16 votes

Jesus' message has been lost

The Roman State sponsored story goes, "Jesus died for your sins, and thus, you need not do anything else besides accept him as your savior. Any further action on your part is unnecessary."

In reality, Jesus was a non-violent protester of the Roman Empire - regardless if one believes he was of divine descent or not. Evidence points towards his existence.

Jesus was trying to set an example - namely, violence is not necessary to defeat tyranny. Only non-violent means of resistance are required. Jesus' non-violent approach ultimately cost him his life. Was it in vain?

I challenge you to ask anyone the questions, "Is the government too big? Has it overstepped the intentions of the founders?" I predict 99.999% of folks will give an affirmative response. If not, simply ask them, "How much bigger do you suppose the government needs to be?" Their stuttering will serve as your answer.

Jesus attempted to lead by example. In my estimation, he intended that those who followed him would subscribe to and implement any non-violent measure necessary that may mitigate tyrannical overreach - like that he faced as a resident of a Roman occupied territory.

Was, the human, King James divine? Why do you suppose there is a version of the Bible named after him? Was it to bolster State control? Why was separation of church and state a founding principle of the United States? If Obama commissioned a personalized translation of the Bible, would you trust his sincerity? What if his last name were James? Are Jesus' actual words still in tact? Or, have they been muddled by the State over the millennia for purposes of control?

According to the Bible as translated, Jesus once said, "Wherever two or three gather in my name, I am in their midst." This passage suggests an aversion by Jesus towards organized religion. He could have just as well said, "There need not be an official congregation. Where a few gather in my name, there is my church." He realized that preachers are mere mortals - which are subject to great imperfection.

Would Jesus ask of you to rob your neighbor to benefit yourself? Would Jesus ask of you to punish your brethren for actions which did not harm you and were never among your personal interests? Would Jesus ask of you to fund the wholesale killing of Muslims by your government? Would Jesus ask of you to follow any edict by your government - especially if its consequences were harmful towards humanity?

If asked the question - "Why do we find ourselves in the predicament we are now?" - virtually everyone will say that it's because the people have not held the State accountable. However, when someone actually stands up - for instance, not paying taxes - the same people will say, "Why are you standing up? You must be crazy." Yet, they ponder why things aren't getting better.

Jesus wouldn't have taken up arms against the State. From reading, it seems Jesus would have taken up any avenue of non-violent resistance.

Jesus' original message needs to be resurrected. Up until now, it has been lost.

Things are not always as they seem. It is never a sin to stand up against tyranny - whereas condoning tyranny through fearful participation enslaves future generations and your fellow man.

What would Jesus do?

I doubt he would sit around with his thumb up his ass.

When will folks resolve to stand up?

The roots of tyranny only grow deeper as wasted time passes.

Why did the State crucify Jesus? Did they hate him for his freedom or some other absurd reason? Or, did they consider him a threat to their political power?

Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.



give the man a break...

he's been dead 2000 years...

Father - Husband - Son - Spirit - Consciousness

Jesus should re-send

I am pretty sure he has the everything plan.

"All our words are but crumbs that fall down from the feast of the mind." - Khalil Gibran
"The Perfect Man has no self; the Holy Man has no merit; the Sage has no fame." - Chuang Tzu

Asclepius's picture

Can someone provide evidence (biblical or otherwise) for this

Can someone please provide evidence (biblical or otherwise) for this
statement "Jesus was a non-violent protester of the Roman Empire"? More specifically, what historical evidence exists that Jesus or teachings attributed to him represented a threat to the Roman empire?

A similiar perspective is outlined effectively in the book, "Surviving Off Off-Grid: Decolonizing the Industrial Mind" by Michael Bunker

But, I am curious if anyone is aware of this perspective being developed even further with more historical evidence. Thx

Emancipate yourselves from mental slavery; none but ourselves can free our minds. - Bob Marley

Denise B's picture

Although Jesus

came to this earth with one purpose only and that was to die on a cross to atone for the sins of the whole world and restore our relationship with God, he no doubt represented a threat to the Roman Empire. The Roman Empire required all of it's inhabitants to declare that Caesar is Lord, but now you had tens of thousands of people declaring that Jesus is Lord with the numbers vastly increasing every single day. They would have no doubt considered that a direct threat to Roman authority and Caesar himself. In addition, the Romans had an agreement with the Israelis that their religion would be tolerated but it specifically forbade any new religions from being formed under the threat of complete eradication and Christianity was considered to be a new religion by many. A man can not have two masters and Rome was not interested in sharing that spot with, what they considered to be, any man. In fact, that was one of the reasons why Pilate ended up agreeing to put Jesus to death...not because he found any fault with him personally but because he feared being held accountable by Caeser for a Jewish uprising over a man that was claiming to be (and was in fact) God and who many considered to be a King.

After Jesus's death and resurrection and the resulting explosion of Christianity, Rome came down with a very heavy hand against Christians, with Emperor Nero being the worst of the persecutors. True Christians have only one Lord, and it is not the state. Under his reign thousands of Christian's were slaughtered, crucified, fed to lions and horribly tortured. As far as the OP's topic, I agree with him to the extent that it is not at all Christian to put any government before God and in matters where the state violates God's laws and requirements we are called to resist, even to the point of persecution and death, which many, many Christians have done over the past two millennia. Jesus did not allow the "state" or anybody else to keep him from doing God's will and neither should any Christians today. I fully agree that resistance to tyranny is obedience to God.

Christianity and my conscience lead me to the same conclusion.

Treat others as you would like to be treated.Treat others with goodwill,kindness,compassion,forgiveness and mercy.Admit and repent of your mistakes and the wrong things you have done ,said, and thought.Swallow your pride and let your conscience be your guide to truth and to what is right or wrong.That is what being a Christian and following Christ means to me.To me,it has nothing to do with religious denominations.With all due respect,if you consider yourself a follower of Christ(Christian)I cannot see any good in putting yourself in religious categories such as catholic,protestant,mormon,Jehovah's witness etc.
If you are atheist and reading this,please hear me out..While I can see many wrongs in myself,others,organized religions and political power structures,I honestly cannot see any wrong in Christ and making the effort to follow His example which rings true to my conscience.Even if you don't believe in God,does it not make sense to live by these principles anyway?(See above)Can we at least agree to unite behind and promote those principles,including liberty and non-aggression,whether we believe in God or not?We know our conscience is real,whether we believe in God or not.Conscience being defined as our inner sense of right and wrong,good and evil,better or worse,fair or unfair and just or unjust.
Here is what I think would be the best way to unite behind and promote said principles:
If we had a large enough amount of people in America and the world united behind our shared principles, and demanded strict adherence to said principles over politics or parties,then the politicians would truly have to represent us or find themselves out of a job and irrelevant.

We can make progress every single day if we focus on winning hearts and minds. Here is a suggestion on how to do it: We get one or two great short ads/videos that promote our shared values of truth, freedom, and peace. Just picture a short video explaining why we should bring our troops home, have sound money, cut taxes and spending, balance the budget, end the drug war and give power to the individual while promoting the golden rule,the non-aggression principle and voluntary humanitarian help to our fellow man.

Then we have a money bomb only to DIRECTLY purchase airtime for said ad/video. We vote with our dollars on which video is best.Then we have a "time bomb"(lol) where we all donate our time and focus our efforts spreading the video on facebook, twitter, youtube etc. Keeping it front page on the DP would surely help. Imagine if for a period of time, let's say a month, the front page of Daily Paul was dedicated to an effort to spread a video that promoted all the principles we share. The video could also include a link or mention of DP and/or a dedicated website sending new people there to join in the effort. Then we fine tune our efforts to make sure we are winning people over. And as long as we see it is working, we NEVER stop.
While commercials for politicians become obsolete,the principles of truth,freedom,peace,non-aggression and goodwill will NOT become obsolete.I do not think a reasonable person would argue against the statement that the more people we have united behind these principles,the better.Therefore,does this idea not make sense?

With the "time bomb" method, we could make our message go viral on the internet, nationwide and worldwide, without asking people for money. With the right videos and a united effort by us, I am convinced this would work. In my opinion, this is how we win.

Anyone got a better idea? I'm all ears.

(here is the link to a former post suggesting this idea) http://www.dailypaul.com/275394/michaelplease-consider-this-...


you be able to forgive the people who were crucifying you?

That is one thing I have trouble with, forgiving the people who do bad things to you. How did he do it? It has to be the hardest to do. Forgiveness and pray for your enemies.

It isn't an easy lesson to learn.

Over time I have learned that when people do bad things to you, it is they who have the bigger problem and God will settle the score, if you leave it alone. I've seen it happen over and over again. God does worse to those people than you or I would ever think of doing to them. The saying, "Love your enemies; it'll kill them" really does have a bit of truth in it.

“It is the food which you furnish to your mind that determines the whole character of your life.”
―Emmet Fox

It is pride that makes us unwilling to forgive..

From dictionary website:
1.a high or inordinate opinion of one's own dignity, importance, merit, or superiority, whether as cherished in the mind or as displayed in bearing, conduct, etc.

It certainly is sometimes very difficult to forgive.I still find it difficult sometimes,but it has become much easier for me to forgive once I became aware of the "feeling" or "spirit" of pride that influences all of us in varying degrees.In the case of Christ,I think we see the case of the one man who was never influenced by pride because of His purity of spirit and purpose,while the rest of us are influenced by both good and evil.Why did He let himself be led like a lamb to the slaughter?In my limited understanding,maybe it was not only to be resurrected but to show us how horribly evil and wrong humans can be and to show that His motives were only to help us.By setting the perfect example in His life and teachings and then allowing Himself to be crucified,I don't think a reasonable person would question His motives,though some may question His existence.It was only after I read the Book of Matthew and thought about it that I believed Christ was the Messiah and Son of God like He said He was.The way I see it,you follow Christ by following His example.Not always easy to follow because of our pride/ego,but easy to understand.
Pride is the problem.
I believe the overwhelming majority of people who have been jailed for committing murder would say that they did it because they either felt "shamed","dissed" or "disrespected".In other words,someone or something has offended their "feeling" or "spirit" of pride.Pride is what makes people unwilling to forgive or admit any wrongdoing,as well as cause jealousy,hatred,lust for power and lust for money.I believe it is also pride in one's political party,nationality,race.religious denomination or other chosen label of belief system that has caused most of the death and destruction in this world.IMO,pride is the most destructive force to the human race,and many people are unaware that it even exists.
I would suggest that it is pride that is in direct conflict with our conscience.It seems obvious to me that we are born with a conscience,but when I look back at my life I can see so many examples of this conflict and many instances where I went wrong.When you see someone who seems to have no conscience,I think you will usually find that they are totally consumed with pride.Of course,some people are brought up to value pride and not their conscience,one more reason why I think this is a topic that is so important to discuss with others.

Once I became aware of my own pride and tried to keep it in check,it made it so much easier to understand myself,as well as others and why we sometimes do,think and say the things we do.The video linked at the bottom of this post talks specifically about this topic.

It takes too much space to answer

This is so far off base that it is like conversing with the devil.

A picture is worth 1000 words

This is what society worships more than anything else


"Take hold of the future or the future will take hold of you." -- Patrick Dixon


I actually like Deepak Chopra's The Third Jesus. He talks about a lot of what you feel Jesus DID stand for.


-Matthew Good


The Roman State sponsored "Gospel" story was Roman comedy and double-entendre, meant to pacify the slave classes. "The meek shall inherit the Earth", "Turn the other cheek", "Give unto Caesar", etc. The spread of Christ-insanity and it's inherent Slave Morality, as described by Nietzsche in "On the Genealogy of Morals", was a direct contributor to the fall of the empire. The Renaissance marked a resurgence of European Master Morality, and the Divinity of Man as the Creator's Creation, which was superseded by the resurrection of Slave Morality in the Reformation, and its subsequent reinforcement by the philosophy of the French Revolution, which continues to contribute to the decline of European society to this day. Honor no gods but those of your own Folk, as alien gods destroy you.

Nice comment.

Nice comment.

How did the FR contribute to the decline of European society?

Check out http://ronpaulforums.com for activism and news.

There were many immediately adverse consequences.

Some of those include the twenty to thirty years of violence, directly related to the political upheaval, the murders of many "elites" who were of superior genetic, physical and mental, breeding and education, the destruction of codes of chivalry and honor in favor of the rational and scientific ideologies applied to peoples who were not necessarily ready for them, the subordination of men to various experimental forms of collectivism, state systems which were superficially designed and artificially imposed, as opposed to organically developed social structures, the rise of nationalism and military nation states which led to wars between various of those states, economic hardships caused by social experimentation, etc.
But, the main point, to which I was referring, is the philosophy of the Declaration of the Rights of Man which reinforced the concepts of slave morality and laid the groundwork for socialism, Marxism, and the current cult of liberalism that is destroying "European society", the distinctly "Western" civilization that European colonialism and industry created.

If only Diocletian and Galerius had known that then

there wouldn't have been a need to barbeque Christians.


Just as much punishment has been inflicted upon pagans, and any other "evildoers", in the name of Christ-insanity ever since the fairy tale was invented. Even the Romans had a field day with pagans when the Czar called them to "repent". LOL

Christ came back to spare us from death, sure...

but something often overlooked is that He came to spare of from fear of death

Hebrews 2:14,15

Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same; that through death he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil;

And deliver them who through fear of death were all their lifetime subject to bondage.

Appreciate the post

As a new Christian, I am interested in articles that connect Christ and libertarian thought, and I have discovered much more than I thought.

This is my commandment, that ye love one another, even as I have loved you.

Even the Daily Paul motto is Peace-Gold-Love. Sums it up pretty well.

I highly recommend Chuck Baldwin as well

He was the one who really got me thinking on a lot of things. Namely not just the fact we are saved, but what our responsibilities are as Christians.

I would recommend viewing

I would recommend viewing some of Chuck Baldwins sermons on youtube, and the new release by Pastor Steve Anderson and Paul Wittenburger "New World Order Bible Versions"


Denise B's picture

In the Sermon on the Mount in Matthew

Jesus stated "blessed are those who are persecuted for righteousness sake for theirs is the kingdom of heaven."

In all instances, is it not the governing authority who has the power to persecute people? Who else persecutes people except for those in authority? I agree with your assertions and it appears that this statement from Jesus in Matthew does also. It is not unbiblical to resist tyranny, in fact it is quite the opposite. Non compliance of unjust authority will always lead to persecution; however, I believe that it is for this exact reason that most people, including many Christians, will not do it...it takes a lot of courage to put yourself in danger of persecution. Sadly, many Christians in this country have counted the cost and found it to be too high.

Jesus is all about eternity

Not grazing fees in Oklahoma.

But you can spin. Spin brother spin. I'll vote for ya.

By the way, there is no fixing this world. It would take a miracle.

Voted you up, in spite of a minor disagreement. (maybe major)

Jesus primary reason for coming was to deal with the root cause of statism: that is, our sin. Every other reason, except to glorify God, is secondary.

Yes, he did come to triumph over the Roman Caesar system, the breaking of the Roman seal was a defiant act punishable by death. But the Temple curtain was torn 3 days before, as a sign that His payment for sin was sufficient.

"Hence, naturally enough, my symbol for Hell is something like the bureaucracy of a police state or the office of a thoroughly nasty business concern." ~~C.S. Lewis
Love won! Deliverance from Tyranny is on the way! Col. 2:13-15

Down-voted this stupid thread.

I'm sorry, but this post was so utterly asinine and devoid of any historical basis that I was barely able to suffer through it. I am not a Roman Catholic (I'm a former one actually), and the first paragraph of this thing alone tells me that you know jack about Roman Catholicism. The entire religion is built off the idea that Jesus' sacrifice is transmitted through the church, and therefore all members of the Roman congregation are expected to adhere to rigorous observance of sacramental worship, pilgrimages, specific prayers, works of contrition in order to redress the grievances accrued by one's sins, and also to follow a fairly specific political structure. Essentially Roman Catholicism is built all but ENTIRELY out of what you do, though I would assert that they've missed the point and turned it into a system of political control.

If you had bothered to page through the Council of Trent or any other dogmatic declarations/papal bulls since, you would not have confounded Roman theology with what was essentially a bastardization of Lutheran theology, mixed with a lot of Antinomian errors. I'm not a Lutheran either, but the first paragraph of your post indicates to me that you have not read Martin Luther's works either, nor do you have any grasp of the 1st, 2nd and 3rd uses of the moral law under Protestant doctrine, which specifically gets into how a Christian should conduct himself in his actions. At best, you've essentially aped a Jesuit polemic against Lutheran theology and conflated it with the original doctrine taught by Rome BEFORE TRENT, which is ridiculous.

Having said all of this, later in your post when you mention King James I it becomes pretty clear that the only experience you've likely had with Christianity is the backwater nonsense going on in either Appalachia or the Baptist/Charismatic cabal dominating the Bible Belt, both of which are bereft of any historically sound doctrine. The reason why there was a bible named after King James is because the British crown and the united churches of the British Isles (The Anglican Church and the Presbyterians in Scotland and Northern Ireland) all signed on to an official, state and church approved bible for the English speaking world (The Lutheran Bible accomplished the same for German speakers). It was the first comprehensive translation of the scriptures into English that was readily available to everyone in the English speaking world, and it's the most widely used because unlike the other 100 plus English versions that have been cropping up since the late 19th century, it's not subject to copyright laws and was published to inform the general public rather than make some book publisher a multimillionaire.

Regarding the political rhetoric that followed your poor reading of Christian history and belief, you'll find that outside of the kooky Independent/Private mega-churches that are common in Neo-con politics, many would agree with most if not all of what you are saying (myself included). However, your approach to addressing these problems will probably alienate most of these people, as it would anyone who actually knows any subject when they see a self-proclaimed know-it-all butcher the subject in question.

I suggest spending less time making posts about things that you are not well versed in until you've done more research. That's my piece on the matter, good day.

“My attitude toward progress has passed from antagonism to boredom. I have long ceased to argue with people who prefer Thursday to Wednesday because it is Thursday.” - G.K. Chesterton


I was about to comment before, but just shook my head. Good job.

The etymology of the word "catholic" has always been telling...

to me. Catholicus is Latin for "universal."

The Roman State wanted to create a universal religion whereby direction of the masses (no pun intended) would be facile. Testament to this reality is the great lengths they went to to convert the Zoroastrians and the Pagans.

I'm not going to, but I could add "and perform various prescribed rituals" to the first line. This would address the issue you brought up, namely - "We also do Hail Marys" (to paraphrase).

Of course, according to you I'm just some uneducated backwoods dipshit. So, take what I say with a grain of salt.

Thank you...

for vindicating my previous estimation of your understanding.

Telling me that Catholic means "universal" is like telling me that water is wet, it's a bromide under the guise of an actual argument. The Magistrate Reformers (Zwingli, Luther, Calvin, Knox, et cetera) all affirmed the Apostles Creed, which professes belief in the "catholic and apostolic church".

The goal of Christ's Church is to spread across all the world, hence Matthew 28:19 stating "Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost", otherwise there would be no point in proselytizing or in evangelism. The problem with Roman Catholicism is the "Roman" part, not that it seeks catholicity. Any congregation that truly understands what it means to be a church understands that it is part of a larger body that is beyond what they see, not just the whole world at present, but also throughout biblical and post-canon history. Rome's issue is that it elevated it's own peculiar practices above The Word, and then later elevated their patriarch to an office that does not exist anywhere in the apostolic church.

With regards to Rome's "prescribed rituals", some of these actually pertain to performing works of outward benevolence, which is what you were calling all of us to do as if we didn't already know this. You've completely missed the point of what I was talking about, as I expected. Rome calls on people to do most of the things that you were harping about, they've essentially adopted a Semi-pelagian understanding of holiness and think it's incumbent upon every person to do "this much good" in order to cancel out "that much bad". There is plenty of moral striving in various Roman Catholic churches. The issue, as I asserted before, is that they've completely warped the purpose of those works, and have created a massive political superstructure that is only concerned with outward conformity to the moral law, not an inward one, which is exactly what the Pharisees were about. There's a lot more going on here than "Hail Marys", unless that was just a hyperbolic jab.

Don't get me wrong, there are massive problems with Roman Catholicism and I think that the Papacy is a blight upon the earth. But there is a difference between knowing what is wrong and addressing it properly and simply casting aspersions to the 4 winds.

P.S. - Your educational disposition is not simply according to me, it's according to 2,000 years of church history. I've yet to see you cite a source for any of your views, which are intellectually shallow at best, so I have to assume you were educated by websites alone.

“My attitude toward progress has passed from antagonism to boredom. I have long ceased to argue with people who prefer Thursday to Wednesday because it is Thursday.” - G.K. Chesterton

Thany YOU for continually bumping my post...

Most never make it to the comments, in any case.

The pleasure is all mine.

To be honest, I haven't even read your comments in their entirety - as they bore me almost immediately upon reading the initial sentences.

The original post had to do with the intentions of Jesus. OF COURSE, Jesus once said, "One day a man - a Roman Emperor, nonetheless - named Constantine will 'convert' to Christianity. Once that occurs, you should all begin performing silly rituals. If you do that, only then, will you be admitted to the kingdom of heaven."

The edicts of the Roman Universal Church are of no immediate interest to myself. They are the edicts of man.

Again, thanks for your continuing support of my message. I cannot thank you enough.

Your hatefulness is certainly a noble example to set for those you wish to influence.


See my post below :)

DWalters, I think the spirit of your post is spot on, but as I commented below invoking Jesus is just about worse way to bring out the good in people, especially Christians of different backgrounds.