I was going to do a comparrison called Ziggy Stardust vs. Jesus of Nazareth. But I guess you could say that "God" told me that would be ill advised. The thing is, we aren't even sure Jesus of Nazareth ever existed. That Italian guy Luigee Cascioli or whoever probably still has his website up. He makes a pretty fair case that Jesus never existed and if you want more amo you can read "The Jesus myth" in the Wickipedia. In contrast the person we call Zachery (Ziggy Stardust) is a real person, or at least was. Since nobody has heard from or about him in excess of twenty years - not even a roomer - we can't say for sure that he is alive now. But is Ziggy Stardust holding some dark secret? We have stated in the past that Zachery was previously incarnated as the Roman emperor Dometian, who reigned from 81 to 96 AD. That's a pretty good reign as emperors go, fifteen years. So what I'd like to do is just look at the history of the Christian church walking through the history step by step the way a trial lawyer might do it in court and see if the evidence is credible.

We all know that the ZAC says there are prophecies related to time of birth but no prophecies related to the place of birth. With Christianity it's the opposit. There are no prophecies related to the TIME of birth but ONLY to the PLACE of birth. After the first thing any "Superstar" has to do is establish himself as uniquely qualified to be what he is, the Messiah. We have the one source of Matthew to determine that Jesus was born just before the slaughter of the innocents by King Herod. Historians deny that such a slaughter ever occurred. (Count how many things DIDN'T occur) But in this way we are to believe that the messiah was to be born in Bethlehem but all of the rest were slaughtered by King Herod's order so Jesus being the only survivor, has to be the Messiah. Next we are told that Jesus was born during a Cencus of Rome ordered by Ceasar Agustus. There's one thing wrong with this. Historians say that the cencus did not involve pedigree or place of family oregen. So this is another of those things which NEVER OCCURRED. Next of course the Cencus that did occur was in six AD or about nine years after all that stuff with the stars discussed in Matthew. Next we are told the skies were ablaze with angels singing the glory of God and that the "near by" shepherds saw it. Well, if THEY saw it how come the thousands of people crouding into Bethlehem for the cencus didn't see it? Another thing that doesn't quite jive is Luke gives the Mother's liniage. The only thing is historians tell us the mother's liniage was NEVER considered at that time in genialogies. I was also told in Sunday school that if EITHER side of the family was from Bethlehem that that's where you went- - so this was a preferential site where EITHER decent from mother or father counted. Next we are told that Jesus lived the next thirty years in Nazareth growing in favor with man and God. The problem with this is that there is SLIGHT evidence that Jesus went to other places during this period but there is NO EVIDENCE from any non Biblical source that Jesus spent this time in Nazareth or that Jesus even EXISTED at all.

Next we are told that Jesus's ministry was connected with John the Baptist. There is NO historical evidence of this. On the contrary John the Baptist is always mentioned as a separate entity from Jesus by secular historians, if Jesus is mentioned at all. We are told that Judas offered the Sanhedren help in capturing Jesus and only with his help could they make an arrest. It's kind of an insult to law enfourcement to say they didn't know Jesus motions well since Jesus has been to Jerusalem many times. In fact the one thing they said was "We can't arrest him during Passover or any feast, because there will be a riot". We are told that the Jews "lost the power to carry out a death sentence" and that there was weeping in the streets when this occurred because it was believed the Messiah would come "before this happened". Historians now say that the Jews always had the power to carry out a death sentense and in no way was it necessary to involve Rome Next we are told that Pilate offered the people a choice between Jesus and Barrabus. Once again our game show buzzer sounds. There was NO SUCH historically recorded incident that Pontious Pilate ever did this, allowing his decisions to be put up to a vote. The funny thing is- - we are told here quite the opposit of what we read a few verses ago. NOW we are told the people were ready to riot because they WANTED to crusify Jesus and the people were resting Pilate. So in a very few days the crouds went from highly in favor of Jesus to strongly against him. We are told Pilate took a basen and washed his hands in sort of a Jewish ritual of blog innocence. Historians say it's dubious Pilate did this act.

We are to believe that after Jesus's resurrection the twelve apostles along with 120 others formed the first Christian Church. We are told the 120 were people "who had been in Jesus' ministry from the very beginning"? If that's so, where were they during the trial and crusifiction? We are told Jesus appeared to his brother, James and convirted him, as well as Jesus's other brothers such as Jude. None of the Gospells mention Jesus's appearences to his brothers. We are told by some "historians" that James was a High Priest and entered into the Holy of Holies in the Jewish Temple. Why would Jews pick a Christian to be High Priest? We are told that from the moment of his convirsion that St. Paul had instant access to the highest pillars of the Christian Church, such as James and Peter. We have Paul repeatedly confronting both these people and "telling them off" that they were just wrong about a lot of things. We have "The book of Acts" revolving around St. Paul, who apparently is never wrong. We have St. Paul writing the church at Rome, which he had never visited and there doesn't seem to be a way any Saints could BE in Rome yet, let alone form a Church. We are told of "Christians in Ceasar's household" and that St. Paul trusted Roman Justice over Jewish Justice any day of the week and so made repeated appeals to Ceasar. And who was "Ceasar" in those days? None other than mad man Nero himself! Finally we are to believe the fire in Rome or the persecution of Christians that occurred a very few years after the book of Acts concluds was- - - apparently just "not important enough to mention".

As we said in another blog, I don't even think the ministry of the Apostle Paul occurred this early. We are told that the Book of Revelation was written during the reign of the mad emperor Dometian from 81 to 96 AD. If this is true and if Dometian was "The Beast" then how come after he was conspired against and slain and shown to be mortal, that the author and readers of Revelation didn't say, "Well, back to the drawing board". How come the more you look for evidence of persecution during the time of Dometian the less you find- - of Christians. Dometian was a flake. There is no doubt about that. He was "completely balmy" as they say. No doubt about that. Dometian persecuted Jews with tax laws. That's a fact. But had Dometian ever even heard of Christianity? You really can't show from the evidence that he did. Emperor Trajan was two emperors later and Pliny the Younger wrote him a letter (or visa versa) suggesting that Christianity be persecuted for its own sake. If this was a new concept under Trajan, what was Christianity's status under Dometian? And why does the Catholic encyclopedia say that Dometian repented of his persecution of Christians, but refuse to give detales? What of that mystory early 2nd. century historian who says that Dometian made special provisions for the relatives of Jesus? Could it be that Paul lived in the time of Dometian and not in the time of Nero, and that Dometian became a closet Christian? Why has Christianity been so "Roman-centric" almost from the beginning?

Did Jesus have a daughter named Sarah, who was born after his death and at age twelve moved with relatives to the south of France? Was there a group of 'Illuminati" who were in Egypt who knew the secret identity of Jesus? Is this secret group of Illuminatti a group that almost from day one has been calling the tune with Christian doctrine? Was the ministry of the Apostle Paul much later than we've all supposed. If not, how come all his letters didn't become general knowledge till about 110 or 120 AD? Why did people like Marcion want to cannonize them almost immediately? How did St. Paul "Prove his apostleship" to begin with? These are questions that may never be answered. On the other hand, there may be a "smoking gun" out there, just waiting for historians to discover and put the pieces together.