Background[ edit ] A 19th-century jury Jury nullification is the source of much debate.
Study Limitations We will focus here only on what is directly relevant to the arrest and trial of Jesus, beginning with marginally the intentions of the Jewish leaders and ending with the leading away to the Crucifixion. We will exclude, except where tangently related: The Gospels, of course, are our primary sources for the trials of Jesus.
An immediate objection raised by Skeptics is a simple one - where did the evangelists get their information from?
The Apostles were an obvious source: John is noted to have accompanied Peter. But even so, that still leaves the question of sources open. Let's run down the possible answers and objections to them: We consider this to be the most likely answer.
Jesus was with the disciples for 40 days after the Resurrection - plenty of time to relate the sundry details of what happened once the more theological stuff was out of the way. And certainly, Peter would want to know what his Lord had been put through as he was waiting anxiously in the courtyard.
More specifically, there is good reason to say that the events of the trial probably were told to the disciples by Jesus -- it would serve perfectly as a vehicle for His teaching.
He was always describing what would happen to Him, and He could very easily have used the historical details as the "I told you so Jesus was big on the fulfillment of prophecy -- cf. In point of fact, the accounts of the Passion, the earliest materials of the gospels probably recorded, contain much of this material.
This pattern of narrative-interspersed-with-theological-explication was adopted by the evangelists as a METHOD, and hence could easily be seen as deriving from Jesus as paradigm-teacher. If Jesus related His Passion in this way, it would certainly explain how the disciples picked up that practice.
And the Passion story, as the earliest, is the closest to the mouth of Jesus, and thus the least susceptible to embellishment. Also, remember that Jesus was consistently explaining His words and actions to the disciples in private afterwards -- so why would He not do it in this case?
To simply dismiss the possibility of Jesus filling in His disciples on the trial afterwards as "fruits that naive faith can yield" [Fric.
CMJ, ] is presumptuous at best and circular reasoning at the worst. Certainly within the Christian paradigm, this cannot be dismissed as a possibility, if indeed as a likelihood. However, even allowing that Jesus might not have given such an account to his disciples - which we would note as the best, and most parsimonious, explanation - other witnesses were possible, who might also have added to the mix:Printed from grupobittia.com On the Trial of Jesus.
The purpose of this essay is to provide an overview of the many issues and questions. Jury nullification is a concept where members of a trial jury find a defendant not guilty if they do not support a government's law, do not believe it is constitutional or humane, or do not support a possible punishment for breaking the law.
This may happen in both civil and criminal grupobittia.com a criminal trial, a jury nullifies by acquitting a defendant, even though the members of the jury may. Polygamy. Polygamy as a doctrine was introduced into the LDS Church by Joseph Smith. The practice continued after Joseph’s death in , and was publicly announced in .
Asian American groups have made variants of these arguments since the early s and have filed multiple complaints against and urged investigations into a number of universities. Difference in Precedent and Stare Decisis. Stare decisis is a Latin term. It means 'to stand by things decided.' Stare decisis is a doctrine used in all court cases and with all legal issues.
Note: Originally entitled, “Ven. Emperor Karl I of Austria and Empress Zita,” this article was written well before Pope John Paul II’s October 3, beatification of Emperor Karl.