The Possible Conspiracy of Appolonius the Nazarene of Tyana

Appolonius the Nazarene of Tyana. Never heard of him? You aren't alone. Not many people have.
Here is the ALLEGED story of Appolonius the Nazarene of Tyana.
If the story is true, it's the biggest conspiracy ever perp'd on humanity.

The alleged conspiracy -
Appolonius was born at the same time as Christ. Miracles were attributed to him during his lifetime.
"Jesus" was invented to CONTROL the people by a corrupt Constantine.
"Jesus" was invented and the Appolonius story suppressed in order to destroy the Essenes.
And "Jesus" was invented as a distraction for the people away from Appolonius.
The real 'great teacher' was Appolonius ... and the Jesus story incorporates parts of Appolonius' life teachings.
Appolonius was a social reformer and hero of revolution against despots.
The books telling of the life of Appolonius were (allegedly) suppressed and destroyed.

"Life of Apollonius of Tyana," written by Flavius Philostratus at the beginning of the third century A.D. is available via Amazon here . I'm not advertising it or trying to sell it, I'm showing that there is indeed a book that was written about Appolonius 1700 years ago. That doesn't mean the man was real, but it does mean the story was around waaaay back then ...

I do not believe in the conspiracy story of Appolonius. It sounds 'sour grapes' and made up to me. (I could be biased, but that's the feel I get) But others think it has merit so I'm posting it here.

Read this (and more info at the links) and see if you think it has merit.
Was "Jesus" invented to control the people and divert attention from the reformer Appolonius?

Appolonius of Tyrana ... the Nazarene

Two thousand years ago a great teacher of humanity appeared in the world. He was a philosopher, a social leader, a moral teacher, a religious reformer and a healer. From one end of the Roman empire to the other, wherever he went, divine honors were bestowed on him -- by all, from slave to emperor. He was undoubtedly the greatest man of his age; and his date of birth (4 B.C.) and period of activity coincided exactly with those of the Christian messiah, except that APOLLONIUS'S life of incessant labor in behalf of humanity extended for over a century, during which time he preserved his health of body and brilliance of mind unimpaired by the passage of time. He was a supreme exemplar of human perfection -- physically, mentally and spiritually. Oven seventeen temples were erected in honor of him in various parts of the Roman Empire. His name was APOLLONIUS OF TYANA.

No more courageous humanitarian and social revolutionist has ever come to this world to help the human race and redeem it from suffering. Alone and single-handed, he defied the bloodiest tyrants who ever sat on the Roman throne -- Nero and his more terrible successor, Domitian. Apollonius fearlessly travelled from one end of the Roman Empire to the other, inciting revolutions against the despots, and establishing communistic communities among his followers, who bore the name of Essenes, early Christians. And not content with such activities in the Roman provinces, he bravely entered Rome itself, after all philosophers had been expelled from the city under penalty of death by the cruel Domitian; there he openly denounced the tyrant, for which he was arrested and thrown into a dungeon, awaiting certain death which however, due to his brilliant speech in self-defense and his extraordinary powers of mind, he averted, securing his liberty.

Two centuries after Domitian, the arch-murderer and degenerate, Constantine sat on the throne of Rome. While former Roman emperors hated Apollonius because of his revolutionary and "communistic" activities, Constantine especially hated his Pythagorean teachings -- his strict advocacy of vegetarianism, abstinence from alcohol and continence. Constantine enjoyed the red meats, the flowing wines and the beautiful women of his midnight revels too much to be willing to accept the religion of which Apollonius was the recognized head -- a religion which he imported from India, based on the doctrines of Chrishna and Buddha and bearing the name of Essenian Christosism. It was for this reason that Constantine directed his armies to exterminate the descendants of Apollonius's Essenian followers, who were known as Manichaeans.

Finding that the religion of Rome was in a state of advanced decay and was daily losing hold on the masses, while the cult of Apollonius and the communistic communities of his Manichaean followers, in spite of the severest persecution, kept spreading, threatening the vested interests of Rome, Constantine's henchmen - the pagan priests of the Roman religion - decided to hold a convention at Nicea in the year 325 A.D. for the purpose of establishing a new religion. They decided to take over the popularity enjoyed by the followers of Apollonius, appropriate its essential doctrines (altering them so that they might be acceptable to Constantine), and to replace the philosopher Apollonius, whose abstemious Pythagoreanism was too well known and too much hated by their emperor, by a super-natural messiah whose teachings would be less radical and more acceptable to him.

Wikipedia Life of Apollonius of Tyana

reply to post by FlyersFan

Was "Jesus" invented to control the people and divert attention from the reformer Appolonius?

No.

There is sufficient historical evidence that the texts which comprise the New Testament are dated prior to the Second Century, and were written by people who were culturally and geophysically familiar with Judea in the First Century to dismiss as crack-pottery any claims that the Romans wrote the New Testament. It seems unlikely that a book written well over a hundred years after the New Testament is the "true" version, and the earlier is the made-up version.

See, among other sources, Richard Bauckham's Jesus and the Eyewitnesses: The Gospels as Eyewitness Testimony.

Short summary here:


ETA: Dr. Peter Williams uses Bauckham's findings, along with others, to present a statistical comparison between the canonical Gospels and other writings of the time, and shows that the Gospels were written by people of that time and region, rather than Romans (or other non-Jews) long after the fact.

reply to post by FlyersFan


I seem to remember an Appolonius of Tyranus from my studies of the occult when I was much much much younger, he was attributed as being a magus, black magician actually or magi as they were sometimes called (three wise men/magi). There were a number of books concerning the black arts that were attributed to him including necromancy, as well as the calling of demons and spirits for the purposes of control, revenge and teaching. The books he used were attributed to the books of Solomon, which would be the Grimoire of Solomon or the Keys of Solomon in his invocations, as well as the original writings of Enoch, the Black Book. I suppose this could be part of a smear campaign similar to the types of processes politicians use, so that you don't notice what is going on in "their other hand" or the agenda they are pushing.

Cheers - Dave

reply to post by adjensen


I agree with you ... but there are others who believe in this conspiracy so I figured I'd post a thread about it. It could make a good discussion. Like I said, I think it's just sour grape anti-Christians from around 300 AD who made up Apollonius to try to discredit Jesus ... not the other way around. (and yes, I admit bias).

Jesus was probably an amalgamation of many different people and their accomplishments. This may have been on purpose or just through similar storytelling between groups of people (hey a miracle worker showed up in my town too! They must be the same guy!). In addition to the amalgamation, his accomplishments were probably embellished to the extreme. Again this may or may not have been done on purpose, the telephone game has a way of changing events even when the storyteller is the same person telling the story again.

There was probably a guy named Jesus who did some neat things (where else did they get the name from?), but at the same time there were probably others who did good stuff as well, like the guy you mention in the OP Flyersfan. Just look at Jesus' life as an example. We only know about his early childhood then he suddenly disappears for 20 years then reappears, performs a boatload of miracles in the timespan of 3 years then is crucified. Jesus' life here is very patchy. Why are 20 years of his life unimportant? How does one do SO much in 3 years? Couldn't the things attributed to Jesus post resurrection be attributed to a separate person who did similar things as Jesus?

Back in the early days of Rock and Roll, other musicians used to tour under the name of more famous musicians and perform their songs. Think cover bands except in this case the cover band is actually pretending to be the real band. Since this predated widespread television ownership, most people didn't know what these people looked like and it worked. For instance, James Brown impersonated Little Richard early in his musical career. So couldn't this have happened in Jesus' time as well whether intentionally or deliberately?

reply to post by Krazysh0t

Again this may or may not have been done on purpose, the telephone game has a way of changing events even when the storyteller is the same person telling the story again.

When you have time, watch the second video I posted -- it directly addresses your point and, in my opinion, convincingly shows that the Gospels (and Acts) represent accurate retellings of eyewitness accounts to Jesus' life.

Apollonius of Tyana, the Nazarene. Born A.D. 2, died A.D. 99.

reply to post by FlyersFan

. . . Appolonius the Nazarene of Tyana.

This is someone who has come up in an earlier thread on this forum, and there is no connection but a similarity which was noted in the Fourth Century.
The New Testament books that we have today were already in existence before this particular person drew any attention from Christians.

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.

jmdewey60
reply to post by FlyersFan

 

. . . Appolonius the Nazarene of Tyana.

This is someone who has come up in an earlier thread on this forum, and there is no connection but a similarity which was noted in the Fourth Century.
The New Testament books that we have today were already in existence before this particular person drew any attention from Christians.

All that says is that Appolonius' name and deeds could have been suppressed by Catholic authority to keep people from the truth until the 4th century. Not saying that that happened, but considering the history of the RCC, I wouldn't put it past them.

reply to post by Krazysh0t

Also keep in mind, you cannot use the bible to prove biblical accounts, you need additional sources to corroborate them.

Like I said, watch the lecture. He uses outside sources, both cultural and geophysical, to demonstrate the voracity of the texts, it isn't self-evidential. It's not 100%, and as a statistician, I can poke holes in some of it, but overall, he makes a very convincing case that the four Gospels plus Acts were written by people very knowledgable about Judea in the time of Christ.

reply to post by Krazysh0t

Jesus was probably an amalgamation of many different people and their accomplishments. This may have been on purpose or just through similar storytelling between groups of people (hey a miracle worker showed up in my town too! They must be the same guy!). In addition to the amalgamation, his accomplishments were probably embellished to the extreme........

Indeed! And, religion and news were forms of entertainment, with traveling troubadours often performing events and myths during the "circuses" held for the masses. It's easy to see how lines were blurred between heroes, men of myth and reality.

reply to post by FlyersFan

"Life of Apollonius of Tyana," written by Flavius Philostratus at the beginning of the third century A.D. is available via Amazon here . I'm not advertising it or trying to sell it, I'm showing that there is indeed a book that was written about Appolonius 1700 years ago. That doesn't mean the man was real, but it does mean the story was around waaaay back then ...

There is also an account of Apollonius from a contemporary of Philostratus, Cassius Dio.

Thanks to a coincidence with an account of a serious historian like Cassius Dio, the fabled biography by Philostratus received another suggestion of legitimacy.

In the early third century, under the Severi, Apollonius was remembered by Philostratus's contemporary, the well known historian Cassius Dio.
In his Roman History, he once contemptuously called Apollonius a genuine goeta and magus (77.
18, 4), and elsewhere spoke admiringly of the Tyanean as capable of foretelling, clairvoyance, and bilocation.
This latter appreciation was occasioned by an extraordinary event that took place in Ephesus in 96 AD (67.
18, 1).
In that location, the philosopher Apollonius of Tyana was watching the murder of emperor Domitian perpetrated in Rome.
Highly antagonistic to Domitian as we know he was, Apollonius accompanied the conspirators in their act as if he had been with them in Rome.
He jumped on some pedestal in the town and shouted encouragement for one of them by the name of Stephanus to deal a final blow to the emperor.
Philostratus describes the event in a similar way: Apollonius stopped an address in Ephesus in mid-sentence and shouted Smite the tyrant, smite him. (VIII, 26) We have no doubt that the event really took place.
www.history.snn.gr...

adjensen
reply to post by Krazysh0t

 

Also keep in mind, you cannot use the bible to prove biblical accounts, you need additional sources to corroborate them.

Like I said, watch the lecture. He uses outside sources, both cultural and geophysical, to demonstrate the voracity of the texts, it isn't self-evidential. It's not 100%, and as a statistician, I can poke holes in some of it, but overall, he makes a very convincing case that the four Gospels plus Acts were written by people very knowledgable about Judea in the time of Christ.

Being knowledgeable about an area like you suggest makes it easier to craft a lie by mixing in truth with it so that it sounds more plausible. When I get some time, I'll try to watch the video though.

reply to post by adjensen


You say that anything written AD 200 means its not that reliable, however lI wondered if you realised that the earliest copy of the John's gospel is dated 200 AD.

When I read about Apollonius suddenly everything clicked into place that I could not make sense of concerning Jesus's life. We know Apollonius was regarded by his followers as a very holy man, some considered him a son of- or a God. We know he was from a good family, well educated, never married and retired to Patmos.. We also know he had very strong beliefs that the Roman Emperors found threatening and his following was growing and growing even after his death. He travelled extensively and took parts of different religions e.g. reincarnation into his teachings. He was respected and liked and lived the ascetic life of a holy Man.

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.

One of the nails in the coffin for me is that he sent out a group of disciples to heal and spread his teachings. We have no real records of their success whatsoever. We are told his supposed disciples were killed : James 44-45AD through to John in 95AD. However the only sources for any information about their deaths comes from the two Christian Church leaders Eusabius and Hippolumus. So there is absolutely no authenticity apart from the conspirators of Nicea who can corroborate anything about the disciples and the early so-called christians.

The big reason the church hated Apollonius is that he taught that God was not interested in man or having man pray to him because we are all part of creation. This was threatening the ailing Empire and did not suit the Emperors who told the people they were Gods and they needed the Church by way of a unified, authoritative religion to control the people. They had to have the people accept their authority as coming direct from God himself and it certainly did not suit the Church Fathers as it left them without a role and any means of qualifying their existence, which, with the land grabbing and donations that the Emporer granted them the power to carry out, it ensure them power and a very comfortable, easy lifestyle.

When one considers what a threat Apollonius and the teachings were and we have the record of how those teachings were altered to suit Constantine and the church fathers from the council of Nicea, one can see how they had to invent someone else to have been the Son of God to give their teachings a figurehead to replace all memory of Appollonius and his original teachings.

Its wasn't hard for them to do because virtually no one could read in those days and the church erased and twisted past teachings, implanted itself on top of pagan sites, often adopting its Gods as Saints and killing off any opposition. So in time, only Philostratus's records were left concerning Apollonius as the name of Jesus took over. It was easy to do as the bible was not available to be read because the two things the Church insisted on especially in Britain, was that the people should not be allowed to be educated and the bible was to stay in Latin, which the people did not speak.

Our only records, since the destruction of the liberal libraries by so-called Christian thugs come from Church sources. There are no original documents of anything in the Gospels and we have only been able to see what the Church has allowed us. It should be remembered that when the Dead Sea Scrolls were found, the Catholic Church grabbed them and kept them away from public scrutiny and several of the Priesthood engaged to work on them left their faith. We can't be sure today of what is left of them because every bit of literature went through the Church's censorship.

reply to post by Shiloh7

You say that anything written AD 200 means its not that reliable, however lI wondered if you realised that the earliest copy of the John's gospel is dated 200 AD.

There is a great deal of difference between how old something is, physically, and when it was written. Most evidence, including external evidence (other writers quoting the New Testament,) is that all of the books of the Bible were written prior to 100AD. The last written was likely Revelation of John, and that is a contemporary account of the persecution of the church under the Emperor Domitian in the 90s AD (though some believe it refers to the persecution under Nero in the mid-60s AD.)

So, we have one reference, which is purported to have been written prior to the Second Century, and another which is admittedly written in the Third Century, and which appears to borrow facts from the earlier texts. Common sense should tell one that the latter, rather than the former, is the suspect text.

We really need a subscribe feature for mobile

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.

Shiloh7
I would say that the similarities between both Apollonius the Nazarene and Jesus the Nazarene
are almost identical.

So which came first? Is the story of Jesus really the story of Jesus and people who were anti-Christian made up Apollonius to try to discourage/control Christians? Or did Apollonius come first and people who wanted to discourage/control the Essenes made up Jesus? It could be either way. But honestly, when I read the Apollonius stories and read the situation, I see it as anti-Christians making up Apollonius. (and yes, I admit that I"m biased both by my early belief system AND by my own metaphysical experiences ... and I put a lot of stock in my own metaphysical experiences).

adjensen
reply to post by Shiloh7

 

You say that anything written AD 200 means its not that reliable, however lI wondered if you realised that the earliest copy of the John's gospel is dated 200 AD.

There is a great deal of difference between how old something is, physically, and when it was written. Most evidence, including external evidence (other writers quoting the New Testament,) is that all of the books of the Bible were written prior to 100AD. The last written was likely Revelation of John, and that is a contemporary account of the persecution of the church under the Emperor Domitian in the 90s AD (though some believe it refers to the persecution under Nero in the mid-60s AD.)

So, we have one reference, which is purported to have been written prior to the Second Century, and another which is admittedly written in the Third Century, and which appears to borrow facts from the earlier texts. Common sense should tell one that the latter, rather than the former, is the suspect text.

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.

When you look at the Nag Hammadi documents you actually have gnosticism which is where Apollonius' teachings can be seen to be subtly different from the Jesus in the New Testament's teachings.

You have to remember the environment in those days for the Roman Empire and that the Emporer was from the Eastern side of the empire trying to forge the Eastern and Western crumbling Empires together. The people within the Empire were now flocking to a religion that held nothing but contempt for the lavish lifestyles and policies the Emporer, whom they hated and were being taxed to provide for exerted on them by force. The man behind this religious view and what he had taught was public enemy to the emporer's authority and had to be eradicated or, the teachings changed to suit the Emperor and maintain his Empire.

When you look at where Gnosticism flourished you see the places where Apollonius had visited. The Nag Hammadi documents explain a subtly different version or teachings which are not conducive to the NT teachings.

I will also make the point again that there are no original documents confirming the New Testament. All you have are copies made of copies with a great amount of errors. The only means of dating so far is simply by going on the writing styles used. So in fact that's pure speculation. You can't corroborate any of Jesus's life in the Hebrew bible which again should raise questions, because had Jesus been real, the Jews would certainly had had a great deal to say about him as they considered him a threat to their religion, which should be remembered is also a way of life for them. He would have been in there somewhere.

We have all had years and generations of Christian theology rammed down our throats to the point no-one ever questioned its origins or the changes made at Nicea to the original teachings. People have gone along with Christianity despite the fact that the Pope lives a completely opposite lifestyle to that advocated by both Jesus and Apollonius. He even 'taxes' them through tithing or the collection boxes and charges for all the different masses and services held, as once one is in the system one has to have all the religious ceremonies observed. The teachings that have survived down through the ages are good in one respect and echo the pagan 'Do as you would be done by' but its the corrupted version that protects the 'temple - papal city and establishment' etc that is in question because the teachings are moulded to protect the elite from the Emperor - King - to Church father. They also remove the sanctity of the relationship of man and his spirituality by telling man he has a soul which he can loose if he doesn't follow their rules.