Have you considered that the alleged similarities you are seeing between Christian worship and Pagan worship are the result of the fact that both are religions, and not that one influenced the other?
I mean, according to your logic I could argue that both Pagans and Christians believe in the supernatural, and this proves pagan influence on Christianity. But of course that would be silly argument.
Yes. I've considered these things.
But I directly showed a similarity in the "icons" used. Auras, hand blessings, and enthronement. What happens is it sticks in the craw of people, and they just can't admit it no matter what. These mystic things, such as "beamed up kisses", "working yourself up in a trance repetitive prayer on beads/ropes", and "enchanting objects with blessings", were NOT part of original Christianity. These things of mysticism were brought in from Eastern pagan religions and adapted later in the church as "real".
Look even what you call your patriarchs - "His all holiness, master, etc."
Patriarchal, Papal, idolatry.
I don't think you understood Papist's point because of your fixation on peripherals.
You pointed out what you perceived as similarities between Buddhist and Orthodox Christian religious imagery, and your explanation is that there is a direct link, and that it shows Eastern pagan influence on Christianity. But you haven't really proven a direct link, only a similarity to which many of us don't object.
If I'm not mistaken, Papist's point is that these similarities might have to do with religion itself, and how people engage it. For example, you see Buddhist halos and Orthodox halos and think it's a pagan influence. But it's just as likely, if not more likely, that human beings have come up with similar ways of indicating holiness in art without having been influenced by another religion.
If you study the history of religions, you'll see that most share at least some characteristics: moral codes, sacrificial offerings, belief in a god, etc. Is that "pagan" or is that "human"?
If human beings were created in God's image and likeness, and if we believe that God reveals himself through the things he has made (cf. Romans 1), it makes sense that, in attempting to worship that God as best they can, human beings come up with similar ways of approaching him.
Human beings in different times and places have come up with all sorts of similar ways of doing things without ever having "made contact" or been influenced by another people. Why would religion be different?
You seem to believe that Christianity has to be so radically "other" from every other religion that it can't have anything in common with them. Christianity's "otherness" comes from the person and revelation of Christ, not necessarily from how we do things. If we're not allowed to have anything in common with "Eastern pagan religions", the first thing you can throw out is the Bible, because all of those other religions had sacred texts before Jews and Christians did.