Christians: can you talk about which one of you has the theology right?

[steve_bank]

The Hebrews were a theocracy. At the founding of modern Israel there was a debate of secular vs religious state. The secular side won out. I grew up with religious laws, blue laws, still on the books. In Ct I don't think you can buy alcohol in stores on Sunday.

In the past the RCC has threatened Catholic politicians with denial of sacraments for not voting Vatical lines.

Christian politicians at the state level still push for anti gay legislation based on Leviticus.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

By forceful means, I was (trying) to describe in previous posts , yes.

I wasn't talking about those means in particular, or mainly. But still, if slaves try to force slave owners to set them free and make slavery illegal, and revolt, they do not behave immorally just because of that.
So, trying to change laws by force is not always immoral.

As I said above , a brief explanation is: It doesn't work with empires or big nations just as it is today with nations such as the USA or China which ironically is happening again like the Romans converting from the bottom up (Underground chrches). Not all situations are going to be the same by the same methods of change for every nation or group.

But how do you know that it does not work?
It seems reasonable to think that if Jesus converted a lot of people - Romans included - by means of amazing displays of power, there was a reasonable chance that that would work on the emperor, local governors, etc.

 

[Learner]

Where on Earth do you get that from? Sectarian divides began immediately. The first followers were Jews who the Romans considered Jewish heretics.

There was Christian on Christian violence early on.

I know they were Jews , and your dateline for early, starts where? (where did you get that from?) Sure ... there was sectarian divide but that goes in the part of my post in bold where it say "worse" .. a little later after along with the gnostics more likely. There was only one type of follower during and "immediately" after Jesus's death.

In regards to the Romans and conversion below reveals a change of character and heart.

IRENAEUS (180 A.D.) "For the Christians have changed their swords and their lances into instruments of peace, and they know not how to fight."24

JUSTINUS (150 A.D.) "We who hated and slew one another, and because of (differences in) customs would not share a common hearth with those who were not of our tribe, now, after the appearance of Christ, have become sociable, and pray for our enemies, and try to persuade those who hate (us) unjustly, in order that they, living according to the good suggestions of Christ, may share our hope of obtaining the same (reward) from God who is Master of all." "And we who formerly slew one another not only do not make war against our enemies, but, for the sake of not telling lies or deceiving those who examine us, we gladly die confessing Christ."25

JUSTIN MARTYR (150 A.D.) "That the prophecy is fulfilled, you have good reason to believe, for we, who in times past killed one another, do not now fight with our enemies."26 "We, who had been filled with war and mutual slaughter and every wickedness, have each one-all the world over-changed the instruments of war, the swords into plows and the spears into farming implements, and we cultivate piety, righteousness, love for men, faith, (and) the hope which is from Father Himself through the Crucified One."27

TERTULLIANUS (210 A.D.) "You must confess that the prophecy has been accomplished, as far as the practice of every individual is concerned, to whom I is applicable."38 "...the new law pointed to clemency, and changed the former savagery of swords and lances into tranquillity, and refashioned the former infliction of war upon rivals and foes of the law into the peaceful acts of plow and cultivating the earth. And so...the new law...has shown forth in acts of peaceful obedience."

I posted something similar some time ago , too much to go through to find. but luckily (divine intervention perhaps) happen to have found these notes.

EDIT:It is revealing how wonderfully powerful this is, versus the violent alternative.

No one knows exactly what happed in the 1st century. The first flowers were Jews. At some point be lives developed a separate identity and claimed the Torah as their own.

Look at Nicaea. A number of differing sects with defaces over the divinity of Jesus among other things.

What you have as the NT was selected by committee.

Ok, but Chtodyiasns here are avoiding the question. The RCC claims to be the one true Christian church by virtue of the popes being in a line of succession back to Peter. What you have as Christian values comes primarily from Paul. Circumcisions not required, Jewish dietary rules no longer apply, a patriarchal culture with women subordinate. If you can avoid sex and be celibate. Marry if you can't.

Today there may be thousands of self proclaimed reverends with a small following with their own interpretations and prophesies.

Who is right?

The ones in the Roman writings above and anyone follwing the example today seems to me to be right , It is a hard task!
(not suggesting I am one of these but I'm trying, he says lol).

The phrase "through Christ alone" has some important significance on several levels I'd say by this example (as of the early Christians and Roman converts) and on another, steer believers on course again should one hear odd preachings "By their fruits" so to speak.


I heard a wonderful sermon by a preacher Dr. Martyn lloyd-Jones although he was a Welsh protestant preacher. He was well loved and respected by Catholics, Baptists , pretty much quite a variety of denominations or Jesus believrs. He never said anything bad against any denomination (although would have some disagreements no doubt) and sort of highlighted ,that realising and acknowledging the common core i.e. Jesus and that, by HIS way alone unifies everyone as a follower of Christ (according to Jesus's teaching ONLY). Parallel to this, there is, it seems, a rise of non-denomination believers (some ex-denomination). I suppose I can say I am no longer protestant.

 

[Politesse]

That is a very different rationale. The previous argument you gave was that



So, I was challenging the previous argumentation. As to your new rationale, I'm not optimistic about the government making society more just in all contexts. That depends on the case. But when it comes to refraining from causing massive injustice, sure that is possible. After all, the government is the activity of people. And those people can make a choice not to engage in further injustice. For example, if Paul was persecuting Christians, when he stopped doing so, he stopped committing a lot injustice. But now imagine that the government had refrained from further persecuting Christians (granting that the persecutions were happening). That would be a lot less injustice.

Jesus counseled his followers to look after their own sanctification, and not worry about telling their own neighbors what to do. Let alone neighboring nations.

With respect to neighboring nations, that is another area in which much could be achieved: foreing policy. Imagine the Roman empire had stopped attacking, invading and occupying neighboring nations! Well, that would have achieved that particular goal far more effectively than just persuading a few people with little power.

As for not telling their neighbors what to do, that depends on the moment. Jesus indeed was telling people what to do on several occasions.

I'm sure Jesus, had he found himself standing before the Roman emperor, would have spoken to him in the same calm, straightforward manner with which he seemed to speak to everyone. He does, after all, speak to both his own king and to the Roman governor of his adoptive province in the Gospel narratives. Presuming you find those accounts credible, he doesn't seem to have really treated them as any different, or more or less important, than anyone else he met. Titles were irrelevant to him, and he taught his followers to act likewise. Probably the fact that got him killed. If you do believe that Jesus was God in the flesh, what does a god need with an earthly empire? His own dominion was of a different and more enduring kind than any empire.

He wasn't always speaking in a calm, straightforward manner. For example, he assaulted the merchants at the temple. But that aside, I do agree that God would not need anything with an empire, but that is because God (i.e., omnipotent, omniscient, morally perfect) does not need anything at all, and in any event, he would not create anything remotely like our universe. But if he were to find our universe, God would intervene all the time and make it better (or just all at once). Why? Well, it is not the case that with great power comes great lack of responsibility. Imagine Spider-man sees a man raping a child for fun, and just does nothing, though he can easily overpower the rapist. Surely, Spider-Man would be failing to act in a morally proper manner. And if Spider-Man were morally perfect (or just as good as in the stories), he would intervene. So would an omnimax agent.

That aside, and assuming for the sake of the argument that I am mistaken about the above, then I would say; " what does a god need with an earthly empire?" Well, God does not need anything from anyone or anything, but he is motivated to act in different ways, according to his morally perfect character. So, what he may well want with the Roman empire would be to make it more just (and if needed, not an empire).

At any rate, we are not talking about God, but about Jesus. Even granting for the sake of the argument that Jesus had superhuman powers, that does not imply he was God. In fact, even assuming God created our universe, presumably he would not give profoundly immoral laws to any tribe (and if your rationale is correct, he would not give any laws to any tribe: period), so he did not give OT laws to the ancient Israelites. But Jesus believed (if the NT is correct) those were indeed God's laws for ancient Israel. So, Jesus, even if super-powered, was not God.

Paul for his part seemed abjectly terrified of the Roman state and devotes pages of his letters begging his friends to law low and not make waves, for existential reasons. Unlike many of those he wrote to, he was a Roman citizen, and well-traveled, and knew from experience the character of the empire. The Paul character in Acts is a bit more audacious than letter-writer Paul about speaking his truth to governors and judges, but he does not actually attempt to move them in how they manage worldly governance, only their treatment of Christians.

That makes little sense on his part. The Romans only had warriors with swords, shields, spears, arrows, knives, whereas he has a friend more powerful than Thor. Still, while Paul may not think of trying to persuade them with no help, that was due to a lack of power on his part. He may have thought about converting them with help from his superhuman friend.

If you wish to see this as cowardice, I suppose you could, though given the circumstances of their existence - Rome did utterly destroy their nation, and nearly, their people, just thirty short years later - I would be inclined to be forgiving.

On Saul's/Paul's part, I see it as a reasonable attitude (and corresponding behavior) to have as long as Jesus had no superhuman powers. On the other hand, I see it as an absurd attitude for Paul to have if Jesus did and engaged in the behaviors (including displays of power) attributed to him in the NT. Maybe it was cowardice as well, but that seems like secondary - what comes to the front is the absurdity of it all.

From Jesus's own perspective, it's not cowardice, either. It's reasonable if he had no powers. On the other hand, if he did had those amazing powers (far beyond those of Spider-Man), it's akin to the attitude of Spider-Man watching the rapist and looking the other way, only times a zillion given the much greater level of power and the number of evils Jesus was watching. It would not be cowardice, though, because it would not be out of fear that Jesus looks the other way. Rather, it would be immoral callousness, and generally utter failure to act as he ought to.

More abstractly, I have seen few occassions where the accumulation of power directly led to the betterment of human lives. Tacitus would agree; using an empire to try and bring about peace will always deliver you a "Roman Peace".

That is very debatable, but I'd say not the issue. It's not about accumulating power - Jesus, assuming powers as described, already had far more than the emperor.
Rather, it's about persuading people engaging in horrible injustices - through the laws their pass, their orders to their subordinates, etc. -, to change their ways. One way to prevent massive injustice is to persuade those doing the massive injustice in question to, well, stop doing it! And that's what changing Roman law (and foreign policy too; thanks for bringing that up) is about. It's also changing their orders to others (not just general laws). For example, just as Saul/Paul stopped (assuming the accounts) persecuting Christians and that prevented injustices on his part, the same could be done in a much more effective manner by persuading the emperor and generally the Roman elite.
After all, if Saul stops, someone else will be appointed to do the injustice. But not if the emperor, governors, etc., stop doing the persecution. And that (i.e., Christian persecution) is merely one example of preventable injustice.

I really don't see the point of this whole exchange. Yes, if Jesus and Paul were both completely different men, with completely different philosophies, history might well have played out differently. Or not.

 

[Learner]

By forceful means, I was (trying) to describe in previous posts , yes.

I wasn't talking about those means in particular, or mainly. But still, if slaves try to force slave owners to set them free and make slavery illegal, and revolt, they do not behave immorally just because of that.
So, trying to change laws by force is not always immoral.

True , its not immoral but not forgetting their circumstance was forced upon them in the very first place, totalitarian to the extreme, a system or ideaolgy that should have been voted out, by law, oddly enough.

As I said above , a brief explanation is: It doesn't work with empires or big nations just as it is today with nations such as the USA or China which ironically is happening again like the Romans converting from the bottom up (Underground chrches). Not all situations are going to be the same by the same methods of change for every nation or group.

But how do you know that it does not work?
It seems reasonable to think that if Jesus converted a lot of people - Romans included - by means of amazing displays of power, there was a reasonable chance that that would work on the emperor, local governors, etc.

It doesn't work according to the viewpoint of the faith ...peacefully that is. In short, Amazing displays have happened before and yet people still rebelled against God.

Converting from the top when people in such a large number are already comfortable with the way things are, which would be this case of the Romans: law change based on Christianity would bring serious problems, if not get them killed. If you are citizen of Rome you get to do quite a variety of things ,watching death sports , and enjoying the same things as Caligula .. the perks that come with this way of life as a citizen, so who would want someone to come and change these things al of a sudden? This would reflect in the same way to the big Western nations of today. (Others sligtly different.)

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

The Hebrews were a theocracy. At the founding of modern Israel there was a debate of secular vs religious state. The secular side won out. I grew up with religious laws, blue laws, still on the books. In Ct I don't think you can buy alcohol in stores on Sunday.

In the past the RCC has threatened Catholic politicians with denial of sacraments for not voting Vatical lines.


Christian politicians at the state level still push for anti gay legislation based on Leviticus.

Here in Texas, you can not buy alcoholic beverages on a Sunday until 10:00 O'clock. You have to go to the liquor store after church lets out.

 

[steve_bank]

No one knows exactly what happed in the 1st century. The first flowers were Jews. At some point be lives developed a separate identity and claimed the Torah as their own.

Look at Nicaea. A number of differing sects with defaces over the divinity of Jesus among other things.

What you have as the NT was selected by committee.

Ok, but Chtodyiasns here are avoiding the question. The RCC claims to be the one true Christian church by virtue of the popes being in a line of succession back to Peter. What you have as Christian values comes primarily from Paul. Circumcisions not required, Jewish dietary rules no longer apply, a patriarchal culture with women subordinate. If you can avoid sex and be celibate. Marry if you can't.

Today there may be thousands of self proclaimed reverends with a small following with their own interpretations and prophesies.

Who is right?

The ones in the Roman writings above and anyone follwing the example today seems to me to be right , It is a hard task!
(not suggesting I am one of these but I'm trying, he says lol).

The phrase "through Christ alone" has some important significance on several levels I'd say by this example (as of the early Christians and Roman converts) and on another, steer believers on course again should one hear odd preachings "By their fruits" so to speak.


I heard a wonderful sermon by a preacher Dr. Martyn lloyd-Jones although he was a Welsh protestant preacher. He was well loved and respected by Catholics, Baptists , pretty much quite a variety of denominations or Jesus believrs. He never said anything bad against any denomination (although would have some disagreements no doubt) and sort of highlighted ,that realising and acknowledging the common core i.e. Jesus and that, by HIS way alone unifies everyone as a follower of Christ (according to Jesus's teaching ONLY). Parallel to this, there is, it seems, a rise of non-denomination believers (some ex-denomination). I suppose I can say I am no longer protestant.

Another non answer. What on Earth would someone know 210 years after the fact? Christians as usual quote hearsay and opinion from murky ancient times as fact or evidence.

 

[Politesse]

Another non answer. What on Earth would someone know 210 years after the fact? Christians as usual quote hearsay and opinion from murky ancient times as fact or evidence.

Out of curiosity, are you claiming to be a Christian or ignoring the parameters of the thread?

 

[steve_bank]

Another non answer. What on Earth would someone know 210 years after the fact? Christians as usual quote hearsay and opinion from murky ancient times as fact or evidence.

Out of curiosity, are you claiming to be a Christian or ignoring the parameters of the thread?

Responding to your 210AS quote. As to the OP answer the question, how do you tell who is and id not Christian>

I ascribe to Freethought. No specific ideology. Take what is useful from anywhere in the context of a problem. Do not be bound to a rigid orthodoxy. It is not just pragmatism. In context of a problem I may think Buddhism, Christianity, Greek philosophy or whatever makes sense in context. There can be no single compressive school of thought that can be alloied in a singular rigid fashion.

That is what we see in America religious politics. The only solutions are in interpretation of scripture.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

That is a very different rationale. The previous argument you gave was that



So, I was challenging the previous argumentation. As to your new rationale, I'm not optimistic about the government making society more just in all contexts. That depends on the case. But when it comes to refraining from causing massive injustice, sure that is possible. After all, the government is the activity of people. And those people can make a choice not to engage in further injustice. For example, if Paul was persecuting Christians, when he stopped doing so, he stopped committing a lot injustice. But now imagine that the government had refrained from further persecuting Christians (granting that the persecutions were happening). That would be a lot less injustice.


With respect to neighboring nations, that is another area in which much could be achieved: foreing policy. Imagine the Roman empire had stopped attacking, invading and occupying neighboring nations! Well, that would have achieved that particular goal far more effectively than just persuading a few people with little power.

As for not telling their neighbors what to do, that depends on the moment. Jesus indeed was telling people what to do on several occasions.



He wasn't always speaking in a calm, straightforward manner. For example, he assaulted the merchants at the temple. But that aside, I do agree that God would not need anything with an empire, but that is because God (i.e., omnipotent, omniscient, morally perfect) does not need anything at all, and in any event, he would not create anything remotely like our universe. But if he were to find our universe, God would intervene all the time and make it better (or just all at once). Why? Well, it is not the case that with great power comes great lack of responsibility. Imagine Spider-man sees a man raping a child for fun, and just does nothing, though he can easily overpower the rapist. Surely, Spider-Man would be failing to act in a morally proper manner. And if Spider-Man were morally perfect (or just as good as in the stories), he would intervene. So would an omnimax agent.

That aside, and assuming for the sake of the argument that I am mistaken about the above, then I would say; " what does a god need with an earthly empire?" Well, God does not need anything from anyone or anything, but he is motivated to act in different ways, according to his morally perfect character. So, what he may well want with the Roman empire would be to make it more just (and if needed, not an empire).

At any rate, we are not talking about God, but about Jesus. Even granting for the sake of the argument that Jesus had superhuman powers, that does not imply he was God. In fact, even assuming God created our universe, presumably he would not give profoundly immoral laws to any tribe (and if your rationale is correct, he would not give any laws to any tribe: period), so he did not give OT laws to the ancient Israelites. But Jesus believed (if the NT is correct) those were indeed God's laws for ancient Israel. So, Jesus, even if super-powered, was not God.

Paul for his part seemed abjectly terrified of the Roman state and devotes pages of his letters begging his friends to law low and not make waves, for existential reasons. Unlike many of those he wrote to, he was a Roman citizen, and well-traveled, and knew from experience the character of the empire. The Paul character in Acts is a bit more audacious than letter-writer Paul about speaking his truth to governors and judges, but he does not actually attempt to move them in how they manage worldly governance, only their treatment of Christians.

That makes little sense on his part. The Romans only had warriors with swords, shields, spears, arrows, knives, whereas he has a friend more powerful than Thor. Still, while Paul may not think of trying to persuade them with no help, that was due to a lack of power on his part. He may have thought about converting them with help from his superhuman friend.

If you wish to see this as cowardice, I suppose you could, though given the circumstances of their existence - Rome did utterly destroy their nation, and nearly, their people, just thirty short years later - I would be inclined to be forgiving.

On Saul's/Paul's part, I see it as a reasonable attitude (and corresponding behavior) to have as long as Jesus had no superhuman powers. On the other hand, I see it as an absurd attitude for Paul to have if Jesus did and engaged in the behaviors (including displays of power) attributed to him in the NT. Maybe it was cowardice as well, but that seems like secondary - what comes to the front is the absurdity of it all.

From Jesus's own perspective, it's not cowardice, either. It's reasonable if he had no powers. On the other hand, if he did had those amazing powers (far beyond those of Spider-Man), it's akin to the attitude of Spider-Man watching the rapist and looking the other way, only times a zillion given the much greater level of power and the number of evils Jesus was watching. It would not be cowardice, though, because it would not be out of fear that Jesus looks the other way. Rather, it would be immoral callousness, and generally utter failure to act as he ought to.

More abstractly, I have seen few occassions where the accumulation of power directly led to the betterment of human lives. Tacitus would agree; using an empire to try and bring about peace will always deliver you a "Roman Peace".

That is very debatable, but I'd say not the issue. It's not about accumulating power - Jesus, assuming powers as described, already had far more than the emperor.
Rather, it's about persuading people engaging in horrible injustices - through the laws their pass, their orders to their subordinates, etc. -, to change their ways. One way to prevent massive injustice is to persuade those doing the massive injustice in question to, well, stop doing it! And that's what changing Roman law (and foreign policy too; thanks for bringing that up) is about. It's also changing their orders to others (not just general laws). For example, just as Saul/Paul stopped (assuming the accounts) persecuting Christians and that prevented injustices on his part, the same could be done in a much more effective manner by persuading the emperor and generally the Roman elite.
After all, if Saul stops, someone else will be appointed to do the injustice. But not if the emperor, governors, etc., stop doing the persecution. And that (i.e., Christian persecution) is merely one example of preventable injustice.

I really don't see the point of this whole exchange. Yes, if Jesus and Paul were both completely different men, with completely different philosophies, history might well have played out differently. Or not.

Your reply does not seem connected to my point. The "Yes" before "if Jesus and Paul were both completely different men" suggests my post somehow says that or is even related. It is not. It is a challenge to your claim that it would not have crossed their minds to persuade powerful Romans, and in fact a (decisive even if short, if you want to debate) moral challenge to Christianity, or more to the point, to the versions that hold Jesus in fact showed superhuman powers as described in the Bible (and to versions agnostic on the matter, given that they hold Jesus was good).

But I will say no more because you are not engaging my points, but challenging something else. Should you choose to engage in the future, I'm all ears.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

True , its not immoral but not forgetting their circumstance was forced upon them in the very first place, totalitarian to the extreme, a system or ideaolgy that should have been voted out, by law, oddly enough.

But that is not my point. You said it was against Christian teachings to try to change laws for the better by force. I pointed out that in some cases, it is not immoral to do so. That's a problem for Christian teachings. And whether it's a democracy is also not the issue. A democracy can have a slave monority. A majority can be for slavery. And it's still okay for the slaves to revolt (in most situations, at least).

It doesn't work according to the viewpoint of the faith ...peacefully that is. In short, Amazing displays have happened before and yet people still rebelled against God.

Well, no, they haven't (the biblical claims in question are false). But that aside, I said there would be a "reasonable chance". In fact, even by OT accounts, rebellions against Yahweh happen in most cases when people have not seen Yahweh's power displays, but rather, they have been told about them (by their parents, or whoever). Moreover, in the NT, when Jesus shows his powers, people generally (not all, perhaps, but most) do get converted. So, even by those accounts, there would have been a reasonable chance.

Converting from the top when people in such a large number are already comfortable with the way things are, which would be this case of the Romans: law change based on Christianity would bring serious problems, if not get them killed.

First, even when many people are comfortable with oppressing others, like persecuting Christians, etc., that does not mean they actually want those things to happen. In fact, the vast majority of people probably do not care much one way or another.
Second, get whom killed? The emperor and very powerful Romans? Not likely, because:

1. They have plenty of power, so not many would want to challenge them.
2. Jesus can show his powers to the population at large. Who would go up against that? (on top of the much less powerful Roman empire, it's like going up against Zeus; not likely at all).

If you are citizen of Rome you get to do quite a variety of things ,watching death sports , and enjoying the same things as Caligula .. the perks that come with this way of life as a citizen, so who would want someone to come and change these things al of a sudden?

Most of the bad things the empire did were not for the enjoyment of the populace. That was a small number of them, so there was a lot that could be changed without getting into that. However, that aside, if you are a citizen of Rome and your emperor says no more death "sports", and you see he's got the backing of other powerful Romans. Would you rebel against your emperor? Now, what if you see that the emperor is backed also by someone showing Zeus-like powers. Would you still rebel?

This would reflect in the same way to the big Western nations of today. (Others sligtly different.)

What do you mean by that?

 

[Politesse]

That is a very different rationale. The previous argument you gave was that



So, I was challenging the previous argumentation. As to your new rationale, I'm not optimistic about the government making society more just in all contexts. That depends on the case. But when it comes to refraining from causing massive injustice, sure that is possible. After all, the government is the activity of people. And those people can make a choice not to engage in further injustice. For example, if Paul was persecuting Christians, when he stopped doing so, he stopped committing a lot injustice. But now imagine that the government had refrained from further persecuting Christians (granting that the persecutions were happening). That would be a lot less injustice.


With respect to neighboring nations, that is another area in which much could be achieved: foreing policy. Imagine the Roman empire had stopped attacking, invading and occupying neighboring nations! Well, that would have achieved that particular goal far more effectively than just persuading a few people with little power.

As for not telling their neighbors what to do, that depends on the moment. Jesus indeed was telling people what to do on several occasions.



He wasn't always speaking in a calm, straightforward manner. For example, he assaulted the merchants at the temple. But that aside, I do agree that God would not need anything with an empire, but that is because God (i.e., omnipotent, omniscient, morally perfect) does not need anything at all, and in any event, he would not create anything remotely like our universe. But if he were to find our universe, God would intervene all the time and make it better (or just all at once). Why? Well, it is not the case that with great power comes great lack of responsibility. Imagine Spider-man sees a man raping a child for fun, and just does nothing, though he can easily overpower the rapist. Surely, Spider-Man would be failing to act in a morally proper manner. And if Spider-Man were morally perfect (or just as good as in the stories), he would intervene. So would an omnimax agent.

That aside, and assuming for the sake of the argument that I am mistaken about the above, then I would say; " what does a god need with an earthly empire?" Well, God does not need anything from anyone or anything, but he is motivated to act in different ways, according to his morally perfect character. So, what he may well want with the Roman empire would be to make it more just (and if needed, not an empire).

At any rate, we are not talking about God, but about Jesus. Even granting for the sake of the argument that Jesus had superhuman powers, that does not imply he was God. In fact, even assuming God created our universe, presumably he would not give profoundly immoral laws to any tribe (and if your rationale is correct, he would not give any laws to any tribe: period), so he did not give OT laws to the ancient Israelites. But Jesus believed (if the NT is correct) those were indeed God's laws for ancient Israel. So, Jesus, even if super-powered, was not God.



That makes little sense on his part. The Romans only had warriors with swords, shields, spears, arrows, knives, whereas he has a friend more powerful than Thor. Still, while Paul may not think of trying to persuade them with no help, that was due to a lack of power on his part. He may have thought about converting them with help from his superhuman friend.

If you wish to see this as cowardice, I suppose you could, though given the circumstances of their existence - Rome did utterly destroy their nation, and nearly, their people, just thirty short years later - I would be inclined to be forgiving.

On Saul's/Paul's part, I see it as a reasonable attitude (and corresponding behavior) to have as long as Jesus had no superhuman powers. On the other hand, I see it as an absurd attitude for Paul to have if Jesus did and engaged in the behaviors (including displays of power) attributed to him in the NT. Maybe it was cowardice as well, but that seems like secondary - what comes to the front is the absurdity of it all.

From Jesus's own perspective, it's not cowardice, either. It's reasonable if he had no powers. On the other hand, if he did had those amazing powers (far beyond those of Spider-Man), it's akin to the attitude of Spider-Man watching the rapist and looking the other way, only times a zillion given the much greater level of power and the number of evils Jesus was watching. It would not be cowardice, though, because it would not be out of fear that Jesus looks the other way. Rather, it would be immoral callousness, and generally utter failure to act as he ought to.

More abstractly, I have seen few occassions where the accumulation of power directly led to the betterment of human lives. Tacitus would agree; using an empire to try and bring about peace will always deliver you a "Roman Peace".

That is very debatable, but I'd say not the issue. It's not about accumulating power - Jesus, assuming powers as described, already had far more than the emperor.
Rather, it's about persuading people engaging in horrible injustices - through the laws their pass, their orders to their subordinates, etc. -, to change their ways. One way to prevent massive injustice is to persuade those doing the massive injustice in question to, well, stop doing it! And that's what changing Roman law (and foreign policy too; thanks for bringing that up) is about. It's also changing their orders to others (not just general laws). For example, just as Saul/Paul stopped (assuming the accounts) persecuting Christians and that prevented injustices on his part, the same could be done in a much more effective manner by persuading the emperor and generally the Roman elite.
After all, if Saul stops, someone else will be appointed to do the injustice. But not if the emperor, governors, etc., stop doing the persecution. And that (i.e., Christian persecution) is merely one example of preventable injustice.

I really don't see the point of this whole exchange. Yes, if Jesus and Paul were both completely different men, with completely different philosophies, history might well have played out differently. Or not.

Your reply does not seem connected to my point. The "Yes" before "if Jesus and Paul were both completely different men" suggests my post somehow says that or is even related. It is not. It is a challenge to your claim that it would not have crossed their minds to persuade powerful Romans, and in fact a (decisive even if short, if you want to debate) moral challenge to Christianity, or more to the point, to the versions that hold Jesus in fact showed superhuman powers as described in the Bible (and to versions agnostic on the matter, given that they hold Jesus was good).

But I will say no more because you are not engaging my points, but challenging something else. Should you choose to engage in the future, I'm all ears.

Well, obviously they did not think those things you think they ought to have thought.

 

[Learner]

Another non answer. What on Earth would someone know 210 years after the fact? Christians as usual quote hearsay and opinion from murky ancient times as fact or evidence.

Their discriptive writings of their repentance, seems to be right in accordance to what Jesus teaches. You yourself have made your own opinion from "murky" ancient times in which I just simply disagree with. My answer IOWs , no-one has it, so purely 100% imo,. some more or less than others , but could still be right "depending" if their mission statement is about Jesus and the aspect of the preach and practice follows. Some of the minor things that differ, may not matter between different denominations unless there are serious misdirections or contradictions to the "message".

 

[Learner]

But that is not my point. You said it was against Christian teachings to try to change laws for the better by force. I pointed out that in some cases, it is not immoral to do so. That's a problem for Christian teachings. And whether it's a democracy is also not the issue. A democracy can have a slave monority. A majority can be for slavery. And it's still okay for the slaves to revolt (in most situations, at least).

By persuasion not violent force, exampled in the writings of those Romans conversions, the "changed hearts"! I agree it would not be "immoral" given the tragic circumstance, which would not be a moral issue with Jesus anyway, quite different from taking the wrong road or choosing unwisely ,a disobedience even.

Well, no, they haven't (the biblical claims in question are false). But that aside, I said there would be a "reasonable chance". In fact, even by OT accounts, rebellions against Yahweh happen in most cases when people have not seen Yahweh's power displays, but rather, they have been told about them (by their parents, or whoever). Moreover, in the NT, when Jesus shows his powers, people generally (not all, perhaps, but most) do get converted. So, even by those accounts, there would have been a reasonable chance.

Some of your above I don't dispute with (certain events told) but you can't dismiss the other parts like "its either this bit or that bit".. take for example: The Israelites have seen many things right up to the times of Judah. Jesus was rebuked by the Jews and many who witnessed HIS miracles did not aid him in HIS defence to the Sanhedrin or the Romans, not untill after the ressurection (which is telling) who gladly went out professing HIS name as they preached, only "this time" without fear, despite expecting to end up with tragic consequencies.

First, even when many people are comfortable with oppressing others, like persecuting Christians, etc., that does not mean they actually want those things to happen. In fact, the vast majority of people probably do not care much one way or another.
Second, get whom killed? The emperor and very powerful Romans? Not likely, because:

1. They have plenty of power, so not many would want to challenge them.
2. Jesus can show his powers to the population at large. Who would go up against that? (on top of the much less powerful Roman empire, it's like going up against Zeus; not likely at all).

Quite possibly, a vast majority not caring either way for Christian persecution or oppression of others (If I'm right you are saying).

The Temptation of Power is another thing not yet mentioned and would be hard to "give up" I suspect. There were powerful men who even had their own command of legion armies, a government having rivals within the empire could suddenly be replaced by another, which may depend on who allies/influences who, taking advantage of the situation with a large amount of people behind them. But yes.. Jesus would have to convince them all at once, certainly! And if the empire is then "loving and caring" , it would be in need to spread quite fast to their surrounding borders where their enemies are on the otherside, needing quickly to plead or preach to them, when they've been waiting in the forrests for the opportunity to vengefully strike instantly. Doesn't seem viable imo.

Most of the bad things the empire did were not for the enjoyment of the populace. That was a small number of them, so there was a lot that could be changed without getting into that. However, that aside, if you are a citizen of Rome and your emperor says no more death "sports", and you see he's got the backing of other powerful Romans. Would you rebel against your emperor? Now, what if you see that the emperor is backed also by someone showing Zeus-like powers. Would you still rebel?

Quite possibly no, if we were to go by this route, like in my previous paragraph above. However it isn't consistant "getting back" to the bible because of the prophecies in the O.T. simply: It would be a contradiction to what is already written in other parts. The bible seem to cover its bases.

Similar to what you were saying but on a much larger scale : Jesus would have to convince the WHOLE World at once! It was already thought of,.. covered in the bible: This happens in the Revelation part i.e. Every knee will bow etc..ect...

This would reflect in the same way to the big Western nations of today. (Others sligtly different.)

What do you mean by that?

Steve-bank again highlights the minor probs if Theists pass laws. No alcohol on Sundays. What more if sex before marriage was completey banned?

China,the changing would be similar imo spreading outwards and ground up, however interestingly, I think North Korea may only need one single conversion perhaps. The Leader! Because this leader is the utmost supreme (God-like status) without rivals or other parties There'd be a quick conversion in this case because of his dedicated people. This would also go for those suffering pheasants as its often portrayed the poor and hungry. These poor souls regardless whether or not they believe, will be very relieved of their apparent suffering and joyous in the change.

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

In the spirit of the OP I offer the following: Yes I have become a skeptic. But from my childhood I was a devout believer: Upon graduation from High School I attended Christian Colleges, obtaining a Bachelor of Arts in Bible with a minor in Koine Greek and a 2nd minor in Communications. I became a preacher in 1978 and preached my last sermon in 2001, still a believer when I stepped down from the pulpit for the last time. I prayed to God in the privacy of my bedroom and dedicated myself to his service.

I haven't forgotten the things I knew then. Although I have learned new things since that have undermined the core beliefs I once held I believe I am quite capable of defending them now just as a debate student must be capable of defending an issue whether or not he or she believes it to be true.

For purposes of this thread I will be the man who stepped down from that pulpit 18 years ago. Anyone, believer or skeptic alike, is welcome to challenge me. Let us begin:

I am a member of the church of Christ. Although many outsiders believe that the church of Christ is a protestant denomination, we reject this appellation. We are not a denomination at all. We are simply the true, living, church of Christ which Jesus began and authorized his Apostles to spread to the entire world in the year 33 A.D. Nothing more.

Over the years Satan found ways to appeal to the pride of men and cause them to corrupt Christ's church, stealing away members with cunning lies and deceit. Paul and others fought tirelessly against such corruption, but it goes on today. Still yet the true church remains and as has been the case throughout human history, is a small minority. But we take heart and persevere, knowing that Jesus prophesied this very condition in Matthew 7:14, saying that "strait is the gate and narrow the way that leads to life, and few there be that find it."

Above all, Satan does not want people to be saved. He wants to destroy that which God has created and to subvert the salvation which God has prepared for his people. His very name (Satan) means "The Adversary" and he has made it his purpose to ensure the damnation of as many of us as possible.

It is important to understand that while God loves us he does require obedience to his commandments. God has given us in his word everything we need to know in order to be pleasing to him and to obtain salvation. II Timothy 3:16-17: "All scripture is given by inspiration of God and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: that the man of god may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works." The idea that we cannot understand God is an unscriptural one. It smacks of giving up on this promise made by God's inspired writer.

At the heart of understanding God and what it is that he requires of us is respecting the scriptures he has given us and accepting them as the primary source of our salvation. It is when we begin polluting these divinely authorized scriptures with the opinions and philosophies of mere mortals that we are led away from truth and into Satan's waiting arms.

Alexander Campbell summed this principle up nicely as follows: "Speak where the bible speaks; be silent where the bible is silent. Do bible things in bible ways and call bible things by bible names. Always have a 'Thus saith the Lord' for everything that we do or preach."

This principle is borne out in scripture or it would not be valid. "Revelation 22:18-19 - For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book: and if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book."

Do not tamper with the word of God. In Leviticus 10:1-2, Nadab and Abihu dared tamper with the word of God and were consumed immediately with fire from heaven in front of their own father and everyone else watching. This was done as an example to demonstrate that God does not take lightly those who would change his commandments. God would not even permit their father (Aaron) to grieve over their deaths. God loves us and desires that all persons should come to salvation (II Peter 3:9) but salvation must be on his terms.

In II Timothy 2:15 Paul writes "Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth."

Those among us who do not know God's word have reason to be ashamed. Studying it and allowing it to guide our minds and lives is the path towards truth and salvation. What does it mean to "rightly divide" the word of truth?

First of all, it involves understanding which parts of the bible apply to us today and which apply to someone else. The bible is a large book and it contains instances of interactions between God and mankind that encompass thousands of years. What God told one person may not apply to another person. God's law for Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden was quite simple, and there was only one thing they could do that would violate his law. When they did so there were consequences. Today, we are not amenable to the law God set in the Garden of Eden - we are amenable to a different law. As Paul said, we must "rightly divide" the word of truth in order to know what law we are amenable to today.

The book of Galatians was written to people who were struggling with that same question. "Are we amenable to the Old Testament as well as to the New?" To answer that question, Paul referred to the Old Testament as a "Schoolmaster" that taught us when we were young, but when we reached adulthood we were no longer under that schoolmaster (Galatians 3:25). The law of Christ is a law of "faith" as opposed to the law of Moses which was primarily a law of "works."

In its context this passage spells things out quite succinctly:

Galatians 3

:24 Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith.
:25 But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster.
:26 For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus.
:27 For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ.
:28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.
:29 And if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.

This is getting way too long, for which I apologize. I have much else to say but will pause here, having laid the foundation for that which is to follow.

There seems to be a sort of contradiction here, or "disconnect" between two different versions of the salvation message, or "Gospel" which emerged 2000 years ago. I.e.,



Belief in Christ vs. Belief in "the Bible"

I am a member of the church of Christ. Although many outsiders believe that the church of Christ is a protestant denomination, we reject this appellation. We are not a denomination at all. We are simply the true, living, church of Christ which Jesus began and authorized his Apostles to spread to the entire world in the year 33 A.D. Nothing more. . . . .

Doesn't this mean that "salvation" became possible at this point in time. In 30-33 AD? Or it was possible at that time. Or the "salvation" message or "Gospel" was basically established at that time.

And yet "the Bible" did not exist in 33 AD. Or in 40 or 50 AD.

Yet, isn't the "Gospel" today essentially the same as the "Gospel" in 33 AD?

God has given us in his word everything we need to know in order to be pleasing to him and to obtain salvation. II Timothy 3:16-17: "All scripture is given by inspiration of God and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: that the man of god may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works." . . . .

But this famous verse did not exist at that point in time. And yet, salvation, or the Gospel, did exist and was preached. So this salvation message could not have been to "believe in the scriptures," or "believe in the Bible" at that time.

At the heart of understanding God and what it is that he requires of us is respecting the scriptures he has given us and accepting them as the primary source of our salvation.

Something has to be wrong here, because "salvation" was being preached in 30 and 40 AD before "the scriptures" existed.


This same disconnect existed in the Baptist church where I was indoctrinated, and I eventually noticed it, over 20 years or so of reflection. It also existed at the Youth for Christ meetings I attended for several years. It seemed like "belief in Christ" and "belief in the Bible" were about the same. But obviously they cannot be the same. So, which is correct?

I'm sure if I had been perceptive enough at the time to ask my pastor this question, he would have told me that it's really belief in Christ which brings salvation, and that "the Bible" is extremely helpful to us in learning of Christ. But still, it's not "the scriptures" or "the Bible" which is our source of salvation.

And I'm guessing the Church of Christ pastor would have said the same.

 

[steve_bank]

Another non answer. What on Earth would someone know 210 years after the fact? Christians as usual quote hearsay and opinion from murky ancient times as fact or evidence.

Their discriptive writings of their repentance, seems to be right in accordance to what Jesus teaches. You yourself have made your own opinion from "murky" ancient times in which I just simply disagree with. My answer IOWs , no-one has it, so purely 100% imo,. some more or less than others , but could still be right "depending" if their mission statement is about Jesus and the aspect of the preach and practice follows. Some of the minor things that differ, may not matter between different denominations unless there are serious misdirections or contradictions to the "message".

Another interpretive answer. That is what Christians have always done. The reality the actual number of words attributed to Jesus are few. He left no details or consistent theology and did not create a new religion. He was a Jewish rabbi preaching to Jews.

In comparison Buddha left a specific set of principles, rules, and moral requirements.

As did Mohammed.

If you want to be a follower of Jesus, be a Jew first and foremost.

 

[Politesse]

There seems to be a sort of contradiction here, or "disconnect" between two different versions of the salvation message, or "Gospel" which emerged 2000 years ago. I.e.,



Belief in Christ vs. Belief in "the Bible"

I am a member of the church of Christ. Although many outsiders believe that the church of Christ is a protestant denomination, we reject this appellation. We are not a denomination at all. We are simply the true, living, church of Christ which Jesus began and authorized his Apostles to spread to the entire world in the year 33 A.D. Nothing more. . . . .

Doesn't this mean that "salvation" became possible at this point in time. In 30-33 AD? Or it was possible at that time. Or the "salvation" message or "Gospel" was basically established at that time.

And yet "the Bible" did not exist in 33 AD. Or in 40 or 50 AD.

Yet, isn't the "Gospel" today essentially the same as the "Gospel" in 33 AD?

God has given us in his word everything we need to know in order to be pleasing to him and to obtain salvation. II Timothy 3:16-17: "All scripture is given by inspiration of God and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: that the man of god may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works." . . . .

But this famous verse did not exist at that point in time. And yet, salvation, or the Gospel, did exist and was preached. So this salvation message could not have been to "believe in the scriptures," or "believe in the Bible" at that time.

At the heart of understanding God and what it is that he requires of us is respecting the scriptures he has given us and accepting them as the primary source of our salvation.

Something has to be wrong here, because "salvation" was being preached in 30 and 40 AD before "the scriptures" existed.


This same disconnect existed in the Baptist church where I was indoctrinated, and I eventually noticed it, over 20 years or so of reflection. It also existed at the Youth for Christ meetings I attended for several years. It seemed like "belief in Christ" and "belief in the Bible" were about the same. But obviously they cannot be the same. So, which is correct?

I'm sure if I had been perceptive enough at the time to ask my pastor this question, he would have told me that it's really belief in Christ which brings salvation, and that "the Bible" is extremely helpful to us in learning of Christ. But still, it's not "the scriptures" or "the Bible" which is our source of salvation.

And I'm guessing the Church of Christ pastor would have said the same.

I'm with Lumpenproletariat here, the "gospel" of Christianity cannot be synonymous with a much later written account of the same.

 

[steve_bank]

Is it Calvinism that says those that are saved are predetermined?

 

[Angra Mainyu]

That is a very different rationale. The previous argument you gave was that



So, I was challenging the previous argumentation. As to your new rationale, I'm not optimistic about the government making society more just in all contexts. That depends on the case. But when it comes to refraining from causing massive injustice, sure that is possible. After all, the government is the activity of people. And those people can make a choice not to engage in further injustice. For example, if Paul was persecuting Christians, when he stopped doing so, he stopped committing a lot injustice. But now imagine that the government had refrained from further persecuting Christians (granting that the persecutions were happening). That would be a lot less injustice.


With respect to neighboring nations, that is another area in which much could be achieved: foreing policy. Imagine the Roman empire had stopped attacking, invading and occupying neighboring nations! Well, that would have achieved that particular goal far more effectively than just persuading a few people with little power.

As for not telling their neighbors what to do, that depends on the moment. Jesus indeed was telling people what to do on several occasions.



He wasn't always speaking in a calm, straightforward manner. For example, he assaulted the merchants at the temple. But that aside, I do agree that God would not need anything with an empire, but that is because God (i.e., omnipotent, omniscient, morally perfect) does not need anything at all, and in any event, he would not create anything remotely like our universe. But if he were to find our universe, God would intervene all the time and make it better (or just all at once). Why? Well, it is not the case that with great power comes great lack of responsibility. Imagine Spider-man sees a man raping a child for fun, and just does nothing, though he can easily overpower the rapist. Surely, Spider-Man would be failing to act in a morally proper manner. And if Spider-Man were morally perfect (or just as good as in the stories), he would intervene. So would an omnimax agent.

That aside, and assuming for the sake of the argument that I am mistaken about the above, then I would say; " what does a god need with an earthly empire?" Well, God does not need anything from anyone or anything, but he is motivated to act in different ways, according to his morally perfect character. So, what he may well want with the Roman empire would be to make it more just (and if needed, not an empire).

At any rate, we are not talking about God, but about Jesus. Even granting for the sake of the argument that Jesus had superhuman powers, that does not imply he was God. In fact, even assuming God created our universe, presumably he would not give profoundly immoral laws to any tribe (and if your rationale is correct, he would not give any laws to any tribe: period), so he did not give OT laws to the ancient Israelites. But Jesus believed (if the NT is correct) those were indeed God's laws for ancient Israel. So, Jesus, even if super-powered, was not God.



That makes little sense on his part. The Romans only had warriors with swords, shields, spears, arrows, knives, whereas he has a friend more powerful than Thor. Still, while Paul may not think of trying to persuade them with no help, that was due to a lack of power on his part. He may have thought about converting them with help from his superhuman friend.


On Saul's/Paul's part, I see it as a reasonable attitude (and corresponding behavior) to have as long as Jesus had no superhuman powers. On the other hand, I see it as an absurd attitude for Paul to have if Jesus did and engaged in the behaviors (including displays of power) attributed to him in the NT. Maybe it was cowardice as well, but that seems like secondary - what comes to the front is the absurdity of it all.

From Jesus's own perspective, it's not cowardice, either. It's reasonable if he had no powers. On the other hand, if he did had those amazing powers (far beyond those of Spider-Man), it's akin to the attitude of Spider-Man watching the rapist and looking the other way, only times a zillion given the much greater level of power and the number of evils Jesus was watching. It would not be cowardice, though, because it would not be out of fear that Jesus looks the other way. Rather, it would be immoral callousness, and generally utter failure to act as he ought to.

More abstractly, I have seen few occassions where the accumulation of power directly led to the betterment of human lives. Tacitus would agree; using an empire to try and bring about peace will always deliver you a "Roman Peace".

That is very debatable, but I'd say not the issue. It's not about accumulating power - Jesus, assuming powers as described, already had far more than the emperor.
Rather, it's about persuading people engaging in horrible injustices - through the laws their pass, their orders to their subordinates, etc. -, to change their ways. One way to prevent massive injustice is to persuade those doing the massive injustice in question to, well, stop doing it! And that's what changing Roman law (and foreign policy too; thanks for bringing that up) is about. It's also changing their orders to others (not just general laws). For example, just as Saul/Paul stopped (assuming the accounts) persecuting Christians and that prevented injustices on his part, the same could be done in a much more effective manner by persuading the emperor and generally the Roman elite.
After all, if Saul stops, someone else will be appointed to do the injustice. But not if the emperor, governors, etc., stop doing the persecution. And that (i.e., Christian persecution) is merely one example of preventable injustice.

I really don't see the point of this whole exchange. Yes, if Jesus and Paul were both completely different men, with completely different philosophies, history might well have played out differently. Or not.

Your reply does not seem connected to my point. The "Yes" before "if Jesus and Paul were both completely different men" suggests my post somehow says that or is even related. It is not. It is a challenge to your claim that it would not have crossed their minds to persuade powerful Romans, and in fact a (decisive even if short, if you want to debate) moral challenge to Christianity, or more to the point, to the versions that hold Jesus in fact showed superhuman powers as described in the Bible (and to versions agnostic on the matter, given that they hold Jesus was good).

But I will say no more because you are not engaging my points, but challenging something else. Should you choose to engage in the future, I'm all ears.

Well, obviously they did not think those things you think they ought to have thought.

What do you think I think they ought to have thought, and why do you think I think that?

I challenged your claim that neither Paul nor Jesus thought about changing Roman law by persuading powerful Romans, because you apparently do not reckon that Jesus had no superhuman powers and the biblical accounts involving them were not true. Of course, I do believe Jesus had no superhuman powers at all, and so it is probable that they did not think of that - though not certain, given that cult leaders often to overestimate their abilities, there is a good chance that that is what Jesus was, and frankly we know very little about Jesus given the unreliability of the only sources we have.

I never claimed they ought to have thought about persuading Romans. I did claim that if Jesus had all those powers, at least he morally should have done so (or maybe far more, depending on how far his powers went). But again, I never claimed he had those powers - in fact, I claimed quite the opposite, many times, in many places, and made that clear in this thread too, so I'm puzzled by your claim that I think they ought to have thought something. What is it that you think I think, specifically?

 

[Angra Mainyu]

By persuasion not violent force, exampled in the writings of those Romans conversions, the "changed hearts"!

But what I'm saying is, precisely, that violent means are sometimes okay. But you said it was against Christian teachings to try to change laws for the better by force. If so, that is a problem for Christian teachings, because they oppose the use of violence when legitimate. And if they do not oppose so, then it is not true that it's against Christian teachings to try to change laws for the better by force, but rather, it depends on the case.

The Israelites have seen many things right up to the times of Judah.

Actually, "the Israelites" are not an individual. Some Israelites witness some things (well, not really, but in the story). Nearly all Israelites did not (at least, there is nothing in the story to suggest so, so we go by history).

Jesus was rebuked by the Jews and many who witnessed HIS miracles did not aid him in HIS defence to the Sanhedrin or the Romans, not untill after the ressurection (which is telling) who gladly went out professing HIS name as the preached, only "this time" without fear, despite expecting to end up with tragic consequencies.

But there is huge difference between not aiding him, Romans revolting against the emperor, other authorities, and the super-powerful Jesus, just so that they can have their death "sports". That just would not actually happen.

As for those who allegedly did not aid him, clearly they did not seem confident that the miracles had in fact happened (otherwise, why would they change their attitude after the resurrection?), or just weren't human-like (i.e., whoever made up the stories did not come up with believable human characters).

The Temptation of Power is another thing not yet mentioned and would be hard to "give up" I suspect.

Yes, but there would be no further temptation when it becomes clear to a person that they actually have no power comparable to that of the person they're confronting.

But yes.. Jesus would have to convince them all at once, certainly!

No need to. He can convince one of them, and then that will change things. If others prepare a violent revolt, then he can go to those others, etc. Moreover, he can convert one, tell him not to do anything until he goes to other powerful Romans, etc. There are plenty of alternatives. Still, making a display for many, as he did when he fed the crowd, would be a good option too.

In any event, the empire does not need to be changed all at once and fixing everything (though that's a possibility, depending on power level) in order to be changed.

And if the empire is then "loving and caring" , it would be in need to spread quite fast to their surrounding borders where their enemies are on the otherside, needing quickly to plead or preach to them, when they've been waiting in the forrests for the opportunity to vengefully strike instantly. Doesn't seem viable imo.

Of course, it is viable. The empire does not need to stop acting in self-defense - just to stop going on the offensive. Moreover, it's not as if the neighboring tribes were in a position to strike immediately, and would have realized that the empire just got better (which would not have to make it weak).

Quite possibly no, if we were to go by this route, like in my previous paragraph above. However it isn't consistant "getting back" to the bible because of the prophecies in the O.T. simply: It would be a contradiction to what is already written in other parts. The bible seem to cover its bases.

I do not know what other parts you have in mind, and why you think Jesus knew about them. Incidentally, it would not be acceptable not to help people out because the Bible says no one will help out!

Similar to what you were saying but on a much larger scale : Jesus would have to convince the WHOLE World at once!

Not remotely (though that might be obligatory as well, depending on power level).

It was already thought of,.. covered in the bible: This happens in the Revelation part i.e. Every knee will bow etc..ect...

But it is no excuse not to help people in need because it is written in the Bible that it will happen later! (and in a very, very immoral way, btw. The actions of Jesus in Revelations are truly evil).

In any event, Revelation had not been written by the time of Jesus. It was written much, much later. So, why do you think Jesus knew about it, or approved of it?