From: leet@ims.com (Lee Thomas)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: What did Judas betray?
Date: 2 Oct 92 01:59:52 GMT
	<LEET.92Sep29092800@dove.ims.com> <1992Sep30.181626.25143@netcom.com>
Organization: Integrated Measurement Systems, Inc.

Going up against the Red Baron in my bailing-wired biplane - I LOVE THIS!!
All praise to my Co-pilot ... :-)

>>>>> On 30 Sep 92 18:16:26 GMT, sheaffer@netcom.com (Robert Sheaffer) said:

Robert> In article <LEET.92Sep29092800@dove.ims.com> leet@ims.com (Lee Thomas) writes:
>
>Robert> Of course, an angry crowd of Jews would shout "stone him!", not
>Robert> "crucify him!". Surely they would not cry out for a Jewish man
>Robert> to be executed by the Roman enemy in a manner incompatible with
>Robert> Jewish law.
>
>No, they'd just stone him on the spot, like they did with Stephen.

Robert> Which of course would itself be a violation of Jewish law, to
Robert> just plain-out lynch the accused without trial before the
Robert> Sanhedrin.

The accused *did* have a trial before the Sanhedrin - a "full" trial,
and before that, during the night, a "partial" one (which, as I
recall, was itself not legal).  I was wondering why the accused
couldn't have met with an "accident" along the way, or have been
killed "resisting arrest".  No one was looking, after all ... and
"blood money" had been paid to Judas, which was none-too-legal either.

Robert> [...] the parsimonious explanation
Robert> is that the accused was found guilty and executed, all exactly
Robert> according to Jewish law. (Why would this be misrepresented? My
Robert> argument is: to better defend the "cruci-fiction" story, the
Robert> fiction that Jesus was crucified by Romans rather than
Robert> actually 'stoned, then hanged on a tree' by Jews.' If the
Robert> author admits that the Jews executed Steven by stoning AFTER
Robert> Jesus' death, on what grounds can one then maintain that Jesus
Robert> could not have met the same fate?)

That Jesus could not be convicted on the same basis that Stephen was -
Jesus gave no clearly blasphemous statement until the judges
themselves illegally accused him, unlike Stephen, who freely gave them
the needed statement.

Robert> Can you imagine the proceedings of Stevens' trial that the
Robert> author of Acts would have us believe?:
Robert>
Robert>     Rabbi #1: Oh, that speech of his burned me up. I say we halt the 
Robert>               trial right here and lynch him.

Practicing your dialog-writing skills for the *next* great Skeptic
Novel?  Fair enough, I'll buy a copy. :-)  Question, though: are you
certain that the "they" in Acts 7:57 was the rabbis, and not the
original accusers from Acts 6:9-14?  Another question: how do you
conclude that the trial was left unfinished?  And yet another
question: wasn't Stephen already guilty of what we would call today
"contempt of court", or at least of contempt of the officeholders?

Robert> If anyone finds this credible, I cannot imagine why.

How credible is it that someone could be "stoned, then hanged on a
tree" for the public to see, during Passover, and a fictional account
of a completely different, even more public event replace the story?
The parsimonious explanation is that the Gospels record the stories of
those who bear their names, and that the writers described what they
saw, or were told by eyewitnesses.

Robert> Hiam Cohn, a contemporary justice of the Supreme Court of
Robert> Israel, wrote in his book "The Trial of Jesus" that it would
Robert> be *unthinkable* for the Sanhedrin to "hand over" a Jewish man
Robert> to be tried by the Roman enemy in a manner incompatible with
Robert> Jewish law and custom. Besides, it was considered sinful to
Robert> submit to "heathen judges," which was why the Romans allowed
Robert> the dual system of jewish and Roman law to coexist.  The only
Robert> reasonable conclusion is that the gospel account of Jesus'
Robert> death was written to conceal what actually happened, because
Robert> it could not possibly have happened as described.

As I recall, there was a division between the religious issues (which
were tried and punished by the Sanhedrin) and the civil issues (which
were strictly the domain of the Roman court system).  Since there was
no consistent testimony by which to convict Jesus in the Jewish court
system for blasphemy, they tried the Roman courts, with the charge of
insurrection - which itself almost failed due to Pilate's reluctance
to convict him.  The crowd shouted "Crucify him!" because they were
talking to *Pilate*, who didn't have people stoned to death.  The
Sanhedrin was asking Pilate to take care of a dangerous
insurrectionist who was also a heretic - and the heresy part would be
irrelevant as far as Pilate was concerned.

>Robert>        "Beware when the great God lets loose a thinker on this planet.
>Robert>         Then all things are at risk. It is as when a conflagration has
>Robert>         broken out in a great city, and no man knows what is safe, or
>Robert>         where it will end."
>Robert>                                - Emerson: Essay, "Circles"
>
>Actually, Robert, I'm rather astonished that you'd include a quote with
>the letters "G", "o" and "d" in consecutive order in your .signature ...

Robert> Well, Emerson was a good deist. He didn't take this "God"
Robert> stuff personally.

But God, of course, takes this "Emerson" stuff personally ...
--
Lee Thomas,  leet@ims.com      | "Moreover, the LORD answered Job, and said,
Integrated Measurement Systems |  Shall he that contendeth with the Almighty
9525 SW Gemini Dr.             |  instruct him? He that reproveth God, let
Beaverton, Or 97005            |  him answer it." - Job 40:1-2
(503) 626-7117, ext. 1558      |                                         THUMP!
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,talk.religion.misc