Littlejohn

I understand your "disbelief" and your incitement to provide "evidences". Please note that the result that I expect is not so much to see some readers convinced of my truth, but rather the fact of knowing that they have tried to do researches on the basis of my statements and data (though not many) that I by time to time give.

If, as I imagine, you have read some of the messages that I posted, then you will know that I have said many times that for the moment I can not go beyond a certain limit to provide data to prove my statements. But I think that a small exemption can make it.

From the writings of one of the fathers of the church one gets a data absolutely extraordinary. This character, in the controversy that saw him involved with polemic against the Gnostics, and in particular those who had "married" "docetistic" tradition, says that "not only Jesus embodied as a common man, but he "covered" also all ages typical of each being human. He was indeed a child, an adolescent, a young man, a mature man and finally an old man. They are disconcerting allegations that suggests as a sort of mental imbalance!

This same "father" says that Jesus was crucified under Claudio, the prosecutor P. Pilate. Now, it is very probable, if not certain, that Pilate actually had to do with Jesus. It's also likely that the same procurator Pilate, also always in connection at the affair that regarded him and Jesus, did crucify "someone": however it don't regarded neither Jesus nor John of Gamala, the TRUE self-styled Christos (Maschiah) made crucify by the Romans. Most likely this execution took place some time after that Pilate was removed from his post, and therefore under his successor, the procurator Marcellus (*).

Having made in connection the Emperor Claudius with Pilate is anti-historic and I doubt that the person to whom we are referring, might have written such nonsense: very likely, therefore, a late handling of his writings is occurs. (there is evidence even "mathematical", testifying that his manuscripts were altered: of course during the process of copying of his writings).

The interesting thing at this point, is to try to understand what a Claudio this father was referring. The Emperor Caesar Tiberius Claudius came to power around 41-42 and died in 54. To this date Jesus had to have approximately 48 years (he was born in 6 AD). Now, even in those days, a man 48 years aged could be described as a "mature man", but certainly not as an old! It is therefore clear that was not at the Imperatore Tiberius Claudius that "our" character was referring!

After the death of Tiberius Claudius Caesar, ascended the throne imperial Lucius Domitius Ahenobarbus, nephew and son-in-law of Tiberius Claudius Caesar. Going on the throne he added to his "trinomia" registry also the names of Nero Claudius Drusus Germanicus, belonged to characters of the Julio-Claudian dynasty.

So, in practice we have two Caesars, who succeeded one another, who had in their "plurinomia" (more that only one name) the name Claudio. There are patristic testimonies (see Justin Martyr and Eusebius) which prove that the two "Claudius" were confused with one another. From all this it appears that almost certainly the author of the passage above was referring to the second Claudius and NOT the first!

The same author also mentions another disconcerting testimony, according to which Jesus and John were seen together at Ephesus. From its manuscripts is, at present, that this event took place at the time of Trajan, during which the same John died. It is superfluous, I think, to remark the staggering absurdity of things. Once again we are faced with the usual, disconcerting handling of the writings of this father of the church, which NEVER would have written nonsense like this: ie placing the episode at the time of Trajan!

If the above exposed testimony about the "non-crucifixion" of Jesus was the only one to be available, perhaps its impact in the reconstruction of the events that led to the birth of Christianity, it would be rather modest, however when such testimony come accompanied by a number of other indications coming from various sources, then the testimony of this father above mentioned acquires a value extremely important!

________________

Note:

(*) - There is a passage in a work of Petronius, who was governor of Syria-Palestine-Phoenicia in the same time as the mandate of Marcellus, which suggests that things happened in this way.

Littlejohn
.