Freeing guilty criminals at Passover?

[Fake Messiah]

According to the Gospels or should I say Christian mythology, every Passover, the Jews would ask Pilate to free any one criminal they chose. But how can this be anything else but a blatant lie?

Historical Pontius Pilate never delegated any authority to Jews. Nor did Jews ever have a custom of freeing guilty criminals at Passover or any other time of the year.

And yet Christians take this for granted. They don't care or what? Do they have some excuse for believing in this blatant lie? Maybe it's because Gospels are already filled with so many fantasies (lies) that this is kind of like a "minor" one anyway.

[no one]

Thinking is hard. It's better to let others do it, and then act in compliance.

[Ranjr]

The Jews killed Jesus, not the Romans.  That's why.

[Rev. Rye]

I was willing to think that the Passover pardon could have been a real thing, except maybe that it was usually done with less hardened criminals. That said, it turns out there is zero extrabiblical evidence whatsoever that it was ever a thing. It was probably invented partly as a parallel to the Day of Atonement “scape goat” ritual described in Leviticus, and partly as a way of shifting the blame from the Romans to the Jews. Also of note, Pilate is portrayed in the gospels as more of an anti-villain than anything else, but in reality, he was so tyrannical that EVEN THE EMPEROR TIBERIUS FOUND HIM TOO BRUTAL FOR THE EMPIRE.

[The Valkyrie]

Free Bwian!

[Pat Mustard]

Free Bwian!

Welease Wodewick!

[onlinebiker]

They should let those guilty bastards rot.

Release the INNOCENT criminals.....


...

[Brian37]

The Jews killed Jesus, not the Romans.  That's why.

Um no. It is certainly what right wing assholes today claim, but that is not what real history is.


The claims of Romans killing Jesus is after the fact mythology. Jesus never existed. He was a manufactured character after the fact. Nero is most likely responsible for the eventual popularity of Christianity. Back then Christians were an tiny religion and unknown, but when Rome burned down under Nero, Nero looked for a scapegoat. 

Jews didn't rat out a fictional character named Jesus. Humans simply marketed what they did, and certain mythologies won out over time through marketing.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

The Jews killed Jesus, not the Romans.  That's why.

Um no. It is certainly what right wing assholes today claim, but that is not what real history is.


The claims of Romans killing Jesus is after the fact mythology. Jesus never existed. He was a manufactured character after the fact. Nero is most likely responsible for the eventual popularity of Christianity. Back then Christians were an tiny religion and unknown, but when Rome burned down under Nero, Nero looked for a scapegoat. 

Jews didn't rat out a fictional character named Jesus. Humans simply marketed what they did, and certain mythologies won out over time through marketing.

The veracity of the  Neronian persecution of Christians is problematic, to say the least.

Boru

[Rev. Rye]

Even if Jesus did exist, if he was crucified, it would have to be by the Romans. Everything I know about Judaism and the death penalty points against the Jews as the culprit, because A) they had four sanctioned methods of execution: stoning, burning, beheading, and strangulation (you’ll notice that crucifixion does not fall into any of these categories), and B) In death penalty cases, the burden of proof was so absurdly high (one prerequisite for execution was that there had to be at least two witnesses, non-related males known to keep the commandments and familiar with the law, both had To separately inform the defendant that what he was about to do was a capital offense, and the defendant had to say that he was familiar with the law, announce that they were going to sin anyway and start to do it, all within the time it took to say “peace unto you my rabbi and my master”) and the procedure so convoluted (falling just short of being so contradictory that it was logically impossible to convict) that there was considered something seriously wrong with a Court that had done it twice in a span of anywhere between ten and seventy years.