Originally Posted by storytime

The temple leaders didn't have a monopoly on scripture? That's really hard to believe considering how the strictness of Jewish law would have put fear in people. Speculating on what the situation would have been in those days, I can see the temple leaders keeping their little secrets of scriptures that they thought the regular lay people did not need to know. And lay people listened because they were not allowed to speak, being they were ignorant due to lack of education in the scriptures. Besides, God appointed priests to be teachers, so the ignorant lay people could follow their instructions. Isn't that the way the OT shows how the governance of the people was established, in the head as priests and tail as the lay people?

Maybe the Judean Jewish artistocrats were not so much desiring control among their diverse people of Israel, but instead desired to hold onto Jerusalem as the place where all Jews should come once a year to worship God. Something about this Jerusalem devotion is mentioned as "and if Jews would not come up from Egypt, they would receive no rain."

Herod executed John. Why would he not have executed Jesus? Herod had the ways and means at his disposal, so that is why Pilate threw Jesus to the dogs, so to speak. And, I see no reason why Rome would have interferred with Jewish religious law. Jesus was, after all, condemned by his Jewish brethren, not by Romans.

Originally Posted by storytime

Herod is one freaky character. The scenerio has Herod in fear of John the Baptist. Why? Probably because John knew the scriptures in Jewish Law: "Thou shalt not have thy brothers wife while thy brother is yet alive". Philip, the brother in Judaism, was probably playing around with other women while Herod was screwing around with his wife and maybe even his daughter. It was a Jewish thing on one interpretation, but not on the other. Both John and Jesus seemed to believe in marriage until death do ye part. While other Jews believed in a bill of divorcement in providing a way to have multiple wives. Anyways, Herodius didn't like being shamed by John the Baptist and contrived to have his head. Herod feels guilty about it but must make good on his promise to Herodius. So off went John's head.

Herod executed an innocent man in beheading John according to the rule of Gods Law. But the Jews were accustomed to the law of Moses and multiple wives. When Jesus told the Pharisees: "ye teach for doctrine the commandments of men", he was showing the division of Jews which already existed in interpretation of scriptures. Of course the Pharisees would not have liked this interruption of their power as leading authority figures in Jersualem. Jesus became a threat to their existence. They wanted him dead, for as Jesus told them, "a kingdom divided cannot stand but has an end". Jesus expected an end of the Pharisee world. Not an end of the whole world at large.

Originally Posted by storytime

Considering OT Judaism, the NT story is strange indeed.

Oh my gawd, I just had a wild thought. What if Jesus was a Roman spy, planted to divide the Jews and make it easier for Romans to "come on the clouds of heaven" and wipe out Jerusalem?

Originally Posted by storytime

Herod is one freaky character. The scenerio has Herod in fear of John the Baptist. Why? Probably because John knew the scriptures in Jewish Law: "Thou shalt not have thy brothers wife while thy brother is yet alive". Philip, the brother in Judaism, was probably playing around with other women while Herod was screwing around with his wife and maybe even his daughter. It was a Jewish thing on one interpretation, but not on the other. Both John and Jesus seemed to believe in marriage until death do ye part. While other Jews believed in a bill of divorcement in providing a way to have multiple wives. Anyways, Herodius didn't like being shamed by John the Baptist and contrived to have his head. Herod feels guilty about it but must make good on his promise to Herodius. So off went John's head.

Herod executed an innocent man in beheading John according to the rule of Gods Law. But the Jews were accustomed to the law of Moses and multiple wives. When Jesus told the Pharisees: "ye teach for doctrine the commandments of men", he was showing the division of Jews which already existed in interpretation of scriptures. Of course the Pharisees would not have liked this interruption of their power as leading authority figures in Jersualem. Jesus became a threat to their existence. They wanted him dead, for as Jesus told them, "a kingdom divided cannot stand but has an end". Jesus expected an end of the Pharisee world. Not an end of the whole world at large.

Originally Posted by storytime

.....Jesus may not have taken over Jerusalem but he conquered Rome. As a Jew, I don't think he'd be over enthusiastic about it, considering how he excluded the uncircumcised and lawless Gentiles.

Originally Posted by aa5874

The Jesus story is just fundamentally implausible. Based on Josephus, Jesus of the NT could have been beaten to a pulp and declared a madman, or even attacked and killed by Roman soldiers.

The false prophet and his followers, in Josephus, were attacked by Roman soldiers without a trial, and many were killed and wounded. The false prophet managed to escape.

Originally Posted by storytime

But Jesus was always escaping out of their sight, because he said "my time has not yet come". Might there be an implication to conspiracy here? Also, Jesus was always escaping[dodging] the Jews, not the Romans.