Who and why promoted the "New Chronology"

2024 Author: Seth Attwood | [email protected]. Last modified: 2023-12-16 15:55

By the beginning of the 2000s, when there was no Internet in the form we have today, the books by A. Fomenko and G. Nosovsky made an indelible impression on me. History is no longer boring … The authors of "New Chronology" FOR THE FIRST TIME invited their readers to consider evidence base dating of historical events from the official history, in which they saw many inconsistencies, and proposed their so-called "New chronology" from Antiquity to the New Time, which was significantly shorter than the official one. Of course, they were not the first to think about the fact that history was specially made ancient for the sake of someone's political interests. But the scope and the advertising campaign of the "New Chronology" that we saw at the beginning of the 2000s was the first time in the popularization of historical knowledge, at least in our country. And here it is necessary to dwell in a little more detail.

A film based on the works of Alexander Tamansky:

The promotion of the "New Chronology" was carried out in accordance with all the rules of Western marketing with good funding and powerful promotion in the central media - in newspapers, on radio and even on television. Where does such money and opportunities come from for a Russian scientist, professor, even a Moscow University?

The first book on "New Chronology" was published in 1993 in the USA:Fomenko A. T., Kalashnikov V. V., Nosovsky G. V. Geometrical and Statistical Methods of Analysis of Star Configurations. Dating Ptolemy's Almagest. - USA: CRC Press, 1993. - 300 pp ". One of the main popularizers of HX was Garry Kasparov, a member of the Bilderberg Club, who “subsequently revised my positionand ceased to support it [New chronology] [37] [38] "- Wikipedia.

What was it?- Here's my version. Academician A. T. Fomenko was used (most likely in the dark) by those forces that are not interested in a true story, first of all, the history of the Catholic Church. On the one hand, they financed his publications, which occupied entire shelves in bookstores, on the other hand, the persecution was organized - "Fomenkovism". And in fairness, I must say, not without reason: Financiers really have a lot, to put it mildly, controversial and strained moments, for example, that all of Europe and Asia, and almost the whole world, was ruled by the Rus / Slavs from the city of Vladimir (VLADI MIR), and Jesus Christ is the KING OF THE SLAVS.

The main date on which the entire New Chronology hangs like a nail is the year of Christ's birth. Fin has it 1054 A. D.… This, in my opinion, is precisely the main reason why the "New Chronology" supported in the West … Because this date not true, and quite suits the main guardians of the history of Christianity, especially the history of the RCC.

The academician was dumped and abandoned. "New chronology" became a curse … And everyone who continues to investigate inconsistencies in the official history is immediately labeled as "fomenkovism" and "chronologie" … - The goal of discrediting all alternative historical research that contradicts official history has been achieved.

Well, now let's continue the main topic - who and when introduced the chronology from the Creation of the World and from the Nativity of Christ. As I already wrote in my articles, Gaius Julius Caesar or Caius Julius Caesar, and Pope Julius II (1503-1513) are one and the same person (all the arguments and facts in favor of this version - see the links at the bottom of this article). I also want to remind you that Julius Caesar, according to the official history, was also the Pope - the great pontiff (Pontifex Maximus):

- Konrad Witz. Antipater (left) and Julius Caesar (wearing the pontiff's tiara).

Until Julius Caesar, the founder of the Roman Empire and actually the emperor (it is believed that he abandoned this title), there was no common "international" calendar with a single reporting date, with a "zero" or first year. Before entering the empire, all the conquered peoples had their own calendars with reporting points from the year of the accession to the throne of the local monarch. It is clear that it is impossible to run an empire and levy taxes without a common calendar for all. Julius decided to do it simply. Since Julius (Pope) was a great admirer of the Pentateuch of Moses (which even installed the horned Moses of Michelangelo's chisel brush in his tomb), he counted (with his theologians) that since God created this world in 6 days, and God has one day, like 1000 earth years, plus another 1000 years for the rest of history, including the biblical one - a total of 7000 (for even counting) years from the Creation of the World to the day Julius-Pope (or simply Caesar) conceived to introduce a new calendar. Indeed, in 1492 from the birth of Christ it was exactly 7000 years after the creation of the world.

So, the 7000th year from the CM coincides with Caesarism (before the pontificate) of Kai Julius - 1492 (and I remind you that all the evidence of this - see the links to my articles below), which will soon become a great pontiff (pope) - 1503, if historians did not cheat with the dates of the great pontiffs.

Vatican operation, codenamed "anno domini"

As I already wrote in my articles, evangelical events took place at the end of the 15th century. And I have collected a lot of evidence of this (Who crucified St. Peter or why the popes hate Christian values). For example, the crucifixion of Saint Peter took place, as you know, at the Vatican Hippodrome, which is still visible on the map (plan of Rome) of the middle of the 16th century (Chronological framework of the Roman Empire).

At the same time, documents - both printed and handwritten - in the same 16th century with dates "anno domini" (in the year of the Lord), or, as it is customary to understand this dating “ from the birth of Christ", lots of. Google Books on the Mountain gives out hundreds, if not thousands of early prints in Latin with dates such as:

- is it really all a fake, I thought. But this cannot be so that there are so many expensive fakes. And then I began to figure it out, and how else were the dates signed in sources of the 16-17 centuries in Latin. And found:

– « anno ab incarnatione domini"- that is," in a year from incarnations Our Lord ", and this is a completely different meaning than just" in the year of the Lord. " And this changes everything radically! Haven't guessed yet? - Here's a hint:

- This is the favorite fresco of Pope Julius II by Michelangelo "The Creation of Adam". "Adam" in Hebrew, Greek, Arabic and Turkish means "man." Creation of Adam - this was the FIRST embodiment God, that is, His MATERIALIZATION in human flesh … because

Jn. 4:24 God is spiritand those who worship Him must worship in spirit and truth.

2 Cor. 3:17 The Lord Is Spirit; and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is freedom

Godthere is the Purest All-perfect Spirit, higher and more perfect than which is not and cannot be.

And now, once again, the quote from Wikipedia, which I already quoted in the last article:

“And God created man in his own imageAnd there was evening and there was morning: the sixth day "(Gen. 1: 27-31)," with the Lord one day, like a thousand years, and a thousand years, like one day "(2 Pet. 3: 8). Based on these biblical statements, Christian theologians came to the conclusion that since “Adam was created in the middle of the sixth day of creation”, “Christ came to Earth in the middle of the sixth millennium”, that is, about 5500 from “the creation of the world” [2] …

- it turns out that and Adamwas created in the middle of the 6th day of God, that is, in 5500 from CM, and Christwas born in the same year 5500 from SM. Where else is at least 1000 years of Bible history from Adam to Jesus? Where "Christian theologians"crammed Cain and Abel, Noah and the Flood, Babylonian Pandemonium, Calling of Abraham, Sodom and Gomorrah, Isaac and Sarah, Joseph and his brothers, the Exodus of the Jews from Egypt, the Israelites in the wilderness, Moses, David, Solomon, Esther … and so on and so on further and so on - where did our historians cram it all, that between two biblical events - the Creation of Man (Adam) and the Birth of Christ there is no gap at all?.. But everything immediately falls into place, when the "incarnation of God" means the INITIAL meaning, that is, FIRST incarnation of God in man:

The Apostle Paul Called Christ second Adam, contrasting Him with the first Adam: "The first man is from the earth, earthy, the second man is the Lord from heaven" (1 Cor. 15:47). This opposition is developed by the Holy Fathers, who emphasize that Adam was a type of Christin contrast: “Adam is the image of Christ … - says St. John Chrysostom.

Why was the doctrine of the Trinity needed?

Muslims joke that the prophet Isa (Jesus) became god by voting(at the Council of Nicaea). And that Christians are not monotheists, like Muslims, but two-gods, who have TWO gods - God himself (Allah) and his son Jesus (Isa). Therefore, they, as if in opposition to Christians, declare that "There is no god but Allah, and Mohammed is his prophet."

At the first ecumenical council - Nicene - TWO main issues were considered: the condemnation of Arianism and recognition of Jesus Christ as god … In fact, these were two points of one problem of the RCC. The fact is that the Arians - these were the first Christians, who did not call themselves that, that is, "Arians" (they were called that later by the name of Arius of Alexandria, who was present at the Council of Nicaea and was against the new creed - Trinity). They, the "Arians", did not consider Christ to be a god, but called him only a divine messenger - a prophet, a messiah - like the Jews of Moses, like the Muslims of Magomed, like the Zoroastrians of Zarathustra and like the Buddhists Buddha. Therefore, now we can already say with all confidence that the doctrine of the Trinity (God the Father, God the Son and the Holy Spirit) was a purely political project of the Roman Catholic Church, designed to make Christ not just a prophet, but God (Domini), to shift the shameful pages of the RCC into antiquity with the help of anno domini dating in numerous manuscript and printed sources.

It is clear that there was no First Ecumenical Council in Nicea in 325. But really was