"Christ" historian N. M. Nikolsky .

A. T. Fomenko and G. V. Nosovsky first used the term in 1995 in the title of their book “New Chronology and Concept of the Ancient History of Rus', England and Rome” (Moscow: Moscow State University Publishing House, 1995) to designate a modified version of the world chronology, built on the basis of the widespread use of supposedly modern natural scientific methods. Later, it began to be applied to the works of earlier authors, whom Fomenko and Nosovsky classify as their predecessors: Newton, Morozov, etc.

In English-language literature, the term “New Chronology” is more often applied to the works of the British Egyptologist David M. Rohl, who in his now famous book “A Test of Time"), published in 1995, used it in relation to his proposed changes to the chronology of Ancient Egypt. He has used this name in his articles since 1990.

Early attempts to revise the chronology referred to by the authors of “NH”

The main information about early attempts to revise the chronology of NH is borrowed from the works of N. A. Morozov, who, in turn, learned a lot from a German newspaper article. However, many of the facts reported in this article, for example, about the Salamanca professor de Arcilla and the Pisan doctor Gragani, are not confirmed.

An attempt to revise the chronology was made by Isaac Newton, who spent several decades on a mathematical analysis of ancient history. His ideas were briefly outlined in the book “The Chronology of Ancient Kingdoms Amended,” which appeared in 1725 in French, and in 1728, after his death, in English.

Based on this idea as an obvious fact that did not need proof, Morozov tried to calculate the date of the event based on the supposed astronomical indications in the text and came to the conclusion that the text was written in 395 AD. e. , that is, 300 years later than its historical dating. For Morozov, however, this served as a sign that not his hypothesis was wrong, but the existing chronology of historical events. Morozov, upon his release from prison, outlined his conclusions in the book “Revelation in a Thunderstorm and Storm” (). Critics have pointed out that this dating contradicts the undoubted quotations and references to the "Apocalypse" in earlier Christian texts. To this, Morozov objected that since the dating of the “Apocalypse” was proven astronomically, then in this case we are dealing with either forgeries or incorrect dating of contradictory texts that could not have been written earlier than the 5th century. At the same time, he firmly believed that his dating was based on accurate astronomical data; critics' indications that these “astronomical data” represented an arbitrary interpretation of a metaphorical text were ignored by him.

Formation of the “New Chronology” by A. T. Fomenko

M. M. Postnikov and the revival of Morozov’s ideas

Work of the Fomenko group

Fomenko actively joined the work of the group formed around Postnikov, which was supposed to confirm Morozov’s theory, and soon headed this group.

To Postnikov's displeasure, Fomenko and Mishchenko seriously revised Morozov's ideas. Fomenko agreed with Morozov that the existing chronology is incorrect, but disagreed with him in assessing which chronology is correct. Postnikov, in turn, considered it impossible to reconstruct history without the help of professional historians.

Relations with party leadership

However, Fomenko and his group soon resumed publishing articles on their theories. After the appearance in “Questions of History” (No. 12, 1983) of a new devastating article written by Golubtsova in collaboration with physicist Yu. A. Zavenyagin, Fomenko, in turn, complains to the Central Committee, attaching an article refuting the astronomical conclusions of the authors. The result was a discussion with Zavenyagin in one of the offices of the Central Committee, where Fomenko put forward his patriotic intentions as a final argument: “I am Soviet, I am Russian! I want the history of my country to be as ancient as Ancient Rome!”

"New chronology" in the era of perestroika

Perestroika freed supporters of the “New Chronology” from the problems of censorship. But the topic of ancient history in that era was irrelevant among the broad masses, and Fomenko continued to publish small-circulation publications. Later, in 1993, at the author’s expense, the Moscow State University publishing house published his first monographs on the “New Chronology”: “Methods of statistical analysis of narrative texts and applications to chronology (recognition and dating of dependent texts, statistical ancient chronology, statistics of ancient astronomical observations)” and “Global chronology. Research on the history of the ancient world and the Middle Ages." In the appendix to the second, Nosovsky provides a new dating of the Orthodox Easter and the Council of Nicaea. In 1993, publishing houses in the USA and Holland published three books outlining Fomenko’s theory, with a total volume of about 1000 pages.

Transformation of the “New Chronology” into a phenomenon of mass culture

In discussions in the press and on the Internet, supporters and opponents of the “New Chronology” repeatedly accused each other of forgery, exaggeration, distortion of facts, personal revenge and political motives; in addition, professionals accused Fomenko and Nosovsky of amateurism and incompetence. Later, the intensity of the discussions decreased, since the authors of the New Chronology withdrew from direct discussions in the scientific press, turning to the general public in commercial publications. To date, the total number of books by A. T. Fomenko and his group is about 90. Reports and individual articles by critics of the “New Chronology” are collected in 7 collections “Antifomenko” published by the Russian Panorama publishing house and other collections.

In 2004, Anatoly Fomenko, in collaboration with Gleb Nosovsky, for books from the “New Chronology” series, was awarded the “Paragraph” Anti-Prize in the “Honorable Illiteracy” category - for “particularly cynical crimes against Russian literature”.

Notes

1. Condemnation of A. Fomenko’s works at a meeting of the Bureau of the History Department of the Russian Academy of Sciences, 1998
2. Problems of the fight against pseudoscience (discussion in the Presidium of the Russian Academy of Sciences) // 1999, volume 69, no. 10, p. 879-904
   • Commission for Combating Pseudoscience and Falsification of Scientific Research under the Presidium of the Russian Academy of Sciences [res. ed. Kruglyakov E.P.] In defense of science. - M.: Nauka, 2007. - T. 2. - P. 102-111. - 208 p. - ISBN 978-5-02-036182-9.
   • How does pseudoscience threaten society?  (meeting of the Presidium of the Russian Academy of Sciences) 2003
   • Kruglyakov E. P. Witch hunt // “Ogonyok”, 2003
   • Efremov Yu. N., Zavenyagin Yu. A.“About the so-called “New” chronology” of A. T. Fomenko” // Bulletin of the Russian Academy of Sciences 1999, volume 69, no. 12, p. 1081-1092
   • Alexandrov E. B. Problems of expansion of pseudoscience
   • Yanin V. L. In Novgorod, democracy was devoured by oligarchs
   • Zaliznyak A. A.“Linguistics according to A. T. Fomenko”
   • Novikov S. P.“Pseudohistory and pseudomathematics: science fiction in our lives” // Uspekhi Mat. Nauk, 2000.
3. Nikolsky N. M. An astronomical revolution in historical science. Regarding the book by N. A. Morozov “Christ”, Leningrad, 1924. // “New World”, 1925, No. 1, p. 156-175; republished along with Morozov's response: Morozov N. A. A new look at the history of the Russian state. (Volume 8 of the work “Christ”). - M.: Kraft+Lean, 2000. - 888 p. ISBN 5-85929-087-X . With. 687-709
4. Nosovsky G.V., Fomenko A.T.“New chronology of Rus' England and Rome”
5. Rohl D. A Test of Time: The Bible - from Myth to History.- London: Century, 1995.

class="eliadunit">

Was there a Mongol-Tatar Yoke? Where did the Battle of Kulikovo actually take place? How were the Egyptian pyramids built and from what? When did Christ actually live?

History: Science or Fiction? is a cycle of twelve fascinating scientific films based on materials from the “New Chronology of Fomenko - Nosovsky”. The films talk about what mistakes historians around the world have made, how they falsify history and present their own alternative theories, each of which is accompanied by evidence.

You will learn all this and many more interesting things by watching online “History: Science or Fiction?”

Fomenko Anatoly Timofeevich
Born in 1945, academician of the Russian Academy of Sciences (RAS), full member of the Russian Academy of Natural Sciences (Russian Academy of Natural Sciences), full member of the International Academy of Sciences of the Higher School (International Academy of Sciences of the Higher School), Doctor of Physical and Mathematical Sciences, Professor, Head of the Department of Differential Geometry and Applications of Mechanics Faculty of Mathematics, Moscow State University. He solved the well-known Plateau problem in the theory of spectral minimal surfaces and created a theory of fine classification of integrable Hamiltonian dynamical systems. Laureate of the State Prize of the Russian Federation in 1996 (in the field of mathematics) for a series of works on the theory of invariants of manifolds and Hamiltonian dynamical systems. Author of 180 scientific papers, 24 monographs and textbooks, specialist in the field of geometry and topology, calculus of variations, theory of minimal surfaces, symplectic topology, Hamiltonian geometry and mechanics, computer geometry.
Author of several books on the development and application of new empirical-statistical methods to the analysis of historical chronicles, chronology of antiquity and the Middle Ages.

Nosovsky Gleb Vladimirovich
Born in 1958, Candidate of Physical and Mathematical Sciences (MSU, 1988), specialist in the field of probability theory, mathematical statistics, theory of random processes, optimization theory, stochastic differential equations, computer modeling of stochastic processes. He worked at the Institute of Space Research (Moscow), at the Moscow Machine Tool Institute, as well as in Japan, within the framework of scientific cooperation between Moscow State University and Aizu University in the field of computer geometry. Currently working as a senior researcher at the Faculty of Mechanics and Mathematics of Moscow State University, in the Department of Differential Geometry and Applications, in the Laboratory of Computer Methods.

History, science or fiction watch online

Film 1: Do We Know Our History?

Scientific books and museum exhibitions, historical novels and films convince us that almost everything is known about the history of mankind and historians will definitely have a ready-made answer to almost any question of an inquisitive mind. However, if we look more closely at our past, we will find many oddities and inconsistencies there. Why, say, did medieval painters, usually attentive to historical details, depict biblical and ancient characters as their contemporaries? How could ancient warriors cut down their enemies with bronze swords if bronze did not yet exist in those days? And where did iron weapons come from in Ancient Egypt? On what basis did Ivan the Terrible call himself a direct descendant of the Roman Emperor Augustus? It would seem that these and many other mysteries should have forced historians to take a closer look at our past. But this has not happened yet, and therefore the question involuntarily arises: do we really know our history?

Movie 2: What the story is based on

From ancient times to the present day, the entire history of mankind is clearly dated. In numerous historical and archaeological reference books you can find the answer to almost any question. Museums all over the world house unique exhibits - witnesses of bygone eras. Among them there is hardly a single one whose sign says: “origin unknown” or “age unknown.” All these items are meticulously grouped and arranged in strict chronological order. But why did scientists come to the conclusion that, for example, this jug dates back to the fifth century BC, and this one - to the eighth century AD? It is generally accepted that methods for determining the age of ancient objects are well tested and, most importantly, very reliable. But is this really so? Is world history really based on rigorous scientific evidence?

Movie 3: Truth Can Be Calculated

Unfortunately, the scientific methods existing today for dating objects of the past are far from perfect. Thus, it can be extremely difficult, and often simply impossible, to build a chronology of historical events. And the chronology of events generally accepted today, constructed using these methods, cannot be considered absolutely correct. It turns out that history - especially “ancient”, “antique” and medieval - is largely a myth, fiction, a novel. Anything but science. And humanity knows little about its past. But we still have a chance to restore the truth. And it is not historians who give us such a chance, but... mathematicians. This film is dedicated to the unique author's methods of dating historical events, developed by the Russian scientist, academician of the Russian Academy of Sciences Anatoly Timofeevich Fomenko. Using these methods, scientists have found that the real history of mankind is much shorter than the one we study in schools and universities...

Film 4: Alchemy of the Pyramids or how they were built in ancient Egypt

Among the numerous monuments left by ancient civilizations, the most famous are, of course, the pyramids of Ancient Egypt. It is believed that it has long been known who, when and why built them. But there is still no answer to the question: how was it built? How did ancient architects process and move huge stone blocks? There are many hypotheses, but each of them contains weaknesses. Numerous attempts by researchers to test the theory with practice have ended unsuccessfully. But back in the second half of the 20th century, chemical engineers conducted examinations of ancient Egyptian building stone. The mystery of the ancient pyramids has been solved! But this discovery did not become a sensation. The scientific world responded with complete silence. Egyptologists did not seem to notice the discovery. And they still don’t want to notice him.

Movie 5: The Mystery of the Egyptian Zodiacs

The world of pyramids, pharaohs and sphinxes. A world of mystery that takes us into the unprecedented distance of time. Tourists from all over the world are drawn to Egypt to touch this secret. Visiting Egyptian tombs and temples, they look at the magnificent drawings and bas-reliefs that have survived to this day. These drawings are the zodiacs that the scientists and builders of Ancient Egypt left to their descendants. It is believed that these signs have not yet been solved. However, Russian mathematicians managed to decipher them. It turned out that these signs encrypted important dates in the history of Egypt. But official Egyptology does not want to notice this and stubbornly remains silent. Why? What can these ancient images tell us?

Film 6: Mister Veliky Novgorod, who are you?

Veliky Novgorod occupied a special place among ancient Russian cities. For the right to be called the capital of Rus', it competed first with Kiev, and then with Moscow. It was the richest boyar republic. The trade turnover of this city had no equal in Rus'. It was through Veliky Novgorod that the famous route “from the Varangians to the Greeks” passed, connecting Scandinavia with Byzantium. But archaeological excavations and analysis of ancient chronicles give reason to assert that modern Novgorod on the Volkhov River has never been a major government and trade center. And some fragments of ancient texts contradict Russian history in general and the history of Veliky Novgorod in particular. So is the city on the Volkhov really the famous Mister Veliky Novgorod?

Film 7: Kulikovo Field. Battle for Moscow

The Battle of Kulikovo is one of the greatest events in Russian history. It is believed that the battle on the Kulikovo field in 1380 was the first step towards the liberation of Russian lands from the Mongol-Tatar yoke. But was it really so? The results of many years of research by Russian scientists tell a completely different story. About the fact that there were no conquerors in Rus' at that time. That there was no three-hundred-year yoke of the Golden Horde. That on the Kulikovo Field the troops of Dmitry Donskoy did not fight with steppe nomads. They had a completely different opponent. And the place itself, which is considered today the Kulikovo Field, bears its name undeservedly. Archaeological finds and ancient Russian chronicles speak eloquently about this. So where did famous historical events actually take place? Where is it, this Kulikovo field?

class="eliadunit">

Film 8: Rus'-Horde

Today, almost everyone knows about the Mongol-Tatar yoke in Rus'. From school we are told about the enslavement of the Russian people by steppe nomads who had neither culture nor writing. It is believed that this invasion led to enormous casualties among the Russian people, to the destruction and plunder of their material and spiritual values. From early childhood we are taught that as a result of foreign yoke, the economic and cultural development of Rus', in comparison with Europe, was allegedly thrown back three centuries. They persistently explain to us that Rus' was mired in the darkness of poverty, ignorance, cruelty and violence for almost three centuries, falling into economic and political dependence on its enslavers - the Mongol Khans and Rulers of the Golden Horde. This is written in the official books on the history of Russia. But was it really like that? The historical facts and evidence that have reached us tell a completely different story.

Film 9: In what century did Christ live?

Today, almost any person, regardless of religion, knows the gospel story about Jesus Christ. The time of His earthly life is not only the era of the birth of a new religion. This is a new starting point for the chronology of humanity. In most countries of the world, it is customary to calculate chronology from the Nativity of Christ. No one doubts that two thousand years have passed since this most important event for humanity. But why are people so sure of this? The authors of the film do not touch upon issues of faith and church dogma. The task of this film is different: to understand issues of a historical and chronological nature. It is quite possible that the generally accepted date of the Nativity of Christ is erroneous and that what should be written on the calendar today is not today’s year, but a completely different date.

Film 10: Forgotten Jerusalem

Once upon a time in ancient times there was a kingdom called Judea. The capital of this kingdom was the city of Jerusalem. Modern historians and archaeologists claim that this kingdom was located in southwest Asia, where the state of Israel is located today. The capital of Israel is also called Jerusalem. Scholars who study biblical history claim that ancient Jewish Jerusalem and modern Jerusalem are one and the same city. However, not all scientists are sure that ancient Judea was located precisely here, on the eastern coast of the Mediterranean Sea. This film is dedicated to the version of the authors of the “New Chronology” theory, A. Fomenko and G. Nosovsky, who believe that the kingdom of Judah was located in a completely different place, and the name Jerusalem in the Bible is described in a completely different city than what we call Jerusalem today.

Film 11: Moscow Kremlin

Moscow has stood on Russian soil for many centuries. So much has been written and told about it that it seems as if everything is known about this ancient city. But this is not true at all. Unfortunately, our knowledge of history is often superficial. We do not read even the brightest pages of the past carefully. And we often take information about the most iconic historical places not from ancient documents, but from tourist guides. One of these places is the Moscow Kremlin. Amazing fortified city. A stronghold of power, an ancient spiritual center, a symbol of Moscow and all of Russia. The greatness of the Kremlin has amazed us in all centuries. There was always something unsaid in his story, some hidden meaning and significance. Many researchers spent years of their lives to unravel the secrets of this ancient fortress. But it turns out that the solution was at hand. You just had to look into......the Bible.

Film 12: History Reconstruction

Modern historical science is bursting at the seams. Scientists - mathematicians who created new mathematical methods for studying historical documents have left no stone unturned in the generally accepted chronology of historical events. But chronology lies at the heart of history, being its “vertebral column.” Changing the chronology automatically leads to the need to reconsider all the events of world history. It turns out that many of the rulers and even events of the ancient world known to us from books and films did not exist at all, that they are phantoms, a reflection of later medieval rulers and events. The reconstruction of history, carried out by scientists on the basis of a new chronology of the world, eliminates a large number of secrets and mysteries in the past of mankind, finds simple and logical explanations for those historical events that historians have been arguing about for centuries. It also turns out that the history of European states is artificially extended into the past, and the history of Rus' is deliberately shortened. Moreover, after getting acquainted with this Reconstruction of History, much of what is happening today becomes clear.

Few things hinder the spread of historical knowledge in our fatherland to such an extent as the Fomenkovism virus. The main means of communication between people, and often obtaining information, in the modern era is the Internet. And on this Internet it’s time to fix a sociological pattern - in every topic where this or that historical plot is discussed, one of the first to appear is a “Fomenkovite” who begins to destroy the discussion with a standard set of melodies from his organ: “all sources are fake”, “Romanov historiography” , “mathematicians have proven it a long time ago,” “I haven’t read Fomenko, but he thinks logically, a candidate of the people.”

The resulting intellectual stench is enough to scare away from historical research anyone who is not interested in it. “All this is dark, incomprehensible, and we will never know the truth,” sums up the average person and goes to watch the “Battle of Psychics.”

Fomenkovism stands on three pillars. The first is the naive “technical” belief that there are some precise “mathematical methods” with the help of which controversial issues of history can be clarified. Now the cool guys will come with Bradis tables and a star catalog and will definitely find out everything.

Quantitative methods do exist in history, but neither Fomenko nor Nosovsky have anything to do with them.

Fomenkovism is based on the mossy constructions of the revolutionary-Narodnaya Volya Morozov, who once saw in the text of the “Apocalypse of John the Evangelist” a description of astronomical phenomena (already an absurd assumption) and dated these absurd assumptions to the 4th century AD and on this basis transferred the “Apocalypse” itself.

Morozov suggested that the emperors of the early Roman Empire from Augustus are “duplicates” of the emperors of the late Roman Empire from Constantine, as evidenced by the imaginary identical duration of their reigns, allegedly reflected in the chronicles. On the basis of these Morozov theories, Fomenko’s quasi-scientific tools developed: statements that some rulers and historical figures are “duplicates” of others, which is supposedly proven by mathematical statistics, and attempts to re-date certain historical events by re-dating the astronomical phenomena described in them.

What Fomenkovian astronomy is is clear from the situation with “Thucydides eclipses,” that is, two solar and one lunar eclipse mentioned in Thucydides’ “History.”

The first of these eclipses dates back to August 3, 431 BC and is described as follows: the sun was eclipsed and replenished, became a crescent and some stars began to shine. Morozov tried to challenge the dating, pointing out that the eclipse of 431, as astronomers know, was incomplete, and therefore the stars should not be visible (in fact, the Greeks considered the planets to be stars - and we cannot say with certainty which stars shone and where) . Therefore, he proposed his own dating, moving Thucydides to the 12th century and comparing one of the total eclipses with him.

Fomenko was the most original of all - arguing, on the basis of Morozov's argumentation, that Thucydides' eclipse could only be total, since the stars were visible, he proposes as an alternative... an incomplete eclipse on August 22, 1039, which includes the death of Emperor Andronicus, considered in Fomenko's mythology Christ. This eclipse was even more incomplete than the eclipse of 431 BC, and why, in this case, try to redate it, replacing the incomplete eclipse of the 5th century BC with an eclipse of the 11th century after AD is generally unclear.

Fomenkov’s “matstatistics” consists in the fact that the compared sequences of rulers are randomly shuffled and the characters are swapped, their reign terms are summed up to obtain a figure similar to that in the adjacent column.

For example, the same Emperor Valens was “counted” three times by Morozov, Ivan Kalita and both of his sons Simeon the Proud and Ivan were merged into one person, and Ivan the Terrible was “quartered” by Fomenko and Nosovsky for their convenience, dividing into Ivan IV, Dmitry, Ivan V and Simeon Bekbulatovich.

Sometimes Fomenko simply resorted to petty cheating - for example, for many decades the statement circulated from text to text that Ivan III ruled from 1462 to 1505, that is, 53 years (and not 43, as a person who studied at school might have thought arithmetic). These 53 years were needed to match the 53 years of Frederick IV of Habsburg. Only in the early 2010s, this error, indecent for an academician in the department of mathematics, was finally corrected, but the old editions of Fomenko-Nosovsky preserved it.

It turns out even funnier when checking these calculations using historical methods: Fomenko found that two rulers are the same historical person - the Russian Vasily III and the German Maximilian I of Habsburg. However, these sovereigns lived at the same time, exchanged embassies and letters, Ambassador Sigismund Herberstein shuttled between them, leaving a most interesting essay on Russia, in which he repeatedly mentions that he traveled from Maximilian to Vasily and back.

It turns out something like “I received a letter from myself to myself.” What is most anecdotal... Herberstein’s work is cited by Fomenko and Nosovsky in their books more than once as an authentic source on the history of their fictional “Rus-Horde”. However, this does not bother the authors much; they will tell you that instead of Maximilian there was originally someone else and in general some pieces were forged and others were not. And how to recognize a fake is very simple, it contradicts their constructs.

The source study of the “new chronology” is arranged in a very bizarre way - the same works of ancient authors in some chapters, going back to Fomenko’s early texts, are characterized as deliberate forgeries of the 15th century, and in others, composed by Nosovsky, as a genuine and invaluable source of information, but only erroneously attributed by the “Scaligerian” chronology to the wrong time. Thus, Nosovsky found in Josephus Flavius ​​in “Jewish Antiquities” a story about the uprising of Stenka Razin - and nothing that Flavius’s first printed publication dates back to 1544, 86 years before Stenka’s birth.

As we see, Fomenko and Nosovsky approach their second pillar, also inherited from Morozov, the theory of general falsification of historical sources, creatively. They need it not so much to deny everything, but to declare as a fake any text or fragment of text that contradicts their constructions.

The rule of “revolutionary expediency” applies here: the information fits the construction of the myth of the great empire of the Horde-Rus' - that means “grains of authenticity”; it contradicts - a “Scaligerian” or “Romanovian” fake.

However, an almost religious belief in the “universal falsification of ancient and medieval sources”, in the fact that the monuments of the manuscript era are all unreliable and fake, composed for some malicious purpose, is very widespread even among seemingly intelligent people. In fact, we have before us a “conspiracy theory,” which is the second pillar of Fomenkovism. Not only Fomenkovites work in the field of disseminating this point of view, but also, for example, the writer Dmitry Galkovsky and his followers.

In fact, ancient writing consists of tens of thousands of documents preserved in full or in fragments, which constantly mutually refer to each other. Plato quotes Aeschylus, Cicero - Plato, Jerome of Stridon - Cicero. At the same time, such quotations and coincidences are never so literal that there is reason to suspect mechanical rewriting - there are always so many differences and minor errors that one has to assume a living work that took decades and centuries.

The “new chronology” was dominated by the thesis that ancient authors were forged in the so-called Renaissance, the manuscripts were unreliable, the moment of the appearance of this or that ancient work should be considered the first printed edition, when the work appeared in a sufficient number of copies to verify its text. Well, with the help of early printed publications, the thesis of general falsification can be easily refuted.

Quite often, earlier “earlier falsifications” cite “falsifications” printed several years, decades, or even centuries later.

Cicero’s treatise On Duties, published in Mainz in 1465, quotes Plato’s letters and his dialogue “Laches” printed in 1495 (while new chronologists claim that Plato was invented from scratch in 1482 by the humanist Marcelio Ficino). Cicero's dialogue "On the Orator", published in Subiaco in 1465, constantly referred to by Fomenko as a classical forgery, contains quotations from Aristotle, Plato, Thucydides and others printed later. Sometimes the gap reaches almost 400 years, as with Cicero’s dialogue “The Republic,” first published in Rome in 1822, but quoted (along with dozens of other authors) by the church father Lactantius in works printed as early as 1465.

One could, of course, say that it was in later “forgeries” that quotations from earlier “forgeries” were inserted, where they are mentioned precisely in order to convince everyone of the authenticity of the forged text, they say, the falsifiers were working with an eye to the century ahead. But here’s the problem - quotes from “early versions” in “later” ones often do not fully coincide - they are recognizable, but nothing more. It is clear that to give a “taste of authenticity” the forger would insert a quote “from himself” as accurately as possible.

Upon closer examination, the theory of falsification as presented by Fomenkov looks as serious as the claims that Marx, Herzen and Leo Tolstoy cited Lenin and Stalin in their works.

At the same time, one more aspect must be taken into account - “falsified” literature in a fairly short period of time contains such a number of outstanding works and masterpieces that it is completely impossible to imagine that in the 15th-16th centuries so many great poets, playwrights, and prose writers lived on earth at the same time , writers of history, philosophers, theologians, and all of them preferred to create under a pseudonym and not show themselves in any way.

Why is the thesis about the falsification of antiquity so important for the “new chronology”? The fact is that this doctrine denies the possibility of failures in culture, such as the “dark ages” between Antiquity and the Middle Ages, and therefore it is assumed that history begins with the Middle Ages, and Antiquity was invented for itself later.

What is striking here is the typical historical ignorance of the Soviet “techie”, who, firstly, was not aware that there were no “dark ages” - while the West was in decline after the fall of the Roman Empire, Byzantium flourished, and secondly, some the rollback was caused by external reasons, not so much the invasion of barbarians, but rather the Arab conquests and piracy in the Mediterranean.

And the funny thing is that, having started to compose their fantasy, Fomenko - Nosovsky did not come up with anything better than the same exact theory of the decline of culture, only now it was the decline of the “Rus-Horde Empire”.

Well aware of the absurdity of their constructions, the novochronologists changed tactics. Now they do not declare everything and everyone a fake; on the contrary, they consider everything to be original, but only in need of correct interpretation on the part of new historical prophets.

Everything is written correctly, but you understand everything wrong, they say. The old arguments about “fake Antiquity” remain, but now they are used only to psychologize readers and undermine confidence in scientific historiography.

The core of the new chronological teaching is a wild fantasy about Rus'-Horde. And during its construction, any materials that have just been declared fake are used, the main thing is that they first pass through the playful hands of novochronologists.

The third pillar of the new chronology, along with pseudo-mathematical methodology and conspiracy theory that falsified historical sources, is precisely quasi-historical fantasy, “folk history”, a new myth, increasingly growing due to the “critical” part of Fomenkov’s theory. The fact that “nothing happened” is of little interest to anyone - the public wants everything to be “wrong.”

The demand for an alternative history was especially powerful in the 90s, when Russia and the Russians were humiliated, and our history seemed to have failed and consisted of nothing but failures. Too many people then wanted to throw this story off the ship of modernity and write another one instead, in which we are powerful, great, terrible, all-conquering. And if we now find ourselves in the hands of enemies, then these are temporary difficulties that we will overcome, especially if we remember the “real” history.

On this wave, for example, the fake of the mid-twentieth century - the “Book of Veles”, all kinds of “Aryan Vedas” - were extremely popular. And so Gleb Nosovsky, who joined Fomenko, began to compose a fantasy in which Rus' was a Horde and ruled the world, Dmitry Donskoy was Khan Tokhtamysh, and Christianity and Islam were one religion.

And here’s what’s characteristic: this supposedly patriotic fantasy began with the destruction of one of the most important sites of national memory and pride - the Battle of Kulikovo.

To open the readers' brains like a tin can, the story that Dmitry Donskoy was Tokhtamysh and fought with Mamiya-Mamai and his “Poles” on Kulishki near Kitay-Gorod was ideal.

If a person’s rejection of this hypothesis, which insults both the national historical memory and common sense, did not work (Stalin and Roosevelt both fought against Germany and Japan, both won, Stalin had a withered arm, Roosevelt could not walk, then it was one and the same person, and he fought against the Mikado-Hitler, and the bombing of Pearl Harbor is the bombing of Stalingrad, and in fact it took place at the Zhemchuzhina car wash in Volgograd), then take him lukewarm.

In the myth of the “Battle of Kulishki” all the techniques of Fomenkovism - lies, falsification, manipulation of the reader, logical circles and substitution of theses - are clearly visible.

Let's start with the “brilliant” source study. “Zadonshchina is the main source,” Fomenko and Nosovsky report, and are immediately criticized. It turns out that all the lists (that is, specific manuscripts known to us) of “Zadonshchina” are late, except for one, dating from the end of the 15th century, which contains only half of the monument.

Scientists are “reconstructing” the text of “Zadonshchina”, and while examining the “fundamental publication” - “Monuments of Literature of Ancient Rus'” (PLDR) of 1981, novochronologists discovered that some of the words are in italics, that is, reconstructed, and Don appears especially often among these reconstructed names and Nepryadva. This means that, in fact, there were no Don and Nepryadva initially in “Zadonshchina”, but there was something else (let’s remember this thesis).

“Zadonshchina” is indeed considered the earliest monument of the Kulikovo cycle, created by Sophrony Ryazan based on “The Tale of Igor’s Campaign.” It was preserved not in the autograph, but in later and sometimes different copies, the earliest of which was made by the 15th-century scribe Euphrosynus, who lived in the Kirillo-Belozersky Monastery. He rewrote part of Sophrony’s poem, christening not so much it as the battle described in it “Zadonshchina” and “Mamaevshchina” (and he also writes about “Takhtamyshchina” - the Khan’s raid on Moscow).

For a minimally qualified historian, there is nothing simpler - take the text of Euphrosynus, the earliest list of “Zadonshchina” known to us, and see whether the words “Don” and “Nepryadva” are in it or not. To do this, of course, instead of the popular anthology for literature teachers, PLDR (to call it a fundamental publication is sheer ignorance), you need to take a scientific publication, where each list of “Zadonshchina” is published separately - “The Tale of Igor’s Campaign and Monuments of the Kulikovo Cycle” (M , 1966), and count the number of words “Don” and “Nepryadva” there. The words “Don” and its derivatives are used 17 times in the text. Twice in the manuscript Nepryadn is mentioned: “don’t roar at the field of Kulikovo on the river Nepryadn.” Moreover, it is impossible to declare it Dnieper-Nepr, which is also mentioned in the text, since the latter is written not through “e”, but through “yat” - Ньр.

There are no ambiguities or discrepancies with “Zadonshchina” - it clearly localizes the battle on the Don and Nepryadva, and not somewhere else. And most importantly, why fence this garden if, firstly, Fomenko and Nosovsky themselves further build all their reconstructions not on the basis of the most ancient monument - “Zadonshchina”, but on the basis of “The Tale of the Massacre of Mamayev”, which researchers unanimously consider to be distant from the battle at least one and a half hundred years and all of whose manuscripts are significantly younger than the manuscripts of “Zadonshchina”?

And secondly, the novochronologists themselves declare that the battle took place not on the Don, but on... the Don, since Don is the name of many Eastern European rivers and means the Moscow River.

First, the reader is instilled with doubt that “Don” was really written in the manuscript (falsification theory), and then they are told: Don is the name of the Moscow River (folk history). “The future Moscow River was named Don. Let us remember that according to our reconstruction, Moscow has not actually been founded yet, and therefore the name “Moscow River” might not have existed yet.”
The Fomenkovites “prove” that the Don is the Moscow River by the fact that in “Zadonshchina” the noblewoman Maria exclaims (I quote from the oldest copy of Euphrosyne’s poem): “the red city of Moscow. Mikulin’s wife Maria bursts into tears, and the word flows like this: “Done, Don, fast Don, you passed through the land of Polovtsian, you broke through the birch trees of the village, cherished my Mikulu Vasilyevich.” Ivanov’s wife Fedosia will cry: “Our glory has already diminished in the glorious city of Moscow.”

With the help of this text, if understood superliterally, one can indeed assume that the Don flows from the Polovtsian land past Moscow. But what he definitely proves is that the city of Moscow already existed, and was a red city, and was called Moscow. That is, the “proof” of Fomenko and Nosovsky destroys itself.

The same self-destructive evidence is the story about Red Hill, where Mamai’s headquarters was supposedly located and in which Fomenkovites see Tagansky Hill and Shvivaya Gorka. The fact is that in none of our sources is any “Red Hill” mentioned. The only mention of Mamai’s place during the battle is the remark of “The Tale of the Massacre of Mamai,” which in the Cyprian version of the legend sounds like this: “The wicked Tsar Mamai with his five princes ascended to the high place on Sholomya, and that stasha.” In other editions there is no word “sholom”, hill, and nowhere is it called Red.

Where did "Red Hill" come from? Fomenko and Nosovsky copied it from the “History of the Cossacks” by A. A. Gordeev, full of the most ridiculous fantasies that migrated to them and to some of Lev Gumilev’s texts, for example, from beginning to end, a fictitious story about the “twinning” of Alexander Nevsky with Batu’s son Sartak. But in this case, the Cossack science fiction writer is innocent; he honestly borrowed from the Tula local historian I.F. Afremov the assumption that the hill that Mamai rode to was the Red Hill in the vicinity of Kulikovo Field. Afremov tied Mamai’s headquarters to a specific Red Hill based on the folk legends of Tula.

A whole cycle of folk tales and legends has developed around the historical Kulikovo Field, in which some researchers see a reflection of facts that have not been recorded in the chronicles. Is this really true or is this just a folk idea? It’s debatable. But what is certain is that the only source in which “Red Hill” appears as Mamai’s headquarters are the legends of the peasants of the Tula province, transmitted to historians in the 19th century, and they referred to “this hill” in the Tula region, which is called Red. It was thanks to the legendary connection that a monument column and a church were subsequently erected on this hill in honor of the battle.

There is no Red Hill that could be moved from Tula land to Moscow in the sources, there is only a specific Tula Red Hill, which the legends about it allowed, with some stretch, to be tied to the battle.

And now the final question: if the Battle of Kulikovo took place in Moscow, then why were topographical legends about it preserved only near Tula, so much so that the Novochronolozhians build their “reconstructions” on them as a source?

The basic method of Fomenkov’s work with sources is to quote what is beneficial to confirm one’s fiction, what is unprofitable is not to quote, ignore any contradictions in one’s own position, and explain contradictory fragments of the source by saying that it was distorted by “Romanov’s historiography.” But sometimes this whole set of techniques does not help. And then you have to simply and artlessly lie.

“Today they explain to us that Russians fought with Tatars on the Kulikovo Field. The Russians won. The Tatars were defeated. For some reason, the primary sources have a different opinion. We will simply quote their brief retelling made by Gumilyov in the book “From Rus' to Russia” (1992). First, let's see who fought on the side of the Tatars and Mamai. It turns out that “the Volga Tatars reluctantly served Mamai and there were few of them in his army.” Mamai’s troops consisted of Poles, Crimeans, Genoese (Fryags), Yasses and Kasogs,” write Fomenko and Nosovsky in their voluminous compendium “Rus and Rome” (vol. 1, p. 598).

Why should “primary sources” that supposedly have a “different opinion” not be quoted, but given in a retelling by Lev Gumilyov, who himself was often accused of distorting, and even his purely journalistic book “From Rus' to Russia”, devoid of any scientific apparatus - mystery. But that would be fine! Fomenko and Nosovsky were not even able to quote Gumilyov, but instead misrepresented him and deliberately distorted his words. “Mamai’s troops included Genoese infantry, as well as Alans (Ossetians), Kasogs (Circassians) and Cumans, mobilized with Genoese money” (From Rus' to Russia, 1992, p. 163).

Gumilev did not write about any “Poles” invented in this context by Fomenko and Nosovsky. He wrote about the Polovtsians, a classic nomadic people, centuries-old opponents of the Russians since the times of Vladimir Monomakh and Prince Igor. The level of disrespect of Fomenko and Nosovsky for their readers is such that, even when quoting this or that confirmation of their words, they cannot help but cheat and write into the cited source something that was not there, is not and could not be.

Such source-based kleptomania is already a pathological condition, when deception has to be covered up with even greater deception.

Fomenko and Nosovsky knew that Gumilyov did not have any “Poles”. And yet they were included. And yet they called their inscription “quotation.” That is, they committed a completely conscious forgery, which cannot be attributed to a mistake and carelessness. What does this mean? The fact that both characters know everything about themselves and understand that they are not discoverers, not reenactors, not dreamers, but falsifiers of history.

Now let's answer simple questions for ourselves. Why falsify history by taking away from the Russians a shrine of national memory - the Battle of Kulikovo? Why falsify history by dissolving the memory of Rus' in some Empire-Horde tomb of the rulers, which is somewhere in Egypt? Why falsify history by declaring that Novgorod is Yaroslavl? Why falsify history by declaring the Lord Jesus Christ to be the murderous emperor Andronikos Komnenos? Why falsify history by declaring that Orthodoxy and Islam are “one religion”?

And here it becomes completely clear that if these people are deliberately lying (which we have just seen), then the purpose of their falsifications is to deprive Russians of our historical, national, religious, even spatial identity. A fictional story and identity are invented and inflated so that when this phantom is killed, leaving behind only an unpleasant odor, the people poisoned by it will have nothing left in its place.

Egor Kholmogorov
Publicist

They are falsifying our history again. Fomenko is a liar. Mathematicians use their laurels to fool people in history.

Grade 1 out of 5 stars by Slavyanin 11/23/2016 00:24

How surprised I am by such comments. I DIDN’T READ any further... Why are you writing then, my friend?! To understand you MUST read! Systematically. At least 3 books, consecutively. There is an evidence base - HUNDREDS of examples, explanations and explanations. People are academicians at Moscow State University, of the old school, and not with purchased diplomas, they dedicated their lives to this... for almost 40 years!!!
About Samarkand - we are talking about the fact that CHRNICAL Samarkand is like a version of Samara! When was Samarkand called Samarkand? - initially, supposedly in ancient times, once and for all... or relatively not so long ago, on paper, and then they attributed ancient history, also on paper?? Can you prove that it is not option 2? It is believed that the capital of the Horde was Samarkand, where they went to get labels and where ALL the wealth was brought... only in practice and during excavations it somehow doesn’t work out. SamarKand is essentially the same as SamarGrad or SamarBurg... the idea is clear. Taking into account. Taking into account that the main headquarters (Sarai) of the troops were the lands of the Volga region and the center of the so-called Horde is Vladimir-Suzdal Rus', from where the “conquest” of the world came - the settlement and construction of the main European cities!
And about the transition of letters .. OPEN the chronicles directly on the Internet and look at what letters they wrote - oak, etc., there is one - FITA, one name speaks for itself, that it’s like F or T. And it’s on, find channel U - there’s a program there is called “tata and huts”, which now, in our opinion, is translated as dad in the apartment (on dad’s apartment), which our craftsmen translated as dad got there (this is about translations, even at this time) - here’s the transition from P to T (during translation, of course).
As for the comparison of names and personalities themselves - we are talking in particular about rumors and gossip, if simply put, the “correctness” of the translation.. The first is well understood by people from villages or small areas, where sometimes an insignificant event is changed from word to mouth from foot to foot. a head or a significant event is altered beyond recognition - SCHEME. And secondly, first you need to understand that the WRITTEN history of HUMANITY is at most 1000 years old!!! There were no Sumerians 4000 thousand years before the year 0, they themselves existed but no more than 1000 years ago - any adobe shards will crumble to dust in 6000 years, like the Chini Wall, those parts of it that are really old, the first, adobe, built 300 years ago -400 ago and naturally, without support, they turned almost into dust!! And the only way to not understand this is to pretend that you don’t understand it.
Next, you MUST understand that writing, especially literate writing, was with the nobility, at the royal courts, in individual monasteries, especially before the advent of printing presses!!!
Can you imagine the translation of names or descriptions of events NOT by participants in these events with limited knowledge (there was no INTERNET then). As an example, FOR EXAMPLE, the word JOKER, if you need to translate it, say, into Finnish (and if you can’t find a translation, then say it in Finnish) - you get JOKERIT, which when pronounced, due to the emphasis on the first syllable like [Ё krt] and then someone with Finnish (just as an example) will be translated into Greek - OUKERITUS, but in Russian it was just a joke!
READ HUNDREDS OF VERY CLEAR EXAMPLES THERE!!! Alternately from the books of the main series 1-"The Mystery of Russian History" (to get interested) 2-"New Chronology of Rus'" 3-"Empire 1" 4-"Empire 2" 5-"Reconstruction of World History", Tsar of the Slavs. At least these!!

Northerner 08/11/2016 17:35

I came across a chapter about Samarkand, supposedly it was Constantinople, Samara. What nonsense. I myself am from Samarkand and there are still villages with the names Farizh - Paris, etc. I didn’t even read the rest of the legends...

Grade 1 out of 5 stars by SaMarks 09/07/2015 21:49

During “enslavement” they paid only a tithe to the prince, but now how much is the income?... pension and all taxes together? so maybe slavery now? and then there was freedom of choice?!
if there was enslavement, then there must have been mixing of races, but what do we see? (Canadian and English scientists independently analyzed the DNA of Belarusians, Ukrainians, Russians - the DNA was pure, there was no mixing with other races) I don’t draw conclusions based on only one source, I just put together a picture in my head, analyzing the available information.
so the analogy drawn with these characters is quite possible, and there is nothing so supernatural here

Grade 5 out of 5 stars from Vladimir

The “New Chronology” was criticized by a number of scientists, in particular, Academician of the Russian Academy of Sciences archaeologist V.L. Yanin, Academician of the Russian Academy of Sciences linguist A.A. Zaliznyak, member of the Bureau of the Scientific Council of the Russian Academy of Sciences for Astronomy Yu.N. Efremov. Academician of the Russian Academy of Sciences, Nobel laureate in physics V. L. Ginzburg, academicians E. P. Kruglyakov, A. F. Andreev, N. A. Plate, A. A. Fursenko, E. B. Aleksandrov, agreeing with the criticism expressed earlier, qualified the “New Chronology” as pseudoscience.
*** November 15, 2008 at 0:20 on TV channel 3
Dibrov’s program “Temporarily Available” with the academician took place
A. Fomenko, who proved that dates and events of history
falsified, some events did not occur at all.
**
“New Chronology” believes that scientists, writers, and historical figures known from traditional history really lived, but often not at the time that historians call. Often the same person was called differently and ended up in history as several characters (for example, Ivan Kalita was nicknamed Batka, or Batu, but for us Batu is a completely different person). Many scientists, writers, and politicians who are believed to have lived in different historical periods were actually contemporaries. Thus, many early Christian theologians argued not with the followers of long-dead philosophers, as is often believed, but with these philosophers themselves

1. There was no Tatar-Mongol invasion of Rus'!
2. Genghis Khan is Yuri Dolgoruky.
3. The Battle of Kulikovo was in the center of Moscow.
4. Moscow is less than a year old. It was just a settlement.
5. Ivan the Terrible is 4 people.
6. Homer lived in the Middle Ages, etc.
7. King Herod died in 4 BC and was looking for a baby -
Christ is 2 years old. Calculation of time from the day of birth
Jesus does not correspond to the actual birth date. Christ.
8.Fomenko proves that Christ was born in the 12TH CENTURY
Independent astronomical dating of the life of Christ:
The Zodiac of Osiris gives the Easter date - the morning of March 20
1185 and fits perfectly with the dating
Star of Bethlehem. Those. that Jesus was born
March 20, 1185.
P.S
The place of the so-called “burial of Jesus Christ” is located in India in the Himalayas, in the capital of Kashmir, Srinagar. From mouth to mouth it is said here that “after the resurrection, Issa arrived in India, where he lived to an old age.” This is confirmed by the book “The Fifth Gospel” by historian Fida Hassanain. The author, claiming that Jesus Christ died and was buried in Srinagar, refers to various Indian sources: legends, tales, ancient manuscripts.
The Sanskrit manuscript "Bhavishya Mahapurana", dating back to the year 115, says that the Kashmiri king Shaliyakhan, who ruled in the 39-50s, while traveling, met near a small village 18 km from present-day Srinagar a fair-skinned man in snow-white robes. When asked who he was, he replied: “I am known as the Son of God, born of a virgin.” And he said that he “suffered at the hands of unrighteous people” for preaching the service of God.

Radio Liberty:
Ahmadi Muslims have their own interpretation of the life of Jesus Christ
The program is hosted by Dmitry Morozov. Radio Liberty correspondent Rovshan Huseynov takes part.

Muslims who call Jesus Christ the prophet Jesus deeply revere him, although they do not consider him the son of God. Ahmadi Muslims, who interpret his life path in their own way, claim that Jesus Christ lived a long life and was buried in one of the tombs in the city of Srinagar in the Indian state of Kashmir.

None of the four gospels say anything about the life of Christ between the ages of 14 and 29. Ahmadi Muslims claim that Jesus, at about the age of 13, secretly left his homeland and, together with Jewish merchants, went from Jerusalem to India to preach his teachings. He spent all this time in the Himalayas, and when he was 29 years old, he returned to Palestine.

Narrated by Yuri Poltorak, an expert on the history of the Middle East.
Jesus Christ lived here, on this land, in Judea. The teaching he preached was not accepted by the majority of the inhabitants of the then Judea, and he went to preach among the tribes of Israel, who, apparently, had once left this land. Left for India. He returned here, continued to preach and in the end was arrested, was crucified, but did not die on the cross, but lost consciousness. He was taken down from the cross, buried in a cave, he came to his senses and went with his mother Mary to India and lived there until a very respectable age. He died at the age of 120. And today in the state of Kashmir, in the city of Srinagar, there is the tomb of Jesus of Nazareth, it is shown to everyone. By the way, Nicholas Roerich also wrote about this in his memoirs about his travels to India.
*
Cossack troops formed part of the Horde and WERE REGULAR TROOPS OF THE RUSSIAN STATE. In other words, the Horde is simply a regular Russian army. The terms army and warrior are Church Slavonic in origin, and not Old Russian, and came into use only from the 17th century. The old terminology was: Horde, Cossack, Khan.
*****
“Do not think that I came to bring peace to the earth; I did not come to bring peace, but a sword; for I came to divide a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law. And a man’s enemies are his own household” ( Gospel of Matthew, chapter 10, v. 34-36).

“I have come to bring fire to the earth, and how I wish it had already kindled! I must be baptized with baptism; and how I languish until this is accomplished! Do you think that I have come to give peace to the earth? No, I tell you, but division “For from now on five will be divided in one house: three against two, and two against son, and a mother against a daughter, and a mother-in-law against her daughter-in-law, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law” (Gospel). from Luke, chapter 12, v. 49-53).

Jesus created a totalitarian sect and recruited members into it, but he was hindered by the parents, spouses, and children of the “invitees,” because they considered Christ crazy: “Many of them said: He is possessed by a demon and is going mad; why are you listening to Him?” (Gospel of John, chapter 10, v. 20).
It is interesting that Jesus Christ’s mother, the “Holy Virgin” Mary, wanted to tear Jesus Christ out of the sect he had created, “for they said that He had lost his temper” (Gospel of Mark, chapter 3, v. 21). She came with his brothers to the barn where the “son of God” was preaching and tried to call Jesus. But he did not go out to his “family,” and said to the apostles approximately the following: “You are not my mother, but you are both my mother and my brothers” (Gospel of Mark, chapter 3, vv. 31-35;
Gospel of Matthew, ch. 12, art. 46-50 and the Gospel of Luke, ch. 8, v. 19-21).

So, He “said to another: follow Me. He said: Lord! Let me first go and bury my father. But Jesus said to him: Let the dead bury their dead; and you go, preach the Kingdom of God. Another one said: I will go for you, Lord! But first let me say goodbye to my household. But Jesus said to him: no one who puts his hand to the plow and looks back is fit for the kingdom of God" (Gospel of Luke, chapter 9, vv. 59-62). ).

Even chauvinism was not alien to Jesus of Nazareth: “...Jesus retired to the countries of Tire and Sidon. And behold, a Canaanite woman, coming out of those places, shouted to Him: have mercy on me. Lord, Son of David! My daughter is cruelly raging. But He He did not answer her a word. And His disciples came and asked Him: let her go, because he is shouting after us. He answered: I was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel. And she came up and bowed to Him and said, Lord. help me.” He answered and said, “It is not good to take the children’s bread and throw it to the dogs” (Gospel of Matthew, chapter 15, v. 21-26).

Jesus Christ taught: “To the one who hits you on the cheek, offer the other also” (Gospel of Luke, chapter 6, v. 29), but when he himself was hit on the cheek, he, contrary to his own teaching, shouted indignantly: “Why are you hitting Me? " (Gospel of John, ch. 18, v. 23). And he didn’t turn the other cheek!

“... whoever... says to his brother: “raca” (empty man); and whoever says: “madman” is subject to fiery hell” (Gospel of Matthew, chapter 5, v. 22). Alas, Jesus also earned “gehenna” by calling his opponents “insane” (Gospel of Matthew, ch. 23, v. 17 and 19).

In general, he is not shy in his choice of expressions: “hypocrites”, “brood of vipers”, “an evil and adulterous generation”, “snakes”, “whited tombs”, etc. This is how Christ calls those who ask him “inconvenient” questions : “Why don’t you fast?”, “Why don’t you wash your hands before eating?”, “Are you really the son of God and the king of the Jews?”

about retribution for sins. Two thieves were crucified together with Jesus. “One of the hanged villains said to Jesus: remember me, Lord, when you come into your kingdom! And Jesus said to him: truly I say to you, today you will be with me in paradise” (Gospel of Luke, chapter 23, v. 39-43 ).

And you, no matter how sinful you are, believe, repent and... you will definitely go to heaven! The correctness of this interpretation is confirmed by Jesus Christ himself: “I tell you that there will be more joy in heaven over one sinner who repents than over ninety-nine righteous people who do not need to repent” (Gospel of Luke, ch. 15, v. 7).

Does this mean that one criminal who believed in Christ is preferable to ninety-nine honest and worthy people? Doesn’t such “morality” justify the most immoral actions?

Society has the right to choose its own ideals. But in order to make the right choice, people must know the truth