mountainman

It may have been unprecedented in the Roman empire until Constantine, but one does not have took too far for this type of precedent in the field of ancient history. A century before Nicaea, was an event Constantine could have used as a blueprint. In c.224 or thereabouts the military supremacist ruler and "king of kings" Ardashir told the Parthian civilisation "There shall be no more of the old ways, and established a new religion called Zoroastrianism and ruled the nation by means of this monotheistic state religion (taking Mani the Prophet on board after a short period of time) and his army. This dynasty was handed to his son Shapur (as Constantine handed his new dynasty on to his sons). Practically all the paper literature of the Parthian civilisation was destroyed by Ardashir. The parallel in the Roman empire took a little longer to complete because Constantine's sons warred between themselves, and the brief interlude of Julian.

Best wishes,


Pete

mountainman

Was he really Toto? On whose authority do you know this? Why do you think there was a controversy over this issue for over 100 years? Why do you think there were forbidden written books and tractates floating around outback Syria and Lower Egypt? Why does Constantine tell us that Arius "reproaches, grieves, wounds and pains the Church" and .."introduces a belief of unbelief " ?

Best wishes,



Pete

aa5874

But, did you notice that Stephen, as written in Acts, was stoned to death for the saying virtually the identical blasphemous words of Jesus?

And Stephen was only brought to the council according to Acts. See Acts 6.12.

Acts 7.56-58 Now, based on Acts, there would have been no need for Jesus to have been brought before Pilate, they had already condemned Jesus guilty of death for blasphemy, they just had to take him outside the city and stone him.

spamandham

I misspoke. What I meant was not that the charge was violation of the Sabbath, but rather, that violation (or more importantly general contempt of the Sabbath and the power structure it represented) was the reason he was executed.

Here's why I said it, which goes all the way back to near the beginning of the Gospel of Mark:

Mark 3:
1Another time he went into the synagogue, and a man with a shriveled hand was there. 2Some of them were looking for a reason to accuse Jesus, so they watched him closely to see if he would heal him on the Sabbath. 3Jesus said to the man with the shriveled hand, "Stand up in front of everyone."

4Then Jesus asked them, "Which is lawful on the Sabbath: to do good or to do evil, to save life or to kill?" But they remained silent.

5He looked around at them in anger and, deeply distressed at their stubborn hearts, said to the man, "Stretch out your hand." He stretched it out, and his hand was completely restored. 6Then the Pharisees went out and began to plot with the Herodians how they might kill Jesus.

Amaleq13

Gotcha. Thanks.

We had an entire thread devoted to the question of why Jesus was executed and I didn't recall that explanation being argued or, at least, gaining any traction. I think a good argument can be made that speaking the name of God may also have been a factor.

ynquirer

In AJ 20.9.1 Josephus tells how the Sanhedrin had James stoned for blasphemy. This happened at a time that Judaea had regained its autonomy because Herod Agrippa had been made King of the Jews by the emperor Claudius. Capital jurisdiction then fell with the Jewish institutions again. Agrippa was succeeded by his sons. With shorts interruptions of direct Roman rule, this was the situation until the Jewish War.

However, perhaps it not iddle to recall that before AD 41 Judaea was under direct Roman rule.

aa5874

But I thought we were discussing the blasphemies of Stephen and Jesus, as stated in the NT. Jesus was sent to Pilate after being condemned of guilt for blasphemy, yet sometime later, Stephen is taken out of the city and stoned for saying similar blasphemous words like Jesus.

Now, based on the NT, it would appear the trial by Pilate and later crucifixion of Jesus was carried out, not because Jesus was charged by Pilate, but to fulfill prophecy. The author of the Jesus story, it would appear, simply used parts of Jewish Scripture, out of context, of course, and fabricated prophecies for his crucifixion scene. Even some of the words of Pilate were taken from Jewish Scriptures.

ynquirer

Stoning was the punishment for blasphemy in general. Stephen and James were so punished at a time that capital jurisdiction fell with the Sanhedrin because Judaea enjoyed political autonomy under the Agrippas. Jesus, however, might not be stoned because capital jurisdiction fell with the Roman governor at a time that Judaea was under direct imperial rule. Read the history.

You rate gMk only too low. Just because some events and words look like fulfilling the Scriptures, can’t they fit in a legal framework? Must per force the writer be stupid, just because he undertakes a religious mission?

aa5874

Well, now you are going to have to tell me when exactly was Jesus crucified and when exactly Stephen was stoned.

We can use some events mentioned in the NT, as a guide, for argument sake. Jesus would be crucified sometime after the 15th year of the reign of Tiberius and Stephen was stoned before the conversion of Saul or sometime before the death of King Aretas.

The James in Josephus was stoned around 30 years after the death of Tiberrius, way outside the time zone of the death of Jesus and Stephen.

You can now see that Jesus and Stephen may have been charged with blasphemy under the same jurisdiction and authority of the Sanhedrin.

So, you need to give the exact dates of the death of Jesus and Stephen to corroborate your statement.


But, it is the author who is using what he deems to be fulfilled scripture for his crucifixion scene when he wrote, "And the scripture was fulfilled, he was numbered among the transgressors.[Mk 15.28]

The author clealy removes any legal framework when he wrote, "For he [Pilate] knew that the chief priests had delivered him [Jesus] for envy." [Mk 15.10].

It would appear that the author of Mark was presenting a new Messiah that would really never die, the Son of the God of the Jews, who came to save mankind including the Jews, and it has worked well at least up to now.

ynquirer

No Roman governor of Judaea enjoyed authority as strong as Pilate. He forfeited imperium only once at the suggestion of the emperor himself. If Jesus’ death happened under Pilate’s rule it might not have been by stoning since stoning was not a Roman punishment. Furthermore, the capital charge would hardly be blasphemy against the Jewish god since blasphemy against the Jewish god is what Pilate had allegedly committed when he brought the Roman eagles in Jerusalem.

On the other hand, full autonomy was bestowed on Judaea only at the time of Herod Agrippa (AD 41-44), his sons being tetrarchs rather than kings proper. I surmise that Stephen was stoned for blasphemy in this period.

After 44, the Jewish jurisdiction was briefly restored during the periods in which the chief Roman post was vacant, returning to the procurator as soon the new official arrived in Judaea and took control of the situation. This is the reason why Paul was accused by the high priest and members of the Sanhedrin before the procurator Felix in Ceasarea (Acts ch.24). This happened in or about 56.

James was stoned in one of those interregnums, after the death of Porcius Festus, Felix’s successor, and before the arrival of the new procurator, Albinus (AJ 20.9.1), in or about 62. If Tiberius died – as is usually supposed – in 37, James’ death occurred twenty-five years afterward.

Therefore, an approximate chronology for four different cases involving the charge of blasphemy might be:

• 33-35: Jesus’ crucifixion (Roman law)
• 41-44: Stephen’s stoning (Jewish law)
• 56: Paul’s trial and imprisonment (Roman law)
• 62: James’ stoning (In theory Roman law albeit interregnum, practically Jewish law)