Littlejohn

Thank you very much!....


Greetings


Littlejohn

.

Toto

Guillaume_Apollinaire was a surrealist French poet. He is completely outside the scope of this forum. His interest in Simon Magus would have involved the symbolism of flying.

Littlejohn

Thank you!..

I already knew Guillaume_Apollinaire, after my research, but I fear that this is not the character I'm looking for (completely 'inside' to this forum).

They lived in the early centuries of our era, some people linked to the Catholic world, which bore the name Apollinare and Apollinaire (a france religious of V-VI century, I tink) and I think that was probably one of them the author of the Simon Magus' text.

To see this, you must read the text (which is, probably, only part of the book, now nowhere to be found, advertised on the site). If I have time, I will try to make a translation into English, with the hope that someone will want to edit it, to make it consistent with the language currently used in America today.


Greetings


Littlejohn

.

Littlejohn

.

«.. But this is only valid if really the hypothesis of David Donnini is reliable, ie if a specific man really existed out in the first century, which would be the character of Jesus Christ..»

Yes, it's really existed a man called, in Hebrew language, Y'SHAY (or Yeshay: transliterated into Western languages with 'IESSE'), became well-known throughout the world as Jesus of Nazareth. He was not exactly a criminal, although totally different from the presented one more than 19 centuries ago by the 'holy' patristic 'gang'. Or rather He, maybe because pushed by events, was effectively an outlaw (an arch-robber), towards the end of his life, namely between 65-70 AD, having been executed (by stoning) in the 72 year, together with his twin Judah said 'Thomas' (ie 'twin').

Apart from that, he was a more than unique character, because of its eclecticism and its great versatility, which led him to impersonate many 'extravagant' roles in the course of his eventful life, and nearly all unknown to the world of more important erudition. Concerning him, they should be interest only historians and novelists, and not theologians, which have used his historic image for 'sew' on him of the roles that, for the most part, were almost totally alien to this character. Although it may seem surprising, but in part is just what happened ...


Greetings

Littlejohn

.

Littlejohn

I already posted this message in http://freethoughtnation.com/forums/...hp?f=20&t=2840 forum.

Hi!..

What should be noted, is the fact that Catholics still maintain that their ancestors were martyred by the Romans because they were monotheists. This is a pure lie and proof is the fact that the Jews, as monotheists, were not subject to any persecution.

The reality is that the real repression against Catholics, began to occur only at the time of Emperor Decius, who, almost certainly, reacted to the arrogance and pretensions of the Roman Catholic clergy, who claim to positions of prestige and power, because he was aware that the Catholic Church was born through the direct intervention of the imperial and senatorial power by the first half of the second century. Before the 'persecution' of Decius, the victims of religious intolerance was mainly jesuan-gnostics, who, with their truth threatened the lies' castle built by the forger fathers, in order to give life to Catholic-Christianity.

"..As it is said that he died around the year 18..."

As far as I know, Octavian Augustus died in 767 AUC, which corresponds to 14 AD .... In the 18 year ruled his stepson and son in law also, Tiberius and, frankly, I never read that he did kill those who refused to adore Octavianus, though this can not be excluded prior ...

"..The division of twelve months seems to come from the Jains and the Buddhists who had a clock with 12 divisions"

It is possible ... However, the use of the sidereal year divided into 12 portions was ancient even in the West, and certainly before the advent of Buddha on the religious scenarios. However, what was typical of the East, was the so-called 'Wheel of Life' ( http://www.cultor.org/Orient/Iconography/WoL.html), which was usually divided into six parts, but could also have other subdivision, such as four, or eight or 12 parts.

In particular, the circle divided into four parts, which appears behind the head of Jesus in the earliest icons (see Christ Pantocrator), was reproducing, at the origins, just the wheel of life and not the 'solar wheel', as claimed by one part of scholars. Everything has a precise historical justification, due to contacts that Jesus, almost surely had with the Buddhist world, during his trip to Mesopotamia and, perhaps, also in Parthia. (there are patristic indications that suggests seriously it)

"..And so Christianity started as a revolt against Rome's religious dogma.."

I fear that there is a big mistake in this, due to the hallucinating lies 'coined' by the forger 'fathers' to build the catholic-christian worship ... Christianity arose because sponsored by the Roman power, both imperial and senatorial and therefore is practically absurd that Catholics Christians had rebelled against Rome ..

Those who rebelled against the Roman power, were the 'messianists' Zealots: namely, the rebels who fought to liberate Palestine Israel from Roman rule.

Messianism means 'messianic expectation', ie waiting for the appearance of the 'Messiah': a semi-mythological warlike figure, which, thanks to the 'divine' intercession, would lead the 'chosen people' to his redemption and his independence from foreign forces, that the Messiah would defeat restoring the 'glories' of the davidic kingdom.

The 'messianists' term in Hebrew is rendered by "meshichiyim". If translated into greek, this word becomes 'christianoi': that is to say the SAME attribute used for the followers of the catholic-christian worship! This is very important, as it allows us to understand many things, made extremely ambiguous by the falsehood and lies of the founder 'fathers'! ...


Best regards.


Littlejohn

.

Littlejohn

"..I think James, the Lord's brother means brother of Jesus.."

Yes, you're right.

Since this aspect, namely that relating to the 'brothers of Jesus' (or 'of the Lord'), has always created confusion and ambiguity in interpretation (and not only among beginners but also among the experts!), I propose below a table in which are summarized all the reports of brotherhood between Jesus and his brothers set out in the Gospels' texts. Obviously, everyone is free to look at it as they please.

Brothers of Jesus declared in the canonical gospels: JUDAS, JAMES, SIMON and JOSEPH(*).

Reports of brotherhood:

JUDAS said 'Thomas': twin brother of Jesus: ergo, the children of the same mother and same father;

JAMES said 'the minor' (or 'the Just'): son of Virgin Mary and a father different from that of Jesus;

SIMON: son of a father and mother different than those of Jesus;

JOSEPH (John): Same as Simon.

Note: Simon and Joseph/John were sons of the same father (that of James) and the same mother.

John/Joseph others was not that John the 'presbyter' quoted by Papias of Hierapolis. He was the 'acquired' uncle (as the stepbrother of the Nazarene) of John called 'Marcus', the secondborn of Jesus and Mary Salomè of Magdala, and alleged author of the fourth canonical Gospel. Both the Johns died in Ephesus and were buried there. (John was called the 'presbyter', ie old, to distinguish him from his nephew John 'Marcus ', younger than him)

Greetings

________________________________

Note:

(*) - actually this brother of Jesus you called John. For a long time I realized that one of the brothers of Jesus you called John. Then I managed to find that well 9 ancient MSS report the name John, instead of the one of Joseph (the latter, in fact, was Joseph called 'Barnaba', firstborn of Jesus and Mary Salomè of Magdala)


Littlejohn

.

Littlejohn

The Jesus name comes not from a Hebrew word, but from the greek ionic term 'IHSOUS' (Ιησους), the corresponding greek penthouse was 'IASOUS': in practice the male version of the name 'IASO', ie the goddess of healing into Greek mythology, daughter of Asclepius, the god of healing: in the practice act IASOUS. Jesus, in his long wandering outside Palestine (is said to have been in India, but in fact did not gone beyond the Mesopotamia), inspired himself to various models of the Greek gods and one of these it was Asklepios (Aesculapius to the Romans). It's just for this reason he was called IHSOUS.

The real name of Jesus, the official one, was the Hebrew name 'YESHAY' (or 'Y'shay'), transliterated into western languages with 'IESSE' (Jesse in English). The Romans, and thence the Latin writers, they did not knew Jesus with such one pseudo name, used only in the Roman provinces of 'Asia Minor' (today Turkey). It is precisely for this reason that the name Jesus is absent in the works of Latin writers contemporary with Jesus, or of the period immediately next to him. All this, however, does not mean that these writers (historians, novelists and others) are not interested to the figure of Jesus of Nazareth. Although this does not appear in practice, however, there were those who, among the pagan writers, became interested at the figure of the Nazarene.


Greetings,

Littlejohn

.

show_no_mercy

The name "Jesus" is derived from Ihsous. But this derivation was made c. 280 BCE when the Torah was translated into Greek for the Greek king Ptolemy Philadelphus. Ihsous is the closest phoneticisation of the Hebrew name Joshua (y'shua) using Greek letters. It has nothing to do with Jason or Jesse.

For Hellenized Jews, the person that leads the Jews to their promised land and was the successor of Moses was named Jesus.

Littlejohn

No, ... Some time ago, in a Jewish forum, I got to talk to some Jews precisely on this point, namely that into 'Septuagint' the Hebrew name 'YEHOSHUAH' (Joshua in English) was transliterated with IHSOUS. All I have confirmed that it was highly unlikely such a transliteration, given the considerable dissonance between the two terms. It was certainly an interpolation (one of many!) by a Christian scribe.

That this is the truth, is the same Jerome to confirm us, since he, in his Vulgate, translated the Hebrew YEHOSHUAH (see the book of Joshua) with IOSUE' and NOT with IESUS !!...


Greetings,


Littlejohn

.

show_no_mercy

How do you suppose y'shua would be transliterated into Greek? Yod is usually transliterated as Iota, the vowel is pretty ambiguous since Hebrew doesn't have a set vowel structure like Greek so it was rendered as an Eta, the Shin rendered as a Sigma, and the Ayin can't even be properly pronunced in English.

At the most, using Greek letters to render Y'shua, you would end up with I'sou, which makes sense. The only possible objection is the choice of vowel inbetween the Iota and Sigma. The Sigma at the end of the name denotes the nominative form for male nouns in Greek.

Why would they do that? This actually undermines Christianity.

Jerome translated that into Latin, not Greek.