Timeline for How does the trial of Jesus compare to the judicial standards of the epoch and of the modern times?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
11 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Feb 11, 2013 at 15:57 | comment | added | user3331 | This is getting chatty. Tried to create a chat room, but failed. | |
| Feb 11, 2013 at 15:56 | comment | added | user3331 | @Anixx Pilate listened to both sides, seemingly held the trial under normal rules, and even offered a 'pardon' if there was public support, but knowingly condemned a man not guilty of insurrection (and claimed not to be responsible) while pardoning one guilty of insurrection by public demand. 100% on form, 0% on quality. The Sanhedrin trial appears more problematic; the accusers and judges were not distinct and the accusers sought false evidence; I don't know if daybreak trials (Luke 22:66) were typical or if that was an attempt to "pack the jury"--was Nicodemus timid like Jn.3 or absent? | |
| Feb 11, 2013 at 4:28 | comment | added | Anixx | @Paul A. Clayton given 100-grade scale, how would you assess the quality of the trial? | |
| Dec 7, 2012 at 17:18 | comment | added | user3331 | @Anixx he could have been freed by Pilate on more-or-less a whim. The consequences might have been: 1) a riot (and Romans favored civil order) and 2) loss of position and possibly worse for Pilate. Also Jesus did state before Pilate that he was not a military threat (John 18:36--"My kingdom is not of this world"). | |
| Dec 7, 2012 at 15:36 | comment | added | Anixx | @Paul A. Clayton does this mean that he could be freed by Pilate if he tryed to defent himself? | |
| Dec 6, 2012 at 23:01 | comment | added | Mike | @Anixx - He was killed by Rome because the Jews pretended a man of peace was claiming to be a King who opposed Caesar. This was untrue and yet Jesus did not defend himself. The sinless part those committing the injustice were not mentally conscious of, although Pilate did sense the man was innocent which is why his hand had to be forced by those misrepresenting his fake crimes. | |
| Dec 6, 2012 at 23:00 | comment | added | user3331 | Matt. 27: 18 (charge brought from envy), 19 (wife's dream: "innocent man"), 23-24 (washing hands on the matter) indicate that Pilate knew that Jesus was not guilty. Luke 23:14 ("no basis for your charges" [NIV], also John 18:38), 22 ("no grounds for the death penalty" [NIV]) further indicate Pilate's knowledge. | |
| Dec 6, 2012 at 15:46 | comment | added | Anixx | I think you are claiming that the trial was unjust because he was sinless, but the jury seemingly could not know about that. So my question is whether his trial was better of worse in terms of quality compared to other trials irrespective of the suspect's own personality. | |
| Dec 6, 2012 at 15:42 | comment | added | Anixx | Well It could be asserted that the Jews could anticipate all the misery which Jesus teaching would bring to their people in the future (as there were numerous religious strifes before than already). But my question is not whether the execution was justifyed on moral grounds. The question is whether he did have enough opportunities to defend himself, to present his cause, whether his case was duly examined compared to the judical standards of the time both in Rome and outside? | |
| Dec 6, 2012 at 15:20 | comment | added | Caleb | +1. Your final paragraph was well worth restating my hurried points. | |
| Dec 6, 2012 at 14:57 | history | answered | Mike | CC BY-SA 3.0 |