Dear Mr. Tulip
Hurray - some actual thought in the wilderness!
I remain of the view that this patronising attitude towards analysis of pagan parallels is evidence of mental blockages towards simple evidence. The reasons for such blockages are complex. A key part of it is the failure to understand the role of Gnostic spirituality, and how Gnosticism was an old movement based on links between Judaism and other cultures. These links are denied point blank by the “nuts” premise of this thread which Godfrey and Huller and now Hindley have rather crassly supported.
I would suggest astrotheology is only part of a larger syncretic (Intellectuals do integrate knowledge and wisdom is the meaning of the word Gnosis) system called Imhotep/Asklepios in Egypt and Thoth/Hermes in other places where Empire was ascendant. In his book The Rise of the Greeks by Michael Grant he says this existed for the millennia, before the mythical Jesus made by Rome.
These systems were amalgamated under Tuthmosis along with the creation of The Great White Brotherhood of Master Craftsmen.
I believe I put my thoughts on the Lord's Prayer being a decree (much more than mere prayer) here already.
Hermetics in the family of Jesus is as old as alchemy perhaps. I certainly can trace the origins of both to the beginning of white people on earth (and there is no Annunaki alien or Oannes fish-man). Mircae Eliade and Haeffner's Dictionary of Alchemy both take it back for over two million years.
Connecting the family of Jesus (many tribes and many names in various eras) to the DNN is not impossible and DNA research today confirms much of my prior writing on the matters. But it has taken me further to where I can now say the Ainu (De or "of' plus Ainu and remove the vowels) are the DNN and those who interbred humans as they were doing with other creatures, to make Denisovan Man found in a cave in their homeland recently. We also have a 2.4 million year old cave artifact in Southern China to see the spread of civilized humans with technology including rafts over most of this planet over a million years ago.
Before his recent death Alan Thorne (genetic researcher using AMS technology) had posited the egis of this kind of reality.
Stephan Hoeller has these words to say about extreme early polemicists like those employed by Rome. He also correctly characterizes those who seek to point fingers rather than study. He correctly points our the early authors which are often quoting the Gospels could not in all honesty really say Gnostics were heretical because there was no orthodoxy.
"The politicized view of Gnosticism continues to have its adherents, but these are increasingly recruited from the lunatic fringe. Gnostics are still represented as dangerous subversives in pulp magazines and obscure conspiracy pamphlets "exposing" Freemasons, Satanists, and other pests. Meanwhile, respectable conservative thinkers have dropped the Gnostic issue. Some, like scholar and former U.S. Senator S.I. Hayakawa, have subjected Voegelin and his theories to severe criticism and ridicule.
Another sometimes confusing voice comes from writers who are bent on proving that within the existing major religions a secret tradition of gnosis may be found which is not identical to the "heretical" Gnosticism of the early Christian centuries. In his 1947 work The Perennial Philosophy, Aldous Huxley promulgated a kind of gnosis that was in effect a mystery reserved for elites, revealed at the dawn of history and handed down through various religious traditions, where it still maintains itself in spite of its ostensible incompatibility with the official dogmas of those traditions. With this view, Huxley approximated the more radical position held by Traditionalists such as René Guénon and Frithjof Schuon.
Huxley, on the other hand, never passed judgment on anyone who called himself a Gnostic. One could only wish the same could be said of other Traditionalists. Followers of Guénon (who, born a Catholic, converted to Islam in a somewhat untraditional manner) often castigate the early Gnostic teachers in a manner reminiscent of the more extreme ancient polemicists like Irenaeus or Tertullian. The Traditionalists' division of Gnostic writers into "false Gnostics" and "authentic Gnostics" reflects standards that are nothing if not arbitrary; contemporary research indicates that during the first three of four centuries A.D. there was as yet no true orthodoxy and thus no heresy either. Instead, many opinions on religious matters, including gnosis, flourished side by side. Certainly there were disagreements, but to arbitrarily extrapolate standards of falsity and authenticity from these polemics does not seem justified."