[DRAFT]

FINTRODUCTION TO SECOND RESPONSE to:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/225717450/Revised-Christian-Confusion-Virgin-Psychosis

Erik G. states, antithetical to everything we know about Christian history. This
is the exact reason for the title of this inquiry Christian Confusion: Virgin Psychosis.
What is generally understood about the New Testament is based off of Christian tradition.
This tradition does not apply consistency in its application of logic of what they claim is
true. This slight of hand in logic is generally not understood by most: as they do not know
they are doing it as the other does not know its being done to them. It was my intent to
expose these assessment inequalities of believers in Jesus as a man-god savior with
historical accounts. The Bible has traditionally dated the books of the NT by the
narration; hence, the New Testaments organizational placement of texts without any
actual dating methods. These traditions are attributed to the unscrupulous Hellenistic
church fathers. Majority of scholars have agreed that many of these texts were not written
as prescribed by Christian tradition. Irregardless of any bracketing qualifiers for all texts,
Jesus believers continue to use these nonacademic methods to validate their faith.
Erik stated that my position was true because Richard Carrier and Joseph Atwill
think so. After using this ad homonym argument, he leaps to the conclusion that, Jesus
definitely existed, and not only that, he died as atonement for us as Isaiah 53:4, 10-11
prophesied. It is clear that there are no parameters to measure the explanation power of
proof texts in his conclusions. Rather than prioritizing evidence, he leaps to conclusions
based off of foreshadowing imagery. He refutes hypothesis that there were worshipers
of Serapis Christ prior to Jesus Christ, are similarities, and an influential relations
between the two by ignoring documented sources like the book of Maccabees and the
Encyclopedia Britannica, and his very own beloved NIV.
I am sure everyone would agree with this following statement: If we want all
our beliefs to be more likely true than false, then we must proportion our beliefs to the
evidence. So if our reasons to believe are few and unreliable, our confidence should be
low, and if our reasons to believe are many and reliable, our confidence should be high,
with an appropriate continuum between. That means if we have no reason to believe
something, then we should not believe it, and if we have much better reasons to believe
something than we have not to, then we should believe it [Carrier debate vs. Wanchick
2006]. Yes, I agree with Richard Carriers logical approach, but I do not deny the
supernatural elements of our experience.
I continue to agree with this understanding. A fellow freethinker by the name of
John Ransom engaged me to compose a statement of why I am not a Christian. I should
summarize my case, he said, simply and clearly so everyone can understand where I'm
coming from. John was especially frustrated by Christians who routinely come up with
implausible excuses to defend their faith, which they don't really examine--as if
defending the faith with any excuse mattered more than having a genuinely good reason
to believe in the first place. Discussing our experiences, we realized we'd both
encountered many Christians like this, who color their entire perception of reality with
the assumption that they have to be right, and therefore the evidence must somehow
fit. So they think they can make anything up on the spur of the moment and be "sure" it's
true. This is the exact opposite of what we do. We start with the evidence and then figure
out what the best explanation of it all really is, regardless of where this quest for truth
takes us [Carrier, Richard. Why I am not a Christian. 2006]. I agree that G-d gave us a
brain, so we should use it. This was reason for part of the title of the paper, which plays
on the mental acrobatics applied to maintain a theological beliefin a nut shellbased
on manipulated conflicting theological, doctrinal and historical texts.
The purpose is to explore Christianity's hybridization during the Hellenistic
Period through the examination of trends prior to Jesus. The spark for this inquiry is from
personal observations of contradictions within Christian rearing conflicting with my
studies: from pagan forged and conflicting interpolation of texts to forged controversial
secular texts to validate the historicity of Jesus. This focus used accredited sources as a
scope to view the interaction between traditional Jewish texts and understanding with
other texts and religions. I acknowledge many amalgamations make up the character of
Jesus; therefore, this inquiry broadly (but not exhaustively) exhibits evidence of the birth
of Christianity and if there is a a significant connection between Serapis Christ and Jesus
Christ.
This connection is carefully traced and well documented in a linear fashion. The
counter argument by Erik chaotically weaves a Picasso of a tapestry that displays Jesus
believers wavering of logic to prove himself correct. First lets answer the question:
What qualifies as good evidence? In order of quality good evidence is:
1) Contemporary evidence: Evidence that dates to the time the person or event
actually happened.
2) Derivative evidence: Evidence that is known to use contemporary record-
evidence that has since been lost.
3) Comparative evidence: Evidence that gives details that can be checked against
known factors of the time.
A good rule of thumb here is that history records the unusual, the special, and the
important; and the amount history records is generally directly proportional to
when these factors achieve a critical mass. If a person is said to be important and
popular during their lifetime then it is reasonable to expect contemporary
evidence, or at the least derivative evidence, documenting this.
In addition there are the various criteria of the Historical Method:
1) Source criticism
2) Procedures for contradictory sources
3) Core principles for determining reliability
4) Eyewitness evidence
5) Indirect witnesses and Oral tradition
6) Argument to the best explanation aka Occam's Razor
* In EVERY case the evidence presented for Jesus by apologists fails of these
criteria with Eyewitness evidence criteria being the most abused or ignored.

The following is a blueprint example of how people will hold onto a belief event
though it is not logical. This is justified by forcing pieces together that do not fit by
engineering creative resolutions. Is easy to fall into these romantic, fantasy filled, and
inspirational influential texts. They are seductive to the most powerful human quality
hope!
I would like to note that there were many Jesus that existed as described by
Josephus but the one in the Gospels is a refined works of literature that compiled many
attributes of other men into this fictional character/character.

Erik states, Im applying unequal weights and measures. Examples
needed, and I'll be more than happy to answer.
! D=> Knowing that there is no original documentation to support
the historicity of Jesus, he deflects this request. However, he does
state that Josephus as a credible source and acknowledges its
controversy but continues to use it as proof text to validate the
historicity of Jesus. He continues to ignore the facts that surround
this text that is well documented in credible sources like Britannica
and other scholars. Consider another piece of evidence:
"In the edition of Origen published by the Benedictines it is
said that there was no mention of Jesus at all in Josephus
before the time of Eusebius [c. 300 ce]. Moreover, in the
sixteenth century Vossius had a manuscript of the text of
Josephus in which there was not a word about Jesus. It
seems, therefore, that the passage must have been an
interpolation, whether it was subsequently modified or
not." (Drews, 9; emph. added)
Additionally, Josephus does not qualify as a witness to
Jesus as he does not reveal his source of his accounts
because he was not aware of jc himself.
Even if we do not have originals, again, logic shall prevail
as it is through the scope of qualifiers to determine its
legitimacy. See responses below for further evidence and
details that Josephus has no explanation power of the
historicity of Jesus.
! Erik later states, When you take the time to not only <i> trace
down their sources</i> but the <i> dates</i> thereof, you might
end up a bit disappointed.
D=> Throughout his response he fails to apply the same
brackets to qualify proof texts but requires that I must, but
he allows for different measures to be applied for theology
purposes when referencing biblical passages. He has the
opportunity to trace the cited references to analyze their
studies.
o He stated, Right. It MUST be one of those two
choices because they make more sense than
believing heaven forbid that he actually existed
(like virtually every bonafide historian and scholar
knows even enemies of the Bible like Ehrman).
No, it's more like it must be one of those two
possibilities because Richard Carrier and Joseph
Atwill think so. Jesus definitely existed, and not
only that, he died an atonement for us as Isaiah
53:4, 10-11 prophesied. The Talmud also carries
traditions of him -- (Long live the Talmud
indeed).
o This logic is fraud because everyone believes in
something then its true. This is why it is important
to look at the facts to make informed decisions upon
placing ones faith. It is academically logical to
disagree with the consensus unless one was present
or there is substantial amount of historical evidence
and analysis that proves contrarily. It is
academically and intellectually dishonest that to
eradicate the hypothesis that there is possible not a
historical Jesus.
! Is. 53:4 Surely he hath borne our griefs, and carried our sorrows;
yet we did esteem him stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted.
o It is illogical that the aforementioned passage solely
pertain to Jesus based on Christian tradition and to
not include the possibilities. Secondly, to not
consider the Hellenistic influence upon the
interpolation of these texts.
A. G-d refers to Israel as a nation state.
B. G-d referring to a righteous servant like the
slaughtered prophets.
C. A union B
o Good people suffer for others actions/sins. G-d is
telling His people; because of the sins of the people
and leaders A and B will suffer. Therefore, you are
justifying many that die because of the wicked and
by those that take up the cause. It pleases G-d on an
individualistic level because people are turning
towards righteousness and trying to influence others
to do the same. These are His loyal servants. To rule
out these out as possibility is a mistake.
o There are other non-Hellenistic understandings I
could go into, but I refuse to do so at this point as it
is not fruitful use of time because it has not been
firmly established that there was a historical Jesus.
Once this is proven then I will got further in
clarifying the meaning of these passages.
After further review of the principals applied, it becomes apparent that equal
measures are not being applied to all texts. Thus, delineating time from more important
items on my list, because he ignores the most logical line of thought and justifies
evidence with what he believes as it fits to his advantage of understanding. He would
hold the Gospels in higher regard than highly qualified texts from the criteria given.
These anachronistic Gospels are not historical documents, but are fables that provide
verisimilitude through the method euhemerization. Additionally, his responses are
without reading the paper in its entirety in which his points of contention have already
been addressed or by tracing down the sources submitted. With this said, I did analyze
further for clarity and referred much of my responses to the essay: Christian Confusion:
Virgin Psychosis. Below is the dialogue between us. We both have responded to each
other twice.
This dialogue attests to the fact that Faith is what you make it, regardless of
how unfounded it is.

DIALOUGE: Erik (E) and Dustin (D)

E=> The point of the paper seemed to drive more than anything that Serapis was a
prototype of Jesus rather than discussing the VB (which you did touch on for a second).
But that doesn't really matter anyway. Where to begin ... ?
D=>He was one of the amalgamations that went into Christianity. I used it as a
springboard to examine ALL the other inclusions in conjunction with the trends.
I know right! ITs amazing, a miracle the connections with the other gods
Romulus, Zalmoxis, and Horus. Again, Serapis story mirrors that of jc. As stated
in the paper, Clarification is needed because not all attributes come from other
gods are attributes of Jesus during this period of time, but there are too many
similarities that cannot be ignored.

E=> essentially the parallels between Jesus and Serapis are just about as convincing as
the parallels between him and Osiris.
I know right! ITs amazing, a miracle the connections with the other gods Romulus,
Zalmoxis, and Horus. Again, Serapis story mirrors that of jc. As stated in the paper,
Clarification is needed because not all attributes come from other gods are attributes
of Jesus during this period of time, but there are too many similarities that cannot be
ignored.
o I am waiting to see these similarities. Perhaps you can boil them down to
some bullet points for me that have actual original sources to back them
up. For instance, your article says Christ and Serapis are both called The
Good Shepherd; can you demonstrate from original sources where
Serapis is called such? Ill do half of the work for you: The Gospel of John
10:11 (an original source) states I am the Good Shepherd . Now what
original ancient source that speaks of Serapis as The Good Shepherd do
you have? Do you have original ancient sources for any of the other
parallels as well?
! D=> Yeah, and Ill learn the ancient language and write a 40 page
paper on it too. Well, anything must be possible, as the John makes
clear with his schizotypal abilities which allowed him to look into
time to see events have and will occure, for this book is dated by
scholars as in early first century.
! The fact that archeologists discovered numerous temples and
statues that predates the first century like Moscophoros
(!"#!$%&!' "calf-bearer" (c. 560 BC)) and the is a clear example
of this concept prior to jc. These are valid texts.
! Other than the obvious Psalms and King David as a good shepherd,
Ill list other resources and reasoning below.
! Here is a compilation of Egyptian records that indicate the pharaoh
as a good shepherd This term is not only used in Christianity,
but is common amongst the rulers of the era. ... the good shepherd,
vigilant for all people, whom the maker thereof has placed under
his authority... J.H. Breasted, Ancient Records of Egypt, Part Two,
900
! About Serapis worship and sacrifice: Again, the Separpeum in
alexandreia and other locations like Hedrians villa were unearthed
depicting the worship of the Serapis of Ptolomy Dynasty. These
statues and inscriptions are worthy texts that cannot be dismissed.
Study the antiquities of Serapis. A complete dictionary of the
Greek and roman antiquities defined in the British museum
! INTERESTINu FACT AB00T TBE CR0SS 0F XTIANS: the meie
fact that the cioss is ielateu to the uying anu iesuiiection of
the sun. The cioss was also associateu with Seiapis is cleai
inuication of the ueath anu iesuiiection theology of this pagan
gou.
Also that both Sociates anu Sozomen tell us that when
the temple of the Sun-uou Seiapis at Alexanuiia was
pulleu uown, the symbol of the Chiist was uiscoveieu
upon its founuations anu the Chiistians maue many
conveits in consequence a somewhat significant
statement. Sozomen, BE 2.1. Salminius Beimais
Sozomenus liveu 4uu-4Su CE.
They built a chuich on top of the olu Seiapis temple
It was after this significant event for both pagans and xtians
did the cross become glorified. Socrates of Constantinoble,
HE 5.17 (399 BCE)
! Show, who speaks thus, declared it to be the same with the "
Ineffable image of Eternity " mentioned by Suidas. ... gigantic
emerald or glass statue of Serapis, which was transported, B.C.
293, by order of Ptolemy Soter ...
! Minor examples: Cassius Dios state that Quintus Caecilius
Metellus Pius (c. 1 B.C.) was involved with the building of
separpeum of two Egyptian gods within a Region III of Rome.
[Cassius Dio. Historia Romana, XLVII, 15:4.]
! Campus Martius was a temple of Isis and Serapis [Cassius Dio.
Historia Romana, XLVII, 15:4.]. This indicates that there were
such a concept that worshipers adhered to prior to jc as a
Hellenistic cult.
! Hadrians Villa in Tivoli which had a theatre and a burial chamber
where archeologist think the passion plays took place, similar to jc
stuff.
! Serapis Bey has been identified by Theosophists and those
adherent to the Ascended Master Teachings with the god Serapis
who was the syncretic Hellenistic/Egyptian god created by King
Ptolemy I to be the deity of his capital city of Alexandria. Serapis
was the patron deity of the Library of Alexandria, in Egypt... He
was called the "Good Shepherd" He was considered a healer.
Christianity adapted the Serapian practices of using lights, bells,
vestments, processions, music, etc. Serapis was a sacrificial bull,
as Christ was a sacrificial lamb Serapis was annually sacrificed for
the sins of Egypt... (The Emerald Tablets of Thoth the
ATLANTEAN)
! On a monument of the 19th Dynasty, Apis is said to be "the
renewed life of Ptah," And in an inscription of the 25th Dynasty he
is called the "second Ptah." In the same text we have a mention of
the "temple of Asar-Hapi," i.e., of SERAPIS, and we may learn
from this fact that Apis had finally made a god of the Underworld,
and that his identity had been merged in that of Osiris... [Serapis
development continued to the image of Ptolemy].
! According to Plutarch, Ptolemy stole the statue from Sinope,
having been instructed in a dream by the unknown god, to bring
the statue to Alexandria, where the statue was pronounced to be
Serapis by two religious experts. One of the experts was one of the
Eumolpidae, the ancient family from whose members the
hierophant of the Eleusinian Mysteries had been chosen since
before history, and the other was the scholarly Egyptian priest
Manetho, which gave weight to the judgment both for the
Egyptians and the Greeks...
! Ancient historians and archeological discoveries (Serapis temples)
depict these obvious connections by the text document: statues, dig
sites, and inscriptions. They where narratives using texts and
symbolisms to convey messages engraved within the temple itself.
! Please describe the brackets qualifiers for proof texts. This will
used to determine the explanation power for each textI am sure
that the Gospels and Apostolic writings will be deflated
significantly by these same measures.
! Interesting side note: Plato visited suffering servant concept within
the republic: Plat. Rep. 2.361-2.
We must tell it, then; and even if my language is somewhat
rude and brutal,
1
you must not suppose, Socrates, that it is I
who speak thus, but those who commend injustice above
justice. What they will say is this: that such being his
disposition the just man will have to endure the lash, the
rack, chains, the branding-iron in his eyes, and finally, after
every extremity of suffering, he will be crucified, and so
will learn his lesson that not to be but to seem just is what
we ought to desire. From which there grows the fruit of
counsels shrewd,

E=> There are numerous issues with the sources such as Historae Augusta which has
been considered a fake by many and if not at the earliest composed in 3rd century.
D"There are many earlier historians that would have accounted for these events
being close to authority, but there are none because they may not have happened.
Yup, such a with Josephus and others I did not use Historae as a source because
of this reason. Consider the submission of a correspondence of Emperor Hadrian
that refers to Alexandrian worshippers of Serapis calling themselves Bishops of
Christ as evidence: "Egypt, which you commended to me, my dearest Servianus,
I have found to be wholly fickle and inconsistent, and continually wafted about by
every breath of fame. The worshipers of Serapis (here) are called Christians, and
those who are devoted to the god Serapis (I find), call themselves Bishops of
Christ." Hadrian to Servianus, 134 A.D.1 Chrestus (Christus) was another name
for the Egyptian god, Serapis. Chrestus may be translated as "messiah", though
the term need not apply to any specific messiah, such as Jesus. It therefore could
have simply been applied to "Lord Serapis", so that in fact, the connection
between the Serapis and Jesus Christians is more than likely.
o E=> Josephus passages about Jesus and James are generally held to be
reliable except for remarks that exalt Jesus. These are considered
interpolations and interestingly enough are not completely present in early
Arabic translations of Josephus which of course substantiates the
consensus view. But in all mss Jesus is mentioned. This of course is
another issue that is best left to scholars of Classical lit to work out of
course. Moving on.
! D=>[FALSE] this text is highly contested amongst scholars for its
text structure and stylistic insertion of unrelated detail about Jesus.
SEE BELOW AND BRITANNICA ABOUT THIS MATTER!!!
! My understanding of the Arabic texts of Josephus does not carry
these variations. Either way it is an interpolation that does not
show up as referenced until the 4
th
century.
! It was the around the year 53 AD that Josephus decided to
investigate the sects among the Jews. According to the gospel fable
this was the period of explosive growth for the Christian faith: "
the churches ... throughout all Judaea and Galilee and Samaria ...
were edified... and ... were multiplied." Acts 9:31.
! This is also the time of the so-called "Council of Jerusalem" when
supposedly Paul regaled the brothers with tales of "miracles and
wonders" among the gentiles (Acts 15.12).
! And yet Josephus knows nothing of all this:
! "When I was sixteen years old, I decided to get experience with the
various sects that are among us. These are three: as we have said
many times, the first, that of the Pharisees, the second that of the
Saduccees, the third, that of the Essenes. For I thought that in this
way I would choose best, if I carefully examined them all.
Therefore, submitting myself to strict training, I passed through the

1 Full text of "The Christian ministry" (can be found on the link below) The emperor Hadrian, writing to the consul
Servia- Hadrian's nus, thus describes the state of religion ... Those who worship Serapis are Christians, and those are
devoted to Serapis who call themselves bishops of "Christ. ... The first bishop of Alexandria, of whom any distinct
incident is recorded on trustworthy
http://www.archive.org/stream/christianministr00lighrich/christianministr00lighrich_djvu.txt
three groups." Life, 2.
! Josephus elsewhere does record a "fourth sect of Jewish
philosophy" and reports that it was a "mad distemper" agitating the
entire country. But it has nothing to do with Christianity and its
superstar:
! "But of the fourth sect of Jewish philosophy, Judas the Galilean
was the author. These men agree in all other things with the
Pharisaic notions; but they have an inviolable attachment to
liberty, and say that God is to be their only Ruler and Lord.
! They also do not value dying any kinds of death, nor indeed do
they heed the deaths of their relations and friends, nor can any such
fear make them call any man Lord ...
! And it was in Gessius Florus's time that the nation began to grow
mad with this distemper, who was our procurator, and who
occasioned the Jews to go wild with it by the abuse of his
authority, and to make them revolt from the Romans. And these
are the sects of Jewish philosophy." Antiquities 18.23.
! Nothing could better illustrate the bogus nature of the
Testimonium than the remaining corpus of Josephus's work.
[provided by Kenneth Humphreys]
! [T]he Jesus passage occurs in a context which deals exclusively
with the misfortunes of the Jews (only some of which are
attributed to Pilate) and that Jesuss condemnation by Pilate at the
behest of the Jewish leadership has no connection with such
misfortunes except from the standpoint of a Christian, who would
naturally regard this crime as the greatest misfortune ever to have
befallen the Jews." (Who Was Jesus, G.A. Well, Open Court, La
Salle, Illinois, 1989, p. 22)
! The extant manuscripts of the writings of the 1st-century Romano-
Jewish historian Flavius Josephus include references to Jesus and
the origins of Christianity.[1][2] Josephus' Antiquities of the Jews,
written around 9394 AD, includes two references to the biblical
Jesus Christ in Books 18 and 20 and a reference to John the Baptist
in Book 18.[3][4]
! Scholarly opinion on the total or partial authenticity of the
reference in Book 18, Chapter 3, 3 of the Antiquities, a passage
that states that Jesus the Messiah was a wise teacher who was
crucified by Pilate, usually called the Testimonium Flavianum,
varies.[5][6][3] The general scholarly view is that while the
Testimonium Flavianum is most likely not authentic in its entirety,
it is broadly agreed upon that it originally consisted of an authentic
nucleus, which was then subject to Christian interpolation or
forgery [6][7][8][9][10][11] by fourth-century apologist Eusebius
or by others.[12] Although the exact nature and extent of the
Christian redaction remains unclear,[13] there is broad consensus
as to what the original text of the Testimonium by Josephus would
have looked like.[10]
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josephus_on_Jesus]
o Interesting You begin with I did not use Historae because of this
reason and then go on to quote it verbatim via Lightfoot unknowingly.
This serves as a fine example about trailing down and studying your
sources. Heres the original source. But if youre curious for some actual
context, heres some scholarly commentary about the source itself and
your specific passage by none other than the late and great Arnaldo
Momigliano.
! D=> This is twisting my words other than its purposed intent. So,
Ill clarify. I did not use this source as a primary document as
evidence to avoid ad homonym arguments due to its inconclusive
dispute between scholars. However, it is worthy of mentioning due
to its relevance even though this text amongst scholars is
inconclusive (primarily Christian scholars). I did not quote
Lightfoot, but I did how ever use the wider disputed accounts as
Josephus because the Slovak versions are highly questionable and
are not in the Antiquities of WarAramaic version. Again, I
quoted a J. A. Giles, a known historian 1808-1880, instead of
quoting it as a primary source for the reason of its controversy.
! Momigliano states that it is his opinion with his reasons based
upon the backs of other scholarly work that tends to be the
minority at his time. This signifies that many historians at this time
held to the belief that this document was authentic. He said this
topic regarding this text is sub judice (still under judgment).
Therefore this information presented as a conclusive counter
agreement is misleading and misrepresented.
! (many scholars contentions) Again, the writings about Jesus
attributed to Josephus were inserted much later, probably by
church historian Eusebius, who first referred to them about 324
CE, for Emperor Constantine's Council of Nicaea (there are no
earlier quotes of these passages prior to the fourth century. We
know this for several reasons:
* No Christian or scholar before then refers to it, especially
not the Christian scholar Origen, whose library Eusebius
used.
* Origen even wrote that Josephus did not believe in Jesus
Christ.
* If the pious Jew Josephus had truly thought that Jesus
was the Messiah, he would have become a Christian.
* Copies of Josephus' works exist, that lack either reference
to Jesus.
* The style of the text is radically different from the rest of
his writings.
* The paragraph is completely out of context with the
paragraphs around it, and interrupts their story line.
* This understanding is represented in the Britannica
Encyclopedia.
! Most interestingly is prior to my disbelief in Jesus as THE
MESSIAH you told me that this text was not credible, but here you
use it as a counter argument to prove the historicity of Jesus just as
I did in this inquiry. Clearly you may have forgotten or are using
this to support your case hoping I would not catch it. Either way,
the consensus of this texts validity is inconclusive; however, most
scholars would agree with the position I presentedi.e. Britannica
Encyclopedia. Dont forget to read the encyclopedia. If you had
read the footnote, you would have seen I did not quote a Lightfoot
but Giles. It is clear that you cut and pasted the phrase and pasted it
into the Google search engine instead of looking at the sources that
I noted. Unwittingly you support my position even further because
these two scholarsGiles and Lightfootare in agreement about
this texts validity vs. Momigliano (2 to 1 in favor of being valid
amongst the mentioned references). I understand that you selected
the later because it suits your position.

E=> The passage about Serapis followers being "Christians" is simply misunderstood --
rather than taking it as saying that all of the religious groups in Egypt are misaligned and
given to the worship of money (even Jews are mentioned), people are taking it as some
kind of proof text and "inside knowledge" that Christians are in fact worshippers of
Serapis -- which is quite fallacious on many accounts: As if some coptic group called
Christians living in Egypt (spiritual Frisco of the ancient world) some how speak for the
rest of early Christiandom or the Jews of Galilee and Jerusalem that followed Yeshua.
Pretending that the Historia Augusta is a stable, early, reputable source, the idea that
Christians were somehow Serapis followers or something similar is antithetical to
everything we know about Christian history. It makes no sense for them to be persecuted
if they were identifying with a god type that Romans and Greeks already worshipped. No
reputable scholars believe such nonsense my friend. Look some up.
D=> FALSE!
PROOF http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serapis
Yes Wiki See below for more reputable source.
o E=> Hmmm. Whats false? I read the entire article twice over and aint
seeing it.
! D=> It is an established fact that Serapis worship was present
before jc and was the god of the Ptolemy Dynasty. The book of
Maccabees illustrates their forced submission to pagan gods by a
descendant of Ptolemy I. In this paper, it was confirmed that the
burning of the library of Alexandria was over a dispute about a
garbled version of Christ. Skeptics say it was Nero that
intentionally initiated this; however, this begs the question: What
was he trying to hide by destroying these texts? Maybe it was to
cover up the anachronism of Jesus through euhemerization of texts.
! The convergence of data indicates that what I presented is
substantiates my hypothesis.

E=> Serapis who was originally a mixture of Osiris and Hapi (Apis the Bull), was
already an amalgam that headed the underworld. Then the Macedonians come along want
to add Zeus, Aphrodite, Aries, and Pluto to the mix making a unified god for Hellenized
Egypt. The Egyptians didn't exactly like the idea of a freshly made up god, so Serapis
didn't quite get off the ground as quickly as hoped. Now in all of this, we want to parallel
this figure (who btw is never called "the good shepherd") with Jesus. The problem is that
there are almost zero parallels between the two. You need to cite some source texts about
Serapis (hymns, poetry, oracles etc.) not just opinions of people. When you take the time
to not only <i> trace down their sources</i> but the <i> dates</i> thereof, you might end
up a bit disappointed.

D=> [Correct of those theologies; however, there was anthropomorphized by
Ptolomy I into Serapis; therefor creating a new god with his image from
which I continued with this influence. Serapis, also spelled Sarapis, Greco-
Egyptian deity of the sun first encountered at Memphis, where his cult was
celebrated in association with that of the sacred Egyptian bull Apis (who was
called Osorapis when deceased). He was thus originally a god of the underworld
but was reintroduced as a new deity with many Hellenic aspects by Ptolemy I
Soter (reigned 305284 BC), who centred the worship of the deity at Alexandria.
The Serapeum at Alexandria was the largest and best known of the gods temples.
The cult statue there represented Serapis as a robed and bearded figure regally
enthroned, his right hand resting on Cerberus (the three-headed dog who guards
the gate of the underworld), while his left held an upraised sceptre. Gradually
Serapis became revered not only as a sun god (Zeus Serapis) but also as a lord
of healing and of fertility. His worship was established in Rome and throughout
the Mediterranean, following the trade routes and being particularly prominent in
the great commercial cities. Among the Gnostics (early Christian heretics who
believed that matter is evil and the spirit is good; see Gnosticism) he was
a symbol of the universal godhead. The destruction of the Serapeum at Alexandria
by the patriarch Theophilus and his followers in AD 391 signaled the final triumph
ofChristianity not only in Egypt but throughout the Roman Empire.
[http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/523970/Serapis]
I dont think you apply the same framing qualifications for the NT and other
documents to draw your conclusion that Jesus is real and whatever. If you did the
NT would be out of the question for you as evidence! NO? please answer.
Sources! Its not about being disappointed or happy, rather figuring out the
truth
o E=> Youre the one making the charge against me, so the onus is on you
to issue examples where Im applying unequal weights and measures.
Examples needed, and I'll be more than happy to answer.
! D=> See above and track through references already submitted
and READ THE PAPER THOUROUGHLY.


That's why this theory doesn't gain popularity among scholars: its based upon spurious
sources and weak reasoning. It's similar to Pan-Babylonianism that died out early last
century. However, unread and unlearned people like to revive these long dead and
defeated arguments.
This is also false. See above!
These arguments are not long and dead, but alive and well.

E=> To be honest, the reasoning used in your article can be used against Hashem being a
concoction of mythos derived from Ugaritic sources that evolved from an earlier cult
within the fringe of Canaanite society. [Agreed] And at least I could cite records that
<i>predate the Bible</i> by almost half a millenium that use titles like "The Most High
God" (cf Gn 14) and "rider of the clouds" (cf Ps 68) and many others that are actual
sources from Ras Shamra that can show an arguable evolution in the religion of Canaan.
This is how one erects a hypothesis -- with actual evidence. However, your paper doesn't
actually do that. It merely cites opinions about Christ without evidence, while providing
some controvertible evidence about a group of alleged Christians centuries later.
D=> Agreed; however these were titles like Christ and these all had different
theologies and understandings. Titles are one thing but practices are another.
Obviously you did not read the paper and trace its references to the sources for
your reference in challenging the hypothesis.
I will admit the mechanics implemented by Moses are without Egyptian
influence: the Egyptians believed that cows/bulls birthed the earth and Moses uses
them as sacrificial animals for atonement of sin. No coincidence here I understand
thus far.
o E=> Who said anything about Egyptian influence? I was talking about
Canaanite/Ugaritic borrowing.
! D=> I was merely supporting your hypothesis as plausible and
probable.

o E=>I see. NOW when the same filter is applied to the God of the Bible
Titles are one thing but practices are another. And then should I go on to
cite biblical practices with their respective pagan parallels along with these
titles (two among many others), what will you say then? Will you write up
a 40+ page essay surveying all of the borrowed elements of pagan Canaan
that were repackaged into the Bible and then conclude that Hashem is a
made up syncretic being comprised of Ba'al and El? After all, there were
ancient Israelites that called YH as Baal and viceversa, so it must be true
right? Just like it's true for Serapis and Jesus based on the 4th century
source you misapplied earlier, right? There's a much stronger case for the
former than the latter. See -- Dahood, F.M. Cross, Avalos, W. Dever,
Finklestein, and many others. The funny thing is that all of those heavy-
weights I just mentioned believe Yeshua existed. lol Strange.
! D=> This is not so strange as you have chosen scholars to label as
heavy-weights that disagree with their position as proven.
! Its funny of what you require me to do and then criticize that I
present evidence in a 40+ page paper Now thats strange.
! I do not rule out the probability that he did exist; however, the
evidence that supports the historicity of Jesus is primarily from the
NT sources. Event these documents contradict themselves and
rarely refer to a historical Jesuseven giving the position that
these texts were historical documents, they fall short of having any
explanation-power. Again, Paul refers to the Gospel that was not
received to him after he meets with those witnesses but by a divine
light. Addressed in opening.

E=> Probably the best part of the paper was when you compared the Logos of Plato with
the Johannine Prologue (yes John's Gospel which you already know my feelings on).
Apart from the fact that titles like "Good Shepherd" and "Logos" only appear in the
Johannine corpus, this point of evidence that John likely used the Logos in the same
manner that Plato had was pretty solid in my opinion. And that is quite okay in reality
because the concept was already present in the Aramaic Targums (and perhaps in the
TN"K). The Greek (%)!' is the equivalent of the Aramaic *+,*,. There was no better
term that John could've used to express this concept. It's just like how the Torah uses the
phrase -./01 0* which is word-for-word used elsewhere in much much earlier Canaanite
literature. So I guess that means that our God is a bootlegged version of older Canaanite
gods too right? This reasoning (including your paper's) falls in the post hoc ergo propter
hoc fallacy category. But seeing that there are no sources that actually demonstrate a
correlation between Yeshua the Messiah of Israel and Serapis, your paper actually falls
short of the criterion needed to fall into this category of fallacy.
D=> Of course you would say that because you dont like its conclusion, which is
the reason you liked the logos part.
o E=> No, I would say that because the *+,*, is an attested ancient Jewish
theological construct documented by sources that predate Yeshua The
Messiah. And even though I do not necessarily look to The GoJ as a
reliable historical document, I cannot deem its usage of (!)!' non-
Jewish. In fact, the notion of a divine messiah is present in the 11Q13 of
the DSS (c. 100 BCE).
! D=> Thank you for supporting the hypothesis by presenting
evidence that indicates the incorporation of Hellenistic man-god
savior understanding as an amalgamation into Jewish texts as these
understandings are later implementations. See paper for
clarification upon this topic.
! Again, 100 BCE can also indicate influence of the Hellenistic
period
! What is even more astonishing is the similarities between
Apollonius of Tyana with Jesus and Paul Teachings that predate
the Gospels Apollonius had many disciples and healed the sick.
Sossianus Hierocles declared him just as more
valuable than Jesus, but not worshiped like
Christians worshiped jc.
Post hoc ergo propter is an incorrect use of terminology as it is not following
solely a chronology of events, but includes four major historic trends of the time,
comparison of logos of the time, and historical records and reviews. Further more,
it is reviewing events as they happen simultaneously independently and
collaboratively. Therefore this is a red haring argument. Your logic fails to
address any evidence to disprove the hypothesis presented.

E=> Now, your paper was easy to read so quickly because it contained many quotations.
But in those quotations I found lacking any actual texts that say that Serapis was annually
sacrificed for the sins of Egypt (sounds more like Lv 16 if you ask me than Jesus ;) or
that he was called "Good Shepherd" (because he never was).
[Rhetorical terminology used to explain rationale] It was full of quotes for the
very reason of my lack of ethos. My credibility is 0, so I used credible sources,
which took time to swim through all the laymen scholars such as ourselves. I did
this to avoid the ad homonym approach, which is what you are implying if not
explicitly stating.
D=> Does the book of Maccabees qualify? And it happened, after that
Alexander son of Philip, the Macedonian, who came out of the land of Chettiim,
had smitten Darius king of the Persians and Medes, that he reigned in his stead,
the first over Greece, 2 And made many wars, and won many strong holds, and
slew the kings of the earth, 3 And went through to the ends of the earth, and took
spoils of many nations, insomuch that the earth was quiet before him; whereupon
he was exalted and his heart was lifted up. 4 And he gathered a mighty strong host
and ruled over countries, and nations, and kings, who became tributaries unto
him. 5 And after these things he fell sick, and perceived that he should die. 2
Afterward Alexander sent ambassadors to Ptolemee king of Egypt with a
message to this effect 3. It was impossible to observe the Sabbath, to
celebrate any of the traditional festivals, or even so much as to admit to being a
Jew. 7 Each month when the king's birthday was celebrated, the Jews were
compelled by brute force to eat the intestines of sacrificial animals. Then, during
the festival in honor of the wine god Dionysus, they were required to wear ivy
wreaths on their heads and march in procession. 8 On the advice of Ptolemy, the
neighboring Greek cities were also instructed to require Jews to eat the sacrifices;
9 they were told to put to death every Jew who refused to adopt the Greek
[gentile] way of life. It was easy to see that hard times were ahead. 16 For
example, two women were arrested for having their babies circumcised. They
were paraded around the city with their babies hung from their breasts; then they
were thrown down from the city wall...4
o E=>The book of Maccabees definitely qualifies (its an original source),
but forgive me for not seeing what exactly it pertains to.
! D=> See above as this was previously addressed.
! D=> There is connection submitted by using Daniel 11 with
history between Polemic Dynasty forcing Jews to worship his
gods. Serapis was their primary god. This text shows this
relationship.

I hope my review doesn't sound scathing because it isn't by any means. I still love you the
same. I don't however soften my words when it comes to matters like this.
Not in the least bit

Dear Eric;

D=>I am so grateful you took the time to respond. I am not married to this idea and
purposed that the conjunctions of evidence and qualifiers increase the probability of the

2 Maccabees 10:1-5
3 Maccabees 10:51
4 2 Maccabees 6:6-104
hypothesis, so it cannot be ruled out as an option to explain the origins of Christianity. He
is either a man made myth or a myth euhemerized from my perspective by the escalation
of texts from human to mystic in the NT texts. I barely touched upon the revealed gospel
by Paul as something not from man but of a celestial hallucination as with Proculus.
E=> He is either a man made myth or a myth euhemerized . Right. It MUST be
one of those two choices because they make more sense than believing heaven
forbid that he actually existed (like virtually every bonafide historian and scholar
knows even enemies of the Bible like Ehrman) [Ehrman is unscrupulous scholar
and cannot be trusted]. No, it's more like it must be one of those two possibilities
because Richard Carrier and Joseph Atwill think so. Jesus definitely existed, and
not only that, he died an atonement for us as Isaiah 53:4, 10-11 prophesied. The
Talmud also carries traditions of him -- (Long live the Talmud indeed).
o D=> the Biblical texts cited are highly controversial and these entries are
later additions into the Talmudfrom what I understand thus far.
Additionally, You cannot say with certainty that Jesus lived. There is not
historical credible historical account of his existence including the Gospels
and Pauline-Acts letters. There is a probability that he did and did not.
This is the purpose of this exercise is to explore this evidence.
! E=>Right. It MUST be one of those two choices because they
make more sense than believing heaven forbid that he actually
existed (like virtually every bonafide historian and scholar knows
even enemies of the Bible like Ehrman). No, it's more like it must
be one of those two possibilities because Richard Carrier and
Joseph Atwill think so. Jesus definitely existed, and not only that,
he died an atonement for us as Isaiah 53:4, 10-11 prophesied. The
Talmud also carries traditions of him -- (Long live the Talmud
indeed).
D=> Speaking of fallacious reasoning. This is a clear
example of the leaps in logic as addressed in the
introduction to my second response. These leaps in logic
are exactly the problems that people of faith have by
using different weights for measures. When logic doesnt
prevail, use faith.
! D=> Even though you jeer at the paper and my writing, you have
to admit it is pretty good.
E=> I agree that you put a lot of work into it. When I first saw it, I was taken back by the
volume of it. And I understand the religious trends of the time. There were many
Gnostics from all over that were blending things and especially the Hellenists. I really do
get that. There were cults and mystery cults and religio-political cults galore. And no
doubt amidst a myriad of gods there are bound to be some similarities between any two
religions. We are in fact created in imago Dei so it shouldn't be a surprise to find parallels
between even Hashem and Ahura Mazda or the Om of Brahma and the Logos of Plato.
They are bound to be there.
But, ruthfully, we could scrap the whole conversation and boil it down to this: Just show
me some ancient texts that verify the parallelisms between Serapis and Christ. That's
really the gist of my position. Like if I wanted to prove parallelisms between Zoroaster
and Moses Id quote the Torah followed by the Zend Avesta or Yasnas comparing them
point by point (I.e. "Moses and Zoroaster both ascended a mountain and descended with
revealed laws cf. Ex 19-20 & Yasna 9 or "Zoroaster spoke of the ideal king called the
Saoshyant and The Tanach speaks of the Mashiyach" cf Isa 11:1-10 & Avesta 7:49). Or if
I wanted to prove a paralellism or borrowing between Noah and Zuisudra/Utnapishtim
I'd say "See Gn 6:8-9:12 & Gilgamesh Tablet 11. That's really all Im shooting for --
simple points followed by original sources. Shabbat Shalom to you too.
D=> I agree that there can be similarities without having to find original sources
to extract such concepts. As I addressed previously the evidence and their sources.
I have done the majority of the work. All you would have to do is trace down the
sources submitted to support the hypothesis and see that the majority was working
with primary sources. I previously addressed this in my Introduction to My
Second Response. You want ancient documents and to substantiate this
hypothesis; however, you avoid the same requirement requested and you use
scholars as I have done to substantiate this position.
I agree that the hypothesis that there are similarities as you suggested; however, it
creates a larger leap in logic to
I would like for you to do this so I can see the similarities in these hypotheses.
Please refer to the paper and trace down resources as recommended.

PERSONAL NOTE:
What does love got to do with it? I have noticed that this is conditional as people learn
that others disagree with them the conditions no longer applythe lashing out with
pathos arguments.

I also have an affinity for you and respect your opinion as I hope you do mine. I see you
as a seeker of truth, so we must use the same criteria for all texts when determining its
validity to history as expository, which the Gospels are not expository as they are
narratives of symbolism to convey a message and not to validate the historicity of Jesus. I
think as we study these issues, we both will come out of this with a better understanding
of the situation. I am not going to change my vernacular also as I am not dealing with the
pathos of the argument but the logos with the accredited ethos. I do this with our best
interests in mind to learn what on earth is/was going on. I hope I dont respond
viscerally I hate when others do that.

SHALOM!