Study: Jesus’ Crucifixion Was Legal

A legal scholar says Christ got a fair trial and crucifixion was not unusual for the time

  • Share
  • Read Later

A Spanish legal scholar who spent 25 years researching Jesus’s trial has concluded that the man believed by Christians to be the Son of God received due process under Roman law.

Jose Maria Ribas Alba says that Jesus’s trial and punishment were consistent with other contemporary cases, and that the “criminal proceedings against him were legal,” the New York Daily News reports. The finding disputes Biblical accounts that say that the charges against Christ were exaggerated and that his punishment was unusually cruel.

Ribas Alba says that the charges against Jesus were both religious and political crimes, and that crucifixion was a standard punishment for such crimes.

[NYDN]

15 comments
Tiger-Pi
Tiger-Pi

A Roman kangaroo court, overseen by PILATE, sentenced Christ on  very flimsy grounds.Christ underwent the trial without  a lawyer for defense. And here comes a study that claims that the trial was'legal'.  The Romans had illegally  captured and colonized most of the then known Middle East and Northern Africa. Further, evidence at the trial, if any, were presented by the Romans and  based  only on what was given by the Jews who strongly opposed Christ's interpretation of religion and social justice.  He was never given a fair trial and the punishment -Crucifixion, was also an atrocity ,a barbaric inhuman  device of execution the Romans had found useful to crush  all dissidence against their rule.  During Victorian times, people accused of stealing bread to stave off hunger were deported to Australia. Can you justify that ?

Tiger-Pi
Tiger-Pi

A Roman kangaroo court, overseen by PILATE, sentenced Christ on  very flimsy grounds.Christ underwent the trial without  a lawyer for defense. And here comes a study that claims that the trial was'legal'.  The Romans had illegally  captured and colonized most of the then known Middle East and Northern Africa. Further, evidence at the trial, if any, were presented by the Romans and  based  only what was given by the Jews who strongly opposed Christ's interpretation of religion and social justice.  He was never given a fair trial and the punishment ,Crucifixion, was also an atrocity ,a barbaric device the Romans had found useful to crush  all dissidence.  

dellflorida
dellflorida

The Roman occupy a country  commit atrocities,and alsoexecute anyone they want to-on little or no evidence

and it was done 'legally'........sure by Roman  military law...(what an idiot this guy is)...

TommyRobinson
TommyRobinson

or go to the source of all things. Get on your knees and ask GOD (JESUS, GODS SON) to reveal himself to you. I don't believe he will take 25 years to reveal himself to you.

mitchellglaser
mitchellglaser

So this lunatic thoughtfully considered the testimony from people who lived three hundred years after the event? Congratulations, you are a monument to justice.

IncredulousMark
IncredulousMark

What next? An investigation into Sirius Black's incarceration in Azkaban?

jordanfuller10
jordanfuller10

As a seeking Christian, this would usually cause a big disturbance with me on my journey like many things have. I can tell you, I'm not bothered in the slightest about this post, simply because I know full well that this article is false. I don't even need an argument for it. If you want true information about Jesus, the history of Christianity, his resurrection etc. from believers, critics and skeptics alike, go to the most prominent new and old testament Scholars in the world who have spent their lives un-earthing the facts and the conclusions they proclaim will give you the real reasons why Christians believe Jesus is who he claimed to be. No disrespect but if you want real info on Jesus, you really do need to go to the top guys of their game who are the scholars of the new and old testament and not scholars on religion as a whole. The comparison differ to the point of knowing that if you wanted to find out every single detail of the history of a football team, you go to their current and former managers, check the history and league records, go in depth with even present and past players families and friends etc. where as going to a religious scholar would be no different that going to someone who could tell you just about what colour kit they are currently wearing.

Lee Strobel, Mike Licona, Gary Habermas, Bart Erhman, Bruce Metzgar, N.T.Wright, F.F Bruce, Josh Mcdowell, Moishe Rosen, Tim Keller etc. Check these guys out if you want REAL information of Christianity as a whole. 

Take a look at former Lawyer Sir Lionel Luckhoo who was the most sucessfull Lawyer in the world in the Guiness Book of World Records with a record of 250 case wins as a defence attorney. If you was going to go to anyone about serious evidence for anything, I can tell you, it was this guy. Check out his take if you're sincere.

LucasCloverAlcolea
LucasCloverAlcolea

What a load of nonsense its well known that it was illegal, a trial during the night for example, bribed witnesses, and so on. 

YehudaElyada
YehudaElyada

The question of legality is moot. The Roman governor had the authority to crucify any person for the most trivial expression of disrespect to the Roman emperor. The Jewish vassal was a Roman chosen tyrant despised by his subjects. The Jewish high priest was "Zedoki", which meant at the time a conservative aristocrat, plutocrat who couldn't care less about a "grass-root", young and poor spiritual challenger. The "Prushim", who promoted a reform similar to Martin Luther's 1400 years later, didn't like Jesus populist teaching, but they wouldn't bring the case to the Romans, as this would be considered worse than a moral sin. The so called Sanhedrin meeting was not a proper court hearing, as Jewish legal preceding must be in full daylight with free public attendance and a formal advocate for the accused.

So, why Jesus was prosecuted? The reason was public safety, as his declared plan was to generate mayhem during the Passover ceremonies in a protest of the commercialization of the temple. The high priest considered this a must-avoid danger, as the temple court was packed tight with standing pilgrims - and the Roman legion soldiers in the citadel overlooking the court where known to use any disturbance to justify a massacre of the worshipers. No religious considerations were involved, except by Jesus himself, so the practical decision was to let the Roman governor exercise his authority as a protector of the public. (Were it a religious case, they didn't need the Roman approval - and the means of execution wouldn't be by fructification, an illegal procedure by Jewish law.) For everyone, except Jesus disciples and the useless mob around the governor palace, it was a no-news event. The historical meaning of the event was elaborated by the evangelists much later in a way suitable to the new marketing strategy: Forget about enlightening the stubborn Jews, go to the Romans and convert them to the New Judaism.

Codexone
Codexone

It might be legal based on the Roman law of that era, but that doesn't mean it was moral. The man was crucified for freedom of speech. (By the way, I'm agnostic). 

There are various laws around the world that makes certain things legal and illegal. That doesn't mean they are morally right/wrong. Furthermore, morals themselves are relative (if you understand the theory of relativity).

dellflorida
dellflorida

@jordanfuller10   Check Gogle-the end of Mark is a forgery and there are other forges passages in the New testament.. Reeligious dictionaries repoort thet the end of Marek is a forgery ...


#libtardedamerica
#libtardedamerica

@Codexone 

morality has nothing to do with this. he wasn't studying the morality of what happened but whether or not it was legal, which he determined it was. you can talk about morals, ethics, whatever you want, but they have nothing at all to do with the article or the study it references

snerber
snerber

@Codexone Yeah it wasn't moral but neither were all the other crucifixions that commonly took place at the time for similar offenses. That's the point. The death penalty and disproportionate sentencing that's applied today isn't moral either, but it's legal.