Rick Sumner

The Gospels are also quite clear that he was crucified. Why do you accept the account of the reason for execution, but dismiss the method of execution employed? The former is far easier to account for than the latter.

According to the Mishna, blaspheme occurred if, and only if, the name of God was uttered. That wasn't the charge issued against Jesus. He thus wasn't guilty of blaspheme. (San.7.6)

It seems far more likely to me, therefore, that the entire charge is nothing but a pro-Roman apologetic. "Oh no, don't worry Gentile converts and seriously cranky Roman army, it wasn't *you* who killed Jesus, but those Jews who rejected us."

Regards,
Rick

Secular Pinoy

It is questionable whether he deserved to be crucified, and even if he did, what does it have to do with book burning? Jeez, anti-christian fundies are just as bad as normal fundies.

mark9950

So I burned the bible so what.My bible was over 20 years old anyway.

I was thinking of using it as toilet tissue.

mark9950

I believe that there was more to it except that the bible was probably changed and verses taken out especially the parts of jesus being gay.

There probably was more to it than blasphemy,The early church fathers took stuff out.

Amos

The crucifixion of Jesus probably was the best day of his life and would be the best day in our life if we could walk away from it and go right into heaven.

He was crucified because he was convicted by Jewish law and needed to stand guilty to have his sin nature nailed to the cross.

Koyaanisqatsi

Because the method does not fit the crime.

It is not a Roman crime to claim to be a Jewish God (or the Son of a Jewish God, or even the "King of the Jews.") Crucifixion was normally used for murderers and seditionists (aka; resistance fighters arrested, tried and convicted for performing anti-Roman acts of all kinds) and was certainly not used by the Romans when the ruling procurator bothers to have an official trial and thrice pronounce the man's innocence publicly and officially acquit the defendant of all charges.

That would never have happened. Nor, for that matter, would the subsequent ridiculousness of the brutal, ruling, occupying dictator of the region countermanding his own official pronouncement of "not-guilty" because the crowd he was there to assimilate into Roman citizenry (militarily if necessary and he thought it was on at least one infamous occasion) spooked him into doing it, during a ritual the Romans never had, no less.

So, somebody got a whole shite-load of very basic things wrong about an event that, allegedly was living, tangible proof of the One True God's existence and death on this Earth. You know? Nothing too important, right? Not something complex, like a dirty limerick that seems to be able to be passed down flawlessly from century to century or anything.

Just the only alleged account of the creator of the entire Universe bifurcating into flesh in order to save all mankind. Who could be expected to get the facts straight year after year on something that trivial and easy to forget?



No, it isn't. If the Sanhedrin and the Chief Priests and the makers of the laws had found that Jesus committed blasphemy, they would have stoned him to death (and, apparently tried twice). The proof is not only in the annals of antiquity, but also in the same book it's based upon; if they tried to stone him and he got away, then they certainly didn't have a legal problem with the stoning end of things; just the keeping him tied down somehow end of things.

If he wasn't found guilty of blasphemy by the Sanhedrin and Chief Priests and makers of the laws, then what would they have presented as the case against him to Pilate? "He's going around saying he's the King of the Jews, so we want you to waste your time and resources to try him, find him guilty and then use your most vicious form of capital punishment, because this lunatic thinks he's our King?"

Jews didn't have Kings. The title has no meaning to them, religiously and likewise, the title "King of the Jews" has no meaning to a Jewish person and it certainly would have no meaning to a Roman! Maybe if he went around saying he was Caesar, there might be a problem, but certainly not a problem for the Procurator!

"Guards? Excuse me. This tacky, peasant, carpenter's son Jew is saying he's Caesar! Could you do us a favor and slit his throat, dumping his body in this lovely mass grave you're standing over? Thanks."

The only plausible explanation (if not that he was stoned to death and hung from a tree and it got wildly perverted somehow) is that Jesus was crucified by the Romans for committing seditionist acts (or murder) against Rome (e.g., the turning over of the Temple; a spot the Romans no doubt had a stake in, considering it was the center of all commerce in the region, complete with "banks" and moneychangers and the whole ancient Wall Street way of making one's occuppied territories profitable for the big throne to the Northwest, if my compass is reading that right).

One thing's for sure; no Roman procurator is going to officially try a man for a Jewish "crime" (having only to do with their religious beliefs), find him officially innocent of all charges, let him go, only to then inexplicably countermand all of that, because a crowd he considers his slaves/spoils of occupation, scare him into it during a ritual he never performed (as far as I've been able to determine from extra-biblical sources).

Exactly. So what was he guilty of?

If you ask his judge (according to the NT accounts), he wasn't.

(BTW, this wasn't necessarily directed at you, Rick)

Rick Sumner

You're right. It doesn't. But the method makes sense, the crime doesn't, so I'd venture that it's the crime, and not the method, that is fabricated.


You're right, that wouldn't have happened either. Philo notes that just rulers might grant a prisoner a stay of execution during a festival. He clearly can't fathom releasing one.

Leaders were executed before they could cause problems. Just ask Theudas, the Egyptian, John the Baptist.

Claiming to be the king of the Jews would, under Roman law, be grounds for crucifixion. Not saying it's based in reality on this point, simply that it has verisimillitude.

I'm not persuaded that it's the only possibility. Perhaps it was something of advertisement--a giant "Don't Screw with Rome" sign on Golgotha, as Paula Fredriksen contended?

Well of course not. It's pro-Roman propoganda.

I think that was the desired effect. Can't be much of a quintessential suffering just one if you were executed justly.

Regards,
Rick

Asha'man

But the crucifixion narrative has several inconsistencies that need to be explained.

In a Roman crucifixion, the victim took days to die. If Jewish law is being followed, the victim is dead before he is strung up. Jesus died too soon. (And the spear through the side is a fabrication to cover that up.)

In a Roman crucifixion, the body is left on the cross to rot, as a warning to others. If Jewish law is being followed, the victim must be taken down from the tree before nightfall and buried. Jesus was buried just before sunset.

The Sanhedrin are made to protest that they don’t have the authority to inflict capital punishment, but this is an anachronism, since that power was taken from them around the year 40. They clearly attempted to stone Jesus several times, in earlier passages. This appears to be a defensive apologetic, inserted to cover the alteration of the story.

From a completely different angle, the Jewish Talmud describes a Jesus that was stoned and hung for blasphemy. It appears to be a reference to the same Jesus. While the Jews may have been writing an anti-Christian polemic, I see no reason for them to have altered the story in such a way to take the blame for killing Jesus, given the likely reaction of the Christians. I think the Jews are more likely to have simply preserved an earlier version of the story, since they had less theological reasons to alter it than the cult-masters.

There are two alterations to the story, in my view. The first alteration was an anti-Roman shift, taking the blame away from the Sanhedrin and giving it to the Romans. This was done at a time when Christianity was an underground revolutionary movement, and Rome made for a bigger threat. Ever notice how every cult finds a great persecutor to bind them together? Most Gentiles wouldn't feel threatened by the Sanhedrin, but they probably had some distrust of the Roman government, and surely feared crucifixion personally. And face it, crucifixion just sells better.

The second alteration was later, as the focus of the religion became more docile, and blaming Rome wasn’t a good way to co-exist. This second alteration probably changed the words of Pilate, which clearly make no sense whatsoever, but left the rest of the story intact.

Vinnie

I think that was Pilate but there is no way to determine that this account in particular is historically true so it is unwise to build questions off of it. The focus of the question should be elsewhere:

Jesus was crucified but his followers were not. Why? That is the question that needs answering and Paula Fredriksen devotes a good hunk of time to this subject in Jesus of Nazareth.

Vinnie

Rick Sumner

You base this on what, exactly? Too many outside factors--severity of the scourging, manner in which their arms were spread, physical well-being of the executed. It really can't be said with certainity.

The spear isn't a fabrication to cover up Jesus dying too soon, it's an apologetic to cover up the suggestions that he had survived the crucifixion. Run around saying a guy rose from the dead, you're going to get people saying he just survived the cross no matter how long it took him to die. That's just the obvious response.

It does not follow that because I think death by crucifixion likely, that I think the entire narrative is historical.

Why are you telling me this?

It's not a completely different angle. It presents naturalistic explanations for Matthean redaction. This can only mean that it knew Matthew.

That's a polemic, not an account.

Sells better to whom? Crucifixion was a degrading, humiliating death--something of a [i]faux pas[i] to even mention it. They could have gone with beheading.

Why the cross?

What exactly do you base this on? What methodology is employed here?

Regards,
Rick