Historical Jesus Found!

[emperess]

why not? in revelations the anti-christ was based on nero

[FLavius Valerius Constantinus]

Wow, what the nerve of that article, I don't know why people bother reading it.

[Primus Pilus]

While Peter may seem a bit zealous in his support of the 'Caesar was Jesus' concept, I give him credit for attempting to lay out his reasoning. Simple dismissal of a concept on a forum where people hold many differing beliefs isn't exactly going to persuade anyone.

[Skarr]

Interesting theory, no doubt.

 

Christianity, like most other religions are inventions or fabrications of powerful men who seek to control the masses. When kings could not control the 'sheep' or the 'herd' or the 'mob, popular terms for how they viewed their subjects (with a few exceptions, of course, there are always a few good men - however, the majority tend to be of the power grabbing variety), they depended on shamans, priests to induce the fear of the law, of the king's divine authority etc. etc.

 

In any case, this is just another theory and who knows really? Jesus may never have existed and could be a complete fabrication. That is surely possible. On the other hand, he may have been a simple man with some teachings and followers and perhaps, someone saw in him an opportunity to make a religion out of it.

 

That Jesus was a son of God and all 'divine' aspects - that, I find hard to believe as it is nonsensical, I think, for man, who is just one of the many species on this planet to assume that everything was created for him / her and that he / she shares a special relationship with 'God'. It is mere wishful thinking at best, which explains why humans are so arrogant, believing the Earth is special, our solar system is special and that life itself is unique and confined only to Earth.

 

Looking into the sky is a sobering reality. Our planet is an obscure speck of dust, on the edge of another obscure galaxy (our Milky way) and we are little worms shouting out ... hey, I can think, I know who I am, all of this must have been created for me.. Look, I can talk, soon I will presume to know everything there is and will even tell everybody that the creator has made us in his / her image.

 

By this logic, even if this were true, wouldn't the creator be an alien? By this, I mean not human. Who created the creator is the next question?

 

Therefore, as theories go, Julius Caesar as Christ - Possible ? Yes. Probable ? NO.

[Peter]

[...]

Therefore, as theories go, Julius Caesar as Christ - Possible ? Yes. Probable ? NO.

 

You have said some interestings things in your post, however, as far as the above comment is concerned I have to differ. Why? Not the earthly Julius Caesar was the Christ but Divus Iulius the god he became at the end of his life and ever more after his assassination and funeral which is the original Easter. The Easter liturgy does not follow the gospels but the funeral ritual of Caesar as was discovered by Ethelbert Stauffer (cf. Christ and the Caesars (1955) and particularly 'Jerusalem und Rom im Zeitalter Jesu Christi' (1957), the latter is not available in English unfortunately). For a comprehensive understanding of who Divus Julius was there is the work by Stefan Weinstock 'Divus Julius' (1971), Oxford.

 

One of the problems grasping the discovery presented in 'Jesus was Caesar' is that most people have no idea who Caesar really was and they know even less about Divus Iulius who became the highest God of the Empire (equated with Jupiter) and whose cult permeated the Empire especially the East where many of his veterans had been settled. You don't hear about that at school and hardly, if at all, at university either. Another problem lies in the fact that we have two thousand years of Christian theology behind us which many of us learned in that form or another from childhood on, so we have problems understanding the concept of apotheosis. However, some ancients knew that the gods had once been kings and queens who were elevated to godhead and worshipped after their deaths because they had been benefactors. Euhemeros of Messene wrote a book about that.

 

Peter

[Guest calpurnpiso]

[...]

Therefore, as theories go, Julius Caesar as Christ - Possible ? Yes. Probable ? NO.

 

You have said some interestings things in your post, however, as far as the above comment is concerned I have to differ. Why? Not the earthly Julius Caesar was the Christ but Divus Iulius the god he became at the end of his life and ever more after his assassination and funeral which is the original Easter. The Easter liturgy does not follow the gospels but the funeral ritual of Caesar as was discovered by Ethelbert Stauffer (cf. Christ and the Caesars (1955) and particularly 'Jerusalem und Rom im Zeitalter Jesu Christi' (1957), the latter is not available in English unfortunately). For a comprehensive understanding of who Divus Julius was there is the work by Stefan Weinstock 'Divus Julius' (1971), Oxford.

 

One of the problems grasping the discovery presented in 'Jesus was Caesar' is that most people have no idea who Caesar really was and they know even less about Divus Iulius who became the highest God of the Empire (equated with Jupiter) and whose cult permeated the Empire especially the East where many of his veterans had been settled. You don't hear about that at school and hardly, if at all, at university either. Another problem lies in the fact that we have two thousand years of Christian theology behind us which many of us learned in that form or another from childhood on, so we have problems understanding the concept of apotheosis. However, some ancients knew that the gods had once been kings and queens who were elevated to godhead and worshipped after their deaths because they had been benefactors. Euhemeros of Messene wrote a book about that.

 

Peter

I think when people dismiss Carotta's investigative report beliving it to be false, is because they are ignorant of Roman history, culture, religion and have not read about the ancient writers of the time of Caesar, making false assumptions about that time period in Roman history. The Roman empire was not composed only of the city of Rome or Italy, it was so vast the Romans refered to the Mediterranean sea as "Mare Nostrum" ( our sea). The empire was composed of many nationalities with hundreds of religious pratices and beliefs. One has simply to visit museums and archaeological sites throughout Europe, read De Bello Gallico, study the symbolism depicted in the breast plate of Caesar's primaporta statue and see the place where the temple of Divus Iulius once stood, to understand the significance in "Jesus was Caesar". There are numerous things that point in that direction, after all, Caesar was viewed in his time as a Lord and Saviour of the empire and its people.

 

In my view it is imperative to connect all of the dots to realize this is not a mere speculation on Carotta's part but a compilation of ancient historical facts connected to each other. Until now scholars and people of Christian upbringing have been looking at a 20' X 30' picture from a distance of three feet, without looking at it in a panoramic perspective. I did not connect all of the dots till I read Carotta's investigative report despite been studying ancient history and world religions for many years. Since this book is not based on the more appealing unsubstantiated religious fairy tales relying instead in scholarly evidence, etymological studies of the writings, epigraphy, vernacular interpretation, et al, it would become necessary for people to get educated and instructed in these subjects. Who wants to go back to school? So Carotta's educated revelations are readily dismissed and labeled speculative.

Edited December 26, 2005 by calpurnpiso

[P.Clodius]

I don't think its far fetched at all. Stories and concepts have travelled, been adopted by disparate cultures throughout history. Look at the Epic of Gilgamesh where it talks of a Great Flood, where'd you hear that before? And Moses, lived in Egypt and exported monotheism, first HISTORICALY introduced in Egypt by Ahkenaton. It makes perfect sense to me for those who're looking to gain influence in a dominant culture to learn, adapt and adopt its stories, superstitions, etc and make it part of their own or create something new. Remember, back in those days most day to day information was via word of mouth, ever play Chinese Whispers?

[Theodora]

I do however, like to discuss the creation of the Christian story and where it came from.

Edited January 22, 2007 by Theodora

[Primus Pilus]

Dear Bernard,

I read your reply to Primuspilus and am relieved to see that people are not so gullible as to fall for anything that is written. For a Christian, this kind of message is heart-rending. Nevertheless, people are entitled to their opinions. A book that discusses the history of the Church is, The History of the Church, by Eusebuis. It's a pretty good strasight-forward book that discusses the history of the church from Jesus' time up to the conversion of the Emperor Constantine.

Regards,

 

Unfortunately Theodora, this thread has been dead for some time and I doubt the original participants will be back to debate the issue. For the record though, the religion in question throughout this thread does require a certain reliance upon the written word, so "belief" in one thing or another is entirely subjective to individual perspective.

 

Regardless, this post reminds me that I never did read the Jesus is Caesar book despite my best intentions in this thread.

[M. Porcius Cato]

If Caesar is Jesus, where do I sign up for Satanism?

[Northern Neil]

If Caesar is Jesus, where do I sign up for Satanism?

 

Why, Cato, Octavian of course! Didn't he kill the republic?

[Caesar CXXXVII]

If Caesar is Jesus, where do I sign up for Satanism?

 

 

That's more like it .

[caldrail]

Well, my two denarii

 

Jesus is a historical figure, of that I'm sure. He came from a good family and parents had high hopes for him. The impression I get is that jesus was a gifted child but like many with pushy parents, he went a little off the rails as a youth. The bible doesn't record anything of those years at all. Interestingly, there's a trail of local legend and folklore across france and into england suggesting jesus travelled with merchants. I haven't found any solid evidence there though. When jesus re-emerges he's an ambitious preacher, building a personality cult for the sole intention of achieving a throne in judaea. Of course the romans don't like that and neither does caiaphus, who represents the local establishment.

 

Claiming to be a god wasn't unusual in the ancient world. The egyptians were keen on that sort of thing and so were certain emperors. Nero was held in such awe that a slave who looked like him mounted a play for power after his death. Followers flocked to his cause convinced that Nero had returned from the grave. It doesn't suprise me that someone has claimed that Caesar was jesus. Constantine tried to get one of his relatives worshipped as that person. Its a peculiarity of human psychology that we tend to gather around charismatic figures for no apparent reason. Adolf Hitler, Princess Di etc. The same happened with jesus.

 

The problem with the bible is we're taught to accept its text as irrefutable, when in actual fact its a story meant to protray this jesus as a son of god rather than a future king. As I've said before its on a par with a modern hollywood film - 'based on a true story'.

 

The nativity, the famous birth scene, is probably nonsense. I really do doubt three kings travelled to a stable in nazareth, and as for astronomers searching for evidence of comets and other such phenomena, give up. Its been added to the story to wow the audience. To justify this image of jesus as 'son of god'. He was a brash and pushy guy who wanted to make a name for himself without all that hard work that his parents used to nag him about. He was clever, articulate, and certainly had some presence. Had he remained a rural preacher he would have led that life of ease he wanted. His ambition cost him dearly. Its ironic though that in death he succeeded far better than he would have had he achieved his desire.

 

The bible as we know it is a collection of tales that passed scrutiny in the 4th century by roman clerics, who had political reasons to decide which stories suited the more organised religion that was coming together under the aegis of Constantine.

 

We shouldn't dismiss the bible entirely though, because there are valuable clues to the period contained there.

[Northern Neil]

The impression I get is that jesus was a gifted child but like many with pushy parents, he went a little off the rails as a youth. The bible doesn't record anything of those years at all.

 

The apocryphal gospels do, though, and they record that sometimes he could be a rather unpleasent person. The same as any other normal human being, in fact - probably why it wasn't included in the definitive texts!

Edited January 23, 2007 by Northern Neil