firedragon
Veteran Member
Eh not KenS. I prefer not to discuss personal details. I asked because you stated already. Thanks.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Abraham and Jesus
- Thread starter Kenny
- Start date
Eh not KenS. I prefer not to discuss personal details. I asked because you stated already. Thanks.
no problem... happy to answer.
metis
aged ecumenical anthropologist
My udeestanding is that it could be both. Because I was unsure, however, I looked it up and here's what I found from one source:
The composition of the Sanhedrin is also in much dispute, the controversy involving the participation of the two major parties of the day, the Sadducees and the Pharisees. Some say the Sanhedrin was made up of Sadducees; some, of Pharisees; others, of an alternation or mixture of the two groups. In the trials of Jesus, the Gospels of Mark and Luke speak of the assembly of the chief priests, elders, and scribes under the high priest, referring to “the whole council [synedrion]” or “their council,” and the Gospel According to John speaks of the chief priests and Pharisees convening the council. The Gospel accounts have been subjected to critical scrutiny and questioning because of the extreme theological and historical significance of the issue, but none of the theories evolved has won scholarly consensus. It is still uncertain, for example, whether the Sanhedrin had the power to hand down a death sentence in a case such as that of Jesus. The Book of Acts gives an account of the trials of Peter and John before “the council and all the senate” (apparently one and the same), pointing to a split between the Pharisaic and Sadducean members of the Sanhedrin.-- sanhedrin | Judaism
metis
aged ecumenical anthropologist
But that would make no sense because the power of the Roman Empire would be behind Pilate, thus not Jesus.
Yep, but it appears to be likely that "the Jews" that didn't convert to "the Way" were being demonized through this process.
firedragon
Veteran Member
You maybe right. But you are against the Bible. I am not saying what the Bible says is true because historically it is impossible that Pilate being what he was would be so sad about killing Jesus. Most critical scholars and historians think its not historically valid to think so.
I am only stating what the Bible says.
metis
aged ecumenical anthropologist
In brief, I don't believe the Bible is inerrant or be above secular influences, and I never have.
Gotta go.
firedragon
Veteran Member
No problem. Still, I am just quoting the Bible and what it says. Not what I believe.
Cheers. Have a great day.
firedragon
Veteran Member
Bible says a lot of things. Cannot ignore specific matters though.
I think my points were very specific. Yes, the Romans were the vehicle but the gift of the life of Jesus was given and not taken.
firedragon
Veteran Member
Ah. I was not speaking about that at all. I was only responding to Metis.
Another curiosity the questioning in Mark and Matthew "the chief priests and whole council" convene on first night of Passover to judge Jesus' fate. This scene has always caused difficulties for historians who wonder how it would be possible to convene a formal council on the night that Jews are eating the Passover Seder.
From a Baha'i perspective, both Abraham and Jesus were Manifestations of God. There are of course parallels in their lives and undoubtably the Gospel writers emphasized similarities between Jesus and various Prophets in the Tanakh including Abraham, Moses and Noah.
DNB
Christian
Nice work Ken! I didn't realize how comprehensive the typology actually was between Abraham and Isaac, and God and Jesus. I had realized the obvious ones, or at least they were brought to my attention in the past, but you drew-up a few more that, to me, were not so obvious, but still viable.
Thanks!
metis
aged ecumenical anthropologist
Exactly, which is why John's accounting of this, namely that Jesus and the Twelve met on the "preparation day" for Pesach, seems more campatible with how we know the Sanhedrin dealt with such a holiday.
The rule was if there was an emergency during Pesach, one of the members would make the decision, which then could be reviewed after the observance was over by the entire council.
IndigoChild5559
Loving God and my neighbor as myself.
pearl, the whole description of the trial is completely illicit. So many rules are broken in the story that it isn't funny. I have no idea if this story is historical or not (it may have never happened), but if it did, it is obvious that only a partial sanhedron convened, and did so at night, etc. etc. etc. Here is a website that outlines all the ways this supposed trial would have been illegal. 10 Reasons the Trial of Jesus Was Illegal
All that follows and this is in my opinion: it is clear from what happened and how the Lord Jesus describes His trial in the Psalms that there was an excess of sinful passion involved leading to a long series of irrational acts breaking God's Law to obtain the end the desired. For instance in Psalm 34 the Lord says "For without cause they have hid for me their destructive snare: without a cause they have reproached my soul... Unjust witnesses arose, and asked me of things I knew not. They rewarded me evil for good, and bereavement to my soul... They tempted me, they sneered at me most contemptuously, they gnashed their teeth upon me." This is one of the Passion-Psalms as well.
As we have seen again and again, those who rule many times do things that are illegal as they appear to be legal.
The narratives about Jesus that are shaped by the situations, concerns and insights of the Gospel writers themselves. In other words, the four canonical Gospels incorporate traditions dating from Jesus' ministry, which are understood through the experience of the Crucified One as Raised to transcendent life, and that are narrated according to the specific concerns, needs, interests, and insights of their respective authors. The Gospels achieved their final form only decades after the life and death of Jesus, resulting in four distinctive accounts. The Marcan episode Jesus and the high priest;
Again the high priest asked him, "Are you the Messiah, the Son of the Blessed One?" Jesus said, "I am; and 'you will see the Son of Man seated at the right hand of the Power,' and 'coming with the clouds of heaven.'" Then the high priest tore his clothes and said, "Why do we still need witnesses? You have heard his blasphemy!" (14:61-64).
Several important points need to be made about this passage. First, the words of Jesus are a blending of Daniel 7:13 and Psalm 110:1, strongly suggesting later Christian reflection on the identity of Jesus. This is confirmed by the question of the high priest about whether Jesus is God's divine Son. Recalling the three stage of Gospel development, this question presupposes the resurrection experience, something that of course has not yet occurred in the Gospel narrative. Indeed, since as we have earlier seen Mark stresses that no one really understands Jesus' identity until the crucifixion, this premature insight on the part of a character hostile to Jesus is even more peculiar. The conclusion is that Stage 3 debates between Christians and Jews about Jesus' divine Sonship have been retrojected by Mark back into this scene that will lead to Jesus' execution.
for the full article;
The Arrest and Sentencing of Jesus: A Historical Reconstruction (unomaha.edu)