Simon son of Man
Riegel, John Ira, 1871-; Jordan, John H., joint author
Published 1917
Conclusion
page 265,266
We believe our readers will agree that we have
amply proven the thesis with which we set out,
namely, that the Son of Man was a real human being of
flesh and blood, and not a myth; that he
was the real, historical personage who essayed to
be the political Savior of his people and to fulfill
the dream of all the prophets of his race.
He was a man of intense faith in God, and with
an undisciplined army, in spite of factional dissensions
among its leaders and the treason of a
trusted officer jealous of his supreme command, he
wrought the military miracle of holding the Holy
City for three and a half years against the greatest army
that ever arose in the ancient world
Had Alfred, king of the Belgians, been able to
hold his capital city for three and a half years
against a Hindenberg, his feat would have been the
equal of the miracle which was wrought in
Jerusalem by Simon Bar Gi'ora, the Son of Man, the
Jesus of the New Testament.
The Son of Man believed himself the Liberator
of his nation, the Messiah, in the military meaning
of the word. He was proclaimed king of the Jews.
He assumed the role and the prerogatives of a
sovereign. He coined money.
......
page 268
The Joseph of Arimathaias who, the Gospels
say, provided the Son of Man with a tomb, was
Joseph Bara-matthias, that is to say, Joseph Son
of Matthias, the Flavins Josephus of profane history.
This traitor to the great cause the Gospels
have treated far kindlier than he deserves
Free download pdf available.
https://archive.org/details/simonsonofm ... 9/mode/2up
(thanks to Peter Kirby referencing this book)
What can one say - whatever the intention of the gospel writers their story has intrigued the minds of countless writers and researchers. A picture, it is said, is worth a thousand words. And it is that picture, the gospel picture of a crucified man, a man hung on a cross, a symbol that is worn around the necks of the faithful, and adorns every nook and cranny of the christian faith, that needs reassessing. Taken literally, as the faithful do, this picture, this symbol, is fraught with danger - danger both politically and personally. To counteract the inherent danger of the cross - our view of the picture needs change. Finding value in a human sacrifice, as the faithful do, is immoral, it is anti-humanitarian. The picture needs cleaning, it needs some modern cleaning agents to dissolve the centuries of ingrained grime and mishandling it has endured......