The trial as per the gospels vs. Jewish law

[Colt]

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.

Jesus was Convicted by the Sanhedrin in a speedy, unjust trial, but because the Jews were occupied by the Roman Empire they were forbidden from carrying out the death penalty! So, they had to appeal to Pilate to do their bidding. Jesus had been threatened with stoning by a Jewish mob once before. Pilates cowardly surrender to the same sort of crowd is what finally did it!

The unjust persecution of the Jewish people going forward doesn’t change what happened. But the Son of God would have been hated by some no matter where he chose to carry out his incarnation.

 

[1213]

Claiming to be the King of the Jews in fulfillment of the Messianic prophesy like others justifies the conviction and execution of
Jesus.

Please explain, why claiming to be the king justifies execution by Jewish law?

 

[1213]

The New Testament has Pilate symbolically washing his hands of the sentence and the Jews taking responsibility for it forever. It's preceded by a meeting of the Sanhedrin, the leader of whom tears his robe and says 'What more information do you need?' that Jesus ought to be sentenced to death. Some Gospels more than others but at least Matthew and John have the Jews being responsible, even if it comes across as subtle now. The Romans physically put Jesus to death but it's the Jews who get him there. This caused most of the hated of Jews we see in the Mediaeval Age, the accusations of deicide and so on. The Christians of the Middle Ages were not, unfortunately, hopelessly misreading their texts, there is a case to be made for both the Romans and the Jews being responsible, and ultimately Jesus wouldn't have been killed were it not for both groups. But in the main, the Gospels go out of their way to exonerate Pilate, who seems to become better and better as each Gospel is written, and put the weight of the death on the Jews. Pilate is also a saint in some churches:

I think it is weird why would anyone hold Pilate as a saint. But, I agree with that so called Jews handed Jesus to be killed, or helped in capturing Jesus and made false accusations. I don't think it means all Jews are to be blamed, or that it was because of the Jewish law.

 

[shunyadragon]

Please explain, why claiming to be the king justifies execution by Jewish law?

I did not say claiming to be King justifies execution by Jewish Law. I said claiming to be King of the Jews is rebellion against Rome and ounishable by crucifixtion under Roman Law. Though when the Jews were in control before the Roman occupation rebels were convicted and executed by crusifixtion.

 

[shunyadragon]

Jesus was Convicted by the Sanhedrin in a speedy, unjust trial, but because the Jews were occupied by the Roman Empire they were forbidden from carrying out the death penalty! So, they had to appeal to Pilate to do their bidding. Jesus had been threatened with stoning by a Jewish mob once before. Pilates cowardly surrender to the same sort of crowd is what finally did it!

The unjust persecution of the Jewish people going forward doesn’t change what happened. But the Son of God would have been hated by some no matter where he chose to carry out his incarnation.

Jesus was convicted and executed under Roman Law by the authority of Pontius Pilate.

 

[rosends]

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).

The talmud gives the parameters and rules and you decide that you aren't convinced. Got it.

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.

Referring to the self as God is not at all part of the prohibition of "blasphemy." It wouldn't have led to what the text states. Your decision that it would is capricious and random.

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

Yes, i am familiar with Toldot Yeshu. No where in it is there a statement that using the name is a sin called "blashpemy." Are you suggesting the historical accuracy of Toldot Yeshu? How about other medieval midrashim?

 

[Subduction Zone]

I think it is weird why would anyone hold Pilate as a saint. But, I agree with that so called Jews handed Jesus to be killed, or helped in capturing Jesus and made false accusations. I don't think it means all Jews are to be blamed, or that it was because of the Jewish law.

If Jesus did not "die for our sins" how would we be saved?

 

[Rival]

If Jesus did not "die for our sins" how would we be saved?

Luke's Gospel omits (apart from later emendations) all reference to a saving crucifixion and instead seems to have a moral exemplar theory.

https://www.npr.org/transcripts/124572693#:~:text=In%20the%20Gospel%20of%20Luke,that%20he%20dies%20for%20sins.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Luke's Gospel omits (apart from later emendations) all reference to a saving crucifixion and instead seems to have a moral exemplar theory.

https://www.npr.org/transcripts/124572693#:~:text=In%20the%20Gospel%20of%20Luke,that%20he%20dies%20for%20sins.

There does not appear to be a consistent story across the four Gospels, I was referring to general church doctrine. Who knows? It is possible that all sects of Christianity do not share the belief that I gave.

EDIT: And I need to read the rest of that article. It looks like an interesting read.

 

[fantome profane]

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.

Thank you for that valuable information.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

EDIT: And I need to read the rest of that article. It looks like an interesting read.

I found it to be a bit rambling ...

 

[John D. Brey]

The talmud gives the parameters and rules and you decide that you aren't convinced. Got it.

Are we talking about the same Talmud? One of its hallmarks is disagreement. And as my favorite Talmudic scholar (Daniel Boyarin) points out, it's not in the business of strict interpretation since it celebrates the polysemous indeterminacy of a written text like the Law. The Talmud is midrash not interpretation. Its magnificence is its hyper-Socratic methodology. It seeks not a transcendental signified (a, or thee, root, or foundation, of truth) but rather, it smells all the lovely flowers growing from that root. We might say it doesn't kill the patient on the examination table or on a cross. The mohel's blade, or fingernail, is never sharp enough to cut clean through to the bone of truth. The dissection/examination doesn't really kill the patient any more than Abraham killed Isaac. We have to be patient when reading the Bible to get to a place where a mohel actually cuts clean through the sacrificial lamb and or limb; that is, where the sacrifice, the patient, actually dies on the lap or altar of the sandek.

The Jewish Sanctuary did not rise above a graveyard. Death and all that came into contact with death was banned from its premises; grief and mourning did not cross its threshold.​

​

Rabbi Samson R. Hirsch, Collected Writings VIII, p. 251.​

Referring to the self as God is not at all part of the prohibition of "blasphemy." It wouldn't have led to what the text states. Your decision that it would is capricious and random.

I disagree. Nevertheless, I'd love to be enlightened by being given some context to see that you're in fact correct. Can you quote a small sample of the argument that would imply that a person tattooing the Tetragrammaton on his chest with an ink likeness of himself below it wouldn't qualify as blasphemy? What sentence, statement, or argument, are you thinking of when you say that it's not blasphemous to tell people that you are yourself Adonai? I'm genuinely interested in the statement or argument that purports to nail down the law of blaspheme and then thrust a spear in it so that it doesn't escape the nailing down in order to roam around contaminating non-blasphemous trifling or trifles related to the holy Name?



John

 

[shunyadragon]

If Jesus did not "die for our sins" how would we be saved?

By the compassionate grace of God for all humanity since humans first became human, and not an ancient salvation by human sacrifice,

 

[rosends]

Are we talking about the same Talmud? One of its hallmarks is disagreement. And as my favorite Talmudic scholar (Daniel Boyarin) points out, it's not in the business of strict interpretation since it celebrates the polysemous indeterminacy of a written text like the Law. The Talmud is midrash not interpretation. It's magnificence is its hyper-Socratic methodology. It seeks not a transcendental signified (a, or thee, root or foundation of truth) but rather, it smells all the lovely flowers growing from that root. We might say it doesn't kill the patient on the examination table or on a cross.

The talmud is about conversation and resolution of differences in understanding. The talmud is decidedly NOT medrash most of the time so I don't know why you think it is. And when the talmud makes a statement about the parameters of "blasphemy" there is no disagreement about those parameters, just about the specific application in particular cases.

I disagree. Nevertheless, I'd love to be enlightened by being given some context to see that you're in fact correct . Can you quote a small sample of the argument that would imply that a person wearing the Tetragrammaton on his chest like a name tag wouldn't qualify as blasphemy? What sentence, statement, or argument, are you thinking of when you say that it's not blasphemous to tell people that you're yourself Adonai? I'm genuinely interested in the statement or argument that purports to nail down the law of blaspheme and then thrust a spear in it so that it doesn't escape the nailing down in order to roam around contaminating non-blasphemous trifling with the holy Name?



John

If you read the section of the talmud, you would see:
מְגַדֵּף הַיְינוּ מְבָרֵךְ הַשֵּׁם

what in that very clear statement would include wearing a name like a name tag? What in that statement would include proclaiming the self to be God? The parameters are laid out. If you want to hold like the opposing view then the term would include idolatry but that isn't the normative halacha.

Read here and see the laws

Mishneh Torah, Foreign Worship and Customs of the Nations 2:7

These are the laws which govern a blasphemer: A blasphemer is not liable to be stoned to death until he states God's unique name, which possesses four letters:...

www.sefaria.org

 

[dybmh]

One of its hallmarks is disagreement. And as my favorite Talmudic scholar (Daniel Boyarin) points out, it's not in the business of strict interpretation since it celebrates the polysemous indeterminacy of a written text like the Law.

I've mentioned this before. If we're talking about the same story, if you read the actual story in the Talmud, the disagreement is resolved at the end. And if I recall, the majority is confirmed to have been the divine intention showing that the system works.

 

[metis]

The fact that Pilate finally condemned Jesus does not mean that he did so because he considered him an enemy of Rome

When Jesus overturned the tables at the Temple and talked about his "Kingdom" ya, that would very likely bring Pilate to get rid of him, especially since Pilate served under Caesar.

 

[dybmh]

Can you quote a small sample of the argument that would imply that a person tattooing the Tetragrammaton on his chest with an ink likeness of himself below it wouldn't qualify as blasphemy?

What you're describing would be a false prophet if they were self-promoting to a Jewish audience. Also punishable by death, with no mercy.

But that doesn't change that the gospel narrative is incorrect.

 

[metis]

I think it is weird why would anyone hold Pilate as a saint.

According to Roman historians, Pilate was recalled to Rome for being overly brutal. He was eventually removed, although I can't remember what the reason was.

 

[John D. Brey]

What you're describing would be a false prophet if they were self-promoting to a Jewish audience. Also punishable by death, with no mercy.

But that doesn't change that the gospel narrative is incorrect.

This is a very interesting topic. I think you and rosends are correct within a Jewish context. My argument is based on the strange space where Jewish context and Christian context converge and diverge. I'm confident there's a space where the Jewish argument is sound, crucial, and beyond repute. And I'm not saying that hypothetically. I see a place, a genuine, lawful, thought-space, where the Jewish argument is consistent and beyond repute. But I see that that thought-space, though utterly necessary, is incomplete in a sense that has to remedied before or after Messiah establishes Judaism as the transcendental signifier of all religious thought.



John

 

[Subduction Zone]

By the compassionate grace of God for all humanity since humans first became human, and not an ancient salvation by human sacrifice,

I agree that that makes far more sense, but it is not the party line of the vast majority of Christians. To me one of Christianity's biggest failures is substitutionary atonement.