stonewall1012

How exactally do you see Chronos interacting with the Christ "Mythology"? When did it first encounter christianity and who did the mixing... Was it a Greek who ran across the Jewish neo christian community and perverted the Jewish belief or was it a Greek who ran across the Greek idea of Chronos and incorporated it? A Chi and a Rho is very little evidence to go on. Perhapse if you could provide another example of a persistant Jewish belief in Greek neo gods around our time frame we could find an example to follow. Do you have such an example?

Clivedurdle

I said earlier - Chinese Whispers, misunderstandings, copying errors, confusion of languages. Nothing deliberate or "exactly". You are thinking structurally about this.

http://commtechlab.msu.edu/sites/dlc...riftiasym.html

stonewall1012

Ahh so you believe there are "unexplainable" reasons that Chronos got picked up as Chrestus. You mean evidences that are hard to point at, possibilities that might exist, hints, intuition? Is that what you mean?

Clivedurdle

Sherlock Holmes - look at everything.

And are there not loads of unexplained things? It is normal to say unexplained yet.

Why exactly did Xians copy Chronus's features?


What is the aaah about?

I have recently noticed this either or thinking quite often, with an assumption that some other way of putting things is somehow superstitious or magical. But that ignores trhings like irrational numbers, square root of minus one, Koestler's holons, much Eastern thinking like the sound of one hand clapping.

It is as if the idea of climbing mount improbable has not been understood.

stonewall1012

for one Sherlock holmes was a fictional character. Secondly It is not possible to look at everything. Imagine trying to see in every color of the light spectrium. By examining "everything" the information would become so jumbled that you would be effectively "blind". It is our limited visibility that allows us to begin to distinguish between things because "everything" is just too much information. It is the same in "seeing" philosophically. One has to be able to limit what information one is willing to take into "consideration"
For example the bumble bee "cannot" fly. Our understanding of aerodynamics makes it nearly impossible. However, we simply "discount" this information as unimportant because our theories of aerodynamic work "enough" to let us fly huge jumbo jets. If we waited to build airplanes until we understood how bumblebees do it we'd still be taking a slow boat to china.

What does this prove?... It proves that we don't have to look at "everything"; that we do eject information that doesn't line up with our theories because looking at everything amounts to looking at nothing.

Finally, How do you know I am employing an either or mental frame work? I asked you what you meant... I didn't tell you what you meant; I was trying to understand what you were getting at. My Ahh was illumination.. Ahh I think I understand what you mean.

I am trying to understand where you are coming from.

Toto

Bumble Bee myth - I'm not sure why you repeated this urban legend. There is no scientific proof that a bumblebee cannot fly.

I am not sure of the relevance of the rest of your post. We have to ignore "too much information" to function at times, but that is not a good thing.

stonewall1012

"Bumble Bee myth - I'm not sure why you repeated this urban legend. There is no scientific proof that a bumblebee cannot fly."

I will conceed when I am licked... I have heard this quoted enough... I will admit I bought into it with little question. I will conceed that i need to examine this a little bit more... thanks for your pointing out a flaw in my argument.

My point however was NOT that sceince is unreliable but that accessing everything is impossible. I am 5'10 180 lb the desk where I am sitting is 1 of four. I can see 14 computer monitors from where I sit. it is 90 degrees outside. I have a wife and three children. I grew up in indiana, my home is in marion. I could extend this list indef... or nearly so. What does it prove? Nothing until you ask a question. A question points the "searcher" in a direction it gives him purpose and provides him limitations.

The question: What is stonewall1012 wearing? Now displays that all or nearly all the information I provided is irrelevant. More information is required. So obviously I didn't tell you "everything" or even enough. The question you ask guides the search for information. This is how you do and do not look at "everything"

The question: Does every phenomina have a naturalistic explination? Will guide the direction and selection of "relevant" information.

What makes this even more problematic is that we don't inherently know what information is relevant or irrelevant. How do you know I haven't given you "enough" information or that the information I've given you is even reliable? You don't; you have to sort through other "information" to see if that "information" is important at all. But how do you that that the origional "information" is really real?

Language itself couches much of what we consider information. So the language I use is the first bit of "information" that influences how I even speak about the "information" I am trying to understand. Have you examined how your thinking in english in the 21st century with a "liberal" education might affect how you perceive other information you might consider "facts"? Because until you begin that process... you're not even remotely considering "Everything"

Clivedurdle

http://www.websters-online-dictionar...on/BAAL+HAMMON

Clivedurdle

There is gold in them thar hills - Baal, Phoenicia, Carthage.

We have the problem of a huge long lasting widespread civilisation that has left minimal traces, but its footprints may be discerned for example in the Hebrew Bible with the Judaic sacrificial rituals and the continuous mention of Baal.

http://phoenicia.org/ethnlang.html

gstafleu

The idea that Christ and Chronos are somehow related because they both start with Chr (even in Greek) may at first blush seem silly, but is it? Consider the following tortuous path.

Some time ago this forum was visited by a Hindu fundi (apparently there is such an entity) who wanted to convince us that Brahma and Abraham were obviously one and the same. A bit of misguided folk-etymology, right? But now do the following thought experiment. This idea was not presented to our highly erudite forum, but rather to, say, Internet New Agers Anonymous. These well-willing souls fell for it and started to intermingle Brahmistic and Abrahamic symbols and stories. This caught on, and a 1000 years later historians delve into our culture and find... Well, not that Abraham and Brahma were always the same entity, but at one point in at least one culture they became so.

So, now back the the first few centuries CE. Maybe somebody did come up with the "If it starts with Chr it is all the same" bit, just like it is apparently possible to do that in our times. Then we might actually find some unexpected confluences. I'm not saying that happened, BTW, I just find it an entertaining thought. And if it did happen, we might not find the whole audit trail, just bit and pieces, and that could be mightily confusing.

Gerard Stafleu