What if-no Jesus

What if the man that was Christ or the legend that became Christ wasn't.

Supposing he did exist what if Mary had a miscarriage?

What's the worlds theology like today?

You butterfly away Jesus, you've still got a rather inflammatory situation in 1st Century Judaea, and John the Baptist, besides.

John the Baptist in the Bible seems a lot like the Bab to Jesus's Baha'u'llah, now that I think of it ( ). Anywho, there's a possibility another person could lead an apocalyptic sect based on John the Baptist, however, that would simply lead to another Christianity, so let's just say there is no movement worshipping a Rabbi based on John the Baptist.

OK, large-scale: Rome endures as a pagan society that tolerates Jews, until Caligula emerges and does his shebang, provoking the 60s-70s war. I am not sure how the Jewish-Roman wars go differently, they probably won't. However, in the absence of Christianity, there is less overt persecution of the Jews. Rome continues to fight wars with the Parthians, but ultimately converts to Neoplatonicism (is that a word?). Worship of the Germanic gods continues unchallenged. A Neo-Platonic state in the East continues to fight wars with the Persians, but a charismatic Arab unites the Arabs and instead of Islam per se, there is a secular Ghenghis Khan-type unified movement which takes the Eastern state by surprise, and Persia as well. By the 900s A.D., the broad spectrum of things is so different due to butterflies it is unrecognizable. There probably would be a large Caliphate, but the issue of Germans and their worship of the Aesir and Vanir is tricky. Would they unify? Would a pan-German pagan state somehow arise as a challenge to Rome and to Kievan Rus's equivalent?

I'm not sure, but Europe might see wars of Neoplatonics trying to convert Germanic pagans, and of Neoplatonic Russian paganism (awesome.)

Just my .02 cents.

And, for those of us (myself not included) who believe Jesus coming is part of God's plan, let's say He postpones this part.

Codae said:

And, for those of us (myself not included) who believe Jesus coming is part of God's plan, let's say He postpones this part.

Click to expand...

I prefer the burying one's head in one's hands option.

Well, it would be screaming with frustration, but that's because I've been drinking Red Bull all evening, and so shouldn't be taken as my usual response.

Mithraism could become serious religion.
A more male dominated religion, with focus on army and soldiers could turn Roman Empire into an interesting state.

Snake Featherston said:

I'm not sure, but Europe might see wars of Neoplatonics trying to convert Germanic pagans, and of Neoplatonic Russian paganism (awesome.)

Click to expand...

Didn't the Romans, when encountering foreign pantheons, just consider them roman gods with different names (e.g. Caesar saying the Gauls worshipped Mercury)?

Cromm Crúaich said:

Didn't the Romans, when encountering foreign pantheons, just consider them roman gods with different names (e.g. Caesar saying the Gauls worshipped Mercury)?

Click to expand...

It gets a touch more complicated, but yes, the idea of trying to convert anyone to Neoplatonism doesn't quite work. Neoplatonism isn't a religion as such, but an interpretation of the way the world works and through which myths and deities could be understood. No Germanic noble would need to give up Woden to become a Neoplatonic.

Snake Featherston said:

I'm not sure, but Europe might see wars of Neoplatonics trying to convert Germanic pagans, and of Neoplatonic Russian paganism (awesome.)

Click to expand...

Misread this as "I'm not sure, but Europe might see wars of Napoleonists trying to convert Germanic pagans, and of Napoleonist Russian paganism (awesome.) " Interesting.

Cromm Crúaich said:

Didn't the Romans, when encountering foreign pantheons, just consider them roman gods with different names (e.g. Caesar saying the Gauls worshipped Mercury)?

Click to expand...

carlton_bach said:

It gets a touch more complicated, but yes, the idea of trying to convert anyone to Neoplatonism doesn't quite work. Neoplatonism isn't a religion as such, but an interpretation of the way the world works and through which myths and deities could be understood. No Germanic noble would need to give up Woden to become a Neoplatonic.

Click to expand...

Alright, I see the point there. But, supposing Roman paganism turns into state-supported Mithraism or Manicheeism, that might not be such an impossibility. Mithraism was male-dominated to such a degree it makes modern-day Masculism look like pikers, and I fail to see how such a religion could have been a pleasant situation for the Empire. Imagining what a Charlemagne analog, or a Byzantine Emperor would do with that.....

As for Rome seeing the gods of the Gauls as identical, that really didn't halt Caesar's war, did it?

I am curious, would warfare in a world without the concept of the Just War or the Crusade be more barbaric, or less? Worshiping Jesus and Allah didn't do much to make it nicer, but would even those restrictions being gone mean better wars, worse, or different? (i.e. would a pagan Basil II still blind 99 of the Bulgar soldiers out of 100, or all 100?) Inquiring minds want to know.

Snake Featherston said:

Alright, I see the point there. But, supposing Roman paganism turns into state-supported Mithraism or Manicheeism, that might not be such an impossibility. Mithraism was male-dominated to such a degree it makes modern-day Masculism look like pikers, and I fail to see how such a religion could have been a pleasant situation for the Empire. Imagining what a Charlemagne analog, or a Byzantine Emperor would do with that.....

Click to expand...

Hell, yeah! If you give Rome a proselytising religion, it could be a holy terror. Mithraism isn't that well suited because it acknowledges the other Gods, but a more radically Zoroastrian interpretation of it, or Manicheanism, could well do the trick.

Ouch!

I am curious, would warfare in a world without the concept of the Just War or the Crusade be more barbaric, or less? Worshiping Jesus and Allah didn't do much to make it nicer, but would even those restrictions being gone mean better wars, worse, or different? (i.e. would a pagan Basil II still blind 99 of the Bulgar soldiers out of 100, or all 100?) Inquiring minds want to know.

Click to expand...

I don't think religion generally has much bearing on the mode in which a society makes war. In some cases it can - either by adding religious antagonism or by prescribing specific behaviours - but by and large a look at how Christian armies have fought between the 400s and the 1800s should put paid to the idea that there is a Christian way of war.

Now, the Romans specifically *do* have the idea of just war. Augustine borrowed it from Roman law. It probably played such a central role because their tradition recognised almost no ius in bello, what we would today call the 'Laws of War'. By Roman lights, if you were at war you could do anything you bloody well wanted to the enemy, provided you actually could. Killing entire cities or executing prisoners slowly and on full display were not exactly considered good manners, but perfectly legal. But they were quite scrupulous about having ius ad bellum, the right to go to war in the first place. Of course there were some traditions how to make war in effect, but nothing codified. So a Roman army is likely to be as restrained or as savage as its commander thinks the situation warrants.

And blindsing the hundredth is counterproductive if you want the victims to reach home. The Crusaders used a similar approach in the Languedoc with the same reasoning.

Olmeka said:

Mithraism could become serious religion.
A more male dominated religion, with focus on army and soldiers could turn Roman Empire into an interesting state.

Click to expand...

Mithraism is a mystery cult... Not good for gathering converts.

A more inclusive variant of that, or perhaps the cult of Sol Invictus would be better...

Analytical Engine said:

perhaps the cult of Sol Invictus would be better...

Click to expand...

So instead of worshipping the Son they worship the sun? (Sorry, the joke had to be made).

Neoplatonism strikes me as a touch too theologically complicated to really connect with the common rural farmer, but I could definately see it as the religion of the educated upper classes and urbanites while the rural and uneducated follow Sol Invictus.

How would things go for the peoples of the New World once the people of the old discovered them?

mojojojo said:

How would things go for the peoples of the New World once the people of the old discovered them?

Click to expand...

Unless the butterflies somehow move the New World out of the Stone Age (which seems unlikely to me) then probably much the same as in OTL. Religion might not be as much of an issue, but there is still the "We want your land and/or gold and you can't stop us from taking it" factor.

even without Christianity, I'd think there would be some kind of monotheistic evangelizing religion... it was an idea who's time had come. I'm not sure of the details, but I can remember reading that a big reason Christianity spread so far and fast was political, not religious... for some reason, many of the rulers of the day found it useful to have everyone convert to it.

I know that some have argued that without Christianity things would have been worse or indigenous peoples as their would have been no calls for mercy towards them what so ever, and they would have been slaughtered and exploited without any restraint. Is this likely or just apologetics?

mojojojo said:

I know that some have argued that without Christianity things would have been worse or indigenous peoples as their would have been no calls for mercy towards them what so ever, and they would have been slaughtered and exploited without any restraint. Is this likely or just apologetics?

Click to expand...

I don't think the Conquistadors practiced what we would have called restraint.

Dave Howery said:

even without Christianity, I'd think there would be some kind of monotheistic evangelizing religion... it was an idea who's time had come. I'm not sure of the details, but I can remember reading that a big reason Christianity spread so far and fast was political, not religious... for some reason, many of the rulers of the day found it useful to have everyone convert to it.

Click to expand...

The old Roman pantheon was certainly on the way out no matter what; as I recall the general perception was that traditional Roman religion was stale, with everyone just going through the motions while not really believing the religious doctrine. That's why people were eagerly looking for something new, exotic, and inspiring, resulting in Romans flocking to all manner of mystery cults.

I think part of the drive to convert everyone has to do with the fact that monotheistic religions, which postulate the existence of one true god, have a much harder time getting along with polytheistic ones. There was also a belief that religious uniformity was neccessary to maintain social and political uniformity and stability.

Chengar Qordath said:

The old Roman pantheon was certainly on the way out no matter what; as I recall the general perception was that traditional Roman religion was stale, with everyone just going through the motions while not really believing the religious doctrine. That's why people were eagerly looking for something new, exotic, and inspiring, resulting in Romans flocking to all manner of mystery cults.

I think part of the drive to convert everyone has to do with the fact that monotheistic religions, which postulate the existence of one true god, have a much harder time getting along with polytheistic ones. There was also a belief that religious uniformity was neccessary to maintain social and political uniformity and stability.

Click to expand...

I was under the impression that the attraction to mystery religions had to do with the fact that the state religion of the Roman Empire was centered around the well being of the community rather than the individual. The Romans generally didn't have a problem with mystery religions unless they were a percieved threat, such as the worship of Bacchus. The Roman state religion simply had a different focus.

Caesar said:

I was under the impression that the attraction to mystery religions had to do with the fact that the state religion of the Roman Empire was centered around the well being of the community rather than the individual. The Romans generally didn't have a problem with mystery religions unless they were a percieved threat, such as the worship of Bacchus. The Roman state religion simply had a different focus.

Click to expand...

That might be right too; it's been a while since I looked into the rise of the mystery cults and I certainly could have gotten things mixed up. Either way, since lots of Romans weren't finding the traditional religious practices spiritually fulfilling it was inevitable they would start looking for alternatives, and once one of those alternatives becomes popular enough it will become mainstream and shift out the old pantheon.