«Home

Why Are These Hard Questions For Christians To Answer?

1) What were the crimes for which Jesus was arrested, tried, convicted and executed?

2) According to the Jewish laws (and/or Roman laws) then in force, was Jesus rightly convicted as per the evidence presented in the Gospels?

3) If you, as a follower of Jesus, had been at the trial, would you have joined the Jewish crowd in calling for his execution or would you have called for his exoneration?

Avatar
Newbie
50 answers

Any real honest takers for these questions yet?

0
Avatar
Newbie

why babble when your stance can be condensed to this?

0
Avatar
Newbie

I said that there are no such prophecies in the jewish text, you can't engaged me because you know you have no foot to stand on. the writers of the new testament just copied or claimed that jesus fulfilled some prophecies when he did not, they even lied about some of the so called prophecies because they totally go them all mixed up. let me show you some examples.

The writer of Matthew said that the purchase of the potter's field with the thirty pieces of silver that Judas cast back to the chief priests and elders fulfilled a prophecy made by Jeremiah: "Then was fulfilled that which was spoken through Jeremiah the prophet, saying, And they took the thirty pieces of silver, the price of him that was priced, whom certain of the children of Israel did price; and they gave them for the potter's field as the Lord appointed me" (Matt 27:9-10). The problem is that Jeremiah NEVER wrote anything like that, so how could this be a fulfillment of "that which was spoken through Jeremiah the prophet"? Some christian apologist have suggested that Matthew was quoting loosely a statement that was actually written by Zechariah (11:12-13) rather than Jeremiah. If this is true, then one can only wonder why a divinely inspired writer, being guided by the omniscient Holy Spirit, would make such a great mistake and refer to Jeremiah instead of Zechariah. Psalms 22 and 69 are not prophecies at all, they are lamentation songs, and thus the similarities between the psalms and the Gospel stories could not be called "prophesy fulfillment" under any circumstance. In addition, the phrase "they have pierced my hands and my feet" is a mistranslation as i have showed you, and is not a part of the Hebrew text, but is a later variant of a Greek translation of the text.

Basically the new testament writers just copied some parts of the old testament that had nothing to do with prophecies and began telling people that jesus fulfilled those "prophecies" when in fact most of them were not prohecies at all.

I showed you where the original hebrew bible differs with your own bible with regards to  some translations of the hebrew text, the JPS which i copied from is one of the most accurately accepted english translation of the hebrew bible and it completely differs from what is written in the king james bible and other english translation of the christian old testament. Can you show me any hebrew text that says that jesus will come die and rise from dead after three days. the gospel writers wrote that, where are the scriptures they alluded to that says jesus will come die and be raised on the 3 day? non of such "scripture" exist.

0
Avatar
Newbie

Ahhhhhhh, I have seen the light, toneyb! Why didn't I see this before? Anyways. . .

19Pilate had a notice prepared and fastened to the cross. It read:|sc JESUS OF NAZARETH, THE KING OF THE JEWS. 20Many of the Jews read this sign, for the place where Jesus was crucified was near the city, and the sign was written in Aramaic, Latin and Greek. 21The chief priests of the Jews protested to Pilate, "Do not write 'The King of the Jews,' but that this man claimed to be king of the Jews."

22Pilate answered, "What I have written, I have written." (John 19)

Re: Alleged Hebrew text mis-translation.

You know, I have learnt a long time ago that christian skeptics will always abound in skepticism regardless of what facts are placed before them, hence I do not wish to take on the task of changing anyones' views - It is not in my place to do so. These arguments are far from constructive and nearly always disintegrate into insults, abuses and disrespect of people's faith (In other words, blasphemy - Just search the Religion section of NL for similar topics). I do not wish to go down this route with you, toneyb. However, my reluctance to engage you in the issue of prophesy doesn't stem from incompetence on my part. Far from it, I do look outside the world of Google and into the world of books and lectures for my references . The fact that many of us christians do not engage in apologetic research and matters relating to defending the faith does not mean that we are blind or silly as you may have presumed. I have seen that matters of faith cannot usually be resolved by reason of human intellect and scientific experiments (even in the abundance of evidence to back related claims), and I will henceforth not engage you in your weak "Hebrew translation concerns" on over 400 separate prophesies, spanning over hundreds of years which were fulfilled in the life of one unique person.

0
Avatar
Newbie

If you were one of his followers, say Peter, would it have seemed to have been a fair trial? Why was Pilate so reluctant to convict him if the charges were clearcut and fair? If you were Peter, would you have convicted him?

0
Avatar
Newbie

I will start with question 1.

ANSWER

1. He was arrested for treson.

1. Breaking the law of Sabbath.

1. Blasphemy

1. Terrorism

ANSWER 2

2. Yes.

ANSWER 3.

Faced with the evidence of the prosecution?? He was guilty as charged. Although I would have sentenced him to life behind bars or a psychiatric ward.

MY OPINION

OKIJA_JUJUTM

0
Avatar
Newbie

Thats not what i am interested in. christians and the bible writers have all said that jesus' death and resurrection were already written in the scriptures but the problem is that there is no such scripture any where in the world.

0
Avatar
Newbie

Maybe not in scriptures of Christianity per se.

But the idea of a Messiah being crucified and resurrected long preceeded Christianity.

Just a few examples:

Tammuz of Mesopotamia 1160 BC.

Iao of Nepal 622 BC.

Hesus of the Celtic Druids 834 BC.

Quezalcoatl of Mexico 587 BC.

Quirinius of Rome 506 BC.

Prometheus 547 B.C.

Thulis of Egypt 1700 BC.

Indra of Tibet 725 BC.

Alcestos of Euripides 600 BC.

Attis of Phrygia 1170 BC.

Crite of Chaldaea 1200 BC.

Bali of Orissa 725 BC.

Mithras of Persia 600 BC.

And of course, lets not forget the Hindu, Krishna.

0
Avatar
Newbie

The problem is that the new testament writter's did not say any thing about oral translation. In two different places, then, New Testament writers claimed that the resurrection of the Messiah on the third day had been predicted in the scriptures. the problem is which scriptures, there is no such scripture.

0
Avatar
Newbie

Not true at all. There is tons of stuff that has been omitted either purposefully or because it may have been lost. And what about oral tradition? Not everything was written down.

Also, another avenue: what about ideas that may have been "borrowed" from other religions?

0
Avatar
Newbie

If such books existed it will definitely be included in the bible but the fact is that non exist. No christian scholar has ever made reference to any of such books, there are books that we not included in the bible that are still around till this day and non of them has any of such prophecies.

0
Avatar
Newbie

I don't think anyone, be they religious or atheist, who has studied scripture and it's surroundings can argue that Jesus wasn't fulfilling prophesy as he saw it.

It doesn't even matter if those prophesies are in the Bible or not - Jesus obviously thought he was fulfilling them.

From the wealth of religious texts that are out there, it's no suprise that they may have been omitted from the Bible.

0
Avatar
Newbie

Hi :-) It would be useful if your arguments are brought forward after reading the Bible, and not after visiting dodgy, unverifiable websites. As Kunle Oshob rightly stated, not every prophetic text that was written BC made its way in what we call the Bible today. However, most did, and I'm sure the Bible contains sufficient material from which Jesus quoted.

Isaiah 53:3 He was despised and rejected by men, a man of sorrows, and familiar with suffering. Like one from whom men hide their faces he was despised, and we esteemed him not.

OT Prophesy

Micah 5:1 Marshal your troops, O city of troops, for a siege is laid against us. They will strike Israel's ruler on the cheek with a rod.

NT Fulillment

Mark 15:19 Again and again they struck him on the head with a staff and spit on him. Falling on their knees, they paid homage to him.

OT Prophesy

Psalm 22:16 Dogs have surrounded me; a band of evil men has encircled me, they have pierced my hands and my feet.

NT Fulfillment

John 20:25 So the other disciples told him, "We have seen the Lord!" But he said to them, "Unless I see the nail marks in his hands and put my finger where the nails were, and put my hand into his side, I will not believe it."

OT Prophesy

Psalm 22:17 I can count all my bones; people stare and gloat over me.

Psalm 34:20 he protects all his bones, not one of them will be broken.

NT Fulfillment

John 19:33; 36a [33] But when they came to Jesus and found that he was already dead, they did not break his legs. [36a] These things happened so that the scripture would be fulfilled: "Not one of his bones will be broken,"

OT Prophesy

Psalm 22:18 They divide my garments among them and cast lots for my clothing.

NT Fulfillment

Matthew 27:35 When they had crucified him, they divided up his clothes by casting lots.

OT Prophesy

Isaiah 53:9 He was assigned a grave with the wicked, and with the rich in his death ,

NT Fulfillment

matthew 27:57,59-60 [57] As evening approached, there came a rich man from Arimathea, named Joseph, who had himself become a disciple of Jesus. [59] Joseph took the body, wrapped it in a clean linen cloth, [60] and placed it in his own new tomb that he had cut out of the rock. He rolled a big stone in front of the entrance to the tomb and went away.

OT Phophesy

Isaiah 53:8, 11 [8] By oppression and judgment he was taken away. And who can speak of his descendants? For he was cut off from the land of the living; for the transgression of my people he was stricken. [11] After the suffering of his soul, he will see the light of life and be satisfied; by his knowledge my righteous servant will justify many, and he will bear their iniquities. 700 B.C.

NT Fulfillment

Matthew 28:2, 5-7, 9 [2] There was a violent earthquake, for an angel of the Lord came down from heaven and, going to the tomb, rolled back the stone and sat on it. [5] The angel said to the women, "Do not be afraid, for I know that you are looking for Jesus, who was crucified. [6] He is not here; he has risen, just as he said. Come and see the place where he lay. [7] Then go quickly and tell his disciples: `He has risen from the dead and is going ahead of you into Galilee. There you will see him.' Now I have told you." [9] Suddenly Jesus met them. "Greetings," he said. They came to him, clasped his feet and worshiped him.

0
Avatar
Newbie

The truth is that there were a lot of books considered as scripture in those days and used by the early christians that did not find there way into the canon of scripture(bible) compiled by the early catholic church for reasons best known to them. Although some of these books touted around at that time were not considered authentic eveidence abound that a lot of authentic books that did not fit into the idea of christianity the catholic church was trying to project were deliberately left out. In summary not all that was considered scripture at that time found it's way into the bible, hence the original prophecy might be in one of those omitted books.

0
Avatar
Newbie

Which prophesy if i may ask? there is no such prophecy it does NOT exist any where. although alleged prophecies were quoted or referred to by new testament writers, bible scholars have been unable to find the original statement any where. An example is found in John 7:38 where Jesus said, "He who believes in Me, as the Scripture has said, out of his heart will flow rivers of living water." If Jesus was right in saying that scripture said this, just where was it said? no such statement in the old testament scriptures has EVER been located, yet "the scripture" to Jesus would certainly have been the Old Testament(by old testament i mean the hebrew bible). How could there be a fulfilment of a prophecy that was never even made?

Jesus claimed another fulfilment of prophecy in Luke 24:46. Speaking to his disciples on the night of his alleged resurrection, he said, "Thus it is written and thus it was necessary for the Christ to suffer and to rise from the dead the third day." That the resurrection of Christ on the third day was prophesied in the scriptures was claimed also by the Apostle Paul in 1 Corinthians 15:3-4: "For I delivered to you first of all that which I also received: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, and that He was buried, and that He rose again the third day according to the scriptures." Here we have it being written in two different places, the new testament writers claimed that the resurrection of the Messiah on the third day had been predicted in the scriptures. But the problem is that no matter how much they try christians cannot produce a single old testament passage that made this alleged third-day prediction. There is NO written jewish text(even the christian old testament does not say any such thing) that makes this prediction of jesus dying and raising from the dead on the third day. All the scriptures paul, jesus and the new testament writters were refering to is the old testament but the problem is that there is NO such thing any where in the old testament. It simply doesn't exist.

0
Avatar
Newbie

Luke 5

20When Jesus saw their faith, he said, "Friend, your sins are forgiven."21The Pharisees and the teachers of the law began thinking to themselves, "Who is this fellow who speaks blasphemy? Who can forgive sins but God alone?"[/b]22Jesus knew what they were thinking and asked, "Why are you thinking these things in your hearts? 23Which is easier: to say, 'Your sins are forgiven,' or to say, 'Get up and walk'? 24[b]But that you may know that I have the authority on earth to forgive sins, " He said to the paralyzed man, "I tell you, get up, take your mat and go home." 25Immediately he stood up in front of them, took what he had been lying on and went home praising God.(Paraphrase. Son of Man = I)

John 5

18For this reason the Jews tried all the harder to kill him; not only was he breaking the Sabbath, but he was even calling God his own Father, making himself equal with God.

John 9

35Jesus heard that they had thrown him out, and when he found him, he said, "Do you believe in the Son of Man?"36"Who is he, sir?" the man asked. "Tell me so that I may believe in him." 37Jesus said, "You have now seen him; in fact, he is the one speaking with you."38Then the man said, "Lord, I believe," and he worshiped him.

John

48The Jews answered him, "Aren't we right in saying that you are a Samaritan and demon-possessed?"49"I am not possessed by a demon," said Jesus,, I tell you the truth, if anyone keeps my word, he will never see death."52At this the Jews exclaimed, "Now we know that you are demon-possessed! Abraham died and so did the prophets,, Are you greater than our father Abraham? He died, and so did the prophets. Who do you think you are?"

Jesus replied, Your father Abraham rejoiced at the thought of seeing my day; he saw it and was glad, "I tell you the truth," Jesus answered, "before Abraham was born, I am!" 59At this, they picked up stones to stone him, but Jesus hid himself, slipping away from the temple grounds."

On this, we are on the same page - He advocated abiding by Roman laws (Or any laws put in place by anyone of authority for that matter) . Hence, I do not know of any reason why he would be tried in Roman courts as for Jewish offences. Hence, Pilate was hesitant to go ahead with the crucifixion, as he openly demonstrated by washing his hands off the case after the following statement:

23"Why? What crime has he committed?" asked Pilate. But they shouted all the louder, "Crucify him!" 24When Pilate saw that he was getting nowhere, but that instead an uproar was starting, he took water and washed his hands in front of the crowd. "I am innocent of this man's blood," he said. "It is your responsibility!" (Matthew 27)

In the end, it all did facilitate the fulfillment of prophesy concerning the method of his crucifixion.

Hello :-) I think I see where you're going with the prisoner exchange issue. However, purported exchange, or lack of it is not enough reason to demonise Jews for "hundreds of years"? I mean, let's assume there was no exchange (since it was all allegedly made up), does that change the facts that :-

1. Jesus himself was raised as a Jew (and hence knew the Jewish laws - even remarkably by Jewish standards)

2. Yet stood by his "blasphemous" claims, much to the aggravation of many Jewish priests, and to the admiration of Jews and non-Jews alike.

3. Which led to events which led to events which led to events which eventually led to his crucifixion.

4. Which was attended by many he had "offended" through his teachings (Jews and non-Jews alike).

5. And was (by the way) occured in a Jewish town/province/country.

Hence Jews played a large role in the life and crucifixion of Jesus Christ, and hence it would be difficult to refer to any of these events without having one extreme opinion or the other o the roles they played.

0
Avatar
Newbie

Hello. Very nice and constructive post, but a few caveates.

Although by the time of Jesus, it was universally acdepted that the tradition of the great prophets was over, it was believed that some people still had the powers of the prophets of old. These prophets play a minor role in the religions - in facts there were marginal to mainstream judaism. Such was John the Baptist. This is discussed extensive by the historian Josephus in Prophetic Figures In Late Second Temple Jewish Palestine, Evidence From Josephus .

On the prisoner exchange, which is better described as prisoner clemency, there is no evidence that this was a custom or routine practice in antiquity. The gospel writers made this up to promote and agenda, namely, that the dead of Jesus was specifically called for by the Jews, thus demonising the entire Jewish people for hundreds of years.

0
Avatar
Newbie

What evidence and what problems? Remember, as he was tried by a Roman Court, the problems have to be with Roman law and not Judaic.

The contradiction here is that Jesus himself states that one should adhere to Roman law - "Give unto Caesar what is Caesar's".

There is no evidence that he broke Roman law. Only evidence that he advocated abiding by it.

This is a relatively recent phenomenom and back in history, the Jewish attitude was that there would be no swap - they would simply go to war to release the captive.

But the above is not what we are talking about in this instance. Although DD and Huxley have used the words "exchange" the incident in question here was not a prisoner exchange. It was supposedly giving the people the option of freeing one captive or another. A "custom" for which no evidence can be found outside of scripture as Huxley has stated.

0
Avatar
Newbie

I agree with you, huxley - That seeing that the Romans were involved, a charge of blasphemy couldn't have been the isolated reason for Jesus' crucifixion. However, there is enough evidence to suggest that blasphemy on Jesus' part was the brewing point of all the problems he had with the law, which eventually led to his arrest and crucifixion. His crucifixion which was one of the major reasons why he came in the first place.

Re: The prophets. Again, I am not an expert, but around Jesus time it seemed to me that not many prophets were in the business of fulfilling prophesies. Israel was notorious for its tradition of killing prophets, and the last of the "prophesying prophets" had been exterminated 400 years before the birth of Jesus. I think the figures of authority were now Rabbis, Pharisees and Saducees. Post/during the time of Jesus, two "prophetic" characters that stood out in my opinion were John the Baptist and Barrabas (who was after Jesus' time). John the Baptist had his own prophecies to fulfill, and they did not include being the "lamb of God who came to take away the sins of the world". He was just a " voice in the wilderness". The second Barrabas, was the socerer who practiced magic during the time of Paul. He performed signs and wonders, and had a large congregation. However, he wasn't claiming to fulfill any prophesies. He was, if you like, a Derren Brown of his day, who was making a living out of doing cool tricks.

So this is what differentiated Jesus from any other who may have claimed to be "him". He has a message, fulfilled prophesy, and performed miracles to demonstrate his supernatural qualities.

If I was one of Jesus' disciples at the time. . . . Hopefully, faithfulness and loyalty would have been as much of an expected human quality as it is today. I would hope that I would stand him, and wish for his exoneration. However, his crucifixion was a big part of Jesus' mission here on earth - and he made this clear to his disciples at the last supper. They all knew that he had anticipated, and even accepted his fate. Therefore, doing anything other than nothing would have only been a wrench in his plans.   

Also, forgive me if I'm wrong but back there, you mentioned something about Jews having no history/evidence of prisoner exchange. But we don't have to look very far to see that prisoner exchange is something that has been prevalent in the Middle East, even in recent times. Did you hear just last year, of the exchange between Hezbollah and Israel, where 2 dead Israeli soldiers were exchanged for the release of 5 Hezbollah soldiers (One of whom was a murderer). See : http://www.rightsidenews.com/200807211497/global-terrorism/the-eldad-regev-and-ehud-goldwasser-exchange.html

0
Avatar
Newbie

This is false. one of the Yeshu talked about in the talmud that was hanged on the eve of passover was prosecuted by the jewish courts not the romans. Go and read it up.

0
Avatar
Newbie

Good point. Of course not . . .

0
Avatar
Newbie

Simple. Because the Jews did not have the power to carry out punishments on offenders. Barabas the robber was a prisoner of Rome.

When you people get backed into a corner, out come flying the irrelevancies . . . Huxley claimed stoning was the punishment for blasphemy ONLY, i pointed out to the crucifiction of Peter as proof that could not be right and suddenly out come flying Nero and Rome? What next, Origen?

0
Avatar
Newbie

Yet again, you are taking the gospels literally and uncritically.  Modern historian of this period and subject are almost in unanimous agreement that this could not have happen as presented in the gospel.  There are just too many inconsistencies in the account and how it relates to the culture, customs, laws and tradition to have been true.  See the following list of inconsistencies below:

Laws of the Sanhedrin Regarding Trials:

1. There was to be no arrest by religious authorities that was effected by a bribe Ex. 23:8

2. There were to be no steps of criminal proceedings after sunset.

3. Judges or Sanhedrin members were not allowed to participate in the arrest.

4. There were to be no trials before the morning sacrifice.

5. There were to be no secret trials, only public.

6. Sanhedrin trials could only be conducted in the Hall of Judgment of the Temple Compound.

7. The procedure was to be first the defense and then the accusation.

8. All may agree in favor of acquittal, but all may not argue in favor of conviction.

9. There were to be two or three witness and their testimony had to agree in every detail. Deu. 19:15.

10. There was to be no allowance for the accused to testify against himself.

11. The High Priest was forbidden to rent his garments. Leviticus 21:10

12. Charges could not originate with the judges; they could only investigate charges brought to them.

13. The accusation of blasphemy was only valid if the name, of G-d, itself was pronounced (and heard by 2 witnesses).

14. A person could not be condemned on the basis of his own words alone.

15. The verdict could not be announced at night, only in the daytime.

16. In cases of capital punishment, the trial and guilty verdict could not occur at the same time but must be separated by at least 24 hours.

17. Voting for he death penalty had to be done by individual count beginning with the youngest so the young would not be influenced by the elders.

18. A unanimous decision for guilt shows innocence since it is impossible for 23-71 men to agree without plotting.

19. The sentence could only be pronounced three days after the guilty verdict.

20. Judges were to be humane and kind.

21. A person condemned to death was not to be scourged or beaten beforehand.

22. No trials are allowed on the eve of the Sabbath or on a feast day.

0
Avatar
Newbie

You tell me. It's one of those little contradictions in the Bible that you so often like to overlook.

Hmmm. Where in the Bible is this?

Very misleading. According to Tertullian, Peter was crucified in Rome when Nero was persecuting Christians and blaming and executing them for the fire that had swept through Rome three months prior. Even if he were executed for blasphemy it wouldn't have been for blasphemy against the Jewish god but against the Roman deities. A totally different scenario from the one you are trying to claim.

0
Avatar
Newbie

why then did the high priests arrest Jesus and bring Him to Pilate? why didnt they just take Him and kill Him themselves?

That is simply NOT true. Peter was also crucified for blasphemy, others were beheaded, marooned on islands or boiled in hot oil.

Examples. Surprising that many of them including the most popular at that time - john the baptist, escaped being killed for so long?

No.

0
Avatar
Newbie

Davidylan,

Nice to see you back here, but don't foget that you made some really specious claims earlier about roman/jewish law early, which you are now failing to take responsibility for.  You may want to go back and address.

You may be excused for NOT knowing, which is acceptable, but this is NOT true. The Romans, as colonial administrators of the regions allowed local Jewish law to preside over the affairs of the Jews, in religious and civil matters.  One of the few areas in which the Romans would intervene was where there was risk of civil disorder or riots.

Blasphemy as a religious affair and was entirely within the jurisdiction of the Jewish authorities.  This was one of the deals the Jews had with the Romans in order to maintain friendly relations - the Romans would stay out of their religion while the Jew would in turn be less troublesome.  History records a number of instances where the Romans heavyhandedly stepped into the religious domain, much to the chagrin of the Jews, resulting in riots.

The penalty for blasphemy was not crucifixion but stoning.  Crucifixion was a Roman form of punishment and they were notorious for cricifying sometimes hundreds at a time and leaving the corpses to dry out in the sun along one of the major road in the regions - I think it was called Via Apiah.

Problem is  - you take the gospel account too literally and uncritically.  The "prophets" were being killed all the time,  some of whom have been recorded in contemporary extra-biblical sources.  Bizarrely, the killing of Jesus is NOT recorded contemporaneously in any extra-biblical sources.  

Does the gospels record John the Baptist as blaspheming against the Jewish law?

0
Avatar
Newbie

Since you know (you must know the alternative to claim my position false no?) . . . why dont you regale us with the facts?

Pretty silly . . . John the Baptist was NOT executed for his religious views but was imprisoned for having the temerity to criticise Herod Antipas for marrying Herodias. He was finally executed because Herodias's daughter made an oath with her Herod to give her whatever she wanted, the mother urged her to request the head of John the Baptist and Herod was forced to grant her wish. Why was he NEVER arrested all the time he was in the wilderness or baptised at Jordan? He was a popular fellow then. clueless .

0
Avatar
Newbie

Totally and utterly untrue. The penalty for blasphemy against the Jewish god was not crucifixion and it was not tried by Roman Courts.

Errr, I don't know if you noticed, but John the Baptist was executed because of his religious views - namely those concerning Herod's marriage. I'd say that being executed for your beliefs is hardly being ignored is it?

0
Avatar
Newbie

There is a serious problem with this hubris . . . Israel at that time was a colony of Rome. The penalty for blasphemy (crucifiction) was exclusively Roman jurisdiction, that is why the high priests (essentially the Jewish leaders of that time) had to bring Christ before Pilate.

This is again daft. If this were true, the jews would not have been so fixated on killing Jesus rather than other "hundreds of prophets". Why did they largely ignore John the Baptist?

Again daft . . . how could Peter have had a vote to convict or acquit? As a follower of Christ he was just as liable to be killed as his master.

0
Avatar
Newbie

There are two problems with this charge of blasphemy. A charge of blasphemy would have been the sole jurisdiction of the Jewish authorities and NOT the Romans. Secondly, the penalty for blasphemy would have been stoning to death and NOT crucifixion. This suggest that there must have been other issues beside blasphemy.

In Jesus time there would have been prophets by the hundreds all claiming to fulfil this and that prophecies. Jesus would not have stood out as different and his "proof" of authenticity would not have been any more convincing than the next prophet.

Now, imagine you were one of the 12, say Peter. And you had a casting vote. Would you have voted for his exoneration or would you have convicted him?

0
Avatar
Newbie

Why the pre-assumption that the questions are hard? I'm a christian and they aren't difficult questions to answer - I'm slightly puzzled as to what your point is, but here goes :-

1. Simply put, Jesus was executed for blasphemy. He, on many occasions insinuated that he was, or was equal to God - a claim which is blasphemy by Jewish standards.

2. Yes and No. According to Jewish laws, they were right to execute any odd person who claims to be God. However, in the light of the evidence provided by the gospels, Jesus ticked all the boxes to back up all his claims - Including fulfilling age-old prophecies over which he had no control.

3. If I was living in Jerusalem at the time, Who knows? I probably would have joined in stoning him.

0
Avatar
Newbie

And therein lies the problem.

In Matthew, it's a crime against the Jewish authorities over which no Roman court has juridiction.

In Luke, it's a crime against the Roman state, in which case the Jewish Sanhedrin would have no say.

It's not a question of innocent or guilty. It's a question of wether or not it could have gone to court under those circumstances.

Trumped up charges is Not Guilty.

0
Avatar
Newbie

interesting. The gospels records the charge against him as either blasphemy or sedition or both. Here is how it is presented in matthew 27:

10 And gave them for the potter's field, as the Lord appointed me.

11 And Jesus stood before the governor: and the governor asked him, saying, Art thou the King of the Jews? And Jesus said unto him, Thou sayest.

12 And when he was accused of the chief priests and elders, he answered nothing.

13 Then said Pilate unto him, Hearest thou not how many things they witness against thee?

and in Luke 23:

2 And they began to accuse him, saying, We found this fellow perverting the nation, and forbidding to give tribute to Caesar, saying that he himself is Christ a King.

3 And Pilate asked him, saying, Art thou the King of the Jews? And he answered him and said, Thou sayest it.

4 Then said Pilate to the chief priests and to the people, I find no fault in this man.

They may also have been a charge in relation to the commotion Jesus caused at the Temple by overturning the tables of the money dealers.

Also interesting you said earlier that these charges were trumped up charges. If we follow you line of reason and you knew then that these were trumped up charges, what verdict would you have given? Guilty or Not Guilty?

0
Avatar
Newbie

And I am simply asking guilty or innocent of what crime and based on what evidence?

Your question cannot be answered until you've given a reply.

0
Avatar
Newbie

What notion from the 21st century have I tried to forced into the law of 2000 years ago?   Have I made any points of law?   I suppose 2000 years ago there had some form of law and within such law (however different it might be from ours today)  they would have had the notions of guilty, innocent, witnesses, wrongful charge. In fact, the bible says as much.

So where are the 21st points of law that I have used?

They may not have had courts as we do today, but in some courts (Roman courts) they definitely had defense laywers ans some of the transcript from cases and personal accounts of these defense lawyers survive to this day.  Have you heard of Marcus Tullius Cicero (106 BCE - 43 CE) was a very well respected barrister in Rome and many of his legal speeches survive.  Right here on my desk, I have got transcript of some of his trial in the book, Defence Speeches.  It is actually quite a good read.

In fact, you have been fooled by the rubbish from the bible about prisoner exchange.  There is NO record of such exchange anywhere in Roman or Jewish tradition.  The narrative in the gospel is a theological device introduced in the story to promote a certain agenda.

I challenge you to show me where prisoner exchange is recorded in Jewish/Roman law outside of the bible.

The mechanism of the courts then might have been different from ours today, but I am sure they their courts where involve in the business of deciding on the guilt or innocents of defendants and making reparations where necessary.  In order words, they were in the business of issue verdicts on cases.   How different is that from today's courts.

All I am saying is that with respect to the verdict, there were two (maybe three) options  1)  Guilty   2) Innocent.   Are you sayying that their courts did not have these notions?

If they did not, then what is the point of having recourse to law?

Now, if the options these courts for have decide were guilty or innocent, what would have been the consequences of each decision?

0
Avatar
Newbie

Your "questions" make no sense at all. Its like asking what a nuclear bomb looked like during the persian empire. Trying to force modern law into an event that occured 2000 yrs ago is a sign that its your mind that has the problem not the religious mind.

This is frankly silly. We could not use 21st century laws to influence ancient roman and judaic laws. There are stark differences between how they interpreted the law then as against now.

For example - it was custom/law then that the Roman governor could do prisoner exchanges i.e. barnabas released so Jesus could be taken even though the same pilate found no fault with him.

They didnt have courts like we have today, no jury, no defence or prosecution lawyers to plead their case . . . so just what is the essence of your "question"?

0
Avatar
Newbie

I am simply asking you to play out both scenarios - 1) guilty 2) Innocent

1) Guilty - If he was guilty as charged, what are the consequences of a guilty verdict?

2) Innocent - similarly, what are the consequences of a exoneration from such charges?

0
Avatar
Newbie

@ Huxley.

As far as I am aware it was just guilty or innocent - there was no leave to abstain under Roman Law.

And I stick to my guns here - it is impossible to know if someone is innocent or guilty unless you know what crime they are charged with.

0
Avatar
Newbie

Just what I predicted - that a mind addled by religion has been handicapped for ever to deal with questions regarding the very same religion.

0
Avatar
Newbie

all the above twaddle are products of the 21st century mind taking advantage of modern law. No such terminologies and judicial intricacies existed 2000 yrs ago. Find something else to blab about.

0
Avatar
Newbie

While I agree that the gospel account is very scanty as far as details are concerned, it is still possible to know apriori what the consequences of the various options would have been. We have three possible outcomes, which I list above (and here below);

i) Voted for conviction - If you voted for conviction, it means that you have been convinced by the case of the prosecution, ie, that Jesus was a seditionist and posed a threat to public order. OR, you are not convinced, BUT maliciously voted for conviction anyway, just to eliminate what you consider a threat to public order, hence not really doing justice to the case.

ii) Voted for exoneration - If you voted for exoneration, it means that you are not convinced by the case of the prosecution and you believe that the charges have been wrongly applied and that conviction under such charges would amount to a travesty of justice.

iii) Abstain - You were not convinced you were given sufficient information to correctly assess the quilt/innocence or perhaps were not competent to make a judgment.

Can you think of any other outcomes besides these three?

Now, consider yourself one of his followers, say, Peter. Peter would have had exactly the same options as I have listed above. What are the implications for each of the options, should any have been chosen by Peter?

0
Avatar
Newbie

Huxley

never knew you could fret so fast

come over here and answer questions waiting for you, i challenge you, else you aint nothing as i thought you were

come over here

0
Avatar
Newbie

I totally disagree. The Biblical account gives nowhere near enough information to be able to make a judgement.

In fact, it looks in places to be in error - Jesus was tried by the Romans over a matter that had nothing to do with them, ie: Jesus screwing with Jewish law. The Sanhedrin would have been responsible for the trial and execution if the Biblical account were true.

How can one make a judgement when one doesn't have the facts?

Tell me. What would have been your verdict and on what basis?

0
Avatar
Newbie

1.He called himself the Son of God, said He could forgive sins if he wanted, and other things blasphemous to pious,pristine Sanhedrin ears A prophet was fine by the Jews, Son of God, nay.

2.You'd have to cite Roman Law then in force. He was accused of Blasphemy and it was enough for the powerful Jewish religious leaders who wanted to see his end. The judge had a province to govern, and didn't want trouble. They were baying for his ehad and he gave it to them.

3.As a follower of Jesus now, but an ordinary Jew in those times, I would have called for his head with the rest. If you meant a follower of Jesus in those times, I'd watch what would happen and see if he would resurrect like he said. I'd have a stake in his doing so, and so wouldn't wander too far from the proceedings.      

What's your point?

0
Avatar
Newbie

Or you could easily answer my question huxley.

0
Avatar
Newbie

This guy wont kill me on NL!

0
Avatar
Newbie

You have proved my point abundantly. Religion and christianity has drained away all the grey matter in your head, leaving a vast emptiness that only resonates to the sounds of Jesus and Christ.

0
Avatar
Newbie

Be proud of your identity as one who belongs to Jesus! He wasn’t ashamed to be publicly crucified for you, so you ought to stand up and be counted as a true, ardent uncompromising believer in Christ.

0
Avatar
Newbie

Questions 1 & 2 are just meant as scene-setters for the main question, which is the third one.   For question 3, you have three options i) vote for conviction ii) vote for exoneration iii) abstain.

i)  Voted for conviction  - If you voted for conviction, it means that you have been convinced by the case of the prosecution, ie, that Jesus was a seditionist and posed a threat to public order. OR, you are not convinced, BUT maliciously voted for conviction anyway, just to eliminate what you consider a threat to public order, hence not really doing justice to the case.

ii)  Voted for exoneration  - If you voted for exoneration, it means that you are not convinced by the case of the prosecution and you believe that the charges have been wrongly applied and that conviction under such charges would amount to a travesty of justice.

iii)  Abstain - You were not convinced you were given sufficient information to correctly assess the quilt/innocence or perhaps were not competent to make a judgment.

Although you were not there at the time, it is not hard to visualise the nature of the trial and the sides taken by followers of Jesus.  Jesus had possibly a few hundreds of followers who may have witnessed the trial firsthand or were close enough to the trial to know what was happening.  Now, imagine you were one of such followers,  say Peter, or James?

If Peter or James or yourself had the casting vote, how do you think they would have voted? Would they (or you) have voted to free their beloved leader  or would they (you) have voted to convict him (to vote to convict him means you believe the case of the prosecution or you don't believe the case but convict anyway to eliminate a dangerous seditionist).  How would you vote?

0
Avatar
Newbie

I don't see them as hard questions (although the 3rd doesn't really have an answer).

1) Probably trumped up charges of treason and sedition against the Roman state. Crucifixion was reserved for these crimes.

2) No. But then I don't see the Gospels as concentrating that much on the legal aspects of the trial.

3) That's unanswerable. But not for the reasons you are insinuating. Nobody can say unless they actually lived in those times and through the event. All we can do is give an answer as to what we would do now based on our present experiences thus making the question irrelevant.

0
Avatar
Newbie
Your answer
Add image

By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.