mata leao

beleievers in your "pure fiction" run the world! atheists dont even have a seat at the table anymore with the collapse of communism! and the trial is recorded, the one attacking the authenticity of the recording has the burden of proof and you havent met your burden to show that there was no trial. and yes, Jesus did commit blasphemy according to the theology of the pharissees and sadducees and yes the sanhedrin was a body which tried cases of blasphemy(heresy, etc).

Diogenes the Cynic

The trial is not "recorded" in any official sense. It is simply alleged by a non-witness. The burden of proof is on you to prove that the alleged trial is historical. The mere existence of a story in a book is not sufficient evidence to presume historicity.
No, he did not commit blasphemy under Jewish law. It was not blasphemy to claim to be the Messiah. The only way to commit blasphemy under Jewish law is to utter the Tetragrammaton.

TedM

How about the grounds of something called "common sense"? If people thought Jesus had claimed himself to be God, I think many would have thought that the man deserved a repugnant death by crucifixion, wouldn't you?

TedM

Jesus, who in the story Pilate calls the King of the Jews (sarcastically, of course) may have been a political nuisance also to Pilate, which could have added to the pressure on him. If Pilate perceived that Jesus had followers then nipping a political uprising in the bud would have been prudent.

Diogenes the Cynic

Where in the Gospel of Mark did Jesus claim to be God? He made no such claim in the trial before the Sanhedrin nor at the Temple incident. Why would the people think he was claiming to be God?

mata leao

utterly wrong..Jesus said "Iand the father are ONE", Jesus said HIS KINGdom would be established on earth, Jesus said he had "all authority to castout demons", Jesus said that "in me alone is the forgiveness of sins"........ask any orthodox jew if ANY living person said those things, then or now, would they be committing blasphemy, and any orthodox jew will tell you, yes.

Amaleq13

What riotous crowd? Where is the evidence that Pilate feared an uprising if he allowed Jesus to live? He is described as folding under non-existent pressure despite considering Jesus innocent. It is absurd to suggest this is credible as history.

Even if such a threat can be established, we know from Josephus that Pilate responded to riotous Jews with violence. Why should we assume he would behave differently in this situation?

Ben C Smith

I am not sure what to make of it yet.

Not that I know of. According to Tertullian, Against Marcion, book 4, the gospel of Luke according to Marcion began with a snippet from Luke 3.1, followed by Jesus descending to Capernaum (at Luke 4.31), and so forth. This arrangement would skip not only the prologue but also the infancy narrative and most of chapters 3-4.

Then you may recall the interesting case of Victorinus of Pettau. Victorinus interprets the four canonical gospel prologues in On the Apocalypse 4, but for Luke gives the activities of Zechariah the priest in Luke 1.5 and following, skipping the prologue. S. C. Carlson has proposed that Luke skipped the prologue because it offered no reason for assigning the gospel the image of a calf, and I would like to believe that, but what gives me pause is that the prologue of Mark also offers no reason for assiging that gospel the image of an eagle, yet Victorinus quotes it anyway, then just skips down to the baptism when the time comes for a rationale. Why did he not do the same for Luke?

Here is the Latin and my translation:

Simile leoni animal evangelium cata Iohannem, quod, cum omnes evangelistae hominem factum Christum praedicaverunt, ille autem illum antequam descenderet et carnem sumeret deum praedicavit dicendo: Deus erat verbum, et quoniam tamquam leo fremens exclamavit, leonis vultum sustinet praedicatio eius. hominis Matheus enititur enuntiare nobis genus Mariae, unde carnem accepit Christus. ergo dum enumerat ab Abraham usque ad David et ab David usque ad Ioseph, tamquam de homine locutus est; ideo praedicatio eius effigiem hominis accepit. Lucas quoque {a} sacerdotio Zachariae offerentis hostiam pro populo et apparente sibi angelo dum enumerat, propter sacerdotium et hostiam ipsa conscriptio vituli tulit imaginem. Marcus, interpres Petri, ea quae in munere docebat commemoratus conscripsit, sed non ordine, et incipit prophetiae verbo per Esaiam praenuntiato.

The animal similar to a lion is the gospel according to John, because, since all the evangelists had preached that the Christ had become a man, he preaches that God had previously descended and assumed flesh, saying: The word was God, and it is because he exclaimed in the manner of a lion roaring that his preaching takes on the appearance of a lion. [In the figure] of a man Matthew strives to announce to us the genealogy of Mary, whence Christ received flesh. When, therefore, he enumerates from Abraham even to David and from David even to Joseph, he spoke as if of a man; thus his preaching recieves the effigy of a man. Luke, when he enumerates from the priesthood of Zacharias as he offers a sacrificial victim for the people, and from the angel who appears to him, on account of the priesthood and of the sacrificial victim this writing bore the image of a calf. Mark, the interpreter of Peter, having remembered the things that he taught in his duty wrote it down, but not in order, and began with the word of prophecy announced beforehand through Isaiah.

Not sure what you mean.

Always possible, though I think we moderns have to be careful about finding special meanings in ancient names since many ancient names bear such meanings.

Ben.

Diogenes the Cynic

You're quoting John, not Mark, and he isn't accused of saying that to the sanhedrin.
Not a claim to divinity. Any Messianic claimant would expect to establish a kingdom.
No he didn't. He said he cast out demons "by the spirit of God."
No, he said the "son of man" had the ability to forgive sins. The "son of man" means all human beings.
Nope. Afraid not. He isn't alleged to have said any of that to the Sanhedrin anyway. The people themselves had allegedly just welcomed Jesus into Jerusalem with palms. What changed between then and the arrest?

Amaleq13

Using the title sarcastically suggests that he was not considered a serious threat. Pilate is also depicted as considering Jesus innocent of any charges but deciding to execute him anyway as though the Jewish leadership controlled him.

Where is your evidence of this concern?

Nothing is said by Pilate about followers nor is any effort described where they are pursued nor is there any indication that "the pillars" were later prevented by the Romans from continuing a movement in Jesus' name.