Littlejohn

I'm obliged to you for your appreciation. Thank you!

Greetings

Littlejohn S

.

Littlejohn

In order to emphasize the concept expressed above, that is to say that I DO NOT HAVE DONE any discrimination as to the documents that I used in my research, nor with regard to their alleged antiquity, nor for their origin, nor for their 'race' (ie the environment that produced them), I would like just remember that in the writings of an hagiographer, who lived between the twelfth and thirteenth century, I could have found a very important confirm to my hypothesis concerning the reality about family of Jesus of Nazareth (that of the mother's second marriage), a fact already emerged through a lot of clues, one of which is crucial for proper Christian exegesis, and for a hypothetical review of the works of Josephus, in order to restore the historical truth. This important clue lies in a Gnostic text.

With regard to the data above, namely the one found into writings of the medieval hagiographer, it IS NOT found in nobody of patristic texts, neither of the first centuries, nor subsequent ones. Only having the appropriate 'keys of reading' one can proceed usefully in historical research, about the true origins of Christianity.

ALWAYS to bear in mind, that the New Testament literature WAS NOT PRODUCED to provide to Christian believers a reliable reconstruction of everything that concerned Jesus of Nazareth, but MAINLY to mystify cynically and shamelessly a truth known by all the pagan and Jewish world, contemporary of Jesus! And it is for such a motive that it is ABSOLUTELY necessary having of 'keys of reading', if you want to reconstruct the historical truth. Ditto for what concerns the Gnostic texts, of course.

The academic preparation is certainly a useful thing, however as demonstrated by three useless centuries of research that have gone before ('useless' because no scholar, so far, has been able to say or write anything definitive on this issue), all this is not enough, since it is absolutely needed a good dose of 'intuition', which is supported by a 'sensitivity' of research that you can ONLY get through the various attempts to read the texts useful 'over the top' ....



Littlejohn S

.

Littlejohn

The two husbands of the Virgin Mary

"..(that of the mother's second marriage).."

That of the double wedding of the Virgin Mary, is a fact that emerges in various occasions in patristic writings and chronicles. However, no scholar has been able, until now, take note about it, for the simple reason that data, at least in appearance, it don't seems to refer to the mother of Jesus.

For the record, from first husband Virgin Mary has had no children (*), while from the second (**) she had James the 'minor' (because the smallest of the brothers). Jesus and his twin brother Judas Thomas, Mary had them from a Roman soldier (see Celsus and the Talmud), whose name, in all probability, was Tiberius Julius, said 'Abdes Panthera'. (These two attributes make highly probable the fact that the Roman archer buried near Bingerbrück, in the Rhineland, would truly the father of Jesus and Judas Thomas: in practice the 'holy spirit'!)

Again for the record, the lover with whom the Virgin Mary ran away from her first legitimate husband and from Jerusalem, was a DIFFERENT character from the Roman soldier who will make she the mother of Jesus and Judas Thomas.

From this brief statement, any sensible person can understand how complex, and in some ways disconcerting also, it was the historical reality concerning the life of the character known to history as Jesus of Nazareth. Refuge himself into unlikely mytical theories, because you can not find the 'bandolo della matassa' ('beginning of hank'), what utility is it? ...

______________________________


(*) - since the woman (a little more than fourteen years old girl) left this her first husband after less than a year of marriage (estimated value) in order to follow her lover, about which she was madly in love. It should, practically, to this 'sinful' elopement the remotest origins of the catholic-Christianity! ...

(**) - this second husband of the Virgin Mary, already had a wedding on his 'shoulders'. From this marriage were born several children. This it is because in some ancient texts (e.g. the proto-gospel of James) you talk about the children that 'Joseph' (actually an alias) have had by a previous marriage. To remember that the old Joseph of the gospels (called 'Gioacchino' in the Gospels of Childhood) was none other that the FATHER of the Virgin Mary, and therefore the GRANDFATHER of Jesus and Judas Thomas and James the 'minor'.


Littlejohn S

.

Iskander

You say things I have never heard before. How could the ‘opposition’ be persuaded to consider the possibility that some of it may be accurate?

Sei una persona in gamba

Littlejohn

"..Sei una persona in gamba.." (You're a smart person)

I'm grateful to you for your appreciation!

"..How could the ‘opposition’ be persuaded to consider...etc..."

I understand your qualms and your perplexity .. You aren't the first person to highlight them and probably even not be the last.

Within a couple of years, I intend to complete the work begun in late 2005, namely the composition 'ad-hoc' of a book that summarizes, in an organic form, over 16 years of intense study and research that, after the retired, you are extended also for 14 hours a day, reaping the fruits that NEVER I thought gather beginning, when, back in '95, I decided to undertake research on my own, about the true origins of the Christianity.

If I will find a publisher brave enough to take charge of publishing my book, then all those who have fed up until today of curiosity about what I wrote, and I will continue to write, they will be able satisfy it.

Actually, I'm already in possession of all the data necessary for the completion of my book (surely the first and the last of my life!), but I decided to extend to 'bitter end' my research, in order to constitute a solid 'redundancy' of collected data, so as to leave no 'excuse' to even the most prejudiced critics! .. In fact, only the interest that will show the world of erudition will determine the success or failure of my work, and with it the hope of being helpful to all those people who, because of wrong education from childhood, continue to be victims of the satanic clerical plagiarism

I posted a message in an Italian forum, which helps to better understand my 'technical' of research, which, by will, it is so different from that of classical 'conventional' erudition. In fact, if I'd been an academic, I would ended up to follow the method used to date by all the academic world, with the result of writing works not dissimilar from the average of those that are published each year across the world. All this, of course, without prejudice to the importance of academic preparation ! .. Soon I intend to translate and post here also the quoted message


Greetings

Littlejohn S
.

Littlejohn

.

from Jewish Antiquities, 18.5.2 116-119

"..JBap is attested as historical by Josephus.."

Although John the Baptist was a REALLY historical character, nevertheless the passage of the Jewish Antiquities is a clamorous false, which has a strong affinity with expositive style of the 'testimoium flavianum': another sensational false, perhaps composed by the same hand who wrote the passage about John the Baptist.

Keep in mind that the temple's priests deeply hated John the Baptist and his 'nasurei' followers (Mandaeans today), just as they hated the Nazarenes, by which matrix arose the sect of 'nasurei' (or gnostic-nazarenes). James the Just, who inherited the leadership of 'nasurei' (later also called 'Ebionites'), after the violent death of John the Baptist, was sentenced to be killed (by the hands of Paul/Saul!) by the high priest Ananias. (see Jewish Antiquities and Recognitiones)

Even Zechariah, father of John the Baptist and its precursor in the guide of the gnostics nasurei, was surely killed by individuals belonging to the caste of priests of the temple, as is also evident from the contents of the Gospels, where Jesus accuses the religious authorities in Jerusalem of murdering Zachary before the altar of the temple (*). Herod the Great did not have ANYTHING to do with the death of Zechariah, as it would appear instead in the Proto-Gospel of James. (a text heavily mystified, compared to what surely was the original version from which the present work was taken)

Josephus, having been of rabbinical family, and therefore close to the priests of the temple, would NEVER have expressed himself in so compassionate way toward John, as it appears in the fraudulent passage of Jewish Antiquities. There exist clear indications that show that Josephus hated John the Baptist! ..

_______________________________

(*)

Matthew - chapter 23 :

33 “You snakes! You brood of vipers! How will you escape being condemned to hell? 34 Therefore I am sending you prophets and sages and teachers. Some of them you will kill and crucify; others you will flog in your synagogues and pursue from town to town. 35 And so upon you will come all the righteous blood that has been shed on earth, from the blood of righteous Abel to the blood of Zechariah son of Berekiah, whom you murdered between the temple and the altar. 36 Truly I tell you, all this will come on this generation.

"..the blood of Zechariah son of Berekiah, whom YOU MURDERED between the temple and the altar..."

(see the Proto-Gospel of James)


Littlejohn S

.

Littlejohn

"..Would be great if we had some originals from Josephus.."

Perhaps it is not strictly necessary to have the original versions of the works of Josephus. In fact, reading carefully, rationally comparing with other sources, without regard, at least in the first phase, the antiquity of these sources and sharpening our skills of intuition, you can still retrieve very important data from the works of Josephus, which would allow us, at least, to reconstruct reliably the last years of the life of Jesus (from 60 to 72: year in which Jesus was executed by stoning by the Jews of the time)

Of course, it is imperative to know what to look first. Linger behind improbable 'myticistic' theories, does not help at all in the search ....


Littlejohn S

.

Littlejohn

Since the Martiriologico (book of Martyrs) of the apostolic Roman church places the death of Judas Thomas, twin brother of Jesus, in the year 72 (although in 'India', sic!), there are many chances that Judas Thomas died in the same event that, afterwards, it brought his twin brother Jesus to death

It is highly probable, if not certain, that own it was Judas Thomas, and NOT PETER, to oppose himself to the arrest of Jesus, remaining, however, killed. Peter, in fact, had been dead for about 8 years (64) when Jesus was arrested and tried.

Many clues, about the features which mark the character Judas Thomas (including the attribute 'Thaddeus', transliteration of Hebrew Theudas, meaning 'brave'), they comfortably substantiate the thesis of the extreme sacrifice of Judah in favor of his brother Jesus: an useless sacrifice, since Jesus will be executed not long after.

In this regard, it must be said that the 'Pilate' of situation (ie the character described in the canonical gospels with the features that we well know) was in fact the general Titus, eldest son of Emperor Vespasian. In those times, early 70's, Tito was the highest imperial office in Palestine.

Only a character like Tito, who, among other things, had known Jesus in Rome, becoming almost certainly also his friend, he could feel pity for the Nazarene and also try to save him from his fate, however unsuccessful, because the fierce opposition of the Jewish religious authorities (especially the priests of the temple, which had always hated Jesus). This is also one of the main reasons of deep hatred anti-Jewish and anti-semitic by Christians of all time.

These Jewish religious leaders, to Tito remembered his duty toward the Empire that he represented: duties which required him to severely punish with death all rebels and enemies of Rome, as, for example (the case of the Nazarene) rebels which had fought against the Romans in the first Jewish War (Jesus you had participated in the role of one of various rebel leaders). However, Tito did not feel himself to condemn to death the former friend and decided to 'wash its hands', delivering him to the Sanhedrin, so that the Jews judged Jesus according to their laws.

As us have very well shown Josephus and Philo of Alexandria, Pilate was a 'flower flower' of criminal scoundrel, which had massacred many Jews, whom he hated deeply: like even all those from the Equestrian Order, closely contiguous to the senatorial aristocracy, inspirer source of deep hatred toward the Jews. It's highly unlikely that such a Pilate had tried to save Jesus accused of rebellion against Rome! ...

However, in year 30, when Jesus was a young 'homilist' preacher, Pilate agreed to release the Nazarene (Iesous Bar-Abbas, in the writings of Origin), involved, in spite of him (because he was present to the fact), in the murder of a citizen of Jerusalem (*), which took place in a square or a street of Jerusalem (see the canonical gospels). The release occurred was due to the interest shown by tetrarch Herod Antipas (perhaps because it was solicited for by the mother of Jesus), and only after ascertaining the strangeness of Jesus to the fact of blood (probably the real culprit had confessed under torture)


________________________________

(*) - something similar happened in Rome. Suetonius accuses 'CHRESTO' (in the historical reality, Jesus of Nazareth) for causing of the riots ('.. impulsore Chresto assidue tumultuantes ..'). Jesus, In fact, was simply involved in such riots, caused by others.


Littlejohn S

______________________________

I would draw attention to the fact that all what I'm exposing, being the result of over 16 years of very hard sacrifices, must be understood ONLY to allow a strictly personal search, without any implication of a commercial nature. In this regard I wish to point out that the material published by me should be strictly considered as copyright ®

.

Littlejohn

Errata corrige:

"..However, in year 30.."

Obviously, in the 30s.


Littlejohn S

.

Littlejohn

GREAT!..GREAT!..GREAT!...

All this, in practice, confirms what I guessed from a very long time: that is to say that Luke WAS NOT a real physical person, but something completely different!

The pseudo-name Luke, in fact, derives from the Latin LUCOS (grove, little thicket). The priests of the various pagan cults of the time, they used, sometimes, to gather themselves in the open spaces, free of vegetation, within the groves, where they celebrated their various mysteric rites, or simply discussing about their cults, or the management of temples associated with them.

With time, the 'Lucos' word has came to mean any meeting, any assembly held by these pagan religious, regardless of the place (ie it could be kept within a grove or in a building within a city).

It was a LUCOS of PAGAN priests (aided, however, by transfughi - deserters - of the 'Judeo-Christianity, of the Orthodox Judaism and of the gnostic-jesuan world) to write the New Testament! .. And It was still the LUCOS to rewrite the Gospel of Marcion (which he, in turn, had derived from an existing text), his 'Pauline epistles' and to add to them again others.


Thanks to Stephan Huller.

Littlejohn S

.