jakejonesiv

OK, so you say Acts was written at about the time Church History was written. Would this be after 325 CE? Do you trust any ancient writer that considered it first century history?

aa5874

But this is Julian in Against the Galileans.

Julian was claiming that Jesus, his disciples and Paul were wickedly composed of fiction..

jakejonesiv

....

jakejonesiv

I know the source. I supplied the link!

You don't understand your own references. You are cherry picking proof texts in a manner similar to fundamentalists without any regard to context. Julian was claiming that Paul and Jesus were charlatans, not that they did not exist.

Now I will only point out that Moses himself and the prophets who came after him and Jesus the Nazarene, yes and Paul also, who surpassed all the magicians and charlatans of every place and every time,

and a bit later,

But that from the beginning God cared only for the Jews and that He chose them out as his portion, has been clearly asserted not only by Moses and Jesus but by Paul as well; though in Paul's case this is strange. For according to circumstances he keeps changing his views.

Julian, Against the Galileans, Book I.

I have already pointed out to you that Julian believed that Jesus lived over 300 hundred years before, and had cured crooked and blind men, and exorcised those possessed by evil demons. Here is the quote: Here is another point you missed. Julian believed in the historical accuracy of the "Acts of the Apostles."

Now that we have the context, we cam take a fresh look at your "proof" text. "But if you can show me that one of these men is mentioned by the well-known writers of that time,----these events happened in the reign of Tiberius or Claudius,----then you may consider that I speak falsely about all matters. "


This remark is loaded with weasel words "well known" and "at that time" that it can mean anything or nothing. But since Julian had just finished an antisementic tirade " emulate the rages and the bitterness of the Jews" it is unlikely that a Jewish historian (i.e Josephus) would pass his muster even if he had known the TF.

But again, you missed the obvious. According to Julian "these events happened."

Best,
Jake

aa5874

But, you appear not to understand who the authors of the NT claimed Jesus was. The authors of the NT claimed Jesus was a God born of a virgin. Julian's claim was that no such God born of a virgin called Jesus did exist.

Jesus of the NT is fiction.

This is Julian trying to establish that the God called Jesus was fiction and thereby, the disciples and Paul would become fiction

Against the Galileans If Julian did believe Jesus existed as described by the authors of the NT then why did he write the following?

"Against the Galileans" And if Julian did believe Jesus and Paul existed as stated by the authors of the NT why did he claim that no well-known authors mentioned them?


"Against the Galileans"
Read the passage carefully. "Known by name" in no way confirms existence of Jesus.

And at the end of the very passage, Julian claimed no well-known writer accounted for Paul and Jesus.

"Against the Galileans"
The events happened? Well, Julian now demands to be shown the names of Paul and Jesus.

Any event during Tiberius and Claudius happened WITHOUT Jesus and Paul.

You missed the most critical point.

The stories about Jesus and Paul are monstrous lies. Look at what Julian will establish once more.

Against the Galileans

According to Julian, the Galileans were fabricated by fiction.

Do you understand what "fabricated by fiction" means?

Against the Galileans]
According to Julian, the Galileans are a monstrous tale.

Do you understand what "monstrous tale" means?

Julian would give the reasons in "Against the Galileans".

The claim that Julian believed the story of the Galileans is simply untenable.

jakejonesiv

Hi AA,

Do you have a reading disorder?

Julian doesn't say that "the Galileans were fabricated by fiction." Instead he says, "the fabrication of the Galileans is a fiction."

Julian doesn't say that Jesus and Paul didn't exist. Rather, he says quite plainly that they did. In fact he remarks about Jesus "during his lifetime."

Is that how you are trying to wiggle out it, that Julian didn't believe that Jesus was a god? Sorry AA, but that is so weak. We already knew that Julian wasn't a Christian at the time he wrote this.

It certainly doesn't follow that for Julian that Jesus, Paul, and the disciples became fiction. Rather, Julian is arguing that they were liars.

aa5874

Well tell me the difference between "the Gallileans were fabricated by fiction" and "the fabrications of the Galileans is a fiction" when Julian could not find Paul and Jesus featured in any events at that time.

Well show me where any well-known write of that time wrote about Jesus and Paul.

If Julian was arguing that Jesus and Paul were liars then he certainly did NOT believe their stories as you are trying to claim he did. Your own argument has been destroyed.

Once you admit that Julian believed Paul and Jesus were liars and that no well-known writer mentioned them, then Julian doubts the existence of Jesus and Paul.

So ,if Jesus was the one who lied about his own virgin birth, his own miracles, his own transfiguration, his own resurrection, and ascencion.

If it was the disciples that lied about their own activities and those of the liar Jesus.

And if it was Paul who lied about the revelations from the resurrected and ascended Jesus and lied about his missionary work.

Then all these Galileans were all liars. The Galileans then just lied about their own existence.

Now, if the Liars really did exist, show me a well-known writer of that time who wrote about the LIARS the Galileans, Paul and Jesus.

Your argument has been destroyed. Julian, according to you, claimed Paul and Jesus were liars. Julian could NOT have believed the story of the Galileans and he wanted corroboration of their existence.

Please show me that the liars, Paul and Jesus, existed at that time. These events happened in the time of Tiberius and Claudius.

jakejonesiv

You said it nuff nuff

Best,
Jake Jones IV

aa5874

As I have shown already you have destroyed your own argument by claiming that Julian believed in the historical accuracy of Acts but still believe Jesus and Paul were liars.

Such contradictions are untenable.





Now tell me what falsehoods about Paul and Jesus that were considered historically accurate in Acts of the Apostles or the entire writings of the Church by Julian?


Once you admit that Julian argued that Jesus was a liar, then it is most obvious that Julian did not believe the words of Jesus were historically accurate.

Once you admit that Julian argued that Paul was a liar, then it is obvious that Julian did not believe the words of Paul were historically accurate.

And once Julian claimed that no well-known writer wrote about Jesus and Paul, then Paul and Jesus are denied historicity.

In effect all there is in the NT are a pack of lies by unknown characters.

mountainman

Before writing this Emperor Julian had already legislated that the
"Christians" were to be named "Galilaeans", therefore when Julian
writes "the fabrication of the Galilaeans is a fiction" what he is really
saying according to his own law, is that "the fabrication of the Christians
is a fiction".

The name "Galilaeans" was used in a novel sense by Julian.

No author had used this term in reference to Christians before Julian.
W.Wright is in error when he claims Epictetus used this term for "Christians".
All prior usage of the term "Galilaeans" follows Jospehus.

Josephus does not use the term "Galilaeans" for Christians.
In Josephus the "Galilaeans" are the lawless robbers and gangsters,
rebels who hung out in the bad-lands and refused to pay tax to the
new Roman tax regime.

JULIAN first uses "Galilaeans" for "Christians" in a perjoritive sense.
The term was forged via SATIRE - Hebrew Rebels against Hellenism.

The botton line is that Julian was convinced that the fabrication
of the Christians was a fiction of men composed by wickedness.