Sober minded

[Dave Ellis]

[FONT=&quot]I think Jesus was quite measured. If you consider He was more forthright with the Pharisees which still wasn't defiant but just being truthful. That’s all I think He was doing. He certainly didn't come across as defiant and being antagonistic if that’s what you’re trying to insinuate.

[FONT=&quot]I didn't mean to say Jesus was ripping Pilate a new one, however [FONT=&quot]that doe[FONT=&quot]sn't mean he wasn't lecturing him, nor defying [FONT=&quot]roman [FONT=&quot]authority. If you claim you're a heavenly king, you're not exactly [FONT=&quot]showing respect for [FONT=&quot]Roman authority.

By th[FONT=&quot]e [FONT=&quot]way, who was there to record what was said in Pilate's chambers? The book of M[FONT=&quot]ark (and some would also say prophecy[FONT=&quot] about th[FONT=&quot]e messiah[/FONT])[/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT] said he'd utter no words at his trial.

[FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot]So, what's right? Is the book of Mark correct and he said nothing, or is John right and he had a spirited back and forth, and who recorded the exchange?[/FONT][/FONT]
[/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT]

How do you know this. There is support for the Jews practicing ceremony cleaning for all sorts of things. For the Passover this may have been to do with entering a pagan or gentiles house.
ἵνα μὴ μιανθῶσιν, ἀλλʼ ἵνα φάγ. τὸ πάσχα] On the emphatic repetition of the ἵνα, comp. Revelation 9:5; Xen. Mem. i. 2. 48. The entrance into the pagan house, not purified from the corrupt leaven, would have made them levitically impure.
John 18:28 Commentaries: Then they led Jesus from Caiaphas into the Praetorium, and it was early; and they themselves did not enter into the Praetorium so that they would not be defiled, but might eat the Passover.

http://biblehub.com/commentaries/john/18-28.htm

It's strange the only two bits of scripture you can pull to back your case is from John and Revelation.

There is no Jewish scripture that forbids them from entering the house of a gentile, or ever hints that doing so would make them unclean and unsuitable for passover. That whole construct simply does not exist within Judaism at all.

Though the release of a prisoner by Pilate is not found in historic writings there are examples from other Roman leaders for releasing prisoners even at passover. Josephus mentions the release of prisoners as well as other non bible writings. All the Gospels mention the release of Barabbas. So there is some support.

If you're trying to argue that the Romans let prisoners go that had served their sentences, sure. But that's not what this is about, this is about a specific jewish custom that Pilate talks about in which a prisoner still serving his sentence is released at passover. That custom simply did not exist within Roman or Jewish society.

And the fact all the gospels mention Barabbas doesn't lend support to anything. Even Christian biblical scholars widely accept that the three later gospels were plagiarized off of Mark. As I had already mentioned as well that Barabbas means "Son of the Father", and early texts named him as Jesus Barabbas, it's an obvious fictional allegory to the day of atonement "scapegoating" ritual.

2. In the Mishnah (Jewish oral tradition, written in around AD 300) it records that “they may slaughter the passover lamb for one….whom they have promised to bring out of prison”. Now its not exactly clear but this certainly records a prisoner being released specifically at Passover.[FONT=&quot]

It's also w[FONT=&quot]ritten 300 years after t[FONT=&quot]he event in question, and it's admittedly oral tradition. This [FONT=&quot]passage isn't [FONT=&quot]evidence for anything.

[/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]As far as I see the Jews said to Pilate they couldn’t kill Jesus because under Roman law and it had to be Pilates decision.
John [/FONT][FONT=&quot]18:31[/FONT][FONT=&quot]
31 Then said Pilate unto them, Take ye him, and judge him according to your law. The Jews therefore said unto him, It is not lawful for us to put any man to death:

[/FONT][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot]Which is absurd, the governor just gave them permissi[FONT=&quot]on t[FONT=&quot]o do as they see fit and judge him under their own la[FONT=&quot]ws[/FONT]. [/FONT][/FONT][/FONT]Therefore they have the blessing of th[FONT=&quot]e governor, and it is le[FONT=&quot]gal[FONT=&quot]. [FONT=&quot]Judging and sentencing people under [FONT=&quot]the laws of various religions was a common [FONT=&quot]occurrence[/FONT] in the Roman Empire.

[/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]I don’t think Pilate is being pushed around. From what I understand the area under rule around the [/FONT][FONT=&quot]Judah[/FONT][FONT=&quot] was a difficult place for a Roman Governor to rule. They had to always appease the Jews as they didn't cooperate with serving the Roman gods and religious ways. They were pretty stubborn in their ways. Even though the Romans got tuff the Jews still stuck to their guns when it came to being allowed to practice their religious traditions. But I just think the Jewish High priests were well known for their own position and had some sway with the Jews and therefore Pilate realized he had to try and appease them as well as keep them from starting an uprising. [/quote[FONT=&quot]]

[FONT=&quot]This is also not historically accurate. [FONT=&quot]The [FONT=&quot]Romans typically didn[FONT=&quot]'t care [FONT=&quot]whet[FONT=&quot]h[FONT=&quot]er the local indigenous popula[FONT=&quot]tions of lands t[FONT=&quot]hey conquered wanted to continue [FONT=&quot]practising[/FONT] their religion of c[FONT=&quot]hoi[FONT=&quot]ce, and in many local matters the [FONT=&quot]persons religious law is [/FONT][/FONT]wha[FONT=&quot]t they were judged under[/FONT].

[FONT=&quot]Lik[FONT=&quot]ewise, the Jewish High Priests had very little [FONT=&quot]sway over the Jewish population[FONT=&quot]. [FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot]The [FONT=&quot]Sadducee[/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT]s were t[FONT=&quot]he roman backed High Priests at the time, and were lead by the Annas family. Th[FONT=&quot]ey we[FONT=&quot]re widely despised by the Jewish Masses, in large par[FONT=&quot]t due to their cooperation with t[FONT=&quot]he Roman occupiers.[/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT]
[/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT]
[/FONT][FONT=&quot]

I think Pilate himself was in a position where this was an unusual case. Rather than letting the high priest stand over him I think he was the one who was trying to give Jesus a chance to be released. He was also trying to not be seen to have been the one who condemned Jesus.[/quot[FONT=&quot]e[FONT=&quot]]

[FONT=&quot]Pilate wouldn't have cared, nor was it an unusual case. There were all sorts of "messiah[FONT=&quot]s" running around at th[FONT=&quot]e time, he wouldn't have had a problem ordering one more [FONT=&quot]local cult leader to his death if that's what it came down to.

[/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Like I said I think Jesus was an unusual case and probably an unusual man. It wasn't the normal claim to fame where this King was acting like a earthly King and demanding respect while taking it away from Pilate or Caesar.

[FONT=&quot]If you claim to be a heavenly kin[FONT=&quot]g ruling over everything for eternit[FONT=&quot]y, you don't think that kinda overshadows the respect for [FONT=&quot]Roman authority[/FONT], just a touch?[/FONT][/FONT][/FONT]

[/FONT][FONT=&quot]

I reckon he could also see the eagerness of the high priests and their plot to set Jesus up. It wasn't a straight forward accusation and crime. This can be seen by the fact that the Jews had to keep adding extra accusations and appealing to Pilate.

It was a straight forward accusation, they said he claimed to [FONT=&quot]be the messiah or king of the Jews. When questioned by Pilate, he didn't deny it.[/FONT] When Pilate for some reason decided it's no big dea[FONT=&quot]l, they threatened Pilate.[/FONT]

[/FONT][FONT=&quot]

It was only in the end where Pilate decided it was easier to let it ride as it was causing more trouble than it was worth. It was more so the persistence of the Jews as they had their man and were not going to give up. I reckon they weren't stupid and had planned this well and had an answer for everything. The fact that Pilate gives the go ahead but washes his hands of it shows it was more about the persistence of all the powerful Jews in the local community more than anything else that pushed it over the line.

[FONT=&quot]Which again is laughably out of step with the historical record of who Pilate was, and [FONT=&quot]the cult[FONT=&quot]ure in that part of the wor[FONT=&quot]ld at t[FONT=&quot]hat time. Pilate would not [FONT=&quot]be the type to get bullied into a situation like that, and would have reacted very negatively towards [/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT]those people w[FONT=&quot]ho would have attempted to set up some kind of scenario as [FONT=&quot]you are describing.[/FONT][/FONT]
[/FONT][FONT=&quot] [/FONT]

 

[Dave Ellis]

The freedom of religion was establish in the states for the very reason the church grew better before it got involved with the Roman government. Roman Empire couldn't beat the church so it decided to join the church.

I suggest you open a history book.

The freedom of religion in the states had nothing to do with the Roman Empire, which fell 1,300 years before the United States was founded.

The freedom of religion was instituted because the founding fathers saw what happened when religion was given control over the rule of law in Europe and the pre-1776 colonies. They wisely decided it was a good idea to not allow one religious viewpoint to have power over all others, as it resulted in injustice, and a reduction in the liberty of anyone who didn't buy into that particular religion.

 

[Smidlee]

I suggest you open a history book.

The freedom of religion in the states had nothing to do with the Roman Empire, which fell 1,300 years before the United States was founded.

.

Oh man. It had to do with the Roman Church which didn't fall.

 

[Dave Ellis]

yeah and from what Ive read thats when it went wrong.

When what went wrong?

It seems before that it still spread and despite persecution it managed to grow throughout the Roman empire. In fact the persecution is what made it stronger.

There actually isn't a lot of evidence Christians were widely persecuted within the Roman empire either. Christianity remained largely unknown for the first couple centuries of its existence.

But I believe from the time Jesus rose from the dead this is where the church stood up and actually walked in the faith. Something happened and cause them to stand on the words of Jesus and go to the point of death. Before that Jesus was preaching for three years and healing. The word got around but many thought He was a earthly King who was going to lead the Jews against the Romans and establish their own empire on earth.

What you speak about is often spoken about by Christians, but also largely does not line up with the actual historical record.

But after Jesus was crucified I think the penny began to drop what Christ was talking about. Certainly those close to Him knew and this is what spurred on the movement beyond earthly beliefs to a divine belief.

How do you know that? We have no record from anyone who claimed to know Jesus personally or were close to him.

People then remembered what Jesus had said and the true meaning rang home in the light of His death and resurrection. This is when the Holy spirit went to work and many turned to God. But after a few hundred years mans ways have got in the way and it started to become a religion of men. When it got mixed with ruling the people with politics it became a power trip and God was taken out of the picture.
But we will see a resurgence back to how it was in the early days when the Holy spirit will be poured out into the world toward the end times.

I'm not sure you appreciate the irony in what you wrote, especially in the last sentence. Read up on your early Christian history, especially concerning the beliefs of Paul and his followers, and you'll get the irony.

 

[Dave Ellis]

Oh man. It had to do with the Roman Church which didn't fall.

You were referencing Roman government, not the Roman church.

 

[Smidlee]

You were referencing Roman government, not the Roman church.

I wrote :

"The freedom of religion was establish in the states for the very reason the church grew better before it got involved with the Roman government. Roman Empire couldn't beat the church so it decided to join the church." --- thus the beginning of the Roman Catholic Church.

Now the RCC at the time seem like a good idea to resist cults that would twist the scriptures but over time that church abuse it power. In the states they knew the price of freedom of religion but realized the church did better before the RCC even though it means more cults.

 

[Dave Ellis]

I wrote :

"The freedom of religion was establish in the states for the very reason the church grew better before it got involved with the Roman government. Roman Empire couldn't beat the church so it decided to join the church." --- thus the beginning of the Roman Catholic Church.

Now the RCC at the time seem like a good idea to resist cults that would twist the scriptures but over time that church abuse it power. In the states they knew the price of freedom of religion but realized the church did better before the RCC even though it means more cults.

I suggest you also pick up a history book.

The Roman Catholic Church didn't even exist during the time of the Roman Empire.

There certainly was a Christian church at the time, however the Roman Catholic Church was born out of the great schism between the western and eastern churches in 1054AD, almost 600 years after the fall of Rome.

The western church largely became known as the Roman Catholic Church as the church was overseen by the bishop of Rome (The Pope) while the eastern Church developed into the modern day Eastern Orthodox church overseen by the Patriarch of Constantinople.


I should also note, The modern Roman Catholic Church formed during the time of the Byzantine Empire, which was a continuation of the Eastern Roman Empire. However the Byzantines sided with Eastern Orthodoxy, and therefore were opposed to the Roman Catholic Church. The sacking of Constantinople during the crusades is a further example of hostility between the Catholic Church and the Byzantines.

Basically put, at no point was the Roman Catholic Church the state church of the Roman Empire. Christianity became the state religion of the Roman Empire in its twilight years, however the Roman Catholic Church would not exist for another 600 years after Rome's fall. Furthermore the successor state to the Roman Empire (The Byzantine Empire) was openly hostile to the Roman Catholic Church right from it's founding. So, your whole narrative is simply wrong.

 

[Smidlee]

I suggest you also pick up a history book.

The Roman Catholic Church didn't even exist during the time of the Roman Empire.

There certainly was a Christian church at the time, however the Roman Catholic Church was born out of the great schism between the western and eastern churches in 1054AD, almost 600 years after the fall of Rome.

The western church largely became known as the Roman Catholic Church as the church was overseen by the bishop of Rome (The Pope) while the eastern Church developed into the modern day Eastern Orthodox church overseen by the Patriarch of Constantinople.


I should also note, The modern Roman Catholic Church formed during the time of the Byzantine Empire, which was a continuation of the Eastern Roman Empire. However the Byzantines sided with Eastern Orthodoxy, and therefore were opposed to the Roman Catholic Church. The sacking of Constantinople during the crusades is a further example of hostility between the Catholic Church and the Byzantines.

Basically put, at no point was the Roman Catholic Church the state church of the Roman Empire. Christianity became the state religion of the Roman Empire in its twilight years, however the Roman Catholic Church would not exist for another 600 years after Rome's fall. Furthermore the successor state to the Roman Empire (The Byzantine Empire) was openly hostile to the Roman Catholic Church right from it's founding. So, your whole narrative is simply wrong.

You are just playing with words just like some claimed the RCC came into existence from Jesus Christ. So I suggest you pick up a different history book.

 

[Dave Ellis]

You are just playing with words just like some claimed the RCC came into existence from Jesus Christ. So I suggest you pick up a different history book.

I'm not playing with words at all, I'm accurately describing the history of the event in question.

I'll help you out with a quick Wikipedia search.... if you wish to research further, go right ahead. East?West Schism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Smidlee]

I'm not playing with words at all, I'm accurately describing the history of the event in question.

I'll help you out with a quick Wikipedia search.... if you wish to research further, go right ahead. East?West Schism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I know about church history. Let go back to your statement:

"For the record, Christianity was largely a little known fringe cult until the 3rd century, and didn't really gain a widespread following until the 4th century when the Roman world started to collapse."

What you are referring to is when the church got more involved with Roman government thus the beginning of the Roman church. You are now just splitting hairs when the subject was your bold claim above. As noted by our founding fathers the church grow more before it got involved with the Roman Empire.

 

[Dave Ellis]

I know about church history. Let go back to your statement:

"For the record, Christianity was largely a little known fringe cult until the 3rd century, and didn't really gain a widespread following until the 4th century when the Roman world started to collapse."

What you are referring to is when the church got more involved with Roman government thus the beginning of the Roman church. You are now just splitting hairs when the subject was your bold claim above. As noted by our founding fathers the church grow more before it got involved with the Roman Empire.

No, what I'm referring to is when Christianity itself became widely practised and became a significant religious demographic. I said nothing at all about government, or when it became a state religion.

And what founding fathers are you referring to?

 

[Cearbhall]

Philosophy to me is dangerous, because its quite possible it can contradict God and makes us believe in our own understandings which is risky because Satan can munipuliate your perception if you aren't steadfast to God.

It's also possible that the people you're listening to are contradicting God, and you'll never know because you don't want to think for yourself.

 

[Nithavela]

Your post doesn't seem to make any sense because you switched two words around. Here, let me fix that.

Colossians 2:8 ESV / 251 helpful votes

"See to it that no one takes you captive by philosophy and empty deceit, according to human tradition, according to the elemental spirits of the world, and not according to Christ."

Philosophy to me is dangerous, because its quite possible it can contradict God and makes us believe in our own understandings which is risky because Satan can munipuliate your perception if you aren't steadfast to God.

Most important advice is never open your mind, because you will be so easily entangled and trapped in views which may not be truth.
If you remain in faith to Jesus he can keep your mind closed and feed you so you don't become weary.