Jesus's Trial is Fake?


#1

I saw this list online made by a Jewish man trying to disprove the legitimacy of Jesus's trial, thus disproving that there was no trial, and perhaps no saving messiah. Is any of this true?

  1. A night trial was illegal in both Judea and the Roman Empire
  2. The basis for the charge of blasphemy against Jesus was unclear. This was necessary in order to prosecute according to Judean law.
  3. The witnesses against Jesus did not agree and accordingly a mistrial must be declared.
  4. A trial in a private residence was illegal in both Judea and the Roman Empire.
  5. The Sanhedrin did not have the right to condemn anyone to death at this time.
  6. A crucifixion would never have taken place at Passover.
  7. Jesus’ anticipation of his death as a covenant sacrifice is out of Greek mythology, not the Jewish religion.
  8. Pilate did not have a good reason to execute Jesus as “King of the Judeans.”
  9. Again, there was only one high priest. There were no high priests.
  10. There was no such thing as the high priest(s) joining in on the mocking of a prisoner while the prisoner is being punished.
  11. There was no such custom in Judea as releasing a prisoner at Passover.
  12. Prisoners condemned to crucifixion would carry the cross-bar, not the whole cross.
  13. There was no such place as Golgotha at that time.
  14. Jesus, or anyone else, would not be known as “Christ, the King of Israel.” The Messiah concept was a completely different idea.
  15. Crucifixion was used only for seditionists, murderers and insurrectionists, not for religious reasons or “blasphemy”. Rome would never have approved of using crucifixion for punishment for local lawbreakers, only for those who were out to overthrow the Empire. Judean religious law as very specific as far as punishment for blasphemy. The punishment for blasphemy was stoning to death and the hanging of the body by the neck from a tree or impaling it on a stake.
  16. Roman law denied burial to a crucified man consequently, Pilate would never have given Joseph of Aramathia permission to take Jesus’ body for it would have violated Roman laws.
  17. When Jesus entered Jerusalem prior to the Passover, it was during the Feast of the Booths and that is the reason that the people were waving palm branches and yelling “Hosannah.”

#2

You have the Bible on the one hand with its eye witness accounts, and you have this man on the other hand with his allegations 2,000 years later. The Bible is my proof. Where is his proof?


#3

In the book of John, there was no Sanhedrin trial.


#4

Acts 3 talks about the trial, as well, in addition to the gospel accounts.


#5

[quote="steve53, post:3, topic:328720"]
In the book of John, there was no Sanhedrin trial.

[/quote]

But in John there is mention of Jesus being questioned by the high priest, Annas, before being sent by him to Caiaphas, who was the current Roman appointed high priest, and who is thought to have been involved in the Sanhedrin trial of Jesus.


#6

Names and exact customs vary. What was called Golgotha at the time when the Evangelists put pen to paper may have not been called Golgotha when Christ was crucified.

Likewise, exact practices–carrying a crossbar vs. a full cross; releasing prisoners– is likely to change.

The legal proceedings of Jesus' day were much different than our own. Even though there was a "standard" on how they were carried out, it was often adapted or ignored.


#7

Well, these are just my opinions, but for the first four, the pharisees were hypocrites and absolutely hated Jesus, would they have scrupled to bend or break a few rules in order to put him to death? On the 5th, the Sanhedrin sent him to Pilate to get him condemned, they didn't kill him themselves though they did say he should be executed.
On the 8th and 15th, when the Jews initially bring Christ to Pilate they accuse him of blasphemy and Pilate tells them to deal with it themselves, so the Jews start accusing him of subverting Caesar, telling people not to pay tribute and claiming himself as king of the Jews i.e. sedition.
On the 9th, I don't think the bible ever says there was more than one, it says Caiphas was high priest and Annas was the previous high priest.
As to the 10th, how exactly would he know this never happened?
On 6,11,13,16, I don't know, but the Church has no shortage of enemies and people have been trying to disprove biblical events for a long time, if these were proven historical facts don't you think they would have been all over them as proofs that the Gospels are false;
and when the gospels were first being preached the people being preached to would have been contemporaries of Christ and the apostles, would they have converted if the Gospels were full of patently false details?


#8

From my understanding of the NT Greek, the word used for cross also meant cross beam or pole. It is not doctrine that he carried the entire cross. It would be a matter of history. It is mostly artists who used the entire cross in their work. So that point is moot.


#9

:popcorn:


#10

The Constitution and the Bill of Rights were written what ??? almost 200 + years ago now....

and we as Americans believe that who is said to have written it, did indeed right it, granted we have more physical proof that events did take place, a war and said artifacts etc....

So to think that the trial of Christ is trumped up or inconsistant based upon the lack of evidence in the Bible is a hard one to agree with it.

there is more evidence than not that supports that the Trial alone did take place, I am not going to spend the time to do the research nor debate this back an forth, but i did a quick search and wouldn't ya know it, wikipedia has some information that is somewhat useful

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Census_of_Quirinius

I would be more inclined to a guess that some one some where has already done research into the documentation of the trial of Christ, that aside from the bible alone, some where in the records of history is recorded or mentioned as a footnote about this trial.

If one were to take faith out of the equation and look at facts alone, for the only purpose to prove that there was a trial involving Christ. One would first start with Pontius Pilate, and work from there forward in that time line to establish the who,what ,when , where, and why.

now off hand to think the trial of Christ is a fake, due to what ever the op was referencing or whom ever wants to pick apart on the bible is ridiculous from the start because if one is to run with that thought process the one must then conclude that whom ever started with that thought pretty much thinks the bible is fake to some degree or another.


#11

[quote="RoyalamI, post:1, topic:328720"]
I saw this list online made by a Jewish man trying to disprove the legitimacy of Jesus's trial, thus disproving that there was no trial, and perhaps no saving messiah. Is any of this true?

  1. A night trial was illegal in both Judea and the Roman Empire
  2. The basis for the charge of blasphemy against Jesus was unclear. This was necessary in order to prosecute according to Judean law.
  3. The witnesses against Jesus did not agree and accordingly a mistrial must be declared.
  4. A trial in a private residence was illegal in both Judea and the Roman Empire.
  5. The Sanhedrin did not have the right to condemn anyone to death at this time.
  6. A crucifixion would never have taken place at Passover.
  7. Jesus’ anticipation of his death as a covenant sacrifice is out of Greek mythology, not the Jewish religion.
  8. Pilate did not have a good reason to execute Jesus as “King of the Judeans.”
  9. Again, there was only one high priest. There were no high priests.
  10. There was no such thing as the high priest(s) joining in on the mocking of a prisoner while the prisoner is being punished.
  11. There was no such custom in Judea as releasing a prisoner at Passover.
  12. Prisoners condemned to crucifixion would carry the cross-bar, not the whole cross.
  13. There was no such place as Golgotha at that time.
  14. Jesus, or anyone else, would not be known as “Christ, the King of Israel.” The Messiah concept was a completely different idea.
  15. Crucifixion was used only for seditionists, murderers and insurrectionists, not for religious reasons or “blasphemy”. Rome would never have approved of using crucifixion for punishment for local lawbreakers, only for those who were out to overthrow the Empire. Judean religious law as very specific as far as punishment for blasphemy. The punishment for blasphemy was stoning to death and the hanging of the body by the neck from a tree or impaling it on a stake.
  16. Roman law denied burial to a crucified man consequently, Pilate would never have given Joseph of Aramathia permission to take Jesus’ body for it would have violated Roman laws.
  17. When Jesus entered Jerusalem prior to the Passover, it was during the Feast of the Booths and that is the reason that the people were waving palm branches and yelling “Hosannah.”

[/quote]

Where did this Jewish man get his sources from? I have never heard historical background regarding Christ's trial. Would you please share the link or email or PM me the link?

God bless!


#12

Let’s start with the last.

  1. Roman law denied burial to a crucified man consequently, Pilate would never have given Joseph of Aramathia permission to take Jesus’ body for it would have violated Roman laws.

It is true that crucified victims were often denied burial as part of the shaming process - the corpses were left to rot or thrown away to be eaten by wild animals. That being said, it isn’t an absolute rule. There are cases when the bodies of condemned criminals were allowed to be taken and buried. Our sole archaeological evidence for a crucifixion, in fact, is the remains of one such person who was apparently given a proper burial. And the interesting thing about it is, this man was crucified at around the same general time period as Jesus, and his bones were found in a tomb in a suburb near Jerusalem.

http://cojs.org/cojswiki/images/0/00/Crucifixion_bone_fragment_close-up.jpg

You also have to remember Deuteronomy 21:22-23: “And if a man has committed a crime punishable by death and he is put to death, and you hang him on a tree, his body shall not remain all night upon the tree, but you shall bury him the same day, for a hanged man is accursed by God.” While in the original context it refers to a post-mortem hanging (i.e. the corpse of a criminal is hung on a tree after he has been killed), at the time of Jesus there seems to have been the idea of applying this passage also to crucifixion.

The Temple Scroll (11QT, 11Q19) from Qumran, for instance, has this to say:

If a man slanders his people and delivers his people to a foreign nation and does evil to his people, you shall hang him on a tree and he shall die. On the testimony of two witnesses and on the testimony of three witnesses he shall be put to death and they shall hang him on the tree.

If a man is guilty of a capital crime and flees (abroad) to the nations, and curses his people, the children of Israel, you shall hang him also on the tree, and he shall die. But his body shall not stay overnight on the tree. Indeed you shall bury him on the same day. For he who is hanged on the tree is accursed of God and men. You shall not pollute the ground which I give you to inherit.

These two ordinances provide a creative expansion of the command in Deuteronomy 21:22-23 (“And if a man has committed a crime punishable by death and he is put to death, and you hang him on a tree, his body shall not remain all night upon the tree, but you shall bury him the same day, for a hanged man is accursed by God”) by the sectarians of Qumran. The two crimes specified are among those the Roman law punished by crucifixion: betrayal of state secrets and desertion to the enemy. Whereas in Deuteronomy, the condemned is hung and exposed after death, the sequence of events is here reversed: hanging on the tree is the way to kill the condemned.


#13

I quote a former post of mine (which is pretty much what I’m only good for these days):

[T]here is the whole matter of just how historically reliable the Mishnah is in regards to pre-AD 70 traditions. First, the Mishnah reports Pharisaic-type idealizations of the law in its own day, recorded at a period over a century later than the latest of the four Gospels; the Mishnah was written almost two centuries later than Jesus’ trial. The Mishnah does not deal with a series of laws that actually governed society, but often speaks of ideals, and its genre is a series of academic debates. Meanwhile, the council in Jesus’ day was hardly dominated by Pharisees …], which would further call this rabbinic idealization into question.

Secondly, the rabbinic sources themselves admit that the aristocratic priests did not always play by the rules (and certainly not by Pharisaic ones). In fact, because elements of proper legal procedure were standard throughout Mediterranean antiquity, the evangelists may expect us to notice significant breaches of procedure: the gospel accounts may well have intended on purpose to show that the proceedings violated common legal ethics and was not standard custom. Unless you presuppose that the priests (like later rabbis) would follow careful procedure even in explosive political situations an argument from Mishnaic technicalities would not work against the gospel narrative.

I think it should be pointed out as well that the Mishnaic vision of a formal ‘Sanhedrin’, somethng which is admittedly the majority opinion, is probably yet another historical anachronism. What we do have (based on a reading of Josephus) is this: in the 1st century there was a formal institution called a boulē which acquired the character of a national institution and which discussed issues pertinent to the city of Jerusalem. This is not the Sanhedrin of the Tannaitic and Christian texts, but rather a consultative body most likely made up of people of wealth and influence, similar to local councils present in Hellenistic cities. In addition, there were two further institutions described the same Greek term, synedrion (where the Aramaic ‘sanhedrin’ comes from), which were not standing institutions but functioned only for specific tasks, either consultative, where a Roman official called on specific Jewish groups to assist in determining a course of action, or judicial, a place of arbitration, a court, which was convened usually by a leading official such as the serving high priest. Capital cases could be tried in the second type of synedrion. (Josephus in fact also uses synedrion to refer, not just to the council convened by the high priest, but also to the advisory council of Agrippa II and even of the emperor Augustus, which may show that an advisory council was all the term implied.)

In fact, you could see a pattern emerging: the high priest, with the support and assistance of the chief priests and some of the powerful lay people, handled local government; the boulē, meanwhile, normally did very little, if at all. At least, only in the last, fatal crisis under Gessius Florus (AD 64-66) does this city council appear, and similarly only this one time did the chief priests feel compelled to call on the Pharisees for help.


#14

Regarding the question as to whether Jews had the right to execute someone:

[T]he Romans seldom granted anyone capital power, much less provincial courts, and for a good reason: in decidedly anti-Roman areas, it could be used to deal with local Roman sympathizers. If it was to be granted anywhere, it would be to free states that had shown special loyalty to Rome - which would put Judaea out of the question. A decree of Augustus to the proconsul of Cyrene, dated 7-6 BC, which made provision for provincial courts to practice “delegated jurisdiction except in capital cases,” which are to be kept in the hands of the proconsul himself, shows just how picky the Romans were about restricting the power.

Yes, Josephus does write that in 62, then high priest Ananus son of Ananus (aka Annas) convened a synedrion and had James the brother of Jesus and probably others executed (Antiquities 20.200-201). But guess what? Ananus was deposed precisely because he took advantage of the brief period in between procuratorial assignments to violate the rule.

[INDENT]But this younger Ananus, who, as we have told you already, took the high priesthood, was a bold man in his temper, and very insolent; he was also of the sect of the Sadducees, who are very rigid in judging offenders, above all the rest of the Jews, as we have already observed; when, therefore, Ananus was of this disposition, he thought he had now a proper opportunity [to exercise his authority]. Festus was now dead, and Albinus was but upon the road; so he assembled the sanhedrim of judges, and brought before them the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James, and some others, [or, some of his companions]; and when he had formed an accusation against them as breakers of the law, he delivered them to be stoned: but as for those who seemed the most equitable of the citizens, and such as were the most uneasy at the breach of the laws, they disliked what was done; they also sent to the king [Agrippa], desiring him to send to Ananus that he should act so no more, for that what he had already done was not to be justified; nay, some of them went also to meet Albinus, as he was upon his journey from Alexandria, and informed him that it was not lawful for Ananus to assemble a sanhedrim without his consent. Whereupon Albinus complied with what they said, and wrote in anger to Ananus, and threatened that he would bring him to punishment for what he had done; on which king Agrippa took the high priesthood from him, when he had ruled but three months, and made Jesus, the son of Damneus, high priest.

The stoning of Stephen is not so much an official execution as a lynching: there was no verdict and no sentence (Acts 7:57-58).

The only exception to this rule I can think of is the Temple Court warning, wherein any gentile who entered the sacred inner court - even if they were a Roman citizen - could be put to death. This is keeping in line with the Roman custom of granting provincial subjects as much freedom as possible in practicing their religion, and besides, the Jews would wish to maintain the purity and sanctity of the Temple hence, the special exception.[/INDENT]


#15

As for the blasphemy charge:

You’re correct that the blasphemy charge is a problematic one. There is however one possibility for the charge: Caiaphas had pretty much made up his mind that Jesus had to die, no matter what Jesus said. In this view, Caiaphas had Jesus arrested because Jesus was threatening the Temple. When the witnesses failed to agree so that the testimony had to be thrown out, Caiaphas did not try to have Jesus flogged and set free. Instead, he decided to try again, asking now if Jesus was Messiah and son of God (which Jesus answers in the affirmative). These titles, in and of themselves, did not constitute blasphemy, but the high priest decided to call them ‘blasphemy’ anyway because he had already decided on execution and was not willing to drop the case. Instead of conducting further inquiry into what the terms meant for Jesus, Caiaphas instead made an extravagant display of mourning and thereby persuaded his consellors to join him in his decision. In other words, the titles were only an expedient; the threat to the Temple was the immediate cause of execution.

Now that being said, there is also the possibility that Jesus’ alleged declaration concerning the Temple (“I will destroy this temple and in three days I will raise it up”) could indeed be seen in some way as ‘blasphemous’. The intention of destroying the current sanctuary would have been offensive to some, especially to the priests who administered it. Since it was God’s house, the intention of destroying it would be viewed as an attack on God Himself. The second part of the saying (“I will raise it up”) was also open to the charge. In the Dead Sea Scrolls - specifically the Temple Scroll (11QT 29.6-10) and in the Midrash on the Last Days (4Q174 1.1-13), the expectation is expressed of an eschatological temple to be created by God that would last forever:

[INDENT]I shall accept them and they shall be my people and I shall be for them for ever. I will dwell with them for ever and ever and will sanctify my [sa]nctuary by my glory. I will cause my glory to rest on it until the day of creation on which I shall create my sanctuary, establishing it for myself for all time according to the covenant which I have made with Jacob in Bethel.

===

… ** enemies. No son of iniquity [shall afflict them again] as formerly, from the day that * over my people Israel** (2 Sam. vii, 10).
This is the House which [He will build for them in the] last days, as it is written in the book of Moses, In the sanctuary of which Thy hands have established, O Lord, the Lord shall reign for ever and ever (Exod. xv, 17-18). This is the House into which [the unclean shall] never [enter, nor the uncircumcised,] nor the Ammonite, nor the Moabite, nor the half-breed, nor the foreigner, nor the stranger, ever; for there shall My Holy Ones be. [Its glory shall endure] for ever; it shall appear above it perpetually. And strangers shall lay it waste no more, as they formerly laid waste the Sanctuary of Israel because of its sin. He has commanded that a Sanctuary of men be built for Himself, that there they may send up, like the smoke of incense, the works of the Law.

===

And He said to the angel of the presence: “Write for Moses from the beginning of creation till My sanctuary has been built among them for all eternity. And the Lord will appear to the eyes of all, and all will know that I am the God of Israel and the Father of all the children of Jacob, and King on Mount Zion for all eternity. And Zion and Jerusalem will be holy.” And the angel of the presence who went before the camp of Israel took the tables of the divisions of the years --from the time of the creation–of the law and of the testimony of the weeks, of the jubilees, according to the individual years, according to all the number of the jubilees [according to the individual years], from the day of the [new] creation when the heavens and the earth shall be renewed and all their creation according to the powers of the heaven, and according to all the creation of the earth, until the sanctuary of the Lord shall be made in Jerusalem on Mount Zion, and all the luminaries be renewed for healing and for peace and for blessing for all the elect of Israel, and that thus it may be from that day and unto all the days of the earth.

The saying attributed to Jesus seems to reflect such expectations. If, as seems likely, this temple was envisioned as a divine creation, the alleged claim of Jesus to build it Himself would sound blasphemous. Jesus would not only be encroaching on divine prerogatives, but also claiming to be able to do something no human could reasonably be expected to accomplish. This testimony, however, came to nothing since the witnesses did not agree.[/INDENT]*


#16

(Continued):

Yet another (and IMHO more likely) possible way of looking at it postulates that the context of the trial accounts in the synoptics suggests that it is not so much the question of the high priest, but Jesus’ statements that leads to the accusation of ‘blasphemy’. Jesus’ affirmative response alone to the question of whether He is the Messiah would have been insufficient to convict Him of blasphemy, although it may well have been sufficient grounds for a conviction of the offense of rebelling against Rome. Similarly, the affirmative response ego eimi (I am) alone was unlikely to be interpreted as a claim to divinity. The charge of blasphemy is related to the saying based on a combination of Psalm 110:1 and Daniel 7:13 (“You will soon see the Son of Man seated at the right hand of the Power and coming with the clouds of heaven”).

With regard to the part of the saying based on Psalm 110:1, it is clear that at least some Jews in the late Second Temple period had no problem with the idea of a heavenly Messiah, an exalted patriarch or a principal angel sitting or standing at the right hand of God or sitting on God’s throne itself. The issue was not so much that no one could sit at God’s right hand, but that a current living person, who is perceived as deceiving the people, is making the claim. To envisage Enoch, Moses, David, an angel or a heavenly messiah sitting beside or on God’s throne is a different thing from confronting a living human who predicts that He Himself will be so enthroned. Notably, all the surviving texts which use the enthronement language (such as 1 Enoch, 3 Enoch, the Exagōgē of Ezekiel 67-89, and even the statement attributed to Rabbi Akiva in the Talmud: Hagigah 14a and Sanhedrin 38b) look to past luminaries to perform the special role, with none involving direct self-claims. Such a prediction might seem close to Gaius Caligula's claim to be a god or the governor of Egypt’s claim to be 'constraining destiny', claims that so offended Philo. The later rabbis, perhaps in response to claims about Jesus, but plausibly in response to claims about Enoch, Moses or the Messiah, eventually rejected the idea of 'two powers in heaven'. This is also reflected in the Akiva tradition:

[INDENT]One [throne] was for Himself and one for David. Even as it has been taught: One was for Himself and one for David: this is R. Akiba's view. R. Jose protested to him: Akiba, how long will thou profane the Shechinah? Rather, one [throne] for justice, and the other for mercy. Did he accept [this answer] from him or not? Come and hear! For it has been taught: One is for justice and the other for charity; this is R. Akiba's view. Said R. Eleazar b. Azariah to him: Akiba, what hast thou to do with Aggada? Confine thyself to [the study of] Nega'im and Ohaloth. But one was a throne, the other a footstool: a throne for a seat and a footstool in support of His feet.

With regard to the “son of man” statement, the identification is equivalent to a messianic claim. (Compare to the messianic figure in the Similitudes of Enoch and the messiah in 2 Esdras 13, which are both based on the son of man figure in Daniel; cf. also the interpretation attributed Akiba in Hag. 14a.) The judgment that Jesus had commited ‘blasphemy’ is thus interpreted here in the prediction of Jesus predicting that He will be enthroned alongside God and will return or be manifest with divine glory. As mentioned earlier, this is analogous to Philo’s definition of Gaius’ and the governor of Egypt’s claims as ‘blasphemy.’

Again, one should note that the definition of blasphemy as misuse of the Name again derives from the Mishnah, Sanhedrin 7.5. One could also make the argument here that this narrow definition could be a later development. There is no absolute certainty that these rules were in absolute effect at the time of Jesus, nor that they were strictly observed. Josephus does define blasphemy along these lines, but it is likely that the Sadducees, a group to which the chief priests may have belonged, defined it more broadly, like Philo, and thus would have considered Jesus’ declaration to be blasphemous.

What is at question is not merely being exalted and present in heaven, but in having a position that places one at God's side. For some Jews at the time, a few select luminaries of old could be considered for such an honor by a direct invitation from God. However, the lack of good, clean parallels for contemporary figures making such a self claim serves as evidence for the offense when a contemporary like Jesus makes such a statement. What you have here is no great, venerable figure from of old, but an untrained Galilean, a troublemaker, who claims not only the ability to sit beside God, but also that He will be vindicated before their eyes: in other words, "constructive blasphemy."[/INDENT]

What exactly is the idea of "two powers in heaven"? One stream of Jewish thought at the time envisioned a revered figure sitting or standing at the right hand of God or sitting on God’s throne itself, thereby being exalted over all creation (including the angels), while still being in some way subordinate to God. As mentioned, we can find this enthronement language implied in 1 Enoch (51.3; 61.8; 62.5; 69.29), and more explicitly depicted in the Hebrew 3 Enoch (where Enoch, transformed into the angel Metatron and is accorded a throne similar to God's, is acclaimed as "the little Yhwh"), and the Exagōgē of Ezekiel the Dramatist (67-89, where Moses is the one taken up to heaven and enthroned in God's own throne). This idea was however later rejected by rabbinic Judaism as heretical, since of course there could be no equality with God.


#17

The first point. I don't think Jesus's trial occurred at night. He was arrested Thursday night and taken to the house of Caiphas. It was the next day Friday when he was tried and sentenced by pilot and then crucified at 3 pm, at the same time the Passover sacrifice occurred. I don't see how any of his other points are trustworthy if he can not even get this right.

The next point I would make is that if the story was made up by Jewish disciples then why would they write that the women were the first witnesses to Christ's Resurrection? Since women were not considered credible witnesses.

Could a lie, a myth really cause Jews to abandon their Jewish faith and become members of a new Christian cult willing to be martyred?

Possibly the most agreed upon fact by NT scholars, secular or not, is that Jesus was crucified.


#18

[quote="JamesCaruso, post:5, topic:328720"]
But in John there is mention of Jesus being questioned by the high priest, Annas, before being sent by him to Caiaphas, who was the current Roman appointed high priest, and who is thought to have been involved in the Sanhedrin trial of Jesus.

[/quote]

The thing is, some people read the account in the synoptics as a formal trial, which in their view would put it at odds with John's informal hearing session. On the one hand, some people think that the hearing in John is more like the sort of thing that really happened in Judaea and in other provinces that were governed in the same way, but on the other hand, one could make the argument that John was just more astute than the synoptic evangelists with regard to realpolitik and so crafted a story with greater verisimilitude. Still, it should be worth pointing out that most of the supposed historical problems with the synoptic trial before the Sanhedrin - or rather, the council or synedrion - come from the assumption that the rules found in the tractate Sanhedrin of the Mishnah applied in the time of Jesus, which is something that is far from certain (to what degree the material in the Mishnah represents practices prior to AD 70 is a contended issue).


#19

[quote="fisherman_carl, post:17, topic:328720"]
The first point. I don't think Jesus's trial occurred at night. He was arrested Thursday night and taken to the house of Caiphas. It was the next day Friday when he was tried and sentenced by pilot and then crucified at 3 pm, at the same time the Passover sacrifice occurred. I don't see how any of his other points are trustworthy if he can not even get this right.

[/quote]

I think he was talking about Jesus being before the high priest.

Could a lie, a myth really cause Jews to abandon their Jewish faith and become members of a new Christian cult willing to be martyred?

The first generation of Christians never saw their religion as being distinct from Judaism: that's something that came only later. They still considered themselves Jews and acted as such, the only difference they had with other Jews is that they believed that Jesus was the Messiah.


#20

[quote="RoyalamI, post:1, topic:328720"]
I saw this list online made by a Jewish man trying to disprove the legitimacy of Jesus's trial, thus disproving that there was no trial, and perhaps no saving messiah. Is any of this true?

  1. A night trial was illegal in both Judea and the Roman Empire
  2. The basis for the charge of blasphemy against Jesus was unclear. This was necessary in order to prosecute according to Judean law.
  3. The witnesses against Jesus did not agree and accordingly a mistrial must be declared.
  4. A trial in a private residence was illegal in both Judea and the Roman Empire.
  5. The Sanhedrin did not have the right to condemn anyone to death at this time.
  6. A crucifixion would never have taken place at Passover.
  7. Jesus’ anticipation of his death as a covenant sacrifice is out of Greek mythology, not the Jewish religion.
  8. Pilate did not have a good reason to execute Jesus as “King of the Judeans.”
  9. Again, there was only one high priest. There were no high priests.
  10. There was no such thing as the high priest(s) joining in on the mocking of a prisoner while the prisoner is being punished.
  11. There was no such custom in Judea as releasing a prisoner at Passover.
  12. Prisoners condemned to crucifixion would carry the cross-bar, not the whole cross.
  13. There was no such place as Golgotha at that time.
  14. Jesus, or anyone else, would not be known as “Christ, the King of Israel.” The Messiah concept was a completely different idea.
  15. Crucifixion was used only for seditionists, murderers and insurrectionists, not for religious reasons or “blasphemy”. Rome would never have approved of using crucifixion for punishment for local lawbreakers, only for those who were out to overthrow the Empire. Judean religious law as very specific as far as punishment for blasphemy. The punishment for blasphemy was stoning to death and the hanging of the body by the neck from a tree or impaling it on a stake.
  16. Roman law denied burial to a crucified man consequently, Pilate would never have given Joseph of Aramathia permission to take Jesus’ body for it would have violated Roman laws.
  17. When Jesus entered Jerusalem prior to the Passover, it was during the Feast of the Booths and that is the reason that the people were waving palm branches and yelling “Hosannah.”

[/quote]

Just because a trial was conducted illegally doesn't mean Christ didn't end up on the cross. I mean, we all know of trials in much of the world which are only barely removed from lynch mobs, which, of course, Jesus' trial was.


DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.