Why the BBC thinks Christ did not die this way

BBC ^ | 16 Mar 2008 | Jonathan Wynne-Jones

[Bosco]

The crucifixion victim probably had the nails driven in just above the wrist where the radius and the ulna come together. If it were the hand there would the the tendency for the nail to rip through the hand from the palm out b/w the fingers.

IIRC, the wrist was considered part of the hand in those days.

Josh McDowell's book "Evidence that Demands a Verdict" deals with the crucifixion pretty well.

But I do note this: it's not so much the issue where the nails were driven, it's the issue of His bodily resurrection 3 days later.

Paul preached the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus not nail placement.

[nmh]

Allow me to cut through the nit picking of the BBC.

The BBC doesn't believe in God.

The Judeo Christian God VIOLATES their beliefs which of course are NOT Christian.

There. Got it?

[RichInOC]

Did the BBC have a man at Calvary? I must have missed that small detail.

[nmh]

“The Passion” is not Biblically accurate either.

Can't we just take God's Word for what happened?

Must we always resort to fallible man and elevate that over God? Must we? In this house, we don't. It's God's Word that supersedes man's fallible word.

[nmh]

This is an excellent book -

Josh McDowell’s book “Evidence that Demands a Verdict”.

Josh started out as an ATHEIST and wanted to prove the bible wrong and became an ardent BELIEVER - because the Bible is true.

All this idiotic nit picking won’t make it false - to those who KNOW.

[EveningStar]

Are the exact body position and nail placement described in the Bible?

[Brad from Tennessee]

I saw a documentary a few years ago on this subject. A medical researchers used cadavers to demonstrate how the crucifixion was carried out. He said the nails were driven through the heel of the hands—the lower part of the palm at a downward angle. He showed that this method would support a body without the nails ripping through the flesh. BBC is managed by aging gay, British Bolsheviks.

[nmh]

I'd have to look it up.

Frankly,

“Are the exact body position and nail placement described in the Bible?”

Does it matter?

Isn't it more miraculous that He overcame death?

Or don't you believe that either/

I could care less where the nails were placed - it's moot!

Why don't YOU look it up if this silly detail is so critical to YOU?

[Bosco]

BBC is managed by aging gay, British Bolsheviks.

Imagery I could do without on this Sunday. But you're right.

[Tennessee Nana]

they pierced my hands and my feet. Psalms 22:16b

But Thomas, one of the twelve, called Didymus, was not with them when Jesus came. The other disciples therefore said unto him, We have seen the Lord. But he said unto them, Except I shall see in his hands the print of the nails, and put my finger into the print of the nails, and thrust my hand into his side, I will not believe. John 20:24, 25

Then saith he to Thomas, Reach hither thy finger, and behold my hands; and reach hither thy hand, and thrust it into my side: and be not faithless, but believing. John 20:27

[EveningStar]

Thanks for the info.

[Gamecock]

They’re coming out a little late this year...

[joebuck]

"...he said they had been influenced by the discovery of a crucified skeleton, which was found near Jerusalem in 1968 and is the only such archaeological find."

I believe the "skeleton" in question consists merely of an ankle bone with a nail throught it. This in no way indicates Jesus was crucified in the position they claim.

[mware]

But Thomas, one of the twelve, called Didymus, was not with them when Jesus came. The other disciples therefore said unto him, We have seen the Lord. But he said unto them, Except I shall see in his hands the print of the nails, and put my finger into the print of the nails, and thrust my hand into his side, I will not believe. John 20:24, 25

John should know, he was the only disciple who witnessed the crucifixion. Matter of fact this is the only gospel (RC) read during the Vigil of Easter.

[Zero Sum]

Simon Elliott, the production designer, claimed that they had tried to make the drama as "historically accurate" as possible.

"The Victorian image of Jesus doesn't tie in with the historical evidence," he said.

The "Victorian image"? Apparently the early Fathers who wrote about the Crucifixion were simply relying on Victorian art. Who knew? /sarc

While acknowledging that his ideas are likely to upset Christians, Mr Elliott argued that the position so familiar to churchgoers was only one of a range of methods used by the Romans in crucifixions.

Which also means that Mr. Elliott's claimed "historically accurate" method was also "only one of a range of methods used by the Romans in crucifixions." It is not his "ideas" that are irksome, but his ignorance of history and the basic laws of logic, which wouldn't be so bad if they weren't accompanied by the air of certainty with which he makes his claims.

[Zero Sum]

But Mark Goodacre, associate professor of religion at Duke University, who advised the producers, defended the decision to put forward an alternative representation of the crucifixion. "The Romans used a number of ways to crucify people and this was one of the most common and effective methods," he said.

"The makers wanted something that wasn't the typical image that would surprise the viewers. This is not an attempt to be iconoclastic, but to get people to look again at the events surrounding his death." He added that he thought the Bible did not actually explain in any detail the form of crucifixion employed.

I think you should apply for a professorship at Duke. :)

[Tennessee Nana]

WOW

:)

I just knew the scripture...

If you read Psalm 22 through, the discription of what happened to Jesus on the cross is there...

[hellbender]

they pierced my hands and my feet. Psalms 22:16b

Yes, the manner of crucifixion was important, because it occurred in order to fulfill prophecy.

The Passion has already proved controversial for appearing to exonerate Judas and Pontius Pilate for their roles in the Christ's death.

This is also leftist sabotage of the Gospel, because Jesus said that "evil must come, but woe to him by which it comes." Judas and Pilate were guilty as...as sin.

[Mad Dawg]

I have a recollection from around that time (late sixties, New York Daily News) of a quite complete figure being found with a cross which didn't have a very tall vertical part. And the body was more in a crouched position than the traditional depiction.

I don't get why it's being one way or the other is supposed to be upsetting to us.