Who was the historical Jesus?

[Peter_W]

Peter,

I’m going to re-post what I said. Let’s see if you can interact with it or you are just a sophist.

   *Apolonio, the question is not whether I can interact with your stuff, the question is if I want to. If I for any reason don’t feel like interacting I’m free to leave it, understand?

But ok, I’ll try to answer to your problems this time.
*

Peter,

I’m a student at Rutgers who is in a liberal New Testament class.

Apolonio, please don’t believe everything your professor tells you, read other sources as well.

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.

Seen it, sorry, not too much impressed.

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).

First of all, when you’re doing NT studies you have to look at the old Greek text, the Graeca Veritas. Theological problems such as the Trinity are not important for now. Nowhere is Mark arguing that Jesus is the ‘messiah’. In the Greek text of Mark it does not say ‘messiah’ it says ‘Christos’ and the KJV translates the first sentence accordingly: “The beginning of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, [the Son of God]…”. “The son of God” is missing in some manuscripts. The ‘messiah’ in some translations is an interpretation amalgating the NT with the OT.

1. 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.
   
   Again, where does Jesus claim he is the ‘messiah’, give chapter and verse number. And when you look at the Greek text it does not necessarily say that he was crucified. “…If we have a closer look at this verb, it turns out that staurô does not mean crucify, but to put up posts or slats or a palisade, or more precisely to fence in. Namely, the origin of the verb is stauros, which means stake, post, slat, and especially in the plural: palisade…”
   Read more here: carotta.de/subseite/texte/jwc_e/crux1.html#crucified
2. Mark at the end of the gospel says that Jesus resurrected (there is an empty tomb).

*May I refer you to p. 313 of JWC ‘Jesus’ entombment and resurrection’
*

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

     *Why would he do that, a  roman **pagan [does ‘pagan’ mean immoral or evil?]** emperor of all? What are you saying here? The author of Mark is not reinventing the story of Caesar, he reports the vita Divi Iulii to the best of his knowledge as he understands and misunderstands it.*

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?!??!

*Are you sure Mark was a first century Jew? How do you know? And, no, the ‘so called “historian”’ does not think that “this first century Jew” would argue that Jesus is the messiah. Why don’t you read yourself what he thinks?
*

          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.

??? Could you forget the Jews and the messiah for one moment? Mark’s exemplar was the Historiae of Asinius Pollio written in Latin or an intermediate ‘Proto-Marcus’, see p. 217.
*
Apolonio, if you’re interested in the historical Jesus read the book. Then we have a basis for discussion. Don’t expect me to type pages of answers to your “questions”. I have other things to do. Here is a short summary: carotta.de/subseite/texte/esumma.html
*Peter*

 

[Peter_W]

Steve Andersen:

its called wit

…]

thank you……I think

You think what? Maybe you should check some of your answers again. They are not quite correct.
Steve Andersen:

But what does this have to do with the Historical Jesus?

Jesus turns out to be Divus Iulius, i.e. the deified Caesar who was added to the number of the gods ‘non ore modo decernentium sed et persuasione volgi’,
‘not only because of the lip-service of those who decided it, but because of the deepest conviction of the people’.
Suet. Jul. 88

 

[cheese]

Good Morning(*) “Peter W.”,
I had a wonderfull night and a good sleep, but you went on all through the night, so it seems? It’s your life, but I would advise you to find another hobby.
Think I’ll have a quick reading of all responses this evening.
Bernard

*)“Peter” lives in Germany.

 

[Ghosty]

I’m still waiting on an answer to why Jews would have recorded information about the “heretic” Jesus and his followers in the Talmud.

 

[Steve_Andersen]

Peter_W.:

You think what? Maybe you should check some of your answers again. They are not quite correct.

According to whom?

Some guy with a web site?

Yeah that is surely my A #1 source of information

Apparently there is also a Nigerian widow who needs my bank account to transfer funds and attractive Ukrainian women who are waiting to meet me.
Peter_W.:

Jesus turns out to be Divus Iulius, i.e. the deified Caesar who was added to the number of the gods ‘non ore modo decernentium sed et persuasione volgi’,
‘not only because of the lip-service of those who decided it, but because of the deepest conviction of the people’.
Suet. Jul. 88

If I may quote Wolfgang Pauli. “It is not even wrong.”

Sometimes when one person goes against the establish theory he is a courageous voice shouting the truth…but usually he’s just a loony with a keyboard and a web account.

 

[Peter_W]

Ghosty:

I’m still waiting on an answer to why Jews would have recorded information about the “heretic” Jesus and his followers in the Talmud.

"The reports in the rabbinic literature are mostly polemic, hence they presuppose Christian literature and, on top of this, they are very vague.[323] For example Jesus is thought to be ‘the bastard son of the Roman soldier Pantheras’. It is easy to see that that Pantheras is a metathesis of parthenos, Greek ‘virgin’. So it could originally have meant: ‘the bastard son of Parthenos’, i. e. of the parthenos—the ‘virgin’. What is interesting is what remains: the Roman soldier. The rabbinic tradition seems to be based on a source that retains the memory of a Jesus who was born a Roman and who was the son of a legionary.
Which means that the Jews, the people which Jesus is supposed to descend from—even supposed to descend from the royal House of David—only knew Jesus very late and only from the Christians. And if they did take any notice of him, he was thought to be of Roman origin.

						 The negative attitude towards Christianity and the denying of Jesus remained constant in Judaism throughout all the centuries until the modern age. Right up to today authoritative Jewish theologians hold Christianity to be a product from the late Hellenistic period, foreign to Judaism."

http://www.carotta.de/subseite/texte/jwc_e/reorient.html#jsources

If you’re interested read it, if not leave it.

 

[Apolonio]

First of all, when you’re doing NT studies you have to look at the old Greek text, the Graeca Veritas. Theological problems such as the Trinity are not important for now. Nowhere is Mark arguing that Jesus is the ‘messiah? In the Greek text of Mark it does not say ‘messiah?it says ‘Christos?and the KJV translates the first sentence accordingly: “The beginning of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, [the Son of God]…”. “The son of God?is missing in some manuscripts. The ‘messiah?in some translations is an interpretation amalgating the NT with the OT.

Response:
I never referred to the Trinity. The Greek text of Mark, uses the word christos and that means the annointed one. The Gospel of Mark starts with Jesus proclaiming that the “kingdom of God” is here. In a Jewish context, that means Yahweh is going to liberate the whole cosmos. All the Gospels, whether Markan, Lucan, Johannine, or Matthean, speaks of Jesus as a Jew proclaiming the kingdom of God is at hand. And by the way, I didn’t even speak about 1:1 in Mark. I did speak of how the term “son of God” is used. That implies that he is the messiah. If you read the Qumran, you would understand that.

“Again, where does Jesus claim he is the ‘messiah? give chapter and verse number. And when you look at the Greek text it does not necessarily say that he was crucified. “…If we have a closer look at this verb, it turns out that staur?does not mean crucify, but to put up posts or slats or a palisade, or more precisely to fence in. Namely, the origin of the verb is stauros, which means stake, post, slat, and especially in the plural: palisade?/i>?br /> Read more here”

Response:
Jesus said to “repent, the kingdom of God is here.” This is not extraordinary in the first century. There were many who were claiming that they were the messiah. So I don’t know why you would doubt this. Second, as far as the crucifixion is concerned, that is the form of punishment by Romans to a lower class status. If the Jews killed Jesus, they would have stoned him. So as far as your history is concerned, you have it all wrong. And by the way, the Lucan account speaks of Jesus having nails in his hand. I’m familiar with all the Greek you are speaking of, but as a historian, you’re supposed to put it in its context.

“Are you sure Mark was a first century Jew? How do you know? And, no, the ‘so called “historian”’ does not think that “this first century Jew?would argue that Jesus is the messiah. Why don’t you read yourself what he thinks?”

Response:
Ummm…the Marcan account argues that Jesus is the messiah. Most of the characters are Jews. So yeah, he is arguing Jesus is the messiah.

“Could you forget the Jews and the messiah for one moment? Mark’s exemplar was the Historiae of Asinius Pollio written in Latin or an intermediate ‘Proto-Marcus? see p. 217.Apolonio, if you’re interested in the historical Jesus read the book. Then we have a basis for discussion. Don’t expect me to type pages of answers to your “questions? I have other things to do. Here is a short summary:”

Response:
I’m sorry, but you have to be really really stupid to think that the Marcan account does not argue Jesus is the messiah. All the books in the New Testament does. For a writing in the first century that argues a man who is crucified and rose from the dead and say that proves he is the messiah is very unlikely. Unless it really happened, no story would have been made.

“Apolonio, the question is not whether I can interact with your stuff, the question is if I want to.”

Response:
After seeing the evidence is against you now, I can see why you would not “want” to interact

 

[SFH]

The historical Jesus is the one described in the Bible.

As sworn testimonies by eye-witnesses or notes from secretaries of eye-witnesses, the four Gospels are the only competent evidence that would be admissible in a court of law. All the rest is pure conjecture, and hence, inadmissible. Note that most of the text in the four Gospels would come in as excited utterance, or dying declaration, or sworn testimony. You might argue that the witness was biased or otherwise, but it would still come in. Most of what liberal theologians regard as the “historical Jesus” would be inadmissible speculation.

Ironically, many bishops, priests, and laity swallow hook, line, and sinker, the “historical Jesus” speculations, and discount the eye-witness testimonies.

 

[Exporter]

Peter_W.:

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?

---

Catholocism “is so Roman” because from before the time of Jesus and for at least 400 years the Roman Empire consisted of Europe, No. Africa and the middle East. Catholocism evolved in a Roman World.

Then we must recognise that Christ’s Vicar on earth ( the Bishop of Rome) was located in the Roman Capitol. It is no surprise that a Roman influence was and is reflected by the Roman Catholic Church. …The Quran is not a Christian Book, it was written some 650 years after Christ by Arabs. …If Jesus was not a Jew, then all the prophets of the OT would have been wrong, and Jesus COULD NOT have been the Messiah. He would not have been the Son of God if he was not Jewish.

 

[Exporter]

Since about 1840 there have been a number of Germanic writers who have sought to disprove the miricles of Jesus Christ using what they named “Modern Science”. It seems that this desire to annihilate the Divinity of Jesus Christ has slipped over into the Netherlands. The Jewish historian *Josephus who wrote in approximately the year 80 AD wrote about Jesus and his crucifixtion.

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:

---

PROVES is a BIG word. Which was written first, the New Testament or the Biography of Caesar? What does this Dutch writer have to gain from the sales of this book? Have you ever wondered why it is that no one ever “discovered” Carotta’s story before? Pray for the man.

 

[cheese]

Exporter:

Since about 1840 there have been a number of Germanic writers who have sought to disprove the miricles of Jesus Christ using what they named “Modern Science”. It seems that this desire to annihilate the Divinity of Jesus Christ has slipped over into the Netherlands

Sorry, but no serious bible researcher will believe a word of Carotta. The Dutch “scientists” mentioned in Joseph Horvath’s press report (Cliteur, Von der Dunk, Kinneging) are no historical bible researchers, but die-hard atheists, who are so eager to contradict Christian orthoxy, that they are willing to accept every nutty alternative.

By the way, most loyal servants of Carotta have a Catholic background, including our Joseph/Peter W. And the guy who is going to translate the book in Spanish even is a Catholic village priest!!!

 

[SFH]

Originally Posted by Peter_W.
*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?*
***Ah, Peter my friend, St. Matthew’s Gospel was written in Aramaic and subsequently translated into Greek. At least that’s the testimony of the early Church Fathers and no modern scriptural scholar has come up with compelling evidence to refute that tradition. ***
If you get a good Catholic translation of the Bible (the Confraternity New Testament is the best), you’ll actually find that it’s chock full of Aramaic expressions (e.g., “Amen, amen, I say to you,” “Who ever calls his brother Raca,” “The gift I give is corbona,” “Let him be anathema. Maranatha.”). The problem is that the King James bible and the RSV translate all these phrases into English instead of leaving them in Aramaic or Hebrew like the Greek- or Aramaic-writing evangelist did. St. Augustine criticised this translation practice as did the Vatican in Liturgiam Authenticam, but people still use the King James bible and the RSV. I’d say your objection is an excellent reason why Catholics should follow Liturgiam Authenticam’s guidelines (funny how the Vatican always turns out right in the end).
Everything about Catholicism is not so Roman as it seems either. Attend a seder meal and you’ll actually find the Catholic Mass is quite Jewish. In fact, the first three centuries of Catholicism were much more Greek than Roman. Depending on which of the Catholic Rites you attend, you may still hear Mass said in Greek, Arabic, or any number of non-Romance languages. And even in the Latin Rite, we still say the Greek words Kyrie eleison, Christe eleison, Kyrie eleison. And it’s been that way since Christ ascended into Heaven.
The Quran’s claim that Jesus Christ was not actually crucified is hardly original to the Muslims. The Gnostics, Manicheans, and various other sects all held variants of that belief prior to Mohammed’s birth and he probably picked up the idea that God “tricked” the Jews into crucifying the wrong man or caused a mirage from one of those sects.
Finally, I do not worship a “nice jewish boy.” I worship the Christ, the Son of the Living God. And yes, he was Jewish as the Prophets foretold.

 

[Peter_W]

Exporter:

Since about 1840 there have been a number of Germanic writers who have sought to disprove the miricles of Jesus Christ using what they named “Modern Science”. It seems that this desire to annihilate the Divinity of Jesus Christ has slipped over into the Netherlands. The Jewish historian *Josephus who wrote in approximately the year 80 AD wrote about Jesus and his crucifixtion.

“The desire to annihilate the Divinity of Jesus Christ has slipped over into the Netherlands” by dint of a practicing Dutch Catholic who spontaneously started translating the book from the original German. Then the same reprehensible desire inspired him and others to also conquer the Anglo-Saxon world by providing an English translation and soon urbs and orbis will recognize Divus Iulius and finally there will be in terra pax hominibus. Wouldn’t that be nice?

But seriously, to impute a desire of the author “to annihilate the Divinity of Jesus Christ” is a misconception. Just look at the homepage, it says “faces and names of a God”. See also the afterword by Erika Simon, professor emeritus, a devout Catholic and other Christians’ opinions who don’t seem to have a problem with finally knowing the true identity of Christ.
BTW, the so-called Testimonium Flavianum was proven to be an interpolation long ago.

Exporter:

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:

---

PROVES is a BIG word. Which was written first, the New Testament or the Biography of Caesar? What does this Dutch writer have to gain from the sales of this book? Have you ever wondered why it is that no one ever “discovered” Carotta’s story before? Pray for the man.

Yes ‘proves’ is a big word, however, when you have read the work you will know it is appropriate. First was the Historiae of Assinius Pollio, which was the proto-gospel written 12 years after the Lord departed, just as the Church has always maintained. The author of JWC is an Italian who has been living in Germany for a long time. Judging from the sales of the German original edition he did not become rich. To earn lots of money he should have written a novel like Dan Brown’s ‘Da Vinci code’. Truthful historical research reports, though as thrilling as any novel could be, don’t seem to be that popular.
Maybe what helped him discover the identity of Jesus was the fact that as a child he was in a seminary. I suppose there are others who need prayers more.

 

[Apolonio]

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.

Response:
The dumb thing about this is that the Gospels were written in the first century. Even if we take the liberals’ dating, this would mean that Mark wrote in 70, Matthew in 80-85, and Luke 90-95 and Acts 100 AD (I’m speaking of the most liberal groups). Of course there are objections to these dates, but even if these datings were true, the fact is that it speaks of a man named Jesus who was a Jew and claimed that the kingdom of God is here. Jesus was a man who claimed to be the messiah within the context of 2nd temple Judaism. To simply say “Well, let’s steal some stuff from Ceasar and make someone as if he is the messiah who died under the Romans and rose again” is again, dumb. They wouldn’t have gotten away with it.

 

[Peter_W]

Apolonio:

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.

Response:
The dumb thing about this is that the Gospels were written in the first century. Even if we take the liberals’ dating, this would mean that Mark wrote in 70, Matthew in 80-85, and Luke 90-95 and Acts 100 AD (I’m speaking of the most liberal groups). Of course there are objections to these dates, but even if these datings were true, the fact is that it speaks of a man named Jesus who was a Jew and claimed that the kingdom of God is here. Jesus was a man who claimed to be the messiah within the context of 2nd temple Judaism. To simply say “Well, let’s steal some stuff from Ceasar and make someone as if he is the messiah who died under the Romans and rose again” is again, dumb. They wouldn’t have gotten away with it.

They would have gotten away with it if the reason of the state of Vespasianus ordered it. (In case you didn’t know, theology is, for the most part, politics.)
And this is what Vespasianus and his minister for Jewish affairs Flavius Josephus, also known as Paulus did.
But they did not ‘steal some stuff from Caesar’ they simply sanctioned the version ‘ad orientem conversa’ of the vita Divi Iulii.

Laudetur JC

 

[Peter_W]

Apolonio:

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.

Response:
The dumb thing about this is that the Gospels were written in the first century. Even if we take the liberals’ dating, this would mean that Mark wrote in 70, Matthew in 80-85, and Luke 90-95 and Acts 100 AD (I’m speaking of the most liberal groups). Of course there are objections to these dates, but even if these datings were true, the fact is that it speaks of a man named Jesus who was a Jew and claimed that the kingdom of God is here. Jesus was a man who claimed to be the messiah within the context of 2nd temple Judaism. To simply say “Well, let’s steal some stuff from Ceasar and make someone as if he is the messiah who died under the Romans and rose again” is again, dumb. They wouldn’t have gotten away with it.

So, have you finally read the book, Apolonio?
Still think it’s “dumb”?

 

[JimG]

This is even zanier than the DaVinci Code. I doubt that any serious historians have even heard of this guy.

 

[JimG]

Now, for a serious treatment of the “historical Jesus” by a real historian, one might want to try this book by Paula Fredricksen:
Jesus of Nazareth, King of the Jews: A Jewish Life and the Emergence of Christianity

 

[luvthelight]

lol wow this is pretty rediculous. actually its pitiful. im saddened by the fact that there might actually be people who believe this. yes if read the site, and in all honesty i wasnt sure whether to laugh or cry. i dont know why im bothering to do this, maybe im just bored.

first of all - poor caesar!! everyone thinks he is so mean and dictator - like when he was really just a nice guy! he conquered countless places, and didnt really treat the people he conquered nicely! he was one guy ruling everyone, and the senate thought he was taking too much power - thats a dictator! i dont believe he deserved to be murdered - no one ever does, but even comparing him to hte most peaceful man?

they both began their careers in norther cities - - - - sooooo???

Pompey is the political godfather of Caesar and competes with him in the same way John the Baptist does with Jesus - john the baptist did NOT compete with Jesus - “one mightier than i is coming” - he prepared people for him!

brutus betrays caesar as judus betrayed jesus. BIG difference here. brutus participates in the ACTUAL stabbing of Jesus - judas did not even realize what his actions entailed - when he realizes they will kill jesus he tries to give back the money - he has nothing to do with actualy execution

Brutus is Caesar’s murderer and Barabbas is a murderer - again - soo??? Brutus killed Caesar - Barabbas did not kill Jesus!! he was just in jail and was preferred by the crowd. sadly just as today, im sure there were many murderers in ancient roman times. these facts have nothing to do iwth one another.

Cleopatra had a special relationship with Caesar as did Mary Magdalene with Jesus. - i dont really recall caesar saving cleopatra’s life from people who are about to stone her for being a whore and then following him out of love for God and repenting her ways . . .

Julia, Caesar’s aunt and widow of Marius plays the same role as Mary, the mother of Jesus - aunt versus mother - hmm difference i see? not to mention the meer fact marius is a widow creates a difference, arghh this one speeks for itself!

the quotes? baloney. i could explain them - but anyone with half a mind would see how far a stretch they are ex - «Did I save them, that they might destroy me?» is «He saved others; he cannot save himself.»

interesting fact - there are about 465 prophecies made in the old testement concerning hte messiah. the odd of one person fullfilling just 48 of them are astronomical - i think the equivalent of finding one grain of sand if the entire state of texas was covered in layers. and thats just 48! what next are you gonna change it and say that caesar was actually the messiah??

 

[puzzleannie]

Peter_W.:

Hi everybody!

Have you heard about the thesis that the historical Jesus actually was Caesar who was deified as Divus Julius?
Peter

I don’t know where your friend has been studying for the last 10 years, and the website did not come up, but this conclusion betrays a woeful lack of familiarity with the history of the Roman Empire, whatever else it says about complete lack of knowledge of the history of the Church.