Littlejohn

The Jesus proposed by the Catholic clergy of the origins, namely the so called 'church fathers', EVER EXISTED also! .. It is for this reason that the secular commentators call him the 'Jesus of the faith'. This is a fictional character, created along the lines of the real one, that is historic, as Jesus of Nazareth (because it raised until his early childhood in the village of Nazareth) was a real historical figure, reformer and founder of cults, such as handed by Mandaeans literature.

Jesus was a character that should have been of interest only to writers, novelists and historians and NOT to charlatans theologians, in the mood to fool the common people for exclusive their material interests. Even if it not clearly appear, but this really happened, at least in part.

The reason they are apparently absent extra christian testimonies about the figure of Jesus, is to be found only in the fact that both Romans and Palestinian world, contemporary to him, never knew Jesus with this name, nor according to the profile traced by the faker clergy!


My best regards


Littlejohn

.

Littlejohn

There is another version, still ignored by most scholars, about the death of the traitor Judas. It is given to us by the Barnabas' Gospel: a gospel devoid of credibility (like many other texts) by Catholic apologists, in that it can provide data very compromising.

According to the Gospel of Barnabas, Judas was crucified. Not only this version was more reliable about the death of Judas, but I would add also that he was crucified upside down .....

Greetings


Littlejohn

.

Littlejohn

Hello Andrew!..

I'm debtor to you for the attention you paid to my post.

You're right; in the Gospel of Barnabas is not reported that Judas was crucified upside down.

By the Barnabas' Gospel:

The 'detail' about the crucifixion upside down, I added myself.

I have already discussed above, the 'Judas Iscariot' argument. If you give a look to the messagges that I already inserted here in the forum Infidels.org, then I am sure you will understand why I added it (crucified upside down)


Greetings


Littlejohn

__________

PS: I will bring this message in the thread "Was Jesus a historical caracter? ..." If you want to continue the discussion, you can do it there. Greetings.

.

Littlejohn

Hi!

The Gospel of Barnabas is mentioned in the 'Decretum Gelasianum' of 495 AD: So is much older than you claim. However it is true that the version we know today is the result of a 'collage' made in medieval times, possibly by a renegade, as you say. But, it is also true that in this 'collage' ended certainly news and information once belonged to the original Gospel of Barnabas.

This is demonstrated by the fact that the version of Judas 'crucified' is not present in any known text and you are therefore legitimate to suppose that 'medieval' author has got these news from a copy, even partial, of the original Barnabas' Gospel.

Moreover, if there is a Gospel of John (actually pseudo-epigraphic a work) more so should have existed a gospel of Joseph Bar-Naba, elder brother of John and firstborn of Jesus .


Greetings


Littlejohn

.

Littlejohn

Absolutely amazing! .. I thought that Earl Doherty had begun to think seriously about what I explained in posts I wrote here in the forums Infidels.org or FRDB. But actually I was wrong.

Pity!... I thought that he at least had begun to take me seriously and that non-Christian evidence, such as those of the rabbinical and Mandaeans (who always have lived outside the action-range of the Catholic clergy), who speak of Jesus, they was worth anything. However I was wrong ...

However, I can not fail to note once again that never, in the history of the Jewish diaspora, there was someone of the Jews who has complained of being persecuted by the Catholics, because of a non-historical caracter, invented by the 'church fathers'.

Also, even advancing the objection that the Jews could not do so for fear of Catholic reprisals, however today, in memory of their fallen, no impediment to do so, if it were true, that is that Jesus of Nazareth was indeed invented a character! As you all know, this has yet to happen ...

Greetings


Littlejohn

.

lpetrich

He does consider that evidence, and he finds it lacking.

Those sources are all secondhand, which menas that if there was a historical Jesus Christ, those sources do not tell us much about him.

Also, the rabbinical sources are NOT very flattering. The do not represent the sort of Jesus Christ that most Xians would want to believe in. Like JC's father being a Roman soldier.

Littlejohn

The fact that such evidence is lacking, does not necessarily mean that the Jesus of Nazareth was not really a historical character. For example, by Simon Magus we have quotes only from the New Testament and patristic literature. This should lead us to conclude that Simon Magus never existed? ..

And what should one say of Apollonius of Tyana? ... None of his contemporaries speaks about he. The first mentioning it was Justin Martyr, and thereafter Philostratus, with the biography of this evanescent character. But we are already in the early decades of the third century. Applying the rule that you 'evoked', you should resolve that Apollonius never existed? ..

Finally, we have the case of Dositheus, attested in rabbinic and Christianity literature, but totally absent in that 'pagan'. Even Dositheus never existed? ...

It's a big mistake to maintain that the pagan writers have not spoken of Jesus of Nazareth, as the Nazarene was known by the attribute' Iesous' (because such it was) only in 'ionic' Greece (present-day Western Turkey)

In Rome, and then the Romans, Jesus was known by another name, compared to that office (which, as said, DON'T was Iesous!) and, especially, with another attribute: Chrestos !....(see Suetonius)


Greetings


Littlejohn

.

Littlejohn

by: http://quotidianonet.ilsole24ore.com...ce_della.shtml

Gaddafi to FAO:

"Jesus was not crucified, a double in his place"

ROME - While the Pope currycomb the Great Earth and invites them to do much more to combat hunger in the world, the Libyan leader Gaddafi seeks to convert 200 girls. And political leader Casini blurted: "I wonder not what the Colonel says, I wonder what he is a privileged partner of Italy"

Rome, 16 November 2009 - Gaddafi moves the World Summit of FAO, whose works were opened this morning. ''You believe that Jesus' has been 'crucified but he is not' state, he took God in heaven. They crucified one who looked like him.''

This passage of the speech that the libyan colonel has turned to about 200 girls held at the villa Libyan ambassador's into capital for a meeting. Gaddafi speaking of the figure of Christ has continued: ''The Jews sought to kill Jesus because he wanted to put on correct track the religion of Moses'''. And then he added: ''Jesus was sent to the Jews, not for you, Muhammad, instead, was sent to all humans. Whoever goes in a different direction to that of Muhammad makes a mistake.

Religion of God, is Islam and those who profess a religion other than Islam is not accepted and at the end is the one who loses.'' The libyan leader has also invited the girls to read the Koran (one of his gifts together his 'Green Paper') and convert themself to Islam.

Declarations of Gaddafi elicited the testily comment of Pier Ferdinando Casini: "I wonder not what the colonel says, I wonder that he have become a privileged partner of Italy."


--------------------------------

I think I considered to be among those few that have not been at all surprised by the words of Gaddafi.

Great figure of 'shit' on the part of the political catholic fundamentalist Pier Ferdinando Casini, who not only showed he did not know the Koran (which is still not serious for a 'normal' christian believer, but absolutely intolerable for those who have the inclination to issue opinions on religious themes), but also ignore amazingly patristic literature!

If his skills were adequate, in fact, he would know that even before it was the Koran in the seventh century AD, to talk about this particular aspect (not crucifixion of Jesus), they talked about the Fathers of the second century, quoting the statements of gnostic scholars: Basilides in this case! ... So, Islam-Catholicism 1- 0! ...


Best regards


Littlejohn

(I sorry for my not perfectly correct english )

.

Littlejohn

"....if anything"

Jesus was a REAL historical characters, but totally different from that described by the 'holy' counterfeiters scriptures by so-called 'fathers of the church'.

The fact that after 19 centuries, no researcher has yet been able to propose a credible reconstruction of the profile of the true historical Jesus and how one arrived at the 'construction' of the catholic-Christianity, depends essentially from the fact that all the scholars, of all times and all the 'latitudes', have sought the historical Jesus where it was impossible to find it! ... That is to say that the research was always conducted along the path prepared by the forger fathers of the II century AD, namely between 140-150 years.

This exegetical path, which consists by 'corpus' of the manuscripts of the so-called 'New-Testament', was established by the patristic 'foxes' precisely to prevent that some 'curious' could come to a truth absolutely amazing, compared to the 'commercialized' one by forger clergy about 19 centuries ago until today, which one sought and still seeks to keep hidden for as long as possible time! ...

Today, thanks to the amazing technology, which we are enjoying the fruits, that period is about to expire and the truth hidden for over 19 centuries is about to be revealed! ...


Greetings,


Littlejhon
.

Littlejohn

The myth of the crucifixion, because of what it is, was invented by the founding fathers of the catholic-christianity, otherwise called "church fathers". In reality, this was not a real invention, because, in implementing the construction of such a syncretic religion, the figure of Jesus of Nazareth (absolutely historical character) was syncretically and literary superimposed on the figure by John of Gamala, the TRUE 'Christos' (Mosch'ah / Moschiah in Hebrew, that is to say 'anointed of God') made by the Romans crucify (Vitellius?) at the time of Pontius Pilate, probably as a result of a rebellion caused by the criminal power management pursued by Pilate.

Jesus of Nazareth was actually executed, but not through the crucifixion and not by the Romans. In fact, he was killed by stoning by the Jews. This happened near Lydda (today Lud), a town located about 25 miles northeast of Jerusalem. This was the result of the death sentence decreed by the Beth-Din, namely the Sanhedrin's court . The event took place around the year 72.

Almost certainly (formula you always must use, when making a historical reconstruction with incomplete data), Jesus was executed along with his twin brother, namely Judah called 'Thomas'. Indeed, the christian book of the 'martyrs' gives he martyred in the 72 year.

Judas Thomas, like a shadow, followed throughout all his life his more famous brother, Jesus of Nazareth. The latter, when it was executed, had reached the age of 66 years, having been born in 6 AD, at the time of the famous census of Judea-Samaria, government-run Quirinus. This fact, namely that of 66 years, is practically confirmed by a passage in the Talmud, where it says, cryptically, that he was aged the double of 33 years (namely 66!)


Greetings

Littlejohn
.