jakejonesiv

Julian had been a Christian for twenty years of his life. I don't think that anything Julian wrote about Jesus had the least bit of historical credibility. I don't think that Constantine met Jesus or claimed to meet Jesus in the manner described or that Jesus made any such speech. Have you forgotten, Jesus didn't exist? I don't think the speech attributed to Jesus was taken from any traditional sayings of Jesus; Julian made it up. Or did he? how can you be sure which words attributed to Julian are authentic?

Do you really believe Julian said "You have won, Galilean!" at the time of his death? (Theodoret, Historia Ecclesiastica, 3.25) :banghead:

jakejonesiv

HI AA,

It is more than a possibilty.

Annals 15:44 fails on so many levels that it is unwise to place any historical credence in it. There are far too many questions surrounding it. Has anyone yet answered my question. In what year is the first attestation to the current text of Annals 15:44 in Tacitus? If it had legitimately passed through all of these notable personages (Pope (Blessed) Victor III et.al.) for thousands of years, it is an anomolous silence that demands an explanation.

Sulpicius Severus does not attest to Tacitus. He does not credit him as the source, and it is not a quote. There may be indeed a dependancy here, but in the other direction. Here is the smoking gun, the reference to Christ does not appear in Sulpicius Severus! It could have been addded by (or at the behest of) proto-pope Victor III transplanting Severus into Tacitus. Thus the mention of Christ, is the least secure part of the already dubious passage.

But the funny business with this text does not end with Pope Victor III. If it was indeed written at Monte Cassino, no one can say how it was taken away. It has been theorized that it was stolen by Boccaccio in 1371, and upon his death left it to a monstary in Florence. The elusive document was then "stolen" again and turns up in the hands of Niccolo Niccoli, who allegedly sends it to Poggio Bracciolini for inspection Bracciolini, then gave a document back to Niccolo, who subsequently died in 1437, and the document passed to the Medici's. Every single mention of Tacitus Annal 15:44 derives from this one document of questionable provenance.

This is a real life plot more convoluted than the Da Vinci Ccode.

Thus, the second most important "historical witness" to Jesus (the first being the TF) emerged form a convoluted web of Catholic Popes, shady characters, and alleged master forgers. The chain of possession is broken several times.

How do you explain the fact that Tacitus Annals 15.44 is unattested before the 15th century?

Best,
Jake Jones IV

aa5874

I have already written that it would appear to me, based on the passage that you presented, that Julian wrote metaphorically. It must be obvious that "Pleasure and Incontinence" were not expected to be taken literally.

And in Against the Galilleans the writer called Julian appear to have gotten his information about Jesus, the disciples and Paul from books he mentioned, such as, Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Acts of the Apostles and Pauline Epistles.

Well, just tell me what Julian said at his death.

mountainman

So the continuators of Eusebius falsely assert, but in actual fact he was detained for many years of his life as a political prisoner, under political house arrest by Constantine's son Constantius, who had taken the liberty of executing Julian's father when the Boss went to the Underworld c.337 CE. Rumor has it that Constantine was poisoned by his brothers on account of his savage execution of his son Crispus c.325 CE. Lovely bunch of fourth century christians - the one's who fought to be at the top. Great publishers of really Good News and great preservers of business opportunities.

Very late.

jakejonesiv

Will you agree that the words attributed to Jesus in the same passage are metaphorical also? How can the words be literal when everything else is metaphorical????? :huh::constern02:

jakejonesiv

According to Theodoret, Historia Ecclesiastica, 3.25 Julian said, "You have won, Galilean!" I don't believe it. I think it is Christian propoganda.

Theodoret, was author of Haereticarum fabularum compendium. In II.7.3 he makes a very revealing statement that according to the very ancient heretics the Elkessians, that Jesus (by name; not "Christ") is a spirit. We often see that Christ is a spirit, but seldom is admitted that Jesus was a spirit also.

aa5874

Still, you have not told me what Julian said at his death.

Anyhow, your belief that Theodoret presented propaganda augments my view that Church writers manipulated the writings or words of dead people even in the 5th century.

jakejonesiv

Yes, it does.

aa5874

You must then realise that it is very likely that after some Church writers had manipulated the writings or words of dead people, their own writings were later forged by the Church when they ALSO had died.

It was the Roman Church that absolutely needed to establish their origin in the 1st century and that there were churches of Paul and bishops, the first being Peter, all over the Roman Empire.

Neither Justin Martyr writings or Origen's "Against Celsus" support the Roman Church history.

So, it can now be taken into consideration that all writers that claimed there were churches of Paul in the 1st century and/or that Peter was a bishop before the death of Nero had their writings manipulated by the Church either wholly or in part from Ignatius to Eusebius and beyond.

The Roman Church manipulated the words of their Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ after he was dead.

IamJoseph

Tiberius was a contemporary of Josephus. He was the Roman prefect of Egypt, and accompanied Titus in the war with the Jews in 70 CE, and Josephus was the appointed scribe at this time.