. This is a widespread misunderstanding. All 8 bones of the wrist (the carpal bones) are located in the heel of the hand, at the part of the palm of the hand closest to the forearm. Wristwatches are actually worn on the anatomical forearm (even though it is called the wrist), not on one's anatomical wrist. When medical experts claim that the nails of Christ's Crucifixion must have been driven through His wrists, they mean the anatomical wrist in the heel of the hand. (See the labeled x-rays of a human hand on this web site: http://www.pixelworks.com.ph/shroud/crucifixion.htm#nailed).

Some artists have depicted the nails of Christ's Crucifixion as being placed in what is commonly called the wrist. These depictions are the result of a misunderstanding. The space of Destot, where most medical experts claim that the nails were placed, is located between the first and second row of wrist bones (carpal bones) in the heel of the hand (Lamberto Schiatti, The Shroud, A Guide to the Reading of an Image Full of Mystery, Alba House). Most artwork and most crucifixes incorrectly place the wounds in Christ's hands in either the middle of the palm or in what is commonly called the wrist. The correct location of the wounds in Christ's hands was most likely the heel of the hand.

Blessed Anne Catherine Emmerich was shown visions from God of Christ's Crucifixion. She describes Christ being nailed through the palm of the hand, but does not say what part of the palm (The Dolorous Passion of Our Lord Jesus Christ, TAN Books and Publishers, p. 271). Her visions contradict those who would claim that the nails went through the place commonly called the wrist.

Saint Bridget of Sweden also received visions of the Crucifixion. She is more specific. She states: "they transfixed His hand in the part where the bone was firmest." (Revelations to St. Bridget, TAN Books and Publishers, p. 45). The part of the hand where the bones are the firmest is the heel of the hand.

Sacred Scripture supports the idea that the wounds of Christ's hands were in the palm of the hand, and not in what is commonly called the wrist. "Then he said to Thomas, 'Put your finger here, and see my hands….' " (John 20:27). " 'See my hands and my feet, that it is I myself….' And when he had said this he showed them his hands and his feet." (Luke 24:39-40). Notice that Jesus asks Thomas and the other Apostles to examine His hands, not His wrists.

By Ronald L. Conte Jr.

.

Imagine this:  when God designed the anatomy of man, He thought about how to make his hand bones in such a way that nails could pierce them when His only begotten Son is crucified, and thus fulfill the prophesies of Scripture.  And so it was done, from the foundations of the world.


.