Difference between revisions of "Episode:Jesus Faces Death—Brought to Trial (Part 10)"

From Symmetry of Soul
Jump to: navigation, search
Line 15: Line 15:
 
==Notes by Brad==
 
==Notes by Brad==
  
* Read this as the story of a man and the story of the men and women who associated with him.
+
* ** "Behold the man," do not the mere facts,
** Don't read this as dry, dusty theology.  That won't make it relavant or living for us today.
+
** Read this as the story of a man and those who associated with him.
** "Behold the man," do not behold the facts, [[old wineskinds]], and even potential new superstitions.
+
** Don't read this as dry, dusty theology.  That won't make it relevant or living for us today.
** Put youself in the shoes of these people.  How would you act?  Would you do better?  Really?
+
** Put yourself in the shoes of these people.  How would you act?  Would you do better?  Really?
 
*** This author reports that "What would I have done in Pilate's shoes?" he concluded, "I would have failed on Day One.  I am not that caliber of a mortal.  Despite Pilate's flaws, he still was a 'great man' in Plutarch's sense of the word."
 
*** This author reports that "What would I have done in Pilate's shoes?" he concluded, "I would have failed on Day One.  I am not that caliber of a mortal.  Despite Pilate's flaws, he still was a 'great man' in Plutarch's sense of the word."
  
  
* [[Don't set the bar too low]].
+
* [[Don't set the bar too low]].  Don't short-circuit yourself.
** Set high concepts as remotely as possible!  So you can go in quest fo the great prize.
+
** Set high concepts as remotely as possible, so you may go in quest of the great prize.
 
** Faith.  Love.  Truth.  Don't be sure you've found these things.  You won't find the definitions in a [[fancy-animal dictionary|dictionary]]
 
** Faith.  Love.  Truth.  Don't be sure you've found these things.  You won't find the definitions in a [[fancy-animal dictionary|dictionary]]
 
*** Faith is not credulous belief.  Reverencing some divine falsehood is not faith.
 
*** Faith is not credulous belief.  Reverencing some divine falsehood is not faith.
 
*** Love is not just a feeling.
 
*** Love is not just a feeling.
** Today, any word that is suggestive of spirit or eternity tends to just be watered-down feelings.
+
*** Genuine love exists within a context—a context of truth.
*** For example, a really really intense feeling-filled fact, today, often is referred to as "a truth."  No.  That's just a strong feeling.
+
*** Jesus said "through faith, by love..."  If we don't even understand faith, how can be know the true meaning of love?
*** Before the 5th ER, almost all discussion about spirit affairs has never exceeded the second of the [[levels of meaning]].
+
** Today, any word suggestive of spirit or eternity tends to just be watered-down feelings.
 +
*** For example, a very intense feeling-filled fact, today, often is referred to as "a truth."  No.  It's just a strong feeling.
 +
*** Before the 5th ER, most discussion of spirit affairs has not gone past the [[levels of meaning|second level of meaning]].
 
** Is there a ''possible'' shadow cast into the feelings from the true spirit essence of concepts like faith, love, and truth?   
 
** Is there a ''possible'' shadow cast into the feelings from the true spirit essence of concepts like faith, love, and truth?   
*** Possibly.  Or possibly not.  Maybe better to set all that aside and start from the 5th ER's principles.
+
*** Possibly.  Possibly not.  Maybe it's better to set all that aside and start from the 5th ER's principles.
** Genuine love exists within a context—a context of truth.
+
** This will be a many-lives-long process for us—the point where truth is a definitive experiential possession is a long way off.
** Jesus said "through faith, by love..."  If we don't even understand faith, how can be know the true meaning of love?
+
*** But you can [[start today].  Long before you grasp them experientially and directly, you can work out some framework for these.  Separate one word from another.  Abstract them into distinct elements.
** This will be a many-lives-long process for us—the point where truth is a definitive experiential possission is a long way off.
+
*** So then may recognize the experience when it comes upon you.
** Even now, long before you grasp them experientially and directly, you can [[start today]]. 
 
*** You can work out the framework for these.  Separate one word from another.  You've abstracted them into distinct elements.
 
*** At least then you may know the experience when it comes upon you, for you've worked out the framework in advance.
 
  
  
 
* Concerning frames of reference and lenses
 
* Concerning frames of reference and lenses
 
** Many people start with, say, the Bible, and then read The Urantia Book in light of it.
 
** Many people start with, say, the Bible, and then read The Urantia Book in light of it.
** Try starting with the 5th Epochal Revelation and ''then'' studying other world matters.
 
 
** Can you try starting with The Urantia Book?
 
** Can you try starting with The Urantia Book?
 
*** Through this, can you find more tolerance for other belief systems?  Instead of becoming self-righteous and hardened against them?
 
*** Through this, can you find more tolerance for other belief systems?  Instead of becoming self-righteous and hardened against them?
*** Though don't end with ''only'' reading it (it's not a sacred text)!
+
*** Though don't '''end''' with ''only'' reading The Urantia Book (it's not a sacred text)! It should make you hungry for much more study.
** Not everyone can do this.  Some people started their lives with The Bible, and they simply remove it at their foundational premise.   
+
** Not everyone can start with The Urantia Book
 +
*** Some people started their lives with The Bible, and confess they seem unable to remove it as their foundational premise.   
 
*** So be it.
 
*** So be it.
** And even if The Urantia Book is your principal text for approaching life philosophically, you ''still' will have some lens you're reading it through!
+
** Even if The Urantia Book were your principal text for approaching life philosophically, you ''still'' have some lens you're reading it through!
** To bring anything to a focus in your mind, you need '''a lens'''.  A frame.  You will have one lens or another.
+
*** To bring anything to a focus in your mind, you need '''a lens'''.  A frame.  You will have one lens or another.
*** Religions of tradition and author work diligently at providing acolytes with a rigid frame/lens to focus all thoughts with.
 
 
** Given that you, today, have a subjective lens, can you go in quest of '''the''' objective lens?
 
** Given that you, today, have a subjective lens, can you go in quest of '''the''' objective lens?
*** If you can, you have kindred minds.  Brotherhood of man.
+
*** People sharing the one true objective lens is what yields kindred minds and brotherhood of man.
*** Careful!  False philosophies like positivism preach that there is no such thing as an objective lens.  They confess there are lenses, but they give up on the concept of objectivity.
+
*** Careful!  False philosophies like positivism assert there is no objective lens.  They admit there are lenses, but nihilistically give up on objectivity.
*** And we're swimming in false philosophies like this these days.  Don't unwittingly let them poison you.  You need [[courageous and independent cosmic thinking]].
+
*** We're swimming in false philosophies like this these days.  Don't unwittingly let them poison you.  You need [[courageous and independent cosmic thinking]].
 
** If you can't find the one objective frame immediately (who can?), can you at least change from one subjective frame to another?
 
** If you can't find the one objective frame immediately (who can?), can you at least change from one subjective frame to another?
*** Don't be so sure.  This author notes how even in the sciences people cling to their old frame (paradigms) embarrassingly long after the evidence shows they are flawed.
+
*** Don't be so sure.  This author notes how even in the sciences people cling to their old frame (paradigms) long after direct observation falsifies them.  Because [[you can rationalize anything]].
** Do you think you already know the story of Pilate, Jesus, and Barabbas from the Bible as you main lens?
+
** Do you think you already know the story of Pilate, Jesus, and Barabbas from the Bible?
*** You don't.  If you think you do, you'll just breeze through these sections and miss all the revelatory information, and get nothing but affirmation.
+
*** If you think so, you'll breeze through these sections and it will be all affirmation, no revelation.
  
  
Line 67: Line 65:
  
 
* Pilate's false leadership: here he's trying to lead by following here.
 
* Pilate's false leadership: here he's trying to lead by following here.
** Taking a straw poll of the mob, as it were?  And make a decision based on that to appease them?  That's not leadership.
 
** Pilate is supposed to be so much more than this.  He literally has a judgment seat: a symbol of his strength and objectivity.  He should be wholly just.
 
*** "I can find no fault in him worthy of punishment.  But I can punish him if you like."  Not the paraphrased words of a just leader.
 
** He even gets swayed in an ''ad hoc'' fashion, moment to moment, by one mob and then another mob.  Purely opportunistic to preserve his power.
 
 
** "Behold the weasel!"
 
** "Behold the weasel!"
** We are so accustomed to this behavior in our politicians today, we hardly notice how improper and false it is in terms of leadership.
+
*** Taking a straw poll of the mob, as it were?  And making a decision based on that to appease them?  That's not leadership.
 +
*** Pilate is supposed to be so much more than this.  He literally has a judgment seat: a symbol of his strength and objectivity.  He should be wholly just.
 +
*** "I can find no fault in him worthy of punishment.  But I can punish him if you like."  Not the thoughts of a just leader.
 
*** "How should I vote so that you'll reelect me?"  "What does 51% of the population want?"  That's not true leadership.
 
*** "How should I vote so that you'll reelect me?"  "What does 51% of the population want?"  That's not true leadership.
*** Sophistry!: "Our elected officials are supposed to reflect the people, so polling the crowd is appropriate."
+
*** He even gets swayed in an ''ad hoc'' fashion, moment to moment, by one mob and then another mob.  Purely opportunistic to preserve his power.
*** No.  The people need a leader, not an affirmer.  A leader, not a manager.
+
** We are so accustomed to such behavior in politicians today, we might miss how improper and false it is!
** Concerning [[true leadership]]
+
** Sophistry!: "Our elected officials are supposed to reflect the people, so polling the crowd is appropriate."
*** Should believe they more [[wisdom, insight, and foresight]] than the plain man.  And believes they should act on it.
+
** Concerning [[true leadership]], a true leader:
*** Should have courage of their convictions.  "What if I fail?" If you're afraid to fail, then don't step up.
+
*** should believe they possess more [[wisdom, insight, and foresight]] than the plain man.
*** Engages the evolutionary process definitively.  They may succeedThey may fail.  If they fail, it's OK: tribulation can lead to wisdom.
+
*** Should have courage of their convictions to act.  "This wisdom, insight, and foresight I possess should be the basis of our actions."
*** Jumps in and does things definitively.  "This wisdom, insight, and foresight should be the basis of our actions."
+
*** Engages the evolutionary process definitively.   
*** Remembers that we figured this out, long ago, as primitive mankind via war.  If we forget this, we'll have to go back to war.
+
*** Should not be afraid to failMaybe you will.  If so, it's OK: tribulation can lead to wisdom.
 +
*** Acts definitively and deals with the consequences.
 
*** Makes a decision definitively, and then deals with the consequences.
 
*** Makes a decision definitively, and then deals with the consequences.
** We need to be led, even if there always are those who will rebel at any leadership.
+
** We need to be led.
 +
*** We figured this out, long ago, via war.  If we forget this, we'll have to go back to war.
 +
*** People need a leader, not an affirmer.
 
*** A system of 1,000 inhabited worlds have '''one''' leader: a sovereign, no less.
 
*** A system of 1,000 inhabited worlds have '''one''' leader: a sovereign, no less.
 +
*** just because there always exist those who will rebel at any leadership, it does not invalidate leadership.
 
** Yet, Pilate is not the deeper, real problem here...
 
** Yet, Pilate is not the deeper, real problem here...
  
  
 
* The deeper problem at play here: a rebellion being fomented against the Roman empire
 
* The deeper problem at play here: a rebellion being fomented against the Roman empire
 +
** The 5th ER reveals a different color to this event.  This mob already had schemed to have Barabbas pardoned.  The mob isn't even concerned about Jesus!
 
** Barabbas' was a treasonist against the Roman empire, and the mob was demanding his release.
 
** Barabbas' was a treasonist against the Roman empire, and the mob was demanding his release.
** If you were a leader of a rebellion, and knew you could be pardoned within a year no matter how outrageous you are... are there any limits to what you'll do?
+
** If you were a rebellious leader and knew you'd be pardoned no matter how outrageous you are, are there any limits to what you'd do?
 
** This presages the eventual fall of Jerusalem.
 
** This presages the eventual fall of Jerusalem.
 
** Be careful when applying mercy to a collective phenomenon.  Mercy is for individuals.  Justice is needed for impersonal control of the group, to avoid anarchy.
 
** Be careful when applying mercy to a collective phenomenon.  Mercy is for individuals.  Justice is needed for impersonal control of the group, to avoid anarchy.
*** A merciful policy of pardoning mean to innocently appease the masses is having major unintended consequences!   
+
*** A merciful policy of pardoning (intended to appease the masses) is having major unintended consequences!   
 
*** Rome is allowing rebellion leaders to be set free each year, via the mob's scheming.
 
*** Rome is allowing rebellion leaders to be set free each year, via the mob's scheming.
*** The 5th ER reveals a different color to this event.  This mob already had schemed to have Barabbas pardoned.  The mob isn't even concerned about Jesus!
+
** The chief priests, like Pilate, saw this mob opportunistically.   
** The chief priests also saw this mob opportunistically.  They did not start the cry to pardon Barabbas; they merely joined in!
+
*** They joined the cry to pardon Barabbas (they did not start it, as the Bible seems to imply).
*** So the chief priests, here, joined in essentially a scheme for rebellion against Rome.  It hints at the rot to come.
+
*** So the chief priests, here, joined in essentially a scheme for rebellion against Rome.
*** And don't miss that Barabbas was the "son of a priest."  The priests are joining in to pardon one of their own, so to speak.  A rebellion fomenter.  Quite problematic.
+
*** And don't miss that Barabbas was the "son of a priest."  The priests are joining in to pardon a rebellious one of their own, so to speak.  Quite problematic.
** The deeper problem is: the people were materially minded, wanted a material uplifter.
+
** The still deeper problem remains...
  
 
+
* The Jewish people and their flawed frame and worldview (their own [[preconceived opinions...]])
* This mob and its own [[preconceived opinions...]], materially minded ones.
+
** They were materially minded, wanted a material uplifter and material savior.
** Did they recognize Jesus should go free?  Of course not.
+
*** They rejected the rule of Rome.  And, in turn, rejected the "Most Highs" who "rule in the Kingdoms of men" (i.e., the Most High Observer).
 +
*** Their rejection of Jesus is not as problematic, as regards their people, than their rejection of the Most High Observer (by way of Rome)
 
** They had one thing on their mind: "We want a leader, the Son of God, to rain down awesome fire and brimstone upon Rome, our oppressors."
 
** They had one thing on their mind: "We want a leader, the Son of God, to rain down awesome fire and brimstone upon Rome, our oppressors."
** Is it any wonder then that the materially-minded mob didn't recognize Jesus as the Son of God?  He wasn't going to be the son of "the volcano god"
+
*** Is it any wonder the materially-minded mob didn't recognize Jesus as the Son of God?  He wasn't going to be the son of "the volcano god"
** This mob thought Barabbas was closer to a rainer-of-fire-and-brimstone than Jesus could possibly be.
+
*** They don't recognize the majesty of Jesus in this moment (as our authors do).  They see the opposite: a material weakling who's been arrested.
** They don't see the majesty of Jesus in this moment (as our authors do).  They see the opposite: a material weakling who's been arrested.
+
*** This mob thought Barabbas was closer to a rainer-of-fire-and-brimstone than Jesus could possibly be.
 +
*** They'd rather pardon an insurrectionist, a potential material messiah who might overthrow Rome for them.
 
** These people were drawn to Jesus when imagining him manifesting '''power'''.  They had no interest in him manifesting '''personality'''.
 
** These people were drawn to Jesus when imagining him manifesting '''power'''.  They had no interest in him manifesting '''personality'''.
*** He was a power-personality synthesis.
 
 
** Their narrative of Jesus wasn't even accurate.  "Jesus drove the moneychangers form the temple on Monday!"  Ah... no he didn't.
 
** Their narrative of Jesus wasn't even accurate.  "Jesus drove the moneychangers form the temple on Monday!"  Ah... no he didn't.
*** Jesus only drove the animals out.  The mob drove out the moneychangers!  In just 4 days look how the tall tale has grown.
 
 
*** How much do you, too, identify with a narrative and figment of Jesus instead of the real Jesus?
 
*** How much do you, too, identify with a narrative and figment of Jesus instead of the real Jesus?
 
*** Christians today also identify with this powerful Jesus whipping people and flipping over tables.  The fictitious Jesus.
 
*** Christians today also identify with this powerful Jesus whipping people and flipping over tables.  The fictitious Jesus.
*** Christians today want the power and glory.  Not personality and love.
+
*** Christians today mostly want power and glory.  Not personality and love.
 
** Your animal nature wants the same thing this mob wanted: '''to use Jesus for you own material better ends.'''  
 
** Your animal nature wants the same thing this mob wanted: '''to use Jesus for you own material better ends.'''  
 
** Can you be a true human and want Jesus for his personality and love instead?  Even his apostles struggled with this (they, too, often wanted power and glory)
 
** Can you be a true human and want Jesus for his personality and love instead?  Even his apostles struggled with this (they, too, often wanted power and glory)
 
** Yikes: If you love the fictitious Jesus, you love a figment of your mind.  So, in a real way, you only love yourself, not Jesus.
 
** Yikes: If you love the fictitious Jesus, you love a figment of your mind.  So, in a real way, you only love yourself, not Jesus.
 
 
* The Jewish people and their flawed frame and worldview.
 
** They want to pardon an insurrectionist, a material messiah who will overthrow Rome for them.
 
** They rejected the rule of Rome.  And, in turn, rejected the "Most Highs" who "rule in the Kingdoms of men."
 
*** Notably, the Most High Observer.
 
** Their rejection of Jesus is not as problematic, as regards their people, than their rejection of the Most High Observer (by way of Rome)
 
  
  
 
* Concerning this mob
 
* Concerning this mob
** Who's in this mob?
+
** This mob has only avowed enemies of Jesus, and people who barely cared about Jesus and only wanted Barabbas released
*** The avowed enemies of Jesus (chief priests, Sanhedrists, etc)
+
*** None of Jesus' friends (they were in hiding hiding) or those loyal to Jesus, because Pilate didn't call them.
*** A mob who wanted Barabbas released and barely even noticed Jesus.
+
** This mob is purely animal and emotional.   
*** None of Jesus' friends (they were told to hide).
 
*** Not even those lukewarm or loyal to JesusPilate didn't call those people before him in this crucial moment.
 
** Late in the game, the mob is purely animal and emotional.   
 
 
*** So Pilate's appeals to civilizational logic ("what evil has Jesus done?") utterly fail.
 
*** So Pilate's appeals to civilizational logic ("what evil has Jesus done?") utterly fail.
*** Pilate tries to slow things down, reclaim some control
+
*** Pilate tries to slow things down, reclaim some control, but there are no humans here, only fancy animals.
*** But there are no humans left in the mob, only fancy animals.
+
** A multitude of fancy animals shouting in unison.
** A multitude of fancy animals shouting in unison
+
*** This is uniformity, aka [[poor man's unity]].  Human's crave unity, but fancy animals only can achieve uniformity.
*** This is uniformity—[[poor man's unity]].  Human's crave unity, but fancy animals only can achieve uniformity.
+
*** And there's a zealous spirit-like charge on unison chants.  It can feel pleasant and make it all feed on itself.
*** And there's a zealous spirit-like charge on these unison chants.  It can feel pleasant and make it all feed on itself.
+
*** This author reports being in a mob once that chanted "This is what democracy looks like" in unison.  And it was terrifying upon reflection.  Democracy in the form of mob rule can be terrifying.
*** This author reports being in a crowd once that shouted "This is what democracy looks like" in unison.  And it wasn't empowering upon reflection—it was terrifying.  Democracy can be terrifying.
 
  
  
Line 154: Line 144:
 
** But let's give Pilate a little credit here.
 
** But let's give Pilate a little credit here.
 
*** Repeatedly, he tries to save Jesus from the semi-civilized mob.  He was a civilized man, and no plain man at that.
 
*** Repeatedly, he tries to save Jesus from the semi-civilized mob.  He was a civilized man, and no plain man at that.
*** Yet, he's not only fearful now.  He's terrorized.  Not a very high state for a judge to be in.
+
*** Yet, he's not merely fearful now, but actually ''terrorized''.  Not a high state for a judge to be in.

Revision as of 20:52, 10 March 2020

March 3, 2020 [Paper 185:5, p. 1993]

Pilate addressed himself to the solution of the problem which confronted him, by asking the assembly of Jewish rulers and the pardon-seeking crowd, "What shall I do with him who is called the king of the Jews?" And they all shouted with one accord, "Crucify him! Crucify him!" The unanimity of this demand from the mixed multitude startled and alarmed Pilate, the unjust and fear-ridden judge.

Listen to the broadcast

Keywords: Urantia, Jesus, Pilate's Predicament, Claudia's Dream, Barabbas's Favor



Notes by Brad

  • ** "Behold the man," do not the mere facts,
    • Read this as the story of a man and those who associated with him.
    • Don't read this as dry, dusty theology. That won't make it relevant or living for us today.
    • Put yourself in the shoes of these people. How would you act? Would you do better? Really?
      • This author reports that "What would I have done in Pilate's shoes?" he concluded, "I would have failed on Day One. I am not that caliber of a mortal. Despite Pilate's flaws, he still was a 'great man' in Plutarch's sense of the word."


  • Don't set the bar too low. Don't short-circuit yourself.
    • Set high concepts as remotely as possible, so you may go in quest of the great prize.
    • Faith. Love. Truth. Don't be sure you've found these things. You won't find the definitions in a dictionary
      • Faith is not credulous belief. Reverencing some divine falsehood is not faith.
      • Love is not just a feeling.
      • Genuine love exists within a context—a context of truth.
      • Jesus said "through faith, by love..." If we don't even understand faith, how can be know the true meaning of love?
    • Today, any word suggestive of spirit or eternity tends to just be watered-down feelings.
      • For example, a very intense feeling-filled fact, today, often is referred to as "a truth." No. It's just a strong feeling.
      • Before the 5th ER, most discussion of spirit affairs has not gone past the second level of meaning.
    • Is there a possible shadow cast into the feelings from the true spirit essence of concepts like faith, love, and truth?
      • Possibly. Possibly not. Maybe it's better to set all that aside and start from the 5th ER's principles.
    • This will be a many-lives-long process for us—the point where truth is a definitive experiential possession is a long way off.
      • But you can [[start today]. Long before you grasp them experientially and directly, you can work out some framework for these. Separate one word from another. Abstract them into distinct elements.
      • So then may recognize the experience when it comes upon you.


  • Concerning frames of reference and lenses
    • Many people start with, say, the Bible, and then read The Urantia Book in light of it.
    • Can you try starting with The Urantia Book?
      • Through this, can you find more tolerance for other belief systems? Instead of becoming self-righteous and hardened against them?
      • Though don't end with only reading The Urantia Book (it's not a sacred text)! It should make you hungry for much more study.
    • Not everyone can start with The Urantia Book
      • Some people started their lives with The Bible, and confess they seem unable to remove it as their foundational premise.
      • So be it.
    • Even if The Urantia Book were your principal text for approaching life philosophically, you still have some lens you're reading it through!
      • To bring anything to a focus in your mind, you need a lens. A frame. You will have one lens or another.
    • Given that you, today, have a subjective lens, can you go in quest of the objective lens?
      • People sharing the one true objective lens is what yields kindred minds and brotherhood of man.
      • Careful! False philosophies like positivism assert there is no objective lens. They admit there are lenses, but nihilistically give up on objectivity.
      • We're swimming in false philosophies like this these days. Don't unwittingly let them poison you. You need courageous and independent cosmic thinking.
    • If you can't find the one objective frame immediately (who can?), can you at least change from one subjective frame to another?
      • Don't be so sure. This author notes how even in the sciences people cling to their old frame (paradigms) long after direct observation falsifies them. Because you can rationalize anything.
    • Do you think you already know the story of Pilate, Jesus, and Barabbas from the Bible?
      • If you think so, you'll breeze through these sections and it will be all affirmation, no revelation.


  • Don't be so sure recent Bible translations (e.g. Revised Standard Version) are superior to the King James Version
    • "the substance of things hoped for" (KJV) is a truer translation, because spirit is a substance.
    • Don't be so sure "people of faith" know how to translate the Bible properly.


  • Pilate's false leadership: here he's trying to lead by following here.
    • "Behold the weasel!"
      • Taking a straw poll of the mob, as it were? And making a decision based on that to appease them? That's not leadership.
      • Pilate is supposed to be so much more than this. He literally has a judgment seat: a symbol of his strength and objectivity. He should be wholly just.
      • "I can find no fault in him worthy of punishment. But I can punish him if you like." Not the thoughts of a just leader.
      • "How should I vote so that you'll reelect me?" "What does 51% of the population want?" That's not true leadership.
      • He even gets swayed in an ad hoc fashion, moment to moment, by one mob and then another mob. Purely opportunistic to preserve his power.
    • We are so accustomed to such behavior in politicians today, we might miss how improper and false it is!
    • Sophistry!: "Our elected officials are supposed to reflect the people, so polling the crowd is appropriate."
    • Concerning true leadership, a true leader:
      • should believe they possess more wisdom, insight, and foresight than the plain man.
      • Should have courage of their convictions to act. "This wisdom, insight, and foresight I possess should be the basis of our actions."
      • Engages the evolutionary process definitively.
      • Should not be afraid to fail. Maybe you will. If so, it's OK: tribulation can lead to wisdom.
      • Acts definitively and deals with the consequences.
      • Makes a decision definitively, and then deals with the consequences.
    • We need to be led.
      • We figured this out, long ago, via war. If we forget this, we'll have to go back to war.
      • People need a leader, not an affirmer.
      • A system of 1,000 inhabited worlds have one leader: a sovereign, no less.
      • just because there always exist those who will rebel at any leadership, it does not invalidate leadership.
    • Yet, Pilate is not the deeper, real problem here...


  • The deeper problem at play here: a rebellion being fomented against the Roman empire
    • The 5th ER reveals a different color to this event. This mob already had schemed to have Barabbas pardoned. The mob isn't even concerned about Jesus!
    • Barabbas' was a treasonist against the Roman empire, and the mob was demanding his release.
    • If you were a rebellious leader and knew you'd be pardoned no matter how outrageous you are, are there any limits to what you'd do?
    • This presages the eventual fall of Jerusalem.
    • Be careful when applying mercy to a collective phenomenon. Mercy is for individuals. Justice is needed for impersonal control of the group, to avoid anarchy.
      • A merciful policy of pardoning (intended to appease the masses) is having major unintended consequences!
      • Rome is allowing rebellion leaders to be set free each year, via the mob's scheming.
    • The chief priests, like Pilate, saw this mob opportunistically.
      • They joined the cry to pardon Barabbas (they did not start it, as the Bible seems to imply).
      • So the chief priests, here, joined in essentially a scheme for rebellion against Rome.
      • And don't miss that Barabbas was the "son of a priest." The priests are joining in to pardon a rebellious one of their own, so to speak. Quite problematic.
    • The still deeper problem remains...
  • The Jewish people and their flawed frame and worldview (their own preconceived opinions...)
    • They were materially minded, wanted a material uplifter and material savior.
      • They rejected the rule of Rome. And, in turn, rejected the "Most Highs" who "rule in the Kingdoms of men" (i.e., the Most High Observer).
      • Their rejection of Jesus is not as problematic, as regards their people, than their rejection of the Most High Observer (by way of Rome)
    • They had one thing on their mind: "We want a leader, the Son of God, to rain down awesome fire and brimstone upon Rome, our oppressors."
      • Is it any wonder the materially-minded mob didn't recognize Jesus as the Son of God? He wasn't going to be the son of "the volcano god"
      • They don't recognize the majesty of Jesus in this moment (as our authors do). They see the opposite: a material weakling who's been arrested.
      • This mob thought Barabbas was closer to a rainer-of-fire-and-brimstone than Jesus could possibly be.
      • They'd rather pardon an insurrectionist, a potential material messiah who might overthrow Rome for them.
    • These people were drawn to Jesus when imagining him manifesting power. They had no interest in him manifesting personality.
    • Their narrative of Jesus wasn't even accurate. "Jesus drove the moneychangers form the temple on Monday!" Ah... no he didn't.
      • How much do you, too, identify with a narrative and figment of Jesus instead of the real Jesus?
      • Christians today also identify with this powerful Jesus whipping people and flipping over tables. The fictitious Jesus.
      • Christians today mostly want power and glory. Not personality and love.
    • Your animal nature wants the same thing this mob wanted: to use Jesus for you own material better ends.
    • Can you be a true human and want Jesus for his personality and love instead? Even his apostles struggled with this (they, too, often wanted power and glory)
    • Yikes: If you love the fictitious Jesus, you love a figment of your mind. So, in a real way, you only love yourself, not Jesus.


  • Concerning this mob
    • This mob has only avowed enemies of Jesus, and people who barely cared about Jesus and only wanted Barabbas released
      • None of Jesus' friends (they were in hiding hiding) or those loyal to Jesus, because Pilate didn't call them.
    • This mob is purely animal and emotional.
      • So Pilate's appeals to civilizational logic ("what evil has Jesus done?") utterly fail.
      • Pilate tries to slow things down, reclaim some control, but there are no humans here, only fancy animals.
    • A multitude of fancy animals shouting in unison.
      • This is uniformity, aka poor man's unity. Human's crave unity, but fancy animals only can achieve uniformity.
      • And there's a zealous spirit-like charge on unison chants. It can feel pleasant and make it all feed on itself.
      • This author reports being in a mob once that chanted "This is what democracy looks like" in unison. And it was terrifying upon reflection. Democracy in the form of mob rule can be terrifying.


  • Civilization needs judges and leaders who stand apart from transient animal-origin emotions.
    • It's sad to record how not-like-a-judge Pilate is here, playing off the emotions of the mob (malice, hatred, envy).
      • To be a judge that is law-abiding and just, they must stand apart from the emotions of the mob.
      • Those who are set apart from the emotions of the moment are the ones who are supposed to lead civilization through troubled, emotional times.
      • Instead, Pilate is being led around by the nose-ring here, as it were, by the mob and his own fear and insecurity.
    • Without laws and justice, all you have are folkways. A civilization cannot be founded or maintained on folkways.
    • A judge should be "just and courageous" (earlier in the text)
      • But Pilate here is "unjust and fear-ridden"
      • He asks the mob, "What should I do?" Why what a judge is this!
    • But let's give Pilate a little credit here.
      • Repeatedly, he tries to save Jesus from the semi-civilized mob. He was a civilized man, and no plain man at that.
      • Yet, he's not merely fearful now, but actually terrorized. Not a high state for a judge to be in.