# The Trial



## Oak-flat Hunter (Dec 6, 2011)

http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/jesus/jesusaccount.html The Trial before the Sanhedrin....


----------



## gtparts (Dec 6, 2011)

Truthfully, the account seems to be highly speculative, relying on the "wisdom" of men significantly more removed from the events chronologically than the Gospel accounts. Perspectives and a lack of interest in preserving exactly the historic reality can easily account for the minor differences in the Scriptures. If the primary motive for writing was to record the life and ministry of Jesus, His divine nature and purpose, some details were certainly not remembered or chronicled or simply unknown. For example, Luke must have relied on the testimony of witnesses, never detailing a personal earthly relationship with Jesus.  Among the biographers with a personal relationship with Jesus, there is great consistency. 

The article attempts to remove all interest in spiritual things, i.e., the fulfillment of OT prophesy and the accounts of miracles Jesus performed. The perspective advanced here renders the entire revelation of God as less than a footnote. If, indeed, Mr. Linder's work is even remotely accurate, why would he waste his time writing about a Jewish peasant-rabbi that was executed 2000+ years ago? Money and reputation, perhaps?

If I had it to do all over again, I certainly wouldn't waste my time on this thinly veiled attempt to obscure the truth.


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Dec 6, 2011)

Many times, when I read something, even if I don't agree, it can be indirectly informative. What I mean is that it causes us to think. It causes us to ponder just what it is that we believe about something and to recall exactly what those beliefs are founded upon. Much of this information is true. Much is wrong.


----------



## thedeacon (Dec 7, 2011)

gtparts said:


> Truthfully, the account seems to be highly speculative, relying on the "wisdom" of men significantly more removed from the events chronologically than the Gospel accounts. Perspectives and a lack of interest in preserving exactly the historic reality can easily account for the minor differences in the Scriptures. If the primary motive for writing was to record the life and ministry of Jesus, His divine nature and purpose, some details were certainly not remembered or chronicled or simply unknown. For example, Luke must have relied on the testimony of witnesses, never detailing a personal earthly relationship with Jesus.  Among the biographers with a personal relationship with Jesus, there is great consistency.
> 
> 
> The article attempts to remove all interest in spiritual things, i.e., the fulfillment of OT prophesy and the accounts of miracles Jesus performed. The perspective advanced here renders the entire revelation of God as less than a footnote. If, indeed, Mr. Linder's work is even remotely accurate, why would he waste his time writing about a Jewish peasant-rabbi that was executed 2000+ years ago? Money and reputation, perhaps?
> ...




I agree with you 100%. 

I find it very difficult to use so called historical events/facts to use against the inspiration of the Holy Spirit to try to balance a set of scales. Especially when we are trying to prove one of our own points.

Don't think that I am sure that this is happening in the OP here.

I do believe it is possible to have some factual errors recorded in our modern translations but I have enough confidence in God to believe that nothing is there that would hinder salvation to a true believer.

The word of God is not a book of suggestions for us to use in our lives, The word of God is a book that was inspired by the Holy Spirit of God. It is a guidebook that gives us the direction to a Heavenly Home with God. No more, No less.

I have to admit the article is interesting but not one I would take serious, but thanks for sharing.


----------



## gordon 2 (Dec 9, 2011)

I liked the way the author brought in"prophesy historicized " in his paper; the idea that John the Baptist was an Apocaliptic-end timer and that Jesus'ministry was a refined cut of John end time coat, and that the ministry of Jesus was about "the here and now" as opposed to John's End Times.

I was left to pause that in ministry, then and now, that perhaps some things have not changed much if at all...

And also I am left to my closet alone, I must resign that for two sometimes in spiritual matters a rock is not always the same rock and that this seems never to have changed.


----------

