Littlejohn

I apologize if my english is not totally correct...

Judas Iscariot (namely 'Judah the Sicarius') is a fictional character, created up to mask another 'guy'.

Judas Iscariot is derived from latin "Simonem Iudeaus Sicarius", ie "Simon the Jew sicarius". Obviously, this Simon which we speak, others he is not than Simon Peter. To consider the murder of the poor spouses Ananias and Sapphira, leaded by Simon Peter and his band of murderers: almost surely the same band with which he tried to kill Simon Magus. (probably while the latter was 'hospitalized' patient, because a grave accident he had while giving a demonstration of "flight" before Nero and the Roman public (*)

Origen justifies thus the murder of the spouses Ananias and Sapphira leaded by Peter:

"... Peter was forced to kill the couple, with the "sword of his mouth "(my quotes), as he devolved more than half of his possessions (sic!) at the poors..". Despite the squalid falsehood and hypocrisy by Origen, it does not take much to realize that the "sword of the mouth" (pretending to refer to the Acts of the Apostles, where, according to the ineffable author of this work, it would have been the same God to kill the two unfortunate spouses, because "solicited" by the prayers of Peter !!.... HOW CAN A CRISTIAN FOLLOWER TO BE SO BLIND AND SO DEAF TO BELIEVE EVERYTHING'??!....) other was not than his "machaira" (ie "sica": from which sicarius)

Criminal trend of Peter was known to Jesus, so that once, after a theft of gold objects against a rich follower, Jesus sent away him. This episode is, almost surely, closely linked to the famous evangelic passage, in which Jesus, very angry, tells to Peter: "Vade retro Satan, because you are for me scandal !..".

This is a severe reaction on the part of Jesus: evidently in response to a serious fault of Peter. The justification for this episode, given by the evangelists, it's just childish! .. In fact, according to amusing evangelists, Jesus would have reproached Peter so heavily because, you listen you listen!, he was guilty of "serious" fault, namely that he was worried about the health of his teacher, advising him do not to go to Jerusalem !.... Crazy! .. Episodes of this kind should make it clear to those who want to understand, how much low was the level of education and mental of the audience preferred by the Christian missionaries, who had the task of spreading the "good news"! (read the Gospel).

Today Peter is remembered as a saint, and revered as the founder of the papacy (sic!) and first "Vicar of God", demonstrating that the concept that clergy have of God is not absolutely different from that which once had the pagans. With regard to the Jews, the "music" is the same .... (no accusations of anti-Semitism, please!)

________________________________

Notes:

(*) - It's almost certain that Simon Magus used for such a demonstration an of the machines used in the greek-roman theater for rising up the "Deus ex machina" or other characters. This leaves space to the hypothesis that the machine was made sabotage by the Peter's mandators. Because, despite everything, Simon Magus came out alive from the accident, despite having reported serious fractures to his leg, to finish him the mandators (to be found in the environment of the reactionary senatorial patriciate, who hated to death Simon Magus, considered the "corruptor "of Nero) almost surely agreed with Simon Peter, whom well knew Simon Magus and perhaps, according to the Acts of the Apostles, was in some way also friend of Simon M.. For reasons that there has yet to recognize, yet the attempt led by Peter failed. Not only that, but the same was also discovered and intercepted by praetorians of the prefect Agrippa, while fleeing in the night on the Appian Way. (probably direct towards Puteolis). The counterfeiters founders of Catholic worship have written then that the place where Peter was caught (third miles of the Appian Way), Simon Peter had a vision of Jesus who was silent walking towards Rome. At the request of Peter (Domine Quo vadis?), asking where he was going, Jesus would have replied: "I go to Rome to be crucified again". It's clear that the 'playwrights' who worked alongside the fathers counterfeiters not lacked of imagination! Conducted in prison, Simon Peter was interrogated and solicited to confess the names of his mandators; then, in front of his refusal, he was severely tortured (there are patristic quotes that indirectly confirming everything). There is a high probability that it was this episode that began the events that led to the Nero's draft killing and at the subsequent bloody repression by the same emperor. In the greek-texts of the gospels, there is virtually confirmed that Simon Peter used to carry a weapon with him, virtually identical to the "sica" (the weapon of the "sicarious"): namely the "machaira"!


Littlejohn



PS: some of my conclusions are of an apodictic nature. This can not be otherwise, since nobody researcher in the world can ever have an integral text that, with all the details of the case, explains how were the things gone exactly. However, these reconstructions are based on real data, therefore they have a very high probability of being correct.

______________________________________

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

Ben C Smith

It would never have even occurred to me to copyright my posts on a discussion board.

What do our copyright experts have to say? Does copyright cover FRDB posts? (This is not a rhetorical question. I have no idea.)

Ben.

ETA: More on topic, where is Judas called Simon? (John calls him the son of Simon.)

Toto

Copyright is a confused issue here right now. We have always assumed that posters retained a copyright on their posts (at least to the extent that it would violate their rights to compile posts from this board into a book and sell it without the permission of all the posters.)

But this Board is now registered in New Zealand, and international copyright law is something new and different. We're still trying to figure it out.

Sheshbazzar

I seriously doubt that Littlejohn will find any need to exercise his copyright.

wordy

We already have a similar thread don't we?

Littlejohn

".. It would never have even occurred to me to copyright my posts on a discussion board"

I do not understand ... What to you seems strange about the copyright on the forums? ... The posts included in the forum may not be simple messages to reply to a question, but genuine articles, exactly like those published in the newspapers. Nobody disputes to the authors of these articles the right to the copyright, I do not see why it should be disputed to me!

Many posts of mine, that I have entered the forum of Infidels.org (or freeratio.org), are genuine articles, which have cost to the author years and years of research and sacrifices. I also spend about 14 hours a day in front of the computer, to do researches and studies on the data I managed to recover: do you not think that I have the right to claim then the copyright on my work?...

Anyone it wants, can he to use, at least in part, the material that I post on the forum, as long as he clearly indicates the source and the author. For me is OK the identification "Littlejohn S." ("S" being the first letter of my surname)

".. More on topic, where is Judas called Simon? (John calls him the son of Simon.) "

Nowhere of New Testament Judas Iscariot is called Simon. To understand this, we must gathered together different data. Very useful is the gospel of John of the Jerome's Vulgate, a text considered canonical until our times. Today it has been replaced by a new Vulgata, where Judas is not called "Scariotes" or "Scarioth" as in the Vulgate of Jerome, but "Iscariot "!(*)... We have a saying: "for a good connoisseur few words..."

Even in the Gospel of Judas can be seen all this. However, in this case is necessary before a complicated processing. If the mound of lies that the "founding fathers" have used for constructing the Catholic worship has resisted until now, this is due to the fact that the fathers, about two tousands years ago, have managed to make so complicated the evangelic tale, so today, despite the esperience gained by the scholars of the past, and handed down to us, only with the help of computers (and the WEB network) you can get solution of the intricate puzzle.


________________________

Note:

(*) - In the Sinaiticus and Vaticanus Codex , both estimated from the late fourth century, you can find "Iscariot." Jerome, who was appointed by Pope Damasus to rewrite a new Bible, to remedy to the many differences, sometimes much significant, in the texts circulating among the churches and known as "Vetus Latina". It's clear, therefore, that Jerome, who had to compose an official text, not held in any account of the tradition that led the scribes authors of the Codex Sinaiticus and Vaticanus, to write "Iscariotes" in place of Scariotes. The latter term was originally, in all likelihood, "sicariotes" (see, for example, Simon - Son of Man (or via: amazon.co.uk), by John I. Riegel, p. 56).. It was perhaps a "grecizzazione" (to make similar to greek) of Syriac term "sikariota", which, in turn, was probably the aramaic rendering of the Latin "Sicarius". The problem of the various scribal schools, was to disguise the word "sicariotes", in order to do not people understand that the reference was to the Latin "Sicarius". So, if there were those thinking to move the "i" following the "s" of sicariotes, placing it before the "s", having thus "iscariotes", there were also those who decided to delete the "i" resulting so "scariotes ".


Littljohn
.

Littlejohn

This makes me fairly quiet....



Littlejohn
.

Littlejohn

Hello wordy!

Yes, you are right. Excuse my silence. Just sooner I will return to write again in the thread.



My best regard


Littlejohn

.

Ben C Smith

I am very ignorant of copyright law. I found it strange to enforce a copyright on a forum post, that is all. It never would have occurred to me, but that may be simply because of my ignorance.

Okay, where in the Vulgate of John is Judas Iscariot called Simon? Here are the relevant texts that I can find; John 6.71; 13.2, 26:

Dicebat autem Iudam Simonis Scariotis hic enim erat traditurus eum cum esset unus ex duodecim.

Et cena facta cum diabolus iam misisset in corde ut traderet eum Iudas Simonis Scariotis.

Respondit Iesus ille est cui ego intinctum panem porrexero et cum intinxisset panem dedit Iudae Simonis Scariotis.

In all three, Simon is in the genitive case, meaning of Simon. (As is fairly common in the gospels, the exact family relationship has to be supplied; usually it is son of.) In none of them is Judas in the genitive in agreement with Simon. (The respective cases are accusative, nominative, and dative.) This means that Simon and Judas are two different people (probably father and son) in each of these verses of the Vulgate.

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

(Please note that I am not going into the sicarius/Iscariot issue; this is strictly about Simon and Judas.)

Ben.

Analyst

IIRC, Peter was actually Simon; and Thomas (or Didymus) was actually Judas.