According 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).

According 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).

According 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).

According 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).

The 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.

1) 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.)

2) 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.

Why 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, page 1025).

This 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.

The 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.

The 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).

The 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.

The 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.

However, before making a direct comparison of the two groups, we should briefly describe whom this Judas the Galilean was.

Judas 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.

Judas' 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 died.

The 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 carried out.

The 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).

Let's 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:

"There 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 3:31-32)

"Is 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).

"These 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)

"Afterwards 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)

"James, the brother of the Lord, succeeded to the government of the Church in conjunction with the apostles" (Eusebius of Caesarea - Church History, II: 23).

"Of 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).

How 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.

This 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 Marys.

Since 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.

Before 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.

Judas 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.

The sons of Judas were John the first born called the Nazarite, Simon, James the greater, Judas (not Iscariot), James the less, Menahem and Eleazar.

We'll 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.

Simon 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)

Judas. He died in a clash in 45 CE under the procurator Cuspius Fadus for having organized a revolt:

"Now 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).

"The 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).

James 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). *

*Voltaire 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.

The 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 Forger".

As 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".

Menahem"In 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)

Eleazar"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." (Jewish Wars II: 17.9)

If 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.

"...Manahem, 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".

(Jewish Wars II: 17.8)

The 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.

At 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.

The apostles of Jesus

The 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".

"Peter, like all the other apostles was called Son of Thunder" (Novum Testamentum Graece et Latine).

"And 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).

The 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 the truth.

(I) Simon, the first apostle

Simon the apostle has three appellatives: Barjona, Canaanite, and Cephas (Novum Testamentum Graece et Latine).

The 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

There are no doubts as to the zealot nature of this apostle since we know that:

1) he was the brother of Simon Barjona also called Zealot or Canaanite.

2) under Tiberius Alexander he was arrested in 46 along with his brother Simon and executed as a rabble-rouser (Acts 12).

3) he was a member of the Boanerges band, which is also confirmed by the Canonical Gospels:

"And 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).

4) 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).

(3) John

John 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 Greater.

(4) Judas not Iscariot

We 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).

His 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 brother James.

That 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

Although 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 History II).

(6) Simon the Zealot

There 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." (Luke 6:15).

"…and Simon Zelotes …"(Acts 1:13).

(7) Judas Iscariot

The 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:

"If 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)

"for 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 II: 13.6)

In 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).

From 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:

At 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)

They 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?" (Luke 22:49)

They 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).

The 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 )

"But 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.

"...Lord, 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.

We 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 based.

Transformations from bandits to Holy Apostles

(I) Simon Cephas, Barjona, Canaanite in Simon Peter, son of Jonah, born in Cana

The 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".

This 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).

So, 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…" (Matt.. 16:17-18)

This 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.