The Possible Conspiracy of Appolonius the Nazarene of Tyana

Shiloh7
reply to post by bobs_uruncle

 

I see the points you make but I would say that the similarities between both Apollonius the Nazarene and Jesus the Nazarene
are almost identical. However, you can't seriously make the point that miracles, healing, disappearing credited to Apollonius are black magic, but done by Jesus are not.

I am not making any point with regards to what Apollonius or Jesus did or whether they are one in the same. I am just saying that there is information in rather ancient texts concerning an Apollonius of Tyranus who was attributed to being a magus and involved in demonology that used the Keys of Solomon and the books of Enoch as his foundational references. If Jesus and Apollonius are the same person, then we have a bit of a conundrum as both histories cannot be true, it has to be one or the other.

Cheers - Dave

reply to post by Shiloh7

As you don't have one original text common sense can actually tell you, you can't argue you have authenticity. You don;t because what you have are copies of copies with a lot of mistakes and errors to boot.

No, that is not the case.

There are historical research methods that demonstrate that the books of the New Testament date to the First Century, which is why almost every scholar who has researched the texts comes to that conclusion, and that the content of the texts that we have today (the ancient Greek copies that are still in existence, I'm not referring to modern translations,) are essentially the same as the originals (dismissing transmission errors, which affect the text in a minor fashion, not fundamentally.)

An example is Matthew 28:19-20:

Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything that I have commanded you. And remember, I am with you always, to the end of the age. (Matthew 28:19-20 NIV)

Now, anti-Trinitarians claim that this was added to the Bible after the Doctrine of the Trinity was established in the Third Century, because it clearly refers to God in three persons. The problem is that no copy of Matthew exists that does not have the Trinitarian formula in it (apart from a known Middle Ages forgery,) so this represents a huge problem to anti-Trinitarians.

We, all too often, apply the current state of the world to ancient times. In the Third Century, there was no mass production or distribution of texts -- they were copied by hand, and not from a central source.

So, in order for that bit in Matthew to have been added centuries after the texts were in circulation throughout the world (Eusebius writes of missionaries reporting that copies of the book, in the original Hebrew, were in use in India, for example,) the church would have to confiscate every copy of the book in existence, replace them with altered copies, and leave absolutely no evidence that it happened.

Is that credible? Absolutely not.

reply to post by adjensen


The bible was originally a Hebrew book and never has had a New Testament part to it, because the Jews didn't know about Jesus so they never wrote about him. With the things he is supposed to have done and the nuisance he supposedly was to the Sadduccees and Pharisees he would certainly have cropped up somewhere as a heretic. He came to deal with their law. The Old Testament or Hebrew Bible mentions prophets being killed by the Jewish people and the Jews would certainly have put into their bible had Jesus been regarded as a prophet but he is absent.

Everything you have comes from Christian literature sources which are not from original documents. If you do know of a genuine original document then I would be interested to know about it as well. I see you didn't address the point about the writing style.

Personally I am not writing to crucade my view whatsoever and your view is nothing to do with me, but I do enjoy discussing what we actually have as evidence, because very little about Jesus has ever made sense to me even as a young child. Paul popping up out of Tarsus and his Roman connections seems also to make no real sense, because he was not directed as the disciples had been by Jesus to do his work and we have precious little, except again the early Christian father's information about the work the actual desciples did. Yes we have so much about a man who never knew Christ. It should also be remembered that Paul was a Rabbi and carted his wife about with him, yet oddly enough, here again we have yet another invisible wife. Its all very staged and selective, but brilliant nevertheless until one looks behind the veil.

reply to post by bobs_uruncle


Cheers back to you Dave

I do have my view on Apollonius as you have probably gathered, but if I am wrong, I don't really see why they could not have existed at the same time because I think there were a number of holy men around in those days. Peter is recorded as having had a clash with a man called Simon who levitated and then fell down.

Jesus stayed it appears in Palestine and Apollonius travelled extensively to India, China, Egypt etc and even Jerusalem I think. We know that Jesus's ministry only lasted some 3 years but Apollonius, who is reported as having been born the same year as Jesus, lasted well into old age and his travels have been documented etc We also know he settled for his last years on Patmos which again is interesting because Revellation was written by a well educated man and most of the disciples were not and we don't know if they could even write. To have the knowledge that is accredited to John, whom Christians attribute Revellation to, would have meant I suspect that John would have needed to have educated, travelled and been able to read and write a document of the complexity of Revelation.

reply to post by Shiloh7

It should also be remembered that Paul was a Rabbi and carted his wife about with him

What are you talking about? Paul explicitly says that he wasn't married.

Now to the unmarried and the widows I say: It is good for them to stay unmarried, as I do. (1 Corinthians 7:8 NIV)

As for the rest of it, why have 34 flavors when you can't even get vanilla right? Try learning the basics of Christianity before you speculate on any in-depth subjects.

reply to post by adjensen


Just to remind you of the obvious, the basics of Christianity are founded on Judiasm. You do not appear to know much about the environment or the requirements of Jewish Law which pertained both the Jesus and Paul's lives as Jews.

Jesus, although Christians would like to stay within their comfort zone accept was - a Carpenter! Couldn't have been because he went into the Temple where he taught and he could not have done that as a carpenter regardless of whether he was on a mission or not. Further, part of normal Jewish life and tradition is that an adult marries. Its thought one is not complete as a single person. However a Rabbi must be married and it is absolutely against the Law for an unmarried Rabbi to lead a congregation in service. A non Rabbi could not have taught in the Temple, its police would have stopped him immediately they knew about it.

Regarding Paul, of course he had to be married simply because he was a Rabbi sent by Rome to persecute the Christians after he had voted in the Sanhedrin Acts 26 10 which, were he not a married Rabbi, he could not have voted. You also have 1 Cor 9:3 - 6 where he openly questions is he not allowed to take a wife with him.

What is fair speculation is whether or not at some point, he became widowed. His teaching on both the benefits of marriage and the way of living if widowed or single were part of the Law which he as a Jew followed etc.

What is forgotten or has never really been thought about in a slightly arrogant way is that Christianity comes from and is firmly based on Judaism. You cannot take the requirements of Judaic Law out of the lives of both Jesus and Paul especially when they lived, because the Temple Police and Priests would not tolerate any Jew disrespecting the Law - if they did, they were stoned to death without any recourse to the Roman authority whatsoever. `Neither man ever revoked his Jewishness. Also you need to remember that they were both teaching to Jewish people, especially Jesus and Paul to Jews as well as Gentiles on his travels outside of Palestine.

In fact its interesting to wonder if one had asked either man, was he consciously creating another religion separate to Judiasm, what would have been their answer?

reply to post by Shiloh7

Regarding Paul, of course he had to be married simply because he was a Rabbi sent by Rome to persecute the Christians after he had voted in the Sanhedrin Acts 26 10 which, were he not a married Rabbi, he could not have voted.

Rabbis who were attached to a synagogue were required to be married, traveling Rabbis (such as Jesus or Paul) were not required to be married and most often were not.

You also have 1 Cor 9:3 - 6 where he openly questions is he not allowed to take a wife with him.

He's not saying that he's married there, he's saying that he is free to do what he wants, just like the other Apostles and, specifically, Peter, who was married.

reply to post by adjensen

As for the rest of it, why have 34 flavors when you can't even get vanilla right? Try learning the basics of Christianity before you speculate on any in-depth subjects.

How arrogantly lovely! What's your problem with Paul having been married? Why wouldn't Paul have been married? He was a Rabbi, and all rabbi were required to be married.

Rabbis who were attached to a synagogue were required to be married, traveling Rabbis (such as Jesus or Paul) were not required to be married and most often were not.

Can you back that up with a credible Jewish (non Christian) source? At any rate, Paul wasn't a traveling preacher in his youth, when he would have taken a wife, or at the time of his supposed conversion, which was well into his, less than moral, career.

reply to post by windword

What's your problem with Paul having been married?

I don't "have a problem" with it, he just wasn't married.

Can you back that up with a credible Jewish (non Christian) source?

Of course.

Further in Jewish law, the European gloss of R. Isserles on the Shulchan Arukh OH 581:1 states that only one who is married may lead the congregation in worship - note that this is the Hazzan/Shaliah Tzibbur and not the Rabbi whose function may only have been to teach. (Source)

By the descriptions in the Bible, both Jesus and Paul would seem to fall into the second category. In Acts, Paul is described as a young man who is running all over the place persecuting the Christians, which is unlikely behaviour for the leader of a specific synagogue.

reply to post by adjensen

I don't "have a problem" with it, he just wasn't married.

That doesn't mean that he never married. Most biblical scholars agree that Paul was a widower.

Further in Jewish law, the European gloss of R. Isserles on the Shulchan Arukh OH 581:1 states that only one who is married may lead the congregation in worship - note that this is the Hazzan/Shaliah Tzibbur and not the Rabbi whose function may only have been to teach.

This was written by Talmudist Moses Isserless in the mid 1500sAD, and pertained to Jewish philosophy of that day, not what was the norm in the year 1AD. For example:

He also held that "it is permissible to now and then study secular wisdom, provided that this excludes works of heresy... and that one [first] knows what is permissible and forbidden, and the rules and the mitzvot" (Shulkhan Aruch, Yoreh De'ah, 246, 4). Maharshal reproached him for having based some of his decisions on Aristotle. His reply was that he studied Greek philosophy only from Maimonides’ Guide for the Perplexed, and then only on Shabbat and Yom Tov (holy days) - and furthermore, it is better to occupy oneself with philosophy than to err through Kabbalah (Responsa No. 7)

Is there any example of an unmarried rabbi in the Old Testament, or any law that allows for an unmarried rabbi anywhere in the Torah?

By the descriptions in the Bible, both Jesus and Paul would seem to fall into the second category. In Acts, Paul is described as a young man who is running all over the place persecuting the Christians, which is unlikely behaviour for the leader of a specific synagogue.

Baloney on both accounts! Jesus wasn't a traveling preacher in his youth, when he would have taken a wife. Legend has it he was carpenter! His ministry didn't even start until after he was baptized, at around the age of 30. Jesus would have no excuse to not have been married. (Unless he was an Essene that didn't marry, which you continue to claim is an impossibility).

Neither was Paul a traveling preacher in his youth, he was tentmaker. And, persecuting Christians is hardly a "teaching" job. There would be no excuse for Paul not to have been married, under Jewish tradition.

reply to post by windword


Well, I guess I can respond to all that with "what's the problem that you have with Paul not being married"?

There is no evidence that Paul was married, widowed or not, and you have his own words saying that he was not married, as well as him being kind of anti-marriage on the whole, so why conclude that he was?

reply to post by adjensen

so why conclude that he was?

Because there is no reason to assume that Paul never married and every reason to believe that he was a widower. Saul's/Paul's disdain for women didn't preclude the fact that it was the duty every orthodox Jew to marry and to have children. It would be no excuse for a tent maker to rebel and not marry.

reply to post by windword

Because there is no reason to assume that Paul never married and every reason to believe that he was a widower.

"every reason"? There's absolutely no reason to -- there is no evidence that he was married, so all you're doing is assuming that he was. It was no secret that Peter and Phillip were married, so there is no reason to think that everyone else was but they kept it secret. Neither Paul nor Luke ever says anything about Paul having been married, and the only reference is Paul specifically saying that he is not married.

It doesn't get much clearer than that, though, again, it doesn't matter.

reply to post by adjensen

"every reason"? There's absolutely no reason to -- there is no evidence that he was married, so all you're doing is assuming that he was.

"No reason", you say? Where is the Jewish law that allows for unmarried bachelor rabbi? Is this the kind of conclusions that your "Cognitive History" degree lends? Do you always ignore the cultural environment that surround the topics in your historical research methodology?

It's absurd to think that the youthful Saul of Tarsus could avoid the social and cultural pressure, the scandal of not marrying. He didn't rise among among the ranks of the Rabbi, studying with Gamimiel, a member of the Sandherin, which required their men to be married, to which he presented his captured Christians to torment and set as examples of rebellion to the "Law", as a result of being rebellious himself, in refusing to marry.

The only Jewish sect that allowed for unmarried clergy were the Essene. Was Paul an Essene?

reply to post by windword


Unless there was a perfect division of males to females in the time, there would be people who were unmarried, and there is nothing to say that Paul wasn't one of them. There is also no evidence that he was a member of the Sanhedrin, and it is quite unlikely that such a small group would have included a young man, no matter how zealous.

Again, zero evidence that he was married, period.

I found an academic article on this subject, which concludes:

On the matter of marriage, there is no question about the thrust of the rabbinic teaching on the part of those who reorganized Judaism after 70 c.E.: A Jewish male was under a religious obligation to marry and to have children; and furthermore, it was best for him if he married while in his teens, or, at the latest, in his early twenties.

On the other hand, even after 70 c.E., when this pattern was explicitly promulgated, there were significant exceptions to the general rule. It is true that Simeon ben 'Azzai is the only Tannaitic scholar of whom it can be said with relative certainty that he remained unmarried throughout his life. But there were regulations governing the behavior of unmarried men-an indication that such a group existed and that it was honorably recognized, even during the period of dominance by the "rabbinic pattern." (Source)

The teaching that there was a religious obligation to marry came after the time of Jesus and Paul, likely out of the need to rebuild the population after the destruction of Jerusalem. And even then, exceptions were noted.

reply to post by adjensen

Unless there was a perfect division of males to females in the time, there would be people who were unmarried, and there is nothing to say that Paul wasn't one of them.

Oh brother! Reaching much! LOL

Again, zero evidence that he was married, period.

Lack of evidence doesn't reflect Evidence of absence. You're Argument from ignorance is noted.

It would have been scandalous had Saul of Tarsus not been married, and that scandal of his bachelor status alone would have been noted in his biography.

Again, your "Cognitive History" super methodology should inform your consideration of the cultural environment before you make such dogmatic claims, and err on the more conservative side, that Saul of Tarsus was most likely married, then widowed.

At any rate, your conclusion places you in the minority, as most biblical scholars agree that Paul was most likely married at some point in his life:

Elsewhere, Paul says that he was a Pharisee, a “Hebrew of Hebrews” (Philippians 3:5), and “extremely zealous for my ancestral traditions” (Galatians 1:14; cf. Acts 22:3). Marriage was the norm for Pharisees, and it was required for rabbis (Paul was likely considered a rabbi). Paul could hardly have set himself forth as an exemplar of Pharisaical piety had he not been married (Fee, 288, n. 7; see also Harvey McArthur on “Celibacy in Judaism at the Time of Christian Beginnings”).

The cumulative case, therefore, strongly suggests that Paul was a widower. He was once married. But in calling him to Christ, God gave Paul the gift of celibacy (“a genuine gift of freedom from sexual need,” Fee, 287). Paul desires for everyone with this gift to use it as he has for the sake of the kingdom.
www.dennyburk.com...

reply to post by windword

Lack of evidence doesn't reflect Evidence of absence.

I don't have a lack of evidence -- Paul specifically says that he wasn't married. That is evidence. You have no evidence, because nowhere is it stated that he was married.

Paul could hardly have set himself forth as an exemplar of Pharisaical piety had he not been married (Fee, 288, n. 7; see also Harvey McArthur on “Celibacy in Judaism at the Time of Christian Beginnings”).

Funny that your source there cited the article I did just above your post, where McArthur demonstrated that the teaching that a Jewish male had to be married came after Jesus and Paul's time. I guess he didn't read through to the end, lol.

reply to post by adjensen


From your link"

Ben 'Azzai says, Whoever does not engage in reproductive sexual relations, lo, such a one sheds blood and diminishes the divine image, since it says, For in the image of God he made man. And it says, And you be fruitful and multiply (Gen 95, 7). Said to him R. Eleazar b. 'Azariah, "Ben 'Azzai, words are nice when they come from someone who does what they say. . . . Ben 'Azzai expounds nicely but does not nicely do what he says." He said to him, "What shall I do? My soul thirsts after Torah, let other people keep the world going." (Cf. b. Yebam. 63b and Gen. Rub. 34: 14.)

Ben 'Azzai was never ordained, but there is no suggestion that it was his unmarried state which prevented ordination.

So your only example of an unmarried Jewish man in the 1st century was an unordained scholar who preached the evils of being single! LOL!

It is sometimes assumed that the story about Ben 'Azzai was recorded because he was the only unmarried Tannaitic rabbi. This
may be true, but the assumption goes beyond the evidence provided by the story itself. The story was recorded because Ben 'Azzai placed
himself in the paradoxical situation of condemning celibacy while himself remaining unmarried.

reply to post by windword


So I take it you didn't read the article, either.

Oh well, I tried