Littlejohn

The reality of the facts, as I already have explained in the past, involves the first two theses: that of Helvidius and that of Epiphanius. Jerome, instead, is shamelessly lying! (he certainly known the truth)

The two twin sons of the Virgin Mary, namely Jesus and Judas called Thomas (ie twin: in greek 'Didymus'), had as their father Tiberius Julius said 'Abdes', said 'Panthera'. James the 'minor' (because the most young among his brothers), also called the 'Right', was instead the son of the Virgin Mary and of her second husband.

Simon and 'Joseph' (actually John), were the sons of the Virgin Mary's second husband (known as 'Alpheus', called 'Cleophas' also) and a previous his wife: probably still alive when he married the mother of Jesus. The roman legionary 'Panthera' (see Celsus) was not the first husband of the Virgin, as it was another character, whence Mary had no children.


Greetings

Littlejohn

.

Littlejohn

"..And just as he was coming up out of the water, he saw the heavens torn apart and the Spirit descending like a dove on him.."

There is a grain of truth in this recount, as there is some truth in many gospel stories: stories, however, that use this truth distorting it in a more or less deep way, depending on the circumstances and needs.

There was indeed a dove in the episode of the baptism of Jesus, only that the dove did not come down from heaven, as recounted by the counterfeiter evangelists, but it was launched by the mother of Jesus, who was present at the baptism of her son (baptism that she had solicited). There was a specific reason behind the behavior of the Jesus' mother .... But here the speech you expands considerably.

It is also true, as reported by the evangelists, that John the Baptist initially refused to baptize Jesus, as we find confirmation of this in the literature of the Mandaeans. Obviously the reason for such a refusal was not that reported by the evangelists:

Matthew - chap.3:

[13] Then cometh Jesus from Galilee to Jordan unto John, to be baptized of him. [14] But John forbad him, saying, I have need to be baptized of thee, and comest thou to me?

From the same literature of Mandaeans we learn that they and John himself had little esteem for Jesus, definied by them a traitor and a trickster (surprisingly the same opinion that the Jesus' Jews contemporaries had of him: see Talmud).

Ergo, it is extremely unlikely that John the Baptist has put forward such an explanation ("...I have need to be baptized of thee, and comest thou to me?..") to justify its refusal to baptize Jesus. It was probably the insistence of the Nazarene's mother to convince John to baptize his son. It is, instead, far more likely that the refusal of John may have been caused by the loss of esteem in respect of the Nazarene.

There is also the concrete possibility that the refusal of John can be reconnected to the contents of the letter by Clement of Alexandria, discovered by deceased Morton Smith whitin the monastery of Mar Saba, southeast of Jerusalem. The contents of a heathen text of the second century corroborates such a hypothesis.

Greetings

Littlejohn

.