" 

  
 ==Question== 

 I'm wondering why there's nothing in other views regarding the impossibility of a Jesus-Pilate conversation, the pun of Barabbas' name, the fact that Romans had no custom re releasing a condemned prisoner during Passover, etc.   

 :Mostly because much of those are covered in other articles.  The Barabbas issue is covered in the Barabbas article, as are many of the issues secondary to that incident which you bring up here.   

 ::Oh, nevermind.  Read the whole thread.    

 :....Because....there are no views about those things that are actually credible? I don't know, im just guessing.   

 ::Or perhaps the fact that they are less critical to the story? Assuming Jesus didn't exist, it doesn't matter whether or not someone else was released in his place. He could still be executed. It doesn't matter whether someone's name is a pun. But it's pretty damn important to the story that Jesus existed. Minor details are inconsequential. See where I'm going with that? It's hard to explain.    

 I don't want to open a can of worms here, so I'll just say I see the irony in a choice between Yeshua ""son of father"" (bar-abba) and Yeshua Son of the Father (2nd Person in the Trinity).   

 :The English language Wikipedia, like most English language publications that are not aimed specifically at the skeptic community, bends over backwards not to offend any religion, partly out of politeness, partly out of fear.  I wonder what the other-language Wikipedia have to say about Jesus. 

 :I think, however, the place to point out obvious errors in the Bible, such as the ones you mention, is in the article on that book of the Bible.  And, of course, one must be polite, NPOV, cite sources, and all that good stuff. 

 :Watching a person of a different religion defending their religion is as embarassing as watching a person of a different sexual orientation having sex.    

 ::A humourous analogy... but there is truth in it! That's almost scary...    

 ::Sounds rather Freudian to me.   

 :::Don't read too much into what I asked  it was rhetorical.  They are things worth discussing (Arch resolved part of the one question), not to criticize, but to make people think. 
 :::I'll have to go look at the other language articles (at least those I can read) to see how they treat this issue. 
 :::Anyway, give the questions some thought.   

 Just a quick note, once again, all the quetions here are actually addressed in the Barabbas article.   

 :Your kidding me, right Rick? If your not faint of heart, type in ""Piss Jesus"" into the search box and see what pops up front and center. But I warn you, even though I haven't seen it, it's nasty, and quite offensive indeed. No bending over backward in this encyclopedia.   

 ::I assume you mean Piss Christ, not Piss Jesus: ""even though I haven't seen it, it's nasty, and quite offensive indeed"". It's good to see that you are so reliant on ""faith"" in this as in so many other matters, but in this case a little bit of actual research might not go amiss. Go on. I dare you to click on the blue words and be totally shocked by how beautiful and even spiritual this image is.   

 :::Ok, so I got one word wrong. I don't memorize the titles of every article I come across, especially when I don't actually click on them when I know their disgusting. I've heard more than enough to know I do not want to click on that link, so I won't, it's simple. My point was, Wikipedia is not censored to respect Christianity, there was quite a protest over it in both Wikipedia and in the real world, yet it still remains front and center apparently. The same goes for many other religions. There is no cartel of Christian sensibility. (Unfortunently)   

 :::::How in the name of Krishna, Zeus, Eloi, or any other deity you could mention you could know that something is ""disgusting"" (whatever that word means) without looking a