The deception of the Christian martyrs of Nero

The Codex Laurentianus Mediceus M II (68.2) - preserved at the Medicea Laurentiana Library - is the oldest manuscript attesting the famous passage concerning Christ and the Christians (contained in Book XV chap. 44 of Tacitus's Annales). According to paleographers it is dated to around the eleventh century, in other words a millenium after the death of the Latin historian, and represents the archetype of other codexes copied in more recent times.
It was found in 1356 (two centuries after it is said to have been drafted) by the famous man of letters Zanòbi from Strada (Chianti), in his capacity of vicar of Bishop Angelo Acciaiuoli within the great Abbacy of Montecassino, which has a library full of illuminated manuscripts containing holy and classical literary works.

For the last three centuries its authenticity has been object of debate among the most important experts on the subject; and, needless to say, the controversy has been vitiated by the partial fideistic ideological positions taken by these people. These contrasting views represent the principal obstacle to the definitive solution of the matter. There is a great deal at stake here: we are dealing with the most important first-century testimony regarding the existence of Jesus and his followers, deriving from the main non-Christian historical source; it is even more important than those of Josephus Flavius, Suetonius and Plinius the Younger.
Today the debate, which continues to be focused on the paleographical analysis of the document, is stalled (as just pointed out). Moreover, the experts know that
"paleography is a science founded upon estimates of maximium, uncertain due to the very long period of time that has elapsed; it is a method which too often is passed off as a certainty so as not to confuse non-specialists, therefore it is historically inappropriate" (Robert Eisemann, one of the world's most important paleographers).

Due to the great interest which this topic has aroused (even on an international level), it is not understood why the Directors of the Medicea Laurentiana Library (and, in particular, the specialists from the Manuscripts Department) have not yet subjected Codex M II (68.2) to verification by means of mass spectometry in order to establish its dating, which thusfar has been estimated through paleographic methods.
This necessity derives from the observation that all the ancient Codexes dated (paleographically) to before and after the "laurentianus" (68.2) - handwrittten by Christians throughout many centuries and which regard Latin and Greek Patrology - despite making reference to the deeds of Nero, do not mention the slaughter of Jesus's followers perpetrated by the Caesar after the fire which devastated Rome in 64 A.D.
It is a sharp contradiction as the Fathers of the Church (and their scribes) have the historical duty to report the chronicle of the spectacular massacre of their martyrs.
Therefore the two centuries of silence separating the first copying of the exceptional manuscript from the time in which it was recovered represent a very questionable gap; so an instrumental analysis resulting in a dating which overlaps that of the "discovery" would help prove who it was commisioned by.

Having said this, we know that there are other scientific methodologies based on incontestable objective data such as archeology, numismatics, and historical testimonies, including the facts contained in the Codexes of Christian Patrology: in substance, a set of ascertained elements which allow us to arrive at a final historiological conclusion. We will therefore subject to a comparative analysis all the information linked to the Tacitean chronicle about the testimony concerning Jesus and his followers at the dawn of the Christian era.

The "Testimonies" of Tacitus and Josephus regarding Jesus

Part I: summary

Through this study we intend to compare the information left by Cornelius Tacitus and Josephus - the only historians who mention "Christ" and explicitly identify him with the "Jesus" of the Gospels - which has reached us by means of copied non-original manuscripts; our aim is to verify if the writings which have reached actually offer proof of the existence of the "Son of God" during the first century, or if we are dealing with lies placed in the documents by deceitful copyists in order to make Jesuit-Christianity doctrine seem more credible.

At the end of the first century Josephus Flavius - an influential member of the Sanhedrin who was born and lived (37-105 A.D.) in Jerusalem and whose works have reached us through medieval manuscripts - mentions the four Jewish religious sects existing in Judea during his lifetime: the Pharisees, Sadduceans, Essenes, and Zealots. Instead the Jewish historian does not describe the principles of the religion called "Messianism", or "Christianity" (Χριστιανισμός) in Greek; however, in two of his passages he refers to "Jesus Christ": "Testimonium Flavianum" and "James brother of Jesus Christ". Thus the aim of our inquiry is to study in-depth and verify the reasons behind this incoherency, as we have done in the analysis regarding "James the Minor" brother of Jesus. In reality in this study we have demonstrated that we are dealing with a man who was also called James but was not the first biblical Bishop of Jerusalem but the brother of a Jew who happened to be called Jesus, not the son of Saint Joseph whom we all know but the son of Damneus, therefore father of a Jesus who was appointed High Priest of the Temple of Jerusalem. The analysis is confirmed by archeological findings which have demonstrated the inexistence of Christian Bishops in Jerusalem in the first two centuries A.D., in contrast with what is stated in "Historia Ecclesiastica".

This contradiction can also be found in the words of the famous Roman historian Cornelius Tacitus (155-220 A.D.); in his work "Historiae" (written in Latin) he dedicates twelve chapters of Book V (from the second to the thirteenth) to the explanation of the foundations of the Jewish religion in Judea, without mentioning anything about "Christianity" (Christianismus) or even making reference to the essential criteria of the new doctrine (despite having officially been assigned the task of surveilling the foreign cults). In his other work, "Annales", he cites "Christ" and "Pilate" in his description of the martyrdom of the Christians in Rome ordered by Nero as a consequence of the famous fire, and recognizes Judea as the native land of Christianity.

As we are about to verify, both ancient chroniclers would have deemed it necessary to investigate the precepts and the aims of the Jesuit Christian movement, if it had actually existed in the first century. Indeed, another important confirmation of this serious classical lacuna has reached us thanks to the Jewish historian and philosopher Philo of Alexandria (20 B.C. - 45 A.D.) - the most influential member of the Jewish community in Alexandria - who in his treatise entitled "De Providentia" (II 107) states that he often went to the Temple of Jerusalem to offer sacrifices to God, yet in none of his works does he mention the Advent of the Jewish Messiah (his contemporary) who, according to the Gospels, was hailed "King of the Jews" and "son of David" by the people of Jerusalem. Philo also knows nothing about a new religious doctrine which had spread throughout Judea and whose spiritual leader was James, Bishop of Jerusalem and brother of the Messiah named "Jesus". The learned Jew is also oblivious of the spectacular miracles - capable of healing crowds of sick people who also came from the cities around Jerusalem - performed in front of the Holy Jewish Temple by the disciples, Apostles and successors of Christ. Such news would have been of utmost importance to the Jewish religion; Philo himself would have felt obligated to pass it on to posterity and, perhaps, convert to Christianity: the doctrine for the "salvation of eternal life".

Gaius Suetonius Tranquillus also speaks about "Christians" in the first century, and in a short while we will mention him as his testimony is enough to prove that the word "Christ" alone does not distinguish between the Jewish "Christ" of the Messianic Expectation and the "Jesus Christ" of the Advent.
The same can be said with regard to Gaius Plinius Caecilius Secundus (known as Plinius the Younger); at the beginning of the second century (as we will see later on) he sent the "Epistolarum X 96" to Trajan (it's on the web: just clic) in which he refers to "Christ" and the "Christians" but makes no mention of the name of the "Messiah", meaning that for those Christians "Jesus" had yet to come.
The fact that in the historical testimonies there is no trace of the name "Jesus" ("Jeshua" in Aramaic) meaning "Saviour" is a detail of utmost importance. The Jews in fact used the term "Saviour" (meant as a divine attribute) to refer to the military leaders who managed to liberate (like Joshua) the "promise land" from Pagan domination ... but who were disowned upon defeat. "Christ" and "Christians" are generic terms which refer to faithful Jews, that is to say the Jews of the Diaspora - exiles, promotors of uprisings, victims of repressions or Jewish wars - spread throughout the provinces of the Empire, all of whom "Expected" their Messiah.

The indefinite meaning of the term "Christians" (Greek word translated from the original Jewish term "Messianists", which in turn derives from "Messiah") will later be exploited by the Church and passed off as meaning "Jesuit Christian believers", for whom the "Advent" of the Messiah (called "Jesus") had already taken place by the year 31-33 of the first century A.D. According to the Church the words "Christ" or "Christians" mentioned by the writers of the period had to refer to the one and only Saviour Christ (Messiah): Jesus.
The Church has always recognized only one and he "had to" be Him: it was his doctrine and so this was inevitable. On the contrary, it is not logical for modern "spiritualist" historians to back this "faith" and pass it off as "history".
Explained in more simple words: "Christians" were those who awaited Christ, and "Christians" were those who were convinced that the Messiah had already arrived. The name "Jesus" - used by the latter to baptize the Messiah - was their distinguishing factor; the former instead could not baptize anyone as according to them the Messiah chosen by God - who they perceived as an invincible Davidic warrior -  had yet to arrive.

The "Christians" described by Plinius the Younger were "messianist" Essene Jews residing in Bithynia who had not yet been touched by the initial gnostic change concerning the "Jewish Saviour Messiah", which had begun in faraway upper Egypt where the Essene nationalists persecuted by Vespatian had taken refuge after the Jewish war. As highlighted in the study regarding the existence of Saint John the Apostle, there were no Jesuit Christians in Bithynia because God prevented the Apostles from converting the inhabitants of this region.

“They travelled through Phrygia and the Galatian territory, because they had been told by the Holy Spirit not to preach the word in the Province of Asia. When they reached the frontier of Mysia they tried to go into Bithynia, but as the Spirit of Jesus would not allow them ...” (Acts 16,6/7).

The reason behind this "divine prohibition" is explained in the separate study, which - through the reading of the event referred to by Plinius the Younger and on the basis of how it is reported in the ancient codexes, duly dated and handwritten by men of the Church - verifies the Church's failure to recognize the martyrdom of numerous Christians ordered by the Governor of Bythinia, as these "messianists" were not followers of Jesus.
The exegetes of the Clergy have always been aware that the Christians from Bythinia did not know Jesus Christ, the Son of God, "Saviour" (Jesus) of all humanity.
Just as important for Jesuit-Christian doctrine is the fact that the study demonstrates the inexistence of the Apostle John: a finding which inevitably reflects upon the present analysis in a devastating way (as we will soon see).

In fact, in Bythinia in 112 A.D., the "messianists" of the time knew nothing about "Jesus Christ", "universal Saviour", who was invented at a later date. They were (as we are about to examine closely) a Essene Jewish sect who "awaited" their Messiah (Christ), not the "Son of God" but chosen by God like David: it was the last hope they had to counter the mighty Roman military power which forty years earlier had destroyed the Holy City and the Temple.
They practiced the Essenic liturgy of the community-meal, contained in their "rule" (Qumran Scroll) along with other principles adopted by future the  Jesuit Christians. But, if these believers had been the followers of a "Redeemer Jesus", "Son of God and God himself" - a new Messiah figure (similar to the pagan sacrificial "Hostia") to be eaten "body and blood" and enter into "communion with Him" through the Holy Eucharist in order to rise again after death, that is to say a faith which differed from that of the Jews - to distingiush themselves and avoid misunderstandings they would have called him by his complete name "Jesus Christ", not just "Christ", aware of the fact that "Christ" (Messiah) was the divinity which the Jews awaited, as is demonstrated by the Dead Sea Scrolls.

Being part of a priestly college in charge of surveilling the foreign cults (which was one of his specific tasks), in his work "Historiae" dedicates the greater part of Book V to the description of the religion and events characterizing the Jewish people through a historical retrospective view of the events (from the remote past to 70 A.D.).
In this long narration the historian makes no mention of the existence of the Christian religion and of he ("Jesus Christ") who created it nor does he refer to the Roman official who eliminated "Jesus".
In spite of the fact that the historian lists numerous imperial Governors of Judea (including the first Pompeus Magnus) of equestrian order; he also cites the names of several Procurators yet does not cite Pilate deserving of mention for having been the author of a memorable undertaking: the killing of the leader who founded the "ruinous" evil doctrine which had "invaded" Rome.
On the contrary, in "Annales" - after the devastating fire in Rome - the following is written:

"...a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius through our Procurator, Pontius Pilate, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome"
(Ann. XV 44).

But in "Historiae" Tacitus does not even make the most slightest reference to Jesus Christ, Christianity, the "Procurator" Pontius Pilate or to the "Apostles".
It is impossible not to notice that the serious lacuna in "Historiae" becomes an explicit contradiction in "Annales" as Tacitus should have been extremely aware of the problem represented by "Jesuit Christianity" due to the gravity of what had occurred in Rome; here in 64 A.D., at the end of the devastating fire which saw - according to the text of his "Annales" copied by eleventh-century scribes - the crucifixion of a "great multitude" (put to death as sacrificial victims) of Christians accused by Nero of having set fire to Rome.

What! ... In the land of Christ, Judea, "the first source of the evil that had rapidly spread", the historian does not feel obliged to look into the repressive measures taken by an imperial "Procurator" of Tiberius, aimed at crushing the "grave calamity" and culminating in the execution of the leader of a "foreign cult"? Tacitus describes Judea, its inhabitants, their sole ancient Jewish creed (starting with their first lawmaker Moses "their guide who came from the sky") but does not deem it necessary to inquire into the religious motivations, originating in Judea, which dragged "a great multitude" of Christian citizens into the most dramatic, spectacular collective martyrdom in the history of the city of Rome...nor does he mention the latest Jewish lawmaker, Son of God, named Jesus, whose doctrine after only three decades had rapidly spread throughout the Empire like a wicked epidemic.
Nothing! In "Historiae" the historian only refers to Jews and Hebraism, a creed which he describes in detail for 12 chapters, while nothing is said about Christianity, Jesus Christ and the Apostles: not even one word ... No! It is so obvious: Tacitus could not have written this passage in "Annales"! ...

No one heard about the many miracles performed by the "Teacher" and the "Twelve": neither Tacitus in "Historiae", nor the Essenes in their handwritten scrolls, nor the learned Jew Philo and the historian Josephus Flavius residing in "the native land where the evil had rapidly spread", nor anyone else. And, most important of all, the Jews - too involved in fighting the pagan who had invaded their land - neither heard about nor saw these men.
The Jews continued to hope that a warrior, the true "Divine Anointed", would guide them to victory ... up until 132 A.D., when they finally found the "Saviour" they had been "Awaiting" and in whom they placed their last hopes: Simon bar Kokhba.
The Advent of the "Saviour" - who, in the eyes of the Jews, was Simon bar Kosìba, Prince of the Jews, called by the prophetic Messianic name "Son of the Star" (Kokhba) - shows that Jesuit Messianism, subsequent to the Advent of Jesus in their land a century earlier, is an invention that is swept away by History as if it were wastepaper and confirms the falsifications contained in the "Holy Scriptures".
Apart from the "outburst" of Christians seen in chap. 44 of the XV Book of "Annales", in Tacitus's works there is no reference to the Christianity of "Jesus", to its leaders and their prodigies, to its ideology; there is also no trace of the decrees emanated by Rome which, according to the "Fathers of the Church", ordered the persecution of its followers. No! Tacitus was not the scribe who wrote about the spectacular ardent martyrdom!
A learned "Father", the Christian apologist Q. Septimius Florens Tertullianus, reported this important testimony concerning Tacitus in "Apologeticum", XVI:

"Stupid and false is the accusation that the Christians adore the head of an ass. Inded you have dreamed that the head of an ass is our God. This suspicion was introduced by Cornelius Tacitus. He, in truth, in the fifth book of his Histories, making conjectures on the name and religion of this people, narrates that the Jews, freed from Egypt, finding themselves in the vast areas of Arabia lacking water, tormented by thirst, thanks to onagers who after their meal went to drink, were able to find spring water; and due to the benefit received consecrated this beast. This is why it is thought that we Christians, relatives of the Jewish religion, were also taught to adore this same image. It is true that Cornelius Tacitus, despite being that great chatterbox of lies ..." 

We have already verified - through the studies regarding John the Apostle and "The Nativity" - that Tertullianus, who according to "ecclesiastical tradition" lived between 160 and 230 A.D., in reality never existed. The medieval scribe unconsciously states that the Christians (Jesuits) were mistakened for Jews by the Romans; Tertullianus blames Tacitus for this as in Historiae the latter (as we have already seen) only mention Jews ... but, if the Christian scribe who had read Tacitus had found written in Annales:

"...a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius through our Procurator, Pontius Pilate..."

How could the scribe have reported the statements in Apologeticun XVI if the Latin historian - according to what was interpolated by deceitful scribes - was perfectly aware that the Christians were followers of Jesus Christ and adored Him, and not the head of an ass?
It is clear that the calligrapher of Apologeticum could not have read chap. 44 of Book XV of Annales as the testimony concerning the spectacular martyrdom had not yet been invented by the future Venerable Holy Fathers, guarantors of the "Truth of the Christian Faith"; in particular "Tertullianus", who would have never run up against such a contradiction if he had truly existed.
On the basis of the respectively dated manuscripts (which we have already made reference to in the study regarding the Apostle John), it can be said that the first Codex containing "Apologeticum" dates back to the tenth century, that is to say over a century before the "Tacitean" manuscript M II (preserved at the Medicea Library in Florence) appeared.

These simple observations are on their own enough to demonstrate that Tacitus knew nothing about Christian followers of Jesus but only Jews; the same goes for the scribe of Apologeticum XVI who went so far as to attribute to the most famous historian of imperial Rome a false testimony concerning inexistent Jesuits along with an impossible "Christ" whose "Advent" was invented a century later ... deceitful was the scribe of God when, in order to achieve the same aim, a thousand years later had an invented Father Tertullianus offer "evidence"  of a declaration made by Emperor Tiberius concerning the Advent of Jesus Christ and the decree of the Roman Senate which prohibited the Christian themselves from following His cult.
As we have just read, "Father Tertullianus" accuses Tacitus of being "that great chatterbox of lies" ... but, later on, we will be the ones to demonstrate that the real falsifier was the scribe; the latter (in a document written in his own handwriting) had an invented "Father" "witness" Emperor Tiberius's declaration concerning the Advent of Jesus Christ and the Roman Senate's decree which prohibited the cult.

But this is not enough

If the eminent patrician historian had written manu propria the passage on Christ from chap. 44, he would have never declared that Pontius Pilate was a "Procurator", but a "Prefect". The Etnarch Herod Archelaus was exiled by Caesar Augustus in 6 A.D. and this territory was transformed into the Roman Province of Judea, Samaria and Idumea, administratively and juridically annexed to Syria. It was assigned to Coponius, a governor of equestrian order with the title of "Praefectus", who commanded over several auxiliary cohorts maded up of men recluted in the provinces and two or more cavalry wings; his task was to guarantee the collection of taxes due to Rome and, at the same time, maintain public order.
The annexation entailed a military and administrative subordination to the Legate of Syria. The administrative subordination was first carried out by P. Sulpicius Quirinius through a taxation "intervention" which availed itself of the 6 A.D. census and, later, through a system of  "tax reduction" introduced by Lucius Vitellius in 36 A.D.

Governors of the Province having the title of "Praefectus" succeeded one another until 40 A.D., because in 41 A.D. Claudius decreed the reunification of the Kingdom of Palestine under King Herod Agrippa I, grandson of Herod the Great, with the task of collecting tributes in this region in name of the Emperor.
It is important to highlight that the territories assigned to the new Jewish King were roughly those awarded by Caesar Augustus to the late Great Monarch (Ant. XIX 351).
As Caesar Augustus had done with Herod the Great, Claudius imposed upon Herod Agrippa I the same administrative responsibilities and reintroduced the taxation which Lucius Vitellius had liberated the Jews of in 36 A.D.
Palestine had not been recognized as a unified Great Kingdom since the time of Herod the Great and as a result of this change Rome stopped sending in Prefects, who had governed Judea since 6 A.D.
As he was King of all of Palestine, Josephus Flavius calls Herod Agrippa "the Great", just like his grandfather "Herod the Great".

Claudius hoped to make the bureaucratic system which managed the "aerarium" more efficient (the conquest of Britannia were costly); he centralized the system by creating the fiscus and accentuated his direct control over the patrimonium (Cassius Dio LIII 22) and, upon the death of Herod Agrippa in 44 A.D., once again created the Roman Province comprising all of the former Kingdom, thus larger than the Province previously governed by the Prefects. In addition to the Tetrarchy of the late Herod Philip (another son of  Herod the Great) assigned to Herod Agrippa by Gaius Caligula in 37 A.D., the reestablished Province included the regions of Judea, Samaria, Idumea, Galilee, Perea and the district of Maritime Caesarea.
Therefore the Emperor "sent Cuspius Fadus in as Procurator of Judea and of the entire kingdom" (Ant. XIX verse 363), and from that moment onwards the title of those holding the office of Governor in this territory became "Procurator", in order to highlight the greater responsibility resulting from the autonomous administrative management of the territories belonging to the Emperor of Rome. After the death of Herod Agrippa the Great, Claudius sent in his own Procurator; the Emperor adopted the same rule followed by Caesar Augustus upon the death of Herod the Great: at that time the Emperor "sent to Judea Sabinus, Procurator of Caesar for Syria, in order to manage Herod's properties" (Ant. XVII verse 221). It is important to point out that until his death Herod the Great  - who governed over the Kingdom of Palestine - was also "Procurator of all Syria"; this is an important detail which we highlighted in the study on the "Nativity".

Claudius's new Procurators, like the Prefects who came before them, had "two wings of cavalry made up of men stationed in Caesarea and Sebaste, in addition to five cohorts" (Ant. XIX 365), while according to Suetonius there were "several wings" (Claudius 28); but both juridically and militarily these Prefects remained subordinate to the Governor of Syria, lieutenant of the Emperor and commander of at least four legions plus the auxiliary corps.

In Maritime Caesarea, inside an amphitheatre located in what had formerly been the ancient Roman imperial capital of the Province of Judea, Italian archeologists found a large plaque carved in stone


This is unequivocal!... But, then, how could have Tacitus - a high official who, after holding important offices, from that of consulate to that of Governor of Asia with the title of "Legatus Augusti pro Praetore", and after being directly involved in the hierarchical relations linked to these roles - mistakened a "Prefect" for a "Procurator" in Book XV chap. 44 of Annales? We will now see why. The same mistake, what a coincidence, is made by Saint Luke in his Gospel; the passages which are of interest to us (Lk 3,1) are mentioned in "Novum Testamentum" Graece et Latine, H. Kaine, Paris: Ed. F. Didot, year 1861), and in "Novum Testamentum" Graece et Latine, A. Merk, Rome: Pont. Ist. Biblico, year 1933:

Those who translated the Gospel of Luke from Greek into Latin, from the very beginning (Vulgate Bible of Saint Jerome) only reported the "precise title" of Pilate as "procurator", despite the fact that it derived from two Greek words having different meanings and written in two different Codexes.

Subsequently (in the eleventh century, according to the paleographic estimate of the laurentian manuscript M II), when the deceitful copyist decided to introduce the news regarding the "sacrifice" of Jesus into the story about the fire of Rome, he included the name of his "sacrificer", that is to say Pontius Pilate; he realized that the latter was a "procurator" only after having read the passage in the Gospel translated into Latin.
The scribe was aware that he was manipulating what had been written in Latin by Tacitus and that this "historical clarification" needed to be substantiated; he found the information he was looking for in the words of the Roman historian himself, who refers to Ventidius Cumanus and Antonius Felix as "Procurators" of Galilee and Samaria (rightly from 44 A.D. onwards, but not before 41, as we are about to demonstrate).

Everything had to coincide: the history which Tacitus had passed on to mankind and the history which God had passed on to the evangelist. History must confirm the word of God: the Truth which He dictated to the evangelist and which is reported in the Gospel.
After verifying the "harmony" between what was "dictated" to Saint Luke and and what was written by Tacitus, the "Abbot Prior" inadvertently ordered the abbot scribes to draw the precise yet incorrect title of "procurator" from the Gospel of Luke and use it in Tacitus's "testimony".
Please excuse me ... I can't help laughing, but this is what happened: the naive, deceitful copyists were victims of their own ... "good faith".
This explains why the the "inspired" historians for over half a century - that is to say ever since the famous slab of stone containing the name and title of Pontius Pilate was discovered - have organized congresses, written books, minutes and reports on these four words: Pontius Pilate Prefect of Judea ... while the common people busy trying to make ends meet was unable to understand the reason behind such behaviour.
But the "genuflexion exegetes" had already understood the meaning of this inscription and drawn conclusions: the historical "evidence" of the existence of Jesus, "witnessed" by Tacitus in chap. 44 Book XV of Annales, had been proven false ... and the discovery of these "shenanigans" backfired on them and demonstrated that chap. 44 was an interpolation created by deceitful Christian scribes in order to introduce false information into history: that in first century Rome there was a "great multitude of followers of the sect of Jesus Christ" is clearly false.

After the disavowal of archeology, the title of "Procurator" - which at the time had been written into millions of Gospels of Luke all over the world - became the proof of the falsification of the Tacitus's writing.
So the overly-devout inspired historians have taken remedial measures and studied the strategy to be followed: first of all, in order to avoid direct comparisons, they eliminate the title of "procurator" from future editions of the Gospels written in modern-day languages and replace it with the more generic term "governor"; and secondly, to remedy past errors, play down as much as possible the difference between "Procurator" and "Prefect" ... and go as far as to no longer distinguish between the two titles.

They understood and understand that in this case the original words written in Greek in the Gospels are unimportant.
Tacitus wrote in Latin and his testimony was copied in Latin by deceitful scribes who followed one another through the centuries. According to them Pontius Pilate was "Procurator" because the Latin Gospel defined him as such: this was more than enough.
Today's mystical historians want the "blessed poor in spirit" to continue to kneel down in front of statues, images and fetishes so that the Church can preserve its century-old power. Therefore, as the terms "Prefect" and "Procurator" can be found in many languages, they have simply created reports and books full of complicated, meaningless "chatter"; these historians even "drag in" Greek, which is like "having cabbage at tea time"; they conclude by saying that Tacitus could have either said "praefectus" or "procurator" - it would have made no difference - and if he wrote "procurator", it was just by chance.
They pretended and pretend to not realize that Tacitus lived in the first century and had direct knowledge of the tasks of both officials; the same goes for Josephus, who (like the the Latin historian) had access to the Imperial Archives and to the Acts of the Senate. The two writers could not be wrong when speaking about the investiture of an official operating in an imperial Province. A specific and well-defined role in force in the first century, as we are about to demonstrate.

The most ancient Greek text, the "Codex Palatinus MS 14" (on parchment), to be found in Vatican Library, paleographically dated to the tenth
century and containing originally Books XI to XX of "Jewish Antiquities" plus "Bios" (Life), is "missing" (can you believe it) three books: XVIII, XIX and XX, pertaining to the time of Jesus and his successors.
Eight centuries later, through the works of Josephus translated from Greek, which have offically reached us through the "Editio Maior" written by the famous philologist Benedikt Niese (1849-1910), today we read that Pilate was "Procurator"; but what handwritten copies of the Jew were read by the those who translated from Greek into Latin if three centuries prior to Niese the first translators reported that Coponius, Marcus Ambivulus, Annius Rufus, Valerius Gratus and Pontius Pilatus, from 6 A.D. onwards, all had the title of "Praefectus"? 
As written in: FLAVII IOSEPHII “ANTIQVITATVM IVDAICARVM” Books XX, "DE BELLO IVDAICO" Books VII, both translated from Greek (as written on the title page) by Sigismundo Gelenio per Hier. Frobenium et Nic. Episcopium, Basileae, MDXLVIII (Book XVIII chap. I and following), year 1548; and as emerges in other texts, these were also translated from Greek, date back to the same century and have been copied with a digital camera.

From an analysis of these documents it is clear that after the death of Herod Agrippa I Claudius stopped sending in Prefects and appointed Cuspius Fadus first Roman functionary with the title of "Procurator", clearly distinguishing between the roles; this proves that in the Greek manuscript the editor of the translation, Sigismundo Gelenio, read two different terms. Likewise, upon the death of Herod the Great, Sabinus (who was sent in by Caesar Augustus) is also given the title of "Procurator" by Sigismundo Gelenio. We are dealing with two similar situations, so it is obvious that Rome behaved, administratively, in the same manner.
Here is a copy of pages 479 and 531 of the cited text with the distinct titles of praefectus and procurator.

"praefectus" et "procurator"  (click above to see text)

This shows that five centuries ago copies of handwritten codexes of works by the Jewish historian had yet to be "purified" with regard to this detail; at the same time, it is proof that the documentation - which has reached us from the distant past through exegetical believers - was "chosen" and "officialized" in order to throw off research; these exegetes deliberately report, so that he would appear as such, the title "Procurator" Pontius Pilate in "Jewish Antiquities" and in "The Jewish War" to "hide" both the mistake contained in the Gospel of Luke and the consequential error which can be seen in Tacitus's falsified passage.

Gutenberg's printing press was spreading not only the Bible, but also the works of Josephus Flavius and Tacitus; but the error "dictated by God" to the Evangelist Luke had been placed in "Annales", forcing the copyists to correct the manuscripts of Josephus which still reported the title of "Prefect" (from Coponius to Pilate) ... and have those which had been copied correctly disappear.
Aware that the error contained in the Gospels had been taken up and reported in Tacitus's "Annales", the falsifiers realized that historians would have made the connection and, after discovering the deception, would have denounced the falseness of the martyrdom of Jesuits carried out by Nero ... therefore the "Prefects", who Josephus cites in his works, all had to become "Procurators" ... as in Tacitus's falsified passage.
Many centuries ago the Grey Eminences of the High Clergy decided to "correct" history in order to safeguard the "credibility" of the holy scriptures, as these, along with the errors they contained, had become enormously widespread and recopied by men of God who spread them throughout the world. The original manuscripts of Josephus, which were very rare and secured solely by these scribes, were copied and then destroyed.
Mistakes and tamperings covered up by today's genuflexion exegetes, who have been hit on the head by a large stone which has crushed ... their logic.

Through the documentation which has been transmitted to us by philologists prior to Niese, it is possible to precisely define the administrative, juridical, hierarchical and military functions and responsibilities of the Lieutenants, Procurators and Prefects who governed the imperial Province of Syria.
At the time of the Principate, from the time of the first appointment of a "Procurator of all Syria" (Bellum I 399), conferred to Herod the Great by Caesar Augustus, the basic difference between the position of "Procurator" and that of "Prefect" was that the former - in addition to governing, defending and maintaining public order in the territory assigned (task which is identical to that of a Prefect) - as "curator" also had a "mandate" allowing him to assess, estimate, expropriate, register properties and take purely administrative decisions, including fiscal measures aimed at increasing tax revenues in the territories subject to the domination of the Emperor (cfr Annales XIV 54; XVI 17).

From an economic and military perspective, a territory subject to the Empire could be governed and administered by an indigenous King (who obviously was installed or approved by the Caesar), or by a "Governor", a Roman official appointed by the Senate or the Emperor and who was of equestrian, consular or praetorium order; or, through an edict ratified by Claudius in 53 A.D. (Annales XII 60), he could even be a freedman entrusted by the Emperor ... chosen by him on the basis of the size and economic importance of the territory or city.
"The sentences issued through his Procurators had the same effect as those pronounced by Claudius".
Through this decree (Ann. XII 60) Claudius confirmed Antonius Felix, brother of the freedman Pallantus, "Procurator" of Judea. Tacitus did not agree with Claudius's decision and made the following comment: 
"Claudius assigned the province of Judea to Roman cavalrymen or to freedmen. One of these, Antonius Felix, exercised his kingly power with the spirit of a servant, committing violent, arbitrary acts of all kinds" (Historiae V 9).
This detail means that the Romans and the chroniclers of the time were very interested in the political power of those who governed this Province and followed it very closely.

When the form of government of a territory subject to the Empire formerly monarchical became hegemonical, that is to say a constitutional system characterized by an offical appointed directly by the Caesar, who was interested in verifying or revising the estimates of the previous revenues. The bigger a territory became in size or the stronger it became economically, the more the revenues had to increase.
Only a "Legatus Augusti" (with a specific mandate) and a "Procurator" could administer these interests, take initiatives and approve related regulations. On the contrary, a cavalier "Prefect" had to apply regulations and had the power to ensure their respect; but he could not modify them. The role of a Prefect was preeminently military and in the imperial Province of Judea the office was held by Roman citizens of equestrian order who commanded several cohorts, each of which answered to a Tribune.
Within the territory of the Province assigned to him, the "Praefectus" acted as a Brigade Commander and was militarily subordinate only to the Lieutenant of the Emperor, the Chief of the Army General Staff, and to the Princeps himself.
As seen in the two passages cited above, Sabinus was the first "Roman pro curatore to take care of the Kingdom upon the death of Herod the Great" ... and Cuspius Fadus (Ant. XIX 363) was the first "Roman pro curatore to take care of the Kingdom upon the death of Herod Agrippa the Great".

After ten years of Jewish wars and revolutions following the death of Herod the Great, Caesar Augustus exiled Archelaus and in 6 A.D. assigned Publius Sulpicius Quirinius - Legate of Syria and commander of several legions - the special task of carrying out in a census in Syria (where Herod had been Procurator) and in the territories annexed to this Region, therefore...

"Therefore the region subject to Archelaus was annexed to Syria and Quirinius, consular official, was sent in by Caesar to estimate the value of the properties in Syria and sell Archelaus's possessions" (Ant. XVII 355).
"Quirinius visited Judea, which at the time was annexed to Syria, to carry out an evaluation of properties of the Jews and liquidate the Archelaus's possessions ... and at the same time the registering of the properties took place" (Ant. XVIII 1-2, 26).

At the same time the Emperor sent in ...
"Coponius, of equestrian order, who was sent in (by Caesar) with him (along with Quirinius) to govern the Jews with full authority" (ibid.).
When describing the tasks assigned by Caesar Augustus, the historian Josephus is clear: unlike Quirinius, Coponius was not assigned the task of taking care of imperial possessions; and those who replaced the latter limited themselves to defending and preserving these "possessions" since they were cavalier "Prefects".
In 36 A.D. Lucius Vitellius - Legate of Syria through mandate of Tiberius and having full powers over the East - was able to tax the Clitics (tribe of Cappadocia), lift taxes on the Jews and...remove Pilate from office. Josephus's detailed description of the offices held by the two Roman officials proves that the historian had precise knowledge of their respective roles; and he does not fail to highlight the differences. From 6 A.D. (starting with Coponius) to 40 A.D. all the Governors of the Province of Judea, including Pontius Pilate, were referred to as "Prefects" by the Jewish historian, in accordance with his explanation regarding the specific tasks assigned to these two men.

The Christian scribes replaced the term "Prefect" with "Procurator", as is erroneously reported in the Latin Gospel of Luke, without being aware that the historians of the first century attributed different tasks to the two imperial officials on the basis of the will expressed by the Emperors.

Pontius Pilate was a Prefect, not a Procurator, therefore Tacitus never wrote

"Christians, whose name originated from Christ, who, under Emperor Tiberius, was condemned to torture by the Procurator Pontius Pilate..."

... but this is still not enough ...

Part II: summary

From the fourth century A.D. onwards the scribes of the Apologetic "Fathers" felt obliged to have Jesus "enter" history, therefore in the late medieval manuscripts of "Apologeticum" - accredited to Father Tertullianus, unknown to all "Fathers" until the time of Eusebius - we read about a discussion in the Senate, proposed by Tiberius (who died in 37 A.D.), which aimed at legalizing Jesuit Messianism:

"Having been announced to Tiberius, at the time in which Christianity entered into the world from Palestine, the facts which there the Truth had revealed to the Divinity itself, he was the first to vote in favour. The Senate, as it had not approved those facts, rejected them" (op. cit. V 2).
The objective, which today's spiritualist historians have made theirs (indifferent, for their own interest, to the dating of the codexes), was twofold:
1st  have the movement of the followers of Jesus date back to the time of His death;
2nd keep the movement illegal, through the Senate's rejection of the law, in order to justify the invented persecutions carried out by the first century Emperors ... unlike all the other religions which had no problem being recognized and legalized, including that of the Jews, the most fanatically nationalistic of them all.

According to what is contained in the writings comprising the vast "Ecclesiastic Patrology" - pillar of the "tradition" of the "Fathers" of the Church - no "Apostle successor to Christ", Apostle or Bishop is said to have ever asked the Roman State to officialize their Creed. On the basis of this "tradition" dating back to medieval writings, the scribes celebrated Fathers involved solely in manifesting apologia for Jesus and the martyrs and in proselytism; while any possibilty of "legalization" of the Christian religion was ruled out for two reasons:
1st the authentication of an act issued by a public authority would have been reported by the chroniclers of the first century ... fact which is unknown to Christianity. Unlike Judaism whose decrees of approval date back to Julius Caesar.;
2nd with the legalization of Christianity there would have been no martyrs ... starting with the imaginary Apostles, Popes, Bishops, "Fathers" and their successors.

In fact it is not clear why "Jesuit Christianity" could not be professed in the Empire if its doctrine - as conceived by the scribes who "created" Saint Paul and his letters - did not contain teachings against the authorities or the established power, but if anything postulated servilism as a system dictated by God:

"Everyone is to obey the governing authorities, because there is no authority except God and so whatever authorities exist have been appointed by God ... Render to all their dues: tribute to whom tribute is due" (Rm 13,1/7);
"Slaves, be obedient to those who are ... your masters, with deep respect and sincere loyalty" (Eph 6,5).

The Senate vote reported by Tertullianus - whose content is ridiculous because no historian of the period makes reference to this decree against "Christianity", and let alone to the "Annunciation to Tiberius" (of the usual ..."Angel of the Lord"?) - demonstrates the hypocrisy of the "Fathers" (from the fourth century onwards), who wished to give a basis of "truth" to the new doctrine which was evolving from that of the primitive Essene Jews.
The total lack of documental sources, useful for substantiating the issuing of specific decrees (on the basis of Roman Law) - according to which imperial officials could judge, persecute and subject to torture the Christian followers of "Jesus" - has convinced today's contemplative exegetes to draw on Father Tertullianus's "historical passage" and impudently endorse it as a "probable act of Tiberius" (including several university professors such as the "brilliant" Catholics Ilaria Ramelli and Marta Sordi); their aim is to "prove" that "Jesuit Christianity" already existed in the fourth decade of the first century A.D. and "juridically" corroborate its persecution in virtue of the Roman Senate's negative vote. Yes, their names will remain in history ... confuted by logic and by history itself.

In fact, even before "Jesus" was crucified, Tacitus reports that in 29 A.D. Tiberius "enforced respect for the binding authority of the Princeps by depriving the Senate of all its powers" (Ann. V 5); until his death (37 A.D.) this organ did not vote in his presence but merely issued resolutions after having verified their compatibility with the will of the Emperor.
This historical detail was acknowledged by the same Christian calligraphers who wrote the first handwritten codexes of Apologeticum - which contrasted one another and suddenly appeared from the tenth century onwards - to which they later added to the cited passage (op. cit. V 2) the following nonsense:

"Emperor Tiberius remained firmly of the opinion, establishing the death penalty for the accusers of Christians. Consult your Annales" (Apo. V 3).

This "pearl" of a testimony which (unlike the faithful historians) we cannot pretend to be unaware of:  if Tiberius had issued the decree (invented by Tertullianus), the first to report it in Annales would have been Tacitus, as it was one of his duties in virtue of his position as "superintendent of foreign cults"; just like he mentioned the true decree issued in 19 A.D. by the Senate (under the same Emperor) regarding the expulsion of the Jews subject to compulsory military service (Ann. II 85). 

But if Tacitus had documented the imperial resolution in favour of the Christians, Tertullianus would have mentioned it specifically, without inventing it. Countercheck: if we absurdly admit (I mean absurdly) that Tiberius had issued such a decree ... why did Plinius the Younger feel the need to write to Trajan to be given instructions on how to behave towards the "Christians", and why did the Emperor reply (Epistularum X 97) without mentioning the edict previously issued by Tiberius? We are dealing with an ordinance on the basis of which Trajan should have had Plinius the Younger executed as the latter, in contrast with the Tiberian edict, did not limit himself to accusing the Christians but even tortured and executed them. It is evident that the problem of the "Christians", that is to say of the non-Jesuit Messianist Jews, emerged for the first time, as far as the law was concerned, during the incident (112 A.D.) described by Plinius the Younger. And Tertullianus himself, at the beginnning of the third century A.D. (this is the senseless date given to the drawing up of the archetype of "Apologeticum" containing the passage on Tiberius), proves to lack knowledge of the "Acts of the Apostles" by contradicting this work; in fact here it is stated that "in Antioch, for the first time, the disciples were called Christians" (Acts 11,26) under the principate of Claudius (41-54 A.D.) rather than under that of Tiberius (14-37 A.D.).
A clear "blunder" which was not pointed out by the exegetical believers, unable to critically read the "holy texts", but rather are involved in the building of untenable theories which aim at indoctrinating the naive.
As "disciples" was a generic term used in reference to the followers of any Teacher of the many different disciplines of human knowledge existing at the time, at this point we are forced to ask ourselves what the followers of Jesus's doctrine were called after his death and resurrection. The Byzantine Christian historian Iohannes Malalas (491-578), a native of Antioch, comes to our aid; in Book X of his work "Chronography", after asking himself the same question, he reports:

"At the beginning of Claudius Caesar's reign (41 A.D.) those who who previously called Nazireans and Galileans took on the name Christians".

Malalas reports this information, obtained from a correct original source, without realizing the implications of the mentioning of two typically Jewish sects, whose effects will be explained later on; well-aware that the "Nazireans" were not the inhabitants of Nazareth, which at the time did not exist (as proven in the specific study), but on the contrary, according to the Gospels, the inhabitants of Nazareth were enemies of Jesus and wanted to throw him off the cliff.

"Messiah", that is to say "Anointed", was simply a title and, in the case examined by Plinius the Younger, the name of this "Christ" was essential in order to identify the leader of a sect which was potentially an enemy of Rome; especially its Bishop*, their chief superintendent, successor to the Apostles and to Christ himself ... but, as we have seen, there was no trace of "Jesus" emerging from the results of an investigation which was not at all indulgent towards the "Christians", many of whom were tortured and executed (they were Messianist Essenes), but most of all it makes no mention of Tacitus's report ... invented a millennium after.

* All cults, including those which were pagan, needed to have a "Minister of God": the Priest. This also applied to the Christians; according to Plinius the Younger, in Bithynia "Not only the cities, but even the villages and the countryside are pervaded by this contagious superstition".
Trajan's Imperial Legate's failure to inquire into the existence of a leader of the numerous subversive religious community in Bithynia proves that a Bishop did not exist, because if he had, he would have been the first to be martyrized. This detail means that we are not dealing with a Jesuit Christian "ecclesiae" (the Church is the first to be aware of this and it has never adopted Plinius the Younger's martyrs) nor a Jewish synagogue.
Even the Christian scribe who centuries later copied "Historia Ecclesiastica" (written by Eusebius of Caesarea) realized this; here the event (HEc. III 33) is described along with a series of Bishops "seated on the throne" well into Book IV, but ... there is no evidence of the Bishop of the numerous community of Bithynia.

Let's carry on with our inquiry concerning the episode in which "two maids called Ministers" are described: this is another important aspect because in the Jesuit Christian communities, according to their doctrine (in this case equalized to Jewish law) reported by Paul of Tarsus:

"As in all the Churches of God's holy people, women are to remain quiet in the assemblies, since they have no permission to speak: theirs is a subordinate part, as the Law itself says. If there is anything they want to know, they should ask their husbands at home: it is shameful for a woman to speak in the assembly" (1 Cor. XIV 33/35);
During instruction, a woman should be quiet and respectful. I give no permission for a woman to teach or to have authority over a man. A woman ought to be quiet...she will be saved by child-bearing, provided she lives a sensible life and is constant in faith and love and holiness" (1 Tim. 2,11/15).

Plinius (in his letter to Trajan) discovers another aspect - typical of this community and which is confessed under torture by its faithful members - deserving of consideration:

"They affirmed that all their wrongdoing consisted in the usual gathering before dawn and in singing a hymn to Christ as if he were a God".

This is how Josephus describes the Essenes (Bellum II 128 chap. 8,5):

"Towards the divinity they are are particularly merciful; before the sun rises they addressed certain traditional prayers to him, as to beseech him to rise".

In the scrolls of Qumran the Essenes define themselves as "Children of Dawn" (Fragment 4Q298). This is a confirmation of religious rules offering evidence of unsurmountable behavioural and liturgical differences: no document of "Pauline Christianity" mentions a cultual ceremony similar to that of the pagans.

On the basis of the results obtained by Plinius Second in his inquiry, it is evident that the Governor's knowledge of the Christians was different from that of Tacitus, a friend who was slightly older than him. In addition, neither Plinius nor Trajan feel the need to "remember" what happened in Rome as a result of the terrible fire of 64 A.D.; they also do not deem it necessary to mention Nero's famous persecution of Christians, who are described  by the Roman chronicler as enemies suffering from "unrestrained superstition".
It is to be pointed out that the testimony of the patrician historian had to be offensive towards the "Jesuits" as he was a pagan priest; a lack of offensiveness would have revealed that it instead had been written by a Christian ... and the deceitful scribes were well-aware of this.
No!, Tacitus - a high Roman official known by Plinius and Trajan - had not reported the persecution of "Jesuit Cristians" in "Annales" because both Plinius and Trajan knew nothing about it.

Until 70 A.D. the Jews did not have to adore the Caesars. As reported by Josephus, it was only after the first Jewish war (from the time of Vespasian onwards) that the Jews were forced to "honour" the Emperors (Bellum 416/19) because according to Tacitus:

"The Jews do not build statues, not even temples, and refuse such adulations to Kings and honours to the Caesars" (His V 5).

The war was over, Jerusalem and the Temple destroyed, Jewish Palestine was on its knees but the Zealot Jews had to be executed, wherever they were, even in Alexandria, Egypt:

"Six hundred of them (Sicarii-Zealots) were caught immediately: but as to all those that fled into Egypt, it was not long ere they were caught also, and brought back, whose courage, or whether we ought to call it madness, or hardiness in their opinions, every body was amazed at. For when all sorts of torments and vexations of their bodies that could be devised were made use of to them, they could not get any one of them to comply so far as to confess, or seem to confess, that Caesar (Vespasianus) was their Lord*; but they preserved their own opinion, in spite of all the distress they were brought to, as if they received these torments and the fire itself with bodies insensible of pain and their souls rejoicing. But those present were particularly amazed by the children, none of whom yielded to calling Caesar their Lord: at this point their fortitude prevailed over the weakness of their bodies" (Bellum VII verses 416/419).

* The Jews translated "Master" and "Lord" into "Adonai", a word used only by High Priests when they addressed their God "Yahweh".

Vespasian did not consider himself a "God" but was able to distinguish between Jews and integralist Zealot Jews, having fought them personally; the latter, in compliance with their nationalistic faith, would have never surrendered themselves to the domination of a "Master" or "Lord" different from their own God Yahweh. The chronicle we have read refers to an event which took place in Alexandria (Egypt) but which also occurred in many other cities; here we find a description of the martyrdom of hundreds of integralist Jews who preferred to bear atrocious torture rather than renounce their own ideals. Yet no Apostle, Father, Bishop or Christian historian mentions the thousands of martyrs belonging to the vast Jewish ecumene living in the eastern Provinces of the Roman Empire.
After demonstrating the falsification of all the non-Christian testimonies regarding the Jesuit martyrs, it is of utmost importance to recall that this period saw only nationalist Jews being tortured by Romans: they were Messianists ("Christians" in Greek) awaiting the advent of the Davidic Messiah who would have freed them from pagan yoke. Eusebius of Caesarea - the first Jesuit Christian historian - after reading in the Imperial Archives the events described by Josephus Flavius - deemed it necessary to hide the victims of the Roman repression against the Zealots by turning them into "descendents of royal extraction":

"Vespasian, after the fall of Jerusalem, ordered that all the descendents of the tribe of David be hunted down, so that not not even one Jew of royal extraction remained. For this reason
they became the subject of another very serious persecution" (HEc. III 12).

Before 70 A.D no Emperor, including Nero, imposed their own cult, apart from Gaius Caligula between 39 and 41 A.D.: he was under illusion that he was a God, but his mental insanity was reported by all Roman scribes.
No first century historian accuses the "Jesuit Christians" of refusing to venerate the "Caesar", or the "Princeps"; if the "God" Gaius Caligula - convinced that he was to be worshipped as such - did not persecute the followers of Jesus, this proves that this sect did not exist in the Empire.

According to the stereotype of "Christian" which has been drilled into are brains from when we were children, during the principate of Caligula a long list of martyrs would have, inevitably, been formed ... if Jesuit Christians had existed.
The only ones to pay a high price were the Jews in Alexandria and the contrast with Judea would have turned into an open conflict if Gaius Caligula had not been eliminated by a State conspiracy.
Aware of the historical "void" with regard to the presence of Jesuit martyrs under the "God" Caligula, from "Acts of the Apostles" onwards no Apostle, Evangelist, Father, Bishop or Apologetic Christian (including Eusebius of Caesarea who lived in the fourth century), as well as none of the later "Doctors" and historians of the Church, mentions the decree of Gaius Caligula which forced all the subjects of the Empire to worship him as a "God" ... perfectly aware that the absence of martyrs following Jesus Christ demonstrated that His "Advent" had not yet been invented in the first century.

But this is not enough

Sometimes silence can become evidence.
We are referring to the obstinate silence of all the "Apostolic" and "Apologetic" fathers of the Christian Church, from the beginnings to the fourth century, that is to say of all those living at or around the time of great Neronian martyrdom: the spectacular mass crucifixion and the testimony of Jesus and Pilate are not reported by any writer of the Roman Empire, except Tacitus, but - and this is a grave contradiction for those who verify from a critical point of view - the mass execution is not even mentioned by the Apostolic and Apologetic Christian Fathers, verbose writers (whose manuscripts date back to the Middle Ages) filled with profound mysticism and a lot of imagination when inventing martyrs who, if they truly had existed, would have had not only a fideistic ideological interest, but also the historical duty to cite the cruel genocide which smote the the faithful followers of their same Creed.

None of them speak about the exceptional martyrdom, not even the imaginary Tertullianus (unknown to all Fathers until the time of Eusebius in the fourth century) who, through a manuscript dating back to the tenth century, reports a different persecution of "Christians" - who were not crucified but executed with a "sword" by order of Nero - and does not relate them to the fire of Rome, Jesus Christ or Pontius Pilate, unlike what Tacitus is said to have stated according to the Codex Laurentianus dated over a century later. And most important of all, the scribe of "Apologeticum" does not cite the Roman historian as a witness to the event, despite having read his works (we have already verified this in "Apologeticum XVI").
A fact of utmost relevance which rebounds on today's mystical exegetes (who pretend to know nothing about it) is the fact that "Historia Ecclesiastica" - written by the fourth century Christian historian and Bishop Eusebius of Caesarea and full of invented Bishops and martyrs spread throughout the Empire from the time of Jesus's death onwards, but whose editio princeps dates back to 1544 after being collated among families of Codexes dated between the  eleventh and thirteenth centuries - despite mentioning the passage of Tertullianus (HEc. II 25,4), does not report the chronicle of Tacitus containing both the atrocities suffered by the "Jesuit Christians" and the details concerning Jesus, Tiberius and Pilate. A chronicle which would not have escaped him and which he would have certainly passed on to posterity if Tacitus had written it, but ... no one could have written anything due to the fact that up until 337 A.D., year of Eusebius's death, no one had yet invented anything ... in conformity with the "Creed" of Nicaea (dating back to 325 A.D.), which did not provide for a Pontius Pilate as "sacrificer" of the "Saviour".

And yet the most serious and significant example of obstinant silence with regard to the Christian martyrs followers of Jesus is that of the Apostle John who, according to the entire "ecclesiastical tradition", had a long life and died of old age under the reign of Trajan.
In the study dedicated to this Apostle, by means of an analysis and related dating of the handwritten codexes dedicated to him - compiled during the Middle Ages (there are none which date back to before this time) and attributed to an inexistent Tertullianus and to other fake "Fathers" and "Bishops" - we have verified that "the disciple who Jesus loved" never lived, just like his "Fathers" who offered "testimony" of his existence. This is the reason behind the total silence of the Christian "Fathers", successors to Peter, with regard to the Jesuit martyrs of Nero: inexistent "Fathers" could not have offered any sort of testimony.
What has been proved is in line with the studies published which have verified the invention of Saint Paul, James the Minor and Simon the Zealot, the latter two passed off as "Bishops" of Jerusalem.

As far as the "Lord's favourite disciple" is concerned, the study has verified that all the codexes which make reference to him report a "Saint John martyrized by Nero", inside a jar full of boiling oil (300° C); but ("can you imagine how angry Nero must have been!") the Saint came out of the invigorating bath intact and sprier than when he went in.
The clerical exegetes, all of them, less than three centuries ago, decided that it was not Nero who tortured "in oil" Saint John but Domitian; therefore, all the previous scribes, who followed one another through the many centuries comprising the Middle Ages, were wrong when they wrote up their very precious Codexes.

It is clear that the lives of the Saints were assembled and dismantled by those who invented them and gradually enriched their descriptions with new details; and we are positive that almost all the readers have understood the reason why today's spiritual exegetes have modified "the life of Saint John" thereby deceiving mankind: an elementary need for "historical and doctrinal" coherence. However, for those who have not yet understood, let's clear up the matter.

According to "ecclesiastical tradition" - compiled fictitiously by incapable, uncoordinated scribes - Saint John, in addition to the Gospel and the Apocalypse, also wrote three letters to future memory. The aim? Simple: "demonstrate" to posterity that he had existed. The same strategy was adopted by the scribes with Saint Paul's letters. Unfortunately (for them) the calligraphers forgot to report the trememdous torture endured by the Saint. Or rather, as we have seen in the specific study, the torture by means of boiling oil was invented by the powerful Archbishop Agobard of Lyons (France) during the ninth century under Louis the Pious ... without the Metropolitan being aware of John's letters. In fact, in these letters (they are on-line) the "favourite" Saint does not know that he was subjected to a very deadly torture from which he came out intact thanks to his "Saviour Jesus" ... neither under Nero nor under Domitian.

In the case of a Nero "torturer" of Saint John in oil, the contradiction becomes particularly strident as it means that there was a direct relationship between the Apostle and the Emperor before 68 A.D., year of the suicide of the megalomaniac Caesar. The personal contact between Saint John and Nero before this date excludes the possibility that the "disciple who Jesus loved" did not know anything about the massacre of Jesuits ordered by the Emperor in 64 A.D., as John wrote the Gospel, the Apocalypse and the letters after the death of Nero. But, most of all, the Grey Eminences of "catechized historiology" are perfectly aware that the medieval scribes continued to accuse Nero of having tortured the Apostle John (without adding other details), as they still knew nothing about the spectacular Neronian torture of Jesuits reported in Codex M 68 2 Laurentianus (attributed to Tacitus), due to the fact that the manuscript "appeared" after their Codexes.

The innocent "naivety" of the Medieval scribes - who were unaware of the great Neronian massacre of the faithful Jesuits - is perceiced by today's genuflexion exegetes as a spear stuck into the sorrowful rib of history, which has to be led back into the "canon of the doctrine" in any way ... even at the risk of seeming ridiculous. Therefore, aware of the grave contrast originating from the "ecclesiastical tradition" which makes no mention of the testimony regarding the Neronian massacre of Jesuits - given by "Apostles", "Fathers" and "Popes" - the inspired scholars, after an intense spiritual retreat, convinced themselves to have found the remedy and affirm (in a well-orchestrated manner in order to give more weight to the conjectured expedient) that Tacitus, when mentioning the martyrdom of Christians, used offensive language ... therefore, no "Apostle", "Bishop", "Pope" or "Father" wanted to cite Tacitus as a "witness" in order to avoid repeating these insulting statements regarding the Jesuit martyrs.

This "formula" raised to the status of "theory" - endorsed by famous experts of History of Christianity in the midst of a total mystical crisis - is not only deceitful but also offensive to the dignity of others, because it is based on the self-conviction that the world is full of naive simpletons.
In fact, if we absurdly admit (only absurdly) that the Jesuit Christians were the victims of the bloodbath which took place in Rome in 64 A.D., these Christians, as "direct witnesses", would have had no need to seek the help of Tacitus's quotations in order to discover that they themselves had been persecuted: all the Christian scribes, starting with the Apostle John, would have mentioned it in their own words ... that's that. Who would have prevented them from compiling a correct account, to be used as an eternal memory by the Christian world, and which they would have been obligated to post on the notice board of "The Acts of the Martyrs"?
But if the scribes who invented the "Fathers" did not do this, it demonsatrates that Nero did not crucify any Jesuit ... until the end of the Middle Ages.
The spiritual teachers, starting with Doctor Andrea Nicolotti, "Temporary Research Associate" at the University of Turin, must report these results to their "disciples"; they must not hide them by pretending to be unaware of them ... even if for Prof. Nicolotti there is nothing left to do except conclude his famous university research on "Exorcism in the first three centuries of Christianity" aimed at discovering "pious practices" capable of "driving away" the "evil", devastating truth of history, which today has become the tool brandished by the Satan against the sacrosanct truth of faith.

The lack of testimony with regard to the first
"Fathers" is further evidence that Nero did not crucify followers of Jesus, because, in the first place, there were no Fathers, Bishops or Jesuit martyrs during the first century. The "proof" of their existence will be built later on by the reformers of the new universal religion in order to confirm the Advent of "Jesus", Son of God, leader and initiator of the Jesuit ... Christian sect. The succession of Christian and non-Christian "proof" is neutralized by archeology, philology and historical rationalism.

The Tacitean "deposition" under analysis - we have verified this through the error made by the evangelical "Procurator" called in to replace a Roman "Praefectus" - was created many centuries after the first translation of the Gospels into Latin; it was the work of a "pious scribe" who wrote after the Christianity of the Saviour of the World had come to power and become the official state religion.

But this is still not enough

After the first expulsion of the Jews ordered by Tiberius in 19 A.D., by the year 41 A.D. "their number had increased so much that Claudius initially did not expell them but forbade them from gathering, yet allowed them to preserve their traditional customs" (Cassius Dio: Roman History LX 6,6). At the same time Claudius prohibited the Jews of Alexandria from growing in number and issued an edict which prohibited them from emigrating from Syria to Egypt and described them as "a plague of the earth" (Corpus Papyrorum Judaicarum = CPJ 153). As stated above, in the same year the Emperor appointed Herod Agrippa King of all Palestine but, after the death of the latter in 44, the uprisings in Judea regained strength and spread as far as Rome; as a result, Claudius expelled them (as Tiberius had done previously in 19 A.D.) in 49 A.D. through a decree which Suetonius summarized in seven words:

"Iudaeos impulsore Chresto adsiduae tumultuantes Roma expluit": the Jews, instigated by "Chresto", rise continuously, (Claudius) expelled them from Rome" (Clau. 25).

The Chresto/Jews relationship undoubtedly means that we are dealing with "Christ", the Davidic Messiah awaited by the Zealot Jews, who revolted against Roman domination of the Promise Land assigned to them by Yahweh. The integralists - ready to rebel against the authorities - would have recognized as their leader only a Jew of purely Israelite descent with a first name and patronymic of strictly Hebrew origin; therefore they would have never followed a strange, subversive agitator having as a name a Greek "adjective" lacking certified Israelite origin.

When the historian Presbyter Paulus Orosius, collaborator of Saint Augustine and pupil of Saint Jerome, reported this passage of Suetonius in "Historiae Adversus Paganos" completed in 418 A.D (Op. cit. VII 6,15) ...

"Josephus Flavius says that in the ninth year of the reign of Claudius (49 A.D.) the Jews were expelled from Rome. But I am even more impressed by Suetonius who expresses himself in such a way: "Claudius, instigated by Christ, expelled from Rome the Jews in continuous tumult".

... affirmed to have been struck because he was attested as "impulsore Christo" (not "Chresto") with regard to an event involving only Jews, victims of a repression which was totally unaware of the presence of Jesuit Christians.
Paulus Orosius could not forsee that the future "grey eminences" of the Church - once they had understood the compromising relationship which revealed the sole existence of Christian Jews (awaiting the Advent)  - would have changed "Christo" into "Chresto", a Greek adjective meaning "good", availing themselves of the usual stratagem of transforming a title into a person's name. The expulsion of the Jews was an event reported by Josephus, according to the sources which had not been tampered with in the possession of the Presbyter chronicler.

Our research is proceeding and we must reveal the censorship of the chronicle - reported in the texts of the Pharisean historian - of a historical event handed down to us mutilated with the precise aim to fill the grave historical "gap" concerning the followers of "Jesus".
An eminent Jewish priest reports and comments all the persecutions which the Caesars forced the Jews to undergo but "forgets" only the one in which "Christ" is mentioned ... Why? It was a serious situation which involved him directly (we are in 49 A.D. and he was twelve years old) also from a religious point of view, as the Jews were awaiting the coming of the Messiah, and Josephus, as can be demonstrated, reported the event explaining who the "Messiah" was, that is to say he who "incited" the Jews to rise up against Roman domination.

"What incited them (the Jews) to rebellion most of all was an ambiguous prophesy recovered in the Holy Scriptures, according to which, at that time, one who came from their country would have become the Dominator of the World ... this is how some Jews interpreted the omens to their liking, others gave them no consideration".

This testimony regarding the Messiah "Dominator" - later recognized (in 67 A.D. after his capture) by the Jewish historian in the person of Vespasian (Bellum 310/315) - came into contrast with the Jesuit Messiah "Saviour" of the World which had evolved from the initial Essene reform after the Jewish holocaust; before this tragedy they had prophesized the advent of Messiah described as such on a fragment of Qumran (4Q246):

"He will be called the Son of God: they will call him the Son of the Almighty. His kingdom will be an eternal domination ... the people of Christ will rise and stop all with a sword".

It is easy to understand why the Essenes felt the need to transform the "Dominator" into "Saviour" after the ethnic extermination which Rome forced the Jews to undergo. On the contrary, the Messiah "awaited" by the Jews "at that time" and prophesized by the Essenes would have massacred the Roman "Kittim". Finally, if a Jesus Christ "Saviour of the World" had existed - as written in the Canonical Gospels and in the "Testimonium Flavianum" falsely attributed to Josephus by Eusebius of Caesarea three centuries later - the historian should have mentioned him and used him to ideologically contrast the "Dominator of the World". This detail was opportunely evaluated by the impenitent, deceitful Bishop who immediately "phagocytized" into Christian doctrine regarding the "Dominator of the World" the Jewish prophesy of Josephus by having it refer to "Jesus Christ" (HEc. 8,11) ... but not the "Christ" of Suetonius.

This is why the Christian scribes will later be forced to eliminate the Jew's testimony, starting with Eusebius who, in his work "Historia Ecclesiastica", avoids reporting Claudius's persecution of the Jews: he knew that this event, which Suetonius and Josephus offer evidence of, involved a "Christ" who was ideologically dangerous because in contrast with that of the Church.
Eusebius did not have knowledge of the current "Acts of the Apostles", which describe persecution and relate it indirectly to Saint Paul (in order to create evidence of his existence) but which "overlook" that "Christ" in order to avoid putting their finger into the wound of the doctrine. For the same reason today's clericalist historians (starting with Prof. Marta Sordi of the Università Cattolica of Milan), unable to find other excuses, have chosen to pass the Christian Presbyter historian Paulus Orosius off as stupid for having cited the
above-mentioned passage on Christ and the Jews in his work ... ordered by Saint Augustine.
And to think that a few years ago all the exegetical Christians (including Marta Sordi) arrogantly showed off the passage of Suetonius as incontestable proof of the existence of their Jesus Christ "Agnus Dei" ... but the analyses of atheist historians, evidently, have hit the bull's eye and achieved the objective of undermining their self-assurance.

"Christo" is the Greek name "Christòs" transliterated into Latin incorrectly (as already highlighted, the matching of "Christ and Jews" undoubtedly means that we are dealing with "Christòs", the Jewish Messiah) and contradicts the correct "Christus" written by Tacitus ... but was it written by Tacitus?

Suetonius was Secretary to Emperor Hadrian and in charge of the Imperial Archives; he wrote "Life of the Caesars" in Latin around 120 A.D. This detail leads one to think that on this date the "Latins" of Rome did not know the correct Latin diction of "Christus" ... let alone "Iesus Christus".

As Tacitus wrote "Annales" a few years before the "Life of the Caesars" was drawn up by Suetonus, his "preciseness" with regard to the literary form of "Christus" demonstrates that it was introduced by a pious hand a few centuries later. Incidentally: the "Christo" of Suetonius (as is properly mentioned by Orosius) is sincere while the "Christus" of Tacitus is not!
In fact Suetonius, as Secretary of the Imperial Archives, had already read Tacitus; if through the "Annales" (as revealed to us today in the fifteenth book) the former had discovered that "Christus" was killed under Tiberius (who died in 37), he would have felt the need to verify who this "Christo" who instigated and inspired the Jewish uprisings was...
No! When Suetonius read the "Annales" he did not find the account in chap. 44 of Book XV passed on to us by the pious copyists wishing to create testimonies concerning "Jesus" and his martyrs starting in the first century.

However, according to the Codex Laurentianus MS II (as it has reached us), even more strident is the "silence" of Tacitus with regard to Claudius's 49 A.D. decree against the Jews. Why did the Latin historian, after informing us about the above-mentioned measure taken by Tiberius, dating back to 19 A.D., "forget" the similar act emanated by Claudius and duly recorded in the Imperial Archives and in the Acts of the Senate? The answer is very simple: the Tacitean chronicle was censored by the Christian copyists aware of the implicit contradiction between a "Christ" (Messiah) killed under Tiberius (who died in 37 A.D.), and another "Christ" (Messiah) who incited the Jews (not the Jesuit Christians) to rebellion under Claudius in 49 A.D. If Tacitus had cited the 49 A.D. decree, he would have deemed it necessary to clarify ... a senseless absurdity.

Whoever intends to tamper with history must pay close attention and verify - before altering any true events - the many "repercussions" on all the interconnected, consequential facts. Suetonius did not limit himself to reading Tacitus but, driven by the second Jewish War which began in Alexandria (Egypt) under Trajan and in order to understand the reasons behind the continuous rebellions of the Jews, also read Josephus Flavius (cfr Suet. Vesp. 5); but among the latter's works Suetonius found no trace of "Testimonium Flavianum" (it will be invented by Eusebius of Caesarea in the fourth century), which spoke about the Advent of Christ and His death on the cross and even mentioned a "first name and surname": Jesus Christ.
As a result, in the first century the "Christ impulsor" of the Jewish uprisings under Claudius had to have been the Awaited Jewish "Messiah" who was still nameless ... not the Jesuit Messiah of the Advent.
The grey ecclesiastical eminences were forced to order the scribes to change Jewish divine title "Christ" - written in the passage and meaning "Messiah" - into the common Greek adjective "chresto" meaning "good".

Tacitus, Plinius the Younger, Suetonius and Trajan were contemporaries and top leaders in imperial Rome; therefore reports on this "Christ" which ignore one another and fail to mention the Neronian Christian martyrs are unacceptable. 

How is it possible that Suetonius, in his work "Lives of the Caesars", did not link the 49 A.D. "Christo" (the one attested by a dismayed yet sincere Orosius) to the fire of Rome? Why didn't the historian Paulus Orosius knew nothing about the mass martyrdom of Christians ordered by Nero? In 120 A.D. the Secretary of the Imperial Archives under Hadrian had to have known both the historical event and the "Annales" written by Tacitus a few years earlier, as he considered the latter to be his teacher.
On the contrary, how is it possible that Tacitus did not know - at the end of the 64 A.D. fire of Rome, when the deceitful scribes had him offer evidence that "Christus" was killed under Tiberius (the Emperor died in 37) - that the same man was the promotor of the 49 A.D. Jewish uprisings, which brought about the decree of expulsion? Why doesn't Tacitus mention this rebellion, which truly occurred and was known by his parents and older friends?

There is only one answer to these contradictions: the real chronicle of Tacitus regarding the 49 A.D. persecution of the Jews ("impulsor Christ") under Claudius had to be censored by the Christian copyists in the M II Laurentian manuscript (as is the case). This chronicle came into contrast with another "chronicle" (whose passage regarding Christ and Pilate was interpolated), which was false but much more important for "Christian testimony": the description of the martyrdom of Christian Jesuits perpetrated by Nero states that Christ was executed under Tiberius (who died in 37 A.D.).

It's not a coincidence if none of the "Fathers of the Church" mentioned the testimony of Suetonius, apart from Orosius, who astonishingly affirmed that Josephus also mentioned it ... because the latter's testimony stated that the Jews were incited to rebellion because they were convinced that the Messiah "Dominator of the World" would have arrived: a divine warrior who would have guided them in their war aimed at the destruction of the Roman "Kittim", thus freeing forever the land of Israel from Roman domination.

But ... this is still not enough

While in the fateful days of July 64 A.D. the Capital of the world was being inexorably devoured by fire, a young, vigorous "witness" with high hopes ran away from the "Palace" in order to escape the flames which were advancing menacingly.
Sometimes we say "what a coincidence" ... Well! ... the coincidence really happened: the young man here was the "Testimonium" "par excellence":... Josephus Flavius!
In his Autobiography (Bio. 3, 13-16) the Pharisean priest, historian and Jewish conservative says that at the end of 63 A.D. (when he was twenty-seven years old) he was ordered by the the Sanhedrin of Jerusalem to go to Rome, with the task of pleading, before the Emperor, the liberation of the other priests arrested by the previous Procurator of Judea Antonius Felix and sent to Rome to defend themselves against "ridiculous accusations"; he remained in the Capital until roughly the middle of 65 and concluded the mission which he had been assigned by managing to free the priests and ..."having obtained from Poppea not only this advantage, but also great favours, I returned to my homeland". He arrived in Jerusalem between the end of 65 and the beginning of 66 A.D. and "here I found the outset of the revolutionary unrest".

Yes, in 64 and in the first part of 65 A.D. Josephus was in Rome and he had to have seen the fire and the martyrdom of a "great multitude of Christians" carried out among the piles of parched rubble.
The only strange thing is that "Testimonium" makes no mention of this. Nothing. He says nothing about the fire, the martyrdom, the parched rubble. He only speaks about what we have said in just a few lines. The historian also describes Nero in detail in "Jewish Antiquities" and in the "Jewish War" ... but he makes no reference to this grave event, despite being hosted at the court by Poppea.
Let's take a moment to reflect: we know that the fire took place, as it is mentioned by so many historians of the period and confirmed by archeological findings; it is therefore obvious that the Jew had seen it and was quite shocked. A pro-Roman Pharisee had the opportunity to personally visit "the capital of the world", learn about imperial power, meet the men who dominated and governed over the earth and learn about their military organization, and see the forum, the monuments, the temples, the games, the circus, the gardens, the Caesar, and the charred remains of the metropolis destroyed by fire but ... in his memories of this trip there is no trace of any of these things.

There is something fishy here! Let's try and have a look at what the "spiritual historians" at their "Congress" ... yes, they speak about this: the silence of Josephus with regard to the Christian martyrs and the fire are "irrelevant"! Irrelevant?... No! They are trying to safeguard themselves, they are afraid to be proven wrong ... now we are beginning to understand: behind all this we find ... the "Mystic" Abbot Prior.
The Abbot read the "Autobiography"* of the Jew; when he arrived at the chapter which spoke about the fire and saw that there was no mention of the martyrdom of the Christians, he understood the grave implications: unlike all the historians who had not spoken about the martyrdom linked to the fire, Josephus was a Jew who came from the land where "Christianity had spread rapidly, the ruinous superstition" and, as such, he was called into question directly.

* The manuscripts which have been passed on to us by "Autobiography" (Bios) were copied by scribes starting in the eleventh century, that is to say at the same time as the "Codex Laurentianus MS 68.2" from Tacitus's "Annales" whose falsification inevitably involved the censorship of several passages from the third chapter of Bios concerning the Jewish priest's stay in Rome at the time of the immense fire in 64 A.D. In like manner, the datings of the copying of the oldest historical accounts by Josephus Flavius and Cornelius Tacitus date back to the eleventh century: the coincidence demonstrates that the decision taken was agreed upon by the High Clergy on the basis of stratagems aimed at safeguarding the "truth" of the "holy tradition". To this end, the text of "Jewish Antiquities" containing, for the first time, Books XVIII to XX was copied: the Codex Ambrosianus F 128, which obviously included the false "Testimonium Flavianum" and "called Christ" added to "Jesus, brother of James". The codexes coherently copied ex novo at later dates all contain the same falsifications.

If Josephus had truly seen the spectacular martyrdom of the "Christians" - name which for him, who knew Greek, meant "Messianists", followers of a "Messiah" who had already come, the Elect of Yahweh, whose "Advent" was announced by the Prophets ... founders of a new religion born in his land - as a Jewish priest he would have written ... much, much more than the "Testimonium Flavianum"...
The "Great Martyrdom" had to be the "Great Testimony" which he - the "Mystic" Abbot Prior Guardian of the Truth of the Christian Faith - had Tacitus, the most accredited historian of the Empire!, render ... But then? What would the historians later have deduced from the autobiographical account of a Jewish priest, innocent witness solely to the fire? ... No, no logic could have justified two such contradictory testimonies: that of Tacitus regarding the "Christian" followers of a "Messiah" and that of the silence of the Jew Josephus with regard to the "fervent martyrs" of Rome followers of the Messiah that he and his people were awaiting.

But this was nothing. The Abbot Prior knew that the other "Holy Bishop, Eusebius of Caesarea, Venerable Father of the Christian Faith, had already pasted "Testimonium Flavianum" (which spoke about "Jesus Christ") into "Jewish Antiquities" ... but, after such a spectacular martyrdom of "Messianists", other testimony concerning this Jewish "Messiah" - moreover "Son" of Yahweh himself - and his followers crucified in Rome would have been necessary and very, very demanding.
Testimony? Why testimony!?! ... Under torture, not testimony! He - as a Jew who came from a land which had generated the "ruinous superstition" and who "infiltrated" into the Palace - would have been caught, tortured and crucified along with all the other Messianist "Christians", including the priests who were in prison, but ... in this case the works of the Jew would not have reached us

At this point the Abbot Prior, with trembling hands and beads of sweat formed on his forehead, decided that the wisest thing to do, in order to avoid nasty "historical" surprises, was to ... remove the chapter about the fire of Rome from all the works of the Jew and "keep" it in the incinerator, that is to say render it "irrelevant" ... as is said by today's overly devout. No! It is certainly not irrelevant. If Joseph, as a Jew, was able to write his works, this means that there was no martyrdom of Christians in Rome in 64 A.D., even if we know that the "blessed who are poor in spirit" will have to reread this chapter a dozen times before understanding it ... perhaps.

... but this is still not enough ...

Part III: summary

There is another detail which the writings of the two historians share and which concerns both the "Testimonium Flavianum" and the "Annales"; both are interpolations which have been inserted, chronologically, in an incorrect manner.
Now let's have an in-depth look at the July 64 A.D. fire of Rome described in Book XV, from chapters 38 to 44.
Chapters 38, 39 and 40 describe the enormous catastrophe and the plight of the people realistically, effectively and in detail, as if it were an event which Tacitus had lived through; chapters 41 to 43 speak about the reconstruction of Rome and the building of Nero's "Golden House" (Domus Aurea) and finally, but after, the chapter on the martyrdom and testimony of Christ and Pilate - the famous, much-discussed chapter 44.
At the time capital of the Empire had one million inhabitants living in fourteen different neighbourhoods (regiones urbis), ten of which were almost totally destroyed.
At the end of chapter 38 the historian states that the immense trap of fire was not accidental, but ordered, and those who set fire to the city with torches shouted that they "had received the order". At the end of chapter 39 we read:

"a rumour had gone forth everywhere that, at the very time when the city was in flames, the emperor appeared on a private stage and sang of the destruction of Troy, comparing present misfortunes with the calamities of antiquity"; and chapter 40 repeats the "rumours" accusing Nero of having ordered the fire as "it seemed that Nero was aiming at the glory of founding a new city and calling by its name"; then, in chapter 41, there is an assessment of the damages; followed by (chapters 42 and 43) the building of the "Domus Aurea" and the reconstruction of Rome.
We have arrived at chapter 44 where we reread:

"But all human efforts, all the lavish gifts of the emperor, and the propitiations of the gods, did not banish the sinister belief that the conflagration was the result of an order. Consequently, to get rid of the rumours, Nero fastened the guilt ...".

We already know how it all went. The scribe (he was an artist and we know what artists are like) had smoked one too many joints made of incense and forgot the advice that the Mystic Abbot Prior had repeated to him a hundred times:

"Be careful brother ... do not get distracted and strictly respect the chronicle; therefore insert this chapter right after chapter 40 because here the last rumours are mentioned; watch out! It is a very important passage, and if you place it at the end, after the reconstruction, it would be clear that too much time has passed and the "rumours", which must represent the prince's motive for martyrizing the Christians, would be senseless, and remember that "Nero" died in the year 68. Did you understand? ... Go! Work hard ... wait a moment, when you have finished bring me Tacitus's original manuscript and I'll keep it ... along with all the others".

The little abbot did everything that the Prior told him to do: he brought back the original and the prior "kept" it in the incinerator; having followed a coal cart thinking it was a funeral, the scribe, however, places the passage "after chapter 43" rather than after chapter 40, so today we read that Nero smothers a "rumour" which had gone off the boil years earlier, thus allowing him the time to rebuild Rome. The interpolation pasted into the passage after the reconstruction "obligates" the Prince to order a torture years later ... which is senseless and done to create spectacular doctrinal testimony useful to the Church.

The true meaning of this anachronism will be explained in-depth later on and will include other historical information; however, it can already be said that the reconstruction lasted at least two or three years.
As we will see, in 66 A.D. a series of important events get under way which (in addition to the economic consequences of the fire) will provoke a war and the subsequent fall of Nero. These events are not reported in Tacitus's "Annales": this is an extremely serious shortcoming that is a result of the censorship practiced centuries later by copyists who were careful not to leave evidence which would have made it possible to identify links or historical correlations; such an identification would have undermined the credibility of the persecution of the Christians carried out after the fire ... thus "bringing to light" the recopied Tacitean Codex from the Abbacy of Montecassino, whose chronicle underwent targeted "cuts". It is important for us to point this out because a non-invented Father and Doctor of the Church who lived in the fourth century, Saint Jerome Sophronius, in his work "Commentarium in Zaccariam" (3,14) includes the following testimony, which went unnoticed by the future Christian censors of history:

"Cornelius Tacitus drew up thirty handwritten scrolls on the life of the Caesars, from the death of Augustus to the death of Domitian".

Such important information forces us, in order to clarify the "purification" of the Tacitean works, to continue our inquiry because none of the works of Jerome make reference to the Jesuit martyrs crucified in Rome by Nero as a result of the fire which destroyed Rome in 64 A.D. All one has to do is have a look at the long list of early heroes - founders of primitive Christianity and whose lives were described by Jerome himself in "De viris illustribus" - in order to verify that, apart from "James the Elder", none of the Apostles and evangelists were martyrized before 64 A.D.: they all died after this date. The fact that the Codex MS 2 Q Neoboracensis which the "De viris illustribus" has passed on to us is dated to the ninth century, in other words prior to the Codex Laurentianus MS 68.2, explains the profound contradiction resulting from the adulteration of the work of Cornelius Tacitus, whose original title was "Annalium ab excessu divi Augusti, libri triginta". And you can bet that Saint Jerome did not simply count the scrolls but also read them very carefully in order to verify the existence of the primitive Jesuit Christians. But he did not find chronicles capable of ascertaining the existence of the followers of the Jewish Redeemer, Son of God. And to the same end, who knows how many custodians of the "truth" of "Faith" after Jerome read Tacitus's scrolls in vain ... finally they decided to destroy the scrolls after copying them, censoring certain compromising Books and passages which would have demonstrated the exact opposite. Speaking of deception, it is important to remind today's exegetes who are getting ready to catechize history: be very careful and, before altering any true story, be aware of the many "repercussions" on all interconnected and consequential events.

Like the awkward attempt carried out by Jerome who, so as to fill the historical void, in "De viris illustribus" Chap. 1 offered "testimony" of the existence of the existence and martyrdom of Saint Peter as follows:

"Simon Peter, son of John, born in Bethsaida in Galilee (false: Bethsaida was in Galulanitis not in Gallilee: see eighth study) and Head of the Apostles...during the second year of Emperor Claudius (42 A.D.), went to Rome to defeat Simon Magus. Here Peter ascended the bishop's throne (he was Bishop of Rome) for twenty-five years, until the last year of Nero, that is to say until the fourteenth year of his reign (68 A.D.). Under him he was crucified with his head pointed downwards and his feet pointed upwards".

In "De viris illustribus" Saint Jerome also decides to offer to "testimony" of the martyrdom of Saint Paul in Chap. 5:

"In the fourteenth year of Nero (68 A.D.), on the same day as Peter's martyrdom, Paul was beheaded in Rome for his faith in Christ".

The following contradictions can be found in the two invented biographies:

- Paul of Tarsus wrote a letter "to the Romans" of the Church of Rome without being aware that its "Bishop", from 42 to 68 A.D., was his colleague the Apostle Saint Peter, thus proving the deceitfulness of the biographies of the two Christian leaders, both of whom beatified with relics and all;

If Nero had ordered the martyrdom of the Christians, accused of having set fire to Rome in 64 A.D., the first to be executed, after undergoing excruciating torture, would have been Peter and Paul, as the two were Leaders of the "evil, ruinous Christian sect", as it was referred to by Tacitus. An inevitable event which, however, did not take place. The Church is the first to be aware of this absurdity and thus attempts to "muddle through" by not offering the precise date of their death, simply stating that it took place between 64 and 67 A.D.; and by doing so, the Church avoids explaining the reason behind this uncertainty so as not to highlight the incompatibilites...that the subtle minds of the Vatican were well aware of. Here is the reason why the exegetes of the Clergy deliberately concealed the contradictions.
These exegetes know that Jerome's testimony (as we have seen) was copied in the ninth century by scribes in "Codex MS 2Q Neoeboracensis", that is to say two centuries prior to the scribes who copied "Codex Laurentianus MS 68.2" By doing so, the deceitful scribes of this Codex, who invented the mass torture of the Christians attributed to Nero, did not realize that they had contradicted the precise dating of the death of the Apostles Peter and Paul given by Jerome, thus forcing today's Church to widen the chronological gap concerning their hypothetical death, but without managing to eliminate its grave contradiction which, inevitably, disavows the phony relics of the two "Saints and Apostles" ...who never existed or died.

But this is still not enough

There are very serious ideological contradictions which are in need of clarification. Let's try putting ourselves in the shoes of the one million Romans of the time ... on the contrary, let's make believe that in today's Rome there are maniacs taking orders from a "powerful" psycopath; they begin to set fire to people's homes (even those of believers), and imagine the reactions (even those of believers) to the statement "we are carrying out an order": first of all, all the "executors of the orders" would immediately be barbecued (even by believers), immediately followed by a civil war against the "Palace" psycopath. Having said this, atrocious doubts arise and …

The first question is: why did over one million Romans allow, without reacting (as if they were in a daze), men to set fire to their homes and provoke thousands of deaths in the traps of fire created simultaneously in many areas in order to prevent people from fleeing?...

The second question is: why, at the end of chapter 44, was Nero, dressed as a charioteer - after having organized the "show" starring a "great multitude" of Christians burning on crosses to light up the scene - having a grand time among the people (and not protected by the praetorian guards), who did not take their revenge by setting fire to he - the Prince - that had provoked such suffering?
And yet, "the rumour" among the people, who accused him of being the culprit, continues to be (sic!) explicit in chapter 44.

The third question is: if a great number of people are convinced that the "Caesar" has burnt their homes and their beloved, how is it possible to change their minds by "inventing culprits"? A million Romans have suffered the consequences of the fire and devastation, they know who is to blame ... and what does Nero do? He takes a "great multitude of them", blames them, crucifies them and it all ends with some nice "burning" bacchanalia...

The person who wrote this has a mental defect! The deceitful scribe did not consider that among the houses which burnt there were also those belonging to a "great multitude of Christians"; this detail not only would have absolved them from the accusation invented against them, but would also have favoured people's solidarity towards the Christian community; in fact, they would have been part of "the people", and by attacking them Nero would have attacked once again the people of Rome after having destroyed their homes ... No! It does not make sense! Why weren't the people reacting? ... if what is described in chapter 44 should prove to be true.

The fourth question considers the fundamental dilemma concerning "who" should have carried out such an order, rather than "who" gave it. From the beginning of time the mystical historians have done their utmost to solve this problem. They have had to rule out the military, as they would have never carried out an order to attack and destroy Rome; they would have rebelled against such an order, and even if it had (absurdly) been given, all the historians would have reported it. Moreover, the subsequent civil war against the "Palace" would have taken place nonetheless and both Tacitus and the other writers would have reported the event: but none of this is proven by history. And so, what must we study? ... It's simple: let's have a look at a "rumour" of Suetonius (Nero 38); the passage is so confusing that it must be said that it was tampered with because it states that the "Golden House" (Domus Aurea) was built before the fire. Here we find "cubiculari", that is to say manservants!... yes: "bedroom servants" and, according to the inspired contemplative exegetes, this is what happened...

"During a late morning of July of 64 in Anzio, "Nero ", after living it up all night, wakes up and begins to think about how to pass the time. He yawns, he is very bored and spoilt as he has tried everything and does not know what else to come up with ... after scratching his "noggin" about twenty times, a torch in his brain suddenly goes on ... Yes, at that time there were no lightbulbs and this was the misfortune of Rome.
With these torches he could solve all problems: he could destroy the city which made him sick as it was not very "Hellenic": he could rebuild the city in "record" time and, after blaming the Christians, he could "turn on" the crucified; the latest technological invention to light the new urban infrastructure, "mox" (immediately after) the propitiatory rites on behalf of the Gods characterizing the inauguration.
Yes, the day promised well, he clapped his hands and called firmly: "cubicularii" and, even more imperiously: "cubicularii!". The bedroom servants immediately entered, knelt down and said: "Divine Caesar commands". And Nero: Take torches and wicks and go and set fire to Rome!"...!?! "But Caesar, did you say to set fire to the Eternal City?" ... "Yes, and hurry up, because tonight I want to see the tongues of fire as high as the sky" ... "But if the Romans react, what must we say?" ... "Tell them that you have been authorized!" ... and they: "Oh .. well, if that's the case, we'll carry out".

And so they did ... with a detail regarding the martyrdom that Tacitus overlooked: among the "great multitude" of crosses there was one that was upside down: that of Simon Peter, Bishop of Rome. The latter, in fact ... escaped from prison with the help of an angel and after:

"Performing a miracle on a dog, by having it speak with a human voice in Ciceronian Latin"; "he resuscitates a smoked herring by having it splash about in a swimming pool"; "he defeats the Simon Magus, called the Angel of Satan, by having him fall to the ground during a levitation competition" ("Acts of Peter" 9,2 and 13,1: the evangelical reading which we recommend to blessed believers in order to strengthen their Faith in "magnifying the Glory of the Lord") ...
Peter, after meeting "Jesus" - who had again risen - in the street, told him, as if nothing had happened (the boredom of too many resurrections): "Domine, quo vadis?" ... but carried on without even saying hello; having carried out the mission which Jesus had assigned him in this world, Peter officially asked "Nero" to crucify him upside down, as his humbleness did not allow him to be compared to Jesus (HEc. III 1,2). The psychpathic Emperor approved this request immediately in order to verify the scenographic effect produced by an upside down burning cross.

This was not enough for Nero: a few seconds before hoisting the cross he called in Caravaggio and Michelangelo (two of the world's most renowned painters) and ordered them to capture the scene depicting the fateful experiment so that it could be handed down to posterity.
This is the official scientific statement of facts contained in the assembly record - endorsed unanimously at the Congress held by spiritual historians undergoing a full mystical crisis - which we have secretly stolen.
Oh, there is also a "classified" note which must not be communicated to anyone, but we will pass on the information in spite of this restriction:

"Avoid speaking about Father Tertullianus's accusation against Nero (Apologeticum 5,3): he blames the "prince" for having persecuted the "Christians" with a sword, without mentioning burning crucifixions attributable to the fire and without reporting the detail regarding Pontius Pilate and Jesus Christ. We must be very careful not to inquire into this detail, which not only disavows the "great multitude of crucified Christians" but also demonstrates that chap. 44 of Tacitus's "Annales" had yet to be interpolated when, in the tenth century, the scribes invented the Apologeticum".

The fifth question we ask the mystical contemplative exegetes is: of all the writers who describe the fire of Rome, why is Tacitus the only one to link it to the spectacular martyrdom?

We know that the historians Tacitus, Suetonius and Plinius the Younger knew one another. Plinius the Younger was Tacitus and Suetonius's friend and, as Secretary of the Imperial Archives under Hadrian, had read the Annales ... so why is Tacitus the only member of the trio to pass on to posterity an event as exceptional as the great crucifixion of "burning" Christians, blamed for having set fire to Rome? Such a grave incident should have been reported not only by the trio but also by all the writers from the first century onwards, starting with Plinius the Elder (Nat. His. XVII 1,5) and Cassius Dio (Roman History LXII 16,18), who all report the fire and blame Nero but fail to mention the holocaust of burning Christians.

The imagination used when mounting the macabre scene derives from the manical need to resort to "martyrdom": the message containing "historical testimony" to be passed on had to include roasted blood; "a cruel and spiritually exalted psychosis" which offers evidence of a mentality only capable of imagining a "mass ritual sacrifice" attesting the presence, in the first century, of numerous Jesuit Christians in the capital of the Empire.

Why is this martyrdom so important for you genuflexion historians (and there are very few of you remaining)? The faith of a simple believer would not be dented by the discovery that this martyrdom did not take place ... so why do you continue to feel the need to depict a Nero who barbecued "... a great multitude of Christians"?
Why, instead of relaxing, knowing that there were no innocent Christians with bodies lacerated by the flames, do you reject this theory as if it caused you distress? Fill your reports with Latinisms, show off your profound knowledge of the "law" and historians of Imperial Rome, all of which you cite and connect to the "Acts", the "Gospels ", the "letters", the "Apostolic Fathers" and the "Apologetical Fathers" in a very confusing and dogmatic way, thus making it all sound so incomprehensible.

By pouring out your scholarly knowledge in such a way, you use it as if it were a "shield"; the facts are simple and natural, but you complicate them. After having "tangled up" your brains, you do the same to the brains of the "simpletons" who listen to you ... in order not to answer the simple question which you have always been asked: why is Tacitus the only historian (among the many who wrote) to report this great and spectacular martyrdom? ... Does this mean that you have never had even the slightest doubt? ... Don't you feel the duty, as scholars, to come to grips with the fact that the great mass martyrdom (which included the testimony of Jesus Christ) was not reported in Tacitus's original manuscripts or in Josephus's "Testimonium Flavianum"?
What we read today comes from copies; the originals no longer exist: they have been lost through the centuries in the mazes of monasteries, deliberately destroyed, and today's lack of original manuscripts belonging to the two historians should be enough to convince you, as professionals, of the need to take into consideration the ideological and religious partiality of these passages before endorsing them as "history".
Or, by showing off your convictions, do you desire to opportunely cover up the simple truth which the everyday believer does not even dream of? ... Yes, you know it all and do not want the others to know: all of the first century non-Christian testimonies concerning Jesus and his followers are false. You behave just like priests in the past: when someone asked them an embarassing question ... they replied in Latin.

Part IV: summary

So, did Nero persecute the "Christians" or not?
Suetonius says he did, without linking the persecution to the fire of Rome and without mentioning the fundamental detail of the burning crucifixions and that of "Jesus" and "Pilate" (all this had yet to be interpolated into Tacitus's Annales).
After verifying the mutilation of the original Tacitean manuscript, even we have understood the answer to the above question thanks to Orosius, Josephus and Suetonius: they were Messianist Jews who rioted continuously and fervently "Awaited" the "Dominator of the World" chosen by Yahweh, sure that He would have saved them from Roman domination.
The "Jesuit Christians", instead, were so good that, when waiting to be martyrized, were calm and, clasping their hands, looked up towards the sky in  "constantly in prayer" ... but this did not bother "Nero". Suetonius instead says:

"Punishment was inflicted on the Christians (Messianists not Jesuits), a class of men given to a new and mischievous superstition" (Nero 16,2).

As already pointed out, not even Suetonius (like Tacitus) was called in to make a deposition - as a witness to Jesuit martyrs - by any of the Apostles, "Apologetic Fathers" or "Bishops" who are said to have lived during this period, because the Christians were "Messianist" Jews ... and the scribes who created the "tradition" were well aware of this. The Apostle John says nothing about the massacre of Jesuits in his letters; not even Eusebius of Caesarea, in his "Historia Ecclesiastica", claims Suetonius as a witness to his fellow "Christian martyrs", despite being a very imaginative creator of many "blessed", all of whom decide to face death: burned alive, devoured by wild beasts, whipped, beaten, nailed, stoned ... rather than "repudiate the faith of the Saviour".

Unlike the utopic Jesuit "Christians", imagined only by future ecclesiastical literature, the Jews were believers who were not very submissive, very irritable and easily driven to rebellion ... and convinced to be right.
As a result of the Holy War against Roman occupation, which began in 66 while Nero was in Greece,
in 67 A.D. the Messianist movement incited uprisings to protest against the Emperor's order calling for the deployment of Roman legions led by Vespatian; the aim was to retake the territories in Palestine which the Zealots had liberated in the autumn of 66 A.D., when they defeated the army of the Legate of Syria Cestius Gallus in Beth Horon.

"When Nero was informed of the Romans' ill success in Judea, a concealed consternation and terror, as is usual in such cases, fell upon him ... And as he was deliberating to whom he should commit the care of the East, now it was in so great a commotion, and who might be best able to punish the Jews for their rebellion, and might prevent the same distemper from seizing upon the neighboring nations ... he found no one but Vespasian equal to the task..." (Bellum III 1-2).

"The Damascenes (from Damascus), having heard about the defeat suffered by the Romans , hurried to exterminate the Jews residing in their city ... Upon the news of the massacre, the Jews began to devastate the villages of the Syrians and the neighbouring cities, Philadelphia, Sebonitis, Cerasa, Pella and Scythopolis. Then they marched on Gadara, Hippos, Gaulonitis and set fire to them, then they advanced towards Kadasa of the Tyrians, Ptolemais, Gaba and Caesarea. Not even Sebaste and Askelon withstood their attacks and after setting fire to them, they destroyed Anthedon and Gaza ..." (Bellum II verses 462 and following).
"All Syria became the theatre of horrible devastation; every city was divided into two armies
(Jews against Pagans; and the Christians?), encamped one against the other and the preservation of the one party was in the destruction of the other. So the day time was spent in the shedding of blood for they without fear plundered the effects of the slain, and carried off the spoils of those whom they slew to their own houses, as if they had been gained in a set battle; and he was esteemed as a man of honour who got the greatest share. It was then common to see cities filled with dead bodies, still lying unburied, and those of old men, mixed with infants, all dead, and scattered about together; women also lay among them, without any covering for their nakedness: you might then see the whole province (of Syria) full of inexpressable calamities" (Bellum II ibid).

But the Jews immediately paid the consequences and history, in the late spring of 67 A.D., records the same scene reported by the deceiful scribe Tacitus, involving the persecution of the "Christian" followers of Jesus:

"At the same in which war was declared, and Vespasian had landed in Syria a short time before, while everywhere the sentiment hatred towards the Jews had reached its climax ... in Antioch the Jews were accused of having plotted to set fire to the whole city in one night...the people were unable to contain their fury and they hurled themselves upon the mass of Jews, convinced that in order to save their land they had to punish them and decreed that those captured were to die among the flames and they were immediately burnt in the theatre" (Bellum VII verses 46/62).

Yes, exactly, this event provided inspiration to the future "Abbot Priors", copyists who falsely described the scene depicting the mass Christian martyrdom ... the only thing missing is Nero on a chariot dressed as a charioteer.
And all this (as seen above, the same goes for the parched "Jesuit Christian" martyrs) was looked upon with indifference by the Evangelist "John" (who would have been middle-aged at the time of the events ... if he had existed) and the "Apostolic Fathers" (who also were inexistent), who were not in the least worried about the danger which the Antiochenes christianized by Saint Barnabas and Saint Paul - in such numbers that  "a large number of people were won over to the Lord...It was at Antioch that the disciples were first called 'Christians'" (cfr. Acts 11, 20/26) - were facing.

The 66 A.D. popular revolution was promoted and led by Jewish priests (there were thousands of them) - Essene and Pharisean Zealots - determined to free the land of the people of Israel from pagan rule through a Holy War. In "Historiae" Tacitus states:

"The Jews assigned to the priestly dignity the role of supporting their power".

Josephus - who descended from the "highest and most excellent priestly line" and now famous for his undertaking which saw the liberation of the Jewish priests - thought it "healthier", due to the patriotic sentiment of rebellion which was in the air, to pretend to be an integralist and embrace the cause of the "Salvation" of the Holy Land.
In virtue of his titles, the Sanhedrin assigned him the command of the Jewish forces in Galilee, made up of tens of thousands of men; but he was not at all convinced about fighting against the Roman legions, he took off before being crushed by the steamroller, that is to say the legions of the future Emperor.

"He (Joseph) saw whither the affairs of the Jews would tend at last, and was sensible that they had but one way of escaping, and that was by changing policy. However, although he expected that the Romans would forgive him, yet did he chose to die many times over, rather than to betray his country, and to dishonour the supreme command of his army which had been entrusted with him (?), or to live happily under those (the Romans) against whom he was sent to fight" (Bellum III verses 136-137).

This is how Josephus describes the situation but it is clear that he wished to save his skin and his personal interests. He took refuge in the fortress of Jotapata, where after a seige of 47 days he handed himself over to the enemy in a shameful manner ... and had the luck of an ambitious brown-noser, despite being held prisoner until 70 A.D.
All this took place in 67 A.D., year in which riots driven by Messianist Jews broke out in the eastern cities of the Empire as a form of protest against Vespasian's mission; riots which, on the basis of concrete historical motives, also took place in Rome.

As seen above in chap. 44 of Book XV of Tacitus's "Annales", the persecution of the "Christians" which is here described was carried out after the rebuilding of Rome, when Nero was still Emperor. But the rebuilding of a metropolis would have taken years, not just a short period (a couple of months), as instead is "hypothesized" by the overly-devout historians, who refer to one another to strengthen their courage and to offer support to an absurd theory (convinced that there we are in a world of fools) aimed at justifying Nero's furious reaction which would have made sense only if it had taken place immediately after the fire.
In reality, the Messianist Jews were persecuted in the Empire for their uprisings against the Roman military intervention aimed at reconquering the "Promise Land" (we are in 67 A.D.), and not for having set fire to Rome three years earlier: the connection between the fire and Nero's repression was artfully created by deceitful copyists centuries later.

Trajan, Plinius the Younger and Suetonius, despite having direct relations and knowing Tacitus personally, never link the results of their inquiries on the "Christians" to this fire, which would have been absolutely necessary due to the gravity of the event ... nor do they make any link to "Jesus", name which they had never heard the Christians pronounce; but if they did not make such connections, it is because there is no relationship between the fire in Rome and the subsequent repression of the "Christian Jews" carried out in 67 A.D.

The Messainist Jews, in a period which for them was very tragic, yearned for the coming of a Messiah, not a "Saviour Jesus" to be crucified, whose body would be eaten and whose blood would be drunk; they awaited the Messiah described in the scrolls of Qumran, a true Dominator of the World who, thanks to his "Revelation", would have used his army of avenger angels to destroy - by means of a true apocalyptic nemesis - the Roman pagan invaders and their capital: Rome, the "Babylon of sin".

The Jewish uprisings in the Empire were repressed by a Nero enraged by what was happening in Judea, "native land of the evil, the ruinous superstition which was spreading rapidly even in Rome...", that is to say the "nationalist Messianism" of the "Christian Zealots".
The rebellions took place when Josephus was in prison, but when he describes the war in his work he "forgets" to write down the persecution "of the sword" or "ius gladii" (as reported by Tertullianus a thousand years later) carried out against the Christian Jews in 67 A.D., because it was the Abbot Prior who made the historian get amnesia through the "incinerator", as this testimony was in contrast with chap. 44 of Book XV of Tacitus's Annales.

Nero, who hosted Josephus in his Palace in Rome for almost two years (from the end of 63 to the middle of 65), after veryfing the truthfulness of the latter's defense, accepted his pleas and adulations by freeing the Jewish priests around the middle of 65, obviously after the fire of 64: this could not have occurred once the 66 A.D. war had begun.

From this date onwards the Jews, now at war with the Empire, were seen as potential enemies; instead, before the revolt began the Jews were not seen as hostile to Nero, even if they often rioted.
They were Jews, ungrateful and mentally tainted by Messianist Hebraism, the "ruinous superstition which had spread from Judea, their native land"... the ungrateful were deserving of only one thing: "ius gladii". And so it happened: Nero tightened his fist, stretched out his arm and pointed his thumb at ... it was the year 67 A.D.

In the "Annales" of Tacitus which have reached us there is no description of the war between the Romans and the Jews, while in his work "Historiae", the story begins ... but stops at the moment in which Titus arranges the siege structures outside the walls of Jerusalem.
Of all the writers of the time, Tacitus was the one who reported most precisely the civil and wartime events characterizing the Empire in the first century.
The victory and the subsequent triumphal celebration, which he probably witnessed at the age of fifteen, was passed on to posterity through the building of the Arch of Triumph of Titus, which is still standing today and where you can find religious symbols carved into the stone; these symbols offer perpetual testimony of the subjugation of the Jews who dared to rebel against the Roman Empire due to "a ruinous superstition on the increase, not only in Judea, the native land of the evil, but also in Rome".
Tacitus passed under this Roman arch many times before his death ... and wrote (we are certain of this) all the details concerning this conflict.
The historian had to have described such a bloody war, won by Rome and deserving of a triumphal celebration. As in many other much less serious situations, he reported that a people rose up against Rome as a result of their integralist creed: a national religious revolution which spread beyond the Palestinian borders and involved Syria, Egypt and other neighbouring lands. But Rome's imperial power repressed all those who, in accordance with their faith, did not yield to its domination.

Tacitus wrote that extremist Jews - religious integralists captured during and after the war - were forced to undergo atrocius torture; they were thrown to animals at fairs and forced to fight gladiators in front of huge crowds in the eastern cities of the Empire.

What was reported by Josephus was also confirmed by Tacitus in "Annales"... but the copyists later destroyed the original manuscripts because they demonstrated that, in reality, in the first century only fanatic nationalist Jews were tortured. This would have revealed the inexistence of Jesuit Christians and disavowed their martyrdom.

As we have seen, during this period there were many important interrelated events behind the historical motives, which lead us to believe that Tacitus, in his handwritten scrolls, reported the persecution of the Messianist Jews ordered by Nero in 67 A.D. In the interpolated chapter a very negative judgement is expressed towards the Christians, which follows the historian's contempt for the Jews (already reported in Book V of "Historiae").
These duly insulting phrases against the Jews (he was a pagan priest of patrician extraction) accurately reflect Tacitus's style and are probably the same as those of the Roman historian. This was not a problem for the deceitful scribes; on the contrary, the historian's words became a guide which gave a sense of completeness to the story by making it "authentically" credible.
Afterwards all the copyist had to do was "place" the passage at the end of the description of the cleansing rites and the banquets thanking the Gods for
the reconstruction of Rome "et voilà": that's it! ... but it was done badly and at the wrong time.
In order to finish it off all they had to do was add the passage regarding the executors - who
"openly set fire shouting that this was the order they had received" - to the end of chap. 38, in order to place the blame directly on Nero; the neutral literary tone of this passage is in sharp contrast with the beginning of the same chapter, where the historian states that it is not known whether the cause of the disaster "was accidental or due to the malice of the Princeps".
The brief reference to those who set fire to Rome is an extemporary, amateurish interpolation. The patrician historian cannot have limited himself to mentioning such a detail without forcing himself to complete it by pointing out the extreme gravity of such behaviour and clearly stating that only a crazy Nero could have given this order.

Moreover, the deceitful copyist overdid it (betraying himself once again) with regard to the overly derogatory opinion which he had Tacit give about "...Rome, where all that is atrocius and shameful in this world converges and has a following ...".
The historian - despite exposing a certain amount of decay (
mainly political), as well as permissivism and lack of discipline with regard to the social customs of Rome - never uses (as instead can be seen in this case) very offensive language which makes him appear to be an enemy of Rome.
On the contrary, the content and aim of his works reveal political, moral and patriotic passion for the destiny, power and glory of Rome.
This passage written under Trajan (whose content would have been dangerous as it was offensive towards the capital of an Empire at the height of its magnificence) is false and reflects a preconceived ideology, conditioned by a creed imbued with puritanism and apocalyptic hatred (see "the Babylon of sin"); "Acts of the Apostles" and the writings of the Apologetical Fathers of Jesuit Christianity contain continuous attacks against "shamelessness" (lasciviousness), a truly insalubrious mental phobia.

Nero seized the opportunity represented by the disaster of Rome to rake up huge sums of personal wealth; he persecuted the Senators and his megalomania prompted him to build a magnificent "golden house" and occupy roughly one-third of the area comprising the city; as a result, he ended up losing the support of the people who, up until this time, had backed him. But he pays a very high price: after isolating himself politically he finds himself with no alternative other than suicide.

"He died at thirty-two years of age and the joy of the people was so great that the plebians ran about the city wearing felt caps" (Suet. Nero 57).

This is why the "rumours" reported by historians blaming him for causing the fire are authentic: they reflect the mentality of the people (of all places and times), who see those who hold power take advantage of catastrophes, wars, floods, earthquakes, devastating fires, etc. in order to accumulate personal wealth.


This study has highlighted much evidence demonstrating the falsification of the laurentian manuscript M 68 II, in which a skillful calligrapher directed by a powerful, inspired and venerable Bishop, made up an event and made it appear to be a chronicle reported by the principal historian of ancient Rome: the largest mass martyrdom in the history of imperial Rome, perpetrated by Nero against inexistent Jesuit ... Christians.
The knowledge of the true events will, over time, spread slowly yet inexorably throughout the world and the Christian Churches, the "ministers of God" and their exegetical acolytes will be unable to do anything to prevent this from happening ...

Emilio Salsi


[ go back ]