IS WITCHCRAFT GOOD OR EVIL?

[acehighinfinity]

[Replying to post 106 by Divine Insight]
DIVINE INSIGHT:

Moreover, I find the verse that you have posted to be quite interesting and I use it frequently to defend my witchcraft against Christian criticism. The Christians often claim that witches get their power from Satan (just as Jesus had been accused of in the verse you've quoted).

However, like Jesus I use my powers for good works. Therefore, for the very same reasons that Jesus gave my powers cannot come from Beelzebub (or Satan) because a house divided against itself cannot stand.

Therefore my powers necessarily must come from God, for precisely the same reasons that Jesus gave.

If what Jesus spoke is truth, then clearly it must also apply to me. I cannot do good works in the name of Beelzebub, demons, or Satan because that would be a house divided against itself.

So I find it rather humorous that Jesus himself has totally vindicated all witches who do good works. Because their power (according to Jesus) can only come from God. Only God's power can be used for good works.

I would like to invite you here DIVINE INSIGHT
The above post caught my attention and I would like to bring this to the light. Now in another thread I am under the impression you study Buddhism but claim not to be a Buddhist, correct?

I am totally against WitchCraft according to the Holy Bible:
Deuteronomy 18:14 "The nations you will dispossess listen to those who practice sorcery or divination. But as for you, the Lord your God has not permitted you to do so."
Revelation 22:15 "Outside are the dogs, those who practice magic arts, the sexually immoral, the murderers, the idolaters and everyone who loves and practices falsehood."
Leviticus 19:26 "Do not practice divination or seek omens"
...the list goes on.

Questions:
If Divine Insight claim to use WitchCraft for good, then could you or anyone else list those examples please?
Does one see WitchCraft as Good? or
Does one see WitchCraft as Evil?

Feel free to add on.

Thanks in advance,
Ace

[pixelero]

[Replying to post 13 by Divine Insight]

The actual God that is it associated with is YHWH the unpronounceable name of God associated with the Tetragrammaton which actually originated in Egypt and many people believe actually stood for the four spiritual elements of Earth, Air, Fire, and Water. Originally it wasn't even the name of a God. It's no wonder that it's not pronounceable it's not even a name. It's just a symbolic representation of Earth, Air, Fire and Water. What were considered to be be the four spiritual elements of all creation. That later got translated into Yahweh, and finally into Yehovah or Jehovah.

Are those assertions, (my emphasis,) fact or speculation? Could you provide some reference?

[pixelero]

[Replying to post 37 by Divine Insight]

Jesus was crucified for his blaspheme of the Old Testament.

This assertion is highly doubtful. Blasphemy, in ancient Israel, was not punished by crucifixion. The particular violations of Jewish religious law that were punishable by death in 1st century Palestine were conducted by stoning. Crucifixion was a Roman punishment, and it was used for political, not religious, crimes. The "INRI" (Iēsus Nazarēnus, Rēx Iūdae�rum i.e. Jesus of Nazareth, King of the Jews,) sign on the crucifix makes this clear. He was crucified for claiming to be the Jewish Messiah, which claim would be in direct violation of Roman authority.

[Divine Insight]

Jesus was crucified for his blaspheme of the Old Testament.

This assertion is highly doubtful. Blasphemy, in ancient Israel, was not punished by crucifixion. The particular violations of Jewish religious law that were punishable by death in 1st century Palestine were conducted by stoning. Crucifixion was a Roman punishment, and it was used for political, not religious, crimes. The "INRI" (Iēsus Nazarēnus, Rēx Iūdae�rum i.e. Jesus of Nazareth, King of the Jews,) sign on the crucifix makes this clear. He was crucified for claiming to be the Jewish Messiah, which claim would be in direct violation of Roman authority.

I agree, and this is why the New Testament Gospels make no sense at all.

What is most likely true is that Jesus is entirely a made-up fictional character.

And here's why:

The New Testament Gospels have Pilate exonerating Jesus and pronouncing repeatedly that he finds no fault with him. Even even publicly washes his hands of the whole affair. And this is all according to the Gospels themselves:

Luke.23:4 Then said Pilate to the chief priests and to the people, I find no fault in this man.

John.18:38 Pilate saith unto him, What is truth? And when he had said this, he went out again unto the Jews, and saith unto them, I find in him no fault at all.

John.19:4 Pilate therefore went forth again, and saith unto them, Behold, I bring him forth to you, that ye may know that I find no fault in him.

Matt.27:24 When Pilate saw that he could prevail nothing, but that rather a tumult was made, he took water, and washed his hands before the multitude, saying, I am innocent of the blood of this just person: see ye to it.

According to the Gospel rumors Pilate totally exonerated Jesus finding no fault with him and washing his hands of the whole affair.

So this was definitely NOT a Roman Crucifixion being carried out by Roman authority. That is a "Christian Lie" that cannot hold up in face of what the actual New Testament Gospels actually say.

Christians lie about their own Gospel scriptures when they try to claim that the Roman's crucified Jesus.

The New Testament Gospels have Pilate telling the Jewish Priest to see to the crucifixion of Jesus if they so desire it.

And this is according to the Gospels:

John 19:6 When the chief priests therefore and officers saw him, they cried out, saying, Crucify him, crucify him. Pilate saith unto them, Take ye him, and crucify him: for I find no fault in him.

Pilate exonerated Jesus and found no fault in him. He washed his hands of the whole affair and ultimately told the Jewish Priests to see to the crucifixion of Jesus if that's what they were so intent on having done.

Now the question becomes, "Why were Roman Soldiers involved at all? And why a crucifixion instead of a stoning?"

Well, if we allow that there is any truth to these Gospel rumors at all, then I can take a stab at a reasonable guess as to why Roman soldiers were involved and Jesus was crucified instead of being stoned to death.

The Jews were under Roman occupation. They were not permitted to have a government or a police authority of their own. Therefore if they wanted someone killed they had to make an appeal to Roman to do it for them.

The Jewish Priests were the closest thing that the Jews had to a "Governmental Body" during this Roman occupation. So if the Jewish Priests were calling for the crucifixion of Jesus, then Pilate had probably assigned to the Jewish Priests Roman soldiers who would then carry out these sentences against the Jews on behave of Jewish Priests.

That makes sense to me. Therefore the claim that this "doesn't fit" with Jewish traditions or law goes right down the drain. The Jews were under Roman occupation at this time, their own traditions and governmental body was non-existence at that time. They were permitted to do anything without the approval and assistance of the Romans.

It's crystal clear by the New Testament Gospels that it was indeed the Jewish Priests who were calling for the Crucifixion of Jesus. So if that goes against their traditions then they are the guilty ones because thy are the ones who called for it.

At according to the Gospels. This is the New Testament Gospel as I have clearly shown above.

It was the Jewish Priest who called for the crucifixion of Jesus NOT the Roman authority.

Had they done this when they weren't under Roman occupation they probably would have just had Jesus stoned to death by their own congregation.

But it's crystal clear that Jesus was killed at the demands of the Jewish Priests and NOT by the decree of Pilate the Roman authority.

There are so many problems with these Christian Gospel rumors that people who suggest that they are most likely pure fiction actually have plenty of justification for their claims.

It crystal clear that according to the Gospel rumors the Jewish Priests had Jesus crucified. Not the Romans.

According to the Gospel rumors Pilate exonerated Jesus, found not fault in him, and washed his hands of the whole affair.

[pixelero]

[Replying to post 43 by Divine Insight]

I can take a stab at a reasonable guess as to why Roman soldiers were involved and Jesus was crucified instead of being stoned to death.

The Jews were under Roman occupation. They were not permitted to have a government or a police authority of their own. Therefore if they wanted someone killed they had to make an appeal to Roman to do it for them.

That conjecture doesn't really hold water. Remember the story of the adulteress, "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone?" The Jews had every right to punish religious crimes according to their own customs. Also, what makes you say that they were not permitted to have a government? The Romans recognized client kings. After the death of Herod the great, the kingdom was divided among his three sons. Herod Antipas was the tetrarch of Galilee at the supposed time of Christ's crucifixion.

Have you ever read Josephus's The Jewish War? It's really quite interesting because it describes frequent crucifixions of one would-be-Messiah after another, but curiously enough, there's no mention at all of a Jesus, or Yeshua, of Galilee. So, I agree that it is quite likely that Christ's crucifixion may indeed have been a crucifiction. His legend may have been embellished with elements of actual Messiah claimants who were crucified. But what is quite clear from the historical record of the times is that criminals were crucified by Roman, not Jewish authorities, and Jews who violated the laws of Moses were stoned by Rabbinical authorities.

As to why the gospels make the Sanhedrin the villains of the story, I would expect that it's simply because they were the direct competition to the new cult.

[pixelero]

[Replying to post 1 by acehighinfinity]

Does one see WitchCraft as Good? or
Does one see WitchCraft as Evil?

It really depends what you mean by witchcraft. Probably the most common definition would be the practice of magic, (or "magick" as Aleister Crowley spelled it to distinguish the serious ceremonial techniques he practiced and advocated from "stage magic" i.e. prestidigitation as an entertainment form.)

Magic actually has a lot in common with religion; both use ritual in order to influence the supernatural. I've seen them distinguished in this way: religion attempts to implore gods; magic attempts to compel gods. There is also the old adage that magic is the religion of the enemy, which is probably why the most common impression of magic is "black magic". I personally don't consider magic as inherently evil, but I would usually discourage it because it tends to lead to superstition. (It is possible, by the way, to practice magic successfully without being superstitious or without believing in the supernatural. Magic of this sort is essentially altering ones own consciousness and is pretty much equivalent to yoga, and Buddhist or Taoist meditation. Even the Jesuits practice something similar with their exercita, so even from some Christian perspectives, such ritual is not all bad.)

On the other hand, "witchcraft" is a bit of a loaded term since it originally implied bad or "black" magic. The term "witch" is cognate with "wicked", so funnily enough, the phrase "wicked witch" is a tautology. Looking at it in this way, it's necessarily evil.

Of course, since the late 19th and early 20th century, there has been a movement, to reclaim witchcraft or "wicca" as an acceptable neopagan religion. This movement was influenced by the writings of Margaret Murray and Crowley and was led by Gerald Gardner. These modern Wiccans, of course, consider their practices as good, even holy.

There's another way to look at witchcraft: the anthropological way. In this sense, witchcraft might be considered synonymous with shamanism, which is usually, but not always, more good than evil. An example of "evil" shamanistic witches might be the witch guilds of the Zinacantecos, a Mayan people in Mexico. There, when someone gets too powerful and wealthy, a witch will cast an evil eye spell on the wealthy victim, making sure that the victim sees the witch's evil eye gesture when there are no other witnesses about. The victim then gets physically sick, (psychosomatically,) and then calls on the witch to remove the spell, which the witch does for a heavy price. Then the witch has to share his takings equally with all the other witches in his guild.

Anyway, if one were a Christian, I suppose one would been required to "not suffer a witch to live," unless of course, one followed the example of Jesus Christ and forgave the cute little nose-twitching hags.

[Divine Insight]

[Replying to post 43 by Divine Insight]

I can take a stab at a reasonable guess as to why Roman soldiers were involved and Jesus was crucified instead of being stoned to death.

The Jews were under Roman occupation. They were not permitted to have a government or a police authority of their own. Therefore if they wanted someone killed they had to make an appeal to Roman to do it for them.

That conjecture doesn't really hold water. Remember the story of the adulteress, "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone?" The Jews had every right to punish religious crimes according to their own customs. Also, what makes you say that they were not permitted to have a government? The Romans recognized client kings. After the death of Herod the great, the kingdom was divided among his three sons. Herod Antipas was the tetrarch of Galilee at the supposed time of Christ's crucifixion.

Have you ever read Josephus's The Jewish War? It's really quite interesting because it describes frequent crucifixions of one would-be-Messiah after another, but curiously enough, there's no mention at all of a Jesus, or Yeshua, of Galilee. So, I agree that it is quite likely that Christ's crucifixion may indeed have been a crucifiction. His legend may have been embellished with elements of actual Messiah claimants who were crucified. But what is quite clear from the historical record of the times is that criminals were crucified by Roman, not Jewish authorities, and Jews who violated the laws of Moses were stoned by Rabbinical authorities.

As to why the gospels make the Sanhedrin the villains of the story, I would expect that it's simply because they were the direct competition to the new cult.

The biblical Gospels make it crystal clear that the Roman authority Ponitus Pilate exonerated Jesus of all charge that the Jewish Priest had brought against him. In fact, Rome itself was not even bringing any charges against Jesus.

Pilate washed his hands of the whole affair and clearly stated to the Jewish Priests. "Ye see to it". How the Jewish Priests were able to employ Roman Soldiers to do their dirty work is an open question. But Jesus clearly wasn't crucified by Roman Authority. The Gospel rumors themselves make this crystal clear without any ambiguity at all.

So if there is a problem with this story it highly suggests that the whole thing was probably a fabricated lie. Maybe there was no Jesus, and no crucifixion?

But in no way can the crucifixion be blamed on Roman Authority. The Gospel rumors make it crystal clear that his isn't the case.

Pontius Pilate exonerated Jesus and washed his hands of the whole affair, for the Bible tells us so.

The bible also proclaims quite clearly that it was the Jewish Priests who were calling for the crucifixion of Jesus.

Right here it is in the Gospel scriptures:

John 19:6 When the chief priests therefore and officers saw him, they cried out, saying, Crucify him, crucify him. Pilate saith unto them, Take ye him, and crucify him: for I find no fault in him.

The chief priests called for the crucifixion of Jesus.

And besides, why would you say that this is against Jewish tradition?

Who cares? Jesus proclaimed that the Jewish Priests were hypocrites who didn't observe Jewish traditions properly anyway. So why should we expect these Jewish Priests to observe any traditions correctly?

That's ridiculous. If they could be trusted to observe Jewish traditions correctly then Jesus wouldn't have been constantly calling them hypocrites.

Matt.23

[13] But woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye shut up the kingdom of heaven against men: for ye neither go in yourselves, neither suffer ye them that are entering to go in.
[14] Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye devour widows' houses, and for a pretence make long prayer: therefore ye shall receive the greater damnation.
[15] Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye compass sea and land to make one proselyte, and when he is made, ye make him twofold more the child of hell than yourselves.
[23] Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye pay tithe of mint and anise and cummin, and have omitted the weightier matters of the law, judgment, mercy, and faith: these ought ye to have done, and not to leave the other undone.
[25] Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye make clean the outside of the cup and of the platter, but within they are full of extortion and excess.
[27] Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye are like unto whited sepulchres, which indeed appear beautiful outward, but are within full of dead men's bones, and of all uncleanness.
[29] Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! because ye build the tombs of the prophets, and garnish the sepulchres of the righteous,

According to Jesus the Jewish Priests were the scum of the earth. Why should you think that they would do anything according to proper tradition?

They were hypocrites in this fairytale remember?

[pixelero]

[Replying to post 46 by Divine Insight]

Forgive me if I misunderstand, but it appears to me that your argument seems to be eating the cake it intends to keep.

The biblical Gospels make it crystal clear that the Roman authority Ponitus Pilate exonerated Jesus of all charge that the Jewish Priest had brought against him.

You have already discounted the biblical narrative as truth. How can a fantasy make anything "crystal clear"? We both know that Christian mythology is self-contradictory fiction. What I wish to clarify is whatever grain of historical potential underlies the mythology. The most likely, from a historical perspective, events regarding the crucifixion of Christ are as follows:

1. Plenty of would-be-messiahs were crucified by the the Roman authorities on the grounds that the messiah would be the king of the Jews, which would contradict Rome's prerogative to appoint such kings.

2. Any cult claiming to be a cult of the messiah would therefore need to have it's messianic contender slain by the political opponents of the messiah, not by the very religious authorities that could confirm the messiah. If Christ had been stoned by the Sanhedrin for blasphemy that would have gravely weakened his case to be considered the messiah.

3. The gospels were composed generations after the events they purport to describe. The Christian cult, by this time, had already established itself, (contemporary references in Tacitus and Josephus suggest as much,) as a messiah cult, but the primary competition for Jewish followers, by this time, was established Judaism, not Roman influence. That is, in all probability, why the Sanhedrin was demonized in the gospels.

In any case, it is clear, to me at least, that the contention that "Christ was crucified for blaspheming the Old Testament" is shaky at best, even on Christian mythological grounds, never mind historical grounds. (Of course, my clarity may well be entirely the product of excellent claret, but I do believe the history is relatively sound. )

[Divine Insight]

You have already discounted the biblical narrative as truth. How can a fantasy make anything "crystal clear"? We both know that Christian mythology is self-contradictory fiction. What I wish to clarify is whatever grain of historical potential underlies the mythology. The most likely, from a historical perspective, events regarding the crucifixion of Christ are as follows:

I agree that it's fiction, but even with fiction we can make statements about what the fictional story is claiming. We could do the same thing with a movie like Star Wars, or The Lord of the Rings, etc.

If you're going to argue about these fictional stories, then you need to go by what the stories claim.

1. Plenty of would-be-messiahs were crucified by the the Roman authorities on the grounds that the messiah would be the king of the Jews, which would contradict Rome's prerogative to appoint such kings.

Can you please provide historical evidence outside of the Bible that shows that the Romans were routinely crucifying Jews on the grounds that they were claiming to be the messiah?

It's my understanding that historians could not even find one such historical account much less multiples cases of it.

Moreover, what's the difference?

If the Romans were the ones behind the crucifixion then the New Testament Gospel rumors would be obvious lies since they pin this on the Jewish Priests.

So how is it going to help anything by having the Romans crucifying Jesus?

All that would do is guarantee that the Gospels have it all wrong.

2. Any cult claiming to be a cult of the messiah would therefore need to have it's messianic contender slain by the political opponents of the messiah, not by the very religious authorities that could confirm the messiah. If Christ had been stoned by the Sanhedrin for blasphemy that would have gravely weakened his case to be considered the messiah.

Well, duh?

That's the Gospel story.

The Gospels DO NOT pin the crucifixion on the Roman Authority, on the contrary they make it crystal clear that the Jewish Priests themselves are the culprits.

Therefore, even if what you say is true, that would only confirm that the Gospel rumors are indeed false.

3. The gospels were composed generations after the events they purport to describe. The Christian cult, by this time, had already established itself, (contemporary references in Tacitus and Josephus suggest as much,) as a messiah cult, but the primary competition for Jewish followers, by this time, was established Judaism, not Roman influence. That is, in all probability, why the Sanhedrin was demonized in the gospels.

Fine, then you are suggesting that the Christian Gospels were written by demons, or at least by demonic men.

In that case why should we believe anything the Gospels have to say? And then we'd end up with having basically no record of anything about Jesus at all at that point.

In any case, it is clear, to me at least, that the contention that "Christ was crucified for blaspheming the Old Testament" is shaky at best, even on Christian mythological grounds, never mind historical grounds. (Of course, my clarity may well be entirely the product of excellent claret, but I do believe the history is relatively sound. )

I don't see why it should be shaky at all.

The Old Testament has God commanding that blasphemers be killed. And it doesn't demand that they necessarily need to be "Stoned to death". You are more than free to kill them anyway you can kill them.

According to the Gospel rumors (which is all we have to go by) the Jewish Priests were constantly accusing Jesus of Blaspheme, and of doing his "magic" by the powers of Beelzebub or Satan.

So the idea that they would kill him for blaspheme should not be surprising at all. Even if they had ulterior motives for wanting him killed that would still be the best excuse to use.

And from my perspective the real irony here is that the God of the Old Testament would be responsible for the whole thing anyway for having commanded men to kill blasphemers.

What kind of a God would command men to kill blasphemers and then send his only begotten son into that same crowd to make claims and statements that could only be seen as blaspheme by the people he had commanded to kill blasphemers?

If the Jewish Priests did crucify Jesus for blaspheme the Old Testament God could do nothing other than set them at his right-hand side in heaven for having executed his commands perfectly.

He's the one who commanded them to kill blasphemers.

And if Jesus was claiming that no one comes to the father by by him then Jesus was clearly committing blaspheme to the hilt because he was breaking the first of the Ten Commandment given to Moses that no other God shall be placed before Yahweh.

Yet here Jesus was demanding that we must place him before God. We can't get to God by through Jesus and this places Jesus BEFORE God.

That would be the ultimate blaspheme and according to the Gospels this is what Jesus was going around preaching.

Those Jewish Priests would have to have him killed for blaspheme at all cost. Otherwise they would not be obeying the commandments of their God of the Old Testament.

Jesus would have been the ultimate blasphemer if you accept that he actually made the claims stated in the Gospel rumors.

And that's all we have to go by.

[pixelero]

[Replying to post 48 by Divine Insight]

Can you please provide historical evidence outside of the Bible that shows that the Romans were routinely crucifying Jews on the grounds that they were claiming to be the messiah?

As I think I mentioned, the main source is The Jewish War by Josephus. The Penguin Classics version is the one I read. Josephus writes that the coming of the messiah was highly anticipated by the revolting Jews. Of course, the ones he mentions being executed by the Romans were not authentic. He refers to them as false prophets or religious frauds.

Incidentally, the Jewish Virtual Library has an interesting article on this topic at:
www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/an ... jesus.html

On the Messiah:

...in the first centuries of the Common Era the word "Messiah" had a different meaning than it has today. Contemporary believers usually think of the Messiah as a wholly spiritual figure. Then, it meant a military leader who would free the Jews from foreign (i.e., Roman) rule, bring them back from the four corners of the earth, and usher in an age of universal peace. A century after Jesus, many Jews accepted the military general, Bar-Kokhba as the Messiah, although even his greatest supporter, Rabbi Akiva, made no claims regarding his spiritual greatness. Indeed, it was precisely because of the military association with the word "Messiah" that the occupying Roman authorities must have seen Jesus as dangerous and decided to crucify him. That the Romans hung over Jesus' body a sign proclaiming his crime, KING OF THE JEWS, again underscores the apparently militant and political direction of his activities.

On Pilate:

Concerning Jesus' executioner, Pontius Pilate, we have a considerable body of data that contradicts the largely sympathetic portrayal of him in the New Testament. Even among the long line of cruel procurators who ruled Judea, Pilate stood out as a notoriously vicious man. He eventually was replaced after murdering a group of Samaritans: The Romans realized that keeping him in power would only provoke continual rebellions. The gentle, kindhearted Pilate of the New Testament—who in his "heart of hearts" really did not want to harm Jesus is fictional. Like most fictions, the story was created with a purpose. When the New Testament was written, Christianity was banned by Roman law. The Romans, well aware that they had executed Christianity's founder—indeed the reference to Jesus' crucifixion by the Roman historian Tacitus is among the earliest allusions to him outside the New Testament—had no reason to rescind their anti-Christian legislation. Christianity's only hope for gaining legitimacy was to "prove" to Rome that its crucifixion of Jesus had been a terrible error, and had only come about because the Jews forced Pilate to do it. Thus, the New Testament depicts Pilate as wishing to spare Jesus from punishment, only to be stymied by a large Jewish mob yelling, "Crucify him." The account ignores one simple fact. Pilate's power in Judea was absolute. Had he wanted to absolve Jesus, he would have done so: He certainly would not have allowed a mob of Jews, whom he detested, to force him into killing someone whom he admired.

On a completely different note- I beg your indulgence, but as I mentioned in my self-introduction, I'm a real grammar nazi. I can't help notice that you consistently use the word "blaspheme" as a noun. "Baspheme" is actually the verb form; the noun is "blasphemy".

[Divine Insight]

On a completely different note- I beg your indulgence, but as I mentioned in my self-introduction, I'm a real grammar nazi. I can't help notice that you consistently use the word "blaspheme" as a noun. "Baspheme" is actually the verb form; the noun is "blasphemy".

Thank you for the information. I didn't know this. In fact I have been confused in the past. I thought the two different spellings were just alternative spellings of the noun.

You'll have to excuse me because my life's occupation has been the physical sciences so I'm not as familiar with the vocabulary of theology.

Concerning the issues we've been addressing,....

On Pilate:

Concerning Jesus' executioner, Pontius Pilate, we have a considerable body of data that contradicts the largely sympathetic portrayal of him in the New Testament. Even among the long line of cruel procurators who ruled Judea, Pilate stood out as a notoriously vicious man. He eventually was replaced after murdering a group of Samaritans: The Romans realized that keeping him in power would only provoke continual rebellions. The gentle, kindhearted Pilate of the New Testament—who in his "heart of hearts" really did not want to harm Jesus is fictional. Like most fictions, the story was created with a purpose. When the New Testament was written, Christianity was banned by Roman law. The Romans, well aware that they had executed Christianity's founder—indeed the reference to Jesus' crucifixion by the Roman historian Tacitus is among the earliest allusions to him outside the New Testament—had no reason to rescind their anti-Christian legislation. Christianity's only hope for gaining legitimacy was to "prove" to Rome that its crucifixion of Jesus had been a terrible error, and had only come about because the Jews forced Pilate to do it. Thus, the New Testament depicts Pilate as wishing to spare Jesus from punishment, only to be stymied by a large Jewish mob yelling, "Crucify him." The account ignores one simple fact. Pilate's power in Judea was absolute. Had he wanted to absolve Jesus, he would have done so: He certainly would not have allowed a mob of Jews, whom he detested, to force him into killing someone whom he admired.

In that case, if you trust the information attributed to your historical sources then the New Testament is clearly fabricated rumors that cannot be true anyway.

So if Pilate was responsible for the crucifixion of some guy who claimed to be the Jewish messiah, then ironically, that would make the entire New Testament totally false rumors.

So history would deny the Bible as "truth".

I can accept that.

I was just pointing out the fact that "The Bible" tells us that Pilate exonerated Jesus and found no fault in him and that it was the Jewish priests who called for his crucifixion.

If that's not the truth, then clearly the Bible is not true.

I also heard that there was an independent historical record that Jesus was supposedly crucified for apostasy. But that implies that the Jewish Priest would have been behind that. I doubt that the Romans would care if Jesus had been preaching against the Jewish faith.

I'm not sure how much these independent historical records can be trusted though in terms of actually pointing to the man named "Jesus". I mean, if they found an historical record that shows that some guy was crucified for apostasy, they would then just assume that this guy was the Jesus mentioned in the New Testament. But that doesn't necessarily need to be the case at all.

On a grammar note:

Is it correct to say, "an historical record".

or should it be "a historical record"?

I've seen it both ways and I'm confused over which is correct, or are they both acceptable?

I tend to use "an" simply because it sounds better for me personally when I read the sentence back, but I don't know what the official grammar rules are.