Help! Joseph of Arimathea.

[Oldandeasilyconfused]

You can't offer credible evidence to the value of scientific truths when you're dealing with ancient history, you just have to try and feel your way to the most likely conclusion, and that involves a lot of educated guesswork. That is the nature of the discipline.

Crossed wires I think,it is not my intention to expect such.. I'm acutely aware of the problems with studying ancient history. The best that can ever be said about any event thousands of years ago is "x may be/is probably/most likely to be the case. There is not anything at all unreasonable to expect there to be some first century record of a town/city called 'Arimathea'. I accept absence of evidence is not proof of absence, but it IS enough to decline to believe a claim.

Whenever claims of fact are made for any sacred text, I demand the same standards of proof historians use generally. Any educated guesswork must based on evidence to be credible. Generally, historians demand supporting contemporary evidence. Neither the Torah nor the New Testament meet that minimum standard. As such neither are credible prime source historical sources.


Such claims are even more absurd when one considers the arbitrary manner in which the Christian canon was chosen in the fourth century as well as the errors, contradictions and likely forgeries included.

References:


Bart Ehrman: 'Misquoting Jesus' and 'Lost Christianities'


Sorry, I'm at the end of my interest in this discussion.