Crucifixion Without Breaking Bones

[Amatorreginae]

Hopefully this is the right forum for my question. Mohammedans say that the Scripture that reads, "He keeps all his bones; not one of them is broken" (Psalm 34:20), could not have been fulfilled, as how could a man be crucified without the bones of the hands and feet being broken? I know that this Scripture refers to Christ's legs, but what good counter-argument is there?

 

[jacksknight]

Some people believe Christ's hands were pierced and some people his wrists. Either way the nails would easily go between the bones and not break them. I mean if God knew his bones would have been broken, then he would not have made that prophecy.

 

[miamited]

Hopefully this is the right forum for my question. Mohammedans say that the Scripture that reads, "He keeps all his bones; not one of them is broken" (Psalm 34:20), could not have been fulfilled, as how could a man be crucified without the bones of the hands and feet being broken? I know that this Scripture refers to Christ's legs, but what good counter-argument is there?

Hi amatorreginae,

That with God all things are possible.

God bless you,
In Christ, Ted

 

[Albion]

Some people believe Christ's hands were pierced and some people his wrists. Either way the nails would easily go between the bones and not break them. I mean if God knew his bones would have been broken, then he would not have made that prophecy.

Exactly. There is no reason to think that a crucifixion couldn't be done without the breaking of any bones.

 

[DamianWarS]

Hopefully this is the right forum for my question. Mohammedans say that the Scripture that reads, "He keeps all his bones; not one of them is broken" (Psalm 34:20), could not have been fulfilled, as how could a man be crucified without the bones of the hands and feet being broken? I know that this Scripture refers to Christ's legs, but what good counter-argument is there?

This idea goes beyond the obscure reference in psalms. There is in fact a much clearer scripture to support this which is Exodus 12:46 “[the passover lamb] is to be eaten in a single house; you are not to bring forth any of the flesh outside of the house, nor are you to break any bone of it."

As stated it is physically possible to have no bones broken even if it is unlikely. I find it odd however a Muslim would have issue with this since Islam supports many supernatural events even by the hand of Jesus. In fact Islam teaches the virgin birth, Jesus was the Messiah sent to save the Jews, had the power to perform miracles (which no other prophet in Islam is credited with) , ascended into heaven and is returning near the day of judgment where he will defeat the antichrist. Those credentials makes Jesus the most supernatural "prophet" in Islam even above Muhammad. Islam also teaches Jesus did not die on the cross and I would think having no broken bones would only help that claim. It just seems a strange thing to nick-pick at.

 

[YoureMyBeloved]

Some people believe Christ's hands were pierced and some people his wrists. Either way the nails would easily go between the bones and not break them. I mean if God knew his bones would have been broken, then he would not have made that prophecy.

I read somewhere that was usual to pierce in the wrists, because the flesh of the hands would rip apart easily.

 

[jacksknight]

I read somewhere that was usual to pierce in the wrists, because the flesh of the hands would rip apart easily.

Yes i have read that too. I have also read that some people were pierced through the hands and then their arms were tied with ropes to the cross.

I don't think it would matter which way it was done, it only matters that it was done. The Bible says hands though so im going to assume God knew where he was pierced.

 

[ewq1938]

The initial act of crucifixion doesn't break bones. The breaking of bones is specifically about how the Roman's sped up the dying process. They would break the person's legs and thus they would not be able to support their upper body weight so they would sag further downward which made breathing harder. They would die of suffocation in a relatively short time.

Joh 19:31 The Jews therefore, because it was the preparation, that the bodies should not remain upon the cross on the sabbath day, (for that sabbath day was an high day,) besought Pilate that their legs might be broken, and that they might be taken away.
Joh 19:32 Then came the soldiers, and brake the legs of the first, and of the other which was crucified with him.
Joh 19:33 But when they came to Jesus, and saw that he was dead already, they brake not his legs:

So, they wanted these men to die soon because the Sabbath was approaching. They break the legs of the thieves because they were still alive but didn't break Christ's legs because he was already dead.

 

[throughfiierytrial]

This idea goes beyond the obscure reference in psalms. There is in fact a much clearer scripture to support this which is Exodus 12:46 “[the passover lamb] is to be eaten in a single house; you are not to bring forth any of the flesh outside of the house, nor are you to break any bone of it."

As stated it is physically possible to have no bones broken even if it is unlikely. I find it odd however a Muslim would have issue with this since Islam supports many supernatural events even by the hand of Jesus. In fact Islam teaches the virgin birth, Jesus was the Messiah sent to save the Jews, had the power to perform miracles (which no other prophet in Islam is credited with) , ascended into heaven and is returning near the day of judgment where he will defeat the antichrist. Those credentials makes Jesus the most supernatural "prophet" in Islam even above Muhammad. Islam also teaches Jesus did not die on the cross and I would think having no broken bones would only help that claim. It just seems a strange thing to nick-pick at.

Yes, the Passover, which was instated at the Exodus and there allowed for the Israelite households to escape the work of the destroying angel was all a foreshadowing of Christ and heavily symbolic of God's work of salvation...all so holy and amazing.

Muslims do not believe the resurrection and ascension account we have as found in the Scriptures however.

 

[ewq1938]

Yes, the Passover, which was instated at the Exodus and there allowed for the Israelite households to escape the work of the destroying angel was all a foreshadowing of Christ and heavily symbolic of God's work of salvation...all so holy and amazing.

Muslims do not believe the resurrection and ascension account we have as found in the Scriptures however.

The Koran teaches Jesus died not die on the cross but ascended into heaven and a different person who resembled Christ was on the cross. This isn't true of course.

 

[DamianWarS]

The Koran teaches Jesus died not die on the cross but ascended into heaven and a different person who resembled Christ was on the cross. This isn't true of course.

This is true. I suppose the real issue between a muslim and a christian on this subject is nothing to do with bones but rather was Jesus actually on the cross or not