-DM-

Thank you!

AC 13.29 reads something like this in every version that I checked:
---------
“When they had carried out all that was written concerning Him, they took Him down from the cross and laid Him in a tomb."
---------

The context of the two preceding verses, verses 27 & 28, makes it clear that "they" refers to "those who live in Jerusalem, and their rulers, recognizing neither Him nor the utterances of the prophets which are read every Sabbath, fulfilled these by condemning Him. And though they found no ground for putting Him to death, they asked Pilate that He be executed."

I agree with you that this is at least a minor inconsistency -- especially considering that the two books, Luke and Acts, are said to have been written by the same author. I'm quite sure, however, that "they" will be said by apologists to be a bit too vague to rule out that Joseph of Arimathea took Jesus body and buried it, especially given that all four of the Gospels agree that it was Joseph of Arimathea who buried the body. Still, I'm going to add it to my notes.

--Don--

boneyard bill

Turtonm writes:

I tend to agree. I raised a suggestion here before that wasn't too well received but, I will bring it up again any way. I suggest that Mark was writing in a Talmudic tradition and trying to reconstruct events. In that case, he had to write a story which allowed no contradiction in scripture. And scripture has to be taken a true. Furthermore, Paul says that everything that happened to Jesus happened, "according to scripture."

I suggest that Mark is trying to reconstruct events. He has an oral tradition. He has scripture, and he has the Pauline tradition which he regards as good as scripture. In that case, the scripture would impose itself on the oral tradition. But certain figures from the oral tradtion would survive. Figures like Pontius Pilate and, perhaps, Mary Magdalene. And perhaps an empty tomb would be the only way to account for the resurrection without producing a technical contradiction with scripture and the oral tradition. Joseph of Arimathea could have been a figure from the oral tradition. He might not have provided a tomb but was needed for that purpose in Mark's reconstruction.

Amos

Hi everybody, here is my two cents and I'll make it short because you won't agree with me anyway.

The tomb was carved by Joseph as if out of stone while he was making the things carpenters make (notice, same Joseph). This imagery is just opposite to that of Noah who built the ark to survive. The difference is that Noah looked at what to keep while Joseph looked at what to surrender. In this sense we, each one of us, are simultaneously ark builders and tomb hewers.

The chief priests cautioned Pilate that Jesus was an imposter who claimed that he would rise after three days (Mt.27:64). This makes Jesus not the Christ identity but the human identity of the dual Jesus-Christ nature. The significance of the death and burial of Jesus for the full three days was to assure that he had died and descended into the netherworld for the liberation of the captives there. If not, Jesus would become the final imposter they were so concerned about. The difference between [the first] imposter and the final imposter is equal to the difference between heaven and hell, which is why the final imposter is worse than the first.The reason for this is that the first imposter will resurrect while the second imposter will not and just remain an imposter for life. The first imposter is the first beast of Rev. 13 and the final imposter is the second beast of Rev. 13.

The above means that the ego was crucified and must die lest the ego remains in force to create the undesired paradox sinful yet saved.

The realization of this must penetrate the subconscious mind which is why Jesus went there to preach for three days (release of mephistopheles).

Amos

Pantera

You know, at long last Amos has posted something that I agree with.

Amos

Hey well thanks and I am glad you left my post up.

Maybe the intellectuals of this group would be so kind as to give me their interpretation of the "final imposter" as opposed to the "first imposter" and how it would fit into their interprtation of the burial event. For me, every word must fit the passages and leave me without contradictions and paradoxes -- including the different women at the tomb.

dogwood

Here's another point I rarely see mentioned. Many inerrantists insist that at least two (sometimes all) of the gospels were eyewitnesses. If at least two of them were there, why don't they place each other at the event? Why doesn't Matthew say, "The two Mary's AND John were there" Why doesn't John say "Mary AND Matthew" were present?

This is only effective against eye-witness inerrantist types, of course, but I think very valid.

Vorkosigan

In that case, he had to write a story which allowed no contradiction in scripture. And scripture has to be taken a true. Furthermore, Paul says that everything that happened to Jesus happened, "according to scripture."

That's an interesting insight, Mark relying on Paul's assurance.

But certain figures from the oral tradtion would survive. Figures like Pontius Pilate and, perhaps, Mary Magdalene. And perhaps an empty tomb would be the only way to account for the resurrection without producing a technical contradiction with scripture and the oral tradition.

Probably. But to me Pontius Pilate reads like Prince John in the Robin Hood legends, picked because he was the most memorable bastard to have held a ruling position, and thus a likely killer of Jesus. Do you think the oral tradition reflects actual people and history, or agglutinated legendary figures the way legendary traditions do?


Michael

CX

First of all even according to strict tradition only two of the gospels (GMt & GJn) were written by eyewitnesses. That tradition holds that GMk was written by John-Mark Peter's disciple (Papias refers to him as "Peter's interpreter) and that GLk was written by Paul's "beloved physician" Luke.

Second of all I don't think anyone suggests that the gospel writers were present at the empty tomb incident. This does however post a problem for AMk since the original text has no mention of post-easter appearances and ends with the women running off frightened and telling noone (so how did AMk know about it?) These problems evaporate when we recognize the gospel texts theological rather than historical.

Vorkosigan

Well, Evan Powell argued that John 21 was the original ending of Mark, so the problem evaporates. Mark did know of the Easter tradition.

Michael

Amos

You forget that the apostels were the personified eidetic images of Joseph here giving their own personal account of the event. They were present and eye witness to the same extend that they were part of the event. If their accounts were actually the same it would mean that their story was concocted and atheists could enter heaven.