Radcliffe Emerson

IF Jesus even existed, and IF he was crucified, his body was left on the wood until it rotted, then the remains thrown to the dogs.
They were not put in tombs, they were not buried, unless they were Roman citizens. Jews certainly were not given any special considerations.
IF Jesus existed (I believe Paul invented him myself, as all of his attributes come from earlier pagan beliefs), he likely went into Jerusalem during Passover to try to incite the Jews to a war with Rome and was arrested and killed.
The Romans did not grant requests from non-Romans to remove bodies from the cross, they were left to rot.
They certainly wouldn't grant requests to the Jews for that purpose.
Only one skeleton displaying evidence of crucificion has ever been found, precisely because of these methods.
Certainly not because someone "rose from the dead".

godfry n. glad

And could you please explain for us all how you ascertained those two points from the OP?

godfry

EstherRose

Accordin to the bible, Pontius Pilate asked what crime he had committed. Receiving no answer except the mob shout "crucify him" he handed Jesus over to be killed. Then Joseph of Arimathea a prominent member of the Council (Sanhedrin) went boldly to Pilate and asked for Jesus body. Pilate did not believe Jesus was guilty of a crime, therefore leaving him to rot was not appropriate in his eyes. So he granted permission for Joseph to take the body.

That one skeleton you claim had evidence of crucifixion, did it rot on the cross? If it didn't, then how can you say that the romans always left them to rot on the cross. When I was an archaeologist, one of the things we rarely found with skeletal remains were the bones of the hands and feet. Rodents tend to move them around. Usually even the ends of the long bones were gnawed on. It doesn't surprise me that few skeletal remains have been found with evidence of crucifixion. The evidence would be found in the feet and wrists/hands.

Had it been anyone else instead of Jesus, you wouldn't be questioning the exception to rotting on the cross.

Evangelion

Gladly.

• That the question is framed within the context of a hypothetical:
  I know this because the OP was made by an atheist.
  
• That the OP was made by an atheist:
  I know this because I checked his profile before responding to this thread.

Thus:

godfry n. glad

Okay... He's an atheist, self-proclaimed.

But, that still does not assure us that the question posed by the atheist in the OP was a "hypothetical", at least in my mind.

Perhaps you could explain further as to how you know that the question (paraphrased), "What's the consensus on whether Jesus was executed by the Jews?" was a hypothetical?

godfry

Evangelion

Because given that we know he's an atheist, and given that his question presupposes the existence of Christ (for which reason it was subsquently mocked by yourself and Toto) it is logical to conclude that his question is hypothetical.

godfry n. glad

Note: The OP does not presuppose the existence of Christ. It does, however, presuppose the existence of Jesus.

Your logic eludes me, Evangelion, for many atheists have taken the position that there well may have been an historical Jesus. Many still do.... They just don't accept the "Christ" designation.

The OP indicates no hypothetical stance whatsoever.

godfry

Evangelion

*sigh*

Pedantry ahoy. Very well. Since I (as a Christian) believe that Jesus is the Christ, I tend to use "Christ" and "Jesus" interchangeably. Next time I'll just say "Jesus."

Why? You've already asserted that his question is predicated upon an a priori assumption, and we both know that a priori assumptions are par for the course in the context of hypothetical scenarios. So it is still logical to assume that his question is indeed hypothetical.

Well, sure. But I think it more likely that he's presenting a hypothetical.

Does this mean you're going to mock him some more?

Toto

I thought the OP was rather flippant, so I responded in kind. But I see no evidence that the question is hypothetical. Inflammatory and designed to cause discomfort to Christians, but not hypothetical.

godfry n. glad

I find it interesting that an interjection of additional material or any kind of attempt at correction is being perceived by you to be "mocking".

I have attempted to correct what I consider to be a misguided misconception on the part of all the prior posters in the thread and to extend the discussion. Yet you consider it "mocking" the poster of the OP. Why?

godfry