I read quite a bit of http://t.co/2d1KcJ9V
but was not impressed with the depth nor the lack of references nor bald facts. This one certainly took my eye
Now that we have seen that Jesus had no power or knowledge from God, we can ask what did he actually do? We know for certain that he was executed by the Romans who made Israel a part of the Roman Empire. Jesus was executed on a Roman cross and his crime was written on the cross.
Act 5:30 TheG3588
From another form of the base of G3582; timber (as fuel or material); by implication a stick, club or tree or other wooden article or substance: - staff, stocks, tree, wood.
See also Acts 10:39 and 13:29 and 1 Peter 2:24
The very idea of crucifixion does not this sit well with whatever crime the alleged Christ was charged. Initially, the charge was blasphemy but
(a) the punishment for this was stoning to death: See the fate of St Stephen
(b) (point removed for lack of research)
(c ) It was Passover and the Sanheddrin would not have been sitting in judgment.
(d)The trial encroached upon the Sabbath. The proceedings were conducted on the day preceding a Jewish Sabbath, also on the First Day of the Feast of Unleavened Bread and the Eve of the Passover, therefore it was illegal.
(e) Even before Jesus' trial began the law was broken because His arrest was illegal. The Jewish law prohibited any part
of a legal proceeding in capital offenses to take place at night, and Jesus was arrested at night.
(f) Despite the Sanheddrin comprising 71 members, one member, Caiaphas, examined him alone and in secret
(g) There had been no morning sacrifice
(h)The trial of Jesus was illegal because it was begun and concluded in one day. Before the finding of guilty could be decreed "a night had to intervene between the trial and the decree," during which the judges could sleep, fast, meditate and pray. Yet the Gospels record clearly discloses that Jesus was arrested, tried and executed within a single day.
(i) The Condemnation of Jesus was illegal because the verdict of the Sanhedrin was unanimous, so Jesus should have been acquitted.
The alleged Jesus was then taken to Pilate who is said not to have been able to see an offence.
Pilate asks why the Jews had not dealt with the matter themselves, "I have asked for a specific charge against the man. You have given me an equivocal answer. I imply the crime is against your own laws. If so, you try Him. I do not wish to meddle" (John 18:31).
" However, Pilate, shrugs his shoulders and is relieved when he disovers that Jesus is from Galilee
and thus he has no authority over him.
Jesus is now taken to Herod Antipas, Tetrarch of Galilee and Peraea (circa 4to 36 or 39 AD Mat:14:3-12, Mark 6:17-29 and Luke 23:5-12), who also has no authority over Jesus and sends him back to Pilate. Pilate discussed the matter with the various authorities, including Herod Antipas, and still could find no fault
There then follows an erroneous claim:Lu:23:17: (For of necessity he must release one unto them at the feast.)
- There is no truth in this whatsoever. A straightforward lie, told to people who knew no better.
Now allegedly, for the sake of the unruly mob, Pilate authorised the execution of a man who had been shown to have done nothing.
Looking back on the above, you have to wonder how it was that the Gospel writers, who probably had some Jewish blood in them, did not know how the Sanheddrin worked nor how Herod Antipas's authority worked, nor that there was no "release of prisoners for the Passover."
You can only conclude that the entire story is rubbish and it never happened at all.