Littlejohn

Maybe it's my fault ... because now that you've pointed out it, I realize I have written the name of the eldest son of Vespasian in the way that we use to write it in Italian (Tito, to be precise), when instead I should bring back it in the original Latin form (Titus).

An annoying setback, therefore!.. Allons enfant!.. (but with caution)

Littlejohn S

.

Littlejohn

I do not believe that Matthew comes from Hebrew Matityahu ... It is not a 'peregrine' hypothesis to believe that Matthew could arise from MAAT-THEUTH(*), taking into account the real theological perspectives of Jesus, and the fact that he spent about 3 years of his life in Egypt, mainly in Alexandria .. . (see Celsus, the Talmud and the Gospels).

Matthew definitely don't went to Egypt with Jesus, and this means that if truly his pseudo-name derives from 'Maat-Theuth', Jesus applied it to him after his return from Egypt.


___________________________

(*) - THEUTH: Egyptian god 'handyman', equated to hellenic Hermes; MAAT goddess of the truth, considered by the Egyptians the feminine counterpart of the God Theuth/Thoth.


Littlejohn S

.

Littlejohn

Who was really Matthew?...

According to the Fathers of the church, Matthew and Levi were actually the same person. In the Gospel of Mary is mentioned only Levi. However, through the slanderers writings of the so-called 'heresiologists fathers', we now know that the gnostic Heracleon, listing the disciples of Jesus, considered Matthew and Levi two different people.

There is little doubt about the fact that around the characters like Lazarus, Nicodemus, Bartholomew, Matthew and Levi (perhaps a SAME character) the forger Fathers of the origins imbastirono a rather complex and mysterious texture, in order to hide what it could not absolutely be revealed! (see, for example, the 'disquieting' content of Epistle of Clement of Alexandria, discovered by Morton Smith)

To substantiate such, legitimate a hypothesis, there is the tangible proof represented by the fact that WELL 3 of 4 evangelists DELIBERATELY ignored the story of Lazarus, narrated by the only John .... Why all this? ....(*)


____________________________

(*) - what legitimately can be guessed from the 'scabrous' content of the letter of Clement of Alexandria, namely the 'ambiguous' relationship between Jesus and 'Lazarus' (the 'young man' whom Jesus loved: see the Clement's Epistle), is strikingly confirmed by a pagan author of second-century! ...


Littlejohn S

.

Littlejohn

.

Errata corrige: (into previous post)

"...the forger Fathers of the origins imbastirono a rather complex and mysterious texture.."


'Imbastirono', an italian term per english 'basted', namely prepare two flaps of fabric to be joined to be sewn together. In italian it is a dialectal idiomatic figure.


Littlejohn S

.

Littlejohn

Littlejohn S

.

Littlejohn

What follows is the Latin version of A.H. 3-15.1:

"..Neque enim contendere possunt Paulum non esse apostolum, quando in hoc sit electus; neque Lucam medacem esse possunt ostendere, veritatem nobis cum omni diligentia annuntiantem. Fortassis enim et propter hoc operates est Deus plurima evangelii ostendi per Lucam, quibus necesse haberent omnes uti: ut sequenti testificationi eius, quam habet de actibus ete doctrina apostolorum, omnes sequentes, et regulam veritatis inadulteratam habentes, salvari possint. Igitur testificatio eius vera et doctrina apostolorum manifesta et firma, et nihil subtrahens neque alia quidem in abscondito, alia vero in manifesto docentium..."

".. Fortassis enim et propter hoc operates est Deus plurima evangelii ostendi per Lucam, quibus necesse haberent omnes uti.."

From what little I can understand about Latin, I do not seem that Irenaeus spoke of 'many truths of the Gospel'.... What one guess is that God, through Luke, chose to make known to men a variety of gospels ...

All this is explained (unless you believe Irenaeus totally insane) with the fact that behind the pseudo-name of Luke, was hiding in fact a multiplicity of characters, which gave birth, through different modes (but not by much) to the four canonical gospels. I repeat that it was a 'team' mixed, but dominated by the pagan priestly component .

Almost surely, for example, Aniceto, the FIRST TRUE bishop of the Roman Catholic Apostolic Church (the attribute 'Christian' will come later), was a priest of the Mithraic cult, the one closest to the emperors (see also Constantine I).


Littlejohn S

.

Littlejohn

- Pope Anicetus -

It is worth mentioning (see the works of Tertullian) the circumstance that Aniceto was able to earn what would become one of the most prestigious professorships in history, through the corruption of the electoral college, composed of the 'holy' presbyters.

At the expense was Valentino, the candidate most endowed and more prepared for this role. He, as it did Marcion (because nauseated by the environment with which he had previously worked), he abandoned the 'cheerful' and corrupt 'clique' for operate on his own, founding a sect whose doctrine was halfway between the address catholic-orthodox and the one gnostic-jesuan.

From everything you can imagine easily that are blatant error those that contend that the church or the Catholic clergy, you are spoiled 'growing', having been the 'sacred' institution morally rotten since its birth, miserably showing its nature and its origins purely secular!..


Littlejohn S

.

Littlejohn

Hello!

"...Why Were the Gospels Written?.."

Essentially for two reasons, the most important of which was to build a version 'ad-hoc' of the character known to the history with the name Jesus of Nazareth (in effect, his name was YESHAY, ie Jesse) and his real human story. A story entirely different from what we know today through the New Testament, and absolutely INCOMPATIBLE with that of a character, like Jesus, precisely, artificially made become a God and a 'son of God' (sic!)

Needless to say that, at that time, the Jews and the pagans - latter informed by the first - were fully aware of the TRUE historical profile of Jesus and his mother, and of their real history. Hence the need to mystify everything at the eyes of 'credulous devotees': namely the naive early Christian followers, unnecessarily alerted by pagan 'intellighenzia', constituted by individuals learned and motivated on the ethical 'plain', as, for example, the Stoic Neo-Platonist Celsus or his friend Lucian of Samosata!

Actually Jesus (the one true, that actually lived, unlike that of the Catholic magisterium, which, practically, does not exist on the historical level, so different he is from the real one!), was NOT NEITHER 'good' and NEITHER 'bad', but simply a man of his time, to which he tried to adapt himself as best he thought.

He should have been of interest to historians and novelists ONLY (*), and NOT to forgers theologians, who, in order to adapt its historical figure to their cynical purposes, did upset deeply his human and historical profile, and the true, and EXTRAORDINARY human story, of which Jesus became protagonist. (if it had been not so, he would NEVER gone down in history!)

All this thanks to his uncommon intelligence, coupled with the fact that he was a VERY learned person, in spite of the counterfeiter fathers of the origins, who have tried to propose him as an almost illiterate - in order to refute those among pagans, gnostics and Jews, claimed that Jesus had written several books (**) - and also to his uncanny ability to 'immerse' himself in various identities and roles, the last of which was that of a rebel leader that, along with other rebel leaders, participated to the defense of Jerusalem, besieged by legions of Titus.

It was the last role played, since, on account of what, Jesus was later executed - by STONING and NOT by crucifixion! - a couple of years after the end of the first Jewish War (ie around the 72 year)

The second reason for which the Gospels were written, was to provide a doctrinal basis for the new worship (ie the 'catholic-Christian' one, to which Jesus was TOTALLY stranger, he having been a convinced gnostic!), since the material used for the gospels do not had it. (in practice, ALL the so called 'Christian doctrine', is a mere invention of men passed into history with the high-sounding title of 'CHURCH's FATHERS', now better known as 'counterfeiter fathers of the origins'!)


Greetings

__________________________

(*) - actually part of that really it happened: just think (but NOT the only work!) to so-called 'Safed's Scroll', which us tells a part of his real story, though sometimes mixed with the 'popular' voices. which, for example, wanted that Jesus, after having escaped death on the 'cross' (event NEVER happened!) would have fled to India, and never more he return back to Palestine. (actually, it was from Rome that Jesus fled - see Suetonius, 'Impulsore Chrestos' - and never returned back). However, it is legitimate to assume that Jesus, in a certain period of his life, he may have traveled in the East, until arriving in the western part of what was then considered 'India' (basically the Hellenic kingdom of BACTRIA)

(**) - obviously in TOTAL contrast with those that were the assumptions of the nascent catholic-christian religion, built on an incredible and shocking cumulus of lies and deceit! ...


Littlejohn S

.

Littlejohn

.

'Herodian Messiah' - by Joseph Raymond

Publication Date: February 14, 2010

Book Description:

Can anyone tell me what a reception has had the work of Joseph Raymond in the erudite world? ..

Thank you!

Littlejohn S

.

Toto

Herodian Messiah (or via: amazon.co.uk)

Google books

www.jjraymond.com/ - his web site has excerpts

James Tabor has a favorable mention here

but otherwise the book has been ignored by the scholarly community.




eta: Jesus Conspiraciesvideo at http://dsc.discovery.com/video-topic...milarities.htm