Chapter 2.
IMPERATOR ANDRONICUS KOMNIN OF THE XII CENTURY - IT IS JESUS CHRIST DURING HIS PRESENCE IN TSAR-GRAD OF THE XII CENTURY.
54. THE GOSPEL EMPEROR TIBERIUS Claudius NERO IS THE DARK SKINNED EMPEROR MANUEL KOMNENOS.
In the Gospel of Luke it is said that John the Baptist began preaching in the 15th year of Emperor Tiberius’ reign. ‘Now in the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar, Pontius Pilate being governor of Judaea, and Herod being tetrarch of Galilee, and his brother Philip tetrarch of Ituraea and of the region of Trachonitis, and Lysanias the tetrarch of Abilene, Annas and Caiaphas being the high priests, the word of God came unto John the son of Zacharias in the wilderness. And he came into all the country about Jordan, preaching the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins’ (Luke 3:1-3).
We shall remind you that Christ and John the Baptist were the same age, and at the time Christ was not baptised yet. Therefore it referred to the time when Christ was not 30 yet. In the Byzantine history prior to Andronicus-Christ Alexius II Komnenus reigned for three years, and before him reigned Manuel Komnenus from 1143 to 1180 [44], p.249,255. Therefore the 15th year of Tiberius reign referred to in the Gospels falls within the reign of Manuel Komnenus. Which most likely identifies Manuel with the ‘classical’ Tiberius. Here we will not go into the detailed analysis of their biographies for now; this material will be delivered in our further publications. We would like to highlight just the following factor. Tiberius had the name of ‘Nero’, see [98], v.1, table XXII, CHRON2, ch.2:1.2. Besides, according to the dynasty parallelisms we have discovered, Tiberius overlaps with the Mediaeval emperor Henry III, called the BLACK, see Table 8 in CHRON1, ch.6.
On the other hand Manuel Komnenus is known to have VERY DARK SKIN. ‘Fair haired like all the Komnenoi … he … had SUCH DARK SKIN, that one time the Venetians … mocking Manuel, put a black man dressed as an emperor on a galley and took him around accompanied by mocking adulation’ … [44], p.249. Nicetas Choniates speaks a lot of the dark skinned Manuel, see for example [140], p.64. The parallel is obvious.
55. EDOM WHERE ACCORDING TO THE BOOK OF REVELATION CHRIST WAS CRUCIFIED IS HEBDOMON, A SUBURB OF CZAR-GRAD.
There are the following lines in the Book of Revelation of Gennady's Bible (the first full manuscript Bible in Old Church Slavonic – Tr. note) allegedly produced in 1492 [121], v.8, p.459 (translated into modern Russian which sounds like this): ‘And when they shall have finished their testimony, the beast that ascendeth out of the bottomless pit shall make war against them, and shall overcome them, and kill them and will leave their two dead bodies in the public square of the great city which spiritually is called EDEM EGYPT (or Egyptian Edem) WHERE ALSO THEIR LORD WAS CRUCIFIED’.
The most interesting thing here is the fact that the city where Jesus Christ was crucified was called Edem. But EDEM or HEBDOMON is the name of the mediaeval Czar-Grad, see for example [133], p.247. It perfectly corresponds with our reconstruction, according to which Andronicus-Christ was crucified on the outskirts of Czar-Grad in Bosphorus. Of course, the mediaeval authors might have been confused about which suburb it was exactly.
It is interesting that in the modern synodic translation this place is badly distorted. This is how it was ‘translated’: ‘And their dead bodies shall lie in the public square of the great city which spiritually is called Sodom and Egypt, where also our Lord was crucified’ [121], v.8, p.459.
Firstly, instead of HEBDOMON they wrote SODOM. Having badly distorted the true text. Everything is clear. They were destroying the connection with the true place of events – Czar-Grad in Bosphorus.
Secondly. In the original, there is the expression: ‘THEIR Lord’, telling us that the author of this excerpt in the Book of Revelation is not a Christian, a person who disassociates himself from Christ. In the tendentious translation they wrote: ‘OUR Lord’. The meaning became the opposite. After such a correction the author of the Book of Revelation became allegedly a Christian accepting Christ as his Saviour. The translators’ thinking on who ‘corrected’ the translation is clear. Being sure that the Book of Revelation in its modern edition is written by John the Baptist from the first to the last word, they could not have left the expression ‘their Lord’ referring to Christ. In fact, most likely, some places in the Book of Revelation or even its entire text were written by a non Christian. We have already spoken about it earlier. Here we stumbled across another direct proof of this idea.
56. THE CRUSADE OF 1199-1204 IS THE CAPTURE OF JERUSALEM AS REVENGE FOR THE CRUCIFIXION OF ANDRONICUS-CHRIST IN 1185.
‘The Fourth Crusade (1199-1204) occupies a special place in the history of the Eastern wars of the European knighthood. A number of the Western scientists consider it some kind of HISTORICAL MISTAKE, A PARADOX IN ITS OWN WAY… As this crusade, while pursuing the liberation of ‘the Holy place’ … in the end turned into the ruin of Byzantium’ [57], p.191.
The historians wonder for a reason. As it is known, that the crusaders had a clearly definite aim – to reconquer Jerusalem ‘from the Disbelievers’ and to punish them. But, allegedly instead they set off to Czar-Grad in the Bosphorus and captured specifically that city. There is nothing strange here from our point of view. The Gospel Jerusalem is Czar-Grad in the Bosphorus. The crucifixion of Christ took place there only 15 years prior to the crusade. So the crusade itself, its aim and the behaviour of the crusaders look completely natural. They truly were going to liberate the Holy Sepulchre. And they arrived exactly where they were going to. The crusade began soon after Christ’s crucifixion. The crusaders did not ‘wait’ for thousand years by no means, as claimed by the Scaligerian history, dating Christ’s crucifixion as the 1st century.
The puzzled historians write on this matter: ‘The crusaders who were just going to march against Muslim Egypt, captured the Christian state – the Byzantine Empire, ransacked its capital, and were contented with that, as if there never existed the matter of liberation of the Holy Land’[57], p.192. And further: ‘The question about the reasons of the Fourth Crusade suddenly taking a new direction and ending also IN A REMARKABLE MANNER, is rather complicated … The Crusade expedition of the early XIII century and certain of it’s episodes were more than once … the subject of the heated … discussion between the historians who were trying hard to solve the riddle of 1204… It is difficult even to imagine the amount of effort put in by the researchers over the last hundred-odd years … into investigating the circumstances of the CRUSADERS’ CHANGE OF DIRECTION … The scientists collected and processed the colossal amount of factual material from the Latin sources, Greek, Old French, Armenian, Russian and other languages …However even until now there is no full agreement reached on all the controversial issues, the discussion continues’ [57], p.193-194.
Some historians abandoned all hope to solve such a mysterious riddle. ‘At times the extremely sceptical points of view were expressed regarding the possibility to fully understand the history of the Fourth Crusade … In the early XX century the French historian Denis Jean Achille Luchaire claimed that THIS PROBLEM WILL NEVER BE SOLVED’ [57], p.196.
And further: ‘The Fourth Crusade WAS THE LAST, which brought in its own way the significant results for the West, though had nothing to do with officially proclaimed aims of the enterprise of such a kind’ [57], p.254.
And what do we know about the march on Jerusalem soon after Christ’s crucifixion allegedly in the I century? The history says quite a lot on this matter. The Scaligerian version claims that Jerusalem was besieged and captured by the Roman army in the end of the I century, i.e. allegedly 40-50 years after Christ’s crucifixion [153].
On the other hand the ecclesiastical Christian tradition, though declared as apocryphal today, claims that Jerusalem was captured by the Romans SOON AFTER THE CRUCIFIXION on Caesar’s order. We quote: "По сем прогневася Кесарь на вся безбожныя Июдеи, и повеле написати писание князю Лукиану, обладающему ВОСТОЧНЫМИ странами, сице глаголя: великий Кесарь всея вселенныя обладатель, князю Лукиану, первовластнику ВОСТОЧНЫЯ земли, радоватися. Въ настоящее сие время бывшее дерзновение от живущихъ во Иеросалиме и в прочихъ градехъ иудейских, и беззаконное оных действо, иже сотвориша, познахъ, яко Бога некоего глаголемаго Исуса, съ Пилатомъ распяша... Темъ же ты повелениемъ моимъ множество воинъ собери, и шедъ с силою расплени и поработи весь еврейский родъ, и постави ихъ на порабощение во всехъ языкахъ, и умали и смири всю землю июдейскую порабощениемъ... Доспевшу же писанию сему на ВОСТОЧНУЮ страну до великаго князя Лукияна, и абие... повеле тысящником и сотником СКОРО кесарева повеления совершити... И воинство много собравъ и расплени весь родъ июдейский, и расточи ихъ во всех языках, даже и до днесь" [127], p. 176 - 177.The Scaligerian history calls the Crusade of 1199-1204 the Fourth Crusade on Czar-Grad. And the ’First’ Crusade began allegedly in 1095-1096. The ‘Second’ Crusade is dated allegedly to 1147-1148, and the ‘Third’ Crusade – 1189-1192 [57], p.172. But 1095 is the wrong dating of Christ’s crucifixion shifted to approximately a hundred years downwards. Naturally, the Crusade of 1199-1204 also ‘moved’ in the same direction. In regards to the ‘Second’ crusade, it also ‘moves’ a hundred years upwards and overlaps the epoch of the ‘Fourth’ crusade and the following Trojan war of the XIII century. Thus it is correct to say the ’First Crusade’ is in place of the ‘Fourth Crusade’. And in place of the ‘First Crusade’ we should say: ‘the duplicate of the First Crusade, shifted a hundred years downwards’.
However, it is not unlikely, that the very first crusade in fact was the crusade which today is called the ‘Third’, i.e. the Crusade of 1189-1192. It is remarkable, that it began practically immediately after the crucifixion of Andronicus-Christ in 1185, i.e. only three-four years later. It is possible, that it was the very first reaction of Russia-Horde and the other femas to the execution of Andronicus-Christ. However they succeeded in finally capturing Jerusalem = Czar-Grad only in 1204. Now, that tremendous resonance in the world of that time, caused by the capture of Czar-Grad becomes clear, in particularly. The more recent historians correctly evaluate the scale of events, even though they have already forgotten its true essence which is the immediate avenging of the crucifixion of Andronicus-Christ in 1185.They wrote: ’The capture of Constantinople was one of the most brave military acts of courage ever imprinted on the pages of history. This is the event of the utmost significance and everything which followed hence became the highest degree of the chivalrous glory ‘from that very moment since the word was created’ [39], p.131.
57. THE CRUSADES MARCHED ON JERUSALEM = CZAR-GRAD NOT FROM THE WEST, AS WE ARE LED TO BELIEVE TODAY, BUT FROM THE EAST.
In the previous chapter we cited the Old Church Slavonic book ‘Strasti Christovy’ (‘Passion of Christ’) [127], p.176-177. It is very interesting that according to the church tradition the troops march to capture Jerusalem not from West, but from the EAST. Possibly here is reflected the fact, that finally there began the great = ‘Mongol’ conquest, culminating in victory of the East. Later on the Scaligerian history started to claim that the Crusades marched to the Holy Land from the West. It is likely, that here we come across yet another distortion of the true history and geography. In CHRON1 and CHRON2 we gave a fair amount of examples, where the old maps were turned up side down, i.e. North was drawn at the bottom and South – at the top. As a result, East and West swapped places. That is why it is quite possible, that due to this confusion the Eastern crusades ‘turned’ into the Western and vice versa.
At the same time we now begin to better understand the results of our analysis of the Crusaders’ names, carried out in the book ‘Imperia’ (‘Empire’) and in CHRON5, ch.12:12-14. Many family names have the roots ROSH, RUS, GOT, TTR (TATARS), PRS (P-Rusy, ‘Paris’, ‘frantsuzy’- the French in Russian – Tr. Note), etc. It is likely, that the old sources preserved for us the names of the Russian-Hordian and Tatar-Cossack clans at the head of the crusades of the late XII-XIII cc. onto Czar-Grad = Gospel Jerusalem.
The well-known historian of the ‘Fourth’ Crusade of 1199-1204 - Geoffrey of Villehardouin (White-Hordian? (sounds similar in Russian – [Beloordynsky] – Tr. note)) – wrote: ‘Took the cross to AVENGE THE MOCKING OF Jesus Christ, and to win back Jerusalem, God willing’ [31], p.8
Fig.2.122
, fig.2.123 
and fig.2.124 
show several old depictions of the Crusades. Thus was the beginning of the epic ‘classical’ Trojan war of the XIII century, the result of which was the formation of the gigantic Great = ‘Mongol’ Empire of the XIV-XVI cc.
