Was Julius Caesar the real Jesus Christ?

During the two last years of his life Caesar ruled Rome and introduced many fundamental laws and decisions. He remained faithful to his initial populist (serving the People) orientations. Without destroying the elites, he managed to reduce some of their privileges while substantially raising the quality of life of his fellow citizens. He also deeply modernized how Rome operated and transformed it from a local tribe ruling point to a genuine world empire coordinating organization. Caesar built a massive library, gave citizenship to many non-Romans, reduced slavery by a third, distributed food to the poorest, reformed Roman law, adopted a Solar calendar... A benevolent revolution was in progress but it was soon to be ended.



I found this interesting little book, linked below, that appears to fill in many of details (if the book is authentic ) as is the claim. There are a few surprises, such as the location and description of the sinking of "Atlantis" and also who the first true "Christians" might have been according to this text. Anyway, here is a link if anyone is interested.


_https://archive.org/stream/oeralindabookfr00ottegoog#page/n6/mode/2up
 
The Oera Linda book is probably a fraud.

On the other hand, an excellent book to really help with understanding what was going on is Syme's "The Roman Revolution." But big warning: you do need a pretty good handle on the history of the time and the players to understand it. He assumes that you do...
 
I watched HBO Rome, it got me really interested on the Roman Empire which caused me to search YouTube, it is there I first stumbled on the Julius Caesar/Jesus Christ connection which also eventually landed me here.

I have read Gary Courtney's ET TU, JUDAS? Then Fall Jesus! Francesco Carotta's Jesus was Caesar, Joseph Atwill's Caesar's Messiah: The Roman Conspiracy to Invent Jesus & Philip Freeman's Julius Caesar.

I didn't fully read Joseph Atwill's Caesar's Messiah (half to maybe 2 thirds) partly because I found myself fascinated with Julius Caesar and partly because I came to the conclusion that as others have on here, that although he was on to something he totally missed/ignored the bigger picture, as I see it that basically the Flavians wrote themselves into a history that was already there.

I have listened to the 2 Sott Talk Radio pod casts on the subject which I thought were excellent!

I have downloaded 22 YouTube clips on the subject and uploaded them to a Google drive including Carotta's gospel of Caesar so you will have seen some of them.

A lot of the clips are from a fellow who goes by the name of calpurnpiso, he's a bit full on/eccentric but fully believes that Jesus was Caesar and points out some very interesting facts regarding the Roman Empire, Julius Caesar & Christianity.

https://drive.google.com/folderview?id=0B7ceTvgKdbKFWXBSOFdQNFF0N3c&usp=sharing
 
Yes, I'm looking into the Calpurnius Piso thing too. What is interesting is Syme's suggestion that there was a "cabal" behind Augustus. His book "The Roman Revolution" is a real eye-opener. Anyway, as I'm reading through it, I'm marking all the pages where Caesar's friend Balbus and his father-in-law and brother-in-law, two Pisones, appear. I'll be going back to scrutinize those items a bit more closely soon.

The historical case is becoming more and more secure as I proceed to pull on the various threads and it looks like I'm going to have to do an entire book on Caesar.
 
The historical case is becoming more and more secure as I proceed to pull on the various threads and it looks like I'm going to have to do an entire book on Caesar.

Now that would be really something to look forward to! Would it already be possible to give some indication of a time frame for that?
 
Laura said:
Yes, I'm looking into the Calpurnius Piso thing too. What is interesting is Syme's suggestion that there was a "cabal" behind Augustus. His book "The Roman Revolution" is a real eye-opener. Anyway, as I'm reading through it, I'm marking all the pages where Caesar's friend Balbus and his father-in-law and brother-in-law, two Pisones, appear. I'll be going back to scrutinize those items a bit more closely soon.

The 'youtube' C.Piso at some point tells that Calpurnius Piso had a villa and a big library in Herculaneum. The "Villa of the Papyri" in Hercolaneum was probably of the Pisoni Family. That is really interesting!

My mother always told me, "Go visit Ercolano! Just don't stop there at Pompei!" :headbash:

Just noticed more that once that Octavian[us] Augustus was often named 'Master of Propaganda". What if Mark Antony and Cleopatra won the Battle of Actium? Where they both carriers of at least some of the true inheritance of Caesar, having spent so much time with him?
 
Laura said:
Yes, I'm looking into the Calpurnius Piso thing too. What is interesting is Syme's suggestion that there was a "cabal" behind Augustus. His book "The Roman Revolution" is a real eye-opener. Anyway, as I'm reading through it, I'm marking all the pages where Caesar's friend Balbus and his father-in-law and brother-in-law, two Pisones, appear. I'll be going back to scrutinize those items a bit more closely soon.

The historical case is becoming more and more secure as I proceed to pull on the various threads and it looks like I'm going to have to do an entire book on Caesar.

I hope you know how invaluable such a book could be. Please, bring it on!
 
H-kqge said:
Laura said:
Yes, I'm looking into the Calpurnius Piso thing too. What is interesting is Syme's suggestion that there was a "cabal" behind Augustus. His book "The Roman Revolution" is a real eye-opener. Anyway, as I'm reading through it, I'm marking all the pages where Caesar's friend Balbus and his father-in-law and brother-in-law, two Pisones, appear. I'll be going back to scrutinize those items a bit more closely soon.

The historical case is becoming more and more secure as I proceed to pull on the various threads and it looks like I'm going to have to do an entire book on Caesar.

I hope you know how invaluable such a book could be. Please, bring it on!
Yes, a great book that could change the views of many people. But let her work peacefully! In the while we must develop our patience. :D
 
dantem said:
Just noticed more that once that Octavian[us] Augustus was often named 'Master of Propaganda". What if Mark Antony and Cleopatra won the Battle of Actium? Where they both carriers of at least some of the true inheritance of Caesar, having spent so much time with him?

Yes, Octavianus' "New World Order" was predicated on propaganda. He had his two pals, Maecenas and Agrippa who were actually the main elements of the "image of Augustus". Maecenas coopted Horace and Vergil for propaganda purposes, and there was also Livy who wrote history according to the "new vision of Rome".

There were two very early propaganda projects, it seems. The first was the setting of Cicero in the correct light which was favorable to Augustus and also laid the groundwork for Cicero to be diminished in stature. Jerome Carcopino examines this issue in depth and it is worth reading. It's better than a whodunnit! The second is the work of Valerius Antias who did an early re-write of ancient Roman history, creating the myth of the "vow against kings" that was supposed to get the assassins of Caesar off the hook for breaking their sacred vow to protect his person.

In the first case, the editing/selection of the letters of Cicero was clearly overseen by a careful hand favorable to Augustus. And this hand also made sure that the letters of Caesar were NOT included. Carcopino assumes that this was done because Caesar might have written something that made himself look bad, but considering the attitude that Augustus took toward Caesar, on the advice of his propaganda master, it is more likely that the letters of Caesar would have made Augustus look bad in comparison. It is also extremely unlikely that Caesar would have written anything compromising to Cicero to begin with.

In the second case, after he had hunted down and killed the assassins of Caesar and thereby glorified his "pietas", Augustus (or his handlers) saw that it would be useful to gain the adherence of the old nobility of which the assassins were members. Thus, the blame for the civil war and the horrors of the triumvirate of Octavianus, Antony and Lepidus, was heaped on Caesar, the man, while Caesar the god - the parent of divus filius, i.e. Augustus - was glorified. This was why it was necessary to create the above-mentioned "myth of the oath of the first Brutus" and his gang and the whole Roman people that was to be obligated onto their descendants. They had to be 'cleansed'. So, Valerius Antias created that myth - and others - and Livy used Antias as his source for many "ancient events" that never happened. Livy was "approved" by Octavianus - that is, guided.

The reason for this was that the army, Caesar's veterans, were fiercely loyal to him and it was for this reason that Augustus did not openly defame Caesar, he just promoted himself as the "son of Caesar" and took a rather circuitous route of marginalizing Caesar in every way possible. In the later years of his reign, when most of Caesar's veterans were likely dead, he did things that he would never have gotten away with earlier. He wasn't a fool: he knew that the army had made him Imperator and the army could un-make him.

As for the battle of Actium, the great myth of the battle of Romans against the evil demon Queen of Egypt, was a propaganda coup. Syme's book is worth reading just for his analysis of that event.

I have problems with Antony myself because he was too willing to compromise with the assassins from the beginning, but then he was a nobile and only a friend of Caesar's, not a strong adherent of his principles. But Antony was not the evil adversary that he was painted by Augustus in cahoots with Cicero. But don't imagine that he was a carrier of they truth about Caesar in any respect. Antony was out for Antony and Cleopatra for his own reasons.

Cicero thought he was using Octavianus to destroy Antony and had visions of seizing power himself, and all the while, whoever was advising Octavianus had the intention of using Cicero to destroy Antony all the while planning to then get rid of Cicero.

Of course, it IS possible that Octavian was a pathological individual (I think he was, I just haven't categorized him yet) and was smart enough to play Cicero as he did. Again, read Syme's discussion of this - which is brilliant - to see just what kinds of games were going on. In all of it, the ugliest, most disgusting character of all is Cicero.
 
Syme's book! Great, Thanks!

Then, if Carotta got it right, those times were so full of propaganda as to transmorph Agrippa killing the Egyptian Crocodile into St.George and the Dragon myth.

Looking forward for the book, trying to develop more patience here :-[
 
Fascinating glimpse of the narrative, Laura.

Although I got classical training before going to university, attention to the historical acts, fun and games and intrigues behind the scenes, often disappeared behind the language training as such. I tried to compensate by reading around via translated works and seeing movies about antiquity but obviously never could reach the in depth analysis you're apparently working toward.

Anyway, patience pays as the saying goes; but the yearning remains virulent. ;)
 
Palinurus said:
Fascinating glimpse of the narrative, Laura.

Although I got classical training before going to university, attention to the historical acts, fun and games and intrigues behind the scenes, often disappeared behind the language training as such. I tried to compensate by reading around via translated works and seeing movies about antiquity but obviously never could reach the in depth analysis you're apparently working toward.

Anyway, patience pays as the saying goes; but the yearning remains virulent. ;)

In addition to reading the original texts with a lot of salt to hand (Caesar, Cicero, Suetonius, Sallustius, Plutarch, Livy, Tacitus, Dio, and the fragments) there are a few books that really give insight.

First, there is Mommsen's "History of Rome".

2) "A Critical History of Early Rome: From Prehistory to the First Punic War" by Forsythe

3) "Caesar: Politician and Statesman" by Gelzer

4) Caesar: A Biography by Christian Meier

5) Julius Caesar by Philip Freeman

6) Always I Am Caesar by W. Jeffrey Tatum

7) Cicero: The Secrets of His Correspondence Vols. One-Two by Jerome Carcopino

8) Divus Julius by Stefan Weinstock

9) The Education of Julius Caesar by Arthur Kahn

10) The Assassination of Julius Caesar by Parenti

11) The Roman Revolution by Ronald Syme

12) The Ancient City by Fustel de Coulanges

13) Public Portents in Republican Rome by Susanne Rasmussen William

This is the short list of the books I would say are essential to really begin to see where the tangled threads are and how to begin to tug on them.

I did get sidetracked for a bit by Publius Clodius Pulcher and his wife, Fulvia, reading numerous papers about them and one entire, very expensive book that I was fortunately able to get via the library. There are also some interesting papers on the topic of Pompeius (a real characteropath), Antony, and one I like the best that reinterprets (very convincingly, I should add), Caesar's alleged "last words". He didn't say "And you, too, my child?" He said the Greek slang equivalent of: "F*ck YOU, Brutus!"

That's my Caesar!
 
Back
Top Bottom