From: billg@bony1.bony.com (Bill Gripp)
Subject: Re: What did Judas betray?
Organization: LA&W RR
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 92 17:33:44 GMT

This is being crossposted to alt.messianic from sci.skeptic.

In article <1992Nov5.235359.14072@imagen.com> avi@hawk.imagen.com writes:
>>>The Talmud states that the Sanhedrin stopped judging capital cases "seventy
>>>years before the destruction of the Temple". Even if seventy is just a round
>									^^^^^^^
>>>number, I'm pretty sure it's more than thirty, thus making any references to
>  ^^^^^^^
>>>capital cases in Jesus' time fictitious.
>
>>Better check your math.  If the temple was destroyed in 70AD, and Jesus
>>was crucified in 30AD, that's a gap of 40 years and your "pretty sure
>>it's more than thirty" is insufficient to prove your case of fiction.
>
>>Is it possible that reperucssions as a result of the crucifiction of
>>Jesus resulted in the Sanhedrin ceasing to judge captial crimes?
>
>>If you are truely skeptical, why is the Talmud considered more reliable
>>than the New Testament?

>1) The term "round number" is foreign to Hebrew, or the ancient Jewish culture.
>   When the Talmud says "70 years" them mean "70 years".
>2) The talmud is a MUCH more reliable source because despite the many years and
>   hardships, there is ONLY 1 version of it (the Jersualem/Babelonyan being
>   complementary). The New Testament however, has 4 different and often 
>   contradictory versions (the 4 gospels) of the same story of Jesus' life and
>   death.

What are the contradictions?  The 4 gospels are the same story from the
perspectives of 4 different people.  This does not prove inconsistency.
Different people see the same thing in different ways, putting emphasis
on different facts which seem more significant to them.  Four parallel
accounts of high consistancy (not necessarily complete agreement) should
be considered more reliable than a single account.  After all, isn't
there something in the Tanach which requires more than one witness to a
crime to accept testamony as valid?  A single witness is not sufficient.



>3) The Sandhedrin had no special interest in Jesus, even in the New Testament it
>   is said that there were MANY False Messiahs before Jesus and NONE was
>   crucified ! Certainly, there were false Messiahs After Jesus, the most known of
>   which is Shabtai Zvi (300-400 years ago).  Neither was cruficied nor executed
>   in any way, even if their bad influence was MUCH more prominent among jews then
>   Jesus' ever was. (especially true with Shabtai Zvi) - So, why the exception
>   with Jesus ?

According to the New Testament they were concerned that some Jews were
following Jesus.  It says that many false Messiahs will follow Jesus
claiming to be him, where does it say that "there were MANY False
Messiahs before Jesus and NONE was crucified"?

I suspect that Bar Kochba(sp,?) would have been crucified along with his
followers had they not commited suicide at Massada.  Since Shabtai Zvi
was only around "300-400 years ago" I'd hardly expect him to have been a
candidate for crucifiction.  =B^]  Are you saying that none of these
false Messiahs suffered any sort of persecution from Jewish religious
authorities?  I'd find that highly unlikely.



>4) The Romans, however, had MORE than enough reason to crucify Jesus. Claiming
>   to be the "King Messiah" was a DIRECT CHALLENGE to the Roman Emperor and more
>   than enough reason to be crucified (remember, thieves were crucified, a sin  
>   much less dangerous to the Romans, than direct challenge and competetion)
>   The Romans were also the ONLY ones at the time, who had the authority to
>   execute anybody. It was only after the establishment of the Roman-Catholic
>   church, hundreds of years later, that the original story was changed and the
>   Sandhedrin was blamed.

Uh, Jesus taught that citizens were subject to their governments.  Give
unto Caesar what is Caeser's, a slave should not seak to be free, etc.
Each person serves God from the place they are in in life.  Nothing
there for the Romans to have a problem with.  Jesus also claimed that
his kingdom was not of this world, so again he did not challange Roman
authority.  

The Romans were more concerned with the Sanhedrin and their expectation
of a Messiah who would come and overthrow Roman rule.  This resulted in
the incident at Massada and the destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem
in 70 A.D.



>5) Haim HaCohen Levy, the president of Israel's Supreme Court and a world-renowned
>   legal authority, wrote a book about it (Sorry, Can't remember the title) where
>   he proved  the above, according to ALL the jewish laws and customs of the   
>   time, including the Roman Laws and historical facts.
>
>>Is it possible that reperucssions as a result of the crucifiction of
>>Jesus resulted in the Sanhedrin ceasing to judge captial crimes?

One man's opinion.  There are others who hold that the accounts as
presented in the New Testament are true and consistent with practice of
that time.

How often does the Supreme Court have a unanimous 9-0 decision?  No matter
what evidence is presented for either side of this arguement, there will
always be those who are on one side or the other.



>6) What reperucssions ? By whom ? Not by the Pharasees (sp?) or the Romans (who
>   according to your claims were both involved) leaves nobody else !

Where is it claimed that the Romans were involved, expect the implication
that they carried out the wishes of the Sanhedrin in order to avoid
possible civil unrest?

If I ever run into Pontious Pilot I'll ask him about any repercussions. =B^]
This was offered as a speculative possible scenario.  Until we find an
ancient scroll saying "THERE WAS NO ROMAN PERSECUTION OF THE SANHEDRIN"
this remains an open issue.