Oooow, ouch.

Maybe I should stop transcribing my Gospel and reply. Maybe I shouldn't, I probably shouldn't but I will because I'm a bad person.

Here's the thing - if you read the Gospels then you can see - very clearly - that Jesus is uninterested in the politics of the world - he even says in the gospel of Mark that he doesn't perform miracles to help people but to convince them that he wields God's power. The core message is "It doesn't matter who you were in life, what you did, how old you were or how late you came to God so long as you came to God."

Jesus is not a rebel and he does not oppose the Roman State, he is apathetic towards it, unlike the Jewish Temple which he DOES actively oppose. There is nothing in the Gospel to suggest that "Jesus always knew that his movement was too powerful for Rome, and he was the founder of a new world order." because Christianity isn't like that. See, this is what you're missing - Christianity isn't actually about life on Earth. It's not really about how you lived, it's about how you died.

Now, if you want to argue that the Roman may have had reason to execute him then you would, in fact, be correct from their point of view. One of the things the Emperor Augustus instituted was the "Imperial Cult" which involved worshipping the Emperor's "Genius", what we might call the "angle on his shoulder" and in the Eastern Provinces this was often simplified as simply worshipping the Emperor as a living God. So, refusing to worship the Emperor's Genius was a form of treason because it implied you did not have goodwill to the Emperor.

Now, according to Roman philosophy Jews were "atheists" because, from the Roman point of view, all Gods existed. When the Romans encountered a new people they either assimilated the local God as aspects of Rome's Gods or they added new minor deities to their pantheon. For Polytheists monotheists are inherently dangerous and closed minded. Obviously, Christians were subject to the same criticisms as Jews - neither believed in the Gods of other people or places, angering those Gods, and neither would worship the Emperor's Genius.

The difference between Christians and Jews was that whilst the Jews mostly kept to themselves and were not wont to induct new members into their perverse Cult the Christians went around preaching and trying to convert everyone, this threatened the stability of the state not only by potentially fracturing Roman public life (which was centred around religious ritual) but also by converting the slaves and potentially triggering another servile war.

For these reasons Christians were sporadically (but not consistently) persecuted until the time of Constantine the Great who publicly endorsed Christianity and favoured it over the traditional Roman religion.

So, yes, one might argue that the Romans had reason to execute Jesus because his religious movement threatened the State. However, there are two points you are missing.

1. This does not make Jesus an enemy of the State, and in fact Christians did not generally cause a problem for the Roman State either during Jesus's lifetime or after his death. In fact, I'm not aware of any riots with a specifically Christian element until after Christianity essentially became the State Religion and Christians became the majority.

2. During Jesus' lifetime the Christian movement was a movement within Judaism, it was only after Jesus' death that the Jews began branching out and converting good, decent Roman Citizens (most Jews in this period were non Citizens, I believe Paul was the only Apostle who was a Roman).

In summation, the only motive, according to the Christian Gospel, that the Romans had for killing Jesus was to resolve the developing schism in Judaism by beheading one of the factions and thus preventing a revolt in Palestine.

This is not generally accepted to have been a just reason to kill him and, indeed, central to the Gospel is the belief that Jesus died guiltless. Now, my understanding of the Islamic version is that Jesus does not die (but another man dies in his place) precisely because he does not deserve death. Now, I personally think that makes a mockery of the Gospel and raises serious questions about God's Goodness because a man still died, and he still wasn't guilty, it just wasn't Jesus.

A final point, it is (somewhat depressingly) possible to argue that Christianity itself has had little effect on the power structures in the countries where it has remained a dominant religion. Whilst I think it's fair to say that the belief in "Christian mercy" has had some impact, such as during the sack of Rome and after the siege of Jerusalem it never established a "New World Order" that happened after the Germanic Tribes breached the Western Limes and then later after the Arabs breached the South Eastern Limes but, in terms of administration there's little to divide Diocletian from Constantine or later genuinely Christian Emperors like Theodosius.