Short list of accusations that would be made against Jesus

[Kidlicious]

I have no doubt that many (non-christian) Trumpsters, alt-right or otherwise ultraconservative or rightwing persons might accuse Jesus of the things I listed

You need to learn modern lingo.

[Proteus_MST]

Again, ACCUSED.

Again, doesn't matter ...
considering the racism among a large part of the right wing, it is very probably that a portion of them will hold it against Jesus, that he was no white
(at least among that part of the right wing, that doesn't still buy into the myth, that Jesus was a white conservative capitalist, who most probably would have voted for Trump)

[giblets]

Those are all false accusations.

So it's in keeping with the list you provided.

[Lorizael]

14) Jew
15) Criminal

Those are all false accusations.

Uh, no.

[Kidlicious]

Again, doesn't matter ...
considering the racism among a large part of the right wing, it is very probably that a portion of them will hold it against Jesus, that he was no white
(at least among that part of the right wing, that doesn't still buy into the myth, that Jesus was a white conservative capitalist, who most probably would have voted for Trump)

Otoh, think about a Christian claiming to be the Son of God. That would be all over fake news.

[Kidlicious]

Uh, no.

But when people accuse him of being a criminal it is a false accusation because he had to break the laws.

[Proteus_MST]

But when people accuse him of being a criminal it is a false accusation because he had to break the laws.

I have no doubts that violently driving merchants out from the temple court and destroyng their merchant stalls was breaking both, roman as well as judaean law
Likewise he broke the Sabbath laws (not sure if it was instituted as civil law, but it surely was a religious law) in the interpretation that the Sanhedrin used at that time

Likewise, being regarded as a criminal (no matter whether it is "False prophet" according to the Sanhedrin, or "Agitator" according to the romans) resulted in his execution

[Kidlicious]

I have no doubts that violently driving merchants out from the temple court and destroyng their merchant stalls was breaking both, roman as well as judaean law
Likewise he broke the Sabbath laws (not sure if it was instituted as civil law, but it surely was a religious law) in the interpretation that the Sanhedrin used at that time

Likewise, being regarded as a criminal (no matter whether it is "False prophet" according to the Sanhedrin, or "Agitator" according to the romans) resulted in his execution

This is the perspective of a non-believer. As the actual authority of the Temple it was his right to kick out merchants. The only issue would be proving it in court which would be no problem.

[Proteus_MST]

This is the perspective of a non-believer. As the actual authority of the Temple it was his right to kick out merchants. The only issue would be proving it in court which would be no problem.

Of course it is from the perspective of an unbeliever, as it is the onl objective perspective one can tae here..

The local religious authorities didn't accept Jesus as messiah, insofar they didn't accept his claim to be the owner of the temple.

Likewise, roman civil law surely didn't distinguish whether one was a prophet/messiah or whether one was a simple person ... they would only have looked at what had Jesus done (destroying the wares and stalls of merchants (priced hundreds of roman Denars or Shekels), likewise probably harmng the merchants themselves) and used this in order to establish whether or not Jesus was a criminal (which btw. is another thing, i.e.that the damages done weren't done to the temple, but to independent merchants, so even if he claimed possession over the temple, the merchandise and the merchants wouldn't be his property)

Look at it in nowadays terms ... if someone in the US would go to a Megachurch and there would whip the merchants/pastors/congregation and destroy all displays where they have bibles or Jesus merchandise for sale and, while doing so, would claim to be Jesus/God/Archangel Gabriel (or whatever divine/angelic personality), then an US court also wouldn't waste any time checking whether the claims of the accused (to be a divine/angelic personality) is true ... the court would only look at the damages done (in terms of money and/or injuries), wwho is in possession of the damaged wares and/or the church (which isn't good/jesus) and assess whether it was actually he accused person who did it ... and afterwards rightfully term the accused person as guilty

[Kidlicious]

And he is the Lord of the Sabbath ....

The Lord of the Sabbath is an expression describing Jesus which appears in all three Synoptic Gospels, Matthew 12:1-8, Mark 2:23-28 and Luke 6:1-5. These sections each relate an encounter between Jesus, his Apostles and the Pharisees, the first of the four "Sabbath controversies".^[1]

[Kidlicious]

Of course it is from the perspective of an unbeliever, as it is the onl objective perspective one can tae here..

The local religious authorities didn't accept Jesus as messiah, insofar they didn't accept his claim to be the owner of the temple.

Likewise, roman civil law surely didn't distinguish whether one was a prophet/messiah or whether one was a simple person ... they would only have looked at what had Jesus done (destroying the wares and stalls of merchants (priced hundreds of roman Denars or Shekels), likewise probably harmng the merchants themselves) and used this in order to establish whether or not Jesus was a criminal

Look at it in nowadays terms ... if someone in the US would go to a Megachurch and there would whip the merchants/pastors/congregation and destroy all displays where they have bibles or Jesus merchandise for sale and, while doing so, would claim to be Jesus/God/Archangel Gabriel (or whatever divine/angelic personality), then an US court also wouldn't waste any time checking whether the claims of the accused (to be a divine/angelic personality) is true ... the court would only look at the damages done (in terms of money and/or injuries), wwho is in possession of the damaged wares and/or the church (which isn't good/jesus) and assess whether it was actually he accused person who did it ... and afterwards rightfully term the accused person as guilty

Oh so only your perspective is valid?

Whether or not he had authority to do those things is determined in court. The only perspective that actually matters is the judge.

[Aeson]

Things Kid would accuse Jesus of if he posted on Poly:

- soft on crime
- deep state agent
- illegal immigrant
- terrorist sympathizer
- SJW
- sociopath
- cuck
- liberal
- Communist
- Nazi
- worse than Hitler

[Proteus_MST]

Oh so only your perspective is valid?

Whether or not he had authority to do those things is determined in court. The only perspective that actually matters is the judge.

As I added in my original posting:
It doesn't even matter, whether or not he successfully could claim possession of the temple.

The merchants were independent of the temple (local shepherds/farmers/craftsmen) and neither them no their wares were in possession of the temple (also they were on the temple ground with permission of the priesthood).
So, no matter whether Jesus could claim that the temple was his property or not, any roman court couldn't anything else than judge him as a criminal, because the merchants and their wares which he injured/damaged weren't owned by him

[Kidlicious]

As I added in my original posting:
It doesn't even matter, whether or not he successfully could claim possession of the temple.

The merchants were independent of the temple (local shepherds/farmers/craftsmen) and neither them no their wares were in possession of the temple (also they were on the temple ground with permission of the priesthood).
So, no matter whether Jesus could claim that the temple was his property or not, any roman court couldn't anything else than judge him as a criminal, because the merchants and their wares which he injured/damaged weren't owned by him

Unless the money changers were Roman citizens I don't think you're right. I don't believe that he just started turning over tables. He told them to leave and they refused. At that point he had the authority to force them out.

[Lorizael]

If only we had security camera footage of the incident. Then we'd really be able to clear this whole thing up.