Subject: Re: Jason Gastrich Answers
From: Jos Flachs 'wcruise'@ksc15.th.com
Date: 9/12/2003 7:05 PM Pacific Daylight Time
Message-id: <e7u4mv4c96f3bfboudkbc0e85q2tlfjnqm@4ax.com>

On 12 Sep 2003 21:37:16 GMT,

Some of these answers aren't explicitly in the scriptures. However, I'll
answer the best I can.

1- Why did the Sanhedrin meet after dark, and on a religious holiday?

Which meeting are you referring to?

The meeting where they decided to get rid of jesus. That was the same
evening, when the last supper took place. Or if you like, the one
after jesus' arrest. I'm not that fuzzy. Either one would have been
illegal.

2- Why didn't they simply condemn jesus, and have him stoned to dead?

They tried to stone Him, at least once, but He escaped.

The bible mentions no such event during the crucifixion story. If
guilty of blasphemy, stoning was the sentence. Stephen later was
condemned that way.

You'd get the cross for only three offenses:
- crimes against the state (read that as Rome)
- piracy
- rebellious slaves.

The Jews wanted to
involve the Romans because they were in charge and some of the Jews followed
Jesus, so the anti-Jesus Jews didn't want a civil war.

Entirely wrong. The Romans had a strict non interference policy in
local affairs throughout the empire. In Gaul, they didn't particularly
like druids. But left the religion in peace. If the jews wanted to
stone someone for blasphemy, they had the full approval of the
governor to do so.

"wanted" is something you need to proof. That sounds awfully much like
whitewashing, anyway. "Poor Pilate couldn't do anything else, could he
now?"

3- Why did they need to involve the Roman authorities for a blasphemy
charge?

The Romans were in charge and ruled over the Jews. This wasn't simply
blasphemy. This was essentially a revolution in thought and spirit that the
anti-Jesus Jews could not handle.

Nonsense. Blasphemy is a religious charge. No roman governor would
interfere in a local religious squabble. According to the bible it was
blasphemy. The fact that the Romans, not the Jews, executed this man
proves he was guilty of crimes against the state. Nor would a Roman
governor likely be impressed by dressing up the blasphemy charge as a
crime against the state.

The cleansing of the temple comes to mind. Any idea what kind of civil
disturbance that would have caused? Try it yourself: go to your local
market, with some buddies and start turning the stalls over. Then
throw the money around. See what happens. Mind you, the USA is very
peaceful compared to Judea. I assume the riot police will be out in
full gear nonetheless.

4- Why did the Roman governor got himself involved in that religious
squabble?

The Jews involved him. He washed his hands of it, though. He simply didn't
want chaos in his area, so he did what the loud, religious, anti-Jesus Jews
wanted.

Nonsense. Had that really happened, he would have been replaced by the
emperor within mere weeks. As soon as could be accomplished. Pilate
ruled for 11 years. And continued to govern for a long time after 33
CE.

5- Who had the custom to release a dangerous prisoner? The Romans or
the Jews? (correct answer: neither)

I'm not sure. Is there some extra-biblical evidence for this?

No, of course not. There is no evidence for something that did not
exist. Since you defend the bible, you have to proof this custom
existed.

6- Why did they (the Romans) pick out someone of the crowd (Joseph of
Arimathea) to carry the crossbeam?

Because Jesus was took weak from His beatings to carry it Himself. "Take up
your cross, daily, and follow Him." ; )

Not possible. If at all, they would NEVER have picked a men of means
to do that. That would infuriate the population into a spontaneous
revolt right on the spot.

Pubic executions don't exist in the USA anymore. Now imagine that they
still do. A Taliban warrior is marched to the gallows. Un the way he
gets sick and throws up. The police picks out one of the most
important (US) bystanders, say a mayor of a nearby town. Or Bill
Gates. And instruct him to clean up the vomit. Again, better have the
riot police standing by. And please consider that the actual situation
was far more provocative. The Romans were seen as heathen occupiers,
not as the lawful govenment, which would be the case in the USA.

7- Why was the sentence carried out immediately, so that it would
interfere with a religious holiday?

It didn't interfere with a religious holiday. However, there are many

reasons

for this timing.

The beginning? No, I agree. Friday PM wasn't the sabbath. too close
for comfort, however. Crucifixions normally took days. It would
certainly interfere with the sabbath. Leg bones where not always
broken as a rule. Only then the party would be over in about 15
minutes. No priest would take that chance and pollute the sabbath.

Jesus was the Passover lamb. A lamb was killed for forgiveness of sins, but
Jesus was slain for the sins of humankind.

Irrelevant.

There is a mathematical prophecy in Daniel 9 that Jesus fulfilled by being
crucified at this time. See http://daniel9.jcsm.org.

I'll have a look at that.

8- Why did the Sanhedrin not object to that?

The Sanhedrin hated Jesus and wanted Him dead. If they could find a way,

then

they were happy.

The sanhedrin was a religious body. Even if they would have wanted him
dead, they would have certainly objected to a crucifixion. A simple
flogging and beheading (normal execution method under Roman law) would
not have caused religious problems with the sabbath. A crucifixion
certainly would. Even worse: stonification was the sentence for
blasphemy. The sanhedrin would certainly have objected against a wrong
execution method. The lord loves to see people executed, but according
to his law. Stones for blasphemers. Remember what happened when
Aaron's son lit the 'wrong type of fire'???

Plus, they were likely hoping to show all of the visitors to
Jerusalem, that were coming because of Pentecost, that Jesus was a mere man

and

His "heresy" was finished.

Two days after his triumphant entry in the city?

9- Why did jesus die so quickly? Did he have a medical condition?

There is a prophecy in the Old Testament that none of His bones would be
broken.

All the more reason for jesus to linger on the cross not only on the
sabbath, but even days afterwards.

Spiritually speaking, His body died quickly, so they wouldn't break
His legs (as is the custom for crucifixion victims).

We don't speak in spirits, we discuss what happened. Why did he expire
so quickly on the cross? "Spiritually" is someting you can add to your
list of things needing some explaining.

Physically speaking, He
was brutally beaten and they placed a crown of thorns on His head. See here
for more details about this:
http://www.jcsm.org/biblelessons/christsufferings.htm

Nonsense. The flogging was standard practice. It would have been
suspicious if he wasn't flogged. The crown of thorns would not hasten
his dead in any way.

10- Why was the body returned to his relatives?

The body was given to a wealthy man because he had a tomb for Jesus.

Sorry, that did not happen. A crucified body was thrown on the garbage
heap. Part of the punishment. Usually under guard, exactly to prevent
relatives to claim the body.

Crucifiction was the most *humiliating* punishment. Hence, no Roman
citizens could be crucified. (Think about Saul.)

11- Who guarded the grave?

The Roman soldiers guarded the grave.

See 12, impossible.

12- Why would the legionarii claim they slept whilst on guard? The
automatic sentence would be the dead penalty for the entire guard
detail.

Can you cite this chapter and verse? I believe their "sleep" was an induced
sleep, so that Jesus could leave the grave.

In that case, he wasn't dead at all. Again, your believe is not in
question. Your explanations are. As we say in Holland: "Believing? You
better do that in church!"

According to the scriptures, they were told by the priest (high
priest?) to tell their commander that they had slept whilst on guard
duty. And he bribed them with some money.

That explanation would automatically sentence the entire guard detail
to dead. Not the offenders alone, but the entire details. Dead by
bludgeoning, under Roman military law. Is it likely they accepted a
small bribe from the (high) priest and tell that story?

You would have done better to claim it were the temple guards, who
worked under a less strict regime. Even so, either the temple guards
would guard the REFUSE HEAP (not a grave!), or legionarii. The bible
mentions both stories. One of them must be wrong. Thus, no inerrant
bible.

The Roman legionarii were Jewish/Idumean auxilliarii, but that would
be nitpicking. The sentence would be the same.

There is a mathematical prophecy in Daniel 9 that Jesus fulfilled by being
crucified at this time. See http://daniel9.jcsm.org.

I'll have a look at that.