What are young Israelis taught about Jesus?

[Churchill]

I think you are looking at it backwards. If the text makes a claim which is not in line with extant Jewish law, maybe the text is flat out wrong.

Yes that is a possibility.

I'm not starting with any belief that the events as described took place so I don't need to find a way to explain the problems. The law exists. It existed before Jesus' time.

Right but his accusers apparently had decided that his actions warranted execution, the text does not state that this was because he blasphemed though.

what authorities? You have yet to cite a Jewish authority who says that blasphemy includes the words and actions described in the gospels.

No I do not, I agree the βλασφημία term does not carry the death penalty, he is accused of that in addition to the other thinhgs he's accused of.

That is certainly a possibility, yes. Are you suggesting that even though Jewish law existed, people at the time somehow all ignored it when making religious judicial statements?

No, are you saying their interpretation must have been identical to yours today?

But the way that is explained, it also wouldn't make him liable to a death penalty under Jewish law. This is just more evidence that the writers were unfamiliar with Jewish jurisprudence.

That's a matter of interpretation it seems to me. The penalty for violating the sabbath is death is very clear it seems from Numbers 15:

I don't know what the Greek word actually refers to or means.

You can look at the source Hebrew used for the Septuagint.

I'm saying, unequivocally, that the English word/concept "blasphemy" is not synonymous with the Jewish legal concept of blasphemy, so calling it blasphemy is misleading when considering Jewish law. Call it something else that violates Jewish law if you or anyone wants to label his actions as counter the Jewish authorities. It just isn't blasphemy.

Right, I don't disagree with that. What I see is that you are interpreting the NT text as if it says "because Jesus blasphemed he must be executed" but that is not stated anyhere in the New Testament, that association is just an inference.

The accusation of blasphemy is made after his execution had already been called for specifically in John 5:18 where he is accused of breaking the Sabbath, which we know (from Numbers 15) does carry the death penalty.

Its noteworthy too that the text records exactly six distinct perceived violations of the sabbath.

 

[rosends]

Right but his accusers apparently had decided that his actions warranted execution, the text does not state that this was because he blasphemed though.

OK, but the legal process as described (for ALL of Jesus' actions) would not merit a death penalty under Jewish law.

No, are you saying their interpretation must have been identical to yours today?

It isn't interpretation. It is black letter Jewish law which existed already at the time.

That's a matter of interpretation it seems to me. The penalty for violating the sabbath is death it seems from Numbers 15:

View attachment 1247454

Except that Judaism doesn't exist by dint of the written text alone. The oral law was an essential part of Jewish understanding (in fact, it is what separated the Pharisees from the Saduccees) and the legal process as described in the oral law is completely absent from the gospel stories.

Right, I don't disagree with that. What I see is that you are interpreting the NT text as if it says "because Jesus blasphemed he must be executed" but that is not stated anyhere in the New Testament.

OK, but I'm saying that under Jewish law, he didn't even "blaspheme" and that none of his actions merit a death penalty, and the legal process in the gospels is woefully inaccurate.

The accusation of blasphemy is made after his execution had already been called for specifically in John 5:18 where he is accused of breaking the Sabbath, which we know (from Numbers 15) does carry the death penalty.

Except that the process of finding someone guilty requires a number of other steps (warnings, witnesses, a protracted trial etc) and all of that is absent from the text.

 

[USAF 2023]

She's honest, you aren't.

You’re not honest Produce her post

 

[EMH]

You’re not honest Produce her post

Why should I since she doesn't deny it.

 

[rosends]

Why should I since she doesn't deny it.

why am I a "she"? Did something happen while I was busy working?

 

[EMH]

why am I a "she"? Did something happen while I was busy working?

just a guess since "rose" is part of the name here.

 

[rosends]

just a guess since "rose" is part of the name here.

my last name is Rosen, and my first name is Daniel (middle initial is S).

 

[EMH]

my last name is Rosen, and my first name is Daniel (middle initial is S).

I'll remember that. Sorry about the confusion.

 

[Churchill]

OK, but the legal process as described (for ALL of Jesus' actions) would not merit a death penalty under Jewish law.

To whom do we look? the Pharisees or the Saducees? Clearly each saw the other as somehow wrong. The Pharisees are quoted as declaring the penalty for Sabbath breaking is death, that's what it records. That you cannot reconcile that with your own current beliefs about what they believed does not prove that the text is an untrustworthy record of events.

It isn't interpretation. It is black letter Jewish law which existed already at the time.

What "black letter Jewish law" are you referring to? Numbers 15?

Except that Judaism doesn't exist by dint of the written text alone. The oral law was an essential part of Jewish understanding (in fact, it is what separated the Pharisees from the Saduccees) and the legal process as described in the oral law is completely absent from the gospel stories.

The Tanakh (If that's the correct term for my Bibles's Old Testament) makes no mention of any "oral law". The Saducees refused to acknowledge this "oral law" (as you know). Furthermore you have no idea what it said exactly because you have no record of it as it existed at the time of Jesus.

The first written text of this "oral law" was penned after 70 AD, making claims about what it did and didn't say before that time is speculation.

All accusations of Sabbath breaking were made by the Pharisees, Jesus accused the Pharisees of teaching the traditions of men as doctrine, right there he is telling them that their traditions (oral law) is not actually doctrine.

There is also a multitude of preserved literature representing different oral traditions. Some of these seem to make it clear that Sabbath violating carried the death penalty. I know your are far better informed here than I, but I think I'm right in saying there is considerable scope for uncertainty as to what exactly the Paharisees regarded as oral law at the time of Jesus.

Remember, there are Jews out there who sometimes pay non-Jews to operate electrical devices for them in their homes, I suspect Jesus was not impressed with such ludicrous thinking.

OK, but I'm saying that under Jewish law, he didn't even "blaspheme" and that none of his actions merit a death penalty, and the legal process in the gospels is woefully inaccurate.

Violating the sabbath does! How can you make a case for your claim that violation of the Sabbath at the time of Jesus did not carry the death penalty?

Except that the process of finding someone guilty requires a number of other steps (warnings, witnesses, a protracted trial etc) and all of that is absent from the text.

Yes it did, but Jesus accused his detractors of hypocrisy on several occasions. You seem to be assuming these people were flawless human being, incapable of lying, incapable of hate, incapable of prejudice - these are the very kinds of human flaws that Jesus faced from his fellow Jews.

 

[USAF 2023]

Why should I since she doesn't deny it.

She said she didn’t recall it

 

[rosends]

To whom do we look? the Pharisees or the Saducees? Clearly each saw the other as somehow wrong.

Very true. But the text seems to lay things at the feet of the Pharisees. If you want to say that the Jewish leaders of the time were Saduccees (which is accurate as it relates to the composition of the sanhedrin at the time) then that would be fine and would resolve one prolematic element.

The Pharisees are quoted as declaring the penalty for Sabbath breaking is death, that's what it records.

That's what the author wrote. Whether that's a record of what anyone actually said is highly doubtful because it flies in the face of established Jewish law.

That you cannot reconcile that with your own current beliefs about what they believed does not prove that the text is an untrustworthy record of events.

My current understanding of Jewish law relies on exactly what they believed then. That's how Judaism works. Our codes of law aren't new and our practice isn't some interpretation, but an application of known law. Trying to reduce it by calling it an opinion is simply wrong.

What "black letter Jewish law" are you referring to? Numbers 15?

Some is explained here Shomrei Emunah: Not to the Right or Left: Parashat Shoftim (5779 – 2019)

and some is in Lev 24:16

The Tanakh (If that's the correct term for my Bibles's Old Testament) makes no mention of any "oral law".

Actually it does. Deut 12:21 references laws taught which are not recorded in the written text.

The Saducees refused to acknowledge this "oral law" (as you know). Furthermore you have no idea what it said exactly because you have no record of it as it existed at the time of Jesus.

we have the talmud which is a written down version of the oral law. The talmud records conversations and legal positions which occurred before Jesus was born.

The first written text of this "oral law" was penned after 70 AD, making claims about what it did and didn't say before that time is speculation.

I'm not sure where you get this from, nor do I know how you mean "penned."

All accusations of Sabbath breaking were made by the Pharisees, Jesus accused the Pharisees of teaching the traditions of men as doctrine, right there he is telling them that their traditions (oral law) is not actually doctrine.

No he's not. He's putting his opinion regarding Jewish law above the official position. He cites the talmud in a number of places and actually says to follow pharisaic teaching which would include the oral law.

There is also a multitude of preserved literature representing different oral traditions. Some of these seem to make it clear that Sabbath violating carried the death penalty.

really? Can you show me any of that?

Remember, there are Jews out there who sometimes pay non-Jews to operate electrical devices for them in their homes, I suspect Jesus was not impressed with such ludicrous thinking.

that's not actually allowed. You are, again, taking a complicated idea within Jewish law and over simplifying it. In that world of oversimplification, you are drawing conclusions. But the premises are more complex.

Violating the sabbath does! How can you make a case for your claim that violation of the Sabbath at the time of Jesus did not carry the death penalty?

Because the judicial process would have required 2 interrogated witnesses, a formal warning, a repeated offense, and more witnesses.

Yes it did, but Jesus accused his detractors of hypocrisy on several occasions. You seem to be assuming these people were flawless human being, incapable of lying, incapable of hate, incapable of prejudice - these are the very kinds of human flaws that Jesus faced from his fellow Jews.

Jesus was very clear about what people were doing wrong -- he felt that the pharisees taught the correct way to be but were not practicing what they preached. So if you want to say that the pharisees' behavior was problematic, that's great. But that doesn't change Jewish law.