Site Section Links
Aspects of Jesus
5 Gospels of Canon
Misc Ancient Myth Material
1994 Velikovsky Symposium
Misc Biology Lins
Poetry & Fun Material
PDF Download Files
Lecture & Video Links
Spiritual Products online store
If the life and
death of Socrates were those of a sage, the.
life and death of Jesus
were those of a
God. - Rousseau
Comments on "The Christ Conspiracy"
A look at various aspects
The Christ Conspiracy: Conclusion
When pressed, scholars and clergy
alike will admit that the founding of the Christian religion is shrouded
in centuries of intrigue and fraud. They will confess that there is not
a single mention of Jesus by any historian contemporaneous with his
alleged advent and that the biblical accounts are basically spurious,
not written by their pretended authors and riddled with tens of
thousands of errors, impossibilities and contradictions. They will even
admit that such texts had been forged by the hundreds and later
interpolated and mutilated. Such "experts' may even go so far as to
concede that the historicity of Christ has been called into question
from the beginning, with that fact itself being cloaked in euphemism and
deceit. They may further confess that there is absolutely no physical
evidence of the event or the man, and that the numerous relics,
including the infamous Shroud of Turin, are fakes, as are the tourist
spots where the drama allegedly took place. These scholars may even
have the courage to admit that the Jewish religion, upon which
Christianity claims to be based, is itself not what it is asserted to be
but is basically a rehash of older myths and theologies, as, in the end,
[Commentary] While LARGELY true, the
above paragraph represents several unwarranted blanket statements and
overstatements. Here are the salient points:
1. Given that Josephus, the Jewish-Roman historian who DOES mention Jesus, was
born about the time that Jesus died, this is technically true. Given that
Jesus restricted his focus to spiritual issues and had no impact on national
or international politics and wars, this is saying almost nothing at all.
There are several powerful reason to consider Jesus as being historical.
2. Setting aside the Old Testament wherein large amounts of the material may
have been crafted to create a unifying "history" for the Hebrew people,
there are NO spurious documents in the New Testament with one or two
possible exceptions. The Gospel of John is an eyewitness account, and the
other three Gospels including Acts are compilations of second hand and third
hand accounts. They may have inaccuracies, embellishments, and
misconceptions, but they are by no means spurious. The balance of the New Testament is largely in the form of
letters that were recovered. Even throwing out Revelation and one or two other
documents has zero impact upon the import of the demonstration and message
3. The various books of the Bible have titles, most of which don't necessarily purport to
reflect the actual author or compiler. There is no legitimate reason to
think that for the most important book, the Gospel of John, the name does
not reflect the actual author. The same can be said for the Gospel of
Thomas. Outside of Luke, who WAS the author of the Gospel named such, the
other Gospels are named after honored men.
4. An exaggeration, but significantly true for the errors and some of the
"contradictions". No one can say with certainty about many of the
5. Using the term "such texts" is very tricky phrasing, but largely applies
to the many non-canonical documents which were excluded.
6. This is largely meaningless innuendo, and hardly worthy of further
7. True enough.
8. True enough.
9. True enough.
In other words, like the Christian
fathers, these scholars and experts will concede that the gospel tale
and Christian ideology constitute a direct lift from so-called
Paganism. They will even admit that the gospel story is fiction, cagily
calling it "benign deceit." Yet these scholars and researchers will
continue in their quest to find a 'historical" Jesus, endlessly pumping
out tomes that would be better off as trees. Waite describes their
[Commentary] "These Scholars" that
would say what is purported above have some agenda other than to know the
truth, and are simply wrong.
Many attempts have been made to write the
life of Christ. But it is difficult to see where, outside of the
gospels the material for such a work is to come from; while, if the
gospels are to be taken as a basis, it is equally difficult to
understand what is to be gained by rewriting what is contained in them. Any such attempt only brings out, in plainer light, the discrepancies in
those accounts, and finally results in a mere display of ingenuity on
the part of the biographer, in his efforts to reconcile them; or, as in
the case of some writers, in a sublime unconsciousness of any
[Commentary] Who can or needs to argue with
this? It seems appropriate to point out that in the non-eyewitness, compiled
Synoptic Gospels, there are naturally some minor and largely non-relevant
Indeed, the efforts to find a
historical Jesus have been pitiful and agonizing, based mainly on what
he was not: To wit, the virgin birth is not history, and Jesus's parents
were not called Mary and Joseph. Jesus was not from Nazareth, which
didn't exist at the time, and the magi, star, angels and shepherds did
not appear at his birth. He didn't escape to Egypt, because Herod was
not slaughtering children, and he didn't amaze the priests with his
teaching at age 12 in the temple. He did not suddenly at 30 reappear
out of nowhere to mystify people who, if the birth stories had been
true, would have already known him. The "historical" Jesus didn't do
miracles or raise the dead. The sayings and sermons weren't originally
his. He wasn't betrayed by Judas, since that would be illogical if he
were already "world famous." There was no trial, no crucifixion and no
[Commentary] This paragraph is largely
composed of hysterical, arrogant and pretentious claims that the author
CANNOT know, and cannot be legitimized, one way or another. It betrays the
emotional, unbalanced agenda of the author for the whole book.
1. There is really no pressing reason that there SHOULD be any recoverable
or tangible historical evidence left by Jesus.
Such are some of the numerous parts
of the gospel story that have been thrown out by 'skeptical"
historicizers and evemerists over the centuries because they represent
elements found ubiquitously in the myths of the solar heroes and in
mystery rites. Tossing all these parts out, we might wonder, even more
skeptically, where is the historical Jesus Christ? Have we found the
core in the onion? The leap of faith even among evemerists is
mindboggling. If 99 percent of this story is based on the myths and
only one percent on any 'history," what are people admiring and
1. This is not a definitive reason to dismiss or "throw out" parts of the
Gospel story, because one can make the argument that Jesus both necessarily
and deliberately patterned his life and some of its features after parts of
the ancient mythical hero aspects.
2. Why not look in the eyewitness accounts of John and Thomas?
3. Disingenuous to say the least. There is a HUGE dimension of humility,
acceptance, and compassion that are missing in virtually all other older mythical
accounts. There is the unabashed human dimension and humanism, and
brotherhood extended. There is the focus on life and its value, fulfillment
and enhancement, where the love of God is portrayed and demonstrated. Finally, there is an unparalleled vision of final goodness
and an unsurpassed destiny of joy in the message of Jesus. These are about the
only things that ARE WORTHY of admiration and worship!
Although they are taught that
'Jesus' represented a stunning break from the 'old Pagan world,"
believers are worshipping basically the same deity or deities as the
Pagans-in fact, practically all of them rolled into one. Yet, not
knowing this, the faithful smugly set themselves apart in an atmosphere
of superiority and pity, if not outright hatred, for so-called Heathens
and Pagans, i.e., 'those not of the faith.' As Jackson says, "Many
Christians denounce Paganism as a false religion. If this is correct,
then Christianity is also false, for it is of pagan origin, and if one
is not true, then neither is the other."
1. This is true for "Christian" believers but NOT for the true believers
because, rightly understood, Jesus WAS a stunning break from the old, and
this is obvious to almost everybody that reads the Gospels with an open
To reiterate, as Robertson says,
'There is not a conception associated with Christ that is not common to
some or all of the Savior cults of antiquity."
And Carpenter states that 'the doctrine of the Saviour is world-wide and
world-old, and that Christianity merely appropriated the same (as the
other cults did) and gave it a special flavor."
[Commentary] True enough.
Waite, Charles, History of the Christian Religion to the Year
Two Hundred, Caroll Bierbower, 1992, p. 22.
[ii] Jackson, John G., Christianity Before
Christ, American Atheists, 1985, p. 213.
[iii] Robertson, J.M., Pagan Christs,
Dorset, 1966, p. 52.
[iv] Carpenter, Edward, Pagan and Christian
Creeds, Health Research,1975, p. 130.