What if the Jesus was'nt crucifixion.
- Thread starter Gage
- Start date
I honestly just don't see how that would have happened. It was standard Roman policy to crucify messianic pretenders. There were probably standing orders in Jerusalem during the Passover, the most nationalist of all Roman pilgrimage festivals, for the pro-Roman Sanhedrin and priesthood to turn over all messianic figures for crucifixion.
Moreover, and I'm not saying this out of Christian conviction or belief in divine providence (though I have both), I think Jesus of Nazareth planned the whole thing. He entered Jerusalem as a triumphal prophet of the kingdom of God, overthrew the temple which was both a symbol of Jewish pride and Roman domination, and even held a formal final supper. Even if he wasn't God, or was God incarnate but had no comprehensive divine omniscience during the earthly ministry, he must have known he was going to his death.
Maybe he was attempting to rally people into a revolt by placing himself in the role of martyr. Or maybe he was trying to stir Yahweh's wrath when the Roman's kill his anointed prophet. Or maybe he thought he was talking on the exile and shame of Israel on his own shoulders, mano-y-mano.
In any case, he didn't die in a car accident in downtown Berkeley, as a lot of historical Jesus scholars would have it. It was very purposeful.
But, for the sake of the OP... I imagine that Christianity just would have died out. Indeed, until the resurrection appearances, it was dying out. True messiahs don't get crucified, and when messianic figures do, their disciples scatter- just like the apostles did, fleeing back to Galilee.
No resurrection, no Christianity. There's no other reason for the movement to continue on after the death of their messiah without a resurrection. It just doesn't make sense.
It could have happened very easily, I think. Pilate didn't believe that Christ had committed any crimes worthy of crucifiction. That's why he had Jesus whipped. He didn't understand why the Scribes and the Pharisees were making such a big deal over Jesus, so he had Him whipped, thinking that this would satisfy the Priests, except that it didn't and the they were adamant that Christ be put to death. That's where the symbolic washing of the hands in the Catholic Mass comes from, Pilate washing his hands of the whole business. He easily could have used his authority as Roman governor to release Jesus and told the Chief Priests to suck it up and get over it.
HueyLong
Banned
Thats an interesting idea, with the Sanhedrin eventually killing Jesus anyways.
Removes much of the anti-Roman ideas and makes it a little harder to identify with Judaism.
First of all, I'm not taking the passion accounts as 100% historically accurate. I think the gospel writers had a vested interests in portraying Pilate as more reasonable and compassionate. He had every reason to kill a messianic figure- that was standard Roman policy. Plus, we know from Josephus that Pilate wasn't an all-around nice guy, anyway. Brutal by Roman standards, even.
HueyLong said:
But, I guess I'll go with it. Maybe I'll even assume they never go to Pilate in the first place (though they only way they can issue a death sentence is with a full Sanhedrin- ie, not the kangeroo court meeting in the night called together by Caiaphas- and I remain suspicious that the Sanhedrin as a whole wanted him dead).
Anyway, if the Sanhedrin had just stoned him, we'd probably wear little bundles of rocks. Rosary beads might end up being symbolic of his death. And we probably wouldn't have a corpus in the symbol (ie, a body, like there is on a crucifix as opposed to a bare croos); there would probably just be a big pile of rocks behind the altar, or even inside of it.
And Christianity would probably be more anti-Semitic as a result. The cross was a terrible symbol of Roman political oppression and terror; stoning is a symbol of the Jewish law. Paul's political victories over the Judaizers would have been much simpler, and Christianity would probably have overtly racist tendencies. Maybe.
Oh, and for the record- stoning is not just throwing rocks at people. First you throw them off a high place, like the pinnicle of the temple complex or a cliff like the one at Golgatha. Then, if they're not dead, you tie them to a vertical surface like a wall or a poll, and then you throw rocks at them.
So maybe the main symbol would just be Jesus tied to a pole. Not all that different, actually...
I wrote one where the Jews free Brandabarus(?), pay him to kill Jesus, and he later recants, becoming a founding member of the Christian Church. Bye Bye, Constantinople..Hello Branda...something:l
HueyLong
Banned
Teutatis is a Germanic/Celtic god. A menhir is a monolith, common for many pagan religions.
Except Constantinople wasn't named for him being Christian....
Or being a founder of Christianity.....
MrP
Banned
Isn't this in one of the What If? collections? Ah, yes, More What If?, it's the 3rd scenario (pp.48ff). In it Jesus isn't locked in a dungeon, He's simply released and escorted back to Galilee.
Sanhedrin accused Jesus not only for blasphemy (blasphemy didnt bothered the Romans... Pilate said to the Pharisees "i dont care for your fights judge him with your own laws...).
So they accused him for High treason before Pilate by saying that he had proclaimed himself King of the Jews saying "δεν εχωμεν Βασιλεα ει μη μονο Καισαραν..." as it is said in the Original text...
Under Roman Law anyone trying to usurp powers reserved to Caesar had to be crucified....
So they accused him for High treason before Pilate by saying that he had proclaimed himself King of the Jews saying "δεν εχωμεν Βασιλεα ει μη μονο Καισαραν..." as it is said in the Original text...
Under Roman Law anyone trying to usurp powers reserved to Caesar had to be crucified....
IMO there are several problems with any speculation along those lines:
1) The Gospel accounts of Pilate's and the Synedrion's role in the crucifixion have been doubted by some very well respected scholars, with good reason. There was a strongly pro-Roman and anti-Jewish tendency in parts of the early church, and with the perpetual trouble in Judea it may well have seemed expedient to dsistance oneself from this as much as possible. So we simply do not know what exactly happoened (the gist is probably true, but the interpretation and the dialogue is very much in question)
2) There is no guarantee that a death sentence would have happened. It is quite likely that this hung in the balance for a while, no matter which interpretation is correct, and a governor in a troublesome province like Judaea had considerable latitude in his day-to-day decisions. And an execution without his acquiescence would be quite unthinkable. The Romans weren't averse to killing people as such, but they had a clear idea of what being in charge meant.
3) Unless you assume a divine plan behind it all (in which case spoeculation is pointless), the crucifixion was not the way things were supposed to go from the disciples' POV. Christianity as a religion owes much of its theology (if not its moral teachings) to the need to explain this event. Without it, Christianity as we know it will probably not come to exist and whatever replaces it could be radically different.
1) The Gospel accounts of Pilate's and the Synedrion's role in the crucifixion have been doubted by some very well respected scholars, with good reason. There was a strongly pro-Roman and anti-Jewish tendency in parts of the early church, and with the perpetual trouble in Judea it may well have seemed expedient to dsistance oneself from this as much as possible. So we simply do not know what exactly happoened (the gist is probably true, but the interpretation and the dialogue is very much in question)
2) There is no guarantee that a death sentence would have happened. It is quite likely that this hung in the balance for a while, no matter which interpretation is correct, and a governor in a troublesome province like Judaea had considerable latitude in his day-to-day decisions. And an execution without his acquiescence would be quite unthinkable. The Romans weren't averse to killing people as such, but they had a clear idea of what being in charge meant.
3) Unless you assume a divine plan behind it all (in which case spoeculation is pointless), the crucifixion was not the way things were supposed to go from the disciples' POV. Christianity as a religion owes much of its theology (if not its moral teachings) to the need to explain this event. Without it, Christianity as we know it will probably not come to exist and whatever replaces it could be radically different.
I could pretend to have read widely about Gaul and the Ancient Britons, but I won't. So, have you never read Asterix?