The Apostles did not exist

Incipit to the studies

Of all the first century A.D. chroniclers of imperial Rome, the most detailed accounts of the events in Judea are those which have been left by the works of Josephus Flavius; writings which were verified by Roman historians and approved by Emperor T. Flavius Vespasian and his son Emperor Titus.
Due the historical importance of the Jewish writer’s testimonies, before studying primitive Christianity in depth it is of utmost importance to offer detailed information concerning his life as described in his “Autobiography”.

Josephus Flavius is unanimously recognized as the most famous Jewish historian of all time. He lived in the first century A.D. and his Jewish chronicles, perfectly connected to those of the history of  Rome, were verified by Roman historians before being deposited in the Imperial Archives by order of Titus and Emperor Vespasian, who granted him Roman citizenship.
The Jewish historian was therefore protected by the two sons of Vespasian, Titus and Domitian, both of whom were Emperors, and his writngs were consulted by Gaius Suetonius Tranquillus, as Superintendent of the Imperial Archives under Emperor Hadrian. The works of Josephus Flavius are: “The Jewish War” (Bellum); “Jewish Antiquities” (Ant.); “Autobiography” (Bios); “Contra Apionem” (C.A.).

From his parentage, as  reported in “Autobiography – drawn up by the Jewish historian in 94 A.D. and transcribed into Codexes by scribes in the appendix of  “Jewish Antiquities” – we discover that Josephus was born in 37 A.D. (under the reign of Gaius Caligula) and his parents were of noble descent and his mother was related to the royal dynasty of the Hasmoneans. And Josephus’s father, Matthias, born in 6 A.D. was  a member of the highest priestly aristocracy and “belonged to the first of the twenty-four priestly classes and to the most illustrious of Tribes. As such, his father Matthias became a member of the Sanhedrin several years prior to the birth of Josephus, his second son after “Matthias”, his first son (bearing the same name as his father), therefore Josephus’s elder brother.

As a result Josephus had the economic means to be highly educated and he immediately demonstrated a strong passion for studying and at the age of fourteen he was already able to express opinions, requested by the High Priests, concerning the interpretation of the Mosaic Law.
He spent time learning Greek and Latin; he then decided to deepen his direct knowledge of the philosophical principles of the three of the four Jewish associations existing in the first century: Pharisees, Sadduceans and Essenes, thus leaving out the extremist Zealots. At the age of sixteen he became the disciple of an Essenic hermit named “Bannus” who he followed in the desert for about three years. At the age of nineteen, and already a priest, he decided to adhere to the sect of the Pharisees and, in 56 A.D., as a result of his aristocratic priestly extraction and thanks to his extraordinary cultural and linguistic background, he became a member of the Sanhedrin* of Jerusalem, obviously not as an “Elder” but as a priest and “Scribe”, the same year in which the Vassal King, Agrippa II, appointed Ismael, son of Fabi, High Priest of the Temple. As of this date began the ambitious career of “Josephus bar Matthias”, who managed to climb to the top of the Jewish priestly aristocracy.

* The Jewish Sanhedrin was a Council of 71 members, made up of  Elderly Priests, Doctors of the Law (Rabbis) and Scribes. From the time of the Hasmoneans (second century B.C.) to Tito’s desctruction of Jerusalem, this body was presided over by the High Priest of the Temple (the most important Jewish religious authority) who, after hearing the opinion of the Assembly, made a ruling and his decision was incontestable.
In turn, as a sign of utmost authority and distinction, the High Priest of the Temple wore a rich Sacred Vest, conforming to the dictate of Yahweh, embellished with fine fabrics and adorned with gold friezes.
The Sanhedrin of Jerusalem represented the entire nation of the Jews – scattered throughout the Provinces of the Roman Empire and in Mesopotamia, beyond the Euphrates River, in the Kingdom of the Parthians – and therefore had Government administrative functions and acted as the highest Jewish Tribunal, unappealable interpreter of the Mosaic Law. The charisma of this Assembly and of its Leader in particular, was so strong among the Jews that Herod the Great first and the Romans later decided, for evident political reasons, who to appoint as High Priest of the Temple, the only person allowed to enter the “Holy of Holies”. In the event of a violation of the Mosaic Law, he did not have the right to execute a criminal; however this right could be delegated to him by the Roman Governor, in the capacity of imperial Magistrate, after authorizing the convocation of the Sanhedrin. From 6 A.D. until Tito's destructon of the Temple in 70 A.D., the Sanhedrin became a “puppet” body conditioned by the power of Rome.

According to what he himself attested, Josephus carried on his career as a member of the Sanhedrin, obtaining important ever more important appointments within the Assembly, as we are about to discuss.
In 62 A.D. (Ant. XX 196/203), Josephus (see third study) took part as Scribe of the Sanhedrin when his dear friend Ananus, son of Ananus, (painfully mourned upon his death in Bellum IV 316/322) was High Priest; after convocating the Sanhedrin without the authorization of the Roman Procurator, Ananus, “with the character he had”, decreed that James – brother of the High Priest Jesus, son of Damneus - be stoned to death “along with others, guilty of having broken the Law”. Awaiting the arrival of the new Roman Procurator Lucceius Albinus, appointed by Nero in 62 A.D., the accused were temporarily arrested. Lucceius Albinus, after being informed of the autonomous initiative taken by Ananus, immediately ordered King Agrippa to replace Ananus with the High Priest “Jesus, son of Damneus”.

From this moment on Josephus carried on with his pretentious “cursus honorum” and, on mandate of the Sanhedrin, in 63 A.D. was sent as ambassador to Rome in order to plead, before Nero, for the liberation of several Jewish priests who had been arrested by the previous Governor, Antonius Felix, with “risible accusations”. He stayed at the court of Rome, hosted by Poppaea, until the middle of 65 A.D. It was during this period that the famous fire of Rome took place (July of 64 A.D.) and, according to the conviction spread deceitfully by Christian scribes, which resulted in the “ingens multitudo” (great multitude) of Christians, crucified like burning torches, accused by Nero of having set fire to Rome. The chronicle of this event, that of the fire and that of the martyrdom of a huge number of Christians, cannot be found in Josephus’s “Autobiography” which he wrote in 94 A.D.

If the destructive fire of Rome, which took place in July of 64 A.D. and today substantiated by precise archeological finds, appears not to have been documented by the eyewitness Josephus when he himself was in Rome, it is evident that the event was censored by the scribes in their Codexes so as not to highlight the link between “the fire and the martyrdom of Christians”. In fact there is no account of this fire in the Jewish historians work as it is in contrast with that attributed to Tacitus in the eleventh century by scribes in Montecassino (Italy) and copied into “Codex Laurentianus 68 II” (today kept at the Medicea Laurenziana Library in Florence).
It is to be highlighted that “Autobiography”, drawn up by Josephus at the time of Domitian, was inserted in the appendix of “Jewish Antiquities”, whose oldest manuscript is “Codex Ambrosianus F 128” dated, just like the “Laurentianus”, to the eleventh century; this coincidence is proof of the censorship imposed by the high prelates of the devastating fire (which in reality was described by the Jewish historian, just like the eruption of Mount Vesuvius in 79 A.D.), carried out so as to hide the fact that he provides no evidence in his work of the mass murder of Christians.

Josephus returned to his homeland at the beginning of 66 A.D., along with the priests freed by Nero. And it was upon his arrival that he observed the first signs of the Jewish revolt which occurred in the summer of the same year. Waiting to see how the war progressed, Josephus stood on the sidelines for a few months up until the defeat of the Roman legions – led by Legatus Augusti Cestius Gallus – in Bethoron in November of 66. The serious defeat suffered by the strongest army in the world removed all of Josephus’s doubts and, in December of the same year, inside the Temple of Jerusalem, the leading priests of the Temple awarded him, at the age of 29, the utmost Jewish military rank, that of  General Commander of the Two Galilees, with the task of forming an army capable of fighting against the Romans, strengthen the defenses of the cities under his control and appoint the respective Governors.
It is right to highlight the great appreciation of the Jewish historian in favor of the Galileans:

"The Galileans are warlike from an early age and have always been numerous and, as the inhabitants have never known cowardice, so the region has never known depopulation" (Bell 3,42).

But, as he reported in his chronicles, the reaction of Rome was brutal and resulted in the holocaust of hundreds of thousands of Jews:

The whole of Galilee transformed itself into a sea of fire and bloodshed, undergoing every sort of suffering and destruction.

As for the priesthood requirement, mandatory for the Israelite leaders of armies, it was a fact well known by Tacitus: "The Jews assigned the role of sustaining their power to priestly dignity" (Historiae V 8); it follows that, from the beginning of the war until his capture, Josephus was actually the most powerful Jewish general committed against the Roman legions. But, as Joseph later reported in his chronicles, Rome's reaction was merciless and ended with the holocaust of hundreds of thousands of Jews:

"The whole Galilee turned into a sea of fire and blood, suffering every kind of suffering and ruin".

The Jewish armies were defeated by the legions of the Legatus Augusti pro Praetore, T. Flavius Vespasian (future Emperor), and Josephus – who behaved cowardly when his defeated companions committed suicide – in the summer of 67 allowed himself to be captured in Iotapata, after this city had withstood a Roman siege of 47 days.
From this moment onwards he began to collaborate with the victors and prophetized to Vespasian his ascent to the imperial throne and that of his son Titus. As soon as he became Emperor, Vespasian freed Josephus from his chains and awarded him “Roman citizenship”, which was possible thanks to the Jew’s knowledge of Latin; he was also given the honor to adopt as his praenomen the same name as the Princeps: Titus Flavius.
To date, the illustrious Jew, “Josephus bar Matthias”, is remembered by historians with the appellative “Flavius Josephus”, while the Fathers of Christianity, in their writings, simply refer to him as “Josephus”.


After the death of Constantine the Great, the Christians began to progressively and systematically demolish temples and polytheistic altars. In 361 A.D. Flavius Claudius Julianus - who had just been acclaimed Emperor by his legionaries and remembered by history as "the Apostate" - promulgated the "Edict of Tolerance" sanctioning the principle of mutual respect among the various cults practiced within the Empire, in order to halt persecution against the pagans and their respective divinities.
On the contrary, in 380 A.D. the Emperors Augusti Flavius Theodosius, Flavius Gratianus and Flavius Valentinianus enacted, in the name of God, the "Edict of Thessalonica" which imposed Catholicism as the sole doctrine to be professed in the Provinces of the Empire,
while the absolute religious leader with the title of "Potifex Maximus" (until then due to the Emperors), was assigned to the violent and ambitious Pope Damasus I ... ergo proclaimed "Saint" by the Church. Therefore, for the first time since its foundation, the Roman Empire decreed that all the pagan and heretical Christian cults were to be declared illegitimate. In coherence with the Edict of Thessalonica, the following year the Bishops of the Empire were convened at the "Council of Constantinople" of 381 A.D. which confirmed Nicean Creed of 325, but the axiom was forced so as to include the Holy Trinity and "Mary the Virgin Mother of the Only-Begotten Son Jesus Christ".
In September 394 A.D. the decisive "battle of the Frigido" took place on the River Isonzo (northeastern Italy); here the pagan army was defeated by the Christian forces under Theodosius I the Great, thus sanctioning the definitve triumph of Catholicism.

Before Theodosius I ascended the throne as sole Lord of the Catholic Roman Empire, the High Clergy, by order of Pontifex Maximus Damasus I - in compliance with the Christian doctrine decreed in the Council of Constantinople - drew up new biblical codexes purposely containing first century historical accounts (drawn from scrolls lying in the imperial library), in order to demonstrate the "sequela christi" beginning with Advent of the "Saviour" and his successors (Mt 19,21). A few years later and at the state's expense, churchmen were sent into the Provinces of the Empire in order to spread the "good news". At the same time the Bishops began to carry out the destruction of all private and provincial libraries, apart from the imperial libraries of Constantinople and Rome; the ownership of the latter was ceded to the Church of Peter. Therefore it is not by chance that the dating of the oldest Codexes which have reached us, such as the Vaticanus and the Sinaiticus, have today been dated to the fourth century by means of a rough paleographic estimate; the latter is much less precise than the historical and ecclesiastical evidence handed down by patrology.

Through the comparison of History with the Creed we come across information highlighting the adaptive evolution of the victorious Catholic doctrine, whose theological representation of the "Universal Saviour" distinguished it from the prior Christian Creeds today classified as "apocryphal", "gnostic" and "pseudo". In fact, in order to uniform the substance and the representation of the new divinity numerous Councils had to be convened during the fourth century, all of which culminating in violent vendettas carried out against the losing Bishops.
In the fourth study we offer the proof that the current Gospels were copied ex novo in execution of the Catholic Creed, defined at the Council of Constantinople in 381 A.D. The "Primacy of Apostle Peter" and the "Nativity" of Jesus - contained in the Gospels of Luke and Matthew - were added to this doctrine, by order of Damasus I, in order to furnish theological documentation needed by the Bishops to decree, at the subsequent Council of Ephesus in 431 A.D., the definitive dogma proclaiming the Holy Virgin Mary as "Mother of God".

But the Christian historians, unlike their military leaders, were unable to properly consult the scrolls of first century imperial chroniclers. The superficiality with which the scribes of God read about past events - in order to obtain useful information regarding famous personalities who were made to interact with the heroes of primitive Christianity - later cost ecclesiastical power dear. An absolute power which carried on even after the fall of the Roman Empire ... to this very day. An absolute power which, ultimately, will be forced to come to terms with the final judgement of History: the same History to which the scribes of God entrusted the "Truth" of Jesus Christ. History, archeology, epigraphy, philology, numismatics and geotopography are the fundamental disciplines of rational science which has begun to demolish the superstitious obscurantism of Christianity, like that of all other Creeds, starting with the ones based on absolute monotheism. Yet after the Council of Constantinople (381 A.D.) many centuries must still pass before the process of returning the final verdict of History against any form of idolatry comes to an end.

In the nineteenth century, Alfred Loisy, a French catholic priest (1857 - 1940), exegete theologian of international fame, and professor of Hebrew and the Old Testament, advocated the scientific historical criticism, applied to the New Testament, as the first method of research on the origins of Christianity. The biblical scholar contested, through his studies, the historicity of the "Passion and Resurrection of Christ" proving, furthermore, that Jesus did not want to be the founder of a new religion, let alone any Church. After a correct philological analysis, the Catholic exegete asserted that Jesus Christ historically was a "Nazirean" and not a "Nazarene", as belonging to a sect of the Nazireans, consecrated to God and who had vowed to keep their hair and beards uncut and refrain from drinking liquor (the same vow made by Samson and, according to the Gospels, by John the Baptist); therefore the identification meant as an "inhabitant of Nazareth" was not valid.
According to the writings of the Jewish historian of the time, Josephus, the Nazireans were a sect of Jewish fundamentalists and nationalists, opponents of the pagan domination of the land of Israel and, as such, persecuted by the opportunistic Jewish priestly aristocracy, the Roman Governors and the Herodian rulers.
On 8 April 1546 the Council of Trent decreed: "«the sacrosanct Tridentine council ... welcomes and venerates all books, those of the Old and New Testament, being that God is the Author of both»". The Holy Writings of God could not be contested by anyone, therefore, as was to be expected, in 1908 Loisy was excommunicated by the Catholic Church ... and to this day nothing has changed:
God cannot make mistakes ... according to believers.

The Apostles did not exist. Historical verification

A biblical scholar should not limit himself to comparing the Evangelical documentation and the testimonies of the Church Fathers in order to discover the numerous contradictions found in the doctrinal texts known today. The most profitable method, in order to ascertain the truth or uncover falsifications, is that of comparing these writings by using information contained in proven historiography, and examine the correspondence through a more advanced textual analysis, peremptorily excluding the use of any thesis or hypothesis in order to "explain" certain events described in the Gospels. Only a presumptuous and incompetent person can blame the New Testament documents, basis of the Christian doctrine for over 1700 years, merely inventing theories built on paradoxical truth, instead of basing one’s analysis on specific findings of facts that truly occurred.

However, instead of talking about what Jesus, the Apostles and Virgin Mary said or did - being protagonists object of worship and often described as authors of amazing and impossible deeds - the first duty of the teachers of History of Christianity is to ensure that they truly existed, by investigating the famous men of the time who, according to the Gospels, had interacted with the "prodigious" Saints. These famous men actually existed, and, therefore, are traceable in the official historiography, which is supported by archeology, philology, epigraphs and numismatics.
Textual critical research can verify if the narration of the relationships between the sacred interpreters of Christian mythology and the famous people of the time is authentic, false or deliberately manipulated.
Tacitus, Suetonius, Flavius Josephus, Cassius Dio, Plinius the Younger, the Essenes and the Zealots of the Dead Sea Scrolls, the patristic scribes and many others, when reporting the events of the time, have unknowingly helped us to reconstruct the Jewish events of two thousand years ago and to shed light on the real primitive Messianism (Christianity) of the first century that subsequently originated the myth of "Jesus Christ".

In order to guarantee the verifiability, we have the important task of analyzing in-depth the historical investigations basing ourselves solely on the textual findings of the direct quotations as well as on archeological evidence; our attention is focused more on clarity than on elegance, despite being aware beforehand of the fact that our work will be incomplete but sure to be attacked with unprecedented violence by the dogmatic critics. Studies which, to be honest, are not complex yet require a careful analysis in order to be totally assimilated.
By excluding an enormous and superfluous hagiographical Christian bibliography, the knowledge of the distant past - thanks to the the historical sources of the time and the consultation of the Ancient Codexes elaborated by the scribes through the centuries - allows us to proceed with our research "within" an authentic critical apparatus and to demonstrate the falsification of all the "Acts of the Sanhedrin" of Jerusalem (the Jewish Supreme Court) reported in the Gospels and in the "Acts of the Apostles" (the deeds of "Jesus", "St. Peter", "St. Paul", "St. Stephen", etc.).
But the historiological research goes beyond this and is able to discover the reason behind the mystification, and why the only "Act of the Sanhedrin" given to us through the works of the historian Josephus - from the death of Herod the Great to 66 A.D. - turns out to be the one regarding "James, brother of Jesus called Christ" ... which had been tampered with by the Christian scribes, as will be demonstated in the following study.

In the "Acts" of a real Jewish Sanhedrin, during the "trial of Jesus" the Jews would have never casted upon themelves or their children the curse reported in the Gospels (Matthew 27,25):

All the people answered: let the blood (of Jesus) be on us and on our children!”.

A chronicle related by scribes who were so catechized that they nullified the truthfulness of the "trial against Jesus" even before it could get underway. An eminent priest Jewish such as Josephus, descendant of the Hasmoneans by maternal line and of the High Priests by paternal line, would have never accepted this paradox as being truthful; just as all the Jews both of the time and of nowadays would not. After having praised their divine "Messiah", the Hebrews crucify him and curse themselves for eternity. If the event had really taken place, the historian would have mentioned it in his chronicles, due to the seriousness of the occurrence.
Also because, just before the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 A.D. by Titus (son of Emperor Vespatian), he personally retrieved the Sanhedrin documents, together with all the documents stored in the public archives (this will be proved later).
No mention by the Josephus of further acts of the Sanhedrin leads us to investigate the "Acts of the Apostles" and the Gospels, beecause what is reported in these manuscripts should also be found in the Acts of a real Sanhedrin and reported by the Jew in Book XVIII of the "Jewish Antiquities": the time of Jesus.

It is thanks to history that we can prove the non-existence of the Apostles, so let's open the sacred text, written by Luke the Evangelist, who describes their miraculous deeds, and let's begin the comparison between the theological myth of "eternal salvation" and ... historical rationalism.

Part I

Acts of the Apostles

After the ascension of Jesus, the Apostles remain in the Holy City and begin to spread the doctrine preached by Christ. Under Salomon’s portico and in the squares, emulating their "Teacher", they carry out healing, exalting the people and attracting crowds from the neighbouring cities “and there came also together to Jerusalem a multitude, bringing sick persons and such as were troubled with unclean spirits: who were all healed.
The High Priest and the Sadduceans, “filled with envy” have them arrested, accusing them “for having taught in his name (Jesus Christ); they then summon the Sanhedrin of Jerusalem, the highest Jewish court, and begin the trial and threaten to “put them to death” (Catholic Bible. Acts 5,12-33): 

“One member of the Sanhedrin, however, a Pharisee called Gamalièl, who was a teacher of the law respected by the whole people, stood up and asked to have the men taken outside for a time. Then he addressed the Sanhedrin, 'Men of Israel, be careful how you deal with these people. Some time ago there arose Theudas. He claimed to be someone important, and collected about four hundred followers; but when he was killed, all his followers scattered and that was the end of them. And then there was Judas the Galilean, at the time of the census, who attracted crowds of supporters; but he was killed too, and all his followers dispersed. What I suggest, therefore, is that you leave these men (the apostles) alone and let them go. If this enterprise, this movement of theirs (Christianity), is of human origin it will break up of its own accord (tall as Theudas and Judas the Galilean); but if it does in fact come from God you will be unable to destroy them. Take care not to find yourselves fighting against God.' His advice was accepted; and they had the apostles called in, gave orders for them to be flogged, warned them not to speak in the name of Jesus and released them” (Acts 5,34-40).
All the characters described in the passage truly existed at the time, even the priest Gamaliel whose son became High Priest of the Temple in 63 A.D. (Antiquities of the Jews: XX verse 213). But the first thing to consider is that if this event truly took place, it would have occurred when King Herod Agrippa I was still alive in his palace in Jerusalem. Now let's verify the events.
In fact, at the time of Gamaliel’s sermon, all the Apostles are alive, and among these, both Simon Peter and James the Elder; the latter, according to the Evangelist, will later be killed by King Herod Agrippa I (who ruled in Judea from 41 to 44 A.D) before being eliminated, in turn
, in 44 A.D., by an "angel of the Lord". Now let’s follow the events which actually took place in Judea, just prior to the alleged "passion of Jesus", and described by Josephus in Book XX of “Jewish Antiquities” (Ant. XX verse 97/102):

97 “Now it came to pass, while Fadus was Procurator of Judea (44-46 A.D.), that a certain magician and fomenter, whose name was Theudas, persuaded most of the multitude to take their possessions with them, and follow him to the river Jordan; he claimed that he was a Prophet, and that he would, by his own command, divide the river, and allow them an easy passage over it; and many were deceived by his words.
98 However, Fadus did not permit them to take advantage of his madness, but sent a troop of horsemen out against them; who, falling upon them unexpectedly, slew many of them, and took many of them as prisoners. They also captured Theudas alive, and cut off his head, and carried it to Jerusalem.
99 This was what befell the Jews at the time of Cuspius Fadus's government
(44-46 A.D.).
100 Then came Tiberius Alexander
(Procurator from 46 to 48 A.D.) as successor to Fadus; he was the son of Alexander the Alabarch of Alexandria, who surpassed all of his citizens for both nobility and wealth; he was also more eminent for his piety than his son Alexander, for the latter did not continue to follow the religious practices of his country.
It was under the administration of Tiberius Alexander that in Judea a grave famine took place, and during which Queen Helen spent a huge sum of money to buy grain from Egypt and distributed it to the needy, as I said above.
102 In addition to this, James and Simon, sons of Judas the Galilean, were put on trial and by order of Alexander were crucified; this was the Judas who - as explained above - had incited the popular revolt against the Romans, while Quirinius was carrying out the census in Judea".

Such events, which occurred over a period of two or three years, prove that the priest Gamalièl could have never given the speech in the Sanhedrin in defence of the Apostles, because in that very moment the Prophet "Theudas" was still alive.
So, carefully following the dates, let’s have a look at the history of Josephus:
- in 44 A.D King Herod Agrippa I dies; his son is too young to reign, so the Emperor Claudius decides to reconstruct the Roman province of: Judea, Samaria, Idumea, Galilee and Perea; therefore ...
- in 44 A.D he is succeeded by the Procurator Cuspius Fadus as the Provincial Governor, who executes “Theudas” during his office (44 – 46 A.D); the latter’s head is taken and exhibited in Jerusalem as a warning to those who want to follow his example;
- In 46 A.D the Procurator Tiberius Alexander succeeds Cuspius Fadus and, during his office (46-48 A.D), he orders, after a trial, the crucifixion of James and Simon, two sons of "Judas the Galilean", the latter founder, in 6 A.D., of the anti-Roman Jewish Nationalist Movement.

Therefore, during the Sanhedrin convened in a deliberative session in order to decide on the fate of the “Twelve Apostles” (as we have read in the “Acts”), how could the evangelist Luke have made Gamaliel say that Theudas was already dead while Herod Agrippa was still alive?… and that Cuspius Fadus (who was going to kill Theudas) had not yet succeeded Agrippa?
We have simply verified that the speech was false: Gamaliel could not have made it because King Herod Agrippa andTheudaswere both still alive. It was later written by a Christian scribe with the pseudonym "Luke" that put the words into Gamaliel’s (an important member of the Sanhedrin) mouth; according to the scribe, these words were pronounced while defending, during a trial in a Jewish court, the Apostles arrested, among which Simon and James, prosecuted for instigation. Also Theudas, Judas the Galilean and his sons Simon and James were accused of the same crime, crime that the Romans punished with death.
But, as the speech was (and is) absurd, it is evident that it was never made, therefore both the arrest and the acquittal of the Apostles were false, and so, at that time, none of the them were arrested.

On the contrary, in verse 102, as we read above, in “Antiquities”, both James and Simon, Judas the Galilean’s sons, "were brought to trial" and executed: so they are found guilty and no longer fugitives from justice (in 46/48 A.D., after King Herod Agrippa’s death).


Contrary to what occurred in the real story, St. Lucas’ true purpose was to prove to posterity that the Sanhedrin had acquitted the "Apostles", including James and Simon (hypothesis made by Gamalièl), accused of sedition just like the revolutionary Prophets Judas the Galilean, his sons James and Simon, and the Prophet Theudas; accusation, as we have seen, "removed" by an uninformed Gamalièl who actually could not have predicted Agrippa’s sudden death nor predicted the Imperial appointment of the Procurator Cuspius Fadus, and that the latter would have eventually killed Theudas.
This “Act of the Sanhedrin”, invented and reported in the “Acts of the Apostles” and summoned while Herod Agrippa was still alive, is a falsification aimed at dispelling any doubts over the Zealot conduct of the "Apostles", dissociating them from the instigators Theudas and Judas the Galilean. It introduces the other lie correlated to Agrippa's persecution of the successors of Christ: Simon Peter’s "escape" from prison through the intervention angel of God (sic! Acts 12,7), as well as the death of James, falsely attributed to the king by the "evangelist" imposter.
Result: a false act of the Sanhedrin had to be null, and, as a result, its dating and purpose were and are null; the introduction of a false act of the Sanhedrin of Jerusalem - the Supreme Council of the High Priest of the Temple with judiciary and administrative functions (operational in the first century although subordinate to the imperial power of Rome) - in theActs of the Apostlesis a crime towards history.


Luke did not make a mistake but was forced to invent thisAct of the Sanhedrin” because he wanted to prevent the identification of an Apostle who had the same name as one of the brothers of Jesus. Luke also had to hide the link between the other apostles - who had the same appellatives as the other brothers of Christ - and Judah the Galilean, famous leader of the popular Jewish revolt in 6 A.D. against the domination of Rome; in order to do this, Luca cites Gamalièl, a well-known Pharisean Doctor of Law (mentioned several times by Josephus Flavius but who died many generations prior to the "Lukan" scribe), in order to have him render false testimony with regard to Theudas and Judah the Galilean, by having the latter die before the Prophet - thanks to the statement reported in the passage described above where we read " that Judah rose after him (Theudas) - with the precise aim of preventing anyone from knowing that the Prophet was one of the revolutionary sons of Judas, the Leader of the Zealots who had been dead for a long time, thus making it impossible to realize that they were related; the discovery of a correspondence between the names of Jesus's brothers and those of the Zealot Leader's sons would have been earth-shattering.

In addition to being used as "testimony", a "judgement" of absolution expressed during atrialopened by the Sanhedrin was passed off as true; in fact the scribe who edited the “Acts” had read “Jewish Antiquities” by
Josephus and at verse 102, as seen above, it is said that James and Simon, children of Judah the Galilean, were put on trial. Therefore the astute evangelist opened a falseanti-trial” in order to diversify the events and prevent them from overlapping thanks to the “absolution” of the Apostles James and Simon; in contrast with the homonymous Zelots, James and Simon, who, instead, were sentenced to crucifiction. The Christian scribe, in fact, knew that both Apostles were alsoZelots” and we will verify this a bit later on.

An expert scholar, following the story of Josephus, when coming to paragraphs 97 to 102 of Book XX of “Antiquities” (which speak about Theudas, and James and Simon, the two sons of Judas the Galilean), realizes that the lines had been tampered with, and that verse 101 had been totally interpolated, that is “stuck in” at that point in the book. It refers to a serious, mournful famine that afflicted the Jews (already described in detail a few chapters earlier), the dating of which was crucial for the Christian doctrine: it would have allowed historians to identify the year in which "Jesus" was executed, as well as the causes and the historical events which led to it.
The tenth study will demonstrate the falsification of the famine also reported in "Acts of the Apostles" and in "Historia Ecclesiastica" by Eusebius of Caesarea.
But let’s go step by step, and check the above-mentioned text written by Josephus (Ant. XX 5,97/102), which will now undergo a philological analysis. We notice that "James and Simon, sons of Judas the Galilean" were two real Jewish names followed by a patronymic (father’s name added to one’s own name), while "Theudas" was not a real name but an attribute, as the word meant “light of God” in an archaic form of Greek (Koiné).
It gives the idea of a correct translation from Aramaic (Josephus wrote his works in this language and later wrote the Greek version) but it does not bear his own name or that of his father and so it is not identifiable as historical data to be passed down to posterity; even if it is evident that he was a very important person, proven by the fact that the Romans brought his head from the River Jordan to Jerusalem as a warning to the people. But the odd thing is that this attribute without a name and without a patronymic is shared both in the “Acts of the Apostles” (as we have seen in Gamaliel’s speech) and by Bishop Eusebius of Caesarea (IV cent. A.D.), the only historian, apart from Josephus the Jew, that reports the episode in the "Historia Ecclesiastica" (Book II 11,1-3) exactly as we have read above. This important fact, in itself, allows us to prove who the falsifier was.

Thanks to his high rank and the influence he exerted on the Emperor and his Court, Eusebius was the first Christian to gain access to the Imperial Archives and examine the writings of the Jewish historian Josephus, which were reinterpreted in his work "Historia Ecclesiastica" in order to prevent the identification of the real Evangelical protagonists.

Among the hundreds of Jewish names of the period - with the obligatory patronymic added to one’s own name to identify people - the only one to eliminate was that of Judas the Galilean. Any other patronymic would have been left in the chronicle … except that of the founder of the "Fourth Zealot Philosophy" (movement founded in 6 A.D.), as it was called by the historian. Judas was a nationalistic revolutionary, who advocated the use of force to free the land of Israel from Roman occupation and eliminate the corrupt priestly castes, as well as those of the privileged pro-Roman Jews.
The Christian scribes could not leave intact descriptions of events contained in a historical document. Events that had as protagonists three men, executed by imperial governors, with names corresponding to three of Jesus's brothers (we are about to verify this), who have the same names as the sons of the leader of the Zealots; therefore, the scribes passed off the title "Theudas" as if it were a name, after cancelling the real one and, without realizing, they signed the falsification with their own hands when writing "rebel by the name of Theudas" * in the original text written in Greek. It is merely sufficient to reread the historical passages above to verify that the Jew Josephus mentioned the various protagonists through their respective appellatives, without ever specifying "by the name" in the original Greek text: it would have been useless as they were already "names". The need to highlight an attribute (Theudas) as a "name" depended on the fact that it was not a name.

* The original Jewish lemma – which Josephus translated into Greek as “Light of God” - was written as “Uriel” אוּרִיאֵל.
No Jew of the time had this name because in Hebrew mythology “Uriel” was the angel (cfr Bellum V 388) who with the flashing sword of God carried out the massacre of the Assyrians (185.000 men killed): the entire army of King Sennacherib who, after invading the Kingdom of Judea, had kept Jerusalem under seige. It was not by chance if the self-proclaimed prophet Judas “Theudas” adopted as a nickname a divine title which personified Yahweh’s supreme revengful justice against the aggressors of the Promise Land of His people. This saintly appellative perfectly fits the intentions of the Zealots ... but Cuspius Fadus was not a follower of the Israelite Creed and, as we have read, “Uriel” did not strike him at all.

After all, the Semitic legend is a religious adaptation of a credible wartime event (which occurred in 701 B.C.), evidence of which can be found on a clay tablet recovered in the royal palace of Ninive and preserved at the British Museum of London. This tablet more realistically reports that “the leaders of the Jews paid 30 talents of gold and 800 of silver in addition to an immense booty” to King Sennacherib to raise the seige on Jerusalem ... it is evident that the deeds of the heroic "Saints" of the Old Testament are simply legends just like the other myths.  

With regard to James and Simon, it must be said that the historical text does not contain the motivation for their sentence to crucifixion. The motivation could not simply be due to the fact that they were descendants of Judas the Galilean, as this would have meant a violation of both of the Jewish and (above all) Roman law; moreover, the extemporary way in which paragraph 102 is introduced (it is sufficient to read it again), clearly shows that the Jewish historian has already mentioned in a previous passage the deeds of both Zealots, because they are referred to as if they had already been known.

Their descent as motivation for their sentence would have also applied to Joseph, the youngest son of Judas the Galilean and younger brother of Jesus "Yeshùa", who died long after in precise and well-motivated circumstances and not because he was a descendant of Judas. So, at the time of Jesus, Joseph could not have been among the "Apostles", being too young to be a charismatic leader capable of rousing, through his prophesies, men willing to risk their lives for a religious national ideal.

The same applies for Theudas: the fact that he “stirred up” his followers to cross the Jordan River did not interest the Romans, so this is further proof that the original information had been subsequently manipulated by scribes (as in the case of the patronymic).
But why was the "Evangelist Luke" so interested in Theudas, to the pointing of having Gamaliel declare him dead even before the death of Judas the Galilean? Simply because Luke knew who Theudas really was because he had read the “Jewish Antiquities” before they had been censored by the scribes. And as the Evangelist had read that there were four hundred * followers of the Prophet, he also knew that Theudas was the son of Judas the Galilean, but by certifying his death before that of his fathers no one could have ever identified him as his son.


* The falsifier naively reported this precise number in "Acts of the Apostles", number which was subsequently omitted in "Antiquities". A Roman "cavalry squadron" of 120 well-trained knights and equipped with heavy weaponry, easily overwhelmed and massacred the Zealots and their leader.

Comparative reading between the Gospels and the historical sources of the time will allow us to carry on with the study and identify the famous Zealot leader as the real father of "Yeshùa". But this is not enough as the truth has come to light with the discovery of Gàmala, the city of Judas the Galilean, a powerful Doctor of Law who claimed the right to become King of the Jews, as reported by Josephus (Ant. XVII ch. 10,272).
The analysis that has just been carried out is confirmed by the archeological findings and by the description of Gàmala given by the Jewish historian Josephus. The description totally corresponds to the detailed narration of Nazareth found in all the Gospels; on the contrary, the present city of Nazareth has nothing which corresponds to the characteristics reported in these documents.
We can see this in the demonstration published in the following study.

Part II

Thanks to these studies, we are in the process of highlighting a historical reality in contrast with the new theology, Christianity as we know it today, which evolved from a primitive pro-Zealot Jewish doctrine postulating a different Messiah figure ... and the first to be conscious of this were the same "Fathers" who created this reformed religion.

That was why the evangelist knew that the name of the Prophet Theudas was Judas but in the ”Acts” he called him “someone” to prevent the attribute of “Prophet” from being linked to that of “Apostle”. So let's have a look at the "Apostles".


Names and qualifications of the Apostles in the canonical Gospels

* The Gospel of John, according to the majority of biblicists, ended at verse 30 of the twentieth chapter; in this Gospel there is no trace of the two Apostles John and James. It is only in the 21st and final chapter (John 21,2), added at a later date, after the resurrection of Christ, that we read: ;“... the sons of Zebedee” and nothing else. The Apostle “John” is never mentioned in the Gospel of John and, as a result, “Johndoes not know himself, not even as an Apostle therefore the Gospel ends with a second ending, at verse 25 of chapter 21, which is a duplicate of the first.
As we will demonstrate in later studies, the name “John” does not appear because He is the Messiah, “covered” by an invented avatar left without a name so that He could survive his own death:“The disciple who Jesus loved”.

In the chart above it is clear that the Apostle Thaddeus, "Taddaios" (in Greek) and “Thaddaeus” (in Latin), is only present in the Gospels of Mark and Matthew, but the name did not exist in either of these languages in the first century; in addition, their similarity to the attribute "Theudas" could constitute a useful guide to historians for discovering a correspondence with "Theudas" and, after having understood its value, for overlapping the Jewish prophet and the Christian Apostle. Conscious of this risk, in the chart we observe that Luke deliberately ignores the choice of the "Twelve" wanted by Christ, according to Matthew and Mark, and calls Thaddaeus (Theudas) by his real name: "Judas of James".

Judas of James. All these were persevering with one mind in prayer with the women, and Mary the mother of Jesus, and with his brethren(Acts 1,13-14).

In this passage, we can see that “Judas of James” does not mention blood relationships, despite the fact that in his "Letter of Judas" (1,1) he defines himself as "brother of James": this "brotherhood", unacceptable by its doctrine, is the real reason why the Church now "doubts of its authenticity", obviously giving different reasons and pretexts, even though several brothers of "Jesus" still alive after his crucifixion are mentioned. Among the many manuscripts in its possession the Church has recently chosen the ones reporting "Judas son of James", pretending to be unaware that other scribes "witnessed" "Judas brother of James" in the Codex Sinaiticus; he was also Jesus's brother, on the basis of the Gospel (later rectified) read in the fourth century by Bishop Eusebius of Caesarea who declared the following in "Historia Eccesiastica" (3,19-20): "Judas, who was called the brother of the Lord by flesh", confirmed in 392 A.D. by St. Jerome in "De viris illustribus" chap. IV dedicated to the Apostle Judas. Important testimonies - but dangerous for the  only-begotten "Immaculate Conception" of the Madonna, Mother of God* - to be proven wrong through naive strainings of the truth, as in the case of the Gospel of John (Jh 6,71), where a "Judas, son of Simon Iscariot" comes out; and, as a result, even his own brother James woud have been Simon Iscariot's son, thus disavowing the paternity of the two Apostles by the name of "James": James the Minor, son of Alpheus, and James the Elder, son of Zebedee (Mk 4,21). Soon we will understand what induced the Christian scribes to tamper with the identity of these different "Judases".

* The "Virgin Mary", will be considered the "Mother of God" (Theotòkos - Lk 1,43) in the Council of Ephesus in 431 AD by resolution set by St. Cyril; a century after the death of Eusebius of Caesarea and eleven years after the death of St. Jerome.

Some handwritten codices report "Lebbaios" (Lebbeus) instead of "Taddaios" (Thaddeus), while others senselessly, as the two names are different,
merge them in "Lebbeus nicknamed Thaddeus", or vice versa. Up to here, we can see, there is only the need to modify "Saint Thaddeus" which is literally too similar to the real "Theudas". But the research clearly defines this tampering when we read in the old Latin manuscripts that "Thaddaeus" is called "Zealot Judas", again repeated in the Greek archaic Gospels, as resulting in the codes marked according to the biblical apparatus of the old Latin version "a, b, g, h, q": a = Vercellensis; b = Veronensis; g = Sangermanensis (Paris); h = Claromontanus (Clermont); q = monacensis (Munich).
What is considered today as a "critical biblical apparatus" consisted of a large number of Gospels, continuously modified from the very beginning, translated many centuries ago from Greek to Latin and then spread to Europe and the East, after the disintegration of the Roman Empire; the aim was to replace the indigenous religious beliefs and deceive the peoples of the Roman Empire with the promise of resurrection after death. 

Having established that "Thaddaeus" was in fact "Theudas" - meaning "Light of God", a title given to a Prophet named Judas - if we go back to the above-mentioned "James", we see that in "Acts of the Apostles" Luke does not feel the duty to specify to which "James" he is referring (of the two named in this document), and this means there was originally only one James.

In fact, in "Acts" we never see these two "Jameses" interact side by side, and a very serious event is that "the martyrdom" of James the Minor (the second one) is not reported: we are going to find the reason through further investigation, in which we will demonstrate the non-existence of James "the Minor" or "the Just". Lastly, falling into banality, as we have seen with Judas, the Gospels give this "James" too many fathers (Alpheus, Zebedee, Cleophas) to be historically justified as a real person.

Lets continue with a textual analysis highlighting that Thaddeus, i.e. Taddaios in Greek and Thaddaeus in Latin, were non-existent names in these languages in the first century (all you have to do is verify the respective dictionaries); they were deliberately transliterated incorrectly from one language to another, to prevent the identification of the Apostle "Thaddaeus" with the Prophet "Theudas" by the name of Judas, brother of James, and at the same time brothers of John and Simon, also called “Boanerghés”. 

Or better, if we have a look at all the brothers reported in the Gospels (Codex Sinaiticus), we can see:


“Isn't this the carpenter, the son of Mary, and brother of James and Joses (Joseph) and Judah and Simon? Aren't his sisters here with us? And They were offended at him” (Mk 6,3);

Is not this the son of the carpenter? Isn't his mother called Mary, and his brothers, James and Joseph and Simon and Judas? And his sisters, are they not all with us? Whence then has this man all these things? (Mt 13,55).


They are all names belonging to the Jewish tradition, but the name “Johnis missing (one of the "Boanerghès"), referred to as “this” because He is the subject the Jews are talking about. If he had been any Jew called “Jesus” (Yeshùa), they would have called him so, without difficulty, as they did with his brothers. Another violation of Jewish tradition was that he was not identified by his father’s name (patronymic), but by his mother’s: it is clear that the name of his father must not appear. If the passages of Matthew and Mark had been written by a real Jewish witness, he would have reported this:

“Isn’t Jesus the son of (bar) Joseph the carpenter, brother of James, Joseph, Judas and Simon?”.

As seen above, Judas the Galilean was the father of Simon and James but, being that the latter was the brother of Judas Thaddaeus (see chart), in reality Judas Theudas, this means that Judas the Galilean was also his father.
As Judas the Galilean was leader of the Zealots, the violent and extremist Jewish movement, the evangelists were forced to identify the brothers of Jesus through their matronymic rather than their patronymic.


Actually, the Christian scribe could not let the Jews call him "Jesus" as "Jeshùa" means "Divine Savior" in the Gospels, so not recognized by the Jews "awaiting" their Saviour Messiah; instead the evangelists believed in his "Advent" in a subsequent historical period. Indeed, if he had been a supernatural "Jesus Christ", as we know today, his fellow villagers would not have mentioned him as a simple "carpenter". In the end, the first not to call himself "Jesus" was he himself: in none of the Gospels does Christ affirm to call himself "Jesus", that is why it could not be his real name. (The analysis on the double meaning of the name "Jesus" will be published in the thirteenth study).
It is necessary to highlight that in the "Novum Testamentum Graece et Latine" (A. Merk - Rome - Pontifical Biblical Institute, year 1933) in a footnote the editor, Jesuit priest Agostino Merk, reported that some Latin codes - classified, D R (Epm E Q) and other Greek codes classified, S D 565 1424 1207 MUSS 472 280 Ass Vr, dating back to the ninth century - in Matthew's passage mentioned (Mt 13,55-56) among the brothers, sons of Mary, "Iohannes" "Iωαννης" (John) is also present. These codexes, for centuries used in order to indoctrinate the peoples of Europe, were marked with an asterisk (*), meaning that "they are not reliable". This is why.

The readers have probably already understood the reason why the Church exegetes of the "Divine Providence", true grey eminences, had been forced to make a selection among the manuscripts (excluding those which included John as being one of Mary's sons); these scholars understood that by simply subtracting all of the brothers (4 plus Jesus) mentioned in the Gospel of Mark (which refers to "Jesus" as "this") from the total number (5 plus Jesus) of Mary's sons (which is reported in the "non reliable" codexes of Matthew), one would realize that "Jesus" was John. The Christian scribes of the Gospel of Matthew knew that John was one of Mary's brothers according to what is written in the Gospel of John:

"Seeing his mother and the disciple whom he loved (John) standing near her, Jesus said to his mother: «Woman, this is your son». Then to the disciple he said: «this is your mother»..." (Jh 19,26).

In order to prevent John from being identified with "Jesus", the scribe decided to throw off believers by assigning John's mother the name "Mary Salome", where "Salome" derives from the Hebrew "Shalom" meaning "peace"; at this point John was assigned a father by the name of "Zebedee" and only one brother: James. By doing so the scribes deliberately separated the significant and dangerous total number of brothers but, nevertheless, there are two "Jameses" among the Apostles: James the Elder and James the Minor.
The problem (which for the Church remains unsolved) concerns death of James the Minor, whose martyrdom is not reported in "Acts"; this detail is in contrast with the testimonies of all the Evangelists who should have distinguished between the two "Jameses" if they had existed.


As attested by Eusebius of Caesarea, Matthew's original Gospel was written in Aramaic. Of all the Gospels of "Matthew" translated into Greek, the decision to reject those which today still contain complete information on all the brothers (sons of Mary, the wife of an unidentified "carpenter"), was and is a targeted action to prevent identification and therefore the knowledge of actual events, in which Zealots having the same names of Jesus' brothers acted in the same period against the pagan dominion of Rome over the land of Israel.
It was necessary to prevent curious historians from searching and finding hidden dangerous truths about the Christian doctrine, reformed by the primitive Jewish Messianic Doctrine, as the clerical exegetes knew, and still know, which testimonies were reported in history: the same that we are still able to find by going ahead with our studies and using the historiological method applied to Theudas.

Part III

There is evidence regarding the life and death of five men with the names of Jesus' brothers, who had the same names as the sons of Judas the Galilean. They were men who fought until martyrdom for the ideals in which they believed. These brothers were deliberately separated, in other evangelical passages, in such an uncoordinated way (enough to prove the tampering) and assigned to non-existent fathers married to various "Marys", among whom one is even quoted as "sister of Jesus' mother", with her same name "Mary wife of Clopas"


“Near the cross of Jesus stood his mother (Mary) and his mother's sister, Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary of Magdala” (Jh 19,25).


Apart from the "Magdalene", all these "Marys" (there are six of them in the Gospels and in "Acts") appear to have sons with the same names (belonging to
Jewish tradition), and the same as those of the famous Judas, the powerful Doctor of Law (Rabbi) from Gàmala… and soon we will prove this.

With regard to the missing patronymic of (Saint) "Joseph", it did not exist in the primitive Gospels. We only find Saint Joseph in the false "Nativity" and in the passage of Luke "... isn't he the son of Joseph?" (Lk 4,22): this is a silly question asked by fellow townspeople who would have surely known who the father ofJesuswas for they knew his mother; in fact, the scribes did not allow Jesus to answer this question to prevent him from lying because the revelation of the name of the real father of "Jesus", Judas the Galilean, founder of the Zealot revolutionary nationalist movement, would have made it impossible to justify the "Salvation" doctrine (Agnus Dei).
The myth of the Davidic leader, Saviour of the people of Israel from pagan dominion, evolved, after the massacre of the Jews carried out by the Romans in 135 A.D. under Hadrian, into a universal Messiah, docile "Lamb of God", sacrificing himself as a pagan "Host" (Latin “Hostia”) offered - through the prodigy of the “transubstantiation”* which occurred through a piece of bread - in the form of a meal for "eternal life" to the adherents belonging to the converted "Gentiles".
In contrast with the new Christian doctrine regarding the deeds of the real protagonists, martyrized Jewish Zealots … that myth had to be modified.


* According to Catholics and most Orthodox (in other words, for almost all of Christianity): the transformation of the Latin “Hostia” - “the sacrificed victim of the divinity” - into the body and blood of Jesus Christ present in the Eucharist. For Catholics it is held in a small disc made of starch, while for the Orthodox it is a piece of bread soaked in wine.

The Eucharistic ritual - characterized by the offering of His body and blood - was founded by Christ himself during the Last Supper. Yet in the Old Testament there is no trace of God "revealing" to Prophets the Advent of a Messiah who would have sacrificed and divided himself into many particles to be swallowed by the "blessed who are poor in spirit" to guarantee their "eternal salvation". We are dealing with the grafting of a pagan ritual onto the Jewish religion through the reform of the legendary, ancestral, davidic Messiah. The latter by this time was in contrast with the new Christian doctrine as a result of the deeds of the true protagonists, Zealot martyrs for the Jewish cause. The myth of the davidic Messiah had to be modified.
As a matter of fact, as it will be demonstrated by detailed analysis published in a subsequent study, even the differing "Nativities of Jesus" were taken from the eastern polytheistic "Immaculate Conceptions" - thus "Saint Joseph, Virgin Mary, and Baby Jesus" were invented - and added to the Gospels of Luke and Matthew only in a later period.


The names of the brothers are also the names of some of the Apostles”, among which the name “Joseph” is missing, as he was the youngest brother and too young at the time of “Jesus” to be recognized as a Prophet and charismatic leader by men willing to give their lives for the nationalist cause.
Joseph (nicknamed "Menhaem" by the Jewish historian Josephus with a precise and demonstrable purpose) lead a Zealot attack against the Romans in 66 A.D., thus becoming the King of the Jews.

"In the mean time, one Manahem, the son of Judas, that was called the Galilean - who was a very cunning Doctor of the Law, and had formerly reproached the Jews under Quirinius, that after God they were subject to the Romans when they already had God as their Lord ..." (Bellum II 433).
Incidentally, the proof that "Menhaem" corresponds to Joseph, youngest son of Judas the Galilean, is totally obvious.

“Apostles” with additional titles such as: “Zealot” or “Canaanite”, “Iscariot”, “Barionà” and “Boanerghés”, which mean “fanatic nationalist”, “hired killer”, “wanted fugitive” and “children of wrath”.
Simon Peter and “Jesus” are accused of being Galileans in the Gospel according to Luke (Lk 22,59)  “… this fellow also was with him (Jesus): for he is a Galilean; in the Gospel according to Matthew (26,69) "... you (Simon) too were with Jesus the Galilean".

But we know that Saint Peter was a native of Bethsàida (cfr. Jh 1,45) in Gaulanitis, not in Galilee.

Josephus affirms that the "Galileans" were the most fiery and nationalistic Jews, always ready to rebel; it is useful to stress that "Galilean" was the qualification attributed to "Judas the Galilean", who also was not born in Galilee but in the city of Gàmala (in Gaulanitis), the ruins of which comply with those of Nazareth described in the Gospels.
Therefore, “Galilean” is not only used to refer to the inhabitants of the region but also is used as a synonym for “Jewish extremist”.


The Galileans were famous for the courage with which they faced death and the stoic philosopher Epictetus of Hierapolis, at the end of the first century, described them as follows: “Even for madness one can resist against such things (torture), or for tradition as in the case of the Galileans; this quotation comes from the “Dissertations of the Disciple Arrianus” (Digestae IV 6,6). Lucius Flavius Arrianus (95-175 A.D.), the disciple of Epictetus, in “Digestae II 9,19-21”, points out that they (the Galileans) were Jews”.
Today’s genufluxion historians, who closely cooperate in order to give greater importance to their lies, boldly state that Epictetus used the term “Galileans” to refer to "Christians followers of Jesus”.

Therefore, thanks to their “faith”, their eyes see things and they translate "Γαλιλαιοι" (Galileans) and "Ιουδαιοι"

(Jews) into “Jesuit Cristians”, thus considering Epictetus a “reliable extra-Christian source”. And Wikipedia supports this incorrect hypothesis. 


The Zealot movement founded by Judas the “Galilean” is described by Josephus even more effectively:

“They also do not value dying any kinds of death, nor indeed do they heed the deaths of their relations and friends, nor can any such fear make them call any man lord. And since this immovable resolution of theirs is well known to a great many, I shall speak no further about that matter; nor am I afraid that any thing I have said of them should be disbelieved, but rather fear, that what I have said is beneath the resolution they show when they undergo pain (Ant. XVIII 24).
We understand that the Romans, from their point of view, had good reasons to capture and kill the Zealots as they were "fanatic nationalists" and against pagan dominion; and this was also true for "Jesus's brothers" who, as we will eventually prove, all correspond to the sons of Judas the Galilean. Moreover, observing the “Apostles” chart , we can see that Simon - qualified as "Zealot", "Cananite" and "Sicarius" - is repeated. He is the same Simon Peter called Kefaz in Aramaic (evangelized in "Cefa") meaning stone, also referred to as "barionà", which in Aramaic means "wanted fugitive" : a Sicarius Zealot, once identified, had to escape in order not to be captured and killed by the Romans.

The only “Apostle” with a Jewish name, and not belonging to the group of brothers, is Matthew. He is also called Levi, with an impossible double Jewish name, indicated as a Publicanus (the tax collector) and called to eye-witness Christ’s events from the time of his birth. But in the chart we notice that Matthew Levi does not exist in the Gospel of John. This is impossible, it does not make sense: if he had been one of the “Twelve Apostles”, John should have mentioned him too, all the more as the Christian scribes make them both appear as "fellow" editors of the Gospels. In the Gospel of Matthew, he declares himself to be a “Publican”: another absurdity.
The Publicans collected the taxes owed to the Emperor, so the other Zealot “Apostles” and Sicarii, members of the “Fourth Philosophy against the taxation of Rome”, would have killed him without thinking twice; he would have been an ideological enemy to eliminate, as postulated by the same Judas the Galilean when he conducted the war against the census decreed by Caesar Augustus:

Judas became a part of the rebel faction (which he himself had founded) screaming «that this census was aimed at reducing the people to slavery» and incited the Nation to attempt independence ... the nationalistic fanatics (the Zealots) will not retreat in front of possible and necessary bloodshed, and the Divinity (Yaweh) would have favoured the success of their exploit” (Ant. XVIII chap. 1,5-6).


Matthew is a false protagonist. The Christian scribe that conceived this name, long after the description of the events, worked with the only purpose of making the testimony more credible, and making him appear as a Jewish protagonist of those particular events. The Christian exegetes had him be born in Capernaum (see "General Audience of 30 August 2006 held by Benedict XVI) but, unaware of the historical findings, they have made the mistake of placing in this village the Apostle "Matthew Levi" as head tax collector, in charge of collecting taxes on behalf of Rome. In reality, this task was delegated to Herod Antipas who, being that his Tetrarchy was considered to be a Roman protectorate, operated indipendently from Rome (just like his father Herod the Great). Antipas was obliged to pay Emperor Tiberius a fixed annual tribute deducted from his own territorial income equal to two hundred talents of gold (Jewish Antiquities XVII 318), while the administrative apparatus in charge of tax collection was located in the capital of Galilee: Tiberias. Indeed, the editor of this Greek version of the Gospel, taken from a translation of an original primitive version, could not be a Jew, because he was not fluent in Aramaic as he did not understand the meaning of “Cananite” and so left the Hellenized form “Zealot” in reference to "Simon" ("canana” in Aramaic); in fact, the perspective approach (in the chart) with the Gospel of Luke leaves no misunderstandings.
The Gospel of “John” quotes “Iscariot”, but through a distant memory Josephus, in the “Jewish War” (De Bello Iudaico), affirms extensively in chapter 8° Book VII (par. 253/255) that the Sicarii were the armed wing of the Zealots, followers of the “Fourth Philosophy” founded by Judas the Galilean, and had been fighting against their fellow pro-Roman countrymen since 6 A.D.


The fact that the Evangelist “Matthew” was not a Jew, and never lived in Judea, is shown by the numerous passages of his Gospel, starting with the group of Jesus’ brothers referred to with their mother’s name instead of their father’s; moreover, concerning the “Nativity”, he knows nothing about the places, the Jewish history at the time of Christ and the Old Testament, in grave contrast with his qualification as a “Publicanus”. For example, with regard to the suicide of Judas the traitor, we report the grave error made by an improbable Jewish witness called "Matthew".

"And this why the field is still called the Field of Blood. The word spoken through the prophet Jeremiah was then fulfilled. And they took thirty silver pieces, the sum at which the precious One was priced by the children of Israel, and this is why the field is still called the Field of Blood" (Mt 27,8-10).

A true Jew would have never mentioned the fulfilment of a prophecy which the Prophet Jeremy never expressed.


Judas, who was called Theudas, was a Prophet and the "fomenter", brother of James, in turn brother of Simone who, together with John and Joseph (the last one) form the circle of evangelical brothers, all with names of Jewish tradition. Only these names, authentically Jewish (according to “Novum Testamentum Graece et Latine” A.Merk S.I., Rome, Pontific. Ist. Biblico, Year 1933; and, “Novum Testamentum”, Paris, Edit. Ambrogio F. Didot, Year 1861) are accompanied by qualifications and attributes, in accordance with the Prophet, the "fomenter" Judas Theudas killed by Cuspius Fadus in 45 A.D.: they are “Zealots who, according to the Greek translation of Josephus, means “fanatic Nationalists”; “barionà”, meaning “fugitive outlaw” in Aramaic; “Iskarioth”, hellenized homophone of the latin term “sicarius” (sicariot), assassin armed with a sica (Latin), a long dagger with a curved blade used at this time and in coherence with the Hebrew "ekariot" meaning "sicarius"; boanerghés (*), meaning “Sons of Wrath; “Cananite” from “qanana” in Aramaic, equivalent to the Greek “Zealot”; and “Galileans” meaning “outlaws”. Therefore Judas, James, John, Simon and Joseph were the Zealot sons of Judas called the Galilean, founder anti-Roman Zealotism.


* The Christian scribe, under the pseudonym of "John also called Mark" - who wrote a primitive Aramaic Gospel in Greek - at verse (Mk 3,17) reports “βοανῆργε'ς” (the word Boanerghés), and he translated the term in Υἱòι βροντῆς" (Uioi Brontés) meaning “Sons of Thunder”. He deliberately wanted to document the entry, as if that concept had been witnessed by a Hellenic citizen of the time. It is certain that no Greek of the time would have ever said or written “βοανῆργε'ς” (Boanerghés) meaning "Sons of Thunder”, but they would have merely said or written "Υἱòι βροντῆς" ("Uiòi Brontés").
In fact, the term "Boanerghès" does not exist in classical Greek literature; thus the word is not based on any Greek etymology according to what can be found in Greek dictionaries, although the term itself is written in this language.
Actually, the phonetics is of Jewish origin, not Greek, and we find its etymon in two segments of the lemma: the first, “boan e”, a form of “ben e” (meaning “sons of”); the second, “rghés”, whose Semitic root means “wrath”.  In ancient Hebrew - the language used by the Doctors of Law (Rabbis) - "Benereghèsh” means sons of wrath. Therefore “βοανῆργε'ς” (Boanerghés) means "Sons of Wrath". The only possible “wrath” in the theocratic Israelite society - in a Holy Land occupied by pagans - was “The Wrath of Yahweh.
So the expression “sons of thunder”, according to the project of the Christian scribe who reported it, expresses a misleading concept, unlike the original Aramaic word, which actually reveals the same revolutionary nationalist attitude of the other Zealot brothers.
We find confirmation of the Zealot meaning of "sons of wrath" in the Gospel of Luke (Lc 9;53), where John and James - the “boanerghès” brothers - intend to burn a village in Samaria but …are stopped by “Jesus”; moreover, history teaches us that the Jews and the Samaritans were enemies and at war at the time of Jesus.

We are compelled to notice that these revolutionary qualifications  are only used in reference to the Apostle brothers that have the same name (of strict Jewish observance) as Jesus’s brothers. On the contrary, the Apostles with Greek names with no rebel designation are cancelled from history as we are demonstrating, beginning with "Philip" in the following analysis of "Paul of Tarsus": both invented.

The titles or names devised subsequently (still in use today) have been used both to hide the real identity of the Zealot brothers behind "holy Apostles" (through the falsification of translations into various languages and the manipulation of the original terms) and to "replicate" them so as to attain the significant Jewish number, "twelve". According to what was written by Christian scribes, Christ states (Mt 19,28):

"... you (the Apostles) also shall sit upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel" (Mt 19,28).


In particular, we find the following replicated: Simon called Peter, with Simon the Zealot or the Cananite; James the Elder, with James the Minor (the latter, alter ego of the former, is erased from history as is proved in a later analysis); Judas, who was called Thaddaeus (a misleading Latin translation of Theudas), with Judas called Thomà (Saint Thomas) and with Judas Iskarioth (sicariot), hellenized qualification of the Latin assassin called "sicarius" (murderer).
At this point the readers are aware that the overlapping of "Judas Iscariot" and "Judas not Iscariot" erases the famous "kiss of Judas" (or the betrayal of Christ), becoming the shameful symbol of the most vile deception of the Christian world.
In addition to what is mentioned above (after the chart) with regard to Judas's contradictory blood relationships, let’s read what is written about the disowned Apostle in the Gospesl after the latter had betrayed "Our Lord Jesus" for thirty pieces of silver. In the Acts (1,18) the "eyewitness" Saint Peter reports a horrifying episode:


"With the payment he received for his wickedness, Judas bought a field; there he fell headlong, his body burst open and all his intestines spilled out".

Matthew, the other "eyewitness" Apostle, instead, says:

"And he Judas cast down the pieces of silver in the temple, and departed, and went and hanged himself" (Mt 27,5).

While Paul, in the first letter to the Corinthians (15,4-5), informs us that:

"And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: And that he was seen of Cephas (Kefaz, Saint Peter) then of the twelve.

Being twelve means that "Judas the Traitor" was among them and still alive; in fact there is no evidence of this Judas committing suicide according to the Evangelist John.


It is clear that such inconsistent statements do not have any probative value, if but are simply used to demonstrate the exaggeration of an "Apostle" for ideological purposes, linked to a name that identified the hated Jewish ethnic group accused of having killed "Jesus" without recognizing him as their Saviour Messiah.

Some clerical exegetes, aware of this evangelical absurdity, try to make up for it, using personal hypothetical "divine revelations" to try to justify the contradictions connected to this imaginary death (macabre theatrical destiny or simple suicide?; landowner or destitute?) … and they even reinterpret and modify the "Holy Scriptures".

Actually, as already proved, the real Judas, authentic Zealot sicarius, was killed by Cuspius Fadus.

Excluding the replicated Apostles, the strictly Jewish names reported are those of the brothers Simon, James, Judas, John and Joseph. Beginning with John, they were executed one by one by the Romans as irredentist martyrs, except the youngest one, Joseph, too young at the time to be a Zealot assassin.

Instead Apostles with invented names were added (deriving from neutral adjectives) such as Saint Bartholemew - inexistent name in Greek and Latin in the first century A.D. - which, separated from the usual biblical Aramaic "bar", becomes "bar tolomeo" meaning "son of Ptolemy". As Ptolemy was a Greek name meaning "Courageous" adopted by several hellenized Egyptian rulers, "Bartholomew" means "Son of the Courageous". But an Apostle who is not mentioned in the Gospel of his “fellow Apostle” John is a very evident and banal shortcoming, which is more than enough to demonstrate the inexistence of the “Apostle Bartholemew”.
- deriving from the Greek epithet “andreas” meaning “vigorous” - is considered the supposed brother of Simon and is passed off as an Apostle. The literal meaning of the adjective is equivalent to the specific characteristic of Simon, who was also described with similar attributes, in order to magnify the strength of the man. Andrew is mentioned only once among the “Twelve” at the beginning of the “Acts of the Apostles”; he is then forgotten and there is no further evidence of his existence.

And there is also Saint Thomas from the Aramaic “thomà” meaning “twin”, or from the Greek “didymos” which also means “twin”; in the Gospels we also find a strange noun made up of two adjectives from two different languages, both of which are capitalized: Thomas also called Didymus (Jh 11,16), meaning “twin also called twin”, meaningless and also very funny. Such an absurd name could not belong to anyone on the face of the Earth; it is simply an error committed by a "stupid" scribe who wanted to manipulate the Greek translation without knowing Aramaic; and being that this scribe was not a Jew, he was unaware that there were no Jews bearing the name "thomà" as it was a descriptive adjective. Even this Apostle did not truly exist, as in the Gospel read by Eusebius of Caesarea Judas and Thomas (Thomà in Aramaic) are the same person:

"After the ascension of Jesus, Judas, also called Thomas, sent the Apostle Thaddaeus to Abgarus" (HEc I 13,11).

As the overlapping of Judas and Thomas cancels an Apostle, in the chart only eleven remain: something impossible. This is the evidence that the Gospels were again modified after the death of Eusebius of Caesarea, but above we demonstrated that Thaddaeus, in reality, was Judas Theudas. He was a self-proclaimed Zealot prophet with two titles ("Prophet" and "Light of God") added to the true Semitic appellative: Judas. Christian doctrine could not admit the cruel Zealot Hebrew genesis
of the brothers of Christ without also involving Him; therefore His brothers were hidden in the "pile" of "Twelve Apostles", who were invented in an uncoordinated manner. In fact, some of the names are Aramaic attributes incorrectly translated from Aramaic to Greek. Adjectives which over the centuries - due to the fact that believers did not know their true meaning - became accepted and adopted as names for people.

In the Apostles chart only the Gospel of John reports "Nathaniel" that in "celestial" Semitic meant “Gift of God”: it wasn't a name used by the Jews in the first century but just a simple biblical attribute passed off as a name; this confirms what has already been said: the Christian scribes, editors of the Gospels, were not Jewish.
Obviously, the non-existent Nathaniel is unknown to the other evangelists, while "John" reports that Nathaniel receives the announcement of the Advent of Jesus Christ by Philip (Jh 1,45) … but, in the following analysis of "Paul of Tarsus", we will demonstrate, history at hand, that the Apostle Philip had never existed, so even Nathaniel is an invention … just like the other "Apostles".
An uncoordinated invention of the evangelists and extremely embarrassing for the Church to the point that - with no basis whatsoever or historical, evangelical, philological reference - its exegetes dare to say that "Nathaniel (Gift of God) is commonly identified with St. Bartholomew (son of the courageous)". Only a mystical visionary can catch a glimpse of the correlation between the names "Gift of God" and "Son of the Courageous"*, therefore any comment is superfluous.
* The most famous biblist and exegete alive today, the priest John Paul Meir, professor at various Catholic Universities in Italy and the U.S.A., in his ponderous work "A Marginal Jew": Rethinking the Historical Jesus", vol. 3, pp. 199-200, categorically rejects the identification (and thus the overlapping) of "Nathaniel" with "Bartholomew".
Even more so due to the fact that the historian and Bishop, Eusebius of Caesarea (who died in 340 A.D.), in his "Historia Ecclesiastica" written prior to 325 A.D., though mentioning the deeds of the Apostles, knows nothing about "Nathaniel". This means that the Apostle was inserted into the Gospels after the Council of Constantinople held in 381 A.D.

But let's have a further look at the Nathaniel-Philip interaction. The first receives the announcement of the Advent of Jesus "witnessed" by an inexistent Philip and the "revelation" of the "Son of God" one with the "Father", as established in the "Creed" by Christian Bishops during the various Councils held in the fourth century (three centuries after Christ).

“Have I been with you all this time, Philip, and you still do not know me? ... You must believe me when I say that I am in the Father and the Father is in me" (Jh 14,9-11);

"The same came therefore to Philip, which was of Bethsaida of Galilee, and desired him, saying, Sir, we would see Jesus” (Jh 12,21).
The scribes that "inserted" this "Philip" in their Gospels did not have the real knowledge of the places in which they decided to move their imaginative characters to the point that they placed Bethsaida in Galilee instead of Gaulanitis; it was built and then enlarged after the death of Herod the Great by his son the Tetrarch Herod Philip in the region he had inherited (Ant. XVIII 28).
The same problem also concerns the Apostles Andrew, James the Elder, John and Saint Peter, all referred to by the Church as natives of Bethsaida in Galilee. The Gospel says: "Philip came from the same town, Bethsaida, as Andrew and Peter" (Jh 1,44). In Galilee, therefore "Galilean" like the character "Jesus", thus highlighting the deeds of the "Galilean" integralists. In fact, in the Gospels of Matthew and Luke which have reached us it is stated that Simon Peter and "Jesus" were accused of being "Galileans": You (Simon) too were with Jesus the Galilean»" (Mt 26,69); "«This fellow (Simon Peter) was certainly with him (Jesus). Why, he (Simon) is a Galilean»" (Lk 22,59). However, we all know that Jesus was a native of Bethlehem and lived in Nazareth.

Unwilling to recognize the Zealot meaning of "Galilean" attributed to Jesus and Peter, some present-day clerical exegetes - as a result of the geographical contradiction of a Bethsaida erroneously placed in Galilee by the Evangelist - have gone as far as to hypothesize a second Bethsaida located in Galilee; others, timidly, just say that the location is uncertain and pretend to not know the exact location indicated by Josephus. The geographical error concerning Bethsaida committed by the Christian scribe proves that the original Gospels were altered in order to disguise the meaning of the lemma "Galilee" meaning "rebel" and have it instead mean "inhabitant of Galilee". 
As we have just proven above, the term "Galilee" was in reality used by historians to refer to nationalist Jews who fought against Roman domination, devoted to martyrdom and subject to excruciating punishment once identified and captured.

The normal meaning of the word "Galilean" attributed to Judas the Galilean (native of Gamala in Gaulanitis, not in Galilee) was also used in reference to his true sons -  "Jesus" and "Simon Peter" - who in the Gospels were both accused of being subversive "Galileans". In order to better understand the evangelical protagonists and as confirmation of the fact that they were in reality Zealot Jewish leaders, it must be pointed out that the description of Gamala (Judas the Galilean's city) corresponds to the one of Nazareth mentioned in the Gospels. Instead, present-day Nazareth has nothing in common with the city of Christ (as is demonstrated in a later study regarding Gamala).
Therefore the native land of Jesus and his brothers was Gamala, a Zealot stronghold which fell under Roman domination at the end of the 67 A.D. (until this time the city was autonomous and coined its own currency); at the beginning of this year, it was forced to capitulate after a seige lasting thirteen months carried out by the army of King Agrippa II along with the legions of Vespatian and Titus and was razed to the ground.

Part IV

Not simple oversights but grave errors that can be found over and over again in the holy writings during the evolution of a myth which at the very beginning is different; it took centuries for the variants of this myth to hide the events related to the bloody wars imposed by Jewish nationalist fundamentalism fighting against Roman domination of the land of Israel.

The attributes and the qualifications of the theological protagonists, taken from the original Gospels, required a "corrective" action by the Christian scribes when the Church realized their true meaning.
An example of how “Simon” was falsified and transformed into “Peter son of Jonah” (St. Peter) can be found in the two above-mentioned  “Novum Testamentum”, of which we reproduce a copy:



here we notice, in the middle Greek text on the right (Mt 16,17), the word Barionàused  in reference to Simon - a qualifying adjective that in Aramaic means “wanted fugitive” - is not translated in Greek but transliterated with a capital letter so it appears as the name of a person: “Simon Barionà”. But “Barionà”, as a person's name, never existed in ancient Aramaic, let alone in Greek and Latin, and the falsification really gets ridiculous when comparing the translations.
In fact, on the left, in the Latin version, the term “Barionà” is divided in “Bar Iona” without an accent on the final “a”; therefore, “Barionà” (fugitive) becomes: Bar (“son of” in Aramaic) Iona ... filius Iona ... son of Jonah. βαριωνα' (the Aramaic “fugitive” becomes “Βαρ Ιωνα” “son of”), then Bar Iona, and finally, the scribe, in order not to further modify the original word, transcribes into flawed undeclined Latin: “filius Iona”, translated into English as “son of Jonah”.

If “Iona” had really been the name of a person from the very beginning, we should have always found it separated from “bar”, as in “filius” (Latin) or “uios” ύιος (Greek); words used correctly in the Gospels ..., except in this case. In the 1861 Latin text (in the bottom right-hand corner) “Peter” does not exist: only "Simon Bar-Jonah"; and on the left in Greek, "Bar" is separated. In the Latin and Greek languages “Bar” and “Βαρ” do not exist: only Simon Bar-Jonah; so in both the Latin and Greek texts Bar “Βαρ”, as in Aramaic, would appear to be “son”, but being translations for believers who spoke Greek and Latin, it is absurd to attempt to pass off these words as such knowing that in Latin one says “filius” and in Greek “ύιος” (ùios).

In the same text (Jh 1,42), as the word “Cephas” in Latin does not exist, it is said that “Cephas” “must be interpreted as Peter”; even in Ancient Greek (in the top left-hand corner) “Kefaz” (Κηφας ) does not exist: it is Aramaic (stone), but we are told that ... it means “Peter”: in Latin rock = lapis, saxum; in Greek = lithos, petra (neverkefaz”). The three original words in Aramaic were Simon, kefaz, barionà, which translated mean: Simon, called Kefaz (stone, meaning “tough” and “massive”), wanted fugitive. In other words: Simon was one of the Zealot brothers wanted by the Romans when "Jesus" was still alive and his identification was facilitated by his flashy, massive build. He had been a Zealot leader and, as such, was aware of the fact that he was conducting a Holy War which may have culminated in martyrdom; he was in fact crucified (along with his brother James) after being captured by Procurator Julius Tiberius Alexandrus in 46 A.D.   

The mixture of languages and the manipulation of the translated words were, over time, intentionally exploited to hide their meaning; this was done by skillful professionals who were aware to be dealing with naive believers.

These translating "techniques" are only one of the ways by which one may falsify the life of a person and, if the Church has made "false papers" in order to transform and get rid of the word "Barionà" in the modern Gospels, then this is the demonstration that the meaning of "wanted fugitive", expressed in the original text, is real, and so it is considered extremely dangerous by the Church and in contrast with the new doctrine which has been evolving over the centuries.
Therefore, aware that "Simon called Kefaz" allows us to identify "Saint Simon Peter" as being the Zealot leader wanted by the Romans, during mass no priest dares to narrate the enlightening parable of the "rule" reported in "Acts of the Apostles" and followed by the successor of Christ after His crucifixion:

"There was also a man called Ananias. He and his wife, Sapphira, agreed to sell a property; but with his wife's connivance he kept back part of the price and brought the rest and presented it to the apostles. Peter said: «Ananias, how can Satan have so possessed you that you should lie to the Holy Spirit and keep back part of the price of the land? While you still owned the land, wasn't it yours to keep, and after you had sold it wasn't the money yours to do with as you liked? What put this scheme into your mind? You have been lying not to men, but to God». When he heard this Ananias fell down dead. And a great fear came upon everyone present. The younger men got up, wrapped up the body, carried it out and buried it.
About three hours later his wife came in, not knowing what had taken place. Peter challenged her:
«Tell me, was this the price you sold the land for?». She said: «Yes, that was the price». Peter then said: «Why did you and your husband agree to put the Spirit of the Lord to the test? Listen! At the door are the footsteps of those who have buried your husband; they will carry you out, too». Instantly she dropped dead at his feet. When the young men came in they found she was dead, and they carried her out and buried her by the side of her husband. And a great fear came upon the whole church and on all who heard it" (Acts 5,1/11).

The Zealots were Pharisean revolutionaries and outlaws, and once identified, the priests belonging to the National Liberation Movement (the same applied to the Essenes) could not collect the tithe (Ant. XX 181) which by right belonged to the Sadducean priests and the pro-Roman Pharisean conservatives. The ideological decision to conduct guerilla warfare against Rome convinced the Zealots - in need of financing - to tax wealthy landowners through violent persuasive means. Rather than organizing an armed struggle against the "kittim" invaders, the majority of the Essenes preferred religious propaganda availing themselves of the Prophecies of the Ancestral Law in order to incite the masses; and for their sustenance thet set up communities with economies focused on agriculture.

The Church has always been aware of the revolutionary qualifications of certain Apostles (those with Jewish names) and, obviously, has attempted to reinterpret their meaning as it did with the "boanerghès" John and James who, as seen above, from "sons of wrath" (of God) were downgraded to "sons of thunder". With regard to this, let's read what Benedict XVI said about Simon to the faithful in Saint Peter's Square on 11 October 2006 during the General Audience with the Pope:

"Luke describes him as a Zealot ... it is quite possible that Simon, if he did not appropriately belong to the nationalist movement of the Zealots, if he had at least had been characterized by an ardent zeal for Jewish identity, therefore for God, for his people and for the Divine Law ...".

These sibylline and uncertain words today continue to represent the official position of the Church: a reticent "testimony" antithetical to the historical truth and to the Gospels themselves. A sort of "alibi" which can be supported only by "good faith" and by the ignorance of believers - deliberately kept oblivious to the true events - who are told, in substance, that Simon Zealot was not a Zealot ... despite the fact that "Zealot" is written in the Gospels.
In fact, all you need to do is skim through the Old Testament to verify that "the Divine Law" mentioned by the Pope was the "Wrath of God" which massacred all pagans, including women and children, had they dared to trample on the Promise Land. But, from 6 A.D., year in which the Zealot Nationalist Movement was founded, its followers began to hurl the "Wrath of God" against their fellow countrymen. This was "the Divine Law" which "the ardent Zeal" of Simon Peter, as reported in "Acts of the Apostles", imposed in order to finance his community.

The first aim of the Church when creating the "Apostles" was mainly to hide the five Zealot brothers in the "pile"; this was done by Evangelists who had little or no knowledge of Jewish history and culture. It was therefore necessary to clone more than one "Mary", all "sisters" or "sister-in-laws" of Mary mother of the five Zealot brothers, in order to make the Apostles appear to be "cousins" … but in an uncoordinated and contradictory way within the Gospels themselves.
This inconsistency, found in the "holy" texts, demonstrates the authors' failure to invent false names as it was impossible to provide a documented historical basis. The Apostles were a necessary literary creation, because the scribes wanted to demonstrate that "Christianity" (spread by the Apostles) was present from the I century, in order to "show" that Jesus had come and sacrificed himself to save men from death.

“And he called to him his twelve disciples, Jesus gave them authority over unclean spirits so that they could cast them out, and cure every disease and every infirmity (Codex Sinaiticus - Mt 10,1).

As reported in the "Acts" of Luke, the followers of the Christian doctrine, in only three decades, had multiplied, first spreading to the Mediterranean Provinces of the Empire, and then beyond. Thanks to the extraordinary miracles of the "Apostles" … whose names and superhuman deeds do not exist in any historical document of the time.
If the exaggeration of this spreading, as certified in the "Acts" - and by Eusebius of Caesarea who wrote that "the doctrine of Christ soon spread throughout all the world" (HEc. II 3) - had truly taken place … all the scribes of the time would have reported in their chronicles the superhuman deeds publicly displayed by the Apostles thanks to their astounding "divine grace".

Actually, the "documentation" on the existence of the "Apostles" only comes from the Christian ascetics, supported by the founding Fathers of the faith, and by the venerable Bishops, all "witnesses" of the "truthfulness" of their doctrine, whose manuscripts are copies published centuries later, and so ideologically cleansed.

As will be demonstrated in the following studies, starting with Paul of Tarsus, the Apostles of the New Testament never existed.

Emilio Salsi

[ go back ]