the romans had no problem with jesus; in fact, they really liked the guy -
he told everybody to pay taxes and be good citizens. it was the jewish
leaders that requested he be crucified as he was, by definition, a heretic;
and the punishment for heresy was death. the romans only went along with it
in order to prevent a revolt; pilate didn't wash his hands because he fell
in the mud.
No, the Romans didn't like Jesus. The crowds who followed him believed that he was the prophecied messiah who was going to free them from the Roman government. The religious message was secondary. He was drawing crowds and then, as well as now, governments don't want any large mass of people rising up against them. When that didn't work out, the religious message became primary to his backers in order to hold the followers together until he came again (was resurrected or came back to the earth again in some way). As I understand it, the Sanhedrin wouldn't have met during Passover, even if it worked hand in hand with the Romans.
With no offense meant to Christians, there has been written material suggesting that Jews who traveled at the time as merchants brought back Gnostic ideas which were incorporated into the thinking of some groups in the Jewish community. These ideas made acceptance of Jesus as a messiah easier to these groups. What would now be called "fundamentalist" Jews fought these Gnostic ideas as heretical. However as there were many self-proclaimed messiahs at the time with their own followings, the "fundamentalist" Jews cried out against their teachings but could do no more. Just as Jews and Christians don't go around killing off those like Moon, Hubbard, Sai Baba, or any other self-proclaimed leaders, it didn't happen that way 2,000 years ago. The Romans got rid of a potential trouble-maker and blamed it on others. However, that didn't stop the growth of Christianity and in time the Romans went after the Christians.
