Why Would Pilate Care About Jesus

[RugMatic]

Hey Pilate, some Jew vandalized the Temple and when we arrested him a slave was assaulted.

Why would Pilate feel sympathy for Jesus and want to release him as the gospels portray him?

Here's what is known of Pilate: He ruled for 10 years over Judea and Samaria. He allowed Caiaphas, whom his predecessor Valerius Gratus appointed, to remain high priest. He offended some Jews shortly after he became governor on two occasions: He brought some images of Tiberius Caesar and some golden shields to Herod's Palace in Jerusalem. He did this at night in an attempt to be discreet. Around the middle of his tenor he used money from the Temple to build a better aqueduct in Jerusalem. He was fired by the legate of Syria for using brute force to stop a violent Samaritan riot at mount Gerizim.

Pilate seems like a level headed guy to me and ten years is an usually long tenor for a Roman governor. According to Wikipedia most governors of Judea lasted 2-3 years. So Pilate was fairly component.

I can imagine Pilate thinking, geez, the guy flipped some tables and chairs, deal with it yourselves. I can just as easily imagine him thinking, geez, the guy flipped some tables and chairs, crucify him. Any civil disturbance was considered an insurrection, which was what crosses were for.
But I can't imagine Pilate having sympathy for him. You reap what you sow in this hectic, hyper religious region and Pilate knew that all too well.

[1213]

...Why would Pilate feel sympathy for Jesus and want to release him as the gospels portray him? ...

Maybe because he was not guilty to any crime?

But, I don't think it can be said he really had any sympathy, because after all, he ordered the killing. And I believe it was because Jesus was a threat to the ruling elite.

[RugMatic]

...Why would Pilate feel sympathy for Jesus and want to release him as the gospels portray him? ...

Maybe because he was not guilty to any crime?

But, I don't think it can be said he really had any sympathy, because after all, he ordered the killing. And I believe it was because Jesus was a threat to the ruling elite.

Guilty of no crime? He vandalized the Temple and a slave was assaulted during his arrest? Civil disturbances were regarded as insurrection.

[JehovahsWitness]

He vandalized the Temple and a slave was assaulted during his arrest?

• Firstly there is no record of Jesus of Nazaeth vandalising any temple.

• Secondy if a slave was assaulted, the person committing the offense should have been arrested , there is no law that supports the arrest of someone that played no part in a crime.

• There only record we have of the charges against Jesus do not include temple vandalising or assault

Civil disturbances were regarded as insurrection.

AI Overview

A civil disturbance is a violent public incident that involves multiple groups of people. It's also known as civil disorder, civil unrest, civil strife, or turmoil.

Since at no time is there any record of "groups of people" (Jesus followers) involved in any violent acts, I cannot see how the above is relevant to the gospel accounts of the life of Jesus of Nazareth.

Jesus is recorded as having been pronounced innocent of SEDITION by Pontius Pilate in the gospel accounts.



JEHOVAH'S WITNESS




RELATED POSTS

Did Jesus sin when he threw the money-changers out of the temple?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 99#p976999

Did Jesus violate Roman law?
viewtopic.php?p=1033256#p1033256

Who held jurisdiction over Herod's temple?
viewtopic.php?p=1033249#p1033249

Did Jesus provoke his own death?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 23#p983123

To learn more please go to other posts related to

"BAD JESUS" , "FARICATED JESUS" and ... JESUS OF NAZARETH

[1213]

Guilty of no crime? He vandalized the Temple and a slave was assaulted during his arrest? Civil disturbances were regarded as insurrection.

Maybe in your own mind, not according to the Bible. Pilate said:

I find nothing blameable in this man.
Luke 23:4
Pilate therefore said to them, "Take him yourselves, and judge him according to your law." Therefore the Jews said to him, "It is not lawful for us to put anyone to death,"
John 18:31

In the end, the actual reason for the judgment was written on to his cross and it was not vandalism.

And Pilate also wrote a title and put it on the cross. And having been written, it was: JESUS THE NAZARENE, THE KING OF THE JEWS.
John 19:19

Obviously cleaning God's temple from things that don't belong there, is no crime.

[Hfighter30]

[Replying to RugMatic in post #3]

When Pilate said that, what he truly means is he found no base to charged Jesus against the government of Rome. See John 13: 33 and 34. I agree with user 1213 that Jesus considered a threat to elite class. The Jews used the phrase 'King of the Jews' to Pontius Pilate, who was the fifth governor of the Roman province of Judaea serving under Emperor Tiberius, to fasten things up. Jews is under Roman Empire that time and their king must be the Emperor, not Jesus. To consider oneself as the King of the Jews is same as a treason. Pilate believe that Jesus is just a poor man who is delutional and will not become danger to Roman Empire so that's why he ask and want to release Jesus. But to satisfy both sides, he continue to ordered Jesus execution. I think Pilate doesnt really care if Jesus vandalized the temple or not.
For reference: https://biblehub.com/commentaries/john/18-38.htm

[Difflugia]

Guilty of no crime? He vandalized the Temple and a slave was assaulted during his arrest? Civil disturbances were regarded as insurrection.

Maybe in your own mind, not according to the Bible.

We had a long discussion about this a few years ago.

The Bible records a number of thing Jesus did in the Temple that violated Roman law. If the Bible accurately recorded Jesus' actions, then he was guilty of crimes.

[Perspectivo]

Those who saw the trial didn't care and those who cared didn't see it, _John Dominic Crossan. I've always found this deeply depressing, but most likely true. Once Jesus is handed over to Pilate, the gospels use Isaiah 53 and Psalm 22 to describe the trial that nobody saw, that is, nobody who cared.

Herod Antipas had John the Baptist killed for words that could inspire rebellion, Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews. Jesus continued to spread John's message and his stunt at the Temple brought a fate worse than John's. I don't think the disciples knew ahead of time what Jesus' planned to do at the Temple. I'm sure it scared the hell out of them.

I doubt Pilate had any sympathy, though I understand why the gospels said he did. A religion about how a criminal escaped justice and survived the cross would need some safety parameters in the Roman empire.

Pilate didn't want to do it, the Jews, whose Temple you just destroyed, yes those people who rebelled against Rome, they forced Pilate to do it. Oh, and Festus and Felix were fond of Paul. The Jews forced them to imprison him. Pilate, Festus and Felix, had mercy, but out of concern for Jewish rebellion, they had no choice. Please have mercy on us Christians, O Rome The Merciful, as your noble rulers had mercy. We're not the Jews.

[1213]

Guilty of no crime? He vandalized the Temple and a slave was assaulted during his arrest? Civil disturbances were regarded as insurrection.

Maybe in your own mind, not according to the Bible.

We had a long discussion about this a few years ago.

The Bible records a number of thing Jesus did in the Temple that violated Roman law. If the Bible accurately recorded Jesus' actions, then he was guilty of crimes.

If that is correct, why did Pilate say he is not guilty?

[JehovahsWitness]

The Bible records a number of thing Jesus did in the Temple that violated Roman law.

Incorrect.



The only available records of his actions at the temple make no mention of Jesus causing ...

• bodily harm (beating striking or whipping anyone (injuria*) or threatening to inflict bodily harm)

• criminal damage (or chasing/running after anyone with a view to do so)

• incitement to civil disturbance ( See post #4 above)

• theft (taking possession of another's goods or property)

• impeding traders from carrying on their business elsewhere including elsewhere in the temple courtyard

• using insolent, abusive or humiliating language toward an individual

The delict of INIURIA ("outrage", "contumely") : According to the gospel narratives there is no record of Jesus entering a man's house against his will, striking or whipping anyone; kidnapping or falsely imprisoning anyone; reviling or defaming anyone ( convicium facere ) , taking possession of anyone"s goods or running after (chasing/ threatening ) anyone

Any suggestion that Jesus broke Roman law is based on supposition and/or an inaccurate understanding of Roman law at the time.

For more details see posts #11-13 CONVERSATION WITH CHATGTP

JW

RELATED POSTS

Did Jesus sin when he threw the money-changers out of the temple?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 99#p976999

Did Jesus violate Roman law?
viewtopic.php?p=1166776#p1166776

Who held jurisdiction over Herod's temple?
viewtopic.php?p=1033249#p1033249

Did Jesus provoke his own death?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 23#p983123