By believing in the literal truth of the Gospels Christians worldwide are simultaneously accepting the subtext of the Gospels that relates to drugs, as found embedded within them (this also happens to be embedded within the Jewish Torah).

The Sacrament existed during the First Century within Christianity but there was no evidence of a historical Christ until the mid-Second Century. The historical Christ was invented as a result of Judaism rejecting Christianity – and in turn Christianity, that was originally anti-Roman Occupation, turned to the Roman Occupiers in revenge for being rejected by Judaism. This explains why the Vatican is geographically located in Rome and not in Jerusalem. As we all know, it wasn't Pontius Pilate who crucified Jesus but rather the Jewish Rabbis.

It must be concluded that there is a conspiracy of silence among the Theologians, the Historians of Christianity and all other kindred bodies relating to Christianity just for the sake of the upkeep of accepted tradition, because it really is impossible that such bodies have failed to grasp the historical context of the nascent development of Christianity. It just cannot be possible for scholars to have been so blind.

Jesus Christ was born in Bethlehem because that is where King David was born and that is marked by the Davidic Genealogies found in two of the Gospels. This is all pure fantasy and nonsense because it can easily be ascertained that the last King of Judea of the Line of David was King Zedekiah, when Babylon occupied Judea in 586 BC. The Line of David was not restored in Judea following the liberation of Judea by King Cyrus the Great of Persia in 538 BC because there was nobody from that Line to accept the Throne. When the Jewish Monarchy was restored in Judea it was by the Maccabees/Hasmoneans, who claimed to be of the Tribe of Levi. We should all be taught this at school and it would have saved the likes of Michael Baigent from a lot of embarrassment! Is this further proof of a conspiracy of silence?

Today is Christmas Day and we witnessed the embarrassing nativity stories that are a combination of what is written in both Matthew and Luke. However, Jesus Christ could only have been born according to one – or none – of those Gospels. Not both. That would have been historically impossible because Herod and Quirinius lived during different periods in history. More basic facts not taught in school?

The recent outrage by Christians in Syria over the burning of a Christmas Tree is unusual, since this is a recent tradition that originated in Germany during the 16th century and was introduced into England by Prince Albert, the husband of the Constitutional Monarch, Queen Victoria.

If the Gospels really date from the first century then why do they contain topographical as well as historical mistakes that nobody from the First Century would ever have made? For example, is Golgotha ever mentioned outside of the Gospels?

We only know about Golgotha from the Gospels as the place where Jesus Christ was crucified (Matthew 27:33, Mark 15:22, Luke 23:33, and John 19:17). The word “Golgotha” is usually translated as “Place of the Skull” – impossible to locate geographically outside the Gospels but happens to be an apt allusion to drugs.

The inevitable question arises: Just exactly what are we missing by excluding Christianity from our lives – except the fantasy story of a God Man which, unlike any other Religion, is not based on the Family Unit (for example, in total opposition to Judaism).