aa5874

Please state the actual time when Jews first heard about Jesus the baby of the Ghost.

There was NO such thing as a Jewish Jesus cult BEFORE the Fall of the Temple.

There is ZERO historical source that can SHOW that there was a man called Jesus who was a Messiah BEFORE the Fall of the Temple.

It was Blasphemy, and punishable by death, for Jews to have worshiped a man as a God.

Philo made it clear in "On Embassy to Gaius" that ONLY Jews did NOT DEIFY the Emperor Gaius.

And according to Philo it would have been EASIER to change a God into a man, than a man into a God.

"On Embassy to Gaius" Jesus was MYTH before he was made into FLESH.

aa5874

No, you don't. You are an HJer. Your very own words have betrayed you.

The HJ argument is that Jesus did START as a KNOWN human being and was LATER mythologized.

Now look at the very next words that you wrote.


You do NOT support MJ. You support HJ.

You KNOW MJ must START and END as MJ.

You KNOW that the abundance of Evidence from Antiquity START Jesus as the Baby of a Ghost or the WORD who was BEFORE anything was even made.

See Matthew 1.18, Luke 1.35 or John 1

And you KNOW that he was RAISED from the dead in the END. See ALL the Gospels.

steve_bnk

Claiming to be god was high blasphemy which could be a capital crime. Claiming to be Son Of God was not much better. A single Jewish rabai socializing with unmarried women, scandalous.

Everything about the biblical JC was a stick in the eye of the Jewish establishment.It really isn't unbelievable that they would be out for his head.

I don't have the links I found in the past. The JC story fits nicely with traditional myths/figures in various forms. Descended from heaven or in a lineage descended from heaven/gods. Shoulders the world and dies in the act of salvation. Taken up to or returns heaven. Will return in the future.

mountainman

Eusebius claimed to have translated a letter written by the hand of Jesus. To me, this suggests that Eusebius had alot to do with the process of "mythification" of Jesus.

On the other hand, Apollonius is considered to be the author of books and letters. Additionally there is extant an extremely favorable inscription at the Adana Museum.

Apollonius of Tyana and His Historicity by Maria Dzielska supports this finding.

andrewcriddle

One should note that Maria Dzielska does not doubt the existence of Apollonius. She (sensibly) believes that most of what Philostratus says about Apollonius is sheer fiction.

Andrew Criddle

mountainman

Neither is there any doubt that Philostratus was an historical figure, or that he was commissioned to write a history of Apollonius - Eusebius calls it a "history" many times in his polemical "Against Hierocles". Perhaps Eusebius knew something that Maria Dzielska does not?

But in getting back to the OP, neither the subject of the new testament Jesus, or the five authors of the main books of the NT, have any credible historicity, hence the alternative interpretation that we are dealing with a man-made myth.

Maria Dzielska declares the following with some degree of certitude ...

"Philostratus must have known the New Testament and perhaps other evangelical writings (the Acts and New Testament apocrypha)."

Maria Dzielska and many other people, without any real evidence, make the assumption that the new testament was assembled before Philostratus wrote c.216 CE, and that it was important enough for people like Philostratus to actually take the time to read. These assumptions are without any real evidence.

DCHindley

I'd be happy if even one of the sites posting this article would provide more than just a link to the source document. I'd like to know a little about the origin of the article.

It turns out to be a lecture by Dr. Maria Dzielska (Tzielska Mary) Professor of Classical History at Jagellonian University of Krakow, Poland. [07/06/2002] Subject: "Apollonius of Tyana"

The lecture was at the Medical School of Larissa, granted by the Board of School and introduced by the Superintendent of Byzantine Antiquities Larissa (capital of the Thessaly periphery of Greece).

The source site, ΣΥΝΟΠΤΙΚΟ ΧΡΟΝΟΛΟΓΙΟ ΤΗΣ ΑΠΟΣΙΩΠΗΜΕΝΗΣ ΠΑΓΚΟΣΜΙΑΣ ΚΑΙ ΕΛΛΗΝΙΚΗΣ ΠΡΟΪΣΤΟΡΙΑΣ (BRIEF CHRONOLOGY OF GREEK AND APOSIOPIMENIS WORLD PREHISTORY) sponsored by ΕΤΑΙΡΕΙΑ ΜΕΛΕΤΗΣ ΕΛΛΗΝΙΣΜΟΥ (ABOUT STUDY ABROAD) doesn't appear to have working links to the articles, although the articles are still there. There might be an index I haven't been able to locate, but this site doesn't appear to have been updated since 2003.

DCH

aa5874

So if she (sensibly) believes Philostratus wrote fiction about Apolllonius what other source DID write the history of Apollonius?

How does one (sensibly) believe Apollonius existed WITHOUT a source which makes sense of Apollonius?

But, in any event, Apollonius was claimed to have an earthly father but Jesus was the Baby of a Ghost of God.

And further, the existence or non-existence of Apollonius cannot determine if a Baby of a Ghost did actually exist.

mountainman

Thanks for the background to the article DCH. The more valuable source would be the author's earlier book Apollonius of Tyana in legend and history (1986) which we might presume was drawn upon and summarised for the lecture.

mountainman

Isn't that what Eusebius the church historian explicitly asserts? Who needs luck?