Read The Jesus Papers: Exposing the Greatest Cover-up in History (Plus) by Michael Baigent Online

the-jesus-papers-exposing-the-greatest-cover-up-in-history-plus

What if everything we have been told about the origins of Christianity is a lie?What if a small group had always known the truth and had kept it hidden . . . until now?What if there is evidence that Jesus Christ survived the crucifixion?In Holy Blood, Holy Grail Michael Baigent and his co-authors Henry Lincoln and Richard Leigh stunned the world with a controversial theoryWhat if everything we have been told about the origins of Christianity is a lie?What if a small group had always known the truth and had kept it hidden . . . until now?What if there is evidence that Jesus Christ survived the crucifixion?In Holy Blood, Holy Grail Michael Baigent and his co-authors Henry Lincoln and Richard Leigh stunned the world with a controversial theory that Jesus Christ and Mary Magdalene married and founded a holy bloodline. The book became an international publishing phenomenon and was one of the sources for Dan Brown's novel The Da Vinci Code. Now, with two additional decades of research behind him, Baigent's The Jesus Papers presents explosive new evidence that challenges everything we know about the life and death of Jesus....

Title : The Jesus Papers: Exposing the Greatest Cover-up in History (Plus)
Author :
Rating :
ISBN : 9780061146602
Format Type : Paperback
Number of Pages : 352 Pages
Status : Available For Download
Last checked : 21 Minutes ago!

The Jesus Papers: Exposing the Greatest Cover-up in History (Plus) Reviews

  • Lucinda Reed
    2018-10-12 14:01

    I like it from the historical aspect, not because this is some profound piece or that it exposes any kind of cover up.He presents an interesting case here, with some very different ideas to put forth about the Christian church and the beliefs of Jesus Christ, although he does have some evidence, it is speculative and highly hypothetical. I say it is interesting, because it seems the best word, since it sparks some thought, even if the reader doesn't buy into anything he says. This would probably be offensive to some, and downright ridiculous to others, as it presents an argument against the divinity of Christ and many of the key Christian beliefs concerning the Christ. I recommend this to those who research the historical Christ, but don't look for a satisfying argument here.

  • Nathan
    2018-10-04 12:56

    Baigent's earlier book (Holy Blood, Holy Grail) stirred a lawsuit of plagiarism against The Da Vinci Code. Baigent loves the provocative, and this book followed suit. I suspected I might disagree with him, but I set out to give this author/historian a fair shake.But his blatant lack of intellectual integrity was overwhelming.Baigent references "incontrovertible evidence" (pg 7) that Jesus survived the crucifixion and was alive on earth in A.D. 45. With some digging, we find his source: a letter from Rev. Bartlett who in the 1930s heard that his mentor Canon Lilley had been invited by a former student to Saint Sulpice in the 1890s to translate a document which may have come from Abbe Sauniere. Lilley, by the way, is now deceased, and the document is now either "concealed or destroyed."Really?I don't mean to get snarky, but a disappeared document that is (at best) three-times removed is "incontrovertible evidence"?I had a hard time believing Baigent's future claims after that. Yet it grew worse. He spends dozens of pages debunking the Bible as "bad history... inconsistent, incomplete, garbled, and biased" but then turns and makes an argument for Jesus' cross survival based meticulously on a turn of phrase in Mark's gospel (a rare portion, I suppose, that isn't bad history). To top it off, Baigent even briefly questions Jesus very existence, which (if true) negates all of Baigent's own work.The author does finally acknowledge the difficulty of his "evidence," saying that the date itself (A.D. 45) is "the only part of Bartlett's letter that I can accept without dispute or suspicion" (pg 263). I had to wonder why he waited 250 pages to point that out.Baigent seems primarily driven not by fact or historical congruity, but by a thirst for conspiracy theory. (I started counting the number of times he wrote, "Could it be that [such and such]?") Just look at the subtitle: "Exposing the Greatest Cover-Up in History."This book masquerades as scholarship, but I'd put it closer to works on Sasquatch and Area 51: Mildly entertaining with scant facts.

  • Jim McCulloch
    2018-10-03 16:11

    Attempting to reconcile proven historic fact to the Bible is difficult at best, but an interesting exercise where historic fact can be established. Establishing the political realities of the time of Jesus was most helpful, as was considering where the young Jesus was raised and trained. It was a harsh, violent, and tumultuous time.Mr. Baigent raises some interesting ideas and certainly fans the flames of papal conspiracy in the story of Jesus. The timing of the writing of the gospels and subsequent potential revisions by the church is interesting. According to the author, comparing third century with first century versions of the same gospels shows that someone changed portions of them, and it is natural to wonder who and why. Baignet's contention that our current New Testament may be different than how things actually played out and were spoken by Jesus due to the centuries it took to be actually written down, and the multiple translations the texts had to endure creates a reasonable hypothesis of potential human intervention for many purposes. Then there are the church decisions as to which books would actually be included in the New Testament, excluding the Gnostic texts which is critical when you consider the authors asserts that Jesus was trained by Gnostics. All in all, some valid concern for devious and very mortal influence into what is presented by churches as the true word of God.I suspect believers who lack the courage to think outside the lines will find this book to be horrible and straight from the devil. Those with the curiosity to consider alternative historic interpretations, church intervention, the use of science to date items, and the contents of newly discovered ancient texts will find it intellectually stimulating without threatening their faith. As to the alleged Jesus papers. Mr. Baigent didn't convince me that Jesus survived the Crucifixion with what he presented . . . but I would like to see the full translated text in their proper context, and learn more about why he and others think it refers to Jesus.

  • Melissa Bond
    2018-10-02 13:05

    Where to begin with this book? The information is overwhelming, and even though quite a bit of what Baigent reveals is nothing new to scholars and students, he does bring his own experiences to the table backing it with strong undeniable proof. I was a little surprised that Baigent was satisfied to start with the Egyptians of having a Christ figure, as it is documented to have occurred in earlier cults and religions far preceding the Egyptians. Although he does mention some, I do understand he wanted to keep the focus on Christianity and the Christ myth beneath its beginnings. Baigent is a dramatic writer, but I do have to say for a book such as this, he does get a little emotionally wordy in transitioning between events, but otherwise, he leaves what he is most excited about until the very end, which was bold and brilliant.I do hope more is discovered, and Baigent reveals answers to the questions he now raises with his findings. I will certainly be looking out for the second part of his journey to uncovering the truth. I can only hope more people take an interest in learning the facts of what they believe and the history of their faith instead of so blindly accepting myth as fact. If one wants to argue what Baigent has clearly provided, he gives references, many from the gospels themselves.As a Jew who has traveled to Israel and studied religion, even I know the Torah is full of legendary stories, and what is historically claimed to be true should be questioned extensively. I have also read the Bible, and the errors and contradictions are so obvious, and even what authors of the Bible took from the Torah popularly known as fables and fiction to Jews, the Bible claims as fact. As an art history student, artworks Christians so revere are riddled with contradictions to what they believe, purposefully done by the artists who created them having been convinced themselves by undeniable proof, but so many believers just cannot see nor accept the truth of what those artists really are trying to tell them. Baigent is correct, all religions have a spin to justify actions and reactions, and the crime comes in the profit of the ignorance of those so blind to believe without really knowing the factual history of what they place their faith into. Every single religion and non-religious beliefs are largely based on myth, so how one can live their lives, justifying their actions and reactions to life when the platform they stand on has little to no historical value just simply puzzles me. It also frightens me because for every single person each religion completely blindfolds, the more powerful the corrupt become.Man will always strive to know what is beyond this life, beyond this world we live in, but to follow what others before us claim so blindly not only does not get us closer to learning the truth, but weakens the very foundation of ones faith irregardless of ones beliefs. It is when you cannot question your beliefs that the blindfold tightens. Who is to say which religion is the "right" religion, especially when the corruption is so clearly exposed?

  • jcg
    2018-10-13 08:18

    Great fun. A deluge of facts presented in a very readable style. I don't think Baigent pulls all his rambling conjecture together into a tight conclusion, but the whole thing is interesting and engaging.One flaw in the logic: Baigent states that when a crucified person could no longer support the weight of the body "death by asphixiation rapidly followed." pg 127. He then speculates that Jesus may have been rendered unconcious by drugs and only appeared to be dead. But if Jesus was unconscious and his body slumped, wouldn't he have rapidly died of asphixiation? Considerable time must have passed between Jesus losing consciousness and the body being taken down because permission to remove the body had to be obtained from Pilate. Surely the time involved in travelling from Golgotha to Pilate's palace in Jerusulem, waiting for an audience, obtaining permission and then travelling back to Gethsemene would be too long for an unconscious person to survive on the cross.The first century history is interesting and well presented, bringing together various strands into a convincing restructuring.Lets hope the ancient manuscripts Baigent claims still exist will be made public one day soon.

  • Thomas
    2018-10-10 13:11

    "Extremely speculative!! Every single one of the so-called evidence he provides has no base in history whatsoever. Speculative analysis of obscure and made up data along with playing with peoples ignorance of the truth is what made this book what it is (as well as farming on the element of doubt this book plants in ones mind as the book progresses.). Conspiracy theories has always been like this... just plain speculation! no more, no less!!Authors like Michael Baigent, Richard Leigh and Henry Lincoln are all trying to pocket Dan Brown’s loose change.People who have read this book should read Fabricating Jesus How Modern Scholars Distort the Gospels and then try to argue their views from Baigents book or some of Brown's remarks. "

  • Deirdre
    2018-09-24 16:11

    This was a fun book to read although I felt the author was a little scattered and tended to go off topic. Although I am not sure his conclusions would withstand close scrutiny it nevertheless provides food for thought whether you are Gentile or Jew, Catholic or Protestant, believer or non-believer.

  • gina
    2018-10-15 09:18

    Okay, first it's a bit of a stretch to call this the biggest cover up in history. I mean, there's a lot of history in the world to cover and saying that these papers and scrolls are the biggest cover ups is, well, a bit egotistical or pretentious of Mr. Baigent, first as a "scholar" and second as a Christian, wait, is he a Christian? What is he anyway? Well, he certainly hates the church. Or at least his writings come across as very church-hating. That's I guess a big "C" on "Church" if you know what I mean... if you don't, then you will 30 minutes or so into the audiobook because he makes it pretty clear who he thinks the big delusional losers are. Actually his entire book sounds a whole lot like a kid standing out in the yard at recess and calling a bigger kid a "big stupid liar" or "a big fat loser!" and then making your mamma jokes. Except they aren't that funny and they kind of get old. But I was amused to hear his theories. He seems to make as many leaps in assumptions and rationalizing as the Church had, just in a different direction, but he seems unable to see his own assumptions as just that, assumptions, not fact. I do think he's on to something with a lot of what he says, but despite his chest thumping confident tones I'm not quite ready to dismiss other ideas and jump on his Jesus Paper Bandwagons. And despite if I decided to believe his..."facts" on the matter (which come across smelling alot like specuation to me) I didn't like how he presented them. It was his tone. It was his chest thumping. His ego and crazed fanatic vibe.Anyway, interesting to listen to and ponder, but overall I'd say it's just "ok" :)

  • Raymond
    2018-10-07 07:52

    I must first admit some bias. In spite of being raised (and indoctrinated) Roman Catholic, the idea of religion as myth is not alien to me. Through my own meditations and readings, I have long accepted the probability. I approached Mr. Baigent’s work looking for documentation to support my disbelief. The book’s jacket seemed to promise it.Unfortunately, there was only speculation lacking any back-up evidence. The book is all smoke and no fire. Documents that would allegedly support his theories are, he says, locked up in the Vatican, in private non-accessible collections, or have mysteriously disappeared. Yet, we are encouraged to accept his suppositions as fact. I can’t do it, Mr. Baigent. Blind faith is not a quality I possess.Still, I would recommend this book to others, particularly true believers. It hasa what-if quality that engages the imagination and is eminently readable. Perhaps it would provide a little more flexibility in their habit of judgment. I say perhaps.

  • Brandie
    2018-09-30 14:56

    Okay, here's the thing. The background information he presents was interesting to me. He made a few great points in the book that really made me think. But, let me go on to say, Biagent is trying to show how the NT is maybe not all we think it is - saying they are simply stories contrived to serve specific purposes and don't have the innocent writing background most assume today. Then he goes on to say they are false because there is fact A. And if we assume fact B caused fact A, and then we assume fact C caused fact B and then we do some more assuming, well, that proves this really incredible thing happened instead of what The Bible says. I find a lot of what may have happened just as woven and created, if not more so, than what he says about the Bible. Just my two cents though!

  • Fabian Davy
    2018-09-19 14:20

    I had great expectations from this book. If somebody was bold enough to refute the claim of Christianity's greatest man - he must have good reason, and ample proof to back his words. But sadly, it was mostly speculation and elaboration of themes that circled around a central key point. Even the so called proof, said to have existed - were either locked away, secured from any access, or being told of its existence - verbally. I would have forgiven Baigent for this lack of evidence, knowing well that sensitive documents pertaining to religious sensitivity are usually guarded well. And I believe of the conspiracy theories of cover-up. If only that he presented his story well enough without beating too much around an imaginary bush.There are a few central key points that the book tried to explain. These matters include- The survival of Jesus Christ, after the crucifixion- The elaboration of how and where Jesus gained the spiritual insight that guides him during his ministry-ship- The interpretation of how Jesus is not Son of God, or God but... was Son of God through spirituality (this I like and actually believe!)- The concept of Messianic prophecy long foretold within the older Jewish faith, before the founding of Christianity- That Christianity is a religion that was founded based on interpretation of its followers, most which of which the teachings were either doctored or strayed. This is also something which I agreed personally.Of course they were others. But too much to elaborate in this limited review space. All in all in tried to tie up the loose ends of Christianity, with specific relation to Catholicism and the influence of the Vatican over the years. In particular note, I like the heavily discussed influence and history of Judaism and The Jews over the shaping-course of Christianity. Something I must admit - was largely ignored of deprived of knowledge in (even) modern Christians of today. To understand religion is to understand history - a feat that this book tried hard and in some ways, succeeded. If only, it was told with credible source and truth. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~I guess one of the reasons why this book didn't really put me into 'shock gear' - lie on the failure of the author to elaborate more on points of interest. Either from a scientific perspective, or from presenting convincing evidence to support a claim. For example, the idea that Jesus survived the crucifixion was interesting, but the mention of how he could have appeared dead after being given a special medicinal mixture was not elaborated much. What kind of potion mix, what were the possible ingredients, were they locally available at the time, the mechanism of action - were all explained in a rather passing through methodology. Perhaps the most puzzling part - the physical threshold of human being nailed and left hanging on the cross was not explored through medical or scientific means. I have read and watched a discussion of this matter in a more detailed presentation - all which were absent in the book. From this perspective ALONE, Baigent failed miserably on this aspect. The idea of dying at the stake and resurrected is a fundamental element of faith in Christianity. Something which Baigent tried to refute but didn't bother enough to cover in more depth.He did however, explored the idea of Jesus being 'whisked' away from the tomb, alive. I have no problem on entering this territory. The hinting 'evidence' that explored the possibility of an arranged inside job was interesting. But then again, there were little supported theory of where he could have been after his survival. If Baigent can prove that there was documented life of Jesus after this event, an evidence of his further teachings of ministry anywhere in this face of the earth - I will be very impressed. But no, there is none.Another problem that I found prevalent in the book, was the straying of discussion into something not on path of interest. The chapters on Egypt for example was largely on the lecture of early theological belief of the Pharoah's. Two chapters devoted to Egpyt, and none really explained the real relationship or significance of this matter - to Jesus Christ. It was theorized by Baigent that Jesus may have been to Egypt during his earlier years - of which it was here that his spiritual basis was founded. Yet, the topic of Egypt steered too much of course into early mystical belief system and its similarity of the different set of religion of the time. This was a distraction that to me, served as fillers that didn't tell the reader very much of what we need to know. Just a historical lesson (which while educational and of valued importance) that didn't fit too well into the picture.Perhaps that was the biggest problem of this book: too much historical lesson and building of foundation.~All was not lost. While this book failed to moved me from questioning the foundation of Christianity, it got me thinking of other equally important issues.- Infallibility of the earlier Roman Catholic Church and their adamant intent of keeping the idea of Christianity towards their definition. Sometimes through questionable matters of persecution, cover-up and refusal to submit to criticism. An idea that somehow the true foundation of religion was reshaped according to the need of these select few.- The radical means of controlling heresy or infidelity or blasphemy through the dreaded means of The Inquisition. It is crucial to understand and know this fact: Christianity was once controlled and kept 'sacrosanct' by a ruthless organization/entity that inhumanely turned to violence, torture and murder. All in the name of religion. All in the name of oppression to those that believe otherwise.- The compilation of The Bible, may have not been as originally intended. That somehow, selected works were meticulously chosen to represent best what we know now of 'Christianity'. That Jesus Christ of the biblical copy differs greatly of his historical version. That somehow, we were being told of what we need to be told of. That translation were deliberately blurred to conceal true meanings.- That the link between Judaism and Christianity was/is actually deeper than what we assumed it is. Jesus was not just a Jew. He was a man that had integrated Jewish understanding of faith into his own teachings. That he was somehow deeply affected by the oppression and fate of the Jews at the time. That his Messianic arrival was foretold a long time before Christianity was finely reshaped. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Being a Christian, a Catholic in fact - I had hoped that this book may had shed a well argued parts of Christianity which I have been most intrigued about. Even when reviewing this book, I tried hard enough to separate my understanding of this religion to further enable me to explore the criticism. To me this book is not speaking of blasphemy. It is nothing more than an insight into 'what if?' that sadly, was not explored convincingly enough. A half-boiled attempt - could I have said it better?My thoughts exactly. Though a nice try.An interesting read.

  • David Andrews
    2018-10-06 14:52

    I love a good conspiracy theory - I can’t help it, I always have! I remember reading, years ago now, The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail and being absolutely astounded (this was also before Dan Brown turned that work into a plotline for his hit The Da Vinci Code). While every conspiracy theory usually takes a couple of fantastic logical leaps, and Baigent’s works typically do as well, I still found The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail to be one of the most convincing bits of theory I’d ever read. The Jesus Papers, released shortly after the explosion that was The Da Vinci Code, represents a bit more of the same, repackaged and made sleek for a more mainstream audience. It covers, in depth, the ways in which Jesus’ story was transformed from one of political rebellion and revolution into an entirely new religion - a religion that would’ve appeared quite alien to the Jews of Jesus’ Judaea. As a bit of historical compilation, The Jesus Papers is far from the worst account I’ve read, but as a work of conspiracy theory I found it to be really quite boring. Where The Holy Blood contained new concepts and stunning revelations (or at the very least, felt like it did), The Jesus Papers feels like a rehashing of familiar concepts, with very little additional information tacked on. We’re pretty far removed from the initial publication date of The Holy Blood (first put out in 1982), so it could very well be that The Jesus Papers is a better primer for people wanting to get in on the whole ‘Jesus wasn’t really crucified and his family lived on’ theory, but I still feel like the older work might be the better one.

  • Sarah Crawford
    2018-10-11 11:58

    Notice that the cover of the book depicts Jesus being taken down from the cross, and the blurb says “Exposing the Greatest Cover-Up in History.”The natural assumption, at least in my mind, is that the entire book is about some kind of cover-up about Jesus not dying on the cross after all.Wrong.That's what the book claims, but that part isn't really that very big in the book. The majority of the book deals with various forms of what we call “mystery religions” and their rituals. There are entire chapters which have virtually nothing to do with the “Jesus didn't die on the cross” theme, but deal instead with things like the Dead Sea Scrolls, illicit buying-and-selling of such types of scrolls, and the difficulty of real scholars ever getting to see such artifacts.The book does have some very interesting information on the political situation of the Jews at the time of Christ, in specific reference to the zealot groups and what they were doing and what they (apparently) expected of Jesus.The thing is, in this type of a claim, the burden of proof lies on the person making the claim. In other words, the authors should be able to provide reasonable proof that there was some kind of conspiracy to keep Jesus from dying on the cross, to get him down while he was still alive, and then get him to safety.“Possibilities” are not proof. Making assumptions is not proof. Even stating that such-and-such a document “proves” that Jesus was alive in 45 AD is not proof, since no photos of the documents are ever provided. The reader is expected to take the author's word that such documents exist.Some of the things the book does cover include (I will only state the points; the authors provide a lot of information to back up each point):The origin of the idea that the Pope is infallible. (A political move on the part of the Pope Pius IX and his supporters).The two men who were crucified along with Jesus were not robbers; they were Jewish zealots, the idea that they were robbers being based on poor translation from the original sources.The placement of Jesus between the two men indicates that Jesus was also considered a Jewish zealot.Galilee was a hotbed of the zealot movement.Jesus had two royal blood lines in him. Through his father, Jesus was of the Line of David. Through his mother, he was of the line of Aaron, the high priest.This would have made Jesus both a king and a spiritual leader, and the zealots wanted to have him lead them.Jesus was crucified in 36 AD.Another name for Jesus at the time was “Chrestus,” and the Romans had records of such a man being tried and executed for political crimes.A lot of what is in the Bible made it there through political considerations moreso than spiritual considerations, which is why the Gnostic writings are excluded from the Bible.Throughout history Popes worked on centralizing their power over the Church. This included the destruction of documents that threatened any of the “official” church beliefs.The Cathars were a target of hatred on the part of the “official” church.The Inquisition still exists, but under a different name. It was renamed the Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office, and the present Pope was the leader of that office for a while.The Knights Templar were also objects of the Inquisitions hatred.The “virgin birth” was not part of the original writings, but the writings were interpreted to mean that there was a virgin birth.Jesus was married to Mary Magdalene.When Jesus made his remark about paying taxes to Rome (pay unto Caesar what is Caesar's, in relation to the coin he was shown), the zealots lost faith in Jesus since they expected him to fully oppose Roman rule. So they decided to get Jesus out of the way until they could find someone else to lead them.Pilate tried Jesus to satisfy the Zealots. (Pilate's own political position vis-a-vis Rome wasn't all that good). Knowing that Rome would have been upset if Jesus had actually died (since Jesus basically supported Rome in a way since he said Roman taxes should be paid), he arranged with Joseph of Arimathea, a member of the Sanhedrin and friend of Jesus, to have Jesus taken down before he died and then have him taken to a cave where he could be treated with medicines.The sponge soaked with vinegar that was offered Jesus while he was on the cross was not filled with vinegar, but with a drug that would cause unconsciousness and make it appear that Jesus was dead. That would prevent his legs from being broken (to cause quick death), and would set it up so he could be brought down from the cross before he actually would die.Jesus and his wife left the area to go to Egypt where they could study at a Jewish temple there.The rest of the book deals with Egyptian spiritual mysteries, how Jesus studied those, and has more of the history of the various scrolls.As you can see from the listing, the idea of Jesus not dying on the cross is not something discussed until well into the book. The vast majority of the rest of the book could have been published under a different title such as “Ancient Initiation Rites and Journeying to the Other Side” or some such title. There's also too much space taken dealing with the handling of ancient documents and how many of these were destroyed by the Church. It's an important point to make, but it shouldn't take as many pages to do it as the book devoted to the concept.Other than the material on the zealot movement in Jewish culture, the book is pretty much boring, retreading ground that has already been covered and not really adding anything new. Assumptions do not equal fact. Granted, proving that Jesus did not die on the cross but was saved from it by a Pilate-Joseph of Arimathea conspiracy is probably impossible, but if the documents to prove that have not really been found (or at least made available to the general public), then the book is unable to prove it's “cover-up” concept.

  • Marcia Chocinsky
    2018-09-29 10:13

    This book is well researched and provides a unique perspective on Jesus, myth versus reality. The author goes through the religious and historical documents of hundreds of years against the geopolitical dynamics of the various time frames. He attempts to filter through writings and interpretations of writings to get to the real Jesus instead of the religious icon presented by church doctrine. It is an interesting read, but as I write this I am only about 2/3's of the way through and I'm becoming bogged down by the academia. I shall return to this later (possibly this month) to complete my education.

  • Don
    2018-09-17 09:56

    This work should be subtitled: Alice in Blunderland. That's the feeling I got while wading through the menagerie. The author should try reading the Bible for important facts before giving free rein to his myth making faculties.First of all, what he should have been aware of is Jeremiah's prophecy of the Jeconiah curse, something every orthodox Jew would be in possession of during the lifetime of Jesus. It is impossible for me to see how anyone could fall for a Zealot messianic plot to set Jesus on the throne as king. Matthew might be deceived or deceiving us that he doesn't know about the curse, but that doesn't excuse us from being made into ignoramuses as well!Take away this one incontestable fact about the Davidic line having been broken (unless you are only referring to David's younger son's line, which doesn't have the same clout as the elder son's), you still have to deal with all the other misconceptions found in this weak brained attempt to explain Jesus to get rid of some of the confusions that absolutely can be found in the New Testament. But making up a bunch of Far World speculations doesn't cut the mustard in explaining a Jewish Messiah. Take the Lord's prayer for example. Where is the Egyptian influence there? Etc. Etc. Etc. Jesus sounds very orthodox in his belief system to me. Jesus is Jewish, and he's more orthodox than cultish. But I'm sure there will be more forthcoming theories from Mr. Baigent and Mr. Eisenmann. They simply can't accept what we already have, but need to find some massive plot to show that Jesus couldn't possible be what he himself has always claimed to be in the scriptures that we already have, or that he could have truly died on a cross for the salvation of sinners. This God of faith is truly as important as the Jesus of history, whether Catholics have it right or wrong. Augustine makes it clear in his creed of the Evangel, Believe in order that you may understand. Putting the horse before the cart is attempting to understand everything before you receive the faith to act, move and have being. But I'm probably wasting my breath. I certainly won't be searching down the rabbit hole for clues as to the real facts about the expected Messiah. The Word of God tells me everything that I need to know about how to believe in Him, or I can just start up my own fantasy club based on speculations rather than facts.One of these days, these guys will print a retraction and take back the vast majority of their unsubstantiated claims that do more harm than good to the faith community, just like Barbara Thiering who made some inferences about The Dead Sea Scrolls that she couldn't make stand. At least, Michael spends time getting hard facts to back up his historical fantasies, but he should spend equal time gathering truths from the Bible itself to fact check his theories. One of the first things I would like to learn about is why Matthew thought that Jesus on his father's side (Joseph) was in the Davidic line. What am I missing here? If Mr. Baigent could shed some light on these kind of subjects, he'd be a much better expert in his field of study in my estimate. As it is, he's not really much good for anything in regard to shedding light on important Biblical matters. If you find these answers somewhere, let me know, because I've been searching for a long time. It's hard to believe that Matthew is innocent in his doings. There has to be a reason behind his statements. Evidently there was some genealogical work being stored in the Temple before it was destroyed. If the list he provides is correct, then where did Jeremiah slip up in his prophecy of the curse? Or did someone tamper with the records, and Matthew in bringing it to our attention is giving us a heads up on what was taking place. That would back up Mr. Baigent's viewpoints better, but he obviously hasn't made any effort to explore this link. He's only interested in mistranslations of virgin birth and stars of Bethlehem. There is more evidence of the historical Jesus being a Jewish cynic than a therapuetae or whatever the expression was. I've never heard that theory before, and based on one verse in the Bible to boot! Just think of all the wild speculations we could have based on just one verse in the Bible. It boogles the mind, doesn't it? It's not very likely that a Jewish cynic would be involved in a Passover plot conspiracy. For what purpose?The Truth has a funny way of revealing itself while asserting God's sustaining power and empowerments to those who seek for His knowledge, despite every effort to quash it into non-existence. I have more faith in a living God than I have in a long dead history that has no answers to give. We can only hope that this final revelation is soon forthcoming, and that the cost of obtaining it is not at too dear of a price set by people outside of the one faith! I pray that Mr. Baigent will also share in this coming revelation. We all make mistakes, and fall short of the glory, but thank God we're not beyond the power of salvation yet.Well I've had my say. After wading through this long study, I guess I earned the right, for whatever it's worth to anybody else! Thanks.

  • Viki Menegazzo-nagy
    2018-09-30 09:55

    Another amazing book of the truths of history

  • Samara
    2018-10-08 12:03

    😂😂😂😂It’s all speculation. No proof.

  • Galina Nelson
    2018-09-30 09:10

    Provocative, anti-christian papers, on my opinion, nothing in common with the book of Dan Brown "The Da Vinci Code."

  • Nicole Geub
    2018-09-19 16:01

    listened to the audio. very interesting if you're into people trying to debunk history. we all know what they say: history is written by the victors and in this the author concludes jesus didn't die on the cross but still lived. the church just wants you to believe he died on the cross. I don't know about the truth of it because I wasn't there. still a pretty interesting read though. talked about the ancient Egyptians and the jesus papers and the dead sea scrolls. basically there is still so much out there yet to be discovered.

  • Birgit
    2018-10-13 14:57

    Zugegeben, man kann Michael Baigent durchaus unterstellen, auf der Erfolgswelle von Büchern wie "Sakrileg" (Dan Brown) mitzuschwimmen, aber dieses Buch ist schon ein wenig mehr als das. Angelegt als Sachbuch, geht es fließend in einen historischen Thriller über. Anfangs herrschen die Fakten vor und ab der zweiten Hälfte des Buches dann Theorien darüber, wie es gewesen sein könnte. Der Autor stellt hier provozierende Fragen an die Christenheit und wirft Licht auf die Hintergründe der Kirchenpolitik, die bis in unsere Zeit ihre Gültigkeit besitzen.Während das erste Drittel gut recherchiert ist und inhaltlich absolut überzeugt, lässt die Qualität aber dann allmählich rapide nach. Und wie es mit Enthüllungsbüchern oft der Fall ist, entpuppt sich die angebliche Wahrheit bald als altbekannte Spekulationen anhand altbekannter Indizien. Am Ende reichen Baigent Legenden und Mundpropaganda als aussagekräftige Indizien.Das Buch ist sicherlich spannend zu lesen, kein Zweifel, aber dies ist ein Sachbuch – wir wollen Fakten oder gut untermauerte Thesen!Kurz: Eine provokative Fragestellung und viele Spekulationen bieten eine faszinierende Lektüre aber leider nichts wirklich Neues zur Thematik.

  • Patty
    2018-10-10 11:13

    Co-Author of “Holy Blood Holy Grail”, Michael Baigent offers a new theory that not only was Jesus married to Mary Magdalene; he survived the crucifixion and lived to at least 45 AD. His letters to the Sanhedrin state that he was not the physical son of God but like all men who have the spirit of God within, he was a son of God. While James, Jesus’ brother, stayed within the Jewish faith, Christianity flourished among the pagans and gentiles. Using timelines, Baigent tracks the history of church and state both Jewish and Christian. He provides evidence that the lost years of Jesus were spent in Egypt and that Jesus had no intention of starting a new religion.I enjoyed the information about the Gnostics, the Inquisition, and the Dead Sea Scrolls but found the chapter on Egypt uninteresting. His theories about the afterlife as perceived by the Egyptians and their connection with Jesus’ teachings are a stretch to me. But he did include my favorite passage from Luke, “The kingdom of heaven is within”, so that added balance.

  • Andrew
    2018-09-20 16:18

    Great read. Had guessed a lot of it already since the Dead Sea Scrolls and the Gnostic Bible have since been printed for the public - and the Church have tried to keep hidden for the past 60 years. The theory is that Jesus didn't die on the cross, he survived and had secret teachings that only a few knew - the Christianity we have today is....basically....wrong. Surprise, surprise! Women were also the teachers in early Christianity. Teaches = priests and yet men have done everything to wipe that from history and women have been treated as second class. Even worse than that, the Church - which was to teach the love Christ taught - burnt women (plus men and Children - at the stake for nearly 500 years. It seems the true message was only told to Mary Magdalene - basically the divine is inside us all, we just have to look. Priests, Bishops, popes and the Church, there's no need for them if the divine is inside us, we just have to look - there goes your authority and power! Will now need to read The Dead Sea Scroll Deception, The Messianic Legacy and Holy Blood, Holy Grail.

  • Dustin Comm
    2018-10-01 15:13

    Challenging to my faith in the first half, but lost its legitimacy as the claims made were never backed up with substantial evidence. However, it was interesting to hear the different theories about Christ, who (or what) he really was, what His real message was, that he survived the crucifixion, married Mary Magdalene, etc...Very historical (in content), but much of it went way too far off course onto secondary issues that had very little to do with the central figure of Jesus. The big issue raised in this book I will pursue further is the claim that the early church purposely left some letters out of the canon that did not mesh with their theologies and plans for Christianity; whether or not they were true about Jesus or not. It is definitely unsettling when we realize that our Holy Bible was actually put together by a group of guys who decided which letters and writings were legit, and which ones weren't. I want to know if there are non-canonical writings that got left out on purpose for power or control, as Baigent claims.

  • Bruce
    2018-09-17 07:53

    An interesting work to read after just finishing "Beloved Disciple" by Robin Griffith-Jones. "Beloved Disciple' provides an interpretation of the gospels and gnostic texts leading one to at least entertain the possibility that women played an important part in the early church. While suggesting the possibility Mary Magdalene was Jesus' wife, Griffith-Jones proposes an interpretation of her as an allegory for wisdom. Baigent exposes church politics and religious connivance for a small group of patriarchs to gain and retain power. A majority of "The Jesus Papers" addresses the plausibility that the historical Jesus survived his alleged execution, fleeing with his wife and family to Egypt where he was likely to have had his 'religious' training. Much of the book puts this idea into the context of the times with the various beliefs of people of the time. This book helps one understand why so much effort has been put into destroying and secreting alleged heretical works.

  • Jonathan Lu
    2018-10-08 13:04

    interesting story, not quite as provocative as Holy Blood Holy Grail, and not nearly as well written or informative as Racing Towards Armageddon. I found the highlight to be the comparative analysis between the mystical form of Judaism practiced by Jesus vs. the more dogmatic form by most of the Zealots, and speculation as to where/how he cut his teeth over his formative years left out in the New Testament (in Egypt). Was not too impressed by the underlying undertones of catholic conspiracy theory, which although more than just plausible is far overdone already. So there are letters documenting that Jesus may have been alive in 42 AD... after an in depth analysis of Jesus's radical (for that time) message of love and hope, Baigent kinda cheapens the whole story by laying on the ecumenical hate. Still worth a read, even if you don't agree with the conclusions, for a better understanding of the situation at the time.

  • Aaron Meyer
    2018-09-30 10:08

    A pretty good book considering I have already read of many of the thing he is talking about from some of the source material he uses. I like how he develops his idea of what Jesus was really teaching by giving historical details to how the cultures that Jesus grew up in sought out the spiritual experience. He does give a pretty convincing idea though I would like to read a few of the other books he has in his notes before being completely brought on board. The only thing I thought was funny was that the name of the book was the Jesus Papers and the story of that didn't even come about until the very end. If those documents would truly ever come to light, man what a chaos they would create. Further the additional dead sea scrolls he has come to know about I only hope that they will someday be brought to light, i.e. publication, within my lifetime.

  • Ashley
    2018-10-07 13:17

    It was an enjoyable read, providing an interesting perspective on the life of Jesus and the origins of Christianity. It reads like a giant thesis paper, chock full of information attempting to back up his claims. History is BASED on speculation, so I don't understand how others discount Baigent for only providing another interpretation. The historical aspect of the novel was extremely interesting, but his findings weren't exactly groundbreaking. I would recommend this book for fellow skeptics, as it does spur some thought-provoking questions and inspires further investigation. The writing felt a tad dry at times, but overall it was an interesting read. I look forward to reading other works by Baigent.

  • Jan McClelland
    2018-09-23 16:19

    This is the book that truly opened my eyes to just how much we don't know about the life of Jesus, and how much the Bible is a compilation of man-made control programming. God, and Jesus, are so much more than the "good book" allows. And a lot more interesting! This book started me on a quest to learn everything I could about the Knights Templar, the true life of Jesus and so many others things. We've been spoon fed drivel for centuries, all designed to keep us in line "God will get you for that." No, s/he won't. For God is all encompassing and all forgiving. God-fearing is a man-made (note: MAN!) control mechanism and nothing more. I could go on, but I'll stop here. :) If you want an education, you may want to start here.

  • Franz
    2018-09-23 12:06

    Written by a co-author of Holy Blood, Holy Grail, the controversial book on which Brown's The DaVinci Code is partly based, this book explores the origins of Christianity, including some discussion of the Dead Sea Scrolls. It seems his evidence is more circumstantial than solid, yet I learned much about the early days of the Inquisition--intitially formed to oversee the torture and massacre of the heretical Cathars in France--and disappearance of the Knights Templars. The last chapter or two petered out. The book reads like a journal of Baigent's explorations and discoveries in the convoluted and seedy corridors of the legal and illegal trading of ancient and medieval antiquities. Most of it is fascinating.

  • Lindsay
    2018-09-25 14:12

    Apart from being incredibly tedious, this book had other fatal flaws. The big "cover up" is the allegation that Jesus survived the crucifixion because corruption permitted His supporters to either switch someone else into His place or take Him down from the cross prior to His death.My problems with the book are legion: the only evidence of the ciritical "papers" are a second-hand account of them, with the allegation that the Vatican bought and destroyed them. The author says that the Gospels are factual when it supports his case, and propaganda when they don't, whichever is convenient.I did like the discussion of translation from the Greek - that has caused myriad problems over history.