The Sanhedrin And The Trial Of Jesus [a]

[Qa'im]

(salam)

In this thread I would like to analyze the trial of Jesus (as), depicted by the New Testament, in front of the Jewish Sanhedrin.

The Sanhedrin was essentially an ancient and holy religious court in Palestine. It consisted of an assembly or council of 23 Jewish judges, one from each city of Palestine. The Sanhedrin would hold trials for the Children of Israel and rule based on the Mosaic laws and works of scholars. It was formally dissolved due to Roman persecution.

In relation to the Gospels, the Sanhedrin conspired against the Messiah (as) by paying Judas Iscariot 30 pieces of silver in exchange for Jesus (as). The witnesses at the trial of Jesus (as) claimed that he had committed blasphemy, which was a capital crime.

In John 18:31 we find: "Pilate said, "Take him yourselves and judge him by your own law." "But we have no right to execute anyone," the Jews objected." (John 18:31). However, according to Josephus' "Antiquities of the Jews", James the Just (ra) was stoned to death by the order of the Sanhedrin.

Anyway, there are 22 conditions that a trial must pass before heading to the Sanhedrin. The Jews hold these conditions and traditions very highly, as it is a well-documented religious tradition that was carried out for centuries. If a trial had violated any of the 22 conditions, it was immediately thrown out and not conducted. I wanted to analyze the trial of Jesus according to the Gospels in relation to these 22 conditions, to see if this trial was probable and really could have taken place.

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.

More info: http://jdstone.org/cr/pages/s_trial.html http://jdstone.org/cr/pages/jezuz.html

1. Was there a bribe? Yes - the council allegedly bribed Judas Iscariot, one of the disciples of Jesus (as). "Then one of the twelve, who was called Judas Iscariot, went to the chief priests and said, ‘What will you give me if I betray him to you?’ They paid him thirty pieces of silver. And from that moment he began to look for an opportunity to betray him." (Matthew 26:14-16)

2. The criminal proceeding was happening throughout the night. My proof is Matthew 26, when Jesus (as) is arrested, taken to the criminal hearing, and Peter (ra) denies him three times. Verse 34 "this night before the rooster crows, you will deny Me three times". Verses 40 and 45, the disciples are sleeping. Verses 57-68, the criminal hearing, testimonies, and witnesses are taking place. 69-74, Peter is outside in the courtyard denying Jesus. Verse 75, the rooster crows. All of this was at night, and therefore, illegal by Jewish trial laws.

3. Chief priests, elders, and scribes took part in the arrest. "And immediately, while he yet spake, cometh Judas, one of the twelve, and with him a great multitude with swords and staves, from the chief priests and the scribes and the elders." (Mark 14:43)

4. No trials before morning sacrifice - see point number 2.

5. I don't know if the trial was conducted in secret, but Luke 22:54 alleges that Peter had followed the arrest in a distance. John 18:16 says Peter stood outside the courthouse, at the courtyard (which is confirmed by other Gospels). In other words, Peter, who was the best friend of Jesus had secretly followed those that arrested him and did not walk inside the "public trial".

6. The trial did not take place in the Hall of Judgment or Temple Compound. It took place in a house. "Having arrested Him, they led Him and brought Him into the high priest's house... (Luke 22:54)

7. In none of the Gospel accounts was Jesus given a defense procedure prior to their accusations and the trial's false witnesses, which yet again breaks another Sanhedrin code.

8. All argued in favor of conviction; we find no evidence that any of them were not in favor. "Now the chief priests, the elders, and all the council sought false testimony against Jesus to put him to death" (Matthew 26:59) First person not in favour was Pilate.

9. The testimonies of the witnesses are all thrown out by the Sanhedrin in Mark 14:55. Then two witnesses said that they had heard Jesus (as) say that he will destroy the Temple and rebuild it in 3 days. Mark 14:59 says even these two testimonies did not agree. Therefore, not fulfilling this requirement.

10. Jesus (as) practically testifies against himself by keeping silent as the witnesses bore false testimonies. In all accounts, Jesus kept silent when questioned if he had threatened to destroy and rebuild the Temple, which according to Mark, was a false and inconsistent testimony. Jesus MUST answer to this accusation to fulfill the requirements of the Sanhedrin. Also, to claim to be the son of God (in Hebrew, it means a righteous person) and/or Messiah is not a crime in Mosaic law, and therefore a blasphemy sentence cannot be achieved from this.

11. There is no information on the high priest's garments that I know of - it is plausible that they had passed this condition.

12. The initial charges in Mark 14:56-59 were not the ones acted on. The Sanhedrin had acted on the question posed by the high priest in verse 61, "Are you the Christ, the Son of the Blessed?", in 62 Jesus says he is, in 63-64 the high priest says "What further need do we have of witnesses? You have heard the blasphemy! What do you think?" and all condemned him to death. Therefore, the charge acted on was the one initiated by the high priest and not the ones brought forth from the witnesses.

13. Jesus (as) did not pronounce the name of God (YHVH) and therefore did not blaspheme.

14. One cannot be condemned based on words alone - Jesus was condemned based on his words alone, in every version of the trial. His crime was the claim to be the son of God and Messiah, both of which are not a crime in Mosaic law.

15. The trial and verdict was all done at night before the rooster had crowed, as proven earlier.

16. The trial and verdict was all done within the same night, therefore, violating the 24 hour gap rule.

17. The high priest announced the verdict initially, and not in order from youngest to oldest (or any particular order).

18. A unanimous decision in the Sanhedrin equals innocence, since an entire council of 23-71 men cannot agree together without illegal plotting. The council was unanimous, therefore Jesus (as) would have been let free and not convicted

19. The council immediately brought Jesus to Pilate in Mark 15:1, and the crucifixion took place in the third hour of the same day (Mark 15:25).

20. The Judges, elders, and scribes had beaten the Messiah (as) throughout the trial, mocked him, and later followed him to the crucifixion, mocked him more, made a crown of thorns, etc.

21. Mark 14:65, Jesus was blindfolded and beaten at the courthouse.

22. Mark 14 indicates that it was indeed Passover (verse 14). Luke 22 as well.

Therefore, I conclude that the trial of Jesus according to the Gospels violated at least 21 of the 22 conditions. The only condition it did not violate was concerning the garment of the high priest. Traditionally, in Judaism, a trial is thrown out if one condition was violated, but here we see the violation of the entire structure of this trial and sentence.

These facts speak volumes about the historical accuracy of the New Testament. The likelihood of this taking place is very improbable, as the Sanhedrin strictly followed its code and traditional procedures in all trials. What we find in the Gospels resembles the Sanhedrin in no way. This means that either a) the authors were awfully misinformed on the traditions of the Sanhedrin, as they were Greeks, b ) the Jews had unusually and deliberately violated all of their traditions without the Gospel writers making note of this, or c) the trial simply did not occur. Either way, the story does not really add up.

[IraqLives1]

I have been wondering, why the mods are not making threads like these sticky for other members.

The Sandhedrin trial of Jesus is but one in a long list of historical inaccuracies in each of the mutually contradictory Gospels.

It adds to a long laundry list that show that simply put the gospel writers had no clue what they were talking about when discussing Jewish matters. The Gospels go through great lengths to implicate the Jews every chance they get, and leave out any blame on the Romans

Them fabricating the sanhedrin trial is but one of many such attempts. Others include verses like those in Mathew where the Jews claim let his blood giult be upon us and our children (justifiying 2000 years of Jewish persecution by christianity), or John 8 which has Jesus call Jews children of Satan. Or best of all, the creation of Judas Iscariot in the Jesus mythology. Judas, as the name implies, is an anthropormorphic representation of Israel, a way for christians to say Israel betrayed their messiah and hung him on a cross.

Its funny because whenever they describe Jewish matters, they show how ignorant they are of them. Hence why christians today per their scriptures are taught that the Sabbath happens on Sunday, it does not, it happens between Friday and Saturday.

There are a number of spots where the author of Mark (and all the other Gospels) shows that he's no expert on Jewish matters. E.g., there's the one discussed here, there's the fact that he doesn't know the correct day on which the Passover lambs are slaughtered.They were killed on the preparation day, i.e., the day before Passover. The author of Mark has them being killed on the first day of the festival.

And of course the biggest blunder related to Jewish matters in the Gospels is the cruxi-FICTION of Jesus himself. The NT writers, including Paul (since this was his theology), believed that they could use reimagine Jesus' death on the cross as a replacement for the jewish temple's sacrificial atonment. Problem is countless clear cut roles on sacrifices are ignored by the makers of christianity because:

-Jesus was not an animal that split hooves or chew cud

-Jesus was a human, and only animals work

-the paschal lamb has to be slaughtered in the same year it is born and JEsus by the time of the cruxification was 30 years old

-Jesus was not killed by Aaronic priests, kohens

-Jesus did not have his blood sprinkled on the alter

-etc etc etc

Btw there other historical inaccuracies in the Gospels as well: http://unveiling-christianity.com/2009/07/15/historical-inaccuracy-of-luke/

[Abu Ali 2]

Salam,

What a wonderful thread! Very sound logic and evidence presented from biblical accounts that are used by most Christians today. I doubt that any of our missionary friends will respond, however. To me this demonstrates that the accounts of the events were written by anonymous Greek authors who lived long after the events took place. If these accounts in the Gospel were written by Jews who had witnessed the events they would have at least been aware of the fact that the trial was not valid (from the perspective of Mosaic laws), as would all others who witnessed it. It is impossible that these gross violations of the Jewish sacred law would not have been commented on it the account had been written by eyewitnesses.

[Qa'im]

(wasalam)

Thanks for the feedback brothers. This thread took quite a bit of time and a lot of page flipping through the New Testament. As I was doing that though, I noticed that the Gospel writers put a lot of attention on incriminating the Jews and exonerating the Romans throughout the trial and execution of Jesus (as). Pilate, who was known historically to be a very violent and brutal leader, said things like "I see no fault in this man", "my hands are clean from this", and was willing to trade Jesus Barabbas for Jesus (as). The Jews on the other hand were depicted as unanimously agree on his crucifixion, beating him, mocking him, saying let his blood be on our descendants, chanting "crucify him!" and pushing Pilate to carry it out.

I think the reasoning for this was because the gentile Christians were living under Roman rule, and knew that it wasn't going away soon. If the Romans are depicted as a "hired gun" and not the real perpetrators of Jesus' crucifixion, then the Gospels would be telling the Romans "hey look, we're not your enemies, Pilate was a sympathetic man, it was those Jews that got him killed".

[Son of Placid]

Thanks for the feedback brothers. This thread took quite a bit of time and a lot of page flipping through the New Testament. As I was doing that though, I noticed that the Gospel writers put a lot of attention on incriminating the Jews and exonerating the Romans throughout the trial and execution of Jesus . Pilate, who was known historically to be a very violent and brutal leader, said things like "I see no fault in this man", "my hands are clean from this", and was willing to trade Jesus Barabbas for Jesus . The Jews on the other hand were depicted as unanimously agree on his crucifixion, beating him, mocking him, saying let his blood be on our descendants, chanting "crucify him!" and pushing Pilate to carry it out.

I think the reasoning for this was because the gentile Christians were living under Roman rule, and knew that it wasn't going away soon. If the Romans are depicted as a "hired gun" and not the real perpetrators of Jesus' crucifixion, then the Gospels would be telling the Romans "hey look, we're not your enemies, Pilate was a sympathetic man, it was those Jews that got him killed".

Even during the time of Jesus it was the Romans that ruled, and it was never a good idea to cross the government in those days.

I believe the reason that the Sanhedrin were so quick in breaking their own rules was because of a bigger agenda, not religious, but political, as depicted in John 11:47

John 11: "47 What are we accomplishing?" they asked. "Here is this man performing many miraculous signs. 48 If we let him go on like this, everyone will believe in him, and then the Romans will come and take away both our place and our nation." 49 Then one of them, named Caiaphas, who was high priest that year, spoke up, "You know nothing at all! 50 You do not realize that it is better for you that one man die for the people than that the whole nation perish."

Regardless of how lightly the Gospel authors tip-toed around the Romans, it would seem the Jews had a healthy fear of them. Let's not forget that Caiaphas was the high priest at the time, not appointed by the Sanhedrin, but by the Roman Governor Valerius Gratus.

Can you site any other time in history when rules or procedures were overlooked because of political leverage?

[Qa'im]

(salam)

Political bodies usually break rules, but judicial bodies like the Sanhedrin rarely did, as breaking the code was practically heresy on its own. I don't think the 23 judges, the scribes, and the elders would've risked heresy charges at a time religion was taken very seriously. I can understand a couple rules being bent or perhaps broken, but it is very odd and very unusual for literally all of the customs and conditions ignored for this trial. For example, for it to be conducted at night, in private, in a house instead of the Temple or Hall of Judgment, with a verdict happening at the trial, seems highly unusual and improbable. Also, the fact that the four Gospels all mention this backwards trial without pointing out that the Jews were breaking every single rule, would allude that the writers themselves may not have known. After all, none of the four Gospels gave a detailed account of what happened at the trial, other than the basic skeleton of the story repeated four times. These Sanhedrin trials were happening for hundreds of years, and it had strictly followed its preset rules, so it is historically inaccurate that they would make all these exceptions for Jesus' (as) trial.

Is it plausible that they had broken every rule and condition? Maybe, but this is very doubtful, improbable, and either it did not happen or the Gospel writers did not get it right.

Edited February 22, 2010 by Qa'im

[Son of Placid]

Political bodies usually break rules, but judicial bodies like the Sanhedrin rarely did, as breaking the code was practically heresy on its own. I don't think the 23 judges, the scribes, and the elders would've risked heresy charges at a time religion was taken very seriously. I can understand a couple rules being bent or perhaps broken, but it is very odd and very unusual for literally all of the customs and conditions ignored for this trial. For example, for it to be conducted at night, in private, in a house instead of the Temple or Hall of Judgment, with a verdict happening at the trial, seems highly unusual and improbable. Also, the fact that the four Gospels all mention this backwards trial without pointing out that the Jews were breaking every single rule, would allude that the writers themselves may not have known. After all, none of the four Gospels gave a detailed account of what happened at the trial, other than the basic skeleton of the story repeated four times. These Sanhedrin trials were happening for hundreds of years, and it had strictly followed its preset rules, so it is historically inaccurate that they would make all these exceptions for Jesus' trial.

Is it plausible that they had broken every rule and condition? Maybe, but this is very doubtful, improbable, and either it did not happen or the Gospel writers did not get it right.

Improbable and doubtful happens all the time. If the Romans were in power, how much power did Jewish law actually have? Of course breaking the rules was heresy, but who would bring them to trial on it, and why go through all the motions if it's the lesser of the evils?

BTW, Mark 14:63: "Tearing his clothes, the high priest said, 'What further need do we have of witnesses?

If you're going to break the rules, may as well break them all.

[aladdin]

Improbable and doubtful happens all the time. If the Romans were in power, how much power did Jewish law actually have? Of course breaking the rules was heresy, but who would bring them to trial on it, and why go through all the motions if it's the lesser of the evils?

What was Jesus crime? What blasphemy Jesus was accused of?

Can you please quote the revenant verses?

[Qa'im]

(salam)

What was Jesus crime? What blasphemy Jesus was accused of?

Can you please quote the revenant verses?

The charge was for claiming to be the son of God, and claiming to be the Messiah. The first point does not make any sense, and the second one is not a crime in Jewish law. I also find it strange how the Jews needed Pilate to kill Jesus (as), while they stoned James (ra) to death shortly after.

Edited February 22, 2010 by Qa'im

[Son of Placid]

The charge was for claiming to be the son of God, and claiming to be the Messiah. The first point does not make any sense, and the second one is not a crime in Jewish law. I also find it strange how the Jews needed Pilate to kill Jesus , while they stoned James to death shortly after.

The charge was actually for claiming to be God, which is why they called it blasphemy. There is no record in the NT that Jesus ever claimed to be God.

Then there's the records of Jesus criticizing the Jews often for their inconsistancies, nit picking rules, and hypocracy. These same Jews followed Jesus and the disciples around waiting for something to pin on Him. On more than one occasion Jesus slipped through their hands when they were ready to seize Him. By the time they finally got hold of Him they were more of a lynch mob.

[Qa'im]

The charge was actually for claiming to be God, which is why they called it blasphemy. There is no record in the NT that Jesus ever claimed to be God.

Then there's the records of Jesus criticizing the Jews often for their inconsistancies, nit picking rules, and hypocracy. These same Jews followed Jesus and the disciples around waiting for something to pin on Him. On more than one occasion Jesus slipped through their hands when they were ready to seize Him. By the time they finally got hold of Him they were more of a lynch mob.

The instances above would be examples of the enmity between our Messiah (as) and his people, but I think according to the Gospels these enmities and the actual charges are separate. If you've noticed, the trial is fairly identical across the four Gospels. The initial charges were not mentioned, but they were being perpetrated by the witnesses - we don't fully know who these witnesses were or what they said - but the authors make it clear that they were false. Since there was no consistency in them, they were thrown out. The second charge was that Jesus (as) had allegedly said that he can destroy the Temple with his hands, and rebuild it without hands in 3 days. The two witnesses' stories did not match, so this was thrown out.

The third charge was brought forth by the high priest himself in Mark 14:61-66. This is the one that the council acted on, because they were dissatisfied with the previous charges and witnesses, and after this one they acted in unison to execute Jesus (as). "Are you the Christ, the Son of the Blessed?", in 62 Jesus says he is, in 63-64 the high priest says "What further need do we have of witnesses? You have heard the blasphemy! What do you think?" and all condemned him to death.

In other words, yes, there were other reasons why the Jews had hated Jesus (as), but this was the charge that would get him executed.

Edited February 22, 2010 by Qa'im

[Son of Placid]

The instances above would be examples of the enmity between our Messiah and his people, but I think according to the Gospels these enmities and the actual charges are separate. If you've noticed, the trial is fairly identical across the four Gospels. The initial charges were not mentioned, but they were being perpetrated by the witnesses - we don't fully know who these witnesses were or what they said - but the authors make it clear that they were false. Since there was no consistency in them, they were thrown out. The second charge was that Jesus had allegedly said that he can destroy the Temple with his hands, and rebuild it without hands in 3 days. The two witnesses' stories did not match, so this was thrown out.

The third charge was brought forth by the high priest himself in Mark 14:61-66. This is the one that the council acted on, because they were dissatisfied with the previous charges and witnesses, and after this one they acted in unison to execute Jesus . "Are you the Christ, the Son of the Blessed?", in 62 Jesus says he is, in 63-64 the high priest says "What further need do we have of witnesses? You have heard the blasphemy! What do you think?" and all condemned him to death.

In other words, yes, there were other reasons why the Jews had hated Jesus , but this was the charge that would get him executed.

You'd think the Sanhedrin would have remembered how many times "The son of God" was used in the OT to describe people.

Edited February 23, 2010 by Son of Placid

[Qa'im]

(wasalam)

You'd think the Sanhedrin would have remembered how many times "The son of God" was used in the OT to describe people.

But you see, this is part of the problem. Not only is the Old Testament filled with the term "Son of God", describing many people, but even in the Hebrew language, it was perfectly normal to call someone a Son of God. This expression referred to a righteous and godly person. The B'nei Yisrael considered themselves to be the children of God for this reason - so for the Sanhedrin to charge someone for claiming to be the Son of God raises an eyebrow. It's like charging a Canadian for saying "eh" ;), as the son of God expression was perfectly normal and not as trivial as it sounds in English. This is one of the many things that makes the event doubtful, brother.

[aladdin]

(wasalam)

But you see, this is part of the problem. Not only is the Old Testament filled with the term "Son of God", describing many people, but even in the Hebrew language, it was perfectly normal to call someone a Son of God. This expression referred to a righteous and godly person. The B'nei Yisrael considered themselves to be the children of God for this reason - so for the Sanhedrin to charge someone for claiming to be the Son of God raises an eyebrow. It's like charging a Canadian for saying "eh" ;), as the son of God expression was perfectly normal and not as trivial as it sounds in English. This is one of the many things that makes the event doubtful, brother.

Salam brother,

Very well said. Even in the OT, David calls himself the only begotten Son of God.

The gentile don't know the language of their lord Jesus. If they know, they would know that elohim doesn't mean god. Eloh in Hebrew and ilah in Arabic means judge, mighty, powerful, god and so forth. We have Jacob fighting Elohim and overcoming him.

Two of the four Testaments have Jesus verbally calling, "my god, my god.......

One of them has 'eli' and the other one has 'eloi', in both cases it should have been 'elohi'.

Add, to that the short vowels were added to the OT sometime in the 15th century.

[placid]

Hi Qa'im,

You have done a lot of studying, as you said, to prepare this, but there are a few discrepancies.

Your conclusion was:

Quote from Post 1:

These facts speak volumes about the historical accuracy of the New Testament. The likelihood of this taking place is very improbable, as the Sanhedrin strictly followed its code and traditional procedures in all trials. What we find in the Gospels resembles the Sanhedrin in no way. This means that either a) the authors were awfully misinformed on the traditions of the Sanhedrin, as they were Greeks, b ) the Jews had unusually and deliberately violated all of their traditions without the Gospel writers making note of this, or c) the trial simply did not occur. Either way, the story does not really add up.

Response --- While you portray the Sanhedrin as being made up of honorable men, their actions proved to be anything but honorable. --- Like these verses that SOP quoted:

John 11: "47. What are we accomplishing?" they asked. "Here is this man performing many miraculous signs.

48. If we let him go on like this, everyone will believe in him, and then the Romans will come and take away both our place and our nation."

49. Then one of them, named Caiaphas, who was high priest that year, spoke up, "You know nothing at all!

50. You do not realize that it is better for you that one man die for the people than that the whole nation perish."

--- From the time that the Wisemen came to Jerusalem and asked, "Where is He who is born King of the Jews?", there were attempts to put Him to death.

--- It was because the Heirarchy of the Jews did not accept Jesus, as the fulfilment of prophecy, as the common people did, that they were constantly conspiring to remove Him.

This prophesy was given in Jeremiah 31:

31. “Behold, the days are coming, says the LORD, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah—

32. not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt, My covenant which they broke, though I was a husband to them, says the LORD.

33. But this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, says the LORD: I will put My law in their minds, and write it on their hearts; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people.

34. No more shall every man teach his neighbor, and every man his brother, saying, ‘Know the LORD,’ for they all shall know Me, from the least of them to the greatest of them, says the LORD. For I will forgive their iniquity, and their sin I will remember no more.”

--- The Old Covenant of 'purification by animal sacrifices' had been annuled because the ones who offered the sacrifices were unholy, making the sacrifices of no value. --- God said, "My covenant which they broke, though I was a husband to them."

--- Jesus introduced the New Covenant which was the Gospel Message of loving God and your neighbor, plus, God said, "I will put My law in their minds, and write it on their hearts; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people."

--- In Acts 1:8 Jesus said, "You shall receive Power after the Holy Spirit has come upon you," --- and in Acts 2, the Holy Spirit was poured out on the Apostles and disciples, which was this Power coming upon them. --- This was the fulfilling of the New Covenant to Israel.

--- After the Pharisees tried different ways to accuse Jesus and arrest Him in daylight, they conspired to take Him by night, under the cover of darkness.

--- They paid a bribe --- which you say they wouldn't have done according to their law.

How about this one --- after the death and resurrection of Jesus?

Matthew 27: 62. On the next day, which followed the Day of Preparation, the chief priests and Pharisees gathered together to Pilate,

63. saying, “Sir, we remember, while He was still alive, how that deceiver said, ‘After three days I will rise.’

64. Therefore command that the tomb be made secure until the third day, lest His disciples come by night and steal Him away, and say to the people, ‘He has risen from the dead.’ So the last deception will be worse than the first.”

65. Pilate said to them, “You have a guard; go your way, make it as secure as you know how.”

66. So they went and made the tomb secure, sealing the stone and setting the guard.

28:1. Now after the Sabbath, as the first day of the week began to dawn, Mary Magdalene and the other Mary came to see the tomb.

2. And behold, there was a great earthquake; for an angel of the Lord descended from heaven, and came and rolled back the stone from the door, and sat on it.

3. His countenance was like lightning, and his clothing as white as snow.

4. And the guards shook for fear of him, and became like dead men.

11. Now while they were going, behold, some of the guard came into the city and reported to the chief priests all the things that had happened.

12. When they had assembled with the elders and consulted together, they gave a large sum of money to the soldiers,

13. saying, “Tell them, ‘His disciples came at night and stole Him away while we slept.’

14. And if this comes to the governor’s ears, we will appease him and make you secure.”

15 So they took the money and did as they were instructed.

--- Let's consider this kind of bribery for a moment.

1. The guards saw the angel who rolled away the stone and they fainted for fear, overwhelmed by the experience.

2. They went to the 'chief priests' to tell them what had happened.

3. They did not go to their headquarters, but waited till the chief priests and elders met and consulted together.

4. They gave a large sum of money to the soldiers --- a bribe, (or payoff with conditions).

5. --- Tell this lie --- "His disciples came at night and stole Him away while we slept."

6. --- The didciples would have to tiptoe over the sleeping guards, roll away the stone, carry the body of Jesus out of the tomb, (which had been temporarily embalmed by Joseph and Nicodemus so it would be much heavier), then tiptoe over the sleeping soldiers again. --- (Who would believe such a story?)

7. The penalty for Roman soldiers sleeping on the job would have been death.

8. --- BUT --- since the Jewish Heirarchy and the Romans, including Pilate, were in 'a negotiable position on both sides,' --- they needed not to worry.

9. --- If this comes to the Governor's ears, (if there is an inquiry) we will appease him, (perhaps with a bigger bribe).

10. --- "We will make you secure." --- This SPEAKS VOLUMES about the kind of collaboration that went on when the Jewish authorities could use the Temple 'tax money' to pay bribes to secure the safety of Roman soldiers and have them tell lies as a coverup to the truth that they all knew.

11. --- So they took the money and did as they were instructed.

12. --- So these soldiers were like pawns between the Pharisaic Heirarchy and the Romans in Jerusalem.

--- Are these the ones that you say wouldn't break a rule?

After knowing the truth about Jesus' resurrection they still denied and paid the soldiers to lie, does that not tell you that they were no longer servants of God, upholding truth and justice?

You said the Gospel writers were Greek, --- but not so. --- Matthew, Peter,and John were disciples of Christ from the beginning. They were chosen as Apostles. Mark, a disciple from his youth traveled with the Apostle Peter to Rome where he wrote his Gospel.

Luke was the only Greek and the only Gentile author in the NT who travelled with Paul. He wrote his Gospel for the Greeks.

I know you have heard this history before, --- but you lapse back to your own opinion. You seem to assume the position that --- you 'believe in Jesus as the Messiah', --- but you don't believe anything written about Him that Got Him to the position of sitting at the right hand of God, Surah 3:55.

Placid

[placid]

Hi Qa'im,

Quote from Post 4:

I think the reasoning for this was because the gentile Christians were living under Roman rule, and knew that it wasn't going away soon. If the Romans are depicted as a "hired gun" and not the real perpetrators of Jesus' crucifixion, then the Gospels would be telling the Romans "hey look, we're not your enemies, Pilate was a sympathetic man, it was those Jews that got him killed".

Response, --- There were no Gentile Christians in Jerusalem or anyplace during this time before Jesus' death.

All of His contact and ministry was with the Jews.

When He sent out the 12 disciples in Matthew 10, he sent them only to the Jews:

1. And when He had called His twelve disciples to Him, He gave them power over unclean spirits, to cast them out, and to heal all kinds of sickness and all kinds of disease.

2. Now the names of the twelve apostles are these: first, Simon, who is called Peter, and Andrew his brother; James the son of Zebedee, and John his brother;

3. Philip and Bartholomew; Thomas and Matthew the tax collector; James the son of Alphaeus, and Lebbaeus, whose surname was Thaddaeus;

4. Simon the Cananite, and Judas Iscariot, who also betrayed Him.

5 These twelve Jesus sent out and commanded them, saying: “Do not go into the way of the Gentiles, and do not enter a city of the Samaritans.

6. But go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.

7. And as you go, preach, saying, ‘The kingdom of heaven is at hand.’

8. Heal the sick, cleanse the lepers, raise the dead,[c] cast out demons. Freely you have received, freely give.

9. Provide neither gold nor silver nor copper in your money belts,

10. nor bag for your journey, nor two tunics, nor sandals, nor staffs; for a worker is worthy of his food.

In Matthew 15 Jesus healed a Canaanite woman's daughter, but before He did, he tested her faith:

21. Then Jesus went out from there and departed to the region of Tyre and Sidon.

22. And behold, a woman of Canaan came from that region and cried out to Him, saying, “Have mercy on me, O Lord, Son of David! My daughter is severely demon-possessed.”

23. But He answered her not a word.

And His disciples came and urged Him, saying, “Send her away, for she cries out after us.”

24. But He answered and said, “I was not sent except to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.”

25. Then she came and worshiped Him, saying, “Lord, help me!”

26. But He answered and said, “It is not good to take the children’s bread and throw it to the little dogs.”

27, And she said, “Yes, Lord, yet even the little dogs eat the crumbs which fall from their masters’ table.”

28. Then Jesus answered and said to her, “O woman, great is your faith! Let it be to you as you desire.” And her daughter was healed from that very hour.

It was after the illegal stoning of Stephen that the disciples went to Judea and Samaria. Acts 8:

1. Now Saul was consenting to his death.

At that time a great persecution arose against the church which was at Jerusalem; and they were all scattered throughout the regions of Judea and Samaria, except the apostles.

4. Therefore those who were scattered went everywhere preaching the word.

5. Then Philip (the Deacon, not the Apostle) went down to the city of Samaria and preached Christ to them.

6. And the multitudes with one accord heeded the things spoken by Philip, hearing and seeing the miracles which he did.

7. For unclean spirits, crying with a loud voice, came out of many who were possessed; and many who were paralyzed and lame were healed.

8. And there was great joy in that city.

Those in Judea were Jews, and those in Samaria were half Jews. They were witnessed to within perhaps two years of Jesus death, sometime after the Deacons had been chosen.

--- One of the first times that the Apostles went to Gentiles was when Peter went to the house of Cornelius, the Roman Centurian in Acts 10:1-48, which was over five years after the time of Jesus' empowering the Apostles with the Holy Spirit on the day of Pentecost.

In Acts 14 it records that many of the Jews and Greeks believed:

1. Now it happened in Iconium that they went together to the synagogue of the Jews, and so spoke that a great multitude both of the Jews and of the Greeks believed.

This was over 10 years after the time of Jesus.

It has been a misconception that the New Covenant was given to the Gentiles because the first thousands of Christians were all Jews. --- Then the Jews preached to the Gentiles.

It was after this persecution and scattering that Paul was still persecuting the Church and you know the story of his conversion from Acts 9. After that he spent three years in Arabia before he began preaching to Gentiles.

It would be perhaps five years after Jesus' death that Paul began preaching.

Since he was not welcome in Jerusalem he went with Barnabas to Antioch and later started the missionary journeys.

This is all great history that is written in the Acts of the Apostles.

Placid

[Qa'im]

(wasalam)

Of course the vast majority of Jesus' (as) followers were Jews, but the Gospel writers weren't. Hence, the writers couldn't depict the Romans as the true killers of Jesus, and put complete blame on the Jews, to prevent persecution in the growing Christian presence in Roman territories. This is also why the Gospel writers wrote anonymously.

I know I won't be able to convince you as I have explained many times before, but read the book "James the brother of Jesus" by Robert Eisenman, one of the best in the world. You can read about him here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Eisenman and he is definitely worth more his salt.

[placid]

Hi Qa'im,

Quote: I know I won't be able to convince you as I have explained many times before

--- You are right. You are trying to 'convince' me that the Bible is not true. That the Gospel was fabricated.

Today in our Church service we had two men from Peru who were descendants of the ancient Incas. They are part of an organization called Partners International. Their messages were interpreted into English by a Spanish Pastor that accompanied them. They spoke of their work of evangelizing and educating their own people in Peru.

If the Gospel was false, then God would not continue to bless it in helping people around the world as He does.

If the Gospel was false then Gabriel would not have said this to Muhammadin in Surah 3:

2. Allah! There is no God save Him, the Alive, the Eternal.

3. He hath revealed unto thee (Muhammad) the Scripture with truth, confirming that which was (revealed) before it, even as He revealed the Torah and the Gospel.

4. Aforetime, for a guidance to mankind; and hath revealed the Criterion (of right and wrong). Lo! those who disbelieve the revelations of Allah, theirs will be a heavy doom. Allah is Mighty, Able to Requite (the wrong).

And verse 7, He it is Who hath revealed unto thee (Muhammad) the Scripture wherein are clear revelations - they are the substance of the Book --- None knoweth its explanation save Allah. --- And those who are of sound instruction say: We believe therein; the whole is from our Lord; but only men of understanding really heed.

--- (None knows its explanation except God, --- and those to whom He reveals it through His Holy Spirit.)

If the Gospel was false, Gabriel, who would know the truth, would not have approved the Gospel in the various translations that were avilable in AD 624, would he? He would have revealed the mistakes and made corrections would he not?

If the Gospel was false and Christians were deluded, these recommendations would not have been given to Muhammad, would they?

2:62. Lo! those who believe (in that which is revealed unto thee, Muhammad), and those who are Jews, and Christians, and Sabaeans --- whoever believes in Allah and the Last Day and does right --- surely their reward is with their Lord, and there shall no fear come upon them neither shall they grieve.

2:97. Say (O Muhammad, to mankind): Who is an enemy to Gabriel! For he it is who hath revealed (this Scripture) to thy heart by Allah's leave, confirming that which was (revealed) before it, and a guidance and glad tidings to believers;

--- And this instruction in 10:94:

And if thou (Muhammad) art in doubt concerning that which We reveal unto thee, then question those who read the Scripture (that was) before thee. Verily the Truth from thy Lord hath come unto thee. So be not thou of the waverers.

--- In doubting the crucifixion story you also discredit the Jewish historian, Josephus, who wrote in the Antiquities of the Jews, quote:

'Now there was about this time, Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call Him a man, for He was a doer of wonderful works, --- a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to Him both many of the Jews and many of the Gentiles. He was the Christ; and when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men among us, had condemned Him to the cross, those who loved Him at the first did not forsake Him, for He appeared to them alive again the third day, as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning Him; and the tribe of Christians, so named from Him, are not extinct at this day.' --- End of quote.

--- Another interesting thing is that under the topic 'Vast Christian writings' where the Poster lists many books and diaries, --- there is none that is called 'The Injeel.

If one of the first writings was 'The sayings of Jesus' in Aramaic, then I am sure that these sayings are included in the 'Sayings of Jesus' in the Gospels.

If you find a 'Red Letter Edition' where all the sayings of Jesus are in red, you might examine that to see what He prophesied before His death.

Qa'im I have great respect for Muhammad and all the Scripture written in the Quran.

It is interesting that I want to believe all the above verses I have quoted because they verify that the Quran 'confirms' the former Scriptures, --- but nowhere do they say that they 'replace' the former Scriptures, do they?

I simply believe the Bible as God has preserved it for us, and so we teach it as the Word of God.

I read the link you suggested and found nothing but opinions and speculation from the 20th century Archeologist and the one commenting on his opinions.

I have one question from that.

What was the supposed split between James and Paul?

Placid

[Leda]

What was Jesus crime? What blasphemy Jesus was accused of?

Can you please quote the revenant verses?

Jesus (aw) was charged with sedition which means inciting rebellion against Roman rule and against Caeser. The Jews could only hold him accountable for his "religious" crimes, such as Sharia is our law, Jews had their own religious laws apart from Roman rules. Taking him to the house of Caipahas was an attempt to break him, to insult and hurt him and to scare him and his followers. No doubt they truly wanted to be rid of him, but they had to tread carefully because they did not want to break their own religious rules in getting rid of him. So they used the Romans to do their dirty work. I think Judas was a part written into this to give it drama, because everyone knew who Jesus was, and if Judas existed at all Jesus already knew that Judas was a betrayer. Why didn't Jesus run? Well given the prophecies he knew he was going to die. So why run. On the other hand perhaps he had run out of places to run, and clearly people were falling away from him and weak. Peter even denied him, they slept while he cried and prayed, the disciples are usually depicted with such pomp and glory but really they were a rag tag group of rough Galleans and probably not that religious.

:angel: Jesus broke no Jewish law therefore the Jews turned him over to the Romans no doubt because they were corrupt and the Romans likely owed the Sanhedrin members favors. Both sides wanted to be free of Jesus because he was a "trouble maker" in their eyes. The Romans didn't care quite as much as the Jews because the Romans had a world to rule. However Judea was a hotspot and a problem for Rome, not big but trouble. The Jews desired peace so with the Romans they even burned sacrifices in their temple for the Romans, another reason why Jesus was so inspired to change things. Josephus chronicles well a lot of this stuff.

If you want to know more about Jesus and his trial and his teachings read the bible for yourself. Also read Josephus. There are many very well written and researched books on Jesus and his life. :Hijabi:

[placid]

Hi Leda,

Quote from above:

I think Judas was a part written into this to give it drama, because everyone knew who Jesus was, and if Judas existed at all Jesus already knew that Judas was a betrayer. Why didn't Jesus run? Well given the prophecies he knew he was going to die. So why run. On the other hand perhaps he had run out of places to run,

--- Judas was chosen as one of the twelve. It was prophesied that he would betray Jesus. In going to the chief priests and saying, "What will you give me if I deliver Him unto you?" --- And they agreed and paid him 30 pieces of silver.

Matthew 26:

20. When evening had come, He sat down with the twelve.

21. Now as they were eating, He said, “Assuredly, I say to you, one of you will betray Me.”

22. And they were exceedingly sorrowful, and each of them began to say to Him, “Lord, is it I?”

23. He answered and said, “He who dipped his hand with Me in the dish will betray Me.

24. The Son of Man indeed goes just as it is written of Him, but woe to that man by whom the Son of Man is betrayed! It would have been good for that man if he had not been born.”

25. Then Judas, who was betraying Him, answered and said, “Rabbi, is it I?”

He said to him, “You have said it.”

John speaks of the same evening in John 13:

1. Now before the Feast of the Passover, when Jesus knew that His hour had come that He should depart from this world to the Father, having loved His own who were in the world, He loved them to the end.

2. And supper being ended, the devil having already put it into the heart of Judas Iscariot, Simon’s son, to betray Him,

3. Jesus, knowing that the Father had given all things into His hands, and that He had come from God and was going to God,

4. rose from supper and laid aside His garments, took a towel and girded Himself.

5. After that, He poured water into a basin and began to wash the disciples’ feet, and to wipe them with the towel with which He was girded.

12. So when He had washed their feet, taken His garments, and sat down again, He said to them, “Do you know what I have done to you?

13. You call Me Teacher and Lord, and you say well, for so I am.

14. If I then, your Lord and Teacher, have washed your feet, you also ought to wash one another’s feet.

15. For I have given you an example, that you should do as I have done to you.

16. Most assuredly, I say to you, a servant is not greater than his master; nor is he who is sent greater than he who sent him.

17. If you know these things, blessed are you if you do them.

Jesus showed His humility by washing the disciples feet and giving them the example to follow.

Jesus knew that Judas was planning to betray Him and identified who it was:

26. Jesus answered, “It is he to whom I shall give a piece of bread when I have dipped it.” And having dipped the bread, He gave it to Judas Iscariot, the son of Simon.

27. Now after the piece of bread, Satan entered him. Then Jesus said to him, “What you do, do quickly.”

28. But no one at the table knew for what reason He said this to him.

Satan had used Judas then left him in his own guilt. He returned the bribe money

Matthew 27:

1 When morning came, all the chief priests and elders of the people plotted against Jesus to put Him to death.

2. And when they had bound Him, they led Him away and delivered Him to Pontius Pilate the governor.

3. Then Judas, His betrayer, seeing that He had been condemned, was remorseful and brought back the thirty pieces of silver to the chief priests and elders,

4. saying, “I have sinned by betraying innocent blood.”

And they said, “What is that to us? You see to it!”

5. Then he threw down the pieces of silver in the temple and departed, and went and hanged himself.

--- Do you suppose that after Judas had 'repented in himself'', --- if he had gone to Jesus and asked forgiveness, that Jesus would have forgiven him?

Judas took his own life for his crime as he had become a pawn of Satan.

Placid

[placid]

Hi Leda,

There was something else I wanted to comment on from the same paragraph:

Quote: --- Why didn't Jesus run? Well given the prophecies he knew he was going to die. So why run. On the other hand perhaps he had run out of places to run, and clearly people were falling away from him and weak. Peter even denied him, they slept while he cried and prayed, the disciples are usually depicted with such pomp and glory but really they were a rag tag group of rough Galleans and probably not that religious.

--- Jesus had said plainly that He was going to be put to death as in John 12:

23. But Jesus answered them, saying, “The hour has come that the Son of Man should be glorified.

24. Most assuredly, I say to you, unless a grain of wheat falls into the ground and dies, it remains alone; but if it dies, it produces much grain.

25. He who loves his life will lose it, and he who hates his life in this world will keep it for eternal life.

26. If anyone serves Me, let him follow Me; and where I am, there My servant will be also. If anyone serves Me, him My Father will honor.

27. “Now My soul is troubled, and what shall I say? ‘Father, save Me from this hour’? But for this purpose I came to this hour. 28. Father, glorify Your name.”

Then a voice came from heaven, saying, “I have both glorified it and will glorify it again.”

While the Disciples were a 'rag tag' group of men from various backgrounds, they were very devoted to Jesus and would be in danger of suffering with Him or being put in Jail had they offered much resistance.

It is interesting that Peter had a sword, and when they came to take Jesus, Peter would have defended Him:

10. Then Simon Peter, having a sword, drew it and struck the high priest’s servant, and cut off his right ear. The servant’s name was Malchus.

11. So Jesus said to Peter, “Put your sword into the sheath. Shall I not drink the cup which My Father has given Me?”

(Jesus had to let Peter express himself and then teach him the lesson that His mission was Spiritual and therefore, non-violent. --- In Luke 22:51, Jesus 'touvhed his ear and healed him.')

--- Can you imagine the impression that 'healing' would have on the gang who came to arrest Jesus, as well as the disciples?

--- That even at the time of His arrest He would heal one of the enemy?

As they went to the trial the disciples followed at a distance, as did Peter and John. John 18:

15. And Simon Peter followed Jesus, and so did another disciple (John). Now that disciple was known to the high priest, and went with Jesus into the courtyard of the high priest.

16. But Peter stood at the door outside. Then the other disciple, who was known to the high priest, went out and spoke to her who kept the door, and brought Peter in.

17. Then the servant girl who kept the door said to Peter, “You are not also one of this Man’s disciples, are you?”

He said, “I am not.”

--- Peter was going into a dangerous place. --- He wanted to be there at the trial but he had cut off the ear of the high priest's servant, so he didn't want to be pointed out and he denied that he was a disciple of Jesus.

Peter was further humbled when the rooster crowed and reminded him that Jesus said he would deny Him. Matthew 26:75 says, "Immediately a rooster crowed. 75 And Peter remembered the word of Jesus who had said to him, “Before the rooster crows, you will deny Me three times.” So he went out and wept bitterly.

--- (I believe this is when Peter really repented and surrendered all to Jesus, which he hadn't done before.

The other thing I want to point out is that --- rather than Jesus losing followers, as you suggest, --- Jesus had reached the height of popularity and entered Jerusalem a few days earlier as the King of the Jews. --- This is what triggered the Jewish leaders to take fast action.

Notice what John 12 says:

12. The next day a great multitude that had come to the feast, when they heard that Jesus was coming to Jerusalem,

13. took branches of palm trees and went out to meet Him, and cried out:

“ Hosanna!

‘ Blessed is He who comes in the name of the LORD!’

The King of Israel!”

14. Then Jesus, when He had found a young donkey, sat on it; as it is written:

15. “Fear not, daughter of Zion;

Behold, your King is coming,

Sitting on a donkey’s colt.”

--- While some expected Jesus to raise up an army to free Israel from the tyrrany of Rome, He said, "My kingdom is not of this world."

Placid