Part 24 of Post Your Tough Questions Regarding Christianity

The Romans would not have charge him for violation of Roman laws if it wasn't for the Pharisees who change their accusation from blasphemy to Jesus being a King. That is when Pilate ask Jesus are you a King? Pilate was satisfied with Jesus respond that he is not a king of any sort that is against Rome. Remember there are many kings under Roman rule all those Kings have accepted Rome's rule this include King Harold.

Yes, Caesar is consider divine son of god in their own religion but not in Jewish religion that is why Jesus was very clear when he told the Pharisees "give to Caesar what is Caesar's and to God what is God's".

Jesus was on trial from charges brought against him by the Pharisees not by the Romans and after Pilate did some investigation he was satisfied that what ever laws Jesus broke was not of Rome but of the Jews and this include blasphemy Jesus blasphemy was against Jewish religion not Rome's that is why Pilate wanted to turn Jesus back to them to be tried according to Jewish laws.

The Pharisees would ask Jesus if he is the Son of God and Jesus will not deny he is not for that it angered the Pharisees more.
Pilate's concern is if he is a real king or not so Pilate ask Jesus "are you the King of the Jews"? Jesus respond; "If you say so".
Jesus did not answered directly with a yes he let them do the talking. By saying to Pilate "if you say so" he is in a way saying to Pilate that he is a King but not of the Jews nor of the Romans. And Pilate was satisfied not because Jesus is not divine nor a king but because of concern that Jesus might be some special or divine being. Pilate a strong and brutal leader and warrior that has killed and put hundreds if not thousands of men to death why would he hesitate to put one man to death? Makes no sense. Pharisees does not want Jesus to be released or put in prison or to be lashed they want him dead crucified by the Romans because they too are concern that Jesus might be who he said he is Son of God and they don't want to be responsible for his death.

 

Oh dear. Here we go.

The Jews were not expecting a Saviour in the terms of the Christian meaning of Messiah. This has become associated with someone sacrificing himself for the sins of others. This was NOT Jewish expectation.
Jews were expecting a great Warrior, Military leader, Righteous Judge but not a king, not divine - a human being. Mashiach - Messiah. The term 'son of David' meaning a charismatic leader from the house of David. This Mashiach will leader his people into battle, bring political and spiritual revival, set up a government in Jerusalem which will rule the world.
This is where WarRen gets it wrong. This world government will be for Jews and Gentiles . There will be no difference because all people will recognise the 'basic truth'. That the Jewish God is the true God. No forcing anyone to convert to anything. No need to argue. There's a lot more but that is the basic. Everyone will live in peace.

Now Christians will not agree. But that is basically the belief from the Tanakh.

That does not concur with the Christian belief because Christianity prefers its own interpretation of the Jewish Scriptures - the Tanakh.

This means, of course, that any discussion has to take the two views into account when discussing the NT. And I don't think peple do.

There. Now I've put my foot in it.

 

WarRen quote

Strange Matt. 27:25 Then all the people answered and said, 'His blood be upon us, and on our children'.

 

1) Jesus was not on trial for claiming to be "King of the Jews" This was not something the Romans would try a person for. Stirring up trouble, perhaps.

2) We do not know what Pilate or the various litigators asked Jesus because we are not told... since there was no eyewitnesses at the trial we do not have much to do on.

What we do know is that Mark and Luke give very different accounts which shows that there is no actual eyewitness account.

Mark 15

As I stated Jesus was accused of Blasphamy (many things).

It is abject nonsense to think that when the serious questions were asked ( the many things Jesus was accused of) Pilate would accept "non replies". This is not how the Roman justice system worked.

The "King of the Jews" comment was Pilate toying with Jesus probably at the end of questioning.

Pilate is not the least concerned if Jesus claims to be a "real King". To him it is a joke. If it was not a joke Pilate would never accept "you have said so" as an answer.

It is "other things Jesus was accused of" that Pilate and his litigators would be interested in.

The account in Luke which is quite a bit different from the account in Mark.

First look at the rest of the account in Mark.

Now the account in Luke

In Mark we have Jesus being handed directly over to the crowd by Pilate. In this story, (Luke perhaps realizing that the intricacies of Roman law would have been to have Jesus sentenced in Herod's jurisdiction and adding some text)

Pilate hands Jesus over to Herod.

In addition to the questions Pilate ask Jesus .. Herod plies Jesus with many questions.

Again .. This is Herod we are talking about .. Not a fellow you can "give no answers" to.

Whether it is Jesus, or any other dude in front of a Roman magistrate ... either you answer the questions or you get put to death.

There would be no "I find no guilt in this man" . You cant go in to a Roman Court, especially as a Jew, mock the not one but two magistrates by not answering his questions and have them both pronounce you not guilty.

I know you want to make up any excuse not to understand this but that is the way it is.

Why do you insist on believing in absurdly impossible things ?

 

But Herod had no authority in Jerusalem. The custom of the day was that if the accused was of note and from another area the ruler of that area would be informed. In this case Herod - because he was in Jerusalem and Jesus had been active mostly in his territory, was allowed to see Jesus. The decision would be Pilates as to Jesus fate. This Herod was not a king - only a tetrach of the Galilean area.

 

The only problem that you forget to put into consideration is that the Jews or the Pharisees reason for being wrong with their interpretation was the result of the destruction of the Kingdom of Israel the dispersal of the 12 Tribes and ever since then the Pharisees never did attempt to return to God they continue to push their own laws, tradition and interpretation this in spite of the fact that God Himself in flesh and blood personally came to speak with them to set the record straight and the Pharisees rejected Him openly and had Him crucified.

 

Again you are ignoring that the Pharisees presented Jesus to the Romans to be executed not to be imprisoned or lashed.

Luke 23
13 And Pilate, when he had called together the chief priests and the rulers and the people,

14 Said unto them, Ye have brought this man unto me, as one that perverteth the people: and, behold, I, having examined him before you, have found no fault in this man touching those things whereof ye accuse him:

15 No, nor yet Herod: for I sent you to him; and, lo, nothing worthy of death is done unto him.

16 I will therefore chastise him, and release him.

17 (For of necessity he must release one unto them at the feast.)

18 And they cried out all at once, saying, Away with this man, and release unto us Barabbas:

19 (Who for a certain sedition made in the city, and for murder, was cast into prison.)

20 Pilate therefore, willing to release Jesus, spake again to them.

21 But they cried, saying, Crucify him, crucify him.

22 And he said unto them the third time, Why, what evil hath he done? I have found no cause of death in him: I will therefore chastise him, and let him go.

23 And they were instant with loud voices, requiring that he might be crucified. And the voices of them and of the chief priests prevailed.

24 And Pilate gave sentence that it should be as they required.

 

I agree, this is true but let me expound further to say that the prophecies in Isaiah 53 and Psalm 22 were describing a suffering Messiah who would be persecuted and killed, but they chose to focus instead on the prophecies that discuss His glorious victories not His crucifixion.

It was all there in those prohecies written in Isaiah 53 and Psalm 22 that in essence described a Messiah that was to be someone who would sacrifice himself for the sins of others but the Jews as I've stated focused on those other prophecies.

They took the position that the prophecies in Isaiah 53 and Psalm 22 did not refer to the Messiah, but to Israel or some other person....a classic example of misinterpreting their own written Bible or being in denial of what is written. They were more interested in their own selfish agenda.

Well yes, the Jews rejected Jesus because He failed, in their eyes, to do what they expected their Messiah to do....destroy evil and all their enemies and establish an eternal kingdom with Israel as the preeminent nation in the world.

The Jews believed that the Messiah, the prophet which Moses spoke about, would come and deliver them from Roman bondage and set up a kingdom where they would be the rulers.

Who is to say who is wrong or right? It is all conjecture on both sides and so it's sense less to discuss what would have been or not have been.

The truth is the Jews were wrong in not recognizing Jesus as the Messiah that was prophesied to come. Look at them today...still waiting for their Messiah. But the good news is that there are some Jews today who do accept Jesus as the Messiah.

Christianity got it right, the Messiah had come into the world in the person of Jesus Christ and now we patiently await for His 2nd coming into the world. It is all there written in the Book of Revelation.

When discussing Christianity there is only one view to take into account, the Christian view. If you want to discuss the Jewish view, go start a thread dealing with Judaism.

 

Jesus was on trial because of accusation brought against him by the Pharisees not by the Romans. From being Son of God to being a King all are from the Jews. Pilate is just trying to find out what is going on if there is any truth or case against Jesus under Roman law and he found nothing.

Mark and Luke gave similar accounts that Jesus was presented to Pilate and was questioned by Pilate. We know that the Pharisees were the ones who presented Jesus to Pilate to be sentenced to crucifixion.
Mark 15: 2 And Pilate asked him, Art thou the King of the Jews? And he answering said unto them, Thou sayest it.
Luke 23: 3 And Pilate asked him, saying, Art thou the King of the Jews? And he answered him and said, Thou sayest it.

And I agree Jesus was accused of blasphemy but not by the Romans by the Pharisees and everything else were all from the Pharisees.

And yes I would agree Pilate a brutal and strong leader who have killed and send many men to death why would he or Harold hesitate why not just have him killed as what the Pharisees wanted? Especially as you said Jesus refusal to answer or to give a straight answered to a Roman governor is totally unacceptable and yet Pilate treated Jesus differently not like any other prisoners, why?

Pilate's comment King of the Jews was probably to toy and mock the Pharisees. Because something happened with Pilate's private interrogation or discussion with Jesus something touch Pilate to make him to treat Jesus differently he could have just give the thumbs down and get it over with but he didn't why?

If that is the case then why didn't Pilate just send Jesus to his grave to get it over with?

All those other things that Jesus was being accused of were all coming from the Pharisees.

Both Mark and Luke's Gospel had Jesus presented to the crowd in public the Pharisees and their supporters openly demand that Jesus be crucified they openly rejected Pilate's plan to have Jesus release or lashed they want Jesus dead! They were even ready to sell their nationality to proof their loyalty to Rome and not the any Jewish King they yelled " We have no King but Caesar!!!".

Again this goes back why? Pilate could have just send Jesus to his death why bother?

And I agree Harod had many men put to death and again why didn't Harod just had Jesus put to death just like any other man?

And they could not just send Jesus to his death they had to pass him around why?

And Pilate did found Jesus not guilty why?
Luke 23:22 And he said unto them the third time, Why, what evil hath he done? I have found no cause of death in him: I will therefore chastise him, and let him go.

I don't need to make up any excuses because history and the Bible is very clear about Jesus Christ Passion.
In fact can I say that it is you who kept on making excuses when the Bible and history is very clear about Jesus Christ Passion?

 

The Jews were cherry picking when it come to the prophecy as Mitt said they ignored
Isaiah 53: 4 Surely he hath borne our griefs, and carried our sorrows: yet we did esteem him stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted.

5 But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed.

6 All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and the Lord hath laid on him the iniquity of us all.

They are only interested in earthly power, glory and wealth their laws and their tradition the every reason why they got it wrong.

Christian believe that there is only one God and that is the God of Abraham not the God of the Jews. Jews have already rejected God and I am not sure what God they are worshiping anymore?

Christians accept the Tanakh. The Pharisees do not accept Jesus Christ.

Christian accept the interpretation according to the Bible that include the Tanakh the Jews prefer their own interpretation that led to the destruction of the 12 Tribes and the Kingdom of Israel.

The Jews only take their own views they do not recognize the Bible. Christianity accepts the Tanakh as it is part of the Holy Bible.

 

First I want you try something. Have you ever seriously considered the possibility that God does not exist ? Try for a moment to pretend that you have never heard of Jesus or the Bible. Treat the Bible as a story that may or may not be true or perhaps some parts are true and some are made up. Try and think about this from a historical perspective rather than trying to make history fit into your Biblical perspective. Look at things from a purely objective stance and see what comes up. Don't go in with any preconceived ideas on what others think.

As per scripture Jesus was asked many questions by the Romans. The Romans were well acquainted with Jewish Messianic tradition. There had been Jewish Messiah claimants that the Romans had to deal with prior to Jesus. Simon of Peraea was one of these claimants who started a revolt that had to be put down by the Romans. The Romans killed Simon and evidence suggests his followers believed he was resurrected 3 days later. In any case, Simon became a Martyr.

The Romans would have asked Jesus directly, as stated in Luke, "are you the Messiah". Part of being the Messiah is that this person would become the King of the Jews once their new Kingdom was established but the term "Messiah" means that this person is to some degree divine or appointed by God.

There is no way Jesus would have been able to answer in the affirmative to the question "are you the Messiah" and be found "not guilty" by the Romans. Claiming to be the Messiah is not only blasphemy against Caesar but due to the previous Messiah's leading revolts the Romans would have strung the fellow up just for this.

Jesus was asked if he was the Messiah. There is no doubt about this. What do you think the many questions being put to Jesus were by two different Magistrates? If he liked to Golf and eat fish ?

Many if not most of the questions would be in relation to the "Messiah claim" and the Romans would not accept "non answers".

It was an offense against Caesar to claim one was the Son of God. If Jesus would said "yes" when asked such a question he would have been found guilty and "non answers" would not have been accepted.

Jesus was not found guilty because he said "No" when asked such question.

Pilate - "Are you the Messiah" Jesus "No" Pilate: "Are you the Son of God" Jesus "No"

This is the only way Jesus would have been found not guilty.

Jesus was treated the same as other prisoners. Romans had a very fair justice system, better than ours in many ways depending on the time.

The reason they did not kill him is because he answered their questions. When accused of claiming to be "the Messiah", "Son of God" and so on Jesus denied it.

Pilate did not think Jesus had done anything wrong. Clearly. Nor did Herod.

 

Nope I never considered the possibility that God does not exist. I started to learn about Jesus in grade 5 it started in my history class then later in my theology and philosophy classes before that I didn't know who or anything about Jesus Christ, Genghis Khan, Julius Caesar, Alexander the Great, Mohammed, Napoleon, Lincoln, Einstein, Hitler, Eisenhower, Churchill, Stalin, Mao etc. all real historical figures.There is nothing to preconceived or to invent what is not true about history because events has already occurred and recorded.

Yes, the Romans were familiar with Jewish laws that was why Pilate was referring Jesus back to the Pharisees to be tried under their laws because he Jesus has not violated any Roman laws.

And Pilate was satisfied that Jesus was a Messiah and King of the Jews not of Rome that is why he referred Jesus back to the Pharisees. But most of all Pilate found Jesus not a leader or King of any rebel army.

Jesus did not answered yes or no he let them do all the talking and in the end Pilate found nothing wrong with Jesus.

There was no specific mention of what the other questions were one thing for sure after the questioning in private Pilate was satisfied that Jesus is innocent to the point that he was willing to trade Barabbas for Jesus Christ.

Again we don't know what those other questions are one thing for sure what we know was that Pilate found Jesus not guilty and was willing to trade Barabbas for Jesus Christ.

Pilate accepted Jesus respond of non answers and was ready to release him or let the Pharisees deal with Jesus but the Pharisees just do not want to kill Jesus they want the Romans to do it for them.

Again we and you don't know that Jesus said no you are basically preconceiving and injecting that Jesus answered no if Jesus has said no then there is no reason for the Pharisees to insist that Jesus be crucified? It is this kind of pretending about what is true to be not that creates all sorts of self contradiction. The truth is Pilate: "Are you the Son of God?"...Jesus "If you say I am".....Pilate: are the Messiah the King of the Jews?"... Jesus: "If you say I am".

I totally disagree with you on this especially to claim that ancient Rome has a better justice system.

Again you are inventing your own story because we know very well that Jesus did not deny he is Son of God.

Yes and you got this one right.

 

So you were indoctrinated young .. so was I I started to question the various contradictions and things that did not make sense. It took many years to rid myself of the programming and learn not to be scared of questioning everything.

If you really think about it, this is what God wants you to do. To question and learn. If you know everything already there is no point to being here.

I won't continue because you have started to play games. This is kind of strange because it is it is really you playing games with yourself ? When you have delude yourself in order to maintain your story ... I suggest you change the story.

You know full well I was not talking about Roman familiarity with Jewish Law. You know I was talking about Roman familiarity with Jewish Messianic tradition.

Recognition of this fact kind of blows your whole story up ... I know . You think you are being sneaky by responding as if the comment you are responding to was about Jewish law when you know full well it was about Roman knowledge of Jewish Messianic tradition.

You are only deluding yourself. One day perhaps you will not have to delude yourself anymore

But not today ...

 

The Tanakh was probably written after, or around the time, of the Invasions so it could not be their wrong interpretation of the Tanakh. Modern scholars accept the writing of the Tanakh in the first millenia - nothing to do with Moses etc.

 

Then are you denying that the Pharisees took the blame on themselves.Are you saying that scripture is wrong? Wow.

 

When Christianity takes Jewish scriptures and interpretes them for itself then it involves Judaism. In the last decades even Christians are coming to realise that you must take into account the meaning of Tanakh scripture AT THE TIME IT WAS WRITTEN. You cannot understand it unless you do.

Isaiah is one of 4 'Servant' Songs. Isaiah 42,49,50 and 53. The Tanakh has many references to the Servant and if you read them most clearly refer to Israel.Why should it change in Isaiah 53?
Why should a nation be a 'servant'?. Throughout the Bible the Israel nation is referred to in the singular, as in 41:8 and many more. Also in the 10 commandments.
Isaiah 53 is about suffering Israel.
v 5 Hebrew translation says 'He was wounded because of our transgressions, crushed because of our iniquities'. In Hebrew this conveys the servant suffered because of, not to atone for, the sins of others as in Christianity. Jews actually believe that God forgives those who return in repentance to him. No need of a Saviour in the Christian sense. Even the Disciples did not accept Jesus - the suffering Messiah. In the Gospels they reject this idea when Jesus tellls them about his dying.
v.8 Taken from the land of the living. If you know the Tanakh you should know that the land of the living was Israel. They believed that God dwelt only in Israel, the land of life. If you were to leave Israel you left the land of the living. Why did David plead with Saul not to let him die outside of Israel? For the very reason.

v.10 Briefly.This is the Messianic era. The reference to long life and children cannot be to Jesus as we know. Well we believe he never married, though Rabbis usually did.
You would say this is 'spiritual' children, but the Hebrew word for offspring here means physical children, another word is used for 'spiritual' children.

That's just 3 verses. I could go through more but that would just waste space.

This is from notes which I got during Hebrews studies at some time. Probably off the internet.

It is important to realise what you read in Christianity is often derived from the Tanakh and interpreted without trying to understand its original meaning. The Christian Messiah was not foretold in the Tanakh. The Messiach is.

There. And that from an agnostic.

But of course you will not agree with that. It will go down like a lead balloon.

 

Well we know that Jesus never made that claim, that false charge made by the Pharisees was one of the charges brought against Him.

It was Pilate who coined that phrase after the Pharisees stated their ficticious case to him. Let's take a look at what Scripture says:

"Jesus’ trial before Caiaphas ended in the early hours of the morning. Then he was taken to the headquarters of the Roman governor. His accusers didn’t go inside because it would defile them, and they wouldn’t be allowed to celebrate the Passover. So Pilate, the governor, went out to them and asked, “What is your charge against this man?”

“We wouldn’t have handed him over to you if he weren’t a criminal!” they retorted.

“Then take him away and judge him by your own law,” Pilate told them.

“Only the Romans are permitted to execute someone,” the Jewish leaders replied. (This fulfilled Jesus’ prediction about the way he would die.)
Then Pilate went back into his headquarters and called for Jesus to be brought to him. “Are you the king of the Jews?” he asked him.

Jesus replied, “Is this your own question, or did others tell you about me?”

“Am I a Jew?” Pilate retorted. “Your own people and their leading priests brought you to me for trial. Why? What have you done?”

Jesus answered, “My Kingdom is not an earthly kingdom. If it were, my followers would fight to keep me from being handed over to the Jewish leaders. But my Kingdom is not of this world.”

Pilate said, “So you are a king?”

Jesus responded, “You say I am a king. Actually, I was born and came into the world to testify to the truth. All who love the truth recognize that what I say is true.”

“What is truth?” Pilate asked. Then he went out again to the people and told them, “He is not guilty of any crime. But you have a custom of asking me to release one prisoner each year at Passover. Would you like me to release this ‘King of the Jews’?”

But they shouted back, “No! Not this man. We want Barabbas!” (Barabbas was a revolutionary.)---John 18:28-40 NLT

The Gospel of Luke tells us that the Pharisees accused Jesus of telling the people not to pay their taxes to the Roman government and that He claimed to be the Messiah, a king.

But Jesus was tried for it along with other crimes but as we know Pilate didn't find Him guilty of any crimes.

That's true, we don't have all the details but do we need to know more?...no because Scripture tells us that Pilate could not find Jesus guilty of anything.

You can't assume just because two accounts are different that it means there is no actual eyewitness account. All the Gospels are slightly different which is a non issue.

Luke’s gospel is unique in that it is a meticulous history...an "orderly account" consistent with the Luke’s medical mind...often giving details the other accounts omit.

Let's read what Luke says in the introduction of his Gospel:

"Many people have set out to write accounts about the events that have been fulfilled among us. They used the eyewitness reports circulating among us from the early disciples. Having carefully investigated everything from the beginning, I also have decided to write a careful account for you, most honorable Theophilus, so you can be certain of the truth of everything you were taught."---Luke 1:1-4 NLT

Luke tells us here that the accounts are coming from eyewitness reports circulating among them from the early disciples.

He was accused of blasphemy and being a king by the Pharisees as well as other crimes but again Scripture tells us Pilate could find no guilt in Jesus.

How do you know how the Roman justice system worked some two thousand years ago? Talk about nonsense!...lol You speak as though you knew Pilate personally.

Well sorry but Scripture tells us that Jesus refused to answer some of the questions posed by Pilate according to the Gospel of Mark to which Pilate was surprised. We know of only one utterance coming out of Jesus' mouth from the Gospels of Mark, Luke, and Matthew, however from the Gospel of John, Jesus answered several questions from Pilate....four to be exact.

You are speculating, assuming, you have no idea what was going through Pilate's mind at the time. Read the Scripture, Pilate didn't make that comment at the end of questioning. You are making stuff up.

More speculating, more assumptions. Again, you have no idea what was Pilate thinking at the time. Here let me give you something from Scripture that tells us how Pilate was reacting:

"Then Pilate had Jesus flogged with a lead-tipped whip. The soldiers wove a crown of thorns and put it on his head, and they put a purple robe on him. “Hail! King of the Jews!” they mocked, as they slapped him across the face.

Pilate went outside again and said to the people, “I am going to bring him out to you now, but understand clearly that I find him not guilty.”

Then Jesus came out wearing the crown of thorns and the purple robe. And Pilate said, “Look, here is the man!”

When they saw him, the leading priests and Temple guards began shouting, “Crucify him! Crucify him!”

“Take him yourselves and crucify him,” Pilate said. “I find him not guilty.”

The Jewish leaders replied, “By our law he ought to die because he called himself the Son of God.”

When Pilate heard this, he was more frightened than ever. He took Jesus back into the headquarters again and asked him, “Where are you from?” But Jesus gave no answer. “Why don’t you talk to me?” Pilate demanded. “Don’t you realize that I have the power to release you or crucify you?”

Then Jesus said, “You would have no power over me at all unless it were given to you from above. So the one who handed me over to you has the greater sin.”

Then Pilate tried to release him, but the Jewish leaders shouted, “If you release this man, you are no ‘friend of Caesar.’ Anyone who declares himself a king is a rebel against Caesar.”

When they said this, Pilate brought Jesus out to them again. Then Pilate sat down on the judgment seat on the platform that is called the Stone Pavement (in Hebrew, Gabbatha). It was now about noon on the day of preparation for the Passover. And Pilate said to the people, “Look, here is your king!”

“Away with him,” they yelled. “Away with him! Crucify him!”

“What? Crucify your king?” Pilate asked.

“We have no king but Caesar,” the leading priests shouted back.

Then Pilate turned Jesus over to them to be crucified."---John 19:1-16 NLT

How do you know that? How do you know Pilate wasn't interested about the accusation that Jesus claimed to be a king along with the other accusations? Pilate did asked Jesus if He was the king of the Jews, I'd say that is proof that he was interested to know Jesus' response to that question.

We know the accounts are slightly different, even the account of John is different but so what? Again that is a non issue.

Well perhaps that's why we learn from Scripture that Herod and his soldiers began mocking and ridiculing Jesus after he refused to answer Herod's questions.

Again you are speculating, assuming. You have absolutely no idea how they would react to a person accused of crimes not answering questions coming from them. And we know that Jesus did answer some questions but not all of them.

Sorry but you are denying what's written in Scripture. First off, Jesus did not mock anyone, and so obviously you made that up. It was Jesus who was the one being mocked and ridiculed and let me repeat again, Jesus did answer some questions but not all of it according to Scripture.

Pilate did find Jesus not guilty and you know what...Pilate was right, Jesus was not guilty of any crimes whatsoever, He was innocent of all charges brought against Him by the deceitful Pharisees.

So a grave injustice was done to Jesus when the Romans ended up crucifying Him but it was all prophesied to happen as written in the Scriptures.

It is you making excuses, making up stuff that's coming from that imaginative mind of yours.

Sorry but I just don't see how the story of the trial of Jesus before Pilate could be absurdly impossible and so it leads me to ask you why do you insist on being in denial of what is written in Scripture?

 

So you gloss over something you can't explain. Which one is true, because if one is, the others aren't.

And yes, we do know about Roman the Justice system, and so would you if you studied it.

Herod. This makes no sense at all. Herod would be in private accomodation offered to other visiting important personnel. His soldiers would be in barracks, probably with Pilates soldiers. There was no trouble in Jerusalem at the time because it was a 'holy time', so apart from a few soldiers on the streets they weren't needed. So all this ridicule and mocking is unlikely to have happened. And as for the Pharisees being there, what was the point. Herod had no authority. He just wanted to talk to Jesus.

Is it?. Only by misinterpreting Jewish scriptures.

 

Its call History Mitt. We know all kinds of things about the Roman Legal system because they were prolific writers and kept records. The Romans had a highly developed legal system. Our legal system still uses the same Latin legal terms developed by the Romans. Where on earth do you think those terms come from ?

We know a tremendous amount about the Roman Legal system.

This is like saying "you have no idea how a starving dog that has just been given food would react when you try and take his food away"

This is just disingenuous ignorance as a form of denial. You are suggesting that one could go in to a Roman court, not answer any questions, or give obviously non direct answers that avoid answering the question such as (responding to question with a question) and be found not guilty. This is so absurd.

Perhaps we do not know "exactly" what would happen to an uncooperative defendant in a Roman Court but it would not be pleasant and we know 100% that some Jew on trial for sedition, disturbing the peace in the provinces in and around Jerusalem was in big trouble.

Jesus was found Not Guilty. This means he answered the questions to the satisfaction of the Romans. Part of the Charges against Jesus included claiming to be the Messiah.

The Romans knew what Jewish Messianic tradition was and would have asked all kinds of questions in relation to the divine status associated with the Messianic tradition because this is part of the charges the Pharisees were trying to pin on Jesus.

In addition, there had been previous Jewish Messiah claimants that had started revolts.

Your suggestion that yet another Messiah claimant could be uncooperative when put on trial and be found 'not guilty" by two Roman Magistrates is like suggesting that 1 + 1 = 5.

This is abject nonsense and you know it.

Jesus was found not guilty because he denied being the Messiah, and denied being divine.

 

Gosh... How many messianic claimants were there? I think the number was 13.

List of Messianic Claimants.

http://www.livius.org/men-mh/messiah/messianic_claimants00.html

 

What is interesting is that Paul was asked 'Aren't you the Egyptian who started a revolt and led four thousand terrorists out into the desert some time ago'. Acts 21:38.

 

Yep............

37As Paul was about to be brought into the barracks, he said to the commander, "May I say something to you?" And he said, "Do you know Greek? 38"Then you are not the Egyptian who some time ago stirred up a revolt and led the four thousand men of the Assassins out into the wilderness?" 39But Paul said, "I am a Jew of Tarsus in Cilicia, a citizen of no insignificant city; and I beg you, allow me to speak to the people."…

 

Dude, you opened this post with the fact no one went inside. Meaning, NO eyewitness account. So NO assumption needs to be made. You already stated in your 1st lines, no one went inside.

 

Thanks for that Margot !

So just to make sure that it is me that is not crazy .. what is your take on this situation.

In your list we have a bunch messiah's (and there may have been more) prior to Jesus. Then we have a bunch after Jesus .. one dude even makes his own coins, Simon Ben Koshiba.

These Messianic leaders often lead rebellions. Josephus states that the Romans do not like these Messiah claimants... not surprising since they start rebellions. Josephus does not like them either which is not surprising because life was likely hard enough as a Jew without provoking the Romans further by various groups revolting.

We know that the Romans take religion very seriously .. especially in relation to the Imperial Cult of Caesar which deified and Worshiped Caesar. Coins from the day show Caesar with "Son of God" written on the coin.

Folks competing for the divinity of Caesar was a death sentence should they hit the Roman radar. John the Baptist was beheaded just a few years prior to Jesus.

It is under these conditions that we have this Jesus fellow put before not one but two Roman Magistrates (Pilate and Herod) on charges which include claiming to be the Messiah... Someone appointed by God to lead the Jews to former glory. Herod is the son of the Herod the Great who wanted to kill Jesus.

Luke 23

Somehow Herod's son is delighted to see the fellow his father wanted to kill but hey ... let sleeping dogs lie.

Jesus refuses to answer Herod's questions and is flippant and uncooperative when he is previously questioned by Pilate.

So we have a person on trial under the previously mentioned political climate, this person is accused of blaspheming Caesar, claiming to be the Messiah, and for being a troublemaker- (Messiah claimants had been responsible for rebellion in the recent past).

This person refuses to cooperate and refuses to answer questions of those Judging the case (Roman Magistrates Herod and Pilate).

YET !!! somehow Mitt wants us to believe that this Caesar blaspheming, Messiah claiming, trouble making (potential future revolt causing person in the eyes of the Romans) person is going to be found "Not Guilty" because he refuses to answer the questions put to him.

Is there anything that you can come up with that would make any sense, even the slightest sense, of this claim ?

 

Excellent Post !