HOME PAGE | PROEMIUM TO THE STUDY | PROFILE AND CONTACTS |
Languages |
 |
 |
Yeshùa Johannes and the Zealots of Gamala redeemed by the Christianity of the Gentiles
Through the studies carried out thusfar we have demonstrated that the "Apostles", one after another, are eliminated thanks to a critical historiological verification. The analyses have allowed us to uncover spurious passages and simulations added to the holy and historical texts by Christian scribes during the century-old evolution of the doctrine.
These tamperings are still underway and their objective is to prevent the recognition of the true protagonists, who were the leaders of the Zealot movement for Jewish national liberation; these men were hidden behind an "Apostolic" guise which depicts them as myths such as lambs and preachers of peace and justice on Earth who bestowed the promise of eternal life.
The bloody revolutionaries of the "fourth Zealot philosophy, a novelty unknown up to that time" (as defined by Josephus), founded by Judas the Galilean in 6 A.D., had to disappear. Their doctrine postulated the overturning of Jewish society through the elimination of slavery, the corrupt priestly nobility and the privileged pro-Romans, and the establishment of a new economic system based on the redistribution of wealth on a more equalitarian basis for the benefit of the under-privileged classes: "the Ebionites" (from the Aramaic "Ebionim"), who were the poor.
These revolutionaries were Zealot Pharisean leaders, "Doctors of the Law (Rabbis) of great power ... fanatical nationalists" devoted to martyrdom.
The Jewish historian Josephus - a noble Pharisean conservative belonging to an opposing wealthy and opportunistic priestly class - expressed hatred towards them in "Jewish Antiquities" and "The Jewish War":
"The zeal which Judas (the Galilean) and Saddoc (the Pharisean) inspired in the youth was an element of ruination for our cause. The people saw the tenacity of their determination and the indifference with which they accepted the lacerating suffering of the punishments" (Antiquities XVIII 10-24). "False and deceitful individuals, pretending to be inspired by God (Prophets), who plot disorders and revolutions and push the people towards religious fanaticism. Charlatans (Preachers) and bandits incited many to rebellion and incited them to freedom by threatening to kill whoever submitted to the domination of the Romans (Bellum II 259-264). Zealots, in fact, was the name that they had given themselves, as if they were zealots of good deeds" (Bellum IV 161).
They carried out an uneven struggle in order to "save" their land from Roman pagan domination and rebuild, thanks to the advent of a Messiah chosen by Yahweh, an eternal kingdom ... which, after the "universal" Catholic reform, was called "Kingdom of Heaven".
But the motives of the Jews were very different. The Old Testament tradition imposed uncompromising radical decisions which were in contrast with those of the moderate priestly aristocracy, wealthy merchants and big landowners.
The certainty that God would help the Israelites to get rid of the pagan invaders was written in the Law: the "Kittim" (pagan invaders) would have been defeated and humiliated by the divine Messiah, a nationalistic King who triumphs thanks to the intervention of the heavenly forces sent in by Yahweh to help the "chosen people".
Upon the death of Herod the Great, Judas the Galilean creator of the "fourth philosophy" - after attacking the royal palace of Sepphoris, capital of Galilee, and forcing the son and successor of Herod, Antipas, to flee - took over as King of the Jews.
The intervention of the Roman legions of the Legate of Syria, son of P. Quintilius Varus, reestablished the Augustan system in Galilee after destroying Sepphoris and crucifying two thousand Jews in public.
Five brothers - descendents of a royal blood line (the Hasmoneans) which survived (through their mother's side) the systematic elimination carried out by Herod the Great - protected by the walls of the impregnable stronghold, Gàmala, fought against Herod's heirs who they did not recognize as having the right (conferred by Rome) to reign and govern over the Jews. It was their Messianic right and they claimed it through the use of force; in reality this struggle was begun by Ezechias (their grandfather and father of Judas the Galilean) who was executed by Herod after ascending the throne as King of the Jews in 37 B.C. (see in the seventh study the chapter "Gàmala, homeland of the Hasmonean descendants").
The high-risk social tension which characterized the bloodshed provoked by the nationalist integralism inevitably penetrated into families and was the cause of serious controversies and disagreements between impetuous young people and their elders.
The continuous, endemic state of civil war - which began at the time of Quirinius's census (6 A.D.) - lasted until the outbreak of the war against Rome in 66 A.D., with a pause during the reign of Herod Agrippa the Great (41-44 A.D.).
The serious denouncement of the Zealot unrest within the theocratic society of the Jews during that time inevitably had repercussions within families and of course involved the Messiah chosen by God to lead the people of Israel; this denouncement also "oozes" from the evangelical testimonies by mouth of "Jesus" himself:
The names of these five brothers dictated by the strict Jewish tradition are still present in the Gospels and correspond to the names of the five brothers of "Jesus": John, Judas, Simon, James and Joseph.
The names which are also attributed to the children of the various "Marys", wives of Alphaeus, Zebedee, Cleophas and Clopas. These wives-sisters or relatives who have the name "Mary", like the mother of Jesus, all have children with the same names as the brothers of Christ.
The presence of many "Marys" in the New Testament documents is not truthful (there are a total of six) to the point that one of them - according to these documents - turns out to be the sister of the Mother of the "Redeemer Son of God":
"Near the cross of Jesus stood his mother (Mary) and his mother's sister, Mary the wife of Clopas ..." (Jh 19,25).
How could have parents given their own children the same names? Since ancient times the Church has been aware of the contradictions contained in the evangelical "revelations", and has attempted to "compress" the six "Marys" into "three Marys" through analyses which have been proven to be incorrect, as is reported in a later study regarding "the six Marys". One of these - passed off as wife of Alphaeus, father of the Apostle Levi, that is to say Matthew the Publican - proves to be absolutely false once verified that "Matthew" never existed (see study I, VIII, and the study regarding the "Nativity"):
"As he (Jesus) was walking along he saw Levi the son of Alphaeus sitting at the tax office, and he said to him: «Follow me». And he got up and followed him (Matthew the Publican). When Jesus was at dinner in his house, a number of tax collectors and sinners were also sitting at table with Jesus" (Mk 2,14).
This event takes place in Caphernaum, in Galilee, at the time under the administration of the Tetrarch Herod Antipas; this is something impossible as the "Publicans" were the contractors of the taxes sent directly to the treasury in Rome by the Provinces subject to Roman rule. In the case of the territories, Galilee and Perea - already assigned as a "Protecorate" by Caesar Augustus to the Tetrarch Antipas - these were obliged to pay the Emperor a fixed annual tribute equal to two hundred talents of gold (Jewish AntiquitiesXVII 318), while the tax collection administrative apparatus was located in the capital of Galilee in Tiberias, not in the depopulated village of "Caphernaum" (see eighth study).
As demonstrated in the first and eighth study as well as in the study regarding the "Nativity", it is clear that the inexistence of Levi Matthew unequivocally disavows the existence of his father, Alphaeus, and Mary, wife of Alphaeus, with whom Alphaeus (according to the Gospels) conceived the future Apostle, "tax collector" on behalf of Caesar.
Of these six "Marys", only one did not have children: Mary Magdalene, unknown by Eusebius of Caesarea because invented after his death (340 AD). We believe that the relationship between this absolutely phony Mary and the "historical Jesus" would not have played an important role in the political situation of this period, very dangerous for the people of Israel who did not want to be subject to the domination of Rome.
The real Mary, mother of five sons and of two or more daughters, was a noble descendent of the Hasmoneans and wife of Judas the Galilean, "Doctor of the Law of great power", father of John, his eldest son. They therefore belonged to a royal bloodline who had the right to the throne of the Jews occupied by the Herodians, semi-Jews of Arab extraction sworn in by the Emperors of Rome.
The five brothers belonged to a theocratic society and advocated an armed struggle based on religious and political principles contained in the holy Ancestral Law, on the basis of which the only regality permitted was that of the will of God: a Messianic regality. They were Zealots and guardians of a nationalist integralism which was more extreme than that of the other three Jewish religious factions of the period, that is to say the Pharisees, Essenes and Sadduceans.
In 6 A.D. ...
"Judas the Galilean placed himself at the head of the fourth philosophy, a novelty unknown up until that time, which agrees with all the opinions of the Pharisees apart from the fact that they have a burning love for freedom (the Zealots were Pharisean irredentist revolutionaries who were against slavery) convinced that only God is their guide and Owner; they were more than ready to face up to an agonizing death ..." (Ant. XVIII 1,23).
The majority of the Jewish people, especially the young, were driven by the impelling need for moral, nationalistic liberation and social justice; therefore they shared the principles of the Zealots and their leader Judas. A generation thereafter (in 35 A.D.) his son John manages to conquer Jerusalem after freeing the Holy City from Roman occupation; he obtains the recognition of the people as "Saviour" (Jeshùa) and King of the Jews ... until the year 36 A.D., when he is dethroned and crucified by the Romans. For the Jews the true divine Messiah could not be defeated by the Pagans, so John was repudiated and forgotten.
In the historical period following the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple, perpetrated by Tito in 70 AD, and as a consequence of the ethnic massacre of Jews that occurred due to the devastating war of 132/135 AD, an identity crisis opened under the principality of Adriano, a religious crisis opened up which involved the entire Jewish community.
"Ill, treated and afflicted, he (the Messiah) never opened his mouth, like a lamb led to the slaughter-house, like a sheep dumb before its shearers he never opened his mouth" (Isaiah 53,7);
"Look, there is the lamb of God that takes away the sin of the world!" (Jh 1,29).
The Essenes, rather than admit the failure of their prophecy regarding the intervention of the Davidic "Saviour", blamed the disaster and the deaths suffered by the Jews on their refusal to recognize the Advent: the Messiah, awaited with longing faith by the Jews during the first century; the Anointed - chosen by Yahweh and who would have led them against the pagan invaders of Promise Land - had already come, but was not recognized as such by His people.
In the Jewish history of the time which saw as royal protagonist the noble John and his agonizing death, this was the only suitable episode in which he could be mythicized as "Agnus Dei" and "Saviour of the World" rather than "Dominator of the World".
A "Saviour" which the Essene monks - thanks to their "Gnosis" (knowledge of God) - began to represent in their writings, preaching him as the Therapeutic Demiurge, Son of God, with extraordinary powers.
They had already prophesized him in the fragment of "scroll number 4Q246" found in Qumran which gives evidence of the Zealot nationalist "pathos", which was in conformity with the ethics of a theocratic society like that of the Jews and in line with the Messianic royal figure:
"He will be called the Son of God: they will call him the Son of the Most High. His reign will be eternal ... the people of God will rise and stop all with the sword".
The traces of this Messiah still exist today in the Gospels. Luke said:
"He will be great and will be called the son of the Most High. The Lord God will give him the throne of his ancestor David ... And so the child will be holy and will be called Son of God" (Lk 1,32-35).
Matthew said: "Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth: it is not peace I have come to bring, but a sword" (Mt 10,34).
Of all the protagonists of the "Christianized" Gospels, John - unlike in the original Gospels - is the least striking character (despite being heavily reworked). According to the canonical tradition, John was first referred to as "the disciple who Jesus loved" called in as eyewitness to the life of Christ (as narrated in his own Gospel) and was later chosen as guardian of His "Revelation" (Apocalypse) and of His return (Parousia), no longer as "Saviour" but in the role of a terrifying "Executioner" who would have provoked the end of the world through a cosmic catastrophy marking the beginning of the "Kingdom of God".
In reality this nameless "disciple" did not exist (as demonstrated in the previous fifth study) and therefore did not write any Gospel, Apocalypse or "letters".
Few people know that there are two Gospels attributed to "John": that of "John also called Mark" and that of "John".
In order to distinguish between the two and justify the differences, incompatible as unequivocal evidence, due to the huge differences regarding the narrated events (all we need to do is check the "Chart of the Apostles and their Qualifications" in the first study); "also called Mark" is added to "John" in "Acts of the Apostles" (12,12), where "the favourite Apostle" suddenly emerges shortly before the death of Herod Agrippa I in 44 A.D. and turns out to be "son of Mary" residing "in his mother's house" in Jerusalem, not in the house of Zebedee, his father, as stated in the synoptic Gospels.
Instead, in no Gospel do they mention an Apostle named "John also called Mark" despite being "officialized" by the "tradition" from Eusebius onwards; the latter very superficially referred to him as "Mark".
In the Gospel of "John also called Mark" we met a "John" son of Zebedee, an integralist Zealot like his brother James; both were qualified as "Boanerghés" *, sons of the "Wrath of Yahweh" adverse to the Roman domination of the Land of Israel. Therefore John was an adult rebel and fanatic nationalist who sided against the established authority, and who, ideologically, would never have accepted a second "Trasteverine" (renowned neighbourhood of modern-day Rome) name: Mark. In the Gospel of Luke (Lk 9,53), John turns out to be a Zealot ready to set fire to Samaritan villages (the Samaritans were enemies of the Jews) along with his other brother: James (the Greater).
* See explanation of the term "Boanerghés" in the first study.
A prohibition regarding the use of aristocratic names (even more rigid than that of the Jews) was imposed by Roman Law (the only law which really counted in the Empire), which the editors of "Acts of the Apostles" foolishly fail to mention; a similar error was made with regard to the "citizenship" of Saint Paul (see II study), thus demonstrating that this document, considered holy by believers, was created after 212 A.D.
In that year Emperor Marcus Aurelius Caracalla decreed the extension of Roman citizenship to all free inhabitants of the Empire in order to level their privileges and thus render useless the Diplomas of Roman Citizenship.
Before this date (even at the time of the Republic) only foreigners who were conferred a Diploma of Citizenship were granted the right to give themselves Roman names, while for all others it was prohibited.
Caesar Augustus - who gave great importance to Roman citizenship - ordered three censuses in order to verify which inhabitants of the Empire had the right to this citizenship. The title was registered in the Acts of the Senate, and a Diploma was issued as proof of this title. This Diploma (like the Military Diploma) contained a certificate of merit issued by the imperial authorities and which was to be shown upon request of any Roman official.
Suetonius said (Claudius 25):
"People of foreign citizenship were prohibited from taking on Roman names, let alone aristocratic names. Those who usurped the right to Roman citizenship were beheaded (by Claudius) on the Esquiline field".
The Jews were persecuted by all Roman Emperors and Commanders, with the exception of Julius Caesar and Cocceius Nerva (the latter, who was elderly, was in office for less than two years). Therefore the equestrian Military Tribune adorned with laticlaves - an imperial official in Jerusalem during the principate of Claudius, obliged to ensure the respect of Roman Law - would have inflicted grave punishment on any Jew who had given himself a Roman name such as "Marcus" (a typical aristocratic name) if not in possession of a Diploma of Citizenship.
Therefore, "Mark" is a pseudonym chosen by Christian scribes after the Edict of Caracalla, unaware of an old and obsolete imperial law and lacking knowledge of the strict Jewish customs. In the Roman Empire of the first century an aristocratic name such as "Mark" "fastened" upon a Jewish subject lacking Roman citizenship violated laws and customs of both Rome and Judea.
On the contrary, the "John" described by the "tradition of Saint John" is not an adult rebel fighter and integralist; the role is given to an unnamed, unknown boy called "the disciple who Jesus loved", who appeared out of nowhere during the last supper in which the first Eucharistic Sacrifice was celebrated. Apart from the reference to the Baptist, the name "John" is unknown to the evangelist himself and never appears in his "own" Gospel; not even when the Jesus "calls" the Disciples to follow Him in the mission assigned to him by God the Father. We know of the existence of "the sons of Zebedee" (Jh 21,2), after the death and resurrection of Christ, in the twenty-first and final chapter. Studies conducted by experts have discovered that "John" was added at a later date in order to reduce the number of contrasts with the other Gospels with regard to the number and names of the Apostles (see chart in the first study and relative footnote).
The "John" of the fourth Gospel was depicted as an adolescent tied to the "Saviour" by a strong sentimental relationship (as in the case of relatives), to the point that during the Last Supper he "lean[s] back close to Jesus' chest" (Jh 13,25).
This aspect of the favourite Apostle, who languidly abandoned himself on the body of Christ, is not reported by the other evangelists. Also, why would a God have created a very young Disciple-Apostle who Jesus preferred to the other Apostles?
We can find the answer in the final eschatological passage of the Gospel itself, at the time of the Crucifixion, in which a scene with the "three Marys" grasping the foot of the cross along with a boy is described.
This in reality would have been impossible as the Law of Rome did not allow anyone to go near a public torture (which was guarded by a cordon of armed militiamen): especially relatives, friends and disciples ... No one, Apostles included, could stay in the vicinity of the cross.
"Seeing his mother and the disciple whom he loved standing near her, Jesus said to his mother, «Woman, this is your son». Then to the disciple he said, «This is your mother». And from that hour the disciple took her into his home" (Jh 19,26/27).
But in whose house? In his father Zebedee's house according to the the Synoptic Gospels? Certainly not, as in "Acts of the Apostles" we have already seen that "John also called Mark" lived at Mary's (his mother) house in Jerusalem. And how can we believe that a boy could have looked after an old woman? This is a "Saint John scenario", totally different from that of the other evangelists, prepared with aim to "represent" the human sacrifice of the new transcendental "Entity" which would have "saved" humanity from going through hell. But the Christian scribe, when copying this from an original manuscript, gave little weight to the "details" of this Gospel, "stratified" remains of a form of primitive Messianism which have provoked serious problems which continue today to remain unsolved.
The scribe, first of all, carefully avoided writing the name "John" used in reference to the Messiah in the original Essenic Gospel entitled "Gospel of John", as it described the deeds of the divine Jewish protagonist, thus justifying the title by having it appear to have been written by "John". But the copyist, by removing this name inevitably eliminated a protagonist and, as a result, the evangelist "John" does not know himself. Finally, so as to make it impossible to identify "John" as the crucified Messiah, he places under the cross a younger brother having the same name: "John",afterwards awarding him the honour of looking after his elderly mother.
So much so, in the Gospel verse we have just read that Mary, who was the mother of Jesus, was also the mother of the "disciple who Jesus loved". That is to say, a brother of Jesus or "He" himself (in the first study, after the Apostles' chart, we have listed the ancient Codexes, later "discarded", and according to which in Matthew 13,55 John is also included among the sons of Mary). Yet as the "favourite Apostle" was called John and beneath the cross there could be no one because in violation of Roman Law, it is evident that He, "Jesus", was John ... on the cross. Without any disciple under or near the cross ... and confirmed by the canonical Gospels:
"Then all the disciples deserted him (Jesus) and ran away" (Mt 26,56).
"If you (Pilate) set him (Jesus) free you are no friend of Caesar's; anyone who makes himself king is defying Caesar" (Jh 19,12).
The comparison of the evidence provided by the two Gospels highlights the accusation directed towards "this man" without specifying his name, guilty of inciting the people not to pay their taxes to the Emperor of Rome and of proclaiming himself King of the Jews (through the holy unction) and Messiah.
It is important to point out that the description of the event, narrated by ignorant scribes, does not conform to Roman power and law which obliged an imperial Prefect to eliminate whoever proclaimed himself King in a territory owned by Caesar and had subversive intentions with regard to the payment of taxes to Rome; no one would have dared to remind the Prefect of his duty (ius gladii), as instead is evident in the passage we have just read.
Instead, in spite of the precise accusations made by the assembly against the "Messiah King", who had ascended the throne of Jerusalem without an imperial decree issued by Tiberius, according to the phony trial drawn up by incompetent Christian scribes ... a Roman magistrate Pontius Pilate, Governor of Judea, rather than ask, first of all, for confirmation of the event from his vice, the Imperial Tribune, commander of the military garrison stationed in Antonia Fortress, is said to have asked this idiotic question: "«Are you the King of the Jews? He replied, It is you who say it: I am the King"» (Jh 18,37).
Then Pontius Pilate is described as a puppet who, indifferent to the fact of having been deprived of his powers-duties linked to his position of "Governor of the Jews", rules: "«I find no case against this man»" (Lk 23,1). Whoever has minimum knowledge of the Law in effect at the time of the Roman Empire (held together by the powerful provincial Governors) must consider this "trial against Jesus" as buffoonery, starting with the insignificant "this man" (as mentioned above), expression used to identify the self-proclaimed "King of the Jews".
In reality "this man" was John, awkwardly disguised as "John called the Baptist"; from the very beginning the Church led us to believe this in order to hide the names of the authentic Zealot protagonists of the primitive Gospels, by often having recourse to the stratagem of overlapping their names and deeds in the current Gospels copied from the originals:
"At that time Herod the tetrarch heard about the reputation of Jesus and said to his court «this is John the Baptist himself; he has risen from the dead, and that is why miraculous powers are at work in him»" (Mt 14, 1-2).
The true John, in reality, was one of "boanerghès" Zealots, sons of the wrath of God", whose nationalist doctrine - the fourth Jewish philosophy - incited the people not to pay their taxes to Rome. A "John" who was disguised behind the name "Baptist", who, in turn, was even passed off by Luke as the cousin of "Jesus Christ". An absurd blood relationship which is not mentioned in the Gospel of "John", thus demonstrating the intricacy of the ecclesiastic scribes when choosing to have the two protagonists interact.
A naivety which becomes even more evident when Eusebius, historical Bishop of Caesarea, invented the "Testimonium Flavianum" and attributed it to Josephus; the former makes Jesus Christ appear to be famous, but fails to mention the blood relationship between the Baptist and the more important "Christ", "Man-God", who resurrected three days after His death (cfr HEc I 11,7 and Antiquities XVIII 63).
"John" could not have been the Baptist as history is clear and teaches that the latter was eliminated, many years after the mythical "Jesus", by a sole enemy: Herod Antipas the Tetrarch *. It was he who killed him because - unlike the Gospel passage (John 1,11) we have just read which says that "He came to his own and his own people did not accept them" - his people had received him with too much favour:
* Herod Antipas married Herodiade despite having another princess as his wife: the daughter of Aretas IV, King of the Nabataean Arabs. Antipas the Tetrarch counted on being chosen as King by Tiberius, but only one of the two princesses could have become Queen. Herodiade laid down this condition, which Herod secretly accepted, but the daughter of Aretas found out and informed her father who declared war on the Tetrarch, in the meantime claiming territories bordering on Perea which were administered by the Herodian half-Jew. Territories which, however, were Roman "Protectorates".
The Gospels deliberately confuse John the Baptist and "Jesus", and use the former as the "double" of the latter, overlapping the two ideological characters to the point that Saint Luke begins his tale with the "Nativity" of:
"John ... he will be great in the sight of the Lord; he must drink no wine, no strong drink" (Lk 1, 13/15).
Who could not drink wine was a "Nazirean" (Lat. "Nazireus": Jew who had taken the holy vow called "Nazir"), but according to history John the Baptist was not a Nazirean nor a Messiah. Josephus was a Jew and was totally aware of what the "Messiah" represented for the Jews; he also had knew the Nazireans very well and describes them and praises them for their importance, as he does with Samuel and Samson who are consecrated to God of this vow; and therefore, if the Baptist had been a Nazirean like Samuel and Samson, Josephus would have specified the fact in the long passage dedicated to him; likewise - as a chronicler and, in particular, as a Pharisean priest - he would have felt obliged to inform the entire Jewish world that John the Baptist was the precursor and prophet of the imminent advent of a divine Messiah and guardian of a doctrine which was completely different from Jewish doctrine. This is what the Gospels say. Josephus also mentioned the blood relationship with the even more famous Messiah - "Jesus" - thus confirming the evangelical news which attests him as John the Baptist's cousin.
All the more so - due to the exceptionality of the Messianic event which the Jews awaited - the historian would have informed his readers that the people had mistakened the Baptist for the Messiah, as written superficially by Luke.
The information (as a whole) highlighted in the evangelical writings is totally pertinent to the Jewish creed; so if Josephus did not make reference to this information in the detailed historical event regarding John the Baptist, this means that it was not true, and that the scribes lied ... but with a precise aim, which we are about to reveal.
First of all, "Nazirean" (Lat."Nazireus") was the appellative of the Jewish believer who dedicated himself to God, promising for the entire duration of the vow not to drink alcohol and to keep his hair uncut and his beard unshaven. The followers became part of the sect of the Nazirenes directly linked to "Yeshùa" John, unlike the Baptist.
After the prophecy written about John the Nazireus, Luke continues his narration by first describing the "Nativity" of "John", then that of "Jesus" ... as if the Nativity of Christ had been added later; furthermore, in his description of the event he even "depicts" an intermaternal relationship of a fetus.
"She went into Zechariah's house and greeted Elizabeth. Now it happened that as soon as Elizabeth heard Mary's greeting, the child leapt in her womb" (Luke 1,40-41).
The Christian scribe says that "John" - while still in the womb of his hypothetical mother Elizabeth - "recognizes or perceives" Mary as his true mother; but ... being physically impossible in 6 B.C. (according to the modern dating of Church) for Luke to have placed his ear on Elizabeth's womb, we have tried to imagine God the Father, who "from the high heaven" bent down to whisper in the ear of the evangelical Saint (to him only) this detail regarding the "jolt" of the fetus inside the maternal womb and pass it on to future believers - "the blessed are the poor in spirit" - to whom priests hide the fact that the evangelist (according to "tradition") was born in 10 A.D., that is to say after the "Nativity" of Jesus and consequent "massacre of the innocents".
In the "Protoevangelium of James" we read:
"Elizabeth, hearing that they were searching for John, took him and went on the mountain (op. cit. 22,3). Herod was searching for John ... and told them: «John is he who will reign over Israel»" (op. cit. 23,1-2).
In this Gospel - a manuscript which is older than the Vatican and Sinaiticus Codexes - why would have a living Herod the Great (died in 4 B.C.) known about the birth of a Jewish baby by the name of "John" who, if he had been "John the Baptist", was not destined to become "King of the Jews"? ... Right which belonged to the Hasmonean line? And what "mountain" was it, if not that of Gamala? ... the homeland of Judas the Galilean and his sons: John, Simon, James, Judas, and Joseph.
By carrying on with the research we will be able to establish that the primitive "Gospels of John" (written by the Essenes) were not manuscripts written by "John", but were manuscripts which spoke about "John the Messiah and Saviour".
In the previous study we verified the inexistence of the Apostle Saint John, "the favourite of the Lord". In order to do so, we inevitably - due to the long life and venerable age attributed to "the disciple who Jesus loved" - made use of the testimonies of the "successors of the Apostles", the first of whom was Simon, passed off as the second Bishop of Jerusalem after James the Minor.
"Successors" mentioned by the "Ecclesiastical tradition" which has reached us through ancient manuscripts which we will continue to compare; the aim of this task is to verify what the Christian "Fathers" managed to invent in order to provide "evidence" of the existence of Saint John. They were obliged to do so because they understood that "the disciple who Jesus loved" was "John Jesus", but - on the basis of their design - if John got old no one would have suspected that he was Jesus "on the cross".
Having identified all four brothers of Jesus, including the youngest, "Joseph" (see fifteenth study) ... in history we must not search for an inexistent "Jesus Christ resurrected", but for "John": a common mortal. He is a character of utmost importance, and among the Jews is even more important than his "brothers". His appellative was intentionally discarded in those versions of the Gospel of Matthew in which he is described along with all the sons of Mary; instead, as we have seen in the first study, the exegetes of the Church chose only the manuscripts in which John and his brothers are never mentioned simultaneously because John was the true "subject", referred to as "this man" in order to fill the "void" left by this name.
Apart from the false "Testimonium Flavianum" and the phony "James, brother of Jesus Christ", the search for authentic traces of "Jesus Christ" in the works of Josephus Flavius is a vain undertaking as the historian was a Jew and remained as such until his death. In the thirteenth study, in fact, it is demonstrated that "Jesus", "Christ" and "Nazarene" were not people's names but divine titles.
John and his brothers were the promoters of risky undertakings (which even included the possibility of martyrdom), undertakings of integralist guerrilla leaders, of "phony prophets and agitators", of "nationalist fanatics", of ... Zealots.
And this John, identical to "Jesus" - they even had the same "fingerprints" left by the "prohibited foods and He had abandoned the traditional rules of purity" (Bellum VII), foods eaten without carrying out the ritual ablution before the meal, in the same way as Christ - is returned to us by history through a distant memory recalled by the Jewish historian Josephus at the end of the war, after the destruction of Jerusalem and of the Temple by Titus: an entire chapter made up of twenty-two paragraphs.
Let's read it carefully and we will discover together the deeds of John the Nazireus, who, over a century later, the Essenes identified as the "Saviour, Son of God" to who Him consecrated through the vow of Naziritism, an divine advent which they had already prophetized in the Dead Sea Scrolls.
The accusation is totally compatible with the undertakings of “Saint Peter” (otherwise cites in the Gospels as “Simon called Kefaz” see the proof at the end of the first study), reported in "Acts of the Apostles” (5,1/11), illuminating example of mercy implemented by Simon Peter, successor of Christ, Prince of the Apostles and holder of the keys to Paradise ... feats that no priest dares to quote as a Sunday parable:
It was no longer necessary to kill animals and drink their blood, ritual reserved for well-off pagan Neophytes (followers of the Mystery Cults) and too expensive for the plebians. In order to achieve eternal life, all one had to do is follow a liturgy in which the breaking up of "consecrated live bread" took place. The same liturgy, but lacking theophagical rite, is described by the Essenes in the "Rule of the Community" of Qumran.
Through the studies carried out thusfar we have demonstrated that the "Apostles", one after another, are eliminated thanks to a critical historiological verification. The analyses have allowed us to uncover spurious passages and simulations added to the holy and historical texts by Christian scribes during the century-old evolution of the doctrine.
These tamperings are still underway and their objective is to prevent the recognition of the true protagonists, who were the leaders of the Zealot movement for Jewish national liberation; these men were hidden behind an "Apostolic" guise which depicts them as myths such as lambs and preachers of peace and justice on Earth who bestowed the promise of eternal life.
The bloody revolutionaries of the "fourth Zealot philosophy, a novelty unknown up to that time" (as defined by Josephus), founded by Judas the Galilean in 6 A.D., had to disappear. Their doctrine postulated the overturning of Jewish society through the elimination of slavery, the corrupt priestly nobility and the privileged pro-Romans, and the establishment of a new economic system based on the redistribution of wealth on a more equalitarian basis for the benefit of the under-privileged classes: "the Ebionites" (from the Aramaic "Ebionim"), who were the poor.
These revolutionaries were Zealot Pharisean leaders, "Doctors of the Law (Rabbis) of great power ... fanatical nationalists" devoted to martyrdom.
The Jewish historian Josephus - a noble Pharisean conservative belonging to an opposing wealthy and opportunistic priestly class - expressed hatred towards them in "Jewish Antiquities" and "The Jewish War":
"The zeal which Judas (the Galilean) and Saddoc (the Pharisean) inspired in the youth was an element of ruination for our cause. The people saw the tenacity of their determination and the indifference with which they accepted the lacerating suffering of the punishments" (Antiquities XVIII 10-24). "False and deceitful individuals, pretending to be inspired by God (Prophets), who plot disorders and revolutions and push the people towards religious fanaticism. Charlatans (Preachers) and bandits incited many to rebellion and incited them to freedom by threatening to kill whoever submitted to the domination of the Romans (Bellum II 259-264). Zealots, in fact, was the name that they had given themselves, as if they were zealots of good deeds" (Bellum IV 161).
They carried out an uneven struggle in order to "save" their land from Roman pagan domination and rebuild, thanks to the advent of a Messiah chosen by Yahweh, an eternal kingdom ... which, after the "universal" Catholic reform, was called "Kingdom of Heaven".
But the motives of the Jews were very different. The Old Testament tradition imposed uncompromising radical decisions which were in contrast with those of the moderate priestly aristocracy, wealthy merchants and big landowners.
The certainty that God would help the Israelites to get rid of the pagan invaders was written in the Law: the "Kittim" (pagan invaders) would have been defeated and humiliated by the divine Messiah, a nationalistic King who triumphs thanks to the intervention of the heavenly forces sent in by Yahweh to help the "chosen people".
Upon the death of Herod the Great, Judas the Galilean creator of the "fourth philosophy" - after attacking the royal palace of Sepphoris, capital of Galilee, and forcing the son and successor of Herod, Antipas, to flee - took over as King of the Jews.
The intervention of the Roman legions of the Legate of Syria, son of P. Quintilius Varus, reestablished the Augustan system in Galilee after destroying Sepphoris and crucifying two thousand Jews in public.
Five brothers - descendents of a royal blood line (the Hasmoneans) which survived (through their mother's side) the systematic elimination carried out by Herod the Great - protected by the walls of the impregnable stronghold, Gàmala, fought against Herod's heirs who they did not recognize as having the right (conferred by Rome) to reign and govern over the Jews. It was their Messianic right and they claimed it through the use of force; in reality this struggle was begun by Ezechias (their grandfather and father of Judas the Galilean) who was executed by Herod after ascending the throne as King of the Jews in 37 B.C. (see in the seventh study the chapter "Gàmala, homeland of the Hasmonean descendants").
The high-risk social tension which characterized the bloodshed provoked by the nationalist integralism inevitably penetrated into families and was the cause of serious controversies and disagreements between impetuous young people and their elders.
The continuous, endemic state of civil war - which began at the time of Quirinius's census (6 A.D.) - lasted until the outbreak of the war against Rome in 66 A.D., with a pause during the reign of Herod Agrippa the Great (41-44 A.D.).
The serious denouncement of the Zealot unrest within the theocratic society of the Jews during that time inevitably had repercussions within families and of course involved the Messiah chosen by God to lead the people of Israel; this denouncement also "oozes" from the evangelical testimonies by mouth of "Jesus" himself:
"I have come to bring fire to the earth, and how I wish it were blazing already! ... Do you suppose that I am here to bring peace on earth? No. I tell you, but rather division. For from now on a household of five will be divided: three against two and two against three; father opposed to son, son to father" (Lk 12,49-53).
"Anyone who comes to me without hating father, mother, wife, children, brothers, sisters, yes and his own life too, cannot be my disciple" (Lk. 14,26).
Note: in year 2008, under the papacy of Benedict XVI, the CEI (Italian Episcopal Conference) - aware that the gospels were written by men, and not "dictated" or "inspired" by God (as postulated in the Council of Trent and Vatican Council II) - without evaluating that thousands of New Testament codes, for over 1600 years have been reporting the same phrase that reveals the zeal ideology of Christ, reprint the Bible reversing of the meaning original text just read and make Luke testify as follow:
"If anyone comes to me and does not love me more than he loves his father, mother, wife, children, brothers, sisters and even his own life, he cannot be my disciple" (Lk 14:26).
"If anyone comes to me and does not love me more than he loves his father, mother, wife, children, brothers, sisters and even his own life, he cannot be my disciple" (Lk 14:26).
Now let's resume the analysis of the historical context.
The names of these five brothers dictated by the strict Jewish tradition are still present in the Gospels and correspond to the names of the five brothers of "Jesus": John, Judas, Simon, James and Joseph.
The names which are also attributed to the children of the various "Marys", wives of Alphaeus, Zebedee, Cleophas and Clopas. These wives-sisters or relatives who have the name "Mary", like the mother of Jesus, all have children with the same names as the brothers of Christ.
The presence of many "Marys" in the New Testament documents is not truthful (there are a total of six) to the point that one of them - according to these documents - turns out to be the sister of the Mother of the "Redeemer Son of God":
"Near the cross of Jesus stood his mother (Mary) and his mother's sister, Mary the wife of Clopas ..." (Jh 19,25).
How could have parents given their own children the same names? Since ancient times the Church has been aware of the contradictions contained in the evangelical "revelations", and has attempted to "compress" the six "Marys" into "three Marys" through analyses which have been proven to be incorrect, as is reported in a later study regarding "the six Marys". One of these - passed off as wife of Alphaeus, father of the Apostle Levi, that is to say Matthew the Publican - proves to be absolutely false once verified that "Matthew" never existed (see study I, VIII, and the study regarding the "Nativity"):
"As he (Jesus) was walking along he saw Levi the son of Alphaeus sitting at the tax office, and he said to him: «Follow me». And he got up and followed him (Matthew the Publican). When Jesus was at dinner in his house, a number of tax collectors and sinners were also sitting at table with Jesus" (Mk 2,14).
This event takes place in Caphernaum, in Galilee, at the time under the administration of the Tetrarch Herod Antipas; this is something impossible as the "Publicans" were the contractors of the taxes sent directly to the treasury in Rome by the Provinces subject to Roman rule. In the case of the territories, Galilee and Perea - already assigned as a "Protecorate" by Caesar Augustus to the Tetrarch Antipas - these were obliged to pay the Emperor a fixed annual tribute equal to two hundred talents of gold (Jewish AntiquitiesXVII 318), while the tax collection administrative apparatus was located in the capital of Galilee in Tiberias, not in the depopulated village of "Caphernaum" (see eighth study).
As demonstrated in the first and eighth study as well as in the study regarding the "Nativity", it is clear that the inexistence of Levi Matthew unequivocally disavows the existence of his father, Alphaeus, and Mary, wife of Alphaeus, with whom Alphaeus (according to the Gospels) conceived the future Apostle, "tax collector" on behalf of Caesar.
Of these six "Marys", only one did not have children: Mary Magdalene, unknown by Eusebius of Caesarea because invented after his death (340 AD). We believe that the relationship between this absolutely phony Mary and the "historical Jesus" would not have played an important role in the political situation of this period, very dangerous for the people of Israel who did not want to be subject to the domination of Rome.
Another four "Marys" were cloned from only one and awkwardly "divided" in order to separate the brothers of Jesus, all of whom were sons of the one and only Mary mother of Jesus (Mt 13,55 and Mk 6,3); this was done in order to prevent researchers from tracking down (in history) the true protagonists of the events narrated in the Gospels and from identifying them in the last heirs of the only dynasty of Hasmonean blood which, over a period of three generations, had distinguished itself for having guided the Jews in their struggle against the Roman "kittim". This is exactly what we are about to do, availing ourselves of specific historical research, which, in a shortwhile, will allow us to discover the deeds of the authentic characters, subsequently rebaptized by the Clergy, "John Apostle" and "Simon Peter" (Saint Peter).
The real Mary, mother of five sons and of two or more daughters, was a noble descendent of the Hasmoneans and wife of Judas the Galilean, "Doctor of the Law of great power", father of John, his eldest son. They therefore belonged to a royal bloodline who had the right to the throne of the Jews occupied by the Herodians, semi-Jews of Arab extraction sworn in by the Emperors of Rome.
The five brothers belonged to a theocratic society and advocated an armed struggle based on religious and political principles contained in the holy Ancestral Law, on the basis of which the only regality permitted was that of the will of God: a Messianic regality. They were Zealots and guardians of a nationalist integralism which was more extreme than that of the other three Jewish religious factions of the period, that is to say the Pharisees, Essenes and Sadduceans.
In 6 A.D. ...
"Judas the Galilean placed himself at the head of the fourth philosophy, a novelty unknown up until that time, which agrees with all the opinions of the Pharisees apart from the fact that they have a burning love for freedom (the Zealots were Pharisean irredentist revolutionaries who were against slavery) convinced that only God is their guide and Owner; they were more than ready to face up to an agonizing death ..." (Ant. XVIII 1,23).
The majority of the Jewish people, especially the young, were driven by the impelling need for moral, nationalistic liberation and social justice; therefore they shared the principles of the Zealots and their leader Judas. A generation thereafter (in 35 A.D.) his son John manages to conquer Jerusalem after freeing the Holy City from Roman occupation; he obtains the recognition of the people as "Saviour" (Jeshùa) and King of the Jews ... until the year 36 A.D., when he is dethroned and crucified by the Romans. For the Jews the true divine Messiah could not be defeated by the Pagans, so John was repudiated and forgotten.
In the historical period following the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple, perpetrated by Tito in 70 AD, and as a consequence of the ethnic massacre of Jews that occurred due to the devastating war of 132/135 AD, an identity crisis opened under the principality of Adriano, a religious crisis opened up which involved the entire Jewish community.
Until the time of the Holocaust, the Essenes "Sons of the Light" were the most active among the prophets who had anounced the Advent of the Messiah of Israel who would have united all the Jews in a renewed Alliance consecrated by God and massacred the pagan kittims "Sons of Darkness":
"Listen, Israel! You are about to fight against your enemies ... Do not be afraid and do not be alarmed in front of them. As it is your God who walks with you to fight your enemies and save you ... When in your country there will be a war against an oppressor who oppresses you, and you will blow the horns and your God will remind you and you will be saved from your enemies" (from Scroll of the War "1QM of Qumran").
And among believers, over a period of two generations, many irredentist followers went to their death: it was a bloodbath.
After the exceptional catastrophe, a Jewish reformist faction of the Diaspora - led by Essene priests residing in Egypt and inspired by the abstract "Logos" of the Semitic philosopher Philo of Alexandria - developed a new "Saviour Messiah" figure as an alternative to the "Dominator of the World" mentioned by Josephus (Bellum VI 310-315). A divine Messiah, no longer a bellicose commander of the people of Israel but as docile as a lamb "Saviour of the World", thus acceptable to imperial Roman power and less dangerous for the families of the diaspora. Yet still a Messiah observant of the Ancestral Law prophesized by Isaiah:
"Ill, treated and afflicted, he (the Messiah) never opened his mouth, like a lamb led to the slaughter-house, like a sheep dumb before its shearers he never opened his mouth" (Isaiah 53,7);
"Look, there is the lamb of God that takes away the sin of the world!" (Jh 1,29).
The Essenes, rather than admit the failure of their prophecy regarding the intervention of the Davidic "Saviour", blamed the disaster and the deaths suffered by the Jews on their refusal to recognize the Advent: the Messiah, awaited with longing faith by the Jews during the first century; the Anointed - chosen by Yahweh and who would have led them against the pagan invaders of Promise Land - had already come, but was not recognized as such by His people.
In the Jewish history of the time which saw as royal protagonist the noble John and his agonizing death, this was the only suitable episode in which he could be mythicized as "Agnus Dei" and "Saviour of the World" rather than "Dominator of the World".
A "Saviour" which the Essene monks - thanks to their "Gnosis" (knowledge of God) - began to represent in their writings, preaching him as the Therapeutic Demiurge, Son of God, with extraordinary powers.
They had already prophesized him in the fragment of "scroll number 4Q246" found in Qumran which gives evidence of the Zealot nationalist "pathos", which was in conformity with the ethics of a theocratic society like that of the Jews and in line with the Messianic royal figure:
"He will be called the Son of God: they will call him the Son of the Most High. His reign will be eternal ... the people of God will rise and stop all with the sword".
The traces of this Messiah still exist today in the Gospels. Luke said:
"He will be great and will be called the son of the Most High. The Lord God will give him the throne of his ancestor David ... And so the child will be holy and will be called Son of God" (Lk 1,32-35).
Matthew said: "Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth: it is not peace I have come to bring, but a sword" (Mt 10,34).
Of all the protagonists of the "Christianized" Gospels, John - unlike in the original Gospels - is the least striking character (despite being heavily reworked). According to the canonical tradition, John was first referred to as "the disciple who Jesus loved" called in as eyewitness to the life of Christ (as narrated in his own Gospel) and was later chosen as guardian of His "Revelation" (Apocalypse) and of His return (Parousia), no longer as "Saviour" but in the role of a terrifying "Executioner" who would have provoked the end of the world through a cosmic catastrophy marking the beginning of the "Kingdom of God".
In reality this nameless "disciple" did not exist (as demonstrated in the previous fifth study) and therefore did not write any Gospel, Apocalypse or "letters".
Few people know that there are two Gospels attributed to "John": that of "John also called Mark" and that of "John".
In order to distinguish between the two and justify the differences, incompatible as unequivocal evidence, due to the huge differences regarding the narrated events (all we need to do is check the "Chart of the Apostles and their Qualifications" in the first study); "also called Mark" is added to "John" in "Acts of the Apostles" (12,12), where "the favourite Apostle" suddenly emerges shortly before the death of Herod Agrippa I in 44 A.D. and turns out to be "son of Mary" residing "in his mother's house" in Jerusalem, not in the house of Zebedee, his father, as stated in the synoptic Gospels.
Instead, in no Gospel do they mention an Apostle named "John also called Mark" despite being "officialized" by the "tradition" from Eusebius onwards; the latter very superficially referred to him as "Mark".
In the Gospel of "John also called Mark" we met a "John" son of Zebedee, an integralist Zealot like his brother James; both were qualified as "Boanerghés" *, sons of the "Wrath of Yahweh" adverse to the Roman domination of the Land of Israel. Therefore John was an adult rebel and fanatic nationalist who sided against the established authority, and who, ideologically, would never have accepted a second "Trasteverine" (renowned neighbourhood of modern-day Rome) name: Mark. In the Gospel of Luke (Lk 9,53), John turns out to be a Zealot ready to set fire to Samaritan villages (the Samaritans were enemies of the Jews) along with his other brother: James (the Greater).
* See explanation of the term "Boanerghés" in the first study.
A prohibition regarding the use of aristocratic names (even more rigid than that of the Jews) was imposed by Roman Law (the only law which really counted in the Empire), which the editors of "Acts of the Apostles" foolishly fail to mention; a similar error was made with regard to the "citizenship" of Saint Paul (see II study), thus demonstrating that this document, considered holy by believers, was created after 212 A.D.
In that year Emperor Marcus Aurelius Caracalla decreed the extension of Roman citizenship to all free inhabitants of the Empire in order to level their privileges and thus render useless the Diplomas of Roman Citizenship.
Before this date (even at the time of the Republic) only foreigners who were conferred a Diploma of Citizenship were granted the right to give themselves Roman names, while for all others it was prohibited.
Caesar Augustus - who gave great importance to Roman citizenship - ordered three censuses in order to verify which inhabitants of the Empire had the right to this citizenship. The title was registered in the Acts of the Senate, and a Diploma was issued as proof of this title. This Diploma (like the Military Diploma) contained a certificate of merit issued by the imperial authorities and which was to be shown upon request of any Roman official.
Suetonius said (Claudius 25):
"People of foreign citizenship were prohibited from taking on Roman names, let alone aristocratic names. Those who usurped the right to Roman citizenship were beheaded (by Claudius) on the Esquiline field".
The Jews were persecuted by all Roman Emperors and Commanders, with the exception of Julius Caesar and Cocceius Nerva (the latter, who was elderly, was in office for less than two years). Therefore the equestrian Military Tribune adorned with laticlaves - an imperial official in Jerusalem during the principate of Claudius, obliged to ensure the respect of Roman Law - would have inflicted grave punishment on any Jew who had given himself a Roman name such as "Marcus" (a typical aristocratic name) if not in possession of a Diploma of Citizenship.
Therefore, "Mark" is a pseudonym chosen by Christian scribes after the Edict of Caracalla, unaware of an old and obsolete imperial law and lacking knowledge of the strict Jewish customs. In the Roman Empire of the first century an aristocratic name such as "Mark" "fastened" upon a Jewish subject lacking Roman citizenship violated laws and customs of both Rome and Judea.
On the contrary, the "John" described by the "tradition of Saint John" is not an adult rebel fighter and integralist; the role is given to an unnamed, unknown boy called "the disciple who Jesus loved", who appeared out of nowhere during the last supper in which the first Eucharistic Sacrifice was celebrated. Apart from the reference to the Baptist, the name "John" is unknown to the evangelist himself and never appears in his "own" Gospel; not even when the Jesus "calls" the Disciples to follow Him in the mission assigned to him by God the Father. We know of the existence of "the sons of Zebedee" (Jh 21,2), after the death and resurrection of Christ, in the twenty-first and final chapter. Studies conducted by experts have discovered that "John" was added at a later date in order to reduce the number of contrasts with the other Gospels with regard to the number and names of the Apostles (see chart in the first study and relative footnote).
The "John" of the fourth Gospel was depicted as an adolescent tied to the "Saviour" by a strong sentimental relationship (as in the case of relatives), to the point that during the Last Supper he "lean[s] back close to Jesus' chest" (Jh 13,25).
This aspect of the favourite Apostle, who languidly abandoned himself on the body of Christ, is not reported by the other evangelists. Also, why would a God have created a very young Disciple-Apostle who Jesus preferred to the other Apostles?
We can find the answer in the final eschatological passage of the Gospel itself, at the time of the Crucifixion, in which a scene with the "three Marys" grasping the foot of the cross along with a boy is described.
This in reality would have been impossible as the Law of Rome did not allow anyone to go near a public torture (which was guarded by a cordon of armed militiamen): especially relatives, friends and disciples ... No one, Apostles included, could stay in the vicinity of the cross.
"Seeing his mother and the disciple whom he loved standing near her, Jesus said to his mother, «Woman, this is your son». Then to the disciple he said, «This is your mother». And from that hour the disciple took her into his home" (Jh 19,26/27).
But in whose house? In his father Zebedee's house according to the the Synoptic Gospels? Certainly not, as in "Acts of the Apostles" we have already seen that "John also called Mark" lived at Mary's (his mother) house in Jerusalem. And how can we believe that a boy could have looked after an old woman? This is a "Saint John scenario", totally different from that of the other evangelists, prepared with aim to "represent" the human sacrifice of the new transcendental "Entity" which would have "saved" humanity from going through hell. But the Christian scribe, when copying this from an original manuscript, gave little weight to the "details" of this Gospel, "stratified" remains of a form of primitive Messianism which have provoked serious problems which continue today to remain unsolved.
The scribe, first of all, carefully avoided writing the name "John" used in reference to the Messiah in the original Essenic Gospel entitled "Gospel of John", as it described the deeds of the divine Jewish protagonist, thus justifying the title by having it appear to have been written by "John". But the copyist, by removing this name inevitably eliminated a protagonist and, as a result, the evangelist "John" does not know himself. Finally, so as to make it impossible to identify "John" as the crucified Messiah, he places under the cross a younger brother having the same name: "John",afterwards awarding him the honour of looking after his elderly mother.
So much so, in the Gospel verse we have just read that Mary, who was the mother of Jesus, was also the mother of the "disciple who Jesus loved". That is to say, a brother of Jesus or "He" himself (in the first study, after the Apostles' chart, we have listed the ancient Codexes, later "discarded", and according to which in Matthew 13,55 John is also included among the sons of Mary). Yet as the "favourite Apostle" was called John and beneath the cross there could be no one because in violation of Roman Law, it is evident that He, "Jesus", was John ... on the cross. Without any disciple under or near the cross ... and confirmed by the canonical Gospels:
"Then all the disciples deserted him (Jesus) and ran away" (Mt 26,56).
So, the unnamed "disciple who Jesus loved" is the "avatar" of John; this name does not appear in the Gospel of John as one of the Apostles called in by Christ as one of His followers because it is Him: "Jesus".
This is how the "Gospel of John" begins:
"A man came, sent by God. His name was John ...
He was in the world that had come into being through him
and the world did not recognize him.
He came to his own and his own people did not accept him"
(Jh 1,6-11)
"John" is the only appellative indicated in the prologue of this copy of the Gospel (no longer the original), in which in spite of the reference to God the creator, the name "Jesus Christ" does not appear; it will be added at a later date, after citing "John the Baptist", in order to hide the true "John" of the preamble. The reference in the prologue cannot concern the Baptist, as will soon be verified. In fact, as proof of what we have just stated, we then read:"Who are you? He declared, he did not deny but declared «I am not the Christ»" (Jhn 1,19-20).
Tricky words which were clearly tampered with in order to contradict the true John who, in the original Gospel, said "I am the Messiah", confirmed in the text itself (as we are about to read), where Jesus is accused of having proclaimed himself King ... but we of course know that a true Jewish monarch underwent the unction ritual, from which the term "Anointed" (in Aramaic "Meshiah") derives. With regard to the Messianic expectancy of the Jews, Luke goes so far as to say that:
"A feeling of expectancy had grown among the people, who were beginning to wonder whether John might be Christ" (Lk 3,15).
A purely Christian concept which, as in many other cases, misinterprets Jewish Law: the people of Israel awaited the divine Messiah, but their hope could not go so far as to mention useless names, because they were aware that only Yahweh would have chosen the true Messiah ...
"If you (Pilate) set him (Jesus) free you are no friend of Caesar's; anyone who makes himself king is defying Caesar" (Jh 19,12).
The comparison of the evidence provided by the two Gospels highlights the accusation directed towards "this man" without specifying his name, guilty of inciting the people not to pay their taxes to the Emperor of Rome and of proclaiming himself King of the Jews (through the holy unction) and Messiah.
It is important to point out that the description of the event, narrated by ignorant scribes, does not conform to Roman power and law which obliged an imperial Prefect to eliminate whoever proclaimed himself King in a territory owned by Caesar and had subversive intentions with regard to the payment of taxes to Rome; no one would have dared to remind the Prefect of his duty (ius gladii), as instead is evident in the passage we have just read.
Instead, in spite of the precise accusations made by the assembly against the "Messiah King", who had ascended the throne of Jerusalem without an imperial decree issued by Tiberius, according to the phony trial drawn up by incompetent Christian scribes ... a Roman magistrate Pontius Pilate, Governor of Judea, rather than ask, first of all, for confirmation of the event from his vice, the Imperial Tribune, commander of the military garrison stationed in Antonia Fortress, is said to have asked this idiotic question: "«Are you the King of the Jews? He replied, It is you who say it: I am the King"» (Jh 18,37).
Then Pontius Pilate is described as a puppet who, indifferent to the fact of having been deprived of his powers-duties linked to his position of "Governor of the Jews", rules: "«I find no case against this man»" (Lk 23,1). Whoever has minimum knowledge of the Law in effect at the time of the Roman Empire (held together by the powerful provincial Governors) must consider this "trial against Jesus" as buffoonery, starting with the insignificant "this man" (as mentioned above), expression used to identify the self-proclaimed "King of the Jews".
In reality "this man" was John, awkwardly disguised as "John called the Baptist"; from the very beginning the Church led us to believe this in order to hide the names of the authentic Zealot protagonists of the primitive Gospels, by often having recourse to the stratagem of overlapping their names and deeds in the current Gospels copied from the originals:
"At that time Herod the tetrarch heard about the reputation of Jesus and said to his court «this is John the Baptist himself; he has risen from the dead, and that is why miraculous powers are at work in him»" (Mt 14, 1-2).
The true John, in reality, was one of "boanerghès" Zealots, sons of the wrath of God", whose nationalist doctrine - the fourth Jewish philosophy - incited the people not to pay their taxes to Rome. A "John" who was disguised behind the name "Baptist", who, in turn, was even passed off by Luke as the cousin of "Jesus Christ". An absurd blood relationship which is not mentioned in the Gospel of "John", thus demonstrating the intricacy of the ecclesiastic scribes when choosing to have the two protagonists interact.
A naivety which becomes even more evident when Eusebius, historical Bishop of Caesarea, invented the "Testimonium Flavianum" and attributed it to Josephus; the former makes Jesus Christ appear to be famous, but fails to mention the blood relationship between the Baptist and the more important "Christ", "Man-God", who resurrected three days after His death (cfr HEc I 11,7 and Antiquities XVIII 63).
"John" could not have been the Baptist as history is clear and teaches that the latter was eliminated, many years after the mythical "Jesus", by a sole enemy: Herod Antipas the Tetrarch *. It was he who killed him because - unlike the Gospel passage (John 1,11) we have just read which says that "He came to his own and his own people did not accept them" - his people had received him with too much favour:
"When the people came in crowds about John the Baptist, for they were very very greatly moved by hearing his words, Herod (Antipas), who feared lest the great influence John had over the people might put it into his power and inclination to raise a rebellion, thought it best by putting him to death ... Accordingly he was sent a prisoner, out of Herod's suspicious temper, to Macherus, the castle in Perea ... and was there put to death. Now the Jews had an opinion that the destruction of this army was a vendetta of John and sent as a punishment upon Herod, and a mark of God's displeasure to him" (Ant XVIII 118/9).
The Gospels deliberately confuse John the Baptist and "Jesus", and use the former as the "double" of the latter, overlapping the two ideological characters to the point that Saint Luke begins his tale with the "Nativity" of:
"John ... he will be great in the sight of the Lord; he must drink no wine, no strong drink" (Lk 1, 13/15).
Who could not drink wine was a "Nazirean" (Lat. "Nazireus": Jew who had taken the holy vow called "Nazir"), but according to history John the Baptist was not a Nazirean nor a Messiah. Josephus was a Jew and was totally aware of what the "Messiah" represented for the Jews; he also had knew the Nazireans very well and describes them and praises them for their importance, as he does with Samuel and Samson who are consecrated to God of this vow; and therefore, if the Baptist had been a Nazirean like Samuel and Samson, Josephus would have specified the fact in the long passage dedicated to him; likewise - as a chronicler and, in particular, as a Pharisean priest - he would have felt obliged to inform the entire Jewish world that John the Baptist was the precursor and prophet of the imminent advent of a divine Messiah and guardian of a doctrine which was completely different from Jewish doctrine. This is what the Gospels say. Josephus also mentioned the blood relationship with the even more famous Messiah - "Jesus" - thus confirming the evangelical news which attests him as John the Baptist's cousin.
All the more so - due to the exceptionality of the Messianic event which the Jews awaited - the historian would have informed his readers that the people had mistakened the Baptist for the Messiah, as written superficially by Luke.
The information (as a whole) highlighted in the evangelical writings is totally pertinent to the Jewish creed; so if Josephus did not make reference to this information in the detailed historical event regarding John the Baptist, this means that it was not true, and that the scribes lied ... but with a precise aim, which we are about to reveal.
First of all, "Nazirean" (Lat."Nazireus") was the appellative of the Jewish believer who dedicated himself to God, promising for the entire duration of the vow not to drink alcohol and to keep his hair uncut and his beard unshaven. The followers became part of the sect of the Nazirenes directly linked to "Yeshùa" John, unlike the Baptist.
After the prophecy written about John the Nazireus, Luke continues his narration by first describing the "Nativity" of "John", then that of "Jesus" ... as if the Nativity of Christ had been added later; furthermore, in his description of the event he even "depicts" an intermaternal relationship of a fetus.
"She went into Zechariah's house and greeted Elizabeth. Now it happened that as soon as Elizabeth heard Mary's greeting, the child leapt in her womb" (Luke 1,40-41).
The Christian scribe says that "John" - while still in the womb of his hypothetical mother Elizabeth - "recognizes or perceives" Mary as his true mother; but ... being physically impossible in 6 B.C. (according to the modern dating of Church) for Luke to have placed his ear on Elizabeth's womb, we have tried to imagine God the Father, who "from the high heaven" bent down to whisper in the ear of the evangelical Saint (to him only) this detail regarding the "jolt" of the fetus inside the maternal womb and pass it on to future believers - "the blessed are the poor in spirit" - to whom priests hide the fact that the evangelist (according to "tradition") was born in 10 A.D., that is to say after the "Nativity" of Jesus and consequent "massacre of the innocents".
In the "Protoevangelium of James" we read:
"Elizabeth, hearing that they were searching for John, took him and went on the mountain (op. cit. 22,3). Herod was searching for John ... and told them: «John is he who will reign over Israel»" (op. cit. 23,1-2).
In this Gospel - a manuscript which is older than the Vatican and Sinaiticus Codexes - why would have a living Herod the Great (died in 4 B.C.) known about the birth of a Jewish baby by the name of "John" who, if he had been "John the Baptist", was not destined to become "King of the Jews"? ... Right which belonged to the Hasmonean line? And what "mountain" was it, if not that of Gamala? ... the homeland of Judas the Galilean and his sons: John, Simon, James, Judas, and Joseph.
By carrying on with the research we will be able to establish that the primitive "Gospels of John" (written by the Essenes) were not manuscripts written by "John", but were manuscripts which spoke about "John the Messiah and Saviour".
In the previous study we verified the inexistence of the Apostle Saint John, "the favourite of the Lord". In order to do so, we inevitably - due to the long life and venerable age attributed to "the disciple who Jesus loved" - made use of the testimonies of the "successors of the Apostles", the first of whom was Simon, passed off as the second Bishop of Jerusalem after James the Minor.
"Successors" mentioned by the "Ecclesiastical tradition" which has reached us through ancient manuscripts which we will continue to compare; the aim of this task is to verify what the Christian "Fathers" managed to invent in order to provide "evidence" of the existence of Saint John. They were obliged to do so because they understood that "the disciple who Jesus loved" was "John Jesus", but - on the basis of their design - if John got old no one would have suspected that he was Jesus "on the cross".
Having identified all four brothers of Jesus, including the youngest, "Joseph" (see fifteenth study) ... in history we must not search for an inexistent "Jesus Christ resurrected", but for "John": a common mortal. He is a character of utmost importance, and among the Jews is even more important than his "brothers". His appellative was intentionally discarded in those versions of the Gospel of Matthew in which he is described along with all the sons of Mary; instead, as we have seen in the first study, the exegetes of the Church chose only the manuscripts in which John and his brothers are never mentioned simultaneously because John was the true "subject", referred to as "this man" in order to fill the "void" left by this name.
Apart from the false "Testimonium Flavianum" and the phony "James, brother of Jesus Christ", the search for authentic traces of "Jesus Christ" in the works of Josephus Flavius is a vain undertaking as the historian was a Jew and remained as such until his death. In the thirteenth study, in fact, it is demonstrated that "Jesus", "Christ" and "Nazarene" were not people's names but divine titles.
John and his brothers were the promoters of risky undertakings (which even included the possibility of martyrdom), undertakings of integralist guerrilla leaders, of "phony prophets and agitators", of "nationalist fanatics", of ... Zealots.
And this John, identical to "Jesus" - they even had the same "fingerprints" left by the "prohibited foods and He had abandoned the traditional rules of purity" (Bellum VII), foods eaten without carrying out the ritual ablution before the meal, in the same way as Christ - is returned to us by history through a distant memory recalled by the Jewish historian Josephus at the end of the war, after the destruction of Jerusalem and of the Temple by Titus: an entire chapter made up of twenty-two paragraphs.
Let's read it carefully and we will discover together the deeds of John the Nazireus, who, over a century later, the Essenes identified as the "Saviour, Son of God" to who Him consecrated through the vow of Naziritism, an divine advent which they had already prophetized in the Dead Sea Scrolls.
The future Jesuit Christians, after reforming the original Essene doctrine through the adoption of the pagan theophagic eucharistic rite, will call him:
Jesus Christ, the Nazarene, the Messiah, the Saviour, the Redeemer, the Lord, the Son of God ... God.
When the Jewish historian, Josephus Flavius, conservative pro-Roman pharisee, drew up Chap. 8, Book VII, of “The Jewish War”, he was completing the description of the Jewish holocaust provoked by the intervention of the Roman legions which, after destroying Jerusalem and the Temple in 70 A.D., had regained control over all of Judea. At this time in the story, under the orders of the imperial Legate, Governor of Syria, the Romans are marching towards Masada, the last Jewish fortress still to be conquered. We are in 73 A.D., almost all the rebels have been captured, killed, executed or gone missing; the Jewish “holy war” is about to end and the Jewish historian is getting ready to narrate the death of the Zealot Eleazar, grandson of the very famous Jewish revolutionary, from the advent of Christ onwards : “Judas the Galilean” of Gamala, described as an enemy of the Romans and repeatedly mentioned in his works.
Josephus Flavius continues to reaffirm this: all the suffering which the Jews undergo, from the time of the census (6 A.D.) of Publius Sulpicius Quirinius onwards, began with Judas the Galilean, the rebel pharisee, “Doctor of the Law of great power”, ideologist of the “fourth philosophy, a novelty unknown before this time”.
The lord of Gamala and his descendents, all Zealots (revolutionary Pharisees), one by one, were considered by the Jewish chronicler to be the principal culprits of the doctrine which brought about the final catastrophe just described. It may have been fate, but, if everything began with Judas the Galilean, according to this memory, everything was about to end with his last descendent: “Eleazar bar Jair” (Lazarus son of Jair: the latter married the daughter of Judas).
Therefore, it is with a memory of events which took place a long time before that the Jewish historian Josephus’s reconstruction – narrated in “The Jewish War”, Book VII chap. 8 – begins:
Josephus Flavius continues to reaffirm this: all the suffering which the Jews undergo, from the time of the census (6 A.D.) of Publius Sulpicius Quirinius onwards, began with Judas the Galilean, the rebel pharisee, “Doctor of the Law of great power”, ideologist of the “fourth philosophy, a novelty unknown before this time”.
The lord of Gamala and his descendents, all Zealots (revolutionary Pharisees), one by one, were considered by the Jewish chronicler to be the principal culprits of the doctrine which brought about the final catastrophe just described. It may have been fate, but, if everything began with Judas the Galilean, according to this memory, everything was about to end with his last descendent: “Eleazar bar Jair” (Lazarus son of Jair: the latter married the daughter of Judas).
Therefore, it is with a memory of events which took place a long time before that the Jewish historian Josephus’s reconstruction – narrated in “The Jewish War”, Book VII chap. 8 – begins:
252 Upon the death of Bassus, he was succeded as Governor of Judea by Flavius Silva. The latter, seeing that the rest of the country had been subjugated through force, apart from a sole fortress still in the hands of the rebels, he gathered the forces located in the region and led them towards the stronghold. Masada is the name of this fortress. 253 The head of the hired sicarii was Eleazar, powerful man, descendent of the Judas (the Galilean) who, as said above, had persuaded many Jews to not take part in the census carried out by Quirinius in Judea. 254 At that time (6 A.D.) the hired sicarii ordered a conspiracy against those who were in favour of submission to the Romans and fought them every which way as enemies, depriving them of their possessions and setting fire to their homes” …
We have read and reread all of chapter 8 and, in all the paragraphs reported, from 252 to 275, we have not found any chronological discontinuity in the dramatic description of the events and and its protagonists. The historian, after citing the “Judas of the census” supporter of a civil war between Jews, is unable to restrain the painful memories that involved his family starting with these grave events. He describes violent and cruel incidents and calls out a series of names, in chronological order, up until the final two paragraphs … in which Josephus concludes:
274 “It does not seem to be the right moment to worthily express the due sorrow for the victims of their (of the Zealots) ferocity and thus I will return to the point where I had interrupted the narration” and, in fact, he reconnects to the initial narration: “275 The Roman commander (Flavius Silva) led his troops against Eleazar and his band of hired sicarii who occupied Masada, and soon he gained control over the entire region and established garrisons in the most strategic locations … Having done this, Silva committed himself to the siege…” (of Masada).
When the writer, in paragraph 254, mentions “that time”, he is referring to a historical period, legendary but remote, which gave birth to the events worthy of being remembered, not to a recent past, like the Jewish war still underway, even if close to conclusion, being that left to conquer was only Masada - the last stronghold still occupied by the “sicarii” (the sicarii were the armed branch of the Zealot movement) - which was about to be taken by the Romans. After these due explanations let’s begin to read once again, after having reported paragraphs 252 and 253, from:
254 “At that time (6 A.D.) the sicarii ordered a conspiracy against those who were in favour of submission to the Romans and fought them as enemies depriving them of their possessions and of their animals and set fire to their homes; 255 the sicarii affirmed, in fact, that there was no difference between them and the foreigners being that, dishonourably, they were renouncing the freedom for which the Jews had long been fighting, declaring to prefer slavery under the Romans. 256 But these words were a pretext in order to cover their ferocity and their greed. 257 In reality, those who joined them in the rebellion and took an active role in the war (caused by the census) against the Romans, were forced by them (the sicarii) to undergo the most terrible of atrocities, 258 and the more they (the sicarii) tried to justify the lies they (the sicarii) invoked, the more they (the sicarii) persecuted those who, in order to defend themselves, denounced their misdeeds. 259 That time (as he affirms once again) was certainly a period of such widespread villainy between the Jews, that no crime was contrasted, nor for those who attempted to do so was it possible to contrive others (crimes): 260° they were so corrupt in both their private and public life, and competed against one another in their aim to commit impiety against God and oppress their neighbours: the lords oppressed the masses and the masses attempted to eliminate the lords. 261 In fact the former had great thirst for dominon, while the latter wished to provoke violence and take possession of the wealth of the rich. 262 Therefore the sicarii were the first (from 6 A.D.) to infringe upon the Law and behave cruelly against their fellow citizens, without refraining from any insult so as to offend their victims, or from any action so as to ruin them. 263 Yet John’s behaviour was such that even they (the sicarii) seemed more moderate than him; he in fact not only eliminated whoever gave right and useful advice, treating them (he killed the Sadducees and conservative Pharisees who flattered him) as his arch enemies within the population, but filled the country with an infinite number of public misdeeds, inevitably to be inflicted upon the men who had already dared to commit impiety towards God. 264 He had prepared a banquet with prohibited foodsand had abandoned the traditional rules of purity, thus it was not astonishing if one, who was so madly impious towards God, no longer observed the values of goodness and brotherhood towards men”.
Stop. At this point the mystical historians get very excited and add a “clarifying” note in order to explain that we are dealing with “John of Giscala” from the 66/70 A.D. war; they lead us to believe that this description is a repetition of events which have just taken place; instead this is not the case! We know that we are reading a memory about the time of Judas the Galilean and thereafter. The historian began by speaking about the illustrious revolutionary and the Zealot leader “John” who he mentions right after, evidently, was a famous person if he was remembered after such a long time and, as protagonist of the deeds themselves, ideologically linked to Judas the Galilean.
Thus far we have searched for a “John” in the works of the historian, and considering how this person is presented, we feel that it is worthwhile to investigate if his description is compatible with the lord of Gamala and his other children; therefore, being that he is the first to succeed him, let’s try and consider the theory, still to be verified, that it was his first descendant “John” to lose “son of ?” (bar): something impossible to blame Josephus for due to the fact that, when describing the protagonists, he always identifies them the first time by using their patronymic.
Meanwhile let’s make a first observation: the “John of Giscala” from 66 A.D., which the clerical exegetes have pulled out to embody the recalled “John”, did not set fire to farms in the countryside of Judea; instead, aware to be reading about events which date back to the time of Quirinius’s census onwards, we know that who set fire to the homes were the “Apostles”, among whom “John”, qualified in the Gospels among the “Boanerghes” (Mk 3,17 – see first study) which means “Sons of Wrath” (of God) and, as such, destroyed and pillaged the pro-Roman villages not on their side.
Thus far we have searched for a “John” in the works of the historian, and considering how this person is presented, we feel that it is worthwhile to investigate if his description is compatible with the lord of Gamala and his other children; therefore, being that he is the first to succeed him, let’s try and consider the theory, still to be verified, that it was his first descendant “John” to lose “son of ?” (bar): something impossible to blame Josephus for due to the fact that, when describing the protagonists, he always identifies them the first time by using their patronymic.
Meanwhile let’s make a first observation: the “John of Giscala” from 66 A.D., which the clerical exegetes have pulled out to embody the recalled “John”, did not set fire to farms in the countryside of Judea; instead, aware to be reading about events which date back to the time of Quirinius’s census onwards, we know that who set fire to the homes were the “Apostles”, among whom “John”, qualified in the Gospels among the “Boanerghes” (Mk 3,17 – see first study) which means “Sons of Wrath” (of God) and, as such, destroyed and pillaged the pro-Roman villages not on their side.
Luke, in his Gospel, speaks about what the “Apostles” said against a village in Samaria which had not “hosted” them: “Lord, do you want us to call down fire from heaven to burn them up?” (Lk9,53 – the hypocrisy of the translation speaks for itself); or “Jesus” himself: “I have come to bring fire to the earth, and how I wish it were blazing already!” (Lk12,49). It is to be highlighted that “the sicarii were the first” (the Zealots were armed with a “sica”, a dagger with a curved point, from which derives “sicarii”, that is to say the same apostolic appellative of “Judas Iscariot”, as clarified in the first study) to take action from the time of the census revolt.
But let’s carry on with the reading … and with the theory:
But let’s carry on with the reading … and with the theory:
265 ”On the other hand, then, what crime didn’t Simon son of Giora commit? What tyranny did he not force upon those who, as free citizens, had elected him as their leader?...
Stop. In events dating back half a century earlier suddenly appears “Simon son of Giora”, the most famous person of the current war, but already killed, who has nothing to do with the authentic “Simon” recalled in the memory, protagonist of remote deeds, as we are about to verify, totally different from those of the “son of Giora”…
266 “Was there a friendship or kinship which made these two less daring in their daily massacres? They considered it to be ignoble and wicked to harm strangers, while they thought that being ruthless towards close relatives was a way to make a good impression”.
After reading paragraphs 264 and 266, we highlight that Christ, like this “John”, was qualified by the evangelists as a “glutton”; moreover, “Simon” (in Mt 16,17 “Simon barionà”, old Aramaic, meaning “Simon fugitive”), John’s brother who, according to the “unreliable” Gospels listed in the first study, had been wanted by the Governors of Judea from the time of “Jesus”. The bloodless juxtaposition, with no mutual massacres, strengthens the theory that we may be dealing with the two brothers of the alleged “Christ”, “John and Simon”, the second qualified in the Gospel as “barionà” (see end of first study), now disguised as “Simon son of Giora”.
In fact, a careful reading of “The Jewish War” demonstrates that, unlike this distant memory, the John and Simon of 70 A.D. were not relatives but they massacred one another; therefore the “son of Giora” of the memorial could be a “pious” falsification carried out by the copyists who transcribed this work in the “Codex Sangallen Gr 627” drawn up in the tenth century. The two authentic protagonists of 70, already eliminated by General Titus at this point of the story, are totally different; this can be seen both in the lack of “ruthlessness” against relatives and in their actions, reported live by the historian, attributed to the true “John of Giscala” and “Simon son of Giora”. These two men, during the war and until the destruction of Jerusalem, were the advocates of totally counterposed enemy ideologies, which will soon be described. Instead, “these two”, the John and Simon mentioned above, shared the same doctrine.
In fact, a careful reading of “The Jewish War” demonstrates that, unlike this distant memory, the John and Simon of 70 A.D. were not relatives but they massacred one another; therefore the “son of Giora” of the memorial could be a “pious” falsification carried out by the copyists who transcribed this work in the “Codex Sangallen Gr 627” drawn up in the tenth century. The two authentic protagonists of 70, already eliminated by General Titus at this point of the story, are totally different; this can be seen both in the lack of “ruthlessness” against relatives and in their actions, reported live by the historian, attributed to the true “John of Giscala” and “Simon son of Giora”. These two men, during the war and until the destruction of Jerusalem, were the advocates of totally counterposed enemy ideologies, which will soon be described. Instead, “these two”, the John and Simon mentioned above, shared the same doctrine.
Let’s go ahead with the theory and read …
267 Yet, their madness was surpassed by the insane fury of the Idumeans. In fact these impious rascals, after killing off the High Priests so as not to preserve not even the tiniest particle of pity towards God, destroyed what was left of the civil systems by introducing anarchy everywhere. 268 The Zealots, an association whose name was confirmed by its actions, fully prospered in such an atmosphere; 269 they in fact imitated any sort of evil action and did not fail to emulate any sort of misdeed recorded in history” …
267 Yet, their madness was surpassed by the insane fury of the Idumeans. In fact these impious rascals, after killing off the High Priests so as not to preserve not even the tiniest particle of pity towards God, destroyed what was left of the civil systems by introducing anarchy everywhere. 268 The Zealots, an association whose name was confirmed by its actions, fully prospered in such an atmosphere; 269 they in fact imitated any sort of evil action and did not fail to emulate any sort of misdeed recorded in history” …
Stop. The genuflexion exegetes are in a tizzy: Josephus Flavius dared to write “Zealots”, thus they insert footnotes and references in their critical texts to “explain” the “malevolent interpretation” of this word: they are aware that this reference is proof that the “Zealots” referred to themselves with this name and began to operate from the year 6 A.D. and are also aware that in the Gospels “Simon the Zealot” (Lk 6,15; Acts 1,13) is still written. But, right after describing in this memory that “Simon bar Giora” and “John” are both Zealots, according to the theory advanced, it becomes logical to equate their deeds to the “canonicals”: “John”, qualified among the “Boanerghes” (Mk 3,17 – see first study the “sons of Wrath”), and “Simon Zealot” for his extremist deeds. But if the bible-thumpers are distressed, it means that the supposition made is becoming more and more concrete.
In fact, the true John of Giscala and Simon son of Goira of 66 A.D., we can assure readers, did not carry out “daily massacres of close relatives”, unlike the John and Simon of “that time”, cited by the historian immediately after their father, Judas the Galilean. They are all - from Judas the Galilean to his last descendant Eleazar (at the this time still alive and inside the stronghold of Masada) - remembered and ideologically linked (Zealots and Sicarii, same evangelical appellatives) for their undertakings and for their kinship in an evocative synopsis.
With regard to the hatred expressed by Josephus against “the insane fury of the Idumeans”, it must be clarified that inhabitants of Idumea, region bordering in the south with Judea, were subjugated by Judas the Maccabee in the second century B.C. and converted to Hebraism by King John Ircanus I (in office from 134 to 104 B.C.): “they submitted to circumcision and adopted a lifestyle conformable, in all respects, to that of the Jews. From this time onwards they continued to be Jews” (Ant. XIII, 258). The Idumeans allied themselves, against the domination of Rome and the privileged Jewish priestly classes, with the Jewish revolutionaries from the time Herod the Great’s death and, after the annexation (imposed by Caesar Augustus through the payment of tributes) of Idumea, along with Judea and Samaria, to the Province of Syria, they continued to revolt until the war of 66-70 A.D.
But let’s carry on:
270 “Yet they had derived their name (Zealots) their demanding zeal with which they aspired to virtue, both when making fun, through their brutal character, of the victims of their oppression, and when they viewed the most terrible of evil as good. 271 However, they all met (remote past) the death they deserved, as God assigned to each of them the proper punishment; 272 in fact they underwent, until their final moment of life, all the punishments that could possibly be forced upon a man, having them perish through the most atrocious of suffering”.
In fact, the true John of Giscala and Simon son of Goira of 66 A.D., we can assure readers, did not carry out “daily massacres of close relatives”, unlike the John and Simon of “that time”, cited by the historian immediately after their father, Judas the Galilean. They are all - from Judas the Galilean to his last descendant Eleazar (at the this time still alive and inside the stronghold of Masada) - remembered and ideologically linked (Zealots and Sicarii, same evangelical appellatives) for their undertakings and for their kinship in an evocative synopsis.
With regard to the hatred expressed by Josephus against “the insane fury of the Idumeans”, it must be clarified that inhabitants of Idumea, region bordering in the south with Judea, were subjugated by Judas the Maccabee in the second century B.C. and converted to Hebraism by King John Ircanus I (in office from 134 to 104 B.C.): “they submitted to circumcision and adopted a lifestyle conformable, in all respects, to that of the Jews. From this time onwards they continued to be Jews” (Ant. XIII, 258). The Idumeans allied themselves, against the domination of Rome and the privileged Jewish priestly classes, with the Jewish revolutionaries from the time Herod the Great’s death and, after the annexation (imposed by Caesar Augustus through the payment of tributes) of Idumea, along with Judea and Samaria, to the Province of Syria, they continued to revolt until the war of 66-70 A.D.
But let’s carry on:
270 “Yet they had derived their name (Zealots) their demanding zeal with which they aspired to virtue, both when making fun, through their brutal character, of the victims of their oppression, and when they viewed the most terrible of evil as good. 271 However, they all met (remote past) the death they deserved, as God assigned to each of them the proper punishment; 272 in fact they underwent, until their final moment of life, all the punishments that could possibly be forced upon a man, having them perish through the most atrocious of suffering”.
Stop. Being that the cultured exegetes, filled with profound faith, have shut up as a result of the “clarifying” footnotes, we now need to “clarify”: the phony “Simon son of Giora”, which the copyists have used as a pretext to throw us off the scent from Simon Barionà (“Simon Barionà” Mt 16,17 – see first study part four) “absconding”, is a bogus alibi, as the true one was beheaded in 71 A.D. without prior torture, in Rome, inside the Mamertine prison (in which is preserved a marble slab with the engraved names of the enemies forced to march during the triumph of Titus and then executed, among whom “Simon of Giora”), at the end of the triumphal march. Chop! Blow of the sword … This is not the death described by Josephus Flavius: “the most atrocious of suffering until their final moment of life”, nor even the death that could scare the Zealots.
And above all, the true “John of Giscala” was not killed but … was sent to prison for life: another bogus alibi (Bellum VI 434). “Of Giscala”, introduced in the “clarifying” footnotes by the bible-thumpers, helped to create a double so as to throw us off the scent from John, son of Judas the Galilean. In fact (being that “The Jewish War” was drawn up by Josephus Flavius, under Vespasian, between 75 and 79 A.D.), while the historian reported the testimony we have just read, John of Giscala was still in prison.
And above all, the true “John of Giscala” was not killed but … was sent to prison for life: another bogus alibi (Bellum VI 434). “Of Giscala”, introduced in the “clarifying” footnotes by the bible-thumpers, helped to create a double so as to throw us off the scent from John, son of Judas the Galilean. In fact (being that “The Jewish War” was drawn up by Josephus Flavius, under Vespasian, between 75 and 79 A.D.), while the historian reported the testimony we have just read, John of Giscala was still in prison.
Even if the chronicle does not report patronymic of “John”, it is not difficult to understand that the only name to eliminate had to be “Judas the Galilean”, the father of sons whose names correspond to those indicated in the Gospels as sons of Mary … also with no patronymic (see first study). Uncovered and eliminated the pretexts falsely invoked so as to mislead us, it is evident that the historian is recalling the heroic deeds of this family related to yet enemy of his own for over half a century; and the first protagonists of the memory are: Judas the Galilean and his son John, crucified in 36 A.D. (accused of having proclaimed himself “King of the Jews” as demonstrated in the following tenth study), to whom the future Christians gave the name “Jesus”. Folwed by “Simon”, in the Gospels “called Kefaz” (“stone”: see the Apostles chart and the end of the first study); it is important to point out that later on, in this study, we find the codexes which indicate Simon and John as being sons of Mary: therefore “Simon called Kefaz”, that is to say “called petra” (in Greek), which the evangelical scribes forcibly interpreted as “Peter”, later beatifying him with the name “Saint Peter”.
Meanwhile, at this point in the memory, the last survivor of the famous Zealot dynasty is Eleazar, son of Jair and grandson of Judas the Galilean, still alive in Masada.
Now let’s carry on with the reading from…
Meanwhile, at this point in the memory, the last survivor of the famous Zealot dynasty is Eleazar, son of Jair and grandson of Judas the Galilean, still alive in Masada.
Now let’s carry on with the reading from…
273 ”Yet we could say that their suffering was less than that which had been inflicted upon those who had fallen into their hands, as adequate punishments did not exist (it is a blood feud). 274 It is not the most suitable moment to worthily express the due sorrow for the victims of their ferocity, thus I will return to the point in which I had interrupted the narration. 275 The Roman commander Flavius Silva drove his troops against Eleazar and his band of sicarii who occupied Masada …”
We have highlighted the narrative continuity of the memory, the sequence of events from the year 6 A.D. (along with the related performers) and the false patronymic (son of Giora) introduced in order to mislead historical research, The tenth century mystical scribes were so presumptuous as to “date” an entire chapter made up of 22 paragraphs by simply introducing this false patronymic “son of (“bar” in Aramaic) Giora”, naively underestimating the differences, highlighted in the story, characterizing the deeds of the two pairs of protagonists, who were a generation apart.
Josephus had no interest (and it would have been senseless to do so) in rewriting the summary of the entire wartime tragedy whch he had just described in detail, including the last performer, who by this time had all passed away … instead, it was dutiful to recall who gave birth to the ideology and the deeds of the initial culprits, though belonging to the distant past, of the final holocaust.
In paragraph 267 the historian reports an extremely serious and unique historical event, concerning the simultaneous killing of High Priests and the destruction of the civil systems (a change of power within the Sanhedrin and the Jewish government), but…why doesn’t he conclude by mentioning the agonizing devastation of Jerusalem and of the Temple, as already reported and described later on?... No! He cannot do this due the fact that he is referring to events belonging to another time: “that time” … in which Jerusalem and the temple were intact. A time in which, through the killing of the High Priests (religious power) and the destruction of the civil systems (military and political power), a true revolution took place at the highest level of the institutions of the homeland Judea, as we will better see in the remainder of our analysis. In fact, the John and Simon of the memory are seen as allies, coherent supporters of revolutionary deeds against the institutions; while John of Giscala and Simon bar Giora were neither allies nor promoters of the war of 66, but they stepped in after other priests became leaders of the rebellion and of the revolutionary government, killing each other off.
The John of 66/70 A.D. is a character described in a completely different manner:
In paragraph 267 the historian reports an extremely serious and unique historical event, concerning the simultaneous killing of High Priests and the destruction of the civil systems (a change of power within the Sanhedrin and the Jewish government), but…why doesn’t he conclude by mentioning the agonizing devastation of Jerusalem and of the Temple, as already reported and described later on?... No! He cannot do this due the fact that he is referring to events belonging to another time: “that time” … in which Jerusalem and the temple were intact. A time in which, through the killing of the High Priests (religious power) and the destruction of the civil systems (military and political power), a true revolution took place at the highest level of the institutions of the homeland Judea, as we will better see in the remainder of our analysis. In fact, the John and Simon of the memory are seen as allies, coherent supporters of revolutionary deeds against the institutions; while John of Giscala and Simon bar Giora were neither allies nor promoters of the war of 66, but they stepped in after other priests became leaders of the rebellion and of the revolutionary government, killing each other off.
The John of 66/70 A.D. is a character described in a completely different manner:
“A schemer from Giscala, by the name of John, son of Levi, the most scoundrel and astute of all those famous for having such awful qualities… while pretending to meek he was ready to kill even just for the hope of profit…” (Bellum II, 585/587);
“This is what things were like in Giscala: John son of Levi (this was the patronymic which, in contrast with the clerical theories, could not appear in the memory), seeing that several citzenswere exalted by the idea of the rebellion against the Romans, made every effort to calm them down and demanded that they remain faithful (to Rome). Nevertheless, in spite of the effort, he did not manage to do so” (Bios 43-44).
Unlike the “John” recalled in the memory, John of Giscala was an ambitious and opportunistic gang leader but he was not anti-Roman and first of all did not share the ideals of the political and religious faction who advocated a revolution in Jewish society based on the elimination of slavery so as to make men free and without owners; this ideology, from the time of the census onwards, sparked a civil war aimed at eliminating whoever opposed the fight against the pagan invaders (kittim).
To this end, in the remote past, the protagonists of the “memory” (starting with Judas the Galilean), John and Simon, shared the same ideal, while the two of 66-70 A.D. that followed are depicted by the Jewish historian with two totally different personalities and doctrines: John, son of Levi, was an opportunist while the true Simon son of Giora was instead an idealist who postulated a social and economic revolution aimed at abolishing slavery, “promising freedom to slaves and recompense for the free” (Bellum IV, 508), equal to that of Judas the Galilean and his children.
John son of Levi, initially pro-Roman, after the defeat in Bethoron (November 66 A.D.) of the Roman legions led by the imperial Legate Cestius Gallus, became a turncoat (like Josephus) and entered one of the rebel factions … and later trapped by the Roman forces in Giscala, from where he managed to escape to Jerusalem.
In Rome, in 68 A.D., after the death of Nero, due to the power struggle and the power struggle and the subsequent civil war, the military operations of the Romans in Palestine were suspended and John of Giscala, under the illusion, just like all the Jews, that the war between the political factions of Empire would lead to its downfall, aimed at the conquest of power in Jerusalem against Simon son of Giora and against the Zealots.
In Rome, in 68 A.D., after the death of Nero, due to the power struggle and the power struggle and the subsequent civil war, the military operations of the Romans in Palestine were suspended and John of Giscala, under the illusion, just like all the Jews, that the war between the political factions of Empire would lead to its downfall, aimed at the conquest of power in Jerusalem against Simon son of Giora and against the Zealots.
“During the feast of the Azimes (Easter), the 14 of the month of Xanthicus (late March 70 A.D.), John of Giscala attacked the Zealots inside the Temple and defeated them (Bellum V, 98/105), obligating a part of them to surrender and enter his faction".
Vespasian simply sent him to prison for life and did not subject him to capital punishment, as he fought against Simon son of Giora. The latter was the true, dangerous, leader: a religious nationalist proclaimed as “Saviour” by the Sanhedrin and by the people (Bellum IV, 508/575). He was considered as such until his death, when, as a defeated “Messiah”, he was found by the Romans, hidden in the tunnels of the city, still wearing the “Holy Vestment”. He was later beheaded in prison in Rome in 71 A.D.; instead John of Giscala was not! In the chapter we have just read religious falsifiers misunderstood or underestimated the chronology of the events described, which began in 6 A.D.and continued, sequentially, from “that time” onwards.
We invite our readers to reread, from the beginning, the story, paragraph by paragraph, skipping the comments the footnotes, in order to verify if even one chronological inconsistency can be found. The umpteenth reference to the census of Publius Sulpicius Quirinius, with the reaffirmation of “that time”, refers to a period of time between the years 6 and 36 A.D.: that was “the time” in which the Jews, for thirty years, were forced to submit to the hated tribute to be paid directly to Rome.
The exaction took place in the midst of continous uprisings led by the Zealots who dared to oppose themselves to the payment of the “tribute to Caesar”, and this went on until 36 A.D., when another Governor of Syria, Lucius Vitellius … “welcomed with the highest honours, left in perpetuity to the inhabitants of Jerusalem all taxes on the sale of farm products” (Ant. XVIII, 90).
The exaction took place in the midst of continous uprisings led by the Zealots who dared to oppose themselves to the payment of the “tribute to Caesar”, and this went on until 36 A.D., when another Governor of Syria, Lucius Vitellius … “welcomed with the highest honours, left in perpetuity to the inhabitants of Jerusalem all taxes on the sale of farm products” (Ant. XVIII, 90).
As will be proven in the following tenth study, it was the Legatus Augusti pro Praetore Lucius Viltellius - appointed by Emperor Tiberius and Chief of Staff of the entire eastern theatre at war with the Kingdom of the Parthians - who crucified John the Nazireus just before Passover in 36 A.D. for taking advantage of the conflict in progress and daring to conquer Jerusalem where he had himself crowned as “King of the Jews” in the late summer of 35.
Here it is important to point out that, in the eleventh century, the copyists of the “Codex Ambrosianus Gr F128” removed from Book XVIII of “Jewish Antiquities”, which spoke about the time of “Jesus”, the important historical reference, mentioned above by Josephus Flavius in “The Jewish War”. This work was copied a century earlier by the scribes in “Codex Sangallen Gr 627”), drawn up in the tenth century, concerning the famous Jew by the name of “John” (whose patronymic was censored) when, the followers of the anti-Roman Natonal Liberation Movement …
“They destroyed what remained of the civil systems by introducing complete anarchy everywhere. In such an atmosphere prospered at their best the Zealots, an association which confirmed its name through its actions; indeed they committed any sort of wicked action and did not fail to emulate any sort of misdeed recorded in history” (Bellum VII 267/269).
In fact in Book XVIII of “Jewish Antiquities”, during the period of Christ (30-36 A.D.), due to an additonal cut carried out by the scribes we do not find “any sort of misdeed recorded in history” concerning such a serious revolutionary event, when the Zealots “destroyed all the civil systems” (the Constitution of the Roman governorship and of the aristocratic Sanhedrin was turned into an absolute Jewish monarchy: “Christ King”).
Judea was a country with an almost entirely rural economy, therefore the taxes on farm products constituted, by far, the most important source of revenue for the imperial treasury; if Rome renounced such revenue, this means that something very serious took place, as will be verified in the following tenth study. But 30 years earlier:
“A Galilean by the name of Judas drove the inhabitants to rebellion, filling them with insults if they dared continue to pay tribute to the Romans and have, in addition to God, mortal owners. He was the Doctor (of the Law) who founded his own particular sect …” (Bellum II, 118).
The “tribute due to Caesar” is used in the Gospels in superficial and ridiculous manner. He who made this reference - existential for the people in the Jewish reality of “that time” - did not wish to have “Jesus” appear to be against the taxation of Rome, so as not to identify him with the Zealots … and goes as far as to have him pronounce the famous phrase “give to Caesar what is Caesar’s”. If this had taken place, in the Israelite reality of the time, the “sicarii” would have eliminated him, without giving him the time to … “resurrect”. The Jews hated this tribute, like many subjugated peoples, but with an additional reason not of secondary importance: religious. A taxation which represented the subjugation of their divinity to that of the pagans: the Land, promised by God to the “chosen people”, but acquired through the blood of their ancestral fathers, was, in fact, an occupied and lost land to be reconquered; this is why the historian recalls the “census” many times and does this always by linking it to Judas the Galilean and his children … all the way to his final descendant: Eleazar. During the period which follows the census, the dramatic deeds of the brothers John and Simon which are narrated can be attributed solely to them for they derive from an extreme religious ideology which considered as enemies even those who did not support this type of struggle. Both these men, as can be seen in the “memory”, were never in conflict and only they could have been the true authors of the narrated events. On the contrary, the factions who were led by the subsequent John of Giscala and Simon son of Giora, during the Jewish war of 66, massacred one another but … not “brutal towards close relatives”.
Such serious crimes against relatives, carried out by the true John of Giscala and Simon son of Giora, would have certainly been described in the detailed chronicle of the “live” war; nor did he descibe, scandalized (for him, being a Jew, this was a constant idea), that the table of John of Giscala “was laden with prohibited foods and he had abandoned the traditional rules of purity” (washing your hands before touching food) is an accusation of impiety, instead, made against the “John” recalled in the memory. Here is what the Gospels attest:
“While Jesus was at dinner in his house, a number of tax collectors and sinners were alo sitting at the table with Jesus and his disciples; for there were many of them among his followers. When the scribes of the Pharisee party (the historian Josephus was a Pharisee) saw them eating with sinners and tax collectors, they said to his disciples: «Why does he eat with tax collectors and sinners?»” (Mk 2, 15-16). The Jews considered to be a sinner (as they do today) those who ate foods prohibited by the Mosaic Law.
“The son of God has come (Luke has “Jesus” speak), eating and drinking, and you say: look, a glutton and a drunkard, a friend of tax collectors and sinners” (Lk 7,34).
“A Pharisee invited him to dine at his house. He (Jesus) went in and sat at the table. The Pharisee saw this and was surprised that he had not first washed before the meal” (Lk 11,37-38).
Matthew has Jesus say: “Eating with unclean hands does not make anyone unclean” (Mt 15,20).
“The son of God has come (Luke has “Jesus” speak), eating and drinking, and you say: look, a glutton and a drunkard, a friend of tax collectors and sinners” (Lk 7,34).
“A Pharisee invited him to dine at his house. He (Jesus) went in and sat at the table. The Pharisee saw this and was surprised that he had not first washed before the meal” (Lk 11,37-38).
Matthew has Jesus say: “Eating with unclean hands does not make anyone unclean” (Mt 15,20).
The description of John, recalled by the historian, corresponds to that of “Jesus” even with regard to the “fingerprints” (the “Jesus” of the Gospels was a very strange Rabbi: he did not wash his hands before eating, but washed the feet of the Apostles “while they dined”: Jh 13,1). Moreover, if we insist on the theory that recognizes a family relationship within the high-ranking priestly family - from whom descended Josephus Flavius and Judas the Galilean, both of great power - it is due to the fact that in the story it is evident that, only by getting to know John, Simon and the “victims to whom goes the due sorrow for their ferocity”, the historian could affirm that they were related to one another. The same goes for the other brothers, descendants of Judas, whose family relationships (and degrees of relationship), as reported in the other passages of his works, the historian was perfectly aware of.
In addition: the reporting, after such a long time, of information on a banquet table, demonstrates, first of all, personal knowledge of “John” on the part of the oldest relatives of the historian (just before he was born) and the hatred, passed on to him by his relatives, led him to transmit to posterity a detail about the “prohibited foods” which would have been meaningful only if concerning a very important person known with Judaism; otherwise, who, among posterity, would have been interested in a regular Jew by the name of “John” who, a generation prior to the Jewish War (roughly 30 years), ate foods prohibited by their religion? This passage about the “prohibited foods”, at first glance insignificant, in reality is further proof that “John”, having been a famous Jew - whose “criminal” Zealot deeds deserved to be passed on - all the more reason for him to have had a patronymic which identified him, but, as we have seen, the name of his father is missing. Of all the paternal appellatives which we could have read, only one had a doctrinal importance such that, for Christianity, it could not be mentioned: Judas the Galilean, the father of James, Judas, Joseph, Simon and … John.
The evangelical copyists knew that the sons of Judas of Gamala bore the names of the four brothers of the “Jesus” in the Gospels, plus “John”, but … with one too many “Jesuses” among the the five brothers, identified as “sons of Mary”, to whom we find added, in several Codexes judged as being canonically “unreliable”, also “John”, the fifth son (with regard to these manuscripts see first study, part two).
As the events evolved, over time, the deceiving translators had to eliminate, both from history and from the Gospels, the information about the brothers, sons of Judas of Gamala, as they were consistent with the brothers of “Christ”; but these translators ended up having to deal with … a man who for History did not exist: “Jesus” … with no personal details regarding his father, his date of birth and death, nor nothing about his deeds which were unknown to all historians of the period. “Jesus” was, is and will remain just … a name, idealized and made famous thanks to the pulpits offered by State and private television.
In addition, the “intimate” knowledge, accompanied by a hatred in the form of a “feud” that obligates the Jew to have “due sorrow for the victims of the ferocity” expressed by the Zealots, does not represent information linked to identifiable names, but is of a personal nature; just a literary outburst of emotion which there is no trace of in any official document. Such awareness could have only come from his family, enemies and “close relatives” of the powerful dnasty, of Hasmonean descent like his own, not resigned to Roman subjugation, but ready to lay claim, as was their right, to “the throne of David”.
As the events evolved, over time, the deceiving translators had to eliminate, both from history and from the Gospels, the information about the brothers, sons of Judas of Gamala, as they were consistent with the brothers of “Christ”; but these translators ended up having to deal with … a man who for History did not exist: “Jesus” … with no personal details regarding his father, his date of birth and death, nor nothing about his deeds which were unknown to all historians of the period. “Jesus” was, is and will remain just … a name, idealized and made famous thanks to the pulpits offered by State and private television.
In addition, the “intimate” knowledge, accompanied by a hatred in the form of a “feud” that obligates the Jew to have “due sorrow for the victims of the ferocity” expressed by the Zealots, does not represent information linked to identifiable names, but is of a personal nature; just a literary outburst of emotion which there is no trace of in any official document. Such awareness could have only come from his family, enemies and “close relatives” of the powerful dnasty, of Hasmonean descent like his own, not resigned to Roman subjugation, but ready to lay claim, as was their right, to “the throne of David”.
The reiterated judgement “of great power”, with regard to the descendants of this line of patriotic rebels, offered as sacrifice in order to lay claim to the throne of Israel, was expressed by Josephus, who also belonged to a dynasty Hasmonean origin on his mother’s side; nevertheless the nationalist integralists - favoured by the militancy of the young Jews, who adhered en masse to the cause of the anti-Roman Zealots (see above: cit. Ant XVIII 10/24) - proved to be much “more powerful” … but were eliminated thanks to the super power of Rome. “John”, as seen, is not identified through a lineage nor by a provenance: the copyists eliminated this information and thought they could get away with it. The modern mystical exegetes, with calculating opportunism, have introduced “of Giscala” in the footnotes…to help us “understand”. But we now know with certainty that the creators of anti-Roman Zealotry belonged to the family of Judas the Galilean, and the historian gives the names of two of its members, John and Simon, as if they were prominent figures among the Jews of the period.
The scribes would have left the name “John”, joined to any patronymic … apart from Judas the Galilean: it was his son who “died through the most atrocious of torments until the last moment of life”; he did not end up being a prisoner for life like John of Giscala son of Levi (Bellum VI, 434). The same goes for the appellative the “Nazireus” (Nazirean), or his city of origin “Gamala”: there could be no trace of such information as it would have made the recognition possible. A revolutionary “Saviour Jesus”, a Zealot and Pharisee Rabbi, an anti-Roman leader and warrior whose religion forced him to use force to free the land of Israel from pagan domination! No! The new Jesuit doctrine could not allow this to be, therefore all the appellatives that would have made it possible to identify the “Universal Messiah” as revolutionary had to be eliminated!
The scribes would have left the name “John”, joined to any patronymic … apart from Judas the Galilean: it was his son who “died through the most atrocious of torments until the last moment of life”; he did not end up being a prisoner for life like John of Giscala son of Levi (Bellum VI, 434). The same goes for the appellative the “Nazireus” (Nazirean), or his city of origin “Gamala”: there could be no trace of such information as it would have made the recognition possible. A revolutionary “Saviour Jesus”, a Zealot and Pharisee Rabbi, an anti-Roman leader and warrior whose religion forced him to use force to free the land of Israel from pagan domination! No! The new Jesuit doctrine could not allow this to be, therefore all the appellatives that would have made it possible to identify the “Universal Messiah” as revolutionary had to be eliminated!
There is still an aspect which needs to be pointed out in par. 271 and 272: “they all met the death they deserved; in fact that they were struck by all the punishments that a man could possibly face, until their last moment of life, by having them die through the most atrocious of torments of any sort”.
In this passage, the historian refers to John and Simon and also to Judas the Galilean, but not to Eleazar. In fact the last descendant, at the moment in which the writer recalls the deeds of Judas and his children, is still alive in the stronghold of Masada. This detail is very important as in his works (censored) there is no evidence that Josephus Flavius had reported the death of the father of the “Galilean brothers”.
In the seventh study, in the chapter about the line of the Hasmoneans, we have identified that Judas was crucified by the Romans in 17 A.D., under Valerius Gratus, thus, prior to his sons, underwent torture “dying through the most atrocius of torments of any sort, until the last moment of life”. His capture could take place only after a military clash, not in Gamala: the city of Judas the Galilean was untakeable by the armies of the Tetrarchs, Kings Prefects or imperial Procurators. Only a mighty army, commanded by a Legatus Augusti pro Praetore, was capable of tearing down the walls Gamala: the unassailable stronghold of the Hasmoneans.
In this passage, the historian refers to John and Simon and also to Judas the Galilean, but not to Eleazar. In fact the last descendant, at the moment in which the writer recalls the deeds of Judas and his children, is still alive in the stronghold of Masada. This detail is very important as in his works (censored) there is no evidence that Josephus Flavius had reported the death of the father of the “Galilean brothers”.
In the seventh study, in the chapter about the line of the Hasmoneans, we have identified that Judas was crucified by the Romans in 17 A.D., under Valerius Gratus, thus, prior to his sons, underwent torture “dying through the most atrocius of torments of any sort, until the last moment of life”. His capture could take place only after a military clash, not in Gamala: the city of Judas the Galilean was untakeable by the armies of the Tetrarchs, Kings Prefects or imperial Procurators. Only a mighty army, commanded by a Legatus Augusti pro Praetore, was capable of tearing down the walls Gamala: the unassailable stronghold of the Hasmoneans.
With regard to the similiarities between the “Simon” of the memorial (passed off by the scribes as “son of Giora”) and “Simon called Kefaz”, that is to say “Saint Peter” (see first study), let’s reread the concise opinion given by the Israelite historian Josephus:
265 “On the other hand, then, what crime didn’t Simon son of Giora commit? What tyranny did he spare thise who as free citizens had elected him as their leader?”
265 “On the other hand, then, what crime didn’t Simon son of Giora commit? What tyranny did he spare thise who as free citizens had elected him as their leader?”
The accusation is totally compatible with the undertakings of “Saint Peter” (otherwise cites in the Gospels as “Simon called Kefaz” see the proof at the end of the first study), reported in "Acts of the Apostles” (5,1/11), illuminating example of mercy implemented by Simon Peter, successor of Christ, Prince of the Apostles and holder of the keys to Paradise ... feats that no priest dares to quote as a Sunday parable:
"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 Sapphira 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 Sapphira she dropped dead at feet of Peter. 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).
About three hours later his wife Sapphira 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 Sapphira she dropped dead at feet of Peter. 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).
It is the same modus operandi of the Simon reported above by Josephus Flavius. Therefore, aware of the fact that "Simon called Kefaz" allows us to identify "Saint Simon Peter" - otherwise known in the Gospels as "Simon Zealot Barionà" (Aramaic = fugitive) - as the Zealot leader wanted by the Romans, we have the proof that the Zealots were revolutionary Pharisee outlaws; thus the priests belonging to the National LIberation Movement were unable to collect the tithe (Ant XX 181) which by right belonged to the conservative Sadducean and Pharisee priests, being that they were pro-Roman. In order to finance the costly armed struggle against Rome, the Zealot priests decided to impose tributes upon Jewish landowners by means of persuasive violence. The Essenes, instead, who lived together in communities, satisfied their basic needs mainly through farming.
In addition to the evangelical undertakings related to the “Boanerghes”, the "Sons of the Wrath of God" (see first study), this testimony represents the charge through which the Procurator Tiberius Alexander, during his term (from 46 to 48 A.D.) put on trial publicly in Jerusalem Simon and James, two of Judas the Galilean’s sons, sentencing them to crucifixion (Ant. XX 102).
The Jewish historian, a conservative Pharisee, scion of the highest priestly aristocracy of Jerusalem and descendent of the Hasmoneans on his mother's side ... was born in 37 A.D., a few years after (according to the Gospels) a "King of the Jews" was crucified by the Romans in compliance with a decision of the Sanhedrin, and, incredibly, backed by the same people who had acclaimed him ... a "trial" which was a farse and created to suit the needs of a doctrine in contrast with the Law of Rome, functional to the preservation of its domination exercised by means of capable army leaders. In reality a Roman military garrison (stationed in the Antonia Fortress) would have never submitted itself to the orders of "Judas the traitor”, rather than to the Imperial Tribune of Jerusalem, in order to arrest "Jesus" (Jh 18,3), the proclaimed “King of the Jews”, while Judea was governed by Prefect Pontius Pilate by will of Emperor Tiberius.
True Roman Law, in conformity with imperial power (the only one which possessed authority), obliged the "Legatus Augusti pro Praetore", provincial Governor, to eliminate whoever illegally ascended the throne of a territory belonging to Rome.
In reality, the parents of the Pharisean historian, Josephus bar Matthias, residing in Jerusalem, in 36 A.D. attended the execution of "John" decreed by the imperial Legate of Syria, Lucius Vitellius; the Zealot leader was sentenced to death for leading a revolt (in 35 A.D.) during which the High Priests of the Temple were killed and for "breaking up whatever was left of the political systems" (Bellum VII Chap. 8). The "political system" of Judea "at this time" was made up of a prefectorial government headed by Pontius Pilate, stationed in Caesarea Maritima, the imperial capital of this Province, while in Jerusalem the supreme Roman authority was represented by the equestrian Military Tribune, who led a cohort of 500 men and one or more cavalry wings stationed in the Antonia Fortress.
As already mentioned, we will be able to demonstrate this event in the following tenth study; meanwhile let's carry on our research so as to better connotate the personality and ideology of the revolutionary "John the Nazireus", eldest son of Judas the Galiean.
True Roman Law, in conformity with imperial power (the only one which possessed authority), obliged the "Legatus Augusti pro Praetore", provincial Governor, to eliminate whoever illegally ascended the throne of a territory belonging to Rome.
In reality, the parents of the Pharisean historian, Josephus bar Matthias, residing in Jerusalem, in 36 A.D. attended the execution of "John" decreed by the imperial Legate of Syria, Lucius Vitellius; the Zealot leader was sentenced to death for leading a revolt (in 35 A.D.) during which the High Priests of the Temple were killed and for "breaking up whatever was left of the political systems" (Bellum VII Chap. 8). The "political system" of Judea "at this time" was made up of a prefectorial government headed by Pontius Pilate, stationed in Caesarea Maritima, the imperial capital of this Province, while in Jerusalem the supreme Roman authority was represented by the equestrian Military Tribune, who led a cohort of 500 men and one or more cavalry wings stationed in the Antonia Fortress.
As already mentioned, we will be able to demonstrate this event in the following tenth study; meanwhile let's carry on our research so as to better connotate the personality and ideology of the revolutionary "John the Nazireus", eldest son of Judas the Galiean.
After
verifying (through the previous analysis) that the city of "Jesus"
described in the Gospels does not correspond to the present-day
"Nazareth" but to Gamala, the city of Judas the Galilean and his
children, who had the same names as the brothers of "Jesus Christ, our Lord" ... we
have discovered that "Nazareth" is needed in order to justify the title
of "Nazarene", which is a literary modification of "Nazireus", that is
to say the consecrated to God through the vow of "Nazir": a promise
which obliged the followers not to drink wine and cut their hair.
In the Gospels the vow was falsely attributed to John "the Baptist" because Nazaritism was incompatible with the new Jesuit Christian doctrine: it was in contrast with the Eucharistic rite of the transformation of the wine into blood.
A "Nazireus", tied to the vow of "Nazir", could not have drunk wine during the last supper and then transform it into blood to be drunk by other Jewish "Apostles", who were also his brothers, as demonstrated in the first study.
This need for the new theology forced the founding Fathers of the Christian doctrine of the salvation (as mentioned in the Gospel of John) to superimpose (having both the same name) the false Nazireus John the Baptist and the true one, John, the eldest of the brothers, sons of Judas the Galilean.
In the Gospels the vow was falsely attributed to John "the Baptist" because Nazaritism was incompatible with the new Jesuit Christian doctrine: it was in contrast with the Eucharistic rite of the transformation of the wine into blood.
A "Nazireus", tied to the vow of "Nazir", could not have drunk wine during the last supper and then transform it into blood to be drunk by other Jewish "Apostles", who were also his brothers, as demonstrated in the first study.
This need for the new theology forced the founding Fathers of the Christian doctrine of the salvation (as mentioned in the Gospel of John) to superimpose (having both the same name) the false Nazireus John the Baptist and the true one, John, the eldest of the brothers, sons of Judas the Galilean.
According
to the Law of the Ancient Fathers, the Jews did not await "Yahweh's
Anointed" in order to crucify him and eat him as a pagan "Hostia" (host) and
drink his blood; their Messiah had to be a warrior King: a Saviour
(Jeshùa) who would free the land of Israel from pagan domination.
The theophagical Eucharistic rite, which called for the drinking of the blood of the "sacrificed victim of the Gods" (lat. "Hostia"), was adopted by the pagan doctrines and grafted on to Jewish religion; it was adopted by the first Jesuit Christians during the second half of the second century, after the second destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans in 135 A.D.; the first Jesuit Christians maintained the liturgy of the "breaking of bread" practiced by the Essene Jews (as documented in their "Scroll of the Rule" found in Qumran).
The theophagical Eucharistic rite, which called for the drinking of the blood of the "sacrificed victim of the Gods" (lat. "Hostia"), was adopted by the pagan doctrines and grafted on to Jewish religion; it was adopted by the first Jesuit Christians during the second half of the second century, after the second destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans in 135 A.D.; the first Jesuit Christians maintained the liturgy of the "breaking of bread" practiced by the Essene Jews (as documented in their "Scroll of the Rule" found in Qumran).
From
the very beginning monks and high clergy knew that they descended from
the Therapeutic Essenes of Alexandria, as mentioned in the fourth
century by the Bishops Epiphanius and Eusebius of Caesarea (HEc. II
16,1-2). As the Gospels do not contain the description of the appearance
of the "Saviour", in later centuries artists imagined him as wearing a
simple white alb like that used by the followers of the sect (Bellum II
verse 123) and as having long hair and a long beard, which were obligatory for a "Nazireus"; he was also imagined as wearing a long purple mantle fit for a king ... because, in reality, in 35 A.D. John managed to become King of the Jews and was recognized as their "Yeshùa".
In order not to make him appear to be a "Nazireus" - a detail which would have jeopardized "the doctrine of the salvation" - the founding Fathers wanted to demonstrate that he did not belong to this sect, but they went overboard ... and a "God" who descended on Earth to save humanity first was said to have transformed water into wine then, without qualms whatsoever, was passed off as a "drunkard" and "glutton" along with "sinners" (for the Jews those who ate prohibited foods were sinners) and "Publicans" (those who collected the taxes to be paid by the Jews to "Caesar").
In order to prevent the Zealots who fought against these taxes from being identified, the deceitful ideologists vulgarly preferred to pass Jesus off as a "middling scab" Jew who, along with his "disciples" - before being acclaimed by the people of Jerusalem as "Christ King" - sided with the Romans rather than with his fellow countrymen, and even chose a tax collector, Matthew, as his "Apostle".
In order not to make him appear to be a "Nazireus" - a detail which would have jeopardized "the doctrine of the salvation" - the founding Fathers wanted to demonstrate that he did not belong to this sect, but they went overboard ... and a "God" who descended on Earth to save humanity first was said to have transformed water into wine then, without qualms whatsoever, was passed off as a "drunkard" and "glutton" along with "sinners" (for the Jews those who ate prohibited foods were sinners) and "Publicans" (those who collected the taxes to be paid by the Jews to "Caesar").
In order to prevent the Zealots who fought against these taxes from being identified, the deceitful ideologists vulgarly preferred to pass Jesus off as a "middling scab" Jew who, along with his "disciples" - before being acclaimed by the people of Jerusalem as "Christ King" - sided with the Romans rather than with his fellow countrymen, and even chose a tax collector, Matthew, as his "Apostle".
"When
he went out after this, he noticed a tax collector, Levi by name,
sitting at the tax office, and said to him: «Follow me». And leaving
everything Levi got up and followed him. In his honour Levi held a great
reception in his house, and with them at the table was a large
gathering of tax collectors and others. The Pharisees and their scribes
complained to his disciples and said, «Why do you eat and drink with tax collectors and sinners?»" (Lk 5,27-30).
"«Is it permissible for us to pay taxes to Caesar or not?» ... He says to them, «Well then, pay Caesar what belongs to Caesar - and God what belongs to God.»" (Lk 20,22/25) ...
"«Is it permissible for us to pay taxes to Caesar or not?» ... He says to them, «Well then, pay Caesar what belongs to Caesar - and God what belongs to God.»" (Lk 20,22/25) ...
A
precise answer which means: pay your taxes to the Emperor and then
pray. In contempt of the nationalist Creed pervading Jewish society,
which called for young people - resentful, unruly and impatient towards
pagan Roman domination over the "land" which Yahweh "promised" to the
chosen people - to mobilize.
The founding fathers of Christianity - due to the political changes resulting from the bloody wars which the Jews had lost - realized that the narrated events originated from the real vicissitudes of irredentist martyrs from Judea. Mythicized heroes with revolutionary ideals who over time came into contrast with the new doctrine, and who were not as docile as "lambs of God" whatsoever.
Changes had to be made in order to make the sacrifice of a Saviour incarnated as a real man more credible, unlike the pagan religions which were solely based on myths; a theophagic sacrifice which aimed at guaranteeing eternal life which, along with the hope of miraculous healings, had become the strong point of Jesuit Christianity.
"I am the living bread which has come down fron the heaven. Anyone who eats this bread will live forever; and that bread that I shall give is my flesh" (Jh 6,51).
"Anyone who does eat my flesh and drink my blood has eternal life and I shall raise that person up" (Jh 6,54).
The founding fathers of Christianity - due to the political changes resulting from the bloody wars which the Jews had lost - realized that the narrated events originated from the real vicissitudes of irredentist martyrs from Judea. Mythicized heroes with revolutionary ideals who over time came into contrast with the new doctrine, and who were not as docile as "lambs of God" whatsoever.
Changes had to be made in order to make the sacrifice of a Saviour incarnated as a real man more credible, unlike the pagan religions which were solely based on myths; a theophagic sacrifice which aimed at guaranteeing eternal life which, along with the hope of miraculous healings, had become the strong point of Jesuit Christianity.
"I am the living bread which has come down fron the heaven. Anyone who eats this bread will live forever; and that bread that I shall give is my flesh" (Jh 6,51).
"Anyone who does eat my flesh and drink my blood has eternal life and I shall raise that person up" (Jh 6,54).
This was the new doctrine which intrigued masses of new proselytes: the grafting of the sacrifice of the pagan "Soter" onto the Jewish religion by means of the "Messiah", Jeshùa of the Jews.
Messiah who no longer "descended from heaven", as initially postulated by the mystic creators of the primitive Gospels and prophesized by the Essenes in a fragment of the manuscript of Qumran (4Q286/7) " ... the Holy Spirit will descend on his Messiah..." - taken word for word by the Gospel of Luke (Lk 3,22) - who was born in a grotto from a "virgin" mother.
"Grotto" is the "word" reported in medieval texts accredited to Justin and Origen, similar to the "Nativity" of other Creeds, especially that of the God Mithras, with targeted syncretism.
Mithraism is defeated and the "grotto" (mithraeum) later disappears from the Gospels in order to sever one of the pagan ideological roots ... but it has remained through the centuries in the memory of people, thus contradicting the canonical Gospels themselves ... with the "benediction", with clenched teeth, of the Holy See.
Messiah who no longer "descended from heaven", as initially postulated by the mystic creators of the primitive Gospels and prophesized by the Essenes in a fragment of the manuscript of Qumran (4Q286/7) " ... the Holy Spirit will descend on his Messiah..." - taken word for word by the Gospel of Luke (Lk 3,22) - who was born in a grotto from a "virgin" mother.
"Grotto" is the "word" reported in medieval texts accredited to Justin and Origen, similar to the "Nativity" of other Creeds, especially that of the God Mithras, with targeted syncretism.
Mithraism is defeated and the "grotto" (mithraeum) later disappears from the Gospels in order to sever one of the pagan ideological roots ... but it has remained through the centuries in the memory of people, thus contradicting the canonical Gospels themselves ... with the "benediction", with clenched teeth, of the Holy See.
An original manuscript of the Gospel of Judas - which survived the devastating ecclesiastic censorships - was discovered recently and is dated 275 A.D.; the verification of the dating was carried out by means of mass spectrometry and depicts a "Jesus" and a God creator different from those described by the Church. The Gospel does not mention Pilate, nor the theophagic eucharistic rite which occurred in the "Last Supper" or the "Resurrection".
We are dealing with a "Saviour" who is still partly Jewish, but not the leader of a nation fighting to free its land from pagan invasion. The same goes for the other Gospels found in Nag Hammadi (Egypt) in 1945; differences found even in the papyruses in Ossyrinco (Egypt).
This is proof of the theological differences among the "embryonic doctrines" elaborated by the Essenes after the Jewish holocaust in 135 A.D. under Hadrian, followed by the first "Christians"; this forced the "Church" - from the authentic "Fathers" of the fourth century A.D. onwards - to select and unite different Jesuit-Christian "Creeds" and destroy their respective Gospels.
We are dealing with a "Saviour" who is still partly Jewish, but not the leader of a nation fighting to free its land from pagan invasion. The same goes for the other Gospels found in Nag Hammadi (Egypt) in 1945; differences found even in the papyruses in Ossyrinco (Egypt).
This is proof of the theological differences among the "embryonic doctrines" elaborated by the Essenes after the Jewish holocaust in 135 A.D. under Hadrian, followed by the first "Christians"; this forced the "Church" - from the authentic "Fathers" of the fourth century A.D. onwards - to select and unite different Jesuit-Christian "Creeds" and destroy their respective Gospels.
Even before the victory of Constantine over the pagan Massentius in 312 A.D., various Christian theological currents began to wage war among themselves. The conflict continued for more than a century, and each of the factions involved was convinced to be the guardian of the true "Revelation" regarding the "Truth of the Salvation", of the true "Substance of the Saviour", of the "gnosis" of the "Son shaped like the Father", of how many "Powers and Substances" had to make up "The Verb" or the "Logos", if by an "Unknown Father, Infinite and Shapeless" or if by God, through an "Enlightening Baptism" creating "His son as Humanization of the Spirit", or if by "the Holy Spirit which, through a perfect hypostasis with the Father and Son, generates a Virgin, according to the flesh, the Verb made flesh" ... "in a consubstantial and coeternal Trinity" ... Until the definitive "Verb" was coined and described in detail in encyclopedias and dictionaries all over the world: "Transubstantiation". Or rather
"The ritual through which the real presence of the Body and Blood of Jesus in the Eucharist takes shape, by means of the transformation of the substance: wine into Blood and bread into the Body of Jesus Christ ... with the bread and wine which only appear to remain unaltered".
And all this, thanks to a universal brainwashing, was introduced into a "host". "Hostia": "Sacrificial victim that the pagans offered to the Gods" on an "Altar": "a slab of stone raised above ground where sacrifices were carried out".
Bishops, Patriarchs and "Pontifices Maximi" Emperors all declared themselves to be "Venerables and Saints", and through tall tales created divinities to be adored by man. Divinities which ideologically contradicted one another, thus generating tensions and wars; conflicts which were so violent that one Council after another had to be summoned in order to try and "conciliate" schismatic doctrines whose followers preferred to massacre one another and mutually accuse one another of being "heretics", "apostates" and "crazy". Doctrines against Doctrines ... Saints against Saints ... men against men ... persecutions and martyrdoms of Christians against Christians, followers of different Christs ... power against power ... death against death ... for eternal life.
"We have withstood the persecutions carried out by the heretic Christians, the sufferings they inflicted, their threats to the faith ... Every heresy must be anathematized, especially that of the Eunomians or Amoneans, the Arians or Eudosians, the Serniarians and Pneumatomachians, the Sebellians, the Marcellians, the Photians and the Apollinarists" ... Basilidians, Docetists, Carpocratians, Cleobians, Cerinthians, Modalists, Adoptionists, Dositheans, Marcionians, Masbotheans, Montanians, Novations, Simonites, Donatites, Priscillians, Menandrianists, Pelagians, Monophists (Coptics), Nestorians, Abellians, Valentinians, Saturnillians etc...".
And the massacre among the "Christians" continued throughout the fourth and fifth centuries, until all of the Christian doctrines declared "heretical" were eliminated, along with their respective Gospels, by the victorious doctrine which had survived the struggle ... like a sort of "survival of the fittest religious species": present-day Christianity.
The hatred of the aspiring Leaders of the Catholic world is described as such by Ammianus Marcellinus, the most important imperial historian of the fourth century, in his “Res Gestae” (XXII 5,3-4) completed by the year 378 A.D:
“No ferocious beast is hostile to towards men like the majority of Christians amongst themselves”. (ib XXII 5,3-4)
The
conception of a new theological figure - the "Messiah Saviour" - was
not, from the very beginning, easy for the Essene sects scattered
throughout the Eastern Empire ... in consideration of the fact that, to
date, each of us (apart from atheists) imagines his "God" to suit their
own "needs" or imagination.
The new Fathers of the Church study the available manuscripts, eliminate the ridiculous trash and declare the abstract doctrine founded upon a "gnosis" (knowledge of God) to be heretical as it is more suitable for ascetics who have a tendency towards mystical exaltation, which is not very requested or practiced as it is not understood by a "people" in need "of eternity" and of "therapeutic" miracles.
They destroy many Gospels along with their respective "Jesuses", which were different and in contrast with one another; these Gospels are clear evidence of the many attempts to "construct" a new religion. These Gospels are "apocryphal", which means "hidden" ... an expression which is as hypocritical like those who use the term imprecisely. They write the "Acts of the Apostles" to offer "testimony" and "historically demonstrate" the new doctrine which evolved from the primitive Essenic Jewish Gospels and was adapted to suit the "universal" needs of the new "Creed"; but they are forced to manipulate the compromising identity of the "brothers of Jesus", by transforming them into "Apostles" who are cloned and given the task of preaching and spreading the "True Faith wanted by God".
As a result of the "adaptive" theological evolution of the manuscripts over time, in today's Ancient Greek and Latin Gospels we can still find terms and authentic words (not understood in the past) which give evidence of the anti-Roman Zealot origin of a pro-Jewish doctrine ... which is later "redeemed" by Pauline Christianity.
The historical sources, just like the Gospels and the patristic texts, have been corrected in order to prevent the recognition of the true protagonists and the political context which forced John, leader of the Zealots and eldest son of Judas the Galilean, to attack a Roman garrison stationed in Jerusalem and free the Holy City from imperial dominion while Rome was at war with the Parthian Empire. At the same time, in Judea, a very serious famine was killing off many poverty-stricken people to the point that "... the famine made the Zealots devastatingly wild ...". There was so little food that the Jewish population under the leadership of the Zealots was persuaded to rebel against the authorities and destroy the political system in force.
A detailed analysis of the events of the period, compared to the accounts of the Christian historians, highlights the very coarse alterations (starting from the disguising of the famine) that will make it possible for us to verify the true course of the events.
This will be done in the next study.
Emilio Salsi
[ go back ]