Dating the Ecumenical Council of Nicaea - Inexistence of Axial Precession

  • 5 Replies


  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 4508
First the classic work by Dr. G. Nosovsky, The Easter Issue:


By Dr Gleb Nosovsky

This article comes from future volume six of the “History: Fiction or Science?” series.

Easter, also known as Pascha, the Feast of the Resurrection, the Sunday of the Resurrection, or Resurrection Day, is the most important religious feast of the Christianity, observed between late March and late April by the Western and early April to early May in Eastern Christianity.
It is assumed that the First Ecumenical Nicaean Council (Nicaea is a town in Bythinia, Asia Minor) had compiled and sanctioned a church calendar in the year 325 AD. The Christian church has deemed this Easter Book (in the West), also known as Paschalia (in the East), to be of the greatest importance ever since.

Research of the Easter Book or Paschalia (Byzantine rite) done by prominent mathematician Academician Dr Prof Anatoly Fomenko and his team (Moscow State University) presented in this paper proves that Nicean council definitely could not have taken place before 784 AD. Some related questions may arise: when and where was Jesus Christ born, when was He crucified? Was The Old Testament compiled before or after the New One? Look for answers in “History: Fiction or Science?” series, ISBN 2913621074.


The British Encyclopaedia names Joseph Justus Scaliger (1540-1609) and his follower Dionysius Petavius (1583 – 1652) as the founders of consensual chronology. This chronology stands on two pillars – the date of Jesus Christ’s Nativity and the date of the First Ecumenical Council in Nicaea, which is usually referred to as “The Nicaean Council”.

Scaliger’s version of chronology is based on the datings of Christ’s birth and the First Ecumenical Council in Nicaea to a great extent, since it was primarily compiled as that of ecclesial history. Secular chronology of the ancient times was represented in his works as derivative, based on synchronisms with ecclesial events.

We shall give here a detailed account of why one of these ground laying dates, that is the date of the First Ecumenical Council in Nicaea is definitely wrong.

The principal method of the research we are relating here is that of computational astronomy. However, the understanding of the issue does not require a profound knowledge of astronomy or other special scientific issues.

The founder of chronology Joseph Justus Scaliger considered himself a great mathematician. Pity, but his demonstrations were quite wrong – for instance, he boasted that he had solved the classical “ancient” mathematical ‘Quadrature of Circle’ problem that was subsequently proven insoluble.

Calendarian issues are a part of chronology. The chronology belonged to the paradigm of mathematics and astronomy. This was the case in the XVI-XVII centuries, when the consensual Scaliger-Petavius version of chronology was created.

Since then, the perception of chronology has changed, and in the XVIII century already, chronology was considered humanity. As its essence cannot be changed, it remains a subdivision of applied mathematics to this day.

The historians are supposed to concern themselves with chronology. However, without a sufficient mathematical education – and in the case of chronological studies, sufficient means fundamental – the historians are forced to evade the solution and even the discussion of the rather complex chronological issues.

Every historical oddness and contradiction becomes carefully concealed from the public attention; in dangerous and slippery places the historians put on a “professional” mien, saying that “everything is really okay” and they shall “give you a full explanation” later on.


No deeds or acts of this Council have reached our time, but the historians report: “...the opuses of St. Athanasius of Alexandria, Socrates, Eusebius of Caesarea, Sozomenus, Theodoritus, and Rufinus contain enough details for us to get a good idea of the Council together with the 20 rules and the Council’s vigil… The Emperor (Constantine the Great – Auth.) arrived in Nicaea on the 4th or the 5th of July, and the next day the Council was called in the great hall of the Emperor’s palace… the council had solved the problem of determining the time of Easter celebration… and set forth the 20 rules… After the Council, the Emperor had issued a decree for convincing everyone to adhere to the confession proclaimed by the council.”

[988], tome 41, pages 71-72.

It is thus assumed that together with the proclamation of the united Orthodox-Catholic confession that got split up later, the Nicaean council had also determined the way Easter should be celebrated, or, in other words, developed the Paschalia Easter Book.

Despite the fact that no original Easter edicts of the Nicaean council remain, it is said that the Council issued its edicts in the alleged year 325 AD, when the “the actual methods of calculating the Easter dates had already been well developed”, and the Easter date table “that had been used for centuries” had been compiled. The latter is quite natural, since “every 532 years, the Christian Easter cycle repeats from the very start… the Paschalian tables for each year of 532 were in existence” [817], page 4.

Thus, the calculation of the new 532-year Easter table really comes down to a simple shift of the previous one by 532 years. This order is still valid: the last Great Indiction began in 1941 and is the shifted version of the previous Great Indiction (of the years 1409-1940), which, in its turn, is derived from the Great Indiction of the years 977-1408, etc. So, when we move the modern Easter table by an applicable factor divisible by 532, we should get exactly the same table as was introduced by the Nicaean council.

Ergo, the primary form of the Paschalia Easter Book can be easily reconstructed, and we will show the reader how earliest possible date of compilation of Paschalia Easter Book can be deduced from it.


The ecclesial Paschalia consists of two parts – the static part and the mobile part. The static part of the church calendar is the regular civil calendar also known as the Julian calendar, since its compilation is often linked to the name of Julius Caesar. The Julian year consists of 12 months, and every fourth year an additional day is added – the 29th of February. Such years are called leap years.

It is possible that some of the readers remain unaware of how closely the Julian calendar is related to the Christian divine service. The so-called static holidays of the Christian church are all distributed along the Julian calendar dates. We call them static since they fall on the same day of the same month of the Julian calendar every year.

The mobile part of the church calendar determines the dates for the Easter Sunday and several other church feasts counted from Easter, such as, The Ascension of the Lord, The Holy Trinity, and the beginning of St. Peter’s Lent. The ecclesial week count also belongs to the mobile part of the church calendar.

The count begins with the Easter Sunday; the week number is important since it determines the daily service order. Easter Sunday and the holidays that have their dates dependent on it are called mobile since their position in the Julian calendar varies from year to year.

The Paschalia Rule that determines the date for the annual advent of Easter is a rather complex one and relates very closely to a number of astronomical concepts that we shall cover below.

We shall be referring to the combination of the static and the mobile part as The Paschalia Easter Book, or simply, The Paschalia, bearing in mind that apart from the rule that determines the correct date for Easter, it also contains the regular Julian calendar that serves as the framework that this rule is valid for.


We see a variety of voluminous tables that determine the correlations between a large number of calendarian and astronomical units related to the Julian calendar. Such units as described in the Paschalia serve the internal framework of the Julian calendar as well as its correlation with various astronomical phenomena.

Among them we can find such concepts as indiction, Circle for Sun, Circle for Moon, epact, base, alpha key, boundary key, vrutseleto [an old Slavic manual calendar system, literally “Year in one’s hand”], etc.

One of the tables of the Paschalia allows us to determine the Easter celebration day for any given year. The table data can be accessed via the so-called boundary key of the year in question, one that has to be determined in advance from other tables of the Paschalia [701].

An important factor is that the Paschalia is based on the assumption that the calendar indices used for calculating the Easter date recur in precisely the same manner every 532 years. This cycle of 532 years is called The Great Indiction in the Julian calendar, and it devises the recurrence of Easter, as well as the indiction, the Circle for Sun, and the Circle for Moon values, mentioned below.

The complete Easter tables include a vast array of assorted calendarian information for the entire Great Indiction of 532 years [701]. The beginning of the “first” Great Indiction coincides with the beginning of the Byzantine era “since Adam”, or “since Genesis”, and this is not a chance coincidence. The last Great Indiction started in 1941 and still continues. The previous one commenced in 1409 AD; the previous one – in 877 AD, etc., [701], [393].


We shall start with the Circle for Moon, or “Methon’s Cycle”, as it is also called. Easter calculations require the knowledge of the day in either March or April of the year in question that the full moon falls upon.

We don’t have to observe the sky or perform astronomical calculations every time; compiling a table of March and April full moons for any given period of 19 years should suffice for further reference. The reason is that the phases of the moon recur every 19 years in the Julian calendar, and the recurrence cycle remains unaltered for centuries on end – that is, if the full moon fell on the 25th March any given year, it shall occur on the 25th of March in 19 years, in 38 (19 x 2) years, etc.

The malfunctions in the cycle shall begin after 300 years, which is to say that if we cover 300 years in 19-year cycles, the full moon shall gradually begin to migrate to its neighbouring location in the calendar. The same applies to new moons and all the other phases of the moon.

This way, if we mark any day of either March or April in the Julian calendar and perform annual observations of the lunar phase that coincides with it, we shall discover that the lunar phases that fall on this day change over a cycle of 19 years. This cycle is called the Circle for Moon.

The Paschalia contains a table that gives one the phase of the moon for any given day of any given year, compiled for a sequence of 19 years and containing 19 cells. Its every cell contains two numbers – the order number for each one of these 19 years, and the correspondent date of the first full moon after the 21st of March.

This order number is the actual Circle value, and is given a single definition for every year. The Paschalia tables give the Circle value for any year of the current indiction. It can be easily calculated for any other year, since the Circle for Moon repeats itself every 19 years.

The Latin version of the Paschalia (Easter Book) uses the so-called Gold Number (numerus aureus) [393], page 75. It is the same cycle of 19 years, but one that was commenced in a different year – namely, the Western European cycle of Gold Numbers exceeds the Russian and Byzantine Circle for Moon by a quotient of 3, so if the Circle value of a given year equals 1, the corresponding Gold Number will equal 4, see [393], page 76.

It is assumed that these lunation cycles were discovered by the “ancient” Greek astronomer Methon, in the alleged year 432 BC ([704], page 461). The very dating of Methon’s discovery 432 BC – that is, making it precede the existence of the Julian calendar where it is contained by several centuries – is another obvious blunder of Scaliger’s chronology.

The Circle for Sun, unlike the Circle for Moon, bears no direct relation to any astronomical phenomena, and, particularly, has nothing to do with solar observations. The name, Circle for Sun, is a rather arbitrary one, since this cycle is purely calendarian.

The Circle for Sun is a 28-year cycle of weekday recurrence in the Julian calendar. Let us explain that the days of the week may recur in calendar dates over a smaller period than 28 years, as one may observe perusing the calendars that are several years old. As a rule, one may pick a calendar more recent than 28 years that coincides with that of the current year. However, the minimal number of years when the calendar of any Julian year will recur in its entirety is 28.

The Circle for Sun for a given year in the Paschalia is represented as a number in a cycle of 28. Every year is assigned a number in a cycle of 28 (1 to 28). Each one of those numbers, in its turn, corresponds to a rather clearly defined calendar table of weekdays corresponding to month numbers. As is the case with the Circle for Moon, the Circle for Sun is given directly by the Easter tables for every year of the current 532-year indiction. It can be computed for all the other years since it recurs every 28 years.

The Circle for Sun is used in the Easter calculations in order to find out whether a given day in the month is a Sunday for a given year, which is important since Easter can only happen on a Sunday. This is one of the rules to determine the Easter, qv below.

Since every fourth year in the Julian calendar is a leap year, the cycle of regular years and leap years equals 4, that is, every 4 years contains exactly 3 regular years and 1 leap year, so the number containing the minimal amounts of both that are divisible by 7 is 28 (7 x 4 = 28). Indeed, every 28-year period will contain 21 (7 x 3) regular years, and 7 (7 x 1) leap years. A smaller amount of years may contain a number of either regular or leap years (or both) that is not divisible by seven; hence 28 is the number of the week day recurrence cycle, or the Circle for Sun size.

The Circle for Moon and the Circle for Sun can also be calculated with the use of the following simple rule. We have to take the number of the year in the Byzantine chronology since Adam, and find the remainders resulting from the division by 19 and by 28. These will be the Circle for Moon and the Circle for Sun values of the current year. Hence, the first year since Adam of the Byzantine era had both of those values equal 1 (see also [393], page 78).



  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 4508
Re: Dating the Ecumenical Council of Nicaea - Inexistence of Axial Precession
« Reply #1 on: December 09, 2011, 02:16:47 AM »

Since we’re mentioning Easter cycles, let us make some observations that concern the entire historical chronology and not just the dating of the Nicaean council. Today we have become so used to the same invariable chronological scale and era, that we simply lack the awareness of there being nothing simple or self-explanatory about this chronological method. When we use a four-digit number for referring to the current year, we aren’t really aware of just how excessive the everyday use of such a large number is.

We spend about ten years at school, and as a result, get more or less used to large numbers. They don’t frighten us anymore – however, this wasn’t the case in the days of yore when the very concept of large numbers and the ability to write them down were a privilege of educated people. Even today we often omit the first two figures when we refer to years – we say and write ’98 instead of 1998, ’99 instead of 1999, etc.

It isn’t hard to realize that during the immutable era chronology wasn’t, and couldn’t possibly have been, the primordial, original method of referring to dates. The overwhelming majority of mediaeval people would simply have been unable to understand it, and a chronology that’s only understood by a small number of educated people makes no sense whatsoever. More specifically, such a method could have been used in a special context, in ancient astronomical tractates, for instance.

But its use would already be impossible in the context of chronicles, since they had to be comprehensible by everyone or nearly everyone. Unlike astronomical rules and observations, past events have always been of interest to rulers and governors, whose deeds were described in chronicles along with those of their predecessors.

The rulers didn’t need to possess special scientific knowledge - moreover, in the Middle Ages they have occasionally been illiterate. The chronicle dates had to be understood by the rulers’ scribes, the monks in monasteries, etc. This meant that the way of referring to dates in chronicles had to correspond to everyday chronology used by the masses – which still is the case in our day.

The inability of the masses of ancient and mediaeval people to handle large numbers can be well illustrated by the history of monetary values. It is known that monetary units in the Middle Ages were much larger than today, and the sums that they operated with were significantly smaller, respectively.

The vast majority of the mediaeval people could not handle large sums of money, due to their inability to handle large numbers. Ergo, they couldn’t handle large numbers in chronology, either, which means they could not have used one based on an immutable era. Such chronology could only develop on a rather high stage of the development of human knowledge.

Apparently, resorting to the immutable era chronology was, by and large, a measure taken out of barest necessity when humanity got into a real quandary regarding what concerned the events of the distant past and their chronology. What we perceive as natural and easy nowadays is a result of habit – one that has been developing for several centuries.

We are thus confronted with a very important question of how the really old documents could represent the dates in written form – the originals, not the forgeries or re-editions of the XVII century.

The answer is well known. One of the most frequently used methods was the count of years since the beginning of a ruler’s reign. It was widely used in ancient times and in the Middle Ages, and is still employed in Japan, for instance, where the count of years begins with the first year of the Emperor’s reign.

This fashion is of little use chronologically speaking if the years of a king’s reign as given in ancient chronicles are long forgotten – so the comprehension of such a date requires translating the years of a king’s reign into the language of modern chronology, possibly comparing them to those of well-known and well-dated ancient kings. It can’t always be done securely and positively, and it requires a large number of these “known and dated kings”.

Despite its simplicity, the method of counting years since the beginning of a king’s reign contains a number of impracticalities. For instance, every change of reign induces a shift in the year number, and a random one at that. Tracing such chronology, even a mere 50-100 years back, may already be a complex task, since it may involve calculating how many years have passed since the third year of the second king preceding the last one.

This involves recollecting the years of the last couple of reigns and their sequence, which may not be very convenient in quotidian use. Apart from that, one has to consider the fact that during political turmoil and frequent ruler changes, such “chronology” stops functioning altogether.

This is why old chronicles had another method of counting years; a much more sophisticated one. This method didn’t require the knowledge of large numbers, but it also did not depend on the names and reigns of kings and provided for a much smoother count of years, without any sudden shifts or leaps. It could also serve for a long time – theoretically, a span of about eight thousand years could be covered.

This method is very closely related to the clerical Paschalia and the Julian calendar. Let us refer to it as the indiction method, or one of counting years by indictions. Let us elaborate on that.

The year number wasn’t given as one large number, the way it is today, but rather a sequence of three small numbers. These numbers had their own names – the indiction, the Circle for Sun, and the Circle for Moon. Each one of them grew by a quotient of 1 every year, but would return to its minimal value upon reaching its maximal. That is to say, it got back to one, and would then start growing by a quotient of one every year yet again.

Thus, instead one theoretically infinite year counter that we use today, the indiction method involved three finite cyclical counters and referred to the year as to a series of small numbers, each one of which had to contain itself within its specific boundaries. Those were:

- the indiction that grew from 1 to 15 and then got thrown back to 1;

- the Circle for Sun that grew from 1 to 28 and then got thrown back to 28;

- The Circle for Moon that grew from 1 to 19 and then got thrown back to 1.

A scribe that used the indiction chronology could write, “This event happened in the 14th indiction, the Circle for Sun equalling 16, and the Circle for Moon equalling 19. The next year something else happened in the 15th indiction, with the Circle for Sun equalling 17, and the Circle for Moon equalling 1. The year after that the following had happened, and it took place in the 1st indiction, with the Circle for Sun equalling 18, and the Circle for Moon equalling 2”. And so on, and so forth.

Since the limiting numbers in the indiction chronology (15, 28, and 19) are all mutually non-divisible, any of their combinations may only recur after a number of years equalling the product of these numbers: 7,980 = 15 x 18 x 19. Thus, the recurrence of an indiction date can only happen after 7,980 years, which means that the indiction chronology can give a perfectly unequivocal date for any year within the span of 7,980 years.

The indiction method is closely related to the Julian calendar, the Paschalia, and the Christian Easter. It looks as though it was invented together with the Paschalia and the Easter tables. The reason is that two cycles out of the three used by indiction dates, namely the Circle for Sun and the Circle for Moon, were derived from the Julian calendar, its leap years, weekdays, and division into months.

Both cycles bear a direct relation to defining the Easter as the Sunday after the first full moon in spring. Hence, the chronological method of indiction is largely based on the calendar indices given by the Paschalia and is intrinsically derived from the latter.

It is known that the indiction chronology was used in ancient texts. It is considered to have been mainly used in mediaeval Byzantine opuses written “a long time ago”. But the indiction values had been used for referring to festive dates as recently as the XVII and even the XVIII centuries, along with the datings “since the Genesis” or “since Christ”.

The indiction dates have another peculiarity in what concerns the dates belonging to an unknown epoch. The indiction dates per se, without sophisticated calculations, tell nothing about how far away they are from the epoch contemporary to the scribe, or indeed from any other date, indiction or not.

Moreover, a distant indiction date tells nothing about whether it is from the past or from the future. Indiction dates aren’t ordered in any way at all. In order to understand which one of the two indiction dates precedes the other, one has to perform complex calculations, which are next to impossible without a calculator, and a programmable one, to boot.

As a result, the mediaeval chronologer studying an ancient chronicle could even make a mistake in whether the events described happened a long time ago, or belong to a prophecy about the distant future. As a result, prophecies about the future that were rather common in the Middle Ages could become mixed up with accounts of past events during later copying.

Most probably, the indiction dates were replaced by the chronology since Genesis, precisely in this era, that is, the epoch of the attempts to define the correct chronology of ancient times. This apparently happened in the XIV-XV centuries.

The beginning of the first “global” era must have been computed using the existing system of indiction dates as a foundation that is based on the Paschalia. Namely, the year was computed whose indiction, Circle for Sun, and the Circle for Moon had all equalled 1. Such a “remarkable” year only repeats itself once in 15 x 28 x 19 = 7,980 years.

Naturally, the closest such year in the past was selected. That happened to be the first year of the Russian and Byzantine era since Adam or since Genesis. Other calculations based on other cycles similar to those of the indiction chronology could give different initial reference points. This must be how quite a number of eras “since Genesis” came to existence.

Apparently, such calculations were first performed around 1409 AD, when the previous Great Indiction had ended, and the next one had commenced. That is, several decades prior to 1492 AD that happened to have been the 7,000th, or the last one according to the “true” era, computed by the mediaeval chronologists. This is why the End of Times perceived as the end of the world was scheduled for 1492 AD.


There is a traditional consensual opinion according to which the Paschalia church calendar was canonized during the first Ecumenical Council in Nicaea. Nobody seem to be aware, however, that all of this blatantly contradicts Scaliger’s dating of the Nicaean council – 325 AD, and the epoch of the IV century AD in general.

The matter here is that the Paschalia consists of a number of calendarian and astronomical tables. The time of their compilation can be calculated from their contents qv below. In other words, the Paschalia can be dated by its astronomical contents. We see that the resulting dating of the Paschalia contradicts the dating of the Nicaean Council as the IV century AD.

The contradiction had been discovered a long time ago, and it was mentioned in the beginning of the XX century by Easter table specialists. However, to this day, there has been no comprehensive explanation of this phenomenon given.

What seems to be the matter here? The answer is probably that Scaliger’s dating of the first Nicaean Council is involved, and it’s extremely important for chronology. This is what the chronology of church history is based upon to a great extent, which is the same as saying entire mediaeval history, starting with the alleged IV century AD at least.

The erroneous (as we understand now) Scaliger’s dating of the Nicaean Council was used for the preparation of the famous Gregorian calendar reform as well. Specialists were naturally cautious of touching this sore spot of Scaliger’s chronology, being well aware of the significance of the issue for the entire concept of mediaeval history.

The alteration in the dating of the Nicaean Council leads to a complete revision of the entire scale of Scaliger’s chronology between the IV and XIV centuries AD. Apparently, this is precisely why those of the specialists who had noticed serious discrepancies between the contents of the Paschalia and the dating of the Nicaean Council were too timid to make conclusions, preferring the stance of obmutescence - as if the problem was completely nonexistent.


Let us turn to the canonical mediaeval ecclesial tractate - Matthew Vlastar’s Collection of Rules Devised by Holy Fathers, or The Alphabet Syntagma, [518], [17]. This rather voluminous book represents the rendition of the rules formulated by the Ecclesial and local Councils of the Orthodox Church.

Matthew Vlastar is considered to have been a Holy Hierarch from Thessalonica, and written his tractate in the XIV century [17], page 18. Today’s copies are of a much later date, of course. A large part of Vlastar’s Collection of Rules Devised by Holy Fathers contains the rules for celebrating Easter. Among other things, it says the following:

“The Easter Rules makes the two following restrictions: it should not be celebrated together with the Judaists, and it can only be celebrated after the spring equinox. Two more had to be added later, namely: celebrate after the first full moon after the equinox, but not any day – it should be celebrated on the first Sunday after the equinox. All of these restrictions, except for the last one, are still valid (in times of Matthew Vlastar – the XIV century – Auth.), although nowadays we often celebrate on the Sunday that comes later. Namely, we always count two days after the Lawful Easter (that is, the Passover, or the full moon – Auth.) and end up with the subsequent Sunday. This didn’t happen out of ignorance or lack of skill on the part of the Elders, but due to lunar motion” [518], part П, chapter 7, also see [17].

Let us emphasize that the quoted Collection of Rules Devised by Holy Fathers is a canonical mediaeval clerical volume, which gives it all the more authority, since we know that up until the XVII century, the Orthodox Church was very meticulous about the immutability of canonical literature and kept the texts exactly the way they were; with any alteration a complicated and widely discussed issue that would not have passed unnoticed.

This means that we can hope for Matthew Vlastar’s text to give us a precise enough account of the opinions held by the Constantinople scientists of the XIV century, in regard to the Easter issue. As we can see, Matthew Vlastar tells us the following:

In addition to the two Apostolic Easter rules, namely:

1) Not celebrating Easter together with the Judaists.

2) Only celebrating Easter after the spring equinox.

The Elders of the Council that introduced the Paschalia added two more rules for certainty, since the previous two do not define Easter day explicitly enough:

3) Only celebrating Easter after the first full moon in a given spring. That is, after the Passover that is often called “Lawful Easter” in Christian clerical literature – that is, Easter celebrated in accordance with the Law of Moses – or, alternatively, that of “the 14th Moon”.

4) Easter cannot be celebrated on any weekday; the celebration is to occur on the first Sunday following this full moon, or the Passover.



  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 4508
Re: Dating the Ecumenical Council of Nicaea - Inexistence of Axial Precession
« Reply #2 on: December 09, 2011, 02:17:26 AM »

The first three rules of four were still quite valid in the XIV century, according to Vlastar, whereas the 4th rule of Easter Sunday being the first Sunday after the full moon was already broken.

Furthermore, Matthew Vlastar gives a perfectly valid astronomical explanation of why the rule was broken. The reason is that the Circle for Moon (Methon’s Cycle) isn’t completely precise. There is a very slow shift of real full moon dates in relation to the ones stated by the Circle for Moon that the Elders of the Council may have been unaware of. However, in the age of Matthew Vlastar, knowledge of the shift already existed. Vlastar was aware of it and gave its correct value – about 24 hours in 300 years.

This is why no less than two days should pass between the full moon and Easter (according to Vlastar, and applicable to his age). The matter is that the calculations of the Christian Easter are based on the calendar with its Circle for Moon values, as opposed to real full moon dates given by astronomy.

When, over the passage of time, a two-day discrepancy between the Paschalian Circle for Moon and the real full moon schedule had evolved, this could not fail to impact the distance between the astronomical spring equinox and Easter Sunday. If the previous distance equalled “zero or more” (so that Easter could not come before the full moon), it became “equalling two or more” so that the Easter could not come earlier than two days after the full moon.

However, most often the amount of days separating the full moon and Easter Sunday, exceeded two, anyway, since the rules have it so that one had to wait for the Easter’s advent from the vernal full moon and until the closest Sunday, that is, about three days (half a week) in average, and more than two days in most cases.

So the two-day gap that had accumulated by the age of Vlastar did not always manifest, and no rules were broken in the years when several days had to pass between the full moon and Easter.

However, in certain years, when the distance proved less than two days, the 4th Easter rule was broken, namely, Easter Sunday fell on the second Sunday after the vernal full moon. For example, if the Passover falls on a Saturday, Easter has to be celebrated the next day, on Sunday.

However, due to the accumulated two-day gap, the Paschalia will define the calendarian Passover as occurring two days later, on Monday; and Easter will thus fall on the next Sunday. In other words: in Vlastar’s times, Easter was celebrated on the first Sunday, two days after the spring equinox. Thus, every rule of the four was followed, except for the cases when the 4th rule needed to be broken.


Thus, we know a lot, almost everything, about the Paschalia. So, why the astronomical context of the Paschalia contradicts Scaliger’s dating (alleged 325 AD) of the Nicaean Council where the Paschalia was canonized?

This contradiction can easily be seen from the roughest of calculations.

1) The difference between the Paschalian full moons and the real ones grows at the rate of one day in 300 years.

2) A two-day difference had accumulated by the time of Vlastar, which is roughly dated 1330 AD.

3) Ergo, the Paschalia was compiled somewhere around 730 AD, since

1330 – (300 x 2) = 730.

It is understood that the Paschalia could only be canonized by the Council sometime later. But this fails to correspond to Scaliger’s dating of its canonization as 325 AD in any way at all!

Let us emphasize, that Matthew Vlastar himself, doesn’t see any contradiction here, since he is apparently unaware of the Nicaean Council’s dating as the alleged year 325 AD. A natural hypothesis: this traditional dating was introduced much later than Vlastar’s age. Most probably, it was first calculated in Scaliger’s time.

It is also written that “Defining the Easter date in accordance with the Orthodox Paschalia one has to be certain the Easter does not coincide with the Passover… The table… gives the dates for Passover celebrations starting with 900 AD (?! – Auth.)” [816], page 14. Why do the dates start with 900 AD? Could it be due to the fact that the coincidences mentioned here only stopped occurring in VIII AD?

Let us commence solving the problem of dating the Nicaean Council according to the Paschalia in the same manner that it would be confronted by the chronologers of the XIV-XVI centuries. But, unlike them, we shall be using a precise astronomical theory that wasn’t available to them.


We have witnessed that the Apostolic – the principal – Easter rule requires the Easter’s non-coincidence with the Jewish Passover. Furthermore, the canonical ecclesial texts give a direct and explicit definition of what is meant by “Passover” – the first vernal full moon. Let us note that the method of defining the Passover date as used by the contemporary Judaic tradition is somewhat different.

Presently, new moons can be calculated with the utmost precision, since there is a powerful theory of lunar movement in existence. However, such precision was hardly relevant to our means, so we used the classical Gaussian formulae that just give the dates of vernal full moons in the past rather than the precise time.

These formulae are a creation of Karl Friedrich Gauss, the eminent mathematician of the XIX century, and their intended purpose is precisely what we needed – Easter calculations. We have used them for programming the software that gave us the Julian dates of every vernal equinox since 1 AD, which were then compared with the Orthodox Easter dates in accordance with the Paschalia Easter Book. We shall currently omit the calculation details and the tables, since interested readers can repeat them using given algorithm. The conclusion we came to:


The Council that introduced the Paschalia – according to the modern tradition as well as the mediaeval one, was the Nicaean Council – could not have taken place before 784 AD, since this was the first year when the calendar date for the Christian Easter stopped coinciding with the Passover full moon due to slow astronomical shifts of lunar phases.

The last such coincidence occurred in 784 AD, and after that year, the dates of Easter and Passover drifted apart forever. This means the Nicaean Council could not have possibly canonized the Paschalia in IV AD, when the calendar Easter Sunday would coincide with the Passover eight (!) times – in 316, 319, 323, 343, 347, 367, 374, and 394 AD, and would even precede it by two days five (!) times, which is directly forbidden by the fourth Easter rule, that is, in 306 and 326 (allegedly already a year after the Nicaean Council), as well as the years 346, 350, and 370.

Thus, if we’re to follow the consensual chronological version, we’ll have to consider the first Easter celebrations after the Nicaean Council to blatantly contradict three of the four rules that the Council decreed specifically for this feast! The rules allegedly become broken the very next year after the Council decrees them, yet start to be followed zealously and in full detail five centuries (!) after that.

Let us note that J.J. Scaliger could not have noticed this obvious nonsense during his compilation of the consensual ancient chronology, since computing true full moon dates for the distant past had not been a solved problem in his epoch.

The above mentioned absurdity was noticed much later, when the state of astronomical science became satisfactory for said purpose, but it was too late already, since Scaliger’s version of chronology had already been canonized, rigidified, and baptized “scientific”, with all major corrections forbidden.


We have seen that according to ecclesial rules, Easter Sunday was initially computed astronomically as the first Sunday after the first vernal full moon. Then the Nicaean Council had developed a number of calendarian rules for defining the Easter date. Easter has been a calendarian event ever since. One didn’t have to observe the sky in order to determine the date for Easter, but could simply look at the calendar.

However, the original astronomical meaning of the Easter definition can be clearly determined from the actual Easter tables. Indeed, some of these tables contain a separate list of Passover dates, which one should use as a reference point in order to define the next Sunday as Easter. This list – the “Circle for Moon” – contains 19 dates, since it was estimated that the cycle of vernal full moons completely recurs after 19 years.

This way, the very structure of the Easter tables reflects the astronomical meaning of Easter being defined as the first Sunday after the first vernal full moon (the Passover). The dates of the Passover full moons according to the Paschalia considerably differ from the real ones nowadays. We shall refer to these dates from the Paschalia as the Paschalian full moon dates in order to differ between them and the real astronomical ones.

However, the compilers of the Paschalia were unaware of this and considered their schedule of vernal full moons to be perfectly precise. This is not the case, although the discrepancy is a minute one and requires the passage of several centuries to manifest. The true vernal full moons of the 19-year cycle slowly migrate backwards in the Julian calendar, whereas the ones given in the Easter tables are static. This makes the former, begin to precede the latter by a ratio of 24 hours every 300 years.

The fact that the Nicaean Council thought the Easter Circle for Moon values would be correct forevermore and always correspond to the astronomical full moon values is reflected in clerical sources – Matthew Vlastar is a good example qv above. But the correct astronomical Circle for Moon – the 19-year cycle of vernal full moon schedules – must have been exactly the way we see it in the Paschalia.

This simple consideration allows one to give a rough dating of the Paschalia compilation. It suffices to compare the Easter table of vernal full moons to the precise modern tables of lunar phases of the past, and find the period of time when they coincided. We have thus reached the conclusion reflected in the following statement.


A satisfactory coincidence of calendarian Passover full moons with the astronomical ones had only existed between 700 AD and 1000 AD (by which we mean their occurrence within the range of 24 hours from each other). Prior to that, the calendarian full moons have always taken place after the Passover ones, and after 1000 AD, the opposite started to happen. The beginning of the 13th Great Indiction (877 AD) falls on the period of ideal coincidence of Passover and astronomical full moons.

This means the Paschalia could only have been compiled in the period between the IX and XI centuries AD.

Propter hoc, the dating of the Nicaean Council (as the Council that had introduced the Paschalia) is only possible, within the timeframe of the VII-XI centuries, the most probable one being the epoch of the X-XI centuries, after the year 877 AD.

This is why. It is understood that the Council had introduced the Paschalia in order to have it ready for immediate use. Wouldn’t it be strange to compile an Easter table for 532 years that can only be used after the passage of decades or even centuries? But this is exactly what Scaliger’s version offers us: 325 AD is the date when the Nicaean Council canonized the Paschalia according to Scaliger, with the closest Great Indiction (as marking the beginning of the table) commencing in 20 years, in 345 AD.

This is highly implausible. This can be seen from the mere fact that the Paschalia includes the complete table of Easter dates for as long a time as the entire Great Indiction of 532 years, moreover, after the passage of said time, the table can be moved forwards in time as a single unit and cover the next 532 years.

This way, the change of the table that coincides with the beginning of the new Great Indiction is an extremely rare event, one that can only happen once or twice in a millennium. But what do we see? The beginning of one of the Great Indictions – the year 877 AD – coincides with the period of time when the concurrence of calendarian and astronomical full moons is perfect!

A natural hypothesis is that 877 AD was the very year the Council that introduced the Paschalia decided the Great Indiction to have commenced. It is clear that this year could either coincide with the year of the actual Council, or precede it. For instance, this year could have been linked to some event that was considered significant (and maybe even ancient) by the Elders of the Council.

NOTE. The beginning of one of the Great Indictions coincides with the Byzantine chronological reference point for the era since Adam, or “since the Genesis”, as it became referred to afterwards. The corresponding Indiction is considered to have been the first one - the initial point all the other Great Indictions were counted from.

Thus we see that the chronology since Adam, which was widely used in the Middle Ages, is closely related to the Easter calculations of the astronomers. This is indirectly confirmed by the fact that, this chronology is said to have been introduced in the reign of Emperor Constantius, that is, immediately after the Nicaean Council. It is said, that

“An important place in chronological computations… is occupied by the two Byzantine eras. According to the first one, the chronology began on Saturday, the 1st of September 5509 BC. This era was devised in the reign of Emperor Constantius (337-361 AD)… Ever since the VI century, Byzantium began to use a different era “since Genesis”, which was supposed to have occurred on the 1st of March of the year 5508 AD” [393], page 38.

Apparently, the date that the compilation and canonization of the Paschalia took place was moved backwards in time in Scaliger’s version of chronology, along with the date of the chronology since Adam was introduced, which probably happened after devising 877 AD to have been the beginning of the Great Indiction.

As was noted above, the beginning of chronology since Adam must have been calculated by counting a certain number of Great Indictions back into the past from some date. The beginning of the era must have been thought to be the beginning of the indiction, whose first year gave the first indiction value. Due to the incomparability of the Great Indiction and the 15-year indiction cycle, this combination can only occur once in 7,980 years: 15 x 532 = 7,980.

Thus, first the reference point for the beginning of one of the Great Indictions had been deduced, and then, after rather complex (considering the epoch) calculations, the date of the “unique” Great Indiction that correlated with the indiction values was found. This was used to denote the beginning of the era since Adam, as a result of considerations that were perfectly natural for the mediaeval mind with its propensity to ascribe divine significance to elegant numeric proportions.

The notorious “Apocalypse date” that was awaited in 1492 (the year 7000 since Adam), bearing “special significance” according to some considerations, must have been calculated in a similar manner, and all of these calculations appear to have been made in the XIII-XIV centuries. The initial point of reference must have been the beginning of the current Great Indiction that had started in 877 AD and ended in 1408 AD.



  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 4508
Re: Dating the Ecumenical Council of Nicaea - Inexistence of Axial Precession
« Reply #3 on: December 09, 2011, 02:18:00 AM »

The Paschalia Easter Book does not contain the names of any of its compilers. The only name that is mentioned in the tables is that of Reverend John of Damascus (Johannes Damascenus). The Paschalia contains, among others, a table represented as a pair of human hands. The table allows for a number of Easter calculations with the use of numbers that are mentally placed along finger joints. It bears the inscription: “The Palm of Damascenus”.

Let us mark the fact that the Palm of Damascenus represents a rather ingenuous method of calculation that only makes sense in absence of complete Easter tables, without getting into details. Easter tables give the same data as can be computed on the Hand of Damascenus; this means that this system was developed well before the time of the complete Easter table, that is – before the Nicaean Council. This means that Reverend John of Damascus must have lived before or during the epoch of the Council.

However, Scaliger’s chronology dates the life span of Johannes Damascenus as late VII – early VIII century AD, that is, more than 300 years since the Scaliger’s dating of the Nicaean Council and the canonization of the Paschalia (that allegedly took place in 325 AD). This way, according to Scaliger’s chronology, the method of calculating dates by the Palm of Damascenus was invented when the Easter tables already containing the ready dates have been in existence for 300 years!

Even if we believe for a moment that John of Damascus was born in the late VIII century (when he really lived a lot later), it logically follows that the Paschalia Easter Book was canonized in 700 AD at the earliest. In other words, Scaliger’s datings of the Paschalia’s canonization and the traditional dating of the lifespan of Johannes Damascenus, contradict each other.


It is indeed amazing that Matthew Vlastar’s Collection of Rules Devised by Holy Fathers – the book that every Paschalia researcher refers to – contains an explicit dating of the time the Easter Book was compiled. It is even more amazing that none of the numerous researchers of Vlastar’s text appeared to have noticed it (?!), despite the fact that the date is given directly after the oft-quoted place of Vlastar’s book, about the rules of calculating the Easter date. Moreover, all quoting stops abruptly immediately before the point where Vlastar gives this explicit date.

What could possibly be the matter? Why don’t modern commentators find themselves capable of quoting the rest of Vlastar’s text? We are of the opinion that they attempt to conceal from the reader the fragments of ancient texts that explode the entire edifice of Scaliger’s chronology. We shall quote this part completely:

Matthew Vlastar:

“There are four rules concerning the Easter. The first two are the apostolic rules, and the other two are known from tradition. The first rule is that the Easter should be celebrated after the spring equinox. The second is that is should not be celebrated together with the Judeans. The third: not just after the equinox, but also after the first full moon following the equinox. And the fourth: not just after the full moon, but the first Sunday following the full moon… The current Paschalia was compiled and given to the church by our fathers in full faith that it does not contradict any of the quoted postulates. (This is the place the quoting usually stops, as we have already mentioned – Auth.). They created it the following way: 19 consecutive years were taken starting with the year 6233 since Genesis (= 725 AD – Auth.) and up until the year 6251 (= 743 AD – Auth.), and the date of the first full moon after the spring equinox was looked up for each one of them. The Paschalia makes it obvious that when the Elders were doing it; the equinox fell on the 21st of March” ([518]).

Thus, the Circle for Moon – the foundation of the Paschalia – was devised according to the observations from the years 725-743 AD; hence, the Paschalia couldn’t possibly have been compiled, let alone canonized, before that.

Matthew Vlastar, who lived in the XIV century, hadn’t had any doubts about the Elders having devised the Paschalian cycle of 19 years after 743 AD. He already knew that the astronomical full moons migrated to earlier dates in the Julian calendar at the ratio of 24 hours per about 304 years, and wrote the following:

“If we consider the cycle of 19 years, 304 after the Elders who had devised it – it shall be the 17th, one that started in the year 6537 (=1029 AD – Auth.) – we shall see that the first vernal full moons precede the full moons of the first 19-year cycle by a day… If we consider the other 19-year circle in a similar manner, the one that starts in the year 6842 (=1333 AD), we shall discover that the full moons it gives predate the real ones by yet another day… This is why these two days are added to the Lawful Easter (Passover – Auth.)” ([518]).

As we have demonstrated above – see the “Second Statement” – this consideration of Vlastar’s is fully confirmed by the modern astronomical calculations. Passover full moons really occurred about 2 days later than the real ones in 1333 AD, about 1 day later in 1029 AD, and coincided with them in the second part of the VIII century, which is when they were compiled according to Vlastar - however, this contradicts the consensual chronology.


The Paschalia could have been compiled in the following timeframe:

- not any earlier than 784 AD by the actual definition of Easter;

- not any earlier than 700 AD by the coincidence of Paschalian and astronomical full moons;

- not any earlier than 700 AD by the Palm of Damascenus;

- not any earlier than 743 AD according to Matthew Vlastar;

Hence, the Paschalia was first compiled earliest around the second half of the VIII century AD. The Paschalia was canonized at the Nicaean Council that took place in the XI-XIV centuries. The Paschalia might well have contained certain astronomical concepts of the VII-XI centuries that had already been a part of the ecclesial tradition by that time.



The Paschalia may have been developed before the Nicaean Council where it had been chosen (out of several versions), and canonized. Obviously, the first complete Easter tables for 532 years were also compiled around that time, and have been included in the ecclesial literature ever since.

The epoch of the Paschalia’s canonization must have also been the time when the beginning of the Great Indiction was devised – the year that the complete Easter table starts with. Since, as we have seen, the Paschalia wasn’t created any earlier than the VIII century, this year could only have been 877 AD – the beginning of the “13th” Indiction – which was really the first and only, becoming referred to as 13th after they started to count the Indictions from the beginning of chronology since Genesis.

One is tempted to look for the traces of the Nicaean Council in the epoch of 877 AD, which was the year the very first Great Indiction commenced, and thus could have some information concerning the Council in the vicinity of this date in Scaliger’s version of history.

It turns out that such traces do exist, and very obvious ones at that. Namely, the so-called “First and Second Ecumenical Councils” (two councils really comprising one) that took place towards the end of the IX century.

According to Scaliger’s version, the year 877 AD coincides with the middle of the reign of the Byzantine Emperor, Basil I of Macedonia (867-886). The Ecumenical Council with the somewhat odd name of the First and Second Ecumenical Councils occurred during his reign. The Council in question is the First Ecumenical Council that took place in the reign of Constantine the Great (also known as Basil I of Macedonia), and the next one must have been the Second Ecumenical council that appears to have occurred shortly afterwards. Let us remind that the Paschalia was canonized at the First Ecumenical Council in Nicaea.

Furthermore, it is assumed that a number of chronological issues were discussed at the First and the Second Councils, as well as those related to ordering and canonizing ecclesial literature [518], page 12. For instance, the Nomocanon by Fotius, considered one the most influential canonical collections of church rules in the Middle Ages.

But it is considered that the same questions, or ones closely related, among them – chronology, the Paschalia, and the determination of current date “since Adam”, the canonization of church rules and books – were at the centre of the First and the Second Councils’ agenda.

This is where we encounter perfect havoc and confusion in the chronology of early Ecclesial history that the mediaeval chronologists were trying to reconstruct. They failed to have done it correctly, and thus the First and Second Ecumenical Councils were placed last amongst the list of known Councils, following the Seventh.

This appears to be the result of a chronological error made as early as the XIII-XIV centuries, when the Byzantine chronologers were attempting to date the Ecumenical Councils. The First and Second Ecumenical Councils were dated as early IX century, and the Ecumenical Councils from the Third to the Seventh were pushed even further back in time, namely, the epoch of the IV-VIII centuries. As a result, the First and the Second Councils had to be put first yet again, but already as two different Councils, separated by a period of 52 years.

NOTE: It is most remarkable that Matthew Vlastar’s Collection of Rules Devised by Holy Fathers, as well as most of other canonical clerical tractates belonging to the Russian and Byzantine tradition of the XIV-XVI centuries, don’t give direct datings of old events as a rule – for instance, none of the Ecumenical Councils are dated there, and none of the local ones, either. It is usually just mentioned that this or the other Council happened in the reign of such-and-such emperor, or how many years had passed between the different Councils.

But such assorted chronological indications don’t suffice for building an even, unbroken chronological scale of events. One gets the impression that the compilation of global chronology was commenced in Byzantine in the XIV-XVI centuries, and never finished, possibly due to the contradictions that led the research into a cul-de-sac. However, this incomplete and raw version of chronology was used as a basis by Scaliger, Petavius and other Western European chronologists who had built their entire chronological edifice thereupon, which is the one the historians still use today, not daring to subject it to in-depth critical analysis.


988. The Encyclopaedic Dictionary. Vols. 1-82; supplementary volumes 1-4. St. Petersburg, Brockhaus and Efron, 1890-1907.

817. Stepanov, N.V. The Calendarian and Chronological Reference Book (for the Solution of Chronographic Time Problems). Moscow, Synodal typography, 1915.

701. The book of Psalms with Appendices. Published in the Great City of Moscow in the Year 7160 [1652 ad], in the Month of October, on the 1st Day. New edition: Moscow, The Vvedenskaya Church of St. Trinity Coreligionist Typography, 1867.

393. Klimishin, I. A. Chronology and the Calendar. Moscow, Nauka, 2nd edition, 1985.

518. Vlastar, Matthew. Collection of Rules Devised by Holy Fathers. Balakhna, P. A. Ovchinnikov, The F. P.Volkov typography, 1908.

704. Ptolemy, Claudius. Almagest or the Mathematical Tractate in Thirteen Volumes. Translated by I. N.Veselovskiy. Moscow, Nauka, Fizmatlit, 1998.

17. The Alphabetic Syntagm of Matthew Vlastar. Translated from Greek by Rev. Nikolai Ilyinsky, a teacher from the Seminary School of Tauris. Simpheropol, 1892. A new edition: Moscow, Galaxy Publications, 1996.



  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 4508
Re: Dating the Ecumenical Council of Nicaea - Inexistence of Axial Precession
« Reply #4 on: December 09, 2011, 02:42:59 AM »
Let us take care of the historical existence of Hipparchus, not to mention the other "ancient" greek astronomes:

Papal Bull, Gregory XIII, 1582:

Therefore we took care not only that the vernal equinox returns on its former date, of which it has already deviated approximately ten days since the Nicene Council, and so that the fourteenth day of the Paschal moon is given its rightful place, from which it is now distant four days and more, but also that there is founded a methodical and rational system which ensures, in the future, that the equinox and the fourteenth day of the moon do not move from their appropriate positions.

According to the official chronology and astronomy, the direction of Earth's rotation axis executes a slow precession with a period of approximately 26,000 years.

Therefore, in the year 325 e.n., official date for the Council of Nicaea, the winter solstice MUST HAVE FALLEN on December 21 or December 22; in the year 968 e.n., on December 16; and in the year 1582, on December 11.

We are told that the motivation for the Gregorian reform was that the Julian calendar assumes that the time between vernal equinoxes is 365.25 days, when in fact it is about 11 minutes less. The accumulated error between these values was about 10 days (starting from the Council of Nicaea) when the reform was made, resulting in the equinox occurring on March 11 and moving steadily earlier in the calendar, also by the 16th century AD the winter solstice fell around December 11.

But, in fact, as we see from the superb work The Easter Issue, the Council of Nicaea could not have taken place any earlier than the year 876-877 e.n., which means that the winter solstice in the year 968 e.n., for example must have fallen on December 21.

And, of course, in the year 1582, the winter solstice would have arrived on December 16, not at all on December 11.

Here is another proof:

Byzantine historian Leo Diaconus (ca. 950-994), as he observed the total eclipse of 22 December 968 from Constantinople (now Istanbul, Turkey). His observation is preserved in the Annales Sangallenses, and reads:

" the fourth hour of the day ... darkness covered the earth and all the brightest stars shone forth. And is was possible to see the disk of the Sun, dull and unlit, and a dim and feeble glow like a narrow band shining in a circle around the edge of the disk".


"When the Emperor was waging war in Syria, at the winter solstice there was an eclipse of the Sun such as has never happened apart from that which was brought on the Earth at the Passion of our Lord on account of the folly of the Jews. . . The eclipse was such a spectacle. It occurred on the 22nd day of December, at the 4th hour of the day, the air being calm. Darkness fell upon the Earth and all the brighter stars revealed themselves. Everyone could see the disc of the Sun without brightness, deprived of light, and a certain dull and feeble glow, like a narrow headband, shining round the extreme parts of the edge of the disc. However, the Sun gradually going past the Moon (for this appeared covering it directly) sent out its original rays, and light filled the Earth again."

Refers to a total solar eclipse in Constantinople of 22 December AD 968.
From: Leo the Deacon, Historiae, Byzantine.

However, the winter solstice in the year 968 MUST HAVE FALLEN on December 16, given the 10 day correction instituted by Gregory XIII, as we are told (a very simple calculation - 11 minutes in the length of a solar year amount to a full day for each 134 years), according to the official chronology.

It becomes very clear, given the invention of Hipparchus during the Renaissance, the fact that the Council of Nicaea must have taken place no earlier than the year 876-877 e.n., that there is NO HISTORICAL/ASTRONOMICAL/DOCUMENTARY proof of any axial precession.

Let us imagine the protests which would have followed if the Vatican would have dared to say that the winter solstice in 1581-1582 occurred on December 11, given the precise fact that IT MUST HAVE TAKEN PLACE ON DECEMBER 16. This means, of course, that the Papal Bull, dated 1582, was created much later in time, in fact at least after 1700 e.n., to give the impression of a "historical proof" of the axial precession hypothesis.

There is no other way around it: the most precise proofs that the Council of Nicaea could not have taken place any earlier than the year 876-877 e.n., which means that the entire medieval and even ancient chronology was invented by both Scaliger and Petavius some centuries later.
« Last Edit: December 10, 2011, 01:01:50 AM by levee »



  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 4508
Re: Dating the Ecumenical Council of Nicaea - Inexistence of Axial Precession
« Reply #5 on: February 12, 2012, 05:57:38 AM »
Our FES must realize that without the new radical chronology, there would have been no way to respond to the following thread: (and in fact nobody here dared to post a reply, it was checkmate all the way for FE).

In the official chronology, the facts are very clear and well documented, it would constitute an immediate proof that in fact the Earth did revolve around the Sun at least for the past 2,500 years, with nothing else the FET could do to disprove the data.

It is only by using the extraordinary proofs based on the most precise astronomical evidence that we realize the forgery that has been used to make us believe in a pure fantasy, that is, the historical period 300 BC - 1600 AD.

The Council of Nicaea, the most important Council that ever took place in the official history, dated in the year 325 AD, could not possibly have taken place before the year 876-877 AD, please read the first few messages for the precise proof.