"Again, no mention of Jesus."

Actually that's wrong -

" ... while paintings of Isis with her son Horus became identified by early Christians as portraits of Mary with her son Jesus."
http://dwij.org/forum/amarna/8_serapis_and_christianity.htm

ie. the implication is Mary and Jesus evolved because "Serapis and Christ existed side-by-side and were frequently seen as interchangeable. Some early Christians made no distinction between Christ and Serapis and frequently worshipped both"

"As for the word "Christ" and again if I do not misrecall, this is not a name but rather a title. It may have its roots in old Greek but I would be pleased for someone who knows to clarify that. Additionally, as it pertains to Jesus, it may have been a title that was applied to him well after his death, assuming he lived at all, and part of the manufacturing of a legend."
Posted by DreamOn, Friday, 2 January 2015 3:38:09 PM

There were two versions in Greek, which this site [onlineopinion] does not accept. The Latin versons are

Chrestus/Chrestos (Gk looks like: xpncToc) = 'good' or 'useful' (ie. adjectives) applied, for example, to slaves. "Xrestus ("useful, kindly") was a common slave-name in the Graeco-Roman world." http://biblehub.com/greek/5543.htm

Christos / Khristos / kri.stós / Xristos (Gk looks like: xpicToc) = 'anointed' (often literally), as in High-Priests, Rulers, or Kings.
Often used as much as a noun as an adjective. http://biblehub.com/greek/5547.htm

The have the root word chrió - http://biblehub.com/greek/5548.htm

.

Dear Mike (the author)

.

Allow me, once again, to recall that your article concludes:

« Even if there is no God, there was still an historical Jesus. »
.

As you have not yet responded to my previous post (page 5 of this thread), I thought I should elaborate a little further whilst “Waiting for Godot” (you, Mike).

Your conclusion raises the question of the paternity of the “historical Jesus”. If there is no god, presumably there is no holy ghost either. Who, then, could possibly have inseminated Mary? Do you adhere to the doctrine of her perpetual virginity, or do you discard or deny it? Are you suggesting that the conception of Jesus was just a fortuitous event whereby something was made out of nothing, or, perhaps, that Mary was inseminated by her husband, Joseph, or somebody else? Or, last guess: that the “historical Jesus” was not the same person as the Jesus of the biblical narratives.

If I understand you correctly, in addition to your four criticisms of Raphael Lataster’s article [Weighing up the evidence for the “historical Jesus”] you consider that the ten events on the check-list you indicate in your own article are conclusive evidence of the existence of “an historical Jesus”.

Unfortunately, on the basis of the arguments you produce I am afraid I do not share your absolute certainty on the conclusion. Nor could I concur beyond a reasonable doubt (at least 95% sure). I am, however, willing to go along with the theory of the existence of “an historical Jesus” on the balance of probabilities, i.e., consider that it is more likely than not (or more than 50% sure).

To be perfectly honest, Mike, my only certainty in this matter is that the supernatural and god concepts were invented by primeval man as an explanation of natural phenomena and that these were subsequently updated, refined and adapted by successive generations, down to this very day, in order to assure a workable degree of compatibility with the reigning scientific knowledge and philosophical thought.

They have become evolutive in order to survive.

.

McReal keeps trying:

"Says you. They have plenty of connection: In Greek and in Latin."

Gosh. Okay, so how about you now present some of these vaguely-similar-but-actually-different words *in context* and show us how they are evidence of pre-Christian Christianities. This will be fun to watch.

Speaking of context ...

"The key aspects of your quote are these"

Translation: 'No, giving the whole quote spoils everything, so I'm going to cut out the pesky bits about the Egyptians being a "light, fickle, and inconstant people, changing with every turn of fortune" that show he was talking about their changeability and the parts about "no one, whether Ruler of a synagogue, or Samaritan, or Presbyter of the Christians, or mathematician, or astrologer, or magician" that show he was talking about Egyptians generally and pretend he was saying something else.'

Seriously, you pull weak crap like this and then dare to whine when we laugh at you?

word salad, Timmy.

Again "The Christians among [the Egyptians] are worshippers of Serapis, and those calling themselves bishops of Christ scruple not to act as the votaries of that God .... The Patriarch himself, when he comes to Egypt, is by some compelled to worship Serapis, and by others, Christ."

Granted, it is unclear who the Patriarch is.
.

And, more fully -
"The cult of Serapis was to have sweeping success throughout Greece and Asia Minor, especially in Rome, where it became the most popular religion. There was a Serapis temple in Rome as early as 105 BC. Initiation into the Serapis cult included the rite of baptism, and Sir Alan Gardiner, the British Egyptologist, argued in the Journal of Egyptian Archaeology in 1950 that Egyptian baptism should be seen as analogous to Christian baptism, of which he commented: "In both cases a symbolic cleansing by means of water serves as initiation into a properly legitimated religious life." The cults of Serapis and Isis did not merely survive the emergence of Christianity, but in the 2nd century AD actually increased in popularity. Serapis and Christ existed side-by-side and were frequently seen as interchangeable. Some early Christians made no distinction between Christ and Serapis and frequently worshipped both, while paintings of Isis with her son Horus became identified by early Christians as portraits of Mary with her son Jesus. The rite of baptism, part of the initiation ceremony of the Serapis cult, was also adopted by the Church as part of its initiation ceremony."
http://dwij.org/forum/amarna/8_serapis_and_christianity.htm

note -
>> "Some early Christians made no distinction between Christ and Serapis and frequently worshipped both, while paintings of Isis with her son Horus became identified by early Christians as portraits of Mary with her son Jesus"

Here's a pic of Serapis - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serapis#mediaviewer/File:SarapisHead.jpg

oh; and they did baptisms; before the Christians. Maybe John the Baptist was a Serapian?
.

McReal

"word salad, Timmy."

Says the guy who chops out the words that show his carefully pruned "quote" doesn't actually say what he claims. And then cites another crackpot theorist who opines the same nonsense he's trying to prove. Hint: Guys who have to reassure themselves by putting "Historian and Scholar" on their cheap-looking website are almost always neither.