mountainman

Perhaps it should also be pointed out that it was widely reported that Apollonius was an author of a number of books and the author of a very much larger set of letters. An introduction to the Letters of Apollonius is given by Mead (1901), but a quick search through more modern studies reveal that at least some of these letters are considered to be quite authentic.

So on the one hand we have a literary figure of Paul, a travelling sage and letter writer to other sages, looking for a history, and on the other hand the gradually emerging real ancient historical figure of Apollonius, equipped with books, and letters, and very favorable (recently unearthed) inscription looking for a role in the history of the first century, in the exact cities and locations mentioned by Paul.

We might add to this enigma, the known fact that Eusebius was comminssioned to write a huge treatise of many books against Apollonius. So we can see here, as Eusebius mentions the history of philostratus many times in this work, and quotes Apollonius elsewhere (PG?) as an authority on the nature of sacrifice, that Eusebius must have genuinely believed Apollonius to have existed, and to have an extant large influence in the minds of the eastern empire at the time Constantine began bleeding it dry of treasures.

FOr those who have not yet had the time to familiarise themselves with the clearly historical first century neopythagorean ascetic sage, and purported miracle worker, traveller and author Apollonius, the best introductory work that I have seen to date is the article Apollonius of Tyana and His Historicity by Maria Dzielska.

Best wishes,


Pete Brown

Gamera

This seems hopelessly naive. Like I say, your standard effaces history until the invention of the camera.

In antiquity, there are no unbiased historians. There are only very young mss copied many times over by all sorts of people with all sorts of political agendas, including the purported authors, assuming they ever existed.

For you to confuse Tacitus writing about his father in law in a loving tribute to Roman nostalgia, and the Kennedy assassination shows how unthought the notion of history is in positing a standard agianst the historicity of the gospels, which by the way take the form of a standard Graeco-Roman biolgraphy.

spamandham

The support is based primarily on the name change from Saul to Paul. According to Price, and I'm inclined to accept it, this indicates an attempt to fuse two idividuals known as Saul and Paul into one. The resulting character is a cartoonish fiction, but, it does indicate the presence of those two traditions prior to the point of syncretization.

Paul's Damascus road incident within Acts is similar enough to Paul's own description of his conversion, to conclude that the author of Acts was somewhat familiar with Paul. But there are also discrepencies, as would be expected if the author of Acts had heard about Paul's conversion but had not actually read the epistles directly. If Paul were an outright fiction, we would expect these stories to align more closely than they do.

I have no idea if this claim is true, but if so, I don't see it as relevant. These are men who believed in magic already. I wouldn't expect them to be experts at determining fact from fiction.

...why would you expect them to know that and then diligently complain about it in writings that we have available to us?

Yes, but several others DID mention Paul, as I pointed out in this post, which you ignored. ...and in this post, I summarized Justin's known works indicating both his target audience and the purpose of the writing, and asked you to explain in which of those writings you would EXPECT to find mention of Paul, to which you gave what is now a very familiar thoughtless "you obviously don't know anything" blow-off style answer that doesn't even attempt to address the issue.

You claim Tertullian never mentions Paul, and when Ben thoughtfully provides you with a laundry list of such mentions, you just ignore it picking on one questionable mention, and then even have the nerve to suggest he needs a better Latin translator.

When asked to explain why you dismiss the historical value of 'apologetic works' and equate them with fiction, you just ignore the question.

You behave as a complete arrogant ass who doesn't have either the knowledge or reasoning skills to warrant putting up with such obnoxious behavior. This isn't an ad hom attack, it's a wake up call. Maybe if you notice several people telling you the same thing, you'll listen.

I now understand why Solitary Man has you on his ignore list.

aa5874

I consider Achilles and Jesus as fiction, Pilate and Herod as figures of history. The names of some of the cameras I used are Josephus, Philo, Suetonius,Tacitus and Theophilus of Antioch and I got some great shots.

Do you know what kind of camera picks up fiction in the 1st century?

aa5874

So, if a person truthfully tells the same story repeatedly, then, with your reasonning, such a person is probably lying. And inconsistencies in a story augment its veracity.This is hopeless.

I asked you for a credible non-apologetic source and you give me Acts, an anonymous writing, with no known date of authorship and full of inconsistencies.

But inconsistency is your guage for truth, not corroboration from external credible source.


I enjoy being on Solitary Man ignore list. Now, I post in peace.

JayW

[QUOTE]aa5874
I consider Achilles and Jesus as fiction, Pilate and Herod as figures of history. The names of some of the cameras I used are Josephus, Philo, Suetonius,Tacitus and Theophilus of Antioch and I got some great shots.

I also used the camera Josephus and got a great picture of Jesus. Maybe when you took the shot Josephus didn't focus right, or maybe you didn't focus right. Josephus not only believed that Jesus existed but that he was no ordinary man.

aa5874

You must be new. The shot of the resurrected man is fake.

spamandham

I didn't give you Acts. I gave you a list of early church fathers who mentioned Paul (you know, those evil apologetic sources), which you completely ignored, so I referenced the post again, only to have you ignore it a second time.

You're the one who brought up Acts as evidence that Paul is fictional. I'm merely replying to your claim, and explaining why I don't see Acts as evidence that Paul is a fictional character altogether. There are no 'non-apologetic' sources that mention Paul. No-one has denied that.

For no apparent reason at all, or at least none you've bothered to explain after multiple requests, you seem to have decreed all apologetic sources void of historical value.

I agree on the hopelessness part. Read again the argument. It isn't anything like what your portraying.

The argument is that inconsistencies - and not just any kind of inconsistencies, but the kind characteristic of syncretization - in the story undermine YOUR claim that Paul is a fictional character. It doesn't mean that the story (Acts in this particular case) is true.


I'm tempted to offer you even more peace, but even though my BS-ometer is pegged off the scale right now, the malice-o-scope is in the normal range, so I'll refrain.

Your claim is not an agnostic position in regards to Paul's historicity, but a much stronger claim that he is fictional altogether, a claim you've backed up with nothing of substance, but have instead attempted to substitute gross generalizations and an endless demand for non-apologetic references to Paul, as if that fulfilled your obligation to support your case.

Come on aa, you're obviously not stupid. Why will you not address the tough questions in a thoughtful manner? Dude, it's ok to admit error. It's a sign of emotional fortitude.

aa5874

So, that's why you must give me Acts, a book considered to be fiction, the Epistles, letters with at least two Pauls, and the Church fathers who appeared not to know.

You are only supporting your arguments with assertions. Your opinion does not undermine my claim, it is merely a difference of opinion. "Paul is not fiction" does not undermine "Paul is fiction".

I have nothing on Paul, except a fictitious account in Acts and I don't really know how many Pauls are in the Epistles. When I say "Paul", I am not sure who that person is.

I must confess I really have nothing at all on Paul but fiction.

spamandham

YOU BROUGHT UP Acts.