This article didn’t even shake the tips of my mustache. Lame.

Questions: How they found Mary , a virgin? Why did the soldiers needed Judas to find Jesus , was that coz he wasn’t famous? He was a diciple of Hinduism , tried something else without any complete knowledge and the story of Christianity was developed by people.

There you go again, dipping into the Catholic conceit that it’s only some modern innovation that accounts for any doubts about Mary’s perpetual virginity 

Why do these moderns always forget the Orthodox Church? Not to mention the Oriental Orthodox and Ancient Church of the East.
+++

Take Victorinus.  Only two of his works survive, and those only in excerpts: a commentary on Genesis and a commentary on the Apocalypse of John. Neither makes any mention of Mary having additional children. So from where is this assertion taken?  Perhaps from the Carthaginian archives?  Jerome tells us Helvidius [of whom we know nothing else, not even whether he was a Christian] cites Victorinus, but then goes on to state that this was a misreading of what Victorinus wrote.  Presumably, they had access to other writings of Victorinus that are now lost. 

Jerome says of Helvidius:
I was requested by certain of the brethren not long ago to reply to a pamphlet written by one Helvidius. I have deferred doing so, not because it is a difficult matter to maintain the truth and refute an ignorant boor who has scarce known the first glimmer of learning, but because I was afraid my reply might make him appear worth defeating. There was the further consideration that a turbulent fellow, the only individual in the world who thinks himself both priest and layman, one who, as has been said, thinks that eloquence consists in loquacity and considers speaking ill of anyone to be the witness of a good conscience, would begin to blaspheme worse than ever if opportunity of discussion were afforded him. He would stand as it were on a pedestal, and would publish his views far and wide. There was reason also to fear that when truth failed him he would assail his opponents with the weapon of abuse. But all these motives for silence, though just, have more justly ceased to influence me, because of the scandal caused to the brethren who were disgusted at his ravings. The axe of the Gospel must therefore be now laid to the root of the barren tree, and both it and its fruitless foliage cast into the fire, so that Helvidius who has never learned to speak, may at length learn to hold his tongue.

So Jerome was asked to blog about a posting by some dude named Helvidius who, by the description would seem to have been a troll.  Who says the internet is New!

While I didn’t see Mark’s article about the gays writing a letter to the Pope and asking him to keep it quiet, I did read the article about them sending the letter in a couple publications. And I wondered if the Pope really would keep it under his hat. My thinking about this is that in justice and in the interests of those of us who want to find the new Pope forthcoming in what he tells us, I think he should write back to those groups who sent him the letter and tell them he could not in good conscience keep the information quiet.

This is what is at the heart of why people are talking about that letter…..and Mark is right to write about it.  What was the Pope’s reason for allowing the information about this ‘private’ letter to become…..um…..‘unprivate?’

“Those pesky martyrs.”

http://www.amazon.com/The-Myth-Persecution-Christians-Martyrdom/dp/0062104527

Unbelivable that someone who professes to be Catholic but claims there is a “martyr myth”, in order to undermine our Catholic Faith, is allowed to remain on the Theology Faculty at The University of Notre Dame. There is no wisdom in error. Error begets error.

As an add-on to what Chris Awo said….

In your thought experiment, keep in mind the following:

1. The child of this woman is the Bread of Life which Comes Down From Heaven; He is thus the fuller-stating of that theme which God foreshadowed with the manna in the desert;

2. The child of this woman is the new High Priest of a New Covenant; His authority is thus the fulfillment, completion, and supercession of the lesser authority of the High Priest Aaron under the old covenant, whose own authority was symbolized in his staff (which miraculously budded);

3. The child of this woman is the Word of God in Flesh; He is therefore the superior and final statement of that Word which was given in a lesser way to Moses, which was the Word of God in Stone (the Ten Commandments written by God);

4. Under the Old Covenant, the container for the Word of God in Stone, the Authority of the High Priest, and the Bread Which Came From Heaven was an object called The Ark of the Covenant, which held within it an urn of manna, the rod of Aaron, and the fragments of the tablets.

5. Under the Old Covenant, this container was the holiest, most sacred and set-apart and dedicated-to-God of all objects. A man (Uzzah) who touched it once, with all good intentions, died instantly because he wasn’t permitted.

6. Under the New Covenant, all the prefigurations from the Old Covenant are fulfilled at a higher level of magnitude, with greater holiness and greater glory.

7. Pop Quiz, Hotshot: You’re Joseph. You’re married to the Ark of the New Covenant. What do you do?

(Hint: Shooting a hostage is not an option here.)

(Another hint: Sure, it’s a bit much to assume that even a very devout Jewish Carpenter would immediately realize all of the above. On the other hand, if you have several months living in the presence of the New Ark, followed by some time in the presence of God incarnate, and a cadre of angels who seem intent on warding you from harm by sending you dreams and visions…perhaps you would wind up better-informed than the average refugee from Home Depot.)

So, yeah, of course Joseph did not have marital relations with her.

He wasn’t suicidal. And, back in the day when churches weren’t mostly converted gymnasiums where worship was interrupted with clown shows, people had a greater grasp of the word HOLY. Things that are set apart for God are Set Apart For God.

Posted by JM on Wednesday, Oct 16, 2013 6:21 PM (EDT)
I fundamentally disagree that “the evidence supports the Church’s teaching.” For one thing, there is plenty of evidence that *disputes* this teaching, unless one uses intellectual contortions to find ways around them. That, inevitably, leads to it seeming *at best* inconclusive.
—-
Lets do a thought experiment. Imagine that you are Joseph, fiance of Mary of Nazareth. You are both devout Jews. Suddenly you learn Mary is pregnant. You are upset, angry, mad, sad, depressed, disillusioned and decide to end the relationship. Now in the night an angel of the lord comes to you and tells you that Mary is pregnant by the power of the Spirit of the Most High God, the God of Israel. You are stunned, flabbergasted. You tremble in awe. You take Mary back into your home. You live as brother and sister till she brought forth Jesus on the 1st Christmas day. Even then you are constantly being supervised by angels with regards to how to take care of Mother and Divine Child.
Now tell me as a mortal man will you even think about sex with a woman who is the mother of the Messiah promised centuries earlier?  Would you think about having other kids with the mother of a baby called Son of the Most High by an angel standing before the throne of the God of Jacob?
Remember you are a Jew of the 1st century B.C. waiting eagerly for the deliverance of Israel?
Whatever is your answer to these questions; so be it.

@JM: Some of the Fathers also had formulations of the Trinity that later had to be denounced as heretical. What, exactly, angels and devils were was a matter of some dispute in the early centuries. The nature of Christ’s divinity was notoriously not defined until some particular formulation was found to be unsatisfactory.
-
There are martyrs revered to this day who held opinions later declared to be heretical—because they were not declared heretical YET. You are wholly ignoring the Catholic conception of the development of doctrine, which operates in the case of Mary’s perpetual virginity exactly as it has operated in every other case where a thing once open to doubt has later been defined.

Père Hardouin (1646-1729) maintained that Terence’s Plays, Virgil’s “Æneid,” Horace’s Odes, and the Histories of Livy and Tacitus, were the forgeries of the monks of the thirteenth century.  It is impossible to refute him from the history of the manuscripts.  No earlier manuscript exists and there are no quotations from these works in any earlier source.

Nevertheless, everyone will regard his claim as simply preposterous.  We know what the literature of the Augustine age was like, for Hardouin was compelled, by the manuscript evidence to admit that Virgil’s Georgics, Horace’s Satires and Epistles, and the whole of Cicero, are genuine.  We also know what the writings of the thirteenth century were like.  We do not require external evidence to convince us.

JM: What *evidence* disputes the teaching?  By “evidence” I mean facts that would be inconsistent with the teaching.  Semi-full disclosure: I’m a former Protestant, and the only “evidence” I recall was a narrow interpretation of the word “adelphoi” and the notion that Mary simply couldn’t have remained virgin.

“Calvin, Luther, and even Zwingli believed in the perpetual virginity of Mary; it’s their heirs that have such a hard time with this.”
There you go again, dipping into the Catholic conceit that it’s only some modern innovation that accounts for any doubts about Mary’s perpetual virginity, conveniently ignoring that early Christian writers disputed the doctrine. It’s not just the “heirs” of the Reformationists who have a “hard time” with this. It was also Tertullian, Helvidius, Victorinus, Eunomius, and others who disputed the idea. I guess they were all “heirs” to Reformationists too, somehow.
That said, I fundamentally disagree that “the evidence supports the Church’s teaching.” For one thing, there is plenty of evidence that *disputes* this teaching, unless one uses intellectual contortions to find ways around them. That, inevitably, leads to it seeming *at best* inconclusive. And, therefore, see no reason to accept as infallible.

JM: You’re all hung up on “proving” this, when the issue isn’t “proof”, it’s whether the Church’s teaching on perpetual virginity is justified by the evidence.  A belief is justified when supported by evidence. and the evidence supports the Church’s teaching.  The very nature of evidence is that it can support multiple theories; a good theory accounts for all, or at least most, of the evidence; a lessert theory leaves important important evidence out.  There is no evidence that the dogma of perpetual virginity “leaves out” that I’m aware of.  Calvin, Luther, and even Zwingli believed in the perpetual virginity of Mary; it’s their heirs that have such a hard time with this.

“There’s not enough data in Scripture to ‘prove’ the perpetual virginity of Mary—or to prove its opposite. ... I doubt Mark would say these arguments ‘prove’ the doctrine…”
Then why is it considered an “infallible” doctrine of the Church? If it’s not conclusively proven either way, then it could be wrong. So why demand that it be accepted as dogma? Why not allow some flexibility to as whether or not a person believes it? Early Church writers had no problem allowing this flexibility. St. Basil, for example, though he later accepted the doctrine, wrote that believing Mary had other children “does not run counter to faith” and that her “subsequent virginity [after Jesus’ birth] had no great importance…”
That is pretty much how I see it. For the Christian, Mary’s virginity BEFORE Jesus was conceived is non-negotiable; Scripture is unequivocally clear on that. But whether she had any more children, with her husband, who knows? And who cares? So why make it dogma?
One could easily argue (as early Christian writers did) either way. Maybe Mary was a perpetual virgin, maybe she wasn’t. But, given the inconclusiveness of the idea, I see no reason to accept it as infallible doctrine.

It’s been a while since I have read the Bauckham book but I do not remember him saying that the author of John was not the apostle.  I thought the whole explanation of “the Beloved Disciple” (e.g. the “inclusio” constructions, etc.) and the fact that the Fourth Gospel has more the flow of an eyewitness account was an argument for John being an eyewitness to the life of Jesus.  The other Gospel writers took less liberty with the narrative because they received these stories from direct witnesses, but were not themselves direct witnesses, and therefore they were more confined in their editing out of respect for their sources.

I agree that Bauckham’s book is a very interesting read.  It is a nice counter argument to the very reductionist scholarship so prevalent today—a reductionism that, because it generally goes unchallenged, it is rashly assumed to make the best sense of the data.  Fr Benedict Groeschel has a wonderful line for those who make definitive pronouncements that Jesus did not do this or say that.  Fr. Groeschel responds, “Oh really!  Were you there?”

Your Hannibal parallel does not work because it is way too detailed. It says who made up the story and why and how they did it. The bible conspiracy theories never do that. Some Christians made up something sometime and everybody just bought it because they were dumb religious types. Once you actually try and put a name and date on the conspirator you get a ton of problems. There are just not a lot of early church leaders that seem plausible. Most of them were sticklers for orthodoxy. The other issue is none of them had influence over the entire church. It is not like the pope could have sent out an e-mail with the new story about Jesus birth and said, “Pretend you go this from the apostles.” Anything he sent would be widely known.

JM: A belief being “justified” is different from a belief being “proved.”  There’s not enough data in Scripture to “prove” the perpetual virginity of Mary—or to prove its opposite.  Mark Shea’s blog entries set out the arguments supporting the Catholic Church’s teaching on this, but I doubt Mark would say these arguments “prove” the doctrine, they simply support and justify it.  The burden is on those attacking the teaching to show that it is unjustified, not simply that there are alternate theories.

“Mary’s perpetual virginity is justified by the Scriptures…”

Well, actually no it’s not. And that’s the problem I have. The doctrine of Mary’s perpetual virginity cannot be proven or disproven from Scripture, for the simple reason that Scripture is silent on the issue. And whether or not the “brothers” mentioned in those scriptural passages were actual blood half-brothers of Jesus seems AT BEST inconclusive. Catholics try to get around this by appealing, as you have done, to the “tradition” of the Church, and describing any doubts about the doctrine as some modern innovation.
Mr. Shea, for example, in one of his pieces, claims that the “controversy” over Mary’s perpetual virginity is the result of our modern “hyper-sexualized culture.” Which is hilarious, considering the idea was indeed controversial in the very early Church. I don’t think early Christian writers like Helvidius and Victorinus, who denied the doctrine of Mary’s perpetual virginity, were victims of our modern “hyper-sexualized” culture.
As it stands now, I can see absolutely no reason to believe in the doctrine of Mary’s perpetual virginity (but nor do I necessarily deny it either). I see absolutely no reason, either in Scripture or anywhere else, to disbelieve that Mary went on to have other children with her husband. There is no conclusive evidence to prove the contrary. It’s one of the things that keeps me from being a Catholic, to be honest. Give that it has no conclusive basis in Scripture, and given early Christian writers (like Helvidius and Victorinus) disputed the doctrine, I see no reason why I must accept it.

No one wrote any of the New Testament.  A disgrunted gnostic scribe, going only by Pseudo Appolinus, made EVERYTHING up in the Fourth Century: Jesus, Paul, the Church, the whole shebang.  The whole thing came from the pen of one guy (or gal, as we aren’t certain whether Pseudo Appolinus was male or female).

NT:  Basically, my disagreement boils down to the fact that I don’t buy his conclusion that the author of John’s gospel is somebody besides the apostle.  He’s entitled to his opinion (other gospels aren’t written by apostles so it’s not a problem as far as the gospel’s truth).  It’s just that I don’t buy his argument on the authorship of John.  But still lots of good stuff.

Mr. Shea,

From your article: “I highly recommend Jesus and the Eyewitnesses: The Gospels as Eyewitness Testimony by (actual real New Testament scholar) Richard Bauckham. Not infallible, of course (FWIW, I disagree with some of his conclusions).”

I have yet to read the book; but could you briefly share the things that you disagreed with?

Love your work. Thanks.

JM:  Go here and read the pieces I wrote on the Perpetual Virginity of Mary

The reality is that James, Joses, Jude, and Simon were the children, not of Mary, but of “the other Mary” (aka, “Mary the wife of Clopas”).  There is no actual evidence that Jesus had any siblings.  There’s a reason that the overwhelming consensus of the early Church is that Mary did, in fact, remain a virgin.

JM: It may not be *absurd* to think Jesus had brothers, but like Tom in AZ points out, you can’t prove Jesus had brothers from the mere fact that the Greek uses the word “adelphoi” to describe these male relatives.  The clincher for me is that as Jesus was dying on the cross, he asks John to take Mary into his (John’s) home.  This would not be a necessary thing if Jesus had brothers (or sisters) who could care for Mary after his death.  Protestants have to ignore this passage from the Gospel of John—or posit that all of Jesus’ brothers had died by the time of his crucifixion, or something.  In any event, the Church’s teaching on Mary’s perpetual virginity is justified by the Scriptures and by a long tradition.  The contrary teaching requires a particularly narrow interpretation of the adelphoi and is not attested by tradition.

@JM: RE: “Jesus had brothers”, the Greek word “adelphoi” not only applies to half-brothers as well as to brothers (tradition has it that Joseph was much older than Mary, which in Jewish culture prior to about 1900 meant AUTOMATICALLY that he’d already been married), it can even apply to other kin as well (the feminine, “adelphe”, can mean any female relative, including a wife). At no time is anyone other than Jesus called “child of Mary”.

PeterS:

Your name is actually Ralston.  You have appeared here under multiple handles to practice the sinful art of divination by pretending to read the mind of somebody who believes and professes that *all* that the Holy Catholic Church believes, teaches and proclaims is revealed by God.  On the basis of your false claim to read my mind and tell me what I really believe, you have repeatedly borne false witness against me by attributing to me opinions I do not hold.  Bearing false witness against your neighbor is a sin against the eighth commandment.  Repent.  Worst of all, you keep trying to hijack my thread with your ignorant rants having nothing to do with the subject.  If you do not stop now I will have you banned.  If you want to lie about me further, please start your own blog and do it there.  I do not owe you a forum here.  Comprende?

@JohnN:
China and India are both developing substantial “middle classes” - Some estimates that I’ve seen show China having a Middle Class between one hundred million and two hundred million. No question that the members of the Middle Class have cell phones, TVs etc.
But this still leaves a large majority of the Chinese population as peasants, cultivating land and harvesting rice as their grandparents did.  The urge to achieve a better lifestyle causes many peasants to go to the cities. In China, even slum-type city work is better than pushing a hoe on the farm.
In 1956 and 1957, the Navy destroyer that I was on visited Hong Kong.  Each time, a Chinese lady (named Mary Su, I believe) provided the labor (a crew of several) to rinse down the sides of the destroyer above the water line IN RETURN FOR us giving her the food garbage that our sailors would otherwise have thrown away!  This consisted of uneaten fruit (oranges, apples, etc.) as well as partially eaten food. US residents don’t comprehend this level of poverty.
Current members of the USN & USNR could comment on whether this practice still exists.
TeaPot562

“Anybody with a keyboard can claim to be a “Bible scholar” “

Hey Mark, you have a keyboard don’t you?

St. Catherine of Siena, in her Dialogue with God the Father, reports that she was told the Virgin Mary was not immaculately conceived

In what writing’s did she say that.

How Long is it going to take for you to answer Mark.

@Doorman—Actually another “scholar” has written a book claiming that the stories of the martyrs are just myths:

http://www.amazon.com/The-Myth-Persecution-Christians-Martyrdom/dp/0062104527

Perhaps Mr. Atwill and Ms. Ross get together for coffee and Christian-bashing. . .

Steve. Thanks for that,!! Sorry, we cant all agree.

Charles. Its probably worth NCR stating that before people answer. I was just searching the net for info about the story and found this page. Its always interesting to see all points of view.

My suggestion to everyone who writes for the National Catholic Register would be to attend daily mass in addition to the obligation of Sunday mass which goes without saying. Intensive prayer is also suggested before writing anything on this site. What I have just written has nothing to do with this article but should be applied to all who write for this publication. Let God guide what you write.

“Which of the stories appears the most plausible? I have to say that head to head Mr Atwills view makes a lot of sense.”
Thanks for the reasoned analysis, T Eggins. Is there a basement dwelling troll left in the multiverse who has not yet dragged themselves out of the primordial ooze and logged on to this site, in order to announce our collective atheism towards Thor, that gardens can be pretty without fairies at the bottom (a powerful rebuttal to fairy apologetics, by the way, but one that says nothing about the Gardener), or that we cling to Bronze Age Skymen because we’re really just afraid of the dark? Yours is a petty, trivial, localized, earth bound philosophy, unworthy of the universe.

I wasnt being silly, everybody has a point of view. We arent sheep.

There is a conspiracy of those who have, sin upon sin, built up an edifice of the deepest depravity, to legitimize “homosexuality.”  Their best ally is Hollywood.  They have been VERY successful.  The schools now teach technique.  What next?

This article is perhaps the most un-Christian, disturbing article I have ever read in the National Catholic Register. This is only a suggestion. I believe that it might be for the better that Mr. Shea hang-up his hat for at least a little while.

  MARK, MARK, MAARRRKKKK!!!!!

  I second EDWARD’S QUESTION!!!  (See “Posted by Edward on Monday, Oct 14, 2013 1:04 PM (EDT)” above.)

  I also happened to read your “A Reader Attempts to Noodle the Gay Thing” blog late one evening (which is unusual for me) and then I made a comment.  (I am hoping it was one of the comments Edward considered one of those “good comments from readers”—but I’m not holding my breath on that one).

  Anyways, I was really perplexed when, the very next morning, the entire blog was gone!  I was going to say something about my puzzlement in the combox, but then Pope Francis warned us against the sin or narcissism, and I had to face the fact that I often comment just to see my quasi-wisdom in print (which is better than seeing one’s reflection in a pool, IMO…), so I just bowed my head in shame and did not say anything.

  But now that you have a blog about CONSPIRACY THEORIES….

  So I second Edward’s question!!!!

“A while back Jesus existed and was the first Communist.  Then he was gay. Then he was married to Mary Magdalen. Then he had a brother.”

Well…it seems like you’re tacking on the last item of that list as a rhetorical trick, in order to make it seem absurd alongside the other obviously absurd items (Jesus being a Communist, gay, married). But it is most definitely *not* absurd to believe that Jesus had a brother. Indeed, Scripture notes that Jesus had brothers and sisters (Matthew 12:46, Luke 8:19, Mark 3:31). I realize people (including Catholics) have a lot invested in the doctrine of “the perpetual virginity of Mary,” and have thus come up with convoluted ways around those passages. But it’s dishonest to make it seem like it’s absurd or conspiratorial to believe Jesus had a brother, or that such a believe is even on the same level as the other obvious absurdities, like him being a Communist or not having existed at all.

@TeaPot562:  Have you been to China or India?  Those places are full of cell phones, TVs, tablets and Internet computers.  That results in information being available and shared, remarkably so in relation to even 25 years ago -  although, of course, the way that information is used may still result in “ignorance”.

Well, no.  Nobody *has* to say something that silly.  But lots of people choose to because they have absolutely no idea what they are talking about, yet remain convinced they are smarter than everybody else.  It’s one of the chief effects of the post-modern habit of worshipping instead of using the intellect.

Which of the stories appears the most plausible? I have to say that head to head Mr Atwills view makes a lot of sense.

@JohnN (9:24 a.m. EDT)
In 1940 there were an estimated 400 million Chinese and 300 million inhabitants of what is now {India + Pakistan + Bangla Desh + Sri Lanka}.
The population of planet Earth has more than doubled in the last 70 years.  If there are more people living than ever before, it is probable that there are more ignorant people (people who don’t know how to read and write) than there were ever before.
TeaPot562

The biggest problem with the ‘Jesus Never Existed’ is the witness of martyrs, for which we have AMPLE Evidence!  There is not one other event in human history, where we have an almost immediate rise of individual’s who claim they knew the man, and then are willing to die horribly, without any hope for temporal gain.  It’s what we might call “The log in the eye” for historians.  Not only do we have vast amounts of evidence for the martyrs, but we have a huge amount of literary output which suddenly started on the topic of Jesus.  All of these in varying languages, from varying perspectives and directed towards varying audiences.  If Jesus was imaginary, what did all these people who died and all those who wrote volumes about their experience with him hope to gain?  This event is a singularity in all of history.  Never before did something like this happen to such this level.  A veritable ‘Explosion’ on the scene.  I would venture to say that the person of Jesus produced more verbiage voluntarily written about him, than did the reigning Caesar (much of the verbiage about Ceasar was state mandated and often by his own order). 
Those pesky Martyrs.

Though the rogue pop-theologians may not be important, these articles are very much so. The conspiracy theories can negatively influence some, especially those who do not have a sufficient background in history and how to discern the reliability of personages and events. Being able to give concrete examples of other important historical figures and comparing concrete documentation between them and Jesus is helpful to those who may have bought into the notion that he was simply some story made up by old crusty men who wrote the scriptures with ulterior motives. The evidence for the existence of Jesus is rock-solid and being able to explain how is important for apologetical purposes. Thank you Mr. Shea for this necessary service. I am not sure why serious efforts to explain the faith and equip your readers with useful information are met with so much sarcasm and contempt.

Here’s another conspiracy Mark: what happened to that “A Reader Attempts to Noodle the Gay Thing” blog that you posted for about 45 minutes a few weeks ago? It disappeared so fast, it had to be SOME kind of conspiracy that removed it! For those of you that missed it, it was a very well-written letter from a reader laying out the whole “gay thing” and had some very persuasive, common-sense arguments to make, along with a few good comments from readers. Then, it just disappeared from Mark’s blog and hasn’t been mentioned since.

Hmmm.

St. Catherine of Siena, in her Dialogue with God the Father, reports that she was told the Virgin Mary was not immaculately conceived

In what writing’s did she say that.

John asks, “Who of consequence even suspects that?”  Every person is of consequence.  And the “Jesus Never Existed” stuff is being peddled to a mass audience on Netflix.  A public that can buy the Da Vinci Code as the Secret History of Our Time is a public that can easily buy this junk.

Rob:  I *know*.  Talk about bad marketing sense!

One question and it is not even a comment.  WHY ARE YOU GIVING THIS GUY ATTENTION?  You know what Catholic blogville is like.  Comes now the swarm and well,  the over the top comments.

What annoys me most about this “revelation” is its timing.  Doesn’t Atwill know that the best time to be promoting this isn’t until Christmas or Easter?  Doesn’t he understand that October is the time to be talking about the glories of ancient paganism, with its bloody sacrifices and indifferent gods?  It’s hard to respect a guy with such a bad sense of marketing. . .

The other day there was an article in the Register by Jimmy Akin about some letter the Pope was supposed to have written to homosexuals.  It gave us no facts about the letter, could not quote anything and just provoked needless discussion.  Here we have an article about some unknown author on whether or not a real Jesus existed.  Perhaps people may question the reports of what Jesus did or said -  but is it worthwhile even spending time on whether Jesus is himself an invention?  Who of consequence even suspects that?  Perhaps the Register is short of real articles and is just filling space.

And John -  you say that “we have more Ignorant people today than possibly at any time in our history.”  Really?  Any evidence of that?  If by ‘ignorant’ you mean people who for whatever reason do not agree with you, or with me, you may be right.  But surely there are not more people ignorant of information today than, say, 100 years ago? 

Only due to the high level of Ignorance (specially about history) are such absurdities as the denial of the existence of Jesus Christ forwarded.
Is amazing how much “education” has been forwarded and advance yet we have more Ignorant people today than possibly at any time in our history. Today’s “education” is much more “manipulation” and here is what the powers to be want you to know.
Your counter with facts in the article is productive.

I can’t help but notice that most of your examples of “real conspiracies” involved people who did not want their participation or what they did kept secret after the fact.  The Roman Senate thought they were being patriotic in killing Caesar, and they thought their countrymen would agree.  The same was true of John Wilkes Booth.  The 9-11 conspiracy was just a wee bit conspicuous on 9-12.  Better examples would probably include the numerous cases of someone in the public eye sleeping with someone he shouldn’t be, helping himself to money that isn’t his, or hiding his responsibility for some disaster.  Watergate was probably your best example, because it fits into this category.  Conspiracies like this are indeed all over the place, but they’re just not as interesting as the idea that the government has sold us out to reptilian aliens.