Was Jesus Caesar?

[Gaius Julius Camillus]

Hey guys, has anyone here read the Book, 'Was Jesus Caesar', or have any thoughts on it if you have? Below is a brief intro about the book itself.

 

The Italian-German linguist and philosopher Francesco Carotta proves in his book Jesus was Caesar that the story of Jesus Christ has its origin in Roman sources. In more than fifteen years of investigation Carotta has found the traces which lead to the Julian origin of Christianity. He concludes that the story of Jesus is based on the narrative of the life of Julius 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 ressurected as Divus Julius.'' The cult surrounding Jesus Christ, son of God and originator of Christianity appeared during the second century. Early historians, however, never mentioned Jesus and even until now there has been no actual proof of his existence. Julius Caesar, son of Venus and founder of the Roman Empire, was elevated to the status of Imperial God, Divus Julius, after his violent death. The cult that surrounded him dissolved as Christianity surfaced.

 

Carotta's new evidence leads to such an overwhelming amount of similarities between the biography of Caesar and the story of Jesus that coincidence can be ruled out.

 

The most interesting coincidence to me was that the author states that Jesus as well as Caesar hung on a cross. He provides a reconstruction of the

crucifixion of Caesar.

 

 

He credits Suetonius and Appianus for this image.

 

Suet. Div. Iul. 84.1:

[Nephele]

Whoa, dude... They even have the SAME INITIALS! Check it out -- "J.C." = "Julius Caesar" or "Jesus Christ".

 

That's gotta prove something!

 

btw, welcome to UNRV.

 

-- Nephele

[Gaius Julius Camillus]

LOL. Yes, that initial thing was the clincher for me! Thank you for the welcome my lady.

 

Here is a link to the guys site, which goes farther in depth of his theory.

 

Was Jesus Caesar

Edited May 27, 2008 by Lucius Julius Venustinius

[Faustus]

Hey guys, has anyone here read the Book, 'Was Jesus Caesar', or have any thoughts on it if you have?

Jesus Christ, or first of all the need for such a figure as Jesus Christ (as a messiah) could be said to have flowed out of Caesar (as the first of the line of "Caesars") as the dominant figure of Rome.

Without a Caesar, there might not have been a need for a Jesus Christ. There seems to have been a connection due to the spirit of the times in Judea, at the edge of the Roman Empire. I will go so far to say that much.

 

Welcome to UNRV Lucius!

 

Faustus

[Northern Neil]

I believe the stories of several men and gods have been woven into the Jesus tale. His origins, death and some of his miracles are very similar to stories about Bacchus and Dionysus.

[Klingan]

Wow... This is what I would call an unexpected theory...

 

Welcome to UNRV

[caldrail]

My own objections about this comparison are based on the following criticisms of the Jesus story. I know christians won't like me saying these things, but then I'm a lone voice, and they've got plenty.

 

1 - Jesus was not divine

Why did God wait until the beginning of the 1st century AD? If his own son was to have any meaningful impact, surely there were times and places better suited for the purpose. Why was he born to an insignificant mortal family out in the sticks? Why was he born a mortal? Why was he born at all? As the Son of God, why wasn't he given to Mary as such? Why was Mary's purity violated by the need to bear a bastard child? Since his status as Gods only begotten child requires faith in the absence of evidence, the assumption of his divinity is only backed by the story of Mary's supposed purity. Since Jesus was mortal, and that his mother gave birth to a child that was not his fathers, the conclusion is somewhat obvious and has been glossed over in the Bible to prevent any controversy.

 

2 - Jesus was a cult leader

Acccording to the story, Jesus is a lay preacher, outside the accepted priesthoods. He pulls in a band of followers, attempts to attract others to his cause, and makes his living in this way. Typically, such charismatic people don't behave in quite the same way as most folk, and as an outsider to polite society there is no fundamental difference between Jesus as related in the Bible and modern day cultists.

 

3 - Jesus was a failure

His own family disowned him. Further, whatever message he wanted to spread, he failed to do so, despite the glorification in the Bible. It was his followers who made christianity a success decades later, after his life story had been embellished. Depending on which source you believe, Jesus died by crucifixion in Judaea or of old age in India.

 

4 - Jesus was obscure

A son of god, a prophesied messiah, is born in Judaea and goes on to perform miracles. But no-one says anything? Why didn't Suetonius relate an anecdote in his 'Life of Tiberius' about some guy in Judaea claiming to be divine? And why didn't Tiberius have him delivered to Capri for a personal demonstration of his miracles? Admittedly Tiberius cared little for provincial politics, but a genuine miracle-worker would surely have picqued his interest. According to some sources, Jesus travelled to Cornwall in England with traders. Whilst possible, there is no record of this journey other than folk tales from the places he was rumoured to have passed through, and the same might be said of his alleged early years in India.

 

5 - Jesus is largely myth

Ok, he existed. But much of his reported life is apparently borrowed from eastern mysticism and pagan mythos. Much is said about Jesus's message being important rather than his metaphysical significance, but his 'message' is reported in the Bible, an account assembled from stories told decades after his death, sometimes by people who never met him, later subject to sectarian variance during the early and mid roman empire, later still censored to form the original drafts, which themselves were then retranslated and reworked in much the same way as other legended characters such as Arthur or Robin Hood.

 

6 - Jesus's death was meaningless

Why is his death so low-key and if intended to die for our sins, why was there a need to do this? The Bible does not relate any threat from God to repeat the fate of Sodom and Gomorrah, despite the Judaean dislike of roman culture (though arguably, the later Book of Revelations predicts the downfall of Rome) The statement that he was crucified to save mankind is a message that a christian should therefore feel guilty if he does not follow the christian teachings, and is another example of inventing significance to explain mundane events in the real world.

Edited May 27, 2008 by caldrail

[Northern Neil]

My own objections about this comparison are based on the following criticisms of the Jesus story. I know christians won't like me saying these things, but then I'm a lone voice, and they've got plenty.

..Not as much of a lone voice as you may think, Calders. Anyone who has read in depth about the later Roman Empire and the proliferation of mystery religions from 100 - 300 realises that the Jesus story as finally edited in 325 at Nicaea is actually a cobbled together account of the lives of many different individuals rolled into one character. Given the high status of the Divine Julius in the Principate, and the late Roman penchant for sculpting the Christian religion to make it fit politically with the Roman state, I find it not at all preposterous that some of Caesars life has been enmeshed in the Jesus story. Especially when one considers that Christianity was in the main a product of the Roman Empire itself. The only issue I take with you is that Jesus existed - when the evidence is examined methodically, it turns out there is actually no evidence at all.

Edited May 27, 2008 by Northern Neil

[caldrail]

There is some evidence from India that he did, and visited the place early in his career, and there's some place in the north of India that has his tomb. Also I understand that israeli archaeologists have uncovered some. Thing is, there's no smoke without fire, and older legends are almost always built on something real - it provided the inspiration for the stories that followed. I don't have any source on any of this and I have to say I'm relying on what was discussed on tv. Mind you, given constantine's attempt to get a family member worshipped as Jesus, maybe you're right after all. Same thing happened with Arthur. He got inserted into celtic adventures as the hero in place of the original.

 

But... I know Caesar claimed he was a descendant of the gods, but then that was self-aggrandisement and it wasn't unknown for romans of high birth to make such claims. In Jesus's case, he apparently portrayed himself as the Son of God, something much more direct, by virtue of being the expected Messiah, the chosen one. Caesar simply made sure he was chosen.

[Ingsoc]

I think Carotta (and many more) makes the mistake of not distinction between two kinds of Jesus.

 

The first one is the historical person, this Jesus was one of many would be Jews reformators, he was a minor sect leader in Judea and his attempt to challenge the Roman authority and the Jewish elite failed and led to his death.

 

The second is the Jesus who is the God-Messiah, since the break between the followers of Jesus and Judaism Chriastianty became a Chameleon like religion who absorbed local elements into her tradition.

[Primus Pilus]

I believe the author's original contention was that the Jesus evolved essentially from the real life of Caesar, not that Caesar was literally Jesus. There was a rather long discussion of this some time back and I had meant to read the book for purely entertainment purposes but I had forgotten completely about it.

 

This thread serves as a nice reminder

[Nephele]

I believe the author's original contention was that the Jesus evolved essentially from the real life of Caesar, not that Caesar was literally Jesus. There was a rather long discussion of this some time back and I had meant to read the book for purely entertainment purposes but I had forgotten completely about it.

 

This thread serves as a nice reminder

 

Yep, three years ago. Here's the link for any who care to revisit the earlier discussion.

 

-- Nephele

[M. Porcius Cato]

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

[Nephele]

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

 

I was just about to quote you from that earlier thread, and you beat me to it!

 

-- Nephele

[Gaius Julius Camillus]

Mind you, given constantine's attempt to get a family member worshipped as Jesus.

 

Caldrail, can you elaborate on this? I am not familiar with it at all.

 

Overall, I think that this theory has merit because, as others have stated above, it makes Jesus more attractive to the people of the Empire, and whether they knew it, or not, they were comfortable with this myth, as it probably seemed very familiar to them on a subconscious level.

 

But Caesar was not the only myth to be 'borrowed'. Mithraism, which still was widespread in the military ranks, and as someone said earlier, Bacchus and Dionysus. They took what they needed, whether it be backstories of great men, days of religious worship, or festivals.

 

I wish I could find that image from a 3rd century tomb mosaic in Rome, where Jesus is now pulling apollo's chariot! I think it is really quite clever. After a few generations of slight alteration, eventually the old myth is replaced, and we are left with the Jesus myth.

 

Thats my two cents.