I'm a bit confused as to why the Roman's under Pontius Pilate put Jesus to death following the trial

I'm a bit confused as to why the Roman's under Pontius Pilate put Jesus to death following the trial.

Jesus was first brought to the Sanhedrin court, a court of Jewish elders who found him guilty of Blasphemy, Claiming to be the King of the Jews and plotting to bring down the Roman empire. This trial was merely a formality and had no judiciary power whatsoever.

Jesus was then taken to King Herod to ascertain if the plotting against the Roman empire accusation had merit. Herod concluded that it didn't.

Jesus was then taken to a real court with authority under Pontius Pilate. Pilate was only concerned about the 3rd accusation as the blaspheming against the Jewish god or claiming to be the King of the Jews was not a crime under Roman law. Pilate found Jesus innocent of any crimes of plotting against the Roman empire.

So why wasn't that the end of it? The court has returned a not guilty verdict end of story?

The bible talks about how crowds of Jews demanded Jesus's death, but when do crowds have the authority to overturn a Roman Prefects decision? Why didn't Pilate just say to the crowd "Yeah fuck off we're not killing an innocent man". Instead he pretty much agrees to go along with the execution even though he claims he's "washing his hands" of it.

Since the Romans carried out the execution, and they were under the command of Pilate, ultimately he must have agreed to kill Jesus.

So why?

Pilate's job was to keep his area quiet and free of revolt. He'd been warned at least once already about the Jewish population getting out of hand and just wanted to keep them happy.

The real question is why people try to shift blame for Christ's death onto the Romans.

Because the gospels description of Pilot and how it went down is totally unbelievable.

>So why?
it was the fucking jews, it's not that hard

>Jewish
>Revolt

Weren't they a bunch of merchants and bankers? Can the Roman military not handle a bunch of white collar workers?

This is clearly a person who has never had to deal with Jewish zealots or the sicarii.

Because it's clear that Pilate didn't even want to involve himself with local power plays and only did so because the crowds cried out for his death.

And as the first post also said the Jews took the occupation particularly hard; what with sicarii and stuff like that

>Pilate literally pleading with his subjects not to overturn his decision

What a fucking beta

Why didn't King Herod want to kill Jesus? He literally killed an entire towns worth of babies to try and stop him being born.

How is this hard to understand? I grapsed the social dynamics of Pilates decision when i was 12. He just wanted to appease the jews, and avoid upheaval / revolt. A horde of angry higher-up jews came to him demanding that this no-name pleb peasant be crucified. He agreed in order to appease them.

Jewish people get mean when they turn to Zealotry. You forget about the Maccabees?

They also had themselves some niggas with knives that would shank you all levantine style. Don't recall their names or dates of existence though.

It's hard to understand because it would never happen today.

Some people haven't had the pleasure of church every Sunday, bible study every weekend, and parents who would read them gospel before bed.

Please check your privilege.

You obviously have never heard of the Jewish Revolt. An entire legion was annihilated.

Jesus would never be crucified today? Or innocents would never be sentenced today? You could draw similiarities between jesus trial and the trials of holocaust deniers and old Auschwitz guards. The jews are still at it 2000 years later.

>There's literally a wikipedia article on why it wasn't the Jews fault for Jesus's death
>It's filed under "antisemitism".
>The page on Pilate says he bears the responsibility.

So much for Wikipedia's quest to be unbiased lel

Okay i'm fucking sorry, christ. Checking my theology privilege right now.

Sicarii.

Real scary; would randomly leap at roman soldiers and stab them to death then calmly accept their death.

>situation that happened 2 millennia ago wouldn't happen today
wow.

Do you also find the concept of primae noctis hard to understand?

>Why didn't Pilate just say to the crowd "Yeah fuck off we're not killing an innocent man". Instead he pretty much agrees to go along with the execution even though he claims he's "washing his hands" of it.
Because the life of the son of a carpenter and political agitator who's hated by everyone is less important than the entire community chimping out over him.

Fuck that guy, let them have him.

You don't want the Jews chimping out, look at the Roman-Jewish wars.

Angry mobs can't overturn a judiciary decision. Innocent means innocent.

>Angry mobs can't overturn a judiciary decision

Yes they can.

>primae noctis

The right of nobles to cuck peasants?

When has this ever happened in a civilised country?

There's literally a law that states people can't be put on trial twice for the same crime which is embedded in common and civil law.

Is this historically accurate?

oh child you can stop now

Depends which gospel you listen to

>There's a law against it, so it can't happen

Do you also believe that no-gun zones have a magical forcefield that prevents guns from working?

seePlenty of interesting stories about people taking justice into their own hands and getting away with it.

To be fair, I don't recall any stories about people demanding a judge simply reverse a ruling.
Clearly extra-judicial, so perhaps entirely different.

Lynching by an angry mob after an innocent verdict isn't the same, as that's a crime.

What happened to Jesus is a government court found him innocent and then decided 10 minutes later he was guilty because some angry people yelled.

We have no way of knowing for sure if it did happen. The area wasn't exactly a bustling metropolis, he would've probably only killed like 3 or 4 kids, which wouldn't really leave any sort of archaeological or historiographical footprint.

the Romans didn't even know because of the chaos from the Son of Destruction when He brought The Game to The Table.
>shit was so cash

>What happened to Jesus is a government court found him innocent and then decided 10 minutes later he was guilty because some angry people yelled.

True, though I'd be shocked to learn if this had absolutely never happened again. Rule of law isn't absolute and consistent. I'm racking my brain to recall at least an anecdote, but I've got nothing.

Pilate didn't declare him innocent; he just told the crowds he's innocent; then when they brayed for his blood he declared him guilty and washed his hands off the whole affair; and even then he still showed his disdain for the Sanhedrin (quod scripsi, scripsi)

what was absolute was the zeal of the Roman Judge to gtfo out of that jew ridden shithole (because SLAVE CAMPS) by fulfilling the ROMAN EMPIRE'S DECREE to find and murder the last of the FIRSTBORN issued by ONE DUMB FUCKING KING (also of ROMAN blood).
>how romantic!

>implying The Christ WAS the last firstborn KING

>henceforth & forthwith INRI because he was also the ONLY free JEW atm until death overwhelmed HIM

>Jesus was first brought to the Sanhedrin court, a court of Jewish elders who found him guilty of Blasphemy, Claiming to be the King of the Jews and plotting to bring down the Roman empire. This trial was merely a formality and had no judiciary power whatsoever.


Pretty much none of this is right. Both Josephus and the later gospels flat out state that the Sanhedrin still had power to decide crimes for non-citizens of Rome, even capital crimes.

The "trial" of Jesus is also pretty clearly a group of Ciaphas and some confederates, breaking numerous Jewish procedural laws, such as not having a speaker on behalf of Jesus, being tried at night, on a holiday, with a unanimous verdict for death, and probably a few more things besides I'm not thinking of at the moment.

>Jesus was then taken to King Herod to ascertain if the plotting against the Roman empire accusation had merit. Herod concluded that it didn't.

I don't remember this part, when was that?

>So why?

Because the passion has no corroboration outside the Gospels. It almost certainly didn't happen the way it was written. There's no evidence of a passover pardon either. It was probably either wholly made up, or heavily distorted from what really happened.

Later books of the new testament*

I wrote imprecisely: Acts isn't one of the Gospels

just fyi, Yahweh starts with an I

>corroboration outside of the Gospels
>Gospels written by same ppl that wrote the rest of NT
*fixed*

None what so ever. Herod went on several bloody purges, but not like the Bible describes.

It's propaganda meant to relate Jesus to two previous Jewish heroes, Moses and Cyrus the great. Both of whom freed the Jewish people from captivity by a foreign entity and both of whom were hunted as children by enemy kings.

The implication is that Christ was sent by Yahweh to free the Jewish people from Roman control.

Because of muh democracy

Pharisees probably paid him shekels like they did with Judas.

I wonder who could be behind this

>Because of muh democracy
what did he mean by this?

Rome was a democratic state with a vote for every man, woman and slave over the age of 12

The people voted for the crucifixion of Jesus.

The fascist recorders of history will never let this fact be known, but we've learned the truth. Please forward this message, don't let history be buried.

Stay woke

How is this confusing?

While Judea was a Roman province, it was essentially an occupation despite certain understandings between Jewish-Roman governments.

The Romans had a culture and religion that clashed heavily with the Jews,
and Pontius, who wasn't a very graceful administrator only served to worsen relations through overly harsh rule.
It's like a U.S army officer was tasked to govern a territory of Vietnam after the war.

In a situation where you are removed from the bulk of your power you have to make concessions at times.
Killing an man causing social unrest wouldn't be seen as too great of a price to keep the accord with the Jews.

>an man