Historical Jesus Found!

[Peter]

Salutem cunctis,

 

I had posted this in the after hour lounge but I though it might be better placed here:

According to the Italian scholar Francesco Carotta the historical Jesus was Caesar!

Carotta: "The Gospel proves to be the history of the Roman Civil war, a 'mis-telling' of the life of Caesar-from the Rubicon to his assassination-mutated into the narrative of Jesus, from the Jordan to his crucifixion. Jesus is a true historical figure, he lived as Gaius Julius Caesar, and resurrected as Divus Julius."

http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/stories....02986805&EDATE=

http://www.carotta.de

 

Quite a sensation! Comments anybody?

 

Valete

 

Peter

[Demson]

... God I love history.

 

I did a google to be sure - it doesn't seem to be a hoax.

[Marcus Regulus]

All,

A cult surrounding Jesus Christ, son of God and originator of Christianity, appeared during the second century. Early historians, however, never mentioned Jesus and even now there is no actual proof of his existence.

 

 

Unless you count Luke the gospel historian who also wrote and account the early Church called -- Acts of the Apostiles. Tacitus who wrote in the second century about the first, Flavious Josephus who wrote in the first and a host of others. Most were Chrsitians or Jews -- so they must be liars --right?

 

Chrsitianity first appears in Judea and Galilee in the first century, not in Rome in the second. Nice try, but it seems biased based on the fact that it wont even consider what Christianity has to say or historians that wrote in that time frame.

 

I suppose anyone who wants to read into the gospels and see Caeser could do so, but I could do that with any leader or ruler -- they used to say that Jesus was Socrates made Jewish fifty years ago and now that is not even considered only as fanciful -- this will be too. the proof offered -- 'Well, this looks like this or that to me'. There is a lot of speculation and connects with no historical writer saying this is so. I am amazed that people will sit around saying there is no historical proof for Jesus but will beleive this speculation that also has no historical backing by ancient historians. Seems two faced to me.

 

This is not history -- it is historical speculation and their is a difference.

[Ursus]

I'm rather skeptical as well. When Christianity broke out of its Jewish origins and started penetrating into the wider Greco-Roman society, there were doubtless influences and co-mingling with pagan society, especially in the various other Eastern cults who had something of a dying and rising deity. But to equate Caesar worship with Christ is rather overblown.

[Demson]

This is not history -- it is historical speculation and their is a difference.

 

 

Well, alright...

 

... God I love historical speculation.

[cheese]

This is not history -- it is historical speculation and there is a difference.

 

It's not even that, it's plain goofy, but great fun when you like Von Daeniken, Illig, Hancock etc.

Right now Peter/Joseph/Juliana is posting the "reconstruction"drawing of the Caesar crucifixion around, so in case he will do so here as well and somebody might ask where it comes from, here is already my answer to that:

 

It was made for Carotta's own book and as goofy as the rest of it.

This is the basic idea of Carotta's book:

The story of Jesus is actually the story of Caesar rewritten (JC=JC).

Therefore everything in the Gospels must originate from the life of Caesar. Caesar was cremated, so Jesus must have been cremated too. And see: Carotta, that great linguistic genius, finds out that the greek verb 'stauro' doesn't actually means to crucify, but to put up posts or slets, and from there onwards to set up the cremation pile. Also the throwing of the dice over the clothes actually means throwing the clothes on top of the pile. (That we can find the origin of the dicepart in psalm 22 is a minor detail Carotta is not interested in). etc. etc. etc.

So that's almost the end of Jesus's crucifixion. But Christianity without a cross is even too much for Carotta, so after this brilliant tour de force he invents a Caesar crucifixion. To do this he combines different classical texts about Caesar's funeral in a ridiculous way. There was a lying wax figure of Caesar and there was a tropaeum, a construction to show his armour on. When you want to show such an armour you need a T-shaped construction and when you want to put a helmet on top, you have to give it a crossform; simple as that (In another forum a choose a modern cross shaped dressboy as my avatar, just to please Joseph, who calls himself Juliana in that one). But to Carotta this has a profound meaning. And since Jesus was hanging on a cross, the wax figure of Caesar also must have been hanging on that crossshaped tropaeum. (The obligatory similarities work in both directions, even if the results seem to exclude one another).

And there you have the background of this astonishing reconstruction.

So to recapitulate:

First we take the Caesar story litteral and adjust the gospel.

Then we take the gospel litteral and adjust the Caesar story.

Piece of cake.

[Peter]

Seems this 'cheese' is on a crusade against Carotta's work and on his way does not flinch from distorting what Carotta says. Maybe people should read his work and judge for themselves.

 

Appianus writes in his The Civil Wars (ed. Horace White):

 

[147] While they were in this temper and were already near to violence, somebody raised above the bier an image of C

[cheese]

Maybe people should read his work and judge for themselves.

My idea; and have a good laugh.

About Appianus: The drawing shows a thick wooden cross; not exactly a

[Peter]

This might be the drawing 'cheese' referred to:

http://www.community.thebeastmovie.com/vie...0e4b0d2ea25c084

 

Probably not exactly true to original, however a nice first attempt.

 

Peter

[Primus Pilus]

I personally see alot of potential in the concept. The Jesus 'myth' as I call it, is a collection of thousands of stories rolled into one massive religious juggernaut. Certainly some of the early foundation may have come from the popularity of Caesar.

 

Since I haven't read the book its hard for me to pass judgement, but what is the actual premise, that Caesar was Christ or that the story of Jesus was just taken and altered from Caesar?

 

I'd scoff at version 1, but version 2 makes at least arguable sense to me. However, even as an atheist I do somehow think there was a historical Jesus.

[Peter]

This is not history -- it is historical speculation and their is a difference.

 

 

So you think you really know Caesar? Well, here is a nice little test, see if you can pass it:

http://www.carotta.de/subseite/texte/esumm...a/edictato.html

[Primus Pilus]

Interesting test, but it doesnt have anything to do with Caesar as Jesus. #1 and #2 are completely subjective. Caesar was absorbed with the concept of his own dignity and achievement. Ponitifex Maximus was a piece of that puzzle, but also among the first of his political achievements. He certainly didn't rest upon the vaunted laurels of being a religious leader. Had this been the most revered achievement he could've retired from additional political advancement at the age of 36. We know he didn't do that and certainly used the position politically against the Boni.

 

#2 depends completely on what you call a private army. That term is very difficult to establish in the turmoil of the late Republic. One could argue that since the reforms of Marius, all armies were private, until the establishment of the Principate.

[cheese]

However, even as an atheist I do somehow think there was a historical Jesus.

Whether or not there has been a historical Jesus is irrelevant for this case, Primuspilus. You should judge Carotta's theory for it's own merits. You write that the mith of Jesus was made up out of thousands of stories. You're right about that, although I would say thousands of story-elements. And most of these elements you can find back in the Old Testament. An ordinary bible gives you hundreds of direct text references (and that is even without all the more general, symbolic ones, like the twelph apostels referring to the twelph tribes etc. etc.). This is something everybody can easily check. Carotta, however, mentions only around 10 such references in his book.

According to him everything in the life of Jesus finds its origin in the life of Caesar. Take Christ's saying

[Primus Pilus]

Whether or not there has been a historical Jesus is irrelevant for this case, Primuspilus. You should judge Carotta's theory for it's own merits.

I can't judge it on its own merits, I haven't read it and won't for the purpose of discovering religious truth. (Though I likely will for entertainment value). I'm an atheist. I don't believe that Caesar was Christ or that Jesus was Christ. I do however, like to discuss the creation of the Christian story and where it came from. This subject provides one interesting tangent in that discussion.

[cheese]

I do however, like to discuss the creation of the Christian story and where it came from.  This subject provides one interesting tangent in that discussion.

Dear Primuspilus,

reading Carotta won't help you in the least, but it's well worth reading for entertainment value. If you like to know more about the origins of Christianity: go to www.IIDB.org, where you can find everything anybody might want to know and many usefull links. And if you want a review of Carotta, mail me (brojan20@hotmail.com).

Bernard