Re: What Atheists Can't Answer

On Fri, 20 Jul 2007 10:04:25 GMT, The Amaurotean Capitalist
<g.j.bailey@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:

>On Thu, 19 Jul 2007 21:16:02 +0100, "Ex_OWM"
><allthespamyoulike@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
>>> For the priests to foist that on the Romans, Pilate would have
>>> had to have been convinced that Jesus was a theat to Roman interests,
>>> and not just a spotty policy wonk arguing about irrelevant religious
>>> minutae amongst the natives.
>>
>>Upsetting the natives *was* a threat to Roman interests - as you've
pointed 
>>out yourself, they depended on those natives for doing their heavy work
and, 
>>if they were upset, then their work rate could drop.
>
>Which natives though?  Nobody really gave a rat's ass about what some
>hick preacher out in the sticks said to the yokels until it looked
>like they might reach critical mass.  There were loads of such
>prophets, agitators and maniacs wandering around Judea at the time,
>many with messianic pretentions.
>
>When the priestly temple hierarchy got involved, the Romans would be
>more interested.  But they weren't necessarily going to intervence
>when the priestly oligarchy could defend the Judaic status quo
>effectively enough without invoking Roman agency. 
>
>>The underlying theme in the NT is that Pilate wasn't bothered either way

>>about Jesus - though his wife did get a bad feeling about it all -
another 
>>rabbi more or another rabbi less meant nothing to him so he just went
along 
>>with the Jewish leaders to keep them quiet.
>>
>>Seems a perfectly palusible explanation to me.
>
>Not to me - Pilate wouldn't have bothered unless there was some
>rationale for his actions to be explained as defending Roman
>interests.  Otherwise he would have left it to the priests to get the
>mob to stone JBJ to death or suchlike, as happened to Simon and James.
>JBJ got the full Roman treatment, and he got it for a reason.  That
>might come down to the priests convincing him about the insurgent
>nature of JBJ with some judicious bribery or lies, or it may have been
>because that case could easily be made in the first place.
>
>The NT description of Pilate is exactly what you need to minimise
>Roman agency and deflect the blame for the crucifixion away from Roman
>provincial government.  The most obvious reason for that is a
>realignment of the NT texts to cause minimum offence to Roman
>officialdom as Paul flogs his message across the eastern Mediterranean
>under the beady eye of other Roman governors like Pilate.
>
>Which brings us back to the real nature of the NT as a recruiting
>manual for Pauline Christianity, rather than a historical record of
>what JBJ really did say to Pilate.

Assuming that Pilate ever met him or even knew he existed.

Matthew, Chapter I, v.1 and on dedicates itself to a genealogy of
Jesus in order to prove that he was descended from the royal line of
David through fourteen generations. Then it announces that Mary was
found to be pregnant by the Holy Ghost, which is the point that most
atheists choke on.
     
>
>Gavin Bailey


The Highlander 
Tilgibh smucaid air do làmhan, 
togaibh a' bhratach dhubh agus 
toisichibh a' geàrradh na sgòrnanan!