Jesus on Trial

[auggybendoggy]

Guys,

I see it's been a while since any of us have posted here so I'll go ahead and get some feedback from my ol bros.

 

I've been studying the book of luke and one of the main themes I've learned is the reversal that Jesus brought to their line of thinking.

 

This made me question myself and my upbringing.

 

In class (sunday school) we've been going through luke and when we see Jesus going against the grain I was taught that he adhered to the regulation of the torah. But then I taught SS for 6 weeks and I decided to take the class through the mosaic law and what I found was that Jesus in fact does not do the norm.

 

When I was taught he obeyed the law I thought it meant he did every rule and regulation cause to not do that meant it was sin. For traspass of the law is sin right?

 

Now I realize its a matter of perspective. What does law mean to you? What is the mosaic law? What does obedience mean?

 

thus I found that my thought reasonins and mechanics lead me to the same conclusion the pharisees had.

Thus I found myself the same as them and ready to hang the one man, I've admired so much. I hear people say "we all put him on the cross" but now I'm convinced WE ALL WOULD PUT HIM ON THE CROSS

if we were spiritual jews.

 

This lead me to begin to organize my first theatrical attempt.

Putting Jesus on Trial. An interactive simulated modern day trial between a prosecution and defense.

The prosecution will be challeneged to prove why Jesus is not of God and is indeed a heretic. Their claims are (this is what I have so far w/ help of my father in law).

1) Jesus broke the sabbath or teaches others it's ok to do "good" work on the sabbath while the written word says "you shall not do ANY work"

2) Jesus forgives the prostitute when he should have stoned her as the law requires of adulterers.

3) Jesus is teaching that unclean foods are now clean; scripture clearly teaches there are unclean foods.

4) Jesus is touching the unclean (diseased) people and not going to the pries to be cleansed as required by law.

My father in law has more...

 

the Defense will have to argue why working on the sabbath is not unscriptual and is obedient to the mosaic law.

 

and so on...

 

now heres comes the rub...

 

Hind sight is 20/20....right.

 

Defense CANNOT use new testament scripture to defend the accused.

 

My idea is to put believers back at the time (there was no NT) of the hearing and making a case from the text (OT) to prove he is innocent. It's a tough assignment when we think so algebraically.

My feelings are we too might see him as a Joseph smith of his time. Its this SS class that has taught me to see him deeper and his teaching.

 

Any thoughts on pulling this off?

 

Auggy

[duma]

Where have all the other threads gone?

[TheGeek]

Defense CANNOT use new testament scripture to defend the accused.

 

Why not? Jesus said that he is the way to heaven, that we are not burdened by not eating pork etc. So he is rewriting it.

 

In my view Jesus did not come to earth to follow existing laws of the Jews, but to basicly change them so all can enter into heaven. So why not use the words Jesus said? Since Jesus is on the defence we cant use the words that built our faith?

 

If so then the accuser cannot use the OT Jewish laws. Since it is the basis of the accuser's knoledge.

[auggybendoggy]

 

Defense CANNOT use new testament scripture to defend the accused.

 

Why not? Jesus said that he is the way to heaven, that we are not burdened by not eating pork etc. So he is rewriting it.

 

In my view Jesus did not come to earth to follow existing laws of the Jews, but to basicly change them so all can enter into heaven. So why not use the words Jesus said? Since Jesus is on the defence we cant use the words that built our faith?

 

If so then the accuser cannot use the OT Jewish laws. Since it is the basis of the accuser's knoledge.

 

 

sorry, I meant NT (exceptions of the gpspels) For the very reason you point out. But understand in court it is no proof to quote jesus. In other words if the pharisees charge Jesus as a heretic for promoting "eating unclean foods is lawful" then the law will be used against him. The pharisees will quote Exodus, Lev, numbers and Duet...

If a member of the defense tries to quote Jesus it is circular as the judge will need to see legal evidence as to why it suddenly is clean or it is not a violation of the law.

 

If a member tries to quote paul then it becomes unfair to the prosecution (pharisees) as there was no new testament.

 

My motivation is in the literallness I believe that we are all like pharisees.

Since you hold a different position than most you don't quite fit the mold but most believe Jesus did not "rewrite" or "change" or "edit" or "abolish" the law but "fullfilled" it. (what ever that means).

 

In sunday school I presented a case that the pharisees were not all that off based if human logic is used. But my point was about dogma and judging people. Jesus had spiritual vision but we use a more human vision and read the scriptures with arrogance as if we can harmonize it like a math book.

 

Thus, if most poeple reject Jesus "rewrote" "abolished" or "broke" the law then I'd like to make a case to see if they can defend the position.

 

Every commentary I could find on this subject seems to lead to a modern mechanic of

"Jesus did everything that the law required, and doing good work on the sabbath was permitted in the OT"

So I'm saying "show it to me".

 

Aug

[TheGeek]

My motivation is in the literallness I believe that we are all like pharisees.

Since you hold a different position than most you don't quite fit the mold but most believe Jesus did not "rewrite" or "change" or "edit" or "abolish" the law but "fullfilled" it. (what ever that means).

 

That is the word I was looking for. I used those other words (edit, change...) because I couldnt think of the word fullfilled. I am not prepaired for this debate right now. If I was, then I would have to consult and read a ton.

 

I would have time if this debate is a long standing topic. So were you looking for a quick debate? Or a long one?

[auggybendoggy]

geek,

t ake your time bro. I'm not going anywhere. I'm trying to get ideas to make it really happen. Simulating the trial that is.

 

I've read a ton of commentaries and they for the most part similar except for the more liberal ones. They get a bit out there.

 

But if any thoughts or questions cross your mind then please,

shoot away.

 

Aug

[TheGeek]

I was thinking.

 

Isnt this topic pointless? (no offence, seriously)

People did and still view Jesus as one of the "false teachers" right? And why is that? Because he DID break those rules. The NT proves he disobayed those rules.

 

So, why are we debating if he did if the evidence proves he did? Jesus being a Heretic in the Jews eyes is proven. And even if he was a heretic in the Jews eyes why debate it?

 

I'm guessing that this topic came about because somebody was challanging the Christian faith. (assuming)

 

Jesus being a heretic doesnt change the faith.

 

I hope I was clear enough. Its late and this just poped into my head.

[auggybendoggy]

I was thinking.

 

Isnt this topic pointless? (no offence, seriously)

People did and still view Jesus as one of the "false teachers" right? And why is that? Because he DID break those rules. The NT proves he disobayed those rules.

 

So, why are we debating if he did if the evidence proves he did? Jesus being a Heretic in the Jews eyes is proven. And even if he was a heretic in the Jews eyes why debate it?

 

I'm guessing that this topic came about because somebody was challanging the Christian faith. (assuming)

 

Jesus being a heretic doesnt change the faith.

 

I hope I was clear enough. Its late and this just poped into my head.

 

 

Actually,

I'm not doing this for unbelievers but for believers. The question is do believers believer he "broke" the law or what?

In our sunday school class it became more apparent to me how legalistic we are when we read the scriptures. I listen to christian radio (conservative) and I hear a very dogmatic point of view.

 

In our ss class a heated debate broke out because I defended the pharisees on their position. I did not defend them as to being righteouss but if a human logic is applied then they are right on target. I realized...they were conservatives HAHA.

 

For example...

Jesus declares all food clean. In order to understand him I took our class for 6 weeks back to the mosaic law about the foods and what we found is indeed God does say they are detestable to him and isreal was not to eat them. So what does the scriptures mean when its written "I came not to abolish the law but to fulfill it."

 

So we discussed what is unclean about pork and believe it or not people argued that God told moses and Isreal that because of tricanosis or cholestorol. They had a reason for everything. So I realized they don't see that Jesus has vision that understands the law where we don't.

 

Thus it made sense why people took me a bit strange to defend the pharisees. Really I was accusing them but in a opposit sort of way.

 

Aug

[TheGeek]

Yeah, I've heard of people spending years studying the fulfilling comment by Jesus. The pharisees did have some reason to be upset, I agree with that. I remember when my dad tought a lesson on how the pharisees got so upset when Jesus said he was the Massiah.

 

The pharisees were so set in their ways they didnt know that their savior wasnt going to save them from the romans, but from their "sinful ways".

 

So yes, so far I agree with you. The pharisees did have reason to be upset. Jesus did break the law that the pharisees set into concrete.

 

haha so it seems I am not the person to be on the defenders side.

Edited October 6, 2006 by {GpL}TheGeek998

[auggybendoggy]

yea I ditto your dads lesson.

 

That is a major part of Jesus' lesson and we miss it. Indeed alot of what Jesus taught should have been applied to Isreal.

 

Those who live by the sword die by the sword. Isreal did not realize if they rose up againse rome they would be crushed. Gods kingdom is one of serving one another rather than only the strong survive.

 

Aug

[TheGeek]

lol so is this debate over? haha