How is it possible that none of Jesus' bones were broken

[Christian2]

How is it possible that none of Jesus' bones were broken when nails were driven into His hands(wrists) and feet?

John 19:36, These things happened so that the scripture would be fulfilled: "Not one of his bones will be broken,"

Thanks you.

[PaulSacramento]

The Romans were very good at what they did, killing people and/or making them suffer.
The driving of the nails into the hands/wrists and feet would have been done in-between the bones so as to use the bones as "anchor points".

[Christian2]

The Romans were very good at what they did, killing people and/or making them suffer.
The driving of the nails into the hands/wrists and feet would have been done in-between the bones so as to use the bones as "anchor points".

Thank you.

[Byblos]

The Romans were very good at what they did, killing people and/or making them suffer.
The driving of the nails into the hands/wrists and feet would have been done in-between the bones so as to use the bones as "anchor points".

Besides which, how else would the prophecies have been fulfilled (Exodus 12:46, Psalms 34:20)? The Passover lamb must be unblemished, with no broken bones. Jesus is the perfect Passover lamb that takes away the sins of the world (John 1:29).

[Christian2]

The Romans were very good at what they did, killing people and/or making them suffer.
The driving of the nails into the hands/wrists and feet would have been done in-between the bones so as to use the bones as "anchor points".

Besides which, how else would the prophecies have been fulfilled (Exodus 12:46, Psalms 34:20)? The Passover lamb must be unblemished, with no broken bones. Jesus is the perfect Passover lamb that takes away the sins of the world (John 1:29).

There is that and I believe God is perfectly capable of seeing that no bone was broken.

And, one has to wonder if the Romans put a nail through one of the bones in the victim's feet, how the damaged foot could have provided enough support to keep the victim on the cross. Seems to me the bone would have fractured or broken into pieces to the extent that the victim would no longer be able to push up to breath and would have died within a very short time and victims sometimes hung on the cross for days.

[PaulSacramento]

The Romans were very good at what they did, killing people and/or making them suffer.
The driving of the nails into the hands/wrists and feet would have been done in-between the bones so as to use the bones as "anchor points".

Besides which, how else would the prophecies have been fulfilled (Exodus 12:46, Psalms 34:20)? The Passover lamb must be unblemished, with no broken bones. Jesus is the perfect Passover lamb that takes away the sins of the world (John 1:29).

There is that and I believe God is perfectly capable of seeing that no bone was broken.

And, one has to wonder if the Romans put a nail through one of the bones in the victim's feet, how the damaged foot could have provided enough support to keep the victim on the cross. Seems to me the bone would have fractured or broken into pieces to the extent that the victim would no longer be able to push up to breath and would have died within a very short time and victims sometimes hung on the cross for days.

Of course, but I thought you were asking a non-theological question.

RE the foot thing:
It was done in a few different ways supposedly and in some cases there was even a little "seat" so that the person could survive even longer.
Crucifixion was a torture death and people were supposed to last for days.

[Christian2]

The Romans were very good at what they did, killing people and/or making them suffer.
The driving of the nails into the hands/wrists and feet would have been done in-between the bones so as to use the bones as "anchor points".

Besides which, how else would the prophecies have been fulfilled (Exodus 12:46, Psalms 34:20)? The Passover lamb must be unblemished, with no broken bones. Jesus is the perfect Passover lamb that takes away the sins of the world (John 1:29).

There is that and I believe God is perfectly capable of seeing that no bone was broken.

And, one has to wonder if the Romans put a nail through one of the bones in the victim's feet, how the damaged foot could have provided enough support to keep the victim on the cross. Seems to me the bone would have fractured or broken into pieces to the extent that the victim would no longer be able to push up to breath and would have died within a very short time and victims sometimes hung on the cross for days.

Of course, but I thought you were asking a non-theological question.

RE the foot thing:
It was done in a few different ways supposedly and in some cases there was even a little "seat" so that the person could survive even longer.
Crucifixion was a torture death and people were supposed to last for days.

The Romans would break legs in order to hurry death. Wouldn't braking the bones in the ankle have had the same effect?

[PaulSacramento]

The Romans were very good at what they did, killing people and/or making them suffer.
The driving of the nails into the hands/wrists and feet would have been done in-between the bones so as to use the bones as "anchor points".

Besides which, how else would the prophecies have been fulfilled (Exodus 12:46, Psalms 34:20)? The Passover lamb must be unblemished, with no broken bones. Jesus is the perfect Passover lamb that takes away the sins of the world (John 1:29).

There is that and I believe God is perfectly capable of seeing that no bone was broken.

And, one has to wonder if the Romans put a nail through one of the bones in the victim's feet, how the damaged foot could have provided enough support to keep the victim on the cross. Seems to me the bone would have fractured or broken into pieces to the extent that the victim would no longer be able to push up to breath and would have died within a very short time and victims sometimes hung on the cross for days.

Of course, but I thought you were asking a non-theological question.

RE the foot thing:
It was done in a few different ways supposedly and in some cases there was even a little "seat" so that the person could survive even longer.
Crucifixion was a torture death and people were supposed to last for days.

The Romans would break legs in order to hurry death. Wouldn't braking the bones in the ankle have had the same effect?

Nope, the shins were the bones broken for quicken death.

[Christian2]

Nope, the shins were the bones broken for quicken death.

I know that. My point is that putting a nail through the bone in the ankle might have the same effect -- shattering the bone so that it would break by pushing up to breathe.

[JeanHooper]

How do we know that none of his bones weren't broken?

[Audie]

The Romans were very good at what they did, killing people and/or making them suffer.
The driving of the nails into the hands/wrists and feet would have been done in-between the bones so as to use the bones as "anchor points".

Besides which, how else would the prophecies have been fulfilled (Exodus 12:46, Psalms 34:20)? The Passover lamb must be unblemished, with no broken bones. Jesus is the perfect Passover lamb that takes away the sins of the world (John 1:29).

There is that and I believe God is perfectly capable of seeing that no bone was broken.

And, one has to wonder if the Romans put a nail through one of the bones in the victim's feet, how the damaged foot could have provided enough support to keep the victim on the cross. Seems to me the bone would have fractured or broken into pieces to the extent that the victim would no longer be able to push up to breath and would have died within a very short time and victims sometimes hung on the cross for days.

Wasnt the purpose and custom to make it as bad as possible, and then leave the corpse there as a display?

[Jac3510]

Yes, that was the purpose -- torture and humiliation, which was to serve as a deterrent to anyone who would dare question or challenge the authority of Rome.

edit:

As an interesting (to me) aside, we say things like I just did above rather flippantly given how common knowledge such is. But sometimes I think we miss as a result of that just how deep that "principle" went in Rome (at least, during certain points in its history). It's easy to equate this notion with crucifixion, but it was bigger than that. For just one example, look up the practice of decimation. At least the death penalty exists in some nations today, and so the crucifixion is only considered barbaric insofar as it was torture. It wasn't a humane way to put people to death. So it's shocking, but only because of the torturesque aspect. But decimation . . . can you imagine a military unit doing that today? Sheesh. Should give you a taste as just how barbaric that society really was, or at least, how barbaric it could be. Take that understanding to the crucifixion, and I think you get a whole new appreciation for the cruelty it embodied.

[Audie]

What of morality if (since) ice cream makes me ill?

[Jac3510]

Does not compute.

I've been reading bylaws and constitutions all day.

[JButler]

I've been studying the Roman Empire's history more in-depth after learning of my ancestor's probable involvement with the Praetorian Guard and cavalry units for the legions. The Romans were a real Jekyll and Hyde bunch, building incredible structures on one hand but using that same ingenuity to torture and kill people. They took delight with experimenting with different ways to extend the suffering of those to be killed. In some areas they had hundreds of crosses alongside roads with the corpses left on them after death for the deterrent factor.

The Romans are as repulsive as they are fascinating.