Pilate's culpability

Plowman

This post has been deleted.

JimiTime

Plowman wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

good question Plowman. He obviously had a 'sense' of what was right, but had not got the courage of his convictions. Ultimately, he allowed a man he knew was innocent to be put to death. He chickened out of his responsibility. So it would be a real push to say he was a 'good guy', but you would empathise with his position I suppose.

homer911

I have always felt that Pilate was held up as the "whipping boy" in the Easter story, when in reality he tried to walk a line between what he knew to be right, and what he knew would happen if he didn't assuage the people.

However at the end of the day, if Jesus hadn't died, where would we be today?

mdebets

That's something I never quite understood, how any Christian could see Pilate (or the Jews in general) as the bad guy, because he crucified Jesus?
Shouldn't he be the good guy, because he did indeed crucify Jesus, because without the crucifixion Jesus would not be the Messiah and the Old Testament prophecies would not have been fulfilled.
If Pilate could be seen as a bad guy, shouldn't it be more because he tried to get Jesus out of being crucified?

Slav

Plowman wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

It would be a big mistake to see the Bible in the light of Hollywood scripts. Instead it's more like Chekhov's plays where there are no good or bad guys. Everybody is good although everybody's miserable and wretched, ταλαίπωρος καὶ ἐλεεινὸς (Rev 3:17), each in their own way.

Christ came to save everybody, Pilate included, and from His perspective Pilate is saved. Also, we are all pilates: it's our sins that crucify the Word, not that Roman procurator.

JimiTime

A point of note, just in case anyone gets carried away 'blaming' Pilate or the Sanhedrin. I am in no doubt, that if Jesus came back during Christendoms powerful days, history would have repeated itself. The religious leaders would have had him executed for heresy through whichever political power was in place.

PDN

JimiTime wrote: »

A point of note, just in case anyone gets carried away 'blaming' Pilate or the Sanhedrin. I am in no doubt, that if Jesus came back during Christendoms powerful days, history would have repeated itself. The religious leaders would have had him executed for heresy through whichever political power was in place.

Reminds me of Studdert Kennedy's famous poem:

When Jesus came to Golgatha,
They hanged Him on a tree,
They drove great nails through hands and feet,
And made a Calvary.
They crowned Him with a crown of thorns,
Red were His wounds and deep,
For those were crude and cruel days,
And human flesh was cheap.

When Jesus came to Birmingham
They simply passed Him by,
They never hurt a hair of Him,
They only let Him die;
For men have grown more tender,
And they would not give Him pain,
They only just passed down the street,
And left Him in the rain.

Still Jesus cried, 'Forgive them,
For they know not what they do!
And still it rained the winter rain
That drenched Him through and through;
The crowd went home and left the streets
Without a soul to see,
And Jesus crouched against a wall
And cried for Calvary.

JimiTime

PDN wrote: »

Reminds me of Studdert Kennedy's famous poem:

When Jesus came to Golgatha,
They hanged Him on a tree,
They drove great nails through hands and feet,
And made a Calvary.
They crowned Him with a crown of thorns,
Red were His wounds and deep,
For those were crude and cruel days,
And human flesh was cheap.

When Jesus came to Birmingham
They simply passed Him by,
They never hurt a hair of Him,
They only let Him die;
For men have grown more tender,
And they would not give Him pain,
They only just passed down the street,
And left Him in the rain.

Still Jesus cried, 'Forgive them,
For they know not what they do!
And still it rained the winter rain
That drenched Him through and through;
The crowd went home and left the streets
Without a soul to see,
And Jesus crouched against a wall
And cried for Calvary.

Love it!

Plowman

This post has been deleted.

hinault

Pilate is an intriguing character.

Torn between doing the right thing and doing what was expedient, Pilate abdicated his responsibility and allowed the jews to prosecute the case against Jesus Christ.

Pilate is as culpable as the jews were in rejecting Jesus Christ in my opinion.

PDN

Interestingly, the Ethiopian Orthodox Tawahedo Church venerates Pilate as a saint.

JimiTime

hinault wrote: »

Pilate is an intriguing character.

Torn between doing the right thing and doing what was expedient, Pilate abdicated his responsibility and allowed the jews to prosecute the case against Jesus Christ.

Pilate is as culpable as the jews were in rejecting Jesus Christ in my opinion.

Have to say, given the churches history of anti-semitism, I feel uncomfortable with referring to them as 'The Jews'. At the end of the day, all the apostles were Jews, and there was a multitude of Jewish followers. Without the Jews, there would be no gentile believers I.E. Us. I think, 'Jewish authorities' is a much tighter term (though I understand that there were a multitude of lay Jews calling for his death also). Sorry if that seems a bit pedantic.

Onesimus

I think also that the womans dream did not come from God but from Satan. Because Christ had to be crucified. this shows that not all dreams are of God even if presented as ''good''.

Pilate it seems that his heart was not in it to crucify Jesus. But under pressure from the crowd none the less let it be done.

One must wonder though, was pilates reluctance to crucify Our Lord also a temptation? seeing as Our Lord had to be crucified in order to accomplish the now accomplished?

Onesimus

wolfsbane

mdebets wrote: »

That's something I never quite understood, how any Christian could see Pilate (or the Jews in general) as the bad guy, because he crucified Jesus?
Shouldn't he be the good guy, because he did indeed crucify Jesus, because without the crucifixion Jesus would not be the Messiah and the Old Testament prophecies would not have been fulfilled.
If Pilate could be seen as a bad guy, shouldn't it be more because he tried to get Jesus out of being crucified?

We recognise their guilt because the Bible tells us they were guilty in this.

God over-ruled their evil intentions and actions, and caused the most evil event the world has known to result in the most happy outcome ever:
Acts 2:22 “Men of Israel, hear these words: Jesus of Nazareth, a Man attested by God to you by miracles, wonders, and signs which God did through Him in your midst, as you yourselves also know— 23 Him, being delivered by the determined purpose and foreknowledge of God, you have taken by lawless hands, have crucified, and put to death; 24 whom God raised up, having loosed the pains of death, because it was not possible that He should be held by it.

Acts 4:24 So when they heard that, they raised their voice to God with one accord and said: “Lord, You are God, who made heaven and earth and the sea, and all that is in them, 25 who by the mouth of Your servant David have said:


‘ Why did the nations rage,
And the people plot vain things?
26 The kings of the earth took their stand,
And the rulers were gathered together
Against the LORD and against His Christ.’

27 “For truly against Your holy Servant Jesus, whom You anointed, both Herod and Pontius Pilate, with the Gentiles and the people of Israel, were gathered together 28 to do whatever Your hand and Your purpose determined before to be done.


See:
The Parable of the Wicked Vinedressershttp://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke%2020:9-19&version=NKJV

There were of course degrees of guilt. The mob whipped up by the Pharisees to demand Christ's death were a lot less guilty than the Pharisees. Pilate was guilty of executing a man he knew to be innocent, but under great pressure.

There are degrees of punishment in hell, each entirely appropriate to the guilt of the sinner.

*****************************************************************************
Luke 10:13 “Woe to you, Chorazin! Woe to you, Bethsaida! For if the mighty works which were done in you had been done in Tyre and Sidon, they would have repented long ago, sitting in sackcloth and ashes. 14 But it will be more tolerable for Tyre and Sidon at the judgment than for you. 15 And you, Capernaum, who are exalted to heaven, will be brought down to Hades.

Soul Winner

mdebets wrote: »

That's something I never quite understood, how any Christian could see Pilate (or the Jews in general) as the bad guy, because he crucified Jesus?
Shouldn't he be the good guy, because he did indeed crucify Jesus, because without the crucifixion Jesus would not be the Messiah and the Old Testament prophecies would not have been fulfilled.
If Pilate could be seen as a bad guy, shouldn't it be more because he tried to get Jesus out of being crucified?

Pilate seen Jesus as being innocent and did very little to defend him, that would be like you seeing a kid being abducted and doing nothing about it. True, the actions of Pilate and the Jewish Leaders brought salvation to the world, but that was not their intention. Their intension was to serve themselves not God. And as God looks on the heart He will judge them accordingly and they will know that He is just to judge them so.

hinault

JimiTime wrote: »

Have to say, given the churches history of anti-semitism, I feel uncomfortable with referring to them as 'The Jews'. At the end of the day, all the apostles were Jews, and there was a multitude of Jewish followers. Without the Jews, there would be no gentile believers I.E. Us. I think, 'Jewish authorities' is a much tighter term (though I understand that there were a multitude of lay Jews calling for his death also). Sorry if that seems a bit pedantic.

Jesus came to re-establish the Convenant with the Jewish people and they rejected Him.

The Gospels are quite clear that the chief priests and elders of the sanhedrin were complicit in the capture, torture and death of Jesus Christ.
They rejected Him.

JimiTime

hinault wrote: »

Jesus came to re-establish the Convenant with the Jewish people and they rejected Him.

Not sure what you mean by 're-establish the covenant'. Israel, from the time of Moses, were constantly rejecting God. Babylonian exile etc. However, it was still through the Jews that the prophets came, and eventually Jesus. It was also through the Jews, that the Good News was brought to us, the gentiles. I.E. The apostles.

The Gospels are quite clear that the chief priests and elders of the sanhedrin were complicit in the capture, torture and death of Jesus Christ.
They rejected Him.

I completely agree, and i certainly DO NOT remove their role in all of this. Throughout his ministry, Christs most fervent ire was directed at the religious leaders and their hypocrisy etc.

However, my point was that referring to 'The Jews' as the ones responsible for Jesus' death is probably not the most appropriate in terms of the Churchs' history of anti-Semitism. 'The Jews' were also responsible for taking the Good News to the world. Rather than saying, 'The Jews', I think it wiser to use tighter terms so as not to invoke any stumbling on our Jewish brethren.

As I said, I'm sorry if this is a bit pedantic, but would you use such language if giving the good news to a Jewish person? The Jews have been victims of hate throughout the ages, and unfortunately the Church was quite explicit in this hate. Saying 'The Jews killed Jesus', I could see as being quite confrontational, and quite a stumbling block if talking to a Jewish person.

hinault

JimiTime wrote: »

Not sure what you mean by 're-establish the covenant'. Israel, from the time of Moses, were constantly rejecting God. Babylonian exile etc. However, it was still through the Jews that the prophets came, and eventually Jesus. It was also through the Jews, that the Good News was brought to us, the gentiles. I.E. The apostles.

The Bible teaches that the Jewish people were God's chosen people. They rejected God. The prophets like Abraham and Moses preached that God would send a Messiah to the Jewish people.
The prophets as you say were all Jewish and they preached that Jewish people who be saved by the Messiah.

JimiTime wrote: »

I completely agree, and i certainly DO NOT remove their role in all of this. Throughout his ministry, Christs most fervent ire was directed at the religious leaders and their hypocrisy etc.

However, my point was that referring to 'The Jews' as the ones responsible for Jesus' death is probably not the most appropriate in terms of the Churchs' history of anti-Semitism. 'The Jews' were also responsible for taking the Good News to the world. Rather than saying, 'The Jews', I think it wiser to use tighter terms so as not to invoke any stumbling on our Jewish brethren.

As I said, I'm sorry if this is a bit pedantic, but would you use such language if giving the good news to a Jewish person? The Jews have been victims of hate throughout the ages, and unfortunately the Church was quite explicit in this hate. Saying 'The Jews killed Jesus', I could see as being quite confrontational, and quite a stumbling block if talking to a Jewish person.

I see the point that you're making. Of course I am not condemning every single Jew for the Passion of Jesus Christ.
The elders and chief priests of the Sanhedrin were themselves complicit in the betrayal of Jesus Christ.
The Gospel is clear and unambiguous in this regard.

Does this mean that a Jewish person today is responsible for the death of Jesus Christ? Of course not.

JimiTime

hinault wrote: »

I see the point that you're making. Of course I am not condemning every single Jew for the Passion of Jesus Christ.
The elders and chief priests of the Sanhedrin were themselves complicit in the betrayal of Jesus Christ.
The Gospel is clear and unambiguous in this regard.

Does this mean that a Jewish person today is responsible for the death of Jesus Christ? Of course not.

Think of it this way, if you were in England, and you were hearing that 'The Irish' were responsible for the Warrington and Omagh bombings, how would it make you feel? (Assuming you are Irish of course:) ) Wouldn't it be better to use tighter terms for such people?

wolfsbane

JimiTime wrote: »

Think of it this way, if you were in England, and you were hearing that 'The Irish' were responsible for the Warrington and Omagh bombings, how would it make you feel? (Assuming you are Irish of course:) ) Wouldn't it be better to use tighter terms for such people?

Your example is a good one. Certainly the context of our commenting will determine how we phrase things - to avoid confusion. If saying 'The Jews' rejected and killed Christ will be heard as 'Every Jew' did so, then we need to elaborate. But we should not tamper with the record written by the NT Jews, in which they use the term 'The Jews' in apportioning blame. Just explain what it means, if necessary.
**********************************************************************************
Luke 10:13 “Woe to you, Chorazin! Woe to you, Bethsaida! For if the mighty works which were done in you had been done in Tyre and Sidon, they would have repented long ago, sitting in sackcloth and ashes. 14 But it will be more tolerable for Tyre and Sidon at the judgment than for you. 15 And you, Capernaum, who are exalted to heaven, will be brought down to Hades.

JimiTime

wolfsbane wrote: »

Your example is a good one. Certainly the context of our commenting will determine how we phrase things - to avoid confusion. If saying 'The Jews' rejected and killed Christ will be heard as 'Every Jew' did so, then we need to elaborate. But we should not tamper with the record written by the NT Jews, in which they use the term 'The Jews' in apportioning blame. Just explain what it means, if necessary.
**********************************************************************************
Luke 10:13 “Woe to you, Chorazin! Woe to you, Bethsaida! For if the mighty works which were done in you had been done in Tyre and Sidon, they would have repented long ago, sitting in sackcloth and ashes. 14 But it will be more tolerable for Tyre and Sidon at the judgment than for you. 15 And you, Capernaum, who are exalted to heaven, will be brought down to Hades.

Tbh, I am quite clear in not removing the part that the Jewish Sanhedrin played in the crucifixion. In fact, the part where Jesus is brought before the religious council and spat at and punched is the bit that makes me weep EVERY time I read it more than any other part (bar maybe the 'forgive them father.....' bit)

I just think, in a modern context, and the fact that church history is so steeped in anti-Semitism, it would be a term I'd be very careful using.

hinault

JimiTime wrote: »

Think of it this way, if you were in England, and you were hearing that 'The Irish' were responsible for the Warrington and Omagh bombings, how would it make you feel? (Assuming you are Irish of course:) ) Wouldn't it be better to use tighter terms for such people?

Fair point, Jimi.

I'm Irish:)

Donatello

In his new book, Jesus of Nazareth, part 2, Benedict XVI makes the point that it was the Temple aristocracy who condemned Jesus to death, and also that all of us shared in heaping the suffering upon Him. When He suffered in the garden and on the cross, He bore the weight of each and every sin I have ever, and will ever, commit. The book is well worth a read. It's a much easier read, I think, than the first volume.

hinault

Donatello wrote: »

In his new book, Jesus of Nazareth, part 2, Benedict XVI makes the point that it was the Temple aristocracy who condemned Jesus to death, and also that all of us shared in heaping the suffering upon Him. When He suffered in the garden and on the cross, He bore the weight of each and every sin I have ever, and will ever, commit. The book is well worth a read. It's a much easier read, I think, than the first volume.

Funny enough the priest presiding at the Good Friday ceremony quoted this same passage from Pope Benedict's new book!

Soul Winner

Here's what the Sonnini Manuscript says about it. The Sonnini manuscript is the apparent lost chapter 29 of the Acts of the Apostles. Might be worth opening a new thread just on this subject alone. Anyway I'll leave that to someone else to do if they so wish, no pint in debating its veracity or no in here.


18 And after much preaching and toil, Paul and his
fellow labourers passed into Helvetia[7]
, and came to
Mount Pontius Pilate, where he who condemned the
Lord Jesus dashed himself down headlong, and so
miserably perished.
19 And immediately a torrent gushed out of the
mountain and washed his body, broken in pieces,
into a lake.
[8]
20 And Paul stretched forth his hands upon the
water, and prayed unto the Lord saying, O Lord God,
give a sign unto all nations that here Pontius Pilate
which condemned thine only-begotten Son, plunged
down headlong into the pit.
21 And while Paul was yet speaking, behold, there
came a great earthquake, and the face of the waters
was changed, and the form of the lake like unto the
Son of Man hanging in an agony upon the Cross.
22 And a voice came out of Heaven saying, Even
Pilate hath escaped the wrath to come for he washed
his hands before the multitude at the blood shedding
of the Lord Jesus.
23 When, therefore, Paul and those that were with
him saw the earthquake, and heard the voice of the
angel, they glorified God, and were mightily
strengthened in the spirit

PDN

JimiTime wrote: »

Think of it this way, if you were in England, and you were hearing that 'The Irish' were responsible for the Warrington and Omagh bombings, how would it make you feel? (Assuming you are Irish of course:) ) Wouldn't it be better to use tighter terms for such people?

I don't think that's a great comparison since the execution of Jesus was carried out at the instigation of the official Jewish leadership, not a small group of unrepresentative and unofficial thugs.

A better comparison would be whether it would be accurate to say that 'the British' were responsible for the execution of those killed after the 1916 Easter Rising.

Donatello

hinault wrote: »

Funny enough the priest presiding at the Good Friday ceremony quoted this same passage from Pope Benedict's new book!

That's good to hear. I'd have no complaints whatsoever if priests used the Papal teachings to formulate their sermons each Sunday. It would certainly make a pleasant change to the usual banal and empty offerings, at least in my parish. There is no need for originality - just present to the people the faith of the Church.

himnextdoor

Also, to be fair to Pilate, it would seem that only a few words from Jesus in His own defence could have saved Him; it must have been quite frustrating for Pilate if he felt that Jesus was almost actually refusing to help Himself.

My view is that Pilate was manipulated by the Sanhedrin precisely to expedite scriptural prophecy and it might follow that Jesus played His part too in utilising the political uncertainty of which Pilate would have been very aware (wary).

I wonder, if Jesus' crucifixion had taken place without Roman involvement, would the story of Jesus have been creditable at all?

Didn't Pilate effectively give the event the best publicity that could be bought, from a historicity point of view?

I think that without the Romans being involved, the event would have been quickly forgotten by history and would have only survived as a vague, historically unverifiable myth.

Soul Winner

himnextdoor wrote: »

Also, to be fair to Pilate, it would seem that only a few words from Jesus in His own defence could have saved Him; it must have been quite frustrating for Pilate if he felt that Jesus was almost actually refusing to help Himself.

The trial of Jesus before the Sanhedrin was illegal because all the members where not present. Plus it was held at night which was also illegal and Jesus was asked to answer the charge directly to the High Priest which was also illegal. Unless the testimony of two witnesses could be agreed upon He should have been let go and not even sent to Pilate in the first place. The witnesses that they did get could not agree on their testimony and as such the case should have been thrown out. But desperate times call for desperate measures. When Jesus got to Pilate He was still not under any oblgiation to defend Himself. It was up to Pialte to defend Him if Pilate found no crime or guilt in Him. Pilate had no cause to sentence Him to death which is why he washed hands of His blood. The Jewish leaders threatened Pilate with riots and unrest if he did not crucify Jesus. Pilate could have lost his job or even his life had the region descended into anarchy under his rule over it. The Jewish leaders having engineered Jesus' death through Roman authority wanted the Disciples to stop the preaching that Jesus rose from the dead because they had proclaimed Him a blasphemer, and if He rose from the dead then that pulls the rug out from the religious authority that they enjoyed. So it is understandable why they would want them to stop preaching this message. But credit Peter, when they tried to shut him up he said to them, 'You killed the prince of life and hung him on a tree and desired a murderer to be granted unto you, and do I serve man or God', and he wouldn't shut up preaching it and paid with his life for it ultimately, but who would you rather be now? Peter or the one of those so called Jewish leaders?

Read this book by a law professor, he goes into great detail about the whole sequence of events.

himnextdoor wrote: »

My view is that Pilate was manipulated by the Sanhedrin precisely to expedite scriptural prophecy and it might follow that Jesus played His part too in utilising the political uncertainty of which Pilate would have been very aware (wary).

If the Sanhedrin thought they were fulfilling prophecy then that means they thought Jesus was really the Messiah which means they were only messing when they proclaimed Him a blasphemer. Doesn't makes sense does it?

himnextdoor wrote: »

I wonder, if Jesus' crucifixion had taken place without Roman involvement, would the story of Jesus have been creditable at all?

Didn't Pilate effectively give the event the best publicity that could be bought, from a historicity point of view?

I think that without the Romans being involved, the event would have been quickly forgotten by history and would have only survived as a vague, historically unverifiable myth.

So the resurrection event and all the postmortem appearances didn't generate anything at all to why the story was being famed abroad? Judea was an unimportant outpost of the Roman Empire. What happened there wasn't really relevant in Rome unless it got out of control. So the fact that it was a Roman crucifixion of an ordinary criminal wouldn't have gotten that much attention outside of that region or even the immediate district of Jerusalem. What caused the controversy was the preaching of the resurrection, the empty tomb and the ascension of Jesus into heaven with the promise to return some day.

himnextdoor

Soul Winner wrote: »

The trial of Jesus before the Sanhedrin was illegal because all the members where not present. Plus it was held at night which was also illegal and Jesus was asked to answer the charge directly to the High Priest which was also illegal. Unless the testimony of two witnesses could be agreed upon He should have been let go and not even sent to Pilate in the first place. The witnesses that they did get could not agree on their testimony and as such the case should have been thrown out. But desperate times call for desperate measures. When Jesus got to Pilate He was still not under any oblgiation to defend Himself. It was up to Pialte to defend Him if Pilate found no crime or guilt in Him. Pilate had no cause to sentence Him to death which is why he washed hands of His blood. The Jewish leaders threatened Pilate with riots and unrest if he did not crucify Jesus. Pilate could have lost his job or even his life had the region descended into anarchy under his rule over it. The Jewish leaders having engineered Jesus' death through Roman authority wanted the Disciples to stop the preaching that Jesus rose from the dead because they had proclaimed Him a blasphemer, and if He rose from the dead then that pulls the rug out from the religious authority that they enjoyed. So it is understandable why they would want them to stop preaching this message. But credit Peter, when they tried to shut him up he said to them, 'You killed the prince of life and hung him on a tree and desired a murderer to be granted unto you, and do I serve man or God', and he wouldn't shut up preaching it and paid with his life for it ultimately, but who would you rather be now? Peter or the one of those so called Jewish leaders?

Read this book by a law professor, he goes into great detail about the whole sequence of events.

If I had been in Jesus' position and wanted to escape charges I would have said something either in my defence or to attack my accusers; Jesus didn't.

He knew what had been 'planned' for Him and if He thought it served 'His Father's' interests then He could have saved Himself. Couldn't He?

Jesus had to 'nominate' Judas to betray Him; that was Judas 'playing his part'. And, I think, against his wishes; he didn't want to do it, he had to do it.

Am I wrong or did Jesus understand that if Pilate let Him off the hook then the whole fulfilment of prophecy would fail?

Soul Winner wrote: »

If the Sanhedrin thought they were fulfilling prophecy then that means they thought Jesus was really the Messiah which means they were only messing when they proclaimed Him a blasphemer. Doesn't makes sense does it?

Well yes, actually, it does; if the Sanhedrin know that Jesus is the Messiah then they also know He must be rejected by the Israelites and that He must suffer greatly for it too.

It would be a simple matter to accuse Jesus of blasphemy and assume that His unwillingness to profess His innocence points to His guilt. Jesus knew that these proceedings were tied to His mission on earth.

Soul Winner wrote: »

So the resurrection event and all the postmortem appearances didn't generate anything at all to why the story was being famed abroad? Judea was an unimportant outpost of the Roman Empire. What happened there wasn't really relevant in Rome unless it got out of control. So the fact that it was a Roman crucifixion of an ordinary criminal wouldn't have gotten that much attention outside of that region or even the immediate district of Jerusalem. What caused the controversy was the preaching of the resurrection, the empty tomb and the ascension of Jesus into heaven with the promise to return some day.

I wonder how that would have gone had Pilate not allowed the body of Jesus to be claimed so soon after the crucifixion.

So, what I'm saying is that from the Sanhedrin's point of view, when Jesus had been crucified that was job done, scripture fulfilled, covenant re-newed, we can all go home now.

And eventually, Jesus rides of into the sunset leaving His disciples to continue His work. It seems like an early retirement to me.

I think that by 'seeding' Christianity, the Sanhedrin designed a flag under which people united; this could have diverted the attention of the Romans from the 'chosen ones' who were flying a different flag.

hinault

Soul Winner wrote: »

The trial of Jesus before the Sanhedrin was illegal because all the members where not present. Plus it was held at night which was also illegal and Jesus was asked to answer the charge directly to the High Priest which was also illegal. Unless the testimony of two witnesses could be agreed upon He should have been let go and not even sent to Pilate in the first place. The witnesses that they did get could not agree on their testimony and as such the case should have been thrown out. But desperate times call for desperate measures. When Jesus got to Pilate He was still not under any oblgiation to defend Himself. It was up to Pialte to defend Him if Pilate found no crime or guilt in Him. Pilate had no cause to sentence Him to death which is why he washed hands of His blood. The Jewish leaders threatened Pilate with riots and unrest if he did not crucify Jesus. Pilate could have lost his job or even his life had the region descended into anarchy under his rule over it. The Jewish leaders having engineered Jesus' death through Roman authority wanted the Disciples to stop the preaching that Jesus rose from the dead because they had proclaimed Him a blasphemer, and if He rose from the dead then that pulls the rug out from the religious authority that they enjoyed. So it is understandable why they would want them to stop preaching this message. But credit Peter, when they tried to shut him up he said to them, 'You killed the prince of life and hung him on a tree and desired a murderer to be granted unto you, and do I serve man or God', and he wouldn't shut up preaching it and paid with his life for it ultimately, but who would you rather be now? Peter or the one of those so called Jewish leaders?

Read this book by a law professor, he goes into great detail about the whole sequence of events.



If the Sanhedrin thought they were fulfilling prophecy then that means they thought Jesus was really the Messiah which means they were only messing when they proclaimed Him a blasphemer. Doesn't makes sense does it?



So the resurrection event and all the postmortem appearances didn't generate anything at all to why the story was being famed abroad? Judea was an unimportant outpost of the Roman Empire. What happened there wasn't really relevant in Rome unless it got out of control. So the fact that it was a Roman crucifixion of an ordinary criminal wouldn't have gotten that much attention outside of that region or even the immediate district of Jerusalem. What caused the controversy was the preaching of the resurrection, the empty tomb and the ascension of Jesus into heaven with the promise to return some day.

Thanks for that link to the book.
It looks like an interesting read

Soul Winner

himnextdoor wrote: »

If I had been in Jesus' position and wanted to escape charges I would have said something either in my defence or to attack my accusers; Jesus didn't.

He knew what had been 'planned' for Him and if He thought it served 'His Father's' interests then He could have saved Himself. Couldn't He?

According to John 17 Jesus prayed in the garden that if it be possible let this cup pass form me, nevertheless no my will done but thine."

Jesus was doing the will of the Father. He could have been restored to the glory that He once had with the Father but the price for sin (death) would not have been paid and sinners would have had no hope ever. Jesus didn't have to die and Jesus didn't want to die but it was the Father's will that the the life One who is perfect was required if sinners are to be redeemed. Jesus was promised that if He did this God would raise Him from the dead after 3 days and 3 nights and give Him a name above every name, that at the name of Jesus every knew shall bow. So basically Jesus who is the author and finisher of faith, led by example and showed what faith really is, literally hanging your body on the promises of God.

himnextdoor wrote: »

Jesus had to 'nominate' Judas to betray Him; that was Judas 'playing his part'. And, I think, against his wishes; he didn't want to do it, he had to do it.

Where does it say that Jesus nominated Judas to betray Him?

himnextdoor wrote: »

Am I wrong or did Jesus understand that if Pilate let Him off the hook then the whole fulfilment of prophecy would fail?

It was an impossible situation for Pilate. Jesus wasn't under any obligation to speak up for Himself. Pilate already knew that He was innocent of any crime worthy of death and even said as much. But he couldn't risk anarchy and Jesus fulfilled prophecy by going to the slaughter like a lamb, not opening His mouth. It was the will of the Father that His anointed One go through this for us sinners so that we don't have to go through it. It was the ultimate act of love. Jesus said that no man takes His life from Him, that the shepherd lays down His own life for His sheep, that He has power to lay it down, and power to take it back up again. It was a voluntary act of complete and utter self sacrifice on the tender promise of God that He would raise Him up.

himnextdoor wrote: »

Well yes, actually, it does; if the Sanhedrin know that Jesus is the Messiah then they also know He must be rejected by the Israelites and that He must suffer greatly for it too.

It would be a simple matter to accuse Jesus of blasphemy and assume that His unwillingness to profess His innocence points to His guilt. Jesus knew that these proceedings were tied to His mission on earth.

If the Sanhedrin really believed that Jesus was the Messiah then they wouldn't have proclaimed that He was a blasphemer in order to fulfill the prophecy of the suffering Messiah. You only have to read Jesus' rebuke to Peter to know that even everyday normal Jews were not expecting the promised Messiah to be killed. They expected Him to be powerful and to destroy their enemies and set up His kingdom right there and then. Most of them were convinced that Jesus was this Messiah when He raised Lazarus from the dead. Even some of the Jews that were sent as spies who also witnessed that event. They were ready to make Him King for sure after this. But Jesus knew that the time for that was not yet, that He must suffer what the scriptures had prophesied He would suffer first. Prophecies that the Jewish leaders and everyday Jews had totally missed until after the Holy Spirit revealed it to the Apostles after the resurrection. So your point that the Sanhedrin knew He was the Messiah but proclaimed Him to be a blasphemer in order to fulfill prophecy (that they obviously didn't understand) doesn't hold any weight at all except as a silly theory. A theory that can be easily refuted even today. Just ask any Orthodox Jews (most Jews actually) do they believe that Jesus was the Messiah and see what they tell you. Now, does it still makes sense?

himnextdoor wrote: »

I wonder how that would have gone had Pilate not allowed the body of Jesus to be claimed so soon after the crucifixion.

Who knows? I wonder if we would have ever discovered penicillin had Sir Alexander Fleming not accidently stumbled upon a certain type of mold in a Petri dish. Ifs, buts and maybes are departures from the facts. Can we stick to the facts please?

himnextdoor wrote: »

So, what I'm saying is that from the Sanhedrin's point of view, when Jesus had been crucified that was job done, scripture fulfilled, covenant re-newed, we can all go home now.

But the fact is that that wasn't their point of view, again just ask most Jews today if that is their view.

himnextdoor wrote: »

I think that by 'seeding' Christianity, the Sanhedrin designed a flag under which people united; this could have diverted the attention of the Romans from the 'chosen ones' who were flying a different flag.

You're just being ludicrously silly now himnextdoor. You appear to get some sort of kick out of that don't you?

JimiTime

PDN wrote: »

I don't think that's a great comparison since the execution of Jesus was carried out at the instigation of the official Jewish leadership, not a small group of unrepresentative and unofficial thugs.

Well the point was communicated effectively by it, so it did its job:)

Slav

Christ is risen!

Plowman wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Perhaps I don't understand you here, but unless Pilate recognised Jesus as the Messiah (did he?), he could not have been saved.[/QUOTE]

I guess it's because we understand Atonement and Hell differently. In Orthodox tradition Hell (the lake of fire), while being real, is not an absolute category but a relative one. It's not a rubbish bin where God dumps the waste of his loved creation. Instead, the nature of Heavens and Hell is the same and it's God's himself only He would be experienced differently by the sheep and the goats. In this model God being all in all (1Cor 15:28) equally loves everyone, every single one is resurrected from death so from God's perspective everyone is saved including those who experience His presence as Hell.

Donatello

Slav wrote: »

Christ is risen!



I guess it's because we understand Atonement and Hell differently. In Orthodox tradition Hell (the lake of fire), while being real, is not an absolute category but a relative one. It's not a rubbish bin where God dumps the waste of his loved creation. Instead, the nature of Heavens and Hell is the same and it's God's himself only He would be experienced differently by the sheep and the goats. In this model God being all in all (1Cor 15:28) equally loves everyone, every single one is resurrected from death so from God's perspective everyone is saved including those who experience His presence as Hell.

Indeed, He is Risen!

Indeed, the flames of the fires of hell are the flames of God's love which burn everything that is not love. And what torment that will be, if, God forbid, we end up in that state through our own fault.

himnextdoor

Soul Winner wrote: »

According to John 17 Jesus prayed in the garden that if it be possible let this cup pass form me, nevertheless no my will done but thine."

Jesus was doing the will of the Father. He could have been restored to the glory that He once had with the Father but the price for sin (death) would not have been paid and sinners would have had no hope ever. Jesus didn't have to die and Jesus didn't want to die but it was the Father's will that the the life One who is perfect was required if sinners are to be redeemed. Jesus was promised that if He did this God would raise Him from the dead after 3 days and 3 nights and give Him a name above every name, that at the name of Jesus every knew shall bow. So basically Jesus who is the author and finisher of faith, led by example and showed what faith really is, literally hanging your body on the promises of God.

That's what I said.

Soul Winner wrote: »

Where does it say that Jesus nominated Judas to betray Him?

Matthew 26:1 When Jesus had finished saying all these things, he said to his disciples, 2 “As you know, the Passover is two days away—and the Son of Man will be handed over to be crucified.”

This is before Judas has agreed to betray Jesus who knows the optimal time of arrest.

The Sanhedrin know the optimal time for the arrest of Jesus too.

Matthew 26:3 Then the chief priests and the elders of the people assembled in the palace of the high priest, whose name was Caiaphas, 4 and they schemed to arrest Jesus secretly and kill him. 5 “But not during the festival,” they said, “or there may be a riot among the people.”

It is clear from Matthew that Judas approached the Sanhedrin rather than the other way around:

Matthew 26:14 Then one of the Twelve—the one called Judas Iscariot—went to the chief priests 15 and asked, “What are you willing to give me if I deliver him over to you?” So they counted out for him thirty pieces of silver. 16 From then on Judas watched for an opportunity to hand him over.

Why thirty pieces?

Judas may have been unaware of prophecy but the Sanhedrin were not:

Matthew 27:6 The chief priests picked up the coins and said, “It is against the law to put this into the treasury, since it is blood money.” 7 So they decided to use the money to buy the potter’s field as a burial place for foreigners. 8 That is why it has been called the Field of Blood to this day. 9 Then what was spoken by Jeremiah the prophet was fulfilled: “They took the thirty pieces of silver, the price set on him by the people of Israel, 10 and they used them to buy the potter’s field, as the Lord commanded me.”

Two birds with one stone?

It appears that Jesus and the Sanhedrin were on the same mission.

Soul Winner wrote: »

It was an impossible situation for Pilate. Jesus wasn't under any obligation to speak up for Himself. Pilate already knew that He was innocent of any crime worthy of death and even said as much. But he couldn't risk anarchy and Jesus fulfilled prophecy by going to the slaughter like a lamb, not opening His mouth. It was the will of the Father that His anointed One go through this for us sinners so that we don't have to go through it. It was the ultimate act of love. Jesus said that no man takes His life from Him, that the shepherd lays down His own life for His sheep, that He has power to lay it down, and power to take it back up again. It was a voluntary act of complete and utter self sacrifice on the tender promise of God that He would raise Him up.

For days before His arrest, Jesus knew He would be crucified by the end of the week and He and the Sanhedrin had to work very hard in order to make it happen.

Soul Winner wrote: »

If the Sanhedrin really believed that Jesus was the Messiah then they wouldn't have proclaimed that He was a blasphemer in order to fulfill the prophecy of the suffering Messiah. You only have to read Jesus' rebuke to Peter to know that even everyday normal Jews were not expecting the promised Messiah to be killed.

Yes they would; Jesus had to be rejected (sold for thirty pieces of silver) by the Jews. That is why He was accused of blaspemy, a charge from which Jesus didn't defend Himself.

The Sanhedrin were not 'everyday normal Jews', they were a special, knowledgeable kind.

Also, do you completely discount the possibility that the Sanhedrin knew about the virgin birth? We know that at least two other people apart from Mary and Joseph knew of Mary's condition; Zecheriah and Elisabeth.

Of course the Sanhedrin 'knew' who Jesus was.

Soul Winner wrote: »

They expected Him to be powerful and to destroy their enemies and set up His kingdom right there and then. Most of them were convinced that Jesus was this Messiah when He raised Lazarus from the dead. Even some of the Jews that were sent as spies who also witnessed that event. They were ready to make Him King for sure after this. But Jesus knew that the time for that was not yet, that He must suffer what the scriptures had prophesied He would suffer first. Prophecies that the Jewish leaders and everyday Jews had totally missed until after the Holy Spirit revealed it to the Apostles after the resurrection. So your point that the Sanhedrin knew He was the Messiah but proclaimed Him to be a blasphemer in order to fulfill prophecy (that they obviously didn't understand) doesn't hold any weight at all except as a silly theory. A theory that can be easily refuted even today. Just ask any Orthodox Jews (most Jews actually) do they believe that Jesus was the Messiah and see what they tell you. Now, does it still makes sense?

Yes, Jesus knew the time wasn't right but the people He was talking to, the people He was appealing to were largely Gentiles; what would they know of prophecy?

How can you know that a certain prophecy was missed by the religious authorities? Eh? You simply do not know. How many Jews have you asked about this? I bet this is the first time you ever not listened to this argument. And if I speak the truth, do you think that they would tell you?

Then you go on to say:

Soul Winner wrote: »

Who knows? I wonder if we would have ever discovered penicillin had Sir Alexander Fleming not accidently stumbled upon a certain type of mold in a Petri dish. Ifs, buts and maybes are departures from the facts. Can we stick to the facts please?

I am sticking to facts whereas you are claiming to know the knowledge possessed by ancient religious leaders; the ones who wrote the prophecies.

My theory is not silly.

Soul Winner wrote: »

But the fact is that that wasn't their point of view, again just ask most Jews today if that is their view.

There you go again with the facts. There is a word for that you know.

Soul Winner wrote: »

You're just being ludicrously silly now himnextdoor. You appear to get some sort of kick out of that don't you?

I just hope that no-one ever has to rely on evidence you might have to give as a witness.

I don't mind having an intelligent discussion with you Soul Winner but you have to be honest in your examination of the argument.

Stop making it up as you go along.