Posted on 09/20/2013 4:29:03 AM PDT by spirited irish
I see you read the post, because you responded to it. So then, why did you not respond to this:
Romans cared a lot about revolution, and therefore condemned Jesus not for any blasphemous claims, but rather for, in their eyes, pretending to be a “King of the Jews”.
***Interesting theory. From what historical source do you draw this? At this point it is a fact in dispute.
“Its hard to imagine now, but at one time being of the wrong sect could get you beaten or killed and your property seized.”
A similar conflict is what lead to Jefferson’s correspondence with the Danbury Baptists.
Then why are you off topic?
Amen.
The "historical fact" not in dispute is that the Sanhedrin condemned Jesus for blasphemy.
But they did not execute him by stoning as was their usual practice, i.e., with Stephen.
For Romans "blasphemy" was not a capital offense -- certainly not something deserving crucifixion.
But rebellion was, and since Jesus was also said to be "King of the Jews" that and that alone is the legal reason Pilate ordered his crucifixion.
Kevmo: "but I acknowledge your general point.
He only handed Jesus over to be crucified when the crowd threatened to riot.
The historical truth about Pilate is that he was a callous murderer -- life was cheap and Pilate would just as soon execute somebody as look at them.
So, if he could please a crowd by doing what he did naturally, then so much the better.
But even callous Pilate could-not, would-not crucify anybody for the crime of "blasphemy", only for the Roman-law crime of rebellion.
Pilate's callousness was the reason he was eventually fired from his job in Israel.
Kevmo: "They crucified Jesus because Pontius Pilate was too much of a wuss to stand up to a crowd of jews."
Historically, Pilate was no "wuss" and the story is highly dramatized (even without O'Reilly's retelling).
But if you will read it again, carefully, carefully, you will see that Pilate intended to release Jesus until he is told that Jesus claimed to be "King of the Jews".
At that point it is a matter of less-than-indifference to Pilate whether Jesus lives or dies, Jesus refuses to outright deny the accusation and the crowd demands his death.
For a callous Roman like Pontius Pilate, that is a "no brainer" decision.
Kevmo: "the real issue here is that the sanhedrin was pissed off at Jesus for claiming equality with God, a fact you say is not in dispute.
That’s the important fact.
Why the romans went along with killing an innocent soul isn’t as important."
Again, the "fact not in dispute" is that the Sanhedrin condemned Jesus.
What exactly Jesus claimed is not even agreed to by the four Gospel writers, let alone historically all Christians.
But Jesus did not die at the hands of the Sanhedrin (as did Stephen), but rather at Roman hands, and Romans cared nothing about "blasphemy".
Romans cared about rebellion.
That's why Jesus died.
Kevmo: "In effect, this was an unlawful trial — it happened on the sabbath eve, at night rather than in the day, and there were other illegalities."
In fact, there were no "legalities" that mattered -- Roman Pilate was the law, and could do what he pleased.
What mattered were results, and in this particular case the NT tells us the death of Jesus produced peace amongst the leaders in Jerusalem.
So Pilate did not lose his job for this incident, far from it.
He did however, some years later...
Kevmo: "It is appropriate to condem Jesus if he is not equal with God."
If Jesus had merely "blasphemed", then the Jewish authorities could have stoned him, just as they did Stephen.
But by turning Jesus over to the Romans they guaranteed he could only be crucified for the Roman-law crime of rebellion.
Kevmo: "Good point, other than the fact that Jesus wasn’t crucified by the Romans for rebellion."
Of course he was, a fact clearly shown by the plaque "King of the Jews".
That plaque could not possibly have said "blasphemer" or "son of God" because such were not capital crimes to Romans.
So why you continue to deny the obvious truth of this matter is beyond me.
Kevmo: "I’m glad to see that it is undisputed in history that Jesus was condemned by the sanhedrin due to claiming equality with God.
That’s the important part."
Sorry to disappoint you on that.
There is no report of Jesus telling the Sanhedrin, "I am equal to God."
What exactly Jesus did say to them is not agreed to by all four Gospel writers.
What's not in dispute historically is that the Sanhedrin considered Jesus' words (whatever they were) to be blasphemous.
Anyway, if you can quote words of mine where I mis-spoke, I'll be happy to correct them.
Kevmo: “He claimed equality with God, which earlier you said was a fact not in dispute.”
The “historical fact” not in dispute is that the Sanhedrin condemned Jesus for blasphemy.
But they did not execute him by stoning as was their usual practice, i.e., with Stephen.
***That is because it was against the law to do so.
For Romans “blasphemy” was not a capital offense —
certainly not something deserving crucifixion.
***We all agree on that. You’ve been arguing against it for several rounds now. But I never promoted such a thing. It’s something you read into it, basically a typo if anything.
But rebellion was, and since Jesus was also said to be “King of the Jews” that and that alone is the legal reason Pilate ordered his crucifixion.
***We can all agree to the historicity of this fact just as soon as you produce historical evidence for it. What are your sources?
But even callous Pilate could-not, would-not crucify anybody for the crime of “blasphemy”, only for the Roman-law crime of rebellion.
***Again, you keep arguing this but I never promoted it, so let’s drop it.
Pilate’s callousness was the reason he was eventually fired from his job in Israel.
***That story rings a bell, sounds historically plausible to me.
“What are your sources?”
Would you accept common sense?
I consider any disagreements among the Gospel writers to be highly significant historically.
So, if you read all four accounts carefully, you'll notice that none are precisely the same as any other.
That tells me none of those writers knew precisely what happened, or who said what, but were reporting what they supposed most likely happened.
Yes, of course, they generally agree, but if you attempt to impose precise theological doctrines on the gospel texts, you will often find the texts don't always agree with your doctrines.
Kevmo: “They crucified Jesus because Pontius Pilate was too much of a wuss to stand up to a crowd of jews.”
Historically, Pilate was no “wuss”
***It said so in the historical record. Didn’t use that word, but it says so. such as below in John 19.
John 19
7 The Jewish leaders insisted, “We have a law, and according to that law he must die, because he claimed to be the Son of God.”
8 When Pilate heard this, he was even more afraid,
and the story is highly dramatized (even without O’Reilly’s retelling).
***I do not care what O’Reilly has to say. He’s a blowhard, not a historian.
But if you will read it again, carefully, carefully, you will see that Pilate intended to release Jesus until he is told that Jesus claimed to be “King of the Jews”.
***Luke records the exact opposite of what you just proposed, showing that Pilate tried to release him after hearing in verse 3 that Jesus did claim to be king of the jews.
13 Pilate called together the chief priests, the rulers and the people, 14 and said to them, “You brought me this man as one who was inciting the people to rebellion. I have examined him in your presence and have found no basis for your charges against him. 15 Neither has Herod, for he sent him back to us; as you can see, he has done nothing to deserve death. 16 Therefore, I will punish him and then release him.”
At that point it is a matter of less-than-indifference to Pilate whether Jesus lives or dies, Jesus refuses to outright deny the accusation and the crowd demands his death.
***It’s an interesting theory but the best evidence available to us does not support it.
For a callous Roman like Pontius Pilate, that is a “no brainer” decision.
***Yup, but he did not have Jesus killed for inciting rebellion, which is your theory.
Kevmo: “the real issue here is that the sanhedrin was pissed off at Jesus for claiming equality with God, a fact you say is not in dispute.
That’s the important fact.
Again, the “fact not in dispute” is that the Sanhedrin condemned Jesus.
What exactly Jesus claimed is not even agreed to by the four Gospel writers, let alone historically all Christians.
***Feel free to develop this. The historical fact not in dispute is that Jesus was condemned due to Blasphemy. Just answering “I am” to the claim of being Messiah is not a blasphemy. Ethelbert Stauffer looked into past claimants of Messiahship and they weren’t put to death. The 4 gospel writers do not display an easy harmony but that is the trademark of eyewitness accounts — it is forgeries that are known for their slick harmonies.
But Jesus did not die at the hands of the Sanhedrin (as did Stephen), but rather at Roman hands, and Romans cared nothing about “blasphemy”.
***You keep saying this, over and over, as if it were something that I promoted outside of a simple typo.
Romans cared about rebellion.
That’s why Jesus died.
***Nope. Jesus died because he claimed equality with God in front of the highest court of his land. He was condemned do death for it. Then the sanhedrin leaders found a way to get him crucified by stirring up a riotous crowd.
Kevmo: “In effect, this was an unlawful trial — it happened on the sabbath eve, at night rather than in the day, and there were other illegalities.”
In fact, there were no “legalities” that mattered — Roman Pilate was the law, and could do what he pleased.
***Partly true, mostly not true, and it’s a side note at best.
What mattered were results, and in this particular case the NT tells us the death of Jesus produced peace amongst the leaders in Jerusalem.
***Interesting theory.
So Pilate did not lose his job for this incident, far from it. He did however, some years later...
***Mostly not much to comment on here.
Kevmo: “Good point, other than the fact that Jesus wasn’t crucified by the Romans for rebellion.”
Of course he was, a fact clearly shown by the plaque “King of the Jews”.
***No. If you accept the historicity of the gospel accounts of Jesus’s death, they say why the romans went along with the death of Jesus and rebellion is not the case.
That plaque could not possibly have said “blasphemer” or “son of God” because such were not capital crimes to Romans.
***It may as well have said “Dufus”. They wrote what they wrote because they enjoyed the cruelty. But to proceed from that ONE piece of information and draw conclusions based upon it that are in contrast to the other reports, is an unhistorical approach. It’s more along the lines of someone trying to push an idealogy.
So why you continue to deny the obvious truth of this matter is beyond me.
***Because it is not an obvious truth. It is a conjecture that you push in the face of evidence from the record that directly contradicts your conjecture.
Kevmo: “It is appropriate to condem Jesus if he is not equal with God.”
If Jesus had merely “blasphemed”, then the Jewish authorities could have stoned him, just as they did Stephen.
***Interesting conjecture. But it is unsupported in the record, particularly John 18. By the time Stephen was stoned, the sanhedrin didn’t seem to care what the consequences were for that action.
But by turning Jesus over to the Romans they guaranteed he could only be crucified for the Roman-law crime of rebellion.
***Another interesting conjecture, unsupported by the historical accounts.
Kevmo: “I’m glad to see that it is undisputed in history that Jesus was condemned by the sanhedrin due to claiming equality with God.
That’s the important part.”
Sorry to disappoint you on that.
***You sure seem to be backtracking on this.
There is no report of Jesus telling the Sanhedrin, “I am equal to God.”
***Sure there is. He said “Ani Hu”, which translates as “I am He”, is derivative of the name of Jehovah Himself (Jehovah means “I am who I am”). He said “You shall see the son of man coming on the clouds of heaven, seated at the right hand of power”. Only God comes on the clouds of heaven (quoting from Daniel) and to be seated at someone’s right hand is a claim of equality to that person (also a quote from Daniel as well). Naturally, all this stuff is foreign to modern english hearing but to 1st century jews, it was unmistakeable and was followed by the loud sound of tearing cloth.
What exactly Jesus did say to them is not agreed to by all four Gospel writers.
***Eyewitness accounts from history are often like that.
What’s not in dispute historically is that the Sanhedrin considered Jesus’ words (whatever they were) to be blasphemous.
***Don’t forget Stephen’s words also, which were almost a direct echo of what Jesus said.
It is common sense not to accept sources that do not exist.
I grant you that all four gospels try to let Pontius Pilate off the hook for ordering the crucifixion of Jesus.
But non-biblical sources paint a much different picture of Pilate, of a callous man whose brutality eventually got him fired from his job:
This is a far cry from the sensitive, caring & philosophical Pilate the Gospel writers give us, but it is contemporary with them.
FRiend, if you truly wish to be "historical", then you need to take into account all of the original documents from that time.
I consider any disagreements among the Gospel writers to be highly significant historically.
***All 4 Gospel writers agree that Jesus was condemned for Blasphemy. When historians look at the minute details, they find a relative agreement between Mark recording a simple “I am” to Luke recording “I am He. And you shall see the son of man coming on the clouds of heaven and seated on the right hand of Power.” Historians don’t have trouble with this, but people who are pushing an agenda do have such trouble.
The key issue here is that the crucifixion is recorded by all 4 gospel writers. All agree that Jesus was condemned for blasphemy. There was no miracle to deny here, so it’s simple and pure history being recorded. Their accounts are reliable when it comes to the crucifixion.
When people view a historical event and write it down, often their accounts might seem to disagree but careful examination of the writings will usually yield a historical harmony that makes sense. Historians do this all the time.
For instance, one of the early church fathers said that the gospel of Mark was written before Peter’s death, and another said it was written afterwards. The easy way to harmonize this is to see that it was started before Peter died and finished after his death.
In fact, if all 4 accounts were precisely in agreement, it would be a sign of forgery.
This is a far cry from the sensitive, caring & philosophical Pilate the Gospel writers give us, but it is contemporary with them.
***I do not see a sensitive, caring & philosophical Pilate in the gospels. I see a manipulative, pass-the-buck-to-Herod, indecisive and fearful weasel.
FRiend, if you truly wish to be “historical”, then you need to take into account all of the original documents from that time.
***I don’t see how my viewpoint and the non-biblical description of Pilate disagree. At any rate, it does not speak into your theory that the Romans put Jesus to death for rebellion. If that is your source, it is far outweighed by the other accounts on this aspect of history.
The reasons historians don't take that account at face value is because there are several other ancient reports on Pilate which paint a very different picture of the man.
In those accounts Pilate was not the caring, sensitive philosophical administrator the Gospels portray, but rather a callous, brutal ruler, who ordered "executions without trial constantly repeated ...ceaseless and supremely grievous cruelty".[35]"
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.