Joseph of Arimathea

[BigBen]

I just had a quick question. I was reading The Impossible Faith and JP Holding made the point that Joseph of Arimathea being the one who buried Jesus was considered dishonorable, because Jesus wasn't even buried by his own family members...
My question is, could that have actually been considered more honorable, for a man who, as a member of an important council, be the one who buried Jesus instead of his poorer family? Just wanted to know how an answer to that would go...
I take it back, the question is a little bit bigger
Could that have been considered some aspect of patronage? Joseph was putting his stamp of approval on Jesus, and hence elevating what Jesus did in society! Thanks for the future response, if along with the answer I could get a resource that delves into it more heavily as well. Thanks!

[gharfish]

Wasn't it a fullfillment of prophesy ? (Is. 53:9) It was costly; fit for a King. There's a big part of why, I think. But it worked out quite naturally ! To be buried by Joseph and helped in that too by Nicodemus (Jn. 19: 38, 39 - 41, 42) is a wonder and wonderful to me because these men had along the way become secret followers of Jesus, trusting in His promises.


>

[The Curtmudgeon]

Definitely, JoA was putting his personal stamp of approval on Jesus' ministry and/or person by his action, Ben. But in that culture, it still wouldn't remove the question, "Why didn't his folks do this for him?" And it wouldn't remove the stain of the crucifixion itself -- Jesus was a condemned criminal, in the eyes of the world (never mind that the judge in question, Pilate, had made a great show of not condemning Him; all most people would see was the fact of crucifixion).

So the end result would (most probably) have been more that JoA was lowering his own status by his public act of accepting Jesus, rather than confering honour on Jesus. It's as if he were a modern, well-educated man today who, despite a good education and being well-read in other ways, and having a high status position, states publicly that he believes NASA never landed a man on the moon -- people just shake their heads or laugh behind their hands at him. The fact that JoA was willing to accept that marks him out as being sincere in his own beliefs, but to his contemporaries would not, in itself, change their own opinions about this Jesus character.

The (only the fact of the Resurrection would do that) Curtmudgeon

[cameronversluis]

• Edited by a Moderator •

Moderator Notice

I'm sorry, but we don't allow posts that are just a link (argument by weblink). You need to make something more substantial.

***If you wish to take issue with this notice DO NOT do so in this thread.***
Contact the forum moderator or an administrator in Private Message or email instead. If you feel you must publically complain or whine, please take it to the Psychotherapy Room unless told otherwise.