Zone1 Pontius Pilate: An Enigmatic Figure

[SweetSue92]

For those who are familiar: what do you make of Pontius Pilate, the Roman Prefect who eventually gave Jesus over to be crucified?

To be clear, Pilate gave in to the pressure of the temple leaders and crowds rather than judge correctly, and that's a failing. But beyond that, I always feel a little niggle of sympathy for him. Several times he protested the death sentence. He seemed truly perplexed by the urgency of the priests. And he was Roman: he certainly did not have much knowledge of the prophesied Messiah. IOW, we can't have expected him to recognize all the ways Jesus fulfilled them, as priests and scribes should.

On a birds-eye level: I never blame anyone for Jesus' death past my own sins, for which He died. But looking at the story from a human standpoint--Pilate seems the least culpable. What are your thoughts?

Information on Pilate here:

Who was Pontius Pilate? | GotQuestions.org

Who was Pontius Pilate? How did Pontius Pilate become the governor over Israel? Why did he consent to Jesus being executed?

www.gotquestions.org

 

[Muhammed]

For those who are familiar: what do you make of Pontius Pilate, the Roman Prefect who eventually gave Jesus over to be crucified?

To be clear, Pilate gave in to the pressure of the temple leaders and crowds rather than judge correctly, and that's a failing. But beyond that, I always feel a little niggle of sympathy for him. Several times he protested the death sentence. He seemed truly perplexed by the urgency of the priests. And he was Roman: he certainly did not have much knowledge of the prophesied Messiah. IOW, we can't have expected him to recognize all the ways Jesus fulfilled them, as priests and scribes should.

On a birds-eye level: I never blame anyone for Jesus' death past my own sins, for which He died. But looking at the story from a human standpoint--Pilate seems the least culpable. What are your thoughts?

Information on Pilate here:

Who was Pontius Pilate? | GotQuestions.org

Who was Pontius Pilate? How did Pontius Pilate become the governor over Israel? Why did he consent to Jesus being executed?

www.gotquestions.org

Jesus was caught red-handed with a naked boy in a public park in the middle of the night. The public was outraged. He was the worst kind of criminal.

That armed robbery he pulled at the Temple didn't bode well for him either.

If you look at it objectively, Jesus was a real scumbag even by today's standards. And by the standards of his time, which is why he rightfully received the death penalty.

 

[SweetSue92]

Jesus was caught red-handed with a naked boy in a public park in the middle of the night. The public was outraged. He was the worst kind of criminal.

That armed robbery he pulled at the Temple didn't bode well for him either.

Absolutely classless. This doesn't bother me at all, but it is a really classless move.

 

[Muhammed]

Absolutely classless. This doesn't bother me at all, but it is a really classless move.

I wasn't the one caught out in the park at night kissing naked children. That was Jesus.

 

[alang1216]

For those who are familiar: what do you make of Pontius Pilate, the Roman Prefect who eventually gave Jesus over to be crucified?

To be clear, Pilate gave in to the pressure of the temple leaders and crowds rather than judge correctly, and that's a failing. But beyond that, I always feel a little niggle of sympathy for him. Several times he protested the death sentence. He seemed truly perplexed by the urgency of the priests. And he was Roman: he certainly did not have much knowledge of the prophesied Messiah. IOW, we can't have expected him to recognize all the ways Jesus fulfilled them, as priests and scribes should.

On a birds-eye level: I never blame anyone for Jesus' death past my own sins, for which He died. But looking at the story from a human standpoint--Pilate seems the least culpable. What are your thoughts?

Pilate wanted peace in his province and likely worked closely with the Sadducees. They probably did favors for each other but I doubt Pilate cared one bit about Jewish theology. He would have been happy to put Jesus to death if there was a claim that Jesus believed he was a king since that would be an affront to Caesar.

 

[ding]

Pilate wanted peace in his province and likely worked closely with the Sadducees. They probably did favors for each other but I doubt Pilate cared one bit about Jewish theology. He would have been happy to put Jesus to death if there was a claim that Jesus believed he was a king since that would be an affront to Caesar.

Where did Pilot get the notion that Jesus claimed to be king? And what was Jesus' response to that charge?

 

[ding]

For those who are familiar: what do you make of Pontius Pilate, the Roman Prefect who eventually gave Jesus over to be crucified?

To be clear, Pilate gave in to the pressure of the temple leaders and crowds rather than judge correctly, and that's a failing. But beyond that, I always feel a little niggle of sympathy for him. Several times he protested the death sentence. He seemed truly perplexed by the urgency of the priests. And he was Roman: he certainly did not have much knowledge of the prophesied Messiah. IOW, we can't have expected him to recognize all the ways Jesus fulfilled them, as priests and scribes should.

On a birds-eye level: I never blame anyone for Jesus' death past my own sins, for which He died. But looking at the story from a human standpoint--Pilate seems the least culpable. What are your thoughts?

Information on Pilate here:

Who was Pontius Pilate? | GotQuestions.org

Who was Pontius Pilate? How did Pontius Pilate become the governor over Israel? Why did he consent to Jesus being executed?

www.gotquestions.org

My thoughts...

Jesus knew (how could he not?) the religious leaders would make the claim that he was a political threat and that was why he would sometimes give the instruction to not to tell anyone what he had done. He would do this in Jewish territory where the risk of religious leaders finding out was greater. At other times he would give the instruction to tell others what he had done. He would do this in Gentile territory where the risk of religious leaders finding out was less. He did this to allow for time to complete his mission. It wasn't that he didn't want it to be known. It was more about the timing of when it was to be known.

alang1216 in my study of "who God is" it was things like this that provided corroboration. God is in the details.

 

[alang1216]

Where did Pilot get the notion that Jesus claimed to be king? And what was Jesus' response to that charge?

I don't think we know, maybe from the Sadducees, Judas, or Jesus himself. We'll never know his response (I don't believe the Gospel accounts are historic rather than theological).

 

[ding]

I don't think we know, maybe from the Sadducees, Judas, or Jesus himself.

According to the accounts, Pontius Pilate obtained the notion that Jesus claimed to be a king primarily from the accusations of the Jewish leaders, who brought Jesus to him. The chief priests and elders specifically charged Jesus with sedition, alleging he claimed to be "King of the Jews," a title that constituted a direct political threat to Roman authority.

So my question is where did the religious leaders get the notion that Jesus claimed to be the "King of the Jews" if not from the fact that his performing miracles and behaving as if he were equal to God gave the religious leaders the impression that Jesus was the Messiah?

We'll never know his response (I don't believe the Gospel accounts are historic rather than theological).

So you don't believe that if Jesus was trying to become an earthly king of the Jews there wouldn't have been historic evidence recorded by the Jews? Think about it. That would have been a smoking gun. They would have used that evidence against Christians. Where in Jewish history is the evidence of sedition recorded? The answer is no where. If it had been true. It would have been well documented and publicized.

It's amazing what one finds looking at the little details like that.

 

[alang1216]

According to the accounts, Pontius Pilate obtained the notion that Jesus claimed to be a king primarily from the accusations of the Jewish leaders, who brought Jesus to him. The chief priests and elders specifically charged Jesus with sedition, alleging he claimed to be "King of the Jews," a title that constituted a direct political threat to Roman authority.

So my question is where did the religious leaders get the notion that Jesus claimed to be the "King of the Jews" if not from the fact that his performing miracles and behaving as if he were equal to God gave the religious leaders the impression that Jesus was the Messiah?

Miracles, if any, were not relevant, if Jesus claimed to be the "King of the Jews", that would have been enough. I think it more likely he saw a special place for himself and his apostles once the end times happened.

So you don't believe that if Jesus was trying to become an earthly king of the Jews there wouldn't have been historic evidence recorded by the Jews? Think about it. That would have been a smoking gun. They would have used that evidence against Christians. Where in Jewish history is the evidence of sedition recorded? The answer is no where. If it had been true. It would have been well documented and publicized.

It's amazing what one finds looking at the little details like that.

Jesus was an apocholyticist. Any role he saw for himself was after the end times so the gun smoke would have cleared by then.

 

[ding]

Jesus was caught red-handed with a naked boy in a public park in the middle of the night. The public was outraged. He was the worst kind of criminal.

That armed robbery he pulled at the Temple didn't bode well for him either.

If you look at it objectively, Jesus was a real scumbag even by today's standards. And by the standards of his time, which is why he rightfully received the death penalty.

I wasn't the one caught out in the park at night kissing naked children. That was Jesus.

It is the Glory of Christianity to have enemies that are hateful, irrational and deceptive because it proves that Christianity is loving, rational and the truth.

 

[ding]

Miracles, if any, were not relevant, if Jesus claimed to be the "King of the Jews", that would have been enough. I think it more likely he saw a special place for himself and his apostles once the end times happened.

Where is it recorded in history that Jesus claimed to be the "King of the Jews?"

Jesus was an apocholyticist. Any role he saw for himself was after the end times so the gun smoke would have cleared by then.

What does that have to do with anything? Non-biblical historical sources confirm that early Christians faced persecution from Jewish authorities in the 1st and early 2nd centuries. If they had had evidence that Jesus was trying to become an earthly king they would have publicized it instead of persecuting Christians. They persecuted Christians because Christians were a threat. If they had evidence that Jesus was trying to make himself into a king, they would have used it.

 

[alang1216]

Where is it recorded in history that Jesus claimed to be the "King of the Jews?"

Look here.

What does that have to do with anything? Non-biblical historical sources confirm that early Christians faced persecution from Jewish authorities in the 1st and early 2nd centuries. If they had had evidence that Jesus was trying to become an earthly king they would have publicized it instead of persecuting Christians. They persecuted Christians because Christians were a threat. If they had evidence that Jesus was trying to make himself into a king, they would have used it.

It took a long time before Jesus' followers were no longer identified as Jews so they were considered heretics by the mainstream Jewish authorities. Heretics in a theocracy are never treated well.

 

[The Irish Ram]

Sue, have you ever read the Acts of Pilot? Nicodemus was chosen to keep the minutes of every aspect of the conversations and had to deliver a copy to the Temple and to Pilot.
Pilot was not happy when Jesus came back...

 

[Meriweather]

For those who are familiar: what do you make of Pontius Pilate, the Roman Prefect who eventually gave Jesus over to be crucified?

1. Only Pilate could condemn Jesus to crucifixion, and only then for plans/attempts to overthrow the Roman government. Temple hierarchy of the day wanted him to be put to death for what they considered heresy/blasphemy.

2. One theory I read about years ago is that of Jesus Barabbas. Not only can 'Barabbas' mean so of the father, it also could mean the son of the master. Was it possible that this Barabbas was the son of a high Jewish Temple official (his master), and rather than this connection made known/public, Pilate was convinced that the wrong Jesus Barabbas was in prison. Some point out that there was no known tradition that of Pilate's to release a prisoner on Passover. However, could Pilate had been convinced the wrong man was in prison, so he threw up his hands and said, who is it you want released--and they insisted they wanted the other Jesus Barabbas who was in prison released, and the one then in front of Pilate, crucified.

3. Could it have been possible that when Pilate asked whom they wanted freed and the crowd shouted, "Jesus Barabbas" they were (without being asked) calling for Jesus' release? But as there was no such custom to release a prisoner, the crowd was ignored and Jesus was put to death despite the crowd calling for his release?

 

[ding]

Look here.

How does Ehrman saying, "I think it is fair to say that Jesus did not publicly proclaim himself the King of the Jews" not prove my point? There's no evidence Jesus was trying to become king. So that had to come from the religious authorities because THEY recognized that Jesus was behaving as if he were the messiah so it was their assumption that as the messiah he was going to be a human king in the tradition of David. But that was NEVER what Jesus taught about what the messiah was going to be.

It took a long time before Jesus' followers were no longer identified as Jews so they were considered heretics by the mainstream Jewish authorities. Heretics in a theocracy are never treated well.

About all that does is prove my point that Jesus was worshipped as God immediately after he rose from the dead. Because it does nothing to address my point that if Jesus had behaved like he intended to be a king in the tradition of David then it would have been documented and used against the first Christians who were Jewish. They wouldn't have needed to persecute them. Instead they would have said Jesus wasn't divine. He was trying to become our king. See all this evidence we have of that? But there was no evidence so it couldn't be documented because THEY NEVER MADE THAT ARGUMENT.

 

[BreezeWood]

the 1st century events, jesus is the repudiation of judaism, false commandments et al and are a pleasantry for the romans and pontius pilate the prefect ...

as surly pontius saw the dynamic and did not chose the opportunity presented by jesus to exploit the fabric of judaism rather to give to the jews their madeup fallacy and so betrayed jesus as well for them as was his true roman nature.

 

[ding]

jesus is the repudiation of judaism

Jesus corrected several misunderstandings of their faith. So rather than repudiating Judaism, he validated it. Jesus corrected the belief that rule keeping is the most important thing to having a relationship with God is the most important thing. Jesus corrected their understanding of the messiah from an earthly king who conquers nations to a suffering servant who conquers death.

Jesus taught that true righteousness is about a transformed heart, love for God, and love for neighbors, rather than merely keeping external rules. He fulfilled the law by focusing on intent over action—teaching that inner attitudes like hatred or lust are as sinful as actions, while emphasizing mercy over rigid legalism. In the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus declared that inner thoughts (hatred, lust) are equivalent to acts (murder, adultery) in God's eyes. He pushed beyond mere conformity to a list of rules to demand true righteousness. Jesus defied religious leaders by healing on the Sabbath and allowing his disciples to pick grain on the Sabbath, declaring that the Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath. Jesus summarized all laws as loving God wholeheartedly and loving one's neighbor as oneself. He argued that following these two principles is the essence of true obedience. He frequently broke with the traditions of the Pharisees, such as ceremonial hand-washing, arguing that what truly defiles a person comes from the heart, not from unwashed hands. Jesus taught that followers should keep his commands out of love for him, rather than keeping rules to gain merit or out of a sense of legal obligation.

 

[BreezeWood]

the 1st century events, jesus is the repudiation of judaism,

Jesus corrected several misunderstandings of their faith. So rather than repudiating Judaism, he validated it.

the meaning of those events, you live in darkness.

they repudiated judaism: false commandments claimed by the liar moses, hereditary idolatry, religion of apartheid, heavenly personifications that never occurred et al - - used to persecute and victimize the innocent.

as those who wrote the the 4th century christian bible were themselves the crucifiers - continuing their handiwork. bing.

as is the crucifixion.

 

[ding]

the meaning of those events, you live in darkness.

I already explained it.