The trial as per the gospels vs. Jewish law

[dybmh]

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

"I think you and rosends are correct within a Jewish context." - therefore it wasn't the sanhedrin and the gospels are wrong

"My argument is based on the strange space where Jewish context and Christian context converge and diverge ... that has to be remedied..." - therefore it wasn't the sanhedrin and the gospels were wrong.

What you're describing has not and had not happened at that time. It cannot be the sanhedrin.

 

[shunyadragon]

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.

Correct, but I may add that 95%+ Christians believe in substitutionary atonement.

 

[Colt]

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

That’s just biased denial.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Correct, but I may add that 95%+ Christians believe in substitutionary atonement.

I know, that is why I phrased my question as I did. I am sure that the person that I responded to believes in it. That was why my question had that form.

 

[Subduction Zone]

That’s just biased denial.

How so?

 

[shunyadragon]

That’s just biased denial.

Based on the historical evidence available. The Sanhedrin did not have any authority during the Roman occupation. On matters of rebellion against Rome Pontius Pilate is in complete control. Anything else would show weakness of his authority.

 

[Colt]

How so?

My reply wasn’t directed at you, but since you asked one has to just ignore everything up to Pilate defaulting to a mob that essentially made the decision to crucify Jesus. ALL of the conflict that Jesus encountered in his 3+ years of teaching was with religious Jews and their objections to his theology and claims.

 

[shunyadragon]

My reply wasn’t directed at you, but since you asked one has to just ignore everything up to Pilate defaulting to a mob that essentially made the decision to crucify Jesus. ALL of the conflict that Jesus encountered in his 3+ years of teaching was with religious Jews and their objections to his theology and claims.

A Roman governor would not default to a mob or the Sanhedrin.

 

[Subduction Zone]

My reply wasn’t directed at you, but since you asked one has to just ignore everything up to Pilate defaulting to a mob that essentially made the decision to crucify Jesus. ALL of the conflict that Jesus encountered in his 3+ years of teaching was with religious Jews and their objections to his theology and claims.

I am not ignoring anything. You made a claim that you need to support. That you cannot do so indicates that it is likely to be false.

 

[Colt]

A Roman governor would not default to a mob or the Sanhedrin.

Pilate did, he had previous run-ins with the Jews which put him in a difficult position.

 

[Colt]

I am not ignoring anything. You made a claim that you need to support. That you cannot do so indicates that it is likely to be false.

It’s all in the Gospels, but then you cherry pick like shunyadragon to draw your conclusions.

 

[John D. Brey]

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.

It seems peculiar at best to say מְגַדֵּף הַיְינוּ מְבָרֵךְ הַשֵּׁם is very clear? How is blessing ברך the same as cursing? How do you curse God by blessing God?

The word נקב ---generally used for "blaspheme" ––––means to "pierce," "hollow,"or "bore out." It seems to suggest that someone has drained the Name of its holiness, lessened the glory or holiness of the Name. If that be the case, then a mere man claiming to be God is seemingly draining the holiness and glory of divinity by implying it can fit inside the body of a man without being drained of any of its highness or prestige? In this sense Jesus would be both and idolator and a blasphemer for lessening the Name, boring it out and draining it of its prestige or holiness, while at the same time implying that he himself is worthy of the Name.

I'm not trying to be argumentative. I can totally appreciate the need to uses words respecting their technical precision. I can appreciate the importance of distinguishing between "idolatry" versus "blasphemy" so that the law can rightly divide and define various crimes and deviations from the proper modus operandi of the legal code.

Can you just tell me in your own words what you think "blasphemy" entails? What in a simple sentence or two distinguishes "blasphemy" from other mischief directed toward God or holy things? What, generally speaking, would Jesus have to do, or say, to be guilty of "blasphemy." It seems highly likely to me that if you venture a reasonably general statement of what "blasphemy" entails, Jesus will be willing and able ---as he's presented in the NT ---- to meet you better than half-way.

Which is kind of my way of saying that though you might be trying to bless Jesus by not cursing him as a blasphemer, your blessing seems ---whether you intended it or not ---like a curse hidden in a blessing. I could even be cheeky and say your forefathers pierced, and bored, into Jesus, or encouraged others that it would be appropriate to do so, in order that the divinity he claimed resided in, flowing through, his veins, could be spilled out (his body hollowed out גדף) on the ground and thus returned to God who gave it ---if he did. Which is a roundabout way of saying if Jesus did have God's blood flowing through his veins as Rabbi Samson Hirsch implies he did, then his piercing and the hollowing out of his body was the quintessence of "blasphemy."

That wicked Saul of Tarsus implied a divine Law capable of finding God guilty of "blasphemy" such that the Law authorizes ---or patronizes the goyim to authorize ----the piercing and boring out, hollowing out גדף, of God, of his life, blood, soul, would be a problematic Law at best, or, as Paul surmises, a Law whose true, righteous, holy, spirit, is hidden in the letter of the Law until the Law itself can be bored into, hollowed out, to get at the true spirit that can't be surmised without killing the patient while dissecting the foreskene of the dead letters on the operating table or perhaps the cross.

How cool would it be if we had an x-ray, a picture, image, ornament, of the patient dissected to get at the spirit of the Law: a macrocosmic mappah.




John

 

[John D. Brey]

"I think you and rosends are correct within a Jewish context." - therefore it wasn't the sanhedrin and the gospels are wrong

Absolutely. Within a Jewish context. And that context is not wrong. It's precisely what God gave Israel. It's his intention for Israel. . . Yes, the Gospels are wrong from a Jewish perspective. And that doesn't mean that to accept the truth or legitimacy of the Gospels one must find fault with Israel or the Law. When we find a paradox or antinomy ---where it appear two things can't both be true ---- it's usually only a matter of expanding our perspective until we find a place where what seemed impossible ---i.e., resolving a fairly concrete contradiction ---can be done without cheating or lying or lessening the factuality one of the seemingly contradicting players.

Anyone familiar with the evolution of science that led to what today is considered the truest scientific theory there ever was ---quantum physics --- would be aware that at one time classical physics and quantum physics were like Judaism and Christianity. It didn't seem possible to Einstein that the statements of quantum physics could possibly be true ("God doesn't play dice."). They were utterly incompatible with everything the greatest scientific thinker of our day believed to be true. Nevertheless, before he died, Einstein was forced to accept that quantum physics was not only not a false theory, or an impossible theory, but that it was more powerful than Newtonian physics, or Einstein's classical model (by orders of magnitude) without necessarily falsifying the science of Newton of Einstein.




John

 

[rosends]

It seems peculiar at best to say מְגַדֵּף הַיְינוּ מְבָרֵךְ הַשֵּׁם is very clear? How is blessing ברך the same as cursing? How do you curse God by blessing God?

You don't understand how the talmud works then, or Hebrew language.

The word נקב ---generally used for "blaspheme" ––––means to "pierce," "hollow,"or "bore out." It seems to suggest that someone has drained the Name of its holiness, lessened the glory or holiness of the Name. If that be the case, then a mere man claiming to be God is seemingly draining the holiness and glory of divinity by implying it can fit inside the body of a man without being drained of any of its highness or prestige? In this sense Jesus would be both and idolator and a blasphemer for lessening the Name, boring it out and draining it of its prestige or holiness, while at the same time implying that he himself is worthy of the Name.

So you take a word that means (among other things), "pronounce" and use the Strong's/KJV's (incorrect) translation of "blaspheme" (when, no, it is not used for blaspheme) and then try to connect it to another definition of the n-q-b and move symbolically to the story which drives your entire thinking so that you can connect it all. Have fun with that, but once it is built on error, only error ensues.

Can you just tell me in your own words what you think "blasphemy" entails?

In the words of legal scholars (why would you want my words when there are experts?) "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: א-ד-נ-י, and curses that name with one of the names of God which are forbidden to be erased," That's it. Here are some examples

Is G-ddamn considered cursing God?

If a person says in English the word g-ddamn (or G-d damn) does that transgress the sin of cursing God?

judaism.stackexchange.com

other stuff simply isn't blasphemy. What separates things is that only one category IS and every other category ISN'T.

 

[shunyadragon]

It’s all in the Gospels, but then you cherry pick like shunyadragon to draw your conclusions.

Considering the actual history of Rome and how Roman authority is documented and works is not cherry picking. Roman authority is highly rigid and Hierarchical and faced with numerous revolts. They deal with rebellion with Roman justice and force.

Your agenda and cherry picking is to consider only one source the Bible whi. ch lacks provenance nor documentation of the life of Jesus at the tme he lived. There are no records of Jesus during his life time, but there is abundant records of how Rome deals with rebellion.

 

[Eli G]

About the term "blasphemy" in the Christian Scriptures our Biblical Encyclopedia Insight says:

Blasphemy includes the act of claiming the attributes or prerogatives of God, or ascribing these to another person or thing. (Compare Ac 12:21, 22.) The Jewish religious leaders accused Christ Jesus of blasphemy because he said that the sins of certain persons were forgiven (Mt 9:2, 3; Mr 2:5-7; Lu 5:20, 21), and they tried to stone him as a blasphemer because of his declaring himself to be God’s Son. (Joh 10:33-36) When Jesus made a statement to the Sanhedrin concerning God’s purpose toward him and the high position to be granted him, the high priest ripped his garments and accused Jesus of blasphemy, for which Jesus was condemned as worthy of death. (Mt 26:63-66; Mr 14:61-64) Having no authority from the Romans to implement the death sentence, the Jewish religious leaders shrewdly changed their accusation of blasphemy to that of sedition when taking Jesus before Pilate.—Joh 18:29–19:16.

... and:

Like Jesus, Stephen was martyred on a charge of blasphemy. (Ac 6:11-13; 7:56-58) Paul, as Saul, had been a blasphemer and had tried to force Christians to make “a recantation” (literally, “to blaspheme”). However, upon becoming a disciple himself, he suffered blasphemous contradictions from the Jews, and in Ephesus his teaching was possibly labeled by certain elements as blasphemous against the goddess Artemis. (Ac 13:45; 19:37; 26:11; 1Ti 1:13) By a disfellowshipping, Paul handed Hymenaeus and Alexander “over to Satan that they may be taught by discipline not to blaspheme.” (1Ti 1:20; compare 2Ti 2:16-18.) James showed that the rich, as a class, were prone to “blaspheme the fine name” by which the disciples were called. (Jas 2:6, 7; compare Joh 17:6;Ac 15:14.) In “the last days” blasphemers would abound (2Ti 3:1, 2), as the book of Revelation also foretells by statement and by symbol.—Re 13:1-6;16:9-11, 21; 17:3.

https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1200000769

 

[Colt]

Considering the actual history of Rome and how Roman authority is documented and works is not cherry picking. Roman authority is highly rigid and Hierarchical and faced with numerous revolts. They deal with rebellion with Roman justice and force.

Your agenda and cherry picking is to consider only one source the Bible whi. ch lacks provenance nor documentation of the life of Jesus at the tme he lived. There are no records of Jesus during his life time, but there is abundant records of how Rome deals with rebellion.

There is not one shred of evidence that Jesus was a political activist. You are assuming Jesus must have been a political agitator and since Rome was always brutal towards uprisings therefore Pilate crucified him. Huge stretch to create that position. While historical sources do note that Pilate had violent conflict with the Jews.

 

[dybmh]

Absolutely. Within a Jewish context. And that context is not wrong. It's precisely what God gave Israel. It's his intention for Israel. . . Yes, the Gospels are wrong from a Jewish perspective. And that doesn't mean that to accept the truth or legitimacy of the Gospels one must find fault with Israel or the Law. When we find a paradox or antinomy ---where it appear two things can't both be true ---- it's usually only a matter of expanding our perspective until we find a place where what seemed impossible ---i.e., resolving a fairly concrete contradiction ---can be done without cheating or lying or lessening the factuality one of the seemingly contradicting players.

Anyone familiar with the evolution of science that led to what today is considered the truest scientific theory there ever was ---quantum physics --- would be aware that at one time classical physics and quantum physics were like Judaism and Christianity. It didn't seem possible to Einstein that the statements of quantum physics could possibly be true ("God doesn't play dice."). They were utterly incompatible with everything the greatest scientific thinker of our day believed to be true. Nevertheless, before he died, Einstein was forced to accept that quantum physics was not only not a false theory, or an impossible theory, but that it was more powerful than Newtonian physics, or Einstein's classical model (by orders of magnitude) without necessarily falsifying the science of Newton of Einstein.




John

No, you don't get it. It is factually false. The events it describes cannot have taken place. The authors/compilers don't know enough to fact check the legends they received and included. And/OR they fabricated elements for a specific purpose. It doesn't change that there's some good things that can be taken from it. The challenge is to evaluate everything on a case by case basis and interpret it against a known good divine source.

Even if it is corrupt, knowing for certain where and how it is corrupt can be used as a negative role-model to bring good useful teachings.

 

[dybmh]

About the term "blasphemy" in the Christian Scriptures our Biblical Encyclopedia Insight says:

Blasphemy includes the act of claiming the attributes or prerogatives of God, or ascribing these to another person or thing. (Compare Ac 12:21, 22.) The Jewish religious leaders accused Christ Jesus of blasphemy because he said that the sins of certain persons were forgiven (Mt 9:2, 3; Mr 2:5-7; Lu 5:20, 21), and they tried to stone him as a blasphemer because of his declaring himself to be God’s Son. (Joh 10:33-36) When Jesus made a statement to the Sanhedrin concerning God’s purpose toward him and the high position to be granted him, the high priest ripped his garments and accused Jesus of blasphemy, for which Jesus was condemned as worthy of death. (Mt 26:63-66; Mr 14:61-64) Having no authority from the Romans to implement the death sentence, the Jewish religious leaders shrewdly changed their accusation of blasphemy to that of sedition when taking Jesus before Pilate.—Joh 18:29–19:16.

... and:

Like Jesus, Stephen was martyred on a charge of blasphemy. (Ac 6:11-13; 7:56-58) Paul, as Saul, had been a blasphemer and had tried to force Christians to make “a recantation” (literally, “to blaspheme”). However, upon becoming a disciple himself, he suffered blasphemous contradictions from the Jews, and in Ephesus his teaching was possibly labeled by certain elements as blasphemous against the goddess Artemis. (Ac 13:45; 19:37; 26:11; 1Ti 1:13) By a disfellowshipping, Paul handed Hymenaeus and Alexander “over to Satan that they may be taught by discipline not to blaspheme.” (1Ti 1:20; compare 2Ti 2:16-18.) James showed that the rich, as a class, were prone to “blaspheme the fine name” by which the disciples were called. (Jas 2:6, 7; compare Joh 17:6;Ac 15:14.) In “the last days” blasphemers would abound (2Ti 3:1, 2), as the book of Revelation also foretells by statement and by symbol.—Re 13:1-6;16:9-11, 21; 17:3.

https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1200000769

Oh! Jesus was tried by the authors of the Christian bible, and they convicted him of blasphemy. Faithful-Jews are completely off the hook! Jesus' disciples were sinners right? Why should they be trusted with the law?

 

[Subduction Zone]

It’s all in the Gospels, but then you cherry pick like shunyadragon to draw your conclusions.

The Gospels are not exactly a reliable source. One can interpret them, to a degree, but one should approach them with a huge grain of salt. And @shunyadragon appears to be using history as his primary source,, not the Gospels. That is not cherry picking.