Joseph of ...Arimathea?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
15-09-2016, 07:38 AM (This post was last modified: 15-09-2016 08:13 AM by GoingUp.)
RE: Joseph of ...Arimathea?
(14-09-2016 03:17 AM)Firefighter01 Wrote:  I was looking for more info on the forgotten tomb of Jesus and I had a look at Joseph of Arimathea because Jesus was supposed to have been buried in his tomb.

Most people would know of Joseph of Arimathea. He appears in all of the four gospels. He supposedly got that name because in Luke 23:51 “he came from the Judean town of Arimathea”.

So I looked it up, and it has never existed! Another bloody literary device! The name is derived from "Matheia" which is said to mean "disciple town" and "ari-" is a prefix for superiority. So Joseph ("coincidentally" the name of Jesus' father) a stranger not present at the crucifixion and a secret disciple came from Arimathea, a town that never existed. The other disciples abandoned him, so this secret disciple came from a Jewish town that means "Best Disciple Town". To further confound things, if he was a member of the council, the Sanhedrin, he voted to condemn Jesus to death!

In Mark 14 it says; Then the high priest tore his clothes, and said, What need have we of any further witnesses?

You have heard the blasphemy: what think you? And they all condemned him to be guilty of death.

If Jesus croaked it at 3pm, how did Joseph (where's his "real" dad anyway?);

1. Get permission from Pilate to grab his body (That alone would not have been quick and easy)
2. Get the dead Jesus body down from the cross or the tree
3. Carry it to his tomb, where-ever that was
4. Find Nicodemus and buy 100 pounds of myrrh and aloes
6. Find a shroud and anoint it
7. Bury Jesus
8. Roll the great rock back over the entrance with no assistance

All before sundown?

Joseph of Arimathea then suspiciously vanishes after burying Jesus and is not mentioned again. WTF?

Yes, using this kind of "investigative technique" we could eliminate about 95% of all persons ever mentioned in antiquity. Virtually all the officers and Roman statesmen named by Tacitus and other ancient historians could not have existed if we subscribe to this kind of reasoning.

For example, you assume a time of 3 in the afternoon as the time the crucified Jesus. However, just little investigation shows us that he was crucified at the third hour, which doesn't mean 3:00 PM.

The Jews measured the time of day from sunset to sunrise. If the third hour was to be understood this way, it would mean he was crucified at night.

However, they also measured time in Jerusalem according to the temple rituals. The first hour they brought out a male lamb to be sacrificed, but ...

On the third hour the incense is offered in the Sanctuary and the first Tamid lamb is sacrificed as the Temple gates open.

What you are reading in your gospel regarding the third hour is probably nothing but another attempt by the writers to equate Jesus with being a sacrificial lamb of God, and it refers to the 3rd hour from dawn.

So, this attempt to eliminate Joseph of Arimathea as historical based upon your reasoning- or lack thereof- is actually irrelevant. It simply doesn't make any difference.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-09-2016, 08:00 AM
RE: Joseph of ...Arimathea?
(15-09-2016 07:38 AM)GoingUp Wrote:  Yes, using this kind of "investigative technique" we could eliminate about 95% of all persons ever mentioned in antiquity. Virtually all the officers and Roman statesmen named by Tacitus and other ancient historians could not have existed if we subscribe to this kind of reasoning.

This attempt to eliminate Joseph of Arimathea as historical based upon your reasoning- or lack thereof- is actually irrelevant. It simply doesn't make any difference.

That is not at all similar. He has reasoned why the existence of Joseph of Arimathea is not credible.
That does not compare to a credible source such as Tacitus with no good reason to invent the existence of said officers and Roman statesmen.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-09-2016, 08:05 AM
RE: Joseph of ...Arimathea?
(15-09-2016 08:00 AM)Chas Wrote:  
(15-09-2016 07:38 AM)GoingUp Wrote:  Yes, using this kind of "investigative technique" we could eliminate about 95% of all persons ever mentioned in antiquity. Virtually all the officers and Roman statesmen named by Tacitus and other ancient historians could not have existed if we subscribe to this kind of reasoning.

This attempt to eliminate Joseph of Arimathea as historical based upon your reasoning- or lack thereof- is actually irrelevant. It simply doesn't make any difference.

That is not at all similar. He has reasoned why the existence of Joseph of Arimathea is not credible.
That does not compare to a credible source such as Tacitus with no good reason to invent the existence of said officers and Roman statesmen.

I have edited my post above with more info.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-09-2016, 10:11 AM
RE: Joseph of ...Arimathea?
(15-09-2016 08:00 AM)Chas Wrote:  That does not compare to a credible source such as Tacitus with no good reason to invent the existence of said officers and Roman statesmen.

Agree. The intentions of the writers/editors all similar. One was a "faith text", created for use in liturgical settings, to remind people what they believed. That's not at all what Tacitus was doing.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-09-2016, 10:26 AM
RE: Joseph of ...Arimathea?
(15-09-2016 10:11 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(15-09-2016 08:00 AM)Chas Wrote:  That does not compare to a credible source such as Tacitus with no good reason to invent the existence of said officers and Roman statesmen.

Agree. The intentions of the writers/editors all similar. One was a "faith text", created for use in liturgical settings, to remind people what they believed. That's not at all what Tacitus was doing.

If it's just a "faith text" as you continue to assert, then anytime you attempt to use the Gospels to illustrate a point then you are being hypocritical. After all, if you do not believe that any of it has any historical value at all, then don't be so fucking foolish to attempt to use it to further a point.

It makes you look like a joke.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-09-2016, 10:39 AM
RE: Joseph of ...Arimathea?
(15-09-2016 10:26 AM)GoingUp Wrote:  
(15-09-2016 10:11 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  Agree. The intentions of the writers/editors all similar. One was a "faith text", created for use in liturgical settings, to remind people what they believed. That's not at all what Tacitus was doing.

If it's just a "faith text" as you continue to assert, then anytime you attempt to use the Gospels to illustrate a point then you are being hypocritical. After all, if you do not believe that any of it has any historical value at all, then don't be so fucking foolish to attempt to use it to further a point.

It makes you look like a joke.

Did we forget our crabby pills today ?
They (the gospels) are not history. That doesn't mean they are nothing, gramps.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/...spels.html

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-09-2016, 11:38 AM (This post was last modified: 15-09-2016 11:43 AM by GoingUp.)
RE: Joseph of ...Arimathea?
(15-09-2016 10:39 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(15-09-2016 10:26 AM)GoingUp Wrote:  If it's just a "faith text" as you continue to assert, then anytime you attempt to use the Gospels to illustrate a point then you are being hypocritical. After all, if you do not believe that any of it has any historical value at all, then don't be so fucking foolish to attempt to use it to further a point.

It makes you look like a joke.

Did we forget our crabby pills today ?
They (the gospels) are not history. That doesn't mean they are nothing, gramps.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/...spels.html

That's my point. You try to use them as if they are history, then say out of the other side of your mouth that they have no historical value.

That's exactly what the OP is doing here. It's a fucking joke.

I have no problems with people criticizing religious beliefs for I do it myself. But to present something as if it's historical to use against itself to dispute historicity is fucking ridiculous. It's circular reasoning at its finest.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-09-2016, 11:45 AM
RE: Joseph of ...Arimathea?
GoingUp, I think you're right about the hours and other details in the story. The gospel writers were doing everything in their power to link Jesus to the Old Testament, in a prophetic sense, because the religion's entire message at that point had essentially become: "this is the Prophesied One, sent to save us".

Linking the guy who provided a burial place to the town where Samuel was buried is one. Linking the time of death to the time of death of the sacrificial lambs is another. The pattern is rife throughout the storyline.

We're not trying to use the Gospels as history... but they do give us clues into why the writers did what they did, and some of the ways the beliefs of the earliest followers of Jesus morphed into the current thing we call Christianity. If they make a claim about history, such as the town of "Arimathea", we can look to see if it was a real thing (town), from comparisons to other sources, or if it was instead a literary device they employed to hammer home their basic message. (It can be both or neither, of course.)

I would argue that the former is relevant only in the most passing sense, but the latter is of extreme importance.

"Theology made no provision for evolution. The biblical authors had missed the most important revelation of all! Could it be that they were not really privy to the thoughts of God?" - E. O. Wilson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-09-2016, 11:47 AM
RE: Joseph of ...Arimathea?
(15-09-2016 11:38 AM)GoingUp Wrote:  That's my point. You try to use them as if they are history, then say out of the other side of your mouth that they have no historical value.

No I don't.
The fucking joke here, is you.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-09-2016, 11:49 AM
RE: Joseph of ...Arimathea?
(15-09-2016 11:45 AM)RocketSurgeon76 Wrote:  GoingUp, I think you're right about the hours and other details in the story. The gospel writers were doing everything in their power to link Jesus to the Old Testament, in a prophetic sense, because the religion's entire message at that point had essentially become: "this is the Prophesied One, sent to save us".

Linking the guy who provided a burial place to the town where Samuel was buried is one. Linking the time of death to the time of death of the sacrificial lambs is another. The pattern is rife throughout the storyline.

We're not trying to use the Gospels as history... but they do give us clues into why the writers did what they did, and some of the ways the beliefs of the earliest followers of Jesus morphed into the current thing we call Christianity. If they make a claim about history, such as the town of "Arimathea", we can look to see if it was a real thing (town), from comparisons to other sources, or if it was instead a literary device they employed to hammer home their basic message. (It can be both or neither, of course.)

I would argue that the former is relevant only in the most passing sense, but the latter is of extreme importance.

My position on the gospels is, and has always been, that they represent a history of the beliefs of some of the earliest followers of Jesus, who were not Christians (except for perhaps Luke). But once the Christians got a hold of these gospels, we get all this bullshit about the resurrection added on to at least 3, if not all 4 gospels.

In that respect, they do indeed represent a certain specific area of history, and they do depict some historical persons, places, and things.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes GoingUp's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: