Y would the Romans kill Jesus it it makes no sense

it's felt by most historians and Biblical scholars that Luke is presenting Pilate from a Greek perspective. So, they emphasize Pilate going to great lengths to be fair to Jesus. Whereas Mark and Matthew emphasize Jesus being handed over to foreigners.

FireDragon76 said:

it's felt by most historians and Biblical scholars that Luke is presenting Pilate from a Greek perspective. So, they emphasize Pilate going to great lengths to be fair to Jesus. Whereas Mark and Matthew emphasize Jesus being handed over to foreigners.

Click to expand...

Certainly. There is a Christian lawyer in Chicago who contends that Theophilus (to whom Luke's gospel and Acts are addressed) was an official in Nero's court, a Christian or otherwise possibly sympathetic to Paul, when Paul was in prison awaiting judgment. Those two documents, this lawyer contends, are in effect "legal briefs" to give Theophilus a background on Paul's case.

Therefore, yes, it's told with details that would be meaningful and significant to a Roman official, and especially clarifies that neither Jesus nor Paul nor the Church was being set up to be a threat to Rome. I don't think the intention is to make it seem that Pilate was "being fair to Jesus"--remember that Pilate wasn't regarded highly in Rome anyway--but to make clear that the Roman government at the time did not find a problem with Jesus or His activities.

In other words, Luke is making clear "we've been tried by Rome before and found innocent."

That does not, of course, make it false.

Commonsense if one does not buy into belief than the whole bible is a book of gibberish. Jesus' death on the cross makes sense to us that do believe. One has to read it with understanding, NOT tear it apart with a secular inquisition. Jesus came to earth to be a minister, ambassador and a sacrifice. He did not come to "make sense to the whole". In fact, the world rejected him.

When Luke-Acts are taken together, the intention seems to be a bit broader in that it speaks to the question of rebellion in general which was red hot as the decades moved on toward the 6th and 7th. Paul was not part of the general zealot rebellion against Rome.

One of the highly technical difficulties of Luke that ends up supporting this is "den of theives" in the temple-cleansing. The term is 'leistes' who are political thieves, not just desperate people. It is brigands, insurrectionists, insurgents. So way ahead of time Jesus was saying the temple would be used by a rebellion, and it was in the 60s. The technical question is 'why would he say it back in 33 in real-time?'

Interplanner said:

When Luke-Acts are taken together, the intention seems to be a bit broader in that it speaks to the question of rebellion in general which was red hot as the decades moved on toward the 6th and 7th. Paul was not part of the general zealot rebellion against Rome.

Click to expand...

Yes. which is what I was alluding to earlier with the theory that Luke-Acts is a legal brief for Paul's defense before Nero.

One of the highly technical difficulties of Luke that ends up supporting this is "den of theives" in the temple-cleansing. The term is 'leistes' who are political thieves, not just desperate people. It is brigands, insurrectionists, insurgents. So way ahead of time Jesus was saying the temple would be used by a rebellion, and it was in the 60s. The technical question is 'why would he say it back in 33 in real-time?'

Click to expand...

I don't see that as a difficulty. Without a doubt, subsuming the worship of God into a worldly political movement is antithetical to Jesus, and it's not surprising that the roots of the eventual rebellion would have existed in the temple thirty years earlier.

Remember that things developed a lot more slowly back then (no cell phones, no Internet, no mass communication), and even today a rebellion takes decades to develop.

It was the will of GOD the heavenly father as an atoning sacrifice for our sins.

reading the scriptures will give you the insight and pray in the name of JESUS the son of GOD.

Praise be to GOD the heavenly father and his son lord JESUS CHRIST forever>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

commonsence said:

I know that all the Christians believe that Jesus died in the the hands of the Romans but this makes no sense, in military doctrine the most valuable member in a unit is the medic, Jesus was a " healer " therefore he can heal all wounds even death it self, y would the Romans kill him when he could heal them even bring back their dead soldiers since at that time there was no other means of healing and you could die from the smallest scrape and cut.
Also Jesus Said "Give back to Caesar what is Caesar's and to God what is God's." And they were amazed at him " (Mark 12;17) meaning to pay you taxes, then y would the Romans kill someone that is trying to make them richer.

Click to expand...

The Jews wanted Him killed. However, Jesus had committed no crime, and the Jews didn't have the authority to execute citizens, so they had to trump up charges that they could then bring to the Roman authorities. Since Jesus claimed to be the Son of God, and one with God, the Jews claimed that He was setting himself up as a king when the only recognized king of the Roman Empire was Caesar; this was considered treason and punishable by death. Even the Romans knew it was a stretch (hence Pilate's reluctance to order the execution), but the Jews pressed for it, so it was finally done.

I'm kinda confused by the whole "bringing back the dead" and "trying to make them richer" claims. Jesus wasn't and isn't a vending machine or genie who could be forced to just raise every dead Roman soldier. And He wasn't trying to make the Romans richer through taxes; He was saying "obey the laws of the land but never forget that everything belongs to God".