Did you read what I posted? Do you realize that "Jesus" is a mythical creation, a composite designed to hide the fact that the Jewish Messiah was a Zealot rebel against Rome?
Was Julius Caesar the real Jesus Christ?
- Thread starter Laura
- Start date
Did you read what I posted? Do you realize that "Jesus" is a mythical creation, a composite designed to hide the fact that the Jewish Messiah was a Zealot rebel against Rome?
Nostradamus
The Force is Strong With This One
I wanted to make a contribution by linking traditions around the myth of Jesus (Islam, Hindu, Eastern Church) but according to your answer it was inappropriate. Sorry then
It was inappropriate to this discussion which is about the idea that Paul's Jesus was most likely Julius Caesar. Why discuss myths created and spread in the 2nd century on when the objective is to zoom in on what the heck was going on in the 1st century and why did the myth get created in the first place and "whodunnit"?
My current idea is that if the proposal "Paul's Jesus was Caesar", there needs to be an explanation for how he came to be conflated with a Jewish itinerant preacher who, apparently, was never heard of by anybody until after the gospel of Mark was written.
The letters of Paul are the earliest Christian writings. It is pretty clear that Paul's theology is very different from the theology of his "opponents", so figuring that out is a first step, and that is what my notes are about. Mark is the first gospel and the place where Paul's theology was overlain onto a Jewish individual who does not appear, at first glance, to have any historical moorings. So, what happened? Once that is understood or explained, then it should be possible to look at Paul's writings again and figure out what was added and subtracted.
I don't see how it could be thought that contributing myths about "Jesus in India" is helpful to that process.
I think it's pretty fascinating! What did the history winners did, and how and why. Looking forward to learning more about the subject!
John G
The Living Force
It's interesting that whatever Pauline/Jerusalem Christians that were around in Rome in the 65/75 AD time frame were so into just the Jesus/Joshua afterlife version of their hero that they could easily take on a new invented less upsetting to authorities earthly version of their hero.
Just reading superficially about the overall geopolitical situation in the East of the Roman empire around that time, it seems that it was very unstable, with lots of spying, revolts, intrigue, betrayals, etc. Incidently, there are some scattered remarks that may suggest that the Jewish revolt was part of larger scale shenanigans, especially related to Syria (as usual throughout history) and Armenia.
and from
and from
Well, there IS an explanation, actually and you can find it in S. G. F. Brandon's book about "The Fall of Jerusalem" and then, his follow-up, "Jesus and the Zealots." It's not perfect, but it's the closest thing I've read so far. I'll get my notes from that one together in the next couple of days and post them. Trying to finish Watson right this minute. I'll get the rest of those notes up too. Loads of clues even if his conclusions are totally wrong.
That's one of the points that Brandon makes: it is just inconceivable that the Gospels and Acts could NEVER mention anything about the turmoil of the time. Jesus and his band just wander around in a totally insulated bubble, a swell guy, a peaceful guy, unfairly accused and caused to be executed by the Jews. The Romans didn't want to do it, no indeed, but the Jews made them! How freaking likely is that?
It seems both literalists and mythicists make the same mistake: either it happened as written in the Gospels or it happened entirely in the imagination of some intellectuals, with no connection to any historical context.
Exactly. Even Carrier doesn't see what is obviously right in front of his face.
Another useful book is "Mark's Jesus" by Malbon. What is interesting is to compare this Jesus to the Jesus of Paul. It's clear that Mark was following Paul's idea to a great extent, but not completely, and that is the clue that there was amalgamation going on.
But still, Brandon does the absolutely best job and I find it to be astonishing that he is not listed in the biblio of any NT scholars or even the mythicists. I guess that is because he was a historian and did comparative religion and had no confessional bias.
Speaking of Carrier, while browsing his old articles at Richard Carrier one caught my eye, the one critiquing Eric Laupot - along with Laupot's response. He gives a link to his online book in his response: http://www.christiani-nazorean.info/book.pdf
I just found it, so haven't read it, but a quick search turned up this quote:
Of course, he's not the first person to make that connection, but perhaps there is something of interest in there. (He includes Brandon in his recommended reading section.)
ADDED: Oh, and also speaking of Carrier, he recently made a post on the use of Paul in Mark: Mark's Use of Paul's Epistles • Richard Carrier - it's a handy summary of some of the best evidence
I just found it, so haven't read it, but a quick search turned up this quote:
Of course, he's not the first person to make that connection, but perhaps there is something of interest in there. (He includes Brandon in his recommended reading section.)
ADDED: Oh, and also speaking of Carrier, he recently made a post on the use of Paul in Mark: Mark's Use of Paul's Epistles • Richard Carrier - it's a handy summary of some of the best evidence
Last edited:
Just a quick note on this one. I think the "were" here is just an artifact of translation. This is the word in question: Strong's Greek: 1380. δοκέω (dokeó) -- to have an opinion, to seem (entry 2) and https://logeion.uchicago.edu/δοκέω (last entry). The Greek interlinear says it's "Present Participle Active".
I don't know ancient Greek, though, so I don't know for sure, but from the usages of this word, it looks like it was used as we would use something like "reputed to be", which could apply in past tense or present tense (e.g., Trump is/was reputed to be a good TV host, JFK is/was reputed to be a good president). Maybe some of the linguist peeps can shed some more light on this one.
I'm on p. 28. This guy is one of those addicted to gematria; Eco's warning stands here.
Also, he is making a lot of assumptions about the Romans that are simply not supported by any texts, such as the "intelligence services" etc. His whole "conspiracy theory" deal, that Christianity was created by intell is just silly.
But I will read on. He might say something interesting.
Paul "worked for Roman Counterintelligence"???!!!! p. 36.
And mis-quoting... oy.
Plus, he seems to think that Acts is history! What a doofus!
Added: Well, I'm done with it. His whole theory is based on Acts being actual history. And he lays way more weight on "Fragment 2" than it will bear.
And mis-quoting... oy.
Plus, he seems to think that Acts is history! What a doofus!
Added: Well, I'm done with it. His whole theory is based on Acts being actual history. And he lays way more weight on "Fragment 2" than it will bear.
