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.
That's all I done is cite evidence. That claiming of the body, the trade route, the mines, Britain's quickness in Christianity, the papal councils, Joseph's title, Hebrew names in Britain, strangers tax, Nathanael, Phoenicians, Dan in ships.
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.
If your discernment tells you India was on the same level as Britain in it's acceptance of Chritianity, then it's clear why you're not picking up on anything.
Or in the case of those who believe the JoA myth - neither are in action.
I'm not taking advise on discernment from anyone that says Britain and India were equally Christian.
He would have learned the trade of his earthly father over that period of time.
It took him 18 years to learn carpentry? And then after spending 18 years learning carpentry he was killed so he couldn't even apply all that learning? No, Jesus was gone with Joseph preparing people for the resurrection so that the outposts would immediately accept Christianiy.
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.
Gentiles = Rome. Jews were first all right, the ones around the mines in the outposts.
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.
So the Jewish Talmud is lies and forgeries too? The Jewish Talmud cannot even get descendency correct? What about the papal coucils starting with Pisa? Liars and forgers also? Why would Catholics in Italy confirm that Britain was the first to receive Christianty if it is all lies and forgeries? You said earlier pilgrimmage caused everyone to lie and forge the story of Joseph, How would the Italian cardinals benefit from making Britain a place of pilgrimmage? You need to make a list of the liars and forgers versus the list of "real" historians so we can keep this straight.