Jump to content
UNRV Ancient Roman Empire Forums

Recommended Posts

I'm looking forward to his next book 'The Life of Elvis Hitler'.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have one thing to say to all this: HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I believe the author's original contention was that the Jesus evolved essentially from the real life of Caesar, not that Caesar was literally Jesus. There was a rather long discussion of this some time back and I had meant to read the book for purely entertainment purposes but I had forgotten completely about it.

 

This thread serves as a nice reminder :)

 

It's just simply doesn't make sence, from all we know of the Imperoal Cult in Judea who can safely say that the Jews rejected it completely. why would a group of Jews in Judea, the place where the Roman culture was the furtherst from the people minds in all the empire, would model there Messiah base on a Roman god?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think he is (and mind you I have not read the book) claiming that the Jews did, afterall, they did not believe Jesus was their Messiah. I think it more likely that later Christians, when the new church was developing, used some of Caesar's story, as well as others. But I do not think he implied the Jews borrowed Caesars life. If he did, and I will find it, then that I disagree with his assertion, as you do.

Edited by Lucius Julius Venustinius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

LJV, since you're planning to read the book, why don't you review the book for us, here at UNRV? I, for one, would be interested in reading your review.

 

-- Nephele

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I will do so My lady, and I am honored that you asked. I edited my above post because I was making an addition while you were replying.

 

It goes...

 

I really appreciate all the comments. At the very least, it makes you think and realize just how fragile, and desperate these earlier believers of Christ were. They needed the people of the Empire to legitimize their religion.

 

For instance, Cornelius the Centurion, who was stationed in Caesarea (Taken from wikipedia, so it may have errors).

 

He is depicted in the New Testament as a God-fearing man who always prayed and was full of good works and deeds of alms. Cornelius receives a vision in which an angel of God tells him that his prayers have been heard. The angel then instructs Cornelius to send the men of his household to Joppa, where they will find Simon Peter, who is residing with a tanner by the name of Simon.

 

The conversion of Cornelius only comes after yet another vision given to Simon Peter himself; in Simon Peter's vision, he sees all manner of four-footed beasts and birds of the air being lowed from Heaven in a sheet. A voice commands Simon Peter to eat. When he objects to eating those animals that are unclean to Mosaic Law, the voice tells him not to call unclean that which God has cleansed.

 

When Cornelius' men arrive, Simon Peter understands that the vision permits the conversion of the Gentiles. When Cornelius himself meets Simon Peter, Cornelius falls at his feet in adoration. Picking Cornelius up, Simon Peter welcomes him. After the two men share their visions, and Simon Peter tells of Jesus' ministry and the Resurrection, the Holy Spirit falls on everyone at the gathering. The Jews among the group are amazed that Cornelius and other uncircumcised should begin speaking in tongues, praising God. Thereupon Simon Peter orders that Cornelius and his followers be baptized.

 

Ok, they had no issue using a Roman centurion, which to me, seems very calculated, so why not integrate major mosaics of Caesar's life into the very obscure or ficticious life of Jesus?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't think he is (and mind you I have not read the book) claiming that the Jews did, afterall, they did not believe Jesus was their Messiah. I think it more likely that later Christians, when the new church was developing, used some of Caesar's story, as well as others. But I do not think he implied the Jews borrowed Caesars life. If he did, and I will find it, then that I disagree with his assertion, as you do.

 

As you quote the author in your original post :"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 ressurected as Divus Julius.''

 

The "church" is the first decades after Jesus death was almost entrirley compose of his Jews followers and they are the one who wrote the Gospels of the New Testeament (atleast the Synoptic Gospels). The it's would be right to assume that the later gentile church made some alterations to the text but I having a hard time to believe that they reworte to such a deep extent.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He may be wrong on that assertion I grant you, but the Jews had a habit of borrowing other cultures stories for their own books and what not. Many believe that Imhotep was the basis for Joseph, and that possibly Sumerian creation myths, the Akkadian Epic, and the stories of Gilgamesh were the sources from which the Great Flood were born.

 

Lets look at that event alone. In the Book of Enoch and Book of Jubilee, of which the 2nd century BC 1st Book of Enoch is an apocryphon, it modifies the Genesis flood story by saying that God sent the Great Flood to rid the earth of the Nephilim, the titanic children of the Grigori, the "sons of God" mentioned in Genesis and of human females. The Book of Enoch enjoyed great prestige around the time of Jesus and is quoted directly in the New Testament, but failed to gain admittance to the Jewish and Christian canon.

 

That smacks of Paganism and the supernatural, so we can see why later authors retconned it out.

 

Given that Josephus and others claim that Caesar was very tolerant of the Jews, and they seemed to respect him, I think he would be the most likely candidate to use as source material for embellishing Jesus a bit. I do believe Jesus existed, so there, I am at odds with the author, but there are so many holes in his story, he needed a serious makeover. Julius Caesar, Mithraism, Dionysus, Bacchus, all probably used to fill in the gaps.

 

Just my thoughts. I want to read the book first before I cast my vote for Carrota!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It's just simply doesn't make sence, from all we know of the Imperoal Cult in Judea who can safely say that the Jews rejected it completely. why would a group of Jews in Judea, the place where the Roman culture was the furtherst from the people minds in all the empire, would model there Messiah base on a Roman god?

It is much easier to see a Jesus Christ as a Jewish response to a Caesar, than as a deified Caesar; Christ and his preaching is rather a response to an unacceptable system of control and taking (less still a civilizing force), thus giving rise to an extreme counter concept of genuine love and charity; a heretical schism to Judaism.

 

It seems that at the remotest reaches of the Empire, Rome applied the harshest hand when rebellion or its possibility arose. This would seem to be the poorest ground for the deification of a Roman emperor to take root.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's all depend of which Jews you refering to, some in the hellenic diaspora like Philo were well versed in hellenistic culture however the situation was much diffrent in Judea - if you look in the writing of Josephus you may notice that he feel the need to aplogise for his lack of knowlege in Greek and if this was the case for Josephus who were of the Jerusalem nobility that it's certinly would be the case for Jesus early followers who according to the Gospels were of the Galilee "plebs".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You may be right Faustus. Julian the Apostate envisioned the institution of a Roman philanthropic system, and cared for the behaviour and the morality of the pagan priests, in the hope that it would mitigate the reliance of pagans on Christian charity:

 

"These impious Galileans not only feed their own poor, but ours also; welcoming them into their agapae, they attract them, as children are attracted, with cakes. Whilst the pagan priests neglect the poor, the hated Galileans devote themselves to works of charity, and by a display of false compassion have established and given effect to their pernicious errors. See their love-feasts, and their tables spread for the indigent. Such practice is common among them, and causes a contempt for our gods."

 

Most definitely could have been the poor man and slaves answer to the ruling classes Caesar.

 

I appreciate all the responses, they are very enlightening to say the least.

Edited by Lucius Julius Venustinius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Salve, Amici Welcome to UNRV, LJV

 

I have not read this book, so I can only judge it from LJV's link. From where I am, I think we are giving it much more credit than it deserves.

 

Certainly, the potential relationship between the Julian (and Imperial) cult with early christianity merits a careful research; research that was clearly not done here. What we have here is just a provocative title and the search of purported similarities with an almost complete lack of methodology.

 

In fact, it's a good example of how easy you could "find" similarities between the most unrelated issues, linguistic or otherwise.

I mean : Pompey > John (the Baptist)? Antonius > Simon?? Lepidus > Peter?? Cleopatra > (Mary) Magdalene??? The Senate > The Sanhedrin > Satan???? Come on!

(BTW, even Dante found an analogy between Judas and Brutus; but it was Marcus, not Decimus).

 

This stuff seems analogous to the 9/11 numerical coincidence conspiracy "theories". At electoral times, the "Obama-Osama" confusion comes to mind too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It's just simply doesn't make sence, from all we know of the Imperoal Cult in Judea who can safely say that the Jews rejected it completely. why would a group of Jews in Judea, the place where the Roman culture was the furtherst from the people minds in all the empire, would model there Messiah base on a Roman god?

Well, the thing is, they didnt - but it makes at least partial sense when one considers that 95% of what is now Christianity was constructed by the Romans themselves. The religion as it stands now (and since, say, the late 4th century) probably has very little in it from the original Nazarenes. That is why I suggested earlier that it was not a preposterous suggestion that elements of Caesar's life has been woven into the Jesus story. And I think that is what this writer is suggesting, not that Caesar and Jesus were the same individual.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This hypothesis is nothing new. I'm aware of two books that purport to uncover the same scenario. The books are: Et tu, Judas? Then Fall Jesus! by Gary Courtney and Caesar's Messiah: The Roman Conspiracy to Invent Jesus by Joseph Atwill. From my understanding, it

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To take this thread a bit more seriously than I have up to now, I'd say that our view of Caesar is colored by his depiction by Christians like Shakespeare (e.g., "When that the poor have cried, Caesar hath wept"). If the Moors had successfully conquered England, I'm sure we would be reading a thread on Muhammed-Caesar parallels instead.

 

Come to think of it, ever notice the parallels between Joseph Smith and Caesar?? Never mind.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • Map of the Roman Empire

×