Jesus Christ - a most Holy Heretic

*The Sanhedrin honored false testimony … The Law was clear in Jesus' day that at least two
harmonious witnesses were required in order to convict in capital cases (see Numbers 35:30 & Deuteronomy
19:15). And while the Gospel of Matthew does seem to indicate that two agreeing witnesses came
forward to accuse Jesus of claiming to have the power to “destroy the Temple of God and build it back
in three days” (see Matthew 26:60b-61), that same Gospel also admits that there were other witnesses who
offered contradictory testimony beforehand (see Matthew 26:60a – along with Mark 14:56, which clearly stated
that “many gave false testimony against him, and their testimony did not agree”). 96 Despite this fact – and the fact
that the oral Law was clear in invalidating all testimony that proved contradictory (see Mishnah Sanhedrin
5:2), both the authors of Matthew & Mark note that the Sanhedrin illegally honored this testimony (see
Matthew 26:62's & Mark 14:60's “Have you no answer to that which they say against you?”). This violation of the
Law was made even more egregious in light of the fact that it was required by Law for all witnesses to
testify truthfully (see Exodus 20:16 & Exodus 23:2), and that to fail to do so in a capital case was in & of
itself a capital offense (see Mishnah Sanhedrin 4:5 & Mishnah Sanhedrin 6:2) – in this case a capital offense
that was not only not punished, but actually openly encouraged.
.
*Jesus' conviction was based on one-sided evidence … Aside from the aforementioned illegality
regarding the witness testimony of Jesus' trial (see Exodus 23:1's “You shall not join hands with the wicked to act
as a malicious witness” and Deuteronomy 5:20's “You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor”), said
proceeding was illegitimate for a number of other evidentiary reasons. First & foremost, the merits of
Jesus' defense were completely ignored. Jewish Law essentially demanded that all those with evidence
must testify in court (see Leviticus 5:1), that witnesses must be intensely cross-examined (see Mishnah
Sanhedrin 3:6's “Bring them in and instill fear in them” & Mishnah Sanhedrin 4:2's “The more one examines a witness, the
more praiseworthy he becomes”), and that capital cases especially must have intense “examination and
inquiry” into the facts surrounding the charge (see Mishnah Sanhedrin 4:1). The Law also demanded that
judges weigh every capital accusation with impeccable sincerity (via Mishnah Sanhedrin 4:5). Quite
obviously, none of these tenets were fulfilled in Jesus' case. None of his friends, family members, or
disciples were brought forth, nor were any other favorable witnesses called to testify on his behalf.
Secondly, the oral Law made it illegal to open any capital trial with a call for conviction (see Mishnah
Sanhedrin 4:1). Indeed, as it is in any sincerely civilized society, in ancient Israel all accused were
considered innocent until proven guilty. This tenet, too, was violated during Jesus' proceeding.
Thirdly and finally – and some would say most egregiously, Jesus was required to testify against
himself – and indeed was ultimately condemned on the offering of the same (see Matthew 26:63-65, Mark
14:61-63, & Luke 22:67-71), and this in direct abrogation of the established Law of the day (see Maimonides
on Mishnah Sanhedrin 4:2 – as well as Talmud Sanhedrin 9b).
.
*The charges against Jesus were altered mid-trial … The priests & elders of the Sanhedrin were
so desperate to be rid of Jesus that they illegally altered the charges brought against him when
presenting the same to Pilate – shifting their allegations from blasphemy against God (see Matthew 26:63-
66, Mark 14:61-64, & Luke 22:67-71) 97 to sedition against Roman authority (“We found this man perverting the
nation, forbidding us to pay taxes to the Emperor, and saying that he himself is the Messiah – that is, a king … He stirs up
the people throughout all of Judea with his teaching” – see Luke 23:2-5); a charge of which he was ultimately
convicted without the presence of any substantiating evidence in support of the same (see Matthew 27:17-
26, Mark 15:12-15, Luke 23:20-24, & John 18:38 + John 19:4-16).
.
96 NOTE that Mark 14:57-59 (written before the texts of Matthew were conceived &/or copied) speaks to the same
evidence, and makes clear that “even on this point [the witnesses'] testimony did not agree” … NOTE as well that
neither the Gospel of Luke nor the Gospel of John mention the hearing of witness testimony at all.
97 NOTE that Jesus never once said that he would “destroy the Temple of God”, but rather that he would “destroy this
temple” (see John 2:19) – namely, the “temple” of his own person, not the actual Temple itself (see John 2:22).
49