Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

4986Re: [John_Lit] Two burial stories

Expand Messages
  • Tony Costa
    Sep 3, 2004
    • 0 Attachment
      Joseph Codsi wrote "It is no simple thing to overcome
      our unconscious prejudices. When we have been taught
      from our childhood that Jesus was buried at the hand
      of Joseph of Arimathea, we tend to take this as a sure
      truth. As a consequence, we dismiss as uncertain any
      evidence to the contrary, even when the said evidence
      comes from the gospel itself.Someone like Crossan has
      freed himself from the dogmas of his youth."

      I see an example of the genetic fallacy operating
      here. The fact that the burial story was taught by
      one's parents is not proof that it is untrue! Again in
      the claim that Crossan "has freed himself from the
      dogmas of his youth." is again an example of the
      genetic fallacy. It is not the question of source that
      is at stake here, but indeed where the evidence points
      to. The burial of Jesus by Joseph far from being a
      "dogma" is accepted by an overwhelming consensus of NT
      scholarship, even by radical critics like Rudolf
      Bultmann and John.A.T.Robinson. Raymond Brown also
      argues there are no signs of embellishment in the
      burial story of Jesus and the person of Joseph of
      Arimathea could not have been a Christian conjecture.
      Joseph of Arimathea, as well as Nicodemus were also
      members of the Jewish Sanhedrin, thus both would have
      been part of the Jewish leadership, usually referred
      to in the GJohn as "the Jews". The onus is on the
      advocates of new theories to justify their position
      when it comes to the burial story of Jesus.

      Tony Costa
    • Show all 27 messages in this topic