The trial as per the gospels vs. Jewish law

[shunyadragon]

Just a side note in line with some fo the stuff I already wrote -- a person cannot (under Jewish law) claim to be "King of the Jews" nor is that what the promised messiah will do. So, again, either this is agendized (or ignorance of Jewish law in a fictional story) or the people involved were not in line with any normative understanding of Jewish law.

It is not under the Jewish Law, but the fulfillment of the Messianic prophecy that Jesus and others claimed to be the King of the Jews as the time of Jesus and up to the present.

 

[Colt]

To claim to be the fulfillment of the Messianic prophecy for the return of the King of the Jews and defeat the Romans is a common threat to Roman authority at the time of Jesus. Rome responded ruthlessly against any threat to their authority.




Actually true, the Romans would not allow the Jews any authority concerning issues of rebellion against the authority o Rome and restoration of the King off the Jews. The Romans did not need th epermission of th eJewish authorities to suppress rebellion against Rome.
Citing the gospels is no help for your case considering the actual historical evidence of th etime Jesus lived, The gospels are without provenance of time of the life off Jesus. By the evidence they were compiled, edited and redacted between ~50 -300 AD. During that time Christianity was becoming a Hellenistic Roman religion.

Seems you've thrown out the parts of the imperfect Gospels that you don't like? On one hand you acknowledge that there was a Pilate who killed a Jesus but throw out the context what Jesus taught and then add in the assumption that he was a menase or threat to the Roman State?

 

[rosends]

It is not under the Jewish Law, but the fulfillment of the Messianic prophecy that Jesus and others claimed to be the King of the Jews as the time of Jesus.

But that "king of the Jews" would be a status that needs to be contextualized as a function OF Jewish law and culture.

 

[shunyadragon]

Seems you've thrown out the parts of the imperfect Gospels that you don't like? On one hand you acknowledge that there was a Pilate who killed a Jesus but throw out the context what Jesus taught and then add in the assumption that he was a menase or threat to the Roman State?

It has nothing to do with what I like. It is problem with the conflicts with actual historical evidence, and yes scientific evidence thohrough out the Bible. The obvious threat to Roman authority for those who claim to be the King of Jews, and restoration of the Jewish state are obvious more than a 'menace' but a threat to Roman occupation authority. The Messianic prophecies do indeed claim for the Restoration of the House of David ruling Palestine and the traditional extent of the Kingdom.

The bible is a historical narrative set in history and neither a historically nor scientific accurate set of documents.

 

[pearl]

1) the gospels are not history books so don't hold them to account for errors in detail
1a) if that's the case then the texts are admittedly unreliable

The Gospels are not history books, but faith documents. They are penned by a sub-apostolic generation.
First, the evangelists did not write the Gospels to give us "histories," as we understand the term. They were written, as the Gospel of John explains, "so that you may come to believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that through believing you may have life in his name" (John 20:31). The Gospel writers' primary interest was in promoting faith that the one crucified had been raised to Lordship and, contrary to modern preferences, they did not see researching all the available historical facts as essential to their project.
To ask historical questions of the Gospels is to ask something they were not really meant to provide. Asking, "what is the meaning of Jesus?" or "why is Jesus important?" are appropriate questions.
Only through a reconstruction of the gospel can it be called historical.

 

[shunyadragon]

But that "king of the Jews" would be a status that needs to be contextualized as a function OF Jewish law and culture.

Jewish Laws says absolutely nothing about the Messianic prophecies, but in terms of the cultural lineage of the Kings and prophets, yes. The prophecies fundamentally are based on the Abrahamic succession of the kings and prophets of Judaism and possibly beyond if you consider a universal relationship of all religions, which Jews would not accept.

 

[Colt]

It has nothing to do with what I like. It is problem with the conflicts with actual historical evidence, and yes scientific evidence thohrough out the Bible.

The bible is a historical narrative set in history and neither a historically nor scientific accurate set of documents.

I agree with you on the imperfection of the Bible books. If the gospel accounts are wildly inaccurate then that opens up other pertinent questions. If the accounts were compiled long after the fact by Jewish men then why did they insist on pinning the crucifixion's on the Sanhedrin as opposed to blaming Rome which would absolve their fellow Jews??? And if these men were capable of such bias distortion of the facts then why do we treat members of the Sanhedrin like they are a panel of saints??? Maybe the resentment towards Jesus was such that they wanted him dead and therefore put him through a trumped up, speedy prosecution based on unreliable witnesses!

 

[rosends]

Jewish Laws says absolutely nothing about the Messianic prophecies, but in terms of the cultural lineage of the Kings and prophets, yes. The prophecies fundamentally are based on the Abrahamic succession of the kings and prophets of Judaism and possibly beyond if you consider a universal relationship of all religions, which Jews would not accept.

Jewish law says LOADS about messianic prophecies. I can get you citations if you want (the easiest is this one). And the kingship is not traced back to any Abrahamic succession, but Davidic. Prophet-hood has no specific succession rules.

 

[John D. Brey]

First, what Jesus did was not "blasphemy" by any Jewish legal standard. Claiming divinity (if you think that's what he did) or claiming messianic status or advising people to break laws or any of the other things I have read? None of it is blasphemy.

The potential problem with this statement is that it assumes a word like "blaspheme" can be easily adjudicated by nit-picking legalese. The four primary Hebrew words translated "blaspheme" (in the KJV) ברך ,נקב ,גדף ,נאץ, all have fluid meaning (as tends to be the case with all or most Hebrew words). The lexicons imply that these Hebrew words for "blaspheme" (or "blasphemous") cover a wide range of meaning: calling down a curse from God, mocking God or his laws, rejecting or being contemptuous toward God, etc., etc.. To claim that a man criticizing the experts in the Law, rejecting their interpretation of the Law, giving his version of the Law, and implying it's directly from the Father, even implying that he and the Father are one, is not, technically, legally, "blasphemous" is, well, at least in my personal opinion, blasphemous.



John

 

[shunyadragon]

Jewish law says LOADS about messianic prophecies. I can get you citations if you want (the easiest is this one). And the kingship is not traced back to any Abrahamic succession, but Davidic. Prophet-hood has no specific succession rules.

Please note:

Jewish Laws says absolutely nothing about the Messianic prophecies, but in terms of the cultural lineage of the Kings and prophets, yes. The prophecies fundamentally are based on the Abrahamic succession of the kings and prophets of Judaism and possibly beyond if you consider a universal relationship of all religions, which Jews would not accept.

Jewish law says LOADS about messianic prophecies. I can get you citations if you want (the easiest is this one). And the kingship is not traced back to any Abrahamic succession, but Davidic. Prophet-hood has no specific succession rules.

The Patriarchs and the Origins of Judaism - Judaism 101 (JewFAQ)

The story of the origins of Judaism, from Abraham to the Children of Israel, discussing the lives of the Patriarchs.

www.jewfaq.org

"Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, known as the Patriarchs, are both the physical and spiritual ancestors of Judaism. They founded the religion now known as Judaism, and their descendants are the Jewish people. Of course, technically, it is incorrect to refer to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob as Jews, because the terms "Jew" and "Judaism" were not used generally to refer to this nation until hundreds of years after their time; nevertheless, for convenience and in accordance with common practice, I will use these terms.

The history below is derived from written Torah, Talmud, Midrash and other sources. Modern scholars question the existence of the Patriarchs and the historical accuracy of this information; however, it is worth noting that scholars also questioned the existence of Babylonia and Troy... until archaeologists found them."

Pease cite the LAWS dealing with prophecies.

 

[rosends]

The potential problem with this statement is that it assumes a word like "blaspheme" can be easily adjudicated by nit-picking legalese. The four primary Hebrew words translated "blaspheme" (in the KJV) ברך ,נקב ,גדף ,נאץ, all have fluid meaning (as tends to be the case with all or most Hebrew words). The lexicons imply that these Hebrew words for "blaspheme" (or "blasphemous") cover a wide range of meaning: calling down a curse from God, mocking God or his laws, rejecting or being contemptuous toward God, etc., etc.. To claim that a man criticizing the experts in the Law, rejecting their interpretation of the Law, giving his version of the Law, and implying it's directly from the Father, even implying that he and the Father are one, is not, technically, legally, "blasphemous" is, well, at least in my personal opinion, blasphemous.



John

That's a nice opinion but Jewish law is clear on the subject. Those four words you listed don't all mean blaspheme and, in fact, the sin involved is not actually one that translates to blaspheme. So opining that something else should be blasphemy based on your understanding is not productive.

 

[rosends]

Please note:


Jewish law says LOADS about messianic prophecies. I can get you citations if you want (the easiest is this one). And the kingship is not traced back to any Abrahamic succession, but Davidic. Prophet-hood has no specific succession rules.

The Patriarchs and the Origins of Judaism - Judaism 101 (JewFAQ)

The story of the origins of Judaism, from Abraham to the Children of Israel, discussing the lives of the Patriarchs.

www.jewfaq.org

"Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, known as the Patriarchs, are both the physical and spiritual ancestors of Judaism. They founded the religion now known as Judaism, and their descendants are the Jewish people. Of course, technically, it is incorrect to refer to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob as Jews, because the terms "Jew" and "Judaism" were not used generally to refer to this nation until hundreds of years after their time; nevertheless, for convenience and in accordance with common practice, I will use these terms.

The history below is derived from written Torah, Talmud, Midrash and other sources. Modern scholars question the existence of the Patriarchs and the historical accuracy of this information; however, it is worth noting that scholars also questioned the existence of Babylonia and Troy... until archaeologists found them."

Pease cite the LAWS dealing with prophecies.

You can start with this

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/904991/jewish/Yesodei-haTorah-Chapter-Seven.htm

 

[InChrist]

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:

Due to the Gospels' portrayal of Pilate as reluctant to execute Jesus, the Ethiopian Church believes that Pilate became a Christian and venerates him as both a martyr and a saint, a belief which is historically shared by the Coptic Church, with a feast day on 19 or 25 June, respectively.

Wiki.

Clearly, large portions of organized Christianity has been guilty of blaming Jews for “murdering” Christ and fostering an anti-Semitic attitude. This is contrary to the scriptures which plainly reveal Jesus purposefully came to earth to die for the sins of the world… because all are guilty.
I agree with the following excerpt from your post, as do the scriptures.

“Jesus wouldn't have been killed were it not for both groups.”


…For truly against Your holy Servant Jesus, whom You anointed, both Herod and Pontius Pilate, with the Gentiles and the people of Israel, were gathered together to do whatever Your hand and Your purpose determined before to be done.
Acts 4:27-28

 

[shunyadragon]

You can start with this

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/904991/jewish/Yesodei-haTorah-Chapter-Seven.htm

The Torah says a lot about prophecy. This is descriptive of what is prophecy and not a Jewish Law.


You did not respond to my reference, still waiting . . .

The Patriarchs and the Origins of Judaism - Judaism 101 (JewFAQ)​

The story of the origins of Judaism, from Abraham to the Children of Israel, discussing the lives of the Patriarchs.
www.jewfaq.org

"Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, known as the Patriarchs, are both the physical and spiritual ancestors of Judaism. They founded the religion now known as Judaism, and their descendants are the Jewish people. Of course, technically, it is incorrect to refer to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob as Jews, because the terms "Jew" and "Judaism" were not used generally to refer to this nation until hundreds of years after their time; nevertheless, for convenience and in accordance with common practice, I will use these terms.

 

[shunyadragon]

I agree with you on the imperfection of the Bible books. If the gospel accounts are wildly inaccurate then that opens up other pertinent questions. If the accounts were compiled long after the fact by Jewish men then why did they insist on pinning the crucifixion's on the Sanhedrin as opposed to blaming Rome which would absolve their fellow Jews??? And if these men were capable of such bias distortion of the facts then why do we treat members of the Sanhedrin like they are a panel of saints??? Maybe the resentment towards Jesus was such that they wanted him dead and therefore put him through a trumped up, speedy prosecution based on unreliable witnesses!

I do not consider the Gospels as 'wildly inaccurate,' just not historically accurate. They are a historical narrative set in history from the perspective of those that compiled, edited and redacted the gospels. They wrote them from the perspective of their belief.

Though for those who believe Genesis and Exodus as literal scripture there beliefs are 'wildly inaccurate.' Genesis and Exodus are historical narative much older than the Gospels, even though endorsed by the gospels as literal, reflect a far more mythical narrative of the early history of the Hebrews and Creation.

 

[rosends]

This is descriptive of what is prophecy and not a Jewish Law.

It is from Maimonides' codification of Jewish law. Saying it isn't Jewish law is strange. I'm not sure what you think Jewish law is, but saying the Rambam's Mishneh Torah isn't law will surprise people who follow his legal pronouncements in the text. Are you just looking for biblical-text laws of prophecy? There are some in Deuteronomy 18 I believe.

If you need more, you can check here 314. נבואה (א) | שתי הלכות ביום
"halachot" are laws. That page and the ones that follow it include some of the laws of prophecy.

You did not respond to my reference, still waiting . . .

What was there to respond to? You copied a section about the origins of the patriarchs. It had nothing to do with what I said, except for my reaction to your statement about "the Abrahamic succession of the kings" when the lineage of kings is a Davidic thing, not an Abrahamic thing. If you trace it to Abraham, why not trace it to Noah and Adam?

 

[John D. Brey]

That's a nice opinion but Jewish law is clear on the subject. Those four words you listed don't all mean blaspheme and, in fact, the sin involved is not actually one that translates to blaspheme. So opining that something else should be blasphemy based on your understanding is not productive.

Could you point me to the Jewish law on blaspheme? Is it extra-biblical? Not that that matters too much since it's still based on the Bible. I'm just curious about its context so that it can be better situated in the case of what's found in the Gospels.



John

 

[rosends]

Could you point me to the Jewish law on blaspheme? Is it extra-biblical? Not that that matters too much since it's still based on the Bible. I'm just curious about its context so that it can be better situated in the case of what's found in the Gospels.



John

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

 

[fantome profane]

If the gospel accounts are wildly inaccurate then that opens up other pertinent questions. If the accounts were compiled long after the fact by Jewish men then why did they insist on pinning the crucifixion's on the Sanhedrin as opposed to blaming Rome which would absolve their fellow Jews???

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.

 

[Eli G]

What evidence?


There was no murder involved here. Anyone claiming to be the King of the Jews, return of the Kingdom of Juda is subject to Roman Law and a threat to Roman authority under Pontius Pilate. Jesus was convicted and executed under Roman Law. There were others at the time of Jesus that also rebelled against Rome claiming to be the Messiah .

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?