Now, FRiend Kevmo, you're changing your original question again, which had the Sanhedrin putting Jesus to death for blasphemy.
I think we have established that the Jewish Sanhedrin did not put Jesus to death, the Roman prefect/procurator executed Jesus for the Roman-law crime of rebellion -- for claiming to be "The King of the Jews".
Yes, the Sanhedrin did execute Jesus' disciple Stephen for blasphemy, using the accepted Jewish punishment of stoning.
But you all will be delighted to learn that I've made a very small investment in the Kindle version of Bill O'Reilly's book on this subject -- mainly so that I could compare O'Reilly's historicity to that of a more "neutral" historian like, say, John Dominic Crossan.
Preliminary report after 25% read: O'Reilly is taking biblical sources at much more "face value" and dramatizing them more -- as if they weren't already dramatic enough -- than more scholarly historians like Crossan would ever accept.
But it is a good read.
So far, O'Reilly hits all the high points, and it will be interesting to learn where he comes down on Kevmo's question of "blasphemy versus rebellion".
Now, FRiend Kevmo, you’re changing your original question again, which had the Sanhedrin putting Jesus to death for blasphemy.
***That is because you corrected my inaccuracy. What’s yer problem now?
I think we have established that the Jewish Sanhedrin did not put Jesus to death, the Roman prefect/procurator executed Jesus
***Yes.
for the Roman-law crime of rebellion —
***No.
for claiming to be “The King of the Jews”.
***No.
Yes, the Sanhedrin did execute Jesus’ disciple Stephen for blasphemy, using the accepted Jewish punishment of stoning.
***Yes. But it was an illegal action by the sanhedrin because the Romans explicitly took away their right to kill anyone.
John 18:31
Pilate said, “Take him yourselves and judge him by your own law.” “But we have no right to execute anyone,” they objected.
But you all will be delighted to learn that I’ve made a very small investment in the Kindle version of Bill O’Reilly’s book on this subject — mainly so that I could compare O’Reilly’s historicity to that of a more “neutral” historian like, say, John Dominic Crossan.
***And for an even smaller investment (free) you can read the authoritative FF Bruce’s “New Testament Documents — Are They Reliable?”
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2316798/posts
Preliminary report after 25% read: O’Reilly is taking biblical sources at much more “face value” and dramatizing them more — as if they weren’t already dramatic enough — than more scholarly historians like Crossan would ever accept.
***About what I would expect from BOR.
But it is a good read.
***Count me out. He’s a blowhard.
So far, O’Reilly hits all the high points, and it will be interesting to learn where he comes down on Kevmo’s question of “blasphemy versus rebellion”.
***I have very little confidence in the BOR. FF Bruce and other historians are far more authoritative when it comes to simple apologetics.
Yes, the Sanhedrin did execute Jesus’ disciple Stephen for blasphemy, using the accepted Jewish punishment of stoning.
***I just realized that this basically backs up the historical fact that Jesus claimed equality with God before the sanhedrin. Stephen was stoned for saying this:
Acts 7:56
“Look,” he said, “I see heaven open and the Son of Man standing at the right hand of God.”
His blasphemy was the same as Jesus — claiming divine privilege and equality with God Himself on behalf of Jesus of Nazareth. Even the words Stephen used were an echo of what Jesus said at His time.
It is one more piece of evidence that Jesus claimed equality with God and was condemned to death for it.