Jayrok

Of course. Jesus' trial was a secret, illegal, quick trial held at night without the Prefect's knowledge. The execution could have been the same.

Lots of speculation there. What the Jews found Jesus guilty of was not against Roman law. He claimed to be son of God, grounds for death under Jewish law at the time. Pilate wanted them to handle it themselves in the first place. If nothing else, they could have held him under guard until after the passover then deal with him. They hired a guy to point him out, they could have had some guys take him to Bethany and dispose of him. Any number of things could have happened. His own disciples deserted him, why would we think that some "mob" would have come to his rescue? So why would the Jewish leaders be so afraid of a mob?

Rome cared about order in the city. Fine, take him away from the city and deal with him. The gospels have the fans of Jesus turn on him when he was arrested. How could killing him change their minds? Apparently the women were the only ones who mourned him. Were they going to lead the rebellion?

show_no_mercy

"Son of god" was not blasphemy. It's a term for holiness and not taken literally. See also Psalm 82:6.

Jayrok

Perhaps in John, but not in other gospels. He said he was son of God and they would soon see "him" at the right hand of God. Nothing to do with any earthly king. He was equating himself with the son of man on the clouds in Daniel.

The Jews didn't have a problem killing prophets, according to Jesus himself. The crowd was expecting the messiah, not God in the flesh. After his arrest they quickly turned on him and wanted his execution. The Jewish authorities could have stoned him either that night or after passover weekend.

Not true. As we've stated, Jesus never claimed to be the king of the Jews to the High Priest. He claimed to be son of God. It should have never made it to Pilate. Once he was before Pilate he was asked if he was the king of the Jews.

I'm not moving the conversation. I'm saying that you are using John's account and Jesus before Pilate as opposed to the Jews. I'm saying it never had to make it to Pilate. If you are suggesting we should use John's account over the synoptics, then that is a different story. I mean if we are talking about this whole scene as an historical event in Jerusalem, then which gospel do we have to use to get the true picture? If we are supposed to use them all then we have a conflict of what really happened.

Jayrok

It depends on the context, doesn't it? Psalm 82:6 says you are sons of god. But in the context of the trial Jesus claimed he was the son of God and that they would see him at the right hand of God and coming in power in the clouds of Heaven.

I don't think Psalm 82:6 is meant that "All of you are sons of god and will sit at the mighty one's right hand and come in power on the clouds of heaven."

show_no_mercy

That's not what you wrote originally, now was it?

Jayrok

Thought it was implied. The idea of sons of god as we are all children of god never entered the conversation as being blasphemy or not.

show_no_mercy

I hardly think it was implied. Unless the high priest and the gathering of Judges knew about Jesus' psychosis and/or his identification with "the son of man" (which was a messainic concept in the 1st century), there isn't really any implication.

He just claims to be the son of god (a term of holiness) and then says that a "son of man" will be seen at the right hand of god descending from heaven on the clouds (also not blasphemy).

The only implication would be to assume that the high priest/judges knew that Jesus was talking about himself in third person at this point.

Jayrok

Fair enough. I view it as the High Priest interpreting the exchange as Jesus claiming to be the son of man coming in the clouds. Without this implication it doesn't make much sense for the HP to be so upset. As you said, if the HP thought Jesus was just talking about "a son of man", it wouldn't be considered blasphemy. After all, Daniel described such a son of man.

For him to be so upset and claim blasphemy he must (it seems) have interpreted it as Jesus speaking about himself and claiming to be that "son". If you don't see it that way, that is fine. I thought it was implied by the reaction the comment received.

show_no_mercy

It was probably a continuity slip-up of the author - it is a fictional story anyway.

storytime

So why would the Jewish leaders be so afraid of a mob? If the mob petitioned Caesar for a new ruler that would replace Herod, and install Jesus. Jewish leaders feared Caesar would listen to the people and come and take away their place and name. A concern for most politicians even now. So something had to be done about this popular upstart in order to protect their own name in position of political power. Killing off the competitors while maintaining the air of innocence seemed to be both a Roman and Jewish tradition back then. The story then exposes the dirty politicians as having no shame.