NationStates Jolt Archive

The events leading up to the crucifixion of Jesus of Nazareth, he was seen by Pontius Pilate. Pilate, in keeping with the tradition of the time, presented the population of Jerusalem with Jesus and Barabbas. One of them would be released to the people, the other kill on the cross. The people at the event demanded that Barabbas be released and Jesus be crucified. Pilate gave into the demand of the people, however he ran his hand through some water, and washed his hand of Jesus's blood, and put the blood on the people who gathered there.

So, given this event, and what transpired, should Pontius Pilate be responsible for the crucifixion of Jesus, or is his act of washing his hands of the situation absolved him?

I think the only reason he did it was that he didn't want an uprising, and that he was led to believe that Jesus may pose a threat to Roman rule in the area. Pontius did try to get Jesus off of the death sentence, but at the end of the day, he had to bend to the will of the people.

Thoughts?

Did he invent Pilates?

>.>

Did he invent Pilates?

>.>

Meh, I think that would be the Greeks, they were a kinky bunch. Then again, Romans were kinky in their own way.

So, given this event, and what transpired, should Pontius Pilate be responsible for the crucifixion of Jesus, or is his act of washing his hands of the situation absolved him?

The tense structure of this sentence is giving me a headache.....

I'm really not sure what you're trying to ask here. Should he be responsible? Well either he IS responsible, or he ISN'T. I'm not sure what "should" has to do with it. However if your question is, should we blame him for what occurs?

Well first off that presumes the events actually occurred, as described. Then it gets into a far more philosophical argument, of whether one can be blamed for working to bring about predestined acts.

I would not hold ol' Ponty accountable for Josh's death, though I did read that Mister "Pilates" was highly corrupt.

Jesus was Crucified?

The Jews did it.

Meh, I think that would be the Greeks, they were a kinky bunch. Then again, Romans were kinky in their own way.

*insert relevant sex joke here*

Parkus, knock it the fuck off.

Jesus was Crucified?

Yes, though according to Durant, he was tied, rather than nailed, to the cross.

The tense structure of this sentence is giving me a headache.....

I'm really not sure what you're trying to ask here. Should he be responsible? Well either he IS responsible, or he ISN'T. I'm not sure what "should" has to do with it. However if your question is, should we blame him for what occurs?

Well first off that presumes the events actually occurred, as described. Then it gets into a far more philosophical argument, of whether one can be blamed for working to bring about predestined acts.

I bold what I was asking, and let's just assume that it did happen, for shits and giggles.

Parkus, knock it the fuck off.

*raises eyebrow* Have I offended you?

*raises eyebrow* Have I offended you?

let me make this utterly unambiguous. You, or anyone else, post that image, or any other one similar, in response to something I say again, and I will report you for it.

I've already told you once not to, I will not do so again. Am I clear?

I think some of the most abused people in Christianity were Judas, Cain, and Pilate. Pilate wasn't washing away his culpability (since, by that tradition, he wasn't culpable), imho, he was giving notice to the people of their own culpability.

I really despise the whole Christian mythos. Judas is condemned for doing what he was supposed to do. Pilate is condemned for following the laws and traditions of his time and place.

And don't even get me started on the Old Testament - Cain, Job and that pissy little old bald asshole who had the children torn up by bears.

The Greco-Roman Gods were nasty pieces of work, but at least good people came to good ends and bad people came to bad ends and there was no confusion about who was what and why they deserved what they got.

What I wouldn't give to have the human race develop a deity who was intelligent, consistent, logical and compassionate - i.e. completely unlike us.

*raises eyebrow* Have I offended you?

It took me a second to remember.....But that was funny as hell! lol

let me make this utterly unambiguous. You, or anyone else, post that image, or any other one similar, in response to something I say again, and I will report you for it.

Surely you jest? You are going to complain that I posted a picture of some puddles on this forum? What if I report you for using the word "USian"?

I've already told you once not to, I will not do so again. Am I clear?

I only post it in response to nick-names, or when you harass Wilgrove, which you just did.

The Greco-Roman Gods were nasty pieces of work, but at least good people came to good ends and bad people came to bad ends and there was no confusion about who was what and why they deserved what they got.

Sisyphus.

Pics or it didnt happen.

I only post it in response to nick-names, or when you harass Wilgrove, which you just did.

If you believe my comments to him, or anyone else in this forum, violate forum rules, then you may report them, or ignore them. However, I have informed you that I will not tolerate being referred to in such a fashion, and I consider it against forum rules, with precedent to support such a claim.

I have already said you are not to address me in such a fashion, and, frankly, I don't give a fuck why you feel justified in doing so. You've been informed that you are not to do so, thus continuing to do so is contrary to forum rules, and is flamebaiting.

Do not do it again. However, since such comments are obviously lost on you given your already refusal to honor such a request, reported.

Surely you jest? You are going to complain that I posted a picture of some puddles on this forum? What if I report you for using the word "USian"?



I only post it in response to nick-names, or when you harass Wilgrove, which you just did.

This has got to be one of the more pathetic threadjacks I've seen. You don't like NA. We get it. For you to hijack threads to keep up the "puddles" nonsense after the mods told Wilgrove to drop it and he did so is just...sad.

Pics or it didnt happen.

Well, lemme just check my wall...

...

OIC WUT U DID THERE. >.<

EDIT: Now I'm wondering if the Pope holds the key to pornography of Jesus... thank you for that image. >.<

Sisyphus.

He killed his guests and claimed he was smarter than Zeus. What was wrong with having to roll a boulder uphill for the rest of existence?

Im more of an Eris fan...Chaos and Discord and all that...

Well, lemme just check my wall...

...

OIC WUT U DID THERE. >.<

EDIT: Now I'm wondering if the Pope holds the key to pornography of Jesus... thank you for that image. >.<

You know what's really scary? Rule 34 applies to everything...

He killed his guests and claimed he was smarter than Zeus. What was wrong with having to roll a boulder uphill for the rest of existence?

I don't think the conditions of his work sentence are OSHA compliant.

If you believe my comments to him, or anyone else in this forum, violate forum rules, then you may report them, or ignore them. However, I have informed you that I will not tolerate being referred to in such a fashion, and I consider it against forum rules, with precedent to support such a claim.

I have already said you are not to address me in such a fashion, and, frankly, I don't give a fuck why you feel justified in doing so. You've been informed that you are not to do so, thus continuing to do so is contrary to forum rules, and is flamebaiting.

Do not do it again. However, since such comments are obviously lost on you given your already refusal to honor such a request, reported.

Okay...though I think you are overreacting. TAI brought-up a complaint that G-o-G was flame baiting him by repeatedly (and I mean repeatedly) referring to the "American" congress as "USian". Yet I am not in any way trying to peeve you, and this is only the second time I have posted that picture; what is more, you did not tell me it offended you so much the first time.

Okay...though I think you are overreacting.

Whether you think I am or not, is irrelevant. You have been informed, twice now, to stop. You have made it clear you will not. Thus the issue has been broung before moderation.


TAI brought-up a complaint that G-o-G was flame baiting him by repeatedly (and I mean repeatedly) referring to the "American" congress as "USian".

Yes, I'm aware that the mods have already ruled that it's not flame baiting to refer to "american" as "USian". I am also equally aware that the moderators HAVE ruled it is flame baiting to refer to a poster by a name that he has specifically stated he does not wish to be referred to as.

I stated that, you continued. Thus, I have reported you.

Yet I am not in any way trying to peeve you, and this is only the second time I have posted that picture, what is more, you did not tell me it offended you so much the first time.

I don't care what you're trying to do. You were told not to. You did it anyway. If you didn't want to "peeve" you, you wouldn't have done it. I don't need to justify WHY I told you not to call me that. I did. Your continued insistence in doing so has caused the issue to be brought up in moderation. I will no longer discuss it with you.

I don't think the conditions of his work sentence are OSHA compliant.

I wonder what it needs to be compliant in Greece however, :p

He killed his guests and claimed he was smarter than Zeus. What was wrong with having to roll a boulder uphill for the rest of existence?

No, he just told some persons about one of Zeus's extramarital affairs.

I wonder what it needs to be compliant in Greece however, :p

Or in the plane of existence that Zeus and the other Gods and Goddess lives in. *nods*

I don't think the conditions of his work sentence are OSHA compliant.

I don't think OSHA rules apply in Hades.

I wonder what it needs to be compliant in Greece however, :p

Good point, but they still have United Nations obligations and standards too.

Now sure sure, Sisyphus was convicted untold thousands of years ago. So what? The sentence is eternal. If we are to make a big deal out of Gitmo it would be hypocritical not to castigate Greece for doing the same thing in a nightmarish underworld designed for eternal punishment.

You know what's really scary? Rule 34 applies to everything...

Well, duh. What I really mean is... uh... is there some vault underneath The Vatican with... more-than-risque portraits of Jesus? It'd be the closest thing His Holiness could whack off to, ifyaknowwhatimean >.>

...

Okay, that's enough of that discussion. How about that... uh, bailout?

To get the thread back to its theoretical topic, yes, Pilate was responsible, insofar as he could have personally interceded and chose not to. You can argue as to whether or not he SHOULD have done so, but given that he COULD have done so, the consequences are necessarily partially his doing.

The Greco-Roman Gods were nasty pieces of work, but at least good people came to good ends and bad people came to bad ends and there was no confusion about who was what and why they deserved what they got.

I don't know, they could be pretty arbitrary at times, what I like about them is that they were pretty much human in their emotions, they were petty, jealous, constantly squabbling yet capable of great acts of kindness.

I don't think OSHA rules apply in Hades.

Nah, they were just bribed with inifinite booze and peanuts...

No, he just told some persons about one of Zeus's extramarital affairs.

"Sisyphus was son of the king Aeolus of Thessaly and Enarete, and the founder and first king of Ephyra (Corinth). He was the father of Glaucus by the nymph Merope, and the grandfather of Bellerophon.

Sisyphus promoted navigation and commerce, but was avaricious and deceitful, violating the laws of hospitality by killing travelers and guests. He took pleasure in these killings because they allowed him to maintain his dominant position. From Homer onwards, Sisyphus was famed as the craftiest of men. He seduced his niece, took his brother's throne and betrayed Zeus's secrets. Zeus then ordered Thanatos to chain Sisyphus in Tartarus. Sisyphus slyly asked Thanatos to try the chains to show how they worked. When Thanatos did so, Sisyphus secured them and threatened him. This caused an uproar, and no human could die until Ares (who was annoyed that his battles had lost their fun because his opponents would not die) intervened, freeing Thanatos and sending Sisyphus to Tartarus.

However, before Sisyphus died, he had told his wife to throw his naked body into the middle of the public square in attempt to test his wife's love for him. Annoyed by the obedience and loveless decision by his wife, Sisyphus persuaded Persephone, Queen of the Underworld, to allow him to go back to the upper world and scold his wife for not burying his body like a loving wife would. When Sisyphus returned to Corinth, he refused to retreat back to the underworld and was forcibly dragged back to the underworld by Hermes. In another version of the myth, Persephone was directly persuaded that he had been conducted to Tartarus by mistake and ordered him to be freed.[1]"

I know you and others don't consider Wikipedia the best of sources, but, for some things, it is quite accurate.

I don't know, they could be pretty arbitrary at times, what I like about them is that they were pretty much human in their emotions, they were petty, jealous, constantly squabbling yet capable of great acts of kindness.

Oh so unlike the Judeo-Christo-Islamic God, who arguably, is completely inhuman.

To get the thread back to its theoretical topic, yes, Pilate was responsible, insofar as he could have personally interceded and chose not to. You can argue as to whether or not he SHOULD have done so, but given that he COULD have done so, the consequences are necessarily partially his doing.

True, and Rome at the time wasn't a Democracy..at least I don't think it was.

I may have to re-check that.

I know you and others don't consider Wikipedia the best of sources, but, for some things, it is quite accurate.

Voted #1 in Service by Lazy College Students!

I'd honestly like to contribute to the debate, but it's way too ambiguous for my taste.

True, and Rome at the time wasn't a Democracy..at least I don't think it was.

I may have to re-check that.

Not direct, "just" a republic.

I don't think OSHA rules apply in Hades.

Where do you think they operate out of?

True, and Rome at the time wasn't a Democracy..at least I don't think it was.

I may have to re-check that.

Rome, at this time, was an Empire under Caesar Augustus. The last vestiges of the Republic (not democracy) died 30-40 years before with Julius Caesar.

Rome, at this time, was an Empire under Caesar Augustus. The last vestiges of the Republic (not democracy) died 30-40 years before with Julius Caesar.

Ahh ok, thanks for clearing that up. Last night I was up all night on a Paranormal investigation and tonight I just got done listening to about 5 hours worth of audio tape, so I'm alittle off my game tonight, and I still have about...10 more hours of audio tape, video tapes, etc. Fun stuff.

So, given this event, and what transpired, should Pontius Pilate be responsible for the crucifixion of Jesus, or is his act of washing his hands of the situation absolved him?

I think the only reason he did it was that he didn't want an uprising, and that he was led to believe that Jesus may pose a threat to Roman rule in the area. Pontius did try to get Jesus off of the death sentence, but at the end of the day, he had to bend to the will of the people.

Thoughts?
EDIT: I take the whole question of guilt in a religious sense, since "absolved" is typically referring to guilt or innocence before God.

First given I'll work with is that God's judgements are just. And if we're going to believe God's judgments are at all just, they have to be proportionate to the amount of knowledge had at the time. For the same reason a 3 year old who accidentally starts a house fire isn't tried for arson, God couldn't be just if he held the ignorant, who have had no chance to educate themselves, guilty of their crimes. This explains the forgiveness Jesus asks the Father to lend the Roman soldiers when Jesus' on the cross: the soldiers didn't know Jesus, who he was, nor did they have any chance of knowing it was better not to obey orders than kill the Son of God.

The second given I'll work with here is that the crime of ordering the death of the Son of God is greater than the crime of ordering the death of another innocent person. I'll mainly be commenting on Pilate's guilt with respect to the first crime.

Likewise Pilate is guilty of the crime in relation to his level of knowledge at the time (and, in a way, in relation to his opportunity as I'd contend that if he had an opportunity to gain knowledge and did not take the opportunity he is consenting to at least partial responsibility through intentional ignorance). This is hard for us to tell. We know that he knew Jesus was not truly guilty of sedition, since he tried first to get Jesus tried by another (if he thought Jesus really guilty of sedition he would've just ordered the cross then and there), and he himself declared "I find no fault in this man" after his interview with Jesus.

Which is another part consideration in our analysis: Pilate's interview with Jesus. Through the time he spent interrogating Jesus, Pilate had the opportunity to get to know him if but for a short period of time, so he obviously knew him better than the soldiers who crucified him. Yet, we have to ask ourselves, how much knowledge can Pilate attain as to Jesus' status as the Son of God in one sole meeting? A single meeting was enough (apparently) for the apostles to follow him (fishers of men, Nathaniel and so forth). But did they, on that first meeting, really believe he was the Son of God? In Matthew 16, after the apostles have travelled considerably with Jesus only Simon makes that declaration. The other apostles aren't sure and refer to what others have said. It took the apostles a significant period of time being personally exposed to Jesus to believe he was the Son of God. How much exposure to Jesus and his teachings until one is responsible for his reaction to them? How long until one is responsible for gaining or denying the testimony of his divinity? It's a difficult question to answer in general, but I think I can answer it with reference to Pilate.

I would contend that Pilate was almost entirely ignorant of Jesus' teachings and thus his divinity, for it was just one meeting and Jesus did not even engage in preaching while in Pilate's presence. This means he had almost no idea Jesus was anything more than just another Jew looking for Masshiah ben Joseph or Masshiah ben David. It was wrong what Pilate did, sacrificing him for the mob's bloodlust, but it was not treason to the Son of God, as he did not know him as the Son of God.

The washing of the hands is totally irrelevant as to Pilate's innocence or guilt. It's a symbol and nothing more. Pilate isn't nearly as guilty as those who knew Jesus and his teachings (including the High Priest and his court) and then rejected them, but not because he washed his hands and proclaimed it so. But because that was the distribution of knowledge, and those who knew Jesus better than Pilate had truly sinned against a greater light than Pilate had. Perhaps Pilate's declaration and washing of the hands is an adequate observation of this situation. But the situation would be true whether Pilate had declared it or not.

And, going back up to a point I made a couple of paragraphs ago, Pilate was definitely guilty of killing a man he knew to be innocent. His level of knowledge as to how reprehensible this is can be questioned (given the particularly brutal nature of Roman rule upon those it was politically convenient to kill since the Maccabees). But I won't be the one questioning it.

[/my two cents]

If he had the authority to not condemn Jesus to death, then he does share in the responsibility.

Pilate was an okay guy, he did his job, and he's absolved of the problem. His only failure was failing to get along with Israel, thus getting himself fired.

The events leading up to the crucifixion of Jesus of Nazareth, he was seen by Pontius Pilate. Pilate, in keeping with the tradition of the time, presented the population of Jerusalem with Jesus and Barabbas. One of them would be released to the people, the other kill on the cross. The people at the event demanded that Barabbas be released and Jesus be crucified. Pilate gave into the demand of the people, however he ran his hand through some water, and washed his hand of Jesus's blood, and put the blood on the people who gathered there.

So, given this event, and what transpired, should Pontius Pilate be responsible for the crucifixion of Jesus, or is his act of washing his hands of the situation absolved him?

I think the only reason he did it was that he didn't want an uprising, and that he was led to believe that Jesus may pose a threat to Roman rule in the area. Pontius did try to get Jesus off of the death sentence, but at the end of the day, he had to bend to the will of the people.

Thoughts?

Pilot was innocent in this case he could find no reason to kill him which is why he washed his hands of it. It was Jesus's own people that pressed Pilot for the crucifixion.

If he had the authority to not condemn Jesus to death, then he does share in the responsibility.


And risk rebellion or an uprising. I doubt any of our politicians would do much different. It had to happen they way it did.

And risk rebellion or an uprising. I doubt any of our politicians would do much different. It had to happen they way it did.

I'm not saying he didn't have good reasons, but he still shares in the responsibility. Just like everyone in the crowd calling for his death shares in it.

I'm not saying he didn't have good reasons, but he still shares in the responsibility. Just like everyone in the crowd calling for his death shares in it.

Pontius: "According to tradition, I have to give you a choice of who to crucify."
Crowd: "CRUCIFY JESUS!"
Pontius: "Wha-? He hasn't done anything!"
Crowd: "Listen you Roman Fucker, if you don't crucify him, we'll riot and crucify him ourselves"
Pontius: "..."
Crowd: "Well?"
Pontius: "I had no part in this. I wash my hands of this whole mess."
Crowd: "Yeah, yeah, just give us Barbaras already."

It's obvious Jesus masterminded the operation (assuming he existed).

So, given this event, and what transpired, should Pontius Pilate be responsible for the crucifixion of Jesus, or is his act of washing his hands of the situation absolved him? that doesn't concern me. Pilate did what he had to do to further God's plan.

I think the only reason he did it was that he didn't want an uprising, and that he was led to believe that Jesus may pose a threat to Roman rule in the area. Pontius did try to get Jesus off of the death sentence, but at the end of the day, he had to bend to the will of the people.

Thoughts? exactly what one pastor said. he took what he believed to be the worst criminal, thinking that Jesus would be chosen. yet it was the people, being prodded by the religous elders back then, that forced him to turn Jesus over to the people.

"Sisyphus was son of the king Aeolus of Thessaly and Enarete, and the founder and first king of Ephyra (Corinth). He was the father of Glaucus by the nymph Merope, and the grandfather of Bellerophon.

Sisyphus promoted navigation and commerce, but was avaricious and deceitful, violating the laws of hospitality by killing travelers and guests. He took pleasure in these killings because they allowed him to maintain his dominant position. From Homer onwards, Sisyphus was famed as the craftiest of men. He seduced his niece, took his brother's throne and betrayed Zeus's secrets. Zeus then ordered Thanatos to chain Sisyphus in Tartarus. Sisyphus slyly asked Thanatos to try the chains to show how they worked. When Thanatos did so, Sisyphus secured them and threatened him. This caused an uproar, and no human could die until Ares (who was annoyed that his battles had lost their fun because his opponents would not die) intervened, freeing Thanatos and sending Sisyphus to Tartarus.

However, before Sisyphus died, he had told his wife to throw his naked body into the middle of the public square in attempt to test his wife's love for him. Annoyed by the obedience and loveless decision by his wife, Sisyphus persuaded Persephone, Queen of the Underworld, to allow him to go back to the upper world and scold his wife for not burying his body like a loving wife would. When Sisyphus returned to Corinth, he refused to retreat back to the underworld and was forcibly dragged back to the underworld by Hermes. In another version of the myth, Persephone was directly persuaded that he had been conducted to Tartarus by mistake and ordered him to be freed.[1]"

I know you and others don't consider Wikipedia the best of sources, but, for some things, it is quite accurate.

One of the cooler stories in Mythology. Just imagine. What are you in hell for? I chained Death in Hades and got busted. :cool:

On a side note you would think after all those years rolling the rock he would be able to take Hermes in fight. Ares sure, Hercules alright, but Hermes are talking the guy with wings on his heels? I think him and Tantalus should join together and bust out.

Flipped a coin. Coin said no.

Wasn't there some evidence that showed that Pilate was much more ruthless than he was portrayed in the bible and it was likely that he didn't give Jesus much chance at all?

Wasn't there some evidence that showed that Pilate was much more ruthless than he was portrayed in the bible and it was likely that he didn't give Jesus much chance at all?

It'd be nice if you could back that statement up.

It was a question. I was hoping that someone on here more knowledgeable then me could tell me it was correct or not.

Wasn't there some evidence that showed that Pilate was much more ruthless than he was portrayed in the bible and it was likely that he didn't give Jesus much chance at all?

Ruthless is pretty relative. You have to understand that the Romans were mostly interested in peace and quiet in the provinces, the prompt payment of taxes, and no consorting with enemies like the Parthians. Judaea had a history of rioting and public disturbance and it was a frontier province facing the Parthians, with a population that had cultural ties with Babylonia. That, and Passover was a particularly tense time, when lots of people came to Jerusalem for an especially nationalistic holiday (escaping bondage in Egypt, escaping bondage under the Romans ... you do the math).

As a Prefect reporting to the Governor of Syria, Pilate didn't have any Roman (Italian) troops beyond maybe a personal guard. He would have had some local auxilaries, but not many all in all, so if Jerusalem erupted because he refused to execute some itinerant preacher who had annoyed the civil authorities, he'd be between the rock of the rioting and the hard place of his superior's displeasure.

The New Testament portrays Pilate as being keenly aware of the importance of the events, but I suspect he considered this just one more pain in the podex caused by these stiff-necked Jews.

I don't think is was secret that Pilot was not a real nice guy but in Jesus's case I don't think he was to blame for what happened. Now Judas on the other hand is in a world of trouble.

I don't think is was secret that Pilot was not a real nice guy but in Jesus's case I don't think he was to blame for what happened. Now Judas on the other hand is in a world of trouble.

We really can't say anything about whether Pilate was nice or a psychopath or somewhere in the vast expanse in between. Outside of the Gospels and related writings, you could count the number of references to him on the fingers of one hand, probably.

I don't think is was secret that Pilot was not a real nice guy but in Jesus's case I don't think he was to blame for what happened. Now Judas on the other hand is in a world of trouble.

I don't think Pilate was a real nice guy either. You don't get to be the Prefect of a Roman Province for being 'nice'. You get either through doing a bunch of favors for your superiors, or being an incredibly intelligent guy. Pilate did what he had to to keep the peace, Judas did what he had to in order to have Jesus die for our sins.

I don't think is was secret that Pilot was not a real nice guy but in Jesus's case I don't think he was to blame for what happened. Now Judas on the other hand is in a world of trouble.

No. He did exactly what he was supposed to do. If he had not done it, someone else would have had to. Without this "betrayal" the crucifiction and resurrection in the myth would never have happened. His action was crucial. If Christianity were logical and consistent, he would be celebrated as a saint.

No. He did exactly what he was supposed to do. If he had not done it, someone else would have had to. Without this "betrayal" the crucifiction and resurrection in the myth would never have happened. His action was crucial. If people following Christianity were logical and consistent, he would be celebrated as a saint.

Fixed.

We really can't say anything about whether Pilate was nice or a psychopath or somewhere in the vast expanse in between. Outside of the Gospels and related writings, you could count the number of references to him on the fingers of one hand, probably.

You are right we know very little. Life did not turn out better for him afterwords.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pilate

Eusebius (Historia Ecclesiae ii: 7) quotes some early apocryphal accounts that he does not name, which already relate that Pilate fell under misfortunes in the reign of Caligula (AD 37–41), was exiled to Gaul and eventually committed suicide there in Vienne.

Other details come from less respectable sources. His body, says the Mors Pilati ("Death of Pilate"), was thrown first into the Tiber, but the waters were so disturbed by evil spirits that the body was taken to Vienne and sunk in the Rhône: a monument at Vienne, called Pilate's tomb, is still to be seen. As the waters of the Rhone likewise rejected Pilate's corpse, it was again removed and sunk in the lake at Lausanne. The sequence was a simple way to harmonise conflicting local traditions.

The corpse's final disposition was in a deep and lonely mountain tarn, which, according to later tradition, was on a mountain, still called Pilatus (actually pileatus or "cloud capped"), overlooking Lucerne. Every Good Friday, the body is said to reemerge from the waters and wash its hands.

You are right we know very little. Life did not turn out better for him afterwords.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pilate

Eusebius (Historia Ecclesiae ii: 7) quotes some early apocryphal accounts that he does not name, which already relate that Pilate fell under misfortunes in the reign of Caligula (AD 37–41), was exiled to Gaul and eventually committed suicide there in Vienne.

Other details come from less respectable sources. His body, says the Mors Pilati ("Death of Pilate"), was thrown first into the Tiber, but the waters were so disturbed by evil spirits that the body was taken to Vienne and sunk in the Rhône: a monument at Vienne, called Pilate's tomb, is still to be seen. As the waters of the Rhone likewise rejected Pilate's corpse, it was again removed and sunk in the lake at Lausanne. The sequence was a simple way to harmonise conflicting local traditions.

The corpse's final disposition was in a deep and lonely mountain tarn, which, according to later tradition, was on a mountain, still called Pilatus (actually pileatus or "cloud capped"), overlooking Lucerne. Every Good Friday, the body is said to reemerge from the waters and wash its hands.

Yes, well, but those are all late sources. Pilate is mentioned in Tacitus and in Philo, maybe in Josephus (I haven't looked and one must be especially careful about references to Christ and Christians in Josephus, the text has been tampered with). The Mors Pilati is part of a Cornish work about the Resurrection, so again, late.

Oh, and "pileatus" just means "capped" not "capped by clouds". It's thought to refer to a possible freedman status for one of Pilate's ancestors, though the Pontii were an old and well-to-do Samnite family.

No. He did exactly what he was supposed to do. If he had not done it, someone else would have had to. Without this "betrayal" the crucifixion and resurrection in the myth would never have happened. His action was crucial. If Christianity were logical and consistent, he would be celebrated as a saint.

Yeah I suppose you are correct but even Jesus called him out.

But behold, the hand of My betrayer is with Me on the table. 22 And truly the Son of Man goes as it has been determined, but woe to that man by whom He is betrayed!"
23 Then they began to question among themselves, which of them it was who would do this thing

One of your own crew that has got to hurt. It kind of amazes me that Jesus did all these wonderful things and yet they needed Judas to point him out? Sucks to be Judas!

Yeah I suppose you are correct but even Jesus called him out.

But behold, the hand of My betrayer is with Me on the table. 22 And truly the Son of Man goes as it has been determined, but woe to that man by whom He is betrayed!"
23 Then they began to question among themselves, which of them it was who would do this thing

One of your own crew that has got to hurt. It kind of amazes me that Jesus did all these wonderful things and yet they needed Judas to point him out? Sucks to be Judas!

There is a tradition that says the whole thing was scripted. And one must remember that the four books of the Gospel were carefully selected out of hundreds because they were the ones that most nearly corresponded to the agenda of the Church founders.

http://www.nationalgeographic.com/lostgospel/

The events leading up to the crucifixion of Jesus of Nazareth, he was seen by Pontius Pilate. ...
Thoughts?

Is what you say true?
And I ask you further: what is truth?

There is a tradition that says the whole thing was scripted. And one must remember that the four books of the Gospel were carefully selected out of hundreds because they were the ones that most nearly corresponded to the agenda of the Church founders.

http://www.nationalgeographic.com/lostgospel/

Yes I have read that I was wondering if someone would bring it up. This piece of work is interesting. Is it possible that even Judas could receive forgiveness that is the question? He did know Jesus and if he had accepted him as his Savior could he be saved? All these are tough questions and likely we will only get answer after we pass over.

Is what you say true?
And I ask you further: what is truth?

I will take Famous Lines for $1000. One of the better quotes.

Is what you say true?
And I ask you further: what is truth?

Which question Jesus did not answer, I believe.

The events leading up to the crucifixion of Jesus of Nazareth, he was seen by Pontius Pilate. Pilate, in keeping with the tradition of the time, presented the population of Jerusalem with Jesus and Barabbas. One of them would be released to the people, the other kill on the cross. The people at the event demanded that Barabbas be released and Jesus be crucified. Pilate gave into the demand of the people, however he ran his hand through some water, and washed his hand of Jesus's blood, and put the blood on the people who gathered there.

So, given this event, and what transpired, should Pontius Pilate be responsible for the crucifixion of Jesus, or is his act of washing his hands of the situation absolved him?

I think the only reason he did it was that he didn't want an uprising, and that he was led to believe that Jesus may pose a threat to Roman rule in the area. Pontius did try to get Jesus off of the death sentence, but at the end of the day, he had to bend to the will of the people.

Thoughts?
given the role the story has him playing (i dont know much about roman policies of the first century regarding exectuions) he probably has far more than one rabble rouser's blood on his hands. as far as i can see both pilate and the assembled "jews" have some amount of responsibility for deciding who was crucified that day.

is it worse for pilate to have crucified jesus than to have crucified anyone else?

given the role the story has him playing (i dont know much about roman policies of the first century regarding exectuions)
Execution was very common, especially in the non-Italian provinces. Crucifixion was preferred because it was brutal, and warned "You break the law, you get the same." Sort of deterrence and punishment. Not too brutal compared to some ancient execution methods.

I only post it in response to nick-names, or when you harass Wilgrove, which you just did.
Unfortunately, you don't get to flamebait because you perceive someone has treated someone rudely. You get to report them to moderation like everyone else.

I do NOT want to see you or anyone else posting anything whatever to do with puddles in relation to Neo Art again.

I think some of the most abused people in Christianity were Judas, Cain, and Pilate. Pilate wasn't washing away his culpability (since, by that tradition, he wasn't culpable), imho, he was giving notice to the people of their own culpability.


Pilate was just following his political instincts, sure, but so were the pols who over the centuries legislated everything from slavery to segregation.

Judas committed suicide very shortly after what he did, so he wasn't around long enough to be abused.

Cain was banished for murdering his brother (seems reasonable to me). When he cried to God in fear that others would murder him after they found out that he murdered his own brother, God in an act of mercy places on him the mark of Cain, protecting him from harm. I hardly call that abuse.

In regard to Cain and Judas, you might wanna read a Bible before you comment on the stories contained within.

Execution was very common, especially in the non-Italian provinces. Crucifixion was preferred because it was brutal, and warned "You break the law, you get the same." Sort of deterrence and punishment. Not too brutal compared to some ancient execution methods.
so what would it matter if pilate was innocent of the death of jesus? he is guilty of far more deaths than the 3 on that day.

Execution was very common, especially in the non-Italian provinces. Crucifixion was preferred because it was brutal, and warned "You break the law, you get the same." Sort of deterrence and punishment. Not too brutal compared to some ancient execution methods.

Brutal and used to execute rebellious slaves, pirates, people perceived as being enemies of the state. A citizen might simply be beheaded. It's a slow and painful death, you hang up there, unable to support your body weight. If they're nice, they break your legs and you die sooner. there's some debate about the actual cause of death in crucifixion but none about it being a slow, agonizing way to go.

Gimme the hemlock any day.

so what would it matter if pilate was innocent of the death of jesus? he is guilty of far more deaths than the 3 on that day.
Than any judge who has EVER sentenced a man to death, for any reason whatsoever, also has blood on their hands. Pilate did what he had to to KEEP THE PEACE. By keeping the peace, he saved lives. If theives and murderers were allowed to go unpunished, how long would it take in Judea and Israel for a riot, or even outright rebellion to rear it's ugly head? How many lives would be lost? Pontius did what he had to, what it was his duty to do.
Brutal and used to execute rebellious slaves, pirates, people perceived as being enemies of the state. A citizen might simply be beheaded. It's a slow and painful death, you hang up there, unable to support your body weight. If they're nice, they break your legs and you die sooner. there's some debate about the actual cause of death in crucifixion but none about it being a slow, agonizing way to go.

Gimme the hemlock any day.
But how would the hemlock intimidate people? Rome's interest was to keep the peace, not punish criminals. Death, as a punishment in itself, makes no sense. It doesn't bring people back to life, it doesn't return stolen goods, it does no good to the community. Death, as a deterrent, works. No one wants to die, and in such a painful manner, would certainly deter would-be thieves.
Also, Crucifixion was used far more widely in the outlying provinces. In Italy itself, Crucifixion was used mostly for, as you said, enemies of the state, pirates, rebellious slaves and the sort.

Than any judge who has EVER sentenced a man to death, for any reason whatsoever, also has blood on their hands. Pilate did what he had to to KEEP THE PEACE. By keeping the peace, he saved lives. If theives and murderers were allowed to go unpunished, how long would it take in Judea and Israel for a riot, or even outright rebellion to rear it's ugly head? How many lives would be lost? Pontius did what he had to, what it was his duty to do.

But how would the hemlock intimidate people? Rome's interest was to keep the peace, not punish criminals. Death, as a punishment in itself, makes no sense. It doesn't bring people back to life, it doesn't return stolen goods, it does no good to the community. Death, as a deterrent, works. No one wants to die, and in such a painful manner, would certainly deter would-be thieves.
Also, Crucifixion was used far more widely in the outlying provinces. In Italy itself, Crucifixion was used mostly for, as you said, enemies of the state, pirates, rebellious slaves and the sort.

Oh, sure, I was just saying that given my 'druthers ...

And you're right, Rome was interested much morein keeping the peace than in anything else. You could do pretty much whatever you wanted, as an individual, as long as you obeyed the law and didn't make a lot of fuss. Worship an ass? No problem. Tear down the nearby Temple of Zeus as an affront to ass-worshippers everywhere? Problem.

I don't think we should give the impression that the Mediterranean countries were filled with crosses bearing corpses in various states of decomposition, though. Yes, those were much more brutal days than any of us moderns have known, but lots of people lived peaceful, productive lives, too.

I also get hacked off by portrayals of the Romans as mean, nasty oppressors just looking for noble [insert ethnic group here] to oppress. But that's another thread.

I don't think we should give the impression that the Mediterranean countries were filled with crosses bearing corpses in various states of decomposition, though. Yes, those were much more brutal days than any of us moderns have known, but lots of people lived peaceful, productive lives, too.

Indeed. The days of the Early Roman Empire were far better than any other time before the Renaissance, and even some places then. And I wasn't trying to give that impression, any more than someone explaining how the modern death penalty works would try to give off an image of thousands of dead in gas chambers, or with needles in their arms.

I also get hacked off by portrayals of the Romans as mean, nasty oppressors just looking for noble [insert ethnic group here] to oppress. But that's another thread.
Same here. It's all because the Romans are often seen as conquerors, and in our modern view, almost all conquerors are seen as 'bad'.

Than any judge who has EVER sentenced a man to death, for any reason whatsoever, also has blood on their hands. Pilate did what he had to to KEEP THE PEACE. By keeping the peace, he saved lives. If theives and murderers were allowed to go unpunished, how long would it take in Judea and Israel for a riot, or even outright rebellion to rear it's ugly head? How many lives would be lost? Pontius did what he had to, what it was his duty to do.


thats what im thinking. he did his job and i doubt that he would have worried about it for one minute. the whole hand washing thing seems to me to be just a bit of added anti-jewish/pro-roman sentiment.

thats what im thinking. he did his job and i doubt that he would have worried about it for one minute. the whole hand washing thing seems to me to be just a bit of added anti-jewish/pro-roman sentiment.
I think he was a bit concerned that the crowd would prefer that a murderer be returned to them instead of a man who hadn't done any harm. But otherwise, I don't think he worried about it. He did his job, and he did nothing wrong. He tried to save the innocent man, but he couldn't without sacrificing even more lives, and possibly his own. The whole hand-washing thing was him saying that Jesus' blood was on their hands, not his, thus cementing his stance that he was not at fault. It was the crowd, mad for blood.

It was a single man's blood for the lives of dozens, maybe hundreds. Having merely stopped the execution of Jesus would have almost definitely sparked a riot, something that would have claimed the lives of many others. For that, I doubt Pilate worried about it. He probably had bigger moral dilemmas to deal with at the time.

I think he was a bit concerned that the crowd would prefer that a murderer be returned to them instead of a man who hadn't done any harm. But otherwise, I don't think he worried about it. He did his job, and he did nothing wrong. He tried to save the innocent man, but he couldn't without sacrificing even more lives, and possibly his own. The whole hand-washing thing was him saying that Jesus' blood was on their hands, not his, thus cementing his stance that he was not at fault. It was the crowd, mad for blood.

It was a single man's blood for the lives of dozens, maybe hundreds. Having merely stopped the execution of Jesus would have almost definitely sparked a riot, something that would have claimed the lives of many others. For that, I doubt Pilate worried about it. He probably had bigger moral dilemmas to deal with at the time.
or none at all considering the times.

or none at all considering the times.

:confused:

:confused:
what moral dilemma would there be as long as he is following orders?

what moral dilemma would there be as long as he is following orders?

What moral dilemma did Russian Guards have when running Siberian camps with people who are completely innocent back in the 40's?

The events leading up to the crucifixion of Jesus of Nazareth, he was seen by Pontius Pilate. Pilate, in keeping with the tradition of the time, presented the population of Jerusalem with Jesus and Barabbas. One of them would be released to the people, the other kill on the cross. The people at the event demanded that Barabbas be released and Jesus be crucified. Pilate gave into the demand of the people, however he ran his hand through some water, and washed his hand of Jesus's blood, and put the blood on the people who gathered there.

So, given this event, and what transpired, should Pontius Pilate be responsible for the crucifixion of Jesus, or is his act of washing his hands of the situation absolved him?

I think the only reason he did it was that he didn't want an uprising, and that he was led to believe that Jesus may pose a threat to Roman rule in the area. Pontius did try to get Jesus off of the death sentence, but at the end of the day, he had to bend to the will of the people.

Thoughts?

Even by Biblical standards, the Pilate storyline is not meant to be taken literally.

Jesus and Barabbas are the same person.

Even by Biblical standards, the Pilate storyline is not meant to be taken literally.

Jesus and Barabbas are the same person.

Whoa, how are you getting that? Did you find my stash? :p

Even by Biblical standards, the Pilate storyline is not meant to be taken literally.

Jesus and Barabbas are the same person.

Is that your personal opinion, or do you have enough evidence to support asserting this as a fact?

Whoa, how are you getting that? Did you find my stash? :p

Some speculate that the story of Jesus and Barabas being separate people was created for anti-semetic purposes.

Pilate was just following his political instincts, sure, but so were the pols who over the centuries legislated everything from slavery to segregation.

Judas committed suicide very shortly after what he did, so he wasn't around long enough to be abused.

Cain was banished for murdering his brother (seems reasonable to me). When he cried to God in fear that others would murder him after they found out that he murdered his own brother, God in an act of mercy places on him the mark of Cain, protecting him from harm. I hardly call that abuse.

In regard to Cain and Judas, you might wanna read a Bible before you comment on the stories contained within.

Abel was the favored son. Cain, even though he was the older, was treated as second best. His offering of the best of his first fruits was rejected, rather brutally, by his deity in favor of Abel's offering. While I don't condone murder as a response to sibling favoritism, I can see how years of being consistently last in a race of two, would take a toll. It was a crime of passion committed in a moment of anger. I actually put the blame for this square on the non-existent shoulders of an unloving God who set up the situation so that Cain would always fail.

What moral dilemma did Russian Guards have when running Siberian camps with people who are completely innocent back in the 40's?

you would have to ask them if they felt a moral dilemma.

Whoa, how are you getting that? Did you find my stash? :p
you could try this page...

http://www.efn.org/~iahu/gesing.htm

the page that i had bookmarked on the subject no longer exists. *pout*

Abel was the favored son. Cain, even though he was the older, was treated as second best. His offering of the best of his first fruits was rejected, rather brutally, by his deity in favor of Abel's offering. While I don't condone murder as a response to sibling favoritism, I can see how years of being consistently last in a race of two, would take a toll. It was a crime of passion committed in a moment of anger. I actually put the blame for this square on the non-existent shoulders of an unloving God who set up the situation so that Cain would always fail.

Of course - there is an entirely different way to look at the Cain and Abel story.

Cain made an offering of what was best of what he had, and was found wanting because his gift was insufficiently precious, and because no blood was spilled.

Abel makes an offering of the best of what HE has, and spills blood, and is rewarded.

Cain reviews his actions, and offers the dearest thing he has - his own brother. He offers a blood sacrifice of that which is most dear.


Of course - this must be nonsensical, because god hates killing?

Except that it actually fits a profile of 'election'. e.g. Moses becomes God's chosen messenger after killing, David becomes God's elect champion, after killing.


But, it must be nonsensical because Cain is punished?

Except - if you look at his 'punishments', they are hardly punishments - he is marked with a mark that means he cannot be killed, and he is hidden from god's face - his 'punishment' is immortality.

It looks a lot like killing his brother brought Cain back to the state of grace that Adam lost.

Is that your personal opinion, or do you have enough evidence to support asserting this as a fact?

It is my opinion, based on the text - but look at Ashmoria 's post:

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=14674289&postcount=95

Apparently, I'm hardly alone.

It is interesting to notice how the Bible tends to protray Yahweh as a dick.

The LORD said to Moses, "When you return to Egypt, see that you perform before Pharaoh all the wonders I have given you the power to do. But I will harden his heart so that he will not let the people go.

But Moses sought the favor of the LORD his God. "O LORD," he said, "why should your anger burn against your people, whom you brought out of Egypt with great power and a mighty hand?

So, Yahweh send Moses to Egypt so that he could ask the Pharaoh to let the Hebrew people go. However, Yahweh will harden the heart of the Pharoh, so he ends up having no choice but to say "no" to Moses request. Nice...that's wow...

Even Moses doesn't like what Yahweh is doing.

But now, please forgive their sin—but if not, then blot me out of the book you have written."

Of course there's also the whole Book of Job deal, where Satan taunts Yahweh about why people follow and worship him, and instead of doing the rational thing and telling Satan to GTFO, he decides to take Job, a man he has built up, knock him down, only to build him back up.

It is interesting to notice how the Bible tends to protray Yahweh as a dick.





So, Yahweh send Moses to Egypt so that he could ask the Pharaoh to let the Hebrew people go. However, Yahweh will harden the heart of the Pharoh, so he ends up having no choice but to say "no" to Moses request. Nice...that's wow...

Even Moses doesn't like what Yahweh is doing.



Of course there's also the whole Book of Job deal, where Satan taunts Yahweh about why people follow and worship him, and instead of doing the rational thing and telling Satan to GTFO, he decides to take Job, a man he has built up, knock him down, only to build him back up.
Yeah, it's why I don't like the Bible as a completely infallible book.

It is interesting to notice how the Bible tends to protray Yahweh as a dick.





So, Yahweh send Moses to Egypt so that he could ask the Pharaoh to let the Hebrew people go. However, Yahweh will harden the heart of the Pharoh, so he ends up having no choice but to say "no" to Moses request. Nice...that's wow...

Even Moses doesn't like what Yahweh is doing.



Of course there's also the whole Book of Job deal, where Satan taunts Yahweh about why people follow and worship him, and instead of doing the rational thing and telling Satan to GTFO, he decides to take Job, a man he has built up, knock him down, only to build him back up.

Book of Job. God as a 10-year-old spoiled brat taking a dare that costs him nothing. Job as the quintessential abused spouse. I'd be asking for a divorce.

Some believe that the term "God hardened the heart of Pharaoh" is a mistranslation. It doesn't make any sense in terms of eternal justice, since then God would be implicated in Pharaoh’s actions as one who aided and abetted. That “Pharaoh hardened his heart to God” is likely the originally intended phrase.

The book of Job is an interesting case, though. A lot of details of Job's life are completely omitted. Really it's quite possible that it's a greatly streamlined and stylized tale meant to illustrate through one person's life that suffering has a purpose and so forth and not a historically oriented study.

But there's a deeper question here. Lucifer had a point. Job had obeyed the Lord, but Job's life had been relatively easy. It was indiscernible if Job was obeying the Lord because he loved the Lord or because he loved the ease of his life. Whether or not it was Lucifer who literally dared the Lord to punish Job and whether or not the Lord caused Job's suffering, or permitted it to happen is questionable given the non sequitur and stylistic nature of the book, but that such testing is necessary in a religious-philosophical framework to determine whether one is faithful unto the Lord is perfectly logical and, to me, acceptable.

I mean, I do that with my friends, too. I have lots of friends who are good friends, but it's always been convenient for them to be my friends. When relationship strain or circumstantial difficulty arises some of them stop being friends (because they were just friends with me because it was convenient). Others choose to be friends with me because they choose my friendship as being more important than whatever hardship would inhibit it.

Causing hardship with my friends to test them would insinuate that I am somehow superior to them, and it would seem immoral to me. But since God is supposed to be very much man's superior, it's not necessarily immoral.

If true closeness to God is anything like relationships here among mortals, there is necessity for a trial of that relationship. Job, until his testing, had not undergone that trial.



EDIT: When I say "I do that with my friends, too" I mean I'm conscious of my friends' motivations...not that I actively test them by giving them skin diseases.

It is my opinion, based on the text - but look at Ashmoria 's post:

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=14674289&postcount=95

Apparently, I'm hardly alone.

Those are some strange accusations. far I remember it does mention he was brought in front of "Great Sanhedrin". In which the High Priest ripped his garments and all that.

Also this bring another good point this is exactly why they had to involve Pilot. Since the problem happened on a holiday they could not execute Jesus themselves until after the passover.

They could order people to be whipped or scourged, but their verdicts of death could be carried out only by stoning, burning, beheading, or strangling. So they didn't need help killing people. What they need was someone who could do it on a holiday. The Romans didn't care when they kill anyone. As usual the was kind of a kangaroo court. Be careful what you read.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sanhedrin_Trial_of_Jesus


Ephesians 6:12
For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places.


Twist the words and the truth to suit your purposes.

I was at Palm Sunday Mass at my local Catholic Parish, and the celebrant stated that it was the people as a body that ordered Jesus killed, as a representation of the whole of humanity. I'm just upset that Pilate, recognizing the importance of the situation, didn't bother to keep a better record fur us to know the exact date of Christ's death.

Pontius Pilate gave the order to do it. But from what I remember seeing in The Passion of the Christ (which is quite historically accurate, I'm told), he really didn't want to do it. What made him do it was the fact that the Judeans as though they were about to riot if he would have refused. And the first one killed would of course have been him - after all, the mob was right there and so was he. It was an act of saving his own skin, really.

Some believe that the term "God hardened the heart of Pharaoh" is a mistranslation. It doesn't make any sense in terms of eternal justice, since then God would be implicated in Pharaoh’s actions as one who aided and abetted. That “Pharaoh hardened his heart to God” is likely the originally intended phrase.


No, "God hardened the heart of Pharaoh" is likely the intended phrase - there were a set number of terrible Plagues to befall Egypt, and they couldn't justifiably be unleashed if Pharaoh repented, and Egypt stopped it's approach.

The argument that it wouldn't make sense 'in terms of eternal justice' is to ignore the catalogue of Jehovah's actions.


Whether or not it was Lucifer who literally dared the Lord to punish Job and whether or not the Lord caused Job's suffering, or permitted it to happen is questionable given the non sequitur and stylistic nature of the book, but that such testing is necessary in a religious-philosophical framework to determine whether one is faithful unto the Lord is perfectly logical and, to me, acceptable.


Jehovah God basically challenges his pal Satan. When Satan rises to the bait, he's all like "fuck him up all you like". He's the instigator AND he authorises every suffering.

Also this bring another good point this is exactly why they had to involve Pilot. Since the problem happened on a holiday they could not execute Jesus themselves until after the passover.

They could order people to be whipped or scourged, but their verdicts of death could be carried out only by stoning, burning, beheading, or strangling. So they didn't need help killing people. What they need was someone who could do it on a holiday. The Romans didn't care when they kill anyone. As usual the was kind of a kangaroo court. Be careful what you read.


Sorry, simply not true.

Numbers 15:32-6 "Now while the children of Israel were in the wilderness, they found a man gathering sticks on the Sabbath day. And those who found him gathering sticks brought him to Moses and Aaron, and to all the congregation. They put him under guard, because it had not been explained what should be done to him. Then the LORD said to Moses, "The man must surely be put to death; all the congregation shall stone him with stones outside the camp." So, as the LORD commanded Moses, all the congregation brought him outside the camp and stoned him with stones, and he died."

A death sentence can be carried out on the Sabbath.

Further - crucifixion doesn't serve the purpose. Jesus crime was to be a False Prophet, and the punishment is quite specific - death by stoning. The idea that Roman crucifixion would have served the purpose is ridiculous - it would mean that the Jews would have disobeyed the EXPRESS commandment of God (in exacting punishment) to punish someone for a crime of disobeying God.

It's nonsensical.

Sorry, simply not true.

Numbers 15:32-6 "Now while the children of Israel were in the wilderness, they found a man gathering sticks on the Sabbath day. And those who found him gathering sticks brought him to Moses and Aaron, and to all the congregation. They put him under guard, because it had not been explained what should be done to him. Then the LORD said to Moses, "The man must surely be put to death; all the congregation shall stone him with stones outside the camp." So, as the LORD commanded Moses, all the congregation brought him outside the camp and stoned him with stones, and he died."

A death sentence can be carried out on the Sabbath.

Further - crucifixion doesn't serve the purpose. Jesus crime was to be a False Prophet, and the punishment is quite specific - death by stoning. The idea that Roman crucifixion would have served the purpose is ridiculous - it would mean that the Jews would have disobeyed the EXPRESS commandment of God (in exacting punishment) to punish someone for a crime of disobeying God.

It's nonsensical.
not to mention that there was no reason for the execution to happen the next day. whats the freaking rush?

i read an interesting article that suggested that (should the story be in any way true) that jesus was arrested on a fall holiday and worked his way through the system for 6ish months until he was executed at passover. it makes more sense that it would take time to build a case against him. especially with that whole "taken before herod part" thrown in.

It is interesting to notice how the Bible tends to protray Yahweh as a dick.

Looking at the world, I think this one sentence has sent more faith in God to my heart than any I have ever heard.

Looking at the world, I think this one sentence has sent more faith in God to my heart than any I have ever heard.

Umm...you're....welcome? Also, notice I never said Yahweh was a dick, I just said that how the Bible portrays Yahweh. Big difference.

You know what's really scary? Rule 34 applies to everything...

There's rules?

There's rules?

http://pitofhell.com/images/rule-34.jpg

http://pitofhell.com/images/rule-34.jpg

Oh I get it now... Thanks

Yes, though according to Durant, he was tied, rather than nailed, to the cross.
according to some accounts in the NT, Jesus was hung.
They can't even agree on that.

according to some accounts in the NT, Jesus was hung.
They can't even agree on that.

LIKE A HORSE! . . . .sorry sorry gratiuitous sexual nonesense posted mostly because I have nothing better to say.
*slinks off*

Has anyone ever thought that maybe Pilate wasn't washing his hands of the whole affair, rather he'd just been to the toilet or perhaps eaten a whole bowl of greasy chicken wings with his fingers?

LIKE A HORSE! . . . .sorry sorry gratiuitous sexual nonesense posted mostly because I have nothing better to say.
*slinks off*
That took a whole 8 minutes. NS is losing it.

That took a whole 8 minutes. NS is losing it.

lmao sorry its early and i've been up all night :D.

lmao sorry its early and i've been up all night :D.

ah, okay then. I'll overlook this one time. Just be quicker with the smutty toilet humor in future!

ah, okay then. I'll overlook this one time. Just be quicker with the smutty toilet humor in future!

thanks zombie :D

The Memoirs of Pontius Pilate by James Mills is an interesting book, and Pilate is a character in Mikhail Bulgakov's The Master And Margarita. The latter is especially worth reading, though be careful, because in Soviet literature, book reads you.

No, "God hardened the heart of Pharaoh" is likely the intended phrase - there were a set number of terrible Plagues to befall Egypt, and they couldn't justifiably be unleashed if Pharaoh repented, and Egypt stopped it's approach.

The argument that it wouldn't make sense 'in terms of eternal justice' is to ignore the catalogue of Jehovah's actions.Well, of course, if your desired conclusion is that Jehovah is an evil God and all his actions are reprehensible then, yeah, "God hardened the heart of Pharaoh" is likely the intended phrase. Your argument is that of absolute predestination (God had already irreversibly decreed there would be plagues on egypt). And the doctrine also holds that God has predetermined who would be saved and who would be damned. A God that does that, yes is reprehensible and complicit in each damned soul.

It's also a doctrine I don't ascribe to, and one I don't think you'll see preached on Sunday in but a very few congregations nowadays.

But putting that form of predestination aside, Jehovah did know Pharaoh’s heart, and knew he wasn't likely to give in to Jehovah's demands (and he knew the economic ramifications of such) which is why he empowered Moses and promised him the backing of plagues, whatever was necessary for the release of Jehovah's people.

It is, to be perfectly blunt, a misconception that Jehovah can harden the heart of anyone, nor is that sort of relationship between God and his children taught in the Bible. God knows them, of course, and can with a high degree of accuracy predict and prepare for people's actions. But he doesn't make them.

Unless of course, you're interested in creating an act-agent ratio that skewers Jehovah as quasi-watcher.
Jehovah God basically challenges his pal Satan. When Satan rises to the bait, he's all like "fuck him up all you like". He's the instigator AND he authorises every suffering.
My point was that Job is stylized. It wasn't part of the Law or the Prophets, and much less integrated into the Old Testament timeline as just about any other book in the canon.

And what was Jehovah supposed to do? Coddle Job and protect him from Satan’s attacks? 1) He had a son who could stand against anything, of course he’s going to be proud of him and declare his perfection (remember Job was already a “perfect man” by the time we start reading the story). 2) If he’d protected Job from Satan after Satan accused Job of not being so “perfect”, Satan would have had a serious case that Jehovah had lied about Job’s perfection.

The narrative tells us that as a person becomes more and more like God he faces greater, not diminished attacks from Satan. The difference is that the person is able to withstand and overcome these attacks (unlike, for example Job’s friends).

according to some accounts in the NT, Jesus was hung.
They can't even agree on that.
Reference?