PDA

View Full Version : Discussion Why was John the Baptist Rejected by the Sanhedrin



manichunter
Apr 9th 2009, 05:21 PM
I believe that they rejected him because He was a challenge to their authority over the people and would affect their pocket book.

Why do you think so?

I do not think it was because they were accusing him of teaching a false doctrine or doing something heretical. John's father was a priest and very senior priest at that who was allowed to go into the holy of holies. Hence, John had levitical training avaliable for him to know the torah in detail. He was accused of being a heretic, but a distractor from the positions of the Pharisees, Sadducees, and Herodians.

This just my knowledge and discovery so far, but your help is good in my study and follow up instruction. Plug in........... I believe Jesus was charged with the same thing, and His claim of diety was a false accusation that gave them a chance to stop him from affecting them.

Moxie
Apr 9th 2009, 07:28 PM
I believe that since John was not like the other Pharisees they did not understand Him or his ministry. The Pharisees were a very egocentric group and of course not open to any sort of differences; leaving Jesus out. :rolleyes:

Lefty
Apr 9th 2009, 08:28 PM
With all the hypocracy they were invested in, you would think the threat to their authority would have been a small thing compared to the attack on their consciences when confronted with the words of their God telling them what they really were. But those who's hearts were so hardened may not have had any consciences left to feel anything, and had sunk to the level of animals, which would have been the conditions of those who wanted Christ dead. I think there was a mixture of those who repented, we know many Pharisees later did, and those that never did.

apothanein kerdos
Apr 9th 2009, 08:40 PM
I believe that they rejected him because He was a challenge to their authority over the people and would affect their pocket book.

Why do you think so?

I do not think it was because they were accusing him of teaching a false doctrine or doing something heretical. John's father was a priest and very senior priest at that who was allowed to go into the holy of holies. Hence, John had levitical training avaliable for him to know the torah in detail. He was accused of being a heretic, but a distractor from the positions of the Pharisees, Sadducees, and Herodians.

This just my knowledge and discovery so far, but your help is good in my study and follow up instruction. Plug in........... I believe Jesus was charged with the same thing, and His claim of diety was a false accusation that gave them a chance to stop him from affecting them.


It's very easy for us to ascribe "power-plays" to the ancient Pharisees and Saducees, but it's really much more complicated.

The Pharisees, for instance, genuinely thought they were doing a good thing when they had Jesus killed. They had come about prior to the Roman invasion and wanted to keep Israel Holy, so God would send His Messiah. Well, Israel was captured by Rome. The Pharisees believed this was because the Jews were unholy and rebelling against God. Thus, they believed we had to be perfected in His Law, so they became quite stringent on following the Law.

This is why the Pharisees hated Jesus. He hung around people who were prostitutes and tax collectors - the ones, the Pharisees believed - were holding Israel back from being free. His claim of Deity was enough for them to suspect that He would bring ruin upon Israel. Yes, they felt their leadership challenged, but they weren't leaders for the sake of power, but because they believed it would lead back to a time of holiness. Thus, they had Him killed.

John the Baptist, however, they viewed as being demon possessed (as he was quite eccentric), and this is why they despised him (Matthew 11:18-19 is my justification for both what I said about their qualm with Christ and their qualm with John the Baptist).

Emanate
Apr 9th 2009, 08:44 PM
The only priest allowed into the holy of holies was the High Priest (Cohen haGadol for AK). Should John have not been the High Priest himself? Is it possible the transfer took place in the womb?

RJ Mac
Apr 9th 2009, 08:54 PM
Could it be that neither Jesus nor John studied directly under either group
so they didn't have the credentials that would qualify them to have a voice.
What school did you come from? What degree's do you have?
What denomination do you serve at? Both were independents and their
teachings were insightful but not contemporary. So they were rejected
by the academics.

RJ Mac

apothanein kerdos
Apr 9th 2009, 08:58 PM
Again, I think Matthew 11:18-19 gives us a better context of why both Jesus and John were rejected:

For John came neither eating nor drinking, and they say, 'He has a demon.' The Son of Man came eating and drinking, and they say, 'Look at him! A glutton and a drunkard, a friend of tax collectors and sinners!' Yet wisdom is justified by her deeds."

markedward
Apr 9th 2009, 09:09 PM
I believe Jesus was charged with the same thing, and His claim of diety was a false accusation that gave them a chance to stop him from affecting them.I just want to check: are you saying Christ's claim of deity was used against him falsely, or are you saying that Christ was falsely accused of claiming deity? Your sentence is a little ambiguous, so I just want to make sure we're (or at least, I'm) understanding you correctly.

manichunter
Apr 9th 2009, 09:19 PM
I just want to check: are you saying Christ's claim of deity was used against him falsely, or are you saying that Christ was falsely accused of claiming deity? Your sentence is a little ambiguous, so I just want to make sure we're (or at least, I'm) understanding you correctly.


He was deity, but they did not believe he was. They were charging him for making a false claim.

apothanein kerdos
Apr 9th 2009, 09:21 PM
He was deity, but they did not believe he was. They were charging him for making a false claim.


I figured that's what you meant. Hence His silence in His defense - He really was God, so when they accused Him of saying He was God, why speak up?

Had He been lying, or had He never claimed to be God, I'm sure He would have said something.

manichunter
Apr 9th 2009, 09:21 PM
It's very easy for us to ascribe "power-plays" to the ancient Pharisees and Saducees, but it's really much more complicated.

The Pharisees, for instance, genuinely thought they were doing a good thing when they had Jesus killed. They had come about prior to the Roman invasion and wanted to keep Israel Holy, so God would send His Messiah. Well, Israel was captured by Rome. The Pharisees believed this was because the Jews were unholy and rebelling against God. Thus, they believed we had to be perfected in His Law, so they became quite stringent on following the Law.

This is why the Pharisees hated Jesus. He hung around people who were prostitutes and tax collectors - the ones, the Pharisees believed - were holding Israel back from being free. His claim of Deity was enough for them to suspect that He would bring ruin upon Israel. Yes, they felt their leadership challenged, but they weren't leaders for the sake of power, but because they believed it would lead back to a time of holiness. Thus, they had Him killed.

John the Baptist, however, they viewed as being demon possessed (as he was quite eccentric), and this is why they despised him (Matthew 11:18-19 is my justification for both what I said about their qualm with Christ and their qualm with John the Baptist).


Jesus did allude to the fact that most of the Sanhedrin were not holy, but hypocrites themselves, and that they did have egos by the accusations that they desire the best seats and accolades of the people.

apothanein kerdos
Apr 9th 2009, 09:22 PM
Jesus did allude to the fact that most of the Sanhedrin were not holy, but hypocrites themselves, and that they did have egos by the accusations that they desire the best seats and accolades of the people.


This is true as well. So it could be both.

Your Advert here


Hosted by Webnet77