US Indymedia Global Indymedia Publish About us
Printed from Boston IMC :
IVAW Winter Soldier

Winter Soldier
Brad Presente

Other Local News

Spare Change News
Open Media Boston
Somerville Voices
Cradle of Liberty
The Sword and Shield

Local Radio Shows

WMBR 88.1 FM
What's Left
WEDS at 8:00 pm
Local Edition
FRI (alt) at 5:30 pm

WMFO 91.5 FM
Socialist Alternative
SUN 11:00 am

WZBC 90.3 FM
Sounds of Dissent
SAT at 11:00 am
Truth and Justice Radio
SUN at 6:00 am

Create account Log in
Comment on this article | View comments | Email this article | Printer-friendly version
Commentary :: Human Rights
21 Dec 2005
a broken dream
Hopelessness has arrived
An editorial
Murdock Todd Cote (Doc)

Hopelessness in America has arrived the GOP has shown it’s true colors and its right wing attitude toward the poor, low income working class, the disabled and the mentally ill. Vice President Cheney showed his true colors by voting for it. I would say that they are about to bring a fire storm upon themselves come November 2006. I call on every man and women to cast their votes in November to throw the GOP to the curve all two hundred of them and a good majority of them in the Senate. My last article showed my anger toward the right wing conservative’s scum of the Republican Party and the religious zealots who support them and their carpet bag government of corruption. I called the FBI office in Boston to ask how a citizen could file charges, well here the message you’re the investigators, not me, the charges are charge the investigation is in the doj’s court. He committed perjury to both houses of legislature, he committed violation of the church and state act; a president is by law must be impartial and may never use religion to make his decisions; he and his designee perjured themselves to the world body, and the security council of the United Nation’s; that he did also by his designee perjured themselves to the defense ministers of Nato. But folks sadly the FBI works for him, so finding proof of misconduct isn’t going to happen. I am not separatist or a cook I am just an American, and am watching my country torn apart by partisan politics, and the Potomac two step, I have the right to voice my anger; it called the constitution, the bill of rights and the declaration of Independence. I am an activist when I see wrong. You know are budget is gone of the planet, because of the pork barrel bill run down our throats.
If you look at history the Republican Right robbed social security to pay for their weapons and systems we actually don’t need, pay for their pet projects President Clinton tried to get a line item veto, but the republicans would not allow it. They deny civil rights to American citizen because of whom they choose to love, be they gay, lesbian, bi-sexual and transgender. I grant you this we are a subculture by we are a culture and have been on the earth a millennium, I was special ed kid and I saw the horrible torture of mind of kids who did nothing to the chosen one, they were hated for being who they are, because they did not meet the standards of the chosen few. I saw in History in Germany who thought they were the chosen few, they murdered six million Jews, a million clergy and intellectuals who opposed them, an another million and half died because they were mentally challenged or special people who were born with dawn syndrome. It reached a million and half because from 1933 to 1945 fifteen years they had the Nazi, another million were outcast and members of the LGBT community why because they didn’t meet the criteria of Arrayians. All I can say now “is come bitter rain and wash away the saddest of all words home” utempra poetress story of my exile

This work is in the public domain
Add a quick comment
Your name Your email


Text Format
Anti-spam Enter the following number into the box:
To add more detailed comments, or to upload files, see the full comment form.


Bitter Rain
22 Dec 2005

"It shall make thy belly bitter, but it shall be in thy mouth sweet as honey."

Playing the Advocate of Two Devils

With Moslem muscle, in an archetypically international fashion, Iran is making war with the Christian nations that have become too friendly with Israel.

By infiltrating Iraq and making Saddam Hussein and his resistance to Shiites their scapegoat, they have moved their own warfare to another sovereign nation, in order to escape their own accountability and bloodshed.

They have turned Iraq into the spawning grounds of terrorism, and now they are poised to exploit democracy – ultimately for the purpose of encompassing Israel and building their temple in defiance of Jews and Christians.

Iran's president will stop making a mockery of Islam and stop warring with Rome and Jerusalem, lest he should be declared the antichrist of the ages. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad ought to watch his anti-Semitic tongue, lest the Jewish, Christian and Moslem world call upon the entire world to cut his theocracy off at the root - just as the American’s will do with theocrats like the Council for National Policy and their infiltration of Canada through Stephen Harper’s hidden agenda.

Saddam Hussein’s Defense Might Be the Court’s Offence:

Saddam Hussein’s grievance might be against Iran and worldwide political exploitation of religion. He could argue that Iranian Shiites and American Conservatives have no business entering a sovereign nation to remove the leader whom they have put into such a perilous situation.

With a blue veil and a media time delay, the powers above him keep the testimony of Saddam Hussein under wraps. They would rather sentence him to martyrdom, than remove the same veil that his sympathizers wish to remove.

In all fairness, should we hide behind the veil of independent media and witness against George Bush, or stand in front of its veil and witness against Saddam Hussein?
Re: hopelesness
22 Dec 2005
Comment on this article | Email this Article
Hidden with code "Duplicate post"
News :: Education
boston policy either wrong or arbitrary
by commentator
(No verified email address) 20 Dec 2005
christozionazi censorship is what boston is all about
Hidden with code "Other"
(this is posted in other locations online, this contains content that could be considered "disruptive". for almost 5 years Boston IndyMedia has had a policy of hiding religious posts that are not specifically related to current news OF religion or religious groups because we consider them to be advertising. this particular post is hidden for all of those reasons, and this repost (and any others of its type) will be hidden because they are disruptive. cursing at our editorial decisions will not make us change our policies. writing us a personal e-mail or posting to our editorial list is a much more reliable way of convincing us that we have hidden an article in error. please consider that before reposting this particular article with gratuitous cursing or capital letters, or any others that you think we may have hidden inappropriately.) :



News :: Education
by antizio
(No verified email address) 18 Dec 2005
Comment on this article | Email this Article
Hidden with code "Policy Violation"
News :: Education
by status hidden
(No verified email address) 14 Dec 2005

Hidden with code "Policy Violation"
News :: Education
gospel jesus never was 12.13.2005 version
by aletes
(No verified email address) 13 Dec 2005
jesus as portrayed by the 4 canonic gospels is a lie.

i solved the 2000-year- old quest for the historical jesus i think.

simon bar jair leader of jewish resistance fighters during the 66-70 AD phase of the 66-73 AD antiroman war gave the gospel fabricators the story they transmogrified into "jesus" ' resurrection.
but first i shall 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 bar sappha also portrayed by flavius josephus in his book jewish war which is the underlying basis for the gospel liars.
thus it will become clear that the false gospel jesus was the remix of both simon bar jair (simon peter) and jesus bar saffia. call it patchwork or collage. minor pieces were added to the mix too such as a jesus bar ananus also a character from flavius joseph's jewish war.


The first occurrence of jesus bar sappha is at II,20,4,566 in the jewish war (bellum iudaicum).bar is aramaic for hebrew ben meaning son of.
we are in the context of the 66-73 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 as prophesied or believed prophesied by their all-important prophet or believed-prophet daniel.
now one might object here that we are accostumed to think jesus lived and died as the gospels have it under pontius pilate 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.
to begin with flavius joseph tells us in another book of his called antiquitates judaicae or jewish ancient history that john the baptist died in 36 and since the gospels have it that "jesus" started preaching from john the baptist's death or arrest then he couldn't have died before 39 AD that is after pilate's tenure in judaea anyway because christian lore has it that jesus preached for 3 years and then died.
there is no certainly authentic/truthful record/document/source whatsoever attesting to a charismatic messianic jewish leader by the name of jesus who was crucified under pontius pilate.

whereas there is ample testimony to a jesus - our jesus bar sappha - who fought (and died?) around 67 AD.
and this jesus i'll proceed to show will look to you very familiar very much like 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 his book albeit with a proroman bias jewish turncoat that he was introduces a jesus bar sappha 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 been handed down to us only in greek but he originally wrote in aramaic and must have said something like yeshu'a bar sappha which sounds suspiciously like jesus son of (jo)seph doesn't it to begin with...
I am not thereby necessarily implying that saffa=(yus)sef=joseph. flavius josephus has another 2 variants to this jesus's last name:
bar sapphia and bar saphat.
Could these all be variant/short aramaic forms for hebrew yussef or yehoshaphat?
Or could the gospel liars/rewriters simply have replaced flavius' sappha/sapphia/saphat 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 sappha/sapphia/saphat had nothing to do with joseph as a name still again joseph that is yussef could be an overwrite to hide the real jesus's last name.


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 consumptio 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 sappha/sapphia/saphat and turned him into jesus bar yussef.

Robert Eisenman in his all-important book James the brother of Jesus/faber and faber 1997/vol 1 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 barsabbas and a judas barsabbas respectively the second one even being called barabbas in a variant reading of a manuscript thus attesting to the confusion/possible equivalence barabbas=barsabbas.
joseph and judas being 2 of jesus' brothers according to the gospels.
now doesn't bar sabbas sound suspiciously like our jesus bar sappha from flavius josephus?

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 pronunciation of today is closer to how hebrew/aramaic was pronounced in the first century AD than modern hebrew.
in other words:
aramaic BAR SABBA resembles BAR SAPPHA in pronunciation.
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 sabbas as surname of 2 namesakes of jesus' brothers therefore if they really were jesus' bros then it was sabbas or bar sappha family!

further evidence that the gospels are just skewed rewrites of the real story of a jewish antiroman fighter called jesus is in a few variant manuscripts of matthew (refered to by eisenman) who instead of simply calling the gospel lestès/latro barabbas call him...JESUS BARABBAS!!!

need any more evidence?


now 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 (jo)seph had instead really been jesus bar sappha one of the high priests as flavius' jesus bar sappha reportedly was?
anyway. maybe sappha/sapphia/saphat does not = joseph but again joseph may be an overwrite for sappha.
and again gospel bar abbas/acts bar sabbas ie bar sappha 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 might have been in the turmoil of those revolution-laden times.
no meek pacifist gandhiesque tax-paying pro-foreigner jesus would have made it with the jewish masses of his time,who were hell-bent on awaitin' a fighting messiah who would free them from the hated romans with all their taxes and crosses for rebels.


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 roman 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 gennezareth - 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 sapphia - 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 36 AD.
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 a variant greek transliteration of the aramaic SAPHAT which is one of the 3 variants in flavius joseph's jewish war for jesus' last name:SAPPHA/SAPPHIA/SAPHAT.

note also how jesus bar sappha/barsabbas/barabbas that is (maybe) son of (jo)seph is a high priest in flavius and is assigned to galilee presumably from jerusalem see of high priests.

also please note that flavius joseph upon introducing jesus bar sappha says he was one of the high priests plural which means that around that time - about 66 AD - there were more than just one high priest.


take your 'matthew' 13:55's list of jesus' brothers:
the standard scientific edition of the new testament nestle-aland/novum testamentum graece et latine/2002 has in the original greek "james and joseph and simon and judas" .

but instead of joseph we find IOANNES (john) as variant reading in:
1. the all-important codex alpha 01 IV century london brit libr add 43275 (albeit not clearly legible);
2. codex D, V century cambridge univ libr
3. codex gamma 036, X century oxford+st petersburg
and many other manuscripts.

how interesting.
maybe the real name of jesus' 2nd brother was john not joseph.
if so this brother john would come after james.
"james and john and simon and judas".

but james and john are also the names of jesus' 3d and 4th disciples according to 'matthew' 4:21:
" 2 brothers, james the son of zebedee and john his brother" .
therefore what the underlying original text may have said was that jesus son of
SAPHAT (flavius joseph)
SABBA (gospel (bar)abbas,acts (bar)sabbas)
=BAR SAPHAT=BAR SABBAS=BAR ZEBED in aramaic had 2 brothers by the names of james and john who went on to naturally become 2 of his first disciples.

one of the 24 priestly courses that is groups of jewish priests taking turns in attending to the jerusalem temple was called HAPPIZZEZ and is attested to as living in nazareth albeit after AD 135.
what if jesus had been a happizzez high priest?
check this out :


so jesus really was:
1.a jewish high priest from jerusalem ;
2.a theocommunist jewish radical antiroman messianic but this-worldy militant fighting the war for freedom from the romans and return to the golden david and maccabee era of jewish independence ;
3.military commander in the 66-73 jewish-roman war.around the lake of galilee or tiberias or gennezareth .

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 many truth-seekers astray so far.
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.


alright let's roll on.
flavius continues the jesus story at bellum iudaicum III,9,7,450 ff:
here jesus bar sapphia becomes bar saphat but it's always the same jesus barsappha/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 imperialisms and therefore i hate the romans
but i also hate all religious fundamentalisms and if jesus bar sappha had won we would now have a world-wide iran...or orthodox israel.

roman general soon-to-become-emperor vespasianus 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 jesus' patriots who not only won't surrender but proceed to attack valerianus led by jesus who forces the romans to flee but then just before 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 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.

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 punishment romans meted out on rebels.
instead all 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 daddies would not let us realize who the real crucified jesus really was mostly based on so they erased this bit most likely.
also notice here how this is the only lacuna in the entire bellum judaicum book! if i am not mistaken.
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 what end awaited those who dared defy the romans ...


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 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 at the time most likely but anyway centuries later when the current text of the gospels was finally end-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...
see my essay the nazareth lie for more on nazareth.
link in bibliography at bottom.

flavius now informs us 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 sappha 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 legionaries 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 having 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.


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.

yes i'm aware that the fishers-of-men imagery is also derived from jeremiah 16:16 - but i think the old testament inspiration here may mesh with the rewriting of history.


so now comes the source for the part of the gospel lie that deals with jerusalem.
did gospel "jesus" really exist?
the real jesus was jesus bar sappha described above - as far as the galilee scenario in the gospel lie is concerned .
plus simon 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 sappha+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 and all times.
so if someone else came up with my same arguments before me please let me know.

now first of all:
why is gospel jesus a fake?
well first because he wasn't from nazareth.
for nazareth see my
the nazareth lie

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 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 thus established that gospel jesus is a fabrication how was this fabrication achieved?
pure invention?
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 messianic 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.
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 wrote elsewhere about how this very same simon also became 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've 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 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. josephus after the initial 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 into 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 above.

are you convinced my fellow truth-seekers?
not yet?
wondering if the real jerusalem jesus,that is simon,had his own judas the traitor?
there you go:
flavius josephus bellum iudaicum V,13,2:
"a fellow 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.


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 around 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:


also read:
1. aletes
the nazareth lie
2. robert h eisenman
james the brother of jesus
volume 1
faber and faber 1997
3. aletes
"saint peter" is just fiction


This work is in the public domain

Please Don't Feed the Trolls
Wikipedia defines an Internet Troll as: "An Internet troll is either a person who sends messages on the Internet hoping to entice other users into angry or fruitless responses, or a message sent by such a person." Boston IMC strives to provide both a grassroots media resource as well as a forum for people to contribute to a meaningful discussion about local issues. Please, when posting comments, be respectful of others and ignore those trying to interrupt or discourage meaningful discourse. Thank you.

-- Boston Indymedia volunteers

Re: gospel jesus never was 12.13.2005 version
by Me
(No verified email address) 13 Dec 2005
This is total Bullshit, without a shred of scholarly credibility.



GET CANCER AND DIE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!