What's new
By:
Filters
Christian Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Jews weigh in on why Jesus' trial couldn't have been true...

cyberjosh

cyberjosh

Member
This yahoo answers page had a question posed about why some people say that the priests violated their typical rules of meeting for trial to prosecute Jesus, and many responses (by people I presume are Jews, or Jew sympathizers, judging from their answers) were given about how the Jews would have under no circumstances operated in the recorded way. I was wanting to know your thoughts on it and see if anyone can come up with some good rebuttals for those claims - read the posts by Phoenix and "Cat's Meow" especially.

I can think of one thing already that is wrong with their arguement, in that they say they wouldn't have tried him just for claming to be Messiah since there had been other "pretend Messiahs" (Gamaliel actually mentions one of them in Acts), and the answer to that claim is: they didn't try him just for claming to be messiah but for claiming to be the Son of God, which they considered blasphemy. Also remember that there was a false accusation that he was seditious and wanted to "tear down the temple" in three days - since they grossly misunderstood what he had said.

Also where Cat's Meow claimed that for the Jews being accused alot of adhering to their laws too closely that they seemed to be breaking an awful lot of it by holding the trial as they did, I think that person might have also missed out on specific details that the Jews were indeed still following their careful rules after the trial when they went to Pilate as it says in John 18:28, "Then the Jews led Jesus from Caiaphas to the palace of the Roman governor. By now it was early morning, and to avoid ceremonial uncleanness the Jews did not enter the palace". Despite the priests cheating their justice system as much as they had, they still were adhering quite close to their ceremonial laws. And I also think it is unreasonable to think that the Sanhedrin would have been good "law-abiding" rulers all the time and "anything that suggests otherwise must be suspect", which is almost what is being claimed here.

Nonetheless, if I am ever to debate this with a non-christian it would be nice to have some specific and detailed points of rebuttal, so i'm throwing this out as an open forum to you guys.

God Bless,

~Josh
 
Hi,

Remember the scripture that saidthe High Priest told them they were blinded to tthe fact that one had to be sacraficed to fullfill the scriptures. It was an acknowledgement that it was not nessisary for standard proceedures because the man was condemned already.

Not to gloss over the fact that Jesus/Yashua was the suffering servant of Isa., but that He died on the cross because of your sins and mine. We ever are individually fully challenged, what will you do with Him who died at the hands of our sins.

Rule one in facing yourself, the blame is mine and yours. Against thee and thee alone have I done this terrible thing in thy sight. The issue is the perfect sinless man who boare the sins of the world.

Each individual stands or fall according to how he reacts to being blaimable for crusifying the Lord. Individuals who deny the fact that Jesus came into the world to die for the sins of the world and I being chief amongst sinners owe a debt that I can not pay to a man who payed the debt for my sin nature. He is the ONLY innocent blood. Other innocent people still are dying because of sin, but not to redeem me of it. Sometimes in a picture we see the sufferings of Christ in others and ourselves, but be sure your sins and mine crusified the Lord.

There is no way a non repentent human can know a thing. Jesus said without me, you can do nothing. The question is not mute, but where or when is it nessisary to deside if we murdered Him legally or not. We condemned God Himself when we sin, rebell and break His laws of liberty. He is our Great Provider, He could not do less than to continue to provide for His own. He just is that kind of character. I believe, I pray you do as well.

Like a montra, Rms 8:28 all things work together for good to those who love God and are called according to His purposes.

Good fortunes in trying to win souls who are in a debate mode. The battle is the Lords.
 
Hi Josh,

Heres something i found on the net:

Within the New Testament accounts of Jesus' arrest, trials and crucifixion (the so-called Passion Narratives), there are a number of details that skeptics over the years have questioned. One category involves apparent violations of Jewish law concerning the trial and execution of a capital offender. These include holding a trial on a Sabbath evening (indeed during festival-time more generally), at night, without witnesses on behalf of the accused, and with the high priest speaking before those with lower authority spoke. It is, of course, possible that these latter two features were present and that none of the Gospels happened to narrate them, but this approach cannot account for the timing of the trial, the most egregious of the apparent legal violations.

At least five replies are in order. First, the oldest document containing Jewish legislation concerning such trials is the Mishnah, the codification of oral traditions that had been developing for centuries, published in about A.D. 200. There is no way to know if any or all of these laws on this topic were already in existence in Jesus' day, though many of the Mishnaic laws probably were. Second, these laws applied directly to the beth din, the second- and third-century Jewish court, which did not always do things exactly the way the Sanhedrin (the "supreme court" in pre-A.D. 70 Jerusalem) had done them. Third, the Mishnah represents, in most cases, the legacy of the Pharisaic wing of Judaism, the only one to have survived the fall of Jerusalem to Rome in 70, whereas in Jesus' day the Sadducees, who often promoted different laws, held the majority on the Sanhedrin. Fourth, even later Jewish literature (the Tosefta) does allow at times for the trials during festivals of those accused of seducing others to idolatry or of being false prophets (t. Sanhedrin 10.11 and 11.7). Finally, leaders desperate to do away with someone they perceive as a serious threat will often violate even what existing laws they may otherwise follow. With all of these variables, it is difficult to see how one could mount a convincing case that the Sanhedrin could not have acted as the Gospels claim they did.1

A link to the original article:
http://www.4truth.net/site/c.hiKXLbPNLr ... getics.htm

Gabriel
 
Anything is possible.

I've always wondered who the 'narrator' was who wrote down what happens in the NT.

How does the writer know the things written?

We're not even sure who wrote the Gospels.

Was there a reporter in there when Jesus was being tortured?

Further, the NT is clearly anti-Jewish, excepting the vein of Judaism that we now call, 'Christianity.'

Revelation 2:9
I know thy works, and tribulation, and poverty, (but thou art rich) and I know the blasphemy of them which say they are Jews, and are not, but are the synagogue of Satan.

Revelation 3:9
Behold, I will make them of the synagogue of Satan, which say they are Jews, and are not, but do lie; behold, I will make them to come and worship before thy feet, and to know that I have loved thee.

Google
Outreach Judaism

click on the free audio lectures, note the lecture called,

Gibsons Passion Crucified the Jews

If this violates the forum rules, moderators, please delete and please let me know.

Respectfully, Poster
 
Poster said:
I've always wondered who the 'narrator' was who wrote down what happens in the NT.

How does the writer know the things written?

We're not even sure who wrote the Gospels.

Was there a reporter in there when Jesus was being tortured?
Click to expand...

Actually, though no one can be 100% certain that certain Gospels were written by their alleged writers, at least two of the four were written by those who personally walked with Jesus.

For example: The New Testament books of Matthew and John...I believe those are the two. I could be wrong and will likely revisit some studies to make certain of this were two of Jesus' disciples. Matthew, otherwise known as Levi the tax collector of which Jesus called to follow Him is the one believed by various scholars to have written the book of Matthew. John...if I am not confusing this and Luke....was also one of which I believe was with Jesus during much of His ministry and even refered to as a form of loved one when spoken of in accordance to scripture.

As I said before...I could be wrong. I will do some more studying to make sure. Sometimes I think something a number of us tend not to do as readers of the Bible is take into account how different things were then. For we cannot read scripture and fully comprehend it without first knowing a bit about the time in which Jesus lived.

Just my thoughts.

May God Bless You

Danielle
 
Gabriel Ali said:
Hi Josh,

Heres something i found on the net:

Within the New Testament accounts of Jesus' arrest, trials and crucifixion (the so-called Passion Narratives), there are a number of details that skeptics over the years have questioned. One category involves apparent violations of Jewish law concerning the trial and execution of a capital offender. These include holding a trial on a Sabbath evening (indeed during festival-time more generally), at night, without witnesses on behalf of the accused, and with the high priest speaking before those with lower authority spoke. It is, of course, possible that these latter two features were present and that none of the Gospels happened to narrate them, but this approach cannot account for the timing of the trial, the most egregious of the apparent legal violations.

At least five replies are in order. First, the oldest document containing Jewish legislation concerning such trials is the Mishnah, the codification of oral traditions that had been developing for centuries, published in about A.D. 200. There is no way to know if any or all of these laws on this topic were already in existence in Jesus' day, though many of the Mishnaic laws probably were. Second, these laws applied directly to the beth din, the second- and third-century Jewish court, which did not always do things exactly the way the Sanhedrin (the "supreme court" in pre-A.D. 70 Jerusalem) had done them. Third, the Mishnah represents, in most cases, the legacy of the Pharisaic wing of Judaism, the only one to have survived the fall of Jerusalem to Rome in 70, whereas in Jesus' day the Sadducees, who often promoted different laws, held the majority on the Sanhedrin. Fourth, even later Jewish literature (the Tosefta) does allow at times for the trials during festivals of those accused of seducing others to idolatry or of being false prophets (t. Sanhedrin 10.11 and 11.7). Finally, leaders desperate to do away with someone they perceive as a serious threat will often violate even what existing laws they may otherwise follow. With all of these variables, it is difficult to see how one could mount a convincing case that the Sanhedrin could not have acted as the Gospels claim they did.1

A link to the original article:
http://www.4truth.net/site/c.hiKXLbPNLr ... getics.htm

Gabriel
Click to expand...

I don't know how I missed this before. That was a great reply. Thanks! I read the article too. That is by far the farthest (in condensed form anyway) I've seen someone be willing to dig down into the issues and give intelligent and reasonable answers to proposed problems. I liked it.

The first foot note also caught my eye: "The best detailed defense of the historicity of the numerous questionable elements in the trial accounts remains Josef Blinzler, The Trial of Jesus (Westminster, Eng.: Newman; Cork, Ire.: Mercier, 1959)." I might have to look up on that man and his book.

Thanks again,

~Josh
 
wavy said:
Cybershark,

I would recommend for study of the passion narratives the highly exhaustive and erudite 2-volume work by the late Raymond Brown (S.S., Ph.D), The Death of the Messiah. (volume 2 here).
Click to expand...

Thanks Eric, I'll have to see if I can get them from my library. And perhaps you can be the first one to review the volume(s) on amazon since it currently has no reviews or ratings. What did you think of it overall?

God Bless,

~Josh
 
cybershark5886 said:
Thanks Eric, I'll have to see if I can get them from my library. And perhaps you can be the first one to review the volume(s) on amazon since it currently has no reviews or ratings. What did you think of it overall?

God Bless,

~Josh
Click to expand...

Reviews are strangely found in another link to the book from different sellers on amazon. click.

As for the content of the book, it's unsurpassed scholarship. Worthy of all the approbation it has received.

Have you seen my suggested reading in the DH thread?


Kind regards,
Eric
 
If a small number of Christians did something, at one place and one time, does that mean that all Christians would be responsible?

No.

Does it mean that the children of those Christians who did the deed would be responsible in any way?

No.
 
I doubt any Christian on this thread disagree's with you. I don't feel anyone on this thread has even hinted at holding all Jews responsible for Christ's death.
 
Poster said:
If a small number of Christians did something, at one place and one time, does that mean that all Christians would be responsible?

No.

Does it mean that the children of those Christians who did the deed would be responsible in any way?

No.
Click to expand...

No one has implied such. For I do know a number of Jews who believe in Jesus and accept Him as their Lord and Savior...in my eyes....the Romans were just as guilty as the Jews who asked for Jesus' death. So basically in short...mankind itself is to blame.
 
...especially since it was the Romans who did the deed.

My friend told me to beat my wife. Why should I be considered guilty?
Well, if I did the actual beating, perhaps I am the proximate and deliberate cause if it is my hands which did the actual deed.


I always think it is amusing that Romans
tortured to death a Jew who said you can be forgiven without sacrifices,
then destroyed the Temple,
later convert to a religion based on that Jew,
then every generation torture to death Jews due to the earlier Jew they tortured to death
complain there is no Temple
and conclude that Jews should be tortured eternally.

Isaiah 53 applies to the Jews, it is the Jews are the 'suffering servant' amongst whom Jesus was one.
 
Poster said:
...especially since it was the Romans who did the deed.
Click to expand...

I may be wrong here, but if we can commit the sin of adultery by merely entertaining impure thoughts of another person...could not the same be said of any other sin such as murder?

Seeing though as that is not the original topic of the thread, I will back out saying this once again. Both the Jews and the Romans were guilty by playing their part. Though in short, I really feel it was mankind as a whole who condemned, condoned, and crucified Christ.

These are just my thoughts. I mean no offense so I am sorry if any is taken.
 
Poster said:
If a small number of Christians did something, at one place and one time, does that mean that all Christians would be responsible?

No.

Does it mean that the children of those Christians who did the deed would be responsible in any way?

No.
Click to expand...
Poster said:
...especially since it was the Romans who did the deed.

My friend told me to beat my wife. Why should I be considered guilty?
Well, if I did the actual beating, perhaps I am the proximate and deliberate cause if it is my hands which did the actual deed.


I always think it is amusing that Romans
tortured to death a Jew who said you can be forgiven without sacrifices,
then destroyed the Temple,
later convert to a religion based on that Jew,
then every generation torture to death Jews due to the earlier Jew they tortured to death
complain there is no Temple
and conclude that Jews should be tortured eternally.

Isaiah 53 applies to the Jews, it is the Jews are the 'suffering servant' amongst whom Jesus was one.
Click to expand...

Poster: The OP specifically asks for rebuttals to the claim that Jesus Christ's trial was not possible. You are way off-topic, as the points you have raised are irrelevant to the OP. Have you anything to add to the OP, and if not, why not start a new thread discussing whatever it is that you want to discuss?
 
Thanks for reminding me of this wavy.

wavy said:
Reviews are strangely found in another link to the book from different sellers on amazon. click.

As for the content of the book, it's unsurpassed scholarship. Worthy of all the approbation it has received.

Have you seen my suggested reading in the DH thread?
Click to expand...

I just read your review on Amazon about that book you recommended in the DH thread. It does indeed look interesting. It seems like it would be a good read, although I hope it isn't heavy reading. As you will probably find out, my scholarly pursuits are some what eclectic, and I can jump from Church History, to Biblical Archaeology, to Theology, to Textual Criticism, etc. And I have to sometimes balance my absolutely enourmous number of fields of interest one at a time, and hopefully blend them where possible. I hope to eventually get back around to a more in-depth pursuit of the DH topic but for right now I have atleast 10 other books on my list. :) One I am really diving into right now I got two days ago as a Christmas present, and am already on page 50: Lee Strobel's new book "The Case For The Real Jesus". It is quite interesing.

Well, I left you a new response in the DH thread. I'll try to get back to you soon, but I'm on vacation in Wisconsin right now. Have a great New Year. :)

God Bless,

~Josh
 
cybershark5886 said:
I just read your review on Amazon about that book you recommended in the DH thread. It does indeed look interesting. It seems like it would be a good read, although I hope it isn't heavy reading.
Click to expand...

Shouldn't be too 'heavy'. More informed non-specialists as you and I could handle it. ;)

As you will probably find out, my scholarly pursuits are some what eclectic, and I can jump from Church History, to Biblical Archaeology, to Theology, to Textual Criticism, etc. And I have to sometimes balance my absolutely enourmous number of fields of interest one at a time, and hopefully blend them where possible.
Click to expand...

That's my method as well. My selected reading right now consists of several areas of interests. Here are all the books I have on my plate right now. I imagine several of them would be of great interest to you:

New Testament Studies:

The New Testament: A Historical Introduction to the Early Christian Writings - Bart D. Ehrman

New Testament Introduction - Donald Guthrie

Ancient Christian Gospels - Helmut Koester

The Homeric Epics and the Gospel of Mark - Dennis R. MacDonald

Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament - Bruce M. Metzger

The Early Church (The Penguin History of the Church) - Henry Chadwick

Early Christian Doctrines: Revised Edition - J. N. D. Kelly

Right Doctrine from the Wrong Texts?, The: Essays on the Use of the Old Testament in the New - G. K. Beale, ed.


Old Testament Studies:

Introduction to the Hebrew Bible - John J. Collins

The Pentateuch: An Introduction to the First Five Books of the Bible - Joseph Blenkinsopp

Ancient Israel: Its Life and Institutions - Roland De Vaux

Archaeology of the Land of the Bible, Volume I: 10,000-586 B.C.E. - Amihai Mazar

Old Testament Parallels: Laws And Stories from the Ancient Near East - Victor H. Matthews

Ancient Library of Qumran, The - Frank Moore Cross Jr


Formation of the Canon:

The Canon of the New Testament: Its Origin, Development, and Significance - Bruce M. Metzger

The New Testament Canon: Its Making and Meaning - Harry Y. Gamble

Exploring the Origins of the Bible: Canon Formation in Historical, Literary, and Theological Perspective - Craig A. Evans, ed.


Hermeneia Commentaries:

Deutero-Isaiah: A Commentary on Isaiah 40-55 (Hermeneia: a Critical and Historical Commentary on the Bible) - Klaus Baltzer

Mark: A Commentary (Hermeneia: a Critical and Historical Commentary on the Bible) - Adela Yarbro Collins

ACTS: A Commentary (Hermeneia: a Critical and Historical Commentary on the Bible) - Richard I. Pervo

First Corinthians: A Commentary on the First Epistle to the Corinthians (Hermeneia: a Critical and Historical Commentary on the Bible) - Hans Conzelmann

Galatians: A Commentary on Paul's Letter to the Churches in Galatia (Hermeneia: a Critical and Historical Commentary on the Bible) - Hans Dieter Betz

Colossians and Philemon (Hermeneia: a Critical and Historical Commentary on the Bible) - Eduard Lohse

James: A Commentary on the Epistle of James (Hermeneia: a Critical and Historical Commentary on the Bible) - Martin Dibelius


The Historical Jesus:

The Birth of the Messiah: A Commentary on the Infancy Narratives in the Gospels of Matthew and Luke - Raymond E. Brown

A Marginal Jew: Rethinking the Historical Jesus, Volume I: The Roots of the Problem and the Person - John P. Meier

The Life Of Jesus: Critically Examined - David Friedrich Strauss

The Historical Jesus: A Comprehensive Guide - Gerd Theissen

Jesus and the Victory of God - N. T. Wright

Jesus and Judaism - E. P. Sanders


Resurrection:

Resurrection Reconsidered - Gavin D'Costa, ed.

The Resurrection: An Interdisciplinary Symposium on the Resurrection of Jesus - Stephen T. Davis, ed.

The Resurrection of the Son of God - N. T. Wright

The Historical Evidence For The Resurrection Of Jesus Christ - Kirsopp Lake

The Myth of the Resurrection and Other Essays - Joseph McCabe

The Formation of the Resurrection Narratives - Reginald Horace Fuller

The Resurrection according to Matthew, Mark and Luke - Norman Perrin

Riddle of Resurrection: "Dying and Rising Gods" in the Ancient Near East - Tryggve N. D. Mettinger

The Death and Resurrection of the Beloved Son: The Transformation of Child Sacrifice in Judaism and Christianity - J. D. Levenson

Resurrection, Immortality, and Eternal Life in Intertestamental Judaism and Early Christianity: Expanded Edition - George W. E. Nickelsburg

Resurrection: Theological and Scientific Assessments - Ted Peters, ed.


Philosophy:

Elementary Symbolic Logic - William Gustason

The Philosophy of Philosophy (The Blackwell / Brown Lectures in Philosophy) - Timothy Williamson

The Elements of Philosophy: Readings from Past and Present - Tamar Szabo Gendler

The Oxford Handbook of Contemporary Philosophy (Oxford Handbooks) - Frank Jackson

An Introduction to the Philosophy of Religion (Cambridge Introductions to Philosophy) - Michael J. Murray

The Blackwell Guide to the Philosophy of Religion (Blackwell Philosophy Guides) - William E. Mann

Religious Ambiguity and Religious Diversity - Robert McKim


Atheism:

Logic and Theism: Arguments For and Against Beliefs in God - Jordan Howard Sobel

Arguing about Gods - Graham Oppy

Philosophers without Gods: Meditations on Atheism and the Secular Life - Louise M. Antony

The Cambridge Companion to Atheism (Cambridge Companions to Philosophy) - Michael Martin

Why I Became an Atheist: A Former Preacher Rejects Christianity - John W. Loftus

Natural Atheism - David Eller


Science & Rationalism:

The Age of Reason - Thomas Paine

The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark - Carl Sagan

Endless Forms Most Beautiful: The New Science of Evo Devo - Sean B. Carroll

Evolution: The Triumph of an Idea - Carl Zimmer


Miscellaneous:

Dictionary of Deities and Demons in the Bible - Karel van der Toorn, ed.

Hermes and Athena: Biblical Exegesis and Philosophical Theology - Eleanor Stump, ed.

The Ancient Mysteries: A Sourcebook of Sacred Texts - Marvin W. Meyer

Isis in the Ancient World - R. E. Witt


One I am really diving into right now I got two days ago as a Christmas present, and am already on page 50: Lee Strobel's new book "The Case For The Real Jesus". It is quite interesing.
Click to expand...

I have read excerpts from that book. I've also read much of Strobel's The Case for Christ, & The Case for Easter. I own The Case for a Creator.

Frankly, I do not like Lee Strobel. I think he's intentionally disingenuous, or even dishonest. He likes to portray himself as a seriously skeptical investigator, trying to search for the disinterested truth. But he isn't. He's asking devout academic Christians about the validity of Christianity. You can build a 'Case for' your religion by mixing up your interviewees from all disciplines and persuasions.

Out of curiosity, what have you learned from The Case for the Real Jesus?


Thanks,
Eric
 
I think that it's unlikely for there to have been a trial for Jesus' crucifixion. I don't see any witnesses there and I think that it's very unlikely that the Gospel's were written by those whom they are attributed to; especially considering that Matthew, who was meant to have been a follower of Jesus, actually used the Gospel of Mark and the Q sayings to write his Gospel.

Allan
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top