No John doesn't say this. John just elaborates a bit more about what Jesus had said. But it was words along the same lines as to what He had said before to the Jews. That His kingdom was not of this word and if it was then His followers would have saved Him. But His Kingdom was from his Father who was in heaven. Then Pilate asked Him who He was and Jesus said he spoke about the truth and anyone who believed in the truth believed and followed Him. Pilate said what is truth.
John 18 and 19 has Jesus making direct retorts to Pilate's questions, it even borders on lecturing.
For that matter, it also makes the error that if the Jewish leaders entered Pilate's headquarters it would defile them (that is plainly false for any branch of Judaism), and calls the release of one prisoner a Jewish custom as well, which it also never was.
It also makes the error that the Jews would crucify him, that goes against Jewish law. The Jews would have had him stoned to death as per the scriptures.
Pilate also is described more by John as trying to free Jesus as he could find no wrong. But the High priest were having none of it. They said that Caesar would not be Pilates friend because Jesus said He was King. This must have been the final thing that caused Pilate to give in and wash his hands of the matter. In fact when Pilate had asked the crowd one more time when he presented Jesus after he had him whipped with His robe and crown of thorns look here is your King. The Jewish High priests yelled no you are our King and crucify Jesus. So there was a plot to get Jesus on treason for claiming to be a King and undermine the power of Caesar and Rome.
When you read the gospel narrative, again it comes nowhere close to how Pilate is depicted in legitimate contemporary historical works. For the high priests to attempt to push Pilate around like that would have very likely meant their own deaths.
Whereas if Jesus actually admitted to him that he was King of the Jews, Pilate would not have hesitated to have him executed. He didn't waste time dispatching with potential enemies.
The Roman soldiers who came to arrest Jesus were feeling uneasy. Maybe uneasy is the wrong word. But one lot of soldiers didn't go ahead with arresting Him because they said they had never heard someone speak like Jesus did. So Jesus must have hit a chord with them and it made them feel uneasy about arresting such a man of truth. So maybe it was a hesitance from those who were made to take action against Him because He seemed to be innocent and represent truth. It wasn't like the normal insurrection where the person was defiant and rebelling. This seemed to be the case with others and even with Pilate. There was a hesitation and something that caused them to think twice about this man.
As the story says.... however again, we have no reason to believe the story is true. Given the fact it's rife with errors, it's very likely the story is a work of fiction, and a poorly written one at that.
There is evidence and just about all scholars state that there was a man named Jesus who was crucified. But there is plenty of internal and external evidence for Jesus and the Christians.
Virtually all scholars who write on the subject accept that Jesus existed,[7][8][9][10] although scholars differ about the beliefs and teachings of Jesus as well as the accuracy of the accounts of his life, and the only two events subject to "almost universal assent" are that Jesus was baptized by John the Baptist and was crucified by the order of the Roman Prefect Pontius Pilate.[11][12][13][14]
Historical Jesus - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
You've already posted that link, and I've already told you what's wrong with it. Why are you posting it again?
That link is in reference to the field of determining the historicity of Jesus. Basically you're posting that virtually all scholars who believe Jesus exists and want to piece together the details of his life, believe Jesus existed.
It also goes without saying that the vast majority of biblical scholars and biblical historians are Christian, and believe Jesus existed almost by default.
There are a number of fairly high profile scholars who do not share the view that Jesus existed however. Richard Carrier, David M Price, Earl Doherty and David Fitzgerald come to mind off the top of my head, however there are quite a few more out there.
No its in the book of John.
John 38-39.
38Pilate said to Him, "What is truth?" And when he had said this, he went out again to the Jews and said to them, "I find no guilt in Him. 39"But you have a custom that I release someone for you at the Passover; do you wish then that I release for you the King of the Jews?"
It goes onto state that the crowd shouted to crucify Jesus and release Barabbas. But it appears Pilate is the one who makes the suggestion as another attempt to get out of crucifying Jesus. Maybe this was unusual as it wasn't normally done with a crucifixion but I can see why Pilate would have tried to suggest it. The case was probably unusual in that the Jews were coming to pilot to do their dirty work so he is then using their custom because of this. Normally it would have been just the Romans decisions because no one else was involved. This case was more complicated.
You said that Pilate came up with the idea of releasing Jesus or Barabbas, I said that's not biblically supported and your response to me actually demonstrates my point.... Pilate says "you have a custom". If the Jews had a custom that a prisoner be released on passover (which isn't actually historically true in any sense), then Pilate didn't invent the idea.
Likewise, Jesus certainly left the impression with Pilate that he was the king of the Jews, something that if it were real history the Romans would not have looked kindly upon.
I'm talking about who He was. If He was the Son of God then this would have been something that people would have noticed in one way or another. The bible often states that people were either amazed or, baffled or fearful of Him.
And it's not at all possible that the bible is wrong or exaggerating the claims?
Pilate was partly concerned and intrigued I guess. He was trying to get Him released which is unusual for a tuff Governor like him.
If Pilate wanted to have him released, he would not have had a problem doing so.
But there were not many great men like Jesus. This would be on the level of say Heracles or Krishna. Even Gandhi who changed peoples lives and a nation.
You are aware Heracles and Krishna are also fictional beings, right?
They aren't your dime a dozen preachers who come along everyday. So yes Jesus was different and would have standout.
Then why didn't he stand out?
Afterall He has changed the world and has lasted over 2000 years so He had something going for Him. I dont think all those small fry preachers had that sort of impact. I dont think many died for them.
No, actually he didn't change the world. People who follow the religion of Christianity certainly have contributed changes to the world, and not many of the changes that can be tied specifically to Christianity have been all that good.
There is also many recorded examples of people dying for their false messiahs, cult leaders or religions throughout history. Just because Christians supposedly died as well doesn't mean their beliefs are true.
Thats another story but like I said there is plenty. It just depends the way you look at it.
Actually, no.... Evidence is not contingent on how you look at it. Evidence is a fact which points towards one specific conclusion.
But there are also 2nd generation disciples who learnt from the originals who also left writings and it went on.
How do you know they learned from the originals? Do you have a citation somewhere? What were the original writings? What did they have to say?
So we are having to say that maybe dozens of great men were all made up and what they wrote was all made up.
No, we are not having to say that.
Yet they write from 1st hand perspective and have intimate details that they had to have been there or knew someone who had been there. But that is all another topic which could go on as well.
None of the gospel writers were first hand eye witnesses, it's also not proper to justify their claims by saying they have intimate details. We have no idea how credible those details are as well.... Star Wars has many intimate details to its story as well, but that doesn't mean it's true or that George Lucas personally met Darth Vader.
Many of the details however are very wrong given what we know about first century culture in that area of the world. Many of the things written we know are not plausible in the least. Furthermore, many more things written about Jesus we can trace back to earlier mythologies that also existed in the area, which again hurts the credibility of the story.
The only "evidence" we have for a historical Jesus is the gospel narratives. Four texts written anonymously by people who weren't there for the event in question, three of which are plagiarized off the book of Mark to varying degrees, which were edited and added to and are full of errors about any variety of topics. The case really is that weak.
