Littlejohn

Hi Wordy


As I said in my previous messages, Judas Iscariot was a nickname to hide behind it the figure of Simon Peter. All of this justified by the fact that you wanted to make the figure of Peter the main apostolic link with Jesus (Peter, indeed, is considered by the clerical tradition "Prince of the Apostles"). From here, make he a "founder" of the Papacy (thus giving to the church of Rome a undisputed prestige), the step was short. This was also favorite by the fact that Peter actually went to Rome and died in the alleged "persecutions" of Nero (actually, the just punishment for their attempt on the life of Simon Magus)

Peter, and therefore Judas Iscariot, was a vile murderess, as the episode of poor Ananias and Sapphira spouses, massacred by Peter and his gang-band (perhaps the same one he did attack to Simon Magus)(*) is largely to demonstrate. Make he a "heroic" figure, even to emulate also, is the most wrong you can imagine!


In evaluating the Gospel of Judas (Iscariot), you have to remember that this character, in practice the same Simon Peter, did not had ANYTHING to do with the arrest and killing of Jesus. In fact, the latter was executed (by the Jews and NOT by the Romans) through stoning, around the year 72, when he had reached 66 years, while Judas Iscariot/Simon Peter was killed in 64, during the Nero's reign!

To betrayal Jesus (as a betrayal there was indeed, as reported in the same Talmud) was another character, which is difficult, if not impossible, to identify, because it was not part of the gospel, as the narrative New Testament ignores deliberately last stage (the REALone) of Jesus' life, namely that related to the events of the Jewish-Roman war, the 66-70 one.


________________________

Note:

(*) - probably Peter, who knew very well Simon Magus (see Acts of Apostles), to carry out his plan of attack to Simon, you pretended as his friend, without bringing suspects: hence, probably, the traitor's fame who hovers around the figure of Judas Iscariot, namely the same Simon Peter. In the same canonical Gospels, mentioned is his tendency to betray (see Simon Peter near the house of Caiaphas, where Jesus was brought for questioning)


Littlejohn
.

IamJoseph

I don't like saying it because it can sound offensive, but that thought did strike me - same source and people wrote both stories. The point is - why did the people in Europe accept and believe it so readilly? Why did no one check the story and counter this with other disputing versions? I think it is the Galeleo factor which applies.



Jesus, as per the Gospels, could not have been from the Essene group: these followed the Mosaic in the stricktest manner of all Jews.

The position with the Gospels is, if the Judas story is a fiction, then it makes the Quran more vindicated; if the Mary story is fiction - it KO's both the Gospels and the Quran in one single stroke. When all factors are tallied, the Hebrew bible comes up more credible than both those scriptures by a very large margin - yet it has the smallest cencus. One reason is that Judaism operates on a means totally different: it makes joining the religion difficult - and leaving very easy. The reverse applies with the other two religions, which are doctrinally engaged in accumulating adherents. This may be the cause of so many road deaths: insufficient driving test criteria.

IamJoseph

[QUOTE=IamJoseph;5814427]
This may be why the stiff-necks were chosen to introduce the Hebrew bible: they did not accept anything via heresay or second hand. When we examine the texts, namely that many of the Hebrews challenged Moses all the way, with battles of upto 11,000 Hebrews dieing in such disagreements - even after witnessing miacles and freedom from slavery, they were in pursuit of real truth. They demanded it and they got it - at least in accordance with the texts. We see the reverse in the Gospel texts - everyone gladly accepted it - and the Jews were made the bad guys only because they asked for and never got the proof which would have satisfied.

And proof here is hardly about turning water to wine or one Jew being crucified amidst millions of others. For such a claim as the Gospels - overturning every law in the Hebrew bible - nothing short of a global revelation, as at Sinai, would surfice. Not a single Christian demanded this - talk about loose necks! And its astoundng tht christians await a return of Jesus - instead of Moses: only the latter can verify or deny what the Gospels and Quran says!

Littlejohn

It is very unlikely that things to be gone so.

The root for "Iscariot" word is the latin 'Sicarius': literally "man who uses the sica", a particular dagger for equipment by the Roman legionaries, and virtually identical to the "machaira, the weapon used by Simon Peter!

The romans called 'sicarii' the rebels who, in towns such as Jerusalem, used to hit a betrayal their victims among the crowd, in order to be able to camouflage themself and thus escape capture.

The latin word 'Sicarius' was transformed by the Jews in the aramaic "sikariota", since Aramaic was the language commonly spoken in Palestine, although the official language was Hebrew (the language used, however, as "learned language" by the Jewish authorities, political and religious).

The authors of the Gospels and New Testament texts in general, "grecizzarono" (make similar to greek) the aramaic sikariota with "sicariotes". Because of this, you developed then two "schools of thought", in order to mystify the real meaning of the word, to make it unintelligible to the mass of the faithful. The first (probably) was to delete the the first letter "i", in obtaining as a result "Scariotes". This is the mechanism used by Jerome (or someone before him); the second method was to move the "i", putting it before the initial "S", in obtaining as a result "Iscariotes." This literary device was used by the authors of the Sinaiticus and Vaticanus Codex.


Littlejohn
.

Littlejohn

Sorry... I don't know if I well understood what you written in the first part of your post. However, I tink you wished to say that, despite the "hypes" reported by the scribes in the biblical texts, there was still a fund of truth in these descriptions. If so, I agree too. Basing on my experience, more than decennial, of research, I can say with certainty that the Bible is a mixture of truth and lies: just as are the Gospels and the rest of New Testament literature. However, it is necessary to add that part of this truth in the biblical accounts, is often manipulated and mystified, in order to hide certain biblical aspects that did not like to the final rulings: that's to say to the clergy and politicians of the Second Temple.

For example, in the Bible is not clear that the primitive hebraism, that of Moses, for instance, was a genuine polytheism (*), which became a monotheism through the reform impressed to hebraic tradition by King Josiah and the religious caste of the High Priest Helkya. However, in the actual biblical context, there are numerous data that, in spite of the current Jewish religious authorities, betray that truth which have long tried to keep hidden. This is exactly what is happening in the NT of Catholics, thanks to computers and the Internet!

".. We see the reverse in the Gospel texts - everyone gladly accepted it - and the Jews were made the bad guys only because they asked for and never got the proof which would have satisfied."

Today things have changed. The Catholic clergy gives the answers to those who ask, of course according to its forger optical! And when the other person tries to inexorably dismantle their false construct (ie. of the priests), they "draw out" almost always the most insipid technical of sophistry, learned during the long years in the seminary. With this technique, essentially a "round" of empty words, they seek to explain (without explain) that is not possible to rationally explain, because a result of mere invention!

"..And proof here is hardly about turning water to wine"

Probably a real event. Jesus performed this miracle when he was a child also; he changed water of fountains in "wine" (see the Gospels of Childhood). Obviously it was a trick, surely known to other magicians over to Jesus. In practice, one treated the same trick that Moses used to amaze the crowds and his opponents: namely to add to water, without being noticed, the common "red lead", ie lead's oxide! Obviously at Cana (but perhaps in a different location: Corinth, for example) he had to give good proof that the water turned into "wine" was really wine. This was obtained, in practice, by providing (before the "miracle") of the appropriate hidden pipes that would allow to draw wine from a hidden tank that really contained wine, while, at the same time, in order to make it realistic, you obtained gradual descending level in the tank containing the water turned into wine!

At the time of Jesus (and even before also) there indeed were engineers (see Heron of Alexandria), subservient to the various castes of priests (especially those with more financial means) who studied the machines for the "miracles", in order to deceive the unwary vulgus, to which you did think of miraculous intervention of the implored gods, to which you would then devolve "appropriate" donations!

________________________________

Note:

(*) - For example, the term "Elhoim" was a REAL semitic plural and not a plural "maestatis", as the rabbinical authorities today still seek through misrepresentation, AND AGAINST EACH LOGIC, to make believe! In particular, Elhoim were the god of Moses and the Abraham one, two different deities, although "complementary". To these two transcendental entities will be added the figure of the Mesopotamic-Semitic goddess Astarte, in origin "paredra" (spouse) of the god Baal and, then, of Amon/Yahweh, after the conquest of Canaan by the "eberim" ("those who crossed the river" , ie the hebrews: in practice, the descendants of the Egyptians and the slaves "iksos" who left Egypt at the time of the repression unleashed by Akhenaten against rebel leaders of the cult of the god Amon, of which the same Moses was a High Priest: see citations of Manetone made by Josephus). In practice, Amon (the god of Moses, then called Aton - Yahweh or Aton-ai - Yahweh), the god of Abraham and Astarte were the divine triad of originalhebraism.


Littlejon
.

IamJoseph

It is very clear indeed: Abraham introduced Monotheism; the children of Israel did not follow the beliefs of Canaan or ancient Egypt, and were thus marked as different/alien. [the texts]

This is a total nonsense which has gladly taken a force of its own. It is based on a singular verse in the reign of Josiah, namely because a book was found in the temple library about Israel's history, purported as possibly the book of Dueteronomy. This verse of finding a book is claimed to be the reason the other four books were later written. It is ridiculous because this is post-Babylon destruction of the Temple, when the temple was plundered [it is reasonable to find a book among the ruins of a destroyed city!], namely this is post Solomon and David, and such a book's existence already contradicts the very basis of the claim. Its like saying a telephone book was found, and all its writings disragarded, while stating all later telephone books came from the first volume.

The charge also imparts the first temple [destroyed by babylon], the belief of Israel for 1500 years previous to this point, and all the numerous wars with other nations - are fiction.

There is also no evidence of the writings of the five books in any later period or by any person/s, while it is implausable anyone could have such recall of millions of stats.

There is not what is exactly happening. The NT came some 2200 years after the OT and none of its texts have any historical validity - not a single verse can be historically verified.

The Gospels cannot be used to prove sections in the Gospels. The notion of resorting to proof of a miracle via belief or the Gospel texts is hardly an acceptable premise. What is required is a hard copy historical proof of a non-miracle - such as a non-european contemporary writing that Jesus even lived in the place he is said to - or with the people he is claimed to live with. This does not exist and it is too great an anomoly. If such reasonable proof or even indicators of evidence existed - there would be no reason to vigorously deny it.

The notion of Jews doctoring or inventing their history later is denied by the fact all derogatory and negative writings is not deleted or omitted - a phenomenon unique to this scripture. The premise of equating the Hebrew bible with the NT is ridiculous: the former constitues the world's most evidenced document in existense - by period of time, volume of vindicated scientific proof - and cencus.