+++ No Piercing At Jesus' Side +++

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

it was not uncommon for Jews to remain in their crosses up to even 4 days. Jesus was only about 3 hours.

The Great Cause!

Cause of what? Cause of all resentful old wives' tales like this one,

Of course! What else could the Centurion say after he was well bribed to say nothing that Jesus was still alive? According to Flavius Josephus it was not uncommon for Jews to remain in their crosses up to even 4 days. Jesus was only about 3 hours. There was a high percentage that he was still alive. Hence Luke says in Acts 1:1-3 that Jesus appeared to his disciples for 40 days after his passion in the cross. So, he appeared to his disciples for some last instructions before he left the Land of Israel with his wife Mary of Magdalene and "his savior" Joseph of Arimathea who had come in time and used a lot of money to buy the silence of the Centurion. It didn't matter how the Romans hated the Jews for money could turn even hatred into love. Besides, to appear to his disciple after his passion is not evidence even that he had died; let alone that he resurrected.

And what Cause would I be speaking of?

The assumption merely here taken for granted. The assumption -- false of course -- that Jesus did not die on the cross but survived it? No; the assumption that Jesus was less than three hours on the cross before He was taken off from it, and either of two stories started. The one that he was alive and well after his ordeal; and the truth -- ja well, part truth -- that He had died AND, was BURIED, BEFORE sunset... the usual and 'normal' story of Christian tradition.

So why is the traditional story not the full truth?

Because it is not the story of the Passover of Yahweh according to the Christian Scriptures in the Old or New Testaments!

It is not the Gospel Truth that Jesus was BURIED BEFORE SUNSET ON THE SAME DAY HE HAD DIED ON?!

That's not what I say; that's what both Old and New Testaments say, that the Passover Lamb in the night after the day it had been slaughtered, before midnight had to be EATEN, and "in the end what was left over the FOLLOWING day had to be BURNED with fire" to ashes back to the earth!

That means TWO days,

Day 1,

In the NT "the first day they KILLED the Passover the day without leaven", Mark 14:12 Matthew 26:17, Luke 22:7 John 13:1 "the day before the feast"—

In the OT on the calendar, dated, “the FOURTEENTH day of the First Month you must KILL the Passover" … "the head first day you must remove leaven”.

Day 2,

In the OT, "the first day of seven days you must eat unleavened bread … on the fifteenth day of the month";

in the NT “at That First Night” for which the Jews the morning before would “not enter the house of Pilate so that they might eat their passover” after the following evening. John 18:28; 19:39.

 

[lostwanderingsoul]

It is truly remarkable how people will go out of their way to find any excuse why the Bible does not mean what it says. Most of these arguements make no sense at all, just like this one.

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

The bible says they broke the legs of the other people on the crosses, but Jesus they pierced with a spear. It wasn't until after they pierced Jesus that he gave up the ghost, and when he did, it was like thunder or an earthquake, causing the centurion to believe and say, Jesus really was the Son of God.

I can't remember that I read that <<It wasn't until after they pierced Jesus that he gave up the ghost>>; I thought I read that one of the soldiers sent by Pilate after evening had come, came and pierced his side with a lance after Jesus had breathed his last breath "the ninth hour"--3 p.m. mid-afternoon the day some 4 to 5 hours before!

 

[Kemosloby]

I can't remember that I read that <<It wasn't until after they pierced Jesus that he gave up the ghost>>; I thought I read that one of the soldiers sent by Pilate after evening had come, came and pierced his side with a lance after Jesus had breathed his last breath "the ninth hour"--3 p.m. mid-afternoon the day some 4 to 5 hours before!

Yes, you're right.

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

It is truly remarkable how people will go out of their way to find any excuse why the Bible does not mean what it says. Most of these arguements make no sense at all, just like this one.

What do you mean what it is that the <<Bible actually means>> but which "these arguements make no sense (of) at all, just like this one"... which one?

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

The account in Mark 15:44,45 shows Pilate made sure Jesus was dead before releasing the body to Joseph. The account in John 19:33-37 harmonizes with this: "But on coming to Jesus, they saw that he was already dead, so they did not break his legs. But one of the soldiers jabbed his side with a spear, and immediately blood and water came out. And the one who has seen it has given this witness, and his witness is true, and he knows that what he says is true, so that you also may believe. In fact, these things took place for the scripture to be fulfilled: “Not a bone of his will be broken.” And again, a different scripture says: “They will look to the one whom they pierced." Thus I believe these events fulfilled Bible prophecy, and there is absolutely no reason to doubt they occurred as reported in the Bible.

<<these things took place for the scripture to be fulfilled:>>

Amen!

And "the Scriptures" means not only <<“Not a bone of his will be broken.” And again, “They will look to the one whom they pierced.">>

Ultimately "the Scriptures" means "ALL the Scriptures fulfilled". And all the Scriptures fulfilled ultimately meant that "his FLESH SAW NO CORRUPTION IN DEATH" or in his dying of death BEFORE "God loosed the pains of death" with death for Him, or in the grave AFTER.
Jesus' "flesh / body / life / blood / soul / mind saw / underwent / experienced / suffered NO corruption / decay / loss / change" Jesus' WHOLE suffering / undergoing / dying of death -- our sin's reward -- through. Not as much as one drop of blood or scratch of skin!

 

[Muffled]

Here are three reasons why Jesus was never pierced at his side on the cross:

1- The custom to rush the death of all the Jews crucified by the Romans was Jewish and not Roman; and the practice was done only on Fridays,
so that the bodies would not be left hanging during the hours of the Sabbath. And the method was leg-breaking and not spear-piercing.
The Romans wouldn't care less if the Jewish Sabbath got desecrated by the bodies on the crosses.

2 - There is a tradition that the Centurion was richly bribed by Joseph of Arimathea, who was a very rich man in Israel, to just let him - Joseph - take
Jesus off the cross and report back to Pilate that Jesus was indeed already dead.

3 - That Centurion and his men could never by their own accord pierce Jesus after their recognition that Jesus was indeed the son of God.
This is for lack of any other option, a confession that they had converted themselves to the Cause of Jesus. That's in Matthew 27:54.

The first and third reasons dispense with any other evidence that the piercing of Jesus' side by a Roman spear was an interpolation by
either the writer of the Gospel or by the Fathers of the Church in 327 CE, when they selected the books into the Canon of the NT.

Ben

I beleive the Romans preferred not to anger the Jews and had an aversion to causing riots. So yes they would pay attention to Jewish custom.

I believe there was also a false rumor that the apostles whisked the body away from the grave. The testimony of God is otherwise.

I believe there was only one centurion who stated that leaving the possibility that it was a different centurion doing the piercing. Also soldiers without direct orders to the contrary do many unusual things like dicing for His clothes.

I believe the original text remains the best evidence and your reasons are spurious.