Passion of Christ

Didn't spread too quickly, though, I guess. 40 years later, Jericho was still in the dark.
tounge.gif


And going back to Pilate, Jango, I think God is a master of using evil to further His plan. Again, that doesn't exonerate the sinners from doing the sin. What if Pilate had done the right thing? Then God's plan would still have been furthered by some other method. Pilate was faced with hundreds of blood-thirsty Jews. Maybe they would have rioted. Maybe half of Pilate's soldiers were down with some illness and would not have been able to put a rebellion down. Look at Herod. Herod could have condemned Jesus and it would have been Herod's fault. Then you'd be saying "Herod had to do it because Jesus had to die." Yes, Jesus had to die. That doesn't mean Pilate had any less free will to do what he did. God's will will prevail one way or another. I'm sure He's clever enough to make that happen without taking away man's free will to sin.
 
Pilate didn't do a damn thing wrong - he recieved an official request through the proper channels for the prosecution of a criminal. As secular governor, with a standing order to respect local traditions, he had no real choice but to make the choice he did.

As governor, his job is not to get warm fuzzies from doing the right thing, it is to keep order and prevent anarchy from plunging his colony into abject dissolution. He stepped out of line, in fact, by doing what he did in questioning the Pharisees.
 
I kinda agree with eon here, Pilate didnæt do anything wrong, it was the farisee who hmm.. fuzzed up the Jews by temping them, thats the word.. teeempting them with gold, enmgouraging them to call out for barabas, and killing Jesus, Pilate even condemed it, but it was not in his place to do anything.
 
A single Pharisee?
Hmm. My history must be slipping. I never heard of that Pharisee. What was his name?

Passion of the Christ...negative media.
Ehh. Whatever. I think Mel Gibson did a smart thing. God? What? No, that's not what I was going to say. He smelled the money to be made, and heckuvalotta it was made opening weekend. Who wouldn't flock to the butchering of their Savior on the silver screen? Well, not me, but I'm the only exception, and no doubt untold numbers of Catholic and Baptist peers glare down their noses at ol' unbelieving, Christian-bashing me.

Gibson did a smart move; he found something people love, found something people would pay to see, and lo and behold! the money flows in like milk and honey. Props to Gibson. If anything, he is truly a marketing master. Why didn't Quentin Tarantino go for the Savior? Or Francis Ford Coppola? Nahh...it had to be Gibson.

Did anyone hear of the 60 Minutes...? "God told me to say that Mel Gibson and Pat Robertson are lunatics." I'm with him on Pat Roberston, and if Mel's saying he hears voices from God telling him to make movies about his crucifixion and really help the Christian life by seeing God nailed to, suffocating on, and groped on the cross...well, who am I to say he didn't? Don't want to get too blasphemous now.
 
I didn't say A pharisee did it but all of them encouraged them to crusify Jesus on the cross, and why on earth would this movie not be good for todays marked, I think it's a good way to show a new world an old story to put it that way, and would it really be so unbelivable that maybe God told Mel Gib. to make the movie?
 
It doesn't say in the Bible that the Pharisees told the people to tell Pilate to crucify Jesus. Most honestly thought He was a blasphemer.
 
Pilate had the choice to let a man who had done no wrong go, Eon, you're wrong. His DUTY was to uphold the law, not keep down rebellions, though that was a high priority in that area, what with the uprising of zealous Jews at the time.

He did do wrong, he broke the law and condemned a man who had done NO wrong, and he freed a man who HAD done wrong. If that's not just stupid and against Roman law, I don't know WHAT is.

Van
 
I don't know, Eon. I guess I just can't accept "He was doing his job" as a valid moral argument. Prostitutes are doing their jobs too, that doesn't make it right. Would Caesar have been angry at Pilate if he had not condemned Jesus, thus giving the Jews an excuse for a riot? Probably. Would that action have meant the death of Pilate? Dunno. Does it matter? The movie added some creative non-Biblical stuff here to put additional pressure on Pilate (his commenting on two previous warnings from Caesar), so only God knows what Caesar would or would not have done.

I keep coming back to a sin is a sin is a sin. The whole Bible is full of warnings that a just end does not justify evil means. The only way to the end (heaven) is through the means (Jesus). Is it wrong for a woman to sell her body for sex to feed her starving family? Yes, it is. Was it wrong for Pilate to condemn an innocent man to save his own backside and "do his job"? Yup, I think so.
 
Yes, but Pilate wasn't a Christian was he? Your whole concept of sin was pretty much meaningless to him. He did the job he was oathsworn to do, and he did it to the letter of his instruction. He tried to be a nice guy while he did it, but being a nice guy is pretty secondary to doing the job - which is to keep the natives orderly and under Roman law.

Under Roman law, which of a bunch of indigees gets nailed to a tree really isn't all that important. Preventing a riot with all the attributable deaths and property damage IS.
 
What does Christian or non-Christian have to do with right and wrong? No one in Jerusalem was a Christian. They were all Jews.

And exempting Pilate doesn't work. God specifically warned Pilate not to condemn Jesus using Pilate's wife as the messenger (Matt 27:19). That warning by God removes any defense Pilate may have had toward ignorance. Pilate debated with Jesus, and Jesus - bloody, broken, and exhausted - took the time to try to preach to Pilate. All through the Gospels, Jesus preached and the righteous followed (regardless of the cost) and the wicked plotted. So, at the end, Jesus preached to Pilate. Pilate tried to sit on the fence and failed. Sure he was scared, but that still doesn't excuse his actions or exempt him from doing something he knew to be wrong.

How do I know he knew it to be wrong? The hand-washing. He washed his hands to rid himself of the responsibility then turned around and ordered Jesus killed. That's like me announcing to a crowd that I am not responsible for my actions, then shooting someone in the head. I see only 2 options there: Pilate is culpable, or Pilate was insane.
 
Sorry, but "My wife told me not to" doesn't rank very high on the list of military excuses. It's right up there with "The dog ate my briefing".

He's a soldier for the love of the Gods, he's not supposed to jack in his principles and his standing orders because somebody preached to him!
 
Ha, shows how detatched from reality you may be, Eon o_o.

When is the last time YOU made a decision that was not influenced by your personal beliefs and inner thoughts?

You can't. It's technically impossible, because we all choose according to our thoughts and beliefs, no matter what anyone says.

Just because we believe it doesn't make it right, though.

Van
 
I didn't say it wouldn't affect his thinking - I said it wouldn't affect his final decision. Pilate clearly wouldn't have chosen JC out of the criminals he had available for crucifiction - he as much as told the Pharisee's that they had the wrong guy up there on the platform. They as much as told him to stick to his sums and his legions and leave THEM to work out who were the biggest offenders against the Jewry.

So he symbolically washed his hands of the whole thing, telling them that it was their call and he was bound to humour them in this, but that in his opinion they were doing the wrong thing.

Perhaps it's you who is slightly out of touch with the reality of politics and military discipline, Van...
 
Hmm.. here is a intresting question, what if Pilate didn't do it?

Today;
Preacher: Did I ever tell you about Jesus?
UnChristian: Who now?
P.: The one who lived a good and long life and died for your sins of old age... then he went to heaven
u.: bah who cares

There would be no sacrifice, and 33 years without sin, costs a lot, and takes even more to belive in, but 99 years without sin, no noe would belive it.

Pilate just did his dutie, sure the chineese who tortured the christians missionaries were also doing their dutie you say. Yes I'll say, there isn't a bigger statement than being killed for what you belive in. But in Pilates defence he just let the Jews go on with their little bloodsheding fest, he didn't reallly condemn Jesus he didn't get the chanse to.
 
[b said:
Quote[/b] (Eon @ Mar. 09 2004,8:28)]So he symbolically washed his hands of the whole thing, telling them that it was their call and he was bound to humour them in this, but that in his opinion they were doing the wrong thing.
Click to expand...
I see a very valid point here. Kind of like when a parent says, "Well, if that's what you really want, then so be it."

Also very similar to the instance of the hardening of Pharaoh's heart in Exodus. Through the passage Pharaoh was talked to numerous times, and each time the text says he hardened his heart. Then around the 6th or 7th plague it seems as if God says, "Fine; if you really want to be stubborn, then stubborn you'll be!"
 
[b said:
Quote[/b] ]So he symbolically washed his hands of the whole thing, telling them that it was their call and he was bound to humour them in this, but that in his opinion they were doing the wrong thing.
Click to expand...
Yep, I agree 100%.
 
An earlier post suggested Pilate was a coward. If he set Jesus free, assuming it caused a riot, he would have had to suppress it with Roman soldiers and violence. Many would have died. Is it cowardly to choose what one perceives as the lesser of two evils? How many “regular” people dieing would it take to equal one Jesus?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top