Lance

I found this surfing another site. This is really interesting and entirely believable.

www.apollonius.net/bernard1e.html

Another link at same website.

http://www.apollonius.net/whatisjesus.html

So once again, what is a "Jesus Christ"? It would simply mean "Anointed Savior" and could be used as a "title" for anyone, even Apollonius of Tyana.

Call me the Devil's advocate, but I'm a bit skeptical of claims that jesus was a rehashing of the apollonius story. If I remember correctly, the only information we have on Apollonius comes from a biography written centuries later. It's entirely possible that the Apollonius story borrowed heavily from Christian ideas, not the other way around.
Personally I think they were both drawing from similar cultural motifs, rather than one blatantly copying the other.

ahahahaha, totally distorted since of history mixted with out and out lies. "Jesus" was a proper name, not a title. And A of T was not the great universal world techer. There is not enough evidence to bear that out. WE don't even have any writtings about him until about 200 years after his death.

The council of Nicea was not held to make up a religion that Constantine would like. That shows extreme ignorance about the process of coucils and the formation of doctrine.

Philostratus, A of T's main biographer, or more properly, hagiographer, lived about a century after when A of T (supposedly) did.

Also, some of A of T's purported writings survive, which is more than can be said of Jesus Christ's writings, if any.

And early theologian Eusebius denounced Apollonius's reported miracles as the result of sorcery and trickery -- he must have hated the competition

[This message has been edited by lpetrich (edited May 21, 2001).]

Good point. Everybody knows that in order
tobe a savior of the world, the writings about
you should start at 50 years after your death.... ;-)

Try 15-20. 1 Thess.

Personally, I think the story on this website is pure bunk. As Metacrock mentioned, the part about the Nicean council shows a lack of historical knowledge. The Nicean council was called to "set in stone" or "make official" certain creeds that had been around since the time of Jesus. Many have attempted to twist this council into the beginning of Christianity and have been corrected every single time. This is simply wrong.

Second, I'd like to provide a little interesting information from the Dictionary of New Testament Background on Appolonius:

"In the early third century AD, Philostratus of Athens wrote a work entitled The Life of Apollonius of Tyana (Vita Apollonii). The author's goal was to defend the legendary first-century sage from recent attacks. Some years later Hierocles wrote a work entitled Lover of Truth, in which he made comparison between Jesus and Apollonius, one of the more colorful of the late Pythagorean philosophers. The early church historian Eusebius wrote a treatise against this work entitled Against the Life of Apollonius of Tyana."

As far as I know, there are no extant writings of Appolonius (unless they are contained in Philostratus' work).

Here's a little info on the comparisons:

"Apart from the questionable dichotomy between Palestinian and Hellenistic, the value of the parallels between Jesus and Apollonius has in the estimation of some been exaggerated (e.g., Twelftree, Koskenniemi, Evans). Better parallels are seen in the rabbinic traditions, as well as in the OT and in some of the pseudepigrapha."

"There are many features of the miracles and wonders attributed to Apollonius that find no parallel in the stories of Jesus. We encounter elements of gimmickry and trickery on the part of Apollonius, such as removing and replacing his foot in leg irons while in prison (Vit. Ap. 7.38). We find other bizarre elements, such as scaring off an evil spirit by writing a threatening letter (Vit. Ap. 3.38) or by making tripods walk and performing other telekinetic acts (Vit. Ap. 3.17; cf. Eusebius' Against the Life of Apollonius of Tyana 18). There are some interesting parallels, but Appolonius comes across as a wizard (of which he is frequently accused). Many of his sayings and actions, moreover, are ostentatious. When the circumstances require, Apollonius does not hesitate to imply that he is a god. Some of his statements, including his apology before Emperor Domitian, smack of conceit and self-importance."

"There is also serious question about the credibility of the sources utilized by Philostratus. B.F. Harris has concluded that the life of Apollonius is heavily seasoned with imagination and exaggeration. E.L. Bowie agrees and has criticized scholars for too readily giving credence to the stories attributed to Apollonius of Tyana."

At the end of this article is a massive bibliography of relevant material if anyone is interested in finding other references on this subject. The article itself is by Craig A. Evans.

Lance

Ish: While it doesn't surprise me that the Christians would roundly condemn this, considering that if it is even remotely true, Christianity is the biggest 2000 year con job ever pulled.

I'd suggest you look a little further outside your pulpit or church for historical information. Apologetics will only get you what you *want* to believe. Your mind, your right.

To put it in perspective, this is like asking Janet Reno to do a fair investigation of Bill Clinton. Just ain't gonna happen.

Some history here on Constantine, that charming character...

www.infidels.org/library/historical/joseph_mccabe/religious_controversy/chapter_16.html

Some info on Nicea:

www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/NTcanon.html

This comment is really uncalled for. You tell me to look outside my "pulpit or church" and yet both sources you quote are directly from this website.

All I did was quote a reputable source in the field. You are right, you must go outside your comfort zone to find a challenge to your worldviews. That's part of why I'm here.

Ish