My Name is Clint Clark and I’ve developed a small website that may be an interesting link (or recommended reading) addition to your site. I call it “Religion Detoxification.” One of its features is “The Logical Ten Commandments.” It also has the history on the development of Settlement Religion along with some important points about Oral Tradition.

Symbolism of Jesus Borrowed From Serapis

I did a visual study of the symbolism of both Jesus and Serapis and the results are very interesting. If you would like a copy of the study as a JPEG image (size 305 KB) click on this next link to download the image (1024X768_god_parts.jpg):

http://www.artdsm.com/religiondetoxification/images/catalhuk_presentation/1024X768_god_parts.jpg

Also, recently I've added the Astrological formation of the character of Jesus if you are interested in Jesus and the Zodiac.

The address is:

http://www.artdsm.com/religiondetoxification/

Thank you for your consideration

Sincerely,

Clint Clark

Clint,

Thanks for your letter, and I've already gone over about half of the "Religion Detoxification" site. I'll send more of a response later. But for now, I'm not concerned with claims that pre-Christian art influenced Christian art, since all art is influenced by what came before, which goes for religious art, also. That doesn't suggest that the Jesus story is based on earlier stories, or that Jesus Himself was based on earlier god-men. I'll write with more later.

Peace, David

However,

It does suggest that the Holy Roman Empire was trying to replace one deity, with another deity, using symbolism that would be readily accepted by the people.

Check these out:

http://www.artdsm.com/religiondetoxification/the_jesus_story_pg5.html

http://www.artdsm.com/religiondetoxification/the_jesus_story_pg1.html

http://www.artdsm.com/religiondetoxification/11of12i_god_parts.html

http://www.artdsm.com/religiondetoxification/images/catalhuk_presentation/1024X768_god_parts.jpg

Thanks.

Sincerely,

Clint

Clint,

Thanks to the link for your site. I really have no criticisms for the bulk of it, since most of it makes sense IF one starts from the perspective of God not existing. You offer a reasonable explanation for why the vast majority of mankind believes in God. I just see a more likely explanation - God's existence. When I was an atheist, I likely would have agreed with most of what your page says. But you really provide no evidence, only theories, in regards to God's non-existence, so it's really not going to achieve your goal of "detoxifying" those who already believe. Non-believers will likely agree with you. Those who are unsure may be swayed. But I can't see how your page will have any effect on those already inclined to believe in God.

The only things I feel compelled to respond to are some historical errors that I feel you make. I also have some questions about a few things you said that I'm not understanding. Here goes...

On one page, you said:

"To start with, no Christian, prior to Eusebius of Caesarea (263 CE - 339 CE), ever quoted from The Jesus Story."

Not true.

Ignatius quoted from Matthew, Luke and John around 115 CE.

The Epistle of Barnabas quotes from Matthew 22:14 somewhere between 75 CE and 130 CE (exactly when it was written was unknown, but within these years).

Clement gives some unexact quotes from the Gospels around 95 A.D.

You said, "There were Christians, and Bishops of Christ, living and practicing a type of Christian Philosophy in the Roman Empire long before there was a Jesus Story."

I have to know what your source for this is. Do you mean that these people called themselves "Christians" and "Bishops of Christ" before Jesus existed?

"The oldest copies of The Written Jesus Story of Mark, the first Jesus Philosophy, are the Sinaitic (370 CE), the Vatican (325 CE), and Papyrus 45 (225 CE). Papyrus 45 contains Gospels (Jesus Stories) and Acts; and interestingly Papyrus 46 contains the Pauline Epistles (Paul Letters)."

The oldest complete copies, yes. But we have many incomplete copies dating much earlier, some to within the first century.

"Another ancient manuscript, a portion of The Written Jesus Story of John, is also dated to about 125 CE. Remaining Jesus Story manuscripts date to the third century CE or later.

However, we also know that no Christian, prior to Eusebius of Caesarea (263 CE - 339 CE), ever quoted from The Written Jesus Story. That is because the written version of The Jesus Story had not been composed yet."

Out of curiosity, why do you admit that a portion of the written Jesus story of John dates to about 125 AD, but then claim in the next paragraph that the written version of the Jesus story had not been composed in the 3rd century?

"Now if you are already thinking, "Hey, the Gospels were written a long time before 218 CE," then you do not understand the true and historical nature of The Holy Roman Empire."

No serious scholar, Christian or otherwise, would date any of the Gospels as being originally written after 110 A.D. The evidence points to Matthew, Mark, and Luke being written prior to 67 A.D. and John perhaps as late as 90 A.D. Anyone who even tried dating them after 150 AD would never be taken seriously.

"In the story, Jesus "travels" throughout his one-year ministry and interestingly, the description of his travels, match that of "the sun traveling" throughout the Zodiac during the year."

Jesus had a 3-year ministry. And how exactly do his travels significantly parallel the sun traveling through the zodiac?

"However, Josephus mentions a Written Jesus Story once in his archaeology, but in terms so favorable that they are out of character with his known Hebrew position."

The Josephus story was clearly altered by someone with a pro-Jesus position, but there is little doubt that the original passage written by Josephus mentioned the Jesus story.

I may have more later. Gotta go watch "American Idol"... : )

David

David,

I took your advice and recompiled the data in a different approach. The results are interesting.

http://www.artdsm.com/religiondetoxification/the_jesus_story.html

See what you think.

Thanks.

Clint,

Again, most of the page is theory rather than evidence, and I'll agree that most of the theory makes sense if one already believes what you believe. If one is inclined to believe that Jesus is fictional, they'll likely agree with what you say. But mere theories aren't going to sway anyone who disagrees.

But I do have some comments and questions about your evidences:

"Mithraists worshipped Mithras, as the supreme God of the upper and nether world. Their beliefs apparently included that their god died, was buried in a rock tomb (like in The Jesus Story), and was resurrected."

Actually, there's no reference in ancient Mithraic literature to Mithra dying at all, much less being buried or resurrected. The earliest references to him dying (which still say nothing about being buried or resurrected) date to the 4th century A.D.

"Other depictions show Mithras carrying a rock on his back (like in The Jesus Story, Christ carried the Cross), and showing him wearing a cape that had the starry sky along its inside lining."

How does a rock correspond to the cross? And Jesus didn't wear such a cape.

"Mithra or "Mithras" in Latin, was a god who was worshipped as a Good Shepherd, the Way, the Truth and the Light, the Redeemer, the Savior, the Messiah and a solar deity."

I've done a lot of searching, as have others, for references calling Mithra "The Good Shepherd", "The Way, The Truth, and The Light", "Redeemer", "Savior" and "Messiah", and have come up empty. These names are apparently attributed to him only by modern Christ-mythers. Even in the Roman version Mithraism, which was in part influenced by Christianity, Mithra is never called any of these things. He was indeed a solar deity, but Jesus was not.

"This is another reason that the city of Sinope can be considered to be the home, or the "roots," of Jesus; that along with the philosophy of Diogenes, who greatly influenced the Essenes and Early Roman (Orthodox) Christianity; and we also have in Sinope, the origin of the visual symbolism of Jesus from his predecessor Serapis; and to top it off, we have both the influences of Persian Mithraism and later Persian Zoroastrism. These are all the core ingredients to begin A Visual Jesus, A Jesus Story, and An Egyptian-Greek "Christos" Philosophy."

This very much smacks of arguing from your conclusion. It only makes any kind of sense if one buys the idea that Jesus was influenced by Serapis, Mithra, and Zoroaster. If one isn't inclined to believe that, then they aren't going to be swayed by rewording your theory to support itself.

"Jason (Iason) is the name adopted by many Hellenized Hebrews who were known as Joshua (Jesus) during the Maccabean Period (165 BCE - 63 BCE). The name Jason means "Healer." Here is the first of many symbolisms in religion. Wait until we get to the symbolism, "he was born in a manger" (and laid him in a manger). Some monk must have really got a chuckle out of that one."

I've hit several sites giving Jason's story, and none say or even suggest that he was born in a manger. What's your source for this? How early does the story of his being born in a manger date? I haven't had time to really research this one (so I can't respond right now to other claims you've made here), since is the very first time I've heard of the Jason/Jesus theory. Even other Christ-mythers haven't touched upon this one.

"The first misconception about Christianity is that it emerged from Judaism. It did not. The two are not related, even though they come packaged in the same binder. "

I'm sure just about every scholar of religion would disagree with that statement. I wonder what you mean by "not related" since Jesus is clearly (even if merely fictional) the fulfillment of Old Testament prophecies, the keeper of Old Testament laws, the Son of the Old Testament God, frequently preached the Old Testament, was a descendent of the Old Testament's Abraham. Yet not related. Hmmm...

"Another misconception about Christianity is that it was unique and directly related to "Jesus" the Christ. The practice of a type of Christian Philosophy, generally referred to by modern scholars as Christ cults, began many years prior to the Biblical account. The practice of a type of "Christ" or "Christos" Philosophy began soon after the time that the City of Alexandria, Egypt, was founded in 331 BCE. There were "Bishops of Christ," practicing a type of "Christ" Philosophy, in the Roman Empire many years before there was a Written Jesus Story. SOURCE: Hadrian to Servianus, 134 A.D. (Quoted by Giles, ii p86)"

I'm confused by this, because your source (which you give several pages later) says "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 is clearly speaking in present-tense, referring to people in 134 A.D. Your wording implies (it doesn't directly say it, but anyone reading it would get that impression) that it was being practiced as such in 331 B.C., but the text doesn't support that. How does this prove that there were "Bishops of Christ" practicing a type of "Christ" philosophy before there was a written Jesus story? No serious scholar puts even the most recent Gospels any later than 110 A.D, and even you agreed that a portion of John's gospel dated to about 125 CE. There clearly was a written Jesus story, by your own admission, at least a decade earlier than Hadrian's letter to Servianus. So how does your above statement make any sense?

I'll write more later.

Peace,   David

Super! thank you again. I'll type the responses after your questions.

Again, most of the page is theory rather than evidence, and I'll agree that most of the theory makes sense if one already believes what you believe. If one is inclined to believe that Jesus is fictional, they'll likely agree with what you say. But mere theories aren't going to sway anyone who disagrees.

-- no doubt :-)

But I do have some comments and questions about your evidences:

"Mithraists worshipped Mithras, as the supreme God of the upper and nether world. Their beliefs apparently included that their god died, was buried in a rock tomb (like in The Jesus Story), and was resurrected."

Actually, there's no reference in ancient Mithraic literature to Mithra dying at all, much less being buried or resurrected. The earliest references to him dying (which still say nothing about being buried or resurrected) date to the 4th century A.D.

-- this comes from the net, I think from a site about "Saviour Gods" throughout history; ones that the story resembles the story of Jesus, like Horus in Egypt, etc. But, that really is insignificant compared with a scholarly view held by many theologians that Jesus is a symbolic character for the city of Jerusalem. In this theory, the character of Jesus reflects the historical events of Jerusalem before its destruction and the death of Jesus symbolizing the actual destruction. Remember now, that all "midrashic" style of the Hebrew-Christian story telling is symbolic. It was never meant to be historically accurate. This is a well known fact in the study of Hebrew Religions. the "midrashic" style was designed to be remembered and past on to the next generation. There was no paper and the majority of people at this time in history could not read or write. Story telling was their only tool for retaining knowledge, since they could not write it down. These are facts, not fiction. Surely you can see this?

"Other depictions show Mithras carrying a rock on his back (like in The Jesus Story, Christ carried the Cross), and showing him wearing a cape that had the starry sky along its inside lining."

How does a rock correspond to the cross? And Jesus didn't wear such a cape.

-- The rock symbolizes "The Weight of the World" on his back, like Jesus carrying the Weight of the Cross (the burden of world sin) on is shoulder. Make senses?

"Mithra or "Mithras" in Latin, was a god who was worshipped as a Good Shepherd, the Way, the Truth and the Light, the Redeemer, the Savior, the Messiah and a solar deity."

I've done a lot of searching, as have others, for references calling Mithra "The Good Shepherd", "The Way, The Truth, and The Light", "Redeemer", "Savior" and "Messiah", and have come up empty. These names are apparently attributed to him only by modern Christ-mythers. Even in the Roman version Mithraism, which was in part influenced by Christianity, Mithra is never called any of these things. He was indeed a solar deity, but Jesus was not.

-- Oops! Mithra influenced Christianity. Mithra is Persian -appearing much sooner in history than Jesus. This is about the time that the Hebrews were kidnapped and taken to Babylon. It's a Persian, Bull God, and as with all the Bull Gods in history, they are killed bearing the sins of the people in the country (still being done today) to take away the sins of the people, which is thought to protect them from plague, bad whether, poor crop returns, etc. Sacred Bulls are everywhere in history and they all serve the same basic function. Actually, I think they used a bull originally because "a Wild Ox" which is what they used, yields lots of pints of Blood for the Blood Ritual -part of the ceremony. Sounds gross! But, they almost scientifically came to the conclusion, by observation that "Blood" must carry the essence of life, which makes sense, for if the blood runs out of the body of a person or animal death occurs. And if you plug the blood before it runs out, life continues. So to they early guys, it al;l seemed perfectly logical. I think you and I back in the time of history, would probably have come to the same conclusions - don't ya think?

"This is another reason that the city of Sinope can be considered to be the home, or the "roots," of Jesus; that along with the philosophy of Diogenes, who greatly influenced the Essenes and Early Roman (Orthodox) Christianity; and we also have in Sinope, the origin of the visual symbolism of Jesus from his predecessor Serapis; and to top it off, we have both the influences of Persian Mithraism and later Persian Zoroastrism. These are all the core ingredients to begin A Visual Jesus, A Jesus Story, and An Egyptian-Greek "Christos" Philosophy."

This very much smacks of arguing from your conclusion. It only makes any kind of sense if one buys the idea that Jesus was influenced by Serapis, Mithra, and Zoroaster. If one isn't inclined to believe that, then they aren't going to be swayed by rewording your theory to support itself.

- Yep . . looks like I pulled a Biblism . . . using the bible to support itself. It's funny, that always reminds me of to crooks, who where caught during a robbery and are being held in separate interrogation rooms; each trying to help to keep the other out of jail (like using only gospel to support another gospel) - looks like I could have done the same thing here . agreed.

"Jason (Iason) is the name adopted by many Hellenized Hebrews who were known as Joshua (Jesus) during the Maccabean Period (165 BCE - 63 BCE). The name Jason means "Healer." Here is the first of many symbolisms in religion. Wait until we get to the symbolism, "he was born in a manger" (and laid him in a manger). Some monk must have really got a chuckle out of that one."

I've hit several sites giving Jason's story, and none say or even suggest that he was born in a manger. What's your source for this? How early does the story of his being born in a manger date? I haven't had time to really research this one (so I can't respond right now to other claims you've made here), since is the very first time I've heard of the Jason/Jesus theory. Even other Christ-mythers haven't touched upon this one.

- You'll have to what to be surprised on this one . . its a hoot! :-)

"The first misconception about Christianity is that it emerged from Judaism. It did not. The two are not related, even though they come packaged in the same binder. "

I'm sure just about every scholar of religion would disagree with that statement. I wonder what you mean by "not related" since Jesus is clearly (even if merely fictional) the fulfillment of Old Testament prophecies, the keeper of Old Testament laws, the Son of the Old Testament God, frequently preached the Old Testament, was a descendent of the Old Testament's Abraham. Yet not related. Hmmm...

- Nope. Not true. Just looks like it fits. That's part of the purposeful confusion -it was meant to look like that on purpose. This will probably floor you, but the bible was packaged as a marketing tool to lure those practicing Judaism away from that practice (and especially circumcisions), to Christianity, and bathing instead (baptism). It was all about controlling sexually transmitted diseases in early communities. You read about that later on in the study. In short. no one back in those days, really wanted to have their dick cut! I can't imagine what that would have been like, back when that did it at puberty (14 years old), holy s--t batman! I bet that was real painful! I'll take bath (baptism) over that any day!

"Another misconception about Christianity is that it was unique and directly related to "Jesus" the Christ. The practice of a type of Christian Philosophy, generally referred to by modern scholars as Christ cults, began many years prior to the Biblical account. The practice of a type of "Christ" or "Christos" Philosophy began soon after the time that the City of Alexandria, Egypt, was founded in 331 BCE. There were "Bishops of Christ," practicing a type of "Christ" Philosophy, in the Roman Empire many years before there was a Written Jesus Story. SOURCE: Hadrian to Servianus, 134 A.D. (Quoted by Giles, ii p86)"

I'm confused by this, because your source (which you give several pages later) says "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 is clearly speaking in present-tense, referring to people in 134 A.D. Your wording implies (it doesn't directly say it, but anyone reading it would get that impression) that it was being practiced as such in 331 B.C., but the text doesn't support that. How does this prove that there were "Bishops of Christ" practicing a type of "Christ" philosophy before there was a written Jesus story? No serious scholar puts even the most recent Gospels any later than 110 A.D, and even you agreed that a portion of John's gospel dated to about 125 CE. There clearly was a written Jesus story, by your own admission, at least a decade earlier than Hadrian's letter to Servianus. So how does your above statement make any sense?

- again, there were significant philosophies, which closely resemble the Christian Philosophy, many years before 10 A.D. They were mostly out of Turkey and Alexandria. They are referred to by scholars as "Christ sects" or those who studied the philosophy of the "Christos". If you search for "Christos" and "Logos" you should find a number of web sties fro reference.

Thanks again David. These critiques of yours are very helpful. And, if you remember my statement at the beginning of the study, I am not out to kill Jesus (not by any means - I am am eternally grateful for him) The Jesus philosophy probably saved our species from extinction due to sexually transmitted diseases.

Here is a site, that has a really brief discussion about that:

http://www.pastornet.net.au/jmm/articles/804.htm

peace be with you too David. Your friend Clint.

Clint,

I haven't had time to search your site any more, but I have some responses to your last letter.

Actually, there's no reference in ancient Mithraic literature to Mithra dying at all, much less being buried or resurrected. The earliest references to him dying (which still say nothing about being buried or resurrected) date to the 4th century A.D.

-- this comes from the net, I think from a site about "Saviour Gods" throughout history; ones that the story resembles the story of Jesus, like Horus in Egypt, etc.

Except if you actually read the Horus and Mithra stories, instead of what these Christ-myth sites CLAIM are the stories, you won't see these similarities. I respond to both the Mithra and Horus claims at my Christ-myth site:

http://www.KingDavid8.com/Copycat/JesusMithra.html

http://www.KingDavid8.com/Copycat/JesusHorus.html

Regarding the Horus one, I've E-mailed almost a dozen sites that posted the usual list of comparisons (like that Horus was born of a virgin, had 12 disciples, was crucified and resurrected, etc), and asked them to point me to any text giving the Horus story that actually had these details. Not one of them could do so. One even agreed to take down the list, deciding it was bogus.

But, that really is insignificant compared with a scholarly view held by many theologians that Jesus is a symbolic character for the city of Jerusalem. In this theory, the character of Jesus reflects the historical events of Jerusalem before its destruction and the death of Jesus symbolizing the actual destruction.

If one isn't going to believe that the Jesus story is factual, then they'd have to believe something along these lines. Those who don't believe that NASA landed on the moon hold the view that the moon landings were faked. Doesn't make it true.

Remember now, that all "midrashic" style of the Hebrew-Christian story telling is symbolic. It was never meant to be historically accurate. This is a well known fact in the study of Hebrew Religions. the "midrashic" style was designed to be remembered and past on to the next generation. There was no paper

Yes, there was. Parchment, actually. We have many texts dating to Jesus' time and earlier.

and the majority of people at this time in history could not read or write.

True, but those who could write often did.

Story telling was their only tool for retaining knowledge, since they could not write it down. These are facts, not fiction. Surely you can see this?

But I could use this same argument to say that the ancient historical texts about Caesar, and Josephus' writings, are mere midrash. Saying that some things are midrash doesn't mean that everything (or everything you want to be) is midrash. Is there anything in the Gospels or other NT writings suggesting that they're knowingly writing myth? Any suggestion that early Christians accepted Jesus as merely symbolic? You'd think by listening to Christ-mythers that everyone back then didn't take it literally, and people only started taking the Jesus story literally in the last few hundred years. In fact, the opposite is true. There is no evidence that anyone, even non-Christians, believed that Jesus was merely mythical until the 19th century. That idea is a relatively new development. I guess a certain amount of time had to pass before such arguments could be taken seriously.

"Other depictions show Mithras carrying a rock on his back (like in The Jesus Story, Christ carried the Cross), and showing him wearing a cape that had the starry sky along its inside lining."

How does a rock correspond to the cross? And Jesus didn't wear such a cape.

-- The rock symbolizes "The Weight of the World" on his back, like Jesus carrying the Weight of the Cross (the burden of world sin) on is shoulder. Make senses?

If you squint a little bit, maybe. I certainly understand what you're seeing here, but it's one of those things that you only see if you're looking for it. I could draw similar comparisons between Robin Hood and John Dillinger if I tried hard enough, but if I would then try to argue that Dillinger, like Robin Hood, was a mere myth, I'm hardly going to be convincing anyone.

-- Oops! Mithra influenced Christianity. Mithra is Persian -appearing much sooner in history than Jesus.

Yes, Persian Mithraism did precede Christianity. But if you compare the Persian version of the Mithra story to the Jesus story, you'll see that there really are no striking parallels. The Roman version of Mithraism has a few minor similarities, but even these similarities date to several centuries after Jesus' time, and are thus likely Jesus influencing Roman Mithraism, and not the other way around.

This is about the time that the Hebrews were kidnapped and taken to Babylon. It's a Persian, Bull God, and as with all the Bull Gods in history, they are killed bearing the sins of the people in the country (still being done today) to take away the sins of the people, which is thought to protect them from plague, bad whether, poor crop returns, etc. Sacred Bulls are everywhere in history and they all serve the same basic function. Actually, I think they used a bull originally because "a Wild Ox" which is what they used, yields lots of pints of Blood for the Blood Ritual -part of the ceremony. Sounds gross! But, they almost scientifically came to the conclusion, by observation that "Blood" must carry the essence of life, which makes sense, for if the blood runs out of the body of a person or animal death occurs. And if you plug the blood before it runs out, life continues. So to they early guys, it al;l seemed perfectly logical. I think you and I back in the time of history, would probably have come to the same conclusions - don't ya think?

I don't see why, since few people seemed to draw that conclusion until just recently. As recently as the 19th century, doctors were still bleeding their patients thinking that loss of blood would improve their health.

I'm sure just about every scholar of religion would disagree with that statement. I wonder what you mean by "not related" since Jesus is clearly (even if merely fictional) the fulfillment of Old Testament prophecies, the keeper of Old Testament laws, the Son of the Old Testament God, frequently preached the Old Testament, was a descendent of the Old Testament's Abraham. Yet not related. Hmmm...

- Nope. Not true. Just looks like it fits.

I think you and I must have very different ideas of what the word "related" means. Even if, hypothetically, the Jesus story is merely fictional, it's clearly built upon much of the Old Testament. Yes, there are some differences, just like there are differences between "Star Wars" and "The Empire Strikes Back", but it doesn't make them unrelated.

"Another misconception about Christianity is that it was unique and directly related to "Jesus" the Christ. The practice of a type of Christian Philosophy, generally referred to by modern scholars as Christ cults, began many years prior to the Biblical account. The practice of a type of "Christ" or "Christos" Philosophy began soon after the time that the City of Alexandria, Egypt, was founded in 331 BCE. There were "Bishops of Christ," practicing a type of "Christ" Philosophy, in the Roman Empire many years before there was a Written Jesus Story. SOURCE: Hadrian to Servianus, 134 A.D. (Quoted by Giles, ii p86)"

I'm confused by this, because your source (which you give several pages later) says "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 is clearly speaking in present-tense, referring to people in 134 A.D. Your wording implies (it doesn't directly say it, but anyone reading it would get that impression) that it was being practiced as such in 331 B.C., but the text doesn't support that. How does this prove that there were "Bishops of Christ" practicing a type of "Christ" philosophy before there was a written Jesus story? No serious scholar puts even the most recent Gospels any later than 110 A.D, and even you agreed that a portion of John's gospel dated to about 125 CE. There clearly was a written Jesus story, by your own admission, at least a decade earlier than Hadrian's letter to Servianus. So how does your above statement make any sense?

- again, there were significant philosophies, which closely resemble the Christian Philosophy, many years before 10 A.D. They were mostly out of Turkey and Alexandria. They are referred to by scholars as "Christ sects" or those who studied the philosophy of the "Christos". If you search for "Christos" and "Logos" you should find a number of web sties fro reference.

I don't think this answers my question. Surely you do see the Gospel of John as a written version of the Jesus story. If it was, as you agree, written at least nine years before Hadrian's letter, why do you say there was no written Jesus story in Hadrian's time?

I did some Googling on the words "Christos" and "Logos" and am not seeing any sites suggesting that "Christ Sects" and the philosophy of "Christos" existed prior to 10 A.D. Maybe you could point me to one?

The Jesus philosophy probably saved our species from extinction due to sexually transmitted diseases.

I agree that it's been a huge benefit, but I'd say Jesus has provided better benefits, both tangible and intangible, to mankind. It's definitely good to be having this discussion with someone who isn't hostile towards God, Jesus and the Bible. We certainly don't see eye-to-eye on a lot of things, but that's the kind of thing that keeps it interesting.

Peace, David

David,

I’m attaching an article from that study I published online, and its in Word 2000 format and the file size is 126 KB. It’s a long article, but if you get a chance to read it sometime, I would really appreciate any comments you have.

Thanks

Clint

Clint,

I read through the article, and, again, it's more theory than evidence, so there's not a lot to respond to.

A few points and questions, though:

First of all, I think the title "The story of Serapis to Jesus" is misleading. While you did mention Serapis a few times, I wasn't seeing any real argument for how Serapis became Jesus.

You take the NT Gospels as "parable", yet the later OT and apocryphal writings (your sources for this theory) as "history". What standards do you use to determine which is which?

You said: "Parables in the Bible are just like all other parables in history with no exceptions. They are most likely based on real people and real events, but do not necessarily refer to a correct historical time or a correct historical place."

This is true. No one supposes that the Good Samaritan or the Prodigal Son were real people. But there is no evidence suggesting that the Jesus story itself is a parable, especially since many of its main players are people that history tells us existed (including Pilate, Herod, Ciaphas, and Jesus Himself).

You said: "So what we had at this time in history were, many interesting parables being transmitted from place to place via voice and in person, and also being translated from one language or dialect into another (a lot of babble going on)."

And there was also a lot of history being written around this time. The fact that parables were often being created doesn't mean that everything being created was a parable. The two were very easy to tell apart. "The Good Samaritan" = parable. The persecution of Jesus under the Romans = history.

Jesus was the son of Josedec (Joseph) during the Second Temple period 515 BCE. He was an important priest to the Levites: the tribe of Judah, the tribe of Simeon, and the tribe of Benjamin. And as Rabbi Saul of Tarsus had said of Christ, Jesus was "the Sophia."

Joshua/Jesus was (and is) a very popular name. The fact that a priest named Joshua/Jesus lived in the 6th century BCE hardly means that the Gospels are talking about this guy. All of the evidence suggests that the Jesus the Bible talks about was a 1st-century person. Since Paul writes (circa 50 AD) that people who knew Him were still alive, all of the Gospels mention Him being persecuted under Pilate, Herod and Ciaphas (who were 1st century), and being threatened by the earlier Herod as a child (circa 1 AD). If you have evidence that Jesus was really 6th century, it had better be quite strong if you hope to convince anyone. The fact is that there is very little in common but the name between Joshua and Jesus.

You said that the Gospel writers were writing of a nature, not a real person. There's an awful lot of specifics in the Gospels and other OT writings that suggest they were talking about someone that they believed walked the Earth just recently.

Regarding the 6th century's Joshua's "12 disciples", what evidence is there that these people were actually Joshua's desciples? You claim to be presenting it, but I'm not seeing any actual evidence in what you're presenting. Again, it's all just theory. I can't see how it could convince anyone.

You said: ""But of that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels of heaven, nor the Son, but the Father alone. "For the coming of the Son of Man will be just like the days of Noah. "For as in those days before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noah entered the ark, and they did not understand until the flood came and took them all away; so will the coming of the Son of Man be. "Then there will be two men in the field; one will be taken and one will be left. "Two women will be grinding at the mill; one will be taken and one will be left. "Therefore be on the alert, for you do not know which day your Lord is coming. "But be sure of this, that if the head of the house had known at what time of the night the thief was coming, he would have been on the alert and would not have allowed his house to be broken into. "For this reason you also must be ready; for the Son of Man is coming at an hour when you do not think He will. "Who then is the faithful and sensible slave whom his master put in charge of his household to give them their food at the proper time? "Blessed is that slave whom his master finds so doing when he comes. "Truly I say to you that he will put him in charge of all his possessions. "But if that evil slave says in his heart, `My master is not coming for a long time,' and begins to beat his fellow slaves and eat and drink with drunkards; the master of that slave will come on a day when he does not expect him and at an hour which he does not know, and will cut him in pieces and assign him a place with the hypocrites; in that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth."

Notice that the Old Jewish Testament is used to describe the second time the Jewish Christ of the Old Testament will come to the Jews and judge them. This means that the Jewish Christ mentioned in the Old Testament is most certainly the first time Christ came to the Jews. There can be no doubt that the Jesus we are reading about here (above and below) is the exact same Jesus, as in the New Testament."

The only items in there that point to the return of the Messiah are New Testament, thus referring to the return of the NT Messiah. The only OT quotes you have in there don't refer to the "return of the Messiah" at all. It almost seems like you're mixing OT and NT quotes in hopes that the reader won't realize which are which. If you really want to make your point, separate them and clarify how you feel the OT quotes are pointing towards the return of an OT Messiah.

If there's any actual evidence that you presented that I missed, feel free to point it out. You're definitely a talented writer, but I don't find this text persuasive at all. I'm reminded a bit of a web page I came across recently where the author claims that horror novelist Stephen King murdered John Lennon, based primarily on the fact that Stephen King and Mark David Chapman (Lennon's actual assassin) look a lot alike. Obviously, the theory is ridiculous, but that page's arguments really resemble yours to a point. He starts with the fact that they look a lot alike, and then presents theories, and on occassion interprets evidence to support his theories. It's still not convincing.

David

David,

I've put together a version in consideration of your comments, and others, and I have a newer version of the draft of my paper. I think it would be   better for you to view that one. The data is much more organized and focused, thanks to you and others.

You can download a copy at this address:

http://www.artdsm.com/religiondetoxification/download.html

It also has just a few maps that help make the connections.

Thanks again,

Clint