Steven Avery

Nope.. your faulty and flawed claims to find error in Mark, (such as the alexandrian text corruption of Gerash) won't cut it, even using your skewed measure.

Luke 23:51
(The same had not consented to the counsel and deed of them he was of Arimathaea, a city of the Jews: who also himself waited for the kingdom of God.

John 19:38
And after this Joseph of Arimathaea, being a disciple of Jesus, but secretly for fear of the Jews, besought Pilate that he might take away the body of Jesus: and Pilate gave him leave. He came therefore, and took the body of Jesus.


Shalom,
Steven Avery
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Messianic_Apologetic

Vorkosigan

No, you'll have to wait until the book comes out!. But if you start rummaging through the first half you can see how it prefigures the second. All of the miracle stories reflect some aspect of the Passion, Death, Tomb and Resurrection. Each time you encounter a miracle tale in Mark, ask yourself what motifs does it have in common with the second half (after Temple).

The name is not being changed -- it's the way that the character Jairus the Synagogue Ruler echoes Joseph of Arimathea the Sanhedrin Member. Note also that Jairus is one of a group of rulers, just as Joseph is. it's not really a question of names.

Another exmaple that Neil Godfrey pointed out was how the paralytic in Mark 2 prefigures the burial and rising of Jesus. The paralytic is lowered into a hole excavated in a roof -- just as Jesus will be placed through a hole into a tomb. Four men carry the paralytic -- who is practically a corpse -- just as four men accompany Jesus across Galilee. The paralytic rises, as Jesus does (same word is used in both cases). I should add that ther is another shared motif: Note that the rising is accompanied by what clue? -- both cases, the rising demonstrates forgiveness of sin.

Vorkosigan

Diogenes the Cynic

Mark was neither a Galilean nor a historian. His story is full of factual and geographical errors. Your crackpot position on the Textus Receptus is desperate and reaching and not to be taken seriously. There is no genuine controversy over which manuscripts are earlier and more reliable. Your position is a priori and religious and unsupported by evidence. I say these things not for your benefit (I'd be wasting my time) but for the benefit of anyone who might be lurking.
I'm sorry, but what is this supposed to prove? Luke used Mark as his source. Luke was not a historian either, by the way, nor was he a Galilean. Why do you think it proves anything that he copied from Mark?

Doug Shaver

Are you, um, presupposing . . . that there cannot be any errors in Mark?

Steven Avery

Doug, I've looked at the supposed error threads, posted on some of them as well. They have the same type of bias as you see on this thread.

Josephus says something .. "oh, wonderful, its true". John, Mark, Luke share a simple name of a city ... "oh, no.. how can it be .. prove it". Lots of very silly stuff posing as skeptic intellect.

On Mark you have the additional factor of insisting on the errant text to show errors. Well.. duhh.. if you insist on a corrupt text, that by logic following from unbelieving presups, must have errors.. yeah you find errors. Very good.

Shalom,
Steven Avery
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Messianic_Apologetic

Kosh

Let's do a little time travel experiment here.

Pretend that you're the author of GMk around 72 A.D. You need to create a fictional character to bury the body of Jesus. What would be the point of choosing Joseph of Arimathea when no such place exists, rather than a Joseph of XXXXXX (pick your favorite Jewish town). Woudn't you want to do that in 72 AD, close enough to the time when your readers might say "Hey, wah, where is that place?".

Or am I forgetting something about the meaning of "Arimathea"? Seems we discussed this a long time ago, but I can't remember exactly.

Diogenes the Cynic

Yes. Bias in favor of facts.
This is not always true. There are somthings Josephus said which are NOT believed to be true, but on the whole, Josephus has proven to be fairly reliable, especially with regards to events and places he was personally very close to. Unlike the evangelists, Joseph was FROM Galilee and knew the geography. In addition, we have the fact that Josephus was attempting to write history while the evangelists were not.
Those are not independent sources. Luke and John got the name from Mark.
Show us an "uncorrupted" text. The earliest and best manuscripts are full of Markan errors. These errors do not all disappear in your redacted Byzantine manuscripts. Even using the KJV, I can still point out a host of factual and geographical errors.

Toto

Question re Joseph of Arimathea

Note: in 2002, Chili posted as Amos.

From Peter Kirby's post in that thread:

Kosh

Thanks Toto.

So then, the implication is that the author of GMk would have intended his/her audience to understand the punn? Once again, it's tough to get past the age old assumption that GMk was intended to be taken as history.

Vorkosigan

Why would you say that? Did you see Star Wars? Why is the Princess in Cell AA-23?

Not every reader need understand the tale in the same way.