schilling.klaus

Jesus has no such thing as a body, thus the question where the body had been put is hilariously devoid of any sense. Consequently, the question can only be where tradition said that it has been put and what is allegorically alluded to by this tradition.

Klaus Schilling

paarsurrey

Hi

I dont' get it.

If Jesus had no physical body then who was born from Mary. Who was the person who grew up full man from a baby? Who was the person who prayed to GodAllahYHWH with tears? Who was the person who was nailed down on the Cross? Who was the person who showed his injuries to his disciples who put their fingers in his wounded body? Was he Jesus or just an illusion?

Please bring out some real argument if you have any.

Thanks

I am an Ahmadi peaceful Muslim

Johnny Skeptic

Are you saying that a man named Jesus did not exist, and that he was not crucified?

schilling.klaus

exactly

Klaus Schilling

John Kesler

Matthew is the only gospel which even claims that the tomb was Joseph's. John's gospel not only doesn't claim that the tomb was Joseph's, it states that Jesus was placed in a tomb he was out of expediency and convenience of proximity, with no indication that the tomb was Joseph's:

Clivedurdle

Excuse me, Gordon was right! I have been there!:devil1:

http://www.sacred-destinations.com/i...arden-tomb.htm

Chili

It has been very obvious that you don't get but if Christ was born and they call him Jesus who do you think the 'him' is unto whom that Christ was born. He was Joseph who so is reborn and in the Gospels is trying to work out his own salvation and that will lead him to Calvary where the Jew is crucified on the Jewish cross that represent the sins of Joseph the Jew.

Mary was Joseph's first love and virgin rebirth mother of the firstborn from Jerusalem on high, which is the child of the promise instead of the child born in slavery via the natural way from Eve, who was Joseph's temple tramp and therefore also lover of hardon's.

There was no baby but just an infancy wherein this greater love must be nurtured to life . . . which is signified by the 'trough' in Luke that leads to Resurrection as oppose to 'no trough' in Matthew where the great commission follows instead of Resurrection.

The persona is the mask of the man going towards his bitter end here now with all ousia's (converted shepherds) left behind in the garden whence they came to him.

The bare naked ego got crucified so reason (sanity) could return . . .

and did when he showed them his wounds (vacancies) that once were his assets-became-liabilies that were left behind.

The illusion got crucified to die which makes Jesus real but not and never the Jesus-son-of-Hagar . . . which is exactly wherein heaven is opposite to hell (they are presented well in Rev.13).

schilling.klaus

only those with eyes to see and ears to hear may get it,
eyes and ears of the mind, not of the flesh, that is,
as already expressed by the anonymous author of NHC IX:3

of course not, as Jesus is to be understood docetically as metaphysical reality


Mary is to be understood as a metaphysical reality,
not as a women as deceivers of mankind try to force you to believe.

a lie invented by the churchfathers

more nonsense of the churchfathers, as the God of Jesus is not YHWH or Allah who are only inferior demiurgical powers

no person, as it is to be understood allegorically

a fraudulent lie by the churchfathers who represent a faked Christianity in their works

the true Jesus is to be understood docetically, thus an illusion to this world

only to those who are smart enough to distinguish the God of Jesus strictly from the God of the Tanakh.

Klaus Schilling

Notsri

Hey, Toto. The following would be a pretty good example of mishandling the sources. Carrier says at one point:

[That Jesus was not formally buried Friday night] is supported by a similar case in the Midrash Rabbah, where David is said to wish that he would die the eve of the Sabbath so his body would experience a final Sabbath before its burial on Sunday (Eccl. [V:12(148)]), which suggests it was common for those dead just before sundown to await a later burial.

There are at least two significant problems with this; the first pertains specifically to methodology, the second to exegesis.

His source, Ecclesiastes Rabbah, is rather late, usually being dated to about the 8th c. CE. The story it tells about David of course purports to be quite early, relating ultimately to the 10th c. BCE. How this late Midrash, on the one hand, and the supposedly early anecdote about David which it preserves, on the other, really tell us anything about the 1st c. CE is something Carrier does not grapple with at all; he just works instead from assumption.

Suffice it to say that specialists today, at least those in the mainstream, would generally not approach a rabbinic text, and a late one come to that, with such simplicity and naivete. Jacob Neusner, who of course has been quite a prominent figure in the field of rabbinic studies, has taken several scholars to task over the past decades for their display of the same sort of gullibility. Carrier's approach here thus harkens back to a less developed, more primitive stage in rabbinic studies, when a rigorous methodology was often not required in historical research and complete credulity just about the norm.

The midrash to which Carrier refers (actually found at Eccl. Rabbah V:10 §2) runs as follows (using the Soncino translation, emphasis my own):

David spoke before the Holy One, blessed be He, "Lord of the universe, make me to know mine end." He replied, "It is decreed from before Me that a human being is not informed what his end is to be." [David said, "Let me know] the measure of my days, what it is." He replied, "It is decreed from before Me that a human being is not informed what the measure of his days is to be." [David said,] "Let me know how short-lived I am." He told him, "[You will die] on the Sabbath." He spoke before Him, "Let me die on the first day of the week." He replied to him, "Already has the time of the kingship of your son Solomon arrived, and one reign may not overlap another even a hair's breadth." "Then let me die on the eve of the Sabbath," he pleaded. He replied, "For a day in thy courts is better than a thousand, i.e., better to Me is one day in which you are engaged in Torah before Me than a thousand sacrifices which your son Solomon will offer before Me on the alter."

Puzzling to me then is Carrier's remark that "David is said to wish that he would die the eve of the Sabbath so his body would experience a final Sabbath before its burial on Sunday." In fact the midrash indicates the exact opposite of Carrier's exegesis. David's concern here is for immediate burial. He does not want to die as God has decreed, on a Saturday, a Sabbath, so that burial might not be delayed; he asks instead for death on either a Sunday ("the first day of the week") or a Friday ("the eve of the Sabbath") in order that immediate inhumation might occur. Of course, his requests are denied, he is to die on a Saturday, though according to the midrash at least some measures are ultimately taken in order to care for his body while Sunday and burial await:

Solomon sent a message to the House of Study: "My father is dead, lying in the sun, and the dogs of my father's house are hungry; what shall I do?" They sent back the reply, "Cut up the carcass of an animal and place it before the dogs. As for your father, set a loaf of bread or a child upon him and then you may move the body (out of the sun)."

In any case, the notion that death late on a Friday would likely or even necessarily delay burial until Sunday is completely unsupported by this midrash; Carrier is mistaken.

stuart shepherd

I wonder where "Arimathaea", a city of the Jews, is located. ???

A ""CITY"" would certainly be known ...would it not?

Why are the Historians confused about the location of Arimathaea?

http://198.62.75.1/www1/ofm/mad/disc...54discuss.html

54. Armathaim, also Arimathea - (Ranthis)

ARIMATHEA. Var. ARIMATHAEA; HARMATHAIM; RAMATHEM; RAMATHA; RAMAH; RAMA; ER-RAM. Each of the Gospels mentions this town only once, and always in association with Joseph of Arimathea - who placed Christ's body in his own tomb (Matt 27:57; Mark 15:43; Luke 23:50; John 19:38). This Jewish town (Luke 23:50) was in the Shephelah hills area, approximately 20 mi. E of modern Jaffa, and it most likely is identical with either modern Ramathain (Jos. Ant 13.4.9) or Rathamein - Samaritan toparchies. In 145 B.C., the Syrian king Demetrius II Nicator delivered three Samaritan toparchies, including Arimathea, to the Jewish leader Jonathan (1 Macc 11:34).
Both Eusebius and Jerome identify Arimathea with the birthplace of Samuel, i.e., Ramah or Ramathaim-zophim, "the two Ramahs" or "twin heights" within Ephraim (1 Sam 1:19). The Onomasticon identifies it with this site (Aramathem-Sophim) near Thamna and Lydda (Euseb. Onomast. 144.28; 1 Sam 1:1). In the 4th century Jerome reported that the Holy Paula visited this location. Strong traditions from the Middle Ages buttress this claim, celebrating this town as the prophet's original home. And even a monastery of Joseph of Arimathea was erected there. Conflicting traditions urge Arimathea's location at modern Rentis, 15 mi. E of Jaffa. Other suggestions for Arimathea include er-Ram and el-Birah-Ramallah, 5 and 8 mi. N of Jerusalem, respectively. The mosaic Madeba Map also warrants attention, listing Armathem and Arimathe.
All of the above suggestions coincide with the Hebrew haramata, Ramathaim (1 Sam 1:1). The directive he-, "toward Rama," geographically accommodates the above selections. Haramata becomes Armathaim in the LXX.

Jerry A. Pattengale, The Anchor Bible Dictionary, ad v. "Arimathea"


According to Jewish interpretations of the Torah, a dead body was required to be buried before sundown. It seems strange to be from Arimathaea, and have your tomb at Jerusalem. One never knows when one will die and it would seem to be a good idea for your tomb to be close to where you live if your relatives have to bury you by the sundown deadline.

But then, maybe Arimathaea, as well as Joseph of Arimathaea, are just a fiction to improve the story?

Stuart Shepherd