Broken bones of god

[sin_is_fun]

One of the claims of Bible is that the bones of jesus werent broken.But nails were passed through his feet and wrists(or palm).

Scientifically it is impossible to drive a nail in somebodys feet and make it to come to the other side without the nail passing through the bone.When it is done so, it is impossible not to have atleast a hairline fracture.In fact a nail piercing one side of the feet bone and coming on the otherside itself is fracture.

when nail passes through bone, the bone cracks.It doesnt make an exact hole and passes through the other side.And the nail used on jesus must have been a big one, so the bigger the nail the higher the probablity of fracture.

so how was this prophecy fulfilled?

[potwalloper.]

By all means! Let us use a theatrical depiction of an event on which to base our claims of the impossibility of the event.

Osteng provided some good evidence on the reality of crucifixtion. There are archeological finds which demonstrate that the nails were placed in the wrists to support the weight (couple that with anthropological and linguistic evidence that wrist and hand were considered the same in reference) and we understand that when scriptures state that He was nailed though the hand it is understood that the wrist was part of said hand.

As far as support for the weight by the feet, the design of crucifixtion was to induce suffocation (along with suffering and shame), the foot nailings were necessary only to provide minimal and fleeting support so that the crucified could raise up a bit (extremely painfully I might add) to catch a slight breath, thus prolonging the tortuous pain.

A large nail, or spike even, could easily have been driven between the bones of the feet without breaking any and serve the purpose they were designed to serve. Remembering of course the nails in the wrists (hands) supported the weight hanging on them and the nails in the feet supported the weight briefly placed on TOP of them, thus not tearing the foot away from the nail but pushing the foot down onto the nail.

The point is that myths can be interpreted in any way you wish to preserve the myth. Even if human feet were made of a single solid bone you would still have Christians finding some sort of explanation for why the single solid bone did not break.

Need I say more...

[RevJP]

Absolutely!

You make false claims with no evidence, you post drivel or should I say 'twaddle', with no basis other than your opinion. You really should say more, something of substance so that we may better understand the of your integrity and credibility, or the demonstrated lack thereof.

[sofyst]

I find it odd, sofyst, that you would choose to fixate on the first definition of "break" when the fourth definition (from the same source) defines it as "A) To fracture a bone of: I broke my leg." or
"B) To fracture (a bone): I broke my femur." That you would not choose the definition that specifically refers to bones, and coincidentally uses the term "fracture", rather than a more general term that is less applicable seems to be taking advantage of the ambiguous nature of the word.

I am fixating on the first definition for the exact same reason that our 'sin is fun' friend is fixating on the latter ones. His entire theory is based upon a fracture falling under the umbrella of what is called broken both within medical terminology as well as everyday use. I however am simply pointing out that while a fractured bone (hairline or sever) is considered to be broken, by other definitions of the same word it is not considered to be broken unless it is completely separated.

For his theory to have any sufficient weight in determining the error of both the prophecy and fulfillment of prophecy concerning Jesus' crucifixion then 'Sin is fun' would have to prove that when one uses the word broken they are referring to the definition whereas a fracture would be included.

However, if he is unable to do so and is simply left with the prophecy concerning Jesus' crucifixion testifying that none of Jesus' bones will be broken then he cannot adequately dismantle the prophecy as fake as he cannot adaquetly prove that the prophet was referring to none of Jesus' bones being fractured rather than completely torn into two.

[potwalloper.]

Absolutely!

You make false claims with no evidence, you post drivel or should I say 'twaddle', with no basis other than your opinion. You really should say more, something of substance so that we may better understand the of your integrity and credibility, or the demonstrated lack thereof.

:sleep:

[seventil]

One of the claims of Bible is that the bones of jesus werent broken.But nails were passed through his feet and wrists(or palm).

Can you post the scripture where it states this?

Thanks.

[Lotan]

John 20:25 describes holes in Jesus' hands (and side) but doesn't mention his feet. We know, however, that Roman crucifixion involved driving nails through the feet...



Also, the reference to holes in Jesus' hands is a well known error since nails through the hands would not have been able to support his weight.

[sin_is_fun]

I am fixating on the first definition for the exact same reason that our 'sin is fun' friend is fixating on the latter ones. His entire theory is based upon a fracture falling under the umbrella of what is called broken both within medical terminology as well as everyday use. I however am simply pointing out that while a fractured bone (hairline or sever) is considered to be broken, by other definitions of the same word it is not considered to be broken unless it is completely separated.

Its like this.To be called as unbroken something has to satisfy all conditions of the definition..it should not have a crack and as well as not be completely broken.But if it satsifies one condition it is broken.If it is either cracked or broken in two it is called as broken.

If you have a hairline fracture your arms will pain and you will go to doctor.He will deem it as a fracture and give you treatment of a fracture.so hairline fracture is also a fracture.Case is dismissed.

For his theory to have any sufficient weight in determining the error of both the prophecy and fulfillment of prophecy concerning Jesus' crucifixion then 'Sin is fun' would have to prove that when one uses the word broken they are referring to the definition whereas a fracture would be included.

you will see thousands of definitions of fracture in this website.Read for yourself.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=& ... e:fracture

[sofyst]

Its like this.To be called as unbroken something has to satisfy all conditions of the definition..it should not have a crack and as well as not be completely broken.But if it satsifies one condition it is broken.If it is either cracked or broken in two it is called as broken.

If you have a hairline fracture your arms will pain and you will go to doctor.He will deem it as a fracture and give you treatment of a fracture.so hairline fracture is also a fracture.Case is dismissed.

Really Sir? I am quite confused by your last post. You say that if something is to be called as unbroken it has to satisfy all conditions of the definition. Yet you then say that if it satisfied one condition it is broken. Which it be. Let us tackle with the idea that something has to satisfy all conditions.

Let us then bring back the definition of broken, but first let us define fracture, hairline in particular.

Hairline Fracture: A fracture in which the fragments do not separate because the line of break is so fine. Also called capillary fracture.

Let us then notice that the break is so fine that the fragments do not seperate. Let us then compare this with the definition of broken.

Broken:To cause to separate into pieces suddenly or violently; smash.
To divide into pieces, as by bending or cutting:
To separate into components or parts:
To snap off or detach:

You will notice that fracture does not satisfy this definition as it is not divided into pieces.

Therefore if we are to keep to your theory that we cannot call something as a defined word unless it satisfies all conditions of the word, then fracture, while satisfying later conditions, does not satisfy all and therefore cannot be considered as broken.

However, if we say that a word only need satisfy one condition to be called as such defined word, let us then consider whether this method is true or not. If a word need only fulfill one condition to be labeled as such defined word let us see what the definition of unbroken is. Shall we?

Unbroken: not broken; whole and intact; in one piece;

Therefore, if you are correct, and only one condition need be filled to be labeled as such word, then you would have to concede that a fracture (piece still intact) is to be defined as unbroken.

Either way you are grasping at straws and you lose.

[sin_is_fun]

Really Sir? I am quite confused by your last post. You say that if something is to be called as unbroken it has to satisfy all conditions of the definition. Yet you then say that if it satisfied one condition it is broken. Which it be. Let us tackle with the idea that something has to satisfy all conditions.

Its not the idea that "something has to satisfy all conditions".Its normal versus abnormal. Unbroken bones is normal, broken is abnoarmal. To be normal all conditions of normality have to be satisfied.To be abnormal only one condition of normality need to be violated. Normality has to satsify all condition,abnormality has to satsify just one condition.

Let us then bring back the definition of broken, but first let us define fracture, hairline in particular.

Very conveniently you did not give the full definition for broken. From www.dictionary.com the term broken INCLUDES

5."To CRACK WITHOUT SEPERATING INTO PIECES"

"To destroy the completeness of (a group of related items)"

"To vary or disrupt the uniformity or continuity of...."

"To force or make a way through; puncture or penetrate"

"To part or pierce the surface of: a dolphin breaking water. "

"To find an opening or flaw in...."

Saw those definitions? The fifth one virtually seals off your case "To crack without seperating into pieces"

The next one reiterates my point "to disrupt the uniformity..."

The next ones say "puncture..." and "pierce" as broken.

All these states are called as broken including breaking into 2 pieces. To be broken just a small puncture is enough.

note how even a "flaw" is called as broken according to the definition.A thing can only be either normal or abnormal.Either it is broken or it isnt.

Your case is gone.

[sofyst]

Very conveniently you did not give the full definition for broken. From www.dictionary.com the term broken INCLUDES

5."To CRACK WITHOUT SEPERATING INTO PIECES"

Sir, reread my post. Why did I post a definition of broken? Was it not to to prove that 'hairline fracture' did not satisfy all conditions of broken. Therefore I posted the first three definitions of 'broken' which by no means are satisfied by the definition of 'hairline fracture'. It was only convenient that I needn't go further than the first three definitions as the first three prove you to be wrong.

I was attempting to prove you wrong that one needn't satisfy all the requirements for a definition to be considered that word. Hairline fracture does not satisfy all the definitions. If we were to go off of the assumption that something needed to fulfill all the definitions then your hairline fracture would not satisfy this, therefore not being fit to be called broken.

My case is not gone, just reiterated by your misunderstanding.

Its not the idea that "something has to satisfy all conditions".Its normal versus abnormal. Unbroken bones is normal, broken is abnoarmal. To be normal all conditions of normality have to be satisfied.To be abnormal only one condition of normality need to be violated. Normality has to satsify all condition,abnormality has to satsify just one condition.

Now we are beginning to step into the realm of what is considered normal or abnormal. First we were speaking of broken, then you attempted to delve into what a fracture is...is it so impossible to simply stick with one word, or one main idea of thought.

Let me ask some questions, if they be too difficult refrain from responding and go about your way.

1. Does the Scripture prophecy that no bones of Jesus will be broken?
2. Is the definition of broken strictly limited to number five (To crack without separating into pieces)?
3. Can one speak of a breaking or of a broken object using definition number one (To cause to separate into pieces suddenly or violently; smash)?
4. Is something considered broken if it is separated into two pieces?
5. Is something considered broken if it is fractured?
6. Is it scientifically proven that when a nail is entered into a foot a breaking will occur causing the bone to be split into two?
7. Is it scientifically proven that when a nail is entered into a foot a breaking will occur causing at least a fracture?

Please, simply answer the questions for the furtherance of our discussion.