With all due respect, I doubt you’ve read the accounts. Starting way earlier (John 18:31 and others) the Romans made it clear they wanted nothing to do with this. All the way through the process and trial the Romans wanted nothing to do with it.
The accounts couldn’t be clearer.
You are taking the Gospel accounts at face value. I’m saying they can’t be accurate. These are historical facts:
[ul][li]Crucifixion was a purely Roman method of execution used only for crimes against the Roman state.[/li]
[li]Crucifixion was an illegal method of excution under Jewish law.[/li]
[li]It was not illegal under Jewish law to say you were the Messiah, nor did it qualify as "blasphemy.[/li]
[li]It WAS illegal under Roman law to say you were the Messiah (i.e the “King of the Jews”), because that was a direct challenge to Roman autority and sovereignty.[/ul][/li]In short, if Jesus was crucified, it could only have been because the Romans wanted him crucified, and nothing he had said or done was a capital crime under Jewish law. Mark’s Gospel was written witten with the intention of shifting blame away from the Romans and onto Jewish authority.
Christ put things right by accepting the blame placed on Him by the state, and trusting on His Father to judge Him innocent and the state guilty. In every death penalty case is it the fault of the state (world authorities), not the person. The state is what God, through Christ, will overthrow and banish from earth.
Jesus saw the criminals as just slaves to their sin, and therefore not responsible, but taking on the blame because of their position of a slave. Jesus knew it was sin that was enslaving them.
Jesus suffered the ‘railroading’ that all the accused suffer to some form, Jesus knew this was happening and He knew His words would not be heard and chose not to talk when being accused - He knew it would be pointless, as so many people who are caught up by the criminal justice system.
It’s absurd to think that anything in the Universe exists outside the Universe itself. Superstitions, gods, spirits, and all the similar mentally defective abstractions are fantasies and that much is obvious to everyone, even religious believers.
In addition, for anything to be real it is necessary that it exists independently of the human intelligence - or lack thereof. There were no gods during the 165 million years the dinosaurs were on the earth. There were never any, there are no gods now or will ever be.
It’s that simple.
If you wish to say it’s all made up, then it is fruitless to press it any further, other than to say that:
The account as written is crystal clear as to who wanted Jesus dead. The Romans were the governing authority, and even if they were completely ambivalent (and it appears that ambivalence would actually have been an improvement) and simply succumbed to the Jews pressing demands, crucifixion would still have been the method of execution. IOW, the fact that crucifixion was the way Jesus was executed is not equivalent to “the Romans wanted Jesus dead.”
It’s kind of silly to assume that a group of people who sought to have someone murdered would have refrained because crucifixion was not allowed under Jewish law. It was well known that the Jews wanted Jesus dead, and had attempted his life before. Does anyone really believe that they would have come up short and said [essentially] “Hold on. We can’t do this. Crucifixion is against Jewish Law.”? They were trying----and had tried before----to get someone killed ferpetessake.
Jesus was well known in many quarters. From the occasion in the temple where he read from the scroll of Isaiah, to the occasion of him revealing himself as the Messiah (to a Samaritan woman no less) he made no efforts to conceal himself. He was a visible teacher for over 3 years. Yet all the accounts show that the group that objected were the Jewish leaders, not the Romans. Can you think of one other occasion where he ran afoul of Roman sensibilities? No. Yet time and again the Jewish leaders were incensed at things that Jesus taught. (and had accused him of blasphemy)
The point is this: If the Gospel writers played fast and loose with the specific facts surrounding the event of Jesus’s death, it remains 100% consistent with the tone, tenor and events of the complete Gospels. While he was wildly popular in many (most…) quarters, he was reviled by the Jewish leaders. On more than once occasion they sought to have him killed. (and were counseled by one of their foremost scholars to show restraint)
So is it possible that the accounts as written are inaccurate? yes. But the accounts would have been made up much sooner than the account of Jesus’s death, because those events as written are entirely consistent with the life and times of Jesus ministry, including his interactions with both the Romans and Jewish leaders well before the event of his trial and execution.
If you’re looking for strict adherence to the Law and lawful actions from a group of people whose sole motivation is to kill a rabblerouser and troublemaker i’d say you’re barking up the wrong torture stake. 
Amen, brother!
Without wading into the historicity of Jesus’ crucifixion again (we just did that, and Dio is wrong about Jesus’ blasphemy):
The fact that Jesus was killed under a “death penalty” does not mean that the death penalty is Good. The Bible is filled with examples of God taking something bad, or someone’s evil actions, and using it for good.
Joseph was sold into slavery – bad. He then rose to a position to save Egypt and Israel from the great famine - good!
Pharoah had all the baby Hebrew boys killed – that’s bad. But it led to Moses being hidden in a basket, and found by Pharoah’s daughter – good!
David had Uriah killed and stole his wife – bad. But that resulted in the birth of Solomon, the wisest of all Israel’s kings and the builder of the temple - good!
**Not that these are historical events, but the stories demonstrate that Jesus’ execution does not make the death penalty okay any more than the above stories mean that slavery, genocide, and adultery are okay.
ETA
I would simply add that there is a long history of humans using the legal system as a weapon to abuse someone else. In developed countries we assume that the appearance of legality or the courtroom venue assumes that everthing is above board.
And…we regularly read reports in underdeveloped countries of ‘kangaroo courts’ that with the thinnest veneer of propriety accomplish some really horrible things. In fact it was not long ago in the US that African Americans were routinely convicted unjustly of crimes by all white juries. (while often their white assailants were unjustly acquitted)
The Gospels as written describe just this type of miscarriage of justice. Is it possible that they were made up? Sure.
But it’s silly to say a miscarriage of justice cannot happen because it’s against the law.
It doesn’t seem particularly silly, if there are alternatives. If Jesus could have been killed in a way in accordance with Jewish law, or at least, in a way that was not against it, then by all means I suspect they would have stopped and said “Hold on. Why are we going vastly out of our way by trying to get other people to kill this guy in a specific manner, when they are ambivalent about him and we cannot make a case against him to these people, when we could just kill him in some other way?”. It makes no sense to claim that such a group’s sole motivation is to kill someone - otherwise one of them would just have stabbed him on the street. A ploy of this nature is complicated, and thus requires complicated motivations.
I’d also make the point that, so far as a trial goes, even in those days, we cannot say that a result of innocence means innocence; to be correct, we can only say that there would be presumably not enough evidence to suggest guilt. It’s perfectly possible that Jesus was both a) found innocent and yet b) guilty of the charges.
Edit: To fit in with your characterisation of a miscarriage of justice, perhaps this is what is described - but the other way around, with an incredibly obviously guilty party being found unjustly innocent. That, too, would seem to fit the facts as described.
I should note i’m taking your opinion as accurate for the purposes of this point, not being very knowledgeable about the topic myself.
Lets be clear up front. At some point all of us leave the known facts (which may be colored by bias) and begin to speculate.
That said, Jesus was very popular. In many/most places extremely popular. In an earlier strategy session the Jewish leaders were counseled to show restraint because of the popularity Jesus had. There were no easy alternatives.
Now it’s possible that the Gospels are corrupted with bias (and I submit that there is little evidence of that anywhere) but I submit that the accounts of Jesus’s death are entirely consistent with the interactions he had had for 3+ years----with both the Romans and the Jewish leaders.
In John 18 Jesus is accosted by Roman soldiers, led by the Jewish leaders. Later they brought him the Roman Governor who had to be asked what the deal was. The Governor asked the Jewish leaders, *“What charges are you bringing against this man?” * John 18:28
That alone tells you who brought the charges. Everyone seems to want to believe the Romans wanted Jesus’s scalp, when in fact they had to be informed of the charges. The Governor responds “Take him yourselves and judge him by your own law” ; John 18:31 hardly a ringing endorsement of the bloodthirsty Romans theory.
The Jews respond, *“If he were not a criminal we would not have handed him over to you.” * When Pilate persisted that the Jews should handle it themselves, they objected, “But we have no right to execute anyone”.
It is possible that all of this is simply made up. And…if DtC or others want to make that claim, have at it. (and will simply point out that this is an impossible task, and amounts to rank speculation)
But if it’s not made up…it is clear that:
The Romans saw it as an internal Jewish affair and would have been pleased for the Jews to handle it internally, **and they pressed the Jews to do just that. **(which flies in the face of the notion the the Romans were hacked off Jesus was running around calling himself King)
The Romans had to be pressed into action, more than once.
Even when forced to bring Jesus to trial, the Governor found him innocent.
That the Governor finally acquiesced is even well documented. IOW, Pilate never got on board’ he never bought in. He was never persuaded that Jesus was guilty of anything, and symbolically washed his hands telling the Jews that his death was on their head.
Contrary to claims, it was the Jews who pressed for the death penalty. DtC et al are incorrect when they say the Jews didn’t make a legal claim for the death penalty. John 19:7 clearly says *"The Jewish leaders insisted, “We have a law, and according to that law he must die, because he claimed to be the Son of God.” *
Using the Roman authority for ground cover actually was the best alternative to eliminate a troublemaker and rabblerouser, but who was very popular among many of the Jews.
ETA
It is a staple of political correctness to couch historical facts so as to not give unnecessary ammunition to miscreants and racists.
Rewriting history is another thing entirely. I’ve never missed a moment of sleep worrying whether one of my long lost relatives abused an American Indian, and I’m certainly not going to ascribe guilt to someone else to assuage any misplaced guilt I may feel.
Similarly, I’m not going to rewrite clear history and ascribe any more guilt to the Romans than they actually earned (who are a very convenient target given their current status) so I can assuage any misplaced guilt experienced by any modern day Jew, or in a misguided and futile attempt to defang idiots like Mel Gibson.
There was no Jewish law against claiming to be the “son of God.” That was just an honorific for Davidic kings, not a literal claim to Godhood. There was and is no blasphemy, or any crime at all under Jewish law in claiming to be the Messiah or the son of God. If Jesus was crucified, it was because the Romans wanted him crucified. The Jewish Temple priests had no influence over Pilate, they were handpicked, Roman lackeys. The idea that they could put any pressure on Pilate is a joke. They were populary despised as Roman collaborators at the time.
If he claimed to be the heir to the throne of David, then he was, in fact. guilty of sedition under Roman law.
No, it doesn’t. It could simply be attributed to not wanting blood on their hands. Of course a murderer is going to be pleased if his intended target is killed by someone else; they get all they want without any blame, or any reprisals. To the contrary, if the Romans were hacked off about Jesus calling himself King, far to the better that he was killed by his own people than by them; it doesn’t look like fear, it demonstrates lack of faith, and allows an adoption of an apperance of uninterest.
As for easy alternatives; walk up and stab the guy?
I think they preferred old fashioned stoning.
Still, it does seem really, really clear that the Governor wanted nothing to do with it, and never really came around to the intellectual/legal argument. (even though he ultimately OKd the execution…)
… which would also seem to be a much easier solution than persuading a powerful overarching power that is ambivalent on the situation to kill someone for you.
But “wanted nothing to do with it” doesn’t imply in and of itself require uninterest. It could just mean he didn’t want people to point the finger at him. Perhaps, having had the issue repeatedly thrust upon him, he simply did all he could to try and make sure it wasn’t something that happened under his jurisdiction. An assumption, but one just as following of the evidence.
What about trashing the temple? Even if not a capital crime, surely Jewish law had something to say about that?
It was a capital crime to actually transgress the Temple (i.e go inside it), and the priests actually had the authority to execute people themselves for that, but Jesus ostensibly only overturned some tables in the courtyard. I don’t think that was a specific crime under Jewish law, but certainly could have been interpreted as an attempt to start a riot - something both the Jewish and the Roman authorities were extremely concerned about during Passover.
Personally, I think the incident at the Temple was the likely reason for the crucifixon - that both the Jewish authorities and the Romans feared he was a potentia; powder keg during a time when the city was flooded with vistiors coming in to sacrifice at the Temple, and when the Romans particularly feared riots and uprisings. The Jewish authorities would have seen a nutjob knocking stuff over in the Temple courtyards as somebody who could potentially get a lot of Jews killed as well, so nailing him up pronto was a way to deal with a troublemaker immediately and nip any potential rebellion in the bud. If he called himself the Messiah, then that was sufficient reason for the Romans as well, even if it doesn’t appear to be a claim they took very seriously.
Are you saying that evil should exist so good could come from that? If killing a person or person’s like Hitler did, then, as I understand you, it was good that a lot of Jews, Homosexuals,and Gypsies were killed because it made the world join against bigotry!
If a murderer’s son does good, as some murderers sons have, does that make the murder okay?
It seems to me a being that knows all things before they happen could bring out good with out allowing evil acts, or allowing men like Hitler and other despots to even be born,unless He wanted evil to exist! What good came out of all the innocent people that were killed at Jericho, or during the flood? God must not have loved those people, surely babies, and little cjildren were innocent, yet God did not choose to save them!
In reality, if the writer of John 10 was correct, Jesus reinded the Jews who accused Him of blasphemey that according to their law, their fathers also called God their father.
No, that’s not what I’m saying at all. It’s nonsensical to say that evil “should” exist. But evil does exist, and God uses it for good.
. Nope. That’s the opposite of what I’m arguing. Hitler’s killing was evil. To the extent people rose up against it together to decray bigotry, that was some good that came out of it, but it doesn’t change the fact that Hitler’s actions were still evil to begin with. You’re making the same mistake the OP makes in regard to the death penalty.
Again, absolutely not. If by murdering someone the murderer somehow brings about world peace, the murder itself is still evil.
You’re asking why God allows evil to exist at all, and that’s a completely different, and endless, debate.