What's new
By:
Filters
Christian Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Christ's bones not broken?

P

Packrat

Member
I had a question about the Roman practice of crucifixion. I know in the Bible that it says that Christ's legs were not broken, but what about his feet or hands? We have bones in our feet and hands, so were the bones in Christ's feet not broken when they nailed them to the cross? If they were not broken, where does the nail insertion usually go?
 
Just a quick response and I'm sorry that I don't have a link. But I seem to recall that the nails went between the bones.
It was common practice to break the legs of the person on the cross so that they would die quicker. Apparently, it was very difficult to breath by simply hanging by your arms, so the person had to stand to breath.
So, the way I understand it, is that both thieves on the cross had their legs broken to quicken their death (because the Sabath was coming up and it was against mosiac law to leave a dead man hanging on a tree over nite). But Christ had alread died, so instead of having to break his legs, they pierced his side to make sure that he was dead. Hence, his blood was poured out... as scriptures fortold.
 
I just wanted to add these verses.
Keep in mind that John is the author of both letters.

John 19:34 But one of the soldiers with a spear pierced his side, and forthwith came there out blood and water.


1 John 5:6-8 This is he that came by water and blood, even Jesus Christ; not by water only, but by water and blood. And it is the Spirit that beareth witness, because the Spirit is truth. For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one.

John 19:36-37 For these things were done, that the scripture should be fulfilled, A bone of him shall not be broken. And again another scripture saith, They shall look on him whom they pierced.

Psalm 34:20 He keepeth all his bones: not one of them is broken.

Zechariah 12:10 And I will pour upon the house of David, and upon the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the spirit of grace and of supplications: and they shall look upon me whom they have pierced, and they shall mourn for him, as one mourneth for his only son, and shall be in bitterness for him, as one that is in bitterness for his firstborn.

Psalm 22:16 For dogs have compassed me: the assembly of the wicked have inclosed me: they pierced my hands and my feet.
 
Well, it concerned me because of all the pictures I see of the crucifixion of Christ being portrayed, the nails in his feet are in such a position that would break the bones of his feet or stab holes into the bones of the feet. At least I think that's how it is portrayed. So... Where did the nail holes go in the feet? I can understand the hands a little better - through the wrists I think or the hands, themselves.

What about that passage in Genesis that talks about bruising the heel of the Seed of the Woman? Why is the word 'bruised' used and not 'pierced' if this was supposed to be a prophecy of Christ? Perhaps it was improperly translated or is misunderstood. Maybe it really meant 'injured' by 'bruised' or maybe it was supposed to be translated as 'injured' instead of 'bruised'. Any thoughts?

By the way, thanks for your post, Stove.
 
Wow PackRat, I'm really surprised that nobody else has offered up any answers for you. I'll bet that if I said Jesus wasn't nailed through the hands we'd get a reaction :wink: lol just kidding lol!

I've heard that the nails went throught he arches of the feet between the bones. I've also heard that being nailed through the hands would support a body without ripping.

As far as the other part, I sure with Joe would step in as I'm really not up on it that much. I'm probably wrong, but I've always kind of gotten the idea that Satan was bruised when Christ died but he's still out and about going to and fro.

The verse comes from Gen 3:15 And I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring [a] and hers;he will crush your head, and you will strike his heel."
 
Christ was nailed on the cross. The roman method of cruxifiction severes the tendons and nerves in the wrist making the hands unusable. Nailing in the hands is a myth. The weight of the body wouldn't support it. Likewise the feet are made up of many bones and just pierced in between the digital protrusions. Stovebolts correctly added that the bodies had to be taken off the crosses before the setting of the sun according to Jewish law. In the weeks leading up to the cruxification Christ he was very busy according to the Gospels. Dont quote me on this, I aint looked it up yet, but, I heard Him and the disciples traveled 100's of miles on foot in a few weeks before the execution. When Judas and the jew's came to take Jesus away, the disciples were all sleeping. Which may indicate they were very busy upuntil the time of the passover.

What about that passage in Genesis that talks about bruising the heel of the Seed of the Woman? Why is the word 'bruised' used and not 'pierced' if this was supposed to be a prophecy of Christ? Perhaps it was improperly translated or is misunderstood. Maybe it really meant 'injured' by 'bruised' or maybe it was supposed to be translated as 'injured' instead of 'bruised'. Any thoughts?

As far as this passage goes it refers to the fact that Adam's, Abraham's, David's offspring etc .. would eventually (not totally de facto yet) crush or destory the head of the serpent. I'm sure this is also some Hebrew Idiom. Also to note The Gospel and or Message in the Stars refered to by Bullinger and (Seiss) I believe show the relation of God's Plan in the Heavens in relation to Man. I think if i recall from memory that Apollo struggles with the serpent Draconis being entwined around him, while crushing his head. The Man maybe Apollo is reaching for the a Crown or Coronis while the snakre trys to prevent him from reaching it. I could tell you more but right now I don't have the time.Anyways I hope that answered a few questions for you!
 
What about that passage in Genesis that talks about bruising the heel of the Seed of the Woman? Why is the word 'bruised' used and not 'pierced' if this was supposed to be a prophecy of Christ?
Click to expand...

I donno, but wouldn’t your heel be bruised if you stacked your feet together and nailed them to a board? And if that didn’t bruise your heel, what would all your blood do to your feet if you hung for hours, unable to move them? I would guess the pressure would pop some blood vessels and have a noticeable bruising effect on the skin of your heel. All of that aside, the bruising of the heel can't be considered any more literal than the crushing of Satan’s head. Do you think Satan resembles a lion (or dragon or serpent) roaming about with his brains hanging out?
:o :wink:
 
I believe the reason the word 'bruised' is mentioned is because it meant that it was temporary. As the death of Christ was a temporary situation. As through the resurrection He overcame death.
 
God curses Satan for tempting and misleading Adam & Eve, This curse is to the Snake.
Genesis 3:15
And I will put enmity <0342> between thee and the woman, and between thy seed <02233> and her seed <02233>; it shall bruise <07779> thy head <07218>, and thou shalt bruise <07779> his heel <06119> .

0342 hbya 'eybah ay-baw' enmity, hatred
02233 erz zera` zeh'-rah seed, sowing, offspring, semen, descendants, posterity, children
07779 Pwv shuwph shoof bruise, break, cover, crush, gape upon, to fall upon
07218 var ro'sh roshe head, chief, top, beginning, company, captain, sum, first, principal, rulers
06119 bqe `aqeb aw-kabe' heel, footsteps, horsehoofs, footprint, hinder part, rear of a troop

So what this basically says is, the womans seed and offspring, will wound the head of the snakes offspring (or rulers), with the woman's offsprings heel or foot. If you believe or interpret the it as it is written, the Serpent Seed doctrine as it's most commonly known. Theres way more to this than I can explain here!

It's used 9 times in the Bible 1 more time in Isaiah, 2 times in Jeremiah, once in Daniel and Nahum, in addition to these verses and Genesis 3:15.
Isaiah 53:5
But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed. {wounded: or, tormented} {stripes: Heb. bruise}
Isaiah 53:10
Yet it pleased the LORD to bruise him; he hath put him to grief: when thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin, he shall see his seed, he shall prolong his days, and the pleasure of the LORD shall prosper in his hand. {thou...: or, his soul shall make an offering}
Romans 16:20
And the God of peace shall bruise Satan under your feet shortly. The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you. Amen. {bruise: or, tread}

EW Bullinger who was the only Christian scholar to edit the Massoretic Bible, states in his Commentary on this verse in Genesis says:

Gen 3:15 And I wil put enmity [hatred] between thee and the woman, and between thy [Satan’s] seed and her Seed; Christ shall bruise thy head [vital part], and thou shalt bruise His heel [lower part].

Refering to It or Christ in the 2nd part of this verse, Bullinger states: The corruption of this lies in the Vulgate. The verb tenses in the singular masculant shows that zer’a (seed) is to be taken in the singular tense. Hence the Septuigent form - i.e. of Christ; in Gen 17:7 you have the plural form of this word.

16 ... in sorrow [painful toil] thou shalt bring forth children ... 1Tim.2:14,15.
Childbearing was not brought forth into this world for eating an apple.

To see more on the serpent read Bullinger's Appendix 15 to the companion Bible!
 
Do you think Satan resembles a lion (or dragon or serpent) roaming about with his brains hanging out?

Well I don't know about that, but common sense, lets me believe this ->

___Did a perfect revelation existed between God and man "in the beginning." Was the first man, Adam, one with God. Was the human race "in tune" with God, understanding in some sense what God knew. After the fall, Adam personally was "detached" from the mind of God, but retained an imperfect knowledge of the Original Revelation, including God's plan of redemption.
___This point of view seems reasonable when one considers that the earliest historical and archeological records from civilizations around the world consistently point back to and repeat portions of a similar Creation stories. In the centuries that followed the Fall: information from the original revelation became distorted and was dispersed; and the realm of Satan seized upon this opportunity to turn people away from God, by counterfeiting the original revelation with pagan ideas. Instead of viewing the galaxy and stars as a heavenly map laid out by God, men began celebrating the stars and worshiping the 'deities' that they represented. "Profesessing themselves to be wise, they became fools, and changed the glory of the uncorruptible God..." (Rom. 1:22-23).
___Dr. James Kennedy echoes such ideas in his book, The Real Meaning Of The Zodiac, pointing out that "the ancient signs of the Zodiac record a singular and original revelation. A kind of Gospel in the Stars. And that message of the stars was converted into astrology after the fall of man. But it originally recorded the Gospel of God. Kennedy writes: There exists in the writings of virtually all civilized nations a description of the major stars in the heavens, called the "Constellations of the Zodiac" of which there are twelve. If you go back in time to Rome, or beyond that to Greece, or before that to Egypt, Persia, Assyria, or Babylonia; regardless of how far back you go, there is a remarkable phenomenon: Nearly all nations had the same twelve signs, representing the same twelve things, placed in the same order."
___The book of Job, which is thought by many to be the oldest book of the Bible, goes back to approximately 2150 B.C., which is 650 years before Moses came to write the Pentateuch. In chapter 38, God finally breaks his silence and speaks to Job and to his false comforters. As He is questioning Job, showing him and his companions their ignorance, God says to them: "Canst thou bind the sweet influences of Pleiades, or loose the bands of Orion? Canst thou bring forth Mazzaroth in his season? or canst thou guide Arcturus with his sons?" (Job 38:31,32).Here we see referenced the constellations of Orion and Pleiades, and the star Arcturus. Also in the book of Job there is reference to Cetus, the Sea Monster, and to Draco, the Great Dragon. God In Job 38:32 states: "Canst thou bring forth Mazzaroth in his season?" Mazzaroth is a Hebrew word which means "The Constellations of the Zodiac." In what may be the oldest book in all of human history, we find that the constellations of the zodiac were already clearly known and understood. Having made it clear that the Bible expressly, explicitly, and repeatedly condemns what is now known as astrology, the fact remains that there was a God-given Gospel [A universally acknowledged Original Revelation] in the stars which lays beyond and behind that which has now been corrupted.
___Dr. Kennedy strongly condemns the practice of astrology, while asserting his view that the constellations of the zodiac were likely given by God to the first man as "record-keepers" of the original revelation of God. Whatever one makes of Kennedy and other people's zodiac conclusions, one cannot help but be amazed by the Gospel similarities. If similar assumptions have been made one would expect to find numerous examples of such corruption from as far back as the beginning of history and within various civilizations around the world. Since the myths behind the gods would thus be "borrowed" ideas, the corrupted texts would be similar to the original truth, and, in that sense, evidence of a particular and original revelation.
 
Packrat said:
I had a question about the Roman practice of crucifixion. I know in the Bible that it says that Christ's legs were not broken, but what about his feet or hands? We have bones in our feet and hands, so were the bones in Christ's feet not broken when they nailed them to the cross? If they were not broken, where does the nail insertion usually go?
Click to expand...
Hi,

Most of what you asked has been explained already, but the "why" hasn't.

Broken bones of any kind would have nullified prophecy:

Psalm 34:20 He keepeth all his bones: not one of them is broken.

*edied to add; I see Jeff has already mentioned this verse.* :oops:
 
ÃÂoppleganger said:
What about that passage in Genesis that talks about bruising the heel of the Seed of the Woman? Why is the word 'bruised' used and not 'pierced' if this was supposed to be a prophecy of Christ? Perhaps it was improperly translated or is misunderstood. Maybe it really meant 'injured' by 'bruised' or maybe it was supposed to be translated as 'injured' instead of 'bruised'. Any thoughts?
Click to expand...

Genesis 3:15 is not a prophecy of Christ.
 
Genesis 3:15 is not a prophecy of Christ.

But it is, Christ has often been called the 2nd Adam. It'sa part of his redemptive plan. The tense of the verse is singular, so it can only be refering to 1 man.

Like this verse that could only be refering to one person that didn't even exist yet, in the flesh!

Isaiah 53:5
But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed. {wounded: or, tormented} {stripes: Heb. bruise}

Vic's also right about this -> Broken bones of any kind would have nullified prophecy: And if you take the Shroud of Turin as any evidence of the cruxification, you'll see that,more than likely these bones weren't broken. The digits of the foot like the hand are just single extensions protuding from the ankle and wrist joints covered by muscle and skin. If the pharisee's had there way they probably would of had him stoned! But thats a story for a different day!
 
ÃÂoppleganger said:
Christ was nailed on the cross. The roman method of cruxifiction severes the tendons and nerves in the wrist making the hands unusable. Nailing in the hands is a myth. The weight of the body wouldn't support it. . .
In some crucifiction scenes ropes securing the victim to a cross would explain why the nails would not have to support the entire weight of the body.

blessings: stranger
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
Starnger says
In some crucifiction scenes ropes securing the victim to a cross would explain why the nails would not have to support the entire weight of the body.
Click to expand...

Well taking the Shroud of Turin as a basis and not some artists conception is more to my liking! Actually its rather ingenious of those (Beeps) to come up with something so cruel and anatomically correct. The cruxification wasn't fiction why should the facts behind it be? Besides wouldn't the ropes loosen due to the weight and movement of the individual? Wouldn't the ropes cut into the flesh down to the bone due to the weight? Would the authority's really want to boche an execution?

If you nail through the wrist it severes the tendon to the thumb,making it unusable. The only way the only way a person could pull himself up to breath then, is on the weight of his own arms. If his legs were broke this would almost be impossible. If there were ropes the shear effect from the ropes would make it easier but the exterior damage on the wrist would be highly localized on the wrist area. You ever tied your wrist to a 4x4 its not that stable,and fairly easy to worm out of. Of course they coulda lashed the ropes around the wrist several times then the cross. But wouldn'tthis show up in the shroud if it really was authentic?
 
ÃÂoppleganger said:
Stranger says

Well taking the Shroud of Turin as a basis and not some artists conception is more to my liking! Actually its rather ingenious of those (Beeps) to come up with something so cruel and anatomically correct. The cruxification wasn't fiction why should the facts behind it be? Besides wouldn't the ropes loosen due to the weight and movement of the individual? Wouldn't the ropes cut into the flesh down to the bone due to the weight? Would the authority's really want to boche an execution?

If you nail through the wrist it severes the tendon to the thumb,making it unusable. The only way the only way a person could pull himself up to breath then, is on the weight of his own arms. If his legs were broke this would almost be impossible. If there were ropes the shear effect from the ropes would make it easier but the exterior damage on the wrist would be highly localized on the wrist area. You ever tied your wrist to a 4x4 its not that stable,and fairly easy to worm out of. Of course they coulda lashed the ropes around the wrist several times then the cross. But wouldn'tthis show up in the shroud if it really was authentic?
Click to expand...

I wasn't thinking about the shroud of Turin - nor artisit impressions but since crucifiction was a common practice of execution in the Roman Empire one would expect some written accounts with sufficient detail to see what was going on. There may have been a number of variations on a theme. But your comments are fair enough - I leave this one to the historians.

blessings: stranger
 
unred typo said:
I donno, but wouldn’t your heel be bruised if you stacked your feet together and nailed them to a board? And if that didn’t bruise your heel, what would all your blood do to your feet if you hung for hours, unable to move them? I would guess the pressure would pop some blood vessels and have a noticeable bruising effect on the skin of your heel. All of that aside, the bruising of the heel can't be considered any more literal than the crushing of Satan’s head. Do you think Satan resembles a lion (or dragon or serpent) roaming about with his brains hanging out?
:o :wink:
Click to expand...

Good point. :-D Ok, I've got another question for you. Why wouldn't God state in Genesis that the hands of the Seed of the Woman would be bruised as well? If that one passage in Psalms (referring to 'pierced my hands and feet') is prophetic, should the two passages (although differing by centuries) resemble each other a little better? After all, it is God who is prophesying through the prophets.
 
This is not too difficult to reconcile. Look at it this way... what is the degree of damage between being struck on the heel by a serpent as opposed to bruising (crushing) the head of same said serpent?

This is the beginning of our Bible. Prophecy and revelation are in their "infancy". Both progress as we continue to read and study this messianic prophecy, right up to where we have our Messiah defeating death (and in effect Satan) at His Resurrection. A crushing blow to the head Adversary. :smt021
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top