Danielinthewolvesden, you still haven’t explained your beliefs regarding to Leviticus to us. Since you have stressed several times before that you are not a fundamentalist, and that you don’t believe everything in the Bible, then I think this is a very interesting issue. Since you believe that execution for anything less than “crimes against humanity” is inappropriate, and you have suggested that Caiaphas was a zealot/overzealous for merely discharging his religious duties as a Jew, then what, exactly, do you think of Judaism? Did it really come from God? Or do you believe that the Torah is a human invention? If you think the Torah comes from God, then how do you explain the inclusion of what are, in your opinion, unjust laws?
Ben, I think I will let Gamaliel, the Grandson of Hillel, and a great 'doctor of the law", and a leader of the Pharisees (Acts5) “And he said unto them, ye men of Israel, take heed to yourselves what you intend to do as touching these men…And now I say unto you, refrain from these men, and let them alone: for if this counsel or this work be of men, it will come to nought: But if it be of god, ye cannot overthrow it; lest haply ye be found even to fight against God”.
Ie, since you cannot be sure that some backwoods ‘rabbi’ MIGHT not be the “messiah”, or perhaps “only” inspired by God, do not judge him, 'les ye be judged. If a leader of the second largest faction was “unsure”, then the only way Caiaphas could have been SURE was to be a zealot.
I suppose that other crimes of heresy, even tho they would not be penalized today as severly, eg breaking into the “holy of holys” and spitting on it, would be so clearly an act of heresy that the ultimate penalty would be justified, IN THOSE TIMES.
It’s sorta like our death penalty debates, where I am in favor of executions only if we are “sure”, that is very rarely.
And of course the OT was inspired by God. The LAWS are not unjust, just how we all so fallible humans enforce them.
Tim Rice said it well:
"I see bad things arising, the crowd crown Him king, which the Romans would ban, I see total destruction, our elimination because of one man, because, because, because of one man…)
“What, then, to do about this Jesusmania? How do we deal
with a carpenter-king? How do we deal with a man who is bigger than John was when John did his baptism thing?”
“Fools, you have no conception, the stakes we are gambling
are frighteningly high. We must crush Him completely, so like John before Him, this Jesus must die, must die, must die, this Jesus must die. For the sake of the nation, this Jesus must die, must die, must die, this Jesus must, Jesus must, Jesus must die.”
It’s an interesting question, but I’m not sure how much there is to debate. Actually, there are two questions, the one asked in the OP subject header, was Caiaphas justified, and the second one asked in the post itself, why did Caiaphas have JC executed. The problem is, I don’t think we can address the first question without settling the second one.
Without knowing why Caiaphas did what he did (or, even what exactly Caiaphas did), it’s hard to say whether he was justified in taking action. But as for why he had JC executed (or referred him to Pilate for execution), we can speculate, but there are no definitave answers. Are there any accounts of Caiaphas independent of the gospels? I looked around on the web a bit, but couldn’t find any sources that refer to him other than the Bible, and as the matter wasn’t much thought of at the time it did happen (assuming it did happen), I wouldn’t expect to find any. That leaves us with only the Bible to try and determine Caiaphas’s motives, and as neither Matthew nor John were first hand witnesses for the trial, much less privy to Caiaphas’s reasoning, it doesn’t seem that there is much evidence to consider.
Interesting to ponder, but completely unaswerable, I suspect.
What if Jesus had insulted Joseph? Would it have been A-OK to kill him then? It’s a little unclear to me where the justice is supposed to lie in your scheme. If someone violates the Law of GOD HIMSELF, in such a way that the death penalty is unequivocally called for, but as you drag them off to execution they say, “Wait! Wait! I’m the Messiah!” you let them free just in case?
Again, I don’t understand your position at all. You say that Leviticus comes from God- but you also say that the death penalty is only warranted under a fraction of the offenses for which it is prescribed in Leviticus. How can you say that the death penalty is only justified in cases of “crimes against humanity” and extreme heresy, and at the same time claim that God justly ordered the ancient Jews to execute people for working on the Sabbath, not honoring the parents, etc., etc.?
And why do you stress that “IN THOSE TIMES” they were just? By whose reckoning? Is it just for China to torture political dissidents, so long as you qualify it with “in these times” or “in that country”?
I only remember the death penalty for 2 crimes, blasphemy & murder. And blasphemy is only for those who “curse or blaspheme” the NAME of the Lord. Which JC did not do.
And again, the death penalty is only for those who commits the crime, not for those who only commited those crimes- IN YOUR OPINION- like Gamaliel said - you could be wrong, and then YOU would be the sinner.
And the Law no longer applies to most of us, so indeed, I can say “in those days”. “Those days” were before JC gave us who accept him a new Covenant of Mercy, where you may no longer put anyone to death in “His Name”. However, “render unto Ceasar”, ie follow the secular laws of the land. This does not mean we must agree with them, or not try to change them if they are unjust, for if they are unjust, we will prevail, someday, at least.
Are you claiming that Leviticus does not order death for children who insult their parents, or for people who work on the Sabbath?
Would you like me to look it up for you?
**
I’m afraid I can’t parse this.
So why try to defend Leviticus with any kind of logic at all, if it can order any kind of screwy thing and you will claim that it was proper at the time because God’s old covenant was in effect?
Look, either justice is (as the fundies claim) whatever God says it is, and there’s no point in discussing what Leviticus says, because it could sanction rape (which, in fact, it does) and you would tell me that rape was a good idea “in those times,” or justice is something external to God with its own logic, in which case Leviticus clearly and spectacularly fails the standard you have set for it. So which is it?
Daniel, I suggest you go to bible.gospelcom.net and search for the word “death” in Leviticus, if you want to know what offenses your deity finds worthy of the death penalty. To wit:
Leviticus 20:9 insulting one’s parents
Leviticus 20:10 adultery
Leviticus 20:15-16 bestiality (death for the offender and the animal.)
Leviticus 20:27 being a “medium or spiritist”
Leviticus 24:16 blasphemy, whether you are a Jew or Gentile (you know- that thing Jesus did.)
Of course, this doesn’t include all the people put to death (and whose children were raped) for the crime of being in the way of good land.
-Ben
Nope, the quote is “curseth”, ie ask that G-d or a supernatural being srike them down, and meaning it. Ie if you actually say “YHVH damn you, parents”, and actually expect/hope the earth to open up and them fall thru a crack, then you are “Cursing”. WAY different from just saying “Pops, you’re too fat”
Nope, actually has to be someone who really has “a familiar spirit”, ie REALLT be a witch, not just pretend to be. As far as I know this applied to a total of one person in the last 4000 years.
Nope again. You must “blasphemeth” or “curseth” the “Name of the Lord”, ie actually call the Lord by name* and attempt to curse Him. They did not accuse JC of blasphemy, they accused him of treason. When they tried to accuse his folowers of blasphemy, and thus stone them, the Pharisees poited out that what they were doing was NOT blasphemy, ans stopped the stonings. The Pharisees believed in Messiah, true, they did not believe JC was the Messiah, but they were unwilling to give the Sadducees the right to stone anyone who claimed to be the Messiah, as that way their messiah would be stoned when he came. Note, the Sadducees did not believe in a messiah, per se.
And things were very different “in those days”: slavery was not only legal, but in many cases moral. There were no prisons, so the Death penalty applied to many crimes it would not apply to now. Wars & death were common experiences. The OT Law, when properly administered, was a legal and proper set of laws in that period. It was a paragon of mercy compared to other legal codes, which allowed torture and institutionalized slavery (you could be a slave in Isreal, but not be a slave because of your race, and there were many laws which dictated the freeing and good treatment of said slaves). I have railed on about “presentism”, ie judging those of the past by the standards of today. I was somewhat guilty of that myself. But I will not condemn an entire People or Code of Laws because they are harsh now, even tho they were merciful then.
I am asking if Caiaphas was justified for that time. If he truly thought JC was a blasphemer, he would be justified (but over zealous) in his own eyes at least, even tho JC was not guilty of that crime. If he did it to protect his people, then he would also be justified (but hard-hearted), but if he had an innocent man condemned because he personally was irritated or his job endangered,or he was jealous, then he would not be justified.
Can you back this up? It’s not that I doubt you, it’s just that I can potentially learn something here.
**
Could you give me a citation?
**
Moral how?
And I’m afraid I’m getting a bit confused about your argument here. Earlier you said that execution was only justified in cases of extreme blasphemy and murder, and you stated that Leviticus did not prescribe execution for any other crime. But you didn’t even acknowledge the fact that Leviticus prescribes death for bestiality and various flavors of extramarital sex, so I have no way of knowing if you feel they considered adultery to be blasphemy, or if you have, instead, switched arguments. Are you admitting that Leviticus does prescribe death for crimes other than the ones you originally outlined, and are you now arguing instead that times were different back then?
**
I hate to say it, but it really sounds to me like you’ve changed your argument without acknowledging that that’s what you’re doing. I think you need to realize that this comes across as weaselly, particularly since you did it before in the discussion of the Flood when you switched from “the Bible explicitly describes a local flood, and you’re just misinterpreting it,” to “the writers exaggerated a local flood into a description of a global one.”
**
Could you be a little more specific? Which moral codes were these? In particular, can you show me examples where the Code of Hammurabi is more harsh than the OT code?
**
No, it’s mighty hard to get good work out of a dead Amalekite.
While we’re on the topic, when Moses or the elders told the Israelites to go out and rape, did those orders, IYO, come from God?
If you look inside the quote, you will see answers to many of your questions. I did not mean for my replys to come out boldface, as the quoted material did. If a moderator would like to fix that, it would assist “future generations.”
How do you folks get your typed stuff to change to italics, boldface etc? Out here in Netscapeland, I see no such option.
Caiaphas saw Jesus as a political problem. He was drawing people away from the Jewish faith, and screwing up his line of work. No comment on whether he or Jesus were zealots/cult types. Jesus was a threat to the established authority he wielded, and he didn’t want to lose his position as a leader. This was his most feasible solution: get rid of him and he’ll cease to be a problem. he was neither right nor wrong, just defending himself.