Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Historical Jesus found!

page: 2
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join

posted on Feb, 21 2005 @ 11:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by jukyu
Ok lets break this down and compare the two.
[...]
Third, Jesus was strictly stated to be of the bloodline of David and a Jew where as Ceasar was a Latin.

Fourth, Ceasar was assasinated by the Senate, literally stabbed in the back. Jesus was crucified. An important distinction here is that when Roman soldiers or other citizens of the Roman Empire were executed, it was normally done by beheading with a sword. This was seen as honorable and was quick and I guess fairly painless in comparison to other methods. It was only non-Roman criminals and slaves that were crucified. For example, during the slave revolt led by Spartacus in 73 BCE 6000 of his followers were crucified lining the main roads of Rome as a warning and deterrent to others.

Hope this helps.



Seems you've learned your history well. But have you ever heard of the "heretic" Marcion who said that the God of the New Testament, the God of love and salvation has nothing to do with the old one, the God of righteousness and revenge and who maintained that the Gospels and the letters of Paul were forged by Judaists. He did not accept that the Jewish scriptures should become the Old Testament of the Christians. He also rejected the Judaizing additions in the New Testament which were alien to him. He did not recognize large passages of Luke, effectively leaving scarcely more than what appears in Mark, nor did he recognize the pseudo-Pauline epistles.

Of course he was wrong, since he was a "heretic".
Or have you heard of Tatianus who testified that the genealogy of Jesus was fictitiously added in order to make him a descendant of David.

Ever heard that history is always written by the victor?

As to your point that Caesar was stabbed, yes, that is correct, however a wax figure of him hanging on a tropaeum (T-shaped cross) was shown to the people during his funeral.
Read here: www.carotta.de...




Nice reconstruction drawing, amazing isn't it?
Hope this helps.




posted on Feb, 21 2005 @ 12:29 PM
link   
It stems from the belief that Caucasians were really the Tribe of Edam
they also thought the White Image of Christ was Cesare Borgia ...The Second Son of Pope Alexander, the sixth of rome...



posted on Feb, 21 2005 @ 12:59 PM
link   
{quote] however a wax figure of him hanging on a tropaeum (T-shaped cross) was shown to the people during his funeral.

Interesting, where is the documentation for this?

Carrato cites the following in a footnote to that section

[153] The wax-figure of Augustus at his funeral was clad in the triumphal garb—as later that of Pertinax was as well (cf. Dio Cass. HR 56.34.1; 74.4.3). Conversely Traianus was represented at his posthumous Parthian triumph in 117 AD by his imago (cf. SHA Hadr. 6.3; J.-C. Richard, REL 44, 1966, p. 358).

But he doesn't seem to state that there was one reported for Gaius Julius.


When Piso brought Caesar’s body into the Forum

Hmm, the Pisonian Conspiracy possibly raises it laurel wreated head?

note 157 is intersting but I can't read greek or latin and have'nt been able to find a satisfactory online translator for either

But he overlooks that the effigy of wax had to be hanging on the tropaeum, because according to Suetonius (Jul. 84, first paragraph: Funere indicto rogus instructus est in martio campo iuxta Iuliae tumulum et pro rostris aurata aedes ad simulacrum templi Veneris Genetricis collocata; intraque lectus eburneus auro ac purpura stratus et ad caput tropaeum cum ueste, in qua fuerat occisus.) the toga was hanging there right from the beginning. It must have covered the effigy, as is evident from Appianus (BC 2.146: to swma tou KaisaroV egumnou kai thn esqhta epi kontou feromenhn aneseie, lelakismenhn upo twn plhgwn kai pefurmenhn aimati autokratoroV.): When Antonius removes the toga, the effigy is exposed. Also the fact that Antonius uses a spear to remove the toga (l. c.), speaks for it unambiguously. With to swma tou KaisaroV—‘the body of Caesar’—Appianus could only mean here the andreikelon autou KaisaroV ek khrou pepoihmenon—‘the effigy (literally: the mannequin) of Caesar himself formed from wax’ (BC

But I don't think we need assume that Carrato is mistranslating or making anything up. But, even if this image is a given, what of it? He is saying that the gospel writters made all of this christ-jew stuff up, and that the people who read it were just too foolish to understand? That the roman audience was presented with things that they would recognize and understand, but that the simultaneously failed to recognize or understand it?

Infact this does sound very much like the Pisonian Conspiracy.

THe author does seem to go into some intresting analyses of the hanging god motiff, but, having said just that, its a common motiff. Astarte was hung from a tree, died, and was reborn. Osisris's coffin was in a tree, he was reborn. Christ dies on the cross and is reborn. Now we might have the Caesar manniquin destroyed on a pole and revied as the God Casear.

The Cultic worship of the emperor, from what I understand, was popular in the provinces, not italy proper. However, I suppose in this context, the author might say that the cult simply failed to catch on in italy. I have some trouble with all this tho; namely, how one goes from this 'passion' of caesar to a 'passion' of christ? I mean, whats the rational and why does the method result in these bizzare gospels being circulated over two hundred years later.

Certainly is entertaining page tho.



posted on Feb, 21 2005 @ 02:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by AndrewIII
Greetings all,

guess who Jesus really was, you certainly have heard of him!
According to the Italian scholar Francesco Carotta the historical Jesus was Caesar!
Enjoyable read, thank you. It parallels the theme making waves lately that the story of Jesus was from an older story of a saviour which was recirculated. Food for thought since I have never been able to understand why the apostles after Jesus' death held Rome to be so important, and why Rome from the first century established itself as the head of same.



posted on Feb, 21 2005 @ 03:13 PM
link   
title: Historical Jesus found!


Originally posted by AndrewIII
Greetings all,

guess who Jesus really was, you certainly have heard of him!
Any comments?

Andrew


there is something to this exercise at that,
but i'm afraid the author of the book you cite is not seeing the FOREST for the TREES.

the found Jesus is both in that Ceasar Julius story and many other personnages in myth, lore and legends. And this is another attempt to 'scale' the Christianity 'Fish'....Which has 2000 years and numberous organizations and their clergy and theologians spending countless hours...in patching up gaps and inconsistancies in the Christian Jesus story, then declaring any un-resolved problems as 'mysteries' which require faith (based on church dogmas)

this Jesus-Caesar linkage, i think, is similar to the case of linking the
Noah-Gilgamesh Flood stories/characters....in both cases the characters of Jesus and Noah each had a few remarkable life happenings that were similar to a person in another culture at a? different place/time?
But the Christian Jesus person is a vast assemblage of different stories & characters...like the scales on the christianity symbolic fish...it will take a long time and many exercises to unveil the real story of the man that religion built



posted on Feb, 22 2005 @ 11:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by SomewhereinBetween
I have never been able to understand why the apostles after Jesus' death held Rome to be so important, and why Rome from the first century established itself as the head of same.

Why are the traditional explanations insufficient?



posted on Feb, 22 2005 @ 01:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by NygdanWhy are the traditional explanations insufficient?
Kindly elaborate on what those traditional explanations are, to what specifically they refer, and why anyone should consider them whatever they are, sufficient or not.



posted on Feb, 22 2005 @ 01:55 PM
link   
On why rome is important to the early christians, its because the early christians were romans, so the capital of the world, the eternal city, should be an important place for the new religion, for any new religion. Paul is also traditionally in Rome because he's a citizen, and as such has a right to appeal to the emperor in trial. Peter is there evangelizing, Rome is a sensible target for evangelization. Because two apostles evangelized and are martyred there, it becomes an important city, even outside of the secular importance, in the christian church. Becuase of peter, its considered his see, and because of that, the metropolitan bishop of Rome becomes an authority over the other metropolitan bishops of the 'orthodoxic' church, and thus becomes the seat of the head of the Roman Catholic church.

Why is that insufficient?



posted on Feb, 22 2005 @ 02:04 PM
link   
I am liking carratos story. I don't buy it, but its interesting. This section is interesting too. He is explaining how a passage from the gospels can be reconstructed to its original caesarian meaning, which was lost, due to the oddities of latin writting and such.

Let us look at the development of the sentence that tells us Jesus was crucified:
Mark: ‘And when they had crucified him, they parted his garments, casting lots upon them,…[...]
the origin of the verb is stauros, which means stake, post, slat, and especially in the plural: palisade[...] the Greek word for lot—klêros—originally means all that is received as an allotment, especially an inheritance, an heirloom[...]If now the words of the first verse are read from the same viewpoint as in the second, it is conspicuous that MURA—myra—is nearly identical in lettering to PURA—pyra—meaning ‘pyre’, and that MUR—myr—can be confused with PUR—pyr—[...]
[and now the restored reading:]
‘…and while the pyre caught fire, they quickly assembled stakes, posts, slats and palisades, placed them around it, tore up their garments and threw valuable pieces on it…’

Which he is saying more accurately desricbes the spontaneous and emotive scene of Caesars pyre. The greek lettering on the original page for 'mura' and whatnot look much more convincing than this enlish lettering too.

I don't buy the 'requisite associations' tho, they're just too unintersting and seem to push the ability to mistranslate the texts. Tho, if Yeshuah can become Jesus I susppose thats not a particularly strong argument.

Below is the 'pieta' for Caesar, a face intended to evoke pity and vengance against those that did this, with a type of wreath, not the usual one, but a 'saviouir' one, that the author suggest fits the image of the sorrowful jesus and crown of thorns (the wreath being a reconstruction from another peice tho)

"But the fact that a statue of Caesar may have had the appearance of a pietà, before which, if it were positioned in a church each little old lady would make the sign of the cross, makes one ponder."



posted on Feb, 22 2005 @ 03:13 PM
link   
Seems like everytime someone gets high on something, a new thread pops up about Jesus!

example: "Dude! What if Jesus was a doorstop that held open the door of the Universe!!"



posted on Feb, 22 2005 @ 03:25 PM
link   
How does that apply to the well researched stuff that this caratto guy is bringing up? Its obviously not just some off the cuff theory. I think its wrong, ultimately, but that hardly means it has to be assinine.



posted on Feb, 22 2005 @ 05:26 PM
link   
My statement was: I have never been able to understand why the apostles after Jesus' death held Rome to be so important, and why Rome from the first century established itself as the head of same.

Whereas

Originally posted by Nygdan
On why rome is important to the early christians,
can be applied to an unspecified people and time. Therefore this

its because the early christians were romans,
Does not relate to my statement, especially since yours excludes the apostles who were Jews. Hence this

so the capital of the world, the eternal city, should be an important place for the new religion, for any new religion.
Is your definition of a wayward interpretation of my statement and if it is traditional in definition, it is your traditional definition by virtue of terms such as; "should be" and not one I have seen in any Roman or Christian literature.


Paul is also traditionally in Rome because he's a citizen, and as such has a right to appeal to the emperor in trial.
So what? He was also a Greek citizen first and forefmost. The first 12 were Jews, residing in that area we now call Israel, how does this become a traditional definiton or explain why Rome? Engage in some mental exercise for a minute and ask yourself why Rome when Rome itself was supposedly persecuting and killing Jews and Christians in Paul's and Peter's time, evidenced by their supposed place of martyrdom.


Peter is there evangelizing, Rome is a sensible target for evangelization.
First of all you are hypothesizing here. We are told that both Peter and Paul evangelized in Syria and Corinth well before Rome, in fact we know of no certainty that Peter did so in Rome, we know only that it is claimed he was there. We are not told how they got to Rome or how they managed to be preaching there when we know that Peter escaped Herod's hold, where Herod was a Roman appointee, and Paul was en route as a prisoner to Rome while under Roman guard, escaped and somehow managed to evangelize freely without the authorities knowing. So saying that to do so in Nero's hostile capital is sensible is again your own traditional point of view.


Because two apostles evangelized and are martyred there, it becomes an important city, even outside of the secular importance, in the christian church. Becuase of peter, its considered his see, and because of that, the metropolitan bishop of Rome becomes an authority over the other metropolitan bishops of the 'orthodoxic' church, and thus becomes the seat of the head of the Roman Catholic church.
It may very well have been an important city, but once more that does not address my sentiment as reiterated above.



posted on Feb, 22 2005 @ 05:51 PM
link   
Concerning the drawing above, the scene depicted is reported by Appian.
In 'The Civil Wars' Appianus writes :

[147] While they were in this temper and were already near to violence, somebody raised above the bier an image of Cæsar himself made of wax.3 The body itself, as it lay on its back on the couch, could not be seen. The image was turned round and round by a mechanical device, showing the twenty-three wounds in all parts of the body and on the face, which gave him a shocking appearance. The people could no longer bear the pitiful sight presented to them. They groaned, and, girding themselves, they...

www.perseus.tufts.edu...



posted on Feb, 23 2005 @ 01:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by SomewhereinBetween
My statement was: I have never been able to understand why the apostles after Jesus' death held Rome to be so important

It was important for the apostles because it was the capital of the empire that ruled over them. And you also have to keep in mind that the apostles had converts to christianity who were roman citizens.


, and why Rome from the first century established itself as the head of same.

Rome in the 1st century specifically wasn't the head of the church. Rome became more important with the deaths of peter and paul there


So what?

? So that explains why paul was in Rome.

why Rome when Rome itself was supposedly persecuting and killing Jews and Christians

Rome became important before the persecutions. Why should it change merely because the emperor is in the city and is coordinating the later persecutions?

First of all you are hypothesizing here

That its a sensible target for evangelization? yes, i am hypothesising.

we know only that it is claimed he was there.

Thats all we have for any of this anyway.

We are not told how they got to Rome

What does the mode of transportation matter?

but once more that does not address my sentiment as reiterated above.

The very fact that it was the largest city in existence, the capital of the global order, and the seat of power dictates that at least one of the apostles evangelizes there as they did in other large cities. That is sufficient. What do you suggest is the reason?



posted on Feb, 23 2005 @ 03:18 PM
link   
Talking about history...
Do you think you really know Caesar? Here's a nice little test, see if you can pass it!
www.carotta.de...



posted on Feb, 24 2005 @ 12:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by NygdanIt was important for the apostles because it was the capital of the empire that ruled over them. And you also have to keep in mind that the apostles had converts to christianity who were roman citizens.
I don’t want your personal explanations, they are still but statements of personal and opinion lacking a supportive argument to me. I want you to show me the “traditional definitions” as per your claim.


Rome in the 1st century specifically wasn't the head of the church. Rome became more important with the deaths of peter and paul there
Now you see this is what annoys me with those who debate what they do not know. They make statements such as quoted and it is left to me to educate them on the error, not once but countless times. Reread what I previously posted, and engage yourself in research, you will find within the writings of Clement, Iraneaus, and Ignaeteus to name a few, plus several synods later show Rome to be the head of the church from the days of Peter and Paul. Is that too much to ask?


So that explains why paul was in Rome.
For you perhaps, but not for me. I am not content with just accepting that which is force-fed to me especially when it is full of holes.


Rome became important before the persecutions. Why should it change merely because the emperor is in the city and is coordinating the later persecutions?
What silliness is this? How does this explain why Rome became important before the persecutions, are you delivering an edict or some such thing from someone I place my trust in? Explain your claim and explain it with fact or do not waste my time.



What does the mode of transportation matter?
Sneakily selective aren’t you? Here was my statement relative to that: We are not told how they got to Rome or how they managed to be preaching there when we know that Peter escaped Herod's hold,…


The very fact that it was the largest city in existence, the capital of the global order, and the seat of power dictates that at least one of the apostles evangelizes there as they did in other large cities. That is sufficient. What do you suggest is the reason?
Once more, there is nothing “traditional” about this view it is yours. The fact that Rome was large and the global power, does not make it the prime and opportune place for the seat of church power given its obvious conflicts with Jews and Christians. That is akin to Rome setting up theirs in Mecca.

You have offered nothing in support of your original statement Nygdan. For the last time, kindly support your position just once with something of substance as to the “traditional explanations” on which you based your claim. More of the above will be scrolled.



posted on Feb, 24 2005 @ 01:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by AndrewIII
Here's a nice little test, see if you can pass it!

This caratto guy would probably love Parentis's 'The Assasination of Julius Caesar" which paints him as a revolutionary populare who was murdered by the conservative power establishment.



posted on Feb, 24 2005 @ 02:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by SomewhereinBetween
That is akin to Rome setting up theirs in Mecca.

It is not equivalent since mecca was nothing at the time.


You have offered nothing in support of your original statement

You have offered nothing in support of the claim that rome as the capitol requires more than that to be targeted by the apostles.


For the last time, kindly support your position just once with something of substance as to the “traditional explanations” on which you based your claim.

I see absolutely no reason to continue the conversation. You have presented nothing to support your own statements, other than to say that peter and paul would be too fearful of anti-christian sentiment in rome to go there. I see no reason to expect that or to even think that such fear would be justified in the first place.



posted on Feb, 24 2005 @ 02:28 PM
link   
Since no "Historical Jesus" is actually "found!" on this thread, may as well move on to an interesting topic. Hey Jukyu, how long have you been studying Isshinryu? The patch looked familiar when I took it some time ago.

Cool pic Kidfinger, where'd you get it? Do you study martial arts too?


[edit on 24-2-2005 by saint4God]



posted on Feb, 25 2005 @ 12:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by NygdanIt is not equivalent since mecca was nothing at the time.
Of course it is equivalent. We are to believe Jesus travelled throughout Israel yet his disciples set up shop in Rome. It is equivalent because it is as absurd as your premise.

You are somehow convinced that it makes more sense for a Jewish priest and his Jewish disciples following Jewish ideals to prefer and set up shop in the capital city of the very nation that not only occupies them, but mistreats and slaughters them in the most heinous of ways. But what can I say? If you are not posting to be contrary and you firmly believe that nonsense then run with it.


I see absolutely no reason to continue the conversation. You have presented nothing to support your own statements, other than to say that peter and paul would be too fearful of anti-christian sentiment in rome to go there. I see no reason to expect that or to even think that such fear would be justified in the first place.
Good, we agree on the first part on the second I will say that one of us is wrong and it is not me, on the third, refer, above.

I will leave you with this to ponder: It went to Rome by virtue of Paul, a Roman officer in the court of Aristobolous, attached to Caesar's guard whose only purpose was to infiltrate the Jews in the days of the revolt and steer them toward a Roman way of thinking. I think today it is called psyops.

With that, I accept that you will automatically disagree, so I have nothing further to add.

[edit on 2/25/05 by SomewhereinBetween]





new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join