Phoenix From Ashes

It is reasonable given the history of the time period, but some do not want to believe it and some will not believe it.

Phoenix From Ashes

I only left out what I considered unreasonable. There seems to be a lot of passion behind your objections to the historicity of the account.

I thought it seemed evident from context, but perhaps you misunderstood.

Pilate could be "blackmailed" because the Jews could potentially make enough noise about this supposed usurper, Jesus, to get Pilate into trouble with Rome for not dispatching of him. The last thing Rome really wanted in Palestine was a riot as well. I'm sure there was a lot of politicing going on.

And if anyone believes that the "letter of the law" was being followed by either the Romans or the Jews in this situation, I've got some beachfront property in Arizona that I'd like to sell you.

Koyaanisqatsi

How ironic.

No, it's abundantly clear that you are misunderstanding. Caesar himself would likely not give too much of a shit if some local Rabbi was going around calling himself the "King of the Jews." The title has no meaning and Caesar already was aware that Jews considered their God to be supreme.

Further, Pilate already declared that Jesus had broken no Roman law the night before (and the day of) allegedly. He would fear no such "blackmail," since in his mind (and on the books) no Roman law had been broken. That would, of course, include any decry from Caesar.

Please actually respond point by point to my arguments if at all. I would appreciate it.

Phoenix From Ashes

Palestine was quite volatile from Rome's perspective. If you don't believe that, then I would encourage you to read of previous Kings of the Jews such as the Hasmoneans or Simon Bar Kochba. For someone to be pronounced "King of the Jews" (especially if supposedly from the lineage of King David), this would have been Terror Threat Level Orange at least from the Roman point of view.

Here is some reading for you, that I think will shed more light on the subject for you:

Hasmoneans:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hasmonean

Simon Bar Kokhba:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bar_Kochba

Of course, there is much more history to read from this time period. I would also suggest the parts of Josephus which are highly interesting and talk of the political interactions between Herod the Great, King of the Jews, Octavian (Caesar Augustus), and Marc Anthony. Josephus has many fascinating and enlightening accounts of politics during this volatile time period.

Phoenix From Ashes

The following link has some good information about the political interactions between Herod the Great, King of the Jews, Octavian (later Caesar Augustus), and Marc Anthony.

Herod the Great
http://www.livius.org/he-hg/herodian...e_great01.html

Politics back then was just as sloppy and just as cruel and anomic as it can be today. To say that they must have followed the law to a "T", is a rather simplistic and unreasonable view.

Koyaanisqatsi

Respectfully, you keep missing the point Phoenix. For "blackmail" to have worked on Pilate, he would have actually had to have believed he had something to hide, which he did not.

Not the night before and clearly not the day of as he thrice proclaimed that he found Jesus had commited no Roman crime (that would include, of course, breaking Caesar's decree) and even asked, allegedly, "the crowd" if they thought he was the "King of the Jews" and they said NO.

So who, exactly, thought he was the "King of the Jews?"

Thus, "blackmail" could not have been a reason why Pilate would have countermanded his alleged proclaimation of Jesus' innocence and inexplicably forced him to crucify Jesus.

Nor would it account for the Romans to have publicly mocked Jesus, or placed a "crown of thorns" on his head. Neither Pilate, nor "the crowd," apparently, considered Jesus to have been the "King of the Jews" that you are making a case for.

So why would the Romans mock a man that Pilate had declared innocent (let alone kill him) by calling him by a title that no one claimed he actually had, including Jesus?

Phoenix From Ashes

One other thing to remember is that world population and city populations were much smaller. I bring this up because Roman citizens could appeal to Caesar and quite likely get an audience with him. Philo mentions circumstances where Jews (I believe) from Alexandria in Egypt sailed to Rome to have an audience with Caesar. Many times, people think of Caesar in today's terms, but Palestaine was not that far away and happenings there were of importance to Rome (as evidenced all throughout the 1st couple of centuries B.C.E. and C.E.).

Koyaanisqatsi

Jews from Jerusalem could get an audience with Caesar to tell him what exactly? That Pilate didn't kill a completely innocent man that no one thought was actually the "King of the Jews" and had not gone around claiming he was? That's your argument?

Please address the fact that for blackmail to have worked on Pilate, he had to think that he had something to hide, which he clearly did not.

Pilate just forgot Roman law the night before and the day of and then was only suddenly reminded of it by a crowd of Jews who also did not believe Jesus was the "King of the Jews" and publicly declared as much at his alleged trial?

Phoenix From Ashes

And the point that I feel is being missed is that breaking Roman laws was not the concern (well, except for the minor little fact that they were making a big deal of Jesus claiming to be the "King of the Jews"). Seriously though, had something like this turned into a riot which Pilate did nothing to stop, while the Jews claimed Jesus was a pretender to the throne, Pilate might likely have wound up on a cross himself (or at least have been pulled from Palestine for another assignment elsewhere). I guarantee if the reported events are true that Pilate knew what was at stake, in spite of whether he believed Jesus not to have committed any crimes other than opposing Caesar.

One doesn't have to believe the biblical accounts, but it is difficult to debate them if one does not consider what they have to say. That is, we can speculate all day. According to the accounts, Jesus had amassed enough of a following to have people (who knows how many) spreading news that he was the "King of the Jews" come to Jerusalem (not so far-fetched when you realize that they also seemed to think that John the Baptist was Elijah come back). Jesus also, apparently, made some noise in the temple area.

I don't consider, from my own knowledge of the history of the time, much of the reaction of either the Jews or the Romans to be so far-fetched as to be fictional.

Koyaanisqatsi

He did not as Pilate concluded and confirmed. NO one, apparently, was officially calling Jesus the "King of the Jews" except, allegedly, the Sanhedrin in order to try to trick Pilate, apparently, into doing their dirty work. Which Pilate exposed and refused to do.

I've addressed the point you think has been missed, now please address my point that for "blackmail" to work, Pilate would have had to have believed he did something wrong and had something to hide.

Pilate did not, historically, fear either a riot, or his inability to stop one. In fact, he anticipated them and took military steps to brutally quell them as he absolutely would have done on Passover.

What throne? You claimed yourself that it was a Jewish "messianic" title.

And he didn't think this the night before or the day of when he was publicly and therefore officially declaring that Jesus had committed no crime (Roman or otherwise) why exactly?

Jesus did not at any point oppose Caesar, Phoenix, as Pilate, as an official representative of Caesar's, publicly declared. Please let me know you understand that fact.

So, you're saying that Jesus instructed his flock (which mysteriously dissappeared on the day, btw) to spread the word that he was the "King of the Jews?"

And? This proves that Pilate's ruling that Jesus had committed no crime (which, again, includes Caesar's decree) and therefore could not have been blackmailed by "the crowd" how exactly?

The "blackmail" sophistry rests entirely on the fact that Pilate would have had to believe he had something to hide; that he had himself committed an offense against Ceasar.

He did not as he allegedly repeatedly, publicly and therefore officially declared. Please address that fact in your next post.

:huh: