Resurrection

• Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]

On Sun, 31 Jan 1999, Mark Bakke wrote:


> > >> Tim

> > >> Where is Arimathea?

> > >

> > >BAKKE

> > >It's location is not universally agreed upon, but most opinion seems to

> > >be that it is the same as Ramathaim-zophim, the home of Samuel.  If so,

> > >the site would be modern Rentis, approximately 25 miles NW of Jerusalem.

> > >

> > 

> > TILL

> > I think you missed the point.  Biblicists assume the historical accuracy of

> > the NT in order to "prove" the resurrection, but the historicity of Joseph

> > of Arimathea cannot be corroborated by any contemporary records.  No one is

> > really sure where Arimathea was, yet we are supposed to believe that someone

> > named Joseph of Arimathea, who was mentioned only in biased accounts of a

> > resurrected Messiah, was an actual historical person.  To prove that he was

> > an actual person, a good place to begin would be to establish unequivocally

> > that there was even a place named Arimathea.

> 

> BAKKE

> Establishing the location of a city is not the same things as

> establishing the existence of a person who was supposedly from that

> city.  For example, many people doubt the existence of Jesus of

> Nazareth, but how many will doubt the existence of Nazareth?  Why should

> it be any different with Joseph of Arimathea?  Certainly, the Gospel

> writer(s) would know of the city and could weave it into their tale. 

> That does not give the existence of Joseph any more validity.


In some cases however, such as Matthew's use of Bethlehem, the writer may
have been attempting to weave the city name into the story to make a case.
The actual location, or even existence, of Bethlehem at that time is, I
think, difficult to determine?  I do not have a source for this comment,
to avoid the inevitable rejoinder. 

• Previous message: Resurrection
• Next message: Resurrection
• Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]