T8H3X11 said:
I don't know, but the Romans did it through the wrist at the exact spot so they didn't break any bones.
It was also his lowest profile movie, most people have never heard of "The Last Temptation."
It's possible to do so thru the hands & not break any bones, too (most likely between the 3rd & 4th metacarpal bones), but as I pointed out, it ain't/weren't too feasible
& yep, yer right; most folks (esp. those who were too young to really have been aware back then) prolly haven't heard of LTC, certainly as compared to his other flix, anyway...
LeHah said:
...Anything so old cannot be completely accurate...Skepticism is a fine attribute; it doesn't mean you don't have faith, it's simply challenging if what is handed down is what happened.
If standing by itself, then I'd agree that one must be skeptical of how accurate a single account of an event would be, esp. that long ago. But the mere age of an account isn't sufficient reason to dismiss its legitimacy. Just as in our modern systems of justice here in the 21st century, so also in courtroom of history: The more corroborating accounts of an event there are, the harder it is for skepticism to stand.
Fortunately, there's a plethora of corroborating accounts of this event that all agree w/ the gospel accounts in the basic facts of the case. Heck, even Josephus (ancient Jewish historian who wasn't particularly friendly towards the Christians) corroborates.
Also, I agree that skepticism is a good thing to have, generally speaking. Indeed, skepticism has oft been the jumpoff point for many who have come to faith. But as with other things in life, "all things in moderation": It needs to be a healthy skepticism; one honest enough to admit that it may be wrong, one that is open to being corrected in the face of sufficient convincing evidence. Dishonest skepticism (that which is skepticism for skepticism's sake, not willing/open to being proven wrong) is the real killer...
