Imagining the Roman Empire in a modern day post industrial revolution setting is an intreasting idea, but there's a few things the article left out. Rome had two kinds of people legally. Roman citizens and non-citizen. Rome was an expanding empire that conquered more lands. Most conquered came under Roman rule did not become citizens with the rights of a citizen. With that in mind there was a lot of corruption from those collecting taxes for Rome, and cruelty from Roman soldiers. Basically a lot of unrestrained power with no care to the conquered subjects of Rome unless they somehow became Roman citizens. As long as they paid taxes and didn't revolt, Rome didn't care what they did or how they worshiped.

Jesus wouldn't have been counted as a terrorist until much later in his ministry when the Pharasies accused him of starting His own kingdom, these subverting Rome. Up till then if Roman officials noticed Jesus they might have noticed His teachings to respect authority, and His miracles. After all if Jesus taught to respect authority within a rebellious people, I think they would support that. Even allow Jesus to clear out a temple of merchants. If they heard that Jesus could perform miracles, they'd likely respond like they did in the gospels. Hope to meet Jesus and see what He could do for them. (Or see if Jesus would do them a miracle to be let go.)

The article paints Rome in a different light then I'd say they deserve. (Not to mention misrepresenting Jesus entirely.)

As for the powers to handle terrorists. This is a growing issue for all nations right now. Some power must be given to fight terrorist and you hope those you give that power to are trustworthy. But not doing anything will result in the mounting terror that has occured across Europe. Doing nothing means easy targets to terrorists.

Was Jesus a terrorist? Of course not. What he was, was someone who started a cult. Throughout the ages, and even today, we have millions of people 'looking' for guidance or anything, because they are too inept to take control of their own lives. In one way it's not a bad thing, but I choose to believe otherwise. Just look at some of these pathetic so called religious groups. They are in fact cults. The guy at the top is very charismatic and capable of 'seducing' thousands of people, with one objective in mind, to extract money from the people and have the ability to control them. All such people wore this tag. Jesus, Mohamed and all the other so called religious leaders of one faith or another. I choose to believe there is no god. So until I get absolute proof I will stick to the scientific way of determining one of the biggest con's in the history of mankind.

To ALTRAV.

Some books that I've heard recommended for those looking for proof.

•Case for Faith or Not God's Type

•Cold-Case Christianity: A Homicide Detective Investigates the Claims of the Gospels

•Forensic Faith

•The Case for Christ: A Journalist's Personal Investigation of the Evidence for Jesus

Something I said on OLO, if it's important enough to find, then you have to search for it yourself. Don't expect a Christian or anyone of another faith to drag you to proof if you don't care about finding it anyways. If it's important to you the burden is yours to seek it out.

That said good luck. Most prople I know that try to do good within their faith aren't trying to make money from it, like a business or a cult. And in some cases people go out of their way at their own cost, to travel and help those in need while also telling the gospel. Missionaries.

Not now soon, I applaud your comments. I am not putting 'people' down I am putting the religious leaders down. People are are generally good, a little naive possibly and lacking in personal convictions, definitely. That said, I grew up in a catholic environment, boarding school, the works, so I have a history and a better knowledge of God than a majority of people. If you are eluding to the point that in 'looking' for God I will in fact find him in me, as has been previously suggested, then I'm sorry, that's not proof of God. I understand you are a believer, and good for you. I'm not going to debate if there is a God, on this post, as it is about whether Jesus was a terrorist or not. If I am to take todays definition of the word terrorist, then he definitely was not. My comments are in reply to this one question and no more. I am however curious as to what the questioner meant by this strange question. Does he/she have evidence of terrorism activity in the life of Jesus?

The action the Romans took was to imprison the apostles and persecute Christians who weren't being nice to pagan gods such as some emperors. Then some fraternal head-banging in Rome between Christian groups and religious dialogue of IRA and Prods backed up by explosive arguments led to prison.

There are local records of Anglicans assaulting Catholics at their church 120 years ago . However Jesus and Anglicans weren't arrested by NSW Police and Mozzies aren't arrested when praying in the street at Lakemba mosque. The killing time in Scotland made problems for Prods but the only persecution today is funding cuts for Catholic education with bishops assaulting Canberra. Without capital punishment Jesus should be OK.

IN the lefties eyes anyone who does not agree with them is a terrorist. IN my eyes and I suspectn strongly God's eye that anyone who assists in murdering the unborn is a murderer.