Why was Jesus REALLY crucified?

[mark9950]

Since human sacrifice was forbidden for sin as I have seen from other treads by the hebrew God.

Why was he crucified?

He must not have broken any Roman Law because (I think it was herod) that washed his hands of Jesus situation and gave him to the people to crucify him.

[godfry n. glad]

I've got some initial responses:

1. If there was no Jesus, there was no crucifiction of Jesus.

2. If he was divine (...as if...), he was no mere human and the crucifiction cannot be considered to have been "human sacrifice".

3. The tales were written by Greeks, not Hebrews, so the guiding cultural paradigms were somewhat different.

4. What makes you think there is no human sacrifice in Hebrew tradition? It's my understanding that if God orders an action, you do it, no questions asked. And no pouting or simpering, even if its your son or daughter.

5. Marytrdom was a popular form of religious zealotry to the Jews of the time and place.

6. You're crimping poetic license and literary imagination with niggling details about guiding liturgical traditions and impedimentary dogma.

godfry n. glad

P.S. - It was Pontius Pilate, the Roman procurator, who reputedly washed his hands of the affair and ordered the Jesus of the gospels executed anyway. Herod was a half-jew puppet governor. The gospel Jesus died a Roman insurgent's death, not a Jewish death.

[Doctor X]

4. What makes you think there is no human sacrifice in Hebrew tradition? It's my understanding that if God orders an action, you do it, no questions asked. And no pouting or simpering, even if its your son or daughter.


Indeed. We have pontificated on this on another thread here on sacrifice. I quote too much an article which mentions the OT human sacrifices and decided to get one of the references. It finally arrived, and here is the opening:

You shall not put off the skimming of the first yield of your vats. You shall give Me the first-born among your sons. You shall do the same with your cattle and your flocks: seven days it shall remain with its mother; on the eighth day you shall give it to Me. (Exod 22:28-29)

Of all the passages in the Bible that have been deemed offensive, none has been deemed so more often than this one, and none has generated greater resistance to a literal interpretation. That the God of justice and mercy should demand the first-born of herd and flock is a common stumbling-block for moderns. That he should demand the same of human families has been judged an offense much longer, indeed from biblical times themselves.

Jon D. Levenson. The Death and Resurrection of the Beloved Son: the Transformation of Child Sacrifice in Judaism and Christianity. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1993.

--J.D.

[mark9950]

What makes you think there is no human sacrifice in Hebrew tradition?

This tread

http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=59555

It was Pontius Pilate, the Roman procurator

I couldnt think of his name at the time of my posting

[godfry n. glad]

quote godfry:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What makes you think there is no human sacrifice in Hebrew tradition?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


respond mark:
This tread

http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread....&threadid=59555

Y'know, mark9950, I read that entire thread and not a single person provided you a scripture cite that explicitly prohibits human sacrifice and noted several instances in Genesis and the Judges 11 situation as examples of "God demanding a human sacrifice."

It seems clear to me that Hebrew tradition clearly supports the sacrifice of a human life if God demands it.

Now... Who speaks for God? That's the rub...




quote godfry:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It was Pontius Pilate, the Roman procurator
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

reponds mark:
I couldnt think of his name at the time of my posting.

That's actually heartening. That someone could actually forget such a major player in the passion narrative....

godfry n. glad

[Asha'man]

Originally posted by mark9950
Why was he crucified?
He wasn’t. :)
Originally posted by mark9950
He must not have broken any Roman Law because (I think it was herod) that washed his hands of Jesus situation and gave him to the people to crucify him.
However, the Gospels are quite clear that he broke Jewish law, and the Sanhedrin found him guilty of blasphemy. The punishment for blasphemy was death by stoning, with the body being hung from a tree as a warning. Somebody later got confused between hanging the body from a tree and crucifixion.

[mark9950]

However, the Gospels are quite clear that he broke Jewish law, and the Sanhedrin found him guilty of blasphemy.

So jesus definately was a fraud and a fake,I would have looked it up.

But I burned all of my copies of the bible up last week.

I think of what I know of the OT so far I would have had him crucified too.

I say I am glad that fraud was crucified he deserved it.I think he was gay too except that part was probably taken out by the early church.(If he even lived)

Another reason for crucifixion.I hate that character jesus.

[Secular Pinoy]

Originally posted by mark9950
But I burned all of my copies of the bible up last week.Well, book burning is totally antithetical with the spirit of freethought and open inquiry, even if the book in question is the Bible. Your rants and semi-coherent raves in this forum makes you look even worse than some of the fundies. You should seek help.

If you no longer have a printed copy of the bible, then download one from the internet. There are PDF copies of the bible, try googling. Or use an online bible search webpage, like The Bible Gateway (http://www.biblegateway.net/cgi-bin/bible).

[mark9950]

You should see my tread on why he deserved to be crucified.

http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=60904

[Rick Sumner]

Originally posted by Asha'man
However, the Gospels are quite clear that he broke Jewish law, and the Sanhedrin found him guilty of blasphemy. The punishment for blasphemy was death by stoning, with the body being hung from a tree as a warning. Somebody later got confused between hanging the body from a tree and crucifixion.

The Gospels are also quite clear that he was crucified. Why do you accept the account of the reason for execution, but dismiss the method of execution employed? The former is far easier to account for than the latter.

According to the Mishna, blaspheme occurred if, and only if, the name of God was uttered. That wasn't the charge issued against Jesus. He thus wasn't guilty of blaspheme. (San.7.6) (http://www.sacred-texts.com/jud/t08/t0810.htm)

Regards,
Rick

[Rick Sumner]

Originally posted by Asha'man
However, the Gospels are quite clear that he broke Jewish law, and the Sanhedrin found him guilty of blasphemy. The punishment for blasphemy was death by stoning, with the body being hung from a tree as a warning. Somebody later got confused between hanging the body from a tree and crucifixion.

The Gospels are also quite clear that he was crucified. Why do you accept the account of the reason for execution, but dismiss the method of execution employed? The former is far easier to account for than the latter.

According to the Mishna, blaspheme occurred if, and only if, the name of God was uttered. That wasn't the charge issued against Jesus. He thus wasn't guilty of blaspheme. (San.7.6) (http://www.sacred-texts.com/jud/t08/t0810.htm)

It seems far more likely to me, therefore, that the entire charge is nothing but a pro-Roman apologetic. "Oh no, don't worry Gentile converts and seriously cranky Roman army, it wasn't *you* who killed Jesus, but those Jews who rejected us."

Regards,
Rick

[Secular Pinoy]

Originally posted by mark9950
You should see my tread on why he deserved to be crucified.It is questionable whether he deserved to be crucified, and even if he did, what does it have to do with book burning? Jeez, anti-christian fundies are just as bad as normal fundies.

[mark9950]

So I burned the bible so what.My bible was over 20 years old anyway.

I was thinking of using it as toilet tissue.

[mark9950]

According to the Mishna, blaspheme occurred if, and only if, the name of God was uttered. That wasn't the charge issued against Jesus. He thus wasn't guilty of blaspheme

I believe that there was more to it except that the bible was probably changed and verses taken out especially the parts of jesus being gay.

There probably was more to it than blasphemy,The early church fathers took stuff out.

[Amos]

The crucifixion of Jesus probably was the best day of his life and would be the best day in our life if we could walk away from it and go right into heaven.

He was crucified because he was convicted by Jewish law and needed to stand guilty to have his sin nature nailed to the cross.

[Koyaanisqatsi]

Originally posted by rickmsumner : The Gospels are also quite clear that he was crucified. Why do you accept the account of the reason for execution, but dismiss the method of execution employed?

Because the method does not fit the crime.

It is not a Roman crime to claim to be a Jewish God (or the Son of a Jewish God, or even the "King of the Jews.") Crucifixion was normally used for murderers and seditionists (aka; resistance fighters arrested, tried and convicted for performing anti-Roman acts of all kinds) and was certainly not used by the Romans when the ruling procurator bothers to have an official trial and thrice pronounce the man's innocence publicly and officially acquit the defendant of all charges.

That would never have happened. Nor, for that matter, would the subsequent ridiculousness of the brutal, ruling, occupying dictator of the region countermanding his own official pronouncement of "not-guilty" because the crowd he was there to assimilate into Roman citizenry (militarily if necessary and he thought it was on at least one infamous occasion) spooked him into doing it, during a ritual the Romans never had, no less.

So, somebody got a whole shite-load of very basic things wrong about an event that, allegedly was living, tangible proof of the One True God's existence and death on this Earth. You know? Nothing too important, right? Not something complex, like a dirty limerick that seems to be able to be passed down flawlessly from century to century or anything.

Just the only alleged account of the creator of the entire Universe bifurcating into flesh in order to save all mankind. Who could be expected to get the facts straight year after year on something that trivial and easy to forget?

:rolleyes:

MORE: The former is far easier to account for than the latter.

No, it isn't. If the Sanhedrin and the Chief Priests and the makers of the laws had found that Jesus committed blasphemy, they would have stoned him to death (and, apparently tried twice). The proof is not only in the annals of antiquity, but also in the same book it's based upon; if they tried to stone him and he got away, then they certainly didn't have a legal problem with the stoning end of things; just the keeping him tied down somehow end of things.

If he wasn't found guilty of blasphemy by the Sanhedrin and Chief Priests and makers of the laws, then what would they have presented as the case against him to Pilate? "He's going around saying he's the King of the Jews, so we want you to waste your time and resources to try him, find him guilty and then use your most vicious form of capital punishment, because this lunatic thinks he's our King?"

Jews didn't have Kings. The title has no meaning to them, religiously and likewise, the title "King of the Jews" has no meaning to a Jewish person and it certainly would have no meaning to a Roman! Maybe if he went around saying he was Caesar, there might be a problem, but certainly not a problem for the Procurator!

"Guards? Excuse me. This tacky, peasant, carpenter's son Jew is saying he's Caesar! Could you do us a favor and slit his throat, dumping his body in this lovely mass grave you're standing over? Thanks."

The only plausible explanation (if not that he was stoned to death and hung from a tree and it got wildly perverted somehow) is that Jesus was crucified by the Romans for committing seditionist acts (or murder) against Rome (e.g., the turning over of the Temple; a spot the Romans no doubt had a stake in, considering it was the center of all commerce in the region, complete with "banks" and moneychangers and the whole ancient Wall Street way of making one's occuppied territories profitable for the big throne to the Northwest, if my compass is reading that right).

One thing's for sure; no Roman procurator is going to officially try a man for a Jewish "crime" (having only to do with their religious beliefs), find him officially innocent of all charges, let him go, only to then inexplicably countermand all of that, because a crowd he considers his slaves/spoils of occupation, scare him into it during a ritual he never performed (as far as I've been able to determine from extra-biblical sources).

MORE: According to the Mishna, blaspheme occurred if, and only if, the name of God was uttered. That wasn't the charge issued against Jesus. He thus wasn't guilty of blaspheme.

Exactly. So what was he guilty of?

If you ask his judge (according to the NT accounts), he wasn't.

(BTW, this wasn't necessarily directed at you, Rick)

[Rick Sumner]

Originally posted by Koyaanisqatsi
Because the method does not fit the crime.

You're right. It doesn't. But the method makes sense, the crime doesn't, so I'd venture that it's the crime, and not the method, that is fabricated.


That would never have happened. Nor, for that matter, would the subsequent ridiculousness of the brutal, ruling, occupying dictator of the region countermanding his own official pronouncement of "not-guilty" because the crowd he was there to assimilate into Roman citizenry (militarily if necessary and he thought it was on at least one infamous occasion) spooked him into doing it, during a ritual the Romans never had, no less.

You're right, that wouldn't have happened either. Philo notes that just rulers might grant a prisoner a stay of execution during a festival. He clearly can't fathom releasing one.

Jews didn't have Kings. The title has no meaning to them, religiously and likewise, the title "King of the Jews" has no meaning to a Jewish person and it certainly would have no meaning to a Roman! Maybe if he went around saying he was Caesar, there might be a problem, but certainly not a problem for the Procurator!

Leaders were executed before they could cause problems. Just ask Theudas, the Egyptian, John the Baptist.

Claiming to be the king of the Jews would, under Roman law, be grounds for crucifixion. Not saying it's based in reality on this point, simply that it has verisimillitude.

The only plausible explanation (if not that he was stoned to death and hung from a tree and it got wildly perverted somehow) is that Jesus was crucified by the Romans for committing seditionist acts (or murder) against Rome (e.g., the turning over of the Temple; a spot the Romans no doubt had a stake in, considering it was the center of all commerce in the region, complete with "banks" and moneychangers and the whole ancient Wall Street way of making one's occuppied territories profitable for the big throne to the Northwest, if my compass is reading that right).

I'm not persuaded that it's the only possibility. Perhaps it was something of advertisement--a giant "Don't Screw with Rome" sign on Golgotha, as Paula Fredriksen contended?

One thing's for sure; no Roman procurator is going to officially try a man for a Jewish "crime" (having only to do with their religious beliefs), find him officially innocent of all charges, let him go, only to then inexplicably countermand all of that, because a crowd he considers his slaves/spoils of occupation, scare him into it during a ritual he never performed (as far as I've been able to determine from extra-biblical sources).

Well of course not. It's pro-Roman propoganda.

Exactly. So what was he guilty of?

If you ask his judge (according to the NT accounts), he wasn't.

I think that was the desired effect. Can't be much of a quintessential suffering just one if you were executed justly.

Regards,
Rick

[Asha'man]

Originally posted by rickmsumner
The Gospels are also quite clear that he was crucified. Why do you accept the account of the reason for execution, but dismiss the method of execution employed? The former is far easier to account for than the latter.

But the crucifixion narrative has several inconsistencies that need to be explained.

In a Roman crucifixion, the victim took days to die. If Jewish law is being followed, the victim is dead before he is strung up. Jesus died too soon. (And the spear through the side is a fabrication to cover that up.)

In a Roman crucifixion, the body is left on the cross to rot, as a warning to others. If Jewish law is being followed, the victim must be taken down from the tree before nightfall and buried. Jesus was buried just before sunset.

The Sanhedrin are made to protest that they don’t have the authority to inflict capital punishment, but this is an anachronism, since that power was taken from them around the year 40. They clearly attempted to stone Jesus several times, in earlier passages. This appears to be a defensive apologetic, inserted to cover the alteration of the story.

From a completely different angle, the Jewish Talmud describes a Jesus that was stoned and hung for blasphemy. It appears to be a reference to the same Jesus. While the Jews may have been writing an anti-Christian polemic, I see no reason for them to have altered the story in such a way to take the blame for killing Jesus, given the likely reaction of the Christians. I think the Jews are more likely to have simply preserved an earlier version of the story, since they had less theological reasons to alter it than the cult-masters.

Originally posted by rickmsumner
It seems far more likely to me, therefore, that the entire charge is nothing but a pro-Roman apologetic. "Oh no, don't worry Gentile converts and seriously cranky Roman army, it wasn't *you* who killed Jesus, but those Jews who rejected us."

There are two alterations to the story, in my view. The first alteration was an anti-Roman shift, taking the blame away from the Sanhedrin and giving it to the Romans. This was done at a time when Christianity was an underground revolutionary movement, and Rome made for a bigger threat. Ever notice how every cult finds a great persecutor to bind them together? Most Gentiles wouldn't feel threatened by the Sanhedrin, but they probably had some distrust of the Roman government, and surely feared crucifixion personally. And face it, crucifixion just sells better. :)

The second alteration was later, as the focus of the religion became more docile, and blaming Rome wasn’t a good way to co-exist. This second alteration probably changed the words of Pilate, which clearly make no sense whatsoever, but left the rest of the story intact.

[Vinnie]

Originally posted by mark9950
Since human sacrifice was forbidden for sin as I have seen from other treads by the hebrew God.

Why was he crucified?

He must not have broken any Roman Law because (I think it was herod) that washed his hands of Jesus situation and gave him to the people to crucify him.

I think that was Pilate but there is no way to determine that this account in particular is historically true so it is unwise to build questions off of it. The focus of the question should be elsewhere:

Jesus was crucified but his followers were not. Why? That is the question that needs answering and Paula Fredriksen devotes a good hunk of time to this subject in Jesus of Nazareth.

Vinnie

[Rick Sumner]

Originally posted by Asha'man
But the crucifixion narrative has several inconsistencies that need to be explained.

In a Roman crucifixion, the victim took days to die. If Jewish law is being followed, the victim is dead before he is strung up. Jesus died too soon. (And the spear through the side is a fabrication to cover that up.)

You base this on what, exactly? Too many outside factors--severity of the scourging, manner in which their arms were spread, physical well-being of the executed. It really can't be said with certainity.

The spear isn't a fabrication to cover up Jesus dying too soon, it's an apologetic to cover up the suggestions that he had survived the crucifixion. Run around saying a guy rose from the dead, you're going to get people saying he just survived the cross no matter how long it took him to die. That's just the obvious response.

In a Roman crucifixion. . .

It does not follow that because I think death by crucifixion likely, that I think the entire narrative is historical.

Why are you telling me this?

From a completely different angle, the Jewish Talmud describes a Jesus that was stoned and hung for blasphemy. It appears to be a reference to the same Jesus. While the Jews may have been writing an anti-Christian polemic, I see no reason for them to have altered the story in such a way to take the blame for killing Jesus, given the likely reaction of the Christians. I think the Jews are more likely to have simply preserved an earlier version of the story, since they had less theological reasons to alter it than the cult-masters.

It's not a completely different angle. It presents naturalistic explanations for Matthean redaction. This can only mean that it knew Matthew.

That's a polemic, not an account.

There are two alterations to the story, in my view. The first alteration was an anti-Roman shift, taking the blame away from the Sanhedrin and giving it to the Romans. This was done at a time when Christianity was an underground revolutionary movement, and Rome made for a bigger threat. Ever notice how every cult finds a great persecutor to bind them together? Most Gentiles wouldn't feel threatened by the Sanhedrin, but they probably had some distrust of the Roman government, and surely feared crucifixion personally. And face it, crucifixion just sells better. :)

Sells better to whom? Crucifixion was a degrading, humiliating death--something of a [i]faux pas[i] to even mention it. They could have gone with beheading.

Why the cross?

The second alteration was later, as the focus of the religion became more docile, and blaming Rome wasn’t a good way to co-exist. This second alteration probably changed the words of Pilate, which clearly make no sense whatsoever, but left the rest of the story intact.

What exactly do you base this on? What methodology is employed here?

Regards,
Rick

[trientalis]

One point of confusion for me is the involvement of the Sanhedrin.

I believe the trial and crucifixion are supposed to have occurred during the festival of Passover. I seem to remember hearing or reading somewhere (sorry to be vague) that the Sanhedrin didn't hold trials during Passover. So how could Jesus have gone before the Sanhedrin if it wasn't holding trials at that time?

Can someone clarify this? correct any misinformation on my part?
Thanks.