Divus Julius and the Bible

[Hawat]

Something i stumbled upon as i recently read a science mag.

"Is Jesus Divus Julius?

Caius Julius Caesar, son of Venus, and founder of the Roman Empire was elevated to the status of Imperial god, Divus Julius, after his tragic exit. His cult disappeared as Christianity surfaced.

Jesus Christ, son of God and the founder of Christianity, appears with his cult in the second century. No historian ever mentioned him before that time and to this day his existence is doubted.

A historical figure without a cult, a cult without historical figure:

a conspicuous complementary asymmetry.

Is Jesus the historically maintained figure of Divus Julius?

Are the gospels built on the life of Caesar, just as the first Christian churches were built on the foundations of antique temples?

Corruptions in the copying of texts, misinterpretations in translating and the transformation of iconography have been traced to their beginnings and made evident: The Gospel proves to be the history of Roman civil war, a

[Edric O]

That guy is a complete idiot, and here are just some of his mistakes:

Caius Julius Caesar, son of Venus, and founder of the Roman Empire...

OCTAVIAN AUGUSTUS was the founder of the Roman Empire. Not Julius Caesar, you sorry excuse for a historian!

...was elevated to the status of Imperial god, Divus Julius, after his tragic exit. His cult disappeared as Christianity surfaced.

Actually, his cult dissappeared well over half a century before Christianity surfaced. Caesar died in 44 BC, and his cult didn't last long.

Jesus Christ, son of God and the founder of Christianity, appears with his cult in the second century. No historian ever mentioned him before that time and to this day his existence is doubted.

If Jesus did not exist, then the first Christians made Him up. But if they made Him up, why were they willing to DIE for Him?

As for historical proof, Christians existed as early as the reign of Emperor Nero - very much in the first century AD. We know this because Nero ordered them killed.

A historical figure without a cult, a cult without historical figure:

a conspicuous complementary asymmetry.

Except that they are separated by at least 80 years and a few thousand kilometers.

Is Jesus the historically maintained figure of Divus Julius?

If he is, why did his "cult" appear over 80 years after the death of Caesar?  And why did it appear in Israel, of all places? And why were the first members of this "cult" Hebrews, rather than Romans? And why was it based on Judaism rather than Roman religious ideas? And why... well, you get the point.

Are the gospels built on the life of Caesar, just as the first Christian churches were built on the foundations of antique temples?

No churches could have been built on any ancient temple foundations before 395 AD, the year Christianity was made the official religion of the empire by decree of Emperor Theodosius. The first Christian "churches" were actually the houses of various believers. Dedicated buildings weren't constructed until at least the late 2nd century AD - and Christians would have been executed if they attempted to "defile" ancient temple sites.

Basically, this guy can't even get his metaphors straight.

Corruptions in the copying of texts, misinterpretations in translating and the transformation of iconography have been traced to their beginnings and made evident: The Gospel proves to be the history of Roman civil war...

Uh, what? Excuse me, but no amount of "corruptions" and "misinterpretations" can account for such a complete transformation. There's simply no connection between the Gospel and the Roman civil war, not even a metaphorical one. I might as well say that the Gospel is a phone book...

Seems to be far-fetched in my eyes...

Far-fetched? Heh, more like insane speculation meant to bring the author lots of money from the sale of such a controversial book. It's a very old get-rich-quick scheme: Write something stupid on a highly controversial topic (like religion), and everyone will buy it, because they're shocked by the subject and want to read more.

[Caid Ivik]

Well, Caesar was the first, who concentrated all power in his hands since fall of Tarquinius dynasty. We can say that ie Sulla was strong too, but he was yet very limited by senate. Caesar changed rights of title "roman imperator" and left it to be his title for life. Imperial period is marked with Augustus, who was first who took Caesar's name as a new title. However still, Caesar was minimally known in Palestine (maybe excluding Caesarea port), in his age were Jews de facto sovereign. Also, if we compare life and philosophy of Caesar and Jesus, I think we need no detail expanations of so diametral differences. Not talking about historical inaccuracies, already counted by EdricO.

[Hawat]

Don't get me wrong now, i don't want to defend this guy, but the first text i gave you is just a short description of the book's content, which is

[Anathema]

The Roman empire was never founded at all. In fact, the Republic continued to exist in name until Constantinople fell in 1453. Julius Caesar had transformed himself into sole ruler of the realm and for that he was murdered. His adopted son Octavian (who later took the name of Augustus) was the first to use the name Caesar as a title.

It could be argued though that Caesar destroyed the republic and in doing so created the Roman empire.

The rest of what Edric mentioned seems right on spot though.

Edit:

If Christianity really started with Julius Ceasar, then what motive would the emperors have to persecute Ceasars followers? Christianity was eventually turned into a tool for the emperors by bringing it under state control, but why wait three centuries?

[Caid Ivik]

I had to... ;D

Pompey is the political godfather of Caesar and competes with him in the same way John the Baptist does with Jesus.

- does say Baptist one argumentative word against Jesus?

Antony and Lepidus became Caesar?s successors, the first as flamen, high priest of the Divus Julius cult, the second as pontifex maximus, just as Simon and Peter do with Jesus (they both melt into one figure ? Simon Peter).

- well, maybe Herodes was Jesus because he also had two successors...

Decimus Junius Brutus betrays Caesar as Judas betrays Jesus.

- very similar to previous point, while here Brutus harvested glory for his act and Judas comitted suicide

The other Brutus is Caesar?s murderer and Barabbas is a murderer.

- I would say there were more murderers with names starting on "b"

Octavian is the young Caesar, his posthumously adopted son. John is adopted by Jesus as he is dying on the cross.

- Octavian was adopted already by living Caesar, he was one his very able centurion, so he chosen him as a successor

Nicomedes of Bithynia was said to have had nightly meetings with Caesar as did Nicodemus of Bethany with Jesus.

- hm, then Caesar was either necromancer or a necrophile, as this Nicomedes died in 74 BC

Cleopatra had a special relationship with Caesar as did Mary Magdalene with Jesus.

- again, I must say there was usual to have a "special relationship" with opposite gender, it's a very common event even nowadays  ::)

Julia, Caesar?s aunt and widow of Marius plays the same role as Mary, the mother of Jesus.

- and one more time, raising children is usual as well...

The Senate is Caesar?s enemy, just as the Council is Jesus? Satan.

- jewish priests had no institutional "council"

Caesar comes from Gaul, in the north, at the beginning of the Civil War, while Jesus also comes from the north, Galilee, at the beginning of his public life.

- little error about 3000 km, but very accurate point ;D

Corfinium is the first city Caesar occupies and Cafarnaum is the first city Jesus enters.

- Jesus had entered much more cities before Cafarnaum

Rome is the capital, where Caesar first triumphs and later is assassinated. Jerusalem is the city where Jesus is celebrated on Palm Sunday and later put to death.

- oh? and point before it was Corfinium

[Hawat]

Carotta don't want to say that Jesus and Julius Caesar are the same person.

He merely claims that the gospel is just a copy of caesar's story.

[Edric O]

Do you notice something about the supposed similarities between Jesus and Caesar? They are also shared by thousands of other people. They are "similarities" like the fact that both Jesus and Caesar had a mother, or the fact that they both had friends...

Of course Jesus and Caesar have things in common - if you take two random people from the street, they will probably have some things in common too - but all the similarities are completely mundane, and they're not unique "Jesus-Caesar" similarities. They're extremely common, everyday things.

Having said that, I will refute this guy's arguments point by point:

Even the wreath he wears, the oak wreath of the soter, the Savior, corresponds in form and significance to the crown of thorns worn by the Holy One.

Have you even read the Bible? The similarity is intentional, because the crown of thorns placed on Jesus's head by Roman legionnaires was MEANT to be a mockery of traditional Roman symbols of power.

Both Julius Caesar and Jesus began their careers in northern countries: Caesar in Gaul, Jesus in Galilee; both cross a fatal river: the Rubicon and the Jordan; both then enter cities: Corfinium and Cafarnaum; Caesar finds Corfinium occupied by a man of Pompey and besieges him, while Jesus finds a man possessed by an impure spirit.

1. Every country is to the north of some other country.

2. Jesus didn't cross the Jordan; He was baptized in it.

3. Hey, I entered a city whose name begins in "C", too! Maybe I'm Jesus? ::)

4. Ok, so both Jesus and Caesar enter a city and find... something... there. That's a "similarity"? Is it that unusual to enter a city and find something?

There is similarity in structure as well as in place names: Gallia > Galilaea; Corfinium > Cafarnaum; occupied/besieged > possessed (both obsessus inLatin). The similarities remain consistent throughout (when occupation or besieging is referred to in the one text, possession is used in the other, etc.)

The Gospels were written in Hebrew and Greek, not Latin, you fool! All the so-called "similarities" you've just found are similarities between the Latin TRANSLATION of the Gospels and Caesar's life. They don't exist in the original texts. Furthermore, the names of people and places that you're using are Latinized - they're not the original names.

Names resemble each other in writing and phonetically

See above. You're using the Latin translation of the Gospels, not the original texts.

People and places have the same function in both stories...

Most of the similarities listed under this heading are completely off the mark. For example, Pompey and Caesar had a civil war - but when did Jesus and John the Baptist fight? Also, the fact that both men had a mother (or a mother-like figure) is a no-brainer, not a "similarity".

CAESAR'S MOST FAMOUS QUOTATIONS ARE FOUND IN THE GOSPELS

That's precisely because they were FAMOUS QUOTATIONS - they had entered POPULAR FOLKLORE at the time of Jesus's life. You're saying that two people are the same because one quotes the other? How insane is that?

I would be impressed if you found an OBSCURE Caesar quote in the Bible, not a famous one that everybody knew.

[TMA_1]

no historian has ever mentioned him before?

tacitus, justin martyr, polycarp, Origen, josephus. good grief it is silly to say that there are none. Not only that but why would there be large mentions of christ since christianity didnt start to become a large movement until the late second century a.d.?

Not only this but do you know how many cults passed and rose during the age of christianity? man there are so many. I think this guy is one of those typical people who said "jesus went to india!" "jesus met with druids!"  "jesus is an alien!" lol.

[Edric O]

It's called celebrity gossip. People love to make up stories about celebrities, and Jesus is no exception.

[nemafakei]

"ICONOGRAPHY OF CAESAR DO NOT FIT OUR IDEA OF HIM"

This whole point ignoes the fact that AJC deliberately (

[Hawat]

Btw, i hope you aren't adressing me, this isn't my theory and not in any way sympathising with it.

[nemafakei]

I'm not attacking you, I'm just complaining about the author's shortsightedness.

[Hawat]

The "you" in Edrics post made me just a little bit nervous.

In the meantime i found some reviews of his book.

Two of three authors characterised the book as a "fairy tale" that draws false conclusions from correct observations.

Strange, why this book gained such a popularity in the netherlands.

[Edric O]

The "you" in Edrics post made me just a little bit nervous.

Sorry about that. It was more of a rhethorical device... I was replying to the book's author.

In the meantime i found some reviews of his book.

Two of three authors characterised the book as a "fairy tale" that draws false conclusions from correct observations.

Heh. What did I tell you? :)

Strange, why this book gained such a popularity in the netherlands.

That's probably just because it deals with a controversial subject. These sorts of books usually become very popular, even if what they're saying is completely insane.

[TMA_1]

like the extremely lame da vinci code... beh.lol

[Wolf]

So, I have a question. If the Gospels are an allegory of the Roman Civil War, where's the civil war part?

[TMA_1]

lol good point wolfwiz.

[HasimirFenring]

like the extremely lame da vinci code... beh.lol

Really?  I liked it...  Even now, not a week goes by where I don't see at least one person reading a Dan Brown book.  Da Vinci Code wasn't really that controversial, though; those potentially controversial assertions that it did make have much more of a basis in fact than the ones made in this other book.

[Hawat]

Even worse was the "Bible Code". The author claimed that through this code he foresaw events like the kennedy assassination or the murdering of rabin. (Or to put it more precisely: He discovered that the assassinations are planned but the point in time or the assassin's name were detected later. AFTER the incidents)