Is it true that during Jesus life the jewish were considered as terrorists for the roman imperialists?

The entire narrative of Jesus’ arrest, trial and crucifixion does not fit with what I know of history. I also sincerely believe the story of Barabbas was fabricated by the early church fathers to demonize Jews for not abandoning Judaism for their new replacement theology. The circular reasoning of this story and some of the elements in it are hard to palate if one is at all familiar with Hebrew or Jewish history or Roman history for that matter. I assert it was fabricated since there has NEVER been any other mention of the non-existent ';custom'; of pardoning a prisoner for Passover anywhere else outside this story..designed to claim that the Jews could have 'saved' the ';savior'; ..and instead chose the criminal who had a literal name of the ';son of the father'; rather than the son of God. Hmmm..


Now..since the VERY first appearance of that story, Jews have asserted that it was ridiculous for several reasons.


1) No such custom associated with Passover existed..no reason for it to exist..it did not fit with any known Jewish law.





2) No Roman record of there ever being any pardons for Passover in the entire time of their occupation of Judea exist...and there ARE archaeological records of much of their goings on in Judea when it came to edicts and proceedings.





3) The Romans were crucifying and persecuting Jews. If there HAD been such a bizarre custom...WHY would the persecutors honor that custom when they honored no other customs, and in fact sought to violate them to offend Jews to assert dominance.





Rabbi Moshe ben Nachman, scored winning points bringing up the falsehood of such a custom in his famous debate with an apostate Jew Pablo Christiani, a converted Jew, before King Jaime I of Spain in 1263





They also place a catch 22 onto the Jew.


Was it murder or willing self sacrifice?


Was it a human or was it a deity who died?


.


The New Testament story of Jesus' trial turns Jewish law and Jewish history recorded by Jewish scholars about the doings of the Sanhedrin during that time..topsy turvy.


The New Testament writers are trusting to the ignorance of their readers about Jewish law and about the established procedures of the Sanhedrin that were taken seriously, so that they don't get caught in those embellishments. For the most part because most people are not interested in learning about the ancient Jewish system they've been successful.





For instance, they do not know that a preliminary hearing of any kind, such as they allege to have taken place at the residence of Annas, or Caiphas( for even on that point there is no congruence in the Gospel accounts) could not possibly have been held. It violated their procedure and law they were sworn to uphold. The whole court simply threw out their vows? Absurd.





They do not know that a session of the Sanhedrin could not convene until the morning service at the Temple was completed. They also were apparently unaware that the Sanhedrin never met on a Friday, nor on the eve of a Pesach (Passover) Those were unalterable traditions. In addition, the charge of a crime that was capable of being sentenced to capital punishment had to have a mandatory appeals process and there could be up to five such appeals before sentence was carried out. Moreover, no sentence was to be passed on the same day as the trail was held.


The Sanhedrin was comprised of members of exceptional learning and character. No man could be a member of the Sanhedrin who had not previously filed three offices of ';gradually increasing dignity'; who was also not learned in sacred law, be free from ';haughtiness'; and never have been occupied in a trade or profession for the sake of financial gain or profit, he must be married and could not be a gambler, slave dealer or usurer, ..the list goes on to indicate that the members of the Sanhedrin were the most respected and given the task of upholding the Torah. Even if as history records, the head of the Sanhedrin during that time was also an appointee among them by the Romans, to claim they all behaved in such a manner as the New Testament depicted is more absurd than to claim the United States Supreme Court(for which there exist none of the strictly enforced prerequisites of character) would hold a capital murder trial in secret and have witnesses act out in the manner of a kangaroo court with people screaming and acting out with no decorum whatsoever.


To the ';objective'; observer who knows these facts of Jewish history about the proceedings of the Sanhedrin, the story claimed about it does not ring true at all. The picture of a confused and wild scene at the crack of dawn at the High Priests residence where the whole court throws out all Torah law they are sworn to uphold and have spent their lives defending appears utterly ridiculous. Not only do they not follow any procedure of their own court and call for the testimony of character witness for the defense first, but they allow witnesses to barge in and shout, they tie Jesus hands during interrogation and he is spat upon!


So it is obvious that the Sanhedrin trial of Jesus simply did not take place as it is depicted at all. Jesus did not appear before the Sanhedrin.





It was ONLY the Romans that a messiah hopeful or pretender would even threaten.





The Jewish idea of a Jewish republic with God as the master authority and the Torah as the law of the land with a Jewish king to uphold this law would only threaten the Roman overlords. Pilate would not look upon the leader of a band of Galilean rebels as a harmless teller of religious tales, yet because the Romans even knew that the Jewish prophecy of a Davidic messiah must be an anointed KING, they mocked him as '; king of the Jews';..





Pilate and the Romans were not PLACATING JEWISH WISHES. What the New Testament depicts as being done by the Jews flies in the face of any Jewish belief whatsoever. And from the VERY first appearance of those stories IN the New Testament, Jews have known that it was simply NOT TRUE that the Jews were the people who either sought or killed their savior deity (sacrificed human for sin) whichever it is they believe (as I recognize not all Christians agree on whether he was man or deity) Pilate would have been remiss in his duty to Rome if he had not halted this rebel. And to make Pilate, a man whose own record reveals his cruel streak, the innocent victim of the wishes of the Jewish mob does not fit written record of his own history. The New Testament shows him to be a weak and ineffective leader of Roman rule and that doesn't fit Roman history, either.Is it true that during Jesus life the jewish were considered as terrorists for the roman imperialists?
Generally, the Romans were prepared to accept deities from other cultures into their own pantheon, but because the Jews refused to worship any God but their own, it immediately put them into conflict with the Roman state. For this, and other reasons, Judea was a province where there was periodic revolt and upheaval - look at the Jewish zealots at Masadal, or the rebellion of Bar Kochba. Although it's too much of a generalisation to say that 'the Jewish were considered as terrorists' during the time of Jesus, there were certainly elements of the population of Judea who were.Is it true that during Jesus life the jewish were considered as terrorists for the roman imperialists?
For the Romans? No. Against the Romans? No, not in general. Rome conquered nations with overwhelming strength and rarely had to worry about people fighting back.





You may be thinking of the Sicarii, a small group of Jewish zealots who may have been active during Christ's time.
The Sicarii, who were a violent subgroup of terrorist Zealots, assassinated people considered collaborators with the Roman occupiers





and were considered what we would call terrorists by the Roman authorities.





This Sicarii group was named after a small dagger that they used in murdering people, often in crowds.
in that time, they were enemies of the empire (roman empire)





today, jews are the spoiled children of the current empires (USA and UK)
That is what the story of Barabbas is about. The Jews could decide who to let go. Did they want the peaceful (Gandhi type) leader released, or the violent rebel. They chose Barabbas/ the violent protest.
The only terrorists are the christians.
the jews were in a state of rebellion against a foreign power. that doesn't make them terrorists.
I serously doubt it, due towards they keep mocking at that Jesus claimed he was the son of God.
There were groups of Jews who led violent events against the Romans. Judas Iscariot was one of them. So was Barabbas.
I'd guess so.





A terrorist is just someone on the other side.
yes