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?

Comment viewing options

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


Sorry, but every time Jesus is brought up on this site I lose respect for Christianity. Not necessarily Christians, because I view people as individuals, but the Christian Dogma.

What would Jesus do?

Who the heck knows, let's argue about it.

I'm not a religious man

...but I've always admired certain aspects of the Jesus story, many of which dwalters points out here. Whether he was "divine" or not, well that's up to the individaul beholder.

Thoughtful post as always, Dwalters.

*Advancing the Ideas of Liberty Daily*

Thanks Marc...

I grew up in Church, but am now agnostic.

I agree and respect a lot of what Jesus stood for. He was ahead of his time.

I haven't forgotten about the podcast. I've been meaning to get in touch with you, but I've been running around like a chicken with my head cut off.

Um that's not Jesus main purpose.

I think we'd better listen to Jesus as to His main purpose and not try to put our own actions to His motivations:

I submit John 3:14-19 "14 Just as Moses lifted up the snake in the wilderness, so the Son of Man must be lifted up,[f] 15 that everyone who believes may have eternal life in him.”[g]

16 For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. 17 For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him. 18 Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because they have not believed in the name of God’s one and only Son. 19 This is the verdict: Light has come into the world, but people loved darkness instead of light because their deeds were evil. "

Jesus purpose IS to take your place before a Holy God that must punish sinners justly.

Through His Holy Spirit lives are changed! Happy Resurrection day (late-but celebrated everyday to those who are being saved).


I thought he said a whole bunch of other stuff

About being good, and just, and loving, and temperate. How to treat people, how to pray, etc...

why did he say all that stuff?


You are probably talking about the Sermon on the Mount..

Matthew Chapters 5-7 among other things that Jesus did and said while here on earth.

These are good things, but His primary purpose (as testified by both Himself, His Apostles, John the Baptist, as well as the O.T. Prophets) was the salvation of mankind through the perfect "unblemished" sacrifice.

Really if you think about it Jesus turns on it's head the concept of KARMA (though this isn't a Christian concept), but put into our language: "you get what you deserve", He didn't deserve death and judgment, but we do (from a Holy God), and YET He voluntarily took our place..


Dude! I'm talking about his whole life.

How do you think he was unblemished. Just because he was born without sin?

Why bother facing down temptation?


1 Peter 1: 19-21

This is but three Bible verses in this chapter of 1st Peter, but I suggest reading the whole ch. at home yourself it very much pertains to this thread.

"19 but with the precious blood of Christ, a lamb without blemish or defect. 20 He was chosen before the creation of the world, but was revealed in these last times for your sake. 21 Through him you believe in God, who raised him from the dead and glorified him, and so your faith and hope are in God."



Jesus had no intent of fixing

Jesus had no intent of fixing the corrupt system of this world. He came to fulfill God's law.

Jesus was crucified and died as an atonement for the sins of the World. That was God's plan all along.

Jesus accomplished his mission.

John 19:30 "It is finished"

What about the great

What about the great commission? Matthew records that not only repentance for forgiveness of sins but also teaching them everything. Not to mention the book of Acts showing the example. I think the fixing of the corrupt system is a natural extension as the kingdom of God grows. Read all of Jesus' description of how the kingdom of God grows and how Paul explains it. God is the one giving the growth so to speak. I think he uses the Holy Spirit to work through regenerated individuals. So it is not us but God who is going to fix the corruption. That change starts with our own relationship renewing with God and extends out to our family and friends. Again it is natural in that God gives the growth and we do not know how our love for others will end up affecting our world but we act in love on faith.

Then why did he bother living for so long

Why didn't he just die when he got here?

Jesus taught us what exactly? Or did he teach us nothing? Why bother reading any of the gospels at all if at the end of the day, John 3:16 is the only verse that matters.

So if I just go to some sap on the street and tell him to accept that Jesus is his lord and savior, and he does, is he now saved?

What if I don't teach him about who Jesus was, or what he did while he was here. Does that person know Jesus? Or does he just know a name?


There are a number of reasons for this.

Jesus' sacrifice was very specifically accomplished according to prophecy, and the whole of the Gospel message is wrapped up in that prophecy. The long and short of it is, Jesus' purpose was multifaceted, but can be reduced to that of a mediator between God and man in order to redress sin. This was accomplished by him being born without the curse of sin (hence the virgin birth, as sin is passed from father to son), and keeping the moral law perfectly the way it should have been kept in the early books of Genesis by Adam, which involved resisting the same kinds of temptations that the serpent laid forth in the garden (this was what the 3 temptations in the wilderness was about).

Having said that, the relationship between the moral law and God's grace is two-fold. It has a monergistic application with regard of being elect and given a specific grace that allows one to properly understand the Gospel (John 6:37; John 15:16; Mark 13:20; Matthew 11:25-27; Luke 14:23; to speak nothing for the countless examples found in Paul's writings), but once this is accomplished, there is a synergistic application in which the believer is now expected to follow the law (John 14:15; Matthew 19:16-19; and several others, including a good chunk of James). This is what Protestantism and the early church fathers teach regarding the 2nd and 3rd uses of the law, the 3rd being the one that a Christian should adhere to, where the commandments, though they can not be perfectly kept, cease to be a curse and instead become a rule for life and are expected to be followed to the best of one's ability.

There's a lot of nuance involved in the questions that you've thrown out here, but one thing that I think you're dead on about is that Christianity, especially in America, has reduced itself to a joke by thinking that John 3:16 is the verse that destroys every other part of the bible and renders any doctrine or historical understanding of the faith unnecessary.

“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

Very nice!

Was not prepared for a rational discussion about Christianity on this website. Libertarians tend to be so far off the mark when it comes to spirituality. Either they are crazy atheists, or crazy evangelicals.

Why is this? They seem to be the only ones awake to everything else.

Now, how about that his death was a product of him being mortal. He was born of the virgin, and became man. His death was inevitable from that moment. His life and death were the same gift. His time spent on earth just as important as his conception, death, and resurrection. However, if you look behind at Christ the man who lived a life of perfect purity, that seems to be the most lasting part of the gift for it was his teachings that give us direction(standing by patiently for shoes to be hurled at my head).

You see, because Jesus life was a life of peace, and sovereignty. He battled with evil just as any man, but he won as only Jesus can do, and in doing so gave us all a spiritual helping of a little bit of heaven.

Something to chew on?


Much obliged.

I am fairly brazen at times, particularly when dealing with the two groups you mentioned, but I consider myself a student of systematic theology, so I place a higher emphasis on understanding things rather than engaging in circular flame-wars.

As to your question regarding why atheists and the American evangelical crowd approach things the way they do, sometimes it can be a matter of personalities, but I would largely argue that both views ignore a lot of important information because it is seen as either meaningless or merely peripheral. Granted, my beliefs as a Reformed Presbyterian are very different from most of what constitutes the Bible Belt, and it is also in direct contrast to what materialism and secular humanism espouse. I am a card carrying Libertarian and a proud Paul supporter going back to early 2007, but I think I'm something of an outlier when it comes to the other stuff.

I would say that your take on Jesus' life and death, I would agree with the general idea that you can't separate the moral teachings from the supernatural aspects of the Gospel message, and that people who think that behaving in a manner contrary to natural/moral law isn't a problem for them spiritually are in a very bad way. Likewise, I would argue that simply dwelling upon the rigorous keeping of moral laws outwardly without considering one's inner inclinations spiritually or the supernatural aspects of Christianity is little different from being a morally-refined secular humanist.

Also, I would argue that Jesus' mortality and death was 100% voluntary, ergo that given the supernatural abilities he demonstrated via his miracles, no amount of physical damage or abuse could have killed him absent him willingly "giving up the ghost" (as stated in Matthew 27:50 and Luke 23:46). So he was different from the rest of us in that while also having the divine nature that comes with his union with God the Father by his conception, he was not subject to the corrupt nature that we have inherited from Adam, so his death and mortality was very different from the one that natural man experiences, particularly fallen, unregenerate man.

I would say it is true that because of the moral obedience that comes with a greater prevalence of the Gospel message, the world gets better. However, any sense of heaven on earth is short and fleeting, there is a long way to go given the current state of things.

“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 appreciate your perspective

In my personal theology, Jesus' mortality is what John 3:16 is all about. The way I understand it, Jesus needed to become man to give us the gift of his mortal life and death.

The question of whether or not Jesus was mortal is as seminal as whether or not Jesus became man.

I think about why it was so important for Jesus to become man. Why couldn't he have accomplished the same thing through the prophets, or why didn't he just be god incarnate. The answer that I have concluded is that without becoming man, his moral teachings would have been much less impressive. The idea was to show man a life filled with the love of Christ and perfect pure morality. He gave us the love of Christ and he personalized his love in a way very accessible to mankind.

When I think about god, I take great care to remember that god is not a dirty. God is beyond the capacity of human comprehension. We must diefy and personalize him(it), because its the only way us simple minded humans can make his existence accessible to our rational.

Then I think about how we like to assign arbitrary human characteristics to god. Personality, emotion, purpose, etc...

This is why it makes sense to me that Jesus was mortal. To help express moral law in ways that we understand.

Hope I didn't confuse you. Sometimes I trip over my thoughts.


How does a person know Jesus

Having head knowledge of Jesus does not save a person. The Bible tells us that even the demons believe, but they will not spend eternity with Him.

Don't Believe Like the Demons Believe!

In the past I would have told you I was saved, but my lifestyle did not reflect that. I acknowledged what He did on the cross but was not sorry for my sins. Many people think they are good people, but when we look at The Ten Commandments and use that to measure our goodness by we all come up very short. Jesus came to set us free from sin Romans 8:1-39 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans+8%3A1-39&...

This is a great video: Genius - The Movie

Genius-The Movie starts out by asking questions/sharing about John Lennon/Beatles and shows you in the end your need for Jesus.

It's good you are asking questions Séamusín. I pray you come to Jesus who is The Way,The Truth and The Life. John 14:6



"And Jesus knew their thoughts, and said unto them, Every kingdom divided against itself is brought to desolation; and every city or house divided against itself shall not stand." Matthew 12:25

Amen! It is finished!

Petra - It Is Finished - The Passion of the Christ - with lyrics


"And Jesus knew their thoughts, and said unto them, Every kingdom divided against itself is brought to desolation; and every city or house divided against itself shall not stand." Matthew 12:25

Yahshua had a specific purpose

and it was not to fight the established secular government. His message was simple. "Return to Scriptural Lawfulness". Physical violence would do nothing to further that message since it is a matter of Spiritual choice.

He did not come to destroy the government or force beliefs on people. He came to give all people a choice. Repent and receive salvation or continue in worldly sin and die. Sadly most people choose to live in worldly sin.

The State did consider Yahshua a threat but in the end they found no fault in Him. As a matter of fact Pilate sought to have Him released. In the end it was the self proclaimed religious leaders who demanded that He be crucified.

In due time you will see plenty of death and violence when He returns to finally put an end to worldly governments and false religeous teachings in His Name. People have had time to make their choice and the end of mans reign over men is coming to an end.

Finally we will have the righteous Monarchy and finally rid ourselves of the satanic "democratic" government model that has taken over the world.

The state is just a legal way to use force for your convenience

The state was the tool that the Pharisees used to achieve their own end. The state is not an entity, it is a psychological tool used by the ruling class to hurt us and steal from us.


Ill answer your last question

The Jewish Pharisees influenced the general Jewish public to crucify him.
The Pahrisees had been testing him to get him in a trap where they could rightfully kill him for months.

The Romans let him go, remember?

The Jewish leaders KNEW he was a bigger threat to them than the ACTUAL Romans because he REMOVED their control over their public.

Jackson County Georgia

War is an instrument entirely inefficient toward redressing wrong; and multiplies, instead of indemnifying losses.
Thomas Jefferson

I've modified the post to reflect your suggestion...

However, I find it hard to believe the Romans had nothing to do with his crucifixion.

Once the Roman Universal Church was formed, they had free rein to modify the story as they wished. I can hear them saying now, "Let's blame this entire crucifixion mess on the Jews. Perhaps one day it will come in handy if we decide to persecute them under the guise of religion. It would be silly for us to take credit."

I digress, though, since we cannot truly know.

You might be right on the Roman side

since the Romans obviously facilitated a rather quick arrest, trial and sentencing. Also, Paul Maier (historian/Josephus scholar) indicates that Pilate used distraction/camouflage to avoid an uprising early that Friday morning.

Why Pilate did this is consistent with the large pro-Jesus Jewish crowd that the Scriptures show during the palm branch procession into Jerusalem.

... ?

Re: "Once the Roman Universal Church was formed, they had free rein to modify the story as they wished"

When do you believe this happened? How do you account for christian groups who existed outside of the influence of or in opposition to the western church and yet held the same fundamental beliefs about the history of Jesus.? And what of early manuscripts and early patristic quotations which validate later beliefs?

Oh yes we can.

Two things here:

1. The Roman Catholic Church did not exist until the 16th century, and even after it came into existence, it did not control all of Christendom (you forget the Eastern Orthodox, along with proto-Protestant groups like the Hussites in Bohemia and the Waldensians in Northern Italy, along with other figures such as John Wycliffe). You won't understand anything about Christian history if your only source is a paranoid fruitcake like Jordan Maxwell.

2. The Jewish political establishment was, with few exceptions, the proud enemy of Christianity and goaded the Roman Emperors of the early church period to persecute Christians by openly lying about their desires to politically overthrow the Roman political system. Furthermore, if you want a really good idea as to why Judaism and Christianity have had a rocky relationship, crack open the Babylonian Talmud and look into what it says about how Christians and Gentiles should be treated, it'll probably make you want to puke.

“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

Jesus used violence when he drove the money changers....

from the temple. He wasn't the pacifist you're making him out to be.

That is the ONLY account of Jesus employing physical force and..

it wasn't an act against the State - which is what my post was concerned with.

I don't promote pacifism. I think force is justified in the case of immediate and necessary defense. However, 99% of problems can be resolved without resorting to it.

Besides that, from reading the associated scriptures, it seems to me that Jesus simply made a cord whip and chased the changers from the temple while turning over the changers' tables during the process. It seems, so to say, he put the fear of god into them.


It's notable that Jesus approved of the carrying of weapons at least at some point: Luke 22:38 "And they said, Lord, behold, here are two swords. And he said unto them, It is enough."

There are passages where Jesus uses aggression(e.g. smiting, wrath, making war) in the form of judgement:

Revelation 19:11-16 "And I saw heaven opened, and behold a white horse; and he that sat upon him was called Faithful and True, and in righteousness he doth judge and make war. His eyes were as a flame of fire, and on his head were many crowns; and he had a name written, that no man knew, but he himself. And he was clothed with a vesture dipped in blood: and his name is called The Word of God. And the armies which were in heaven followed him upon white horses, clothed in fine linen, white and clean. And out of his mouth goeth a sharp sword, that with it he should smite the nations: and he shall rule them with a rod of iron: and he treadeth the winepress of the fierceness and wrath of Almighty God. And he hath on his vesture and on his thigh a name written, KING OF KINGS, AND LORD OF LORDS."

I don't think Jesus is a pacifist. I think he was just self controlled and allowed things to happen to him on purpose to achieve a specific goal.

But at the same time Christians are supposed to endure certain injustices:

1Peter 2:18 "Servants, be subject to your masters with all fear; not only to the good and gentle, but also to the froward."
1Peter 3:14 "But and if ye suffer for righteousness' sake, happy are ye: and be not afraid of their terror, neither be troubled;"
1Samuel 15:23 "For rebellion is as the sin of witchcraft, and stubbornness is as iniquity and idolatry. Because thou hast rejected the word of the LORD, he hath also rejected thee from being king."

The question is, what makes someone your master? If a rapist points a gun at you, I don't think that makes them your master. Daniel honored his pagan Anti-jewish king, but at the same time practiced civil disobedience, and violated laws which conflicted with God's law.

I like your post.

I also think Jesus would do an extended face-palm if he came back and could see all the nonsense carried on in his name.

He'd say under his breath...
"Jesus, you guys just don't get it"

I agree his original message "do as I do" should be followed.


I challenge the down-voters to comment...

I just imagine when the State advocated the murder of the Muslim people at the turn of the century, you were on board.

I suppose it's A-OK for the State to employ Jesus' message for a tool of violence. However, God forbid if one uses Jesus' message as a tool for non-violent resistance against tyranny - which Jesus undeniably advocated.

I'm awaiting your reply.

It's easy to down-vote. It's much more difficult to legitimately defend your position.

Just because what is written makes you uncomfortable doesn't make the words any less true.

Still waiting.