Robert Ambelain's case that Thomas was REALLY CONFUSED with Jesus himself

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
Giuseppe
Posts: 13732
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Robert Ambelain's case that Thomas was REALLY CONFUSED with Jesus himself

Post by Giuseppe »

The argument has been made probably first by Georges Ory.
Note that the implication of the legend of a Twin of Jesus (reduced to the disciple 'Thomas) may explain why Jesus was placed wrongly under Pilate: his presumed twin was active really under Pilate (he was the Samaritan false prophet killed by Pilate).


On pourrait s’étonner que le frère jumeau ait accepté de Jouer ce rôle de Jésus ressuscité, eu égard à son incrédulité quant à cette même résurrection. En fait, cet épisode a été fabriqué de toutes pièces, justement pour écarter ultérieurement tout caractère de vraisemblance quant à l’existence dudit jumeau... Nous n’en voulons pour preuve que ce qui suit.

De Troas, Ignace, évêque d’Antioche, vers 110 ou 115 de notre ère, rédige une Epître aux Smyrniotes, alors qu’il est en route avec ses geôliers pour Rome où il sera exécuté. Or, en cette lettre à la communauté de Smyrne, il nous apporte la preuve que l’épisode de l’incrédulité de Thomas n’a pas encore été imaginé à cette époque :

« Pour moi, je sais et je crois que, même après sa résurrection, Jésus-Christ avait un corps. Quand il s’approcha de Pierre et de ses compagnons, que leur dit-il ? « Touchez-moi, palpez-moi, et voyez que je ne suis pas un esprit sans corps. » Aussitôt, ils le touchèrent, et au contact intime de sa chair et de son esprit, ils crurent. »

(Cf. Ignace d’Antioche : Epître aux Smyrniotes, III).

Car ce même épisode de l’incrédulité de Thomas, nous ne le retrouvons que dans l’Evangile de Jean (XX, 24). Or cet Evangile est inconnu avant 190. Et nous ne le possédons matériellement qu’en des manuscrits du IVe siècle, au mieux. Auparavant, le sceptique était Simon-Pierre ! Et Mathieu, Marc, Luc ignorent l’incrédulité de Thomas, et pour cause !

Ambelain, Robert. Les lourds secrets du Golgotha (French Edition) (p.115). (Robert Laffont) réédition numérique FeniXX. Edizione del Kindle.

And yet:

l’Evangile de Barthélemy :
« Il (Jésus) parla avec eux en langue hébraïque, disant : « Salut à toi, Pierre, mon surveillant, salut à toi, mon jumeau, second christ !... »

(Cf. Evangile de Barthélemy, 2e fragment — Imprimatur : Paris 1904, trad. du Dr Revillout, Firmin-Didot, éditeur).

Ambelain, Robert. Les lourds secrets du Golgotha (French Edition) (p.112). (Robert Laffont) réédition numérique FeniXX. Edizione del Kindle.
Giuseppe
Posts: 13732
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: Robert Ambelain's case that Thomas was REALLY CONFUSED with Jesus himself

Post by Giuseppe »

The explanatory power of Christophe Batsch's views on the Christian origins is visible also here:

someway, what was not forgiven by the author of the episode of the finger of Thomas was that the amalgam (i.e. the Gospel Jesus) was confused with only a piece of the amalgam itself: precisely, Theudas/Thomas/Thaddeus/Lebbeus.

And remembering that a case can be made that Theudas was really active under Pilate (and he was probably the same unnamed Samaritan Prophet killed by Pilate), i.e. Dositheus himself (identified with the Samaritan Prophet by prof Etienne Nodet), then we have evidence that:
  • someone was confusing Jesus with a Thomas
  • this Thomas was Theudas/Dositheus, the Samaritan false prophet active under Pilate
therefore: someone was confusing Jesus with the Samaritan victim of Pilate.
Giuseppe
Posts: 13732
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: Robert Ambelain's case that Thomas was REALLY CONFUSED with Jesus himself

Post by Giuseppe »

Vaneighem has listed the various analogies between Jesus and Theudas and between Thomas and Theudas:

Valentine, who left Egypt for Rome, where he knew and fought against Marcion around 140: didn't he claim that,
"through the intermediary of Theudas, one of the proper disciples of Paul, he himself had understood the secret teachings of Paul"?

[31] Therefore Theudas is none other than Thomas, under whose name appeared the Logia of Jesus discovered at Nag-Hammadi.


In the novel called Acts of the Apostles there is possible confusion between Paul and the Egyptian, that is to say, Theudas/Thomas. Did not Saul momentarily rally the groups loyal to the "twin brother of the Savior" before erecting himself as privileged witness?

And especially, Vaneighem has found the reason why the seditionist Theudas becomes connected with the enigmatic Thomas of the Gospel of Thomas:

In 45, in his Jewish Antiquities (XX, 97-98) Flavius Josephus cited the tumult incited by the "magician" Thomas, a qualifier frequently synonymous with "Egyptian" due to the great vogue for Hermeticism in Upper Egypt. (*)

Fadus being governor of Judea, a magician by the name of Theudas persuaded a great crowd to take their riches with them and follow him to the Jordan. He said that he was a prophet and that, after he had divided it by command, the river would permit them to pass easily. By speaking thus he deceived much of the world. But Fadus didn't let him enjoy this folly. He sent against him a troop of cavalry, which attacked them spontaneously and killed a great many, and took many of the survivors and captured Theudas himself and, after decapitating him, sent the head to Jerusalem.


(my bold)

I would like to find evidence of "Thomas" being synonymous of "Egyptian".

Where is Lena Einhorn when we need her?
Giuseppe
Posts: 13732
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: Robert Ambelain's case that Thomas was REALLY CONFUSED with Jesus himself

Post by Giuseppe »

Vaneighem points out a further evidence that Theudas originated "Thomas": the Talmud identified Theudas with Ben Stada:
The proponent of the identification Theudas==Ben Stada is J. Moreau, Les persecutions dans l'Empire romain.

In whiletime, searching for Theudas, I have found this pearl:

Despite the widespread belief in Jesus the fact remains that there is no historical Jesus. In order to understand what is meant by an “historical Jesus,” consider King Midas in Greek mythology. The story that King Midas turned everything he touched into gold is clearly nonsense, yet despite this we know that there was a real King Midas. Archaeologists have excavated his tomb and found his skeletal remains. The Greeks who told the story of Midas and his golden touch clearly intended people to identify him with the real Midas. So although the story of the golden touch is fictional, the story is about a person whose existence is known as a fact – the “historical Midas.” In the case of Jesus, their is however, no single person whose
existence is known as a fact and who is also intended to be the subject of the Jesus stories, i.e. there is no historical Jesus.

User avatar
mlinssen
Posts: 3431
Joined: Tue Aug 06, 2019 11:01 am
Location: The Netherlands
Contact:

Re: Robert Ambelain's case that Thomas was REALLY CONFUSED with Jesus himself

Post by mlinssen »

Giuseppe wrote: Tue Mar 28, 2023 9:48 am The argument has been made probably first by Georges Ory.
Note that the implication of the legend of a Twin of Jesus (reduced to the disciple 'Thomas) may explain why Jesus was placed wrongly under Pilate: his presumed twin was active really under Pilate (he was the Samaritan false prophet killed by Pilate).


On pourrait s’étonner que le frère jumeau ait accepté de Jouer ce rôle de Jésus ressuscité, eu égard à son incrédulité quant à cette même résurrection. En fait, cet épisode a été fabriqué de toutes pièces, justement pour écarter ultérieurement tout caractère de vraisemblance quant à l’existence dudit jumeau... Nous n’en voulons pour preuve que ce qui suit.

De Troas, Ignace, évêque d’Antioche, vers 110 ou 115 de notre ère, rédige une Epître aux Smyrniotes, alors qu’il est en route avec ses geôliers pour Rome où il sera exécuté. Or, en cette lettre à la communauté de Smyrne, il nous apporte la preuve que l’épisode de l’incrédulité de Thomas n’a pas encore été imaginé à cette époque :

« Pour moi, je sais et je crois que, même après sa résurrection, Jésus-Christ avait un corps. Quand il s’approcha de Pierre et de ses compagnons, que leur dit-il ? « Touchez-moi, palpez-moi, et voyez que je ne suis pas un esprit sans corps. » Aussitôt, ils le touchèrent, et au contact intime de sa chair et de son esprit, ils crurent. »

(Cf. Ignace d’Antioche : Epître aux Smyrniotes, III).

Car ce même épisode de l’incrédulité de Thomas, nous ne le retrouvons que dans l’Evangile de Jean (XX, 24). Or cet Evangile est inconnu avant 190. Et nous ne le possédons matériellement qu’en des manuscrits du IVe siècle, au mieux. Auparavant, le sceptique était Simon-Pierre ! Et Mathieu, Marc, Luc ignorent l’incrédulité de Thomas, et pour cause !

Ambelain, Robert. Les lourds secrets du Golgotha (French Edition) (p.115). (Robert Laffont) réédition numérique FeniXX. Edizione del Kindle.

And yet:

l’Evangile de Barthélemy :
« Il (Jésus) parla avec eux en langue hébraïque, disant : « Salut à toi, Pierre, mon surveillant, salut à toi, mon jumeau, second christ !... »

(Cf. Evangile de Barthélemy, 2e fragment — Imprimatur : Paris 1904, trad. du Dr Revillout, Firmin-Didot, éditeur).

Ambelain, Robert. Les lourds secrets du Golgotha (French Edition) (p.112). (Robert Laffont) réédition numérique FeniXX. Edizione del Kindle.
You know, it gets rather boring that everyone gets sent to Rome in order to be executed. But it's a nice tick off the box for forgery.
Yet the very proof for this being an interpolation is the Thomas demands to see the imprint of the nails - of which there aren't any at all in all of the NT, not even when we take the hilariously fake Acts into account
Giuseppe
Posts: 13732
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: Robert Ambelain's case that Thomas was REALLY CONFUSED with Jesus himself

Post by Giuseppe »

mlinssen wrote: Tue Mar 28, 2023 11:30 pm Yet the very proof for this being an interpolation
ok but the entire Gospel tradition is an interpolation, i.e. a deliberate distortion of facts (but only when the latter are really there). My point is that the author of the finger's episode had realized that someone was calling Thomas as Jesus, i.e. Theudas as Jesus, i.e. the Samaritan Prophet killed by Pilate as Jesus.

Why did this confusion happen? I don't know, but the finger's episode proves that a confusion was going to happen. Which implies that Pilate is there as effect, and not the cause, of this same confusion.

This is true beyond the particular mythicist theory I can subscribe.
Giuseppe
Posts: 13732
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: Robert Ambelain's case that Thomas was REALLY CONFUSED with Jesus himself

Post by Giuseppe »



The reference of the history in debate to the days of Pontius Pilate is without a single support in fact; indeed, it is unconsciously refuted by the chronology of St. Luke. The four Greek writers could but rely upon traditional information alone for their chronology, and as there was evidence which had reached Rome that a pretender to divine inspiration had been executed by Pontius Pilate, it was accepted by them as the period of the events which they relate. It was adopted when all the living witnesses who could have corrected them were dead, and on the best evidence they had; for it must be remembered that the person in question is represented to have been a great deluder of the people, to have led captive many who clung to him and shared his fate. Nevertheless there is abundant evidence to satisfy the candid lover of truth that not a word of Jesus can be traced to the period referred to. The religion of Jesus, so far from existing in Pontius Pilate's time, is undiscoverable up to the date of the fall of Jerusalem; and no other religion is traceable to that age, except that of Judas of Galilee, which had already seen the light by the time when, according to Luke, Jesus was born. As presumptive evidence that Jesus has in tradition been confounded with this Judas, we have already referred to the fact that in the traditional accounts James, who is called the brother of the Lord, is also called the brother of Judas.

But be this as it may; what we have advanced rests upon no uncertain data; novel though it be, it has a foundation that cannot be shaken; it is not put forth as a theory, but as a fact — a fact hitherto unrecognised and unthought of, because the chronology proved so misleading.

(George Solomon, The Jesus of history and the Jesus of tradition identified, 1880, p. 232, my bold)
User avatar
mlinssen
Posts: 3431
Joined: Tue Aug 06, 2019 11:01 am
Location: The Netherlands
Contact:

Re: Robert Ambelain's case that Thomas was REALLY CONFUSED with Jesus himself

Post by mlinssen »

It's all very easy really: Christianity was retrofitted in order to be earlier than Chrestianity. Of course there are no traces of either in the first centuries: Christianity didn't exist, and the Church destroyed all evidence of anything else

I place nascent Chrestianity in the second half of first CE, nascent Christianity in first half of third CE at the earliest - and all of the latter depends on the internal dating of the FF by the FF to the FF

Pilate (and never Pontius Pilate) was present in John already, and had meaning in that context. Whatever else came after is completely irrelevant. And "James the brother of the lord" is a dumb and terribly late attempt to pitch in Jacob the Righteous in order to complete the list
Giuseppe
Posts: 13732
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: Robert Ambelain's case that Thomas was REALLY CONFUSED with Jesus himself

Post by Giuseppe »

mlinssen wrote: Wed Mar 29, 2023 5:58 am Pilate (and never Pontius Pilate) was present in John already, and had meaning in that context.
what do you think about that possible meaning?
davidmartin
Posts: 1589
Joined: Fri Jul 12, 2019 2:51 pm

Re: Robert Ambelain's case that Thomas was REALLY CONFUSED with Jesus himself

Post by davidmartin »

isn't Paul nascent Christianity, sure catholic christianity seems to be 3rd century but where to draw the line, they were still arguing even after it became state religion lol

the Pilate dating locks Jesus apart from any other messiah types rumoured or known to be lurking, what I notice about the gospel of John is it looks like more than one Jesus. First there's John, then he dies then Lazarus dies in a cave and a new Jesus is born, then the final Jesus dies. A bit like the parable of the servant where they beat one, send another away then kill the son
Post Reply