Chili

It was a comedy and the best thing the Jews ever did and did it often, and often enough to know that if he doesn't stay in the tomb for 3 days the final impostor will be worse that the first (Mt.17:64); at least the chief priests did know and cautioned Pilate of that danger they saw . . . but not in Luke, or in John, while in Mark everything was wrong and Pilate was surprised that Jesus had nothing to say and likely did not even know what this was all about, while John knew exactly when to say "it is finished."

So yes, Matthew and Mark are tragedies, who thus went back to Galilee again because his Peter was wrong, I think, and was not a 'true Judean' but more like a deserter instead, camel-hair coat and all.

To understand here is that, as myth, only the Jew has to die and not the man and that is the reason why the Jews insisted that by their own law Jesus must die, that Pilate knew nothing about as the first Adam now passified while still in charge of ego consciousness in the TOK of Joseph the Jew.

It is just a word story wherein actually Pilate was married to Magdalene who served him as temple tramp in the TOK (and so were Adam and Eve outside of Eden), and with Christ born unto Joseph (i.e son of Joseph) Christ and Mary become second Adam and second Eve to run away with the loot, we can say (now as an eagle with wings), while the second or human nature of Joseph that opened his eyes so he could see for himself are now shut again by Jesus, who is no more than the reformed Adam in the same TOK as he always was.

Hence Nazarite by nature is when a conversion takes place that reforms the mind and so also the ways and manners as human, who will be fully man when his Adamic nature gets crucified, which obviously takes place in the same mind where also those Jews were shouting away to bring the crisis moment about.
.

aa5874

People of antiquity of the Jesus cult who used the Gospels were not unclear.

They claimed the Jews killed Jesus the Son of God.

Aristides' Apology

andrewcriddle

Hi Jake

If you mean that παρεδίδετο in 1 Corinthians 11:23 taken in isolation could mean that Jesus was delivered over to death by God then lingiustically I agree. The problem in context is the reference to the night in which the delivering over occurred. This reference to a specific time probably implies some specific action that night rather than just the continuing purposes of God.

If you mean that παρεδίδετο could mean that Jesus delived himself over to death then I'm more dubious. παρεδίδετο could be taken as middle rather than passive and understood in that way. But if that is what Paul meant he would almost certainly have used the active see Galatians 2:20 and Ephesians 5:25.

(By the way I thought you regarded this passage as a post-Pauline addition. If so it almost certainly does refer to Judas.)

Andrew Criddle

maryhelena

But that is the question is it not - is that gospel story a "totally fictional story"? Or is that gospel story perhaps a story with historical underpinnings? i.e. a story that has used Hasmonean/Jewish history as it's backdrop; a historical backdrop for a theological or prophetic story?

As far as I understand things, in a court of law, it is not just the man who pulls the trigger that is charged with murder. The man who pulls the trigger can be a paid assassin. Thus, the mastermind behind the killing is as guilty, if not more so, than the paid assassin - at least such a mastermind does not escape punishment.

As to the OP regarding: The Exoneration of Pilate and and Blaming of the Jews - history is the best place to look for the historical backdrop to this gospel story.

Who was the real guilty party here - the Roman Marc Antony or the Herodian 'Jew', Herod?

Obviously, it was Herod.

Herod the Great

Herod might not have been considered a 'real' Jew. However, for the purpose of retelling that Antigonus history via the gospel story, a gospel story set within a time frame of Roman occupation; placing primary blame upon the 'Jews' would have not only allowed the gospel story some political leeway - but it would also be an accurate historical reconstruction. i.e. The 'Jew', Herod, paid the Roman assassin.

Viewed from a historical perspective - I don't think there is any anti-Semitism in the gospel story. i.e. for the crucifixion story - 'Jews' = Herod.

Chili

Faith is iconic (based on reality as opposite to figment-imaginative) and so can be brought to understanding to find release from slavery to it, wherein now faith holds a promise to unfold.

These, now two kinds of faith, are different to make Judaism proper a mystery religion, which probably is why not just Judas but also Peter had a twin as identified by name in the four gospels, and they are presented this way for that reason.

If the above is true it also means that the reason for this is significant and we see this after the crisis moment that they call crucifixion where Matthew and Mark's Jesus goes back to Galilee again and Luke and John's Jesus goes ahead as planned = onward to Israel as Freeman now.

The self cannot deliver the self to death in that the self must be crucified to set free the man, and that is made known in the rapture parable wherein always 2 men or two women were together wherein one goes 'poof' to set the other one free, and thus what remains is in heaven and not the one who goes 'up.' This so is why Christ stayed and Jesus went 'poof' to come back again as 'second Adam' time and time again.

In the distance this can be seen as anti-thesis for suicide wherein the 'ego-awareness' also is the problem but the man is killed instead of the ego. It so can be argued that suicide is evidence of a societal dis-ease that is emergent from the soul for which now 'misguided religion' is to blame, or at least is not there to console the inner man.

The evidence of this is that Judas spilled his guts when all was understood to point at freedom here in the mind of the believer now set free from religious slavery when 'the race' was ran.

I think it is fair to say that religion is meant to be protagonist in life to send us West in a playful kind of way, until finally we are 'played-out' and at that point in life do a 180 (metanoia) and [right then and there] do a re-make of Adam now used to get our ass back home again, and so a Jesuit-by-nature we become for whom now religion is antagonist to overcome . . . but still is needed to deliver him to die that in true iconic form is happy to oblige, which then is what hippocratic earnesty is all about on the way out, and so 'the Jews' were shouting even, while the chief priest knew what was going on and were the instigator to provoke the final line on which he died.

Chili

More like friendship than anti-Semitism if you consider it a victory wherein not only Pilate and Herod became friends again but Rome becomes home for them in the fulfillment of the promise made.

Just go to Gen.3:15 where the enmity referred to exists in the mind of the believer who might be very dedicated as Jew but a 'mere believer'* still, like Antigonus was presented here now chained in that predicament for which the Jews were to blame in their own faithfulness.

Herod presents the final say on behalf of the Immanent Will inside the mind of the rational animal man, now blaming religion for the turmoil there that brought him forth to Rome where the mastermind must end Judaism so that they will be friends again, and so there now: Rome is peace of mind for him.

Notice that Herod was "extremely pleased" to see Jesus in Luke 22:8 and then in verse 12: "Herod and Pilate, who had previously been set against each other, became friends from that day" to bring peace on earth now with that enmity removed for Marc Anthony (that is made known in the pivotal speech he made, I think).

To note here is that I only read "Julius Caesar" wherein Anthony made this pivotal speech (III.ii.169-197) to make that victory known.

* For Plato the Jewishness of a Jew is like the stronghold of the artisan that here is reduced 'mere Jew,' to say that it had lost its shine for him. Plate coined the term "full-blooded kinetic' that is a pre-requisite in the encounter of Telic vision as final cause wherein the shine-of-life itself is put on him and for this the Jew must die as if it was 'mere [surface] sophistry' as seen [now] post-parousia.

Stringbean

I agree with AA here. Pilate had absolutely no reason to string him up this Jesus had broken no Roman Law at the time. I also agree that the Jews call to arms to have him crucified put the Romans under the microscope and made it appear as if the Romans had the idea to string him up.

DCHindley

I would take issue with this understanding of the Gospel accounts. I think the three synoptic gospels are consciously trying to demonstrate that the Jewish authorities, and by extension the Jewish people, conspired to deliver their messiah to the Romans for crucifixion "out of jealously." Pilate, they say, reluctantly, condemns Jesus for sedition when he doesn't tell him why he should be considered innocent.

The real situation is more likely that the authorities turned him over because whatever he taught could be construed as seditious (he understood himself as a messiah figure), and they feared that Jesus' teachings might cause elements of the Jewish people to take up arms against the Romans in order to install him as king. They did not necessarily have to think he was really seditious, just capable of being interpreted as such. That's all it took for John the Baptist to get beheaded by Antipas. Pilate would have to hear a pretty good explanation from Jesus to let him off the hook, and Jesus probably had not 'explained away" the charge (i.e., it was true).

The part about the crowd calling for his execution as a rebel and the part about letting "his blood be upon us and our children" was there purely to point towards the future rebellion crushed by the Romans (i.e., an anachronism from the POVs of the Gospel writers).

DCH

outhouse

I dont even think it goes that far.

With possibly 400,000 in attendance, he would have been invisible is a sea of teachers and healers.



The real issue was he started trouble in a time when Pilate and Caiaphas only wanted peace and the money to keep flowing.


Cause any kind of disturbance and you would find yourself made an example of on a cross.

We know Pilate had a hatred for Galileans, and add to that he was a ruthless bloodthirsty leader.

jakejonesiv

Hi Andrew,
Yes, IMO is an interpolation. But even if it is not, there is no necessary reading of a betrayer, although there arguably is. Judas is not named.