Historical Jesus Found!

[Peter]

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.

 

 

The "tenuous link" is not professed to be an all-revealing truth, it just reveals who the historical Jesus was. And it won't change history, it will only correct historiography. This might have consequences of course...

 

We're not speaking latin, we're using english here.

 

 

Since Jesus was a Roman it might be a good idea to learn Latin again, for Christians at least and it won't hurt atheists either.

[Primus Pilus]

The "tenuous link" is not professed to be an all-revealing truth, it just reveals who the historical Jesus was.

According to one perspective. Really, while this debate rages on in countless formats and in countless places, it really always ends up back at square one. Whether one 'believes it or not'. The 'truth' is debatable on many levels, whether it be the Christian origin of Jesus, other 'non belief' arguments, or this Jesus is Caesar angle. Its a never ending circle of repetitive argument really.

[spiritus]

Jesus is Christ, I have no problem with that. JC=JC. But the Bible tells us that Julius Ceasar was made in JC's image. That is a greater problem for me . .

[Moonlapse]

Jesus is Christ, I have no problem with that. JC=JC. But the Bible tells us that Julius Ceasar was made in JC's image. That is a greater problem for me . .

 

Genesis 1:26

 

"And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth."

 

There is no mention of Jesus Christ in the Old Testament. The Old Testament is a Judaic book. Moses wrote that passage. Hebrew lexicon implies that 'image' and 'likeness' indicate our similarity in form. That we are differentiated from animals.

[Peter]

Jesus is Christ, I have no problem with that. JC=JC. But the Bible tells us that Julius Ceasar was made in JC's image. That is a greater problem for me . .

 

Genesis 1:26

 

"And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth."

 

There is no mention of Jesus Christ in the Old Testament. The Old Testament is a Judaic book. Moses wrote that passage. Hebrew lexicon implies that 'image' and 'likeness' indicate our similarity in form. That we are differentiated from animals.

 

If 'Moses' really wrote that, fine. But what has this to do with the historical Jesus?

Voltaire wrote: "If God created Man in His own image, Man has more than reciprocated."

[P.Clodius]

God was an Englishman called Charles Darwin! And JC being Caesar is certainly feasable. What has JC done for me? Not much. What has Caesar done for me? Well, the entire western world is basking in his glow as we speak.

[Moonlapse]

If 'Moses' really wrote that, fine. But what has this to do with the historical Jesus?

Voltaire wrote: "If God created Man in His own image, Man has more than reciprocated."

Just correcting a little misinformation.

[Peter]

If 'Moses' really wrote that, fine. But what has this to do with the historical Jesus?

Voltaire wrote: "If God created Man in His own image, Man has more than reciprocated."

 

Just correcting a little misinformation.

 

Which misinformation?

[Moonlapse]

The statement that the Bible tells us that Julius Caesar was made in Jesus Christ's image.

[P.Clodius]

...That could of course be the otherway around!!

[leedx7]

I have just skimmed the above posts and, having just recently read the book of Carrotta myself, I was wondering who else had?

 

It seems to me that, for a forum dedicated to history (of which a key part is the collation and assessment of historical information from a variety of sources) there are a lot of people with opinions on this book, who have never actually read it? Do we have a

[Peter]

Has anyone of you guys ever read the Quran? Do you know what it says about Jesus?

In Sura 4, 157 it says:

"... And they did not crucify him, but a simulacrum (an effigy) was made of him. And those who differ therein are full of doubts, with no (certain) knowledge, but only conjecture to follow..."

 

... which again substantiates Carotta's thesis...

[pompeius magnus]

I think this post has overworn its usefullness, like the whole han dynasty vs. the roman empire.

[Peter]

I think this post has overworn its usefullness, like the whole han dynasty vs. the roman empire.

 

Nobody urges you to read this thread if you're not interested. No wonder pompeius magnus says this.

After Pharsalos, Plutarchus, Pomp. 74-5, reports:

"I see, my husband, that you are lost in sorrow."

"You know only of one lot in my life, Cornelia, the better one that

perhaps also deceived you, because its faithfulness to me was unusually

prolonged. But we must also suffer this because we are human..."

 

And this is said in the gospel of John 3:29-31

"He that hath the bride is the bridegroom: but the friend of the bridegroom,

which standeth and heareth him, rejoiceth greatly because of

the bridegroom's voice: this my joy therefore is fulfilled. He must in-

crease, but I must decrease. He that cometh from above is above all:

he that is of the earth is earthly..."

 

Laudetur JC

[Ursus]

This thread has been mostly civil despite the provocative nature of the topic. I would like to commend the members on their maturity and civility.

 

However, I understand that faith is a private thing and held dear for those so inclined. Overtly disparaging some one else's faith is not in the best interests of the site. Let's keep the topic confined to the academic and historical merits (if any) of the original thesis.