Are Jews still God's Chosen People?

[rosends]

my maternal grand mother was a Jew

um...

 

[Levite]

It is true that the Jewish leaders condemned and crusified Christ a fellow Jew for Blasphemy and claiming to be King of the Jews.

This is not, in fact, the case.

First of all, there are only four methods of execution permissible under Jewish law, and crucifixion is not among them.
Second of all, it is incredibly difficult to get a death sentence out of a legitimate Sanhedrin: the burden of proof is vast, far far beyond the burden of proof in any modern nation.
Third of all, at that time, the legitimate Sanhedrin was not executing people, for various reasons, among them being the requirement imposed on us to turn over those sentenced to death to the Romans for execution, who would certainly use methods not permitted to us.
Fourth, the Christian scriptures present an account of a sanhedrin being called by the High Priest, Yosef bar Kayafa (or bar Kufai, Hellenized to Caiaphas): not only did the High Priest have no authority to convene a sanhedrin, but bar Kayafa was part of the corrupted Sadducee element in the priesthood, meaning he had even less authority to convene a sanhedrin. Any "court" he convened would have been completely illegitimate under Jewish law.

Finally, no legitimate Sanhedrin would have wasted its time on Jesus. There were hundreds of guys running around ancient Israel claiming to be the messiah. It would have been an endless parade of trials, and a bloodbath, if they had actually tried and executed them all. There was nothing special about Jesus.

 

[Kolibri]

This is not, in fact, the case.

First of all, there are only four methods of execution permissible under Jewish law, and crucifixion is not among them.
Second of all, it is incredibly difficult to get a death sentence out of a legitimate Sanhedrin: the burden of proof is vast, far far beyond the burden of proof in any modern nation.
Third of all, at that time, the legitimate Sanhedrin was not executing people, for various reasons, among them being the requirement imposed on us to turn over those sentenced to death to the Romans for execution, who would certainly use methods not permitted to us.
Fourth, the Christian scriptures present an account of a sanhedrin being called by the High Priest, Yosef bar Kayafa (or bar Kufai, Hellenized to Caiaphas): not only did the High Priest have no authority to convene a sanhedrin, but bar Kayafa was part of the corrupted Sadducee element in the priesthood, meaning he had even less authority to convene a sanhedrin. Any "court" he convened would have been completely illegitimate under Jewish law.

Finally, no legitimate Sanhedrin would have wasted its time on Jesus. There were hundreds of guys running around ancient Israel claiming to be the messiah. It would have been an endless parade of trials, and a bloodbath, if they had actually tried and executed them all. There was nothing special about Jesus.

Yes the court he called was totally illegal. It was the middle of the night, the witnesses were known to be false, and the high priest cast his vote prior to anyone else. The accounts can be reviewed at Mt 26:57-68, Mr 15:53-65, and Lu 22:66-71. A pre-trial showing to the father-in-law of the high priest is found at John 18:12-14,19-24.

 

[Levite]

Yes the court he called was totally illegal. It was the middle of the night, the witnesses were known to be false, and the high priest cast his vote prior to anyone else. The accounts can be reviewed at Mt 26:57-68, Mr 15:53-65, and Lu 22:66-71. A pre-trial showing to the father-in-law of the high priest is found at John 18:12-14,19-24.

All the more so, then. Witnesses known to be unreliable (to say nothing of false) are automatically disqualified under Jewish law. No criminal court was permitted to meet at night. Every part of this narrative points to a kangaroo court contrived by officials known to have been corrupted by Rome and improperly appointed by the Roman puppet kings, the Herodians (who weren't even Jewish).

Nothing in the death of Jesus has anything to do with legitimate Jewish officials, legitimate Jewish law, or legitimate Jewish practice. It has everything to do with the overlordship of Rome.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Yes, indeed. I've heard it cited often that what we are asked to believe the Sanhedrin did to Y'shua is beyond belief because it would have been so contrary to their practices. But here's something more incredible, Herodians, Zealots, Pharisees, other sects and the Romans all conspiring together to kill Y'shua. But it is there. The scriptures also record that those present wishing to speak out held their tongues because of great fear.

 

[Levite]

Yes, indeed. I've heard it cited often that what we are asked to believe the Sanhedrin did to Y'shua is beyond belief because it would have been so contrary to their practices. But here's something more incredible, Herodians, Zealots, Pharisees, other sects and the Romans all conspiring together to kill Y'shua. But it is there. The scriptures also record that those present wishing to speak out held their tongues because of great fear.

Yes, exactly: a completely unbelievable account of something virtually certain not to have occurred.

At best, descriptions of a completely contrived and illegitimate puppet show of a trial, for probably just a small crowd of sycophants and bought followers of the Herodian court and Roman governor and commanders.

 

[metis]

One also needs to remember that the gospels were written decades after the fact, which was more than enough time to reflect the fact that the relationship between "the Way" and Jews that didn't convert to go "south", if you know what I mean. Thus, demonizing "the Jews" would be pretty much expected, and this is what we see happening in the gospels, especially John's, and also some of the epistles.

Also, and Levite can correct me on this if I happen to be wrong, I've read that the Sanhedrin could not meet as a group during Passover, but if there was an emergency, one of those on the Sanhedrin could make a decision that later could be reviewed after Passover was finished. I read this somewhere, but can't remember where, nor do I know if this is correct.

 

[BilliardsBall]

One also needs to remember that the gospels were written decades after the fact, which was more than enough time to reflect the fact that the relationship between "the Way" and Jews that didn't convert to go "south", if you know what I mean. Thus, demonizing "the Jews" would be pretty much expected, and this is what we see happening in the gospels, especially John's, and also some of the epistles.

Also, and Levite can correct me on this if I happen to be wrong, I've read that the Sanhedrin could not meet as a group during Passover, but if there was an emergency, one of those on the Sanhedrin could make a decision that later could be reviewed after Passover was finished. I read this somewhere, but can't remember where, nor do I know if this is correct.

I've read the NT over 20 times and in multiple versions. Demonizing the Jews is not there in context, ever--if it was, I couldn't be a believer. And if it was, again, the 1st century adherents, wouldn't be.

I've heard the Sanhedrin prohibition against a Passover meeting before, yes. Y'shua came to Yerushalyim annually. He was expected and anticipated and the meetings were held thusly.

 

[Kolibri]

One also needs to remember that the gospels were written decades after the fact, which was more than enough time to reflect the fact that the relationship between "the Way" and Jews that didn't convert to go "south", if you know what I mean. Thus, demonizing "the Jews" would be pretty much expected, and this is what we see happening in the gospels, especially John's, and also some of the epistles.

Also, and Levite can correct me on this if I happen to be wrong, I've read that the Sanhedrin could not meet as a group during Passover, but if there was an emergency, one of those on the Sanhedrin could make a decision that later could be reviewed after Passover was finished. I read this somewhere, but can't remember where, nor do I know if this is correct.

Nisan 15 would have been the Passover, thus the hurry to kill the 2 criminals hanging to the right and left of Jesus. (by breaking the legs causing them to suffocate.)

The arrest, kangaroo court, death and burial all occurred on Nisan 14th

Um..nvmind...Nisan 14th was the passover. I will have to recheck this.

 

[Kolibri]

"Since it was the day of Preparation, so that the bodies would not remain on the torture stakes on the Sabbath (for that Sabbath day was a great one), the Jews asked Pilate to have the legs broken and the bodies taken away." - John 19:31

Nisan 15th was the beginning of the Festival of Unleavened Bread.

*** it-1 p. 828 Festival of Unfermented Cakes ***
On Nisan 16, the second day of the Festival of Unfermented Cakes, the high priest waved the firstfruits of the barley harvest, which was the first crop of the year, or what might be called the first of the firstfruits of the land. (Le 23:10, 11) It is significant that Jesus Christ was resurrected on this very day, Nisan 16, in the year 33 C.E. The apostle compares Christ with others who are resurrected, saying: “But now Christ has been raised up from the dead, the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep in death. . . . But each one in his own proper order: Christ the firstfruits, afterward those who belong to the Christ during his presence.” Christ is also called “the firstborn among many brothers.”—1Co 15:20-23; Ro 8:29.
-------------------------------------
I suppose they considered getting rid of Jesus an emergency, if it is correct that the Sanhedrin avoided Passover meetings.

 

[Kolibri]

Who were members of the Jewish Sanhedrin?

The Sanhedrin was the Jewish high court. It was located in Jerusalem. Seventy-one members constituted this high court called the Great Sanhedrin. In the time of Jesus’ earthly ministry the 71 members included the high priest and others who had held the office of high priest (a number of such might be living at one time, for the office had become an appointive one under Roman rule). It also included members of the high priestly families, older men, the heads of the tribes and families, and scribes, men versed in the Law. (Ac 4:5, 6) These men were members of the sects of the Pharisees and the Sadducees.—Ac 23:6.

The head and president of the Sanhedrin was the high priest, who called the assembly together. (Ac 5:17, 21, 27; 7:1; 22:5; 23:2) Caiaphas the high priest presided at the trial of Jesus, although Jesus was first brought for questioning before Annas. (Mt 26:3, 57; Mr 14:53, 55, 60, 63; 15:1; Lu 22:54; Joh 18:12, 13, 19-24) Ananias was the high priest presiding over the Sanhedrin at the time of Paul’s trial.—Ac 23:2.

According to the Tosefta (Sanhedrin 7:1) and the Mishnah (Sanhedrin 4:1), the Sanhedrin sat from the time of the offering of the daily morning sacrifice until the evening sacrifice. It did not sit in judgment on the Sabbath or on feast days. In capital cases the Sanhedrin held trial during the daytime, and the verdict had to be reached during the daytime. If it was a verdict of conviction, it had to be issued on the following day. Therefore, trials could not be held on the eve of a Sabbath or on the eve of a festival day. However, this procedure was ignored in the case of Jesus’ trial.

The Mishnah (Sanhedrin 4:3) states: “The Sanhedrin was arranged like the half of a round threshing-floor so that they all might see one another. Before them stood the two scribes of the judges, one to the right and one to the left, and they wrote down the words of them that favoured acquittal and the words of them that favoured conviction.”—Translated by H. Danby.

According to Jewish tradition the Sanhedrin was set up by Moses (Nu 11:16-25) and reorganized by Ezra immediately after the return from the exile. But there is no historical evidence to support the idea that 70 older men sat as a single court to hear cases in those early times. Rather, the Sanhedrin seems to have come into existence during the time of Greek rule in Palestine. In the time of Jesus’ earthly ministry the Roman government allowed the Sanhedrin a great measure of independence, granting it civil and administrative authority. It had officers at its disposal as well as the power of arrest and imprisonment. (Mt 26:47; Ac 4:1-3; 9:1, 2) Its religious authority was recognized even among the Jews of the Dispersion. (See Ac 9:1, 2.) However, under the Roman rule the Sanhedrin in time evidently lost the legal authority to execute the death penalty, unless they got the permission of the Roman governor (procurator). (Joh 18:31) After the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 C.E., the Sanhedrin was abolished.

In Jerusalem there were, in addition, lower courts composed of 23 members each. According to the Mishnah (Sanhedrin 1:6), these smaller courts were also located in other cities of sufficient size throughout Palestine. The full number of judges comprising the court did not sit on every case. The number varied according to the seriousness of the matter to be judged and the difficulty in reaching a verdict. Additionally, there was the village court consisting of three men, and a court consisting of seven older men of the village.

The synagogues, which were used primarily for education, were also used to some extent as places for local courts, at times referred to as ‘local Sanhedrins,’ having the power to inflict the penalties of scourging and excommunication.—Mt 10:17, ftn; 23:34; Mr 13:9; Lu 21:12; Joh 9:22; 12:42; 16:2;

- Court, Judicial — Watchtower ONLINE LIBRARY

 

[metis]

I've read the NT over 20 times and in multiple versions. Demonizing the Jews is not there in context, ever--if it was, I couldn't be a believer. And if it was, again, the 1st century adherents, wouldn't be.

Then you especially need to go back and read John's gospel, and look for "the Jews...". However, there are similar references found in the synoptics, such as where is says that the 12 and Jesus were hiding from "the Jews". Jews that didn't convert to the Way were roundly both criticized and condemned.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

um...

Define um... please

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

This is not, in fact, the case.

First of all, there are only four methods of execution permissible under Jewish law, and crucifixion is not among them.
Second of all, it is incredibly difficult to get a death sentence out of a legitimate Sanhedrin: the burden of proof is vast, far far beyond the burden of proof in any modern nation.
Third of all, at that time, the legitimate Sanhedrin was not executing people, for various reasons, among them being the requirement imposed on us to turn over those sentenced to death to the Romans for execution, who would certainly use methods not permitted to us.
Fourth, the Christian scriptures present an account of a sanhedrin being called by the High Priest, Yosef bar Kayafa (or bar Kufai, Hellenized to Caiaphas): not only did the High Priest have no authority to convene a sanhedrin, but bar Kayafa was part of the corrupted Sadducee element in the priesthood, meaning he had even less authority to convene a sanhedrin. Any "court" he convened would have been completely illegitimate under Jewish law.

Finally, no legitimate Sanhedrin would have wasted its time on Jesus. There were hundreds of guys running around ancient Israel claiming to be the messiah. It would have been an endless parade of trials, and a bloodbath, if they had actually tried and executed them all. There was nothing special about Jesus.

It would seem to be hard to define at this distance who sentenced and crucified Jesus. The Romans had no reason to do so, some Jewish leaders certainly did.
That it was done unlawfully, does not make the situation any better or justify their action. It might have been done under the authority of Rome as the Bible suggests, and a rabble might have been involved. But the instigators were almost certainly Jews. Who had sufficient authority to bring the case forward.
It is disingenuous to suggest otherwise. To suggest it was done illegally makes the matter even worse.

 

[Levite]

"Since it was the day of Preparation, so that the bodies would not remain on the torture stakes on the Sabbath (for that Sabbath day was a great one), the Jews asked Pilate to have the legs broken and the bodies taken away." - John 19:31

Since Jewish law forbids this kind of torture-- crucifixion, leg breaking, etc.-- this indicates all the more how illegitimate and un-Jewish such treatment would be, making it all the more an unlikely account.

Nisan 15th was the beginning of the Festival of Unleavened Bread.

Nisan 15 is the first full day of Passover. Passover begins the night of the 14th, because days begin at sunset in Jewish reckoning.

I suppose they considered getting rid of Jesus an emergency, if it is correct that the Sanhedrin avoided Passover meetings.

There is no such thing as an emergency trial in Jewish law. Nor is there such a thing permitted as a trial with a predetermined outcome or agenda.

 

[Levite]

It would seem to be hard to define at this distance who sentenced and crucified Jesus. The Romans had no reason to do so, some Jewish leaders certainly did.
That it was done unlawfully, does not make the situation any better or justify their action. It might have been done under the authority of Rome as the Bible suggests, and a rabble might have been involved. But the instigators were almost certainly Jews. Who had sufficient authority to bring the case forward.
It is disingenuous to suggest otherwise. To suggest it was done illegally makes the matter even worse.

It is not at all hard to define who killed Jesus. No legitimate Jewish court could have ordered such a thing, for all the well-established reasons I have given. Whereas Romans crucified people often, and Pontius Pilate is known to have been fond of crucifying people. And Romans killed anyone they thought might be a rabble-rouser, whereas Jewish law precludes such acts.

Jewish leaders (at least those not puppets of Rome) had no reason to kill Jesus for the simple reason that he wasn't important enough to merit notice by Jewish authorities during his lifetime. There were tons of popular movements, mini-sects, and itinerant preachers running around saying all sorts of heretical things in those days. Jesus was one among a large crowd. At that time, when it came to heresy, the Rabbis would have been concerned about gnostic dualism and Hellenic philosophy, not just one more guy who claimed to be the messiah.

The Romans killed Jesus because he probably annoyed them with unruly followers, or making public scenes. The Jews who were not Roman puppets could not have done so under Jewish law, and probably never heard of Jesus, much less spared enough thought about him to do him ill.

 

[Kolibri]

The religious leaders had plenty to hate Jesus over. The accounts make it clear that he did not mince words with how they were rejecting Jehovah and seeking honor from men instead. It was the same before the destruction of the first temple. The religious leaders were failing God's people. Only instead of idol worship they were adopting Greek philosophies. Either way they were still seeking prominence. If Jesus was not the Prophet Moses talked about, or not even a true prophet there would be no reason to single him out. But as a miracle worker that boldly called them hypocrites while consistently overturning their arguments and show them up to be blind guides that overlooked the weightier matters of the Law, they truly saw him as a thorn in their side. It was like Cain, they did not get a mastery over their anger and humble themselves. So it led them to act out in a legalistic if not legal manner to get him out of the way.

King Ahab and how he felt about Elijah was also very similar.

 

[rosends]

Define um... please

Um=according to Jewish law, you just said "I am Jewish."

 

[Servant_of_the_One1]

In Islam the muslims are the best nation raised up for mankind because we call to Oneness of Allah and to believe in all prophets. Jews broke the covenant. But the jewish muslims upheld the covenant by believing in All prophets, so they receive great reward.

 

[rosends]

However, this procedure was ignored in the case of Jesus’ trial.

Or the text is so erroneous so as to be unbelievable.

According to Jewish tradition the Sanhedrin was set up by Moses (Nu 11:16-25) and reorganized by Ezra immediately after the return from the exile. But there is no historical evidence to support the idea that 70 older men sat as a single court to hear cases in those early times. Rather, the Sanhedrin seems to have come into existence during the time of Greek rule in Palestine. In the time of Jesus’ earthly ministry the Roman government allowed the Sanhedrin a great measure of independence, granting it civil and administrative authority. It had officers at its disposal as well as the power of arrest and imprisonment. (Mt 26:47; Ac 4:1-3; 9:1, 2) Its religious authority was recognized even among the Jews of the Dispersion. (See Ac 9:1, 2.) However, under the Roman rule the Sanhedrin in time evidently lost the legal authority to execute the death penalty, unless they got the permission of the Roman governor (procurator). (Joh 18:31) After the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 C.E., the Sanhedrin was abolished.

So Jewish tradition means "no historical evidence" but gospel quotes equal history? I think not.