BS: Julius Caesar/Jesus - fact or fiction?

Subject: RE: BS: Julius Caesar/Jesus - fact or fiction?
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 24 May 06 - 10:15 AM

Didn't I just say that in my last paragraph bobad? I didn't know I was a buddha! :-) (Which Buddha said it btw?)

Cheers

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Julius Caesar/Jesus - fact or fiction?
From: bobad
Date: 24 May 06 - 10:08 AM

Despite the veiled and not so veiled ad hominem attacks on AR282, my impression is that this is someone who has invested considerable thought and study into the question at hand and, unlike many of those who oppose his position, provides attribution for his opinions.

As Buddha said:

    Believe nothing just because a so-called wise person said it. Believe nothing just because a belief is generally held. Believe nothing just because it is said in ancient books. Believe nothing just because it is said to be of divine origin. Believe nothing just because someone else believes it. Believe only what you yourself test and judge to be true. [paraphrased]

Subject: RE: BS: Julius Caesar/Jesus - fact or fiction?
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 24 May 06 - 04:45 AM

I'm even more confused now AR282. First you say -

There is not a shred of evidence to prove that any such person existed.

Then you say -

So they already had the religion, they just needed a figurehead for it? Ins't that the same as saying there was no person this religion was based on?

The first is prety self explanatory. The second says that the religion was not based on a person. Not that the person did not exist?

That part of the religion was based on an earlier one I have no doubt. I am more than surprised that in all your learned postings you have not mentioned the similarities to Mithraism and other eastern cults. However, leaving that aside for a moment. There is documentary evidence that Chritianity subverted other religions to it's own end. Lets look at the changing of the spring festival to the pagan godess Eostre for instance. The word Easter was not made up it was borrowed. Mithras himself from my earlier example was born on December the 25th. Why do you think that a religion that has so astutely borrowed from all other sources would go out on a limb and make something up from scratch for it's primary source?

Why on earth would a religion so adept at borrowing choose the more complicated option of making up something from scratch? Just doesn't make sense. Sorry, but given the scratchy evidence that Jesus did or didn't exist, and it IS scratchy on both sides, I will go for the simple option and say yes he did.

I am not saying he was the son of God or even a miracle worker, that is a completely different argument, but the fact that someone with that name and some noteriety existed around that time is pretty evident. I know you will continue to argue that he did not but let me ask you this. If you were to read an article which denied, in a very clever way, that the holocaust ever happened would you belive it? Well. There are such things. Articles that appear to be as learned as your sources.

Just remember there is no such thing as a single history. Anyone who records 'facts' colours them in their own way whether they want to or not. There are academic works confirming and denying almost everything that ever happened. Choose your own path by all means. But please don't expect everyone to be of your opinion. And don't believe that yours is the only 'truth'.

Cheers

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Julius Caesar/Jesus - fact or fiction?
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 24 May 06 - 04:35 AM

Diana I don't even think its a matter of faith. People think of themselves as Christian, Jewish, Muslim - people who would never dream of picking up a religious text or attending their church, as long as there was something decent on the tv to watch. It's more tradition than anything else. Human beings, being what they are, by and large they turn them into a decent tradition.

Really as long as God stays like that in your life, you have some chance of remaining well balanced.

Much better that than taking all those series of demands made by men thousands of years ago seriously. that's when you get people putting bombs under doctors cars and driving planes into buildings.

Subject: RE: BS: Julius Caesar/Jesus - fact or fiction?
From: dianavan
Date: 24 May 06 - 01:48 AM

Oh, I don't think AR282 is harmful or anything. Its just what happens when, all of sudden, you realize that the story of Jesus isn't quite so simple as The Sweetest Story Ever Told.

It sorta makes you feel like everyone is being duped and you just want them to wake up to the fact that the bible is not history and Christ is everlasting.

Subject: RE: BS: Julius Caesar/Jesus - fact or fiction?
From: Don Firth
Date: 23 May 06 - 11:13 PM

I think Little Hawk has the right of it when he characterizes AR282 as a person with a "deep emotional need" and that he is being "just as dogmatic and unrealistic as the worst Christian fundamentalists." The fact that AR282 seems to regard any statement that disagrees with his particular faith as "the same old tired fundie garbage," would seem to indicate the depth of that need. And I find his quoting of scripture to try to prove a point just about as convincing as when hard-charging fundies do it. I say "faith" because his assertions that Jesus, the man referred to as "the Christ," did not exist are considerably more far-fetched than the belief that he did indeed exist.

What's really eating you, AR282?

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Julius Caesar/Jesus - fact or fiction?
From: GUEST,AR282
Date: 23 May 06 - 10:27 PM

>>"Convened the Sanhedrin (the highest Jewish religious court / governing body). He had brought before them the brother of Jesus the so-called Christ, who was called James, and some other men, whom he accused of having broken the law, and handed them over to be stoned."
Antiquities, Book 20, 200."<<

Brother of Jesus appears to be a title here. James was apparently the founder of the brothers of Jesus or was a very prominent member and hence was identified as "James the Brother of Jesus" or "James the Brother of the Lord." There is nothing in Josephus's words to indicate that this Jesus was historical. Was there such an order? 1 Corinthians 9:5 would seem to indicate there was: "Do we not have the right to be accompanied by a wife, as the other apostles and the brothers of the lord and Cephas?" Here, "brothers of the lord" is not used as a term for a familial relationship but one associated with apostles and with Peter/Cephas. This savior was also called the messiah by this group but Josephus obviously finds such an assertion dubious.

Why couldn't this still be the brother of a historical Jesus? The most problematic part is that Paul himself writes about his arguments with the "Pillars" of Jerusalem—Peter, John and James—but never quotes Jesus to back up his arguments and never quotes them quoting Jesus. You would think the man that was his actual brother would have had a little something to tell us in that area. Obviously, his word would carry some weight and yet Paul has no qualms about opposing him on issues. And neither apparently resorts to quoting anything from the historical man to back up their arguments. Nor does Paul give any indication that James is related to a historical Jesus other than Galatians 1:19 where Paul's "James the brother of the lord" in the Greek text is disingenuously translated as "James the lord's brother."

Subject: RE: BS: Julius Caesar/Jesus - fact or fiction?
From: GUEST
Date: 23 May 06 - 10:24 PM

>>Don't get me wrong, I am not a baptised Christian or anything else. I do, however, believe that when enough people believe in something, it becomes reality.<<

???????

>>It defies logic and reason.<<

We agree on something at least.

Subject: RE: BS: Julius Caesar/Jesus - fact or fiction?
From: GUEST,AR282
Date: 23 May 06 - 10:22 PM

>>"the star that earth was before it was earth. That star burnt out--went bald--and a hard compact planet was the result. Life sprouted on it and evolved and that is earth."

That's just Faith.<<

That's just mythology. Has nothing to do with faith.

Subject: RE: BS: Julius Caesar/Jesus - fact or fiction?
From: dianavan
Date: 23 May 06 - 09:03 PM

AR282 - You keep trying to apply logic and reason to faith.

Don't get me wrong, I am not a baptised Christian or anything else. I do, however, believe that when enough people believe in something, it becomes reality. It defies logic and reason.

Sure, the bible (both old and new) were oral traditions that went through many revisions before the time they were actually written. The fact that there are embellishments, does not alter the truth, it only adds to the readability of the story. A good story is nothing more than a big old lie.

So, even though Jesus may not have existed as a singular personality on this earth, the many stories compiled into one, serve to inform the general population that human beings can live a life of good works and deeds.

Fundies might take the bible as an accurate historical record but most people will use their informed minds to take what they need and leave the rest.

Subject: RE: BS: Julius Caesar/Jesus - fact or fiction?
From: robomatic
Date: 23 May 06 - 08:52 PM

From "Too Much Joy: ...finally"

"If I was God, no one would doubt it
We wouldn't need church to get
The mystery"

Subject: RE: BS: Julius Caesar/Jesus - fact or fiction?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 23 May 06 - 08:28 PM

Yes, and the Buddha and the Christ are two different words for expressing the same ideal, which is the perfectibility of humankind. These are ideals which predated all the historical religions we are presently familiar with and will outlive all of them too. They are also the same noble ideals which lay behind the development of modern science...the search for truth, knowledge, and perfectibility of ourselves and what we do in life.

Subject: RE: BS: Julius Caesar/Jesus - fact or fiction?
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 23 May 06 - 08:17 PM

Timing - when you can't post - the messages take ages to get thru....
~~~~~
"the star that earth was before it was earth. That star burnt out--went bald--and a hard compact planet was the result. Life sprouted on it and evolved and that is earth."

That's just Faith.

Faith also says that the earth was not a sun, but an accretion of loose bits of rock, that by smashing together, became hot enough to melt. Technically, not a sun, but there (but for Science) you go....


"we are ALL the Christ, potentially"

'we are all the Buddha'

Subject: RE: BS: Julius Caesar/Jesus - fact or fiction?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 23 May 06 - 07:47 PM

You're simply a man with a deep emotional need to believe something, AR282, something for which there is no evidence whatsoever. You have an axe to grind. I think that emotional need of yours has made you just as dogmatic and unrealistic as the worst Christian fundamentalists. Perhaps you and they deserve each other. Perhaps it is even a strange form of psychological symbiosis.

Subject: RE: BS: Julius Caesar/Jesus - fact or fiction?
From: GUEST,AR282
Date: 23 May 06 - 07:32 PM

>>And no, I'm not pushing anything other than rationalism<<

I disagree. This site is from some biblical group claiming no religious affiliation when it is clear they composed of Christians and Jews and the organization is in North Carolina, not exactly a fount of freethought there.

Even if we accept that "house of David" is written on something does that mean David existed? No.

Another relic was supposed to be from Herod's temple but we read it carefully and discover it was "attributed" to these ruins.

Another refers to Caiaphas and tells us helpfully that he presided at the trial of Jesus, ergo the gospel story must be true. As though because someone was named Caiaphas that automatically validates the story. And even if it was the name of a high priest who fulfilled this office in the times attributed to this Jesus does that mean there really was a trial and he presided over it?

This is the same old tired fundie garbage that proves nothing at all.

Subject: RE: BS: Julius Caesar/Jesus - fact or fiction?
From: Rapparee
Date: 23 May 06 - 06:40 PM

My last post here. Some sites to ponder, if you won't read books.

One.
Two.
Three.
Four.
Five.
Six.
Seven.

And no, I'm not pushing anything other than rationalism.

Subject: RE: BS: Julius Caesar/Jesus - fact or fiction?
From: Don Firth
Date: 23 May 06 - 06:16 PM

So what's your point?

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Julius Caesar/Jesus - fact or fiction?
From: GUEST,AR282
Date: 23 May 06 - 04:46 PM

>>1. There was someone with a popular name who gained an element of noteriety at the period. Some time later the church that was being established picked up on this noteriety and decided to use the character as a figurehead for their religion. Using bits of history and bits of legend they start to build a believable story.<<

So they already had the religion, they just needed a figurehead for it? Ins't that the same as saying there was no person this religion was based on?

>>2. A very popular name at the time, for some reason, fell out of favour for a year or two. Some time later the church that was being established decided to pick a name that had not been used in that period and make up completely unreleated events. Instead of relying on events that some people had heard about they chose to start from scratch and forge completely unverifiable evidence.<<

They didn't rely on events of witnesses because there were none. They took a mystery religion and its various rituals and watered it down into useless fodder for the masses.

Subject: RE: BS: Julius Caesar/Jesus - fact or fiction?
From: GUEST,AR282
Date: 23 May 06 - 04:37 PM

>>Is there any evidence you (AR282) will accept that there were any Jews in Palestine in the period when Jesus is generally alleged to have lived?<<

I suppose.

>>Ossuaries maybe? (Since you don't accept literary evidence<<

Evidence of what?

>>and seem to believe that there were no Christians prior to Eusebius, let alone any with Hebrew-sounding names.)<<

And I said this when? Quote it please.

>>I am trying to figure out how you or anybody else could seriously claim that there is no evidence that there was ever anybody named Jesus or Joshua or Isaiah at the time in question.<<

I'm sure plenty of people were named that. I'm saying none of them were the gospelic Jesus or served as the model or we'd have read something about him from many independent sources and there are none.

>>The evidence that there were such people (though Isaiah may not have been a very common name) and that at least Jesus/Joshua was, like John and Joseph and Simon, a very very common name at the time seems to me incontrovertible. Yet you baldly assert the absurdity that there is no evidence of this.<<

I've asserted no such thing. Quote me saying that please. Josephus's works are rife with men named Jesus and some of them suspiciously close to the life of the gospelic Jesus but could not have been him because one was a marauding bandit in Galilee and another was a nutcase in Jerusalem who got killed by a stone hurled from a siege engine. And they lived too late to line up with the chronology Christians insist we follow.

>>When did history begin in your view (I get the impression you're into a much younger earth than the Bishop Ussher-style creationists)?<<

You seem to think that histories were always written the way they are now. Our method of writing histories today is greatly changed from the time when only monks and scribes were literate. They had established no historical method. Histories and record-keeping in Europe were not likely written before the 11th century or so. There was a nova in the heavens back then that was ignored in Europe's writings but could not possibly have been ignored when looking up at the sky. The Chinese studied it and wrote about it voluminously. The Indians of the America drew it on the ceilings of caves. Europe? Not a single, solitary word. For a people who explored the world and founded science, their utter lack of curiosity of such an amazing spectacle as a nova seems completely unexplainable. Unless they simply weren't keeping records then.

But feel free to insist that I just said Europeans didn't exist before the nova because that's the same weird conclusion-jumping you did earlier in your post.

Subject: RE: BS: Julius Caesar/Jesus - fact or fiction?
From: Peace
Date: 23 May 06 - 03:41 PM

"In his writings, Josephus mentions the Pharisees, the Sadducees, and the Herodians. He mentions Caiaphas, Pontius Pilate, John the Baptist, Jesus (twice) and James the brother of Jesus. He also mentions the Essenes - the strict religious sect within Judaism that founded the Qumran community, where the Dead Sea Scrolls were found.

Historians think one part that talks about Jesus had been added to. With these extra bits taken away they think Josephus wrote:

"About this time there lived Jesus, a wise man, for he was a performer of wonderful deeds, a teacher of such men as are happy to accept the truth. He won over many of the Jews and many of the Gentiles. When Pilate, at the suggestion of the leading men among us, had condemned him to the cross, those who had loved him at the first did not forsake him; and the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct to this day."
Antiquities, Book 18, 63-64.

He also said that the High Priest Ananias had:

"Convened the Sanhedrin (the highest Jewish religious court / governing body). He had brought before them the brother of Jesus the so-called Christ, who was called James, and some other men, whom he accused of having broken the law, and handed them over to be stoned."
Antiquities, Book 20, 200."

Well, here is something about the brother of he who didn't exist. It is from

www.request.org.uk/main/history/jesus/Jesus04.htm

Subject: RE: BS: Julius Caesar/Jesus - fact or fiction?
From: Don Firth
Date: 23 May 06 - 03:13 PM

Well put, Dave.

And I think Haruo just won this round.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Julius Caesar/Jesus - fact or fiction?
From: Haruo
Date: 23 May 06 - 03:02 PM

Horseshit.

(Not directed at you, DtG!)

Haruo

Subject: RE: BS: Julius Caesar/Jesus - fact or fiction?
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 23 May 06 - 02:40 PM

What Haruo said - Surely there must have been SOMEONE called Jesus or Joshua or Isaiah around at the time. I find the assersion that there was no-one of that name around at the time rather unlikely. Perhaps, as you seem to set great store by the burden of proof, you would like to explain why these popular names fell out of use during that period and the regained popularity again after. A miracle perhaps?

OK. Perhaps not. Let's apply Occam's razor to the argument.

1. There was someone with a popular name who gained an element of noteriety at the period. Some time later the church that was being established picked up on this noteriety and decided to use the character as a figurehead for their religion. Using bits of history and bits of legend they start to build a believable story.

Or

2. A very popular name at the time, for some reason, fell out of favour for a year or two. Some time later the church that was being established decided to pick a name that had not been used in that period and make up completely unreleated events. Instead of relying on events that some people had heard about they chose to start from scratch and forge completely unverifiable evidence.

Let me see. Which is the simplest and and most likely. Hmmm...

Cheers

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Julius Caesar/Jesus - fact or fiction?
From: Haruo
Date: 23 May 06 - 02:11 PM

Is there any evidence you (AR282) will accept that there were any Jews in Palestine in the period when Jesus is generally alleged to have lived? Ossuaries maybe? (Since you don't accept literary evidence and seem to believe that there were no Christians prior to Eusebius, let alone any with Hebrew-sounding names.) I am trying to figure out how you or anybody else could seriously claim that there is no evidence that there was ever anybody named Jesus or Joshua or Isaiah at the time in question. The evidence that there were such people (though Isaiah may not have been a very common name) and that at least Jesus/Joshua was, like John and Joseph and Simon, a very very common name at the time seems to me incontrovertible. Yet you baldly assert the absurdity that there is no evidence of this.

When did history begin in your view (I get the impression you're into a much younger earth than the Bishop Ussher-style creationists)?

When asked to explain themselves, they say we can't know anything about anybody back then--not realizing that destroys any reason for them to believe.

Ah, no wonder you don't believe.

Haruo

Subject: RE: BS: Julius Caesar/Jesus - fact or fiction?
From: GUEST,AR282
Date: 23 May 06 - 01:39 PM

>>I find all this rather confusing, AR282.<<

If you didn't, you wouldn't be thinking very hard about it. It IS confusing. And I think it was meant to be.

>>Can you clarify for me whether you do not believe that anyone called Jesus or Joshua or Isiah or some such existed at all at the time in question?<<

There is not a shred of evidence to prove that any such person existed. The only literature from that time period to state it is so is the bible and other Church literature and let's just say that literature is likely to be somewhat biased. We need independent and impartial evidence and there is not a shred. None. Zilch.

>>Or do you believe that someone with that name did exist but did not do anything that gained any noteriety? Or is it that you just do not beleive the myths and legends that have sprung up since?<<

Tell me where the reality supposedly stops and the myths and legends begin. There was no Jesus Christ. We were sold of bill of false goods. The Roman Church repackaged Julius Caesar and put him back out on the shelf and we bought it again believing it to be something different.

We simply bought a new Caesar bearing the face of Alexander. It is nothing but royal intrigue and its purpose was, as always, control of the state and its citizens.

The Secret of the Christ is lost, gone. It is certainly not known or believed by any Christians today--none I've met at any rate. Some claim to know but certainly don't impress me. They always come back to the historical school of thought only because that's what they were raised on. When presented with the facts, they refuse to see. When asked to explain themselves, they say we can't know anything about anybody back then--not realizing that destroys any reason for them to believe.

Subject: RE: BS: Julius Caesar/Jesus - fact or fiction?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 23 May 06 - 12:04 PM

It's simple, Dave. AR282 hates organized religion sooooo much for some reason that he would simply love to prove that the man the Christians have based their entire set of beliefs on for the past 2000 years never even existed! It would absolutely make his day, and delight him to be able to prove that.

However, he is highly unlikely to succeed in such a Quixotic and impractical endeavour. ;-D

If he hated Buddhism, he would be similarly unlikely to succeed in proving that Buddha never existed. He is stating an emotionally biased and basically arbitrary opinion....one which he would prefer to believe is a logical certainty.

Subject: RE: BS: Julius Caesar/Jesus - fact or fiction?
From: Rapparee
Date: 23 May 06 - 08:58 AM

I'm not always sure that I exist, having taken for my motto Cogito cogito cogito, ergo cogito cogito sum, cogito.

Subject: RE: BS: Julius Caesar/Jesus - fact or fiction?
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 23 May 06 - 08:28 AM

I find all this rather confusing, AR282.

Can you clarify for me whether you do not believe that anyone called Jesus or Joshua or Isiah or some such existed at all at the time in question? Or do you believe that someone with that name did exist but did not do anything that gained any noteriety? Or is it that you just do not beleive the myths and legends that have sprung up since?

Look forward to your response.

Dave the Gnome

Subject: RE: BS: Julius Caesar/Jesus - fact or fiction?
From: GUEST,Tunesmith
Date: 23 May 06 - 01:58 AM

A poster above says that it wasn't Gloria Hunniford that made the assertion about the exixtence of Caesar/Jesus, BUT, I tuned in some way into the discussion and Gloria did say it! She may have just been repeating what had been said previously - but she said it as if it were fact!

Subject: RE: BS: Julius Caesar/Jesus - fact or fiction?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 23 May 06 - 01:35 AM

Absolutely. So belief in itself is a neutral matter. It is how one applies one's beliefs that is vital.

Subject: RE: BS: Julius Caesar/Jesus - fact or fiction?
From: flattop
Date: 23 May 06 - 01:11 AM

Believers often do fanatically good things, Little Hawk. Mother Theresa was an extreme example - she and her girls kissing the dirty beggers in India, throwing mattresses out the upstairs windows so they would know no comfort, singing beautiful tunes to the heavens.

Subject: RE: BS: Julius Caesar/Jesus - fact or fiction?
From: flattop
Date: 23 May 06 - 01:02 AM

The fantastic stories about George Washington were written by a british author after the brits lost the war. The author was trying to be satirical and trying to make fun. The stories stuck. Go figure.

Subject: RE: BS: Julius Caesar/Jesus - fact or fiction?
From: flattop
Date: 23 May 06 - 12:58 AM

George still had nice hair, the last time I saw him. Other's amongst us are more glabrous, even if we're younger than George. Must enjoy our glabrescence.


glabrous
a. having smooth surface; hairless. glabrate, a. glabrescent, a. somewhat glabrous; tending to be glabrous.

Subject: RE: BS: Julius Caesar/Jesus - fact or fiction?
From: Haruo
Date: 23 May 06 - 12:58 AM

If believing that George Washington existed means accepting that he could not lie, cut down his father's cherry tree, skipped a Sacajawea across the Potomac, and begat the entire United States, then no, I would have to say I don't believe George Washington existed. But what really gets my goat is all these people (including the government) who not only say I need to believe in him, but that I should give him all my taxes.

Haruo

Subject: RE: BS: Julius Caesar/Jesus - fact or fiction?
From: GUEST
Date: 23 May 06 - 12:52 AM

Oops. Lost my cookie. Perhaps there is a god.

Subject: RE: BS: Julius Caesar/Jesus - fact or fiction?
From: GUEST
Date: 23 May 06 - 12:51 AM

The Rodulfus Glaber Wiki was a translation from the German web site.    Rodulfus is sadly overlooked in land of hair transplants. Shame!

Subject: RE: BS: Julius Caesar/Jesus - fact or fiction?
From: flattop
Date: 23 May 06 - 12:34 AM

Tying baldness to Caesar appears hair-a-ticklish. Did this come from the writings of Pliny the elder or Pliny the younger? One of the Roman writers, I can't remember who, wrote about barbers taking so long that beards grew back in while patrons sat in the barbers chair. They had no stainless steel.

I thought Raoul Glaber was the saint of baldness. However impressive his baldness, the Catholic Encyclopedia doesn't give Raoul's writings high marks.   In fact, they seem to slander a bunch of middle ages writers in the quote below. I guess Glaber'd be edited off Mudcat, if he were alive, for both his baldness and his penmanship.
___

Abbot William of Dijon, who appreciated Raoul's literary talents, became his warm friend and took him in 1028 as his companion on a journey to Suza in Italy. Yielding again to his roving disposition, Glaber quietly ran away and entered the monastery of St-Germain d'Auxerre. Thanks to his learning, he was sure of a refuge, as he tells us, wherever he chose to go. Judging, then, by the mediocre talent displayed in his writings, this fact alone shows us to what depths literary culture had sunk in his time.
___

Rodulfus Glaber
from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Changes too: Navigation, search

Rodulfus Glaber (more glaber = latin. „the bald one ", also Radulfus Glaber, Raoul Glaber, * around 985 in Burgund, † around 1047 in Saint Germain d'Auxerre) was a burgundischer Benediktiner monk, historian and a Hagiograph.
[Work on]

Life

Rodulfus was handed over to a monk, which educated him, as a twelve-year-old boy of its uncle, because of disobedienceness the monastery Saint Léger de Champeaux, where he was however soon hunted, since he did not subordinate himself to the monastery life and was considered as contentious. Its changeful personal record led it with the time into a number of burgundischer monasteries. However is not delivered, when he lived in which monastery. Its presence is proven in the following monasteries: Moutiers Saint Jean, Saint Bénigne à Dijon, Cluny, Moutier and Saint Germain d'Auxerre.

Around 1028 it traveled with William of Volpiano, the abbott of Saint Bénigne, to Italy. From William lively, he began its Hauptwerk, „the Historiae ", a historical work, which treats the time of approximately 900 to approximately 1040. Special emphasis were the years around 1000 and around 1033, which particularly important he considered. In this five-restrained historical work Rodulfus describes or grey occurences, Häresien, devil work, miracle, visions and purge of the customs strange in particular. It reports also on hunger emergencies and even cannibalism in Burgund. This interpreted it as finaltemporal sign of the forthcoming world fall. This chronicle dedicated he Odilo of Cluny. Today some few handwriting „of the Historiae is "received, among them also an author copy.

As the second received work Radulf wrote a Vita William of Volpiano, which developed probably briefly after its death in the year 1031.

Radulf belonged to circles of the church reforms of the 11. Century on, which shows itself by its very party representation of events and persons. In particular its sympathy applies for the rulers Heinrich II., Heinrich III. and Robert II. of France, liked in Reformerkreisen. Negatively to be judged in the chronicle however Konrad of IITH and reform-hostile and customless Popes like e.g. Benedikt IX. As source for events the work is due to its chronological and geographical inadequacy of limited importance, however it is as culture-historical document for moral and customs of the 11. Century important.

Radulf wrote its works in central latin, which is used however without literary requirement. A valuation of the events after their importance does not take place, so that Trivialitäten are mentioned equivalently apart from highlights.
[Work on]

Works

    * Historiarum libri quinque ad annum MXLIV or Historiae usque starting from anno incarnationis DCCCC (title contemporarily not delivered)
    * Wilhelmi abbatis gestorum more liber

[Work on]

Web on the left of

    * Entry in the Catholic Encyclopedia (English)


Person data
NAME         Rodulfus Glaber
ALTERNATIVE NAME         Radulfus Glaber, Raoul Glaber
SHORT DESCRIPTION         Monk, historian and Hagiograph
DATE OF BIRTH         around 985
PLACE OF BIRTH         
DYING DATE         around 1047
DYING PLACE         Saint Germain d'Auxerre
By „http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rodulfus_Glaber "

Subject: RE: BS: Julius Caesar/Jesus - fact or fiction?
From: GUEST,AR282
Date: 23 May 06 - 12:34 AM

That's why the original trinities were all sun, moon and earth. They don't refer to ours but to past, present and future. We find Caesar encompasses them all--"Caesar"-abundant hair (sun/past), Caesar-laurel leaves (earth/present), Caesar-bald (moon/future). We say heaven is governed by the Trinity. Strange that Rome in Caesar's day was governed by the Triumvirate.

Subject: RE: BS: Julius Caesar/Jesus - fact or fiction?
From: GUEST,AR282
Date: 23 May 06 - 12:26 AM

Maybe it means abundant hair then. I'm going from memory. Nor does it change the thrust of the issue--Caesar was bald and donned the laurel.

Hairiness symbolizes the sun--its rays. In the case of Caesar, they refer to the star that earth was before it was earth. That star burnt out--went bald--and a hard compact planet was the result. Life sprouted on it and evolved and that is earth. And that is also Caesar. That the name means abundant actually makes more sense here. Good catch!

Subject: RE: BS: Julius Caesar/Jesus - fact or fiction?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 23 May 06 - 12:25 AM

You see, flattop? Any gospel can sound reasonably convincing if it is spoken with utter assurance... (grin)

This is how Pol Pot got his people to kill about 1/3 of all the people in Cambodia. He spoke and commanded with utter assurance of his own rightness. He was officially an atheist, but I've never seen a more rigorously fundamentalist faith than that employed by the Khymer Rouge. It simply substituted other idols in the place of a spiritual deity, that's all. It was a god of dialectical materialism, taken to the final insane paroxysm of genocide.

Atrocities have been committed in the name of God...and against the name of God...over and over again in human history. Fanatics are not limited to only one side of the issue.

Subject: RE: BS: Julius Caesar/Jesus - fact or fiction?
From: flattop
Date: 23 May 06 - 12:01 AM

What's this about 'Caesar means "bald head"?' Here I was, falling under the spell of the gospel according to GUEST AR282, hook, line and crucifix, when suddenly I’m jarred awake in my hard wooden pew. Could GUEST AR282 be a false profit?

I’ve never heard of Caesar meaning bald â€" a salad dressing, sure, slicing womans’ stomachs to save babies, of course, but never baldness.

Checking the web, I found, no mention of bald. Only the stuff below.

[Caesar originally meant "hairy", which suggests that the Iulii Caesares, a specific branch of the gens Iulia bearing this name, were conspicuous for having fine heads of hair (alternatively, given the Roman sense of humour, it could be that the Iulii Caesares were conspicuous for going bald).]

[Julius Caesar was bald, which is ironic because the name Caesar, from the Latin "caesaries," means "abundant hair."]

[absolutist, adviser, autocrat, baron, boss, Caesar, caliph, chief, commander, czar, despot, disciplinarian, duce, emir, fascist, kaiser, lama, leader, lord, magnate, martinet, master, mogul, oligarch, oppressor, overlord, rajah, ringleader, sachem, shah, sheik, slave driver, strongman, sultan, taskmaster, terrorist, tycoon, tyrant, usurper]

Subject: RE: BS: Julius Caesar/Jesus - fact or fiction?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 22 May 06 - 11:33 PM

Organized religion is most definitely a tool (one of many) made use of with alacrity by not just royals, but by ANYONE in a position of power, except Communists who are religious about being anti-religious. ;-D Some other mind-control tools are: patriotism, money, race, status, class, material wealth, party affiliation, and so on. Religion is only one of them.

In the case of Communists or certain extreme socialists, their chosen religion is Communist/socialist theory instead. It's equally pernicious, because it is driven by the same dour fanaticism and naked power-seeking that characterizes fundamentalist religions.

The secret of the Christ is simply to love everyone, including yourself, and to love all of life as well. All of it.

That's virtually impossible for about 99.999 percent of the human race at any given time, which is why it's a secret that will remain a secret (or a myth) as far as most people are concerned.

The churches may talk about it now and then, but they are just as unlikely to realize it in practice as most individuals are.

To the extent that a person is willing to love others (and self), and not judge or condemn them or self harshly, and to love life, that person is free. Most people are not very free at all, regardless of what they may imagine about their social or political freedoms. Most of them spend their whole lives walking around in self-imposed mental chains.

I make no claim to have achieved that freedom...but I do at least know of it. That's a start.

Subject: RE: BS: Julius Caesar/Jesus - fact or fiction?
From: Rapparee
Date: 22 May 06 - 11:24 PM

I do not tell you the answers; I can only tell you where you might find an answer, maybe. An answer to a difficult questions, such as you pose AR282, is only valuable to you if you work for it. If I were to give you the answer you have obtained it through my "filter" -- and that makes it worthless as anything other than opinion.

Subject: RE: BS: Julius Caesar/Jesus - fact or fiction?
From: GUEST,AR282
Date: 22 May 06 - 11:18 PM

Religion is a tool of royals. The only religion found in a state are those the state approves of. Those it does not approve of are outlawed. Nor is that religion taught in ways the state does not approve of. Hence, Christianity was not taught in order to free people but to enslave them. Royals don't really want people free. They no more taught the secret of the Christ anymore than churches in America teach it today. It can't help anyone because it is deliberately weak.

Subject: RE: BS: Julius Caesar/Jesus - fact or fiction?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 22 May 06 - 11:07 PM

Hey, man, I think we are ALL the sons (or daughters) of God. What you gonna do about that? ;-D

I do find your alternate theories about Julius Caesar entertaining, though. Sure, it's easy to make stuff up like that about anyone. People just have to want to, that's all.

Most of the more esoteric teachings in major religions suggest that "the Christ" is a latent presence hidden within ALL human beings like a seed waiting to sprout...the highest potential of each person's consciousness, waiting to be born into fullness.

Accordingly, we are ALL the Christ, potentially, although we are clearly not all the man, Jesus. ;-P

And I'm quite serious about that, I might add.

Subject: RE: BS: Julius Caesar/Jesus - fact or fiction?
From: GUEST,AR282
Date: 22 May 06 - 10:58 PM

And the crucifixion is really related to the 23 stab wounds of Caesar--coded you might say. The cross Christ is crucified on is the intersection of the ecliptic plane with the celestial equator. In fact, it is when the sun crosses that point that spring or fall is said to begin. So the sun is nailed to the cross. And what forms that cross is the 23-degree tilt of the earth.

And Caesar is as much the son of god as Jesus for the name "Julius" actually means "son of Jove" and Jove (a druid god) is a variant of Jehovah--Jesus' old man. The "Ju" of "Julius" is an old name for god and is variously called Yew (the king tree of the druids), Yu-el (yule), and Hu (as is "human" or "god-man"). Ju appears in Jupiter. Jupiter is really Ju-Pater or "God the Father."

As Julius wore his laurel leaves, Jesus wore his crown of thorns.

Do you see who Jesus really was now?

Subject: RE: BS: Julius Caesar/Jesus - fact or fiction?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 22 May 06 - 10:42 PM

Hmmm. Well, we are getting some interesting viewpoints here now. Lovely.

Subject: RE: BS: Julius Caesar/Jesus - fact or fiction?
From: Don Firth
Date: 22 May 06 - 10:38 PM

Yes, Peter K, I am aware of that. The purpose of the Council of Nicea (Nicene Creed first codified in 325, and then again in 381, to amend the first version), was, among other things, to get the various bishops to stop arguing among themselves and frivolously excommunicating each other over petty disagreements about doctrine, particularly the nature of Jesus. Was Jesus God incarnate (in which case, his suffering on the cross was pure showmanship, hence, phony), or was he a mortal human, subject to all the human frailties (in which case, he was lesser being than God)? Neither of these positions was acceptable, but there were those who insisted that a choice had to be made. And what was his relation to the Holy Spirit? And just what the heck is the Holy Spirit, anyway?   The whole thing was an orgy of argumentative nit-picking by a bunch of people who were less concerned with what Jesus taught than they were about one-upping each other. All of this was very much in the nature of "How many angels can dance on the point of a pin?" and had nothing really to do with the teachings of Jesus, which were, essentially, "Try to be a little bit nicer to each other and maybe we can all get along."

Constantine rammed the creed through the council at Nicea mainly to try to consolidate Christianity into one body or movement so he could better control it. But contrary to AR282's earlier statement, Christianity had become a substantial force in Roman society before Constantine came along. Constantine's main concern seemed to be to gain control over the movement primarily to manipulate it as a means of enhancing his own political power (not too much unlike our current fearless leader). "Dogma," said Emperor Constantine, "is what I say it its!"

All of this is detailed in Charles Freeman's The Closing of the Western Mind,which I recommended above.

Really peculiar view of history you have there, AR282. Speculation.

Interesting, though.

Parable from an episode of recent, fairly popular television series:   

Kahless, the Klingon Messiah, is resurrected. Lieutenant Worf is extremely excited to meet him. But as the episode unfolds, it is learned that this is not actually Kahless, he is a clone created from the DNA of the original Kahless. Worf is extremely disappointed. He is contemptuous as he prepares to beam the clone of Kahless down to his next destination. The clone is fully aware of Worf's disappointment and says to him, "If the words are true, what does it matter who says them?"

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Julius Caesar/Jesus - fact or fiction?
From: GUEST,AR282
Date: 22 May 06 - 09:15 PM

And isn't it odd that the Julian year contained the month of July also named after Julius and representing the summer solstice when the sun reaches the highest point in the kingdom of heaven? On astrology charts, this area is marked "I.C." as an abbreviated Latin phrase meaning "bottom of sky." I.C. also stands for Iulius Caesar. It could also stand for Iesous Christos--another Green Man who was crucified in the spring and whose death brought forth rebirth. So here you have two "kings" (both of whom did not accept the title) that were killed by piercing by others in power who feared him. One betrayed by Judas, one of 12 disciples, and one by Brutus (they rhyme by coincidence, I quite assure you) one of 12 assassins.

Maybe the diaspora Jews in the Greek Eastern Empire, who hated the Latin Western Empire, wanted their own Julius and coded him in the person of their savior, Jesus, and placed him in Palestine. Then they told everyone he was the true king while Caesar was merely an earthly, temporal one. They were told to render unto Caesar those things that are Caesar's and render unto God those things that are God's. And within 400 years, the Western Empire was reduced to little more than a smoking Goth-sacked heap of ruins.

Subject: RE: BS: Julius Caesar/Jesus - fact or fiction?
From: dianavan
Date: 22 May 06 - 09:00 PM

Whether or not Jesus actually existed doesn't really matter. If millions believe Jesus Christ is the son of God, the church has power. Those who are a part of the church take the existence of Jesus as a given and that is based on faith. What sustains the church is the power of that faith.

Faith does not have to be reasonable or logical.

Christ is a concept that has been around for a long time. As far as I am concerned, I can be a Christian and still not believe that Jesus was a person. I do not have to be baptised or read the gospels. I can find the Christ concept in many mythologies and in the cycles of nature.

I call Christ, Jesus so that I have a common frame of reference. It doesn't mean I believe in Jesus. It means only that I can see the logic in the dying and rising Christ. If you understand seasonal cycles, then you can understand the concept of Christ.

There are too many contradictions to believe that Jesus was the only Christ figure. What is unfortunate is that when you believe the Jesus story is the only story and that Jesus died and went to heaven, you may not know Christ when he/she is standing before you.

Early church fathers knew that the word was power. To that end, the stories were documented, tweaked, and compiled. It is not by accident that the Church accepted the role of keeping the people in their place. They have been paid handsomely for their efforts.