5 comments about History: Fiction or Science? (Chronology, No. 1).

1. There is no doubt that history as most know it is a sham, & institution's version of History both University & Church is fradulent & inaccurate. Everything was established with an agenda, The real "Dark Ages" are now when we have access to incredible amounts of information past authorities & more important 'common folk' didn't have but our institutions & educators are slow to evolve because of what has ignorantly & arrogantly been taught for too long. This is on many subjects not just Chronology.
   
   For anyone to question "Why would a Mathematician have anything credible to say of History?" The answer is from Dr. Fomenko's preface in the book: "It would be worthwhile to remind the reader that in the XVI-XVII century Chronology was considered to be a subdivision of Mathematics." These volumes could possibly be some of the most important works to date & should be read by everyone with an interest in History, especially professors & educators who have a duty to the public. I have read both books & must say that 'Chronology 1' has some very eye opening & revolutionary information. Even if these volumes are part true the implications are profound & opens the doors to further investigations & questions which must be done. I speak several different lanquages & must say the logic Dr. Fomenko uses with "inflection" of words & words being read from left to right in one region & right to left in another then written backwards, the removal of vowels & get down to basics of words, or different cities & locations having the same name etc. is correct. Vowel usage has always been optional & varied, actually complicating linquistics & study. The first thing one has to understand is that words never had a fixed spelling in history like we do now, the spelling of words was mutable & regional, as well as names & titles of people were vast, varied & changed, NOTHING WAS FIXED or understood linear. Matters of Life & Death as well as financial profiteering yesterday & today were & are made with ignorant, illogical & conspiratorial views of history & reality, it's time people get closer to the Truth & society collectively grow up.



2. Will people ever read before spamming? Yes, Jesuits could not rewrite world history alone, they had help. Anyway, Dr Prof Acad A.Fomenko does not point to jesuits as the driving force of world wide history manipulation in published volumes 1,2,3;, actually he barely mentions the poor devils. Check it with 'Search inside' feature, please. China is rarely mentioned either, in fact, Dr Fomenko is completely eurocentric. Right, his theory contradicts all mainstream schools of history, because in their actual state they are all built on blatantly erroneus chronology. You don't need a mysterious cabal (conspiracy) to falsify history, the falsification is its modus operandi. It is inherent to history(ians) to falsify (distort) events, as it is inherent to humans to boast as it is inherent to power (authority) to legimize itself by referrring to glorious past made to its own order. Dr Prof Fomenko and team have identified scores of instances of such manipulation in Russian, European, etc.. history, and delivered valid statistical proof thereof. His own 'reconstruction' is completely another story. Forget c14 as a valid method of dating. W.Libby has initially discovered a brilliant method of INDEPENDENT dating. Too bad, c14 method has become a joke after a forced marrige with dendrochronology with consensual chronological scale inbuilt. Radiocarbon method can't stand blind tests, but is so very productive as a rubberstamp.



3. Yes, we can all agree that mainstream history is nearly 100% BS due to politics, economics, ego, problems with dating techniques, and various conspiracies. Agreed. But, I've been researching the distinct possibility that human history (in terms of civilizations) are much more ancient than we've been told, so coming across this book was very interesting to me. I wondered how Fomenko could be wrong (if at all) because he is very persuasive in his presentations. Then it dawned on me. If at previous times in prehistory, due to the various catastrophies that are well documented (comets, asteroids, planetary disruptions, plasma discharge, pole reversals, etc) the Earth was in a different position in relation to the sun (ie. closer), different tilt on its axis (ie. less than 23.5 degrees), different orbit (ie. more circular), different rotation (ie. in terms of velocity and DIRECTION), and the continents were in different relative positions, then would this not cause the ancients to see the sky (constellations) differently from how we would today? In other words, is Fomenko making erronious assumptions about the physics of the Earth in pre-history, which then corrupt his data with regards to dating the relevant astrology? The last event to seriously disrupt our planet occured roughly 3500 years ago, according to other good researchers, so is it possible Fomenko has been confused by this? The vastly different physics of our planet in the not so distant past may explain this confusion, which is not to say the "mainstream" version of history or geography is correct; on the contrary. I am not an expert in these fields, but wanted to see if this idea could spark discussion.



4. Watch Video Here: http://www.amazon.com/review/RAZQNMXM4M9CL Has history been tampered with? Yes, it has! Did events and eras such as the crucifixion of Jesus Christ, the Roman Empire , the Dark Ages, and the Renaissance, actually occur within a very different chronology from what we've been told? Yes, they certainly did!
   
   The history of humankind is both drastically shorter and dramatically different than generally presumed.
   
   Why is it so? On one hand, it was usual custom to justify the claims to title and land by age and ancestry, and on the other the court historians knew only too well how to please their masters. The so called universal classic world history is a pack of intricate lies for all events prior to the 16th century. World history as we learn it today was entirely fabricated in the 16th-18th centuries. It's likely that nobody told you before, but
   
   there is not a single piece of firm written evidence or artefact that is reliably and independently dated prior to the 11th century.
   
   Naturally, after what you've learned in school and university, you will not easily believe that the classical history of ancient Rome, Greece, Asia, Egypt, China, Japan, India, etc., is manifestly false.
   
   You will point accusing finger to the pyramids in Egypt, to the Coliseum in Rome and Great Wall of China etc., and claim, aren't they really ancient, thousands of years ancient? Well, there is no valid scientific proof that they are older than 1000 years!
   
   The oldest original written document that can be reliably dated belongs to the 11th century!
   
   New research asserts that Homo sapiens invented writing (including hieroglyphics) only 1000 years ago. Once invented, writing skills were immediately and irreversibly put to the use of ruling powers and science.
   
   The consensual chronology we live with was essentially crafted in the 16th century by the Jesuits.
   
   The world history was compiled from contradictory mix of innumerable copies of ancient Latin and Greek manuscripts and other irrefutable proofs delivered by late mediaeval astronomers that were cemented by the authority of writings of the Church Fathers.
   
   Early in life, we learn about ancient history. Children love the magical lessons of history - they are like fairy tales. Teachers recite breathtaking stories; very soon We learn by heart the names and deeds of brave warriors, wise philosophers, fabulous pharaohs, cunning high priests and greedy scribes.
   
   We learn of gigantic pyramids and sinister castles, kings and queens, dukes and barons, powerful heroes and beautiful ladies, emaciated saints and low-life traitors.
   
   Ancient history is based documents, manuscripts, printed books, paintings, monuments and artefacts - called primary sources.
   
   The problem is that neither these ancient documents, nor events described therein can be irrefutably dated, moreover they contradict each other for the most part.
   
   When a school textbook tells us that Genghis Khan in year X or Alexander in year Y, have each conquered half of the world, it means only that it is so said in some of the written sources.
   
   There are no answers to simple questions:
   
   When were these primary sources written?
   
   Where and by whom were these sources found?
   
   It is wrongly presumed that ancient and medieval chronicles, written by Genghis Khan's or Alexander the Great contemporaries and eyewitnesses, are readily available. Actually, only sources written hundreds or even thousands of years after the events are there, compiled mostly in the 16th 18th centuries, or even later.
   
   As a rule, these sources suffered considerable multiple manipulations, falsifications and distortions by editing. At the same time,
   
   innumerable originals of ancient documents under various pretexts were destroyed in Europe under various pretexts.
   
   The names of persons and geographical sites often changed meaning and location during the course of the centuries.
   
   Geographical locations became clearly defined on maps only with the advent of printing.
   
   This made possible the circulation of identical copies of the same map for purposes of the military, navigation, education and governance tasks.
   
   Historians from Oxford say: "hey, everybody knows that Julius Caesar lived in the first century B.C.
   
   `Julius Caesar' statement is only a point of view as
   
   there is simply no irrefutable documentary proof that Julius Caesar or any other great name of antiquity ever existed.
   
   Better than that - extremely rare sources that can be reliably dated back to the 10th-14th centuries A D, do not show the polished picture of classical history.
   
   They show a picture both contradictory and confusing.
   
   All methods of dating of ancient sources and artefacts are erroneous:
   
   Radio-carbon C14 method produces dating with exactitude of plus minus 1500 years, therefore it is too crude for dating of events in historical timeframe!
   
   The Almagest tractate, which lies as corner stone contemporary chronology, compiled in the 2nd century A D by Ptolemy, the founding father of astronomy, contains astronomical data of 9th to 16th century!
   
   The Bronze Age,that has supposedly began 5000 years ago. Bronze is made of 90% copper and 10% tin, but the technology for tin extraction dates back to 14th century A D!.
   
   All eclipses contained in manuscripts, like Thucydides one, relating 'ancient' events have exclusively medieval dating. All horoscopes cut in stone or painted in Egyptian temples, like Dendera have exclusively early medieval dating solutions.
   
   Not quite what you have learned in school? Open your eyes, and, you will find sufficient proof to reach step by step the inevitable conclusion that the classical chronology is false and therefore, that the history of ancient and medieval world universally accepted today, is also false. Have a fresh outlook on everything said or printed about "ancient" and "enigmatic" Roman, Greek and Egyptian, medieval as well as all other "lost and found" civilizations.
   
   Antiquity and Dark Ages are phantoms invented in the 16th 18th and polished in 19th 20thcenturies. Human civilization is in fact barely 1000 years old!
   
   This book will change your perception of History forever!
   What if Ancient Rome, Greece and Egypt were invented during Renaissance?
   What if The Old Testament was a rendition of events of the Middle Ages?
   What if Jesus Christ was born in 1053 and crucified in 1086 AD?
   Sounds Unbelievable?
   Not after you've read "History: Fiction or Science?" by Anatoly Fomenko, the genius mathematician.
   Armed with astronomy and computers Anatoly Fomenko turns History into a rocket science.



5. The professional historians faint as prominent mathematician Doctor Fomenko et al research the known historical data and come to fairly controversial conclusions.
   
   For example, the English historians rage at the suggestion that the history of Ancient England was de facto a Byzantine import transplanted to the English soil by the fugitive Byzantine nobility. As the sign of recognition of the special role of the English historians who consider themselves the true scribes of World History, the cover of the present book portrays Tintoretto's Jesus Christ crucified on the Big Ben.
   
   The Russian historians brand it as pseudoscience because Dr Fomenko asserts that there was no such thing as the Tartar and Mongol invasion followed by over two centuries of slavery, providing a formidable body of documental evidence to prove his assertion. The so-called `Tartars and Mongols' were the actual ancestors of the modern Russians, living in a trilingual state and aspiring Global Empire with Arabic and Turkic spoken as freely as Russian.
   
   The ancient proto-Russian state was governed by a double structure of civil and military authorities and the hordes were actually professional armies with a tradition of lifelong conscription (the recruitment being the so-called `blood tax'). Their `invasions' were punitive operations against the regions that attempted tax evasion.
   
   Fomenko proves for a fact that official Russian history is a blatant forgery concocted by a host of German scholars brought to Russia by the usurper dynasty of the Romanovs. Their ascension to the throne was the result of conspiracy, so they charged these German historians-imports with the noble mission of making Romanov's reign look legitimate.
   
   Dr Fomenko et al prove Ivan the Terrible to be a collation of four rulers, no less. These rulers represented the two rival dynasties - the legitimate Godounovs and the ambitious Romanov upstarts.
   
   The European historians fume not only because Fomenko blows consensual Russian history to smithereens, successfully removing a crucial cornerstone from underneath the otherwise impeccable edifice of World History but for asserting that all medieval European Kings and Princes were but breakaway vice-regents and vassals of the Global Empire who badly needed glorious and very `ancient' past in order to legitimize their new independence from the Empire.
   
   Dr Fomenko adds insult to injury, wiping out one by one: the Ancient Rome: the foundation of Rome in Italy is dated to the 14th century A. D., the Ancient Greece and its numerous poleis, which he identifies as the mediaeval crusader settlements on the territory of Greece, the Ancient Egypt: the pyramids of Giza become dated to the 11th to 14th century A. D. and identified as the royal cemetery of the Global Empire, no less.
   
   The civilization of the `ancient'' Egypt is irrefutably dated to the 11th to 15th century A. D. following the breakthrough in decoding of the ancient Egyptian horoscopes cut in stone and painted on the temple walls.
   
   Arabic historians may find some consolation in the crucial historical role of the Ottoman Empire as a part of the Global empire in the 15th - 17th century. The trouble is that this Empire was initially a proto-Christian state, with Hagia Sophia identifiable as Temple of Solomon, but built in 1550-1557 A.D. by Sultan Suleiman according to Fomenko and Islam with all its key figures is datable to 15th 16th century A. D.!
   
   The Chinese historians are also an unhappy lot because Fomenko wipes out the Ancient History of China outright. No such history. Period. The compilation of the so-called Ancient Chinese History is reliably datable to the 17th 18th century only. It is perfectly recognizable as the Ancient European history, reworked and transcribed in hieroglyphs as yet another historical transplantation.
   
   The Divinity excommunicates Dr Fomenko because the history of religions according to Fomenko looks as follows: the pre-Christian period (before the 11th century and Jesus Christ ), Bacchic Christianity (11th to 12th century, before and after Jesus Christ), Jesus Christ Christianity (12th to 14th century) and its subsequent mutations (15th to 17th cy) into Orthodox Christianity, the Catholicism, Protestantism, Islam, Buddhism, and so on..; and The Old Testament written after the New Testament in xiv-xvi cy A.D., if you please! Everybody served? Saint Augustine was quite prescient when he said: "be wary of mathematicians, particularly when they speak the truth."

No comments about Priesthood, Pastors, Bishops: Public Ministry for the Reformation and Today.

5 comments about Luther for Armchair Theologians.

1. Theology-wise it is way-way-way over the head of a lay person like me and I am sure it is way-way-way below respectable level for the professionals in the field.



2. Easy to read, delightful illustrations, make this book a valuable learning tool for anyone who wants to get better acquainted with Martin Luther and his insights into scripture.



3. The problem I had with this book is that rather than discussing the Theology of Luther, it also focussed on the Catholic Church he opposed and how he differed.
   
   The problem is whether the error of the author himself or the error of Luther, the Roman Catholic Church does not in fact believe what this book asserts. Now if this theology is as Luther understood the Roman Catholic Church itself, then the area of debate is between theologians (armchair or otherwise).
   
   However, if it is the understanding of Steven D. Paulson on the Roman Catholic Church that is being represented here, then the book is nothing more than a 224 page straw man argument set up to make the objections to Luther seem weaker then they actually are.
   
   That sort of approach helps nobody in ecumenical discussions. If the arguments of Luther are set against beliefs not held by Catholics, it fails to give a true idea of the theological issues and can only bring about misunderstandings.
   
   Moreover, Paulson fails to recognize the true nature of the era. Yes it is true that the Catholic Church was the major religious body. But what is unacknowledged was at this time, the state of the Holy Roman Empire was overrun with growing secular and humanistic ideas that the Catholic Church itself opposed, so many of the ideas Paulson attributes to the Catholic Church were in fact ideas held by leading secular thinkers.
   
   So ultimately, the problem this book has is with false premises. When the premise is false, so is the argument, so it is not useful in demonstrating what Luther held to believe except as what he held in the face of a straw man argument



4. This theology will change your faith life, but you must be patient and open to hearing about Christ's work in a way not normally spoken of in this "hyped on free will" American culture.



5. Steven Paulson attempts to discuss the main themes of Luther's theology and career in this book that also seems to attempt to find the middle way for readers that may range from initiates to theology to the more knowledgeable. He assumes readers will know the basics of the historical period and of the general prinicples of Christian theology. He mainly writes about the areas where Luther differed from the Roman Catholics and from other reformers such as Zwingli, Muntzer and the Anabaptists.
   
   The main theme throughout the book is Luther's focus on justification by faith alone and the dynamic relationship between Law and Gospel. This discussion points to Luther's theology of the cross, but the author does not pursue the theology of the cross very in depthly. He does cover Luther's teaching that Christ takes all of a person's sins and gives all of his own righteousness to people. He provides reasons why this teaching suffers such animosity from many religous during Luther's time and today. Paulson also discusses the effectiveness of the proclamation of Christ's forgiveness of sins to people.
   
   Overall, I think Paulson shows the importance of Luther and Luther's main ideas. Paulson faces a challenge in this book of covering Luther's theology comprehensively without going to deep into any of the particulars. The result is a general overview that probably will leave some readers confused by its terms and technicalities while other readers are unsatisfied by its lack of depth.
   
   I think this works as a good introduction to Luther and can either whet the appetite for more study or provide a satisfactory overview for the curious "armchair theologian."

1 comments about The Substance of the Faith: Luther's Doctrinal Theology for Today.

1. ... who has to plod through this tome.
   
   The authors say in the introduction that this book is not only for theologians, but also for "pastors, seminarians, and educated laity." I consider myself a reasonably well-educated Lutheran layperson, theologically speaking. I've made it through theological works by Gerhard Forde, Gritsch and Jenson, Kolb and Arand, Bonhoeffer, among others, plus several of Luther's essays and most of the Book of Concord. It's not the first time I've encountered theological jargon like exegesis, hermeneutics, ontological, eschatology, hypostatic, typology, and a host of others. But frankly, I could not make it through all of this work.
   
   The work is divided into three essays, one by each of the authors. The first and third are dense but decipherable, with a lot of effort. The one in the middle I simply gave up on in frustration.
   
   There are a couple of interesting points in the first and third essays (and there may be some buried somewhere in the second), so I'm giving it three stars. But for a much easier-to-digest look at Luther's theology, I'd recommend Kolb and Arand's new book "The Genius of Luther's Theology."

1 comments about Lutheran Identity: A Classical Understanding (Lutheran Voices).

1. Reverend Frank Senn has created a concise introduction to the history of the Lutheran Churches' distinct identity. It is handy and readable for lay people interested in learning more about their faith, but because it's such a short and synoptic pamphlet, it suffers from minor problems that will urge more ambitous readers into further research and discussion.
   
   As the secondary title suggests, this pamphlet focus on the classical history of the Lutheran tradition, leaving the present up for debate in our modern, contentious times. This is probably for the best, since the future is an open discussion based on history, which he provides. Focusing on Lutheranism in its historical contexts, and the evolutions of its theology, Senn bravely includes many ignominious moments from the church's history, instead of limiting himself to some sort of ill-defined song of praise. He even brings in the evolution of scripture in the Apostolic Age and how the controversies that helped bring the church together were played out again during the Reformation. His history is very comprehensive, though short, and gives the curious reader a first footing for further research in the field.
   
   The problem is when he occasionally strays away from history and into proclamation. For instance, at the end of chapter 3, "Ecumenical Creeds," he insists that the three creeds from the Apostolic Age MUST be the only three used in worship, as no others can hold the same theological weight. Though he softens this stance in a discussion question later on the page, this dogmatic view that some things are too holy to be questioned risks alienating more spiritually inquisitive readers who may fundamentally agree with the idea but want to investigate rather than being simply told what to believe.
   
   Conversely, there are several times where Senn flees from telling us what something means. He mentions that Martin Stefan, first bishop of the Lutheran Church - Missouri Synod, was expelled over a "troubling episode," but doesn't explain further. Likewise, he names controversies that have plagued Lutheran history, like Antinomianism or Osiandrianism, without further definition. Though this book is meant to be short and synoptic, a few brief sentences wouldn't overburden the text, and frankly, I shouldn't end my reading with a frustrated flight to Wikipedia.
   
   That said, the book's six chapters give a remarkably overarching view into the history of the Lutheran traditions. Why are there different Lutheran branches in the U.S.? Why do multiple congregations need to have a common liturgy? What is the purpose of the Creeds and of hymn-singing? This book gives handy, short, useful answers to these questions and others you probably never contemplated before now.
   
   Good for an adult Bible study or group discussions, this book is also short and simple enough for an individual to savvy in one or two nights. As an adult convert to Lutheranism, it cleared up many of the historical questions I never got in my earlier religious education, and helped me understand why we perform many of the acts we do on Sunday and during the week. Highly recommended for Lutherans interested in learning about their own church, it will also be informative and educational for any outsiders who want to know more about one of the most influential branches of the Christian tradition.

3 comments about The Christian Faith: A Lutheran Exposition.

1. This book is frequently used to teach basic Lutheran doctrine but it is a poor choice for such a fundamental task. Doctrine is developed from a systematic analysis of the Scriptures...yet such a systematic approach appears missing from this text. Ambiguity, not clarity, is its hallmark.

   It is possible that the book appeals to those who already have a firm foundation in Lutheran doctrine in that the literary style for presenting the material is fresh and not "dull" in that dry "old school" way doctrine has been presented historically. If one already understands the doctrine the book may not disappoint but if one does not know the information the book makes it difficult to capture some of the key doctrinal positions of the Lutheran church. The book does not do a good job of:

   1) Clearly sorting and labeling the topic(s) under discussion in a distinct manner (such as using bullet points, outlines, etc.,) to facilitate learning.
   2) Clearly defining terms. Some terms are well defined but many terms are poorly defined or not defined at all.
   3) Clearly discussing the topic at hand. There is a lot of nice language in the book, lots of literary descriptions that create lovely word images but do little to help clarify the topic under discussion. In many cases, it is difficult, if not just about impossible, to identify the Lutheran church's position on the topic...definitely not a plus for a text designed to teach doctrine!

   Ultimately I gave up trying to decipher what the author was trying to say about Lutheran doctrine and I defaulted to an older text on the subject, Christian Dogmatics by John Theodore Mueller. The Mueller text is well organized and clearly communicates the doctrine, the rationale and the related scriptural references.




2. In the last ten years as a Lutheran pastor I have handed out as many as fifty copies of this pearl by Robert Kolb. Written in intelligent yet accessible English, the book has served well to describe Lutheran Christian teaching to people at the undergraduate college level and above. Vivid prose, clarity, and lucidity are high points. Kolb exhibits a rare knack for explaining complex topics in simple (not simplistic!) terms. He also succeeds in applying enduring (read, "ancient") theological themes in an emerging post-modern context.



3. The book arrived timely and in brand new condition. It is a very good book for anyone who has the desire to understand true Christianity and some of the false ideas that the Church has come against.

3 comments about Martin Luther's 95 Theses.

1. Of course the 95 theses haven't changed much in the last few years! But this booklet is really nice. Its very sturdy for a small booklet and has very helpful notes and a fine introduction. I highly recommend this if you want to get an idea of the context and message of Martin Luther's famous "Ninety-Five Thesis".



2. I studied the 95 Theses over 50 years ago. Over the last 8 years, I have been with a teaching team in Lutherstadt Wittenberg, Germany, and the Reformation of the 16t Century is a major if not the major focus of the seminary course.
   If one wants to "hear" the authentic Luther, inevitably one must read and think and discuss the Theses. There are other treatises of Luther but of seminal value, I give the 95 Theses a prime spot.
   James A. Glasscock
   B.D., B.D., Th.M., D.Min. Diploma in Jurisprudence and Human Rights [Strasboug]



3. In this booklet, the second of Stephen Nichols' trio of booklets highlighting major Reformed figures (the other two booklets feature Jonathan Edwards and J. Gresham Machen respectively), Nichols' stated aim is to bring Luther's Disputation on the Power and Efficacy of Indulgences - better known as the Ninety-Five Theses - to contemporary Christians who have heard of the theses, but never read them. This edition of the theses includes two helpful features: an introduction which sets the theses in historical context, and a minimal commentary on every facing page, while the main text appears on the right hand page. Not every thesis warrants a commentary, so Nichols has sensitively selected which theses bear specialized notes. Even then, the notes provide context or expansion only when necessary, and often in Luther's own words derived from his later work explaining the Ninety-Five Theses (suitably entitled The Explanations of the Ninety-Five Theses).
   
   A few preconceptions of mine were dispelled by this booklet. Firstly, that Luther's main goal in 1517, as demonstrated by the document's official title, was `merely' to expose Johann Tetzel's abuse of papal indulgences (in effect a get-out-of-purgatory-free card) by generating a debate among churchmen. Secondly, Luther's reformational theology was far from being definitively worked out at this point; he was still very much a sympathetic Catholic intent on reforming the Church, not destroying it. Tellingly, the Ninety-Fifth Thesis itself portrays salvation by suffering rather than by faith. This emphasis would change in the years to come.
   
   But the two preconceptions which were most jarringly dashed were a) Luther's consistent defense of the pope throughout the document, and b) the content of the sequence of theses derived from the questions of shrewd parishioners. Unless Luther was representing his own questions as those of his parishioners for rhetorical effect - which would have been dishonest - I would not have thought that the average working class 16th century German was thinking reformational thoughts. No wonder this spark on the tinder lit up the spiritual and ecclesiological landscape of Europe for generations to come.
   
   Embedded in the midst of the theses is the one I consider Luther's gem, the Sixty-Second. It contains the reason why Luther was compelled to act on that October day in 1517, and why he persevered to bring true biblical teaching to the gospel-hungry masses throughout the rest of his life: "The true treasure of the church is the most holy gospel of the glory and grace of God." Luther staked his life on this gospel, which is why we remember him and commemorate him today - and more importantly, the God he served.

No comments about Altar Guild and Sacristy Handbook (Handbook (Augsburg Fortress)).

5 comments about History: Fiction or Science? Chronology 2 (Chronology).

1. We can so far divide the New Chronology into the following three parts:
   
   a) The verifiable theory that proves consensual chronology wrong with the aid of astronomy, statistics and mathematics;
   
   b) The new chronology hypothesis based on a new understanding of known historical facts and the most likely logical explanation of the most obvious inconsistencies inherent in the official version of history;
   
   c) The history conjectures, that is experimental historical reconstructions based on assumptions that the authors believe to make sense in the light of their research and linguistic parallels - void of ironclad factual support to date.
   
   Fomenko's theory complies with the most rigid scientific standards as a whole:
   
   It gives a coherent explanation of what we already know.
   
   - It is consistent: independent lines of inquiry all lead to the same conclusion.
   
   - The predictions it makes are confirmed empirically.
   
   Fomenko goes by the following axioms:
   
   - Chronology is the basis of history;
   
   - Human evolution has always been linear, gradual and irreversible;
   
   - The "cyclic" nature of human civilization is a myth, likewise all the gaps, duplicates, "dark ages" and "renaissances" that we know from consensual history;
   
   - The accumulation of geographical knowledge as reflected in cartography is a gradual and irreversible process;
   
   - The chronological distance between a given manuscript and the events described therein is proportional to the amount of distortions it contains;
   
   - There is no "useless" information in authentic ancient sources.
   
   Why the mainstream historians do not shower mathematician Academician Dr.Prof Fomenko with thanks and laurels?
   
   The Russians:
   
   Because Fomenko asserts that there was no such thing as the Tartar and Mongol invasion followed by three centuries of slavery, providing a formidable body of documental evidence to prove his assertion. The so-called "Tartars and Mongols" were the actual ancestors of the modern Russians, living in a bilingual state with Arabic spoken as freely as Russian. The ancient Russian state was governed by a double structure of civil and military authorities. The hordes were actually professional armies with a tradition of lifelong conscription (the recruitment being the so-called "blood tax"). Their "invasions" were punitive operations against the regions that attempted tax evasion. Fomenko proves that Russian history as we know it today is a blatant forgery concocted by a host of German scientists brought to Russia by the usurper dynasty of the Romanovs, whose ascension to the throne was the result of coup d'état, charged with the mission of making their reign look legitimate. Fomenko proves Ivan the Terrible to be a collation of four rulers, no less. They represented the two rival dynasties - the legitimate rulers and the ambitious upstarts. The winner took it all! Over some 30 years of controversy, Russian historians have made a most remarkable transition - they were initially accusing the young mathematician Fomenko of anticommunist dissident activity and attempts to deface the historical legacy of Soviet Russia; nowadays the middle-aged mathematician is accused of adhering to "pro-communist Russian nationalism" and defacing the proud historical legacy of Great Russia.
   
   The Westerners:
   
   Because Fomenko blows consensual Russian history to smithereens, successfully removing a crucial cornerstone from underneath the otherwise impeccable edifice of World History. Fomenko adds insult to injury, wiping out one by one the Ancient Rome (the foundation of Rome in Italy is dated to the XIV century A. D.), the Ancient Greece and its numerous poleis, which he identifies as the mediaeval crusader settlements on the territory of Greece, and the Ancient Egypt (the pyramids of Giza become dated to the XI-XV century A. D. and identified as the royal cemetery of the Global "Mongolian" Empire, no less). The civilization of the Ancient Egypt is irrefutably dated to the XII-XV century A. D. with the aid of the ancient Egyptian horoscopes cut in stone. He was the first one to decipher and date all such horoscopes, coming up with mediaeval dates in every case. English historians rage at the suggestion that the history of Ancient England was de facto a Byzantine import transplanted to the English soil by the fugitive Byzantine nobility. To reward the English historians who consider themselves the true scribes of World History, the cover of the present book portrays Tintoretto's Jesus Christ crucified on the Big Ben.
   
   The Chinese:
   
   Because Fomenko wipes out the Ancient History of China outright. No such thing. Full point. The compilation of the so-called Ancient Chinese History is reliably datable to the XVII-XVIII century only. It is perfectly recognizable as the Ancient European history, reworked and transcribed in hieroglyphs as yet another historical transplantation, this time performed on the Chinese soil by the loving Jesuit hands. The Chinese are the next in line to go berserk. Chinese history is inevitably bound to get both more ancient and more eventful, proportionally to the growing involvement of China in the world affairs. Chinese historians will keep on finding valid proof of prehistoric Chinese spaceflights until the Politburo orders them to shut up.
   
   The Arabs:
   
   Too bad. Islam with all its key figures is datable to XV-XVI century A. D. Arabic historians may find consolation in the crucial historical role of the Ottoman Empire in the XVI-XVII century. The trouble is that this empire was initially a Christian state, with Hagia Sophia identifiable as Temple of Solomon, according to Fomenko! We can only guess if the acquisition of Alexander the Great (a Macedonian and a Christian) as the founder of the Muslim World Empire will make Fomenko's theories more acceptable to the Arabic mainstream. He certainly does not spare any holy cows at all, claiming The Stone of Qa'Aba in Mecca to contain the lost Arch of the Covenant.
   
   The Divinity:
   
   Despite of reiterated statement that his theory is all about chronology and not Religion, Fomenko stirs up a whole condominium of wasp nests. His collection of anathemas, fatwa, and other condemnations from all parties concerned is already considerable. Little wonder, considering that the history of religions à la Fomenko looks as follows: the pre-Christian period (before the XI century and JC), Bacchic Christianity (XI-XII century, before and after JC), JC Christianity (XII-XVI century) and its subsequent mutations into Orthodox Christianity, the Catholicism, Islam, Buddhism, and so on.
   
   According to Fomenko we know strictly NOTHING about the events that predate the X century A. D.
   
   St Augustin was prescient when he spoke unto us: "be wary of mathematicians, particularly when they speak the truth."
   



2. Here is a serie of books which turns "the whole world" upside down. I learned a lot of it and I hope that a new book from A.T. Fomenko will follow very quick. A absolute must for everybody who is interested in history or even a little bit from it.



3. I don't care what other people say of this book. Those affirmig it's fake, they hadn't ever read it. Or have some special reasons to do so. "Living is easy with eyes closed, misunderstanding all you see..." This book won't make you feel comfortable. It'll make you feel free. It'll make you feel you're "not the only one" to feel you'd been lied to for centuries.



4. Watch Video Here: http://www.amazon.com/review/R3A80YKC8W7UEE New Chronology is a theory validated by astronomical research and statistical analysis of ancient manuscripts that asserts: that Antiquity and Dark Ages are phantoms invented in the 16th 18th centuries. Human civilization is barely 1000 years old!
   
   New Chronology complies with the most rigid scientific standards:
   
   - It gives a coherent explanation of what we already know;
   - It is consistent: independent lines of inquiry all lead to the same conclusion;
   - The predictions it makes are confirmed empirically;
   
   New Chronology goes by the following basic axioms:
   - Chronology is the basis of history;
   - Human evolution has always been linear, gradual and irreversible;
   - The "cyclic" nature of human civilization is a myth, likewise all the gaps, duplicates, "dark ages" and "renaissances" that we know from consensual history are fantasy and hoax;
   - The accumulation of geographical knowledge as reflected in cartography is a gradual and irreversible process;
   - The closer in time is a given manuscript to the events described the less distortions it contains;
   - There is no "useless" information in authentic ancient sources.
   
   Fomenko asserts: There was no such thing as the Tartar and Mongol invasion followed by over two centuries of yoke and slavery, providing a formidable body of documental evidence to prove his assertion. The so-called "Tartars and Mongols" were the actual ancestors of the modern Russians, living in a trilingual state with Arabic and Turkic spoken as freely as Russian. The ancient Russian state was governed by a double structure of civil and military authorities. The hordes were actually professional armies with a tradition of lifelong conscription (the recruitment being the so-called "blood tax"). Their "invasions" were punitive operations against the regions that attempted tax evasion. Fomenko proves that official Russian history is a blatant forgery concocted by a host of German scholars brought to Russia by the usurper dynasty of the Romanovs. Their ascension to the throne was the result of conspiracy, so they charged these imported historians with the mission of making Romanov's reign look legitimate.
   
   Fomenko proves Ivan the Terrible to be a collation of four rulers, no less. They represented the two rival dynasties - the legitimate Godunov rulers and the ambitious Romanov upstarts.
   
   As Fomenko blows consensual Russian history to smithereens, he successfully removes a crucial cornerstone from underneath the otherwise impeccable edifice of World History. Fomenko adds insult to injury, wiping out one by one: the Ancient Rome: the foundation of Rome in Italy is dated to the 14th century A. D., the Ancient Greece and its numerous poleis, which he identifies as the mediaeval crusader settlements on the territory of Greece.
   
   The Ancient Egypt: the pyramids of Giza become dated to the 11th to 14th century A. D. and identified as the royal cemetery of the Global "Mongolian" Empire, no less. The civilization of the Ancient Egypt is irrefutably dated to the 11th to 15th century A. D. with the aid of the ancient Egyptian horoscopes cut in stone, like enormous Dendera horoscope that hangs in main entrance to the Louvre museum in Paris.
   
   He was the first one to decipher and date unambiguously all such horoscopes, coming up with mediaeval dates in every case.
   
   English historians rage at the suggestion that the history of Ancient England was de facto a Byzantine import transplanted to the English soil by the fugitive Byzantine nobility. To reward the English historians who consider themselves the true scribes of World History, the cover of the book "History: Fiction or Science?" portrays Tintoretto's Jesus Christ crucified on the Big Ben.
   
   Fomenko wipes out the Ancient History of China outright. No such ancient history. Period. The compilation of the so-called Ancient Chinese History is reliably datable to the 17th 18th century only. It is perfectly recognizable as the Ancient European history, reworked and transcribed in hieroglyphs as yet another historical transplantation, this time performed on the Chinese soil by the loving Jesuit hands. The Chinese are the next in line to go berserk. Chinese history is inevitably bound to get both more ancient and more eventful, proportionally to the growing involvement of China in the world affairs. Chinese historians will keep on finding valid proof of prehistoric Chinese spaceflights until the Politburo orders them otherwise.
   
   Islam with all its key figures appears as late as 15th-16th century A. D. as a branch of proto-Christianity. This is amply illustrated by imagery of Prophet Mahomet, archangel Gabriel, Heaven and Hell of this period. In today's Islam all imagery of the things living is taboo.
   
   Arabic historians may find consolation in the crucial historical role of the Ottoman Empire in the 16th 17th century. The trouble is that this empire was initially a proto Christian state, with Hagia Sophia identifiable as Temple of Solomon, according to Fomenko! We can only guess if the acquisition of Alexander the Great (a Macedonian and a Christian!) as the founder of the Muslim World Empire will make Fomenko's theories more acceptable to the Arabic mainstream. He certainly does not spare any holy cows at all, claiming The Stone of Qa'Aba in Mecca to contain the lost Arch of the Covenant.
   
   
   The history of religions according to Fomenko looks as follows: the pre-Christian period (before the 11th century and Jesus Christ ), Bacchic Christianity (11th to 12th century, before and after Jesus Christ), Jesus Christ Christianity (12th to 14th century) and its subsequent mutations (15th to 17th) into Orthodox Christianity, the Catholicism, Protestantism, Islam, Buddhism, and so on..
   
   Saint Augustine was quite prescient when he said: "be wary of mathematicians,.. particularly when they speak the truth."
   
   Henry Ford once said: "History is more or less bunk!"
   
   Prominent mathematician Anatoly Fomenko not only proved it for a fact, but as true scientist tried to upgrade it into a rocket science.
   
   This book will change your perception of History forever!
   What if Ancient Rome, Greece and Egypt were invented during Renaissance?
   What if The Old Testament was a rendition of events of the Middle Ages?
   What if Jesus Christ was born in 1053 and crucified in 1086 AD?
   Sounds Unbelievable?
   Not after you've read "History: Fiction or Science?" by Anatoly Fomenko, the genius mathematician.
   Armed with astronomy and computers Anatoly Fomenko turns History into a rocket science.



5. Like Erich von Däniken, the Creationists, and the legion of sensational conspiracy theorists, this book makes huge claims based on speculation founded on the most superficial and selective reading of the historical record.
   
   Most insulting to one's intelligence is the claim that C14 dating could be so far off the mark. This method has been tried and tested for 50 years. It is based on the known decay rate of an unstable isotope, that occurs in fairly predictable amounts. Calibration merely raises the accuracy from around 10% to 1% error margin. Even without calibration, the measurement of various isotopes has given civilisation a history of thousands, not hundreds of years.
   
   Tree rings are a well understood phenomenon in biology. These can be used to obtain accurately dated samples more than 4000 years old. C14 dating can be calibrated with these samples to adjust for slight variations in C14 levels due to the solar cycle. This enables us to date to within a couple of decades samples dating back to early classical times.
   
   If you want to understand the science of dating, read Nature's Clocks: How Scientists Measure the Age of Almost Everything.
   
   However, this is only a part of the evidence, there is layering of earth above sites, known geological events like volcanic eruptions, traces of natural and human activity all correlated. How do we explain Pompei? If we want to apply Occam's razor, is it really easier to believe in a huge medieval conspiracy, that was able to construct a consistent history, complete with archaeological evidence that had not yet been found? And that all of the thousands of scientists involved in dating have been misled?
   
   I can only conclude that this book was written as a money spinner to hook the gullible, like so many other conspiracy books.

No comments about The Preached God: Proclamation in Word and Sacrament (Lutheran Quarterly Books).