Mel S wrote:The question of why Jesus was executed is somewhat complex. Firstly, to point out the obvious, the Romans executed him because they thought he might be one in a long line of wannabe Messiahs. As such, he represented a potential source of military trouble, and standard operating procedures were followed.

If we're to believe the NT, he did cause a ruckus in and around Jerusalem, enough to warrant caution.

Mel S wrote:Given Jesus lack of military interest, the main motivation must have been provided by the Jewish establishment. They weren't keen on Jesus message that he provided an alternative focus of sin forgiveness to the Temple, that the return from exile was being enabled by him, and that a number of key elements to Judaism- family, land, Torah etc were to be sidelined. In national political terms he was trouble, and the Temple protest convinced them that the best way ahead was execution. So they pulled him in to “stitch him up” as a revolutionary.

The NT does tell us he had zealot and sicarii adherents. He also may have taught tax evasion and other clearly subversive things. (Other subversive things from a more Jewish p.o.v., assuming the Gospels give an accurate idea of his teachings: forgiving sins without the victim of the sin getting any recompensation or any say on whether the sin is forgiven.)

Return from the exile provided by him? What exile - the Jews had reasonable authority in Israel, and the Babylonian exile wasn't that much of a problem. The exile as a huge national trauma was still 40 years away.

I think you're assigning a bit more evil to the Jewish leaders than is warranted by what we know.

They did that easily enough, and what they got was an extra “blasphemy bonus”. Jesus had previously dropped a range of camouflaged hints, but at the trial he added his self-belief as the “Son of Man”, specifically as mentioned in Daniel 7, who would sit at the right hand of God. This was more icing on the cake than the main factor involved in his committal for execution, but it could have been useful in persuading public opinion that he had to die.

There is little reason to think they'd've parsed "Son of Man" as blasphemous.

Zwaarddijk wrote:

Return from the exile provided by him? What exile - the Jews had reasonable authority in Israel, and the Babylonian exile wasn't that much of a problem. The exile as a huge national trauma was still 40 years away.

I think you're assigning a bit more evil to the Jewish leaders than is warranted by what we know.

As always, any statement on C1 Judaism has to begin with a warning against generalisation!

I don't think a first century Jew, looking around at subjugated Israel, would conclude that the Age To Come, with all its wonderful prophesied happiness for Israel, had arrived.

The continual emergence of rebel movements employing Exodus style traditions imply this was the view of a great number of people. Writings such as that of Yeshua Ben Sira; 2 Macc 2:7,18; Dead Sea Scrolls (e.g. 1QM 1:3 also 4Q504-506 also 4Q504 5:7-21); Ezra 9:8,9; Tob 13:5,13 and others strongly reinforce the conclusion that the exile was seen as ongoing. The Gospels assume a continuing exile (12 apostles; use of Messiah terminology; request for a “sign”, a technical term which implies the arrival of the Kingdom rather than the “miracle” of a gazillion threads; use of Isaiah 56 in the Temple incident; use of Zech 2:6 in Mk 13:27; etc).

An important quote is Neh 9:36 “Here we are, slaves to this day-slaves in the land that you gave to our ancestors to enjoy its fruit and good gifts”. Clearly the geographical return wasn't enough. A key element in the theology was that when God had forgiven Israel her sins, the exile would be complete and the Age To Come (ha'olam haba') would have arrived. While Roman soldiers were ordering God's People around, ha'olam haba' wasn't in place, the sins weren't forgiven and the exile wasn't over.

There is little reason to think they'd've parsed "Son of Man" as blasphemous.

Yes and no. Without the reference to Daniel 7, 'Son of Man' doesn't carry divine overtones. Skipping happily past questions of authenticity:

”Yes, it is as you say, Jesus replied. But I say to all of you: In the future you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Mighty One and coming on the clouds of heaven.” (Matt 26:64)

There is a pretty clear reference to the Danielic One who will sit at the right hand of God (the whole Two Powers thing), with the clouds of heaven implying a divine presence. Matthew (parr) certainly intends us to infer blasphemy from what is said.

It would also explain John 19:7 “The Jews insisted, We have a law, and according to that law he must die, because he claimed to be the Son of God.”

Mel S wrote:
Given Jesus lack of military interest, the main motivation must have been provided by the Jewish establishment. They weren't keen on Jesus message that he provided an alternative focus of sin forgiveness to the Temple, that the return from exile was being enabled by him, and that a number of key elements to Judaism- family, land, Torah etc were to be sidelined. In national political terms he was trouble, and the Temple protest convinced them that the best way ahead was execution. So they pulled him in to “stitch him up” as a revolutionary.

They did that easily enough, and what they got was an extra “blasphemy bonus”. Jesus had previously dropped a range of camouflaged hints, but at the trial he added his self-belief as the “Son of Man”, specifically as mentioned in Daniel 7, who would sit at the right hand of God. This was more icing on the cake than the main factor involved in his committal for execution, but it could have been useful in persuading public opinion that he had to die.

And which one of his disciples was there to witness the trial?

Zwaarddijk wrote:If we're to believe the NT, he did cause a ruckus in and around Jerusalem, enough to warrant caution...

We have the Canonized Jesus stories and none of them them state that Jesus was crucified because of any ruckus in Jerusalem nor was cautioned by anyone.

The reason Jesus was crucified is found in the ACTUAL stories and NOT what you imagine.

Zwaarddijk wrote:The NT does tell us he had zealot and sicarii adherents. He also may have taught tax evasion and other clearly subversive things. (Other subversive things from a more Jewish p.o.v., assuming the Gospels give an accurate idea of his teachings: forgiving sins without the victim of the sin getting any recompensation or any say on whether the sin is forgiven.)...

Where do you get your stories from? We have the Canonized Jesus stories and Jesus did NOT teach tax evasion. Jesus paid his taxes and even paid the the tax for another person

Zwaarddijk wrote:There is little reason to think they'd've parsed Son of Man" as blasphemous.

In the Canonized gMark, Jesus was found to be condemned to be guilty of death for blasphemy when he claimed he was the Son of the Blessed. Later Jesus was carried before Pilate after which he was crucified.

Amazingly, in the end Jesus was crucified, allowed to be Murdered, for doing NOTHING wrong.

Examine the words of Pilate in gMark 15

Then Pilate said unto them, Why, what evil hath he done ? And they cried out the more exceedingly, Crucify him.

In a most fictitious story, the Judge, Pilate the Governor, ALLOWED Jesus to be Murdered and did NOT know what Jesus did wrong.

We have the stories in the Canonized Gospels so we don't have to Speculate or invent our own.

We MUST try to understand the story.

The Jesus story is about the fulfillment of supposed prophecies and NOT actual history.

The crucifixion or Murder of Jesus because of the Jews was done so that prophecies might be fulfilled.

Matthew 27:35 KJV

And they crucified him, and parted his garments, casting lots: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet...

dejuror wrote:

Zwaarddijk wrote:If we're to believe the NT, he did cause a ruckus in and around Jerusalem, enough to warrant caution...

We have the Canonized Jesus stories and none of them them state that Jesus was crucified because of any ruckus in Jerusalem nor was cautioned by anyone.

So you think the temple thing wasn't a ruckus? Mar 11:15, Matthew 21, etc, do give implications that the temple ruckus was a decisive turning point in his relation to the Jewish leadership.

By "warrant caution", I mean "give him reason to be cautious", not "make people tell him to be cautious" .

The reason Jesus was crucified is found in the ACTUAL stories and NOT what you imagine.

You don't even believe the guy existed. How can there be reasons he was crucified IF HE DID NOT EXIST? That makes no sense!

Zwaarddijk wrote:The NT does tell us he had zealot and sicarii adherents. He also may have taught tax evasion and other clearly subversive things. (Other subversive things from a more Jewish p.o.v., assuming the Gospels give an accurate idea of his teachings: forgiving sins without the victim of the sin getting any recompensation or any say on whether the sin is forgiven.)...

Where do you get your stories from? We have the Canonized Jesus stories and Jesus did NOT teach tax evasion. Jesus paid his taxes and even paid the the tax for another person

His sicarii and zealot associates are well documented in the NT (Mat 10:4, Mar 3:18, Luk 6:15. Judas Iscariot need no introduction either, I guess?)

As for tax evasion, I do think Matthew 17 implies it. I find it very similar to roughly contemporaneous rabbinical language games, where an exhortation to do something of that nature often is intended as a cryptic way of saying "don't do it".

Amazingly, in the end Jesus was crucified, allowed to be Murdered, for doing NOTHING wrong.

Quite amazingly so for a guy that did not exist in your opinion.

Examine the words of Pilate in gMark 15

Then Pilate said unto them, Why, what evil hath he done ? And they cried out the more exceedingly, Crucify him.

[size=huge] In a most fictitious story[/size=huge]the Judge, Pilate the Governor, ALLOWED Jesus to be Murdered and did NOT know what Jesus did wrong.

We MUST try to understand the story.

Which is what I try to do.

The Jesus story is about the fulfillment of supposed prophecies and NOT actual history.

Obviously so. this doesn't necessarily mean there aren't real events underlying it that have been slightly altered (just as the prophecies themselves have been altered) in order to fit together.

Matthew 27:35 KJV

And they crucified him, and parted his garments, casting lots: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet...

Which was not spoken by a prophet. Nor intended as a prophecy.

dejuror wrote:

We have the Canonized Jesus stories and none of them them state that Jesus was crucified because of any ruckus in Jerusalem nor was cautioned by anyone.

I agree with you here.

Jesus did not create any noticeable commotion in the temple for which a case of death penalty had been forced on him; he was a peaceful person.

This also seems to be a fabrication of the scribes.

Blood wrote:
And which one of his disciples was there to witness the trial?

None; not even the non-believing gospel writers.

dejuror wrote:

Examine the words of Pilate in gMark 15

Then Pilate said unto them, Why, what evil hath he done ? And they cried out the more exceedingly, Crucify him.

This proves that Jesus was a faithful Roman citizen in Jerusalem; Pilate did not see any fault with Jesus.

Blood wrote:

And which one of his disciples was there to witness the trial?

Three main possibilities spring to mind.

Firstly, someone present at the trial, who later joined the Early Church. It could have been one of the officials, an observer, or the guy assigned to go out to get pizza when the officials got hungry.

Secondly, someone who talked to one of those present at the trial. Minor celebrity gossip.

Thirdly, Jesus himself on one of his post resurrection appearances. They must have talked about something other than sport, and filling in the gaps would be a likely topic of conversation.

Of course, other possible witnesses exist.

Mel S wrote:

Blood wrote:

And which one of his disciples was there to witness the trial?

Three main possibilities spring to mind.

Firstly, someone present at the trial, who later joined the Early Church. It could have been one of the officials, an observer, or the guy assigned to go out to get pizza when the officials got hungry.

Secondly, someone who talked to one of those present at the trial. Minor celebrity gossip.

Thirdly, Jesus himself on one of his post resurrection appearances. They must have talked about something other than sport, and filling in the gaps would be a likely topic of conversation.

Of course, other possible witnesses exist.

Or, perhaps, the gospel writer(s) just made it up.

paarsurrey wrote:

dejuror wrote:

Examine the words of Pilate in gMark 15

Then Pilate said unto them, Why, what evil hath he done ? And they cried out the more exceedingly, Crucify him.

This proves that Jesus was a faithful Roman citizen in Jerusalem; Pilate did not see any fault with Jesus.

Is there a single criticism of Romans in the entire New Testament?

Blood wrote:

Mel S wrote:



And which one of his disciples was there to witness the trial?

...

Or, perhaps, the gospel writer(s) just made it up.

Of course. And there are a number of Christians who would say that it was a reconstruction by (initially) Mark based on the sorts of things Jesus was saying, and the likely response of the authorities. A lot of this depends on the preconceptions one brings to the text.

However those Christians who wish to read the text as an historical record do have excellent options in answer to your question.

Blood wrote:

Is there a single criticism of Romans in the entire New Testament?

Although it is critical orthodoxy to say that the evangelists were trying to 'spin' Pilate positively; if the texts are read carefully, the Gospels portray him as weak, bullying, vacillating and caught between two agendas, neither of which had anything to do with truth and justice.

Mel S wrote:

Blood wrote:

Is there a single criticism of Romans in the entire New Testament?

Although it is critical orthodoxy to say that the evangelists were trying to 'spin' Pilate positively; if the texts are read carefully, the Gospels portray him as weak, bullying, vacillating and caught between two agendas, neither of which had anything to do with truth and justice.

So that's it? The most hard hitting criticism of the Romans -- who were crucifying hundreds or thousands of Jews every month during this era -- is limited to one "bullying" politician who, filled with remorse and regret, gets to wash his hands of the whole sad episode. No, instead, the real enemy of the Jews are the Jews! They are vicious, bloodthirsty, maniacs devoid of the slightest humanity and compassion. Their sole intention all along was to kill Jesus. This sounds like a very realistic and "historical" picture of Jewish life and thought in Jerusalem circa 33.

Mel S wrote:
Of course. And there are a number of Christians who would say that it was a reconstruction by (initially) Mark based on the sorts of things Jesus was saying, and the likely response of the authorities. A lot of this depends on the preconceptions one brings to the text.

However those Christians who wish to read the text as an historical record do have excellent options in answer to your question.

Really? They know what the "likely response" of the Sanhedrin would have been at such a trial? And where exactly would they get that information?

Blood wrote:

So that's it? The most hard hitting criticism of the Romans -- who were crucifying hundreds or thousands of Jews every month during this era -- is limited to one "bullying" politician who, filled with remorse and regret, gets to wash his hands of the whole sad episode. No, instead, the real enemy of the Jews are the Jews! They are vicious, bloodthirsty, maniacs devoid of the slightest humanity and compassion. Their sole intention all along was to kill Jesus. This sounds like a very realistic and "historical" picture of Jewish life and thought in Jerusalem circa 33.

I agree with you that it were the Jews who wanted to kill Jesus; Roman officials were not interested in killing Jesus.