Joseph of Arimathea (A JUST)
Below is the Catholic encyclopedia’s article about Joseph of Arimathea.
YET JOSEPH OF ARIMETHEA BEING
ON THE SUPREME COUNCIL OF THE JEWS
IS AFRAID OF THE JEWS?
HOW DOES THIS MAKE ANY SENSE?
IN THE KING JAMES VERSION OF THE BIBLE IT SAYS THAT HE MADE HIS GRAVE WITH THE WICKED AND THE RICH IN HIS DEATH!
9And he made his grave with the wicked, and with the rich in his death;
because he had done no violence, neither was any deceit in his mouth.
WHY IS IT THAT I READ THIS OVER AND OVER AGAIN HOW
“that the grave of the Messias would be with a rich man”
BUT ALWAYS LEAVING OFF THE OTHER PART OF THE PREDICTION
“And he made his grave with the wicked”
There is something amiss about this business of
Joseph of Arimathea!
The Gospel of Luke says that Joseph of Arimethea
was a good and just man:
And, behold, there was a man named Joseph, a counsellor; and he was a goodman, and a just:
Actually Luke doesn’t say he is a good and just man……
Luke says he was “a goodman and a just:”
Leaving off “man” after just?
(if you can call him a just)?
51(The same had not consented to the counsel and deed of them;) he was of Arimathaea, a city of the Jews: who also himself waited for the kingdom of God.
The bible never mentions Joseph of Arimathea before as a follower of Jesus but only after the crucifixion we start to hear of this “goodman and a just”.
We hear about Nicodemas, but not Joseph of Arimathea!
Since it is obvious from my posts that I distrust the Synoptic gospels I also have a hard time trusting their description of Joseph of Arimathea.
Here is an article about Joseph of Arimathea and some excerpts of the article below the link:
Matthew calls Joseph: “A rich man of Arimathea.” Mark: “An honourable counsellor.” Luke: “A counsellor, a good man and a just.” John: “A disciple, but secretly for fear of the Jews.”
Joseph is called “nobilis de curio” which indicates that he had an officer’s rank in the Judean or Roman Army, and accounts for his acquaintance with Pontius Pilate, the Spanish born, British-educated Governor of Judea. In this connection it is also said “Joseph was a soldier of Pilate seven years”. On this point the Rev. Smithett Lewis, M.A. (“Joseph of Arimathea”, p. 56) states:
“We have proof that Decurio was a recognized office in the Roman Empire in the time of Joseph. Cicero had a favourite villa in Pompeii. At that time its City Council consisted of Decurios, who had been ex-magistrates, and of other pre-eminent persons.
So important were they,
that Cicero said,
with some irony,
that it was easier to become a Senator of Rome
than a Decurio in Pompeii.”
(sounds like an inside joke to me)
From the sounds of it Joseph of Arimathea was a pretty powerful man
…rich and well connected!
Why was he afraid of the Jews? Who was calling the shots? The Sanhedrin which Joseph was a part of and possibly the leader and also a Decurio which sounds pretty important, especially if it is easier to be a Senator of Rome than a Decurio in Pompeii!
And had served under Pontius Pilate in his military?
Sounds to me like Josephus of Arimathea wasn’t Jewish
but was Moor or less ROMAN!
(DEFINITELY HARDER TO BE A DECURIO IN POMPEII SINCE 79 AD!)
(Maybe that was the judgement for that inside joke)
But Luke says Joseph of Arimathea was “a goodman and a just:”
The next verse is what the wife of Pontius Pilate
says to her husband:
Matthew 27:19 (King James Version)
19When he was set down on the judgment seat, his wife sent unto him, saying, Have thou nothing to do with that just man: for I have suffered many things this day in a dream because of him.
Strange to say the least.
So the wife of Pontius Pilate has a dream
and suffered many things because of him…
Because of who? Who is him?
“That just man”!
Who is she talking about?
I believe it is Joseph of Arimathea!
This text actually really gets interesting because of what follows. To estimate the true value of that continuation one should know that the crucifixion in question must be localized along the way that Josephus went from Thecoa via Bethlechem to Jerusalem, and it was so on a field that was better known as the valley of Rephaim. Josephus continued: ‘But when Titus had composed the troubles in Judea, and conjectured that the lands which I had in Judea would bring me no profit, because a garrison to guard the country was afterward to pitch there, he gave me another country in the plain.’ With other words: Josephus possessed an estate near the place of the crucifixion that he obtained only a short while ago.
Why does Josephus tell the history with his estate in it, that chronologically happened at least a year sooner, directly after the story of the crucifixion? And why does the history with the estate in it textually connect even as bad to what follows? One is inclined to assume a psychological relation. When Josephus in the nineties, twenty years after the events, remembered the crucifixion, he was confronted by the ties he had with ‘his’ people. He used his friendship with the Roman commanders to help the ‘acquaintances’ among that people. One senses some kind of defense towards his ambivalent attitude in those days. But the fact that Josephus after the story of the crucifixion immediately switches to his new estate can then only be explained when that new estate had something to do with the crucifixion.
It seems to me that Josephus is mocking Jesus (in my opinion)!
Kind of like that tongue and cheek REMARK by Cicero.
Might explain why in the gospels that Joseph of Arimathea begged for the body of Jesus:
He went to Pilate, and begged the body of Jesus. Then Pilate commanded the body to be delivered.
This man went unto Pilate, and begged the body of Jesus.
38And after this Joseph of Arimathaea, being a disciple of Jesus, but secretly for fear of the Jews, besought Pilate that he might take away the body of Jesus: and Pilate gave him leave. He came therefore, and took the body of Jesus.
I highly doubt the wife of Pontius Pilate would suffer many things in a dream because of Jesus. I don’t think the true Messiah would make her suffer many things in a dream because of what her husband was doing, that she had nothing to do with,
so it must be someone else she dreamt about and called “that just man”.
Why would Jesus make the the wife of Pontius Pilate suffer many things in her dream? If he layed down his life purposefully as I believe that he did? Would God send her a dream and make her suffer many things on account of Jesus when she probably could not even affect the outcome?
Is this dream that she had, just a dream? Or is this a farce! A lie?
This is only in the gospel of Matthew!!!!!!!
How does Matthew know about what the wife of Pontius Pilate dreamt?
Here is a list of the men called just in the bible:
Joseph the future husband of Mary (Matthew 1:19), John the Baptist (Mark 6:20), Simeon (Luke 2:25), Joseph of Arimathea (Luke 23:50): but this one is only a just, Cornelius the centurion (Acts 10:22), and Justus (Acts 18:6-8) and (Colossians 4:11)
Interesting verse : Colossians 4:11 speaks of Justus and Jesus as the same person!
11And Jesus, which is called Justus, who are of the circumcision. These only are my fellowworkers unto the kingdom of God, which have been a comfort unto me.
Then there is Justus in these two verses below:
So they nominated two men: Joseph called Barsabbas (also known as Justus) and Matthias.
Then Paul left the synagogue and went next door to the house of Titius Justus, a worshiper of God.
So we have Titius Justus (TITUS comes to mind)
and Joseph called Barsabbas is Justus
(BARABAS, BARNABUS and BANUS come to mind)
and a man called Jesus is Justus
Notice that a “just” or a ‘just man” is not in the gospel of John!
Only in the Synoptic gospels and the Book of Acts
is there a reference to a “just” or a “just man”!
For Fear of the Jews:
IN the gospels the fear of the Jews was losing their nation because of the Romans. Yet this woman was afraid of “that just man” because of her nightmares about whoever she is referring to…..which, I remind you, is only in the gospel of Matthew!
I think it is odd that Luke leaves off the word “man” after “just” as if he realizes a connection to the wife of Pontius Pilate’s and her dream in the Gospel of Matthew.
Interesting article about the Fear of God. Please read:
It is possible that Joseph of Arimathea feared God as the article above explains the Fear of the Jews and that is why Joseph of Arimathea became bold finally and buried Jesus.
It is also possible that Joseph of Arimathea was related to Jesus, and of course, had the right to retrieve his body for burial.
It is also possible that he was not a good man and was not a just man,
but was actually evil and rich.
It is possible that he was the deceiver and craved the body of Jesus for other reasons that were meant to deceive and put a stop to the belief in Jesus, to hide the truth and dispose of the body not realizing that Jesus would rise from the dead!
The other disciples were surprised when he rose from the dead so Joseph would not necessarily be privileged more than Jesus’s closest and open followers so that he would know more than they knew, and they were surprised when he had risen even though the synoptics have Jesus saying it many times but the disciples never bothered to question him about the meaning of it!
IN the gospel of John it was not until the last supper that Jesus explained what was going to happen and they still did not quite understand till he actually did appear to them after his death.
It is possible Joseph of Arimathea was the “prince of this world” that Jesus warned his disciples that was coming that had nothing in him.
I believe that there was a false Jesus and a real Jesus that collided and that is why all the gospels warn of copycats of Jesus. “Many shall come in his name” says the gospel writer of Matthew. “Let no man deceive you”. “The Prince of this world cometh and he hath nothing in me,” etc. The warnings are all over the place so why should we not be wary of false Christs even back then? What makes people think that the deception only occurs in the future end times. Why not then? If I were a deceiver I would deceive all the time. The fact is there was great confusion then as there is now in the world. Jerusalem and Rome were destroyed not too long after Jesus came. Is that just mere coincidence or was there a concerted effort from evil forces to cause havoc on earth because HE CAME! It makes sense to me that evil would be rearing its head and heel etc at the thought of him succeeding in His (and the Father’s) redemption plan.
It makes sense that evil would insert itself in the written word to confuse mankind!
It makes sense that evil would kill the truth where ever it could, when ever it could. however it could!
I think that is why Jesus came was because he knew what mankind was, and is, up against.
Mankind could not deal with this confusion on it’s own without his intervention. He was sent to show us who the Father is, and who He is, so that we might be able to distinguish between good and evil, between the real and the unreal, between truth and lies.
Do you think the enemy decided to wait 2000 years to attack?
When men go to war usually there are spies and deceivers all over the place. Think about the wars that have occurred and about what goes on these days in the world.
It was happening then too!
Think about all the gospels that have been lost, destroyed and excluded!
Think about the apostles that were killed. What happened to their testimonies?
Why were they killed if there wasn’t a big conspiracy then?
The same thing goes for the written Word.
Remember the saying “the Pen is mightier than the sword”
It is stupid not to at least contemplate the possibility that maybe
the written Word is the center of contention and controversy
besides our own souls.
Isn’t Jesus the Word?
Why do the gospels collide in so many parts and mostly between the Gospel of John and the Synoptics Gospels of Matthew, Mark and Luke?
Why are there two totally different Last Suppers?
Why are the Synoptics so similar to the point of being identical in parts.
Does that make them more true because one copied the other?
When someone is caught cheating on a test and the answers given happen to be written word for word identical as the guy next to the cheater it is apparent cheating has occurred. The Synoptic authors cheated in parts and cheaters usually are liars!
So if the Synoptic gospels authors are lying, why trust them blindly?
The problem is no one has the original gospels (that I know of ) so we have to take a critical look to see what is reasonable, Isn’t that why some gospels were not included in the bible because they were not within the realm of being coherent.
It is inconceivable to me to play this “Q source” as a reliable and trustworthy source when it won’t even show itself or identify itself.
The Gospels are supposed to be a witness!
Shouldn’t they at least MAKE SENSE?
There are many posts that I have tried to explore and expose some of the deceptions, incoherent babel and/or plain ridiculous quotes.
I Believe in God and His Son but I don’t think I should fall for idiotic representations of them. I believe they are superior to us so I expect them to behave that way.
There are some things in the Synoptics that do seem very plausible and coherent but some things just are plain silly.
I do believe in miracles! But just because something is otherworldly does not mean it is of the true God.
I know for sure someone has added, subtracted, divided and multiplied some of the things that occurred and are written in the gospels even in the gospel I trust the most, which is, the Gospel of John. In my estimation, the Gospel of John seems to be the most truthful and in it’s right mind. It makes sense and is written so that there is meaning and accountability. He adds details like people’s names etc as if he is a witness and it seems to be in order, whereas the other three gospels are all over the place and seem to be from a vantage point of the enemy. They misquote or alter scripture quite often. I find that disconcerting and quite telling. When they make Jesus look like he is out of his mind that worries me and so I know that that must not be true. For instance, when Jesus curses a fig tree that he expects to find fruit to eat because he is hungry knowing it was not even in season or ready to produce good fruit. That’s insanity!
Or walking over to a man and saying “Come follow me and be a fisher of men.”
If a man is walking in my alley and say’s “Follow me I will make you a fisher of men,” I would probably back up and turn around and run in my house and lock the door! That is not reasonable to believe such nonsense. I really don’t think Jesus would want us to be so naive to follow him without prudence.
Yet I believe God parted the Red Sea for the Hebrews.
I believe He raised Lazarus, but I don’t believe he berated his disciples about bread vs. leaven in the way rendered in the gospel of Matthew.
What He did and said were meaningful but the Synoptics often have him doing and saying unreasonable things. Why?
EIther there was another Jesus doing unreasonable things and trying to deceive people and the culprit was actually insane and evil, or they just added events and sayings to purposefully demote and denigrate the truth to make the faith in Jesus a mockery.
BACK TO THE WIFE OF PONTIUS PILATE:
Her dream might be a deception and it does happen to be in the gospel of Matthew, which I distrust.
Besides if Matthew the gospel writer were a follower of Jesus who died on the cross how does he know what Pontius Pilate’s wife dreamt? Was he friends with Pontius Pilate or with his wife. Or did someone just add things to the gospel of Matthew to mock the truth.
FOR FEAR OF THE JEWS
What does this mean?
Does this mean the Jews were all bad people and they are the culprits?
For Fear of the Jews may be the Fear of God which is respect of God and love of God!
Joseph of Arimathea may have participated in the burial of Jesus for the love of God and respect of God and may have been a true believer in Jesus. But since the synoptic gospels have been derelict in their testimony I have trouble trusting their word about Jesus and the other people in this time.
What if Joseph of Arimathea was the false Christ who deceived the people and disposed of the true Messiah?
Replaced himself in the position of the true Jesus!
What if the accounts in the Synoptics are about a false Jesus?
What if Joseph of Arimathea is the writer of the Gospel of Matthew?
What if Joseph of Arimathea
is the “Q source” and the “prince of this world”?
28Then said they unto him, What shall we do, that we might work the works of God?
29Jesus answered and said unto them,
This is the work of God,
that ye believe on him whom he hath sent.
The other three gospels tell another story about what the work of God is and I think this verse makes more sense because it is one of the hardest things to do when you compare the gospels and see the corruption and the cover up that has been added. (in my opinion) !
I’m guessing that the Devil is in the details!
And I’m sure the devil added those details!