"I'm the son of God. But he's the son of God. There's a difference."
How is it that you don't see how silly this sounds?
Jesus was a puppet.
- Thread starter Bebelina
- Start date
"I'm the son of God. But he's the son of God. There's a difference."
How is it that you don't see how silly this sounds?
It's not a bad explanation. Whether or not it was a Caesar, first consider the plausibility of it being a Roman. This could explain the connection between the Roman version of Mithra and Jesus. Mithra (a.k.a. Sol Invictus and Pontifex Maximus [high priest]) was a human son of god, and in some versions he was born of a virgin, had 12 followers, was crucified, rose on the third day (as the sun "dies" in the winter solstice). The Mithraists met in secret places to offer bread and wine in his memory.
In contrast, the Jesus story makes no sense whatsoever in terms of Jewish expectations of a Messiah, who was supposed to be a powerful ruler that would call in their chips and get God to fulfill his end of the Covenant.
This is where it makes sense for a Roman ruler to intervene. He already is only barely tolerant of their "pagan" religion (they won't worship the Emperor, for one thing). The last thing an Emperor needs is for his unfavorable colonists to start talking about a coming warrior-king. So why not use reverse psychology? Go with the Messiah idea, only turn Him into a anti-war pacifist peacenik. That would undermine their rebellious tendencies, which did nonetheless erupt in the reign of Nero. That's when all hell (as it were) broke loose and the Romans had to go in with their shock and awe program of leveling the temple and crucifying agitators.
In any case, Romans became influential in shaping Christianity almost immediately. Acts of the Apostles - and the epistles - has the action moving to Rome. That almost sounds like a plot continuation after the story-telling was handed over to a Roman. Most of the earliest of influential fathers of the early church were either Roman, or leaders from Roman colonies. The universal church is what became the official religion of the Holy Roman Empire and its authority was the Roman Catholic Church.
A lot of material was thrown out such as the Gnostic versions of Jesus which are quite a colorful variation from the Bible. They almost seem to have a more Greek flavor than the Romanesque parts that were retained. Besides, it took 400 years for them to make up their minds which stories to keep and which to discard. By that time Rome had fallen as an Empire, but this project - the Bible - would be the thing that resurrected the Empire from its grave.
Julius Caesar has a few things going for him. His lineage was from Venus, he was the originator or the triumvirate (a parallel to the Trinity), and he put himself in the role of Pontifex Maximus. He also was a generation or two (or three or four) removed from the apparent beginning of the Gospel story, so there was plenty of time for this invention to gel. The death of Caesar by betrayal parallels the Judas story, which is botched in the Bible (as if Judas was an afterthought). Here I'm referring to two versions of Judas' death. In one he hangs himself. In the other story he falls in the field he bought with the blood money and bashes his head. (This parallel could have been added by the actual scribe who took down Caesar's version and formulated it into the complicated plot that it became.)
Another interesting possibility is that Caesar may have been envious of the popularity of Greek language, ideas and culture in the colonies. The Judaeans had an unusual monotheism which must have challenged his own sense of divinity. Yet they preferred Greek over Latin. To fix their wagon, he gives them a Messiah who not only is the exact opposite of a warrior king, but He sucks up to Greek Stoicism all the way, including drinking the cup of suicide almost like Socrates, only with a lot of Roman humiliation to top it off - the torture and crucifixion, a clear demonstration of Roman authority and strength over the lowly "pagan" Judaeans. The mockery of Jesus could well be the mockery of the Jewish people and their inferior religion.
I have absolutely no idea whatsoever if there's any evidence to implicate Caesar like this. I'm just saying it seems plausible. It's certainly more plausible than virgin birth, walking on water, multiplying loaves and fishes, curing illness and infirmity, raising the dead, raising himself from the dead, etc., and it's not nearly as implausible as self-martyrdom in atonement for others, after having visited the sins of the parents upon the children. Of course that's the version of the story the Romans preserved.
I told you. The rulers of the Roman Empire, and of post-empire Europe, both secular and religious.
If you can convince people to obey without coercion, you save a bundle on policing; if you can convince people that god will smite them for rebellion, you save a lot on manual smiting; if you can send in low-ranking priests and monks and nuns (who work for free and are expendable) to convert natives, you save a lot of army sandal-leather, and probably a few thousand natives who are worth more put to work in the gold-mines than crucified.
Julius does not come into it anywhere.
Well thank you, that was very interesting and it all seems to make sense, except the part that Caesar was from Venus?
I meant the goddess. His family claimed to have descended from Venus, so this made him "a son of god". And the public was OK with that. Imagine how easy it would be for him (or someone like him) to convince them of the Jesus myth.
That pretty much says it all.
this was Jesus's point..everyone can know God, we are all equal.
religion has commandeered Jesus in an attempt to spread his teachings.
this in itself is not wrong..it takes extreme characters/situations to teach simple concepts.
unfortunately..religion is full of ppl,and there is no such thing as a perfect person,IOW religious leaders are just as susceptible to screwing up as everyone else.
I agree with:
religion is man made.
We are all sons(daughters too) of God
of course he was a radical...the bible even shows that he was..but there is no such thing as 'just' when it comes to ppl..
'just' is a term meant to devalue a person.
Jesus was real, Jesus wasn't the son of god, or any divinity. He was as human as I am. I do believe that he was a member of a political Judean organisation known as The Sons of God. They were very similar to the IRA in Northern Ireland in the 70s, partly political, partly terrorist in nature. Jesus was a political member. The sect was finally obliterated by imported Romans at that hilltop place I can never recall the name of. Something maybe we should have done in the 70s!! (Don't bother, different story).
Calvary
Massada..(SP)
