to Mark: Simon Peter, James son of Zebedee, John brother
of James, Andrew, Philip, Bartholomew, Matthew, Thomas,
James son of Alphaeus, Thaddaeus, Simon the Canaanite,
Judas Iscariot (12).
to Matthew: Simon Peter, James son of Zebedee, John
brother of James, Andrew, Philip, Bartholomew, Matthew,
Thomas, James son of Alphaeus, Thaddaeus, Simon the
Canaanite, Judas Iscariot (12).
to Luke: Simon Peter, James, John, Andrew, Philip, Bartholomew,
Matthew, Thomas, James son of Alphaeus, Judas the brother
of James, Simon Zelotes, Judas Iscariot (12).
to "The Acts of the Apostles": Simon Peter,
James, John, Andrew, Philip, Bartholomew, Matthew, Thomas,
James son of Alphaeus, Simon Zelotes, Judas (Jude) the
brother of James (11).
differences in these lists of the apostles lead us to
make two considerations, one of a religious nature and
the other of a historical nature.
The observation of a religious nature regards the evident
inconsistency that there is between the words of Jesus
who chooses 12 apostles because there were 12 thrones
of glory: "And Jesus said unto them, Verily(!?!)
I say unto you, that ye which have followed me, in the
regeneration when the Son of man shall sit in the throne
of his glory, ye also shall sit upon twelve thrones,
judging the twelve tribes of Israel." (Matthew
19:28) and the reality of the facts where the number
of apostles becomes only eleven. (It is up to each person
to comment on this in his own way.)
The second observation of a historical nature refers
to the different names listed in the gospels of Mark
and Matthew. They name Thaddeus who was not mentioned
in the gospel of Luke and "The Acts of the Apostles"
who put Judas the brother of James in his place who
in his turn had been ignored by Matthew and Mark.
does this difference exist if all three writers knew
the apostles perfectly? According to what the Church
declares, Matthew himself was an apostle. Mark assisted
both Paul of Tarsus (Acts 12:25, Acts 1:5, II Tim. 4:11)
and Simon Peter (I Peter 5:13, Acts 12:7-12). Luke,
as he himself declares (Luke 1:2-3) wrote everything
down in order in both his gospel and "The Acts
of the Apostles" obtaining information from eyewitnesses
among whom there was Mary the mother of Jesus. According
to the Church, Luke had personally met Mary. (The Holy
Bible – UECI Publisher – Italian version,
discrepancy of names that we find between the gospels
of Mark and Matthew and the gospel of Luke and "The
Acts of the Apostles" is surprising. Yet it is
truly amazing when we note that in the fourth gospel,
that of John, there are more differences compared to
the other gospels. The number of apostles changes from
twelve to nine. Their names are also different. James
son of Alphaeus, Judas brother of James or Thaddaeus,
Bartholomew, Matthew and Simon Zelotes are missing.
Never before mentioned apostles such as Nathanael of
Cana and an anonymous disciple called the "beloved"
have been included.
Gospel of John: Simon Peter, James, John, Andrew, Philip,
Thomas, Judas Iscariot, Nathanael of Cana and the beloved
apostle (9). I put James and John in italics since these
two were missing in the first version of John composed
of 20 chapters. They were mentioned only in the last
chapter, the 21st, which was added at a later date,
presumably 70 to 80 years later. The falsifiers felt
they needed to add that chapter so they could add the
things which had been missing and correct the flaws
contained in the first version which had been written
around the years 180–190.
Church itself acknowledges that the first edition of
the fourth gospel, i.e., the gospel of John, was written
at the end of the second century: "The oldest manuscript
pertaining to this Gospel is from around the year 150,
at the most 200." (The Holy Bible – UECI
Publisher – Italian version, page 1058).
Church declares that the four gospels were written by
apostles who had either been eyewitnesses themselves,
such Matthew and John, or by writers who had contacted
the eyewitnesses extensively, such as Mark and Luke,
who were disciples of Simon Peter. In Luke's case, even
Mary, the mother of Jesus, was contacted. Therefore,
this discrepancy of names causes us to be as surprised
as we would be if soccer players were to give us discordant
figures about the number and names of players after
having played several championship games on the same
team. The least that one can think is that an underlying
dishonesty exists which forces any lover of honesty
to make a personal inquiry since asking priests (specialists
in the gospels) for any explanation ends up only in
replies that are confused, foolish, if not downright
offensive to the human intellect.
first thing that pushed us to make an in-depth study
was the discovery of writings not included in the Old
and New Testaments which speak about events that took
place during the same time period as the events reported
in the gospels. These writings show the existence in
Palestine, and more precisely in Galilee, of a group
of revolutionaries composed of the sons of one Judas
the Galilean which bears strong analogies with the gospel
accounts of Jesus and his apostles.
before making a direct comparison of the two groups,
we should briefly describe whom this Judas the Galilean
the Galilean was the son of the Rabbi Ezekias who had
been killed in 44 BCE in an armed revolt against the
troops of Herod the Great. Judas was the pretender to
the throne of Jerusalem since he was a direct descendent
of the Hasmonean line founded by Simon, son of Mattathias
the Maccabaeus. In the second century BC Simon had placed
himself at the head of the Jewish Revolutionary Movement
in order to free Palestine from the Greek invaders.
After Judas had taken his father's place as a direct
Hasmonean descendent of the house of David he fought
several battles against the Romans and against Herod
the Great. He died in the Census War (6 CE) leaving
seven sons who took their father's place and continued
the struggle to claim the dynastic throne of Jerusalem.
sons were John, the first born, Simon, James the Greater,
Judas (not Iscariot) James the Less, Menahem, and Eleazar.
The latter two do not seem to have taken part in the
revolutionary acts. However, after their brothers' deaths
they continued to claim the throne of Jerusalem. They
waged further wars against the Romans including the
Jewish War (66–70) in which Menahem died and the
war that took place in 74 (Masada) in which Eleazar
first analogy that we find between the revolutionary
group and the apostles is that members of both groups
are brothers and have the same names. Is this sheer
coincidence or are they truly the same people? This
is what we will try to discover through a historical
inquiry. First we will provide a quick and general explanation
that will help us understand how our analysis has been
four canonical gospels and most (to be exact 10) of
the 14 books of "The Acts of the Apostles",
whose first editions were written starting from the
second half of the second century (155–160) are
basically halfway between the early writings (Gospels,
Sayings, Epistles, Acts) mostly written in Greek which
the Church declared apocryphal, i.e. false, and the
later editions of the same writings that came out after
numerous corrections and falsifications in the fifth
and sixth centuries. The gospels of the second century
differed from the gospels that came out in their final
versions in the fifth and sixth centuries, which "for
the most part" are the present day version. This
is demonstrated by the very doctors of the Church such
as Eusebius of Caesarea, author of the renowned Historia
Ecclesiastica (Church History), who died in 340 and
Ireneus, the bishop of Lyons whose lifetime straddled
the second and third centuries. In their books they
make several statements that contrast sharply with those
reported by the final gospels, i.e., those written 150–200
years after their deaths. They deny that the Madonna
was a virgin which is instead supported, although not
in such a dogmatic form, in the editions of the fifth
and sixth centuries. Tertullian, Christian apologist
of the second century, also denied the terrestrial birth
of Jesus, as maintained in all the early versions of
the four canonical gospels. Jesus' terrestrial birth
is instead confirmed in the fifth and sixth centuries
in the gospels of Matthew and Luke. The other two gospels,
those of Mark and John, do not report it because they
were initially left as they had been written, i.e.,
according to those theological principles that in the
second half of the second century maintained that Jesus
had shown himself to men not as a man but as a revelation
(St. Paul- Gnosis) (See The Fable of Christ).
return to the analogies between the two groups. We have
seen that the names of the group of Judas the Galilean's
sons, except for Menahem and Eleazar, are the same names
as the group of the Apostles. We can still discover
that the members of the Apostles group were also brothers.
The Gospels themselves, as well as apocryphal documents,
take away any doubts about their brotherhood:
came then his brethren and his mother, and standing
without, sent upon him, calling him. and the multitude
sat about him, and they said unto him, Behold, thy mother
and thy brethren without seek for thee." (Mark
not this the carpenter, the son of Mary, the brother
of James, and Joses, and of Juda and Simon? and are
not his sisters here with us? (Mark 6:3, Matthew 13:55-56).
all continued with one accord in prayer and supplication,
with the women, and Mary the mother of Jesus, and with
his brethren." (Acts 1:14)
he says he appeared unto James, who was one of the so-called
brethren of the Saviour." (Eusebius of Caesarea
- Church History, I: 12.4)
the brother of the Lord, succeeded to the government
of the Church in conjunction with the apostles"
(Eusebius of Caesarea - Church History, II: 23).
the family of the Lord there were still living the grandchildren
of Jude, who is said to have been the Lord's brother
according to the flesh. Information was given that they
belonged to the family of David" (Eusebius of Caesarea
- Church History, III: 20.1).
does the Church reply to these statements written in
the gospels of Mark and Matthew and in "The Acts
of the Apostles" and confirmed by Eusebius of Caesarea
in order to maintain the virginity of the mother of
Christ? Well, it solves everything by saying that the
disciples weren't really Jesus' brothers but his cousins
since they were the children of another Mary, a sister
of Jesus' mother, who had been married to Joseph in
an earlier marriage.
theory could even be accepted at a first glance since
the word "brother" can even mean cousin at
times in Hebrew. However, it is to be categorically
discarded for two reasons. The first one is that the
gospels written in Greek use the word "adelfos",
i.e. brother, which has nothing to do with the meaning
of cousin. The second reason is that the character of
this hypothetical sister of Jesus' mother never existed
as will be shown in the chapter regarding the three
we have confirmed that Jesus and James the Greater,
James the Less, Simon and Judas were brothers, now we
can examine whom these brothers-disciples of Christ
really were, preparing ourselves for truly amazing results.
We will examine documents that preceded the Canonical
Gospels and "The Acts of the Apostles", i.e.,
the documents rejected by the Church since they were
considered to be apocryphal.
discussing the disciples, we'll try to get acquainted
with these sons of Judas the Galilean. We'll examine
them one by one as they are presented by the historians
of the time so that a conscientious comparison of the
two groups can be made.
was survived by seven sons. It is not known if there
were two or three daughters due to the lack of documents
that can confirm it.
sons of Judas were John the first born called the Nazarite,
Simon, James the greater, Judas (not Iscariot), James
the less, Menahem and Eleazar.
leave John for last since a particularly detailed analysis
has been left for him since he is the hinge of our Christological
studies. We'll examine the others starting with Simon
and James the greater.
and James the greater. Flavius Josephus writes: "And
besides this, the sons of Judas of Galilee were now
slain; I mean of that Judas who caused the people to
revolt, when Cyrenius came to take an account of the
estates of the Jews, as we have showed in a foregoing
book. The names of those sons were James and Simon,
whom Alexander commanded to be crucified…"
(Jewish Antiquities, XX: 5.2)
He died in a clash in 45 CE under the procurator Cuspius
Fadus for having organized a revolt:
it came to pass, while Fadus was procurator of Judea,
that a certain magician, whose name was Theudas, persuaded
a great part of the people to take their effects with
them, and follow him to the river Jordan; for he told
them he was a prophet, and that he would, by his own
command, divide the river, and afford them an easy passage
over it; and many were deluded by his words. However,
Fadus did not permit them to make any advantage of his
wild attempt, but sent a troop of horsemen out against
them; who, falling upon them unexpectedly, slew many
of them, and took many of them alive. They also took
Theudas alive, and cut off his head, and carried it
to Jerusalem." (Jewish Antiquities, XX: 5.1) and
(Church History II: 12).
Acts of the Apostles", even if in an anachronistic
manner through what Gamaliel said in Acts 5.34-36, confirm
that Judas called Thaddaeus (Theudas) was the son of
Judas the Galilean. In Luke 6:16, Luke also confirms
that Judas is the brother of that James son of Judas
the Galilean that "The Acts of the Apostles"
themselves acknowledge had been killed in 44 under Herod
Agrippa for subversive activity (Acts 12:1).
the less. He was stoned under the procurator Albinus
(62-64) because he had publicly acclaimed the Son of
David: "when, therefore, Ananus was of this disposition,
he thought he had now a proper opportunity to exercise
his authority. Festus was now dead, and Albinus was
but upon the road; so he assembled the sanhedrim of
judges, and brought before them the brother of Jesus,
who was called Christ, whose name was James, and some
others, or, some of his companions; and when he had
formed an accusation against them as breakers of the
law, he delivered them to be stoned." (Jewish Antiquities,
XX: 9.1). *
had already written about these expressions by Flavius
Josephus referring to Jesus Christ that are found in
Jewish Antiquities: "If Flavius Josephus had believed
that Christ had come, that is, the Messiah, then he
would have become a Christian" (Philosophic Dictionary
V). However, we know that Flavius Josephus remained
an orthodox Jew.
authenticity of these passages regarding Jesus called
Christ was a subject of debate until the historians
Niese, Norden, Zeitlung, Lewy and Schurer irrefutably
demonstrated that they were forgeries written in the
fourth century either by Ambrose of Milan who rewrote
the Jewish Antiquities under the name of Egesippo or
by Eusebius of Caesarea whom the exegetes called "The
an explicative review of this forgery, I have included
a passage written by the exegete Guy Fau. He says, "The
passages regarding Jesus called Christ appear for the
first time in the fourth century. They were the work
of Eusebius of Caesarea (The Forger). They had not yet
appeared in the Jewish Antiquities in existence at the
time of Origen (185-254) since Origen himself in his
"Contra Celsum" (Book I) assures that Flavius
Josephus never mentioned a Jesus called Christ. The
Forgery is so evident that the Church itself does not
defend the authenticity of these passages of Flavius
Josephus". (Guy Fau – La Fable de Jesus Christe.
III – Le silence des auteurs Juifs). (However
this subject will be discussed again in the last chapter.
"REPLY TO OBJECTIONS".
the mean time, one Manahem, the son of Judas, that was
called the Galilean, (who was a very cunning sophister,
and had formerly reproached the Jews under Cyrenius,
that after God they were subject to the Romans..."
(Jewish Wars II: 17.8)
few there were of them who privately escaped to Masada,
among whom was Eleazar, the son of Jairus, who was of
kin to Manahem, and acted the part of a tyrant at Masada
afterward." (Jewish Wars II: 17.9)
I maintain that Eleazar is the son of Judas and not
of Jairus, as can often be seen in this passage of Flavius
Josephus where he still is considered to be a kinsman
of Menahem, it is because the fact, as it is reported
by Flavius Josephus, clearly shows that once again the
falsifiers have altered the text.
that he became barbarously cruel; and as he thought
he had no antagonist to dispute the management of affairs
with him, he was no better than an insupportable tyrant;
but Eleazar and his party, when words had passed between
them, how it was not proper when they revolted from
the Romans, out of the desire of liberty, to betray
that liberty to any of their own people, and to bear
a lord, who, though he should be guilty of no violence,
was yet meaner than themselves; as also, that in case
they were obliged to set some one over their public
affairs, it was fitter they should give that privilege
to any one rather than to him; they made an assault
upon him in the temple; for he went up thither to worship
in a pompous manner, and adorned with royal garments,
and had his followers with him in their armor. But Eleazar
and his party fell violently upon him, as did also the
rest of the people; and taking up stones to attack him
withal, they threw them at the sophister, and thought,
that if he were once ruined, the entire sedition would
fall to the ground. Now Manahem and his party made resistance
for a while; but when they perceived that the whole
multitude were falling upon them, they fled which way
every one was able; those that were caught were slain,
and those that hid themselves were searched for. A few
there were of them who privately escaped to Masada,
among whom was Eleazar, the son of Jairus, who was of
kin to Manahem, and acted the part of a tyrant at Masada
afterward. As for Manahem himself, he ran away to the
place called Ophla, and there lay skulking in private;
but they took him alive, and drew him out before them
all; they then tortured him with many sorts of torments,
and after all slew him, as they did by those that were
captains under him also, and particularly by the principal
instrument of his tyranny, whose name was Absalom".
Wars II: 17.8)
description of this event is so confused that it leads
us to believe that it was carried out by deceivers who
wanted to conceal a fact contrary to their goals rather
than by a cultured and precise writer such as Flavius
Josephus, who had been appointed by Rome as the official
historian of the Empire for his competence. I have no
doubt that we have in front of us a hereditary fight
between Eleazar fighting against his brother Menahem
who had put himself on the throne of Jerusalem with
a court, priests, deputies, and ministers. This was
a dispute among brothers identical to the many others
which occurred throughout the history of the descendents
of David such as that between their ancestors Aristobulus
II and Hyrcanus II during Pompey's occupation of Palestine
(See The Fable of Christ). We know that according to
Jewish religious and political principles pretenders
to the throne of Jerusalem could only belong to the
family considered the direct descendent of David. Since
only Judas the Galilean was acknowledged as such, one
can only deduce that Menahem and Eleazar were brothers.
No one else could have claimed the throne of Jerusalem
considering that the entire Jewish claim on Palestine
was based on the wait for the Messiah who according
to the prophecies had to come from the house of David.
That house had been acknowledged by the Jews in the
Hasmonean caste founded by Simon the son of Mattathias
the Maccabaeus, the ancestor of Ezekias the father of
Judas the Galilean. The gospels themselves maintain
that Jesus was the Messiah who descended from David,
confirming that the Messiah, i.e., the king of the Jews
had to come from the line of David.
this point we have established that Simon, James the
greater, Judas and James as sons of Judas the Galilean
were all engaged in the struggle against the Romans
to claim the throne of Jerusalem. Now let's try to discover
through the accounts that have come down to us from
historians of the time and from documents written in
Greek which preceded the Canonical Gospels if the sons
of Judas were or were not Jesus' disciples.
apostles of Jesus
first thing that we know about Jesus' apostles from
the "Novum Testamentum Graece et Latine" and
from the gospel of Mark is that they were called Boanerges,
i.e., "Sons of Thunder".
like all the other apostles was called Son of Thunder"
(Novum Testamentum Graece et Latine).
James the son of Zebedee and John the brother of James;
and he surnamed them Boanerges, which is, The sons of
thunder." (Mark 3:17).
fact that Jesus' apostles were called Boanerges, i.e.,
"Sons of Thunder" leads us to imagine them
more as revolutionaries than as apostles preaching brotherhood
and forgiveness. Let's examine them one by one through
those documents that were written before the Canonical
Gospels. The Church has declared these documents false
(apocryphal) because they are in contrast with its four
Canonical Gospels and its "Acts of the Apostles"
that it imposes dogmatically as the only ones that tell
(I) Simon, the first apostle
the apostle has three appellatives: Barjona, Canaanite,
and Cephas (Novum Testamentum Graece et Latine).
meaning of these names is the following: Barjona (ßa????a
)is the Greek translation of a word in Aramaic (a language
spoken in Palestine during the Roman occupation) that
meant "fugitive from justice" or "wanted".
Canaanite is the Greek translation of the Hebrew "qanana"
which corresponds to zealot, i.e. a revolutionary extremist.
Cephas was given to him because of his stocky and muscular
build that made him resemble a rock.
(2) James the Greater
are no doubts as to the zealot nature of this apostle
since we know that:
he was the brother of Simon Barjona also called Zealot
under Tiberius Alexander he was arrested in 46 along
with his brother Simon and executed as a rabble-rouser
he was a member of the Boanerges band, which is also
confirmed by the Canonical Gospels:
James the son of Zebedee and John the brother of James;
and he surnamed them Boanerges, which is, The sons of
thunder." (Mark 3:17).
he is associated in the accusations that Gamaliel makes
against him in the Sanhedrin with the revolutionary
Theudas (Judas Thaddaeus) who was beheaded by Cuspius
Fadus in 44 as the instigator of a revolt. He is also
associated in a rather anachronistic manner to Judas
the Galilean, head of the Census Revolt (Acts 5:34).
was also a Boanerges, This is proved by his brotherhood
with other members of the band and is also confirmed
by Mark who calls him such (Mark 3:17). See James the
(4) Judas not Iscariot
have learned from the Novum Testamentum that Judas (Jude)
the apostle was not only called zealot but was also
called Thomas which means twin, and Theudas which means
brave. Therefore, what else can we deduce than that
it must be the same Judas Theudas, son of Judas the
Galilean who was beheaded under Cuspius Fadus for leading
a revolt? (Jewish Antiquities XX).
nickname Theudas came from being particularly audacious.
His second nickname, Thomas which meant "twin",
was given to him due to his strong resemblance to his
Thomas and Theudas were the nicknames of Judas, Jesus'
brother (not to be confused with Judas Iscariot), is
confirmed not only by the Novum Testamentum but also
by the Acts of Thomas (Apocrypha) and by Eusebius of
Caesarea (Church History I).
(5) James the Less
no writings state directly that James the Less, a disciple
of Jesus, was a "zealot", he could not have
been anything else since we know that he belonged to
the Boanerges band and was killed in 64 under the procurator
Albinus. He was stoned by the Sadducees, bitter enemies
of the Jewish revolutionary movement. He had "publicly
acclaimed the son of David", that son of David
who would have freed Palestine from the Roman invasion
as Messiah and heir to the throne of Jerusalem. (Church
Simon the Zealot
are no doubts as to the zealot nature of this apostle
since even the Church acknowledges it through the affirmation
that the Canonical Gospels and the Acts of the Apostles
give: " …and Simon called Zelotes."
Simon Zelotes …"(Acts 1:13).
(7) Judas Iscariot
name Iscariot (from Hebrew Ekariot, which means cutthroat,)
was given to the more extremist zealots who carried
out acts of terrorism. Flavius Josephus writes about
them in this way: there sprang up another sort of robbers
in Jerusalem, which were called Sicarii (Ekariots),
who slew men in the day time, and in the midst of the
city; this they did chiefly at the festivals, when they
mingled themselves among the multitude, and concealed
daggers under their garments, with which they stabbed
those that were their enemies; and when any fell down
dead, the murderers became a part of those that had
indignation against them; by which means they appeared
persons of such reputation, that they could by no means
be discovered." (Jewish Wars II: 13.3)
From this analysis of Jesus' disciples we can see that
they were the same men as the group of fighters for
Jehovah, sons of Judas the Galilean (same names, Galileans,
Boanerges and zealots who died in the same period).
We'll demonstrate how the falsifiers worked on each
one singularly to transform them from revolutionary
fighters into preachers of peace. However, let's first
make a comparison between the behavior of the extremist
revolutionary bands of the time to which the Boanerges
belonged and the behavior of the group made up of the
so-called evangelical apostles to confirm the conclusion
that we have already reached. This comparison shall
be particularly useful for understanding some evangelical
passages whose meaning is always concealed by stuttering
and confused replies when we ask priests for explanations.
Revolutionary band according to historians of the time:
they did not receive what they asked for, they burned
the houses of those who refused and then killed them
with their families" (Philo of Alexandria)
they parted themselves into different bodies, and lay
in wait up and down the country, and plundered the houses
of the great men, and slew the men themselves, and set
the villages on fire; and this till all Judea was filled
with the effects of their madness." (Jewish Wars
a passage regarding Judas the Galilean (father of the
Boanerges) Flavius Josephus speaks about the Essene-Zealots
in the following manner: "They also do not value
dying any kinds of death, nor indeed do they heed the
deaths of their relations and friends" (Jewish
Antiquities XVIII: 6).
the War Scroll of the Essene-Zealots: "On the day
the Kittim fall, there will be a battle and a great
slaughter before the God of Israel: since this is the
day he has determined a long time ago for the war of
exterminating the sons of darkness by the sons of light
who will be occupied in carrying out a great slaughter"
Apostles Group (Boanerges) according to the Gospels:
the last supper, after hearing the exhortation to take
their swords, the Boanerges reassure their leader (Jesus)
that they are well supplied: "…And he that
hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one"
"Then they said, Lord behold here are two swords."
(Luke 22: 36, 38)
go to the Garden of Gethsemane armed with swords: "When
they which were about him saw what would follow, they
said unto him, Lord, shall we smite with the sword?"
use their swords against Roman soldiers and temple guards
who had gone to arrest them: "And, behold, one
of them which were with Jesus stretched out his hand
and drew his sword, and struck a servant of the high
priest's, and smote off his ear." (Matt. 26:51,
Mark 14:47, John 18:10).
Boanerges leader (Jesus) repeatedly and explicitly declares
his program of an Essene-Zealot war, "I am come
to send fire on the earth; and what will I, if it be
already kindled…Suppose ye that I am come to give
peace on earth? I tell you, Nay; but rather division:
For from henceforth there shall be five in one house
divided, three against two and two against three. The
father shall be divided against the son, and the son
against the father¸ the mother against the daughter,
and the daughter against the mother, the mother-in-law
against her daughter-in-law, and the daughter-in-law
against her mother-in-law." Luke 12:49 (Compare
to verse )
those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign
over them, bring hither, and slay them before me."
(Luke 19:27). This is the parable of the pounds (Luke
19:12-27) where Jesus is symbolized by a man of a noble
house, as he himself was, as a descendent of David,
who punishes those who did not give him what was due.
wilt thou that we command fire to come down from heaven,
and consume them…" (Luke 9:54) the apostles
asked Jesus referring to a Samaritan village that had
refused to receive them.
just need to replace the swords that were the weapons
of that day with the modern machine guns of today to
take away any doubts we may have about the revolutionary
nature of those men who the Church declares were evangelists,
i.e. those holy disciples on whom Christian morals are
from bandits to Holy Apostles
(I) Simon Cephas, Barjona, Canaanite in Simon Peter,
son of Jonah, born in Cana
appellative Barjona as we have seen, in Aramaic meant
"wanted by justice" or a "fugitive from
justice". In the earliest Greek versions barjona
was written with its true meaning with the word bariona
(ßa????a ) as seen in the Novum Testamentum Graece
et Latinae. It was then broken down into two words by
the falsifiers that wrote, in their Greek version, bar
and iona (ßa????a), so that the word "bar"
which in Aramaic means "son" could change
the meaning of "fugitive from justice", writing
Iona with a capital letter into "son of Jonah".
change was intentionally fraudulent. This is demonstrated
by the fact that we find the word "bar", referring
to "son of" in the texts altered by the falsifiers
only in the expressions that refer to Simon (S?µ??ßa?
I??a ). Whereas in all other places it is written with
the correct Greek word "uios" such as Joseph
son of David (I?s?f?????a??d ), Zacharias son of Barachias
(Za?a?????????a?a???? ) (Greek gospel Matthew 1:20,
23-25 Greek gospel Luke 19.9).
to sum it up, let's say that in the altered Greek texts
among all the words written in Greek, this Bar written
in Aramaic appears ridiculous. It is then translated
into Latin and disappears to be transformed magically
in "filius" (filius Jonae), i.e. in son of
Jonah. He becomes the first apostle, on whom Jesus will
build his Church. "Blessed art thou Simon Barjona
(barjona = bar iona = bar Iona = filius Jonae, son of
Jonah) …and I say also unto thee, That thou art
Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church…"
sentence contains another fraud. In the apocryphal documents
and the Canonical Gospels Simon was called Cephas (stone)
due to his stocky build and violent nature. The falsifiers
transferred the meaning of "stone" referred
to Simon into the meaning of "rock" which
the Church is symbolically built upon.