Jewish Priests Responsible?

[Elecman.exe]

During my recent studies of the Bible, I've been considering some points that may or may not be correct. This is based on hypothesis:

And that is, were the high priests responsible for the crucifixion of Christ. It is well-known that they were partly responsible, but I mean completely responsible. Understand that Judas had betrayed Jesus partly because he lost faith in Jesus, but also he feared the priests, and especially so of the High Priest Caiaphas and Annas. I'm assuming priests could get married back at that time, because Annas was the father in law of Caiaphas. But perhaps it is because they were Jewish priest. I do not know if Jewish priests need to be celibate, I know little of the religion of Judaism. In any case, the High Priest was undoubtedly Caiaphas, but it is my theory that Annas was controlling a great deal of the decisions, for he and Caiaphas were those continued to plead Pilate to crucify Christ. So my theory is that Annas and Caiaphas were most responsible, they were the final push for Judas to betray Jesus ( who hung himself when he realized his terrible mistake), Annas and Caiaphas that began the plot with the priests and pharacies to destroy Christ, and Annas and Caiaphas who first called for crucifixion. Now I admit quite liberally that I may completely wrong and what I said was stupid. If I am indeed wrong, I apologize sincerely to any that I may have offended. I just felt like voicing my opinion

[Cosmo Electrolux]

you can't kill something that never existed...that would be like trying to insult OAO's intelligence...it's not there so it can't be done.

[Anonymous]

Rabbis, dummy. Rabbis.

[Elecman.exe]

The term "Rabbi" was not used for Jewish priests during the time of Jesus Christ.........DUMMY

[Bennett]

what difference does it make that they were "Jewish Priests"?
Granted, I'm probably missing something here, but were they supposed to be "Christian Priests"? If Judaism was the predominant religion, (which really I have no idea if it was or not)does it matter that they were Jewish?

[Elecman.exe]

Perhaps I don't understand your post completely, but they were not Christian priests. Christianity had not formed till AFTER Christ was crucified

[Bennett]

that was my point. why mention they were "Jewish Priests"?
What else would they be?
Am I missing some other predominant religion that was around?
It just seems like unnecessary information.

[Anonymous]

Originally Posted by Elecman.exe

The term "Rabbi" was not used for Jewish priests during the time of Jesus Christ.........DUMMY

Well, what can I say?

Originally Posted by Elecman.exe

]I know little of the religion of Judaism

[Emu]

I believe they should actually be called HEBREW priests, if we're going to argue semantics.

[Jeanette X]

Originally Posted by Bennett

that was my point. why mention they were "Jewish Priests"?
What else would they be?
Am I missing some other predominant religion that was around?
It just seems like unnecessary information.

The Pagan Roman religion was around.

And why does it matter if the Hebrews were responsible or not? Why is it such a big deal?

Originally Posted by Elecman.exe

The term "Rabbi" was not used for Jewish priests during the time of Jesus Christ.........DUMMY

And I suppose you know Greek and Aramaic?

Be not ye called Rabbi, for one is your Master, even Christ, and all ye are brethren. --Matt. xxiii. 8.

Origins of the term:
[Middle English rabi, from Old French, from Late Latin rabb, master, from Greek rhabbi, O my master, from Hebrew, and Aramaic rabbî, my master rab, master (from rab, to become great. See rbb in Semitic Roots) + -î, my.]

[ScruU2wice]

I mean if it weren't for the jews jesus could've been around today

[Elecman.exe]

Hold on morons, you're missing the point. My hypothesis is that the High Priests MAY have been responsible. Not the jews. Christ, you assholes, everytime a topic is made, over half of you want to start an arguement just to piss people off.

[Cosmo Electrolux]

Originally Posted by Elecman.exe

Hold on morons, you're missing the point. My hypothesis is that the High Priests MAY have been responsible. Not the jews. Christ, you assholes, everytime a topic is made, over half of you want to start an arguement just to piss people off.

Jesus is the guy in the next apartment. Those fucking homo priests killed him? My god, first they fuck his eight year old brother, then they kill him...fucking Catholic bastards!!!!!

[Ant10708]

It was the jews fault but jesus was a jew so who cares.

the Romans just wanted jesus out of their hair.

[Bennett]

Originally Posted by Elecman.exe

Hold on morons, you're missing the point. My hypothesis is that the High Priests MAY have been responsible. Not the jews. Christ, you assholes, everytime a topic is made, over half of you want to start an arguement just to piss people off.

The point was to make yourself more clear... if you title the thread "Jewish Priests..." then that's what people are going to think.

[Perndog]

Jesus couldn't have been a jew, only Mexicans, Puerto Ricans, and Cubans are named Jesus!

[Brandon]

Why is there a point in blaming the crucifixion on anyone?

According to Christian theology, Jesus was intended to die, right? If it was fated to happen, no one is to blame since they were mere tools of destiny.

[Abcdxxxx]

It helps to bone up on a subject before you go public with theories on it.

Rabbis were mainly reffered to as Cohenim, because you had to be from the Cohenim tribe to become one. By High Priest I think you mean the Grand Rabbi? There are actually a lot of modern translations that do call them "High Priests" when describing the dress codes, and rituals they're supposed to adhere to. The way you phrased it was a bit funny though.

Rabbis are allowed to get married and it's their duty to have a happy sex life as well as a happy home. Wheee!

Jesus was the Rabbinical version of a street preacher during a time when Jews were often being persecuted by way of "crucifixion".

[Big Papa Goat]

the Romans just wanted jesus out of their hair.

Thats not true, when Pilate was releasing a prisoner for some reason, he asked the crowd if they wanted Jesus, but they demanded some murderer named Barnabas.
And I believe Pilate wrote "Here lies Jesus, King of the Jews" (Or something like that, describing Jesus as the King of the Jews) despite some protest from the jewsih priests (rabbi's whatever).
Besides, Romans never much cared about religions, and Jesus wasn't causing too much trouble.

[Guderian]

Many other Jewish leaders were preaching violent resistance to the Romans (later to culminate in the Revolt of 66-70 CE and the Bar Kochba Revolt at a later date); those were the ones the Romans "wanted out of their hair". Why would they want to get rid of someone who encouraged the Jews to pay their taxes and be peaceful and obedient? Sure, he's promising a "Kingdom of Heaven", but so far as the Romans were concerned that was all false anyway.

Besides, they control the banks. The Romans, that is.

[Abcdxxxx]

[quote="Big Papa Goat"]

Besides, Romans never much cared about religions

Which explains why they kept destroying the Jewish Temple, and ruled that studying the Torah was illegal. Good work there Goat.

[Big Papa Goat]

Explain the fact that they had temples in Gaul devoted to Gailic and Roman gods. Religion wasn't their major concern, its just that the israelis resisted the occupation more than most other people.

[The Unseen]

Religion is DUMB.

[Ant10708]

The Romans feared large crowds of people. And Jesus did just that, he created large crowds of people. They didn't give a shit about his actual religious teachings. So they let the Jews do whatever they wanted to him because they didn't care.

[Guderian]

Jesus represented a foil to more radical Jewish leaders though. The more followers Jesus has, the less followers the kinds of Jewish leaders who might start a political revolution have.

Abcdxxxx...

The Roman Empire was an amalgam of different religions; there was never any attempt to force "Roman religion" (by that I mean worship of the Jupiter-led pantheon, not paying lip service to the idea of Imperial divinity, which wasn't a concept in Jesus' time anyway) on the occupied peoples. The Greeks continued to worship their gods, the temples to Isis in Egypt were open until the Byzantines closed them in the 500's, and all the other more minor religions of the conquered peoples in Gaul, Britain, and North Africa were allowed to continue after the Roman conquest. This is one of the features of Roman rule that made it so successful - so long as the occupied peoples didn't stir up trouble, they were basically left alone to trade, make money, practice their respective religions, etc.

Judaea was a notable exception to the rule because most of the Jewish religious leaders were openly opposed to Roman occupation. This of course culminated in the major revolt you mentioned, the Jewish Revolt of 66-70 that ended with the destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem. With most estimates for Jesus' life placing him at least 30 years before this event, you can see that the Romans were hardly oppressing Jewish religion to any real extent. The Temple was destroyed as a consequence of Jewish political revolt, not Jewish religion conflicting with Roman beliefs. Later on, Christians would refuse to accept the Emperor as being divine, which would result in their persecution; this, however, was far in the future at this point.

You mention that studying the Torah was illegal. If that's the case, you would expect that the Pharisees would have been an underground resistance at the time of Jesus.