Who buried Jesus?

[rogue06]

We're getting into silliness now. Jesus would have been left up on the cross until after the Sabbath was over. And he probably didn't die as quickly as the gospels claim that he did.

Considering the other things done to Him, such as the savage beating, the scourging and being forced to drag the instrument of his death through Jerusalem to the place of execution, it is highly likely that He was not all that far from death when He was crucified.

[One Bad Pig]

We're getting into silliness now.

What is this, a self-fulfilling prophecy?

Jesus would have been left up on the cross until after the Sabbath was over. And he probably didn't die as quickly as the gospels claim that he did.

Again, there were no disciples there to witness any of this. So whatever information they got came from hearsay. They have absolutely no way of knowing how long it took for him to die.

That's why they cite the women going to the tomb - they don't have a better source of information other than that Mary went to look for his grave and couldn't find it. It's plausible that happened, but really that's just one of many ways the empty tomb myth could have began. If it did happen, then I think it would have been several weeks later not a few days later, and Jesus had been buried in an unidentified grave and they just couldn't find it.

Silliness, indeed.

[Aractus]

Considering the other things done to Him, such as the savage beating, the scourging and being forced to drag the instrument of his death through Jerusalem to the place of execution, it is highly likely that He was not all that far from death when He was crucified.

All crucified criminals went through the same beating prior to being hung. It's not as if they specifically beat Jesus more than anyone else, and, given the sentence is crucifixion and was intended to be a slow drawn out death, why would they expatiate it?

[37818]

Passover lasted until sundown and began the night before when Jesus eats the Passover meal - Mark 14:17. Passover day (when Jesus is tried, executed, and buried) is explicitly referred to as the "Preparation Day before the Sabbath" - Mark 15:42 (Friday evening).

Mark 14:17- Jesus and His disciples eat the Passover mean, which is done after sunset, which is the beginning of the 15th of Nisan. In 30 A.D. that would be our Wednesday after sunset. In 33 A.D. that would have to be Friday after sunset. Check the Jewish calendar. It is a matter of history and what can or cannot be true.

http://www.chabad.org/holidays/passo...-Nissan-14.htm

[RhinestoneCowboy]

Mark 14:17- Jesus and His disciples eat the Passover mean, which is done after sunset, which is the beginning of the 15th of Nisan. In 30 A.D. that would be our Wednesday after sunset. In 33 A.D. that would have to be Friday after sunset. Check the Jewish calendar. It is a matter of history and what can or cannot be true.

http://www.chabad.org/holidays/passo...-Nissan-14.htm

Mark 15:42 explicitly states it was the day before the Sabbath. The Sabbath is on Saturday meaning the day before is Friday. What is so hard to understand about that?

[psstein]

We're getting into silliness now. Jesus would have been left up on the cross until after the Sabbath was over. And he probably didn't die as quickly as the gospels claim that he did.

That is very unlikely.

Again, there were no disciples there to witness any of this. So whatever information they got came from hearsay. They have absolutely no way of knowing how long it took for him to die.

It's very difficult to believe that Jesus was left on the cross for days at a time. I can't think of a single scholar who would suggest that.

That's why they cite the women going to the tomb - they don't have a better source of information other than that Mary went to look for his grave and couldn't find it. It's plausible that happened, but really that's just one of many ways the empty tomb myth could have began. If it did happen, then I think it would have been several weeks later not a few days later, and Jesus had been buried in an unidentified grave and they just couldn't find it.

The "wrong tomb" theory is pretty much universally rejected by scholars today.

[The Pixie]

It's very difficult to believe that Jesus was left on the cross for days at a time. I can't think of a single scholar who would suggest that.

Really? That is very surprising given that that was the common practice of the Romans, and at the end of the day, the canonical gospels are likely all based on a single passion narrative, which was certainly written in part based on scripture (i.e., verses from the Old Testament), and it is quite plausible there were no eye witnesses among the disciples. What this means is that all the scholars you can think of are willing to trust as reliable a single account of dubious providence.

[One Bad Pig]

Really? That is very surprising given that that was the common practice of the Romans, and at the end of the day, the canonical gospels are likely all based on a single passion narrative, which was certainly written in part based on scripture (i.e., verses from the Old Testament),

Yes, because people only ever got their information by reading.

and it is quite plausible there were no eye witnesses among the disciples.

Quite implausible, you mean. Even Mark's narrative attests to the presence of women disciples. It's not as if this happened in secret.

What this means is that all the scholars you can think of are willing to trust as reliable a single account of dubious providence.

Assuming that all the scholars I can think of agree with your disparaging of the evidence, which is dumb. Your skepticism is founded on a plethora of sketchy assumptions.

[Teallaura]

We're getting into silliness now. Jesus would have been left up on the cross until after the Sabbath was over. And he probably didn't die as quickly as the gospels claim that he did.

Again, there were no disciples there to witness any of this. So whatever information they got came from hearsay. They have absolutely no way of knowing how long it took for him to die.

That's why they cite the women going to the tomb - they don't have a better source of information other than that Mary went to look for his grave and couldn't find it. It's plausible that happened, but really that's just one of many ways the empty tomb myth could have began. If it did happen, then I think it would have been several weeks later not a few days later, and Jesus had been buried in an unidentified grave and they just couldn't find it.

The silliness is that you are simply re-writing evidence because you don't like it.

This is the best you got? Because it's pathetic.

[Teallaura]

All crucified criminals went through the same beating prior to being hung. It's not as if they specifically beat Jesus more than anyone else, and, given the sentence is crucifixion and was intended to be a slow drawn out death, why would they expatiate it?

Citation please - this is not actually true.

The Crucifixion is political - and the timing was poor from a political standpoint. Pilate agrees to letting the deaths be hastened in order to placate the Jewish officials (hanging on a tree is a bad thing - especially during Passover).

[psstein]

Really? That is very surprising given that that was the common practice of the Romans, and at the end of the day, the canonical gospels are likely all based on a single passion narrative, which was certainly written in part based on scripture (i.e., verses from the Old Testament), and it is quite plausible there were no eye witnesses among the disciples. What this means is that all the scholars you can think of are willing to trust as reliable a single account of dubious providence.

Okay, first off, I've done academic work in this field. I will tell you categorically that virtually nobody besides Koester and Crossan believes that the Cross Gospel is the earliest material and the source for all four gospels. Beyond that, the "Cross Gospel" has to get its material from somewhere, and if it's as early as Crossan thinks it is, then it likely does have some roots in eyewitness material.

Secondly, the Romans, while generally unsympathetic to Jewish practice, would not be so obtuse as to leave the body on the cross overnight. Even Ehrman and Crossan, both of whom deny that Jesus was buried in a distinctive tomb, accept that Jesus's body was taken down from the cross before nightfall.

[Doug Shaver]

All crucified criminals went through the same beating prior to being hung.

According to what contemporary source?

[tabibito]

Mark 15:42 explicitly states it was the day before the Sabbath. The Sabbath is on Saturday meaning the day before is Friday. What is so hard to understand about that?

Leviticus 23:23 And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying, 24 Speak unto the children of Israel, saying, In the seventh month, in the first [day] of the month, shall ye have a sabbath, a memorial of blowing of trumpets, an holy convocation. 25 Ye shall do no servile work [therein]: but ye shall offer an offering made by fire unto the LORD.

Saturdays are not the only days termed sabbaths.

26 And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying, 27 Also on the tenth [day] of this seventh month [there shall be] a day of atonement: ... 32 It [shall be] unto you a sabbath of rest, and ye shall afflict your souls: in the ninth [day] of the month at even, from even unto even, shall ye celebrate your sabbath.

The first and tenth days of the same month cannot both be Saturdays.

Sabbath means a day (or even a year, at times) that is Holy to the Lord. It does not strictly refer to the weekly Sabbath.

Mark 15:42 explicitly states it was the day before the Sabbath. The Sabbath is on Saturday meaning the day before is Friday. What is so hard to understand about that?

Even AFTER the fact that a sabbath is not necessarily a Saturday was stated TWICE (posts 158 and 160), still you persist in declaring the nonsense that a Sabbath is necessarily a Saturday.

Added to that, Fridays, that is the day before the weekly sabbath, to the best of my knowledge, are not called days of preparation - except by people looking for excuses to deny that the Bible says what it does.

[tabibito]

It's very difficult to believe that Jesus was left on the cross for days at a time. I can't think of a single scholar who would suggest that.

True enough - the Romans were usually very careful to avoid action that would be regarded as sacrilege by the locals. Of course, Pilate seemingly wasn't as careful as most.
Also true, bodies were generally left on a cross until they got eaten or rotted away - unless someone claimed the body.

[The Pixie]

Yes, because people only ever got their information by reading.

When you can think of an objection other than sarcasm, do let me know.

Quite implausible, you mean. Even Mark's narrative attests to the presence of women disciples. It's not as if this happened in secret.

So your evidence that Mark's account is accurate is the content of Mark's acccount?

Does that seem a little circular to you?

Assuming that all the scholars I can think of agree with your disparaging of the evidence, which is dumb. Your skepticism is founded on a plethora of sketchy assumptions.

No, it is based on rejecting a plethora of sketchy assumptions - for example, your assumption that Mark is reliable with regards to the presence of women disciples.