Was Julius Caesar the real Jesus Christ?

[Laura]

I'm continuing to go through Doherty's "Sound of Silence" text and I can't recommend it highly enough to everyone even remotely interested in the topic of religion, Jesus, etc. Doherty is a genius exegete and of all the hundreds of commentaries and scholarly works on the topic I've read, I've never read anything quite so clear and concise in exposing the drastic difference between what Christianity was for Paul and what it later became.

Doherty, of course, doesn't think in terms of hyperdimensional realities as we might do here. Instead, he relates the many ideas to then current philosophical trends and ideas about the spiritual worlds that were widespread in the ancient world. But I think that most of you, exposed to the Cs, Gurdjieff, etc, will be able to extract a LOT out of this examination of the earliest form of Christianity.

It's free, on the net, you can print your own copy and read a few pages a day, whatever you like. I suspect you will find yourself stopping quite often and thinking "oh, so THAT's what that means!" Some of it is so obvious that you'll want to slap yourself for not seeing it. (Assuming you have ever read the NT.)

I've got a lot to think about just from reading this text. There's another little book that bears on the topic: "Cicero and the Rise of Deification at Rome" and it is between the two that the link to Caesar is found. I think that Paul was doing something very deliberate and conscious here and his symbol of the cross/crucifixion did NOT reflect an execution. How he saw it exactly, I'm still pondering. Maybe somebody else will have some thoughts about it.

 

[Approaching Infinity]

I've got a lot to think about just from reading this text. There's another little book that bears on the topic: "Cicero and the Rise of Deification at Rome" and it is between the two that the link to Caesar is found. I think that Paul was doing something very deliberate and conscious here and his symbol of the cross/crucifixion did NOT reflect an execution. How he saw it exactly, I'm still pondering. Maybe somebody else will have some thoughts about it.

I don't know yet, either. But here are a few thoughts I've had while reading various texts:

The cross could be a symbol of Rome's domination, whether taken as the Roman elite killing Caesar, or killing a common criminal. It didn't have to represent an execution exactly, but that's probably the image a person would have when seeing a man hanging on a cross. And an ordinary person would see it as "foolishness" to worship a crucified savior. But like a lot of things in Paul's worldview, he inverted the common elements of imperial propaganda and conventions. All the things that Rome represented itself as were false, yet these were things that Caesar saw as real ideals. So while the emperor was seen as Lord (or Son of God in Augustus' case), ushering in a Golden Age and 'saving' all nations in the Empire, this was a cynical joke. This Roman elite had murdered the very man that could have made this a reality.

He also inverted common conventions that were essential to the Empire: the master/slave distinction, male/female. Christ 'crucified' captures the erasing of those lines. The social hierarchy was illegitimate. Paul saw himself as a slave of God. Christ was 'crucified' like a slave. In other words, the image suggests that the social hierarchy of the empire is wrong, backwards. The best are treated as the worst and vice versa. Kind of a variation on "the inmates have taken over the asylum". But the situation isn't hopeless, because Caesar's Empire will be a reality, in 4D. But it won't happen via revolution (a la the fanatical, xenophobic, vengeful, merciless, two-faced Essene ideology). It has to start on the most basic level of ordinary social interactions, i.e., 4th way Work.

But Paul couldn't exactly put it in these terms exactly. The name Caesar was tainted by all the associations that came after his death, with Augustus and his heirs. Sure, there would have been people who remembered Caesar in a positive light, but to use the name Caesar would be like legitimizing the current regime. But he could use the propaganda against the Empire, similar to what the Essenes were doing, just not exactly with the same focus. The emperor was not Lord or savior -- God was, Christ was. And the Empire itself was not the bastion of a Golden Age - the Empire of God would be.

Maybe there are some mystery religion elements in there too, but I haven't looked into that much yet. For example, maybe he saw it as a symbol of personality transformation, like Gurdjieff. Caesar's death and 'ascension' represents the process Caesar himself went through to become the man he was, and which we all must go through in order to have the "faith of Christ" and become one "in Christ":

Caesar -> (death/suffering) -> Divus Julius
Many I's -> (suffering/'death') -> Real I

Just the image of Caesar's image on the tropaeum says a lot: it looks like an execution, but it's not - it's a triumph. How could it be a triumph? Well, perhaps for the same reason that we venerate good people who were killed for trying to make the world a better place, like the Kennedys. The world being such as it is - ruled by psychopaths and 'archons' - all we can do is stand up for what is true and good. Often that will mean death. But someone has to do it, and if no one does, the darkness wins. The fact that Caesar did enough to cause him to be assassinated is thus a tragic triumph of sorts. It epitomizes the nature of our reality. Good men are killed, it's a constant uphill battle, but it's essential at the same time.

I can't think of a similar image from nowadays, but perhaps one might be the image of a person behind bars. It can be seen in various ways: as a symbol of justice, reinforcing the lie that our society puts away criminals; or it can be seen as a sign of oppression: the person in prison could be there because he was a dissident. Or as a symbol of real justice: the person might be Dick Cheney. It is also a symbol of life: we are in prison. It works on several levels. Maybe so with "Christ crucified."

 

[Laura]

I've got a lot to think about just from reading this text. There's another little book that bears on the topic: "Cicero and the Rise of Deification at Rome" and it is between the two that the link to Caesar is found. I think that Paul was doing something very deliberate and conscious here and his symbol of the cross/crucifixion did NOT reflect an execution. How he saw it exactly, I'm still pondering. Maybe somebody else will have some thoughts about it.

I don't know yet, either. But here are a few thoughts I've had while reading various texts:

The cross could be a symbol of Rome's domination, whether taken as the Roman elite killing Caesar, or killing a common criminal. It didn't have to represent an execution exactly, but that's probably the image a person would have when seeing a man hanging on a cross. And an ordinary person would see it as "foolishness" to worship a crucified savior. But like a lot of things in Paul's worldview, he inverted the common elements of imperial propaganda and conventions. All the things that Rome represented itself as were false, yet these were things that Caesar saw as real ideals. So while the emperor was seen as Lord (or Son of God in Augustus' case), ushering in a Golden Age and 'saving' all nations in the Empire, this was a cynical joke. This Roman elite had murdered the very man that could have made this a reality.

Way off and too literal with pre-programmed ideas about the cross. You better read the text entirely as well as Tuckett's "Christology" and Goulder's "Paul and the Competing Mission at Corinth." There are some very subtle things in there about the Cross representing TRIUMPH.

Notice that Paul presents Jesus as ALWAYS ON A CROSS and it is both the symbol of death AND resurrection.

That is to say, for Paul, Christ ON the Cross was the ultimate symbol of his Cosmic Christ.

 

[Approaching Infinity]

Way off and too literal with pre-programmed ideas about the cross. You better read the text entirely as well as Tuckett's "Christology" and Goulder's "Paul and the Competing Mission at Corinth."

I've got Goulder's, will get to it soon. As for the cross, regardless of what Paul thought of it, wouldn't people unacquainted with Paul's thoughts and interpretation see the image as a typical crucifixion? So wouldn't Paul have to take those preconceived notions into account?

 

[Laura]

Way off and too literal with pre-programmed ideas about the cross. You better read the text entirely as well as Tuckett's "Christology" and Goulder's "Paul and the Competing Mission at Corinth."

I've got Goulder's, will get to it soon. As for the cross, regardless of what Paul thought of it, wouldn't people unacquainted with Paul's thoughts and interpretation see the image as a typical crucifixion? So wouldn't Paul have to take those preconceived notions into account?

We aren't interested in what other people may have thought and certainly, Paul wasn't interested in what they thought because he was all about setting them straight as to what his "Christ Crucified" meant.

Note all his language about "leading captives" and various expressions that appear to reflect a Roman Triumph.

It's hard not to have assumptions and to think we know stuff about it but every once in awhile you just have to clear your mind when you find yourself in the presence of a great puzzle/mystery. It's extremely difficult to put ourselves in the mindset of people of that time, first of all; and this is true for the translators who are also hampered, usually, by belief. So it's useful to have several translations to check, not to mention reading through texts that take the Greek apart and then, check it yourself with a dictionary/lexicon.

As I've been reading and building a store of concepts and images, it has grown increasingly obvious that the Cross symbol meant something very particular to Paul and definitely NOT what we might usually assume. This is heightened by reading Doherty who explicates the cosmic christ idea and refers regularly to Philo. So it helps to have read at least SOME of Philo and certainly, whenever a text is brought up, you might want to stop and read it in its entirety.

There's a volume called "The Other Bible" which includes a whole raft of non-canonical texts that you'll be referred to frequently. The only downside to it is that it does not have chapter and verse numbers, but it's good enough for whole text reading and you can figure some stuff out. Also ought to have a copy of LXX to hand, Dead Sea Scrolls, Josephus, etc. I sometimes read one passage which sends me off to read 50 pages in another text (or several other texts) before I can come back and move on.

 

[Laura]

There are additional problems with reading these texts that I should mention, and which should always be kept in mind. Doherty doesn't talk about it too much, but it is ever-present in my mind: THE EDITOR.

Richard Pervo sent me some notes from a lecture he gave about the Integrity of I Corinthians, exhibiting what he thinks are interpolations. Here are a few of Pervo's examples with the interpolated text in italics.

1CO 1:2 To the church of God which is at Corinth, to those sanctified in Christ Jesus, called to be saints together with all those who in every place call on the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, both their Lord and ours:

1CO 4:17 Therefore I sent to you Timothy, my beloved and faithful child in the Lord, to remind you of my ways in Christ, as I teach them everywhere in every church.

1CO 7:17 Only, let every one lead the life which the Lord has assigned to him, and in which God has called him. This is my rule in all the churches.

So, you see from this how just a few words can be added consistently through a text. So, perhaps a particular sort of editing was used on Paul's letters overall, and on various terms. One example might be insertions of the name "Jesus" in numerous places where Paul wrote "Christ" only. We don't know that every, single appearance of the name "Jesus" has not been edited in there. And the same might be true for the term "crucified." Maybe he did use that term, but again, he might not have but rather used some term that actually meant "on a trophaeum. Or possibly the term "Christ on a Cross" could have an alternative meaning as "The Wisdom Aspect of God Displayed Triumphant"?

 

[Approaching Infinity]

We aren't interested in what other people may have thought and certainly, Paul wasn't interested in what they thought because he was all about setting them straight as to what his "Christ Crucified" meant.

Good point!

Note all his language about "leading captives" and various expressions that appear to reflect a Roman Triumph.

It's hard not to have assumptions and to think we know stuff about it but every once in awhile you just have to clear your mind when you find yourself in the presence of a great puzzle/mystery. It's extremely difficult to put ourselves in the mindset of people of that time, first of all; and this is true for the translators who are also hampered, usually, by belief. So it's useful to have several translations to check, not to mention reading through texts that take the Greek apart and then, check it yourself with a dictionary/lexicon.

As I've been reading and building a store of concepts and images, it has grown increasingly obvious that the Cross symbol meant something very particular to Paul and definitely NOT what we might usually assume. This is heightened by reading Doherty who explicates the cosmic christ idea and refers regularly to Philo. So it helps to have read at least SOME of Philo and certainly, whenever a text is brought up, you might want to stop and read it in its entirety.

There's a volume called "The Other Bible" which includes a whole raft of non-canonical texts that you'll be referred to frequently. The only downside to it is that it does not have chapter and verse numbers, but it's good enough for whole text reading and you can figure some stuff out. Also ought to have a copy of LXX to hand, Dead Sea Scrolls, Josephus, etc. I sometimes read one passage which sends me off to read 50 pages in another text (or several other texts) before I can come back and move on.

Thanks. I'll start reading Doherty ASAP. If anyone is interested, I made PDF of the whole "Sound of Silence" series for easy printing. Just PM me if you want me to email it to you.

 

[Laura]

Thanks. I'll start reading Doherty ASAP. If anyone is interested, I made PDF of the whole "Sound of Silence" series for easy printing. Just PM me if you want me to email it to you.

Yes, it would be nice if others were interested in this crucial research and would read along. Many eyes can see things that one pair cannot. Plus, it's more fun to have people to talk to about the topic. Sometimes it is rather lonely for me...

 

[whitecoast]

I've got a lot to think about just from reading this text. There's another little book that bears on the topic: "Cicero and the Rise of Deification at Rome" and it is between the two that the link to Caesar is found. I think that Paul was doing something very deliberate and conscious here and his symbol of the cross/crucifixion did NOT reflect an execution. How he saw it exactly, I'm still pondering. Maybe somebody else will have some thoughts about it.

I don't know yet, either. But here are a few thoughts I've had while reading various texts:

The cross could be a symbol of Rome's domination, whether taken as the Roman elite killing Caesar, or killing a common criminal. It didn't have to represent an execution exactly, but that's probably the image a person would have when seeing a man hanging on a cross. And an ordinary person would see it as "foolishness" to worship a crucified savior. But like a lot of things in Paul's worldview, he inverted the common elements of imperial propaganda and conventions. All the things that Rome represented itself as were false, yet these were things that Caesar saw as real ideals. So while the emperor was seen as Lord (or Son of God in Augustus' case), ushering in a Golden Age and 'saving' all nations in the Empire, this was a cynical joke. This Roman elite had murdered the very man that could have made this a reality.

He also inverted common conventions that were essential to the Empire: the master/slave distinction, male/female. Christ 'crucified' captures the erasing of those lines. The social hierarchy was illegitimate. Paul saw himself as a slave of God. Christ was 'crucified' like a slave. In other words, the image suggests that the social hierarchy of the empire is wrong, backwards. The best are treated as the worst and vice versa. Kind of a variation on "the inmates have taken over the asylum". But the situation isn't hopeless, because Caesar's Empire will be a reality, in 4D. But it won't happen via revolution (a la the fanatical, xenophobic, vengeful, merciless, two-faced Essene ideology). It has to start on the most basic level of ordinary social interactions, i.e., 4th way Work.

But Paul couldn't exactly put it in these terms exactly. The name Caesar was tainted by all the associations that came after his death, with Augustus and his heirs. Sure, there would have been people who remembered Caesar in a positive light, but to use the name Caesar would be like legitimizing the current regime. But he could use the propaganda against the Empire, similar to what the Essenes were doing, just not exactly with the same focus. The emperor was not Lord or savior -- God was, Christ was. And the Empire itself was not the bastion of a Golden Age - the Empire of God would be.

Maybe there are some mystery religion elements in there too, but I haven't looked into that much yet. For example, maybe he saw it as a symbol of personality transformation, like Gurdjieff. Caesar's death and 'ascension' represents the process Caesar himself went through to become the man he was, and which we all must go through in order to have the "faith of Christ" and become one "in Christ":

Caesar -> (death/suffering) -> Divus Julius
Many I's -> (suffering/'death') -> Real I

Just the image of Caesar's image on the tropaeum says a lot: it looks like an execution, but it's not - it's a triumph. How could it be a triumph? Well, perhaps for the same reason that we venerate good people who were killed for trying to make the world a better place, like the Kennedys. The world being such as it is - ruled by psychopaths and 'archons' - all we can do is stand up for what is true and good. Often that will mean death. But someone has to do it, and if no one does, the darkness wins. The fact that Caesar did enough to cause him to be assassinated is thus a tragic triumph of sorts. It epitomizes the nature of our reality. Good men are killed, it's a constant uphill battle, but it's essential at the same time.

I can't think of a similar image from nowadays, but perhaps one might be the image of a person behind bars. It can be seen in various ways: as a symbol of justice, reinforcing the lie that our society puts away criminals; or it can be seen as a sign of oppression: the person in prison could be there because he was a dissident. Or as a symbol of real justice: the person might be Dick Cheney. It is also a symbol of life: we are in prison. It works on several levels. Maybe so with "Christ crucified."

I kind of see Paul's theology as the beginning of the turning point as well in the cosmic information cycle as well. A wicked empire is destroyed while the wise withdraw from the secular life to wait out and survive the catastrophes. Later on once the ashes settle the gates re-open and the wise become more civilly engaged to help govern the development of a just society. To illustrate this I am thinking of the middle ages transitioning to renaissance here, as well as the transition from mystery schools of the Bronze Age fallout to the more open and public philosophers like the Cynics and Stoics emphasizing the health of the polis). If things begin to fall apart politically and socially (epitomized by the assassination of Julius Caesar), the signal is given and the wise begin to prepare for the conflagration. Paul's being alive for the destruction of Jerusalem would have intensely enforced this conviction and understanding, causing a redoubling of emphasis on people developing communities of devotion. If Julius Caesar lived we would probably all my Mythran instead of Christian, as Laura said once IIRC. Mythraism seems like Freemasonry almost, due to its ranks being tied in heavily with social hierarchy (which God could only hope would have grown more just with Caesar's successful reforms). One could only imagine what reintroducing the concept of the Human-Cosmic connection into the minds of the common people and the rulers alike would have done, instead of the "backburner religion" of Christianity becoming corrupted by psychopaths; instead they heavily censored our understanding of the past and hampered all comprehensive reconstruction of the consequences of not only having psychopaths in power, but also of people tolerating psychopaths in power.


It really saddens me how fragile and precious our knowledge of the past is...

 

[Voyageur]

[...] And the same might be true for the term "crucified." Maybe he did use that term, but again, he might not have but rather used some term that actually meant "on a trophaeum. Or possibly the term "Christ on a Cross" could have an alternative meaning as "The Wisdom Aspect of God Displayed Triumphant"?

Just reaching a little with Paul's letter to the Galatians:

"It was before your eyes that Jesus Christ [Caesar] was publicly exhibited as crucified!" (Galatians 3:1)

I don't know, perhaps completely wrong, however the way it was put "exhibited" made me think of the trophaeum. Also, "publicly" (poplicus "pertaining to the people) indicates not some sort of being dragged away into a field and crucified, it seems more a very special public forum to offer homage - to exhibit.

Exhibited - to hold out, display, show, present, deliver

"Exhibited" just does not seem to have the connotation of what the traditional 'crucified' story means i.e. amongst others, thieves and such - along a road away from most people. The way "exhibited" sounds in 3:1 comes across as a great public honoring to him, yet still testifies to his murder.

So breaking down this simple line 1. "It was before your eyes" (for all people to see) 2. "publicly exhibited" (honoring his body/mind/spirit - his care of the people) 3. "crucified" (what the Roman senators have done).

 

[SeekinTruth]

I just sent you a PM, IA (actually 2 PM's as I forgot to include my email address in the first one) to send me the PDF. Thanks.


Since I'm not up to date with all the material being discussed, I might be way off. But another thing that came to mind is that the cross is supposed to be an archetypal symbol, around for thousand of years before Christianity - the symmetric cross, that is. Jung has written a bunch about that. So could it be that Paul got some of his "visions" / insights from the collective unconscious ala Jung, or something similar, and then "crystalized", so to say, his ideas / theology / christology from inspirations/insights of that source?

 

[Leòmhann]

Just sent you a PM, too, AI ... Thanks So Much!

PS - extremely enlightening discussion, especially in light of my current reading of Laura's Secret History, which covers in depth the significance of work / suffering, especially in relation to interacting and helping others, a crucial component of the Hero's journey onwards and upwards towards the Being Thought Center (and beyond)...

 

[John G]

In the part below, "Christ" almost seems to be like a higher heavens/centers/density merging with the lower heavens/centers/density where "Christ enters the sphere of the flesh" to form "new man in pace of two" in "one body through the cross, thereby bringing the hostility to an end." (STS to STO-like?). The cross could be Christ/upper heaven-centers-density as the "head" and us lower lower density "church the limbs". The rest of the cross foundation the even lower heavens/density almost Sephirot-like which does I think relate to the Jewish 7 heavens idea.

http://jesuspuzzle.humanists.net/sil20arg.htm

Ephesians 2:14-16:

For he is our peace, who has made us both one, and has broken down the dividing wall of hostility, by abolishing in his flesh the law of commandments and ordinances, that he might create in himself one new man in place of the two, and might reconcile us both to God in one body through the cross, thereby bringing the hostility to an end. [RSV]

This is a highly mystical and even obscure passage. In 1:9-10, Ephesians has expressed a related idea: "For he [God] has made known to us in all wisdom and insight the mystery of his will, according to his purpose which he set forth in Christ, as a plan for the fullness of time, to unite all things in him [Christ], things in heaven and things on earth." Here Christ is a force or entity through which heaven and earth will be united. This reflects a concept of the period that heaven and earth were sundered, kept apart by the forces of evil in the lower heavens. Christ's death has served to restore that unity, to bring about the destruction of the evil forces that divide the universe. (Compare Colossians 2:15, and those passages noted above in 1 Corinthians 2:8 and the Ascension of Isaiah in which the identity of Christ is kept hidden from the demon spirits, so that they will proceed unwittingly with the sacrificial act which will ensure their destruction.)

Verses 2:14-16 convey the companion idea (and we will see it carried further in 2:17) that Christ will bring about a unification between a divided humanity, namely between Jew and gentile. The use of "in his flesh" (en tei sarki autou) in verse 14 conveys the idea of "in his person," within that context described earlier in which Christ enters the "sphere of flesh" in order to fulfill his redemptive purposes. "Creating in himself one new man in place of two" (verse 15) is reminiscent of Paul's earlier doctrine about the collective "body" formed by Christ and his believers—Christ the head, the church the limbs—another mystical idea which hardly has in mind a Christ in human form. This "new man," as well as the "one body" which unites Jew and gentile (verse 16) must be regarded as spiritual in nature, the expression once again of a highly mystical idea. We will look at other uses of the term "body" below (Colossians 1:22 and Hebrews 10:5).

 

[Laura]

I just posted a new book review here:

https://cassiopaea.org/forum/index.php?topic=38033.new#new

That bears on the topic, though somewhat indirectly.

 

[MusicMan]

Just out of interest, about 30 years ago when I was attempting to teach myself Hebrew and Ancient Greek, an old friend of mine fished out a manuscript and said to me: "I got this manuscript when I was visiting a monastery near Mount Sinai, it's in Hebrew, maybe you would like a copy?"
She wouldn't allow me to keep the original, but I photocopied it.
When I was studying the script I determined that it was not Hebrew, but Ancient Greek! The sort of Greek you see that has no spaces between the words, and no vowels. Hard going.
Anyhow, I identified the text as being from the end of the book of John, and the beginning of the book of Acts.

The piece you may find of interest was not the actual text of the books, but the signature which lay between the two books.

It was signed: PAVLVS

It's currently not in my possession, but if I can get my daughter to find it, perhaps she could photograph the signature and we'll post it here.

OK I got a pic of it, attached below:

Interesting.

Since the books of John and Acts were written probably 50 or more years after the death of Paul, it would have to be someone else with that name.

I'm inclined to agree, seeing as the signature is in lower case Greek with a capitalised first letter, and rather poorly executed, it would have to be someone who was not a natural Greek and certainly not a scribe. Possibly graffiti?