Apollonius of Tyana and Jesus Christ

[Christian]

Many people think that Apollonius of Tyana challenges the unique story of our Lord, Jesus Christ. This is not true. Firstly, the accounts of Apollonius of Tyana were written well after the supposed life of Apollonius of Tyana. The Gospels were, on the other hand, written by eyewitnesses of Jesus's life. Therefore, logically speaking, it is the New Testament accounts that are far more reliable than those of Apollonius.

Philostratus (170 - 245 A.D.) is the only source for the accounts of Apollonius where the Bible is multi-sourced (Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Paul, etc). There are strong evidence that many accounts of Apollonius were indeed borrowed from the Gospels.

[Violet]

Did you know, that none of the people who wrote the gospels were even *alive* at the time of Jesus's death?

The more ya know...

[Nine]

The Gospels were, on the other hand, written by eyewitnesses of Jesus's life. Therefore, logically speaking, it is the New Testament accounts that are far more reliable than those of Apollonius.

Tell a lie I'm almost certain your a poe.

[Christian]

Philostratus was commissioned by an empress to write a biography of Apollonius in order to dedicate a temple to him. This means that there was a motive for Philostratus to embellish the accounts in order satisfy the requirement of the empress.

[Minimalist]

where the Bible is multi-sourced (Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Paul, etc)

Oh cut the fucking bullshit. "Mark" is the first gospel with "Luke" and "Matty" plagiarizing it and attaching different aspects to suit different audiences.

"John" is fucking bizarre nonsense that even you xtian assholes admit is not part of the synoptic tradition.

"Paul" if there ever was such a person, knows fucking nothing of any of the gospel stories and is clearly nothing but shit made up later by other writers.

Wake the fuck up someday, sonny. You'll look less stupid.

[Christian]

where the Bible is multi-sourced (Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Paul, etc)

Oh cut the fucking bullshit. "Mark" is the first gospel with "Luke" and "Matty" plagiarizing it and attaching different aspects to suit different audiences.

"John" is fucking bizarre nonsense that even you xtian assholes admit is not part of the synoptic tradition.

"Paul" if there ever was such a person, knows fucking nothing of any of the gospel stories and is clearly nothing but shit made up later by other writers.

Wake the fuck up someday, sonny. You'll look less stupid.

Mister Sir Minimalist, For one thing, Jesus promised his disciples that the holy spirit would ‘bring back to their minds all the things he had told them.’ (John 14:26) Therefore, it is not surprising that the Gospel writers remembered and recorded some of the same events. Granted, some of the Bible writers may have read and referred to the work of other Bible writers, but such a practice would suggest careful research, not plagiarism. (2 Peter 3:15)

[Angrboda]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g51Sg9TSLak

[killybob]

Many people think that Apollonius of Tyana challenges the unique story of our Lord, Jesus Christ. This is not true. Firstly, the accounts of Apollonius of Tyana were written well after the supposed life of Apollonius of Tyana. The Gospels were, on the other hand, written by eyewitnesses of Jesus's life. Therefore, logically speaking, it is the New Testament accounts that are far more reliable than those of Apollonius.

Philostratus (170 - 245 A.D.) is the only source for the accounts of Apollonius where the Bible is multi-sourced (Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Paul, etc). There are strong evidence that many accounts of Apollonius were indeed borrowed from the Gospels.

I think you'll find that the story of Horus far better illustrates how unoriginal the story of Jesus (Jesus is wrong - Yeshua is his actual name. Out of respect for your "lord", you should at least get his name right) is, than the story of Apollonius of Tyana.

[Christian]

I think you'll find that the story of Horus far better illustrates how unoriginal the story of Jesus (Jesus is wrong - Yeshua is his actual name. Out of respect for your "lord", you should at least get his name right) is, than the story of Apollonius of Tyana.

Yeshua is the Hebrew name for the Lord. It means "Yahweh [the Lord] is Salvation." The English spelling of Yeshua is “Joshua.” However, when translated from Hebrew into the Greek language, the name Yeshua becomes Iēsous. The English spelling for Iēsous is “Jesus.”

Basically, what this means is Yeshua , Joshua and Jesus are the same name. One is translated from Hebrew into English, the other from Greek into English. It is also interesting to note, the names "Joshua" and "Isaiah" are essentially the same names as Yeshua in Hebrew. They mean "Savior" and "the salvation of the Lord."

[killybob]

I think you'll find that the story of Horus far better illustrates how unoriginal the story of Jesus (Jesus is wrong - Yeshua is his actual name. Out of respect for your "lord", you should at least get his name right) is, than the story of Apollonius of Tyana.

Yeshua is the Hebrew name for the Lord. It means "Yahweh [the Lord] is Salvation." The English spelling of Yeshua is “Joshua.” However, when translated from Hebrew into the Greek language, the name Yeshua becomes Iēsous. The English spelling for Iēsous is “Jesus.”

Basically, what this means is Yeshua , Joshua and Jesus are the same name. One is translated from Hebrew into English, the other from Greek into English. It is also interesting to note, the names "Joshua" and "Isaiah" are essentially the same names as Yeshua in Hebrew. They mean "Savior" and "the salvation of the Lord."

Thank you for going the very long route of confirming and reaffirming exactly what I just said. Anyway, please do go look up the story of how Horus became a god. You'll find it interesting how close the details of his story, and Jesus' (Yeshua, sorry) match.