Talk:Caesarion

Ancestory Wrong

It has Cleopatra II which should be Cleopatra III in every case. This is correct and inline with other wiki pages--27.33.104.200 (talk) 11:10, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Cleopatra's Death

Okay. This page says:

Cleopatra followed his example by committing suicide on August 12, 30 BC.

Now if we actually go to Cleopatra's page we see this date instead:

A few days later, on November 30, Cleopatra also died by snakebite.

So which one is right? Obviously someone has not checked their facts. I'm tempted to remove both until a date is actually known. If it is questionable, that is to say, if there is still an ongoing debate of the date, then it should state so clearly in both articles. Thoughts? If no one responds, then I'll remove them in a few days. MagnoliaSouth ^(talk) 03:04, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Well todays research indicates that Octavian could of captured Cleopatra and wanted to take her to the triumvir, but she wanted to kill herself, and succeed before she was taken to Rome. But more common theory is that Anthony heard Cleo had killed herself while she was not, and Anthony killed himself, and later Cleo followed. Most common is the theory that Cleo killed herself and when Anthony heard the news, he killed himself. Go figure.

Then there is the more mythical theory: both Anthony nor Cleopatra did not die, they faked their death, or Octavian and his troops did not find them so they told other "yes yes they are dead", but actually Anthony and Cleopatra escaped to India also, stayed there with Caesarion, and some years later came back to Syria/Palestine with new identities Josef and Mary with their son Jesus. They moved to live with the Essene community.

A lot of famous historical people actually have faked their death. Like roman emperor Nero. —Preceding unsigned comment added by WillBildUnion (talk • contribs) 01:55, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

That comment is over three years old, the issue has long since been taken care of. Ian.thomson (talk) 02:47, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Anglicised Names

Does anyone think the standard Anglicised names Octavian and Antony shound be used over the Latin "Gaius Julius Caesar Octavianus" and "Marcus Antonius?"

Does it really matter in the Eternal scheme of things? Tomtom9041

Actually, yeah, in answer to the original question, I definitely think we should use the anglicised names; those are their names in the English language, which is what we're writing in. The layman refers to them by their anglicised names; the scholar refers to them (in an overwhelming majority) by their anglicised names. So if we insist on using the Latin nomenclature, not only are we actively working against our own purpose here (by needlessly confusing our readership by using names other than the ones they will instantly associate with the individuals in question) but we also come off looking like amateurish intellectual snobs trying to act better than we are, and our only justification for doing so is snide, irrelevant commentary about "the Eternal scheme of things".

Bearing in mind the original question (which seems to me to be in favour of anglicising the names) was asked in July, and that in the time since then it's gained one response which essentially says "I don't care" and (now) one in favour, that seems like consensus to me. This seems like a valid issue, since it strikes at the idea of just how accessible our work on the history of this time period is going to be to the layman reader, so maybe next week while I'm on holiday I'll start a discussion about it at the talkpage for Mark Antony or Pompey the Great.Binabik80 15:23, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Who was his father?

Is it true that Julius Caesar never recognized him as a son? In this case, which is the source that reports his father to be Caesar? --Panairjdde 16:40, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

Well it depends what you mean by "acknowledged"; Suetonius tells us that he "allowed a son born of their union to bear his name", which sounds tantamount to an acknowledgement to me. As E.E. Rice puts it, the use of Caesar as his name is probably a pretty sure indication that Caesar at least believed Caesarion to be his. Certainly the majority of ancient sources seem to take it for granted that he was Caesar's son. Octavian, of course, insisted he wasn't, but his vested interest in the matter is self-evident (as is Mark Antony's when he claimed to the Senate that Caesar had acknowledged the child); most of the claims disputing Caesar's paternity—just like all the other claims about Cleopatra's sexual wantonness—seem to come from writers under Octavian's influence, or subsequent writers who use them as sources. Though the OCD rightly points out that "the facts are beyond recovery", we would really need evidence to give weight to any claim that Caesar wasn't Caesarion's father; in the absence of such evidence, we have to assume that he was. Binabik80 00:22, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

Under Roman law, a father had to recognize a son, to get him/her in the family; in this case, the son should have been named Gaius Julius Caesar, not Ptolemy Philopator Philometor Caesar. In [1] there's a throughtful examination of the matter, and, without copying the article, I think we should say that the matter is dubious. Furthermore, the possibility that Caesarion was not legally Caesar's son changes the prospective of Octavian acts.--Panairjdde 09:11, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

Several points:

1. Once Caesar achieved his dictatorship, questions of what he "had" to do under Roman law become irrelevant, as Roman law was superceded from that point on—first by Caesar, then by the triumvirs, then by Augustus. If any of these had decided to treat Caesarion as Caesar's son and heir, he would have been accepted as such, regardless of whether Caesar ever issued a formal acknowledgement, in his will or otherwise; not least because Caesar's biological paternity went largely unquestioned except by sources dependent upon Octavian.
2. Similarly, the name Roman custom would expect of Caesar's son is irrelevant when we're dealing with the god-king of the richest and second-most-powerful kingdom of the Mediterranean, especially since the normal rule of Roman law has already been suspended by the fact of Caesar's rise to power. That the king of Egypt had an appropriate name for a king of Egypt shouldn't seem surprising. No one ever made the argument that he wasn't Caesar's heir because he didn't have a Roman name or because he wasn't a citizen, because
3. Caesarion didn't need to care about Roman citizenship; he claimed the right to rule Rome, not the right to trial by jury. Caesar had placed himself "above" Roman law, similar to a monarch; the triumvirs achieved the same status for themselves. Establishing Caesarion as Caesar's biological son and rightful heir would similarly place him "above" the law, so the rights and protections of citizenship would be irrelevant to him. This was not the Republic of Cincinnatus or Cato the Elder.
4. The question of Caesarion's paternity has always—both in ancient times and today—revolved around biology, not the law. It's taken as too obvious to need stating that if Caesarion is Caesar's biological son, then he's Caesar's most valid political heir, regardless of his legal standing.

The website you point to comes pretty emphatically to the conclusion that Caesar was Caesarion's father, including the statement, "I see no reason to doubt Caesar's paternity." It also contains no reference to the question of Caesarion's legal status under Roman law; the author takes it as given that Caesar's biological paternity is what would establish Caesarion as his heir.

I would not object to the insertion of a statement that some ancient and modern writers have doubted Caesar's paternity, and that true certainty is impossible to ascertain. I would object to any statement or implication that we do not have a strong (overwhelming, really) preponderance of evidence that Caesar was in fact Caesarion's father.

Binabik80 03:29, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

I think we agree that it is higly possible that Caesar was his biological father. But I want to stress that none of your points goes against the fact that Caesarion was not recognized by Caesar as his son in front of Roman law; this means that Caesarion had no rights, even if Caesar had a lot of power: remember that Caesar actually adopted Octavian to make him his heir, because Caesar was a Roman, and believed in the Roman view of family. If Caesar had a rightful son, with rights under the Roman law, why did he need to adopt Octavian for? Under this point of view, Octavian action was almost rightful, from the ancient times point of view, since possible Caesarion claims on Rome were those of a stranger.--Panairjdde 07:44, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

Except that Marc Antony had claimed that Octavian's adoption was forged. I'm not saying Antony is right (because Antony clearly has vested interest in slandering Octavian) or that Octavian is right (because Octavian clearly has vested interest in slandering Cleopatra/Caesarion), I'm simply stating that matters are complex with the he-said-she-said complexities of a power vacuum from which any one of several key persons could have potentially won (and written History in their own favor). What exactly was Julius Caesar's intention is not known and short of a time-machine the evidence we have access to is conflicting with Antony saying one thing and Octavian saying another -- 64.119.91.129 02:27, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Except that no one, including Octavian, ever tried to make the argument that Caesarion wasn't a valid heir because he had no Roman legal standing. Octavian was a smart guy & a masterful politician; if that argument had been there to be made, he would have made it. Note also that Caesar adopted Octavian as his personal heir, not political—he left Octavian his private propety, not his rank.

The Romans of the period had pretty much no concept of political heirs; it was something they had to make up as they went along as it slowly dawned on them how completely the old order had been destroyed. In the tumult of the late 40s and 30s BC, a natural son of Caesar seemed to everyone—including Octavian, or we wouldn't have been so concerned with casting aspersions on Caesarion's paternity—to have at least as much right to claim to be Caesar's political heir as his principal lieutenant (Antony) or the undistinguished distant relative to whom he left his fortune (Octavian). Binabik80 14:38, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

One point not considered here is the ability of Caesar to father a child at all. I think the evidence is in a preponderance towards the negative. He had one child and, according to sources, bedded every woman in Rome and beyond resulting in not a single pregnancy. I think it is highly unlikely he is the father of the child. Nevertheless nothing can be proved. I woudn't mind removing the "highly likely" and replacing it with "questionably". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tomlib (talk • contribs) 15:09, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Addendum: It's just occured to me that I'm pretty sure Caesarion could never have been a Roman citizen anyway under the letter of Roman law, as (though I can't find anything at hand about the specifics of the situation in 47/44 BC), generally speaking, only the children of a citizen father and a citizen or conubium-holding mother could inherit citizenship. So if anyone thought Caesarion would need a claim of citizenship to make a valid heir, there wouldn't have been any debate in the first place (or there would have been a movement in the Senate to pass a law granting him citizenship).

I notice the article currently has no mention whatsoever of the legal question. I have no objection to the insertion of a remark that it's doubtful Caesar ever acknowledged him as his son, though noting that Antony informed the Senate that he did. Binabik80 14:49, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

I don't get the question. Of course Caesar recognized him as his son, He commissioned the statue of Cleopatra as the Venus Genetrix with a small Caesarion on her shoulder! The action had such political ramifications (if you know roman history/mythos the implication in the statue is Caesar(ion) is the rightful king of rome) that Caesar was murdered. Curiously, the scene of the Ides of March, the celebratory entrance of Caesar, the cunning of those with daggers, and Cleopatra escaping rome and finding refuge in the Nile delta; Is literally the Osirian drama. Set throws a party for Osiris, murders him (and eventually cuts him to pieces), Aset flees with Heru to the "swamps"(delta). Additionally if you read Caesar's eulogy to his sister Julia, you will understand this from his perspective. On Caesar(ion) both history and myth collide. MBJ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.46.234.83 (talk) 01:25, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Caesarion's Name

As I'm not entirely sure why it's there (the mistake is so glaring that it has me completely confused), I will turn to the author(s) to explain why the Greek version of Caesarion's name as listed near the top of the page says Cleopatra (the transliteration of Κλεοπατρα). Was he named for his mother or was there some matronymic feature common amongst the Ptolemies which was not used otherwise in Greek naming conventions? If this is simply a mistake, I believe that it should be changed to Καισαριον (the proper transliteration of Caesarion). --KraDakar 01:29, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Did Caesarion avoid execution?

How come I can find no mention of the relevancy of this video? http://youtube.com/watch?v=rWs5OUxYzUs —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.94.193.157 (talk) 19:54, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Looking into the sources like The Parallel Lives by Plutarch which discusses the the life of Mark Antony reveals that Caesarion "was sent by his mother, with much treasure, into India, by way of Ethiopia". He is said to have then returned, by foolishness or be being deceived, and is killed. What if he escaped, learnt the teachings of the Buddha, changed his name to Jesus, and returned to rule over Rome with an entirely new Holy Roman Empire?<anon IP>

that's a very ridiculous crazy notion - let's not use idle, unfounded (and insulting) speculation

Selene had one son Ptolemy, and Ptolemy had at least one daugther, Drusilla, before he was murdered by caligula. But Drusilla, and the remainder of the First Family were "absorbed" into the Jewish ruling families. ( Not J.Caesar's direct line, but Cleopatra's and Mark Antony)--mj —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.235.226.214 (talk) 20:30, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Ptolemaic system

There is no possible relevance of Ptolemaic system, or any part of it, to this article. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:45, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes there is, because the "see also" section has many uses, the purpose like in this case vary, but for example, they were relatives, both from Ptolemaic dynasty. For you to remove the link you need to explain what is "see also", it certainly have no rules like what you try to apply.WillBildUnion (talk) 17:11, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

You have a link to Ptolemaic dynasty; Ptolemaic system adds nothing. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:31, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Well in the dynasty page it does not talk any other than the kings and queens, not for example Ptolemy the astronomer and mathematician. Nobody else than you have a problem with the link. Why is that?WillBildUnion (talk) 17:37, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Do you have any evidence that Ptolemy the astronomer was part of the Ptolemaic dynasty? If not, linking to the Ptolemaic system because of the Ptolemaic dynasty is like putting Will Smith in the see also section of the Joseph Smith, Jr. article. Ian.thomson (talk) 17:43, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Exactly! The pseudo-scientist "Ptolemy" is not related to the Macedonian ruling family that assumed control over Egypt following the death of Alexander III.50.111.22.224 (talk) 00:14, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

Son of (a) god

Even the sources provided by the SPA didn't say "son of god", they said he was declared a god, and the son of a god. (The same applies to Augustus, but that article was not subject to SPA attacks.) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 09:53, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

He was deified at the donations, but also in time of his birth. His egyptians names were:

* "Heir of the God who saves" -----> son of god

* "Chosen of Ptah" -------> chosen by the savior god

* "Living Image of Amun" ---------> living god of the god amun

WillBildUnion (talk) 01:44, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Why did you change my original translation from when this subsection was created?

Iwa pa NTR nti nhm stp n Pth ir Maat Ra skhem ankh Amen Is HIS NAME.

Heir of That God who saves, Chosen of the Father, The Sun of Righteousness, The Living Power of the Hidden God is it's translation.

Hunu nfr bnr mrut Ka nkht jakhu sktet ra iah ptlwmis Djd twnf kjsrs ankh ddt mrj Pth-Ast

ankh udja senb (I hate that the rest was deleted as well, but I guess fire burns, even digitally) MBJ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.237.113.168 (talk) 02:16, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

More over Looking at the date you did it is wickedness -- you people are Sun worshipers -- idolatrous hypocrits who hate truth! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.237.113.168 (talk) 02:21, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Relevance

Even if he was declared "king of kings", we would need some evidence that it wasn't common at the time for emperors to be so declared, for it to be notable. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 09:53, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

According to Reinhold it was very unusual in the context of Roman client-kingship, if precedented in hellenistic culture. Paul B (talk) 23:29, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

He was. DO your research. ANd read also other than Augustus autobiography.WillBildUnion (talk) 01:41, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

life - death?

On the header it says: For eighteen days, up to August, 30 BC he was sole pharaoh, when he was killed on orders of Octavian.

But it's also mentioned that he fled to India and was pursued to come back. Well, you don't rule Egypt for eighteen days, fled to India, and on the eighteenth day had come back and face death by Octavian's men.

This does not add up, and so does not many other in the article. And, Clepatra had for sure forbid him to come back by any means.

I would say the latest edits to this article are poorly made. And the sources are only 4, 3 new.

Yes, I could also write Roman history during Reign of Augustus by out of Augustus autobiography (that he did), but there are other sources as well. If contradictory, all the information should be put forth. It's unencyclopediac to state in the header he was killed by Octavian when clearly that is not the case.WillBildUnion (talk) 01:39, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

It says there were possible plans of escape to India, and only that Plutarch says that he made it. Doesn't mean Plutarch is right. Ian.thomson (talk) 02:57, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

None of the sources are from "Augustus' autobiography", which does not exist. Even Plutrach is ambiguous, since when he says "there" he may mean Ethiopia (which does not mean the modern state of Ethiopia, but is a generic term for Africa south and east of Egypt). All of the sources say he was killed by Octavian. None say he wasn't. And we have no idea what Cleopatra "for sure" forbid him to do. BTW, on the title "king of kings", Plutarch says that this title was not unique to Caesarion: "he [Antony] declared Cleopatra Queen of Egypt, Cyprus, Libya, and Coele Syria, and she was to share her throne with Caesarion. Caesarion was believed to be a son of the former Caesar, by whom Cleopatra was left pregnant. In the second place, he proclaimed his own sons by Cleopatra Kings of Kings." Paul B (talk) 07:49, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

No sir. Caesar did not leave Cleopatra pregnant. Cleopatra and Caesar(ion) were living in Rome on the ides of March! mbj —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.237.113.168 (talk) 02:19, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

The phrase "left pregnant" is a quotation from Plutarch, genius. Try to read more carefully. It does not mean he abandoned her while she was pregnant! Paul B (talk) 10:09, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Paul this is language and semantics, what is the conotation of "left pregnant"? Then kind sir, why do I need to read, more clearly, words that have clear definitions. Plutarch had motivation to denigrate the Imperial family so the words he chose were to imply that Caesar left Cleopatra pregnant. Also your arguments about Cleopatra "sharing" the throne with Caesar are false conjecture. At Dendera, Cleopatra is depicted standing behind Caesar -- this suggest that Caesar was fully Pharoah, Nsut Bti, Stn Stniu. As this is the only surviving depiction of them (Caesar as an adult), and it was created by them , it is much more credible than any of the opinions you have to offer. I guess I am a radical -- the man's name was not "caesarion" that is a name roman authors used. The heiroglyphs of his name is more like "K-I-S-R-Z" poissibly "Caesaros" (as he is hellinic). Regardless it is clearly not Caesarion. And IMHO, to stick him with the name his murderers gave him is just wrong. Maybe you can help me with one thing though, why is it roman sympathizers applaud octavian for being appointed to the Triumvirate at 17 -- but think Caesar(ion) was too young to be Pharoah? MBJ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.244.219.46 (talk) 23:09, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't know who these Romans who said he was too young may be. Never heard of any. For the rest, 'my arguments' are simply quotations from Plutarch, who you are either misinterpreting or choosing to disregard. Of course he wasn't writing in English, phrases like 'left pregnant' are just idioms of the translator. Paul B (talk) 09:06, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Those Roman sympathizers would be Plutarch, Josephus, and those who quote them. Caesar was crowned King at Coptos on July 19 when he was 2! Then he shared his throne with Cleopatra. The coronation ("donations") was orchestrated for Caesar to 'come into his own'. 'Too young' refers to the prevailing opinion that Caesar was too young to be Pharoah and therefore shared his throne with his mother. The existing record does not support that conclusion.MBJ 69.244.219.99 (talk) 22:48, 1 September 2010 (UTC) IF I recall correctly those classic authors write his name as "Caesariana"; the -a is distinctly feminine (in latin). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.244.219.46 (talk) 10:30, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Some Clarifications

Fauxchoux is a totally fictitious character. The sarcophagus of Alexander the Great has never been found. Caesarion probably never had a sarcophagus, as far as we know. The correct spelling is "Pharaoh", not "Pharoah" (sic). Das Baz, aka Erudil 18:40, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Fauxchoux is mentioned in a section on fiction and the article never spells the word "Pharoah". Paul B (talk) 19:41, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

This historic record is Alexanders' coffin was melted to satisfy a debt to rome -- I can't recall which Ptolemy did it, it may have been Aleutis. Why would you assume Caesar(ion) did not have a sarcophagus? He would have still received the burial of a Pharaoh. Tutankhaten also died relatively young and was replaced by a different dynasty but still received a 'proper' burial. Although i agree octavian would have likely opposed it. MBJ75.90.63.234 (talk) 12:53, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

NO Ptolemy did it, as it was still around in the time of Caracalla, who desecrated it to get a sword and/or shield.50.111.22.224 (talk) 00:17, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

References in popular media

Caesarion is also the title of the Dutch book: Caesarion written by Tommy Wieringa. This is a work on fiction with some references to the life of Caesarion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.120.42.212 (talk) 09:29, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Christ

Will wikipedia not allow discussion of Caesar(ion) as Christ. Topic removed several times. [text redacted here, see my comments below in response] MBJ 68.46.234.114 (talk) 11:24, 1 April 2011 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.46.234.114 (talk) 11:14, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

This is not a forum for you to present your views. If you have reliable sources - see WP:RS that suggest this, then you can suggest them here, but what you can't do is just argue your views. Dougweller (talk) 05:48, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

so does this require that a previous source called him the son of god? It is inscribed on the walls of the Temple of Mentu at erment(also an early christian chruch). Is that not a valid reference? I have previously posted specific references. But are you saying that what is needed is for a western writer to have written something in support of this idea? I have posted references to articles in the Journal of Roman Studies by W.W. Tarn and Miklejohn -- however they too were removed. Ironically without access to the articles (as most don't have access to the archives of the various journals) how would anyone know the contents of the article? I also posted a paragraph from the abstract, to give a reader an idea of the discussion of the article, that too was also removed.on the one hand you say i must present sources, on the other you will not allow them to be presented. Do i need a reference for our calender year? no everyone knows the names of the months, do I need a reference for the reason they are named -- that is common knowledge, everyone knows July is for Julius and August for octavian. The ONLY thing I did was connect the dots, so you are saying that someone must have had the idea before and someone else must have published it? That June-July-August, is equivalent to Juno Julius and Augustus is clearly obvious, regardless of weather or not the fact is published. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.46.234.56 (talk) 10:48, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

O.K. I'll be even more simple -- his name is Ir Maat Ra -- the "Sun of Righteousness" is the old testament name for christ. His name is a specific reference to him as the Judeo-Christian Messiah. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.46.234.56 (talk) 11:12, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

So this "discussion" page is for "citations"? or is the discussion of the topic of the article? I have posted references -- the issue is the topic. The page you linked to is not appropriate. The Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources page begins with the sentence "Wikipedia articles should be based.." and the policy of verifiability says it is strictly applied to main page materials and Living personalities. Is this the discussion page, and not the "main page"? I do not consider this page the "article" but a page of discussion about the "article". As a wiki user, when I want to know if there is any 'out of the mainstream" discussion of a subject of interest I look on the discussion pages of the articles to "hear what people are saying in the 'back alleys'. I know it is discussion and not the encyclopedia article. The user who selects the discussion tab is seeking supplementary information. Now you did not request any specific reference for any specific claim -- you removed the text in its entirety. Moreover you used the premise the text did not meet the wiki standards for MAIN PAGE ARTICLE CONTENT. Have I edited the main page? The issue is the topic, most of the 'facts', as they are, are well known -- this discussion is over the interpretation of accepted facts. It is no argument that he was King of Kings, or even that he was Son of "a" God. The issue is the judeo-christian nature of his King of King Son of Godness. I use accepted facts to demonstrate that the history and religion support the claim. I make note of the "gentiles" Philadelphus, Philopater, and Philometor. The three are very intimately connected to Judeo-Christian history through the Septuagint and the Maccabees. It is most peculiar that Caesar(and his brother) is named after them. It is very significant that Philometor built a Temple in egypt that provided refuge to hebrews, was staffed by levite priest, functioned according to the law, and received YHVHs sacrifice(tel-el yahudiya). These are facts that are not in dispute. The parable of the tribute penny is known. Octavian's divi filius coin with the big star looking comet is known; it was in circulation. Again all accepted facts. Incidentally the term "hypocrite" is quite specific and can only be true in limited circumstances that are only amplified when Caesar is considered. Your issue is the topic, I have only discussed facts related to the subject of the article. 68.46.234.56 (talk) 14:24, 1 May 2011 (UTC)MBJ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.46.234.56 (talk) 11:18, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Sun of righteousness??? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:27, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Right, look at the art work, almost every depiction of "mother and child" shows mary in blue or purple (the colors of the sky) with the divine son(sun) gold rays and all. Yes Sun of Righteousness. With the liberal use of sun symbolism & motifs in christian churches it is certainly the Sun of Righteousness. I'll stop because the i'm beginning to learn that esoteric, is esoteric. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.46.234.83 (talk • contribs)

This page is not for discussion of the topic/subject but of the article. When you say " The user who selects the discussion tab is seeking supplementary information." you obviously misunderstand the purpose of this page. You also misunderstand our verification policy, which clearly says "This policy applies to all material in the mainspace—articles, lists, sections of articles, and captions—without exception," - ALL articles including this one. What you are suggesting is what we call 'original research, see WP:OR We've been over all this with you before eg [2]. Please stop. Dougweller (talk) 15:35, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

o.k. well then should not the main page include a section that acknowledges that some people believe that he is Christ? Both Ben Padera and Haile Selassie are given such recognition.(oh and Tarn's article does demonstrate the connection with the Jewish Messiah) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.46.234.56 (talk) 20:00, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Something smelled a bit fishy about this argument, that this character was a possible candidate as Jesus, so I went over the WP article on this and found a potential seed for a theory like this. It turns out that it was argued in the 19th century and then reinforced by Fascist theologian's that Jesus was Aryan due to a certain distaste for Jews. Without getting opinion's that immediately spring to my mind involved in this argument it sounds like the logical place for the mention of a theory like this when it comes to Caesarion would be a separate article on 'alternative' theories on the origin of Jesus, with the alternative part stressed. This seems to be the way it's done for more recent controversial historical events.--Senor Freebie (talk) 18:21, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Senor Freebie, I am but a humble negro and have not any experience with Aryan ideology -- has never been an interest. Moreover, as Selene's children married into the Jewish Royal Family, the concept of Caesar(ion) as a focal point of (anti-semetic) thinking would have been folly. And the Ptolemies, were historically allies of Hebrews. The seed of this is truth -- and the seeker finds it and cherishes it. That is what's most amazing; it screams forth across time and is completely undeniable to anyone with eyes that see. Raw Truth. Perhaps another has enjoined this experience -- I do not know them.MBJ68.46.234.83 (talk) 23:34, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Can an Administrator please hat this ridiculous, WP:FORUM violation waste of bits? Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.111.22.224 (talk) 00:18, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

Confirmed google apps

How can I tell if my a ountt is real 174.247.95.226 (talk) 20:37, 30 April 2023 (UTC)