Jesus Of Nazareth, Enemy Of The State, Executed For Treason

[PierzStyx]

Jesus Christ was not an anarchist; He was a king, which is why the inscription above Him during His crucifixion read: "King of the Jews" (in three languages). The reason why Herod wanted Christ killed as an infant was because Herod knew that Jesus was a king Whose kingdom would one day supplant his own, by the Old Testament prophecies.

A kingdom "not of this world' and which is not enforced by compulsion. Sounds like an anarchist to me; a completely voluntary government for those who accept His rule.

 

[Anti Federalist]

Pilate wasn't convinced of that. That's why he washed his hands of the matter. If you want to argue that Pilate should have intervened, that's a different story and I'm willing to hear ya out.

He was convinced enough to give the order, just like they do today to innocent men.

 

[JohnM]

He was convinced enough to give the order, just like they do today to innocent men.

There is no evidence in the New Testament that Pilate was convinced. Indeed the New Testament evidence suggests something different: that Pilate acted not because he was convinced, but because he feared trouble for himself if he went against the opinion of the crowd.

Pilate was a politician. He didn't really care whether he killed an innocent man. His career was what mattered. And he knew that if there was an outbreak of violence because he refused to do what the mob wanted, it would cause him career problems. And he also knew that if the Jewish religious authorities reported him to Caesar for freeing someone who had been accused of being against the Roman State, it might cause him career problems. So Pilate ordered the execution.

The Forbes article, while amusing, completely misrepresents what actually happened. Pilate didn't have any major problems with Jesus. Caesar didn't have any major problems with Jesus. Herod didn't have any major problems with Jesus. The New Testament is completely clear that the people who had a major problem with Jesus and who saw him as a threat, and who got him killed, were the Jewish religious leadership. They simply manipulated Pilate.

Strangely enough, the Forbes article is completely silent about the fact that the people who got Jesus killed were the Jewish religious leadership, and about the fact that they did it for religious reasons.

Very strange. Ignorance? Unwillingness to accept the record given in the New Testament? Or dishonesty?

 

[acptulsa]

Jesus wasn't executed for treason... he was executed because he threatened the established... political order.

Huh?

You do realize the Israelites were a Roman colony, right?

 

[Suzanimal]

What's my (earlier) thread, chopped liver?

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?471990-Jesus-Of-Nazareth-Enemy-Of-The-State-Executed-For-Treason

Poor Ronin. That's twice this week it's happened to you.:o

 

[William Tell]

There is no evidence in the New Testament that Pilate was convinced. Indeed the New Testament evidence suggests something different: that Pilate acted not because he was convinced, but because he feared trouble for himself if he went against the opinion of the crowd.

Pilate was a politician. He didn't really care whether he killed an innocent man. His career was what mattered. And he knew that if there was an outbreak of violence because he refused to do what the mob wanted, it would cause him career problems. And he also knew that if the Jewish religious authorities reported him to Caesar for freeing someone who had been accused of being against the Roman State, it might cause him career problems. So Pilate ordered the execution.

The Forbes article, while amusing, completely misrepresents what actually happened. Pilate didn't have any major problems with Jesus. Caesar didn't have any major problems with Jesus. Herod didn't have any major problems with Jesus. The New Testament is completely clear that the people who had a major problem with Jesus and who saw him as a threat, and who got him killed, were the Jewish religious leadership. They simply manipulated Pilate.

Strangely enough, the Forbes article is completely silent about the fact that the people who got Jesus killed were the Jewish religious leadership, and about the fact that they did it for religious reasons.

Very strange. Ignorance? Unwillingness to accept the record given in the New Testament? Or dishonesty?

Yes, here's what the author says in the comments about inaccurate parts.

Jerry Bowyer, Contributor 1 day ago: Is this a joke, Valarie, surely you know the article is satire, right?

 

[Ronin Truth]

Poor Ronin. That's twice this week it's happened to you.:o

Sometimes it's just really tough to get any respect. <sniff>

(Geeze, am I being morphed into the Rodney Dangerfield of the RPF?)

 

[JohnM]

Yes, here's what the author says in the comments about inaccurate parts.

surely you know the article is satire, right?

Thank you for pointing that out.

Needless to say, I didn't know it was satire.

However . . . it is not difficult to be fooled. I hear and read and see a lot of comment which is so bizarre that should be satire, but which turns about to be absolutely straight.

And there are a lot of people who would read what Bowyer wrote and not realize that it was satire and would agree with every word.

 

[William Tell]

Thank you for pointing that out.

Needless to say, I didn't know it was satire.

However . . . it is not difficult to be fooled. I hear and read and see a lot of comment which is so bizarre that should be satire, but which turns about to be absolutely straight.

And there are a lot of people who would read what Bowyer wrote and not realize that it was satire and would agree with every word.

Yeah, but its mostly here and Lew Rockwell that people would take it at face value.

 

[donnay]

There is no evidence in the New Testament that Pilate was convinced. Indeed the New Testament evidence suggests something different: that Pilate acted not because he was convinced, but because he feared trouble for himself if he went against the opinion of the crowd.

Pilate was a politician. He didn't really care whether he killed an innocent man. His career was what mattered. And he knew that if there was an outbreak of violence because he refused to do what the mob wanted, it would cause him career problems. And he also knew that if the Jewish religious authorities reported him to Caesar for freeing someone who had been accused of being against the Roman State, it might cause him career problems. So Pilate ordered the execution.

The Forbes article, while amusing, completely misrepresents what actually happened. Pilate didn't have any major problems with Jesus. Caesar didn't have any major problems with Jesus. Herod didn't have any major problems with Jesus. The New Testament is completely clear that the people who had a major problem with Jesus and who saw him as a threat, and who got him killed, were the Jewish religious leadership. They simply manipulated Pilate.

Strangely enough, the Forbes article is completely silent about the fact that the people who got Jesus killed were the Jewish religious leadership, and about the fact that they did it for religious reasons.

Very strange. Ignorance? Unwillingness to accept the record given in the New Testament? Or dishonesty?

Mel Gibson was persecuted for pointing this out in The Passion of Christ. He was labeled antisemitic by many of the movie critics. Even the actor, Jim Caviezel was outed by Hollywood because he played Jesus in the movie.

 

[Ender]

Mel Gibson was persecuted for pointing this out in The Passion of Christ. He was labeled antisemitic by many of the movie critics. Even the actor, Jim Caviezel was outed by Hollywood because he played Jesus in the movie.

Yep- plus Mel had the nerve to produce the film on his own dime; he was never forgiven by the Industry and set up a few times to "prove" he was anti-Semitic.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

There is no evidence in the New Testament that Pilate was convinced. Indeed the New Testament evidence suggests something different: that Pilate acted not because he was convinced, but because he feared trouble for himself if he went against the opinion of the crowd.

Pilate was a politician. He didn't really care whether he killed an innocent man. His career was what mattered. And he knew that if there was an outbreak of violence because he refused to do what the mob wanted, it would cause him career problems. And he also knew that if the Jewish religious authorities reported him to Caesar for freeing someone who had been accused of being against the Roman State, it might cause him career problems. So Pilate ordered the execution.

The Forbes article, while amusing, completely misrepresents what actually happened. Pilate didn't have any major problems with Jesus. Caesar didn't have any major problems with Jesus. Herod didn't have any major problems with Jesus. The New Testament is completely clear that the people who had a major problem with Jesus and who saw him as a threat, and who got him killed, were the Jewish religious leadership. They simply manipulated Pilate.

Strangely enough, the Forbes article is completely silent about the fact that the people who got Jesus killed were the Jewish religious leadership, and about the fact that they did it for religious reasons.

Very strange. Ignorance? Unwillingness to accept the record given in the New Testament? Or dishonesty?

That^^ Were Pilate really interested in killing a guilty person, he would've killed Barabbus instead of releasing him.

 

[Ronin Truth]

That^^ Were Pilate really interested in killing a guilty person, he would've killed Barabbus instead of releasing him.

I thought the tradition was that the Jews (the mob) got to pick who was to be released, in celebration of Passover. That's the very lame "justification"(so called) for blaming and persecuting the Jews, by the "Christians", down through the centuries since.

 

[pcosmar]

I thought the tradition was that the Jews (the mob) got to pick who was to be released, in celebration of Passover. That's the very lame "justification"(so called) for blaming and persecuting the Jews, by the "Christians", down through the centuries since.

I'm not into blaming a "people". The mob was incited. But the article is correct that he was killed by the Police State.

This was predicted (or foreseen).. long before.

As well as the end of that Police State. The same one that crucified Christ will still exist in broken form when he returns.


Daniel 2

31 Thou, O king, sawest, and behold a great image. This great image, whose brightness was excellent, stood before thee; and the form thereof was terrible.

32 This image's head was of fine gold, his breast and his arms of silver, his belly and his thighs of brass,

33 His legs of iron, his feet part of iron and part of clay.

34 Thou sawest till that a stone was cut out without hands, which smote the image upon his feet that were of iron and clay, and brake them to pieces.

35 Then was the iron, the clay, the brass, the silver, and the gold, broken to pieces together, and became like the chaff of the summer threshingfloors; and the wind carried them away, that no place was found for them: and the stone that smote the image became a great mountain, and filled the whole earth.

36 This is the dream; and we will tell the interpretation thereof before the king.

37 Thou, O king, art a king of kings: for the God of heaven hath given thee a kingdom, power, and strength, and glory.

38 And wheresoever the children of men dwell, the beasts of the field and the fowls of the heaven hath he given into thine hand, and hath made thee ruler over them all. Thou art this head of gold.

39 And after thee shall arise another kingdom inferior to thee, and another third kingdom of brass, which shall bear rule over all the earth.

40 And the fourth kingdom shall be strong as iron: forasmuch as iron breaketh in pieces and subdueth all things: and as iron that breaketh all these, shall it break in pieces and bruise.

41 And whereas thou sawest the feet and toes, part of potters' clay, and part of iron, the kingdom shall be divided; but there shall be in it of the strength of the iron, forasmuch as thou sawest the iron mixed with miry clay.

42 And as the toes of the feet were part of iron, and part of clay, so the kingdom shall be partly strong, and partly broken.

43 And whereas thou sawest iron mixed with miry clay, they shall mingle themselves with the seed of men: but they shall not cleave one to another, even as iron is not mixed with clay.

44 And in the days of these kings shall the God of heaven set up a kingdom, which shall never be destroyed: and the kingdom shall not be left to other people, but it shall break in pieces and consume all these kingdoms, and it shall stand for ever.

45 Forasmuch as thou sawest that the stone was cut out of the mountain without hands, and that it brake in pieces the iron, the brass, the clay, the silver, and the gold; the great God hath made known to the king what shall come to pass hereafter: and the dream is certain, and the interpretation thereof sure.

The remnants of the Roman Empire exist today,, as Iron mixed with Clay.

 

[JohnM]

But the article is correct that he was killed by the Police State.

What is the difference between a State and a Police State?

 

[pcosmar]

What is the difference between a State and a Police State?

Very little,, except for the level of authoritarianism. and the existence of Police.

The Roman Empire (and many others) used the military(occupying Army) as a Police Force,

The British Govt did the same with these colonies..

When this country (state) was founded,, there were NO POLICE. And the founders warned of such a standing Army.

The Authoritarians won,, and this is no longer a free country.

 

[Ronin Truth]

What is the difference between a State and a Police State?

https://www.google.com/search?hl=en.....1ac.1.34.heirloom-hp..2.10.1969.nsfq5EkSHvg

 

[JohnM]

https://www.google.com/search?hl=en.....1ac.1.34.heirloom-hp..2.10.1969.nsfq5EkSHvg

Yeah, I read the Wikipedia article before posting. The part that stood out was

Because there are different political perspectives as to what an appropriate balance is between individual freedom and national security, there are no definitive objective standards to determine whether the term "police state" applies to a particular nation at any given point in time. Thus, it is difficult to evaluate objectively the truth of allegations that a nation is, or is not becoming, a police state.

 

[pcosmar]

Yeah, I read the Wikipedia article before posting. The part that stood out was

I would place it on the existence of Police (Control Enforcers). and from there is is only varying levels of severity.

Police did not exist in this country for many years. until well after the founders were all dead.
http://www.constitution.org/lrev/roots/cops.htm

A "state" can exist as a Free state without Police. It has been done.

 

[Ronin Truth]

Yeah, I read the Wikipedia article before posting. The part that stood out was

Perhaps it's a crude measure of the degree of megalomania and paranoia (AKA tyranny) of TPTB.

"The human race divides politically into those who want people to be controlled and those who have no such desire." ~ Robert A. Heinlein (1907-1988)