admin
WE have so far established that “Jesus” (Yahoshua the Nazarene) was arrested under the power of the Roman local authority for he could cause political trouble on nationalist grounds.
This was done with the collaboration of the Roman-appointed Hebrew priestly authorities who felt religiously threatened by Yahoshua’s popularity.
Second, from a Hebraic legal point of view, the arrest of Yahoshua the Nazarene would be a fictional impossibility and invention as it was fraudulent and illegal.
Third, if it is historically true, it would have been forced by the Romans who had disregard for the criminal procedure of a subject people and then worked with the Roman-appointed Hebrew priestly class as local collaborators and agents.
The irony is that the narrative about the life and arrest of Yahoshua would not have been free from pro-Roman influence and distortion because of the overbearing hand of Saul/Paul (a Roman citizen) and Constantine (a Roman emperor).
Today, let us examine as to “Why was “Jesus” arrested?”
According to the gospels, Yahoshua is said to have:
1) Committed blasphemy (Matthew 26:62-65, Mark 14:60-64). By definition, there are three conditions for blasphemy: one must curse the name of the Divine, reviles the Divine, or the destruction of the name of the Divine. – Babylonian Talmud: Tractate Sanhedrin Folio 56a www.come-and-hear.com/sanhedrin/sanhedrin_56.html <http://www.come-and-hear.com/sanhedrin/sanhedrin_56.html>
The legal authority is derived from the Hebrew Scriptures, Leviticus 24:11-23. The penalty for the offence is death by stoning.
The “Mishnah” declares that a blasphemer is not guilty unless there is a pronouncement of the name of the Divine (Mishnah, Sanhedrin 7. 5);
2) Claimed to be the Messiah, whose Hebrew word is “Mashiach” (Strong’s Hebrew Concordance #4899). This means “usually a consecrated person (as a king or priest)” (Luke 22:66-71). From the Hebrews, he would be a nationalist expected to lead in the overthrow of the Roman rule in Judea; and
3) Threatened to destroy the Temple and bring it up in three days (Matthew 26:61; Mark 14:58; John 18:12-24).
Which is the correct and true criminal charge? Which of the gospels is a reliable source and by what criteria?
Was the Roman Empire ever interested in enforcing any of the Hebrew offences of “blasphemy, a messianic claim and the destruction of the Temple”?
What was the Roman interest in arresting Yahoshua when none of the offences was an offence under the Roman penal code?
Blasphemy was a crime under Judaic law for which the convicted was killed by stoning. Why was Yahoshua later to be killed the Roman way for an alleged Hebrew criminal offense?
Does this not further prove that Yahoshua was a nationalist figure arrested by the Romans with the collaboration of the Roman-appointed Hebrew priestly class, dubiously tried by the Hebraic religious court but killed for a Roman crime of sedition (“conduct or speech inciting people to rebel against the authority of a political authority”)?
Larry Behrendt postulates that “there is no indication in the Gospels that the (Hebrew) authorities asked for Roman help in the arrest of (Yahoshua). Nor does there appear to have been any reason for (Hebrew) authorities to ask for Roman help in this case. . . (Yahoshua) and his disciples were not militant, and his arrest was not a difficult matter.” – Who ordered the arrest of Jesus? (September 2014), <http://jewishchristianintersections.com/?p=681>
Behrendt goes on to say that this leads to the conclusion that Yahoshua was arrested by the Romans and was to be tried by the Hebrew authorities under the Judaic law to please the Romans.
On the charge of being a messiah, theological scholars all agree that it was not a crime under Judaic law to claim to be the “Mashiach” – not even a supposedly false claim of messiahship was against Judaic law.
“It was not a crime in ancient Judaism to claim to be Messiah,” declares the conservative Christian website BibleGateway.com.
ThinkApologetics.com proclaims: “According to Jewish law, the claim to be the Messiah was not a criminal, nor capital offense, (or) even a blasphemous claim.”
Ed Kessler writes on the BBC website that “To claim to be the Messiah, if it was an offence against Judaism at all, was certainly not (as the Gospels contend) an offence against Jewish law for which (Yahoshua) could have been put to death.”
Therefore the arrest of Yahoshua the Nazarene was either a fictional impossibility since the criminal charges laid out against him did not warrant the arrest and ill-treatment he suffered.
Alternatively, he could have painfully suffered as a Hebrew nationalist because of the background intense instigation by the Romans at the hands of the puppet Hebrew authorities despite not having a legal case against him.
By humble submission, we can seek for a historical “Jesus” (Yahoshua the Nazarene) or as a historicalised nationalist aspiration.
Based on his true historical space, inclusive of the geographical locality and religious or cultural relativity, this uplifts his humanity and protects him from a European mythical narrative that was advanced by a Roman citizen, Saul/Paul, and the Roman Emperor, Constantine, in the first and fourth centuries, respectively.
An honest seeker of truth would not hesitate to patiently chisel the debris to reach such truth buried underneath.
Resource: Rabbi Louis Jacobs, “Blasphemy in Judaism” www.myjewishlearning.com/article/blasphemy-in-judaism/ <http://www.myjewishlearning.com/article/blasphemy-in-judaism/>
For feedback email [email protected] or twit @shingaiRndoro. Comment on twitter using, #ChiselTheDebris, #DeconstructTheScriptures, #ImproveHumanity. A gallery of previous articles are found at www.sundaymail.co.zw/author/shingairukwata.
Online Reporter