Even the position of pope comes from the emperor's seat 4-5 centuries later...
http://www.carotta.de/subseite/texte/esumma.html
2006-10-12 06:04:43 · 15 answers · asked by mael333ca 2 in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
I think its true to say that the Christian Roman leader (Constantine)? did more to promote Christianity than Christ did!
However I am not convinced that any 'Jesus' ever really existed at all ! I dont think any real concrete evidence has been produced to date?
By 'concrete evidence' I do not mean chapter 1120 verse 1234 from the New Testament!!
Hope this helps to cloud the issue??
2006-10-12 06:20:17 · answer #1 · answered by budding author 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
NO. First off, Jesus walked this earth years before Julius Cesar did. Secondly, the Bible foretold of Jesus' coming. It could have cared less about Cesar. Third, Jesus died on the cross for the sins of mankind. Cesar died because he was betrayed. Forth, Jesus arose from the dead so that we may all have eternal life. Cesar is still worm food. Fifth, Jesus lives in my heart. Cesar has no place in it. Read the Gospel of John, and learn.
2006-10-12 06:08:51 · answer #2 · answered by Spirit Walker 5 · 0⤊ 1⤋
it rather is a peculiar and wonderful declare in that it rather is factually misguided. there is important regular besides as secondary evidence that's recognized as truthful and precise for Caesar, and extremely, little or no for Jesus. the right version of this declare pertains to Alexander the super - we've not got any regular evidence for the existence of Alexander, each and every of the writings approximately him are rumour. The evidence we are in a position to gather approximately Alexander's existence and events is vast yet all secondary at terrific. the only actual evidence different than occasional mentions of Jesus are patently exaggerated money owed interior the bible. Given the fantastical claims interior the bible, it rather is a controversy of opinion no rely if any of it rather is depended on.
2016-10-02 05:41:53 · answer #3 · answered by murchison 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The historical Jesus was a Jew. The historical Julius Caesar was a Roman.
2006-10-12 06:07:37 · answer #4 · answered by toff 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Jesus = Jew.
Julius Ceasar = Roman Emperor, slain by Brutus around 22BC. Augustus Ceasar was emperor at the time of Jesus.
Somehow, I think not....
2006-10-12 06:08:38 · answer #5 · answered by YDoncha_Blowme 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
If that was the case, wouldnt the story of Jesus in the gospels be a little more accurate concerning the times? Also the book of Acts we should expect to be more accurate also
I would expect a lot better work if it was constructed by scribes and leaders.
The gospel of 'Mark' is poorly written 'Mathew' corrects much of 'Mark'. 'Mark' is written in common tongue
2006-10-12 06:07:14 · answer #6 · answered by CJunk 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No.
Jessu was one of about 30 Jewish men claiming to be the messiah at a time Israel was conquered by the Roman Empire.
2006-10-12 07:34:10 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Naw. Once Jesus said, "Give to Ceasar what is Ceasar's and to God what is God." Too many times he made a reference to Ceasar so I don't think he would be him. That's just my silly two cents to a silly question.
2006-10-12 06:07:10 · answer #8 · answered by Light 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No Jesus was aroun about 3 hundred years BEFORE ceaser.
2006-10-12 06:07:47 · answer #9 · answered by danksprite420 6 · 0⤊ 1⤋
No, the Cesar was Augustus then.
2006-10-12 06:08:35 · answer #10 · answered by jbrowning001 2 · 0⤊ 1⤋