23 replies to this topic

[Asyncritus]

I made what I think is an odd observation yesterday.

It's this:

Nobody in the gospels, apart from 2 people, EVER speaks to Jesus, and uses the name 'Jesus'. 'Lord' is frequently used when speaking to Him, but apart from Legion and Bartimaeus, there is no record of anybody else doing so.

The opposition says 'this man', 'this fellow' - as terms of contempt and insult, I wouldn't be surprised.

At Capernaum and Nazareth, it's 'this man', 'the carpenter's son'. He was a well known local lad - but they never use His name. So it seems anyway.

If it is a term of opprobrium as it seems to be, then we can understand how Pilate completely irritated and annoyed the Jews, by writing 'JESUS OF NAZARETH' on the sign on the cross. He names Him and now adds further insult to injury by saying 'THE king of the Jews'. The real one.

He meant MESSIAH, but probably didn't know or want to use the word.

Which brings up another very interesting point. Did Pilate end by believing in Jesus, as his centurion (and his wife!) obviously did? And surely, the centurion at Capernaum's act and words, and belief in Jesus' power to heal, and the consequences of that, MUST have become known to Pilate and (especially) his wife. Such things could not POSSIBLY have remained concealed from him, given the eminence and importance of his centurion.

He defends Jesus, no fewer than 5 times, maybe 6. He puts up his sign, The King of The Jews = Messiah! - maybe sardonically, maybe not: but if not, where does that lead us?

He sounds as if he expects (and therefore believes in) the resurrection, by saying 'you've got a guard; make the tomb as secure as you can.' Implying, I think, 'A fat lot of good it's going to do you anyway'.

And finally, he grants Jesus' body to Joseph of Arimathea, his final act recorded in scripture. A deed of major kindness to the Lord and His Father.

Why on earth would he do a thing like that? It must have been contrary to every procedure they ever had in the book of rules. They would normally have slung the body into Gehenna without a second thought: as they did the thieves. But not Jesus. Pilate permits the burial. Out of sheer respect, I believe, and probably a certain amount of guilt, because he had had to crucify someone he knew to be a perfectly innocent man.

It might be worth making the point too, that this final act put his career in fearsome jeopardy.

Jesus was a political prisoner of considerable magnitude. The Jews were claiming treason against Rome. Now imagine the situation as if it were taking place today.

Suppose this guy who has just been released from prison where he was incarcerated for the bombing of the plane at Lockerbie, died and was buried in the designated tomb of a senior member of the government, at the order of the Prime Minister,and everybody found out about it. Can you imagine the outrage, uproar and political consequences to the Prime Minister?

The queen would probably have his head, if she had the authority to do so.

Just so here. The emperor MUST have heard of it - and when he did, Pilate was a marked man, and his political career in flames, and he knew it. That would be my prediction, anyway. Maybe somebody can tell us what did happen. Did he end up as governor of Outer Mongolia, I wonder.

Whatever happened, he permitted Jesus to be buried, perhaps in an effort to make amends for having had to order His execution. He had defended Him to the very best of his ability. He declared him to be the Messiah, the King of the Jews. He was, it seems, waiting for His resurrection.

Whoever gives a prophet a cup of cold water, in the name of a prophet, will in no wise lose his reward. Will the Lord have mercy on this man?

Edited by Asyncritus, 25 August 2009 - 02:13 PM.

[nsr]

Asyncritus, on Aug 25 2009, 10:46 AM, said:

Why on earth would he do a thing like that? It must have been contrary to every procedure they ever had in the book of rules. They would normally have slung the body into Gehenna without a second thought: as they did the thieves. But not Jesus. Pilate permits the burial. Out of sheer respect, I believe, and probably a certain amount of guilt, because he had had to crucify someone he knew to be a perfectly innocent man.

It might be worth making the point too, that this final act put his career in fearsome jeopardy.

Jesus was a political prisoner of considerable magnitude. The Jews were claiming treason against Rome. Now imagine the situation as if it were taking place today.

Suppose this guy who has just been released from prison where he was incarcerated for the bombing of the plane at Lockerbie, died and was buried in the designated tomb of a senior member of the government, at the order of the Prime Minister,and everybody found out about it. Can you imagine the outrage, uproar and political consequences to the Prime Minister?

The queen would probably have his head, if she had the authority to do so.

Just so here. The emperor MUST have heard of it - and when he did, Pilate was a marked man, and his political career in flames, and he knew it. That would be my prediction, anyway. Maybe somebody can tell us what did happen. Did he end up as governor of Outer Mongolia, I wonder.

This is all pretty speculative. The bit in bold sums it up, to be honest. You don't know, so you're guessing wildly as usual. Why don't you do some historical research before presenting this material publicly?

[Asyncritus]

nsr

If you've nothing constructive to say, why not just go someplace else? Please?

[nsr]

I made a perfectly valid comment. You can answer it or you can ignore it, your choice. I'm actually trying to help you.

[Jeremy]

Asyncritus: you would do better if you weren't so rude.

Nsr: you would do better if you didn't make your responses to Asyncritus such a crusade.

Grow up, brethren, the pair of you.

Edited by Jeremy, 25 August 2009 - 09:38 PM.

[nsr]

I'm not on a crusade, bro. Surely you must see that my point was valid?

[Lectron]

Asyncritus, on Aug 25 2009, 10:46 AM, said:

I made what I think is an odd observation yesterday.

It's this:

Nobody in the gospels, apart from 2 people, EVER speaks to Jesus, and uses the name 'Jesus'. 'Lord' is frequently used when speaking to Him, but apart from Legion and Bartimaeus, there is no record of anybody else doing so.

The opposition says 'this man', 'this fellow' - as terms of contempt and insult, I wouldn't be surprised.

At Capernaum and Nazareth, it's 'this man', 'the carpenter's son'. He was a well known local lad - but they never use His name. So it seems anyway.

If it is a term of opprobrium as it seems to be, then we can understand how Pilate completely irritated and annoyed the Jews, by writing 'JESUS OF NAZARETH' on the sign on the cross. He names Him and now adds further insult to injury by saying 'THE king of the Jews'. The real one.

He meant MESSIAH, but probably didn't know or want to use the word.

Which brings up another very interesting point. Did Pilate end by believing in Jesus, as his centurion (and his wife!) obviously did? And surely, the centurion at Capernaum's act and words, and belief in Jesus' power to heal, and the consequences of that, MUST have become known to Pilate and (especially) his wife. Such things could not POSSIBLY have remained concealed from him, given the eminence and importance of his centurion.

He defends Jesus, no fewer than 5 times, maybe 6. He puts up his sign, The King of The Jews = Messiah! - maybe sardonically, maybe not: but if not, where does that lead us?

He sounds as if he expects (and therefore believes in) the resurrection, by saying 'you've got a guard; make the tomb as secure as you can.' Implying, I think, 'A fat lot of good it's going to do you anyway'.

And finally, he grants Jesus' body to Joseph of Arimathea, his final act recorded in scripture. A deed of major kindness to the Lord and His Father.

Why on earth would he do a thing like that? It must have been contrary to every procedure they ever had in the book of rules. They would normally have slung the body into Gehenna without a second thought: as they did the thieves. But not Jesus. Pilate permits the burial. Out of sheer respect, I believe, and probably a certain amount of guilt, because he had had to crucify someone he knew to be a perfectly innocent man.

It might be worth making the point too, that this final act put his career in fearsome jeopardy.

Jesus was a political prisoner of considerable magnitude. The Jews were claiming treason against Rome. Now imagine the situation as if it were taking place today.

Suppose this guy who has just been released from prison where he was incarcerated for the bombing of the plane at Lockerbie, died and was buried in the designated tomb of a senior member of the government, at the order of the Prime Minister,and everybody found out about it. Can you imagine the outrage, uproar and political consequences to the Prime Minister?

The queen would probably have his head, if she had the authority to do so.

Just so here. The emperor MUST have heard of it - and when he did, Pilate was a marked man, and his political career in flames, and he knew it. That would be my prediction, anyway. Maybe somebody can tell us what did happen. Did he end up as governor of Outer Mongolia, I wonder.

Whatever happened, he permitted Jesus to be buried, perhaps in an effort to make amends for having had to order His execution. He had defended Him to the very best of his ability. He declared him to be the Messiah, the King of the Jews. He was, it seems, waiting for His resurrection.

Whoever gives a prophet a cup of cold water, in the name of a prophet, will in no wise lose his reward. Will the Lord have mercy on this man?

Here is an interesting resume on Pilate - (Prefect of Judea) a rash and cruel man who clearly ended up being in favour to the murderous Sanhedrin clique who were bent on Jesus' crucifixion and forced like the king who beheaded John the baptist, forced to go against his better judgement.
He seems to get a good press from the early christians some saying he converted. It's all shrouded in mystery - still some of 'syncs point are usefully speculative.
Think you are a bit hard on him Nsr.

Edited by Lectron, 26 August 2009 - 12:31 AM.

[Asyncritus]

Thanks for some sensible input there, Lectron.

The article doesn't seem to add much though. We have to presume that the gospels are accurate in their account. They would, if they were being partisan, have been more anti Pilate than they are.

I do think that this act must have had a prejudicial effect on his future career, though, even if I can't prove it.

[Asyncritus]

nsr, on Aug 25 2009, 10:52 PM, said:

I'm not on a crusade, bro. Surely you must see that my point was valid?

I think you are on a crusade, and it's becoming obvious to all and sundry. I've only made 3 serious contributions recently, and you've been in there with both boots on in all 3 of them. That's a 100% batting average.

I also don't think you understood what I said.

I clearly indicated that I was speculating: "That would be my prediction anyway" is the identifying statement to which you felt compelled to take exception. It is also the statement that means 'I don't know, but this is what I think.'

You may not understand this, but 'thinking' is something we are supposed to do with the Word - 'in His law doth he meditate (ie think) day and night'. 'Thinking' means to ask questions and find answers. This contribution is the result of my 'thinking' on the matter, and is not set in concrete. It's still a free country, and I'm entitled to think and express myself in moderate fashion.

I will leave it there, and expect no further crusading from you.

[Amy Parkin]

I don't really have anything to add about Pilate, but I did think you were going to go down the name of Jesus route a bit more. If he's only called by name twice in the entire NT, why don't we reflect that balance? I'm not saying we're wrong, but is it something to do with our understanding of who Jesus is or...?

Maybe a little bit about Pilate while I'm here. I'd love to know if there are historical records about what he did afterwards. I'll have a bit of a google at some point unless someone beats me to it. I'm quite pro-Pilate, I think. I get the impression from the biblical record that he was very reluctant and saddened at what had to happen. I really like the way you put it into a modern-day context! Thank you!

[ChickenSoup]

Amy Parkin, on Aug 26 2009, 09:17 AM, said:

Maybe a little bit about Pilate while I'm here. I'd love to know if there are historical records about what he did afterwards. I'll have a bit of a google at some point unless someone beats me to it. I'm quite pro-Pilate, I think. I get the impression from the biblical record that he was very reluctant and saddened at what had to happen. I really like the way you put it into a modern-day context! Thank you!

In all honesty, I don't understand how anyone could be pro-Pilate. He washed his hands of the entire affair and declared himself innocent of shedding blood and yet he handed Christ (an innocent man) over to the Jews knowing full well they were going to kill him. All because he didn't want to lose favor.

Compare his actions with someone like Rahab, in principle - not that the situations were the same.

Edited by ChickenSoup, 26 August 2009 - 04:28 PM.

[nsr]

Asyncritus, on Aug 26 2009, 09:43 AM, said:

I think you are on a crusade, and it's becoming obvious to all and sundry. I've only made 3 serious contributions recently, and you've been in there with both boots on in all 3 of them. That's a 100% batting average.

I also don't think you understood what I said.

I clearly indicated that I was speculating: "That would be my prediction anyway" is the identifying statement to which you felt compelled to take exception. It is also the statement that means 'I don't know, but this is what I think.'

You may not understand this, but 'thinking' is something we are supposed to do with the Word - 'in His law doth he meditate (ie think) day and night'. 'Thinking' means to ask questions and find answers. This contribution is the result of my 'thinking' on the matter, and is not set in concrete. It's still a free country, and I'm entitled to think and express myself in moderate fashion.

I will leave it there, and expect no further crusading from you.

You really need to learn how to accept constructive criticism, bro. If I see errors in your methods of studying the Bible, I'll point them out. I do this for two reasons, to help those who might be reading, and to help you. If you disagree with my comments, you can either answer them or ignore them. You don't have to go on a smear campaign to try and discredit anyone who criticises you. People can see right through it, you know.

[Richie]

ChickenSoup, on Aug 26 2009, 09:23 AM, said:

Amy Parkin, on Aug 26 2009, 09:17 AM, said:

Maybe a little bit about Pilate while I'm here. I'd love to know if there are historical records about what he did afterwards. I'll have a bit of a google at some point unless someone beats me to it. I'm quite pro-Pilate, I think. I get the impression from the biblical record that he was very reluctant and saddened at what had to happen. I really like the way you put it into a modern-day context! Thank you!

In all honesty, I don't understand how anyone could be pro-Pilate. He washed his hands of the entire affair and declared himself innocent of shedding blood and yet he handed Christ (an innocent man) over to the Jews knowing full well they were going to kill him. All because he didn't want to lose favor.

Compare his actions with someone like Rahab, in principle - not that the situations were the same.

Herod's similar. He liked John but "for the oath's sake" (yeah right) he had his head chopped off.

[Jeremy]

Richie, on Aug 26 2009, 06:27 PM, said:

Herod's similar. He liked John but "for the oath's sake" (yeah right) he had his head chopped off.

It's the Gospel writer who says it was for the oath's sake, so it must be correct. Herod had made the oath before all the guests at his birthday party, and was too ashamed to go back on it.

[Richie]

Yes - he was too ashamed. It wasn't because he actually cared about Numbers 30.

[Jeremy]

Richie, on Aug 26 2009, 07:24 PM, said:

Yes - he was too ashamed. It wasn't because he actually cared about Numbers 30.

I guess there was a lot of Scripture Herod didn't care about. John had told him that it wasn't lawful to have his brother's wife.

[Asyncritus]

nsr, on Aug 26 2009, 06:11 PM, said:

You really need to learn how to accept constructive criticism, bro. If I see errors in your methods of studying the Bible, I'll point them out. I do this for two reasons, to help those who might be reading, and to help you. If you disagree with my comments, you can either answer them or ignore them. You don't have to go on a smear campaign to try and discredit anyone who criticises you. People can see right through it, you know.

Your criticism was not constructive in any way. If you really objected to my speculation about Pilate being banished to Outer Mongolia, you would have done the decent thing and gone looking for a link (as Lectron did) which would have settled the matter. That would have been 'constructive'.

Instead, you chose the destructive route, and can see 'errors in my methods of studying the Bible'. You accuse me of going on a 'smear campaign' to try and discredit 'anyone' who criticises me because I choose to rebut your comments!

This is a wild exaggeration of zero facts. A single rebuttal has turned into a 'smear campaign', and you are now suddenly 'anyone'! Wow!

Look, can we draw a line under this? It's gone too far already, and I have no wish to carry on down this futile road.

A simple, well-intentioned contribution has suddenly turned into a disaster zone. Isn't that a pity?

[nsr]

You're doing exactly the same thing again .

I will continue to correct errors wherever I see a need to do so.

[Jeremy]

Brethren, you've both been asked to cut out the bickering. If you don't, I'll close the thread. I wish you could realise how tedious this is for others to read, and what a bad example it sets.

[Asyncritus]

Jeremy, on Aug 26 2009, 07:16 PM, said:

Richie, on Aug 26 2009, 06:27 PM, said:

Herod's similar. He liked John but "for the oath's sake" (yeah right) he had his head chopped off.

It's the Gospel writer who says it was for the oath's sake, so it must be correct. Herod had made the oath before all the guests at his birthday party, and was too ashamed to go back on it.

For some little time I wondered about the amount of detail that appears in the account of John's beheading. How did the gospel writer know about all this I wondered?

6 But when Herod’s birthday was kept, the daughter of Herodias danced before them, and pleased Herod.[Note, somebody was there who saw the pleasure on his face]

7 Whereupon he promised with an oath to give her whatsoever she would ask. [Somebody heard the oath being made]

8 And she, being before instructed of her mother, said, Give me here John Baptist’s head in a charger. [Somebody listened to the conversation between mother and daughter]
Mark adds 'with haste' (25 And she came in straightway with haste [somebody saw her rushing in] unto the king, and asked, saying, I will that thou give me by and by in a charger the head of John the Baptist.

9 And the king was sorry:[again someone saw the sorrow and regret on his countenance] nevertheless for the oath’s sake, and them which sat with him at meat, he commanded it to be given her.
10 And he sent, and beheaded John in the prison.
11 And his head was brought in a charger [somebody saw it being brought in and describes the 'vessel'], and given to the damsel: and she brought it to her mother. [again, somebody sees all this].

Well, who?

Of course, the Holy Spirit could have given the account to the writer. But there's a simpler answer:

Acts 13:1 Now there were in the church that was at Antioch certain prophets and teachers; as Barnabas, and Simeon that was called Niger, and Lucius of Cyrene, and Manaen, which had been brought up with Herod the tetrarch, and Saul.

Here is a close relative of Herod's, who we could quite reasonably expect to have been present at the feast. Being a relative, he was able to see the exchanges between Herod and the girl, and between her and the mother. And being a disciple, he could have told the writer(s) in great detail what happened in that shameful and disgraceful incident.

There are, however, indications that something of the gospel message did percolate into Herod's mind. When Herod hears about Jesus' miracles, it's recorded that he said:

14 ... That John the Baptist was risen from the dead, and therefore mighty works do shew forth themselves in him.

So if we give the words their due weight, we see at least that Herod:

1 expected John the Baptist to rise from the dead

2 and therefore believes in the resurrection and

3 believes that on being raised from the dead, extraordinary powers will be granted to those raised

So John did not waste time in prison. He spent a lot of it instructing Herod,

Mark 6:20 For Herod feared John, knowing that he was a just man and an holy, and observed him; (all the more modern versions say that he 'protected him' - presumably from the wrath of Herodias)

and when he heard him, he did many things [does this mean, many of the things John told him that he should do, as he had spoken on the banks of the Jordan?],

and heard him gladly.

That's twice in one verse that Mark says that Herod 'heard' John. If we remember that 'hear' usually means more that just 'listening' and carries with it the idea of 'obeying what is said', then we can see that it had profound influence on him, and may well have prevented Herod from perpetrating evil on his subjects, and even encouraged him to do good for them.

Herod wanted to see Jesus, and I guess had told Pilate about it - otherwise, why would Pilate have sent Jesus to him? It's for this reason that

6 When Pilate heard of Galilee, he asked whether the man were a Galilaean.
7 And as soon as he knew that he belonged unto Herod’s jurisdiction, he sent him to Herod, who himself also was at Jerusalem at that time.
8 And when Herod saw Jesus, he was exceeding glad: for he was desirous to see him of a long season [ ever since the John debacle] , because he had heard many things of him [both from John and from the news-carriers]; and he hoped to have seen some miracle done by him [because he knew that Jesus was doing miracles].
9 Then he questioned with him in many words; but he answered him nothing.
[Jesus frustrates him by a. not doing any miracles, and b. by not saying anything - and therefore, the frustration spills over and manifests itself thus...

11 ...Herod with his men of war set him at nought, and mocked him, and arrayed him in a gorgeous robe, and sent him again to Pilate.

[We notice that he did not inflict any physical harm on Him. If he feared John, he must have been terrified to touch Jesus]

There's a great deal more that might be said, but I hope that the foregoing may encourage readers to have a closer look at the incidents around this time.

Edited by Asyncritus, 26 August 2009 - 11:58 PM.

[Asyncritus]

Jeremy, on Aug 26 2009, 11:07 PM, said:

Brethren, you've both been asked to cut out the bickering. If you don't, I'll close the thread. I wish you could realise how tedious this is for others to read, and what a bad example it sets.

Quote

Look, can we draw a line under this? It's gone too far already, and I have no wish to carry on down this futile road.

[Asyncritus]

Amy Parkin, on Aug 26 2009, 03:17 PM, said:

I don't really have anything to add about Pilate, but I did think you were going to go down the name of Jesus route a bit more. If he's only called by name twice in the entire NT, why don't we reflect that balance? I'm not saying we're wrong, but is it something to do with our understanding of who Jesus is or...?

This is a really good point Amy. I haven't thought it through as far as you've gone, but I'll do my best.

Quote

Maybe a little bit about Pilate while I'm here. I'd love to know if there are historical records about what he did afterwards. I'll have a bit of a google at some point unless someone beats me to it. I'm quite pro-Pilate, I think. I get the impression from the biblical record that he was very reluctant and saddened at what had to happen. I really like the way you put it into a modern-day context! Thank you!

I do get that impression too. I see a man forced by those evil people into doing something he would far rather not have done. But the cry of 'treason against Rome' tipped the scales. He had a duty to his employers to perform, and a loyalty to his oath to the Emperor (at least I imagine that there was such a thing, much as an ambassador will have to take such an oath today). He simply could not go against that cry.

Otherwise, I can see the emperor asking

"Well, was there a possiblilty of treason here? Did he say he was a king? Did that man say people should not pay tribute to me? And what were you playing at, letting him off?"

I really don't see him as searing his conscience: as I said, the fact that he allowed Jesus' body to be removed and given a decent burial was a massive political statement. Of course, he may have been doing this to give the Jews one in the eye for having forced his hand - but I think that the size of the political statement that it made is a little against that.

But thank you for your kind comments.

Edited by Asyncritus, 26 August 2009 - 11:55 PM.

[Davvers]

Async

I'm not an expert (and others are) but I seem to recall from some research I did a couple of years ago that there were some early Christian writings which sought to absolve Pilate from any blame in the matter and portray him almost as a convert.

I think there was a pseudopigraphical writing called the "Acts of Pilate" and some references in the so called "Gospel of Peter" The only direct reference I could remember was Tertullian who said "these things concerning Christ did Pilate, himself also already in his conscience a Christian" - link . His comment is part of his appeal to the "Lords of the Roman empire" to restrain their hatred of Christians and he uses Pilate as a Roman who, when he knows something of Jesus, he claims is almost converted. He's maybe pushing the point a little far but you can see why he would want to use Pilate's case in that way and so presents him in a favourable light which supports his case.

It is interesting that a theme of those early forgeries which developed into an early church view should still arise as a discussion point today, and maybe it tells us to be a little cautious about trying to be more certain about things than the revealed facts allow.

The point about the use of Jesus name also interested me...

D

Edited by Davvers, 27 August 2009 - 08:55 AM.

[Asyncritus]

Thanks D.

I was looking this up a minute ago and found this about Herod in Mk 6.

14 ¶ And king Herod heard of him; (for his name was spread abroad:) and he said, That John the Baptist was risen from the dead, and therefore mighty works do shew forth themselves in him.

The curious fact is that 'he said' is in the imperfect tense. In Greek, the imperfect tense denotes 'being in a state of' doing something: that is continuously.

14 ¶ King Herod heard of all this (for the name of Jesus had become widely known), and he kept saying, "John the Baptizer has come back to life, and that is why these miraculous Powers are working in him."

Therefore he didn't say it once, but kept on saying that - almost as if he was haunted by the evil deed he had been trapped into doing.

Message has an interesting take:

14 ¶ King Herod heard of all this, for by this time the name of Jesus was on everyone’s lips. He said, "This has to be John the Baptizer come back from the dead—that’s why he’s able to work miracles!"
15 Others said, "No, it’s Elijah." Others said, "He’s a prophet, just like one of the old-time prophets."
16 But Herod wouldn’t budge: "It’s John, sure enough. I cut off his head, and now he’s back, alive."

Weymouth has observed this and expresses the imperfect tense more correctly than the others:

14 ¶ King Herod heard of all this (for the name of Jesus had become widely known), and he kept saying, "John the Baptizer has come back to life, and that is why these miraculous Powers are working in him."

So it was haunting him. I think that is perfectly clear in all this. You wouldn't have thought he had a conscience - but he clearly did.

Edited by Asyncritus, 27 August 2009 - 10:28 PM.