Jayrok

Do what?

Of the synoptics, Luke is the only one that claimed Jesus was an insurrectionist and against Caesar. Matt and Mark charged him with blashemy by claiming to be son of God. John 18 calls Jesus a criminal worthy to be turned over to Pilate.

But then in John 19:7, the Jews told Pilate about their law and how Jesus must die because of his blashemy of claiming to be the son of God.


If it was indeed their law to kill a blasphemer, such as when they stoned Stephen, then why couldn't they just take Jesus out and stone him?

On the same token, why wouldn't Pilate respond to John 19:7 by asking the Jews how does their law describe how the prisoner must die? If they could not stone Jesus because they couldn't execute anyone then why didn't they turn Stephen over as well to be crucified?

As for support, Jesus had none when he was before Pilate. They were all shouting "Crucify him!"

Elijah

I agree that mobs can be fickle and can turn quick but that’s what made Jesus a threat to the religious authority. Yes the priests were able to stir up the crowd during the trial but that may have to do with the makeup of the crowd there at the time. Those who opposed Jesus were more plentiful then those who would speak up in defense of him possibly risking their lives.

The crowd wasn’t ready to stone her, she was brought there to test him in order to try and get him to slip up so they can turn the people against him and keep control of the situation.

They may all be fiction but the point would still remain that in the story it was the crowds’ support that was keeping him alive.

Mark 12:12 And they were seeking to arrest him but feared the people, for they perceived that he had told the parable against them. So they left him and went away.

Mark 14;1 it was now two days before the Passover and the Feast of Unleavened Bread. And the chief priests and the scribes were seeking how to arrest him by stealth and kill him, 2for they said, "Not during the feast, lest there be an uproar from the people."

I agree how Stephen comes out of nowhere and is hardly mentioned afterward is rather suspicious for someone who is the first martyr to imitate Jesus in the story and who snapped Paul. It may just be that they didn’t understand the big deal in the imitation of the martyrdom early on and Stephen was of little note within the group during Jesus’ life and died so early that he didn’t seem to have a noticeable impact in the story at the time.

Elijah

If Jesus was a insurrectionist is debatable but him blaspheming isn’t why the religious authority were trying to take him out of the scene. It was the people believing he might be somebody that put their position of authority in jeopardy not only from the people but from the roman authority.

John 11:45 Many of the Jews therefore, who had come with Mary and had seen what he did, believed in him, but some of them went to the Pharisees and told them what Jesus had done. So the chief priests and the Pharisees gathered the Council and said, "What are we to do? For this man performs many signs. If we let him go on like this, everyone will believe in him, and the Romans will come and take away both our place and our nation."

They needed the people’s consent to stone someone and when they didn’t get it by tricking him into saying something they could use against him they turned to Rome expecting and manipulating them to take care of it, part of that manipulation would be an excuse for why they couldn’t kill him themselves.

About Jesus not having support at the trial, I don’t know how many of Jesus supporter’s or the mob that would gather to him would be comfortable at the trial when for all they know Pilate could have said him and anyone who follows him is to be thrown up on a cross as well.

Toto

You appear to accept the basic historical nature of the story, which forces you to think up ad hoc rationalizations for its problems. It's much simpler to read the story as a story, and accept that it was not written as history.

Elijah

I think it should be understood the same regardless if it was a writer writing a serialized fictional account of how a faith based religion could start or how they thought one actually did start. If you want to know the point of the story or how the faith started it should take the same compression of the events being described and produce the same results regardless if you think it's historical or fictional the story and the ideas they are trying to convey remains the same.

Toto

Are you saying that the facts are irrelevant? that they should not get in the way of a good story?

If you think that the story is historical, you are forced to invent all sorts of rationalizations for the improbable or anachronistic parts. If you realize that it is theological fiction, you can avoid those mental gymnastics.

If you want to understand how Christianity actually did start and grow, you probably don't want to rely on fictional stories.

andrewcriddle

Acts 6:9 refers to Cilicia (the place) not the province of Cilicia (the administrative region).

Cilicia (the place) existed at the time of Stephen's death even though it was not at the time a Roman province (a large part of it was being administered by client kingdoms of the Roman Empire).

Andrew Criddle

Elijah

No what I was trying to say is regardless if you think the story is fiction or history you should still be reading the same story and getting basically the same results for what is going on.

I don’t think you get to avoid rationalizing the story or trying to understand what the writer is trying to say if you think it’s fiction.

Again maybe you should consider that the story can be understood the same regardless if the person believes it’s fiction or historical so that we can avoid the constant myth debate infiltrating every conversation and focus on what the writer is trying to say.

Toto

That assumes that there is some value in the story as a story. What would that be? That evil Jews killed a good Christian prophet after he reminded them of all the prophets that they had killed?

This thread, however, was started by someone who asked why the Jews didn't just stone Jesus for blasphemy, since they are depicted as stoning Stephen.

I don't see how you can avoid the issue of whether this is historical. (You don't have to get to the issue of whether Jesus is historical or a myth to question the basic historicity of the gospel story.)

Elijah

I’m confused by what you mean by value in the story. The moral or the writer's intent or something else?

I think it’s easy to avoid the issue if it’s not your hobby horse. The reason why the Jews didn’t stone Jesus but were able to stone Stephen in the story remains the same if it was fiction or historical so there is no need in rehashing an argument that previous conversations has clearly shown isn’t going to be resolved here so what’s the point of going over it again?