What could happen to Jesus?

IMO , this is going to be an Athiest Versus Christanity versus Islam Versus etc Flamebait .

However , personally , I see this thread as a non starter . If Jesus was not crucified , then , as it has already been said , the basis of Christanity is GONE . You may argue that the prophets worked miracles too , but these were from God . If Jesus did not died , the basis for his existence , in Christanity is NON Existent.
 
Jesus.

I've said this before. Religious topics don't really apply to this type of discussion group. They tend to provoke alot of emotion, anger and hard feelings. They are difficult to discuss objectively. I would say it's best to leave them out, except when they relate to something directly realted to an historical event. I was a history major in college. I often use this discussion board to find out about areas of the world I'm interested in and also parts of the world I'm interested in learning more about. Yes, religious topics do come into the picture. But not theological debates. There is a big difference.
 
If Jesus didn't die, there would be more of Judaism, except that you now have a bigger branch of Messianic Jews to add to the already potent mix of Pharisees, Essenes, Maccabees, etc. The turn-the-other-cheek philisophy would put them at odds with the Maccabees, but the salvation-for-all line gain them new adherents among those who are otherwise rejects of society (but still make the Pharisees fart dust).

On the whole, it's not so much Christ's death that got Christianity going: it's His Resurrection. Maybe it happened, maybe it didn't. :confused: But one doesn't lose anything with a bit of faith. :rolleyes:
 
I fail to see the relevance of such questions to the debate at hand.

I don't consider him a real person, but a myth. Refer to studies by George Wells "The Jesus Myth" and Early Doherty "Jesus Puzzle". There is also the controversial passage in the historian Josephus' passage and other studies.

This is what prompted my response, the whole purpose of the thread wasn't if he existed or not, but what would happen if Christ hadn't been crucified, so if you would please respond in kind to "el t" as you did to me, it would be most appreciated.

For the record, I personally consider that circumstantial evidence tends to validate the hypothesis of Jesus being a historical figure (even if much that is believed about him is apocryphal at best and legendary at worst, including, by definition, all the supernatural stuff). And, incidentally, as someone with an intellectual interest in Buddhism, I can tell you this: even if Siddharta Gautama had never existed, that wouldn't invalidate the essential message of Buddhism. OTOH, if Jesus is anything less than what the Gospels claim about him, then Christianity falls like the proverbial house of cards. You can achieve Awakening on your own, but you can't have Salvation without a Savior.

If Siddharta did not exist, it would invalidate the essential message of Buddhism. If the words in Sutras or Suttas are less that what they claim to be, then Buddhism also falls like a proverbial house of cards. One cannot achieve Awakening on their own, if their is no such thing as Awakening.

This saying is true for all religions where the founder, or a major figure is not provable.
 
OK. Suppose the OTL Gospel stories are accurate up 'til, say the scene with Pilate, where we have a POD.

Say Pilate says 'I don't find any reason to condemn the man' and has a couple of legionaries kick him out the door, and Jesus isn't crucified.

So far, so good.

What happens next?
[fore-warning, I'm a deeply Christian person, although hopefully rational unlike many who claim that faith position]

There was a short story many years back where a guy acting as Till Eulenspiegel disrupted a religious procession - an annual parade of a miraculous vial of Christ's blood. (IIRC, such a parade is historical in some German city, but I don't remember which). They take the vial back, analyze it and discover that Jesus had terminal leukaemia.

Personally, I think SOMETHING like this is entirely plausible. In my personal experience, God has a Plan B, often followed by Plans C,D etc.

I think Jesus' ministry was pretty much finished at that point, and he certainly has to die. But just how and just when may not be so fore-ordained.

Having eg. leukaemia being a Divine disease instead of Crosses and Crucifixes all over the place would be a change in history, but wouldn't lead to specific changes?
 
I think that Jesus would have been killed at some point. He was making too many enemies among the Pharisee (Spelling?) and they wouldn't have taken his teachings lying down. They would have probably organised a mob to kill Him. Most likely through stoning.
 
Jesus Sect

If Jesus had not been crucified I agree that his followers would have likely remained a sect within Judeaism. It does not follow that it would not have grown and prospered however. Many Greeks (culturally and racially) were interested in the Jewish faith which was much more univeralist prior to the destruction of the Temple in 70-71 AD. Many gentiles were "observers" and had a kind of Jewish-light belief system which would later contribute to the growth of Christianity. The "Nazarene" sect would have been more popular in places such as Alexandria, Greece and Asia Minor in the beginning. In Judea proper the Temple authorities might have dampened new beliefs and teachings. It is worth noting however that James the Just (called the brother of Jesus) was leader of the Jerusalem church and for several decades seems to have taught in the Temple as well as around Jerusalem until more conservative Jewish leaders did him in.
 
Course
All us historians knew he didn't die on the Cross, but went into a coma.
Mary Madaline took him out of the cave after bribeing the Guards, & Nursed him back to health,
The two of them then traved to Britian where they had a son who would be the forefather of King Arthur the Great.

& This is the secret that the Church destroyed the Kights Templers for.
 

Hendryk

Banned
If Siddharta did not exist, it would invalidate the essential message of Buddhism. If the words in Sutras or Suttas are less that what they claim to be, then Buddhism also falls like a proverbial house of cards. One cannot achieve Awakening on their own, if their is no such thing as Awakening.

This saying is true for all religions where the founder, or a major figure is not provable.
This is getting off-topic, but to answer your point: what matters in Buddhism isn't the messenger, important as he is to most Buddhists, it's the message. It's ultimately irrelevant whether the path to Awakening was outlined by someone named Siddharta Gautama or by some anonymous scribe; the fundamental thing is that everyone can try for himself or herself this path and personally experience the reality of Awakening. I hasten to add that it isn't something that I've done myself; I'm just saying that anyone can check empirically whether or not the Buddhist message works--and so far it has worked for millions of people.
 
Top