>Seriously, from where exactly you got the idea that the Romans decided Jesus was a threat and execute him for they did not like His message? Did you read a Roman paper of the time where all the details of the trial and execution were exposed? I know the question sounds mocking, but is not its intention, I really did not read that historians had found any irrefutable evidence supporting that claim, but I read that the exact nature of the charge against Jesus is not known, and almost all what I read mention that Jewish authorities at least interrogated and then accused Him before Pilates, something that was conveniently missing in your post.

On a side note, something I noticed in the story yesterday but had other pressing threads to tend to ;) - the two courts which toss the case to each other, each wanting to see a guilty verdict, but neither actually eager to be blamed for it.

I find them both out of their jurisdiction in today's terms. One is a court of an occupying power - as soon as one among the accused says he's a freedom fighter, history would see him as a victim of the oppressive regime even if he just stole eggs on the market, and the legitimacy of the court is ruined. At least in the eyes of history. All conquerors are there temporarily... or are so those they rule upon. Since we know the long term outcome (Romans:Jews = 0:1), Romans don't look too legal here.

The other court is what, a proto-Shari'a? The jurisprudence of a theocracy? And that's at a time when maybe the food was scarce, maybe the land was under a foreign rule, but prophets grew on every corner, the marketplace of ideas was overflowing, and the most important cause to fight to preserve under this foreign rule was... what, the right of local priests to pass judgment on their domestic competitors?

And I don't see the legitimacy of these two courts challenged anywhere; just the bad decision they made. Which I find quite strange. Must be one of those everyone takes for granted, eh?