Part 24 of Post Your Tough Questions Regarding Christianity

Jesus was not put before Herod on trial. Herod had no authority in Jerusalem. Pilate was the prefect of Judea. Herod Tetrarch of Galilee.

A Prefect was responsible for military matters, a Procurator for fiscal matters. Sometimes the 2 were amalgamated. Herod (the Jew) was simply in Jerusalem for the Passover. Pilate taking the opportunity to visit Jerusalem while the Passover and crowds were around. His place of Government was Caesarea Maritima, on the coast.
Caesarea Maritima was on the Via Maris (Roman Road) that went from Egypt up the Med. coastline and through Asia Minor to the Aegean Sea. From there to Brindisium was by ship and then the Via Appia from Brindisium across Italy and up the west coast to Rome. So it 'Straight and easy' access to Rome. Quick movement of troops when necessary. Jerusalem was on a 'main' road but didn't rate a Roman road.

Ooops. I'm rambling.

Pilate was a Prefect, this we know by the 'Pilate Stone' as well as other means. He had complete authority in the name of Rome. And often used his power brutally.

Herod would be interested in Jesus because Jesus had been active in his area of Galilee. He would have heard of him. My guess is that he was just curious. Jesus hadn't been any trouble, unlike John the Baptist who had condemned Antipas for taking his brother Philips wife. Her third marriage - 2nd divorce.

Oh.Stop Rambling t...2539

After all that I agree with most of your post Giftdone. But what a long winded way of saying it

 

The commander should have executed Paul on the spot for being a terrorist.

 

I think Mitt doesn't have enough information to get the big picture.

Every year every non-Roman had to show up, make a sacrifice and pledge fealty to Caesar in order to get a "license" to buy and sell. This requirement and the head of Caesar stamped on every coin seems to be the "Mark of the Beast".

So while it doesn't seem that the Romans cared about how the Jews worshiped as long as they paid their taxes, didn't make trouble and honored Caesar.. they would likely have stopped short of some peasant upstart (or Rabbi) claiming to be the King of the Jews or the anticipated Messiah who would vanquish the Romans.

Clearly, by the time Jesus appears on the scene the Jews have split up into factions against the Romans and in most cases.. against each other. I don't think Pilate and Herod would have let it go once the Pharisees made the accusation that Jesus was a threat to their rule in Palestine.

 

Then HE would have been executed. You can't kill a Roman citizen without a proper Roman trial. In fact if a Roman soldier loses a prisoner, he pays with his life.

 

I got my education early that is why I am able to to differentiate indoctrination from education. Asking questions is always part of education. Inventing ones own answers is flaunting the truth and education it is a step to delusional thoughts.

God want us to be educated to know know him through proper education not through brainwashing and indoctrination on false truth. The reason why we are here is to learn about the truth too many ppl are either unaware or intentionally distorting the truth.

Games? My story is not mine it is based on history. Yours is based on your story that what if scenario. which I have demonstrated to you that even in your what if scenario no way can we justify what the Pharisees have done to their covenant with God to their responsibility in rejecting God in Jesus Christ.

The Jewish Messianic law tradition is part of Jewish law and the Romans do not care as long as it does not supersede and trespass over their authority that is why Pilate was very clear for sending Jesus back to the Pharisees to be judge and sentence according to Jewish laws or Jewish Messianic tradition. I know you are aware of this because it is clearly written in the Bible that include the Pharisees want Jesus dead not imprisonment or lashes.

It only defeats your story and proof that yours is only a story that what if scenario.
As I said the Romans are aware of Jewish Messianic Laws or Jewish Laws that was why Pilate send Jesus back to the Pharisees to have them judge and sentence Jesus according to their Messianic or Jewish laws that Pilate found Jesus innocent of breaking no Roman Laws but only breaking of Jewish laws or Jewish Messianic laws.

One can not be deluded about the facts of history only through ignoring and creating a parallel story can one be deluded.

 

You are living proof of the contrary. Facts that do not fit into your story are either ignored or twisted and contorted so that they fit.

When really stuck for an explanation you will make up an alternate version of history that has no relation to historical record.

 

WarRen quote

.

Quite right. Your problem is differentiating between what is a fact and what are merely words without proof.

 

Quote Originally Posted by WanRen View Post
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.

The Pharisees never took the blame on themselves in that gospel Matthew 27: 20 -27 is telling us that the Pharisees will do what ever it takes to have the Romans kill Jesus they just won't dare to kill Jesus they never repented as they never accepted Christ even after Christ resurrection. Caiaphas would be responsible for the continued persecution of Christ followers. Matthew's Gospel proof that it wasn't Pilate who wanted Jesus dead in fact Pilate want to release Jesus and as I have said it was the Pharisees who wants Jesus dead.
Matthew 27:
24 When Pilate saw that he was getting nowhere, but that instead an uproar was starting, he took water and washed his hands in front of the crowd. “I am innocent of this man’s blood,” he said. “It is your responsibility!”
25 All the people answered, “His blood is on us and on our children!”

This is how arrogant and stubborn those Pharisees are that is why none of their interpretation of the Tanakh is about God it is about their laws their tradition and their own selfie.
Acts 4:5-12 "And it came to pass, on the next day, that their rulers, elders, and scribes, as well as Annas the high priest, Caiaphas, John, and Alexander, and as many as were of the family of the high priest, were gathered together at Jerusalem. And when they had set them in the midst, they asked, "By what power or by what name have you done this?" Then Peter, filled with the Holy Spirit, said to them, "Rulers of the people and elders of Israel: If we this day are judged for a good deed done to a helpless man, by what means he has been made well, let it be known to you all, and to all the people of Israel, that by the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom you crucified, whom God raised from the dead, by Him this man stands here before you whole. This is the 'stone which was rejected by you builders, which has become the chief cornerstone.' Nor is there salvation in any other, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved."

Acts 5:17-18 "Then the high priest rose up, and all those who were with him (which is the sect of the Sadducees), and they were filled with indignation, and laid their hands on the apostles and put them in the common prison."

 

So far what you have presented are exactly that twisted and controlled stories of your own and when I presented the facts you turn a blind eye and continue to believe in your own stories stepping further away from reality.

- - - Updated - - -

Fact is the Pharisees never got the Tanakk right they have made it their own laws and tradition and you have failed to accept that and continue to insist that is not the case contrary to historical facts.

 

I said the Romans were knowledgeable about Messianic Tradition ? There is nothing twisted about this.
Part of the accusations against Jesus was that he claimed to be the Messiah.

Luke 24

Nothing twisted about this either.

What is twisted is when you start rambling on about Jewish Law in an effort to ignore that the Romans would have questioned Jesus in relation to "Messianic Claims" as this was part of the charge brought against him by the Romans.

 

Oh so you accept the history of the Romans but reject the history of what's written in the Holy Bible...I see, appears there might be some kind of bias here...yes?

Show us where in the Roman Legal system 2,000 some years ago it states that during the time of Pilate he would not accept "non replies" to serious questions he asked. And tell us what he did to the defendant for not answering questions that he posed. Did he torture them for refusing to answer? Did he kill them right on the spot? If he did torture/kill them what kind of legal system is that?...lol Would that still be regarded as a highly developed legal system?...lol

Please provide a link or some kind of reference in your response. If you can't present anything, then we can conclude you made stuff up when you were quoted what you said below:

 

Lets get one thing straight. We talk about the Pharisees condemning Jesus as a general term. The truth is it was the Saducees. Caiaphas, Annas and the others were Saducees who were in charge at this time. They had Jesus condemned.
Now your other point.
And again you are wrong. The Tanakh is right. The Jews later added their own rules which were sometimes stupid. Nothing to do with the Tanakh. They still stuck to the Torah. No different to Christianity who have added doctrines that don't appear in the New Testament, but are copies of some of the Jewish ritual.
Paul has assumed the Passover meal of Jesus for Christianity. I bet Jesus would be surprised, maybe upset, that this typical Jewish meal had been translated into Christianity.

Your problem is your complete indoctrination. No thought that the Bible might often be wrong, and which has been proved to be often. No thought that our interpretation might not be that of those who actually anticipated in the events. You think 21st century and are not prepared to think outside what you have been taught. Your hands are tied and your mind is stuck on 1 track.

From the Catholic Encyclopaedia

The geographical universality of the Deluge may be safely abandoned

Neither Sacred Scripture nor universal ecclesiastical tradition, nor again scientific considerations, render it advisable to adhere to the opinion that the Flood covered the whole surface of the earth.

We are learning. The church is learning. You and Mitt are not.

 

excellent........................

 

Are you serious? A Legal System is the Rules by which some country/state is governed. It doesn't deal with individual cases. It is the 'rules' by which people live. Within each Law certain things would be acceptable, others not. Look at our/your Legal system. Then try to answer your own question. Your request is nonsense.

 

Sorry but I don't see the connection. Do you want to talk about starving dogs now?...lol

Are you suggesting that all people in the entire world should know how a starving dog would react if food is taken away from them? Even the people who have never owned a dog before?

Are you suggesting that all starving dogs will react in the exact same manner when you take their food away? If you are then you are making a fallacious statement. You just don't know all there is to know about dogs. The aggressive dogs will growl and bark but some the non-aggressive ones will just whimper and not be so aggressive.

It is like us human beings, we all don't react in the exact same manner in any particular situation, we are all different in that sense.

That's what you're doing...being in denial of what's written in Scripture. The only things I'm denying is your silly statements that you've obviously made up, and your silly arguments. But hey it's expected from a non-believer to be in denial of what is written in Scripture and so I'm not at all surprised, not the least bit.

The only absurdity here is you falsely putting words in my mouth that I haven't suggested. Since you and I weren't there at the trial of Jesus before Pilate, we can't assume anything. All we have is what is presented to us from Scripture, granted Scripture doesn't give us a whole lot of details of what really went on during the trial. Therefore we really don't know just exactly what went on and so we shouldn't be making all kinds of speculative statements such as you have.

We know from Scripture that Pilate found no guilt in Jesus and the reality was that Jesus wasn't guilty of any crimes, if He was guilty that would have made Him a sinner but as Christians we believe/know Jesus was sinless.

Pilate was right about Jesus' innocence but because the Jews demanded that Jesus be crucified Pilate gave them what they wanted...he crucified Jesus. Read what's in Scripture, it's all there. If you don't want to believe...so be it.

Oh so now you're admitting we do not know exactly what would happen to an uncooperative defendant...what happened to your Roman legal system theory?

Look, Jesus wasn't exactly not cooperating, I mean He did answer some questions according to Scripture, refer to the Gospel of John but again like I said we are not given a whole lot of details. Pilate had done a thorough investigation on Jesus and found that Jesus was indeed innocent. Let me give you a passage in Scripture where Pilate claims he examined Jesus thoroughly:

"Then Pilate called together the leading priests and other religious leaders, along with the people, and he announced his verdict. “You brought this man to me, accusing him of leading a revolt. I have examined him thoroughly on this point in your presence and find him innocent. Herod came to the same conclusion and sent him back to us. Nothing this man has done calls for the death penalty. So I will have him flogged, and then I will release him."---Luke 23:13-16 NLT

Note here that the passage above tells us that Herod also came to the same conclusion of Jesus' innocence.

It was also said in Scripture that Pilate realized that the leading priests had arrested Jesus out of envy. So this gives us another clue as to why Pilate could find no guilt in Jesus. Here let me bring up that passage in Scripture:

“Would you like me to release to you this ‘King of the Jews’?” Pilate asked. (For he realized by now that the leading priests had arrested Jesus out of envy.) But at this point the leading priests stirred up the crowd to demand the release of Barabbas instead of Jesus. Pilate asked them, “Then what should I do with this man you call the king of the Jews?”

They shouted back, “Crucify him!”

“Why?” Pilate demanded. “What crime has he committed?”

But the mob roared even louder, “Crucify him!”

So to pacify the crowd, Pilate released Barabbas to them. He ordered Jesus flogged with a lead-tipped whip, then turned him over to the Roman soldiers to be crucified."---Mark 15:9-15 NLT

Let me point out that the Gospel of Matthew also states that Pilate knew that the leading priests had arrested Jesus out of envy.

Yes, we know all that but let me be a little bit more precise, Jesus answered questions to the satisfaction of Pilate. So now you admit Jesus answered questions, didn't you say He was uncooperative? You now realize you were wrong, you didn't bother to look at the Gospel of John, you only just recently did that when I brought it to your attention in my previous post. The Gospel of John shows several questions posed by Pilate that Jesus answered.

Again, you are speculating. The Romans didn't care about the religious beliefs/laws of the Pharisees, to the Romans it was no concern of theirs, they had their own concerns to deal with which was to keep their empire under civilized control. It is illustrated in Scripture that Pilate didn't care about what laws a Jew broke under the religious laws of the Pharisees. As long as a Jew didn't break Roman laws, it was really no concern of theirs. That's why Pilate could not find Jesus guilty of the blasphemy charge made by the Pharisees.

We read in Scripture:

"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."---John 18:28-31 NLT

But not Jesus, He didn't start any revolts, that's why Pilate could find no guilt in Jesus whatsoever.

I haven't suggested what you're suggesting that I'm suggesting...lol Where have I said that Jesus was totally uncooperative that when put on trial He could be found not guilty by two Roman magistrates? Where have I suggested anything about other Messiah claimants? The discussion with me has always been about Jesus.

I have given you quotes from the Bible that clearly illustrated that Jesus did answer some questions but not all according to Scripture. Jesus was found not guilty because there was no evidence of His guilt.

Are you suggesting that Pilate was an idiot for not finding Jesus guilty?

How could he, when there was no evidence? Pilate was right that Jesus was not guilty of anything. And so an innocent man went to His death by being crucified because that is what the Jews wanted, mainly the Pharisees, they were the instigators.

They got what they wanted but little did they know, a new religion was about to be born when the crucified Jesus ressurrected from the dead on the 3rd day of His death. And ever since that day the whole world hasn't been the same. Our Lord Savior Jesus Christ death and ressurrection has impacted the world on a positive note.

We read in Scripture:

"For this is how God loved the world: He gave his one and only Son, so that everyone who believes in him will not perish but have eternal life. God sent his Son into the world not to judge the world, but to save the world through him."---John 3:16-17 NLT

The only abject nonsense I know of is coming from your end...and you know it.

 

hey got what they wanted but little did they know, a new religion was about to be born when the crucified Jesus ressurrected from the dead on the 3rd day of His death. And ever since that day the whole world hasn't been the same. Our Lord Savior Jesus Christ death and ressurrection has impacted the world on a positive note.

Mmm. Neither has it since the birth of Mohammed.

 

Can you imagine what would happen to the human race if none of us had any morals?

If you can answer my question in an intellectually honest way then you will have the answer to your question.

 

Exactly dairyman! Good post! Thanks for your contribution.

 

It depends ? Often history is written by the victors and is biased. History such as the workings of the Roman Legal system from hundreds of documents is ... Legit !

The Bible, especially NT stories about Jesus, can not even keep the story straight in many places. There is a difference between oral tradition passed down and recorded decades after the fact and eyewitness accounts or historical records.

What does your or my opinion on what is a highly developed legal system have to do with anything ? What a pile of disingenuous ignorance.

Even in our legal system if the defendant does not put up a defense by not answering questions, and the prosecutor presents evidence what on earth do you think the verdict is going to be ??? GUILTY. How can you be so ignorant of legal proceedings.

As you and I both know full well, despite your best efforts to feign ignorance, is that the Romans were not so tolerant ... especially when it came to a someone who was not a Roman citizen.

If you read the Bible once in awhile you might come across Paul's encounter with Roman Justice.

Jesus of course was not a Roman citizen..

The above reference is from Acts 22. Not that one needs such a reference. Obviously if the prosecution is presenting evidence from testimony of witnesses and the defendant does not defend himself by answering questions he will be found Guilty by default.

Why do you engage in such lurid mental contortions in order to deny the obvious when it conflicts with your beliefs ?

 

So are you saying whatever people say is the truth? Do you trust everyone when they say they are telling the truth?

It's no secret that people do lie, the truth is we all have lied at one time or another, some do it more often than others, they are called pathological liars.

You have said things that are not the truth on these threads, it can be proven by the quotes you have made to the quotes another has made.

Maybe you did it knowingly (you lied) or maybe you did it unknowingly by mistakenly believing that what you were saying was the truth but nevertheless it was not the truth.

Am I making any sense here?...please someone tell me the truth...lol

 

Huh?...sorry but in my view your question is incoherent, I mean if I answered your question my response will also be incoherent...lol

Would you like to re-re-phrase your question again and bring it down a few tads/notches to my level of intelligence?...lol

 

Yeah I agree with you WR! Good post! Thanks for your contributions!

 

So you just believe, meaning you don't really know. Well I really know and so I can tell you that your belief is not the truth.

No, it's not all I know after all.

No that isn't the truth. No, no it is not.

 

You might just very well be confused. Let me help you to get over your confusion.

If you believe in a god then it stands to reason you are a godly person thus you are a religious person.

If you don't believe in a god, then it stands to reason you are a godless person thus you are an irreligious person.

Being a religious person doesn't mean you have to belong to a congregation, go to church, sing in the church choir or anything of that nature but nevertheless you are still a religious person because you believe in a god. A god that you are devoted to in your beliefs whatever they may be.

Have I unconfused you?

But the Buddhist are religious people but they don't believe in a divine power such as Almighty God.

Have I confused you again?...lol

 

Well the Bible states that the universe had a beginning, science tells us the universe had a beginning (the big bang). I'd say there is agreement between science and the Bible.

Well true the Bible is spiritual nourishment and yes it is not at all a science book but it's definitely an historical book.