Παρασκευή, 28 Φεβρουαρίου 2014

Dan Porter on Apollonius


Yesterday there was a post from Dan Porter on Apollonius. First we should applaud mr Porter for his courage. But unfortunately both his remarks and the comments that follow are typical of Christian desperation. Let’s have a look:

«This is based on a strange theory that has been around since 2005 when the book, Apollonius of Tyana and The Shroud of Turin was published. The idea has never gained any traction.»

First it is necessary for any idea to become known in order to gain traction. Today most people (even historians!) have never heard of Apollonius. I knew about Apollonius and the controversy surrounding him, and yet I found Solarion’s book by chance. And of course there is another reason why such an idea could not get «traction». If true, we can all well understand the consequences for Christianity. Since there are no more book burnings today, the best strategy is to just look the other way.

«So far, without reading the book, I see no evidence other than a rather suspect comparison of the face image from the shroud and a maybe-undated statue of Apollonius of Tyana.»


Then perhaps it’s better to read the book first before posting? And what exactly is suspect on the comparison?

«Wikipedia suggests (or does it?) that the statue might be late second century. Yeah, that will work!»

Talk about desperation! Yeah, the STATUE. Which statue? This one:




But it wasn’t this statue that was used for the comparison! It was the bust! And of course the bust itself could be from the 2nd century. So? Does that mean that Apollonius lived in the 2nd century? Of course not.

«The facial comparisons in the blog Apollonius of Tyana and the Shroud of Turin posting are dubious, at best.»

A little error here, the link leads to Amazon not on my blog. And what exactly is dubious? No explanation at all. I also compared the bust with the Shroud and there is nothing dubious. As anyone can see, they match up pretty well.





Some comments are also funny. Mike writes:

«And apparently this Apollonius lived to be a 100 years old, does the Man in the shroud look that old?»


Well of course not! Nobody said he was 100 years old when he was crucified! The bust is not of a man 100 years old! This is a perfect example of what nonsense you can write when you are desperate. Mike continues:

«I know the hair and beard are white but that’s because they were close to the cloth not because they were really white.»

This fellow seems to have totally lost it. Let’s help him a bit: The hair and beard of the bust are white but that’s because the marble is white not because they were really white.

«But even if the faces match, that doesn’t prove anything.»

So, even they match it doesn’t matter! This is the mindset of these people. And I’m pretty sure if we had a bust of Jesus that matched so well, the same guys would probably shout: See? See? It fits! It is Jesus!

Annette writes:

«I’m not getting this one… Is the theory that Apollonius of Tyana migrated to Jerusalem when he was a relatively young man, become badly scourged, crowned with thorns, crucified, speared, buried in a (Jewish) linen cloth, and then somehow rise again to live a ripe old age of 100?»

No. I thought it was pretty clear on my previous post but perhaps Annette didn’t bother to read. Apollonius traveled throughout the whole world. When he was 33 he visited Jerusalem where under unknown circumstances he was crucified. But he survived the crucifixion and fled. This is why there is no authentic evidence for the existence of Jesus who seems to have appeared out of nowhere and to have disappeared the same way. It is pretty simple.

All in all, this was pretty entertaining. But I have to applaud mr Porter again and again for his courage. Having your faith challenged is never easy.

Δεν υπάρχουν σχόλια:

Δημοσίευση σχολίου

Σχόλια με greeklish δεν γίνονται δεκτά.