It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Jesus: son of Cleopatra and Caesar

page: 2
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in


posted on Oct, 11 2008 @ 12:24 AM
reply to post by Byrd

You realize that he did leave and another child was put in his place, after he was taken away by Mary and Joseph, who worked for Cleoptra. He was snuck out of the country.

posted on Oct, 11 2008 @ 12:57 AM
Sorry to question but, how would a C sect be considered a virgin birth. Virginity means lack of sex.

Stop making short connections, look at it as a whole.

Either the words in the bible are true and you just cant except it. Or the words on the bible are altered. But by making small logical tweaks and connections, you must realize your throwing the whole story off balance in a sense that even if it wasn't true, it still doesn't explain other parts to the story.

Jesus' birth was for tolled in the first testament. "Oh sure, the roman empire manipulated the scriptures so it made perfect sense" Um, dead sea scrolls, also the huge population of Jews who obviously would of noticed if there was a change...

If there was a single lie in this, it was fabricated from the very start. OR possibly the whole bible is true.

Btw, stop watched youtube videos explaining this or that. 99% of them are full of fabricated propaganda's.

posted on Oct, 31 2008 @ 12:35 AM
Man reading a lot of responses make me realize that even the people that claim not to be religious really seem to be scared to admit that the greatest story ever told is just that... A STORY!

There are a lot of conspiracy theories out there and how true they are I don't know. The truth is there are far too many actual accounts of the people in control of our economies and in tern us deceiving us cheating us killing us that we at least have to realize the proof is there that they do want to do something and it is not in our best interest but theirs.

It is your responsibility to take a stand. Gather information, real information. Read between the lines of your news. Know that the last people you should trust are the ones trying to tell you that you should trust them! Be a sheep and die or be yourself and truly live!

posted on Oct, 31 2008 @ 12:59 AM
What is so funny about all of these people is the term god simply meant "most high". The one with the most, the highest buildings. These so called pesent, common people think these people are gods just because they had more and made your family worship them or die. The only reason any of us are here is because our family members agreed to convert or they would have been killed. Praise jebus and his little dog too.

[edit on 31-10-2008 by The Stand]

posted on Oct, 31 2008 @ 02:10 AM
This is just idiotic abd irresponsible. Caesarian, Cleopatra and Caesar's son was killed by the hand of Octavian(Augustus). There is nothing to debate.

Besides, the dating doesn't match.

posted on Oct, 31 2008 @ 06:46 AM
Cleoptatra was known as Isis I believe, or someone else at any rate that had the correlation of "virgin queen" associated with it. Hence "born of a virgin"

The video in question also explains the time line discrpancy with regards Claendar calculations , which results in a dating error of up to 30 years, which basically means he could have indeed have been Caesarean , her son.
Also remember that like MANY other gods before him, Jesus was born to a virgin, was baptised when he was THIRTY, died on the cross, resurrected after 3 days...all astrotheology references meaning this idea of him being THIRTY at baptism was likely not the truth but simply a symbolic age in refrerence to Solar movements .

Ie, Jesus may well have "died" at a later age than 33

The video is excellent food for thought. Worth watching a researching further before being rebuked. An especially interesting point was that it was illegal to make any images of Jesus at the time....WHY NOT ? Why were they wanting to prohibit his image being widely seen ? Why did they not want the masses to know what Jesus looked like....?

posted on Nov, 12 2008 @ 02:16 PM
yea-up... I agree.... Religon is nothing but a control mechanizm... but we are not suppose to know... we have to fear God... you know the one that loves us ... ??? 6 of this half dozen of something else.... but if god is good -- then what is evil...

[edit on 12-11-2008 by BornPatriot]

posted on Nov, 12 2008 @ 02:26 PM
I already have a thread about this here,'
and for those of you negating the discrepancy about Caesarion living from 47 BC-33 AD I have also provided an explanation. A bit of critical thinking may be necessary here guys.

posted on Nov, 12 2008 @ 02:26 PM
oops double post!

[edit on 12-11-2008 by 12.21.12]

posted on Nov, 12 2008 @ 02:28 PM
reply to post by cosmicpixie

Apparently you did not read my response to you earlier. Caesarion WAS 33 when he died.

posted on Nov, 12 2008 @ 02:31 PM
The time lines don't match up. Close but no stogie.

posted on Nov, 12 2008 @ 02:35 PM
reply to post by Resinveins

Uh, it doesn't match up. Until you involve some critical thinking.

Here you go.

Egyptian Empire=BC
Roman Empire=AD

Julius Caesar established the 12 month calendar in 46 BC a year or so after Caesarions birth.

Explanation: 46 BC is the same year as 0 AD. There you go.

posted on Nov, 12 2008 @ 03:23 PM
reply to post by 12.21.12

Sorry I should have said the widely accepted time lines do not match.

If 46 BC = AD 1 (there was no year 0) then what of the years 45 - 1 BC? Do they then cease to exist?

In truth I highly doubt anyone can accurately determine the date of Jesus' birth.
Any claim that purports to is at best an educated guess, and at worst idle speculation.

posted on Nov, 12 2008 @ 04:01 PM
reply to post by Resinveins

No in fact the years after 46 BC do exist, but what you will find is that everything that happened after the Roman empire was established is referred to as AD while everything that has to do with Ancient Egypt is BC. If you go to wikipedia and start from 1 BC and go backwards, you will find these years very uneventful as nothing really seemed to happen up until the year 21 AD. That is because they were phasing out the Ancient Empire and phasing in the Holy Roman Empire, which is the reason behind this huge discrepancy.

posted on Nov, 12 2008 @ 04:04 PM
reply to post by Resinveins

Yes thats correct 45 BC is 1 AD. I realize there was no 0 AD, just thought it was easier to explain that way. Also look up the birth of Jesus you should notice that at 1 AD Jesus would have been one year old.

posted on Nov, 12 2008 @ 04:25 PM
reply to post by 12.21.12

I can see what you're trying to say.. If by "the roman empire" you mean the Julian Calendar. Still, there are such discrepancies pertaining to the years immediately preceding the first implementation of the Julian Calendar in 45 BC (which was the primary cause of the new calendar's implementation), and the years immediately following that implementation( due to lack of verifiable data, and constant adjusting of the new calendar), that putting a year to the birth of Jesus becomes an exercise in speculation.

I do thank you for your posts though.. I had no idea how... inexact and tenuous the dating system for that period was/is. Learn something new everyday I guess

posted on Nov, 12 2008 @ 04:29 PM
reply to post by Resinveins

No problem, unfortunately I did not put as much time in to my response as I did in the mentioned thread. Take a look if you would like to look further, lots of good info.

posted on Nov, 12 2008 @ 05:18 PM
I'm no biblical scholar, but appears to have happened is someone wanted to grab control. It may be that the biblical "Jesus" is based on multiple persons.

I reviewed some of the other threads on this subject and came up with this one.
Jesus was Yeishu ha-Notzri

If Jesus was not an historical person, where did the whole New Testament story come from in the first place? The Hebrew name for Christians has always been _Notzrim_. This name is derived from the Hebrew word _neitzer_ which means a shoot or sprout - an obvious Messianic symbol. There were already people called Notzrim at the time of Rabbi Yehoshua ben Perachyah (c. 100 B.C.E.). Although modern Christians claim that Christianity only started in the first century C.E., it is clear that the first century Christians in Israel considered themselves to be a continuation of the Notzri movement which had been in existence for about 150 years. One of the the most notorious Notzrim was Yeishu ben Pandeira, also known as Yeishu ha-Notzri. Talmudic scholars have always maintained that the story of Jesus began with Yeishu. The Hebrew name for Jesus has always been Yeishu and the Hebrew for "Jesus the Nazarene" has always been "Yeishu ha-Notzri." (The name Yeishu is a shortened form of the name Yeishua, not Yehoshua.) It is important to note that Yeishu ha-Notzri is not an historical Jesus since modern Christianity denies any connection between Jesus and Yeishu and moreover, parts of the Jesus myth are based on other historical people besides Yeishu. We know very little about Yeishu ha-Notzri. All modern works that mention him are based on information taken from the Tosefta and the Baraitas - writings made at the same time as the Mishna but not contained in it. Because the historical information concerning Yeishu is so damaging to Christianity, most Christian authors (and even some Jewish ones) have tried to discredit this information and have invented many ingenious arguments to explain it away. Many of their arguments are based on misunderstandings and misquotations of the Baraitas and in order to get an accurate picture of Yeishu one should ignore Christian authors and examine the Baraitas directly.
It appears Chritianity was already in place in 100 BCE. Go figure.

posted on Dec, 10 2008 @ 01:07 AM
reply to post by kshaund

yeah actually this has a lot of fact backing it. It is the most hidden story in
history, Heh like I have to tell you that...

I actually was told this same story by a guy that claimed to be a 32rd Mason. He was very old... very wealthy and scared me with his skeletal frame.

There is someone calling them self tyrannyofsoulz on youtube who have posted a chapter by chapter video and it is called Secret Rulers of the World.

The production of this very old video is from Amenstop Productions.

here is chapter 10.

It gets right into the caecarian Christ story.

I would recommend watching the whole thing if you can. especially timeline part and who the statue of liberty is actually suppose to be modeled after.

posted on Dec, 10 2008 @ 01:12 AM

Originally posted by sollie
Yet another in a long line of ill-researched pseudo-theories that pseudo-scholars have conjured up about Jesus, which flies in the face of all sound historical and scholarly evidence, and shatters any notion of common sense and logic.

It's amazing how people think one book, or one theory, or one set of "evidences" can overturn literally hundereds of years of painstaking research, particularly the science of textural analysis in regards to the Bible. Some people have no idea.

Do some real research, please.

EDIT: Sorry if I sounded harsh, this topic is one of my pet peevs.

[edit on 18/7/2008 by sollie]

[edit on 18/7/2008 by sollie]

well...if you believe in the christian god and jesus then you must also ignore an awful lot of proof that these things are based on earlier religions..

why do religious people stop researching when THEIR beliefs are reached?...

new topics

top topics

<< 1    3  4 >>

log in