WI: Pilate Pardons Jesus

Now when you say New Testament, do you mean the Gospels, or the entirety of the NT including Paul's letters? Paul had a heck of a lot to say about the subject after all.

So did Jesus:

Matt 5:27 “You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall not commit adultery’; 28 but I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lust for her has already committed adultery with her in his heart. 29 If your right eye makes you [w]stumble, tear it out and throw it from you; for it is better for you [x]to lose one of the parts of your body, [y]than for your whole body to be thrown into [z]hell. 30 If your right hand makes you [aa]stumble, cut it off and throw it from you; for it is better for you [ab]to lose one of the parts of your body, [ac]than for your whole body to go into [ad]hell.

Matt 19:3-9 Pharisees came to Jesus, testing Him and asking, “Is it lawful for a man to [c]divorce his wife for any reason at all?” 4 And He answered and said, “Have you not read that He who created them from the beginning made them male and female, 5 and said, ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? 6 So they are no longer two, but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let no man separate.” 7 They *said to Him, “Why then did Moses command to give her a certificate of divorce and send her away?” 8 He *said to them, “Because of your hardness of heart Moses permitted you to [d]divorce your wives; but from the beginning it has not been this way. 9 And I say to you, whoever [e]divorces his wife, except for [f]immorality, and marries another woman [g]commits adultery[h].”...12For there are eunuchs who were born that way from their mother’s womb; and there are eunuchs who were made eunuchs by men; and there are also eunuchs who made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. He who is able to accept this, let him accept it.”
 
It proves that they are truly independent and will not listen to demands that their results should not contradict the Christian teachings and traditions.

Which doesn't mean a thing if they're only confirming their own biases.

Again, who are these historians?

Also, why not answer some of the other points I raise while you're at it?
 
And most importantly is that there is nothing in the Gospels that endorses celibacy.

First you said New Testament, now you say gospels. Well, you are still wrong. See Matt 19:12.

In the matters of sex and sexuality all Jesus said that the alleged adultress (she could have been a victim of rape which in jewish law of that time was adultry), whom he saved from being stoned, should not sin.

Scholars believe this is a later addition to the Scripture, even conservative ones. It's called the pericope adulterae.

And if the New Testament really endorses celibacy, why does not a single protestant church promotes celibacy.

Probably anti-Romanism. I can quote the explicit words of Paul. He literally says, "It is better not to marry."

I think it is good that you are interested in the subject, but I think you are coming on too strong without having a sufficient background in the subject. Try reading the Bible cover to cover and then get back to me.
 
The problem is that we know so very little of the historical Jesus because as a poor person he would not register even a brief mention in most accounts of history. Most of our evidence pertaining to Yeshwa himself is not really reliable or was altered to include mention of him, and even the Gospels are not helpful in most cases. The Gospels were not meant to be a history of Jesus Christ (hence why there was a secondary trade in accounts of the life of Jesus that got labelled as heretical, including some pretty far-fetched ones) but a summary of the teachings of Jesus Christ, and even then there are differences based on when it was written (with the oldest, the Gospel of Mark, written just after the First Revolt).

Pilate, on the other hand, we have plenty of evidence of, and by all accounts he was not someone you would want to mess around with. Based on what we know, there would be no way that Pilate would have pardoned anyone, let alone an upstart revolutionary who claimed to represent a "Kingdom of God" - which was a direct challenge to the Pax Romana, where the Romans saw themselves as living in the Kingdom of God. Such spurious references showcasing otherwise in Pilate's handling of Jesus should thus be taken as seriously as the anachronistic references towards the Pharisees throughout the Gospels. To get someone to "pardon" Jesus would require a different Governor.
 
Celibacy: There is not a single verse in the whole New Testament that supports celibacy. If it were so, we would still have celibate priests and monks in protestantism. But we do not.

Let us not forget that the Catholic Church also had clerical marriage up until the eleventh century, or 'Nicholaism'. Which was only done away with because of the fear of churchmen passing on Church lands to their children, and the Church wanting to keep their lands in their hands.

It wasn't an easily-surrendered thing, either. Eleventh-century Milan pretty much had a civil war over it between the Patarini reformers and the established clerical hierarchy. Read Landulf of Milan, Bonizo of Sutri's Liber ad Amicum and other works for more on that.

Point is, you're right. Clerical celibacy was an invention of the later Church, and the Bible doesn't support it ( 'Better to marry than to burn', after all :D )
 
Let us not forget that the Catholic Church also had clerical marriage up until the eleventh century, or 'Nicholaism'. Which was only done away with because of the fear of churchmen passing on Church lands to their children, and the Church wanting to keep their lands in their hands.

It wasn't an easily-surrendered thing, either. Eleventh-century Milan pretty much had a civil war over it between the Patarini reformers and the established clerical hierarchy.

Point is, you're right. Clerical celibacy was an invention of the later Church, and the Bible doesn't support it ( 'Better to marry than to burn', after all :D )

Not exactly. There were many notable celibates in early church history. Paul (1st Century), Origen (2nd century), Ambrose (4th Century), Augustine (5th Century), should I even go on? Celibacy was rather widespread in the western church by the fourth century. It just was not absolutely required until the 11th century.
 
The problem is that we know so very little of the historical Jesus because as a poor person he would not register even a brief mention in most accounts of history. Most of our evidence pertaining to Yeshwa himself is not really reliable or was altered to include mention of him, and even the Gospels are not helpful in most cases. The Gospels were not meant to be a history of Jesus Christ (hence why there was a secondary trade in accounts of the life of Jesus that got labelled as heretical, including some pretty far-fetched ones) but a summary of the teachings of Jesus Christ, and even then there are differences based on when it was written (with the oldest, the Gospel of Mark, written just after the First Revolt).

Pilate, on the other hand, we have plenty of evidence of, and by all accounts he was not someone you would want to mess around with. Based on what we know, there would be no way that Pilate would have pardoned anyone, let alone an upstart revolutionary who claimed to represent a "Kingdom of God" - which was a direct challenge to the Pax Romana, where the Romans saw themselves as living in the Kingdom of God. Such spurious references showcasing otherwise in Pilate's handling of Jesus should thus be taken as seriously as the anachronistic references towards the Pharisees throughout the Gospels. To get someone to "pardon" Jesus would require a different Governor.

In any case, I don't think Pilate was going to really let Jesus go after he implicitly claimed he was a king. I think I agree with the "sadistic joke theory" - use the Sanhedrin's hatred for this man to get them to unwittingly affirm their loyalty to Rome and make them look hypocritical. Exactly what a colonial governor of a brutal imperialist regime would do. Jesus was always going to be executed - if the people screamed their loyalty to Rome, so much the better. If somehow the mob looked as if they might support Jesus, well, time for another genocidal crackdown.
 
Not exactly. There were many notable celibates in early church history. Paul (1st Century), Origen (2nd century), Ambrose (4th Century), Augustine (5th Century), should I even go on? Celibacy was rather widespread in the western church by the fourth century. It just was not absolutely required until the 11th century.

Not to mention monastics, with the exception of the Nestorians, were always celibate.
 
Not exactly. There were many notable celibates in early church history. Paul (1st Century), Origen (2nd century), Ambrose (4th Century), Augustine (5th Century), should I even go on? Celibacy was rather widespread in the western church by the fourth century. It just was not absolutely required until the 11th century.

Not to mention monastics, with the exception of the Nestorians, were always celibate.

Well yeah, but there was always an established difference between 'secular' clergy and 'religious' clergy (monastics). Plus, the chaps you mention are prominent figures, the types who are always going to be different :) From what my old lecturer said (along with several historians: H.E.J. Cowdrey, etc.) clerical marriage remained pretty widespread in Western Europe up until the eleventh century.

And beyond, it was just called concubinage then. One thing that King John did that chronically embarrassed the Church was that he took prisoner the kept women of English ecclesiastics and ransomed them back to their menfolks - the Church was embarrassed at the sheer number who paid ;)
 
In any case, I don't think Pilate was going to really let Jesus go after he implicitly claimed he was a king. I think I agree with the "sadistic joke theory" - use the Sanhedrin's hatred for this man to get them to unwittingly affirm their loyalty to Rome and make them look hypocritical. Exactly what a colonial governor of a brutal imperialist regime would do. Jesus was always going to be executed - if the people screamed their loyalty to Rome, so much the better. If somehow the mob looked as if they might support Jesus, well, time for another genocidal crackdown.

Precisely. In any case, as far as 1st century Judaism goes Jesus was one of many who had adamant opinions about everything pertaining to the faith (seriously - according to scholars who've studied much of the written evidence we have on the diversity of 1st century Judaism, it's like watching a giant family quarrel, which anyone who has lived in a big family would sympathize). As far as miracle workers goes, he was not new, and as far as people who claimed to be the Moshiach go there was also plenty of them, and most of the time they were harmless unless they were far too uppity for the Romans' liking. What made Jesus interesting was that he was a poor person working among fellow poor people, who apparently had specialties in resurrecting people and curing the dreaded leprosy, and more or less had a bog-standard theology which was popular among poor people. As far as we know from the Gospels (at least the Synoptics, as well as from Q), he also tried to avoid controversy whenever possible - except whenever he mentioned "Kingdom of God". That would not put him in trouble with the priestly establishment, but it did let the Romans paint Jesus as a potential revolutionary that needed to be wiped out. (Which would lead to a digression from me over why no one would be present when someone like Jesus would be crucified, but then it would distract me from a TL project I'm working on.)
 
Herod Antipas arrests Jesus later on in Galilee

So Pilate pardons Jesus and releases him. Caphias is still pissed off so what if he simply pressures Herod Antipas to arrest Jesus once he returns to Galilee? Jesus then meets the same fate as John the Baptist. He gets beheaded in some dungeon. The Jesus movement still has it's martyr.

Jesus getting pardoned can still be seen as a win for Jesus. In a way it shows the Islamic view that God does not abandon his prophet. Jesus is saved this time. But I think the next year he returns for Passover Jesus will not be welcome in Jerusalem. He will be on Pilate's troublemaker list.
 
Not exactly. There were many notable celibates in early church history. Paul (1st Century), Origen (2nd century), Ambrose (4th Century), Augustine (5th Century), should I even go on? Celibacy was rather widespread in the western church by the fourth century. It just was not absolutely required until the 11th century.
But, it was not supported by the Bible. According to the BBC documentary series "Sex and the Church" the source of celibacy was not the Bible but the still very popular Greek philospher Pythagoras.
Yes, and they were firmly entrenched by the 4th century.
Monastrism is also not supported by the Bible. It was imported from India and thus based on Hinduism and Buddhism.
(Funny thing is that Buddha is a saint in the Roman Catholic Church.)
 
But, it was not supported by the Bible. According to the BBC documentary series "Sex and the Church" the source of celibacy was not the Bible but the still very popular Greek philospher Pythagoras.

What do you trust more, primary sources and plentiful examples of celibacy in early church history, or a sensational BBC documentary?

Monastrism is also not supported by the Bible. It was imported from India and thus based on Hinduism and Buddhism.
(Funny thing is that Buddha is a saint in the Roman Catholic Church.)

Source for Buddha being saint in Catholic Church.
 
What do you trust more, primary sources and plentiful examples of celibacy in early church history, or a sensational BBC documentary?
It is not that I do not trust your sources, I simply do not trust you.;)
I prefer a well researched TV documentary to a hobby historian even if the conclusions presented there are controversal. But I am very sceptical by documentaries sponsored by evangelical churches.
BTW there are several very good German documentaries about biblical topics. Two of them titled "Bibelrätsel" were moderated by Margot Käßmann, the former bishop of the Evangelical-Lutheran Church of Hanover and former president of the Evangelische Kirche in Deutschland (Evangelical (= protestant) Church in Germany).

Source for Buddha being saint in Catholic Church.
You did not knew that? :eek: Well, do your research and you will find a source. :p
 
Top