AHC and WI: Jesus not crucified

Can we not bring our personal prejudices into this please; I'm merely forwarding the ACTUAL challenge at hand, which is Jesus not dying but being otherwise the same (ie, identifying himself as the Son of God).

Sheesh :rolleyes:

Unless I am mistaken, you said he could rule eternally. I'm not tryin to start a religious debate here, but in the spirit of the op, we should be talking about Jesus as a historical normal human being and the implications of him not brig crucified, not never dying. I have no prejudice against religion, it's just that supernatural religious events should be left out when talking about actual history, since not everybody beloved the same thing.



That said, I won't speak on that topics tomes to avoid detailing this further. Back to the op, Jesus might make some more noise and possibly be banished. Assuming he is not caught though, he could continue to stir up anti-roman fervor-perhaps if he gets popular enough he could kick off a Jewish revolt a couple decades early. It would be interesting to see a Jewish revolt under Calijla or Claudius-I especially feel bad for the red if they revolt under Caligula for the repercussions he might put on them after the inevitable roman victory.
 

Sabot Cat

Banned
It's rather hard to actually save Jesus with his personality and the surrounding political climate. I'm not sure how one would do it, honestly.
 
The real Pontius Pilate was a far cry away from the man portrayed in the gospels. He was a brutal, corrupt and ruthless administrator and an often cited chartacterisation of him was: "He came to a rich province as a poor man and left an impoverished province as a rich man." During the Samaritan uprising he ordered the crucifiction of no less than 6.000 insurgents and his harshness in suppressing the uprising was considered exegerated even by roman standards which led to him being recalled to Rome in 37 CE. His portrayal in the gospels has been heavily edited to make the new cult more marketable in Rome itself, especially in the later gospels where the entire blame for Jesus death is put on the jews.

And, if that part of the gospels can be believed, Jesus did of course give the roman authorities a good enough reason to execute him by, if not through words than through actions, claiming to be the rightful king of the jews. From a roman POV this was sedition pure and simple since it contradicted the emperor's claim of being the one to decide who would and who would not be King of the Jews and the most likely reason that no records for a trial against him have ever been found is that there simply was none, just a simple, possibly even merely oral order to execute a pesky jewish trouble maker.

If H/he made no such claim (or at least not so boldly), H/he wouldn't be executed but I still think he'd be banished.
 
Anyone else?

IMHO not much changes. If we accept the gospels as being broadly historical (set aside the supernatural bits if you must) then for this challenge to be meaningful we presumably need to accept the following -

1. The Sanhedrin wanted Jesus dead.
2. They had no legal means of arranging it. Which leads to the conclusion that -
3. They need to persuade the Romans to do it.

Assuming 3 fails for whatever reason (the framing is too blatant, Pilate listens to his wife, Pilate picks someone more controversial than Barabbas so the mob voted to spare Jesus instead, whatever) then 1 is still valid. I think all that changes is that Jesus gets lynched instead, probably by stoning - as happened to St. Stephen OTL. Things arguably proceed much as OTL from the point, with the exception that the symbol of Christianity becomes a stone rather than a cross (actually it probably stays the ichthys, but YMMV).
 
Pilate isn't this naive ordinary governor that is being duped-as someone else said, he was an oppressive and brutal governor of the region-there's no reason to really believe the gospels are true about his personality and him being fooled into executing Jesus when we have non-biblical sources that completely contradict it. Though I agree with Alien Moon Bat-getting him to not be executed it going to be hard-which is why I think the only alternative is him being banished or kicking off an early revolt. Unless he becomes a master at avoiding capture.
 
Unless I am mistaken, you said he could rule eternally. I'm not tryin to start a religious debate here, but in the spirit of the op, we should be talking about Jesus as a historical normal human being and the implications of him not brig crucified, not never dying. I have no prejudice against religion, it's just that supernatural religious events should be left out when talking about actual history, since not everybody beloved the same thing.

Not that he would, in reality, rule eternally, but that his theology centered on the idea of bringing about the eternal rule of the Messiah/Son of Man/Son of David - ie, like the "eternal rule" of Akhenaten in Atenism, etc. Hence me pointing out that the succession - once he eventually did die - would be an issue, potentially resolved by having the successors drawn by lot (allowing for divine intervention) and being thereafter recognized as either earthly deputies of an eternal king in the heavens, or having become [one with] Christ themselves.
 
A PoD to consider -- suppose the Emperor appoints somebody other than Pontius Pilate to Judea? Would it be plausible for a him to respond to a figure like Jesus differently?
 
A PoD to consider -- suppose the Emperor appoints somebody other than Pontius Pilate to Judea? Would it be plausible for a him to respond to a figure like Jesus differently?

Given the poor choice of successors to Pilate OTL, I seriously doubt the Romans would appoint anyone more capable of handing the situation.
 
Top