guess who Jesus really was, you certainly have heard of him!
According to the Italian scholar Francesco Carotta the historical Jesus was
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 resurrected as Divus Julius."
"This report is of the same order of importance as the scientific
discoveries of Darwin and Galileo."
- Paul Cliteur, Ph. D., University of Leiden, The Netherlands
"What is the evidence that Jesus Christ lived in this world as a man?(...)The first historical mention of the Gospels of Matthew, Mark and Luke, was made by the Christian Father, St. Irenaeus, about the year 190 A.D. The only earlier mention of any of the Gospels was made by Theopholis of Antioch, who mentioned the Gospel of John in 180 A.D. History must be founded upon genuine documents or on living proof. Were a man of today to attempt to write the life of a supposed character of a hundred and fifty years ago, without any historical documents upon which to base his narrative, his work would not be a history, it would be a romance. Not a single statement in it could be relied upon.(Marshall J. Gauvin)" Therefore, what evidence based upon the Gospels may prove that Jesus (that we are not even sure that existed) was Julius Caesar? By the way, Mary Jane, the ones who wrote the book of Mark, did it in gentile Greek...Maybe, it was written earlier by the very same Julius (just kidding). The point is not trying to explain an hoax with another one.Luke's gospel: Go out as lambs among wolves (10:3). Does it look like a Roman Empire General quote to you? (nice site by the way)
Maegan
in Tampa, FL - USA Member
Posted: Mon Aug 01, 2005 | 06:04 AM
I was really just hoping for a single-post answer. But thanks.
mary jane
Posted: Mon Aug 01, 2005 | 03:05 PM
Nothing in the Bible is historical evidence. Some call it historiography, some theology from history, hagiography etc. But it doesn't change the fact that there isn't a single Christian or non-Christian source that gives historical evidence on the life of Jesus, the way it is portrayed in scripture. But to return to the topic: I'm not trying to explain a hoax with another one. Neither of them is a hoax. Some people like Joseph Atwill like to call Christianity a satirical joke, but it isn't. Of course the Gospels alone do not give any historical proof on a Jesus-Caesar parallel, but the synoptic comparison of the Gospels to the original historical texts on the Roman civil war leaves no space for an alternative interpretation. These two stories are not autonomous, they are linked and synchronized from Gallia/Gallilaea to Jesus' and Caesar's crucifixion and ascension...names, famous words, incidents and places match - sometimes word for word, even the style of Mark is the same as Plutarch's Caesar-biography, the same dramaturgy, structure and oddities...this may be museum of hoaxes, but in this case you seem to see a hoax where there is none.
greg
in canada
Posted: Wed Nov 30, 2005 | 07:33 PM
along the same lines don't forget to check out Alvin Kuhn's detailed dissection of the the Bible ...
How can Jesus have been "Nun" - or generally: based on some kind of older myth - if he was Caesar (as a man) and is Divus Iulius (as a god)? If the Gospel is only a rewriting of true historical accounts (civil war, Rome), then how can Jesus be based on a myth? Actually, if Mr. Kuhn, and many of the other charlatans (or plain weirdos!) proposing similar quatsch, are supposed to be right, the life of Caesar itself would have had to be based on all of these outrageous myths. You needn't read books on Roman history to know that there is no "Nun" in Caesar.
I was really just hoping for a single-post answer. But thanks.