stigmata !

[Darat]

Only if you are trying to lend some authenticity to the shroud....

And that was the point of the observation.... The clues in the shroud contradict the Bible...

Well I do agree with ceo_esq (especially since I've just found his reference - that will teach me for skimming) that before we can determine what the bible may mean by hand we need to verify the original source.

What description of the crucifixion from the bible are you referring to? From memory I didn’t think there was a huge amount of detail given?

As far as I am aware (and this will be from the KJ version) palms aren’t mentioned at all.(?) We can infer from John and Luke that there were some wounds on his “hands”. But as ceo_esq points out before we conclude hands must mean below the wrist we need to do some further research.

 

[thaiboxerken]

This just shows how stupid xtian beliefs are.

 

[Skeptical Greg]

Well I do agree with ceo_esq (especially since I've just found his reference - that will teach me for skimming) that before we can determine what the bible may mean by hand we need to verify the original source.

What description of the crucifixion from the bible are you referring to? From memory I didn’t think there was a huge amount of detail given?

As far as I am aware (and this will be from the KJ version) palms aren’t mentioned at all.(?) We can infer from John and Luke that there were some wounds on his “hands”. But as ceo_esq points out before we conclude hands must mean below the wrist we need to do some further research.

I'm just arguing from a skeptical viewpoint...

If you are dealing with a work of fiction, the accuracy of the technical details just make for a better reading... In the end, it is still fiction...

 

[Darat]

I'm just arguing from a skeptical viewpoint...

If you are dealing with a work of fiction, the accuracy of the technical details just make for a better reading... In the end, it is still fiction...

But if we want to be taken seriously and build credibility it is important that our criticism is as accurate as possible.

It is quite easy to trot out some of the "standards" (I know I'm guilty of it) but sometimes those standards may need revising or indeed be proven to be simply wrong when new facts come to lights.

I think this thread illustrates that the "standard" of "Stigmata = silly because he would have been nailed through his wrists" isn't enough, on its own to discount the meaning of stigmata.

 

[sackett]

Astigmatism

I wonder:

Do believers in non-Christian religions ever display anything analagous to stigmata? (Of course few or no other religions have such a gruesome image at the center of the cult.)

What's the earliest reference to Christian stigmata? I ask because the crucifixion wasn't much emphasized in the early iconography. (Somebody with sources at hand correct me if I'm wrong, but I think it wasn't until Constantine that crucifixion was forbidden, I suppose on the principle that only Jesus was good enough for that form of punishment. Before that time, crucifixion had shameful associations, and the earliest Christians tended not to dwell on it.)

 

[ceo_esq]

Re: Astigmatism

I wonder:

Do believers in non-Christian religions ever display anything analagous to stigmata? (Of course few or no other religions have such a gruesome image at the center of the cult.)

What's the earliest reference to Christian stigmata? I ask because the crucifixion wasn't much emphasized in the early iconography. (Somebody with sources at hand correct me if I'm wrong, but I think it wasn't until Constantine that crucifixion was forbidden, I suppose on the principle that only Jesus was good enough for that form of punishment. Before that time, crucifixion had shameful associations, and the earliest Christians tended not to dwell on it.)

Good questions. As to the first stigmatic, there seems to be some contradiction among the available sources. The HarperCollins Encyclopedia of Catholicism (1995) says this (boldface mine):

The word is used by Paul in Gal 6:17, "I carry the marks of Jesus branded on my body," but in the Middle Ages referred to actual wounds corresponding to those of Christ. Although not the first to carry such marks, the most famous stigmatic was Francis of Assisi, who received wounds on his hands, feet, and side during an ecstatic experience in 1224, two years before his death.

However, many online sources (including the very old online Catholic Encyclopedia) suggest or assert that Francis of Assisi was the first stigmatic, and that no cases were known prior to his. Interestingly, according to that old encyclopedia, Francis' stigmata

. . . were of a character never seen subsequently; in the wounds of feet and hands were excrescences of flesh representing nails, those on one side having round back heads, those on the other having rather long points, which bent back and grasped the skin.

That's even more gross than your average garden-variety stigmata.

 

[ceo_esq]

It also just occurred to me that the legendary figure of the Fisher King, whose origins can be partly traced to ancient Welsh mythology, was often portrayed as suffering from a semi-mystical wound that would not heal. At least by the 12th century, and probably much earlier, the wound was conceptually identified with the wounds of Christ (although not necessarily depicted as being in the same place as Christ's wounds). So arguably in the Fisher King we have a forerunner of the stigmata that precedes Francis of Assisi. Of course, he's only a literary figure rather than an actual religious adherent.

 

[Virgil]

It also just occurred to me that the legendary figure of the Fisher King, whose origins can be partly traced to ancient Welsh mythology, was often portrayed as suffering from a semi-mystical wound that would not heal. At least by the 12th century, and probably much earlier, the wound was conceptually identified with the wounds of Christ (although not necessarily depicted as being in the same place as Christ's wounds). So arguably in the Fisher King we have a forerunner of the stigmata that precedes Francis of Assisi. Of course, he's only a literary figure rather than an actual religious adherent.

I was under the impression that the fisher king had a genital wound, and when he was healed fertility came back into the land...I don't have source..but that is my memory.

Virgil

 

[ceo_esq]

I was under the impression that the fisher king had a genital wound, and when he was healed fertility came back into the land...I don't have source..but that is my memory.

Virgil

The link above explains it all.

 

[phildonnia]

Aside from translation problems, how long did the stories in the Bible spend in the oral tradition? Or am I mistaken in thinking they were passed down for some time orally?

If we're talking about the New Testament, the Gospels were probably written down around 80 AD or so. The similarity between the "synoptic" gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke) suggests that they were all adapted from previous written versions.

A few centuries of pious editing occurred, depending on the political climate. In 325 AD the official canon was adopted (and a whole bunch of alternative gospels were eliminated), and what you have today is pretty much a translation of that.

(Edited to correct date)

 

[Abdul Alhazred]

If we're talking about the New Testament, the Gospels were probably written down around 80 AD or so. The similarity between the "synoptic" gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke) suggests that they were all adapted from previous written versions.

A few centuries of pious editing occurred, depending on the political climate. In 325 AD the official canon was adopted (and a whole bunch of alternative gospels were eliminated), and what you have today is pretty much a translation of that.

So much I knew.

But when did this stigmata stuff start? Based on my spotty knowledge, I'm thinking the 19th century. I never heard of a case before that.

Does anyone out there really know?

 

[ceo_esq]

So much I knew.

But when did this stigmata stuff start? Based on my spotty knowledge, I'm thinking the 19th century. I never heard of a case before that.

Does anyone out there really know?

I couldn't find any specific references to cases before the early 13th century (St. Francis of Assisi), but there have certainly been cases (including many famous ones) in each century since then.

 

[Abdul Alhazred]

I couldn't find any specific references to cases before the early 13th century (St. Francis of Assisi), but there have certainly been cases (including many famous ones) in each century since then.

Thank you. I will look it up.

But it isn't a core belief of Christianity.

 

[ceo_esq]

But it isn't a core belief of Christianity.

True enough. In fact, it's awfully hard to characterize it as any kind of official Christian belief, much less a core one. Once more from the HarperCollins Encyclopedia of Catholicism:

On very rare occasions, the Catholic Church has accepted an occurrence of stigmata as authentic, but has never defined their origin or nature, thus allowing for physical, psychological, and preternatural explanations for these phenomena.

I'm really not sure what it means to accept something as "authentic" and yet not take any position regarding its origin or nature. However, the Catholic Church, like its God, apparently works in mysterious ways. Maybe by "authentic" the Church simply means "non-fraudulent". At any rate, it would seem that the position that all non-fraudulent manifestations of stigmata are (for example) psychosomatic does not violate any part of Christian doctrine.

 

[sweetkb713]

I've never understood why people claim to have stigmata in the palms when the palms couldn't possibly support the weight of the body during cruxifiction. Stigmata in the palms seems to me to be a dead giveaway to a hysterical reaction interpritation or an outright fraud (heavens forbid!).

I was just thinking about that the other day. I can't remember why - I had a cut on my hand or something and joked that it was stigmata.

Anyway - I saw this show a few years ago about stigmata, and it's so full of BS. If you go to http://www.catholic.org/saints/stigmata.shtml

and click on Facts - well, I don't even have to click on Facts. It makes me laugh just to think that there are Facts on Stigmata. But anyway, click on it for a laugh.

"St. Catherine of Siena at first had visible stigmata but through humility she asked that they might be made invisible, and her prayer was heard."

Also -

"We shall not attempt to solve this question" - I'm not really sure to what they're referring here.

But check it out, it's pretty funny. They seem to be TRYING to be skeptical.

Also, I get a kick out of the Fun Facts about saints. Fun Facts. Man, Catholicism is SO cool!