Historical Jesus Found!

[Peter]

Some stories, may they be fictious or real, become successful all around the globe, adaptable to any cultural surroundings on this planet: tales like "Pinocchio", films like "The Godfather", real-life stories like that of Oscar Schindler, scientific revolutions like Einstein's theories of relativity, catastrophes like the 2005 Tsunami, religious narrations like those found in the New Testament. Why? Because they comprise the basic rules for telling a story: they are fascinating, interesting, compelling, unique, understandable and universal. Successful stories have a common and basic aesthetic and social value, because they tell you something about life as a human...and they tend to stay simple and focused in their emotional and intellectual contents. Good stories as well as major turning points in history will make you forget the chaotic complexity of earthly life, because they reduce and transcend existence to a brilliant, airy, clear, majestic and spherical order.

 

In the course of history, successful stories have always undergone cultural transformations and adaptations, and poignant historical events have always had far reaching consequences. In the 1950s the German theologian Ethelbert Staufer discovered that the Christian Easter liturgy isn't based on genuine Christian sources, but on the funeral ceremony and passion of Caius Iulius Caesar, the founder of modern civilization. This ceremony is one of the most important events in the history of mankind, for it decided not only on the fate of the Roman Empire, but the fate of Christianity, Europe and the whole world. An improvised funeral service, driven by a wide range of deep emotions from sorrow to love, from remorse to fury, turned into uproar and insurrection, shaped Rome for all times and sealed Caesar's apotheosis to the highest God of the state, Divus Iulius. A few generations later Caesar's story was still being told, the God Iulius still being worshipped, especially in the Eastern colonies, where many of his veterans had settled after the Civil War. There, in a different cultural context, the story was altered, adapted, incorrectly translated, misinterpretated, but nonetheless understood: its core and ethics were preserved, and after the Jewish War, Christianity suddenly surfaced and swept into western Rome. Soon afterwards the Julian religion was extinct and forgotten.

 

In the book "Jesus was Caesar" by linguist and philosopher Francesco Carotta, Ethelbert Staufer's findings are anything but a coincidence, rather a logical result from a historical momentum and from cultural-dynamical phenomena, which Carotta reveals in a scientific tour-de-force rollercoaster ride. "Jesus was Caesar" is a praiseworthy and highly learned work of daring excellency. This is not some borderline esoteric pap, but a gritty and witty report that never loses its scientific seriousness. The reader will embark on a journey into the Roman womb of Christendom, where astounding parallels between the lives of Jesus Christ and Iulius Caesar are revealed. Strange enough, although Carotta finally presents to us the historical Jesus in overwhelming grandezza, orthodox scientists and believers hate (and fear) this work, which has been available in other languages since 1999, because it is not a theory at all, but a huge cluster of historical, archeological, numismatic, cultural, theological and linguistic facts and accords. Moreover, "Jesus was Caesar" is the ever first, truly integral design on the origin of Christianity and the roots of the Christ, far beyond the mere myth that is being preached in our churches. As Jesus/Iulius did, this book will eventually change the world...

 

...if, yes, IF Francesco Carotta is right. Since this is highly probable, scientists and non-scientists, believers and non-believers are starting to feel comfortable with Carotta's findings. His book was once said to be of the same order of importance as the scientific discoveries of Galileo and Kopernikus...and if this is all just a scientific hoax, it will still go down in history as one of the greatest and most thoroughly conceived pieces of art, comparable only to Beethoven's "Ode to Joy", Shakespeare's "Hamlet", the Mona Lisa...and yes, for some people maybe even "The Naked Gun". Either way, it's a "must read".

 

Found here

[Jimbow]

Now, call me a grufty Northerner, but:- Jesus and Caesar were two completely different men, they did completely different things, and they lived in completely different places, at completely different times. Where is the connection? Please?

 

a logical result from a historical momentum and from cultural-dynamical phenomena

 

 

Smacks of the DaVinci Code to me. Bobbins. IT'S A MAN IN THE PAINTING!!!!

[Peter]

Now, call me a grufty Northerner, but:-  Jesus and Caesar were two completely different men, they did completely different things, and they lived in completely different places, at completely different times. Where is the connection? Please?

 

a logical result from a historical momentum and from cultural-dynamical phenomena

 

Smacks of the DaVinci Code to me. Bobbins. IT'S A MAN IN THE PAINTING!!!!

 

For Jesus and Caesar to be two completely different men they must have both existed as two independent real human beings on earth, right? Now, there is no doubt about the existence of Caius Julius Caesar, but what is the situation with the historicity of Jesus? Short answer: there is not the slightest shred of evidence for the existence of miracle-doing wandering preacher named Jesus of Nazareth. A summary can be found here.

 

Julius Caesar, an indubitable figure of history ("the greatest among mortals"), was elevated to the highest God of the empire after his murder, Divus Iulius. The cult of Divus Iulius permeated the whole empire especially the east where many of his veterans had been settled. The cult surrounding Caesar dissolved as a cult surrounding Jesus Christ, who is never mentioned by early historians, appeared.

The thesis of 'Jesus was Caesar' is that Jesus, the (son of ) God, is Divus Iulius, as he has been transmitted through history, the Gospel proves to be a corrupted retelling (the miraculous victories of Caesar become the victorious miracles of Jesus, etc.) of the life of Julius Caesar from the Rubicon to his assassination and apotheosis (Jesus parallel: From the Jordan to his crucifixion and resurrection).

Here is a summary of the main points.

I have read the book and I can assure you this is not a hoax or ficition like "The DaVinci Code". This is the real thing, this is the historical Jesus.

Hope this helps.

[Marcus Regulus]

there is not the slightest shred of evidence for the existence of miracle-doing wandering preacher named Jesus of Nazareth

 

 

Not true, the gospels themselves have every right to stand as evidence and witnesses (multiple ones I might add) of Jesus existence. Not to mention Tacitus and Jospehus and Philo all attest to his existence. No Roman ever denies Jesus' existence. The real issue here is prejudice against Chrsitianity. If you impose the same critique on the writings about Julius Caeser as you do these others we could denounce his existence as well. Maybe someone made them up to justify the Caeser cult. Maybe the fact is that Julius Caeser was created by the Romans because Chrsit was getting so popular that they neeeded their own hero to cash in. Maybe the crossing of the Rubicon to his assassination to his apotheosis is actually an attempt to steal Jesus' thunder in his Crossing the Jordan crucifixion and resurrection to get to people to look back to Rome. As a Christian I could easily make the same arguments in reverse and contest each point just a verhemently the other way. The reason for this is simple all history is a study of the accounts of witnesses. In the gospels we have four witnesses who say Jesus existed and did certain things, they do not contradict each other, but they are not completely alike either so they did not just copy each other either. Dating and scholarship of texts now confirms the gospels were written in the 1st century.

 

The real issue is people deny the gospels because of the miracles -- miracles do not happen so they must be false. However, such a view does not take into account the fact that in our universe things may be improbable but not impossible. That is Einstein's theory.

 

The fact remains if such evidence that was indiputable were presented for Jesus' existence were given, people would still not beleive, because they do not want to face the reality of who he is. There are only three possible conclusions -- he is either a liar, a lunatic or he is what he said he is -- the SON of God.

 

You say Jesus does not exist with such conviction -- how do you know? were you there? No you were not so what source of antiquity (what witness do you have) that says Jesus did not exist in the time he is said to live. Answer -- none. It is purely the product of your reason, which could be wrong.

 

The fact is there is good evidence that the both of them existed in their own right and while their are some simularities there are also many important differences that amke them two different men.

[Primus Pilus]

Even as an atheist (or agnostic depending on the labels one slaps on me ) I must agree with Marcus Regulus that the gospel evidence, and later writings of historians such as Tacitus, cannot be completely disregarded. If we disregard Tacitus' or Josephus' account of Jesus because they weren't there, then we must discount everything they wrote that happened prior to their own lives. One can argue that many writings of Roman historians is tainted by severe propoganda or obtained with poor source material. Still we also know that they had access to writings and other evidence which simply doesn't exist anymore. We know that Livy's account of early Rome is terribly clouded in myth, but we also understand that somewhere within his words is the basis for truth. I understand that there is no 'primary source'' evidence for Jesus, including the suspicious absence of records from Pilate, and everything else was word of mouth or provided by gospels written years after the fact. Can't we though look at the gospels in the same way that we look at other Roman 'historians'? That they are, at the very least, formed from a semi-true story that grew into a legend?

 

In the anti-historical Jesus world, Paul is often 'blamed' for inventing the Jesus icon to fit into his son of man religious theory, but even if that assumption by atheists is correct, the chance of him taking the story from an existing man who had been crucified for anti-establishment behavior, rather than inspiring complete fiction, is equally plausible.

 

All in my opinion of course.

[Jimbow]

I think the point has been missed. I do not believe for one moment that the story of Jesus Christ is based on the story of Julius Caesar. They were separate men, they led separate lives, at differrent times, they both wore sandals. The wearing of sandals is the closest they'll ever get as far as I'm concerned. Parallels between individual's lives happen every hour. Especially if you 'stretch' the imagination.There are many examples of it in fiction.

 

Mohandas Gandhi was the Duke of Wellington. It's the same thing.

[Peter]

I think the point has been missed. I do not believe for one moment that the story of Jesus Christ is based on the story of Julius Caesar. They were separate men, they led separate lives, at differrent times, they both wore sandals. The wearing of sandals is the closest they'll ever get as far as I'm concerned. Parallels between individual's lives happen every hour. Especially if you 'stretch' the imagination.There are many examples of it in fiction.

 

Mohandas Gandhi was the Duke of Wellington. It's the same thing.

 

What you believe is of no relevance when it comes to the scientific Search for the Historical Jesus. There certainly are people who take the Gospel literally, but then again there are also those who believe in Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy.

Do you also believe what Matthew reports in 27:52-53... "And the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints which slept arose, And came out of the graves after his resurrection, and went into the holy city, and appeared unto many"

Why did no historian report this earth-shattering event?

If you believe this is a factual report of what happened you better not read 'Jesus was Caesar', you may find it unbelievable.

[Marcus Regulus]

Do you also believe what Matthew reports in 27:52-53... "And the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints which slept arose, And came out of the graves after his resurrection, and went into the holy city, and appeared unto many"

Why did no historian report this earth-shattering event?

 

 

A historian did -- his name was Matthew and that's the point. You have to give the gospels their place because if you don't you might as well throw out Tacitus, Flavius Josephus and every other ancient historian.

 

What Roman historian would report that event -- it would add to a growing reputation of a movement they were trying to suppress? What you think revisionist history is only a modern phenom.?

 

There are a lot of events that are only recorded by one historian of eyewitness. Tacitus is a notable example of a person who is the only historical witness to some events that are recorded. There are only few good ones for the Roman republic. Polybius, Cicero, Livy, Valerius Maximus, and Plutarch. Most of them wrote after the fact as well but while parts of them are doubted the fact is most historians believe that their information is useful. Why are the gospels any different. Prejudice against Christianity is the only answer.

 

Maybe the Romans thought because it was recorded in the gospels and they treated them as history there was no need to record it again because the history had been already done. There are a hundred explainations.

 

What you believe is of no relevance when it comes to the scientific Search for the Historical Jesus.

 

 

There is nothing scientific about this work you mention I have looked at it before. It is pure conjecture. There is no historian that says what he says either. Ancient or modern. It is his beleif and if you beleive it you have more faith than me.

 

How can a person be so open minded about this piece of conjecture and then so narrow minded about the gospels? Luke in particular writes as a classical historian and follows historical method in writing his gospel and the book of Acts. Luke 1:1-4 gives us his method.

 

There certainly are people who take the Gospel literally, but then again there are also those who believe in Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy.

 

 

As a Chrisitan I am supposed to love everyone like a brother or sister but this is a clear case of bigotry and prejudice and I am going to call it such. I get very tired of this. If any other event in history had four seperate accounts of it that did not contradict each other and were different enough to say they did not copy each other it would be an iron clad case for the event. But because the event is the life of Jesus and we don't like Christianity we are going to question it. Amazing. There is no evidence that you can't take them literally either. There is no ancient historian that says what you saying at all or that the gospels are untrue either. By the way I am one that takes them literally if you couldn't guess because people have been trying to disprove them for 2000 years and in the end every one of them goes away frustrated because all they have is theory and no facts to prove them at all.

 

And so it continues to this day.

[Primus Pilus]

Thats the beautiful thing about religion or faith. Proof is not the necessity, it simply requires belief. One cannot prove or disprove the gospels any more than one can prove or disprove the writings of Livy. Despite my noted lack of the afore-mentioned 'belief' I still agree with Marcus Regulus that Caesar and Jesus are clearly different people.

[Marcus Regulus]

PP hit it on the head - -there is a great deal we all take on faith -- like it or not.

[Peter]

PP hit it on the head - -there is a great deal we all take on faith -- like it or not.

 

If your "faith" hinges on Jesus walking over the water, changing water into wine and raising the dead in the literal, physical/biological sense then the Gospel might be enough for you. For those with a more realistic world view who are critical and do not believe every fairy tale they are told even if they are written in the "holy scriptures" 'Jesus was Caesar' finally provides the answer as to how Christianity, the largest world religion, came into being.

There's no need to argue, everyone is free to read and believe what they want.

[Marcus Regulus]

more realistic world view

 

 

Based on what? Your own belief that it is more realistic? Because that is really all you have -- you believe (have faith that it is) and so it is. But there is not one shread of real evidinece for this guy's theory to be true. History is what we are discussing here not conjecture.

 

You need to catch up with the times -- in the Eisteinian universe anything is possible. Even walking on water. Seems like your living in the Neutonian past.

 

How is it that you do not consider the possibility that the reason Chrisitainity became the force it is is that it is true? Maybe Jesus did come out of the tomb and that is the reality. This is not about fairy tales my friend -- I have witnesses more witnesses than many other events of ancient antiquity to back it up. Are you saying that over 500 people lied and were lying when they saw Jesus after he was crucified. As Paul says in 1 Corinthians that if you didn't beleive him you could go to them and they would tell you to this day in his time. That's a pretty big lie and one that cost most of them their lives. This was not just mere religious fervor there was something more to it.

 

No offense to the athiests in the room but this is the kind of athiesim that I can't stand -- sitting in intellectual elitist towers and calling condemnation on the 'poor religious masses who are misguided." Hate to break the news to you there are great deal of very smart, educated and knowledgable people that beleive in what I am saying and many of them started out like yourselves as athiests. The least you could do in your 'openmindedness' is consider all the possibilities not rule the miraculous out because it doesn't fit your worldview. I much rather sit accross an athiest who will here the evidence and just dismiss something as -- not realistic.

 

Sorry, didn't mean to vent, but it does burn me a little. People of faith are not stupid or misguided they simply have faith in something -- just like everyone does.

[Peter]

[...]

The least you could do in your 'openmindedness' is consider all the possibilities not rule the miraculous out because it doesn't fit your worldview.  I much rather sit accross an athiest who will here the evidence and just dismiss something as -- not realistic.

 

Sorry, didn't mean to vent, but it does burn me a little.  People of faith are not stupid or misguided they simply have faith in something -- just like everyone does.

 

I could give that back to you 'consider all the possibilities'. But it seems you don't want to do that, are you afraid? Isn't that the greatest miracle of all how Divus Iulius became Jesus? I know both sides, the orthodox Christian one and the historical one presented in 'Jesus was Caesar'. Why don't you study both too and then see, which is more believable.

 

And it seems to me you are mistaken in assuming that the author of 'Jesus was Caesar' or people who realize it is true are atheists. Erika Simon, professor emeritus, the author of the afterword, e.g. calls herself a devout Catholic. How is that possible?

Could it be that you do not understand what faith really is? 'Faith' is derived from the Latin 'fides' meaning loyalty, faithfulness. What you refer to as 'faith' seems to me to be more credulity, no offense.

[Marcus Regulus]

I have consider this possibility and have rejected it -- because it is not rational to base an entire theory on percieved simularities, it relies of on a look at these similarities but no historical finding backs it up -- it is not rational as you think. I consider every possibility, but in the end there is one thing that this view does not have -- facts to back it up. As far as the person being a devote Roman Catholic -- I think the Pope and the Cardinals may find that she is not.

 

Faith is also belief as defined by Greek language as well -- pistis -- a conviction based on hearing. My point is this that there are four gospels writing in historical format that say the Christ and Caeser are two different people. This person's work is based on their observations of similarities between the two individuals -- but similarities between the two individuals do not mean they are the same person -- that is a leap of faith and belief that I feel is irrational. My life is similar to Detrich Bonhoffer -- doesn't mean we are the same person as an example. It is more beleiveable that the two are seperate individuals and these authors are going to make a mint on people that will hear their theory for the novilty of it -- I suppose you bought their book?

 

No offense taken, but I dislike the steriotype that some athiests have of Chrsitians -- we have just as much historical reason to beleive what we beleive as you do. Our sources are historically accurate on many points that do not have to do with miracles or faith. I think the study of Roman history (getting back to the topic at hand) loses much becasue they gospels and Acts will not be treated as equals with other writers of antiquity. It also loses whne the benefits of Christianization are not discussed and only the negative.

 

Good grief the writers of some of these Roman histories say Julius Caeser's ancestor was the goddess Venus. Is that rational to you, but it does not stop you from considering the rest of it. I think you cannot dismiss the gospels with a wave of your hand for the same reason. But if you do then this theory does not make much sense does it?

[Jimbow]

Do you also believe what Matthew reports in 27:52-53... "And the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints which slept arose, And came out of the graves after his resurrection, and went into the holy city, and appeared unto many"

 

 

No. But then, I'm an atheist. I think you assumed a little too much there

 

If you believe this is a factual report of what happened you better not read 'Jesus was Caesar', you may find it unbelievable.

 

 

I don't believe it was a factual report. Also, I think Jesus being Caesar is just as unbelievable.

 

There's no need to argue, everyone is free to read and believe what they want.

 

 

Actually, in this case, I feel there is a need to argue, especially when a tenuous link at best is professed to be an all-revealing truth and changes history.

 

'Faith' is derived from the Latin 'fides' meaning loyalty, faithfulness. What you refer to as 'faith' seems to me to be more credulity, no offense.

 

 

Oh c'mon. We all know religious faith is all about belief without the need for proof. At least in the context it was used here, which is accurate by the way. We're not speaking latin, we're using english here.