WI Jesus was not crucified?

Now, Jesus was clearly expecting to die as a result of his actions--but the Romans decide to avoid turning him into a martyr, with the hope of killing his movement.
But did the Romans care for his movement in the first place? I mean, before his death
 
But did the Romans care for his movement in the first place? I mean, before his death

Its a hard question to know. The Bible shows Pontius Pilate as extremely reluctant to Kill Jesus. If he acts on a desire to end the trouble without violence, exiling Jesus is probably the right thing to do--and I'd suppose this would throw a large monkey wrench in everything.

I see it at least possible that if the situation in Judea became provocative, Pilate could respond with means other than execution--he did attempt the crown of thorns and stuff, at least according to the bible.

Now, I don't consider the Bible a factual source--it certainly does not have primary source in any case. There is room for doubt that Jesus was even a historical person--and it is on this point that I will concede this, temporarily, for the sake of this thread. We don't have much else to go on, and we are not helped by a millennium of religious leaders turning Christianity into a propaganda machine at the expense of accuracy.

So, the point is that Pilate quietly kicks Jesus out, and Pilate essentially calls this Rome's word in the matter. Jesus' Cult would either be stillborn or gravely marginalized as a result of these actions. Making it popular enough to reach Rome and become its primary faith is a non-issue.
 
But did the Romans care for his movement in the first place? I mean, before his death
Well, as said, Pilate is shown as being reluctant to kill the guy. He just wanted to stave off a popular revolt, as the greater majority of people were against what they considered to be Jesus' heresy from Judaism.

On the other hand, it is reasonable to see, from the standpoint of Roman law, why they would want his movement ended. It could have been seen as an incitement for Jewish nationalism, with its concept of salvation and liberation of the Jews, and thus could potentially be used to incite revolt and rebellion. Also, the Christ Cult's claims of Jesus being a son of god, and king of kings, could undermine the absolute authority of the Roman Emperor and State. Thus, it would be treasonous to follow such a cult, which is the legal point the Romans used to persecute Christianity in the first place.
 
...which is odd, given that, historically, Pilate didn't hesitate to crush uprisings or kill off uppity "cult" leaders.

No, not odd at all. I can't remember specifically, but I think it's in one of the Gospels that Pilate was worried that he was damned if he did, and damned if he didn't. If he did crucify Jesus, he would have an uprising of his followers (so he thought) if he didn't, he would have a Jewish uprising. So he figured that if he left it in the hands of the people of Jerusalem and washed his hands of the matter, then the Pharisees would be to blame and not the Romans.

True, Pilate easily crushed uprisings without hesitation, that doesn't necessarily mean Pilate enjoyed watching the city streets filled with blood. Remember, a Governor's job is to keep the peace. Usually by means of prevention.
 

Keenir

Banned
No, not odd at all. I can't remember specifically, but I think it's in one of the Gospels that Pilate was worried that he was damned if he did, and damned if he didn't.

to a point. Rome was upset with him for the severity of his crushings, not for him doing it at all.

True, Pilate easily crushed uprisings without hesitation, that doesn't necessarily mean Pilate enjoyed watching the city streets filled with blood. Remember, a Governor's job is to keep the peace.

once, a crowd had gathered outside his offices, and hadn't started shouting or anything...Pilate sent his soldiers out in local garb to start a fight - so he could crush the crowd.
 
Top