WI: Pontus Pilate/Pharisees order Jesus to be stoned to death?

Let's say that Pontus Pilate really washes his hands of the whole matter and turns Jesus over to the Pharisees, with the full expectation that he be stoned to death by the community, which they proceed to do.

Is this simply a matter of minor details in the Gospels and iconography, or are there massive ramifications down the road? Will the stone become the symbol of Christianity (beyond the Chi-Rho and the fishes/anchor), and will Simon Peter's name take on more ironic tones? Stigmata obviously won't be a thing, so will the evidence of the Resurrection (assuming it actually happened) be bruises on the body? Does Joseph of Arimathea necessarily gain possession of the body of Christ?
 
Let's say that Pontus Pilate really washes his hands of the whole matter and turns Jesus over to the Pharisees, with the full expectation that he be stoned to death by the community, which they proceed to do.

Is this simply a matter of minor details in the Gospels and iconography, or are there massive ramifications down the road? Will the stone become the symbol of Christianity (beyond the Chi-Rho and the fishes/anchor), and will Simon Peter's name take on more ironic tones? Stigmata obviously won't be a thing, so will the evidence of the Resurrection (assuming it actually happened) be bruises on the body? Does Joseph of Arimathea necessarily gain possession of the body of Christ?

I think this makes anti-semitism worse. "The Jews killed Jesus" was a common enough smear OTL as it was despite the gospels making it very clear that it was the Romans that did so with at worst the encouragement of collaborators among the Jewish elite. If Jesus is indisputably murdered by a Jewish mob through stoning then it's only going to make that particular smear stronger and more mainstream.
 
Let's say that Pontus Pilate really washes his hands of the whole matter and turns Jesus over to the Pharisees, with the full expectation that he be stoned to death by the community, which they proceed to do.

Is this simply a matter of minor details in the Gospels and iconography, or are there massive ramifications down the road? Will the stone become the symbol of Christianity (beyond the Chi-Rho and the fishes/anchor), and will Simon Peter's name take on more ironic tones? Stigmata obviously won't be a thing, so will the evidence of the Resurrection (assuming it actually happened) be bruises on the body? Does Joseph of Arimathea necessarily gain possession of the body of Christ?

Not necessarily, after all the fish was the common symbol of early Christianity before being replaced by the cross.
ITTL I can see the fish symbol remaining the main symbol.
Although if the trinity develops as OTL then perhaps a triangle or triangle&circle would represent trinity and The Stoning?
 

fi11222

Banned
Let's say that Pontus Pilate really washes his hands of the whole matter and turns Jesus over to the Pharisees, with the full expectation that he be stoned to death by the community, which they proceed to do.

Is this simply a matter of minor details in the Gospels and iconography, or are there massive ramifications down the road? Will the stone become the symbol of Christianity (beyond the Chi-Rho and the fishes/anchor), and will Simon Peter's name take on more ironic tones? Stigmata obviously won't be a thing, so will the evidence of the Resurrection (assuming it actually happened) be bruises on the body? Does Joseph of Arimathea necessarily gain possession of the body of Christ?
I believe it might actually help Christianity spread faster. It would be more anti-Jewish, more Pauline and also much more palatable to the Romans/Greeks (the cross is an even bigger stigma for them than for the Jews). Also, Jesus would appear more as a "prophet killed by his own people" (no one is a prophet in his own country) and less as a failed rebel against the Roman Empire which is the brush with which the Jewish establishment was trying to smear him.
 
There could be all sorts of butterflies, the evolution of Christian theology has always been an amusing study. For example the "prophecy" about the Messiah being hung on a tree (twisted to be the crucifixion cross in OTL) is used, inter alia, to justify the claim that Jesus died for all our sins. Without the crucifixion and death by stoning there is likely to be significant shift in focus on dying for all our sins. Why can't Jesus simply die as a mortal so that god can better understand his creation by learning the limitations of mortal existence? Albeit, this drastically reduces the power of the clergy to compel obedience in society by downplaying compulsory salvation from original sin, so a replacement narrative will be needed to keep the religion dominant in everyday life.
 
Pontus Pilate

The gospel stories of Jesus are now widely regarded as allegory. They cannot be historically verified.
 
The gospel stories of Jesus are now widely regarded as allegory. They cannot be historically verified.

No they aren't...almost no historian regards them as entirely historical accounts, but I can't think of any who consider them allegory, either. Besides, this isn't really important, it only matters that Christians believe Jesus to have died by stoning, regardless of whether that is in fact true.
 
Top