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) 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
. 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 … 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 that Mark, 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, the Acts of Criminal Procedure in Carthage could not have been documented, if Tertullian, the first potential witness, as recorded in his "Apologeticum cap. I, 1 "(is online), declares that all the Governors of the Roman provinces could not celebrate public proceedings against Christians:

"If you, Magistrates of the Roman Empire, who preside over the top of the city, are not allowed to investigate and examine, before everyone, what is clearly contained in the cause of Christians".

Acts of a criminal trial which, by virtue of the Codes relating to the "
Scillitan martyrs", even omit the identification of the Consuls Magistrate and the wording of the charges against the defendants.
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.


Saint Nicholas, the unlikely Bishop of Myra, Patron Saint of Bari

Saint Nicholas is worshipped by almost all of Christianity and, in Italy, particularly by the inhabitants of Bari, capital of the Italian region of Apulia.
According to the Catholic Church (see Cathopedia website, Catholic Encyclopedia), Saint Nicholas was probably born in Patara (Lycia), modern-day Turkey, between 260 and 280 A.D.; being that he was the son of wealthy Christians, he inherited a fortune after their death and, needless to say, used  the sizeable patrimony to help the needy.
The biographical narrations of his deeds, spread by his inventors, speak of  a Saint Nicholas who immediately distinguished himself through various extraordinary acts of faith in favour of his neighbours (which we will spare readers), thanks to which the people of Myra unanimously acclaimed him Bishop of their city. The Saint and Bishop reached the height of his miraculous cursus honorum “by raising from the dead three children, killed and salted by an evil butcher in order to sell their flesh” (Cathopedia, Catholic Encyclopedia).
Later, in his role of Bishop, Nicholas is said to have taken part in the Council of Nicea held in 325 A.D. under Constantine the Great and, “in a moment of anger is said to have slapped Arius”, the head of the heretics. Nicholas is said to have died at 73 of old age in 343 A.D. (cfr Cathopedia).
Having said this, due to the number of biographical conditionals used, we feel it our duty to verify the existence of the alleged Saint by availing ourselves of ancient and direct historical sources.


Since the epopees of the Apostles there had been no resurrections, therefore, with such a resume, “Saint Nicholas, Bishop of Myra in Lycia, famous for his holiness and his intercession at the throne of the divine grace” (Roman Martyrology), our “Nicholas”, inevitably, should have been known by the maost famous Christian chronicler of all time: Eusebius of Caesarea, located in Nicomedia (in Bithynia) at the court of Constantine the Great, and author of “Historia Eccesiastica”, the first and most ancient document concerning the biographies of all the beatified Bishops and martyrs, from the time of the Apostles to 325 A.D. All the more so being that Nicholas and Eusebius are contemporaries and “spiritual colleaguesoperating in nearby Dioceses comprising modern-day Turkey (Lycia and Bithynia). Yet Bishop Eusebius of Caesarea never heard of any “Bishop Nicholas”, of his heavenly miracles, nor that he beat Bishop Arius.
Unaware of “Nicholas Bishop of Myra” were the scribes who drew up the last two manuscripts of Eusebius’s “Historia Ecclesiastica”, dating back to the late Middle Ages – “Codex Parisinus 1431” (twelfth cent.) and “Codex Parisinus 1433" (twelfth cent.); if they had been aware of the centuries-old advent of the “Saint Bishop Nicholas, resurrector of children”, they would have recorded his deeds. As it is also true that not even the Christian historian and Doctor of the Church, Saint Jerome Sophronius, secretary to the Pontifex Maximus, Pope Damasus I, half a century after Eusebius, had ever heard ofSaint Nicholas, Bishop resurrector of children”, worthy of being commemorated among “The Illustrious Men” (De viris illustribus), Jerome’s main work (after the translation of the Latin “Vulgata” Bible), as testimony to the existence of the “sequela Christi” concerning all the heroes, protagonists of the whole of Christianity, from the time of Christ the Saviour’s return to heaven.
Not even the scribes – who transcribed, in the late ninth century, Jerome’s “De viris illustribus” into “Codex Ms 2Q Neoeboracensis” (today kept at the Theological Seminary in New York)  -  were aware of “Saint Nicholas”.

But, if up until the end of the twelfth century nobody had heard of Saint Nicholas, when does the first manuscript attesting his invention (both naive and absurd) date back to? The Church must furnish evidence of an ancient manuscript demonstrating who and when the allegedremains” – miserable anonymous remains baptized as “relics” – were removed. And from what ancient catacomb, dating back to 343 A.D. (year of the martyr’s death), were they taken and thereafter placed in a sarcophagus inside a building (not a Church) in Myra dated to the eighth century and later transferred to Bari in the eleventh century, just before the start of the Crusades.
The subtle minds of the Vatican must answer this question! What is the dating of the most ancient document capable of informing the whole of Christianity of this series of events, from the nativity of Saint Nicholas to the last transfer of the body to Bari? Events unknown to all Christian historians until the twelfth century!

It is clearly evident that we are dealing with a legend, invented at an later time by hypocritical Christian prelates, therefore still unknown to the other great popular “reporter”, inventor of myths and miracles falsely accredited to the Apostles and their successors: Jacopo da Varazze, author of the “Legenda Aurea”, dating back to the late thirteenth century, regarding the “imaginary biograpies” of 243 Saints protagonists of the Christian Epic, from the time of the Apostles to the late Middle Ages.
Therefore, Jacopo da Varazza, who died in Genoa in 1298, knew nothing about “Bishop Saint Nicholas, resurrector of children”, let alone the intricate procedure surrounding his remains, forcedly invented by the usual unknown people who cited phony protagonists and went as far as to involve the cities of Bari and Venice, whose inhabitants – according to what they lead us to believe – longed for the body of the Saint.

“An expedition of 62 sailors from Bari, among whom the priests Lupo and Grimoldo, which departed with three ships owned by the shipowners by the name of Dottula, reached Myra and took possession of the remains of Nicholas which arrived in Bari on 9 May 1087”, according to the inventors tardive inventors of the myth of Saint Nicholas, narrated by Cathopedia which highlights its great dissemination:

“Such a tradition over time further consolidated itself, also due to the large number of prodigies attributed to him and which spread widely in the East, in Rome and in Southern Italy.

But in this case, if these narrations were based on authentic events, inevitably such happenings would have demonstrated the peoples knowledge of the Saint, both in the East and in the West on the contrary a notoriety unknown to Jacopo da varazze and all his contemporaries. A set of verifications which belie the existence of Saint Nicholas and the senselessodysseyof his anonymous remains.
Having said this, the opportunistic mystics must say: when and who began to identifySaint Nicholaswith Father Christmas”? In fact - according to the fables drawn up by the current phony clerics who avoid citing direct sources - for modern Christians “Saint Nicholas” is the equivalent of the feminine “Santa Claus” … along with his white beard.


By ignoring the proven historical facts based on precise direct sources, Prof. Alessandro Barbero, a good medievalist but incompetent in “History of Christianity”, so as to ingratiate himself with the powerful Vatican, at 9.10 p.m. on 25 December 2017 “took the field” on the Italian T.V. channel Rai Storia and introduced, thus guaranteeing its truthfulness, the pseudo-documentary “Il vero volto di Babbo Natale” (“The true face of Father Christmas”).
Here we are dealing with a “scientific reconstruction” carried out by a group of researchers, involved in reconstructing the face of miserable anonymous remains on the basis of the conviction, which they have been led to believe, that these remains are actually those ofSaint Nicholas”. A useless and ridiculous representation for the achievement of an aim which is clearly erroneous due to its false premise, according to which the unbelievable saint had a fractured nose, fact which, according to the “enlightened” animistic scientists “make the face more realistic”. This statement is a good joke, considering that, on the basis of the patched up ecclesiastical biography regarding Saint Nicholas “the resurrector of pickled children”, there is no trace of an event capable of justifying such a violent fatality. If anything, the opposite, as a fracture would tend to exclude aFather Christmas” with a fractured nose: an unexpected “archeological accident” falsely reinterpreted by scientists in love with the afterlife and who believe that the world is full of naïve people who, as such, are unaware of the fact that all the icons dedicated to Saint Nicholas depict him with a straight nose.
It is as if a doctor insisted on curing a patient availing themselves of an x-ray belonging to another patient … this is all carried out under the supervision of the “head physician” Prof. Alessandro Barbero.

Result: thanks to the opportunistic “ecclesiastical experts”, the centuries-old brainwashing has managed to bend science to their own aims by making it an accomplice to a spectacular falsification, useful to the mighty Clergy to indoctrinate the oblivious masses into the Creed of eternal salvation … in contrast with the Blackmail of the flames of hell.


The imaginary Saint Januarius of Naples

Cathopedia, Catholic Encyclopedia (see website), official voice of the Vatican, regarding the biography of Saint Januarius states the following:

There is no historically documented information concerning his life. His history has been passed down through hagiograpic works in which reality and legend are often intertwined and mixed into a sole account, whose historical elements are not always easily discernible.

In reality, the exegetes of the Vatican have covered themselves so as to prevent unpleasant antithetical comparisons, well aware of the fact that there are many totally different (and moreover exagerated and absurd) narrations concerning the life and martyrdom of Saint Januarius; we are dealing with falsifications invented, towards the end of the Middle Ages, by fanatical psychopaths interested in conditioning the ignorant masses and, consequently, in recalling the attention of the powerful nobles for merely political reasons. But let’s try to follow the myths invented by the imaginary “Saint Januarius”.

Januarius is said to have been born in the Italian village of Caroniti (located in the Italian region of Calabria) in 272 A.D. to Christian parents and raised in the same faith, and then to have died in Pozzuoli (near Naples) in 305 A.D. According to one of the many “traditions”, when Januarius became “Bishop of Benevento” (city in the Italian region of Campania) he was persecuted by a Governor of Campania “baptized” with the name “Dragontius*, whose ideological meaning, on its own, represents a predetermined and particularly ferocious modus operandi. In fact Dragontius, after initially destining the martyr to be torn to pieces by bears (another legend reports “torn to pieces by lions”) along with three friends for being Christian, the Governor then decided to behead the four along with another three fellow Christians.
* In the chronicles of the Roman Empire we never find trace of the name “Dragontius”; moreover, being that it was given to an imperial Governor, Latin onomastics called for three names (tria nomina): praenomen, nomen et cognomen. Consequently, “Dragontius” is an appellative of pure fantasy.

After this fabulous event, Cathopedia affirms that “The body of Januarius is said to have been buried in the Agro Marciano area (near Naples) and only in the fifth century moved to the Catacombs of Saint Januarius by the Duke-Bishop of Naples, John I”.
According to this deposition it would seem that Saint Januarius had truly existed, even if no reference is made to the blood of the martyr, that is to say the “holy liquid” destined to become famous at a later time. But here we find Cathopedia blabbing another version of the events surrounding the invented myth …

In the Vatican Acts many other legendary events are narrated. The most well known speak about Januarius and his companions who are said to have gone to Nola (near Naples), where it is said that they met the perfidious judge Timoteus who, having surprised Januarius while proselytizing, is said to have imprisoned and tortured him. But as the tremendous torture inflicted upon him was of no effect, it is said that he threw him into a burning furnace; after reopening the furnace, not only Januarius came out unscathed and without his clothes even being slightly touched by the fire, but  the flames hit the pagans who had come to see the agony. Timoteus became ill and was cured by Januarius and did not show any gratitude, but had him brought to the amphitheatre in Pozzuoli to be torn to pieces by ferocious beasts.

According to the umpteenth legend we have just read, this events depicts a different, yet still perfidious, persecutor of Saint Januarius, thus proof that the torturer of the phony “saint” was invented; it goes as far as to call in evil pagan anti-Christians. All the non-believers paid the consequences for such cruelty by being hit by the divine flames which left Januarius unscathed, by this time the “unscathed saint and martyr” … but there is no reference to him being Bishop of  Benevento nor does he spill a drop a blood.

Afterwards the Vatican Cathopedia fills the void concerning the lack of a reference to the famous blood of Saint Januarius: According to tradition (?), immediately after the beheading it is said that some blood was kept, as was the custom at that time (what a joke: if this were true the catacombs of all Christianity would be full of viles filled to the rim with blood), collected by a pious woman by the name of Eusebia who put it into viles; they have become a typical iconograpic attribute of Saint Januarius. The story of the pious woman is however recent, and it was published for the first time only in 1579 in the volume by the Neopolitan canon Paolo Regio entitled “Le vite de’ sette Santi Protettori di Napoli” (“The Lives of the seven Patron Saints of Naples”).

Moreover Cathopedia, from the very beginning, has informed us that the principal biographical sources of Januarius are:
the Atti Bolognesi (Bologna Acts, dated to the sixth-seventh century); and the Vatican Acts (dated to the eighth-ninth century).
But, if these datings were true, the astonishing deeds of Januarius should have been reported by the initial and most famous Christian historians who truly existed: centuries-old chroniclers specialized in handing down to future memory the manuscripts containing the biographies of all the Bishop martyrized for their faith in Christ, therefore heroes beatified and immediately sent to Heaven. An investigation which we are getting ready to carry out.

With regard to the “martyrdom of Saint Januarius” all one needs to do is consult the Catholic “Saints and Blessed” which reports (despite the many versions) only one version (as if it were the only truthful one so as not to highlight the other contrasting versions) of Januarius’s martyrdom … with the specific addition Discretionary Memory. For the wise few words are sufficient: as already mentioned above by Cathopedia, the Church is aware that Saint Januarius never existed, consequently the memory of his martyrdom becomes optional. The subtle minds of the Vatican are aware of the ancient Codexes drawn up by the Christian historians, those who truly lived from when Christianity came to power in the fourth century, and none of them ever passed on the ridiculous deeds of an unknown “Saint Januarius, Bishop and martyr”.

Before speaking about Januarius it would have been the duty of Eusebius of Caesarea, compiler of the biographies of the Bishops martyrized for their faith in Christ. Especially the scribes who transcribed the Codexes of his “Historia Ecclesiastica” with the list of the biographies of all the martyrized Saints, from the passion of the Saviour to the beginning of the fourth century. In particular if the scribes who drew up the last two manuscripts dating back to the late Middle Ages – "Codex Parisinus 1431" (twelfth century) and "Codex Parisinus 1433" (twelfth century) – had known about the centuries-old advent of “Saint Januarius Bishop and Martyr” they would have obligated themselves to add him onto the list, being that we are dealing with a high prelate, witness to Jesus and victim of excellence, with the specification that the body of Saint Januarius, Bishop and màrtire, was laid "in the fifth century moved to the Catacombs of Saint Januarius by the Duke-Bishop of Naples, John I.

The second to report the deeds of “Saint Januarius Bishop and martyr” should have been the historian and Doctor of the Church, Saint Jerome Sophronius, half a century after Eusebius, author of “The illustrious men” (De viris illustribus): a list of 133 Bishops and martyrs from the time of the Apostles and their successors to the fifth century. In addition, as in the case of the manuscripts of “Historia Ecclesiastica” by Eusebius, not even the scribes – who in the ninth century drew up “De viris illustribus” in "Codex Ms 2Q Neoeboracensis” – had ever heard about a Saint Januarius Bishop and martyr”.

And, going back through centuries, we find the famous inventor of the myths and miracles falsely accredited to the Apostles and their successors: Jacopo da Varazze, author of the “Legenda Aurea”, dating back to the end of the thirteenth century, regarding the “fantasy biographies” of 243 Saints protagonists of the Christian Epic, from the beginning to the late Middle Ages.
But even Jacopo da Varazze, who died in Genoa in 1298, knew nothing about “Saint Januarius Bishop and martyr”, nor had he ever heard about the extraordinary miracle of the liquefacton of his blood.

This basic information is enough to demonstrate that Saint Januarius never existed: he is nothing but a myth invented at a later date. A fact that the exegetes of the High Clergy are perfectly aware of. But then why do they go to great lengths to invent “sources” such as “Atti Bolognesi” and “Vatican Acts”, with bogus datings (although aware of the above-mentioned Codexes which prove these datings wrong), so as guarantee Saint Januarius a bit of credibilty?

Here is the motive:
The aim of the inventors of the legends of Saint Januarius (just like the myths of the other Saints) was to collect funds given by citizens through individual donations, or by the community by order of the powerful nobility who, like the Clergy, collected taxes from working people. This resultis demonstrated by the world’s most vast patrimony: “the Treasure of Saint Januarius”, whose collection of jewels is worth more than the jewels of the British Royal Family and of the Czars of Russia put together.

As a result, the Church, aware of the postulate of Christ So in the same way, none of you can be my disciple without giving up all that he owns (Lk 14.33), affirms that “the treasure of Saint Januarius belongs to the people”, according to the belief (not totally wrong) that the world is populated by the naïve … also in consideration of the fact that the Church has many other treasures spread throughout the world, starting with the “Vatican Treasures”, which, along with its vast and extremely valuable real estate property, constitute a massive capital comparable to that of the richest countries on the face of the Earth; but unlke these countries the Church is always in the black … thanks to the illusion of eternal life.

Ite, missa est.

In all the studies carried out thusfar we have demonstrated the inexistence of Jesus Christ, the Apostles and their successors, Bishops and martyrs: a series of followers of the Universal Saviour, all of whom invented in the fourth century by the historian Bishop Eusebius of Caesarea. After the latter, other poweful Christians ordered scribes to transcribe into the Codexes the biographies of many new immaginary saints, going as far as to invent a phony “Liber Pontificalis” with the names of the “Popes”, accredited as “Vicars of Christ” (acting in His place) and elected just after His death.
Having said this, it is time to carry out an inquiry of the burial sites of the loads of Christian martyrs (according to what was written in a specific treatise dating back to 1632 and written by the oratorian Girolam Bruni upon request of the Cardinal Marzio Ginetti, there were 64 milion martyrs sic!) eliminated during the first four centuries by the Emperors and the Governors of the Roman Provinces.




The imposture of the “primitive Christian catacombs

Museums all over Europe preserve many epigraphs carved on tombstones, paintings and graffiti in which the ancient inhabitants of the imperial Roman civitas transribed the events of daily life, even outside the catacombsbut there is nothing related to the Christianity of the first four centuries.
Confirmation of this can be found in pagan sepulchral epigraphy, full of precise references useful for the dating of the era of the deceased, such as imperial Edicts, Acts of the Senate, offerings to pagan divinites, cursus honorum, public and private documents, funerary inscriptions on ordinary objects, private life, etc., but nothing that demonstrates the existence of primitive Christians, followers of the Universal Saviour.
Inside the catacombs the first burials connoted as being Christian date back only to the end of the fourth century A.D. ; this is proven by the fact that the historian Bishop Eusebius of Caesarea wrote the detailed “Historia Ecclesiastica” in the royal palace of Constantine the Great at the beginning of the fourth century, yet he makes no mention of the underground ambulacrums already being used by the Christians nor does he make reference to the burial sites of the series of Bishops he describes in detail and who were martyrized for their faith in Christ.

With regard to this, Eusebius reports the life of the Bishops Zefirinus and Callistus, referring to them many times and in particular in Book VI Chap. 20-21 of his “Historia Ecclesuatica”, but he does not say that “Callistus was designated by Zefirinus to the administration of the cemetery itself, and located along the Ancient Via Appia, beyond the Church of the “Quo Vadis?” … as declared by the Vatican “sources” from the Renaissance onwards (see “Catacomb of Saint Callistus” in Cathopedia).
This is really something! We are fed the paradox that the Roman officials, rather than martirize a plethora of Christians (glorified by Eusebius and exalted by all the faithful), gave their Bishops the power to “administer the Catacombs of Saint Callistus”.

But, being that what has been mentioned thusfar is nothing but hypocritical fantasy, further verfification can be carried out by just checking the list of “The Illustrious Men” (Bishops and martyrs) by Saint Jerome, who, despite being a Christian historian who lived between the fourth and fifth century, makes no mention of the Bishops Zefirinus and Callistus who, for the Church, became “Popes” even becamePopes” of Rome; nor does the Saint and Doctor of the Church make reference to the “catacombs”.
It is dutiful to highlight that, being that also Jerome was a Christian historian who lived over half a century after Eusebius (whose work became his direct source, thus worthy of being inserted among “The Illustrious Men”), how can the fact the “PopesZefirinus and Callistus were not mentioned by Jerome be explained? In order to understand all one needs to do is remind readers that the “Codex Ms 2Q Neoeboracensis” containing Jerome’s “De viris illustribus” was transcribed by the scribes in the ninth century, while (as reported in detail in the third study on “James the Minor”) the families of manuscripts comprising Eusebius of Caesarea’s Historia Ecclesiastica date back to the eleventh and twelfth century.
Jerome himself knows nothing about the title ofPope”; just like the calligraphers who rewrote his work know nothing about such a title.
This demonstrates that the PopesZefirinus and Callistus were invented after the ninth century; therefore it is only after this dating that the ecclesiastical scribes assigned them the task of “administering the Catacombs of Saint Callistus”, as reported in Cathopedia, the Encyclopedia of the Vatican:

“The catacomb takes the name of the deacon Callistus, who, at the beginning of the third century, was chosen by Pope Zefirinus to administer the cemetery; after  ascending the papal throne, Pope Callistus expanded the funerary site”.

Such “testimony” is in contrast with the ancient and trumpeted “persecutions” carried out, according to the clericalists, by powerful and diabolical anti-Christian Romans. In fact, if such persecutions of Christians were true, the Emperors and Roman governors would have crucified Zefirinus and Callistus rather than have them administer the catacombs: an absolutely ridiculous theory.

The brief work “Ad Scapulam” dates back to the fifteenth century and is accredited  to an inexistent Tertullanius; in the third chapter there is a reference to an inexistent “Governor Ilarianus” from Proconsular Africa, under whom the pagan population strongly demanded the destruction of the Christian catacombs.
By this time we are near the start of the Renaissance and the scribes of the Clergy, so as to prove that the Christians used the catacombs to celebrate their rituals, made their umpteenth blunder due to the fact that in both Carthage and Leptis Magna (as in all of Proconsular Africa) catacombs or simple Christian cemeteries have never existed, not even the slightest archeological find capable of justifying the presence of  an “enormous diffusion of the followers of Jesus”, as falsely declared by the Tertullian scribe.

Thereforethe necropolises of the Christians from the Apostolic Age and the post-Apostolic Age”, narrated by Wikipedia and the Vatican Cathopedia, were invented by phony indoctrinators so as to lead us to believe that Jesus’s followers existed from the very time of his Advent.
In reality the catacombs existed prior to the Christian era; moreover, in the Roman Empire all cemetery grounds, including catacombs, had to be built outside the city in compliance with the “Law of the Twelve Tables” (fondation of Roman Law): a logical obligation always respected in all the civitas, at the time of the construction of the ambulacrums, during and until the end of the Empire. So it was only in later times that the ancient catacombs were incorporated  into the cities as they expanded. A fundamental aspect which archeologists need to take into consideration and thus avoid dating the construction of the catacombs on the basis of a senseless “Christian traditon”.

In the light of the above, what has been demonstrated with regard to the phony biographies of the centuries-old Christian martyrs, become an act of accusation against against the numerous “spiritual scholars” who. Without any sort of critical verification, take for granted that all the catacombs, named after the inexistent heroes and founders of Christianity, have been used as the burial sites of believers of Christ tortured to death due to their faith, from the Advent of Jesus to the fourth century: the time of Eusebius of Caesarea. Instead, after the death of Constantine the Great, it was the Christians who persecuted the pagans and, in compliance with the 380 A.D. Edict of Thessalonica, the Catholic Christians went as far as to oppress and murder the pagans, the Jews and even dissident Christians.

In the most ancient and famous catacombs, containing simple and anonymous representations, at the time of the Renaissance the "specialists" of the Vatican gave birth to a method of “identification" aimed at linking the catacombs to the primitive Christans. The exponential increase of this phenomenon took place during the Renaissance thanks to the activism of "Antonio Bosio" (1575-1629), an indoctrinated archeologist with a passion for ancient Roman catacombs who began to classify sarcophagi and various other objects found in the burial recesses. In order to carry out his task Bosio was helped by designers who not only reproduced these objects, but also ornamental designs.
At the beginning of the seventeenth century, such images, based on the ones designed or carved onto the stones covering the burial recesses, were used to offer "proof" of the existence of the bodies of the "Saints" through the adoption of absurdly contrived "identification critieria", such as "christograms", random combinations of letters interpreted as abbreviations of Jesus, Christ, Saviour etc.; or, for example, the simple decoration of the burial recesses through the use of palms, called "palmulae", which from that time onwards were considered to be "symbols of immortality", the "eternal salvation" which, needless to say, was yearned for by alleged ancient Christians, or from the "sagittae" (arrows) interpreted as "symbol of martyrdom".
 
These "symbols of identification" were ratified on 10 April 1668, through a specific decree, by the "Sacra Congregatio indulgentiis sacrisque reliquis praeposita", while the extraction of anonymous bodies, conveniently "rebaptized" and passed off as the relics of ancient "Saints", was assigned to the "Custodian of the Lipsanoteca of the Vicariate" and the "Sagrista Pontificius". The interpretation of the numerous drawings of “fish” (which the Romans loved eating) found in the catacombs dates back to this time, precisely by virtue of the name ΙΧΘΥΣ (ICTUS), which in Greek means “fish”; with a clear forcing it was considered as an “acronym” formed by the initials of the Greek phrase: Iesous Christos Theou Yios Soter “Jesus Christ, son of God, Saviour”. Therfore, the fish, due to the lack of valid archeological artefacts, are to this day still considered by spiritualist historians the “ultimate proof” of the existence of the Saviour and his primitive followers.

Even in this case, authentic critical historical research has demonstrated that the acronym “ICTUS” is absolute idiocy, based on nothing, thought up by the most important exegetes of the Church who pretend to be unaware of the Decrees (by avoiding to make reference to them so that they do not become known) enacted in the many “Councils” convened by the Clergy through the centuries. Councils called “iconodules”, those in favour of the representation of Christ, Saints and relics; and “iconoclasts”, those who were against this tradition. During these Synods the two sides in conflict managed to agree on only one point, duly recorded and codified:
From his Advent, Jesus was represented exclusively through the symbol of a lamb (“Ecce Agnus Dei”: Jh 1,29).

During the Second Council of Nicea convened in the year 787 A.D., Canon 82 from the Sixth Council (the 692 A.D. Concilius Quinsextus) - convened in Constantinople by Byzantine Emperor Justinian II Rhinotmetus -  was recorded. Canon 82, read aloud at Nicea II by the Protopresbyter Elias, decreed the possibility of representing Christ in human form:
 
"We decree from this time onwards that, rather than the ancient lamb (Agnus Dei), the character of he who removes the sins of the world, that is to say Jesus Christ our God, be painted and depicted in human form".

Never - before and after all the Church's Councils, and not only those convened to discuss iconoclasm and iconodulism - had any Synodal Father mentioned symbols such as "fish", "wine", "grapevines", "anchors", "figs", "olive trees" and whatever else the imagination of today's conceited believers is capable of inventing; the latter write pseudoscientific treatises on the subject in order to create evidence of the existence of the ghostly Jesuit Christians during the first two centuries. Today the pictures of many foods and objects found in Pagan catacombs are "linked" to Jesus by overly-devout scholars ... even at the risk of expropriating the compassionate faith which ordered Gentiles to have their beloved dead in their descent towards the "Inferi" (the Kingdom of Hades) be "accompanied" by ordinary pictures of foods and objects which they enjoyed when alive.
The representation of a simple Pagan banquet, very popular in opulent imperial Rome, becomes "the last supper with the celebration of the Eucharist". A mother nursing her newborn becomes "the Madonna" and the man admiring her is a "Prophet"; a shark which sinking its teeth into the survivor of a shipwreck is "Jonah spit out by the whale"; a grapevine with grapes is "the Church of Christ"; a simple shepherd is inevitably "the Good Shepherd Jesus who gives his life for His sheep" ... and so on and so forth.

In 1632 Cardinal Marzio Ginetti appointed the priest Girolamo Bruni, from the Congregation of San Filippo Neri, to carry out an investigation to verify the exact number of Christian martyrs, forced to undergo infinite punishments as a result of their faith in Jesus Christ, from the time of His advent onwards.
The emeritus priest carried out with his task diligently and the result was spectacular: 64.000.000 “sexaginta quattuor milione”. This “research”, with such an excessive result, was officialized on 10 April 1668 by the “Sacra Congregatio indulgentiis sacrisque reliquis praeposita”.

From the end of the Middle Ages to the present day, nearly all the catacomb sites, starting with thoee of the so-called “underground Christian Rome”, after being baptized with the names of invented saints, were set up to welcome paying visitors accompanied by well-trained guides who explain the fabulous feats of the primitive Christian heroes; the phony relics of the latter are in reality anonymous human remains taken from more ancient crypts, often by means of a devastatingly morbid process in which these remains were cut into pieces, distributed and destined to the cult of the naive believers and displayed in the Churches of the Old World.
A macabre modus operandi typical of fanatical psychopaths, moreover in contrast with the more civil pagan notion of “res sacra”, foundation of Roman Law, concerning the interred and burial sites, according to which after 100 years the dead, under the protection of the gods, were able to access Ade.

The shameful Christian religious conditioning, despite being based on a multitude of simulations, has evolved over time thanks to the servile complaisance of the media and of the educational system, has prevented oblivious citizens and students from knowing the true events which belie the existence of the Saints and Christian martyrs in Ancient Rome and in the whole of the Empire during the first four centuries, in spite of the fact that such findings have by this time been substantiated once and for all by history and archeology, in the light of the the latest research on the History of Christianity.

The greatest brainwashing that humanity has ever undergone has allowed the powerful clergy to live comfortably for over 1600 years: a parasitic macrostructure maintained, from the very beginning, by poverty-stricken people constantly indoctrinated, however, by the “Ministers of God” who offer the illusion of eternal life.



Emilio Salsi



[ go back ]