Against the opportunistic television popularizers of inexistent primitive Christians. Peter and Paul: the false biographies of two Apostles

Thanks to the help of history, archeology and philology and Jewish toponymy, through the initial studies we have verified the non-existence of the “Holy Saints Peter and Paul”; nevertheless, in order to offer further to support to such research, it is our duty to carry out an investigation on the supposed life and glorious endeavours of these personalities, which the Church, after passing them off as real, was forced to invent…


The Christians in imperial Rome

The “Annales” by Cornelius Tacitus reported in the “Codex Laurentianus MS 68 II”, according to paleographic estimates, were transcribed by the scribes of Montecassino (Italy) in the eleventh century, but four centuries of hesitation passed before the Church’s official authorization of the “editio princeps”, printed in Venice in 1470.
It was as of this date that the world became aware of a grave incident – never attested by the countless Codexes of ecclesiastical historiography prior to the “Laurentianus” – which took place in 64 A.D. in ancient Rome (a metropolis of one million inhabitants) and regarding an “ingens multitudo" of Christians which were crucified like burning torches by order of Emperor Nero, described in the historical text as a powerful mass murderer and compulsive “butcher”.

As knowledge of first century A.D. events began to spread, readers interested in the history of the Roman Empire began to highlight something unique: apart from the sudden and spectacular “blaze” of Christians – there were no other historical accounts attesting the even slightest presence of Christ, both in Rome and some of the imperial Provinces. Furthermore, there are no works of writers, philosophers or any other literary source of the time which makes mention of Jesus Christ and his followers, who, from the first century onwards, on the basis of what was attributed to Tacitus, should have been huge in number.
On the basis of these considerations, in fact, the manifest criticism of non-Christian testimonies – based on the actual knowledge of verified events and on historical rationalism – began in the eighteenth century with “Enlightenment” and grew further with the French Revolution of 1789 and has continued incessantly,  still today the object of clear protests by specialists of Ancient Roman history of various nationalities.

In order to remedy the “lack” of chronicles concerning the existence of the followers of Jesus, the only testimony being that of 64 A.D. - on its own enough to invalidate the extemporaneous Tacitean passage (as it was written by monks) - from the Renaissance onwards, opportunistic  scholars, thanks to the guaranteed approval of the Clergy, have elaborated unsubstantiated theories in order to transform certain Romans  – famous pagans, recalled by Latin historians before and after the great Neronian massacre of 64 -  into “Jesuit Christians ”.
Such theories are not based on concrete evidence, due to the lack of a true investigation on the plausibility of the Neronian massacre, never carried out by teachers of Roman history; as a result, over time the following media statement has prevailed, endorsed by who knows who: “it was generally recognized and accepted by modern critics”. It is a generic reference influenced by strained and abstruse theories, supported by biased critics, and then “officialized” thanks to propaganda spread through footage shown in cinemas and on television all around the world; as a result, these theories have ended up being perceived as “historical reality” by the great majority of people and, of course, a lot of effort was put forth to prevent criticism from being publicized by specialists and authors of discordant analyses.
The same media strategy was adopted for other numerous and ethereal “persecutions of Christians” ordered by the Emperors and Roman Governors in the Provinces during the first three centuries A.D., whose only sources are constituted by tales created scribes of the Christian clergy starting in the fourth century A.D., persecutions which, it is important to specify, were narrated in handwritten Codexes by monks from the late Middle Ages onwards.

Nevertheless, no professor of History of Christianity dares to endorse the evidence that, apart  from Tacitus, there was no imperial chronicler, in the centuries which followed the Roman historian, who ever made a reference to the Neronian massacre of Christians; nor can there be found any mention of the many subsequent persecutions of adherents to the creed of the Saviour, recalled solely by the Patrology of the Christian clergy. But, if Tacitus spoke of these events, why is it that no other historian after him bothered to describe the torture of Christians, if according to “Historia Ecclesiastica” written by Bishop Eusebius of Caesarea there were, from the time of Nero onwards, countless persecutions?
Moreover, Eusebius himself, despite making it a point to describe, from the resurrection of Christ onwards, a chain of martyrs and Bishops killed through the most atrocious and refined of tortures, he makes no reference whatsoever to the most spectacular massacre of Christians of all time, ordered by the “butcher Nero”, personality who by most is classified on the basis of the classical stereotype devised by Renaissance indoctrinators.

In addition to Eusebius, even the Roman historian Senator, Cassius Dio Cocceianus, in his imposing “Roman History”, written in the third century, describes, in his detailed epitome, the exploits of Nero Claudius Enobarbus and confirms the information given by Tacitus with regard to the fire of Rome, yet he offers no evidence of any presence of Christians nor of their extermination. Of critical significance is the fact the long epitome regarding Emperor Nero in “Roman History”, in the form in which it has reached us, was transcribed  in the eleventh century by the learned Byzantine monk John Xiphilinus, who gives no record of the martyrdom a multitude of Christians perpetrated by the Princeps of the Empire.
As just observed, no imperial chronicler or subsequent Christian historians have, through the centuries, mentioned the massacre of Christians carried out by Nero. Such an omission can be combined with the even more significant one made by the Jewish historian Josephus Flavius, who, as reported in his “Autobiography” compiled at the end of the first century, affirms precisely that between the end of 63 and the first half of 65 he was in Rome, as a guest of Poppaea for a year and a half, yet fails to highlight the spectacular massacre of “Christians” (in 64), whose name, for he who spoke Aramaic and knew Greek, meant “Messianists”.
For a Pharisaic member of the Sanhedrin who, like Josephus, knew the Bible perfectly, the meaning of “Messiah” was clear due its importance in the Old Testament; therefore the Jewish historians failure to report the slaughter of “Messianists” which, according to eleventh century Christian scribes was perpetrated by Nero in his presence, demonstrates that it did not take place.
We have limited ourselves to mentioning  just a few historical accounts so as to show that no massacre of adherents to the Creed of Jesus occurred in Rome; further proof of this will be given in a little while by having a look at the exploits of the Apostles Peter and Paul, although we ask our readers to go to the twelfth study for a definitive, in depth analysis.


Non-Christian sources

Among the “non-Christian sources” the only authentic documentation is that of the incident reported by Plinius the Younger (Tacitus’s friend), who, in the role of Governor of Bithynia, after already having tortured and condemned to death a large number of Christians, sent Trajan letters (“Epistolarium X 96”: just have a click on internet) so as to ask him how to behave towards them, due to the preponderant presence of the sect in that imperial Province in 112 A.D. But from a thorough analysis of both the investigation carried out by Plinius and the sources themselves, it is evident that the “Christians” in question have never been recognized as martyrs by the Church for it is the first to be aware of the fact that we are not dealing with “Jesuit Christians”, that is to say followers of Jesus (name which they did not know and never pronounced by Plinius in his inquiry), so not at all convinced of resurrection and eternal life: a Messiah Jesus whose “Advent” (according to the brainwashing undergone from childhood) would have occurred under Caesar Augustus. The Christian scribes, in observance of their doctrine, even go as far as to have Jesus himself prohibit the Apostles from proselytizing in Bithynia:

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

The negative ecclesiastical opinion of the “Christian martyrs of Bithynia” was, from the very beginning, due to the fact that in the Creed and related liturgies practiced by the Christians investigated by Plinius the Younger no reference was made to “eternal salvation”. An ecclesiastical evaluation validated by the unjustifiable absence of the Bishop of Bithynia, head of the large sect of followers, who, as such, would have been the first to be eliminated by the Governor.
Moreover, the description of the rigid lifelines which believers were subject to was the same as the one narrated by Josephus with regard to the Essenes, one of the four Jewish religious sects present at the time. We discover that we are dealing that we are dealing with a community of Jews “Awaiting” the Messiah (Christ), previously prophetized, and it is no coincidence, by the Essenes in the Dead Sea Scrolls … Thanks to their “Gnosis” (knowledge of God), they began to represent  the Messiah in their writings and invoked his Advent for eschatological reasons which were completely different from those of the “resurrection” after death. This is the real reason why Plinius the Younger decided to eliminate many of them; although the Essenes had never declared their true intentions, the Governor had understood that they were religious people against Roman domination. In reality, he was the Messiah (Christ) who the Essenes had described in their prophecy in “fragment 4Q246” of Qumran:

“He will be called the Son of God: they will call him the Son of the Highest. His Kingdom will be an eternal domination … the people of God will rise and stop all with a sword”.

A Christ (Messiah), Son of God, highlighting the nationalistic Zealot pathos, in compliance with a theocratic society such as that of the Jews, in line with the regal messianic figure.
In support of this, just a few years after Plinius the Younger’s epistolary, in 135 A.D., the Jews recognized Simon “Bar Kokhba” (in Aramaic “Son of the Star”) as the Messiah capable of fulfilling their last hope of freeing themselves from the idolatrous domination of the “Promise Land” granted by Yahweh to the people of Israel. The Jewish War, which took place under Hadrian and led by Simon, the new Messiah “Prince of the Jews, ended in a bloodbath for the Jews as a result of the intervention of Roman legions under the command of General Julius Severus; massacre which was not less destructive than the one carried out, 65 years earlier, by General Titus, son of Emperor Vespasian and subsequent heir of the Emperor.
Proof of the existence of Essenic Christians in Bithynia can be found in Books V and XII of this website and linked to the presence of Cornelius Tacitus in Ephesus, under Trajan, sent by Rome as Governor of the Province of Asia with the rank of Proconsul, during the same years (112 and 113 A.D.) in which nearby Bithynia was being governed by his friend, Plinius the Younger, honoured by Trajan with the title of Legatus Augusti pro Praetore.

It is to be pointed out that the Dead Sea Scrolls were hidden, in order to save them from the destructive  fury of the Romans, in the caves of Qumran in 67 A.D., just after the Roman counterattack led by Vespasian, the future Emperor. These documents – drawn up the Essenes and to this day considered to be a UNESCO World Heritage Site – make no mention of the Advent of a Messiah called “Jesus” who, from the year 30 to 33 A.D., became the author of extraordinary miracles and resurrected the dead, and was so famous that:

“Jesus went round the whole of Galilee teaching in their synagogues, proclaiming the good news of the kingdom and curing all kinds of disease and illness among the people. His fame spread throughout Syria, and those who were suffering, from diseases and painful complaints of one kind or another, the possessed, epileptics, the paralyzed, were all brought to him, and he cured them. Large crowds followed him, coming from Galilee, the Decapolis, Jerusalem, Judaea and Transjordan” (Mt 4,23).

Incidentally, the lack of a testimony of “Jesus Christ” on the part of the Essenic Jews of His time – a famous “Son of God” custodian of such divine power – today has become an indictment against His existence, and whose myth was created by the Essenes themselves after the final Jewish holocaust carried out by the Romans in 135 A.D. under Hadrian. It was only after this last extermination of Jews that the Essenes, after having prophetized Him in the Scrolls of Qumran, wrote about His Advent dating back a century earlier, yet no longer as a “Dominator of the World” who would have slaughtered the "Kittim" invaders, but as a “Saviour of the World” … as gentle as a lamb “Ecce agnus Dei”.


The "scientific and religious" brainwashing of the media

Among the many apologetic popularizers of Christianity spread throughout the world, the Italian State Television scientific documentarists Piero and Alberto Angela, father and son, have distinguished themselves in Italy for their “precious spreading of the word”. Both of them, taking advantage of the fact the “crime of historical forgery” does not exist, by virtue of their prestige, acquired in many serious and scientifically sound programs, instead with regard to religion, aware of being more credible because perceived as rationalist atheists, pilfer the good faith of their audience; therefore, by not mentioning their sources, they pass off as authentic the testimony, attributed to Tacitus by the scribes of Montecassino (Italy), regarding the slaughter of Christians carried out by Nero in 64. Moreover, by deliberately avoiding any sort of critical evaluation, they have no qualms about guaranteeing the existence of “Saint Peter”,  corroborated through footage created by film directors suffering from fits of ecstasy. Dulcis in fundo, these popularizers confirm the authenticity of the “proof” made up of several generic sepulchral images, erroneously interpreted as symbols created in the ancient Roman catacombs by chimeric Christians, so as to substantiate the existence of the latter.
This forms the basis of the belief, instilled into unaware citizens, that in the first century A.D. the fabulous Saint Peter, head of the Apostles, actually ascended the episcopal throne in Rome. In reality, apart from uncritical certified ecclesiastical documents, no historical or archeological source records the presence, during the first three centuries, of Peter and other Bishops in Rome or in any other city of the Roman Empire.

The champion of such deceitfulness was the Pole Henryk Sienkiewicz, famous author of the novel “Quo vadis?”, who, in 1905, was even awarded the Nobel Prize. Sienkiewicz is the “proto teacher” of Alberto Angela and, as his great fan, repeatedly palms off his “masterpiece” and broadcasts footage commemorating the marvelous (in his opinion) “Quo vadis?”
The title recalls the famous words, contained in the apocryphal Gospel “Acts of Peter”, pronounced by the Head of the Apostles, when, prior to the persecution of Christians under Nero, Peter, who was escaping from Rome, met Jesus, ins who had risen again and, without even saying hello (as if the re-resurrection of Christ was something normal), asked him where he was going: “Domine, quo vadis?”.
Both Sienkiewicz and Albert Angela avoid informing enthusiasts about the event concerning the prodigious “Acts” flaunted by Saint Peter prior to the famous phrase “Domine, quo vadis?”. Wonders which got underway when the Saint managed to break out of prison in Jerusalem thanks to the help of an angel of the Lord, and once he arrived in Rome, before the numerous and amazed Capitoline public …

“He begins through the miraculous healing of a dog, by having it speak in Ciceronian Latin and, after having a smoked herring resurrect, by having it splash around in a swimming pool … he finally defeats Simon Magus, known as the Angel of Satan, by having him fall to the ground during a ‘fight to the death’ public tournament of levitation” (Acts of Peter 9,2 and 13,1).

We recommend this evangelical letter to “chosen” believers so as to strengthen their Faith in “Magnifying the Glory of the Lord”. Whereas we, as mere mortals who do not believe in such silliness, have already already demonstrated, in the second part of the second study on Paul of Tarsus, that “Simon Magus” never existed.

The outline of the Polish narrator is a rich account of 600 pages, as stodgy as a brick in one’s stomach, drawn up by a writer undergoing a full-scale mystic crisis and with serious psychosexual disorders, which can be seen in his description of the visionary “spiritual love” between the Christian “Lycia”*, the most beautiful virgin of the Empire, and the imaginary “Marcus Vinicius” : a Roman created and converted to Christianity by Sienkiewicz, described as a not very handsome man and very transcendental as an imperial Tribune.
Nero’s wife Poppaea was opposed to this “ascetic and contemplative love affair”; she, as the “wicked Queen” of the tale, envious of the beauty of “Lycia Snow White”, desires to have the enchanting Christian killed off so as to become “the fairest of them all”.

*The Christian Lycia was connoted by Sienkiewicz as a princess, daughter of an unnamed “Swabian King”, kept as “hostage” in accordance with the traditions of the Empire. Custom followed by the Romans for precise political purposes linked to the succession of dead Client Kings, and according to which the hostage of royal blood replaced the deceased monarch: hostage who, for obvious reasons, was almost always a male, educated at court according to Roman traditions and revered as a noble.

Basically, “Quo vadis?” is a novel based on nonsense  as “Swabia” did not yet exist as a “kingdom” in the first century, let alone subjugated to the Roman Empire. Instead the History of Tacitus teaches us about the existence of the Tribe of the “Suebi”, also known as “Suevi” (Annales II 69), living east of the Rhine River, a region to the east of the “Black Forest”; thus, after being defeated by the Romans legions led by Publius Quintilius Varus in the Teutoburg Forest in 9 A.D., this territory was excluded from the Roman Empire, whose armies would have never again crossed over this limes, with the exception of the Roman General Germanicus Julius Caesar. In 15 A.D. the Roman commander again passed over the Rhine with the sole aim of recovering, as he in fact managed to do, the insignias of two imperial eagles lost in Teutoburg. As a consequence, no tribal chief or barbarian “King” east of the Rhine would have ever felt obligated to send his owns sons, let alone his daughters, to Rome as “hostages”.

However, we pretend to be unaware of the religious nonsense contained “Quo vadis?”, highlighted above, belong to the silly apocryphal “Acts of the Apostles”; just like the “critical historical” findings we have pointed out should have been explained by Alberto Angela, in line with his much praised motto “the pleasure of discovery”… Now let’s carry on with the tale of Lycia.
Poppaea’s intrigue convinced Nero of the need to offer an exceptional performance in his Circus so as to astonish the people of Rome. The graceful Christian Lycia was tied to the back of a huge “urus” bull that immediately came charging into the Circus and showed his intentions by “echoing a dull roar”. The tormenting death of Lycia seemed inevitable, but Sienkiewicz explains to us that, “for will of the Lord”, “Ursus”, a gigantic Christianized “Swabian” (needless to say), intervened and, after breaking the neck of the bull with his bare hands, “wakes up” the lifeless Lycia Snow White without, however, resorting to the sinful “kiss of the Prince”.
Now that the “Nobel tale” is over, let’s evaluate, from a historical and religious perspective, what other silliness has been foisted on to us by this heart-rending  worldwide melodrama.


The ‘scientific proof’ of the existence of Saint Peter and his Christian followers

In order to provide “documentary evidence” of the presence of “Pope Saint Peter” in Rome, Sienkiewicz describes the spectacular script of the Saint who “says mass” in the Catacombs of the Ostrian Cemetery, where he gives an “Urbi et orbi” blessing (“for Rome and for the world”): a resounding blunder proven wrong by Archeology (but not by Alberto Angela), fundamental science of History which demonstrates that such catacombs were built two centuries after these crazed narrated events. 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.

These Christians, instead, did not begin to have their own precise connotation until the fourth century A.D. This is proven by the fact that the Christian historian, Eusebius of Caesarea, wrote “Historia Ecclesiastica” at the start of the fourth century but makes no reference to the Christian catacombs; he instead mentions the life of the Bishops Zefirinus and Callistus but he does not recall that “Callistus was appointed by Zefirinus as administrator of the cemetery, located along the Ancient Via Appia, after the Church of “Quo Vadis?” … as instead is stated in the Vatican “sources” from the time of the Renaissance onwards (see “Saint Callistus” in Cathopedia).
But this is really something! Other trivial nonsense is the “discovery” that the Roman officials, rather than persecute the Christians (as mentioned by Eusebius and accepted by all believers), granted the latter the power to “administer the Catacombs of Saint Callistus”; while the archeological dating of the “Ostrian Cemetery”, identified as the “Greater Catacomb”, dates back to the end of the third century. But, as what has been mentioned thus far is nothing other than hypocritical fantasy, for further verification all one needs to do is check the list of “The Illustrious Men” (Bishops and martyrs) by Saint Jerome who, despite being a Christian historian that lived between the fourth and fifth century, makes no mention of the Bishops Zefirinus and Callistus who, according to the Church, even became “Popes” of Rome.
It is superfluous to remind ourselves that Sienkiewicz is recalled slavishly by Alberto Angela (including his tomb located in the Cathedral of Warsaw) who, however, is careful not to put “the pleasure of the discovery” into practice by means of right and proper critical research into the biography of his praised primitive Christian heroes … starting to immediately distance himself from the “Masses” officiated by “Pope Saint Peter” in the inexistent “Ostrian” Catacomb in the first century, and from Sienkiewicz himself and the current popular belief, as it is all the result of induced religious brainwashing based on theories which we will soon demonstrate as being wrong beyond any shadow of doubt.

Other egregious “catacomb” nonsense is constituted by the “evidence”, described by the writer awarded the Nobel Prize and “validated” by Alberto Angela, according to which, on the basis of a “revelation” specially-made at the time of the Renaissance, inexistent first century Christians, so as to avoid being discovered as such, recognized one another by drawing a “fish” (called “PISCIS” in Latin and “ICTUS” in Hellenistic Greek) as the symbol of their “God”. These single letters of the Greek lemma  “ΙΧΘΥΣ”, meaning “fish”, were transformed into the initials of a modern acronym very creatively defined “Iesûs Christós Theoû Uiós Sotér”, that is to say “Jesus Christ, Son of God, Saviour”. By virtue of this bizarre acronym of the NJP “New Jesuit Puzzle”, the “rosary sayer” analysts swear that the “Divine Fish” drawn in the catacombs represented Jesus Christ. In reality the fish was a simple ornament (and remained as such) made inside the sepulchre by the relatives of the deceased, in their memory as, like many Romans, they were gluttons for fish when alive.

Due to the lack of concrete archeological remains capable of confirming the existence of Christians – thanks to authentic findings of numerous and spontaneous religious representations of their God on the cross, duly accompanied by the writings on His teachings (nothing similar has been recovered in the ruins of the many cities of the Roman Empire existing in the first centuries A.D.) – the Church has had to excogitate “in pectore” the fraudulent expedient of the “symbolic interpretation of the cemetery drawings”. An abstruse “lesson” praised by Alberto Angela in his program “The Marvels of Christian Rome” (broadcasted several times between 2012 and the present): a sort of semiotic and esoteric ploy devised in order to make it seem as though there were followers of Jesus Christ in first century Ancient Rome, endorsed by the documentary maker in the role “scientific catechizer” who has ascended the pulpit of Italian State Television in order to indoctrinate people, but ignoring the fact that there are no testimonies, drawn up through the centuries by the chroniclers of the Clergy themselves, capable of demonstrating the use of Catacombs on the part of primitive Christians.

In reality, from the time of the iconoclastic wars between Christians, the "discoveries" of symbols were indispensable for justifying the identification of the relics of the "Saints", but 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 seventeenthe 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. 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 ancient "Saints", was assigned to the "Custodian of the Lipsanoteca of the Vicariate" and collaterally to the "Sagrista Pontificius".
Therefore the drawings of “fish”, by virtue of the bizarre Greek acronym and due to a lack of valid archeological remains, are still today considered by spiritual historians and persuasive documentary makers as the “definitive proof” of the existence of the Saviour and his primitive followers.

The religious brainwashing, despite being based on a great deal of hypocrisy, has to this day evolved thanks to the servile complacency of the media (which now all suffers from “acute catacomb iconoduly”) of school authorities; this prevents oblivious citizens and students from acquiring knowledge of the real events disavowing the existence of Christian Saints and martyrs in ancient Rome and in the rest of the Empire during the first three centuries A.D., in spite of the fact that these findings have been substantiated definitively by history and archeology, in light of the latest research on the history of Christianity.
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  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 bosom 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.

Museums all over Europe preserve many tombstone epigraphs, paintings and graffiti - which could also be found outside the catacombs - where the ancient Romans recorded events of daily life ... but there is nothing pertaining to the first three centuries of Christianity. The same goes for the all the vestiges spread throughout the territory of the Empire until the late period.
It can be inferred that the thousands of martyrs, ready to face the most atrocious of tortures so as not to deny their faith (according to the phony "tradition"), in reality, even when able to remain unnamed, would have had a lot of problems engraving on marble simple graffiti or create paintings containing "the sayings of the Lord" (logia); it was of course claimed that the Author of the doctrine was Christ.

Yet no one, prior to the Renaissance, had dared to represent “Christ” as a “fish”, and the Christian iconophiles (in favour of icons) themselves would have “exorcized” alive and roasted on a burning pyre any “heretic” who had done so. The historical proof of the iconoclastic Councils and the subsequent three centuries of reciprocal massacres between Christian iconodules (or iconophiles) and iconoclasts is explained in detail in the fourteenth study dedicated to the “Holy Shroud” of Turin, which has also been involved in the analyses concerning the many Synods convened by the Church during the first millennium and during which relics were also rejected, as they were declared to be phony by Christian iconoclasts (and rightfully so), starting with the “Paulicians”, fanatical followers of the doctrine of the Apostle Paul. Paulician Christians, thousands of whom were exterminated by Christian iconodules and sent directly to hell, in defiance of Christ’s command: “Love your enemies and pray for your persecutors” … “Blessed are the merciful: they shall have mercy shown them” (Mt 5,7).


Through the previous comparative analyses of History and New Testament ecclesiastical documentation – created by scribes in the fourth century so as to demonstrate the existence of large communities of Jesus’s followers from the first century onwards – we have been able to prove that the Apostles, Fathers, Bishops, Popes, martyrs and relics were all invented.
The powerful Clergy in vogue in the fourth century appointed these creative people, today still “in style” and passed off as the “successors of Christ”, as the Heads of imaginary territorial congregations founded by primitive Christians  devoted to martyrdom; these communities were made up of many followers who had been converted to the new Creed thanks to a “divine providence” devised when Christianity came to power. It was only then that its theologians were able to gain access to the imperial libraries and consult the scrolls drawn up by Roman historians in the first two centuries, and from which they took the names of authentic protagonists of real events, people as famous as the places where they carried out their functions; these theologians had them interact with the mythological “Jesus Christ” and his phony successors so as to make even the latter seem truthful … along with the illusion of “eternal life after death”.

In reality, even the canonical Gospels which we read today were drawn up (or better, they “falsified” the primitive ones) at the end of the fourth century, hereby implementing the theological conclusions decreed at the “Council of Constantinople” in 381 A.D., among which the “Holy Trinity” and the “Virgin Mary, Mother of Christ only-begotten son by the power of the Holy Spirit”. In fact, among the many ancient Gospels compiled in Greek after this Council, the only ones that have reached us are those transcribed in “Codex Sinaiticus” and “Codex Vaticanus”; immediately thereafter Pope Damasus I ordered his secretary, Saint Jerome, to translate these works into “Latin Vulgate” so that they could be spread, at the expense of the State, by Clerics throughout all the Provinces of the Empire.

The proof which certifies the precise dating of the current canonical Gospels can be found in the second part of the sixth study, where it is demonstrated that several New Testament biblical codexes or fragments of these, hypocritically classified in “vetus latina”, such as the “Vercellensis”, the “Veronensis” and the “Corbeiensis” – for doctrinal needs linked to the “Mother of Christ”, not recognized as such at the “Council of Nicea” in 325 A.D. – were dated to the second/third century by means of deliberately erroneous paleographic estimates.
The phony dating was intentionally set in a period of time prior to all the fourth century Councils, none of which (except the one held in Constantinople in 381 A.D.) recognized the “Virgin Mary, Mother of Christ only-begotten son”.
The aim of the divinely inspired paleographers is to conceal the motive imposed by the change made to the 381 A.D. doctrine, so as to make it seem that the “Virgin Mary” had existed from the time of the Advent of the myth of Christ: something which will we will soon prove wrong thanks to the testimonies of Saint Paul and Saint Damasus.

In reality, the biblical transcriptions into “vetus latina” were carried out by later medieval scribes, long after Pontifex Maximus “Damasus I” appointed Saint Jerome to translate the new Gospels from Greek into Latin (“vulgate” of Saint Jerome), Gospels coherent with the latest dogma dictated by the Council of Constantinople in 381 A.D., starting with the “Virginal Nativity” of Christ “only-begotten son”, deliberately added to the holy texts after this date. Yet the scribes of God, in spite of the invention of the “Virginal Nativity of the only-begotten son Jesus” mentioned in the Gospels of Matthew and Luke, forgot to “update” the contents of the documents themselves in which, still today, it is said that Mary had another four sons, in addition to Jesus, and two or more daughters.

At the beginning of the fourth century, the high prelate Bishop Eusebius of Caesarea (residing in Nicomedia in the royal palace of Constantine the Great), who had access to the imperial archives, had “pious” hands create the phony primitive ecclesiastical structure personified by the mythical “martyrs” and “heroes” with astonishing divine powers – such a structure was attested in total disregard of historical veracity. In order to ascertain what has just been affirmed, let’s dedicate ourselves to the study of the ancient Codexes and verify the truthfulness of the narrated events passed off as authentic by medieval Christian scribes, so as to discover the method the latter adopted when inventing the “Saints” whose cult is still practiced to this very day thanks to the servile and uncritical propaganda carried out by “scientific” television presenters in order to indoctrinate the ignorant masses.


The phony biographies of the Saints Peter and Paul

The historian and “Doctor of the Church” (later beatified) Saint Jerome (347-420 A.D.) availed himself  (as a partial source) of “Historia Ecclesiastica”, written by Eusebius of Caesarea prior to the 325 A.D. Council of Nicea. Towards the end of his existence Jerome wrote the work “De viris illustribus” which ends with his autobiography. The treatise concerning the life of “The Illustrious Men” (Bishops and martyrs) has not reached us in its original form but was transcribed into codexes drawn up by other scribes at the end of the ninth century (see the details in the V study at chap. "the oversights of the Tertullian scribes"). This is how the Father of the Church described the biography of Saint Peter, Head of the Apostles and first Pope of Rome and today still recognized as such by Catholics all around the world:

“Simon Peter, son of John, born in Bethsaida in Galilee … after being Bishop of Antioch, in the second year of Emperor Claudius (42 A.D.) he went to Rome to annihilate Simon Magus. Here he occupied the episcopal pulpit for twenty-five years, until the final year of Nero (Nero died on the 9th of June 68 A.D.), that is to say until the fourteenth year of his reign, under him he received the crown of martyrdom” (op. cit. Chap. I).

Let’s verify together why this circumscribed pseudo “biography” was entirely made up.
First of all “Bethsaida” was a city built in “Trachonitis” rather than in “Galilee” and whose ruins can still be seen today; however the evangelists are to blame for the initial oversight, which no “Father” or Christian historian revealed prior to the thirteenth century (see eighth study). The example below is mentioned by “Apostle John”, who was also said to be a native of Bethsaida in Galilee rather than in Trachonitis, a blunder which casts a dark shadow on the many subsequent testimonies:

“These approached Philip, who came from Bethsaida in Galilee …” (Jh 12,21);
“Philip came from the same town, Bethsaida as Andrew and Peter” (Jh 1,44).

The belief of followers – on the basis of which in the first century of our Era the “levitating Saint Peter” (a sort of super human “Peter Pan” ante litteram according  to the apocryphal “Acts of the Apostles”) ascended the Episcopal Throne* of Rome – was generated, with the placet of the Church, by opportunistic scholars who are well aware of denying the primitive ecclesiastical certifications contained in the archaic Codices drawn up by the scribes and even go as far as to repudiate the findings of the canonical New Testament documentation still in effect.

*Clarification: priests do not want every day people to know about the Catholic equivalence between “Bishop” and “King”, so the media have adapted by always using the Latin term “solium”, meaning “high seat”, rather than “Throne”; even though from the fourth century onwards the Bishops, who had come to power, were actually recognized as being equivalent to Kings and described by the Christian historian Eusebius of Caesarea as the “Most Revered Bishops seated on the Episcopal Throne”, as they were the authentic leaders and undisputed administrators (and tax-exempt to this very day) of territorial districts assigned to them by the Augusti Domini of the Empire.

Now let’s see what contradictions regarding the chimeric life of Saint Peter are hidden from followers by the subtle minds of the Vatican and their subordinate television divulgers.
Browsing through the “Letter to the Romans”, written just after 50 A.D., we read that Paul of Tarsus greets the thirty most important personalities of the Church of Rome, yet does not mention the name of his “colleague” Peter (Saint) who, according to the current doctrine, would have been its absolute leader. This grave contradiction is due to the fact that the scribes of God drew up the “Letters” in the name of the inexistent “Paul of Tarsus” (see second study); but at this time they could not have been aware of the subsequent evolution of the Catholic religion ordered by the three Augusti Emperors, which affirmed that the religion was “passed down to Apostle Peter by God”. This evolution was imposed throughout the Empire in 380 A.D. through the Edict of Thessalonica (just go onto internet to find out) which gave birth to the “Roman Catholic Empire”, a more than appropriate name avoided by historians so as not to highlight the immense power acquired by the Church at the end of the fourth century. In this specific case represented by the Caesaro-papist Damasus I, honoured with the title of “Pontifex Maximus” (the first was Julius Caesar: this is the origin of the term “Pontiff” in vogue to this very day) in order to demonstrate that he, as Bishop of Rome, belonged to the highest imperial priestly position by order of Jesus Christ; in reality Damasus’s objective was to place his binding power as “Pontifex Maximus” above that of any human law, and thanks to the “Primacy dictated by the God Jesus” he had the Gospel modified as follows:

“So I (Jesus) now say to you: You are Peter and on this rock I will build my community. And the gates of the underworld can never overpower it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of Heaven: whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven; whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in Heaven” (Mt 16,18/19).

In fact in Rome, inside the Basilica of “Saint Sebastian outside the walls”, dating back to the fourth century and from this time venerated as “Domus Petri”, there is an inscription ordered expressly by the Pontifex Maximus Damasus I and which today still attests that here lived Saint Peter. This fundamental and unavoidable Sacrament, which by divine will imposed the “Primacy of Peter”, was unknown to the historian Bishop Eusebius of Caesarea just sixty years prior to the Edict of Thessalonica of 380 A.D.
Although Eusebius, in his long and detailed “Historia Ecclesiastica” written before the “Council of Nicea” of 325, deals with the protagonists of the Gospels in depth, he however is unaware of the Dogma of the “Primacy of Peter”, being that he died in 339 A.D. This Dogma is still today an imperative for Catholics, who see the Pope as the “Vicar of Christ” (Vicarius Christi): that is to say he who stands in his place.

Yet the powerful Caesaro-papist, when ordering this provision of Christ God, knew nothing about the testimonies contained in the “Letters” drawn up decades earlier by the Christian scribes who attributed them to the Apostle Paul. Damasus made a grave mistake because Paul of Tarsus, in the “Letter to the Romans”, found no trace of this evangelical order of the Primacy of Peter, on the basis of which the Apostle would have been forced to greet the thirty Romans, all of whom he called by name, starting from Apostle Peter, their leader, Bishop of Rome, he who held the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven. And, indeed, unaware of the presence of Peter, the Apostle of the Gentiles, Paul, after being introduced to the Romans, made himself available as the initiator of their evangelization:
“… and hence the eagerness on my part to preach the gospel to you in Rome too” (Rm 1,15).
But, on the basis of the indoctrination of naive viewers carried out by television popularizers such as Alberto Angela (and by priests of course), shouldn’t it have been Saint Peter, in the Ostrian Catacombs of “Quo Vadis?”, who taught the Gospel to the Romans, rather than Paul of Tarsus?
Confirmation of this grave contradiction can be seen in the lack of references to the Primacy of Peter in the “Acts of the Apostles”, where Paul’s stay in Rome is described without him knowing that its Bishop was Peter, Head of the Apostles and of the Christians. Even in the letters “To the Colossians” and “To Philemon”, Paul of Tarsus “thanks his companions who support him in Rome” without mentioning their Leader: Saint Peter.

In “Acts of the Apostles” (Acts 11,23-27), during the reign of Claudius, we read about the arrival of Saint Paul in Antioch of Syria where he stays for a year in the Christian community. A detailed chronicle regarding Paul, unaware of the presence of Saint Peter, who, according to his biography written by Jerome (recalled in the passage above) and to the one written by Eusebius of Caesarea, was the one and only Head of the community of Christians in Antioch.
And this is just the first of a series of contradictions demonstrating  the clerical invention, which evolved through the centuries, of the phony lives of the illustrious Saints Peter and Paul, under whose statues (nothing but empty simulacra) the “blessed and poor in spirit” kneel down convinced that they will go to heaven and have an eternal life … thanks also to the complicity of servile “scientific” television presenters and to the code of silence of History of Christianity university professors.

Let’s carry on our critical research by browsing through the “Acts of the Apostles” (Acts 18,1-22) in which it is said that Paul converted a Jewish couple, Aquila and Priscilla, who had met in Corinth where they had arrived “after the order of Claudius which expelled all the Jews from Rome”; afterwards Paul, along with them, carried out a long-time spreading of the word in various Provinces of the Empire and definitively split up once they arrived in Ephesus, capital of the Roman Province of Asia (present-day Turkey).

The ancient Codexes demonstrate that the martyrs of Rome are a hoax

“Here he occupied the episcopal throne for twenty-five years, until the final year of Nero (the Emperor died on the 9th  June of 68), that is to say in the fourteenth year of his reign”.

This biographical information on Saint Peter is also confirmed by that concerning Saint Paul given by Jerome in “De viris illustribus”:

“Paul therefore, in the fourteenth year of Nero (68 A.D.), on the same day as the martyrdom of Peter, was beheaded in Rome due to his faith in Christ” (Op. cit. Chap. V). This news had already been reported by Eusebius of Caesarea prior to the Council of Nicea held in 325 A.D.

We take note of a precise dating (which thus cannot be misinterpreted) given over 1500 years ago by the most important historians of the Church, one of them being Jerome (Hieronymus Sofronius), secretary to the powerful Pope Damasus I (both beatified). We must ask these two men, along with the Apostles they mentioned, what they all think about the fact that today’s grey eminences of the Vatican have modified their testimony of the martyrdom of Peter and Paul dating back to 68. They have gone as far as to widen the 64-67 A.D. chronological gap, as reported in “Cathopedia”: the Encyclopedia of the Vatican. This detail, which at first seems unimportant, must be added to a relevant and conclusive number of pieces of evidence that, through a comparative reading of the Codexes drawn up by other scribes through the centuries, demonstrate the falsification  of Tacitus’s “Annales” in which the scribes of Montecassino (Italy) describe the martyrdom of the Christians perpetrated by Nero in 64 A.D.
In fact, the first thing to take into consideration is: why didn’t the bloodthirsty Emperor immediately crucify, in 64 A.D., along with the ingens multitudo of Christians in Rome, their Leader, Apostle Peter? The latter would have been easy to identify as, according to the chronicle of the Tacitean martyrdom in “Annales”, many captured Christians revealed, under torture, the names of other Christians. In addition, we know that Jerome Sofronius, in his role of Secretary to Damasus I, had consulted the original scrolls containing the works of Cornelius Tacitus (kept in the imperial library of Theodosius the Great), and he declared the following in his work “Commentarium in Zachariam”:

“Cornelius Tacitus drew up thirty handwritten scrolls on the life of the Caesars, from the death of Augustus to the death of Domitian” (Op. cit. 3.14).

This piece of information is so important that, so as to clarify the censorship of the works of Tacitus, we are forced to continue our investigation because, from the reading of all of Jerome’s works, there can be found no reference to the Jesuit martyrs crucified in Rome by Nero after the fire of 64. For confirmation of this significant and unjustifiable shortcoming all you need to do is skim through the long list of the initial heroes, founders of primitive Christianity, whose lives were described by Jerome himself in “De viris illustribus”; by doing so, you discover that, apart from “James the Greater” by order of Herod Agrippa in 44 A.D., none of the imaginary Apostles and evangelists were “martyrized” by the year 64 A.D.: they all died many years after this date.

The Codexes which was handed down to us through “De viris illustribus”, was written by scribes at the end of the ninth century, in other words two centuries prior to the “Codex Laurentianus MS 68.2” containing Cornelius Tacitus’s “Annales” in which we find the chronicle, devised by monks in the eleventh century, of the great Neronian massacre; this explains the grave contradiction resulting from the adulteration of the work by the famous Latin historian, whose original title was “Annalium ab excessu divi Augusti libri triginta”. An incoherence which demonstrates that the spurious insertion of the passage regarding the Neronian martyrdom of Christians (as can be read today).
We can bet that Saint Jerome di not limit himself to counting thirty scrolls, but on the contrary read them very carefully in order to verify the existence of the primitive Jesuit Christians. He found no chronicles capable of certifying the existence of the followers of the “Jewish Redeemer”, Son of God, in Rome or in any other Province of the Empire. If they truly had been present, today we would be able to read a Saint Jerome writing full of precise references drawn from the chronicles of Cornelius Tacitus, the most famous historian of the Roman Empire: yet there is no trace of this.

And Jerome made no mention of the spectacular Neronian massacre of an ingens multitudo of Christians, a grave and bloody incident which even the ninth century scribes who transcribed the Codex of “De viris illustribus” knew nothing about; this explains the motive which induced today’s grey Vatican exegetes to modify the precise chronology regarding the death of Peter and Paul, chronology which the ancient Clergy had always recognized as valid up until the eleventh century, when the scribes of Montecassino (Italy)  so arrogantly falsified the masterpiece of Tacitus in “Codex Laurentianus MS 68 II”, thus creating a multitude of contradictions between this Codex and the ones prior to it. The latter codexes (which we have consulted), although making reference to Nero, do not speak about the exploits of the exterminator of a “great multitude of Christians” tortured in a metropolis of one million inhabitants. But the most fundamental aspect regarding the rational criticism of the Neronian martyrs is that none of the 135 famous Christians described by Jerome ever mentioned the mass execution carried out by Nero in Rome. Even later historians, men of the Church (Byzantines included), which followed one another through the centuries after Jerome are unaware of such a massacre...up until the eleventh century.

With regard to the phony Neronian martyrdom of Jesuit Christians, we kindly ask our readers to examine in depth the evidence provided in the twelfth study, resulting from a reading of the Codexes drawn up by Christian scribes prior to the “Laurentianus” and in whose documents (which speak about Nero and Tacitus) there is no trace of the great mass execution.


The Gospels modified in relation to the theological evolution of Christian doctrine

Let’s carry on with our investigation concerning the lives of the Apostles Peter and Paul so as to demonstrate that the current Gospels were, inevitably, rewritten in order to adapt their precepts to those of the Catholic doctrine decreed at the Council of Constantinople (381 A.D.), doctrine which had previously been different, as inevitably was different the information contained in the Gospels compiled at the beginning of the fourth century (this is proven in the sixth study).
To this end, it is important to highlight the fact that Eusebius of Caesarea’s “Historia Ecclesiastica”, though describing in detail the exploits of Saint Peter and his death ordered by Nero on the same day as Paul’s, does not contain the reference which is fundamental and unavoidable in the current Christian creed and read by priests in their parables during mass:

“So I (Jesus) now say to you: You are Peter and on this rock I will build my community. And the gates of the underworld can never overpower it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of Heaven: whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven; whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven” (Mt 16,18/19).

It is thus verified that, in conformity with the Letters of Paul and “Acts of the Apostles”, even Eusebius of Caesarea, who passed away in 339 A.D., could not have been aware of the subsequent change in Christian theology decreed, forty-one years after his death, through the Edict of Thessalonica (380 A.D.); this change was “blessed” the following year by the Bishops of the Empire in the “Council of Constantinople” (381 A.D.) by order of Damasus I.
The latter, though being the Pontifex Maximus of the Roman Catholic Empire, deliberately did not take part in the Council, whose conclusions had already been “dictated” through the Edict issued by the three Emperors Augusti the year before. The absence of Damasus at the Council was a purely formal act and aimed at not manifesting, through his presence, a personal desire to obtain political power equal to that of the Caesars.

Another dogmatic change in Christian doctrine was approved at the Council of Constantinople (381 A.D.) by the Bishops of the Roman Catholic Empire who established the new Creed, recognized by Catholics to this very day, (different from the Nicene Creed of 325), in which for the first time we find the Virgin Mary, Mother of the universal Saviour, and Pontius Pilate, under whom Christ carried out his ministry:

“We believe in only one Lord Jesus Christ, the only begotten son of God, begotten of his Father before all the worlds … Who for us men and for our salvation came down from heaven and was incarnate by the Holy Ghost and the Virgin Mary, and was made man, and was crucified also for us under Pontius Pilate. He suffered and was buried”.

A precise provision which forced Christian scribes to revise the Gospels previously officialized under Constantine the Great – to which were added the “nativities” of Luke and Matt along with the “Teothòkos”, Mother of Jesus “only begotten son”: the Virgin Mary could not have generated other children apart from Christ. And He … only thanks to the “Holy Spirit”. This was the ruling of the Bishops of the Roman Catholic Empire.

Nevertheless, the new super Christian Goddess, Virgin Mary of Nazareth, was unknown to Paul of Tarsus: the Apostle of the Gentiles was unaware of the existence of the “Mother of God” and the city of Nazareth. He also does not know, in his “Letter to the Ephesians”, that the “Mater Dei” had lived in Ephesus along with the Apostle John, “the disciple whom Jesus loved”. Therefore, since Christ did not “reveal” to Saul Paul - despite the flash of inspiration received from Jesus himself on the way to Damascus - that His mother was the “Mother of God”, we cannot see the reason why we should believe this. But let’s have an in-depth look at the dogmatic Marian cult.
Browsing through the long Letter “To the Ephesians”, there is no trace in Ephesus of the “disciple whom Jesus loved” or of the “Mother of Jesus the only begotten Son” even though Paul of Tarsus went there in 53 A.D along with the converted Jews Aquila and Priscilla.
Ephesus, a city of 250.000 inhabitants, Roman capital of the Province of Asia, is where the super Apostle Paul stayed for two years, founded the Church of Christ and converted all the inhabitants of the Province, no one excluded.

“This went on for two years, with the result that all the inhabitants of the Province of Asia (sic), both Jews and Greeks, were able to hear the word of the Lord. So remarkable were the miracles worked by God at Paul’s hands that handkerchiefs or aprons which had touched him were taken to the sick, and they were cured of their illnesses, and the evil spirits came out of them” (Act 19,10-12).

Further proof that the “virginal Nativity of the only-begotten son Jesus” was added to the primitive Gospels at a later time has reached us thanks to the information given by one of the Byzantine Bishops. Four centuries after the Council of Ephesus ( held in 431), the Patriarch of Constantinople Nicephorus I (in office from 806 to 815 A.D.) declared that he still had a copy of an ancient Gospel of Matthew in Aramaic and compared its length to that of the canonical Matthew which has reached us; and he noticed that the former had 300 fewer lines, mainly regarding the first part which we know as the “Nativity”. The critical observation carried out by the Metropolitan, in is work entitled “Stichometry”, with regard to the “missing genealogy of the Saviour” is proof of the absence of the “virginal birth” in the primitive Gospel of Matthew, which had yet to be invented but later “introduced” along with the Eucharist, which was also missing (as they were both pagan cults) in the original Jewish Messiah. According to what was affirmed by Nicephorus himself, this explains why the Christian Jews (the “Messianists” still awaiting the Advent) and the respective sects of the Nazirei and Ebionites (“the Poor”) did not recognize the canonical Gospels.

Paul’s unawareness of the Virgin Mary, “Mater Dei”, can be easily explained: the “Letters of Paul” had been spread throughout the Provinces at the start of the fourth century separate from the Gospels. The aim was to promote Christianity according to the teachings of Paul, meant as a religion subservient to the Empire and its economic policy, therefore in favour of slavery and enemy of the original Jewish religion, the latter being fundamentally anti-Roman: social principles which were not dealt with in the Gospels. Yet the doctrine of a Jewish “Saviour”, still linked to the Mosaic Law dictated by Yahweh, which prohibited pagan domination of the “Promise Land” of the people of Israel, had to be modified by means of a “Revelation” passed on post mortem by Christ himself to a new Apostle, specially created by an “evangelist” who had never seen Christ: Saint Luke.
Any dating of the “Letters of Paul” prior to the beginning of the fourth century A.D. was deliberately adulterated by exegetical believers and is tendentiously false for the reasons just described, therefore it is they who are to blame for the contradictions generated. The great divulgation of the Pauline Christian doctrine, through the “Letters” initially separated from the Gospels, made it impossible to trace, eliminate and correct the manuscripts dedicated to the “Letters of Paul”; consequently, at the end of the fourth century and from this time onwards, these “Letters” could no longer be modified by Catholic scribes, who relied on the fact that the “Nativities of Luke and Matthew contained testimony of the “Madonna”.

The dogmatic variant of the Christian doctrine, regarding the “Mother of the only-begotten son Jesus Christ”, decreed at the Council of Constantinople in 381 A.D., forced scribes to modify the “historical” data concerning the “Mother of God” who was trusted to the care of the “favourite disciple” by the Saviour on the cross, before his death: “…And from that hour the disciple took her into is home” (Jh 19,27). The two Saints, Virgin Mary and John, after the subsequent “Council of Ephesus” (431 A.D.), were sent to Ephesus in observance of what had been ordered them by the Bishops. To make it seem as though the journey of the Apostle John and the Virgin Mary towards Ephesus had taken place in the first half of the first century, the scribes of God, in line with the Marian council dogma, wrote the “Codex Marcianus MS 125” in the year 1057 and, after recalling the ectoplasm of Ireneus of Lyon by means of a special séance, they had the latter give the following testimony in “Against Heresies”:

“The Church of Ephesus, which Paul founded and in which John remained until the time of Trajan, is truthful testimony of the tradition of the Apostles” (op, cit. III 3,4).

But, when Paul wrote the Letter “To the Ephesians” and remained in Ephesus for two years, he makes no mention that John – the “Disciple who Jesus loved” – was living in this city and in this Church, and initially with Mary, the “Mother of God”. And from a reading of all the Letters of Paul there is no reference whatsoever to Mary of Nazareth “Mother of the only-begotten son Jesus Christ” nor to her stay in Ephesus along with the Apostle John. Therefore, as we atheists also maintain, Saint Paul did not believe in the Madonna as she was invented by the Bishops after he had written the Letters. Nevertheless we know (as definitively proven in the second study) that Saint Paul never existed, therefore the “Letters” were written by Christian theologists who invented him in order to modify the doctrine of Christ which is still today bound to the Law of Moses.
We have thus far highlighted a series of contradictions which are proof of the consequences of the power delegated to “Apostle Peter” by Christ through the Edict of Thessaloniki (380 A.D.) and the subsequent “Council of Constantinople” (381 A.D.). These contrasts were such that, as demonstrated above, they distorted the biographies of the Apostles Peter and John, in addition to those of Mary “Mother of God” and the evangelist John.

Another negative aspect is that, according to the current canonical New Testament documents, while Paul of Tarsus was in Rome waiting to be put on trial by Nero (with the risk of being executed) he spent two years in prison and chained to a militiamen so as to allow him to hold meetings and interact with friends and proselytes whom he had converted ( a sort of imprisonment devised by an idiot). Nonetheless, Paul does not mention that his colleague Apostle Peter, Head of the Roman Christians, did not even bother to go and visit him … simply because Peter, in the first century, could not have known that Jesus, three and a half centuries after the “miraculous catch”, in compliance with an imperial Edict and subsequent Council of Bishops, would have assigned him such power and dignity, along with the pertinent “diplomatic” obligations.
Moreover, Peter’s failure to visit the imprisoned Paul belies the “legend of the trial against Saint Peter” brought forth by Nero for the “wrongdoings” of the irascible Saint.
But let’s have a look at the incident.


The two trials of Nero against Paul of Tarsus are phony: here is the proof

With regard to the “Lawsuit: Caesar Nero against Paul of Tarsus”, which has not reached through the “Acts of the Apostles” but thanks to the “Letters” of the super Apostle of the Gentiles, where we learn that the wicked Caesar made him undergo two “trials”. Let’s try and follow the chronology of the two criminal proceedings, by following the necessary depositions (indispensable to the investigatory phase of the trials) all the way through to the final verdict.

“Given that in the Acts of the Apostles much is said about the life of Paul, I will limit myself  to saying that in the twenty-fifth year after the death of the Lord, that is in the second year of Nero, when Festus succeeded Felix as Procurator of Judea, he was sent to prison in Rome. Here he stayed for two years on probation”. Reported by Jerome in “De viris illustribus” Chap. V.

In the second Letter “To Timothy” (2 Tm4,16-17) we learn that Paul was acquitted in the verdict of the first instance and freed. However, history reports that the Procurator “Claudius Antonius Felix” handed over his powers to his successor “Portius Festus” (Gaius Avidius) in 59 Anno Domini and, according to the Jerome’s “testimony”, took place 25 years after the crucifixion of Christ, which was carried out in 59 minus 25 equal to: 34 A.D. Was this the fateful year of Jesus’s death? … But let’s carry on with the comparison of the data and read the testimonies of Paul and Peter.

“Paul therefore, in the fourteenth year of Nero (68 A.D.), on the very day of Peter’s martyrdom, was beheaded in Rome for his faith in Christ and was buried on the road to Ostia, thirty-seven years after the death of the Lord” (Op. cit. Chap V).

There is no doubt (according to the doctrine) that Paul was sentenced to death by Nero at the end of a second trial; in fact the Apostle foretold his death in the second Letter “To Timothy” (2 Tm 4,6). And yet, even in this case the figures don’t add up; in fact all one needs to do is subtract from 67 (year of the decapitation of the super Apostle) the 37 years “after the death of the Lord” to realize, so help me God, that Jesus died in 30 A.D. But, being that we are examining the “Pauline” documentation concerning the trials undergone by the Saint, the two chronological reference points regarding the death of Jesus obtained thus far are so contradictory that they invalidate the “testimonies” of the historian Jerome on the life of Paul and his phony trials.
This conflicting information makes it indispensable to further verify the trials and, inevitably, compare the data to that contained in the “Acts of the Apostles”, where the circumstantial causes that brought about the trial of Paul are described.

It all started with the argument between Paul and “Ananias, son of Nebedee”, which took place inside the Sanhedrin of Jerusalem in 59 A.D. The latter, in his role as High Priest of the Temple and of the Sanhedrin, was insulted by Paul, the reason why the Apostle was referred to the imperial Procurators Felix and Festus and then sent to Rome for his trial.
After the verification of the series of High Priests (reported by Josephus Flavius), we discover that in 59 A.D. the Jewish historian Josephus* was the Sanhedrin scribe present inside the Sanhedrin of Jerusalem, where the “Acts of the Apostles” describe the presence of the quarrelsome Paul that insults the High Priest, who in 59 was not “Ananias”, the High Priest of the Temple and of the Sanhedrin according to the Acts of the Apostles, but “Ismael, son of Fabi”, in office from 56 to 61 A.D. (compare Jewish Antiquities XX 179 and following), as reported by Josephus himself. This historical piece of information is more than enough to affirm with certainty that the two trials started by Nero against Paul of Tarsus are nothing but boastfulness invented by fourth century Christian historians, just like the Letters and the Gospels.


For a detailed analysis of the inexistence of Paul of Tarsus (trial included) and, above all, of its grave consequences from a historical and ecclesiastical point of view, our readers are kindly asked to read the second study.


The true dating of the “Muratorian Canon”

Having said this, the verification of the lives of the Apostles Peter and Paul will continue so as to demonstrate how far the scribes of God went when they schemed their existence. To this end let’s look at the Letter “To the Romans” by Paul of Tarsus in which we read (Rm 16,4) that the Apostle sends his greetings, among the many Christians, to a certain “Hermes…and brothers who are with them”. Although as we have already ascertained, the Letter “To the Romans” was compiled at the beginning of the fourth century, but in a way that made it seem to have been written in the early fifties of the first century … in the newly-born “Christian era”.
As just read, and regrettably for the “lovers of Heaven”, this Mr. Hermes was such an “illustrious man” that he was recalled  by Jerome, the author of the work “The Shepherd”, fundamental example of how Christians should behave. Moreover, the fame of Hermes (detail of primary importance) was due to the fact that he was the brother of “Pope Pius I”, who – according to the “testimony” of the alleged Bishop Ireneus of Lyon, his contemporary (data contained in the eleventh century “Codex Marcianus 125”) – remained in office as Pope from 150 to 154 A.D., year of his death. “Pope Pius I” is also recalled in the “Muratorian Canon” drawn up, according to paleographers inspired by the Vatican, in the eighth century; but, as we are about to demonstrate, “Pope Pius I” is cited by the scribes of the Muratorian Canon with the sole aim of passing this manuscript off as something dating back to the second century. At least this is what the “rosary experts” tell us … but this will now be verified through a detailed analysis.

With regard to Hermes, he who was already a “vir” (male adult) when, around 53 A.D., he was greeted by Paul in the Letter “To the Romans”; the same Hermes who we know as brother of the future, not at all credible, “Pope Pius I”, who was already decrepit at the time of his election and died in 154 A.D. A so unreal  “Pope Pius I” that Jerome, unlike the humble brother “Hermes” mentioned by Paul, knows nothing about his existence … and the same goes for the scribes who, at the end of the ninth century, transcribed the Codexes of Jerome's “The illustrious men”. All this incoherent information demonstrates that the exploits of Peter and Paul were invented, as was altered the dating of the “Muratorian Canon”, defined by the Vatican as “the most ancient list of New Testament books which has reached us”.

According to what has been imprudently proclaimed by the exegetes inspired by God, this manuscript dated to the eighth century was forcedly and clumsily compiled and contains a sly reference to the protagonist “Pope Pius I”, deliberately inserted into the Canon so as to have the archetype date back to the second century. In reality “Pope Pius I” – being unknown in the ninth century to the scribes of the Codex of Jerome – had yet to be invented in the eighth century, reason why the “Muratorian Canon” has to be dated after the ninth century, while the “Codex Sinaiticus” and the “Codex Vaticanus” stand as the most ancient biblical texts of the New Testament.
In addition to “Pope Pius I”, various other protagonists, who like the former did not exist, are cited in several Codexes drawn up centuries later by other scribes. Let’s try to demonstrate what has just been affirmed and attempt to understand the motive which drove the scribes of God to invent other inexistent “Popes” recalled in the “Liber Pontificalis”.


The unreliable “Liber Pontificalis”

Catholic Encyclopedia (Cathopedia) considers the “Liber Pontificalis” to be “an important source of biographical information regarding all the Popes from the beginning until the end of the ninth century”, a manuscript through which the Church, clutching at straws, attempts to force the dating of the chronology of the Popes, which they have date to the fourth century A.D. onwards. In this case, duly subordinate to the “true” primary source – “Historia Ecclesiastica” – invented by Eusebius of Caesarea and written at the beginning of the fourth century, therefore “devoutly stuffed” full of Bishops, immediate successors of Christ, tortured to death by the Roman Governors.
The beginning of the papal chronology, in contrast with the findings of the “Liber Pontificalis”, has to be moved to after the ninth century simply because, on the basis of the datings of all the most ancient Codexes (up until the late ninth century Codex containing the list of “The Illustrious Men” by Jerome), we never find the title “Pope” but “Bishop of Rome”. A minor detail which needs to be added to the blunders made by the quills of the scribes of God when inventing the tales concerning the lives of the “Popes” … starting with Saint Peter. But let’s have a look at the kind of “blunders”.

The proof that the “Liber Pontificalis” is a document invented through the centuries by cynical scribes, thus lacking any sort of evidential value with regard to the truthfulness of the biographies of the First Millennium “Popes”, is offered by the lives of “Pope Siricius” and his successors.
Cathopedia, the Catholic Encyclopedia, when recalling “Pope Siricius”, quotes as a source the “Liber Pontificalis”, from which he draws an elaborate clerical cursus that ends, “probably, with Siricius, Bishop of Rome and Pope”, successor to the powerful “Pope Damasus I” who died in 394 A.D. under Emperor Theodosius the Great.
But, after examining the fact that Saint Jerome (died in 420 A.D.), in his work “The Illustrious Men”, after reporting the death of Damasus I (he was the latter’s personal secretary), did not indicate as his immediate successor “Pope Siricius”, who apparently died in 399 (according to Liber Pontificalis); thus the very existence of this “Pope” dissolves into the sunset. Now let’s try to understand the reason why “Pope Siricius” and his successors were invented.

Considering that Jerome was direct Secretary to Damasus I, nevertheless, being that he died twenty-six years after the great Caesaro-papist, according to “De viris illustribus”, the historian no longer indicated the successor to the Throne of Rome … simply because there were none.
If this had not been the case, why would have the historian and Doctor of the Church kept quiet about the existence of the “Popes” - Bishops of Rome, Pontifices Maximi of the Empire and successors of Damasus I - being that Jerome himself was their contemporary and eyewitness?
This grave “pontifical void” is due to the fact the imperial Bishops all renounced the “Throne of Rome” as a result of the incipient disintegration of the Empire caused by the barbarian incursions along its borders, favoured by the irreconcilable contrasts, hatred and corruption among the powerful double-crossers in the East and West, while the Eternal City was the richest of “spoils” and had no army to protect it from invaders.

No successor of Apostle Peter, Vicar of Christ wanted by God and Pontifex Maximus of the Empire, would have ever accepted to be present at the fall of Rome (carried out by idolatrous barbarian hordes) and be unable to prevent the catastrophe: it would have been the demonstration that Christ God was inferior to the pagan divinities. The internal rivalry between the potentates of the Roman Empire convinced Alaricus, head of the Visigoths, to become the undisputed military arbiter and, in 401, he began the invasion of Italy. He advanced gradually towards Rome, which he besieged in 408, and in 410 A.D. finally carried out the famous “Sack of Rome”. An event which had been prophesized for some time by the Christians and interpreted  by them as the “End of the World” desired by God.

We must keep in mind, above all, that the scribes of Jerome’s original Codexes transcribed “De viris illustribus” by the ninth century, without being aware of the existence of a “Pope Siricius”; being that at the end of the first millennium no cosmic catastrophe had taken place … it was only after the unsuccessful “Apocalypse” that the Clergy felt the “duty” to fill the voids in the papal lists by compiling the “Liber Pontificalis”.
In this work, as successor of an aleatory “Pope Siricius” we find “Pope Anastasius I” (from 399 to 401) followed by “Pope Innocent I” (from 401 to 417) who, according to “Liber Pontificalis”, was present during the “Sack of Rome”. But, as in the case of “Pope Siricius”, even these two “Popes” were unknown to Jerome and the calligraphers of his “De viris illustribus” put together starting at the end of the ninth century.

Another significant contradiction linked to the data reported can be found in the Autobiography of Jerome (reported by the same in “De viris illustribus”), where the historian makes no mention of the Sack of Rome of 410: an extremely grave event which took place ten years prior to his death. Jerome spent his childhood in the Eternal City, where he received his cultural formation and worked as secretary to Pope Damasus. From a reading of “De viris illustribus, we discover that twenty-eight years of important events escaped Jerome in his “Autobiography”. We know that all historians, just like any author of an “Autobiography”, describe their life and the events concerning famous men, especially those of their contemporaries, at the end of their years (Jerome died at 73), not at the age of 45, as instead results from the data transcribed four centuries after his existence the respective Codex.
We also know that Jerome continued to write because among the works cited there is no trace of above-mentioned “Commentarium in Zachariam” , certainly compiled after the “De viris illustribus” which has reached us, while, as far as the Sack of Rome is concerned, Jerome gave a dramatic and very detailed description of the event in “Epistola 127”.
This “void” in his autobiography in “De viris illustribus”  becomes censorship practiced by the Clergy so as to eliminate historical information and negative repercussions on both the credibility of the narrated events and the real History of Christianity. The fact that the Codex of Jerome has not reached us in its original form is proof of what has been affirmed. Ultimately, despite being later than the “Codex Sinaiticus” and the “Codex Vaticanus”, all the the Codexes of the "De viris illustribus" were transcribed starting at the end of the ninth century, using the original version as their source but ... immediately thereafte,r the scribes destroyed the authentic version.

On the other hand, both the “Liber Pontificalis” and other manuscripts  - attesting the lives of the Popes unknown to the historian Jerome, despite being his contemporaries - can be found in Codexes all dated in the tenth century onwards (after the Codex of Jerome, therefore even the ninth century scribes were unaware of them), Codexes which are passed off as being drawn up by the ninth century. In final analysis, as in the case of the falsification of “Pope Pius I”, after demonstrating the inexistence of “Pope Siricius” and immediate successors, it is our duty to affirm that the biographies of Saint Peter, the Popes and the Bishops who succeeded him, relics included, both in Rome and elsewhere, are all a bunch of boloney, and no other religion, apart from Catholicism, can boast such a feat.


The evangelical impostures

The current Gospels contain so many errors and falsifications that it is easy to demonstrate that their compilers, the “evangelists”, could not have been Jews natives of first century Palestine; moreover, they had never stepped foot in Palestine (not even when they compiled the Gospels), in an attempt to verify the exact location of the “holy places” where they had their actors - Jesus, the Madonna, Saint Peter, the Apostles and the disciples - move about.
The result – not highlighted by the exegetes of the Clergy, by the opportunistic university professors of History of Christianity or by Alberto and Piero Angela –is that the astonishing Saints, protagonists of the “holy texts”, move around the territories where they are said to have been born, but get wrong the names of places that they should have known inside out. The Apostles (starting with Peter) and the evangelists confuse Judea with Galileee and Trachonitis ; the references to the Jordan River and Lake Tiberias, described in their journeys, are totally wrong; Jesus carries out exorcisms inside inexistent Synagogues (today demonstrated by archeology), and other exorcisms in the cities of Gadara and Gerasa described as being located on the banks of Lake Tiberias, while in reality their ruins, which can be seen even today, are located tens of kilometers away from the lake. Therefore Jesus, the Apostles and the evangelists do not know the homeland they were born in.
Detailed archeological evidence of what has just been affirmed can be found in the eighth study; for the moment we will limit ourselves to citing a “parable” in contrast with history and archeology:

“The apostles worked many signs and miracles among the people. One in heart, they all used to meet in the Portico of Solomon. No one else dared to join them (the Apostles), but the people were loud in their praise and the numbers of men and women who came to believe in the Lord increased steadily. Many sign and wonders were worked among the people at the hand of the apostles so that the sick were taken out into the streets and laid on beds and sleeping-mats in the hope that at least the shadow of Peter might fall across some of them as he went past. People even came crowding in from the towns round about Jerusalem, bringing with them their sick and those tormented by unclean spirits, and all of them were cured” (Acts of the Apostles 5,12/16).

From the end of the Second World War onwards, during mass no priest has ever gone to the pulpit to describe this parable and praise the astonishing powers which Christ transferred to the Apostles. Both the shrewd Vatican minds and the university professors of History of Christianity know that such powers are absolutely false because at the time of Jesus and his Apostles the Portico of Solomon no longer existed, nor did the other porticos of the Temple of Jerusalem.
After the death of Herod the Great (Jewish Antiquities Book XVII par. 254/264), on the Jewish Pentecost of 4 B.C. a violent revolt broke out in Jerusalem against the Roman Procurator Titius Sabinus (revolt which then spread to Galilee) and Jews, Galileans and Idumeans took part. During the fight:

“…the rebels climbed up onto the porticos surrounding the external courtyards of the Temple … so the Romans, finding themselves in a desperate state, set fire to the porticos, and the roof, full of pitch and wax was engulfed by the flames and that grand and magnificent structure was completely destroyed” (Op. cit. par. 262).

While the Royal and Western Porticos were rebuilt by King Agrippa in 42 A.D., the Portico of Solomon, instead, was never reconstructed. Inexistent Apostles, authors of miracles and sermons, invented under an inexistent portico: with such a testimony, how could we atheists believe in the “Resurrection of Christ”? Especially after reading in the Gospel that the Saviour himself managed to carry out the Miracle of Miracles by having the portico of Solomon destroyed by the Romans “resurrect”:

“It was the time of the feast of Dedication in Jerusalem. It was winter, and Jesus was in the Temple walking up and down in the Portico of Solomon” (Jh 10,22/23).

Considering that the “eyewitness” to this blessed blunder was the evangelist John, “favourite disciple of the Lord” to boot, this gives us an idea of the “Apostolic truths” that the Gospels dump on us.
We have arrived at the end of this partial but yet significant biographical excursus on the exploits of the “Apostles Saint Peter and Paul”; nevertheless, before ending our analysis, it is our duty to read believers a final parable describing the modus operandi of the “blessed Saint Peter”, in execution of the miraculous power granted to him by Jesus Christ.
We have decided to do so because Sienkiewicz in his “Quo vadis?”, the apologetic footage on Saint Peter by Alberto Angela and the priests themselves do not dare to narrate, from their ecclesiastical or televised celestial pulpits, the enlightening example of the infinite benevolence shown by Peter, successor of Christ, Prince of the Apostles and holder of the keys of Heaven, mentioned in “Acts of the Apostles”:

“There was also a man called Ananias. He and his wife, Sapphira, agreed to sell a property; but with his wife’s connivance he kept back part of the price and brought the rest and presented it to the apostles. Peter said: «Ananias, how can Satan have so possessed you that you should lie to the Holy Spirit and keep back part of the price of the land? While you still owned the land, wasn’t it yours to keep, and after you had sold it wasn’t the money yours to do with as you liked? What put this scheme into your mind? You have been lying not to men, but to God». When he heard this Ananias fell down dead. And a great fear came upon everyone present.
The younger men got up, wrapped up the body, carried it out and buried it. About three hours later his wife came in, not knowing what had taken place. Peter challenged her, «Tell me, was this the price you sold the land for? «. «Yes», «she said, «Why did you and your husband agree to put the Spirit of the Lord to the test? Listen! At the door are the footsteps of those who have buried your husband; they will carry you out, too». Instantly she dropped dead at his feet. When the young man came in they found she was dead, and they carried her out and buried her by the side of her husband. And a great fear came upon the whole church and on all who heard it” (Acts 5,1/11).
Amen


Conclusion

But state and private television presenters, deliberately do not report correct and complete notions, which are indispensable in allowing their audience to form their ability to reason. They behave in such a manner despite knowing  that unidirectional information is misleading, and thus are certainly aware of the religious brainwashing that their uninformed audience is undergoing … and are lavishly remunerated.

But, from a moral, ethical and professional standpoint, all TV popularizers, like the Italians Alberto and Piero Angela, must not ignore the fact that Knowledge cannot be censored, as it is fundamental in allowing all people to develop unbiased opinions about the society they live in. The right to Know, just like the right to Freedom, cannot be subject to limitations, for they are inalienable individual rights. These rights must not, and cannot, be partial or conditioned by power nor by the fraudulent support of the media from which the Christian religion reaps benefit; the media is to be considered the most accredited “scientific creator” of such deceitfulness, despite the fact that it has been definitively ascertained that Christianity is a creed based upon the worst falsifications ever recorded by History, starting with the aberrant necrophiliac practice linked to the cult of the human “relics”: miserable and anonymous human remains passed off as the remains of inexistent Saints, false protagonists of Christianity.

Unfortunately we citizens pay these divulgers of “science” through the nose, yet they do not feel the need to respect our right to Know, without any limitations whatsoever. These divulgers do not feel that it is their obligation to offer the universality of peoples ascertained culture and historical and archeological clarity with regard to the Christian religion.
Aware of the risky financial losses, these divulgers “spread the word” with a precise aim and do so in a calculating manner, for they are aware – as authoritative “scientific divulgers” – of being more credible. The science which they support in serious programs at the same time teaches them that it is “mathematically” convenient to be subservient to religious power so as to maintain their “permanent employment” and continue to live affluently … at least up until they are “decrepit”.


Emilio Salsi