The Passion of Christ

Originally posted by finti
one can nail that part of the hand without cutting the vital veins

it would have had to be in his hands, because when he was resurrected, that's where the hole were, in his hands.

historical references say the nail pierced his wrists, but painters and such percieve it as through the hands.

I believe it went throught the wrists, because...

The nail in the hands would tear the hands apart when hung from the cross. Through the wrists, the nail would go in between the two bones, making the nail hold Jesus' body on the cross

Originally posted by The Force
it would have had to be in his hands, because when he was resurrected, that's where the hole were, in his hands.

how is that a fault?

Originally posted by BackFire
Lil - What did I expect from this film? I expected nothing. I went in very very non-opinionate. I had no prejudgements of the film and was hoping it would keep me entertained. Although I guess I should have known that 45 minutes of meaningly violence and torture wasn't enough to keep anyone with a brain entertained or intrigued for more then about 4 minutes.

And no, the movie was not well made at all. It felt like a college film with a large budget and a hidden agenda of trying to guilt people into believing in Jesus.

Also, my point with that hook scene is that it wasn't necessary for the story. I doubt that it happened, but yeah sure "it's possible" I guess. The only point of that scene, whether it happened or not, was to get an easy reaction out of the audience.

Yes, the story already existed. It was bad then, and it's bad now on the big screen with all redundant glory.

It was far away from collage film with large budget. You may not have liked the story, and what was it about but the way it was filmed was great IMO.

There is more than 45 minutes of violence, but that aside, according to story, Jesus was torchoured and killed the last 12 hours of his life...so, its kind of hard to put anything else in the movie apart from voilece and torchure since thats what the movie is about, is it not?

You went to the movie non-opinionate and was hoping to be at least entertained if anything else, so what did you expect to entertain you apart from voilence? Sure you must have known and hear the hype it brought about with its violent nature.

Well I was hoping, and expecting, to be emotionally moved and devistated. However, when I saw the film I fell asleep. It relied too much on the fact that it was jesus christ on the screen and felt that because of this, they didn't need to develop the character at all. This is unfortunate because had they did more back story and hurried through the boring violence, then maybe I would have cared about what I was seeing on screen because I would actually care for the character himself. Just because the last 12 hours of his life was him being tortured doesn't mean we can't have a little back story through more flashbacks or something.

Maybe it would have been a better idea too simply make it about the last 24 or 48 hours of his life, and concentrate more on what happened before the torture and before he was caught. That would satisfy some much needed backstory, and take away from the repetitive violence that was the last 45 minutes of hte film.

Also, I didn't see anything special about the film technically. The acting was pretty good, but then again all the actors had to do was cry and look sad the whole movie.

About the nail

The nail was in his hands because it said it the bible that they where.It said when Doubting Thomas said that before he believed Jesus was alive he wanted to see the nail in his HANDS.

The nail was in his hands because it said it the bible that they where.It said when Doubting Thomas said that before he believed Jesus was alive he wanted to see the nail in his HANDS

historical references say the nail pierced his wrists, but painters and such percieve it as through the hands.

I believe it went throught the wrists, because...

The nail in the hands would tear the hands apart when hung from the cross. Through the wrists, the nail would go in between the two bones, making the nail hold Jesus' body on the cross

I REALLLLLLY wanna see that movie........Is it gooooood?????MelGibson is supposed to be really good in that movie!!!Is he?????

ehh Mel directed it and had a cameo apperance

The arguement about the hands or the wrists is not so black or white! While it is true that during those times the "wrists" were considered part of the hand , there are some other points that show that it could have very well been that the nails were actually put into his palms! One thing is that commonly the person being crucified would be "lashed" or tied to the cross or cross beam(which would later be attached to a single large stake) which ever was being used with rope that would help hold the body to the cross if they did place the nails into the palms! The ropes along with the fact that the cross did have a "seat" or "sedile" where the feet rested (and where the nail/spike went through), this sedile or seat for the feet would allow for the majority of the person's wieght to be, so that the hands or palms would not be taking the weight of the body, so the hands would NOT tear due to the nails!

There also was a scientist/doctor who did actual experiments (I think in the 70's) in which he used cadivers and live humans to fo re inactments of the crucifixtion. He did place the spikes like were used into the palms and the hands were able to support the body and NOT tear during the crucifixtion.

SO there is 2 good cases for the nails being put into the palms! Hope this helps!

Originally posted by finti
if you think it was in the palm of his hands I just have to say noway, the hand wouldnt be able to withstand the weight of the rest of the body and it would be shred apart. That is a proven fact. Besides the wrist is part of the hand as well

right on, and another think the buttocks were "rested" on some sort of board, this was vital to make crucifixion a doable means of execution

Actually, its been proven that the nail can go through the hand and hold the whole body. Its been receantly scientificly proven, and there was awhole report about it, if you pick through the internet it might be on here as well.

Also, if you remember, Christ wasnt ''hanging'' off the cross, his feet were nailed to the support wood under his feet!

Also, if you remember, Christ wasnt ''hanging'' off the cross, his feet were nailed to the support wood under his feet!

Actually, its been proven that the nail can go through the hand and hold the whole body. Its been receantly scientificly proven, and there was awhole report about it,

In WWII they experimented a bit on crucification in the extermination camp of Dachau, from that it was learned what which way "worked" and which didnt

so then it depends on the person? because we've got scientific experiments that say different things, and i'm going with lil and omegaman on this one.

As I have stated , there is actual experimental proof that the hand CAN support the body during an crucifixtion given the other "aspects" of the type of cross used, i.e.- the sedile or seat for the feet the area that supports the majority of the persons weight! ALso the hands were also tied or lashed down the upper part of the cross which in turn added support to the arms/hands so that the spike could go through the palm!

Finit-I will be back with the exact site ,so that you can read it for yourself!

I forgot about that OmegaMan in your previous post,Jesuss rist where tied to the board so his hands couldnt tear.

The man who performed the experiments was Dr. Fred T. Zugibe who is a doctor and a former medical examiner for New York. He has studied the crucifixtion for 50 years and is considered the world's ranking expert on the topic! He found that the strain to the arms/hands would be about 50lbs and the rest of the strain would be on the feet , which was supported by the "sedile" or seat! So that proves that the spikes could have been driven through the palms!

I am not saying that this means that in fact the spikes did go through the palms and not the writst! What I am saying is that really doesnt matter one way or the other, the point is that Jesus did endure the crucifixtion in the first place!! That should be the main point.

the only way the palms would be nailed is if the wrist being tied to the cross, as omegaman pointed out.
But the feet was nailed to the cross not to support the body but to be part of the torure, usually the legs was broken to speed up the death.

the question one must ask is why was jesus crucified and not stoned

Jesuss rist where tied to the board so his hands couldnt tear.

and is considered the world's ranking expert on the topic!