This Just Cannot Be Right; Jesus Before Pilate

Author: Stephen ,

Topic's posts

Posts in total: 24
  • Stephen
    Stephen avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 4,622
    3
    2
    2
    Stephen avatar
    Stephen
    Jesus Before Pilate
    28 Then led they Jesus from Caiaphas unto the hall of judgment: and it was early; and they themselves went not into the judgment hall, lest they should be defiled; but that they might eat the passover.
    29 Pilate then went out unto them, and said, What accusation bring ye against this man?
    30 They answered and said unto him, If he were not a malefactor, we would not have delivered him up unto thee.
    31 Then said Pilate unto them, Take ye him, and judge him according to your law. The Jews therefore said unto him, It is not lawful for us to put any man to death:
    32 That the saying of Jesus might be fulfilled, which he spake, signifying what death he should die.
    33 Then Pilate entered into the judgment hall again, and called Jesus, and said unto him, Art thou the King of the Jews?
    34 Jesus answered him, Sayest thou this thing of thyself, or did others tell it thee of me?
    35 Pilate answered, Am I a Jew? Thine own nation and the chief priests have delivered thee unto me: what hast thou done?
    36 Jesus answered, My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence.
    37 Pilate therefore said unto him, Art thou a king then? Jesus answered, Thou sayest that I am a king. To this end was I born, and for this cause came I into the world, that I should bear witness unto the truth. Every one that is of the truth heareth my voice.
    38 Pilate saith unto him, What is truth? And when he had said this, he went out again unto the Jews, and saith unto them, I find in him no fault at all.
    39 But ye have a custom, that I should release unto you one at the passover: will ye therefore that I release unto you the King of the Jews?
    40 Then cried they all again, saying, Not this man, but Barabbas. Now Barabbas was a robber.

    “It is not lawful for us to put any man to death:” they objected. WhAAAAAAAAAAAAT!!!!!??

    Had these Jewish leaders forgotten their own laws laid down by the great Lawgiver himself; Moses? The very same Laws that Jesus stressed he  hadn't come to change? And hadn't they attempted to    "execute"  Jesus for blasphemy TWICE already, but he had managed to escape?  The first was in John 8, and again at John 10. 

    Did Jewish leaders suffer selective memory loss?

    Were they not going to carry out the laws of Moses against an adulteress with "execution" by stoning? John 7.
    What about Stephen? He was  "executed" by being stoned to death for blasphemy, the worst crime one can commit "in all of jewelry".Acts 7

    Why are the gospel writers silent on this so obvious lie, especially Mathew, who was forever reaching for his trusty Old Testament in his desperation  to link (falsely) the Christ with Old Testament   `prophesies `.


    And there is this:

    28 Then the Jewish leaders took Jesus from Caiaphas to the palace of the Roman governor. By now it was early morning, and to avoid ceremonial uncleanness they did not enter the palace, because they wanted to be able to eat the Passover.  WhAAAAT! 

    Then how did  the Jewish leaders or anyone  know what was spoken between Pilate and the Christ????  <<<<< This, before one gets around to asking how did the gospel writers come to write a dialogue that had taken place where only two people were present  and  anything up to a 100+ years after the alleged fact?? 




  • zedvictor4
    zedvictor4 avatar
    Debates: 15
    Forum posts: 4,178
    3
    3
    3
    zedvictor4 avatar
    zedvictor4
    --> @Stephen
    This sort of stuff is maybe loosely fact based information, though  based on tales and supposition it is now rendered to mythology,  you therefore shouldn't expect it to be either consistent or verifiable.
  • Stephen
    Stephen avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 4,622
    3
    2
    2
    Stephen avatar
    Stephen
    --> @zedvictor4
    This sort of stuff is maybe loosely fact based information, though  based on tales and supposition it is now rendered to mythology

    That's your opinion. It not so  according to the beliefs of devout Christians. So let them explain.
  • Nemiroff
    Nemiroff avatar
    Debates: 15
    Forum posts: 232
    0
    3
    9
    Nemiroff avatar
    Nemiroff
    --> @Stephen
    The Jews therefore said unto him, It is not lawful for us to put any man to death:
    Hmmm, if you are quoting the new testament, it appears the new testament is wrong. Judaism does have a death penalty with clear cut rules and procedures.

  • Stephen
    Stephen avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 4,622
    3
    2
    2
    Stephen avatar
    Stephen
    --> @Nemiroff
    it appears the new testament is wrong. Judaism does have a death penalty with clear cut rules and procedures.

     Do you  mean then,  that the writer of Mathews of the gospel  was lying and fabricating the whole story? Correct me if I am wrong.
  • Nemiroff
    Nemiroff avatar
    Debates: 15
    Forum posts: 232
    0
    3
    9
    Nemiroff avatar
    Nemiroff
    --> @Stephen
    Do you  mean then,  that the writer of Mathews of the gospel  was lying and fabricating the whole story? Correct me if I am wrong.
    I am stating that the author was wrong. Whether he is lying or simply ignorant is not something i can determine with the info on hand.
  • Stephen
    Stephen avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 4,622
    3
    2
    2
    Stephen avatar
    Stephen
    --> @Nemiroff
    I am stating that the author was wrong.

     I have to agree.  It also begs the question of  why they didn't just execute Jesus themselves, considering that he had committed blasphemy which again,  under Mosaic law the punishment was death:  

    Mark 14:
    64 Ye have heard the blasphemy: what think ye? And they all condemned him to be guilty of death.
    65 And some began to spit on him, and to cover his face, and to buffet him, and to say unto him

    Leviticus 24:16  Whoever blasphemes the name of the Lord shall surely be put to death. All the congregation shall stone him. 
  • Dr.Franklin
    Dr.Franklin avatar
    Debates: 32
    Forum posts: 9,031
    4
    7
    11
    Dr.Franklin avatar
    Dr.Franklin
    whers the problem?
  • Singularity
    Singularity avatar
    Debates: 11
    Forum posts: 1,013
    2
    3
    8
    Singularity avatar
    Singularity
    OP is a homosexual.  Nobody spends this much time thinking about Jesus, unless they want to suck his dick. 
  • Singularity
    Singularity avatar
    Debates: 11
    Forum posts: 1,013
    2
    3
    8
    Singularity avatar
    Singularity
    I wonder what the confusion is. He acts confused that kikes were scheming. News flash ops that's what kikes do
  • Melcharaz
    Melcharaz avatar
    Debates: 4
    Forum posts: 426
    1
    4
    8
    Melcharaz avatar
    Melcharaz
    Bad translation is all. No big deal
  • Stephen
    Stephen avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 4,622
    3
    2
    2
    Stephen avatar
    Stephen
    --> @Nemiroff
    I am stating that the author was wrong.

    And I would further add that  this then should, for anyone who isn't a  fawning sycophant , cast doubt on all of this extremely unreliable gospel.  
  • zedvictor4
    zedvictor4 avatar
    Debates: 15
    Forum posts: 4,178
    3
    3
    3
    zedvictor4 avatar
    zedvictor4
    @ Malcharaz

    Assumed god assumed religion...no big deal either.
  • Stephen
    Stephen avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 4,622
    3
    2
    2
    Stephen avatar
    Stephen
    --> @Singularity
     He acts confused that kikes were scheming. News flash ops that's what kikes do


     Nearly right. But I am certainly not confused. But it appears the gospels certainly are.  Some Jews did conspire with the Romans (with good reason) but this was all a  complete Roman affair. The trial and execution were  for crimes against Rome and the Jewish elders were more than happy to assist in the arrest of this agitator and alleged 'pretender' to the Jewish throne who was most certainly a threat to the fragile peace of those very troubling and unsettled times in Palestine. 


    Or haven't you read your bible AGAIN!!!!!!!  LOOK>>>>>> If we let him go on like this, everyone will believe in him, and then the Romans will come and take away both our temple and our nation."John 11:48

    There now.  I have taught you something else haven't it.


  • DeusVult
    DeusVult avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 107
    0
    1
    1
    DeusVult avatar
    DeusVult
    --> @Stephen
    Was Israel occupied at the time?

    Could it just maybe be that since Rome was the authority that they made it illegal for the Jews to carry out capital punishment outside of Roman Law?

    Blasphemy isn't a violation of Roman Law.  Hence the reason that they came to seek Rome's permission to execute someone? 

    Maaaayyyyyybe?
  • Stephen
    Stephen avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 4,622
    3
    2
    2
    Stephen avatar
    Stephen
    --> @DeusVult
    Was Israel occupied at the time?

      Don't you know? Are you really suggesting that Jerusalem was not under Roman occupation during Jesus time? Or are you just playing dumb?



    Could it just maybe be that since Rome was the authority that they made it illegal for the Jews to carry out capital punishment outside of Roman Law?
    Now you are telling us that Israel was occupied by Romans. 

    See post #1 I have give examples of stoning or attempted stoning by these elders while the under ROMAN occupation.


    Blasphemy isn't a violation of Roman Law. 


     I know  it was't and this is the point of the whole of this thread. So why don't you go back and read carefully the OP it is numbered #1



    Hence the reason that they came to seek Rome's permission to execute someone? 

    Again this the point of the whole thread.  Why didn't the elders simply execute Jesus for blasphemy? See post #1

     Why don't you just go read the OP, you seem to have lost complete track of what has been said, or you have ignored everything altogether..  IN FACT, take your time and read the whole thread. start here #1

  • Stephen
    Stephen avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 4,622
    3
    2
    2
    Stephen avatar
    Stephen
    --> @Singularity
    OP is a homosexual.  Nobody spends this much time thinking about Jesus, unless they want to suck his dick. 

    Nope. Wrong AGAIN!!!!

    I am firmly on the heterosexual bus and if I was inclined to pull one off over a myth it would be over Jessica Rabbit

  • DeusVult
    DeusVult avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 107
    0
    1
    1
    DeusVult avatar
    DeusVult
    --> @Stephen
    The Jews had lost the unilateral right to capital punishment had been removed from the Jews in 6 AD.


    So while in remote areas, the locals may sometimes have taken justice into their own hands, and the locals might chance that the Romans would never find out about it - or be bothered to investigate it.

    In Jerusalem itself, where the Roman Governor himself resided, the Sanhedrin would be risking their own lives by disobeying Roman law and putting Jesus to death.

    So you see. I can read, and I did answer your question fully the first time.
  • Stephen
    Stephen avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 4,622
    3
    2
    2
    Stephen avatar
    Stephen
    --> @DeusVult
    The Jews had lost the unilateral right to capital punishment had been removed from the Jews in 6 AD.


    ALREADY EXPLAINED here>>> #44 

    I have heard this a few times but never seen any factual evidence for this being the case. 

    And you are missing my point. If it is as Peterson's 'guide' suggests, this then casts serious doubt on the biblical stories of stoning to death of Stephen, the intended stoning of the adulteress and the two attempts made to stone Christ. In fact Peterson's `guide ' makes a mockery of Mathews gospel. Acts 7:54-60. John 8:59. John 10:25-39. John 8:1-11.
    What's more, If it is as you and  Peterson's 'guide' suggests, that the  Pharisees Jews had  their right to carry out corporal punishment removed, then they would have been committing high crimes against the state of Rome. <<<<< let that sink in a while.

    And  for you or Peterson to offer as evidence a verse from  historian  Josephus goes nowhere in proving that the Jewish Elders had had their power to carry out the punishment of death by stoning . Is all the verse tells us is that Archelaus was given the powers to sentence people to death. Nothing surprising about that.

    Josephus tells us:  “Now Archelaus’s part of Judea was reduced into a province, and Coponius, one of theequestrian order among the Romans, was sent as a procurator, having the power of [life and]death put into his hands by Caesar” (Josephus, Wars of the Jews, Book II 8:1).

    It mentions nothing concerning the Jews having their right to carry out their Mosaic law of capital punishment revoked.
    It is an old argument that has never ever been established as fact.




    So while in remote areas, the locals may sometimes have taken justice into their own hands,

    In Jerusalem itself, where the Roman Governor himself resided, the Sanhedrin would be risking their own lives
    But these incidents didn't happen in remote areas though, did they?  They took place right under the noses of the Roman in Jerusalem.

    Besides, if you are seriously suggesting this then you are telling me that either the Pharisee didn't know or Jesus didn't know  or neither didn't know that this was breaking the law of Rome ( according to you & Peterson's guide).  Do you not see how silly that argument actually is.
  • DeusVult
    DeusVult avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 107
    0
    1
    1
    DeusVult avatar
    DeusVult
    --> @Stephen
    On the contrary.  You see the prefect only had about 3000 troops in the entire province.  He too was in a tentative position as the legions were based a considerable distance away.  In the event of a major event he didn't have enough men to enforce his will.  So mob lynchings where Jews killed another solitary Jew for Jewish reasons would have been tolerated so long as they didn't disturb the order.

    Now the killing of Jesus was a different matter all together for both sides.  Here is a man of considerable note for whom the city turned out to greet with great fanfare.  The number of his followers and the hopes for the end to Roman rule put him on a completely different level than the odd heretic or prostitute killed by mob justice.  There is a big difference between an official ruling that puts someone to death, and a mob that lynches someone.  One is a challenge to Roman authority, the other, so long as it doesn't happen too often and doesn't affect the taxes, can be ignored - they aren't Roman citizens after all.

    When the members of the Sanhedrin heard this, they were furious and gnashed their teeth at him. But Stephen, full of the Holy Spirit, looked up to heaven and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing at the right hand of God. “Look,” he said, “I see heaven open and the Son of Man standing at the right hand of God.” At this they covered their ears and, yelling at the top of their voices, they all rushed at him,  dragged him out of the city and began to stone him. Meanwhile, the witnesses laid their coats at the feet of a young man named Saul. - Acts 7:54-58

    So you can see the stoning of Stephen was a spontaneous action and not an official ruling.  And Stephen was a nobody.  Then, like now, justice is not blind.

    Also for the Sanhedrin, they were teetering and if they were seen to be the ones to kill Jesus, the messiah, they could have been victims of a mob retribution.  So like when they tried to trap Jesus with the Prostitute and with Paying taxes, they made Rome do the dirty work and face the consequences.  They have shown a track record and their actions in killing Jesus were consistent with previous attempts to have him dealt with.
  • DeusVult
    DeusVult avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 107
    0
    1
    1
    DeusVult avatar
    DeusVult
    --> @Stephen
    One further addition.  It seems that Josephus does write about the Killing of James and others.

    CONCERNING ALBINUS UNDER WHOSE PROCURATORSHIP JAMES WAS SLAIN; AS ALSO WHAT EDIFICES WERE BUILT BY AGRIPPA.
    AND now Caesar, upon hearing the death of Festus, sent Albinus into Judea, as procurator. But the king deprived Joseph of the high priesthood, and bestowed the succession to that dignity on the son of Ananus, who was also himself called Ananus. Now the report goes that this eldest Ananus proved a most fortunate man; for he had five sons who had all performed the office of a high priest to God, and who had himself enjoyed that dignity a long time formerly, which had never happened to any other of our high priests. But this younger Ananus, who, as we have told you already, took the high priesthood, was a bold man in his temper, and very insolent; he was also of the sect of the Sadducees, who are very rigid in judging offenders, above all the rest of the Jews, as we have already observed; when, therefore, Ananus was of this disposition, he thought he had now a proper opportunity [to exercise his authority]. Festus was now dead, and Albinus was but upon the road; so he assembled the sanhedrin of judges, and brought before them the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James, and some others, and when he had formed an accusation against them as breakers of the law, he delivered them to be stoned: but as for those who seemed the most equitable of the citizens, and such as were the most uneasy at the breach of the laws, they disliked what was done; they also sent to the king [Agrippa], desiring him to send to Ananus that he should act so no more, for that what he had already done was not to be justified; nay, some of them went also to meet Albinus, as he was upon his journey from Alexandria, and informed him that it was not lawful for Ananus to assemble a sanhedrin without his consent. Whereupon Albinus complied with what they said, and wrote in anger to Ananus, and threatened that he would bring him to punishment for what he had done; on which king Agrippa took the high priesthood from him, when he had ruled but three months, and made Jesus, the son of Damneus, high priest.
    - Flavius Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews, Book XX, Chapter 9

    So Josephus explicitly states that the Sanhedrin could not assemble without the consent of the Roman Governor.  The people were not permitted to put someone to death without a ruling from the Sanhedrin.  Hence, the Jews lost the right to put someone to death without approval from Rome.

    This is in perfect agreement with the Gospel where the Jews state tell Pilate that they do not have the authority to put a man to death.

  • Stephen
    Stephen avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 4,622
    3
    2
    2
    Stephen avatar
    Stephen
    --> @DeusVult
    None of it makes any difference. The point is if you are correct it makes a mockery of the gospels and their unreliable stories.

    By planting other shite that only you seems to believe somehow  support your claim makes  difference. Even if they were true.

    They said there were not allowed to put anyone to death. Yet we have the gospels saying they did and they attempted to do so on many occasions. It is not me  saying this , it is the the gospel writers version of events. 

    AND:

    " According to Talmudic law, the authority to apply capital punishment ceased with the destruction of the Second Temple.".   That will be well after Jesus was tried and crucified.

    The second temple was destroyed in 70 AD some 40 years after the crucifixion.



    In Rabbinic Judaism.

    The Sanhedrin stopped issuing capital punishment either after the Second Temple was destroyed, in 70 CE, or, alternatively, according to passages in the Talmud, in 30 CE, when the Sanhedrin were moved out of the Hall of Hewn Stones. Other sources, such as Josephus, disagree.  <<<<<<<<<<<<

    So the whole story, from start to finish is a sham.


  • DeusVult
    DeusVult avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 107
    0
    1
    1
    DeusVult avatar
    DeusVult
    --> @Stephen
    It only makes your interpretation a sham.

    You just mixed together Jewish and Roman law - another logical error.  The fact that the Jews no longer had the ability to condemn anyone to death after the destruction of the Temple does not mean they didn't have that ability before, but that it was restricted by Roman rule.

    It was also illegal for the Jews to rebel against Rome.  Does that mean it didn't happen?  Must according to your logic.

    I just proved with Josephus my point when you explicitly said he didn't say it.  Nobody knows the exact relationship between the Jewish religious leaders and the Roman occupiers.  However, the account in the Bible is justifiable with what is known.

    The Gospel account stands without blemish.

    Better luck next time.
  • Stephen
    Stephen avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 4,622
    3
    2
    2
    Stephen avatar
    Stephen
    --> @DeusVult

    It only makes your interpretation a sham.

    You keep missing the OBVIOUS decadence that simply proves you to be wrong.

    The scriptures are at fault here NO MATTER which way one looks at the, YOU HAVE PROVEN THAT YOURSELF



    By planting other shite that only you seems to believe somehow  support your claim makes no difference. Even if they were true.

    They said there were not allowed to put anyone to death. Yet we have the gospels saying they did and they attempted to do so on many occasions. It is not me  saying this , it is the the gospel writers version of events. 

    AND:

    " According to Talmudic law, the authority to apply capital punishment ceased with the destruction of the Second Temple.".   That will be well after Jesus was tried and crucified.

    The second temple was destroyed in 70 AD some 40 years after the crucifixion.



    In Rabbinic Judaism.

    The Sanhedrin stopped issuing capital punishment either after the Second Temple was destroyed, in 70 CE, or, alternatively, according to passages in the Talmud, in 30 CE, when the Sanhedrin were moved out of the Hall of Hewn Stones. Other sources, such as Josephus, disagree.  <<<<<<<<<<<<

    So the whole story, from start to finish is a sham.