No Robots

Some Jews on Jesus.

andrewcriddle

This seems to assume that John is dependent on Mark.

This may be true but IMO it should not be taken for granted.

Andrew Criddle

Jane H

Thank you for your positive comments. In the gladiatorial crucible of the internet, these are as rare as outlets selling Brussels Sprout sandwiches.

Whatever the standard punishment for normal blasphemy may have been, we have no evidence of anyone in a Jewish context before or after Jesus claiming to be the “Son of Man” “at the right hand of the Power” “on the clouds of heaven”. We simply don't know what the standard punishment for this was, because there wasn't one.

The Sanhedrin might well have met at night to catch Pilate during working hours and get things settled before the festival began. We can't infer from the Mishnah that the "night time" rules etc were in place 150 years earlier. The nature and length of the trial were at the whim of the authorities- who wouldn't have worried particularly about dotting the i's and crossing the t's of legal procedure. Here was a troublemaker who had threatened the Temple, and challenged authority, potentially leading to Roman intervention. They would have seen things as a simple choice between letting Temple and Nation be jeopardized and getting Jesus killed. Not to mention the religious offence of leading the people astray.

However the exact details are viewed, it seems historically certain that Jesus was convicted at a trial. It also seems entirely plausible that, after a long time using parable and image as concealed hints of how things were, Jesus should use this trial to reveal his future as the “Son of Man” “at the right hand of the Power” “on the clouds of heaven”. He was, after all, a dead man walking.

bacht

Also, the passion story presents the Romans as uninterested in Jesus, while the Jewish authorities forced his execution - in other words, anti-Jewish bias.

The only vaguely believable charge against Jesus was his alleged threat to destroy the temple, which would have required more resources than he appeared to command. The whole gospel story is a variation of the "persecuted innocent" theme, probably as old as storytelling itself.

Elijah

I would be skeptical about a judge now always following the law. I would be skeptical in the whole war on terror if there is always a judge present at all. For all I know there is full on dirty war going on around me.

If you are only basing the fact that they are breaking the law as a way of dismissing the possibility of them assembling at night then that doesn’t seem rational. Beyond the possibility of an informal meeting as suggested on the wiki, just being wrong about the times seems like the more likely solution.
Then shouldn't that be considered for why they turned him over to the Romans to get rid of him?
It looks like they were turning him over as a seditionist especially in Luke. What would him suggesting he was the king of the Jews be seen as?

So you’re saying the religious authority at the time wouldn’t need or have reason to meet at all in order to charge Jesus and turn him over to Rome?

Jumping to its fictional seems rather hasty. Even if the account is incorrect that doesn’t mean it is ahistorical any more than an accurate depiction of an American trial makes a Perry Mason story historical.

aa5874

Jesus was mentioned in a forgery, the TF, but oddly in a resurrected state. According to the forgery, Jesus was seen resurrected on the third day.

What words of your supposed Jesus were a direct challenge to the power elite?

Is it Mark 9.31?

Mr 9:31 -

steve_bnk

I am agnostic and I am not arguing for the for absolute authenticity of the New Testament.

For a start I'd suggest reading the New Testament. I reccomend the Oxford Annotated Bible. I used it in college in a philosphy course back in the 70s and bought the current edition last year. It has a substantial companion commentary that gets into the political background among other historical issues. It was commisioned back in the early 1900s to use all avilable historical documentd and fragments.

I'd also recomend An Introduction To The History Of Christianity edited by Dowley. This is a compendium of papers, not writen from a literalist or evangelical perspective, a good historical review.

There is another book A History Of Christianity, but I don't remember the author off the top of my head.

From the companion commentary to the Oxford Bible in the launguage that JC spoke his words would have have sounded like barbs.

In the idioms of the day as a very loose analogy JC would have come across like Jay Leno in his monologue. Very embarrasing to the targets.

For example, his choice of 12 disciples would have been interpreted by all to infer the 12 original tribes, the symbolism alone raising eyebrows. The messiah with the 12 tribes in tow...

As another analogy look at the recent Islamic controversy with a perception of the label on Starbucks coffee cups. Human nature hasn't changed all that much.

storytime

aa5874, words of Jesus that were a direct challenge to the power elite would have been "destroy this temple and in three days I will raise it up". Another was direct challenge to the ruling parties of belief about Sabbath. Another was Jesus claiming himself the son of God, and his not thinking it robbery to be equal with God, whereas the Jews declared there is none standing or equal to God. But most probably the biggie was in Jesus answer to the high priest who asked if Jesus were a king. "Ye say that I am". Maybe Jesus was referring to some old scripture. But his statement may have put some real fear into the hiarchy at Jerusalem due to it's seditious bearing, for in answering Pilate about Jesus kingship, they replied "we have no king but Caesar." The threat to the whole of Jerusalem seems to be the point of getting rid of Jesus. The high priest noting in point that it was best that one man die than the whole of Jerusalem be destroyed by Rome for many of the Jews recognizing a militant Jew as king and not Caesar. Could that have happened? The fear was there as the Pharisees saw multitudes following and believing Jesus and not them.

storytime

Lets say Jesus was 35 (and not yet 50) and had seen Abraham? If Abraham saw the tribes of Jacob as told in OT, would this make sense in how the Pharisees sarcastically or not, questioned Jesus? It sounds to me as if the Pharisees were being sarcastic and maybe putting Jesus in his place as ignorant, maybe.

aChristian

Jesus' statement here along with some others are in irrefutable terms. You have too many errors in your above comment for me to say anything more.