PDA

View Full Version : Blasphemy?



kwinters
June 15th, 2004, 01:58 AM
It's alleged that Jesus was killed because he had been condemned of blasphemy. This is odd because Jesus doesn't commit blasphemy in the Synoptics and I don't remember blasphemy being mentioned as the cause of conviction in John.

Mark 14:61-64
Again the high priest asked him, "are you the Christ, the son of the Blessed one?" "I am." said Jesus...The high priest tore his clothes. "Why do we need any more witnesses?" he asked. "You have heard the blasphemy."


Luke 22:66-71
At daybreak the council of the elders of the people, both the chief priests and teachers of the law, met together and Jesus was led before them...They all asked, "Are you the Son of God?" He replied, "You are right in saying that I am." Then they said, "Why do we need any more testimony? We have heard it from his lips."



Christ is, as we all know, the Greek for Messiah. It was not blasphemy to call one's self the Messiah, since SOMEONE had to be the messiah.

Where is the evidence that Jesus committed blasphemy? It certainly wasn't because he called himself God or taught that he was God, otherwise that would have been recorded in the trial accounts.

Apokalupsis
June 15th, 2004, 06:33 AM
Yes, you must be right. The Jews randomnly decided to stone him for no apparent reason...we all know how those crazy Jews are, huh?

What do you think the reason was for them wanting to stone him kwinters?

Apokalupsis
June 15th, 2004, 08:26 AM
This is odd because Jesus doesn't commit blasphemy in the Synoptics and I don't remember blasphemy being mentioned as the cause of conviction in John.


John 10:30-33


"I am the Father are one."
The Jews took up stones again to stone Him.

Jesus answered them,
"I showed you many good works from the Father;
for which of them are you stoning Me?"

The Jews answered Him,
"For a good work we do not stone You, but for blasphemy;
and because You, being a man, make Yourself out to be God."

Which John were you referring to again? ;)

kwinters
June 15th, 2004, 08:57 AM
Apok,

I was thinking in terms of the trial(s) of Jesus. Sorry I didn't make that clear. Where is the stone throwing incident in the synoptics?

Apokalupsis
June 15th, 2004, 09:40 AM
It's alleged that Jesus was killed because he had been condemned of blasphemy.
Just curious, who claims this exactly? Where has it been claimed?

kwinters
June 16th, 2004, 08:19 AM
Mark 14:61-64
Again the high priest asked him, "are you the Christ, the son of the Blessed one?" "I am." said Jesus...The high priest tore his clothes. "Why do we need any more witnesses?" he asked. "You have heard the blasphemy."

Apokalupsis
June 16th, 2004, 08:25 AM
I was referring to modern argumentation as to the reason for the "condemnation". nvm

Anyway, I fail to see where this thread is going. You claim Blasphemy is the alleged reason, yet you use the Bible support that it is the reason. What is the point?

kwinters
June 16th, 2004, 08:30 AM
If <b>someone</b> had to be the messiah calling oneself the messiah would not be considered blasphemy (see bar Kokeba).

What exactly was the sentence of death for?

Apokalupsis
June 16th, 2004, 09:11 AM
Christ claimed to be God, God's equal. That is blasphemous.

kwinters
June 16th, 2004, 09:53 AM
No he didn't. He is portrayed as claiming to be a son of God:

Mark 14:61-64
Again the high priest asked him, "are you the Christ, the son of the Blessed one?" "I am." said Jesus...The high priest tore his clothes. "Why do we need any more witnesses?" he asked. "You have heard the blasphemy."


Luke 22:66-71
At daybreak the council of the elders of the people, both the chief priests and teachers of the law, met together and Jesus was led before them...They all asked, "Are you the Son of God?" He replied, "You are right in saying that I am." Then they said, "Why do we need any more testimony? We have heard it from his lips."

kwinters
June 16th, 2004, 09:58 AM
James Still wrote this:

It was not blasphemous to declare oneself a "Messiah" or a "Son of God" any more than it would have been to claim to be an angel. The Pharisees who composed the majority of the Sanhredrin would dismiss such a charge at once since blasphemy could only be applied to anyone who claimed to be God Almighty. Jesus' declaration that he was a Messiah, merely referred to his earthly desire to ascend to the throne of David--an act of sedition against Rome surely, but not one of blasphemy.

If the Gospel of John is to be our authority, his account disagrees with the Synopticists in that the High Priest Caiaphas interrogates Jesus alone and charges him with sedition, not blasphemy, as the Synoptic Gospels allege.... If Jesus were charged with sedition, then a gathering of the Sanhedrin would not be necessary, the affair would be preliminarily investigated by the High Priest before turning the matter over to the Roman authorities. (Indeed Caiaphas would not wish to involve the Sanhedrin if Jesus really was seditious. In the trial of Peter as reported in Acts, the Pharisees sided against the High Priest and voted to release the accused.)

kwinters
June 16th, 2004, 10:03 AM
Further, Raymond Brown writes:

"According to Mark/Matt the Sanhedrin found him worth of death on the charge of blasphemy, and Josephus (Ant. 4.8.6; #202) would have the blasphemer stoned, hung, "and buried ignominiously and in obscurity." Mart. Of Polycarp 17:2 has Jews instigating opposition lest the body of Polycarp be given to his adherents for honorable burial.

On the other hand, Jesus was executed by the Romans not for blasphemy but on the charge of being the King of the Jews. Could this have been regarded as a death not in accordance with Jewish law and so not necessarily subjecting the crucified to dishonorable burial?"

If Jesus had been convicted by the Sanhedrin of blasphemy he wouldn't have received an honorable burial in a tomb.

Apokalupsis
June 16th, 2004, 10:36 AM
So then what were the reasons that the Jews wanted to stone him?

KevinBrowning
June 16th, 2004, 12:00 PM
To my knowledge, a great many things were considered blasphemous by the ancient Hebrews, not only claiming to be God, although I suspect that was considered among the most severe violations. When Jesus Christ claimed to be not only the Son of God but also the Messiah, and then went on to say "I and the Father are One," that was more than enough to be blasphemous in the eyes of the Sanhedrin. If Jesus had actually fit the picture of what the Messiah was supposed to be like, and didn't claim to be God, then He might very well have been accepted by most Jews, including the Temple Elders, as Emmanuel, the prophesied Savior of the Jewish people. But this wasn't an Earthly king, mighty and terrible. He commanded no armies, he liberated no Jews from Roman rule. This was a destitute prophet and miracle-worker who taught love as the highest virtue, and an extreme form of non-violence. So, since this Jesus of Nazareth was obviously not the Messiah in the eyes of the Sanhedrin, for Him to say it was plainly ridiculous, and then for Him to claim that He was God Himself, that was, indeed, blasphemy.

kwinters
June 16th, 2004, 02:24 PM
So then what were the reasons that the Jews wanted to stone him?

Actually I think the question of this thread was 'Where is the evidence that Jesus committed blasphemy?'

If you want a subsection if could be 'why is the stone throwing incident only in John?'

kwinters
June 16th, 2004, 02:41 PM
To my knowledge, a great many things were considered blasphemous by the ancient Hebrews, not only claiming to be God, although I suspect that was considered among the most severe violations. When Jesus Christ claimed to be not only the Son of God but also the Messiah, and then went on to say "I and the Father are One," that was more than enough to be blasphemous in the eyes of the Sanhedrin.


Sorry, which version of events are you using? This is what I find in Mark and Luke.

Mark's account
And the high priest stood up in the midst, and asked Jesus, "Have you no answer to make? What is it that these men testify against you?" But he was silent and made no answer. Again the high priest asked him, "Are you the Christ, the Son of the Blessed?" And Jesus said, "I am; and you will see the Son of man seated at the right hand of Power, and coming with the clouds of heaven." And the high priest tore his garments, and said, "Why do we still need witnesses? You have heard his blasphemy. What is your decision?" And they all condemned him as deserving death. And some began to spit on him, and to cover his face, and to strike him, saying to him, "Prophesy!" And the guards received him with blows.

Luke's account:
When day came, the assembly of the elders of the people gathered together, both chief priests and scribes; and they led him away to their council, and they said, "If you are the Christ, tell us." But he said to them, "If I tell you, you will not believe; and if I ask you, you will not answer. But from now on the Son of man shall be seated at the right hand of the power of God." And they all said, "Are you the Son of God, then?" And he said to them, "You say that I am." And they said, "What further testimony do we need? We have heard it ourselves from his own lips."

By the way, the following is probably relevant here:

... in the Midrash on Ps. xviii. 36, Ps. cx. verse 1,'Sit thou st My right hand' is specifically applied to the Messiah, while <u>Abraham is said to be seated at the left</u>.

Mortal men are portrayed at the right and left hand of God.


If Jesus had actually fit the picture of what the Messiah was supposed to be like, and didn't claim to be God, then He might very well have been accepted by most Jews, including the Temple Elders, as Emmanuel, the prophesied Savior of the Jewish people.

1) Isn't it a bit unfair to prophecize the coming of a liberator of the Jewish people as a descendent of the royal throne of David and a mortal man and then show up as something completely different?

2) He WAS accepted by the Jews according to the Gospels with cries of Hosanna.

From Hyam Maccoby:

Use of the cry "Hosanna" by the crowd (Hebrew, "hosha-na," meaning "save, please") also confirms an autumn date for Jesus's Entry. This cry has a special liturgical use in the rites of Tabernacles, and in no other festival. The cry was addressed to God, not to Jesus, and meant something like "Save us, God, through your Messiah." The word "save" is especially associated, throughout the Hebrew Scriptures, with God's mercies through rulers and fighters who protected Israel against their enemies. A prayer for such salvation was offered up in the Feast of Tabernacles and would have been especially fitting as an accompaniment to Jesus's Entry on a mission of salvation.




So, since this Jesus of Nazareth was obviously not the Messiah in the eyes of the Sanhedrin, for Him to say it was plainly ridiculous, and then for Him to claim that He was God Himself, that was, indeed, blasphemy.

It was not up to the Sanhedrin to decide if Jesus was the messiah. And again, what the Synoptic Gospels portray him saying was not blasphemy. The Gospel of John doesn't even include the 'blasphemy' angle in its account.

Mark has false witnesses brought forth, but none say Jesus called himiself God, and Luke's account doesn't even have any witnesses, they supposedly condemn Jesus on his own words, but his words weren't blasphemy.

And there is still the problem that if Jesus HAD been condemned for blasphemy why would a prominent member of the Sanhedrin provide him a decent funeral when he should have been denied one because of his crime?

ShadowKnight
July 19th, 2004, 06:46 PM
1) Isn't it a bit unfair to prophecize the coming of a liberator of the Jewish people as a descendent of the royal throne of David and a mortal man and then show up as something completely different?

he was the son of Joseph, decendent of King David, and he was God in the form of a mortal man.


2) He WAS accepted by the Jews according to the Gospels with cries of Hosanna.

well obviously he wasn't accepted by all, he was crucified.


It was not up to the Sanhedrin to decide if Jesus was the messiah. And again, what the Synoptic Gospels portray him saying was not blasphemy. The Gospel of John doesn't even include the 'blasphemy' angle in its account.

to say that he was pretty much God was blamphemious.


Mark has false witnesses brought forth, but none say Jesus called himiself God, and Luke's account doesn't even have any witnesses, they supposedly condemn Jesus on his own words, but his words weren't blasphemy.

And there is still the problem that if Jesus HAD been condemned for blasphemy why would a prominent member of the Sanhedrin provide him a decent funeral when he should have been denied one because of his crime?

i'll answer these soon, i'm a bit tired and i need to look stuff up, you will have an answer soon ;)

FruitandNut
July 19th, 2004, 09:02 PM
Logically, blasphemy needs to contain awareness and intent. Without these component parts it is a case of, 'Father forgive them for they know not what they do'.

The problem is that ignorant and agenda filled people over the millenia have chosen to sweep these key issues aside. The fundies and many atheists often totally miss the point.

FruitandNut
July 19th, 2004, 09:06 PM
Christ claimed to be God, God's equal. That is blasphemous.

Apok. If Jesus Christ is genetically of Mary as mother and God as father, surely that would make Him both Divine and human?

Fyshhed
July 19th, 2004, 09:13 PM
Christ claimed to be God, God's equal. That is blasphemous.

Not if it's true. He gave himself permission, obviously.

kwinters
July 20th, 2004, 04:37 AM
The transition of Jesus, from one Gospel to the next, is a very curious thing.

He is referred to as the 'reticent' messiah in Mark because he tries to hide being the messiah until at the end. Given the political climate of Roman occupation, this was wise and (imho) historically accurate. By John (90-120CE) he's knocking over tables in the Temple and basically directing the events which would lead to his death with a presceint dispassion.


Also, if Jesus had been convicted of blasphemy he would have been denied a proper burial. Certainly a member of the Sanhedrin, the body which (in the Synoptics) convicted him, wouldn't have given him his family tomb.

FruitandNut
July 24th, 2004, 05:24 AM
The transition of Jesus, from one Gospel to the next, is a very curious thing.

He is referred to as the 'reticent' messiah in Mark because he tries to hide being the messiah until at the end. Given the political climate of Roman occupation, this was wise and (imho) historically accurate. By John (90-120CE) he's knocking over tables in the Temple and basically directing the events which would lead to his death with a presceint dispassion.


Also, if Jesus had been convicted of blasphemy he would have been denied a proper burial. Certainly a member of the Sanhedrin, the body which (in the Synoptics) convicted him, wouldn't have given him his family tomb.


I feel there are probably layers to this story. The cries of Blasphemy were to whip up a crowd composed largely of ill educated people to be behind what they would see as a religious issue and the learned minority would see as a pretext for what was really a political action. It would stir those 'who sat on the fence', including those of the Sanhedrin to join with the mob or maintain a silence. Many would have had second thoughs after the event and even feelings of guilt and remorse, I think it was as a result of these latter feelings that the tomb was offered.