This controversial best-seller goes where no one has gone before! Find out about the conspiratorial origins of Christianity.

---

Product Description

Controversial and explosive, The Christ Conspiracy marshals an enormous amount of startling evidence that the religion of Christianity and Jesus Christ were created by members of various secret societies, mystery schools and religions in order to unify the Roman Empire under one state religion! This powerful book maintains that these groups drew upon a multitude of myths and rituals that already existed long before the Christian era and reworked them into the story the Christian religion presents today-known to most Westerners as the Bible. Author Acharya makes the case that there was no actual person named Jesus, but that several characters were rolled into one mythic being inspired by the deities Mithras, Heracles/Hercules, Dionysus and many others of the Roman Empire. She demonstrates that the story of Jesus, as portrayed in the Gospels, is nearly identical in detail to those of the earlier savior-gods Krishna and Horus, and concludes that Jesus was certainly neither original nor unique, nor was he the divine revelation. Rather, he represents the very ancient body of knowledge derived from celestial observation and natural forces. A book that will initiate heated debate and inner struggle, it is intelligently written and referenced. The only book of its kind, it is destined for controversy.

---

Product Details

• Amazon Sales Rank: #26556 in Books
• Published on: 1999-09
• Original language: English
• Number of items: 1
• Binding: Paperback
• 430 pages

Features

• ISBN13: 9780932813749
• Condition: NEW
• Notes: Brand New from Publisher. No Remainder Mark.
• Click here to view our Condition Guide and Shipping Prices

Review
Drawing together an amazing amount of research, Acharya S...demolishes the facade of Christianity, showing that it is 100% mythology. -- You Are Being Lied Too, April 1, 2001

From the Author
"The Christ Conspiracy" contains over 1200 footnotes that cite archaeological, historical and literary documentation by a wide variety of sources, including many Christian authorities extending back to the beginning of the Christian era. The book is a scholarly work that presents scientific analysis and facts, not "opinions."

The dating of the gospels to the last quarter of the second century is based on the work of Judge Charles Waite, from his detailed study in "History of the Christian Religion to the Year Two Hundred," which shows conclusively that the canonical gospels could not have existed earlier than 170-180 CE. Another excellent source of this information is Cassell's "Supernatural Religion," an 1100-page tome that goes into great detail, analyzing early Church fathers' works line by line.

Excerpt. © Reprinted by permission. All rights reserved.
Regarding the dating of the canonical gospels, lawyer Joseph Wheless states:

"The gospels are all priestly forgeries over a century after their pretended dates.... As said by the great critic, Salomon Reinach, 'With the exception of Papias, who speaks of a narrative by Mark, and a collection of sayings of Jesus, no Christian writer of the first half of the second century (i.e., up to 150 A.D.) quotes the Gospels or their reputed authors.'"

In "The Christ Myth," John Remsburg elucidates:

"The Four Gospels were unknown to the early Christian Fathers. Justin Martyr, the most eminent of the early Fathers, wrote about the middle of the second century. His writings in proof of the divinity of Christ demanded the use of these Gospels, had they existed in his time. He makes more than 300 quotations from the books of the Old Testament, and nearly one hundred from the Apocryphal books of the New Testament; but none from the four Gospels. Rev. Giles says: 'The very names of the Evangelists, Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, are never mentioned by him (Justin) - do not occur once in all his writings.'"

And Judge Charles Waite says:

"At the very threshold of the subject, we are met by the fact, that nowhere in all the writings of Justin, does he once so much as mention any of these gospels. Nor does he mention either of their supposed authors, except John. Once his name occurs; not, however, as the author of a gospel, but in such a connection as raises a very strong presumption that Justin knew of no gospel of John the Apostle."

Waite further states:

"No one of the four gospels is mentioned in any other part of the New Testament.... No work of art of any kind has ever been discovered, no painting, or engraving, no sculpture, or other relic of antiquity, which may be looked upon as furnishing additional evidence of the existence of those gospels, and which was executed earlier than the latter part of the second century. Even the exploration of the Christian catacombs failed to bring to light any evidence of that character.... The four gospels were written in Greek, and there was no translation of them into other languages, earlier than the third century."

The Gospel of Luke (170 CE)

The Gospel of Luke is acknowledged by early church fathers to be of a late date. As Waite states:

"...Jerome admits that not only the Gospel of Basilides, composed about A.D. 125, and other gospels, admitted to have been first published in the second century, were written before that of Luke, but even the Gospel of Apelles also, which was written not earlier than A.D. 160."

The Gospel of Mark (175 CE)

Like Waite, Mead also does not put Mark first: "It is very evident that Mt. and Lk. do not use our Mk., though they use most the material contained in our Mk..."

The Gospel of John (178 CE)

The Gospel of John is thought by most authorities to be the latest of the four, but Waite provides a compelling argument to place it third and reveals its purpose not only in refuting the Gnostics but also in establishing the primacy of the Roman Church:

"So strong is the evidence of a late date to this gospel, that its apostolic origin is being abandoned by the ablest evangelical writers.... Both Irenaeus and Jerome assert that John wrote against Cerinthus. Cerinthus thus flourished about A.D. 145. [T]here is evidence that in the construction of this gospel, as in that of Matthew, the author had in view the building up of the Roman hierarchy, the foundations of which were then (about A.D. 177-89) being laid.... There is a reason to believe that both [John and Matthew] were written in the interest of the supremacy of the Church of Rome."

The Gospel of Matthew (180 CE)

Although it was claimed by later Christian writers to be a "translation" of a manuscript written in Hebrew by the apostle Matthew, the Gospel of Matthew did not exist prior to the end of the second century and was originally written in Greek. As Waite says:

"The Greek Gospel of Matthew was a subsequent production, and either originally appeared in the Greek language, or was a translation of the Gospel of the Hebrews, with extensive changes and additions. There is reason to believe it to have been an original compilation, based upon the Oracles of Christ, but containing, in whole, or in part, a number of other manuscripts."

---

Customer Reviews

Exciting and Provocative
The further one goes into this book, the more one recognizes how vast is the mythological background of the ancient world that the modern era has completely lost sight of. Those who imagine that the Gospel story represents singular historical events are in for a shock when they realize the degree to which the Christian myth of Jesus of Nazareth was a reflection of mythical motifs and traditions which saturated ancient and even prehistoric cultures. There is barely an original or virgin bone in Christ's body, and Christians in the early centuries were regularly assailed by pagan detractors who accused them of reworking old ideas and copying from a host of predecessors.

The other thing the reader comes to recognize is that Acharya S has done a superb job in bringing together this rich panoply of ancient world mythology and culture, and presenting it in a comprehensive and compelling fashion. Moreover, she grabs the reader from the first page and doesn't let go. Her style is colorful, bold, occasionally (and justifiably) indignant, even a touch reckless at times, but never off the track--a little like an exciting roller coaster ride. It may take a fair amount of concentration to absorb all this material, but even if you don't integrate everything on first reading, the broader strokes will leave you convinced that the story of Jesus is simply an imaginative refashioning of the mythological heritage of centuries and that no such man ever existed.

She covers a wide range of interesting and provocative topics, with plenty of stimulating insights. Especially effective is her attention to elements of the Old Testament that one doesn't usually encounter in biblical studies: astrology in the bible, the mythological nature of much of the Old Testament material, the falsity of the idea that the Hebrews were monotheistic, even a chapter on Sex and Drugs. She delves into Egyptian and Indian precedents for the possible derivation of many of the bible's traditions. When she ranges even further afield and notes the astonishingly widespread commonality of certain religious and cultural motifs from one end of the planet to the other, extending back into very ancient times, we are on intriguing if speculative ground, but for the most part the author simply lets the data speak for itself, and readers can draw what conclusions their own adventurous spirits might wish.

As for her detailed picture of how Gospel elements closely conform to astrological and mythological symbols in the atmosphere of the time, or how the story of Jesus parallels the features of other savior gods: if even half of these things were in the minds of the Gospel writers when they fashioned their symbolic tale (to which one could add the midrashic borrowing of passages from the Hebrew scriptures to provide so much of the Gospel structure, its `events' and even their wording), there can be no doubt that such writers were well aware that their work had nothing to do with history.

There are those who have expressed some uncertainty about the scholarship which originally presented some of the subject matter dealt with in this book, since much of it comes from the 19th and early 20th centuries. But there is a prominent reason why today's researcher is inevitably thrown back on this early period of investigation. The so-called History of Religions School was a feature of that period, represented by such luminaries as Reitzenstein, Bousset and Cumont, and other, less famous scholars. Its conclusions about the relation of Christianity to the thought and religious expression of the time, especially in regard to the mystery cults and even solar mythology, proved very unpalatable to mainstream New Testament study. That was also the period of intense examination of the idea that no Jesus had existed at all (J. M. Robertson, Arthur Drews, the Dutch Radical School, etc.). The result was a backlash and a circling of the wagons, creating a fortress mentality against such scholarship for the latter three-quarters of the 20th century. As a result, there has been little recent investigation of that History of Religions material, especially sympathetic investigation. Acharya may draw to some degree on that older scholarship, but while certain aspects of it are necessarily a little dated, one of the things which struck me in her quotations from it (and more and more of it is now being reprinted) is how perceptive and compelling most of it continues to be. We sorely need a new History of Religions School for the 21st century, to apply modern techniques to this important ancient material. Perhaps this book will help bring that about.

Excellent work BRAVO!!
I am 53 years old, was once a catholic, and I have been studying Comparative Religions for over thirty years. My library contains works by Robertson, Whelas, Carpenter, Frazier, Campbell, Smith, Keller, Kolb and too many others to mention, but if I had to recommend ONE book to the interested student who wished to have her/his eyes opened to the unfiltered truth about christianity in particular and religion in general, that one book would be The Christ Conspiracy, by Acharya S. It takes many years of thought and effort to wade through the complete works of Josephus, various translations of the bible, numerous texts (some enlightening - some inane and dogmatic) in an honest and scholarly examination of the major creeds that exist on this planet at this point in time. If you wish to just 'skip to the end of the search' where the judeo/christian theology is concerned (or should I say astro-theology),then buy a copy of this book, read it twice, and then loan it to a friend. Archarya's work is one of the most heavily documented texts I have yet studied, and unlike some reviewers who claim to have had some difficulty verifying quotes and context where notations are concerned, I had none of these difficulties. Moreover, I found that her conclusions, where drawn, were accurate and reasoned. A certain 'spirit' in the style of her writings is refreshing. The reader must keep in mind however, that this is a purposefully confrontational and brutally eye-opening text. If you are content believing that the Creator of the entire inner and outer universes found it necessary to "atone" for human "sins"by impregnating a little virgin girl 2000 years ago, growing into a God/man so that It could be tortured to death by the humans, and further, that this God wishes humankind to drink blood and eat God flesh on a regular basis as a remembrance of the holy death, then don't buy this book! If you suspect that the true meaning of life, and God's plan has nothing to do christianity, or any other religion for that matter, then gain some strength by getting some truth - read Christ Conspiracy and bolster that knowlege with any of the other texts referenced by Acharya. I loved it, and would highly recommend it to anyone looking for a wide ranging - yet easy read on this fascinating subject.

Surprised and disappointed at previous reviews
First of all let me state I am not a Christian, I have no axe to grind. I am very interested in the time of Christ and the early church as historical study, nothing more and nothing less. ....

The Author is tackling a very controversial, but not original thesis in claiming that Jesus never existed and the Christian religion was influenced by earlier religions such as Paganism and the beliefs in Egypt.

Claims such as this have been made before, and for these claims to stand there should be clear documented historical evidence, and this is where the book falls very short.

Time after time the author makes extraordinary claims with no references to back them up other than previous authors of the same genre. For example, she quotes an author named Martin Larson from a book written in 1977. He claims that early church fathers such as Jerome, Antony and Martin were definitely psychotic. From this, the author draws the following conclusion, and I quote "Thus, deceiving, mentally ill individuals basically constitute the genesis of Christianity." Now, I ask the reader, is this research or is this a sentence from an author whose conclusion was drawn before the book was even begun.

She also writes that the gospels of the New Testament are dated much later than the time of Christ. For any scholar of that period, this is not earth shattering news. This has been known for many years. She does however date them almost 100 years later than even one of the most liberal of Christian scholars (Burton Mack) and uses no references or historical data to back up the claim....

When I read this type of book, I expect solid historical research. I am not interested in reading books full of nothing but opinion, such as you get from many Christian apologists. In my opinion, this book is nothing but the opposite side of the same coin.