arnoldo

The Emperor Julian certainly thought that a HJ was a lie.

Either the gospels are true or they are false, it's really not that complicated.

Toto

Julian thought that there was a historical Jesus, a mere Galilean schmuck, and that the resurrection and other parts of the gospels were fabrication. Please stop misrepresenting the evidence.

mountainman

How do you really know the exact mechanism by which the evidence is to be categorically represented Toto? The evidence suggests that the orthodox christian bishops burnt the writings of emperor Julian and censored them by written refutations.

Julian's views are reconstructed out of the Thug Bishop Cyril's polemical refutation. We do not know exactly what Julian's views were. We do know that the Thug Bishop Cyril stated the following ....

"but none as went far as Julian,
who damaged the prestige of the Empire
by refusing to recognize Christ,
dispenser of royalty and power.

What does this mean?
Julian refused to recognise Christ.
Julian refused to recognise Jesus.
Julian refused to recognise any historical Jesus.
Julian was brought up "in the bosom of Arianism"?
What did Arius have to say about the "historical Jesus"?
Arius's opinions on the HJ were highly contraversial.
Constantine pronounced "damnatio memoriae" on Arius' opinions.
Arius became the most famous heretic in the entire realm of Christendom.

[Julian] composed three books against the holy gospels
and against the very pure Christian religion,
he used them to shake many spirits
and to cause them uncommon wrongs.

Clearly the Thug Bishop orthodox Christian Cyril is misrepresenting the original writings of Julian. You are not in position of infallibility Toto. You dont know one way or the other. The "orthodox mainstream" presentation of the evidence is that we need to believe the Doctor of the Church, the great "Seal of the Fathers" - that very influential and Thug terrorist bishop Cyril, nephew of the terrible despot Theophilus. This presentation has obviously got something terribly wrong with it --- and is emminently questionable. What's your agenda? To maintain orthodox dogma by an appeal to the authority of Cyril?

mountainman

Do I have to remind anyone here that the publisher of the bible is quite capable of purposefully misleading the audience. What did the publisher have to gain? Anyone want to answer this question?

aa5874

But you may be mis-representing the evidence.

How can Julian believe Jesus was a man when Julian himself questioned the historicity of Jesus?

Please look at the evidence. I have shown you it already.

"Against the Galileans" under the name of Julian See http://www.ccel.org/ccel/pearse/more...ans_1_text.htm

It is very clear that Julian acknowledged it was propagated that Jesus was the offspring of the Holy Ghost, a non-historical entity. This Holy Ghost character could not be from Judah.

Toto

From the link above, "Against the Galileans"

Check other references to Jesus - all assume he existed.

aa5874

But Julian has already asked the question? "How could Jesus be from Judah if he was NOTborn of Joseph but of the Holy Ghost"?

Now, how could Jesus be Caesar's subject if he was not born of Joseph but of the Holy Ghost?

Julian thought the Galileans were fabricated by fiction.

If Jesus was not born of Joseph but of the Holy Ghost how could Jesus not be a fabrication of the fiction of wicked men?

Only unless the evidence is mis-represented.

How could Jesus be human and on earth? He was born of the Holy Ghost. That is exactly what Julian thought. Jesus must be fiction.

mountainman

Toto, do you understand that the citation of any and all references to Julian's opinions within "Against the Christians" are in fact citations to the refutation of Julian by the bishop Cyril of Alexandria?

The assumption that "Julian assumed Jesus exists" is based on Cyril. Please cease misrepresenting the evidence. What you might like to assert is this:

Bishop Cyril of Alexandria asserts the following was written by Julian ...."

You can claim nothing further than this.

Toto

Then you have no basis for claiming anything at all about what Julian wrote.

There is no evidence that Julian thought that Jesus was anyone other than mere human. Being a mere human was quite enough to embarrass Christianity in those days.

Toto

Because Mary was Caesar's subject. Besides, Julian does not believe that Jesus was born of the Holy Spirit. He just claims that Christians believed this, therefore Jesus was not the Jewish Messiah.

Julian did not think that Galilea was an imaginary place. He thought that the Galileans told lies.