Is Simon of Cyrene Satan himself?

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
Post Reply
Giuseppe
Posts: 13732
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Is Simon of Cyrene Satan himself?

Post by Giuseppe »

So Tim:
https://www.google.it/amp/s/timstepping ... judas/amp/
The crucifixion of the unintended person would trick the rulers of this earth, thus causing division in this material hellhole via a cascade of dissonance – killing an innocent man, killing the incorrect man, thus forcing Satan to divide himself.
Jesus alludes to this requisite confusion in Mark 3:23-24

So Jesus called them over to him and began to speak to them in parables: “How can Satan drive out Satan? If a kingdom is divided against itself, that kingdom cannot stand

I may go further and ask: what if the Cyrenaic was not an innocent person?


Remember the opposition between Cephas/Peter and Simon. The first was coming towards Jesus "from the sea".
Simon comes "from the country". From the same wilderness where Jesus was tempted by Satan?


He is from "Cyrene". This city makes me remember only the Jewish revolt during the Kitos War:

Cyrenaica
In Cyrenaica, the rebels were led by one Lukuas or Andreas, who called himself "king" (according to Eusebius of Caesarea). His group destroyed many temples, including those to Hecate, Jupiter, Apollo, Artemis, and Isis, as well as the civil structures that were symbols of Rome, including the Caesareum, the basilica, and the public baths.

The 4th century Christian historian Orosius records that the violence so depopulated the province of Cyrenaica that new colonies had to be established by Hadrian:

"The Jews ... waged war on the inhabitants throughout Libya in the most savage fashion, and to such an extent was the country wasted that, its cultivators having been slain, its land would have remained utterly depopulated, had not the Emperor Hadrian gathered settlers from other places and sent them thither, for the inhabitants had been wiped out."[3]

Dio Cassius states of Jewish insurrectionaries:

"'Meanwhile the Jews in the region of Cyrene had put one Andreas at their head and were destroying both the Romans and the Greeks. They would cook their flesh, make belts for themselves of their entrails, anoint themselves with their blood, and wear their skins for clothing. Many they sawed in two, from the head downwards. Others they would give to wild beasts and force still others to fight as gladiators. In all, consequently, two hundred and twenty thousand perished. In Egypt, also, they performed many similar deeds, and in Cyprus under the leadership of Artemio. There, likewise, two hundred and forty thousand perished. For this reason no Jew may set foot in that land, but even if one of them is driven upon the island by force of the wind, he is put to death. Various persons took part in subduing these Jews, one being Lusius, who was sent by Trajan."[4]

The original 1906 Jewish Encyclopedia cited this about the Cyrene massacres:

"By this outbreak Libya was depopulated to such an extent that a few years later new colonies had to be established there (Eusebius, "Chronicle" from the Armenian, fourteenth year of Hadrian). Bishop Synesius, a native of Cyrene in the beginning of the fifth century, speaks of the devastations wrought by the Jews ("Do Regno," p. 2)."[5]

The Jewish Encyclopedia acknowledges Dio Cassius's importance as a source, though believes his accounts of the actions at Cyrene and on Cyprus may have been embellished:

"For an account of the Jewish war under Trajan and Hadrian Dion is the most important source (lxviii. 32, lxix. 12–14), though his descriptions of the cruelties perpetrated by the Jews at Cyrene and on the island of Cyprus are probably exaggerated

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kitos_War
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.
User avatar
Joseph D. L.
Posts: 1405
Joined: Sat Nov 11, 2017 2:10 am

Re: Is Simon of Cyrene Satan himself?

Post by Joseph D. L. »

Lukuas is the obvious candidate for Simon of Cyrene, Simon of Jerusalem.

Lazarus, the beloved disciple, is probably Antinous.
Giuseppe
Posts: 13732
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: Is Simon of Cyrene Satan himself?

Post by Giuseppe »

While I think that the case for a switch of identities behind the Simon episode is relatively good, my only problem with the conclusion of the narrative is: why is there the need of a resurrection, given the fact that the true Jesus doesn't die?


If Simon is Paul (as there would be a Ruphus and an Alexander in the epistles, somewhere, if I remember well the Adamczewski's argument), then he is crucified in the place of Jesus. And he would be the risen 'Jesus Nazarene' waiting Peter in Galilee.
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.
User avatar
Joseph D. L.
Posts: 1405
Joined: Sat Nov 11, 2017 2:10 am

Re: Is Simon of Cyrene Satan himself?

Post by Joseph D. L. »

Keep in mind that much of common Gospel narrative is the result of decades of added material, rendering much of the text anachronistic.

Christ was predominantly the spirit that could enter and leave a person. Thus much of the Gospel is surrounding around this allegorical figure. Then Simon of Cyrene comes onto the scene, helps Christ carry the cross to Gogoltha, and is effectively crucified in place of Christ.

In simpler terms, Simon would be Jesus, who received the spirit of Christ at his baptism, and who is crucified and dies, while the Christ leaves him to his fate and appears at his tomb.

The one who is "resurrected" would be the next figure to hold the Christ spirit in him. Paul cannot be Simon because Simon is dead, and had died in 117 ad, while Paul lived until 157 ad. But Paul can claim to be the Paraclete, the next figure to hold the Christ, and definitely presents himself as such in his epistles.

Rufus and Alexander are likely the two supporters of Lukuas, Pappus and Julian Alexander, with Julian claiming to hold the Christ, and who is called Shemaiah in certain sources. Julian is Simon bar Kochba, with his brother Pappus/Ahiah, the brother of God.

Understanding this we can finally begin to recognize many aspects of the Gospels. The Synoptics Matthew, Mark, Luke are extensions of the proto-synoptic Gospel of the Hebrews, which promoted Lukuas and bar Kochba. Ur-John, (Secret Mark), promoted Antinous, the beloved of Hadrian.
User avatar
MrMacSon
Posts: 8798
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 3:45 pm

Re: Is Simon of Cyrene Satan himself?

Post by MrMacSon »

Joseph D. L. wrote: Fri May 11, 2018 10:20 pm ... the proto-synoptic Gospel of the Hebrews, which promoted Lukuas and bar Kochba. Ur-John, (Secret Mark), promoted Antinous, the beloved of Hadrian.
Please elaborate ...
User avatar
Joseph D. L.
Posts: 1405
Joined: Sat Nov 11, 2017 2:10 am

Re: Is Simon of Cyrene Satan himself?

Post by Joseph D. L. »

MrMacSon wrote: Sat May 12, 2018 12:05 am Please elaborate ...
My thoughts have changed somewhat over the past few months, and very well may again in a few more. Suffice it to say that I'm never long with one particular way of looking at the details. I get bored with one theory, then move onto another to see what else might lie there.

Right now, my thinking on the matter is that even the Gospel layout that we have, is not what was originally conceptualized, i.e. the bibliography of Jesus Christ. The original Gospel, was a declaration, an edict, in epistolary form.

For ur-John and Secret Mark, the important detail is Lazarus.

In John, the resurrection of Lazarus is described thusly:

Then Jesus, deeply moved again, came to the tomb. It was a cave, and a stone lay against it. Jesus said, “Take away the stone.” Martha, the sister of the dead man, said to him, “Lord, by this time there will be an odor, for he has been dead four days.” Jesus said to her, “Did I not tell you that if you believed you would see the glory of God?” So they took away the stone. And Jesus lifted up his eyes and said, “Father, I thank you that you have heard me. I knew that you always hear me, but I said this on account of the people standing around, that they may believe that you sent me.” When he had said these things, he cried out with a loud voice, “Lazarus, come out.” The man who had died came out, his hands and feet bound with linen strips, and his face wrapped with a cloth. Jesus said to them, “Unbind him, and let him go.


This episode is nearly identical to the resurrection of Osiris in several Egyptian accounts, and was argued by D.M. Murdock as the most blatant use of Egyptian motifs in the Gospels. But how, and why, did such an episode make it into John?

Well, Antinous had himself died in Egypt under mysterious circumstances. Some think it was a ritualistic suicide. Others, that he had drowned in the Nile. But regardless of the how, after death, he was given the customary funeral arrangements in Egypt: he was mummified, and exalted as Antinous-Osiris. And despite what some have said, the Egyptians believed wholeheartedly in bodily resurrection.

Also, the above passage quoted reads almost as the culminating end to our standard Gospels: the tomb, women being focal witnesses, andthe rolling away of the stone.

But now, compare it to what is known of Secret Mark:

And they come into Bethany. And a certain woman whose brother had died was there. And, coming, she prostrated herself before Jesus and says to him, "son of David, have mercy on me". But the disciples rebuked her. And Jesus, being angered , went off with her into the garden where the tomb was, and straightway, going in where the youth was, he stretched forth his hand and raised him, seizing his hand. But the youth, looking upon him, loved him and began to beseech him that he might be with him. And going out of the tomb they came into the house of the youth, for he was rich. And after six days Jesus told him what to do and in the evening the youth comes to him, wearing a linen cloth over his naked body. And he remained with him that night, for Jesus thaught him the mystery of the Kingdom of God. And thence, arising, he returned to the other side of the Jordan."

Obviously, the same inferred concept, with the youth being identified as Lazarus in John.

And to top it off, Mark has this:

And a young man followed him, with nothing but a linen cloth about his body. And they seized him, but he left the linen cloth and ran away naked.

The one thread that sews these passages--these traditions--together, is the cloth. The cloth is the mummy wrappings of Lazarus/Antinous, the lover of Jesus/Hadrian.

Thus, Johannine and Marcan Christianity, were once the same, and emphasized not Simon of Cyrene, but Antinous.

Lastly, Celsus writing in the third century puts Christianity and the Antinous cult alone side by side, and Clement of Alexandria's comments in Letter to Theodore would suggest that the Carpocratians were participants in the Antinous cult.

And that covers that. Ur-John/Secret Mark was the initiation manual into the Antinous mysteries established by Hadrian and his Jewish convert follower, Aquila.

Is this pure speculation? Of course! What else can we do? when the facts are not immediate.

But what do I know? I have more fun with speculation than more empirical thinking.
User avatar
MrMacSon
Posts: 8798
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 3:45 pm

Re: Is Simon of Cyrene Satan himself?

Post by MrMacSon »

Joseph D. L. wrote: Sat May 12, 2018 2:00 am Is this pure speculation? Of course! What else can we do? when the facts are not immediate.

But what do I know? I have more fun with speculation than more empirical thinking.
That's pretty good (besides, empirical used to mean best guess (when it came to prescribing, at least) ...)

I think scenarios like that are much more likely to explain how the narratives developed than the traditional propositions and assertions

The original Gospel, was a declaration, an edict, in epistolary form.
I've just posted about the Roman Hadrian-era Edictum perpetuum to end the annual Praetor edicts - http://www.earlywritings.com/forum/view ... =11&t=4163 - out of interest of the concept of the coalescing of thoughts in firstly the post 2nd Temple and then continuing in the post Bar Kochba era's, just as the Jews were concurrently using midrash to coalesce hallacha and aggadah into what became the Mishna and Tosefta.

I'd be keen to hear how the proto-synoptic Gospel of the Hebrews ... promoted Lukuas and bar Kochba ...
User avatar
Joseph D. L.
Posts: 1405
Joined: Sat Nov 11, 2017 2:10 am

Re: Is Simon of Cyrene Satan himself?

Post by Joseph D. L. »

MrMacSon wrote: Sat May 12, 2018 4:30 am I'd be keen to hear how the proto-synoptic Gospel of the Hebrews ... promoted Lukuas and bar Kochba ...
It comes from assessing both the temporal emergence of the text, plus the traditions that surround it.

There are many corresponding connections to Gospel of the Hebrews/Ur-Matthew, and bar Kochba. The star that announces the birth of the messiah, and bar Kochba being "son of the star; the iteration of Daniel's abomination that causes desolation in Matthew 24:15-16, referring to Hadrian setting up an alter to Jupiter in the Holy of Holies (note: the possibility that this was Trajan setting up an alter to Jupiter in the Jewish temple in Egypt may also exist); and the promotion of John and James over the other disciples in Matthew, and James solely in Gospel of Thomas and Gospel of the Hebrews.

As with my above conjecture regarding Antinous and Secret Mark/Ur-John, I'll superimpose history with certain Gospel features to see what happens...

Starting out, we have three key figures in the two rebellions of Kitos and bar Kochba: Lukuas Andreas, Julian Alexander, and Pappus.

Of course, our knowledge of these men is entirely obscure, with late and conflicting information. The closest thing we have to witnessing Lukuas is the Acta Pauli et Antonini, which details rebellions starting up in Egypt, and the mock execution performance of a Jewish king. (The papyrus also names a one Anthimos as sparking violence). But that it is inferring Lukuas is not at all clear.

The Talmud and Midrash information about Julian and Pappus, is likewise contradictory. The Midrash, Genesis Rabbah, has the brothers surviving Kitos and being consulted by Hadrian as to the Temple's reconstruction, which they refused; while Talmud presents two opposing traditions: one where the brothers are killed by Trajan; the other, the deaths of the brothers Shemaiah and Ahiah under Hadrian after the bar Kochba revolt, are linked with Julian and Pappus.


Next, my thinking about Julian being bar Kochba is, admittedly, circumstantial, as all of this is. If Shemaiah is another name for Julian, then the possibility of Julian being "Simon" bar Kochba (which is not a real name) increases ever so slightly. And Pappus being Ahaiah, brother of God, also is conspicuous, remembering that Paul goes off about the Lord's brother, and only mentions John (a Jewish variant of Julian) only twice that I can think of.

Lastly, if my old theory about Revelation, ch. 11 being about the brothers is correct, and their Lord being crucified is Lukuas, then we have more proof that the crucifixion of Jesus is based around this figure, and not someone living almost a century prior.

"Yes, yes, this is fun and all, but what are you driving at, Joseph?" I hear you say.

My thesis is that Gospel of the Hebrews was a propaganda piece designed, by r. Akiva, to promote Julian as the messiah, and that Akiva is James, the brother of the Lord, John. This would make the Jesus figure before him, Lukuas, who transposed the spirit of Christ from himself to Julian.

The only mystery is the servant of the priest. Basilides is of course a suspect. That Aquila had affiliations with both Hadrian and Akiva, is also conspicuous.
Post Reply