Why did the Romans and not the Jewish leaders kill Jesus?

  • Thread starter Thread starter irishcolleen45
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
steve53 said:
The NT and Jesus’ actions should be looked at in the light of information found in Josephus, who WAS a priest in the Second Temple.

Point being that the High Priest was considered the link between man and god, and man and the universe. His function was to bring the concerns of man (the Jews) to god’s attention, and to bring the wishes of god back down to men. That is why the man chosen for High Priest was to be perfect. And usually chosen for life before the corruption of Rome and Herod the Great.

Being semi-divine gives you great license to do whatever you want- including the taking of lives.

When Jesus said the only way to know God was through HIM, that left little room for argument.
Click to expand...
Something in your comments doesn’t seem right for some reason. Perhaps, the High Priest and also the Jewish law - Halacha. What you view is from the perspective of the N.T and the actions of Jesus, as you say. However, from what I understood and correct me if I’m wrong, which I don’t think in this case that I might be and looking at the Temptation of Christ, the account of Matthew uses language from the Old Testament:

Quoting: Additionally Matthew presents the three scriptural passages cited by Jesus (Deut 8:3, Deut 6:13, and Deut 6:16) not in their order in the book of Deuteronomy, but in the sequence of the trials of Israel as they wandered in the desert, as recorded in the book of Exodus.[12][13] Luke’s account is similar, though his inversion of the second and third temptations “represents a more natural geographic movement, from the wilderness to the temple”.[14] Luke’s closing statement that the devil “departed from him until an opportune time”[15] may provide a narrative link to the immediately following attempt at Nazareth to throw Jesus down from a high place,[16] or may anticipate a role for Satan in the Passion (cf. Luke 22:3).[17][18]

What the strongest argument here is about the legal system of both kingdoms - Rome (legal system - Romulus and Remus, two law givers who were the founders of the city) verses Israel (legal system - divine legislation that was to be followed by God’s perfect will). These two kingdoms were totally opposite to each other and didn’t share common laws even on how they were created? or emerged.

There is probably no story that better illustrates what the early Romans were all about than that of the founding of Rome by the twin brothers, Romulus and Remus. According to this legend, there was disagreement over where to found the city. When omens from the gods failed to settle the dispute, Romulus just started digging the pomerium (sacred boundary) of Rome where he thought the gods wanted it. Remus mockingly leaped over this trench and Romulus killed him, declaring that such a fate should befall all who dared to breach the walls of Rome. The story of Romulus and Remus shows that the Roman sense of honor, duty, and loyalty to Rome ran even deeper than family and kinship ties. Other Roman legends also had this theme of honor and duty running through them: the story of Horatius, who single-handedly defended a bridge against invading Etruscans in order to buy his city time to prepare a defense; the consul Brutus who had his own sons executed for plotting treason against Rome; and Lucretia, who committed suicide rather than live with dishonor to herself and Rome. Such stories idealize the Roman character, but also raise the question of what factors shaped it and pushed Rome to greatness.
 
There is a history with Israel - what emerged was a sense of God and redemption, through the laws that had been handed down to man, directly - and as the Apostle Paul states, “In the past God spoke to our forefathers through the prophets at many times and in various ways,but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, and through whom he made the universe.”

If divine legislation was followed as God’s perfect will, depriving its recipients of an interpretive posture, the law would be nothing but the command of a superior to an inferior. Obedience would become bondage. It cannot be that reciving law means a mere mechanistic subordination to rules. What does Christ say in John 15:15, “I no longer call you servants, because a servant does not know his master’s business. Instead, I have called you friends, for everything that I learned from my Father I have made known to you.”

The highest possible stage in legal culture is when we recognize that we must control ourselves. As a consequence, the nurturing of the nomian personality, with its commitment to legal interpretation circumscribed by an internal sense of duty, simply may have found the commanding voice of the Torah overwhelming. Revealed written law had to be stayed until an unwritten legalism could shield the heart from relentless command. This led a number of commentators to a most unorthodox conclusion: Torah in its origins is an oral law.

Entitled, Sefat Emet, the acts of the Patriarchs, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, embody the power of God. But this power must be expressed through normative actions, commitments, and ordinary behavior in order to establish the norms of Jewish law. The very foundation of the written Torah, (as Alter wrote), was “therefore dependent upon human narrative.” In short, and here is (Alter’s) theological radicalism, oral law - the stories of the Patriarchs - precedes the written law. (see Genesis 17 - Philo portrays Abraham as an embodiment of the unwritten law (agraphos nomos) - because it is not law “inscribed on monuments nor on leaves of paper, which the moth destroys, but on the souls.”) All the Biblical sections that tell of the Patriarch exist to show how Torah was fashioned out of their actions. Abraham must internalize the law until he establishes deliberative habits of mind, weighing it with righteousness, so as to become a judge - and, then, to impart this judicial temperament to his descendants.
 
We have read the actions of the second temple - High Priest, Caiaphas (a Sadducee), the Jerusalem Sanhedrin, who all knew that on a capital punishment cases, it could take less than 71 judges, perhaps 23 judges: What is the difference between Dinei Mamonot and Dinei Nefashot? Dinei Mamonot is before three, while Dinei Nefashot is before twenty-three. [The judges’ discussion in a case of] Dinei Mamonot may start either for the claimant or for the defendant, while with Dinei Nefashot it must be started by an opinion in favour of the accused. In Dinei Mamonot a majority of one is sufficient in finding either for or against the claimant, while in Dinei Nefashot a majority of one is sufficient to acquit but a majority of at least two is required to convict. A retrial may be required in Dinei Mamonot regardless of whether it is to the benefit or to the detriment of the claimant, while a retrial may be required in Dinei Nefashot only if it is to the benefit of the accused. In Dinei Mamonot anyone may speak on behalf of acquittal or condemnation, while in Dinei Nefashot anyone may speak on behalf of acquittal but not everyone may speak on behalf of condemnation. In Dinei Mamonot [during the discussion] anyone can freely change their opinion as regards acquittal or condemnation, while in Dinei Nefashot only a judge who has expressed an opinion for condemnation may change his opinion and a judge who has expressed an opinion in favour of acquittal may not change his opinion. [A case involving] Dinei Mamonot may be started in the morning and concluded after nightfall while [a case involving] Dinei Nefashot may not be concluded after nightfall [but must be adjourned to the following day]. [A case involving] Dinei Mamonot may be concluded on the same day as it was started regardless of to whose benefit the verdict may be, while [a case involving] Dinei Nefashot may be concluded on the same day as it started only if judgment is for acquittal but it must be adjourned to the following day if judgment is for condemnation. That is why such cases may not be heard on Fridays or on the eve of festivals.

Again, as I’ve written: Christ was not guilty of adding nor subtracting from the commandments - because I don’t remember reading about this in the trial (the law states: “Do not add to or subtract from the mitzvot.” (Deut. 4:2)). Nor had Christ ever mislead anyone - so he was not a false prophet (which is listed under capital punishment - corporal punishment. Christ came (as Isaiah listed, Isaiah 9:2 “The people walking in darkness have seen a great light; on those living in the land of the shadow of death a light has dawned.) giving people a time to repent and he continues to return people back to God, Isaiah stated, " to open eyes that are blind, to free captives from prison and to release from the dungeon those who sit in darkness.”

and another verse: If you’re familiar with the following verse (out of the NT) “Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.” (which this is a law - do not add or delete from the Torah, law - Every word of God is refined; He is a shield for all who take refuge in Him. Do not add to His words, lest He prove to you, and you be found a liar. Proverbs 30:5-6 I knew that everything that God made, that will be forever; we cannot add to it, nor can we subtract from it; and God made it so that they fear Him. Ecclesiastes 3:14)

The way I understood this, was that man ‘received’ God’s word directly; was able to interpret the law - or to understand the meaning and make judgments - good and evil, and also be inspired by them. Although man without the Wisdom of God, was basically in the dark - to interpret through his own means, many passages that related to this in 1 Corinthians and Proverbs. The interpretation rest of the fact that man, being in the image of God, has the ability - with God’s wisdom, to discern for himself, what is good and pleasing to God, " The kingdom of Heaven is within our reach - it is not to difficult, “Now what I am commanding you today is not too difficult for you or beyond your reach.” - a quote from Deuteronomy 30.

Jesus tells us that we have the ability to change and to be with God and that is, within us - a truer sense of salvation, it is not to difficult and it is not beyond our reach.
 
Interesting.

My post on the High Priest’s function came straight from Josephus and Philo. I tend to discount the Talmud and modern Talmudic theory on workmanlike grounds-the Talmud was put together three centuries after the crucifixion, and from oral tradition that is inherently contentious. Likewise, the Torah is some 800 years older than early Christian times.

Josephus is very clear that the Roman’s left the day-to-day running of the Jewish East to the High Priesthood and their councils.

This preserved the High Priesthood, yes, but it also put them between a rock and a hard place. This became especially so when the Romans began to show favoritism to the Greek Syrians and-gasp!-the Christians.

OT the Jesus-Qunran connection is not overtly stated, but implied- in many cases for a specific purpose having nothing to do with history or religion.
 
Jesus had followers, and therefore if the Jewish authorities killed Jesus, there would be a split among Jews. The Jews wanted to be united because they also wanted to fight the Romans. They couldn’t afford a civil war. So they played Jesus as an anti-Roman Empire vigilante (the charge against him was proclaiming himself King of the Jews) rather than one that violated Jewish laws. So to avoid any internal conflict, they had the Romans make the charge and imprison Jesus and eventually crucify him.
 
Steve53,

Yesterday I tried finding a copy og John Hagan’s work you suggested but I had no luck. So I will make a couple of points and if they are wrong please correct me.

I believe Hagan contends Jesus died in 36 AD based on the date of the execution of John the Baptist by Herod Antipas and the war between Aretas IV, the Nabatean King, and Herod Antipas (both having their roots in Antipas’ divorce of Aretas’s daughter so he could marry his sister-in-law Herodias). As you pointed out Aretas’s forces had defeated Antipas, therefore, Vitellius, under orders from Tiberius, was marching for Judea (Jerusalem) during his preparation for an attack on Aretas when Pilate had Jesus executed. Again this would be 36 AD.

I just want to make sure that I understand your position correctly (I would really like to read John Hagan’s book).
 
Basically yes.

His major assumption is that both Herodias and Herod Agrippa left Rome about the same time in A.D. 32 for the East. The proscriptions against the supporters of Sejanus were in full swing in Rome then, and it was not a pleasant place to be. He uses Josephus along known Roman figures mentioned in Tacitus to make his case.

There are lots of side issues, with the death of Herod Philip and the disposition of his kingdom, the aggression of King Artabanus of Parthia, and the revenge motive of King Aretas.

Year of the Passover deals with the time line to the crucifixion. Roman Fires takes it from the crucifixion to the destruction of Jerusalem.

Should be some used copies on Amazon.
 
ConstantineTG,

Pope Benedict XVI presents what I am about to say much better in his latest volumn of “Jesus of Nazareth” than I will but I will try.

Jesus, in the eyes of the Jewish leaders, especially the High Priest Caiaphas, was a threat to “the nation” because of his attack on the Temple. However, as Benedict XVI, points out as do many other scripture scholars, it was not Jesus’ going into the Temple and over turing the money changers tables but it what he began to teach, in the Temple precinct afterward, namely, Temple worship would soon no longer be necessary and that the Temple itself would be destroyed.

This was the initial charge brought up against Jesus at his “trial” (which Pope Benedict XVI also holds was not a trial in the legal sense, but was more of a cross examination to see if there was enough evidence to bring Jesus to the Roman’s for execution). However, Jesus proclamation, that if they destroyed “this temple” he would rebuild it in three days,
was taken no more than the utterances of a mad man. It was then Caiaphas, who had already determined Jesus’ death was necessary in order to save the nation (this coming in response to Jesus raising Lazarus to life) moved the cross examination to the charge of blasphemy.

A few years later, Stephen would be executed (but this time on the authority of the High Priest and Council of 70) on the same charge Jesus was originally arrested on, namely, the charge that Stephen was attacking the necessity of Temple worship.

So it was really the question over essence and necessity of Temple worship that the leaders of the Jews (especially the High Priest and Sadducees) saw as Jesus’ real threat to the Jewish Nation for which he must die.
 
Steve53,

In the “Passover of the Jews” does John Hagan discuss, at all, the passages in the gospel that set a different time line? For example, in John 3: 18 - 20, right after Jesus "Cleanses the Temple the first time, in his discussion with the Jews he proclaims that if they destroy “this temple” he would rebuild it in three days. Part of their response was it was already taking t46 years to get as far as they had. Along with this comes a time reference given to us by Luke (Chapter 3:1) as to when John the Baptist began his ministry. Unlike the “Infancy Narrative” which begins with a vague date, here Luke is very specific. Now all the biblical scholars I have read place the beginning of John ministry around 26 AD on Jesus’ a year or two later.

Does Hagan address this and if so what does he say about it?
 
Hagan relies on John and discounts the more controversial aspects of Luke. But Passover is a big book- about 500 pages-and he explores a lot of scenarios.

Several threads here on Luke to discuss that. Luke admits to relying on many sources, while John states he is an eyewitness. Hard to argue with that. So if you think Luke is infallible, Hagan will challenge you.

I will spoil it for you:

Jesus was born in 12-11 B.C., was crucified in A.D. 36 at an age of about 47, and had an eight-year ministry, being baptized by John the Baptist in A.D. 28.
 
steve53 said:
Interesting.

My post on the High Priest’s function came straight from Josephus and Philo. I tend to discount the Talmud and modern Talmudic theory on workmanlike grounds-the Talmud was put together three centuries after the crucifixion, and from oral tradition that is inherently contentious. Likewise, the Torah is some 800 years older than early Christian times.

Josephus is very clear that the Roman’s left the day-to-day running of the Jewish East to the High Priesthood and their councils.

This preserved the High Priesthood, yes, but it also put them between a rock and a hard place. This became especially so when the Romans began to show favoritism to the Greek Syrians and-gasp!-the Christians.

OT the Jesus-Qunran connection is not overtly stated, but implied- in many cases for a specific purpose having nothing to do with history or religion.
Click to expand...
Right, however - from what I’m (also) learning is that the Rabbis expounded and debated the law (the written law expressed in the Hebrew Bible) and discussed the Tanakh without the benefit of written works (other than the Biblical books themselves), though some may have made private notes (megillot setarim), for example of court decisions.

We brought up the fact that the qualification of the High Priest, as well as the Sanhedrin, had to be distinguished in Torah knowledge, wisdom, humility, fear of God, indifference to monetary gain, love of truth, love of fellow man, and good reputation. It is thus written, “You shall provide out of all the people, able men, who fear God, men of truth, disdaining unjust gain, and place them over [the people]” (Exodus 18:21). It is likewise written, “Take from each of your tribes, wise men, with understanding and full of knowledge, and I will make them your leaders” (Deut. 1:13).

There is a word that I’m thinking of when I read this, “Behaalotecha” - "when you step up,” The third reading from the book of Numbers and the thirty-sixth reading from the Torah is called Beha’alot’cha (בהעלותך), a word that literally means “When you ascend.” It comes from the first verse of the portion, which could literally be translated as “When you ascend the lamps” (Numbers 8:2), a reference to the fact that the priest had to step up to clean and light the lamps of the menorah. In another way, when you ascend can be symbolic - spiritually, in the phrase “to step up”.

This tells the story of the consecration of the Levites, the first Passover in the wilderness, the silver trumpets, the cloud of glory, the departure from Sinai, the grumbling in the wilderness, the first Sanhedrin and the punishment of Miriam. However, about the first Sanhedrin, God comforts Moses and tells him to recruit seventy elders to share the burden of leadership with him, and gives him the strength to carry on. The first words out of Moses was, “12 Have I conceived all this people? have I brought them forth, that Thou shouldest say unto me: Carry them in thy bosom, as a nursing-father carrieth the sucking child, unto the land which Thou didst swear unto their fathers?”
 
The thought in the above passage, and as you’ve pointed out about the High Priest being semi-divine, which it would seem that this not an easy task from the perspective of Moses, the thought that one would have to have that inter-present of God’s wisdom to judge, and as it is forbidden to appoint judges who are not experts in the Torah, as it says “You shall not show preference in judgment”. Again, all this relates to that image and likeness of God - and God mercy in Judgment and how he judges us, but as scripture says, His judgment is perfect “He is the Rock, his works are perfect, and all his ways are just. A faithful God who does no wrong, upright and just is he.” Deuteronomy 32:4

I had listened one day to Sister Angelica, a caller posed this question, is God merciful or just? Sister explained that out of God’s mercy he is just, does that make sense? Sure. There was more information that sister said, which is so very true -

"Someone who had a powerful insight into Divine Mercy was Mother Angelica. I am sure you have heard of her – the Poor Clare nun who founded the EWTN – the Eternal Word Television Network. Once she was at a beach in California and even though she wears leg braces, she likes to get close to the surf. A large wave came in and the water covered her shoes. Then she heard a voice, “Angelica, that drop represents all your sins, all your imperfections and all your frailties. Throw it in the ocean.” She threw it back. Then she heard the Lord say, "The ocean is My mercy. Now if you looked for that drop, would you ever find it? “No, Lord,” she replied. Mother Angelica then told the people in her audience that their sins are like that drop in the ocean. “Every day, every minute of the day, throw your drop in the ocean of his His mercy. Then, don’t worry, just try harder.”*

Every day we should throw our sins into the ocean of Divine Mercy – and make a fresh start. We need the Divine Mercy in our hearts – and in our families. Every family in our parish is going through some difficulties. Only the Divine Mercy can protect our families and keep them together. As I mentioned at the beginning of the homily, I would like to tell about what is happening with one particular family in our parish."

So with the word: “Mishpat”, justice, is the act of rewarding the good in others, and punishing their evil. And “Tzedek”, righteousness, is acting in accord with what is morally due, i.e., giving a poor person indebted to you his only coat at nightfall, so he might not be cold…even though that coat is your rightful collateral for his debt. But we find “Tzedek” not only in connection with performing acts for “others”, but even towards one’s self, and surprisingly…even towards God! How do we understand these two additional cases of righteousness? Deuteronomy 6:25 reads, “And righteousness will be to us, that we guard and observe to do all the commands…” The righteousness here refers to doing what is morally correct for “ourselves”. It makes no difference that we are both, the acting and receiving party. For righteousness refers to any act, in which we uphold some moral truth. And as spiritual beings, we perform righteousness when we give our souls life through Torah observance."
 
Steve53,

First, I just want to restate my position, for those who are seeing this thread for the first time can understand that we are trying to give our reasons why the Roman and not the Jews killed Jesus but later the Jews went ahead and killed St. Stephen.

I hope everyone who reads this understand we are both giving an explanation based on our understanding of the historical events. I want to say I am proceeding from a more traditional understanding based on the Crucifixion taking place in 33 AD while you have introduced a new perspective giving the date of 36 AD for the year Christ was executed.

My position is the Jews did not kill Jesus because at the time it was impossible for them to do this, they did not have the political power or authority to carry out capital punishment. This power was held exclusively by the Roman Procurator (at the time of Christ death it was Pilate who alone held this authority in Palestine). However, in 36 AD at the time of Stephen’s martrydom a power vacuum existed in Palestine created by Pilate’s removal from authority by Vitellus (the Roman legate of Syria who also at the time was the supreme Roman authority in the whole near east). Vitellus did leave one of his officers in command of the area: Marcellus. Marcellus, however, had no imperial authority and could not exercise the Ius Gladii. Vitellius had also removed Caiaphas as High Priest replacing him with Jonanthan. Vitellus made these moves to win Jewish support (and especially the support of Annas - the de facto most powerful man in Palestine) because Vitellus was preparing to mount a second campaign against the Parthians and he needed Jewish suppost. Jonathan, as High Priest the most powerful man in Judea in office, so to speak, was also an extremely ambitious man as well, and quickly filled in this vacuum of Roman authority and did not hesitate to exercise his authority as High Priest and ordered the execution of Stephen for blasphemy.

Caiaphas could not have Jesus executed under Jewish law for blasphemy because of the presence of the procurator Pilate, but Jonathan could have Stephen stoned to death because there was no Roman in Palestine with the Ius Gladii.

Now a question for you Steve53. If we use John as an authoritive account, how can Jesus’ ministry lasted any longer than three years based on the number a Passover feasts in John’s gospel?
 
This is the last thought: In 353 BCE, exactly seventy years after the destruction of the First Temple, the Second Temple (Beit Hamikdash) was built by Jewish returnees from the Persian Exile, led by the prophets Ezra, Nechemiah and Zerubavel (Zerubavel, Governor of Judea)—at first independently, but King Darius soon ratified their effort. The Second Temple was completed in 349 BCE. In the year 11 BCE, King Herod completed dramatic renovations to the Temple.

Thinking of the message as a whole - Solomon, when appointed King (as well as his father, David and his speech) asked God for wisdom to lead the people, "7 “Now, LORD my God, you have made your servant king in place of my father David. But I am only a little child and do not know how to carry out my duties. 8 Your servant is here among the people you have chosen, a great people, too numerous to count or number. 9 So give your servant a discerning heart to govern your people and to distinguish between right and wrong. For who is able to govern this great people of yours?” This is what I call an eye opener! Solomon understood the idea of ruling a people and had asked for discernment “Give me Wisdom” - the ability to judge, as well.

It is likewise written, “Take from each of your tribes, wise men, with understanding and full of knowledge, and I will make them your leaders” (Deut. 1:13). Herod and Caiphas had really no place to be asking for these positions of leadership - especially from the idea that these two Kings and prophet, who were chosen from the tribes as to lead the people…the temple, and reading from the laws contained about appointing judges, this era would have failed.

Reading up on another thought: According to the Talmud, during the First Temple period of about 410 years, there were only 18 High Priests. During the Second Temple period of 420 years, there were more than 300 High Priests! We know (from the Talmud, Yoma 9a) that Yochanan was High Priest for 80 years, Shimon was High Priest for 40 years, and Yishmael ben Pabi was High Priest for 10 years. That means in the remaining 290 years there were at least 300 priests ― one every year or so. What accounts for that?

The Talmud tells us that the Holy of Holies was forbidden ground, except for Yom Kippur. On that one day only, the High Priests entered to perform special rites before God. But if he himself was not spiritually pure and unable to focus, he would not be able to stand the intense encounter with God and would die on the spot. We know that during the Second Temple Period a rope had to be tied to the High Priest, so that in case he died, he could be pulled out of the Holy of Holies.

reference:
Hasmonean Dynasty (142-63 BCE)
mfa.gov.il/MFA/Facts+About+Israel/History/HISTORY-+The+Second+Temple.htm

A Drop in the Ocean:
stmaryvalleybloom.org/divinemercysunday.html

Spiritual Vacuum:
aish.com/jl/h/cc/48938582.html

earlyjewishwritings.com/text/philo/book16.html
 
TOME said:
ConstantineTG,

Pope Benedict XVI presents what I am about to say much better in his latest volumn of “Jesus of Nazareth” than I will but I will try.

Jesus, in the eyes of the Jewish leaders, especially the High Priest Caiaphas, was a threat to “the nation” because of his attack on the Temple. However, as Benedict XVI, points out as do many other scripture scholars, it was not Jesus’ going into the Temple and over turing the money changers tables but it what he began to teach, in the Temple precinct afterward, namely, Temple worship would soon no longer be necessary and that the Temple itself would be destroyed.

This was the initial charge brought up against Jesus at his “trial” (which Pope Benedict XVI also holds was not a trial in the legal sense, but was more of a cross examination to see if there was enough evidence to bring Jesus to the Roman’s for execution). However, Jesus proclamation, that if they destroyed “this temple” he would rebuild it in three days,
was taken no more than the utterances of a mad man. It was then Caiaphas, who had already determined Jesus’ death was necessary in order to save the nation (this coming in response to Jesus raising Lazarus to life) moved the cross examination to the charge of blasphemy.

A few years later, Stephen would be executed (but this time on the authority of the High Priest and Council of 70) on the same charge Jesus was originally arrested on, namely, the charge that Stephen was attacking the necessity of Temple worship.

So it was really the question over essence and necessity of Temple worship that the leaders of the Jews (especially the High Priest and Sadducees) saw as Jesus’ real threat to the Jewish Nation for which he must die.
Click to expand...
I’m talking from the Roman perspective. The Romans wouldn’t have cared if the Temple was destroyed or not. In fact 40 years later they would do just that. Of course Judea was a gunpowder barrel waiting to be lit and they would rather have peace in the region than deal with a fringe province. In scripture we do see Pilate question Jesus’ claim of being King of the Jews, which shows that at that time he was seen more as a political rebel than a religious zealot.
 
TOME said:
Steve53,

First, I just want to restate my position, for those who are seeing this thread for the first time can understand that we are trying to give our reasons why the Roman and not the Jews killed Jesus but later the Jews went ahead and killed St. Stephen.

I hope everyone who reads this understand we are both giving an explanation based on our understanding of the historical events. I want to say I am proceeding from a more traditional understanding based on the Crucifixion taking place in 33 AD while you have introduced a new perspective giving the date of 36 AD for the year Christ was executed.

My position is the Jews did not kill Jesus because at the time it was impossible for them to do this, they did not have the political power or authority to carry out capital punishment. This power was held exclusively by the Roman Procurator (at the time of Christ death it was Pilate who alone held this authority in Palestine). However, in 36 AD at the time of Stephen’s martrydom a power vacuum existed in Palestine created by Pilate’s removal from authority by Vitellus (the Roman legate of Syria who also at the time was the supreme Roman authority in the whole near east). Vitellus did leave one of his officers in command of the area: Marcellus. Marcellus, however, had no imperial authority and could not exercise the Ius Gladii. Vitellius had also removed Caiaphas as High Priest replacing him with Jonanthan. Vitellus made these moves to win Jewish support (and especially the support of Annas - the de facto most powerful man in Palestine) because Vitellus was preparing to mount a second campaign against the Parthians and he needed Jewish suppost. Jonathan, as High Priest the most powerful man in Judea in office, so to speak, was also an extremely ambitious man as well, and quickly filled in this vacuum of Roman authority and did not hesitate to exercise his authority as High Priest and ordered the execution of Stephen for blasphemy.

Caiaphas could not have Jesus executed under Jewish law for blasphemy because of the presence of the procurator Pilate, but Jonathan could have Stephen stoned to death because there was no Roman in Palestine with the Ius Gladii.

Now a question for you Steve53. If we use John as an authoritive account, how can Jesus’ ministry lasted any longer than three years based on the number a Passover feasts in John’s gospel?
Click to expand...
Tome;

The point that I’m making with both you and Steve 53 is that Rome wanted to rule the nation under their laws and not under laws of the Jewish people, that being under Torah laws. Like you said there was a power struggle between the two. One nation was created (Rome) under a man-made system of laws and the other (Israel) was under the divine guidance of God. We can’t say that the Jews were responsible and yet, when we know who the leadership was at the time. There was question awhile back on another forum, that posed a question about the time of the trial, that the citizen who made the remark, "“Let his blood be on us and on our children!” when this obviously wasn’t the majority of the entire people, how could that curse apply to all and yet, in another instance, in the book of Acts it stated this message:

23 When they had been released, they went to their own companions and reported all that the chief priests and the elders had said to them. 24 And when they heard this, they lifted their voices to God with one accord and said, “O Lord, it is You who MADE THE HEAVEN AND THE EARTH AND THE SEA, AND ALL THAT IS IN THEM, 25 who by the Holy Spirit, through the mouth of our father David Your servant, said,

‘WHY DID THE GENTILES RAGE,
AND THE PEOPLES DEVISE FUTILE THINGS?
26 ‘THE KINGS OF THE EARTH TOOK THEIR STAND,
AND THE RULERS WERE GATHERED TOGETHER
AGAINST THE LORD AND AGAINST HIS CHRIST.’

27 For truly in this city there were gathered together against Your holy servant Jesus, whom You anointed, both Herod and Pontius Pilate, along with the Gentiles and the peoples of Israel, 28 to do whatever Your hand and Your purpose predestined to occur. 29 And now, Lord, take note of their threats, and grant that Your bond-servants may speak Your word with all confidence, 30 while You extend Your hand to heal, and signs and wonders take place through the name of Your holy servant Jesus.” 31 And when they had prayed, the place where they had gathered together was shaken, and they were all filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak the word of God with boldness.

The entrance prayer is read in the book of Nehemiah, “Blessed be your glorious name, and may it be exalted above all blessing and praise. 6 You alone are the LORD. You made the heavens, even the highest heavens, and all their starry host, the earth and all that is on it, the seas and all that is in them. You give life to everything, and the multitudes of heaven worship you.” - at the commencing of rebuilding the 2nd temple. Nehemiah was asking God, to forgive the Jewish people - and that on more than one occasion, God (being merciful in his judgment) had forgiven them. The passage goes through the entire history of the Israelite, Jewish people and is a priestly prayer and yet, a very “strong” prayer (witness of the history of the Jewish people and their salvation, many saviors)
 
Just a few points, Tome.

Josephus is clear that Vitellius removed Pilate before he learned of Tiberius’ death in the spring of A.D. 37. The date of Tiberius’ death is clearly established. Pilate was on his way for examination by the emperor when Vitellius received word of his death, and Pilate’s subsequent fate is unknown.
So Pilate was in control for all of A.D. 36.

Caiaphas in the Synoptic gospels clearly wanted the council to dispose of Jesus, but they refused to. Even when Jesus was brought before Pilate, Pilate said “deal with him according to your own law”. If a Jewish mob stoned a Jew to death, would the Prefect really care- even if the stoning was incited to by the High Priesthood?
Doubtful.
Later, Jonathan did to Stephen what Caiaphas wanted to do to Jesus. To speculate, we can say that Jonathan chose to bypass the “council” learning from the “mistake” of Caiaphas. Again to speculate, if Caiaphas had not gotten cold feet with the stoning of Jesus, and had not brought him over to Pilate to do his dirty work, then Caiaphas might still have had his job!

In John, Jesus ministry lasts for only three Passovers THAT WE KNOW OF. And John himself says there was plenty of things that Jesus did that he did not document. The eight year ministry is derived assuming that after baptism by JB, Jesus had some sort of fedgling ministry for his early years.
 
steve53 said:
steve53;8785181 said:
Caiaphas in the Synoptic gospels clearly wanted the council to dispose of Jesus, but they refused to. Even when Jesus was brought before Pilate, Pilate said “deal with him according to your own law”. If a Jewish mob stoned a Jew to death, would the Prefect really care- even if the stoning was incited to by the High Priesthood?
Doubtful.
Click to expand...
45 Therefore many of the Jews who had come to visit Mary, and had seen what Jesus did, believed in him. 46 But some of them went to the Pharisees and told them what Jesus had done. 47 Then the chief priests and the Pharisees called a meeting of the Sanhedrin. “What are we accomplishing?” they asked. “Here is this man performing many signs. 48 If we let him go on like this, everyone will believe in him, and then the Romans will come and take away both our temple and our nation. 49 Then one of them, named Caiaphas, who was high priest that year, spoke up, “You know nothing at all! 50 You do not realize that it is better for you that one man die for the people than that the whole nation perish.

51 He did not say this on his own, but as high priest that year he prophesied that Jesus would die for the Jewish nation, 52 and not only for that nation but also for the scattered children of God, to bring them together and make them one. 53 So from that day on they plotted to take his life."

Caiaphas, being the High Priest prophesied the death of Jesus but was the reasoning for putting Jesus to death for blasphemy? After the resurrection of Lazarus? A capital punishment that was against the laws? Within this context Judges 11:35 provides a precedent for the tearing of clothes on condemnation of the innocent (Keriah (tearing the garments) It conveys the duality of mourning - tearing one’s garment for Jerusalem - and as the verse said “Jesus wept”(Luke 19, 41-42). ) But the Matt & Mark account has the tearing occurring on the pronouncement of blasphemy - given Annas’ history this is another reason to think it was he who tore his clothes, what was the reasoning?

Capital cases could only be judged in the Holy Land. 40 years before the destruction of the Second Temple (in 70 CE) the rabbis ceased to hear capital cases. Another thing, and given the latitude of the High Priest - The Torah states that Yom Kippur was the only time when the High Priest could enter the Holy of Holies and call upon the Name of YHVH to offer blood sacrifice for the sins of the people. How could the High Priest offer sacrifices for the sins of the people - when he, himself would be guilty? See the Apostle Paul statement in Hebrews, “7 But only the high priest entered the inner room, and that only once a year, and never without blood, which he offered for himself and for the sins the people had committed in ignorance. 8 The Holy Spirit was showing by this that the way into the Most Holy Place had not yet been disclosed as long as the first tabernacle was still functioning. 9 This is an illustration for the present time, indicating that the gifts and sacrifices being offered were not able to clear the conscience of the worshiper. 10 They are only a matter of food and drink and various ceremonial washings—external regulations applying until the time of the new order.”
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
Later, Jonathan did to Stephen what Caiaphas wanted to do to Jesus. To speculate, we can say that Jonathan chose to bypass the “council” learning from the “mistake” of Caiaphas. Again to speculate, if Caiaphas had not gotten cold feet with the stoning of Jesus, and had not brought him over to Pilate to do his dirty work, then Caiaphas might still have had his job!
Click to expand...
Caiaphas - when he was elected by Rome? Also, you can’t by pass the council - No court can have less than three members; however, an individual may also act as a judge if he is a known expert or has the permission of a court. An individual **may **also act as a judge if he is a known expert **or has the permission of a court. **, but not likely.

Personally, I think, that its not comprehensible about the magnitude of the supreme council, the establishment of the nation of Israel present or past tense, legal and religious system.

Moses had gone up to the mountain (ascended for 40 days) and when he returned, the people where in a disarray. The idea is that Moses had ascended up to God, and the people thought - is Moses returning? Whether or not that** Moses delayed** in his return to the people wasn’t the issue, is was whether or not the people could maintain the laws given, while he away. See Deuteronomy 32. Again, the Apostle Paul points to this fact on the Messiah, though he may tarry - he will not delay.

The apostle Paul points to this fact, Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law. 15 They show that the requirements of the** law are written on their hearts**(being plural, meaning the mind and the soul), their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts sometimes accusing them and at other times even defending them.

In previous times, especially in Esther and in Daniel, there have been many nations, that have tried to either enforced the people into “not” following the Torah, or these nations have had laws that “outright” banded the Torah. At those moments, as with Rome, the Oral traditions of remembering the laws had been practiced. Interesting, how the prayer in Esther mentions these verses:

Esther C:19 But our enemies are no longer satisfied just to see us in slavery. They have made a solemn promise to their idols Esther C:20 not only to destroy the people who praise you, but to do away with your Law and to remove forever the glory of your house and altar.Esther C:21 They want the whole world to praise worthless idols and stand in awe of mortal kings forever.

Esther C:22 "Lord, these gods are nothing; do not surrender your power to them to give our enemies the chance to laugh at our downfall. Instead, turn their evil plans against them, and make an example of that man who first planned our destruction.

Again, the issue and from previous history - have always been on the Torah and the laws that have governed the people. The issues was which laws would govern Jerusalem.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top