Riverwind

Styro,

Some of J.Caesar's personal effects (especially the bloodstained robe) may have been preserved for a while. You would have to read some of the ancient authors who speak about him and his times to find this out for sure. The Roman emperors were not "Gods" in quite the same sense as Jesus was perceived as a "God". What I mean by this is that they were worshipped while they were alive and while their relatives were alive and in power, but I would imagine (in other words, don't know for sure) that their worship was abandoned after some brief time.

There are rumors of supposed relics of the cross and such preserved. I would suggest that you (if you're this interested) look into reading as many of the "Early Church Fathers" (from a couple hundred years after Jesus) works as you can and you'll find some stories there about these relics. Why isn't there anything earlier? Well, Christians were also considered Jews (at least early on), so one must remember the war of 70 A.D. and the war of 132/5? A.D. when Hadrian, I believe, kicked all the Jews out of Jerusalem and renamed it Aelia Capitolina. Both of these times, there are texts that talk about the emperors/conquerors erecting their own temples on top of Jewish ones. Christianity was becoming popular, but they were being persecuted as atheists and many of their church related posessions were destroyed (including their scriptures, especially under Diocletian, as attested by the church fathers), which is part of the reason that there is such a paucity of manuscripts before Constantine. After Constantine, Christians enjoyed much more freedom and lack of persecution, and though there was at least one more emperor (Julian) who opposed Christianity, Christians continued in relative peace after Constantine. Even so, I still believe what I said about why true holy relics rarely survive (at least in the west).

Gregg

Rome was totally sacked several times and a lot of stuff carted off, so that's probably why not much was preserved (although there may be a lot preserved in the Vatican that we don't know about). I'm not that familiar with Japanese history, but I don't think a lot of foreign invasion and wholesale plundering took place.

Gregg

As a JMer, I find the explanation quite simple. A while after the Jewish War of A.D. 70, someone wrote an allegorical, symbolic tale which placed the mythical Christ in a semi-historical, earthly setting. A couple decades after that, some Christians started regarding this story (and others based on it) as literal history. After this, the fascination with "holy relics" began. We see none of this in early Christian correspondence.

Riverwind

The gospels do not strike me as fiction when compared with other literature of the time.

I don't think they were concerned about holy relics, that wasn't the message that they seemed concerned about. They seemed much more focused on Jesus' message and how to apply it to their lives, not to mention the coming "Kingdom of God". So, I agree with your statement on this part, I just have a different understand of it.

Gregg

But something not "striking" you as fiction is not enough. The closer you look at the gospels, the more you learn about them, the easier it is to see that they are very likely mythological allegory. Bible scholar Richard Carrier was initially skeptical of this claim until he did his own analysis and realized that not only was the entire passion and crucifixion account constructed out of passages from the Jewish scriptures, but the rest of the text heavily relied on symbology and the Jewish scriptures as well. Furthermore, the very structure of Mark parallels the Torah. Check out John Shelby Spong's "Liberating the Gospels" ... it's a fascinating read.

Actually, they didn't pay much attention to Jesus' "message," at least not in the early Christian correspondence we have available to us. They never refer to his teachings or quote him. They mainly talk about his crucifixion and resurrection, although they never discuss these things in any sort of Gospel context.

Paul said he yearned to know Christ's sufferings and the power of his resurrection. Yet he waited three years to go to Jerusalem, and while there, he apparently did not visit Calvary or any place where Jesus walked. This is Paul we're talking about. Read his letters, how he seeks to persuade, shame, cajole, inspire. How he boasts about his own sufferings. Yet except for a mention of a Last Supper scene, and of course the crucifixion and raising from the dead, he never refers to anything Jesus said or did. He never tells his readers who are clearly wavering in their faith about how it felt to be in the place where his Lord suffered and died. Why does Paul consistently miss opportunity after opportunity to tell his readers about Jesus' life and ministry?`

Styrofoamdeity

Yes, Riverwind needs to study more about The Jesus Myth. This is not the thread for it though. Riverwind, why don't you use the "search" function and look for threads on The Jesus Myth (a title of a book and a significant development in biblical studies). The historicity of the bible is something that should be studied, as what one thinks before one reads more on the issue is irrelevent.

Riverwind, if you do not feel like using the seach function to read through threads on the issue, or better yet ordering the book and reading it, feel free to create a thread on the topic and challenge some of the resident scholars to discuss your opinion with you. But as they say in the WWE, "ARE YOU REAAAADY TO RUMBLE?".

Riverwind

I'm curious why you both assume I haven't read about the Jesus as myth theories?

The theories are implausible and it is untrue that the earliest Christian writers don't refer to Jesus' teachings and the gospels. Those who espouse the Jesus as myth theories reject a lot of material because it does not fit their theories.

yalla

Does this qualify?

"On top of the obelisk there used to be a large bronze globe allegedly containing the ashes of Julius Caesar."

http://www.vaticanaccomodations.com/...san_pietro.htm

Gundulf

I don't know, but myself, if I did witness a guy I had seen die come up and give me a high-five, I don't think my first thought would be, "I wonder if I can get this guy's sandal..."

Sven

Have you read the authors themselves or only their critics?