Christianity - Religious System, or the True Natural State of Man?

**Ronin** · 11-30-2012, 23:09

Originally Posted by Papewaio

WWPD?

What Would Pilate do?

**rvg** · 12-01-2012, 03:23

Originally Posted by Brenus

The REAL question is why the Governor of Judea (the same who put the Roman Standard in the Temple, a direct insult to the sanctity of the Temple) will have to “please” the population of Judea that never stop to rebel. When the Jews protested, he killed them. Sent a legion or two if they are unhappy, and job done…

Pilate was brutal, but he wasn't stupid. Rebellions in the province reflected poorly on him as a governor. To put down a rebellion he'd have to risk the lives of his men and mount an expensive military campaign. That would cost money for which he would be held accountable. If executing a native offered even a remote chance of pleasing the mob and staving off the rebellion, it would be worth it, even if he did not consider the man to be guilty. He would never send a Roman citizen onto the cross in such a manner, but Jesus wasn't a citizen.

**Papewaio** · 12-01-2012, 04:08

Originally Posted by Ronin

What Would Pilate do?

Correct, he was always a flexible man

**Brenus** · 12-01-2012, 13:35

“To put down a rebellion he'd have to risk the lives of his men and mount an expensive military campaign.” So it was easier to kill the potential rebel, in this case Christ.
And the cost of a campaign would have been covered by slaves, pillage and others income solutions. Roman Governors never shy away of fight and even provoked them (i.e. England, Boadicea). The political aim to crush a rebellion was always favoured by the Roman Empire.
The Bar Kokhba revolt in 132 is just an example of how the Romans were dealing with Rebels.

**rvg** · 12-01-2012, 20:08

Originally Posted by Brenus

The Bar Kokhba revolt in 132 is just an example of how the Romans were dealing with Rebels.

Romans were good at putting down the rebellions. That however does not mean that they were purposefully instigating them. They did not look forward to fighting insurrections.

**Philippus Flavius Homovallumus** · 12-02-2012, 00:31

Originally Posted by Brenus

“To put down a rebellion he'd have to risk the lives of his men and mount an expensive military campaign.” So it was easier to kill the potential rebel, in this case Christ.
And the cost of a campaign would have been covered by slaves, pillage and others income solutions. Roman Governors never shy away of fight and even provoked them (i.e. England, Boadicea). The political aim to crush a rebellion was always favoured by the Roman Empire.
The Bar Kokhba revolt in 132 is just an example of how the Romans were dealing with Rebels.

Um, no. Rebellions interrupted the flow of taxes and cost money. The treatment of Boadicca was considered a scandal, given that she was a Roman Citizen, one of the many instances of Nero seizing the property of dead Romans.

Both the Roman authorities and the Temple Priests had an interest in seeing the Nazarene Rabbi disposed of because he threatened the established order.

The pronouncement of Vatican II that the Jews were not responsible is simply the result of Holocaust guilt.