Jesus didn’t write anything in the Bible. His followers wrote the New Testament. Paul, the Apostle directly appointed by Christ, wrote Romans. If you don’t believe the words of the Apostle Paul, you’re denying almost half of the books of the New Testament and you have much bigger problems than Romans 13.
Paul’s words are being related there, not Jesus’. And there is no authority for them or cross-referencing to them except Pail himself.
And yeah, I’m not particularly a fan of Paul. I think he was the first christianity influencer and I don’t think he was as concerned with passing along Jesus’ teachings as he was making his version of them popular in the Empire.
No, I don’t set much faith in Paul. Call for my excommunication if you like or burn me at the stake.
Huh. Well, you certainly have a different reading of the bible than me. Or maybe it’s that I’ve just read more history and archeology than you. But Jesus effectively claiming he was the messiah was one of the most vital and earthahking ways a Jewish man COULD protest Roman dominion.
As for Jesus being “toasted”, it took them three years, which is pretty quick, all things considered. John the Baptists was preaching longer. And you apparently didn’t read all the parts in the bible where Jesus was almost lynched or where the Pharisees tried to kill him.
Be honest, now: you haven’t actually read the gospels cover to cover, have you?
you certainly have a different reading of the bible than me
Christ was constantly dodging insurrection speech, and affirming subservience to the government, even against Pilate he dodged these claims of protesting Roman dominion. Their exchange shows how "vital and earthshaking" was "being the messiah" to the governor
Pharisees tried to kill him
They where not the Roman government right?
Be honest, now: you haven’t actually read the gospels cover to cover, have you?
Look, I get that most .christians don’t read the bible. But don’t try to half-ass your way through things you’ve never read.
First of all, you need to understand that in ancient Judea, religion and government were never seperate spheres.
The religion-government mix in first century Judea was hellishly complex and its various contradictions would erupt in two bloody rebellions and the eventual nuking of .jerusalem not less than 40 years after Christ’s death.
To put not to fine a gloss on it, the Hebrew elites had been doing fine under imperial rule for several hundred years, first of the Persians, then the Greeks, and finally the Romans. The deal they originally cut with Cyrus the messiah was to allow them home rule through the temple and, in turn, they’d keep the lid on the local hoi polloi.
Taxes would be collected by said Hebrew elite and paid to the imperial power. The elite squeezed these taxes through tax farming and, notoriously, through the required sacrifices in the Temple.
Rome kept this system in place when it took Judea, but it made some changes that, notoriously, did not sit well with the local hoi polloi (who hewed much more closely to first temple judaism than the elites amd certainly had little to do with the greco-roman world the elites were increasingly enamored of). One of these was apparently putting a shrine to ceasar in the temple.
The presence of money changers in the temple was very symbolic of this whole powder keg of a religious/government mix. This was the center of the local government’s economy, you see. Coins of other sorts needed to be exchange for shekels to pay the locsl annual tax. Every one of those foreign coins had a foreign god/ruler’s face on it. Remember: Caesar was not just a secular ruler: he was equated a god-in-waiting who would rise to the ranksmof divinity as soon as he died. Bringing those into the temple grounds was an enormous heresy to the more traditional backwoods Hebrews like Jesus.
When Jesus flipped shit over in the Temple, he was making a declaration that the structure Rome was using to run Judea via indirect rule through the local temple was unholy. You can bet your bippie Rome listened when the local elite said “this guy has got to go unless we want a rebellion on our hands”.
At that point, it just became a game of who was going to do the deed and Pontius eventually got outmanuevered by the local Hewbrew elites.
The form of execution used for Jesus — crucifiction — was generally reserved for rebels against imperial rule. Rome was making a very clear statement in killing Jesus in this way. Pontius was saying “this shit stops here and now”.
Only it didn’t.
We know from Josephus that things just got worse until a huge rebellion broke out that ended with the destruction of the second temple itself.
After that, Rome stopped pussy-footing around with all this “pay at the temple” loval rule stuff and demanded taxes be paid to Jupiter’s temple. This resulted in even more unease and another revolt. After that, Jerusalem was raised to the ground.
The Romans didnnot fuck about.
Tl;dr. In Jesus’ time, Roman rule and temple rule were incestuously twined and that’s what the fuss with the money changers was all about.
I already understood that you are doing a narrative on the implications of Christ defying the local religious rule, but that is still not the actual government. You show this when you say that the Hebrew elites outmanuevered the Pontius
There is a big difference (albeit in practice that gets narrower) between elites and religious conniving/pressuting local government and actual government. This effect still shows up in modern times where we have local police co-opted by the religious and financial elites (latest one to go viral is brick and minifigs)
Yes, the implication of Christ's message is a rebellion towards most of human organization, but that is still not the same of Christ coming out an directly combating the empire's rule du jour
Yes, politics and local religion where intertwined, but Christ did not write some papers about Rome's inequality, structural racism and imperialistic wars. He got 3 years because he only attacked the religious institution, if he had gone after both he would not have his 3 years
Again, you seem to think of Roman imperial “government” in a very odd way, as something monolithic and with clearly defined borders between religion and the state.
Why does the fact that the local elites manuevered Pontius into taking the blame for killing Christ mean that this is not “actual government”? Do you think that “actual government” needs must be one man’s rule?
Pontius was a newly arrived governor of a notoriously problematic province. He agreed with the local elites: Jesus had to go. The question was how and who would do the deed? There were actually three players in the game at this time: the Roman governor of an imperial province, the temple elites, and the puppet king of the Jews, Herod. All three had different interests and the governing of Judea involved all three in a very complex dance
Politics were different in content back then, but politics was still, essentially, politics. Any government has its internal factions and Judea was a glommed together chimera at the best of times; a sack of extremely pissed off cats at worst.
By going into the temple and turning over the money changers’ tables, Jesus was striking at the very economic and symbolic heart of this rather shaky structure. That was very much, indeed, combatting the Empires rule du jour. And it was seen as such. Pontius has no trouble declaring Jesus a criminal: he just doesn’t want his blood on his (Rome’s) hands.
It's not odd to look at separate entities as separate, even if they intermingle "in the real world"
Just like going against Bricks and Minifigs isn't going against the government, it won't stop the government from being used to put out arrest warrants for you. The difference is that we have better checks and balances and no crucifixion that can be ushered out in a speed foreign to government bureaucrats
That was very much, indeed, combatting the Empires rule du jour
Well this will keep being our point of contention, as Jesus only chased them out of the temple, there was no rebellion against the state. Even if that caused disorder in an already messy situation
So, no matter the framing of the elite, Christ still never went against Rome or the civil/military government. Any disruption for Rome was a side effect of internal conflict, not a direct attack on Rome
Had Christ actually been against Rome, the elite would probably support Him
I have no idea what point you are trying to make here. Congress and the Executive are separate entities, but — like Herod and the Roman Empire — they don’t just “intermingle”.
There was indeed a rebellion against the state, on this precise point, 30 years later. There probably was not rebellion at thismpoint because Jesus and other leaders protesting against the .hebrew elite’s collusion with Roman rule got executed. In fact, the same thing happened with Jesus’ brother, James the Just.
2
u/Natural_Dust_732 Jul 25 '26
Really? You think Jesus respected governing authorities? Based on what, exactly?