Jesus Lives

KGBeast · #1 June 1st, 2012, 06:25 PM

How would the world have changed if Pontius Pilate had spared Jesus on the Cross and instead of dying a marthyr lives to an old age of 55? Would Christianity still be the dominant religion in the Western World without that one death?

LSCatilina · #2 June 1st, 2012, 06:26 PM

Well, admitting Jesus existed for the sake of the OP, it would butterfly the whole point of Christianity as we know it : redemption of sins by Blood of God.

Maybe it could evolve into a little short-lived rabbinic sect.

Dan1988 · #3 June 2nd, 2012, 12:57 AM

That would actually be contrary to Pilate's character, as he was pretty brutal as prefect. Yeshwa, to Pilate, was just another zealot challenging Roman rule, and of course Rome doesn't accept challenges to its rule so they made an example out of Yeshwa. I don't see any reason for Pilate wanting to spare him, honestly.

Mike Stearns · #4 June 2nd, 2012, 01:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dan1988

That would actually be contrary to Pilate's character, as he was pretty brutal as prefect. Yeshwa, to Pilate, was just another zealot challenging Roman rule, and of course Rome doesn't accept challenges to its rule so they made an example out of Yeshwa. I don't see any reason for Pilate wanting to spare him, honestly.

Except that he keeps trying to release Jesus, because he hasn't done anything. Why do you think he repeatedly asks, "Do you want me to release the King of the Jews?"

LSCatilina · #5 June 2nd, 2012, 01:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dan1988

That would actually be contrary to Pilate's character, as he was pretty brutal as prefect. Yeshwa, to Pilate, was just another zealot challenging Roman rule, and of course Rome doesn't accept challenges to its rule so they made an example out of Yeshwa. I don't see any reason for Pilate wanting to spare him, honestly.

What about Pilate not there as a POD? Or replaced, or killed or anything.

LSCatilina · #6 June 2nd, 2012, 01:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mike Stearns

Except that he keeps trying to release Jesus, because he hasn't done anything. Why do you think he says, "Do you want me to release the King of the Jews?"

I'm not sure litteral use of New Testament would be that useful. It's already borderline ASB without involving that.

Darth_Kiryan · #7 June 2nd, 2012, 01:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mike Stearns

Except that he keeps trying to release Jesus, because he hasn't done anything. Why do you think he repeatedly asks, "Do you want me to release the King of the Jews?"

mockery, perhaps?

red1 · #8 June 2nd, 2012, 01:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LSCatilina

I'm not sure litteral use of New Testament would be that useful. It's already borderline ASB without involving that.

I am sure that many millions would disagree with your belief that the New testament is ASB. May I ask what evidence there is to disprove the New Testament and why we should disregard it?

LSCatilina · #9 June 2nd, 2012, 01:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by red1

I am sure that many millions would disagree with your belief that the New testament is ASB. May I ask what evidence there is to disprove the New Testament and why we should disregard it?

Divine intervention is classified as ASB on this board. And, some said the Bible is about divine intervention.

My take is you don't have clear mention of Jesus more or less close mentioned in the Bible before the middle of II century, that the whole account of events wasn't tought as an historical record but as fulfillment of a jewish prophecy and therefore using a lot of codes that weren't about accuracy in record; that if we know about Pilate's by other sources, we only knew about his supposed take during the trial by a book that is about presenting Jesus on the most favourable side.

I'm not even entering on the "Jesus existed or not". Just that, as Genesis isn't a book of biology, New Testamant isn't a book of history.

Remicas · #10 June 2nd, 2012, 01:24 AM

The cross didn't became so popular to represent Christianity, if it's still developing without die and come back to life thing. Perhaps they keep the fish, then ?

LSCatilina · #11 June 2nd, 2012, 01:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Remicas

The cross didn't became so popular to represent Christianity, if it's still developing without die and come back to life thing. Perhaps they keep the fish, then ?

By the way when the cross did became popular OTL?

Remicas · #12 June 2nd, 2012, 01:29 AM

I'd say with Constantin, when he allegedly saw the cross and the words "by this sign thou shall conquer" in the sky I think.

LSCatilina · #13 June 2nd, 2012, 01:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Remicas

I'd say with Constantin, when he allegedly saw the cross and the words "by this sign thou shall conquer" in the sky I think.

Isn't that a later addition? I tought the PX symbol was more used in the IV?

caloysky · #14 June 2nd, 2012, 01:42 AM

the cross is used by romans to cruxify people. Its a roman punishment and pass time.

He is the son of God, he rips the romans apart with his godly might and establish dominion on earth. But that is ASB.

By tracing,Christ's lineage he came from both a prophetic and Kingly line. I think Joseph the Carpenter was somehow related to David. Maybe he could use that to become the King of Jews. But I don't really have a clue what's the big guy's plan.

Sicarius · #15 June 2nd, 2012, 01:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by red1

May I ask what evidence there is to disprove the New Testament and why we should disregard it?

What evidence is there to disprove that My Little Pony Tales is a representation of true events beamed by unicorn magic into the minds of the creators at night?

Avitus · #16 June 2nd, 2012, 01:44 AM

I think that, like other biased historical texts, one should omit the obviously biased statements in the Bible, and take the neutral ones as fact unless they are otherwise contested or disproved. Saying that Jesus isn't mentioned until the 2nd century is kindof a BS arguement IMO, since Christianity itself wasn't really worthy of note by the Romans until then, and most other Jewish records didn't survive until modern times either. Which do you think the 1st century Romans are more likely to care about in Judea, Jesus, or the massive unrelated rebellions that claimed thousands of lives immediately after his death? As far as eastern cults of the time, Christianity was pretty plain and tame.

As for the OP, I'm gonna say that at best Jesus would have lead to widespread reform within the Jewish faith, perhaps greater willingness to convert the Gentiles, and could have gained prophet status if he really took off. His reforms could have benefitted Judaism, but they would be unlikely to spread to the extent they did IOTL, since that was incredibly unlikely for Christianity too.

Mike Stearns · #17 June 2nd, 2012, 01:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Adûnakhôr

mockery, perhaps?

No. It was traditional for the Romans to release one prisoner, any prisoner the Jews asked for, at the time of Passover, and Jesus was popular, and innocent, so Pilate asked the Scribes and the Chief Priests if they wanted him to release Jesus. They said no and asked for Jesus to be crucified. Pilate protested saying that they were asking for a death sentence for an innocent man, but the Scribes and the Chief Priests insisted and Pilate was force to acquiese for the sake of keeping the peace.

LSCatilina · #18 June 2nd, 2012, 01:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by caloysky

By tracing,Christ's lineage he came from both a prophetic and Kingly line. I think Joseph the Carpenter was somehow related to David. Maybe he could use that to become the King of Jews. But I don't really have a clue what's the big guy's plan.

Why the Jews would have believed him? "I'm the messiah" or "I'm a descendent of David" isn't going to make "My God, it was SO obvious!"

I mean, not counting we have no way to know if the alleged lineage was true or false, it would have mattered so little because unproovable, and as he would have been a marginal rabbi of northern Judea.

We could use the exemple of Muhammad, he didn't needed to claim to descent from anyone, just "I've the message of God, shut up and listen".

Actually, Jesus turning as a Muhammad-equivalent could lead to interesting things.

Mike Stearns · #19 June 2nd, 2012, 01:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LSCatilina

Why the Jews would have believed him? "I'm the messiah" or "I'm a descendent of David" isn't going to make "My God, it was SO obvious!"

That's the thing. A big part of the opposition to Jesus was the fact that the Jews had very spesific ideas about what the Messiah would be like. They expected the Messiah to be someone who would summon forth miraculous armies and effortlessly drive out the Romans. Instead they got, "Love thy God, love thy self and love thy neighbour." They didn't understand Jesus' message.

Quote:

Originally Posted by LSCatilina

Actually, Jesus turning as a Muhammad-equivalent could lead to interesting things.

I agree. Jesus as a Jewish Mohammed would have interesting butterflies...