I guess it's up for each man to discern what is myth and what is history. You believe that Jesus was ministorially inactive untill the age of thirty, I don't. Since I don't I look for evidence. The history of the area, the rise of Christianity in the area, the mercantile history and the local evidence and artifacts show me that Joseph of Arimathea is a main character is Jesus' whole life. God gave him the talent for business and the family connection to Jesus to allow Jesus to spread the Word to the outposts so that when Jesus had to fulfill his mission in the cultural centers there would be a population away from the cultural centers ready to a accept it and spread it so that it would eventually make it's way into the cultural centers. It's the same that is happening now in our country and conservatism. We can't put Sarah or any other conservative in the White house through the cultural centers, it has to be done in the more rural areas. Nothing has changed in 2000 years regarding the inability of a lot of city dwellers to see real truth past their busy lives.
So lessee - you've provided mythologies from the middle ages as 'primary' source material, rebunked and considered fictional by real historians. You've provide tons of arguments from silence which have been rebuked by the Bible itself in its narrative. So tell me PG, when will I see REAL evidences and REAL historical documentation. Which ancient documents should I rely upon.
As I said earlier...discernment and wisdom. Does it make sense that Jesus would have been ministorially inactive until 30? No. Does it make sense that Joseph would not have been related to Jesus and still claim the body after everyone else had fled? No. Does it make sense that Britain was such a stronghold for the teachings of Christ so fast without being primed beforehand? No. Does it make sense that anyone besides those from around where Phoenicia would have known how to run the tin mines? No. These were mines and they were Celtic outposts so documentation may be hard to come by...the Celts weren't big on scribes...but the logic, history, and the artifacts show that this is true. Is the Jewish Talmud a forgery? It states that Joseph was an uncle to Mary.
And every man doeth what is right in their own eyes. . . .
Since I don't I look for evidence. The history of the area, the rise of Christianity in the area, the mercantile history and the local evidence and artifacts show me that Joseph of Arimathea is a main character is Jesus' whole life.
And once again, you cite 'evidence' and artifacts - citation for critical review of these items. So far you've provided nothing capable of supporting you assertions here. I'll wait, but since you cannot even cite source documentation for Tertullian, I figure it will be a long wait to see proper citation of these 'evidences and artifacts'.
It's the same that is happening now in our country and conservatism. We can't put Sarah. . . .
This is a laughingly crude comparison if it weren't so wrong at its fundamental levels. You cannot even tell me why I should believe Jesus spent 18 or so years in England when the same category of "evidences and artifacts" tell me he spent those years in India.
As I said earlier...discernment and wisdom.
Or in the case of those who believe the JoA myth - neither are in action.
Does it make sense that Jesus would have been ministorially inactive until 30?
He would have learned the trade of his earthly father over that period of time. He was known as a Nazarthene because he grew up in Nazareth. His baptism in the Jordan was his commissioning for his earthly ministry. This was the age required by the law, to which the priests must arrive before they could be installed in their office: (Nu 4:3). Jesus made it clear that his ministry was first to the jews and later to the gentiles - your myth places it bassackwards.
No, what IS present is the complete absence of any archaeological finds, but an ignorance of history by those adherents of this myth, the straining of credulity and a complete misunderstanding of the Judaism of Jesus' day & of the external and internal veracity of the New Testament records.
Is the Jewish Talmud a forgery? It states that Joseph was an uncle to Mary.
The same Talmud refers to Jesus being the illegitimate son of Mary and a roman named Pandira. While it does contain some confirmatory materials, it further contains other lies about Jesus. It was written between the second and fifth century, during a period of Jewish efforts to counter the gospel message. Secondly, you need to look up the definition of the word "forgery" , for you are misapplying it here. Because of its adversarial bent against Christianity, materials therein are suspect - and most scholars don't tout the citation because it is highly suspect.