Pagan Influences in Christian Theology
I recently read from a budding South African theologian of Ad Lucem Ministries that the New Testament’s concept of God is not based on Graeco-Roman philosophy. Yet this does not seem to be the case…(see attached photo), Acts 17:28 (NIV):
It is quite peculiar that the New Testament uses the term “ειμι” (to exist) for God but never in the present participle form of “ὤν” (being). What’s interesting is that New Testament’s translators continue to replace in their translations “ειμι” for “ὤν” in English, almost as if the allegedly inspired texts in and of themselves use insufficient language…
We see further examples of a dependency on Platonic-Aristotelian metaphysics in Philippians 2:6, where “μορφε” (form) is translated as “nature or essence”, a completely Platonic-Aristotelian pre-Christian concept in philosophy, referring to the “material whole”.
This is why in Christianity, God who is a “ουσια” (substance) can also be immanent, because it fits into the Aristotelian pre-Christian concept of an “accident” (a substance that exists in another substance), i.e. God (a being) in flesh (another substance). This can also be seen in the sense of passion, from the “Praedicamenta”/ 10 Categories of Being, where God (a being) uses a form and thus can experience pain in one sense and not in other because this Being can distinguish between itself (read as quantitatively, therefore “Persons” in the Godhead) and can have various forms (read as qualitatively) hence the hypostatic union.
While some Christian apologists deny these dependencies on Platonic-Aristotelian pre-Christian philosophies, by using these terms, they are implying an already understood meaning, which in this case would be the predominant Platonic-Aristotelian metaphysics for their onto-theology of “God”.
It should be noted that this is the reasoning behind Justin Martyr’s statement of:
“And when we say also that the Word, who is the first-birth of God, was produced without sexual union, and that He, Jesus Christ, our Teacher, was crucified and died, and rose again, and ascended into heaven, we propound NOTHING DIFFERENT from WHAT YOU BELIEVE regarding those whom you esteem sons of Jupiter.”
Some apologists have argued that Justin was using “hyperbole”, this is an ignorant claim, without understanding of basic Graeco-Roman metaphysics.
and Allah knows best.
Calling Christians 
Reblogged this on Blogging Theology.
Sons of Jupiter? The one that came to my mind after ten seconds of thinking was Hercules. The story of Hercules doesn’t seem that (metaphysically) different from the Incarnation. So is Hercules 50% god and 50 % man? Or 100% god and 100% man? Does he have a single nature? Two natures in one union? Two separate natures in one form (shape, μορφή)?
Did people really think about the nature of Hercules to the point of excommunicating people for heresy? Hume says no:
The Natural History of Religion
In other words, all those stories are just a bunch of frivolous and amusing tales told by bards. The characters are not to be regarded as the true objects of ibadah, but rather powerful preternatural beings who want occasional displays of flattery and appeasement in the form of sacrifice. One could even display flippancy and impiety towards one those gods without experiencing much social opprobrium. Those gods neither attract intense devotion nor are they the subjects of intense philosophical contemplation and controversy as those gods did not impose an “importunate and assuming” system of belief
What a wonderful opportunity to reflect on the simplicity and beauty of Surah Ikhlas.