Why the Romans can never have killed Jesus

[Joseph D. L.]

Even presuming for a minute that the original Gospel was Marcionite: it's clear that the Marcionites were either indifferent to the Empire, or actively supported it (which is my position), but either way, they would not have them be responsible for handling over Jesus for death, as

1) this would place blame on people that made up the bulk of their congregation--gentiles; and

2) having the Jews kill Jesus makes much more sense if the Jewish god was the demiurge in Marcion's system, thus emphasizing both his wickedness and his ignorance.

What's more, even an entirely Jewish origin supports this idea, as throughout the Old Testament the Jews are shown to be distrustful of prophets. Having the Jews kill Christ is keeping with this theme: God sends a prophet, the Jews rejects him, God delivers on the prophet's word, the Jews accept him. This happens time and again in the Torah with Moses alone.

Roman's carrying out the death of Christ does not work with an allegorical/"celestial" system. It supports historicity, something Giuseppe can't seem wrap his head around. Only in the two examples above can his theory of a celestial origin for Christcan work.

But at this point I don't even think he knows what he's saying anymore.

Oh well, I guess.

[Giuseppe]

Tsk, tsk.

The embarrassment is too much strong to not be seen: the our evangelists are embarrassed for the fact that Pilate kills Jesus and any their effort is moved to accuse the Jews. Even a blind realizes it. In the fourth gospel there is not trial before sinedrites but only before two high priests, separately. They are clearly an addition to a previous narrative where only the Romans kill Jesus.

But on a particular point I agree with you: the first gospel (where only the Romans kill Jesus) is gnostic (=against the demiurge) only and only if Pilate is innocent. The Pilate's innocence implies that he has killed Jesus because Pilate is victim of a false information: that Jesus is the Messiah of Israel. The instigator of an innocent Pilate against Jesus can only be one who knows that that information about Jesus is false, even if it is the only useful information necessary to move the Romans against Jesus: the demiurge.


If Pilate is not innocent, then the first gospel is not gnostic. Period. Jesus was euhemerized by a pious Jew.
It is so simple.

[Joseph D. L.]

Not only is Pilate "innocent" of killing Christ (washing his hands), but Pilate is a proxy for Paul, the last to receive Christ and to find no fault in him.

Yet it's the Jews who demand Jesus's death, which fits a YHWH = demiurge agenda. And it's possible that when Paul speaks of archons or the Twelve he's referring to the Prophets.

But just like your post about Barabbas, you simply don't have a clue and are too dumb to realize that you are taking allegorical writings as literal by asserting such nonsensical psychoanalyzings.

Can you reproduce this mystery Gospel? Can you find attestation for it in the church Fathers? Why is it then that the Jews have always been blamed for killing Christ?

And Jesus wasn't euhemerized by Jews. Their Christ actually lived and was killed by the Empire. It was later proto-Orthodox Christians who euhemerized the allegory.

God you're schmuck.

[Giuseppe]

Yet it's the Jews who demand Jesus's death, which fits a YHWH = demiurge agenda.

So you have to explain why, in the fourth gospel, only two priests are required to condemn Jesus, while in the other gospels, all the sinedrites, and not only one or two high priests, are required to condemn Jesus.


The answer is simple: the presence of the Jews in the trial didn't find all the gospels in agreement between them. While the presence of Pilate found all the gospels in agreement between them. In addition to the criterion of embarrassment, apply Occam:

what is more probable, that the Jews were in the first gospel in the role of accusers, but only in the fourth gospel they disappear to make appear there only two high priests, or that Pilate only was in the first gospel, and the idea of a Jewish responsability did show itself in different forms (all the sinedrites in the synoptics, only two high priests in GJohn, the entire people of Judea in GPeter)?

Please apply Occam.

Even in absence of this argument, it is sufficient the criterion of embarrassment. Even prof Bob Price recognizes that, had them for them, the our evangelists would have willingly omitted from a long time Pilate from their holy fables.

[MrMacSon]

... Pilate is a proxy for Paul ...
.

Now that is interesting.

... the last to 'receive' Christ and to find no fault in him.

I presume the most recent to write about [an allegorical] Christ ??

it's possible that when Paul speaks of archons or the Twelve he's referring to the Prophets.

Noteworthy ...

And Jesus wasn't euhemerized by Jews. Their Christ* actually lived and was killed by the Empire.

* Bar Kokhba?