Anonymous
03/27/2023 15:32
Subject: Re:Why was Jesus crucified ? ( Legally speaking )
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:He healed the sick on the Sabbath.
uh huh. And this is apropos of exactly what?
It was against the law as it would have been like working on the Sabbath. He was accused of blasphemy.
Saving a life is one of those things that can override shomer shabbat laws in Judaism, so this wouldn't be a problem.
OK yes, but this is a good example of the absurdity of this thread's whole premise. (I don't mean you specifically, but the entire idea of looking for a legal explanation for the Crucifixion.) The pikuach nefesh exception to the Shabbat laws was mostly elaborated in the Talmud, which mostly wasn't written until after Jesus's death/the destruction of the Second Temple! The entire understanding of halacha changed in exile, as we built up a rabbinic tradition separate from the High Priests and the Temple rituals...
Fortunately, the straightforward question was answered by multiple people.
For every attempt to answer based on historical legal info, there were two answers that quoted scripture blaming the Jews.
I don't understand this because the scripture is what it is. You're saying that just quoting the gospels is "blaming the Jews"?
The question simply couldn't be answered without reference to Mathew, Mark, Luke and John. There is also a passing reference to the incident in Josephus, but that's about it.
Or maybe you're saying the question shouldn't have been asked at all?
The gospels blame the Jews, so, yes, "just quoting the gospels is 'blaming the Jews.'"
But not just the Jews. Jesus himself behaved very recklessly. One has to conclude he had a death wish. And of course Pilate was also responsible for condemning him to death.
Let's not use the word "blame." There was plenty of responsibility to go around.
Not sure what things you find reckless, but let’s start with Jesus demonstrating God’s new covenant with mankind—radical love while eating with prostitutes, not respecting cleanliness laws, dietary laws or the sabbath, etc. This was quite the revolution so you can call it “reckless,” but it was also necessary.
Going to Jerusalem for Passover might be the most reckless thing about his ministry. The Romans did see Jesus as a political threat, and he likely knew that. But, it was also a Jewish religious obligation, Jesus was a Jew, so this too was “necessary.”
Seriously? See the Book of John, like chapters 5-8 -- he had to know he had enemies there who wanted to kill him. He was acting like he was the Messiah, and never denied it. That was blasphemous to a certain powerful group in Jerusalem. He could have just played it cool and done his miracles, but the way he rode into town for Passover was poking a snake with a stick. He had to know that would likely infuriate the religious officials and even the Romans.
Anonymous
03/27/2023 15:01
Subject: Re:Why was Jesus crucified ? ( Legally speaking )
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:He healed the sick on the Sabbath.
uh huh. And this is apropos of exactly what?
It was against the law as it would have been like working on the Sabbath. He was accused of blasphemy.
Saving a life is one of those things that can override shomer shabbat laws in Judaism, so this wouldn't be a problem.
OK yes, but this is a good example of the absurdity of this thread's whole premise. (I don't mean you specifically, but the entire idea of looking for a legal explanation for the Crucifixion.) The pikuach nefesh exception to the Shabbat laws was mostly elaborated in the Talmud, which mostly wasn't written until after Jesus's death/the destruction of the Second Temple! The entire understanding of halacha changed in exile, as we built up a rabbinic tradition separate from the High Priests and the Temple rituals...
Fortunately, the straightforward question was answered by multiple people.
For every attempt to answer based on historical legal info, there were two answers that quoted scripture blaming the Jews.
I don't understand this because the scripture is what it is. You're saying that just quoting the gospels is "blaming the Jews"?
The question simply couldn't be answered without reference to Mathew, Mark, Luke and John. There is also a passing reference to the incident in Josephus, but that's about it.
Or maybe you're saying the question shouldn't have been asked at all?
The gospels blame the Jews, so, yes, "just quoting the gospels is 'blaming the Jews.'"
But not just the Jews. Jesus himself behaved very recklessly. One has to conclude he had a death wish. And of course Pilate was also responsible for condemning him to death.
Let's not use the word "blame." There was plenty of responsibility to go around.
Not sure what things you find reckless, but let’s start with Jesus demonstrating God’s new covenant with mankind—radical love while eating with prostitutes, not respecting cleanliness laws, dietary laws or the sabbath, etc. This was quite the revolution so you can call it “reckless,” but it was also necessary.
Going to Jerusalem for Passover might be the most reckless thing about his ministry. The Romans did see Jesus as a political threat, and he likely knew that. But, it was also a Jewish religious obligation, Jesus was a Jew, so this too was “necessary.”
Anonymous
03/27/2023 14:06
Subject: Why was Jesus crucified ? ( Legally speaking )
Anonymous wrote:What strikes me as strangely odd, is that J seemed in some way to be in control of the events, to the point of it being possibly suicide. The way he fortold it, making it difficult for anyone to defend him, and the subsequent story of self sacrifise
If he hadn't been crucified and risen from the dead, there would be no Christianity.
Just another apocalyptic itinerant preacher lost to history
Anonymous
03/27/2023 12:06
Subject: Why was Jesus crucified ? ( Legally speaking )
What strikes me as strangely odd, is that J seemed in some way to be in control of the events, to the point of it being possibly suicide. The way he fortold it, making it difficult for anyone to defend him, and the subsequent story of self sacrifise
Anonymous
03/26/2023 09:32
Subject: Why was Jesus crucified ? ( Legally speaking )
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Matthew 27:25 is one of this blaming versus.
Just to answer the the two PP without getting into theological argument.
But did you know that Jesus had vistited Jerusalem on previous Passovers, and been stoned and run out of town? There is some background to this story that I don't quite understand. Jesus had to know what he was getting into when he rode an ass into Jerusalem that fateful Passover holiday.
I was just giving an example of a verse historically used for nefarious purposes.
You should read John 5 - pretty unequivocal. If you believe any of that
Anonymous
03/26/2023 09:26
Subject: Why was Jesus crucified ? ( Legally speaking )
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Matthew 27:25 is one of this blaming versus.
Just to answer the the two PP without getting into theological argument.
But did you know that Jesus had vistited Jerusalem on previous Passovers, and been stoned and run out of town? There is some background to this story that I don't quite understand. Jesus had to know what he was getting into when he rode an ass into Jerusalem that fateful Passover holiday.
I was just giving an example of a verse historically used for nefarious purposes.
fair enough, but most all Biblical verses are subject to considerable interpretation.
Anonymous
03/26/2023 09:18
Subject: Why was Jesus crucified ? ( Legally speaking )
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Matthew 27:25 is one of this blaming versus.
Just to answer the the two PP without getting into theological argument.
But did you know that Jesus had vistited Jerusalem on previous Passovers, and been stoned and run out of town? There is some background to this story that I don't quite understand. Jesus had to know what he was getting into when he rode an ass into Jerusalem that fateful Passover holiday.
I was just giving an example of a verse historically used for nefarious purposes.
Anonymous
03/26/2023 08:42
Subject: Why was Jesus crucified ? ( Legally speaking )
Anonymous wrote:Matthew 27:25 is one of this blaming versus.
Just to answer the the two PP without getting into theological argument.
But did you know that Jesus had vistited Jerusalem on previous Passovers, and been stoned and run out of town? There is some background to this story that I don't quite understand. Jesus had to know what he was getting into when he rode an ass into Jerusalem that fateful Passover holiday.
Anonymous
03/26/2023 08:02
Subject: Why was Jesus crucified ? ( Legally speaking )
Matthew 27:25 is one of this blaming versus.
Just to answer the the two PP without getting into theological argument.
Just to answer the the two PP without getting into theological argument.
Anonymous
03/26/2023 04:31
Subject: Re:Why was Jesus crucified ? ( Legally speaking )
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:He healed the sick on the Sabbath.
uh huh. And this is apropos of exactly what?
It was against the law as it would have been like working on the Sabbath. He was accused of blasphemy.
Saving a life is one of those things that can override shomer shabbat laws in Judaism, so this wouldn't be a problem.
OK yes, but this is a good example of the absurdity of this thread's whole premise. (I don't mean you specifically, but the entire idea of looking for a legal explanation for the Crucifixion.) The pikuach nefesh exception to the Shabbat laws was mostly elaborated in the Talmud, which mostly wasn't written until after Jesus's death/the destruction of the Second Temple! The entire understanding of halacha changed in exile, as we built up a rabbinic tradition separate from the High Priests and the Temple rituals...
Fortunately, the straightforward question was answered by multiple people.
For every attempt to answer based on historical legal info, there were two answers that quoted scripture blaming the Jews.
I don't understand this because the scripture is what it is. You're saying that just quoting the gospels is "blaming the Jews"?
The question simply couldn't be answered without reference to Mathew, Mark, Luke and John. There is also a passing reference to the incident in Josephus, but that's about it.
Or maybe you're saying the question shouldn't have been asked at all?
The gospels blame the Jews, so, yes, "just quoting the gospels is 'blaming the Jews.'"
No, "the gospels" do not "blame" the Jews. Unless you get your gospels from well-known anti-Semite Mel Gibson. The gospels clearly indicate that the Romans killed Christ. Parts of some gospels which make some Jewish leaders complicit, even if taken as true, can't be interpreted that way - unless you believe Mel Gibson over the Catholic Church, which agrees there is no basis in scripture for the belief that Jews killed Jesus.
As many people don't know, Israel was a Jewish country, full of Jewish people. Jesus was a JEW who had a growing number of JEWISH followers. His popularity among the JEWISH people was growing, and it threatened Rome's authority. So even if some Jews were complicit in his death (they clearly did not actually carry out his execution), it was still a conflict primarily between Jews and Romans, and perhaps additionally between some Jews who were in positions of power under Roman rule, and those Jews who supported Jesus. The first Christians were not Christians at all, but rather Jews. So blaming Jews for the death of Christ is like blaming Jesus and Christians for the death of Christ, because they were ALL Jews at that time.
No one is blaming anyone for the death of one person 2000 years ago
I am not familiar enough about your assessment on Mel Gibson so cannot comment further
The average man who reads the gospels will make their own deductions based on text as to how event occurred and what lead to it
Crucifiction was not unusual for the Romans, they ruled by fear, as have many empires since
In the gospel story, the Roman governor was not that keen, J had some enemies and in some way the entire town took part in it
Anonymous
03/25/2023 19:49
Subject: Re:Why was Jesus crucified ? ( Legally speaking )
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:He healed the sick on the Sabbath.
uh huh. And this is apropos of exactly what?
It was against the law as it would have been like working on the Sabbath. He was accused of blasphemy.
Saving a life is one of those things that can override shomer shabbat laws in Judaism, so this wouldn't be a problem.
OK yes, but this is a good example of the absurdity of this thread's whole premise. (I don't mean you specifically, but the entire idea of looking for a legal explanation for the Crucifixion.) The pikuach nefesh exception to the Shabbat laws was mostly elaborated in the Talmud, which mostly wasn't written until after Jesus's death/the destruction of the Second Temple! The entire understanding of halacha changed in exile, as we built up a rabbinic tradition separate from the High Priests and the Temple rituals...
Fortunately, the straightforward question was answered by multiple people.
For every attempt to answer based on historical legal info, there were two answers that quoted scripture blaming the Jews.
I don't understand this because the scripture is what it is. You're saying that just quoting the gospels is "blaming the Jews"?
The question simply couldn't be answered without reference to Mathew, Mark, Luke and John. There is also a passing reference to the incident in Josephus, but that's about it.
Or maybe you're saying the question shouldn't have been asked at all?
The gospels blame the Jews, so, yes, "just quoting the gospels is 'blaming the Jews.'"
No, "the gospels" do not "blame" the Jews. Unless you get your gospels from well-known anti-Semite Mel Gibson. The gospels clearly indicate that the Romans killed Christ. Parts of some gospels which make some Jewish leaders complicit, even if taken as true, can't be interpreted that way - unless you believe Mel Gibson over the Catholic Church, which agrees there is no basis in scripture for the belief that Jews killed Jesus.
As many people don't know, Israel was a Jewish country, full of Jewish people. Jesus was a JEW who had a growing number of JEWISH followers. His popularity among the JEWISH people was growing, and it threatened Rome's authority. So even if some Jews were complicit in his death (they clearly did not actually carry out his execution), it was still a conflict primarily between Jews and Romans, and perhaps additionally between some Jews who were in positions of power under Roman rule, and those Jews who supported Jesus. The first Christians were not Christians at all, but rather Jews. So blaming Jews for the death of Christ is like blaming Jesus and Christians for the death of Christ, because they were ALL Jews at that time.
Anonymous
03/25/2023 19:11
Subject: Why was Jesus crucified ? ( Legally speaking )
Anonymous wrote:It was political. The Jews were a subject people of the Romans. Pretty much all we’re hoping for a Messiah to arrive and liberate them from Roman rule (which was oppressive due to a lack of religious freedom). The Nazarenes in particular expected the Messiah to come very soon. Some said Jesus was that Messiah. In scriptures, he never claims he’s a political liberator, but the Romans didn’t worry about details like that. If some Jews saw him that way, he was a threat to the political order.
This is a good answer. He was even executed in a manner intended to send a warning, not just get rid of him.
Anonymous
03/24/2023 15:01
Subject: Re:Why was Jesus crucified ? ( Legally speaking )
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:He healed the sick on the Sabbath.
uh huh. And this is apropos of exactly what?
It was against the law as it would have been like working on the Sabbath. He was accused of blasphemy.
Saving a life is one of those things that can override shomer shabbat laws in Judaism, so this wouldn't be a problem.
OK yes, but this is a good example of the absurdity of this thread's whole premise. (I don't mean you specifically, but the entire idea of looking for a legal explanation for the Crucifixion.) The pikuach nefesh exception to the Shabbat laws was mostly elaborated in the Talmud, which mostly wasn't written until after Jesus's death/the destruction of the Second Temple! The entire understanding of halacha changed in exile, as we built up a rabbinic tradition separate from the High Priests and the Temple rituals...
Fortunately, the straightforward question was answered by multiple people.
For every attempt to answer based on historical legal info, there were two answers that quoted scripture blaming the Jews.
I don't understand this because the scripture is what it is. You're saying that just quoting the gospels is "blaming the Jews"?
The question simply couldn't be answered without reference to Mathew, Mark, Luke and John. There is also a passing reference to the incident in Josephus, but that's about it.
Or maybe you're saying the question shouldn't have been asked at all?
The question is fairly silly, as it assumes there was some actual due process that we can easily refer back to and establish a specific legal reason for the crucifixion.
But the responses citing the gospels as if they were fact are worse. Yes, it's true, the various biblical texts answer this question one way. Do we have any reason to believe those texts are strictly historically accurate? Did anyone who pointed to the answers in the gospels acknowledge that all of them were written decades after Christ's death, as the early church dealt with repression by various authorities, and that there might have been other reasons besides "it just happened this way" to suggest that the Jews were at fault? Are we not capable of discussing this topic in a slightly more sophisticated manner, one that is informed by what we know about the 2,000 years since the crucifixion and how those stories were used to justify mass murder of Jews throughout Europe in the medieval period?
Anonymous
03/24/2023 15:00
Subject: Re:Why was Jesus crucified ? ( Legally speaking )
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:He healed the sick on the Sabbath.
uh huh. And this is apropos of exactly what?
It was against the law as it would have been like working on the Sabbath. He was accused of blasphemy.
Saving a life is one of those things that can override shomer shabbat laws in Judaism, so this wouldn't be a problem.
OK yes, but this is a good example of the absurdity of this thread's whole premise. (I don't mean you specifically, but the entire idea of looking for a legal explanation for the Crucifixion.) The pikuach nefesh exception to the Shabbat laws was mostly elaborated in the Talmud, which mostly wasn't written until after Jesus's death/the destruction of the Second Temple! The entire understanding of halacha changed in exile, as we built up a rabbinic tradition separate from the High Priests and the Temple rituals...
Fortunately, the straightforward question was answered by multiple people.
For every attempt to answer based on historical legal info, there were two answers that quoted scripture blaming the Jews.
I don't understand this because the scripture is what it is. You're saying that just quoting the gospels is "blaming the Jews"?
The question simply couldn't be answered without reference to Mathew, Mark, Luke and John. There is also a passing reference to the incident in Josephus, but that's about it.
Or maybe you're saying the question shouldn't have been asked at all?
The gospels blame the Jews, so, yes, "just quoting the gospels is 'blaming the Jews.'"
But not just the Jews. Jesus himself behaved very recklessly. One has to conclude he had a death wish. And of course Pilate was also responsible for condemning him to death.
Let's not use the word "blame." There was plenty of responsibility to go around.
Anonymous
03/24/2023 14:54
Subject: Re:Why was Jesus crucified ? ( Legally speaking )
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:He healed the sick on the Sabbath.
uh huh. And this is apropos of exactly what?
It was against the law as it would have been like working on the Sabbath. He was accused of blasphemy.
Saving a life is one of those things that can override shomer shabbat laws in Judaism, so this wouldn't be a problem.
OK yes, but this is a good example of the absurdity of this thread's whole premise. (I don't mean you specifically, but the entire idea of looking for a legal explanation for the Crucifixion.) The pikuach nefesh exception to the Shabbat laws was mostly elaborated in the Talmud, which mostly wasn't written until after Jesus's death/the destruction of the Second Temple! The entire understanding of halacha changed in exile, as we built up a rabbinic tradition separate from the High Priests and the Temple rituals...
Fortunately, the straightforward question was answered by multiple people.
For every attempt to answer based on historical legal info, there were two answers that quoted scripture blaming the Jews.
I don't understand this because the scripture is what it is. You're saying that just quoting the gospels is "blaming the Jews"?
The question simply couldn't be answered without reference to Mathew, Mark, Luke and John. There is also a passing reference to the incident in Josephus, but that's about it.
Or maybe you're saying the question shouldn't have been asked at all?
The gospels blame the Jews, so, yes, "just quoting the gospels is 'blaming the Jews.'"