BS: Julius Caesar/Jesus - fact or fiction?

Subject: RE: BS: Julius Caesar/Jesus - fact or fiction?
From: Don Firth
Date: 28 May 06 - 03:26 PM

"They spoke of the gods allegorically. It is extremely obvious they were never asserting these gods were for real. I believe it was the denial of gods that led to Socrates taking the hemlock."

Sorry, AR282, no cigar.

"Extremely obvious" they were not asserting these gods for real? Since when? Many thought the bloody Oracle of Delphi was real and based their actions on enigmatic pronouncements, sometimes with disastrous results. I'm quite sure that not all Greeks believed the gods were real, but many of them, including some of the philosophers spoke of them often—and not allegorically.

And it was not Socrates denying of the gods that brought about his execution. In Socrates's time, the Greeks thought of gods and goddesses as associated with particular cities. E.g.Athens, Athena. When Athens was defeated in the Peloponnesian War, there were some who maintained that the defeat was because the citizens of Athens were insufficiently pious and a pissed-off Athena allowed them to be defeated as punishment. Socrates shot off his mouth and said that the defeat was not so much a matter of impiety as human incompetence. This didn't go over too big with The Powers That Be. They charged Socrates with impiety and of corrupting the youth of Athens. That was the excuse that was used to have him executed.

You're really pretty good, AR282, but you're arguing with people who know more than you do.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Julius Caesar/Jesus - fact or fiction?
From: Haruo
Date: 28 May 06 - 03:25 PM

Of philosophers: "They spoke of the gods allegorically. It is extremely obvious they were never asserting these gods were for real. I believe it was the denial of gods that led to Socrates taking the hemlock." This is not "extremely obvious", and the mere fact* that Socrates* was convicted of denial of gods certainly doesn't mean it was true. We Christians tend to overplay the extent to which we were persecuted by the Roman Imperial government in the early days of the movement, but there was clearly some actual persecution (even actual martyrdoms) and the charges, not infrequently, included "atheism".

Now, I realize that this does not answer your notion of what this thread is about. But all this side stuff (both that you have brought up, like the Flavian thing and indeed the whole idea that the title / should be an =, and the things others of us have brought up like the elephant and Mary Magdalene) is quite pertinent to the assessment of the evidence (such as it is, and there ain't much that would "prove beyond a reasonable doubt" any of our points).

I certainly don't have any proof that would convince you of the historicity of Jesus of Nazareth let alone that of Jesus the Anointed One of God and God's unigenitus Son. It's all speculative stuff, because what we have to do with history at this remove is to speculate as to what concatenation of prior realities is most likely to have eventuated in the reality we think we can prove. I think Josephus (without the interpolations) provides some evidence (not proof) of the existence of Jesus. I think this is buttressed by Origen. I think if Eusebius had wanted to create the Testimonium Flavianum he would also have changed his Origen citations. From what I think I know of the history of the early church (and there is a fair amount of archæological evidence that there was Christianity prior to both Constantine and Eusebius, and some evidence as to what beliefs were current at various points) it seems to me more likely (indeed, much more likely) that there was an itinerant rabbi, almost certainly named (not just titled) Jesus (Yeshu or Yeshua, if you prefer a semiticized spelling), some time prior to Saul of Tarsus, whom I likewise take to have existed despite the fact that some of the letters canonized in his name seem unlikely to have been his, and despite the fact that the Acts of the Apostles is not "history", on whom (antecedent: Jesus) the later Christianities that are documented were dependent. Having said all that, please be aware that the Jesus I believe in and through whom I believe I am being saved is not subject to historical proofs or disproofs; the history involved is my own life, the Jesus I believe in "lives within my heart" (using "heart" in a non-anatomical sense, I hasten to clarify) and acts within my life experience. The connection between this living Savior and the itinerant rabbi is not a matter of proof, but of faith. Paul (né Saul) wrote (I Cor. 15, KJV)

"And if Christ be not risen, then is our preaching vain, and your faith is also vain. Yea, and we are found false witnesses of God; because we have testified of God that he raised up Christ: whom he raised not up, if so be that the dead rise not. For if the dead rise not, then is not Christ raised: And if Christ be not raised, your faith is vain; ye are yet in your sins. Then they also which are fallen asleep in Christ are perished. If in this life only we have hope in Christ, we are of all men most miserable. But now is Christ risen from the dead, and become the firstfruits of them that slept."

Now, I believe that Paul was referring to Jesus here when he wrote "Christ", and that he was referring to some sort of relatively recent event in the way of a resurrection of Christ Jesus, but my own faith in Christ Jesus is not actually dependent upon Paul's testimony. For that matter, since I am of a universalist bent, I believe that you, too, AR282, are being saved—again a point upon which Paul and the historical rabbi Yeshu might have words with me. I don't believe there's anything you can do to thwart the salvific intent of God. (This is, I suppose, based on my effort to step back and imagine the whole elephant.)

Haruo

*fact...Socrates — am I to take it that you believe Socrates was historical?

Subject: RE: BS: Julius Caesar/Jesus - fact or fiction?
From: GUEST,AR282
Date: 28 May 06 - 02:32 PM

>>Ron and I have been asking for some sort of specificity about the "royals" you allege invented (or perhaps historicized?) Jesus, and you have been singularly unforthcoming on that point. But the quote (1) above suggests it was not so much "royals" as "Flavians" you are fingering, and much closer to the time of both Jesus and Josephus than most of your hints on the subject have suggested. So, let me try again. Who are these royals and what period do you allege they were operating in?<<

This is once again changing the subject. The Roman royal theory is my own conjecture. I never said I had proof of it and I never said you have to accept it. The subject of this thread is the historicity of Jesus Christ, which you are failing miserably to make a case for.

Forget about the Roman royals. If it will make you happy--I completely lied about it. There were no Roman royals. They never existed and had no hand in the creation of anything. I was completely off my rocker to suggest it. I apologize for my error and will never suggest it again. I WAS WRONG!!!

Okay?

Now--what is your evidence for the historicity of Jesus Christ? That is the subject of the thread and for which you have the burden of proof and for which are attempting to prove nothing so far. Please lay it out for me.

Subject: RE: BS: Julius Caesar/Jesus - fact or fiction?
From: GUEST,AR283
Date: 28 May 06 - 02:27 PM

>>And as to your second sentence, that is also highly questionable. Many of the Greek philosophers often referred to "the gods" (some later Christian theologians translated Plato using "God" [singular, upper-case G] instead of "the gods" in the original, but that's spurious)<<

They spoke of the gods allegorically. It is extremely obvious they were never asserting these gods were for real. I believe it was the denial of gods that led to Socrates taking the hemlock.

Subject: RE: BS: Julius Caesar/Jesus - fact or fiction?
From: GUEST,AR282
Date: 28 May 06 - 02:24 PM

>>I have done exacly what you asked of me AR282. What else can I do to get you to respond? Or was my attack on your argument not to your liking either?<<

Are you asking me to prove Roman royals created the Christian religion as we know it? This what I mean about changing the subject. that was never what this thread was about. this thread is about the historicity of Jesus Christ. I've you my reasons why I don't there was any such person. You've given me two things that I've refuted. If you have anything else, I'd like to see it. If my refutations are wrong then I'd like to see that too.

As for my assertions that Roman royals created the religion, I can't prove that beyond the changes Constantine made (helping to compile canon and moving Sabbath to Sunday). While it is my burden of proof, I'm not demanding you accept it. I could easily be wrong. That was never what this dispute was about. You are once again attempting to change the subject.

WHAT IS YOUR EVIDENCE JESUS WAS HISTORICAL?

THAT is the subject of this thread. If you don't buy the Roman royal theory that's fine. I'm demanding you accept it. It is my conclusion based on my researches over the years. I never said it was proven by anyone much less me.

Please stick to the subject.

Subject: RE: BS: Julius Caesar/Jesus - fact or fiction?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 28 May 06 - 02:13 PM

Heh! Yes, how could they have overlooked that????

Subject: RE: BS: Julius Caesar/Jesus - fact or fiction?
From: Haruo
Date: 28 May 06 - 02:06 PM

Yes, both are good articles. Though in the case of the Mary M. one, the failure to tie it all in with the life of Julius Caesar makes the whole premise suspect - NOT.

Haruo

Subject: RE: BS: Julius Caesar/Jesus - fact or fiction?
From: bobad
Date: 28 May 06 - 01:29 PM

Good article on the people of the Grand Canyon.

Subject: RE: BS: Julius Caesar/Jesus - fact or fiction?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 28 May 06 - 01:10 PM

Good article on Mary Magdalene.

Subject: RE: BS: Julius Caesar/Jesus - fact or fiction?
From: JohnInKansas
Date: 28 May 06 - 04:00 AM

Some might be interested in more than the article pertinent to this thread in the most recent issue of Smithsonian. The link is to the "issue lead sheet" and shows the major articles in the issue.

Down toward the bottom, there is the link to Who Was Mary Magdalene?, that is the article of interest here. The article, of course, expresses opinion with which you may or may not agree, or even see if you're fully indoctrinated in some traditonal belief; but it does give a "once over lightly" outline of how some people study the origins and development of doctrinal "knowledge." Perhaps a review of a conventional approach to such information, even in a light article like this one, will help focus on the kinds of arguments that are pertinent here (and perhaps not.) Or you may enjoy the article just as a bit of light reading.

For some really lost history also take a look at the article Below the Rim, the lead article at the first link.

John

Subject: RE: BS: Julius Caesar/Jesus - fact or fiction?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 27 May 06 - 09:11 PM

Well, that's a good attitude, Don. ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: Julius Caesar/Jesus - fact or fiction?
From: Don Firth
Date: 27 May 06 - 08:46 PM

Nah. Life is cool.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Julius Caesar/Jesus - fact or fiction?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 27 May 06 - 07:09 PM

I think that life provides plenty of support for the notion that we are already there.

Subject: RE: BS: Julius Caesar/Jesus - fact or fiction?
From: gnu
Date: 27 May 06 - 06:57 PM

According to the Witnesses who came into my castle's back yard today, after trying to gain access to the main gate, whilst I was up a ladder, we are all going to hell... except for the JW's... who, apparently, don't swear when the SOB of an air conditioner won't fit the same way it did last summer.

Subject: RE: BS: Julius Caesar/Jesus - fact or fiction?
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 27 May 06 - 06:45 PM

"As soon as you gain access to the fortress, you swarm in and lay it waste."

Sane Generals have often been known to group their forces (allowing them to get a good night's sleep, sharpen their swords, restock on arrows, have one last fling and write home the last time to mum and the kids...) for an all out 'surprise' (even when they can see you camped out there...) Dawn Attack. Especially if the little buggers have no where to run to. And then, after all, should they REALLY want to all die before you murder them all by hand, well, that's more of your forces intact for the inevitable next battle...

Subject: RE: BS: Julius Caesar/Jesus - fact or fiction?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 27 May 06 - 06:36 PM

Indeed you are, Dave. ;-) Every ego knows that it is "right". That's the way the ego operates. It's a spectacularly good rationalizer.

Subject: RE: BS: Julius Caesar/Jesus - fact or fiction?
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 27 May 06 - 06:17 PM

Yes, but AR282s truth is obviously more valid than anyone elses because he keeps quoting references for it. Whenever anyone disputes or discredits those references they do not get a response because AR knows that he is right. Am I getting the general drift right here?

:D (tG)

Subject: RE: BS: Julius Caesar/Jesus - fact or fiction?
From: Don Firth
Date: 27 May 06 - 04:20 PM

The Flavians.

HERE.
MORE (images of Roman emperors during the period in question).
STILL MORE (more extensive dissertation).

Any significant connections between the Flavians, Christianity, and the historical Jesus seem pretty tenuous, if there at all.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Julius Caesar/Jesus - fact or fiction?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 27 May 06 - 04:10 PM

So true, Peace. Good one. Yes, we all prattle on endlessly about our own little fragments of "the truth". Some men have the wisdom to know what fools they are, and they learn humility. Most do not.

Subject: RE: BS: Julius Caesar/Jesus - fact or fiction?
From: Peace
Date: 27 May 06 - 04:06 PM

"The only absolutely sure way of determining any truth is by direct experience and observation, since any supposedly authoritative source, no matter who or what it is or was, no matter when it came into being, may be compromised in some way."

John Godfrey Saxe's ( 1816-1887) version of the famous Indian legend,

It was six men of Indostan
To learning much inclined,
Who went to see the Elephant
(Though all of them were blind),
That each by observation
Might satisfy his mind.

The First approached the Elephant,
And happening to fall
Against his broad and sturdy side,
At once began to bawl:
"God bless me! but the Elephant
Is very like a wall!"

The Second, feeling of the tusk
Cried, "Ho! what have we here,
So very round and smooth and sharp?
To me `tis mighty clear
This wonder of an Elephant
Is very like a spear!"

The Third approached the animal,
And happening to take
The squirming trunk within his hands,
Thus boldly up he spake:
"I see," quoth he, "the Elephant
Is very like a snake!"

The Fourth reached out an eager hand,
And felt about the knee:
"What most this wondrous beast is like
Is mighty plain," quoth he;
"'Tis clear enough the Elephant
Is very like a tree!"

The Fifth, who chanced to touch the ear,
Said: "E'en the blindest man
Can tell what this resembles most;
Deny the fact who can,
This marvel of an Elephant
Is very like a fan!"

The Sixth no sooner had begun
About the beast to grope,
Than, seizing on the swinging tail
That fell within his scope.
"I see," quoth he, "the Elephant
Is very like a rope!"

And so these men of Indostan
Disputed loud and long,
Each in his own opinion
Exceeding stiff and strong,
Though each was partly in the right,
And all were in the wrong!

Moral:

So oft in theologic wars,
The disputants, I ween,
Rail on in utter ignorance
Of what each other mean,
And prate about an Elephant
Not one of them has seen!

Subject: RE: BS: Julius Caesar/Jesus - fact or fiction?
From: Ron Davies
Date: 27 May 06 - 03:59 PM

AR--


Like Haruo, I can hardly wait for your evidence that "the Flavians" invented Jesus.

And, of course, specifically which "Flavians".

And exactly why. What is this dangerous "Jewish connection" you mention?

You're nothing if not entertaining.

But so far, not very convincing--but at least it's your very own conspiracy theory. As far as I know, you can claim ownership.

Subject: RE: BS: Julius Caesar/Jesus - fact or fiction?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 27 May 06 - 03:55 PM

The only absolutely sure way of determining any truth is by direct experience and observation, since any supposedly authoritative source, no matter who or what it is or was, no matter when it came into being, may be compromised in some way.

If people are brought up to believe that the Bible is an umimpeachable and totally authoritative source...(which I was not)...then they will probably interpret its writings as the absolute truth. I don't. I don't consider any book to be the absolute guaranteed truth, but a given book may still be quite useful as a guide toward part of the truth. Whether it is or not, that's a matter of individual opinion, or anyone's best guess.

The only thing that is an absolute guaranteed guide to the whole truth is life itself.

Subject: RE: BS: Julius Caesar/Jesus - fact or fiction?
From: Haruo
Date: 27 May 06 - 03:42 PM

Don Firth wrote, "To me, Christianity is—or should be, if one reads it properly (unfortunately, a rare occurrence)—something akin to an ethical system. The core readings in the Gospels, sayings ascribed to Jesus, outline principles for how people should treat each other. I've often linked to Matthew 25, verses 35 through 40 as that core. That, and the Beatitudes in the Sermon on the Mount. Very good principles for human interaction to be found there. Someone said or wrote these things, and whether or not it was Jesus of Nazareth, Matthew himself, or some unknown copyist in a monastery somewhere makes no essential difference."

I've known many atheists and agnostics (and other non-Christian religionists, for that matter) who had a similar view of Christian teachings, but AR282 is not one of them. His central argument seems to be that there is no ethical content to Christian teaching worth following. Personally, I am closer to Don than to AR282 on this, though I also subscribe to pie in the sky when you die and the resurrection of the body. I certainly agree with Don that truth doesn't depend for its truthfulness on the name of the writer of the book it's in.

FWIW
Haruo

Subject: RE: BS: Julius Caesar/Jesus - fact or fiction?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 27 May 06 - 03:40 PM

And that makes 300 nails in this particular coffin.

Well, no. 301 with this post.

Subject: RE: BS: Julius Caesar/Jesus - fact or fiction?
From: Haruo
Date: 27 May 06 - 03:35 PM

(1)I never said Constantine invented Jesus Christ. As for who actually did, we'd have to go back to Josephus himself and his family. They were the Flavians with the Jewish connections. They had the most to lose by the Jewish revolts against the empire.
…
(2)Well, we know the Jesus quote everybody resorts to prove Josephus wrote about him was forged. But, yes, certainly more would have likely been tampered with.

Ron and I have been asking for some sort of specificity about the "royals" you allege invented (or perhaps historicized?) Jesus, and you have been singularly unforthcoming on that point. But the quote (1) above suggests it was not so much "royals" as "Flavians" you are fingering, and much closer to the time of both Jesus and Josephus than most of your hints on the subject have suggested. So, let me try again. Who are these royals and what period do you allege they were operating in?

(2)Again your flair for the exaggerated (I note you came to atheism through reading atheist tracts, and this is the style of tracts): "everybody" does not cite the Josephus "testimony"; in fact, hardly anybody does, because as usually found it is so implausible in Josephus and so plausible as a later, and clumsy, insertion. But for the less monkish version of the quote, from the Arabic source cited by Shlomo Pines in the 1970s, you have provided no serious refutation, merely the unproven statement that it too must be based on Eusebius.

As for why I continue to engage in this thread, it's because I (like you) find it hard to watch people (you in my case) assert falsehoods without attempting to correct them, and also because I enjoy watching others' attempts in the same vein, and not least because every once in a while I think of a witty saying that I just have to put online. I also, as a Christian, am fascinated by the evangelical fervor of a certain kind of atheist. I used to hang out on "The Godless Zone" for the same kind of fun, but that was long ago when I had much more time to kill.

Haruo

Subject: RE: BS: Julius Caesar/Jesus - fact or fiction?
From: Don Firth
Date: 27 May 06 - 03:02 PM

"Atheism is a discipline to me for diggin at truth, it is NOT a belief system. 'There are no gods' is at the root of every philosophy."

I would question whether atheism is a belief system or not. But a discipline? No. It's a position, not a discipline. I do, however agree that trying to explain something by invoking God and saying "God caused it" is a six-lane highway to total ignorance. It really explains nothing.

And as to your second sentence, that is also highly questionable. Many of the Greek philosophers often referred to "the gods" (some later Christian theologians translated Plato using "God" [singular, upper-case G] instead of "the gods" in the original, but that's spurious), and many later philosophers referred to God. I'm not saying that that is a good thing, however. In line with my contention that invoking God explains nothing, any philosopher who tries to base his philosophical system on God is building on a structure which may very well not be there at all.

From that, you might assume that I am an agnostic as opposed to a believer or a nonbeliever. The jury is still out on that. But if there is some kind of transcendent intelligence behind the universe, I'm sure that it bears no resemblance to the cranky, bearded old man wearing a bed sheet, living on Arcturus Twelve, logging all our sins, marking the fall of sparrows, and firing thunderbolts at people who piss him off that the less philosophically-oriented believers like the fundamentalists (of several religions) seem to believe in so avidly. Considering the immensity and complexity of the universe, if there is such an intelligence, it is truly beyond our comprehension, and most assuredly does not need or want to be worshipped, any more than a biologist needs or wants to be worshipped by the bacteria he or she is growing in a Petri dish.

To me, Christianity is—or should be, if one reads it properly (unfortunately, a rare occurrence)—something akin to an ethical system. The core readings in the Gospels, sayings ascribed to Jesus, outline principles for how people should treat each other. I've often linked to Matthew 25, verses 35 through 40 as that core. That, and the Beatitudes in the Sermon on the Mount. Very good principles for human interaction to be found there. Someone said or wrote these things, and whether or not it was Jesus of Nazareth, Matthew himself, or some unknown copyist in a monastery somewhere makes no essential difference.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Julius Caesar/Jesus - fact or fiction?
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 27 May 06 - 02:49 PM

I have done exacly what you asked of me AR282. What else can I do to get you to respond? Or was my attack on your argument not to your liking either?

Cheers

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Julius Caesar/Jesus - fact or fiction?
From: GUEST,AR282
Date: 27 May 06 - 02:29 PM

>>It seems to me that Josephus is entirely unreliable as a source of information regarding Jesus since we don't know where his simpathies lay but we can strongly suspect he had some kind of an agenda.<<

This is, by far, the most sensible post here. Yes, he had an agenda. And no, he was entirely unreliable. His Masada account is ridiculous. The Romans breach the walls of the fortress and then turn around and go back down the ramp they'd built and decide to sack the place in the morning. RIGHT!!! Let's give the Jews the chance to mount a suicide charge down the ramp. Get real. As soon as you gain access to the fortress, you swarm in and lay it waste. Everybody knows you do it that way. Then while the Romans inexplicably go back down the ramp and get some shut eye, the Jews in Masada draws lots and kill themselves and Josephus gives us a touching account of it. There's only one problem. THERE WERE NO EYEWITNESSES!!! How could Josephus know how it was done??? He couldn't. Isn't odd too that Josephus wrote his Masada account in Rome while Flavius Silva was also living at the time? Silva, as we know, conducted the Masada campaign. Yet, did Josephus--writing this account at the behest of the Flavians--ever go talk to Silva and get his side of things? No. He never spoke to him, never interviewed him. We have two possibilities to account for that: Josephus lied and Silva was not the general that campaigned against Masada or Flavius Josephus WAS Flavius Silva.

>>On top of that it seems he has been tampered with. When, by whom, for what reason and which passages we can only guess at.<<

Well, we know the Jesus quote everybody resorts to prove Josephus wrote about him was forged. But, yes, certainly more would have likely been tampered with.

>>It seems that he wrote before the gospellers<<

Depnds on what ou mean. by the standard chronology, he wrote after. His earliest work was the Jewish Wars which was supposedly composed around 75-80 CE. Mark and Matthew were already written. Jewish Antiquities that contains the spurious Jesus quote was supposedly written about 90-93 CE. By then, all four gospels were already supposed to have been composed or close to it, maybe John was still being written. So if he wrote before the gospel writers, then the standard chronology is wrong. Indeed, many scholars think the gospels are much later--no earlier than 140 CE. No one mentioned all four until Irenaeus aroudn 180-185 CE.

>>but what he actually wrote and for whom he wrote it is anybody's guess. Did you consider that the gospellers and He may have both plagiarised a third source?<<

Well, we have supposition about Q documents and such. Hard to say. But, sure, there could be other sources also. The Nag Hammadi Library being discovered buried inthe deserts of Egypt indicates that they were being hidden. From whom? From someone looking to destroy them. My guess would be the Roman army. They didn't want competitors. This is borne out by the fact that the Nag Hammadi Library are the ONLY Gnostic writings available to us. Had it not been discovered we would have only Irenaeus's "Against Heresies" which provided only quotes he chose to dispute. Obviously, someone got rid of them all--or so they thought. What was destroyed that we will never know about?

Subject: RE: BS: Julius Caesar/Jesus - fact or fiction?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 27 May 06 - 02:10 PM

What a tortured thing the human intellect is. How vain.

Subject: RE: BS: Julius Caesar/Jesus - fact or fiction?
From: GUEST,AR282
Date: 27 May 06 - 02:08 PM

>>You were doing great-- demanding proof of Jesus' existence and rejecting most (all?) of what you were given.<<

I was given a Josephus quote that was unknown by any scholars that studied him until Eusebius some 3 centuries later. That's particularly difficult to maintain as genuine.

The other was a Tacitus quote that wasn't a historical reference but a quick retelling of the Christian belief which Tacitus could have learned by asking any Christian in Rome.

Beyond that, there is no evidence.

>>But then we have 26 May 2006 3:12 PM: "He (Jesus) was Julius Caesar redone by Roman royals to once again rule the masses." If that's the club you belong to, you won't find many to join it.<<

Actually, there is school of thought that has concluded this since the 19th century. You may want to look up Bruno Bauer.

>>If you start out with a serious assertion, descending to a ridiculous hypothesis will not help your cause.<<

What's ridiculous about it. All I get is this kind of thing from you folks. Dogmatic statements but no attempt to back them up.

>>Constantine certainly used Christianity as a unifying force--but that does not establish that Jesus was his invention.<<

I never said it was. I said he pushed it and made it the religion it is today. Certainly he didn't invent it as it was around before him.

>>And that's what you're alleging--(otherwise who are the "Roman royals?"). That puts the burden of proof on you. Bad move.<<

I never said Constantine invented Jesus Christ. As for who actually did, we'd have to go back to Josephus himself and his family. They were the Flavians with the Jewish connections. They had the most to lose by the Jewish revolts against the empire.

Subject: RE: BS: Julius Caesar/Jesus - fact or fiction?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 27 May 06 - 02:00 PM

Getting an apology from the average offended ego is like trying to get milk from a stone.

Subject: RE: BS: Julius Caesar/Jesus - fact or fiction?
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 27 May 06 - 01:52 PM

Still waiting for my apolgy as well though.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Julius Caesar/Jesus - fact or fiction?
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 27 May 06 - 01:50 PM

OK - You did ask me to attck your argument so here goes.

Your argument relies on evidence written by people who were not there at the time.

By your own admission evidence written after the event cannot be relied upon.

Therefore your argument is based on a false premise.

No need to cut and paste all my words btw. I can usualy remember what I said.

Cheers

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Julius Caesar/Jesus - fact or fiction?
From: Ron Davies
Date: 27 May 06 - 01:48 PM

AR--

In fact, your claim is that Jesus is "Julius Caesar redone" also--need proof for that too.

Thank you.

As it stands, your theory sounds as likely as the hoariest story of the Creationists.

Subject: RE: BS: Julius Caesar/Jesus - fact or fiction?
From: GUEST,AR282
Date: 27 May 06 - 01:44 PM

>>you make it hard to take you seriously. It is patently absurd to say that anything is "the ONLY conclusion … that can be reached" about this sort of thing.<<

Why do you all keep saying I'm not to be taken seriously but you're here arguing with me? If I'm not to be taken seriously, it must be because my argument is easily refuted. Then refute it.

As for it being only conclusion that can be reach is because that is the case. We can't say Josephus wrote of men that served as models for the gospelic Jesus when the men Josephus wrote of were his contemporaries and not those of Jesus. It is impossible then that Josephus could have served as the model. And yet, we cannot deny the remarkable parallels are there--too many to account by mere chance. Since the at least Matthew and Mark were supposedly already written before Josephus ever put pen to paper, we have a problem.

How did Josephus's later Jesuses get into earlier gospel narratives?? Because the narratives were written AFTER--they had to be--and then were backdated to look earlier because there is no way they could be earlier than by backdating.

>>And knowing that one will only be berated and accused of mendacious stupidity for having pointed out such an obvious truth makes it that much less likely that you will be seriously engaged<<

Then you're free to move on to bigger and better things.

Subject: RE: BS: Julius Caesar/Jesus - fact or fiction?
From: Ron Davies
Date: 27 May 06 - 01:43 PM

AR282--

Let's go back to Jesus being the invention of the "Roman royals" to "again rule the masses". Proof please.

Subject: RE: BS: Julius Caesar/Jesus - fact or fiction?
From: GUEST,AR282
Date: 27 May 06 - 01:36 PM

>>You state that Jesus did not exist but he was Julius Ceasar. The opening post states quite clearly that, in someones book, there is more to prove that Jesus existed then Julius Ceasar. You, in your last post, say Jesus was Julius Ceasar. If they are one and the same person how can there be more evidence for one to exist than the other?<<

What is the evidence that Caesar didn't exist. All kinds of people wrote about him during his life, coins were minted in his name and image while he ruled. Sounds like he existed to me.

>>Forget paraphrasing others works.<<

I didn't paraphrase other works. I quoted them verbatim.

>>For every peice of 'evidence' you give in such a manner there are more giving the opposing viewpoint. We could spend all day quoting and counter quoting.<<

I would be more than willing to do that if you think you can beat me at it.

>>You may well say that all the evidence for his existance are from Religious works. So what? All the evidence to the contrary is from those who are anti-religious. Would you expect it any other way?<<

We're talking about writings contemporary to Jesus and the generation after. The only writings of that period to mention are Church literature. There has to be more than that. Inevitably, they fall back on Josephus but that raises more questions than it answers. The especially damning silence comes from Philo since he came up with John's Logos-Made-Flesh and was contemporary to Jesus. He never wrote a word about Christians or Jesus. He was supposedly living in Jerusalem when the trial and crucifixion took place. The man who came up with the concept of the Logos Made Flesh promptly failed to recognize it when it came riding into Jerusalem on the back of an ass.

>>So lets hear YOUR 'proof' that Jesus did not exist. Not someone elses 'proof'. Yours. I guess that you cannot supply any. Just as I cannot supply any for his existence. All the evidence both for and against is heresay and uncorrobarated. Neither side would stand up in a court of law.<<

This is a disingenuous attempt to discredit my argument. When I ask for your proof, I'm not asking for "yours." I'm asking you for any at all. The Josephus quote is a forgery. It was not known before Eusebius quoted it some 300 years later. The Tacitus reference is a retelling of the Christian story and certainly not being quoted or culled from historical documents. Odd also that Roman historians of that period never heard of "Jesus Christ" but "Christ" only.

>>What I can do though is show my reasons for supposing he did exist. I can draw and give sound logical reasons for those suppositions and am quite happy to do so. Will you do the same for your suppositions? Remember my earlier point about the difference between fact fiction and supposition? If not please refer back.<<

I will not fall for this. I have given you the evidence already and I am still waiting for your refutation.

>>And please don't cut and paste any more long boring passages. Lets hear YOUR OWN reasoning for drawing your conclusions.<<

Once again, a disingenuous attempt to discredit my argument. You have no evidence for any of this--quit jerking me around. If you had it, you'd spill it. You're once again trying to get me to repeat myself. I've already given you my argument and I'm waiting for you to attack it instead of me.

Subject: RE: BS: Julius Caesar/Jesus - fact or fiction?
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 27 May 06 - 01:36 PM

I would like your response to my points as well please, AR282.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Julius Caesar/Jesus - fact or fiction?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 27 May 06 - 01:27 PM

That higher perception you refer to, AR282, is the way I think of God. Not as a being...not as a judge...not as someone who needs to be worshipped or appeased...but as a higher perception that is latent within all of us. We ARE that, but it's not fully developed as yet in most individuals. Nor are our various other qualities fully developed. It's all an ongoing process, like evolution. It is evolution, in fact.

Taoism and Buddhism propose no God in the sense of a great individualized being. But they do propose a higher perception.

Subject: RE: BS: Julius Caesar/Jesus - fact or fiction?
From: GUEST,AR282
Date: 27 May 06 - 01:19 PM

>>AR282 - I'm curious - have you ever believed in a higher power of any sort?<<

I believe in a higher perception.

>>Did you ever consider yourself a Christian or have you always been an atheist? You seem to be very knowledgeable about the bible that why I asked.<<

Thanks. It's an ongoing study. And, no, I have never been a Christian. Atheism is a discipline to me for diggin at truth, it is NOT a belief system. "There are no gods" is at the root of every philosophy.

>>Don't worry - I'm not trying to "fix" or convert you. I'm just wondering where your passion for this subject comes from. If you've addressed this subject before - sorry I missed it. Thanks. <<

No problem.

Subject: RE: BS: Julius Caesar/Jesus - fact or fiction?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 27 May 06 - 12:04 PM

Well, the back problems can be avoided pretty much if you do yoga and stuff like that regularly, but most people are too lazy to bother, and they let themselves get out of shape.

Dachshunds suffer a lot from back problems too, but that again is the fault of people. We created the little monsters through selective breeding.

I submit that God is to blame for absolutely nothing. He/She/It is totally guiltless. We do it all ourselves. As for earthquakes and stuff like that...well, those are just natural changes that come through whenever they do, and you have to accept and deal with stuff like that. No point blaming anyone for it.

Subject: RE: BS: Julius Caesar/Jesus - fact or fiction?
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 27 May 06 - 11:30 AM

We didn't mess up everything though - Who planned a creature that stood on two legs but who's back was not equiped for it? Or how come we did not evolve a better mechanism for disposing of our waste matter than having to excete it just after we get out of the shower... ;-)

(Sorry about not sticking to the point AR but even you must admit that this spate of asides IS funny!)

Cheers

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Julius Caesar/Jesus - fact or fiction?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 27 May 06 - 11:15 AM

Keith, you are forgetting about multiple orgasms! ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: Julius Caesar/Jesus - fact or fiction?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 27 May 06 - 11:13 AM

Heh! Amusing...

But it isn't "God" who's made a mess of things. It is the human race who have made a mess of things. We have free will, so you can't fob it all off on God as an excuse. We are totally responsible for the messes we make.

On the other hand, were the dinosaurs responsible for whatever brought their much lengthier reign on this planet to an end? Probably not.

Perhaps our passing will affect the planet even less than theirs did in the long run! We are temporary. Our strutting and complaining and blaming others doesn't amount to anything more than an ant complaining about a change in the weather.

Subject: RE: BS: Julius Caesar/Jesus - fact or fiction?
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 27 May 06 - 11:09 AM

My partner is emphatic that the God who invented menstruation and childbirth had to be a male.

Subject: RE: BS: Julius Caesar/Jesus - fact or fiction?
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 27 May 06 - 11:04 AM

Has to be a man, LH. A woman would not have made such a B"£$%^&s of things;-)

Cheers

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Julius Caesar/Jesus - fact or fiction?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 27 May 06 - 11:02 AM

"Him", Foolestroupe? Where did you get the idea that God is male? ;-) In a Universe where the vast majority of living things (as far as we know and can observe) exist in two genders, how in God's (if you'll excuse the expression) name could whatever brought them forth be of only one gender!???!


Heh!

Methinks you are referring to the archaic, abysmally primitive notions of a male "God" that arose in a strictly patriarchal tribal society of Jews several thousand years ago. Ha!

For a far more rational concept of "God" or "Divinity" or "the Great Unmanifest" or "the Way" or whatever you might call it, investigate any number of Eastern religions which posit a Godhead that DOES seamlessly include both genders as well as the genderless archetype within itself. Infinity is, by definition, not limited to expressing itself only in the male form, and if people imagine it as a male, they are only reflecting their own customs and blind spots.

And you may well know all that, Foolestroupe. ;-) I bring it up only to raise an interesting point about the way most cultures think: like a horse sees when it's wearing blinders. They see only what they already believe in, and nothing more whatsoever.

Subject: RE: BS: Julius Caesar/Jesus - fact or fiction?
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 27 May 06 - 10:45 AM

OK, AR282, I did take a cheapshot. But it was in retaliation. I apologise. Will you do the same. Lets stick to the thead title then.

Julius Ceasar/Jesus - fact or fiction.

You state that Jesus did not exist but he was Julius Ceasar. The opening post states quite clearly that, in someones book, there is more to prove that Jesus existed then Julius Ceasar. You, in your last post, say Jesus was Julius Ceasar. If they are one and the same person how can there be more evidence for one to exist than the other?

Forget paraphrasing others works. For every peice of 'evidence' you give in such a manner there are more giving the opposing viewpoint. We could spend all day quoting and counter quoting.

You may well say that all the evidence for his existance are from Religious works. So what? All the evidence to the contrary is from those who are anti-religious. Would you expect it any other way?

So lets hear YOUR 'proof' that Jesus did not exist. Not someone elses 'proof'. Yours. I guess that you cannot supply any. Just as I cannot supply any for his existence. All the evidence both for and against is heresay and uncorrobarated. Neither side would stand up in a court of law.

What I can do though is show my reasons for supposing he did exist. I can draw and give sound logical reasons for those suppositions and am quite happy to do so. Will you do the same for your suppositions? Remember my earlier point about the difference between fact fiction and supposition? If not please refer back.

And please don't cut and paste any more long boring passages. Lets hear YOUR OWN reasoning for drawing your conclusions.

Cheers

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Julius Caesar/Jesus - fact or fiction?
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 27 May 06 - 07:38 AM

"If God did not exist, man would have to invent him."

Subject: RE: BS: Julius Caesar/Jesus - fact or fiction?
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 27 May 06 - 06:02 AM

Okay - lets decide it on a quick show of hands.
I say they were both fictional - just something the Disney Corporation came up with.

a bit like the da Vinci Code and Errol Flynn as general Custer. makes for a good movie. But if you want the way the truth and the light - try Stefan grossman's book of alternative guitar tunings.