Comment on this article |
Email this article |
News :: Education
"JESUS" THE MOSAIC
17 Sep 2005
I DISCOVERED THE HISTORICAL JESUSES.
i solved the 2000 real old quest for the historical jesus,i think wanna find the real jesus?read flavius josephus' jewish war and me.
cascioli and eisenman proved that the gospel jesus is a lie.I shall report below why.
and i proved that simon bar jair leader of the jewish resistance fighters during the 66-70 AD phase of the antiroman war gave the gospel fabricators the story they transmogrified into "jesus" ' resurrection.Also see below.
but now i shall first demonstrate how the gospel lie also stems from the by the gospels skewed and twisted story of a second character in the same war:
jesus ben saffia,also portrayed by flavius josephus in his book jewish war which is the underlying basis for the gospel liars.
so it will become clear that the false gospel jesus was the remix of both simon bar jair (simon peter) and jesus ben saffia. call it patchwork,or collage.minor pieces were added to the mix too such as a jesus ben ananus also a character from flavius joseph's jewish war.
The first occurrence of jesus ben saffia is as a jesus bar saffa at II,20,4,566 in the jewish war (bellum iudaicum).bar is aramaic for the hebrew ben meaning son of.
we are in the context of the 66-73/74 AD war by which militant jews tried desperately and in vain to regain their independence from the romans,hoping god would send a son of man down the clouds that would lead them to victory and to rule the world.
now one might object here that we are accostumed to think that jesus lived and died under pontius pilate as the gospels have it,who ruled until 37 AD.
yet it will appear clear to you by the end of my essay that this is a gospel lie,tout court.
there is no record/document/source whatsoever certainly attesting to a charismatic messianic jewish leader by the name of jesus who was crucified under pontius pilate.
it is true that it gives one pause to think that we are missing many historical works from antiquity which dealt just with the "jesus" time - I century AD:it appears to be no mere coincidence that Tacitus' Historiae book 5 is lost,or the section of Tacitus' Annales expected to cover Pontius Pilate,or jewish historian's Philo of Alexandria's second book of his Mission to Gaius covering the same Pilatus time span.
And we know that ancient literature fell in the dishonest hands of the so-called church fathers,thugs the likes of jerome,Eusebius of Caesarea,Saint Augustine,Saint Ambrosius etc who gained complete monopoly of culture starting around the time of emperor costantine in the IV century.
So obviously those muthas must have edited falsified deleted all the parts they found in ancient histories that gainsaid their false christ.
But those books may have been destroyed precisely because they DID NOT attest to the false jesus of the gospels.
whereas there is ample testimony to a jesus - our jesus ben saffia - who fought and died around 67 AD.
and if you are now wondering why those same church daddies didn't expunge jesus bar sappha from the text of flavius joseph's bellum judaicum,well it's that by the IV century AD the lie that jesus died under pontius pilate that is by the year 37 AD had set in so deeply in the brainwashed mass conscience of the west that noone would have thought the real jesus couldabeen bar saffa because he died after pontius pilate's tenure that is after 37 AD,in 67.And the lie of the meek pacifist gandhiesque gospel jesus had been so widespread by the IV century that nonone coulda thought of identifying the real jesus with a militant antiroman fighter such as jesus bar saffa.
and this jesus i'll proceed to show will look to you very familiar,very much like the gospel jesus but with inverted purposes and means.
now at bellum iudaicum II,20,4,566 flavius josephus who witnessed many of the events he describes in the book,albeit with a proroman bias,jewish turncoat that he was,introduces a jesus bar saffa,one of the high priests,elected to militarily preside over idumea first - a region near judea - and then galilee during the antiroman struggle.
anyway josephus has arrived to us only in greek,but he originally wrote in aramaic and must have said something like yeshu'a bar saffa,which sounds suspiciously like jesus son of (jo)seph doesnt'it to begin with...
I am not thereby necessary implying that saffa=yussef=joseph.Flavius Josephus has another 2 variants to this jesus's last name:
bar saffia - in greek sapphia - and bar safat.
Could these all be variant aramaic forms of the hebrew yussef or yehoshafat?
Or could the gospel liars/rewriters simply have replaced saffa/saffia/safat or whatever it was meant to be with joseph? for dissimulation purposes i mean.
bar means son of in aramaic of course.
aramaic being the variant of hebrew spoken in palestine and the middle east around jesus' time,I century AD.
but even if saffa/saffia/safat had nothing to do with joseph as a name,still,again,joseph that is yussef could be an overwrite to hide the resal jesus's last name.
BARABBAS WAS JESUS
let me try and make this point absolutely clear:
there is no evidence whatsoever that gospel jesus ever existed.
there is no hard evidence whatsoever that his father was called joseph.
but if you want to fabricate a regime religion for mass consumption,you'd better twist bits of truth and overwrite/rewrite them,so that the people after a while having forgotten all the details will relate to your foundational myth because they will somehow have a memory of some heroic jesus of some kind or messiah etc.
in other words you can't feed the masses a 911 that didn't happen-you must at least bring down the twin towers for real so everybody goes wow and then they'll be more inclined to accept the regime propaganda bullshit about 19 kamikazes from the caves hijacking planes noone ever saw.
similarly they may have taken jesus bar saffa/saffia/safat and turned him into jesus bar yussef.
Robert Eisenman in his all-important book
James the brother of Jesus
avers that barabbas,the famous murderer allegedly preferred to jesus by the jews for freeing from prison,really stands for bar abbas,which literally means son of the father which makes little if any sense at all as a last name.
but in the acts of the apostles,1.23 and 15.22 we have a joseph barsabas and a judas barsabas!
joseph and judas being 2 of Jesus' brothers according to the gospels.
now doesn't bar sabas sound suspiciously like our jesus bar saffa from flavius josephus?
the greek is sapphia,and ancient aramaic probably differentiated little between p and b,just like arabic has nablus from neapolis for instance,and arabic represents a more ancient pronunciation phase of this language cluster.which means that arabic pronunaciation of today is closer to how hebrew/aramaic was pronounced in the first century AD than modern hebrew.
the barabbas,that is bar abbas of gospel lore ,might have been the real jesus of history,the lestès as flavius josephus called jewish zealot revolutionaries of his time - I century AD:lestès is greek for latro in latin meaning robber or bandit - today they'd say terrorists.
but acts of the apostles has bar sabas as surname of 2 namesakes of jesus brothers,therefore if they really were jesus' bros then it was the...bar sabas or bar saffa family!
further evidence that the gospels are just skewed rewrites of the real story of a jewish antiroman fighter called jesus is in two variant manuscripts of matthew mentioned by eisenman who instead of simply calling the gospel lestès/latro barabba call him...JESUS BARABBAS!!!
need any more evidence?
now secondly josephus flavius tells us this jesus was one of the high priests.
the reader accostumed to 2000 years of gospel lie will object that gospel jesus is a poor carpenter's son...
but i will proceed to show how the 4 canonic gospels are a pack of lies,so i refer the reader further below,after which he/she will have to concede that the minimum we can say about the poor carpenter's son story is that we have no evidence whatsoever corroborating it so we can only suspend judgement about it for the time being.
what if jesus son of joseph had instead really been one of the high priests as flavius' jesus bar saffa reportedly was?
since these high priesthoods were often handed down from father to son we might hypothesize that high priest jesus son of joseph may have been the son of joseph kaiaphas high priest from 18 to 36 AD,quite timely for jesus his son to be born in that timespan and...to be about 33 around 67...
true,this joseph caiaphas is the high priest portrayed by john the evangelist as being the son-in-law of ananus another high priest who was proroman and antiradical,and whose son murdered james the brother of jesus according to robert eisenman.
but it was ananus the younger to murder james not joseph caiaphas,maybe they had fallen out or something.
or maybe joseph caiaphas' sons including james and his brother jesus rebeled against their father or sth.
anyway. maybe saffa/saffia/safata does not = joseph,but again joseph may be an overwrite for saffa.
and again gospel bar abbas/acts bar sabas,ie bar saffa the lestes/latro/bandit who had been involved in the uprising against rome according to the canonic gospels really is a much better match for whatever the historical jesus maight have been in the turmoil of those revolution-laden times.
no meek pacifist gandhiesque tax-paying pro-foreigner jesus would have had made it with the jewish masses of his time,who were hell-bent on awaitin' a fighting messiah who wouold free them from the hated romans with all their taxes and crosses for rebels.
the lake of galilee scenario
now flavius josephus in his jewish war at this point knows exactly what he's talking about,because he too before switching sides had been assigned by jerusalem to be in charge of galilee's defence.
but since he was quite lukewarm already about fighting the mighty romans,the more radical jewish militants started blasting him as a traitor - which he turned out to be - and in the hippodrome of the town of tarichaeae on the sea -that is in jewish parlance lake - of galilee also called lake tiberias and lake gennesareth - the radicals kicked up a riot agains flavius(who by then was still only joseph),shouting he should be stoned or burned alive.
the chief instigators of the fuss says flavius were our jesus son of saffia - maybe better sapphia,variant of sappha flavius uses the first time he mentions him - and a john...
so there you have your gospel jesus and john -though probably not john the baptist because flavius in another book antiquitates judaicae informs us that john the baptist died around 35/36 AD - which is by the way another dementi of the jesus-died-under-pilate myth because if jesus started preaching around the time of john the baptist's death and went on for 3 years,then he would have died around 39 that is after the end of pilatus' tenure in judaea in 37.
jesus bar sapphia had by 66 or 67 been assigned to governing tiberias,a nearby town also in galilee and also on the seashore that is lakeshore,very familiar to the reader from gospel lore...
so there you have your jesus just exactly where the gospels place him,in galilee,near the lake - but not out to perform miracles and give to caesar what's caesar's but instead out to fight caesar to the bitter end,alongside john...this john may well have been the one among gospel jesus' apostles called john the son of zebedee and thought to be the evangelist - and he may have been jesus' brother too although the name john is not among those of jesus' bros in the gospels - because ZEBED(ee) sounds suspiciously like the greek transliteration of the aramaic SAFAT which is one of the 3 variants in flavius joseph's jewish war for jesus' last name:SAFFA/SAFFIA/SAFAT.
note also how jesus bar sapphia/barsabas/barabbas that is (maybe) son of joseph is a high priest in flavius and is assigned to galilee presumably from jerusalem,see of high priests.
I'll proceed to show below based on authors cascioli and eisenman how the nazareth myth is a lie.
it may come from lake gen/nezareth though,i mean in the gospel's skewed misrepresentation,but the real jesus certainly could not possibly have been from nazareth if indeed nazareth even existed at the time,see below.
so jesus,maybe indeed son of joseph really was:
1.a jewish high priest from jerusalem,maybe the son of joseph caiaphas high priest until 37 whom the gospel liars may have portrayed as condemning to death his own son
2.a theocommunist jewish militant radical,antiroman to boot,messianic but this-worldy,fighting the war for freedom from the romans and return to the golden david and maccabee era of jewish independence
3.this the real jesus really operated around the lake of galilee or tiberias or gennesareth,but as a military commander in chief not a meek miracle performer.
AGAIN LET ME EMPHASIZE THAT IT IS ABSOLUTELY WRONG TO LOOK FOR JUST ONE REAL HISTORICAL JESUS.this is the mistaken approach that has led all truth-seekers astray so far,including cascioli and eisenman.
because it is absolutely clear from the gospels' modus operandi that gospel jesus is the product of collage work . reediting together broken pieces of various would-be-messiahs of the first century AD.
the gospels' jesus is the product of centuries of patchwork.
enter the romans
alright let's roll on.
flavius continues the jesus story at bellum iudaicum III,9,7450 ff:
here jesus bar sapphia becomes bar saphat but it's always the same jesus,maybe son of joseph or anyway bar sappha/barsaba/barabbas in charge of defending galilee against the incoming roman army and jewish turncoats the likes of flavius.
who graciously says here that jesus commanded a band of brigands - today they'd say terrorists...
that is patriots,freedom fighters.mind you,not that I sympathize with them in any way:i hate all imperialism and therefore i hate the romans.
but i also hate all religious fundamentalism and if jesus bar saffa had won,we would now have a world-wide iran.
roman general vespasianus,soon to become emperor,with his son and fellow jew-butcherer titus,arrives near tiberias and proceeds to lay siege and build camps.
first he sends out officer valerianus and 50 horsemen to parlay with the patriots,who not only won't surrender but proceed to attack valerianus led by jesus who forces the romans to flee,but then when the bulk of the romans somehow manages to enter tiberias jesus and his men flee to nearby tarichaeae also on the lake..
now flavius informs us that both tiberias and tarichaeae lie at the feet of mountains - just like we know from the gospels' mount sermons of the doctored jesus...
and here comes the whole real story about boats on the lake and fishermen who become fishers of men.
the inhabitants of tarichaeae who evidently sided with jesus had readied a number of large boats on the adjoining lake both for the purpose of fleeing if things turned nasty and to fight a possible sea battle against the romans or pelt the romans from the lake that the jews call sea.
so the romans start building up their siege camp for tarichaeae but bold jesus' guerrillas assail them with hit-and-run guerrilla tactics.
a group of jewish fighters fights then from the boats,another from the plain in front of the city.
they have no fear of sinking like gospel simon...
instead it's the romans who dread the fury of the jews and titus has to rebuke them - which in the gospel lie becomes jesus rebuking simon and the others for their lack of faith.
no loaves and no fish are miraculously multiplied in the real story - the romans instead multiply as vespasianus sends heavy reinforcements to his beleaguered son.
eventually the jews on the plain have to flee,and others try desperately to join the fighters already on the boats.
this in the gospel misrepresentation becomes the storm that threatens to sink simon peter's boat...
the romans capture tarichaeae.
resistance continues on the lake.
jesus and his men flee trhu the plain says flavius josephus so at this point they drop off our radar screen.
vespasian joins titus in tarichaeae and congratulates his son over the slaughter...and orders that someone be put to death.
this is an all-important point,because here you would expect the accounting for the capture and crucifiction of jesus - the punishemnt romans meted out on rebels.
insteadall manuscripts that handed down flavius' bellum iudaicum to us...contain a gap here so we don't know the name or names of those vespasian orders put to death!
coincidence - i'd rather say deliberate erasure on the part of later church rewriters who kept flavius' manuscripts under tight lock for centuries....
bear with me,there's more to come.
the technical term for a gap in a manuscript is lacuna.
at flavius josephus jewish war III,10,6,505 there's a lacuna just where we may have expected to read jesus' name as the chief crucified by the romans for rebellion after the capture of tarichaeae on the lake of galilee.
but the church fathers would not let us realize who the real crucified jesus really was mostly based on so they erased this bit most likely.
anyway it's pretty obvious just whose name is missing there and how the real jesus was put to death - the romans always crucified rebels except when they were roman citizens in which case they did them the favor of just beheading them thus cutting their suffering short.
and since tarichaeae lay at the feet of a mountain,it is likely the lacuna also told us that jesus was crucified on the mountain for all to see the macabre terroristic deterrent spectacle of how those who dared defy the romans ended...
anyway it's not over yet,because a bunch of heroic jihadist patriots are still resisting on the boats on the lake.
and their credo is no surrender.
so vespasian the terrorist orders rafts built to attack the lakeborne rebels.
around the lake of tiberias/galilee/gennezareth there was plenty of logging to be done so the job is quickly carried thru by the roman army's many...CARPENTERS!
who of course in the gospel twisting and distorting of facts become jesus' father joseph who was a poor carpenter from nazareth in galilee which didn't even exist but anyway centuries later when the current text of the gospels was finally concoted in its present form everybody would believe this crap in the west because they knew shit about palestinian geography and the few who did would accept the story because the lakeshores were very woody anyway so what more natural than being a carpenter in nazareth which in the meantime had been founded for real...
flavius now informs us also that the lake was rich in fish,and that's where the gospel lie of jesus' disciples /apostles as fishermen originates.
by now you will have started to grasp the modus operandi of those mischievous,westernized proroman gospel fabricators:
they took bits and pieces of underlying truth from flavius josephus' book and rewrote the story turning the fighting jesus into a meek nonviolent poor guy only intent on healing the sick and chasing demons...
and multiplying loaves and fish for mass picnics on lake gennezareth.
what a sick twist.
so jesus son of joseph,high priest in jerusalem sent to galilee to fight the romans there becomes a little gandhi recommending to pay the roman tax which was the very reason the war and the real jesus' desperate fight were all about.
now the romans having built powerful rafts and packed them with legionaires proceed to slaughter the boatborne jews despite the latter's heroic resistance.
flavius depicts dramatically this epic scene of sinking boats and dying jews and lake reddening with their blood which the gospels turn into jesus walking on the water when in fact it was the romans who walked on the water aboard their rafts and the jews who did the same cause they had tied all the boats together so as to form a blockade and were probably jumping from one to the other. and it wasn't simon who was afraid of sinking in a storm but the real jews who sank and drowned with their boats...
none of them got out alive.
fishers of men
and now at last the gospel story of the fishermen called on by jesus to become apostles and fishers of men in the spiritual sense for afterworldly purposes.
the real jesus story in flavius ends much more graphically:
the romans having butchered all the jewish partisans on the boats,the lake got filled with corpses,and since it was still summer soon a terrible stink filled the air,and the boat wreckage and many of the dead were washed ashore,and the rot soon became overwhelmingly pestilent.
so when the gospel rewriters/overwriters edified us with the saying of the falsified jesus that now peter and andrew etc were to follow him and become fishers of men,what else could it be a distortion of if not of...
the tragic fact that,there certainly being real fishermen on the lake,which was so rich in various fish,those real fishermen in the aftermath of the battle went about resuming their daily fishing but since there were thousands of corpses in the lake,many of those who hadn't been washed ashore yet ended up getting stuck in the fishermen's nets who thus became fishers of (dead) men whereas in the gospel lie it's simon & co who prompted by jesus set out to fish and their catch is so plentiful they can hardly pull it up on board without sinking!
what a sick sadistic twist - what fun must it have been for the imperial gospel forgers to turn the slaughter into a fishing party and the dead into fish!
Another explanation,or one that could coexist with the first,is that the romans on the rafts may have included retiarii for close-quarter combat - the fighters with nets that got cast over the enemies to immobilize them and thus capture or butcher them more easily.
God in the unlikely case you exist,do not forgive the gospel fabricators - for they knew exactly what they were doing.
simon son of ghiora/jair
so now this is the source for the part of the gospel lie that deals with jerusalem.
did the gospel "jesus" really exist?
the real jesus was jesus bar sapphia described above,as far as the galilee scenario in the gospel lie is concerned,plus simon peter,a violent,theo-com(munist) antiroman patriot who thought his god would make him rex judaeorum and help him drive the romans out of palestine as far as the jerusalem scenario in the gospel lie is concerned.
instead the romans erased jerusalem off the map and murdered him.
now i shall proceed to prove all this.
only thing i'd like to make clear:
i am not quite sure i am the first to aver that jesus was also simon,because although i am well versed in classics,i can't say i am aware of each and every single bit of jesus literature re the historical jesus of the past 2 or 3 hundred years.
so if someone else came up with my same arguments before me,please let me know.
now first of all:
why is the gospel jesus a fake?
well first because he wasn't from nazareth.
for the nazareth point i am indebted to:
robert h eisenman,james the brother of jesus,penguin 1997;and
also in print:
la favola di cristo
2nd edition 2005,first ed 2002,written in 2000,orderable from the website.
nazareth is not attested to either by archeology or by sources that i am aware for the alleged time of "jesus" 'birth,about 2000 years ago.
and nazareth lies 40 km off the lake of tiberias also called sea of galilee also called lake gennesareth.
therefore when matthew says that "jesus" went to nazareth - actually at this point he doesn't even mention nazareth explicitly,but he had done so before.
anyway "jesus" is pictured as going to his family town/hometown and then departing from there on a boat - which again is impossible because nazareth even had it existed at the time lies 40 km off the lake.
it's interesting to note at this point that according to eisenman the first attestation that is documentation of nazareth occurs in jewish literature of the VII century AD but referring to an inscription from the IV - therefore if nazareth didn't exist before the IV century AD,then that's the terminus ante quem for the part of the gospel lie dealing with jesus of nazareth.
in another words wherever you find mention of nazareth in the 4 canonic gospels,you can reasonably assume that that gospel part cannot have been written before the IV century AD that is before the year 300 AD which oh coincidence is more or less the constantine era in which christianity became the official religion of the empire and all those neocon motherfuckers such as augustin and eusebius lived who were probably ultimately responsible for the bulk of the gospel lie as we have it.
obviously although this brilliant cascioli remark that nazareth lying 40 km off the lake even had it existed in the first century could not possibly have been the home of a guy who departs from it by boat proves the nazareth myth a lie,it only does this and does not prove that "jesus" never existed.
he may have existed but been from somewhere else.
eisenman says the nazareth myth was a dissimulating pun on "nazorean" or "nazirite",a member of a radical antiroman jewish militant sect.
anyway what really further proves that the gospel jesus is a lie is that at the time - a time of massive antiroman unrest in palestine - a proroman jewish messiah as the gospel jesus is pictured to have been would never ever have enjoyed popularity and would never ever have been targeted by the proroman jewish priestly establishment or crucified by the romans - because he would have been their ally.
having established thus that the gospel jesus is a fabrication,how was this fabrication achieved?
no - the method was rather conflation of real people and events of first-century palestine,but totally reversed and distorted to skew and falsify history in portraiting violent jewish revolutionaries as meek gandhiesque proroman tax-paying asskissers.
gospel jesus again being a collage of different characters from the nessianic era in jewish palestine of the I century AD, is also based on the very real simon bar ghiora,but again reversed and deformed into a proroman idiot.
one only needs to carefully read the book bellum iudaicum - war against the jews - by flavius josephus,a jewish turncoat who had betrayed the antiroman movement and switched sides.
the war in question happened between 66 and 70 AD,with some fighting lasting into 73/74.
It was a horrible slaughter which ended with future emperor titus erasing jerusalem off the map after a long siege and the romans capturing the revolutionary resistance leader simon bar ghiora - simon son of ghiora - bringing him to rome for display in titus' and his father vespasianus' triumph and then executing him in the infamous tullianum jail/death chamber at the foot of the capitol hill.
I also wrote elsewhere about how this very same simon because also the biggest piece of the "saint peter" puzzle:
so grab your flavius josephus,jewish war,VII,2,2.
the romans have entered jerusalem,erased it to the ground and slaughtered most everyone and looted whatever they found.
But resistance commander Simon had hidden in a subterranean secret gallery with his most trusted friends and a bunch of stonecutters with the aim of continuing to mine the gallery so as to find an opening onto some safe spot whence they might escape the romans.
but they soon gave up hope because they'd almost run out of food and made little progress in the excavations.
so Simon "put on white tunics and a purple cloak over them and came out of the ground where the temple had stood".
doesn't it sound like the real underlying model for the gospel fabricators who twisted it into the resurrection of "jesus"?
1-in the gospels we find the same element of jesus' tomb carved - newly carved - in rock.
2-when jesus resurrects,he appears to some in white shining clothes/light.
3-when jesus is arrested and tortured,his tormentors clothe him in a mock-kingly mantel,purple in color.
4-both the real simon and the forged jesus "resurrect" by coming out of the ground and from the carved rock.
5-the simon of history resurfaces where the temple had stood - hadn't the gospel jesus prophesied he would rebuild the temple in 3 days,alluding to the temple of his body?well when the real simon resurfaces,a few days had passed since the romans had occupied jerusalem and thereby destroyed the temple.
6.those who first saw simon in josephus were paralyzed by fear,just like the first people to whom "jesus" appeared in the gospels right after resurrecting.
7.in josephus,after the first surprise,those who first saw simon-without recognizing him-presumably roman soldiers presiding over the temple ruins,run to their commander - just like in the gospels the women to whom jesus appeared ran to the apostles.
8.simon had wanted to be king of the jews - messianic king in the maccabean priestly-king tradition,and the garment of such kings was the purple cloak,whereas the white tunics were the garments of priests and militant daily-bathing sect members such as john the baptist essenes etc.
Enough "coincidences" folks?
no wait i ain't done yet.
simon gets arrested but not killed on the spot because titus wants to parade the vanquished enemy in rome during his triumphal gala parade.
so simon gets chained and brought to titus in caesarea on the sea,a town on the coast of palestine.
just like in the acts of the apostles simon peter gets arrested and chained,and in a separate episode ends up in caesarea...
so poor patriot simon bar ghiora ends up in rome and gets paraded in the triumphalis pompa amongst 700 other prisoners - a veritable via crucis without cross - and then those bastards tie a rope around his neck and drag him like an animal along the last bit,"among abuse and beatings" - sounds familiar from jesus' arrest in the gospels?...-to the tullianum death chamber near the forum where they put him to death.
and pious christian lore has it that saint peter came to rome was arrested and thrown in the tullianum prison - only variation being his having been crucified upside down instead of the customary strangling in the tullianum reserved for enemy chiefs such as vercingetorix jugurtha and the like.
and even the strange position of peter's alleged crucifiction comes from flavius josephus bellum iudaicum V,11,1 "prompted by hatred and ire,the roman soldiers amused themselves by crucifying prisoners in various positions"...
that's why i'm saying that the gospel mosaicists dissected simon bar ghiora and used some parts of his story for their jesus and others for their peter on whom see my peter essay quoted here above.
are you convinced my fellow truth-seekers?
wondering if the real jerusalem jesus,that is simon,had his own judas the traitor?
there you have it:
flavius josephus bellum iudaicum V,13,2:
"a fellow Judas...one of Simon's underlings" with a bunch of men tried to plot against Simon and call in the romans,but Simon discovered the plot,captured judas and his traitors,killed them and mutilated their corpses - fossile of this is gospel peter cutting off the high priest's servant's ear - and cast them down the city walls.
jesus ben ananus
one last piece of the jesus lie puzzle in the canonic gospels is a minor character from flavius joseph's jewish war,a fellow jesus ben ananus who for some 7 years before the outbreak of the 66-73 war wandered thru jerusalem obsessively repeating "woe to you jerusalem" in prediction of its impending fall - just like gospel jesus is portrayed after-the-fact as predicting that not a stone will be left of jerusalem's temple etc.
thanx for listening.
next time they forge a religion for us,let's try and not wait another 2000 years to call their cards...
christianity is over.
and it won't be missed.
This work is in the public domain