BS: Julius Caesar/Jesus - fact or fiction?

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: 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 - 03:02 PM

Horseshit.

(Not directed at you, DtG!)

Haruo

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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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 - 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: 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: 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: 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: 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 - 10:27 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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 - 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: Peace
Date: 24 May 06 - 10:33 AM

That's well stated, AR282. However, one remark to something you said earlier: You said that people who 'supported' the idea of an historical Jesus quote from religious sites--most of which you presume to be fundamental. What sites do you think would argue on behalf of an historical Jesus if not religious sites?

Subject: RE: BS: Julius Caesar/Jesus - fact or fiction?
From: Peace
Date: 24 May 06 - 04:24 PM

PS (and last post to this thread). There are two living people who met my grandfather. He died in 1960. He was never written about and trying even to find his old service records isn't possible anymore. The town he was born in no longer exists. No record of his birth in 1884. I guess when I die he'll fade into total obscurity. However, he existed.

Subject: RE: BS: Julius Caesar/Jesus - fact or fiction?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 24 May 06 - 04:41 PM

"Believe only what you yourself test and judge to be true."

Yes indeed! And then there will be a lot of stuff that you cannot test. As for that stuff, you will have to make the best guess you can about it, and accept that other people may see it differently.

My best guess is that Jesus, and Buddha, and Krisha, and many other such figures existed...meaning only this: they were real, physical people upon whose lives and reputations great religions were inspired and eventually established. Whether any particular thing said about any of them in those religions is half-true, all-true, or wholly false is simply a matter of speculation and guesswork at this point, and no amount of talking about it on this forum will prove any of it one way or another.

Subject: RE: BS: Julius Caesar/Jesus - fact or fiction?
From: Don Firth
Date: 24 May 06 - 05:10 PM

Once again, I've got to agree with the Hawkster.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Julius Caesar/Jesus - fact or fiction?
From: GUEST,AR282
Date: 24 May 06 - 05:44 PM

Among religious liberals, the tactic has been to tout a historical Jesus but to strip him of his divinity. The reason is that because stories of the miraculous birth, the miracles, the necromancy and the resurrection raise serious questions as to their veracity. The religious liberals have no other reason for needing to strip Jesus of his divinity than because they simply cannot accept it without feeling gullible and foolish.

Having accomplished this, the religious liberal then proceeds to pronounce Jesus a great, compassionate, peaceful and wise teacher who walked in Palestine, gained a loyal following and upset authorities with his revolutionary message that threatened to shake Jewish society to its foundations (as if this were necessarily a good thing) and so was arrested, tried and crucified. Afterwards, his followers kept his memory alive and eventually he was adapted as a figurehead for a church.

This scenario is riddled with flaws. The most obvious flaw is that we have nothing but the bible and other Church literature to go on for our information of what this great, wise teacher supposedly taught. Strip Jesus of his divinity, most of what he teaches is pure nonsense and pure status quo. There was nothing revolutionary in what he taught. For example, he exhorts his followers to resist not evil (Mt 5:39). If we don't resist evil then we must, by necessity, succumb to it. He stated that if thy right hand offend thee, cut it off (Mt 5:30). Who in their right mind would steal something and then blame their hand for the theft and cut it off? Jesus stated that the slave who does not do his master's bidding "shall be beaten with many stripes" (Lk 12:47). Where is the revolutionary message that slavery is wrong and must be abolished? Nowhere. I would place Lincoln as superior to this Jesus. Jesus also stated that he did not come to bring peace "but a sword" (Mt 10:34). He claimed to he came to turn family against one another (Mt 10:35). Jesus also claimed that he who does not hate his family and himself cannot be his follower (Lk 14:26). And who can possibly explain Jesus' bizarre statement in Mark 4:11-12?

Even the Golden Rule of "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you" is neither original nor particularly moral. The Old Testament already has the Golden Rule in it and Confucius was preaching it centuries before Jesus allegedly did. And if someone is a masochist who wants to be beaten and yelled at in the foulest of language, does that mean he should do it to you since that is how he would like you to treat him? In another example, one of the Jesus' followers begs off a journey because his father had died and he needed to attend to the funeral. Jesus basically says no (Mt 8:21-22). Where's the compassion and understanding? When told his mother, brothers and sisters wanted to see him, he blows them off and basically states that he no longer considers them family (Mk 3:31-35). Conclusion: Jesus was neither a revolutionary nor moral teacher.

Some might counter that Jesus was not a teacher but a prophet. He wasn't there to teach, he was there to warn. The problem here is that Jesus' prophecies are generally lousy. The glaring flaw of his prophesying is that he told his listeners that there were those among them that "would not taste death before the son of man come again." That is, he was predicting the Second Coming to happen within the lifetimes of those he preached to. This is the same as saying that he predicted the end of the world to happen in their lifetimes (Mk 13:23-31, Lk 21:32). Did it? No. Was Jesus then a prophet? No.

What Jesus taught presented no danger whatsoever to the establishment. He was just another doomsayer of which Palestine had plenty and the authorities cared not a wit about any of them. There is no reason he would have attracted the slightest bit of attention by his words other than perhaps to be called a lunatic—of which Palestine already had plenty.

The next problem that arises then is how he managed to attract any followers at all considering he taught nothing of any particular value. Who were these people? According to Church literature, they were fishermen, common laborers and poor people. How did a church then manage to get established? Churches require funds and literacy. Where was one to find either among fisherman and poor people in Galilee some 2000 years ago? Who then founded this church and who appointed a common fisherman to be its pontiff? Obviously, such a thing would never happen.

We are already hard pressed to explain how a church was founded for a Jesus that taught nothing in particular that anyone would have found interesting. This is further compounded by the fact that this church was not founded to honor this humble man. It would have been founded because he wanted it to be: "Upon this rock I will build my church"(Matthew 16:18).

Now how did this humble teacher manage this with a handful of impoverished followers? Did he use his magical powers to influence the minds of the wealthy? Since we've already stripped Jesus of his divinity, no. If Jesus had such a power, he never would have been arrested, tried and executed (this was only to fulfill god's plan which doesn't apply with a non-divine Jesus). So, who built the church on Jesus' orders and how did they manage it?

Perhaps we have a way out. This way out concerns a surprisingly little discussed feature of the gospel story: the men in white. At points in the narrative, mysterious men in white appear out of nowhere to assist Jesus in some manner (Mk 16:5, Lk 25:4). Who were these men? They appear to be assistants but who are they and what is their connection to Jesus? We would have to conclude from this that Jesus had the help of an unknown agency who appear to be well connected. Could they have built the church on Jesus' orders? Once again, we run into problems with this idea: Whoever the men in white were, they were not disciples. In the narrative, whenever these mysterious men appear, the other disciples do not recognize them. We get not so much as an impression from the narrative that Jesus' church was built or founded by these men or that they installed Peter as the pope. In fact, after their appearance in Acts 1:10-11, they are not mentioned again, their true purpose and identity never explained. Matthew and John call them angels but Mark, Luke and Acts are adamant that these were men. They represent the most mysterious aspect of the narrative but are all but ignored.

This raises another problem and that is the narrative itself. From gospel to gospel, Jesus varies so widely in character that we can only marvel at how the man could possibly be historical. In Matthew, for example, Jesus is strictly a Jew while in Mark he is barely one. In John (8:44), Jesus seems to dislike the Jews on the whole. A different Jesus for each community. That might explain the two entirely different genealogies given for Jesus in Matthew and Luke.

Further problems in the narrative involve the describing of incidents during which there were no eyewitnesses such as Jesus praying the garden. John 19:8 and other such examples tell us what Pilate was thinking or feeling at a certain moment when no eyewitness could possibly know this.

Once we strip away the divinity from Jesus, we are left with a man who was not a wise, compassionate teacher but a cult-like egomaniac who was wrong on just about everything he said. Much of what is pointed out as valuable was not original but found in earlier sources than the NT.

Some ask what my motives are for asserting this. If someone tells you 2+2 is 5 and you correct him and say 4, would it make sense for him to say, "You must have some kind of agenda." No agenda, he's just wrong. When he's wrong, you correct him. That's about as far as my agenda goes. Moreover, I do not expect this post to have any effect on their belief systems but perhaps others are more open-minded and are interested in this debate and would like some detailed background on this in order to make an informed choice. Now, decide as you wish. You're the decider.

Subject: RE: BS: Julius Caesar/Jesus - fact or fiction?
From: Wesley S
Date: 24 May 06 - 05:54 PM

So GuestAR282 - Did you cut and paste all of that from another site or is it original ?

Subject: RE: BS: Julius Caesar/Jesus - fact or fiction?
From: GUEST,AR282
Date: 24 May 06 - 06:07 PM

It's original.

Subject: RE: BS: Julius Caesar/Jesus - fact or fiction?
From: GUEST,AR282
Date: 24 May 06 - 06:08 PM

>>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.<<

Thank you, dianavan. You summed it up nicer than I.

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

I'm still waiting for an answer AR282. Did jesus exist or not? In one post you say there is not a shred of evidence. In your last diatribe you state

Once we strip away the divinity from Jesus, we are left with a man who was not a wise, compassionate teacher but a cult-like egomaniac who was wrong on just about everything he said. Much of what is pointed out as valuable was not original but found in earlier sources than the NT.

I can read that no other way than he did exist.

Which is it?

Cheers

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Julius Caesar/Jesus - fact or fiction?
From: GUEST,AR282
Date: 24 May 06 - 06:36 PM

>>I'm still waiting for an answer AR282. Did jesus exist or not? In one post you say there is not a shred of evidence. In your last diatribe you state

Once we strip away the divinity from Jesus, we are left with a man who was not a wise, compassionate teacher but a cult-like egomaniac who was wrong on just about everything he said. Much of what is pointed out as valuable was not original but found in earlier sources than the NT.

I can read that no other way than he did exist.

Which is it?<<

If you're willing to say there was a human Jesus but he was a self-righteous, nasty, little scumbag who said nothing of value then I'm willing to grant you that there was such a person. That a wise, wonderful, compassionate teacher would have had his entire life and identity erased and buried in mythology by his devoted followers is stupid and absurd. But if he was a rotten bastard, that makes sense. I'll grant you that such a human Jesus could certainly have existed.

Subject: RE: BS: Julius Caesar/Jesus - fact or fiction?
From: Peace
Date: 24 May 06 - 06:38 PM

You just spent lotsa posts saying Jesus didn't exist. Now he does.

I got mixed-up confusion, and man it's killin' me.

Subject: RE: BS: Julius Caesar/Jesus - fact or fiction?
From: Don Firth
Date: 24 May 06 - 07:37 PM

I've run unto a lot of evangelists out to save my soul and I've had a fair number of run-ins with fundamentalists out to try to convince me that the power of their faith transcends rational thought. And I've also run into a fair number of disciples of Madalyn Murray O'Hair, not to mention those of Ayn Rand, also a hard-charging atheist, whose arguments are essentially the same as those of the evangelists and fundamentalists, but in the negative. They all exhibit a certain desperation in their desire—their need—to get others to agree with them.

What I read above sounds awfully familiar.

Ar282, if your long post above is original and not cut-and-paste, then it indicates to me that you seem to have a lot of time to devote to this, not to mention a pretty substantial emotional investment. I can't help but wonder what your motives are, beyond the relentless pursuit of truth.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Julius Caesar/Jesus - fact or fiction?
From: GUEST,AR282
Date: 24 May 06 - 07:55 PM

>>You just spent lotsa posts saying Jesus didn't exist. Now he does.

I got mixed-up confusion, and man it's killin' me.<<

I'm not saying he does or doesn't exist as a criminal or morally degenerate cult-leader. If you're willing to admit that that's what he would have to be in order to account for his statements and mission, then I'm willing to admit that there could be the human Jesus everybody is insisting had to exist. It's extremely unlikely but I'm willing to admit it is possible.

I will not, however, accept the argument that he was this compassionate, wise, loving, peaceful itinerant philosopher with a loyal following who kept his memory alive after his death and eventually founded a church to honor him. No such person existed--certainly not in the pages of the bible.

Subject: RE: BS: Julius Caesar/Jesus - fact or fiction?
From: Peace
Date: 24 May 06 - 07:57 PM

That's a different cuppa, dontcha think? Now it's about the nature of Jesus and NOT his existence. OK. You are entitled to your interpretations of that, for sure. Thank you for the clarification.

Subject: RE: BS: Julius Caesar/Jesus - fact or fiction?
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 24 May 06 - 08:04 PM

"fundamentalists out to try to convince me that the power of their faith transcends rational thought"

I'm certainly convinced of that... but in Medicine, it's also called Psychotic Delusional Behaviour...

Subject: RE: BS: Julius Caesar/Jesus - fact or fiction?
From: Don Firth
Date: 24 May 06 - 08:11 PM

"No such person existed--certainly not in the pages of the bible."

Eh? What!??

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Julius Caesar/Jesus - fact or fiction?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 24 May 06 - 08:48 PM

As emotional obsessions go, this is a really bad one revealing itself. ;-) AR282, you really need to study some other religious philosophy too, aside from Christianity. I recommend Vedanta (the source of both Hinduism and Yoga), Buddhism, Sufism, and Taoism...all of which can school in person in enough tolerance and compassion to grasp something useful about a figure such as Jesus, and not waste people's time here with obsessive hate progaganda, which is what your diatribes amount to, in my opinion. You are a person beating a dead horse.

Subject: RE: BS: Julius Caesar/Jesus - fact or fiction?
From: John O'L
Date: 24 May 06 - 08:49 PM

I think AR282's argument has always been that if Jesus-the-wise-compassionate-teacher-and-healer had existed as is suggested by Christians then we would know of it from unrelated sources.

I think he is suggesting that the real Jesus was more likely a travelling snakeoil salesman & medicine show, which the Romans picked up on after the event and used for their own political purposes.

What do I think? I think he was probably a small-b buddha who did not make a big splash in his lifetime but deeply touched everyone he met. I think his name (but not his vision) was picked up later and used by Christians and Romans for their own divergent purposes.
Note that I do not say this with any scholarly authority. It's just my opinion. I present it here as though it did have academic clout because that's what you do at Mudcat.

Subject: RE: BS: Julius Caesar/Jesus - fact or fiction?
From: GUEST,AR282
Date: 24 May 06 - 09:01 PM

>>Now it's about the nature of Jesus and NOT his existence. OK. You are entitled to your interpretations of that, for sure. Thank you for the clarification.<<

Right. His nature. I was never saying Jesus didn't exist in some form. He is Julius Caesar.

Subject: RE: BS: Julius Caesar/Jesus - fact or fiction?
From: Don Firth
Date: 24 May 06 - 09:45 PM

I give up!

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Julius Caesar/Jesus - fact or fiction?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 24 May 06 - 09:56 PM

It is equally plausible that some of the vague similarities you draw between Caesar's tragic fate and Jesus' fate were used by the Roman civilization in designing and solidifying some of tenets of the Church of Rome. Such things have been done before, and I'm sure they shall be again.

So they were most probably both real people, one as real as the other. We know Caesar was. It seems very probable that Jesus was also. Spartacus, by the way, sacrificed himself on behalf of the poor and disenfranchised, and he was crucified for it by the Romans, along with all his surviving followers who were taken prisoner with him.

Why not build your theory around Spartacus instead? It sounds just as good as the Caesar theory, and it's a better fit in a number of ways.

Subject: RE: BS: Julius Caesar/Jesus - fact or fiction?
From: GUEST,AR282
Date: 25 May 06 - 12:11 AM

>>Ar282, if your long post above is original and not cut-and-paste, then it indicates to me that you seem to have a lot of time to devote to this, not to mention a pretty substantial emotional investment. I can't help but wonder what your motives are, beyond the relentless pursuit of truth.<<

What else is worth doing??

Subject: RE: BS: Julius Caesar/Jesus - fact or fiction?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 25 May 06 - 12:22 AM

Any number of other things are worth doing. ;-) Just ask people at random, and they will tell you.

What you are doing here is just like what Jehovah's Witnesses or Mormons do when they come knocking on my door with their chosen versions of reality. You're preaching a highly unconvincing and rather unconventional gospel that you have become emotionally wedded to, because it makes you feel 'right' and 'in the know'...and to feel right and in the know is to feel secure and superior...and when other people don't believe you, you'll fight indefinitely to change their minds and probably bore the bollocks off them in the process.

Subject: RE: BS: Julius Caesar/Jesus - fact or fiction?
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 25 May 06 - 03:04 AM

I was never saying Jesus didn't exist in some form

So, you never said...

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.

I give up as well. Your anti-religious fundementalism is worse that the TV evangelists we hear preaching for it!

And why should I admit anything like you request about the figure of Jesus? One minute he doesn't exist at all, Next he is a self-righteous, nasty, little scumbag who said nothing of value. What I am willing to accept is that no-one realy knows anything about him apart from the worlds major religion was built in his name. Why would you want to defame a person who you know nothing about, has been dead for 2000 years and can do nothing to defend himself? Sounds like insecurity to me. Perhaps you need to get yourself a religion:-)

Cheers

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Julius Caesar/Jesus - fact or fiction?
From: Paul Burke
Date: 25 May 06 - 03:59 AM

Ahwell Dave. The whole point is that Jesus IS supposed to be able to do something to defend himself. In the good old days, AR282 would have been gnawed from inside by loathsome worms, or would have been struck dead in mid-blasphemous-sentence (like that woman on the memorial in Devizes market), or have been taken off to Hell by a burning stranger in a black coach...

Julius Caesar can't do that.

Religion ain't what it used to be.

But back on topic. Here's a little bit of evidence that Julius Caesar existed. Of course, it might not be evidence about THAT Julius Caesar, but about another chap of the same name. Two inscriptions, apparently contemporary. And they are really only evidence of a contemporary BELIEF in Julius Caesar.

And some coins, apparently contemporary. Same caveat, of course. that's history. No coins of Jesus until much later, but perhaps the contemporary ones were all rendered down.

Subject: RE: BS: Julius Caesar/Jesus - fact or fiction?
From: Paul Burke
Date: 25 May 06 - 04:00 AM

CC