Tristan Scott

But that misses the point. As prefect he would not have been involved in the religious disputes of the locals. As prefect he would have been a magistrate. As the more senior official, procurator, he would have been more apt to get involved in a religious dispute, but not as prefect.

For arguments sake? What would there be to argue?

Maybe I'm not following you here.

lpetrich

In the Gospels, it was the Jewish authorities and a Jewish lynch mob that pressured the Roman authorities into crucifying him; Pontius Pilate is pictured as feeling that JC had not been guilty of anything wrong.

3rdhybrid

jesus was not killed on any cross, that was judas. that is why worshipers of the cross symbol are lost.

TiConTiki

Actually that IS the point. The Bible clearly states that Pilate WAS involved in the religious dispute - at least to the extent that he allowed the priests to seize and deliver Jesus to him and even though Pilate himself declared Jesus to be innocent - he allowed the religious leaders to choose to free Barrabas - a killer - and agreed to crucify Jesus. Pilate himself, claims he 'washed his hands" of the crucifixation.

I am not saying that the Bible is a historical fact - only that within it lie the passages that say Pilate carried out the crucifixation - to appease the Jewish leaders. That is what the thread topic wanted to discern.

As far as who was responsible - it was clear (in the Bible story) that the Jews took full responsibility at the time as is evidenced by the passage in Matthew, 27: 24-25) 27:24
When Pilate saw that he could prevail nothing, but that rather a tumult was made, he took water, and washed his hands before the multitude, saying, I am innocent of the blood of this just person: see ye to it.
27:25
Then answered all the people, and said, His blood be on us, and on our children.


And so it has been since then. The Jews have been blamed for his death. Whether it is so - or not - is not important. The fact remains that the BIBLE supports that theory.

TiConTiki

I don't think anyone actually worships the symbol of the cross. It is merely a reminder to them of the object they believe their Messiah died on.

Whether it was a cross shape or a pencil shape - or the shape of the moon - it makes no difference. It has no bearing on their religion. They do not use it as an idol with a life of its own.

Llyricist

What always gets me is the concept of "blaming" the Jews for apparently bringing about their salvation?? If SOMEONE HADN'T done it, then there would be no sacrifice for Christian salvation..... What's with the logic of Christians anyhow

TiConTiki

Good point

I never really thought of it that way - but you are correct - had they NOT killed Jesus - there would have been no ressurection - etc.

Do you think that it would have been the same had Jesus just died of old age? Would it STILL have been considered a 'sacrifice' for their sins?

After all - everyone dies of something and in those days - many died a violent early death. Today - a crucifixation would be much more startling a death. But then - it was just the status-quo.

Apikorus

Yeah, we whacked him. Whatcha gonna do about it?

Tristan Scott

I believe that the story of Pilate washing his hands was all to appease the Romans. Probably a later redaction of the gospels. There was certainly a motive to do so, as clearly the Jews had, by the time the gospels were written, with few exceptions, rejected Christianity. Also by this time Christianity was taking root in Rome and it is probable that the early fathers wanted to soften the involvement of the Romans in the crucifixion. I believe that the gospels are the very basis of the scapegoating of the Jews in which the xians have exacted revenge for 2000 years. That is what I think the thread topic wanted to discern.

It is interesting that the word scapegoat is actually rooted in a ceremony for Yom Kippur in which the sins of the people are ceremoniously placed upon the head of a goat.