Freethought & Rationalism Archive

show_no_mercy · 03-23-2009, 08:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by No Robots

Quote:

Originally Posted by show_no_mercy

This seems to contradict "Acts of the Apostles" and "Antiquities of the Jews", where Stephen and James are stoned to death by the Sanhedrin, respectively.

These were irregular proceedings. Stephen's stoning occured during an interregnum between Roman administrators. James' stoning may have been the trigger for the general revolt of a.d. 70.

How is a Sanhedrin trial, held on a high holiday, on a day other than thursday or monday, at the high preists home, convicted on his own testimony, a regular proceeding? Absolutely nothing about Jesus' trial depicted in the gospels is "regular".

No Robots · 03-23-2009, 08:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by show_no_mercy

How is a Sanhedrin trial, held on a high holiday, on a day other than thursday or monday, at the high preists home, convicted on his own testimony, a regular proceeding? Absolutely nothing about Jesus' trial depicted in the gospels is "regular".

I was just saying that the stonings of Stephen and James were irregular. If anything, this helps vitiate the argument Jesus's trial was too irregular to be historical.

Julio · 03-23-2009, 08:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by storytime

Quote:

Originally Posted by aChristian

Yes, in several different places. One example is John 8:58 where Jesus said, "before Abraham was, I AM".

To which the Pharisees asked: "Ye are not yet 50 years old and you have seen Abraham?"

Christians relate Jesus "before Abraham was, I Am" statement to his being God the Father. But what did the Pharisees mean in their question to Jesus?

I think it was Irenaeus [not sure, now, need to check that] who taught or argued that Jesus lived to be near 50 years old. If that was so, the entire chronology of fundamentalists like Scofield is upside down.

jon-eli · 03-23-2009, 08:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by No Robots

Quote:

Originally Posted by storytime

I'll take a wild guess, that under Roman rule the Jewish leadership had no authority to impose a capital sentence on non Jewish people.

[T]he Roman authorities, who held that only the governor, the surrogate of the emperor, had the authority to execute people in a Roman province.--Jesus & the Rise of Early Christianity / Paul Barnett, p. 323.

Gotta watch those wild guesses.

Not having authority do something, means not having authority to do something without permission. Are we to suppose that if permission was sought and granted to execute a Jewish criminal according to Jewish law, that there still wouldn't be authority for it? Of course not.

Gotta watch those wild slips of reasoning.

No Robots · 03-23-2009, 10:08 AM

I garbled my history a bit. It was the stoning of James that took place between administators. See Josephus. Josephus (Wars 2, 12.2) states that Stephen was killed by robbers, and the Roman governor immediately undertook reprisals.

show_no_mercy · 03-23-2009, 10:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by No Robots

[/URL]. Josephus (Wars 2, 12.2) states that Stephen was killed by robbers, and the Roman governor immediately undertook reprisals.

Acts 7:54 - 60

Quote:

54When they heard this, they were furious and gnashed their teeth at him. 55But Stephen, full of the Holy Spirit, looked up to heaven and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing at the right hand of God. 56"Look," he said, "I see heaven open and the Son of Man standing at the right hand of God."
57At this they covered their ears and, yelling at the top of their voices, they all rushed at him, 58dragged him out of the city and began to stone him. Meanwhile, the witnesses laid their clothes at the feet of a young man named Saul.

59While they were stoning him, Stephen prayed, "Lord Jesus, receive my spirit." 60Then he fell on his knees and cried out, "Lord, do not hold this sin against them." When he had said this, he fell asleep.

Elijah · 03-23-2009, 10:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by steve_bnk

There was a good show on Discovery Channel on the political aspects of JC. He was a reformer calling the Jews back to the old ways, for example his comment on Moses and divorce.
The choice of 12 disciples would have bee seen as representimng the 12 tribes. From what we have in the NT JC picked his words carfeuly and for maximum polkitical effect.
He also appears to be on the run most of the time in the outer areas. When he was arested at least one in his party was armed.
To me all's you have to do is look at the unrest in Palestine today to see the situaion back then. He was not telling the peole what the rekligios in power wanted to hear.

I don’t think he was a reformer in trying to get them back to the old ways as much as he is a reformer of the messiah concept from an earthly military operation to an ideological/spiritual movement.

I don’t know how much of what he was actually saying was ideologically upsetting the authority because I’m not sure how much anyone understood him, then or now. I think the peoples’ response to him is what got them scared and forced their hands. I don’t think him saying/suggesting he was the messiah was the problem as much as the people suspecting he was.

The illusion of authority must be maintained and if the people were turning to him as a spiritual leader then that compromised the position of the religious authority of the time. His attitude/lack of respect towards their authority especially if he was name calling would be what they were worried he would instill in his followers.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jon-eli

Sanhedrin trials were very fair, and hardly ever issued death sentences. The mere fact that the Sanhedrin had issued a guilty verdict would be enough to convince most Jews that the defendant was guilty. I'm not actually sure if the council could have participated in the stoning, but I imagine it would have been expected of them.

It would be difficult for me to make the claim that their trials were fair or never met at night; even if I was living in the times and in the culture.

Do you know of any comparable examples of the council stoning someone against the will of the people and the type of conflict that would or wouldn’t cause?

Quote:

But more to the point, execution was avoided like the plague in Judaism, and even if it wasn't, criminal cases required 23 judges; and even if there were in fact 23 judges, criminal cases were supposed to begin with the defense, not the accusations; and even if that weren't true, criminal cases were not allowed to be concluded at night; and even if that weren't true, convictions were not to be rendered on the same day as the trial began; and even if that weren't true, trials were not to be conducted on the eve of the Sabbath; and even if they were, a criminal sentenced to death was to be asked for a confession whilst being led to execution; and even if nothing I have said so far is true in the slightest, the whole point of Jesus being convicted was for him to be unjustly convicted, since this would have atoned for all his sins! It's a literary construction on the part of Mark. It is not a historical account of anything, but rather, it is a dramatic poem.

Quote:

He wasn't telling them anything, because they simply weren't listening. They wouldn't have cared.

I don’t think treating the story like a normal case of blasphemy is the correct route. It seems more likely that the people’s response to him and suspecting him of being someone special is what was challenging the regular authority’s power and why they had to move to get rid of him, not that he had said something so offensive that he deserved death.

No Robots · 03-23-2009, 10:46 AM

Regarding Stephen, I would conjecture that what Josephus describes as robbery was in fact a religious dispute. The important point for this discussion, though, is that Josephus clearly indicates that the Roman authorities were highly displeased with this unapproved act of violence.

jon-eli · 03-23-2009, 10:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Elijah

It would be difficult for me to make the claim that their trials were fair or never met at night; even if I was living in the times and in the culture.

The rules dictate that the Sanhedrin cannot pass a verdict at night. This is the same as saying that in a modern, American-style court, the judge never passes a verdict without letting the defendant speak. We all know this is true. It's not required of us to be skeptical about the generality of the statement, since this is an integral feature of the American legal system.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Elijah

Do you know of any comparable examples of the council stoning someone against the will of the people and the type of conflict that would or wouldn’t cause?

The council hardly ever stoned anyone. If it was against the will of the people, then most likely the person would have been acquitted. So no, I'm not aware of anything like that happening.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Elijah

[...] and why they had to move to get rid of him, not that he had said something so offensive that he deserved death.

They could have simply turned him over to the Romans as a seditionist. There was no need to convene the Sanhedrin. The story only exists because Mark thought it would be cool to write a 1st-century courtroom drama.

steve_bnk · 03-23-2009, 11:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by IamJoseph

Quote:

Originally Posted by steve_bnk

Judea was a hotbed of Jewish nationalism, the Jews living outside of Judea had no general problems. The Romans were cosmolpolitan and supported any group that worked to increase the wealth of the empire.

This is the mis-info from Europe and a total dis-history. Explain 'hotbed' in terms of reality, namely the jews had a law forbidding human worship, and the other nations did not. Did they have adequate reason to be disturbed by Rome - which demanded the emperor's statue be housed in the Temple for worship or not? - did they indulge in numerous wars with other nations of this same issue? Why is this not mentioned in the Gospels? Are the other nations not 'hotbed' because this Roman decree never bothered them one way or the other? Is my question not relevent - or is the European Gospel writers view a truth?

In fact there were five canditates nominated by various groups, and all of them were by far more popular than Jesus. In fact Jesus was never in the running here, and is not recorded by any Judean or Roman writer. A Rabbi Akiva, one of the Messiah candidates, was specially targeted by Rome - his skin was burnt while he was alive, a death far more deadly than crucifixion. That is why it makes no sense whatsoever the Romans would entertain a 'trial' for a Jew claiming to be a Messiah - or that Jews would hand him over to Rome!

So says the Gospels - and all obedient christians say YES SIR! It does not bother them that even the Pre-Islamic Arabs, then Islam itself - totally rejects this story. It means they never bothered to check!

Totally wrong again. Unlike the invasion and destruction by Babylon in 586 BCE, the Jews were totally religious and observing the law in 70 CE. In fact they were fanatic and almost Talibanic in this time - eventually giving up everything but refusing to bend for Rome. And most Jews did live in Israel at this time - the diaspora was voluntary, mostly related to inter-marraige and commerce.

Correct. He was freed by his relative Agrippa after 2 years in a Roman prison in Cesaera, quoting his Roman citizenship, and thereby his right to a Roman trial. Paul was executed in Rome - by Romans - without any help or jewish conspiracy - as would have been the case with Jesus had the Gospel story have any veracity. This shows Paul's views were totally rejected by all Jews - including the followers of Jesus known as the Nazerites, who expelled him as a heretic, causing a riot in Jerusalem. The Gospels is saying a Jew could march up to the temple, claim himself a Messiah [or worse!], fullfil away the Hebrew laws - and that the Jews were the bad guys for not accepting him. Wow. Are you guys for real? Try that today in any non-christian country - then blame the Jews for every European crime!

Quote:

The Jewsish folks I have known have said JC is considerd a prophet.

Your hallucinating, or confusing Jews with Muslims! :huh:

A hotbed of sedition against Rome. Rebellion and destruction of the Jewish state followed not long after.

The Christians eventualy split from the Jews and claimed the OT as its own. That was when they got noticed by Rome.

According to my history at the time of JC the Jews in the empire wrer given dispensation from state religion.

All Jews like the Taliban? I doubt that human nature being what it is.

There wrere many miiltants caliming the messiahood. That is history.

You are assumimg CNN would be on the scene would something be done that was not legally 'kosher' either by Jews or Romans.

JC likly existed and in a political context was a rabble rouser to the Jewish power elite. He appeared to have a following as evidenced by the rapid growth of communities around the area. He was briefly mentioned by Josephus.

In his day his words were a direct challenge to the ways of the power elite.

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

03-23-2009, 10:08 AM	#55
No Robots Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: Edmonton Posts: 5,679	I garbled my history a bit. It was the stoning of James that took place between administators. See Josephus. Josephus (Wars 2, 12.2) states that Stephen was killed by robbers, and the Roman governor immediately undertook reprisals.

03-23-2009, 10:46 AM	#58
No Robots Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: Edmonton Posts: 5,679	Regarding Stephen, I would conjecture that what Josephus describes as robbery was in fact a religious dispute. The important point for this discussion, though, is that Josephus clearly indicates that the Roman authorities were highly displeased with this unapproved act of violence.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.