The trial as per the gospels vs. Jewish law

[dybmh]

It doesn't matter if I like it or not. Reality is messy.

I agree. When you said I was a "fundementalist" does that mean "seeing reality as simple, neat, tidy, black-and-white?" I'm not trying to put words in your mouth, I'm just trying to understand what you mean.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

I agree. When you said I was a "fundementalist" does that mean "seeing reality as simple, neat, tidy, black-and-white?" I'm not trying to put words in your mouth, I'm just trying to understand what you mean.

Fundamentalists are those who read their sacred texts literally, and observe an ultra conservative variation of their religion, aka who believe in "the fundamentals of the faith." Among Christians, the easiest way to determine if someone is a fundamentalist is to ask them if they accept evolution. If they say they are a creationist, they are a fundamentalist.

 

[dybmh]

Fundamentalists are those who read their sacred texts literally, and observe an ultra conservative variation of their religion, aka who believe in "the fundamentals of the faith."

Yeah, that's kind of like me. But also not exactly true. Like you say it's messy.

Among Christians, the easiest way to determine if someone is a fundamentalist is to ask them if they accept evolution. If they say they are a creationist, they are a fundamentalist.

Well, I'm not a creationist. But I do believe God created everything via divine fiat. When it says "light" was is the hebrew word "ohhhhhhhrrrrrrrrr" reverberating continuously as compressed sound waves forever and ever and ever...? No. Do I still take it literally? Yes.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Yeah, that's kind of like me. But also not exactly true. Like you say it's messy.



Well, I'm not a creationist. But I do believe God created everything via divine fiat. When it says "light" was is the hebrew word "ohhhhhhhrrrrrrrrr" reverberating continuously as compressed sound waves forever and ever and ever...? No. Do I still take it literally? Yes.

So you accept evolution?

 

[dybmh]

So you accept evolution?

yes. is this a test?

 

[IndigoChild5559]

yes. is this a test?

yes. you passed

 

[Harel13]

Thank you.
Now I understand your point.
Sorry, I was a bit confused, so I wasn't understanding very clearly.

I'm not sure why my explaining my position regarding Jesus clarified my point, because my argument in this thread had nothing to do with what I personally think about Jesus. I recommend re-reading my posts.

 

[Estro Felino]

I'm not sure why my explaining my position regarding Jesus clarified my point, because my argument in this thread had nothing to do with what I personally think about Jesus. I recommend re-reading my posts.

The issue here is that in this thread I presented the historical documents written by Pagan Romans (so not Christians, and so impartial writers) that reveal us that Jesus' existence was historically reliable. Considering the amount of rebels and revolutionaries crucified in Greece, in Anatolia, in Judaea by the Romans. So Jesus was just one of many.

Roman historians point out it was the Romans...that's the point of this thread.

 

[Harel13]

The issue here is that in this thread I presented the historical documents written by Pagan Romans (so not Christians, and so impartial writers) that reveal us that Jesus' existence was historically reliable. Considering the amount of rebels and revolutionaries crucified in Greece, in Anatolia, in Judaea by the Romans. So Jesus was just one of many.

Roman historians point out it was the Romans...that's the point of this thread.

Actually, the point of this thread is to point out the difficulties there are with squaring the description of Jesus trial as presented in the NT with Jewish law. At least, that's what the thread title and OP state. Perhaps you thought you might steer the thread in a direction that interests you but was not necessarily the OP's intent?

 

[Colt]

I have heard many things said about the process by which Jesus was tried etc and I have had problems with it. I'd like to lay out the problems so anyone who wants to help me understand can do so. There are errors in the version of events recorded in the various gospels but I'll start with some basic ones related to the trial of Jesus.

First, what Jesus did was not "blasphemy" by any Jewish legal standard. Claiming divinity (if you think that's what he did) or claiming messianic status or advising people to break laws or any of the other things I have read? None of it is blasphemy.

The Sanhedrin (only the Sanhedrin of 23 would have been relevant here -- the Great Sanhedrin of 71 had jurisdiction over a different set of cases) would not meet at night or on holidays.

The method of proceedings would have required a particular group of witnesses who could attest to a number of different stages of behavior. Warnings would have to have been issued already (with witnesses to the warning) and the witnesses would have been taken aside and investigated separately.

Capital crimes require specific punishments. "Stoning" does not require that anyone throws any stones. Crucifixion would not have been allowed under Jewish law and Jewish law forbids handing Jews over to secular authorities, especially if the punishment would go against Jewish law.

Now the answer which would resolve all of these would be that the Sanhedrin in the gospels, because it was populated by the Saduccees:
a) didn't represent Jews of the time (or before or after)
b) didn't follow the laws of Judaism either as a rule or in this case

if those are the answer, then the entire process had nothing to do with the mainstream Jewish community and associating any part of it to the Jews is an error.

Other answers include:
1) the gospels are not history books so don't hold them to account for errors in detail
1a) if that's the case then the texts are admittedly unreliable
2) the gospels are accurate and Jewish law is an invention -- the way it is told there must have been the way the rules were
2a) this requires denying the entirety of the Jewish tradition (which would include the tradition that Jesus lived in and endorsed)

Any insight would be appreciated.

FWIW IMOP

JEWS AND GENTILES​

121:7.2 The teachings and practices of Jesus regarding tolerance and kindness ran counter to the long-standing attitude of the Jews toward other peoples whom they considered heathen. For generations the Jews had nourished an attitude toward the outside world which made it impossible for them to accept the Master's teachings about the spiritual brotherhood of man. They were unwilling to share Yahweh on equal terms with the gentiles and were likewise unwilling to accept as the Son of God one who taught such new and strange doctrines.

121:7.3 The scribes, the Pharisees, and the priesthood held the Jews in a terrible bondage of ritualism and legalism, a bondage far more real than that of the Roman political rule. The Jews of Jesus' time were not only held in subjugation to the law but were equally bound by the slavish demands of the traditions, which involved and invaded every domain of personal and social life. These minute regulations of conduct pursued and dominated every loyal Jew, and it is not strange that they promptly rejected one of their number who presumed to ignore their sacred traditions, and who dared to flout their long-honored regulations of social conduct. They could hardly regard with favor the teachings of one who did not hesitate to clash with dogmas which they regarded as having been ordained by Father Abraham himself. Moses had given them their law and they would not compromise. *

121:7.4 By the time of the first century after Christ the spoken interpretation of the law by the recognized teachers, the scribes, had become a higher authority than the written law itself. And all this made it easier for certain religious leaders of the Jews to array the people against the acceptance of a new gospel.

121:7.5 These circumstances rendered it impossible for the Jews to fulfill their divine destiny as messengers of the new gospel of religious freedom and spiritual liberty. They could not break the fetters of tradition. Jeremiah had told of the "law to be written in men's hearts," Ezekiel had spoken of a "new spirit to live in man's soul." and the Psalmist had prayed that God would "create a clean heart within and renew a right spirit." But when the Jewish religion of good works and slavery to law fell victim to the stagnation of traditionalistic inertia, the motion of religious evolution passed westward to the European peoples.

121:7.6 And so a different people were called upon to carry an advancing theology to the world, a system of teaching embodying the philosophy of the Greeks, the law of the Romans, the morality of the Hebrews, and the gospel of personality sanctity and spiritual liberty formulated by Paul and based on the teachings of Jesus.

121:7.7 Paul's cult of Christianity exhibited its morality as a Jewish birthmark. The Jews viewed history as the providence of God—Yahweh at work. The Greeks brought to the new teaching clearer concepts of the eternal life. Paul's doctrines were influenced in theology and philosophy not only by Jesus' teachings but also by Plato and Philo. In ethics he was inspired not only by Christ but also by the Stoics.

121:7.8 The gospel of Jesus, as it was embodied in Paul's cult of Antioch, Christianity, became blended with the following teachings:

1. The philosophic reasoning of the Greek proselytes to Judaism, including some of their concepts of the eternal life.
2. The appealing teachings of the prevailing mystery cults, especially the Mithraic doctrines of redemption, atonement, and salvation by the sacrifice made by some god.
3. The sturdy morality of the established Jewish religion.

121:7.12 The Mediterranean Roman Empire, the Parthian kingdom, and the adjacent peoples of Jesus' time all held crude and primitive ideas regarding the geography of the world, astronomy, health, and disease; and naturally they were amazed by the new and startling pronouncements of the carpenter of Nazareth. The ideas of spirit possession, good and bad, applied not merely to human beings, but every rock and tree was viewed by many as being spirit possessed. This was an enchanted age, and everybody believed in miracles as commonplace occurrences." UB 1955

 

[Estro Felino]

Actually, the point of this thread is to point out the difficulties there are with squaring the description of Jesus trial as presented in the NT with Jewish law. At least, that's what the thread title and OP state. Perhaps you thought you might steer the thread in a direction that interests you but was not necessarily the OP's intent?

The OP's point is that he considers the Jewish trial not that historically reliable.

And in fact I presented the evidence of Roman historians who speak of revolutionaries as the cause of unrest in Rome, and so in Jerusalem, too. So the matter was much more political than religious.
That point perfectly matches with what I have just said.

 

[Brian2]

I have heard many things said about the process by which Jesus was tried etc and I have had problems with it. I'd like to lay out the problems so anyone who wants to help me understand can do so. There are errors in the version of events recorded in the various gospels but I'll start with some basic ones related to the trial of Jesus.

First, what Jesus did was not "blasphemy" by any Jewish legal standard. Claiming divinity (if you think that's what he did) or claiming messianic status or advising people to break laws or any of the other things I have read? None of it is blasphemy.

The Sanhedrin (only the Sanhedrin of 23 would have been relevant here -- the Great Sanhedrin of 71 had jurisdiction over a different set of cases) would not meet at night or on holidays.

The method of proceedings would have required a particular group of witnesses who could attest to a number of different stages of behavior. Warnings would have to have been issued already (with witnesses to the warning) and the witnesses would have been taken aside and investigated separately.

Capital crimes require specific punishments. "Stoning" does not require that anyone throws any stones. Crucifixion would not have been allowed under Jewish law and Jewish law forbids handing Jews over to secular authorities, especially if the punishment would go against Jewish law.

Now the answer which would resolve all of these would be that the Sanhedrin in the gospels, because it was populated by the Saduccees:
a) didn't represent Jews of the time (or before or after)
b) didn't follow the laws of Judaism either as a rule or in this case

if those are the answer, then the entire process had nothing to do with the mainstream Jewish community and associating any part of it to the Jews is an error.

Other answers include:
1) the gospels are not history books so don't hold them to account for errors in detail
1a) if that's the case then the texts are admittedly unreliable
2) the gospels are accurate and Jewish law is an invention -- the way it is told there must have been the way the rules were
2a) this requires denying the entirety of the Jewish tradition (which would include the tradition that Jesus lived in and endorsed)

Any insight would be appreciated.

Jesus seems to have been condemned by the Jews for claiming to be the Son of God. The sort of Son of God can be seen in John's Gospel, it is the Son of God with who came from the Father and with the nature of His Father. They wanted to kill Him a couple of times in John's gospel for claiming equality with God and making Himself God.
The trial details of course break the rules and that is what happened according to the reports. No doubt it was considered more important to get rid of Jesus than worry about the rules for a trial. They seemed to think that there would be big trouble if the people claimed Jesus as the Messiah, the King and started rioting at the Passover. Do you think that the Jewish leaders would never do such a thing?
Maybe the leaders in those days, the ones condemned by Jesus the Messiah, would do such things.
Pilate wanted to please the people it says and so did what they wanted even though he said he found no fault in Jesus. The charge the Jews wanted was that He said that He was the Jewish King. Something to satisfy reason for a crucifixion.

 

[rosends]

Jesus seems to have been condemned by the Jews for claiming to be the Son of God. The sort of Son of God can be seen in John's Gospel, it is the Son of God with who came from the Father and with the nature of His Father. They wanted to kill Him a couple of times in John's gospel for claiming equality with God and making Himself God.

So when you see an account which doesn't correlate with all the known laws, you assume there are law breakers and not a flawed account.

The trial details of course break the rules and that is what happened according to the reports. No doubt it was considered more important to get rid of Jesus than worry about the rules for a trial. They seemed to think that there would be big trouble if the people claimed Jesus as the Messiah, the King and started rioting at the Passover. Do you think that the Jewish leaders would never do such a thing?

I don't think that that is within the purview of any Jewish leader. Look up stories of other messianic claimants. Which of them was tried by a religious court or turned over to local authorities?

Maybe the leaders in those days, the ones condemned by Jesus the Messiah, would do such things.
Pilate wanted to please the people it says and so did what they wanted even though he said he found no fault in Jesus. The charge the Jews wanted was that He said that He was the Jewish King. Something to satisfy reason for a crucifixion.

So you say that "the people" wanted to disregard, effectively, every element of Jewish law.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

So when you see an account which doesn't correlate with all the known laws, you assume there are law breakers and not a flawed account.

^ this

 

[Rachel Rugelach]

Maybe the leaders in those days, the ones condemned by Jesus the Messiah, would do such things.

And maybe others in later days, the ones who condemned the Jews for all eternity, would continue to ignore the very likely possibility that perhaps one account in their gospel about the Jews may not have been entirely accurate.

Choosing to brush off certain pertinent facts about Jewish law and Jewish history in favor of blindly accepting what is written about Jews in a gospel, saying that maybe Jews "would do such things," is how The Protocols of the Elders of Zion found its willingly credulous audience.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

The issue here is that in this thread I presented the historical documents written by Pagan Romans (so not Christians, and so impartial writers) that reveal us that Jesus' existence was historically reliable. Considering the amount of rebels and revolutionaries crucified in Greece, in Anatolia, in Judaea by the Romans. So Jesus was just one of many.

Roman historians point out it was the Romans...that's the point of this thread.

Again, these historians wrote in the second century. They are not contemporary historians.

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

That is evidently false.

While there is sufficient evidence of the murder of Jesus by Jewish instigation, THERE IS NO PROOF that Jesus was a political danger to the Romans... In any case, he was a very dangerous religious enemy to the Pharisaical religious power over the Jews.

He didn’t have to be a real threat. They just had to say he was one. Not everyone in Guantanamo was proved to be guilty.

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

He didn’t have to be a real threat. They just had to say he was one. Not everyone in Guantanamo was proved to be guilty.

At times, the Romans thought that a group of men getting together to form a fire brigade was an existential threat to the Empire...

 

[Brian2]

So when you see an account which doesn't correlate with all the known laws, you assume there are law breakers and not a flawed account.

I believe the account. If I did not believe the account I would be making the assumption that the account is wrong because the Jewish leaders would never break the law.

I don't think that that is within the purview of any Jewish leader. Look up stories of other messianic claimants. Which of them was tried by a religious court or turned over to local authorities?

I don't know. Jesus is said to be the stone of stumbling and rock of offense that the Jews would stumble over. (Isa 8:14,

So you say that "the people" wanted to disregard, effectively, every element of Jewish law.

The gospel says that the people were stirred up by the leaders to want Jesus crucified. The leaders were disregarding the law and I imagine there were others around on their side and of course if Jesus was the Messiah, then He was not going to be crucified,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, was he?

 

[Brian2]

And maybe others in later days, the ones who condemned the Jews for all eternity, would continue to ignore the very likely possibility that perhaps one account in their gospel about the Jews may not have been entirely accurate.

Why just one account?

Choosing to brush off certain pertinent facts about Jewish law and Jewish history in favor of blindly accepting what is written about Jews in a gospel, saying that maybe Jews "would do such things," is how The Protocols of the Elders of Zion found its willingly credulous audience.

Any anti semetic acts are anti the teachings of Jesus.
I don't think that facts about Jewish law and history should discredit the witness reports in the gospels.
Choosing to brush off the idea that Jews could do those things, or that our leaders in general could do such things, is not a good idea. We know that they could and have and do,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, and in their view it is for our good. But they don't always know what is best and so it is up to us to make that decision.