The trial as per the gospels vs. Jewish law

[Colt]

Jews do not "rely" on other systems of execution. If there is an occupying power with its own forms of punishment, Jewish law teaches not to hand a criminal over to that system. To claim that Jews "had" crucifixion in any sense is ridiculous and the idea that the oppressed people could demand that someone is put to death strains credulity. The only "out" would be if one accepts that the sanhedrin (which wouldn't have met) was a Sadducee one completely unconnected to the actual "Jewish community."

Agreed, I haven't claimed that crucifixion was a "standard" practice within Judaism at the times of Jesus. The judicial powers of the Sanhedrin were "restricted" in various ways at different times under Roman occupation.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Agreed, I haven't claimed that crucifixion was a "standard" practice within Judaism at the times of Jesus. The judicial powers of the Sanhedrin were "restricted" in various ways at different times under Roman occupation.

There are only certain ways that Jews did executions, and crucifixion was not one of them. Crucifixion was done by the Romans, not the Jews.

 

[Colt]

There are only certain ways that Jews did executions, and crucifixion was not one of them. Crucifixion was done by the Romans, not the Jews.

The Sanhedrin found Jesus guilty and worthy of death after a sham trial. They had to get Pilate to carry out the death sentence. The individuals involved would be judged accordingly.

 

[Flankerl]

The Jews had capital punishment, that's the point! But they couldn't dictate to their occupiers what form to use. And the group of religious fanatics that hated Jesus certainly had no problem with Pilate crucifying Jesus!

Here we see how a Christian portrays "the Jews" as "fanatics".
A story as old as Christianity.

Furthermore we see, again, how this Christian has no knowledge whatsoever about the different religio-political streams of Jews at the time.
For him they are all just fanatics that most likely had it coming.
Why?
Well because his book says so.
A book that very curiously changes it tone towards Rome the further the authors were away from their Human-God figure.
Curious.

And so one of the two dominant Empires of the time, the Empire that has crushed every single other adversary in the Mediterranean area becomes the victim of the people it is occupying and slowly eating every single bit of left-over independence away.

So surely the poor Romans encountered similar threats of the people they occupied elsewhere.

No. They didn't.

It's almost as if it was all made up by a small religious sect that tried to gain Roman favour to set itself apart from "the Jews".

But they couldn't dictate to their occupiers what form to use

Wow it's almost as if the occupying force sets the rules and not the people who are being oppressed.

Crazy.

The Sanhedrin found Jesus guilty and worthy of death after a sham trial. They had to get Pilate to carry out the death sentence. The individuals involved would be judged accordingly.

And here the Christian quotes the "Sanhedrin" (he most likely means the Great Sanhedrin, he just doesn't know any better), an institution that was under Roman control, without any independence and constantly on the threat of the Roman sword.

Obviously this "Sanhedrin" actually called the shots.

I've recently heard that the Jews, hey come closer, control the entire world.
It only stands to reason that they also controlled the Roman Empire.
Those foolish Romans had no clue how they were controlled from the shadowy corners by the cunning conniving Jews.

Tune in next time too when we cover how the Jews purposefully made the Christians start the crusades to massacre Jews everywhere they went against their saintly Christian souls.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

The Sanhedrin found Jesus guilty and worthy of death after a sham trial. They had to get Pilate to carry out the death sentence. The individuals involved would be judged accordingly.

There are many irregularities in the story of the Sanhedrin trial of Jesus. It may in fact be completely fabricated. If by chance it did really happen, it was a completely illicit invalid proceeding. If I remember correctly, there is on this site a thread on this matter.

 

[Colt]

Here we see how a Christian portrays "the Jews" as "fanatics".
A story as old as Christianity.

Furthermore we see, again, how this Christian has no knowledge whatsoever about the different religio-political streams of Jews at the time.
For him they are all just fanatics that most likely had it coming.
Why?
Well because his book says so.
A book that very curiously changes it tone towards Rome the further the authors were away from their Human-God figure.
Curious.

And so one of the two dominant Empires of the time, the Empire that has crushed every single other adversary in the Mediterranean area becomes the victim of the people it is occupying and slowly eating every single bit of left-over independence away.

So surely the poor Romans encountered similar threats of the people they occupied elsewhere.

No. They didn't.

It's almost as if it was all made up by a small religious sect that tried to gain Roman favour to set itself apart from "the Jews".


Wow it's almost as if the occupying force sets the rules and not the people who are being oppressed.

Crazy.



And here the Christian quotes the "Sanhedrin" (he most likely means the Great Sanhedrin, he just doesn't know any better), an institution that was under Roman control, without any independence and constantly on the threat of the Roman sword.

Obviously this "Sanhedrin" actually called the shots.

I've recently heard that the Jews, hey come closer, control the entire world.
It only stands to reason that they also controlled the Roman Empire.
Those foolish Romans had no clue how they were controlled from the shadowy corners by the cunning conniving Jews.

Tune in next time too when we cover how the Jews purposefully made the Christians start the crusades to massacre Jews everywhere they went against their saintly Christian souls.

Had you read more carefully I said, "the group of religious fanatics that hated Jesus."

* Factions within Judaism (religious fanatics) have even battled themselves and mistreated other Liberal prophets! Your book says so!

* You acknowledge that the Great Sanhedrin was allowed to function but on the short leash of its Roman occupiers! Thats why they couldn't put a Jewish carpenter to death, they needed Pilate to do their dirty work!

*. Religious fanatics??? The dirty deed needed to be done quickly because of the OCD requirements of Judaism, rules devised by previous religious fanatics credited to God!

* It may be very difficult to face but even Gods self-proclaimed 'chosen people' and their supposedly divinely ordained nation aren't perfect!

* Proof of Jewish opposition to the teachings of Jesus (a Jew) is still in evidence today in your defensiveness about how a group of religious ancestors NOT ALL JEWS may have opposed a progressive spiritual reformer. Jesus wasn't a threat to Rome he was a threat to the established institution at the time.

 

[Colt]

There are many irregularities in the story of the Sanhedrin trial of Jesus. It may in fact be completely fabricated. If by chance it did really happen, it was a completely illicit invalid proceeding. If I remember correctly, there is on this site a thread on this matter.

That IS true! Emotion led to irregularities which led to injustice and tragedy and then retribution and more injustice. It’s been a very, very common occurrence among humans and even their most sacred institutions. Those religious men aligned against Jesus and his teaching may well have convinced themselves that they were doing what was right!!!

“I have told you these things so that you will not fall away. They will put you out of the synagogues. In fact, a time is coming when anyone who kills you will think he is offering a service to God. They will do these things because they have not known the Father or Me.

 

[Flankerl]

Had you read more carefully I said, "the group of religious fanatics that hated Jesus."

He said having no flipping clue which one it was.

Spoiler: He will choose the most accepting and tolerant group because it says so in his scripture.

* Factions within Judaism (religious fanatics) have even battled themselves and mistreated other Liberal prophets! Your book says so!

Name them.

* Your rambling post falls apart under its own inconsistency! You acknowledge that the Great Sanhedrin was allowed to function but on a short leash of its Roamn occupiers! Thats why they couldn't put a Jewish carpenter to death, they needed Pilate to do their dirty work! Religious fanatics??? The dirty deed needed to be done quickly because of the OCD requirements of Judaism, rules devised by previous religious fanatics credited to God!

Yes yes the Jews controlled the Romans and made them do evil things.

The poor Romans had no other choice because they were so innocent and powerless.

* It may be very difficult to face but even Gods self-proclaimed 'chosen people' and their supposedly divinely ordained nation aren't perfect!

Oh my now it get's spicy.
Well at least we haven't exterminated countless nations in our quest to convert the world to our ideology, right Mr Christian?

Oh wait those weren't real Christians.
Only our Christian branch on "Random American Street" in "Random American town" with a total number of XXX members are the true Christians and we can trace our line of thought directly to 19XX antiquity!

* Proof of Jewish opposition to the teachings of Jesus (a Jew) is still in evidence today in your defensiveness about how a group of religious ancestors NOT ALL JEWS may have opposed a progressive spiritual reformer. Jesus wasn't a threat to Rome he was a threat to the established institution at the time.

Hahaha
"You don't accept my beliefs and defend your own!!! This proves how I am right and you are just stuck in your antiquated beliefs!!!"

10/10

 

[Estro Felino]

Oh my now it get's spicy.
Well at least we haven't exterminated countless nations in our quest to convert the world to our ideology, right Mr Christian?

Oh wait those weren't real Christians.
Only our Christian branch on "Random American Street" in "Random American town" with a total number of XXX members are the true Christians and we can trace our line of thought directly to 19XX antiquity!

Christians are not a monolith.
The Gospel clearly says "and angels shall come forth and sever the wicked from among the just".
It doesn't say "sever the Christians from non-Christians".
The just, the righteous can be Christians, non-Christians, pagans, etc... That's our soteriology.

 

[rosends]

Because people say things about the gospels, that does not mean that those things are or might be true. I read them with faith.

So you start with a pre-existing faith schema which includes the idea that the text must be right and true therefore no matter how it describes others, that must be precisely accurate. OK.

It does from the New Testament pov.

No, from the Christian perspective, one can interpret it to refer to Jesus. There is no POV in which it MENTIONS Jesus.

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

How do you know?

That was Jew territory and Jesus was a very well known Jew. Although the Jewish religious leaders hated Jesus, a large part of the people respected and loved him.

Do you think that if the story were an exaggeration it would have been written to people who lived in that very same time?

His own family thought he was nuts.

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

According to Roman historians, Pilate was recalled to Rome for being overly brutal. He was eventually removed, although I can't remember what the reason was.

You know you are mean when the horrible Romans think that you are mean.

 

[Brian2]

So you start with a pre-existing faith schema which includes the idea that the text must be right and true therefore no matter how it describes others, that must be precisely accurate. OK.

I'm not a Jew who might start with a pre existing faith schema that the Jewish leaders of Jesus day would never break the law. Why wouldn't they have a culture of corruption happening in which they decide what is the right thing to do even if it might be breaking the letter of the law.
The majority seem to have already made up their minds about the guilt of Jesus in relation to the Law and they were trying to get rid of Jesus and give it a semblance of legality, and who was going to complain? And who would complain to a corrupt regime?

(NIV) Isa 53:8 By oppression[a] and judgment he was taken away.
Yet who of his generation protested?

No, from the Christian perspective, one can interpret it to refer to Jesus. There is no POV in which it MENTIONS Jesus.

The New Testament mentions the stone of stumbling and rock of offense as being Jesus.

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

To know Jesus you have to study what is written about him

He’s alive right? Just hang out with him?

 

[rosends]

I'm not a Jew who might start with a pre existing faith schema that the Jewish leaders of Jesus day would never break the law.

True -- you are a Christian starting with the idea that the gospels must be accurate.

Why wouldn't they have a culture of corruption happening in which they decide what is the right thing to do even if it might be breaking the letter of the law.

Because they would have no value as religious leaders if they threw out so many black letter laws. Either the gospels are full of errors or they are attesting to the leaders' not representing the religion, so any criticisms of the religion would be flawed.

The majority seem to have already made up their minds about the guilt of Jesus in relation to the Law

according to the gospels. According to Jewish law, it couldn't have happened.

(NIV) Isa 53:8 By oppression[a] and judgment he was taken away.

If you start with a misunderstanding of Isaiah, you end up with, well, a misunderstanding.

The New Testament mentions the stone of stumbling and rock of offense as being Jesus.

exactly -- the gospels mention it. The Jewish scriptures do not.

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

Sir, I see that you are a prophet

Lol. It sounds more like she has a reputation.

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

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.

It always makes me chuckle when Christians say pagan historians are reliable in their claims of Jesus but never reliable about the parts where Jesus and Christians were horrible people.

 

[Brian2]

Because they would have no value as religious leaders if they threw out so many black letter laws. Either the gospels are full of errors or they are attesting to the leaders' not representing the religion, so any criticisms of the religion would be flawed.

The religion is from God and so of course the leaders then were not representing the religion as God wanted it to be. Jesus was not criticising the religion, just that generation of leaders. No Christian should be criticising the religion, which is a God given religion.
The thing about the religion however is that it is not the new and improved version which Jesus brought. But even that can be made corrupt by corrupt leaders, and has been over the years.

according to the gospels. According to Jewish law, it couldn't have happened.

Yes, according to the gospels.
According to the Jewish law it should not have happened, but should not and could not are 2 different things.

If you start with a misunderstanding of Isaiah, you end up with, well, a misunderstanding.

Exactly, and Isaiah was given the task of bringing misunderstanding to the Jews. (Isa 6)

exactly -- the gospels mention it. The Jewish scriptures do not.

That is arguable but for those who believe the New Testament, it reveals the meaning of much of the Jewish scriptures.

 

[Rachel Rugelach]

That is arguable but for those who believe the New Testament, it reveals the meaning of much of the Jewish scriptures.

So you (a Christian) purport to know more about what our (Jewish) holy scriptures say than we (Jews) do?

Teach your grandmother to suck eggs.

"Teaching (your) grandmother to suck eggs is an English language saying that refers to a person giving advice to another person in a subject with which the other person is already familiar (and probably more so than the first person)."

 

[Colt]

It always makes me chuckle when Christians say pagan historians are reliable in their claims of Jesus but never reliable about the parts where Jesus and Christians were horrible people.

True, there have been terrible injustices committed by Christians against Jewish people, but which first century historians validated the claims made by the Israelites in the Tanakh?