why did the Pharesses need JUDAS?

[Cogitoergosum]

Multiple places in the NT it was stated that the people recognised jesus without being introduced to him, as soon as they saw him. Multiple times jesus was questionned by the pharesses in an attempt to trick him.
So y did the pharessees need JUDAS to deliver JESUS? they knew who jesus was. so what is the role of judas?

[Goat]

Now explain this to me again, how are the roman and pharesses afraid of a riot so they arrest jesus at night but then they hold a public exchange of prisoners where jesus is shown after torture to all the people of jerusalem. Are they not afraid a riot will break out then? Then they parade jesus with a cross in the streets of jerusalem till the golgola, are they not afraid of a riot then?

Exactly. Apologetics seem to often use whatever "explanation" so that everything would fit their predefined points.

First off, Jesus followers were all around him before his capture. However, this was not necessarily true on the pavement. Just a thought.

Now more reason to believe that Rome in particular was trying to avoid a riot can be found with the actions of Pilate. This Roman Gov. was known for being rather indifferent and brutal. However, his "boss" had recently gotten into trouble with Rome and now he was in charge and was commanded to maintain order.

Notice how this once gruff Gov was now convinced by a mob to kill a man he had determined to be innocent. Why would he waver from what he thought was correct and give into a rabble he would have normally let the gaurds out on? He was afraid of a riot. He gave in to what the crowd wanted to maintain the peace.

This is an example of exactly what I was talking about.

Funny how this guy who was supposedly fearful of creating a riot in the gospels is recorded on doing the Samaratian Massacer in 37 C.E. That explaination just does not meet the historical record of his character.

[Cogitoergosum]

First off, Jesus followers were all around him before his capture. However, this was not necessarily true on the pavement. Just a thought.

Now more reason to believe that Rome in particular was trying to avoid a riot can be found with the actions of Pilate. This Roman Gov. was known for being rather indifferent and brutal. However, his "boss" had recently gotten into trouble with Rome and now he was in charge and was commanded to maintain order.

Notice how this once gruff Gov was now convinced by a mob to kill a man he had determined to be innocent. Why would he waver from what he thought was correct and give into a rabble he would have normally let the gaurds out on? He was afraid of a riot. He gave in to what the crowd wanted to maintain the peace.

This is an example of exactly what I was talking about.

First of jesus followers sold jesus for a nickel when it came to exchange him for barabas. Hardly these people would be counted on for a riot.
Second Pilate did not see a reason to kill jesus,and he saw it as a jewish affair so he left it for the jews. Besides the accounts on pilate's hesitiation is only found in the gospel, which makes it very questionable.
I'm still trying to understand, how U, if u were judas, can see jesus perform all these supposed miracles, and not believe he was god? maybe because there were none.
besides, i ve benn debating with u achilles and with metacrock mostly but none of u tried to answer the "miracles really?" thread, or the "where is the demon epidemic" thread.

[achilles12604]

Now explain this to me again, how are the roman and pharesses afraid of a riot so they arrest jesus at night but then they hold a public exchange of prisoners where jesus is shown after torture to all the people of jerusalem. Are they not afraid a riot will break out then? Then they parade jesus with a cross in the streets of jerusalem till the golgola, are they not afraid of a riot then?

Exactly. Apologetics seem to often use whatever "explanation" so that everything would fit their predefined points.

First off, Jesus followers were all around him before his capture. However, this was not necessarily true on the pavement. Just a thought.

Now more reason to believe that Rome in particular was trying to avoid a riot can be found with the actions of Pilate. This Roman Gov. was known for being rather indifferent and brutal. However, his "boss" had recently gotten into trouble with Rome and now he was in charge and was commanded to maintain order.

Notice how this once gruff Gov was now convinced by a mob to kill a man he had determined to be innocent. Why would he waver from what he thought was correct and give into a rabble he would have normally let the guards out on? He was afraid of a riot. He gave in to what the crowd wanted to maintain the peace.

This is an example of exactly what I was talking about.

Funny how this guy who was supposedly fearful of creating a riot in the gospels is recorded on doing the Samaratian Massacer in 37 C.E. That explanation just does not meet the historical record of his character.

It makes perfect sense if you understand the context of the times. Let’s examine the historical record of his GOVERNORSHIP. Notice please right off the bat that in 37CE he was no longer Governor and so he was no longer responsible for answering to Rome about disturbances in this area. With this in mind here are some other interesting facts about his governorship.

First off Pilate this was not the only time that Pilate was recorded as trying to pacify the Jewish crowds.

From your wikipedia :
Most of the information about Pilate comes from the accounts of the first-century Jewish historian Josephus in Antiquities of the Jews and The Wars of the Jews. Pilate is said to have displayed some empathy for Jewish sensibilities, for example, by removing the Roman battle standards that were considered idolatrous. The two accounts of the event in Josephus' writings may be summarized as follows:

On one occasion, when the soldiers under his command came to Jerusalem, he made them bring their ensigns with them, upon which were the usual images of the emperor. The ensigns were brought in secretly by night, but their presence was soon discovered. Immediately multitudes of excited Jews rushed to Caesarea to petition him for the removal of the obnoxious ensigns. He ignored them for five days, but the next day he admitted the Jews to hear their complaint. He had them surrounded with soldiers and threatened them with instant death unless they ceased to trouble him with the matter. The Jews then threw themselves to the ground and bared their necks, declaring that they preferred death to the violation of their laws. Pilate, unwilling to kill so many, succumbed and removed the ensigns.[4]

I am putting forth that Pilate appeased the crowds only because he was already in hot water in Rome for being to brutal. His predecessor had already returned to Rome under similar charges and according to tradition was executed. Now less than 3 years later here is what happened when Pilate did use force against an armed uprising.

Pilate may possibly have responded so harshly to the unrest because, due to political machinations, the powerful neighboring Roman province of Syria was unable to provide him military support. In approximately 36, Pilate used arrests and executions to quash what appears to have been a Samaritan religious procession in arms that may have been interpreted as an uprising.[5] Pilate's behavior was so offensive to the morals of the time that, after complaints to the Roman legate of Syria, Pilate was recalled to Rome, where he disappears from historic record. Pilate's supposed suicide is merely a legend, and not derived from any historic account.

Again

Pontius Pilate (pŏn'shəs pī'lət) , Roman prefect of Judaea (A.D. 26–36?). He was supposedly a ruthless governor, and he was removed at the complaint of Samaritans, among whom he engineered a massacre. His attempt to evade responsibility in the trial of Jesus was caused by his fear of the high priests' power and his difficult responsibility for the peace of Palestine. According to tradition he committed suicide at Rome. He is attested in the works of Josephus and Eusebius. The Acts of Pilate, one of the Pseudepigrapha (part of the Gospel of Nicodemus) tell of him as a Christian. In the Coptic and Ethiopic churches, Pilate has been canonized. Legend connects him with Mt. Pilatus.

Bibliography

See study by A. Wroe (2000).
Columbia University Press

Notice that the very next time there was an uprising which he put down, he was removed (at the very least).


Now if you are saying that my interpretation of the evidence is faulty then show me where.

Points in my favor

1) Pilates predecessor had recently been recalled to Rome under less than ideal circumstances.

2) Tiberius didn't want the province under his control (Judah among others) rioting.

3) Pilate was known for having a heavy hand

4) Pilate shows indications of pacifying the Jews during this time period.

5) Tiberius shows signs of pacifying the Jews during this time period.

6) Shortly after this incident (which did not turn into a riot because of Pilates actions as recorded by accounts) Pilate did have to put down a riot and was immediately recalled to Rome.


Where is my logic incorrect? Or perhaps my facts are out of order?

Please show me where my explanation for the evidence that we do have is invalid.

[achilles12604]

First off, Jesus followers were all around him before his capture. However, this was not necessarily true on the pavement. Just a thought.

Now more reason to believe that Rome in particular was trying to avoid a riot can be found with the actions of Pilate. This Roman Gov. was known for being rather indifferent and brutal. However, his "boss" had recently gotten into trouble with Rome and now he was in charge and was commanded to maintain order.

Notice how this once gruff Gov was now convinced by a mob to kill a man he had determined to be innocent. Why would he waver from what he thought was correct and give into a rabble he would have normally let the guards out on? He was afraid of a riot. He gave in to what the crowd wanted to maintain the peace.

This is an example of exactly what I was talking about.

First of jesus followers sold jesus for a nickel when it came to exchange him for barabas. Hardly these people would be counted on for a riot.

You are assuming that his followers were the ones at the porch. I do not think this is a logical assumption.

1) Jesus had just been captured

2) The high priest, all his guards, Roman guards, and many other Jew's who were not his followers were already at this "trial".

3) Given the population of Jerusalem at the time, and the numbers of Jesus devout followers as given by the Gospels and indirectly attested to by Josephus, it is clear that his followers were the minority.

Now given these three points, why would his followers wish to be any where NEAR that assembly? It is much more likely that like Peter, they denied him and fled. For someone who was a devout follower of Jesus to be there to contradict the Jewish High council, in front of the rest of Jerusalem and the Roman Gov. would be extremely unlikely. Hence those calling for the trade, would not have been his followers (contrary to Christian teachings on the subject, I know).

Second Pilate did not see a reason to kill jesus,and he saw it as a jewish affair so he left it for the jews. Besides the accounts on pilate's hesitiation is only found in the gospel, which makes it very questionable.

I think based on the reasons I provided to Goat, it makes sense why he would stop and think about this decision. As for the account being questionable, I disagree. But I disagree only because there are no other accounts of this transaction in great detail. Josephus gives all of 7 words about the transaction so there is no source contradicting these accounts. If something else were to read differently, then yes you would be correct. But you are assuming that the accounts are incorrect simply because. These accounts aren’t even placed into question by any non-theist methodology of supernatural or the divine. There is no reason to doubt the validity of secular, non supernatural events like this unless you are simply biased against the gospels in their entirety, in which case you are failing to remain objective and have now become prejudice.

I'm still trying to understand, how U, if u were judas, can see jesus perform all these supposed miracles, and not believe he was god? maybe because there were none.

The details of Judas thought process is unclear. He could have thought they would only talk to Jesus. He could have become disenchanted by Jesus' teachings as is recorded after Jesus taught about his body "and many who heard this turned away and followed Jesus no more." There are many possible reasons. So I am not going to pretend to know what he was thinking. It really doesn't matter anyway.

besides, i ve benn debating with u achilles and with metacrock mostly but none of u tried to answer the "miracles really?" thread, or the "where is the demon epidemic" thread.

And this applies to our discussion how? Or is this the largest logical fallacy on earth?

[Goat]

Now explain this to me again, how are the roman and pharesses afraid of a riot so they arrest jesus at night but then they hold a public exchange of prisoners where jesus is shown after torture to all the people of jerusalem. Are they not afraid a riot will break out then? Then they parade jesus with a cross in the streets of jerusalem till the golgola, are they not afraid of a riot then?

Exactly. Apologetics seem to often use whatever "explanation" so that everything would fit their predefined points.

First off, Jesus followers were all around him before his capture. However, this was not necessarily true on the pavement. Just a thought.

Now more reason to believe that Rome in particular was trying to avoid a riot can be found with the actions of Pilate. This Roman Gov. was known for being rather indifferent and brutal. However, his "boss" had recently gotten into trouble with Rome and now he was in charge and was commanded to maintain order.

Notice how this once gruff Gov was now convinced by a mob to kill a man he had determined to be innocent. Why would he waver from what he thought was correct and give into a rabble he would have normally let the guards out on? He was afraid of a riot. He gave in to what the crowd wanted to maintain the peace.

This is an example of exactly what I was talking about.

Funny how this guy who was supposedly fearful of creating a riot in the gospels is recorded on doing the Samaratian Massacer in 37 C.E. That explanation just does not meet the historical record of his character.

It makes perfect sense if you understand the context of the times. Let’s examine the historical record of his GOVERNORSHIP. Notice please right off the bat that in 37CE he was no longer Governor and so he was no longer responsible for answering to Rome about disturbances in this area. With this in mind here are some other interesting facts about his governorship.

First off Pilate this was not the only time that Pilate was recorded as trying to pacify the Jewish crowds.

From your wikipedia :
Most of the information about Pilate comes from the accounts of the first-century Jewish historian Josephus in Antiquities of the Jews and The Wars of the Jews. Pilate is said to have displayed some empathy for Jewish sensibilities, for example, by removing the Roman battle standards that were considered idolatrous. The two accounts of the event in Josephus' writings may be summarized as follows:

On one occasion, when the soldiers under his command came to Jerusalem, he made them bring their ensigns with them, upon which were the usual images of the emperor. The ensigns were brought in secretly by night, but their presence was soon discovered. Immediately multitudes of excited Jews rushed to Caesarea to petition him for the removal of the obnoxious ensigns. He ignored them for five days, but the next day he admitted the Jews to hear their complaint. He had them surrounded with soldiers and threatened them with instant death unless they ceased to trouble him with the matter. The Jews then threw themselves to the ground and bared their necks, declaring that they preferred death to the violation of their laws. Pilate, unwilling to kill so many, succumbed and removed the ensigns.[4]

I am putting forth that Pilate appeased the crowds only because he was already in hot water in Rome for being to brutal. His predecessor had already returned to Rome under similar charges and according to tradition was executed. Now less than 3 years later here is what happened when Pilate did use force against an armed uprising.

Pilate may possibly have responded so harshly to the unrest because, due to political machinations, the powerful neighboring Roman province of Syria was unable to provide him military support. In approximately 36, Pilate used arrests and executions to quash what appears to have been a Samaritan religious procession in arms that may have been interpreted as an uprising.[5] Pilate's behavior was so offensive to the morals of the time that, after complaints to the Roman legate of Syria, Pilate was recalled to Rome, where he disappears from historic record. Pilate's supposed suicide is merely a legend, and not derived from any historic account.

Again

Pontius Pilate (pŏn'shəs pī'lət) , Roman prefect of Judaea (A.D. 26–36?). He was supposedly a ruthless governor, and he was removed at the complaint of Samaritans, among whom he engineered a massacre. His attempt to evade responsibility in the trial of Jesus was caused by his fear of the high priests' power and his difficult responsibility for the peace of Palestine. According to tradition he committed suicide at Rome. He is attested in the works of Josephus and Eusebius. The Acts of Pilate, one of the Pseudepigrapha (part of the Gospel of Nicodemus) tell of him as a Christian. In the Coptic and Ethiopic churches, Pilate has been canonized. Legend connects him with Mt. Pilatus.

Bibliography

See study by A. Wroe (2000).
Columbia University Press

Notice that the very next time there was an uprising which he put down, he was removed (at the very least).


Now if you are saying that my interpretation of the evidence is faulty then show me where.

Points in my favor

1) Pilates predecessor had recently been recalled to Rome under less than ideal circumstances.

2) Tiberius didn't want the province under his control (Judah among others) rioting.

3) Pilate was known for having a heavy hand

4) Pilate shows indications of pacifying the Jews during this time period.

5) Tiberius shows signs of pacifying the Jews during this time period.

6) Shortly after this incident (which did not turn into a riot because of Pilates actions as recorded by accounts) Pilate did have to put down a riot and was immediately recalled to Rome.


Where is my logic incorrect? Or perhaps my facts are out of order?

Please show me where my explanation for the evidence that we do have is invalid.

Yes, your logic is incorrect here. According to the timeline given by most Christians, the incident with Jesus occured in 32 or 33 c.e., isn't that correct?

Therefore, in that time frame, your belief that 'Pilate was already in hot water' is invalid, according to the timeline given by most Christian theologists.

[achilles12604]

Now explain this to me again, how are the roman and pharesses afraid of a riot so they arrest jesus at night but then they hold a public exchange of prisoners where jesus is shown after torture to all the people of jerusalem. Are they not afraid a riot will break out then? Then they parade jesus with a cross in the streets of jerusalem till the golgola, are they not afraid of a riot then?

Exactly. Apologetics seem to often use whatever "explanation" so that everything would fit their predefined points.

First off, Jesus followers were all around him before his capture. However, this was not necessarily true on the pavement. Just a thought.

Now more reason to believe that Rome in particular was trying to avoid a riot can be found with the actions of Pilate. This Roman Gov. was known for being rather indifferent and brutal. However, his "boss" had recently gotten into trouble with Rome and now he was in charge and was commanded to maintain order.

Notice how this once gruff Gov was now convinced by a mob to kill a man he had determined to be innocent. Why would he waver from what he thought was correct and give into a rabble he would have normally let the guards out on? He was afraid of a riot. He gave in to what the crowd wanted to maintain the peace.

This is an example of exactly what I was talking about.

Funny how this guy who was supposedly fearful of creating a riot in the gospels is recorded on doing the Samaratian Massacer in 37 C.E. That explanation just does not meet the historical record of his character.

It makes perfect sense if you understand the context of the times. Let’s examine the historical record of his GOVERNORSHIP. Notice please right off the bat that in 37CE he was no longer Governor and so he was no longer responsible for answering to Rome about disturbances in this area. With this in mind here are some other interesting facts about his governorship.

First off Pilate this was not the only time that Pilate was recorded as trying to pacify the Jewish crowds.

From your wikipedia :
Most of the information about Pilate comes from the accounts of the first-century Jewish historian Josephus in Antiquities of the Jews and The Wars of the Jews. Pilate is said to have displayed some empathy for Jewish sensibilities, for example, by removing the Roman battle standards that were considered idolatrous. The two accounts of the event in Josephus' writings may be summarized as follows:

On one occasion, when the soldiers under his command came to Jerusalem, he made them bring their ensigns with them, upon which were the usual images of the emperor. The ensigns were brought in secretly by night, but their presence was soon discovered. Immediately multitudes of excited Jews rushed to Caesarea to petition him for the removal of the obnoxious ensigns. He ignored them for five days, but the next day he admitted the Jews to hear their complaint. He had them surrounded with soldiers and threatened them with instant death unless they ceased to trouble him with the matter. The Jews then threw themselves to the ground and bared their necks, declaring that they preferred death to the violation of their laws. Pilate, unwilling to kill so many, succumbed and removed the ensigns.[4]

I am putting forth that Pilate appeased the crowds only because he was already in hot water in Rome for being to brutal. His predecessor had already returned to Rome under similar charges and according to tradition was executed. Now less than 3 years later here is what happened when Pilate did use force against an armed uprising.

Pilate may possibly have responded so harshly to the unrest because, due to political machinations, the powerful neighboring Roman province of Syria was unable to provide him military support. In approximately 36, Pilate used arrests and executions to quash what appears to have been a Samaritan religious procession in arms that may have been interpreted as an uprising.[5] Pilate's behavior was so offensive to the morals of the time that, after complaints to the Roman legate of Syria, Pilate was recalled to Rome, where he disappears from historic record. Pilate's supposed suicide is merely a legend, and not derived from any historic account.

Again

Pontius Pilate (pŏn'shəs pī'lət) , Roman prefect of Judaea (A.D. 26–36?). He was supposedly a ruthless governor, and he was removed at the complaint of Samaritans, among whom he engineered a massacre. His attempt to evade responsibility in the trial of Jesus was caused by his fear of the high priests' power and his difficult responsibility for the peace of Palestine. According to tradition he committed suicide at Rome. He is attested in the works of Josephus and Eusebius. The Acts of Pilate, one of the Pseudepigrapha (part of the Gospel of Nicodemus) tell of him as a Christian. In the Coptic and Ethiopic churches, Pilate has been canonized. Legend connects him with Mt. Pilatus.

Bibliography

See study by A. Wroe (2000).
Columbia University Press

Notice that the very next time there was an uprising which he put down, he was removed (at the very least).


Now if you are saying that my interpretation of the evidence is faulty then show me where.

Points in my favor

1) Pilates predecessor had recently been recalled to Rome under less than ideal circumstances.

2) Tiberius didn't want the province under his control (Judah among others) rioting.

3) Pilate was known for having a heavy hand

4) Pilate shows indications of pacifying the Jews during this time period.

5) Tiberius shows signs of pacifying the Jews during this time period.

6) Shortly after this incident (which did not turn into a riot because of Pilates actions as recorded by accounts) Pilate did have to put down a riot and was immediately recalled to Rome.


Where is my logic incorrect? Or perhaps my facts are out of order?

Please show me where my explanation for the evidence that we do have is invalid.

Yes, your logic is incorrect here. According to the timeline given by most Christians, the incident with Jesus occured in 32 or 33 c.e., isn't that correct?

Therefore, in that time frame, your belief that 'Pilate was already in hot water' is invalid, according to the timeline given by most Christian theologists.

I have given two reasons why Pilate was in hot water. Which one was incorrect?

1) Pilate's predecessor was recalled to Rome under less than ideal circumstances.
2) Pilate's reputation already had him on edge with his superiors.

How do the dates 32 or 33 effect behavior or consequences from 26-36?

In addition to this I gave an example of Pilate pacifying the Jews. There is also an example of Pilate's boss Tiberius pacifying the Jews. There is also the example I gave of when Pilate did get aggressive and was promptly removed.

My logic seems sound to me but then that is redundant. If people here don't agree, than that is their prerogative.

[Goat]

Now explain this to me again, how are the roman and pharesses afraid of a riot so they arrest jesus at night but then they hold a public exchange of prisoners where jesus is shown after torture to all the people of jerusalem. Are they not afraid a riot will break out then? Then they parade jesus with a cross in the streets of jerusalem till the golgola, are they not afraid of a riot then?

Exactly. Apologetics seem to often use whatever "explanation" so that everything would fit their predefined points.

First off, Jesus followers were all around him before his capture. However, this was not necessarily true on the pavement. Just a thought.

Now more reason to believe that Rome in particular was trying to avoid a riot can be found with the actions of Pilate. This Roman Gov. was known for being rather indifferent and brutal. However, his "boss" had recently gotten into trouble with Rome and now he was in charge and was commanded to maintain order.

Notice how this once gruff Gov was now convinced by a mob to kill a man he had determined to be innocent. Why would he waver from what he thought was correct and give into a rabble he would have normally let the guards out on? He was afraid of a riot. He gave in to what the crowd wanted to maintain the peace.

This is an example of exactly what I was talking about.

Funny how this guy who was supposedly fearful of creating a riot in the gospels is recorded on doing the Samaratian Massacer in 37 C.E. That explanation just does not meet the historical record of his character.

It makes perfect sense if you understand the context of the times. Let’s examine the historical record of his GOVERNORSHIP. Notice please right off the bat that in 37CE he was no longer Governor and so he was no longer responsible for answering to Rome about disturbances in this area. With this in mind here are some other interesting facts about his governorship.

First off Pilate this was not the only time that Pilate was recorded as trying to pacify the Jewish crowds.

From your wikipedia :
Most of the information about Pilate comes from the accounts of the first-century Jewish historian Josephus in Antiquities of the Jews and The Wars of the Jews. Pilate is said to have displayed some empathy for Jewish sensibilities, for example, by removing the Roman battle standards that were considered idolatrous. The two accounts of the event in Josephus' writings may be summarized as follows:

On one occasion, when the soldiers under his command came to Jerusalem, he made them bring their ensigns with them, upon which were the usual images of the emperor. The ensigns were brought in secretly by night, but their presence was soon discovered. Immediately multitudes of excited Jews rushed to Caesarea to petition him for the removal of the obnoxious ensigns. He ignored them for five days, but the next day he admitted the Jews to hear their complaint. He had them surrounded with soldiers and threatened them with instant death unless they ceased to trouble him with the matter. The Jews then threw themselves to the ground and bared their necks, declaring that they preferred death to the violation of their laws. Pilate, unwilling to kill so many, succumbed and removed the ensigns.[4]

I am putting forth that Pilate appeased the crowds only because he was already in hot water in Rome for being to brutal. His predecessor had already returned to Rome under similar charges and according to tradition was executed. Now less than 3 years later here is what happened when Pilate did use force against an armed uprising.

Pilate may possibly have responded so harshly to the unrest because, due to political machinations, the powerful neighboring Roman province of Syria was unable to provide him military support. In approximately 36, Pilate used arrests and executions to quash what appears to have been a Samaritan religious procession in arms that may have been interpreted as an uprising.[5] Pilate's behavior was so offensive to the morals of the time that, after complaints to the Roman legate of Syria, Pilate was recalled to Rome, where he disappears from historic record. Pilate's supposed suicide is merely a legend, and not derived from any historic account.

Again

Pontius Pilate (pŏn'shəs pī'lət) , Roman prefect of Judaea (A.D. 26–36?). He was supposedly a ruthless governor, and he was removed at the complaint of Samaritans, among whom he engineered a massacre. His attempt to evade responsibility in the trial of Jesus was caused by his fear of the high priests' power and his difficult responsibility for the peace of Palestine. According to tradition he committed suicide at Rome. He is attested in the works of Josephus and Eusebius. The Acts of Pilate, one of the Pseudepigrapha (part of the Gospel of Nicodemus) tell of him as a Christian. In the Coptic and Ethiopic churches, Pilate has been canonized. Legend connects him with Mt. Pilatus.

Bibliography

See study by A. Wroe (2000).
Columbia University Press

Notice that the very next time there was an uprising which he put down, he was removed (at the very least).


Now if you are saying that my interpretation of the evidence is faulty then show me where.

Points in my favor

1) Pilates predecessor had recently been recalled to Rome under less than ideal circumstances.

2) Tiberius didn't want the province under his control (Judah among others) rioting.

3) Pilate was known for having a heavy hand

4) Pilate shows indications of pacifying the Jews during this time period.

5) Tiberius shows signs of pacifying the Jews during this time period.

6) Shortly after this incident (which did not turn into a riot because of Pilates actions as recorded by accounts) Pilate did have to put down a riot and was immediately recalled to Rome.


Where is my logic incorrect? Or perhaps my facts are out of order?

Please show me where my explanation for the evidence that we do have is invalid.

Yes, your logic is incorrect here. According to the timeline given by most Christians, the incident with Jesus occured in 32 or 33 c.e., isn't that correct?

Therefore, in that time frame, your belief that 'Pilate was already in hot water' is invalid, according to the timeline given by most Christian theologists.

I have given two reasons why Pilate was in hot water. Which one was incorrect?

1) Pilate's predecessor was recalled to Rome under less than ideal circumstances.
2) Pilate's reputation already had him on edge with his superiors.

How do the dates 32 or 33 effect behavior or consequences from 26-36?

In addition to this I gave an example of Pilate pacifying the Jews. There is also an example of Pilate's boss Tiberius pacifying the Jews. There is also the example I gave of when Pilate did get aggressive and was promptly removed.

My logic seems sound to me but then that is redundant. If people here don't agree, than that is their prerogative.

You gave me two reasons, but they were not relavent to the time frame most Christians date the cruxifiction. (and that is 36-37)

[achilles12604]

You gave me two reasons, but they were not relavent to the time frame most Christians date the cruxifiction. (and that is 36-37)

36-37? This is news to me. Care to show me Christian sites that date this to 36 or 37?

I have always read 33CE.

anyway, the difference between 33 and 36 is silly and mute. It has no bearing at all on the simple facts I have presented which you continue to ignore and you say aren't valid or applicable. Ignoring these points doesn't make them go away, in fact I may have to write them all out again just to continue to show how you are not addressing the simple facts that Pilate had used pacifying tactics to appease the Jews, that his Boss Tiberius had done the same, that his predecessor had been recalled to Rome, and that right after Pilate did take harsh actions, he too was quickly removed.

Address these and then we can move on. Keep ignoring them and we will get no where.

[Goat]

You gave me two reasons, but they were not relavent to the time frame most Christians date the cruxifiction. (and that is 36-37)

36-37? This is news to me. Care to show me Christian sites that date this to 36 or 37?

I have always read 33CE.

anyway, the difference between 33 and 36 is silly and mute. It has no bearing at all on the simple facts I have presented which you continue to ignore and you say aren't valid or applicable. Ignoring these points doesn't make them go away, in fact I may have to write them all out again just to continue to show how you are not addressing the simple facts that Pilate had used pacifying tactics to appease the Jews, that his Boss Tiberius had done the same, that his predecessor had been recalled to Rome, and that right after Pilate did take harsh actions, he too was quickly removed.

Address these and then we can move on. Keep ignoring them and we will get no where.

Yes, I can show you where Josephus has John the Baptist being killed in 36-37.

From http://www.encyclomedia.com/john_the_baptist.html

Josephus on John the Baptist

Josephus, a Jewish historian, stated that John was killed by Herod in order to prevent an uprising in 36 AD. In addition, Josephus did not speak of a relationship between Jesus and St John the Baptist.

[Easyrider]

Yes, I can show you where Josephus has John the Baptist being killed in 36-37.

From http://www.encyclomedia.com/john_the_baptist.html

Josephus on John the Baptist

Josephus, a Jewish historian, stated that John was killed by Herod in order to prevent an uprising in 36 AD.

So what? It's just another confirmation of the Gospels.

Where's the evidence Josephus was a source for any of the Gospel authors?

In addition, Josephus did not speak of a relationship between Jesus and St John the Baptist.

Argument from silence. I'm sure there were a number of important people Josephus didn't go into detail about concerning those people's interactions with others.