What I Did

I don't know if my the Real Messiah will ever be recognized as an important book. Yet I would be guilty of dishonesty if I was to claim that I didn't write the book with that purpose in mind. Why else would I bother to attempt something like this? I know that the haters want to believe that there is a Devil or Satan running around 'directing' heretics to attack the Church but it's really not like that (of course if you buy into that conspiracy your probably thinking I am winking at my Satanic majesty right now so there is no way to fight this kind of false paranoia).

If the truth be told I went out of my way to write a POSITIVE book. I could have attacked Christianity and developed all these lines of argument which prove that it is corrupt, dishonest, counterfeit and all the other claims that others do. I just found this approach counter-productive to the ends I was pursuing so I went out of my way to avoid doing it.

Indeed I didn't even mention the one topic which has fascinated me for most of my adult life - Marcionitism. I felt that the average reader wouldn't have a clue who Marcion was and if he did there would be no way to integrate a critical examination of the manner in which the Church Fathers treat 'Marcion' and the 'Marcionites' with the framework of my Agrippa theory without losing all my readers.

Instead I stuck to one idea and developed it as best I could over 288 pages. It is worth noting that even though Marcion isn't mention the whole premise does come down to Marcion.

The underlying argument which is never explicitly referenced in the book(again because I thought I would completely lose my readership) is -

was Mark called 'little Mark' by the Church Fathers because they were referencing a cult in Alexandria which venerated a child disciple of Jesus by that name?

Consider the throne of St. Mark as a constant reminder of the apostle as 'little' Mark. Again the specific name Marcion is never mentioned but the discerning reader should take note of this.

Indeed the whole business of 'Marcion of Sinope' is easy enough to explain in an Alexandrian setting. Think of the whole manner in which St. Mark keeps running into devotees of Sarapis and note the popular understanding of the idol Serapis coming from Sinope of Pontus.

The connection between the Alexandrian Christians and the Alexandrian devotees of Sarapis is as old as Hadrian's statement connecting the two cults. I even think that Hadrian developed his Antinous religion in conscious imitation of the religion of that other ruler Marcus Agrippa. Why else does Celsus of Rome constantly make the comparison while writing immediately after the reign of Hadrian (see Origen).

Celsus must have known the logic which drove Hadrian to make his cult of Antinous. The Emperor must have thought - if Caligula could deify his boy lover why can't I? At least its another angle to explore ...


BUY MY BOOK. SERIOUSLY. WHAT CAN YOU BUY TODAY FOR $10?