What if: After his "resurrection" Jesus lead an anti Roman revolt

The (actual) Jewish revolt around 70AD was crushed with extreme brutality by the Romans. Jerusalem was razed to the ground and thousands slaughtered. The Jews were dispersed, and even the very name of the city was changed.

I think the results of the hypothetical are the same.

If the son of God (if he rose from the dead three days after his crucifixion, who else could he be?) “decides” to lead an uprising then it’s probably because, you know, God thought it to be a pretty good idea. The same God who created the world, flooded it and sent plagues upon those who persecuted his flock.

My money’s on the zombie carpenter.
 
The (actual) Jewish revolt around 70AD was crushed with extreme brutality by the Romans. Jerusalem was razed to the ground and thousands slaughtered. The Jews were dispersed, and even the very name of the city was changed.

I think the results of the hypothetical are the same.

Agreed, but the city’s name was actually changed in Aelia Capitolina after the 132-135 AD revolt.
 

Philip

Donor
While this short-lived New Kingdom of Judah will (at first) seem, from the Roman point of view, only a speed bump in establishing the Mare Nostrum, its 10 years of existence are more than enough for Ieshua to be validated as Messiah, Son of Man, King of the Jews, Heir of David etc.

Ten years (which is rather optimistic from the rebels POV) won't do it, especially when it's ten years of war. The messiah is the Prince of Peace whose people will beat their swords into plowshares. Most importantly, he is to establish David's kingdom forever. At best, it is viewed as Maccabees 2.0. More likely it is viewed as the Bar Kokbha revolt.
 
I interpret the OP to mean that Jesus doesn't have supernatural powers and comes back in the sense that he survived the crucifixion, the experience having convinced to lead an open revolt against Roman rule.

In that case I think it's the Great Revolt of the AD 66 just 35 years sooner and with the same results. You can't beat Rome, they're just too powerful and professional of an army. The consequences for Jerusalem will be dire. Christianity as a religion will wither and die although ironically the notoriety of leading a major revolt against Rome will prompt Roman histories to include more details about Jesus than we have OTL.
 
I interpret the OP to mean that Jesus doesn't have supernatural powers and comes back in the sense that he survived the crucifixion, the experience having convinced to lead an open revolt against Roman rule.

In that case I think it's the Great Revolt of the AD 66 just 35 years sooner and with the same results. You can't beat Rome, they're just too powerful and professional of an army. The consequences for Jerusalem will be dire. Christianity as a religion will wither and die although ironically the notoriety of leading a major revolt against Rome will prompt Roman histories to include more details about Jesus than we have OTL.

Nah it won’t necessarily die, it was St. Paul after all who gave a theological basis to the whole faith, Jesus was just that charismatic random guy preaching stuff around Judea.
 
Nah it won’t necessarily die, it was St. Paul after all who gave a theological basis to the whole faith, Jesus was just that charismatic random guy preaching stuff around Judea.

Well it's one thing if Jesus survives and goes off to live a normal life quietly somewhere (I'm thinking of that scene in The Last Temptation of Christ where Jesus meets Paul who is preaching in his name) but if Jesus is actively leading a Jewish revolt it would radically change how people perceived him, including Paul. So the Christian faith would probably be very different theologically and that would impact its success.
 
Well it's one thing if Jesus survives and goes off to live a normal life quietly somewhere (I'm thinking of that scene in The Last Temptation of Christ where Jesus meets Paul who is preaching in his name) but if Jesus is actively leading a Jewish revolt it would radically change how people perceived him, including Paul. So the Christian faith would probably be very different theologically and that would impact its success.

I agree, I just said Christianity won’t necessarily die because of that.
 
I just can't see Christianity would survive there. It is practically impossible establish long-living Kingdom of Judea. Romans would do all possible destroying them. Loss is not option. And when Romans defeat the rebels, they will be even worse to Christians and hardly many would be very sympathic towards people who revolted against rulers of the known world.
 
I agree, I just said Christianity won’t necessarily die because of that.

Rome really didn't bother distinguishing between the Jewish and Jewish-Christians; expect both to be annihilated and any surviving religion more Rabbinic and not based around temples or military powers.
 
Rome really didn't bother distinguishing between the Jewish and Jewish-Christians; expect both to be annihilated and any surviving religion more Rabbinic and not based around temples or military powers.

Judaism survived to our days didn’t it? I doubt a revolt led by Jesus would change that.
 
Judaism survived to our days didn’t it? I doubt a revolt led by Jesus would change that.

Yes the Rabbinic version, the Sadduccees, Pharisees, Essenes, and Zealots? Not so much, the Jewish population went from a major regional majority to scattered and minor communities. You won't have an organized Christianity with a papacy and such, you might just get another group of outcasts like the Roma or the Jewish diaspora; or if the Romans were effectively enough Christianity was rather new at the time and didn't have the time that Judaism had to spread and the possibility of eradication was quite high.
 
Yes the Rabbinic version, the Sadduccees, Pharisees, Essenes, and Zealots? Not so much, the Jewish population went from a major regional majority to scattered and minor communities. You won't have an organized Christianity with a papacy and such, you might just get another group of outcasts like the Roma or the Jewish diaspora; or if the Romans were effectively enough Christianity was rather new at the time and didn't have the time that Judaism had to spread and the possibility of eradication was quite high.

Again, I agree Christianity won’t probably have the same pull it had OTL, given Jesus of Nazaret’s rebellion, I just said it might survive some way or another. Romans, contrary to popular belief, didn’t actively persecute Christians until emperor Decius, so Christianity would have been eradicated sometime in the fourth century in its worse case scenario.
 
Em
Again, I agree Christianity won’t probably have the same pull it had OTL, given Jesus of Nazaret’s rebellion, I just said it might survive some way or another. Romans, contrary to popular belief, didn’t actively persecute Christians until emperor Decius, so Christianity would have been eradicated sometime in the fourth century in its worse case scenario.

Emperor Hadrain, IOTL he ordered the destruction of the Jewish faith that was at the core of the revolts, had the Christians revolted as well then expect the same treatment for the security of the empire.
 
Em


Emperor Hadrain, IOTL he ordered the destruction of the Jewish faith that was at the core of the revolts, had the Christians revolted as well then expect the same treatment for the security of the empire.

But that particular revolt lasted about four years, it forced Hadrian to call legions from Britain to suppress it, and to top it all, the Jews revolted because they opposed Hadrian’s very policy of bringing Hellenism in all the empire’s provinces. Hadrian, although tolerant and open minded, was terribly arrogant and self centered, the Jews rejected his very own ideals, thus they were met with the most ruthless suppression they ever faced. The Christians’ revolt wouldn’t last as long, wouldn’t put the empire in such strain, wouldn’t dispose of as many resources as the Jews did, wouldn’t even have the same numbers, and Tiberius would swiftly put an end to it by executing its leader not too long after the whole revolt began. The Christians would then disperse, linger on for some time, and eventually be rooted out by whatever faith became the prominent one in the late empire. They couldn’t seriously be seen as such a danger to be worth persecuting, they could never manage a second uprising anyway.
 
But that particular revolt lasted about four years, it forced Hadrian to call legions from Britain to suppress it, and to top it all, the Jews revolted because they opposed Hadrian’s very policy of bringing Hellenism in all the empire’s provinces. Hadrian, although tolerant and open minded, was terribly arrogant and self centered, the Jews rejected his very own ideals, thus they were met with the most ruthless suppression they ever faced. The Christians’ revolt wouldn’t last as long, wouldn’t put the empire in such strain, wouldn’t dispose of as many resources as the Jews did, wouldn’t even have the same numbers, and Tiberius would swiftly put an end to it by executing its leader not too long after the whole revolt began. The Christians would then disperse, linger on for some time, and eventually be rooted out by whatever faith became the prominent one in the late empire. They couldn’t seriously be seen as such a danger to be worth persecuting, they could never manage a second uprising anyway.

You assume that Rome would bother sorting through Christians and Judo-Christians at a time when they weren't sure of the difference themselves, that's asking for a lot.
 
You assume that Rome would bother sorting through Christians and Judo-Christians at a time when they weren't sure of the difference themselves, that's asking for a lot.

Once they see not all of Judea rises in the name of Jesus, they’re gonna realize the revolt is not as serious as it might have warranted. If Romans could avoid massive bloodbaths in restoring order, they usually did.
 
If the revolt succeeds then this is very likely only temporary (Rome circa AD 30 has no major distraction and will eventually crush Judea). Let's say that the forces mustered IOTL to invade Britain in 43 are sent to Judea instead. While this short-lived New Kingdom of Judah will (at first) seem, from the Roman point of view, only a speed bump in establishing the Mare Nostrum, its 10 years of existence are more than enough for Ieshua to be validated as Messiah, Son of Man, King of the Jews, Heir of David etc. So indeed Judaism will be very much transformed by this.

Yea, I was imagining less the successful establishment of a Jewish state but more like a long running "bleeding wound" that then generalizes across the empire. Like, this new Messianic Judaism spreads like Christianity did; establishing various underground worship groups across the empire through conversion. However, instead of merely preaching and doing charity they collect knives and prepare for guerrilla war.
 
I interpret the OP to mean that Jesus doesn't have supernatural powers and comes back in the sense that he survived the crucifixion, the experience having convinced to lead an open revolt against Roman rule.

I was more like one of his followers fakes it and convinces most people that his is the genuine article. Perhaps, though this might not be possible under Second Temple Jewish doctrine, he claims that Jesus incarnated into him or something.

In that case I think it's the Great Revolt of the AD 66 just 35 years sooner and with the same results. You can't beat Rome, they're just too powerful and professional of an army. The consequences for Jerusalem will be dire. Christianity as a religion will wither and die although ironically the notoriety of leading a major revolt against Rome will prompt Roman histories to include more details about Jesus than we have OTL.

I mean, how possible is that the diaspora spreads this new religion with them. Would it be possible to maintain some kind of singular religio-political structure for all Jews and prevent the development of a decentralized Rabbinical form of the religion?
 
Top