The Sunday Mail
THIS week, we want to continue the examination of the purported trial of Yahoshua the Nazarene by comparing it with that of Stephen.
From the Acts (6:12-14) of the Greek Christian Scriptures, we can extract the following points:
1. Stephen was put on trial for having taught the teachings of Yahoshua the Nazarene.
2. Both Yahoshua and Stephen were arrested and brought before the Sanhedrin. Yahoshua was not found guilty and Stephen was found guilty.
3. Both were accused by false witnesses.
4. Yahoshua was accused of blasphemy and found not guilty and Stephen was accused of speaking against the Temple and the Law and was found guilty.
5. Yahoshua was put to death in the Roman way by crucifixion whose crime would be for treason or sedition and Stephen was put to death in the Hebraic way by stoning for blasphemy. (Acts 7:58)
If Yahoshua’s crime was blasphemy as has been claimed by literalist Pauline Christians, he would have been tried and convicted only under Hebraic law and by the Sanhedrin.
The charge preferred against Yahoshua the Nazarene was blasphemy because he was said to have declared himself to be the Son of the Divine. This, if true, would not have constituted blasphemy. It was no offence against the law for a man to claim that he was the Son of the Divine. Hebraically, all people, and especially all good people, were recognised as the children of the Divine. In “The Christ: A Critical Review and Analysis of the Evidence of His Existence”, John Remsberg quotes a Hebraic writer on Yahoshua’s claim, as: “No law, no precedent, and no fictitious case in the (Scriptures) or the rabbinical literature, can be cited to make of this expression a case of blasphemy.”
The Gospels’ presentation about the arrest and subsequent trial of Yahoshua the Nazarene is not a reliable narration of events. People who were both ignorant of Hebraic and Roman law while at the same time hostile towards Hebrews wrote the Gospels so that Hebrews are blamed as a people who had disregard for their own law and then killed their own. This makes the narration of events in the Gospels a serious fabrication. The accounts of the trial of Yahoshua before the Sanhedrin afford overwhelming proof that they were not written by apostles, Hebrews or residents of Judea.
Even Diasporan Hebrews could have an appreciation of Hebraic laws and customs than displayed in the gospels. There is sufficient ignorance of the Hebrew and Roman criminal procedures in the narratives to render them useless.
Romans considered Judaism as the vilest of superstitions and therefore did not respect it. After the religious charge of blasphemy was unsustained, he was charged with sedition or treason.
This means Yahoshua’s crime would have been political (Roman) not religious (Hebraic). His conduct would have been seditious because (1) he claimed to be of a royal lineage of King David, (2) he had a mass appeal and (3) his close associates and followers consisted of Zealots (Judaic nationalist and militant) and Essenes (Judaic nationalist and pacifist but religiously esoteric or Gnostic).
Therefore, Yahoshua would have been a serious threat to the Roman Empire and the punishment for such a political crime of sedition or treason was death by crucifixion. The charge for the political crime was not even sustained to make the trial of Yahoshua to be without legal precedent.
This is because he was convicted and executed even though the religious court, the Sanhedrin, could not find reliable and credible evidence of his guilty verdict and the Roman Pilate found him innocent!
If Yahoshua had been arrested, tried and convicted by Hebrew legal system, would he have been killed the Roman way? He would not.
“It is not lawful for us to put any man (who would have violated the Roman law) to death” (John 18:31). If Hebrews were to execute him, they would have stoned him like what they later did to Stephen.
Please do not take what is in the gospels in particular and scriptures in general, literally. Doing so is by faith.
There is a world of difference between religiosity based on faith (unquestioned beliefs) and that based on knowledge.
Faith-based religiosity, or unquestioned believing, is for those who are immature and are blind followers in divine matters.
When one is of an unquestioning disposition in religious matters, he or she will accept things on the surface without enquiry, verification, examination and scrutiny. This is very dangerous to the cause of humanity since it is based on ignorance and informed by supernatural considerations!
Resources:
1. John Remsberg, “The Christ: A Critical Review and Analysis of the Evidence of His Existence” (Promotheus Books)
2. “The Criminal-Illegal Trial of Jesus” (www.netbiblestudy.com/00_cartimages/illegaltrialofjesus.pdf <http://www.netbiblestudy.com/00_cartimages/illegaltrialofjesus.pdf>)
3. B.L. Cocherell, “Twelve Reasons why Jesus’ Trial was illegal”
www.bibleresearch.org/observancebook5/b5w29.html <http://www.bibleresearch.org/observancebook5/b5w29.html>
Feedback: [email protected], or tweet @shingaiRndoro.
