From Apollonius to Arthur?

[Richard Stanley]

I'm not sure if this is a good idea or not, but I've decided to create a new thread that spans from Apollonius of Tyana to (fictional) King Arthur via Saul/Paul/Josephus Flavius aka Joseph(us) of Arimathea and numerous related characters.

As such, the first video below has Jacob Berman discussing with Derek Lambert the connections between Paul and Apollonius of Tyana and meanders around from there. The second video has Berman talking with Ralph Ellis and James Valliant about Saul/Paul/Josephus and it drifts off into Arthurian legend and the sacred stones, ending up at Fortress Dewa Victrix in today's Chester England. In both there is a measure of astrotheology and myth discussed, mixed into real history. Berman finishes the first relating the 4 Horseman of Revelation to the story of Phaeton. While I think Randall Carlson was briefly mentioned, it was linked between the two videos that the mythical story of Phaeton is the later mythic telling of an actual 'apocalyptic' Earth impact, and hence the veneration for the sacred stone(s?) and such as the Phoenix.

In this first video, for some reason early on the speed starts to fluctuate and then settles in a fast playback. I was forced to change the speed to .75 of Normal or adjust myself to the faster speed. Also, Berman pronounces many names in some odd fashion which one has to accommodate themselves to.

​

 

[Seeker]

Just from memory, I always seem to have read about comparisons of Apollonius with Jesus, never with Paul, although all three apparently enjoyed exceptionally long life spans, traveled a lot, and interacted with the Flavian dynasty, not to mention used other identities (oh, I just did). According to Acts 14:12, Paul was called by the name of the god Hermes, because he was the chief speaker, so Greek names were used of him.

 

[Richard Stanley]

I may post some material that mentions Paul as being the model for Jesus, so Apollonius could be Jesus via Paul in this case (not to mention Josephus).

 

[Charles Watkins]

Somewhere I saw a comparison of the travels of Paul and Apollonius and there was a credible match. Apollonius became an international celebrity, so there could have been some borrowing from his biography. Material was also taken from Josephus as seen in the duplicate shipwrecks. I think the Paul character was a concoction of Marcion, who produced and popularized the Letters in the 2nd Century.

 

[Richard Stanley]

I believe that Apollonius was known at several Roman imperial courts and that he even met with Vespasian in Alexandria.

More generally I've been thinking that one of the tests that should be applied to all this is whether the creation of normative Christianity was by expedient happenstance or rather part of a deliberate multi-generational imperial project to fashion a new and universal religion for the new age. As such, having a 'Saul/Paul' type character acting as a double agent between the various factions of the day seems almost imperative, even if some rebels, e.g. the Nazoreans, are controlled opposition. There is a Saul associated with the Herodian court, a brother-in-law(?) of Berenice.

And in all of this I think that the concept of Bartram's Chrestianity may be useful, or essential, as a transitional 'gnostic' vehicle. In fact, there are some who are viewing Roman Christianity itself as essentially gnostic via all the esoteric elements retained in the canon (Paul and the gospels) and in various rituals, disguised saints, and precessional calendar aspects.

Since there are so many (20+) parallels between Saul/Paul and Josephus, could Josephus have made use of Apollonius in crafting a gospel Jesus ... to be 'revealed' more widely later generations on? Perhaps using imperial cult staff and/or priests of Serapis/Isis covertly?

And if so, then would it not makes sense for the Paulene letters to be 'revealed' later on, with a figure like Marcion?

Berman and Unterbrink have been discussing a scenario similar to Ellis's conflated Exodi, in that there were two crucifictions separated by time. The first being Judas the Galilean in the time of John the Baptist, and the second the 3 men 'saved' by Josephus (of Arimathea ). And that such time conflation explains why there are so many odd name doublets in the gospels. Which also helps muddy the waters between rebels and Roman pacificists.

That the Templar authors of a millenium later would accord Joseph(us) of Arimathea such a positive role in the fictional Arthurian recasting seems to say that they believe he had played such as active role.

 

[Seeker]

there were two crucifictions separated by time. The first being Judas the Galilean in the time of John the Baptist, and the second the 3 men 'saved' by Josephus (of Arimathea

Just from memory, didn't Ellis think that the first "crucifixion" was actually the initiation of "Jesus", and the second crucifixion was the "real" one with two others after the Jewish War?

 

[Richard Stanley]

Maybe, I don't remember though. He does talk about the raising of Lazarus as being right out of the Masonic manual and I believe other similar aspects.

 

[Claude Badley]

Dear Charles, the highlighted statement you make...

Somewhere I saw a comparison of the travels of Paul and Apollonius and there was a credible match. Apollonius became an international celebrity, so there could have been some borrowing from his biography. Material was also taken from Josephus as seen in the duplicate shipwrecks. I think the Paul character was a concoction of Marcion, who produced and popularized the Letters in the 2nd Century.

...complicates the issue of Christian origins greatly. The other school of thought has Paul predating the canonical gospels, and the existence e.g. of the Paul-Seneca letters supports this, as the names of Pauline letters there are not what we have today, nor what Marcion had either! My working view is that Paul was first - and in I Thessalonians described the Jews killing Jesus. Later, when Christianity was sidelined and downplayed by the very Flavian elites who had promoted it, the canonical gospels, much as we have them today, were written (110-140AD). These had the Romans actually killing Jesus - the Jews merely lobbying for it.

Yours faithfully
Claude