D. M. Murdock makes mistakes?

[slevin]

But there is nothing more than Philo or someone or 'someones' like Philo at the beginning of Christianity. Silly assertion-based argumentation.

Perhaps this will prove useful
http://www.academia.edu/3560753/Of_Cosm ... _mysteriis

[DCHindley]

But there is nothing more than Philo or someone or 'someones' like Philo at the beginning of Christianity. Silly assertion-based argumentation.

Perhaps this will prove useful
http://www.academia.edu/3560753/Of_Cosm ... _mysteriis

There are quite a few Greek spelling mistakes, as if someone tried to OCR the article and had to correct the ancient Greek (which no OCR program seems to be able to handle very well) with limited knowledge of the forms of the letters.

It kind of make it difficult for me to want to follow ...

DCH

[slevin]

There are quite a few Greek spelling mistakes, as if someone tried to OCR the article and had to correct the ancient Greek (which no OCR program seems to be able to handle very well) with limited knowledge of the forms of the letters.
It kind of make it difficult for me to want to follow ...

Sorry.

Here's a reference a bit easier on the eyes. Paper was written in 1941 by John G. Jackson, quotes Gerald Massey's book from 1930's.

http://jdstone.org/cr/files/paganorigin ... tmyth.html

Is there a question about pagan influence on earliest texts of Christianity? Is that relationship not universally acknowledged? (apart from the unhelpful remarks of one participant.)

[arnoldo]

There are quite a few Greek spelling mistakes, as if someone tried to OCR the article and had to correct the ancient Greek (which no OCR program seems to be able to handle very well) with limited knowledge of the forms of the letters.
It kind of make it difficult for me to want to follow ...

Sorry.

Here's a reference a bit easier on the eyes. Paper was written in 1941 by John G. Jackson, quotes Gerald Massey's book from 1930's.

http://jdstone.org/cr/files/paganorigin ... tmyth.html

From your source I found the following interesting. .

Strange as it may seem, the Aztecs of ancient Mexico likewise could boast of a crucified savior. Quetzalcoatl17 was born of a virgin, and also, like Jesus, was tempted and fasted for forty days. He is shown in the Borgian Ms., on a cross, with nail marks on his hands and feet. He is depicted as a man of sable hue. After being crucified, he rose from the dead and went into the East. The Mexicans were expecting his Second Coming when the Spaniards invaded the country in the sixteenth century.

[Leucius Charinus]

Christianity began as a mixture of traditions, it is not purely Jewish in background, and that is your problem, I believe.

Assertion alert!! Assertion alert!!

If you can even so much as prove THAT - i.e. that something other than Judaism, that is that more than Jews were responsible for creating the gospel or Christianity - I would be very impressed. Unfortunately it is not possible to do that.

Neither is it possible to "prove" that the gospel or Christianity is exclusively a Jewish creation. Was the "Song of Hiawatha" an exclusive creation of the Ojibway nation?

In other words, there is no way to demonstrate that people other than Jews would have used the Jewish scriptures or that anything non-Jewish is present in earliest Christianity.

There is evidence that tends to mitigate against a Jewish creation of Christianity:

1) The Christian books were written in Greek and not Hebrew.
2) The Christian books cited (and copy/pasted) from the Greek LXX and not the Hebrew scripture.
3) The Christian books reveal not one sacred name, but a myriad.

Prove to me that anything more than Jews or 'Jewish culture' is responsible for the origin of Christianity.

The state of the evidence (and its DOGMA) is such that any "proofs" for any claims can never have any certainty.

And don't cite 'Greek philosophy.'

Why not? The gospels and Pauline letters are full of it.

Philo makes clear that Jews were still 'Jewish' and interested and enthusiastic about Greek philosophy, they used the Greek language.

"Philo is an historian who cannot be classified either a Greek or a Jew." ..... [Momigliano]

But there is nothing more than Philo or someone or 'someones' like Philo at the beginning of Christianity.

Dogma is neither evidence or proof.




LC

[Leucius Charinus]

Perhaps this will prove useful
http://www.academia.edu/3560753/Of_Cosm ... _mysteriis

Of Cosmocrators and Cosmic Gods: The Place of the Archons in De mysteriis

An interesting read.

• Although angels were mentioned by Porphyry and several Middle Platonists, the inclusion of archons in neoplatonic hierology is uniquely Iamblichean. What then is the nature of these archons? Thus far, studies of Iamblichus have neglected to deal with the issue of the archons in a thorough manner.

I have messaged the author to ask the question .... "Has anyone connected Constantine with one of these archons?"



LC

[Leucius Charinus]

Is there a question about pagan influence on earliest texts of Christianity?

Yes. And it is an open question.

Is that relationship not universally acknowledged? (apart from the unhelpful remarks of one participant.)

No. A large segment of Biblical Historians still accept the dogma of a dominant Jewish influence. But what can one expect from people who have been graduated from Christian theological institutes? Or people who wish to ingratiate themselves (without rocking the life-raft) to the mainstream dogma?



LC

[slevin]

From your source I found the following interesting. .

Thanks for your reply, Arnold, um, yeah, I had seen that, but didn't mention it, because I can't find any reference to support that claim. I am not writing that I deny the author's statement, maybe the Aztecs did adhere to such notions, I don't know much about them.

In the case of Zoroastrian influence on earliest Christianity, I think the evidence is compelling, I am surprised by the hostility directed to my opinion, by one of the forum members. As far as Aztec beliefs, I think they were mainly murdered by the Conquistadores, under Hernan Cortes, so, i am not optimistic about who would have remained alive to relay tales of their former beliefs. I believe that in Mexico City, the Spanish constructed a huge cathedral atop the most sacred temple of the Aztecs, so that, as that ancient temple is excavated, perhaps it will be possible to verify some of those claims, about Aztec religious beliefs--inscriptions, or other physical artifacts within or upon the temple itself.

[John T]

No response from mimi? What about slevin?

Can he/she (or any of Acharaya's minions for that matter) cite the source that Acharaya used for the saying: "Jesus Christ God from God Iao"?

If experts like Peter Kirby and DCHindley can't find it, what chance would a layman like me have?
And why should I or anyone else go on a wild goose chase?

Bart Ehrman in his book; "Did Jesus Exist", gave several examples of claims not proven by Acharya S as well as some that are demonstrably false.

I have to side with Erhman when he states that "...[A]ll of Acharya's major points are in fact wrong.

That, "Christianity, in Acharya's view, started out as an astrotheological religion in which the sun-god Jesus was transformed into a historical Jew by a group of Jewish Syro-Samaritan Gnostic sons of Zadok, who were also Gnostics and Therapeutae (a sectarian group of Jews) in Alexandria, Egypt, after the failed revolt of the Jews against Rome in 135 CE."...pg22

Of course the minions of Acharya S. will likey say, she never said that but without giving an answer to what she really said.

[perseusomega9]

John T is truly the anti-mythicist one-man-wrecking-crew, first Carrier(via youtube), now Murdock (via goalpost moving) he sure has demolished them. I'm sure he remains comfortable in his faith. Nuance be damned!