Fernando Conde Torrens & 'Yr 303: Christianity is Invented'

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
Post Reply
User avatar
MrMacSon
Posts: 8798
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 3:45 pm

Fernando Conde Torrens & 'Yr 303: Christianity is Invented'

Post by MrMacSon »

Fernando Conde Torrens has written 'Year 303: [They] Invent Christianity', a book that a Google-Translation of Conde Torrens' Spanish-language website - www.sofiaoriginals.com - says
  • "is a novel, but not based on the imagination of its Author, but on historical reality ... The book describes the whole story, year after year, beginning in 303. And, most importantly, it shows the documentary evidence, available to everyone .."

There seems to be quite a lot of links at the website.

One Amazon reviewer has said of the book -

No church leader has responded yet to Fernando Conde Torrens unassailable conclusions: every bit of the Christian religion started at the beginning of the IV century. Everything (the apologetics, church fathers, even critics, the martyrs, historians, the epistles of the apostles, the four gospels, and also the apocrypha) were back-engineered, written from scratch, interpolated and, amazingly, were also signed to leave a trace of the conspiration. The giant book is backed by a heavier blog at www.sofiaoriginals.com

- https://www.amazon.de/A%C3%B1o-303-inve ... 8493291935

eta: Apparently there is discussion in a forum somewhere that it is possible that they were able to effectively back-date texts paleographically b/c they knew the paleography of the different periods of antiquity very well.


I would suggest that, if this happened, then it may not have happened until several years later; largely based on the fact that there is no evidence that Constantine used a labarum or other symbolism that incorporated the Chi=Rho ☧ before 317 AD/CE*.
  • The labarum does not appear on any of several standards depicted on the Arch of Constantine, which was erected just three years after the Battle of the Milvian Bridge against Maxentius, outside Rome, in 312 AD/CE (the actual symbol used, as reported by Lactantius, is not very clear: it is said to have resembled a Chi-Rho or a staurogram). It's first appearance is said to be on a Constantinian silver coin from c. 317.

    Constantine is said to have made extensive use of the labarum with a Chi-Rho later, in the second war against Licinius in 324 AD/CE.

* It is possible the symbolism was being developed as or after the theology was being developed.


See this Google-Translate account of an interview of Fernando Conde Torrens (by Fernando F. Garayoa, originally in Spanish) in which Conde Torrens proposes that Lactantius / 'Lactancio' had a significant role in the development of Christianity -


Is Christianity an invented religion, or at least some of the main texts that support it?

- Yes, the two things, the texts and, therefore, the religion ... Christianity is the work of a person of the year 300 who was called Lactancio, a historical personage, who in fact was the pedagogue of Crispus, the son Major of Constantine. This man was a visionary, a person of little lights, who made several mistakes, among them believing that, by finding an elementary moral in 'the' Egyptian texts, he had discovered the universe. But he was able to convince someone with a lot of power, Constantino, and that's where everything comes to us ... Lactantius contacted Constantine when he was a tribune, the protege of Diocletian, but he still had no power over the Empire. But ... he took control over Gaul, and from there he added up to the whole empire and thus was able to install Christianity in Nicaea.


Therefore, do we deduce from his investigation that Jesus Christ did not exist?

- Effectively. It's hard to say, but Jesus Christ is a literary invention of Lactantius. It's as real as Don Quixote, Superman or Skywalker, it's a fictional character. [He] [w]as given the figure of the son of God because Lactancio was obsessed with that [the] whole empire worship the one God, because, if not that one, God would send to the world. The birth of Christianity is motivated by the conviction that, if the One God is not worshipped, in no time would come the end of the world.
-
-
Without being an expert in history, far, the historian Josephus does cite Jesus Christ in his writings ...

- Flavio Josefo wrote his Jewish Antiquities without citing Jesus Christ at all, what happens is that Constantino formed a team composed of Lactantius and Eusebius of Caesarea, who was a historian. And the latter had to interpolate Flavio Josefo and Plinio to put a wedge in which to quote Jesus Christ. But the historians 'with head' already find that this appointment of Jesus Christ does not hit the site, since it cuts two passages that have a perfect union with each other. That is to say, that there are already suspicions that the flavian testimony is a falsification and, in addition, there has been evidence that it is an interpolation.


Why Constantine decided to adopt Christianity as a religion of the Empire, what advantages did he offer?

- Lactancio, in the year 303, he went to talk with/to Diocletian, and there are very certain signs of that. Diocletian rejected him but Constantine, who lived with Diocletian in Nicomedia, heard him: I can not say whether that gave him grounds to base his ambition on having the entire Empire under his command, or [whether] first had the Empire and then invented Christianity. But what is History is that he longed to dominate the whole Empire, not just the fourth part that corresponded to him, and that he implanted Christianity first in the western part and then throughout the Empire through the Council of Nicea.


He points out that Lactantius took as his basis the morality of the Egyptian texts but the reality dictates that the Christian religion 'drinks from many other religions', since, for example, it adopts Saturnalia and converts it into the present Christmas.

- Effectively. One thing is the work of Lactantius and another the improvement of the jurisdiction that the Holy Fathers did, but that was already in the time of Theodosius. These Holy Fathers made a kind of medley incorporating mysteries that were very taste of the time, as were the mysteries of Mitra, which had much predicament among the legions. But there have been other independent researchers who have shown that much of the miracles, raids, and adventures of Jesus Christ and his doctrine are Egyptian, and they are in the sacred Egyptian texts.
-
-
The tests you refer to are mainly based on the 'hidden' signatures that the authors placed on the texts so that readers could discern whether the texts were original or authentic. Among these firms, a very curious one stands out, Simon.

- Simon is nobody and let's say that I have had my own evolution with this signature, which is the definitive or conclusive proof. At first, I did not know if the acrostic was by pronunciation or writing. Finally, I have come to the conviction that it is by text. Simon, the name, is written with omega, however, as they appear in the signatures is with omicron, and therefore means story, hoax or hoax. That is, a lie, but with a certain air of irony or sarcasm. Eusebio put that signature on the texts that were hoaxes. While Lactantius was convinced that he must defend and promote the new religion. What happens is that Lactantius died.. and Eusebius of Caesarea, in the gospels that Lactantius had written, added several chapters in which sneaked the evil signature of Simon.


For centering the plot, who wrote the four official gospels?

- Chronologically, Eusebio wrote Marcos, and put Simon's signatures, acrostics, in all the chapters. Later, Lactantius copied from this first those of Luke and Matthew, which are the synoptic gospels, because they are very similar. And finally, Eusebio invented Juan's, making it completely different from the previous three.


And, what happens therefore the apocryphal gospels?

- The apocryphal gospels are clearly later, about the year 350-390, and what they do is fill in the gaps in which the official Gospels said nothing. In addition, they are gospels that do not contain authentic doctrine, they are rather miracles and discourses of people's taste.


If everything in the book is true, literally centuries of doctrine and philosophy are loaded in the West.

- What is false is false. And if it can be demonstrated, it is no longer a question of theories or hypotheses, they are realities. What happens is that, for me, Western civilization is based on Hellenism, not on Christianity, which is earlier and much deeper. Therefore, what we have to do is recover the roots of our civilization and not turn it into a fanatical one.


The complicated thing to explain is that all these tests that he cites, and that have cost him 20 years of research, are based on the way of writing the Gospels, on their structure and on the aforementioned signatures. What was it that made that way of writing texts recognizable as to discern between false and authentic ones? How do we know that these signatures were posted to show the falsehood and are not mere chance?

- In ancient times, the writings were copied, and that implied that the copies were wrong or that intentional interpolations were even placed to distort the original writing. To avoid this, the first writers of record, such as Hesiod and Herodotus, invented a form of writing that would assure the reader that what he read was the original text. And for that they converted their texts, adding the words of each phrase, in a succession of numbers. That is, all writers, including Virgil and Horace, also have this succession of words converted into numbers. However, Lactantius, who was a professor of rhetoric, formed very complicated structures, which I did not find in anyone else, that's why they called him the Spanish Cicerone, but since he was quite naive, he made the mistake that his fabulous structure placed it in all the writings of all the authors he invented. In this way, the same structure is in Matthew, in Luke or in the letters of Peter or Judas, which are the four works of Lactantius in addition to the letters of Paul.


How can we know that Lactancio invented these stories and was not a historian who simply recounted facts?

- Constantino is the emperor who favored Christianity. Lactantius was the tutor of his son and Eusebius was the one who wrote the speeches. It is also enough to read the work of Lactantius Divine Institutions to know their mentality, which is reflected identically in these Gospels. However, Eusebius was a master of knowledge, capable of writing authentic doctrine, which is in the Gospels, although later it was interpolated and deformed, that is, hidden. We must be able to distinguish truth from falsehood in order to judge the Gospels, which are ideological books.


But, I repeat, how do we know that it is an invented story and not some facts about Jesus Christ that he was told about and subsequently transcribed?

- For example, when one in the year 400 writes of people who suffered martyrdom in Mérida in the year 300, it is proven to be false by the intrinsic data of the story. To give another example, a story in which reference is made to a character that existed and left no trace in any other place than the memory of Lactantius, and I say "memory" 'in quotes'. It is an invented story. The arguments are in the book, and I have needed 800 pages to translate them, so I can hardly summarize them in a few lines of conversation ...

http://www.noticiasdenavarra.com/2016/0 ... -skywalker
Giuseppe
Posts: 13732
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: Fernando Conde Torrens & 'Yr 303: Christianity is Invented'

Post by Giuseppe »

What I find crazy about this author is that he doesn't realize the fact that, even if his view was true (Costantin wrote the entire NT) both historicists and mythicists and Jesus Agnostics will continue to ask: where did Costantin place Jesus's death when he posed as "Paul"? And what did he mean when he posed as "Mark"?
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.
Post Reply