Comments on: Jesus Before Pilate

By: Brian B.

Wed, 14 Feb 2024 12:05:38 +0000

By: William Mayor

Fri, 11 Nov 2022 16:06:16 +0000

The gospel accounts represent a whitewashing of Pilate and a deliberate shifting of the blame to the Jewish leaders. There is ample evidence of a deliberate rewriting of history by the early church to conceal some things, and hints that this was known at least until the time of Eusebius, who also provides hints of deliberate rewriting. But good heavens, if there was deliberate rewriting of history by the early church, what does that say about our understanding of what Jesus and the Apostles actually taught? Might we have it all wrong, perish the thought. Rather beat the drum louder and support what was recorded, no matter what its actual accuracy is.

]]>

By: Eric

Wed, 05 Dec 2018 23:07:38 +0000

Edoardo, et al… We get it…the Gospels present a truth you do not accept. Spin is the art of the historian who wants to impose his own ideology and agenda. Quite unprofessional and bigoted.

]]>

By: Johan

Thu, 18 Jan 2018 13:24:55 +0000

The Jews (as any other Roman client state) were allowed to execute non-Roman citizens contravening their own laws (see Luke 14:29 for instance). The Romans very much left internal laws and usages intact after conquering.

In the wider empire, there are plenty of documented executions by client rulers especially in the documented histories of Gaul and Germany.

Nobody was, however, allowed to execute for sedition (the crime of endangering Roman rule by armed rebellion and possibly also instigating this). This prerogative belonged to Rome alone.

]]>

By: Maurice Michael

Tue, 10 Oct 2017 18:36:17 +0000

The fear of God was upon Pilate during the trial. Regardless if Pilate was portraid (by sources outside of the bible) as a strict ruler, we must not rule out the account of the fear (John19:8). If you’ve ever felt the fear of God, you already know of it’s over baring power and ability to humble the mightiest of men.

]]>

By: zach

Sat, 29 Jul 2017 14:15:38 +0000

CB states: The Jewish leaders “… lacked the jurisdiction to impose a life sentence, which is what they wanted for the itinerant rabbi from Galilee, as we are told.”

The article says “death sentence” and CB changes it to “life sentence”! In other words, CB twists the article into saying the exact opposite what it says. So it is either an intentional distortion by CB in order to make his (her?) point, or CB has reading comprehension issues!

For those that don’t know, there was no such thing as “life sentence”, indeed prison itself wasn’t even a Jewish concept.

]]>

By: Lil

Sun, 23 Jul 2017 11:26:01 +0000

His life was both given and taken

]]>

By: Johanna

Sun, 23 Jul 2017 04:15:13 +0000

Historians contemporaneous with or close to the time of Pontius Pilate show him to be a heavy-handed administrator of Roman law over a turbulent population in and around Jerusalem. Since these historians did not have any religious agenda, it would be wise to accept what they have to say about this man. The Romans in general were not known for merciful dealings with any prisoners, whether taken in battle or suspected of inciting rebellion. Chieftains and kings take in battle were dragged through the streets of Rome in the triumphal parade of the victorious Roman general, and then publicly executed. According to the Gospels, the Sanhedrin wanted Jesus executed because they feared another bloodbath like what had occurred a decade earlier during a Jewish revolt that had been put down viciously by the Roman legions. Pontius Pilate did what he was expected to do– he had Jesus killed. As to the embellishments to the story, they are either true or false, either exactly as eyewitnesses saw it, or added later to exculpate the Romans and put all the blame on the Jews. At this point in history it seems impossible to know which is true. But that Jesus was put to death by a Roman execution squad after Pontius Pilate’s edict of death is incontrovertible.

]]>

By: Joseph Cadwallader

Sat, 22 Jul 2017 03:44:56 +0000

By: James

Fri, 21 Jul 2017 04:15:10 +0000

Ever so often this web site will try to squeeze beyond what the Bible says. I have seen hints in a number of articles that say the Bible in not completely reliable. Sometimes it comes out as “the archaeology contradicts the Bible”. Other times it comes out as the Bible is not accurately presenting facts.

That suggests that there are a number of contributors who don’t actually believe the Bible. Can something be done about this, can a believing moderator ensure scriptural purity please?

The correct starting point for all articles MUST be:
The Bible is 100% accurate and reliable (apart from translation issues).

If the archaeology supports it – good.
If not, the archaeology is wrong or incomplete.

And don’t try to cast doubt or suspicion over the accuracy of the scriptures.

]]>