-->
@Tradesecret
Apart from your notion that it was a capital offence. - I am sure that even ruling members of the council could make excuses not to be there. holidays - wives having babies - sickness. emergency councils when members were visiting other parts of the country..Very lame for such and educated person as yourself. But if that is all you have as a rebuttal, then you have nothing imo.I guess that is your "gotcha this time" move - or distraction at the least - telling us you don't have any specific evidence from the Bible telling us that both / or either of Nicodemus or Joseph was there.
You can see it any way you choose but I stand by what I have said purely by the fact that both these biblical characters were highly respected and high in the ranks of the Great Sanhedrin Council of Jerusalem.
Where is your evidence that these two must have been there under threat of capital punishment?
I haven't said that. I have simply pointed out that blasphemy is/ was a capital crime and at that this particular trial - depending on which gospel you choose to believe- Jesus is said to have been guilty of blasphemy. Try reading Matthew 26: 65-66. <<< that clearly says blasphemy is a capital offence. You cannot hold me at fault because you don't know or understand your scriptures.
Do you not have any idea at all as to who these "certain" accusers were, Tradesecret?I have never given it much thought -
That doesn't surprise me in least.
So I am content to say "I don't know who it was" but I am confident of who it wasn't. It wasn't Nicodemus and it wasn't Joseph of Arimathea.
And you believe this why?
I also highly doubt it was any of Jesus' disciples,
And you believe this why?
The point of this thread is an attempt to identify who these two "certain " accusers were. As I have explained, the curiosity for me arises because that after all of the "many witnesses" were dismissed we then have two "certain witnesses" that the bible sets apart from the "many witnesses".? Add to this that after all of Jesus' disciples had "fled" these two disciples decided it would be a good idea, to not only follow Jesus, but to enter the courtyard where the trial was being held. I find that intriguing.
And I also highly doubt it was any of Jesus' disciples, including Judas Iscariot.
Yes, Judas, he that "Satan entered".
Judas was already known to the authorities before the arrest of Jesus, wasn't he, via the betrayal for money/ a bribe? Doesn't John's gospel state that of the two that followed after Jesus' arrest that one of the two was well-known to Caiaphas the chief priest?
Indeed, there are more questions than answers. Such is the nature of the NT scriptures.