Jesus: son of Cleopatra and Caesar

a video called the ring of power may convince u better then that utube video!!!

reply to post by Resinveins


How can the time not match up?
Please provide evidence that shows when Jesus was born? Please do not humour us with a book that was written 180 years after his alleged death

[edit on 12-11-2009 by george_gaz]

reply to post by kshaund


none of this matters since cleopatra was greek to begin with. therefore how can she be the mother of a hebrew kid. do some research please.
Also check out the book The Jesus Mysteries.. It makes alot more sense than the Bible and the New Testament.

for all of you out there that belive a book that was created 500 yrs after jesus died the your fuked. bc if you dont see by now that you live in a world that has bin built on lies nd corruption then all you are is a bunch of sheep. waiting for your shepard to guide u instead of looking at each other to find your own way. its an interesting story. as of trusting the catholic church, fuked that they are prob the biggest liars in the world. their whole empire has bin bilt on blood. wake up

I would like to clear up this misconception once and for all.

I never had sexual relations with that woman!

Sincerely,

Your beloved Emperor

Actually, as I mentioned in another topic, Jesus was the son of Mary, whose sister was Salome, the daughter of Queen Herodias and stepdaughter of King Herod Antipas, ruler of Galilee.

So, by way of his Aunt Salome, that makes Jesus a kind of "step-nephew" to the Jewish throne, along with his cousin, John the Baptist, who was the son of Mary's cousin, Elizabeth.

Not exactly Caesar and Cleopatra, but a little touch of royalty, nonetheless.

reply to post by Blue Shift


What about this guy?

en.wikipedia.org...

Regarding the c-sections spoken of on the first page- I heard that this was reserved for the 'elite' so that they did not have to bear the pain of child birth.

Now I hear that 90% of woman died during this procedure. ? Contradictory is an understatement.

Originally posted by AdAstraWell, I am sure many historians would call it "blasphemy", considering that Caesar was killed in -44 and Cleopatra died a few years later.
So, Jesus was, what, almost 80 years old when he was crucified?
(Sorry, I didn't watch YouTube, I never watch it. Did I miss much?

)

Yeah, that was my problem with this too. Jesus would have been in his 40's at or about the time he was supposedly born (the exact year isn't actually known, even though our whole calendar is based on it...but it was near to what we call Year 1).

I only got through the first 3.5 minutes of the video, so I don't know if they answered this later, but it makes no sense at all.

Originally posted by Byrd

Originally posted by BornPatriot
Note for Jordan Maxwell:

Doctors use the term "C section" Cesarian Section (?) - removed from the womb via scalple. was Cleopatria's Birth of her son (Cesarian ?) by c sect. ?

No... it's so called because Caesar himself was born this way. 90% of the women having this kind of birth died.

Caesar was a family cognomen in Julius Caesar's line of the Julian family long before he was born. According to Pliny the Elder it was an ancestor of Julius Caesar who was born by cesarean section that's why the cognomen (a sort of official nickname in Roman society) 'Caesar' came into their family lineage. "Caesarean" comes from the Latin verb 'caedere,' or "to cut."

There are other suggestions in the later Roman histories involving other possible derivations of the cognomen.

Originally posted by AdAstra
reply to post by kshaund

 

Well, I am sure many historians would call it "blasphemy", considering that Caesar was killed in -44 and Cleopatra died a few years later.
So, Jesus was, what, almost 80 years old when he was crucified?
(Sorry, I didn't watch YouTube, I never watch it. Did I miss much?

)


[edit on 18-7-2008 by AdAstra]

The problem with old dates is that they can be fudged and then hidden by men like this:


I wouldnt have so much FAITH in historical texts.

[edit on 26-8-2010 by rajaten]

Originally posted by Blue Shift
Actually, as I mentioned in another topic, Jesus was the son of Mary, whose sister was Salome, the daughter of Queen Herodias and stepdaughter of King Herod Antipas, ruler of Galilee.

So, by way of his Aunt Salome, that makes Jesus a kind of "step-nephew" to the Jewish throne, along with his cousin, John the Baptist, who was the son of Mary's cousin, Elizabeth.

Not exactly Caesar and Cleopatra, but a little touch of royalty, nonetheless.

If Mary's sister's mother was Herodias, wouldn't Mary's mother also be Herodias? In that case, Queen Herodias would be JC's granny, not his aunt. and Herodias first husband, presumably the father of Salome, was Antipas half brother, so presumably Antipas was half granduncle, not step-uncle to JC, along with being his step grandfather. This is Jerry Springer sh*t.
Herodias is only said to have been married twice, her first husband and then Antipas, his half brother, so even if Mary was only Salome's half sister, and they didn't have the same mother, then they would have had to have had the same father and in that case JC would still be the half grandnephew of Antipas. Step-nephew to the throne he could not be.

I don't believe any of this, but I'm just being logical.

[edit on 26/8/2010 by christianpatrick]

reply to post by sollie


This theory may not be incorrect, I really don't care, however it seems to me that your stance is not as logical as you may think. Your belief that the modern bible is better because they took original texts, for example is extremely flawed. The further the distance from the original writing of those documents, the less likely it is that we know what they meant by their words. They could have written those documents using colloquial terminology, that we are understanding incorrectly, like when we say 'cool'. Your statement also assumes that, many people agreeing on a subject, or the amount of work put into it's findings, is proof of its relevance or truth. I doubt that after thousands of years of proving ourselves to be full of crap on just about every subject with each new discovery on a daily basis, we suddenly have it figured out. When talking about interpretations of things people wrote thousands of years ago, I think the authority of anyone who is interested is just as valuable and likely as those given by the traditional scholars.
In martial arts you can observe a phenomena that relates exactly: When a fighter over-trains it is obvious. They have the advantage of having more skill generally. When their opponent, however, makes a maneuver that goes outside of their training, it completely throws them off. They have no defense against the attack, and cannot even think to approach it. This is happening in the historical orthodoxy constantly, and I think that is what this web site is against, unless I am mistaken. The people who have given you your 'knowledge' are over-trained, under-creative, boring old stuffy left brained history buffs. Not the most creative of groups. If the subject requires thinking outside of the box, these will not be the people who do it. Nor will they accept it when they hear it, even if it is far more likely than what they originally believed.
You say that the theory does not have a leg to stand on, which is incorrect. The theory stands on its own as plenty logical given the context of the times, the distance of time between now and then, and the potential for us not to understand, and still think we do. The only argument you have against it is that other people have gone on interpreting it differently this whole time. That is not a reasonable argument. If you think that this theory is incorrect, and want to argue against it, you have the responsibility to pick it apart on its own merit, and not make an appeal to authority.
I will also have to disagree with you when you say that the bible is a proven historical document. It is impossible for you to have the evidence required to KNOW that to be true. It is true that people say that, and that is why you say it as well, however, just because real events were woven into the stories does not make the stories accurate. There is a genre of entertainment that we currently enjoy called historical fiction that proves this point. Just because someone makes a movie about aliens invading when the twin towers fell (which they did), does not make the aliens invading part true (because they didn't).
There are a bunch of stories about a small group of people on some pilgrimage that nobody cared about, and a bunch of people who claimed to talk to invisible forces, who people at the time probably thought were nuts. None of that junk is worthy of greater historical note. If your great great grandpa claimed he was told to kill his son by god, nobody would give a damn, and the VAST majority of people would not know. The main part of the bible that makes a claim that is not corroborated by any other historical documents, that can be even be considered for the position of actual history, is Jesus. No there is not evidence that a man named Jesus actually existed outside of the bible. If you take into account a possible name change scenario, then maybe, but the name Jesus Christ is only mentioned historically, in reference to the bible.
You can believe what you want, but to insult a perfectly reasonable theory based on tradition, and common agreement, is absurd. Then you take it one step further and present an air of intellectual superiority, when you are actually being quite close-minded. You should examine your belief if you have to act so rudely to defend it.

reply to post by FoxLogic


You necro'd a thread to post a wall of text? Really?

*edit:

I decided to wade through said wall of text anyways.

Julius Caesar:

en.wikipedia.org...

Caesar died in 44 BC.

Jesus of Nazareth:

en.wikipedia.org...

reply to post by LifeInDeath


Our calendar may be based on the 'birth of Jesus' but that does not prove that we know for sure the exact year that happened. They didn't start counting right when he was born you know.
"Oh there's Jesus, we can start keeping time now!"
The proof of this is obvious. If we started keeping time when Jesus was born, how come we don't celebrate Christmas on January 1? Right there is at least a few days discrepancy right out of the box.
I am sure that the whole calendar thing did not come until well after his death, and if it was any more than 30 or 40 years later (about a lifetime), there would be very few people around to verify it when they actually did start keeping time. Plus Jesus was supposedly killed into his 30s. Which means we didn't start keeping time based on his birth until it was to late to get an accurate reading on when exactly that was considering the value of paper, and thus the need for oral tradition. There is another discrepancy.
"Hey Bill do you remember back in 84', or was it 85'?"
"Actually Joe, I think it was 91."
You cannot take what people say as an accurate measurement of time.
Also despite what Christians believe, there is no historical reference of a man called 'Jesus Christ' outside of the bible with which we can gauge the timing of the events in the bible. There is another discrepancy.
To think that we know, after 2000 years (you do realize how long that is right?), that we did not gain or loose at least a few decades is crazy. We have no evidence that the date is correct besides the date itself.

reply to post by DeadSeraph


You obviously didn't read any of it. I will be a little more gentle on your attention span:

You are not even making a valid point against my argument. I am saying that; I would be willing to bet that we might have gotten 2000 years and 2044 years mixed up, after eons. If you think wikipedia proves that statement incorrect then you should step out of the conversation altogether.

Originally posted by FoxLogic
reply to post by DeadSeraph

 

You obviously didn't read any of it. I will be a little more gentle on your attention span:

You are not even making a valid point against my argument. I am saying that; I would be willing to bet that we might have gotten 2000 years and 2044 years mixed up, after eons. If you think wikipedia proves that statement incorrect then you should step out of the conversation altogether.

So basically, your argument is that because you feel the bible is bs (which is neither here nor there), Jesus is the son of Julius Caesar despite the fact HISTORICAL AND INDEPENDENT RECORDS make it completely impossible.

Yet I'm the one who should step out of the conversation?

Read a book sometime. Seriously. Put down the youtube videos.

reply to post by DeadSeraph


Your comment is irrelevant, illogical and incorrect. Just because things are written books does not make them absolute, un-arguable truth, and people prove it by writing books that say something different. Between the two of us, considering how impatiently you have treated my lengthy post, I would go out on a limb and say that you should take your own advice.

Originally posted by FoxLogic
reply to post by DeadSeraph

 

Your comment is irrelevant, illogical and incorrect. Just because things are written books does not make them absolute, un-arguable truth, and people prove it by writing books that say something different. Between the two of us, considering how impatiently you have treated my lengthy post, I would go out on a limb and say that you should take your own advice.

I would suggest that no matter how eloquently you make your point, it is still WRONG.

We are not talking about ONE book here (the bible, which clearly is the target for you). We are talking about MULTIPLE historical records.

Just because you can't deal with reality, doesn't mean your alternative is valid. You have accused me of being illogical, yet the logical thing to do would be to research the HISTORICAL record (from MULTIPLE sources) to discern what happened when, and with whom.

But apparently you are more logical than the vast majority of scholars and Jesus of Nazareth was indeed the love child of Caesar and Cleopatra

Here's an idea:

I challenge you to provide one single shred of evidence or truth to this claim, other than a youtube video. Provide a link to just ONE scholar that shares your opinion, or just ONE shred of historical/archaeological evidence that supports your claim.

In fact, provide evidence that Caesar and Cleopatra even had a son, let alone Jesus of Nazareth.

You are an ass, and I am finished with you. Have fun necro'ing useless threads.

reply to post by DeadSeraph


I can't deal with reality and you think some dude turned water into wine, rose from the dead, and healed the blind with his magic daddy? How often do you see that? Before we started counting time since Jesus was born we didn't have years like we do now. The did not say 'this is 30 B.C.' before Jesus was supposedly born. The only place we get that number from is an estimate of Jesus birth at the time they installed the calendar, by the inventers of the system. They did not call it year 1 on the year Jesus was born, that happened way later. It could be way the hell off and every scholar who examined it would be completely unaware, because the only record they have of its accuracy, beyond pure speculation, is the fact that we have been counting it that way for a long time, which actually says nothing of accuracy.