That's false on all counts. You're engaging in incorrect conjecture in regard to what he stated. Further, what Christ "would not endorse" is your conjecture and not fact.
Christianity is not about allowing society be destroyed by its internal enemies such as criminals and their syndicates, nor about blanket injustice for victims, nor about allowing foreign armies to overtake it (often destroying Christianity). How ridiculous. Although that would be a convenient misinterpretation for wayward Christians, anti-Christians and society's enemies.
Imagine giving your statement to virtually any historical Christian Society of any significant size. Such flirtation with this type of interpretation has always been fringe at best or outright secular (from Christianity's enemies), and always incorrect.
That institutions who purport themselves to be Christian support violence does not change what Christ himself taught.
I interpret Christianity to be following the teachings of Christ, rather than following post-Christ dogma that is frequently in open contradictions to Christ's teachings.
I encourage you to (re-)read the Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 5-7, particularly relevant to violence are verses 38-48) and reflect on how those words might be compatible with state-sanctioned violence of any form?
I agree with you that this interpretation is historically one that has been fringe since the Council of Nicaea. That does not mean that it is incorrect.
Do you think Christ, who commanded "Do not swear an oath", "Do not resist an evil person", and "Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you" (the word for 'enemy' here carried a nationalistic tone), would endorse any of the earlier-quoted uses of violence?
As someone who is very comfortable professing Christian ideas, I don't understand how you could present his commandments as anti-Christian. It is literally how he tells us to live.
Christianity is not about allowing society be destroyed by its internal enemies such as criminals and their syndicates, nor about blanket injustice for victims, nor about allowing foreign armies to overtake it (often destroying Christianity). How ridiculous. Although that would be a convenient misinterpretation for wayward Christians, anti-Christians and society's enemies.
Imagine giving your statement to virtually any historical Christian Society of any significant size. Such flirtation with this type of interpretation has always been fringe at best or outright secular (from Christianity's enemies), and always incorrect.