Why Yahweh Cannot “Rest”?

Why Yahweh Cannot “Rest”?


Question Mark


Earlier in this blog we have urged Christians to reconsider their belief especially with regards to God’s divine attributes. In it, the traits of God are unique and cannot be shared with His creatures; on the same lines, since the attributes of mortals are created, bounded and limited, they cannot be vested upon God! Nevertheless, sadly, many of those who identify themselves as “monotheists” breach monotheism exactly in this area. They would either believe in a “God” with humanly traits or give humans the attributes of God. And both these situations are deadly.

Nevertheless, rooted in monotheism, pure belief does get reflected sporadically in Christian thinking. Consider, for instance, a particular biblical incident. We read in the Book of Genesis that God sanctified the seventh day because “in it he had rested from all his work” (Genesis 2:3, King James Version).

Christians would never allow any misinterpretation of the preceding verse, especially the usage of the word “rested” in it. They would explain that to rest here means that God completed His work of creation and therefore “ceased” working on the seventh day. And thus, “rested” is not to be understood with its general import that God became tired of long six days of work, and consequently “rested” on the seventh day!

As monotheists we should not have any objections to this exegesis. God is perfect and so is His attributes and therefore, nothing imperfect can be associated with Him. We must have a conciliatory approach because it does not behoove the God of Abraham (peace be upon him) to rest out of exhaustion; and it is rightly deemed as blasphemous in Christian circles to interpret that God was tired of work. At the same time the exegesis also entails that God’s attributes are immutable – they cannot change with time and space. If God did not exhaust when He was creating everything that exists, then He would never exhaust out of any work that He does.

Nevertheless, Christian thinking takes a U-turn when it comes to Christology. Christians would not apply same principles when considering the deity of Christ (peace be upon him). Although the Yahweh of Genesis is exegetically not allowed merely to “rest”; in the New Testament we have a complete “God” being killed, let alone the incarnation and everything earthly, non-divine entailing with it! Christians should scruple that if Yahweh cannot “rest” then “God” certainly cannot “die”!


Related Readings:


Post a comment or leave a trackback: Trackback URL.


  • Oliver Elphick  On June 9, 2013 at 10:03 pm

    …the traits of God are unique and cannot be shared with His creatures; on the same lines, since the attributes of mortals are created, bounded and limited, they cannot be vested upon God!

    This is an assertion that you do not prove.

    Obviously, no man can become God. But God can certainly become a man, in addition to being God, and the Son of God did so. Nothing is impossible to God.

    And since the Son of God did become man, as a man he could be hungry, be weary, sleep and die. And since he was sinless, death could not hold on to him . God raised him on the third day and he dies no more.

    • mansubzero  On June 13, 2013 at 12:20 am

      how can a woman , with a period problem, take dunamis/power/force from your god in flesh? the power of your god was taken from him by a lady who was Ill. then he asked who touched him? the deciples mock him and say that everyone is touching him , NOTICE SOMETHING HERE? jesus COULDNT PIN POINT 1 from the crowds who were pressing on him? lol. and you call this guy a god? your god had to turn around to FIND OUT who it was. now lets look at matthews version, obviously the story was an embarrasment to matthew so he does quick edits and omission. matthew competely removes jesus INQUIRY. COMPLETELY REMOVES the DECIPLES COMMENTS ABOUT PEOPLE pressing on jesus’ body.


      22Jesus turned and saw her. “Take heart, daughter,” he said, “your faith has healed you.” And the woman was healed at that moment.

      look what matthew has done here. only after jesus speaks ,the woman is healed from that moment. that is the impression one would get if one read matthew alone

  • mansubzero  On June 9, 2013 at 10:18 pm

    god created flesh which was LESSER than god

    jesus experienced pain and hunger

    “he was hungry. And seeing in the distance a fig tree in leaf, he went to see if he could find anything on it. When he came to it he found nothing but leaves, for it was not the season for figs”

    so god (in christianity) DID NOT KNOW that the tree had figs on it. he had to WALK to it to find figs on it.

    so the soul/spirit /person in jesus DIDN’T know. was the knowledge of jesus CREATED ?

    did god CREATE from his essense? if gods ESSENSE has an attribute of ALL KNOWING THEN how can he create not all knowing from all knowing attribute which is PART of his essense/being?

    so god creates a spirit that does not have all knowledge of everything

    god also creates pain and hunger for that same person (jesus)

    does this mean god made a terrible copy of himself? a bad copy? so did god murder a weak and not all knowing copy of himself?

    think about it.

  • mansubzero  On June 9, 2013 at 10:21 pm

    notice something here,

    “id become man, as a man he could be hungry, be weary, sleep and die.”

    god MADE a bad COPY of himself

    notice that hungry,weary, sleep and die ARE ALL CREATED? who will say EACH IS eternal with god? so in other words god MADE Another god which was LESSER than god and ABSOLUTELY BAD copy of god. god murdered a BAD COPY of himself.

  • mansubzero  On June 9, 2013 at 10:25 pm

    “…the traits of God are unique and cannot be shared with His creatures; on the same lines, since the attributes of mortals are created, bounded and limited, they cannot be vested upon God!”

    do you remember a time when people used to make COPIES of video films by having TWO video recorders? one was the MASTER copy and the second video used to COPY from the master copy. now we all know that the COPY will not be ORIGINAL and this is pricicely the blasphemy called christianity .god makes ANOTHER god. this polythiest god in christianity RESTS on his CREATED version of himself.

  • mansubzero  On June 9, 2013 at 10:29 pm

    one must wonder whether this diety which is worshipped by christians can EASILY hand over his attributes to HUMAN beings. if the romans could nail him to a cross then we all see that HUMANS had more power than the 2nd person in trinity. if satan could go rounds with god and give god a first round KNOCKOUT which switch jesus off for 3 days, then one wonders if god can ACTUALLY hand over his all powerful attribute and let man completely finnish him off.

  • mansubzero  On June 9, 2013 at 10:42 pm

    “death could not hold on to him . God raised him on the third day and he dies no more.”


    3 persons raised WHO/WHAT? the 2nd person in trinity was RAISED by 3 persons? or did 2 persons RAISE the 2nd person?

  • mansubzero  On June 9, 2013 at 10:50 pm

    “death could not hold on to him . God raised him on the third day and he dies no more.”

    what was the diety which was not held by death doing? if god created death and life then wasn’t he ALWAYS in control of it? if death temporarily controlled god , then did death become god?

  • semsav12  On June 17, 2013 at 8:30 am

    “At noon Elijah began to taunt them. “Shout louder!” he said. “Surely he is a god! Perhaps he is deep in thought, or busy, or traveling. Maybe he is sleeping and must be awakened.”(1 kings 18)

    Isn’t it interesting that Elijah is insulting the Baal God for these traits, which means the he also insulted his own God according to Christian belief because Jesus ended up doing these exact things.

    In ezekiel 28 Yahweh refutes a Man who thinks he is deity “‘In the pride of your heart
    you say, “I am a god;
    I sit on the throne of a god
    in the heart of the seas.”
    But you are a mere mortal and not a god,
    though you think you are as wise as a god.
    3 Are you wiser than Daniel[a]?
    Is no secret hidden from you?

    The reasons here are death and ignorance, such traits do not befit a diety.

    Yahweh continues to say…

    “Will you then say, “I am a god,”
    in the presence of those who kill you?
    You will be but a mortal, not a god,
    in the hands of those who slay you”

    I think Yahwehs argument against the man is Pretty good, but christians would have us believe that Yahweh would incarnate and adopt the very traits that he refuted a man in the past for to demonstrate he is not diety? Utter insanity.

    • mansubzero  On June 27, 2013 at 7:44 pm

      there are things in the gospels that don’t make any logical sense. why did the jews need judas to get to jesus?
      i have never seen muslims address this problem. 2 days before jesus’ alledged crucifixion the jews don’t want to take any action because the crowds will “riot” 2 days later the crowds want jesus’ blood. none of this is making any logical and historical sense and shabir ally believes that the pagans did get jesus on a cross. examine the narratives and see for yourself something is odd here.

      “Most of us have had the experience (more than once in my case), where
      you think you see someone famous, and it takes a lot of looking to
      establish whether it is or not. I remember watching an Edinburgh
      fringe play, and then seeing one of the cast members two weeks later
      in Birmingham. At least, I and the rest of my group think it probably
      was them. Even though we had plenty of time to look at them on both
      occasions, we’re still not sure. ”

      This common scenario is nothing like the portrayal of Jesus in
      Jerusalem in his final week. We’re not talking about Jesus being one
      of a cast in a temple play who may or may not have been recognized in
      a crowd a fortnight later. One can scarcely imagine a more contrasting
      scenario from the one we are discussing in the gospel narratives.
      We’re talking of crowds flocking to see and hear the person who had
      been welcomed as a coming king, who was a reputed miracle worker, who
      had cast out the money changers in the temple (in the gospels it is
      imagined as a small temple, comparable to a common pagan temple), who
      had cursed a fig tree, who was confounding the scribes and Pharisees
      with his daily contacts. We strive to catch a glimpse — would not the
      impression burn in your mind? I still remember the smile and wave of
      the queen of england driving by when I was just a kid. Jesus didn’t
      have to reintroduce himself each time he got up to speak in the

      “Jesus operated outside Jerusalem almost entirely until the end, and
      the random Jerusalem based mob were just making sure they got the
      right person. ”

      Jesus was preaching in the temple daily. Where did the “random
      Jerusalem based mob” come from? John 18 speaks of an armed contingent
      of officers from the chief priests and Pharisees — presumably temple
      police who report back to the chief priests.

      Why not simply have their armed contingent take him any time he was
      leaving the temple and returning to the house in Bethany? Or simply
      take him any time they liked before or after Passover in Jerusalem
      itself? One gospel says that an armed contingent was sent to arrest
      him in the temple but they were simply too overwhelmed by his oratory
      to go through with the deed. Plausible?

      If the crowds were really so potentially violent and massive that they
      threatened to overwhelm any armed force from arresting him, then we
      have to explain why they lacked such conviction at his trial.

      The problem is the plot here, the narrative, simply does not logically
      hang together. The inconsistencies tell us that there is something
      else going on in the minds of the author/redactors.


      Philo’s mind-reading of a governor he hated is one way to interpret
      the passage.

      It is more valid, I’m sure, to interpret the passage through the
      narrative’s agenda. Pilate wasn’t doing the normal “handwash” custom
      of the Jews — that custom of handwashing before meals is an
      anachronism anyway. It was confined to a few Pharisees, and not common
      among all Jews till after 70 c.e. (Crossley, 2004). As per Funk and
      the Jesus Seminar, Matthew is looking back to Deut 21:1-9 where
      handwashing is required of one seeking to be free from blood guilt for
      murder. Also Psalm 26:6 has handwashing as a symbol of innocence.
      Matthew then structures the sequence carefully so that the crowd
      follow by taking the blood-guilt on themselves and their children.

      This is but one of Matthew’s anti-semitisms that are his specialty.

      You seem to be forgetting the gospels describe Jesus as being able to
      stop “anyone carrying their wares through the temple” single-handedly.
      That is imagining a much smaller temple than the historical one. Look
      at Mark 13 and there is nothing to overturn that impression. You seem
      to be reading Mark 13:1 in the light of modern knowledge and not in
      terms of the narrative within gospel texts themselves. The alternative
      is to think all the evangelists use the same misleading exaggeration
      when saying Jesus did this.

      Jerusalem was not business as usual at Passover time. We’re not
      talking about Christmas shopping busy, but vast, vast numbers of
      people from outside descending on the city. We also know that this was
      an occasion at which nationalistic fever reached an all time high,
      creating all sorts of massive security headaches for the authorities,
      who in any case had Passover arrangements to organise. ”

      Too busy to take time to even talk face to face with Jesus daily?
      Which they did — beginning with Mark 11:27. You are creating an
      imaginary scenario that simply defies the gospel narratives.

      Recall they had ample leisure time to debate with Jesus throughout
      this period.

      Nationalistic fever at its pitch at this time? I’ve always wondered
      the source for this common claim. The passover was an annual event and
      we can be reasonably confident after X number of years the authorities
      managed it fairly well. To think they couldn’t spare a few armed men
      to arrest Jesus any time they felt like it is fanciful. Simply follow
      him outside the city if they didn’t want to do it in the city. Or
      simply arrest him when he was speaking in the temple.

      The Feast of Tabernacles was also huge. John tells us the authorities
      had no trouble sending along a few “police” to arrest him on the spot.
      Or wait till after the weekend when the crowds would disperse. “Spies”
      — like Judas — for such tasks were a specialty in this time and part
      of the world. Only they had their own and didn’t need to trust one
      from the other side.

      Remember, too, that the Jerusalem folk and the Galilee “yokels” were
      living in quite different worlds (think London/Yorkshire moors, but
      without the communication and in a different regional structure). ”

      Galilee was not a stereotypical yokel place. It was cosmopolitan with
      major city centres and philosophical schools. (Collins, Sterling (via:
      amazon.co.uk), 2001) There were differences, but not so much of the
      kind you suggest here.

      Bethany is outside Jerusalem. The miracle he performed there outraged
      the Jerusalem authorities enough to want to kill its beneficiary,
      Lazarus. Not someone else’s problem at all.

      When he arrived in Jerusalem crowds lined the highway to catch a
      glimpse of him as their king and saviour. Think they’d forget the face
      they saw? Compare notes? Talk about him afterwards? Cement the

      Next was not the temple cleansing, but the Pharisees being outraged at
      this reception Jesus got (John, Matthew).

      The authorities DID catch up with Jesus many times. It was to have a
      debate with him about his authority, another time to listen to a
      parable or two, then again to discuss taxation, and again to discuss
      the resurrection, then to discuss the commandments, and the prophecies
      about the Son of David.

      Lots of catch-up time happened.

      28 So all those in the synagogue, when they heard these things, were filled with wrath, 29 and rose up and thrust him out of the city; and they led him to the brow of the hill on which their city was built, that they might throw him down over the cliff. 30 Then passing through the midst of them, he went his way.

      • qmarkmark  On June 28, 2013 at 8:47 pm

        @ bro. mansubzero: Some points made were very interesting!

      • semsav12  On June 29, 2013 at 8:40 am

        Mansub you should come by brother pauls blog sometime…

  • mansubzero  On June 29, 2013 at 6:44 pm

    brothers, i am quoting neil godfrey in his reply to a christian lady . the verse in luke 28 was interesting, so i decided to paste it here. i have gathered these dialogues and preserved them on google groups. i have many interesting dialogues and i learn from them quite a lot. check out shabir ally’s response http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=KbLuxVaqnyE

  • mansubzero  On June 29, 2013 at 8:40 pm

    i will be generous and share the dialogues with you people. but i warn you, you will get a shock of your life. christians, even the ones who appear kind are blood obsessed and DESPERATELY need murder of flesh for them to cool off like thier gods. they need jesus MURDERED and any attempt to save jesus wexes them. this is the nature of these people. their blood lust is condemned in jeremiah.

    william lane craig, the 3 headed dog worshipper termed shabbir ali’s reasoning “christlam” , i now ask imam ali to read these responses and take jesus off the cross and free him from HUMILIATION.


    The Judas Narrative

    Brown then acts like a fundamentalist (the thing he accuses me of) by saying the Jewish authorities “could have seized [Jesus] in public at any time they wanted, [only] if they wanted to risk a deadly skirmish,” a claim that presumes a literal reading of the Gospels in which Jesus is so famous and beloved that “the public” would have battled any soldiers sent to seize him. That is simply not a plausible assumption (were Jesus that famous and that supported by the masses, we would surely have much more evidence of him, as then the literary elite of the era and region could hardly not have noticed him).

    Indeed, if we are to suppose a riot would have ensued at that action, it would have ensued the moment he was crucified…yet somehow, suddenly, the Jewish authorities stop being concerned about deadly skirmishes, when they do something enormously worse than merely arrest him, but actually murder him in a public and humiliating manner, and most offensively, on (or on the dawn of) a high holy day. So we’re supposed to believe riots would ensue at his mere arrest that didn’t ensue at his outrageous public murder? If we’re going to play the game of “read the Gospels literally,” the story just ends up making less sense, not more.

    If you want a more historically plausible account of how the Jewish elite would have actually handled the Jesus problem, look at how we’re told they planned to handle the Paul problem (Acts 23:12-21). More likely, they would have killed him immediately upon his vandalism of the temple square, which was guarded by six hundred armed soldiers (with thousands more to summon just a javelin’s throw away in Fort Antonia, which housed a whole Roman legion, adjacent to the Temple: Josephus, Jewish War 2.12.1, 4.5.1, 5.238-248; Jewish Antiquities 20.8.6, 20.8.11), who were not afraid to beat down any rebellious public who got in their way (most especially trouble-makers in the Temple). Certainly in the temple they could have arrested him easily, with ample armed support (note that Gentiles were permitted in the Temple area that Jesus vandalized, so Roman legions could police it, as well as the Jewish guards authorized to kill any Gentiles who entered the forbidden areas).
    Thus, as Acts would have it, Claudius Lysias had no difficulty dispatching hundreds of soldiers and cavalry from within Jerusalem to escort Paul outside the city (Acts 23:22-24), and Paul was able to be arrested even in the middle of a riot. As Josephus relates in Antiquities 20.1, the Romans regularly killed political undesirables surrounded by hundreds of fanatical supporters, without wasting time on an arrest or trial. And even Mark seems to imagine the Jews could assemble a large armed force, and indeed arrest Jesus with one (Mk. 14:43, Mt. 26:47; according to John 18:3, they even came with six hundred Roman legionairies, a full cohort).

    Thus, Brown conveniently accepts the Bible literally when it supports him, but says it lies when it doesn’t, and all without actually providing any other argument for either (except that either gets the result he wants, the very methodological mistake I argue against repeatedly in my book).
    Another methodological gaffe is when Brown attacks my mention of the symbolic import of the name of Judas by proposing the alternative hypothesis that he was named that by coincidence (the name being common–roughly 1 in 16 Jewish men had it). But in making this argument, he ignores the entire section of my book where I explain the defects of relying on such a hypothesis (cf. pp. 192-204). His hypothesis has a probability of producing the evidence of approximately 1 in 16. Mine has a probability of producing the evidence that could be better than 1 in 2 and is certainly no worse than 1 in 16 (see the case I make: pp. 151-55, esp. with affiliated notes on pp. 316-19), and if the odds are the same on both hypotheses, both hypotheses are equally likely (if starting with neutral priors). In short, you should never try to trump a good explanation (one that makes all the evidence highly likely) by trying to argue it’s all just a coincidence instead…unless you can show that such a coincidence is highly likely (as for example by pointing to a multiple comparisons fallacy). Otherwise, at best, you can only get coincidence to be a respectable possibility, not a greater probability, and my argument here can only be rebutted by the latter, not the former–since my point is that we cannot know this is historical, not that it definitely isn’t.

    The latter seems to be a confusion Brown is prone to. In every one of his criticisms he doesn’t seem to understand the argument that “we cannot assume the historicity of stories when we have good reasons to suspect they might not be historical.” That is not the same argument as “we should conclude these stories are not historical.” The argument I am making is: “if we can’t demonstrate a story is more likely historical than not, then we can’t use it as evidence that what the story relates is historical.” It might be historical, it might not be. We don’t know. Because both explanations can account for all the data with the same or nearly the same probability. Maybe the nuance of this is too complex for Brown. I don’t know. But the distinction is methodologically crucial.

    It’s ironic for Brown to miss so many methodological points in a book entirely about methodology–and instead to just focus on minor cherry picked fact-claims he doesn’t like, and then address them using all the methodological mistakes the very book is warning him against.

    end quote


    Indeed, here it’s interesting that to Fisher, Porter, an accomplished contemporary scholar, is incompetent because he is a fundamentalist, but she is okay relying on the fifty-years-old scholarship of hard-core Lutheran abbots like Jeremias. But no matter. The conclusion he reaches changes nothing, as it indeed only reinforces my point that they cannot possibly have crucified Jesus during the festival if they feared mass violence merely at his arrest. It’s not like he was crucified in private. Contrary to Fisher’s undefended assumption, why would there be no crowds about?

    Jesus was marched in public from the city court (which was packed with crowds noisily crying out to Pilate to crucify Jesus), through the city streets, right into a mass crucifixion within view of the city…where random pilgrims could be pressed into service (Mk. 15:21) and lots of folk were about to mock Jesus (Mk. 15:29-32), but somehow not a single supporter managed to notice or hear about any of this or tell anyone about it, despite it all going on for over six hours. Maybe Fisher will go fundamentalist herself here and claim the Gospel of John contains the only true account of the crucifixion and that it therefore occurred in a private garden away from the prying eyes of all but an inexplicably selected few, who must have been busy dodging the shadows cast by the tombs John says were there, lest they be ritually defiled. But I can only speculate.

    end quote

  • mansubzero  On June 29, 2013 at 8:48 pm

    Pilate didn’t seem to care about causing a riot or not. According to
    Philo (Pilate’s contemporary) he cared more about his standing with
    the Emperor than the concerns of some Jews. He almost caused a
    rebellion by bringing in blasphemous imagery into Jerusalem and only
    reversed his decision once he saw that the Jews would rather die than
    have their traditions trampled on. Again, this is a contemporary’s
    account of Pilate.

    There’s no indication in the supposed trial of Jesus that the Jews had
    weapons or were about to cause a massive rebellion or were willing to
    die for their supposed “hatred” of Jesus – especially given the fact
    that Jesus was supposed to have been an insanely popular person. Not
    only that, but the trial scene wasn’t even written by someone who was
    a contemporary to the events.

    I’m pretty sure the Jews had a more visceral reaction to blasphemous
    imagery than the supposed unpopularity of Jesus. And it took a couple
    of days of deliberation to settle the issues over the blasphemous

    And besides… how would Pilate’s releasing of an insurrectionist be
    seen to his superiors? That alone would be grounds for his own

    The whole trial scene is nonsense if you try to fit it into it’s
    supposed historical and sociological context. No, the author of this
    trial scene is trying to show that the Jews chose rebellion
    (represented by “son of the father”) over peace and trying to show
    that Christianity has no problem with Roman authority. It’s another
    line of evidence pointing to a post 70 CE writing of this gospel.

    ……………. ………………………………… …………… ………

    Funny that you would bring up Josephus. He also writes about incidents
    where Pilate almost causes a rebellion. One where he writes about what
    Philo wrote about, and another time when he embezzled some funds from
    the 2nd Temple to build an aqueduct. When the Jews protested, he had
    them silenced by hiding his soldiers in plainclothes in the crowd of
    Jews and had the protesting Jews beaten and killed.

    Why Josephus didn’t seem that interested in yet a supposed third time
    Pilate almost caused a rebellion in Jerusalem due to Jesus’ massive
    unpopularity during the trial is another inconsistency. This trial
    scene seems to only appear in the gospels. It’s not corroborated by
    any other writer – Jewish, Samaritan, Greek, or Roman – who would be
    interested in events and rebellions happening during Pilates tenure.

    Pilate, again according to Josephus, was fired for massacring some
    Samaritans – who were unarmed – when they went up to Mount Gerizim to
    follow a messiah claimant who went to demonstrate a miracle.

    The Pilate in the gospels is the polar opposite of the Pilate
    presented in Josephus and Philo.

    But whatever… you’re going to believe what you want to believe, no
    matter that it isn’t corroborated by any other source outside of
    documents whose sole purpose is evangelism

    Why Josephus didn’t seem that interested in yet a supposed third time
    Pilate almost caused a rebellion in Jerusalem due to Jesus’ massive
    unpopularity during the trial is another inconsistency. This trial
    scene seems to only appear in the gospels. It’s not corroborated by
    any other writer – Jewish, Samaritan, Greek, or Roman – who would be
    interested in events and rebellions happening during Pilates tenure.


    Yes, the Gospels’ account of Jesus Christ’s last days seems lurid
    enough to have interested the likes of Philo and Josephus. But it

    There are other incongruities, like the release of Barabbas. That’s
    meant to be a human version of the scapegoat ritual in Leviticus,
    where one goat is sacrificed and one goat is released into the
    wilderness. That explains why nobody else knows about the supposed
    custom of releasing some inmate.

    Another one is the crowd apparently accepting guilt for JC’s
    execution. That is TOTALLY out in character with better-documented
    lynch mobs. Here in the US, lynchers not only showed little evidence
    of second thoughts, they sometimes took pictures of their handiwork.
    Certain politicians even defended them by blocking efforts to pass
    anti-lynching laws.

    ………. ………

    This is all just massive mental gymnastics. You still haven’t made
    sense of the discrepancy between Historical Pilate and Bizzaro
    (gospel) Pilate

    Historical Pilate executed troublemakers without trial. Meaning he
    didn’t care whether said troublemakers were guilty or innocent.

    Gospel Pilate releases already tried and convicted troublemakers
    because it’s a holiday and engages in another trial of an innocent man
    and finds him innocent and wants to release him.

    Historical Pilate hides his troops in a crowd of protesting Jews so
    his troops can beat them to near death.

    Gospel Pilate executes an innocent man because a crowd of protesting
    Jews want said innocent man dead.

    Historical Pilate was known for his venality, short temper, cruelty,
    and injustice.

    Gospel Pilate shows patience, bipartisanship, recognizes that the Jews
    are just jealous of Jesus, and is unwilling to execute an innocent man
    so he “washes his hands” of any responsibility.

    These are two very different people. Unless you’re going to argue that
    Pilate was actually possessed by the Holy Spirit during Jesus’ trial
    and acted completely contrary to his nature just for Jesus’ trial.
    It’s no less spurious than anything other “spiritual” evidence you’ve

    they turn on jesus in 2 days…

    Deceit? This is presumably the same Jewish crowd that the Sanhedrin
    were so terrified of just two days prior that they supposedly decided
    to inexplicably get the Romans to kill Jesus to begin with; for fear
    that if they attempted to kill him (as they supposedly already tried
    twice before to do, btw) the crowd of Jews would turn on them and kill


    powerful authority like pilate is helpless?

    Helpless? Pontius Pilate, their oppressor is “helpless to resist

    You simply must be joking as that is utterly and incontrivertibly
    preposterous. Pilate, if you’ll recall, was so brutal and so anti-
    semitic that he slaughtered almost an entire town and was recalled to
    Rome as a result, where, in his shame, he later committed suicide.


    But that’s just it, why in the hell would the Jewish crowd so feared
    by the Sanhedrin just two days prior due to their undying love of
    Jesus now want him killed for no reason?

    2 days prior….

    ETA: If they didn’t want to “rock the boat,” then why would they take
    Jesus to Pilate in the first place (since he had limited judicial
    authority and Jesus had committed no Roman crime), threaten Pilate
    with a riot for not doing their bidding when Pilate thrice pronounced
    him innocent, and risk their own lives (as they feared just two days
    prior) by attempting to rile up this miraculous crowd of apparently
    two-faced robots into somehow forcing Pilate into murdering a man he
    just officially declared innocent?

    tried to stone him twice….

    If the Sanhedrin truly feared riots from “the crowd” if they tried to
    kill Jesus (which they supposedly already tried to do by stoning him
    twice before) then why wouldn’t they fear riots when they attempted to
    rile “the crowd” up to get them to inexplicably force Pilate into
    killing him, just after Pilate announced the Sanhedrin’s betrayal of
    Jesus by proclaiming he was not just innocent, but that he could find
    no crime against him in the first place?

    And what is the deal with this mythical “crowd” of anonymous Jews that
    are so easily riled up en masse to threaten their oppressor into
    killing a completely innocent man? They were magically bewitched into
    not just demanding Jesus be imprisoned, but that Pilate crucify him
    all due to the influence of the very people who were so terrified of
    influencing them two days before?

    different jewish sects…
    why would “king of the jews” matter?

    There were many different non-orthodox sects in the area each
    preaching their own version of Judaism, so the Sanhedrin wouldn’t have
    cared if one Rabbi among them claimed to be a title that doesn’t exist
    in any significant, actionable way

    No Roman official (including Caesar, I would argue) would have given a
    shit if some local Jew were going around claiming to be the “King of
    the Jews” no matter what Caesar decreed, as is evidenced in the
    narrative when Pilate allegedly says it’s not his problem, take him to
    Herod, so how could he be “blackmailed” by “the crowd” the next day?


    Neither Pilate, nor “the crowd,” apparently, considered Jesus to have
    been the “King of the Jews” that you are making a case for.

    So why would the Romans mock a man that Pilate had declared innocent
    (let alone kill him) by calling him by a title that no one claimed he
    actually had, including Jesus?

    Pilate did not, historically, fear either a riot, or his inability to
    stop one. In fact, he anticipated them and took military steps to
    brutally quell them as he absolutely would have done on Passover.


    prevention of riots…

    Phoenix, my apologies, but I’m growing very tired of having to cover
    ground I already did and you have not addressed. Josephus recounts how
    Pilate not only anticipated a riot during the aquaduct debacle, he did
    not fear one, but instead took covert steps to ensure that if any riot
    broke out, there would be a sufficient multitude of soldiers posing as
    a part of the crowd to quell it efficiently (and did so, no less, when
    one erupted).

    That would be a part of his job, incidentally; to control the region
    and be prepared at all times for any uprising. The Passover festival,
    for an obvious example, would most certainly have been a time when
    Pilate was absolutely concerned and therefore likewise prepared for
    any kind of uprising, particularly if he did not have the troop
    support he thought he needed.


    But, again, you have not addressed the fact that for Pilate to have
    been susceptible to blackmail, he would have had to have believed that
    “the crowd” had something on him to blackmail him with.

    He publicly declared that Jesus had committed no Roman crime (that
    would include Caesar’s decree), so he could not possibly have believed
    that “the crowd” could blackmail him with something he had already
    officially declared as a duly authorized representative of Rome that
    which was not a crime in his mind.

    Pilate would have had to have believed that “the crowd” would be able
    to prove to Caesar that Jesus had claimed to be the “King of the

    ..publically confirmed that no one considered jesus to be king of….

    He did not; Pilate knew this, allegedly ruled on it and then publicly
    confirmed that no one considered Jesus to be the “King of the Jews,”
    so there would be no grounds in Pilate’s mind for any kind of
    blackmail, if, indeed, such a man as Pilate feared such sophistry from
    a crowd of subjugated Jews.


    Look bad? “The Jews” as you put it denounced Jesus as a “King of the
    Jews,” thereby concurring with Pilate’s findings that Jesus was not
    and never claimed to be (as you concede) the “King of the Jews.”

    “I have found this man has commited no Roman crime. He does not claim
    that he is your king, your Sanhedrin claimed he claimed that and I do
    not beleive them. Is he your king?”

    “We have no king but Caesar, but if you don’t kill Jesus, we’re going
    to tell our mortal enemies and our oppressors that you refused to kill
    him for claiming he was the King of the Jews.”


    “You just publicly declared that you don’t consider him to be the King
    of the Jews; he has publicly declared he is not the King of the Jews;
    and I have officially, publicly declared that he has committed no
    Roman crime. The record is clear, f… you.”

    “Then we shall riot!”

    “Beside the fact that I already anticipated such a possibility on this
    day particularly, because I’m not a fucking idiot, you mean you’re
    going to riot if I don’t kill the completely innocent man that you all
    agree is not your ‘King’ even though you all supposedly love him so
    much that if you found out that your leaders had conspired to try and
    kill him (as I just told you was precisely what they did) you’d riot
    against them, but now, inexplicably are not going to, because you’re
    all just so susceptible to ‘office politics’ that don’t yet exist?
    Gee, I never thought of that possibility on this the most militarily
    prepared day of the year for such a contingency. GUARDS!”

    terrified of the crowd 2 days before….

    I asked why were the Sanhedrin terrified of “the crowd” (presumably
    the same festival crowd that was there two days prior for the
    Passover) that prompted them to concoct a false charge that Jesus had
    claimed to be the King of the Jews and then not terrified of the crowd
    two days later when they allegedly walked among them and somehow
    convinced them to demand that Pilate murder an innocent man; a man
    that they evidently did not consider to be the “King of the Jews?”

    where were the multitudes hiding???

    The (gospel) sum of the circumstances behind the arrest and trial
    betrays the fable behind the man-god. To wit:

    Two days before a most holy feast, Matthew has the high priests et al
    declining to subdue and kill the man of whom they object so as not to
    raise the ire of the Jewish citizenry. (26:1:4). Obviously Matthew in
    portraying the Jewish powers that be, felt that the crowd is more
    inclined to rail against the breaking of doctrine than to be riled at
    a man charged with political crimes.

    But then we witness a total about face per Matthew. The man Jesus who
    sat and ate his Passover meal which can only happen on the advent of
    this most holy day, is subsequently arrested by the minions of the
    Jewish leaders. (26:47:57)

    These same leaders, priests; elders; scribes, as Matthew would have us
    believe, shirked their duties to the laws of Moses as well as the
    flock in deference to hearing testimony against the man-god and held
    trial against him on the very same high holy day they arrested him.
    Finding him guilty, they advanced his conviction to two governing
    personages which obviously had nothing better to do in tumultuous
    Judea than to hear the case of Jews against another Jew–post haste.

    By morning, he is found guilty; is assaulted and paraded in front of a
    crowd of Jews who should have been observing the Passover; is marched
    through a few hundred feet of the Jerusalem streets; hung on a cross
    and conveniently dies at 3pm, long enough to bury him in Jewish custom
    before sunset.

    Of all of the throngs of believers the gospels would have us think
    followed Jesus and greeted him in his excursions throughout their
    towns, it would only have taken two to maintain the credibility of the
    man. But they all stayed home! Peter–the pontiff yet, lied to save
    himself, James, Matthew, John, Mary, Mary and Mary, Joseph, Lazarus
    and all the rest are nowhere to be found as character witnesses.

    Two witnesses! That is all that was required of Jewish law to proclaim
    one’s innocence. And not one from the multitude came forward. Instead,
    they all supposedly condemned the man to die. All the throngs who
    cheered on his arrival; all the familial members of those whom he
    raised from the dead, all the healed and fed–they all stayed home!

    Is this believable? Only to those who do not understand that the
    Romans under Pilate, as was succinctly stated by another poster, gave
    not one wit about the sensibilities of the Jews. Pilate, as was the
    governor, was all about Rome, appeasing his emperor and concerned only
    about those who threatened Roman rule. Some upstart who claimed to be
    king of the Jews and opposed by Jewish elders, hardly qualifies.

    The gospels as we have them are but the undated writings of authors
    unknown–a reflection of propaganda during the first few centuries of
    the common era.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: