arnoldo

Hippolytus claims that Marcion obtained his knowledge from Empedocles, rather than Paul. IIUC, Hippolytus alleges that Marcion found it absurd that a HJ would be physically born. Instead,during the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Cæsar, Jesus seemed to appear. Orthodox Christians eventually labeled this heresy as Docetism. Herman Detering also proposes that Marcion was a follower of Empedocles to the point of imitating his manner of death. (See: Is Lucian’s On the Death of Peregrinus a Satireon Marcion? )

Grog

I don't think we know enough about the connections between Paul and Valentinus, Marcion. They accepted a version of a gospel story, I don't think they were direct disciples of Paul.

The question of why didn't anyone question the historicity of Jesus reminds me of William Tell. We could ask: If William Tell didn't actually exist, why didn't anyone between 1500 and 1760 question his existence?

arnoldo

However, some people, most notably the Emperor Julian, did question his existence. Julian wrote the following passage in AGAINST THE GALILAEANS.

aa5874

How do you prove that Jesus was NOT the Son of God one hundred years after he supposedly ASCENDED to heaven???

Toto

Julian did not question the existence of Jesus as far as we know.

Please do not repeat this misinformation from Pete.

mountainman

As far as we know Julian's literature (including his letters) exhibits all the signs and evidence of mutilation (See Wright). As far as we know his most important books "Against the Christians" are theoretically in the fire and we are closely examining the books of the most dispicable heresiologist of the 5th century, the Bishop Cyril of Alexandria, who thought it was expedient to set forth (in "Against [the Lies of] Julian") to all of the faithful flock that the lies of Emperor Julian were turning people away from the 5th century church in droves.

It cannot be proven via the evidence therefore that either one or the other of these historical hypotheses is the correct one (they are mutually exclusive and antithetical).

a) Julian did not question the existence of Big J. or
b) Julian did question the existence of Big J.

If you think you can prove a) the floor is yours but you cannot. It is actually misinformation to claim otherwise. What has Carrier been saying about the testing of hypotheses? As far as we know either hypothesis cannot be unambiguously refuted by the available evidence. The Democrats conduct searches and then burn all copies of a Republican manifesto. They then write a refutation of it which we have before us. What did the Republican manifesto really say? Warm up your crystal ball Toto and tell me what you see.



This is not misinformation but a viable historical hypothetical possibility. See above. You're saying please do not repeat or discuss this alternative hypothesis because we are all happily and blissfully running with its antithesis.

I'd like an apology.

Toto

If it is a possibility, it is not a viable possibility. We've had this argument before, and you've had this argument with lots of other people on the web. You've been asked not to keep repeating your "hypotheses" until you can actually bring some new evidence or arguments to the table. But there's nothing.

I'd like an apology from you for wasting my time.

aa5874

"Against the Galileans" is NOT from Pete so please don't say such thing.

"Against the Galileans" is attributed to Julian the Emperor of Rome.

Pete has a right to give his opinion of "Against the Galileans"

I agree with Julian the Emperor the Galilieans were FICTION characters based on other AVAILABLE evidence.

Jesus, the disciples and Paul did NOT exist in the 1st century before c 70 CE.

I don't understand why people cannot have differences in opinion.

"Against the Galileans" I agree with the Emperor, the Jesus story is a MONSTROUS Tale composed by Wickedness. Julian is corroborated by the NT Canon.

mountainman

So now its not misinformation, but a non viable possibility. Thanks. How are you so certain the possibility is nonviable? The argument is very simple. Emperor Julian wrote that Jesus was fabricated in a monstrous tale. This writing drew many people away from the church, so the church burned the "Lies of Julian" and Bishop Cyril wrote "Against Julian" while censoring Julian's major claims. What is not viable about this possility?

I'd like to know precisely why you claim that this possibility is not viable.

Grog

There would be no way to do that. In fact, today the HJ hypothesis is virtuallly unassailable. I can't actually imagine a way to falsify it. The lack of evidence is considered a virtue (Jesus was not known), the rapid progression and diversity proof of its widespread appeal... An unfalsifiable hypothesis is not valid.