Who was the historical Jesus?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Peter_W
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
P

Peter_W

Guest
Hi everybody!

Have you heard about the thesis that the historical Jesus actually was Caesar who was deified as Divus Julius?
I came accross this in another Catholic forum. The person claiming this is Italian scholar who says he has worked more than 10 years on this subject. He thinks the Gospel of Mark is a mutated story of the Roman civil war from the Rubicon to the Caesar’s assassination and apotheosis. At first it sounds absolutely weird but his proofs seem plausible. For more information see: www.carotta.de.
What do you think of this?

Take care

Peter
 
Peter_W.:
Hi everybody!

Have you heard about the thesis that the historical Jesus actually was Caesar who was deified as Divus Julius?
I came accross this in another Catholic forum. The person claiming this is Italian scholar who says he has worked more than 10 years on this subject. He thinks the Gospel of Mark is a mutated story of the Roman civil war from the Rubicon to the Caesar’s assassination and apotheosis. At first it sounds absolutely weird but his proofs seem plausible. For more information see: www.carotta.de.
What do you think of this?

Take care

Peter
Click to expand...
I think the author has wasted ten years of his life.
 
That’s an extremely doopy idea that could only be thunked up by total nutballs. Seriously, Jesus is the most historically attestated person in the ancient world; I would suggest more so then caeser himself. People usually try to make up these funky theories with Mark’s Gospel, but can never seem to account for the gargantuous mass of Christian literature in and outside the New Testament.
 
Peter_W.:
Hi everybody!

Have you heard about the thesis that the historical Jesus actually was Caesar who was deified as Divus Julius?
I came accross this in another Catholic forum. The person claiming this is Italian scholar who says he has worked more than 10 years on this subject. He thinks the Gospel of Mark is a mutated story of the Roman civil war from the Rubicon to the Caesar’s assassination and apotheosis. At first it sounds absolutely weird but his proofs seem plausible. For more information see: www.carotta.de.
What do you think of this?

Take care

Peter
Click to expand...
Wow. How much do you “want” Chist not to be Christ to spend 10 years on this?

Chuck
 
40.png
whowantsumadebo:
That’s an extremely doopy idea that could only be thunked up by total nutballs. Seriously, Jesus is the most historically attestated person in the ancient world; I would suggest more so then caeser himself. People usually try to make up these funky theories with Mark’s Gospel, but can never seem to account for the gargantuous mass of Christian literature in and outside the New Testament.
Click to expand...
Well yes, it sounds absolutely crazy. But there are not that many (clear) references to Jesus in early historiography. And if you read the extracts from his book on that website you will find amazing things there. And the guy based on what is said on his site really doesn’t appear to be a nutball at all. There are also some scholars recommending his work, even clerics (one of them a Jesuit)!
Anyway, that website is worth reading!

Peter

P.S: ‘Spiritus Gladius!’, funny that’s Roman too. 🙂
 
Man, I thought that the fundies were good at twisting scripture. I didn’t know that someone could take scripture and history, and twist them in such a way. Any priest who has anything to do with this should be defocked.
 
I found the following.

**
I. WAS THERE EVER ANY QUESTION
Click to expand...
?

A. THERE HAVE BEEN SKEPTICS WHO BELIEVED JESUS WAS JUST A “MYTH”…
1. This concept was popular with some scholars of the 1800s’
2. It is rarely found today, except among those…
a. Who are ignorant of the facts
b. Who purposely suppress the evidence (e.g., as was done in
formerly communist-dominated countries)

B. TODAY, NO SERIOUS HISTORIAN (EVEN THOSE WHO ARE ATHEISTS) DISPUTES
THE FACT THAT JESUS EXISTED…
1. H. G. WELLS
a. An atheist, he spoke of Jesus in his book, Outline Of
History
b. “…one is obliged to say, ‘Here was a man. This part of
the tale could not have been invented.’”
2. WILL DURANT
a. Ex-professor of Philisophy of History at Columbia University
b. He spent two chapters in The Story Of Our Civilization
depicting Jesus as a historical figure right along with the
Caesars
3. ENCYCLOPEDIA BRITANNICA
a. Used over 20,000 words to describe Jesus
b. More than Aristotle, Cicero, Alexander, Julius Caesar,
Buddha, Confucius, Mohammed, or Napoleon

[So there appears to be sufficient evidence to have convinced these and
others like them that Jesus actually lived.

What is this evidence…?]

II. THE EVIDENCE FOR A HISTORICAL JESUS

A. AMONG “PAGAN” SOURCES…
1. THALLUS (a Samaritan historian, ca. 52 A.D.)
a. Wrote attempting to give a natural explanation for the
darkness which occurred at the crucifixion of Jesus
b. Note carefully:
1) He did not deny the existence of Jesus
2) But only tried to explain away the strange circumstances
surrounding His death
2. LETTER OF MARA-SERAPION (written to his son, ca. 73 A.D.)
a. He tells of the deaths of Socrates, Pythagoras, and of Jesus
b. “What advantage did the Jews gain from executing their wise
king?..Nor did the wise king die for good; he lived on in
the teaching which he had given.”
3. CORNELIUS TACITUS (Roman historian, ca. 112 A.D.)
a. Writes of Jesus in his ANNALS
b. “Christus, the founder of the name, was put to death by
Pontius Pilate, procurator of Judea in the reign of
Tiberias.”
4. PLINY THE YOUNGER
a. Governor of Bithynia in Asia Minor, ca. 112 A.D.
b. Wrote to the emperor Trajan about Christians and their
devotion to Christ
5. SEUTONIUS (Court official and annalist under Hadrian, 120 A.D.)
a. “As the Jews were making constant disturbance at the
instigation of Chrestus, he expelled them from Rome.”
b. Luke makes reference to this same expulsion in Ac 18:1-2

B. AMONG “JEWISH” SOURCES…
1. THE TALMUD
a. Consists of two separate books dealing with Jewish law,
written during the period from 100 A.D. to 500 A.D.
b. Speaks frequently of Jesus of Nazareth…
1) In unfriendly terms, of course
2) But never disputing his status as a historical figure
2. FLAVIUS JOSEPHUS
a. A Jewish general turned Roman historian, born 37 A.D.
b. Makes several references to Jesus in his History Of The Jews
c. E.g., “…and brought before it the brother of Jesus, the
so-called Christ, whose name was James.”

[Such is the evidence which must be taken into account by any
intelligent and rational person.

[/QUOTE]
ccel.org/contrib/exec_outlines/ca/ca_02.htm

**
 
He says that none of the early historians mention Jesus, but what about the writers of the bible? Jesus is mentioned in every book of the new testament. What about Ignatius? Ignatius mentions Jesus by name in several of his epistles. Barnabas and Clement and Polycarp all mention Jesus in there epistles and letters.

It does not make sense. If your going to say that none of the early historians mention Jesus, you should include all the historians.
 
What do you think of this?
Click to expand...
No faithful Catholic should even have to be asked what they think of this. It’s blasphemous. Jesus was not Caesar and the claim is absurd. There was a Jesus, and a Jew from Nazareth - and He was the Son of God.
 
This is the same kind of nonsense that exudes from every page of *The DaVinci Code. *I read the linked article and saw no proof whatsoever for this goofball’s contention that Julius Caesar (JC) was identical with Jesus Christ (JC). Why not Jimmy Carter (JC)? That would be just as plausible. Don’t waste your time reading such ridiculous musings.
 
Q: Who was the historical Jesus?

A: He was a nice jewish boy who went into his father’s business. 😃

rim shot!

sorry…old joke
never mind :o
 
Steve Andersen:
Q: Who was the historical Jesus?

A: He was a nice jewish boy who went into his father’s business. 😃

rim shot!

sorry…old joke
never mind :o
Click to expand...
So you think all Christians worship a “nice jewish boy”.
But why then is everything about Catholicism so Roman?
Why was no Gospel ever written in Aramaic or Hebrew?
Why does the Quran say that Jesus was not crucified?
Why…?

What would change if Jesus was not a Jew?
Would he be less holy then, or what?
 
Actually, I believe some scholars do believe that some of the Gospels, at least Matthew, were originally in Hebrew. However, because Greek was the universal language they all were soon written in Greek.

I thought that the fact that a pagan wrote about why it was dark at the time of Christ crucifixion was very interesting. That is the first time I have heard of that phenomenon being referred to outside of the bible.
 
I do not belive the author spent 10 years to evaluate whether Jesus was a historical character. I believe he dabbled around the edges trying to write a book for money.

Now if you are an Italian who wants to make some money, what better subject to use than Jesus Christ. Most any Book about Jesus will sell in Italy. Now he thought to weave in the idea that maybe a ceasar was impersonating a Holy man would give it a zing! What a dreadful man he must be.

All anyone has to do is to read the Book by the very famous Jewish General/Historian Josephus! I have read it. Josephus wrote his History of the Jews in about the year 80AD. Josephus writes about Jesus and his death. Josephus tells of people who had died coming back and walking in the streets, he suspected that Jesus’ apostles stole his body from the grave, but he did say some thought Jesus came alive.

The Italian author had a lot of guts to try to pull of a lie. Yep, folks, ya’ gotta’ watch those sneaky Italians, Ha Ha.
 
I think the necessary and sufficient truth about Jesus is in what we call the New Testament and in the Church that produced it.

The thing that frightens me is how I might have responded to Jesus had I been His contemporary in the vicinity of His public ministry.

How would I have responded to him? How would I have responded to the historical Jesus? I fear I would have not been smart enough to do what I should have. Many people of His time were spiritually blind or otherwise incapable of responding to Him.

I think it’s absolutely amazing, for which I am so grateful, that so many people did recognize Him for Who He truly was. How, except by inspiration, would they have written with such authority about Who He truly was?

I John

1:1** What was from the beginning,
what we have heard,
what we have seen with our eyes,
what we looked upon
and touched with our hands
concerns the Word of life–

1:2 for the life was made visible;
we have seen it and testify to it
and proclaim to you the eternal life
that was with the Father and was made visible to us–

1:3 what we have seen and heard
we proclaim now to you,
so that you too may have fellowship with us;
for our fellowship is with the Father
and with his Son, Jesus Christ.**
 
Thanks for this very nice quotation from 1 John.
I must say, however, after having read even more on that site that the guy does have interesting things to say.

Peter
40.png
BayCityRickL:
I think the necessary and sufficient truth about Jesus is in what we call the New Testament and in the Church that produced it.

The thing that frightens me is how I might have responded to Jesus had I been His contemporary in the vicinity of His public ministry.

How would I have responded to him? How would I have responded to the historical Jesus? I fear I would have not been smart enough to do what I should have. Many people of His time were spiritually blind or otherwise incapable of responding to Him.

I think it’s absolutely amazing, for which I am so grateful, that so many people did recognize Him for Who He truly was. How, except by inspiration, would they have written with such authority about Who He truly was?

I John

1:1** What was from the beginning, **
**what we have heard, **
**what we have seen with our eyes, **
**what we looked upon **
**and touched with our hands **
concerns the Word of life–

**1:2 for the life was made visible; **
**we have seen it and testify to it **
**and proclaim to you the eternal life **
that was with the Father and was made visible to us–

**1:3 what we have seen and heard **
**we proclaim now to you, **
**so that you too may have fellowship with us; **
**for our fellowship is with the Father **
and with his Son, Jesus Christ.
Click to expand...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top