Phoenix From Ashes

Well, Koy, you have asserted that your views are correct and mine are wrong. You have asserted that I have not addressed any of your main points. I feel, on the contrary, that I have addressed them quite well and in depth. I also feel that what I have presented is probable for the situation.

From my perspective, I have seen a lack of familiarity on your part with the ancient sources, with Pilate's position, and with his accountability to Rome. I have not seen a true willingness on your part to engage the points that I am making other than to baselessly assert that they are wrong. I understand where you are coming from, but it seems you are not open to correcting your misunderstandings. I would like to continue and point out the problems still obvious in the previous post, but it seems a fruitless effort when all you do is deny every point.

If you could participate without Monty Pyton skits, which serve little purpose other than to insult intelligence, and comments like "Why doesn't that surprise me?", then I don't really see the point in continuing dialogue. Are you someone who simply likes to debate and win at all costs, or are you someone who enjoys learning about history and other peoples' perspectives?

I'm sure you will continue to proclaim total fault with all my views, but you are not open to seeing the faults in your own and in fact irrationally claim to have a corner on fact. It is impossible to carry on a rational discussion in that atmosphere.

Phoenix From Ashes

I have to ask what in the world you mean here by "That would include Caesar's decree"?

That Pilate's judgements were the same as a "decree" from Caesar!?

It seems to me that you are saying that no one had the right to contest Pilate's judgements before Caesar.

Actually, it was not, but at this point, I don't expect you to know that.

All the rest is a repetition of points I've already addressed and were blatantly ignored. You are most definitely "seeing what you want" and refusing to deal with reasoned possibilities other than your own.

spin

You misuse the word "averse". Once Pilate has shown his ability to use force, he shows he is not averse, despite the fact that he may choose not to use it on a particular occasion. The circumstances are no different from those in which he used force.

Before you can have an intellectual discussion you need an intellectual approach. You can't have the former without the latter.

I have no problem with the "childish" epithet. "The blackmail of Pilate is a joke." Pilate was removed because he didn't show enough interest in keeping the sort of decorum you want him to have employed in the gospel account. (And incidentally, that event involved Samaritans, not Jews.)

You introduced the term with "a simple, metaphorical wave of the hand", to which I responded "A single wave was sufficient though: no evidence? wave." You have supplied no evidence and I read back to where you introduced the theory in post #13 and expanded on it in #22 and #29, but still no evidence. (Here I'd like to use a waving smilie, but he's on strike today.)

I don't like built-in errors that become self-perpetuating.

I didn't know you from Adam and I was merely responding to Koy's approach to Pilate without interest in who he was talking to. You haven't been around long, so I'd never seen your posts before and had no interest at the time in finding out what you were saying or who you were.


spin

MJ67

The (gospel) sum of the circumstances behind the arrest and trial betrays the fable behind the man-god. To wit:

Two days before a most holy feast, Matthew has the high priests et al declining to subdue and kill the man of whom they object so as not to raise the ire of the Jewish citizenry. (26:1:4). Obviously Matthew in portraying the Jewish powers that be, felt that the crowd is more inclined to rail against the breaking of doctrine than to be riled at a man charged with political crimes.

But then we witness a total about face per Matthew. The man Jesus who sat and ate his Passover meal which can only happen on the advent of this most holy day, is subsequently arrested by the minions of the Jewish leaders. (26:47:57)

These same leaders, priests; elders; scribes, as Matthew would have us believe, shirked their duties to the laws of Moses as well as the flock in deference to hearing testimony against the man-god and held trial against him on the very same high holy day they arrested him. Finding him guilty, they advanced his conviction to two governing personages which obviously had nothing better to do in tumultuous Judea than to hear the case of Jews against another Jew--post haste.

By morning, he is found guilty; is assaulted and paraded in front of a crowd of Jews who should have been observing the Passover; is marched through a few hundred feet of the Jerusalem streets; hung on a cross and conveniently dies at 3pm, long enough to bury him in Jewish custom before sunset.

Of all of the throngs of believers the gospels would have us think followed Jesus and greeted him in his excursions throughout their towns, it would only have taken two to maintain the credibility of the man. But they all stayed home! Peter—the pontiff yet, lied to save himself, James, Matthew, John, Mary, Mary and Mary, Joseph, Lazarus and all the rest are nowhere to be found as character witnesses.

Two witnesses! That is all that was required of Jewish law to proclaim one’s innocence. And not one from the multitude came forward. Instead, they all supposedly condemned the man to die. All the throngs who cheered on his arrival; all the familial members of those whom he raised from the dead, all the healed and fed--they all stayed home!

Is this believable? Only to those who do not understand that the Romans under Pilate, as was succinctly stated by another poster, gave not one wit about the sensibilities of the Jews. Pilate, as was the governor, was all about Rome, appeasing his emperor and concerned only about those who threatened Roman rule. Some upstart who claimed to be king of the Jews and opposed by Jewish elders, hardly qualifies.

The gospels as we have them are but the undated writings of authors unknown--a reflection of propaganda during the first few centuries of the common era.

Koyaanisqatsi

Nothing of the kind!



I didn't just assert I'm right and you're wrong; I deconstructed exactly why the passion narrative as depicted in the gospels could not possibly have been historically accurate on all levels, save for the fact that the Romans crucified a seditionist local charismatic leader.

That, too, was not an assertion; that is demonstrable by simply reading your posts. What makes blackmail work, Pheonix?

I don't even know at this point how many posts I've asked that question and you still have not answered it. All you keep doing is repeating that Pilate feared blackmail.

I wouldn't be calling anyone black, Mr. Kettle.

The record proves you are incorrect.

:huh:

You didn't present anything but the biblical account and an unsupportable assertion that Pilate alternately (or concurrently) feared blackmail, or feared a riot as to the only two reasons he would murder a man he just officially ruled he could find no crime committed and was a Roman approved "free man."

I, on the hand, demonstrated that he did not fear any riot (and in fact took steps to not only anticipate such a riot, but ordered brutal military action to quell it) and that he could not have been susceptible to blackmail, because there were no grounds upon which he could be blackmailed.

He is the voice of Rome and Roman Law in the region and he officially exonerated Jesus of all crimes. That includes Caesar's decree. Pilate himself would have to file a report on teh trial and "rat" himself out, which Pilate, of course, knew full well he'd have to do, so there could be no grounds for blackmail.

I'm not asserting that, Pheonix; it is self-evident fact. He ruled that Jesus had committed no crime. Do you understand what that means? No crime. If anyone tried to threaten him with telling Caesar, all his response could possibly be is, "Not before I have to."

I have repeated this fact so many times it sickens me and you have never answered it, except to say, basically "well you assert that and the bible is plausible and I've addressed all of your points."

Other than Spins objection to my characterization of Pilate as "one of the most brutal governors" I do not accept your claim.

But this isn't about you or I as you keep attempting to sidetrack it to; it is about the self-evident illogic and outright contradictory aspects of the story itself.

Please deal with that and only that, as I'm painfully sick of you making baseless accusations like this over and over and over again.

HOW DOES BLACKMAIL WORK, PHOENIX?

No, it's fruitless because you are apparenlty incapable of actually addressing the points as you repeatedly demonstrate with every post and this is your convenient out. The arguments stand, Phoenix, so either explain how Pilate could possibly fear blackmail or a riot when neither is either possible or historically accurate or continue to play the put upon martyr in a thread where we can all count your actual substantive arguments on two fingers.

I can't tell you how tired I am of this kind of consistent cowardly bullshit from people who think it's permissable to dismiss several detailed and carefully deconstructed points with a "I already addressed what I felt was relevant and you clearly cannot carry on a civil discussion, so you've left me no choice but to..." blah, blah, blah.

HOW DOES BLACKMAIL WORK? That's not an "assertion" Phoenix and that's nut just me denying your "valid arguments;" that's a fucking question.

Now answer it, or continue with this "It's obvious to me that there's no point in talking to you after I've already answered all of your points in detailed..." blah, blah, blah.

We can all read, Phoenix and even Spin agrees I've made my case, just that I don't need to use hyperbole when discussing Pilate.

So there you go. Answer the question, or continue to play the unjustified martyr.

:huh:

Koyaanisqatsi

Finally you address something pertinent, however incorrectly put.

According to Roman Law, Pilate, as governor, was the voice of Rome in the region. That was the power he wielded. I don't think you understand that and I don't know why. If he presided over Jesus' trial, which is highly unlikely and ruled that Jesus had committed no Roman crime, that would include Caesar's decree that you would have no King but Caesar.

If that were a crime against Caesar then that would be a part of Roman Law for which Pilate would be expected to act upon. If Pilate determined that Jesus had not broken that crime, which he did and got it confirmed and proclaimed him innocent of all crimes, then he could not have been blackmailed.

NO! I'm saying for the thousandth time (sorry Spin; more hyperbole to make a point) PILATE DID NOT THINK THAT JESUS HAD BROKEN A ROMAN LAW AND THEREFORE COULD NOT BE BLACKMAILED WITH "LETTING SOMEONE BREAK A ROMAN LAW."

Do you understand? In Pilate's mind and in his official declaration, Jesus had committed NO ROMAN CRIME. That would include Caesar's decree. So "the crowd" could not threaten him with blackmail, particularly after they all apparently stated that Jesus was not their King!

No law was broken to blackmail Pilate with, other than the murder of an officially declared innocent man in order to appease an alleged fickle crowd of blood thirsty "Jews" it was his tacit job to subjugate.

:huh:

:banghead:

Oh for fuck's sake, Phoenix I have painstakenly deonstructed step by step every single thing you've just repeated in every post, as anyone who can read clearly knows. Do you think we don't have the same browser scrolling abilties that you do?

Congratulations. You have successfully done what you apparently set out to do; claim you've adddressed everything when you have addressed depressingly little and then claim you're the one being slighted.

If only there were an actionable moderator complaint for such behavior, we wouldn't get to this inane playground "nyah, nyah, nyah" bullshit.

Well you did it first! No you did! No you did!

What's the point?

You have one chance to redeem yourself and that is to answer the one question you so blatantly run from every single time you post: HOW DOES BLACKMAIL WORK?

Phoenix From Ashes

That is, you think you've deconstructed it, but you are far from it. In fact, volumes of history go against your revisionist theory.

I have not repeated these words. You have.

The biblical account is the only account we have. Ah hem... And drop the obsessive use of "blackmail" because that was only one of many descriptive words I've used. As to the likelyhood of a situation involving the framing or blackmail or whatever you like, I most certainly did produce cases in Josephus and Philo which, if you had known of them or read them, you would know that they support the case I have quite "painstakingly" made. Not only that, but there are volumes of scholarly research that make the same claims I am. The fact that you are unfamiliar with the ancient sources is something that I cannot help. You aren't correct simply because you state that you are and would like to be.

You are so lost in your meanderings that this is unintelligeable. The continuous use of this phrase "That includes Caesar's decree" is utterly absurd. You can't even make it clear and precise what Pilate would be "ratting" himself out about.

You are still totally missing my point that none of what I am talking about has anything to do with what Pilate thought about anything. It has everything to do with the fact that delegations of religious leaders and leading Jews from Palestine had protested actions before Jesus' time, after Jesus' time, and certainly could have done so this time (according to both Josephus, Philo, and others).

You are still totally missing my point that they were attempting to make Pilate believe that they would frame him if he did not do their bidding. For whatever reasons, we have an account that he "gave in". However, this is not the only time that he did "give in". There is precedent in the the account of Pilate in Caesarea. There is no reason to believe that he would not have done so in this situation, perhaps to keep the peace in Jerusalem at Passover. To give in to the crowd, he would have Jesus executed as a rebel. If he reported the incident at all, that is the way he would have reported it...all parties happy.

Be explicit, please. These rants make no sense.

All I have to say is that you should accept my claim.

Have you ever stopped to ponder that you get that kind of "consistent cowardly .... from people" because it is true and you should become a bit more self-reflective and notice all the invectives and vitriol that you throw out? Just curious.

I am familiar with Spin's positions on issues with respect to the Bible. He is not one for much of any historicity in any of the Biblical accounts, so you'll have to do better than him as your backup. His mind was made up a priori a long time ago.

Of course, you may feel free to play the part of an incessant pest, but that is beside the point. I have answered your questions in detail. If you refuse to see it, it is your own fault, not mine.

Phoenix From Ashes

Don't pretend to know Roman Law, Koy, or you'll get yourself "found out".

Pilate was a prefect, a relatively lowly position, and was subject to the Syrian Legate. His powers were limited, though obviously he had the power of a death sentence. His troops were much smaller than those of the Syrian Legate, and he was likely brutal in many cases because he did fear wide-spread rebellion.

Again, this "Caesar's decree" thing is simply absurdity. If you truly feel that what you are saying is correct in any way, then please attempt to be more precise.

I have found debate with you quite pleasant as well.

What you wrote may have been "painstaking" for you, but it certainly did not deconstruct anything.

Tell me about it. With the many "inane" comments you've thrown my way, you'd be the first one a moderator should ban.

The incessant ranting about "blackmail" and this obsessive repetition of this question are simply strawmen of your own making. And it seems you will repeat them until I finally give up and you claim an ill-gotten and demented victory of some sort.

For the umpteenth time, I have answered your strawman, pesky question. I answered it in the last post (and in many previous posts), so just go back and read it. If you don't agree, well then too bad. Good luck with your next victi...er...opponent. And just remember that it is much more likely that you run into "consistent cowardly .... from people" because the actual problem is you, and you should become a bit more self-reflective and notice all the invectives and vitriol that you throw out.

spin

My mind was made up long ago... about what constitutes evidence for making claims in the area we are investigating. That involves what can be derived from ancient sources, knowing the contexts in which they were written, who wrote them, for whom, why and where. If one does not have a critical approach to the source literature which involves the best efforts for contextualisation, then their results are by their own omission excluded, not by any a priori analysis on my part. If you have any evidence for your claim of making up my mind a priori, all you have to do is demonstrate it, otherwise, I'd advise readers to see you as blowing hot air.

The Caesarea scene should be understood in the context of Pilate having arrived at the start of his administration of Judea. Josephus mentions him actually arriving in 18.35 (18.2.2) and nothing more until 18.55 (18.3.1), when we find him introducing images of the emperor (those on his standards) into Jerusalem. Obviously he did not know the custom followed his predecessors of not using images on their standards because of Jewish rules against images, 18.56. He entered Jerusalem at night, ie when he arrived directly from Caesarea on his first visit to the city, and set up his standards.

He left them there, perceiving no problem and withdrew to Caesarea, to soon be greeted by a crowd of people disgruntled by the images of the emperor. Willing to give the crowd a shock, he sent his troops down after some days to threaten them only to find the crowd so wound up that killing them would have achieved nothing. We are not told of any further problems with regard to the standards, so one must assume that Pilate learnt about his predecessors' approach. This reflects mildly positively regarding Pilate: he could have killed them, but didn't.

This can't be perceived as any defect in Pilate's resolve, for he shows on other occasions later a willingness to use force to achieve his ends. It is more probable that he neither had any great desire to start his administration with such a forthright act nor that he had enough reason to kill them. Despite Josephus's hype, the crowd was lucky on that occasion.

The aqueduct issue was of a different nature: he had reason to be more vigorous. The populace was interfering with his current project, a project for the improvement of the city of Jerusalem. Besides, the crowd was quite large, "tens of thousands" according to Josephus, which if left unchecked could have led to sedition.

The biggest problem with the gospel narrative we are looking at is the gospel itself. It is a text whose status as a witness to the times has never been established. Josephus claims to have been involved in the events he narrates in most of the War and in the last books of AJ and the content so often checks out in comparison to the literary record and the archaeology. (One could guesstimate a single chapter in a book of the latter part of AJ carries more historical data than the entire new testament.) Josephus has proven his historical worth time and time again, despite the fact that he has numerous biases, though biases which are well enough known due to his circumstances.

The gospels provide no way of getting more information about them to up their status. In doing history we are supposed to build on solid ground, but, as so little of the new testament provides any solid ground, how can one extract historical information for the time it purports to deal with? The texts cannot be placed at the time, we don't know who the writers were, why they wrote, etc... they provide us with no inroads to establishing any historicity in the foreground events of the texts. The assumptions used in the past when dealing with these works are of little use today, given the more stringent standards required by modern studies of history.

If you want to break the mold, just show a methodology that we can find useful for dealing with the texts in order to get history out of the new testament.


spin

Koyaanisqatsi

So it's as predicted? More, "No you didn't! Yes I did! No you didn't!" crap?

Great.

And it is severely flawed for all the reasons I provided, number one being that the events it depicts contradicts the "volumes of history" you claim I'm unfamiliar with. How ironic.

Bullshit! You repeatedly refuse to address the only issue that matters; which is that for blackmail or "framing" or whatever you want wriggle out of to work, Pilate must fear he has something to hide.

How many times are you going to make this fallacy, because I'm done with it?