Steven Carr

As we all know, a second gunman appeared from nowhere to shoot JFK and Connolly, and then disappeared from history, only to reappear years later in conspiracy theories.

In Mark's Gospel, Joseph of Arimathea appears from nowhere to bury Jesus , and then disappears from history, only to reappear when 'Mark' wrote about him.

The sudden unexplained appearance of Joseph of Arimathes is a useful way of showing that Jesus's body was not left to rot on the cross or be thrown to dogs.

In terms of historicity , how does Joseph of Arimathea differ from the second gunman?

Apart from the obvious fact that mainstream Biblical scholarship accepts the existence of Joseph of Arimathea, while denying that their standards of scholarship differ from those of JFK conspiracy theorists?

Petergdi

You have no good reason to suppose that Yosef haRamathaim disappears and reappears. There were many people who were prominent in their day, about whom we now know little or nothing.

Try to see how many of the 71 Sanhedrin members in the days of Yosef Bar Kayafa you can discover the names of. They were all prominent at the time.

Peter.

show_no_mercy

Where is Arimathea?

Steven Carr

I see.

So you refute the claim that this person appeared and disappeared by saying that he disappeared?


Why does not a single Christian put his name to a document saying they had seen him, or heard of him, or talked about his vital role in burying Jesus?

Where was Arimathea?

Of course, Christians never put their name to a document saying they had seen Mary Magdalene, Judas, Nicodemus, Lazarus, Bartimaeus, Joanna, Salome, the other Mary, Simon of Cyrene, his sons, Martha, Jairus, etc , etc

All these people vanish like the second gunman vanished.

Paul doesn't even say that Moses had returned from the dead to speak to disciples. What sort of Jew is not overwhelmed by the news that Moses had risen from the dead and spoken to Jesus?

Why should the Gospel of Mark be treated any more seriously than a claim that a second gunman shot JFK, or aliens landed at Roswell?

Petergdi

It isn't a particularly strange Greek transliteration of Ramoth, so I really don't see the value in pretending that there is something wrong with the name Arimathea.

Peter.

Vinnie

I don't consider that a strong enough argument. It can be used to support a "lack of tomb veneration" argument but I don't think it stands on its own.

Vinnie

Vinnie

If you have not thoroughly investigated the second gunman theory or Roswell your rejection tells us more about your predispositions than it does about history. But if you have investigated them and found them wanting, do the same for Mark, don't assume it. If for no other reason than Mark is not Roswell, Mark is not second gunman, Mark is an early piece of Christian writing and Mark is not nearly as creative as it could be.

Vinnie

Steven Carr

So no other person ever used that Greek transliteration of Ramoth?

Steven Carr

Why should the Gospel of Mark be treated any more seriously than a claim that a second gunman shot JFK, or aliens landed at Roswell?

Joseph of Arimathea, pops up from nowhere, buries Jesus, and disappears from history.

How does that differ from a second gunman popping up from nowhere, shooting JFK and Connolly and disappearing from history?

Except that J of A is part of a large cast of characters in Mark that also vanish from Christian documents.

show_no_mercy

I thought that whole "Barabbas" thing was pretty creative. Another character that seems like a "second gunman".