Posted on 04/12/2016 4:26:25 AM PDT by NYer
The greatest source of controversy, for me, actually doesn’t come from science it comes from the Scriptural accounts of the Crucifixion.
As this image shows: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shroud_of_Turin#/media/File%3AFull_length_negatives_of_the_shroud_of_Turin.jpg
The wounds are indeed in the wrists not (what we would call) the “hand”.
As another pointed out, Scripture describes the nails going through the “hands”. The question(s) to answer is:
1. Was there a word for “wrist” back then? That is, did the people of that time distinguish between the “hand” and the “wrist”?
2. Does such a word appear in Scripture?
3. Does such a word appear in the same book as the Crucifixion account?
If the answer to all 3 is yes then it’s extremely unlikely the Shroud is genuine. If any can be answered as no, then the seeming contradiction in Scripture and the Shroud may not be so, as it would be entirely possible that the word used for “hand” in the accounts actually described what we would call both the hand and wrist areas today.
Answering these 3 questions has been on my “to-do” list for a while now. Maybe if I find some time this weekend.
The wounds on the shroud are on the wrists.
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.
http://www.catholicplanet.com/articles/article16.htm
Nothing happens.
If you and everyone around you grew up seeing, imagining, and meditating on the wounds in Christ's palm, would it not be fitting for God to condescend to you in that respect and grant you something that, while historically inaccurate, was an unmistakably clear sign to you and your contemporaries?
Generally speaking, signs have to be in the language of the readers or they aren't terribly useful.
There was a hundred pounds or so of ointments and herbs smeared all over and covering Jesus’ body...How does the shroud keep that stuff from falling off???
The “Abba” cave discovered in Jerusalem held the remains of a crucified man. He was crucified through the hands, not the wrist:
https://jamestabor.com/the-abba-cave-crucifixion-nails-and-the-last-hasmonean-king/
If the theory is correct that what we now know as the Shroud was previously known as the "Image of Edessa" and the "Holy Mandylion", then it s fairly well documented.
The image would have been brought to Edessa in the years after the Resurrection, then brought to Constantinople, then stolen by Crusaders during the sack of that city in 1204, after which it was hidden until the mid-1300s.
I guess I would prefer God reveal the TRUTH to me if he is going to manifest a substantial revelation through me.
I am a little old to believe in Santa.
What no one can EVER prove is that they covered Jesus. People are so gullible. Research money is so available.
There was a program on a few years ago called “The Face of God”, and, no, it wasn’t about Ted Cruz. But, I digress. It proved to me that both clouds covered the same cadaver.
This program used computer graphs to “make” a face based on the blood stains. It was pretty fascinating. If it was Jesus , He truly looked Middle Eastern.
The Sudarium has a documented history hundreds of years older than the assumed date of the shroud.
Wrong. That date has been proven wrong. Both cloths are from the same time.
I’m not sure I understand your point here but clearly the Shroud was used to cover *someone*. So if someone else in history was covered by a burial shroud why wouldn’t Jesus have been so covered?
Or, if one starts with the assumption that the Shroud is a complete forgery, then one still has to deal with the historical fact that indeed burial shrouds were in quite common use back then. So again the question would be “Why wouldn’t Jesus have been so covered?”
I would think that the burden of proof would lie on the claim “Jesus wasn’t covered by a burial Shroud”; the claim “Jesus was covered in a burial shroud” seems verifiable by historical evidence alone.
Thank you
That's why it's interesting!
Ultimately, there is no definitive answer and so...
Another thing I just thought of now, in considering LS’s question and maybe yours, is that the Crucifixion may not have been as we popularly imagine.
Consider the negative image of the Shroud again: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shroud_of_Turin#/media/File%3AFull_length_negatives_of_the_shroud_of_Turin.jpg
Here we can see the exit wound of the nail on the back of the left hand is just below the palm of the hand, into (or really through) what we may call the “wrist” today.
I was just thinking though, it’s possible that the nail was driven through, on the front of the hand, through the palm, but driven through in an almost transversal fashion so as to be at an angle with respect to the palm so it exited near the base of the hand (or at the wrist).
So when He was hanging on the Cross it would appear the nails were in His hands but in actuality they entered there and exited through the wrist. This would (maybe?) provide the support needed to support His weight on the Cross (as the nail would be through and by the stronger bones of the wrist), as well as be consistent with the Biblical account of the nails being “through the hands” as well as consistent with future Stigmata reports.
Just something to consider maybe?
“There was a hundred pounds or so of ointments and herbs smeared all over and covering Jesus’ body..”
The women came to the Tomb with the ointments but the tomb was empty
Read that years ago, and then found out it was an elaborate hoax.
Read that years ago, and then found out it was an elaborate hoax.
Yad in Hebrew, generally translated as "hand," actually includes the forearm as well as the hand.
Interesting thanks.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
