The trial as per the gospels vs. Jewish law

[rosends]

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

Then you misunderstood both Isaiah 6 and the point I was making.

 

[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.

I think the point is that the gospel account differs so greatly from how trials were actually done that the odds are enormous that the gospel accounts are fictitious. If by some small chance the trial did happen the way described, it was utterly illicit and invalid, and cannot be said to be the conclusions of the Sanhedrin.

 

[Brian2]

I think the point is that the gospel account differs so greatly from how trials were actually done that the odds are enormous that the gospel accounts are fictitious. If by some small chance the trial did happen the way described, it was utterly illicit and invalid, and cannot be said to be the conclusions of the Sanhedrin.

If it happened the way it is said to have in the gospels then it is illicit and invalid in Jewish Law but can be said to be the conclusions of the Sanhedrin of those days, a corrupt leadership.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

If it happened the way it is said to have in the gospels then it is illicit and invalid in Jewish Law but can be said to be the conclusions of the Sanhedrin of those days, a corrupt leadership.

No, because it was not a meeting of the Sanhedrin.

 

[Brian2]

No, because it was not a meeting of the Sanhedrin.

Why not?

 

[Colt]

I think the point is that the gospel account differs so greatly from how trials were actually done that the odds are enormous that the gospel accounts are fictitious. If by some small chance the trial did happen the way described, it was utterly illicit and invalid, and cannot be said to be the conclusions of the Sanhedrin.

Prosecutions are notoriously political and can easily be corrupt! Jesus had been a persistent pain in the butt for the lucrative institution of Judaism in his day. All things considered the members of the Sanhedrin may have nourished resentment towards Jesus and felt that he needed to be stopped for the good of their religion! Conservative religious people can be quite hateful towards Liberal progressives.

Maybe putting the Sanhedrin on a pedestal is the problem?

 

[metis]

No, because it was not a meeting of the Sanhedrin.

Why not?
The Sanhedrin could not meet to make decisions on Shabbat, so if an emergency came up, one appointed member of the Sanhedrin could make at least a tentative decision.

 

[Brian2]

Why not?

The Sanhedrin could not meet to make decisions on Shabbat, so if an emergency came up, one appointed member of the Sanhedrin could make at least a tentative decision.

And that tentative decision, with the support of many other members of a corrupt Sanhedrin that wanted to get rid of Jesus more than obey the letter of their oral law, could become a permanent decision.
Maybe they were hypocrites as Jesus had said.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Why not?

The Sanhedrin could not meet to make decisions on Shabbat, so if an emergency came up, one appointed member of the Sanhedrin could make at least a tentative decision.

Because a meeting of the Sanhedrin has to be conducted by certain rules. You can't just have a handful of the Sanhedrin meet at night etc etc and think that it is a meeting of the Sanhedrin. If 30 members of congress met outside of normal hours at someone's house and voted on bills, it would not be a meeting of congress.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Prosecutions are notoriously political and can easily be corrupt! Jesus had been a persistent pain in the butt for the lucrative institution of Judaism in his day. All things considered the members of the Sanhedrin may have nourished resentment towards Jesus and felt that he needed to be stopped for the good of their religion! Conservative religious people can be quite hateful towards Liberal progressives.

Maybe putting the Sanhedrin on a pedestal is the problem?

Please see my above post to metis, #329

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Why not?

Please see my above post to Metis, #329.

 

[metis]

And that tentative decision, with the support of many other members of a corrupt Sanhedrin that wanted to get rid of Jesus more than obey the letter of their oral law, could become a permanent decision.
Maybe they were hypocrites as Jesus had said.

And maybe they weren't "hypocrites" as we need to remember that the Gospel writers reflect the disappointment that most Jews rejected the concept of Jesus being the Messiah, thus the demonizing of them that especially shows up in John's account. Scriptural authors in any religion typically aren't very objective, thus we need to remember that when reading them.

 

[metis]

Because a meeting of the Sanhedrin has to be conducted by certain rules. You can't just have a handful of the Sanhedrin meet at night etc etc and think that it is a meeting of the Sanhedrin. If 30 members of congress met outside of normal hours at someone's house and voted on bills, it would not be a meeting of congress.

Exactly.

And btw, the U.S. Supreme Court has the same general rule if a decision needs to be made but they're out of session.

 

[Colt]

And that tentative decision, with the support of many other members of a corrupt Sanhedrin that wanted to get rid of Jesus more than obey the letter of their oral law, could become a permanent decision.
Maybe they were hypocrites as Jesus had said.

Jesus reviewed the history of how others faired:


“Jerusalem, Jerusalem, you who kill the prophets and stone those sent to you, how often I have longed to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, and you were not willing. 35Look, your house is left to you desolate. I tell you, you will not see me again until you say, ‘Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord.’


“Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You build tombs for the prophets and decorate the graves of the righteous. 30 And you say, ‘If we had lived in the days of our ancestors, we would not have taken part with them in shedding the blood of the prophets.’ 31 So you testify against yourselves that you are the descendants of those who murdered the prophets. 32 Go ahead, then, and complete what your ancestors started!

33 “You snakes! You brood of vipers! How will you escape being condemned to hell? 34 Therefore I am sending you prophets and sages and teachers. Some of them you will kill and crucify; others you will flog in your synagogues and pursue from town to town. 35 And so upon you will come all the righteous blood that has been shed on earth, from the blood of righteous Abel to the blood of Zechariah son of Berekiah, whom you murdered between the temple and the altar. 36 Truly I tell you, all this will come on this generation.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Jesus reviewed the history of how others faired:


“Jerusalem, Jerusalem, you who kill the prophets and stone those sent to you, how often I have longed to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, and you were not willing. 35Look, your house is left to you desolate. I tell you, you will not see me again until you say, ‘Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord.’


“Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You build tombs for the prophets and decorate the graves of the righteous. 30 And you say, ‘If we had lived in the days of our ancestors, we would not have taken part with them in shedding the blood of the prophets.’ 31 So you testify against yourselves that you are the descendants of those who murdered the prophets. 32 Go ahead, then, and complete what your ancestors started!

33 “You snakes! You brood of vipers! How will you escape being condemned to hell? 34 Therefore I am sending you prophets and sages and teachers. Some of them you will kill and crucify; others you will flog in your synagogues and pursue from town to town. 35 And so upon you will come all the righteous blood that has been shed on earth, from the blood of righteous Abel to the blood of Zechariah son of Berekiah, whom you murdered between the temple and the altar. 36 Truly I tell you, all this will come on this generation.

Zechariah was killed, and of course Jezebel killed many prophets. But that is a very small minority of prophets. It is not fair to make the sweeping generalization that "the Jews killed the prophets."

 

[Colt]

Zechariah was killed, and of course Jezebel killed many prophets. But that is a very small minority of prophets. It is not fair to make the sweeping generalization that "the Jews killed the prophets."

I agree that its not fair to blame the entire community for the behavior of corrupt leadership. Progressive visionaries are often hated by the more orthodox. Jesus would have been in danger no matter what culture he was active in

 

[paarsurrey]

The trial as per the gospels vs. Jewish law​

One should have compared trial as per the Law of Moses and as per the truthful Israelite Messiah, please.

Regards

 

[Brian2]

And maybe they weren't "hypocrites" as we need to remember that the Gospel writers reflect the disappointment that most Jews rejected the concept of Jesus being the Messiah, thus the demonizing of them that especially shows up in John's account. Scriptural authors in any religion typically aren't very objective, thus we need to remember that when reading them.

I don't think that Jesus was calling all Jews hypocrites, just the leaders, the ones who said what the Law meant and how it should be kept.
And not all of them were hypocrites of course.

 

[Brian2]

Because a meeting of the Sanhedrin has to be conducted by certain rules. You can't just have a handful of the Sanhedrin meet at night etc etc and think that it is a meeting of the Sanhedrin. If 30 members of congress met outside of normal hours at someone's house and voted on bills, it would not be a meeting of congress.

Nobody is saying that the meeting was completely orthodox. In fact we know it was not a normal meeting.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Nobody is saying that the meeting was completely orthodox. In fact we know it was not a normal meeting.

Brian, answer me honestly. If thirty random congressmen meet in the dead of the night in someone's home and vote on bills on their own, are you saying that Congress has met?