lundi 20 mai 2013

Orpheos Bakkikos - a Christian Connexion, Probably

Pre-Christian Crucifix according to Acharya S

First of all, I do not know exactly what dialect and what period would say Ορφεος instead of Ορφευς. And I do not know at what period an iota might look like an arrow pointing downwards either, except it was hardly a byzantine minuscule or even uncial, that much I do know. A Roman who was bad in Greek and parted from the Latin transcription Orpheus (seized as Orphe-us, analogous to ferre-us in Latin and to Latin words like Priam-us transliterating as Πριαμ-ος) would do. But other possibilities might be known to Grecicists better than I (me being frankly said lousy at Greek).

Some Christians had noted the similarity between Orpheus who descended into Hades to get Eurydike out and failed and Christ who succeeded where Orpheus had failed, only his bride being the Church comprised parts already in Hades, namely all the just souls that had been gathered down there since Adam's sin up to Crucifixion. So, in a sense, it was also a second Exodus.

And that brings us to Moses, where Acharya has pointed out a connexion with Dionysos or Bacchus, only wrong way around.

Other reason for such a description - of Christ - might be that the Christians were first of all persecuted according to the Senatus Consultum de Bacchanalibus, the one beginning "sei quis uelitod Bacanal habuisse" ... maybe because the Disciples of Christ as well as the Israelites following Moses stroke "existing powers" as similar to Dionysus' attitude towards Pentheus. Or maybe because wine is used - though in quite another way - in the Holy Mass.

When I say "a Christian connexion" I do not quite mean that it was made by a Christian. He would hardly have described his own as Bakkikoi or his and our Lord God as Bacchus or as "Orpheus of the Bacchus-worshippers."

An infiltrator getting out and making his report about them might have done so. A sympathising, curious, but not adept outsider might have done so as well, in a syncretistic way. A bit like lore about Christ and about the Apocalypse found its way into the Norse Mythology about Ragnarok and Baldur.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
University Library of
Nanterre / Paris X Campus
Monday of Pentecost

vendredi 17 mai 2013

Popular on Apologetics Section

vendredi 3 mai 2013

Would "Finding Extraterrestrials" Disprove Christianity?

1) somewhere else : Would "Finding Extraterrestrials" Disprove Christianity?, 2) Φιλολoγικά/Philologica : I am not a believer in Hörbiger, 3) Creation vs. Evolution : Would finding Atlantis disprove the Flood of Noah?

Did KGB excavate "an extraterrestrial" in Egypt in 1961?

[Belated correction to detail of video: they speak about "book of Baruch", but read from III book of Baruch, which is not canonic. The canonic book of Baruch however also mentions giants in chapter three.]

I do not know if they were there. That could be a lie. Let us assume they were.

Then they can indeed both have found and faked the find.

There are some other things they could have done apart from finding or faking. It seems Red Sea was being searched by divers for Pharao's drowned army in the 1970's according to US Creationists, by such as themselves, who were testing credibility of Exodus. Then they were stopped from continuing. And later the search was resumed by people testing reliability of the Quran. Who could of course use the results of the interrupted creationist searches. That is one thing the KGB could have done, if in 1961 they could direct excavations in Egypt.

There are also other things than the excavations they could have faked if they were there.

I have seen Classic pictures of man on the Moon. I have also seen less orthodox pictures in which an astronaut's "glass shield" before the face is reflecting a pyramidic shape.

I find it more credible those pictures were faked in Egypt than that there are pyramids on the Moon. What about the Classic pictures (with the notorious flutter of the US flag)? In that case NASA and KGB might have cooperated. But back to subject.

Assuming they really found the mummy which was reconstructed with features of a somewhat gigantic Roswell creature ... well, who says this needs to have "come from outer space"?

I do not.

For one thing, even if facial features can be reconstructed with the technology used or purportedly used in the video, we cannot from there on know that the eyes were like those shown on pictures of the Roswell creatures. Size, perhaps, lack of lids, no, lack of pupils delimitated from the eyeball, no.

For another thing, we cannot with any certainty identify the Roswell creatures - even if they are there - as coming from "outer Space". We cannot rule out they come from earth's surface, like an unusual (albeit very unusual) race of men, nor that they come from its inside, like demons, more precisely, if saint Thomas Aquinas is correct about their non-corporeal nature, like demons "assuming bodies".

Indeed, on a Geocentric or Geostatic worldview, only Angels and God live above us in the stars or even above them. No foreign biology or civilisation is to be presumed.

This may come as a shock to people fed on Star Trek and Star Wars and Agent Spatiotemporal Valérian (if you enjoy space opera, if you have not yet discovered that one, it is a French Comic and its humour is delicious, as its spatial exoticism, of course), but we need not assume there are other earths out there. Even the exoplanets properly sighted and photographed may well be much closer and smaller on a geocentric world view, since parallax or 1838 phenomenon of among other stars proxima Centauri (0.76 archseconds back and forth each year) need not be what it is assumed to be.

There are other considerations in rejecting the idea of Ancient Astronauts.

One of them is: Atlantis. Along with Lemuria and Mu. Another is: Civilisations sprung very suddenly out of the ground. And of course, as we had this video with a mummy at least purportedly from 11.000 (eleven thousand) B.C., dating. A third or fourth is: have atomic bombs already been used very long time ago?

OK, Atlantis first. I do not believe in "levels of consciousness". Atlantis was not drowned, if ever it existed, for "not having reached the proper level of consciousness" or proper stage of "development of mind." It can have been drowned before the Flood as a warning, it can have been drowned during the Flood and not have reemerged after it, it can have been - like Ys - drowned after the Flood of Noah, as a reminder. Only in the last case can there be any sense of talking of Atlantean races, since if Atlantis was not peopled after Flood, only survivors would have been either all of humanity (if Noah himself was from there) or about one third (if one of his daughters in law was from there).

If Atlantis was drowned during the Flood and did not reemerge, that may also have been the case for Lemuria and Mu. Supposing there is any evidence, legendary or submarine archeological, for either or both of these. I am not counting as evidence what a man dreamed under self hypnosis or under hypnosis induced by someone else. I do not believe in "previous lives", but previous lives or what has purported to have been such have been "accessed" under hypnosis, therefore what is accessed under hypnosis is unreliable. So, the self hypnotic dreams of one Cayce are discounted from table of possible evidence, as far as I or most other Christians are concerned.

Civilisations that spring suddenly out of the ground is what is to be excpected either after the Flood of Noah or after possibly other deluges, of Atlantis and so on. Survivors do not bring along their buildings, they may not bring along all of the know-how, but they do bring along some of it, and memories of what they do not know how to do. If I were stranded with a few more on a desert island, I would not bring along myself any know-how as to how to construct computers, but I would know that these have been constructed and might pass that on to my family. Since it has been invented once, it can be reinvented.

There is also the question of how much in inventions are demonic. This does not mean such a thing must never be used, if its use is clearly technological and not magic, since we know there are situations where using the sword is licit and just, although swords may have been one thing demons showed the people of Nod (if Ethiopians are correct in accepting their Book of Henoch, that is). After the Flood (and other deluges if they occurred) some technology recovery or discovery may also have been hastened by negotiations with the realm of darkness. A consideration that should warn anyone that although technology is a great thing, getting more and more of it is not the end of man's life. It is a means, and we should not waste eternal bliss, which is the end of our life, just to get hold of the means.

Dating of the possibly excavated giant mummy by KGB is assuming that current dating techniques are valid, even for ages "older than earth" as earth is dated per Biblical genealogies with life spans and ages at birth of such and such a son clearly given. C14 ... well, I give you the same answer as the standard Creationist answer. I learnt it at age twelve from Edgar Andrews, and I find it pretty satisfying. The C14 level in the atmosphere is not what I would scholastically call "a constant per se" (unlike the level of Nitrogen, which is constantly there in the atmosphere except the marginal tying down thereof by leguminous roots into proteins), but "a constant per accidens", a constant which is only constant because of a special circumstance which need not itself be constant from eternity. In this case: an equilibrium of the C14 lost by radioactive decomposition and the C14 added by cosmic rays on atmosphere. Obviously first amount is - as with all radioactive material - proportional to what is already there of it. And therefore there may have been a buildup period, with less C14, and back then same amount was annually formed by cosmic rays, but less lost, so instead of equilibrium one had a buildup.*

And with less original C14 from atmosphere in an organism for real than is now the case, but with Darwinian scientists assuming wrongly the buildup period was so far past that all organic C14 comes from an atmosphere with our level of C14, there will be counted as "lost C14" what was rather "C14 that was never there in the first place". And therefore ages will rise in the mathematics misapplied. Not incorrect mathematics as multiplying 4*4 and getting 25, but misapplied mathematics, as in counting on levels that are misinterpreted.

Have atomic bombs already been in use in very ancient times? Maybe just so. Maybe that was part of the earth destroyed by a corruption of all flesh, as the Bible describes the earth before the Flood.

So, have Annunaki from planet Nibiru created man by genetic engineering, mixing their own species with some apeman like creature and later returned to form ancient civilisations?

Well, no. God created man.

Is the discovery of the mummy as described in the video, if genuine, the greatest discovery ever made?

No, the greatest discovery ever made was to another grave, which was empty of body but still had the sindone**. It was made by St John running into the grave.

But if the then Sovietics (or if only one or two of them) can describe the mummy discovery as the greatest discovery ever made, they seem to have some remnant of Christian feelings. Only, a somewhat distorted one. Why? Well, in 1961 there was compulsory atheism in the Soviet Union.

I recommend you search the historic evidence for that other discovery, and on this blog I have put refutations of some current explanations away of the Miracle of Miracles which is the Resurrection of Christ.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
BU Nanterre (BU=UL)
Inventio Crucis

*Before that there may have been another equilibrium with lower C14, if there was less cosmic rays reaching earth before the Deluge. **Or shroud.