Is Jesus Christ a Roman citizen?

Jan 2018
283
Netherlands
#72
He was punished for what 'crime' then, according to religious sources?
According to religious sources, Jewish leaders accused Jesus of blasphemy by calling himself the Son of God. Since they had no power to bring a man to death, they tried to convince Pilate that Jesus was trying to subvert Roman rule and make himself "King of the Jews". According to the same sources, Pilate found no fault in him but had him executed anyway for fear of the crowd.
 
Jul 2012
3,178
Dhaka
#73
According to religious sources, Jewish leaders accused Jesus of blasphemy by calling himself the Son of God. Since they had no power to bring a man to death, they tried to convince Pilate that Jesus was trying to subvert Roman rule and make himself "King of the Jews". According to the same sources, Pilate found no fault in him but had him executed anyway for fear of the crowd.
Fear of the crowd? Romans!? That's weak.

However, if Pilate didn't find fault in him, doesn't that mean Jesus (pbuh) didn't claim to be son of god as alleged by the Jews?
 
Jan 2018
283
Netherlands
#74
Fear of the crowd? Romans!? That's weak.

However, if Pilate didn't find fault in him, doesn't that mean Jesus (pbuh) didn't claim to be son of god as alleged by the Jews?
Sorry, I am not interested in making this thread into a theological Islam-vs.-Christianity-discussion.
 
Mar 2015
840
Europe
#75
Is anyone aware what was the provision in Roman law at that time for someone who claimed, or claimed by others to have claimed, to be a god? Since Roman emperors considered themselves to be gods, would a god-claim be interpreted as treason and thus qualified for capital punishment?
Most Roman emperors did not actually claim to be gods in their lifetime. Several did, yes.
And several were Son of God.

But treason?
Romans believed in many Gods. And several of the Gods had a track record of many children on Earth.
For several emperors, their brothers, although not sharing power of Emperor, did share descent as Son of God.
So to claim to be a Son (or, for the matter a Daughter!) of a strange God, presumably a lesser God than the Gods of the Romans was arrogant, but was it directly seditious or blasphemous?

Tiberius then reigning was Son of God, as much as his adoptive father Augustus had been and on the same grounds (Adoption of Augustus by Caesar and apotheosis of Caesar made Augustus Son of God, and he openly and officially named himself so. Tiberius had been adopted by Augustus, and Augustus had become a God, only after death, so Tiberius was Son of God).
 
Last edited:
Jan 2015
875
England
#76
Fear of the crowd? Romans!? That's weak.

However, if Pilate didn't find fault in him, doesn't that mean Jesus (pbuh) didn't claim to be son of god as alleged by the Jews?
No, because that's not what Pilate was concerned about. He didn't care about the claim to be the son of God. According to the Gospels, what Pilate asked him about was his supposed kingship. Jesus admitted that he was indeed a king, but his kingdom was 'not of this world' (so he wasn't usurping the Empire, so Pilate found no fault with him).
 
Jul 2012
3,178
Dhaka
#79
Most Roman emperors did not actually claim to be gods in their lifetime. Several did, yes.
And several were Son of God.

But treason?
Romans believed in many Gods. And several of the Gods had a track record of many children on Earth.
For several emperors, their brothers, although not sharing power of Emperor, did share descent as Son of God.
So to claim to be a Son (or, for the matter a Daughter!) of a strange God, presumably a lesser God than the Gods of the Romans was arrogant, but was it directly seditious or blasphemous?

Tiberius then reigning was Son of God, as much as his adoptive father Augustus had been and on the same grounds (Adoption of Augustus by Caesar and apotheosis of Caesar made Augustus Son of God, and he openly and officially named himself so. Tiberius had been adopted by Augustus, and Augustus had become a God, only after death, so Tiberius was Son of God).
"To return to the legal sources and to sacrilege: Ulpian on the pro-consulate tells us that "next kin to sacrilege is the crime called treason" (46); this must be more than theft even from a temple, it implies a lack of fealty to the gods that finds its parallel in lack of fealty to the deified emperor whose maiestas has superseded that of the Roman people. Paul linked as capital offences thefts from the imperial mines or ex moneta sacra (47). Modestinus remarks that maiestas is an aggravated offence for soldiers as is the profanation of statues and images (48).

....

Some years later, towards the very end of Tiberius' life, a Roman lady of senatorial rank was charged with impiety towards the emperor; treason does not seem to be proven in her case, but adultery was, and it was probably for that that she and her co-defendants suffered (49)."

Source: BLASPHEMY AND SACRILEGE IN ROMAN LAW
Olivia Robinson
Irish Jurist
new series, Vol. 8, No. 2 (WINTER 1973), pp. 361

A quick reference to maiestas:

"Quick Reference

(lit. ‘greaterness’), used as an abbreviation for the crime maiestas minūta populī Rōmānī, ‘the diminution of the majesty of the Roman people’. This charge was first introduced by Appuleius Saturninus' lex Appuleia. He seems to have been provoked both by the incompetence and corruption of Roman generals in the wars against the Cimbri and Teutones and by the frustration of the will of popular assemblies through obstruction. However, the vagueness of the phrase made this a portmanteau charge, which could be deployed against any form of treason, revolt, or failure in public duty. Within a short time it virtually replaced charges of perduellio (‘treason’) brought before an assembly. Sulla's lex Cornelia maiestatis of 81 bc was an important part of his reorganization of the criminal law. It incorporated provisions restricting the conduct and movements of provincial governors. However, the law could still be applied to misbehaviour in a popular assembly. The lex Iulia maiestatis of Caesar revised Sulla's law, incorporating exile as the chief penalty. The scope of the existing law changed in the light of the existence of an emperor. Conspiracies against the emperor came naturally under the law, but its application was also gradually extended to cover adultery with his daughter and then libel and slander (Tiberius was initially reluctant to countenance such charges, but eventually they succeeded). The law was never redrafted to take precise account of these offences and, where conspiracy was concerned, Domitian would say that an emperor's claim to have detected a conspiracy was not believed until he had been murdered. By Tiberius' reign prosecutions for maiestas might be brought before not only the quaestio maiestatis (see quaestiones) but either the senate, sitting under the presidency of the emperor or consuls, or the emperor himself. Convicted persons were increasingly liable to the death penalty with no opportunity given to retire into exile; their property was confiscated for the imperial fiscus and their names were obliterated from public record (see damnatio memoriae)."


Source: Maiestas - Oxford Reference
 
Last edited:
Jan 2016
386
Ohio
#80
Jesus was punished for a claim to be the King of Jews. Under roman law, any man who said he was king would of been charged for treason against their emperor. Not quite sure what the problem here is. Jesus had the claim to be the son of God, sure, but the claim to be king gave the reason for him to be legally executed. Most people expected this messiah to come with military might. So they were looking to squabble anything that may cause a rebellion uprising. Jesus was gathering massive crowds with talk of his teachings and healings. He was deemed a threat by Jewish Leaders.

Or ya know, religiously, it was pre-destined and bound to happen either way.
 

Similar History Discussions