Figured it was another Jeb Bush thread.
I might be wrong, but I believe it has been Caiaphas and the Jews who have been scorned for a millennia for the murder of Jesus, and Pilate's been blamed only recently by Hollywood in an attempt to divert responsibility away from the Jews.
A thousand years ago, Crusaders would stop off to murder entire Jewish villages in punishment for Jewish responsibility in Jesus' death as they passed through Europe on their way to the Holy Land, and, of course, there's no record of Crusaders stopping of in Rome to punish Romans for Pilate's involvement. After the Crusades, the Inquisitions targeted European Jews throughout Europe for centuries in continuation of their punishment for their responsibility in Jesus' murder.
No, Pontius Pilate scorn is a recent Hollywood invention.
My take is that this confession of truth places Jesus into historic truth under a particular ruler of state affairs, much like Christian currently suffer under Barack Obama. It is a crucial aspect to the Christian faith that it is rooted in reality as it plays out before our eyes and as reported to us by those who have gone before us.
Pontius Pilate was included in the creeds, not because he was especially monstrous or that he incurred the most guilt in allowing Jesus to be unjustly crucified. No mention is made of that at all. He is there simply as a historical marker. He is there to place the life of Christ in a historical context, and disabuse the notion that Jesus was some type of myth that was made up out of thin air. Pontius Pilate was an identifiably historical person, serving the Roman Empire in a particular place and time and holding a particular position in the government. All the other characters in the story are, by secular standards, more or less obscure. They could have said, I suppose, "He was crucified in AD 33", but there might not have been exact agreement on the date among the council Fathers. Identifying Pontius Pilate would have been the next best thing.
It would be like saying my grandfather was a field laborer on a farm owned by Woodrow Wilson, President of the United States. While my grandfather's life may be somewhat obscure, Woodrow Wilson is more identifiable.
Because he alone had the authority the authorize Crucifixion - and with authority comes accountability.
By the way, the Coptic church in Egypt counts him as a saint, because he was a convert to Christianity later in life.
Another aspect to this is that Christ is abandoned in nearly every way possible. Peter was the only one who came to Jesus’ defense physically, and Jesus would not allow it. The Son of Man goes as it is written of Him. The whole account of the Passion of Christ as it actually took place will be an object of the highest reverence for all ages to those who know and believe the Truth.
He is scorned for having no backbone and allowing an innocent man to be put to death.
Pilate, like Herod, could find no law Jesus had broken.
The crowds, however, would not be satisfied until this blasphemer and sacrilegious violater of the sabbath was put on a cross.
So, Barabus lived, having been pardoned under a local tradition of commutation during passover by the Romans to pacify the locals with an act of compassion.
Jesus was forced to take his place and since there were already three crosses prepared, Jesus was made to take up the one meant for Barabus.
Short version and my dos centavos. ...
We also learned that during the last supper Christ told the disciples “This bread is my body...etc...”
They replied “No way!”.
Christ affirmed “Yahweh!”.
We also onow the disciples were Mexican, because they were all in one Accord....
It was God’s will for Christ to die for our sins and redeem us.
Jesus said to Pilate that, he, Pilate didn’t have the power to condem him to death unless it were given above.
Had Pilate been successful in having Jesus released there might have been no atonement for our sins.
All happened because God ordained it so.
Luk_23:12 And Herod and Pilate became friends with each other that very day, for before this they had been at enmity with each other.
Pilate was placed between a rock and w hard place.
One fact, detail many are forgetting is Pilate’s wife Claudia had a dream the night before and told Pilate that this man Jesus was innocent.
I am sure that played on his mind and decision.
However Caeser punishing Pilate for not keeping order and shut down any uprising was also playing on his mind.
No doubt the High Priest stoking up the flames of rioting ( Ferguson MO comes to mind ) didn’t help much.
All in all this was God’s plan of redemption for us.
Figured it was another Jeb Bush thread.
I have heard two reason for the mention of Pilate’s name in the creed, and while Pilate isn’t a hero in the story, his presence in the creed isn’t necessarily one of “scorn” as you put it.
1. Pilate was a known secular ruler. Mentioning Jesus as being contemporary with him—in fact having met him and dealt with him in a trial—verifies the historicity of Jesus. (If some tried to deny that he was a real, corporeal person.)
2. Pilate’s position as the representative of the most powerful earthly authority at the time shows that even HE is subject to the Sovereign will of Almighty God, and that Jesus’ suffering and resurrection was not in the hand of a mere man, but of God. Pilate’s sovereignty did not exceed God’s.
As an aside, this second lesson is profound for me. I am learning daily that my plans, the world’s plans, and the plans of any mortal—I don’t care if you’re the Queen of England or a Nigerian Prince—are never fulfilled unless God permits.
We are free, but we are not autonomous. God is King.
Hope this helps.
I don't see this line as "pouring out scorn" at all.
The whole purpose of the Nicene Creed was to make a definitive statement about Jesus Christ as both Man and God. I have always understood the line in the Creed about Pontius Pilate to be a statement to reinforce the historical truth of Christ's death by crucifixion under Roman law.
Remember that the Council of Nicaea was convened in 325 AD by the emperor Constantine I to resolve disputes that were threatening the cohesiveness of the Roman Empire. So a statement about the historical truth of Christ's death at the hands of a Roman leader would have lent strong credibility to Constantine's efforts.
Somebody had to fulfill scripture. It happened to be Pilate. He had the authority to carry out a death sentence and if Christ isn’t put to death, he can’t ascend to Heaven. It fulfills scripture.
I wouldn’t describe the creeds (Apostles’ and Nicene) as “pouring out scorn” on Pilate. It’s just situating Jesus in history.
Among some eastern Christians, Pilate is believed to have been repentant, and is called a saint.
John 19:11Jesus answered, "You would have no authority over Me, unless it had been given you from above; for this reason he who delivered Me to you has the greater has the greater sin."
Acts 2: 22"Men of Israel, listen to these words: Jesus the Nazarene, a man attested to you by God with miracles and wonders and signs which God performed through Him in your midst, just as you yourselves know-- 23this Man, delivered over by the predetermined plan and foreknowledge of God, you nailed to a cross by the hands of godless men and put Him to death.…
The Jews used the Roman system to have Christ killed... Gods plan from before the foundation of the earth .All tools in the hand of God
But this Easter my prayers about the historical Pilate were answered in our readings. In one reading, Pilate is "corrected" because the sign above Jesus reads, "King of the Jews" and someone says that it is wrong and it should say, "He SAID he was 'King of the Jews"." And Pilate replies, "I have written what I have written." To me, this says that Pilate accepts and acknowledges publicly Jesus as King of the Jews and takes unequivocal responsibility for the public moniker. To me, he is not the world's greatest sinner but may, by his own personal and political martyrdom, be an unsung saint.