Freethought & Rationalism Archive

renassault · 12-12-2007, 11:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Blasphemy is a capital offense.

spin

From Sanhedrin 5: And there is another Boraitha: Forty years before the Temple was destroyed, the Sanhedrin was exiled from the chamber of the Temple to a store. And R. Itz'hak b. Abudimi explained that it means that from that time the Sanhedrin did not try cases of capital punishment.

spin · 12-12-2007, 11:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by renassault

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Blasphemy is a capital offense.

From Sanhedrin 5: And there is another Boraitha: Forty years before the Temple was destroyed, the Sanhedrin was exiled from the chamber of the Temple to a store. And R. Itz'hak b. Abudimi explained that it means that from that time the Sanhedrin did not try cases of capital punishment.

According to you does this indicate that Jesus must have been crucified in 29 CE, as many think, or that you have found another anachronism, ie that Jesus couldn't have been tried by the sanhedrin and "condemned him as deserving of death" as per Mk 14:64?

spin

QuestionMark · 12-13-2007, 05:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

QM - please realize that the question actually is - could the Sanhedrin have executed someone like Jesus as described in the gospels? You do not need to assume that Jesus, however defined, actually existed to answer the question.

OK?

"Biblical Criticism & History" is the forum.

History requires observable facts.

The question as written is, "Could the Sanhedrin have executed Jesus?".

You seem at ease going from facts to "actaully is..." thinking.

A little non-objective?

QM?

spin · 12-13-2007, 07:13 AM

QM?, one can deal with the OP whether one believes in a Jesus or not. I personally don't believe there's enough evidence to support the existence of a Jesus, but I can argue based on the possibility that he did exist to see where the available facts lead on the issue. And I don't think that the gospel story gels with the rabbinical texts.

spin

QuestionMark · 12-13-2007, 08:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

QM?, one can deal with the OP whether one believes in a Jesus or not. I personally don't believe there's enough evidence to support the existence of a Jesus, but I can argue based on the possibility that he did exist to see where the available facts lead on the issue. And I don't think that the gospel story gels with the rabbinical texts.

spin

"Could the Sanhedrin have executed a Unicorn?" is just as logical a question.

KJV mentions 'Unicorn' 5 or 6 times.

We all know (or should know) that 'unicorns' also never existed (Jesus) and that the KJV is in error.

QM?

spin · 12-13-2007, 02:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by QuestionMark

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

QM?, one can deal with the OP whether one believes in a Jesus or not. I personally don't believe there's enough evidence to support the existence of a Jesus, but I can argue based on the possibility that he did exist to see where the available facts lead on the issue. And I don't think that the gospel story gels with the rabbinical texts.

"Could the Sanhedrin have executed a Unicorn?" is just as logical a question.

Yes and no. No, because your question contains an assumption that you can't demonstrate:

Quote:

Originally Posted by QuestionMark

We all know (or should know) that 'unicorns' also never existed (Jesus) and that the KJV is in error.

You don't know anything about your "also". And with your reference to unicorns, you are confusing categories of knowledge, for you rule out the unicorn because of scientific knowledge. How do you rule out the existence of Jesus a priori??

spin

aa5874 · 12-13-2007, 04:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Quote:

Originally Posted by QuestionMark

"Could the Sanhedrin have executed a Unicorn?" is just as logical a question.

Yes and no. No, because your question contains an assumption that you can't demonstrate:

Quote:

Originally Posted by QuestionMark

We all know (or should know) that 'unicorns' also never existed (Jesus) and that the KJV is in error.

You don't know anything about your "also". And with your reference to unicorns, you are confusing categories of knowledge, for you rule out the unicorn because of scientific knowledge. How do you rule out the existence of Jesus a priori??

spin

But what really is the difference between a claim that a unicorn existed 2000 years ago and that Jesus existed at the same time? It would appear that there is no scientific knowledge of unicorns since they are deemed to be of no known existence, in contrast to becoming extinct, in which case there may be some scientific knowledge of them.

The main factors in assigning a unicorn as a myth, is because there has never been a physical sighting or a credible report of its presence. I think those conditions have been met for Jesus.

QuestionMark · 12-13-2007, 05:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Yes and no. No, because your question contains an assumption that you can't demonstrate:

You don't know anything about your "also". And with your reference to unicorns, you are confusing categories of knowledge, for you rule out the unicorn because of scientific knowledge. How do you rule out the existence of Jesus a priori??

spin

But what really is the difference between a claim that a unicorn existed 2000 years ago and that Jesus existed at the same time? It would appear that there is no scientific knowledge of unicorns since they are deemed to be of no known existence, in contrast to becoming extinct, in which case there may be some scientific knowledge of them.

The main factors in assigning a unicorn as a myth, is because there has never been a physical sighting or a credible report of its presence. I think those conditions have been met for Jesus.

"The main factors in assigning a unicorn as a myth, is because there has never been a physical sighting or a credible report of its presence. I think those conditions have been met for Jesus."

A single historical contemporary 'scientific' notation please.

QM?

Toto · 12-13-2007, 05:28 PM

This is turning into a pointless derailment. Please pay attention.

The question is whether the Sanhedrin could have executed a wandering Galilean preacher - that is, historically, whether they had the power to execute someone - anyone.

The OP assumes that Jesus existed for the purposes of this thread.

It's not about Jesus, it's about the Sanhedrin.

QuestionMark · 12-13-2007, 06:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

This is turning into a pointless derailment. Please pay attention.

The question is whether the Sanhedrin could have executed a wandering Galilean preacher - that is, historically, whether they had the power to execute someone - anyone.

The OP assumes that Jesus existed for the purposes of this thread.

It's not about Jesus, it's about the Sanhedrin.

OK Sanhedrin.

What historical facts of the Sanhedrin (read Supreme Court) exist regarding the sentencing anyone to death by execution?

QM?

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

12-13-2007, 07:13 AM	#54
spin Contributor Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: nowhere Posts: 15,747	QM?, one can deal with the OP whether one believes in a Jesus or not. I personally don't believe there's enough evidence to support the existence of a Jesus, but I can argue based on the possibility that he did exist to see where the available facts lead on the issue. And I don't think that the gospel story gels with the rabbinical texts. spin

12-13-2007, 05:28 PM	#59
Toto Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Los Angeles area Posts: 40,549	This is turning into a pointless derailment. Please pay attention. The question is whether the Sanhedrin could have executed a wandering Galilean preacher - that is, historically, whether they had the power to execute someone - anyone. The OP assumes that Jesus existed for the purposes of this thread. It's not about Jesus, it's about the Sanhedrin.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.