Is it Fair to Say that Joseph of Arimathea Was Introduced to Prove the Empty Tomb Was Miraculous?

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
Secret Alias
Posts: 18321
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Is it Fair to Say that Joseph of Arimathea Was Introduced to Prove the Empty Tomb Was Miraculous?

Post by Secret Alias »

No point
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote
Giuseppe
Posts: 13658
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: Is it Fair to Say that Joseph of Arimathea Was Introduced to Prove the Empty Tomb Was Miraculous?

Post by Giuseppe »

No confutation by you. Because you simply can't deny that Origen, differently from a Celsus, was embarrassed by a docetic Jesus (one who disappeared from the cross) more than by a human too human Jesus who was left on the cross.
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.
Giuseppe
Posts: 13658
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

“Now leave him alone. Let’s see if Elijah comes to take him down,”

Post by Giuseppe »


35 When some of those standing near heard this, they said, “Listen, he’s calling Elijah.”
36 Someone ran, filled a sponge with wine vinegar, put it on a staff, and offered it to Jesus to drink. “Now leave him alone. Let’s see if Elijah comes to take him down,” he said.
37 With a loud cry, Jesus breathed his last.

I am damned if this is not the proved evidence of the fact that "Mark" was securing at 100% the his readers that Jesus didn't disappear from the cross just in that moment, but that only someone from Arimathea came rapidly to take his corpse.
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.
Secret Alias
Posts: 18321
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Is it Fair to Say that Joseph of Arimathea Was Introduced to Prove the Empty Tomb Was Miraculous?

Post by Secret Alias »

You are plain crazy. You can't see beyond your own agenda. Anything that can be true to help your agenda suddenly becomes true in your mind. You're a full fledged partisan for a worthless cause - a cause wholly made up in your own imagination
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote
Giuseppe
Posts: 13658
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: Is it Fair to Say that Joseph of Arimathea Was Introduced to Prove the Empty Tomb Was Miraculous?

Post by Giuseppe »

Tsk, tsk. It is ridiculous how you disdain the fact that the marcionites were DOCETISTS. That simple fact destroyes any your theorem, I recognize.

viewtopic.php?f=3&t=4713
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.
User avatar
Peter Kirby
Site Admin
Posts: 7872
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 2:13 pm
Location: Santa Clara
Contact:

Re: Is it Fair to Say that Joseph of Arimathea Was Introduced to Prove the Empty Tomb Was Miraculous?

Post by Peter Kirby »

Giuseppe wrote: Tue Nov 13, 2018 8:38 pm viewtopic.php?f=3&t=4713
Merged, your post is above in this thread.

(Please consider the reader, who benefits from having the context.)
"... almost every critical biblical position was earlier advanced by skeptics." - Raymond Brown
Giuseppe
Posts: 13658
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: Is it Fair to Say that Joseph of Arimathea Was Introduced to Prove the Empty Tomb Was Miraculous?

Post by Giuseppe »

Peter Kirby wrote: Tue Nov 13, 2018 9:27 pm
Giuseppe wrote: Tue Nov 13, 2018 8:38 pm viewtopic.php?f=3&t=4713
Merged, your post is above in this thread.

(Please consider the reader, who benefits from having the context.)
Well done.
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.
Ulan
Posts: 1505
Joined: Sat Mar 29, 2014 3:58 am

Re: “Now leave him alone. Let’s see if Elijah comes to take him down,”

Post by Ulan »

Giuseppe wrote: Tue Nov 13, 2018 2:53 pm
35 When some of those standing near heard this, they said, “Listen, he’s calling Elijah.”
36 Someone ran, filled a sponge with wine vinegar, put it on a staff, and offered it to Jesus to drink. “Now leave him alone. Let’s see if Elijah comes to take him down,” he said.
37 With a loud cry, Jesus breathed his last.

I am damned if this is not the proved evidence of the fact that "Mark" was securing at 100% the his readers that Jesus didn't disappear from the cross just in that moment, but that only someone from Arimathea came rapidly to take his corpse.
And yet, the last sentence you quoted had been interpreted exactly that, which is that the spirit disappeared from the cross at that moment. That's a point that hides a bit behind that specific translation.

Regarding Origen, it doesn't matter one bit whether he was embarrassed by anything in the gospel at that point, because he had to work with the text Celsus had read. That limits the options, as far as arguments go.
Giuseppe
Posts: 13658
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: “Now leave him alone. Let’s see if Elijah comes to take him down,”

Post by Giuseppe »

Ulan wrote: Wed Nov 14, 2018 12:57 am
Giuseppe wrote: Tue Nov 13, 2018 2:53 pm
35 When some of those standing near heard this, they said, “Listen, he’s calling Elijah.”
36 Someone ran, filled a sponge with wine vinegar, put it on a staff, and offered it to Jesus to drink. “Now leave him alone. Let’s see if Elijah comes to take him down,” he said.
37 With a loud cry, Jesus breathed his last.

I am damned if this is not the proved evidence of the fact that "Mark" was securing at 100% the his readers that Jesus didn't disappear from the cross just in that moment, but that only someone from Arimathea came rapidly to take his corpse.
And yet, the last sentence you quoted had been interpreted exactly that, which is that the spirit disappeared from the cross at that moment. That's a point that hides a bit behind that specific translation.
I am not denying that Mark is separationist. My point is that even Mark was not satisfied about a previous version of the story where Jesus (and not the sekinah from Temple) disappeared entirely from the cross.
Regarding Origen, it doesn't matter one bit whether he was embarrassed by anything in the gospel at that point, because he had to work with the text Celsus had read. That limits the options, as far as arguments go.
what persuaded me that there was a previous gospel where Jesus disappeared entirely from the cross is the internal evidence in Mark. Not Origen. Origen in my eyes is evidence only of Judaizing embarrassment about docetism, beyond if that docetism is liked by a Pagan or argued by other Christians.
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.
Post Reply