aa5874

Mt 16:21 - [Matthew 26.65-66 Based on the Jesus stories, Jesus predicted that his death would be at the hands of the elders and chief priests, and there is no indication that the charge of blasphemy was ever dropped.

Other charges or accusations were added based on the Gospels.

show_no_mercy

A Jewish atheist would have been killed by Jews. But then again, a Jewish atheist would simply be an apostate and no longer Jewish. A non-Jewish atheist living in the Roman empire would be executed by Romans.

IIRC, Christians were hassled and persecuted because of "atheism": they weren't Jews so they didn't worship the god of the Jews, and they didn't worship any of the gods in the Roman pantheon - thus they were "atheists".

Amaleq13

I cannot explain your confusion. I can only try to reduce it by pointing out that the story has Jesus being accused of blasphemy by the Jewish leaders who didn't, and IIUC, couldn't crucify anyone for anything. As I said, had they taken it upon themselves, the biblical punishment would have been stoning.

In the context of the story you claim to be relying upon, crucifixion is a Roman punishment resulting from Roman charges. The story indicates that the Roman charge would have been sedition (ie "King of the Jews") and the punishment fits that crime.

Tortie Cat

Just to add a little "colour" and "texture!

Jesus of Nazareth's crucifixion was ordered by Pilate, the Roman Governor of Judaea, because he believed Jesus of Nazareth to be guilty of sedition. Jesus of Nazareth had deliberately organised a Messianic entrance into Jerusalem and had attacked the Sadducean establishment of the Temple – which was pro-Roman. His activities appear to have coincided with what, in all probability, was a Zealot led [Jewish Nationalist] insurrection against the Romans. Indeed it is possible that he was involved with this insurrection and that Jesus bar Abbas was not an entirely separate character.

However, he had committed no crime against contemporary Jewish religious law. To claim Messianic status was by definition a political matter. The Jewish leaders were merely handing him over for the legal determination of the matter by the process of Cognitio extra ordinem, in accordance with Roman Provincial procedure. Thus the decision on what to do with Jesus rested entirely with the Praefectus.

So in other words, the ordering of the death sentence upon Jesus was the logical outcome of the actions of a Roman Governor responsible for the maintenance of Roman rule in his Province.

TC

Zaphod

Didn't he basically go around telling people not to follow parts of it anymore? At least that is what contemporary Christians argue when they disassociate themselves from Leviticus, etc and talk about the New Covenant. Wasn't he rather schizophrenic about Jewish religious law, at first calling for strict adherence, and then somehow defenestrating it as his story got goofier?

aa5874

There are no Roman charges, the charges or accusations are from the Jews. The stories are actually in the NT.

Pilate did not have an arrest warrant for Jesus or had him on a wanted list. It was the Jews that brought Jesus to Pilate, not the other way.

After Jesus was brought before Pilate, the chief priest accused Jesus of MANY things.

Pilate, based on the story, wanted to release Jesus.

This is Pilate in Mark 15.9-10 Jesus was crucified ultimately because of the Jews, based on the Gospels, Pilate did not convict Jesus of any crime but it was the Jews who thought he should be crucified.

Jesus was not crucified for Roman charges of sedition at all based on the Gospel stories.

Tortie Cat

No.

Jesus was a Pharisee. The Pharisees regarded themselves as the upholders of authentic Judaism. In the Bible the chief teaching role in religion was given not to the Priests but to the Prophets who might be anyone chosen by God. Pharisees did not see themselves as prophets and believed that prophecy had ceased with the last biblical prophet and would only be renewed in the Messianic age. As Jesus of Nazareth claimed to be the Messiah it seems likely that he saw himself as this divinely chosen prophet.

According to the Gospels the main reason that Jesus was condemned was his “blasphemy” in claiming to be the Messiah, yet this term was not regarded as blasphemous by Jews at this period. The title was politico-religious not divine. Even the term “son of God” was not "blasphemous". Every pious and observant Jew was a "son of God" and the term was applied at various times to individuals including King David; after all the deity was perceived as a Father-figure. Hence there was no blasphemy in Jesus’ use of this term. It is quite clear that the Gospel writers knew little about the Sanhedrin or Jewish laws relating to blasphemy. If he’d claimed to be God Almighty this would have been a punishable offence because it was seen as idolatry, but it would not have been “blasphemy”. In such circumstances it is more likely that he would have been considered mad and sent home to be cared for by his family. Indeed, in Mark 3:21 we get a hint of this, “When his family heard it, they went out to restrain him, for people were saying, ‘He has gone out of his mind”. (NRSV translation)

It also needs to be remembered that the Jewish High Priest was appointed (and could be dismissed) by the Roman Governor and was held directly responsible for native affairs. Even the sacred religious vestments were kept under direct Roman military custody in the Antonia fortress that adjoined the Temple and were only handed over when required for use at the time of major religious festivals. The Temple had its own police force (used to maintain order within the holy precincts) and the Jewish Religious Authorities were granted the power to exert legal control and punish malefactors.

Questions remain over the imposition of capital sentences by the Sanhedrin. Extant literary and epigraphic evidence would appear to support the fact that such powers did exist (but only regarding infringements of Jewish Religious Law). However, such verdicts would, almost certainly, have had to be ratified by the Roman Governor. Political offences, on the other hand, (i.e. claiming to be the Messiah) were retained strictly under Roman legal jurisdiction.

TC

aa5874

Oddly, in Acts of the Apostles, a character called Stephen was stoned to death for saying words very similar to Jesus after being bought before the chief priests.

These are the words of the character called Stephen before he was stoned.

Acts 7:56 - These are the words of the character called Jesus before he was crucified.

Mr 14:62 - Now, according to the Church writer Eusebius, James the so-called brother of Jesus was stoned and clubbed to death. He also said similar words to the characters called Stephen and Jesus.

These are the words of James according to Eusebius before he was stoned and clubbed.


Church History 2.23.13 So, even from the Church writers, it would appear that Jesus would have been more likely to be stoned to death than crucified based on what he was reported to have said.

Amaleq13

The accusation of claiming to be "King of the Jews" would be considered sedition by Rome. Please note that this is precisely the question upon which Pilate is depicted as focusing. He never refers to or considers any charge of blasphemy. That the Jewish leadership was trying to get him executed is not in question. That they had their own, specifically Jewish charges is also not in question. They brought Jesus to Pilate with at least one charge that was a violation of Roman law and that is the charge upon which Pilate focused. Regardless of the charade which follows in the story, Jesus is crucified by Rome and that punishment was given to convicted seditionists.

No one disputes who, in the story, "ultimately" caused Jesus to be crucified.

Jesus is accused of claiming to be King of the Jews and accepts the claim as true.

Jesus is crucified by Rome which was, IIUC, a punishment typically applied to seditionists.

Sedition is the only described accusation that violated Roman law and the only described accusation Pilate focuses upon and the only described accusation that would have obtained a punishment of crucifixion. Your conclusion appears to have no connection to the stories.

Regardless of how reluctant the story depicts Pilate or how the responsibility is shifted to the Jewish crowd, the fact remains that this is the only Roman charge brought and it directly connects to the Roman punishment that was enacted.

aa5874

Well, if the Jewish charges are not in question, then what is your problem?

Pilate found no fault in Jesus.

Lu 23:4 -