The Historical Jesus (Page 5)

ghostgeek: Philostratus’ biography may have distorted Apollonius, so today we do not know who he actually was. Was he a fraud, a religious prophet or a serious religious philosopher? We will never be sure. What can be said with certainty is that Apollonius of Tyana was an extraordinary figure in the ancient world.

[ https://classicalwisdom.com/people/philosophers/apollonius-of-tyana-the-pagan-jesus-christ/ ]

ghostgeek: Apollonius has continued to exert significant influence throughout the centuries. Coins were struck and statues erected commemorating him, and in Tyana, a temple was built and dedicated to him.

Around 300, a certain Hierocles endeavored to prove that pagans were more reasonable in believing the sayings and doings of Apollonius than Christians were in believing the "ignorant" followers of Jesus. The Christian bishop, Eusebius of Caesarea wrote a Reply to Hierocles, in which he argued that Philostratus' account of Apollonius was much more incredible than anything that Christian sources said about Jesus, and if what Philostratus said was true, then Apollonius must have been in league with demons. This started a debate on the relative merits of Jesus and Apollonius that has gone on in different forms into modern times.

In Late Antiquity, Apollonius became a hero of pagan culture, though Christian writers were sometimes sympathetic towards him because of his lifelong chastity, avoidance of alcohol, and devotion to a religion that rejected sacrifices to the Roman gods. The late fourth-century Historia Augusta says that Apollonius appeared to the Emperor Aurelian when he was besieging Tyana, Apollonius' hometown. Aurelian supposedly claimed to have seen Apollonius speak to him, beseeching him to spare the city of his birth. "Aurelian, if you desire to rule, abstain from the blood of the innocent!" Apollonius declared. "If you will conquer, be merciful!" Aurelian, who admired Apollonius, therefore spared Tyana.

Apollonius continued to be influential in the Middle Ages. For example, the medieval Islamic alchemist Jabir ibn Hayyan's Book of Stones contains a lengthy analysis of alchemical works attributed to Apollonius. In Europe, several advocates of Enlightenment saw him as an early proponent of a universal, non-denominational religion compatible with Reason. In 1680, Charles Blount, a radical English deist, published the first English translation of the first two books of Philostratus' Life of Apollonius. Voltaire, too, praised Apollonius.

[ https://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Apollonius_of_Tyana ]

ghostgeek: The precise birth date of Apollonius of Tyana is unknown. The birth date of Jesus Christ is also unknown, but sometimes asserted and speculated upon. However, it is generally thought that the two lived around the same time. The most common estimates for his birth put it around 15 CE and his death around 100 CE, though some quote his lifespan as “more than 100 years,” which would make those dates inaccurate. Another kink in the estimate is that some say he was older than Jesus Christ. The above dates would make him slightly younger than the commonly cited date of Jesus Christ’s birth.

Since there are no contemporary sources for either of their births, there is no way of knowing which, if any, of these estimates are correct. We can say that if Apollonius of Tyana lived, he did so in the first century. If Jesus also lived, he did so in the same century as Apollonius of Tyana.

[ https://www.historicmysteries.com/apollonius-of-tyana/ ]

ghostgeek: Apollonius of Tyana similarities to Jesus Christ is undeniable. They both are said to have ascended to Heaven. There are stories of both performing miracles. They were both spiritual teachers. However, they did not have identical beliefs.

Jesus taught his followers that God answers prayers. Apollonius of Tyana believed in a God who was pure intellect and taught his followers that the only way to converse with God was through intellect. He taught that prayers and sacrifice were useless and that God really did not want to converse with men.

[blockquote align=”none” author=”Apollonius of Tyana”]The gods do not need sacrifices, so what might one do to please them? Acquire wisdom, it seems to me, and do all the good in one’s power to those humans who deserve it.[/blockquote]

If this is true, Apollonius and Jesus Christ would have been in competition with each other if they preached in the same areas. Some say that they were and they did.

[ https://www.historicmysteries.com/apollonius-of-tyana/ ]

ghostgeek: The most pressing question, which is that of his existence, is actually the least complicated mystery concerning Apollonius of Tyana. The most extensive and earliest lengthy biography on the man is a work by Philostratus written in 225 CE. That does nothing to prove his existence. There is no way to say whether the sources Philostratus cites truly existed or whether he made it up. He certainly never met the man. Nonetheless, there are numerous letters and pieces of work by Apollonius of Tyana that exist to this day. In this way, Apollonius is more provable than Jesus Christ.

Many of the proposed documents are likely to be frauds. However, at least one in particular — an excerpt of his “On Sacrifices” — is regarded as genuine, as in a piece written by Apollonius of Tyana himself.

It is by no means absolutely certain that Apollonius lived. Nonetheless, it is easier to entertain than stories of other miracle workers that appeared hundreds of years after their deaths and who left behind no contemporary writings.

[ https://www.historicmysteries.com/apollonius-of-tyana/ ]

ghostgeek:

Lumpenproletariat:

ghostgeek:

One of the best-known exorcists is Apollonius of Tyana; he lived at the end of the first century A.D. and had a reputation for using magic as well as casting out demons.
____________________________

There is no evidence for this from the 1st or 2nd century. The only source is the book by Philostratus, dated about 220-230 AD, at least 120 years later than the alleged miracle-worker.

By contrast, the Jesus miracle acts are reported in 4 1st-century sources, the last being the Gospel of John around 90-100 AD, or about 70 years later than Jesus. If all we had was John, without the 3 earlier Gospel accounts, it would be very poor evidence for the miracles of Jesus. Each additional source helps a little, but only one by itself 70 years later is not enough. If Apollonius really did perform miracle acts, we'd have more than only one source dated 120+ years later.

You have to come up with a better example than this. With this example you are confirming my point that Jesus is the only confirmed miracle-worker in the ancient world -- all the others are fiction.

Since you admit that Apollonius is among the "best-known exorcists," that only confirms my point that there are no other verified examples of exorcists who actually cured people. There are practitioners, but no narrative accounts of any of them succeeding in curing a "demon-possessed" victim.
_________________________

ghostgeek:

There are a number of stories that portray Apollonius’ encountering demons. One shows him relieving a young man of a torturing demon, who turned out to be a deceased soldier enchanted by the young man’s good looks.
______________________

Since your credibility is low, I must ask you to document this particular example -- give the citation in Philostratus. Preferably, quote the text. I don't remember it and have doubts about it, and I'm too lazy to go back searching for it. Was this young man suffering physical pain or disability or derangement because of the "demon"? How was he victimized by the "demon"?

In general it's not true that Apollonius encountered "demons" or cases of "demon-possessed" victims, in Philostratus. The best demon-possession cases told are of some village priests who are said to have cast out 2 or 3 demons, and Apollonius was only an observer.

My recollection is that there are no cases of someone obviously sick and needing to be cured and being cured by Apollonius, such as we have several cases in the Gospel accounts, including the "demon-possessed" victims who were dysfunctional physically because of their condition. So please give the citation for this one. I've noticed that the Apollonius-promoters tend to exaggerate the accounts of "miracles" in Philostratus.
_________________________

ghostgeek:

In another story Apollonius has the residents of Ephesus stone a demon disguised as a beggar, and after the stones were removed the body of a dog was found in its place.
________________

You should be embarrassed to give such a grotesque example as this, suggesting that this is comparable to the miracles of Jesus healing the mentally deranged victims. Once again you are only proving my point that there are no other confirmed cases of miracle-workers or healers in the ancient history accounts.

You're right that this "miracle" of Apollonius is one of the best examples Philostratus offers, which only proves my point that Jesus was unique in performing miracle healing acts. If this is the best you can come up with, why don't you just concede the point that Jesus is the only exorcist in the ancient literature for whom there is serious evidence that he really cured victims of their affliction.

Really, ghost! Apollonius orders a poor old man to be stoned to death, and then his dying body turns into a dog!!! You left out the part about him growling and foaming at the mouth. I don't know which is uglier -- the barfing hound drowning in his vomit, or the charlatan "miracle-working exorcist" Apollonius who ordered his disciples to stone to death the poor old geezer.

That's your Jesus-parallel miracle-worker?
_________________________

ghostgeek:

Among the stories about Apollonius, there is not a consistent demonology. It is important, as we look at this wonder-worker, to recognize that his biography was fashioned ( either by Philostratos or Apollonius ) to give a supernatural interpretation to the events of his life in order to portray Apollonius in a favorable light.

[ http://www.missiology.org/folkreligion/Howellarticle.pdf ]
_______________________________

All I can respond is: STRIKE ONE!

2 more strikes and you're out! (or Apollonius is out!)

Lumpenproletariat:

ghostgeek:

Then Apollonius looked up at him and said: “It is not yourself that perpetrates this insult, but the demon who drives you on without you knowing it.” And in fact the youth was, without knowing it possessed by a devil; for he would laugh at things that no one else laughed at, and then he would fall to weeping for no reason at all, and he would talk and sing to himself. Now most people thought that it was the boisterous humour of youth which led him into such excesses; but he was really the mouthpiece of a devil, though it only seemed a drunken frolic in which on that occasion he was indulging. Now when Apollonius gazed on him, the ghost in him began to utter cries of fear and rage, such as one hears from people who are being branded or racked; and the ghost swore that he would leave the young man alone and never take possession of any man again. But Apollonius addressed him with anger, as a master might a shifty rascally, and shameless slave and so on, and he ordered him to quit the young man and show by a visible sign that he had done so. “I will throw down yonder statue,“ said the devil, and pointed to one of the images that were in the king’s portico, for there it was that the scene took place. But when the statue began by moving gently, and then fell down, it would defy anyone to describe the hubbub which arose thereat and the way they clapped their hands with wonder. [The account concludes with the young man showing his freedom from the demon by giving up his old way of living and following after Apollonius’ way of life.]

[ http://www.missiology.org/folkreligion/Howellarticle.pdf ]
_______________________________________

OK, this excerpt possibly describes a real mentally-ill person -- it's a little worse than I remembered. The victim here, the "demon-possessed" one, would suddenly burst out laughing, or weeping, for no apparent reason. And thus he disrupts a sermon or lecture by Apollonius, and everyone is shocked by this guy's rude behavior. He uttered "cries of fear and rage" and seemed drunk, etc.

Maybe this person was mentally disoriented. If the story is true. Let's give Philostratus the benefit of the doubt and assume there was such a lecture by Apollonius to his disciples and this one nutcase was there and did something disruptive.

There's no reason to dismiss the whole story as pure fiction. Apollonius really existed, really gave sermons to his disciples, and probably experienced a heckler at one time or another, in all his travels and encounters with different types.

But we should not believe the "miracle" element in the story. It seems to say there was a voice admitting guilt and promising to leave this victim and not return ever again. This means the victim-disrupter stopped the rude behavior, apologized and promised to change his attitude. Even this is somewhat normal, not necessarily miraculous, but it means Apollonius had a special ability to communicate and rebuke this guy to change his behavior rather suddenly -- so, arguably Apollonius had a talent for straightening out this kind of unpleasant character. Maybe a rare talent.

Let's grant all that, though more likely the author 150 years later is embellishing the story to enhance his portrayal of the legendary hero-preacher. But after the victim, or the Devil possessing him, agrees to straighten out, there is a trick performed, of knocking over a statue which leads to a disturbance among the audience. So a statue suddenly wobbles and falls, in response to the demon's command, and thus we have a miracle, psycho-kinesis, making a physical object move without being touched.

Since the author is writing this composition about 150 years later, and there's no other source than this one only, we should not believe this claimed miracle act by Apollonius, or by the demon expelled by him. It it had been written 100 years earlier or was corroborated by another source of the period, there might be some credibility.

And later, as the supposedly cured victim goes on from there to live a normal healthy life without any further such bad behavior, we have at best a case of someone having reformed and "shaping up" as it were to become a productive member of society, and perhaps people were impressed with his improved future behavior as a result of being influenced by the sage from Tyana.

It's not really clear that this character had been really sick or ill in the first place, though his misbehavior might have been extreme. There's nothing to indicate that he had been socially dysfunctional, or disabled, or incapable of interacting with others in the normal social activities, such as the ones cured by Jesus had been dysfunctional. Today we have protesters who show up at speeches and disrupt a speaker doing a formal presentation, and possibly security officers have to escort the disrupter away. Is that disrupter mentally ill, or "possessed by demons" etc.?

So it's doubtful that this scene from Philostratus is really a case of a "demon-possessed" victim who was ill and needed therapy, even if the scene described is accurate and happened as the author presents it. The serious "miracle" element, if there is any, can be dismissed as embellishment by the author, not as a fact or real event in the life of the wise sage, even if there were some encounters like this where he had a good influence on someone in the audience.

No doubt Apollonius did make a good impression on many who heard his sermons. This itself is not something miraculous and comparable to the miracle healing acts of Jesus described in the Gospel accounts, which are a much more credible source for the Jesus events than Philostratus is for the events of Apollonius 120+ years earlier.

Lumpenproletariat:

ghostgeek:

Greek philosopher Apollonius of Tyana from the Roman province of Cappadocia who lived in the first century CE is often linked with Jesus Christ. His amazing story that parallels Jesus has raised controversy among historians and theologians for centuries.
____________________________

The only linkage or parallel is that the reputation of Apollonius is partly derived from the earlier Jesus miracle-worker, who was used partly as a model for Apollonius by the 3rd-century Philostratus, writing much later and using some material from the Gospel accounts.

By far the best miracle story in the Apollonius biography is a copycat story lifted out of the Gospel of Luke by the author Philostratus writing his book in about 220-230 AD, using the Luke story of a young man raised back to life, at a funeral scene (Luke 7:11-17). So it's obvious that the motive of this author is partly to present a copy of the Jesus miracle-worker of about 30 AD.
_________________________

ghostgeek:

Jesus Christ’s contemporary Apollonius of Tyana who lived circa 3 BC – c. 97 AD and who many people at the time believed was a divine figure who could save humanity is almost erased by history.
__________________________

I.e., whatever might have been written about him, other than the Philostratus biography, was not considered important enough to be copied, and thus perished, like most writings in those times. No doubt there were many other wise sages and gurus and prophets and rabbis etc. who taught disciples and impressed a few followers, but they did not do anything unique enough to be considered significant, and so no one wrote about them and they disappeared entirely. Apollonius was just one more of these, except perhaps he was more conspicuous than others or traveled more -- somehow his reputation, speaking talent, attractive personality, and extremely long life gave him a small advantage to preserve some memory of him, with the one biography written about 150 years later, and then the legend which evolved over the centuries.

No credible evidence of any miracle acts such as we have for Jesus in about 30 AD.
________________________

ghostgeek:

Apollonius of Tyana similarities to Jesus Christ are undeniable.
____________________

The best example of a similarity is that of the copycat story which Philostratus lifted out of the Gospel of Luke and pasted into his biography of Apollonius.
____________________

ghostgeek:

They both are said to have ascended to Heaven. There are stories of both performing miracles.
_____________________

In the case of Jesus the written accounts are credible evidence, such as evidence we have for other historical events, reported in multiple sources near the time the events reportedly happened. Whereas the single source for Apollonius is not credible evidence.
________________________

ghostgeek:

They were both spiritual teachers.

Bart Ehrman a well-known agnostic atheist and a professor of religion at UNC-Chapel Hill starts his class by sharing this description of a famous man from the ancient world:

Before he was born, his mother had a visitor from heaven who told her that her son would not be a mere mortal but in fact would be divine. His birth was accompanied by unusual divine signs in heaven.
______________________

Ehrman is dishonest to preach this nutty sermon. There's no reason to believe the above happened either in the case of Jesus or Apollonius. There's no reliable sources for anything about the birth or childhood of either of them. You should skip over this part of Ehrman's propaganda and pay more attention to his factual content.
_______________________

ghostgeek:

As an adult, he left his home to engage on an itinerant preaching ministry. He gathered a number of followers around him who became convinced that he was no ordinary human, but that he was the Son of God.

And he did miracles to confirm them in their beliefs: he could heal the sick, cast out demons, and raise the dead.
______________________

There's virtually none of this in the Philostratus account of Apollonius.

"heal the sick"? Hardly. There's no narrative account of him healing anyone, but only one vague reference to him visiting an Asclepius temple and doing some cures there, maybe among worshipers of the ancient healing god Asclepius, who were there to have standard healing rituals performed on them, or undergoing some therapies/treatments, and in some cases the worshipers might have recovered from their illness a few days later. Philostratus gives no individual example of someone cured. This is hardly evidence that Apollonius had any healing power, such as evidence we have of Jesus in individual cases of victims reportedly healed who were not worshipers performing whatever the priests ordered them to do at a healing ritual service in a religious temple.

"cast out demons"? No, the one or two cases you could cite are very dubious -- it's not clear that the victim was really sick and needed to be cured of something. Just that the guy disrupted Apollonius at a speech he was giving doesn't mean he was sick. There's no serious example of Apollonius healing this kind of "demon-possessed" victim.

"raise the dead"? No, nothing other than the one copycat story Philostratus lifted out of the Gospel of Luke. Ehrman should be ashamed of himself for resorting to this kind of sensationalism when the only case is a dishonest one like this, and he knows that this is a copycat story the author plagiarized from Luke.

Ehrman is not always this dishonest. Hopefully you will quote from him when he shows his scholarship rather than his dishonest bias as in this case.
________________________

ghostgeek:

At the end of his life, he aroused opposition among the ruling authorities of Rome and was put on trial.
_________________

Of course Ehrman knows perfectly well that there was no such "trial" and that Philostratus is giving a fictional account of Apollonius preaching at length to the Emperor Domitian, which is ridiculous. No Emperor would sit there and listen to the ravings of a preacher-fanatic such as depicted in the phony scenario.

At the end of the scene, the Emperor pronounces Apollonius innocent and wants to end the session, but Apollonius insists that he has much more preaching to deliver to the Emperor, and when the Emperor refuses to listen to any more, Apollonius does a vanishing act -- poof! -- he disappears -- another of the few major "miracles" of Apollonius.

But even so, the author presents the rest of the preacher's long extended sermon, which goes on for several more pages. It's very dishonest of Ehrman to depict this farce as a "trial" conducted by the "authorities of Rome."
______________________

ghostgeek:

But they could not kill his soul. He ascended to heaven and continues to live there till this day.
______________

More dishonesty by Ehrman. He makes it appear that the hero was condemned to death at this "trial" but that he somehow survived miraculously. No, it all ended when he vanished from the "trial" where no one touched him or even accused him but he was exonerated and the poor Emperor only wanted the relief of not having to listen to any more of his lengthy sermons. That's your "trial" of Apollonius.
_______________________

ghostgeek:

To prove that he lived on after leaving his earthly orb, he appeared again to at least one of his doubting followers, who . . .
_________________

Only one, and the others present told that one that they did not see or hear anything. And it was not a visual appearance, but only a feeling he had, of the wise man's presence.
____________________

ghostgeek:

. . . who became convinced that in fact, he remains with us even now. Later, some of his followers wrote books about him, and we can still read about him today.
___________________

The biography identifies only one disciple who claims to have had the feeling of Apollonius being present.

There's no evidence that anyone wrote anything about Apollonius prior to the Philostratus account of 220-230 AD, though Philostratus claims there was an earlier source, but this is doubted by most scholars, who think our 3rd-century author invented a fictitious earlier writer as his source.
______________________

ghostgeek:

Ehrman, of course, wants everyone in his class to think he’s talking about Jesus Christ. But alas, he reveals the shocking news that he wasn’t talking about Jesus at all. Instead, he’s referring to Apollonius of Tyana.

[ https://greekreporter.com/2022/12/16/greek-jesus-christ-apollonius-tyana/ ]
______________________

Ehrman is better when he sticks to the facts rather than making up stories about Apollonius of Tyana to shock his listeners/readers who he takes for fools.

You'll have to do better than this if you're going to prove there were other miracle-workers in the ancient world who resemble the case of Jesus who is documented in our multiple 1st-century written sources.

ghostgeek: You asked for a miracle worker who resembled Jesus and your request was granted. End of story.

Lumpenproletariat:

ghostgeek:

Today few are aware of the Greek from Cappadocia. In the Ancient World, however, the great philosopher had something like 16 temples built in his honor all over the Mediterranean world, and possibly down through Mesopotamia (Babylon-Iraq) and into India. He was a mythical hero during the time of the Roman Empire.
____________________________

St. Nicholas is also a real person from history who has been made into a mythical hero. There are many miracle legends or heroes who did not really perform any miracle acts during their life, though usually they did something noteworthy which made them important at the time.

But the miracle stories of Jesus are different because they originate from the time when he lived, not 100+ years or centuries later, as in all the other cases, and we have multiple sources from the time which report his miracle acts.
___________________________

ghostgeek:

Apollonius was a charismatic teacher and miracle worker who became a follower of the religious teacher and mathematician Pythagoras and was heavily influenced by his philosophies.
_______________________

"charismatic" -- yes, probably, like many other popular preachers and philosophers and rabbis and mystics who had an influence on their audience, and who attracted "disciples" who revered them.

But not a "miracle worker" who actually performed miracle acts. Virtually all the reported miracle acts from antiquity are fictional.

But this doesn't mean there were no "psychics" or others who had visions, just like today there may be cases of someone with an unusual ability, though most reported cases are fraudulent. Maybe in a few cases there is verifiable evidence of someone with extra power beyond that of normal human ability. There are a few documented cases of "savants" who have verified extra power, such as musical talent or reading ability or mathematical skill, which they did not learn by normal means but acquired instantly by some means which cannot be explained by science.

These documented cases, noted in the media and other public sources today, confute our popular "skeptics" who preach that no "miracle" events or "psychic" or "paranormal" powers are possible and are all refuted by science. Rather, these cases are verified by today's science as real empirical events, observed under scientifically-controlled conditions, showing only that our known science is unable to explain all the observed phenomena.
___________________

ghostgeek:

It is the ancient Greek philosophical thought that separates his beliefs from Jesus Christ.

Jesus Christ taught his followers that God answers prayers.
____________________________

We don't really know what Jesus taught, because it's impossible to separate what he really said from words put into his mouth by later writers. Once his reputation as a true miracle-worker spread, it became fashionable for people to put words into his mouth or attribute their ideas to him, to have him preach their philosophy or ideology or religious beliefs. There are many conflicting religious ideas which he preaches, in the writings, so that it's impossible for him to have said much or most of it. Possibly he said none of it at all.
_________________

ghostgeek:

Apollonius of Tyana believed in a God who was pure intellect and taught his followers that the only way to converse with God was through the intellect. He taught that prayers and sacrifice were useless and that God really did not want to converse with men.

“The gods do not need sacrifices, so what might one do to please them? Acquire wisdom, it seems to me, and do all the good in one’s power to those humans who deserve it,” he had said.

He traveled widely around the Mediterranean and into India as a preacher, speaking his message and healing the sick.

[ https://greekreporter.com/2022/12/16/greek-jesus-christ-apollonius-tyana/ ]
________________________

There's virtually no evidence of him "healing the sick." In all the Philostratus biography there is only one reference to him healing the sick, and there's no narrative account of any particular case where he healed an individual victim, such as in the Gospel accounts reporting several cases, or narrating cases of Jesus healing individual victims who had a physical or mental affliction.

Of course there are a few legends in the ancient literature of someone, human or god, performing a healing miracle. Maybe half a dozen, over 3 or 4 thousand years. And hundreds other miracles by gods or heroes, in miracle myths which evolved over the many centuries. But no reported cases in any written sources near the time the miracle events allegedly happened. In stark contrast to the case of Jesus in the 1st century, for whom there are more than 30 miracle acts documented in written sources from the period.

Lumpenproletariat:

ghostgeek:

The earliest and by far the most detailed source is the Life of Apollonius of Tyana, a lengthy, novelistic biography written by the Athenian sophist Philostratus which he completed long after his death, probably in the 220s or 230s AD.

Among the miracles that were attributed to him by Philostratus, was saving the city of Ephesus from a plague.
________________________

But even the Philostratus report of this makes no sense, showing no connection of the supposed "miracle" to the city being saved from the plague. And the story is bizarre and disgusting in itself, making a mockery of any serious claim that "miracles" were performed by this prophet or by anyone else.

This is the story of an old man beggar who Apollonius claims is really a demon and the real cause of the plague in Ephesus, and so he orders his disciples to stone this old man to death. Which they do, and then the old man turns into a growling hound and dies there foaming at the mouth.

This disgusting scene is really about the best example of a "miracle" by Apollonius. Something so grotesque and bizarre as this is probably a good explanation why the reputation of Apollonius as a miracle-worker never really caught on, and why he is mostly forgotten by now. And why shouldn't such a "miracle-worker" as this be totally forgotten? How could any "miracle-worker" be more forgettable than this kind?

Supposedly this "miracle" has something to do with saving Ephesus from the plague -- but what? How is the killing of this old beggar connected to the plague ending? Philostratus reports nothing about the city being saved following this "miracle." He doesn't say the city immediately was cured, that all those sick suddenly recovered, or in any other way relate that the killing of this old beggar led to bringing healing to the plague victims. So this is a pathetic example of a so-called "miracle" by the prophet. Pythagoras would roll over in his grave knowing that a disciple of his is credited with doing a "miracle" like this.
_____________________________

ghostgeek:

It is also claimed that he brought the daughter of a Roman Senator back to life.
_________________

This is the copycat story which Philostratus lifted out of the Gospel of Luke. He changes 2 or 3 minor details, but otherwise just reports it as he plagiarized it from Luke, in which Jesus encounters a funeral procession and raises the dead young man back to life.
___________________________

ghostgeek:

In one case he stopped a follower from marrying a woman who turned out to be a “lamia”, a type of disguised demon, and in doing so saved his life.
_____________________________

Though not repugnant, like the Ephesus story, or dishonest, like the raising of the dead child back to life, there is something bizarre about this story which should be noted. There is a wedding banquet scene happening, to celebrate the marriage, and Apollonius causes everything to vanish -- the servants and tables and fancy gourmet food all laid out -- it all disappears magically and the bride turns into a monster demon, proving to the naive bridegroom that he had been tricked. So this is a Twilight Zone story, from a creative 3rd-century storyteller, using the legendary Apollonius of 150 years earlier as his character.

It's a real distortion to say this kind of miracle-legend has any resemblance to the 1st-century Jesus figure, whose miracle acts are documented in 4 (5) sources near his time.
_____________________

ghostgeek:

Philostratus implies on one occasion that Apollonius had extra-sensory perception. When emperor Domitian was murdered on 18 September 96 AD, Apollonius was said to have witnessed the event in Ephesus “about midday” on the day it happened in Rome, and told those present “Take heart, gentlemen, for the tyrant has been slain this day …”.

Both Philostratus and renowned historian Cassius Dio report this incident, probably on the basis of an oral tradition.

[ https://greekreporter.com/2022/12/16/greek-jesus-christ-apollonius-tyana/ ]
_______________________

Perhaps he really did have psychic power such as this. There are likely some other cases of this in history. Though we really need more than only two sources 150 years later. The mad monk Rasputin might have had similar ability, such as "mind-reading" etc.

Lumpenproletariat:

ghostgeek:

So a rare point of agreement between us where we both doubt the existence of demons, even though the Gospels clearly think the little buggers exist.
______________________

Most of the ancient writers believed they existed, being part of the normal culture. We don't have to accept the same superstitions of the ancient culture to be able to believe their report of the events, or the part that was observable by the witnesses, while separating out the superstitious element in order to determine what really happened. Today we witness victims of mental illness similar to those 2000 years ago, and these ones today could be described as demon-possessed by those who believe demons exist.

But those exorcism stories were NOT "made up." Just because the fictitious "demons" were made up or added to the story does not mean these accounts of victims being healed were "made up." Those "demoniacs" or "possessed" persons did exist and were treated for their condition. We should believe it because that's what the evidence shows. We have 4 written accounts which report the healing events, which is strong evidence that they did happen.
________________

ghostgeek:

So why is it so hard to think that the miracles were also made up, and the healing too?
__________________

It's possible that a few of the "miracles" were made up, but almost impossible that all or most of them were. (It's possible 2 or 3 of them were "made up" after Jesus had gained the widespread reputation as a miracle-worker, after which some additional stories could have been added to the original ones which established his reputation as a miracle healer.) There are no other cases of miracle-worker stories being made up by someone and reported by the ancient writers, except in some rare cases where we can recognize how it happened. An obvious example is a famous and powerful hero-figure:

⬤ Emperor Vespasian is said to have done a miracle. 2 worshippers of the ancient god Serapis appealed to him to perform an ancient ritual for them, to heal them of their physical affliction. The writers report this and suggest that Vespasian successfully got them cured, or that the victims had a successful outcome. It was normal (and still is today) for religious worshipers to claim they were healed by their ancient healing god when the traditional praying or ritual was done for them.

⬤ Alexander the Great is said to have demonstrated miraculous power in battle, slaying far more enemy soldiers than is plausible, and even slaying some enemy soldiers who had gorilla heads rather than human heads. And there are other stories about Alexander doing or experiencing miracles.

These were widely famous and popular heroes of their time who can easily become the object of miracle claims.

Other examples of miracle stories being made up are folk heroes from centuries past, who became mythologized over time, evolving into something far more fantastic than they were originally:

⬤ Apollo
⬤ Hercules
⬤ Asclepius
⬤ Prometheus
⬤ Perseus
⬤ St. Nicholas
⬤ St. George

and so on -- the list is endless. These miracle stories did not get invented by people during the time when these characters lived (if they did live as real people). Real people who were unusual during their life would typically become mythologized into a miracle hero, over many centuries. Such fictions evolved over centuries of time and could not be invented during the time when the hero figure lived, because it required those centuries of storytelling for the story to be invented.

So the reason we can't believe the miracles of Jesus were "made up" is that it required centuries for such stories to evolve, not only 50-100 years.

In this case the stories are credible, because the usual explanation how miracle stories evolve or get "made up" do not apply in this case.

ghostgeek: You're really getting into this, aren't you?

ghostgeek: And of course you are no doubt sitting around waiting for the Kingdom of God to materialise? Well, if you are, you're going to have a long wait because it arrived bang on time nearly two thousand years ago.

Lumpenproletariat:

ghostgeek:

Paul says that Jesus was seen after his death, which is remarkable until you remember that other people have likewise been seen after they've expired.
___________________

Not by multiple witnesses at the same location -- all together seeing the dead person alive. Virtually all visions of "the dead" were one person alone, having a vision.

(Of course there are cases of a deceased who revived a short time after being pronounced dead -- maybe a few hours being "dead" before reviving. We have to recognize those documented cases.)

But you have a point, in the sense that if Paul was the only one reporting this, it might not be sufficient evidence.

But added to the other evidence, from the 3 Gospel accounts reporting the appearances, and Mark reporting the incident at the tomb (or burial location visited by the Galilean women who were told that they should go seek Jesus and see him alive) and many other reported witnesses, the evidence is far more than necessary to make it believable.

Of course an extreme skeptic can reject the claim anyway, out of the dogmatic premise that no such miracle event can ever possibly happen no matter how much evidence there is.

But it's reasonable to believe it based on the extra evidence, the extra witnesses. And especially because in most of the appearances there were several witnesses together who saw him at once, rather than only one witness alone. This makes the appearances reports far more credible.

Bart Ehrman responds to this argument -- of multiple witnesses at once -- with the silly example of large crowds of worshipers having reported seeing the Virgin Mary, all together at once. If necessary I can explain why this is such a phony and inadequate rebuttal. It should be obvious that it's not the same kind of sighting as that of the 1st-century disciples reporting the appearance of Jesus after his death, after they had seen him so many times earlier and recognized him. Hopefully you don't need me to explain why Ehrman is wrong to claim this is analogous to a large crowd of Catholic worshipers in the 20th century seeing a woman in the distance and all gasping -- "Look! it's the Virgin Mary!"
_____________________

ghostgeek:

So basically, Jesus' resurrection is an ancient ghost story that you believe or you don't.
_________________________

Yes, you can believe the evidence or disbelieve it. But the evidence is that they saw him.

But you're right that only one witness alone seeing him is not good evidence. And we would need more than only the single case of Paul seeing someone no one else saw. So no one's single vision is good evidence. Possibly even several persons each having a single separate vision would not be good evidence.
______________________

ghostgeek:

Do you believe that people still see Elvis walking around, or are they the victims of an overactive imagination?
______________________

Not at all! Almost certainly they saw someone real who looked like Elvis. When multiple witnesses report seeing an Elvis impersonator all together in a group, the reasonable conclusion is that they did in fact see that Elvis impersonator.

Lumpenproletariat:

ghostgeek:

Where might Matthew and Luke have got their non Mark material from? Well, could be they went down to the tavern, had a jar or two and then went back to their scribing. Such a silly question! Where does your typical novelist get his or her material from?
__________________________

Maybe this miscommunication is my fault. I don't recall what I said back there.

But the question is this:

Where did Matthew and Luke both get the same material from which they did not get from Mark?

I.e., the same material that was common to them both?

I.e., they both use the same words, same phrase, etc. to report something that was not in Mark.

Either one of them copied it from the other, or they must have had a common source they both used. Just as they both used Mark, they must also have used some other source as well.

The scholars assume there was this other source, which they called Q. So it's assumed there was a "Q Document" -- no longer available because it perished like most documents perished.

So you can't say Mark was the only original source. We at least have evidence of this earlier source, even if we don't have the source itself.

But there are differing opinions on the existence of such a source. Not all the scholars agree that it existed. And yet there has to be an explanation how Mt and Lk agreed at many points where they must have had a common source they both used.

Lumpenproletariat:

ghostgeek:

Now about Jesus' resurrection. . . So how come no historian of the time recorded this singular event?
_____________________

Obviously they did not believe it, if they had heard of it. Miracle claims generally were rejected by everyone, not only the historians. No one wrote down such things unless they really believed it to be true. There were probably many claims of this or that fantastic event, which were always ignored by everyone.

ghostgeek: The good old Q-Source that most modern biblica scholars accept. Strange that no copy of this precious document has ever been found and that there's no mention of it in Christian writing from the formative years of the religion. But hey, why let piddling facts get in the way of a good theory.

ghostgeek: My theory:

Mark puts his thinking cap on and comes up with the first gospel. Matthew takes this gospel and fiddles with it until he's happy. Luke takes Matthew's Gospel home with him and fiddles with it until he's happy. As simple as a can of baked beans.

Lumpenproletariat:

ghostgeek:

Oh, and talking about finding the truth, can you say who the "Twelve" were?
____________________

No, Paul doesn't say who "the Twelve" were.

"The Twelve Disciples" is probably a fiction created by the early Jesus followers, after his death. These were very early followers who pretended that they were special and were given special status by Christ, so they could claim to have authority over the new Christ-believing community in Jerusalem.

The lists of the 12 are not consistent, as to the exact names. Though obviously the main ones of Peter and James and John are there, and some others. But there are discrepancies also.

There's no need to assume that Jesus actually selected a certain "twelve" for any special leadership or domination role to play. This notion, a group of "Twelve" elite dominators over the others, could easily have evolved in the 30s or 40s AD, before Paul.
________________

ghostgeek:

1 Corinthians 15:3 For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, 4 that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, 5 and that he appeared to Cephas, and then to the Twelve. 6 After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers and sisters at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep. 7 Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles, 8 and last of all he appeared to me also, as to one abnormally born.

Seems they were a different group to the Apostles.
______________________

Yes. Or maybe he meant about the same people, and when he said "the Twelve" he meant Peter with the other eleven who were together as a group.

I suspect he meant the same group, and he mentions appearances to some of them individually, naming the one in question each time, but also to "the twelve" as a group all at once.

But it's not clear exactly who "the twelve" were, all of them. Though individually Peter and some others were probably in that group.

Lumpenproletariat:

ghostgeek:

Well, if more than one source is required that flushes the Gospels down the loo, seeing as Mark's Gospel is probably is the bedrock of the whole Gospel tradition.
_______________________

Why don't you have any facts to offer?

Why do you have to make up your own stories, such as saying Mark is "the bedrock"?

The existing documents are all "sources" for determining what happened. To arbitrarily call one the "bedrock" of all of them has nothing to do with the facts or what a "source" is. If the manuscript exists and was written in that historical period, then it is one of the sources.

All that makes Mark different is that it is earlier than the other Gospels and is quoted in 2 of them. That doesn't make it the "bedrock" of anything or negate the others as sources also.

Lumpenproletariat:

ghostgeek:

Philostratus’ biography may have distorted Apollonius, so today we do not know who he actually was. Was he a fraud, a religious prophet or a serious religious philosopher? We will never be sure. What can be said with certainty is that Apollonius of Tyana was an extraordinary figure in the ancient world.

[ https://classicalwisdom.com/people/philosophers/apollonius-of-tyana-the-pagan-jesus-christ/ ]
________________________

Yes, and we can see from the biography and other sources why he was famous: He was a wise sage who traveled widely over 50+ years of a very long preaching career, attracting hundreds of followers/admirers. He probably did many good deeds and inspired hundreds or thousands with his wisdom, knowledge, acquaintance with the deities everyone worshiped.

Maybe also he had some psychic powers, though this is debatable. Probably people thought he read their minds. Maybe he made predictions -- or people thought he did -- and some of them came true.

All this is more than enough to explain how he became famous.

But this cannot explain how Jesus became famous, in his very limited 1-3-year career.

Lumpenproletariat:

ghostgeek:

Apollonius of Tyana similarities to Jesus Christ is undeniable.
____________________

They both became famous.

But we know why Apollonius became famous, being a wise philosopher who traveled widely and inspired hundreds or thousands and won followers over a long teaching career, more than 50 years.

Similar to Socrates and Gautama and many others.

But this cannot explain why Jesus became famous, whose public career lasted only 1-3 years. So there is a huge difference between Jesus and all the other Great Teachers like Apollonius.
_____________________

ghostgeek:

They both are said to have ascended to Heaven.
_____________________

But there's only one source which says anything like this about Apollonius, and it is dated at least 120 years later than the alleged event. And it reports no witnesses present, and implies clearly that no one did see it happen.

Whereas for Jesus we have 2-3 sources which say this. And one of them says it was a physical bodily ascension up into the sky, with several witnesses present and seeing it happen. And this source was written about 60 years after the alleged event.

Of course one might reasonably doubt that this particular event really happened. But clearly we have vastly more evidence and witnesses to the miracle power of Jesus than we have for Apollonius.
____________________

ghostgeek:

There are stories of both performing miracles.
___________________

But only about half a dozen such stories in the one source for Apollonius written 120+ years later, compared to Jesus in the Gospels doing more than 30 miracle acts. And some of the Apollonius "miracles" are grotesque and ridiculous, like the one of Apollonius commanding his disciples to stone to death an old beggar, who then magically turns into a growling foaming-at-the-mouth dog. How repugnant! And you want to compare this pathetic "miracle" to that of Jesus curing the lepers and the blind and other physically afflicted victims.

Get serious!

What other "similarities" do you claim to have -- so far your batting average is about .003.
__________________

ghostgeek:

They were both spiritual teachers. However, they did not have identical beliefs.
______________

Yes, there were hundreds of "spiritual teachers" who impressed many disciples with their charisma. Actually thousands, throughout the many different cultures. And we have "spiritual" teachers today, like the televangelists and the Jim Jones and David Koresh "spiritual teachers" and all their rantings and ravings -- why not add Adolph Hitler to the list? How do you define a "spiritual teacher" anyway?

Most of the followers of Alexander the Great and Caesar Augustus and Charlemagne and Napoleon etc. thought those leaders were gods, or even the One and Only God of the Universe.
_________________________

ghostgeek:

Jesus taught his followers that . . .
______________________

It's difficult to figure out what Jesus really taught his followers. There are so many different interpretations, and also discrepancies in the teachings.

It's better to stick to what the evidence shows: He performed the miracle healing acts, and he rose back to life after he was killed.

That's all we can determine from the evidence.

Lumpenproletariat:

ghostgeek:

Apollonius quote: "The gods do not need sacrifices, so what might one do to please them? Acquire wisdom, it seems to me, and do all the good in one’s power to those humans who deserve it."

If this is true, Apollonius and Jesus Christ would have been in competition with each other if they preached in the same areas. Some say that they were and they did.

[ https://www.historicmysteries.com/apollonius-of-tyana/ ]
__________________________

That's a good quote from Apollonius. This gives us reason to believe that also many Jews, including Jewish teachers or wise men, also doubted those primitive practices of the sacrifice rituals.

The culture of Apollonius was one of respecting the ancient animal sacrifice rituals, which were as much a part of the ancient Greek and Roman culture as of the Jewish culture back to Moses who apparently borrowed these primitive blood sacrifice rituals from the earlier pagan culture.

What we today should all recognize is that God (if God exists) NEVER ordained anything like these ancient animal sacrifice rituals. Moses and all the other Lawgivers were WRONG to ascribe these rituals to God, as if God somehow delighted in the smell of the smoke from the burning carcasses.

Good for Apollonius! being quoted as denying the truth of these primitive superstitions. Too bad there are not similar quotes from Jesus.

We admittedly have no such good quotes from Jesus. But we can at least HOPE he also said such things, or at least thought it.

Hopefully today's Bible Scholars are wrong, who drag Jesus down into the gutter by claiming he was a staunch Mosaic Law Fanatic preaching strict adherence to those ancient superstitious practices.

If Jesus was such a Moses Law Bigot, this is certainly a blemish upon him, about which hopefully he has by now
changed his mind, wherever he is.

Surely he never preached such superstitious hocus-pocus.

Even if we can't be certain, because we have no definite clear-cut quote from Jesus, we surely are entitled to BELIEVE IN OUR HEARTS that he repudiated such superstition as being not from God but from the bewilderment of Stone-Age minds steeped in fear and despair.