Was Julius Caesar the real Jesus Christ?

BHelmet said:
Is this question of who really occupied the shoes of the so-called Jesus the most salient?

Is not the teaching, the lessons and the message more important to suss out? What IS the living water? If Christ is the vine and we are the branches, then how do we become more cognizant of that living presence in the current moment? What is meant by the way to salvation? (and a thousand other questions about what really is Christianity)

Our lives and souls as humans are hanging in some kind of balance.

How can the real genuine teaching be accessed and absorbed and acted upon in the now?

And not so much, "who was the real teacher?"

My guess is that even the teacher, be it Caesar or Salad, would agree.
Click to expand...
Or: both are important, and the answers to one might have implications for determining the answers to the other, and vice versa.
 
Laura said:
Who is this John Carter?
Click to expand...
Now that is the question? Who writes like that??? I'm outisde working in the garden and I keep coming back to the computer to make sure I read right. Holy you know... Definitely FIRE! Thank you J.C. Your work and the ideas behind it are very welcome at this stage of the fight! (flight? smile) and thank you The C's for putting this person's work on our paths! Merci.
 
Approaching Infinity said:
Or: both are important, and the answers to one might have implications for determining the answers to the other, and vice versa.
Click to expand...
More than likely you are quite right. But my perception is that there is an abundance of sleuthing in the material aspect of “who was he/she/it really?” and an underrepresentation of “what the heck was he/she/it really trying to say””?”

So I am saying this for the sake of balance.
 
Mark7 said:
Boris Moravieff's "Gnosis volume 1 comes to mind as a real genuine old teaching.
I think all of us will have to use our present learning as well.

You can read volume 1:
_Volume I

Resonates will many it seems.
Click to expand...
I've read each of his books 3 times over the years and they are sitting on my shelf as I type this.
Maybe it's time for a 4th time through!

But at some point reading is not enough. Perhaps that is why the Christ seemed not to write anything down. Gurdjieff himself also said Christianity; the 4th way, is a dynamic tradition that springs up almost on its own when it is most needed or missing. And the C's have pointed to the fact that we don't absolutely need a 3D facsimile of knowledge on a thumb drive. The flame of knowledge can live in our minds and hearts.

My experience is that Intellectualizing generally falls short in some way, or, holds the object of the intellectualization at some distance for the sake of examination.

IOW, it is safe.

One of the points of Christianity is to 'become' it; to allow it in; to allow the presence and being of Christness/conscious awareness inside all the enclosures and barricades of the self and soul. The earnest follower of Christ needs to actualize the teachings within the soul of their being; to make that stuff real... within, and without; Acting in accordance while observing.

And that is not safe.

That's what I am driving at.

Now, does this happen only in the privacy of our own prayer room?

Is that enough?

Can it be discussed here?

Is there any point to attempting to do that?
 
BHelmet said:
Now, does this happen only in the privacy of our own prayer room?
Click to expand...
Probably a bit of that, maybe even a lot. But also in how we conduct ourselves with others: the people we love, and those who we don't.
BHelmet said:
Can it be discussed here?

Is there any point to attempting to do that?
Click to expand...
Sure! Just maybe not in this particular thread. ;-)
 
Part 3 published - The Gospel of Mark Antony – 3 – Jesus, Caesar, and Paul :-)

Historian of the weird Laura Knight-Jadzyck demonstrates this in great detail in her dense, heavily researched tome From Paul to Mark. A lot of what follows is taken from there. To put another way, it’s a massive condensation and oversimplification of Knight-Jaszyck’s detailed and very careful analysis.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Approaching Infinity said:
Not yet, but I read it and thought it was excellent. MM has an amazing command of the sources and pretty effectively tears apart all the common misconceptions and misinterpretations of Caesar.
Click to expand...

This is what I waited for before I added it to the cart. As far as strictly biographical accounts go, I have only read Freeman’s and Goldworthy’s, yet I really enjoyed them. I then read Michael Parenti’s book (although it’s not necessarily dedicated just to discussing Caesar) and I did not like the way he ran with the whole Caesar and Nicomedes propaganda. (Assuming that it was propaganda from the Cambridge analysis.) If this one brings a fresh, more precisely attuned rendition of his life and story then I’m definitely excited to get my hands on it!

Navigator said:
Started with it a few days ago, looks promising and at 900 pages its a titanic effort, no doubt.
Click to expand...

Hopefully that titanic didn’t sink, and I’m not wasting $50. ;-)
 
Chaze said:
This is what I waited for before I added it to the cart. As far as strictly biographical accounts go, I have only read Freeman’s and Goldworthy’s, yet I really enjoyed them. I then read Michael Parenti’s book (although it’s not necessarily dedicated just to discussing Caesar) and I did not like the way he ran with the whole Caesar and Nicomedes propaganda. (Assuming that it was propaganda from the Cambridge analysis.) If this one brings a fresh, more precisely attuned rendition of his life and story then I’m definitely excited to get my hands on it!
Click to expand...
There's a similarity between the book and Parenti's that I thought interesting. Parenti (true leftist that he is) ends by saying that Caesar may have been a great populist (implication: good), but when it came down to it he was still just another aristocrat (implication: bad). MM argues that that Caesar was an amazing aristocrat (good) who engaged in some populist politics, because that's what good Roman aristocrats did. (Oh, and MM doesn't put any stock in the Nicomedes story. Can't remember if he cites the paper arguing it was clearly propaganda, but that's the subtext.)
 
Last edited:
Approaching Infinity said:
There's a similarity between the book and Parenti's that I thought interesting. Parenti (true leftist that he is) ends by saying that Caesar may have been a great populist (implication: good), but when it came down to it he was still just another aristocrat (implication: bad). MM argues that that Caesar was an amazing aristocrat (good) who engaged in some populist politics, because that's what good Roman aristocrats did.
Click to expand...
This tiny story makes the historical Caesar meet the created Christ, and this aristocrat and this populist can more than complement each other, they can interchange to become something divine!
Julius Caesar and Jesus Christ meet

As a child, my grandmother, a teacher since the 1900s, told me many stories about antiquity, the Roman Empire and the Middle Ages. She fascinated me and made me dream. As a teenager, then as an adult, I wondered where the image of Epinal was and where a certain truth could be found. I asked myself various questions, one of which I will share with you: if Julius Caesar and Jesus Christ had met, would the face of the world have changed?

Somewhere on earth, in a hot country, around the ides of March or May, everything is silent. A man is resting by a well. He wears a long white tunic, his face hidden by a hood. Dirty feet stick out of dusty, worn sandals. He looks exhausted. A woman arrives. She does not look at him. Hearing him moan, she turns and brings him a drink. He has no time to quench his thirst when a fiery horse comes to a sudden stop. It is ridden by a man whose helmet and armour shine in the sun. This soldier comes down to ask for water, shouting and screaming. He too is thirsty and wants to drink. The woman runs away, leaving these two men in the presence of each other.

Who are you?" asks the man in the helmet. A beggar, no doubt. You are a warrior. Yes, a warlord, I have conquered all the countries and I am going home to be crowned. My name is Julius Caesar. On hearing this name, the first man stood up and said to him: "My name will mean nothing to you, my name is Jesus of Nazareth. I don't know where I'm going. But if I ever get a crown, it won't look like yours.

Intrigued, Julius Caesar dismounted and sat down next to Jesus. Are you from this poor-looking country? If you want to leave it, I'll take you with me. I am going to Rome, which is a rich and powerful city. You will no longer be a beggar. I'll have you dressed. You can have a mount. You will serve me. You will help me denounce my enemies, for I have powerful ones.

The two men look at each other. Who are they really: a determined warlord, a beggar. What is the purpose of each.

Jesus is lost in thought. Should he trust this stranger? Can he tell him that he too has a mission. But what mission? He doesn't know himself. He doubts. Power, power, violence may be waiting for both of them.

Julius Caesar waits and wonders: has this man heard of me? He is not a beggar. He gave me his name, which rings in my memory. And he asks him: are you not one of those Galileans who attack the power of Rome? Are you not going back to your country to fight against it?

Jesus hesitates to answer. He would like to walk with this man of war but does not want to go to Rome to serve him. He would like to talk to him, but do words mean the same thing to such different men? Where is this difference? This conqueror looks like all those around him. He would like to express ideas, but he no longer knows.

Caesar is worried by this silence. So he speaks for himself. I am not a villain, but I had to be a warlord. Tell me what can become of a man like me, if he has no more weapons. At the slightest weakness, he is nothing. My enemies are watching me, I don't trust anyone. Only my mother loves me. I had no son. With you I have spoken. You are not a real beggar.

Jesus looks at him. I too have enemies. I too have a mother who loves me and no son. We know loneliness and betrayal. What could we do with these commonalities?
Caesar has lowered his head. He no longer shows his pride. I may agree with you, but we must part. I wish I could show you Rome. It is for her sake that I am going to cross the Rubicon. Remember: Rome will always be Rome.
Goodbye," said Jesus. I would have liked to travel further with you. I too must go elsewhere.

Two revolutionary men who could not travel together, but who knew they had a mission to accomplish, even if it meant a violent death.
Click to expand...
DeepL.
Jules César et Jésus Christ se rencontrent - lesplumesdeclaudeEnghien.over-blog.com
 
BHelmet said:
More than likely you are quite right. But my perception is that there is an abundance of sleuthing in the material aspect of “who was he/she/it really?” and an underrepresentation of “what the heck was he/she/it really trying to say””?”

So I am saying this for the sake of balance.
Click to expand...

Have you finished reading "From Paul to Mark"? A lot is said there and more still implied.
 
Among Gunnar Heinsohn's articles, have you seen this one ?

<Gunnar Heinsohn: Saint Paul - did live once, thrice or not at all?>

<another examination by Gunnar Heinsohn of the possibly flawed chronology of the First Millennium AD.>
www.q-mag.org www.q-mag.org

His conclusion :
Gunnar Heinsohn said:
Results: St. Paul lived neither thrice nor never, but one time sounds credible.
In Antioch, every 300 years within the 1st millennium, at least one Paulus, Paulos or Paulinus inspires a Christian movement that brings turmoil to the world. Revisionists have to erase all these religious pioneers from the books, because the sources are already thin for Saint Paul. Their opponents must defend all these Pauls, because they do not want to denude archaeologically empty periods from their meager filling stories too. In reality, Paulinists of the 1st, Paulinians of the 4th, and Paulicians of the 8th century AD are one and the same movement auf Saint Paul (c. 10-60 AD). The synagogues in which he first preached are by no means absent, but rather the Jewish assembly houses, currently dated to the 4 th century although their technologies and decorations belong to the 1st century. Textual sources so far misdated to the 4th and 8th centuries illustrate why Antioch, as the center of Hellenistic Judaism, must also turn into the hotbed for the new sect, i.e. into the "Cradle of Christianity", which has been closely watched by the authorities right from the beginning.
Nevertheless, Bible scholars who want to erase St. Paul from the history books are as well qualified as the massive majority that defends him. The latter rightly emphasize that the Pauline smoke, which is still rising worldwide today, must have been preceded by a Pauline fire. This is a weighty point. But it more resembles a strong hunch than convincing proof. The lack of non-Christian sources about Paul and persecutions of his Paulinists in Asia Minor is support for the doubters. The same applies to many of the Paul epistles that were not written by him. Mainstream historians appear downright ridiculous when they consider 4th c. portraits to be genuine representations of the 1st century apostle. Even more damaging for the veracity of the apostle and his early Christian environment is the lack of church basilicas, not only in the time of Paul himself, but for a hefty 300 years (30s to 330s AD) since the death of Jesus (c. 4 BC to c. 30/33 AD).
However, both the defenders and erasers of Pauline history have something in common. They are united in a deep conviction that precisely one thousand years passed between 1 and 1000 AD. Stratigraphically empty periods hardly interest them. Many scholars are not even aware of them and only focus on written material as it has been edited since the 11th/12th century. Therefore, they don’t realize that archaeological strata indicate that – per individual city, between 1 and the 930s AD –– apartments, latrines, aqueducts, sewers and kitchens etc. were only built for 230 to 240 years.
Since the erasers of Paul believe in mainstream history’s anti-stratigraphic chronology of the first millennium just as dogmatically as their opponents, the stalemate –– Yes Paul vs. No Paul –– can can go on indefinitely.
However, if the stratigraphic approach is tried, it immediately becomes clear that the similarities of basilica floor plans from the 2nd, 5th and 9th centuries or from the 3rd, 6th and 10th centuries result from their simultaneity. The indistinguishability of building techniques of the 1st century of St. Paul with those of the 4th and 8th centuries does not indicate an inexplicable standstill of evolution and innovation but is, again, due to the contemporaneity of all “three” time-spans. Stratigraphically, this single period, which is conventionally dated 1 to the 230s AD in Imperial Rome, actually belongs to the time period from approximately 700 to the 930s CE.
Texts, images, and buildings pertaining to St. Paul and his followers, that are scattered over Late Antiquity and the Early Middle Ages, are actually contemporary with Paul’s Imperial Antiquity, for which non-Christian sources are missing. Thus, the generally accepted assertion that there are no non-biblical sources regarding Paul and his movement can be refuted. By reassigning the sources dated to Late Antiquity and the Early Middle Ages to Paul’s Imperial Antiquity, research on the apostle can seriously begin for the first time. Materials previously distributed over three periods now illuminate a single period and make it much brighter. The approximately 700 fictitious years that are dropped from mainstream chronology do not impoverish history, but finally make it intelligible.
The stratigraphic gateway into a whole new analysis of the Apostle and his followers in no way invalidates previous results of text-critical research.[39] Whether only seven or even just six epistles were written by Paul himself remains secondary. The unquestionable epistles belong to the period when Jerusalem’s temple was still active, i.e. they were written before 70 AD. That would fit Paul’s conventional date of 10 to 60 AD. Paul sources from all “three” epochs show that there has not yet been a codification of the New Testament and that Paul’s theological teachings were disseminated by means of the epistles. All this confirms the Paul known from Imperial Antiquity’s 1st century AD, which stratigraphically belongs to the 8th century CE. The following overview indicates how information about Paul, which so far was not supported by independent sources, can be confirmed by information which was always there but wrongly dated. St. Paul lived neither never nor three times, but once he did (c. 710-760 CE or c. 1240-1290 Before Present [i.e. before 1950])
Click to expand...
Bonus :
saint-paul-2.jpg

Portrait of Saint Paul based on surviving images from the 1st millennium AD, created by the State Criminal Police Department of the Land of North-Rhine - Westphalia, Düsseldorf, Germany (2008).
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Trending content

Back
Top Bottom