• Manmoth@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    16
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    7 months ago

    Jesus was killed because he angered the Pharisees (specifically the Priests) by defying their authority and teaching the new covenant. The Romans (aka “the state”) were only invested insofar as it would prevent a revolt. Pontius Pilate found no fault in Christ and offered Barrabas instead (a convicted murderer) but the Pharisees would not relent and wanted Jesus crucified. Pilate famously washed his hands of the business because even he knew it was an injustice.

    • RandomApple@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      7 months ago

      Pharisees specifically weren’t the priests. They were one of the branches of judaism who didn’t think temple was necessary for proper worship (which is why they became the predominant branch after the destruction of the temple and rabbinic judaism stems from them), while temple was where priests worked and performed their rites. If you open your Bible to any of the four gospels, you will find that they say it was the priests who brought Jesus to Pilate.

      Also, you shouldn’t take gospels at their word for what they say about Pilate as they insert their theological concerns into Pilate’s judgement. If you read Josephus, he clearly states Pilate condemns Jesus for claiming to be a king, ie. for political uprising, and even Mark, the earliest of gospels, doesn’t state that Pilate didn’t think Jesus guilty, unlike the other three.

      • Manmoth@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        7 months ago

        I specifically clarified that Jesus angered the Pharisee priest class. I’m aware that they were a jewish sect.

        The Priests were “money changing” in the temple which is why Jesus flipped over the table and cast them out. The temple was a key part of their religious practices and the laity used the temple.

        While not an expert I am aware of Josephus and his account of Jesus’s trial. The only account I’ve ever read concerning the trial of Jesus is extremely brief and favorable to the description provided by the gospels. The fact that Pilate “condemns” him makes sense because only Pilate has that authority. Even if someone had a wildly different interpretation this would still be a single attestation by a Roman Jew.

        It’s worth mentioning that Rabbinical Judaism did not form completely until the 5th or 6th century.

        • RandomApple@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          7 months ago

          There is no such thing as the Pharisee priest class. There are the Pharisees, and there are the priests. Two seperate groups that disagreed in their teachings quite a bit.

          • Manmoth@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            7 months ago

            I’m referring to pharisee priests/rabbis (e.g. whatever you want to call the religious leaders). The differing groups you’re referring to are the pharisees and the sadducees and perhaps even the samaritans.

            Edit: Reread your comment and it makes sense. It was the Pharisees sans priests.