Who Tried and killed the Netzer Jesus?

Posted: April 16, 2011 in Book excerpts- Generations of Antichrist; An Argument for the Sake of Heaven
Tags: , ,

Who Tried and killed the Netzer Jesus?

What would be the Halachic Sanhedrin’s interpretation of the events? The Trial Sanhedrin had gone diametrically against the Halacha and the tradition. A King had been tried by an inferior. The High Priest had failed to follow even remotely what would be a façade of legitimacy. The High Priest had turned over a King to the Romans for crucifixion, the death of a cursed one.

If the Trial Sanhedrin had the power of capital punishment until this time the Romans certainly would not have taken it away without reason. Speculatively the Pharisees would see this as an attempt to revive the Hasmonean days when they lost power and were persecuted almost to extinction. The High Priest had overstepped his authority to the point where there was no choice but to severely rein him in. I believe they did this halachacally. “More than forty years before the Temple was destroyed, capital cases were removed [from the authority of the Beth Din]” [Talmud, Sanhedrin 18a].

The High Priest, recognized as the highest sitting national leader would not have taken this censure lightly. “Forty years before the destruction of the Temple, the Sanhedrin was banished (from the Chamber of Hewn Stone) and sat in the market (on the Temple Mount)” (Shabbat  15a). I believe this to be the Halachic Sanhedrin. The Sadducee was not banished from the Temple until ten years before its destruction. The offices and duties of priests were never banished.

The markets would have been for the sale of the sacrificial animals, and quite possibly with the Sadducee foreign trade goods. The banishment to the markets possibly points as a reminder by the High Priest to the Pharisee of who was actually in charge.

Regardless of which combination of period or close to period writings are studied it is still a Trial Court (High Priest) held at night.

Who were the Jews

It is the understanding of the words “the Jews” that crops up in history and tradition that has caused so much unnecessary suffering.  These issues cropped up in the next period, the time of the Tanna; the Religion of Israel transformed into  Judaism, and with the advent of Roman Christianity; it was the birthing and development of Roman Catholicism.  The struggle of both traditions to maintain historical ties to even the recent past within the Roman Empire became in some respects insurmountable. I will discuss these issues further in their respective chapters.

If the word “Jews” is referenced as it is in the writings, it is the “New Aristocracy” which again is the High Priests and priests. There were priests on the Halachic Sanhedrin also; the point of confusion is defining the Boethusian who believed in the afterlife and Messiah, in a nominal sense.  To add sense to this an overview of period Jewish writers refer to the Jews as being distinct from common Israel. This is carried from Josephus to the pages of the New Testament and historians like Tacticus. The Jews were not common Israel.

These priests and their philosophy ran across the spectrum of theology. Some were Hasmonean type Sadducees, Boethusian (Herodian) which held essentially Pharisee beliefs, and Pharisee priests.

The Halachic Sanhedrin ruled by the Pharisees and what became Rabbinic Judaism stood diametrically opposed as a group to the “Jews” for the most part. The “curse” that the High Priest invoked was fulfilled according to Josephus in that the surviving Priests were killed by Titus.

I have lost the reference but the Jewish Sages also state that the “sons and daughters of Hanan and Camithus/Cantheras (Ananias and Caiaphas)” joined with the Nazarenes. At first blush it may seem like odd polemic, but Kings marry Priestesss, and the Apostles can truly be accused of practicing what they preached, forgiveness and loving your enemies. The Book of Acts 6:7 bolsters and shows proof of this also.

It is speculation but follows logic that the term “the Jews” gained its current use after the Temple Destruction with the following statement which can be viewed as a charter statement in Rabbinic Judaism.

The Tosefta states “A sage takes precedence over the king, since if a sage dies there is no replacement, but if the king dies all of Israel are worthy to be kings.  The king takes precedence over the high priest…”[1]

Before the Destruction the “Jews” were the aristocracy, the Royalty, the Priests (Kohen), and the Sanhedrin. The common people or am heretz were ritually defiling, ignorant peasantry.

With the post destruction eradication of the sanctioned royal lines, the Temple destroyed and the priesthood non functional, the new Senate or Sanhedrin had both priority and dominance. Much of the country lost property rights and could no longer farm the land. The Rabbinic system emphasized education and elevated the am heretz to becoming “Jews” according to the above statement. With this the Rabbis secured their position over the nation and the aristocracy. This is expanded on in later chapters.

[1] [1]  David Flatto  Its Good to be the King the Monarchs role in the Mishnah’s Political and Legal System pg 19 Hauser Global Law School Working Paper 01/07


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s