I mean, regardless of whether Jesus was God or got crucified or not I assume they meant the wrists were the “standard” way the Romans nailed people to crosses? Presumably because the hand bones are pretty weak compared to the joint attaching your two forearm bones and they’d just fall off after a day or two? IDK I’ve never crucified anyone.
Also, commenting again because I just remembered that I’ve definitely seen depictions of him tied to the cross with rope. Probably because they don’t want to show blood and gore in, say, religious material for children or something? Not sure.
Still, the idea that you’re okay with showing the public execution of your God but blood is where you draw the line is kind of silly to me.
this makes sense to me since jesus’s nature is at the core of the schisms among of all the nicene versions of christianity. the closer to orthodoxy/catholicism/coptic/etc. that your flavor of christianity is the more he is both god and mortal and the further you are away from those flavors, the more he is either mostly/entirely god or mostly/entirely mortal. the “mostly god” flavors are usually american originated evangelical/protestant-like and i don’t doubt that you already know how sheltered their world views are stereotypically characterized; which includes no gore/violence.
Just fyi, the nails would be through the wrists.
Yes but it’s not as funny. Lol
Technically correct on a fictitious story…fucking what?
it’s technically correct on the real example of crucifixions fwiw. lol
I mean, regardless of whether Jesus was God or got crucified or not I assume they meant the wrists were the “standard” way the Romans nailed people to crosses? Presumably because the hand bones are pretty weak compared to the joint attaching your two forearm bones and they’d just fall off after a day or two? IDK I’ve never crucified anyone.
is there a religious depiction of crucified jesus with wounds on anything other than his hands/feet?
Also, commenting again because I just remembered that I’ve definitely seen depictions of him tied to the cross with rope. Probably because they don’t want to show blood and gore in, say, religious material for children or something? Not sure.
Still, the idea that you’re okay with showing the public execution of your God but blood is where you draw the line is kind of silly to me.
this makes sense to me since jesus’s nature is at the core of the schisms among of all the nicene versions of christianity. the closer to orthodoxy/catholicism/coptic/etc. that your flavor of christianity is the more he is both god and mortal and the further you are away from those flavors, the more he is either mostly/entirely god or mostly/entirely mortal. the “mostly god” flavors are usually american originated evangelical/protestant-like and i don’t doubt that you already know how sheltered their world views are stereotypically characterized; which includes no gore/violence.
I mean, most “religious descriptions” of Jesus I’ve seen make him a white guy when he’s definitely Middle Eastern.
nevermind the 400 year gap between his existence and portrayals. lol
Makes sense. Also the forearm has 2 bones, so I guess passing a nail in the gap between them would be easier than breaking through tight bone joints.
it’s interesting that the depictions of a crucified jesus has the nails on the hands and feet instead of the wrists or forearms.