Judaism Apostasised, Catholicism Didn't

Judaism Apostasised, Catholicism Didn't · Florence and Toledo I, Pope St. Celestine · YEC is Correct, Protestantism Isn't · Hollywood Genesis Bad, AiG Comment Not Fault Free

How Jesus Died: The Historical Sources Explained
Elon Gilad | 3 April 2026
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MnsHyneJuPo

Broke every law in a single night.

I'd be grateful for details.

We Christians hold that Hannas and Caiaphas founded what's now the Jewish religion by rejecting the true Messiah, so, breaking the law on top of that is not actually over the top for us.

Rgyth Sandyman

@Rgyth

I think the video overstates this.
But if we assume the material present in Mishnah was present at approximately 30 CE and reflects the same line of thinking (which is plausible but not easily provable)...

The mishnaic capital procedure that contradict the Gospels if they were in effect:
-Capital cases were to be tried and decided during the daytime
-Guilty verdict in a capital case had to be postponed until the following day
-Capital cases could not properly be scheduled immediately before a Sabbath or festival because of the required overnight delay (this is also weird because the Gospels disagree on the date)
-Mark 14:55-59 says the witnesses contradicted one another, which would invalidate their testimony under Mishnaic procedure
-After the witnesses fail, Caiaphas effectively uses Jesus's own statement as the basis for conviction rather than establishing guilt through valid witnesses
-Mishnah Sanhedrin 7:5 requires pronouncing the Divine Name for capital blasphemy. The Gospel wordings do not have this (not clearly anyway)
-Mishnaic capital procedure strongly favors opportunities for acquittal and reconsideration. the Gospel account depicts a rapid movement toward conviction
-Mishnaic law prescribes stoning for blasphemy, whereas Jesus is handed to Rome and crucified

And your claim, "Hannas and Caiaphas founded what's now the Jewish religion" Incorrect. This is not historical analysis.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@hglundahl

@Rgyth Rome had made stoning impossible.

Well, nearly. The stoning of Stephanus was possible. The stoning of the adulterous woman would have been possible.

But the base line was, a Jewish stoning was an offense against Roman sovereignty.

In a clear celebrity case like Jesus, Rome would not have looked between the fingers.

"Mishnaic capital procedure strongly favors opportunities for acquittal and reconsideration."

Jesus had probably been given opportunity for reconsideration after the first cleansing of the Temple, He had in the days reiterated the deed, which some considered an offense.

Daytime, postponement, scheduling before passover, ignoring contradiction between witnesses, replacing stoning with crucifixion by Romans, all these are indeed breaches of legality, like stoning an adulterer but not adulteress would have been, and so Hannas and Caiaphas proceded to do the sacrifices for passover with hands sullied by guilt.

If they had let it be, however, they were afraid Jesus would use miracles to "seduce" the people and make Himself king, which He had basically already done, both by showing sovereignty in the Temple and by accepting the Hosannah cries.

By preferring illegal practicality over that risk, they broke the Old Covenant, and in so doing founded what is now called Judaism (indirectly, the failure of Bar Kokhba has also contributed), and this is a theological analysis, which is historically correct.

The date, now ... two options.

Jesus was crucified the 15 of Nisan and the illegal process was taking place when passover had already started, adding to the guilt.
Jesus had begun Nisan one day earlier and counted 15 while the Temple counted 14 (it was an empirical luni-solar calendar, and Jesus was away in Galilee and couldn't know when the Temple announced the new moon), or Jesus had been allowed to celebrate passover one day earlier by the Temple (which up to above crime still had authority, Hannas or Caiaphas was still the last Pope of the Old Testament, so to speak).

One could add it seems Didache said Jesus was captive more than one night, so in that case the case in the temple was perhaps held the night before the one before Pilate). Liturgy compresses the captivity to the night from Maundy Thursday to the taking down from the Cross on Good Friday in a way the Gospels, if so allow but don't require. That's a third option.

EVERY Christian Should Learn These Church History Facts
Wretched with Todd Friel | 24 April 2026
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fBQOR12k5yY

Judaism apostasised in one night.

When Hannas and Caiaphas judged God.

Catholicism supposedly apostatised very slowly ... from the 6th to the 12th C.

How do you do such a thing? Could Adam have taken 600 years to slowly bite the forbidden fruit? Could Solomon have taken (given longevity, which he hadn't any more) taken 600 years from fully being a servant of the True God to actually adhering in at least cult of worship to the false gods of his wives?

Before you bring up slow apostasies in Gentiles after Babel (which I would hold) or Israel from Jeroboam to Baal, those are doctrinal slow rotting of what was already cut off fairly quickly, by obeying Nimrod more than God and Jeroboam over Rohoboam. So, this doesn't match, as you claim the 6th C. Church was still the Christian Church, standing, though compromised.

While Gentiles who had served Nimrod started to believe all sorts of (different) idolatrous nonsense, while Jeroboam's successors were drifting towards Baal, the line from Heber to Abraham and the line from Rohoboam to Joas were still standing doctrinally sound. So, that scenario would require a parallel Church that didn't slowly apostatise, that was already separated from when sth else started to drift after being cut off.