example, we must believe that Mary conceived Jesus immaculately, the Spirit of God descended like a dove and alighted on the Lord, and a voice came out of heaven, a gleaming white angel appeared at the tomb, Jesus actually did the deeds and spoke the words which were posthumously put into his mouth. Anyone who does not believe the texts literally, anyone who knows how 'God's word' originated, cannot accept the accounts as reality. Anyone who tries to deduce an 'astronaut Jesus' from the Gospels is committing the same error as judges who form and pronounce a verdict of guilty on the basis of forged documents. (As far as the Soviet citizen Saitsev is concerned, 'belief is a contradicto in adjecto!)
2) What is the astronaut Jesus supposed to have done on earth? To have brought a religion, Christian or moral precepts? He introduced nothing new. From a comparison of the gospels and the Qumran scrolls we know that the core of Jesus' teaching stems from the Essene community. His other contributions made no advance. It was not necessary to send out the cosmonaut Jesus in order to threaten men with punishment, to spread panic, to make hell the terminus for non-believers!
3) Interstellar space travellers would have operated according to a precise programme, but the helpers from the spaceship came too late to save their top man from death. If the astronaut Jesus had been able to count on the help of his brothers in the cosmos at the right moment (which he must have known about), he would not have spent his whole life speaking of his unavoidable death. If we imagine that space-travellers would have left their important special messenger in the lurch, we are really underestimating extraterrestrial beings.
4) Even if the resurrection were adduced as a proof, it would be absurd. Nevertheless, let us assume that the extraterrestrial visitors had succeeded in revivifying Jesus' corpse with their special advanced medical skills (blood banks, transplants etc.). Would they have missed the chance of a public demonstration of their powers over death itself? Only a few people, and they doubted, knew about the miracle of the resurrection. Would not extraterrestrial visitors who had achieved such a feat have taken Jesus straight back to Jerusalem to show him and let him preach there? Their impressive achievement would have remained unknown without a demonstration of their superior abilities. Besides, according to the apostles, the medical reawakening had no consequence. The disciples remained behind in confusion; they did not dare to appear in public.
5) Extraterrestrial intelligences who had mastered space-flight over interstellar distances would not have been so stupid as to visit only one point on the earth in order to introduce one local religious mission. So that they could be more effectively active, they would have made for various geographical locations, which would have meant a little extra effort, but would have been the only possible way to carry out the major operation of founding a religion. Spaceship landings, observations of spaceships, UFOs or similar oddities have not been registered in the history books during Jesus' lifetime, either in Jewish territory or other countries. All the fantastic sightings by religious fanatics of Jesus after his death - Jesus in India, Jesus in Central America - are to be dismissed as fancies, for these 'founders of religions' once again refer to the frequently falsified gospel texts, which first turned Jesus into the 'Son of God' and the 'Redeemer'. He was neither.
6) If the astronaut Jesus, who was on a much higher intellectual plane than the people of Judaea, had wanted to refer to the future, he would have had to conceal words and formulas in the parables that were to be handed down, formulas and codes which distant generations would understand. And should understand! 'Listen, ye sons and daughters,' he might have said, 'when the time is ripe and your scholars know how to split the smallest particle of matter, the Son of God will appear from the clouds.'
Even scholars will not dispute that planning extraterrestrial visitors would have endowed an astronaut Jesus with knowledge of the future development of intelligence of our planet. If there were just one formula, only a short one like Einstein's E=mc 2 , in the gospels. I would be on Saitsev's side.
7) If extraterrestrial beings had really sent their man Jesus to Jerusalem to spread religious doctrines with the help of advanced technical aids they would have kept the development area under control. But obviously there was no control over Jesus' doctrine. Christianity grew out of Paul's embroideries and soon took on a ghastly inhuman form.
The Romans, as we can chillingly read in the history books, were not the only ones to persecute the Christians. Very soon it was the merciful Christians themselves who slaughtered all non-Christians and deviators from the one true faith. There is no saint's list of non-Christian martyrs, there would be far too many.
No, we must forget all about the story of the astronaut Jesus; he did not exist, just as Jesus the Redeemer never existed.
I should like to make clear four points about the figure of Jesus as presented by the Church: a) Jesus was not the 'only begotten Son of God,' for Almighty God, the 'creator of heaven and earth', has neither sons nor daughters.
b) Jesus cannot have fulfilled the function of a 'Saviour', because the concept of 'original sin', which can only be 'wiped out' by blood and martyrdom, is irreconcilable with the concept of an almighty and eternal God.
c) The deeds, sermons and teachings of Jesus in so far as they have been handed down correctly, are not divinely inspired; they existed long before the time when Jesus is supposed to have lived.
d) Jesus was - to mention the most recent explanation - no astronaut. The idea is even more absurd than all the other things that have been claimed in the course of the last 2,000 years.
Jesus and the Christianity initiated by this presence on earth are not of divine origin, just as the Bible does not contain 'God's word' Without this basis, visions cannot be attributed to God the Father, or God the Son or me Blessed Virgin Mary.
Their motivation must be sought elsewhere.
Chapter Three - When Miracles Do Happen
IF Jesus is not the 'only begotten son of God': if Almighty God had neither sons nor daughters: if Mary cannot belong to the heavenly personnel, and angels or archangels cannot be numbered among the legates of the enlarged Christian family, then all these sacred messengers are excluded as active causers of visions. However, the fact remains that miracles happen and medically inexplicable cures take place at the sites of Christian visions. Does this mean that nevertheless such phenomena are proof of 'heavenly powers' at work and evidence of the 'authenticity' of visions of members of the Christian Hierarchy?
After studying a mass of sophistical theological explanations, one question takes precedence for me. If no genuine apparition has taken place at what is supposedly the scene of a vision - i.e. of the Blessed Virgin, Jesus or the archangels - or if the personified vision is not identical with the figures placed on record by the 'visionaries', how can 'miracles' and 'miraculous' cures happen in the name of those who are supposed to have appeared?
I sought clarification on the spot.
Lourdes, in the French Pyrenees, is the world's best known place of pilgrimage. As many as five million pilgrims travel their annually from the four corners of the world. The town is rather like a vast annual fair at which miracles are offered as attractions. The streets of Lourdes seethe with people even at night, although the night-life offers nothing more than a striptease of tense expectations.
The miracle business is flourishing; it has been booming for 125 years. In the countless shops there are crucifixes of every conceivable kind and the statue of the Madonna is mass-produced in all sizes, for the office and the front garden. Nor are the rosaries the same for all classes: there are expensive models for the rich and cheaper ones for the less well-off. Which are likely to be more effective is beyond me.
The objects on offer are fanciful and endless: pictures of the saints and clogs, purses, bells and plates, sunglasses, watches and lockets, candles of all kinds: thick and thin, long and short, violet and pink, straight and artistically twisted and adorned with gold writing. On every single one of them - made in Lourdes - the Madonna! Her face on the candles will flow away as wax tears; it is more permanent on the clogs and plates.
I know a lot of bars all over the world, including the ones in Acapulco which claim to have every conceivable shape and size of bottle on their shelves. But in my opinion no establishment can compete with Lourdes when it comes to shapes. I have never seen such a collection of differently shaped bottles in my life. Pot-bellied and
