Posted on 03/31/2018 9:08:45 AM PDT by MNDude
I think the author’s question is, in a way, irrelevant. Pilate already knew that Jesus was innocent through his interrogation of Him. This is why Pilate tried to release Jesus several times.
Peter, in his impromptu sermon found in Acts 3:13
“The God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, the God of our fathers, has glorified his servant Jesus. You handed him over to be killed, and you disowned him before Pilate, though he had decided to let him go.”
So, I guess my point is, Jesus was going to die on the cross for our sins - Pilate tried to stop it, and even though he knew Jesus was innocent, he let politics decide - he didn’t have the strength of character to release Jesus. But, I think, even if he had released Jesus, Jesus would still, somehow, have ultimately been crucified because it was the Father’s plan that He would pay the penalty for our sin in Himself, out of love for all mankind, because we were helpless to save ourselves.
I’m pretty sure I would not accuse Lucrezia Borgia of being anything like Hillary Clinton.
My grandson said Pilate was just mean. Any kid would be mean if you named him Punches.
I think he put himself above the TRUTH and that was the problem about Pilate. He should have been firm as a leader and did what was right
Any attempt to halt Jesus’ death would have only come from Satan. I mean, for those of you who believe in such things.
I think it was her love for her husband.
It could have been her conscience, on behalf of her husband.
In the report he sent to Caesar about it, Pilate said his wife was from Gaul and had a Spirit of divination. Such people appear to be able to access the Logos.
I have often wondered if that is the way He reaches those who have no other way to hear the Gospel
Was Jesus going to be crucified? Yes.
Did Pilate have to be the the way it happened? No.
The assumption that it came from Satan trying to prevent the Crucifixion is not logical as there was a much surer roadblock he could have thrown up.
And when Judas had taken the piece of bread, Satan entered into him. Then Jesus said to Judas, "What you are about to do, do quickly"
- John 13:27
Satan does not enter Judas, Judas does not betray Jesus.
You assume that Satan knew what was going on. It is equally possible that Satan missed the clues and was going under the assumption that if he could prevent Jesus from being crowned King of the Jews he could prevent the salvation of the world.
Satan continually overestimates himself.
The other evidence we have for Pilate suggests he was a brutal man--probably Rome didn't send the first-rate governors to lower-level provinces. He is portrayed as reluctant to condemn Jesus but gives in to the demands of the chief priests (and their rent-a-mob)--he had been governor for several years so evidently the chief priests had learned how to manipulate him to get what they wanted.
For the sacrifice to be sacred it had to be orchestrated by the priests and the tool used to commit the sacrifice had to be secular.
i always wondered what God thought of Pilate...he did in fact try to reason with the crowd and said there was no reason to condemn Christ and went as far as saying “its on you”...
Pilate was a classic cowardly politician. Though he knew that Jesus was innocent and being lynched by a group that was jealous of Him, he non-the-less let Jesus be murdered, so long as Pilate could blame it on someone else. Pilate also scored some brownie points with Herod when he sent Jesus to be examined by Herod as well.
Pilate would make a great Rino in today’s Washington.
Indeed.
1) It is impossible to know the origination without attribution.
2) We must not succumb to a simple either/or trap: Without specific prophecy about Pontius Pilate, we can suppose that, if he recognized Jesus’ innocence, and acted upon it, thus absolving himself of complicity, then God’s revealed will would have been fulfilled some other way - perhaps by another Roman official interceding. I am simply saying that this is all speculative and outside our certain information.
I've always been intrigued by the account of Pilate's interrogation of Jesus as recorded in John. The author of John is very specific about pointing out that none of the Jews would enter the praetorium so as not to render them ritually impure; it is very deliberately pointed out that Pilate came outside to address the mob. It is then written that Pilate had Jesus brought inside where the details of Pilate's interrogation are recorded in great specificity, after which Pilate and Jesus return outside.
The details of the conversation recorded between John 18:33-38 all took place in a private exchange between Pilate and Christ (and possibly a few guards or other members of Pilate's inner-circle as witnesses). The fact that these details were recorded in Scripture pretty strongly suggest that at least one person in Pilate's inner circle, or perhaps Pilate himself, was in communication with the early Christian community and related this account.
If Jesus' reaction to the well-meaning but "in denial" Peter is any indicator... probably Satan sent the dream, or if not the actual sender, misled her as to the purpose of the dream, and persuaded her, the closest confidant of the one man who had the authority to stop the slaying of the Lamb, that the dream was a warning of what could be changed, rather than a foretaste of what was certain to come. Misunderstanding, she is compelled to advise him not to go through with the execution.... Peter and Pilate's wife meant well, but Satan uses the well-meaning as easily as he would the ill-willed, to try to delay Christ's victory over him.
If God gave her the dream, then I would say Pontius Pilate had even more of a warning that Jesus was innocent.... and he still allowed Him be crucified!
Think of the Pharaoh with Moses. God gave him 9 plagues and that dude still didn’t listen.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.