The History of the Sanhedrin Seventy one august members of the Great Sanhedrin sat in council in the stately

and revered Council Room of Hewn Stones. This revered institution called the San hedrin had a venerable and hallowed history from great antiquity. This was the i nstitution that was felt to have been formed by Moses at Sinai: Numbers 11:16 Assemble for Me (Espah-li) seventy men of the elders of Israel, who m you know to be the people s elders and officers, and you shall take them to the Tent of the Meeting, and they shall stand there with you. Later we find historical traces of the Sanhedrin in the tribunal formed by King Jehoshaphat: II Chronicles 19:8 Moreover in Jerusalem, for the judgment of the Lord and for th e controversies, Jehoshaphat appointed some of the Levites and priests, and some of the chief fathers of Israel, when they returned to Jerusalem. When the era of the prophets was over and the era of the scribes began in the da ys of Esdras (Ezra the Scribe) and Nehemiah, we find the Court of the Nobles and Chiefs and Ancients (Nehemiah 2:16; 4:8, 13; 5:7; 7:5; Ezra 5:5, 9; 6:7, 14; 10 :8). The first undisputed mention of the Jewish Sanhedrin came during the reign of Antiochus III the Great (223-187 BCE) (Josephus, Flavius, Antiquities of the Jews, XII.iii.3i). During the Grecian era, a large measure of self government of given to the Jews in their civil and religious administration. Here the high priests and their ge rousia (Council of Elders) held power until after the Hasmonean rebellion agains t Antiochus Epiphanes IV s desecration of the temple, both the royal and the pries tly powers came to be invested in the hands of the Hasmonean rulers of the Dynas ty of the Maccabean princes. The authority of the Sanhedrin diminished but with the Pharisees they came to be known as the House of Justice of the Hasmoneans (Ta lmud: Aboda zara 36b, Sanhedrin 82a) It took a coup d etat by the Maccabean prince, John Hyrcanus I (135-105 BCE), the 50th high priest, who became king (129 BCE) as well as high priest when the Saddu cean Sanhedrin was born (Josephus, Antiquities, XVI, xi, 1; Sanhedrin 52b; Megill at Taanith, 10) This Sanhedrin controlled by the Sadducees rather than the Phar isees continued through the reigns of John Hyrcanus I s sons, Aristobulus I (105-1 04 BCE), the 51st high priest, and Alexander Jannaeus (104-76 BCE), the 52nd hig h priest. It was the Pharisee reaction to the strife between the sons of Alexander Jannaeu s; Hyrcanus II, the 53rd high priest (76-67 BCE for the 1st time and 63-49 BCE for the 2nd time) and Aristobulus II, the 54th high priest (67-63 BCE for the 1s t time) that brought in the fateful intervention by Rome where the power of the Sanhedrin was almost fatally destroyed. The Roman Proconsul Gabinius created sma ller Sanhedrins in Gadara, Jericho, Amathonte, and Sapphora in 57 BCE. The Coun cil of the Elders in Jerusalem was limited to the city and its local district. The fate would again change when Hyrcanus II was appointed Ethnarch of the Jews (47 BCE) and the Sanhedrin was restored in all of the land of Israel. The power of the Sanhedrin quickly made a fateful decision by passing judgment upon the H erod, the son of Antipater with charges of cruelty in the government (Josephus, Antiquities, XI, ix, 4). When Herod the Great was established in power by the Caesar of Rome in 37 BCE, h e repaid this insult by the judges who passed judgment against him in the Sanhed rin and killed forty-five of the Sanhedrin judges along with the High Priest Ant igonas (40-37 BCE), the 55th high priest in that same year (Ibid, XV, I, 2). The

Sanhedrin was restored, but When Herod died in the fall s in the Great Sanhedrin was narchy that was allotted to

this time under the total power of Herod the Great. of 4 BCE, the jurisdiction of the Assembly of Elder reduced to Judea, Samaria, and Idumea, under the Eth Archelaus.

Then came the deposition of the Ethnarch of the Jews and the annexation of Judea by Rome into a province of Syria in 6 CE. The office of the high priest and th e Sanhedrin, came under the control of the Procurator of Judea, yet remained as the supreme authority of the Jewish people. Only in the case of capital sentenc es of death would the Sanhedrin need to receive confirmation from the Roman Gove rnor before they could carry out the execution. (Matthew 26:57; March 14:55; 15: 1; Luke 22:66; John 11:47; Acts 4:15; 5:21; 6:12; 22:30; 23:1; 24:20; Josephus, Antiquities XX, ix, 1; Bell. Jud. II, 15:6; Vita 12, 13, 38, 49, 70). In the final days before the fall of Jerusalem, the Roman governors, Albinus and Gessius Flores particularly goaded the Jewish people into rebellion. It was th e Sanhedrin that organized the first armed rebellion only to be taken over by th e Zealots and the famed Assembly of the Elders passed into history. Though a no minal Sanhedrin was resurrected in Jamnia and later Tiberias after the destructi on of Jerusalem and the Temple of Herod, the Beth-Din (Great Sanhedrin) in the d eploring words of the Jewish writers ceased to exist. (Sota. Ix, end; Echa Rabba thi on Lam., v, 15). The Chamber of Hewn Stones (Lishkath Hagazith) According to the Mishnic Tractate that described the measurements of the temple called the Massecheth Middoth, we find that the Council of Hewn Stones was the c ouncil room to the further east of the temple on the south side of the temple co urtyard where the altar of burnt offering was located. Looking out of the counc il room, the Sanhedrin could see the temple to their left. As stated in Perek V : The Sanhedrin Friends of the Sanhedrin

Massecheth Middoth in Perek V:4 Those on the south: the wood-chamber, the chamber of the captivity, the chamber of "hewn stones . The wood-chamber--said Rabbi Elie zer, the son of Jacob: "I have forgotten for what it served." Abba Shall said: I t was the chamber of the high-priest, and it lay behind the other two, and a roo f was extended over the three (they had one common roof). The chamber of the cap tivity: a well was there which they of the captivity had digged, and a wheel was placed upon it, and thence they provided water for the whole court. The chamber of "hewn stones": there the great Sanhedrim of Israel sat, and judge d the priesthood. And the priest in whom was found disqualification was clothed in black, and veiled in black, and went out, and had to go. And if there was not found in him disqualification, he was dressed in white, and veiled in white; he went in and served with his brethren the priests. And they made a feast-day, be cause there was not found disqualification in the seed of Aaron the priest, and thus spake they: "Blessed be God, blessed be He, that there has not been found d isqualification in the seed of Aaron, and blessed be He Who has chosen Aaron and his sons, to stand to serve before the face of the Lord in the Most Holy House. " Let us examine this august chamber a little more in the writings of Alfred Eders heim,, The Temple: Its Ministry and Service : Alfred Edersheim (The Chambers) The account which Jewish tradition gives of these gates and chambers around the Court of the Priests is somewhat conflicting, per haps because the same chambers and gates may have borne different names. It may, however, be thus summarised.

Entering the Great Court by the Nicanor Gate, there was at the right hand the Ch amber of Phinehas with its 96 receptacles for priests' vestments, and at the lef t the place where the high-priest's daily meat-offering was prepared, and where every morning before daybreak all the ministering priests met, after their inspe ction of the Temple and before being told off to duty. Along the southern side of the court were the Water-gate, through which at the F east of Tabernacles the pitcher with water was brought from the Pool of Siloam, with a chamber above it, called Abtinas, where the priests kept guard at night; then the Gate of the Firstlings, through which the firstlings fit to be offered were brought; and the Wood-gate, through which the altar-wood was carried. Along side these gates were Gazith, the hall of square polished stones, where the Sanh edrim sat; the chamber Golah, for the water apparatus which emptied and filled t he laver; and the wood-chamber. Above and beyond it were the apartments of the high-priest and the council-chamb er of the 'honourable councillors,' or priestly council for affairs strictly con nected with the Temple. On the northern side of the Priests' Court were the Gate Nitzutz (Spark Gate), with a guard-chamber above for the priests, the Gate of S acrifices, and the Gate of the Beth-Moked. Alongside these gates were the chamber for salting the sacrifices; that for salt ing the skins (named Parvah from its builder), with bathrooms for the high-pries t above it; and finally the Beth-Moked with its apartments. The two largest of t hese buildings--the council-chamber of the Sanhedrim at the south-eastern, * and the Beth-Moked at the north-western angle of the court--were partly built into the court and partly out on 'the terrace ' The most prominent object in the Court of the Priests was the immense altar of u nhewn stones, a square of not less than 48 feet, and, inclusive of 'the horns,' 15 feet high. They were 'whitened' twice a year. Once in seven years the high-pr iest was to inspect the Most Holy Place, through an opening made from the room a bove. If repairs were required, the workmen were let down through the ceiling in a sort of cage, so as not to see anything but what they were to work at. According to Ederseim, during the days of YaHuWaHsha (Jesus), the Sanhedrin cha nged the place of its sittings and deliberations in the Chamber of Hewn Stones a nd moved to another site on the east side of the temple court. The reason, in pa rt he claims, was that none other than a prince of the house of David might sit d own within the sacred enclosure of the Priests' Court. As such, the Council of t he Sanhedrin would now be held in a place that would back up upon the terrace . Yet, as the biblical testimony accounts and the Talmudic evidence hints that thi s move happened after the Passover death of YaHuWaHsha (Jesus). What we do kno w is that the earthquake in Jerusalem at the moment of YaHuWaHsha (Jesus) death was of such catastrophic proportions that the lintel that held the curtain over the entry of the Most Holy Place collapsed along with the rending of the curtai n veil. Does this give a hint that the Council of Hewn Stones was damaged beyon d repair and that the Great Sanhedrin had to move to another and less auspicious location? The Sanhedrin Trial in the Chamber of Hewn Stones The High Priest Caiphas was cloistered in his private temple suite, the Parwah C hamber in the temple, where he was supposed to be in preparation for the upcomin g High Sabbath of the Passover, a very special day in the Jewish festival year f or it occurred only every seven years at the Jewish Sabbatical Week of Years. T here the high priest was to be ascending his heart, mind and soul into the spiri tual dimensions in preparation for the high ritual of the Pesach Lamb sacrifice.

In less than nine hours, he would be slaying the very lamb that was to represe nt the divine emissary that was sent for the redemption (guela) of his people. This would then open the process of redemption for the salvation of the entire g entile world. The Maschiah ben Yosef (Messiah son of Joseph), the first of two Jewish messiahs was destined to die for His Jewish people. He was soon be sacri ficed like and during the same hour as the Korban (Passover) Lamb. Instead of setting the mood for the upcoming divine festival, Caiphas was seethi ng in rage. The most potent threat to his illegitimate and despotic rule over t he Jewish people was now in his custody, imprisoned in the dungeons below his ow n dwelling. The Sanhedrin was assembled and a messenger was dispatched to the high priest Pa triarch Ananus the Elder to send YaHuWaHsha (Jesus) over to the Council of Hewn Stones for the formal investigation by the Sanhedrin. Luke 22:66-67 (parts) - As soon as it was day, the elders of the people, both ch ief priests, and scribes, came together and led Him into their council, saying, I f You are the Christ, tell us Never in Jewish history had a trial been so charged with conflicting testimony a nd emotions. Virulent hatred emanated from the temple leadership as this grand a ssembly went in session. The atmosphere was tense, threatening anyone to challe nge the Sadducee s pre-determined mission to finish their task in eliminating Yahu sha as a threat to their rule. As the sun rose in the eastern horizon, every el der and statesmen in that august assembly knew that to stand in defense of Yahus ha marked them individually and doomed their future. History does attest that contrary to popular opinion that Yahusha was only surro unded by enemies in the Sanhedrin, yet there is collaborating historical testimo ny to support otherwise. There truly were many in the Sanhedrin who sought YaHu WaHsha (Jesus) complete extermination. The brilliant arguments of the defense ne ver became part of the Christian canon. They were relegated by the Roman Christ ian Church to the non-sacred historical archives. This testimony would later re veal the vigorous defense that morning for Rabbi YaHuWaHsha (Jesus). The trial for life of YaHuWaHsha HaNotzri (Jesus the Nazarene) that morning of the Passover preparation day, was stormy and verbally violent as prosecution and de fense were locked in a bitter struggle. There was unmitigated fury and prejudice on the side of the prosecution but they failed to find a charge in support of t wo witnesses. Against the fury of the prosecution stood the granite like defense of courageous and uncompromising defenders of true Torah law. They knew that by their heroic acts of trying to save YaHuWaHsha (Jesus) from the death warrant, they were als o signing their own. There were only limited reasons why the Great Sanhedrin co uld convict one of their own Jewish brethren to die. These included, according to the Talmud, the following: Mishnah Sanhedrin 7.4 These are they that are to be stoned: he that has connectio n (sexual relations) with his mother, his father's wife, his daughter-in-law, a male, or a beast, and the woman that suffers connection with a beast, and the bl asphemer (of G-d) and the idolator, and he that offers any of his seed (sperm) t o Molech, and he that has a familiar spirit and a soothsayer (diviner of dark fo rces), and he that profanes the Shabbath (Seventh-day Sabbath), and he that curs es his father or his mother, and he that has a connection with a girl that is be trothed, and he that beguiles [others to commit idolatry], and he that leads (a whole town or nation) astray, and the sorcerer and a stubborn and rebellious son .

During the height of the verbal battle, the prosecution began to waver. With Ya HuWaHsha (Jesus) now standing in their midst, the flaming barbs of antagonism an d hatred were repelled not by the response of that lone rabbi but by his champio ns in defense who responded with rapier darts of brilliant retort. They were re solute, brave and fearless in their stance that anything less than full acquitta l was to denounce the whole foundation of Torah law. The defense of Rabbi YaHuWaHsha (Jesus) messiahship was brilliant. As one histo rian proclaimed it was a classic in legal annals. The proof of its brilliance was that the final vote that came was its acquittal of YaHuWaHsha (Jesus).As the eb b and flow went back and forth between the fomenting bigotry on the part of the brilliant attorneys for the Sadducee ruling families and the Shammaite Pharisaic prosecution against the vigorous defenders, the tempestuous storm thrown back b y the defense that stood firm that the foundations of true Torah law would come down in history as a travesty in Jewish jurisprudence if YaHuWaHsha (Jesus) was given a guilty verdict. We read the testimony of Mark, who wrote of this trial in the Council of Hewn St ones. Mark 14:55-60 Now the chief priests and all the council sought testimony against YaHuWaHsha (Jesus) to put Him to death, but found none. For many bore false wit ness against Him, but their testimonies did not agree. Then some rose up and bo re false witness against Him, saying, We heard Him say, I will destroy this temple made with hands, and within three days I will build another made without hands. But not even then did their testimony agree. And then the high priest stood up in the midst and asked YaHuWaHsha (Jesus), say ing, Do you answer nothing? What is it these men testify against You? But He kept silent and answered nothing. According to Adin Steinsaltz, in the Essential Talmud , it is highly illegal to ind uce the accused to testify against himself. Adin Steinsaltz The basic assumption in halakhah is that a man does not belong on ly to himself; just as he has no right to cause physical harm to others, so he h as no right to inflict injury on himself. This is why it was determined that the confession of the defendant had no legal consideration. This rule, which has i ts own formal substantiation, served courts for centuries as a powerful weapon a gainst attempts to extract confession by force or persuasion. Not only can no m an be forced to incriminate himself through his own testimony, but self-incrimin ation has no significance and is unacceptable as evidence in court. (Adin Steins altz, The Essential Talmud, pp. 167-168). The High Priest Joseph Caiphas suddenly left his seat of justice and then threw caution to the winds. He watched the failing prosecution that was about to expo se his covert and illegal mission to destroy Rabbi YaHuWaHsha (Jesus). He then did a most extraordinary thing. Caiphas left his dias (throne) and took the pros ecution into his own hands. He cast aside both the Council of the prosecution a nd the Council of the defense. He stepped towards the Nazarene and with piercin g eyes and a voice that was vindictive and forceful, as Caiphas lashed out in hi s cross examination against the Galilean rabbi. In contrast to the darkened countenance of Caiphas, YaHuWaHsha (Jesus) stood in raptured silence. He sought no defense nor even to oppose the swirling vengeanc e that sought to pierce the veil of the Jewish Tzaddik that He was. No matter w hat the outcome between this furious struggle between light and darkness, He kne w that he was destined to die. Then Caiphas forced YaHuWaHsha (Jesus) to testif y under oath.

Matthew 26:63-67 Then the high priest answered and said to Him, th by the living Elohim; Tell us if You are the Christ (Messiah)!

I put You under oa

In the Hebrew Matthews, we suddenly come upon a marked distinction in the testim ony between the Greek and the Hebrew versions. Greek Matthew 26:64 YaHuWaHsha (Jesus) said to him, It is as you said. Nevertheles s, I say to you, hereafter you will see the Son of man sitting at the right hand of the Power, and coming on the clouds of heaven. Hebrew Matthew 26:64 YaHuWaHsha (Jesus) answered him; You said it; but again I say to you, you have yet to see the Son of God sitting at the right of the power of God coming on the clouds of heaven. The gasping breath of the entire Sanhedrin was suspended in mid-air. They waited in suspenseful expectation yet fearful that the ceiling of this hallowed chambe r would be torn apart in expectation as the heavens opened up with the testimony of the Divine to the words just spoken. Moments passed. The air was seeping awa y from their lungs and suddenly they heard the sound of tearing. The purple mantel of the high priest worn as a sign of the distinction of his hi gh office was torn as a gesture of his mourning. Soon other tearing was heard, but the sound was not universal. The High Priest Caiphas then cried out: Matthew 26:65 (parts) He has spoken blasphemy! What further need do we have of wi tnesses? Look, now you have heard His blasphemy! What do you think? It was a moment of high drama but Caiphas proclamation that there was no need for any witnesses in essence invalidated the trial of the Great Sanhedrin. Jewish Encyclopedia Capital punishment in rabbinic law, or indeed any other punis hment, must not be inflicted, except by the verdict of a regularly constituted c ourt (Lesser Sanhedrin) of three and twenty qualified members (Sanh. 1:1; Sifre, Num. 160), and except on the most trustworthy and convincing testimony of at le ast two qualified eye-witnesses to the crime...who must depose that the culprit had been forewarned as to the criminality and the consequences of his project. ( Sanh. 5:1 140b et seq.) (The Jewish Encyclopedia, Capital Punishment, p. 556) The Acquittal While the sacred canon of the Brit Hadassah (New Testament) does not give a full account of the entire trial in the Chamber of Hewn Stones, the Gospel of Nicode mus and other apocryphal testimonies do indicate that the defense for YaHuWaHsha (Jesus) was vigorous and effective. When the vote was cast, the defense was triumphant. Out of the seventy one Sanh edrin members, forty voted that all charges against YaHuWaHsha (Jesus) be dismis sed. The death of YaHuWaHsha (Jesus) could not be by stoning, according to the d ictates of the Torah. It appeared that justice had prevailed. A silence of reli ef passed over many in the Sanhedrin. For others, the hatred in their hearts was about to erupt with fury of greater intensity. This historic vote was quickly routed. Caiphas played his final trump card that the Sanhedrin had no jurisdiction to stop. Caiphas demanded that YaHuWaHsha (J esus) be tried before the Roman Prosecutor Pontius Pilate and the Roman Provinci al Council on charges of treason against the Caesar of Rome for the proclamation that He was the King of the Jews. The high priest desired to stone YaHuWaHsha ( Jesus) to death as a lesson for others not to follow in His pathway. Yet, Caipha s was unwilling to give away this cherished desire to mete out his own justice a nd allow Rome to torture this Galilean rabbi with the cruelest of punishments; t

he crucifixion of the cross. The Great Sanhedrin would not pass the sentence of judgment. In spite of their o wn personal convictions, the rule of Torah law must prevail. There were many ac cusers and accusations but there was no trustworthy and convincing testimony of at least two qualified eye-witnesses. It appeared that the Galilean Rabbi and Me ssianic Prince of David was about to be set free, unless, in spite of the prefer ences of the High Priests, Ananias and Caiphas, and their influence over the Rom an Procurator Pontius Pilate, could they ask for Roman justice to prevail? It w as a consideration but it also was a great breech of Torah law. The Death Sentence in the Torah According to the Talmud, if YaHuWaHsha (Jesus) had been sentence to death, He wo uld have been stoned to death, as did occur about six years later to Stephen, on e of His dedicated and faithful deacons who was ministering to the growing numbe r of gentiles associated with the Hebrew Nazarene Ecclesia, according to the Noa hide Laws of the Israelites. The Lamb of Elohim as the Good Shepherd After the building of the Temples of Jerusalem, this stoning to death was modifi ed by throwing the live defendant that had just been sentenced to its sudden dea th in the Valley of the Kidron below. It was the School of Law, at the University of Missouri at Kansas City, that out lined the Oral Torah commands written in the Talmud on how to properly conduct t he sentence of death by stoning and hanging. Let us read. 1. When sentence has been passed, they take him forth to Mishnah Sanhedrin 6.1-4 stone him. The place of stoning was outside the court, as it is written, Bring forth him that hath cursed without the camp. One stands at the door of the cour t with a towel in his hand, and another, mounted on a horse, far away from him [ but where he is able] to see him. If one (in court) said, "I have somewhat to a rgue in favor of his acquittal," that man waves the towel and the horse runs and stops him (the stoner). Even if he himself said, "I have somewhat to argue in favor of my acquittal," they must bring him back, be it four times or five, prov ided that there is any substance in his words. If they found him innocent, they set him free; otherwise he goes forth to be sto ned. A herald goes out before him [announcing], "Such-a-one, the son of such-aone, is going forth to be stoned for that he committed such or such an offense. Such-a-one and such-a-one are witnesses against him. If any man knoweth anythi ng in favor of his acquittal, come let him plead it." 2. When he was about ten cubits from the place of stoning they used to say to h im, "Make your confession," for such is the way of them that have been condemned to death to make confession, for every one that makes his confession has a shar e in the world to come. For so we have found it with Achan. Joshua said to him , My son, give, I pray thee, glory to the Master, the Elohim of Israel, and make confession unto him, and tell me now what you have done; hide it not from me. And Achan answered Joshua and said, Of a truth I have sinned against the Master, the Elohim of Israel, and thus and thus have I done. Whence do we learn that h is confession made atonement for him? It is written, And Joshua said, Why have you troubled us? The Master shall ble thee this day--this day you shall be troubled, but in the world to come shall not be troubled. If he knows not how to make his confession they say im, "Say, May my death be an atonement for all my sins." R. Judah says: If new that he was condemned because of false testimony he should say, "Let my trou you to h he k deat

h be an atonement for all my sins excepting this sin." They said to him: If so, every one would speak after this fashion to show his innocence." 3. When he was four cubits from the place of stoning, they stripped off his clo thes. A man is kept covered in front and a woman both in front and behind. So R. Judah. But the Sages say: a man is stoned naked but a woman is not stoned na ked. 4. The place of stoning was twice the height of a man. One of the witnesses kn ocked him down on his loins; if he turned over on his heart the witness turned h im over again on his loins. If he straightaway died that sufficed; but if not, the second took the stone and dropped it on his heart. If he straightaway died, that sufficed; but if not, he was stoned by all Israel, for it is written, The hand of the witnesses shall be first upon him to put him to death and afterward all the hand of all the people. All that have been stoned must be hanged. So R. Eliezer. But the Sages say: No ne is hanged save the blasphemer and the idolater. A man is hanged with his fac e to the people and a woman with her face to the gallows. So R. Eliezer. But t he Sages say: A man is hanged but a woman is not hanged. R. Eliezer said to them : Did not Simeon ben Shetah hang women in Ashkelon? They answered: He hanged ei ghty women, whereas two ought not to be judged in one day. How did they hang a man? They put a beam into the ground and a piece of wood ju ttted from it. The two hands were brought together and it was hanged. R. Jose says: The beam was made to lean against a wall and one hanged the corpse thereo n as butchers do. And they let it down at once: if it remained there overnight a negative command is thereby transgressed, for it is written, His body shall no t remain all night upon the tree, but thou shall surely bury him the same day; f or he that is hanged is a curse against Elohim; as if to say, Why was this one h anged? Because he blessed the Name, and the Name of Heaven was found profaned. The Babylonian Talmud was written almost 300 years after the death of the Jewish rabbi, and Prince of David, YaHuWaHsha (Jesus) the Nazarene when the following account was written reputed to be the same YaHuWaHsha (Jesus) of Passover fame. It appeared that it was much safer, in spite of the historical testimony to bri ng the Roman government in as the enforcer of justice. Yet in recent years, wit h the Pageant Plays being enacted in Europe and America with Roman justice in al l its brutality, we have witnessed anti-Semitism escalated with greater drama an d intensity. Roman Justice or Jewish Justice? When Mel Gibson released the overwhelmingly brutal depiction of The Passion of Th e Christ , it gave due notice that there was a vast difference between Roman justi ce and Jewish justice. Dying on the Roman cross, preceded by flogging until the body was pulverized was brutality in its fullest extent. According to the Jewish scholars on Torah law, in the ancient days, stoning was a remarkably quick deat h. Death by being thrown over the temple wall to the Kidron Valley below was eve n swifter than any form of justice in ancient history. Let look at these passage s in their legal understanding and reality. Sanhedrin 43a On the eve of Passover YaHuWaHsha (Jesus) was hanged. For forty day s before the execution took place, a herald went forth and cried, "He is going f orth to be stoned because he has practiced sorcery and enticed Israel to apostas y. Anyone who can say anything in his favor let him come forward and plead on hi s behalf." But since nothing was brought forward in his favor, he was hanged on the eve of Passover. Ulla retorted: Do you suppose he was one for whom a defense could be m

ade? Was he not a mesith (enticer), concerning whom Scripture says, "Neither sha ll thou spare nor shall thou conceal him?" With YaHuWaHsha (Jesus), however, it was different, for he was connected with the government. Thirty two years later, in 62 CE, James the Just, the brother of YaHuWaHsha (Jes us) was also stoned for the sentence of blasphemy against Elohim, yet when he di d not die, he was bludgeoned with a fuller s club, and then thrown over the wall o f the Temple of Herod. Jewish justice, given to James the Just, even when it di d not go as planned was more swift and humane than the Roman justice his brother YaHuWaHsha (Jesus) was purported to have received. Yaakov (James) as the Messiah s oldest brother was the Nasi or the Prince of David ruler over the Jewish Nazarene Ecclesia. His death was instigated by the High Priest Ananias the Younger, the son of High Priest Ananias the Elder, the person most responsible for the death of YaHuWaHsha HaMaschiah (Jesus the Messiah). It gave notice that the delicate balance between Roman brutal justice and Jewish justice was a pendulum that rarely in history was kept delicately balanced. Unf ortunately, when the pendulum swung either way, the anti-Semitic acts were alway s focused against the Jewish people. Why? Rarely in history has the ruler been punished for the harsh justice in whom he m eted out to others, except in Jewish history. The Jews have always had to repres ent a higher standard of justice than the rest of the world. We see that today with the Zionist State of Israel with all its imperfections as being the only so vereign state in the world constantly harassed and blamed by the United Nations while the most brutal of dictators remain unnoticed by international public opin ion. This is because the rest of the world acknowledges without admission that the Elohim of Israel is the One and only Supreme Elohim that sets the standard o f justice for all mankind. The court of world opinion may also desire to defle ct blame away from them and cast that blame upon Elohim s visible chosen people yet it still acknowledges that the Elohim of Israel is the only source of morality a nd setting the standard of justice for all mankind. The resultant effect, the Jewish people have always wrongfully been blamed for t he death of their Messiah when they had no power to save Him or to kill Him. The death of YaHuWaHsha HaMaschiah (Jesus the Messiah) was at the hands of The Jews w ho were the Sadducean High Priests Ananias the Elder and his son-in-law, the Hig h Priest Caiphas. The death of James the Just, the brother of YaHuWaHsha (Jesus) was at the hands of the Sadducean High Priest Ananias the Younger the son of the Patriarch of the House of Hanan, the High Priest Ananias the Elder. In all, the flagrant castin g of blame has been upon the Jewish people, not the rulers, throughout history. It has cost them much pain, grief and suffering with many needless deaths and ab horrent brutalities, plus segregation and seclusion from participation in civili zed cultural life at the expense of being very costly to the Jewish psyche. These same types of charges have been thrown against modern Anglo-Americans for the responsibility for Black slavery in 19th century America, when America today has been traditionally one of the most homogeneous and color-blinded social cul tures in history. Even today, Middle Easterners want to blame all Americans for the highly divisive War in Iraq and Afghanistan, yet the American public has bee n highly divided and powerless to change the course of what the globalist conten ders for world dominion are driving all nations towards; a One World Order. Outside of casting a presidential ballot every four years, by far a majority of all Americans were not publically or morally involved. So also the acts of the T emple leadership against the Galilean rabbi also outraged a majority of the Jewi sh peasants who were 90% of the Jewish population and the mercantile class of Je ws who privately or publically supported the gentle and courageous rabbi that sp

ent his career healing the sick, casting out demons, and bringing healing messag es to the populous. It was He that politically cleansed the temple of the money changers of economic corruption by making the temple a house of prayer instead of a den of thieves . The charges of deicide against the Jewish Sadducee high priestly family of the H ouse of Hanan perpetuated the charges against the Jewish rabbi by urging Him to be crucified, or hanged. Depending on which translation Hebrew or Greek is used , the wrongful death the peasant s and the merchant s own Jewish Messiah became a nati onal travesty for all Jews. The charges against the Jewish people rather than against the Jewish temple lead ership will end up in the future reversing and placing the Divine Justice agains t those who have been casting the blame over the past 20 centuries. This teaching of contempt by putting the Jewish people as permanently accursed has legitimized modern day violence against Jews and in every historical era of history prior t o this day. Our day of reckoning will wait the Divine s wrathful justice on that G reat Day of Judgment. With these thoughts in consideration, we again look at the Talmudic passages tha t Jewish sages over the years have sought to censure and hide from being reveale d in the editions of the Talmud. We must see them instead as legal documents spe lling out legal Torah rulings of due process in reference to capital crimes. Hon est scholarship would suggest that the Jewish sages followed legal due process a s provided in Torah law and would be abhorrent to turn their judicial system ove r to Rome no less than allowing gentiles to roam the halls and Jewish courts of the Temple precincts freely. As Jewish law is interpreted and used to provide application as it is applied hi storically to their day so also it become highly doubtful that they would have a llowed Roman law to be used in any form of capital punishment. It does seem reas onable that the punishment would have been delayed preferably until after festiv al season and a 40 day provision was provided to delay formal punishment to allo w for additional extenuating evidence that could be presented to the Sanhedrin i n defense of the accused. Yet, in this circumstance, according to some scholars , the 40 day provision was waived because this was seen as an extreme case of sed ucing the population and leading Israel into apostasy. On the other hand, it may have been provided for YaHuWaHsha (Jesus) defense because the Messiah did have close ties with the Roman government. The Prince of David Messiah executed for Revealing the Corruption of the High Pr iests of the Jews Historically this fact is true, for YaHuWaHsha (Jesus) was a Prince of David, we ll known in Roman and Jewish aristocratic culture. His paternal grandfather Pri nce Jacob ben Mattan was a former Prince of Israel, appointed by Herod the Great and sent as his emissary to take troops to Egypt to assist Octavian, the future Caesar Augustus, in this bid for the throne of Rome against Mark Antony and Cle opatra of Egypt. His maternal great grandmother, Queen Alexandra II was a Hasmo nean queen, who was the last Maccabee ruler of Israel in 49 BCE. While YaHuWaHsha (Jesus) mother, the Davidian Princess Miriam is the most revere d mother in the world; His maternal grandfather was Prince Alexander II Helios, the heir to the Hasmonean throne of Judea, known as Heli in the genealogies of YaH uWaHsha (Jesus) in the Gospel of the Nazarene Physician Luke. Maybe the most imp ortant of all, YaHuWaHsha (Jesus) maternal great-grandfather was the former High Priest of Israel Yehoshua III. Of a different relevance, his maternal uncle, the Prince of David Joseph of Arim athea, was rich and powerful as a Roman Decurion mining-magnate in Cornwall Engl

and, He was a member of the Roman Provincial counsel, and also a highly regarded Jewish elder that sat on the hereditary seat of King David in the Great Sanhedr in. With this in mind, and knowing the blood feud against the family of YaHuWaHsh a (Jesus) came directly from the most powerful Sadducee high priestly family in Judea; the House of Hanan whose Patriarch was the High Priest Ananias. It was th is family that sought to exterminate and annihilate the Davidian Messiah called YaHuWaHsha (Jesus), yet gives us pause with the probing question. Was a warrant truly out for the arrest of YaHuWaHsha (Jesus) and for anyone to come to His de fense, for forty days before he arrived in Jerusalem for the Passover festivitie s in the Sabbatical high year of 30 CE? It is interesting that a Jewish legal treatise three hundred years later still s uggests the rabbinic willingness to accept responsibility for the execution of t he Jewish Messiah called YaHuWaHsha (Jesus). They did not make any effort to imp licate the Romans and Roman justice. It does make us wonder was it the apostate Roman Christian Church who rewrote th e Early Nazarene history and willfully took on the mantle to accuse Rome publica lly even after 300 years when the Roman Catholic Church under Constantine the Gr eat had taken over not just global spiritual power but also global political and temporal power? Was this act to enhance the fear of the Roman Catholics in ord er to keep them in power throughout the Dark Ages? Were the Jewish rabbis willing, even with their brutal truthfulness willing to a cknowledge that a Jewish court within a Jewish land truly did, at least in princ iple, executed one of their own? Did they also present an unvarnished history su ggesting that the court of the High Priest Caiphas willfully executed one their own sons, in the hopes that that their nation might be saved, only to realize th at they were violating a Torah provision that by executing one of their own the whole world might be destroyed? We must also accept that the death of YaHuWaHsha (Jesus) the Jewish Messiah doe s not appear to be a miscalculated event. Even YaHuWaHsha (Jesus) freely defend ed that He was here on a divine mission, and here only at the behest of His Fath er in heaven. If we could only understand the mysteries of the Divine, maybe we would see that the Eternal One involved the entire World of the Divine on both sides of the inter-dimensional veil. The Ein Sof, the Hidden and Unseen One Elohim of Israel chose also to manifested a part of Himself in three dimensional human life, and called this manifested r eality, Messiah. The Messiah was able to provoke the agents of evil, even thoug h they were the chosen and covenanted ones leaders of Judea in order to make their e vil inclinations transparent. Evil had to be seen, even in the House of the Mas ter in its stark and brutal reality. Such highly interactive relations between the Divine and His chosen ones also made transparent the seditious plots that we re weaving in and out of Roman society. Caiphas knew that Pontius Pilate was a weak man. He also knew that he was a bough t man for his Swiss bank accounts were filled with gold from his father-in-law Anan us the Elder. Bribery and graft would seal the final conviction of YaHuWaHsha ( Jesus). It would not be a Roman conviction but a Jewish conviction of justice o utside the jurisdiction of the Great Sanhedrin that Rome permitted by its Procur ator washing his hands of responsibility. This played beautifully into the hand s of the High Priests and the agents of the House of Ananus and the Shammaite Ph arisees and gave them what they wanted; the death of YaHuWaHsha Ha Notzri ben Yo sef (Jesus the Nazarene son of Joseph) by Jewish justice. What we know today, and what the High Priest Caiphas probably also knew then, wa s that the Roman governor, Pontius Pilate was involved in a seditious plot to as sassinate the Emperor of Rome, Claudius Caesar. Not only was the governor a boug

ht man but also now he could be easily blackmailed. If we could read between the lines concerning the intricate historical flow of Jewish history by Josephus, ou r eyes would truly be opened to see the true evil that flowed in and out of the Palace of the High Priest. The skill of Ananus the father-in-law was quite adep t at manipulating the Roman governors, for they were sitting on the most lucrati ve governor s position in the entire Roman Empire. As has been suggested in the pa st, did Caiphas or Ananus trade intelligence secrets with Pilate over this sedit ious plot in order to gain Roman tacit approval to allow the high priests to com plete their murderous plot to execute YaHuWaHsha (Jesus) ben Yosef, the messiani c rabbi of Galilee? What was known, the temple tax and the income from the sale of the sheep and dov es that were funneled into the private coffers of the House of Ananus went to pa y the ultimate death sentence for the emissary sent by the Elohim of Israel to b ring salvation and redemption to the Jews and to all mankind. The final verdict was still not in.YaHuWaHsha (Jesus) would soon head to the Rom an Praetorium where Pontius Pilate, the Procurator, would have a hearing to dete rmine if YaHuWaHsha (Jesus) should stand trial. The results that happened takes a strange twist in the Hebrew Matthews that shatters many of the preconceptions about how YaHuWaHsha (Jesus) died on that Passover preparation day in the year of 30 CE. Go to The Chief Priests and Elders that Presided in the Sanhedrin Trial