CASES OF STIGMATA - Fact or Fiction?

[As you well know...]

Ha Ha Ha ..you're kidding, right?

[drstevej]

Nope.

[SoothingDave]

That's not anything official, just a thought I had.

SD

[drstevej]

I realized that.

[ventana]

Gal 4:14   And my temptation which was in my flesh ye despised not, nor rejected; but received me as an angel of God, [even] as Christ Jesus.  

    Gal 4:15   Where is then the blessedness ye spake of? for I bear you record, that, if [it had been] possible, ye would have plucked out your own eyes, and have given them to me.

Or could it be he had something wrong with his eyes? Something Jesus did to him at that their first "meeting" that never quite went away? Why else would these people who did not despise his infirmity offer him their eyes (if it had been possible)?

[drstevej]

GAl. 6:11 See with how large letters I write unto you with mine own hand.

Another indication of eye problems. If this is the case, it still could have been congenital.

[ventana]

Isn't he the one who said when you are old people will lead you where you don't want to go?

[drstevej]

No. That was what Jesus said to Peter in John 21 indicating his future martyrdom.

[As you well know...]

Ha Ha Ha...I was thinking of my old stomping grounds where a real ol' man Johnson lived

[ventana]

Oh yeah. Thanks.

[Domestic Church]

I recall hearing a decade ago about a stigmatic, a devout and humble housewife, up near Hazelton/Wilkes-Barre PA.

[Hermann the Cherusker]

Your replies here are very edifying and informative for the rest of us. Quite the contrast to certain people here mentioning that you Permanent Deacons are iliterate slobs!

[Hermann the Cherusker]

All of Jesus' miracles also have a supernatural component to them. To be "born blind" and then be "given sight" is analogical to Baptism - being born blind of faith, hope and charity because of original sin, and then having them infused by divine grace. Mud and spittle does take us back to Genesis and the natural creation of the human race. Christ uses them here to teach about Baptism and the supernatural recreation of the human race.

The miracles also show that Christ is the divine physician, here to heal our bodies of all infirmities in the glory of the resurrection, and our souls of all infirmities by His sacramental grace.

The finest link of these things is in Mark 2, where the cripple is lowered through the roof to be healed and Christ says to him that hs sins are forgiven, rather than healing him. But when the pharisees are scandalized, Christ heals his body to proove his ability to forgive sins.

[milan]

I've done very little research on the stigmata, and please excuse me if someone has already explained this: Jesus more than likely had the nails placed through his wrists, just like in the shroud. The reason is because that putting the nails through the hand will not support the upper body for any period of time. The flesh will tear and the body will fall. However, if the nails are put between the two arm bones at the wrist, the flesh will not tear and the body will stay in place. Sorry for the gross explanation, but this was apparently the "correct" way to crucify someone. The Romans had plenty of experience to do it the right way.

My point: to me it seems odd that similar "Christ" wounds would be in a place that Jesus more than likely did not have them. I am not saying that it is fake. I am saying that it seems odd that the wounds would be contarry to the truth as we know it to be.

To further elaborate that crucifictions happened that way; this is from the Quran (used simply as a way to show how some forms of crucifiction were done):
"Be sure I will cut off your hands and your feet on apposite sides, and I will cause you all to die on the cross."[Qur'ân 7:124]
This quite simply says that after their hands are cut off they will be hung on the cross. You can't put nails through hands that aren't there!

Also, here is a link to a very graphic explanation of what Jesus probably suffered. It covers the crucifixtion method of the Romans in more detail than you may want to know.
http://www.harpazo.net/crucify.html

Sorry, I may be a tad off subject, but wanted to lend some insight into the actual crucifiction method...as it is historically presented.

[PFKEY]

You insult him in order to maintain a superstition. In doing so, you also shame the Lord.

Well said doc.

[milan]

Random lumps and bruises?

Yeah, more than likely Paul's back was one giant scar. After a few of his beatings, quite honestly, they may have become easier for him...simply because his back and nerves were scarred beyond repair. The nerve damage was probably immense. Paul suffered immeasurably for his beliefs and loyalty to Christ. Of course, it wasn't just Paul. Not sure the exact numbers, but didn't most of the apostles take several beatings and weren't most crucified?

[Tantumergo]

"I was learnt it was a sign of God's love and that those He loves the most are willing to undergo suffering for others because, done with right intent, our undergoing suffering for others can be both Salvific and Redemptive."

Sounds like you was learnt by St. Paul:

Rom 8,17 "And if sons, heirs also; heirs indeed of God, and joint heirs with Christ: yet so, IF WE SUFFER WITH HIM, that we may be also glorified with him."

[Tantumergo]

"It is curious. Perhaps the Schism, which introduced a visible wound in the Mystical Body of Christ led to the showing of the wounds of the Body of Christ on certain mystics?"

Wow! That's a very mystical thought. Probably why no modern-day theologian is ever likely to stumble upon it. ;)

[Tantumergo]

"Quite the contrast to certain people here mentioning that you Permanent Deacons are iliterate slobs!"

Shock, horror!! I must have missed that one.

Slob perhaps, and knowing some of my brothers in the order we could probably stretch that to quite a few slobs.

But I think it may be generalising a little too much to call us all illiterate slobs! ;)

[BlackVeil]

I will look up some pictures, but I believe that early frescos of St Francis of Assisi do show him with stigmata on the wrists, rather than the palms. This is unusual, and marks him out from later stigmatists.