show_no_mercy

According to the very unhistorical gospel narrative that is self-serving. Why would I believe this?

This is still a caricature of Pilate. Like I wrote before, Pilate executed troublemakers like it was going out of style. He didn't hold trials for them. Yet we're to believe that Pilate had one moment of sanity in his entire career when he meets Jesus? That he held a fair trial for both "Barabbas" and Jesus? Why not say that Pilate was possessed by the holy spirit when he met Jesus which made him act completely contrary to how both Josephus and Philo describe him? Why not say that Pilate was replaced by alien body snatchers?

You realize that "Barabbas" means son of the father right? I thought Jesus was the actual "son of the father".

Jesus meeting Herod is an impossibility, simply put. Not only that, but this episode only happens in Luke so it doesn't even have the "corroboration" of the other canonical gospels. You are still treating the gospel narratives as history yet don't have any reason for treating them so other than religious belief.

You have to first establish that the gospel narratives have some sort of reliable historical content. This would be established by some sort of non-biased corroboration. Considering that, not only do we not have corroboration for many of the events in the gospels, but we have actual contradictory presentation of historical characters that really undermines the historical validity of the gospels.

Add to that the various miraculous events, and you might as well try to convince me that an Avengers comic is historical just because it takes place in New York City and mentions some historical people.

Like I asked before, where is your reference that Jews during the time period of Jesus were not allowed to execute other Jews who violated Jewish law?

Conjecture.

Really? I suppose the U.S. government would let convicted murderers and enemies of the state walk free just because it was a religious holiday? The analogy simply is not apt - unless you concede that the Pilate who was known for his "endless savage ferocity" releasing an insurrectionist just because it was Passover is wholly unhistorical.


While possible, I don't know of any evidence that there were Pharisees in the Sanhedrin during the time period of Jesus. Maybe you can provide a source?

And who exactly is the "other side"? Do you mean every single person interested in religion and history who lived in 33 CE? Philo was a contemporary of Pilate and described how much of an execution happy prefect he was. Yet he doesn't describe how he murders an innocent? And how this innocent, who is supposed to be insanely popular, just so happens to be the living embodiment of his Logos doctrine?

Here's the challenge for you, since I'm pretty sure all of this is going to fly over your head. Establish that the gospel narratives have historical content other than its reference to historical people and places.

apatura_iris

I have a theory on this, which I have never read in the mainstream. I believe he was arrested and killed for teaching Jewish mysticism to gentiles. The Talmud contains an anecdote about a "Certain Galilean" who was killed "by a sting to the forehead" for teaching mysticism to gentiles. "Sting to the forehead" is possibly a euphemism for the death penalty, which legally could not be carried out under Roman rule, but handing a criminal to a foreign court was considered a "substitute" death penalty while under occupation, halachically speaking.

JABcomix

Jesus wasn't a troublemaker. Only in the eyes of the Jewish Authority was he seen as one.

Now who's conjecturing?

You realize that Jesus wasn't named "Jesus". His name was Joshua Ben Joseph.



Again you are conjecturing here. Assumptions are best left for the ignorant. I read the Urantia Book. Perhaps you've never heard of it.

I am non-bias when it comes to the Bible. I get my info from the Urantia Book. The gospels corroborate the UB itself.

You mean to tell me the Avengers comic lies?


Conjecture? So the Romans never destroyed Jerusalem? That never happened? Or let me see, you might say that the Romans just destroyed the City with no provocation whatsoever. I think that you would even throw in the kitchen sink just to deny the fact that the Jewish people were restless and rebellious against the Roman Authority. Just because you can name one or two people getting killed by a Jewish hand does not mean that the Romans allowed that. The Roman Authority was indeed ruthless. They crucified thousands of Jews before Jerusalem was destroyed.



You know, it's been done before. Maybe not because of a religious holiday, but because it was politically expedient. Just look at what just happened with Al-Megrahi and how he was released by Scotland. There are some reasons why they did that. Pilate also had his reason why he did what he did. He faced an unruly crown that was on the brink of insurrection. He needed to give them something. He honestly thought that they would pick Jesus over Barabbas. However, most of the people in the crowd were there for Barabbas. Since Jesus was arrested early in the morning, nobody knew that the bloodied person standing next to Barabbas was even Jesus. Many of Jesus' supporters weren't even there. And those that were there, were drowned out by the supporters of Barabbas. So it was just an unfortunate circumstance that Jesus could have been release, but because Pilate put it up to the crowd who was there to advocate for the release of Barabbas, things turned out the way they did.

If Pilate would have found reason to execute Jesus, he wouldn't have even bothered putting up the choice of who gets executed or who goes free. He would have just killed both Barabbas and Jesus. But since he knew that Jesus was innocent of all charges, he was hoping that the crowds would have picked Jesus over this murderous Barabbas. How wrong he was.






That's right, you don't know.


The other side is the antagonistic Jewish Authority. I thought that would have been obvious to you.

I'll do something better than that. I'll give you a link so you can see for yourself, because if I were to try to establish all of this, this page would be 12 pages long.

http://www.urantia.org/papers/paper183.html

Toto

Urantia Book from skepdic

This is not a source that most of us here would consider even remotely credible.

JABcomix

How hard is it to think for yourself? You have to follow someone else criticism of the Book? You don't even know what the book contains and you are already forming an opinion because some guy said so. I don't know Martin Gardner from Adam, but I do know my own mind. Do you know your own mind? Or is it possessed by the spirit of Martin Gardner?

Deus Ex

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Urantia_Book

All I have to do is read this description to know that this a bunch of woo-woo, right up there with Scientology.

eccles

Did Jesus die on the Cross? NO. He was taken down resuscitated and went away with his wife Mary Madgalene and family.

Toto

I've known about Urantia for some time, and I know what the book contains. It's available online. It doesn't contain any verifiable history.

Martin Gardner is one of the founders of CSICOP, which is now the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry, which investigates claims of the paranormal.

Why would you believe anything you read in Urantia?

JABcomix

So you've read the book? Is that what you're saying? You're not just putting forth an ignorant stance like some people who only read the jacket of books and assume what's in the story, are you?
Is that all you're looking for, history? Is that all you got from the book? Wow, seriously that is very insightful.

Because I choose to believe. I've read the book many times and it contains much truth. And I'm not talking about verifiable facts. When I say truth, I mean universal truths, things that I already knew and were confirmed upon reading the book.

JABcomix

Yes I know. You would rather read about the world instead of traveling.