• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Caiaphas and Annas

the_fallen_azreal

Educated youth
The Jewish High Priests, the main two being Caiaphas and Annas, at the time of Jesus of Nazareth, made a decision. Their nation and people were at the mercy of the Romans, and they were allowed to continue practicing their faith and keeping their culture alive. Caiaphas, Annas and the other High Priests have to make a decision about one man, who would be a prophet for fututre generations. Jesus of Nazareth at this time in his life is gaining a lot of support for his new idea of practicing, so much support that the Romans begin to notice. So Caiaphas, making a political decision to save his people and his nation from assimilation, decides that Jesus must be executed to keep the Romans from coming in to stop a potential uprising. He then has Jesus arrested through information gainede from Judas, and has Jesus taken before both Pontius Pilate and Herod Antipas to be tried. Both of these men cannot find a reason for him to be executed until the High Priests demand it due to his claiming to be the messiah, an act of sedition at the time. Pilate then gives the Jewish people the chance to set him free as it was a passover tradition to release one prisoner, but they realeased Barabbas, a criminal instead. This greatly changed the face of religion. If Jesus had never been martyred, would Christianity have spread the way it did, or even exist at all? Would polytheistic paganism still be the mainstream religion? I want everyones opinions on the subject.
 

RJ50

Active Member
I suspect we would never have heard of Jesus if Paul hadn't talked him up in his endless epistles. Would the world have been any worse off if that had been the case?
 

seeking4truth

Active Member
"so much support that the Romans begin to notice."
The Romans did not normally act in the religion of their subject nations and did not do so in Jesus time until later during the rebellions against them by the Jews. By this time Jesus, his companions and his family had moved away from Jerusalem and had begun spreading the message in areas outside the control of the Jerusalem temple whose authorities had persecuted and rejected him. The Temple of the Samaritans on Mount Gerizm became one of the places used by them.

"So Caiaphas, making a political decision to save his people and his nation from assimilation, decides that Jesus must be executed to keep the Romans from coming in to stop a potential uprising."

It didn't work. It was the Jewish system that was destroyed not the emerging one of Jesus followers.

Jesus didn't die and the Temple authorities continued to follow Jesus about trying to turn people against him. Paul was one of those people. The Bible clearly tells of the people who met Jesus after his crucifixion.
 

RJ50

Active Member
The Bible says a lot of things many of them not in the least bit credible! Besides which if the guy had popped up from the dead surely it would have been recorded by others, not his followers!
 

Levite

Higher and Higher
The Jewish High Priests, the main two being Caiaphas and Annas, at the time of Jesus of Nazareth, made a decision. Their nation and people were at the mercy of the Romans, and they were allowed to continue practicing their faith and keeping their culture alive. Caiaphas, Annas and the other High Priests have to make a decision about one man, who would be a prophet for fututre generations. Jesus of Nazareth at this time in his life is gaining a lot of support for his new idea of practicing, so much support that the Romans begin to notice. So Caiaphas, making a political decision to save his people and his nation from assimilation, decides that Jesus must be executed to keep the Romans from coming in to stop a potential uprising. He then has Jesus arrested through information gainede from Judas, and has Jesus taken before both Pontius Pilate and Herod Antipas to be tried. Both of these men cannot find a reason for him to be executed until the High Priests demand it due to his claiming to be the messiah, an act of sedition at the time. Pilate then gives the Jewish people the chance to set him free as it was a passover tradition to release one prisoner, but they realeased Barabbas, a criminal instead. This greatly changed the face of religion. If Jesus had never been martyred, would Christianity have spread the way it did, or even exist at all? Would polytheistic paganism still be the mainstream religion? I want everyones opinions on the subject.

It is probably worth noting that at that time, the High Priesthood and much of the top echelons of the priesthood in general, were corrupt, servants of the Herodian Roman puppet kings. They had no legitimate authority according to Jewish Law. And even if they'd had the legitimate authority of the priesthood, they still had no authority to convene a Sanhedrin and conduct a trial of any kind: that authority would've lain with the Rosh Sanhedrin (like the chief justice) and the Nasi (prince or president, the chief of the Pharisees or rabbis) of the time, who were already in Yavneh, not Jerusalem. And, what is more, even if Jesus had been given a legitimate trial by a legitimate Sanhedrin, it is forbidden by Jewish Law to hand over any Jew to non-Jews so that they can kill him, and it is absolutely forbidden by Jewish Law for anyone to be executed by any means save the four methods prescribed in Jewish Law (stoning, burning by means of pouring molten lead down the throat, beheading by sword, and garroting-- all of which had to be done quickly and with the condemned drugged unconscious), since we are prohibited from executing in torturous ways. Crucifixion is absolutely forbidden to us.

The entire trial narrative of the gospels is almost certainly wholesale fiction. Jesus was killed by the Romans, like thousands of other Jews, and probably with the connivance of the Herodian monarchy.
 

outhouse

Atheistically
It is probably worth noting that at that time, the High Priesthood and much of the top echelons of the priesthood in general, were corrupt, servants of the Herodian Roman puppet kings. They had no legitimate authority according to Jewish Law. And even if they'd had the legitimate authority of the priesthood, they still had no authority to convene a Sanhedrin and conduct a trial of any kind: that authority would've lain with the Rosh Sanhedrin (like the chief justice) and the Nasi (prince or president, the chief of the Pharisees or rabbis) of the time, who were already in Yavneh, not Jerusalem. And, what is more, even if Jesus had been given a legitimate trial by a legitimate Sanhedrin, it is forbidden by Jewish Law to hand over any Jew to non-Jews so that they can kill him, and it is absolutely forbidden by Jewish Law for anyone to be executed by any means save the four methods prescribed in Jewish Law (stoning, burning by means of pouring molten lead down the throat, beheading by sword, and garroting-- all of which had to be done quickly and with the condemned drugged unconscious), since we are prohibited from executing in torturous ways. Crucifixion is absolutely forbidden to us.

The entire trial narrative of the gospels is almost certainly wholesale fiction. Jesus was killed by the Romans, like thousands of other Jews, and probably with the connivance of the Herodian monarchy.


Agreed

Caiaphas was getting rich placed in power by the Romans and supported them making money off the hard working jews. He cared about money, not religion. For him religion ment power abd a fat wallet.

I almost find it hard calling the Saducees Jewish, as their beliefs did not reflect anything but their own wealth. A perverted form of Judaism I guess. There is a reason they no longer exist.
 

outhouse

Atheistically
What beliefs were those? Based on what source other than wiki?

source? Josephas, and wiki, some Cohen

what sources are there that paint a different positive picture that follows judaism?

Everything we have, and that is only a little, paints them in a negative way.
 

Levite

Higher and Higher
Agreed

Caiaphas was getting rich placed in power by the Romans and supported them making money off the hard working jews. He cared about money, not religion. For him religion ment power abd a fat wallet.

I almost find it hard calling the Saducees Jewish, as their beliefs did not reflect anything but their own wealth. A perverted form of Judaism I guess. There is a reason they no longer exist.

Actually, the High Priest and upper echelon of priests at that time were corrupt by Saducee standards also. Real Saducees were not motivated by money, they were simply textual literalists with an alternate (or heretical) tradition of interpretation. The corrupted element in the priesthood were very much products of the monarchy, not of movements of the time.
 

outhouse

Atheistically
Actually, the High Priest and upper echelon of priests at that time were corrupt by Saducee standards also. Real Saducees were not motivated by money, they were simply textual literalists with an alternate (or heretical) tradition of interpretation. The corrupted element in the priesthood were very much products of the monarchy, not of movements of the time.


Understood that the corruption was not Saducee centered in any way shape or form. It was wide and broad and ecompassed all those in power in the temple.

Is there such a thing as a real Saducee? and what is the difference between a real one and something else?
 

Levite

Higher and Higher
Understood that the corruption was not Saducee centered in any way shape or form. It was wide and broad and ecompassed all those in power in the temple.

Is there such a thing as a real Saducee? and what is the difference between a real one and something else?

I mean an uncorrupted priest who believed in Saducee teachings may have been wrong in his beliefs by the standards of Rabbinic tradition, but was at least making honest errors. Whereas a corrupt priest did what he did not for philosophical and theological reasons but for power and personal profit.
 

outhouse

Atheistically
I mean an uncorrupted priest who believed in Saducee teachings may have been wrong in his beliefs by the standards of Rabbinic tradition, but was at least making honest errors. Whereas a corrupt priest did what he did not for philosophical and theological reasons but for power and personal profit.


Ok I see now.
 

fallingblood

Agnostic Theist
The Jewish High Priests, the main two being Caiaphas and Annas, at the time of Jesus of Nazareth, made a decision. Their nation and people were at the mercy of the Romans, and they were allowed to continue practicing their faith and keeping their culture alive. Caiaphas, Annas and the other High Priests have to make a decision about one man, who would be a prophet for fututre generations. Jesus of Nazareth at this time in his life is gaining a lot of support for his new idea of practicing, so much support that the Romans begin to notice. So Caiaphas, making a political decision to save his people and his nation from assimilation, decides that Jesus must be executed to keep the Romans from coming in to stop a potential uprising. He then has Jesus arrested through information gainede from Judas, and has Jesus taken before both Pontius Pilate and Herod Antipas to be tried. Both of these men cannot find a reason for him to be executed until the High Priests demand it due to his claiming to be the messiah, an act of sedition at the time. Pilate then gives the Jewish people the chance to set him free as it was a passover tradition to release one prisoner, but they realeased Barabbas, a criminal instead. This greatly changed the face of religion. If Jesus had never been martyred, would Christianity have spread the way it did, or even exist at all? Would polytheistic paganism still be the mainstream religion? I want everyones opinions on the subject.
If Jesus was never martyred, Christianity would not have existed. It really was the crucifixion, and the resurrection experience that made Christianity a viable religion. If Jesus had not died, his movement would have largely been forgotten, except maybe a passing mention in Josephus.

There were other religious leaders like Jesus from that time which we know of largely because of Josephus. Incidentally, Acts of the Apostles also mention one fellow now known as the Egyptian, who led a religious movement around the same time, but failed. Josephus mentions him briefly, but most knowledge of him has passed away. John the Baptist is another famous example of this sort of leader.

A few decades after Jesus, there was also another more well known "Messiah" figure. Bar Kochba was considered by a number of individuals, including some respectable Rabbis of the time. But once he failed, that idea slipped away. And now most don't have a the faintest idea about him. The same most likely would have been true of Jesus if he wasn't crucified.

As for what the mainstream religion would have been, that is harder. There is some suggestion (and this is a topic I'm reading more up on, so I'm not completely have all of the information) that Judaism was gaining quite a few of converts around that time. There was also a growing amount of individuals who were attracted to Judaism, but never fully converted (thus, not actually being Jews, but still following at least a partial amount of a strain of Judaism).

At the same time, a growing number of gentiles were growing tired with the popular polytheistic religions of the time. They just did not offer what was wanted. Judaism, and later Christianity, did give them something that they weren't getting elsewhere.

So without Christianity, it is still possible that a monotheistic tradition would have risen that would have replaced the polytheistic religions. However, it really can't be sure.
 
Top