Help! Joseph of Arimathea.

[Epimethean]

I don't think any of the NT books were written originally in Latin.

[Polaris]

I don't think any of the NT books were written originally in Latin.

I would say Romans might seeing as how Paul was a Roman citizen and was preaching to Romans as well as preaching Rome. Since he was a Roman citizen, I would assume he spoke, read, and wrote in Latin.

[Oldandeasilyconfused]

I don't think any of the NT books were written originally in Latin.

I would say Romans might seeing as how Paul was a Roman citizen and was preaching to Romans as well as preaching Rome. Since he was a Roman citizen, I would assume he spoke, read, and wrote in Latin.

I have been unable to find any evidence that the letters attributed to Paul were originally written in any language other than Greek

[Colanth]

I actually place Acts at 66-67 CE based primarily on it not having historical references past that date. I would assume if it was compiled later, they would have included other information.

So if, in 2012, I compile a story about Abraham Lincoln, that claims to be true and claims to be written in 1864, and I don't include his assassination or the end of the war, you'd conclude what? That I'm not a total moron? Or that my claim that the document was first created in 1864 is true?

The earliest actual piece of writing we have that may be part of the NT dates to well into the second century (ca 125 CE). "This fact alone proved that the original Gospel of John was written earlier, viz. in the first century A.D" is sheer wishful thinking, whether written by a wino or a scholar. The fact that a document was written at a certain time does nothing to show that it's a copy of a much earlier document. Someone started with the "fact" that the NT was written in the first century, then found another "fact" to prove it. Apologism at its finest.

BTW, the only reference in Josephus to Jesus is acknowledged, even by many Christian apologists, to be a later insertion by a Christian. The language is both later than Josephus, and not something a Jew would have written. "The evidence is that Jesus of Bethlehem is actually Odin", attributed to the Pope, wouldn't be taken seriously, yet that's exactly what Josephus' reference to Jesus sounds like to a Jew.

Undecided I don't think you have to be a Christian apologist to point out that someone begging/questing/fighting for the body of a loved one for a proper burial was a very common occurrence in real life

You're assuming that the Jesus myth is true. There's no evidence (evidence, no apologism accepted) that it is and a lot more than circumstantial evidence that it's just a myth.

The full text of "Luke" ( or whoever ) says:

"50 And a man named Joseph, who was a member of the Council, a good and righteous man 51 (he had not consented to their plan and action), a man from Arimathea, a city of the Jews, who was waiting for the kingdom of God;"

Even allowing that the word "polis" can mean something less than a "city" as we know it the simple fact remains that there is no such city/town of the Jews. It was not known in antiquity and it is not known to archaeology.

It's fiction.

Even Luke (read Luke 1:1) says that he wasn't there, and he's just trying to put into order tales passed on by others. So you don't have to look for one little nit to pick - Luke is a nit in its entirety, it says so.

[Minimalist]

I actually place Acts at 66-67 CE based primarily on it not having historical references past that date.

What "historical" references does it have before that?"