-
He came over to your side yesterday and is changing the state over to your ideology. They're still going to do imperialism and slavery and everything, and nothing will fundamentally change, but it'll still be your ideology, totally.
-
They've been feeding you to lions for centuries because of your refusal to acknowledge the state's authority. Now they'll stop, unless you deviate from the state-approved version in any way, in which case they'll burn you at the stake. The state-approved version involves acknowledging the state's authority.
-
He seems oddly keen on having everyone go around flashing a symbol of the cruel and humiliating way the state brutally executed your founder.
-
You don't get a say in what the state-approved version will look like, but he'll preside over ever meeting deciding that. There won't be any more communes.
Your network of communes began as a doomsday cult eagerly waiting for the apocalypse to happen where the empire you live under would be destroyed, but that didn't happen so you've all just been kinda hanging out in secret meetings trying to support each other and survive :doomer:
This is an awful idea. Pilate had a riot on his hands, and Rome was tired of constantly having to reconquer Palestine. If he let the religious riot become a political one he would have lost his pretty well-funded job, perhaps his head depending on the Caesar.
The Gospels were not written down under the third century, so the views prevailing may have been presented by wealthier, well off Christians, many of whom would be or aspired to citizenship, but if they already joined the weird poor person cult I don't think they'd be that in favor of Rome, given they had to hide their Christian identity frequently. A more likely story would be that the Gospels which were put together into the Canon were selected with political goals, which they undoubtedly were, but there's not really many apocrypha with overt anti-Roman politics.
The reason the pharisees were targeted more than Romans is because, as is stated a million times, Jesus is concerned with spiritual life more than physical. The pharisees were trying to follow god but were doing it wrong, according to Jesus. the Romans were not trying to live moral lives in the eyes of God, so it was not important to include critiques of their worldview. The pharisees needed to be corrected, the Romans needed to be converted. Also, given that Romans stopped sacrificing animals to gods when converted but didn't stop rules lawyering their way through faith, which is what the pharisees are called out for, that was probably the better critique.
Overall, a massive theme of the Gospels is that Jesus is not a political leader. He opposes the violence of Rome, and the heathen life of Rome, but is not their political enemy. If he was, given how broad his following was, we would have seen a revolt in Israel at that time. we didn't so we know it was religious reform and restoration he was after. There are similar Pagan leaders at the time, Rome had a sort of dim view but didn't oppose them, while some religious leaders hated them.
I guess the fundamental difference between you and me is that I don't see the Gospels as depicting an entirely accurate picture of Jesus the historical figure. Yes, Jesus as depicted in the Gospels is largely concerned with spiritual life, but that's Jesus as depicted in the Gospel by a class of literate imperial subjects, not Jesus the historical figure. To me, there's no real reason why the Romans would bother to crucify Jesus unless he represented a political threat to their colonial holding. "I'm the Son of God please worship me" isn't really enough to assasinate someone, especially if they're exclusively concerned with spiritual life, but "I'm the Son of God please worship me oh yeah we should plot to overthrow the Roman colonizers and free Judea from the Roman yoke" is a legitimate threat, especially if the following is large enough.
The fundamental difference between you and me is I have studied Roman history. He wasn't assassinated, he was executed because he was causing a ruckus. The Romans killed troublemakers all the time. Why were early Christians pacifists? Why did the apostles get money from Judea and move it to the rest of the empire? Why were Christians happy the temple, the greatest image of Judea, was destroyed? Why does no surviving apocrypha have a more militaristic Jesus? Why would the Jews in Rome have trouble with others who wanted to free Judea? There is simply too great of evidence for Jesus to have not been a violent revolutionary, and none for him to have been.