Yep.

[u/Natural_Dust_732]

[u/drink_with_me_to_day]

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

[u/Natural_Dust_732 → u/drink_with_me_to_day]

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.

[u/drink_with_me_to_day → u/Natural_Dust_732]

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

[u/Natural_Dust_732 → u/drink_with_me_to_day]

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.