offa

MAR 13:35 Watch ye therefore: for ye know
not when the master of the house cometh, at
even, or at midnight, or at the cockcrowing, or
in the morning:

Luke 22:34 And he said, I tell thee, Peter, the
cock shall not crow this day, before that thou
shalt thrice deny that thou knowest me.

Luke 22:60 And Peter said, Man, I know not what
thou sayest. And immediately, while he yet
spake, the cock crew.

Luke 22:61 And the Lord turned, and looked upon
Peter. And Peter remembered the word of the
Lord, how he had said unto him, Before the cock
crow, thou shalt deny me thrice.

JOH 13:38 Jesus answered him, Wilt thou lay
down thy life for my sake? Verily, verily, I say
unto thee, The cock shall not crow, till thou
hast denied me thrice.


Please understand that the rooster is a
human being. When reading the gospels you have
to be in the right frame of mind. I mean, we ain't
talking about Santa Claus. We are not in a
barnyard with chickens and cows. For instance,
the Fig Tree is a human being and the fruit of
the tree is $money. Do not think about evolution.
These dudes, Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John were
super intelligent and after these 2,000 years
nobody can match them!

OFFA

offa

Our Man in Judea, p.210

The Other Judas

There is a subsequent reference to "Judas"
which is (aptly) deceiving. The addendum in Jn
14:22 insists that the "Judas" of this
particular scene is not the "Iscariot,"
implying the sudden interjection of a name
already employed, but now wholly unconnected
with the narrative in any other sense! This is
not the way the FG works. For once, though, the
addendum is correct! That is, indeed,
another Judas ... but not a new
disciple!
Recall that Peter and Judas are linked by
their tribal affiliations, where Simeon is
strongly influenced by Judah and is all but
assimilated ... they are also linked in their
mutual nocturnal duties. It is in this context
we must interpret this second "Judas," but
before we do, in order to understand the
subtleties of the naming here, we must look at
the disciple "Thomas who (is) called Didymus."
"Thomas" is a Hebrew name. translated to
mean "twin," but the Greek, "Didymus," also
means "twin." There is, then, in keeping with
the consistently ambiguous, dual representation
of people and places in the gospel, a double
emphasis placed upon the "twin" aspect of
this character, causing the reader to take note
and investigate. We need to ask ourselves the
following questions: Who, in the FG, is the only
disciple who explicitly receives an alternate
nickname? Who is it that has both Hebrew
and Greek names? Which two disciples have a name
in common (i.e. "Simon")? Which disciple is
associated with another, so much so as to imply
his shadow, or Twin? Of whom is Thomas a
twin? There is no answer than "Peter," the
effective "twin" of "Judas." Peter and Andrew
are merely "brothers" by profession, and they
have no ongoing relationship in the FG, so this
is not an option.

OFFA

offa

Jesus the Man p.578

Mk 6:17

16 M 6:17 Herod (Thomas) the first husband of
Herodias, is here called Philip,the son of one
of Herod's lesser wives (War 1:562) was nominal
head of Daniel celibates of Shem, whose meeting
place was Caesarea Phillipi in his tetrarchy.
Their active head was Philip of the Twelve
Apostles, whose status was that of the tetrarch
Philip, so he was called by his name. The
tetrarch Philip was himself servant of Herod
(Thomas), as he was three grades below him.
Master and servant could take each others names,
as a master was sometimes "in the body", three
grades down, and a servant was sometimes "out of
the body", three grades up. So Herod (Thomas)
could be called "Philip" when he was "in the
body", in the married state.


Please note that I am a firm believer that Jesus
was a real person and that he survived a real
crucifixion. Whether or not Janet Tyson, Barbara
Thiering, or Robert Eisenman are in agreement
is "mox nix" to me. They are great characters
and are able to express free thought. A real
pain in the ass to me is trying to read authors
on the infidels board with them giving me blue
shit to click on. Get off your lazy asses and
write your own stuff and give your own opinions.



OFFA

Geoff Hudson

Offa,

You are absolutely correct. If the "experts" are wrong in the first place, then quoting them blindly only perpetuates their error. They are there to be examined. It seems that some want to worship at the feet of so-called "heavyweights". However, I would say that Madame Theiring is much more dogmatic and less open to criticism than is Robert Eisenman.

How many of the "experts" agree with each other?

Incidentally, you were also correct in thinking that I am not very big, but I can run like a bat out of hell.

Geoff