Paganistic?

[Cerebrum123]

No one wants to admit that their beliefs may have been influenced by paganism, and you are no exception. Jerry is to thank for the following evidence that seems to refute your claim that "no DOCTRINE is "paganistic":

The Apologists (Christian writers who, under the guise of defending the faith to the outside world, irreparably compromised it with Greek philosophy, c. 120-220), were all "ardent monotheists" and determined "at all costs" not to betray that principle. "The solution they proposed, reduced to essentials, was that, as preexistent, Christ was the Father's thought or mind, and that, as manifested in creation and revelation, He was its extrapolation or expression. In expounding this doctrine they had recourse to the imagery of the divine Logos, or Word, which had been familiar to later Judaism as well as to Stoicism, and which had become a fashionable clich through the influence of Philo." [J. N. D. Kelly, Early Christian Doctrines (San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1978), 95-96.] Devoid of the Spirit of revelation, that Spirit essential to even the most fundamental understanding of the gospel declared by Christ, the Apologists commenced their "speculations and developed a science about Christ" called Christology, their great labor being "Logos Christology, from the Greek term logos, meaning 'the Word.'" The Logos notion was "a prominent concept in the prevailing Neo-Platonic philosophy of the time and so provided the theologians with a means of correlating the Christian revelation not only with the Old Testament but also with the insights of the classical philosophers." [Thomas Bokenkotter, A Concise History of the Catholic Church (New York: Doubleday, Image Books, 1990), 46.] That is a kind way of saying they sold out. To cover the treachery of their deed, the argument of traditional Christianity was that the pagan philosophers were "Christians before Christianity" and so their philosophical speculations were more important than the writings of the Old Testament prophets, which those speculations were then used to reinterpret. [Kelly, Early Christian Doctrines, 96.]

The word Logos may be Greek, but the concept actually goes back to the Jewish "Wisdom theology" AFAIK, and that certainly isn't "paganistic". Also, I never said that there were no pagans that had concepts with a little bit of truth in them. Even the "Epic of Gilgamesh" has a worldwide Flood in it, even if it is heavily corrupted over time it still has that basic truth in it. Also, this isn't even comparable to things like Mormonism ,and the polytheistic nature of LDS belief. You also don't have anything in Christianity that God the Father was once a man, and eventually we can become exactly like Him.

[Sparko]

The word Logos may be Greek, but the concept actually goes back to the Jewish "Wisdom theology" AFAIK, and that certainly isn't "paganistic". Also, I never said that there were no pagans that had concepts with a little bit of truth in them. Even the "Epic of Gilgamesh" has a worldwide Flood in it, even if it is heavily corrupted over time it still has that basic truth in it. Also, this isn't even comparable to things like Mormonism ,and the polytheistic nature of LDS belief. You also don't have anything in Christianity that God the Father was once a man, and eventually we can become exactly like Him.

yup. The LDS version of "god" sounds an awful lot like the greek and roman Pantheon of Gods. The Father is Zeus, Jesus is Hercules, and Satan is Loki.

[Bill the Cat]

No one wants to admit that their beliefs may have been influenced by paganism, and you are no exception. Jerry is to thank for the following evidence that seems to refute your claim that "no DOCTRINE is "paganistic":

The Apologists (Christian writers who, under the guise of defending the faith to the outside world, irreparably compromised it with Greek philosophy, c. 120-220), were all "ardent monotheists" and determined "at all costs" not to betray that principle. "The solution they proposed, reduced to essentials, was that, as preexistent, Christ was the Father's thought or mind, and that, as manifested in creation and revelation, He was its extrapolation or expression. In expounding this doctrine they had recourse to the imagery of the divine Logos, or Word, which had been familiar to later Judaism as well as to Stoicism, and which had become a fashionable clich through the influence of Philo." [J. N. D. Kelly, Early Christian Doctrines (San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1978), 95-96.] Devoid of the Spirit of revelation, that Spirit essential to even the most fundamental understanding of the gospel declared by Christ, the Apologists commenced their "speculations and developed a science about Christ" called Christology, their great labor being "Logos Christology, from the Greek term logos, meaning 'the Word.'" The Logos notion was "a prominent concept in the prevailing Neo-Platonic philosophy of the time and so provided the theologians with a means of correlating the Christian revelation not only with the Old Testament but also with the insights of the classical philosophers." [Thomas Bokenkotter, A Concise History of the Catholic Church (New York: Doubleday, Image Books, 1990), 46.] That is a kind way of saying they sold out. To cover the treachery of their deed, the argument of traditional Christianity was that the pagan philosophers were "Christians before Christianity" and so their philosophical speculations were more important than the writings of the Old Testament prophets, which those speculations were then used to reinterpret. [Kelly, Early Christian Doctrines, 96.]

I don't know who you plagiarized this from, but this paragraph is not in Kelly's book. Whoever wrote this screed misrepresented Kelly in every partial quote they gave.

Oh, it came from http://www.thebellows.info/notes/Sat...%20History.htm

[One Bad Pig]

I actually saw a documentary on the History channel where specialists discussed what the Christians took from Pagan culture in order to get the Pagans to convert quietly. I'm trying to remember all of them, but I recall Christmas coming up a few times.

I no more trust the History Channel to get Christian history correct than I trust it to get Mormon history correct.

That said, Christianity has a long history (going all the way back to the Apostle Paul) of using areas of agreement as a starting point when evangelizing. All cultures started from Adam and Eve, who had knowledge of God. Not all of that knowledge was lost through the ages (Rom 1:20).

[Cow Poke]

I don't know who you plagiarized this from, but this paragraph is not in Kelly's book. Whoever wrote this screed misrepresented Kelly in every partial quote they gave.

Oh, it came from http://www.thebellows.info/notes/Sat...%20History.htm

ooooops

[ke7ejx]

Be nice Pig...... I never said that I trusted it, only that I watched it.

[Chrawnus]

yup. The LDS version of "god" sounds an awful lot like the greek and roman Pantheon of Gods. The Father is Zeus, Jesus is Hercules, and Satan is Loki.

I think you've got some Norse mythology mixed in there...

[One Bad Pig]

Be nice Pig...... I never said that I trusted it, only that I watched it.

[Cerebrum123]

yup. The LDS version of "god" sounds an awful lot like the greek and roman Pantheon of Gods. The Father is Zeus, Jesus is Hercules, and Satan is Loki.

Loki is a Norse god.

[Bill the Cat]

Loki is a Norse god.

And a Marvel Comics character...

[Sparko]

Loki is a Norse god.

yeah same idea though. Odin, Thor and Loki. better?

[Cerebrum123]

yeah same idea though. Odin, Thor and Loki. better?

Much better fit to the Mormon deal. Only problem with this one is that Loki isn't technically Odin's actual son, only got him by taking him from the frost giants after a battle.

[nrajeff]

I don't know who you plagiarized this from, ..

Of course you don't know, since I didn't plagiarize. I didn't try to pass off what I QUOTED as being my own work. I even credited the person. Are you sure your definition of plagiarize is an accurate one?

Thanks for the link. It has a lot of info. I may spend some time reading it all.

[Bill the Cat]

Of course you don't know, since I didn't plagiarize. I didn't try to pass off what I QUOTED as being my own work. I even credited the person.

Sorry, but "thanks to Jerry" is not an adequate citation.

Are you sure your definition of plagiarize is an accurate one?

Sorry. I used the wrong word for your poorly cited quote

Thanks for the link. It has a lot of info. I may spend some time reading it all.

I've spent some time reading the article I linked and some of the citations it claims.I'd enjoy you quoting it from time to time so we can continue to show just how desperate Mormon apologists are for any shred of anything that can be twisted into "evidence".

[nrajeff]

How desperate are you to discount any and all evidence that supports any LDS claim?