 sj |
||
|
||
BS: Julius Caesar/Jesus - fact or fiction?
|
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: Julius Caesar/Jesus - fact or fiction? From: Rapparee Date: 22 May 06 - 04:01 PM Shakespeare exists?? C'mon...next you'll be telling me George W. Bush exists! Pull the other one so I won't walk funny. A member's name has been removed from this message at the request of the member. - Bert |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Julius Caesar/Jesus - fact or fiction? From: GUEST,AR282 Date: 22 May 06 - 04:28 PM >>Christians were persecuted.<< Actually, according to a number of historians, there is no evidence for this if you're talking about Rome. No one really talks much about it other than Tacitus who mentioned it apparently to discredit Nero whom he hated. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Julius Caesar/Jesus - fact or fiction? From: Peace Date: 22 May 06 - 04:38 PM Not quite so. One of the reasons Constantine called the Council in 325 was because he had to accommodate the Christians who were being persecuted. His problem was getting something resembling peace in Italy--specifically Rome. Subsequently, we can see coins of the time bearing both the Cross and the Sun God (Ra). Constantine dealt in political realities. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Julius Caesar/Jesus - fact or fiction? From: Peace Date: 22 May 06 - 04:47 PM "During the night of July 18, 64 AD, fire broke out in the merchant area of the city of Rome. Fanned by summer winds, the flames quickly spread through the dry, wooden structures of the Imperial City. Soon the fire took on a life of its own consuming all in its path for six days and seven nights. When the conflagration finally ran its course it left seventy percent of the city in smoldering ruins. Rumors soon arose accusing the Emperor Nero of ordering the torching of the city and standing on the summit of the Palatine playing his lyre as flames devoured the world around him. These rumors have never been confirmed. In fact, Nero rushed to Rome from his palace in Antium (Anzio) and ran about the city all that first night without his guards directing efforts to quell the blaze. But the rumors persisted and the Emperor looked for a scapegoat. He found it in the Christians, at that time a rather obscure religious sect with a small following in the city. To appease the masses, Nero literally had his victims fed to the lions during giant spectacles held in the city's remaining amphitheater." from www.eyewitnesstohistory.com/rome.htm |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Julius Caesar/Jesus - fact or fiction? From: Haruo Date: 22 May 06 - 04:55 PM Quite a good thread at times this one but I do have a question - forget the did He exist what was His real name stuff - what I want to know is Peter, Andrew, Phillip, Bartholemew, Thomas, Matthew etc...what were all those English blokes doing hanging about with him in first millenium Palestine? - Charmain Also, what denomination were the other ones? We know about "John the Baptist" and of course Peter must have been Catholic since he became Pope, but was it "Bartholomew the Greek Orthodox" and "Andrew the Presbyterian", "Philip the Anglican", "Thomas the Unitarian", "Matthew the Messianic Jew", etc., or what? Also, as far as Constantine's Sun God goes, remember his vision: it was the Sun God (Sol Invictus, not Ra; Ra spoke Coptic) who pointed him in the direction of the cross, saying "In Hoc Signo Vinces". And remember my little ditty, to Frère Jacques: Sol Invictus, Sol InvictusThere, now this thread doesn't have to stay down here in the BS since I gave it a folk music tie-in ;-) Haruo |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Julius Caesar/Jesus - fact or fiction? From: GUEST,AR282 Date: 22 May 06 - 04:57 PM What amuses on this thread more than anything is the constant fundie tactic of resorting to saying Julius Caesar never existed. Even if he didn't, that does nothing to bolster the case for Jesus--damages it in fact--and if he did that does nothing to bolster the case for Jesus either. Pointless but amusing endeavor. Really, folks, stick to the facts. I've laid them out for you. Let's go over it carefully: 1. The NT and the apocryphal and gnostic writings present extremely different Christs not only from each other but within the bodies of these works. No one historical 2000 years ago could be that mythologized in only 2 or 3 centuries unless there was a deliberate attempt to hide his identity and why would that be unless he was a criminal? 2. He is called a savior and his name just happens to mean savior. Obviously, Jesus was as much title as Christ. 3. He was not the first crucified savior much less the only one. 4. No historians or chroniclers of his time or the generation after have anything to say about him historically. 5. The gospel writers were unfamiliar with the geography of Palestine and his travels as laid out by them are often impossible and many of the cities mentioned in the bible are fictitious. 6. Josephus was governor of Galilee and visited every part of it, wrote a history of it and made detailed maps of it. No mention of a Nazareth or Jesus Christ. Origen couldn't find Nazareth despite being born and raised in that very area and he was an early Church Father!! 7. Philo invented the concept of the Logos made flesh, was a friend of Pontius Pilate and wrote a biography of the man. He also was in Jerusalem when Christ supposedly went there. Nowhere does he mention Christians, Christ or Jesus. No does he mention any trial or crucifixion of any such person. 8. Paul never wrote a word about a historical Jesus and did not place him in Palestine. In his own words, he stated he learned the Jesus story from no man but instead met with Christ in the third heaven--probably a drug-induced vision. 9. Strip away the myth from the man and tell me what you are left with. 10. Try to reconcile the gospel stories (no you can't add or omit anything from any of the gospels since you have no way or knowing what might be factual and what isn't) and tell me how this was an historical account. In fact, just tell me what the last words of Jesus were. 11. And if you cannot make the case for a historical Christ, then what was Jesus originally and how did belief in him arise and what did that belief signify to those who held it? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Julius Caesar/Jesus - fact or fiction? From: Little Hawk Date: 22 May 06 - 05:04 PM Yeah, yeah... (grin) Wouldn't it be wonderful if you could browbeat everyone in the world into believing everything you believe, AR282? Heh! No...it would not be wonderful at all. Stop trying to save people from themselves. It's just as annoying as when religious people knock on your door and try to "save" you from yourself. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Julius Caesar/Jesus - fact or fiction? From: Peace Date: 22 May 06 - 05:04 PM I don't think there are any 'fundies' who have posted here. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Julius Caesar/Jesus - fact or fiction? From: Little Hawk Date: 22 May 06 - 05:17 PM You sure as hell don't need to be a "fundie" or even a Christian to believe it probable that Jesus existed. Vast numbers of non-Christians and plenty of atheists believe he existed. It's not that hard a thing to believe, unless you're got a huge chip on your shoulder about the matter. You might have to be a fundie to believe certain religious doctrinal stuff about him....but that's another matter altogether. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Julius Caesar/Jesus - fact or fiction? From: Peace Date: 22 May 06 - 05:22 PM Picky, picky. "One of the principal pagan beliefs of the Romans that enjoyed widespread popularity, observed by millions was the cult of the Sun. From the beginnings of time, people have recognized its power. It rose every day to bring light over the land. In Ancient Egypt, he was known as Ra. The Greeks knew him as Apollo1. Sol was the name of the Roman's Sun God. (a.k.a. Mithra) He was the god that was above all others, the one with whom other deities were compared by. In Rome, the Sun played a large part of the culture. For example, the central opening in the Pantheon (built during Hadrian's time, one of the best surviving examples of Roman architecture) was representative of the solar sphere, and let its light in. The rosettes surrounding the opening are perhaps representative of the obscurity of the other deities in comparison. The worship of the Sun God was basically the state religon for many years. In 274, Aurelian established a huge temple of the Unconqerable Sun in Rome. It was to serve as the heart of the Roman's religon, much like how the Vatican is to Christans today." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Julius Caesar/Jesus - fact or fiction? From: Rapparee Date: 22 May 06 - 05:40 PM 1. The NT and the apocryphal and gnostic writings present extremely different Christs not only from each other but within the bodies of these works. No one historical 2000 years ago could be that mythologized in only 2 or 3 centuries unless there was a deliberate attempt to hide his identity and why would that be unless he was a criminal? Yes, it could. And in Roman eyes he WAS a criminal -- Yeshua attempted to set himself up as "King of the Jews." Moreover, there are very different Yeshuas presented because there were additions and deletions from the writings about him -- usually to substantiate a claim or supposed role. Call it a result of "greed for power." I refer you to, among many other sources, the work of the Jesus Seminar. 2. He is called a savior and his name just happens to mean savior. Obviously, Jesus was as much title as Christ. My name translates as "Who Is Like God", but no one that knows me considers me Godlike. Yeshua was a rather common name, just as you can meet the occassional Jesus or Joshua today. 3. He was not the first crucified savior much less the only one. "Savior" is a name given by a belief that he died for the sins of Mankind. And not, he was certainly not the only person crucified -- not even the only one nailed to a cross (bodies which were so nailed have been found). 4. No historians or chroniclers of his time or the generation after have anything to say about him historically. Not strictly true, as we've discovered as more and more writings from that period come to light. You'd better do some reading in recent archealogical studies from Isreal and elsewhere. 5. The gospel writers were unfamiliar with the geography of Palestine and his travels as laid out by them are often impossible and many of the cities mentioned in the bible are fictitious. Well, no. They may no longer exist, but they are mentioned in other writings of the period. Also, if Yeshua was a hunted man (which he was) he wouldn't have followed the obvious path then any more than a person on the dodge does so now. 6. Josephus was governor of Galilee and visited every part of it, wrote a history of it and made detailed maps of it. No mention of a Nazareth or Jesus Christ. Origen couldn't find Nazareth despite being born and raised in that very area and he was an early Church Father!! Nazareth is not mentioned in the Hebrew Bible, nor in Josephus, nor in the Talmud. Jerome in the 5th century says it was a viculus or mere village, and modern estimates of its size in the first century are in the low hundreds. It was a satellite village of Sepphoris, a Hellenistic Roman city 6.5 km (4 miles) away. [Now known to have been built by Herod.] In 1962 a Hebrew inscription found in Caesarea, dating to the late 3rd or early 4th century, mentions Nazareth as one of the places in which the priestly divisions were residing after the Great Jewish Revolt. From the three fragments that have been found, it is possible to show that the inscription was a complete list of the twenty-four priestly courses (cf. 1 Chronicles 24:7-19; Nehemiah 24:1-21), with each course (or family) assigned its proper order and the name of each town or village in Galilee where it settled. There's more in the Wikipedia.... 7. Philo invented the concept of the Logos made flesh, was a friend of Pontius Pilate and wrote a biography of the man. He also was in Jerusalem when Christ supposedly went there. Nowhere does he mention Christians, Christ or Jesus. No does he mention any trial or crucifixion of any such person. And this proves only that he never heard of this man. Don't forget that Yeshua was Jewish, not Christian, and he founded and led a Jewish sect -- and a rather small one at that, no matter what the NT says. 8. Paul never wrote a word about a historical Jesus and did not place him in Palestine. In his own words, he stated he learned the Jesus story from no man but instead met with Christ in the third heaven--probably a drug-induced vision. Paul never met the "historical" Yeshua. I can't speak to the drug thing, but he did place him in Israel. 9. Strip away the myth from the man and tell me what you are left with. One of the several "Messiahs" who were running around at the time. An itinerant rabbi, of which there were also many. 10. Try to reconcile the gospel stories (no you can't add or omit anything from any of the gospels since you have no way or knowing what might be factual and what isn't) and tell me how this was an historical account. In fact, just tell me what the last words of Jesus were. Sure! "Peter...Peter...I can see your house from up here!" Actually, I suggest that you review the work of the Jesus Seminar and other scholars. You cannot get to the true teachings of this rabbi by accepting everything in the NT (whatever books make it up) 11. And if you cannot make the case for a historical Christ, then what was Jesus originally and how did belief in him arise and what did that belief signify to those who held it? Read Tabor's The Jesus Dynasty. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Julius Caesar/Jesus - fact or fiction? From: Little Hawk Date: 22 May 06 - 05:44 PM To worship the sun is not a bad idea, if you want to select a visible manifestation out there to focus on! We'd all be dead without it in a very short time. The sun in the sky, of course, has been seen as a visible manifestation of divine power by a great many civilizations, if not most of them...and it is not coincidence that the word "sun" and the word "son" sound the same in our language...because the one archetype is contained within the other. Each is seen as "the light of the world", and the constant rebirth and resurrection of life...only manifesting on a different level, that's all. To call a Christ or a Messiah or such a figure a "Son" of God is, in a sense to give him the same role served by the sun in the sky. As it is seen to enlighten and sustain the physical worlds, he is seen to enlighten and sustain the inner worlds of spirit and conscious awareness. These things are all reflections of each other, like those Russian dolls within Russian dolls. You don't have to be a Christian to take note of that. In fact, being a Christian, for some, will get seriously in the WAY of taking note of it. ;-D |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Julius Caesar/Jesus - fact or fiction? From: Rapparee Date: 22 May 06 - 05:47 PM Yup. And Mithra came close to winning over Christiantity, too. It was especially popular with the Roman Army. (Me, I'd rather be baptized wiht water, even "holy water", than the blood of a bull as the Mithrans did.) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Julius Caesar/Jesus - fact or fiction? From: Peter K (Fionn) Date: 22 May 06 - 05:54 PM Tunesmith, I would not normally go out of my way to defend Gloria Hunniford on anything, but as a matter of fact it was not she who made the Jesus/Ceasar comparison. The guilty party was one of her two guests. The one who was a hyperventilating crackpot. This same, wretched, man went on to imply equivalence, in terms of credibility, between the Jesus stories and Newton's universal law of gravitation. My apologies if someone has pointed out the error already. I skimmed quite a lot of the thread because I think we've been here before. Just one pooint to Don: I too think it likely that there was a real Jesus on whom the legend was founded. But keep in mind that the Council of Nicea which took such a controlling hand in pointing the future for Christianity, was conceived in somewhat febrile times and under great pressure from Constantine. The emperor was bent on making Christianity the state religion, having seen its potential as a stabilising factor in an unstable empire. Gibbon is the guy to read on this. He certainly didn't pull his punches, much to the discomfit of the One True Faith. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Julius Caesar/Jesus - fact or fiction? From: Little Hawk Date: 22 May 06 - 06:02 PM There IS no one true faith. But they all would love to imagine that there is. It's so special being.......***special***........isn't it? If God was a zenophobic, insecure, dictatorial fanatic...then, there would be only one true faith. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Julius Caesar/Jesus - fact or fiction? From: Peace Date: 22 May 06 - 06:08 PM Did it ever strike y'all that God don't give a shit about any of this? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Julius Caesar/Jesus - fact or fiction? From: Peter K (Fionn) Date: 22 May 06 - 06:10 PM I was, of course, intending to be ironic George, when I used the Catholic Church's description of itself.*G* |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Julius Caesar/Jesus - fact or fiction? From: Rapparee Date: 22 May 06 - 06:16 PM Not only doesn't God give a shit about any of this, but she told me she's getting really, really pissed off with Some People. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Julius Caesar/Jesus - fact or fiction? From: Peace Date: 22 May 06 - 06:17 PM LOL |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Julius Caesar/Jesus - fact or fiction? From: Little Hawk Date: 22 May 06 - 06:39 PM Yeah, I figured that, Greg. ;-P Bruce, I don't think God gives a toot about what religion anyone belongs to. And neither do I. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Julius Caesar/Jesus - fact or fiction? From: The Fooles Troupe Date: 22 May 06 - 07:02 PM All Hail the Sun God! Ra! Ra! Ra! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Julius Caesar/Jesus - fact or fiction? From: GUEST,AR282 Date: 22 May 06 - 08:25 PM >>I don't think there are any 'fundies' who have posted here.<< I didn't say there were necessarily any fundies here. I said the resorting to questioning the veracity of the existence of Caesar in an attempt to make a case for the historical existence of Jesus Christ is a typical fundie tactic. A sort of "We can't really know anything about anyone in the past anyway." To that I heartily agree and ask, "Why then?" |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Julius Caesar/Jesus - fact or fiction? From: GUEST,AR282 Date: 22 May 06 - 08:33 PM >>11. And if you cannot make the case for a historical Christ, then what was Jesus originally and how did belief in him arise and what did that belief signify to those who held it? Read Tabor's The Jesus Dynasty.<< I'm asking you. Since it is beyond question that many early Christian sects did not believe in Jesus as a creature of history, what might their belief systems have been based on? What did it mean to them to believe that way? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Julius Caesar/Jesus - fact or fiction? From: GUEST,AR282 Date: 22 May 06 - 08:55 PM For those who are interested, we can make a good case for a non-historical Caesar. He represents the earth or its regenerative power. He is a Green Man--the mythical man of Old European lore who was decked in leaves and foliage, the very personification of the blooming greenery, it's heart and soul, so to speak. He is still depicted in old European churches and abbeys as a man with leaves on his head of entwined in his hair or his face is a leaf. Caesar means "bald head" and he covered it with a laurel. As "bald head" he represents a mythical time on earth when its life radiation was entombed within and the planet was said to be bald or bare. This life force radiated out and conquered the bald, "featureless" earth, breaking it down like tilled soil, and that life force grew from that soil and evolved covering the earth with life. So does Caesar the conqueror put a laurel of leaves upon his bald head. He was said to have been stabbed by 10 or 12 senators. These relate to the months of the lunar year and the solar year. The Roman calendar by Caesar's time has been a lunar one of about 10 months (it had intercalary months sometimes) and it was horribly obsolete. He replaced it with a new solar calendar named after himself--the Julian Calendar. It has 12 months. So there are your 10 or 12 senators. The earth is being dominated or "killed" by the calendar, the sun, by time, work, schedules, penalties, sorrow. How many stab wounds? 23. The number of degrees the earth is tilted on its axis. It is that tilt that gives us the 12 months of the solar year because the sun passes through the 12 constellations of the zodiac due to that tilt. That's why Caesar was told to beware the ides of March. That was springtime, the time of crossing the vernal equinox which had always been considered the start of the year in ancient times. Spring brought a new birth, a new calendar, a new heaven, and, ultimately, a new earth. This, in fact, appears to mark the true founding of Rome as a state. Before Caesar, we are back to the six mythical kings. Why couldn't Caesar have been as mythical? |
|
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. |
|
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: 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: 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: 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 - 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 - 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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 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: 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: 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: 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: 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 - 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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. |
