From the false miracles to the Holy Shroud
: Holy Fathers invented the "Christian Tradition"


The aim of this investigation is to demonstrate that the “Holy Shroud” is a fictitious image of the body of Christ, which, on the basis of the belief of followers, was impressed upon a cloth when, according to the evangelical narration, Jesus was placed in the sepulchre. In reality, as will be proven later on, it was carried out artificially by an artist, over a thousand years after the invention of the myth, commissioned by the powerful Clergy interested in convincing the common stock of the actual existence of the Saviour and, inevitably, be considered by worshippers as  the world’s most famous relic of Jesus. Such a belief is the result of constant, widespread and totally unquestioning propaganda carried out by all means of mass communication so as to instill into suckers the certainty of its authenticity.
Nevertheless, in order to dismantle such incessant brainwashing, all that one needs to do is read the Gospels to easily understand that it is impossible that the impression of a precise image could have been left by blood and sweat copiously soaked into the funeral cloth used to wrap the body of Christ when taken down from the cross by Joseph of Arimathea: a converted man of the Sanhedrin (who never existed: see eighth study) entrusted by the evangelists with the task of transporting the devastated limbs of the body, wrapped in the burial shroud, from Golgota to the tomb which he owned. A route, which even if it had been short, that would have shaken up the bloody body during the relocation, thus staining the linen cloth in a disorderly fashion and making it impossible to recognize the traits of the man wrapped in the cloth.

Indifferent to such findings, today’s sindonologists proclaim that the traces impressed upon the Shroud were, from the very beginning, so precise and thus perfectly represent the entire image of Jesus.
Instead, from the evangelical chronicle we discover that, before being crucified, the Saviour was lashed and torn apart during a long “via crucis” and then underwent incessant torture until finally dying on the cross, completely covered with blood, after excruciating agony.
A significant representation of this mythical event is offered to us by the worldwide hit film “The Passion of Christ”, directed by Mel Gibson, a cinematographer who has gone through a crisis of faith (… but is financially sound) and who, in order to indoctrinate the masses, has decided to develop a sequel to the “Passion” focusing on the “Resurrection” and the subsequent “Collection” (of money). Yet, even in this case, the unfaithful should not get shaken up because, thanks to a simple reading of the Gospels and the contrasting “testimonies” contained in these writings, at the end of this investigation not only the falsification of the Shroud is certified but also that of the “Resurrection of Christ”.
Now let’s go back and have a look at the “Holy Shroud” and follow its “tracks” so as to demonstrate to believers that, in compliance with a simple reading of the Gospels and the necessary considerations just described, through the centuries no Christian historian, Bishop, Father or Doctor of the Church, all of whom beatified, nor none of those who took part in the many Councils called by iconophiles and iconoclasts (in favour and against holy images) during the first millennium, ever dared to theorize the existence of aShroud” which survived the passion and the resurrection of the Saviour.

The Temple of Jerusalem and the Apostolic miracles

In the first study we have proven the invention - made by the Christian scribes of "Acts of the Apostles" - of a fictitious "Act of the Sanhedrin" whose protagonists were inexistent Apostles arrested by the High Priest in order "to be put to death".
The Holy Apostles who succeeded Christ - appointed by Him to continue to spread the message of salvation after His Passion and ascension into heaven while still residing in the Holy City of Jerusalem - were accused by the Sanhedrin of "having preached in the name of him (Jesus)" and of having performed too many miracles in front of the "portico of Solomon" (Acts 5,13-16).
These are ridiculous accusations: why would a High Priest of the Temple have wanted to execute those with such divine powers? We are dealing with a "Creed" based on the one and only testimony passed on to us by the "Holy Scriptures". These writings speak about men (like Jesus and the Apostles) who lived roughly two thousand years ago, had superhuman powers and carried out extraordinary miracles; men who, according to the evangelical narrations, interacted with other famous men who really existed and whose traces can thus be found in the historiography of this period.

In the first study we verified that the investigation concerning the false testimony about Theudas (Saint Thaddeus) which the evangelist Luke had Gamaliel give is based on a solely historical profile, simple to verify as the year of the death of Herod Agrippa I can be found in any encyclopedia; the same goes for the Roman Procurators Cuspius Fadus and Tiberius Julius Alexander.

The "theological" information regarding this false Act of the Sanhedrin, as reported in the Bible, demands further in-depth analysis; according to what was written by Saint Luke, the "Apostles" were arrested by the "High Priest and by the Sadduceans full of spite" as they were guilty of:

"... work[ing] many signs and miracles among the people. One in heart, they allused to meet in the Portico of Solomon. No one else dared to join them, 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 signs and wonders were worked among the people at the hands of the apostles, so that the sick were even taken 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 they 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 5,12/16).

The absurd exaggeration described above does not require commenting (it is just a small example), therefore the first question to ask oneself is: why is it that the detailed historiography of first century Jewish events reported by Josephus Flavius - who belonged to an aristocratic priestly family that resided in Jerusalem in those years and was member of the Sanhedrin - did not mention these events? There is only one possible answer: they never took place.
In addition to the clear paradox characterizing the narrated event, this statement is supported by an important detail: the "portico of Solomon", where the Apostles champions of miracles met, did not exist at the time in which Saint Luke placed the event (right after the death of Christ). Let's see why.

The Temple

In "Jewish Antiquities" (Ed. UTET 1998), Luigi Moraldi -  translation editor appointed by the exegete biblicist Cardinal Martini - on page 980 (Book XV), footnote n. 96, reports various authors of studies concerning the Temple of Jerusalem based upon archeological excavations.
It must be added that - according to current researchers of the "Israel Antiquities Authority" - there are practically no remains of the Herodian Temple, apart from a few stones and two marble epigraphs prohibiting pagan Gentiles from going beyond the area reserved to them.
On page 984, footnote n. 104, which refers to the time needed to build the Temple - begun in 23/22 B.C. and inaugurated in 18 B.C. - Moraldi stated that "in reality the entire work was completed between 62 and 64 A.D", therefore under Procurator Albinus and during the reign of Nero, and certainly after the the stunning performances of the Apostles under a portico which at that time did not exist.

This is the theory which has been accepted by almost all archeologists for over half a century; it is also supported by many exegetical believers who, however, do not analyze the matter in-depth in order to avoid having to highlight the grave contradictions between the theory itself and the "evangelical testimonies". Moraldi also avoids dealing with these contradictions; in fact, at footnote n. 104 he limits himself to citing the passage of the Gospel of John which speaks about the Temple (Jh 2,20) but "forgets" to mention the miracles carried out by the Apostles under the "Portico of Solomon" outside the Temple of Jerusalem. The conciseness of Moraldi is understandable: in the cited passage of the Gospel the Jews tell Jesus that the Temple was built in 46 years, without Jesus objecting to this totally wrong statement; moreover, we know that according to the Gospel the Saviour strolled under this portico. This is why the scholar avoids going in-depth.
It is also important to highlight that - according to "the tradition" - the long-lived Apostle John wrote his Gospel at the end of the first century, in other words almost thirty years after the destruction of the Temple by Titus; so if the evangelist had truly existed, in his "parable" he would have first of all described the grave event and, and after "advising" Jesus on how to answer back to the Jews, he would have dissuaded the Redeemer, at all costs, from strolling under the inexistent portico of Solomon.

Despite having said this, we must carry out a another critical analysis in order to verify the errors committed by Christian scribes when they wrote up the "Acts" and transcribed the Gospel of John in his name ... long after the narrated events.
In the historical documents there is evidence that the Temple was completed (including the external structures) and inaugurated by Herod the Great. Josephus describes the entire completed structure and its inauguration in Book XV, therefore we must disagree with the conclusions published by Moraldi and with those who share his opinions because, as we have always stated, the precise, detailed information which history has left us must be respected.
In 4 B.C. - shortly after the death of Herod the Great (Ant. XVII par. 254/264) -  on the day of the Jewish Pentecost, a violent revolt broke out in Jerusalem against the Roman Procurator Sabinus (the conflict then spread to Galilee) and won support of the Jews, Galileans and Idumeans. During the fighting:

"... the rebels climbed up onto the porticos surrounding the external courtyard of the Temple (par. 259) ... 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" (par. 262).

According to the description made by the Jewish historian, the monolithic columnns of the colonnade were attached to the top by massive wooden architraves which supported the ceiling: "The ceilings of the portico were made of massive wood ..." (Ant. XV 416).
The very high columns fell down as a result of the collapse of the heavy ceiling which caught fire in an irregular manner, thus bringing down the columns themselves, which crashed into one another. It is important to highlight that the Portico of Solomon was located near the edge of a cliff which looked out onto a deep valley (the Valley of Cedron), into which many of these columns ended up and disintegrated irreparably.
The Jewish historian also illustrates the Temple in detail in his first work "The Jewish War" -  completed in the seventies under Vespasian - in Book XV from par. 184 to 226. The close examination describes the three city walls of Jerusalem in par. 136/183, then from par. 142 to par. 145 we read:

"The oldest of three walls, from the Hippicus Tower went all the way to the eastern portico of the Temple".

The "eastern portico" was that of Solomon. In "Bellum" the descriptions of the "Ancient Wall" are "static" - as there is no link to warfare involving all the colonnades -  in contrast with what is stated above with regard to the revolt in Jerusalem after the death of Herod the Great, during which they were completely destroyed. In 75 A.D. Josephus did not know that he would have later written "Jewish Antiquities", therefore he illustrated these massive structures in Book V of "Bellum" (Temple and city walls) before they were demolished once and for all by Titus. The Roman commander left standing only a few fortified towers for military reasons.
The descriptions of the Temple and of the walls with their imposing towers (which also mentioned their dimensions in detail) were made by Josephus only after looking at the final plan which he took pains to save with the consent of Titus. It would be impossible for anyone to cite measurements which were so precise so as to allow the exact reconstruction of reduced scale models.
Shortly before the sacking of Jerusalem, the Jewish historian writes in "Autobiography":

"... there not being anything so precious to preserve and whose possession could offer relief to my misfortunes, I requested and obtained, thanks to the gracious concession of Titus, some holy books" (Bios chap. 75 par. 418).

Joseph, in his final work "Contra Apione" (Book I from par. 28 to 46), highlights how carefully the Priests and High Priests of the Temple wrote up:

"Annales worthy of faith for the transmission of public events of which my "Antiquities" are an accurate extract ... and up to this day this custom has been observed".

In the nineties (under Domitian) the Jewish historian wrote "Jewish Antiquities", his most detailed work, in which he dedicates an entire chapter to the "Portico of Solomon". In this work he mentions that King Herod Agrippa II, between the end of 63 and the beginning of 64 A.D. (shortly before the arrival of the new Procurator Gessius Florus sent in by Nero to replace Albinus), decreed that this structure not be erected due to the high cost.
This dating forces us to highlight an important detail: Josephus Flavius was not in Jerusalem when the King decided not to build the portico. As is mentioned in his work "Autobiography" (3,13/16), at the end of 63 he was sent to Rome by the Sanhedrin to ask Nero to release from prison several Jewish priests arrested by the previous Procurator Antonius Felix ... and remained here until about the middle of 65 A.D. (ibid 4,17). Upon his return to his homeland in 66 A.D., the revolutionary tension had already got underway: things were coming to a head, and Joseph, like everyone else, was worried more about the future than about the past and, at this time, was unaware of the details regarding the Temple. This is why he does not mention in "Bellum" the information concerning King Agrippa II; it will come to his knowledge thanks to the Jewish priests who continued to record "annales worthy of faith for the transmission of public events". Therefore "Antiquities" becomes the proof that the Portico of Solomon was not rebuilt, otherwise the Pharisean historian would have been forced to mention this important piece of information, as important as the miracles performed by the Apostles ... of which there is no trace in the annales of the priests and High Priests of the Temple.

Towards the end of Procurator Albinus's term of office (Ant. XX 219/223), King Agrippa II, with regard to the Jewish people's demand that the portico of Solomon be built, declares: "It is always easy to demolish a structure" ... This phrase did not refer to a future demolishment but to one which had already taken place in the past: the destruction of the porticos caused by Roman fire to defend themselves against the insurgents. And the King added: "... it is difficult to build another (structure) and even more so this portico". There would have been no reason for the portico of Solomon to have been more difficult to erect than the two which had already been rebuilt, apart from the greater number of columns that had been destroyed (having fallen down into the Valley of Cedron). In reality the most difficult to build should have been the southern Royal portico which had already been rebuilt.
Beyond any reasonable doubt, what makes the proof of the inexistence of the portico of Solomon during the "Apostolic" period incontestable is the sententious statement made by the historian with regard to the event dated between the end of 63 and the beginning of 64 A.D.:

"... the inhabitants asked the King to build the eastern portico. This colonnade was a work of King Solomon who was the first to erect the whole Temple" (Ant. XX 220/1), which ends with the lapidary royal decree of Agrippa II: "... the King therefore rejected their request" (ib. 222).

The majority of Christian historians recognize the mistake made by Luke the Evangelist (who speaks about the miracles of the Apostles at the Portico of Solomon), while others attempt to correct these mistakes through naive, superfluous tergiversations ... Well, this is understandable! It is not easy to admit being ingenuous and having undergone brainwashing based on the illusion of eternal life. Especially those who, after being indoctrinated, have dedicated themselves to the spreading of this propaganda in order to attract and brainwash new followers: they call this "apostolate"...

Everyone came running towards the Apostles in great excitement (as a result of a miracle), to the Portico of Solomon, as it was called ... When Peter saw the people he addressed them ... Men of Israel ... It is the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, the God of our ancestors, who has glorified his servant Jesus whom you handed over and then disowned in the presence of Pilate after he (Pilate) had given his verdict to release him. It was you who accused the Holy and Upright One ... you killed the prince of life. God, however, raised him from the dead, and to that fact we are witnesses" (Acts 3,11/15).

Inexistent Apostles, authors of miracles and sermons, invented under an inexistent portico: thanks to this testimony even we atheists could not get out of believing in the "Resurrection of Christ", mainly because the Saviour himself managed to perform the Miracle of Miracles by "resurrecting" the portico of Solomon destroyed by the Romans:

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).

According to the Gospels, when the inhabitants of Jerusalem asked King Agrippa II to erect the portico, they were all soft in the head ... and the King even more than they were; being that the portico had already been rebuilt, the King could have satisfied them "gratis", thanks to the benevolence of Jesus.

"Christian Tradition" passes off the two Emperors as Christians, Philip the Arab and Constantine the Great

As we have already said in the previous studies, Eusebius of Caesarea was the first Christian of the Court of Emperor Constantine able to access the State Archives and tamper with old chronicles. The venerable Bishop was thus able to "build" a "Tradition", made up of invented Christian characters, to be passed on to posterity in the form of "Historia Ecclesiastica".
Such a "Tradition", personified and represented by "direct witnesses", was indispensable in order to demonstrate the Advent of Christ, new God, and the future followers of His teaching, from the first century onwards. A "Tradition" recognized as historically substantiated, therefore officialized by all the Christian Churches around the world, and which to this day continues to be propagandized in schools in countries with governments closely linked to confessional power. "Tradition" which made use of the presence in the Empire of Jewish Christians (Messianists) awaiting the advent of their Davidic Messiah chosen by God to liberate them from Pagan enslavement. These Messianists, who were persecuted by the Romans, were passed off as "Jesuit Christians".

Unfortunately - for those who are dedicated to the function of "apostolate" and indoctrinate the young with banal, childish narrations - through the aid of archeology and philology we have highlighted the blunders made by the scribes when they inserted real and significant historical information both in the Gospels and in the patristic writings in order to make them truthful but without first taking the precaution of carrying out in-depth studies through the comparison of the events they had read about. Fallacious historical information - still latent in the holy writings which survived the evolution of an original Jewish myth before being reformed by Pauline Christianity - which escaped the copyists of the primitive Gospels when they copied it down into the current Gospels; the data, in fact, was not fully analyzed and was manipulated by people who were unaware of first century Israelite customs.

A series of mistakes deriving from the superficiality with which the historical data was handled, as in the case of the incredible coincidence regarding the imaginary community of Jesuit Christians, whose mass conversion to Christianity was the result of the miracles performed by Saint Paul in Ephesus and in the Province of Asia. The total Christianization of this large region - thanks to Paul, who was followed by the Apostle Saint John - was proven wrong because in contrast with the presence, substantiated by history, of the Governor of this Province: Publius Cornelius Tacitus, the most famous Pagan chronicler of the period ... who would have at least reported the presence of these Christians to Trajan as did Plinius the Younger in nearby Bythinia (see fifth and tenth studies). The presence of Christians, which according to "Acts of the Apostles" was certain, in the territory governed by the Pagan priest Tacitus is absurd, as verified in the previous studies; this absurdity, however, escaped the impostor Eusebius when he described the presence, in the known world of the time, of numerous "Ecclesiae" of followers of Jesus, converted from the time of His "Advent" and "Resurrection".

Here is another example of the fraudulent expedient through which Eusebius aimed at offering to posterity "evidence" - in his work "Historia Ecclesiastica" written up for this reason - of the adherence to "Jesuit Christianity of the Salvation" of no less than the Roman Emperor Philip, nicknamed the Arab, who held the high principate from 244 to 249 A.D.:

“Gordianus had been Roman Emperor for six years when Philip, with his son Philip, succeeded him. It is reported that he (the Emperor), being a Christian, desired, on the day of the last paschal vigil, to share with the multitude in the prayers of the Church (where and when), but that he (the Emperor, sic!) was not permitted to enter, by him who then presided (who?), until he had made confession and had numbered himself among those who were reckoned as transgressors and who occupied the place of penance. For if he had not done this, he would never have been received by him (he who presided), on account of the many crimes which he had committed. It is said that he (the Emperor) obeyed (he went to confession) readily, manifesting in his conduct a genuine and pious fear of God(HEc VI 34).

Eusebius's decision to have Emperor Philip I appear to be Christian was not incidental as the most important office in the world was held by a Roman citizen of equestrian order, who was a native of Shahba in Trachonitis (formerly kingdom of King Herod Agrippa I but, after his death, it was reannexed to Syria by Claudius) and son of an Arab leader: this is the origin of the appellative "Philip the Arab".
During the "public ministry of Jesus" Trachonitis was part of Palestine and its capital, Caesarea of Philip, was visited by Christ the Saviour and the Apostles (Mk 8,27-33; Mt 16,13-23).
Trachonitis bordered on Galilee, the territory visited by the "Son of God" and kwhere He carried out many astonishing miracles before crowds of people:

"He 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 paralysed, were all brought to him, and he cured them. Large crowds followed him, coming from Galilee, the Decapolis, Jerusalem, Judaea and Transjordan" (Mt 4,23-25).

The many astonishing miracles carried out by the "Son of God" were handed down orally by the ancestors of all the inhabitants of the area who, in turn, would have inevitably preserved a lasting memory of such deeds.
These were the first reflections made by the venerable, deceitful Bishop, courtier of Constantine, eighty years after the ridiculous, schemed incident regarding Philip the Arab. Eusebius was the principal supporter of the salvation of humanity doctrine, and he was thus forced to declare that Emperor Philip was Christian.
After glorifying the Saviour Christ and giving him powers - displayed in front of crowds of cheering Palestinians - equal to those of God, the Bishop's ideological propaganda could not allow the inhabitants of this region to forget such miracles, as this would have constituted an incurable contrast with his doctrine; the need to avoid such a contrast applies all the more if, as chance would have it, the Emperor of Rome descended from this region.

Eusebius knew that no Pagan citizen would have believed in myth of the prodigious "Son of God" - capable of resurrecting the dead and of resurrecting Himself three days after His death - if the Princeps of the Roman State, born and raised near a land where Jesus had displayed his talents, had not been Christian.
There was only one way for the Bishop to solve the evident contradiction:
Philip had to be remembered in history as the first Jesuit Emperor after the advent of Christ.
But, as the exegetical spiritualists should well be aware of, "the devil makes pots without lids to cover them up": there are archeological findings and authentic chronicles of the period depicting an Emperor who contrasts diametrically with the description offered by Eusebius, who presents us the portrait of a pious Christian; such a contrast overshadows the dodgery intentions - based solely on Eusebian "History" - of today's overly-devout historians.

Five archeological findings consisting of Roman Military Diplomas made of carved bronze laminae - given ad personam by Emperor Philip to army veterans at the end of an honourable military career - all prove, incontestabily, which cult the Emperor was dedicated to:

H. Nesselhauf. Diplomata Militaria, Berlin, years 1936/1955: CIL (Corpus Inscriptionum Latinarum) XVI 00149; CIL XVI 00151; CIL XVI 00152; CIL XVI 00153 and (we have published only the shortest of these Diplomas) CIL XVI 00150:

[IMP(erator) Caes(ar) M(arcus) Iulius Philippus Pius / [Felix Aug(ustus) Pont(ifex) Max(imus) trib(unicia) pot(estate)] III Co(n)s(ul) P(ater) P(atriae) / [M(arcus) Iulius Philippus nob(ilissimus)] Caes(ar) / [nomina militum qui militaverunt in] [a(nte)d(iem)VII Id(us) Ian(uarias)/Coh(ors) [Philippiana P(ia) V(index)/ M(arcus) Aure[lius]/descri[pt(um) et recognit(um) ex tabula aenea/qu(a)e fixa [est in muro post] templ(um) d[ivi Aug(usti) ad Minervam] ...

Therefore, Marcus Julius Philippus was not "universal Catholic Pope", but "simply" Pius Pontifex Maximus of the Empire; so, richly dressed, he professed the liturgy of animal sacrificing, carried out with his own hands as a propitiatory act of adoration of the Pagan divinities.
Instead of devoutly receiving, "after having himself confessed" (says Eusebius), the sacrament of the Christian Eucharist, nourishing himself with the "transubstantiated" Host containing the "blood and body of our Lord Jesus Christ" (Corpus Domini nostrum) ... during the sacred rituals Philip swallowed the Pagan "Hostia", which was: "the victim sacrificed before the Gods".

The fact that Emperor Philip I, called the Arab, was a devout Jesuit Christian, fearing of the God Jesus, is conveniently believed by all exegetes, with or without cassocks, who have faith in His Advent and the consequent "salvation for eternal life". The "spiritualist scientists" are aware of the need to be coherent with "the Christian tradition", so they are careful not to reveal to believers the motives of the deceitful Bishop (as we instead have done) so as not to highlight the contradictions capable of defeating their "apostolate". Santo (Pietro Giovanni) Mazzarino, illustrious historian of Ancient Rome, was not able to avoid "staining", through this acritical "flaw", his remarkable work "The Roman Empire" by endorsing the "testimony" of Eusebius: heritage of the Christian faith acquired at the Salesian Fathers School which he attended as a child.

Let's read how the unconditional fideism of the Emperor is represented by Professor Marta Sordi - teacher of Ancient History at the Università Cattolica in Milan - in her laudatory book whose tone is encomiastic, an excellent panegyric for a proficuous apostolate, entitled "I Cristiani e l'Impero Romano" ("The Christians and the Roman Empire"), Edit. 2004:

"The peaceful expansion of Christianity goes hand in hand with the rise of the Christians within the ruling classes of the Empire who,
through Philip the Arab, attain the imperial throne" (op. cit. pag. 203).

Professor Marta Sordi, along with brilliant philologist Ilaria Ramelli and the usual well-orchestrated train of genuflexion supporters, before passing off Catechism as History, all together should have carefully looked at the sources and criticize, instead, Eusebius's "Historia Ecclesiastica", the only source from which "believers" have obtained information full of imaginative and banal invented details passed off as truth.

Numerous historians of the period, despite being convinced Jesuits, reported the chronicles of third century Roman Emperors, yet none of them mentioned that Philip was a Christian; the only ones who did so were Eusebius and one of his successors John Chrysostom, Patriarch of Constantinople. The latter spoke about the Christianity of Philip around 400 A.D. by specifying the name of the "Christian leader" - unknown up until this time - who warned the Emperor not to enter a Church without having been confessed. This "Christian leader" was Saint Babila, another invented Bishop with no personal details and with a single name in contrast with the role he held and with the imperial Roman tradition according to which people were identified with three forenames (tria nomina); spiritual head of the Diocese of Antioch and beatified ... to whom, in the centuries to come, Churches, Squares and Theatres will be dedicated.
The Venerable Archbishop Chrysostom, who was a native of Antioch, decided to make Eusebius's "testimony" more credible by perfecting it; he explains that the martyrdom of Babila was ordered (listen, listen) by the good Christian Philip the Arab, because he dared prevent the Emperor from entering a Church. But, on the basis of Chrysostom's (which means "golden mouth") plan, if both the name of the "Christian leader" and that of the Church of Antioch were known, they would have been mentioned in Eusebius's "live" chronicle, in other words prior to the "testimony" offered by Chrysostom himself. Instead "golden mouth" wished to create a new martyr to be beatified and ended up contradicting the "Father of the Tradition" ... it was for this lie that the former was declared a "Saint" by the Universal Church.

From a reading of the martyrology (click to believe) of the "Basilica Collegiata Prepositurale Saint Babila" in Milan we learn:
"The fate of the relics of Saint Babila is well-documented: the principal witness regarding the matter is still Saint John Chrysostom"... whose "tradition" was offered as testimony to posterity: "The martyr Babila was brought to prison in chains by Emperor Decius where he died for the suffering underwent"... and unaware of all this is Eusebius, who lived at a time closer to that of the narrated events and was an absolute champion with regard to the invention of martyrs and had him die of old age: "like Bishop Alexander, Babila underwent prison and was awarded with vigorous old age and venerable baldness" (HEc. VI 39,1-4).

But the invention of Saint Babila is made even more complicated (this is really something) by the version created by a subsequent "pious" Christian historian, John Malalas, also wrote about Saint Babila in the sixth century, enriching the account which speaks about the "legend of the invented Saint" by including a detail which highlights the practice of scolding the Emperors: Marcus Aurelius Numerianius, Princeps of the Empire more than thirty years after the death of Philip the Arab.
Numerianius was a short-lived Caesar on the throne of Rome, as he reigned for little more than a year (283/284 A.D.), just enough time to be driven out of the Church of Antioch by the harsh Bishop Babila, as stated by Malalas: "for having his hands still stained by the blood of the pagan sacrifices".
A chronicle as ridiculous and disavowable as the previous ones, first of all because in Antioch, at the time of Saint Babila (therefore under Philip the Arab and Numerianius), there were no Christian Churches (we are in the third century A.D.); so, if the event had really taken place, the first to mention a Christian Emperor by the name of Philip would have been the historian Ammianus Marcellinus (from the fourth century), a native of Antioch and interested in Christians whom he discussed in his chronicles. Moreover, dulcis in fundo, the venerable historian Eusebius of Caesarea, having lived at a time closer to that of Numerianius and Philip, would have been happy to report the entire story two centuries prior to Malalas, as Emperor Numerianius (unlike his predecessor Philip), rather than be confessed, according to the Christian historian Malalas ... martyrized Babila for having insulted him: here is the umpteenth martyrdom with miracles, "final beatification" and many statues and relics to be venerated by naive believers.

As said previously, a "holy legend", that of Saint Babila, which one of his successors was unaware of: Saint Jerome. The latter, in "De viris illustribus" describes the life of all the beatified Christian Bishops from the Apostles onwards yet ... he fails to mention the famous Bishop as "Saint Babila the beatified" who was not martyrized by the Christian "Emperor Philip the Arab" nor by Emperor Numerianus but, according to Jerome, by the inconvenient Emperor Gaius M. Quintus Traianus Decius. But this deposition attested by Saint Jerome concerning Bishop Babila in "De viris illustribus" (Chap. LIV) cites as a source Eusebius of Caesarea's "Historia Ecclesiastica" ... but it is in total contrast with what we read today in this document. All one has to do is reread the just-mentioned passage written by Eusebius (HEc. VI 39,1-4) which states that Babila died of old age.

The historical blunder results from the contrast between Codexes drawn up by calligraphers who did not coordinate their efforts when inventing the legends of inexistent Christian saints, who were martyrized by famous people who truly did exist yet had nothing to do with the events which they are said to have been involved in. In this case, being that Bishop Babila is not included in the introductory list of "The illustrious men", but forced into the biography regarding Origen (LIV), it is clear that this Bishop was created by a pious scribe at the end of the ninth century and inserted at the end of this chapter when the first codexes of the "De viris illustribus" were transcribed (soon, in the study dedicated to Constantine the Great, we will verify the dating of the manuscripts).
Today the inexistent Bishop Babila continues to be passed off as a martyr, beatified and with many relics; if he had truly existed, he would have been immediately inserted in the original list and included in the individual biographies of "The illustrious men" ... while the deeds of this Bishop were still unknown (late fourth century) to the author, Jerome Sofronius, half a century after Eusebius of Caesarea.
The patched-up account of the maryrdom of Babila shows how the Christian scribes assembled the "Tradition" of the Saints and their phony relics through the centuries, passing it off as history; we can see that false Saints invented many other false Saints along with false martyrs and relics.

In this case, it all derives from the need which forced Eusebius to have Philip the Arab be "historically" Christian, being that the Emperor was a native of Trachonitis, a region which at the time of Jesus and of His miracles was part of Palestine, governed by Tetrarch Herod Philip, Herod Antipas's half-brother.
Julius Capitolinus, Aurelius Victor, Eutropius, George Codinus, Landulfus Sagax, Sulpicius Severus, Dionysius the Younger, Paulus Orosius, Epitome of the Caesars, Ammianus Marcellinus, Gregory Naziazenus, Isidore of Seville, Paul the Deacon and many others, Fathers and Doctors of the Church included; none of them, from the third century onwards, reported the extraordinary and unbelievable piece of information regarding a Christian Emperor of Rome prior to Constantine the Great; not to mention the fact that there are strong doubts regarding the actual Christian faith of the latter, which have been raised by numismatics and archeology.
Any history or classical literature teacher, philologist or exegete cannot pretend to be unaware of such important information, which has come to light also thanks to archeological findings, numismatics and CIL.

The clumsy attempt to pass Emperor Philip the Arab off as Christian - even without taking into consideration archeological, numismatic and historical findings - from the point of view of believers also contrasts with the image of the Christian Jesuits which has been fed to us from infancy, "spiritual heritage" of Eusebius himself.

From Eutropius and from Julius Capitolinus's "Historia Augusta" we learn that Philip I had his predecessor, Emperor Gordianus III, divinized after having him executed. To ward off all suspicion, he had an important monumental sepulchral built in Gordanius's honour - so the latter could be adored -  in Circesium, a Roman military fortress along the Euphrates. During his imperium Philip minted numerous coins and on the back we can still admire the many Capitoline Pagan divinities ... there is nothing Christian. As chance would have it, the imperial Regency of Marcus Julius Philippus saw the 1000th year of the founding of Rome (a.U.c. "ab Urbe condita", 753 years before Christ), and the Caesar celebrated the event a year later as he was involved in a war along the Danubian limes. In 248 A.D. the "Pious" Emperor commemorated the event through the minting of coins which depicted him as Pontefix Maximus in the act of sacrificing to the Gods; and for this extraordinary event he organized in the cities of the Empire magnificent performances and grand circus games ... and did not imagine that his days were numbered. After crushing several internal revolts, the following year (249 A.D.) he was assassinated by one of his generals, Quintus Decius, who usurped the throne ... thus not allowing him enough time to convert to Christianity.

Constantine the Great, pagan emperor

In addition to Philip the Arab, Constantine the Great today is also remembered as a Christian emperor … according to the general preconception based on solely fideistic apologetic sources, of which Eusebius of Caesarea is the main testimony, but contained in codexes written after the tenth century. This Bishop, as attested in late medieval treatises dedicated to his work “Life of Constantine”, is said to have affirmed that the great Emperor had always been Christian, but, strangely … asked to be baptized on his deathbed “for the divine passage towards the afterlife” (op. cit. IV 60,5). In the same biography, in fact, Eusebius had initially attested that the conversion of the emperor had taken place in 312 A.D., just prior to the battle of Pons Milvius (Milvius Bridge), after a dream in which Christ appeared before Constantine ordering him to adopt as his ensign a prodigious phrase next to a cross: “In hoc signo vinces” (“In this sign thou shalt conquer”) (op. cit. I 27,31).

Eusebius also confirms the devotion of Constantine I to Christianity in his “Historia Ecclesiastica”:

Constantine having invoked through prayers as ally the heavenly God and his Word, the Saviour of all, Jesus Christ, he advanced with his entire army, aspiring to conquer for the Romans the freedom of their ancestors (op. cit. IX 9,2).
"Constantine addressed this canto to God, Lord of the universe and author of the victory, and entered Rome with triumphal cantos … But he, who had an almost innate devotion towards the divinity, not all shaken by the cries nor exhalted by the praise, well aware of the aid of Christ, immediately ordered that the trophy of the passion of the Saviour (the cross) be placed in the hand of his statue, and also ordered that those who had honoured him through the erection of this statue in the most important gathering place of Rome (?) when placing the symbol of salvation (the cross) in his right hand, here wrote this same proclamation with these precise words in Latin:«With this symbol of salvation (in hoc signo vinces), truthful proof of its value, I freed abd saved your city from the domination of the tyrant (Massentius)»" (op. cit. IX 9,9/11).
"Constantine, adorned with all the virtues of devotion …” and “… those who before were melancholy, then with dances and chants, in cities and in the countryside, honoured first of all God, then the devout emperor  (op. cit. X 9,6-7).

Therefore, on the basis of the subsequent biographical notes concerning Constantine I, according to superficial hagiographical judgements, he is still today considered as Christian by many opportunistic secular historians. Scholars who, in addition to being uninformed about the dating of the codexes, testimonies to the life of Constantine, pretend to be unaware of the precise numismatic and archeological evidence which make it impossible to affirm the Great Emperor was of Christian faith. Proof of this is constituted by the fact that Constantine, for as long as he lived, in additon to numerous coins dedicated to pagan divinities, also minted stupendous gold coins (“solidi aurei”) which depicted him beside the
Sol Invictus, along with the word “comes”, thus “companion” of this divinity; in fact many others depict him as the personification on Earth of the Sun God.
While, with regard to archeology, in Rome, near the Colosseum, today we can still admire the stupendous triumphal Arch of Constantine, built to celebrate the victory of the august Emperor against Massentius in the battle of Pons Milvius which took place in 312 A.D. So all the religious quotes carved in stone refer to pagan divinites, nothing Christian, not even a reference to Christ Saviour and his prodigious heavenly vision together with his order to adopt as ensign the monogram of Christ “XP” thanks to which Constantine defeated Massentius. But the most significant aspect is the fact that in many of the carved scenes Constantine sacrifices to the Gods, not to "Christ-God"
Of all the coins minted by Constantine the Great there are only one a few dedicated to Christianity, represented symbolically by a christogram on a banner: a simple reference intended as a mandatory act on the part of the Pontifex Maximus who, from the time of Julius Caesar, was assigned the supreme religious role of the Empire, hierarchically superior to that of any Pontifex, Great Priest or High Priest, (gr. ἀρχιερεύς) “Archiereus”, of all the Creeds professed in the Roman Empire and by him represented without having to be an affiliate.

A Constantine with the role of Pontifex Maximus who, after placing Christianity on the same level as the other religions*, despite being a Creed with few followers, committed himself to convening the Council of Nicea in 325 A.D. (the first of the many convended in the fouth century) in order to rectify the doctrinal contrasts regarding the “substance” of the new divinity, which had arisen among Bishops who proclaimed diverse and ideologically contrastingJesusSaviours : an incoherence that Constantine, in the role of Pontifex Maximus, could not have been able to justify.
* Incidentally the Roman Empire never outlawed any religion, not even nationalistic Judaism, nor did it persecute the followers of any Faith as such. The repression of the Roman provincial Governors was fierce only against those who refused to submit to imperial territorial dominationnot against those who professed doctrines different from that of Rome. Whoever affirms the contrary is obliged to offer proof by means of historical non-Christian references reported by the the many chroniclers of Rome who succeeded one another from the first to the fourth century. Here it is essential to remember the falsification of Tacitus’s testimony concerning the massacre of Christians perpetrated by Nero in 64 A.D. (see the evidence in the twelfth study).
the Edict of Milan (Edictum Mediolani) of 313 AD - considered as a provision aimed at tolerating the Christian religion putting an end to any persecution against the followers of Christ - will prove to be a full-blown forgery. This imperial ordinance was attributed in the Middle Ages to two characters, Lactantius and the Christian historian Eusebius of Caesarea (the only ones to mention the Edict); instead, we will shortly demonstrate that the former never existed, while the scribes of the tenth century adulterated the works of the latter ... but contradicting different Christian testimonies, transcribed previously by other primitive Christian historians.

From what has been ascertained thusfar, thanks to archeology and history, it is clear that the awareness of a Constantine who never became Christian forced, at a later date, the high clergy to make sure that he was depicted historically as a follower of Christ. The popularity achieved, thanks to the glorious endeavours of the valorous Emperor who reunited an Empire by this time divided into tetrarchies, convinced the powerful clergymen to incorporate him into their Creed … but also with the ill-concealed aim of hiding the historical need that forced Constantine to convene the Council of Nicea so as to eliminate the theological contradictions present in the new faith, by this time placed on the same level as the others.
As a result let’s dedicate a comparative reading to all the ecclesiastical documentation concerning the biography of Constantine the Great in order to verify the dissimilar attestations and demonstrate that Constantine I was never a Christian, therefore validating the archeological numismatic findings that represent the Emperor as being solely of pagan faith.

In fact, the historical credibility of theChristian Constantine” is represented in codexes attributed to Eusebius by medieval scribes, but, after viewing their content, such credibilty is disavowed by the certified acts contained in the work “De viris illustribus” ("The illustrious men": an enquiry of the biographies of the most famous Christians, from Saint Peter to the end of the fourth century), written by the historian and Doctor of the Church, Saint Jerome Sofronius.
Precisely, when skimming through the profiles of the most famous Christian personalities listed by Jerome it is evident that the ecclesiastical historian does not consider this Emperor worthy of being mentioned: something impossible if the most “illustrious” and powerful man in the Roman Empire had been a Christian. Therefore the historian Jerome, despite living roughly half a century after Eusebius and having described this Bishop among the “illustrious men” (LXXXI), praising his work “Historia Ecclesiastica”, does not recognize Constantine as being Christian. Ergo, in Eusebius’s original “Historia Ecclesiatica”, read by Saint Jerome half a century after being compiled, Books VIII, IX and X contain no evidence of any apologia for the “Christian Constantine”.

Jerome even lists all the treatises written by Eusebius of Caesarea, but there is no trace of the one mentioned above entitled “Life of Constantine”: a text invented by Christian scribes centuries later and accredited to Bishop Eusebius who died in 339 A.D. Yet this pseudo-biography, invented in the late Middle Ages, is considered truthful by all the experts of History of Christianity and by all means of communication, in order to indoctrinate the masses.
In addition, Constantine the Great is not even contemplated as a believer in Christ by all the scribes of the most ancient manuscripts*, containing the De viris illustribus” by Jerome Sofronius, dating back to the ninth century.

* The oldest reliable sources of the “De viris illustribus”, validated by experts, are made up of 84 mss. Divided into the following eight groups: A. Parisinus (Corbeiensus or Sangermanensisis seventh century); Vaticanus Reg. Lat., seventh century; Veronensis, eighth century; Vercellensis eighth century; Monspessalanensis ninth century; Monacensis eighth century; Vindobonensis ninth century; H. Parisinus ninth century. To which are to be added: a ninth century codex, now in Vienna, and two mss. from the ninth century: one kept in Montpellier “Codex Ms H. 406”, while the second is kept in Munich. Another ancient manuscript, “Codex Ms Lat. 2 Q Neoeboracensis”, dating back to the ninth century, is kept at the General Theological Seminary in New York. These initial codexes were followed by many others, drawn up in the centuries to come, thanks to the need for the increasing number of believers to know about the events involving the famous early Christians.

However  it must be highlighted that of all the paleographical estimates indicated, with regard to the datings of the manuscripts just mentioned, the ones prior to the ninth century are clearly wrong; they are in contrast with the assessments made by qualified experts.
We arrived at such a conclusion by comparing three different ancient manuscripts that allowed us to set with historical accuracy the dating of all the first codexes transcribed containing the “De viris illustribus”.
The proof is given by the fact the first and most ancient manuscript, dedicated to the famous Apologetic Father Tertullianus, isCodex Agobardinus Parisinus Lat. 1622" (prior to this treatise Tertullianus is not cited in any of the codexes); but at this point it is necessary to remind readers that the subsequent “Christian tradition” considers Father “Q.
Septimius Florentius Tertullianus”, an important witness to the Universal saviour, set between the second and third century but, in reality, unknown to all the Christian Fathers and Bishops, assiduous ecclesiatical writers, from the end of the second century up until Eusebius of Caesarea (fourth century), the first to mention him according to the “tradition”. Instead, in contrast with appearances, the first codexes which narrate this Bishop’s Historia Ecclesiastica date back to the tenth/eleventh century; in addition, still according to the “tradition”, Tertullianus is also recalled in Jerome’s “De viris illustribus”, but transcribed in codexes starting in the second half of the ninth century. Basically the first codexes regarding the original works of the Christian historians, Eusebius and Jerome, were transcribed by the amanuensis after the "Codex Agobardinus Parisinus Lat. 1622".

Having said this, in contrast with the attestations from the “fideistic Christian saga”, considering that Tertullianus’s initial document was drawn up during the Carolingian era by Archbishop Agobard of Lyon, such a detail allows us to set its drafting by the year 840 A.D. (year of Agobard's death: ninth century). As a result all the manuscripts concerning the deeds and the works of Q. S. Florentius Tertullianus were, inevitably, drawn up from the second half of the ninth century onwards, as in the case of the most ancient codexes of the “De viris illustribus”.
The subsequent manuscript which deals with Tertullianus’s most famous work is “Codex Latinus Parisinus 1623” containing “Apologeticum” and dates back to the tenth century (this treatise does not appear in the text by Agobard of Lyon, as it had yet to be invented by the scribes of God).

The same also goes for the “Historia Ecclesiastica” by Eusebius of Caesarea, who cites Tetullianus (it must be remembered that all of the apologetic Fathers who were his contemporaries make no reference to this Father), but even the oldest manuscripts of this work began to be compiled in the tenth/eleventh century (after Agobard of Lyon's death). Therefore, having established that the first codexes regarding Eusebius's "Historia Ecclesiastica" (which recognizes Constantine as Christian) were drawn up a century and a half after JeromesDe viris illustribus” (which does not recognize Constantine as Christian) and that both are subsequent toCodex Agobardinus Parisinus Lat. 1622”, it can be demonstrated that the legend of theChristianConstantine the Great was conceived, seven centuries after his death, by deceitful scribes. While instead the coincidence in time between Eusebius’s “Historia Ecclesiastica” and the codex regarding “Apologeticum” accredited to Tertullianus demonstrates that the “pious” coordination was dictated by the grey eminences of the high clergy.
In order to fully define this enquiry we invite our readers to read all the documentation demonstrating the implausibility of Tertullianus in the fifth study chap. entitled “The oversights of the scribes of Tertullianus”. This study analyzes the context linked to the depositions regarding the biographies of the first Apologetic Fathers, contemporaries of Tertullianus, so as to highlight the respective contradictions thanks to the comparisions between history and archeology.

In this case we have also adopted the same identical research method (just described above, useful for demonstrating the invention of Saint Babila), in order to obtain confirmation of the fact that Eusebius of Caesarea never made a reference to a Christian Constantine inHistoria Ecclesiastica” or “Life of Constantine” … in contrast with what today’s superficial academics, who underestimate the chronologies of the handwritten testimonies, would lead us to believe.
In detail, for those who are influenced by ideologically erroneous information, we have obtained such confirmation from the camparison of the periods in which the most ancient codexes related to the fourth century Christian historians were transcribed: those dedicated to the “De viris illustribus” by Jerome date back to the second half of the ninth century, while the initial manuscripts, containing the “Historia Ecclesiastica” by Eusebius, date back to the tenth and eleventh century (for the details of the latter codexes see third study).
Such findings demonstrate that, for the ninth century scribes who attested Jerome’s biographies, Constantine was not a Christian, while for the later
scribes of Eusebius he was, on the contrary, a follower of Christ. It is therefore proven that Constantine wasChristianizedfrom the tenth century onwards.

And it is not just a coincidence that the “Codex Vat. Lat.
1873” (from the Vatican Apostolic Library) was also copied in the tenth century, when the high clergy decided to “canonize” Constantine the Great. This manuscript contains the “Res Gestae”, drawn up by the fourth century’s most important historian, Ammianus Marcellinus (Antioch 330 – Rome 397), whose original work was contained in thirty-one books, nevertheless the tenth century scribes transcribed only the final eighteen (XIV-XXXI) regarding the period between the years 353 and 378 A.D. Instead Ammianus wrote that he had begun the work "a principatu Caesaris Nervae" (XXXI 16,9), that is to say from the year 96 A.D., under the principate of Cocceius Nerva, and precisely from the moment in which the narration ofHistoriae” (cfr. Hist. 1,1) by the Latin historiographer Cornelius Tacitus comes to an end.

The period censored in A. Marcellinus’s “Res Gestae” by the tenth century copyists contained the chronicles reported in the first thirteen books concerning the undertakings of all the Roman Emperors from the time of Marcus Nocceius Nerva to the time of the sons and successors of Constantine I.
That is to say the entire era of thegreat Christian persecutions” perpetrated by a series of Emperors starting from Ulpius Traianus (according to the pseudo “ecclesiastical historiography” until the time of Constantine the Great's sons and successors, but avoiding, opportunely, the biography of the Great Emperor. Obviously, as demonstrated in the previous studies through precise non-Christian enquiries, no Roman Emperor ever decreed persecutions against an inexistent Christianity during the first century nor even in the following three centuries.
So if, on the basis of Ammianus Marcellinus’s historical account concerning the feats of Constantine I, this Emperor had been “Christian”, we can be certain that the copyists of the “Res Gestae” of the imperial historian in the tenth century would not have excluded the book dealing with the biography of the great Caesar. Consequently, the decisive proof of the existence of a Constantine the Great “follower of Jesus” would have been highlighted immediately by the Christian historians, thus no one today would be here discuss a fact acquired from a historical source.

On the contrary, in the chronicle by Ammanius Marcellinus there is evidence of a pagan Constantine I, as is demonstrated in his imperial numismatic and related Arch of Triumph; therefore this was the motive that forced the copyists of the “Res Gestae” to eliminate both the chronicle of Constantine the Great and those of all the Emperors who had preceded him, and, first among these, Philip the Arab, who, as just investigated above, was passed of as aChristian” by Bishop Eusebius of Caesarea, when, in reality, A. Marcellinus surely did not refer to him as such, otherwise he would have been cited as a witness by all religious historians. Instead, just like Constantine I, Emperor Philip, thanks to numismatic history and archeology in additon to numerous Roman Military Diplomas (cited earlier), is certified as a
pagan Emperor. This fact is evident in Jerome's "De viris illustribus" which makes no mention of "Philip the Arab as being an illustrious Christan Emperor.
Ultimately, being that the historical accounts of the third century imperial chroniclers disavowed the existence of Christian martyrs and their Bishops, the exegetes of the clergy – rather than save at least a copy of the numerous original codexes drawn up in Rome by Ammianus Marcellinus (whose work was aimed at the aristocracy of Rome and the provinces) – decided to eliminate the first thirteen books of the “Res Gestae”, limiting themselves to copying the final eighteen (concerning the fourth century), but excluding the chronicle regarding Constantine the Greatcertainly pagan.

Inevitably, on the basis of this multitude of historical and archeological evidence, even the testimony of the Christian writer Lucius Cecilius Firmianus Lactantius (250 - 317 A.D.), called in to “testifyto the conversion of Constantine I to Christianity is invalidated; this new personality was invented by lying medieval scribes in order to invalidate an easily disavowable imperial conversion. 
Scribes who were so foolish as to make the Christian Lactantius appear to be the “tutor of Crispus*, a son of Constantine the Great destined to succeed him as Emperor: an illogical absurdity because, in this case, the true witness, obviously, would have been Eusebius of Caesarea (died in 339) who, as the imperial chronicler of Constantine I, would have been obligated to report the significant interaction between the famous "Christian tutor" Firmianus Lactantius and Crispus, son of the Emperor, in his “Historia Ecclesiastica”: there is no evidence of this.
* Flavius Julius Crispus, born in 302, Consul in 318, became sole Emperor in 324 and reigned until 326, year of his death.

In fact, the inexistence of Firmianus Lactantius is also confirmed by Eusebius of Caesarea, who makes no mention of him in his “Historia Ecclesiastica”; therefore, not even the scribes who drew up the manuscripts of this Eusebian work had ever heard about Firmianus Lactantius, let alone his substantial apologetic and theological Christian work invented centuries later by deceitful scribes, Eusebian codexes, the latest of which, dating back to the twelfth century (see third study). Instead the character “Firmianus called Lactantius” (with an incomplete name) is described by Jerome Sophronius, Christian historian who lived roughly half a century after Eusebius and whose “Historia Ecclesiastica” constituted the original source for Jeromes De viris illustribus”.

We are dealing with a strident contradiction due to the fact that Jerome’s text, which has intentionally reached us, was copied by scribes after the twelfth century (the latest dating of all the codexes from Eusebius’s “Historia Ecclesiastica” which made no mention of Firmianus Lactantius), obviously after the invention of this character: an irrefutable fact which excludes the true presence of Cecilius Firmianus Lactantius in the original codex written by Jerome Sophronius.
The attempt to deceive History – in addition to eliminating, as did occur, Jeromes original codexwould have been carried out successfully by the scribes of God if, at the same time, they had inserted the unknown “Lactantius” and his imaginary deeds in all of the codexes of “Historia Ecclesiatica” by Eusebius of Caesarea, by documenting in particular the actions of the "Christian preceptor" carried out in favour of Crispus in Treviri (Gaul) in 317 A.D.
In particular, as is proven later on, not even the biographies of Tertullianus and Bishop Babila could have been present in the manuscript written by the historian Jerome.

In order to make Constantine the Great appear to be Christian (as demonstrated above from the tenth century onwards), the grey eminences of the high clergy called in an excellent Greek-speaking Byzantine pagan historian, Zòsimo (Gr. Ζώσιμος) of Panopolis (ancient Egyptian city), who lived between the fourth and fifth century for a period of time in Constantinople, author of “
Historia Nova” made up of six Books; work which was transcribed in the “Codex Vaticanus Graecus 156”, dated between the tenth and eleventh century, to this day kept in the Vatican Apostolic Library.
In Book II it is attested that, after ordering the execution of his son Crispus and that of his wife Fausta (suspected to be lovers), Emperor Constantine asked the pagan priests (Flamines Maiores) for absolution but it was denied.
After this refusal, it is narrated that Constantine was contacted by a powerful Christian, defined generically and unidentifiably as the Egyptian of Iberia (Spain), who would have forgiven his sins through the rites of his religion. This promise prompted Constantine to join Christianity … according to the textual conclusion attributed to Zòsimo by the eleventh century scribes.

The final “Christening of Constantine”, added to a true chronicle (the execution of his son Crispus and his wife Fausta, Crispus's stepmother) – which was falsely attributed to Zòsimo by the scribes – would have expanded the range of “witnesses”, going as far as to include an anti-Christian and anti-Constantine pagan historian, in order to make the conversion of Constantine I more credible. However, according to the proverb “the devil teaches us his tricks but not how to hide them”, even in this case, as in the many that preceded it, knowledge and historical rationlism end up “taking the lid off” the pious foolishness.
In fact, if the Christianization of the Great Caesar had truly taken place thanks to the intervention of a bloke baptized as the Egyptian of Iberia, the first to report the event in detail would have been, as an eyewitness and his contemporary, the imperial chronicler of Constantine, Eusebius of Caesarea, who had never heard about this so-called person (with all due respect towards Prof. Fabrizio Conca, editor of the translation of "Storia Nuova" who sees the "Spanish Egyptian" as the Bishop Osius of Cordoba but makes a blunder because, as just verified, the true witness to mention him would have been Eusebius, being that the "Osius of Cordoba", according to Cathopedia, the Encyclopedia of the Vatican, resided at the court of Constantine along with him. 
Moreover, the other eminent Christian historian, Jerome Sophronius, as already certified, half a century after Eusebius did not yet recognize Constantine I as being Christian, and did not know (this is funny) the Bishop "Osius of Cordoba" ... just to contradict the above-mentioned "Vatican Catholic Encyclopedia": but how much phony information was invented by the scribes when engineering the so-called "Christian tradition".
Conclusion: even the scribes of God, who copied Zòsimo’s “Historia Nova”, lied impudently and falsified his narration in Book II chap. 29; consequently, so as to prevent such tampering from being discovered, they destroyed all of Zòsimos original codexes, six centuries after being drawn up by the Byzantine historian.

Before concluding the investigation aimed at comparing the testimonies, concerning Constantine the Great, given by clericalists through the centuries … with regard to Saint Jerome Sophronius, there is evidence that subsequent deceitful scribes – aware of the contradiction resulting from the fact that the distinguished Doctor of the Church offered no testimony of a Christianized Constantineafter the drawing up of the codexes of “De viris illustribus” by Jerome transcribed, in the late Middle Ages, the “Chronicon” (a list of the most famous personalities starting with Abraham), attributing it to Jerome Sophronius. The objective of the calligraphers was to make Constantine I appear to be Christian, but, being that Jerome’s original documentation is older than the Chronicon, text in which a testimony in contrast with their own emerges, even these scribes endorsed an untruthful treatise, by having Jerome Sofronius appear to be its author. Caligraphers who, naively, did not fully read the works of Jerome from which emerges an element based on his autobiography (narrated in "De virus illustribus" chap. CXXXV) regarding the detailed list of the works written by the Doctor of the Church among which we find his Latin translation of the "Chronicon" by Eusebius of Caesarea, completed in the period subsequent to the death of Eusebius in 378 A.D. So, as verified later on, Jerome is unaware of Emperor Constantine being a Christian, nor is he defined as such by Eusebius in his authentic "Chronicon", which he drew up before 340 A.D. (year of his death), otherwise Jerome would have also included Constantine I in his list of "The ilustrious men".

After providing proof against the theory of a “Christian” Constantine the Great, it is to be said that, to date, the Orthodox Church considers this Emperor to be a saint, while the Catholic Church does not recognize him as such.
With regard to this, the end of our investigation easily clarifies this theological discord being that all the manuscripts linked to the deception behind the biography of Constantine I, as demonstrated above, were drawn up Western Catholic scribes unbeknownst to the Byzantine Orhodox.
These Orthodox followers, unlike their Catholic counterparts, after postulating as “Christian” Emperor Constantine I, beatified him “in good faith”; but the Catholics, on the contrary, are perfectly aware, being that they are the authors, of the fact that the Great Caesars biography is a hoax, so they do not dare make him a saint, also due to the possibilty of other future numismatic and archeological discoveries (in addition to the Arch of Constantine) – like Roman Military Diplomas (RDM) and Corpus Inscriptionum Latinarum (CIL), as in the case of Philip the Arab – valid as further proof against a “Christianized Constantine I”.

In reality, as already mentioned, Emperor Constantine limited himself to placing Christianity on a par with all the other religions, in compliance with historical imperial tradition which never “outlawed” the Creeds of other peoples; this also applied to the Jewish religion, despite the fact that this Faith had proven itself to be the most nationalistic and anti-Roman of them all (cause of bloody wars against pagan domination) and had provoked the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple.
Nevertheless, even after the chauvinist Jewish defeat of 135 A.D., under the Caesar "Haelius Hadrianus Augustus", the Roman Empire allowed the Jews to build many Synagogues in the Provinces and granted them the right to freely profess their ancestral confession … until the advent of the Roman Catholic Empire sanctioned by the “Edict of Thessaloniki” of 380 A.D.
This ancient Proclamation – followed by another two Edicts in 382 A.D., promulgated by Theodosius the Great for the abolishment of the pagan cults – was only the start of the theological process which, for the first time in the history of Rome, saw the triumph of a sole State religion: Universal Catholicism, that is to say the illusion of eternal life.

Saint Biagio, martyr artifact

While still on the topic, we feel that it is necessary to highlight another famous invented martyr: Saint Biagio. He was described by the priest Camillo Tutini (1594-1670) in "Narration of the Life and Miracles of Saint Biagio Bishop and Martyr", drawing on a tradition dating back to the sixth century Byzantine physician Aetius Amidenus (who is mentioned by Tutini) and on an eleventh century Armenian Liturgical Synaxarion describing the Saint's life and suffering: a hodgepodge of absurdities that only a psychopath could have invented, yet normal for the Church which eternalized the Saint under torture in the Michelangelo's Sistine Chapel. All that you have to do is click on "Saint Biagio" and see what Wikipedia has to say.
Saint Biagio is the martyr who holds the world record for the number of relics of his body to be found in twenty-three basilicas, mainly in Italy, and which are an object of cult for indoctrinated believers.
According to the Synaxarion we discover that Biagio was a physician, later Bishop of Sebaste, capital of Armenia Minor, which flourished at the time Eusebius of Caesarea, but, here the shoe pinches: Saint Biagio Bishop and martyr is unknown to Eusebius of Caesarea, the greatest inventor and "collector" of martyrs who underwent the most refined torturing of Christianity, and of "all the Heads of the Church who showed through their own blood the authenticity of the religion which they professed". Eusebius could could not have been unaware of Saint Biagio; and not only for the "carder" with which he was tortured (instrument made of wood with many nails used for thinning out sheep fur and camels) and, but most of all because they who created the Synaxarion made the grave mistake of placing him in Sebaste as Bishop at the time of Eusebius, who lived in the palace of Constantine in nearby Nicomedia (Bithynia), therefore non far from Sebaste; as a result, it is impossible for Eusebius to have been unaware of the long and painful martyrdom undergone by his colleague, Bishop of Sebaste.
As further proof of the belated ecclesiastical invention of the Bishop Saint Biagio, in addition to Eusebius, Jerome is also unaware of the Bishop (who he was invented at a later date) and makes no mention of him in "De viris illustribus".
The fact that in his work Jerome knows nothing about "Bishop Biagio" means that he was also unknown to the scribes who transcribed the "Codex Ms 2Q Neoeb
oracensis" of the "De Viris illustribus" dating back to the ninth century. The dating of this codex demonstrates that all the "documentation" concerning the life of Saint Biagio (relics included) in subsequent to his existence and the result of psychopathic imagination ...all that you have to do is go onto Wikipedia and read the account of St. Biagio in the "Liturgical Synaxarion".

The origins of a simulated
"Tradition" ...

If there are those who believe that the eminent Bishop Eusebius limited himself to involving in the Christian faith one "simple" Emperor ... well they are badly mistaken. A God, capable of redeeming all of humanity thanks to the promise of eternal life, had to be "universal" and, as such, "certified" by unexceptionable international documentation from the time of His coming onwards. Therefore the high prelate called in to offer all at once "testimony" of "Advents", Miracles, Resurrections, Ascensions into Heaven, the very old King Abgar of Edessa, capital of Osrohene, small yet ancient kingdom of Mesopotamia, beyond the Euphrates River and bordering on the east with Parthia and on the west with Syria.
In his "Historia Ecclesiastica" (I 13) the Christian Bishop, three centuries after the death of the Redeemer of humanity, says to be in possession of the copy of the "written testimony from the archives of Edessa" consisting of a letter (it's online) which King Abgar wrote and sent to Jesus (through the courier Ananias), begging him to come and heal him of an incurable illness.

“ Abgarus, Ruler of Edessa, to Jesus the excellent Saviour ...”
Jesus replied to this request with a letter, which he sent to Abgar by courier and in which he informed the King of his resurrection after death:

“Blessed art thou who hast believed in me without having seen me … But after I have been taken up I will send to thee one of my disciples, that he may heal thy disease and give life to thee and thine” (HEc. I 13,9);
“To these epistles there was added the following account in the Syriac language: «After the ascension of Jesus, Judas, who was also called Thomas, sent the Apostle Thaddaeus to Abgarus»” (HEc. I 13,10).

We are carrying out a long critical analysis whose aim it is to understand the mythological evolution of the Jewish Messiah through the aid of archeology, historiography and philology; but at this point, when coming across such "testimony" regarding the Advent of "Jesus" and his  breath-taking miracles, we would be tempted to ignore its content, both idiotic and artificial, destined to be used to indoctrinate people with an intelligence quotient lower than that of a proto-ape. Believers incapable of understanding the void created in the evangelical testimonies as a result of the Apostles' lack of awareness of the miracle; the Apostles were still alive and well when King Abgar V (who died by the year 50 A.D.) was healed of leprosy along with a multitude of Edessene citizens ... three centuries later thanks to Eusebius. Apostles who in "Acts of the Apostles" are incredibly unaware of the international super miracle performed by the Saviour of humanity, miracle officialized through the exchanging of holy letters and then given concrete form by the respective ambassadors.

In fact Saint Augustine of Hippo (354-430), in his work "Against Faustus Manichean" Book 28 chap. 4, highlights this fundamental detail:

"If writings belonging to Christ himself and to no other author had come to light why, if they were truly his, weren't they read, weren't they accepted, didn't they find a place within the high circles of the Church, from his time onwards, through the Apostles and Bishops their successors, and spread ever so more until the present time".

These obvious considerations prompted Pope Gelasius I (400-496) to decree as "apocryphal" the letters of Abgar and Jesus "witnessed" by Eusebius; therefore Gelasius would have never issued such a decree if the letters in the Archive of Edessa had truly existed as, instead, was claimed by Eusebius.

Against our will, surprisingly, today there continue to be scholars with high academic qualifications who take the childish design of the "Divine Providence" seriously, enriching it with further details, despite defining it as "apocryphal of the second century" (hidden), or "legend dating back to the second century". Among the many learned - who use their elbows to overcome their "competitors" and climb onto the sought after podium in order to be immediately gratified by the cheering High Clergy ... and obtain their eternal recognition - one worthy of mention is a young teacher of Philosophy and Theory of Language, Massimo Leone, specialized in semiotics, from the Greek σημεῖον (semeion) meaning "sign", needless to say ... "divine", as revealed in his advanced scientific research entitled "The sacredness of the words of Jesus and Abgar" (just click, the video is online and we recommend it to whoever desires to strengthen their faith in the Glory of the Lord).

After talking at great length in a psychedelic-semiotic-poetic prologue, the teacher explains, in an extremely contrite manner, the many testimonies (but not all of them) - produced during the centuries following Eusebius - regarding not only the divine words of Jesus but also His "Holy Image", sent by the Christ Saviour through the ambasador in Edessa himself. The teacher, in order to obtain the praise of applauding, dreamy spiritualists, is so intent on describing the heavenly events through acrobatic Pindaric flights characterized by "holy words and images"; yet he does not realize that the holy plane has plummeted before taking off ... thus saving us from the ostentation of his ability to "study" divine signs.

The "Holy Image" or "Holy Face" or "Mandylion"* of Christ is a crucial detail which "escaped" Eusebius (who limits himself to inventing the "Holy Letters"), but which did not escape the later Christian calligraphers who centuries later drew up special codexes with added details; their aim was to "perfect" the Gospels as these did not describe the figure of Jesus, and they took advantage of this opportunity and enriched His myth by attributing to Him other post mortem super miracles.
* Today's scholars of the "Sacred" derive this word from Greek, from Aramaic and from Arabic, in order to indicate a normal handkerchief or veil (never a  shroud) which, in our case, becomes unique in its kind because on it we find painted a Face which is "not the work of a human hand" and which the self-important call the "Acheropite Image": The Mandylion.

This chimerical figure - which will transform itself into a cult practiced which to this day continues to be "comforted" by "spiritual scientists" - forces us to verify its authenticity from the very beginning.
This is a puffed-up legend but, at the same time, in contrast with the Eusebian chronicle which only speaks about the words of "Jesus" who informs Abgar of the sending of a disciple after His death and resurrection, without dispatching any "Holy Image".
And of course the unfailing, unknown Christian scribe will be the one to send the Apostle Thaddaeus (whose invention we demonstrated in the first study) to Edessa in order to heal King Abgar, his family and the sick people in the city. This is a summary of the long, senseless Eusebian account from Historia Ecclesiastica (I 13,1/22) in which there is no record of Jesus having sent His image impressed on a cloth. Nor will we ever know what happened to the famous copies  of the "Holy Letters of the Archives of Edessa" which the Bishop claimed to possess, while there is clearly an incurable contrast between the Eusebian "parable" and the New Testament Holy Scriptures which all the Fathers of the Church drew on during the previous centuries.

Obvious and elementary statements of fact with respect to which the repentant maximus teacher Massimo Leone keeps his distance. We are certain that at the peak of his career the precocious teacher will have become a new-generation stylite crouched on top of a column while profoundly meditating upon the lofty summits of "divine" semiotics: a discipline which will be forced, thanks to the rampant fideism of the scholar, to succumb to historical rationalism, the latter being more linear and pragmatic.

Among the many acritical, uninspired sources - ready to back clerical demands by belittling "pious" foolishness through constant apostolate - Wikipedia stands out as it does not realize that, after having highlighted them as divine documents ... inexistent letters cannot be dated; and for the same reason a "legend" which popped up out of nothing, and mentioned for the first time in the fourth century by the Christian Bishop Eusebius, cannot be predated to the second century.

In compliance with the consolidated "ecclesiastical paradigm" of "certifying", through evidence created subsequently, the "historical" depostions concerning the silly tale are broadened by chroniclers who are in love with "miraculous" flavours; although basic logic would consider these depositions to be unreliable, they are used in order to confirm the archaic Christian "Tradition". After Eusebius's bright idea, we can observe a long line of people who decide to follow the now deceased Venerable Bishop, a procession made up of witnesses who are documented centuries after the described events are said to have taken place; it is superfluous to say that these accounts are all different and in contrast with one another, in other words they are incompatible, thus confirming how difficult it was for the scribes to consult one another and coordinate their actions before inventing stories. As is the case for the "Doctrine of Addai", a text paleographically dated to the fifth century, in which the legend invented by Eusebius is "continued" by enriching it with the invention of the picture of Jesus's image; it is a picture created by Abgar's courier who is said to have been a painter who, obviously, brought the portrait to Edessa where it was placed in Abgar's palace. Until the end of the fifth century the face of Christ was still "made by human hands".

Time was ripe for further elaboration of "history" and in the sixth century another legend "appears": the "Acts of Mar Mari". Here it is "specified" that the Abgar's painter "was unable to depict Our Lord, so the Vivifier of the World took a cloth and pressed it onto his Face, just as he is". By doing so the Acheropite Face - "not made by human hands" - finally arrived in Edessa.
A century later the "Acts of Thaddaeus" will also be written following a slightly different "procedure", but at this point the time was right for Byzantine scribes - today mentioned by clerical exegetes as authentic "witnesses to the facts" -  to come into action. The "chroniclers of God" - aware that the legend begun by Eusebius of Caesarea was acquiring more details - did their best in order to make it even more "historically" truthful through the description of the marvellous powers of "Mandylion" of Edessa at the time of the attack on this city by the the armies of the Sassanid King Khusrow I which invaded Syria in 540 A.D.

The scribes copied ex novo the original Codexes (which were eliminated) regarding both the "History of the Wars" by the Byzantine historian Procopius of Caesarea and the "Historia Ecclesiastica" by the Christian historian Evagrius called "Scholastic" (Evagrius Scholasticus from Epiphania in Celesyria). Both authors lived in the sixth century A.D.
The most ancient manuscript containing Procopius's "Wars" can be found in the Codex Athos, Lavra H-73, paleographically dated to the end of the thirteenth century; while the most ancient with regard to Evagrius is to be found in the Codex Laurentianus L XIX 5, dated to the eleventh century.
But the two antithetical versions that have reached us - through which the miraculous event that convinced the Persians to lift the siege on the city of Edessa (saved through a miracle  of Christ, after His resurrection, by order of Eusebius) is described - are enough to disavow the truthfulness of the account.
Evagrius, who died after 594 A.D., was preceded by just a few years by another "pious" historical source: Johannes Malalas (491-578 A.D.), another fanatical sixth century Christian chronicler and native of Antioch in Syria (the region invaded by the Persians) who knows nothing about the prodigies carried out by the Writing or by the Holy Image of Jesus.
In the non-original text which has reached us - the Second Book of  "History of the Wars" by Procopius -  there are two scanty chronicles regarding the first seige of Edessa (540 A.D.), when the Persian Sassanid King Khusrow attacked the city but, once it had been beseiged, "... the King saw the words of Jesus to Abgar carved on the doors of the city...", therefore the sight of the Holy Writing was enough to convince Khusrow to withdraw his armies and, with extreme naivety resulting from an "overabundance of faith", the Christian copyists made Procopius say ... "Khusrow lost his way and he got a headache" ... that is all.

In Book IV chap. 27 of "Historia Ecclesiastica", during the war led by King Khusrow I, the Christian historian Evagrius - an authentic "witness to the facts" - reports (but the Codex was written in the eleventh century) that the Persians had surrounded the walls of Edessa with seigeworks; and in reference to the incident just mentioned by Procopius (Codex from the thirteenth century) which speaks about "the words of Jesus to Abgar", Evagrius adds: "I will tell you what happened" ... and he begins a new version of the account in which not only the "Holy Writing" "goes onto the battlefield", but even the "Holy Image" of Christ and His power "radiated" by sprinkles of ... "Incendiary Holy Water".
As a result Evagrius focuses his attention on an imposing seige tower made of wood which the Persians had built on a terreplein in order to more effectively hit the defenders. The latter, in turn, tried to set fire to the large structure after digging a long underground passage under it, but in vain:

"... there was no way to set fire to the specially prepared stack of wood due to the lack of oxygen. Racked by despair the Edessenes brought an image which had not been made by human hands (Acheiropoietos), that which Christ, our God, sent to Abgar when the King wished to see Jesus. Inside the tunnel they wet the Image with water and they sprinkled a few drops on the wooden pyre. The Divine Power, urged into action by the faith of the Edessenes, carried out what they were unable to do: the fire spread everywhere and the wood became ash faster than the word".

It is important to point out that the transcriber of the work written by the historian Procopius of Caesarea also mentions the same event, but the chronicle he reports in Book II of the  "History of the Wars" makes no mention of the "pyrotechnic display" of the "Divine Power" of the Holy Mandylion with the image of Christ which forced the Persians to leave Edessa. In fact Khusrow I, Sassanid King "with an immortal soul", wins the war and forces Justinian to pay heavy tributes in gold, despite the Power of the "Holy Image".

Evagrius Scolasticus was a sixth century Byzantine Christian Prefect, close friend to famous "Fathers" and Stylite Hermits, to whom he was linked by a sublime mystical inspiration. With the meager intention of celebrating the glory of a utopic Universal Christian Empire wanted by God, Evagrius proposed himself as the historiographical continuator of Eusebius of Caesarea and, in line with the same principles, also wrote a hagiographical and malleable "Historia Ecclesiastica" marked by the denigration of heresies and the historicization of miracles. The scribes who copied the original texts were aware of this "flaw" of the Christian historian and, in his memory, respected his "coherence", but ... they made no mention of another famous Christian historian: Johannes Malalas (491-578 A.D.) -  just prior to Evagrius - whose chronicles, dating back to as late as 565 A.D. (when Justinianus died), had the same "flaw".
Malalas's "Chronograph" is made up of a series of historical chronicles which have reached us through the Codex Baroccianus 182, copied during the eleventh century, and the remains of the Codex Criptense Z.α. XXIV dating back to the twelfth century. Malalas of Antioch, who was present during the Persian attack of Syria, made no reference to the extraordinary incident of the Holy Image of Jesus and His miracle in the city of Edessa.

It is important to underline that Malalas's Christian fanaticism was so strong that he reports, as a historical event which actually took place, that the hemorrhage healed by Jesus was a very wealthy woman who, through a sort of vow, erected a golden statue in honour of her Saviour. Moreover, as mentioned above, he invented one of the many martyrdoms which, according to the shaky Jesuit "Tradition", the fake Saint Babila was forced to undergo by several Roman Emperors and, according to Malalas, by Numerianus.
It is not possible that a historian, so indoctrinated into the faith of Christ, could have allowed himself to miss the miracle of Edessa (performed by Jesus from High Heaven through his Holy Image). In fact 
at this time Malalas was just over fifty years old and thanks to this miracle he would have been able to add the incident to the corpus of his "Holy Chronicles", worthy of the finest monastic "Tradition", so rich in incurable contradictions passed off as "History" through the ecclesiastical testimonies conferred a posteriori.

In reality, until the end of the fourth century A.D. the Fathers of the Church of Rome, in contrast with the widespread idolatry of the Pagan world, did not recognize the possibility of representing the image of Christ and of the Saints, in compliance with the provisions of the Apostle Paul (II Cor 5,16) "even if we were once familiar with Christ according to human standards, we do not know him in that way any longer", and in (Col 1,15) "He is t
he image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation", even Matthew (11,27) "No one knows the Son except the Father and no one knows the Father except the Son and anyone to whom the Son wishes to reveal him". On the basis of precise biblical commandments, so as to cancel out pagan customs among Christians, in 303 A.D. the "Council of Elvira" was held in Spain, during which Canon 36 was decreed:

"We decide that there must not be paintings in Churches, so that upon the walls there not be painted what is revered and worshipped"; this is confirmed by Eusebius of Caesarea in his "Letter to Constance", the Emperor's sister, to whom the Bishop confirmed that  "... being that his mortal side ended with his life, Jesus Christ, after his death and resurrection, was no longer portrayable".    

It was only in the fifth century that there began to be pressure from iconophiles (in favour of icons); this pressure became ever so strong that holy images were introduced into churches;  this tendency culminated in the decision taken by Emperor Justinian II Rhinotmetos of Byzantium (end of the seventh century) to mint coins having the image of Christ. This was the first time in history that this took place and the Emperor, in order to safeguard himself from possible opposition, in 692 A.D. convened the Quinisext Council which ratified the possibility of representing Jesus in human form.

The theological concept which made it possible to reproduce a divinity with pictures and statues was rooted in the variegated pagan culture; this was in contrast with a certain type of orthodoxy, deriving from that of the Jews, as in the Gospels there is no description of the figure of Jesus. Otherwise who would have prevented the evangelists from offering details regarding the physique and height of their Saviour Messiah? Such orthodoxy was adopted by the Fathers of the Christianity officialized by Constantine: an integralist doctrine which became intolerant towards the introduction of new Christian customs.
Instead those who felt the need to depict images of the Saints had to be supported by a "divine right" documented by both the holy writings and the historical accounts.
This is reason behind the "rising" of the legend invented by Eusebius - who, in the fourth century, had Jesus write a "divine letter" which was sent to an unaware King Abgar who had been dead for 280 years - which grew into a "Divine Coffer" containing the cloth with an  image of the "Holy Face" impressed upon it thanks to the will of God himself, "Vivifier of the World, Our Lord Jesus". And, as we have seen above, even historiography had to be "updated" in order to substantiate the divine powers of images and relics.

As a result of the evolution of this theological process, in the eighth century bloody persecutions, supported by pro-iconoclast Patriarchs, were carried out by Christian Emperor Leo III the Isaurian and continued by his son Constantine V, called the "Copronym" (which means name of excrement) by his enemies of the same religion.
Such policies brought about ferocious, sanguinary fights between Christian "iconoclasts" (against the images) and "iconodules" (in favour); this struggle was characterized by anathemas, destruction of holy relics, ruination of frescoes and icons in Churches, removal of mosaics, mutilation of iconographers' (artists) hands, decapitations, torturing and fires. Today's genuflexion historians refer to these grave persecutions by using the euphemistic and reductive expression "iconoclastic disputes", as if we were dealing with lively condominium meetings.

At this time the theological tension involved, on one side, the Roman Papacy, in favour of icons, and on the other, the Byzantine Orthodox Patriarchate, against such images.
In November 731 A.D. (right after his election) Pope Gregory III convened a Council in Rome in which ninety-three Bishops took part, denouncing iconoclasm and decreeing the "excommunication of those who denied the possibility of gaining comfort from relics and holy images".
As a reaction to this decision, the first "Iconoclastic" Council was held in Hieria in 754 and presided by Patriarch Theodore of Ephesus during which the above-mentioned "Letter to Constance" (against the depiction of images of Christ) by Eusebius of Caesarea was read. The Council clearly decreed:

Anathematize those who depict the appearance of Saints on inanimate, mute icons with material colours, because such images bring no benefit; their production is a senseless idea and a diabolical trick; rather than reproduce within ourselves the virtues of the Saints in the form of living icons, virtues which have been handed down through writing, so as to spur us onto zeal the same as theirs".

As a reaction to this decision, an "iconodule" Lateran Council was held in
769, followed in 787 by the Second Council of Nicea, which was truly ecumenical and whose conclusions, at this moment, were favourable towards images:

"It has been demonstated that the images of Saints are miraculous and perform healings ... Glory to You My God who carries out miracles through Holy Images ... we precisely and diligently state that the venerable and Holy Images, resembling the precious and life-giving Cross, which are painted or made in mosaic or any other suitable material, must be displayed in the Holy Churches of God, on holy furnishings and on vestments, walls and tables, in houses and in the streets; be they the Image of the Lord and God Saviour Our Jesus Christ, or that of the Imaculate Our Lady, the Saint Mother of God, or those of the Angels worthy of Honour and of all the Saints and Pious men".

Other Councils issuing alternate decrees followed; they were purposely held by the respective factions ... but rather than "conciliate", they worsened the dispute.
The contrast went on until the time of
Charlemagne who, after the Council of Frankfurt in 794 A.D., mediated between the two currents of thought and gave his consent to the images which, however, could not be the object of cult.
843 A.D. the regent Empress Theodora II of Armenia, widow of Emperor Theophile of Byzantium - after ordering the massacre of thousands of Paulician Christians, followers of the teaching of Paul of Tarsus (therefore against the representation of Christ) - restored the cult of the images in the East where, after a couple of iconoclastic attempts, it consolidated its postion once and for all.

In honour of Julian Chrysostomides of the Royal Holloway College
In 2000, year of the Grand Catholic Jubilee, Professor Michael Whitby, teacher of Classical Studies and Byzantine Ancient History, completed the prestigious editing of a modern translation into English of "Historia Ecclesiastica" (Ecclesiastical History of Evagrius Scholasticus) by Evagrius Scholasticus. As a professional duty, Whitby studied the "Acts of the Second Ecumenical Council of Nicea" held in 787 A.D., during which there was a discussion on iconoclasm. After viewing the results of this Council over 1200 years later, in the provided appendix of his book Whitby "feels the need" to confute the studies carried out by Dr. Julian Chrysostomides of "Royal Holloway College" London University; the latter had previously criticized, in a sharp and radical manner, the authenticity of the miracle of Edessa described in "Historia Ecclesiastica" by Evagrius Scholasticus, availing herself of studies regarding the writing and language styles.
The teacher, a native of Constantinople, had a long academic career behind her; she was an expert researcher specialized in Classical Greek Literature and in Byzantine History texts, so by making use of precise analyses, the scholar came to the conclusion that the history of the icon was false and was the result of iconoclastic disputes between Christians (which we have just mentioned) during which much religious counterfeiting was produced.

Ms. Chrysostomides must be given credit for having come to these conclusions long before four radiocarbon 14 tests were conducted; these were carried out (between 2004 and 2007) on two famous holy findings, which today are still the object of cult, produced between the seventh and ninth centuries (characterized by fratricidal iconoclastic disputes). We will focus on these findings in a short while.
In order to better understand the terms of the discussion between the two experts of Byzantine history, they themselves highlight that, from the "Acts of the Second Council of Nicea" - which Pope Adrian I specifically asked Empress Irene of the East to convene in order to take decisions with regard to the cult of the images - we discover that during the fifth session of the Council, the monk Stephen presented a text written by Evagrius which contained no reference to the miraculous icon; on the contrary the Abbot George from the Monastery of Hyacintus ("fortunately", according to Whitby) was in possession of another text containing evidence of the miracle of Edessa performed by the Holy Face of Jesus impressed upon a linen cloth: we read about this earlier, just have a look at the description of the siege tower containing the account of the "Incendiary Holy Image" of Christ. According to Ms. Chrysostomides the presence of two different Evagrian Codexes constituted fundamental proof that the cloth with Holy Face of Christ was simply the result of a false legend made up during the bloody Christian disputes between pro and anti-iconoclasts.

Whitby graduated from the "Corpus Christi College" in Oxford and we can imagine what sort of "imprinting" prevented him from understanding Chrysostomides's concrete reasoning; he therefore ventured into a laborious, useless criticism, both partial and deviant, focused solely on the unbearable (for the Prof.) analysis of the scholar.
As a result of these two antithetical positions, we feel that we have the duty to analyze the substance by availing ourselves of further observations.

In his counter-analysis Whitby acritically devalues, by means of a method which historiology finds unacceptable, the Christian chronicler John Malalals's failure to offer testimony with regard to the miracle of Edessa; the latter, who was middle-aged when the marvel is said to have taken place, instead mentions the war conducted by the Persian King Khusrow who in 540 A.D. launched an invasion of Syria from nearby Mesopotamia, subjugating the former after having defeated the Byzantines (Malalas died in 578 A.D.). Moreover, the professor does not evaluate the dating of the Codexes and accepts, superficially, as archetype of the original the text which he personally translated; and in spite of evident importance of the Codexes, he plays down the contrasts between what was written by Evagrius and by Procopius with regard to the description of the miraculous event: contradictions which on their own are enough to prove that the miracle was invented.
Whitby avoids coming to logical conclusions resulting from the contrast between the two "Historia Ecclesiasticas" written by the same Evagrius Scholasticus and present at the Council; this proves that the two different texts by the same author, one of which has no miracle, cannot be the originals but were copied after the narrated historical events took place, thus demonstating that the inconodule Christian scribes invented the "divine manifestations" as they pleased.
Therefore, in order to avoid such an obvious deduction, Whitby impudently states that the miracle was deliberately "removed" from the text of Evagrius lacking the miracle ... but he is well aware of being unable to offer proof of this as this manuscript no longer exists; and in a short while we will find out why.

Finally, Whitby gives no weight to the "Letters of the Three Patriarchs", a text apparently written by three Metropolites of the Eastern Churches after an alleged Sinod held in Jerusalem in 836 A.D. with the aim of convincing Emperor Theophilus of Byzantium to intervene militarily in order to free Jerusalem and Palestinian Christians from Islamic occupation.
This document, which was analyzed by Chrysostomides, reveals the Patriarchs' approval of the icons by offering a completely different "testimony" of the miracle of the Mandylion during the siege of Edessa, without the latter being aware whatsoever of the miraculous narration transcribed by Evagrius Scholasticus's copyists and dealt with in the Second Council of Nicea.
The description of the event reports that King Khusrow ordered that wood from olive trees be piled up all around the walls of Edessa, wood which he set fire to in order to create a thick smoke screen that would suffocate the inhabitants under siege (this is "pious" foolishness); but the venerable Bishop Eulalius of Edessa took the "Holy Image" of Christ and, showing it off, "went around to all the bastions, until a miraculous gust of wind came which directed the flames towards the Persians forcing them to flee".
As history documents an Emperor Theophilus of convinced iconoclastic faith and adversary of icons and relics, in reality no Bishop would have dared submitted such a ridiculous story to him; therefore the letter has to be a fake, just like the unknown "Bishop Eulalius" of Edessa. In spite of this, the story continues to maintain its importance as it constitutes evidence of the production of fraudulent historical data by iconodule scribes who show a lack of coordination when puffing up the initial myth.

It must also be pointed out that were many iconophile Christian chroniclers during the iconoclastic struggles. They described history with the aim of magnifying the miraculous events linked to the "Tradition" of the followers of Christ; and one of these writers, who covered the period we are interested in, is the Byzantine Theophanes the Confessor (758-818), a scholarly aristocrat who became a monk by vocation and who in Greek wrote "Chronicle", which covers the period stretching from the time of Diocletian to the year 813 A.D. under Byzantine Emperor Leo V (775-820).
Theophanes was an iconodule, convinced supporter of images and relics, and this is the reason why he was beatified by the Church. His "Chronicle" was translated into Latin by the monk Anastasius in the ninth century but ... in none of the narrated events was there trace of the spectacular miracle which took place in the city of Edessa thanks to the Holy Image of Christ.

There is another historian - personally present during this period and in the places involved in the conflict between Persians and Byzantines which began in 540 A.D. - whose chronicles, dating back to this time, become particularly precious for the comparison of the true events he witnessed and the miraculous events described centuries later by the copyists of Evagrius and Procopius.
His name is John from Ephesus, a Catholic Bishop and Byzantine historian. He was born in 507 A.D. in Amida (in Mesopotamia) and was consecrated Deacon in 529; he went to Constantinople and in 542 Emperor Justinian assigned him the command of the ferocious punitive expedition against the Zoroastrians and the last Pagans. He had tens of Churches built upon the ruins of destroyed Temples, and afterwards he carried out a merciless repression against Montanist Christians. In 558 (as a reward) he was ordained Bishop of Ephesus. He died in 588, year in which the last narrated events of his two works - "Biography of the Eastern Saints" and "History of the Church" - took place.
The Bishop - despite having lived through the period of the Persian wars against the Byzantine Empire led by King Khusrow ... just like the historian John Malalas, his contemporary who also was a witness to these events - mentions nothing about the Holy Image of Christ which chased away the armies of the King of Kings "with an immortal soul" during the battle against Edessa "The Holy City", protected by Christ Our Lord.

After these initial and substantial observations directed towards Prof. Whitby, let's go back and analyze his studies.

In particular, he does not consider that the monk Stephen and the abbot George were both in favour of icons and, like all those present at the Second Council of Nicea (all of whom were supporters of icons), were specialists of Christian texts with flawless knowledge of the "Acts of the Apostles"; they therefore were aware that, apart from James the Elder, those who continued Jesus's evangelical message were all alive when Abgar died in 50 A.D., yet knew nothing about the King and his family being healed from leprosy ... neither through a simple "letter" nor through the "Holy Face".
The synodal Fathers were aware that the successors of Abgar V did not convert to Christianity, in contrast with the tale according to which their ancestors and all the sick inhabitants of Edessa were also healed by the divine power of the Christ through an inexistent Saint Thaddeus ... according to the strange Christian "Tradition" deliberately created centuries later in order to indoctrinate believers - "blessed poor in spirit" - and the plethora of profoundly inspired sindonologists.

All those taking part in the Second Council of Nicea - an event which was of interest to the entire Christian world - recognized the importance of this gathering and they took it very seriously both in the form and in the method (which the clergy have always found congenial). Regardless of their hierarchical rank, every prelate knew that icons (just like relics) helped to propagandize the Faith in Christ, and a decree in favour of such images was necessary in order to recognize and "demonstrate that the Images of the saints and of the relics were miraculous and performed healings": this is in essence how the Sinod ended.
Nothing more than a sort of "commandment" without any "evidence" as the synodal Fathers made no reference to the "Acts of Thaddeus" nor did they feel the urge to go to or send a witness to Edessa (not far from Nicea) in order to verify the presence of the Holy Image of Christ, well-aware that it did not exist; just as they were also absolutely certain of the falseness of the "Acts of Thaddeus". This explains how it was possible for the documented monk Stephen to display with impunity at the iconodule assembly the true text of "Historia Ecclesiastica" written by an Evagrius Scholasticus unaware of the miracle which took place in Edessa.
In effect, as we will soon see, history will evolve - even if through further rending contrasts between Christians - in favour of icons and relics to the point of exasperation ... as both we and Whitby can still see today.
As demonstrated in the Iconodule Council on Holy Imprints held in Turin in 2010 for the Grand Ostension of the Holy Shroud, during which Dr. Ester Brunet felt the need to "anathematize" in public the intolerable analysis of the now late Julian Chrysostomides who she explicitly mentions, and concludes her talk by stating that
"Whitby's analysis can be considered the umpteenth warning against the excesses of a certian type of interpolationistic criticism" (in fact her "warning" is giving us the shakes) and to "substantiate" Whitby's study adds: "according to the Giovanni Damasceno's neoplatonic theology all icons in a certain way are part of the dynamis, of the "energy" of the prototype; not because they themselves are bearers of the divinity (otherwise their veneration would be idolatry), but because they are transitus to those who are here represented". Brunet dragged in Plato, pretending to be unaware of the fact that naive common people, convinced by priests, know that unknown human remains belong to this or that "saint" and adore them on a daily basis as considered to possess miraculous powers. These are the "scientific" argumentations used by conceited iconodules, influential within clerical intellectual circles ... as long as they do not say everything.

The codexes of Evagrius Scholasticus and Procopius of Caesarea tampered with by the scribes

Four manuscripts which have reached us report the "Historia Ecclesiatica" by Evagrius Scholasticus containing the "testimony" of the miracle of Edessa; the oldest of the four, as we have seen, is the Codex Laurentianus LXIX 5, paleographically dated to the eleventh century A.D.
But in the original, according to the Church and its partisan experts, there is no trace of the  "miraculous" Codex in Abbot George's possession at the Second Council of Nicea. Its disappearance cannot be justified because this Council was ordered by Pope Adrian I, the most authoritative representative of all Christianity and a convinced iconodule, therefore responsible for the documentation relating to the "Acts of the Synod"; as a result, he would have duly sent to the Vatican in Rome the precious original of the sixth-century Codex written by Evagrius or, at least, a copy containing historical testimony of the breath-taking miracle. Adrian I did not feel the need to go personally to Edessa, or send a witness to this city not far from Nicea, in order to verify the true presence of the Holy Image of Christ, as he was well-aware that it did not exist.

In spite of the fact that there were no obstacles to the Pope behaving in such a manner, this journey did not take place; therefore passing off the Codex Laurentianus LXIX 5 as the archetype of the "Historia Ecclesiastica" written by Evagrius is an opportunistic religious theory reflecting the pro-icon doctrine at the height of its prestige when the new Codex was drawn up in the ninth century.
Even the Codex with the "deleted" miracle presented three centuries prior to the Laurentianus by the monk Stephen at the Second Council of Nicea - Codex which genuflexion experts would lead us to believe is the true original - has also disappeared. Crucial facts which pro-clerical exegetes carefully avoid, but their motives are clearly evident: the historical time period of the manuscripts, which have miraculously reached us, sees widespread interest towards holy images and relics (fueled by a Church capable of seizing the opportunity); this sentiment was already very intense, thus forcing all the Priors of Abbacies equipped with copyists to take it into consideration ... and continue to nourish it by copying new Codexes and eliminating the previous ones. The same motives and the same fate apply for the Codex Athos, Lavra H-73, regarding  "History of Wars" by Procopius of Caesarea, recopied by the scribes at the end of the thirteenth century.

On the basis of a tacit agreement obeying to "omertà", no prelate or scholarly believer (like the learned Ester Brunet) today thinks that it is dutiful to openly manifest that if all those present at the Second Council of Nicea - favourable to the Holy Images, just like all the participants to the previous and subsequent Councils (for and against icons) held to discuss the burning issue - had had the slightest opportunity to recognize the narration of His Image, left by Jesus himself when still alive, as truthful and original ... they would have all, with no exceptions and from the very beginning, "adored" rather than simply "venerate" such an image.
The Church - both its cultured followers opportunely placed in the most important teaching posts of Knowledge and its conciliar Fathers - is fully aware that the evangelists and the Apostles would have immediately written about the "parable of the Holy Image" in the Gospels; later, in "Acts of the Apostles", they would have mentioned the "Holy Face" and the Jesus's international super miracle, which healed Abgar, his family and the inhabitants of Edessa from leprosy; such an event, finally, would have been glorified in the respective Apostolic Letters "mailed" to future memory by the "Successors of Christ", but which have reached us without any evidence of what would have been considered the greatest miracle performed by Jesus.

In addition, on the basis of the Holy Text all the exegetes of today's Christianity know, just like all the Synodal Fathers knew, that after Jesus's death the Apostles came together for forty days in Jerusalem along with the Virgin Mary, all of whom awaiting the Holy Spirit, including Judas, in charge of the salvific mission invented by Eusebius of Caesarea three centuries later:

After the ascension of Jesus, Judas, also called Thomas, sent the Apostle Thaddeus to Abgar".

But, in the Holy Apostolic narration of their "Acts", Judas did not even have the Mother of Christ manifest this "will" expressed by her son when he was still alive. This is particularly due to the fact that the Apostle Thaddeus was unknown to the Lukan scribe of "Acts", therefore not present along with the other successors of Christ, who came together, "in constant, concordant prayer", with His Mother.
This is why at The Second Council of Nicea all the conciliar participants, without distinction, were aware that no Apostle, Father, Bishop, Pope or Christian historian, until the time of Eusebius, had heard about the Holy Face or even about the simple "divine letter" which, in the two hundred years following the Bishop's death, will turn into the "Holy Image of Jesus". And even if, so as to favour an opportunistic "apostolate", all this is not revealed, the entire community of Christian genuflexion experts is aware of it today, just like all those taking part in the Second Nicea Council knew at that time ... with exception of, 1200 years later, the unaware Prof. Michael Whitby, a "Corpus Christi College" graduate, who wasted four pages on a opportunely "inspired criticism" of Julian Chrysostomides, to be offered as an "ad hoc" gift to believers, "the blessed who are poor in spirit", during the celebrations for the "Universal Grand Jubilee", Anno Domini 2000".

More on the "Christian

During the Second Council of Nicea, 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 Elia, 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.

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 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 in order to not deny their faith (according to the fake "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.

On the basis of the statements made by Vatican exegetes, the Popes Zephyrinus and Callisto were the "Superintendents of the catacombs in Via Appia" ... but, evidence shows that the lives of these Saints were "certified" at a later time by other Saints and were "attested" in medieval Codexes drawn up by scribes unaware that these "Popes" were unknown to Eusebius of Caesarea and Eusebius in the fourth century, ergo: they were invented many centuries later.
It is to be pointed out that in the initial list of the "Illustrious Men", written by Jerome, there is no mention of a "Pope", thus demonstrating that this Catholic appellative was invented centuries later by Eusebius and and Jerome. Nevertheless, in chapter LXXXI dedicated to Origen we read this extemporaneous reference "under the pontificate of Zephyrinus", an isolated phrase into the text, but in sharp contrast with the list contained at the start of "The illustrious men" which indicates only "Bishops", just like Eusebius of Caesarea. This sudden reference to "Pope Zephyrinus", with such a qualification unknown even to Eusebius (prior to Jerome), is a spuriois interpolation carried out by a pious hand at the end of the ninth century, that is to say the oldest dating in which the the codexes of "De vitis illustribus" were transcribed,as we have proven above in the chapter dedicated to Constantine the Great.

In contrast with the multitude of ancient inscriptions collected - starting with the cuneiform inscriptions on clay Sumerian tables dating back to 3000 years before Christ - there exists no collection (Corpus Inscriptionum Christianorum) of epigraphs, epitaphs or ancient stone writings offering proof of the actual existence of numerous Christian Churches administered by their respective "Bishops seated upon the throne" and spread throughout the Roman Empire, as "postulated" by an ecclesiastical tradition created a posteriori. A real archeological "gap" confirming the previous studies thanks to which we have verified the inexistence of the Apostles and their successors at least during the first two centuries A.D.

The image of the "Sun God", a mosaic from the ancient Basilica of Saint Peter's (under the current one at the Vatican) - which depicts the Sol Invictus Deus Elios as he ascends towards the zenith in the sky on a chariot pulled by rampant horses - is offered to obedient believers as the "Ascension of Christ". Pretending to be unaware of the evangelical "pious" donkey ridden by Jesus, tour guides very conveniently avoid explaining what this mosaic depicting a Pagan divinity was doing on the floor of the first Basilica of Saint Peter's ... fully conscious of the fact that a generic "archeological clarification" serves as a sort of "exorcism" against the evil thoughts of those practicing Catholics of today who have heard about, even if vaguely, a Christ Saviour ideologized by means of religious syncretism resulting from the mixture of diverse rites and spiritual practices.

The inspired experts hypocritically "get around" the "Ecclesiastical Tradition" by avoiding to reveal to faithful believers that none of the Apostles, Apologetical Fathers, Bishops, Popes and countless "chroniclers of Christ" ever mentioned a Jesus represented as a "fish".
The hyped combination of the acronym "ictus", which in Greek means "fish", is just one of the thousand bizarre "Jesuit pocket size puzzles" invented ... nevertheless, for the prone indoctrinators who carry out "apostolate" this becomes the "encrypted key" for the tracing of inexistent followers of Jesus in the first two centuries. Therefore, unlike the phantasmal Jesuit Paleochristians, only for today's Christians does a fish drawn inside an ancient Roman catacomb mean: "Jesus Christ Son of God Saviour". And the brainwashing has produced its exotic "fruits", to the point that in her study (please see the fifth study on the Apostle John) the Catholic philologist Ilaria Ramelli states that "the christly value of fish is well known, thanks to the acrostic resulting from its Greek name"; and after the brilliant professor postulates such a divine "bizarre acrostic", she manages to identify beneath the scales of an enormous turbot nothing less than ... Saint John the Apostle (sic! read to believe).
All you have to do is look for the suitable combination within the word by choosing initials, syllables or parts of the lemma, as in the case of an unaware "piscis" fish painted in an ancient Pagan Roman catacomb; in order to make the trick work, the word has to be translated from Latin into the Greek word ΙΧΘΥΣ (ichthus), from which the spiritual puzzle enthusiasts derive the expression "Iesus Christos Theou Yios Soter", and then retranslated into into the various mother tongues of "primitive Jesuit Christians". According to the "Tradition", the latter were plebian Jews who spoke Aramaic ... all of whom attended the evening courses offered by multilingual training schools.

But there is more to come. As seen above, the iconoclastic Christian Patriarchs also ordered the destruction of the "relics of the saints", and the gravity of this act was such that they were excommunicated by Pope Gregory III in 731 A.D. This event offered evidence (an continues to do so to this day) of an akward situation for Pope Gregory and today unacceptable for Universal Church doctrine: Emperors, Patriarchs, Bishops, Presbyters, all Christians, decreed the end of the "saintly relics" for they knew that they were false ... like the Mandylion. The Grey Eminences of modern ecclesiastical exegesis carefully make sure that the Council records from the iconoclastic era are not officially published entirely in order to prevent the "Absolute Truth of Faith" from being tarnished by the humble testimonies of clergymen in good faith.

Convinced by a powerful "theological manipulator", the Mandylion of Christ was "documented" by the Christian scribe who copied the original manuscript of Evagrius Scholasticus (obviously destroyed) during the bloody, centuries-long iconoclastic war which saw Christians massacre other Christians. The Acheiropoietos cloth "not made by human hands" has never been seen by "any human eye"; even its future "apparitions" are legendary, recalled without any concrete historical data. These apparitions began towards the end of the Middle Ages yet today there is still no Church which can show off the "Holy Acheiropoietos Image" and claim it as authentic.
The fact that there are three different Mandylions in Italy, each of which is linked to a legend, is enough to demonstrate that they are false ... and ridiculous: just have a look at them! They are all from the Renaissance and are "preserved" in the Church of Saint Bartholemew in Genoa, in the Vatican in Rome, and in Manoppello (near the Italian city of Pescara). The latter town defines itself as the "City of the Holy Face" and propagandizes itself as a "Holy tourist attraction". Finally, the Vatican Mandylion is painted on a table ... after all, for Jesus it certainly was not a problem to impress His image on wood.

This final summary, focused and based upon a comparative study of essential historical data and New Testament and patristic documentation, aims at highlighting that the "centuries-old Christian tradition" is nothing but a contrived exaggeration; this was done through the verification of certain details from the many official Councils convened to discuss the subject of holy icons, which continued to be prohibited off and on until the Carolingian period ... From the Middle Ages onwards the history of holy Jesuit art sees the increasing efforts of the clergy to fill the void resulting from the lack of images of Christian divinities and their Saints, beatified by the Church along with their relics; this culminates, five centuries after the coronation of Charlemagne, in the most famous and controversial image of the mythological "Jesus" which Christianity had ever known ... nor heard about before this time: the Shroud of Turin.

Loads of Holy Shrouds

Even prior to the Carolingian period, the people - who by nature were superstitious and "perfectly" indoctrinated thanks to the pulpits promising eternal life - wished to adore holy images and their will, inevitably, prevailed. After centuries of in-fighting among Christians, both the Pope in Rome and the Patriarch in Byzantium finally decided that "icons strengthened the faith of believers" ... so much more for Saint Paul's doctrine, but not for the souls of Paulician followers, who, after being massacred, were immediately barbecued in the flames of Hell.
The Clergy was, first of all, interested in popularity: which was acquired through a doctrine capable of vehicling the ancient Pagan beliefs - still present in the memory of the masses, who did not desire to give up the atavic protection of the "Tutelary Deities" - towards the "Patron Saints", thousands of whom were purposely beatified and "authenticated" by their respective relics, and the business connected to these "remains" skyrocketed in order to meet the never-ending demand.
The reason behind this pressing demand was ever so obvious: the common people, even before achieving heavenly immortality, during their daily life wished to be "defended" by divinities specifically "specialized" in protecting against mysterious, insidious illnesses of the body and of the mind ... and even trade guild profit-seekers wanted their simple day-to-day worries to be protected.
The result of all this can still be seen today: in comparison to the immortal "Heavenly Kingdom", the most populated Olympus has been demoted to little more than a pinhead.

Going much further down, in the earthly Cathedrals of the Christian World the complete remains of the same Apostles, Saints, Evangelists, Wise Men, Martyrs, etc. appeared miraculously - in order to strengthen the spirituality of the faithful brought together in the "sublime divine message" - and to this day they continue to be preserved. Therefore, in order to avoid exaggerating the overabundance of "clones", the Churches made do with the "particles of Saints", or rather pieces of the Blessed, the head or the thigh-bone, or even simple fragments of bone or blood, which could be more easily distributed ... like a dozen authentic "Holy Grails": the cup of the Last Supper containing the blood of Christ.

The "Holy Grails" were outnumbered by the "Holy Prepuces" belonging to twenty different circumcized "Baby Jesuses", whose authenticity was claimed by just as many Basilicas; as a result the Church of Rome, aware of the discredit the Prepuces had acquired (even within the public), prohibited everyone, through Decree n. 37 of 3 February 1900, from speaking or writing about the "Holy Prepuce" upon penalty of excommunication. This law was reconfirmed by Pius XII in 1954.
The "validations" of the relics were guaranteed by miraculous healings "certified" by special Congregations and regularly put on record and then endorsed by the Spiritual Leaders of the Dioceses to which those who were healed by the divine prodigies belonged.
But even the instruments used for "the Passion of Christ" were so high in number that they inflated the "Via Crucis"; not even one hundred "Cyrenians" would have been enough to help Jesus carry all the reassembled crosses to Golgotha for many were the pieces of wood forming the "Holy Cross" which were recovered. We also witness the same abnormal proliferation of nails, crowns of thorns, spears, whips, dice, tunics, ladders, cradles, mangers, etc.

Long before the three Mandylions described above, from the tenth century onwards we are witnesses to "tangible findings" and to the spreading of Acheropite images "not made by human hands", implying: "through divine will".

During the Passion the Holy Face was not dried and reproduced once, as stated in the Gospels, but ten times by a pious woman who later, through a calculated play on words, will be cleverly called "Veronica" (from "vera icon" meaning true image): the "originals" of the Image are preserved in the same number of Basilicas, Cathedrals and Monasteries.

But the true, most important Mandylion is the "Sagrado Rostro" (Holy Face) of the "Shroud of Oviedo", in Spain: a simple cloth with spots of blood and having no human body outline. We are dealing with a piece of linen cloth (85x53cm) which, according to the Gospel of John, was seen in the Holy Sepulchre by Simon Peter and the "favourite Apostle". The detailed "chronicle" put together by Bishop Pelagius of Oviedo (in office from 1101 to 1130), enriched with details by present-day inspired "sindonologists" - capable of reconstructing the two-thousand-year journey of the cloth, protected by Saint Peter in a "Holy Coffer" along with other relics - has made these scholars so certain about its authenticity that the Centro Español de Sindonologia (CES: Spanish Centre of Sindonology), blessed by the Holy See, has dared to have the "Sagrado Rostro" undergo radiocarbon 14 testing to establish its dating with the ill-concealed intention of reopening the "matter" regarding the Shroud of Turin, already branded as false by the various C-14 tests which it has undergone.

But the disappointing outcome shattered the hopes of the mystical sindonologists: according to the instrumental analysis, the "Holy Face" relic dates back to seven centuries after the Passion of Christ (the period is that of the iconoclastic disputes between Christians). After the testing the Spanish spiritual scientists at CES "realized" that "this dating may be the result of fungal contamination". On the contrary, the Istituto Nacional de Toxologia Ciencias Forense -  after another C-14 exam - on 8 July 2007, through Antonio Alonso of the "Ministerio de Justicia", communicates: "the sole scientific evidence, that of the C-14 radiocarbon testing, shows that the relic is false".

Despite the proof of its falsification, ecclesiastical authorities continue to display the "relic" to the faithful as an authentic object of cult along with the "Holy Coffer" in which it was contained. A coffer which holds and preserves other relics whose dating now lies solely within the competence of the "Creed"; as a result of the the scientific "Passion" undergone for which the C-14 testing is to be blamed, the High Clergy does not wish to run further risks and has thus decided to avoid the "satanical" testing of these other relics. In addition, the Grey Eminences of the Church are well-aware that (yet they are careful not to even mention it to their obedient "Mystical Sindonologists"), on the basis of "the most reliable historical reconstruction" propagandized by the spiritual scientists, if the Saint Peter had actually taken the "Holy Coffer" (along with the linen cloth with the "Holy Face" impressed upon it), as postulated by the spiritual scientists, the Apostle would have given it to Mary; in fact, following the death of Her Son, the twelve Apostles spent days with the Mother of God. But in Acts of the Apostles we see them all together in the cenacle "in constant prayer for forty days awaiting the Descent of the Holy Spirit" ... without mentioning the presence of the Divine Relics, too important to be forgotten by the successors of Christ, especially the Holy Face impressed on the cloth by His will ... if the Holy Legend, assembled through contrasting testimonies of "Holy History", were true.

There is also the Holy Face of Lucca and the Holy Face of Sansepolcro (both in Tuscany, Italy),  two wooden crosses both characterized by complicated, puerile legends and discoveries: their "usefulness" is linked to the preservation of their respective religious feasts, in addition to being a great opportunity for writers in love with "divine mystery".
Many Shrouds have been discovered: the Shroud of Carcassonne in France; the Shroud of Cadouin in France; the Shroud of Compiègne in France; the Shroud of Kornelimunster near Aachen in Germany; the Shroud of Cahors in France, along with the "Holy Cap" to absorb the "Holy Blood" which came out due to the "Holy Thorns" of the "Holy Crown". Other Shrouds also make their appearance: the Shroud of Aix-la-Chapelle; the Shroud of Arles; the Linen of Christ of Iohanavank in Armenia; the Holy Shroud of Lisbon; the Holy Shroud of Mainz; the Shroud of Paris; the Pure Shroud of Limoges, the Shroud of Akeldamà in Jerusalem and many others ... but we have got tired of listing them.

Finally (we could not live without it) we have the complete "Holy Tunic" of Jesus in Argenteuil, France. It was given to Charlemagne by Empress Irene of Constantinople around 800 A.D.; the former entrusted his daughter Theodrade with the relic; she resided in the Abbacy of Argenteuil where, with many twists and turns, it has been preserved to this day. On the tunic we can see spots of blood: one, on the shoulder, caused by the weight of Cross, other on the back where Jesus was whipped. With such a historical past and thanks to its precise correspondence to the excruciating evangelical narration, there was no believer in the world who had doubts about the authenticity of the tunic ... and went as far to challenge the outcome of the C-14 radiocarbon testing.
On 17 May 2004 the "Commissariat a l'Energie Atomique" of Saclay (near Paris) subjected the Holy finding to C-14 testing which dated the tunic to 650 A.D: a slap in the face for the "blessed who are poor in spirit". The partisan sindonologists of the authenticity of the "Holy Tunic of Christ" refused to give up and they requested another analysis as a countercheck,  due also to the pressure received from believers. The test was repeated in 2005 and the outcome of the analysis has the "Holy Tunic of Christ" date back to 750 A.D.
As is the case for the "Shroud of the Holy Face" of Oviedo, even the dating of the "Holy Tunic" of Argentuil coincides with the bloody iconoclastic struggles which forced Pope Gregory III to convene the Council of 731 A.D. in Rome; this meeting decreed the excommunication of Christians against holy relics and images of Saints.
Respectful of Julian Chrisostomides's memory, we have the duty to remember the preciseness of her analyses which have demonstrated that at the time of the iconoclastic struggles between Christians many false relics were produced; the four C-14 tests carried out in the first decade of the twenty-first century have confirmed the results of her studies.
The fans of the "Holy Tunic" worn by Christ seven centuries after His "Passion" have now resigned themselves to silence.

There are still a few pieces of the tunic remaining, to be found here and there in Basilicas and Cathedrals but, as in the case of the Holy Shroud of Oviedo, the High Clergy has confined its obstinate belief to the more Christianly reliable "Creed" ... and has limited itself to nourishing the Faith of naive believers with the latest scientific discoveries: pollen; type AB blood; the explosion of light of the resurrection; mitochondrial DNA ... all "compatible" with the land of Christ and His blood, which has reached us and has been "almost cloned" ... according to the conclusions expressed by the Italian showman and iconodule Roberto Giacobbo during the 18 March 2009 episode of the Italian T.V. program Voyager about "The hidden truth of the Holy Shroud of Oviedo"; this will be followed on 25 May 2010 by mystical reflections concerning "The Holy Shroud", "a mystery difficult to explain": words of "Saint" Giacobbo.

The Shroud of Turin

Fourteenth Century: the era of the fratricidal iconoclastic fights between Christians has by this time been forgotten, the Crusades in the Holy Land have just ended and the monastic Order of the Knight Templars - "Comrades-in arms" of Christ" - has just been suppressed.
We are right in the middle of the paganizing iconodule era when, suddenly, in Lirey in France, a cloth "appears" for the first time, by will of God, in Anno Domini 1353; it was over four meters long, little more than a meter wide, weighed a couple of kilos and on the front and back contained an image of the "Holy Impression", which had remain fixed upon the linen which Christ was wrapped in after the agonizing Passion undergone 1320 years earlier.

Put aside the chronicle of the August Images of Christ (too numerous to all be investigated), let's move our attention to the "Holy Shroud" preserved in the Turin Cathedral, by taking into consideration the outcome both the C-14 radiometric tests and the falsities found in the Holy Relics which underwent C-14 testing between 2004 and 2007: the Holy Tunic of Argenteuil and the Holy Shroud of Oviedo.
The negative outcome of these tests frustrated the Church's desperate attempt to discredit the sacreligious condemnation to "Damnatio Memoriae" for ecclesiastic fraud as a result of the falsification of the Shroud of Turin. The judgment was passed on 13 October 1988, after three tests carried out simultaneously in three distinct laboratories located in Oxford, Tucson and Zurich, chosen by the ecclesiastic authorities from the "Pontifical Academy of the Sciences" along with the related protocol to be followed: this all received the blessing of Pope Wojtyla ... but not that of the C-14 testing; the univocal response of the the three indipendent institutes dated the Shroud between 1260 and 1390. Therefore totally compatible with the first "apparition" confirmed by concrete historiographical evidence.

The negative repercussions on the credibility of the Church and Its Doctrine soon arrived: while on Sundays stadiums overflowed with people, Churches became emptier and emptier and religion turned into a topic looked upon with indifference by the masses as the results of the various C-14 tests became known.
After being cornered, the Clergy has continued to show off its "false pretenses"; this is possible thanks to the media (all of which are complaisant), to the many package tours organized to bring crowds of people to Saint Peter's Square and to the omnipresent weekly "Vatican photo albums" broadcasted on TV.
Nevertheless - well-aware that that this staging is not enough to overturn the negative responses of science regarding the three relics examined - the Universal Church has proclaimed a Holy Media Crusade and summoned up the "Scientists of Christ", urging them to elaborate "latest generation" scientific theories to be presented at the Iconodule Council on "Holy Impressions" held in Turin on 18-20 May 2010: year of the Grand Sindonic Ostension. In the meantime, in order to put an end to the constant defections, the Clergy has studied a tactic of "containment" by having "Mystical Sindonologists" (MS), struck by "Divine Revelations", come into action as they are good at controlling those church-goers less inclined to critical thinking.

At the same time, from the High Heavens the Eternal Creator reveals to the Enlightened Elected Scientists (EES) that the Instrument of Satan has managed so far to deceive them by means of a "circumvention of incapable people": an illicit action to be punished according to the Penal Code, therefore all the tests are to be considered "invalidated". In addition, after having the initials "ENEA" appear miraculously on the Shroud of Turin, the Almighty, due to the grave Faith emergency, issues a rigid Divine Protocol to be followed as if it were a "Commandment": «All Mystical Sindonologists and Enlightened Elected Scientists must not publicly comment New Testament details, must stop inventing further "Divine Revelations" and strictly avoid mentioning both Christian Patristic history dating back to before the end of the fourth century and all Councils held from the sixth century onwards to discuss the "Holy Impressions" ... all violators will be punished by the Flames of Hell».

All the Enlightened Elected Scientists along with the Mystical Sindonologists, in compliance with the New Commandment, hold conferences, seminars, conventions, make TV documentaries and explain that we are dealing with an evil conspiracy: C-14 radiometric testing was not to be carried out. That's that. They instead explain the more valid "laser method" capable of demonstrating that the Shroud still preserves traces of the Explosion of Light which took place at the moment of the Resurrection. Even The Divine Revealer of Pollen (DPR) is sacred and reliable; the pollen "compatible with the Land of Christ" can survive 2000 years and offers evidence of the route from Jerusalem to Lirey in France where the extra-long shroud with the Holy Image of Christ removed from the Holy Cross appeared, by will of God, for the first time in 1353.
A completely new "historical" novelty was then introduced, stuff that not even the Blessed Karol Wojtyla managed to prophetize during his long pontificate: the Shroud of Turin and the Mandylion are the same "Holy Relic". A "convoluted investigation" first invented by the British writer Ian Wilson in 1978, and considered as such by the exegetes supported by the Church ... until recent times.

As we are dealing with an unknown cloth with no historical, New Testament and patristic references, at the date of its first appearance the Mystical Sindonologists - in order to overcome the absence of a Tradition (constituting a dangerous "impasse") and cover the over one-thousand-year silence regarding the Shroud - revived the "Legend of the Holy Face" (the myth which evolved from the Holy Letter of Jesus to Abgar) and explained to us that "the Shroud in reality is the Mandylion of Edessa" which, initially, was conveniently folded four times so as to create eight overlapping layers which allowed for only the Holy Face to be visible. If there is then someone who objects and states that the Shroud of Turin represents a Holy Corpse with its eyes closed, while the Mandylion depicts a living Christ with his eyes open, the Church Sindonologists explain that all that you have to do is concentrate intensely and out comes the miracle: the eyes of both open and close as much as they like for the Divine Power listens to the Faith of the Just and fulfills their desires. Those who do not belong to this group cannot see or understand.

Hallelujah! A member of this group is the pious Italian TV presenter Giacobbo. On 25 May 2010,  just five days after the Iconodule Council on "Holy Impressions" held in Turin, the program "Voyager" broadcasted "The Holy Shroud" on the Italian State Channel Rai 2. An investigation with a "High Scientific Profile" which aimed at unveiling the mystery surrounding the Shroud which had been wrapped around Christ's lifeless body: "a mystery difficult to explain". From the start of the program the enchanting showman, accompanied by a heavenly choir as background music and by the voice of an off-stage narrator, immediately clarifies the mystery and explains that "for centuries, this Divine Cloth, has preserved its secret: it is Christianity's most important relic, an almost tangible representation of the suffering and of the Sacrifice of a man condemned to terrible torture and to an atrocious death by crucifixion" ... but, aware of  the final Commandment decreed by God, Giacobbo makes no mention of the results of the C-14 datings which have already cleared up the "mystery" once and for all.

Within the "Media Crusade" both the Enlightened Elected Scientists and the Mystical Sindonologists, in virtue of the Divine Revelations received, provoke a "crossfire" of Holy Texts reported in countless books, lessons, records, short films and whatever else mystical immagination is capable of conjecturing: through the centuries, from Constantine the Great up until the Knight Templars ... going so far as to contradict one another.
In this sonorous Holy Hullabaloo characterized by nonsensical theories lacking historical and scientific basis, there is one authoritative, discordant voice which distinguishes itself from the others: that of Andrea Nicolotti. Who would have ever guessed?
The renowned scholar, who for many years has been involved in "mending" the widespread "bending" of history involving New Testament Truths, feels that, as a result of the Media Crusade in progress, the Church risks losing its credibility in the eyes of the intellectual and rational world, unwilling to be taken for a ride.
Andrea Nicolotti - having verified that the number of Mystical Sindonologists convinced that the Shroud of Turin and the Mandylion are the same relic has grown out of all proportion - deals with the matter seriously and in 2011 published a book containing an indepth study* presented at the Congress held in Turin in 2010; this study, which makes use of historical, literary and iconographical sources, proves the foolish theory wrong by furnishing precise data and has no qualms about citing the first names and surnames of these sindonologists.
Doctor Nicolotti knows, and he is right (this time), that in the long run foolish arguments lose out and throw further discredit upon the already shaky credibility of the Church.

* "Dal Mandilio di Edessa alla Sindone di Torino, Metamorfosi di una leggenda" ("From the Mandylion of Edessa to the Shroud of Turin. Metamorphosis of a Legend"). Nicolotti has also published on-line a specific study which can be freely consulted, entitled "Forme e vicende del Mandilio di Edessa" ("Forms and events concerning the Mandylion of Edessa").

The close scrutiny contains iconographical research which includes documented relics;  it reconstructs the history of the famous reliquary preserved in Constantinople by the Byzantine Emperors starting in 944 A.D.
In 1204 the city was attacked and sacked by the Crusaders who saved the reliquary which became the property of Baldwin I, Emperor of Constantinople from 1228 to 1261. His son Baldwin II then sold it for an exorbitant sum to (Ludovicus) Louis IX called the Saint, King of France from 1226 until his death in 1270 (later he was truly made a Saint).
At the end of the detailed historical excursus, Nicolotti states:

We are able to know precisely which relics were handed over to the French sovereign as we have come across the text of a declaration, dated June 1247, which makes a list of these relics.

"The Holy crown of thorns of the Lord, and the holy cross; then the blood of our Lord Jesus Christ; the Saviour's nappies with which He was wrapped in the cradle; another large piece of wood from the holy cross; the blood, through an amazing miracle, dripped from an image of the Lord struck by an infidel; then the chain, an iron constraint, whose shape was similar to that of a ring, with which, it is said, our Lord was tied; the holy cloth inserted in a wood frame; the majority of the stone of the sepulchre of our Lord Jesus Christ; the milk of the Blessed Virgin Mary; then the the tip of the holy spear with which was used to pierce the side of our Lord Jesus Christ; another small cross, which in ancient times was called the triumphal cross, as the Emperors usually brought it to war to give hope of victory; the scarlet chlamys which the soldiers put on our Lord Jesus Christ, in order to ridicule Him; the cane which they placed in his hand in place of the sceptre; the sponge full of vinegar used to wet Jesus's mouth when thirsty on the cross; a piece of the shroud used to wrap Jesus's body inside the sepulchre; then the linen cloth which He wrapped around his waist in order to wash the disciples' feet, and with which He dried their feet; the rod of Moses; the upper part of the skull of the Blessed John the Baptist, and the skulls of the Saints Biagio, Clement and Simeon" * (Epistula Ludovicus IX).

This historical document confirms that until 1247 A.D. the much more famous Holy Shroud did not exist; as we know, it will make its first appearance in Lirey, France a century later, "devoutly" complete. Saint Louis, King of France, thanks to the power and capital at his disposal, would have certainly completed his already rich collection of relics by replacing the "piece of shroud", obviously false, with the "authentic" Shroud.

* Saint Biagio, whose creation was demonstrated at the beginning of this study; Saint Simeon, who was also invented (see fourth study); the same goes for Saint Clement (of Alexandria) (see fifth study).

Nicolotti's analysis, which rules out the identification of the Mandylion with the Shroud of Turin, in reality (only with regard to this detail) confirms the conclusions of the most important Italian atheist sindonologists, Antonio Lombatti, CICAP (Comitato Italiano per il Controllo delle Affermazioni Paranormali) collaborator, and Luigi Garlaschelli from the Department of Organic Chemistry of the University of Pavia.
Despite "being supporters" of different "formations", the studies of these men (for different reasons) carefully avoid dealing with the bloody history written in the conciliar decrees regarding the relics and the representation of the Christian divinities. All these studies also avoid comparative reading of the New Testament documents and those afferent to the patristic tradition, which deal with the moment of the death and resurrection of "Our Lord" and the period which follows, that is to say when His successors come into action.
As far as we are aware, the Final Protocol, given the status of a Commandment and revealed to the Mystical Sindonologists and to the Enlightened Elected Scientists by God from the High Heavens, is also observed by the atheist scientists of the CICAP itself. That's too bad for them, because the miraculous apparition of the inscription "ENEA" wanted by the Creator - which appeared on the Shroud during the Grand Ostension of 2010 and had never been seen before - was discovered, needless to say, by E.N.E.A. (these initials stand for the Italian National Agency for New Technologies, Energy and Sustainable Development). And when "Science" takes action against "Science" ... things get a bit complicated for "Science".

The news was officialized by Doctor Paolo di Lazzaro, head of the Excimer Laboratory located at the E.N.E.A. Research Center in Frascati, Italy; he immediately explains that the fact of having the same name is merely a coincidence, but the the following declaration better clarifies
the position of the scientist and that of E.N.E.A.:

E.N.E.A. Research Center in Frascati. Press Office.

"The Shroud is a scientific enigma with many faces." Doctor Paolo di Lazzaro, head of the Excimer Laboratory located at the E.N.E.A. Research Center in Frascati, explains that "The C-14 radiocarbon testing dated the cloth as originating in the Middle Ages (1260-1390) but this testing seems to have been hindered by calculation errors and by contamination, and it contrasts with clues provided by textiles, iconography, and history, all of which suggest that this cloth is older than what is revealed by the radiocarbon dating analysis".

It is not hard to understand that the Enlightened Elected Scientist has issued a Divine Judgement based on simple Faith as words such as "seems" and "clues" have no probative scientific value; such words are useful for stirring up and indoctrinating the naive, and Di Lazzaro is well-aware of this. Doctor Paolo Di Lazzaro knowingly fuels superstitious credulity by involving Science which he represents, therefore becoming a "witness" to the unreliability of Science itself, thus achieving the goal he had given himself: the Holy is certain, Science is not!

Doctor Di Lazzaro, before referring to "historical clues", should read History and at the same time read the Holy Texts and the patristic documentation concerning the "Successors of Christ"; then, after ten years of full-time studying, he will no longer dare to mix Creed and Science in order to insinuate strong doubts with regard to the analyses carried out by three internationally renowned institutes, all of which made use of scientific instruments which he himself relies upon to pronounce his "oracles".

The flash of inspiration which struck the Elected Scientist takes shape through the "reconstruction" of the "Divine Gleam of the Resurrection" which generated Christ inside the shroud that was wrapped around Him leaving upon it His Impression in the very moment he "disappeared".

"The E.N.E.A. researchers believe that a powerful beam of ultraviolet light indelibly marked the Shroud of Christ", as stated by Giacobbo at the beginning of his program; he adds that "a powerful light coming from the body of Christ was generated within the shroud". He then has a more than willing Di Lazzaro come onto the scene; the latter uses an excimer laser to produce a powerful ray of ultraviolet light "containing energy equal to that generated on that day 2000 years ago" (stresses Giacobbo).
The laser, aimed at a small sample of cloth, "manages" to ruin it by creating a stain or scorch (which the pious call "impression").
"By changing the emission wave we obtained a much yellower colour, much more similar to the chromatic colouring of the sindonic image; the process involves the more external fibres, the ones exposed to the laser light", concludes the Scientist.

So what? What is so special about scorching and staining a piece of white cloth by means of a very powerful ultraviolet ray? The Elected Scientist instead explains to us how an "excimer laser" can reproduce the absence of geometrical deformations typical of a three-dimensional body to which a sheet of cloth adheres, like a mask on the face of a man. Why is it that when we straighten out the mask, well-ironed like the Holy Shroud of Turin, that which the Mystical Sindonologists call the "Impression of the Face", it ends up being a grotesque, immoderately enlarged face, and the same goes for the rest of the body ... but whoever created the fake was well-aware and made sure that the "Holy Body of the Shroud" had correct human proportions.  That's right, yet much taller than the average human of the time: as appropriate for a God who towered above all of humanity.
Roberto Giacobbo, through a clever montage and effective media manipulation aimed at demonstrating the truthfulness of the Resurrection, has managed to enchant masses convinced of having viewed a scientific documentary ... in that moment ... then, when Sunday comes, stadiums and discos continue to fill up ... but Churches continue to empty.

Following the miraculous experiments carried out by the E.N.E.A. Laboratory on live TV, we count on the interest of the pious catholic scientist and divulger, Professor Antonino Zichichi; after obtaining the indispensable authoritative support of the world's most famous physicists, we would like him to do all that he can to ask the Norwegian Nobel Prize Committee in Oslo to put forward Doctor Paolo Di Lazzaro as a candidate for the Nobel Prize for Physics as the latter has managed to reproduce the energy emanated by Christ in the moment of His Resurrection. We are devoutly awaiting the official confirmation of the prestigious recognition, "pride" of Italian intelligence.
After this irritating series of "evidence", "theories", "confutations", "fantasies", "beliefs", "convictions", silly and often childish but above all superstitious and obstinate, we are left with simple and brief considerations which cannot be aside. Details which any priest or simple expert of holy texts and patristic tradition knows perfectly ... but which they, who are calculating opportunists, do not mention purposely.
After accepting the New Testament canonical evangelical narrations as truthful, all that you need to do is read them carefully and critically in order to obtain the information concerning the relics documented in the Holy Texts. With regard to the Shroud and to the veil used to dry the face of Christ, let's have a look at what the Gospel of John says after Jesus was placed in the sepulchre by Joseph of Arimathea accompanied by Nicodemus.

"Nicodemus came as well - the same who had first come to Jesus at night-time - and he brought a mixture of myrrh and aloes, weighing about a hundred pounds. They took the body of Jesus and bound it in bandages with the spices" (John 19,39/40 Catholic C.E.I. Bible).
"So Simon Peter set out with the other disciple
(John) to go to the tomb. They ran together, but the other disciple, running faster than Simon Peter, reached the tomb first; he bent down and saw the
bandages lying on the ground, but he did not go in. Simon Peter, following him, also came up, went into the tomb, saw the bandages lying on the ground and also the cloth that had been over his head; this was not with the bandages but rolled up in a place by itself" (Jh 20,3/7 Catholic C.E.I. Bible).

This continues to be the official C.E.I. (Italian Episcopal Conference) translation in conformity with the "Codex Vaticanus Graece 1209": a Holy Writing in effect for over 1500 years and used to evangelize all Christianity.
The aim of the scribe who wrote this Gospel was to represent the embalming of the Messiah's corpse carried out by two authoritative Jews who had 100 pounds of balsamic mixture, according to rituals reserved for Kings and practiced in the East, from India to Persia to as far as Egypt. These were holy corpses which had to be protected from decomposition in order to give them eternal life; this was done by spreading ointments on the dead bodies and wrapping them in linen cloths soaked in the same substance.
The mixture of myrrh and aloe had this property but, as all believers recognize (in observance of the theology of the evangelist), Jesus did not need the ritual for preventing the decomposition of His corpse: He managed to rise from the dead on the third day ... before decomposing.

Unlike the three Synoptic Gospels, the Gospel of John - only one of the evangelists to attend and personally witness the events - makes no mention of the cloth used to wrap the entire body of Christ after he was taken from the cross: according to the description from inside the sepulchre, the only shroud was a piece of material placed on his head, much smaller than the over four-meter long shroud which would have been necessary in order to wrap His entire body. In fact the Synoptic Gospels make no reference to a small shroud; therefore, while the burying of the body is the same in all the Gospels, the embalming procedure is carried out only in the fourth Gospel and without the long shroud.
Humanity's most famous burial regarding the same corpse is described according to two different and contrasting funeral rites; this fact inevitably discredits the subsequent narration regarding the resurrection of the dead body, phenomenon which contrasts with the laws of nature and is therefore impossible.

Since 1979 (under the newly-elected Pope Karol Wojtyla), the Papal Academy of the Sciences has expressed the intention (through a public protocol) of having the Shroud of Turin undergo various tests, among which radio-carbon dating. Since this time exegetes have focused their attention on the evangelists' descriptions of the Deposition and preparation of the burial of Christ's corpse, by highlighting the differences between the Synoptic Gospels (which describe a shroud) and the Gospel of John which specifies that they "wrapped his body with bandages", not in the Holy Shroud.
The Grey Eminences, and rightly so, were afraid that the publicity deriving from public testing of Christianity's most famous relic would have increased the curiosity of the masses, publicity would have inevitably brought about a denounciation of the grave contradictions between the Gospels and undermined their credibility. Moreover, to make matters worse, many critics had begun to isinuate that the falsifier of the Shroud was forced to ignore the Gospel of John as he could not carry out such detailed work on bandages. But the Church had its hands tied: if it had modified the translation of the Gospel of John, it would have provoked the reaction of critics and attracted even more attention towards the grave contrast between the various evangelical testimonies regarding the "resurrection of Christ". As is the case in the Gospel of Luke where the Apostle describes a Jesus who has just resurrected, interacts with the Apostles and has just enough time to have a light fish supper with them inside the "cenacle" and ... "Raising his hands he blessed them, he withdrew from them and was carried up to heaven" on the same day (Lk 24, 50-51). But the same Luke, in "Acts of the Apostles", provides a different version: "He (Jesus) had shown himself alive to them (th
e Apostles) after his Passion by many demonstrations (sic): for forty days he had continued to appear to them ... As he said this he was lifted up while they loked on, and a cloud took him from their sight" (Acts 1,3/9).

In 1988 don Antonio Persili, a priest from the Italian region of Latium - obsessed with the doubtful credibility of the "Resurrection of Christ" resulting from the evangelical contradictions and openly and superficially trivializing the millenary official version - on his own decided to "repair" the Gospel of John and published a study in a short volume which was ignored by the ecclesiastical authorities, not being able to do otherwise: "Sulle tracce del Cristo risorto. Con Pietro e Giovanni testimoni oculari" ("On the Tracks of Christ Resurrected. With Peter and John as Eyewitnesses").
After roughly twelve years of internal debates concerning the Shroud, a few Church exegetes began to think that it was the right time to modify this specific passage of the Gospel of John. Instead, the true ecclesiastical exegetes, the subtle Grey Eminences, have understood that the keen priest was driven by a sincere "surplus of faith" and they have played dumb, well-aware that if they had begun to "correct" the Gospels ... they would have been forced to rewrite them all from the very beginning, due to the "overabundance of contradictions" contained in these writings.

In 2000 A.D., year of the Grand Catholic Jubilee, the version (which continues to be unofficial) received from the evangelist Antonio Persili, thanks to the "Divine Revelation", began to circulate; it is centred on the passage of John, supplied with new theories and "duly" loaded with tortuous Grecisms found in dictionaries skimmed through unmethodically. But, not being enough to extrapolate a few words for the corroboration of his theory, he changes the words with new ones.
By ignoring the precise embalming ritual and the eschatological motives represented by the scribe, the above-read passage is modified in the "New Gospel" written by the Enlightened don Antonio Persili and enthusiastically accepted by conceited know-it-alls dedicated to apostolate, but who are frustrated by the Gospel of John ("favourite disciple of Jesus"), who is passed off as an "inexpert youngster" ... despite the fact that he was almost one hundred years old when he wrote the Gospel. A detail which the evangelist Persili and the depressed "wise men", "led" by the famous Jesuit journalist Vittorio Messori, are careful not to highlight. Here is the new "repaired" verse:

"... (John) kneeling down, sees the bands lying about, but did not enter. Simon Peter who followed him also arrives and enters the sepulchre and contemplates the bands lying about and the small shroud which was on his head, not lying down with the bands, but on the contrary wrapped in a unique position".

In addition to having the "bandages on the ground" disappear and availing themselves of a vague translation, the motives of the priest who wrote this passage and of those who share his opinions are evident as the very "need" to modify the Gospel is, on its own, enough to demonstrate that he who has carried it out is aware that it was written by a scribe who received no "revelation" from God; he therefore knows that he can "correct" it in order to reduce its contradictions with the the other "resurrections". But we advise readers not to go onto the web to carry out "research" on the matter in order to avoid finding yourselves inside a media madhouse like the one regarding the Mandylion-Shroud, and mainly because ... it is useless.
The more falsifiers get worked-up in order to "save themselves" from the quicksand (or holy contradictions), the more they end up getting swallowed up.
It is not a coincidence that God dictated the Divine Protocol having the status of a "Commandment", on the basis of which all Mystical Sindonologists and Enlightened Elected Scientists must refrain from analyzing New Testament details: «Avoid, absolutely, further "Divine Revelations" and stop making reference to Christian patristic history prior to the end of the fourth century, in addition to any Council on "Holy Impressions" held from the sixth century onwards, all violators will suffer the Flames of Hell» ... Yes, the Eternal Father had very good reasons to avoid having the sand castle of lies be torn apart by the waves of historical rationalism.

After the Universal Church called the latest Holy Media Crusade and summoned the "Scientists of Christ", urging them to elaborate "latest generation" scientific theories to be presented at the Iconodule Council on "Holy Impressions" scheduled in Turin in 2010, the drum beat so loudly that by this time the list of the "Impressions" released  by the "Holy Relics" is so long that the indispensable, servile Wikipedia, "For the Grace Received", has put them all on display. And we all know that any information that "enters" the web, remains there ... even if the source goes out of business.

So, starting with the Gospels, let's limit ourselves to following the route of the two relics mentioned in these writings and highly praised by practicing Christianity: the long Shroud of the dead Christ and the small shroud covering His head.
The only person to enter the Holy Sepulchre was Simon Peter, who saw the two shrouds, meanwhile outside "Rabbuni, the Teacher" had already resurrected and was speaking to Mary Magdalene. Then, on the same day, the scenario moves from the sepulchre to the house where the Apostles had taken refuge, and here Jesus, who has already resurrected, reveals himself to them for eight days. He then reveals himself to them on the "Sea of Tiberias", and from the lake ... the revelations continued in the Holy City in "Acts of the Apostles".

Here we read that the Successors of Christ come together for forty days: first in the Cenacle on the Mount of Olives, then in Jerusalem, along with the Virgin Mary, awaiting the Holy Spirit, "all these were perservering with one mind in prayer". One of these is Simon Peter, the only one who entered the Holy Sepulchre, therefore the only one with the Holy Duty to safeguard the two relics of the Son and give them to the Mother of Christ. But the scribe of "Acts", who signs himself as Luke, knows nothing about the Shroud mentioned by the scribe of the Gospel of Saint Luke. Therefore this scribe does not feel the need to have Saint Peter return Her Son's Shroud to the Mother of God, the Theotòkos "Θεοτόκος", as she is called in the Lukan Gospel. The same goes for the small shroud which covered Jesus's head.
At this point things get complicated for the iconodules treasuring relics. Judas was also present in the house along with the other Apostles; according to the "tradition" invented during the iconoclastic fights between Christians, he already had the small cloth with the Image of Christ alive. Judas had to feel the Christian obligation to have His Mother and the Apostles themselves see the cloth so that the latter would mention it in their Gospels and in their letters. Judas was also obliged to inform the Apostles that, after the descent of the Holy Spirit and in observance of the order written by Jesus Christ in his letter, he had to send Thaddeus to Edessa to give Abgar the Mandylion and save through a miracle the entire city afflicted with leprosy. All this according to the testimony of Eusebius reported three centuries later and which was broadened two centuries after the time of Eusebius in "Acts of Thaddeus":

"After the ascension of Jesus, Judas, also called Thomas, sent the Apostle Thaddeus to Abgar".

But, in the Holy Apostolic narration of their "Acts", not even Judas, who was present, expressed this "will" - ordered by Her Son when He was alive - to the Mother of Christ.

As we have seen above, this is the reason why all those present at the Second Council of Nicea knew that no Apostle, Father, Bishop or Christian historian, until the time of Eusebius, had heard about the "Holy Face" or even about the simple "divine letter" which, two centuries after the time of the Bishop Eusebius, will be transformed into the "Holy Image of Jesus".

While we are writing these lines, the uproar caused by the Media Crusade called by the Holy Mother Church to prove the existence of the Holy Relics has not subsided; on the contrary, things are worse than they were before because the iconodules protecting the "Divine Revelations" all argue amongst themselves and talk big and, as a result ... what God feared would happen, but tried to avoid through the Final Protocol ... has happened.

Acts of the Apostles

The Passion of Christ has just taken place, but the Apostles are still together with Christ and have supper as a family for the last time; then the Son of God, too busy governing the Infinite Cosmos along with His Father, leaves His Disciples and, after telling them that he would have them baptized by the Divine Power of the Holy Spirit, "he was lifted up while they looked on, and a cloud took him from their sight". From the Cenacle, on the Mount of Olives, they returned to the Holy House they lived in Jerusalem and, awaiting the Solemn Descent of the Flame of the Holy Spirit which would have given them the Grace to carry out miracles under the Portico of Jerusalem, the Apostles ...

"All these were persevering with one mind in prayer with the women, and Mary the Mother of Jesus, and with his brethren". And so it was for several days, from dawn until deep into the night, with devotion and absolute silence, certain of the Divine Providence of the Holy Spirit. Until late one night, while from the incensory spread a heavenly scent, the Saints, all around the dim light of a candid candle, continue to pray enraptured by a mystical ecstasy. When, in a dark corner of a large room, hidden behind wooden shelves where all the relics were arranged in a disorderly fashion and continued to arrive and increase in number, a small reddish, sinister flash of light in the thick darkness: the Eternal Belial, the Viscid, the depraved tempter of the virginity of Eve, who slipped into the house where the Holy Synaxis was kept, with a pious sneer, furtively introduces a strange object and, slowly, places it alongside the Holy Relics; then, as sinuously as he entered, the Evil One goes away...

After spending a night in their respective cells, the following day at dawn, the Apostles have just come together in the Holy Assembly, when Judas, not the traitor, addressing all those present says: «This night I dreamt about Our Teacher and Saviour who, after calling me Thomas, told me to send the Apostle Thaddeus to Edessa to heal King Abgar of his leprosy bringing His Image». They all look at him and are incredulous, then Simon Peter, head of the new-born Ecclesia, addresses him with severity: «Judas! Among us there is no Apostle by the name of Thaddeus; Jesus said that the Thrones destined to us in the Heavenly Kingdom are Twelve, so stop saying such foolishness». He then says to Matthew: «If Judas has had such a dream, you are to blame; as you continue to call him Thaddeus, you will embarass him». Matthew then replies: «You are wrong Peter, it is Judas who, when asked his name, sometimes says it is Thomas, other times Thaddeus». At this point the Apostles become irritable and Thomas more than the others, until John, the disciple who Jesus loved, silences them through an authoritative gesture and turn to Judas: «Reflect a moment Judas, yours was simply an absurd dream. In reality never will it happen that you order an Apostle to go to Edessa, if this Apostle, as says Matthew, are you yourself with the name Thaddeus. Then, Peter is right: here among us there is no Thaddeus and stop passing yourself off as Thomas, otherwise Thomas will truly get angry». Although he did not show it, the number of Apostles present made him uneasy.

Peter, then, turns to Judas and in a conciliating tone says: «Look, let's count ourselves, you will see: Peter and John, James and Andrew, Philip and Thomas, Bartholemew and Matthew, James of Alpheus and Simon the Zealot, finally Judas of James. As you see there are eleven of us, but outside the door there is Matthias, the twelfth, ready to replace Judas the traitor who, as we all know, killed himself by slitting his belly and scattering about his bowels». In reality, Thaddeus was not among them ... but at this point Matthew interrupts Peter: «Look Simon,you are wrong. I saw Judas hang himself with my own eyes». Peter replies in a choleric manner: «Matthew, this shows that you are cross-eyed because I also saw him and you can be certain that I see well». The matter threatens to worsen and the Pious women are worried, therefore John, the favourite of the Lord, because as far as he knew Judas the traitor had not killed himself, neither by hanging or disemboweling himself, says nothing in order to avoid a fight and, wisely, changes the subject. He asks Judas, not the traitor yet still mortified, to rearrange the Holy Relics, so as to distract him. The very delighted Apostle begins to do so and shortly thereafter, he finds among these a small tool which he had never seen before and which was not among those belonging to the Passion of Christ. Puzzled, he takes it, returns to the Holy Synaxis, while all are absorbed in prayer along with the Pious women and Mary the Mother of Jesus, and gives it to Peter. Simon, not the Zealot, looks at it carefully and exclaims: «Why it's a breast pump!» ... In the Ecclesia nobody notices the pale red colouring the cheeks of the Madonna.

It was the "Holy Breast Pump", the one the Virgin Mary used when the evangelists Luke and Matthew obligated her through their "nativities" (see ninth study) to remain pregnant for twelve years before giving birth to our Lord, the Vivifier and God Saviour. During the long, exasperating wait, the Mother of God was forced to lighten her load of milk which was gradually accumulating in her Holy Breast.
The Blessed Saint Louis IX, King of France, would have given up the throne in order to take possession of the "Holy Breast Pump", but he had to be satisfied with just the "Holy Milk" ... which, if one reflects well, is not something insignificant ...

Fourth Century after Christ.

Eusebius of Cesarea wrote "Historia Ecclesiastica", the document which constitutes the foundation of "Christian Tradition"; and in Book I 13,11 he mentioned:

"After the ascension of Jesus, Judas, also called Thomas, sent the Apostle Thaddeus to Abgar".

This irresponsible testimony, as we have studied, has brought about an outburst of naive falsifications useful in proving a series of interrelated legends, one more idiotic than the other, supported by a fictitious iconodule historiography which was unknown in the first six centuries, and which culminated in the creation of the Holy Shroud of Turin 1300 years after Christ. The sindonologists of the Clergy - unable to base tthemselves on history or legend - were forced to identify this fake funeral shroud with the Mandylion of Edessa thus committing a grave and irreversible error. The Church of Rome - guardian of the centuries-old dogma of the infallibility of the divine Ministry belonging to all the Apostles and Bishops who succeeded them - for a question of coherence can no longer modify this absurdity without losing further credibility in the eyes of believers.
Every priest and Biblical scholar knows that identifying Judas with Thomas, overlapping them, means cancelling out one of the Twelve Apostles, thus contradicting the Gospels and Jesus himself.
In spite of this, their subtle, calculating minds are well-aware that if they highlighted this pious foolishness, there would be very serious repercussions on the credibility of the Church and on its Creed, capable of bringing about the collapse of the already shaky framework of superstitions which It has created through the centuries. As a result, the astute exegetes must make sure that practicing believers do not discover that the authenticity of the Shroud of Lirey, today preserved in the Cathedral of Turin, was the object of a Church investigation which, from the time of its first ostensions, declared the Shroud to be false; in other words, from when "it had just left the factory".

Memorial of the Bishop Pierre d'Arcis to Pope Clement VII dated 1389

"Holy Father, a short while ago in the diocese of Troyes, the dean of the collegiate church of Lirey, consciously and wickedly, moved by the fire of meanness and greed, not out of devotion but out of self-interest, has provided his church with a painted cloth with an artifice, upon which a dual image of man was cleverly painted, that is to say both the front and the back, falsely declaring and pretending to believe that this was the shroud wrapped around Jesus inside the sepulchre and upon which remained the impression of Saviour's entire effigy, along with his wounds.This fact was publicized not only in the kingdom of France, but almost all over the world, to the point that crowds flocked here from all corners of the world. To trick the crowds and cleverly extort money from them, they lied and led people to believe that here miracles were carried out on some men, who had been paid, that pretended to be healed during the ostension of the Shroud, which everyone believed was the Shroud of the Lord. Informed of this, the late and memorable Henry of Poitier, at the time Bishop of Troyes, persuaded and driven by many wise people, promptly took pains to conduct an investigation on the truthfulness of this fact, as being Bishop it was his duty to do so. Many theologists and other wise people claimed that which bore the image of the Saviour, in reality, could not be the Shroud of the Lord, due to the fact that the Gospel made no mention of this stamped image, while instead, if it had been true, it is unlikely that such a fact would have gone unsaid or been omitted by the Evangelical Saints and it is unlikely that such a detail has been hidden or ignored until this day. Finally, by diligently proceeding with the collection of information, he finally discovered the fraud and the manner in which the cloth had been painted through an artefice, and it was proven, by means of the same artisan who had painted it, that it was the work of a man and had not been miraculously produced or obtained".

The Bishop Henry of Poitier, in compliance with his duty, was able to issue a verdict after seeing and touching with his own hands the cloth painted a shortwhile ago "through an artefice, by an artisan who had painted it". From a historical and religious point of view, the same opinion - with regard to the testimonies of the evangelists and of the Apostles - is expressed by Saint Augustine, which we mentioned at the beginning of this study (chapter entitled "The origins of a simulated tradition"). It is important to point out that Saint Augustine - who died in 430 A.D. - only made reference to the letter which Jesus wrote to Abgar because he could know nothing about the image of Christ and His future relics ... invented later on by the successors of the Vivifier and Saviour of humanity.

The study which we are about to tackle is aimed against the religious beliefs of those Christians who believe in the Holy Shroud and in the other relics.
As a result, the inquiry which we are about to carry out is only geared towards those Christians who believe in the Holy Shroud and all the relics. Being that in Italy the state religion is Catholicism and that for the Pope the Holy Shroud (in addition to all the other relics) has a highly significant religious value, the Vatican has reacted to the problems raised by the negative results of the carbon-14 datings by availing itself of pro-Church experts who have elaborated a series of alternative theories aimed at demolishing the results of the carbon-14 datings. Obviously, these pseudo studies are deemed as valid by Catholics worldwide, studies which we are about to disprove once and for all.

Easter 2013

In compliance with the will expressed by the newly-elected Pope Francis Bergoglio - aimed at reawakening the "Crusade" regarding the "Holy Prints" called in Turin (Italy) in 2010 by Pope Benedict XVI in order to convince people to adore the Holy Shroud - the Italian state television network (RAI) used all the means at its disposal to influences the masses. The TV network, during the 2013 Easter period filled the "holy TV show schedule" with numerous reports and documentaries celebrating "the passion of Jesus".

On March 29, at the end of the long enquiry entitled "A sua immagine" which had begun at 2.15 p.m. and focused on "The man of the Holy Shroud", just before the subsequent "Via Crucis" shown on live TV, the famous Italian showman Bruno Vespa - notoriously partial towards the postulates of the Vatican (and boastful of his views) - during a special edition of his late night "Porta a Porta" program publicized the latest extraordinary "scientific discovery" aimed at cancelling out once and for all the three carbon-14 datings carried out in 1988.
The results of these datings, proof of the falsification of the Holy Shroud, were not tolerated by the Church and its followers; as a result, the pious Vespa deems it his "holy duty" to contradict the results of the mass spectrometries (tools of Satan) and carries out an investigation which has the "Enlightened Scientist" Prof. Giulio Fanti "take the field": the new "scientific spearhead" capable of shattering the carbon-14 datings.The luminary, according to what is reported in his book, explains the "scientific research demonstrating the erroneous medieval dating of the Shroud, research which brings it back to the time of Christ" and carried out on ... an old sample of the Holy Shroud.
The market of the divine theories, no longer capable of offering anything better to support the relic of Jesus, makes use of the "new revelation" based on "the Dusty Holy Fibers"; therefore, thanks to the analysis of an old "scrap" of the Shroud, the pious Vespa's "special" broadcast branded as peremptorily erroneous the three famous carbon-14 datings, according to which the Shroud of Christ dates back to the fourteenth century after Christ; Vespa concludes by stating that the Holy Shroud of Turin is that of the resurrected Saviour.

At this point, such an impressive media concidence proof of a "pious direction" could not do without the "scientific" showman par excellence Roberto Giacobbo. On the morning of March 30, on Italian state TV, we once again find ourselves before the expected investigation "Speciale Sindone" ("Shroud Special") based on the usual "two-thousand-year-old divine pollen", the "blood compatible with that of Jesus" etc. etc. "all signs which perfectly coincide with the evangelical account ... but, which today, constitute a new exceptional piece of scientific research, carried out on samples of the Shroud ...". Reconnecting to Bruno Vespa's scoop, Saint Giacobbo pulls out of his magic cylinder the Enlightened Scientist Prof. Giulio Fanti, who speaks about the usual mathematical "conclusions" capable of having the Shroud date back to the year of Christ's death.

After having seen and heard all this, what can we humble mortals do in order to object to such such solemnly flaunted scientific arrogance which goes as far as to contradict the "undependable mass spectrometries", now rubbish to be disposed of? ... Just a few of the details which have escaped the new exceptional piece of scientific research that the pious showmen and clever Enlightened Scientists deliberately hide from naive believers:
the evangelical assumptions, in contrast with one another, concerning the "Resurrection"; the lack of testimonies about the Shroud on the part of the Apostles, the first successors of Christ; the absence of specific documentation regarding Jesus's funeral shroud, unknown to the Father's of the Church; the minutes of the Christian Councils held by iconoclasts and iconodules which dealt with the topic of the relics, unaware of the "Shroud" and the related "prints"; the ultramillenarian ecclesiastical history written by the chroniclers of God which makes no mention of the unknown Shroud; the four carbon-14 datings carried out in the last decade on the "Tunic of Argenteuille" in Paris and on the Holy Face "Sagrado Rostro" in Oviedo (Spain), both of which have been proven to be phony finds; the tens of Shrouds, which still exist today, proclaimed as authentic from the Middle Ages onwards; hundreds of phony relics related to the "Passion of Christ", all of which are "documented" (and come from Jerusalem) and, dulcis in fundo, the minutes of the inquiry carried out by the Church itself, which branded as phony the Shroud which had just been made.
All of these analyses, carried out in the present study "From the false miracles to the Shroud", are based on codexes and ecclesiastical documents, used as source of information and data, spaced over a long period of time, indispensable for scientific research ... but deliberately hidden from the the naive masses of exegetical Christians.

Evidence systematically hidden by means of ideological doctrinal hammering carried out by sly, opportunistic, calculating showmen who know that if unveiled (in compliance with ethical conduct), such evidence would convince oblivious TV viewers to change channels ... and stray away from religion.
Coordinated silence regarding the numerous data reported by the official millenial ecclesiastical historical documentation ... including the final piece, published two days prior to Bruno Vespa's "Special Porta a Porta" TV broadcast and two days before Roberto Giaccobbo's "Speciale Sindone" ("Shroud Special"):

Declaration of the Papal Custodian of the Holy Shroud, Archbishop Cesare Nosiglia:

"In reference to the publication on the part of the Rizzoli publishing house of the volume "Il mistero della Sindone" ("The Mystery of the Shroud") by Giulio Fanti and Saverio Gaeta, which seems to include research carried out on material which presumably comes from the Shroud, the Papal Custodian of the Holy Shroud confirms what is contained in the official declarations on "experiments and analyses regarding the Holy Shroud" given - on the occasion of other similar attempts carried out in the past on alleged samples of the Shroud - by his predecessors: by Cardinal Giovanni Saldarini in September 1995 and by Cardinal Poletto  on 4 May 2009.
In particular, I reiterate that, being that there is no certainty whatsoever as to who the materials upon which the mentioned experiments were carried out on the shroud belong to, the owner and the custodian affirm that they are unable to give any serious value to the results and of these claimed experiments."

Mons. Cesare Nosiglia
Archbishop of Turin
Papal custodian of the Holy Shroud
Turin, 27 March 2013

The Archbishop's stance would seem to be a due act imposed by basic logic, being that he had already had trusted specialists verify the theories, the method and the results reported in the "scoop" by Giulio Fante the "Enlightened Scientist", The high prelate is well aware that the Church cannot recognize, adhere to and promote such analyses as the scientific world would intervene in order to disavow them, further discrediting the Holy Shroud and the credibility of the Church itself.
In fact, on 27 March the International Centre of Sindonology of Turin makes the following observation on the "Vatican insider" website:

"The International Centre of Sindonology of Turin expresses reservations on an approach to the topic that seems to be based upon elements such as the analysis of cloth samples which are unlikely belong to the shroud and in any case not provable, as they lack any sort of traceability".

More than 25 years have passed since the negative verdict on the authenticity of the Shroud of Turin was issued by three of the world's best laboratories chosen by the Church itself by means of a protocol contemplating how the analyses were to be carried out. A period of time used by the Enlightened Scientists of Christ to elaborate the strangest of theories with the sole aim of invalidating the instrumental responses which have demonstrated the falsification, verified by history, of the countless relics attributed to Jesus. Twenty-five years of controversies, useless from a scientific point of view and deceiving towards believers, who, as unknowing victims, are tricked through television "inquiries" passed off as being "scientific" by those who, cleverly, hide the fact that no evangelical, eccelsiastical or historical clue allows us to believe that the shroud wrapped around Jesus's body after being placed in the sepulchre was taken and preserved. Instead, the Gospel of John enters the sepulchre where the Saviour was buried and here we read that the body was wrapped only with bandages soaked in thirty kilograms of unguent, needed to embalm the body in compliance with a precise and widespread eastern ritual reserved for Kings and High Priests in India, Persia and Egypt.

In addition to the "mericiful showmen" (indifferent to the scientific and evangelical findings and to the centuries-old testimonies about the "passion of Christ" described by the first Christian historians), even the University of Padua decided to "take the field" so as to contradict the carbon-14 datings and validate the method of calculation devised by the "Enlightened Scientist" Giulio Fanti. It is an "endless story" which we intend to close with a proper tombstone, by proving Giulio Fanti and his university wrong.

Against Giulio Fanti, the University of Padua and their phony investigation on the Shroud of Turin

Giulio Fanti has been an associate professor of "Mechanical and Thermal Measuring" at the Department of Industrial Engineering of the University of Padua since 1996. He is also a member of various study groups on the Shroud of Turin and, with regard to the subject, has been chosen as a university research project "coordinator".


In 1988, the carbon-14 testing on the Shroud of Turin, carried out simultaneously and indipendently by laboratories in Oxford, Tucson and Zurich, dated the find to a period of time between the years 1260 and 1390 after the supposed death of Christ, that is to say the period in which the Shroud was discovered, as historically documented.
It is to be highlighted that the c-14 instrumental response is based on a scientifically validated method of dating recognized as precise and reliable from the time it was conceived, therefore adopted by experts worldwide and worthy of the Nobel Prize assigned in 1960 to the American chemist Willard Frank Libby. Nevertheless, just in this case, its reliability was rejected by devout sindonolgists through strange and questionable antithetical theories. This has given rise to heated debates between c-14 supporters and opponents, involving the practicing academic world, of which Giulio Fanti is the "spearhead".

In order to disprove the c-14 dating, animist connoisseurs have elaborated alternative theories, promptly rejected by the opposing group of specialists, but the all the related reasoning has become so complex that the mass of the people are no longer capable of following it, and this, inevitably ends up favouring believers.
in fact, the mistake made by the "scientists" from both sides is that their respective theories do not analyze in-depth the information offered by the evangelsts: the importance of the testimonies makes the c-14 dating useless: tests which are undoubtedly precise, however.

In reality, the Church immediately proved itself to be against the method elaborated by Prof. Giulio Fanti, going as far as to invalidate the fibre samples taken by the latter (and used to support his calculations) through official and fully critical public announcements, dated 27 March 2013 and signed by Mons. Cesare Nosiglia, the "Papal Custodian of the Holy Shroud", in addition to the identical refusal expressed by the "International Centre of Sindonology of Turin". Besides the case at hand, concerning Giulio Fanti and the inability of his shroud fibres, such behaviour on the part of the high clergy demonstrates that the Vatican exegetes are perfectly aware of the evangelical narrations and of the contradictions expressed in the "direct eyewitnesses" with regard to the passion of Christ and his burial. The same awareness characterizes Prof. Giulio Fanti, as we are about to ascertain.

Giulio Fanti lies consciously and priests are fully aware of this

When we set out to read the Gospels we need to make several preliminary considerations:
1st - let's hypothetically assume that the narrated events in these documents are truthful, nevertheless critically evaluating the facts (from a historiological, archeological and Jewish toponymical perspctive) and the discordance between the testimonies of the respective protagonists;
2nd - of the four evangelists, Luke and Mark are not eyewitnesses;
3rd - the evangelist Matthew did not attend the burial of Christ;
4th - the only eyewitness who personally reports the crucifixion and burial of Jesus in the sepulchre is John, the "favourite disciple", present at these events which he attests in his Gospel.
In fact John is the first to enter the sepulchre and describes the scene in detail, the most important of which is the absence of a shroud, where, instead, there are only "linen cloths lying on the ground and also the cloth that had been over his head; this was not with the linen cloths but in a place by itself" (Jn, 20 6-7).
Precisely, the cloths with which the body of Christ was wrapped by the Sahedrin members Joseph of Arimathea and Nicodemus "They took the body of Jesus and bound it in linen cloths" (Jn 19,40);
6th - all the evangelists indicate "Mary of Màgdala" (also called "Mary Magdalene")as the first eyewitness to the resurrection of Jesus;
7th - it is dutiful to inform readers that the characters mentioned, Joseph of Arimathea, Nicodemus and Mary of Màgdala, are unknown to the historian and Christian Bishop Eusebius of Caesarea (under Constantine the Great), author of "Historia Ecclesiastica": the one and only fundamental document containing the historical framework constituting the foundation of the "Christian tradition", related to the biographies of all the saints, starting from the evangelical protagonists, Jesus, the Apostles and their successors, from the "Nativity" to the fourth century A.D.;
8th - being that Eusebius of Caesarea died in 340 A.D., we have the proof that the current evangelical narrations, concerning the burial of Christ, were drawn up (after the death of Eusebius) in 381 A.D. by the Council of Constantinople, and whose oldest originals can be found in the "Codex Sinaiticus Gr 01" and in the "Codex Vaticanus Gr 1209".
Instead, all of the editions in vetus latina, where the three above-mentioned characters unknown to Bishop Eusebius can be found, were written at a later time. This demonstrates that all of the narration regarding the resurrected Christ is a myth useful for indoctrinating the masses, deceiving them with the mirage of eternal life.
9th - as confirmation of this finding, it must be communicated that 26 November 2003 the Israeli Foreign Ministry issued the following public announcement regarding "archeological site number 8" concerning Capernaum, the city of Jesus and of the Jewish Synagogue: "There is a difference of opinion among researchers with regard to the date of the construction of the synagogue but all of them agree that it is not the synagogue of the first century of the time of Jesus".
It is a piece of fundamental information, supported by archeology and dealt with in detail in the eighth study, but to this day still ignored by teachers of History of Christianity, despite it being ascertained that Jesus (Lk 4,31) could have never carried out an exorcism in the Synagogue of Capernaum, inexistent during His lifetime.

Having verified these facts, let's go back to Giulio Fanti.
This man, in order to become famous, has conceived a weird system based on false assumptions to define the period in which the Shroud of Turin was created and, by arrogantly rejecting the c-14 dating findings, has adopted a method of calculation with a predetermined route aimed at arriving to a desired conclusion ... he makes use of a lie and did not read the Gospels before doing so. We are presenting the proof that, secondly, Fanti himself has discovered and thus obligated to modify the direct testimonies so as not to contradict his previous contrived analyses. Let's follow his actions in order to reveal his motive.

Professor Giulio Fanti has invited to talk by the presenters of the main Italian television channels and, thanks to the backing of the University of Padua, has been defined by them as the "great expert sindonologist", journalists in reality determined to demolish the c-14 findings, obviously the result of Pope Francis Bergoglio's wish to reawaken people's interest in the "holy relic", by means of programs hypocritcally passed of as "scientific scoops", such as Bruno Vespa's "Speciale Porta a Porta" broadcasted on 29 March 2013 and the "Speciale Sindone" ("Shroud Special") which aired on 30 March 2013 during Roberto Giacobbo's "Voyager" program. Television disclosures aimed at the religious indoctrination of the masses, which the careerist Giulio Fanti has always taken part in so as to satisfy his ambition and with the intention to dump onto the naive "The mystery of the Shroud" pamphlet: a booklet useful to believers disappointed by the c-14 dating, tools "guilty" of having disproved the adored "Holy Shroud" wrapped around the body of Jesus.
Giulio Fanti was also present at the famous broadcast "La strada dei miracoli" ("The street of the miracles"), presented by the Italian showgirl Safiria Leccese, during which the mystical scholar expressed his usual theories; we therefore invite readers to go onto internet to see see the episode about the Shroud of Turin, which we are now commenting.

On 21 April 2015, without informing television viewers of the recusal - officialized by the Church - of the small sample of shroud fibre displayed by him, the "Enlightened" Fanti explained his conduct to the simpletons and declared: " through the aid of a computer I reconstructed the body of Christ upon which I was able to count 500 lashes on his entire body which teared apart his skin":
As "proof", Giulio Fanti displays a reproduction of an ancient Roman whip and a small-scale puppet so as not to reveal that the man of the shroud is about two metres tall: like today's basketball champions. Therefore the "great expert sindologist", after wrapping the mannequin in a sized cloth, declares verbatim: "Right after entering the sepulchre, the evengelist John saw the sagging linen cloths and the cloth placed on his head, with the shroud wrapped around his body, while upon it the traces of blood had not even the slightest smear" and he concludes that "on the basis of of the research conducted by Prof Ianni (?) of the University of Parma the latter has demonstrated  that the results of the c-14 analyses carried out in 1988 are not scientifically reliable".
Now let's verify how far Giulio Fanti's "scientific irrationality" goes, something that even a fifth grader would be able to understand. Here are the facts.

If it were true that the prints of a precise image were left by the blood, copiously soaked in the cloth wrapped around Christ's battered body (right after his death he was taken down from the cross by Joseph of Arimathea who transported his body from Golgota to the sepulchre), the traces of blood would be an unacceptable absurdity for anyone with a minimum of wisdom. In fact, even assuming a short route, the entangling of the linen cloth and the movement of the bloody body would have randomly stained the fabric, thus making it impossible to obtain the image of the man printed on it.

Another detail, proof of the hypocrisy of the "contemplative scientist" Giulio Fanti, is his awareness that only direct eyewitness to have attested Christ's removal from the cross and the transfer of his dead body to the sepulchre was the evangelist John.
Fanti is aware that, in the sepulchre, John saw
no shroud, but only pieces of cloth on the ground and a small sweat cloth (see the 85 x 53 cm Sagrado Rostro), previously placed on Jesus's head.
Such evidence obligates Giulio Fanti not to pronounce the word "linen cloths" aware that on these, after being unwrapped, it would have been impossible for there to be any sort of human bloody image, therefore avoiding the contradiction by referring only to "linen"; afterwards, the luminary hypocrite has the shroud re-enter the sepulchre, cloth which the Apostle John never saw. In fact John (Jn 19,40) only mentions "linen cloths", even when he reports the resurrection of Lazarus (Jn 11.43).

Before venturing into the vainglorious research aimed at deceiving the naive, Giulio Fanti should have studied the History of Christianity, academic subject indispensable to the convalidation of the "Christian tradition" and, notably, the many Councils convened by the Church during the fratricidal iconoclastic struggles between Christians during the eighth and ninth centuries. Synods during which no speaker, in favour or against icons and relics (aware of the evangelical contrasts) ever made mention of any funeral cloth of Christ. Above all, the historical knowledge of the Councils, with their respective minutes, would have allowed Fanti to avoid discrediting the subject "Mechanical and Thermal Measuring" and the University of Padua, whose authorities, first of whom the University Rector, are responsible for having acritically accepted his calculations, artfully applied to the Shroud of Turin through a senseless method; they even appointed him "Research coordinator" thanks to his personal and reckless calculation: an unjustifiable "scientific conflict of interest", carried out at the expense of a rigorously verified authentic analysis.

                                             Frontal image on the left

What we are about to report is the result of studies carried out by the American specialists, Gregory S. Paul and Joe Nickell, although we mention only the most basic contents of their investigations for the masses, therefore immediately and personally demonstrable.

The critical analysis is based on irrefutable evidence (see frontal image of the shroud), like the posture of the arms of the alleged body designed erroneously at an angle so as to hide demurely the penis and testicles of Christ so as to create extremely long limbs, impossible for any man or woman to have. In fact, if any adult male tries to lie on the floor (as hard as the stone of the Sepulchre) with his shoulders, arms and head touching the floor, just like a dead body, with his limbs touching the ground up to the elbow, but even trying very hard to bend his forearms towards his body, he will never manage to cover his genitals, like in the Shroud. Arms which are dissimilar, being that the left arm has his hand placed halfway up his right thigh and, as a result, his left forearm is much longer than his right. Such a shape depicts a "poor Christ" who is exaggeratedly tall who, when alive, moved, alternatively, his left arm far under his left knee and his right arm down to his right knee. Absurd. Ultimately the shroud of Turin never contained a man but a but a deformed representation even with regard to other parts of the body, as we are about to highlight.
The artisan created the sketch after after making a clay or plaster bas-relief mold , which was then wrapped in a cloth and buffered slightly with a pigment (which through the centuries evaporated leaving only a residual print) so as to highlight the most superficial parts, both above and below. But the executor of the phony was not an expert of human anatomy and made several serious mistakes even with regard to the excessive height of the false body; one of the mistakes, for example, is the siz
e of his skull, between his eyebrows and the top of his head (without hair), is abnormally short and narrow, which means that his brain is extremely small, similar to the "homo" dating back to nearly two million years ago ... with an intellectual capacity similar to that a present-day six-year-old child. Therefore the heralded theories of Giulio Fanti, aimed at proving the authenticity of the Shroud, prove to be nonsense, wrong just like his calculations, undeservedly validated by the University of Padua which, fatally, will be discredited by the international scientific world.

Davide Banzato - a priest, ordained in 2006 and with a degree in theology, who took part in all the episodes of "La strada dei miracoli" ("The street of the miracles") - has similar responsibility.
When Fanti reported the testimony of the Apostle John affirming that "in the sepulchre the linen cloths and the shroud were present", despite knowing to perfection the content of the Gospel of John which makes no mention of the shroud, the priest Davide Banzato nodded his head hiding the truth, indifferent to the fact that a so and so could possibly modify the evangelical narrations for personal gain.
Holy pronouncements which, according to the "Council of Trent" of 1545 and the "Vatican II Council of 1962, were "dicated by God" and "inspired by God". A theologist and priest unconcerned about the mortal sin against the eigth commandment wanted by the Creator ... becoming, as a result, an accomplice to the evident evangelical "false testimony", given by the pseudo scientist Fanti, who deceived both those present and television viewers, thus pilfering their good faith.
The theologist Davide Banzato's modus operandi allows us to ascertain that all priests are aware of the evangelical contradictions, that is to say nonsense that could not have been "dicated by God", therefore invented by men in the distant past ... thus manipulated by whoever as per their convenience.

Emilio Salsi

The anatomical aberrations just highlighted shocked the lovers of the afterlife who (aware of the negative repercussions on the Christian religion), right after we published the precise documentation, immediately attempted to make amends and, after three years, in 2022 presented their counter-findings which we submit to our readers, obviously based upon scientific confutation.

TV program "Focus" series "Freedom" February 7, 2022-Conductor Roberto Giacobbo
Title: Vigonovo the “derived” body? (the question is ours) from the Shroud.
After the title, it is clarified:
“Roberto Giacobbo takes us to the discovery (?) of the Shroud". But we all know that the Shroud was not discovered by the showman.

Here is the link:

This is how Giacobbo begins: "This adventure which we will discover together involved three years of work and a pinch of madness".
Robert Giacobbo deems it necessary to dismantle the carbon-14 dating carried out in 1988, 34 years ago, by three of the world's most important research centres chosen by the Catholic Church itself. He explains that the radio-dating of the Holy Shroud sample may have been distorted by the heat it was exposed to during a fire in the past or by the hands of those i charge of maintaining the artefact.
Giacobbo is convinced that the world is full of simpletons and and conveniently avoids pointing out that the dating could be repeated through the analysis of another small piece of the shroud, far from the burned spots, so as to verify the accuracy of the exams carried out in 1988, being that the latest equipment available is even more precise than what was available many years ago.
But the showman, just like the Church itself, is well-aware that such an analysis wouldbe fatal, due to the fact that when the original sample was chosen years agothe experts were forced  to take a small piece from the most suitable place. Giacobbo proclaims: "Let's ignore the radiocarbon analysis, the dating, as if everything began today, through a process carried out for three years by a man, Sergio Rodella, a man who is an expert in the sculpture of bodies. Aware that the morphology of the body represented by the Shroud is inaccurate being that the right arm is longer, one leg is longer than the other, the morphology of the face has inaccurate dimensions, the sculptor has remade the body on the Shroud with more precise proportions ...".

In substance, the sculptor Sergio Rodella, of proven faith, but essentially an excellent artist, specialized in holy art, understands the need to correct the Shroud's aberrations and in his laboratory near Venice creates his work begun three years earlier ... wouldn't you know, after we, the first to do so, had just published the blunders of the falsifier who created the cast in low relief for what, in his intention, was supposed to be the body of Christ lying in the Sepulchre.
Giacobbo at this point begins to talk about "scientificity", about CAT, about "sections of Christ's body", about the "search for depth and profoundness", the "same technique of the Vitruvian Man of Leonardo da Vinci", in order to astound the ignorant masses, and concludes by stating that, in order to rectify the anatomical inaccuracies of the shroud, "Rodella did something very simple: he started off from a metal wire"... Sic!
He then recalls the details of the torture suffered by the man on the Shroud and the roughly "600 lacerations on his skin caused by a whip" (a means of torture used in Ancient Rome - n.d.a.); but we are well aware that a child in the fifth grade understands that it would be impossible to transport to the sepulchre a tortured man covered in blood wrapped in a sheet without staining the material to the point that it would be impossible to notice any shape similar to that of a human being.

Then Sergio Rodella himself points out that the he was asked to create the sculpture by the University of Padua (we talked about this earlier with regard to the work of another great falsifier, Guilio Fante, belonging to the same university whose rector at the time was Rosario Rizzuto) ... in substance someone had to take responsibility for the artist Rodella's sculpture "cleansed of the anatomical inaccuracies", and the University of Padua financed by Italian taxpayers took on the burden.
Sergio Rodella feels it his duty to recognize the fact that, after contacting them beforehand, "according to American researchers it would have been impossible to obtain from the Shroud the data needed to create an accurate sculpture of a man ... but this picture (see below) which tormented me for months made me realize that something was going to happen, as it was one of the most important things in my life, a relationship between me and the cloth, therefore everything had to be justified geometrically, due to the fact that for me this man is Christ". Bravo Rodella! You have just confessed publicly the ideological and confessional motive which prompted you to carry out a falsificaton in order to transform the "monstrous shroud" into a man corrected in a credible manner.
* Whose names we mentioned above.

Dear readers we have just rendered the spontaneous confession of the motive of an indoctrinated artist who volunteered to falsify the original Shroud due to the brainwashing he had undergine during his lifetime; a believer who does not willing to be contradicted by reality ... therefore reality is wrong and must be corrected.

With regard to this, Roberto Giacobbo specifies that the artist was forced to rebuild the statue three times until the the body represented no longer coincided with the correct anatomical dimensions.
Even this declaration, in effect, demonstrates the confession of an accomplice who thanks to the media has the aim and power to influence the reasoning of the masses in favour of a faith based on lies ... in order to achieve personal success.
Finally the showman decided to uncover the third statue created by Sergio Rodella, this one:

As is evident the statue is bent and thisis justified by Giacobbo through the "rigor mortis", but,if the stiffening of the muscles after death is something natural (almost everyone in the world has seen their loved ones dead before being closed in their coffin), unlike Giacobbo we have all verified in these tragic circumstances is that no one has ever seen a corpse bent in "rigor mortis" ... only Sergio Rodella has managed to do this thanks to the complicity of the media and the University of Padua, all paid for by the Italian taxpayer. But why did they make a bent statue?
The reason is simple: with a bent body each of us can let their hand wander and touch their calves ... something possible even for the dead man of the Shroud, who, unlike the position we have taken (according to the authentic Shroud), is lying down on a stone in the Sepulchre, not bent.

Believers influenced by the myth of Christ will never be able to accept this sindonolgical finding: a Christ made man (almost 2 metres tall placed in a sheet 2.4 metres long folded in two) whose left hand, while walking, almost reaches the calf of his left leg, while his right hand is just below his right knee and his head is so small as to contain a brain equal to that of an hominid from two million years ago with an IQ of a six-year-old child of today: this is the man of the Shroud.
Albeit, in the final analysis, Roberto Giacobbo, Sergio Rodella and the University of Padua, have unconsciously, through their failed attempt to correct the Shroud, have demonstrated that it is a gross fake.
But through its silence the Church is aware and irritated because it realizes that Roberto Giacobbo, Giulio Fanti and the Rector of the University of Padua have gone too far in their defense of the Shroud and do not accept the fact that they have been proven wrong (having gone as far as to falsify the gospel of John apostle, as we have proven above) to the point that Pope Francis has stopped displaying the Shroud at Easter time after our first publication ... this is the reaso why the famous Italian TV presenter Bruno Vespa has stopped brainwashing us about the Shroud, obviously no longer "holy". In addition, all the "enlightened scientists", who have sold their mother and screamed so as to preserve the credibility of the shroud, shut up; as a result, Roberto Giacobbo, Sergio Rodella, Giulo Fanti and the Rector of the University of Padua are the last believers in the shroud, they are isolated, and no one will ever call them again for a "consultation" aimed at disproving the C14 dating ... there will never be another "Street of the Miracles" in which they are asked to discuss their findings, now considered to be senseless lucubrations.
We of course, along with our readers, have been amused by this failure, and we therefore thank the Rector of the University of Padua, Roberto Giacobbo and Sergio Rodella for preparing the funny show on the "Jesus" represented on the shroud, but the burden was placed on the sculptor Sergio Rodella who was appointed by the University of Padua and paid ... by the latter with the money of the Italian taxpayers ... albeit this detail did not please us at all, on the contrary itis something we cannot tolerate.

Emilio Salsi

Before concluding, we must inevitably underline - on the basis of what has just been analyzed in the evangelical attestations - the inexistence of the evangelist "Mark".
This supposed saint, in the canonical "First letter of the Apostle Paul"; we read "You are welcomed by our community who was chosen like yours and lives in Babilonia (pagan Rome); and also Marco, my son".
So we learn that Saint Peter was married and had a mother-in-law, as affirmed by the Mark the Evangelist himself (Mk 1.30), who is the son of the Apostle Peter and, as such, guardian of his teachings reported in the specific Gospel.
Fact which, in reality, is easily disavowable thanks to the differing depositions between the Gospel of Mark and that of John. Exactly, in the latter there is testimony of the presence of Saint Peter in the sepulchre (Jn 20.6) where, inevitably, Peter should have seen the same details reported by Jesus's favourite Apostle and, specifically, only bands of cloth. A certification of the Apostle John which contradicts that of the evangelist Mark, according to which "Joseph of Arimathea bought a shroud, took Jesus down from the cross, wrapped him in the shroud and laid him in a tomb which had been hewn out of the rock." (Mk 15.46). That is to say: Mark does not see the "bands of cloth" seen by Simon Peter (his father) and John.

After such grave discordance, which the "theologists" were well aware of but hid from the faithful, how is it possible to believe in the resurrection of Christ? And, if it is impossible that Christ resurrected, what trustworthiness is the illusion of "eternal life" preached by priests based on? And what motive has, from the very beginning, prompted them to persevere in their aim of indoctrinating the masses?
Their is only one categorical anser to these questions: the absolute monotheistic doctrine of the "Universal Saviour" was created and spread, within an agonizing theocratic Roman Empire, in order to maintain in splendid luxury the "venerable ministers of God" gathered in the most gigantic parasitic coterie ever conceived by man. A "saintly" hierarchically organized macrostructure made up of priests, brother and nuns, devised by calculating individuals who did not produce (and do not produce) any income, but aimed at exploiting the destitute in exchange for the illusory promise to have them resurrect in paradisiacal eternity.


We have verified once and for all that, starting with the Apostles and their successors, all the documentation of the early Fathers of the Church, like that of the subsequent centuries, never made mention of the existence of the Holy Shroud. Councils for and against the relics were held and minutes were taken, convened as a result of the bloody struggles between opposing factions of believers, but no reference to the the extra long Shroud was ever made. And if it had truly existed, such a find belonging to Jesus would have been a tangible "sign", so full of religious importance that it would have been adored by all Christians ... rendering useless the Councils convened for the phony relics and thus avoiding the mutual slaughtering.
In the eleventh century scribes began to falsify the original codexes of the Byzantine historians Evagrius Scolasticus and Procopius of Caesarea, as we have demonstrated above in the previous study, so as to have a miraculous image of the face of Christ left by Him when still alive appear to be historically documented. Therefore, we repeat, never, in none of the many Councils convened by the Church for the relics of the first thousand years was there any reference made to the existence of a funeral shroud wrapped around the Redeemer of humanity. No report
about what the Church considers to be the most important relic of Christianity was ever drawn up and officialized by the many chroniclers of God.

The first investigation on the Shroud, and it could not have been otherwise, was carried out by the Church itself just after its first "appearance", therefore right after it was made, at it ended with the verdict, drawn up by Bishop Pierre of Arcis on 1389 A.D., that the Shroud was a "phony painted by means of an artifice and substantiated by the artisan who had painted it": This precise historical dating, taken from a document which we have published above, is confrimation of the reliability of the c-14 dating; at the same time it allows us to understand (for those who want to understand) that "the artifice" adopted by the artisan in order to paint the cloth consisted of organic substances which over the centuries left, without his knowledge, as the substances gradually evaporated, only a "holy residual print" which prevents chemists from identifying the original substance ... without there being any need whatsoever to call forth a "mystery" indispensable for astounding the naive.

Only after examining in great detail the textual findings useful to this research - starting with the New Testament and patristic documentation and then going on to an analysis of the centuries-old ecclesiastical vicissitudes - the verified observations impose upon scientific rationalism the duty to recognize mass spectrometry's ability to date history thanks to ancient finds: operation which this tool has carried out in both in the past and present.

The pro-clerical Enlightened Scientists are fully conscious of this and, after devising sob stories in order to cast a shadow on and discredit the methods and findings of the laboratories called in by the Church itself, are careful to avoid requesting further C-14 testing for the Shroud of Turin: all that you need to do is cut a small piece of material (measuring a few square centimeters) from a sheet which is almost 4.5 meters long. New testing - as demanded by disappointed believers - which was carried out on "the Tunic of Argenteuille" in Paris and on the "Sagrado Rostro" of Oviedo ... but as a result of their outcome the grey subtle minds just prefer to talk, talk, talk ... in order to deceive and indoctrinate the naive through strange, "pious discoveries". As in the case of the "Sagrado Rostro" whose C-14 dating, ordered by the Church, was incompatible with the hard-headed beliefs of the Enlightened Scientists, who claimed that "this dating may have been the result of fungal contamination".

Today, after centuries of lies, the powerful Clergy, with the support of confessional governments, has no other alternative than to call congresses and conventions at complaisant universities in order to preserve, nurture and "culturally" exploit the worst superstitions purposely created during the dark Middle Ages. The ancient, "Holy Counter-spell", scientifically "tailor-made", is well-prepared and packaged and more than ready to be administered by the media to the naive masses ... for the Greater Glory of Christ God, Our Saviour in the High Heaven ... and for the earthly well-being of His Ministers.

Emilio Salsi

[ go back ]