Who buried Jesus?

[RhinestoneCowboy]

he's talking there about people who have been baptised, not about people who have ceased to live.

Where do we find evidence of these different ideas?

That's in verse 12. In verse 11 he literally says that we "put off the body of the flesh" meaning that the resurrection will not involve flesh since it's sinful. It is perishable/corruptible and cannot inherit the kingdom of God.

The "different ideas" are found in 1 Cor 15:40-44, 2 Cor 5:1-4 where he talks about different "types" of bodies that exist on earth and in heaven.

Josephus tells us on the beliefs of the Pharisees:

"and yet allow, that to act what is right, or the contrary, is principally in the power of men, although fate does cooperate in every action. They say that all souls are incorruptible, but that the souls of good men only are removed into other bodies http://lexundria.com/j_bj/2.163/wst

On the beliefs of the Essenes:

"when they are set free from the bonds of the flesh they then rejoice and mount upward" (War 2.155) - http://lexundria.com/j_bj/2.155/wst

In the Ascension of Isaiah, the author describes a glorious vision of the seventh heaven at the end times, glorious because all there, including Enoch, are stripped of (their) robes of the flesh (9.7-8)

A similar idea is found in 2 Enoch when the author notes: [...] and put (him) into the clothes of glory (2 En. 22.8, 10).

Jubilees 23:31
"And their bones shall rest in the earth, And their spirits shall have much joy, And they shall know that it is the Lord who executes judgment, And shows mercy to hundreds and thousands and to all that love Him"

On 1 Enoch, George Nickelsburg argues:

1 Enoch: Chapters 1-36, 81-108; pgs. 519, 523. https://books.google.com/books?id=1F...page&q&f=false

"The Epistle of Enoch predicts resurrection at the end of history; elsewhere however it asserts future vindication of the righteous in terms that do not suggest the bodily resurrection but the transformation of the spirit after death (103-104). The reward of the righteous is to share the eternal, spiritual life of the angels in heaven. This is not the Greek idea of immortality of the soul, but neither is it the resurrection of the body. Rather it is the resurrection, or exaltation, of the spirit from Sheol to heaven. The bodies of the righteous will presumably continue to rest in the earth."https://books.google.com/books?id=ie...page&q&f=false

[37818]

There's no grounds for your assumption that Jesus' body was devoid of blood at the time of His death. Nothing in any Gospel or the NT even hints that the body was ever completely exsanguinated - nor was there any reason to do so, nor was there any ancient practice of doing so before burial.

The cross itself, including the stab wound, is not capable of complete exsanguination.

Theologically, His blood being shed is sufficient - there's no need to physically remove all the blood from the body nor does 'shedding blood' refer to exsanguination of that extent.

Your assumption that because the shed blood of Christ atones it must be all His blood is unwarranted.

In short, you're reading into the text what is not present. Since it is not true of Jesus Himself, your secondary conclusion that the saved will also live lives without blood is unwarranted.

It also contradicts Scripture - Scripture states that the life is in the blood. It seems unlikely that God will be creating a new bloodless form of life.

I never made any kind of claim, such that, "Jesus' body was devoid of blood at the time of His death." What I said was, "His blood was poured out on the cross."

It was in reply to JimL.

I know, I was being sarcastic, he wasn't said to have been buried, he was said to have been entombed. And then, 3 days hence, his heart began to beat again and to send 3 day old dead blood to his 3 day old un-oxegenated dead brain and he came back to life, good as new, got up and walked through the stone door of the tomb and headed off to Emmaus for some unexplained reason.

Ah, no. His blood was poured out on the cross. He was resurrected by (Romans 8:11) the Spirit of God without the blood. He went bodily into Heaven without blood (1 Corinthians 15:50). The atonement was completed on the cross before He physically died (Isaiah 53:10-12; Hebrews 9:14-24; John 19:28-30; Acts 1:9-11; 1 Timothy 2:5).

At no time did I make any such claim, nor did I say "all" His blood was shed, as you accused me saying, "Your assumption that because the shed blood of Christ atones it must be all His blood is unwarranted."

The resurrected body does not need blood to be resurrected. But then you argue as if it does,

It also contradicts Scripture - Scripture states that the life is in the blood. It seems unlikely that God will be creating a new bloodless form of life.

As I explained to CR and Tassman,

Paul writes of the resurrection body (1 Corinthians 15:35). Bodies are physical. How the body is animated is the difference between the "natural body" and the "spiritual body." The natural body by way of the soul in the flesh by means of the blood (see Leviticus 17:11) and the spiritual body by means of the Holy Spirit (see Romans 8:11).

[RhinestoneCowboy]

RC,

That interpretation does not eliminate the historical record as found in the NT documents. And what ancient written record can you reference to support this interpretation you presented?

I find the whole depiction to have numerous historical implausibilities. If the Sanhedrin really thought Jesus was guilty of blasphemy then they could have just stoned him to death like they do Stephen in Acts. There would have been no need to turn him over to the Romans. I think the trial was invented in order to shift the blame to the Jews instead of the Romans. I mean, where was Mark supposed to get his info on the trial from when none of the disciples were present?

Not sure what you mean by "ancient written record." Are you referring to the sources we have regarding how crucifixion victims were treated or are you referring to the OT and it's forbidding of work on Passover? The Mishnah Sanhedrin 6:5-6 forbids the burial of criminals in family tombs:

"And they did not bury [the condemned] in the burial grounds of his ancestors. But there were two graveyards made ready for the use of the court, one for those who were beheaded or strangled, and one for those who were stoned or burned."

A special grave for crucifixion victims wouldn't have been necessary since that was a Roman punishment.

BTW, it is my understanding Joseph asked for Jesus' body after the 15th was over.

No, per Mark 15:42 he goes to Pilate "when evening had come" meaning sometime around 6pm. That wasn't nightfall yet so was still 15 Nisan (Passover day).

The sequence of events Mark has Joseph do seems quite difficult to accomplish in time before sundown (Sabbath) which would have been around 7-7:30pm.

First, Joseph has to actually find out Jesus was dead. We're not told how. Then "when evening had come" (6pm) Joseph has to:

1. Go to Pilate's headquarters and request to meet with him on the busiest day of the year (Passover) - Mk. 15:43.
2. Joseph would have to wait and be granted permission to speak with Pilate, actually have the meeting then Pilate has to summon the centurion and wait to confirm Jesus was actually dead - Mk. 15:44-45.
3. Joseph goes and "illegally" buys linen since that wasn't allowed on Passover (oops) - Mk. 15:46.
4. Then he has to travel to the site of crucifixion outside the city walls, take down the body and wrap it in the linen - Mk. 15:46.
5. Then he has to travel to his own tomb which most likely wouldn't have been near the grotesque site of crucifixion - Mk. 15:46.

That sounds like a lot of laborious tasks to complete before sundown. Not saying it's impossible but the time it would take to complete all of those tasks would most likely carry over into the Sabbath (when this type of stuff was forbidden).

[37818]

I find the whole depiction to have numerous historical implausibilities. If the Sanhedrin really thought Jesus was guilty of blasphemy then they could have just stoned him to death like they do Stephen in Acts. There would have been no need to turn him over to the Romans. I think the trial was invented in order to shift the blame to the Jews instead of the Romans. I mean, where was Mark supposed to get his info on the trial from when none of the disciples were present?

Not sure what you mean by "ancient written record." Are you referring to the sources we have regarding how crucifixion victims were treated or are you referring to the OT and it's forbidding of work on Passover? The Mishnah Sanhedrin 6:5-6 forbids the burial of criminals in family tombs:

"And they did not bury [the condemned] in the burial grounds of his ancestors. But there were two graveyards made ready for the use of the court, one for those who were beheaded or strangled, and one for those who were stoned or burned."

A special grave for crucifixion victims wouldn't have been necessary since that was a Roman punishment.



No, per Mark 15:42 he goes to Pilate "when evening had come" meaning sometime around 6pm. That wasn't nightfall yet so was still 15 Nisan (Passover day).

The sequence of events Mark has Joseph do seems quite difficult to accomplish in time before sundown (Sabbath) which would have been around 7-7:30pm.

First, Joseph has to actually find out Jesus was dead. We're not told how. Then "when evening had come" (6pm) Joseph has to:

1. Go to Pilate's headquarters and request to meet with him on the busiest day of the year (Passover) - Mk. 15:43.
2. Joseph would have to wait and be granted permission to speak with Pilate, actually have the meeting then Pilate has to summon the centurion and wait to confirm Jesus was actually dead - Mk. 15:44-45.
3. Joseph goes and "illegally" buys linen since that wasn't allowed on Passover (oops) - Mk. 15:46.
4. Then he has to travel to the site of crucifixion outside the city walls, take down the body and wrap it in the linen - Mk. 15:46.
5. Then he has to travel to his own tomb which most likely wouldn't have been near the grotesque site of crucifixion - Mk. 15:46.

That sounds like a lot of laborious tasks to complete before sundown. Not saying it's impossible but the time it would take to complete all of those tasks would most likely carry over into the Sabbath (when this type of stuff was forbidden).

You are repeating your arguments:

As already demonstrated:

Mark 14:12
eat the Passover?

Mark 14:17-18
"When it was evening, he came with the twelve. And when they had taken their places and were eating (the Passover)..."

This indicates that Passover began the night before Jesus' trial, crucifixion, and burial. The Passover lasted until the following day at sundown.



"When evening was come" (opsios) is not sundown, but the period late in the day before sundown 3-6pm or 6pm to sundown. The opsios comes on the Day of Preparation:

καὶ ἤδη ὀψίας γενομένης ἐπεὶ ἦν παρασκευή ὅ ἐστιν προσάββατον

"And now when the evening had come, because it was the Preparation, that is the fore-sabbath [prosabbaton]."

The next day had not come, only the evening of the same day of the crucifixion. The opsios is the tail end of a day, not the beginning of a new day so it's still Passover.



If Mark just intended to depict a regular holy day then what's the rush for getting Jesus off the cross? The whole point is to bury Jesus before the Sabbath because burials weren't allowed then! Why would you need a "Preparation Day" for anything other than the weekly Sabbath?



Yes, there is. Mark has Jesus crucified and buried on Passover while John 19:14 says "Now it was the day of Preparation for the Passover; and it was about noon" indicating it was the day before Passover. These
two accounts cannot be reconciled.

I had explained that because it was the 15th Joseph had to wait till the evening (sundown [Mark 1:32]) to obtain Jesus' body.

Jesus was buried after sunset which would be the 16th day of the feast of the Passover week, which would be our Thursday evening. Note this is my personal understanding according to the record. The Jewish days begin and end at evening (Mark 14:17; Mark 15:42). The 14th (Exodus 12:6, 18) was the day before (Mark 14:12)Jesus was crucified by the Romans (the Jewish day of the 15th). Joseph had to wait for sundown to ask for the body of Jesus (the 16th Mark 15:42).

Which you repeated your argument:

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).

It has long been my understanding that in 30 A.D. the 14th was on our Wednesday, making the 15th and the crucifixion be on our Thursday, And of course the Preparation day falls on our Friday.

Now the majority of Christians who hold that Christ was crucified on the 14th also many of which hold that it was in 33 A.D. Also hold Jesus eat an early Passover observance making Mark 14:12 to have been the 13th. (Which I personal cannot biblically justify.) Nevertheless that is a majority view. The next largest group hold because the 14th fell on a Wednesday in 30 A.D. Christ was crucified on that Wednesday.

[RhinestoneCowboy]

The "evening" in Mk. 14:52 was not sundown. I had an earlier post discussing the meaning of "opsios" which just meant the tail end of the day - either 3-6pm or 6pm until sunset. It doesn't mean the beginning of the next day. In Mark 1:32 it's only explicitly qualified with "when the sun set" or "after sunset." Without that qualification it just means the time period up until sunset. Moreover, Joseph wouldn't have been able to bury Jesus the "next day" since that was the Sabbath and burials were forbidden. That's the whole point Mark has Joseph bury Jesus. He's trying to do it "before" the Sabbath (nighttime). There's no need to rush to get him off the cross if he had a whole other day intervening before the Sabbath.

Mark 15:42 explicitly states that it was "the day before the Sabbath" meaning Friday. So Jesus was crucified on Friday.

[RhinestoneCowboy]

The "evening" in Mk. 14:52 was not sundown. I had an earlier post discussing the meaning of "opsios" which just meant the tail end of the day - either 3-6pm or 6pm until sunset. It doesn't mean the beginning of the next day. In Mark 1:32 it's only explicitly qualified with "when the sun set" or "after sunset." Without that qualification it just means the time period up until sunset. Moreover, Joseph wouldn't have been able to bury Jesus the "next day" since that was the Sabbath and burials were forbidden. That's the whole point Mark has Joseph bury Jesus. He's trying to do it "before" the Sabbath (nighttime). There's no need to rush to get him off the cross if he had a whole other day intervening before the Sabbath.

Mark 15:42 explicitly states that it was "the day before the Sabbath" meaning Friday. So Jesus was crucified on Friday.

Luke 23:54 also makes this explicit.

"It was the day of Preparation, and the sabbath was beginning."

This places Jesus' burial right before when the Sabbath was about to begin i.e. Friday evening.

[37818]

The "evening" in Mk. 14:52 was not sundown. I had an earlier post discussing the meaning of "opsios" which just meant the tail end of the day - either 3-6pm or 6pm until sunset. It doesn't mean the beginning of the next day. In Mark 1:32 it's only explicitly qualified with "when the sun set" or "after sunset." Without that qualification it just means the time period up until sunset. Moreover, Joseph wouldn't have been able to bury Jesus the "next day" since that was the Sabbath and burials were forbidden. That's the whole point Mark has Joseph bury Jesus. He's trying to do it "before" the Sabbath (nighttime). There's no need to rush to get him off the cross if he had a whole other day intervening before the Sabbath.

Mark 15:42 explicitly states that it was "the day before the Sabbath" meaning Friday. So Jesus was crucified on Friday.

The day of Preparation before the Sabbath begins our Thursday evening. Friday begins at midnight.

Luke 23:55-56 the women looked at where Jesus was laid and then returned and spent that day of Preparation making the spices and rested on the Sabbath.

[RhinestoneCowboy]

The day of Preparation before the Sabbath begins our Thursday evening. Friday begins at midnight.

Luke 23:55-56 the women looked at where Jesus was laid and then returned and spent that day of Preparation making the spices and rested on the Sabbath.

Mark says it was the day BEFORE the Sabbath meaning Friday. Luke 23:54 says the Sabbath was BEGINNING right after Jesus was buried. That's Friday evening.

[37818]

Mark says it was the day BEFORE the Sabbath meaning Friday. Luke 23:54 says the Sabbath was BEGINNING right after Jesus was buried. That's Friday evening.

The Jewish day before the Sabbath begins our Thursday evening. The Sabbath begins our Friday evening. The women left the tomb to prepared spices and ointments before resting on the Sabbath that began that Friday evening.

[RhinestoneCowboy]

The days begin at sundown, not midnight. If Luke says the "Sabbath was beginning" right after Jesus was buried then that means it was Friday right before sundown. Jesus dies at 3pm so he must have been buried before nightfall.

Mark 15:42 does not indicate the beginning of a new day. It's just the "evening" of Friday. If Joseph had a whole day before Jesus needed to be buried then why does he rush out at nighttime? That makes no sense.

[The Pixie]

I always understood the point of Good Friday was that it was remembering the day Jesus was crucified and died. Quite a revelation to discover that actually happened on the Thursday.

[37818]

I always understood the point of Good Friday was that it was remembering the day Jesus was crucified and died. Quite a revelation to discover that actually happened on the Thursday.

Yes. R. A. Torrey believed it was on a Wednesday. Most of Christianity taught it was on a Friday. I set out to see if it was possible to discover from the NT accounts which it really was. I stumbled on to a Thursday with the understanding the Jewish days begin with the setting of the Sun. Mark's account Mark 14:12 identifies a fixed date on the Jewish calendar. Mark 14:17 set the crucifixion the next day. Mark 15:42 identifies the beginning of the day of Preparation. Luke's account Luke 24:21 being the third day from said event. Our Sunday being the third day since. Making our Saturday (that Sabbath day) the second day since. Then the first day since would be Friday making the day of the said event our Thursday.

Now there is this tool - a Calendar Converter: https://www.fourmilab.ch/documents/calendar/

[37818]

The days begin at sundown, not midnight. If Luke says the "Sabbath was beginning" right after Jesus was buried then that means it was Friday right before sundown. Jesus dies at 3pm so he must have been buried before nightfall.

Mark 15:42 does not indicate the beginning of a new day. It's just the "evening" of Friday. If Joseph had a whole day before Jesus needed to be buried then why does he rush out at nighttime? That makes no sense.

The Sabbath was coming on. The Greek is used only twice in the NT. Once in the present tense in Matthew 28:1 translated "began to dawn." And in Luke in the imperfect tense translated as "drew on." The translation you are citing has "was beginning." But just after that statement Luke writes that the women went to the tomb, looked as how Jesus was laid in the tomb, went home to prepare spices and ointments. After which they rested on the Sabbath.

[One Bad Pig]

I always understood the point of Good Friday was that it was remembering the day Jesus was crucified and died. Quite a revelation to discover that actually happened on the Thursday.

Those who argue that it was on some day other than Friday are a tiny minority. Of course, from the Orthodox point of view, it's not so important that it be commemorated on the exact day, but rather that it be commemorated on the same day by everyone. The Transfiguration, for example, is widely held to have occurred shortly before Jesus went to Jerusalem for the Crucifixion, but it is commemorated August 6, because it was decided that it was improper to hold a major celebration during Lent. It is convenient to commemorate the events of the week before the Crucifixion during Holy Week. Why change?

[tabibito]

I always understood the point of Good Friday was that it was remembering the day Jesus was crucified and died. Quite a revelation to discover that actually happened on the Thursday.

The early churches had some members who took the day to be Wednesday, others Thursday, others Friday. It should not be difficult to work out which one Rome chose.