Jesus was not seen as a threat in His own lifetime, which is why Pilate, in knowing that Jesus was innocent of any crime, wanted to release Him. It was the clever politics of Jesus' opponents who backed Pilate into a corner.
The Jewish religious leaders had power over Pilate in two areas. Pilate had previously been in trouble with Caesar about his inflexible attitude and disrespect for Jewish religious customs. Contrary to the normal Roman tradition, he showed no respect for Jewish religious sensitivities. When they complained to Rome, the was a swift rebuke to Pilate and a warning not to repeat the offense. Further to this, Pilate was known to be friends with one Sejanus, who was implicated in a plot against Caesar. This is why, when the Jews said 'If you let this man go, you are not Caesar's friend', he understood the implications. He stood to lose his position and possibly his life if the Jews complained again.
Thus Jesus himself was no threat to Rome. In any case, as He plainly stated directly to Pilate, 'My kingdom is not of this world,' so Jesus' intentions were not focused on earthly political power.
If you refer to later times, the Christians, as followers of Jesus Christ, were seen as being a sub-culture and as not honoring the state gods, and so were looked at with suspicion. This however came later.
He was a threat to King Herod in actually fact, because there was supposed rumours that Jesus would take his place as king, but the Romans were thought to be anti-semetic at the time and so as Jesus was Jewish and a Jewish leader, they persecuted him.
There is no suggestion that the Romans ever considered the teachings of Jesus to be a threat to them. True, by the latter part of the third century, concerns were being raised about the loyalty of Christians to the empire, but Jesus had never taught disloyalty.
At first, the Romans tended to ignore the Christians. Although Nero, probably unfairly, blamed the Christians of Rome for the Great Fire, there was no general persecution of Christians outside Rome. Early in the second century, Emperor Trajan instructed Pliny that Christians were not to be sought out for punishment - hardly the instruction an emperor afraid of Christian teachings would give.
They didn't. At the time that Jesus lived the Romans had very little dealings with him. In fact they didn't even know who he was. That's why when it came time to arrest Jesus they had to have someone (Judas) point him out. It was only a certain group of Jewish authorities who perceived Jesus as a threat and so acted against him.
First, let it be understood that Jesus was not feared by the Romans. At the time of Jesus, Rome was the predominant political power in the west and feared nothing especially an itinerant Jewish preacher from Galilee. He was feared, however, by certain Jewish priests as they perceived his teachings to be a threat to their power and position.
If Jesus was seen as a genuine threat in Rome, we would find evidence of Roman interest in Jesus somewhere in the records. Yet, during the lifetime of Jesus, no official mention of him can be found. At most, he would have been seen as a Jewish problem, to be solved by the Jewish authorities. Even the governor of Judea would only have taken an interest, at a purely local level, if Jesus was seen as a threat to the security of Roman rule, something which New Testament tells us was not the case. So, Jesus was not seen as a threat in Rome.
Cause the romen rulers tried to stamp out Christianity by killing its followers.
The do not seem to have had one.
Edward Gibbon suggested that Constantine's conversion to Christianity was one of the principal causes of the fall of the western Roman Empire, which ceased to exist 139 years after his death. At first glance this may seem so far removed from the time of Constantine as to preclude a direct relationship, but Constantine put in place a process that was irreversible. Another impact of Constantine's conversion to Christianity was the eventual conversion of the Roman Empire to Christianity, although once again this did not really occur until long after his death.
No. England does not have a communist government. It may seem like it but no.
There were three governments in Ancient Rome: there was the Roman monarchy, the Roman Republic, and the Roman Empire. The Roman Monarchy (753 BC--509 BC) was your average monarchy. The Roman Republic (509 BC--27 BC) was a Representative form of government. The Roman Empire (27 BC-AD 476) formed when the Roman Republic was removed (some accounts claim by Julius Caesar).
A:This is news to me. Most liberals in the United States are actually Christians.
In our post-modern society, the past impact of the Crusades seem to dim the truth and light of christianity. They distorted the message of christianity and used religion to pursue carnal goals.
Christianity as it is know today was first upon the earth when Adam was taught the gospel. You seem to be implying that a date can be put to its first being referred to as Christianity. Perhaps to do so it might be acceptable then to say that it started either during Christs ministry or after the death of Christ.
It might seem different, but the Romans would make lamb pudding.
The government seem to incur debts in various cases. Some of the common situations is when there is war and any other national issue that requires huge funding like elections among others.
'Quo vadis' is what you seem to be asking. It is not in the Bible but the apocryphal book of the Acts of Peter.
There does not seem to be a correlation between the type of government and terrorism. This is because the causes of terrorism are many, and can be found in all forms of government. And, of course, the type of government that terrorism targets also seems to have little to do with the reasons terrorists targets them. That is, all forms of government seem to spawn terrorist groups, and all forms of government seem to fall victim to them, and a reasonably equal rate. I know of no study that has shown any link between the governmental form and terrorism, either as a cause or target.