Fidei Defensor Posted January 5, 2006 Share Posted January 5, 2006 After reading about the atheist in Italy who is in court over claiming that Jesus didnt exist, and that the Church is guilty of abusing popular belief, I read that he mentioned that "Jesus Christ is based on John of Gamala, a first century Jew who fought the Romans.." I was wondering if anyone had anything to say about this claim? I dont know anything about John of Gamala, nor the claim that he is the basis for the "Jesus story." Here is a webpage that apparently proves John was really Jesus - [url="http://www.anti-religions.org/eng/prove2.php"]http://www.anti-religions.org/eng/prove2.php[/url] More "proof" against Jesus - [url="http://www.anti-religions.org/eng/prove3.php"]http://www.anti-religions.org/eng/prove3.php[/url] Any thoughts? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Myles Domini Posted January 5, 2006 Share Posted January 5, 2006 This is amazing. Truly. One minute the Da Vinci code followers are saying Jesus existed as an ordinary man and now these guys spring up saying he didnt even exist. The secularists have gotta get their plan of attack synchronised man. Even Jospehus says Jesus existed as does the Jewish Mishnah and Tacitus confirms that Christianity was founded by Christ. This is absolutely unbelievably stupid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fidei Defensor Posted January 5, 2006 Author Share Posted January 5, 2006 [quote name='Myles' date='Jan 4 2006, 11:56 PM']This is amazing. Truly. One minute the Da Vinci code followers are saying Jesus existed as an ordinary man and now these guys spring up saying he didnt even exist. The secularists have gotta get their plan of attack synchronised man. Even Jospehus says Jesus existed as does the Jewish Mishnah and Tacitus confirms that Christianity was founded by Christ. This is absolutely unbelievably stupid. [right][snapback]846435[/snapback][/right] [/quote] This is exactly what I thought too. The claim doesnt even really make sense. From what I can gather, Jesus as portrayed by the gospels doesnt even sound remotely close to who he is claiming John of Gamala was. Besides, I dont really see a motive for doing such a thing. He also doesnt take into account that the Church wasnt just in one place, where they all sat around and decided to make John into Jesus. This should be evident from the different Christian communities in different areas. After reading through his page, Its all basically a rant about inaccuracies in the Bible. He provides no real time line for this apparent transformation of persons, nor any real motive. He simply says they did it. Also, all of this other claims about the Bible sound very uneducated, and are just repeats of worn out claims. All in all, he not very creditable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Era Might Posted January 5, 2006 Share Posted January 5, 2006 I don't think any credible historian would deny or even doubt the historical existence of Jesus. I think I read somewhere that we have more historical proof that Jesus existed than other ancient figures, eg, Julius Caesar. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EcceNovaFacioOmni Posted January 5, 2006 Share Posted January 5, 2006 "Anti-Religions" is probably a reliable source though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fidei Defensor Posted January 5, 2006 Author Share Posted January 5, 2006 [quote name='Era Might' date='Jan 5 2006, 06:10 AM']I don't think any credible historian would deny or even doubt the historical existence of Jesus. I think I read somewhere that we have more historical proof that Jesus existed than other ancient figures, eg, Julius Caesar. [right][snapback]846568[/snapback][/right] [/quote] Which reminds me that a while back, I actually read a claim by someone that Jesus Christ was actually Julius Caesar The things people claim... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Laudate_Dominum Posted January 5, 2006 Share Posted January 5, 2006 I've only read the first couple lines, but I thought this was weird: "The name John, replaced with the generic names of Christ (Kristos meaning Anointed) and Lord, was finally changed to Jesus in about the year 180 as shown in a book written by Celsus.." That's weird since there are plenty of things prior to 180 that refer to Christ and Jesus, and I know of nothing that calls Jesus "John". Maybe this guy would just try to say that later Christians changed this stuff. I wonder what this guy makes of the mention of Jesus in the writings of Ignatius of Antioch, Justin Martyr, Tertullian, Polycarp, Clement I, the Didache, Papias, and of course Mara Bar-Serapion, Josephus, Pliny the Younger, etc.. Then there is evidence in inscriptions and things. I dunno.. I don't want to read the whole article because its just so lame.. I wonder if the guy is a bit schizophrenic or something. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fidei Defensor Posted January 5, 2006 Author Share Posted January 5, 2006 I noticed he invoked the book written by Celsus, "alethès lógos" in order to "prove" that Jesus' name was changed. However, this actually hurts him, because as far as the book is concerned, it may be anti-christian, but it is still a source that attests to Jesus' existence. It was written around 175-180, and goes into much detail about trying to discredit Jesus. None the less, it still talks about him, therefore only showing more proof that Jesus did indeed exist. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Laudate_Dominum Posted January 6, 2006 Share Posted January 6, 2006 [quote name='fidei defensor' date='Jan 5 2006, 04:25 PM']I noticed he invoked the book written by Celsus, "alethès lógos" in order to "prove" that Jesus' name was changed. However, this actually hurts him, because as far as the book is concerned, it may be anti-christian, but it is still a source that attests to Jesus' existence. It was written around 175-180, and goes into much detail about trying to discredit Jesus. None the less, it still talks about him, therefore only showing more proof that Jesus did indeed exist. [right][snapback]847275[/snapback][/right] [/quote] As far as I know, that text doesn't exist. I have some knowledge of it because of Origen's treatise [i]Against Celsus[/i], and because of a book I have which surveys ancient polemics against the Church. The problem is that I have no recollection of this name changing business in the fragments of Celsus' work.. I wonder why that fellow doesn't cite his sources? Maybe cause he's full of pooh? Something kind of funny too is that Celsus is being considered a more reliable source than the gospels, but why? The Gospels were merely the stories of a rebellious band who had an agenda? Interesting accusation, but who could deny that Celsus was merely a pagan propagandist writing a polemical diatribe? On this account he does not by default bear the stamp of credibility over and above the Gospels. Certainly on the basis of time period and credibility of the sources the Gospels win out. A pagan who didn't even have an entirely correct understanding of Christianity (he repeatedly fails to distinguish between teachings of heretical sects and those of the Church, which Origen points out many times), and who was quite far removed from the event of the Incarnation and life of Christ, could hardly be considered more credible than the eyewitnesses of Christ from whom the Gospels derive. Perhaps one should believe Celsus over the Gospels because the Gospels describe miracles and thus they're harder to swallow? Even if the Gospels were harder to swallow based on rationalism it wouldn't be conclusive. But Celsus is hardly easy to swallow based on rationalist principles. He doesn't presume to deny Christ's miracles outright but at times attributes them to sorcery and magic. So we're supposed to assume that the guy spouting off accusations of sorcery and magic, a hundred and some years later, is somehow more rational and credible than those who witnessed Christ's miracles and testified to the Christian reality with the witness of martyrdom for love of Christ? But certainly my main problem with Celsus (from the little I recall of him) is that he didn't even have a real grasp of the Christian Faith. His polemic is largely against an imaginary church that exists only in his mind. He utterly fails to distinguish the Church from the various conflicting pseudo-Christian heretical sects and thus I can see where he would get a lot of his ideas. For example, the Gnostic sects, the Marcionite heretics, etc. composed false gospels and modified the Scriptures to suit their heretical teachings, but the mission of the Church was always to safeguard the apostolic faith and it is clear that the early fathers would consider it a most unthinkable sacrilege to introduce corruption or fabrication into the Holy Gospels which were handed down. Unfortunately Celsus' charicature of the Church fails to take this into account, thus its credibility is shot IMHO. Also, I would say that the Celsus quote he gives is suspect in its authenticity. But even if its not, it seems bizarre that Celsus would not have been intimately familiar with this man's John theory. If there was really a deception as profound as this, the Jews would have preserved its memory. But the Jewish polemics which are preserved (for example in the Babylonian Talmud), do not deny that Jesus the Nazarean who is called Christ truly lived and walked among us. They simply attempt to mock, slander and blaspheme Christ. Surely if the Christians had been hard at work forging this crazed conflicted religion, the Jews would have been all over it. But I suppose the difference between the heretical pseudo-Christian sects, and the Church which bears the apostolic succession, was clear enough to the Jews at least. Another lame thing about Celsus is that so many of his attacks against Christ show that he had never transcended the Platonist-pagan mindset to even remotely understand Christianity. The fact that he considers arguments such as, Mary and Joseph were poor, this is not befitting a god, therefore Jesus was not "a god", to be substantial, clearly indicates that the Christian Mystery, and the profound uniqueness of Christianity, utterly eluded his understanding. The extant fragments of his treatise are completely filled with superficial nonsense of this sort. If Celsus is a credible source for getting at the "truth" of the Church's origins, then I suppose the Da Vinci code ought to be considered credible as well. They are quite comparable in many ways. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Socrates Posted January 6, 2006 Share Posted January 6, 2006 Pure nonsense. I've heard of bread and wine turning into Jesus, but I very seriously doubt this John of Gamala fellow can be transubstantiated. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Laudate_Dominum Posted January 6, 2006 Share Posted January 6, 2006 [quote name='Socrates' date='Jan 5 2006, 06:23 PM']Pure nonsense. I've heard of bread and wine turning into Jesus, but I very seriously doubt this John of Gamala fellow can be transubstantiated. [right][snapback]847362[/snapback][/right] [/quote] I wonder if it is even far beyond nonsense. It strikes me as in the category of psychopathic ramblings. I haven't formally researched it or anything, but Josephus clearly mentions Jesus the Christ, but says nothing of John of Gamala, who as far as I can tell is a legendary hero who helped fight off the Romans during the destruction of the temple. This is funny since Josephus is one of the key historical sources for an account of the destruction of the temple. All I can find in a quick web search, are a couple of fictional novels which include a character called John of Gamala. If John of Gamala actually existed, and was a hero of sorts during the destruction of the temple, then he was barely a twinkle in his daddy's eye when St. Paul was writing his letters and evangelizing in the name of Christ. I need to look into it more, cause at this point it sounds about as credible as asserting that the early Christians invented the gospels based on Peter Pan and that Jesus was originally called Peter and was married to Wendy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Socrates Posted January 6, 2006 Share Posted January 6, 2006 Sounds like psychopathic ramblings indeed. [quote name='Laudate_Dominum' date='Jan 5 2006, 06:43 PM']I need to look into it more, cause at this point it sounds about as credible as asserting that the early Christians invented the gospels based on Peter Pan and that Jesus was originally called Peter and was married to Wendy. [right][snapback]847375[/snapback][/right] [/quote] The premise of the next bestselling potboiler? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peach_cube Posted January 6, 2006 Share Posted January 6, 2006 I think this whole thing is a scheme for him to sell books. It seems he has a strong distrust of anything Christian related. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Laudate_Dominum Posted January 6, 2006 Share Posted January 6, 2006 [quote name='fidei defensor' date='Jan 4 2006, 10:16 PM']I was wondering if anyone had anything to say about this claim? I dont know anything about John of Gamala, nor the claim that he is the basis for the "Jesus story." [right][snapback]846372[/snapback][/right] [/quote] Well, I just searched the net a little bit, and nothing at all comes up which suggests to me that anyone other than that guy in Italy thinks that John of Gamala = Jesus. It seems like insane rambling to me. Another thing I don't like is how everyone is referring to this guy as an ex-priest. Technically he merely studied for the priesthood at one point in his life, he was never ordained, and for all we know he spent 45 minutes in seminary. It just sounds more scandalous to call him an ex-priest, and I assume that's what they're going for. There are so many conflicting books and conspiracy theories which attack the Church. It would be neat to see them all duke it out. Who do men say that I am? Some say John the Baptist, others Elijah, or John of Gamala, Titus Flavius, Horus, Osiris, Mithra, Ceasar, Dionysus, Attis, Josephus, Paul, Stephen, Peter, Buddha, Pythagoras, Jeschu, Heracles, Zoroaster.... It would be quite something if these people ever made up their mind. Oh, the confused mountain of swill that is anti-Christian conspiracy theory.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now