[continued from previous message]   
      
   Judas Iscariot was probably one of Jesus' most trusted followers, evidenced by   
   the fact that Jesus had clearly appointed him treasurer for the movement.   
   [185] Further, there is a strong probability that Judas was a close blood   
   relative of Jesus, perhaps    
   even one of Jesus' younger brothers. On three occasions, the apostle John   
   describes Judas as being “of Simon”, i.e. either “son of Simon” or “brother of   
   Simon”. [186] In this context, the Simon indicated would most likely have been   
   the same Simon who was    
   either brother or cousin of Jesus and who, having taken charge of the Church   
   after James the Less was killed in 62 A.D., was the most prominent “Simon” in   
   the Christian community when John's Gospel was being composed. [187] One more   
   thing may be said    
   with some certainty about Judas, and that is, that Judas was a Zealot. The   
   name, “Iscariot”, was probably a corruption from the Latin word Sicarius or   
   the Greek Sicarii, meaning dagger-man or assassin. Sicarii was one of the   
   official names used to refer    
   to the Zealots by Greeks, Romans and even Josephus, the Jewish historian.   
   Furthermore, John refers to Judas also as a thief, a lestai, another Greek   
   term for Zealot – although John may certainly have intended the term to be   
   understood per its usual    
   denotation as well. [188] Thus, “Judas Iscariot” was another way of saying   
   Judas, the Zealot. [189] As one of Jesus' most trusted supporters, Judas was   
   the ideal candidate for a top-secret assignment. As Jesus' close relative,   
   Judas probably was    
   sufficiently similar in physical appearance to Jesus that he might easily have   
   been, from a distance, mistaken for Jesus himself. And, as a Zealot, Judas no   
   doubt had the extreme dedication and training required to carry out a suicide   
   mission – a mission    
   which alone could convince the other Zealots that Jesus was indeed the direct   
   son of God with a divine mandate to rule over Israel). [190]   
      
   Whether or not one accepts that Judas was crucified in place of Jesus, it is   
   certainly unlikely that Judas ever really betrayed Jesus. No doubt Judas did   
   play a part in turning Jesus over to the authorities, but that he   
   unquestionably did with Jesus'    
   consent or, rather; under Jesus' direct instruction. [191] Here it should be   
   noted that the capture of Jesus by the Jewish authorities was most probably   
   nothing but a pretense, for the Jews who captured Jesus turned him over to the   
   Roman authorities    
   forthwith. That this is so becomes evident when one considers the questions   
   allegedly asked of Jesus by the Jewish tribunal – questions that were more in   
   line with future Christian dogma than with the existing tradition of Jewish   
   belief. None of the Jews,   
    not even the Zealots or Essenes, ever thought of the Messiah as the “son of   
   God”, yet this was the way in which that “Jewish tribunal” allegedly defined   
   the Messiah. [192] Moreover, which of Jesus' disciples would have been present   
   at the Inquest to    
   hear what was said? More likely than not, this tribunal never took place, and   
   the story about this tribunal was circulated by the Church in order to enhance   
   the image of Jesus as a supernatural being, while simultaneously diverting any   
   blame or ill    
   feeling about the crucifixion away from the Romans and onto the apostate Jews   
   who refused to acknowledge Jesus as Christ. [193] As regards the alleged   
   betrayal of Jesus by Judas, it would be better to say that Judas actually   
   saved Jesus rather than that    
   he betrayed him. By fixing the program for his arrest and delivery to the   
   Roman authorities, Judas ultimately facilitated Jesus' escape from the Jewish   
   bureaucracy, which definitely did want to see Jesus eliminated.   
      
   Let us close our discussion of the crucifixion after remarking one last   
   curious connection with Judas Iscariot. At the same time as Jesus was   
   allegedly being crucified, Judas died – and Jesus survived. Regarding both the   
   death of Judas and the    
   resurrection of Jesus, there was and is considerable controversy. Part of the   
   controversy regarding the resurrection of Jesus is directly reported by   
   Matthew. [194] As for the death of Judas, this controversy becomes obvious in   
   the two completely    
   contradictory versions given concerning the manner of Judas' death. According   
   to Matthew, Judas committed suicide by hanging himself. According to Luke, the   
   presumed author of Acts, Judas was somehow disemboweled by an improbable and   
   apparently    
   accidental fall. [195] The simplest and most likely resolution of these   
   discrepancies is that Judas was crucified instead of Jesus, probably not with   
   nails in his hands and feet, but rather with thongs tied around his wrists to   
   cut off the circulation,    
   as was generally done to expedite death, or whenever it might be desirable to   
   leave no nail marks upon the body. Perhaps Judas expected to be saved somehow   
   by Jesus or by the Romans. Unfortunately he knew too much for everyone's   
   comfort. In the short    
   time that Judas was on the cross, it is not likely that he died. So, to ensure   
   his silence, he was simply gutted by a Roman sword or spear, and his bloody   
   corpse was left to rot in the potter's field.   
      
   The subject of the resurrection remains here to be examined. The question of a   
   resurrection does not arise if Jesus was never crucified. However, let us   
   assume for a while the unlikely possibility that Jesus was nailed to that   
   cross in full accordance    
   with traditional belief. [196] Even so, Jesus, or whoever was on the cross,   
   was hardly up there long enough to die. Generally it took days; and,   
   considering the extraordinary powers attributed to Jesus, one would have   
   imagined that, in his case it may    
   have required weeks. Instead, both of the Zealots who were crucified along   
   with Jesus outlasted him, and even Pontius Pilate was recorded as having been   
   astonished by Jesus' speedy demise, within a period of time not exceeding six   
   hours. [197] All in all,   
    one thing is certain – if Jesus was on the cross and was also later seen   
   still alive by his apostles and disciples, then he did not die on that cross.   
   [198]   
      
   To continue, if Jesus were really on that cross then, most probably, he was   
   put to sleep by some drug in the sponge placed to his lips just before he   
   allegedly expired. [199] Thereafter he was carried away, and presumably nursed   
   back to health, by Joseph    
   of Arimathaea and Nicodemus, with the cooperation and support of Pontius   
   Pilate. [200] Of course, if it was not Jesus on that cross, then the sponge   
   may well have been full of poison; but, one way or another, the poor man on   
   the cross who substituted for    
   Jesus was no doubt eventually killed. Even in the case of a proxy, it was   
   necessary for Joseph of Arimathaea to wrap the body in shrouds so as to   
   conceal the identity of the man crucified. And, to be doubly sure of secrecy   
   in the matter – whether it was    
   to nurse Jesus back to health or to cover up the fraudulent crucifixion –   
   Joseph of Arimathaea had to place the body in his own, newly-constructed tomb.   
   [201]   
      
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)