Steven Carr

So Pilate was the Jews official executioner, at their beck and call.

And the Jewish leadership had Jesus killed because they feared the Romans would crack down hard, and they wanted to avoid trouble from the Romans and from their pet procurator.

And, of course, the Romans just would never have bothered cracking down hard. Pilate just didn't care about Jesus, and certainly didn't care about people saying someone he had executed was still alive.

Steven Carr

What serious offences would those be?

Running a movement claiming the Kingdom of God was coming? (Poor James was in big trouble, then wasn't he?)

Saying people the Romans had killed were actually still alive? And so undermining Pilate's authority?

outhouse

How you make something so simple complicated is beyond me.


A trouble making Jew, who caused some unknown trouble in the temple during passover would be put to death on a cross by Romans under the charge of sedition. End of story. BOTH Pilate and Caiaphas wanted one thing for the holiday, and that was peace. Anyone ANYONE deviating from said peace would be put to death and placed as a example of what not to do under Roman law.


It is circular reasoning to deny the gospels "literal" accuracy and then try and attribute details based on said literal interpretation, such as you are.

Mythology was added, but without reason we dont get to pick what, when and where, to fit personal needs, without proper critisicm. To date there is little that can be said of the trial that carries any historicity what so ever.


Now do you have any sources that would determine the historicty of verses your reading into literally?

outhouse

Historically, why was Pilate there in the temple that holiday event?



Depends on the size of the disturbance, now doesnt it?


The size of which we will never know in detail, will we?

Of course they would, depending on the size of the trouble. They had in the past and they were always ready to bust heads.

We dont even know if Pilate ever knew about Jesus or not.

Lets assume there was some unknown trouble in the temple, size of he trouble again matters 100% if pilate would have known.

Small trouble and a higher ranking guard would have had him placed on a cross as was very typical. Pilate may have been briefed and placed orders to go in at night and relive the trouble maker of his life and set as a example. he may not have. Will we ever know?


Large trouble, and he would have known.

You assume way to much.

We dont know when the ressurection mythology was put in place? Part of a teachers idea knowing his martyrdom would carry on? Apostles later dreams? stolen body? percieved spiritual resurrection? purposeful intent to keep what would be a failed messiah memory alive longer?

I dont claim to know.

My opinion the mythology started before the Passover was over.

aa5874

Actually you are the one who is attempting to historicise the obvious myth fables called Gospels.

Why do you want to historicize a character that was publicly documented to be the product of a Ghost throughout the Roman Empire??

The author of gLuke did an investigation of the Jesus story and published the results.

After the investigation the author of gLuke declared that Jesus indeed was produced from some kind of overshadowing Ghost.

It is clear that Jesus could NOT have lived or killed based on the very Canon.

The story that Jesus was killed is a monstrous fable based on an earlier myth fable that he was born after his mother became pregnant by a Ghost.

To confirm that the Gospels are Myth Fables those gospels that do NOT mention the Holy Ghost Conception and birth specifically admitted Jesus walked on the sea.

There are no Holy Ghost birth narratives in the short gMark, the long gMark and gJohn however they made sure to show the body of Jesus was NOT human.

No birth narrative short gMark 6:48No birth narrative long Mark 6:48 KJV Now, in gJohn, without birth narrative, it is specifically claimed or implied Jesus walked on the sea for a distance of about 3.5 miles [25-30 furlongs]

No birth narrative gJohn 6 The Jesus of the Canon is a product of Mythology and it was publicly declared throughout the Roman Empire and documented.

There is no evidence whatsoever that the Jesus cult started by any actual human being named Jesus of Nazareth and was actually killed.

Mark 16 Jesus of the NT could NOT have been killed and that is precisely why we have the Empty tomb story. Jesus of the NT was wholly Mythological.

No-one can kill the Son of a Ghost.

Even in the compilation of Myth Fables, when the Jesus cult started, Jesus was nowhere on earth.

The dead body of Jesus has NEVER EVER been found.

Minimalist

Why would a gentile have been in the temple, period? The presence of a Roman magistrate could serve only to remind people that the last time the temple had been violated it was by a Roman commander ( Pompey Magnus ). Whose interest would have been served by having that brought up?

No. Much as the later insertion of Antipas into gLuke (only), Pilate's presence is merely a handy plot device for whoever was telling the story. It would have really dragged the story out if the priests had to schlepp jesus all the way to Caesarea to see Pilate, wouldn't it.

outhouse

Ignoring the Roman garrison housing built into the temple are we?

Grog

I think the structure of the story regarding Pilate's role (and the Jewish authorities) is derived from Jewish Wars 6.5.3, in which Josephus recounts the story of Jesus Ananias: disturbance in the temple, inquisition before Jewish authorities, taken to Roman governor, flogged, killed by Romans (not deliberately), gives up the ghost.

Minimalist

The Antonia Fortress seems to have been a) separated from the temple complex by a common wall, at least, and b) across town from Herod's Palace where both Philo and Josephus indicate that Roman prefects/procurators stayed when they were in town.



I suppose it is possible that Pilate might have been visiting the common soldiers in their barracks but frankly it looks more like a plot device to get him into the story. Better to stay in Caesarea Maritima. As for Antipas, his kingdom was in the north and his capital was in Tiberias. Perhaps whoever wrote gLuke forgot that?

outhouse

No he was there for a few reasons, and there were three rulers of this area. Pilate, Caiaphas, and Antipas in Galilee.

One to keep peace and police the crowds, with almost half a million attendants at Passover. Trouble had broken out in the past and these Passovers have quite the violent history.

Second, to take back home the immense amount of tax revenue generated during Passover.