Jesus Christ

The only known recorded instance of a Roman Centurion's opinion after Jesus was crucified was of the one who was set to guard the cross at the time of Christ's death. At the moment Jesus died the sky darkened, there was an earthquake and the curtian in the Temple of Jerusalem tore in two from top to bottom. The Centurion was awestruck and declared 'Truly this man was the Son of God!' Whether he went on to become a Christian is unknown.

The opinions of other Centurions is not clear- a Centurion was a high-ranking military officer in charge of a hundred men, something equivalent to a Major in a modern army, so the fact that one was placed to guard Christ's cross indicates just how seriously the Roman authorities took 'the Jesus phenomenon' for want of a better expression. I would imagine that they differed in their opinions- some with ridicule, some with indifference, some with a certain amount of pity, but they would mostly have gone on to live out their lives as military officers until they retired. Some may have converted to early Christianity in later life- but Roman soldiers were not known for their humanitarian feelings. All young Roman men had to do a period of national service lasting 3 years as legionaries, but after that they had a choice as to whether to leave the army and follow a civilian career, or stay on with higher military career prospects, good salaries and positions of high command that could, later on, lead to a political career. Those who chose to remain were usually hard, tough men, battle-seasoned and used to extreme violence and bloodshed. But that doesn't mean that they were incapable of feelings of mercy and pity at times.

I am no religious expert, but I believe the reason is because Jesus was betrayed by someone close to him, who was Jewish. Of course, I believe everyone that was close to him was Jewish. So it's kind like me saying "the Mexicans are out to get me" because there's a guy named Hector who is Mexican and is out to get me. Any time you say the (insert large group here) did something because of the actions of a few you are way off base.

According to the Cambridge Ancient History (Volume XI The High Empire 70AD - 192AD) Jerusalem was razed and its inhabitants killed or enslaved after the end of the First Roman-Jewish War. Land was confiscated, although some was sold to the original owners. Jews still inhabited Galilee, Transjordan and parts of the Judean countryside in large numbers. So, those Jews allowed to remain free were not banished. It was after the Second Roman-Jewish War (132 CE) that Jews were forbidden to reside in Aelia Capitolina (formerly Jerusalem) or its territory, resulting in a significant depopulation of Judea.

Most houses were simple constructions like a cube. They usually consisted of just one (or sometimes two) rooms where all the living, eating sleeping and so on took place. Poorer families who couldn't afford the use of an outside 'room' or cave also shared their homes with their livestock - so everything could get rather smelly especially in the summer heat of Galilee. The roof was usually made of rushes woven together - to protect from the night cold and also the daytime heat. Windows and doorways were small - again for protection from the weather. Doorways had wooden doors in them that could be locked with primitive wooden locks; windows were just open rectangular holes with no glass as glass was extremely expensive.

Occasionally (depending upon the area of the country) the roof was solid, and surrounded by a low parapet and access was by a stone stairway at the side of the house. Here was extra living space but it was open to the sky so not much use except in dry, warm weather.

Upper enclosed rooms were rare; that is why, when Jesus arranged his Last Supper in an upper room, it was easy for the disciples to find within the town as there wouldn't have been very many.

Similarly, when we hear in the Christmas story of Jesus being born in a 'stable' this was almost certainly untrue as scripture makes no reference to a stable. All it says is that Jesus was laid in a manger because there was no room in the inn. This would nean that Jesus would have been born either in a cave nearby for the animals, or in the house itself, in the one room that was shared with the livestock. Looking at the context of the writing, it seems that the inn may have had several rooms, (as it was an inn) and therefore it is likely that the owner could also have afforded the use of a cave for his livestock - so jesus would have been born here.

In those days the difference between rich and poor was just as wide - or even wider - than today. The poor lived in lowly dwellings so far described, but the rich lived in opulent splendour, judging by archaeological finds on sited such as the site of Herod's palace, and other similar holdings.

Jn. 19:38 Joseph of Arimathea, who had been a secret disciple of Jesus (because he feared the Jewish leaders), asked Pilate for permission to take down Jesus' body. When Pilate gave permission, Joseph came and took the body away.

A number of individual Romans either met or knew who Jesus was. Pilate certainly met Him on the day of Jesus' trial. A centurion who asked Jesus to heal his servant also did, and also had evidently heard of Him as a healer previously. But in a wider context, Jesus was just another Jewish teacher and not significant politically to the Romans, as the Christians later were.

Here is are two verses of Scripture in Luke 3 that answers your question:

Now in the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar, Pontius Pilate being governor of Judaea, and Herod being tetrarch of Galilee, and his brother Philip tetrarch of Ituraea and of the region of Trachonitis, and Lysanias the tetrarch of Abilene,

Annas and Caiaphas being the high priests, the word of God came unto John the son of Zacharias in the wilderness.

(John is the one who baptised Jesus)

Rome is believed to have begun in the year 753 BC - Ab Urbe Condita - founding of the City.

Many scholars date Jesus' birth to the year 4 BC, shortly after the Jewish New Year began, near the Feast of Trumpets.

Given the above, we have 753-4= 749 years between the two events and the age of Rome.

You need to say where and by who because many people have depicted Christ in painting, writing etc in various ways

Simply because He loves us. see John 3:16.

Recent statistics show that the proportion of people in Poland who attend church regularly could be as low as 41 per cent. Although religion was vibrant under communist rule, it seems that democracy has had a strongly negative effect in some parts of Poland. Around 95 per cent of Poles are counted as at least nominally Christian. The number who actually hold religious beliefs would be a good deal higher than 41 per cent, but does seem to be declining.

"Off the rack" was not really an option in first century Jerusalem. Most clothing was homemade with design and fabric being very basic, unless of course for the wealthy. They could afford better fabrics that were colored with expensive dyes.

In the second chapter of Matthew (The Gospel of), it is explained the King Herod (who was appointed by Rome, and was not a King of authentic Israeli heritage) called for "the wise men" who had come to follow up on a prophecy (actually several, concerning the birth of the Messiah, who was later known to be Jesus). The wise men (or some representatives) discussed the prophecies in some unknown limited scope. Herod may have followed up with others concerning the details of these prophecies. The orders to kill the infants were apparently contrived to assure the death of the Messiah, which of course we know simply failed. Obviously Herod believed in prophecy only as much as many modern skeptics, thinking he could bend their final outcome. Herod is mentioned in the other of the 3 synoptics (3 of the 4 Gospel accounts are called this due to much overlapping information, or perhaps more because the fourth Gospel is so distinct in its style). Herod's name does not appear in the Gospel of John.

He recognised the pantheon of gods of the Greek world - with Zeus as the father god, and other gods and goddesses each with their own specialised functions. He also recognised that the gods of other peoples and cultures were the same as those of the reek pantheon, and gave them due hour.

This was usual. Later when Pompey the Great captured Jerusalem, he immediately went to the temple and sacrificed to Jehovah, recognising that this was the same high god as Jupiter and Zeus.

It is only with the rise of the exclusivist religions of Judaism and its offshoots Christianity and Islam that claims of supremacy have led to religious wars, killings and persecution.

Christ was born during the reign of Augustus.

Pontius Pilate. He gave Jesus over to the Jewish leaders to be crucified, not because he belived Jesus to be guilty, but because he was afraid the Jewish leaders would cause more unrest in the region if he didn't. As the governorship of Judea was almost a punishment, he was looking to his own career when he made the decision.

Well christains think that money isn't really important in life .

They think more about our world for example they more like the plants and life.

But some of them might be christains but they still like money because it may not always be in a bad way .

Some may like money because they need it .

Others want it because they want to be rich but most of the christains think that money isn't everything and if you don't have a lot of it than there is no point in living "Blessed be ye poor" (Luke vi, 20). "Woe unto you that are rich" (24). Poverty is a curse; wealth, honestly acquired and wisely used is a blessing. "The rich man's wealth is his strong city the destruction of the poor is their poverty" (Proverbs x, l5).

Since Jesus said, "Many there be which go in there" we have to assume there will be a lot. To narrow it down further, Jesus said, "Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not done many marvelous things in your name and he will say, Depart from me for I never knew you." Then, he said about heaven, "Few there be which go in there." So the obvious conclusion is, a majority of people will die without Christ and be lost forever in hell. Based on this, I would have to conclude that perhaps 75% of the people will die without Christ.

Yes He was and He stayed that way.

Well they accused Jesus cause he was telling the future like bad things would start to happen so they were getting sick of it cause they thaught he was lying and the 1 night they found a friend who knew Jesus and asked him where he was he refused to tell but that's until they gave him a bag of coins they found him took him to trial and they made a choice let the people pick who to crucify Jesus of NAZERETH or some guy in prison they all picked Jesus except for his family. and the reason they killed Jesus was cause if you watch the movie passion of the christ Jesus say he's the son of god and they don't belive him they just think he's an imposter and then at the end of the movie when the clouds turn black and the ground starts shaking they start screaming HE IS THE SON OF GOD

The Roman Governor of the time Pontius Pilate agreed to the demands of the Jewish religious leaders to have Jesus crucified.

Some have questioned the veracity of the account given the Roman sense of justice and in particular what is known of Pilate. On a number of occasions he demonstrated a tendency to be rather ruthless and heartless and unheeding of Jewish sensitivities and demands. He even caused some pagan votive shields to be erected in Herod's Palace, which caused great offense and protest, to which he would not yield. The Jews then threatened to complain to Caesar, which, when Pilate remained unmoved they duly did. Caesar was apparently incensed by Pilate's attitude, since the Roman way was always to accommodate the customs of the local people they conquered whenever possible. Caesar sent off a stern letter to Pilate the very night he received the letter from the Jews - ordering him to remove the shields.

Further to all this Pilate was a personal friend of one Sejanus who was implicated in a plot against Caesar. This fact, together with the previous episode, which had occurred before Jesus' trial both put Pilate himself in an extremely precarious position politically.

Both of these facts explain the wavering attitude of Pilate, who went against natural Roman justice in condemning an innocent man as well as his natural inclination to not give an inch to the Jews. When the Jews said to him 'if you set this man free you are not Caesar's friend' the implication was absolutely clear. Pilate's position and even his own life may have been on the line had the Jews again complained to Caesar. Thus he caved in to their wishes.

The Biblical account, together with some knowledge of the background, is evidently highly accurate in how it depicts the scene of Jesus' trial and illegal condemnation and execution.

The Romans crucified Jesus because this was part of God's plan of redemption for mankind. God has said without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sin.

"so Christ was offered once to bear the sins of many. To those who eagerly wait for Him He will appear a second time, apart from sin, for salvation". - Hebrews 9:28