andrewcriddle

Is this thread about Julius Caesar or Augustus Caesar ?
They are after all different people.

Andrew Criddle

Johnny Skeptic

Sorry, I goofed. I meant Julius Caesar. The article that I mentioned by Richard Carrier in the opening post mentions Julius Caesar.

I request that a moderator change the title of this thread to "Which is more probable, a historical Jesus, or a historical Julius Caesar?"

I do not mind if some people want to also discuss the existence of Augustus Caesar.

aa5874

The existence or non-existence of Julius Caesar or Augustus Caesar has NO relevance on the existence of the entity called JESUS Christ in the NT Canon.

In other words, it may very well be a mistake to assume Julius Caesar or Augustus Caesar did exist but such an error cannot ALTER the existence or non-existence of JESUS of the NT or ALTER its description .

Now, JESUS CHRIST of the NT Canon was the offspring of a Ghost which was called HOLY, the Creator of heaven and earth, who walked on water, transfigured, RAISED from the dead and ascended through clouds.

JESUS of the NT Canon was mythology from conception to ascension.

show_no_mercy

1. Coins were minted from that time period with the name "Julius Caesar" and a visage. That face might as well be Julius Caesar.

2. Someone wrote under the name Julius Caesar whose writings are dated to the time period that he would have lived. Might as well call that person Julius Caesar.

3. One Roman emperor was adopted by him, claimed to have had completely naturalistic encounters with him, and took his name: Caesar.

4. Someone was emperor of Rome when it began its mad conquering spree. Might as well be Julius Caesar.

5. Other people whose works and lives are attributed to the same time period wrote about a person named Julius Caesar and talked about meeting him or serving under him in mostly naturalistic settings.

There's probably a lot more evidence, but this type of evidence we don't have for Jesus - especially the first two, which are the strongest evidence.

aa5874

IT must be noted that it was the so-called Christians themselves, the JESUS believers, who challenged and VEHEMENTLY DENIED the ACTUAL existence of JESUS as human.

Based on sources of antiquity, Marcion who BELIEVED in JESUS, claimed Jesus was NOT real but only seemed like a human but was just a Phantom Son of a God.

The Christian Valentinus Also did not propagate that Jesus was human either.

The author of gMatthew did NOT propagate that Jesus was born of human parents but claimed Jesus was the offspring of the Holy Ghost, walked on water, transfigured, was raised from the dead and coming back in the clouds.

The author of gMark claimed Jesus walked on water, transfigured, was raised from the dead and was returning to earth in full view of the Sanhedrin in some clouds.

The author of gLuke gave DETAILS of the Holy Ghost conception of Jesus and claimed he was the product of the Holy Ghost and a VIRGIN, transfigured, was raised from the dead, was carried up into heaven and would come back to earth sitting or standing on the right hand of Power.

The author of gJohn claimed Jesus was the Creator, the Word and God, who was before anything was made and did make everything in heaven and earth and was raised from the dead.

The Pauline writers claimed Jesus was the Creator of everything in heaven and earth, the son of God, who was raised from the dead and would be coming back to earth when God blows a trumpet.

It supposedly was Jesus believers who described JESUS as DIVINE or the product of a HOLY Ghost.

It was the very Jesus believers who DENIED that Jesus Christ was a mere man. It was Jesus believers who promoted the MYTH of the VIRGIN birth with the seed of the HOLY GHOST

In "Dialogue with Trypho"LXVII, Trypho the Jew, tried IN VAIN to convince Justin Martyr that Jesus could have only been a mere man when Justin Martyr proclaimed JESUS was born of a VIRGIN.
"Dialogue with Trypho" LXVII So as early as the middle of the 2nd century it was NON-JESUS believers who TRIED in Vain to convince JESUS BELIEVERS that Jesus if he existed could have ONLY been a mere man.

But JESUS BELIEVERS continued with their FABLES, they continued with their "MONSTROUS phenomena" that JESUS was the offspring of a holy GHOST and a VIRGIN.

The existence or non-existence of Achilles, Julius and Augustus are not relevant.

JESUS was not history but a MONSTROUS FABLE OF MYTHOLOGY since the 2nd century.

mountainman

The bookmakers' money is still on the Lord God Caesar Julius, or the Lord God Caesar Augustus, or the Lord God Caesar Gaius, or the Lord God Caesar Claudius, or the Lord God Caesar Nero. etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc ...

Multiple unambiguous coinage.
These guys ran their own mints.

Noticeably Julius Caesar's coinage has two sides and an edge.




The literary coinage of Jesus

The literary coinage of Jesus has two sides and an edge.

HEADS: The HJ --- On the HEADS we have the Historical Jesus of the "Canon".

TAILS: The MJ or FJ --- On the TAILS we have the "Historical Jesus" of the "Gnostic Gospels and Acts" .

The edge: was provided by the sharp swords of Constantine's army who fought for Jesus (the new Jewish god who was not really an Old Jewish god but a new one) since his new earthly kingdom was just ripe for the picking at that epoch, since it was then, at that moment, that "his servants would fight"!

When was this literary coinage of Jesus first minted? Which century?
We know it went into circulation with the scriptoria of Lord God Caesar Constantine.

We have C14 dates for some fragments of the TAILS.
Do we have a Greek shrine to Jesus in the travels of Pausanias?
Why not? Was Pausanias blind?

spamandham

If the argument for the nonexistence of Julius Ceasar is stronger than the argument for his existence, then odds are he didn't exist.

That is the case, IMHO, in regards to Jesus. The argument for his nonexistence is not based on the lack of photographs of him, but rather, on the facts fitting his nonexistence better than his existence.

Kapyong

Gday all,

The evidence for Caesar is vastly more than for Jesus -

Including :
* writings from Caesar's own hand
* statues of Caesar made while he was alive
* coins showing his likeness changing as he aged
* many eye-witness accounts of his actions (e.g. Cicero)
* archeological remains of his battles (e.g. Alesia)
* his grave still known


And personal acquaintance by a known person, Cicero :

Cicero, Letters :
XV
To P. LENTTJLUS SPINTHER (IN CILICIA)
ROME (OCTOBER)

"Here I was greatly influenced by two things the old friendship which you know that I and my brother Quintus have had with Caesar, and his own kindness and liberality, of which we have recently had clear and mistakable evidence both by his letters and his personal attentions.
...An additional motive was Caesar's memorable and almost superhuman kindness to myself and my brother,"

Cicero mentions here :
* his FRIENDSHIP with Caesar
(* letters from Caesar to Cicero)
* Caesar's PERSONAL ATTENTION
* Caesar's kindness to him and his brother


There are many many such examples which show a direct personal meeting with Caesar :

"Again, later on, there followed a very pressing request from Caesar that I should undertake his defence."

Caesar asks Cicero to defend him.


"And yet I was very intimate with Caesar,"

Cicero was intimate with Caesar.


"all the more so now that Caesar daily receives me with more open arms, while his intimate friends distinguish me above everyone."

Caesar received Cicero with open arms.


"Now omens as to the future are observed by me in what I may call a twofold method: the one I deduce from Caesar himself, the other from the nature and complexion of the political situation. Caesar's characteristics are these: a disposition naturally placable and clement--as delineated in your brilliant book of "Grievances"--and a great liking also for superior talent, such as your own. Besides this, he is relenting at the expressed wishes of a large number of your friends, which are well-grounded and inspired by affection."

Cicero observed Caesar's character.


"On this head I am always struck with astonishment at Caesar's sobriety, fairness, and wisdom. He never speaks of Pompey except in the most respectful terms. "But," you will say, "in regard to him as a public man his actions have often been bitter enough.""

Cicero describes how Caesar talks of Pompey.


"Also--for I like to jot down things as they occur to me--that when on the request of Sestius I went to Caesar's house, and was sitting waiting till I was called in, he remarked: "Can I doubt that I am exceedingly disliked, when Marcus Cicero has to sit waiting and cannot see me at his own convenience? And yet if there is a good-natured man in the world it is he; still I feel no doubt that he heartily dislikes me.""

Cicero recounts a MEETING with Caesar.


The evidence is vast, contemporary, and certain for Caesar,
but meagre, late and doubtful for Jesus.


K.

ApostateAbe

I think there is little doubt that the evidence for the historical person of Julius Caesar is generally stronger and much more reliable than that of Jesus. I think a better comparison would be other ancient religious figures, such as Muhammad or Gautama Buddha. Unlike leaders of states, few people know or care enough about founders of cults to make note of them in their own time. They only find their way into recorded history through the myths of their followers.

aa5874

But, the existence or non-existence of Muhammad or Guatama Buddha has NO bearing at all on the existence or non-existence of Jesus.

And further, People do not worship Muhammad or Buddha as Gods.

Jesus was EQUAL to the God of the Jews, was called the Creator of heaven and earth and was given a NAME ABOVE EVERY OTHER NAME. No such character can be found to have existed at any time in the first century.