The trial as per the gospels vs. Jewish law

[John D. Brey]

70. Unthinkable: The prohibition against blasphemy - Taryag - OU Torah

As we said in the previous mitzvah, the word “elohim” can have multiple meanings. Here, it is taken to mean God. One might ask why this injunction counts as tw

outorah.org

Blasphemy in Judaism

Does blasphemy in Judaism only apply to when people use the Hebrew name of god or does apply to the word god as well , by that does cursing the word god constitute to cursing gods name since god is...

judaism.stackexchange.com

Blasphemy in Judaism | My Jewish Learning

Blasphemy or defaming God's name is not viewed anymore as punishable in Judaism.

www.myjewishlearning.com

Thank you. Having read the articles at your link, it seems to me that it's consistent with all that I read, that when Jesus was asked if he was the Christ, and he responded yes, and that furthermore his audience would see him seated at the right hand of the Father, that, coupled with the fact that he stated once before that before Abraham was, I AM (a term referring to God), was more than enough to give those seeking to shut him up ample cause to accuse him of blasphemy.

There is not a law in existence that doesn't require interpretation and context. Which is one reason we have juries of our peers. From everything I've read so far, the concept of "blasphemy" is malleable enough, flexible enough, that fair-minded judges, in the presence of a trouble-maker like Jesus, can quite easily be thought capable of interpreting his actions as blasphemous or blasphemy even if it might be stretching the letter of the law a bit to fit Jesus' evil spirit. . . Better, after all, that one loud-mouth trouble-maker get crucified than than Rome hold all the righteous people of Israel to blame.



John

 

[shunyadragon]

If you learned out of the bible that Jesus was somehow "King of the Jews", on what basis are you denying the rest of the Biblical account?

I rely on the documented historical records, and do not deny the rest of the Biblical account. That is open to further discussion. It is a historical fact that Jesus was convicted of rebellion against Rome and crucified as the standard punishment under Roman Law. He wa snot murdered by the Jews. This is an unfortunate belief that fueled the persecution and attempts of ethnic cleansing of Jews in Europe.

Most of the historical facts of the life of Jesus are generally accepted by historians., but not the supernatural events and religious beliefs.

He lived at about the same time the gospels claimed. He was a Nazarine Jew that claimed to be the promised Messiah and the King of the Jews. He was convicted of that claim and rebellion against Rome and crucified for that offense.

 

[Eli G]

I rely on the documented historical records, and do not deny the rest of the Biblical account....

Any "historical record" saying Jesus was condemned by Romans because he was a political danger to the emperor?

 

[rosends]

Thank you. Having read the articles at your link, it seems to me that it's consistent with all that I read, that when Jesus was asked if he was the Christ, and he responded yes, and that furthermore his audience would see him seated at the right hand of the Father, that, coupled with the fact that he stated once before that before Abraham was, I AM (a term referring to God), was more than enough to give those seeking to shut him up ample cause to accuse him of blasphemy.

There is not a law in existence that doesn't require interpretation and context. Which is one reason we have juries of our peers. From everything I've read so far, the concept of "blasphemy" is malleable enough, flexible enough, that fair-minded judges, in the presence of a trouble-maker like Jesus, can quite easily be thought capable of interpreting his actions as blasphemous or blasphemy even if it might be stretching the letter of the law a bit to fit Jesus' evil spirit. . . Better, after all, that one loud-mouth trouble-maker get crucified than than Rome hold all the righteous people of Israel to blame.



John

That's a really strange reply. The information I presented made it clear that for anything to be "blasphemy" under Jewish law, a specific name has to be used and a specific statement has to be made. Yet you decide that other stuff should be enough for people to accuse him if blasphemy. The concept of blasphemy is not maleable. Saying that you think it is is tantamount to your saying you need it to be.

 

[shunyadragon]

Any "historical record" saying Jesus was condemned by Romans because he was a political danger to the emperor?

Josephus, and yes the gospel account that he was tried in a court of Pontius Pilate. Also the historical facts and records of Rome concerning how Rebels against Rome are dealt with. Claiming to be the Messiah and the King of the Jews is a matter of historical fact a threat to Roman authority as the records of the time included a number of rebel leaders claiming to be the Messiah and the King of Jews that dealt with as a threat as a matter of fact.

 

[Eli G]

That's a really strange reply. The information I presented made it clear that for anything to be "blasphemy" under Jewish law, a specific name has to be used and a specific statement has to be made. Yet you decide that other stuff should be enough for people to accuse him if blasphemy. The concept of blasphemy is not maleable. Saying that you think it is is tantamount to your saying you need it to be.

Aside from the well-known Biblical reasons why first century Jews hated Jesus so much, such as the fact that people followed him even though he was an avowed enemy of the religious hypocrisy of the Jewish leaders, that he claimed to be a son of God and that bothered them, having healed and fed townspeople that class-minded Jews considered despicable, etc... I have asked several Jews online why the Jews condemned Jesus and I have received a lot of different answers: he was a witch educated in Egypt , used the name of God to perform miracles, violated Moses' Law (a lie), etc.

...but I have never been told that the story recorded in the gospels is false.

You never know what new story the enemies of the Bible will come up with, the ones who pose as Jews or Christians or intellectuals, when in fact they are not what they say they are... which can be quickly found out because they say things that those groups have never said. A true intellectual will never say that Jesus did not exist in real life, for example, and a Jew would never say that the Jews of the first century had nothing to do with the death of Jesus... Much on the internet is just entertainment for idle people who has nothing else to do.

 

[shunyadragon]

Aside from the well-known Biblical reasons why first century Jews hated Jesus so much, such as the fact that people followed him even though he was an avowed enemy of the religious hypocrisy of the Jewish leaders, that he claimed to be a son of God and that bothered them, having healed and fed townspeople that class-minded Jews considered despicable, etc... I have asked several Jews online why the Jews condemned Jesus and I have received a lot of different answers: he was a witch educated in Egypt , used the name of God to perform miracles, violated Moses' Law (a lie), etc.

...but I have never been told that the story recorded in the gospels is false.

You never know what new story the enemies of the Bible will come up with, the ones who pose as Jews or Christians or intellectuals, when in fact they are not what they say they are... which can be quickly found out because they say things that those groups have never said. A true intellectual will never say that Jesus did not exist in real life, for example, and a Jew would never say that the Jews of the first century had nothing to do with the death of Jesus... Much on the internet is just entertainment for idle people who has nothing else to do.

This clearly a highly exaggerated account of how the Jews related to the claims of Jesus Christ, Like in Roman records there is no contemporary record of his life during his life time that he existed.His claims and other Messianic rebels were a far greater threat against Rome than the Jewish authorities with very limited authority to do anything beyond their local afairs. Yes by far most Jews rejected the claims of Jesus.

 

[Eli G]

You are being fallacious, and I don't know what makes you think that the readers are so naive as not to realize it... The fact that Pilate finally condemned Jesus does not mean that he did so because he considered him an enemy of Rome... And just because the Romans sentenced riotous Jewish leaders to death doesn't mean Jesus was one of them.

Do you think that basing yourself on those facts justifies your speculations and that you deny the Biblical accounts? Try again with something different: where is that historical record that proves that Jesus was not tried by the Jews and taken to Pilate to carry out their sentence, as the Bible shows?

 

[IndigoChild5559]

And just because the Romans sentenced riotous Jewish leaders to death doesn't mean Jesus was one of them.

Let's assume that the gospel stories are historical (which is highly debatable). That would mean that Jesus, during the week of a huge Jewish festival, went into the Temple, and vandalized it overturning tables, and committing assault by driving out the moneychangers with a whip. I imagine that such a violent act would certainly put him in the most wanted category of troublemaker for the Romans.

 

[Eli G]

Let's assume that the gospel stories are historical (which is highly debatable). That would mean that Jesus, during the week of a huge Jewish festival, went into the Temple, and vandalized it overturning tables, and committing assault by driving out the moneychangers with a whip. I imagine that such a violent act would certainly put him in the most wanted category of troublemaker for the Romans.

How do you know?

That was Jew territory and Jesus was a very well known Jew. Although the Jewish religious leaders hated Jesus, a large part of the people respected and loved him.

Do you think that if the story were an exaggeration it would have been written to people who lived in that very same time?

 

[IndigoChild5559]

How do you know?

I think it is a reasonable understanding of the Romans that they squashed trouble makers. There were a gazillion crucifixions. I'm simply applying that understanding to the Jesus legend.

That was Jew territory and Jesus was a very well known Jew. Although the Jewish religious leaders hated Jesus, a large part of the people respected and loved him.

One of the things I think is quite inaccurate in the gospels is the story of the trial at night by the sanhedrin. There is a long list of problems that such a trial would cause. It is more likely to be a story that was made up to try to divide the fledgling church from Judaism. I believe one of the rabbis has started a whole thread on the problems with the trial.

Do you think that if the story were an exaggeration it would have been written to people who lived in that very same time?

Exaggeration is the wrong word. I think most of the gospels are simply made up legends, that Jesus never did those things nor did he say what he is reputed to have said.

I think the Christians who composed the gospels expected Jesus' imminent return, so yeah, they were simply writing to the churches that existed at that time.

Remember that the idea of approaching history scientifically, trying to discern what was literal fact from what was mere legend, had not yet taken hold. The first historian to take the new approach was Herodotus, a Greek, and his ideas had not become mainstream, and would not for many many centuries.

 

[Eli G]

Again:

The fact that Pilate finally condemned Jesus doesn't mean that he did so because he considered him a political enemy of Rome...
And just because the Romans sentenced riotous Jewish leaders to death doesn't mean Jesus was one of those riots.

Stop speculating and present real proves.

 

[Eli G]

... the idea of approaching history scientifically ...

First century Christians did not need modern methods to know that the story of Jesus was true and as told by eyewitnesses to the events. They had the opportunity to speak directly with contemporary people... and that's why they became Christians.

I follow the criteria they used: I trust those who gave us the testimony, and those who wrote their testimony were also Jews before they were Christians.

If there were lying Jews at that time, as surely there were many, those were not the ones who accepted Jesus as Messiah and wrote their testimony, but the ones who condemned him and tried him with false witnesses with the sole purpose of condemning him to death and later kept persecuting other Christians as much as they did to Jesus, like to Paul after his conversion.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Again:

The fact that Pilate finally condemned Jesus doesn't mean that he did so because he considered him a political enemy of Rome...
And just because the Romans sentenced riotous Jewish leaders to death doesn't mean Jesus was one of those riots.

Stop speculating and present real proves.

Eli: Pilate had "King of the Jews" nailed to the cross, according to the legend. This was to inform anyone watching of the crime for which Jesus was exectuted.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

First century Christians did not need modern methods to know that the story of Jesus was true and as told by eyewitnesses to the events. They had the opportunity to speak directly with contemporary people... and that's why they became Christians.

I follow the criteria they used: I trust those who gave us the testimony, and those who wrote their testimony were also Jews before they were Christians.

You don't understand it. The authors of the gospels were not considerned with the accuracy of their books. They simply gathered all the legends of Jesus together in writing.

BTW, just to reply to to your "Jews before they were Christians" comment.... These Jews never stopped being Jews and never stopped practicing Judaism. Acts 21:20 says "You see, brother, how many thousands of Jews there are who have believed, and they are all zealous for the Torah." They kept the law, did sacrifices (see Acts 21) and even met on the porch of the Temple. It was not until Paul began bringing a gazillion non-Jews into the churches that the movement began to evolve from a Jewish sect into a new religion.

 

[Eli G]

If you are going to mention the biblical account as proof of something, mention it properly.

Matt. 27:11 Jesus now stood before the governor, and the governor put the question to him: “Are you the King of the Jews?” Jesus replied: “You yourself say it.” 12 But while he was being accused by the chief priests and elders, he made no answer. 13 Then Pilate said to him: “Do you not hear how many things they are testifying against you?” 14 But he did not answer him, no, not a word, so that the governor was very surprised.
15 Now from festival to festival, it was the custom of the governor to release a prisoner to the crowd, whomever they wanted. 16 Just at that time they were holding a notorious prisoner called Bar·abʹbas. 17 So when they were gathered together, Pilate said to them: “Which one do you want me to release to you, Bar·abʹbas or Jesus the so-called Christ?” 18 For Pilate was aware that out of envy they had handed him over. 19 Moreover, while he was sitting on the judgment seat, his wife sent a message to him, saying: “Have nothing to do with that righteous man, for I suffered a lot today in a dream because of him.” 20 But the chief priests and the elders persuaded the crowds to ask for Bar·abʹbas, but to have Jesus put to death. 21 In response the governor said to them: “Which of the two do you want me to release to you?” They said: “Bar·abʹbas.” 22 Pilate said to them: “What, then, should I do with Jesus the so-called Christ?” They all said: “To the stake with him!” 23 He said: “Why? What bad thing did he do?” Still they kept shouting out all the more: “To the stake with him!”
24 Seeing that it did no good but, rather, an uproar was arising, Pilate took water and washed his hands before the crowd, saying: “I am innocent of the blood of this man. You yourselves must see to it.” 25 At that all the people said in answer: “Let his blood come upon us and upon our children.” 26 Then he released Bar·abʹbas to them, but he had Jesus whipped and handed him over to be executed on the stake.
27 Then the soldiers of the governor took Jesus (...)

 

[Eli G]

... It was not until Paul began bringing a gazillion non-Jews into the churches that the movement began to evolve from a Jewish sect into a new religion.

Yeap, I know you, the anti-Christians, have invented your own history of Jesus and Christianism based on your own speculations.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Yeap, I know you, the anti-Christians, have invented your own history of Jesus and Christianism based on your own speculations.

I may have my issues with Christian theology, but I'm fine with Christians. They love God and are good decent folks. In the end that's all that really matters. The theological debates are simply intellectual fun.

 

[John D. Brey]

That's a really strange reply. The information I presented made it clear that for anything to be "blasphemy" under Jewish law, a specific name has to be used and a specific statement has to be made. Yet you decide that other stuff should be enough for people to accuse him if blasphemy. The concept of blasphemy is not maleable. Saying that you think it is is tantamount to your saying you need it to be.

Reading your sources, and following up by reading the Talmud passages given, didn't completely convince me that having to speak a certain name for God was more than a localized, or newfangled, idea about what "blasphemy" is in the Torah. In other words, it doesn't seem set in stone (so to say).

Nevertheless, the Name, the speaking of which in the wrong way could be considered "blasphemy," was said to be "Adonai" אדני. The Tetragrammaton.

But the Gospels are written in Koine Greek (Not Hebrew or Aramaic). And "Adonai" translates to "Kurios" in the New Testament. Jesus is called "Kurios," Lord (Greek Adonai) throughout the Gospels and Apostolic Writings. He refers to himself as Kurios (the Greek "Adonai") throughout the Gospels. There can be little doubt where context is considered that he refers to himself as the Tetragrammaton in its Greek grammatical form such that nailing him down (so to say) as a blasphemer would be so easy you or I or most people here would be able and ready to grab a hammer and start nailing down.

Are you familiar with Toledot Yeshu? In that Jewish tale Jesus steals the Name from the temple by cutting his thigh and inserting it so he can sneak it out. He then uses the power of the Name to perform his miracles and hustle up an audience and followers. The Jewish writers of Toledot Yeshu concede that he performed miracles, concede that he had some kind of access to the Name, but, in keeping with tradition, believed he used the Name in vain, i.e., was a blasphemer or worse.




John

 

[Colt]

Religious sects that declared themselves as enemies to Rome would not have lasted long. I believe those who wrote the gospels deliberately slanted blame away from the Roman Empire for the sake of their own survival.

The teachings of Jesus and its adherents were never anti-Roman state, they were pro spiritual truth. Spirituality speaking their allegiance was and still is to God the Father and Christ his Son.