Phishfood

or, they could have really thought what was going on was true, when in fact it was not. do you think UFO abductees are really abducted and anal probed? they very earnestly believe they were. My personal opinion is that they were lead on, either intentionally or by their own ignorance.

-Pf

Diogenes the Cynic

There's not a shred of evidence that any apostle was ever martyred for Jesus.

Even if they were, it wouldn't prove anything.

How about a cite for claiming to be the Messiah being blasphemy?

spin

Keep moving the goal posts, buddy. Suicide bombers still die for their cause, just like the other martyrs throughout history. Martyrdom is a common enough occurrence. So, you have to try to make your literary martyrs different somehow, right?...

Note, "literary" martyrs. You accept material from a literary source which has not been verified in any way as historically valid. You must, as in a court of law, show the relevance of the information you introduce. You wouldn't like to see people convicted on the sort of flimsy evidence you are attempting to use. To talk about your martyrs as participants in history, you have to get beyond touting literary traditions. There are lots of figures in literature who can't be shown to have been participants in history.

If you hadn't noticed, everyone dies alone. It doesn't matter how many people see it: they still die alone.

And the suicide bomber could haved recanted and saved their own lives as well. The Jewish martyrs during the Hellenistic Crisis chose to die rather than forsake their religion. The Sikhs chose to die, just the same.

One thing is certain: you wouldn't know.

]
You haven't demonstrated any ability as yet to use logic.

This is loaded with too many assumptions. But let's start off with the notion of a risen saviour. All you have to do is demonstrate one and you move your question closer to being taken seriously.

Making more unsupported generalisations.

I've already said that you need to work with materials that we can agree on in order to establish a logical argument we can both accept. If you want to communicate, you need to think more about your audience's needs.


spin

leccy

Why was Jesus Crucified?

Because the guillotine hadn't been invented then. If it HAD then maybe Christians would all be walking around with little silver guillotines hung around their necks and blessing themselves by way of a chopping hand motion.

andrewcriddle

Mishnah Sanhedrin 7:5 (as you said) limits blasphemy very narrowly, it is not certain how far these rules dating from the late 2nd early 3rd century CE represent the Jewish law in operation at the time of Jesus, but I agree that it is unilkely that anything Jesus is reported in the Gospels to have said would have been regarded as blasphemy at the time.

However a baraitha in the Babylonian Talmud depicts Jesus as being condemned to death for sorcery and leading Israel astray into apostasy. As evidence of what actually happened this is probably almost worthless, but if Jesus was regarded as a false prophet using sorcery to mislead vulnerable people into revering him on the (false) belief that he had a unique relation to God, then this might well amount to leading Israel astray by sorcery.

So on the basis of the Gospels Jesus is unlikely to have been liable under Jewish Law for blasphemy, but he could in principle have been at risk of conviction on the capital charge of leading Israel astray.

Andrew Criddle

Qiwi

If he had been convicted under Jewish Law the punishment surely would have been death by stoning....
The very fact that he died on a Roman cross tends to indicate that he was convicted under Roman law for incitement.....
I believe the writers of the synoptic gospels had a clear agenda..... whitewash the Roman involvement.... and shift the blame onto the Jewish people and their religion.

rlogan

A couple of things Qiwi. You have an argument here that the writer wished to blame the Jews. This thesis does not depend on the events being real.

You are imbuing historicity where none is required in order to make the essential "blame the Jews" point.


If we add to this though all of the other evidence of Hebrew Bible quote mining (mistranslated or no) in the construction of the story, then we must have the Jews rejecting Jesus. He will have his hands and feet pierced. They will cast lots for his clothes. Pierced side. Vinegar. Cry out why hath thou forsaken me. No broken bones. Rise in three days. Etc.

The argument from best explanation fits very well here in explaining the absurd conflation of Roman/Sanhedrin "trials".

The pseudo-prophesy of Psalm 22 is unquestionably the source material, along with Isaiah 53 and sundry other HB passages.

The pierced hands and feet, the mocking, the casting lots for the clothes - every bit of it was incorporated into the gospel myth.

There was no HB pseudo-prophesy "They squished me and my guts sprang forth like a tube of liverwurst" or "they bonked my cranium with rock and my brains trickled through my ears".

So therefore there is no stoning. Thus no Sanhedrin conviction. You need a crucifixion to get the pierced hands and feet. So you need a Roman execution. But if you have a Roman trial in the story then you do not satisfy the requirement of pseudo-prophesy that he is rejected by his own people.

Ergo the Roman butcher Pilate is absurdly characterized as offering either Jesus or someone else for the crowd to reject. It resolves the contradiction of Roman punishment yet Jewish "rejection".

Moreover, since sacrifice and atonement are so vital to the whole religious theory, you have pilate declaring him innocent. (Lamb of God drivel)



Everything is explained. There is nothing more to be shown.

submit.

Chili

But you are right and there is no argument here.

According to me the reason why Jesus had to be crucified was that he bore the sins of Joseph as the very cross on which he was to be crucified.

The conviction of sin was the exact reason why the Laws were given to Moses to be the heart and life-blood of the mythology that was meant to convict Jewish 'heroes' of sin (in the NT found in Gal.2:17) so they might be crucified in effort to set free the son of man who was an insurrectionist only because Jesus himself was an impostor (Mt.27:64).

Roman Law represents reason that sought liberation from religious oppression
and therefore the Jewish conviction and Roman trial in the open court on neutral ground.

The melodrama described there is a God-given right to be ours as a normal sequence of events in the journey of life that will give us wisdom health and happiness in our old age instead of dreams and nightmares about dying and suffering.

There is no need to apologize on behalf of the Jews because that was the best thing they ever did, did it often, were good at it, and knew exactly what they were doing.

Let me confirm this with Math.27:64 where the Chief priest and pharisees were concerned and knew that Jesus had to die otherwise he would become the final impostor and much worse than the first impostor that Jesus was.

I just found another passage that will help me here

"Rejoice, you barren one who bears no children;
break into song, you stranger to the pains of childbirth!
For many are the children of the wife deserted--
far more than of her who has a husband."

The wife deserted here is she who remains near the 'house of bread' to guard the way to Eden.