From: ata@hfsi.uucp (John Ata - FSO)
Subject: Re: What did Judas betray?
Organization: HFS, Inc., McLean VA
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 03:57:39 GMT

In article <1992Sep30.181626.25143@netcom.com> sheaffer@netcom.com (Robert Sheaffer) writes:
>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.
>
>Which of course would itself be a violation of Jewish law, to just
>plain-out lynch the accused without trial before the Sanhedrin. Herod
>himself, before he became emperor, was hauled before the Sanhedrin
>because he had some bandits executed without benefit of trial; this made
>Herod guilty of murder, under Jewish law. (This is from Josephus, the
>exact citation is in "The Making of the Messiah"). Knowing that he
>himself risked being executed, Herod fled. 
>
>The account of Steven's death, as given in Acts, is not credible as it
>stands. A formal trial is occurring before the Sanhedrin, Steven being
>accused of blasphemy and heresy, the punishment for which being stoning.
>We are told that a formal trial has begun, we are told that  the accused
>suffered the punishment for the offense with which he was charged, but
>we are expected to believe that it was not through judicial process, 
>but rather through extra-judicial murder, that this happens. I cannot
>believe this; the parsimonious explanation is that the accused was
>found guilty and executed, all exactly according to Jewish law. (Why
>would this be misrepresented? My argument is: to better defend the
>"cruci-fiction" story, the fiction that Jesus was crucified by Romans
>rather than actually 'stoned, then hanged on a tree' by Jews.' If the
>author admits that the Jews executed Steven by stoning AFTER Jesus'
>death, on what grounds can one then maintain that Jesus could not have
>met the same fate?)
>

Gasp!  You mean to tell me that the Jewish people are unique in that their
leaders *never* break their own laws?  

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

Yes, and methinks that it would be *unthinkable* for an American president
to burglarize the opposition's party headquarters and then to have a massive
coverup.  Why, it's just unAmerican.  Couldn't have happened at all.  I mean,
really, it's against the law!

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

I really cannot find your position credible at all...

>

>-- 
>  
>        Robert Sheaffer - Scepticus Maximus - sheaffer@netcom.com
>  
-- 
John G. Ata - Technical Consultant | Internet:  ata@hfsi.com
HFS, Inc.		  VA20     |     UUCP:  uunet!hfsi!ata
7900 Westpark Drive	 MS:601	   |    Voice:	(703) 827-6810
McLean, VA  22102	           |      FAX:	(703) 827-3729
Xref: sparky sci.skeptic:17092 comp.ai.philosophy:6230