Re: The Shroud of Turin: Evidence that Jesus was crucified on a cross, not a stake

AN

Thanks for your message. I will respond to your question publicly

[Above (enlarge): Shroud of Turin: World-Mysteries.com (no longer online). The direction and patterns of the bloodstains on the Shroud of Turin show that the man whose image is imprinted on it, died on a cross with both his arms outstretched to the side and nailed:

"In addition, by measuring the angle of dried blood on the wrist, one can reconstruct the angle at which this person hung from the cross. He mainly hung from a position 65 degrees from the horizontal. But there is another angle of dried blood at 55 degrees. This shows that this person tried to lift himself up by 10 degrees. Why? Medical studies show that if a person just hangs from a position of 65 degrees in would start to suffocate very quickly. Only if he could lift himself up by about 10 degrees would he be able to breathe. Thus he would have to raise himself up by this 10 degrees by pushing down on his feet which would have to have been fixed to the cross. He would then become exhausted and fall down again to the 65 degree position. Thus, he would continue to shift from these two agonizing positions throughout crucifixion. That is why the executioners of crucifixion would break the legs of their victims to speed up death. If they could not lift themselves up to breathe, they would suffocate very quickly." (Shroud of Turin: World-Mysteries.com - no longer online).

See also `tagline' quotes at the end of this post. If this is Jesus, and the evidence is overwhelming that it is (see for example my also as yet unfinished series, Re: There is compelling evidence it is the burial cloth of Christ, or a man crucified during that time #1, on my TheShroudofTurin blog), then this is further archeological and scientific evidence (if not absolute proof ) that Jesus was crucified on a two-beamed cross and not a single stake as the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society claims].

via my blog, JesusisJehovah!, minus your personal identifying information, i.e. substituting "AN" for your name.

[Above (enlarge): Jesus `impaled' on a single stake with both arms together over his head affixed by one nail: "What Does the Bible Really Teach?," Watchtower Bible & Tract Society, 2005, p.52. This is how the Watchtower Society has consistently depicted Jesus' execution since 1950 at least.]

because it may be of interest to my readers there. Although they may be unaware of (and astonished at) the Watchtower Bible & Tract Society's (Jehovah's Witnesses') claim that Jesus was not crucified with both arms outspread and therefore affixed with two nails through both wrists on a cross, but was instead affixed by only one nail through both hands above His head on a single upright stake.

----- Original Message - ----
From: AN
To: Stephen E. Jones
Sent: Saturday, April 25, 2009 4:09 AM
Subject: Stake/Cross comments continued?..

>Hello, Stephen!
>
>My name's AN and I'm from Russia (so excuse me, please, for my poor English). I've read with a great interest your articles (#1-#3) about stake/cross controversy in your blog.
>
>I've been waiting for continuation since autumn and so have a question: do you plan to publish new posts (as you stated: "#4 Patristic, #5 Archaeological, #6 Pagan, #7 Biblical and #8 Conclusion") on this theme?

Thanks for your reminder. Quite frankly I have been so busy, what with, researching and posting my Jesus is Jehovah in the New Testament series, going back to university to become a science teacher and debating with JWs on Shazoolo's and Newagegamer's YouTube boards, that this had been moved to the backburner.

However, I do intend to continue with that series. I have now moved my draft next post in the series, "Was Jesus executed on a cross or a stake? #3D: Historical" out of my Drafts 2008 folder into my current Drafts folder and will try to finish it this Sunday, if not this week.

>Thanx for your work!
>Waiting for your reply,
>AN

Thanks again for your reminder and for your patience.

PS: Note in the `tagline' quotes below, that if the hands of the man on the Shroud had been affixed by one nail to a single upright pole, then the blood flows from his wrists would have been vertical, i.e. straight down the arms, not 65-55% to the vertical. So this is yet another nail (pun intended) in the Watchtower Society's coffin!

---

"We are now drawn to the wounds of the crucifixion itself. First we must establish that we can be quite confident we are dealing with a crucifixion victim. The principal evidence for this lies in the flows of blood from the wound in the left wrist. One of the most important aspects is the angle of the two streams of blood closest to the hand,

[Left (enlarge): The 55-65% angle of the Shroud victim's arms on the cross, deduced from the paths of the bloodflows on them (Wilson, 1978, pl.12.]

Other, interrupted streams run along the length of the arm as far as the elbow, dripping toward the edge of the arm at angles similar to the original flows. The first two flows are about ten degrees apart, the somewhat thinner one at an angle of about fifty-five degrees from the axis of the arm and the broader one closer to the hand at about sixty-five degrees. This enables us to do two things: (1) to compute that at the time the blood flowed, the arms must have been raised at positions varying between fifty-five and sixty-five degrees from the vertical, i.e., clearly a crucifixion position; (2) to compute that because of the ten-degree difference the crucified man must have assumed two slightly different positions on the cross, that at sixty-five degrees representing full suspension of the body, that at fifty-five degrees a slightly more acute angle of the forearm produced by flexing the elbow to raise the body. We are enabled to deduce then that the crucifixion forced on the victim an up-and-down or seesaw motion on the cross-perhaps, according to one school of thought, in order to breathe, the arms in that position taking a tension equal to nearly twice the weight of the body, inducing near-suffocation if there was no crutch support; perhaps, according to another school of thought, by the victim attempting to relieve himself of one unbearable agony, the pain in his wrists, by raising himself, at the price of yet more pain, on the living wounds in his feet." (Wilson, I., 1978, "The Turin Shroud," Book Club Associates: London, pp.25-26).

"For the first clear evidence that the Shroud shows a victim of crucifixion, we now turn to the next group of injuries, which take the form of what appear to be blood flows in the region of the hands and lower arms. On the man of the Shroud's left wrist can be seen two separately angled blood flows, one broad, the other thin and long; then, after a gap of a few centimeters, at least six blood rivulets appear to flow on toward the elbow joint. Although the right wrist is obscured by the left, the presence of similar bloodstains on this arm suggests a similarly originating injury. As before, it is the underlying logic that is so compelling. Each rivulet of blood ends its course pointing in a specific direction, from which it can be calculated that when the majority of the rivulets flowed, the man of the Shroud's arms must have been at an angle of 65 degrees from the vertical-i.e., clearly a crucifixion position. Only one rivulet is different, the longer and thinner of those at the wrist, which indicates not 65 but 55 degrees from the vertical. To pathologists, this single flow almost certainly indicates the attitude the arms assumed at death, at which time the head would have been slumped and one elbow flexed at a more acute angle." (Wilson, I., 1986, "The Evidence of the Shroud," Guild Publishing: London, p.22).

"Which leads us to the third category of injuries visible on the Shroud, the bloodflows as from piercings to the hands and feet. First let us take the trickles that can be seen on each forearm ... As various medical and other researchers have demonstrated, if these are, projected and painted onto a living model's arms and his arms are then moved to the position that their gravitational flow would seem to indicate, it can immediately be seen that at the time the blood flowed each arm must have been stretched out sideways at an approximate angle of sixty-five degrees, i.e. a crucifixion position ...

[Right (enlarge): Transpositions of the Shroud's forearms bloodflows onto a living man, showing the man on the Shroud's living (top) and dead (bottom) positions on the cross. (Wilson, 1998, pl. 18a-b).]

We cannot see the source of the trickle down the right forearm because its wrist and upper hand are covered by the fingers of the left hand. But this is more than compensated for by the fact that a `/\'shaped bloodstain is clearly visible on the left wrist, the apex of this, at the centre of the bending fold, being obviously the site of the puncture wound from which the blood flowed. The `/\' shape to the bloodstain also theoretically seems to indicate the two different positions that the man of the Shroud must have adopted while suspended, either denoting his agonising shifting from one position to another or, as some have suggested, the position his arms took at death." (Wilson, I., 1998, "The Blood and the Shroud: New Evidence that the World's Most Sacred Relic is Real," Simon & Schuster: New York NY, pp.34-35).

"Blood flowed along the arms while they were extended on the cross. At several points on the left forearm the blood was deflected and flowed vertically down the side. At the back of the left hand there are two trickles of blood which also flowed vertically during the crucifixion. These streams are still in their original position in relation to the arm and the hand. Thus they enable us to calculate the angle at which the arms were extended on the cross-about 65 degrees from the vertical. In the imprints of the Shroud we have an exact portrayal of the technique of crucifixion, and of one crucifixion in particular which supplies for the reticence of the Evangelists." (Wuenschel, E.A., 1954, "Self-Portrait of Christ: The Holy Shroud of Turin," Holy Shroud Guild: Esopus NY, Third printing, 1961, p.45).

Posted 25 April 2009. Updated 25 November 2024.