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

[Joe67]

It very important to remember that those who spoke against Jesus did so with out reason.

This was a war between principalities and powers in heavenly places. The humans involved were just puppets under the influence of spiritual beings.

The angels that oppose our Lord, fall prey to a madness/hatred/jealousy that is seen manifested through the human personality of those they control. Just like Pete's cursing.

Jealousy underlies the covetousness and spiritual wickedness of us all. Those to whom God gives repentance and cleansing find deliverance from maliciousness.

The effort to reasonably refute arguments that come from a jealous heart and mind is fatal for the warrior.

Joe

 

[Free]

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

Based on what? Instead of simply believing they were written by those whose names appear on them, you would rather appeal to a hypothetical, and unlikely, Q document? You have no reason to not believe.

 

[allanpopa]

Based on what? Instead of simply believing they were written by those whose names appear on them, you would rather appeal to a hypothetical, and unlikely, Q document? You have no reason to not believe.

Well, the whole "Q" debate has been going on for quite sometime now and I must say that most scholars (90+%) would say that Q is a reasonable hypothesis.

The names however which appear on the documents as we have them simply did not exist on the documents before 170CE. That's the simple truth. In fact, the earliest names we have which might go to one or two of our gospels come from Papias in 130CE, though it's very uncertain what he was talking about.

Whatever the case, it's very interesting how when Mark wrote the story of the trials the only people that were there were those accusing Jesus, Mark does not write himself there or any other follower of Jesus. He has Peter far away, too far to hear what's going on and staying far too short a time to actually see much else beyond the fact of Jesus' crucifixion.

Why not travel forward in time to John's Gospel and note how the conversation that Jesus had with Pilate was extensively communicated even though it was a private conversation between Jesus and Pilate without any witnesses . . . Interesting? Yes, it is, from an historical perspective. This is what we like to call the sure sign of "non-historicity".

Dank

Allan