Let's start with Simon, the Zealot/Canaanite. Here is the image Leonardo Da Vinci’s Last Supper that the art historians have declared to be Simon, the Zealot/Canaanite.

What do the religious scholars and ecclesiastics know about him? Almost nothing, even though the Church canonized him as a saint! The Church would be surprised to learn that he was the thirteenth of the group of twelve that included Jesus and as their leader was the one on the center cross between Judas and Jesus. “How can this be?”, you will cry out. The answer is firstly that the New Testament was the book about Jesus, so clearly Jesus had to be the hero. Secondly, the Church of Peter and Paul broke with the Church of Simon so that even his name had to be vilified. i.e. “the beast of 666” in Revelation.

Let us suppose that we do not know this inside knowledge and set about to figure out his identity via the "Pesher of Christ"™ method. Looking at all the references to Simon in the New Testament and excluding all those that refer to Simon Peter and to Simon who was Jesus’ brother we have some pretty good information about him.

Firstly, we need to realize that the Dead Sea Scrolls found in 1947 have confirmed that an Essene-like Jewish Church had existed before Jesus (even as the dating dispute rages on). Thus when it is said that so-and-so is a brother, sister, mother, or father, forget what you have been told and think about the fact that these members are in a monastic order and a religious community! If I were in one, then clearly my priest would be my father, my mother would be mother superior, my brother or sister would be an equal member of the community with me. Tell me is that so hard for those so-called scholars and ecclesiastics to understand! How many times must I see the statement that Andrew is Peter’s brother by blood! And what does “brother” tell you? It tells you that Andrew is on the same level as Peter, nothing more. Also, the concept of “son of” implies that this person is his superior by the same standard.

Of course, when commoners use the word son or brother as in Mark 6:3 “Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary and brother of James and Joses and Judas and Simon” then these are the actual sons of the Mary, that same “Virgin” Mary who gave birth to Jesus.

Secondly, the Church in the Councils of Nicaea and by other edicts forbid the use of all other religious writings, other gospels and apocrypha, and historical writings which ironically would have explained much of the vagueness of the New Testament. Such a ban on these works can no longer stop us because the wealth of material in the Nag Hammadi books found in 1945 is much too tantalizing, such as the Gospel of Thomas and Philip.

With just these two principles, we can discover so much more than two millenniums of scholars and ecclesiastics were able to find out about Simon. We could start by looking at the “Clementine Literature”: ClementineHomilies and Recognitions of Clement and suddenly we have an overwhelming wealth of knowledge about Simon whose partner Helena (Luna) adopted James and John. James and John are twins who were illegitimate sons of a wealthy Roman who were sent away. This explains why they are almost always linked together. About Simon we learn that he is a magician and that he managed to take the leadership of a group that John the Baptist controlled after his death. It shows him in a contest between Peter as to who could control the hearts and minds of the followers. Next, we can look at the “Acts of Peter” where Peter causes Simon to fall during one of his flying magic acts. This is commemorated by a plaque in the Francesca Romana Church near the Coliseum in Rome.

Now returning to the New Testament at Luke 6:14-16, we have Simon at number ten and all agree that that is him in Mark 3:16-19 and Matthew 10:2-4.

1. Simon, whom he named Peter, and
2. Andrew his brother, and
3. James and
4. John, and
5. Philip, and
6. Bartholomew,
7. Matthew, and
8. Thomas, and
9. James the son of Alphaeus, and
10. Simon who was called the Zealot,
11. Judas the son of James, and
12. Judas Iscariot, who became a traitor.

From this we learn that he was a zealot which meant that he opposed Roman domination of Israel and Jerusalem by force of arms, violence, and poison. The Zealots were responsible for the destruction of the temple of Jerusalem when the Romans put them down. Obviously, with these credentials the Church could not make Simon a saint, so they just say he was "zealous" in the faith, but the word zealot had a distinct meaning in those times.

Luke 4:38 And he arose and left the synagogue, and entered Simon's house. Now Simon's mother was ill with a high fever, and they besought him for her.

Mark 14:3 “And while he was at Bethany in the house of Simon the leper, as he sat at table, a woman came with an alabaster flask of ointment of pure nard, very costly, and she broke the flask and poured it over his head.”

Just a second here! Bethany and the house of a leper? Firstly, a real leper is not likely to be living or owning a house, but would be outcaste from society. Secondly, isn’t Mary, Martha, and Lazarus from Bethany and isn’t this Mary Magdalene? Perhaps, we need to see that this house is a Church and Simon is the superior of the mother and Mary and Martha. How is it that he became a leper? Perhaps this is a metaphor for having been knocked down a peg or two in the Church for misdeeds. Now if we take a small leap of faith perhaps Lazarus who is dead and in a tomb is this same Simon who is now in even more trouble with the Church. This also would explain who Martha is, namely Helena. Note that Jesus is consorting with him. Perhaps this is why he was crucified with Simon.

John 13:26 Jesus answered, "It is he to whom I shall give this morsel when I have dipped it." So when he had dipped the morsel, he gave it to Judas, the son of Simon Iscariot.

OK, now isn’t this a little silly: Judas, son of Simon Iscariot. How about Judas Iscariot, son of Simon, therefore working for him. All right, now we have a good idea why Judas ended up on the cross with Simon and Jesus even though he tried to get in the good graces of Pilate by betraying Jesus.

Mark 15:21 And they compelled a passer-by, Simon of Cyrene, who was coming in from the country, the father of Alexander and Rufus, to carry his cross.

Luke 23:26 And as they led him away, they seized one Simon of Cyrene, who was coming in from the country, and laid on him the cross, to carry it behind Jesus.

Now isn’t this interesting, another Simon? Not really, it is certainly Simon. Cyrene is one of those far away provinces of the Church in Libya, clearly similar to “leper” or “dead”. Also, we now know that Alexander and Rufus were under him. Since the words are pretending to be about a very different Simon, it would not be good to name two apostles directly so they are riddles. The second one is Thomas, often called the twin because he was denied his kingly inheritance by King Herod just as Esau was denied his inheritance by Jacob and Esau who had red hair. (Quite mouthful, but right on the nose. You see they read the Old Testament a lot! They were a church!). The first one was Thaddaeus the leader of the Therapeuts from Alexandria. (I will need a whole other document on him because he is confused by some scholars to be also Jude.)

Acts 1:13 and when they had entered, they went up to the upper room, where they were staying, Peter and John and James and Andrew, Philip and Thomas, Bartholomew and Matthew, James the son of Alphaeus and Simon the Zealot and Judas the son of James.

Here it is clear that Simon is alive after the crucifixion.

Acts 8:9 But there was a man named Simon who had previously practiced magic in the city and amazed the nation of Samaria, saying that he himself was somebody great.

Obviously, Simon again, confirming the Clementines.

Acts 8:13 Even Simon himself believed, and after being baptized he continued with Philip. And seeing signs and great miracles performed, he was amazed. Acts 8:18 Now when Simon saw that the Spirit was given through the laying on of the apostles' hands, he offered them money, Acts 8:24 And Simon answered, "Pray for me to the Lord, that nothing of what you have said may come upon me."

This is a dispute over the issue of indulgences, charging people for remission of sins. Simon wanted to charge. Obviously, if the Church hadn’t taken Simon’s idea later on there would not have been the Protestant Reformation.

Acts 10:5 And now send men to Joppa, and bring one Simon who is called Peter; Acts 10:6 he is lodging with Simon, a tanner, whose house is by the seaside."

I do not know what “tanner” means except maybe that he fleeces his followers. But he has a house on the seaside and Peter is there. Sounds like he is in a church and of still of higher station than Peter.

Codex 7,2 in the “Nag Hammadi Library” titled “The Second Treatise of the Great Seth”. “Yes, they saw me; they punished me. It was another, their father, who drank the gall and the vinegar; it was not I. They struck me with the reed; it was another, Simon, who bore the cross on his shoulder. I was another upon whom they placed the crown of thorns. But I was rejoicing in the height over all the wealth of the archons and the offspring of their error, of their empty glory. And I was laughing at their ignorance.”

What a wonderful point to end this section on Simon with! You may not yet be convinced that Jesus and Simon were on the cross and survived together, but perhaps you now have an idea of who Simon was. Clearly, he was a powerful leader and at one time a close friend of Jesus.

Looking at the lists of the twelve apostles from the New Testament (shown above from Luke, Mark, Matthew, John, and Acts), we can see that most of the apostles correspond. There are just a few loose connections:

* Simon's stature is greater than he appears (discussed previously)
* Thaddaeus appears to be the same as Thaddaeus and Lebbaeus whose surname was Thaddaeus, but "Judas son of James" and "Judas the brother of James" need explanation (Also, he is somewhat obscure)
* James son of Alphaeus is obscure
* Nathaniel is missing from the list
* Matthew is degraded as a tax collector of Rome
* Bartholomew is somewhat obscure

When looking at the lists of the apostles it becomes apparent that the order of the apostles is significant. With the top apostle being Peter, it would be assumed that the top down order has significance to Jesus. With the exception of Acts where Thomas moves up to the position six, certainly the top six in the list are directly under Jesus. They are Simon Peter, Andrew, James, John, Philip, and Bartholomew.

However, perhaps the reverse order, bottom to top, could also be of importance in the hierarchy of the current organization that Jesus belonged to. Also, considering that the top hierarchy needed to be protected from being captured by Rome, their names would be probably be in code and that may explain why some of them are so obscure.

In reverse order we have Judas Iscariot, Thaddaeus, and Simon as the top three and there they are: candidates for the three crosses! Above, I showed how important Simon was, so chances are he made it to the center cross.

Now, we have the story of a person called Barabbas getting switched with Jesus. Barabbas is a nice sounding pirate name, but wait, remember that Simon Bar-Kokhba zealot, “bar” just means “son of”, thus Barabbas is "son of Abba (Father)". Not confusing “son of” as blood-relations but instead using this to mean religious position, this name sounds like another “son of” as in James son of Alphaeus. Since Simon appears to be the “alpha guy”, and Judas Iscariot "with the reward he got for his wickedness, Judas bought a field and there he fell headlong, his body burst open and all his intestines spilled out” (Acts 1:18), was clearly not Barabbas; we now we can associate Thaddaeus with Barabbas!

The “Judas, not Iscariot” in the Gospel of John at the Last Supper must also be Thaddaeus, clearly filling the slot just left by Judas Iscariot who left the Last Supper to betray Jesus. It would appear that Judas is more of a title that may have begun with the documented historical person Judas of Galilee (see link below) who was killed in 6 AD. "Judas son of James" in the list of twelve in Luke, being at the correct position that Thaddaeus would have been in, gives us a clue that Thaddaeus took the title of Judas sometimes. As he is shown as "Judas son of James" it would appear that he was an independent and may have been under James and at other times under Simon. There is clearly no need for scholars to go after Jude (Hey, Jude), the brother of Jesus for Thaddaeus or invent a whole family tree by misusing "son of". In any case, Jude the brother of Jesus, would be about 17 years old at the time.

Looking at James son of Alphaeus again, we have this James reporting to an Alphaeus person. By the first part being the Greek letter ‘alpha’ like “alpha and omega”, it must refer to the “top guy”. His position in the list puts him after the three top leaders and he must report to the top guy. Seeing as we have a Nathanael at John 1:43-49 & John 21:2 as one of the first recruits of Jesus, it looks like he would be a good candidate for “James son of Alphaeus”. The name Nathanael means “God has given” which is similar to Jonathan “gift of God” who was the friend of King David. Given that that Jonathan was the prince, son of King Saul, and David took his title by marrying his sister, this tells us quite a bit about the relationship of “James son of Alphaeus” to Jesus who was in the lineage of David. It would also explain why he was later called “Stephanos” meaning crown making him that same martyred Stephen.

Next we will look at Matthew being maligned as a Roman tax collector. The Catholic Encyclopedia asserts that Matthew once could have been called "Levi", according to Mark 2:14 & Luke 5:27 where there is a Levi, son of Alphaeus, a tax collector and a publican who was called to follow Jesus. Incidentally, the Encyclopedia also states that "The fact of one man having two names is of frequent occurrence among the Jews." Here is the true connection with tax collector: (Hebrews 7:5): "And those descendants of Levi who receive the priestly office have a commandment in the law to take tithes from the people, that is, from their brothers, though these also are descended from Abraham." This is again an example of an obvious explanation of tax collector overlooked by experts that makes Matthew (Levi), not a forgiven hated tax collector of the Romans, but a tax collector of the Church and in fact a priest of the priestly tribe of Levi.

Let us take Matthew a step further and say that the four Gospels and the lesser Gospels of Thomas and Philip were not based on verbal remembrances written later, but actually written by these people. After all, they, being Jewish, were not uneducated and therefore perfectly capable of writing words. (Of course, what we look at now are copies as there was no printing press in the time of Jesus.) Therefore, is it not logical that this Matthew wrote the Gospel of Matthew!

Let us now look at Bartholomew. The "bar" on front of that name makes him "son of Tholomew" which is clearly "son of Ptolemy" which places him from Alexandria, Egypt. In the Works of Philo Judaeus "On The Contemplative Life Or Suppliants" section III, Philo talks about Therapeuts (Therapeutae) from Alexandria who practiced the art of healing. So this is saying that Batholomew reports to the head of the Therapeuts. Since, clearly, he reports to Jesus as he is among the first six names, one might say that "son of Ptolemy" is just a fancy way of saying that he reports to Jesus.

Now, certainly there is a confusion in Church History about two Johns. One is clearly on Patmos writing part of Revelation and the other according to tradition is a John who looked after Mary in Ephesus where there exists a church where she lived. Clearly, the charge that Jesus gave to the "disciple who he loved", which he spoke from the cross, to look after Mary in John 19:26,27 fits the tradition. This "disciple that Jesus loved" is also shown leaning on Jesus' bosom (John 14:23). It is interesting that the "beloved" disciple is associated with "bosom" and Jesus' mother and maybe he was also a guardian of Mary Magdalene, Jesus' wife. Perhaps there is a reason for obscuring the name John under the name Bartholomew or "disciple that Jesus loved" because it is possible that he left Jesus later on perhaps with Mary Magdalene. Given that there are two Johns who are disciples, one could assume that this Bartholomew is the "beloved disciple" and that his name is John. Perhaps, also this could be the John who wrote the Gospel of John.

As to Matthias Acts 1:23,26, the replacement for Judas Iscariot, the clue lies with whom they passed up namely Joseph called Barsabbas (also known as Justus). There is the "bar" meaning son of "Sabbas". In Acts 15:22 it says "They sent Judas called Barsab'bas, and Silas". Now this is interesting for do you recall Matt 13:55 "Is not this the carpenter's son? Is not his mother called Mary? And are not his brothers James and Joseph and Simon and Judas?" And Mark 6:3 "Is not this the carpenter's son? Is not his mother called Mary? And are not his brothers James and Joses and Juda and Simon". So there they are: Joseph(Joses) and Judas called Barsabbas, thus as the sons of "Sabbas" we learn the family name of Joseph the father of Jesus, James, Joses, Judas and Simon. (The juxtaposition of Judas and Silas in Acts 15:22 above is also a clue that Silas is Simon.) Now this is still a bit tricky as James is also is Joseph, here we a given another clue in the text with the word Justus which is used for crown prince. Thus since James is the younger brother of Jesus, he would be the crown prince until Jesus had a son so clearly this Joseph Barsabbas is James. There is quite a bit of background on this which is too complicated to cover here, but let us just say that there was alot of sibling rivalry between them, thus he was passed over. Now if we follow the logic that the group was looking for a representative for Jesus who was going back to the celibate life in the monastery having survived the crucifixion, then perhaps it was the next son they picked: Joses. Recognitions of Clement 1,60 tell us that Matthias was Barnabas. In Acts 4:36, Barnabas is shown to have a first name Joseph! Thus we conclude that Matthias is Joses Barnabas, Jesus' next younger brother from James. This is quite a revelation from Matthias the unknown one that people ask why they even bothered with this election.

In review, the twelve apostles are in two groups of six. The top group report to Jesus:
1. Peter
2. Andrew (not a relation)
3. & 4. James and John (twin illegitimate sons of a Roman noble - The Clementine Homilies - see above)
5. Philip (He has his own gospel - Nag Hammadi Library)
6. Bartholomew (The beloved disciple, John who wrote the Gospel of John)
The bottom group report to "Alphaeus" whoever was the top "Pope" at the time. These are the top groups superiors (sorry to have to report that Jesus reported to them): The top leaders:
1. Simon (the leader, Alphaeus)
2. Judas Iscariot (a top wanna-be) (replaced by Joses-Barnabas, Jesus' next younger brother from James)
3. Thaddaeus (also Barabbas)
The substitute leaders:
4. James son of Alphaeus (top wanna-be: Stephanos (Stephen), the crown)
5. Matthew (a Levite who wrote the Gospel Of Matthew)
6. Thomas (the twin, a dispossessed Herod prince. He has his own gospel - Nag Hammadi Library - see above)