Sedition was the formal charge against Jesus. Why was he guilty?

Question

thanx for the heads up on the predition error.

Answer 1

Although the gospels claim that Jesus was accused of blasphemy, it appears that some secular historians suspect this is erroneous. Instead, it seems that he was probably accused of sedition (incitement of discontent or rebellion against a government).

There is a compelling argument that yes, Jesus was guilty of sedition. Here is a good reference article:

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/james_still/jesus_trial.html

Answer 2

Actually, the charge the Jewish leaders made against Jesus was one of blasphemy. But blasphemy was not a crime punishable under the Roman government, nor did the Jews have the authority to execute anyone. So the mob that was incited by the Jewish chief priests and elders intimidated Pilate into handing over Jesus for crucifixion even though Pilate said Jesus was not guilty of any crimes punishable by death.

Answer 3

Jesus was accused by the court of "Many things" including Blasphemy, for which charge two witnesses were produced. He was found guilty of Blasphemy by unanimous verdict of the judges.

Mark 15, 2f :"And the chief priests accused him of many things: but he answered nothing."

The entire process of his arrest, accusation, trial, sentencing and execution did not folow Rabbinical, Sanhedrin or Mosaic law:
http://everything2.com/index.pl?node_id=616546

E.g.
-Under the law of the Sanhedrin, the first step should have been arraignment of the prisoner, the reading of charges against him in open court. The record (including the writings of Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Josephus, Philo, and the Dead Sea Scrolls) mentions no arraignment.
-Under provisions of Jewish law there could be no conviction for a capital offense based on the testimony of less than two witnesses.
-Under Mosaic law an accused could not be required to testify against himself.
-A voluntary confession was not competent for conviction under Jewish law.
-Hearsay evidence was not admitted, nor was circumstantial evidence admissible. No evidence could be produced except when the accused was present.
-The court sought and found two false witnesses, Matthew tells us. Mark adds that the witnesses did not agree. The first testified on the charge of blasphemy that Jesus said "I am able to destroy the temple." The second testified that Jesus said, "I will destroy this temple." There were no witnesses but these two, and they did not agree. Jesus was entitled to acquittal without being questioned as to his defense ... and certainly without being compelled to testify against himself.
- Jesus was harangued by the high priest Caiaphas into speaking out. The priests asked "Are you the Son of God?" Jesus' response was merely, "You have said it." Caiaphas then announced to the Court, "He has spoken blasphemy. What need have we of further witnesses?"
- This first hearing before the Sanhedrin concluded about three o'clock Friday morning. The Court adjourned only till daybreak, though the law required each of them to deliberate alone for one full day before convening for the second hearing.
-This session was perfunctory. No witnesses were called. Again the law was violated by requiring Jesus to answer the repeated question, "Are you the Son of God?" Again Jesus answered, "You say I am," then added, "Hereafter you will see the Son of Man sitting on the right hand of power!" At this the court shouted, "What need have we of further witnesses, for we ourselves have heard it from his own mouth!"
-The ballot was then taken, the judges' votes were registered, and Mark tells us, "They all condemned him guilty of death." The importance of this is in that peculiar provision of Jewish law that required acquittal if there was a unanimous verdict!
-Under Jewish law death by stoning was the proper sentence for a capital offense. The Jewish people did not crucify, that method of inflicting the death penalty being Greek and Roman in origin. The Jews put capital convicts to death by stoning, beheading, or strangulation in accordance with the nature of the crime. Death by stoning was prescribed for blasphemy.

See the second link below for an excellent description, with biblical references, of Pilate's role in the whole kangaroo court. It was a fix up!

Answer 4

There was no need for any charge.He only had to be labelled guilty for the divine play to start or conclude.

Answer 5

Heretical teachings.

Answer 6

No, it was blasphemy he was accused of. He was not proven guilty.

Answer 7

he wasn't guilty...the Jews framed him...bloody Republicans !!

Answer 8

Cuz God was mad at the Pherisees

Answer 9

he stirred up the people.