Jesus Caesar

First, I would like to apologize for the length of this post, but I don’t see how I can make my point in a shorter post. Please bear with me…

It’s been a long time since I’ve read the Bible, but I was brought up as a Catholic and attended church each Sunday until, when I was 16, I went against my parents and proclaimed my atheism.

Most people who harbour religious beliefs don’t understand atheism. I’ve been told I shouldn’t blame Jesus for the things that have happened to me. Or that Jesus is not responsible for the dreadful things going on in the world. All of which have nothing to do with my atheism. I simply stopped following blindly and asked questions. As no answers were forthcoming, I did my own research.

None of this “God” thing made any sense to me and I certainly could find no reflection of it in the real world. I don’t need a god to understand that there is beauty in the world. The thing is, they only appear beautiful because they reflect a certain part of the universe in which I have evolved and in which my cultural heritage plays a big role, as well as my upbringing and personal experiences. There; nothing magical to it.

I also wondered about this guy Jesus. There is no historical record of him ever having actually lived. I know some of you will post links to various sites. Please do your research; there is a difference between people claiming he existed and between authentic, verifiable fact. Israel was in political turmoil at the time, so that could explain why there are no records of him. However, I became interested in another character in history, of which there are many records. Julius Caesar is probably the most important person who ever lived. Without him, the Gauls would never have accepted conquest. Rome considered them invulnerable and they stood in the way of their becoming more than just a big republic. Without the conquest of the Gauls, there would never have been a Roman empire and we would live in a totally different world today.

Caesar also reformed the Republic in order to give more power to the people. No other senator than he would have wanted to do this. This is also what saved the Republic.

As I read more about this fabulous character, I had this nagging feeling that I had seen a lot of this before. Then I thought of Jesus… Things started falling into places. The stories are different, the people and the events are different, but the basic elements are all the same. And it made sense.

How do you get Romans to accept a Jew as their saviour? You make him like the most popular Roman of all, Julius Caesar.

Caesar died in minus 44 and was a man of the people. The reforms he put into place were aimed at the general populace and not the ruling class, which made him unpopular among many Senators, but quite likable to the population.

A comparison of Caesar’s and Jesus’ lives brings up an uncanny amount of similarities.

Jesus had hundreds of disciples and twelve apostles. Out of these apostles, one betrayed him and eleven denied being his followers when it counted. Caesar was dictator and headed the Senate. There were hundreds of Senators. Out of these, twelve conspired against him. One, Brutus, betrayed him and the other eleven denied his position when it counted.

Jesus had a last supper with the twelve apostles. Here he told them that they would deny him and that one would betray him, but that it had to be done, that he had to die for mankind.

Two weeks before his death, Caesar was having supper with the twelve conspirators (there was no conspiracy at this time, only one, Crassus, who was trying to stir things against Caesar). Crassus asked Caesar how he would like to die. The great man responded that he would like to be assassinated as this would prove that he had done something great that disturbed the order.

Part 2

It is widely believed that Jesus organized the treason against himself as he needed to die on the cross for the salvation of mankind. Which would greatly explain Judas’ treason.
It is also believed that since Caesar had accomplished everything he’d set out to do and had nothing more to accomplish, that he organized his assassination himself. Which would greatly explain Brutus’ treason. It also meant that Caesar could not become corrupt with power.

The accusation against Jesus was that he proclaimed himself king of the Jews. Jesus always denied this. The conspirators accused Caesar of wanting to proclaim himself king, which Caesar would never have done. In either case, the accusation was ridiculous.

The crown of Laurels was worn by the ancient kings of Rome. When a general had a triumph, a ceremony to commemorate a particularly successful campaign, the defeated general would hold a crown of Laurels a few inches above the winner’s head. When Caesar had his triumph for his victory against the Gauls, Caesar felt that Vercingetorix, the leader of the Gauls, did not deserve such a humiliation, therefore Caesar actually wore the crown.

The conspirators wanted to tarnish Caesar’s image, make people believe he wanted to be king. One morning in Rome, all the statues and busts of Caesar bore a crown of Laurels. These had been placed overnight by the conspirators and their acolytes. It was then said that the crown he wore at his triumph, the crown of laurels, had become a crown of thorns.

Jesus died on a cross, not Caesar. However, Caesar’s first diplomatic mission was as ambassador. His ship was captured by pirates. He was held hostage and they required the usual five-talent ransom for him. Caesar laughed in their faces and told them he was worth ten times more than that and refused to be liberated unless the ransom amounted to fifty talents.

The ransom money was collected from nearby villages and brought to the pirates who released Caesar. During his captivity, he wrote speeches and poetry which he read to the pirates. They laughed and ridiculed him. He told them that upon his release he would come back and crucify them. They laughed even harder.

After his release, Caesar went to the same villages that had collected the ransom and put together a private army of mercenaries. He told them of the treasures at the pirate’s lair and told them they could have it all, he wanted no part of it. The only thing he wanted was to have the pirates taken alive.

He attacked them with this private army and… crucified the survivors. This story was well recounted in Rome and was the first event that brought Caesar to public notice, making him someone you couldn’t take lightly.

Jesus was crucified between two thieves. What are pirates if not thieves?

But Jesus did not die of crucifixion. Crucifixion is a slow, agonizing death. It took people days to die this way, sometimes a week. Jesus died on the same day he was crucified. He died at the hands of a Roman soldier who stabbed him in the side.

It is said that the first eleven conspirators attacked Caesar individually and that they all missed. Then Brutus took his knife out. Seeing this, Caesar said “Et tu, Brutus” (you also, Brutus; either as a statement of astonishment, or as an order), enveloped himself in his cape and waited for Brutus, a Roman soldier, to stab him in the side.

Part 3

One could easily make a case for Mary Magdelene being none other than Cleopatra. She was the prostitute who loved Jesus. He did not return her affections. Cleopatra, far from being the poetic figure she has been made out to be, wanted to be queen of the world. She made Caesar (and many others) her lover. She claimed to have a child by him, thinking Caesar would be forced to accept the child and marry her. He accepted the child although it’s highly unlikely he was the actual father, but still turned down Cleopatra. Remember that she later on became Marc Anthony’s (Caesar’s best friend) lover and tried to convince him to do battle with Octavian (later to become Augustus, and Caesar’s adopted son), in order to become sole ruler of Rome. When Octavian defeated Marc Anthony, Cleopatra killed him, forfeiting his chance to have an honourable death through suicide, and attempted to use this assassination to get into Octavian’s good graces (not to mention his toga…).

Octavian thanked her for giving him a reason to arrest her.. Allowing her the opportunity to commit suicide only helped Octavian further. For the Romans, suicide was an admission of guilt. Octavian used this to turn Egypt in an actual province and it greatly helped him found the Empire.

As I said, it’s been a long time since I’ve read the bible and I couldn’t even begin to imagine what might make me want to pick one up. But I’m sure that if I did, I would find a lot more similarities between these two.

Caesar was a very well documented general and then dictator for life of Rome. He was not Jesus Christ. I have seen nothing historical to imply they might even have been in the same place at the same time, let alone be the same person.

Jesus was mentioned a few times by the Romans, actually. I don't have the info to hand, but its in one of the threads on the boards. His brother was mentioned too.

I never meant to imply that Caesar was Jesus. Only that Jesus' life, as reported by Christianity, was adapted from Caesar's life. By giving Romans a sense of comfort, they could make a Jewish saviour acceptable to them. Whether Jesus existed or not is not even relevant to this.

reply to post by


Very interesting point of view..!

Christianity as been under control of the Roman empire
since it beginning. If we think about it, in those time, could
it be possible that the roman empire, that we all know use
the christian religion to have more control on is population
and on his empire, structure a jesus legend, to make it more
popular and so by using a similar story of the Julius Ceasar
popularity like a marketing propanganda tactic..!

have been looking for a similar path to search for the Roman
Catholic church conspiracy on world power and there role on
the new world order agenda

That is brilliant ajmusicmedia

Achilles 13

www.caesarsmessiah.com...

www.amazon.com...=pd_bbs_sr_1/103-7188025-8619003?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1205433904&sr=1-1< br />

Caesar's Messiah, a real life Da Vinci Code, presents the dramatic and controversial discovery that the conventional views of Christian origins may be wrong. Author Joseph Atwill makes the case that the Christian Gospels were actually written under the direction of first-century Roman emperors. The purpose of these texts was to establish a peaceful Jewish sect to counterbalance the militaristic Jewish forces that had just been defeated by the Roman Emperor Titus in 70 A.D.

Atwill uncovered the secret key to this story in the writings of Josephus, the famed first-century Roman historian. Reading Josephus's chronicle, The War of the Jews, the author found detail after detail that closely paralleled events recounted in the Gospels.

Atwill skillfully demonstrates that the emperors used the Gospels to spark a new religious movement that would aid them in maintaining power and order. What's more, by including hidden literary clues, they took the story of the Emperor Titus's glorious military victory, as recounted by Josephus, and embedded that story in the Gospels - a sly and satirical way of glorifying the emperors through the ages.

reply to post by Lilitu


Too bad hardly any early Christians were Jews!

Originally posted by chromatico
reply to post by Lilitu

 

Too bad hardly any early Christians were Jews!

Actually, at first they where considered Jews, just a sect of Jews.. kinda like Nazareenes ..... oh wait, that was supposed to be the mythical city which Jesus was from..



Christianity and Judaism are not very different.. at all.. only until the Bible came about where the lines defined.. if all they had was the Torah and verbal passing of legends involving Christ, they where Jews with a savior, the New Testament only highlights the life and effects of the Jewish savior, which Jews still await..

However the New Testament was not even written down until many, many years later, and made publicly available many years after that.

From Pagan accounts of Christian settlements on their land in areas like Britain, France, Germany and Ireland, the Christians where simply deeply submissive, uneducated, often slaves, and where very supersticious.. I had read one account in a book from around the year 400 that Christians where slaves to themselves, oppressed by their own beliefs.

Well actually, now that I think about it, perhaps Christianity has not changed to much since its foundings......

Lilitu: thanks for the link, this is very interesting and warrants further research. From what I know of that time period, it does make sense.

No offense, but the theory relies on you not knowing much about Julius Caesar and not researching his life well. Caesar's opinions and beliefs are well known and they don't mesh with the teachings in the Bible.

Jesus wasn't a bureaucrat (Caesar was), Jesus didn't go around setting up taxes and a private army, Jesus wasn't the grandson of a famous sex goddess (Caesar traced his lineage to Venus), Jesus didn't join the army and become a field commander (Caesar did), Jesus never became the head of a secular government, Jesus died around age 33 -- Caesar was 56, Jesus was not a wealthy slave owner but Caesar was, Jesus didn't suffer from epilepsy (Caesar may have)... and on and on and on. There's no record of Jesus partying out in orgies but there is of Caesar doing so.

en.wikipedia.org...

I think it's a real stretch based on the initials only (and not realizing that Caesar's first name is Gaius.

Besides, Caesar was worshiped after his death under his own name by decree of the Emperor Augustus.
en.wikipedia.org...

Ritual is mind control.
There was a very specific ritual involved in the worship of the "emperor as god" cult.
Once the church became an official emperial religion, the Romans incorporated the cult ritual into the Mass.

So, there is a definite wholesale infusion of paganism into christianity.
That does not mean that christianity is based on pagan history.
The bible was mostly ignored, except as a propaganda tool, by the Church, so they did not get into a big campaign to change it. Only priests were meant to ever read it, anyway.
So, the best modern trsanslations of the bible can be considered as a good document for your understanding of the basis of christianity.

[edit on 14-3-2008 by jmdewey60]

Originally posted by ajmusicmedia
Lilitu: thanks for the link, this is very interesting and warrants further research. From what I know of that time period, it does make sense.

It does indeed warrant further research. Rome had a problem with the morale of its slave culture and revolutionary Jews. Creating a new pacifistic religion which would at once pacify the Jews and transform their slaves into passive obedient servants seems like a stroke of sheer genius. Only problem was the Jews weren't fooled by this fictional propaganda character/Messiah. Why would they not be fooled? The deep anti-semitism in christianity was a dead giveaway and still is to this day.

Originally posted by Indellkoffer
No offense, but the theory relies on you not knowing much about Julius Caesar and not researching his life well. Caesar's opinions and beliefs are well known and they don't mesh with the teachings in the Bible.

Jesus wasn't a bureaucrat (Caesar was), Jesus didn't go around setting up taxes and a private army, Jesus wasn't the grandson of a famous sex goddess (Caesar traced his lineage to Venus), Jesus didn't join the army and become a field commander (Caesar did), Jesus never became the head of a secular government, Jesus died around age 33 -- Caesar was 56, Jesus was not a wealthy slave owner but Caesar was, Jesus didn't suffer from epilepsy (Caesar may have)... and on and on and on. There's no record of Jesus partying out in orgies but there is of Caesar doing so.

en.wikipedia.org...

I think it's a real stretch based on the initials only (and not realizing that Caesar's first name is Gaius.

Besides, Caesar was worshiped after his death under his own name by decree of the Emperor Augustus.
en.wikipedia.org...

I don't think you read my original post. I never spoke of initials. I know Caesar's first name was Gaius. And I never said they copied every event of Caesar's life.

As for being a wealthy slave owner, Caesar was constantly in debt. And being a slave owner back then had nothing to do with being a slave today. Slavery was an entirely different concept back in those days.

Orgiastic parties have been greatly exagerated by a plethora of bad historians (many of them writing for wikipedia; does anyone still rely on wiki?).

Your reply is harsh and certainly needs a lot of research. You need to discern between history and what is being sold as history.

And please, do not tell me Jesus was not a politician...

reply to post by ajmusicmedia


aj, look, there is really no similarity. Jesus did not have an army that slaughtered tens of thousands. He didn't attempt to overthrow any government.
He wasn't a Roman. Your claim is just preposterous.

Well, great to see that religious folks haven't changed. Once your views are challenged, you don't think. You don't research. You think Caesar slaughtered tens of thousands of people? Then you have no idea of who he was. And you have no idea of the times he lived in.

Read, research, find things out for yourself. Then you can form an opinion rather than just repeat the usual rubbish that's been taught to you.

i like the way your thinking op, it's good to question everything but in my opinion your barking up the wrong tree here. there is obviously a heavy roman influence in christianity, it grew up in the roman world.

you were on the right track when you said

How do you get Romans to accept a Jew as their saviour? You make him like the most popular Roman of all, Julius Caesar.

this is a good point, but then again it says nothing new. christianity has lifted whole chunks of thought and religous practice from almost every culture it has encountered to make it acceptable to the culture it is trying to convert.

to be more specific to your thread though, almost all chriistianity is based on, or influenced heavily by, the roman catholic church. it's base is apsolutely wholesale roman. jesus, the apostles, all the deciples, everyone in the gospels and everyone who wrote a cananoical gospel was steeped in roman culture, it should come as little shock that there are so many cultural cross overs in the two stories.

crucifiction, betrayal, being stabbed and crowns of laurels, or thorns as the case may be, are just common elements of the roman world, like bread and circuses. i'm sure if you looked back at david keresh and john f kennedy in 2000 years you could equally find elements of commonality.


EDIT TO ADD:
christ probably didn't need the stab wound to his side to kill him, crucifiction killed by suffication if i remember correctly, the lungs don't work if all your weight is on your arms, which is why, generally, the prisoners legs were broken to kill them. otherwise, it took a healthy man days to die. however, according to the gospels, jesus had stayed up all night, had been scouraged, had nails driven through his hands and feet (not the uasual methord of crucifiction), was bleeding from the head and had carried a cross a fair distance, collapsing several times on the way, he wasn't what you'ld call a prime specimen. he could easily passed out and suffocated within hours.

[edit on 14-3-2008 by pieman]

have been looking for a similar path to search for the Roman
Catholic church conspiracy on world power and there role on
the new world order agenda

Search and you will find...

It won't make it any more true, though.


And by the way, Christianity wasn't "controlled" by the Roman Empire (which should be more rigorously defined in this specific context); if anything, it destroyed the Roman Empire.
(Which wasn't all that difficult, since it had reached a state of moral and social - hence also political - corruption beyond repair. It was like a tooth rotten on the inside.)

There is no conspiracy of the Church - not even if members of "the Church" (institution) spent all their days plotting! (They might, for all I know - but I don't really think so.)

And that's simply because the only real "Church" doesn't have walls or clergy: it's the congregation, the believers themselves. They are the ones who keep it alive and kicking after all these centuries.

I understand perfectly how such a concept might be difficult to understand to anyone who isn't familiar with the spirit of said "Church".
But that's the way it is.





[edit on 14-3-2008 by Vanitas]

It really doesn't work.

Originally posted by ajmusicmedia
Without him, the Gauls would never have accepted conquest. Rome considered them invulnerable and they stood in the way of their becoming more than just a big republic. Without the conquest of the Gauls, there would never have been a Roman empire and we would live in a totally different world today.

Well... not really. They already had a big empire with many "client kings" (that's the technical term for them) and were expanding even further. His capture of the Guals was important but Rome would have survived without it.

Caesar also reformed the Republic in order to give more power to the people. No other senator than he would have wanted to do this. This is also what saved the Republic.

Actually, what he was doing was taking power away from the Senate so that they wouldn't overrule him when he set up his dictatorship.

How do you get Romans to accept a Jew as their saviour? You make him like the most popular Roman of all, Julius Caesar.... A comparison of Caesar’s and Jesus’ lives brings up an uncanny amount of similarities.

Not really.

. Caesar was dictator and headed the Senate. There were hundreds of Senators. Out of these, twelve conspired against him. One, Brutus, betrayed him and the other eleven denied his position when it counted.

There were sixty (60) conspirators : en.wikipedia.org...

Two weeks before his death, Caesar was having supper with the twelve conspirators (there was no conspiracy at this time, only one, Crassus, who was trying to stir things against Caesar). Crassus asked Caesar how he would like to die. The great man responded that he would like to be assassinated as this would prove that he had done something great that disturbed the order.

Do you have a source for that? The main sources on Caesar are Josephus, Tacitus, Caesar himself, and Plutarch. There's a record that his wife and some slaves had a dream of his death, but I have never seen a source saying "supper with 12 conspirators"... particularly since there were 60 conspirators.

(will address other points in your second post in another post.)

Originally posted by ajmusicmedia
It is also believed that since Caesar had accomplished everything he’d set out to do and had nothing more to accomplish, that he organized his assassination himself.

Actually, no. He had a number of plans in place that were ongoing when he was killed.

(for researchers -- there's a HUGE sourcebook of original texts here: Fordham site BUT my favorite source is this year's Berkeley lectures on Rome. THIS is hands-down one of the funniest and most interesting lecture series I've heard on Rome, and she brings in all the naughty bits plus the weird family structures and other fun stuff : webcast.berkeley.edu... )

Which would greatly explain Brutus’ treason.

Actually, Brutus' involvement was that he wanted The Republic. Caesar had violated the laws of the land several times and was of the opinion that a republic was an outdated form of government. Brutus was hardly the devoted follower of Caesar, having supported Pompey earlier; after Caesar's declaration of himself as "dictator for life" they saw the hopes of Republic failing and decided to move.

But Brutus may have had yet another motive. If Octavian AND Caesar died, Caesar's will named him the new emperor.

After Caesar's death, Brutus led a procession that marched through Rome shouting "at last we are free!"

The conspirators accused Caesar of wanting to proclaim himself king, which Caesar would never have done.

However, he didn't turn down the "dictator for life" title.

It is said that the first eleven conspirators attacked Caesar individually and that they all missed. Then Brutus took his knife out. Seeing this, Caesar said “Et tu, Brutus” (you also, Brutus; either as a statement of astonishment, or as an order), enveloped himself in his cape and waited for Brutus, a Roman soldier, to stab him in the side.

You're combining several sources. The "et tu, Brute" comes from Suetonius, the silent death follows Plutarch... and the first blow (by Casca) scraped his neck.

(third post, addressing religion, follows)

[edit on 14-3-2008 by Byrd]