Is it true that John of Giscala put end to the sacrifices in the temple?

[Giuseppe]

There is a guy in Italy who argues that the "historical Jesus" was John of Giscala.

He interprets docetically the words of the Fourth Gospel addressed to the Beloved Disciple:

When Jesus saw his mother standing there beside the disciple he loved, he said to her, " Dear woman, here is your son(19:26)

To mean that the crucified guy on the cross was, really, just the Beloved Disciple: John.

This John would play in the Fourth Gospel the role of Simon in the Basilides system.

[Joseph D. L.]

I have argued (conjectured?) elsewhere my opinion that Simon of Cyrene was indeed the Beloved disciple and that the Synoptics were merely moving him further down the trough, as it were. Curious that John doesn't have Simon of Cyrene, proper, only Lazarus. To me this signifies the Johannine priority behind the Synoptics, because they would have to create a proxy for Lazarus to take over for Christ (prefigured in the passion), while John knows of no Simon figure.

And who else argued previously that John was in fact the Christ? Me.

As for John of Gischala, I have trouble reconciling much of Life with the rest of Josephus. Josephus is just another made up proxy. Though I do think that John was involved in military and zealot activities, but during the Kitos uprising.