Koyaanisqatsi

Whether greased palms or favors met, the Sanhedrin take the case of Jesus (setting aside that there is no case they can't internally deal with) to Herod; a remarkable fete that must have cost (one way or another) quite a pretty penny.

Herod says, in essence, "I can't deal with this, regardless of the amount of coin and/or blackmail the Sanhedrin must hold, as there is absolutely no reason why I would even bother with such a trivial matter."

So, he sends the case back down to where it belongs; to Pilate.

The Jews--for some unfathomable reason--still want the death sentence that they could have implemented at any point they chose (and tried once, but failed, because the allmighty god escaped their clutches) to be carried out by their mortal enemies.

This is equivalent, BTW, to Jewish people under Nazi rule asking that which would have already been permissable and instantly disregarded; the right to kill one of their own.

Pilate says, "I can't find anything wrong," so it's sent back to Herod.

Herod says, "I can't find anything wrong....again," so it's sent back to Pilate.

Incredible and unbelievable to say the least.

Pilate (the Dr. Mengele of Judaic slaughter at that time) says, "I shall chastize him and release him," not once, but twice.

End of story according to Roman law.

Why, then, does anything else happen to Jesus, according to Roman law?

[ December 30, 2001: Message edited by: Koyaanisqatsi ]</p>

critical thinking made ez

While you make great points in this post, I think this is best discussed in Miscellaneous Religious Discussions.

Koyaanisqatsi

Quite right and a pox on me for a clumsy lout...

Amos

[

[ December 30, 2001: Message edited by: Amos ]</p>

Amos

Herod was the deterministic drive of the subconscious mind and Pilate of the conscious mind and neither saw anything wrong with "Jesus-the-man" (note here, if your transation does not say "look at the man" burn it). Yes, three times I think, so it would sink into our minds.

The Jews looked at Jesus the Jew because it was Judaic Law that convicted him.

In the end, "Jesus the Jew" was crucified and "Jesus the man" was set free under the name of Barabbas. Splendid solution.

If I was a Jew I would be imensly proud of this event because no protestant religion has ever some close to this.

Amos

Koyaanisqatsi

You've completely missed the question, but thanks for posting...I guess?

He was found not guilty and therefore would not have been crucified. He would have been released, not offered up to the crowd and then crucified.

Therefore, the NT accounts are fraudulent.

Amos

I what??? Why don't you read it slowly and one word at the time (use your finger if you have to).

The dual nature of "Jesus-the-man" and "Jesus-the-Jew" are judged here. There is two of them and only the ego (the Jew) was crucified and the man set free. How else do you think Jesus could walk away from it? Was this not forshadowed earlier on different places?

So why do you think his apostles had forsaken him? The apostels were his eidetic images (in case you want to know). Why do you think his clothes were dispersed? Because it is the clothes that make the ego. Why do you think his senses were pierced? Because the senses drive the ego.
Why do you think Pilote wanted him dead for three days? Because the final imposter will be worse than the first (aks me what that means). Why do you think there was three of them on Golgotha? Because Barrabbas and the thief have to survive so that sanity returns. Why do you think Judas betrayed him? Judas was the Jewish determination to succeed in faith later personified with Peter.

True it is a big cast and they are difficult to separate but it is a comedy in the end.

Amos

[ December 30, 2001: Message edited by: Amos ]</p>

diana

Amos,

Where do you get this stuff?

Jesus the Jew was crucified while Jesus the Man went free? Huh? The apostels were his eidetic images? (His what?) His senses were pierced? Judas was the Jewish determination to succeed in faith later personified with Peter?

You've run out of medication again, haven't you?

d

Amos

From the bible diana. That what it reads according to dictionay definitions without preconceived ideas to the contrary. If it is the Amerian preachers that have led you astray do not first accept their position and later argue against it . . . unless, of course, you have drank of the cup of Gods anger.

Amos

[ December 31, 2001: Message edited by: Amos ]</p>

IvanK

S.G.F. Brandon, in his The Trial of Jesus of Nazareth, makes the case that the Markan story of the two trials, the Jewish insistance that the Romans crucify Jesus, Pilate's acquiescence in same and so on was basically made up out of whole cloth. Mark wrote for a Christian community in Rome around the time of the Jewish revolt that resulted in the destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem. He was therefore at great pains to distance his Jesus from Jewish rebels plotting and carrying out sedition against Rome.

The story of the dinarus as Mark relates it, according to Brandon, shows that Jesus was indeed opposed to Roman rule over the Holy Land: Mark's account leaves out any explanation of what the things of God might be as opposed to the things of Caesar, but Jesus' listeners would have understood "things of God" to refer to the Holy Land itself and the products of the land and his message to be to pay the tax with specifically Roman specie money rather than with the Holy Land or its products.

Crucifixion was a Roman punishment reserved for traitors and the seditious. The two "thieves" crucified with Jesus were lestoi (Gr. "bandits"), probably also seditious Jews. Had Jesus been convicted by the Sanhedrin of blasphemy his punishment would have been stoning, a punishment executable by Jews as the story of the woman taken in adultery shows. The idea that Pilate, the Emperor's representative in Judea, with two full legions at his beck and call, would have been cowed by an unruly mob of Jews in his courtyard into condoning the execution of a man he believed to be innocent, is merely laughable.

Mark's success blaming the Jews for the Crucifixion resulted in nearly two millenniums of persecution for which the Pope recently had to apologize.

John (and probably Paul) interpreted the Crucifixion as a trick played by God on Satan in order to set up the Resurrection and the concomitant possibility of human redemption from sin. In this interpretation (sound familiar, Amos old bean?), how it happened is less important than the bald fact of it happening.