Christ’s Existence Not Substantiated By Historical Evidence
By Ben Klassen, 1973
In the previous material it has been fairly well proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that christianity is a suicidal philosophy or teaching. If taken seriously enough by its followers it will destroy them, and if a whole race or nation takes it seriously enough and faithfully attempts to follow the teachings of the The Sermon on the Mount then that whole nation will destroy itself.
The great Roman nation, the finest civilization produced by the White Race in classical times, in the first few centuries A.D., did take christianity seriously, and it did destroy itself, never to rise again.
Where did christianity originate? If we read the jewish bible, the old testament and the new testament, we will not get the correct answers. The fact is christianity is, and was, a jewish creation, dreamed up, composed, and promoted by the hierarchy of the jewish race, undoubtedly, by the elders of the sanhedrin itself.
It is, in fact, an unholy teaching designed to unhinge and derange the White Gentile intellect and to cause him to abandon his real responsibilities of doing that for which Nature created him. It is an unnatural and completely perverted attitude towards the natural surroundings with which Nature has provided us.
Whereas the full impact of it completely destroyed the Roman Empire within less than two centuries after it became the adopted religion of Rome, it is today still an overriding influence hanging like a shadow over affairs and thinking of the White Race throughout the world. It is, therefore, important that we trace its origin, despite the fact that much evidence has been deliberately destroyed and many roadblocks have been placed in the way of objectively even considering the evidence that still survives.
Anyone recapturing his senses and looking at that evidence will find that its origin is much different from what our church fathers today would have us believe. However, let us take at face value what the church fathers and the “Holy” bible are teaching us today. The first page of the New Testament, Matthew 1, immediately makes it clear that jesus was a jew and it traces his genealogy all the way from Abraham through David through Joseph to Christ. At another place it gives the genealogy of Mary, and makes sure that we are fully aware that she, too, is a jew.
Here, immediately, the first major contradiction is revealed, glaringly revealed, that is, if jesus was the Son of God how could he also be the son of Joseph?
Anyway, be that as it may, we now look at the disciples of jesus and the apostles and we find that Matthew, who supposedly wrote the first book in the New Testament, was also called Levi, son of Altheus and was, as so many jews are, a tax collector in Capernaum. We find that the Apostle Mark, who wrote the second book of the New Testament, was also called John Mark, he son of Mary, in whose home in Jerusalem the early christians gathered and he was a cousin of Barnabas. We find that above all, Mark was also a jew. We now come to St. Luke, who was probably the only Gentile in the group of twelve. Historians regard him as a Gentile physician. However, he was under the complete dominance of Paul, who was a proselytizing jew, and Luke spent most of his life as a disciple traveling around in the company of Paul, the jew.
We now come to Apostle John whom we find is also a jew, along with his brothers Peter and James.
We now come to the Apostle Paul, who changed his name from the real name of Saul, born in Tarsus, of jewish parents, and a man who was reared strictly in the jewish tradition of the Pharisees of his time. Of the 27 books of the New Testament, it was Paul who is credited with writing 14 of them and credited with writing well over half of the New Testament itself.
And so it goes. Of the 12 disciples that christ supposedly had, all of them jews with the possible exception of Luke and as we noted he was completely under the influence of Paul. It is more than passing strange that, according to the New Testament itself, the writers, preachers, and apostles of this “New Teaching,” as well as the supposed founder himself, are all jews with very little exception. It is more than passing strange also that the jews themselves never accepted this highly suicidal teaching but were tremendously active in promoting and foisting it on the White Gentiles in general, and the great Roman nation in particular.
We do not doubt that these jewish characters were fanatically active in promoting the suicidal new teaching of christianity, nor do we doubt that they had not only hundreds but thousands of jewish helpers that were the “Hidden Hand” that promoted the spread of this teaching among the Romans and Gentiles in the Roman Empire. There is, however, serious doubt that such a character as jesus christ ever lived at all, and there is, however, overwhelming evidence to indicate he did not exist, but was a figment of the jewish imagination.
The beginning of the christian era found Rome near the height of her civilization. Her supremacy, in the then known world, was pretty much unchallenged and it was the beginning of a long period of peace. To be specific, Pax Romana (Roman Peace) lasted approximately 200 years beginning with the reign of Caesar Augustus. Rome was highly literate; there were many great writers, scholars, historians, sculptors and painters, not to mention other outstanding men of philosophy and learning.
Yet it is highly strange that despite the great commotion and fanfare that supposedly heralded the birth of christ and also his crucifixion (according to the bible), we find not a single historian nor a single writer of the era who found time to take note of it in their writings. Outside of the fabricated biblical writings, no Roman historian, no Roman writer, and no Roman play-writer, has left the slightest hint that he had the faintest awareness that this supposedly greatest of all greats was in their very midst and preaching what is claimed the greatest of all the new gospels.
Whereas Caesar left voluminous writings that are still extant today and can be studied by our high school boys and girls, christ himself, who had supposedly the greatest message to deliver to posterity that the world has ever known, left not the slightest scrap of paper on which he had written a single word. This, in fact, the biblical literature itself confirms and mentions only that once he did write in the sand.
Today we can still study Cicero’s great orations and writings. He has left over 800 letters behind that we can study to this day. We can study whole books of what Marcus Aurelius wrote, we can study what Aristotle wrote, what Plato wrote, and scores of others wrote that were contemporary with the first beginning of the christian era, or preceded it. But strangely there is not a word that is in writing that can be attributed to jesus christ himself.
Furthermore, the Greeks and the Romans of that era, and even previously and afterwards, had developed the art of sculpturing to a fine state. We can find busts of Cicero, of Caesar, Of Marcus Aurelius and innumerable other Greek and Roman dignitaries and lesser lights, but nor one seemed to think it important enough to sculpt a likeness of jesus christ. And the reason undoubtedly is that there was none to model at the time. There were undoubtedly numerous skilled artists and painters at that time, but again strangely enough none took the time or the interest to paint a likeness of this purportedly greatest of all teachers, who in fact was proclaimed the Son of God come to earth. But no painting was ever made of this man, who, we are told, gathered great multitudes around him and caused great consternation and fear even to King Herod of Judea himself.
Now all of this is very, very strange, when, if, as the bible claims, the birth of jesus christ was ushered in with great fanfare and great proclamations. Angels proclaimed his birth. An exceedingly bright star pointed to his place of birth. In Matt. 2:3, it says, “When Herod, the king, had heard of these things he was troubled and all Jerusalem with him.” We can hardly gather from this that no one was aware of the fact that the king of the jews, the great Messiah, was born, for we are told in the preceding verse that the Wise Men came to King Herod himself saying, “Where is he that is born king of the jews, for we have seen his star in the East and we are come to worship him.” Evidently the event was even lit up with a bright star from heaven.
In any case, King Herod, we are told in Matt. 3, was so worried that he sent the Wise Men to Bethlehem to search diligently for the young child to bring it to him so he undoubtedly could have him put to death. As the story further unfolds we learn that Joseph heard of this and quietly slipped out in the night taking with him his wife, the young child and a donkey and departed for Egypt. When Herod found out that he had been tricked it says that he “was exceedingly wroth and sent forth and slew all children that were in Bethlehem, and in all the coasts thereof, from two years old and under.”
Now this is a tremendously drastic act for a King to take, that is, to have murdered all the children in the land that were under two years of age. Again we can hardly say that the birth of jesus was unheralded, unannounced and unobserved, according to the story in the bible. However, it is very, very strange that this act of Herod, as drastic and criminally harsh as it is, is nowhere else recorded in the histories or writings of any of the other numerous writers of the times. All we have is the claims of those people who wrote the New Testament. In fact, whoever wrote the New Testament invented so many claims that are inconsistent with the facts that they even made a rather glaring error by pulling King Herod into the story. History tells us that in the year 1 A.D., when Christ was supposedly born, Herod had already been dead for four years. He could hardly have been disturbed or very wroth about the birth of anybody in the year 1 A.D.
There is further great evidence that Matthew, Mark, Luke and John never wrote any of those chapters that are supposedly attributed to them. What historical evidence can be dug up reveals that they were written much later, not at the time that jesus supposedly said all those things, but somewhere around 30 to 50 years later by a person or persons unknown. Furthermore, when we compare the first four books of the gospel with each other, which supposedly tell more or less the same story, we find that they contradict each other in so many details that one need only read them for himself to pick them out. I neither have the time, the space, nor the inclination to go into all these contradictions. They are too numerous.
I do not contend that it really makes a great deal of difference whether there ever was a jewish character by the name of jesus christ that led to the creation of a new religion to be foisted on the White Race for their destruction. The point is that, in any case, it was the jews collectively who created and promoted this new teaching upon the White Race and it did destroy the Roman civilization.
Not a single trace of the jesus christ personage can be found in authentic history. Nevertheless, this newly fabricated hoax of jesus christ, the son of god this idea, with all its suicidal doctrines, was soon to pull down in ruins the great Roman Empire and the great White civilization that went with it.
Never again did the White Race shake off the control of the jews. Never again did the White Man regain control of his own thinking, of his own religion, his own finances, nor his own government. Unto this day the White Race has not regained control of its own destiny.
By Ben Klassen, 1973
In the previous material it has been fairly well proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that christianity is a suicidal philosophy or teaching. If taken seriously enough by its followers it will destroy them, and if a whole race or nation takes it seriously enough and faithfully attempts to follow the teachings of the The Sermon on the Mount then that whole nation will destroy itself.
The great Roman nation, the finest civilization produced by the White Race in classical times, in the first few centuries A.D., did take christianity seriously, and it did destroy itself, never to rise again.
Where did christianity originate? If we read the jewish bible, the old testament and the new testament, we will not get the correct answers. The fact is christianity is, and was, a jewish creation, dreamed up, composed, and promoted by the hierarchy of the jewish race, undoubtedly, by the elders of the sanhedrin itself.
It is, in fact, an unholy teaching designed to unhinge and derange the White Gentile intellect and to cause him to abandon his real responsibilities of doing that for which Nature created him. It is an unnatural and completely perverted attitude towards the natural surroundings with which Nature has provided us.
Whereas the full impact of it completely destroyed the Roman Empire within less than two centuries after it became the adopted religion of Rome, it is today still an overriding influence hanging like a shadow over affairs and thinking of the White Race throughout the world. It is, therefore, important that we trace its origin, despite the fact that much evidence has been deliberately destroyed and many roadblocks have been placed in the way of objectively even considering the evidence that still survives.
Anyone recapturing his senses and looking at that evidence will find that its origin is much different from what our church fathers today would have us believe. However, let us take at face value what the church fathers and the “Holy” bible are teaching us today. The first page of the New Testament, Matthew 1, immediately makes it clear that jesus was a jew and it traces his genealogy all the way from Abraham through David through Joseph to Christ. At another place it gives the genealogy of Mary, and makes sure that we are fully aware that she, too, is a jew.
Here, immediately, the first major contradiction is revealed, glaringly revealed, that is, if jesus was the Son of God how could he also be the son of Joseph?
Anyway, be that as it may, we now look at the disciples of jesus and the apostles and we find that Matthew, who supposedly wrote the first book in the New Testament, was also called Levi, son of Altheus and was, as so many jews are, a tax collector in Capernaum. We find that the Apostle Mark, who wrote the second book of the New Testament, was also called John Mark, he son of Mary, in whose home in Jerusalem the early christians gathered and he was a cousin of Barnabas. We find that above all, Mark was also a jew. We now come to St. Luke, who was probably the only Gentile in the group of twelve. Historians regard him as a Gentile physician. However, he was under the complete dominance of Paul, who was a proselytizing jew, and Luke spent most of his life as a disciple traveling around in the company of Paul, the jew.
We now come to Apostle John whom we find is also a jew, along with his brothers Peter and James.
We now come to the Apostle Paul, who changed his name from the real name of Saul, born in Tarsus, of jewish parents, and a man who was reared strictly in the jewish tradition of the Pharisees of his time. Of the 27 books of the New Testament, it was Paul who is credited with writing 14 of them and credited with writing well over half of the New Testament itself.
And so it goes. Of the 12 disciples that christ supposedly had, all of them jews with the possible exception of Luke and as we noted he was completely under the influence of Paul. It is more than passing strange that, according to the New Testament itself, the writers, preachers, and apostles of this “New Teaching,” as well as the supposed founder himself, are all jews with very little exception. It is more than passing strange also that the jews themselves never accepted this highly suicidal teaching but were tremendously active in promoting and foisting it on the White Gentiles in general, and the great Roman nation in particular.
We do not doubt that these jewish characters were fanatically active in promoting the suicidal new teaching of christianity, nor do we doubt that they had not only hundreds but thousands of jewish helpers that were the “Hidden Hand” that promoted the spread of this teaching among the Romans and Gentiles in the Roman Empire. There is, however, serious doubt that such a character as jesus christ ever lived at all, and there is, however, overwhelming evidence to indicate he did not exist, but was a figment of the jewish imagination.
The beginning of the christian era found Rome near the height of her civilization. Her supremacy, in the then known world, was pretty much unchallenged and it was the beginning of a long period of peace. To be specific, Pax Romana (Roman Peace) lasted approximately 200 years beginning with the reign of Caesar Augustus. Rome was highly literate; there were many great writers, scholars, historians, sculptors and painters, not to mention other outstanding men of philosophy and learning.
Yet it is highly strange that despite the great commotion and fanfare that supposedly heralded the birth of christ and also his crucifixion (according to the bible), we find not a single historian nor a single writer of the era who found time to take note of it in their writings. Outside of the fabricated biblical writings, no Roman historian, no Roman writer, and no Roman play-writer, has left the slightest hint that he had the faintest awareness that this supposedly greatest of all greats was in their very midst and preaching what is claimed the greatest of all the new gospels.
Whereas Caesar left voluminous writings that are still extant today and can be studied by our high school boys and girls, christ himself, who had supposedly the greatest message to deliver to posterity that the world has ever known, left not the slightest scrap of paper on which he had written a single word. This, in fact, the biblical literature itself confirms and mentions only that once he did write in the sand.
Today we can still study Cicero’s great orations and writings. He has left over 800 letters behind that we can study to this day. We can study whole books of what Marcus Aurelius wrote, we can study what Aristotle wrote, what Plato wrote, and scores of others wrote that were contemporary with the first beginning of the christian era, or preceded it. But strangely there is not a word that is in writing that can be attributed to jesus christ himself.
Furthermore, the Greeks and the Romans of that era, and even previously and afterwards, had developed the art of sculpturing to a fine state. We can find busts of Cicero, of Caesar, Of Marcus Aurelius and innumerable other Greek and Roman dignitaries and lesser lights, but nor one seemed to think it important enough to sculpt a likeness of jesus christ. And the reason undoubtedly is that there was none to model at the time. There were undoubtedly numerous skilled artists and painters at that time, but again strangely enough none took the time or the interest to paint a likeness of this purportedly greatest of all teachers, who in fact was proclaimed the Son of God come to earth. But no painting was ever made of this man, who, we are told, gathered great multitudes around him and caused great consternation and fear even to King Herod of Judea himself.
Now all of this is very, very strange, when, if, as the bible claims, the birth of jesus christ was ushered in with great fanfare and great proclamations. Angels proclaimed his birth. An exceedingly bright star pointed to his place of birth. In Matt. 2:3, it says, “When Herod, the king, had heard of these things he was troubled and all Jerusalem with him.” We can hardly gather from this that no one was aware of the fact that the king of the jews, the great Messiah, was born, for we are told in the preceding verse that the Wise Men came to King Herod himself saying, “Where is he that is born king of the jews, for we have seen his star in the East and we are come to worship him.” Evidently the event was even lit up with a bright star from heaven.
In any case, King Herod, we are told in Matt. 3, was so worried that he sent the Wise Men to Bethlehem to search diligently for the young child to bring it to him so he undoubtedly could have him put to death. As the story further unfolds we learn that Joseph heard of this and quietly slipped out in the night taking with him his wife, the young child and a donkey and departed for Egypt. When Herod found out that he had been tricked it says that he “was exceedingly wroth and sent forth and slew all children that were in Bethlehem, and in all the coasts thereof, from two years old and under.”
Now this is a tremendously drastic act for a King to take, that is, to have murdered all the children in the land that were under two years of age. Again we can hardly say that the birth of jesus was unheralded, unannounced and unobserved, according to the story in the bible. However, it is very, very strange that this act of Herod, as drastic and criminally harsh as it is, is nowhere else recorded in the histories or writings of any of the other numerous writers of the times. All we have is the claims of those people who wrote the New Testament. In fact, whoever wrote the New Testament invented so many claims that are inconsistent with the facts that they even made a rather glaring error by pulling King Herod into the story. History tells us that in the year 1 A.D., when Christ was supposedly born, Herod had already been dead for four years. He could hardly have been disturbed or very wroth about the birth of anybody in the year 1 A.D.
There is further great evidence that Matthew, Mark, Luke and John never wrote any of those chapters that are supposedly attributed to them. What historical evidence can be dug up reveals that they were written much later, not at the time that jesus supposedly said all those things, but somewhere around 30 to 50 years later by a person or persons unknown. Furthermore, when we compare the first four books of the gospel with each other, which supposedly tell more or less the same story, we find that they contradict each other in so many details that one need only read them for himself to pick them out. I neither have the time, the space, nor the inclination to go into all these contradictions. They are too numerous.
I do not contend that it really makes a great deal of difference whether there ever was a jewish character by the name of jesus christ that led to the creation of a new religion to be foisted on the White Race for their destruction. The point is that, in any case, it was the jews collectively who created and promoted this new teaching upon the White Race and it did destroy the Roman civilization.
Not a single trace of the jesus christ personage can be found in authentic history. Nevertheless, this newly fabricated hoax of jesus christ, the son of god this idea, with all its suicidal doctrines, was soon to pull down in ruins the great Roman Empire and the great White civilization that went with it.
Never again did the White Race shake off the control of the jews. Never again did the White Man regain control of his own thinking, of his own religion, his own finances, nor his own government. Unto this day the White Race has not regained control of its own destiny.