Sober minded

[Colter]

That's absolutely correct, however again the historical account (even what you have cited) does not line up with the gospel narrative of Pilate. The gospel narrative has him as a weak, ineffectual worrywart that's scared to make a decision.

Rather than make a pronouncement in the gospels, Pilate instead bows down, and "washes his hands" of the whole situation. That is not the type of person reflected in Josephus or Philo's writings. In those writings, he has no problems sending innocent people off to die. If Jesus was put forward as a threat to the Romans, the real Pilate would have had no problems killing him just to be safe.

Of course, that's leaving out the absurd crowd aspect of the story. This is the same crowd that days earlier hailed him as the messiah, the king of the Jews, witnessed miracles first-hand, and partied in the streets when he arrived.

This is the same crowd that the Jewish High Council had to avoid in fear of angering them when they supposedly arrested him the night before and committed a historically ridiculous illegal trial by night.

Yet, even though the high council feared the mob the night before, now the mob would rather have Jesus put to death over a nefarious murderer and rebel? And for that matter, if Barabbas was indeed a rebel with Roman blood on his hands as the gospels say, then Pilate would never have allowed him to be released.

That of course is leaving out the fact that no such tradition to release a prisoner on passover ever happened, either in Jewish culture or Roman law. The whole thing is made up.

When you break the story down and look at it objectively, it's absurd.

* One problem I see in your argument is the assumption that all "crowds" in Jerusalem were the same, that everyone other than the Sanhedrin & Pharisee's just loved Jesus. To the contrary, plenty of common people rejected his message and hated him. "They hated him without a cause." They tried to discredit him then, just like you are trying to discredit him now.

* The other glaring problem in the arguments of debunkers is that the presence of so many of these apparent abnormalities in standard Roman and Jewish practice is more of an indication that the authors are being true to facts rather than perpetuating a fraud. They would have told a story that was more, not less, believable.

 

[Dave Ellis]

* One problem I see in your argument is the assumption that all "crowds" in Jerusalem were the same, that everyone other than the Sanhedrin & Pharisee's just loved Jesus. To the contrary, plenty of common people rejected his message and hated him. "They hated him without a cause." They tried to discredit him then, just like you are trying to discredit him now.

The gospels say the entire city turned out to welcome Jesus, furthermore the reason why the high council supposedly had to arrest him and hold a secret trial at night was to avoid angering the Jewish mob.

If Jesus level of support was so high that the high council had to go behind everyone's backs, then it's not reasonable to believe the mob wouldn't be solidly behind Jesus instead of Barabbas.

What many secular scholars believe is that Mark was creating a fictional allegory to the day of atonement ritual at Yom Kippur. Basically the ritual involves two goats, one is released unharmed into the wilderness to carry the sins away, while the other goat is killed as a blood sacrifice to atone for those sins.

Barabbas translated into English is "Son of the father", and some early manuscripts even called him by the name of Jesus Barabbas. So what we essentially have are two sons of the fathers, one released unharmed, and one sacrificed to atone for sins. The parallel is unmistakable, however it's an entirely fictional story.

* The other glaring problem in the arguments of debunkers is that the presence of so many of these apparent abnormalities in standard Roman and Jewish practice is more of an indication that the authors are being true to facts rather than perpetuating a fraud. They would have told a story that was more, not less, believable.

Or, the authors had no idea what they were talking about, which becomes apparent when factoring in the various mistakes that they made in the gospels.

 

[Colter]

The gospels say the entire city turned out to welcome Jesus, furthermore the reason why the high council supposedly had to arrest him and hold a secret trial at night was to avoid angering the Jewish mob.

If Jesus level of support was so high that the high council had to go behind everyone's backs, then it's not reasonable to believe the mob wouldn't be solidly behind Jesus instead of Barabbas.

What many secular scholars believe is that Mark was creating a fictional allegory to the day of atonement ritual at Yom Kippur. Basically the ritual involves two goats, one is released unharmed into the wilderness to carry the sins away, while the other goat is killed as a blood sacrifice to atone for those sins.

Barabbas translated into English is "Son of the father", and some early manuscripts even called him by the name of Jesus Barabbas. So what we essentially have are two sons of the fathers, one released unharmed, and one sacrificed to atone for sins. The parallel is unmistakable, however it's an entirely fictional story.



Or, the authors had no idea what they were talking about, which becomes apparent when factoring in the various mistakes that they made in the gospels.

The people who showed up for Barabbas (which may have included Sanhedrin spies and agitators) voted for Barabbas obviously.

One can find many familiar themes from Judaism as well as the Pagan religions because Jesus patterned his entire life around ideas that were familiar to the people to whom the torch was eventually passed as it was a foregone conclusion that Jesus' message would be rejected. Even the 3 Magicians story was already part of another tradition. Subsequently the mesangers of the gospel carried a message that was more acceptable to the West.

 

[Dave Ellis]

The people who showed up for Barabbas (which may have included Sanhedrin spies and agitators) voted for Barabbas obviously.

You're seriously trying to argue the handful of people that could have been drummed up to vote for Barabbas outweighed basically the entire population of the city of Jerusalem?

The city came out to celebrate and welcomed him with open arms just a few days before. Less than 12 hours before the Sanhedrin had him arrested and staged an illegal trial at night explicitly to avoid infuriating the general populace of the city.... and you're seriously trying to argue that a figure that beloved couldn't find any more support than a known murderer when his life was on the line?

This of course totally ignoring that no such "prisoner release" custom ever happened either in Jewish or Roman culture at all and appears completely fabricated?

I mean seriously, this doesn't bring up at least a little cognitive dissonance for you?

One can find many familiar themes from Judaism as well as the Pagan religions because Jesus patterned his entire life around ideas that were familiar to the people to whom the torch was eventually passed as it was a foregone conclusion that Jesus' message would be rejected. Even the 3 Magicians story was already part of another tradition. Subsequently the mesangers of the gospel carried a message that was more acceptable to the West.

That's nonsense, we're not talking about how Jesus lived his life, we're talking about how Mark constructed a story. It's a clear allegory to the Jewish Day of Atonement ritual, with Jesus playing the part of the sacrifice, and Barabbas playing the part of the scapegoat.

It's an obvious parallel, there's no denying it. In fact you're not even denying it here.

 

[Colter]

You're seriously trying to argue the handful of people that could have been drummed up to vote for Barabbas outweighed basically the entire population of the city of Jerusalem?

The city came out to celebrate and welcomed him with open arms just a few days before. Less than 12 hours before the Sanhedrin had him arrested and staged an illegal trial at night explicitly to avoid infuriating the general populace of the city.... and you're seriously trying to argue that a figure that beloved couldn't find any more support than a known murderer when his life was on the line?

This of course totally ignoring that no such "prisoner release" custom ever happened either in Jewish or Roman culture at all and appears completely fabricated?

I mean seriously, this doesn't bring up at least a little cognitive dissonance for you?



That's nonsense, we're not talking about how Jesus lived his life, we're talking about how Mark constructed a story. It's a clear allegory to the Jewish Day of Atonement ritual, with Jesus playing the part of the sacrifice, and Barabbas playing the part of the scapegoat.

It's an obvious parallel, there's no denying it. In fact you're not even denying it here.

* The foundation of your argument is based on a narrative that you yourself are arguing is flawed. You choose to elevate "the entire city came out" as factual to argue that only a handful of people could have chosen Barabbas in order to prove that the other parts of the narrative are fabrications. <----- and you want me to take you seriously as an honest broker?

Even today when we call an election "a landslide" that might mean 60%-40% of the vote in a nation where roughly 40% of the population even care to vote. Obama verses Romney, loved/hated.

I question the contention that a carpenter who had called himself equal to God and by practice flouted the traditions and religious pride of the Jews would be, or could ever be, a populist among ALL the Jews. Rather I take Luke as simply reporting that many of those who did support Jesus greeted him enthusiastically as he strode into Jerusalem on an donkey. I never have entertained the belief that the entire city welcomed a thorn in the side of Judaism.

"There really was no deep significance to be attached to this superficial and spontaneous outburst of popular enthusiasm. This welcome, although it was joyous and sincere, did not betoken any real or deep-seated conviction in the hearts of this festive multitude. These same crowds were equally as willing quickly to reject Jesus later on this week when the Sanhedrin once took a firm and decided stand against him, and when they became disillusioned &#8212; when they realized that Jesus was not going to establish the kingdom in accordance with their long-cherished expectations.

But the whole city was mightily stirred up, insomuch that everyone asked, &#8220;Who is this man?&#8221; And the multitude answered, &#8220;This is the prophet of Galilee, Jesus of Nazareth.&#8221; UB 1955

Paper 172 - Going into Jerusalem | Urantia Book | Urantia Foundation
​

 

[Smidlee]

That's absolutely correct, however again the historical account (even what you have cited) does not line up with the gospel narrative of Pilate. The gospel narrative has him as a weak, ineffectual worrywart that's scared to make a decision.

Rather than make a pronouncement in the gospels, Pilate instead bows down, and "washes his hands" of the whole situation. That is not the type of person reflected in Josephus or Philo's writings. In those writings, he has no problems sending innocent people off to die. If Jesus was put forward as a threat to the Romans, the real Pilate would have had no problems killing him just to be safe.

.

Unless like written in the gospels Pilate smelled a rat. Jesus wasn't not an ordinary person. He is a mean person yet he realizes the Jews was trying to get him to do their dirty work for them.
Thus Pilate had no trouble putting Jesus to death but that doesn't mean he liked the Jews trying to force his hand.

 

[Dave Ellis]

* The foundation of your argument is based on a narrative that you yourself are arguing is flawed. You choose to elevate "the entire city came out" as factual to argue that only a handful of people could have chosen Barabbas in order to prove that the other parts of the narrative are fabrications. <----- and you want me to take you seriously as an honest broker?

I'm not sure what point you are even trying to prove.

My argument is that the story is not real, and one of the reasons why I make that argument is because of logical inconsistencies or unbelievable claims made within the story.

Citing one of the extremely questionable elements of the story doesn't give you any reason to doubt my honesty or sincerity.

The point is, how is it believable that the same man who was widely beloved and welcomed into the city amid widespread celebrations (as the gospel narrative says), and who the sanhedrin felt they couldn't openly arrest for fear of the reaction of the populace a mere 12 hours before all of a sudden turn on their beloved hero in favour of a criminal with no reason and condemn him to death?

It's simply not believable, and that is one reason of many why I don't think the gospels as a whole are believable.

Even today when we call an election "a landslide" that might mean 60%-40% of the vote in a nation where roughly 40% of the population even care to vote. Obama verses Romney, loved/hated.

What does that say about your messiah if he has trouble defeating a common criminal in a popularity contest?

Even if the vote was 60/40 in favour of Jesus, what does that say about him? Both you and I would poll way better than that, and Jesus can't?

I'd stop to think about the arguments you are putting forward... If the whole story were actually true and the people who witnessed him firsthand decided to take a murderer instead, that's not exactly helping your credibility along.

I question the contention that a carpenter who had called himself equal to God and by practice flouted the traditions and religious pride of the Jews would be, or could ever be, a populist among ALL the Jews.

Then he mustn't have been very convincing.

Rather I take Luke as simply reporting that many of those who did support Jesus greeted him enthusiastically as he strode into Jerusalem on an donkey. I never have entertained the belief that the entire city welcomed a thorn in the side of Judaism.

"There really was no deep significance to be attached to this superficial and spontaneous outburst of popular enthusiasm. This welcome, although it was joyous and sincere, did not betoken any real or deep-seated conviction in the hearts of this festive multitude. These same crowds were equally as willing quickly to reject Jesus later on this week when the Sanhedrin once took a firm and decided stand against him, and when they became disillusioned — when they realized that Jesus was not going to establish the kingdom in accordance with their long-cherished expectations.

But the whole city was mightily stirred up, insomuch that everyone asked, “Who is this man?” And the multitude answered, “This is the prophet of Galilee, Jesus of Nazareth.” UB 1955

Paper 172 - Going into Jerusalem | Urantia Book | Urantia Foundation
​

That still doesn't address the problem, we're talking about the Sanhedrin being fearful of the mob, and then 12 hours later the mob is solidly behind the Sanhedrin, despite the Sanhedrin not only clearly sacred and long held Jewish laws, but by cooperating with and turning prisoners over to the hated Romans.

It's just not plausible.

 

[Dave Ellis]

Unless like written in the gospels Pilate smelled a rat. Jesus wasn't not an ordinary person. He is a mean person yet he realizes the Jews was trying to get him to do their dirty work for them.

Thus Pilate had no trouble putting Jesus to death but that doesn't mean he liked the Jews trying to force his hand.

Except Pilate did reportedly have trouble putting him to death, he waffled back and forth unable to make a decision before giving up and "washing his hands" of the situation.

Your argument doesn't accurately reflect even the gospel narratives.

 

[Smidlee]

Except Pilate did reportedly have trouble putting him to death, he waffled back and forth unable to make a decision before giving up and "washing his hands" of the situation.

Your argument doesn't accurately reflect even the gospel narratives.

You don't seem to read the same gospels I've read. Jesus himself was what troubled Pilate. Pilate "washing his hands" was the same as writing on the cross "The King of The Jews."

 

[stevevw]

I'm not sure what point you are even trying to prove.

My argument is that the story is not real, and one of the reasons why I make that argument is because of logical inconsistencies or unbelievable claims made within the story.

Citing one of the extremely questionable elements of the story doesn't give you any reason to doubt my honesty or sincerity.

The point is, how is it believable that the same man who was widely beloved and welcomed into the city amid widespread celebrations (as the gospel narrative says), and who the sanhedrin felt they couldn't openly arrest for fear of the reaction of the populace a mere 12 hours before all of a sudden turn on their beloved hero in favour of a criminal with no reason and condemn him to death?

It's simply not believable, and that is one reason of many why I don't think the gospels as a whole are believable.

Many of the people that we hailing Jesus riding into Jerusalem were pilgrims who believed Jesus was the coming King who was going to free them from the oppressive Romans. Jesus wasn't about this and they didn't understand. The followers had this expectation that Jesus was going to confront Caesar with some sort of Military uprising Just like the great men of the old testament like King David. But this didn't happen and in fact Jesus was saying give unto Caesar what is Caesars. He was driving them out of the Temple court yard for having a market and doing and saying things that weren't inline with their expectations.

The locals and especially the Jewish high priests were different from the crowds that had first greeted Jesus. They didnt like him and many of the locals didnt know who Jesus was and were asking who is this man. So by the time Jesus was arrested the tide had changed. Instead of Jesus coming as a mighty king to stand up to the Romans he was acting strange and talking about the Temple being destroyed like they were the ones being defeated. Of course what Jesus was talking about went over their heads. He was talking about how He was coming to establish Gods Kingdom which was a much bigger and different picture to the one they were thinking.

So possibly much of the original people who were supporting Jesus were by then deterred and were not even among the crowd that were calling for the crucifixion of Jesus. But even some who did follow were probably disappointed and seem that this man was a let down and dashed their hopes and turned against Him. They could have even thought He was a trouble maker by saying what they thought was the opposite of what they wanted with the tearing down of the their Temple. When Jesus was arrested and was subduing to the Romans this would have been a sign that there was no uprising so anyone standing up for Jesus would have also been arrested and many probably just kept quite.

Even Peter who was a close friend of Jesus had denied Him when he was identified as an associate. So the Romans must have been intimidating and people were scared. So its easy to see that some were turned against him, or denied Jesus or just kept quite. This left the locals and a smaller group who once supported Jesus to call for his crucifixion.

 

[Dave Ellis]

You don't seem to read the same gospels I've read. Jesus himself was what troubled Pilate. Pilate "washing his hands" was the same as writing on the cross "The King of The Jews."

Apparently not, I've read the ones in the Bible.... which ones did you read?

 

[Dave Ellis]

Many of the people that we hailing Jesus riding into Jerusalem were pilgrims who believed Jesus was the coming King who was going to free them from the oppressive Romans. Jesus wasn't about this and they didn't understand. The followers had this expectation that Jesus was going to confront Caesar with some sort of Military uprising Just like the great men of the old testament like King David. But this didn't happen and in fact Jesus was saying give unto Caesar what is Caesars. He was driving them out of the Temple court yard for having a market and doing and saying things that weren't inline with their expectations.

The locals and especially the Jewish high priests were different from the crowds that had first greeted Jesus. They didnt like him and many of the locals didnt know who Jesus was and were asking who is this man. So by the time Jesus was arrested the tide had changed. Instead of Jesus coming as a mighty king to stand up to the Romans he was acting strange and talking about the Temple being destroyed like they were the ones being defeated. Of course what Jesus was talking about went over their heads. He was talking about how He was coming to establish Gods Kingdom which was a much bigger and different picture to the one they were thinking.

So possibly much of the original people who were supporting Jesus were by then deterred and were not even among the crowd that were calling for the crucifixion of Jesus. But even some who did follow were probably disappointed and seem that this man was a let down and dashed their hopes and turned against Him. They could have even thought He was a trouble maker by saying what they thought was the opposite of what they wanted with the tearing down of the their Temple. When Jesus was arrested and was subduing to the Romans this would have been a sign that there was no uprising so anyone standing up for Jesus would have also been arrested and many probably just kept quite.

Even Peter who was a close friend of Jesus had denied Him when he was identified as an associate. So the Romans must have been intimidating and people were scared. So its easy to see that some were turned against him, or denied Jesus or just kept quite. This left the locals and a smaller group who once supported Jesus to call for his crucifixion.

You seem eager to ignore the fact that we're talking about a 12 hour time span here, most of which his followers would have been asleep for since it was overnight.

They were not privy to what was going on inside Pilate's courtroom, so you can't use that excuse either. Jesus's followers would have woken up in the morning, found out he'd been arrested, and boogie on down to where the trial was going on. There simply wouldn't have been time for much more info to come out, and certainly not enough time to turn everyone's opinion from pro-Jesus to calling for his head.

The gospels also report he was well known in the area because of his widespread preaching. Were they lying in that regard and he really wasn't well known at all?

 

[stevevw]

You seem eager to ignore the fact that we're talking about a 12 hour time span here, most of which his followers would have been asleep for since it was overnight.

They were not privy to what was going on inside Pilate's courtroom, so you can't use that excuse either. Jesus's followers would have woken up in the morning, found out he'd been arrested, and boogie on down to where the trial was going on. There simply wouldn't have been time for much more info to come out, and certainly not enough time to turn everyone's opinion from pro-Jesus to calling for his head.

The gospels also report he was well known in the area because of his widespread preaching. Were they lying in that regard and he really wasn't well known at all?

As far as I understand it Jesus rode into Jerusalem on Palm Sunday and was arrested the following Thursday. He was crucified on the Good Friday and rose again from the dead on the following Easter Sunday from when He first rode into the city.

In that week Jesus had to deal with the money exchangers, preach in the temple, do His other sermons and dealing with the Pharisees, have the last supper and have the plot with Judas set in motion with the Jewish high priests. You also have to remember that the followers of Jesus would not have really known about what was going on behind the scenes with the Jewish leaders until He was arrested on the Thursday and then brought to trial and paraded in front of the crowd. So this was more than 12 hours.If it was then Jesus was certainly a busy man to fit all that in. But if He wasn't Crucified until good Friday that is still 5 days after Palm Sunday. So given that He was crucified quickly after the trial there would have been a sufficient amount of time.

Also remember that the expectations of the followers was for an uprising its easy to see how things could changed quickly. One moment they are hyped up for an uprising the next its like their leader and supposed King is saying to tear down their own temple and is a weakling in their eyes who is being so submissive. They would have quickly changed tact and pretended they had nothing to do with it against a mighty Roman army. Pete had gone from best mate to denying Jesus in a matter of a day when things got scarey when Jesus was arrested. They say a week is a long time in politics.

 

[Dave Ellis]

As far as I understand it Jesus rode into Jerusalem on Palm Sunday and was arrested the following Thursday. He was crucified on the Good Friday and rose again from the dead on the following Easter Sunday from when He first rode into the city.

In that week Jesus had to deal with the money exchangers, preach in the temple, do His other sermons and dealing with the Pharisees, have the last supper and have the plot with Judas set in motion with the Jewish high priests. You also have to remember that the followers of Jesus would not have really known about what was going on behind the scenes with the Jewish leaders until He was arrested on the Thursday and then brought to trial and paraded in front of the crowd. So this was more than 12 hours.If it was then Jesus was certainly a busy man to fit all that in. But if He wasn't Crucified until good Friday that is still 5 days after Palm Sunday. So given that He was crucified quickly after the trial there would have been a sufficient amount of time.

Also remember that the expectations of the followers was for an uprising its easy to see how things could changed quickly. One moment they are hyped up for an uprising the next its like their leader and supposed King is saying to tear down their own temple and is a weakling in their eyes who is being so submissive. They would have quickly changed tact and pretended they had nothing to do with it against a mighty Roman army. Pete had gone from best mate to denying Jesus in a matter of a day when things got scarey when Jesus was arrested. They say a week is a long time in politics.

Read my argument again.

I said the Sanhedrin had to arrest him and put him to trial illegally overnight because they were scared of what the mob would do if they arrested him in the open.

In the story, we're talking from the time the Sanhedrin arrested and tried him by night, then taking him to Pilate in the morning to be condemned. We are talking about a roughly 12 hour window here.

The night before, the Sanhedrin can't arrest him in the open because they know the general populace won't stand for it, yet the following morning the general populace is calling for his head.

It does not make sense.

 

[stevevw]

Read my argument again.

I said the Sanhedrin had to arrest him and put him to trial illegally overnight because they were scared of what the mob would do if they arrested him in the open.

In the story, we're talking from the time the Sanhedrin arrested and tried him by night, then taking him to Pilate in the morning to be condemned. We are talking about a roughly 12 hour window here.

The night before, the Sanhedrin can't arrest him in the open because they know the general populace won't stand for it, yet the following morning the general populace is calling for his head.

It does not make sense.

Well the same still applies. We dont know if the Jewish High priests were wanting to arrest Jesus at night because they were concerned about crowd unrest maybe they were. But they had tried to arrest Jesus on several occasions before this. Once in daylight and at the temple where Jesus was preaching. But the Roman soldiers couldn't as they were amazed at the talk of Jesus and returned to say they had never heard someone like Jesus talk the way He did. Even when they did arrest Him the soldiers fell back when Jesus spoke as they were fearful of Him. But being the Roman army I dont think they would have been worried about the people rising up. I just think they were being sneaky about it anyway as they knew Jesus had done nothing wrong and didn't want to make a scene out of it. They also held a trial at night which was illegal and highly irregular.

Even so as I had said before people can change so quick. When their hero was suppose to lead them against the Romans is suddenly a beaten man standing before them I am sure they didn't want to stir any trouble. They knew they were on a hiding to nothing. Plus maybe they genuinely thought they may have got Him wrong. Doubt is a funny thing and even when you feel convinced about something it can be undermined quickly and easily. It would have been different if Jesus was standing up there defiant and stirring everyone up. But He was passive and going along with them like He was a defeated man. This can easily place any followers on shaky ground quickly.

The other thing to consider is that the Jewish high priests with their followers and probably many other Jews who believe what the Jews were saying that Jesus was just a trouble maker were also in the crowd. The high priest had been planning this for a while and were not going to fall at the last hurdle. They may have even knew that this was going to happen and prepared. The bible does say that they had setup false witnesses to accuse Jesus so they were working away at framing Him and creating a case. So they would have whipped up support real quick.

Mark and Matthews accounts do mention them going in among the crowd and stirring them up to crucify Jesus. So having these intimidating figures among you who had so much power as to arrest their leader would have been hard to avoid. It can start with a smaller group of people who didn't like Jesus and then be whipped into an anti Jesus crowd easily. They have done test with crowds and found that people can be easily swayed by the crowd mentality.

"The chief priests and the elders persuaded the crowd to ask Pilate to set Barabbas free and have Jesus put to death" (Matthew 27:20).

"The chief priests stirred up the crowd to ask that Pilate set Barabbas free for them. Pilate spoke again to the crowd, "What, then, do you want me to do with the one you call the king of the Jews?" They shouted back, "Crucify him!" "But what crime has he committed?" Pilate asked. They shouted all the louder, "Crucify him!" (Mark 15:11-14).

 

[PsychoSarah]

Ah, I see, I disagree with your view because it doesn't line up with historical records, and for that I have an "agenda to discredit Jesus". That's known as an Ad Hominem Fallacy.

The bottom line is the gospel narrative is utterly absurd when compared to historical record, and common sense. If Pilate really was as he's described in the bible, he'd never have even got the job of governor of Judea. If he somehow managed to get it, he'd have quickly been recalled. A governor tasked with keeping order couldn't possibly survive being pushed around by the locals.

Yeah, one of the things about the bible that is really flawed and makes it obvious that it is purely seen through the cultural lens of its authors is how it describes other cultural groups, and the various mistakes it makes. Egyptian culture is especially butchered. In fact, I would say there is a direct correlation between how much the authors of the bible liked a group and how accurately they managed to describe them.

 

[Dave Ellis]

Well the same still applies. We dont know if the Jewish High priests were wanting to arrest Jesus at night because they were concerned about crowd unrest maybe they were. But they had tried to arrest Jesus on several occasions before this. Once in daylight and at the temple where Jesus was preaching. But the Roman soldiers couldn't as they were amazed at the talk of Jesus and returned to say they had never heard someone like Jesus talk the way He did. Even when they did arrest Him the soldiers fell back when Jesus spoke as they were fearful of Him. But being the Roman army I dont think they would have been worried about the people rising up. I just think they were being sneaky about it anyway as they knew Jesus had done nothing wrong and didn't want to make a scene out of it. They also held a trial at night which was illegal and highly irregular.

The gospels plainly stated that they wanted to arrest him when no crowd was present. Prior to the arrest, it talks endlessly about is how the people are amazed at his teachings. Combine that with the fact they felt they had to have an illegal overnight trial when everyone was asleep, and it's not hard to infer that they would have had serious problems arresting and trying him when the general populace of the city would know what is going on.

Even so as I had said before people can change so quick. When their hero was suppose to lead them against the Romans is suddenly a beaten man standing before them I am sure they didn't want to stir any trouble. They knew they were on a hiding to nothing. Plus maybe they genuinely thought they may have got Him wrong. Doubt is a funny thing and even when you feel convinced about something it can be undermined quickly and easily. It would have been different if Jesus was standing up there defiant and stirring everyone up. But He was passive and going along with them like He was a defeated man. This can easily place any followers on shaky ground quickly.

What you're describing however is akin to Obama deciding to arrest and convict the leaders of the Republican Party overnight when everyone's asleep, and when they wake up in the morning the general population of the red states are fully supportive.

It's ridiculous.

In the story Jesus had supposedly amazed everyone all week with his teachings, and the morning after the high priests illegally arrest and try him, the people have no problems at all with the high priests illegal acts, and prefer a murderer over Jesus?

We're not talking about people who flip flop on political views. We're talking about the general populace of a city who has first hand experience with supposedly the greatest teacher of all time, and they decide to abandon him almost instantly in favour of lawbreaking high priests and the hated Romans? Give me a break.

The other thing to consider is that the Jewish high priests with their followers and probably many other Jews who believe what the Jews were saying that Jesus was just a trouble maker were also in the crowd. The high priest had been planning this for a while and were not going to fall at the last hurdle. They may have even knew that this was going to happen and prepared. The bible does say that they had setup false witnesses to accuse Jesus so they were working away at framing Him and creating a case. So they would have whipped up support real quick.

Mark and Matthews accounts do mention them going in among the crowd and stirring them up to crucify Jesus. So having these intimidating figures among you who had so much power as to arrest their leader would have been hard to avoid. It can start with a smaller group of people who didn't like Jesus and then be whipped into an anti Jesus crowd easily. They have done test with crowds and found that people can be easily swayed by the crowd mentality.

"The chief priests and the elders persuaded the crowd to ask Pilate to set Barabbas free and have Jesus put to death" (Matthew 27:20).

"The chief priests stirred up the crowd to ask that Pilate set Barabbas free for them. Pilate spoke again to the crowd, "What, then, do you want me to do with the one you call the king of the Jews?" They shouted back, "Crucify him!" "But what crime has he committed?" Pilate asked. They shouted all the louder, "Crucify him!" (Mark 15:11-14).

So the crowd they were so worried about the night before could be swayed with some simple spirited cheerleading? Again, not believable.

The story is written to make the high priests appear as cartoon villains. In the real world the populace would not have looked well at the Sanhedrin working with the Romans to convict one of their own.

Furthermore, it was the Jewish High Priests that convicted him, not the Romans. With that being the case, Jesus would have been stoned to death (in line with Jewish Law), and not crucified. This is another glaring error in the gospels.

 

[stevevw]

double post

 

[stevevw]

had to edit but button not working properly

 

[stevevw]

The gospels plainly stated that they wanted to arrest him when no crowd was present. Prior to the arrest, it talks endlessly about is how the people are amazed at his teachings. Combine that with the fact they felt they had to have an illegal overnight trial when everyone was asleep, and it's not hard to infer that they would have had serious problems arresting and trying him when the general populace of the city would know what is going on.

The point is the city of Jerusalem swelled from 35,000 locals to about 300,000 people with all the pilgrims visiting the city for passover. Most of the people who came and knew of Jesus were the pilgrims. The bible states that many people in the city didn't know who Jesus was as they asked who was this man that some were following Him.

So when Pilot had Jesus in the court yard it may have only held around 500 people which would have been about.2% of the people in the city at that time. Those who were involved were the locals as the trial was in their town. The High priests had been planning this and had false witnesses. So they more than likely would have had some plants or forced some to call for His death. Then it was easy to get a smaller crowd to call for the crucifixion of Jesus. No one was going to oppose the high priests or the Romans for different reasons.

People knew from past experience what the Romans had done to anyone who trued to stand up to them. There had been a couple of past occasions where the Romans had crucified and displayed Jews in the streets for uprisings. This was done to intimidate anyone who had ideas of challenging the Romans. So they would have been scared to do anything. Once Jesus was beaten and mocked as a pretend King it was the end. Even Peter was scared to be associated with Jesus. So if a close friend was doing this imagine anyone who was just an associate.

What you're describing however is akin to Obama deciding to arrest and convict the leaders of the Republican Party overnight when everyone's asleep, and when they wake up in the morning the general population of the red states are fully supportive.

If you consider that it was done in secret then it would have been easy. Like I said it may have been that most didn't know of what was happening until Jesus was carrying the cross to His crucifixion. It happened fast and it happened in secret. It happened in secret because they didn't want people to know. The bible does say that when some of the people heard and found out what was happening to Jesus they were upset and beating their chests. So it seems they were caught be surprise a bit. At that point It would have been confusion for many. Some wanting Him dead and others crying and sad for Him. They were not going to stand up to the Romans at this stage and would have been in shock.

There have been past examples of the same thing happening in the past. One was the example of Jeremiah [FONT=&quot]Jer 7:8-14 [/FONT]many years earlier and one was 30 years after Jesus and it is recorded by Josephus. Anyone who threatened the High priests and the Temple were in trouble. Anyone who was accused of treason or challenging the Romans would be flogged or Crucified.

In the story Jesus had supposedly amazed everyone all week with his teachings, and the morning after the high priests illegally arrest and try him, the people have no problems at all with the high priests illegal acts, and prefer a murderer over Jesus?

There were many who followed Jesus to the city. Jesus was popular. But some things had changed for some. Jesus was suppose to be a King who was going to destroy the Romans for them. Instead He was threatening to pull down their Temple. This was the culmination of what was going to happen to Jesus. People just didn't understand. Some may have begin to question Him as to what He really represented. Maybe they even thought He was mad. But there would have been many who still believed in Him and supported Him.

But His trial was done in secret and quickly and they had not been fully aware. Like I said there would have been only a smaller group involved in the decision to crucify Jesus. We dont know who was in the crowd. It would have been most likely locals who didn't really know Him. Chances are there were very few supporters. The Jews knew what they were doing and were not going to be deterred. They were going to get their way no matter what.

We're not talking about people who flip flop on political views. We're talking about the general populace of a city who has first hand experience with supposedly the greatest teacher of all time, and they decide to abandon him almost instantly in favour of lawbreaking high priests and the hated Romans? Give me a break.

Jesus was not in the city beforehand. The bible says that the people of the city didn't know who He was. It was the visitors who mostly knew of Him. They had come for the places where Jesus was doing His teaching.
Matthew 21:10
10 And when he was come into Jerusalem, all the city was moved, saying, Who is this?

The story is written to make the high priests appear as cartoon villains. In the real world the populace would not have looked well at the Sanhedrin working with the Romans to convict one of their own.

There may have been some views from the writers that could have painted the Jews or Pilot in a different light. But I dont think that changes the truth of the story. this just shows that humans see things from their own perspective. But even so I dont think this was the case and people read between the lines things in it that may not be there. The Sanhedrin didn't have a case to kill Jesus but they wanted Him dead. Yet they had decided He must die even before a trial. They just wanted Him gone. But they knew they would be in trouble if they killed Jesus with those who followed Him. They had to get the Romans (Pilot) to do the dirty work.

Thats why the charges changed from blasphemy to treason. Treason was one of the only crimes to be sentenced by Crucifixion. But Pilot also knew that this was no ordinary case. Both didn't really want to be held responsible. But the High priests kept the pressure on until pilot went along. But pilot also was thinking that it was the Jews responsibility. Thats why he said why dont you lot crucify Jesus. So there was a bit of mocking involved.

But because Jesus was Jesus and it was no ordinary insurrection where the person would be fighting and attacking he was intrigued. Also his wife had warned him about not having anything to do with Jesus through a dream she had so Pilot was a bit spooked. But in the end Pilot not agreeing was causing more trouble and this was something he was trying to keep under control. So thats why he more or less went along but washed his hands of the whole thing.

Furthermore, it was the Jewish High Priests that convicted him, not the Romans. With that being the case, Jesus would have been stoned to death (in line with Jewish Law), and not crucified. This is another glaring error in the gospels.

No the high priest were worried about doing this in the first place. As you have acknowledged that they did all their dirty work in secret. If they did that then they would have had trouble from Jesus' followers. They knew if it was connected with the Romans for treason then it was disassociated from them. Thats why the charges became treason. They said that Jesus was inciting trouble and had been for some time. He threatened to destroy the Temple and start an uprising. So the one penalty for this was crucifixion.

There is a good commentary of all the different perspectives on a number of different reasons and angles on this link. It goes into the history of why each would have seen things the way they did. It shows all the possible motives of each person and party. It shows some historic similarities from Josephus and other historians. It even has some things written about the events surrounding this by Josephus as well.

Here are some supporting bible verses and writings on the events.

In relation to the people finding out about what had happened to Jesus which shows they were caught by surprise a bit.
Luke 23:48
[FONT=&quot]When all the people who had gathered to witness this sight saw what took place, they beat their breasts and went away.

[/FONT] With Jesus in hand and a guilty verdict in place, there is only one more hurdle to Jesus' removal. The leadership needs the Roman government's support. A plan that has long been in the works now requires a deft political touch (6:11; 11:53-54). A death penalty could not be executed unless Rome issued it (Josephus Jewish Wars 2.8.1 117; Jn 18:31).

Summing Up One Jewish Perspective

[FONT=&quot]* Only a tiny percentage of Jews in [/FONT][FONT=&quot]Jerusalem[/FONT][FONT=&quot] were actually involved in the effort to persuade Pilate to execute Jesus. [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]* “A great number” of those in [/FONT][FONT=&quot]Jerusalem[/FONT][FONT=&quot] at the time of Jesus’ death were horrified by what had happened to him (Luke [/FONT][FONT=&quot]23:27[/FONT][FONT=&quot]). [/FONT][FONT=&quot]27 And there followed him a great company of people, and of women, which also bewailed and lamented him. Thus, if anything, the numerically dominant Jewish perspective would have supported Jesus. But those who held power in [/FONT][FONT=&quot]Jerusalem[/FONT][FONT=&quot] we able to do what the masses would not have wanted.[/FONT]
* By stirring up the people, Jesus was threatening the peace and life of the Jewish people, thus increasing the likelihood that Rome would destroy both Jerusalem and the temple. The death of Jesus would be preferable to the destruction of the nation.
* Jesus “seduced Israel and led them astray from God” (Babylonian Talmud, Sanhedrin 43a). His message and ministry lessened the people’s commitment to living out their Judaism in the way approved of by the Jewish leaders (priests, Pharisees).
* [FONT=&quot]The efforts of Jewish leaders to silence Jesus by physical violence were consistent with what other Jewish leaders did in similar situations (vs. the prophet Jeremiah in Jer 26 and vs. Jesus ben Hananiah in Josephus, Jewish [/FONT][FONT=&quot]War, 6.5.3).
*[/FONT][FONT=&quot] [/FONT][FONT=&quot]Jesus presented himself as the Messiah, the one anointed by God to bring divine salvation to [/FONT][FONT=&quot]Israel[/FONT][FONT=&quot]. But he failed to do what the Messiah was supposed to do, notably, lead a successful revolt against [/FONT][FONT=&quot]Rome[/FONT][FONT=&quot]. Instead, Jesus turned his judgment against God’s own temple. Thus Jesus was a false messiah.[/FONT]
* [FONT=&quot]Jesus interrupted the orderly system of sacrifices in the [/FONT][FONT=&quot]Jerusalem[/FONT][FONT=&quot] temple, speaking against the temple and its leaders, thus opposing not only the core of Judaism, but God himself.[/FONT]


From a Roman perspective, why did Jesus have to die?
• Because he disturbed Roman order.
• Because he spoke seditiously of a coming kingdom other than that of Caesar.
• Because he allowed himself to be called “King of the Jews.”
• Because he made a nuisance of himself at the wrong time (Passover), in the wrong
place (Jerusalem), in the presence of the wrong people (Pilate and the temple
leadership under his command).
• Because his crucifixion would be a powerful deterrent that might keep other Jews from
following in his footsteps.

Why Did Jesus Have to Die?