I am on neither side of the extremes, but I do notice that your explanation of the Horus-Jesus relationship as "copycat" is rather simplistic. Wherever I have read identity relations of this kind, they more speak of RECYCLING of the myths in a newer era of consciousness, sort of a "re-looping" of the old myths. If this were to be a fact -which is not the point of this e-mail- that would imply a wide open end type of recycling, a form of recycling freely utilizing what's current to each era, and more importantly, a MERGING of the old myths with useful "potential" targets, that could embody the old myths into a particular time and place and history and atavic psyque.  Now, we do have vivid and clear examples of this in politics for example, where the political elites are continually searching for candidates to recycle the seemingly extinct and outdated ideological myths and fables, and we witness them being "revived" over and over again, ADAPTING their shapes and signs and proclivities, to new leaders, new circumstances, and new fashionable cultural trends. This is the closest -albeit we could say analogous or similar- example of such a process operating on the religious front. Thus, if you seek to battle against such claims as spurious, you must elevate the level of your arguments, because as they currently read, are no match to the arguments of the christianity debunkers. To begin with, the term "copycat" must go out the window. Last but not  least, there is also a view of mythological and religious processes, as related to "wave"/"states of mind" patterns, in such a way that any set of people in any place, would have available already as a cultural option, the morphogenetic memory of the original archetypal moments of epiphany, that coalesced into a particular "religion" at that time (or anything, not just religion). The evolution and ascent of consciousness is INCLUSIVE, the "next" levels always include the previous, as "acquired" and part of the available menu -so to speak-. In this vision, instead of a recycling (or even more cartoonlike, copycatting as you say), there is the distinct possibility that the previous myths are just stages of spiritual ascent, and whether they were/are manipulated or not, does not matter really. These stages of ascent, will RECUR over and over, until they dissipate as the general consciousness really leaps to a completely different wave-form or stage level. So once again, the term "copycat" has no place here; it is a form of reducing the whole problem, to a sham. I'd be more interested in seeing a real discussion on your part, of these issues, providing the complexity and depth and possibilities they indeed carry. Until that happens, the debunkers are having a field day!

Chris,

I mostly use the term "copycat" since that's the term that's most frequently applied to this phenomenon, the term that the Christ-mythers use. Since this is an internet site, I have to use a phrase that will get people searching for this information (on Google and such) to find my page. For example, if you Google the phrase "Copycat Jesus", you will find many sites regarding the Christ-myth theory, but if you Google the phrase "Recycle Jesus", you won't see any. Technically, it may not be the best word to use, but it's the one that best serves my purpose here. And besides that, while it may not be the BEST word, I think the phrase is valid.

I'd also like to take part in a more in-depth discussion of the phenomenon, but have yet to find a Christ-myther who is willing to admit that 90% of the supposed comparisons are invalid and instead talk about what's behind the phenomenon itself. The non-believers at the best debate sites, like TheologyWeb.org and Apologetics.com, already know that the Christ-myth theory as it stands is invalid, and thus won't argue in favor of it. So I'd basically need someone willing to admit the invalidity of most of the evidence (or, if they believe the evidence is valid, provide the actual evidence) while still arguing in favor the validity of the phenomenon itself (and showing how we can see that Jesus was the result of such a phenomenon as opposed to being an actual person, of course), and I have yet to come across such a person.

David

The "copycat" label though, paints more into the picture, it defines the concept. If we look at history, the disagreements towards the Jesus story or what Jesus taught, go beyond the traditional dispute between the Catholics and Protestants. When one listens to the terms and labels they employ, one gets also a slanted misdirection; actually, as soon as one researches deeper, one is stunned to find a VAST disarray of ideas, definitions, and practices, starting in very early Christianity, and never dissipating. Towards the 1500's, this disarray merely intensified, and for "history" purposes, it was described to us as "catholics vs. protestants", but that is quite misleading, since both were in a way, powers striving for the same status quo (pretty much like apparently opposite political parties). In the same vein, when one says "copycat", actually one is (hard to believe it's not deliberate) LEAVING OUT the most important disagreements towards the story of Jesus; there is a wide cache of positions in this matter, the 2 most obvious extremes being the acceptance of the Jesus sory as it stands officially, and the other the "copycat" version, as sheer invention on the part of puppeteers. Even in this laste extreme view, there is a dazzling menu, from just political power games to inter-dimensional manipulation of the human psyque via religion, etc. But when one says "copycat", one leaves out the real bulk of the issue, where most popular and albeit reasonable positions make their nest. In between these 2 extremes, the majority of criticism accepts the figure of a real Jesus, and the versions vary as to what extent this real Jesus was "transformed" into this or that, by the manipulating elites. So this is where "recycling" comes into play; 90% (to use your magical number) of the center criticism, expose that the elites TEND TO -because of proven efficiency and convenience, as well as because the human psyque has an operative symbological template, i.e. mind control use of archetypes-, utilize the same or similar recycled "myths" ir figures or "dogmas", therefore MERGING or DISTORTING an actual and real event or figure or philosophy or religion, into what is expedient to their means. Thus the "copycat"-ing process in most of the cirticism, refers to a much more complex and squirrely technique than your writings seem to suggest. While there is some "copycat" happening (as far as TRYING TO) repeat the same previous beta-tests of social engineering that had partial success, the debunkers say that they constantly seek to improve the efficiency and therefore change some "parameters" (rethoric, language, ideas, dogmas, details, etc.) in order to galvanize the recycling process into a new era and a completely different culture, ethnics, and most importantly, a new language related a new science. The argument is really simple; when you are trying to save your boat by excusing the "copycat" label as just a useful reference, you perhaps unknowingly are validating the debunkers by at the same time labeling their vastly different positions into just one "label", as "copycat", and in all reality doing so you are leaving out the bulk of the contentions.  And that is utterly unacceptable.

Chris,

I think what you're talking about is ultimately different than what my "Copycat" section is about, in that the argument that, as I understand it, you seem to favor (that Jesus was a real person whose persona was later manipulated) is not the argument that the critics I'm responding to are favoring. Those favoring the "Copycat" idea (commonly called "Christ-Mythers") believe that Jesus never existed at all, but was a completely mythological figure based on earlier mythological figures like Horus and Mithra. They aren't so much talking about how the Jesus story "borrows" spiritual concepts or approaches to political ideologies, but talking about how it "borrows" facts of His life story, like His being born of a virgin, being crucified, having 12 apostles, etc. Those who believe that Jesus was a real person whose persona was "kidnapped" to support people's ideas and causes are far more reasonable people. In fact, I kind of agree with them, at least to an extent.

Your offense at my using the word "Copycat" is noted, but I think it's the best term to describe the extreme views that my site is responding to. I guess you could say there is a "Copycat Jesus" crowd (who believe that Jesus was completely mythical and based completely on other mythical figures) and a "Recycle Jesus" crowd (who believe that Jesus was real, but whose persona has been warped over time). I'm responding to the former, not the latter, with that section of my site.

David