Who was Jesus?

[ROEL]

From the 5 January 1995 session:

"Q: (L) The other night when we were talking about Jesus, I asked if there was any historical person we knew who resembled him and said you were scanning.

"A: No.

"Q: (L) What was Jesus actual name?

"A: Jesinavarah."

I suggest that the 30 sessions (up to 20 August 2011) that mention Jesus might need an in-depth revision and from there a re-questioning of the Cs in the light of the SOTT Talk Radio broadcast of 14 July 2013.
This is too big a subject to be left alone. The reliability (or not) of the Cs is a matter of the first order.

 

[Approaching Infinity]

From the 5 January 1995 session:

"Q: (L) The other night when we were talking about Jesus, I asked if there was any historical person we knew who resembled him and said you were scanning.

"A: No.

"Q: (L) What was Jesus actual name?

"A: Jesinavarah."

I suggest that the 30 sessions (up to 20 August 2011) that mention Jesus might need an in-depth revision and from there a re-questioning of the Cs in the light of the SOTT Talk Radio broadcast of 14 July 2013.
This is too big a subject to be left alone. The reliability (or not) of the Cs is a matter of the first order.

These questions have been brought up on the Jesus/Caesar thread here: http://cassiopaea.org/forum/index.php/topic,31732.0.html

Probably a good idea to read the discussion there.

 

[ROEL]

Thank you, AI :)

 

[ROEL]

I would still insist that a blunt question be put to the Cs:

'Was Caesar the "real" Jesus?'

I say this because in the Jesus/Caesar thread there is no clarification on this point, and the Cs, so to speak, should be amicably grilled about the various affirmations (replies) they gave on the identity of the being we refer to as Jesus.

 

[Deleted member 8431]

I would still insist that a blunt question be put to the Cs:

'Was Caesar the "real" Jesus?'

I say this because in the Jesus/Caesar thread there is no clarification on this point, and the Cs, so to speak, should be amicably grilled about the various affirmations (replies) they gave on the identity of the being we refer to as Jesus.

Learning things by ourselves through critical and objective research and networking is far more rewarding that simply asking the C's. There must be a very good reason why they didn't say that Jesus = Caesar right off the bat, osit.

Although, nobody is saying that the matter will not be discussed during the next session.

Wait and see!

;)

 

[Yozilla]

Great news!
There will be a next session!

Y

 

[Deleted member 8431]

Great news!
There will be a next session!

Y

Well, I didn't mean to assume that there was going to be another one. I can't say for sure as a matter of fact.

Sorry about the confusion.

 

[Diane]

I too am looking forward to a new session. That's a perfect question.

I'm still not there yet that Caesar was the "real" Jesus". I've read the threads, listened to the radio shows. Read "Et Too Judas" and "The Origins of the Mythraic Mysteries". Some of the suggested reading I just can't afford right now. Went off on my own and researched the "pirates", and much more. Ended up after going through all the pirates over the years and ended up with Mithridates. Then I noticed after a few days research Laura had already gotten there. Oh my, why didn't I check back here first? :) Most of the pirates before that time were into Goddess worship. So if the shoe fits...the pirates were more than likely the Mithradites.

It just wouldn't surprise me in the least that good ole St. Paul used the story of a teacher, priest, initiate, and twisted it into a Roman Jesus/Caesar story. It wouldn't surprise me that Julius Caesar was also an initiate in the great mysteries. Just don't think at this point that he got the info from the pirates. I looked into why he never attacked Ireland, and for now I believe he was initiated there, or at the very least had a bit of time, (maybe over the winter months), to spend reading the ancient scripts, and learning from the priests. Don't know for sure, I'm not completely convinced, just speculation on my end. Wish there was something solid I could wrap this trail of info around.

Came across some pretty far fetched info that said that Caesar had a reading from some kind of seer while in Ireland, and that he would become a God during the middle of March. That he orchestrated his own death so he could become a God. Wild stuff out there, and discernment must be used when researching always. I'm actually afraid to post links to the info I found because the author of it has a BIG agenda, and it's hard to see the truth between the lines.

I always try to keep an open mind, and as new info becomes available, I can change my mind. For now though I feel I'm looking at 2 different people who's story was woven into one. Not that Jesus was a Savior, or had a virgin birth, none of that nonsense. Only that I'm seeing 2 different initiates of the same teachings. Like they went about teaching in two different ways. That very possibly the story of two different initiates were woven into one to bring everyone together under the same tree.

I'm soooo looking forward to the missing link I think Laura might have in this. All the info and dis-info out there will make your head spin. All so fascinating, and I look forward to all the buried info that's coming to light.

 

[Approaching Infinity]

It just wouldn't surprise me in the least that good ole St. Paul used the story of a teacher, priest, initiate, and twisted it into a Roman Jesus/Caesar story.

Except that for Paul, Christ was essentially an incorporeal being, not a teacher/priest/initiate. Carotta's theory makes sense in that regard. By the time of Paul, the Divus Iulius cult has probably reached a point where Caesar was seen as a truly divine being. That God would have been viewed through the cultural lens of wherever he was worshiped, e.g., in a Jewish milieu.

For now though I feel I'm looking at 2 different people who's story was woven into one.

I'm not sure that's necessary. What line of evidence do you think suggests a second person?

 

[Nienna]

The reliability (or not) of the Cs is a matter of the first order.

And why is that? They have stated that they have a 70% accuracy rate - not 100%. And I can think of many other things that would be "a matter of the first order" other than the reliability of the Cs.

I would still insist that a blunt question be put to the Cs:

'Was Caesar the "real" Jesus?'

I say this because in the Jesus/Caesar thread there is no clarification on this point, and the Cs, so to speak, should be amicably grilled about the various affirmations (replies) they gave on the identity of the being we refer to as Jesus.

This is almost humorous to me. It sounds like a fanatic who is afraid that their beliefs are about to be shattered and you need conformation that that just isn't so.

Maybe it would be good for you to relax a little and not write when you are so emotional? Demanding something from Laura and crew is very externally inconsiderate and quite full of internal consideration on your part. Laura is a very smart cookie, I'm sure that whatever questions she asks will be the ones that need to be asked, for whatever reason, on whatever topic, whenever that might be.

 

[Approaching Infinity]

The reliability (or not) of the Cs is a matter of the first order.

And why is that? They have stated that they have a 70% accuracy rate - not 100%. And I can think of many other things that would be "a matter of the first order" other than the reliability of the Cs.

That bit always makes me smile. Was their statement that they are 70% accurate 70% accurate? I think the take-home message is simply: question everything, do your own research, and learn how to think for yourself (e.g., rules of logic, evidence, multiple interpretations, knowledge of causes and effects, etc.). Anything that cannot be verified is fun (and may be true), but until we can verify it using our own minds, it is at best an interesting idea or perhaps a working hypothesis.

 

[Diane]

Approaching Infinity, I know I'm incorporating all the info I've read to come to a happy medium in my own mind, until something really concrete can land me in another direction. No, I haven't read Carlotta. I'm a bit broke, and 38.00 for the paperback is a little more than I can do right now. It's on my Amazon wish list. Hopefully soon, and I mean that. I spend a bit too much on books for my budget as it is.

Is there proof that there was a Jesus other than Caesar? Proof, absolute....probably not. Like trying to find prove that a certain person lived 2,000 years ago that wasn't anything more than a priest, a human teacher, and that people really got into what he had to say. We have stories of "teachers" teaching the same thoughts all over the world. Were they all Jesus? No, were they Caesar? Don't think so. Caesar's good, we have a ton of historic info about him. Like I said I think he was some sort of initiate, and possessed great wisdom. Nope, I can't "prove" anything with absolute facts.

I do have a problem with Paul. So internally I might have a grudge against him. He did exactly as you described. I'm certain too that the Divus Iulius Cult was in high gear in Paul's time, and that Paul was well versed in Mythraism. I'm just not able to put the two, (Jesus & Caesar), together just yet in my own mind. Maybe I'm stuck on some of the words that are attributed to Jesus, (or someone like him), and I can't put Caesar in those shoes just yet. I do see Caesar as a great, wise man, well versed in law, speaking, human relations, and a wonderful leader to his people, and troops. Maybe he was just a little too ambitious for the programmed idea I have of the story of Jesus. Maybe none of the things attributed to Jesus were ever said by anyone other than the person who dreamed them up and wrote them down. Kinda sad, but that could be true too.

I just have to keep an open mind as best I can, and work through my delusions with the new facts and info that's made available. I'm working it, and questioning everything. Laura mentioned once that my choice of reading material needed some work. Probably very true. I try to read things from both ends of the argument, and that can cause a conflict in my own mind. I can only hope that truth will win out. I appreciate you making me think more about my feelings.

 

[Approaching Infinity]

Approaching Infinity, I know I'm incorporating all the info I've read to come to a happy medium in my own mind, until something really concrete can land me in another direction.

As long as you're aware that's what you're doing (basically, system 1 ruling system 2).

No, I haven't read Carlotta. I'm a bit broke, and 38.00 for the paperback is a little more than I can do right now. It's on my Amazon wish list. Hopefully soon, and I mean that. I spend a bit too much on books for my budget as it is.

About half of his book is available to read for free on his website: _http://www.carotta.de/subseite/texte/jwc_e/contents.html

Is there proof that there was a Jesus other than Caesar? Proof, absolute....probably not. Like trying to find prove that a certain person lived 2,000 years ago that wasn't anything more than a priest, a human teacher, and that people really got into what he had to say. We have stories of "teachers" teaching the same thoughts all over the world. Were they all Jesus? No, were they Caesar? Don't think so.

I don't think anyone's suggesting that. In fact, the teachings are largely irrelevant, as the majority of them were written generations after the fact, most likely interpolations or group beliefs attributed to the 'founder' of the cult. The thing that matters is looking at how things progressed historically, and Carotta's book is really the best to get an idea of how this should be done.

I'm just not able to put the two, (Jesus & Caesar), together just yet in my own mind. Maybe I'm stuck on some of the words that are attributed to Jesus, (or someone like him), and I can't put Caesar in those shoes just yet. I do see Caesar as a great, wise man, well versed in law, speaking, human relations, and a wonderful leader to his people, and troops. Maybe he was just a little too ambitious for the programmed idea I have of the story of Jesus. Maybe none of the things attributed to Jesus were ever said by anyone other than the person who dreamed them up and wrote them down. Kinda sad, but that could be true too.

I think you're close to the Mark here (pun very much intended). No one is saying that Jesus, as he's presented in the gospels, is Caesar. Rather, Caesar's story (especially his passion) and legacy were gradually transformed into the image of the Jewish messiah. The Gospel of Mark is almost entirely traceable back to Caesar's story, but with subtle name changes, translation errors, puns, misreadings, adaptations to a new social environment, etc. In fact, many of Jesus' sayings (i.e., the early ones found in Mark, not the later interpolations) can be traced directly to Caesar or Caesar's story (again, see Carotta).

I just have to keep an open mind as best I can, and work through my delusions with the new facts and info that's made available. I'm working it, and questioning everything. Laura mentioned once that my choice of reading material needed some work. Probably very true. I try to read things from both ends of the argument, and that can cause a conflict in my own mind. I can only hope that truth will win out. I appreciate you making me think more about my feelings.

Well, reading both sides of the argument is actually a good exercise. It teaches you to think, see the flaws and weaknesses in both sides of the argument, come to your own conclusions. But you've got to be ruthless with yourself and think with a hammer. For example, you can read the exchange between a critic of Carotta and whoever writes for the DJ site: _http://divusjulius.wordpress.com/2012/01/10/talkingdead/

 

[Buddy]

The reliability (or not) of the Cs is a matter of the first order.

And why is that? They have stated that they have a 70% accuracy rate - not 100%. And I can think of many other things that would be "a matter of the first order" other than the reliability of the Cs.

That bit always makes me smile. Was their statement that they are 70% accurate 70% accurate?

An interesting and worthwhile point, I think.

Let me speak conventionally for a minute. Let's assume for a moment that the New Testament gospels of Jesus' life and ministry are literally true. In that historical time period, as the story goes, Jesus took on the sins of the world and eventually sacrificed himself for Man - possibly buying us enough karmic grace to make it this far with no comets hitting us on the head. OK, here we are now with the very foundations of Christian Fundamentalism being called into question. So? For me, it's enough to know there is now evidence to question the whole shebang. If one of the results of all this is that entrenched institutional religion is uprooted so that humanity can pass through a needed phase in evolutionary growth, how do we know that this was not planned so as to be yet another sacrifice on his part? Either way he gets the glory, right? And a person is still free to choose his own personal beliefs and compare his fruits with others at any time, OSIT.

I don't know yet whether I will ever be 100% satisfied with any specific answer. I can live with uncertainty because it encourages me to constantly examine myself to see if I'm being consistent with what I feel or know to be appropriate and how I should probably represent myself to the "out there." If that even applies. I'm still contemplating on all this, though, and I may be so far off point that it's funny, so just FWIW. And I'm in no way addressing anyone here, just wanting to share my thoughts.

BTW, thanks for the clarity in your responses, AI.

 

[Yozilla]

Great news!
There will be a next session!

Y

Well, I didn't mean to assume that there was going to be another one. I can't say for sure as a matter of fact.

Sorry about the confusion.

My remark was supposed to be a joke... turned bad since i failed to put some smileys