On the hypothesis that the Gospel Jesus == Jesus ben Saphat

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

Re: On the hypothesis that the Gospel Jesus == Jesus ben Saphat

Post by Giuseppe »

That commented by you is only one of the two possible mutually exclusive possibilities:

I have written:
Giuseppe wrote: Tue Apr 20, 2021 5:52 am
  • According to Hippolytus, Simon claims to have appeared to the Jews “in Judea as ‘Son,’ and in Samaria as ‘Father,’ and among the rest of the Gentiles as ‘Holy Spirit.”
  • Hence, given also his anti-YHWH nature, Simon Magus, appeared in Judea as 'the Son of the Unknown Father' is probably "Bar-Abbas".
  • The Gospel writers betray the insistence to distinguish between the true crucified man (Jesus called Christ) and Barabbas captured during the stasis.
  • Hence, there had to be a "Simon of Samaria" captured and probably crucified during a precise revolt happened under Pilate, and this 'Bar-Abbas' was someway considered as a dangerous disturbing rival of the Christians' claims that their Jesus called Christ was crucified under Pilate.
  • Josephus talks effectively about a Samaritan false prophet 'punished' by Pilate.
    • Is it a coincidence that he was a Samaritan?
    • Is it a coincidence that the only revolt repressed by Pilate was led by a Samaritan false prophet?
    • Is it a coincidence that the Gospel Barabbas was captured during 'the' insurrection, a precise insurrection meant to be happened under the Gospel Pilate?
    • Is it a coincidence that Barabbas and Simon Magus are both 'Son' of an alien unknown Father?
    • Is it a coincidence that the Father of both Barabbas and Simon Magus is a god enemy of YHWH?
    • Is is a coincidence that Simon Magus was connected again and again with Samaria and Mount Gerizim ?
CONCLUSION:
the Samaritan false prophet was probably the only seditious crucified by Pilate.
There are only two historical possibilities:
  • the Gospel writers, in reaction against the Docetism and the Anti-Demiurgism, replaced the crucifixion of the Samaritan false prophet (who has become in whiletime an icon of Docetism and Anti-Demiurgism under the name of 'Simon Magus' and 'Bar-Abbas') with the crucixifion of Jesus b. Sapphat, hence applying deliberately the shift in time from 70 CE to 30 CE.
  • the historical Jesus was the Samaritan false prophet. The Gospel writers deliberately 'judaized' the figure to deny the Samaritan origins of the sect and accuse the Jews, and not the Romans, for his death.
Giuseppe
Posts: 13732
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: On the hypothesis that the Gospel Jesus == Jesus ben Saphat

Post by Giuseppe »

Another evidence about Simon Magus being the best candidate for the role of a "Son of Unknown Father" (= "Bar-Abbas") hence supporting my case above:
  • Acts 8:4-8:3 has Philip as baptizer of Simon Magus:

    4Now those who were scattered went from place to place, proclaiming the word. 5 Philip went down to the city of Samaria and proclaimed the Messiah to them. 6 The crowds with one accord listened eagerly to what was said by Philip, hearing and seeing the signs that he did, 7 for unclean spirits, crying with loud shrieks, came out of many who were possessed; and many others who were paralyzed or lame were cured. 8 So there was great joy in that city. 9 Now a certain man named Simon had previously practiced magic in the city and amazed the people of Samaria, saying that he was someone great. 10 All of them, from the least to the greatest, listened to him eagerly, saying, "This man is the power of God that is called Great." 11 And they listened eagerly to him because for a long time he had amazed them with his magic. 12 But when they believed Philip, who was proclaiming the good news about the kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both men and women. 13 Even Simon himself believed. After being baptized, he stayed constantly with Philip and was amazed when he saw the signs and great miracles that took place

  • The Gospel of Philip preaches Anti-Demiurgism, the idea that YHWH is evil:


    The mysteries of truth are revealed, though in type and image. The bridal chamber, however, remains hidden. It is the Holy in the Holy. The veil at first concealed how God controlled the creation, but when the veil is rent and the things inside are revealed, this house will be left desolate, or rather will be destroyed. And the whole (inferior) godhead will flee from here, but not into the holies of the holies, for it will not be able to mix with the unmixed light and the flawless fullness, but will be under the wings of the cross and under its arms.

    http://gnosis.org/naghamm/gop.html
Hence, Simon Magus is connected, via Philip, to a Gospel where the deity who is adored is named: Jesus the Son of Father.
lsayre
Posts: 769
Joined: Sun Jan 04, 2015 3:39 pm

Re: On the hypothesis that the Gospel Jesus == Jesus ben Saphat

Post by lsayre »

Giuseppe wrote: Tue Apr 20, 2021 5:15 am “Simeon who is called Niger” is probably the ‘Niger of Perea’ from Josephus. Again: 66-70 CE.
If we has been blessed with a historian of the region writing in ballpark the 30's CE it is likely that names such as Jesus, Niger, Simon, etc... would crop up also. And what would we make of them?
Giuseppe
Posts: 13732
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: On the hypothesis that the Gospel Jesus == Jesus ben Saphat

Post by Giuseppe »

lsayre wrote: Tue Apr 20, 2021 11:15 am If we has been blessed with a historian of the region writing in ballpark the 30's CE
we are blessed with a such historian, since Josephus wrote in detail about the period.

Isayre, please don't waste bits by writing similar comments where it seems that you are quasi begging (!) for the historicity of the traditional Christian Jesus. Otherwise it is too much evident that you are a pious Christian.
Giuseppe
Posts: 13732
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: On the hypothesis that the Gospel Jesus == Jesus ben Saphat

Post by Giuseppe »

Someone has arrived independently from me to this same conclusion:

Dear Mr Parshall
Is is possible Simon Magus (of Samaria) was Jesus Barabbas the second Christ?
Yours sincerely
Mark Scully

January 16, 2020 at 4:05 am
Giuseppe
Posts: 13732
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: On the hypothesis that the Gospel Jesus == Jesus ben Saphat

Post by Giuseppe »

Another guy arguing identity between Barabbas and Simon bar Giora:

I am going to propose that the rebel’s name was actually Simon, Simon Barabbas (‘Simon Son of Abbas’). In so doing, we can align him with various supposedly individual characters of the name Simon (albeit a most common Jewish name) who figure in the New Testament and in Jewish history; colourful characters indeed who fit the above buzz words.
Our first match will be with the notorious Simon Bar Giora, who led the insurrection against Rome in 66-69 AD (conventional dating). Simon Bar Giora immediately fits our Simon Barabbas as to (a) name structure; (b) chronological range; as a (c) charismatic revolutionary leader; (d) a possible or would-be “prince”, (e) fiercely religious, who (f) resisted the Romans. Another key factor, as we shall read, is that Simon Bar Giora had previous ‘form’ as a bandit, “already apparently known as a partisan leader”. So, we can imagine him as a young man, as Barabbas, and later as a fully mature Bar Giora, now of vast experience (and wickedness).

http://amaic-alphaomega.blogspot.com/20 ... 5.html?m=1

Now the coincidence is that Doudna thinks that the legendary Simon Magus is a variant memory of Simon bar Giora.

Hence again the equation:

Simon Magus ==Barabbas.
lsayre
Posts: 769
Joined: Sun Jan 04, 2015 3:39 pm

Re: On the hypothesis that the Gospel Jesus == Jesus ben Saphat

Post by lsayre »

Giuseppe wrote: Tue Apr 20, 2021 11:29 am Isayre, please don't waste bits by writing similar comments where it seems that you are quasi begging (!) for the historicity of the traditional Christian Jesus. Otherwise it is too much evident that you are a pious Christian.
I'm likely far more of an atheist than you are. But wherein I exhibit a desire for accurate history, you are willing to accept turncoat Josephus as having recorded an accurate historical representation of the times. And you revel in the fact that an accurate history of the 30's era does not exist, whereby you can play your timeshift games with what are but common names.
Giuseppe
Posts: 13732
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: On the hypothesis that the Gospel Jesus == Jesus ben Saphat

Post by Giuseppe »

lsayre wrote: Tue Apr 20, 2021 11:57 am what are but common names.
"Simon the Zealot" is hardly a common name. Idem for "Philip". Idem for Niger. My point is that insofar you see the period 66-70 CE as decisive for the birth of Christianity, these names cease virtually to be mere "common names" and find their full account in the First Jewish Revolt. Again, in order to consider the genuine value of the names' origin, one has to be persuaded first that the First Revolt produced the Christianity. That is a case apart from finding the "historical Jesus".

A good case (but not the best case) has been made here.

lsayre wrote: Tue Apr 20, 2021 11:57 am Josephus as having recorded an accurate historical representation of the times.
better having 10000 Josephus(-es) than only one Evangelist.
Giuseppe
Posts: 13732
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: On the hypothesis that the Gospel Jesus == Jesus ben Saphat

Post by Giuseppe »

Now this is interesting: some Galileans who cause trouble in Samaria:

After this there happened a fight between the Galileans and the Samaritans; it happened at a village called Geman, which is situated in the great plain of Samaria; where, as a great number of Jews were going up to Jerusalem to the feast [of tabernacles,] a certain Galilean was slain; and besides, a vast number of people ran together out of Galilee, in order to fight with the Samaritans. But the principal men among them came to Cumanus, and besought him that, before the evil became incurable, he would come into Galilee, and bring the authors of this murder to punishment; for that there was no other way to make the multitude separate without coming to blows.

https://lexundria.com/j_bj/2.223-2.249/wst

If it can be proved that Simon bar Giora worked also in Samaria, then the case becomes more plausible, that the legends about "Simon Magus" developed out of Simon bar Giora, and accordingly the latter was then confused with the false Samaritan prophet slain by Pilate.
Giuseppe
Posts: 13732
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: On the hypothesis that the Gospel Jesus == Jesus ben Saphat

Post by Giuseppe »

Simon bar Giora worked effectively in Samaria, too:

Leaving the capital with his followers, he tried to make himself master of the district of Acrabatene, southeast of Samaria, and a well-known center of fierce patriotic sentiment. Here apparently others who shared his views rallied to him. He attacked the wealthy, sacking their houses and molesting their persons, until the provisional government in Jerusalem, headed by the ex-High Priest Hanan ben Hanan (“Ananus” in Josephus), sent an armed force against him. This Spartacist revolt (as we might call it) was put down without much difficulty, but bar Giora was able to escape, with some of his more devoted followers and their womenfolk.

https://www.commentarymagazine.com/arti ... pretation/
Post Reply