The idea is that Jesus was a hereditary monarch and that the church founded by Constantine was an attempt to destroy his heirs and the people who believed in his movement. Parts are interesting, such as when he talks about the translation of the bible, and how certain words are mistranslated, or ignored. Like in the bible, it says that Jesus has brothers and sisters. So how can he have brothers and sisters if his mother is an eternal virgin? Also the idea that Jesus and John the Baptist came out of the Essene movement. It does make sense, and I have heard this argument before. Jewish religious life was split into a few main groups at that time. The Pharasees, the Sadduccees, the Zealots, and the Essenes. The bible never mentions the Essenes. But after this point the author goes off into wacky land. He starts to interpret the bible in a way where he claims to know what Jesus was doing on practically every day of the week. I'm exaggerating, but he does claim to know more about him than is possible to know about someone who lived 2000 years ago. What I wonder, is, what is the appeal of Jesus being a king like any other? It does seem to resonate with some people. I think the tradition idea of Jesus is much more emotionally rich. I am not saying that I agree with it, but I realize how people could get comfort from it. Another thing that I wonder about. Why there hasn't been a second Christian reformation on the basis of the Christian literature that was left out of the Bible. Protestants rebelled because they turned to the Bible for inspiration. But they didn't know that the bible was a piece of political propaganda, and that many other opinions were left out. You would think that now that people know this, they would re-examine their faith. I guess too many people have an emotional commitment to those words on those pages in that form.