Littlejohn

"..Okay, where in the Vulgate of John is Judas Iscariot called Simon? " (...perhaps would you say "the Gospel by John into Jerome's Vulgate....)

I'm sorry... I never said this..

Do you had really thought that the Gospel of John's author had written all this?...

I imagine that you have certainly heard about "Testimonium Flavianum." The fact that today we have it in that form in the works by historian Josephus, does it not mean that he is truly the passage's author, or that however had written it in this way. All of the scholars know perfectly well that this text should be properly interpreted.

Most of lay scholarsy claims that it is a forgery, inserted by "pious" Christian hands in a certain point of Jewish Antiquities. The presence of such a "foreign body" makes it at least as shocking the narration of the jewish historical: thing that absolutely could not be when the same Josephus wrote his work. From catholic part, however, it is argued (but not in 'choral' way, because there are still those who say that it is a "genuine" step, sic!) that the original passage has been interpolated to bend it to the dottrinaire needs of Catholic clergy, interested to a not-Christian "demonstration" about the divine nature of Jesus.

In light of deep researches, the real was that Josephus was actually spoking about Jesus (he knew him in person, although this assertion can appear shocking), but in a way so absolutely counterproductive for the needs of the founding fathers, who had built an evangelical history almost totally different, from what was the human adventure of Jesus. Don't only this, but that Josephus had originally written, denounced miserably all of the lies that the founding fathers had used for the Christian religion's costruction. Obviously, this was not the purpose by Josephus, because, until he was living, not ever existed any Christian worship! The counterfeiters interpolator completely expunged what Joseph had written and inserted in its place the insipid and tame "Testimonium Flavianum".

That said, we return to our subject. I mentioned the Gospel of John in the Vulgate of Jerome, as it is the only one of the four canonical gospels showing Simonis Scariotis (or Simonem Scariotes), associated with the name of Judas. Already the fact that the authors of Synoptic Gospels had failed to mention this particular, should it to sound as an 'alarm's small-bell' for the scholars. Another alarm's small-bell is that in the list of "12" apostles, in the Synoptic Gospels, Simon the Canaanite "(*) it is always next to the name of Judas Iscariot. (it isn't a mere coincidence)

Once established (for the reasons given in the previous post) that Simon Peter was a "Sicarius" (machaira = sica), an aspect clearly made explicit through the Origen's statements ("... Peter was forced to kill the couple Ananias and Sapphira ..."), the next step, thanks to what is reported by Gospel of John, should not be difficult, in order to get historical truth.

"..Iudam Simonis Scariotis .....Iudas Simonis Scariotis.....Iudae Simonis Scariotis.."

A famous mathematical postulate reads: reversing the order of the factors, the sum's total does not change. Do you understand what I mean?...

Now let's think about this further aspect. We said that Judas Iscariot is the same as Judah Sicarius (Judas the killer). What does it means "Simonem Scariotis/Scariotes? ... It's clear: Simone Sicarius!.. So, according to amusing misleading of the past, which, unlike today, they had to do with an audience of faithful absolutely unprepared to grasp all of the aspects of misleading missionary preaching, Judas the sicarius would has been the son of Simon the sicarius ... In brief, a "dynasty" of assassins! .. It makes sense to believe that?

They were already several years that I was able to realize the truth (or, however, to intuit it), when it appeared on the exegetical worldwide scene the Gospel of Judas. Initially the contents of this important ancient text, I not inspired nothing of special. But, any time later, following the recovery of important data that allowed me to better define, and so absolutely comfortable a way, the effective roles of the characters that moved themself on the evangelical "stage", I had almost mathematical certainty that Simon Peter and Judas Iscariot had been the same person.

"..Or are you thinking of some particular manuscript of the Vulgate that differs from the texts above?"

No, as far as I know. However, I believe that what we have is more than sufficient to demonstrate that I said before (of course I am also referring to the data that I don't mentioned in my posts, for "editorial" reasons)

The Catholic clergy has badly taken spreading of the Gospel of Judas. His reaction has been almost "ferocious". All of the those who believed at the evidences supplied by the Vatican on the matter, are totally astray. Indeed, the current forger clergy, no less forger of the "fathers" of past, is affirming that his aversion to the Gospel of Judas, is due to the fact that this "false Gospel" celebrates the role of the traitor Judas in so surprisingly positive way and therefore bad educative. Nothing further from the truth! The Gospel of Judas has within extremely important aspects, capable to give a "robust" blow of shoulder at the shaky edifice of the Catholic religion! That the "crafty-devil" of the vatican dome knows perfectly: hence the their deep aversion to this important historical document!

"..This means that Simon and Judas are two different people.."

No, Judas Iscariot and Simon Peter were the same, identic person.


_______________________________

Note:

(*) - Simon the "zealot" and Simon the "Canaanite" were two separate and distinct characters. While the attribute zealot clearly recalls to the mind the image of the messianic rebels, who fought to liberate the Holy Land from foreign domination (Simon the Zealot in fact, was one of the brothers of John of Gamla and did not have anything to do with Jesus and the Christian religion), the attribute canaanite, deriving from hebraic "qannaim", is closely connected with the figure of the bandit, of the outlaw and, ultimately, of the Sicarius one, since in the common imaginary of those times, the "canonical" difference among the various figures were quit fading.


Littlejohn
_____________________________________

All of the material posted by Littlejohn, or with other nicknames traceable to him, must be considered in all respects copyright.
.

Littlejohn

Sorry..What does it means "IIRC"?...


Peter was actually Simon: but what Simon?.. The "zealot" or the "cananites"?


Didymus and Thomas both does it means "twin". But about who he was twin?..


Littlejohn
.

Huon

IIRC : If I Record (Remember) Correctly
IIUC : If I Understand Correctly
IMO, IMHO: In my humble opinion


http://acronyms.thefreedictionary.com/

IamJoseph

Re the Gospel's Judas story.

There is another path to analyse this awful charge made by the Gospels, which has taken 100s of 1000s of innocent lives thus far, and caused the premise for antisemitism. While there is no proof or evidences for the charge made - it does not make any sense even from the Gospel's pov.

Given that there was a decree of Heresy hovering over Judea, the Hebrew bible and religion forbidden on pain of death by crucifixion, and daily crucifixions occured, upto 800 a day - what is it that the Jews are reported to have said to the Romans which would accounted as a conspiracy as per the Gospels? They could not have said jesus claims to be a Messiah - because the Jewish belief in a Messiah was fully active, with five other Jews nominated as candidates. All the other candidates were crucified, some in a manner far worse than the Gospels reports about Jesus. How would Jesus have escaped the same faith?

Further, the charges made in the Gospels violates all agreed premises of correct accusations, via the Hebrew bible and all bona fide Judiciary systems: this has no proof, and would have been thrown out of any court. Belief cannot be a factor for such a charge. To say that the Jews would reject their own Messiah - then snigger and revel in his death before the Romans is so grotesque it can only be a total falsehood - as with the blood libels and the Protocols.

Additionally, there was a clear motive for the Europeans to abuse truth and lie about those who would not back their belief and stories. No arms length here.

It seems there has been no deliberation by chrstians or the pre-christians to prove the truth - is seems they accepted this reporting in the Gospels via 2nd hand reports and enforcement only. The plot gets thicker that islam emerged on the heels of the Gospels, totally denying this story.

There was no trial of Jesus - Rome would never release Barabus, and certainly such an occurence would have been recorded numerously in the Hebrew, Greek and Latin archives.

The innocent victim here is not just Jews - but also innocent christians today - truth itself is on the line, not to mention where such falsehoods lead to for humanity at large. What's for Plan B?!

IamJoseph

Can anyone show any absolute historical proof for any apostle in the NT [aside from Paul]? Considering there were numerous apostles - it is a reasonable ask. I know there is no evidence whatsoever of a contemporary written document of any of the Apostles.

Littlejohn

Thanks you very much!


Littlejohn
.

wordy

Yes it is a crazy story seen from a historical factual point of view.

Is not the whole thing good evidence for that it is a Midrash.

ok that word only means interpretation of old text in contemporary situation.

I mean if one take a Bible that has "corresponence" then it refer back to the prophesys. sorry spelling.

So the Jesus story is something that happens in the head of the writers. They read the old testament and based on that one they make up a fictitious hero that was betrayed.

Most likely they felt betrayed and Jesus is a symbol for them as a group. One fictitious person representing a who group of people who have an ax to grind against the Jews.

The Bible as a kind of elaborated Sions Protocol which also is a fictitious plot against the Jews. The Bible never mention the Essen group and could not they have been the first writers and then the Constantine and Eusebius seen the potential in that sect took over and make a state religion out of it.

Just speculating.

wordy

If one really read the text as it is written then Judas do God's will cause the Prophesy had to be fulfilled for the sake of God having to sacrifice his beloved son for being able to forgive us. Crazy. But if Judas had not do it then God had to find someone else. Cause that was the only way to give the humans eternal life. Some had to sacrifice himself and God did chose Judas and Jesus knew it too and ordered him to betray him.

so he is in reality a hero and not a betrayal. It was rigged like that for hundreds of years in the old testament. The only way to do it.

wordy

when I am at my most wild atheist mode I want to start the Atheist for Judas reclamation of honor and him declared our Hero. He did a good thing and Christians should follow him and betray Jesus. ASAP.

JoeWallack

JW:
My guess is that in a Gospel notorious for using names as a literary tool DiualCritical Marks. Presentation Of Names As Evidence Of Fiction "Iscariot" is a type of anagram for "Christ":

http://errancywiki.com/index.php?title=Mark_3:19



Joseph

http://errancywiki.com/index.php?title=Main_Page