Who was the historical Jesus?

[Gottle_of_Geer]

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

**## It reminds me of another suggestion, that the Gospels are based on “ancient Egyptian texts” - which texts, is never made clear. **

**Jesus, having gone to England as a boy - not forgetting Scotland, of course, - died in Kashmir: except that he really died in Rome about the year 64; which a little difficult to believe, because every one knows that “He”, was, like St. John the Evangelist, really a “She”. Whether He/She/It (?) married Mary Magdelen in Kashmir or Rome or the south of France, is not made clear either. His trip to America was presumably just after the Ascension - which as we all know, was undertaken by space rocket. **

**He appears to have been much-travelled - after all, He went to Egypt to learn magic, as was pointed out very early on. So why He went gadding off to Kashmir, one can only guess. **

**Presumably the Merovingians left France, went to Kashmir, and then at some unspecified date came back to France by 450 or so. **

**It takes a mighty faith to believe some of these theories. **

So:

Jesus was male
Jesus was female
Jesus was gay
Jesus was an alien
Jesus was married
Jesus was unmarried
Jesus was Julius Caesar
Jesus was Scottish
Jesus was non-existent
Jesus lived in the first century BC
Jesus went to America
Jesus went to France
Jesus died in Rome
Jesus died in Kashmir

**…and so on. **

**No wonder people are so confused, and so sceptical of Christian ideas. **##

 

[stumbler]

Peter_W.:

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.

Peter_W must work for this Italian scholar, as Peter has done nothing but promote this, uh, “zaniness” in ALL of his posts here. He’s probably moved on to some other Christian forum to try it to some others.

 

[Peter_W]

**## It reminds me of another suggestion, that the Gospels are based on “ancient Egyptian texts” - which texts, is never made clear. **

**Jesus, having gone to England as a boy - not forgetting Scotland, of course, - died in Kashmir: except that he really died in Rome about the year 64; which a little difficult to believe, because every one knows that “He”, was, like St. John the Evangelist, really a “She”. Whether He/She/It (?) married Mary Magdelen in Kashmir or Rome or the south of France, is not made clear either. His trip to America was presumably just after the Ascension - which as we all know, was undertaken by space rocket. **

**He appears to have been much-travelled - after all, He went to Egypt to learn magic, as was pointed out very early on. So why He went gadding off to Kashmir, one can only guess. **

**Presumably the Merovingians left France, went to Kashmir, and then at some unspecified date came back to France by 450 or so. **

**It takes a mighty faith to believe some of these theories. **

So:

Jesus was male
Jesus was female
Jesus was gay
Jesus was an alien
Jesus was married
Jesus was unmarried
Jesus was Julius Caesar
Jesus was Scottish
Jesus was non-existent
Jesus lived in the first century BC
Jesus went to America
Jesus went to France
Jesus died in Rome
Jesus died in Kashmir

**…and so on. **

**No wonder people are so confused, and so sceptical of Christian ideas. **##

If you read the book (a large part and other material is online here: www.carotta.de) you would see that this is not another one of those crazy theories about Jesus. This is the real thing.
Seems to me the problem is more that most people including Christians DO NOT WANT IT TO BE TRUE which is not a sign of true faith. There are exceptions however, e.g. Erika Simon, a professor of archaeology, who wrote the afterword and calls herself a devout Catholic. How is that possible?

Peter

 

[Peter_W]

Found here:
prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/stories.pl?ACCT=danews.story&STORY=/www/story/02-08-2005/0002986805&EDATE=TUE+Feb+08+2005,+09:06+AM

**‘Jesus was Caesar’: New book by Philosopher and Linguist Francesco Carotta Claims That the real identity of Jesus Christ has Been Discovered **

   SOESTERBERG, The Netherlands, February 8 /PRNewswire/ --
- Carotta: 'Everything of the Story of Jesus can be Found in the

Biography of Caesar.’
The Italian-German linguist and philosopher Francesco Carotta proves in
his book Jesus was Caesar that the story of Jesus Christ has its origin in
Roman sources. In more than fifteen years of investigation Carotta has found
the traces which lead to the Julian origin of Christianity. He concludes that
the story of Jesus is based on the narrative of the life of Julius Caesar.
Carotta: ‘‘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 cult surrounding Jesus Christ, son of God and originator of
Christianity appeared during the second century. Early historians, however,
never mentioned Jesus and even until now there has been no actual proof of
his existence. Julius Caesar, son of Venus and founder of the Roman Empire,
was elevated to the status of Imperial God, Divus Julius, after his violent
death. The cult that surrounded him dissolved as Christianity surfaced.
Carotta’s new evidence leads to such an overwhelming amount of
similarities between the biography of Caesar and the story of Jesus that
coincidence can be ruled out.
- Both Caesar and Jesus start their rising careers in neighboring states
in the north: Gallia and Galilee.
- Both have to cross a fateful river: the Rubicon and the Jordan. Once
across the rivers, they both come across a patron/rival: Pompeius and John
the Baptist, and their first followers: Antonius and Curio on the one hand
and Peter and Andrew on the other.
- Both are continually on the move, finally arriving at the capital, Rome
and Jerusalem, where they at first triumph, yet subsequently undergo their
passion.
- Both have good relationships with women and have a special relationship
with one particular woman, Caesar with Cleopatra and Jesus with Magdalene.
- Both have encounters at night, Caesar with Nicomedes of Bithynia, Jesus
with Nicodemus of Bethany.
- Both have an affinity to ordinary people-and both run afoul of the
highest authorities: Caesar with the Senate, Jesus with the Sanhedrin.
- Both are contentious characters, but show praiseworthy clemency as
well: the clementia Caesaris and Jesus’ Love-thy-enemy.
- Both have a traitor: Brutus and Judas. And an assassin who at first
gets away: the other Brutus and Barabbas. And one who washes his hands of it:
Lepidus and Pilate.
- Both are accused of making themselves kings: King of the Romans and
King of the Jews. Both are dressed in red royal robes and wear a crown on
their heads: a laurel wreath and a crown of thorns.
- Both get killed: Caesar is stabbed with daggers, Jesus is crucified,
but with a stab wound in his side.
- Jesus as well as Caesar hang on a cross. For a reconstruction of the
crucifixion of Caesar, see:
carotta.de/subseite/texte/jwc_e/crux.html#images
- Both die on the same respective dates of the year: Caesar on the Ides
(15 th) of March, Jesus on the 15 th of Nisan.
- Both are deified posthumously: as Divus Iulius and as Jesus Christ.
- Caesar and Jesus also use the same words, e.g.: Caesar’s famous Latin
‘Veni, vidi, vici’-I came, I saw, I conquered-is in the Gospel transmitted
into: ‘I came, washed and saw’, whereby Greek enipsa, ‘I washed’, replaces
enikisa, ‘I conquered’.
Prominent European scholars and intellectuals are jubilant:
'This report is of the same order of importance as the scientific
discoveries of Darwin and Galileo. - Paul Cliteur, Ph. D., University of
Leiden, The Netherlands -
‘Reading Francesco Carotta’s book has fascinated me, …leading the mind
of the reader step by step to the solution of an obscure intrigue. This
voyage was like a liberating and exhilarating breath of fresh air.’ -Fotis
Kavoukopoulos Ph. D., an international expert in linguistics, Athens, Greece -
-‘New connections which have never been seen that way’.
-Erika Simon Ph.D. Germany
Francesco Carotta Jesus was Caesar. On the Julian Origin of Christianity
ISBN 90 5911 396 9 Sales: UK: sales@gazellebooks.com USA: adam@isbs.com or
info@uitgeverijaspekt.nl L 24,95, USD 44,95, Euro 32

 

[serendipity]

stumbler:

Peter_W must work for this Italian scholar, as Peter has done nothing but promote this, uh, “zaniness” in ALL of his posts here. He’s probably moved on to some other Christian forum to try it to some others.

I saw that some where else too, but there it was an argument posted by a spammer, probably with ties to the book. Probably the same thing here. makes absolutely no sense, when Jeus was mentioned separately in reliable historical accounts that had both individuals recounted.

 

[Irish_Melkite]

What a surprise to see this here. Peter and a couple of others have been posting nearly identical versions of this same goobldygook on Catholic forums all over the web. I’d suggest not feeding the small creature under the bridge.

 

[Peter_W]

serendipity:

I saw that some where else too, but there it was an argument posted by a spammer, probably with ties to the book. Probably the same thing here. makes absolutely no sense, when Jeus was mentioned separately in reliable historical accounts that had both individuals recounted.

“makes absolutely no sense, when Jeus [sic: Divus, Deus, Jeus] was mentioned separately in reliable historical accounts that had both individuals recounted.”

Which accounts would that be? Could you give some examples?

 

[cheese]

Irish Melkite:

What a surprise to see this here. Peter and a couple of others have been posting nearly identical versions of this same goobldygook on Catholic forums all over the web. I’d suggest not feeding the small creature under the bridge.

Hello. Sorry, I had missed this forum.
But you’re right. Peter = Juliana = Thaddaeus = Petrus = etc. and he is Joseph Horvath, co-translator of the book, co-author of the “review” on smallkidtime and co-author of the publisher’s report, posted last week.
If you want to know more about Carotta, mail me (brojan20@hotmail.com), since I don’t have the time to look at all these different forums all the time.

And for you, Joseph: Serendipty wrote: “I saw that some where else too, but there it was an argument posted by a spammer, probably with ties to the book”. See how easy it is to look right through you? S. draw the right conclusion al by him/herself.
Bernard

 

[Peter_W]

cheese:

Hello. Sorry, I had missed this forum.
But you’re right. Peter = Juliana = Thaddaeus = Petrus = etc. and he is Joseph Horvath, co-translator of the book, co-author of the “review” on smallkidtime and co-author of the publisher’s report, posted last week.
If you want to know more about Carotta, mail me (brojan20@hotmail.com), since I don’t have the time to look at all these different forums all the time.

And for you, Joseph: Serendipty wrote: “I saw that some where else too, but there it was an argument posted by a spammer, probably with ties to the book”. See how easy it is to look right through you? S. draw the right conclusion al by him/herself.
Bernard

So the notorious stalker Bernard Vermet, the servant of Anton van Hooff, the great ignoramus from the Netherlands, who told people not to read the book, is active again!
Those who read Dutch can find some information on the two here:
carotta.de/subseite/echo/dzh.html
And here is a letter by Thomas von der Dunk, Ph.D. in which he described van Hooff’s scientific method as:
“Stalking, vituperating and intimidating”
carotta.de/subseite/echo/spiehist.html#brieftvdd

If I were you two, I would be careful about slandering Mr. Carotta. You may regret it!

Peter Wagner

 

[Apolonio]

Peter,

I’m a student at Rutgers who is in a liberal New Testament class. My professor is so liberal that she thinks the Jesus Seminar is conservative (I’m not kidding). I know a pretty good amount of stuff on the “quest for the historical Jesus”. I had some musings on this topic a while ago. You can see it here:

apolonio.blogspot.com

Scroll down and you will find some musings on the historical Jesus.

As far as the remark:

“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.”

Okay, let’s take the Gospel of Mark. We do know these:

1. Mark is arguing that Jesus is the messiah. In fact, the first verse proclaims him as the “son of God,” which does not necessarily mean the second Person of the Trinity, but the Messiah (Qumran).
2. Mark writes about a man named Jesus who claims he is the messiah and then says that he was put to death by the worse kind of punishment, which was mostly to peasants and worse criminals, by Roman pagans.
3. Mark at the end of the gospel says that Jesus resurrected (there is an empty tomb).

Then, with all those three factors in, the author of the gospel is simply reinventing the story of Ceasar, a roman pagan emperor.

So the so called “historian” of the website you mentioned thinks that this gospel, written by a first century Jew, would argue that this man Jesus of Nazereth is the messih with all the factors said above?!??! It just does not make any sense. For a first century Jew to argue that Jesus is the messiah by adapting paganism is very very very unlikely. I mean, this person in the first century out of no where, will try to make up a story about a man being persecuted and resurrecting in a second temple Judaism is very stupid. That kind of thinking is not even in the minds of the first century Jews.

 

[Apolonio]

Peter,

Since it seems that you hold to the theory…Answer this question. Why would a person try to make up a story of a man claiming to be the messiah and then be crucified under the hands of the pagans in the context of a 2nd temple Judaism?

 

[cheese]

Peter_W.:

If I were you two, I would be careful about slandering Mr. Carotta. You may regret it!Peter Wagner

Are we going to threat, Joseph? Is that the best you can do?
And giving Carotta’s site and a quote from Von der Dunk, who tried to safe his reputation, for reference are not the most objective and reliable sources of information, are they? But anyhow, I’m not Van Hooff and this was most before my time, so leave it out, will you.
And I don’t want to keep anybody from reading the book. On the contrary. If you like Von Daeniken, The Biblecode, Hancock, Illig, Andrews&Schellenberger etc. it’s great stuff!!
And you you what they say: it doesn’t matter what they write about you, as long as they do write. So I think that I, like you, should be paid by the publisher as well by now.

Now serious: Why do you avoid a dabate? Because, as Francesco says, this theory is “of an objective nature”, “not open for discussion” and “true even if nobody wants to believe it”?
Well, you know where to find me: on Christianforums and IIDB (an infidels forum, thus covering both sides with only two sites. Sorry can’t be everywhere)
Bernard

 

[serendipity]

mark1270:

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 think it was easier for the Greek versions to survive because there were more copies of them in libraries. The Greek versions can be directly translated to Aramaic or Hebrew, with ease that surprised many scholars, leading them to believe that the orginal versions must have been in those languages. The late Jean Carmignac wrote must about this perspective. And for those who believe that gematria has some significance, the Hebrew versions have amazing signs.

Scholars did write about Jesus during his generation. Josephus is one. David Currie used sources form Roamn pagans, but I don’t recall their names.

 

[Apolonio]

Seren,

If there were no Aramaic or Hebrew Matthew, at least some of his sources must have been an Aramaic or very old.

 

[Peter_W]

What does this reconstruction drawing depict?

Peter

 

[Ghosty]

That is by far one of the goofiest drawings I’ve ever seen. Care to give a source and artist for that drawing? It looks like something from a Sunday comic from today. When was this drawing supposedly done?

 

[cheese]

Ghosty:

When was this drawing supposedly done?

It was made for Carotta’s book and it is as goofy as the rest of it.
This is the basic idea of Carotta’s book:
The story of Jesus is actually the story of Caesar rewritten (JC=JC).
Therefore everything in the Gospels has to originate from the life of Caesar. Caesar was cremated, so Jesus must have been cremated too. And see: Carotta, that great linguistic genius, finds out that the greek verb ‘stauro’ doesn’t actually mean to crucify, but to put up posts or slets, and from there onwards to something like setting up the cremation pile. Also the throwing of the dice over the clothes actually means throwing the clothes on top of the pile. (That we can find the origin of the dicesentence in psalm 22 is a minor detail Carotta is not interested in). etc. etc. etc.
So that’s almost the end of Jesus’s crucifixion. But Christianity without a cross is even too much for Carotta and after this brilliant tour de force he invents a Caesar crucifixion. To do so he combines different classical texts about Caesar’s funeral in a suggestive way. There was a lying wax figure of Caesar and there was a tropaeum, a construction to show his armour on. When you want to show such an armour you need a T-shaped construction and when you want to put a helmet on top, you have to give it a crossform; simple as that (In another forum a choose a modern cross shaped dressboy as my avatar, just to please Joseph, who calls himself Juliana in that one). But to Carotta this has a profound meaning. And since Jesus was hanging on a cross, the wax figure of Caesar also must have been hanging on that crossshaped tropaeum. (The obligatory similarities work in both directions).

And there you have the background of this astonishing reconstruction.

So to recapitulate:
First we take the Caesar story litteral and adjust the gospel.
Then we take the gospel litteral and adjust the Caesar story.
Piece of cake.

 

[Peter_W]

In *The Civil Wars *Apppian writes (ed. Horace White):

[147] While they were in this temper and were already near to violence, somebody raised above the bier an image of Cæsar himself made of wax.3 The body itself, as it lay on its back on the couch, could not be seen. The image was turned round and round by a mechanical device, showing the twenty-three wounds in all parts of the body and on the face, which gave him a shocking appearance. The people could no longer bear the pitiful sight presented to them…

perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/ptext?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0232&query=head%3D%2337

 

[Steve_Andersen]

Peter_W.:

So you think all Christians worship a “nice Jewish boy”.

Yup
Peter_W.:

But why then is everything about Catholicism so Roman?

Rome was the 400 lbs gorilla of its day
If you wanted to make the Big Time you had to do it the way it was done in the big city

You remember…“When in Rome etc…etc”
Peter_W.:

Peter_W.:

Why was no Gospel ever written in Aramaic or Hebrew?

I’m not sure if they weren’t
But if so, it is no big mystery. Greek and Latin were the linga Franca (lingas Francas?) of that time and place.

If you want to reach a large audience publishing in a minor provincial language is counter productive…especially after the revolt

Why would you risk having the message lost in a lot of political background noise?
Peter_W.:

Why does the Quran say that Jesus was not crucified?

Sour grapes
Peter_W.:

Why…?

You ask an awful lot of questions
Peter_W.:

What would change if Jesus was not a Jew?

Nothing really except my old joke
Peter_W.:

Would he be less holy then, or what?

What

 

[cheese]

Peter_W.:

The image was turned round and round by a mechanical device, showing the twenty-three wounds in all parts of the body

But the drawing shows a thick wooden cross; not exactly a “mechanical device”. How does it show the image’s back? Something like a rotating spit would be a mechanical device, and one that suits the purpose.

And to safe time: Here’s another funny one by Joseph from a forum where he calles himself Steve:

Steve:

What makes Carotta’s work more than just a “hypothesis” is that everything narrated of Jesus in Mark, the oldest Gospel, is found in Caesar’s story - of course, more or less mutated but clearly identifiable.

Yeah, of course. Like Christ’s saying “Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachtani” (“My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me”), which ‘clearly identifiable’ derives from Caesar’s “Have I saved them that they may ruin me?”, and NOT from psalm 22:1: “Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachtani” (“My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me”). Or will Carotta soon discover that this psalm also derives from Caesar’s life; like he discovered that Buddha (500 BC) is a makeover of Augustus (0 AD)?
Bernard