[quote name='Fang-[CE']]You are right, my mistake. Luke 23:6-7 says, "On hearing this, Pilate asked if the man was a Galilean. When he learned that Jesus was under Herod's jurisdiction, he sent him to Herod, who was also in Jerusalem at that time. "
Now is your next objection that what would Herod be doing in the visiting Jerusalem!?! He's not allowed to do that, it's simply unthinkable!
Please, first you said Herod didn't exist during that time, then you said, he didn't have a reason to get involved. Now you're saying there's no way he could have seen Jesus (albeit I had a hand in that too). Look, if you don't want to accept Jesus as the Messiah, that's fine, but you are really grasping at straws on the historical account.
As for Pontius Pilate, here's an interesting non-Christian historical look at his account:
http://www.livius.org/pi-pm/pilate/pilate01.htm
To sum up for those not interested in going to the link, it basically states that the Jewish historians who painted Pilate as a murderous killer of the Jews had their own agenda in play. From that non-religious article:
"Writing after the war between the Jews and the Romans of 66-70, the Jewish historian Flavius Josephus tries to explain to the non-Jewish public that misgovernment by certain governors added fuel to a smoldering fire. Although his main scapegoat is one Gessius Florus, his portrait of Pilate is little short of a murder of character."
In the future, I'd recommend fully doing your homework before calling someone else an idiot.[/quote]
First off don't quote an article you haven't read all the way through, it just helps my claims of you being an idiot. At the bottom the articles conclusions are:
"Summing up,
we may conclude that the gospels do not represent the historical truth when they show us a well meaning but weak Pilate. On the other hand, the two Jewish sources have their own agendas. If we want to reconstruct the historical truth, we will have to be extremely careful."
Also, as for Herod not existing -- he didn't. The Great that is, is dead at the time. I brought of this point. Herod Archelaus is long removed. suprsaiyanMAX was kind enough to point that out. And Pilate is in direct control.
And while Herod Antipas does rule Galilee. He has no reason to be in Judea, or take part in a trial. All the Herod's were technically Jewish, but not practicing. Just like Constantine was technically Christian but don't expect to see him at church -- politics. For what possible reason would Antipas make the journey to Judea? And why would Antipas participate in a Roman trial?
Now, why would Luke be the only one to mention Herod?
Luke is the gospel, that whitewashes Rome of guilt. It is also the last to be written. The first to be written is Mark. And it places complete blame on Pilate. Matthew goes 50/50. The reasons being that the gospels reflect the views and times in which they were written. The farther you get from the point of Jesus' death the more divided Jews and Christians become. After all Jews that followed Jesus would still call themselves Jews. The term Christian isn't used until Luke. As the time went on the Christians are trying to detach from Judism.
For a time Rome is very concern with the cult of Christianity. Afterall, many followers of Jesus' wanted to die like Jesus and would taunt Roman guards to kill them. They also wouldn't give a pinch of incense to Zeus as well. The Romans and Jews thought it was insane that the Christians believe in the bread turning into flesh and the wine into blood. That was cannibalistic and probably the worst thing a Jew could do. Anyhow, the Christians numbers are raising and Rome is fearful of losing power. Afterall, the blame is still on Rome in part.
Luke is writting to the Romans though and seems to be trying to calm them of Christianity through placing all the blame on the Jews. We know Luke is writting to a higher class audience because his Greek is not the commoner Greek. And it is almost perfect. In fact when you want learn the Greek of the NT, they teach you with Luke. Luke also has an intimate knowledge of Septuagent(sp?), of which a layman wouldn't have access. Despite his knowledge of the Setuagent, atributes quotes to Jesus that come from the Old Testament. And misquotes others. We know it is from the Septuagent, because the translation mistakes match. Some even critize Luke for writting in the first person at times as if he were at some of the events. Events which took place before his birth. The man sounds like a day dreaming zealot, trying to stop Rome from precieving Christianity as a threat. Afterall, removing Rome's part from the trial would be a step in removing blame.
Also Flavius, you are going to use Flavius? According to most Christians Flavius is proof that Jesus existed and was who they think he was. And now you are calling him a liar? Because beyond that the only other historical record we have is Tiberius' mention of someone claiming to be a messiah with a large number of followers being crucified around that time. And he comes much later and could be recording a legend or myth. Cutting off your nose to spite your face?
Plus, Flavius is know to be a reputable historian based on the whole body of his work.
Record has it though that Pilate was removed because of his cruelty when armed Samaritans went to Mount Gerizim looking for vessels that they believed Moses had buried there. Pilate being the cruel, suspecting guy he was decided to kill first, ask questions later. Afterall, he defends himself, by thinking it might be a trap. Rome got word of this through complaints by Samaria and called Pilate to answer the claims. It was decided that he was too cruel to continue his position. Heck, I've read Catholic articles that state as much.
Also the title of "Perfect" is a miltary one and requires experience. You think a person could get to the place that Pilate was while having a problem killing? Afterall, the Romans didn't rule with love -- it was fear. And Pilate was in one of the most hostile enivornments available. He must of had a great ability to install fear.
Could Flavius be trying to help Antipas rule Judea and exaggerate Pilate's cruelty -- sure. Do we have other evidence that Pilate was cruel -- yes. Even the article you provide as proof implies this. Also, his dealings with the Samarians was the final straw for Rome. Of course implying that he wasn't cruel after induring multiple revolts is stupidity. Afterall if he was so kind, why revolt? It's not like the Jews didn't carry on life as normal as long as it didn't disrupt Rome's power.
Could Herod Antipas have been in Judea -- sure. Could he just be mentioned in Luke to calm Rome about the growing cult of Christianity at the time -- most likely.