Who was Jesus?

H-KQGE

Dagobah Resident
Laura said:
H-KQGE said:
I thought that "Christ" meant someone who was anointed.(consecrated, venerated etc) Didn't the C's mention that the first Christ was female? If we put that with the prefixes & monikers thing & the recent revelations from research, & finally with Perceval's post then it seems pretty clear that "jesus" as a saviour (remember there's evidence for a few people with that name in that period) just wasn't so.

Well, there is what some types of manuscript scholars tell us about the word, and then there is archaeology - finding words on public monuments etc, which sometimes contradicts or expands long held ideas. Seems that the word "chrestus" back in GraecoRoman times simply meant "the good" and was often attached to the name of someone who was considered to be that with no religious connotation at all. See Socrates Chrestus, for example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socrates_Chrestus And Mithridates Chrestus: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mithridates_Chrestus A similar word could mean "money lender" according to Carotta and may be the definition attached to the "Chrestus" in Rome reported by Seutonius who, in his Life of Claudius, says that Jews instigated by Chrestus were expelled from the city for causing disturbances.

Of course, this could easily have referred to some sort of activity related to commemoration of Julius Caesar because it is also noted that Caesar was very good to the Jews and they mourned his death more than any other group of people.

I would suggest that everyone interested in the topic at least read what Carotta has on his site which is about half of his book.

Thanks Laura. From the manuscript scholars & archaeologists & others sticking their oar in, it seems that history is a sodden mess & what's required are those who can balance several academic disciplines as you've mentioned several times before. I've bookmarked the site, but what would you recommend that i read after "Ancient City?."
I have "et tu Judas" & "The complete works of Julius Caesar", "History of Julius Caesar" & "Complete works of Suetonius."
 

Str!ke

Padawan Learner
Perceval, from what you wrote, are you referring to 2 persons or one?.(After re-reading it several times [your post] in the beginning it seems to me you are referring to another person but then at the end I think you were referring to Julius Caesar?)

I'm confused because: On one hand AI says its not so [2 persons]

Approaching Infinity said:
[...]
Diane said:
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?

And on the other hand, irjO mentions 2 persons:

irjO said:
I thought the same thing about 'the 2 jesus'! Maybe the C's referrs the real one, and the one who we think is Jesus because of the bible, is Julius Caesar.

Thanks
 

Approaching Infinity

Administrator
Administrator
Moderator
FOTCM Member
Str!ke said:
Perceval, from what you wrote, are you referring to 2 persons or one?.(After re-reading it several times [your post] in the beginning it seems to me you are referring to another person but then at the end I think you were referring to Julius Caesar?)

I'm confused because: On one hand AI says its not so [2 persons]

I'm not saying "it's not so," just that I'm not convinced yet that we need two people to account for Jesus. In other words, there very well may have been a teacher-figure in Palestine who got subsumed into the Caesar-inspired passion story of "the Christ", but at this point, I'm not sure that a) there's evidence for this or b) it's a necessary presupposition in order to explain the facts (e.g., Paul's writings, the gospel of Mark).
 

Laura

Administrator
Administrator
Moderator
FOTCM Member
Approaching Infinity said:
Str!ke said:
Perceval, from what you wrote, are you referring to 2 persons or one?.(After re-reading it several times [your post] in the beginning it seems to me you are referring to another person but then at the end I think you were referring to Julius Caesar?)

I'm confused because: On one hand AI says its not so [2 persons]

I'm not saying "it's not so," just that I'm not convinced yet that we need two people to account for Jesus. In other words, there very well may have been a teacher-figure in Palestine who got subsumed into the Caesar-inspired passion story of "the Christ", but at this point, I'm not sure that a) there's evidence for this or b) it's a necessary presupposition in order to explain the facts (e.g., Paul's writings, the gospel of Mark).

I agree. I think that the myth that there was a "teacher in Palestine" was created by Josephus under the influence of the Flavians, and this was done to REPLACE the deified Caesar who may not have been worshipped as a god by the Jews, but was certainly honored and remembered, if not commorated somehow. Plus, he set the example for their revolt.
 

Approaching Infinity

Administrator
Administrator
Moderator
FOTCM Member
Laura said:
... the deified Caesar who may not have been worshipped as a god by the Jews, but was certainly honored and remembered, if not commorated somehow. ...

Carotta makes an interesting point: that a close reading of Paul suggests that the early 'Christians' were not Jews. Paul was in conflict with a Jewish group that was Judaizing Christianity. This makes me wonder if Paul and the Jerusalem gang with which he interacted were not followers of some variation of the Divus Julius cult. Paul preached "Christ crucified", which could very well mean "Caesar cremated/displayed on a tropaeum". I think it's possible that such a cult had Jewish followers, or those who wished to make the DJ cult more Jewish in nature. I've got a nice book with Paul's letters translated and annotated by the Jesus Seminar folks that I hope to finish soon and see if that makes sense or not...
 

Joe

Administrator
Administrator
Moderator
FOTCM Member
Str!ke said:
Perceval, from what you wrote, are you referring to 2 persons or one?.(After re-reading it several times [your post] in the beginning it seems to me you are referring to another person but then at the end I think you were referring to Julius Caesar?)

Yes, I was referring to two people. I'm saying that it is possible that there was some figure around that time, who was NOT well-known, but that some of his teachings, along with many others, got incorporated into the modern Christian philosophy. It's a really difficult situation to even think about, because, due to the Christian programming we have all been subjected to, we come at it from the perspective that there MUST have been a real "Jesus" figure at that time. BUT, what if there wasn't, at all? It's a monstrous enough deception that they would have twisted and distorted the life of Caesar and transposed it on to someone else, but it's even worse if the person that they transposed it on to was created out of NOTHING!
 

luke wilson

The Living Force
So was julius ceasar just a normal person, like you and me or was he some 'christed' type person re-incarnated from a higher density as many channeled materials say?

There was some comment by the C's about prayer and something about JC's soul being in suspension or something, him and others that Laura said she had never heard off. If JC is a normal person, what is his soul doing in suspension? As far as my understanding goes, when you die, your soul goes to 5D for recycling back down to 3D? Is this person with the suspended soul the small time Palestine teacher Perceval is referring to? I am just confused but I can buy into the fact that Jesus story stole from Julius' story as per the Carotta documentary.

Also where does Mohammed fit into all of this? Islam and Christianity seem to be 2 sides of the same coin.
 

Laura

Administrator
Administrator
Moderator
FOTCM Member
Approaching Infinity said:
Laura said:
... the deified Caesar who may not have been worshipped as a god by the Jews, but was certainly honored and remembered, if not commorated somehow. ...

Carotta makes an interesting point: that a close reading of Paul suggests that the early 'Christians' were not Jews. Paul was in conflict with a Jewish group that was Judaizing Christianity. This makes me wonder if Paul and the Jerusalem gang with which he interacted were not followers of some variation of the Divus Julius cult. Paul preached "Christ crucified", which could very well mean "Caesar cremated/displayed on a tropaeum". I think it's possible that such a cult had Jewish followers, or those who wished to make the DJ cult more Jewish in nature. I've got a nice book with Paul's letters translated and annotated by the Jesus Seminar folks that I hope to finish soon and see if that makes sense or not...

True. As far as I can see, the earliest "Christians" were in Bithynia and CILICIA.

But there was that reference by Seutonius (I may have said Sallust earlier, sorry) about Jews in Rome and Chrestus and that was pretty early.
 

Sol Logos

Dagobah Resident
Perceval said:
Str!ke said:
Perceval, from what you wrote, are you referring to 2 persons or one?.(After re-reading it several times [your post] in the beginning it seems to me you are referring to another person but then at the end I think you were referring to Julius Caesar?)

Yes, I was referring to two people. I'm saying that it is possible that there was some figure around that time, who was NOT well-known, but that some of his teachings, along with many others, got incorporated into the modern Christian philosophy. It's a really difficult situation to even think about, because, due to the Christian programming we have all been subjected to, we come at it from the perspective that there MUST have been a real "Jesus" figure at that time. BUT, what if there wasn't, at all? It's a monstrous enough deception that they would have twisted and distorted the life of Caesar and transposed it on to someone else, but it's even worse if the person that they transposed it on to was created out of NOTHING!

There could be a way to find out, at least come to a plausible position if there was two main historical figures merged into one or there was just one. Either way seems certain the story was twisted to suit the interests of those twisting it. You'd just keep doing I suppose what Carotta has done, take a single aspect of the story and compare to what we know of Julius Caesar / Divine Julius and what we know of the political interests of the time. If it fits, then we'd say that part of the story comes from DJ and this is how it was likely twisted to suit.

After doing that for different aspects of the Jesus story, there'd be a whole bunch of stuff that fits (like Carotta shows) and probably things that don't. The things that don't fit would either be due to us not having enough info, or they are remnants of another historical character that was not DJ. It's got to be either one or the other. If we had all the info, we'd be able to say with a lot more certainty there was only one main historical figure who was DJ.

Going back to the things that don't fit, for me one of those is the idea of developing a personal relationship with God. The Jesus of the bible raised this as one of the most important things to do, that we come to know God, based on love, and do so with no other human intermediaries or location affecting that relationship. Doing that first, all things (including knowledge) would be given was the basic premise.

I can only see that following that advice would just create an independence of external human authority, or anyone claiming to have authority over us. It would pretty much strip back the credence of needing human authority at all, so it's hard for me to see why that would be included in the story for a political agenda. From what I know it doesn't fit Caesar's life / views or aligns directly with any other main religious practice at the time too.

For what it's worth though, it's just one aspect that stands out for me and there's likely other ways to look at it, I just haven't come across them yet on this point.
 

Approaching Infinity

Administrator
Administrator
Moderator
FOTCM Member
luke wilson said:
So was julius ceasar just a normal person, like you and me or was he some 'christed' type person re-incarnated from a higher density as many channeled materials say?

If there is such a thing as a 'reincarnated HD being,' isn't it possible that such a person would appear just as 'normal' as anyone else? Or, perhaps 'just' exceptional? Caesar was an exceptional human being by all accounts. (Plus, if you look at the list of "HD incarnations" the Cs mention, they are pretty 'normal', but exceptional, people, e.g., Arafat.)

There was some comment by the C's about prayer and something about JC's soul being in suspension or something, him and others that Laura said she had never heard off. If JC is a normal person, what is his soul doing in suspension?

Again, I think you're suffering from the same problem a lot of us have (or have had): super-Jesus vision. Caesar was a real human, yes, but he was an exemplar, someone whose life can and should be looked at for inspiration on how to live. 'Jesus' was a superhero, not a human, and superheros are just modern fairy tales. They are good for children (and perhaps good for the child in us), but we should see them for what they are: symbols for the real world. And in the real world, heroes are normal people.

As far as my understanding goes, when you die, your soul goes to 5D for recycling back down to 3D? Is this person with the suspended soul the small time Palestine teacher Perceval is referring to?

Who knows? Perhaps Caesar reached a high level of personal development, perhaps some random Palestinian teacher did. Perhaps the Cs are wrong. Perhaps they're right and we just have no 3D conception with which to understand them at present?

Also where does Mohammed fit into all of this? Islam and Christianity seem to be 2 sides of the same coin.

I may have to eat crow eventually, but I would say that the history of Islam just follows the course of history we all know. By the time it developed, Christianity had already become the Christianity we commonly know.
 

Approaching Infinity

Administrator
Administrator
Moderator
FOTCM Member
alkhemst said:
There could be a way to find out, at least come to a plausible position if there was two main historical figures merged into one or there was just one. Either way seems certain the story was twisted to suit the interests of those twisting it. You'd just keep doing I suppose what Carotta has done, take a single aspect of the story and compare to what we know of Julius Caesar / Divine Julius and what we know of the political interests of the time. If it fits, then we'd say that part of the story comes from DJ and this is how it was likely twisted to suit.

After doing that for different aspects of the Jesus story, there'd be a whole bunch of stuff that fits (like Carotta shows) and probably things that don't. The things that don't fit would either be due to us not having enough info, or they are remnants of another historical character that was not DJ. It's got to be either one or the other. If we had all the info, we'd be able to say with a lot more certainty there was only one main historical figure who was DJ.

That would be fun to do. While reading Carotta, a project has been developing in my mind to create a sort of 'side-by-side' comparison of the gospel of Mark with the story of Caesar, pointing out all the changes and transformations. Doing such a thing would be a start. The problem is that it might be difficult to sort out what in the later gospels might be 'real' and what might be just fiction built onto the already-existing legend.

Going back to the things that don't fit, for me one of those is the idea of developing a personal relationship with God. The Jesus of the bible raised this as one of the most important things to do, that we come to know God, based on love, and do so with no other human intermediaries or location affecting that relationship. Doing that first, all things (including knowledge) would be given was the basic premise.

Well, such a belief may have developed out of Stoic ideas. For the Stoics God was immanent in creation, and thus directly knowable (contrary to the Judaic idea of a supernatural God).

I can only see that following that advice would just create an independence of external human authority, or anyone claiming to have authority over us. It would pretty much strip back the credence of needing human authority at all, so it's hard for me to see why that would be included in the story for a political agenda. From what I know it doesn't fit Caesar's life / views or aligns directly with any other main religious practice at the time too.

Well, if we look at history, very soon after Caesar's death the Roman 'republic' became an evil empire, ruled by a string of sick individuals. Followers of DJ may very well have seen this as an insult to Caesar's example. For Ceasareans, perhaps DJ was the true emperor, and his empire was not of this world. The kingdom of God = the empire of God = the empire of DJ. No human authority can touch godly authority.
 

Laura

Administrator
Administrator
Moderator
FOTCM Member
alkhemst said:
Going back to the things that don't fit, for me one of those is the idea of developing a personal relationship with God. The Jesus of the bible raised this as one of the most important things to do, that we come to know God, based on love, and do so with no other human intermediaries or location affecting that relationship. Doing that first, all things (including knowledge) would be given was the basic premise.

I can only see that following that advice would just create an independence of external human authority, or anyone claiming to have authority over us. It would pretty much strip back the credence of needing human authority at all, so it's hard for me to see why that would be included in the story for a political agenda. From what I know it doesn't fit Caesar's life / views or aligns directly with any other main religious practice at the time too.

For what it's worth though, it's just one aspect that stands out for me and there's likely other ways to look at it, I just haven't come across them yet on this point.

Well, actually, it does fit Caesar. It was widely known that anyone could come to Caesar and ask for refuge and he would give it. It was even advertised. His temples were places where a person could go and while there, they could not/would not be violated. Not hard to see how that condition that he gave out to everyone in life would be considered to be a condition that they could seek from him "with the gods" once he was "in the sky".

A lot of that sort of thing is discussed in Divus Iulius by Weinstock.

Another thing is that, as I've been going through the history, I've found quite a few stories and sayings elsewhere that have been incorporated.

First of all, there are the Stoic tales and sayings that I've already mentioned in HoM. Each time I found a comparison, I mentioned it there. Of course, at the time, I was still thinking that "Jesus" was some sort of Cynic/Stoic and these stories that belonged to other Cynics and Stoics were just collected around the "Jesus person." And it's probably true that they were utilized that way - only around the "empty place" that Caesar used to occupy.

Then, there is a snippet of a speech by Gaius Gracchus which obviously appears in modified form in the NT as a saying of Jesus:

The wild beasts that roam over Italy have every one of them a cave or lair to lurk in; but the men who fight and die for Italy enjoy the common air and light, indeed, but nothing else; houseless and homeless they wander about with their wives and children. And it is with lying lips that their imperators exhort the soldiers in their battles to defend sepulchers and shrines from the enemy; for not a man of them as an hereditary altar, not one of all these many Romans an ancestral tomb, but they fight and die to support others in wealth and luxury and though they are styled masters of the world, they have not a single clod of earth that is their own.

The whole relationship between the "scribes and pharisees" and Jesus ranting at them is right there in the relationship between Caesar as the champion of the people and the optimates/oligarchy. One figure stands out as an example of one who is like a white tomb on the outside, but inside, filthy and full of rottenness: Cato. We know that Caesar wrote a condemnation of Cato but it has not survived. Perhaps it did, in the NT.

Then, there is something attributed to Catiline that infuses a few "sayings of Jesus":

…no faithful champion of the wretched could be found except one who was himself wretched; that those who were down and out ought not to trust the promises of the solvent and the fortunate; so let those who wished to refill their empty purses and recoup their losses see what debts, what possessions, what daring he himself had; that he who was to be the general and standard-bearer of the unfortunate should himself be least timid and most unfortunate.

I suspect that once the Caesar items have all be matched, what is left will be found among the Stoics, Cynics, and other popular heroes of Rome.

The book of Matthew is something else. I think Atwill is right: it was composed by Josephus using Mark and some other materials. At that point, Jerusalem had already been destroyed - and I'm not entirely sure it was done by the Romans alone, though they took credit. There are a couple of references to a comet including in Tacitus.

The thing is, unless a person has a whole lot of bits and pieces floating around in their head that suddenly fit into place with that one keystone piece: Caesar, then you just keep trying to find some "real Jesus in Palestine." But when most of the "real Jesus in Palestine" has already been lifted away by other research, then finding a real person behind the most significant of the events: the march on Jerusalem followed by the death and resurrection, there really isn't anything left.

But to get there, you have to read and hold in your memory banks, literally hundreds, if not thousands, of books and papers. I see now that my years and years and years of study in comparative religions and Judaism and Christianity in particular, have served me well.

As to Islam, I already covered a goodly part of it in its origins in HoM. I already know the "rest of the story" which will be covered in an upcoming volume.
 

Kisito

Jedi Council Member
I followed this subject on Caesar and Jesus since the beginning. But knowing that Gospels were widely corrupted and adorned, it would be simpler to believe that certain authors were simply inspired by last king and to emperor who took himself for the son of God. It does not seem to me to find of relevant things in Tacit, Flavus Joseph, Origène, Edgar Cayce or even Cs! The only thing which I found relevant on a second Jesus, and this famous Barabbas. Because as Origène already underlined it, for the first name of Barabbas it was deleted. Yet in the first Gospels, the first name of Barabbas is a Jesus. Furthermore according to diverse translations and arraméenes (Aramaic) and Hebrew terminologies, the name Barabbas could mean: son of the Father or Son of Master(Teacher).
Yet according to E. Cayse or Cs, Joseph belonged to a group spiritually high... So, according to a closer translation, Pontius Pilate would have asked: You prefer that I free Jesus son of God or Jesus son of the father. The hypothesis that Barabbas and Jesus were the same man is thus likely. Then some people will say why the one died and not the other one. I think that just like the quantum realities, Jesus died, but the son of the father, the son of God, the Christ a survived.
 

SeekinTruth

The Living Force
FOTCM Member
I'll be getting back to Carotta's Jesus was Caesar later this evening, after I finish the (pig/chimp) Hybrid Hypothesis (or take a break from it and continue with Caesar). I don't see any evidence other than Caesar's life, iconography, titles, status in the religion of the Roman world, reputation, sayings, etc., etc. being completely stolen and attributed to "Jesus" (probably with a few other sources - Stoics/Cynics - thrown in). After reading Et Tu Judas, and what I've read of Carotta so far, added to all the other sources referenced in these forums so far read, the evidence that Caesar WAS "Jesus" is overwhelming.

Since not only did Caesar exist, and even if so much of his life is distorted and lots of info lost, it's still really well documented with a lot of important details. I really can't believe that this obvious fact - that Caesar WAS Jesus - was successfully hidden for over 2000 years. Now it is so obvious it's kinda funny.
 
Top Bottom