Jesus was a street preacher.

[Ariux]

he had no church to preach in.

Thank you for the opinion of a religiously ignorant person who must never have been in a church or read the Bible to learn anything about the Bible. Don't take this too harshly, I'm sure you're as familiar with the Bible as most Christians.

Jesus preached in the Temple and the synagogues, i.e. the churches of the day.

Jesus was not a street preacher.

"The high priest then asked Jesus of his disciples, and of his doctrine. Jesus answered him, I spake openly to the world; I always taught in the synagogue, and in the temple..."

 

[ERGO]

Jesus was tried and executed by a Roman official (Pontius Pilate) for treason against the state of Rome. This was a political crime, not a religious one, and Jesus received the punishment specifically reserved for treason under Roman law, crucifixion. Given that Rome punished traitors with crucifixion, Jesus' statement (as quoted in Mark 7:34) that "if any man would come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross and follow me" had real meaning to his Jewish compatriots bristling under the onus of Roman rule. "The cross was the symbol of Zealot sacrifice before it was transformed into the sign of Christian Salvation." (The Zealots were a radical political faction among the Jews that undertook insurrection against the Roman occupation of Palestine during the first century CE.) The account of Jesus' trial which presents Pilate as believing in Jesus' innocence, but forced into pronouncing him guilty by the Jewish leadership (Mark 16; Luke 23; Matthew 27; John 19), is both illogical and without factual basis. (The Gospel of Mark is the earliest gospel. Its version of the trial and crucifixion is the original version upon which the other three gospels increasingly elaborated.)

There is considerable information about Pilate from several non-Biblical sources. These sources consistently describe Pilate as a stern government official who frequently demonstrated his toughness in dealing with the Jews. On several occasions, he instituted actions designed to intimidate both the Jewish population and its leadership in order to illustrate his power and assert his authority. It is highly unlikely that Pilate would have been pressured by the Jewish authorities into convicting Jesus of sedition if he did not believe that Jesus was guilty.

The story of Pilate releasing Barabbas instead of Jesus is also unrealistic. No evidence exists of a custom of releasing one Jewish prisoner during the Passover, other than its mention in the New Testament. Not even Josephus, the principal Jewish historian of the day, mentions it. Indeed, it is highly unlikely that Rome would have followed such a practice in the most rebellious province in its empire (or in any other province, for that matter). The Roman government releasing a Jewish prisoner who had murdered Roman soldiers during an insurrection as a Passover gesture would be comparable to the Israeli government releasing a Hamas or Abu Nidal terrorists during Ramadan, or to the British government releasing an IRA terrorist on St. Patrick's Day.

Here I'll point out that Mark presents Pilate, a Roman governor, not only as criminally weak in his failure to do justice, but as a fool beyond belief. ...To have offered the people such a choice ...(Jesus or Barabbas)... with the intention of saving Jesus, was the act of an idiot. Given the political climate at the time, the Jews would have clearly preferred to free a Jewish nationalist, such as Barabbas, rather than a man who the gospels claim said "Love the Romans" and "Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's ..."

Finally, if Pilate undertook such an action independently, he would have had to answer to his superiors. If Jesus was, in fact, preaching a philosophy of peace towards the Romans while Barabbas was killing Roman soldiers, Pilate would have put himself in grave jeopardy by releasing Barabbas and executing Jesus. He would likely have found himself convicted of treason and crucified.

 

[Ariux]

Jesus was tried and executed by a Roman official (Pontius Pilate) for treason against the state of Rome.

Shithead, the Roman authorities explicitly said they found no fault in Jesus. Why do you lie? Are you really such a craven Jew?

The account of Jesus' trial which presents Pilate as believing in Jesus' innocence, but forced into pronouncing him guilty by the Jewish leadership (Mark 16; Luke 23; Matthew 27; John 19), is both illogical and without factual basis.

The Jew with shit for brains wants to tell others what is logical and illegal. Haha. You think it's more logical for Pilate, who didn't give a shit about what Jesus claimed, to kill Jesus to protect Rome from Jesus, than to kill Jesus to protect himself from a Jewish uprising.

You have NO source that contradicts the biblical account of the trial. Ergo, you're just a shithead who vomits out shit and claims it's truth.

Here I'll point out that Mark presents Pilate, a Roman governor, not only as criminally weak in his failure to do justice, but as a fool beyond belief. ...To have offered the people such a choice ...(Jesus or Barabbas)... with the intention of saving Jesus, was the act of an idiot. Given the political climate at the time, the Jews would have clearly preferred to free a Jewish nationalist, such as Barabbas, rather than a man who the gospels claim said "Love the Romans" and "Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's ..."

Hey Jew, even taking your shit claims at face value that the Jews would choose a criminal over a man of peace to release, that just makes Pilate's attempt to free Jesus a long-shot, not stupid. Besides, you just argued that Pilate killed Jesus because he was an enemy of Rome, now you're making the case that Jesus was perceived as a friend of Rome. You are an idiot.

 

[ERGO]

Jesus was tried and executed by a Roman official (Pontius Pilate) for treason against the state of Rome.

Shithead, the Roman authorities explicitly said they found no fault in Jesus. Why do you lie? Are you really such a craven Jew?

The account of Jesus' trial which presents Pilate as believing in Jesus' innocence, but forced into pronouncing him guilty by the Jewish leadership (Mark 16; Luke 23; Matthew 27; John 19), is both illogical and without factual basis.

The Jew with shit for brains wants to tell others what is logical and illegal. Haha. You think it's more logical for Pilate, who didn't give a shit about what Jesus claimed, to kill Jesus to protect Rome from Jesus, than to kill Jesus to protect himself from a Jewish uprising.

You have NO source that contradicts the biblical account of the trial. Ergo, you're just a shithead who vomits out shit and claims it's truth.

Here I'll point out that Mark presents Pilate, a Roman governor, not only as criminally weak in his failure to do justice, but as a fool beyond belief. ...To have offered the people such a choice ...(Jesus or Barabbas)... with the intention of saving Jesus, was the act of an idiot. Given the political climate at the time, the Jews would have clearly preferred to free a Jewish nationalist, such as Barabbas, rather than a man who the gospels claim said "Love the Romans" and "Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's ..."

Hey Jew, even taking your shit claims at face value that the Jews would choose a criminal over a man of peace to release, that just makes Pilate's attempt to free Jesus a long-shot, not stupid. Besides, you just argued that Pilate killed Jesus because he was an enemy of Rome, now you're making the case that Jesus was perceived as a friend of Rome. You are an idiot.

My response to your sophistry
To begin with I'm not Jewish and it shows just how indoctrinated (brainwashed) you are to ASSume I'm Jewish just because I disagree with the accounts of this MYTHICAL biblical story. The bible is full of contradictions, inconsistencies, and allegorical stories, which are taken literally by the gullible, superstitious and ignorant. The bible is NOT an accurate historical accounting of what took place in Canaan-Palestine 2500 B.C. to 33AD. Some people claim the bible to be historically accurate, then why is there no accounting of Jesus's life from the age of 12 to 30? For 18 years, what happened to him? Where was he at? All three of the Abrahamic religions, Judaism, Christianity and Islam are based on myths that requires BLIND faith. Christianity is recycled paganism of Sun-God worship. Google Astro-theology for info on the sources of the Abrahamic religions.

Inconsistent and contradictory Christian accounts of the trial of Jesus suggest either that Pilate played no direct role in the decision to execute Jesus ( from Peter), or that he ordered the crucifixion of Jesus with some reluctance from Mark) or with great reluctance (from Luke, John), which one is it?. Many historians attribute these highly questionable and inconsistent accounts to efforts by early Christians to make their message more palatable to Roman audiences. It is clear that prefects had a variety of options available for dealing with a potential source of trouble such as Jesus. These options included flogging, sending the matter back to the Sanhedrin, or referring the case to Herod Antipas, ruler of Galilee.

Given what is known about Pilate's concern with crowd control, it is hard to imagine that he would not have willingly acceded to a request from high Jewish officials to deal harshly with anyone who proclaimed himself "King of the Jews." Pilate undoubtedly knew that past messianic claims had led to civil unrest. It seems likely that he would have been eager to end the potential threat to the existing order presented by the subversive theology of Jesus. The form of execution used, crucifixion, establishes that Jesus was condemned as a violator of Roman, not Jewish, law.

Pilate's repeated difficulties with his Jewish subjects was the apparent cause of his removal from office in 36 C.E. by Syrian governor Vitellius. Following his removal from office, Pilate was ordered to Rome to face complaints of excessive cruelty. He was exiled in Vienne, France.

 

[ERGO]

In the Gospel of John (28: 40), Barabbas is said to be a lestai. Barabbas was arrested for attacking the Roman garrison in Judea. This attack appears to have occurred simultaneous with Jesus' attack on the Temple. Some Biblical scholars believe that Jesus and Barabbas may have been working together. Significantly, the name Barabbas is a corruption through translation of the Hebrew term bar abba which means "son of the father". In the Gospel of Matthew (27:16), Barabbas is referred to as Jesus Barabbas, which translates to mean Jesus son of the father, the equivalent of "Jesus, Jr." in English. One implication of Matthew's use of the name Jesus Barabbas is the possibility that Barabbas may have been Jesus' son. However, Jesus is the Greek translation of the Hebrew name, Joshua, which was a common Jewish name that would have been given to many men besides Jesus.

 

[koshergrl]

Good grief.

Barabbas was a murderer. He wasn't working with Jesus.

 

[ERGO]

Good grief.

Barabbas was a murderer. He wasn't working with Jesus.

The gospel writers go to every conceivable length to absolve the Romans in general, and Pilate in particular, of Jesus' crucifixion and to blame it on the Jews. The reason, of course, was that Christianity was going to have to exist under Roman rule for many years, which is why the New Testament contains nothing critical of the Romans, even though they were hated for their heavy taxation, and Pilate was hated for his brutality.

For the church, the Jews made an appropriate scapegoat because the Jews were a thorn in side of the early church. The Jews, of course, had far greater knowledge of Jewish laws and traditions than the largely gentile church, and were able to call attention to some of the errors being taught by the church.

The Biblical account of Pilate's offer to release Jesus but the Jews demanding the release of Barabbas is pure fiction, containing both contradictions and historical inaccuracies.

What had Barabbas done?

Mark 15:7 and Luke 23:19 say that Barabbas was guilty of insurrection and murder.

Mark 15:7 And there was one named Barabbas, who was chained with his fellow rebels; they had committed murder in the rebellion.

Luke 23:19 who had been thrown into prison for a certain rebellion made in the city, and for murder.

But, John 18:40 says that Barabbas was a robber.
Then they all cried again, saying, “Not this Man, but Barabbas!” Now Barabbas was a robber.

Which one is it? John clearly contradicts what is written in Luke and Mark



Pilate's "custom" of releasing a prisoner at Passover

This is pure invention, the only authority given by Rome to a Roman governor in situations like this was postponement of execution until after the religious festival. Release was out of the question. It is included in the gospels for the sole purpose of further removing blame for Jesus' death from Pilate and placing it on the Jews.

Pilate gives in to the mob

The gospels have Pilate giving in to an unruly mob. This is ridiculous in light of Pilate's previous and subsequent history. Josephus tells us that Pilate's method of crowd control was to send his soldiers into the mob and beat them (often killing them) into submission. Pilate was eventually recalled to Rome because of his brutality.

 

[ERGO]

More bible contradictions:

Did Jesus Speak at His Hearing Before Pilate?

Matthew 27 Meanwhile Jesus stood before the governor, and the governor asked him, "Are you the king of the Jews?" "Yes, it is as you say," Jesus replied. When he was accused by the chief priests and the elders, he gave no answer. Then Pilate asked him, "Don’t you hear the testimony they are bringing against you?" But Jesus made no reply, not even to a single charge, to the great amazement of the governor.
Jesus doesn’t answer the charges.

John 18:37: "You are a king, then!" said Pilate. Jesus answered, "You are right in saying I am a king. In fact, for this reason I was born, and for this I came into the world, to testify to the truth. Everyone on the side of truth listens to me."
Jesus answers the charges.

Which one is it?

What Color Robe Was Jesus Given?

Matthew 27:28: They stripped him and put a scarlet robe on him.
Jesus is given a scarlet robe.

John 19:2: The soldiers twisted together a crown of thorns and put it on his head. They clothed him in a purple robe.

Which one is it?

When Was Jesus Crucified?

Mark 15:25: And it was the third hour, and they crucified him.
The third hour, as noted in the Amplified Bible, is 9am

John 19:14-16: And it was the preparation of the Passover, and about the sixth hour: and he (Pilate) saith unto the Jews, Behold your King! But they cried out, Away with him, away with him, crucify him. Pilate saith unto them, Shall I crucify your King? The chief priests answered, We have no king but Caesar. Then delivered he him over therefore unto them to be crucified. And they took Jesus, and led him away.
The sixth hour is Noon.

Which is it?

 

[Ariux]

To begin with I'm not Jewish

Your disdain for scripture dictates otherwise. Atheism is just another form of Jewishness.

Some people claim the bible to be historically accurate, then why is there no accounting of Jesus's life from the age of 12 to 30? For 18 years, what happened to him?

You're going to have to put in more effort if you don't want to be thought of as an idiot. what does the absence of historical record from 12 to 30 have to do with accuracy?

Inconsistent and contradictory Christian accounts of the trial of Jesus suggest either that Pilate played no direct role in the decision to execute Jesus ( from Peter), or that he ordered the crucifixion of Jesus with some reluctance from Mark) or with great reluctance (from Luke, John), which one is it?. Many historians attribute these highly questionable and inconsistent accounts to efforts by early Christians to make their message more palatable to Roman audiences.

Sorry, I still don't see a contradiction. I only see the bigoted fruit of a Jewish idiot. It is your assumption that the authors of the gospels had conflicting understandings of what happened.

 

[signelect]

He was the best ever but how can you fail being the son of God. Churchs are theinvention of man to control and croupt (sp). Churches give God a bad name.

 

[ERGO]

To begin with I'm not Jewish

Your disdain for scripture dictates otherwise. Atheism is just another form of Jewishness.

Some people claim the bible to be historically accurate, then why is there no accounting of Jesus's life from the age of 12 to 30? For 18 years, what happened to him?

You're going to have to put in more effort if you don't want to be thought of as an idiot. what does the absence of historical record from 12 to 30 have to do with accuracy?

Inconsistent and contradictory Christian accounts of the trial of Jesus suggest either that Pilate played no direct role in the decision to execute Jesus ( from Peter), or that he ordered the crucifixion of Jesus with some reluctance from Mark) or with great reluctance (from Luke, John), which one is it?. Many historians attribute these highly questionable and inconsistent accounts to efforts by early Christians to make their message more palatable to Roman audiences.

Sorry, I still don't see a contradiction. I only see the bigoted fruit of a Jewish idiot. It is your assumption that the authors of the gospels had conflicting understandings of what happened.

It is you that is the blind fool and is unable to recognize the clear inconsistencies and contradictions of the bible. That's because you have apparently been indoctrinated....no brainwashed into this belief system that leaves you devoid of rationally responding to the glaring contradictions in the bible. Religion is the greatest mass mind control tool ever devised. I could put up so much evidence debunking the bibles claims it would make your head spin!
Again...
The bible is full of contradictions, inconsistencies and allegorical stories that are taken literally by the gullible and superstitious. This taking the bible literally and not recognizing the contradictions and inconsistencies is the result of indoctrination and inculcating into young impressionable minds. Furthermore, the bible is not an accurate history of events as reputable historians of the era, such as Josephus reveals in their recordings. Archaeologists have also shown the inaccuracies in the bible with their findings and archaeology is unequivocal. For insight on the inaccuracies of the Old Testament I recommend the four part video series that can be viewed just by googling the following. The Bible Unearthed

 

[ERGO]

More glaring contradictions

How Did Judas Die?

Matthew 27:3-8: Then Judas, which had betrayed him (Jesus), when he saw that he was condemned, repented himself, and brought again the thirty pieces of silver to the chief priests and elders. Saying, I have sinned in that I have betrayed the innocent blood. And they said, What is that to us? See thou to that. And he cast down the pieces of silver in the temple, and departed, and went and hanged himself. And the chief priests took the silver pieces and said, It is not lawful for to put them into the treasury, because it is the price of blood. And they took counsel, and bought with them the potter’s field, to bury strangers in. Wherefore, that field was called "The Field of Blood" unto this day.
Judas hanged himself

Acts 1:16-19: Men and brethren, this scripture must needs have been fulfilled, which the Holy Ghost by the mouth of David spake before concerning Judas, which was guide to them that took Jesus. For he was numbered with us, and had obtained part of this ministry. Now this man purchased a field with the reward of iniquity; and falling headlong, he burst asunder in the midst, and all his bowels gushed out. And it was known unto all the dwellers at Jerusalem; insomuch as that field is called in their proper tongue, Aceldama, that is to say, The Field of Blood.
Judas bought a field, fell down and his intestines spilled out.

So...which STORY are we to believe?

Who Did the Visitors Tell of Jesus’ Empty Tomb?

Matthew 28:8: So the women hurried away from the tomb, afraid yet filled with joy, and ran to tell his disciples. Suddenly Jesus met them. "Greetings," he said. They came to him, clasped his feet and worshiped him. Then Jesus said to them, "Do not be afraid. Go and tell my brothers to go to Galilee; there they will see me."
The visitors were overjoyed, and they ran to tell the disciples

Mark 16:8: Trembling and bewildered, the women went out and fled from the tomb. They said nothing to anyone, because they were afraid.
They were afraid, and told no one.

Luke 24:9: When they came back from the tomb, they told all these things to the Eleven and to all the others.
They told the eleven and others.

John 20:10: Then the disciples went back to their homes, but Mary stood outside the tomb crying. As she wept, she bent over to look into the tomb and saw two angels in white, seated where Jesus’ body had been, one at the head and the other at the foot.
Mary informed Simon and the other disciple about the empty tomb, then she remained at the tomb crying.

Which STORY are we to believe?

 

[koshergrl]

Same story, told by different people, different perspectives. Believe them all. It's all the same story.

 

[ERGO]

Same story, told by different people, different perspectives. Believe them all. It's all the same story.

No, They are NOT the same stories, as I have clearly shown. If a prosecutor brought witnesses to a court whose testimonies (stories) were different from one another he would lose the case as you have lost yours!
Believe them all?... it's all the same story? What utter non-sense! You're really that gullible aren't you?

 

[koshergrl]

No, you haven't clearly shown it. You're happy with your decision, that's great.

And the stories have been tried over and over and over. And Christianity continues to grow, and people continue to believe the Bible.

Do you really think everybody on this board hasn't been subjected to this childish, brain-dead argument repeatedly? If you don't buy it, good for you. But trust me, greater minds than yours do buy it, and will continue to.