Very sloppy of you, SandyLuke 23:
Im afraid its very sloppy of you my dear.
I know exactly what the Gospel says.
Quoting to me the Gospel of John, the latest Gospel to be written (ca. 90 -100AD) isnt that brilliant of you. Writing after the fact, 100 years later, is what is sloppy as your evidence
50 And behold, there was a man named Joseph, a council member, and he was a good man and a just.
51 He was of Arimathea, a city of the Jews, who himself also waited for the Kingdom of God.
52 This man went unto Pilate and begged the body of Jesus.
53And he took it down and wrapped it in linen, and laid it in a sepulcher that was hewn in stone, wherein never man before was laid.
57 When the evening had come, there came a rich man of Arimathea named Joseph, who himself also was Jesus' disciple.
58 He went to Pilate, and begged the body of Jesus. Then Pilate commanded the body to be delivered.
59 And when Joseph had taken the body, he wrapped it in a clean linen cloth
60 and laid it in his own new tomb, which he had hewn out in the rock. And he rolled a great stone to the door of the sepulcher and departed.
43 Joseph of Arimathaea, an honourable counsellor, which also waited for the kingdom of God, came, and went in boldly unto Pilate, and craved the body of Jesus.
44 And Pilate marvelled if he were already dead: and calling unto him the centurion, he asked him whether he had been any while dead.
45 And when he knew it of the centurion, he gave the body to Joseph.
46 And he bought fine linen, and took him down, and wrapped him in the linen, and laid him in a sepulchre which was hewn out of a rock, and rolled a stone unto the door of the sepulchre.
Now, what were you saying about there being NOTHING
in the Gospels about ANYONE asking Pilate for the body of Jesus? And you have the unmitigated gall to claim you know "exactly what the Gospel says"...? You're not just sloppy, Sandy, you're an out-and-out FRAUD.
But the eyewitness account traces back to the Beloved Disciple you might say - why didnt he/she ask for the body? Why didnt she/he know where the tomb was?
Why doesnt the Beloved Disciple refer to a death certificate?
Who gives a shit? A more pertinent question is how fast and how long you can keep bobbing and weaving?
Perhaps because after Jesus died on the Cross the body didnt go to the Romans (if you believe the Gospel
) it went to the custody of a 'follower' (not even a family member) who took it to his own private tomb. Therefore there would be no death certificate placed insitu by the Romans.
But if youre scenario worked - and the Romans put a certificate on the Shroud for the family to identify the body - how would that help - when none of the family came to claim the body, and in fact the body was given to a so called priest who was never heard of before that moment, and never heard of again after that moment
Do you think the death certificate was put on there so that when the family went hunting through all the tombs looking for where they buried Jesus - when they stumbled across Joseph of Arimatheas tomb they would know they had the right body?
After all, how many people knew where Jesus was buried?
Amazing how you segue back and forth between veracity and non-veracity of the Gospel narratives whenever it suits your purpose. I'm not playing your mindgames anymore, Sandy, but for the edification of anyone else reading this:
There is no mention of a "death certificate" in any of the Gospel narratives, and all four agree that Joseph of Aritmathea took custody of the body, wrapped it in a linen shroud himself
, and placed it in his own tomb.
However, Barbara Frale writes that an inscription on the Shroud of Turin which had been first noted as far back as 1978 names the deceased and fixes a date for his execution. Furthermore, she states that this practice of marking the burial shroud thusly was employed by the Roman authorities at this time because the bodies of the condemned/executed weren't turned over to their relatives or claimants for a full year.
The presence of such a label on the Shroud of Turin could possibly indicate that the Gospel narratives are incorrect or incomplete, i.e. that the body was not shrouded by Joseph of Arimathea as all four Gospels indicate. And if this detail is incorrect, there is no reason to conclude that any other detail of this particular point of reference is absolutely correct. This assumes, of course, that the Shroud of Turin IS what many purport it to be, and not a later fabrication.
In short, it opens the narrative up for further examination. That's all.
Or are you Tim, going to posit that the Romans did get the body and put it in a tomb - and put the certificate on there?
It seems to be pretty clear to me that if the Shroud is genuine, and if the inscription is original, that the Gospel accounts may in fact be fiction. I'm surprised that you're arguing so strenuously that they must be accurate, you're usually the one to nay-say Biblical historicity and veracity at any given opportunity.
[Ahh i know, Pilate wasnt a big meanie and he took care of the body of Jesus, because he knew he was the Son of God - and his family were coming back for him?
He was helping them out?
Or how about Jesus was executed in the proscribed manner by Roman authorities and his body was thrown in a ditch for a year like other victims? Note that the verbiage translated by Frale makes no mention whatsoever of Pontius Pilate, but rather states that the deceased was executed on the say of an unnamed Roman judge?
[What, all on the say so of Frale saying the alleged writing on the Shroud is a 'kind of death certificate????
Your disdain for academics is almost as virulent as your disdain for Catholics. I know you're desperate to cast any aspersions you can on Barbara Frale, but I think I'd put more stock in a trained professional who actually has access to documents and artifacts that you never will.
Oh never mind, wasted conversation, no one will ever know the truth.
Lucky for you, otherwise you might have to take up another hobby!