mata leao

diogenes, you say you are AGNOSTIC on HJ?????brother, are you bipolar? are you just here playing devil's Christian advocate? pray tell what things cause you to believe (on the agnostic pole) that Jesus was historical......

TedM

Perhaps I didn't explain myself well. I think there are a couple of issues that need to be clarified. One is whether Jesus' statement in the trial were legitimate blasphemy. Another is whether statements attributed to Jesus at the trial (the temple charge) were legitimate blasphemy. Another is whether the crowd believed that blasphemy had occurred even if it hadn't, thus providing an explanation for their pressure put upon Pilate, and Pilate's actions.

I think the account provides several good reasons to believe that the crowd thought blasphemy had occurred whether it technically did or not, thus providing an explanation for Pilate's actions.

As for whether the high priest was justified in claiming blasphemy, the link I provided gave some possible evidences that he was. I know you don't buy them (though you didn't address many of the arguments head on) and prefer to stick to the strict definition of blasphemy. Let's say you are right. Isn't it entirely possible that the high priest bent the rules some here? What evidence is there of blasphemy charges in front of the high priest to compare to and conclude that he never under any circumstances would have claimed blasphemy?

I'm talking about a charge in court that says nothing about a future destruction of the temple by others. If Mark had not said anything about the temple destruction elsewhere this charge on its own, if true, is nothing more than Jesus commenting on his own body as the true temple of God, one which can be destroyed and rebuilt in 3 days, and not a comment indicating knowledge of a future destruction.


Why are you so unconvinced that you would require this evidence? Is there a good reason to believe that the Tetragrammaton was to be taken literally and applied to all criminal cases with no room for interpretation? That seems unrealistic--at least it is for our own government and the Constitution.

Why do you feel so strongly that the Sanhedrin had nothing to do with it? Is it primarily because of a literal reading of the Tetragrammaton, or are there many other reasons?

ted

Amaleq13

The entire clemency scene in which the threat of riots is given.

I think we have enough information to doubt that he ever would have responded to the threat of a Jewish riot or the threat of a report to the governor by executing a man he thought was innocent.

I'm a school psychologist and a large part of my job involves testing students to determine if they qualify for special education. The first phrase means Jesus cooperated with me during this process while the second means his scores are roughly equivalent to those of a student in the middle of the 4th grade (ie 9-10 years old).

Diogenes the Cynic

Regarding the crowd, if the false charges originated from the crowd itself, that would imply that the crowd had to be angry before they falsely charged Jesus with threatening the Temple (itself not blasphemous nor a claim to Godhood).
No. I don't find it credible that the High Priest would bend the rules. He had no motive for doing so and the rest of the body would not have gone along with him. It would presume the Christian slur that the sanhedrin was a bunch of evil vilains and I see no evidence outside the Gospels that such was the case.
I think that any reference to any destruction of the Temple by any means has to be regarded with suspicion.
What's unrealistic about it? That's the definition in the Mishnah and that's the definition corroborated by all Jewish commentary. If you talk to any modern Rabbis today they will tell you the same thing (I've asked). Blasphemy is indeed an extremely narrowly defined offense. In the absence of any broader interpretation, its only fair to ask for evidence. This is especially tru of a claim to be the Messiah since there is nothing in Jewish law which prohibits anyone at all from making that claim. You might be wrong but you aren't breaking any Jewish law and many have done it. The Jewish Messiah s not God, so how could it be blasphemmous to make that claim?
The blasphemy charge is only one of many other procedural errors and extreme implausibilities inherent in Mark's account. The trial at night, the trial at Passover, the trial on the Sabbath, the trial at the home of the High Priest rather than the temple and the imposition of a capital sentence on the same day as a trial are all direct violations of Jewish law. It's simply not credible that it could have happened and it would have universally recognized as illegitimate if it had. Furthermore, the Sanhedrin had no motive. Jesus had done nothing wrong under Jewish law.

mata leao

everything the sanhedrin is said to have done in the gospel accounts is in fact entirely likely if in fact the sanhedrin wanted to get rid of troublemaker Jesus, they would do it exactly the way they did it, especially given the strong loyal following Rabbi Jesus had behind him (at night, in secret, etc etc), you are missing the forest for the trees. sorry, you havent convinced me that the gospoel accounts are in error here.

TedM

Aren't you assuming that Pilate was placing a high value on Jesus' innocence? If Pilate was as bad as Josephus presents him to be, isn't it reasonable to conclude he would indeed send a man he thought to be innocent to be crucified, given enough other incentives?

ted

yalla

Diogenes
"... extreme implausibilities.."

I was reading the "trial'' scene in "John" involving Pilate, JC and the "Jews" and decided to plot the movements of the 3 main players.
So I drew a table with the 3 players and proceeded through the text marking where each was "in" or "out" of the building.
The Jews are easy, they are "out" all the time, the [incorrect] reason given being that they did not want to become unclean.
But Pilate is like an horizontal yo-yo, in..out..in..out..in..out..in..and finally out. 7 movements.
Obliging chap.
JC moves about 3 times and has 3 conversations with Pilate inside the building [18.33, 19.1, 19.8] where, we have been told, there are no Jews, and presumably no "Christians'', present so the source for the alleged conversations is truly an "inside" job.
At one stage Pilate is ''in" and the Jews outside are heard shouting in unison like the scene from "Life of brian''.

The whole scene is ludicrous and reminds me of Bud and Lou and "Who's on First".
Surely not to be taken seriously.

TedM

Sorry, I'm not sure what point you have making here.

I haven't studied the issue, so you may be very correct. However, I don't have the faith in the goodness of a threatened group that you have. Josephus seems to present both the high priest Ananus and the sanhedrin in a questionable light in the famous James, brother of Jesus, passage (Antiquities 20:9).

I agree that it is a fair question. However, if there isn't comparable evidence of other Messiah claimants brought to trial, then I question whether a group feeling threatened would really not take liberties with their power, and I also question whether it is realistic to expect a charge of blasphemy to not be subject to more liberal interpretations. I guess we have a different sense of reasonable expectations for how people behave.

How many actually said "I am the Messiah"? I don't think the answer is "many". It might even be zero.

Maybe I overlooked an answer from you, but I questioned how if all of these things were so implausible, we can have people clearly familiar with Jewish customs, and laws, like Matthew seemingly repeating the story without even an attempt to correct the things you mention above? What is your take on that?

As for a true motive (other than the contrived one of blasphemy), wouldn't Jesus' repeated condemnation of the Pharisees have been cause for a motive, or teachings that may have been a challenge to the scribes..both groups seemingly a part of or influential to the Sanhedrin?

ted

ynquirer

Nope. My position is that he said “I am� in Hebrew – hayah. How else could he have accomplished God the Father’s commandment to bear His name, as attested in Mk 1:2 in relation to Ex 23:20-21?

Why wouldn’t Jesus speak Hebrew? An ignorant carpenter couldn't?

In a few posts above in this same thread, another participant said that their only hope was apparently the development of time travel technology. It seems you have gotten it. Congratulations!

Amaleq13

No, just his job to enforce the Law of Rome. He also doesn't strike me as a fellow who would take kindly to being threatened by people he ruled.

What specific story about Pilate suggests to you that he would be willing to abuse Roman law to appease the Jewish populace?