Clivedurdle

http://www.pocm.info/pagan_ideas_god.html

Back Again

I tend to think this as well.

I will remind everyone that Stan Lee, needing a Marvel character to compete with Superman, decided to borrow Thor from Norse mythology...and likely didn't give two shits about what people in Norway thought as they were not his audience. Thor can fight crime and super villians in the good old USA or you can write a nice background story about him and his dad Odin in Asgard dealing with that crazy Loki.

Toto

You may be thinking of some of the groups described in Pagan Monotheism in Late Antiquity (or via: amazon.co.uk) (which I have only skimmed) - in particular the Hypsitarians. There is more at this link.

avi

Here is line 5 of Aratus' Phenomena:

Τοῦ γὰρ καὶ γένος εἰμέν.

Here is Acts 17:28
tou gar kai genoV esmen

Thanks Clive. Very interesting.

avi

GakuseiDon

Excellent! Thanks for the links, Toto.

aa5874

....... And then one day Jesus, the Father and the Holy Ghost were the only myths. What happened? How did the Three-in-One myth become Supermyth? They ran all the other myths out of town.

PhilosopherJay

Hi Back Again,

This is another good example of the channel phenomena that I was trying to describe. In the early 1960's, there were three major brands (publishers) of comic books in the United States: DC, Marvel and Archie. The characters within each company would interact with other characters from that company, but not with characters from the other comic book publishers. The characters from "Batman" and "Superman" could interact being both D.C. comics, and the characters from the "Spiderman" and "Fantastic Four" comics could interact being both Marvel comics, and the characters from the comics "Jughead" and "Betty and Veronica" could interact being both Archie comics. However, there were no cross-overs between the publishers, at least not in the 1960's. Although, we should note that Archie comics did develop a superhero line in the mid 1960's that was intended as a parody of the Marvel superheroes.

Now, one could argue about the realism of each of the publishers. DC comics were generally the least realistic, in that the emphasis was on the fantastic adventures of the superhero characters. Marvel tended to include a lot about the every day details of the lives ot their characters making for more realism. Archie comics generally dealt with romance and comedy among high school students, so in a sense they were the most realistic of all, but the characters tended to be one dimensional, purely comical and without development, so in another sense they were as unrealistic as the other two.

It is absurd to speak of any of the characters in the three brands of comics as being more historical than the others, although they each reflected in some way the historical events of their times. For example, Superman did fight Nazi terrorists in World War II, Ironman did fight Vietnamese in the mid-60's, and Archie comics did include "beatnik" jokes in the late 1950's.

The comic book publishers would each have a certain style, as well as a universe inhabited by its own characters. This is in certain ways comparable to the Hollywood studios of the 1930's and 1940's. Generally, MGM made musicals (e.g. "The Broadway Melody", 1929), Universal made horror films ("Frankenstein," 1931) and Warner Brothers made socially conscious films ("I am a Fugitive from a Chain Gang" 1931). The same actors generally worked for the same studios in the same kinds of pictures, but there was many cross-overs here with studios occasionally lending out their stars and stars switching studios at the end of their contracts. While the studios had their special genre niches, they could all produce excellent pictures outside their specialties. For example, MGM did the horror film "Freaks" (1932), Universal did the anti-war film "All Quiet on the Western Front" (1930), and Warner Brothers did the musical "Forty-Second Street" (1934).

On the issue of cross-over material, it seems fruitful to compare Hollywood movie studios of the 1930's and 40's, American television channels of the 1950's and 60's, and American comic book publishers of the 1960's. Of the three, we can say that Greco-Roman mythology and Jewish/Christian mythology was probably closest to the comic book industry of the 1960's. There was an almost hermetic seal between the universes. Yet, one can not say that one universe is more historical than another.


Warmly,

Philosopher Jay

DCHindley

I read about it in volumes II (or via: amazon.co.uk), III.1 (or via: amazon.co.uk) of the revised edition of Emil Schuerer's History of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus Christ.

Some inscriptions from diaspora synagogues and tombs suggest that Jews were allowing gentiles to believe that Yahweh equated with Zeus. I sincerely doubt that any Jews took that kind of equation seriously, but it allowed them to accept gifts from gentile patrons, and rich or politically connected gentiles did indeed patronize Jewish synagogues.

There are also inscriptions that indicate some gentiles were paying homage to a "Most High God" in parts of Syria and Asia Minor, but it is uncertain whether this is a term for the god of the Jews or of an indigenous god.

A thread on the subject of Zeus in Paul's letters (which has already been touched on) is here.

DCH

Clivedurdle

Has anyone asked if there are any connections between Hypsitarians and
http://www.khazaria.com/khazar-diaspora.html?


And does not a book entitled "pagan" display a little bias by using a xian term of abuse?

spamandham

I don't see any reason to prefer non-Jews over Jews for the origin. Keep in mind that orthodox Judaism did not yet exist. The spectrum of what was considered 'jew' was very broad.