It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The Possible Conspiracy of Appolonius the Nazarene of Tyana

page: 4
9
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 30 2014 @ 11:01 AM
link   

Krazysh0t
reply to post by adjensen
 


While I haven't watched the video yet, there are a few facts that need to be made clear. The gospels (all of them) were written years after Jesus' death. Until then, all stories of Jesus' accomplishments were told orally. That would be like writing about the childhood of your best friend when you were an old man and your best friend had passed away 20 years prior. Sure you are going to have a good idea of what went down, but are you going to remember everything perfectly? Seeing as how fishermen can't seem to keep the size of their record breaking fish they caught consistent from storytelling to storytelling, I'd wager that embellishment of the Jesus account is all but assured. So while I'm sure the video makes a compelling argument in favor of the gospels being true and accurate (unlikely as well considering some of the things the gospels mention are impossible and that isn't including the crazy miracles), it just seems unlikely considering human behavior and memory capabilities. Also keep in mind, you cannot use the bible to prove biblical accounts, you need additional sources to corroborate them.



That's a good semblance you draw of fishermen and exaggeration.
But it doesn't hold water at all. I just don't see anyone going to
their death, because they wouldn't renounce a few whoppers.

How does it make any sense that anyone would lie directly about
someone they were willing to die for? And did.


If the story of Jesus was just something made up by men?
Then the story lacks all the trademarks of humankind.
Jesus would have been a Hercules and the son of God
sensationalized. Not the story we have by any stretch.

edit on 30-1-2014 by randyvs because: (no reason given)




posted on Jan, 30 2014 @ 11:34 AM
link   
reply to post by randyvs
 


I think it's a little nuts to think that anyone would have been saved from Roman death squads if they only recanted their religious roots or beliefs. No less than 6000 men and women were crucified outside the city walls of Jerusalem during the siege of Jerusalem during the Jewish Wars. No amount of "Mea Culpa" would have saved them.

Nero couldn't have cared less who was a supposed "Christian", a Nazarene or a Jew, he blamed the whole Jewish population and after the fire, forced the Jewish population to pay for the reconstruction of Rome.

reply to post by daskakik
 




Why? What's so bad about them being Essene? Why are "strong links" required to link them to the Essene but unclear ideas of unmarried men in first-century Palestine are more than enough proof to resist that temptation?


Because a nod to legitimize the Essene/Nazorean connection to Jesus the Nazarene, John the Baptist and Paul would lend credibility to the early Christian Gnostic movement, that became a thorn in the side of the Roman Catholic Church.

Which brings us back to Appolonius the Nazarene, a title that suggests that Appolonius was either a follower of Jesus the Nazarene, as all early followers were first called Nazarene, or he was an Essene of Mt Carmel, the heart of the Nazorean Essene community.



edit on 30-1-2014 by windword because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 30 2014 @ 12:14 PM
link   
Humans lie. It an absolutely irrational to imply that even one, much less twelve, much less 120 (etcetera) always told the truth even if they "knew" such a truth. Being "willing to die for something" confers no special honesty and merely displays a suicidal if not psychotic fixation. Would you say that Islamic suicide bombers are telling "the truth"?



posted on Jan, 30 2014 @ 06:10 PM
link   
reply to post by windword
 


The Nazarene link to the Essenes might be right, but I don't think it is because Apollonius taught that God has no interest in man and does not need us petitioning, praying to him etc which made his teachings such a threat to both the early Church Fathers who were trying to get a unified congregation for the obvious reasons but also to the Emporer and his claimn to be appointed by God.

He also differed with the Essenes on the question of resurrection. He taught about reincarnation which meant a new life, not the resurrection of the dead in their bodies.

The term 'Nazarene' seems to be something that we have lost the correct translation for because it seems to have applied to people not from Nazareth or from a certain sect of Christians/Jews. The word Naga goes back to very ancient times and I feel it might be a derivative of a word linked to the serpent (people) or its meaning that Christ referred to when he said 'be ye wise as serpents'

Apollonius not only criticised the Emporer his cruelty and lavish style of living at the expense of the people, but the church Fathers disapproved of his teachings as obviously they were redundant in the role of interceding on behalf of the people. This caused trouble between him and the Authorities and they put him on trial but when threatened with death he simply disappeared from their midst. Its almost too much of a coincidence that his life and the life of Jesus virtually parallel or mirror each other with similar miracles, raising of the dead and healings, disappearances etc. Apart from his attempted trial it's obvious that the Emperors and Church Fathers wanted all mention of Apollonius gone as well as some of his teachings. Admiration of Apollonius and his popularity with the people wherever he went probably gave him cult status after his death so his name allied to his teachings had to be erased from history which also involved the getting rid of all public records about him, especially in the libraries and one way to achieve this would be to substitute another name to replace his - and then alter the parts of his teachings that the Empire and church Fathers needed in the 3rd century.



posted on Jan, 30 2014 @ 06:20 PM
link   
reply to post by Gryphon66
 





"willing to die for something" confers no special honesty and merely displays a suicidal if not psychotic fixation. Would you say that Islamic suicide bombers are telling "the truth"?


So how do you even make the comparison between a suicide bomber
and someone being threatened with execution or even executed?
Because that's interesting.





"willing to die for something" confers no special honesty and merely displays a suicidal if not psychotic fixation.


Rght, cause it's an everyday common occurance, that people are willing to
go to their death, over some BS they were spread'n around town.. I've never heard or seen
that ever once.

Doesn't happen.



posted on Jan, 30 2014 @ 07:17 PM
link   

randyvs
So how do you even make the comparison between a suicide bomber
and someone being threatened with execution or even executed?
Because that's interesting.


Ah, now you're moving the goalposts. You said "willing to die." You do realize that suicide bombers consider themselves martyrs for their faith, in the exact same vein as your legendary Christian martyrs did, right? That same vein being apparent psychosis to me on both counts. It's not "interesting," it's insane.



randyvs
Rght, cause it's an everyday common occurance, that people are willing to
go to their death, over some BS they were spread'n around town.. I've never heard or seen
that ever once.

Doesn't happen.


You've never heard of the US Armed Services then? They face death EVERY DAY because of their belief in the American way, the same "American way" that generally throws their lives away for no reason, dishonors their sacrifices, puts them in situations where they're either killed and taken away from their families or blown apart and then sent back to a country that often doesn't even care enough to provide them with adequate healthcare??? Never heard of that huh?

Come on man. Drop the ignorant act.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Back on topic. As I've continued to read about Apollonius, he's definitely an interesting figure. And boy, did he get around the ancient world travelling from India to Hispaniola (Spain) to Egypt, etc. However, after about 12 hours of reading and study, I find no more credence for his actual existence as the individual portrayed in his histories than say, Jesus. He is representative in general of the "god-men" that were common in the early Imperial period. There are literally hundreds of these miracle-workers and "sons of god" that were evidently wandering around the Mediterranean in the first century CE.

By the way, there was more than one was named Apollo/Apollon/Apollonius and more than one was named Jesus/Yeshua/Joshua etc.

I will say that the idea that Emperor Constantine standardized a state religion from these existing cults and then assimilated followers into the Roman bureaucracy (keep in mind that the two great centers of Christianity are also the two great centers of the Roman Empire (Rome and Constantinople)) makes a lot more sense to me than that a few people started a world-wide religion based on the teachings of an individual with no historical attribution, outside their own holy books.
edit on 19Thu, 30 Jan 2014 19:36:13 -060014p072014166 by Gryphon66 because: Back on target



posted on Jan, 30 2014 @ 07:47 PM
link   
reply to post by Gryphon66
 


What I think is interesting is how you're not seeing' the difference between
a suicide and an execution in regards to the context pertaining to
BS and lies. No one ever threatened, or sentenced to death or
executed a suicide bomber because he wouldn't deny his faith!

And that's the only goal post you need to worry about at the moment.

I also have great interest in the fact, that after Rome crucified Christ.
Christianity grew right up thru it, as the empire went into steady decline.
And in the end, I could say Jesus Christ conquered the Roman empire
after he was crucified and an untold faithful were executed.

Because unlike you. They knew Ghrist was the real deal.
edit on 30-1-2014 by randyvs because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 30 2014 @ 08:11 PM
link   
reply to post by randyvs
 


I see the situation perfectly fine. Both are dead. Both are dead in violent fashion. Both are dead because of their belief in a religion. Both are dead because of psychotic obsession with their religion that overcame their own survival instincts.

I care less if you move the terms of your claim to the moon and back, honestly.

You value the life of your legendary Christian heroes over the real lives of contemporary men, women and children that we know have died, violently, needlessly, usually taking more innocents with them in the name of "FAITH" in their INSANE religion.

You want it to be different and it's not. Well, except that we have actual proof of suicide bombers ...
edit on 20Thu, 30 Jan 2014 20:13:10 -060014p082014166 by Gryphon66 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 30 2014 @ 08:24 PM
link   
reply to post by Gryphon66
 





willing to die for something" confers no special honesty


Then you're just wrong about this.
Jesus Christ changed the world for the next twenty centuries
after he was crucified. But people prefer he didn't exist.
Doesn't mean the idea isn't a joke.
edit on 30-1-2014 by randyvs because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 30 2014 @ 08:42 PM
link   

randyvs
reply to post by Gryphon66
 





willing to die for something" confers no special honesty


Then you're just wrong about this.


Then prove it in something other than a quippish one-liner with something resembling logic or evidence instead of relying solely on your own innate wisdom. Show me and others how I'm wrong, participate in the discussion, add informative value instead of vague innuendo. I'm glad to learn from someone who deals honestly and directly and can demonstrate my errors logically.

Put up your facts about Apollonius the topic of the thread for us to examine together, for example, instead of quibbling with me on the metalanguage of our individual posting habits!

ADDED IN EDIT: Ah, your thought is evolving even as we post. Jesus Christ (as a fictional character in my opinion) did NOT change the world in any measurable way. The political organizations that the Romans instituted (i.e. the Church) that were based on the fictional character of Jesus, or Apollonius, or Paulus, or Whoeverus, has had some regional effect in the Mediterranean basin, in Central and Western Europe and some of Asia, but Christianity is hardly the sole motivating force in the World. Two Thirds of the world disagrees with you, for example, today. (Source.)
edit on 21Thu, 30 Jan 2014 21:29:44 -060014p092014166 by Gryphon66 because: Ever evolving thought



posted on Jan, 30 2014 @ 11:35 PM
link   
reply to post by Gryphon66
 


There isn't anything I need to be provve. It's as clear as a bell
to people with eyes that see and a brain that works. Jesus died in obscurity
and yet for 2000 thousand years he's been the most famous human being
that ever lived and not just to Christians. But the hate that seeps thru
every word you post, tells me not to bother.
edit on 30-1-2014 by randyvs because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 31 2014 @ 01:18 AM
link   
reply to post by randyvs
 


And lo! Thus are revealed the universal cop-outs for a believer faced with facts. "You're dumb. You're mean. You're stinky."

I have no hate friend, not for you, for religion nor for Jesus. I don't know you, religion is mere fantasy, and Jesus is a fictional character. Why would I hate any of that? Well, I might hate the insane effects and violence of religion ...

(Actually, I would have liked Jesus, had he really existed. He hung out with sinners, eating and drinking with them, talked about love, and promised a better life for everyone, etc. Nothing like his followers.)

The mishmash is not clear as a bell. And my brain works just fine, thank you. You vaguely gesture toward some hoodoo and claim that you've said something meaningful. You haven't. You haven't made an argument, you haven't provided any evidence, you haven't made any reasoned statements beyond allusions to your beliefs none of which are on topic in this discussion thus far.

What do you think of Apollonius? Did you read anything about him? Read any of the links provided? Or do you just already know everything you need to know? Pfft. Why are you even talking?

Jesus may be the most important "person" in history to you, but to about five billion others, Krishna is. Or Buddha. Or the Prophet. Or Moses. Or maybe even Apollonius!

I don't expect you to see that or acknowledge it though ... that's just another one of those silly facts that you don't have to deal with CAUSE YOU KNOW THE TRUTH AND THE TRUTH HAS SET YOU FREE!

Praise Yahoo! Who-Do and the rest.
edit on 1Fri, 31 Jan 2014 01:22:02 -060014p012014166 by Gryphon66 because: /eyeroll



posted on Jan, 31 2014 @ 02:38 AM
link   
reply to post by Gryphon66
 





What do you think of Apollonius?


I think I remember reading something about him, being like an
Elvis impersonater, or something, only way back. But they sound exactly
like two different people, when one reads the descriptions in comparison.
You know like Jesus claims of being divine or having the authority of God.

Did Apollonius ever claim that he was divine? Never, he would've been on the cross
before nightfall that sameday. But Christ tempted fate quite often. And the Jews
were actually considering that he was God, in the flesh. that's why they balked.
Then finally they did the deed So this Apollonius ? He's no more than a bum in
cheap suit.
edit on 31-1-2014 by randyvs because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 31 2014 @ 04:52 AM
link   

randyvs
reply to post by Gryphon66
 


What I think is interesting is how you're not seeing' the difference between
a suicide and an execution in regards to the context pertaining to
BS and lies. No one ever threatened, or sentenced to death or
executed a suicide bomber because he wouldn't deny his faith!

And that's the only goal post you need to worry about at the moment.

I also have great interest in the fact, that after Rome crucified Christ.
Christianity grew right up thru it, as the empire went into steady decline.
And in the end, I could say Jesus Christ conquered the Roman empire
after he was crucified and an untold faithful were executed.

Because unlike you. They knew Ghrist was the real deal.
edit on 30-1-2014 by randyvs because: (no reason given)


You seem to have the opinion that once christ died, "Christianity grew right up thru" the roman Empire. Not immediately it didn't. In fact throughout the 1st - 3rd century the Empire had no end of different religions all vying for disciples. Within christianity there were so many different versions, beliefs etc, then add into it Paganism, Judiasm the Eastern religions it was virtually a free-for-all. Christianity as its known now did not happen until it was put together at Nicea, where the emperor and church Fathers cherry-picked what suited them and forged a new set of beliefs. Why do you think we have a New Testament with its selected by the Church gospels and yet many other Gospels etc etc have been left out. They are left out because they didn't suit the ideas Christianity represents. Although the figure of Jesus is a Jew much of Jewish belief has been filtered out, which Jesus, whom is claimed to have said had no intention of changing the religious Laws, would not have agreed to.

Even after the 3rd century Christianity in order to survive had to adapt much paganism as well as covet all its sacred sites. The church was utterly ruthless and murderous in its pursuance of heretics. In actual fact I find it hard to imagine why people would embrace such a miserable concept of a God to adore and worship, which of course is where Apollonius's teachings of 'God isn't interested in you personally' was something to be stamped out at all costs. Paganism celebrated its beliefs but Christians were and are told things like an innocent babe is a sinner as soon as its born, which is really quite despicable when one actually thinks about some of the core Christian practices and beliefs - rather than just accepting them and not actually thinking about them at all.

Its very difficult for many people to step outside of the religious dogma box and take time to think 'Do I really believe that wholeheartedly'? Or is it something I find unacceptable or impossible. Am I comfortable with these teachings?



posted on Jan, 31 2014 @ 07:27 AM
link   

randyvs
reply to post by Gryphon66
 





What do you think of Apollonius?


I think I remember reading something about him, being like an
Elvis impersonater, or something, only way back. But they sound exactly
like two different people, when one reads the descriptions in comparison.
You know like Jesus claims of being divine or having the authority of God.

Did Apollonius ever claim that he was divine? Never, he would've been on the cross
before nightfall that sameday. But Christ tempted fate quite often. And the Jews
were actually considering that he was God, in the flesh. that's why they balked.
Then finally they did the deed So this Apollonius ? He's no more than a bum in
cheap suit.
edit on 31-1-2014 by randyvs because: (no reason given)


Spoken like a true believer. "... Full of sound and fury signifying nothing."

(Another imaginary guy said that, even though a real guy wrote it. Funny how that works.)

Jesus never claimed to be God either, by-the-by.

(Before anyone goes there, allow me:



John 10:30-36.
10:30 I and my Father are one.
10:31 Then the Jews took up stones again to stone him.
10:32 Jesus answered them, Many good works have I shewed you from my Father; for which of those works do ye stone me?
10:33 The Jews answered him, saying, For a good work we stone thee not; but for blasphemy; and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God.
10:34 Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods?
10:35 If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken;
10:36 Say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the Son of God?


Notice that Jesus is clearly saying that he is the Son of His Father, not his father. Although, he also stakes the claim that we are all gods ... so it's a troubling passage.

edit on 7Fri, 31 Jan 2014 07:35:24 -060014p072014166 by Gryphon66 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 31 2014 @ 08:06 AM
link   

Shiloh7
reply to post by adjensen
 




However its the opposite for Jesus. He had a poor upbringing and being a carpenter's son was unlikely to have been educated. It is never reported that he wrote any down and we know the desciples mostly uneducated men who relied on charity to survive. We also know he is reputed to have taught in the Synagogue but, unless he was a married Rabbi, he could not have done so according to Jewish Law and he would have been arrested by the Temple police. Much of what we are told, simply doesn't make sense. A man who gives the Sermon on the Mount to huge crowds and feeds them from a couple of little baskets would have been the talk of the whole of Israel. Even his crucifixion is not recorded in Roman documents.



He was the talk of the whole of Israel. The people tried to set Him up as King. Several attempts to arrest Him were made but His popular following was so large that the authorities were afraid of the people. Clearing the Temple of the money changers was no small crime in the minds of those gaining from it and yet even after this event they were afraid to arrest Him. He openly taught in the temple for awhile.....which was simply unheard of and a cause of extreme consternation to the religious order and civil authorities. He and His followers took over the Temple area which may require some effort to warp the mind around just how badly this upset the Temple priests and Pharisees. It was outrageous. It was along the lies of Occupy Wall Street actually taking over the stock exchange.




edit on 31-1-2014 by Logarock because: n



posted on Jan, 31 2014 @ 08:25 AM
link   

Shiloh7

randyvs
reply to post by Gryphon66
 


What I think is interesting is how you're not seeing' the difference between
a suicide and an execution in regards to the context pertaining to
BS and lies. No one ever threatened, or sentenced to death or
executed a suicide bomber because he wouldn't deny his faith!

And that's the only goal post you need to worry about at the moment.

I also have great interest in the fact, that after Rome crucified Christ.
Christianity grew right up thru it, as the empire went into steady decline.
And in the end, I could say Jesus Christ conquered the Roman empire
after he was crucified and an untold faithful were executed.

Because unlike you. They knew Ghrist was the real deal.
edit on 30-1-2014 by randyvs because: (no reason given)




Even after the 3rd century Christianity in order to survive had to adapt much paganism as well as covet all its sacred sites. The church was utterly ruthless and murderous in its pursuance of heretics. In actual fact I find it hard to imagine why people would embrace such a miserable concept of a God to adore and worship, which of course is where Apollonius's teachings of 'God isn't interested in you personally' was something to be stamped out at all costs. Paganism celebrated its beliefs but Christians were and are told things like an innocent babe is a sinner as soon as its born, which is really quite despicable when one actually thinks about some of the core Christian practices and beliefs - rather than just accepting them and not actually thinking about them at all.





It was actually the pagans that were trying to survive by adoption Christian trappings. Once the pagans gained control of mainstream christianity they persecuted the "heretics" who were the true christians in fact. The Pagans never ceased to flourish. The early persecution of the christians, burning at the stake, torture, feeding to the beasts in the public arena and all manner of abuse was undertaken by the pagans and their emperors.



posted on Jan, 31 2014 @ 08:42 AM
link   

Gryphon66
reply to post by randyvs
 


And lo! Thus are revealed the universal cop-outs for a believer faced with facts. "You're dumb. You're mean. You're stinky."

I have no hate friend, not for you, for religion nor for Jesus. I don't know you, religion is mere fantasy, and Jesus is a fictional character. Why would I hate any of that? Well, I might hate the insane effects and violence of religion ...

(Actually, I would have liked Jesus, had he really existed. He hung out with sinners, eating and drinking with them, talked about love, and promised a better life for everyone, etc. Nothing like his followers.)



You may not believe this or maybe don't want to, but when some of us saw and read the OP in this thread we knew it was just a matter of time before it devolved into what you have just demonstrated.

For all the effort I have never read anything on ATS that has demonstrated that Jesus was a fictional character. Oh great attempts have been made but none of them come close to even meeting the academic requirements of proof. Simple postulations parading around as academic work that when frustrated turn in to ad hoc slinging of unsupportable speculation.



posted on Jan, 31 2014 @ 10:31 AM
link   
reply to post by Shiloh7
 


As an avid lover of ancient history, I have no problem with all that
you recount. I agree the history is correct. But I wasn't wrong in
any of my own assertions.

But the love I have for Christ says you have this wrong indeed.



Paganism celebrated its beliefs but Christians were and are told things like an innocent babe is a sinner as soon as its born, which is really quite despicable when one actually thinks about some of the core Christian practices and beliefs - rather than just accepting them and not actually thinking about them at all.


So could you back that up.



posted on Jan, 31 2014 @ 11:03 AM
link   

Logarock

Gryphon66
reply to post by randyvs
 


And lo! Thus are revealed the universal cop-outs for a believer faced with facts. "You're dumb. You're mean. You're stinky."

I have no hate friend, not for you, for religion nor for Jesus. I don't know you, religion is mere fantasy, and Jesus is a fictional character. Why would I hate any of that? Well, I might hate the insane effects and violence of religion ...

(Actually, I would have liked Jesus, had he really existed. He hung out with sinners, eating and drinking with them, talked about love, and promised a better life for everyone, etc. Nothing like his followers.)



You may not believe this or maybe don't want to, but when some of us saw and read the OP in this thread we knew it was just a matter of time before it devolved into what you have just demonstrated.

For all the effort I have never read anything on ATS that has demonstrated that Jesus was a fictional character. Oh great attempts have been made but none of them come close to even meeting the academic requirements of proof. Simple postulations parading around as academic work that when frustrated turn in to ad hoc slinging of unsupportable speculation.


I really don't understand what you're on about, or what your post has to do with Apollonius ... or what my post in response to another member has to do with you, for that matter. What I just "demonstrated" was a response to a personal accusation, in the public forum, of something I wasn't doing. It's very nearly an impolite attack to call someone else's postings HATE FILLED when they certainly are not.

If you disagree with my opinion of Jesus, so be it! You have a right to your opinion, and I have a right to mine. At least I own it as MY OPINION as opposed to some, apparently yourself included as well as randyvs, who can't view contrasting opinions without going ballistic or casting off insults. The reality of Jesus is a direct component of this thread of discussion, so it doesn't exactly take prophetic powers to see that the issue would reasonably come up in this discussion. This is Conspiracies in Religion and there is no requirement to accept the reality of the Judeo-Christian God as a "given" here.

Surely, your faith is not so fragile as to be challenged when people simply don't believe as you do. That's all that was happening in my post.

~~~~~~~~~

And again, let's try to get back on track with Apollonius! As I mentioned earlier, I've found references to several other "miracle-men" of the first century with the same name. What have you folks found? Is anyone else seriously pursuing the subject of the thread, or am I just barking up the tree?



new topics

top topics



 
9
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join