Freethought & Rationalism Archive

arnoldo · 05-02-2010, 12:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jayrok

Quote:

Originally Posted by arnoldo

The area of Jerusalem was under direct Roman control and during passover would have had a roman prefect, Pontius Pilate, ensuring law/order of the city during the alleged events described in the gospels. Once Archelueus was banished to Gaul his territory (which included Jerusalem) was assimilated by the Roman Province located in Syria (dark green on map below). Antipas remained in control of the Galilean area and Philip controlled the other areas. On the following map the light green area (which includes Jerusalem) was transfered from Archeleus to the Roman province in Syria.

I'm aware of the regional assignments after the death of King Herod, among his sons. Not sure what it has to do with the conversation.

In Jerusalem, none of King Herod's sons had jurisdiction, therefore the Sanhedrin had to seek permission from the Roman Prefect to condemn a man to death. Richard Carrier gives the following information that if unable to carry out a stoning the jews may've symbolically placed a stone near to condemned persons heart, note:

Quote:

I have not found enough information to confirm or refute the claim that the Jews were "not permitted to put anyone to death" (John 18:31, repeated in no other place). If true, it would mean that Pilate, having the imperium, would have to be consulted before an execution took place. Though there is no direct evidence for this, it is plausible: as a Roman province, capital punishment would fall under Roman magisterial law, which held that only a magistrate legally holding the fasces had power over life and death. This would not violate the decree of Augustus, since the Sanhedrin could still try people under their law. They merely had to seek approval from Pilate before carrying out the execution. But we have no examples of any such limitation affecting the Sanhedrin and thus cannot say how it was dealt with, or if it was genuine. The Tosefta hints at a possibility--a symbolic touching of a stone to a condemned man's heart could satisfy "the religious requirement of stoning" (Sanhedrin, 9.6h), and it says one had to do what one could--if you couldn't carry out the proper execution prescribed by law, you were allowed to use another method, even one more severe, since the exact means was less important than the execution itself, for "as it is said, 'And you will exterminate the evil from your midst'" (Sanhedrin 12.6b-d, cf. Deut. 17:7).

http://secweb.infidels.org/?kiosk=articles&id=125

darstec · 05-02-2010, 06:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by arnoldo

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jayrok

I'm aware of the regional assignments after the death of King Herod, among his sons. Not sure what it has to do with the conversation.

In Jerusalem, none of King Herod's sons had jurisdiction, therefore the Sanhedrin had to seek permission from the Roman Prefect to condemn a man to death.

Scholars use that as an indicator of anachronism. The Jews did not lose the right to carry out their own prosecutions until after the Final Diaspora of 134 CE. The mere fact that they tried to kill Joshua three times prior to his supposed crucifixion is evidence of that. And Acts records the Sanhedrin officiating at the stoning of Stephen. Note that the references below are late, late, late references well into the second or third centuries CE.

Quote:

Originally Posted by arnoldo

Richard Carrier gives the following information that if unable to carry out a stoning the jews may've symbolically placed a stone near to condemned persons heart, note:

Quote:

I have not found enough information to confirm or refute the claim that the Jews were "not permitted to put anyone to death" (John 18:31, repeated in no other place). If true, it would mean that Pilate, having the imperium, would have to be consulted before an execution took place. Though there is no direct evidence for this, it is plausible: as a Roman province, capital punishment would fall under Roman magisterial law, which held that only a magistrate legally holding the fasces had power over life and death. This would not violate the decree of Augustus, since the Sanhedrin could still try people under their law. They merely had to seek approval from Pilate before carrying out the execution. But we have no examples of any such limitation affecting the Sanhedrin and thus cannot say how it was dealt with, or if it was genuine. The Tosefta hints at a possibility--a symbolic touching of a stone to a condemned man's heart could satisfy "the religious requirement of stoning" (Sanhedrin, 9.6h), and it says one had to do what one could--if you couldn't carry out the proper execution prescribed by law, you were allowed to use another method, even one more severe, since the exact means was less important than the execution itself, for "as it is said, 'And you will exterminate the evil from your midst'" (Sanhedrin 12.6b-d, cf. Deut. 17:7).

http://secweb.infidels.org/?kiosk=articles&id=125

andrewcriddle · 05-03-2010, 01:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by darstec

Quote:

Originally Posted by arnoldo

In Jerusalem, none of King Herod's sons had jurisdiction, therefore the Sanhedrin had to seek permission from the Roman Prefect to condemn a man to death.

Scholars use that as an indicator of anachronism. The Jews did not lose the right to carry out their own prosecutions until after the Final Diaspora of 134 CE. The mere fact that they tried to kill Joshua three times prior to his supposed crucifixion is evidence of that. And Acts records the Sanhedrin officiating at the stoning of Stephen.

Could you give evidence for this please ? In particular for the claim that the Jews were entitled to carry out capital prosecutions between the the fall of Jerusalem and the Final Diaspora. At most the NT records support a right to execute during the period before 70 CE.

Andrew Criddle

Jayrok · 05-03-2010, 05:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by arnoldo

In Jerusalem, none of King Herod's sons had jurisdiction, therefore the Sanhedrin had to seek permission from the Roman Prefect to condemn a man to death. Richard Carrier gives the following information that if unable to carry out a stoning the jews may've symbolically placed a stone near to condemned persons heart, note:

If we are going to list what the Jews should have done to remain within the law, could we add the other things they seemed to forget with regards to due process of their court system? Could they hold a trial at night? At the High Priest's house? During Passover, a few hours after the Passover feast?

Did the Sanhedrin get permission from the Prefect to stone Stephen? Or was it carried out by a reaction of rage as described in Acts? If they couldn't execute a man without the permission of Pilate, why was Stephen's case not presented to Pilate as well?

Pilate thought Jesus fell under Antipas' jurisdiction so he sent Jesus to him. Did the Prefect not know that the Jews (and Herod Antipas) did not have the ability to execute a man? He also wanted to return Jesus to the High Priest as he didn't want anything to do with it. Could that not have been construed as him giving his permission to deal with Jesus as they saw fit?

Why couldn't the Jews execute Jesus in the same fashion they executed Stephen?

darstec · 05-03-2010, 10:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by andrewcriddle

Quote:

Originally Posted by darstec

Scholars use that as an indicator of anachronism. The Jews did not lose the right to carry out their own prosecutions until after the Final Diaspora of 134 CE. The mere fact that they tried to kill Joshua three times prior to his supposed crucifixion is evidence of that. And Acts records the Sanhedrin officiating at the stoning of Stephen.

Could you give evidence for this please ? In particular for the claim that the Jews were entitled to carry out capital prosecutions between the the fall of Jerusalem and the Final Diaspora. At most the NT records support a right to execute during the period before 70 CE.

Andrew Criddle

The bible itself. There is absolutely no evidence that any book in the NT was written prior to the second century. Those that claim the bias of a pre second century date do so on faith, and faith alone and not evidence.

Do you have evidence that the Jews did not have the authority to carry out their own punishments prior to the second century? Why do you support those four fables?

andrewcriddle · 05-04-2010, 12:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by darstec

Quote:

Originally Posted by andrewcriddle

Could you give evidence for this please ? In particular for the claim that the Jews were entitled to carry out capital prosecutions between the the fall of Jerusalem and the Final Diaspora. At most the NT records support a right to execute during the period before 70 CE.

Andrew Criddle

The bible itself. There is absolutely no evidence that any book in the NT was written prior to the second century. Those that claim the bias of a pre second century date do so on faith, and faith alone and not evidence.

Do you have evidence that the Jews did not have the authority to carry out their own punishments prior to the second century? Why do you support those four fables?

Whatever one's view of the historical value of the Gospels I don't see how descriptions of events supposedly happening before 70 CE can be evidence for practice after 70 CE.

With the ending after 70 CE of Roman recognition of Jewish institutions such as the High Priesthood, it is unlikely that Jews in Judea could legally execute offenders, whatever the situation before 70 CE.

Andrew Criddle

Rick Van Vliet · 05-04-2010, 04:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jayrok

Acts 6 and 7 describe the seizure and stoning of Stephen. He was taken before the Sanhedrin and questioned by the high priest (Acts 7:1). Stephen then gives his speech about Joseph and Moses, etc. Those who seized him were furious at his comments and accused him of blasphemy.

Stephen claimed he saw the heavens open and that he saw Jesus standing at the right hand of God. This pushed them over the edge and they took him out of the city and stoned him.

If Stephen was charged with blasphemy and could be taken out of the city and stoned... why couldn't Jesus (also charged with blasphemy by the Jews) also be taken out of the city and stoned?

Why did the Jews say they couldn't enforce the death penalty when it was in their law to stone blasphemers to death?

Why couldn't they just stone Jesus like they did Stephen?

Some take the stoning of Stephen to be a story about Jesus, not Stephen. Of all those killed, why is only Stephen mentioned by name? And worth noting, what he says, is very similar to what Jesus says on the Cross.

And after all, Stephen being the first killed. After all, it was Jesus that was the first killed.

aa5874 · 05-05-2010, 06:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rick Van Vliet

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jayrok

Acts 6 and 7 describe the seizure and stoning of Stephen. He was taken before the Sanhedrin and questioned by the high priest (Acts 7:1). Stephen then gives his speech about Joseph and Moses, etc. Those who seized him were furious at his comments and accused him of blasphemy.

Stephen claimed he saw the heavens open and that he saw Jesus standing at the right hand of God. This pushed them over the edge and they took him out of the city and stoned him.

If Stephen was charged with blasphemy and could be taken out of the city and stoned... why couldn't Jesus (also charged with blasphemy by the Jews) also be taken out of the city and stoned?

Why did the Jews say they couldn't enforce the death penalty when it was in their law to stone blasphemers to death?

Why couldn't they just stone Jesus like they did Stephen?

Some take the stoning of Stephen to be a story about Jesus, not Stephen. Of all those killed, why is only Stephen mentioned by name? And worth noting, what he says, is very similar to what Jesus says on the Cross.

And after all, Stephen being the first killed. After all, it was Jesus that was the first killed.

But, the supposed blasphemous words of Jesus was NOT from Jesus himself but compiled or lifted from a source of Hebrew Scripture.

Jesus was fabricated out of Hebrew Scripture, the Septuagint or some similar source.

Examine Daniel 7.13 and Psalms 110

Da 7:13 -

Quote:

I saw in the night visions, and, behold, one like the Son of man came with the clouds of heaven, and came to the Ancient of days, and they brought him near before him.

Psalms 110:1 -

Quote:

The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou at my right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool.

And now the supposed words of Jesus

Mr 14:62 -

Quote:

And Jesus said, I am: and ye shall see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven.

The Jesus story was just an invention using out-of-context scripture.

steve_bnk · 05-05-2010, 06:58 AM

As today, there was considerable politics and religion going on all the time. We have no idea what really happend to an histortical Jesus.

In the stories, he does appear to be generaly on the run in peripheral areas, in one instance telling people not to say where he was. Who knows what political intrigue was going on.

There is also the tale of his intervening in the stoning of a woman. I remember vaguely about a specifc spot outside the city where stonings were performed.

The tale of Jesus as told is very implausble in that he was allowed to get away with saying the words he used in the gospels. Claiming to be the messiah and of divine personage would be like having naked sex in a park in Saudi Arabia. The result would be a furious and potentialy deadly response from the religious authorities.

Rick Van Vliet · 05-05-2010, 10:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rick Van Vliet

Some take the stoning of Stephen to be a story about Jesus, not Stephen. Of all those killed, why is only Stephen mentioned by name? And worth noting, what he says, is very similar to what Jesus says on the Cross.

And after all, Stephen being the first killed. After all, it was Jesus that was the first killed.

But, the supposed blasphemous words of Jesus was NOT from Jesus himself but compiled or lifted from a source of Hebrew Scripture.

Jesus was fabricated out of Hebrew Scripture, the Septuagint or some similar source.

Examine Daniel 7.13 and Psalms 110

Da 7:13 -

Psalms 110:1 -

And now the supposed words of Jesus

Mr 14:62 -

Quote:

And Jesus said, I am: and ye shall see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven.

The Jesus story was just an invention using out-of-context scripture.

No, the Gospel of Thomas alone demonstrates there was a historical Jesus.

We have far more hard evidence for the existance of Jesus, existing paper, than for the existance of Socrates or Josephus or just about anyone else in history that didn't get their names carved in stone during their lives.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

05-05-2010, 06:58 AM	#69
steve_bnk Contributor Join Date: Sep 2008 Location: Seattle Posts: 27,602	As today, there was considerable politics and religion going on all the time. We have no idea what really happend to an histortical Jesus. In the stories, he does appear to be generaly on the run in peripheral areas, in one instance telling people not to say where he was. Who knows what political intrigue was going on. There is also the tale of his intervening in the stoning of a woman. I remember vaguely about a specifc spot outside the city where stonings were performed. The tale of Jesus as told is very implausble in that he was allowed to get away with saying the words he used in the gospels. Claiming to be the messiah and of divine personage would be like having naked sex in a park in Saudi Arabia. The result would be a furious and potentialy deadly response from the religious authorities.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.