|
There are two answers in this question which contradict each other: How the trial of Jesus compares to the judical standards of the epoch and of the modern times? The first answer says that Jesus was guilty of what he was charged. The second claims that Jesus was not guilty at all but intentionally choose not to defend. So was he guilty or not? |
|||||||||
|
As it currently stands, this question is not a good fit for our Q&A format. We expect answers to be supported by facts, references, or specific expertise, but this question will likely solicit debate, arguments, polling, or extended discussion. If you feel that this question can be improved and possibly reopened, see the FAQ for guidance.
|
Consider this. A man walks into a court room and long story short, the judge convicts the man of murder in the first degree. However, the man did not commit the crime. Therefore, he is falsely accused, and falsely convicted. Nevertheless, he was convicted, and he was sentenced to death. Was Jesus guilty of blasphemy? According to the Sanhedrin, yes. Was Jesus falsely accused and falsely convicted? Yes. God (that is, Jesus) cannot be rightly convicted of blasphemy. It's a matter of perspective. The Sanhedrin convicted Jesus of blasphemy because they did not believe he was God, just as the judge did not believe the man was innocent. Essentially, it's unjust judgment on the part of the judges. However, Jesus was God, and therefore, he was falsely accused and false convicted. |
||||
|
|
|
The Gospel of Luke answers this question for us:
It seems that Jesus was not found guilty of anything worthy of death. Under Roman rule, the Jews were allowed to judge smaller matters, but capital punishment was reserved for Rome alone. Neither Pilate nor Herod found any guilt in Jesus at all on any matter that was pertinent. The Jews found Him guilty of blasphemy, but that was just based on His claim to Deity. They never figured out whether He was or not. Since Jesus was, indeed, God, He was not guilty of blasphemy. (On this point, I disagree with the answer you cited. Jesus did, indeed, claim to be God, that was true.) Consequently, Jesus was not guilty of any of the crimes of which He was accused, either in the trial among the Jewish leaders or in the trial before Pilate and Herod. |
|||
|
|
|
Jesus was a follower of the Mosaic laws and it is a blasphemy to be judged by pagan courts, hence he cringed to be judged by the authority he did not deem fit and responding or participating in the pagan roman courts would amount to getting judged by laws other then revealed in the Old testament. This is abundantly clear from the account of Jesus when he barged into the temple and showed contempt of the temple. Regarding Jews claiming that Jesus claimed divinity then, It is very clear from the bible that Jews wanted to eliminate Jesus as the Rabbis perceived Jesus a threat to their business of religion. It is worthwhile and noteworthy to see that in spite of Jesus being given a platform in court to preach his so called "divinity" he chose to remain silent. Silence by no means means approval. In this case it certainly means opposition as if it were to mean approval then he would not have responded with "You said so" when the Judge asked him about his claim of being " King of Jews". It was like saying "You said so.. I didn't". So to conclude Jesus was not guilty for the sheer reason that it was a false charge, Infact the charge itself was not confirmed by Jesus in court as Jesus refused to be judged by any evil court. |
|||||||||||||
|
