When did the evangelists live?

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

Charles Dickens's book A History of England for Children says that during the coronation of Elizabeth I in England, four evangelists, Matthew, Mark, Luke, John and the holy Apostle Paul, were imprisoned. Could this be?

Charles Dickens's book A History of England for Children says that during the coronation of Elizabeth I in England, four Evangelists Matthew, Mark, Luke, John and the holy Apostle Paul were imprisoned [1].

In A. Kungurov's book “There was no Kievan Rus” there is an excerpt from Arseny Sukhanov's [2] "Debate with the Greeks about faith", in which he, in particular, says that the Greeks changed the chronology - they write instead of 158, 1650. [3]

I learned about both on one day, and, of course, I immediately wanted to make a general picture. Arseny denounces the Greeks that they "lost years from the Nativity of Christ": subtract 158 from 1650, we get 1492 - this is the number by which the Greeks changed their chronology. It is interesting that the dates of Sukhanov's life correspond to the idea that the Greeks changed the chronology to 1492: he denounced the Greeks in 158, at the age of 50, the estimated year of his birth - 1600 becomes 108, the year of death - 176.

In general, if Sukhanov's "Debate" is not a fake, then we have a specific fact of a change in chronology and a specific number of years that were used for this falsification. I read the "Debate" myself, and found in them that Arseny tells how it happened: the representatives of the Latin Church bought Greek scriptures from the Turks who had captured Constantinople, forwarded them, and circulated them in a corrected form [4].

If this change has found such widespread use that the dates of Sukhanov's life in this form have come down to us, then maybe 1492 should be subtracted from today's date in order to get the correct year from R. Kh.? And the date of the coronation of Elizabeth I also changed? Of course, maybe all this is not so, or different numbers were used to falsify different dates, but let's check the date of the coronation of Elizabeth I, because it is associated with the determination of the approximate dates of the life of the Evangelists and the Apostle Paul.

When did the evangelists write? It is logical that after the death of Jesus (in 33 years) by 5-10 years, maybe even 30 years, that is, approximately in the 40-60s. If we add 1492 to 40-60 years, then we get 1532-1552 years. The coronation of Elizabeth I of England took place on 15.1.1559 [5].… These dates are not that far off! Subtract 1492 from 1559, - we get 67 years. That is, it is quite logical that the evangelists 34 years after the death of I. Christ were alive and working in their field. A. Sukhanov in his "Debate" writes that Matthew wrote his Gospel 8 years after the ascension of I. Christ, that is, in 41, Mark - in 10 years, that is, in 43, and Luke in 15 years, that is in the year 48 [6]. True, according to one of the versions of tradition, the Evangelist Matthew was martyred approx. 60 years [7], and the Apostle Paul was beheaded at Rimepri Nero in 64 [8], according to another version, he died in 67 or 68 [9], and maybe in 67 they were no longer alive.

Even disregarding these discrepancies, there is an even bigger problem. In the video "The New Testament was written in the 16th century" [10], from which I learned about the "History of England" by Charles Dickens, only one quotation from his book is given - about the evangelists imprisoned under Elizabeth I, and a conclusion is drawn corresponding to the title of the video. But then, logically, in this "History of England" somewhere before the chapter about the coronation of Elizabeth I, there should be a mention of the birth and life of I. Christ. What do we find in the book of Charles Dickens 67 years before the coronation of Elizabeth I, that is, in 1492, when should have been Christmas? Or in 1525, when there should have been a crucifixion and resurrection? Yes, there is nothing like this there, and I would be very surprised if there was. Lived and ruled Henry VII (1457-1509), under whom Christopher Columbus went on his voyage, lived and ruled Henry VIII the Fat (1491-1547), there was Mary, but not the Mother of God, but Mary I Bloody Tudor. It seems to me that since the evangelists lived under Elizabeth I, then Christ lived not long before her. Charles Dickens didn't seem to think so. On the 14th page of the Russian edition of the History of England for the Young it is written: “It was under the Romans and on Roman ships that the teaching of Christ was brought to England …” and he attributes these events to the first centuries of our era. And on page 17 we find the following event: “The Kingdom of Kent is the most glorious of the seven Saxon kingdoms. It was there that the preacher from Rome, the monk Augustine, arrived to convert the Saxons to the Christian faith”[11]. In this C. Dickens does not disagree with what is known today: two periods of Christianization of Britain - one in the 3rd century with the formation of Eastern churches, and the second - at the end of the 6th century with the establishment of the Roman Church [12]. That is, according to Charles Dickens, the Romans brought Christianity in the first centuries of our era, and the Evangelists lived under Elizabeth I in the 16th century. How could he, in his right mind and sober memory, have separated Christ and his evangelists for more than 1000 years?

Versions appear one worse than the other. It is difficult to imagine anything more awkward than these ideas, because we know that Christ and the Evangelists lived in the 1st century AD, and all this "History of England" by Charles Dickens, for the sake of peace of mind, should simply be declared an artifice or a joke of a classic.

Version No. 1 … Since during the time of Charles Dickens (1812-70) an utterly distorted history and chronology changed by I. Skaliger and D. Petavius already prevailed, Charles Dickens placed the Christianization of England at the beginning of our era, but knowing about the fact of the imprisonment of the Evangelists and the Apostle. Paul under Elizabeth I, writes about this, respectively, in the chapter about Elizabeth, without thinking about the inconsistency of these episodes of history. Isn't this strange for Charles Dickens? But, even if he did not think, this does not solve the problem itself.

Version # 2 … Christ and the evangelists were separated in time by more than 1000 years. Once upon a time, Christ lived and preached. After a huge number of years, religious people wanted to exploit his idea, during the time of Elizabeth I there were fanatics who began to consider themselves his evangelists, decided that the Holy Spirit had infiltrated them, wrote books, wrote themselves there. Joseph Smith created the Bible of Mormons in the first half of the 19th century, was he embarrassed by any breaks in time with Jesus Christ?

Version # 3. There were two Jesus. More precisely, two great religious leaders - one lived at the beginning of our era and launched the process of the so-called Christianization (at that time this process could have a different name) of the Eastern persuasion. Then his ideas were perverted, and a new Messiah came, who made an attempt to return the faith to its former purity, but he practically did not succeed, and the enemies, not sleeping, wrote their own writings or distorted the old ones, and created in them a collective image called Jesus Christ … True, the estimated dates of the life of both Messiahs do not coincide with the date of the life of Jesus Christ, calculated by scientists A. Fomenko and G. Nosovsky using a new mathematical method of dating - (1053-1085) [13]. Does this mean that there were three Jesus? Or is it two, but the perverters of the chronology did their best?

Version No. 4 … A PR campaign for the religious supporters of Elizabeth I.

According to Charles Dickens:

- Elizabeth I had a smart minister, - on the occasion of the holiday - her coronation - gave performances

- Catholic whims were hanging around the authorities [14]

Why shouldn't a clever minister come up with a gorgeous performance, thanks to which "sane people quickly figured out that only understandable words should be repeated and read" and the Anglican Church ousted the Catholic Church? If indeed Elizabeth I lived a little later than I. Christ and during her coronation the evangelists and apostles lived and engaged in creative work, then why exactly four Evangelists and the Apostle Paul were imprisoned? After all, after the death of Christ, the gospels and holy texts were written by all and sundry - and the gospel of Judas, and Thomas, and Barnabas - there are about 50 such writings [15]. But the biblical canon included only the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, 14 Epistles of Apostle. Paul and something else. The final selection of books worthy of inclusion in the canon was made at the Council of Trent (1545-1563)¹- in the 16th century, according to the official chronology. That is, during the life of the evangelists, it was not known whose works would be included in the Bible, and whose works would be declared apocryphal. But for some reason, it was precisely four canonical evangelists and St. Paul is almost all the authors of the New Testament. Why not the authors of the non-canonical gospels - Thomas, Barnabas, Peter or Philip - find themselves in captivity? The captors of the evangelists were not themselves prophets, knew everything in advance and were led by the Holy Spirit. In this regard, the thought arises about the next fooling of the population by those in power. But weren't these "sane people" fools if they were shown evangelists who came out of captivity more than 1000 years after the life of Christ, and they rejoice and vote for the Anglican churchmen? Didn't they know when Christ and the evangelists lived? Or was it really a theatrical performance? And what was Elizabeth's thought to ask the prisoners if they wanted to be released? Maybe, as the actors of the show, they picked up psychos, whom, don't feed them with bread, let them sit in confinement? Connections with this

Version No. 5 … But what if in reality Christ also lived shortly before Elizabeth I, and the authors of the canonical gospels lived during her lifetime? And were they really imprisoned in England? And the question of whether they want to be free was connected with the fact that they belonged to the supporters of the Vatican, and, if they were free, the followers of Anglicanism could persecute them? It was safer in prison. If we take into account the coveted number 1492, which the Greeks, according to Sukhanov, began to add to the dates, the coronation of Elizabeth I took place in 67, the Council of Trent took place in 1545-1563, that is, in 53-71. And in 67, the year of the coronation of Elizabeth I, the Council of Trent could already decide the question of whose writings should be considered canon. In England, the Anglican Church arose - a reformist, opposed to Catholicism, and a council in Trident was undertaken to repel the Reformation. In order to annoy their Catholic opponents and this council, or to solve some political issues, the Anglicans could well catch those authors of the scriptures whom the council recognized as authoritative.

Arseny Sukhanov - the accuser of the Greeks and a contemporary of the change in chronology - lived in 1600? -1668, that is, in 108? -176, he denounced the Greeks in 158. The years of life of the "cheaters" of the chronology: I. Scaliger - 1540-1609 - 48-117 years. D. Petavius - 1593? -1652 - 101-160 years. By the beginning of the cathedral I. Scaliger was 5 years old, and by the end of the cathedral he was already 23. Who knows, maybe he himself had time to visit the cathedral. What time were they allowed to visit the cathedral there? Maybe at this cathedral they decided to add 1492 to the dates, and Petavius and Scaliger were the executors of this decision, and by 158 they had already coped with their insidious task, and the Greeks adopted this new tradition of distortion.

But after all, one way or another, long before Elizabeth I there was already a church that was called Christian, and if we assume that I. Christ lived at the beginning of the 16th century, it turns out that the Christian church arose before Christ, and according to the New Testament, the church “was born After his ascension. But let us recall the content of the gospels: Christ did not come to create a church from scratch, but to change already existing religious ideas, he went to preach in synagogues, and chased the money changers out of the temple! He tried to influence representatives of an already established religious organization. But if buildings intended for religious demands are called synagogues, and religious people - Jews, then it seems that this is something far from the church, completely different. And the first Christian communities arose in synagogues and they were called Jewish sects, and the issue of separating Judaism from Christianity was not resolved immediately, it was a process. Just in the epistles of St. Paul and pose the problem of Christians performing Jewish rituals (for example, circumcision). Maybe he, sitting with the evangelists in Elizabeth I's captivity, pondered or wrote letters with warnings about heretics - about the Reformation movement. That ap. Paul was in chains and, being a prisoner, wrote the epistles written in the Acts of the Apostles. But then were these evangelists good, together with the Apostle Paul, if Christ began a movement to change the old religion, and they stood on the side of those with whom he fought? But was this the Christ that we can read about in the Bible? If the evangelists fulfilled the order of the Pope, and wrote something that rooted in us the ideas that are pleasing to him, both about faith and about Christ and the structure of the world, then how can we figure out what actually happened? In any case, the parallels between our assumed 1st century AD and the 16th century are very curious:

- in the 1st century, a new teaching appeared - Christianity, in the 16th - Protestantism (although, perhaps, it is strengthening more than it appears, but the Essenes movement, similar to the teaching of Christ, arose before it);

- in the 1st the Jewish priests are afraid of losing their power and influence because of the Christians, in the 16th the popes - they are afraid of losing power because of the reformers [16];

- in the 1st the New Testament appears, in the 16th the Bible translations into some European languages;

- in the 1st, a large meeting or congress of the apostles and elders took place, at which a considerable number of dogmatic issues were resolved [17], in the 16th century the Council of Trent was held;

- in the 1st they persecuted and crucified Christians, in the 16th they burned and tortured the Protestants;

Of course, maybe all this is not true, or it does not mean anything. Or maybe Charles Dickens knew about the falsity of the official version of history, but could not openly fight it, so he wrote about the Christianization of England at the beginning of our era and about the evangelists under Elizabeth I in the hope that someone would think about it in the future?

[1] The coronation was a great success; and, on the next day, one of the courtiers presented a petition to the new Queen, praying that as it was the custom to release some prisoners on such occasions, she would have the goodness to release the four Evangelists, Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, and also the Apostle Saint Paul, who had been for some time shut up in a strange language so that the people could not get at them.

A child`s history of England by Dickens, Charles, CHAPTER I - ANCIENT ENGLAND AND THE ROMANS

[2] Arseny Sukhanov (1600? -1668) - hieromonk, manager of the Moscow Epiphany Monastery (A. Kungurov “There was no Kievan Rus” Eksmo algorithm, Moscow 2010 p. 310

[3] “… Well, you have lost even years from the Nativity of Christ: you are writing this year, 158 from the Nativity of Christ, 1650; and your Greek books convict you of this, but you don’t want to obey”.

A. Kungurov “There was no Kievan Rus” Eksmo Algorithm, Moscow 2010 Pp. 312-313

[4] "It seems to me that you have sinned, ponezh, after the capture of Constantinople from the Turk, the Latin books of the Greek bought everything and, having ferried them, printed in Greek and distributed to you." "Debate with the Greeks about Faith", Arseny Sukhanov

[5]

[6] "Debate with the Greeks about Faith", Arseny Sukhanov

[7]

[8]

[9]

[10]

[11] Dickens Charles "History of England for the Young", Moscow, Nezavisimaya Gazeta Publishing House, 2001

[12] "Church in England X-XVI centuries" abstract, [13] Nosovskiy G. V. Fomenko A. T. "Empire", Moscow, Publishing house "Factorial", 1999. p. 346

[14] “Elizabeth owed much of her first success to the clever and careful minister, Sir William Cecil, who she later made Lord Barley. In general, people have more reasons to rejoice than usual, and at least there is a reason for street processions. Everywhere there were performances, Gog and Magog were piled on the roof of Temple Bar, and (which was much more reasonable) the corporation gratefully presented the queen with an amount equal to ten thousand gold marks, and the gift was so weighty that she barely dragged it to the carriage with both hands … The coronation went splendidly, and the next day one of the courtiers, according to custom, petitioned Elizabeth for the release of several prisoners and among them four evangelists: Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, as well as St. Paul, who for some time were forced to express themselves in such a strange language that the people have completely forgotten how to understand them.

But the queen replied that it was better to first ask the saints themselves if they wanted to be released, and then a grandiose public discussion was scheduled at Westminster Abbey - a kind of religious tournament - with the participation of some of the most prominent champions of both faiths. As you can imagine, all sane people quickly figured out that only understandable words should be repeated and read. In this regard, it was decided to conduct the church service in English, accessible to all, and other laws and rules were adopted that revived the most important work of the Reformation. Nevertheless, the Catholic bishops and adherents of the Roman Church did not persecute, and the royal ministers showed prudence and mercy. " Charles Dickens "History of England for the Young", Moscow, Nezavisimaya Gazeta Publishing House, 2001, Chapter XXXI

[15]

[16] "The attitude of Poland to the Council of Tridens and its decrees", Journal of the Ministry of Public Education, sixth decade, part CCXXXVII, St. Petersburg, 1893

[17] Acts of the Apostles 15th chapter