Why did Jesus suffer for sinners and not victims

[Drich]

actually he wasn't. the washing of the hands of pilate showed that pilate nor the roman government had anything to do with Christ's death. Jesus was turned over to the will of the crowd.

Right, because Pilate's concerns for Jewish sensibilities are so well established in the other sources we have about him. Of course he caved in to the mob. 

up until recently pilate was thought to be a made up figure as the bible seems to be the only detailed source we had till recently.
Meaning, IF the bible is good enough of a source for you to say Jesus was turned over to the government for execution... Even though the source you use does not say that.. then it is a good enough source for you to accept me telling you what the source does say!

Tell me something, Drich. If you were writing a "Gospel" shortly after Rome ruthlessly had put down a violent Jewish rebellion, and your 'good news' was about an apocalyptic Jewish movement led by a Jewish charismatic figure who may or may not have made public pronouncements identifying himself a Messiah/king and that movement had been largely co-opted by Roman gentiles by the time of your writing . . . how would you have portrayed Pilate? The bad guy? 

sweetheart, hate to break it to you but pilate is the bad guy as he executed an innocent man by his own admission. think about it. you know the man standing before you is not guilty of anything, yet you have him beaten to an inch of death and the crusify him. why? because you didn't want to have a race riot on your hands which would give you a political stain. anyone who condemns an innocent man and admits he is doing so is not only evil, but a coward to boot.

Bad marketing.

Assuming there's a kernel of truth to any of the narratives surrounding the alleged crucifixion, I think it's not inconceivable that the Temple authorities may well have turned over this  troublemaker to the Romans.

here's the thing while what jesus did was very upsetting he broke no temple laws. in fact the priests were the one's breaking temple laws in their little money/sacrifice scam. Jesus exposed their little money making scheme.

It was high festival, the city was packed, and the Temple authorities were on the hook for any signs of rebellion and civil unrest. Better the hick from Nazareth be made an example than let him run amok and cause even more trouble.

which is why the released barabas a known revolutionary instead?!?! no. Something much larger was going on here. Jesus took and spoke with the authority of God robbing the preists of position and power. while the money changers explusion was the final straw Jesus for month had been undermining and showing up the priests every chance he got. look at mat 23 the whole chapter Jesus flat our curses (real meaning of the word) the temple preists and makers of the law out he was so harsh and hard on them and did so with such authority and conviction using not only scripture but his authority as being sent from the father to obliterate any respect the people would ever have for the priests and makers of the law ever again. my point was the damage was done, and when confronted about a rebellion Christ said he was not here to lead a physical rebellion rather to surrender ourselves to the roman authority because it was the father who put the romans in charge. So there was no political threat from anything christ said or taught rather he had already destroyed the old way of worship.

As for Pilate, all he would have needed to hear was that Jesus thought himself to be the Messiah (or that enough people believed it of him), and the decision would have been quite easy to make. For all the hand-wringing and hand washing in the narrative, I doubt Pilate took longer than it would take to eat a sandwich to seal Jesus's fate.

if you read the gospels Pilate asks Jesus he heard jesus called himself "the King of the Jews" he Asked him if this was true to which jesus said his kingdom was not of this earth. and pilated did sweat over his decision as his wife was given a dream about who Jesus really was and gave pilate grief over this fact.

I suppose you also think the two men said to have been crucified alongside Jesus were thieves. 

seeings how the bible is the only way you know about those two men... then the bible would also be a good enough resource to determine why they were on the cross. do you not think what you say through? You only have this one source but you choose to create a new narrative based on what this one source says and pretend your new narrative has any weight to it. I've called your bluff sport. you are in the same boat i am.. there is not secrete autobiography of pilate that gives you special insite. we have the bible and your stuck to what the bible says if you are going to use it as a source to establish the characters in it.

---

The Church of Rome claims that Rome had nothing to do with the murder of it's jewish god, it was those damned jews - news at 10.

the church at rome openly does not follow the teachings of the God of the bible as it has rewritten the bible several times.