ColorMixer Posted March 28, 2010 Share Posted March 28, 2010 My understanding is that crucifixion would have been used as capital punishment, like breaking the law etc. During the time of Jesus he was supposedly crucified in a Roman governed province right? In the context of the culture and government, what law he would have broken exactly to warrant being crucified? In my mind, it doesn't make sense that a Roman governor would have sentenced a man to death just because a bunch of Jews thought some guy was blaspheming. The Jews wouldn't have had the legal power to do this right? Has anyone read historical sources that could point to what the actual government/laws would have been like? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hereticzero Posted March 28, 2010 Share Posted March 28, 2010 Judging from current events in the mid east, it would not have taken much to get killed by any kind of government. I am not a believer in any cruci-fiction or resurrection. Rome was notorious for its treatment of those it conquered. Get out of line, cause a disturbance, even hint of rebellion, and your time on earth is over. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nightflight Posted March 28, 2010 Share Posted March 28, 2010 My understanding is that crucifixion would have been used as capital punishment, like breaking the law etc. During the time of Jesus he was supposedly crucified in a Roman governed province right? In the context of the culture and government, what law he would have broken exactly to warrant being crucified? In my mind, it doesn't make sense that a Roman governor would have sentenced a man to death just because a bunch of Jews thought some guy was blaspheming. The Jews wouldn't have had the legal power to do this right? Has anyone read historical sources that could point to what the actual government/laws would have been like? According to the Synoptics, (Matthew, Mark and Luke) Jesus was crucified because the Romans feared an insurrection, since the talk was that Jesus was the Messiah. I wonder if the Jesus character was a bit more political than Christianity lets on. Also, Pontius Pilate was heavy handed, so much so that Caesar had him removed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mwc Posted March 28, 2010 Share Posted March 28, 2010 Also, Pontius Pilate was heavy handed, so much so that Caesar had him removed. Close, but not quite right. Pilate had killed some Samaritans on Mount Gerizzim (the Samaritan holy mountain) who were following a guy supposedly looking for some sacred artifacts left there by Moses. They, the Samaritan people, made an appeal to the proconsul of Syria, Vitellius, who had recently came to power. He sent a temporary replacement to take Pilate's place and sent Pilate to Rome to explain the situation to Tiberius (Caesar). But Tiberius died while he was en-route and what happened to Pilate after that is unknown. Prior to Vitellius arriving as governor the previous governor was not allowed to leave Rome to take his position so the seat was empty even though there was someone assigned to do the job. As a result Pilate effectively had no boss in the local area for much of his assignment. Tiberius understood that the local governors (at any level) would suck the people dry like flies filling up on blood. Old flies fill up and take less and less over time but new flies will want lots of blood. So, we're told, Tiberius rarely changed those in power so they'd take their fill right away and grow tired rather than changing out on a regular basis so the locals would be constantly drained. mwc Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
laurie Posted March 28, 2010 Share Posted March 28, 2010 It's amazing that a man who claimed to be "King of the Jews" lasted as long he did. Probably why he didn't spend much time in Jerusalem. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neon Genesis Posted March 28, 2010 Share Posted March 28, 2010 According to the Synoptics, (Matthew, Mark and Luke) Jesus was crucified because the Romans feared an insurrection, since the talk was that Jesus was the Messiah. I wonder if the Jesus character was a bit more political than Christianity lets on. This is Marcus Borg's argument in his books, that Jesus was executed for having anti-imperialist views. His argument was that calling Jesus Lord was not just a theological title but a political title because calling someone Lord other than Caesar was a criminal offense or something. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Valkyrie0010 Posted March 28, 2010 Share Posted March 28, 2010 It's amazing that a man who claimed to be "King of the Jews" lasted as long he did. Probably why he didn't spend much time in Jerusalem. Did even think of that one, bravo, your thinking, naughty girl. j/k Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ColorMixer Posted March 28, 2010 Author Share Posted March 28, 2010 Judging from current events in the mid east, it would not have taken much to get killed by any kind of government. I am not a believer in any cruci-fiction or resurrection. Rome was notorious for its treatment of those it conquered. Get out of line, cause a disturbance, even hint of rebellion, and your time on earth is over. Really though? What historical evidence do we have for the government at the time? Not saying you're wrong, I'm just interested in how we know what exactly the political climate was like. I don't want to look towards the bible as reliable evidence, as what I've read seems to suggest that the Pharisees at the time would not have been like those that were portrayed in the bible etc. I'm interested in what historical evidence we have for the climate around the supposed resurrection. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neon Genesis Posted March 28, 2010 Share Posted March 28, 2010 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Babylonian Dream Posted March 29, 2010 Share Posted March 29, 2010 My understanding is that crucifixion would have been used as capital punishment, like breaking the law etc. During the time of Jesus he was supposedly crucified in a Roman governed province right? In the context of the culture and government, what law he would have broken exactly to warrant being crucified? In my mind, it doesn't make sense that a Roman governor would have sentenced a man to death just because a bunch of Jews thought some guy was blaspheming. The Jews wouldn't have had the legal power to do this right? Has anyone read historical sources that could point to what the actual government/laws would have been like? The only thing the romans crucified people for was usually rebellion. Especially the seperatists in the time of Jesus. While that's not to say Jesus was a historical figure, it makes "a jesus" plausable, but a very different one than we find today. A seperatist, a failed messiah (by the 1st century ce definition of messiah). Just another Simon Bar Kokva, except he didn't get anywhere. But no, the romans didn't care about jewish law, why else would they make the temple have a place to worship the emporer? All they cared about was maintaining control of a tiny province at the edge of their empire. The gospels came in, having to make a spiritual account to preserve Jesus's legitimacy, as they didn't want to admit that their messiah failed them. Then again with another guy who was associated with the star, if the two aren't the same. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OpheliaGinger Posted March 29, 2010 Share Posted March 29, 2010 What doesn't make sense is that the messiah is supposed to be killed by the Jews but Jesus was clearly killed by the Roman government for a possible insurrection. And why the hell would a government release a convicted killer just because a crowd wanted to kill a blasphemer? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ouroboros Posted March 30, 2010 Share Posted March 30, 2010 Crucifixion? The only it makes sense is if one think of it as a blood sacrifice, like the old pagans did: Give blood to the gods to appease them. God needed the sacrifice of blood (soul, spirit) from a human to be happy again. In other words, it's a human sacrifice, allegedly the ultimate kind since he also was God. But of course that's not what Christians want to believe. On a similar note, wasn't the sacrificial lamb in the OT offered as a burnt offering? If so, why wasn't Jesus? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shyone Posted March 30, 2010 Share Posted March 30, 2010 Crucifixion? The only it makes sense is if one think of it as a blood sacrifice, like the old pagans did: Give blood to the gods to appease them. God needed the sacrifice of blood (soul, spirit) from a human to be happy again. In other words, it's a human sacrifice, allegedly the ultimate kind since he also was God. But of course that's not what Christians want to believe. On a similar note, wasn't the sacrificial lamb in the OT offered as a burnt offering? If so, why wasn't Jesus? Take, eat, for this is my body. The OT had a few harsh things to say about blood IIRC. "You must not eat any fat or any blood." "If anyone eats blood, that person must be cut off from his people." Equating Jesus with a Lamb is as clear as one can get that Jesus was a human sacrifice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ouroboros Posted March 30, 2010 Share Posted March 30, 2010 Take, eat, for this is my body. The OT had a few harsh things to say about blood IIRC. "You must not eat any fat or any blood." "If anyone eats blood, that person must be cut off from his people." Right. That's quite interesting too. How could it be that these simple fishermen could properly appreciate the significance of drinking blood (literally or symbolic), considering they had been brought up in a culture which condemned the drinking of blood all together? It would have been like starting a cult in our time and asking the members to rape kids. "Hey, I'm Jesus, and if you're gonna be my disciple you have to rape this kid here..." Seriously, any normal person would reject such "salvation" offering. (Sorry for the gross comparison, but I think it got some validity.) Equating Jesus with a Lamb is as clear as one can get that Jesus was a human sacrifice. Yup. If the lamb was a sacrifice, then Jesus was a sacrifice, unless he wasn't the lamb. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J. Quinton Posted March 30, 2010 Share Posted March 30, 2010 And why the hell would a government release a convicted killer just because a crowd wanted to kill a blasphemer? In some manuscripts of Matthew, the guy that the Jews want released is called "Jesus Barabbas". As if that doesn't give the game away enough, "BarAbba" is literally Aramaic for "son of the father". It makes sense of the fictional Pilate's question: "who do you want me to release? Jesus called Barabbas or Jesus called Christ?" If you read Mark, Jesus makes a prayer in Gethsemane where he says "Abba, Father, everything is possible for you. Take this cup from me. Yet not what I will, but what you will" (14:36) Who recorded this prayer? Everyone who could have was asleep. It's the author of Mark giving you a hint as to what the word "Abba" means for when he introduces Jesus BarAbba. It's clearly a fictional or allegorical account, probably re-enacting the scapegoat ceremony of Leviticus 16. Or, possibly Jesus "BarAbba" was the historical Jesus and really was a murderous insurrectionist who rightly got executed for sedition. Makes sense of why Jesus was always praying to the father. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
laurie Posted April 2, 2010 Share Posted April 2, 2010 It's amazing that a man who claimed to be "King of the Jews" lasted as long he did. Probably why he didn't spend much time in Jerusalem. Did even think of that one, bravo, your thinking, naughty girl. j/k occasionally thinking can get me in trouble, but occasionally i enjoy trouble. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Marty Posted April 11, 2010 Share Posted April 11, 2010 Crucifixion? The only it makes sense is if one think of it as a blood sacrifice, like the old pagans did: Give blood to the gods to appease them. God needed the sacrifice of blood (soul, spirit) from a human to be happy again. In other words, it's a human sacrifice, allegedly the ultimate kind since he also was God. But of course that's not what Christians want to believe. On a similar note, wasn't the sacrificial lamb in the OT offered as a burnt offering? If so, why wasn't Jesus? This is the way I think of it: Why don't the Jews still do animal sacrifice? Because by the law, animal sacrifice can ONLY be done in the temple in jerusalem. Since the temple was destroyed in 70 C.E., the Jews could no longer offer animal sacrifice to atone for their sins. Now, this is right around the time the first writings of the NT come into existance, and we know that the first xtians were Jews because they debated whether you had to keep the old law or not, like circumcision, etc. So the earliest xtians were Jews who invented the story of the ultimate blodd sacrifice in order to explain away how they can "survive" without the ability to offer animal blood sacrifice in the temple, which no longer exists. Sacrifice is no longer needed because jesus was the ultimate sacrifice. And it also makes me wonder, if the Jews ever do regain control of the temple mount and build a 3rd temple there, will they resume animal sacrifice again? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mwc Posted April 13, 2010 Share Posted April 13, 2010 And it also makes me wonder, if the Jews ever do regain control of the temple mount and build a 3rd temple there, will they resume animal sacrifice again? I think the rest of your theory is sound and according to the bible the Jews will do animal sacrifice once the next temple is built. The will have a high priest, a full course of other priests, and will require travel 3 times a year to the temple. It will be just like it was before (or as close as they can re-imagine it since the actual tradition had been dead ~2000 years and counting). mwc Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts