No Mention of Nails

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
moses
Posts: 26
Joined: Mon Oct 02, 2017 1:34 am

Re: No Mention of Nails

Post by moses » Tue Apr 03, 2018 3:52 am

"Just saw this on Facebook. Why if the gospel is a historical account are there no mention of nails being driven in Jesus's hands. The stigmata are important to Christian theology and by association Paul - but no specific mention of Jesus's hands (and feet) being penetrated by nails"

the gospel of luke does not show even one indication that jesus was pierced or nailed . in luke, jesus is trying to prove he isn't a ghost and he wants to be handled, not poked .
Good point. If Luke imagined the risen Jesus to have visible wounds in his hands and feet, then why wouldn't the disciples have noticed those wounds and identified him as being Jesus in the earlier appearance story (Luke 23:13-35)?
Luke makes no mention of nails, hammers, pounding, nor of a spear wound, nor of a wound in Jesus' side, nor wounds in Jesus' hands, nor wounds in Jesus' feet, either in his crucifixion story or in his resurrection appearance stories.
Luke provides us with a perfectly reasonable alternative explanation for Jesus offering his hands and feet to be examined--namely to prove that he has a physical body of flesh and bone, and that he is NOT a ghost.
Furthermore, the failure of disciples of Jesus to recognize him on the road to Emmaus or while sitting around the table at a house in Emmaus, indicates that Luke did not imagine Jesus to have visible wounds on his hands and feet.


The claim that nails were used to fasten Jesus to the cross is supported only by the Fourth Gospel, and only in the doubting Thomas story, NOT in ANY Gospel account of the crucifixion.
None of the canonical Gospel accounts of the crucifixion make any mention of hammers, or nails, or pounding, or wounds in Jesus' hands, or wounds in Jesus' feet. The doubting Thomas story is the only Gospel evidence for the use of nails in the crucifixion of Jesus.
The resurrection appearance stories in Luke do not corroborate the doubting Thomas story and provide reason to doubt the historicity of that story. Matthew and Mark imply that the first appearances of Jesus to the twelve occurred in Galilee, NOT in Jerusalem, in which case the appearance stories in Luke and John are fictional. Matthew and Mark provide further evidence against the historicity of the doubting Thomas story.
Given the historicaly unreliable character of the Fourth Gospel it is more likely that IF there were "appearances" experiences of Jesus after the crucifixion by the twelve, those PROBABLY first took place in Galilee a week or two after the crucifixion, meaning that the appearance stories in Luke and the Fourth Gospel are fictional, including the doubting Thomas story, which is the only Gospel evidence of the use of nails in Jesus' crucifixion.

andrewcriddle
Posts: 1494
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 12:36 am

Re: No Mention of Nails

Post by andrewcriddle » Thu Apr 05, 2018 10:56 am

moses wrote:
Tue Apr 03, 2018 3:52 am
"Just saw this on Facebook. Why if the gospel is a historical account are there no mention of nails being driven in Jesus's hands. The stigmata are important to Christian theology and by association Paul - but no specific mention of Jesus's hands (and feet) being penetrated by nails"

the gospel of luke does not show even one indication that jesus was pierced or nailed . in luke, jesus is trying to prove he isn't a ghost and he wants to be handled, not poked .
Good point. If Luke imagined the risen Jesus to have visible wounds in his hands and feet, then why wouldn't the disciples have noticed those wounds and identified him as being Jesus in the earlier appearance story (Luke 23:13-35)?
Luke makes no mention of nails, hammers, pounding, nor of a spear wound, nor of a wound in Jesus' side, nor wounds in Jesus' hands, nor wounds in Jesus' feet, either in his crucifixion story or in his resurrection appearance stories.
Luke provides us with a perfectly reasonable alternative explanation for Jesus offering his hands and feet to be examined--namely to prove that he has a physical body of flesh and bone, and that he is NOT a ghost.
Furthermore, the failure of disciples of Jesus to recognize him on the road to Emmaus or while sitting around the table at a house in Emmaus, indicates that Luke did not imagine Jesus to have visible wounds on his hands and feet.


The claim that nails were used to fasten Jesus to the cross is supported only by the Fourth Gospel, and only in the doubting Thomas story, NOT in ANY Gospel account of the crucifixion.
None of the canonical Gospel accounts of the crucifixion make any mention of hammers, or nails, or pounding, or wounds in Jesus' hands, or wounds in Jesus' feet. The doubting Thomas story is the only Gospel evidence for the use of nails in the crucifixion of Jesus.
The resurrection appearance stories in Luke do not corroborate the doubting Thomas story and provide reason to doubt the historicity of that story. Matthew and Mark imply that the first appearances of Jesus to the twelve occurred in Galilee, NOT in Jerusalem, in which case the appearance stories in Luke and John are fictional. Matthew and Mark provide further evidence against the historicity of the doubting Thomas story.
Given the historicaly unreliable character of the Fourth Gospel it is more likely that IF there were "appearances" experiences of Jesus after the crucifixion by the twelve, those PROBABLY first took place in Galilee a week or two after the crucifixion, meaning that the appearance stories in Luke and the Fourth Gospel are fictional, including the doubting Thomas story, which is the only Gospel evidence of the use of nails in Jesus' crucifixion.
One should probably distinguish in Luke between the references to the risen Christ's hands and the references to his feet.
The references to his hands may imply that they have nail prints the references to his feet probably do not.
See http://hypotyposeis.org/weblog/2006/09/ ... -feet.html

Andrew Criddle

moses
Posts: 26
Joined: Mon Oct 02, 2017 1:34 am

Re: No Mention of Nails

Post by moses » Wed Apr 18, 2018 2:43 am

The references to his hands may imply that they have nail prints the references to his feet probably do not.
Hello Andrew
Look at my hands and my feet. It is I myself! Touch me and see; a ghost does not have flesh and bones, as you see I have."
does the word "touch" have meaning of poking?

andrewcriddle
Posts: 1494
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 12:36 am

Re: No Mention of Nails

Post by andrewcriddle » Thu Apr 19, 2018 12:14 pm

moses wrote:
Wed Apr 18, 2018 2:43 am
The references to his hands may imply that they have nail prints the references to his feet probably do not.
Hello Andrew
Look at my hands and my feet. It is I myself! Touch me and see; a ghost does not have flesh and bones, as you see I have."
does the word "touch" have meaning of poking?
PsHLAPhAW the verb used here maybe should be rendered grope or feel around but it does not specifically mean poke

Andrew Criddle

Post Reply