On Jun 16, 3:46 pm, Wide Eyed in Wonder <writing...@yahoo.com> wrote:

On Jun 16, 9:43 am, Bob LeChevalier <loj...@lojban.org> wrote:

Wide Eyed in Wonder <writing...@yahoo.com> wrote:

The only "evidence" of this is from the biased perspectives of the
gospel writers, none of whom could possibly have been present at
this
supposed conference between the Jewish leaders and Pilate.

And even if it were true, it does not say what the crime was that
they
arrested him for.

Your ignorance yet pride continues.

When you babble about ignorance and pride, it only creates guffaws of
laughter, since you are the primary example of those traits on the
newsgroup.

It was upon His claim to be the Son of God that they said they had no
need of more witnesses, since he
had said it with his own mouth.

You weren't there. They gospel writers weren't there. The words of
the Jewish leaders and Pilate in the story are fiction made up by
people who were legendizing their hero (and Savior).

Then, they told Pilate, specifically,

There were no Bible writers present to report their words.

that Jesus was being put to death for making Himself equal to God.

Matthew 27:>[1] When the morning was come, all the chief priests and
elders of the

people took counsel against Jesus to put him to death:

<[2] And when they had bound him, they led him away, and delivered him
< to Pontius Pilate the governor.
<...
<[11] And Jesus stood before the governor: and the governor asked him,
< saying, Art thou the King of the Jews? And Jesus said unto him, Thou
< sayest.
<[12] And when he was accused of the chief priests and elders, he
< answered nothing.
<[13] Then said Pilate unto him, Hearest thou not how many things they
< witness against thee?
<[14] And he answered him to never a word; insomuch that the governor
< marvelled greatly.

It does not specifically say what they accused Him of, other than
claiming to be King of the Jews, which Pilate clearly did not believe.
There is no mention of God at all.

It isn't even necessarily clear that the Jewish leaders had made that
claim specifically. Pilate would certainly have known of the Jewish
Messianic tradition, which had produced large numbers of would-be
Messiahs who by Jewish tradition would free them from Rome. They
merely may have said that He claimed to be the Messiah, and thus tried
to put him up as a rebel against Rome and the established order
(citing the temple riot as evidence).
<[22] Pilate saith unto them, What shall I do then with Jesus which is
< called Christ? They all say unto him, Let him be crucified.

Mark:
<[1] And straightway in the morning the chief priests held a
< consultation with the elders and scribes and the whole council, and
< bound Jesus, and carried him away, and delivered him to Pilate.
<[2] And Pilate asked him, Art thou the King of the Jews? And he
< answering said unto him, Thou sayest it.
<[3] And the chief priests accused him of many things: but he answered
< nothing.

Merely says that they accused him of "many things". It doesn't say
what those things are.

Luke:
<[1] And the whole multitude of them arose, and led him unto Pilate.
<[2] And they began to accuse him, saying, We found this fellow
< perverting the nation, and forbidding to give tribute to Caesar,
< saying that he himself is Christ a King.
<[3] And Pilate asked him, saying, Art thou the King of the Jews? And
< he answered him and said, Thou sayest it.

No mention about being "equal to God". The riot in the temple could
have been interpreted to Pilate as "perverting the nation, and
forbidding to give tribute to Caesar"

John is least specific of all:

28] Then led they Jesus from Caiaphas unto the hall of judgment: and
it was early; and they themselves went not into the judgment hall,
lest they should be defiled; but that they might eat the passover.
[29] Pilate then went out unto them, and said, What accusation bring
ye against this man?
[30] They answered and said unto him, If he were not a malefactor, we
would not have delivered him up unto thee.

All they said was that he was a "malefactor"

<[31] Then said Pilate unto them, Take ye him, and judge him according
< to your law. The Jews therefore said unto him, It is not lawful for
< us to put any man to death:
<[32] That the saying of Jesus might be fulfilled, which he spake,
< signifying what death he should die.
<[33] Then Pilate entered into the judgment hall again, and called
< Jesus, and said unto him, Art thou the King of the Jews?
<[34] Jesus answered him, Sayest thou this thing of thyself, or did
< others tell it thee of me?
<[35] Pilate answered, Am I a Jew? Thine own nation and the chief
< priests have delivered thee unto me: what hast thou done?

If Pilate has to ask him what he is supposed to have done, clearly
they had not made any effective accusations. One starts to think that
maybe they told Pilate that Jesus was a "liberal" which of course is a
capital crime for some idiots.

<[36] Jesus answered, My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom
< were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not
< be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence.
<[37] Pilate therefore said unto him, Art thou a king then? Jesus
< answered, Thou sayest that I am a king. To this end was I born, and
< for this cause came I into the world, that I should bear witness unto
< the truth. Every one that is of the truth heareth my voice.

So where is this supposed claim of being "the Son of God" in these
mutually contradictory verses written by people who couldn't have
known what was said at a meeting they weren't at? Where is the claim
about "being equal to God"? Where indeed is there any evidence that
the Jewish leaders mentioned God to Pilate (who of course didn't
believe in their God).

The fact that the Romans carried out the penalty that the
Jewish leaders demanded is irrelevant, since Pilate had no choice
if
he wanted to avoid an uprising.

Do you really think that Pilate, as a Roman ruler, was afraid of
some
Jewish elders?

Not only to you show your ignorance of the Bible but history. This
one is so blatent that I'll let someone else tell you of it.

Of course no one will do so, since you are wrong.

It was antisemitism that the Jewish leaders practiced in condemning
Him.

Nonsense. You apparently don't know what that word means either.

They were attacking Jews in attacking Jesus and His followers.

Nonsense. That is like saying that arresting someone who is a
murderer for his crimes, who happens to be an American citizen, is
"attacking Americans".

A. He was killed during passover at the very moment that they blew
the trumpet to kill sacrifices.

He was hung on a cross, and left to die over many hours. Temple
sacrifices were killed quickly.

I find no mention of any "trumpet" or "horn" in any passion narrative.

B. I gave you the Scripture that said He was killed for claiming to
be God.

No you didn't, because there isn't any.

lojbab

Bob. I've recently realized that those that are most abusive are the
most in need of (and the most desiring) love and forgiveness, even if
they refuse to see it. So, I'm going to change my tactic on you.
Instead of trying to reason with you (realizing that you are not
subject to objective logic, since you make up your own), I am going
to just love you and forgive you. It will be hard (I can guess what
lies ahead of me), but I will not let you use me to keep yourself from
the kingdom of God.

I'm praying for you. May you find the love and forgiveness of a
Christ that pays for your sins.

Ken Clifton
Author of The Christian Superhero Training Guide
christiansuperhero.com

Does this objective logic, which apparently you embrace and M.
LeChevalier rejects, start from the assumption that Jesus existed and
was the corporeal manifestation of a supernatural being? If so, would
you be so kind as to offer some evidence for this? Otherwise I doubt
you will win many souls (assuming they exist) for Christ (assuming he
exists).

On Jun 16, 3:46 pm, Wide Eyed in Wonder <writing...@yahoo.com> wrote:

On Jun 16, 9:43 am, Bob LeChevalier <loj...@lojban.org> wrote:

Wide Eyed in Wonder <writing...@yahoo.com> wrote:

The only "evidence" of this is from the biased perspectives of the
gospel writers, none of whom could possibly have been present at this
supposed conference between the Jewish leaders and Pilate.

And even if it were true, it does not say what the crime was that they
arrested him for.

Your ignorance yet pride continues.

When you babble about ignorance and pride, it only creates guffaws of
laughter, since you are the primary example of those traits on the
newsgroup.

It was upon His claim to be the Son of God that they said they had no need of more witnesses, since he
had said it with his own mouth.

You weren't there. They gospel writers weren't there. The words of
the Jewish leaders and Pilate in the story are fiction made up by
people who were legendizing their hero (and Savior).

Then, they told Pilate, specifically,

There were no Bible writers present to report their words.

that Jesus was being put to death for making Himself equal to God.

Matthew 27:>[1] When the morning was come, all the chief priests and elders of the

people took counsel against Jesus to put him to death:

<[2] And when they had bound him, they led him away, and delivered him
< to Pontius Pilate the governor.
<...
<[11] And Jesus stood before the governor: and the governor asked him,
< saying, Art thou the King of the Jews? And Jesus said unto him, Thou
< sayest.
<[12] And when he was accused of the chief priests and elders, he
< answered nothing.
<[13] Then said Pilate unto him, Hearest thou not how many things they
< witness against thee?
<[14] And he answered him to never a word; insomuch that the governor
< marvelled greatly.

It does not specifically say what they accused Him of, other than
claiming to be King of the Jews, which Pilate clearly did not believe.
There is no mention of God at all.

It isn't even necessarily clear that the Jewish leaders had made that
claim specifically. Pilate would certainly have known of the Jewish
Messianic tradition, which had produced large numbers of would-be
Messiahs who by Jewish tradition would free them from Rome. They
merely may have said that He claimed to be the Messiah, and thus tried
to put him up as a rebel against Rome and the established order
(citing the temple riot as evidence).
<[22] Pilate saith unto them, What shall I do then with Jesus which is
< called Christ? They all say unto him, Let him be crucified.

Mark:
<[1] And straightway in the morning the chief priests held a
< consultation with the elders and scribes and the whole council, and
< bound Jesus, and carried him away, and delivered him to Pilate.
<[2] And Pilate asked him, Art thou the King of the Jews? And he
< answering said unto him, Thou sayest it.
<[3] And the chief priests accused him of many things: but he answered
< nothing.

Merely says that they accused him of "many things". It doesn't say
what those things are.

Luke:
<[1] And the whole multitude of them arose, and led him unto Pilate.
<[2] And they began to accuse him, saying, We found this fellow
< perverting the nation, and forbidding to give tribute to Caesar,
< saying that he himself is Christ a King.
<[3] And Pilate asked him, saying, Art thou the King of the Jews? And
< he answered him and said, Thou sayest it.

No mention about being "equal to God". The riot in the temple could
have been interpreted to Pilate as "perverting the nation, and
forbidding to give tribute to Caesar"

John is least specific of all:

28] Then led they Jesus from Caiaphas unto the hall of judgment: and
it was early; and they themselves went not into the judgment hall,
lest they should be defiled; but that they might eat the passover.
[29] Pilate then went out unto them, and said, What accusation bring
ye against this man?
[30] They answered and said unto him, If he were not a malefactor, we
would not have delivered him up unto thee.

All they said was that he was a "malefactor"

<[31] Then said Pilate unto them, Take ye him, and judge him according
< to your law. The Jews therefore said unto him, It is not lawful for
< us to put any man to death:
<[32] That the saying of Jesus might be fulfilled, which he spake,
< signifying what death he should die.
<[33] Then Pilate entered into the judgment hall again, and called
< Jesus, and said unto him, Art thou the King of the Jews?
<[34] Jesus answered him, Sayest thou this thing of thyself, or did
< others tell it thee of me?
<[35] Pilate answered, Am I a Jew? Thine own nation and the chief
< priests have delivered thee unto me: what hast thou done?

If Pilate has to ask him what he is supposed to have done, clearly
they had not made any effective accusations. One starts to think that
maybe they told Pilate that Jesus was a "liberal" which of course is a
capital crime for some idiots.

<[36] Jesus answered, My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom
< were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not
< be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence.
<[37] Pilate therefore said unto him, Art thou a king then? Jesus
< answered, Thou sayest that I am a king. To this end was I born, and
< for this cause came I into the world, that I should bear witness unto
< the truth. Every one that is of the truth heareth my voice.

So where is this supposed claim of being "the Son of God" in these
mutually contradictory verses written by people who couldn't have
known what was said at a meeting they weren't at? Where is the claim
about "being equal to God"? Where indeed is there any evidence that
the Jewish leaders mentioned God to Pilate (who of course didn't
believe in their God).

The fact that the Romans carried out the penalty that the
Jewish leaders demanded is irrelevant, since Pilate had no choice if
he wanted to avoid an uprising.

Do you really think that Pilate, as a Roman ruler, was afraid of some
Jewish elders?

Not only to you show your ignorance of the Bible but history. This
one is so blatent that I'll let someone else tell you of it.

Of course no one will do so, since you are wrong.

It was antisemitism that the Jewish leaders practiced in condemning Him.

Nonsense. You apparently don't know what that word means either.

They were attacking Jews in attacking Jesus and His followers.

Nonsense. That is like saying that arresting someone who is a
murderer for his crimes, who happens to be an American citizen, is
"attacking Americans".

A. He was killed during passover at the very moment that they blew
the trumpet to kill sacrifices.

He was hung on a cross, and left to die over many hours. Temple
sacrifices were killed quickly.

I find no mention of any "trumpet" or "horn" in any passion narrative.

B. I gave you the Scripture that said He was killed for claiming to
be God.

No you didn't, because there isn't any.

lojbab

Bob. I've recently realized that those that are most abusive are the
most in need of (and the most desiring) love and forgiveness, even if
they refuse to see it. So, I'm going to change my tactic on you.
Instead of trying to reason with you (realizing that you are not
subject to objective logic, since you make up your own), I am going
to just love you and forgive you. It will be hard (I can guess what
lies ahead of me), but I will not let you use me to keep yourself from
the kingdom of God.

I'm praying for you. May you find the love and forgiveness of a
Christ that pays for your sins.

Ken Clifton
Author of The Christian Superhero Training Guide
christiansuperhero.com

Does this objective logic, which apparently you embrace and M.
LeChevalier rejects, start from the assumption that Jesus existed and
was the corporeal manifestation of a supernatural being? If so, would
you be so kind as to offer some evidence for this? Otherwise I doubt
you will win many souls (assuming they exist) for Christ (assuming he
exists).