The Christian martyrs prove a millennial deception. These are the findings

Justin martyr

The Church considers “Saint Justin” to be the most important apologetic Christian father of the second century. The three most important works attributed to this alleged martyr have reached us through a sole manscript, the “Codex Parisinus Graecus 450”, from the year 1364, kept at the National Library in Paris. Here we find: “The first apologia of the Christians”, “The second apologia of the Christians” and the imaginary “Dialogue with Trypho”: a Jew converted by Justin, both of whom simply a fruit of the imagination. Let’s verify the actual existence of the of the apologetic Father “Justin martyr”, whose relic is preserved in the “Chiesa Collegiata di San Silvestro Papa” in the town of  Fabrica di Roma (Italy).

On the basis of what we have learned in the previous studies, the aim of Christian historians was to demonstrate the existence of the followers of Christ and His successors, from the time of His “Advent”, therefore “Justin” should have acted as a witness in the second century, hence, in the fourth century, the Bishop Eusebius of Caesarea, in his “Historia Eccelsiastica”, mentions him several times as classifies him as a “reliable historical source”. Such a judgement is absolutely false because the “First Apologia” (Chap. 26) by Saint Justin, apparently written by him to Emperor Antoninus Pius and the Roman Senate, attests:

“After Christ's ascension into heaven the devils put forward certain men who said that they themselves were gods; and they were not only not persecuted by you, but even deemed worthy of honours. There was a Samaritan, Simon Magus, a native of the village called Gitthon, who in the reign of Claudius Cæsar, and in your royal city of Rome, did mighty acts of magic, by virtue of the art of the devils operating in him. He was considered a God, and as a God was honoured by you with a statue erected on the river Tiber, between the two bridges, and bore this inscription, in the language of Rome: Simoni Deo Sancto, which means «To Simon the holy God»”.

This is inconceivable foolishness as the village of “Gitto” never existed, just as no non-Christian historical or archeological (like the statues) source makes reference to a Roman divinity calledSimoni Deo Sancto”, who, fact of utmost importance, is totally unknown to the chronicles and copious literature of imperial Rome dating back to this time. In fact, to support what has just now been stated, in the second part of the study on Paul of  Tarsus, we have proven the inexistence of the imaginary “Simon Magus”: as a result, when the Christian scribes invented these characters, saints and demons, they got tangled up in blunders and contradictions which ultimately proved them wrong.

According to the Church, the apologetic Christian “Justin” was born in 100 A.D. in “Flavia Neapolis”: city founded in 72 by the Romans, north of Jerusalem, under Emperor Flavius Vespasian, and later called “Nablus” by the Arabs. The Christian scribes who conceived Justin” had him send the “First apologia” to Emperor Antoninus Pius and the Roman Senate, so as to exalt the principles of  the Christian religion and its followers, but it was so long that the recipients would have had to spend two consecutive days in the curia to read it: ridiculous.
In the First apologia, the invented Saint accuses the Romans because, unlike the  followers of other religions, they sentenced to death only the Christians; in addition to this, in his long treatise Justin took pains to even denounce a “persecution of Christians” carried out by the revolutionary Jewish Messiah “Simon, bar Kosiba” called “Bar Kokhba” (Son of the Star):

“In the current Jewish war under Hadrian, in fact, Bar Kokbah, the head of the revolt of the Jews, condemned only Christians to terrible torture, if they did not curse and did not repudiate Jesus Christ”.

The Jesuit historians, fully aware that if the “Christians” had truly existed in second century Judea, the Jew “Simon bar Kokhba”, self-styled “Prince of the Jews”, once having conquered the power in this Province, should have suppressed the followers of the new Creed, as took place with Jesus, according to what is reported in the Gospels … but not by History.
In fact, all one needs to do is skim through the long epitome concerning Emperor Hadrian in “Roman History” by Cassius Dio; it speaks about the war against the Jews which lasted from 132 to 135 A.D., but the Roman historian here makes no mention of the existence of Christians”. Instead, in the “First Apologia of the Christians”, the scribes, inventors of a fictitious “Justin” are indifferent, at war’s end, to the true massacre of 580.000 Jews, plus those enslaved, who died of starvation and who were sent to fight against gladiators and wild beasts in circuses, as was written by Cassius Dio in his majestic work.

It is important to highlight that another Christian historian, the monk John Xiphilinus, renowned scholar of eleventh century Constantinople, was assigned the task, by Emperor Michael VII Parapinakēs, of drawing up the epitome of the chronicles concerning “Roman History” by Cassius Dio: the famous historian and Senator under Emperors Commodus and Alexander Severus.
During the writing of the work, the believer Xiphilinus, on several occasions, as we are about to verify, felt it his “duty” to arbitrarily insert, “manu propria”, information about supposed “Christians” present from the second century onwards, and accused Cassius Dio of not having done so, but in this case Xiphilinus did not blame Bar Kokhba for any massacre of Christians simply because he knew nothing about the event and was unaware of the apologia of a fictitiousJustin” who accused the Jewish warlord.

Moreover, John Xiphilinus, in the biography of Antoninus Pius (the recipient of the First Apologia of Justin) reported in “Roman History” by Cassius Dio (LXIX 3): in the passage contained in the epitome concerning Emperor he adds personal information about the Christians, not formulated by the famous Roman historian, and declares:

Eusebius Pamphilius, in his Historia Ecclessiastica cites several letters of Hadrian in which he expresses his profound disdain for those who attack or denounce the Christians, and swears in the name of Hercules that they will be punished.

We are dealing with a naive blunder made by the monk Xiphilinus who, with such an interpolation, did not realize that the true source of theRescript of Hadrian” could not have been Eusebius of Caesarea, but was Cassius Dio, the real author of “Roman History”, written two centuries before Eusebius’s “Historia Ecclesiastica”. But it is evident that Cassius Dio was unaware of Hadrians imperial decree in defense of the Christians, otherwise it would have been his duty to mention it immediately, long before the Bishop Eusebius.

We are dealing with a naive blunder made by the monk Xiphilinus who, with such an interpolation, did not realize that the true source of theRescript of Hadrian” could not have been Eusebius of Caesarea, but was Cassius Dio, the real author of “Roman History”, written two centuries before Eusebius’s “Historia Ecclesiastica”. But it is evident that Cassius Dio was unaware of Hadrians  imperial decree in defense of the Christians, otherwise it would have been his duty to mention it immediately, long before the Bishop Eusebius.

Even the “Second Apologia on the Christians” was devised by the scribes in the name of “Justin” and directed towards Emperor Marcus Aurelius, under whom the martyr himself is said to have been sentenced to death in Rome and then beheaded along with six other fellow believers, as attested in the phony “Acta Martyrium Sancti Iustini et sociorum”. In fact, in the ninth century Xiphilinus was still unaware of this tragic event; as a result, the monk made no mention of it in his epitome on the exploits of Marcus Aurelius, thus belying the above-mentioned “Acts” and demonstrating their groundlessness, including the “Dialogue with Tryphon”, who Eusebius considered as being “The most illustrious Jew of this time”.
We even find confirmation of the inexistence of the martyrdom of Saint Justin in the work “Apologeticum” (V 6) by Q. Settimius Florens Tertullianus, the famous Father of the Church, who here considered Marcus Aurelius, particularly wise Emperor, protector of the Christians. This assertion categorically belies not only the martyrdom but the very existence of the “martyr Justin” along with the whole series of martyrs that Justin mentions in his work: this is what is stated by Eusebius in “Historia Ecclesiastica” (HEc. IV 17).

To this end, it is to be pointed out that the “Codex Latinus Parisinus 1623”, containing the most ancient “Apologeticum”, dating back to the tenth century, a century prior to Xiphilinus to be exact; according to the Church, Tertullianus was born in 160 and died in 220 A.D., therefore if this Father had actually existed, he would have been a direct eyewitness to the conduct of Marcus Aurelius. As a result the first to report the martyrdom of Justin and his fellow believers should have been Tertullianus, if the event had really taken place, provided that … Tertullianus had truly existed: there is no evidence of this, as previously verified. The inexistence of Tertullianus is demonstrated in the fifth and sixth studies concerning the life of “Apostle John” and the “Nativity” of Christ.

The fraudulent "Rescript of Hadrian"

We have so far listed a series of “testimonies” regarding the “martyr Justin”, all of which are incompatible, thus forcing us to denounce him as being a false protagonist of “Christian tradition”; in addition, it is our duty, for the record, in contrast with what is attested by the scribes in “Apologeticum”, to observe that Marcus Aurelius was a follower of the Mystery Cults” (cfr. Historia Augusta), therefore far from being a “wise protector of the Christians”.
It can also be observed that the modus operandi of the false “witness” Eusebius of Caesarea”, who in his “Historia Ecclesiastica”, with regard to the “First Apologia of the Christians” written by Justin, so as to make the martyr truthful, went as far as to mention him as a direct source; he therefore invented a phony “rescript of Hadrian” that the Emperor is said to have sent to the Governor Minucius Fundanus, Proconsul of the Province of Asia in 122-123 A.D., and in which there is mention of a letter written in favour of the Christians – sent to him (apparently) by the previous Governor, “Serenius Granianus”, in office in 123-124 A.D. – to which, according to Eusebius’s simulation (HEc. IV 9,1-3), the Emperor is said to have replied as such:

Rescript of Hadrian:
“To Minicius Fundanus. I have received a letter written to me by Serenius Granianus, a very clear man, who you have succeeded
(impossible! On the contrary, it was Serenius Granianus who succeeded Minucius Fundans). It does not seem right to leave the issue unresolved, so that men do not become distressed; slanderers must not be given a justification for their wickedness. Therefore, if the provincial can openly support this petition against the Christians, so that they can also respond in court, they must resort to this sole procedure and not to opinions or acclaims of the people. If someone wishes to formulate an accusation, it is thus much more appropriate that you prepare a case. And if someone accuses them and demonstrates that they are doing something illegal, decide on the basis of the seriousness of the crime. But, for Hercules, if one presses charges for calumny, determine its seriousness and take pains to find a punishment”. This is what is written in the rescript of Hadrian … reported by Eusebius three centuries after the principate of Hadrian.

But the decree of the Emperor concerning inexistent Christians is unknown to all the historians of imperial Rome … being that it is an absolute lie.
Proof of this is offered by that fact the Proconsul of Asia, in office in 122-123 A.D., was “Minicius Fundanus”; predecessor ofSerenius Granianus”, in office from 123 to 124; the latter was the successor of Minucius Fundanus, and not viceversa, as is attested in the rescript.
It is thus demonstrated that the event reported by Eusebius was an invention of his, or of the scribes who, centuries later, transcribed the work in other Codexes, because it is impossible that Emperor Hadrian lacked perfect knowledge of the sequence of the Governors of the Province of Asia who he himself had appointed.
With regard to this, it must be pointed out that all the Emperors were obligated to know personally all the Governors of the Roman provinces (who of course were Magistrates with the right to execute) due to the military power that the Caesars conferred to these officials, all of whom, no one excluded, had to be totally loyal to the Emperors so as to prevent possible coups, quite common in the history of the Roman Empire.

All of the historical data reported above - indispensable to the verification of the actual existence of “Saint Justin” and the martyrs that he gave testimony of - is deliberately neglected during the “General Audiences”, convened officially for believers by the Popes in Saint Peter’s Square, as in the case of Benedict XVI, who, on 21March 2007, dealt with the martyr Justin (it is online). Historical data withheld even by Professors (who we all pay) of “History of Christianity”: a didactic discipline taught in the principal Universities, with the institutional task of verifying the authenticity of the “primitive Christian tradition.

A curious annotation: the current “Pope Francis”, elected in March 2013, unlike all his predecessors, is the first and only Pope to have never held even one “General Audience” in order to solemnly formalize the biography and exploits of Jesus Christ, from the Nativity to His burial; the same goes for the life of the Apostles and their successors. It is evident that not even Francis believes in such nonsense, as he is perfectly aware of being immediately proven wrong by the precise facts published in the present website “Gospels and History”.

The martyrs of Lyons and Vienne

The ferocious mass martyrdom of ten Christians and their leader, the Bishop Potinus,  which took place in Lugdunum (present-day Lyons) – according to the account narrated by Eusebius of Caesarea – is said to have been carried out in 177 A.D.: “During the seventeenth year of the reign of Marcus Aurelius Antoninus Verus”.
Instead, according to other documents (which are also misleading) attested by Christian scribes, like the various “Martyrologies” or “Acta Sanctorum”, there were 48 martyrs of Lyon: this number was abnormally inflated through the centuries and in contrast with the testimony of the Bishop Eusebius of Caesarea. But, above all, of significant importance is the unawareness of the bloody event on the part of  the Bishop, native of Lugdunum, “Sidonius Appolinaris”, thus “colleague” of Potinus and like the latter “beatified”.
In Lugdunum, Sidonius was a pupil of the monk Claudianus Mamertus, writer, theologist and, above all, specialist of Christian patristics, yet neither of them (Mamertus or Sidonius) had ever heard about the famous apologetic father “Justin martyr” or themartyrs of Lugdunum”, which today is called Lyons.

Eusebius, in his “Historia Ecclesiastica” (V 1 and foll.), reports to posterity the content of a “certified copy” of a letter – sent in 177 A.D. from the Churches of Lyons and Vienne, in Gaul, to those in Asia and Phrygia – which he received a century and a half later.
But, as highlighted above with regard to the martyrdom of Saint Justin, the eyewitness and Father of the Church, Q. Settmius Florens Tertullianus, despite having lived at the time of Marcus Aurelius, knew nothing about theMartyrs of Lyons and Vienne” or the imaginary, ninety-year-old “Bishop Potinus”.
Instead, Tertullianus, in his “Apologeticum” (V 6) praises this Emperor who he recognizes as protector of Christians, thus belying what was written by Eusebius with regard the homicide decree issued by Marcus Aurelius Caesar: Torture to death the Christians, but if any of them retract, free them” (HEc V 1,47).
Just like Tertullianus, even the already mentioned Christian historian, John Xiliphinus (eleventh century) was unaware of the immensity of this oppression (as described by Eusebius) of imaginary martyrs, otherwise it would have been reported, prior to Eusebius, by the monk John in his long epitome of “Roman History”, written by Cassius Dio, concerning the true events which took place during the reign of Marcus Aurelius.

On the basis of the results obtained and thanks to the review of the events narrated by Eusebius, it must be pointed out that when John Xiphilinus drew up the epitome of “Roman History” written by Cassius Dio, he was aware (as reported above) of the existence ofHistoria Ecclesiasticaby Eusebius Panfilius of Caesarea and even cited the work as ahistorical source”; but, as we have just verified, the text read by Xiliphinus does not furnish proof of theMartyrs of Lyons and Vienne”, which can only be explained as follows: this martyrdom was invented by the scribes who transcribed EusebiussHistoria Ecclesiasticain a Codex drawn up after the time of Xiliphinus (who lived in the eleventh century), no longer the original and in which they added the fruit of their psychopathic imagination. It takes no time at all to understand that the “Historia Ecclesiastica” by Eusebius which has reached us is an archetype that has been tampered with, resulting from a reading of various Codexes* - transcribed through the centuries but in contrast with one another – whose  contradictions were craftily removed . This has always been the “policy” of the “Ministers of God” … in order to indoctrinate the naive who are enchanted with “proof” created  just to satisfy the interests of the privileged Clergy.

* In order to understand this conclusion it is necessary to consult the manuscripts which narrate the respective works and verify the datings in which the scribes of God drew them up; when doing this we notice that “Historia Ecclesiastica” by Eusebius was transcribed by the scribes in two distinct families of Codexes, dated between the tenth and thirteenth centuries. The first is made up of the Codexes: B = Parisinus 1431 (twelfth century); D = Parisinus 1433 (twelfth century); M = Marcianus (twelfth century); the second is made up of the Codexes: A = Parisinus 1430 (eleventh century); Laurentianus 70,20 (tenth century); Laurentianus 70,7 (eleventh century); Mosquensis 50 (twelfth century).
A Syriac and an Armenian version (both  labeled with a "Σ") and a Latin version (labeled with an “L” and craftily attributed to Rufinus Aquileiensis) - must be added to these manuscripts; these versions are “probably” dated to the fifth century: a dating “probably” intended for the naive, but not for History. In fact, is not by chance that – despite the fact that it would have been dutiful to obtain precise information – no publication of the single versions has ever been authorized; on the contrary, the Church has authorized the divulgation of an archetype hypothesized after censoring the contradictions contained in the various Codexes, but was unable to eliminate all the incompatibilities.

Other confirmation of the clemency, adopted as a way of life by the Stoic Marcus Aurelius, can be found through a reading of the chronicles of the “Historia Augusta” by Julius Capitolinus, where, in the long biography dedicated to this Emperor, there is not even the slightest reference to the presence of Christians” … and as a result History even belies the tenth century scribes that wrote up the “Codex Latinus Parisinus 1623” of the Apologeticum in the name of an inexistent Tertullianus, who they had declare the following lie: “Marcus Aurelius, particularly wise Emperor, protector of the Christians”.

The Miracle of the Rain

In Rome, in “Piazza Colonna”, we can admire the massive Aurelian Column, dedicated to the celebration of the victories of the Emperor Marcus Aurelius along the Danubian frontier against the Germanic peoples – the  Marcomanni, the Quadi and the Sarmati; the sculpture was then completed, after his death, by his son Commodus. As obvious, on the top of the monument stood out an original bronze statue of Marcus Aurelius, replaced by one of Saint Paul, as ordered by Pope Sixtus in 1589.
The marble column is set on a large pedestal in the middle of the Square, in front of Palazzo Chigi and on the top of this bulk dominates, still today, the alien presence of the statue of Saint Paul, anchored at a height of 42 metres, which towers above the seat of the Government of the Italian Republic. Therefore, despite being an ideological straining of Church doctrine, ordered by a Pope who lived four centuries ago, the Italian state has never intervened so as to reestablish, in accordance with its originality, the correct purpose of the monument located on Italian territory. It is inevitable for one to instinctively perceive the religious statue as a symbol of political conditioning practiced by the State of the Vatican against the sovereignty of the Italian State, in contrast with Universal History.

With regard to such nonsense, it is dutiful to specify that the institutional task assigned to the “Ministry of Cultural Heritage” and to the “Superintendent of Archeological Heritage” forces the officials of these authorities to abolish the absurd bond between history and religion caused by an imposition that falsifies the function of a monument, in reality consecrated to the Emperor and not to Saint Paul. The erroneous decision made by a Pope over four centuries ago has been silently accepted, an incoherent decision on the part of  Italian state officials due to the fact that Marcus Aurelius actually existed – and is famous for his exploits substantiated by History and Archeology – while the Statue of Saint Paul is nothing but the empty simulacrum of a person who never lived and invented from scratch for theological reasons: this has been definitively proven by the “History of Christianity” and even by archeology itself (see second study).
The same problem is found is the just as massive “Trajans Column”, 40 meters high (including the pedestal), built in 113 A.D. by Emperor Trajan (Marcus Ulpius Traianus) to celebrate the victorious war he led against Dacia. Today the monument is located in the Imperial Forum, but, in 1588, Pope Sixtus V placed a statue of Saint Peter on the top and took down the bronze one of Trajan: another simulacrum of a mythological Christian who in reality never existed (see first study). Even in this case the designated authorities keep quiet about this endless archeological mystification.

The High Clergy’s conditioning of History dates back to the fourth century A.D., when Catholicism triumphed over all the other religions, both those of pagan origin and those of the dissident Christians. It was at this time that the historian Bishop Eusebius of Caesarea, aware of the content of the representations carved on the stupendous Aurelian column, among which we find immortalized “The Miracle of the Rain” along with “The Miracle of the Lightning”, which all imperial historians attribute to Marcus Aurelius: this phenomenon took place during the Sarmatic Wars led by the Emperor between 171 and 174 A.D. The powerful Eusebius, Bishop at the court of Constantine the Great, decided to reinterpret the actual events in accordance with hypocritical Christian hagiography, commonly practiced and enriched with an abundance of imaginary details; this was carried out by mentioning the names of phony witnesses, who seemingly had lived at the time of Marcus Aurelius and narrated in his “Historia Ecclesiastica” (HEc V 4):

“It is said that Marcus Aurelius Caesar, while preparing his battle against the Sarmatians was in distress as a result of the thirst gripping his army. It was then that the soldiers of the so-called Melitene Legion, thanks to the faith which had supported them from that time until today in the battles against the enemy, knelt down on the ground, as we usually do when praying, and turned to God and pleaded with Him. Such a sight seemed surprising to their enemies, but it is narrated that immediately thereafter something even more astonishing surprised them, because a storm suddenly struck and scared away their enemies, while upon the army of those who had invoked the divinity fell a heavy shower which revived its soldiers just as they were about to die of thirst. The event is even reported by authors far from our doctrine who described the era of the above-mentioned emperors, and it is also known to ours. But among pagan historians, since they are strangers to the faith, the prodigy is reported without recognizing that it took place due to our prayers; among us, instead, as they love the truth (sic!), the event has been passed on in a pure and simple manner. Among the latter there is also Apollinaris (passed off as Bishop of Hierapolis in Phrygia, second century apologist, who never existed just like his contemporary “Ireneus of Lyons”) see fifth study), who narrates that the legion which carried out the prodigy through prayer received from the emperor a name that corresponded to the event, and was called in Latin Thundering Legion. A reliable witness of such events is also Tertullianus (who never existed, see fifth study), who in an apologia in Latin addressed to the Senate and which he have already cited, confirms the account through more valid and convincing evidence. He in fact writes that up to his days there were still letters of Mark, a very sensible emperor, in which he personally offers testimony that his army, just about to die of thirst in Germany, was saved by the prayers of the Christians; it is also said that the emperor inflicted death upon those who attempted to accuse us.

Tertullianus, “Apologeticum (chap. V 6):

If one searches for the letter of Marcus Aurelius, a particularly wise emperor, which attests that the famous thirst in Germany was dispelled as a result of a rain beseeched through the prayers of soldiers who just happened to be Christian

Having looked at the all the foolishness described by the phony apologists, considered to be “scribes of God” by believers, now let’s verify … How History reports the Miracle of the rain.

Now let’s start with “Roman History”, the famous work written  in the third century A.D. by Cassius Dio, Senator under Emperor Commodus (maker of the famous Column dedicated to his father Marcus Aurelius). Dio’s parent was Cassius Apronianus, who was also Senator under Marcus Aurelius. Therefore Dio Cassius is a direct source, well informed of the current events of the Empire, with the right to consult the “Acts of the Senate”, a privilege that also belonged to his father. We also know that the chronicles of Dio which have reached us in epitomes (compendia) edited by John Xiphilinus, an eleventh century monk, nephew of the Patriarch of Constantinople, thus a staunch Christian and, as we have already verified, also an apologist of his faith, so obstinate as to make blatant errors. In fact, while following the exploits of  Marcus Aurelius – in “Roman History” Book LXXI 8/10 – we read:

“So Mark subjugated the Marcomanni and the Iazyges through many battles and grave dangers; but a large war also broke out against those who were called Quadi, and an unhoped-for victory was obtained, achieved nearly through divine favour. It was a divinity who saved in an absolutely extraordinary manner the Romans who were in danger during the battle. After the Quadi had surrounded them in areas favourable to them, and since the Romans, with limited strength, fought courageously, the barbarians interrupted the battle, waiting to capture them owing to heat and thirst; in addition, due to the fact that they were greater in number, closed off and fortified all the surrounding areas so as to prevent them from supplying themselves with water. While the Romans were in great distress as a result of their efforts, their wounds, the sun and thirst, without being able, for these reasons, to fight or retreat elsewhere, dehydrated, in the areas and positions they found themselves, suddenly clouds gathered and, with divine intervention, much rain fell. In fact, it is narrated that a certain Harnouphis, an Egyptian wizard who accompanied Mark, had invoked through the art of magic several divinities, in particular the celestial Mercurius, and thanks to such divinities had attracted the rain.

Given the precedents, it would have been impossible for the monk Xiphilinus not to intervene even with regard to the “miracle of the rain”, therefore, being the zealous apologist that he was, he felt it his duty to correct the chronicle of Cassius Dio … thus making the usual blunder:

This is what Dio narrates with regard to these events, but it is evident that what he reported was false; whether or not it was done deliberately is not clear, even if I am more inclined to think that he did it intentionally. How could it be otherwise?He, in fact, was aware of the existence of the division of soldiers that, with a particular name, was called “Fulminata* (egli [Dion], in fact, in the list of legions also mentions this one), name which it was given for no reason – being that no others are reported – other than for what took place during the war. It was this event that on that occasion constituted salvation for the Romans and ruination for the barbarians, and not, instead the wizard Harnouphis, also because there is no mention that Mark appreciated the company of the wizards and took delight in sorcery. And here is the event I am alluding to: Mark had a legion of soldiers from Melitene, who were all followers of Christ. Well, it is said that in this battle, when Mark no longer knew what decision to take and feared for the whole army, the Prefect approached him to say that those who were called Christians through their prayers could obtain anything. As soon as he heard this, Mark asked them to pray to their own God; and after they had prayed, God satisfied them instantly by hitting the enemies with a bolt of lightning and comforting the Romans with rain. Mark, profoundly struck by this event, honoured the Christians through a public edict and gave the legion the nameFulminata”.
It is said that there is also a letter of Mark which speaks about this incident. However the Greeks, although knowing that the legion was called “Fulminata” and gave they themselves testimony of it, they by no means give the reason for this appellative. Dio adds that while the rain was falling, at first everyone looked upwards and drank water by opening their mouth, then pushing out their shields, others their helmets, they guzzled it avidly and also gave it to the horses; moreover, when the barbarians suddenly showed up, they drank and fought at the same time, while a few, who had been wounded, along with the water sipped the blood flowing into the helmets”.

* Xiphilinus is referring to the Twelfth Legion, but he is unaware that it was formed in the first century B.C. by Julius Caesar who immediately called itFulminata”, as verified by numerous inscriptions regarding Roman military titles, among which “ILS 8864”. We have thus demonstrated the falseness of the chronicle concerning the “Miracle of the Rain” reported by Eusebius of Caesarea in addition to the inexistence of his bogus sources”: like the erroneous testimony about the name of the “Legion Fulminata” reported by a certain Bishop Apollinaris, who never existed along with his alleged works. The same goes for the other phony witness”  mentioned by Eusebius: Tertullianus, who never existed as we have specified above.
With regard to the Twelfth Fulminata, it militated in Syria until 70 A.D., when it was transferred to Cappadocia by General Titus, son of Vespasian, after the triumphant victory over the Jews, and from that time onwards remained was quartered in Melitene, in present-day eastern Turkey, so employed by Marcus Aurelius in the wars along the Danubian frontier.

* There is an inscription of the wizard Harnouphis in Aquileia which qualifies him as “holy scribe of Egypt”. While, according to “Historia Augusta” (XIX) by Giulio Capitolino, Marcus Aurelius actually resorted to Chaldean wizards, therefore it is not strange for Cassius Dio to report such an intervention as officialized in the chronacles of the time. Even though the work limits itself to affirming thatMark, through prayers, had a bolt of lightning destroy the enemy war machines, while the rain fell and revived the thirsty soldiers”. In the final analysis we can be certain, on the basis of our findings, that the Romans were saved from a sure defeat thanks to sheer luck.

But it is worth having another look at the narration of the event that was not written (it is much too evident) by Cassius Dio but by a Xiphilinus, so overly obsessed (that he ended up sounding ridiculous) when describing the battle “led” directly by Dio, “who took to the field” against the miserable barbarians, in compliance with the prayers of the Christians:

“In the same place one could see water and fire pour out of the sky at the same time, and while some were wet and drank, others (the barbarians) were burnt and died; and the fire did not touch the Romans, but even if touched lightly by the fire, it immediately died out, nor did water help the barbarians, but, as if it were oil, it fanned the flames, and though they were wet they continued to search for water. Some inflicted wounds on themselves in their attempt to put out the fire with their own blood.

This is the Christian testimony of the “Miracle of the Rain”, an incident that, despite being represented in an official historical document, like “Roman History”, by a mentally disturbed scribe like Xiphilinus, was judged as truthful by the “rosary rattling” exegetes and their disciples, all of whom indifferent to the naive contradictions highlighted thanks to a comparative reading of the texts reporting the ancient events.

Tertullianuss Ad Scapulam

In the fifth and sixth studies we have definitively verified the inexistence of the great Father and apologist “Quintus Settimius Florens Tertullianus”, according to the “spiritualists scholars” a pagan Carthaginian (155 †235 A.D.) converted to Christianity when well into his forties, who after becoming a priest and marrying, is said to have written over 40 hagiographic treatises on the superiority of the Christian faith (from a moral, Roman Law, philosophical and historical perspective) and to have been a direct witness to happenings (invented) and exploits which he attributed to personalities of his time. Nonetheless, Tertullianus, along with his numerous works, is
unknown to all the Fathers, Popes and Bishops who existed, according to the Church, from the second to the fourth century, that is to say up until, for the first time, he is mentioned by Eusebius of Caesarea, but not yet identified by the latter as a follower of the heresy of "Montanus", in contrast with what is evident today in his “biography”, obviously concocted at a later time.

Once aware of the contradiction deriving from the fact that Tertullianus, despite being an Apologetic father, was not known to any Christian of his time … the Church tried to find a solution by inventing a “witness”, placed in the Province of Africa where he is said to have been born in 250 A.D. and died in 320. This is how that the deceitful scribes invented another apologist who they called “Lucius Caecilius Firmianus Lactantius” but, so as to demonstrate that he had actually existed, made the foolish mistake of having him interact with Diocletian in Nicomedia, the new imperial headquarters which had replaced Rome. The scribes committed a blunder, centuries after the alleged existence of Lactantius, as they forgot to have his contemporary Eusebius of Caesarea - who just a few years later was present in the Palace of Nicomedia - mention him.

But the fact that Lactantius is unknown to Eusebius of Caesarea in his Historia Ecclesiastica*, despite being his contemporary, demonstrates thatLactantius and his entire work, “The Martyrs of Palestine” in primis, were invented by Christians scribes at a later time. And so being that Eusebius was the source of Saint Jerome, why does the latter make reference to the life of Lactantius while Eusebius does not? There is only reason why: since Jerome’s “De viris illustribus” that has reached us, and which cites Lactantius, is found in the “Codex Neoeboracensis Ms 2Q”, drawn up at the end of the ninth century, this means thatLactantiuswas invented by this date, but in any case after the death of Jerome.

* It is of utmost importance to highlight that "Historia Ecclesiastica" of Eusebius contains the historiographical framework created by the Bishop under Emperor Constantine as the foundation of the "Christian tradition" attesting the structure of the Fathers of the Church - starting with the successors of Jesus, the Apostles and the evangelizers - and accompanied by a series of martyrs. A long list of spiritual leaders and a multitude of Ecclesiae, duly described in detail (including their personal details) and duly devoted to martyrdom. Starting with the first three Bishops of Jerusalem "who were blood relatives of the Lord" (see fourth study), all the Churches had to be aware of their history from the very beginning and the relevant protagonists were often remembered during the Councils held in the centuries to come. An uninterrupted system of Saints - from the time of Christ to the fourth century of Eusebius - which is two thousand years old; we are dealing with a highly impressive "Opera Omnia" and no country in the world can offer such a detailed reconstruction of its own past ... with a detail which needs to be highlighted: the history of the first four centuries of the Holy See is based on the imagination of Eusebius and evangelists.

According to what is attested by Christian scribes, Tertullianus is said to be a native of Carthage, capital of Proconsular Africa at the time of Caesar Augustus; therefore it is logical that the scribes assigned him, being that he was a “Christian Apologetic Father”, the task of “operating “ in this region, by having him interact with famous people, in real places, in order to offer proof of the existence on the scene of Christians and their moral and religious superiority in comparison to that of the Pagans and their respective divinities.
In order to verify whether the Jesuit chroniclers achieved their aim, let’s follow the narrated event about the Christians in all of Proconsular Africa who are about to undergo mass persecution ordered by a Roman Governor called “Scapula”*, in office in 212-213 A.D.; yet the creators of the incident did not specify, so as not to make any mistake, which of the two Proconsuls mentioned took on the task of exterminating all of the Christians residing in the Province.

* The former Consuls, potential martyrizers of  Christians, are said to have been: “Publius Iulius Scapula Tertullus Priscus” or his relative “Gaius Iulius Scapula Lepidus Tertullus”, but the identification of the personality “Scapula” is still today subject of debate among historians. In particular there is no documented proof of the fact that the two proconsuls were in office in the years 212 and 213 A.D., an oversight on the part of Tertullianus’s scribe who, in the fifteenth century, availed himself of the vague name “Scapula”.

In any case, in order to settle the issue, let’s read the chronicle of the incident narrated by Tertullianus himself, author of a long “open letter”, published who knows where or how, addressed however to the Proconsul, letter whose reply is unknown, and it could not have been otherwise because the inventive scribes were aware that, if the missive had been real, Tertullianus would have been martyrized “ipso facto” (immediately) due to the tone used in the “letter”.
In fact the document begins with an apologia in favour of the Christians and their faith, displays offensive language against the pagan divinities of Scapula, described “as demonic”, and the same goes for their blasphemous followers.
Here are the most important passages of the letter which allow us to denounce its mystification and the motive:

Ad Scapulam
“In return for our faith in the living God
(Jesus Christ) we are sent to the stake … We (Christians) behave in accordance with the law of God, you can have evident proof from the fact that, despite being a great mass of people and now constituting the majority in every city, we live in silence without attacking public order”. Later Tertullianus warns Scapula … “Do not challenge God, this is my admonishment (sic) … many Governors, even more cruel than you, have turned a blind eye to the trials against the Christians”. “Severus (Emperor Septimius Severus, who died the year before in 211 A.D.) was aware that men and women of high aristocracy were adhering to Christianity; this did not hurt their prestige and they were the proud holders of his esteem”. “Your cruelty is our glory … What will you do with thousands of people, men and women, of all ages and social classes, who come before your tribunal? How many fires, and countless swords, will you need? What will Carthage have to undergo, if you wish to decimate it, when each one will be able to see among the Christians even men and matrons of your social class, all the most important people and relatives or friends of your friends? But if such a prospect does not worry you, save Carthage and the Province of Africa …”.

This priceless “testimony” is phony, just like its alleged authors: the scribes of God who placed it in the quill of an invented Jesuit apologist by the name of “Tertulianus” so as to prove how widespread Christianity was, from the very beginning, in the Roman Empire, including Proconsular Africa. The machination of the narrated  events is highlighted by the fact that there are 15 Codexes, “guarantorsof Tertullianuss letter”, all of which drawn up in the fifteenth century, that is to say over 1200 years after the imaginary author.
Let’s see why the contents of this document are extemporaneous and aberrant at the same time, from a historical and archeological point of view.

History teaches us that in 212 A.D. Emperor Antoninus Caracalla issued the “Constitutio Antoniniana”, which extended Roman citizenship to all the free inhabitants of the Empire; thereafter “a great mass of Christians, the majority in every city … and all high-ranking people”, having become “Roman citizens” in virtue of the imperial edict, nonetheless a crazy Roman Proconsul decided to execute them through the simple accusation of being “Christians”. Such a grave action, if one absurdly admitted that it had taken place, that the entire Roman fleet would have not been enough to transport  to Rome before the sole competent Tribunal the “guilty Christians”, “the majority in every city” of Preconsular Africa, then put them on trial, as provided for by Roman Law that the Governor “Scapula” was obliged to apply towards Roman citizens … and among these alleged martyrs “all the high-ranking people of every city” of the Province of Africa. We have reached the culmination  of apologetic psychopathic dementia … generated by thousand-year old manipulation of human psyche.

In fact, in contrast with the testimony passed on by the Jesuit scribes through the name of a fictitious “Tertullianus”, still today we can admire in Proconsular Africa we can admire the ruins of two important and stupendous cities: Carthage and Leptis Magna. Yet in neither of these cities can we find even the slightest trace of archeological remains confirming the existence of a widespread presence of Christians: the absolute majority in the entire Province, including the highest authorities and patricians, according to what was narrated by the deceitful scribes. Leptis Magna, in particular, was the hometown of Septimius Severus, who embellished it with spectacular monuments. The Caesar is cited directly by Tertullianus: Severus was aware that men and women of the high aristocracy were adhering to Christianity. Yet none of the stupendous ruins in Leptis Magna confirm the existence of Christians in this territory two centuries after the “resurrection of Christ”, and the same goes for the rest of the Province; instead, the remains of an ancient cemetery, discovered in Gammarth (near Carthage), are Jewish while no Christian burial sites have been found in any part of Proconsular Africa.
And - apart from “Historia Ecclesiastica” drawn up in the fourth century by Eusebius of Caesarea – no Apostolic Father, Apologetic Father or Bishop prior to Eusebius ever heard aboutTertullianus”.

At this point we are forced to ask ourselves what drove the scribes to invent, in the fifteenth century, the shortest and most belated Tertullian work. We can find the answer in the lack of non-Christian evidence (of which there is no trace in the documents of the chroniclers of imperial Rome in the first three centuries) regarding the martyrdom of Christians at that time. The Church decided to fill the gap through phonyChristian testimonies”, after calculating that the knowledge of the true events of ancient Roman history was destined to become more widespread as a result of  Johannes Gutenberg’s invention of the printing press with movable type, which made it made much more economical to publish books.
In particular, the fifteen Codexes concerning “Ad Scapulam”, conveniently ordered by the High Clergy, were drawn up by the scribes in the fifteenth century, at the same time as the “Codex Vaticanus Gr 145” and the “Codex Parisinus Coislinianus 320”, both from the fifteenth century. These documents contained Books 78 to 80, in which the historian Cassius Dio described the imperial events that took place between 96 and 229 A.D.: period in which theApostolic Fathers” and “Apologetic Fathersare said to have operated, according to the deceitful scribes of the imaginary “Christian tradition”. And almost all these “Fathers” were martyrized or declared to be witnesses to inexistent Christian martyrs, eliminated in an excruciating manner by the famous Governors of the Provinces, or even by the Emperors themselves.

From a reading ofRoman Historyby Cassius Dio (whose epitome was written by the monk John Xiphilinus: an eleventh century churchman so intent on attesting the existence of martyrs that he personally interpolated historical events, as seen above) there is, however, no evidence of the presence of Christians, let alone that of Christians martyrized by the provincial Governors of the Roman Empire until 229 A.D. Having evaluated the serious consequences deriving from the lack of Christians until this date, the specialists of the Vatican made a great effort to invent the “testimonies” of the mythological characters of the Gospels, like Christ, the Apostles and, after them, the Bishops who were their inevitable “continuators”; and the same goes for the whole of “Christianity” and the necessary martyrs “fully-equipped” with relics taken from ancient Catacombs. It was the lack of historical confirmation with regard to the existence of Christians in the first three centuries which drove the High Clergy to create them, as in the case of the imaginary Tertullianus, conceived as a “spectator” present in Roman Proconsular Africa.
For the same reason the following were also devised …

The Scillitan Martyrs

The so-called “Christian tradition” - in this case much overdue in comparison to the event narrated in several manuscripts (the oldest dated the end of the ninth century, thus “appearing” 700 years after the fact) entitled Acts of the Scillitan Martyrs” (Passio Sanctorum Scilitanorum) - offers the official account of a public trial set in Carthage at the time of Tertullianus, at the end of which twelve poor devils from an unknown location called “Scilli” were condemned and beheaded, guilty of being “Christians”.
Before looking at the substance of the useful data reported in the document, it is necessary to take note that the “witnesses” to the Scillitan martyrs are represented in the following manuscripts:
the “Codex Ms Lat. 11880”, kept at the British Museum, dated the end of the ninth century; the manuscript “Ms Lat. Vienna 377” dated the eleventh century, kept in the Hof-Bibliothek in Vienna; the “Codex Évreux 37 Ms Lat. folio 55” dated the thirteenth century, kept at the State Library in Évreux; the thirteenth centuryCodex Latinus Parisinus 2179”; the “Codex Latinus Parisinus 5306”; and finally a non-specified Greek text published in Bonn in 1881.

It is to be pointed out at once that the above-indicated “datings” are based on approximate paleographical estimates, much too often passed off as certain so as to confuse non-specialists, but which we have repudiated many times thanks to historical, archeological, epigraphical analyses, ancient toponymy, philology, comparison of ancient Codexes and all scientific data indispensable for verifying past events.

From a reading of the cited manuscripts - unlike the text published online (just click) where one can find the dating, names of Consuls and localities - there is in reality no evidence of such details. Instead, we are simply dealing with abstract speculation carried out by believers so as to “demonstrate”, by means of futile theories, the narrated event; these academics, however, made the mistake of discarding the critical research a priori. That is to say, research needed to verify the historical authenticity of the event, through the comparison of the “Scillitan Codexes” with those of other previous Codexes regarding the opera Omnia that, from the very beginning, founded and passed on the “Christian tradition”.
The fideistic academics made a lot of confusion in their attempt to conjecture the martyrdom, and too see the mess they made in order to patch up the contradictions contained in the “Scillitan Codexes” all you need to do is click and read:
The Manuscripts of the"Acts of the Scillitan Martyrs"

It must be highlighted, for example, that the silly “candour” demonstrated by the “experts” cited in the document (and the same goes for all their imitators) in which they declare Tertullianus’s “Ad Scapulam” to be a source in order to “baptize” the name of the Proconsul “Vigellius Saturninus”, not realizing that the “source Ad Scapulam” is to be found in the Codexes drawn up in the fifteenth century, that is to say at least two centuries after the Codexes of the imaginary “Scillitan Martyrs”; the latter are Codexes which, by carrying on with our research, we could demonstrate as being “pre-packaged manuscripts” awaiting to be completed through the insertion of names and useful data capable of making an event which is said to have taken place  in the remote past seem historically credible, despite the fact that it was invented.
Such later documents were never completed and inserted in the Scillitan Codexes for logical reasons, clearly identified by the exegetes of the Clergy, whose sole fault was of not having eliminated once and for all the manuscripts of the “Scillitan Martyrs”, thus preventing this absurd event from discrediting all the “Acts of the Martyrs”: a grave error which allowed later indoctrinated historians to hypothesize names, places and dates by clutching at the straws of history through the use of suction cups of faith.

With regard to the above-mentioned “Publius Vigellius Saturninus” as Roman Proconsul of Africa, cited in “Ad Scapulam”, he is attested by the epigraphy in “Supplementum Epigraphicum Graecum” in the inscription “SEG 42-1232”, where we discover that the honorary position held by “P. Vigellius Saturninus” dates back to 159-162 A.D., therefore under the Emperors Antoninus Pius and Marcus Aurelius, in other words roughly twenty years prior to the supposed event regarding the Scillitan martyrs, dated by clerics 17 July of 180 A.D., under Emperor Commodus.
Instead the other two ConsulsPraesens” and “Claudianus”, arbitrarily inserted into a Latin text by modern spiritual academics, are two incomplete Roman names which, unlie the former, are the fruit of imaginary theories not supported by any evidence whatsoever.

These were the reasons – though of course never openly expressed – which prevented the High Clergy from perfecting the above-listed original Codexes of the “Acts of the Scillitan Martyrs”. Nonetheless, the historians “lovers of Heaven”, in the future, will do their best to make them truthful, even running the risk of …. ending up in Hell. Now let’s verify the significant aspects shown by the impossible “Acts of the Scillitan Martyrs”.

First of all, if the trial had truly taken place, the first to report the martyrdom of Christians would have been the Apologetic Father Tertullianus, present in Carthage at the time of the execution. A necessary and immediate action which would have allowed the other Fathers to learn about the series of Bishops and about all the Christian historians, from the end of the second century A.D. onwards.
Yet none of the “witnesses” ever reported the passion of the Scillitan martyrs: in particular it is unknown to the fourth century historian Bishop Eusebius of Caesarea, like it is also unknown to the historian and Doctor of the Church, Saint Jerome, beatified in the fifth century, and the same goes for the scribes who, at the end of the ninth century, transcribed his work “De viris illustribus” in the “Codex Ms 2Q Neoeboracensis”, also containing the datings of the many executions of Christians … yet there is no report of “Scillitan martyrs”.

Moreover, how could there have been documentation of the Acts of a criminal prosecution in Carthage if Tertullianus, the first potential witness, declared, on the basis of what is written down in his “Apologeticum chap. I,1-3” (it is online), that the Roman Governors of Proconsular Africa did not want to hold public trial against Christians? Acts of criminal proceedings which, according to the Codexes concerning the Scillitan martyrs, even omit the identification of the Consuls, who also acted as Magistrates, and the formulation of the charges against the indicted.
In order to understand how such an evident contradiction - just read in “Apologeticum” - could have taken place, all that one needs to know is that the “Codex Latinus Parisinus 1623” regarding “Apologeticum” dates back to the tenth century, a date which demonstrates that, up to that time, the scribes of Tertullianus knew nothing (just like all the other scribes) about martyrs in Proconsular Africa, but, to fill thevoid in Christian martyrology, they wrote, in the name of an inexistent Tertullianus, that there could be no evidence of their existence due to the fact that the Roman Governors of Africa (the only ones in all the Provinces: absurd) sealed the Acts of the trials against the Christians.

These were the first verifications which prevented the High Clergy from completing the “pre-packaged” Scillitan Codexes, enriching them with historically credible data such as: the official names of Magistrates advocates of public trial, precise dating, the exact list and number of martyrs. In fact, as in several critiques we find six indicted attested, while in others the number grows to twelve, it is obvious that the collective martyrdom lacks credibility from the very beginning. However, in order to overcome this contradiction, the clerics divide the trial into two parts with an interval of thirty days, craftily created so as to add another six martyrs to the initial ones.

We have highlighted extremely significant confirmation in order to prevent today’s Church, perfectly aware of the absurdities, from dealing with this topic; in fact all you need to do is consult the official site of the Vatican, the “Catholic Encyclopedia” and click on “Holy Scillitan Martyrs Cathopedia” where we read that “Cathopedia does not yet have an entry with this precise name” (Yes, just like this!); the same goes for the “Saints, blessed and witnesses – Encyclopedia of the Saints”, an official Catholic site which protects itself by writing, from the very beginning, that it “avoids Groups of Martyrs” … almost as if they were not worthy of mercy just like the “Individual”, in defiance of pretentious Christian piety.
Therefore the Church, today, in reality does not recognize the unknown relics which are said to have been moved from Africa to France in the ninth century: a hoax, because, at the end of the ninth century the Codex of Saint Jerome was unaware of the Scillitan martyrs; the same goes for the tenth century Codex of Apologeticum; and likewise for the eleventh century monk John Xiphilinus: datings which contradict those given to the “Scillitan Codexes”.
Unclear relics which, from France, were then moved to theBasilica of Saint John and Paulin Rome, where to this day the bones of twelve men and women are kept: miserable and anonymous remains passed off asThe Scillitan Martyrs”. A lugubrious practice which the Church adopted back in ancient times, thanks to the indoctrination of the masses, subjugated  (Lat. “missus”) to the redeeming powers of pitiful human remains.
Ite, missa est.

Emilio Salsi

[ go back ]