Who was Jesus?

Sol Logos

Dagobah Resident
Laura said:
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.

Thanks for that info Laura. You're right though, I'm not coming from anywhere near the scope of research others have done on this, so it could be just the case of lack of knowledge and personal bias. So from that angle I'm not viewing it as objectively as I could.

Standing back, at least as far as Im able to at this point in time, one thing I can't get my head around still is the reasoning behind the worship of Caesar being transferred to the worship of God. It makes sense to me that people worshiping Divine Julius would begin to transfer that worship towards Caesar's God. The thing that's not so clear is the stoic God isn't a personable being that is described by the Bible Jesus, or so I believe, and so the concept of developing a personal relationship with the Stoic view of God requires a substantial reinvention of this God.

The whole New Testament story went through major reinventions, so its not reinvention itself per se, its more the question as to what purpose did that particular reinvention take place that makes me curious. The question I cant yet answer is why would those reinventing Caesar's life and ideas, adding in Stoic philosophy, want to include this new idea of a God who wants to connect with us on a personal and direct level? It appears to me that it be more aligned with the interests of those making these stories to advocate a longing for a relationship with Jesus (who is Caesar) and not add and include this idea of this God who views all as his children as equal and wants a personal individual connection with each. So far I can't see who would benefit of that inclusion. Nonetheless its a fascinating topic that I've been following since it first came up with an open mind... well as much as it can open it right now :)
 

Approaching Infinity

Administrator
Administrator
Moderator
FOTCM Member
alkhemst said:
Standing back, at least as far as Im able to at this point in time, one thing I can't get my head around still is the reasoning behind the worship of Caesar being transferred to the worship of God. It makes sense to me that people worshiping Divine Julius would begin to transfer that worship towards Caesar's God.

One thing to keep in mind is that Divus Julius was made equivalent to Jupiter, the highest god, and god of the entire Roman Empire (i.e., the world).
 

Kisito

Jedi Council Member
Laura said:
On what authority do we even think a Jesus Barabbas even existed?
Although Edgar Cayce mentions the name of Pilate and he confirms that he would have returned in Rome, I do not think that neither Barabbas nor Pilate existed. We already know that this passage does not exist in the first Gospels. It seems to me that the text frees(delivers) us from coded messages. We already see that Barabbas was arrested during a riot and that he was considered as a famous bandit or a zealot and that etymologically he would seem to be called Jesus a son of the father. Then in this tendency on the name of Pontius Pilate ( Pontius Pilatus), Pontius would seem to be the surname of family and Pilatus would seem to indicat, who is armed with a javelin.
Would it mean that Pontius Pilate would not be a person, but the javelin which would have transperçé the side and killed Jesus?
And if as we can suppose it Jesus or her descent would have gone in France, then we could see a sign in the royal emblem of France by reading this extract:
" France was made with sword. The lily flower, the symbol of national unity, is only the image of a javelin in three lances. " Charles de Gaulle
Pontius Pilate would be the Javelin and the lily flower, he is the one who acrédite the monarchy(kingship) of Jesus: Jesus de Nazareth, king of Jews. I N R I
 

Approaching Infinity

Administrator
Administrator
Moderator
FOTCM Member
Kisito said:
Although Edgar Cayce mentions the name of Pilate and he confirms that he would have returned in Rome, I do not think that neither Barabbas nor Pilate existed.

Pilate (Pilatus) was a historical person. Barabbas does not appear outside of the gospels, which are not reliable historical documents. Carotta suggests his name may be a Semitic transformation from Brutus. (_http://www.carotta.de/subseite/texte/jwc_e/vp.html)

Then in this tendency on the name of Pontius Pilate ( Pontius Pilatus), Pontius would seem to be the surname of family and Pilatus would seem to indicat, who is armed with a javelin.
Would it mean that Pontius Pilate would not be a person, but the javelin which would have transperçé the side and killed Jesus?

Again, Pilate was a real person. However, the way in which he got into the bible was probably a transposition of "Lepidus" (who 'washed his hands' of Caesar) to a contemporary person in the new environment and culture: "Pilatus". The idea of a lance piercing Jesus was probably a transformation of "Longinus", who stabbed Caesar, to "Longinus", who stabbed Jesus. The reason the knife got changed to a lance might be because lonchê in Greek is lance, and is suggested by the name of the guy that did the stabbing.
 

l apprenti de forgeron

The Living Force
FOTCM Member
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!
Well, if so is a horrible ancient masterpiece of deception to feed of humanity. I think that many people will return totally crazy to know these things, that are becoming popular. Because one thing is scientific agnosticism or atheism (that are part of that monotheism! it is believed or not that dogma, but do not create OTHER dogmas) that has occurred since the institutionalization of monotheism in Europe and throughout the West, but now confirmed in a scientific and historical way that The Christ was Caesar, many do not tolerate. And thus may be the final part of the multidensional monotheism program, the evidenced lie without any spiritual truth that fills the void of millions!. That produces a feast of suffering for 4d sts.
 

l apprenti de forgeron

The Living Force
FOTCM Member
alkhemst said:
Thanks for that info Laura. You're right though, I'm not coming from anywhere near the scope of research others have done on this, so it could be just the case of lack of knowledge and personal bias. So from that angle I'm not viewing it as objectively as I could.

Standing back, at least as far as Im able to at this point in time, one thing I can't get my head around still is the reasoning behind the worship of Caesar being transferred to the worship of God. It makes sense to me that people worshiping Divine Julius would begin to transfer that worship towards Caesar's God. The thing that's not so clear is the stoic God isn't a personable being that is described by the Bible Jesus, or so I believe, and so the concept of developing a personal relationship with the Stoic view of God requires a substantial reinvention of this God.

The whole New Testament story went through major reinventions, so its not reinvention itself per se, its more the question as to what purpose did that particular reinvention take place that makes me curious. The question I cant yet answer is why would those reinventing Caesar's life and ideas, adding in Stoic philosophy, want to include this new idea of a God who wants to connect with us on a personal and direct level? It appears to me that it be more aligned with the interests of those making these stories to advocate a longing for a relationship with Jesus (who is Caesar) and not add and include this idea of this God who views all as his children as equal and wants a personal individual connection with each. So far I can't see who would benefit of that inclusion. Nonetheless its a fascinating topic that I've been following since it first came up with an open mind... well as much as it can open it right now :)

This is only an idea, but maybe the personal relationship with God is something very old, or Atlantean, where deified beings of 4d sts with which people communicated. Or only communicated the pathological in power? As the session where the C's comment that the Yellow Emperor of China had communication with a mothership of lizards:
http://cassiopaea.org/forum/index.php/topic,18637.msg176198.html#msg176198
So perhaps in another stage of human evolution, the ptb noted it would be better to create another concept of God, to continue divide and conquer, and manipulate their fill of human suffering.
What I'm wondering is in who thought Fulcanelli when he thought in Christ (there could be a group of people). Say Fulcanelli because it was successful in the great work. Or the same with Gurdjieff, in whom thought? - It's amazing to think in the next: "For there shall arise false Christs, and false prophets, and shall shew great signs and wonders; insomuch that, if it were possible, they shall deceive the very elect." This may refer to the biblical jesus himself!.
 

Laura

Administrator
Administrator
Moderator
FOTCM Member
alkhemst said:
Standing back, at least as far as Im able to at this point in time, one thing I can't get my head around still is the reasoning behind the worship of Caesar being transferred to the worship of God. It makes sense to me that people worshiping Divine Julius would begin to transfer that worship towards Caesar's God. The thing that's not so clear is the stoic God isn't a personable being that is described by the Bible Jesus, or so I believe, and so the concept of developing a personal relationship with the Stoic view of God requires a substantial reinvention of this God.

Don't confuse the "Stoic god" or ideas surrounding same with the origins of the worship of Caesar. Stoic things were added later. It was with Caesar that the idea of a god who is personally interested in a person actually began and this was based on his human behavior before death which was simply transferred to his divine nature. Caesar, quite simply, made it clear that he was interested in every single person, that they could find refuge with him if only they asked. It was a stunning and revolutionary concept for a ruler and later, for a god.

You are getting mixed up or are mixing up ideas because you don't have all the data at your neuron tips, so to say.
 

Laura

Administrator
Administrator
Moderator
FOTCM Member
l apprenti de forgeron said:
Thank you Laura. That is clarifying the picture.

It is quite mind-bending to realize, from the historical date, that our concept of the "loving god" that was the "father of Jesus" is actually based on a human model: a man who manifested that approach to humanity as a matter of principle. It had never been done before. The philosophers hadn't really elucidated such a "personal god where one can find refuge" concept. God were in the sky, they could be socially angry or benevolent; Caesar, on the other hand, was for the people in a personal, dynamic way IN THIS WORLD. Once he had "gone to heaven", this quality of his human person was retained and it was thought that he could still be a "personal" god.

Caesar really was the first ruler who said, effectively: "Come, all you who labor and are heavy laden and I will give you rest."
 

Sol Logos

Dagobah Resident
Laura said:
alkhemst said:
Standing back, at least as far as Im able to at this point in time, one thing I can't get my head around still is the reasoning behind the worship of Caesar being transferred to the worship of God. It makes sense to me that people worshiping Divine Julius would begin to transfer that worship towards Caesar's God. The thing that's not so clear is the stoic God isn't a personable being that is described by the Bible Jesus, or so I believe, and so the concept of developing a personal relationship with the Stoic view of God requires a substantial reinvention of this God.

Don't confuse the "Stoic god" or ideas surrounding same with the origins of the worship of Caesar. Stoic things were added later. It was with Caesar that the idea of a god who is personally interested in a person actually began and this was based on his human behavior before death which was simply transferred to his divine nature. Caesar, quite simply, made it clear that he was interested in every single person, that they could find refuge with him if only they asked. It was a stunning and revolutionary concept for a ruler and later, for a god.

You are getting mixed up or are mixing up ideas because you don't have all the data at your neuron tips, so to say.

Yes that answers my question mostly, thanks again for your insights Laura. The part that is still confusing me is the introduction of a 3rd party - i.e. God. What I mean is why not simply, as would have at first occurred, worship Divine Julius alone? In that sense the relationship would be with Divine Julius (or Jesus) only, but for some reason God was added to that equation and not as a side note either. It wasn't just that, the story about a man (Jesus) derived mainly from Julius Caesar was created and changed so that he spends most of his time talking about that God. I still feel it's significant because on the one hand we have Julius Caesar who was kind and personable but didn't spend his time talking to others about God, then on the other hand we have a very similar man who focuses his whole life and message teaching others about God. There had to be a compelling reason that was added, and considering it was a Roman creation, well mostly, there had to be a Roman agenda, or a Roman elite that would benefit from adding this. For me at least, that part still doesn't completely gel.
 

Laura

Administrator
Administrator
Moderator
FOTCM Member
alkhemst said:
Yes that answers my question mostly, thanks again for your insights Laura. The part that is still confusing me is the introduction of a 3rd party - i.e. God. What I mean is why not simply, as would have at first occurred, worship Divine Julius alone? In that sense the relationship would be with Divine Julius (or Jesus) only, but for some reason God was added to that equation and not as a side note either. It wasn't just that, the story about a man (Jesus) derived mainly from Julius Caesar was created and changed so that he spends most of his time talking about that God. I still feel it's significant because on the one hand we have Julius Caesar who was kind and personable but didn't spend his time talking to others about God, then on the other hand we have a very similar man who focuses his whole life and message teaching others about God. There had to be a compelling reason that was added, and considering it was a Roman creation, well mostly, there had to be a Roman agenda, or a Roman elite that would benefit from adding this. For me at least, that part still doesn't completely gel.

You have to keep in mind what Octavian/Augustus did after he came to power. He began to morph the story overlaying HIS "son of the god" ideas. He assimilated/claimed many of Caesar's attributes while he was living (which he didn't have, in fact), and became the living Son of God and that was the beginning of the "confusion".
 

Sol Logos

Dagobah Resident
Laura said:
alkhemst said:
Yes that answers my question mostly, thanks again for your insights Laura. The part that is still confusing me is the introduction of a 3rd party - i.e. God. What I mean is why not simply, as would have at first occurred, worship Divine Julius alone? In that sense the relationship would be with Divine Julius (or Jesus) only, but for some reason God was added to that equation and not as a side note either. It wasn't just that, the story about a man (Jesus) derived mainly from Julius Caesar was created and changed so that he spends most of his time talking about that God. I still feel it's significant because on the one hand we have Julius Caesar who was kind and personable but didn't spend his time talking to others about God, then on the other hand we have a very similar man who focuses his whole life and message teaching others about God. There had to be a compelling reason that was added, and considering it was a Roman creation, well mostly, there had to be a Roman agenda, or a Roman elite that would benefit from adding this. For me at least, that part still doesn't completely gel.

You have to keep in mind what Octavian/Augustus did after he came to power. He began to morph the story overlaying HIS "son of the god" ideas. He assimilated/claimed many of Caesar's attributes while he was living (which he didn't have, in fact), and became the living Son of God and that was the beginning of the "confusion".

Ok I see now. The agenda was one for Octavian who I imagine talked about Divine Iulius all the time to give himself a legitimacy as a ruler / as a person he was from the sounds of it, inherently lacking. So he sought to compensate for his inadequacies, his lacking of those qualities of divinity that others might have expected of him (being a son of a God) by his once direct connection to his father, one which he had personally experienced and that others had not. Perhaps too he made out he had an ongoing connection to his father, one that others could obtain via following him?

Its mind blowing to say the least, but what's interesting as well if this is all correct, is how this concept which was basically an accident (in some way) is a view of God that was revolutionary and carries a lot of weight on its own (outside of this history). I mean the notion of having an emotional connection to DCM rather than an intellectual one is more fitting to the deeper way we ourselves connect with others, so its a profound premise on its own and if again this is correct, may not be an accident considering a larger scheme of things.
 

Laura

Administrator
Administrator
Moderator
FOTCM Member
I started writing an article comparing the Catilinarian Conspiracy of Cicero to our modern 9-11, and all that followed then and now, and when I reached 40 pages and knew I had a lot more to say about it, I realized it was going to have to be a book. So, I wrote this book in about a week - or it would be better to say it wrote itself. I'm now combing and polishing it and then it will go through two or three editors, so may be a month before it is out...

Anyway, that's why I've been kinda quiet the last couple of weeks. The reason I mention it is because I want to share with you an excerpt from this new book:

The Greatest Man of All Time

After reading numerous studies of the life of Julius Caesar, Caesar’s own writings, the ancient historians, books about the historians by later historians, books about historiography and who we can trust and not trust among the ancients and why and on and on and on, there was still this gigantic problem that was defined in a very short statement at the end of historian and philologist, Luciano Canfora’s “Julius Caesar: The People’s Dictator”:

When they killed him his assassins did not realize that they had eliminated the best and most far-sighted mind of their class.

This was the problem. All the history we are taught says that Caesar was a power-mad wannabe king who destroyed Gaul, and then destroyed the Roman Republic and his heirs fought over who would succeed him, Octavian won and became Augustus, but that was cool because he was a great guy and treated the senate well, and a later emperor, Constantine, saved Christianity, so aren’t we glad they murdered Caesar? Whew! Sorry for the run-on sentence, but that is how the thing is sold to us. But a careful reading of the sources revealed something quite different. Arthur Kahn writes:

Caesar recognized and warned that civil war would ravage the empire if he was killed, but the self-proclaimed champions of liberty and defenders of the constitution, the subversive-hunters, the praters of piety, of patriotism and of the ancestral virtues were prepared to pull down the world if their outmoded privileges were not restored. …

The difference between Caesar and the Ciceros and the Catos of his day and of all subsequent times is that unlike them Caesar saw society as an integrity in motion; he was not confused by the apparent disconnection among social, economic, political and cultural developments. Thus he did not vacillate from week to week or even day to day in his judgments, and he was able both to evolve grandiose plans and to effect them. …

No one of his day sensed the future as he did or explored as many aspects of life experience, testing the limits of human capacities and seeking, in effect, to compel the world to adapt itself to his personal vision and aspirations. … he sought to accomplish in his [lifetime] what, in fact, was to require generations. …

Ever conscious of the corruption that threatens men commanding absolute power, he disdained to enforce conformity through repression, rejected terror as a political weapon, refused to be alarmed by rumors, scorned the use of informers and despised the hunting of “subversives.” Though harried into short temper [on occasion] and badgered by fools, he remained Caesar to the moment of his death. A man of extraordinary complexity, he possessed a penetrating intelligence coupled with a universal curiosity, an unyielding will and inexhaustible energy as well as an exuberance about the dynamic variety in life. As a foe he proved fierce and cunning, yet with an irresistible charm and a trenchant wit he captivated (and still captivates) even his enemies. …

Caesar is the greatest personality of the thousand years of Roman history. Rightfully do we continue to commemorate him in the seventh month of the year.”
 

Muxel

Dagobah Resident
Laura said:
It was with Caesar that the idea of a god who is personally interested in a person actually began and this was based on his human behavior before death which was simply transferred to his divine nature. Caesar, quite simply, made it clear that he was interested in every single person, that they could find refuge with him if only they asked. It was a stunning and revolutionary concept for a ruler and later, for a god.
Wow.

Laura said:
It is quite mind-bending to realize, from the historical date, that our concept of the "loving god" that was the "father of Jesus" is actually based on a human model: a man who manifested that approach to humanity as a matter of principle. It had never been done before. The philosophers hadn't really elucidated such a "personal god where one can find refuge" concept. God were in the sky, they could be socially angry or benevolent; Caesar, on the other hand, was for the people in a personal, dynamic way IN THIS WORLD. Once he had "gone to heaven", this quality of his human person was retained and it was thought that he could still be a "personal" god.

Caesar really was the first ruler who said, effectively: "Come, all you who labor and are heavy laden and I will give you rest."
Excellentissimo!

So Caesar was like Dumbledore (from Harry Potter)?
 

clerck de bonk

Dagobah Resident
Muxel said:
So Caesar was like Dumbledore (from Harry Potter)?

...Or was he like Eddard Stark, Daenerys and Jon Snow all combined into one (from a Game of Thrones).

Or was he "plainly" Caesar, incomparable?
 
Top Bottom