Detoxifying Self-Deception
It can be proven Jesus Christ never existed,
and your preacher can't prove 'He' did
By John Kaminski
Once you base your whole life striving on a desperate lie, and try to implement that lie, you instrument your own undoing. - Ernest Becker, The Denial of Death
It's like taking candy away from a baby. The candy's no good for the kid, but it will take him many years and much learning to realize the favor you did for him. In the meantime he'll whine about how mean you were and how wrong it was to do that. But when he's a healthy adult, because of the very thing you took away, he may actually develop the judgment and wisdom to thank you for what you did. In any case, he'll be much healthier.
So too with beliefs. If you believe in magic, that some special phrase will keep you safe from harm in all situations and even immunize you from death, you can't help but fail to perceive the true reality of the world before your eyes - that all things must pass, even though subtle aspects of us may journey onward through our offspring.
It's a beautiful system when you think about it, one that governs every living thing in the known universe. And every living thing is more than satisfied with it - in fact, prospers in its vital joy because of it - except one. Us.
Humans, normally very discerning in every aspect of their infinitely varied lives, possess absolutely no standards at all when it comes to one subject - death. It is often said that instinct is stronger than reason, and in all the realms of human endeavor, nowhere is this more evident than in the amusingly inventive strategies humans develop to pretend they don't really die.
The secondmost common human trait after survival is the urge to prosper and be secure, so it should come as no surprise that, very early on in our history, perceptive and enterprising people, upon recognizing this universal human need to deny that we die, rushed to develop and market products that satisfied the public demand to alleviate this fear. Every culture ever known to man left significant traces of this spiritual commerce.
You know the argument. Can we live our lives and accept that nothing follows? Or must we deceive ourselves and invent, with the power of our infinite imaginations, a way past this daunting wall of mortality. Well, the answer's in, and the human species has clearly opted for the unprovable hope. But exactly what is the price of this willful self-deception?
This is no attempt to demean many thousands of years of honest effort by sincere people to distill lessons essential to healthy living into practical codes of conduct that reinforce the cause of harmony and provide useful paths to peace of mind. But given the nature of our affliction, of the terror of death we all have that needs to be repressed for our own tranquility, it is not difficult to understand how those who wield these secret formulas for happiness might just be tempted to exploit them for their own selfish purposes. It's called the temptation of power, and I don't think I need to explain it to you.
Furthermore, given that this problem has a higher priority than any other we face in our entire lives, and also that to each of us, the effectiveness of the cure is far more important than the actual legitimacy of the method, this leaves us - as we know from history - with a situation ripe for exploitation.
Lastly, there is the little matter of actually knowing the secrets of the universe. This we consign to the province of priests, and we pay them to make us happy, to make up a story that ties up all these loose, bleak ends which we don't want to think about. But what if these beliefs hurt us in ways we don't realize. Even as they may make us comfortable with simple tales that magically explain everything, do we really understand what the concepts of communion and resurrection really mean in terms of how we relate to our neighbors and our world? What is the danger when logic is subsumed by the magic of religious belief?
First, we must understand the process by which people think.
There is alluring evidence that ancient cultures actually possessed much more realistic religions than our own contemporary society. And they were developed by studying the sky. During the day, it was obvious that all life depended on the beneficent properties of the Sun. And during the fearful night, humans studied the stars for their cues to survival, and projected their own thoughts onto these phenomena. These two things form the basis of all existing religions, according to Acharya S.
How do people think? We anthropomorphize everything. It is how we learned to understand things. We talk to our plants and our stuffed animals. We give them names. Thus is it has always been, with all perceived phenomena. This is how stars became people, or at least animals. From Amun Ra, piloting his boat of heaven across the sky all those centuries ago, to the Great Bear, whom we still see every night.
The Sun became Krishna. The moon Inanna. Their setting and disappearance created new gods reborn daily, or monthly or yearly. They all got names, different ones, depending on where you lived. Osiris. Tammuz. Orpheus. Mithra. Millions of names. Millennia passed. One day, after thousands of years of war and peace, of fighting and loving, of civilizations rising and falling, suddenly, after a Roman conclave of regional movers and shakers, the approved deity's name became Jesus. And he was still the Sun, and his disciples were the stars (the twelve signs of the Zodiac, actually).
Or so Acharya says, and I believe her. Why? Because it's logical. It's actual history. And though still myth, it is empirical rather than manipulative, a causative explanation rather than the magic trick of some unfathomable man who showed up one day and claimed he was God to people who wrote it all down and put it in a book called the Bible.
That's the short version. The long version is two thousand years of suppressed scholarship, kept secret because it simply didn't gibe with the propaganda organized religions produce to attract and addict adherents to their own particular interpretation of cosmic events and everyday life. But this more scientific explanation has always been out there, and reasonable, thinking people, who aren't blinded by their own fear and cowed by their own self-inflicted spiritual gurus, have always known about it.
And Acharya S. has gathered it, folded it neatly and logically into two encyclopedic volumes of scholarly excellence. These are titled "The Christ Conspiracy: The Greatest Story Ever Sold" (1999) and "Suns of God: Krishna, Buddha and Christ Unveiled" (2004). Both are published by Adventures Unlimited Press <>
Look at the world today. Endless wars, festering hatreds, a multitude of government lies telling us the world is one way when we suspect that's not really the way it is. We should listen to our own voices and not blindly accept the smug statements of "authority" figures. How did we learn to do that? Guess. Just take a wild guess.
This story is not about taking your God away. Only an idiot would insist that men created the sunset, the orbits of the planets, or baby drool. This story is about analyzing the terminology you use to explain the way you see your life and the universe. And most of all, it is about the lies we have been told to keep us in our mental chains while those who control us - our preachers, priests, rabbis, mullahs, lamas and other assorted "holy" men - reinforce fear, abet slaughter, and profit mightily from the conspicuous lies that they promote as sacred gospel.
Sorry to be so blunt. You need to pay attention to this. The future of human society depends on your understanding what you are reading at this moment, and even that is kind of an understatement.
To our contemporary Christianized Western minds, the most astonishing thing Acharya S. proves beyond doubt in her two scholarly tomes is that the much-revered personality known as Jesus Christ is a completely contrived fictional character, and that Christianity has no substance whatsoever that was not stolen
- created whole cloth out of pagan myths and traditions - from many of the world's more ancient religions.
How does she prove this?
* By telling you about the many other "saviors" who existed prior to the creation of Jesus, many of whom were born in late December of virgin mothers and were of divine origin, most of whom performed miracles, held high morals, healed the sick, were the catalysts for salvation, were called "Savior" or "Redeemer," and were crucified; whose legends all contain elements that were later plagiarized by unscrupulous Roman plutocrats when they got together to construct the Jesus myth as a method to usurp and unify preexisting creeds to better control their diverse and obstreperous masses.
* By analyzing all the contributions of known writers of that ancient time, through decades of study of the works of skeptical historians who have been researching this hoax for centuries, and observing that virtually none of these early historians ever mentions Christ or Christians, except for the works of a special few, and deeper analysis reveals these works to have been tinkered with, or outright fabricated, for the benefit of the manipulative politicians who created the most powerful mindlock human society has ever known.
* And by providing a detailed and accurate portrait of the actual evolution of religious myth, with a clear explanation of how all messiahs are merely anthropomorphic representations of the Sun, and how all the other mythological supporting characters, particularly when they are described in groups of 12, are merely personalities projected onto the stars.
This, not the debunking of the Jesus myth, is the overarching value of the book, and makes Acharya, in my sincere estimation, the ranking religious philosopher of our age, simply because she cuts through the sanctimonious crap and deals empirically and forthrightly with the facts.
But more than that, in this age of deliberate disinformation and mass mind control, the works of Acharya provide those who wish to think deeply about the nature of the human condition with a startling survey of priestly misbehavior and deliberate deception, which is what religion really is - a magic show that exploits people's need for answers to unanswerable questions.
As such, her works furnish us with an essential tool to help us understand why we are powerless against an onslaught of facile mass media that keep telling us things we know are not true. What the state does the church first perfected with threats, violence, and forcing us to believe in our inmost hearts things that were never true.
But it's the Jesus argument that gets everybody's attention.
Or, as Acharya puts it, " ... there is no evidence for the historicity of the Christian founder, that the earliest Christian proponents were as a whole either utterly credulous or astoundingly deceitful, and that said 'defenders of the faith' were compelled under incessant charges of fraud to admit that Christianity was a rehash of older religions."
Let's start with legendary figures of far greater antiquity whose attributes appear to uncannily resemble the much later legend known as Jesus Christ.
"The Jesus story incorporated elements from the tales of other deities recorded in this widespread area of the ancient world, including several of the following world saviors, most or all of whom predate the Christian myth," Acharya writes.
These include (and I'll edit this list, because it's very long)
* Adad and Marduk of Assyria.
* Adonis, Aesclepius, Apollo, Dionysus, Heracles, and Zeus of Greece.
* Alcides of Thebes, divine redeemer born of a virgin around 1200 BCE.
* Attis of Phyrgia.
* Baal or Bel of Babylon/Phoenicia.
* Buddha and Krishna of India.
* Hermes of Egypt/Greece.
* Hesus of the Druids.
* Horus, Osiris, and Serapis of Egypt.
* Indra of Tibet/India.
* Ieo of China.
* Issa of Arabia, born of the Virgin Mary in 400 BCE.
* Jupiter/Jove of Rome.
* Mithra of Persia/India.
* Odin/Wodin/Woden/Wotan of Scandinavia.
* Prometheus of Caucasus/Greece.
* Quetzalcoatl of Mexico.
* Salivahana of southern India, "who was a divine child, born of a virgin, and son of a carpenter."
* Tammuz of Syria, the savior god worshipped in Jerusalem.
* Thor of the Gauls.
* Zoroaster of Persia.
Attis of Phrygia was born on December 25 of the Virgin Nana, and considered the savior who was slain for the salvation of mankind. His body as bread was eaten by his worshippers. He was crucified on a tree, descended into the underworld and was resurrected annually on March 25 as the "most high god," many centuries before Christianity was invented.
Buddha was born on December 25 of the virgin Maya, and his birth was accompanied by a special star, wise men and angels. He was baptized in water with the holy ghost present. He was resurrected and will return in the "latter days" to judge all men. His legends extend back more than a thousand years before Christ.
The Greek god of wine was actually a savior (as any drinker will tell you). Dionysus, born of a virgin, who rode in a triumphal procession on an ass, is considered by some scholars as the prototype of Christ.
The real model for all saviors, according to Acharya, was the Egyptian god Osiris. Quoting Barbara Walker, from "The Women's Encyclopedia of Myths and Secrets" (Harpers, 1983):
Of all the savior gods worshipped at the beginning of the Christian era, Osiris may have contributed more details to the evolving Christ figure than any other. Already very old in Egypt, Osiris was identified with nearly every other Egyptian god and was on the way to absorbing them all. He had well over 200 divine names. He was called the Lord of Lords, King of Kings, God of Gods. He was the Resurrection and the Life, the Good Shepherd, Eternity and Everlastingness, "the god who made men and women to be born again." (Sir Wallis) Budge (once the preeminent Egyptologist) says, "From first to last, Osiris was to the Egyptians the god-man who suffered, and died, and rose again, and reigned eternally in heaven. They believed that they would inherit eternal life, just as he had done ...
Some claim Osiris lived up to 22,000 years ago. Acharya writes:
As Col. James Churchward naively exclaims, "The teachings of Osiris and Jesus are wonderfully alike. Many passages are identically the same, word for word."
Acharya also exhaustively compares the details of Krishna and Mithra, as well as Prometheus, Quetzalcoatl, and Serapis. The reader soon begins to realize that all these stories the same. Conclusion?
It is evident that Jesus Christ is a mythical character based on these various ubiquitous godmen and universal saviors who were part of the ancient world for thousands of years prior to the Christian era.
Now, once you realize that, you know you have to prepare for the onslaught of true believers, who, when you mention that Jesus was a fictional character, are going to come at you with every verbal weapon they have retained during their misguided and propagandized lives.
The Bible is not a valid historical document. It is work of political and philosophical propaganda, designed to deceive and control, and take advantage of people's need to have answers to questions that really have no answers, as far as human perception is concerned.
Often, fundamentalist Christians try to cite classical historical sources to buttress their unshakable belief that Jesus resurrected and (according to George Bush and the neocons) will return one day to blow up Jerusalem and lead his followers to a pleasant destination in the sky.
This may be the most valuable aspect of Acharya's work. She considers the name of every known historian of the period and explains why what Christian fanatics insist they said can't possibly be accurate.
Using thousands of footnotes from serious scholars over the many centuries, Acharya deftly explains all the revisions, interpolations and forgeries that allow some of the diehard faithful to argue that there actually is historical evidence of the existence of Jesus - when in fact there is not.
All the great first century historians - Pliny the Elder and Younger, Suetonius, Dio Chrysostom, Livy, Petronius, Plutarch, Seneca and many others whose works are still extant - never make any mention of the founder of Christianity.
Even though he lived in Jerusalem during the time Jesus was supposed to have existed, the well-known Jewish philosopher Philo Judaeus of Alexandria never mentions Christ or Christianity even once. Acharya quotes religious scholar John Remsburg about Philo:
He was there when the crucifixion with its attendant earthquake, supernatural darkness, and resurrection of the dead took place, and in the presence of many witnesses ascended into heaven. These marvelous events which must have filled the world with amazement, had they really occurred, were unknown to him.
The well-traveled Philo had pleaded the Jewish cause in Rome, knew of Pilate, the Essenes and the Therapeuts, yet never once mentioned Jesus or Christians.
As Acharya surmised: "One would think that if ... Jesus had suddenly appeared in Philo's homeland, during his life, when he was a sentient adult, Philo would not only have noticed but would have jumped for joy, and written reams about the glorious event, seeing the promises and prophecies of Israel fulfilled. It could not be more obvious that nothing of the sort happened during Philo's lifetime."
But most Christian apologists don't even know about Philo. The one historian they most often use to legitimize their claims that Jesus Christ was an actual historical personage is Flavius Josephus. And Acharya devotes a considerable amount of space demolishing those claims.
Josephus (37-95 CE) is the most famous Jewish historian of the time. Acharya writes:
... in the entire work of Josephus, which constitute many volumes of great detail encompassing centuries of history, there is no mention of Paul or the Christians, and there are only two brief paragraphs that purport to relate to Jesus. Although much has been made of these "references," they have been dismissed by scholars and Christian apologists alike as forgeries ...
Many scholars investigating the matter believe that single mention of Jesus in all of the works Josephus was forged - interpolated - centuries later by an unscrupulous Christian named Bishop Eusebius.
In her second book, Acharya recounts the analysis of Bible expert Dr. Nathaniel Lardner (1684-1768):
Mattathias, the father of Josephus, must have been a witness to the miracles which are said to have been performed by Jesus, and Josephus was born within two years after the crucifixion, yet in all the works he says nothing whatever about the life or death of Jesus Christ; as for the interpolated passage it is now universally acknowledged to be a forgery.
But perhaps the most curious episode Acharya covers involves the Roman historian Tacitus, whose oft-cited passage about Nero persecuting the Christians is revealed as a fraud. And that leads to an interesting story so typical of the questionable construction of the Christian myth.
It seems that this particular mention by Tacitus, who lived in the first century CE, does not appear in literature until the 15th century, because numerous scholars have noted that not even the most ardent Christian apologists ever mentioned it until then. But that's not the worst part.
Perhaps the quintessential bogus reproduction of a classical source for devious Christian purposes resides the famous passage in "The Annals" by Tacitus that describes Nero blaming Christians for the burning of Rome. Unfortunately for the Roman church's propaganda machine, numerous experts have deduced that since neither Eusebius nor Tertullian nor any of the other devoted church fathers knew of the existence of this passage - because they surely would have mentioned it because it was so vividly sympathetic to their cause - it is likely that this entire book - The Annals of Tacitus, which is a staple of some classical libraries - is a 15th century forgery about a 1st century event meant to improve the nonexistent historical veracity of the Christian church.
But the history of real religion, ah, that's a different and happier story. Acharya quotes Indian scholar S. B. Roy from his "Prehistoric Lunar Astronomy":
To the ancients ... heaven was the land of gods and mystery. The sky - the Dyaus of the Rig Veda - was itself living. The stars were the abodes of the gods. The shining stars were indeed themselves luminous gods. Astronomy was the knowledge of not of heavenly bodies, but of heavenly beings.
"Astronomical or astrotheological knowledge reaches back to the dawn of humanity, appearing widespread and becoming highly developed over a period of millennia," Acharya writes, and after a thorough examination of the subject, concludes:
The church fathers and other Christian writers also acknowledged this astrotheology and its antiquity, but denigrated it as much as possible. Why? ... the knowledge about astrotheology would reveal the Christians' own religion to be Pagan in virtually every significant aspect .... the restoration of this knowledge is not to be despaired but rejoiced.
The Christian religion - as well as its monotheistic cousins, Judaism and Islam - are all based on primitive vestiges from a dim past that certainly most of their adherents do not adequately understand and doubtless many of its top officials do not comprehend, either. These are cannibalism and child sacrifice.
The tangent to cannibalism can be clearly seen in the act of Holy Communion, in which the faithful are urged to swallow "the body of Christ." The example of child sacrifice occurs in the myth of "God" supposed sending his only son into the corporeal realm only to be tortured and murdered. This has always sounded to me like deep cover conditioning to indoctrinate believing dupes into being willing to die, or sending their children off to die, for their blessed country.
I don't know of any literature that adequately analyzes the psychological ramifications of these two symbolically barbaric acts. But I do know that billions of people have participated in these crazed rituals and based their lives on the veneration of them. And we see too clearly the results of the belief paradigm in the senseless murder of billions over the century generated by the blind and savage faith in this supposedly holy cause.
Though there are infinite examples, the two that initially come to mind are the centuries of slaughter in the Western hemisphere by Spanish conquistadores and British pioneers who regarded different-looking fellow humans as mere animals eligible for thoughtless extermination. And now, there are the perverse rape- murders of innocent Iraqis by drug-addled and uranium-poisoned American, British and Israeli heroes. Same ballgame, different day - every single bit of it directly attributable to this bloodthirsty Judeo-Christian legacy.
And I also know one other important thing in these matters. When you live your life convinced that reality is a certain way and base your life on it, your life will turn out to be exactly what you believe. I believe there is a direct connection between the great Christian lie that you will survive death if you do what the priest says, and the everpresent reality of violence in the world.
The church teaches you to believe in the infallibility of what its leaders say, and to follow their orders no matter what, or you will roast in the fires of hell. History shows us, clearly, that no matter what denomination, the church fathers have lied terribly and caused billions of needless deaths. This lying, sanctimoniously emulated by government leaders - be they kings or presidents - has transferred this supernatural authority to the secular realm, and allowed our leaders to dupe their populations into endless killing for what our leaders said was right, but for what were ultimately deceitful reasons because they were based on deliberate lies. Just like the Christian religion, and its monotheistic cousins.
The population's willingness to believe these lies relates directly to what their holy men told them - believe this, or you will suffer in hell for eternity.
What you believe is what you become, and this attitude engendered by the Christian church and its maniacal monotheistic counterparts have, with their transparent lies that have been swallowed by millions of gullible people, lived up to the impotent threats of their insincere promises by creating hell on earth to convince you that they are right.
This holy mindlock has never been more obvious - nor more lethal - than it is today, in the year 2005, in which a despotic U.S. president who insists he talks to God has killed and is killing hundreds of thousands people all over the world, for reasons that anyone with a whit of sense knows are lies.
The two voluminous, solidly referenced works of the woman known only as Acharya S - "The Christ Conspiracy" and "Suns of God" - provide a valuable first step for many bewildered believers who have come to disbelieve the doubletalk of their religious leaders in detoxifying the self-deceptive misinformation that most of us have been bombarded with throughout our lives.
This knowledge has always been known, but it has been suppressed by the spin machine that organized religion, conferring its corrupt grace on tyrants for centuries, has always censored. The real picture of our misguided Christian believer was probably best expressed by St. Augustine himself all those long and agonizing years ago, in this passage recounted by Acharya S:
... one of the most famed and respected Christian doctors was St. Augustine, who "stakes his eternal salvation" on his assertion that he preached the gospel to "a whole nation of men and women, who had no heads, but had their eyes in their bosoms."
* * *
Footnote: Just who exactly is Acharya S and why is she so hard to find? Really, it's because of the persecution she has been forced to endure because of her work. Right now, not even her publisher knows where she is. She has gone underground after several unpleasant incidents during the past few years, one of which was the kidnapping of her son, a crime that was happily resolved after some period of intense stress that may have involved a well-known New Age guru.
A study in contradictions, Acharya S is obviously a nom de plume for an archeologist, historian, mythologist and linguist who has the qualifications, courage, and integrity to so professionally and thoroughly debunk the collective religious spin machine. But to talk to Acharya S is markedly different than reading her work, about the like the difference between a biker chick and a college professor, leading some to speculate if the rough-edged radical and the creator of the meticulously argued and scholarly tomes which bear her name are actually the same person.
Nevertheless, her two meticulously footnoted books present the lay reader and professional historian alike with a stark assessment of the outright lies the Christian church has told about its namesake. You can order the books from or find out more about Acharya at
If you read these books, it's extremely doubtful you'll ever go to church again. And if you do, you must carry with you the reverberating question: What happens to you when you know that what you have believed in the deepest recesses of your own heart is false?
All this time, in the name of a bogus magic formula stolen from others and renamed with lie upon lie, billions have been slaughtered, and billions more about to be. Open your eyes, for the real God's sake, for the beauty of this universe that gives us life, that does not distinguish between man or beast, but gives everything that breathes this exquisite gift, with only one, single string attached - a string attached to everything that lives.
John Kaminski is a writer who lives on the Gulf Coast of Florida and writes essays seen on hundreds of websites around the world. These stories have been collected into two anthologies, "America's Autopsy Report" and "The Perfect Enemy." In addition, "The Day America Died: Why You Shouldn't Believe the Official Story of What Happened on September 11, 2001," is a 48-page booklet written for those who still believe the government's phony version of the events of that tragic day. For information on his books, check out
Alton Raines
Whether or not Jesus of Nazareth was the Son of God is not the debate here. That is a matter of faith and personal revelation. What Kaminski has adopted as his proof that Jesus of Nazareth never even existed as a man, that he was some conglomerate of preceding myths, mostly from "Acharya S" (well known, respected historian, archaeologist, anthropologist? Errr...No) is a well crafted series of ipso factos; if x is likely and y is very likely, the rest of the alphabet can be tossed out. Not very rational.
Is there physical, historical evidence for the existence of this crucified Jewish teacher who began a movement which re-shaped Western Civilization to extremes and measures surpassing the exploits and works of even more contemporary, historically validated figures of immense power and influence? Yes, there indeed is, despite all the tricky nonsense employed by the likes of Acharya S and others who are so convinced Jesus did not exist -- so much so that nothing will ever satisfy them by way of evidence.
They begin by gutting the written historical record of scripture. Despite the fact that innumerable aspects of what was written in the scriptures have been proven historically factual, they simply dismiss this and make claims that the original authors and subsequent 'editors' were utterly untrustworthy rogues, political manipulators, liars and charlatans (who somehow managed to craft the story of a mythic Jesus while keeping intact literally thousands of historical accuracies surrounding his life and generation). Simultaneously they ignore the horrific sufferings the originators of the lie underwent to protect their "fable." They ask us to believe that they either never existed either or valid historical accounts of their lives are bogus or inflated.
Considering that in 70 AD, roughly 40 years after the crucifixion of Jesus, Titus of Rome had Jerusalem sacked and literally 'plowed' leaving no stone atop another, we're dealing with finding evidence for a single man whose entire ministry lasted a tiny three and one half years and who traveled only several hundred miles in the course of his adult life in the land of Israel/Palestine. So, finding historical evidence for his actual physical existence becomes a little difficult. He came from a culture where making graven images of a person was forbidden, so there are no statues of him (though for some Greek and Roman figures, such is all that exists to the memory of them, and yet they are widely accepted as real figures of history). He apparently did not personally write anything, but was an orator, which was the more common means of dispersing knowledge and information in his culture. He was, indeed, in his time, one among many who were thought to fit the description of the prophesied "Meschiach" (Messiah), which the prophet Daniel pinpointed to arrive at a precise time calculatable from the signing of a decree by Artaxerses Longanimus is 444 B.C., granting the Jews return passage to Jerusalem to rebuild their devastated city. His life was a humble one, leaving little trace, until the very last three years; but what he did in those last three years sent shockwaves through human history still reverberating to this very day.
We know that there were many being sought after or acknowledged as the Messiah at the time of Jesus, for even the Gospel accounts tell us that John the Baptist was confused for the Christ on many occasions and by the multitudes, even after he declared he was not. (One would think the 'devious' myth-makers of the New Testament would have avoided any possible confusion on this issue, but instead they almost leave the door open to the possibility!). Even into the book of Acts, following the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus, Paul encountered Jews who had been converted but knew little or nothing of Jesus himself, but called themselves according to the "Baptism of John." For them, he was the Messiah. No one would say there was not some confusion in those days, and the Bible tells us so -- even of the story of Simon Magus, a magician, who sought to buy from Peter the power he saw that Peter had over the sick and dead, and many stories have sprung up over the centuries regarding Magus, some even declaring that he was the first self-appointed 'papa' (Pope) of the occult Roman Catholic Church. Is there any wonder then that there is difficulty in finding physical evidence of Jesus the man? Jesus owned no property and clearly gathered no wealth or artifacts to his personal belongings by which one could normally trace the evidence of existence. Most scholars agree, he signed no documents and wrote no letters, though some contend he did pen one letter to a particular ruling monarch in the east who requested his healing powers -- there is simply not enough extant material upon which to judge the authenticity of this odd document. Contrast this to the scriptures, for which there are literally thousands of extant manuscripts through which their authenticity can be verified.
What physical evidence is there? For one, there is the Titulus Crucis, which we also read about in the Gospel accounts. This placard of wood, inscribed under the order of Pilate to read "Jesus of Nazareth King of Jews" in three languages, Greek, Latin and Hebrew, exists today and has been dated and found to be authentic in time period, text and material -- additionally, placing it beyond the likelihood of being a forgery, peculiarities in the text and letters used, place it firmly in the first century time period when particular ways of writing are documented and well known. Interestingly enough, what was written on the headboard differs from gospel to gospel, and likewise, the Titulus Crucis we have today differs also. A forger would surely attempt to imitate at least one of the gospel accounts! (Photo:
The Titulus Crucis is 25x14 cm in size, 2.6 cm thick and has a weight of 687 g. It is inscribed on one side with three lines, of which the first one is mostly destroyed. The second line is written in Greek letters and reversed script, the third in Latin letters, also with reversed script. We can read the words
1.line: z&laqno;nh
Read from right to left, obviously in imitation of the Jewish way of writing, we can read: I. NAZARINUS RE, obviously a part of the inscription of the cross, as quoted in the Latin translation of the Gospel according to St. John (19,19) as "Iesus Nazarenus Rex Iudaeorum". Interestingly enough, the Greek line is a mere Greek transcription of the Latin line rather than a translation, in contrast to the original Greek quote of the Gospel according to St. John as "Ihsous Nazoraios Basileus ton Ioudaion". The variations from the version of St. John are:
1. The order of the lines (St. John: Hebrew, Latin, Greek; Titulus Crucis: Hebrew, Greek, Latin)
2. The reverse writing, not mentioned by St. John
3. The Initials "JS" and "I." instead of the full name "Iesous/Iesus".
4. The use of the Latin "Nazarinus/Nazarenous" instead of the Greek "Nazoraios", even in the Greek line.
Two experts, Prof. Thiede and Prof. Roll, consider this a major indication of the authenticity of the Titulus Crucis. First of all, a variation of Joh. 19,19 is a freedom no forger would ever risk. But it makes sense, since Pontius Pilatus, who, according to the gospels, dictated the inscription, was a Roman magistrate and used, especially for official documents, the official language Latin. It was up to the writer to create a version in the other two languages, and therefore it was rather unlikely that he transferred the term "Nazarinus" in the correct Greek form. The abbreviation of the name "Iesous/Iesus" as "I." is typical for Roman Latin inscriptions. Since "Yeshu/Yehoshua" was a common name during the 1st century -Flavius Josephus mentions 16 persons with this name-, the unique "Nazarinus" rather pointed to the Savior from a small village in Galilee, at least for a Roman magistrate, although such an abbreviation in contrast to John 19,19 would be unthinkable for a Crucisan forger. CONCLUSION: None of the consulted experts for Hebrew, Greek and Latin Palaeography found any indication of a medieval or late antique forgery. Instead, they all dated it in the timeframe between the 1st and the 3./4th century AD, with a majority of experts preferring and none of them excluding the 1st century. Therefore it is very well possible that the "Titulus Crucis Crucis" is indeed the title of the cross of Our Lord. (M. Hesemann) In addition, it has recently been discovered that a particular letter shape used by the inscriptionist is a quasi-abbreviation known to have been used by Romans only during the time period of Christ and which died out in use by the 2nd century.
Considering that even his followers, which only numbered (according to scriptural accounts) at around 170 people up to the time of his arrest and crucifixion, it stands as remarkable that we have any physical evidence at all of Jesus the Man - who was crucified as a common criminal, one among many thousands. A superb point made by author and Bible Scholar Grant Jefferies speaks volumes to the Kaminski/Acharya approach to historicity: "An example of the arbitrary rejection of historical evidence about Jesus by modern skeptical theologians is found in Bultmann's often stated theory of "double dissimilarity." This strange theory states that any Gospel saying of Jesus that can be found paralleled in either Christian and Jewish sources (First Century) must be rejected as "inauthentic" or "invented by Christian editors." The absurdity of this double dissimilarity argument can be demonstrated by imagining applying the same rejection of quotations to someone like Winston Churchill. This technique would require us to reject as inauthentic any quotation from Churchill that found any parallel in English literature or any statement that was quoted by Churchill's biographers or admirers. Bultmann's theory, if applied to other historical personages, would virtually eliminate historical study."
And as stated in rebuttal to a previous article regarding 'The Bible Fraud," - Further than the oft disputed quote of Josephus, there is other evidence Jesus existed. There is the inscription of Pontius Pilate ( which tells us the Gospels are accurate in naming him the Governor of Judea when little or no reliable historical data exists for this small time procurator of then obscure little Judea. There is also now the discovery of an ossuary found in Jerusalem bearing the inscription, "James, son of Joseph, brother of Jesus" written in a cursive form of Aramaic used only between 10 to 70 A.D, and the ossurary itself has been dated to around 63 A.D. -- Josephus records that James was stoned to death as a heretic in A.D. 62. Which is also auxiliary evidence, for if there were no Jesus to begin with ( or some strange confusion over many Jesii existed ) the latter evidence of James as head of the earliest Christian sect in Jerusalem would make little or no sense in the historical annals of Josephus! (duh)
There is also this extremely contemporary (to Jesus' time) historical record that just about details the entire Christian story in one swoop, written by Cornelius Tacitus (55-120 AD), writes concerning the Nero's attempt to divert blame directed at him for the burning of Rome: "Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judaea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular."
I'd also like to take issue with Kaminski's ridiculous statement: "Often, fundamentalist Christians try to cite classical historical sources to buttress their unshakable belief that Jesus resurrected and (according to George Bush and the neocons) will return one day to blow up Jerusalem and lead his followers to a pleasant destination in the sky."
Citing classical 'historical' sources is now off the table? Well, the antichrist crowd certainly is living up to Grant Jefferies' comment, aren't they? No evidence is acceptable to them, and never will be. Then to make the asinine statement that Fundamentalists (like Bush?) believe Jesus is returning to "blow up" Jerusalem -- errr... on the contrary, Fundamentalists believe Jesus is returning to STOP Jerusalem from being blown up, along with the rest of planet earth and usher in a kingdom of peace ("they shall beat their swords into plowshares and their spears into pruning hooks" ring a bell? No "pleasant destination in the sky" -- sorry). It simply demonstrates that Kaminski has not bothered to learn a stitch about Christianity, except where he can criticize it, malign it, impugn it and blaspheme. Comments like this make dolts like Bush look like a genius in comparison to Kaminski. If Bush is a 'real' Fundamentalist Christian he believes Christ is returning to earth to establish the everlasting righteous kingdom, put an end to all wars, all death, all suffering and misery.
Another profoundly myopic and ignorant assertion by Kaminski: "I believe there is a direct connection between the great Christian lie that you will survive death if you do what the priest says, and the everpresent reality of violence in the world." There was no lack bloodshed and violence under Mao in a godless Communist China, neither did the godless automatons of Stalin's regime seem to have any difficulty slaughtering millions, without "religion" to sucker them into shedding blood.
Whether this Jesus of Nazareth was the Son of God is an issue of faith. The fact that throughout the world there exist countless seemingly similar ancient-world tales and myths and legends which appear to closely resemble the "god-man" or "son of God" premise is, to the person of faith, just one more example of how God has not left the world without a witness to the truth (though many of these ancient tales differ so wildly from the life and truth and teachings of Jesus as to be ridiculous to classify as even similar). But as to the existence of a man who revolutionized the world through his teachings and sacrificial act, only those who want to make Jesus disappear and have already made up their minds will entertain and promote the nonsense of Acharya and other antichrists.
Duncan Holland
Alton Raines stated as proof on 8-3-05,
"There is also now the discovery of an ossuary found in Jerusalem bearing the inscription, "James, son of Joseph, brother of Jesus" written in a cursive form of Aramaic used only between 10 to 70 A.D, and the ossurary itself has been dated to around 63 A.D. -- Josephus records that James was stoned to death as a heretic in A.D. 62. Which is also auxiliary evidence, for if there were no Jesus to begin with ( or some strange confusion over many Jesii existed ) the latter evidence of James as head of the earliest Christian sect in Jerusalem would make little or no sense in the historical annals of Josephus! (duh)
Mr Raines please check your facts. The alleged "discoverer" of this ossuary has admitted to the fact that this was indeed a hoax. He had previously been caught faking other artifacts and has been exposed for attempting to perpetrate another. It hardly lends credence to your argument to cite as evidence that which has been determined to be false.
Alton Raines
I was not aware of this artifact being determined to be fake, thank you for pointing that out, Duncan The only thing that is important is the truth -- whatever that may be. I don't believe this very recent archeological find turning out to be a fraud in any way diminishes the overwhelming evidence Jesus actually existed, however. Personally, I don't believe a mere myth could have had the impact he has had on human history, nor would a fabricated tale have survived the first and second centuries without derailing Christianity into something far different from what history records.
Murphy Smith
In Kaminski's article about the existence of Jesus, he states that it can be proven that Jesus did not exist. It is impossible to prove a negative. You could have a million witnesses who lived during that time who state they never heard of him, but he still could have existed without their knowledge. And by the way, GW Bush and his followers are not true Christians. Jesus said, "Blessed are the peacemakers" and "Love your enemies." He didn't say smite your enemies. I do wish people would quit classifying all Christians as followers of GW Bush. The "Religious Right" do not represent all Christians.
Murphy Smith

L.D. Sanders
Sure, anyone can make a case for bad religion, abuses of/in religion, dogma, etc. One could do the same for government or any other institutionalized body! It's such an easy game to criticize and tear down. Does Kaminski think he's telling religious people something new? We, above all people, understand the problems of organized religion! But Kaminski goes farther than that, and outright declares that Jesus never existed -- which is just patently absurd. He also is saying we're all retarded or delusional who have had experiences in faith or the supernatural.
In the end, Kaminski has to write off the greater majority of humanity and all its collective spirituality (what a freaking ego!) and in the end he looks like a spoiled little child, sitting in the corner scowling because he doesn't get it, while most of the rest of the world, in one form or another, does. And the vast majority of them through it have found peace, contentment and blessing (not mind control!). The Apostle Paul was certainly dead-on in his choice of words when he described the godless and enemies of God as those who "have no hope." How pathetic can you get? We'll be praying for you, K. Even you are not beyond the reach of divine love. Christ gave his life as a ransom for your lost condition in sin.
Naseer Ahmad, M.D., D.Sc.
I think Alton Raines has raised several valid points in criticism of Kaminski's article (and his mention of the fake St. James ossuary does not in itself negate them)
I'd refer your readers also to by Sabatino and Holding, a far more detailed rebuttal of Acharya's theses than I might be able to present, and let your readers decide for themselves whom to believe.
My comment to Kaminski, where he says "I believe her. Why? Because it's logical. It's actual history." : It seems to me that it has nothing to do with logic, Kaminski WANTS to believe Acharya because her arguments support his world view,and I'm not sure how he can say (that her argument's) "still myth" immediately after saying "it's actual history".
I'm sorry to hear about Acharya's son being kidnapped, but why mention it here? Are we to blame religionists or "New Age" gurus? Her persecution by unnamed persons somehow bolsters the validity of her arguments?
Acharya's theme of the similarity between the underlying myths of all religions has been presented by many contemporary writers as well as secular humanists, all who seem motivated, like Barbara Walker of Women's Myths fame, to have an axe to grind against religion. Yet many of the myths listed here by Kaminski are disputed by religionists, and a fair-minded person might want to consult religious sources as well.
I believe that the similarity of underlying myths may by themselves prove the existence of a pre-historic root religion, but does not by any stretch of the imagination 'prove' that beings such as Buddha, Krishna or Jesus never existed.
Which brings me to my main concern: It seems to be the culture of the times to attack religion, and I agree that religious leaders have had much to answer for. But secular humanists need to present a far more coherent statement as to what they would replace it with, and also be honest enough to acknowledge the great debt that modern civilisation owes religion in its support of the great wonders of architecture, culture, music, and art, its role in preserving much of the knowledge of ancient civilisations rather than stressing only its negative aspects. When I hear people blaming religion for the current state of poverty in India, Middle Eastern or American politics, I say that's due to colonialism and the NWO, not religion, but am used to such arguments being made over and over again.
I've been involved in various conspiracy research, contemporary religious studies and occult groups, and met many people of diverse beliefs. I oppose attempts to divide people, and would prefer to make arguments based on reason, not emotion. I confess to having personal reasons for believing in the historical Christ, Buddha and Krishna, but my opinions are based on my own experience, not what someone told me to believe. I think it's insulting to the many people who do believe in God and the spiritual experience to imply that they're brainwashed dolts, and would look to the agenda of those (not including Kaminski, whom I know and respect) who would seek to destroy religion.
Naseer Ahmad, M.D., D.Sc.
Dr. Ken Simpson

Bulls**t! A reading of the Jewish historian Josephus plainly proves that Jesus did exist. Writings of E. Raymond Capt, Biblical Archeologist, proves his existence beyond any doubt. The so called "scholars" are incorrect to say the least.
Dr. Ken Simpson
David R. Garcia
Hello, Rense staff.
This is a reply to Kaminski's argument that Jesus did not exist. It's based on rational and scientific arguments rather than religious ones.
This is written in response to those who wish to prove that Jesus or Moses or Bigfoot or sea serpents do not exist. I'm not a Christian of any kind, including Catholic, nor a Muslim or a Jew. It's just an attempt to help those who make these unreasonable and unscientific arguments understand the utter futility of trying to argue that someone or something does not exist.
Science is a very powerful tool. It's technological fruit has been immensely helpful to us. But there are some things that are now beyond the reach of practical good science. One of these is attempting to prove that someone or something did not or does not exist. If we want to prove that an animal with a nose as long as its legs exists, then all we have to do is go to a zoo, or to Africa or Asia, and point to an elephant. Voila! Case closed. But if we want to prove that something does not exist, then we are faced with an immense and virtually impossible project. For example, if someone of a scientific temper wishes to demonstrate conclusively that there are no sea serpents that are 50-meters-long or longer, then we'd have to arrange some kind of project so that each cubic kilometer of water on the earth's surface is carefully scanned by some means and then protected after such a scanning from letting any large sea animals in after that. Once we have completed doing this for each cubic kilometer of water on Earth without finding any such giant sea serpents then we can finally announce with great confidence that there are no such sea serpents on Earth.
No scientist in his right mind would ever attempt such a project. It's much too difficult, expensive and time-consuming. Some will protest, however, that nobody has ever seen such a sea serpent. Well, the problem here is that there are hundreds of people who are adamant that they have seen them. So, the skeptical will then ask to see physical proof of one. Then, in the absence of any such proof, they will often claim that this is proof that such giant sea serpents don't exist.
This is bad reasoning. Modern fishermen near Tahiti in Polynesia who drop lines down near the ocean bottom a mile or two deep pull up new previously unknown species of sea creatures almost on a daily basis. Biologists venturing into the Amazon forest can find hundreds of new species, both plant and animal, in just a few days. It was argued for a long time that the coelecanth (see-la-kanth) was an ancient fish that went extinct millions of years ago -- until fishermen off the coast of southern Africa began catching them.
Just because we haven't found something yet doesn't prove that it doesn't exist. And the baby's philosophy that if you can't see it then it isn't there is not appropriate for mature and intelligent adults. When scientists make claims that things don't exist, you can be sure that they are expressing a cultural worldview that might be prevalent in the scientific community rather than any really scientific view. Real science depends on actual scientific studies, not on a cultural view of the world.
This means that until we find solid proof that a creature like, say, Bigfoot actually does exist, the only truly scientific response we can make is to say, "We don't know yet. We don't have enough information yet to come to a firm conclusion." Claiming that Bigfoot doesn't exist requires just as much proof and evidence as does the claim that it does exist. This is like the difference between atheism and belief in God. The atheist has just as strong a belief in the nonexistence of a Supreme Being as does the believer in the existence of this God. Both are required equally to produce arguments in support of their position. Showing that a theist's arguments for the existence of God are flawed is in no way an argument for atheism. Demonstrating someone else is wrong doesn't make us right. Pointing out that Joe is sick doesn't prove that we are well. If one does not have sufficient argument or evidence either way, then the agnostic "I don't know" approach is the only rational one.
Now, having stated these points, let's consider the two propositions that Jesus never existed and that Jesus did in fact exist. Please remember that each proposition requires its own proof. Finding that some witnesses of sea serpents were drunk may well cause one to dismiss the reliability of these witnesses' testimony, but it doesn't provide a shred of argument and evidence that sea serpents do not exist. Similarly, finding problems with the arguments of some that Jesus did exist is not an argument that Jesus did not exist. Separate proofs would still have to be produced to show that no such person ever existed. And, as we've shown, this is a virtually impossible task. If one cannot show that Jesus did exist, then our reasonable conclusion is not that he didn't exist but rather that we don't yet know for sure either way.
Let's now look at possible arguments that Jesus did exist. But let's do this by way of the astronomer's argument for the existence of planets around other stars in our region of the galaxy. These astronomers weren't able to actually see these planets until just very recently, so they had no actual direct evidence for the planets' existence. Rather, they deduced the existence of a planet by an indirect means: by lookng at the motion of a star. Without a fairly massive nearby planet, a star's apparent movement across the night sky would be something very close to a straight line. But when we see wiggles in that star's path, then we can suppose that something near that star is perturbing it with its gravitational attraction. And the pattern of the wiggle can tell us a lot about the size and distance of the planet. So, without even actually seeing the planet itself, we can reason from the behavior of the star around which it revolves that there is a planet there.
We have no direct evidence right now of the existence of Jesus having lived a couple of millennia ago. And we shouldn't really expect to find any. A modern-day religious teacher with a small group surrounding him would probably not leave much in the way of any physical traces two thousand years from now. Though the movement might later expand into the millions and leave very significant later traces, it would be very unlikely that we'd find much physical evidence in those earliest days. Small groups don't attract much attention and are generally ignored by most. Even if the leader is killed by some usual means, we wouldn't have any reason to suppose that we would find evidence of this after two millennia.
Many are under the false impression that if no archeological trace is found of something, that this is a proof that it doesn't exist. But this is as absurd as claiming that a needle is not in a haystack because we've looked at a few places in that haystack. Claiming that something doesn't exist because there is no archeological evidence of it is like arguing that there are no giant sea serpents because we haven't captured any yet. Archeologists just dig about here and there and certainly have now found only a tiny proportion of all that exists in any particular region. How many centuries would it take to adequately do archeological digs in just one part of a city? In many instances there's no reason at all that any archeological traces should exist anyway. And this is probably the case with Jesus.
So how would we suspect that Jesus actually did exist? Well, it's like the effect of the planet on the star it revolves around. We see its perturbing influence. It was just mentioned that later in the history of Christianity we see a great deal of evidence that a Christian religion did exist. So now we must ask ourselves an important question: "Did all of this derive from a non-existent source?" By the effect we infer the existence of the original cause -- just as was done by astronomers to know that unseen planets exist. Is it possible that a large tree could exist without having originated from a seed? Can a fruitful tree come from a nonexistent seed?
By looking at the history of the Christian faith in all its denominations and sects, we can clearly discern a common thread in all of them that suggests a common origin. It's like trying to trace the branches of a tree from the outermost twigs inward through the branches until we reach some major limbs. When we see all these branches and limbs pointing back towards a common location but cannot actually see the trunk or tap root of this tree, then it's only reasonable to suppose that all these limbs and branches derive from one common trunk or root.
This is how experts in linguistics tell us that all the languages of the world except for perhaps two or three (Basque, Zuni, ...) all show a branched pattern where many twigs trace back to common branches which trace back to common limbs. And all these limbs seem to point back to one common ancestral language for all these languages. Though we have no direct evidence at all now that this original human language actually existed, we can infer from the structure of all the languages we know about, and from seeing how these trace back to earlier languages, that there must have been such a root language.
In the same way, a study of the history of Christianity makes it clear that all these branches of the Christian faith trace back to a few major limbs. Now, it would be as unreasonable to suppose that these limbs do not derive from a common trunk or source as to suppose that the various sections of a tree built from a number of limbs are simply hanging in space without being supported by a common trunk. Did all these sections of Christianity simply start on their own? Or is it more reasonable to suppose that their common element of a very strong belief in Jesus is good evidence that they all derived from this original Seed? Consider how the thousands of sects of Christianity trace back to a number of major divisions that trace back to just a few major limbs. It's a tree structure. Their common elements such as a strong belief in Jesus most powerfully suggests that Jesus is the one common origin of all this. Again, a tree doesn't grow from a nonexistent seed.
It's very fashionable now among the intelligentsia of our universities to focus so intently on the negative aspects of Christian churches when they went astray of their basic teachings, to rant and rave about the horrible excesses and crimes they committed over the ages. But does the fact that a person suffers from cancer mean that the person himself is to be held to blame? In order to be fair-minded and just we also have to look at the good that was done in Christianity. It might be difficult to find any good accounts in the history books -- which are too focused on wars and foolish kings and the like anyway -- but we can look around us and see amidst the hypocrites some who are quietly devoting their lives to helping the poor, to feeding the hungry, to supporting the oppressed and helpless. There have been wonderful saints and many good Christians in Christianity. And, above all, an unprejudiced person has to admit that the actual teachings of Jesus are quite excellent. Who can complain about urging people to honesty, truthfulness, morality, integrity, kindness, love, freedom from greed and selfishness? These were clearly the qualities that Jesus was trying to inculcate in humans. A little thought shows that these are the very foundations of a stable social order. If these teachings of Jesus had been put into practice, this world would be a very different place from the hellish scene we see now. In many cases this effort at improving human character was a success. To focus only on the hypocrites, inquisitors, corrupt ones and other false Christians is no argument against Jesus. Can we really say that this good aspect traces back to a nonexistent source? That would be quite unreasonable.
In the same way we also know that Buddha existed. A study of the way in which the teachings of the Buddha so profoundly affected King Ashoka, establishing an unheard-of three centuries of peace in a large region of India, could hardly come from a nonexistent Buddha. Though it's unlikely that we would find any traces of Buddha's physical existence over two and half millennia ago, it's reasonable to suppose that the Buddha did exist because we see his fruit in King Ashoka and in many others. A rich and fruitful tree does not originate from a nonexistent seed and source.
All these effects on society, like the perturbation of a star telling us of a planet, tell us indirectly of the existence of their sources even if we have no direct evidence of them. So we know that Krishna, Zoroaster, Moses, Jesus and many other founders of great religions existed.
Most of the books claiming that some great religious teacher did not exist rely so much on bad reasoning, prejudice, and an unscientific approach, that one can suspect that they're appealing to those who already have a predisposition to believe in such things. And they are perfectly free to do so. But they shouldn't make any claims to being reasonable or scientific.
I'm not a Christian, a Buddhist, a Zoroastrian, a Hindu, , a Jew, or a Muslim, but i'm quite confident that Jesus, Buddha, Zoroaster, Krishna and Muhammad all existed because such immense effects on human history cannot come from nonexistent sources. A tree must originate as a seed.
Finally, as long as we started off giving examples from the physical sciences, let me drag in some physics here. Can a ball just roll uphill of its own accord? Never. There has to be an external source of energy to do that. That is, someone or something has to push or pull the ball uphill. When civilizations start, it's uphill all the way to the top. It moves from relative disorder to relative order. That never comes for free. That's called the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. It requires a lot of energy to get a lot of selfish people to think on a larger scale than themselves and start doing what will cause a civilization to rise. Only when this external or outside source of energy is spent does the civilization start to roll back down the hill, just like a ball without anything to push or pull it back up. Most modern historians don't understand this. They think that we advance in civilization by accident, or by magical means. It won't work. A source of energy external to a system is required to get up the hill of civilization to that greater measure of order. When this external energy source is used up or taken away, then it's all downhill from there.
There's one historian, Arnold Toynbee, found out what this external source of civilization and order is. He got past the unreasonable materialist magical thinking of most historians. Toynbee made the study of how civilizations rise and fall his life's study. He selected about 22 out of about 34 known civilizations and studied each of these very carefully. Then he wrote a summary of what he felt were the common causes of the rise and fall of these typical civilizations. He came to a conclusion that other historians didn't want to hear, so he tried to put it delicately. He said that it was always "religious fervor" that was behind the rise of every civilizational process (that might pass through several different societies). And this religious fervor that helped people rise up out of a selfish orientation invariably came from some newborn religion. And each of these newborn religions originated from some religious founder such as Buddha, Zoroaster, Moses, Jesus, Muhammad, etc. For those who wish to see a clear explanation of how the civilizations are tied together into obvious global patterns all tracing back to major religions, please request a separate essay from This, of course, blows a large hole in the currently fashionable idea promulgated in the universities that all religions are just cultural myths. It requires a great deal of studied avoidance of much evidence to come to such a conclusion.
Since we're discussing Jesus in particular here, it should be pointed out that an entirely new civilization grew up from this one Seed of Jesus. Please remember that the early Christians were just a tiny handful of very persecuted followers who often gave their lives rather than disavow their ardent belief in Jesus. Consider the following very remarkable fact of history: the entire Roman Empire and its civilization collapsed and was replaced by a new European civilization based on a belief in Christianity. The Holy Roman Empire replaced the original Roman Empire. This is quite amazing. It's clear that something quite powerful did push that ball of a new civilization up the hill while the old one crashed. What we know as Byzantine Civilization was Christian civilization. Did all this come from a nonexistent source, from a Jesus that was just a figment of the imagination of people? Such a supposition is very unreasonable and hardly scientific.
Again, i'm not a Christian. I'm not pushing any religion here. But i'm arguing for some reason and some science here.
Of course this Christian civilization collapsed -- probably because of the great corruption, greed and immorality of Christian priests and monks. For some reason Christianity didn't take very well in Europe. This is reflected in the facts that a pagan Santa Claus clearly upstages Jesus on the day that is supposed to be Jesus' birthday. And on the day meant to commemorate his resurrection a pagan goddess of fertility named Easter (originally Oestre, the source of the words "[o]estrogen" and "[o]estrus") takes the spotlight off of him with her fertility symbols of rabbits and eggs. So Europe fell into its medieval "Dark Ages" where Christianity remained an empty form without the spirit and power that originally moved it. When the ball rolls down the hill into the swamps it gets very dirty. Religions can become very harmful in senility and even after death. But this is no argument at all against the potent spirit that originally moved it.
What awakened Europe? It was the influence of Islam, particularly from Islamic Spain where Islam was then known as the religion of tolerance. Christians, Jews and Muslims worked together there to advance knowledge and science and ignited the first sparks that led to the Enlightenment of Europe that resulted in such immense advances in science and technology. That's difficult for many people to believe today. The European Renaissance occurred through contact with Islamic civilization. This is just standard history. Europe took the fruit of the Tree of Islam but definitely rejected the Tree and its Seed. Then it burst forth in the ages of discovery and colonization and spread this new civilization around the planet. We're in the last stages of that now. This is how i know that Muhammad really existed too, just as surely as Jesus and Moses and Buddha existed. (And don't believe those silly stories prejudiced Christians and ignorant modern Muslims tell you about Muhammad, the Qur'an and Islam. Find out for yourself and discover a whole different picture.)
Many find it very difficult to accept that modern Western civilization got its impetus from Islam not Christianity. But that's history. I can't find any other way to explain how Buddhist, Zoroastrian, Christian and Islamic civilizations got up the hill except by supposing that Buddha, Zoroaster, Jesus and Muhammad really existed and that some great power came through them that aroused enough people to pull them all up the hill. And Moses started a religion and consequent civilization too that arose in the final stages of decline and collapse of Old Kingdom Egypt, had its childhood in old Israel, its intellectual adolescence in Greece, and its material maturity in the Roman Empire -- in which the new Seed of Jesus then appeared. Would you like some good arguments to support these ideas? Please ask me for that essay i mentioned.
In sum, Jesus most certainly existed. We see all the signs of it.
David R. Garcia



This Site Served by TheHostPros