|
Peter was hiding- he fled the 'courtroom' after being fingered as a Galilean by some of the locals. He denied Jesus 3 times before the morning rooster crowed. When was he siezed?
I can picture a crowd, probably composed of a mixture of people, like any mob- the merely curious, paid provacateurs, varied and sundry persons...
The announcer asks, "Jesus or Barabbas" It could be hard to discern what was meant, if both names (to some ears perhaps) could mean the same guy... like "Do you want Santa or Mr Claus". Maybe some got confused..
However the force of 2000 years of traditional understanding should be given due weight- the man was crucified and he rose from the dead. Sounds possible. I can believe it. This sacrifice substituted the resultant defunctive temple sacrifice (made procedureally impossible by the earthquake) and crowned Him King of all Israel forever, fulfilling many prophecies and divine legal requirements. Having been divorced under the Old Covenant there was now a New One to make 'lo ammi' (not my people ) 'my people' once again, called by a new name in a new land as per Isaiah (new name='christians') so it can be understood theologicaly. Somehow this bridges the gap betwen the national Israel heritage and the larger kingdom of the whole world that is yet to come.
All this 'higher-criticism' of the Bible, while a necesary step on the the road of evolution, is probably about as valid as other modern disciplines- like the medical profession, lawyers, psychology, etc. It's real but ends up like Frankenstein's monster- way out of control.
How bout that- all this about the Temple sacrifice sounds like the situation right now. It is impossible to pay debts at law, the entire venue for that having been removed/destroyed, so we are only left with equity- if we come in good faith. Zero out the account with the pre-paid exemption by the grace of God Himself. All the answers to everything must be in the Bible, somewhere.
Actually I am willing to consider anything- maybe that makes me a bad juror. What I would like to know, as a juror, is what testimonial evidence is there that the 'PEACE and DIGNITY of the STATE' has been somehow breached. This is a required statement that appears one way or another on every indictment but is it ever proven on court? Rules of Procedure clearly state that whatever is failed to claim under oath in court is to be struck from the indictment. While appearence may cure defects in jurisdiction there are still due process rules. How do we know the STATE is a PLAINTIFF if this is never offered to us jurors in evidence?
|