Where did Jesus body go?

[Starhunter]

There is a text which says that "flesh and blood shall not inherit the kingdom of God."

Some take this to mean that flesh and blood don't go to heaven, and others conclude that our new bodies don't have blood, and so on, but the context shows that it is not talking about what shall enter heaven but how.

Heaven is not gained through inheritance i.e, the lineage of Abraham or whatever, it is gained through faith.

So the text reads " flesh and blood will not go to heaven by rights of inheritance."

[Audie]

As the Romans' purpose in crucifiction had much to do with display, and they'd leave the corpse there to stink and look terrible
it is very peculiar that there'd be an exception made for any particular insurrectionist.

The name given for the site makes it clear they didnt allow the dead to be honoured with
burial.

The story is prettied up, just like the illustrations. Personally, I feel it is no
way to honour the man.

[Rob]

The way I understand it, the Romans allowed the Jews to take dead bodies down before sundown. It wouldn't surprise me especially in this instance because Pilate was afraid of an uprising- which is why he agreed to crucify Jesus in the first place.

[abelcainsbrother]

You may be bright.
http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=EARiB2JGvLE

[Kurieuo]

The way I understand it, the Romans allowed the Jews to take dead bodies down before sundown. It wouldn't surprise me especially in this instance because Pilate was afraid of an uprising- which is why he agreed to crucify Jesus in the first place.

I don't think Pilate was necessarily afraid of an uprising, as he was quite prepared to lock horns.
But certainly, it wouldn't look like Pilate could properly govern if disputes kept breaking out.

Criag's Jesus and His Passion is a good read.

[Audie]

The way I understand it, the Romans allowed the Jews to take dead bodies down before sundown. It wouldn't surprise me especially in this instance because Pilate was afraid of an uprising- which is why he agreed to crucify Jesus in the first place.

I don't think Pilate was necessarily afraid of an uprising, as he was quite prepared to lock horns.
But certainly, it wouldn't look like Pilate could properly govern if disputes kept breaking out.

Criag's Jesus and His Passion is a good read.

The country was thick with rebellious jews, and there is no reason that they'd have made special concession
for the followers of just one of the thousands of insurrectionists they put
to death. Subtlety and finesse were not their thing.

If they actually thought they'd incite the public ( who the trumped up story says
wanted him tortured to death) they could have just quietly assassinated him. They did the opposite.
How does that add up to appeasement?

For that matter, if Jesus really came back to life, and went to ask Pilate if he'd care to
try again he'd have really have made a splash.

[Kurieuo]

The way I understand it, the Romans allowed the Jews to take dead bodies down before sundown. It wouldn't surprise me especially in this instance because Pilate was afraid of an uprising- which is why he agreed to crucify Jesus in the first place.

I don't think Pilate was necessarily afraid of an uprising, as he was quite prepared to lock horns.
But certainly, it wouldn't look like Pilate could properly govern if disputes kept breaking out.

Criag's Jesus and His Passion is a good read.

The country was thick with rebellious jews, and there is no reason that they'd have made special concession
for the followers of just one of the thousands of insurrectionists they put
to death. Subtlety and finesse were not their thing.

If they actually thought they'd incite the public ( who the trumped up story says
wanted him tortured to death) they could have just quietly assassinated him. They did the opposite.
How does that add up to appeasement?

For that matter, if Jesus really came back to life, and went to ask Pilate if he'd care to
try again he'd have really have made a splash.

What are you arguing?

[Audie]

The way I understand it, the Romans allowed the Jews to take dead bodies down before sundown. It wouldn't surprise me especially in this instance because Pilate was afraid of an uprising- which is why he agreed to crucify Jesus in the first place.

I don't think Pilate was necessarily afraid of an uprising, as he was quite prepared to lock horns.
But certainly, it wouldn't look like Pilate could properly govern if disputes kept breaking out.

Criag's Jesus and His Passion is a good read.

The country was thick with rebellious jews, and there is no reason that they'd have made special concession
for the followers of just one of the thousands of insurrectionists they put
to death. Subtlety and finesse were not their thing.

If they actually thought they'd incite the public ( who the trumped up story says
wanted him tortured to death) they could have just quietly assassinated him. They did the opposite.
How does that add up to appeasement?

For that matter, if Jesus really came back to life, and went to ask Pilate if he'd care to
try again he'd have really have made a splash.

What are you arguing?

Are you a what?:D

[Jac3510]

I don't understand Audie's basic objection. We know for a fact that Roman authorities allowed bodies to be taken down from the cross at their discretion. Audie's suggestion of what the Romans would have done is just speculation on her part with no evidence to back it up. On the flip side, we have this as one example from Josephus (from his Life 76)

• And when I was sent by Titus Caesar with Cerealins, and a thousand horsemen, to a certain village called Thecoa, in order to know whether it were a place fit for a camp, as I came back, I saw many captives crucified, and remembered three of them as my former acquaintance. I was very sorry at this in my mind, and went with tears in my eyes to Titus, and told him of them; so he immediately commanded them to be taken down, and to have the greatest care taken of them, in order to their recovery; yet two of them died under the physician’s hands, while the third recovered.

That was at a time when the tension between the Romans and the Jews was much higher than when Jesus was crucified. Further, we know that it was not an uncommon practice to break the legs of people to hasten death. So Cicero says,

• Then there are others too, of tribunitian rank: in the first place, Titus Plancus; a man who, if he had had any affection for the senate, would never have burned the senate-house. Having been condemned for which wickedness, he returned to that city by force of arms from which he was driven by the power of the law. But, however, this is a case common to him and to many others who are very unlike him. But this is quite true which men are in the habit of saying of this. Plancus in a proverbial way, that it is quite impossible for him to die unless his legs are broken. They are broken, and still he lives. But this, like many others, is a service that has been done us by Aquila. (Phil. XIII.27)

Certainly, the Romans would often let bodies hang. But, again, that doesn't mean it is hard and fast rule, and if requested, the authority could release them if possible. We don't know how long that the two thieves Jesus was crucified with had already been on the cross. But why would Pilate insist that all the legs be broken in the first place if not to hasten their death so that they would die before the Sabbath? And why would he want them dead before the Sabbath if not to get them off the crosses before the Sabbath?

And why would he do that? Because Pilate was first and foremost interested in keeping a modicum of peace. If the same authorities that requested Jesus be crucified requested that He and all the crucified Jews be taken off the cross before the Sabbath, then Pilate was within his rights and had good reason to have all their legs broken.

The point is that such claims have precedent in the historical literature as we have it. So on what basis would Audie or anybody else say that Pilate wouldn't do that (and wasn't she just complaining about attributing motives just awhile ago?!?)? Anyway, the evidence is rather obvious, as far as I can tell. So all she and critics in general really have in response is conspiracy theory, and no one--certainly not a historian--is at all impressed with that sort of attempt to deal with the subject.

[Kurieuo]

One thing I found doing history was that speculation was highly encouraged.

Heck, although people here would probably know very little about them, I wrote on Montanism. After reading many books, I wrote as though I really knew what was going on. In reality, the facts to deal with are quite scarce and thin. So I worked with other historians and their knowledge and insights. I still have firm views... BUT, at the end of the day it's like building one's story off another's story off another's story. Facts can end up having very little to do with the stories a historian comes up with. The most favoured modern historian probably ends up being the best writer/story teller.

So it isn't any wonder the re-interpretations of historical events in our time are vast and numerous?

[Jac3510]

Which is a totally modern phenomenon (in the sense of the last 100 years or so), that has largely been abandoned by every field except biblical studies. For anyone even remote impressed by/interested in that sort of skepticism, I cannot more highly recommend The First Historians by Baruch Halpern. Good historian. Good historiography. He reads/interprets with a (I think too) critical eye, but he is willing to let texts have a degree of truth in them. He shows why you can't just presume the "guilt" of the text, so to speak. The "victory" in that sort of interpretation is entirely pyrrhic at best.

[Audie]

I don't understand Audie's basic objection. We know for a fact that Roman authorities allowed bodies to be taken down from the cross at their discretion. Audie's suggestion of what the Romans would have done is just speculation on her part with no evidence to back it up. On the flip side, we have this as one example from Josephus (from his Life 76)

• And when I was sent by Titus Caesar with Cerealins, and a thousand horsemen, to a certain village called Thecoa, in order to know whether it were a place fit for a camp, as I came back, I saw many captives crucified, and remembered three of them as my former acquaintance. I was very sorry at this in my mind, and went with tears in my eyes to Titus, and told him of them; so he immediately commanded them to be taken down, and to have the greatest care taken of them, in order to their recovery; yet two of them died under the physician’s hands, while the third recovered.

That was at a time when the tension between the Romans and the Jews was much higher than when Jesus was crucified. Further, we know that it was not an uncommon practice to break the legs of people to hasten death. So Cicero says,

• Then there are others too, of tribunitian rank: in the first place, Titus Plancus; a man who, if he had had any affection for the senate, would never have burned the senate-house. Having been condemned for which wickedness, he returned to that city by force of arms from which he was driven by the power of the law. But, however, this is a case common to him and to many others who are very unlike him. But this is quite true which men are in the habit of saying of this. Plancus in a proverbial way, that it is quite impossible for him to die unless his legs are broken. They are broken, and still he lives. But this, like many others, is a service that has been done us by Aquila. (Phil. XIII.27)

Certainly, the Romans would often let bodies hang. But, again, that doesn't mean it is hard and fast rule, and if requested, the authority could release them if possible. We don't know how long that the two thieves Jesus was crucified with had already been on the cross. But why would Pilate insist that all the legs be broken in the first place if not to hasten their death so that they would die before the Sabbath? And why would he want them dead before the Sabbath if not to get them off the crosses before the Sabbath?

And why would he do that? Because Pilate was first and foremost interested in keeping a modicum of peace. If the same authorities that requested Jesus be crucified requested that He and all the crucified Jews be taken off the cross before the Sabbath, then Pilate was within his rights and had good reason to have all their legs broken.

The point is that such claims have precedent in the historical literature as we have it. So on what basis would Audie or anybody else say that Pilate wouldn't do that (and wasn't she just complaining about attributing motives just awhile ago?!?)? Anyway, the evidence is rather obvious, as far as I can tell. So all she and critics in general really have in response is conspiracy theory, and no one--certainly not a historian--is at all impressed with that sort of attempt to deal with the subject.

good post till you could not resist the pull to the dark
side, with the shabby crack about "conspiracy".

[Jac3510]

"dark side?" I think this is where I poinnt out that you are making things up about me and that you are imputing motives, the very thing you so consistently complain about. Further, just like you complain that people don't understand evolution and so make uneducated arguments that have no relevance to the actual conversation, I can tell you as one who has three degrees in this subject matter that you're doing precisely the same thing. Your dismissal of my point as "shabby" itself presupposes that you know enough about bothh the historiographical method and this data in particular to make that assessment? You clearly don't. I was not an objective assessment rooted in a very specific understanding of the way we do history.

It's too bad you couldn't resist the dark side and acknowledge a serious counter argument and instead had to rely on an ad hominem, which is perfectly typical of you. I hope that you toss aside such shabby thinking and hold yourself to the same intellectual honesty you demand from others.

[Audie]

"dark side?" I think this is where I poinnt out that you are making things up about me and that you are imputing motives, the very thing you so consistently complain about. Further, just like you complain that people don't understand evolution and so make uneducated arguments that have no relevance to the actual conversation, I can tell you as one who has three degrees in this subject matter that you're doing precisely the same thing. Your dismissal of my point as "shabby" itself presupposes that you know enough about bothh the historiographical method and this data in particular to make that assessment? You clearly don't. I was not an objective assessment rooted in a very specific understanding of the way we do history.

It's too bad you couldn't resist the dark side and acknowledge a serious counter argument and instead had to rely on an ad hominem, which is perfectly typical of you. I hope that you toss aside such shabby thinking and hold yourself to the same intellectual honesty you demand from others.

Seriously, it was a good post and I thank you for it.

However, when you went for suggesting Im talking conspiracy, that was, yes, shabby.

I didnt impu gn your motives; I said nothing at all about that. you had no point to make about me, as I am not talking conspiracy.

You are right, I dont know much about the times. You made some good comments on the nature of the times, all this other stuff is so unnecessary. I dont know why you tacked on the personal comment at the end.

I am here acknowledging a good counter argument.

Ad hom? Where do you even get that? Good grief. Nothing resembling an "ad hom' from me.

There might be a slim case for your "perfectly typical" crack could be made. But mostly it was just kinda shabby. Dont be that way if you donw want me to call it what it is.

There is no intellectual honesty shortfall from me in any of this. I didnt see one from you. You do tho seem inclined to take a swipe at me rather than being the least charitable or questioning of what I might have in mind.

So all she and critics in general really have in response is conspiracy theory,

If I misread your statement about me and conspiracy, then this is all for nothing.

If you were suggesting that I was claiming a conspiracy surrounding the issue at hand, you are mistaken.

[Audie]

The way I understand it, the Romans allowed the Jews to take dead bodies down before sundown. It wouldn't surprise me especially in this instance because Pilate was afraid of an uprising- which is why he agreed to crucify Jesus in the first place.

I don't think Pilate was necessarily afraid of an uprising, as he was quite prepared to lock horns.
But certainly, it wouldn't look like Pilate could properly govern if disputes kept breaking out.

Criag's Jesus and His Passion is a good read.

The country was thick with rebellious jews, and there is no reason that they'd have made special concession
for the followers of just one of the thousands of insurrectionists they put
to death. Subtlety and finesse were not their thing.

If they actually thought they'd incite the public ( who the trumped up story says
wanted him tortured to death) they could have just quietly assassinated him. They did the opposite.
How does that add up to appeasement?

For that matter, if Jesus really came back to life, and went to ask Pilate if he'd care to
try again he'd have really have made a splash.

What are you arguing?

Are you a what?:D

That is what I thought.