Christian Teachings
The Decision - Jesus the Nazarene v Judiciary of the Temple
Discussion started by Michael King 7 years ago
It was found that Jesus the Nazarene (also called the King of the Jews and later referred to by some Christian and Catholic patrician brothers as the Archangel Michael) disobeyed a lawful and what was considered at the time a reasonable direction not to bewitch his students with teachings that were not regarded as the pursuit of saving the soul and which headed towards activities that were regarded as blasphemy. The council of priests found this agitation arose out of teachings as expressed by Jesus the Nazarene the student in which their teacher defined his relationship to Jehovah as the son of God. Therefore the Temple carers had legitimate interest and a duty of care to protect its congregation and students from potential harm.
Whilst this breach of teachings provided a serious and valid reason for the charges brought against Jesus the Nazarene and for which the full judiciary of the temple seemed from evidence to confirm it was also considered not unfair according to the Jewish procedures and doctrine. Although there were perhaps deficiencies in the way this matter was dealt with at what we would understand to be a corrective forum his wrongdoing were according to this time extreme.
These included:
insufficiently describing his teachings before the Council
ignoring the potential consequences of his teachings
as understood from the evidence actual blasphemy according to temple doctrine
Therefore the council considered that Jesus the Nazarene had been provided a real opportunity to respond to the charges brought against him.
According to the evidence available to us today we understand that the council found there were reasons for their decision.
The contribution that Jesus of Nazarene contribution to the current temple doctrine was insufficient and his service to the Jewish state was negligible; and the influence that such dangerous and abusive teachings were against the very heart of the Jewish faith.
However, the council judiciary confirmed that the decision should be made by the Roman authorities so as to substantiate to his followers that the temple priests were not responsible for his fate. This refusal to take responsibility for the actions that later took place was held to be legitimate concerns by the temple priests as the conduct of the self-confessed Messiah (King of the Jews) Jesus of Nazarene was a potential future concern, he was therefore referred to the Roman Governor for consideration and judgment
You need to be a member of this group before you can participate in this discussion.
