Was Jesus Trial Fair or Unfair?

[devonsams]

Hello, i was talking with my friend and he asked me if Jesus Trial that led to his crucifixion was fair or unfair? If god had planned it from the beggining how could it be unfair? If Jesus already knew that Judas would betray him how would it be unfair? And he send me this text from George Bernard Shaw:

I dislike cruelty, even cruelty to other people, and should therefore like to see all cruel people exterminated. But I should recoil with horror from a proposal to punish them. Let me illustrate my attitude by a very famous, indeed far too famous, example of the popular conception of criminal law as a means of delivering up victims to the normal popular lust for cruelty which has been mortified by the restraint imposed on it by civilization. Take the case of the extermination of Jesus Christ. No doubt there was a strong case for it. Jesus was from the point of view of the High Priest a heretic and an impostor. From the point of view of the merchants he was a rioter and a Communist. From the Roman Imperialist point of view he was a traitor. From the commonsense point of view he was a dangerous madman. From the snobbish point of view, always a very influential one, he was a penniless vagrant. From the police point of view he was an obstructor of thoroughfares, a beggar, an associate of prostitutes, an apologist of sinners, and a disparager of judges; and his daily companions were tramps whom he had seduced into vagabondage from their regular trades. From the point of view of the pious he was a Sabbath breaker, a denier of the efficacy of circumcision and the advocate of a strange rite of baptism, a gluttonous man and a winebibber. He was abhorrent to the medical profession as an unqualified practitioner who healed people by quackery and charged nothing for the treatment. He was not anti-Christ: nobody had heard of such a power of darkness then; but he was startlingly anti-Moses. He was against the priests, against the judiciary, against the military, against the city (he declared that it was impossible for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven), against all the interests, classes, principalities and powers, inviting everybody to abandon all these and follow him. By every argument, legal, political, religious, customary, and polite, he was the most complete enemy of the society of his time ever brought to the bar. He was guilty on every count of the indictment, and on many more that his accusers had not the wit to frame. If he was innocent then the whole world was guilty. To acquit him was to throw over civilization and all its institutions. History has borne out the case against him; for no State has ever constituted itself on his principles or made it possible to live according to his commandments: those States who have taken his name have taken it as an alias to enable them to persecute his followers more plausibly.
It is not surprising that under these circumstances, and in the absence of any defence, the Jerusalem community and the Roman government decided to exterminate Jesus. They had just as much right to do so as to exterminate the two thieves who perished with him.

 

[DavidFilmer]

The trial of Jesus was just. He was accused of a crime (declaring himself to be Divine, which implied that he was equal or superior to the Roman Emperor). A trial was held, and evidence was presented, and the defense (ie, Jesus) rested without presenting his own account, though he was given the opportunity to do so (and Pilate had been encouraged to hear and heed his plea by his own wife).

The charge was treason, and was punishable by death. Had Jesus been a Roman citizen, he would have been executed by beheading. As he was not a Roman citizen, he was sentenced to death by crucifixion.

But, even so, Pilate (who we know, from history, to be a very ruthless man) offered the Jewish crowd a choice to liberate either Jesus or Barabbas (a convicted thief). Jesus was convicted twice - first by a lawful Roman judge, and again by his own people.

The problem with Shaw’s analysis (and many like him) is that they treat Jesus like an unwilling and innocent victim. But Jesus (as God the Son) was “in” on the plan from the beginning of time. It was HIS plan, just as much as it was the Father’s plan.

“Fairness” is difficult to quantify. If two people are held captive, and one food ration is given to them both, it is “fair” that they divide it equally. But if one captive chooses, of his own free will, to give the other person half of his share (or ALL of it), is THAT unfair?

It would be “fair” for both prisoners to equally divide the food. It would be “unfair” if a guard favored one prisoner with a greater share, at the expense of the other prisoner. But if the other prisoner WILLINGLY gives a portion (or ALL) of his food to his companion, would anybody call that “unfair?”

I don’t think so.

 

[Starrsmother]

“He was guilty on every count of the indictment, and on many more that his accusers had not the wit to frame. If he was innocent then the whole world was guilty.”

And therein lies the crux of the answer to your question. Jesus WAS the one and only truly innocent man. He never taught or attempted the overthrow of the Roman government–infact He said “Give unto Ceasar the things that are Ceasar’s”

He was not the enemy of the jews as a whole or even of all Pharisees–some Pharisees even were his disciples. When the Pharisees tried to trick Him into blasphemy, He never admitted that He was God --other than to His chosen apostles. When they were preparing to crucify Him and Pilate asked Him if He were indeed the Son of God, He answered “YOU say that I am.” Jesus was raised as a practicing jew. He followed Jewish law. He had just celebrated a traditional jewish Passover on the night He was betrayed. Infact, if you remember, He even insisted on paying the jewish temple tax for both Peter and Himself–“that all righteousness should be performed.”

He did associate with prostitutes–but so did most of the jewish and Roman hierarchy–only they consorted with them in a different way. That alone would not have gotten him killed.

Moreover, even Pilate–after listening to all the testimony and speaking with Jesus-- announced to the crowds that he found no valid reason to kill Jesus and he attempted in the most stupidly imperfect manner ever recorded in imaginable history to set Jesus free!

Also in those days, even the very wealthy wore torn and dirty clothes and blackened their faces when they offered a fast to God. So Jesus’ dress code was never mentioned as an issue by the pharisees, one way or another. This practice annoyed Jesus, but even that He did not condemn them for. Certainly Jesus did perform miracles–infact when He was before Herod, Herod tried to get him to perform one and gave up. So in His day, there was a plethora of magicians who were surely more willing to perform on demand than Jesus.

The simple reason that Jesus found Himself crucified was because it was the sole purpose of Him being here on earth at all. The slightly longer version, however, was that a perfect storm occurred in the days and weeks preceding Jesus’ being captured and executed. Jesus was, of course perfectly aware that the storm would occur and allowed it to. But indeed, the storm occured–and it ended in Jesus’ death.

The one thing that Jesus did that put Him on the fast track to the cross was that somewhere, just preceding his capture, He marched into the temple, banished the money lenders, trashed their tables and booths and told everyone in the temple that they had turned His Father’s house into a den of thieves. In doing that, Jesus knowingly crossed the line. He made the Pharisees look like fools, he threatened the wealthy money changer’s income and worst of all, He did not shut up and go away when they told Him to! And they HAD told Him to–more than once.

So what do we have here actually? Was Jesus ever credibly guilty of treason to a point He would have been convicted today? I think not. Nor would He be convicted of blasphemy today if blasphemy were a crime. The worst He would have been convicted of today is destruction of private property and slander. Neither would have been a death sentence crime even then–AND if Jesus had just been a Roman citizen rather than a Jew–He wouldn’t have in any way been subjected to the judgment or accusations of the jewish pharisees–as one of the bennies back then in being a Roman citizen was that they had a right to a trial in the king’s court—a fact that saved Paul’s life more than once, as Paul WAS a Roman citizen and knew and insisted on his rights as such! If you read various historical secular literature about Jesus–such as Josephus to name only one–you see a man that was railroaded into a death sentence–perhaps one of the first recorded instances of such a railroading in very early history A.D. The truth is that Jesus ran into the Nazi gestapo of the year 33 A.D.–the Ku Klux Klan of the 1st century!

So, back to your original premise: “If Jesus were innocent then the whole world was guilty.” And that, my friend, was the ultimate, final, superceding truth in G.B. Shaw’s treatise. Jesus was the ONLY truly and completely innocent man EVER–in all of history! And, though this is basically sidebar in the purely logical discussion of guilt, He just happened to be GOD at that!!! And what did the world do to Him because of His innocence and in spite of it? Why, we KILLED our very God of course! So was/is the world guilty? I bet just about the time that Jesus gave up His last breath, an earthquake happened, the sun was eclipsed and the curtain in the temple ripped in half, that there were a whole bunch of jews and Romans running around screaming “Have mercy! We are guilty of a horrible thing!”

Actually this reminds me of a philosophy project I was involved in back in my grad program. If your question has anything to do with such, use my thoughts above and flesh them out a bit and you’ll get a B+ at least–I know, cause I did which is why I remember it so well! LOL!

 

[Neofight]

The trial of our Lord transcends “fairness” or “unfairness”. His trial was, however, righteous.

 

[porthos11]

The trial of Jesus was just. He was accused of a crime (declaring himself to be Divine, which implied that he was equal or superior to the Roman Emperor). A trial was held, and evidence was presented, and the defense (ie, Jesus) rested without presenting his own account, though he was given the opportunity to do so (and Pilate had been encouraged to hear and heed his plea by his own wife).

The charge was treason, and was punishable by death. Had Jesus been a Roman citizen, he would have been executed by beheading. As he was not a Roman citizen, he was sentenced to death by crucifixion.

But, even so, Pilate (who we know, from history, to be a very ruthless man) offered the Jewish crowd a choice to liberate either Jesus or Barabbas (a convicted thief). Jesus was convicted twice - first by a lawful Roman judge, and again by his own people.

The problem with Shaw’s analysis (and many like him) is that they treat Jesus like an unwilling and innocent victim. But Jesus (as God the Son) was “in” on the plan from the beginning of time. It was HIS plan, just as much as it was the Father’s plan.

“Fairness” is difficult to quantify. If two people are held captive, and one food ration is given to them both, it is “fair” that they divide it equally. But if one captive chooses, of his own free will, to give the other person half of his share (or ALL of it), is THAT unfair?

It would be “fair” for both prisoners to equally divide the food. It would be “unfair” if a guard favored one prisoner with a greater share, at the expense of the other prisoner. But if the other prisoner WILLINGLY gives a portion (or ALL) of his food to his companion, would anybody call that “unfair?”

I don’t think so.

Well, there was one irregularity, if I remember right. It was held at night, which I believe was forbidden by the law.

 

[DavidFilmer]

Well, there was one irregularity, if I remember right. It was held at night, which I believe was forbidden by the law.

He was brought before the Sanhedrin at night, which was in violation of Jewish law. He was brought before Pilate the following day, and that’s the trial that mattered, and presumably the one the OP was asking about.

 

[patrick457]

The trial of Jesus was just. He was accused of a crime (declaring himself to be Divine, which implied that he was equal or superior to the Roman Emperor). A trial was held, and evidence was presented, and the defense (ie, Jesus) rested without presenting his own account, though he was given the opportunity to do so (and Pilate had been encouraged to hear and heed his plea by his own wife).

I don’t think Jesus declaration of divinity is exactly what did Him in - in the placard on His cross His crime (“the accusation against Him”) is described as being “King of the Judaeans.” And if we go by Luke, the accusation brought against Him is: “We found this man misleading our nation and forbidding us to give tribute to Caesar, and saying that he himself is Christ, a king.”