Replies

Isn't this a sufficient explanation of "the marks of the Lord Jesus."

No.

Is this not a more reasonable explanation of the verse than imagining the marks were stigmata?

No. Why would Paul refer to random lumps and bruises as "the marks of the Lord Jesus"? How would such traumas be "marks" of the Lord?

***Why would Paul refer to random lumps and bruises as "the marks of the Lord Jesus"? How would such traumas be "marks" of the Lord?***

Random lumps and bruises? What an insult to the apostle! Those cruel lashes were received for one reason only, because he preached the resurrected Christ!

When in Ecuador, I met a number of young pastors who bore on their bodies the scars of similar beatings from those who were now members of their churches.

Random lumps and bruises??? Shame on you.

Our Lord was beaten prior to His crucifixion, were those mere "random lumps and bruises"??? No they were evidence of hatred inflicted by those for whom He was to give His life.

Paul's beatings were inflicted by those who hated the message of Christ. Paul endured them because he was constrained by the love of Christ!

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

Shame on you.

The highly recognisable iconography of Paul is consistent from a very early date, yet I'm not aware of any iconographic tradition of Paul bearing the stigmata. According to the Catholic Encyclopaedia, the first known stigmatist is Francis of Assisi.