The Story of the "certain" Witnesses?

Author: Stephen

Posts

Total: 166
Topic's author
#1
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,615
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2


Has anyone ever considered the New Testament story of the so called " certain false witnesses"?

After his arrest Jesus , it is written, was taken first to the home of Annas where he was slapped around and spat on then turned over to someone in a higher authority, Caiaphas.   But they had a problem. Under Mosaic law and the book of Deuteronomy, they had to have two witnesses to whatever the crime it was Jesus is alleged to have committed.

   According to Mark;
“the chief priests and all the council sought for witness against Jesus to put him to death; and found none”, Mark 15:55-56. KJV.

Then immediately, this happens:


Suddenly they find two “false” witnesses, who are willing to come forward and testify with stories that did tally;
“ And there arose certain, and bare false witness against him, saying We heard him say, I will destroy this temple that is made with hands, and within three days I will build another made without hands”. Mark14:57-58.KJV

Among the many other questions that the story of Jesus' arrest and trial raises, one has to ask,  why are these "certain" star witnesses never directly named?
#2
Best.Korea
Best.Korea's avatar
Debates: 357
Posts: 10,624
4
6
10
Best.Korea's avatar
Best.Korea
4
6
10
People need to learn not to question the Bible.

If Bible didnt provide names, it means they didnt have names.
#3
BrotherD.Thomas
BrotherD.Thomas's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,145
3
3
7
BrotherD.Thomas's avatar
BrotherD.Thomas
3
3
7
-->
@Stephen


.
Stephen,

YOUR BIBLICAL QUOTE RELATIVE TO JESUS: "“the chief priests and all the council sought for witness against Jesus to put him to death; and found none”, Mark 15:55-56. KJV."

What has always upset me, is the fact that if Jesus let Himself die on the cross, that explicitly shows Him to be a weak God since He was Yahweh God incarnate (Colossians 2:9).  Do you think that the God Zeus, that is within the JUDEO-Christian Bible, would let Himself die, NOT, since He was the king of all gods! Its too bad that Jesus wasn't a stronger God for us TRUE Christians like myself.  :(

.


#4
K_Michael
K_Michael's avatar
Debates: 38
Posts: 749
4
5
10
K_Michael's avatar
K_Michael
4
5
10
-->
@Stephen
Does the same passage name every member of the chief priests and council? No. Either they weren't important enough to put down their names, or the one writing didn't find out their names.
#5
Shila
Shila's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,006
3
3
5
Shila's avatar
Shila
3
3
5
-->
@Stephen
Has anyone ever considered the New Testament story of the so called " certain false witnesses"?

After his arrest Jesus , it is written, was taken first to the home of Annas where he was slapped around and spat on then turned over to someone in a higher authority, Caiaphas.   But they had a problem. Under Mosaic law and the book of Deuteronomy, they had to have two witnesses to whatever the crime it was Jesus is alleged to have committed.

   According to Mark;
“the chief priests and all the council sought for witness against Jesus to put him to death; and found none”, Mark 15:55-56. KJV.

Then immediately, this happens:


Suddenly they find two “false” witnesses, who are willing to come forward and testify with stories that did tally;
“ And there arose certain, and bare false witness against him, saying We heard him say, I will destroy this temple that is made with hands, and within three days I will build another made without hands”. Mark14:57-58.KJV

Among the many other questions that the story of Jesus' arrest and trial raises, one has to ask,  why are these "certain" star witnesses never directly named?
Stephen, you totally missed the message in Mark 14 and Mark 15.

Mark was giving examples of how Jesus was setup at the trial and false witnesses were brought so that charges of blasphemy could be laid on Jesus.

The  fact that no names were mentioned proves Jesus was tried in a Kangaroo Court.

Topic's author
#6
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,615
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@Shila
Has anyone ever considered the New Testament story of the so called " certain false witnesses"?

After his arrest Jesus , it is written, was taken first to the home of Annas where he was slapped around and spat on then turned over to someone in a higher authority, Caiaphas.   But they had a problem. Under Mosaic law and the book of Deuteronomy, they had to have two witnesses to whatever the crime it was Jesus is alleged to have committed.

   According to Mark;
“the chief priests and all the council sought for witness against Jesus to put him to death; and found none”, Mark 15:55-56. KJV.

Then immediately, this happens:


Suddenly they find two “false” witnesses, who are willing to come forward and testify with stories that did tally;
“ And there arose certain, and bare false witness against him, saying We heard him say, I will destroy this temple that is made with hands, and within three days I will build another made without hands”. Mark14:57-58.KJV

Among the many other questions that the story of Jesus' arrest and trial raises, one has to ask,  why are these "certain" star witnesses never directly named?
Stephen, you totally missed the message in Mark 14 and Mark 15.
The  fact that no names were mentioned proves Jesus was tried in a Kangaroo Court.

I didn't miss the point. I agree with you.  My point is that this was the greatest miscarriage of Justice in all of Christendom, and these two "certain" witnesses are not even named. Why do you think they remained anonymous?


Topic's author
#7
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,615
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@K_Michael
Does the same passage name every member of the chief priests and council? No.

It is enough that we know that Jesus was brought for trial into the council of the Sanhedrin. This was the highest ruling council of the Jews. While the Sanhedrin gathered, Jesus was held at the house of Annas, former high priest.   The bible tells us that when Jesus was on trial the high priest was Caiaphas, I understand perfectly that this enclave was determined to rid themselves of Jesus. 
But you have also missed the point. These two "certain " witnesses were key witnesses and their testimony was key to the death of Christ, were they not?

I find it unbelievable that these gospel writers would take the time to mention a non-entity such as Malchus a lowly servant of the high priest that had his ear removed by Simon Peter but then omit to mention the names of these two-star witnesses whose "false" testimony had led to the death of a man. Don't you?



#8
K_Michael
K_Michael's avatar
Debates: 38
Posts: 749
4
5
10
K_Michael's avatar
K_Michael
4
5
10
-->
@Stephen
Witness protection program.
#9
Shila
Shila's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,006
3
3
5
Shila's avatar
Shila
3
3
5
-->
@Stephen
-> @Shila
Has anyone ever considered the New Testament story of the so called " certain false witnesses"?

After his arrest Jesus , it is written, was taken first to the home of Annas where he was slapped around and spat on then turned over to someone in a higher authority, Caiaphas.   But they had a problem. Under Mosaic law and the book of Deuteronomy, they had to have two witnesses to whatever the crime it was Jesus is alleged to have committed.

   According to Mark;
“the chief priests and all the council sought for witness against Jesus to put him to death; and found none”, Mark 15:55-56. KJV.

Then immediately, this happens:


Suddenly they find two “false” witnesses, who are willing to come forward and testify with stories that did tally;
“ And there arose certain, and bare false witness against him, saying We heard him say, I will destroy this temple that is made with hands, and within three days I will build another made without hands”. Mark14:57-58.KJV

Among the many other questions that the story of Jesus' arrest and trial raises, one has to ask,  why are these "certain" star witnesses never directly named?
Stephen, you totally missed the message in Mark 14 and Mark 15.
The  fact that no names were mentioned proves Jesus was tried in a Kangaroo Court.

I didn't miss the point. I agree with you.  My point is that this was the greatest miscarriage of Justice in all of Christendom, and these two "certain" witnesses are not even named. Why do you think they remained anonymous?
It was a Kangaroo Court. Conducted in secret so little details were provided.

Jesus was even found innocent by Pilate. Yet the crucifixion was carried through. Jesus had predicted his death.

Luke 23:13 Pilate called together the chief priests, the rulers and the people, 14 and said to them, “You brought me this man as one who was inciting the people to rebellion. I have examined him in your presence and have found no basis for your charges against him. 15 Neither has Herod, for he sent him back to us; as you can see, he has done nothing to deserve death. 16 Therefore, I will punish him and then release him.” 
Topic's author
#10
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,615
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@K_Michael
Witness protection program.

Well, KM, if this trial actually took place at all, then as silly as it sounds, you may not be far off the mark with that comment.

As it appears to be that the gospel writers are indeed attempting to hide the identity of both these "certain" star witnesses. It could be the case that these
"certain " witnesses, where two of Jesus' own. We shall have to see.

To my knowledge these two "certain" witnesses would have been separated and interrogated at length with all sorts of questions to establish the facts about where they were at the time and what the exact conditions were first and how they would be in a position to be able to testify in the first place according to the Jewish rules of the Torah.
 The goal in a religious trial is to find fault with their separate testimony in order to find the person guilty or not guilty.

I am sure our resident Rabbi rosends will be quick to correct me if I am wrong.

Topic's author
#11
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,615
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@Shila
It was a Kangaroo Court. Conducted in secret so little details were provided.

 Yes I know.  I have read the story often from the arrest to the death, so please stop repeating yourself when I have already agreed your point.
Its funny isn't it, that as you state, Jesus was brought before Pilate on accusations of "rebellion", yet the trial held by the Sanhedrin was all to do with accusations of "blasphemy" for which he was found to be guilty. 

And you also make the point that the trial was "conducted in secret", which begs the question of - how were the "secret" proceeding abled to be written about decades later?
Never mind, we can get to that in another thread.
#12
Shila
Shila's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,006
3
3
5
Shila's avatar
Shila
3
3
5
-->
@Stephen
--> @Shila
It was a Kangaroo Court. Conducted in secret so little details were provided.

 Yes I know.  I have read the story often from the arrest to the death, so please stop repeating yourself when I have already agreed your point.
It funny isn't it, that as you state, Jesus was brought before Pilate on accusations of "rebellion", yet the trial held by the Sanhedrin was all to do with accusations of "blasphemy". 

And you also make the point that the trial was "conducted in secret", which begs the question of - how were the proceeding abled to be recorded decades later?
Never mind, we can get to that in another thread.
The facts about the case were gathered decades after the crucifixion when it was no longer a threat to the disciples.
The charge of blasphemy by the High Priests did not hold up in the Roman court because blasphemy was not considered a crime. Even the charge of rebellion failed in Pilates view. 
But the crucifixion fulfilled the prophecy of Daniel.

Topic's author
#13
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,615
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@Shila
The charge of blasphemy by the High Priests did not hold up in the Roman court.

Yes, I know. And I think that should say "wouldn't" hold up.

And I shall keep your response in mind.  But like I have said, those points can be taken up another time on another thread.

This thread is concerned only with these two anonymous "certain witnesses".
#14
Public-Choice
Public-Choice's avatar
Debates: 19
Posts: 1,065
3
4
8
Public-Choice's avatar
Public-Choice
3
4
8
-->
@Stephen
Well they could have been two random people on the street whom the pharisees gave large sums of money to.

Remember that, according to Irenaeus, Luke's gospel came from Paul the Apostle. (Against Heresies Book 3 chapter 1) Paul, in Galatians 1:18 and 2:2-3, said he went around questioning people and studying the gospel and the theology behind it to see if it was true.

Additionally Luke said himself that he investigated everything thoroughly. This is why we have such things that are not contained in the other gospels, like Mary's genealogy, the magnificat, and other such very personal details that could only have arisen by actually interviewing people.

So it is likely that the two false witnesses were just random people whom the Pharisees paid money to lie.
Topic's author
#15
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,615
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@Public-Choice
Well they could have been two random people on the street whom the pharisees gave large sums of money to.......
So it is likely that the two false witnesses were just random people whom the Pharisees paid money to lie.

Just so I am clear,  you are suggesting bribes?
#16
Public-Choice
Public-Choice's avatar
Debates: 19
Posts: 1,065
3
4
8
Public-Choice's avatar
Public-Choice
3
4
8
-->
@Stephen
Well, upon going back to the Bible to reread the passage, in Matthew it says they found many false witnesses but finally two guys said something truthful about Jesus but twisted the context of it.

Furthermore, in Mark 14 it says the same thing.

Now the chief priests and the whole Sanhedrin were seeking testimony against Jesus to put Him to death, but they did not find any. For many bore false witness against Jesus, but their testimony was inconsistent. 

Then some men stood up and testified falsely against Him: “We heard Him say, ‘I will destroy this man-made temple, and in three days I will build another that is made without hands.’ ” But even their testimony was inconsistent. (Mark 14:55-59) BSB
And in Matthew 26:

Now the chief priests and the whole Sanhedrin were seeking false testimony against Jesus in order to put Him to death. But they did not find any, though many false witnesses came forward.

Finally two came forward and declared, “This man said, ‘I am able to destroy the temple of God and rebuild it in three days.’ ” (Matthew 26:59-61) BSB
So to answer your question they were a bunch of people who said things but their testimonies we're inconsistent, even the two that said one factually truthful claim. 

But specifically as to why I think they were paid off, the story of Judas is the reason for my inference. The Pharisees paid Judas 30 pieces of silver to betray Christ. If they paid him off, why is it so crazy to assume they paid off the people to lie? After all, lying was a punishable offense in Jewish Law. Who would lie for no reason? Money, however, is a clear motivator. The money had to come from SOMEWHERE. This was why the Pharisees tried to unload Judas's money on Potter's field, because it was blood money.
Topic's author
#17
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,615
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@Public-Choice

even the two that said one factually truthful claim. 

If you refer above to the two "certain witnesses" then I know, and  I will be coming to that shortly, PC.



But specifically as to why I think they were paid off, the story of Judas is the reason for my inference. .............. Who would lie for no reason? Money, however, is a clear motivator. 

 So you are saying then that you have no reason  not to believe they bribed these "certain" witnesses", yes or no?


#18
Public-Choice
Public-Choice's avatar
Debates: 19
Posts: 1,065
3
4
8
Public-Choice's avatar
Public-Choice
3
4
8
-->
@Stephen
I think it is likely.
Topic's author
#19
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,615
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@Public-Choice
We mustn't lose sight of the fact that the bible says that “many witnesses” had already came forward and seemingly were found to be unreliable or as the bible states “false”. Matthew 26:60, This suggests some sort of vetting process as I suggested here> #10

But then in the same verse the bible states that they eventually did find two “certain” witnesses that, for reasons known only to themselves, decided that their testimony was acceptable. This is more than suspicious and not just the obvious reason the bible states.
Why had they rejected all of those other many “false witnesses” and then suddenly decide that the testimonies of the two particular “certain” false witnesses was somewhat valid?


The accusation from these “certain” witnesses was that Jesus, after being asked for a “sign” to prove his authority is alleged by them to have said:

“ I am able to destroy the temple, and build it in three days”. Matthew 26:61.

So was their testimony true? Did Jesus actually say he was able destroy the temple and rebuild it in three days? Well, the answer is: not entirely true. Because the bible passage actually reads:

John 2:18 - The Jews then responded to him, “What sign can you show us to prove your authority to do all this?”19Jesus answered them,“Destroy this temple, and I will raise it again in three days.”

So there was certainly indeed some truth to their testimony. The only part that can be in dispute is the beginning of John which omits _ “ I am able to”.

But up to this point none of this identifies these two “certain witnesses” or gives us the reason why the gospel writers choose to keep them anonymous.


#20
Public-Choice
Public-Choice's avatar
Debates: 19
Posts: 1,065
3
4
8
Public-Choice's avatar
Public-Choice
3
4
8
-->
@Stephen
This suggests some sort of vetting process as I suggested here> #10
So in the Ancient Jewish trial system, at least as I understand it, there was a period of questioning of the witnesses. That is how their stories we're inconsistent, in addition to their not having the same details of things.

for reasons known only to themselves, decided that their testimony was acceptable.
As stated before, their stories were also inconsistent according to Matthew's account. So they had that one phrase right but they were inconsistent on other stuff.

But up to this point none of this identifies these two “certain witnesses” or gives us the reason why the gospel writers choose to keep them anonymous.
They kept all the other witnesses "anonymous" too. If you read the accounts this is based off Peter being in the back and watching to see what happened. 

Are we to assume all Jewish people know each other? They were probably people Peter never saw before. Why didn't they name the names of all the other witnesses as well? 

They also don't name all the Roman centurions, the ones who whipped Jesus, etc. etc. I just fail to see how not naming two people is some big problem here. This doesn't mean they didn't witness what they witnessed. People witness things all the time. They don't know the names of everyone involved.
Topic's author
#21
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,615
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@Public-Choice
But up to this point none of this identifies these two “certain witnesses” or gives us the reason why the gospel writers choose to keep them anonymous.
They kept all the other witnesses "anonymous" too.
[A]That was simply because they weren't used in the actual proceedings.


Why didn't they name the names of all the other witnesses as well? 

See  [A] above.

I just fail to see how not naming two people is some big problem here.

As I explained already and very clearly above#6  ; My point is that this was the greatest miscarriage of Justice in all of Christendom, and these two "certain" witnesses are not even named.

and  #7 : I find it unbelievable that these gospel writers would take the time to mention a non-entity such as Malchus a lowly servant of the high priest that had his ear removed by Simon Peter but then omit to mention the names of these two-star witnesses whose "false" testimony had led to the death of a man. Don't you?
#22
Public-Choice
Public-Choice's avatar
Debates: 19
Posts: 1,065
3
4
8
Public-Choice's avatar
Public-Choice
3
4
8
-->
@Stephen
Their names aren't important to the story. They were random people who made a testimony. The act of misjustice was the whole event.In Isaiah 53:7 it states that Jesus would be accused and not open his mouth:

"He was oppressed and afflicted, yet He did not open His mouth. He was led like a lamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep before her shearers is silent, so He did not open His mouth." (BSB)
The false witnesses fulfilled prophecy. Their names aren't what's important here, what is important is the prophecy they fulfilled. In many of the personal interactions that Jesus had with others, the Apostles record them in the gospels. This is because they were personal interactions. The names were mentioned and they were important conversations. The emphasis in the testimony before Caiaphas is the event itself, not the names of the many false witnesses. It was Bible prophecy being fulfilled.

take the time to mention a non-entity such as Malchus
Well think about it here, the man had his ear removed. Wouldn't that have been an extremely unbelievable story? Surely people would be wanting to investigate that, right? Also, if he was a servant of the priests, then they would have known who he was. Temple membership was well-known at that time period. Genealogies were significantly more important than they are today. People's entire claim to being Jewish rested on it. The same with the temple proceedings. Being a servant of a Rabbi was rather important of a position. 
Topic's author
#23
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,615
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@Public-Choice
Their names aren't important to the story. 

The greatest miscarriage in the history of all Christendom and you believe that the testimonies or the identities of these two "certain" witnesses that led to the death of an innocent godman are not important.

I respect your opinion. But it's not my own,PC.
#24
rosends
rosends's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 806
3
2
6
rosends's avatar
rosends
3
2
6
-->
@Public-Choice
Being a servant of a Rabbi was rather important of a position.
do you have any sort of corroboration for this claim?
#25
K_Michael
K_Michael's avatar
Debates: 38
Posts: 749
4
5
10
K_Michael's avatar
K_Michael
4
5
10
-->
@Stephen
Its funny isn't it, that as you state, Jesus was brought before Pilate on accusations of "rebellion", yet the trial held by the Sanhedrin was all to do with accusations of "blasphemy" for which he was found to be guilty. 
Pilate was the Roman governor. He wouldn't be handling charges of blasphemy against the Torah/Talmud, especially as he wasn't Jewish. The Sanhedrin would have been a local court directly related to the Rabbinic Church.
#26
Shila
Shila's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,006
3
3
5
Shila's avatar
Shila
3
3
5
-->
@Stephen

--> @Shila
The charge of blasphemy by the High Priests did not hold up in the Roman court.

Yes, I know. And I think that should say "wouldn't" hold up.
The charge of blasphemy by the High Priests did not hold up in the Roman court. So another charge of rebellion was used to convict Jesus.
The charge of blasphemy by the High Priests did not hold up in the Roman court because blasphemy was not considered a crime. Even the charge of rebellion failed in Pilates view.

Jesus was even found innocent by Pilate. Yet the crucifixion was carried through. Jesus had predicted his death.

Luke 23:13 Pilate called together the chief priests, the rulers and the people, 14 and said to them, “You brought me this man as one who was inciting the people to rebellion. I have examined him in your presence and have found no basis for your charges against him. 15 Neither has Herod, for he sent him back to us; as you can see, he has done nothing to deserve death. 16 Therefore, I will punish him and then release him.”

And I shall keep your response in mind.  But like I have said, those points can be taken up another time on another thread.

This thread is concerned only with these two anonymous "certain witnesses".
There were several witnesses testifying falsely against Jesus. But the Gospels tell us The chief priests and the whole Sanhedrin were looking for evidence against Jesus so that they could put him to death.

Mark 14: 55 The chief priests and the whole Sanhedrin were looking for evidence against Jesus so that they could put him to death, but they did not find any. 56 Many testified falsely against him, but their statements did not agree.
57 Then some stood up and gave this false testimony against him: 58 “We heard him say, ‘I will destroy this temple made with human hands and in three days will build another, not made with hands.’” 59 Yet even then their testimony did not agree.
60 Then the high priest stood up before them and asked Jesus, “Are you not going to answer? What is this testimony that these men are bringing against you?” 61 But Jesus remained silent and gave no answer.

Even Jesus proved to be a bad witness.

The same is reported in Matthew. The High Priest and Sanhedrin were looking for false evidence against Jesus so that they could put him to death. 
Matthew 26:59 The chief priests and the whole Sanhedrin were looking for false evidence against Jesus so that they could put him to death. 60 But they did not find any, though many false witnesses came forward.
Finally two came forward 61 and declared, “This fellow said, ‘I am able to destroy the temple of God and rebuild it in three days.’”
62 Then the high priest stood up and said to Jesus, “Are you not going to answer? What is this testimony that these men are bringing against you?” 63 But Jesus remained silent.

Matthew reports the Sanhedrin’s accepted the testimony of two unnamed witness who repeated what Jesus has said.
But it appears there were others who heard Jesus say, “I am able to destroy the temple of God and rebuild it in three days.’”

Matthew 27:38 Two rebels were crucified with him, one on his right and one on his left. 39 Those who passed by hurled insults at him, shaking their heads 40 and saying, “You who are going to destroy the temple and build it in three days, save yourself! Come down from the cross, if you are the Son of God!” 

John 2:19 Jesus answered them, “Destroy this temple, and I will raise it again in three days.”

So Matthew should not consider them false witnesses. They only repeated what Jesus said.
Besides the charge of blasphemy by the High Priests did not hold up in the Roman court, anyways.
#27
Public-Choice
Public-Choice's avatar
Debates: 19
Posts: 1,065
3
4
8
Public-Choice's avatar
Public-Choice
3
4
8
-->
@rosends
do you have any sort of corroboration for this claim?


There were extensive notes for whom disciples of rabbis were in that time period. Working in the temple was considered a position of prominence, even if just a servant.
#28
Shila
Shila's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,006
3
3
5
Shila's avatar
Shila
3
3
5
-->
@Stephen
--> @Public-Choice
Their names aren't important to the story. 

The greatest miscarriage in the history of all Christendom and you believe that the testimonies or the identities of these two "certain" witnesses that led to the death of an innocent godman are not important.

I respect your opinion. But it's not my own,PC
It cannot be important because that did not stop Jesus from becoming the shining light on the hill to millions/billions of Christians who worship him as martyr and their saviour.

Topic's author
#29
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,615
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@K_Michael
Pilate was the Roman governor. He wouldn't be handling charges of blasphemy against the Torah/Talmud, especially as he wasn't Jewish.

 I totally agree. Bringing a charge of blasphemy before Pilate would have been a waste of time. So, the question is, why had the charge changed by the time it came to the attention of Pilate?

And, as far as understand- if they had waited until after the holiday, the Jews themselves would have been able to simply stoned Jesus to death as was the punishment for blasphemy? I have read often the reason was that Jews were not allowed to stone anyone while under Roman rule, but this argument debunked by the bible itself.

Still, I am trying to discover the identities of these two "certain" witnesses that the gospels writers seem desperate to hide, regardless of the charges.
#30
rosends
rosends's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 806
3
2
6
rosends's avatar
rosends
3
2
6
-->
@Public-Choice
There were extensive notes for whom disciples of rabbis were in that time period. Working in the temple was considered a position of prominence, even if just a servant.
Hi --

I looked through that website and there is a LOT wrong there. The talmudic translation is way off, and various roles are conflated when diascussed in English. While being a "disciple" might have a particular value, your word was "servant" which is a very different concept in the talmud. I would suggest taking the website with a grain of salt -- if your corroboration for the claim is simply an interpretation of the gospel text and a misunderstanding of the talmud then that's fine, but you should understand that that's what it is.