Was Jesus Caesar?

[Northern Neil]

Come to think of it, ever notice the parallels between Joseph Smith and Caesar?? Never mind.

Is this chap the gifted individual who discovered a 1500 year old book which - curiously - has the same syntax as the early 19th century context in which it was discovered?

[M. Porcius Cato]

Come to think of it, ever notice the parallels between Joseph Smith and Caesar?? Never mind.

Is this chap the gifted individual who discovered a 1500 year old book which - curiously - has the same syntax as the early 19th century context in which it was discovered?

 

Actually, that's the least fishy part of the story. Leave it to South Park to nail it.

[Ursus]

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

 

Caesar died for your sins, Heathen!

[Northern Neil]

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

 

Caesar died for your sins, Heathen!

..and when you go to heaven, you will BE WITH HIM!

[caldrail]

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.

 

There's a reference to this in Who's Who In The Roman World, but as of yet, I haven't found the source it comes from. Constantine certainly attempted to have Jesus worshipped as God, claiming the two were the same (arguably he succeeded since christians often worship Jesus above God). I'll keep an eye out on this, hopefully I'll spot something later.

[Fulvia]

I think to say that Christians embellished Jesus' story with Caesar highlights is standing on open water- drowning is inevitable. By the time that Carotta is saying that this embellishment was happening the whole New Testament had been already written and circulated and thus unchangeable- as far as originals go. These early Christians were quite protective of their new religion and careful to keep it pure from the pagan elements. Of coarse to deny that any cross pollination of religion ever happened is denial, but with Jesus the Christ being the defining focal point of Christianity, and Rome being a strong enemy of Christianity, melding Jesus and Caesar is inconceivable.

 

That and I thought his supporting quotes cited in the first post were not near enough by way of forming a stable thesis.

[Gaius Julius Camillus]

I appreciate everyones responses. I will offer a review of his book, once I purchase it. Hopefully cheaply!

[Northern Neil]

Of coarse to deny that any cross pollination of religion ever happened is denial, but with Jesus the Christ being the defining focal point of Christianity, and Rome being a strong enemy of Christianity, melding Jesus and Caesar is inconceivable.

That and I thought his supporting quotes cited in the first post were not near enough by way of forming a stable thesis.

This theory is I agree unlikely, but not for the above reasons; indeed, the story of the development of Christianity from Jewish sect to Roman socio - political tool supports the hypothesis. To say that Rome was a strong enemy of Christianity is simplifying the case, and ignores the reality that the Empire became the champion of Christianity. It is difficult to see how it would have developed into a major religion had the Roman state not been there to politically shape and then push the religion onto its subjects. To make it sellable to the Roman public, fourth century emperors had to infuse a LOT of Roman - ness into the religion in order for it to flourish.

 

Prior to the fourth century, some emperors arrested large numbers of Christians because on occasions, Christians set themselves up against the state, causing disruption, acts of vandalism - and yes, in some instances murder. In the second and third centuries, to be a Christian often meant that one was a violent fanatic with little regard to the law or to anyone with a differing point of view - however, the amount of time in which the Empire officially punished people solely for being Christian, in the absence of other crimes, was actually a very short amount of time indeed.

 

To say that melding Caesar with Jesus is inconceivable is to ignore other considerations. One cannot ignore the fact that Christianity in its definitive form was almost entirely a Roman construct. Almost everything in the Christian tradition is inherited from Rome, and even the gospels - or rather, the earliest complete ones - were completed by Romans, at a time when Christianity was soaking up pagan tradition like a sponge. In additon, although Jesus was the central figure, the Roman citizen Paul of Tarsus was the chief architect.

 

What makes this theory untenable, IMHO, is that the gospels already contain huge mounts of material from other cults such as those of Dionysus, Bacchus etc and there is simply no room to include much material relating to Caesar. This does not mean, however, that Jesus' divinity was not inspired in part by the Caesar - Venus tale.

Edited May 28, 2008 by Northern Neil

[Kosmo]

Caesar was better then Jesus because while Jesus had all virtues Caesar had all virtues and all sins

How could a man known for his sexual exceses became his own mythical opposite? I think that even in the caves above the Dead Sea people knew that the fearless, hairless conqueror was friendly with the big-nose queen of Alexandria (not only a neighbour but one that ruled over many jews).

It's Priap Caesar?

[ASCLEPIADES]

Salve, Amici

 

Ironically, it's well known the comparison of Jesus with Caesar (not Caius Julius of course, but Tiberius) appeared even before the Crucifixion; actually, it was the main juridical rationale for it. Not surprisingly, the 4 Gospels (and Acts, Luke's resumption) are quite unanimous on the refusal of this thesis.

 

The famous quotation of Matthew 22:15-22 is presumably the most explicit:

 

" Then the Pharisees went out and laid plans to trap him in his words.

 

They sent their disciples to him along with the Herodians. "Teacher," they said, "we know you are a man of integrity and that you teach the way of God in accordance with the truth. You aren't swayed by men, because you pay no attention to who they are.

 

Tell us then, what is your opinion? Is it right to pay taxes to Caesar or not?"

 

But Jesus, knowing their evil intent, said, "You hypocrites, why are you trying to trap me?

 

Show me the coin used for paying the tax." They brought him a denarius, 20and he asked them, "Whose portrait is this? And whose inscription?"

 

"Caesar's," they replied.

 

Then he said to them, "Give to Caesar what is Caesar's, and to God what is God's." "

 

(New International Version)

Edited May 29, 2008 by ASCLEPIADES

[caldrail]

A fine arguement, but not necessarily one Jesus used. The problem with quoting from the bible is that it relies on the Bibles's authenticity, which is suspect.

[Maty]

A fine arguement, but not necessarily one Jesus used. The problem with quoting from the bible is that it relies on the Bibles's authenticity, which is suspect.

 

I'm sure the Bible is authentic. The events described are more open to question. (Though the new testament is as good a contemporary text about life under Roman rule from a provincial's viewpoint that any historian can dream of getting.)

[Northern Neil]

I'm sure the Bible is authentic. The events described are more open to question. (Though the new testament is as good a contemporary text about life under Roman rule from a provincial's viewpoint that any historian can dream of getting.)

 

Allow me to applaud you for a very interesting point, which I have never considered before. Come to think of it, its the aspects of everyday life in the Bible which are the least altered, or tampered with. This gives us clues that other parts may have been. For example, 4th century Christians found it insignificant that Mary Magdalene washed Jesus' feet at a wedding, and that at the same wedding Jesus provided the wine. So it was left unaltered by the 4th century Christians who were of course unaware that in the 1st century, Jews behaved like this - at their own weddings.

Edited May 29, 2008 by Northern Neil

[caldrail]

A fine arguement, but not necessarily one Jesus used. The problem with quoting from the bible is that it relies on the Bibles's authenticity, which is suspect.

 

I'm sure the Bible is authentic. The events described are more open to question. (Though the new testament is as good a contemporary text about life under Roman rule from a provincial's viewpoint that any historian can dream of getting.)

 

Ok, I see your point. But the issue is whether the events of Jesus's life are accurate and it doesn't seem likely does it?

[Gladius Hispaniensis]

Salve

There was an interesting book called "The Jesus Puzzle" that came out a while back that argues along the lines of Caldrail and Northern Neill regarding lack of contemporary documentary evidence for the life of Jesus but I think we are forgetting that Jesus's ministry only lasted three years in a rather remote province of the empire. Both his career and crucifixion (according to the gospel story) would have had far too little impact on the contemporary world to merit any type of mention by prominent writers of the time.