Stoning instead of Crucifixion

[Klee shay]

I actually heard in a historical documentary today, that Jewish tradition deemed Jesus would have been stoned to death for his blasphemy...but because they were under the authority of Rome, he was crucified instead.

I'd never thought about it this way before; but it makes absolute sense.

Now while the Elders, Priests and Pharisees desired for Jesus to be killed in the first instance - therefore they are guilty accordingly - what of the Romans (Gentiles) for their guilt of carrying out the sentence of death via their laws?

Do you think God will hold them (Roman Gentiles) accountable? I know what I think but I just wondered what others did?

 

[mutzrein]

Jesus said, "Father forgive them for they know not what they do." Do you think they were any worse 'sinners' than you or I? By God's grace Christ atoned for our sin on Calvary. And those who have received God's grace are forgiven. And since Christ intercedes on our behalf before the Father so I believe that those who crucified Him also received forgiveness by God's grace.

 

[Georges]

I don't think a stoning would have been called for.....the Sadducean (not Pharisic) High Priest's inner group had him murdered in a politically motivated move....they didn't have the religious reasons to support a stoning, they (HP) did have the political clout to have the Romans accomplish their means...

Stephen was murdered by the same group for the same reason....


So was James the Brother of Jesus....murdered by the Sadducees for political motive....

 

[Klee shay]

Jesus said, "Father forgive them for they know not what they do." Do you think they were any worse 'sinners' than you or I? By God's grace Christ atoned for our sin on Calvary. And those who have received God's grace are forgiven. And since Christ intercedes on our behalf before the Father so I believe that those who crucified Him also received forgiveness by God's grace.

Yes, I was actually thinking along the lines that when you believe Jesus is the Son of God (as some of the Roman soliders testified to when he gave up the Ghost) and ask for forgiveness...then it is for Jesus to forgive; as He asked His father to forgive as well.


With Georges contribution...

they didn't have the religious reasons to support a stoning, they (HP) did have the political clout to have the Romans accomplish their means...

I doubt the ordinary Jew on the street would have stoned Him anyway. It was all about the power the High Priests used to achieve their means. How he was going to be killed was determined by how they could go about killing him. Manipulating the Roman sytem was successful.

Thanks both of you for bringing it back to the basics. I guess I was just startled by the idea that crucifixion was Rome's way to publicly kill someone - I'd always associated it with the Jew's.

Funny how impressions can last until you find out otherwise. :

 

[reznwerks]

I actually heard in a historical documentary today, that Jewish tradition deemed Jesus would have been stoned to death for his blasphemy...but because they were under the authority of Rome, he was crucified instead.

I'd never thought about it this way before; but it makes absolute sense.

quote]
Well if you are into what makes sense how about this. Why would Rome carry out a crucifixion on a man who went against Jewish law.You can check this out with history but Rome was very tolerant of other faiths. Rome certainly would not want to risk its reputation and crucify a man without evidence. Pontius Pilate admitted as much. If the Jews had the authority to punish why not just let the Jewish authority handle the matter and not muddy Romes hands. As I said the whole affair is not believable from beginning to end.

 

[Georges]

I actually heard in a historical documentary today, that Jewish tradition deemed Jesus would have been stoned to death for his blasphemy...but because they were under the authority of Rome, he was crucified instead.

I'd never thought about it this way before; but it makes absolute sense.

quote]
Well if you are into what makes sense how about this. Why would Rome carry out a crucifixion on a man who went against Jewish law.You can check this out with history but Rome was very tolerant of other faiths. Rome certainly would not want to risk its reputation and crucify a man without evidence. Pontius Pilate admitted as much. If the Jews had the authority to punish why not just let the Jewish authority handle the matter and not muddy Romes hands. As I said the whole affair is not believable from beginning to end.

The Pharisee's would not have stoned Jesus. They were looking for and expecting a Messiah to deliver them from Rome....contrary to popular opinion, many of the Pharisee's supported Jesus as witnessed to by the crowds welcoming him to Jerusalem.

The Sadducee's however were looking to kill Jesus because, as the "Messiah", he would have threatened their power over the people. In other words....If Messiah was in power, they would not be....

The Pharisee's would have not supported the capture of Jesus, that is why the Sadducee's had him arrested covertly in the middle of the night. If it were in the middle of the day, the Pharisic dominated Sanhedrin would not have allowed it.

 

[wavy]

Yeah, Pharisees aren't as horrible as many people try to make them out to be. Yeshua taught Pharisaic doctrines, Paul was a Pharisee by admission (Acts 23:6; Philippians 3:5), there were Pharisees who were believers (Acts 15:5), and on a couple of occasions, Yeshua was invited by them into their houses (Luke 7:36; Luke 11:37).

That is why he criticized them so much. Not because being a Pharisee is bad, but because, as Pharisees, many of them were hypocritical and added things to the Word and they should have known better. Remember Yeshua's words to Nicodemus (a Pharisee), when he expected him to know more than he already did about being "born again" (John 3:10).

To the Sadducees, however, Yeshua says plain and simple:

Mat 22:29
Jesus answered and said unto them, Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures, nor the power of God.

 

[Georges]

Yeah, Pharisees aren't as horrible as many people try to make them out to be. Yeshua taught Pharisaic doctrines, Paul was a Pharisee by admission (Acts 23:6; Philippians 3:5), there were Pharisees who were believers (Acts 15:5), and on a couple of occasions, Yeshua was invited by them into their houses (Luke 7:36; Luke 11:37).

That is why he criticized them so much. Not because being a Pharisee is bad, but because, as Pharisees, many of them were hypocritical and added things to the Word and they should have known better. Remember Yeshua's words to Nicodemus (a Pharisee), when he expected him to know more than he already did about being "born again" (John 3:10).

To the Sadducees, however, Yeshua says plain and simple:

Mat 22:29
Jesus answered and said unto them, Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures, nor the power of God.

and.....it's part of Pharisic tradition to argue scripture....the Pharisee's were doing what they've always done....just as we on the forum are doing now....arguing (discussing) points, why? for further understanding. Many Pharisee's were convinced by arguing (discussing) scripture with Jesus.

The Talmud is a good example of a book full of discussions (arguments) between rabbis....do they hate each other, or trap each other with the intent to discredit? no...do the arguements get heated at times? yes, but the main purpose for the discussion is to understand futhur....

If Jesus were on the forum today, there would be people arguing with him....would they hate him for posting his thoughts? Probably not. Same thing with Jesus and the Pharisee's....they basically had the same theology.

The Sadducee's are a different lot....

 

[wavy]

If Jesus were on the forum today, there would be people arguing with him...

What a sight to see. Especially if he came anonymously. People would probably think he was crazy. Solo might have come and told him how much his doctrine was of the devil, lol.

 

[Klee shay]

Why would Rome carry out a crucifixion on a man who went against Jewish law. You can check this out with history but Rome was very tolerant of other faiths. Rome certainly would not want to risk its reputation and crucify a man without evidence. Pontius Pilate admitted as much. If the Jews had the authority to punish why not just let the Jewish authority handle the matter and not muddy Romes hands. As I said the whole affair is not believable from beginning to end.

So it isn't believable that Rome actually held power over Jerusalem and sentenced many Jewish citizens to crucifixion successfully before Jesus?

While it is true the Jesus case presented before Pilate was a remarkable one, religious tolerance wasn't an issue when it came to administering Roman rule.

Evidence or no, Rome was interested in maintaining peace in a province they had a working relationship with. The life of one extra Jew (though innocent) was the price to maintain that peace.

I must admit however, I'm a little confused what you find hard to believe. After all, Jesus was heard by a Roman Official (Pilate) in an official Roman trial; and sentenced to death by Roman crucifixion with the assistance of Roman soldiers. This is what history records too.

 

[Henry]

No one killed Jesus.....

 

[reznwerks]

I actually heard in a historical documentary today, that Jewish tradition deemed Jesus would have been stoned to death for his blasphemy...but because they were under the authority of Rome, he was crucified instead.

I'd never thought about it this way before; but it makes absolute sense.

quote]
Well if you are into what makes sense how about this. Why would Rome carry out a crucifixion on a man who went against Jewish law.You can check this out with history but Rome was very tolerant of other faiths. Rome certainly would not want to risk its reputation and crucify a man without evidence. Pontius Pilate admitted as much. If the Jews had the authority to punish why not just let the Jewish authority handle the matter and not muddy Romes hands. As I said the whole affair is not believable from beginning to end.

The Pharisee's would not have stoned Jesus. They were looking for and expecting a Messiah to deliver them from Rome....contrary to popular opinion, many of the Pharisee's supported Jesus as witnessed to by the crowds welcoming him to Jerusalem.
OK, so the I'll accept your premise that the Pharisees didn't have anything to do with the death of Jesus.

The Sadducee's however were looking to kill Jesus because, as the "Messiah", he would have threatened their power over the people. In other words....If Messiah was in power, they would not be....
OK, I'll accept that the Sadducees were the bad guys in all this.

The Pharisee's would have not supported the capture of Jesus, that is why the Sadducee's had him arrested covertly in the middle of the night. If it were in the middle of the day, the Pharisic dominated Sanhedrin would not have allowed it.
OK , according to you the Pharisees and Sadducees cancel each other out and that leaves the Romans who as I said would not kill an innocent man. Pontious Pilot admitted that Jesus did nothing wrong.What did Jesus manage to do in one or two days that turned a wild eyed cheering city into a blood thirsty gang determined on killing an innocent man? Does the story really have a ring of truth to it?

 

[Klee shay]

No one killed Jesus.....

I'm interested in hearing your thoughts on this.

Are you thinking along the lines that Jesus never died?

 

[mutzrein]

KS - I think what he may be saying is that Jesus laid down his own life - being obedient to the will of the Father. But I will wait for Henry to enlighten further.

 

[Georges]

I actually heard in a historical documentary today, that Jewish tradition deemed Jesus would have been stoned to death for his blasphemy...but because they were under the authority of Rome, he was crucified instead.

I'd never thought about it this way before; but it makes absolute sense.

quote]
Well if you are into what makes sense how about this. Why would Rome carry out a crucifixion on a man who went against Jewish law.You can check this out with history but Rome was very tolerant of other faiths. Rome certainly would not want to risk its reputation and crucify a man without evidence. Pontius Pilate admitted as much. If the Jews had the authority to punish why not just let the Jewish authority handle the matter and not muddy Romes hands. As I said the whole affair is not believable from beginning to end.

The Pharisee's would not have stoned Jesus. They were looking for and expecting a Messiah to deliver them from Rome....contrary to popular opinion, many of the Pharisee's supported Jesus as witnessed to by the crowds welcoming him to Jerusalem.
OK, so the I'll accept your premise that the Pharisees didn't have anything to do with the death of Jesus.

The Sadducee's however were looking to kill Jesus because, as the "Messiah", he would have threatened their power over the people. In other words....If Messiah was in power, they would not be....
OK, I'll accept that the Sadducees were the bad guys in all this.

The Pharisee's would have not supported the capture of Jesus, that is why the Sadducee's had him arrested covertly in the middle of the night. If it were in the middle of the day, the Pharisic dominated Sanhedrin would not have allowed it.
OK , according to you the Pharisees and Sadducees cancel each other out and that leaves the Romans who as I said would not kill an innocent man. Pontious Pilot admitted that Jesus did nothing wrong.What did Jesus manage to do in one or two days that turned a wild eyed cheering city into a blood thirsty gang determined on killing an innocent man? Does the story really have a ring of truth to it?

I'm not sure how the Ph and the Sa cancel each other out....The Sadducee's (HP) had Jesus arrested covertly, the trial was covert, convicted covertly and swiftly before anyone knew what was happening. With the events happening in rapid motion, who is going to challenge the Roman guard during the crucifixion...it was a political execution carried out very quickly, intiated by the Sadducees and carried out by the Romans...

 

[reznwerks]

[

I'm not sure how the Ph and the Sa cancel each other out....The Sadducee's (HP) had Jesus arrested covertly, the trial was covert, convicted covertly and swiftly before anyone knew what was happening. With the events happening in rapid motion, who is going to challenge the Roman guard during the crucifixion...it was a political execution carried out very quickly, intiated by the Sadducees and carried out by the Romans...

How do you figure everthing was done covertly? This was THE public trial. Barrabas was spared because of a supposed tradition. Jesus supposedly dragged his cross through the streets. The Roman gaurds were gambling for his clothes. The Sadducees didn't have the power to arrest Jesus. They had the power to disipline him themselves as well as the Pharasees and that is why I responded to the other post the way I did. The Pharasees wouldn't have allowed the Saducces free reign and vice versa which leaves the Romans and Pontious Pilot who said he did not break any laws.

 

[Georges]

[

I'm not sure how the Ph and the Sa cancel each other out....The Sadducee's (HP) had Jesus arrested covertly, the trial was covert, convicted covertly and swiftly before anyone knew what was happening. With the events happening in rapid motion, who is going to challenge the Roman guard during the crucifixion...it was a political execution carried out very quickly, intiated by the Sadducees and carried out by the Romans...

How do you figure everthing was done covertly?

The apprehending of Jesus was done in the middle of the night (that's covertly). He wasn't arrested in the middle of the day, they had every opportunity to do so....

To convict Jesus, a minimum quoram for a legal trial consisted of 23 members of the 72 that comprised the great Sanhedrin. And of the 23, only 13 needed to give an assent for conviction. This could be done quietly and discreetly during the middle of the night by a group comprised of only Sadduceen members of the Sanhedrin.

The Pharisee's of whom Gamaliel (Acts) was the head were more tolerant of Jesus and would not have put him to trial. This had to be done before the Pharisee dominate Sanhedrin could get involoved.



This was THE public trial.

No, it wasn't THE public trial, it was just a trial....

Barrabas was spared because of a supposed tradition. Jesus supposedly dragged his cross through the streets. The Roman gaurds were gambling for his clothes.

Agreed....who is going to mess with the Romans once the verdict is handed down?

The Sadducees didn't have the power to arrest Jesus. They had the power to disipline him themselves as well as the Pharasees and that is why I responded to the other post the way I did.

The Temple guards weren't nice guys....The HP had thier thugs to do their dirty work for them.....As a matter of fact Paul belonged to this group. Call it a secret police working under the direction of the HP. The Romans told the Jews to handle the problem themselves.

The Pharasees wouldn't have allowed the Saducces free reign and vice versa which leaves the Romans and Pontious Pilot who said he did not break any laws.

Ok so you aren't going be convinced otherwise....that's ok...I think it may be helpful for you/me and all to do a little more research on the Temple politics at the time.