Littlejohn

Some affirmations:

"...Now some of the Jews thought that the destruction of Herod's army came from God as a just punishment of what Herod had done against John, who was called the Baptist. For Herod had killed this good man, who had commanded the Jews to exercise virtue, righteousness towards one another and piety towards God. For only thus, in John's opinion, would the baptism he administered be acceptable to God, namely, if they used it to obtain not pardon for some sins but rather the cleansing of their bodies, inasmuch as it was taken for granted that their souls had already been purified by justice."

Almost certainly, this passage was not written by Josephus, but by a Christian interpolator. It is strikingly similar, in style, to 'testimonium flavianum' and it's possible that the author can be the same as the false 'testimonium'.

Besides the fact, remarkable, that in the passage one speak generically of Herod, without specifying which Herod had been, typical of Christian literature (see Acts of the Apostles, concerning Agrippa I), there is the disconcerting fact that the author shows know well the difference between baptism's forms (see Acts of the Apostles), thus revealing his Christian education.

All of this, however, does not mean that Joseph had not spoken in his works of John the Baptist, even if the passage above is a new false 'testimonium'.

Idem with regard to Jesus of Nazareth. Despite the fact that the 'testimonium flavianum' is a resounding false, actually Joseph not only speaks of Jesus in his works, but he actually knew him also! ...


Greetings


Littlejohn
.

Littlejohn

I would have a great desire to explain it in detail, but, at least for the time being (ie until the book I'm writing is complete), the thing must remain "unpublished."

As you can see for yourself, there are many things that I have stated and many still I will explain; however, there are things that I consider "key aspects" of the whole 'jesuan' affair. The revelation its, would be as to insert 'into pen' of potential plagiarists all the sacrifices (very heavy!) that I made in more than 12 years of intensive searches. I hope you understand what are my problems ...


Greetings


Littlejohn

________________

PS:since this problem it has been already discussed in the forum, I can tell you that Jesus, during almost entire his life, was never a revolutionary. However, during the last five years of its existence, Jesus (with the role of head of a fraction of the rebels) actually joined at the front of the anti-Roman rebellion, that caused the first Jewish war of the 66-70. (keep in mind that Jesus died to 33x2 years, namely 66 years aged: it is in this manner that prudent rabbis, in their writings, us have handed down this important data, which can be reached by following an unpublished research's path). Despite this, the title of "boanerges" (ie 'sons of thunder') given to those characters, had nothing to do with the choice of Jesus of making rebel, also because, almost certainly, the nickname was given to "James" and John many years before this happened. (at least 30 years before!)
.

Littlejohn

"..and repudiate the Apostle Paul, maintaining that he was an apostate from the law.."

In this step, there is a great absurdity and contradiction, which has never been emphasized by some scholars. An aspect really surprising.

How is it possible that Paul, who, according to the Acts of the Apostles and the patristic testimonies, had spread and made known the figure of Jesus as the Son of God, like the Ebionites, therefore, could be considered an 'apostate of the Law'?!... These, at best, might be the impediments of a Jew, but certainly not of a Christian!

The truth, that scholars should easily guess, is that Irenaeus (forger as all other 'church's fathers') is describing the Ebionites as if they were really unique, even though historically it was not the case, since existed TWO EBIONITE SECTS! ..

To inform us of this reality is the same Eusebius from Caesarea, who also provides us with the peculiar differences between the two sects. Abdia of Babylon, also, tells us that both sects Ebionites resided in Hierapolis of Phrygia.

One of these sects accepted the preaching of Paul (see Acts of the Apostles), while the other refused it, remaining faithful to the message preached by John the Baptist and maintained by James the Just.

The first Ebionites, i.e. those who accepted the preaching of Paul, and therefore the figure of Jesus (and that used the Gospel of Matthew), could not to consider Paul an apostate, because it would have been a contradiction! Instead the seconds, which rejected the figure of Jesus (as they considered he a 'traitor': see the Mandaeans), found Paul an apostate like also Jesus of Nazareth, as their preaching had 'got away' from the preaching of John the Baptist and from the Law of Moses, to which these Ebionites remained rigidly faithful.


Greetings


Littlejohn

.

Littlejohn

Christos or Chrestus?

Chrestus (or Chrestos) = good man;

Christos (or Christus) = anointed man.

The meanings of the two words are thus quite different and no ancient writer, who had a minimum knowledge of the Greek language, could be so foolish as to confuse the two terms, as alleged by the forger sector, ie. from the Catholic one.

Contrary to the claims by the counterfeiters for more than 19 centuries, Jesus of Nazareth did not die crucified, nor in the 30's also, at the time of the roman procurator Pilate. Indeed, Jesus died stoned by the Jews along with his twin brother Judas Thomas, also around 72 year, near the town of Lydda, now Lud, located about 20-25 miles north-west of
Jerusalem.

Around the 51 year, Jesus left Palestine and he came back after about 14 years (65). In this long period of time, he traveled much, especially through the provinces of Asia Minor (now Turkey), Greece and finally Rome.

Jesus was not the real name of the Nazarene, as it was a mere attribute, that the inhabitants of the provinces of ionian Greece (Asia Minor) attributed him by virtue of his remarkable healing abilities (at least for the time) which he associated a taumaturgic charism.

Attribute greek-ionian 'Iesous' was to 'healer', exactly as it was the mythical Asclepius, who, for his extraordinary healing abilities, was also listed as "Soter" (savior), as does was also Jesus, although this attribute had, for him, deep roots since he was part of the gnostic community of John the Baptist ..

In Rome, where Jesus came as the last stage of his journey, he not only was known by another name, with respect to his official name, but by another attribute even: CHRESTUS! (see Suetonius).

Even the 'CHRISTUS' mentioned by Tacitus also, in origin, ie before it was fraudulently made a correction to the manuscript, was in reality 'Chrestus', as pointed out by careful calligraphic analysis of the manuscript (the 'i' is obtained by a previous 'e').

All this should not be surprising, since the church fathers such as Justin Martyr, Tertullian and Lactantius, complain that, in their view, pagan writers 'crippled' the attribute christians in 'chrestians'!... By what might to derive the attribute 'chrestianus', if not from 'Chrestus'?...

In addition, the archaeologists discovered at the time, into a marcionite church-synagogue of Cappadocia, an ancient written wall, which was clearly highlighted the name 'ISU CHRESTUS ', having been 'ISU' the name by which the Syrians called Jesus (v. Ephraim the Syrian).

Finally, it should be remembered that in France even today also, christians are called 'chrestians' (chrétiens = chrestiens = chrestians). This has a precise historical justification, linked both to TRUE attribute with which Jesus of Nazareth was known in Rome and some other parts of the Roman Empire, and with the story of Mary Magdalene in Gaul.

Greetings


Littlejohn

.

Littlejohn

Yes, it's true: the Chrestus indicated by Suetonius it was truly Jesus of Nazareth!

What is not true, however, is that the incident mentioned by Suetonius ("...Iudaeos impulsore Chresto assidue tumultuantis Roma") was not held at the time of Emperor Claudius, but at the time of his nephew Claudius Nero.

No, it implies that Jesus/Chrestus was in Rome. But he was not to cause riots mentioned by Suetonius ("..impulsore.. .. tumultuantis.."), but the Jews of the diaspora and others who came in Rome from Palestine.

No, it happened between the 60-65 years, not after the destruction of Jerusalem.


Greetings


Littlejohn

.

Littlejohn

from: http://www.bookreviews.org/pdf/6163_6719.pdf

"..Judas is “the thirteenth demon.."

DeConick, evidently, unaware that one of the infinite attributes which Jesus of Nazareth was known, was also "the Duodecimo" (the twelfth)... Behind this attribute, there is a truth absolutely devastating for the 'sacred' lies of the Catholic clergy!


Greetings

Littlejohn

.

Chili

Historical? He is alive Johnny!!!!!!!!!!!!!

So if he is the way, and the truth and the life, why would you look in history?

Have you no faith? . . . or are you not one of the lucky ones?

Littlejohn

No... I'm not one of those lucky....

I have the misfortune to be a reasonable person ..


Greetings


Littlejohn

.

Littlejohn

Please, someone can tell me about the 'Simon Magus' by Apollinaire?

I found it in this site:

http://www.nothingburnsinhell.com/mago.htm

I do not know who it is Apollinaire

Tanks


Littlejohn

.

Chili

Oh I see, so you say that you always have to think . . . . Well, that's not so bad either as long as you have a square head on your shoulders.

All the best and good luck.