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 »

That's so self-serving. So typical of you. I'd have you thrown off the forum for this sort of abuse - wasting everyone's time like this. Cite the passage and demonstrate what you claim is true from the text. I truly hate the way you abuse texts.
“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 »

Secret Alias wrote: Tue Nov 13, 2018 12:55 pm That's so self-serving. So typical of you. I'd have you thrown off the forum for this sort of abuse - wasting everyone's time like this. Cite the passage and demonstrate what you claim is true from the text. I truly hate the way you abuse texts.
Celsus is saying that he finds embarrassing the fact that Jesus (the Jesus of his knowledge) didn't disappear from the cross.

So I think that a good question of critical exegesis is: how was this embarrassment overcame?

Origen recognizes rightly that, even if Jesus was disappeared from the cross, then a Celsus would have accused (as not worthy of a hero) the sufferings of Jesus before the crucifixion. So Origen witnesses that what was embarrassing was more generally the humanity of Jesus.

So again the question shows itself: Did Origen overcome the embarrassment of a human Jesus because he was more embarrassed by a Jesus who didn't suffer nor died?
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 »

No just produce the actual material to back up your sensational claim.
“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 »

But even if it had been related in the Gospels, according to the view of Celsus, that Jesus had immediately disappeared from the cross, he and other unbelievers would have found fault with the narrative, and would have brought against it some such objection as this: "Why, pray, did he disappear after he had been put upon the cross, and not disappear before he suffered?" If, then, after learning from the Gospels that He did not at once disappear from the cross, they imagine that they can find fault with the narrative, because it did not invent, as they consider it ought to have done, any such instantaneous disappearance, but gave a true account of the matter, is it not reasonable that they should accord their faith also to His resurrection, and should believe that He, according to His pleasure, on one occasion, when the doors were shut, stood in the midst of His disciples, and on another, after distributing bread to two of His acquaintances, immediately disappeared from view, after He had spoken to them certain words?
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/t ... en162.html
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.
User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 8994
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

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

Post by Ben C. Smith »

Secret Alias wrote: Tue Nov 13, 2018 12:55 pm That's so self-serving. So typical of you. .... I truly hate the way you abuse texts.
When my elder daughter was just a toddler, if ever we were outside together on an evening during which the moon was visible, however faintly, I would ask her, "Where's the moon?" She would scan the sky all over for it, find it, and point proudly. It was a silly game, but enjoyable enough for a toddler and her father. One evening, the moon was especially large and bright and obvious in the sky, but I asked her the question anyway, not realizing that she was already pointing at it even as I started to mouth the question. She got this confused look on her face, wondering how I could be asking that question when she was already pointing out the answer, and did the only thing she possibly could: she recocked her little arm, bringing it back toward her body, and pointed at the moon again, this time giving the motion a bit of extra emphasis, since I had stupidly not gotten the message the first time.

All this to say, Stephan... I am not sure why either of us bothers. Giuseppe's misunderstanding of the text is so obvious a child could grasp it. I have pointed: viewtopic.php?f=3&t=4705&p=93817#p93817. You have pointed. There is no further argument to be made. All we can do is point again. There is no reasoning with someone who wants to misunderstand the text.
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ
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 »

So you take this statement:
If, then, after learning from the Gospels that He did not at once disappear from the cross, they imagine that they can find fault with the narrative, because it (the gospel) did not invent, as they consider it ought to have done, any such instantaneous disappearance
as proof that Jesus did disappear from the Cross in a gospel? Really? What kind of crazy are you on?
“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
perseusomega9
Posts: 1030
Joined: Tue Feb 04, 2014 7:19 am

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

Post by perseusomega9 »

Ben C. Smith wrote: Tue Nov 13, 2018 1:40 pm
Secret Alias wrote: Tue Nov 13, 2018 12:55 pm That's so self-serving. So typical of you. .... I truly hate the way you abuse texts.
When my elder daughter was just a toddler, if ever we were outside together on an evening during which the moon was visible, however faintly, I would ask her, "Where's the moon?" She would scan the sky all over for it, find it, and point proudly. It was a silly game, but enjoyable enough for a toddler and her father. One evening, the moon was especially large and bright and obvious in the sky, but I asked her the question anyway, not realizing that she was already pointing at it even as I started to mouth the question. She got this confused look on her face, wondering how I could be asking that question when she was already pointing out the answer, and did the only thing she possibly could: she recocked her little arm, bringing it back toward her body, and pointed at the moon again, this time giving the motion a bit of extra emphasis, since I had stupidly not gotten the message the first time.

All this to say, Stephan... I am not sure why either of us bothers. Giuseppe's misunderstanding of the text is so obvious a child could grasp it. I have pointed: viewtopic.php?f=3&t=4705&p=93817#p93817. You have pointed. There is no further argument to be made. All we can do is point again. There is no reasoning with someone who wants to misunderstand the text.
he who has ears let him hear
The metric to judge if one is a good exegete: the way he/she deals with Barabbas.

Who disagrees with me on this precise point is by definition an idiot.
-Giuseppe
perseusomega9
Posts: 1030
Joined: Tue Feb 04, 2014 7:19 am

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

Post by perseusomega9 »

And Jesus said, "it is like a finger pointing at the moon, if you stare at the finger you will miss all that heavenly glory"
The metric to judge if one is a good exegete: the way he/she deals with Barabbas.

Who disagrees with me on this precise point is by definition an idiot.
-Giuseppe
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 »

I posted at the same time as you Ben.
“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 »

Secret Alias wrote: Tue Nov 13, 2018 1:40 pm So you take this statement:
If, then, after learning from the Gospels that He did not at once disappear from the cross, they imagine that they can find fault with the narrative, because it (the gospel) did not invent, as they consider it ought to have done, any such instantaneous disappearance
as proof that Jesus did disappear from the Cross in a gospel? Really? What kind of crazy are you on?
this proves that you are not realizing my point. And so Ben and so Perseusomega.

Celsus didn't read a gospel where Jesus disappeared from the cross.

Celsus read a Gospel where Jesus died on the cross.

But Celsus's embarrassment about a not-disappearing Jesus is overcame by the Origen's stronger embarrassment about a docetic Jesus. So it is the latter embarrassment of Origen to prove the existence of a docetic Gospel (and one not read by Celsus).

And in the other thread I list the emphasis of "Mark" that betrayes this identical embarrassment.
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.
Post Reply