834
It's all correct. (lemmy.world)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] RememberTheApollo_@lemmy.world 21 points 7 months ago

They killed him because he pissed off the State, not because magic tricks.

[-] Manmoth@lemmy.ml 15 points 7 months ago

Jesus was killed because he angered the Pharisees (specifically the Priests) by defying their authority and teaching the new covenant. The Romans (aka "the state") were only invested insofar as it would prevent a revolt. Pontius Pilate found no fault in Christ and offered Barrabas instead (a convicted murderer) but the Pharisees would not relent and wanted Jesus crucified. Pilate famously washed his hands of the business because even he knew it was an injustice.

[-] RandomApple@lemm.ee 2 points 7 months ago

Pharisees specifically weren't the priests. They were one of the branches of judaism who didn't think temple was necessary for proper worship (which is why they became the predominant branch after the destruction of the temple and rabbinic judaism stems from them), while temple was where priests worked and performed their rites. If you open your Bible to any of the four gospels, you will find that they say it was the priests who brought Jesus to Pilate.

Also, you shouldn't take gospels at their word for what they say about Pilate as they insert their theological concerns into Pilate's judgement. If you read Josephus, he clearly states Pilate condemns Jesus for claiming to be a king, ie. for political uprising, and even Mark, the earliest of gospels, doesn't state that Pilate didn't think Jesus guilty, unlike the other three.

[-] Manmoth@lemmy.ml 0 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago)

I specifically clarified that Jesus angered the Pharisee priest class. I'm aware that they were a jewish sect.

The Priests were "money changing" in the temple which is why Jesus flipped over the table and cast them out. The temple was a key part of their religious practices and the laity used the temple.

While not an expert I am aware of Josephus and his account of Jesus's trial. The only account I've ever read concerning the trial of Jesus is extremely brief and favorable to the description provided by the gospels. The fact that Pilate "condemns" him makes sense because only Pilate has that authority. Even if someone had a wildly different interpretation this would still be a single attestation by a Roman Jew.

It's worth mentioning that Rabbinical Judaism did not form completely until the 5th or 6th century.

[-] RandomApple@lemm.ee 2 points 7 months ago

There is no such thing as the Pharisee priest class. There are the Pharisees, and there are the priests. Two seperate groups that disagreed in their teachings quite a bit.

[-] Manmoth@lemmy.ml 1 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago)

I'm referring to pharisee priests/rabbis (e.g. whatever you want to call the religious leaders). The differing groups you're referring to are the pharisees and the sadducees and perhaps even the samaritans.

Edit: Reread your comment and it makes sense. It was the Pharisees sans priests.

load more comments (3 replies)
this post was submitted on 30 Mar 2024
834 points (96.9% liked)

Microblog Memes

5787 readers
3065 users here now

A place to share screenshots of Microblog posts, whether from Mastodon, tumblr, ~~Twitter~~ X, KBin, Threads or elsewhere.

Created as an evolution of White People Twitter and other tweet-capture subreddits.

Rules:

  1. Please put at least one word relevant to the post in the post title.
  2. Be nice.
  3. No advertising, brand promotion or guerilla marketing.
  4. Posters are encouraged to link to the toot or tweet etc in the description of posts.

Related communities:

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS