Littlejohn

I do not know if the foregoing is directed towards me, but I say once again that the undersigned will not convince anybody about "his" truth, but simply expose as far as possible (keeping in mind the need to protect his work against any attempts to plagiarism), reflections, summaries and various constructs that the undersigned have produced out by means of the data spring out from over 11 years of "lock" researches.

No one is obliged to believe what I expose. My aim is to demonstrate that if more than 3 centuries of researchs, more or less free, about the origins of Christianity did not lead to any objective conclusion, but only to a number of assumptions sometimes very varied between them, one reason there has to to be!... Unless someone thinks that what told by ' "occhiuto" (*) clergy is "sounding" truth!....

What I try to do is to demonstrate to those who pay at least one "cent" careful what I write, that if one come to discover nothing of the origins of Christianity, the reason could be because the researches was carried out on a wrong path, that is to say on that prepared by Catholic clergy so many centuries ago, and that perhaps the truth about Jesus and the events that have regarded he, probably differs considerably from that "canonical"!

To none of the scholars who one are "cimentati"(**) in researches now "plurisecolari"(***), it never came to mind that perhaps the truth about Jesus of Nazareth is totally different from that "flagged" from the clergy, because if this had been the case, then it would be for a long time this truth would be known in the world!

__________________

Notes:

(*) - an ironic adjective for "rapacious"

(**) - effort in the researches

(***) - more than a single century


Littlejohn
.