Chili

Execution? That's new one, and does that allow for ressurection?

Doug Shaver

I said nothing about whether the writings evinced a belief in the crucifixion. I said they give no hint that of a belief that Roman authorities had anything to do with the crucifixion.

sotto voce

So what belief do they evince?

Tom Sawyer

Wait. Are you saying that Jewish priests don't have doctrines? That halakhah is just a random collection of meaningless syllables which have no meaning?

I know that the word sounds that way, but it actually has a definition and that definition is important to some groups and has been important to those groups for a long time (since at least the 2nd Century BC long time, to be specific) and the main one of those groups to whom it's important is Jewish priests.

To say that it's a fallacy that Jewish priests have doctrines is just plain inane.

sotto voce

So it is not the case that the Bible mentions two methods of execution, as has been claimed. It refers to the same event, real or imagined, in which the Sanhedrin forced the crucifixion of the one they knew had been described as the sacrificial Lamb of God, who takes away the sins of the world. In so doing, no doubt in feverish haste, they brought into effect a law that had been in force continuously since Moses. A quite arbitrary law, as it happens, probably the sole arbitrary law in the whole great code that Moses had laid down.

That law was that anyone who hanged on a tree was cursed by God. Offending Israelites had indeed been hanged as a means of abating divine anger. Now, there was Jesus, before their eyes, crying out, for all to hear, that he had been forsaken, hanging on a cross made of wood. The concept of Lamb of God dying, at Passover time, must have dawned on their minds with something approaching terror and perhaps remorse.

Well, maybe someone made this all up. But, if so, it was a clever dramatist, who surely puts Shakespeare in the shade.

Tom Sawyer

So, now you're saying that Jewish priests do have a doctrine? Which is it?

Tom Sawyer

Interesting. So the "hung from a tree" bit may have just been a way for the apostles to rile up the Jewish population by saying that killing Jesus through crucifixion was an insult to their religion because it was the same as hanging him from a tree and having God curse him, sort of like how a bunch of politically-motivated troublemakers in our day got a bunch of Muslims worked up over some cartoons by saying it was a direct insult to them to publish them. Then the Romans just scratched their heads and wondered what the hell all these people were talking about and eventually decided just to stab the lot of them and not try and figure it out.

mrsonic

your god wasn't a female lamb
maybe jesus was 100 percent male and 100 percent female?
.

The fourth case of ḥata’t sacrifice detailed in chapter 4 (verses 27-35) relates to an individual who unintentionally does something that the Torah forbids; in this case, he is required to offer either a female goat (verses 27-31) or a female lamb (verses 32-35).

The important point to note in connection with this chapter is that these are all PRIVATE sacrifices, offered by an INDIVIDUAL in connection with something that he PERSONALLY has done. This is a very different situation from a COMMUNAL sacrifice that is offered on behalf of the entire nation! And yes, for a PRIVATE sin-offering made by an individual under Vayikra 4:32-35, a lamb could be used instead of the more preferable goat—but, whether the penitent chose to offer a goat or a lamb, in either case it had to be a FEMALE animal. So even in this case there is no “parallel” with Yoshke.

sotto voce

Was the 'bunch of politically-motivated troublemakers' Muslim?

Tom Sawyer

Yes. Who else would it be referring to? The context of the statement was not in any way complex.