in defence of astrotheology

[Robert Tulip]

WTF ... FUCKING STARS AND HEAVENLY BODIES.
...same fucking night sky... same fucking conclusions about the heavens? NO, FUCKING, NO Can Mimi or Robert be certain that 'astrotheology' was consistent and universal in ancient history? NO, FUCKING, NO.. modern 'astrotheology.' NO, FUCKING, NO... throw them off the board. Ban them....Throw them off the board.

Peter, I think these delightful rantings from Mr Huller do go slightly further than you indicated. Unfortunately, Stephan tends to foam at the mouth (if that is not to impolite a way to describe such language) as soon as any discussion departs from his familiar wonts. Please Stephan, less foam and more study, or stick to topics that you understand. If you actually engaged you might see that your comments here are totally and utterly baseless. Have a look at the detailed list of Biblical evidence I provided and which your other target, Leucius, has recently helpfully quoted.

And of course astrotheology was not "consistent or universal in ancient history". King Josiah for one did not agree with it, and ranted against it in the most obstreperous fashion.

By the way, in response to Peter Kirby's comments comparing astrotheology to the Constantinian invention theory of Christianity, my view of LC's Constantine analysis is that it presents a null hypothesis, which can probably be disproved, but which still provides a useful Gedank that enables us to see quickly that Christian origins are very far from the conventional account. Constantinian origin is far weaker as a scientific theory than astrotheology, given the difficulty the "Oceania was always at war with Eastasia" 1984 Big Brother trope of extensive late invention has in explaining away earlier data. The analysis of the abundant lode of precessional material in the Bible, by contrast, presents an elegant and parsimonious explanation for all the data with high predictive power.

[Bertie]

I'd like to see some comments that address the evidence mentioned by Price (link above) in defence/support of astrotheology ....

• Extracted and numbered from D.M. Murdock (Acharya S.), Christ in Egypt: The Horus-Jesus Connection.
  Reviewed by Robert M. Price
  
  
  (1) Hercules’ twelve labors surely mark his progress, as the sun, through the houses of the Zodiac;
  why do Jesus circumambient twelve disciples not mean the same thing? And so on.
  
  (2) The tale of Joseph and his brethren is already transparently a retelling of Osiris and Set.
  
  (3) The New Testament Lazarus story is another (Mary and Martha playing Isis and Nephthys).
  
  (4) And so is the story of Jesus (Mary Magdalene and the others as Isis and Nephthys).
  
  ...etc...

This is not "evidence". These are bare assertions. Now, Price was writing a book review and is not necessarily expected to provide "evidence" and probably didn't see himself as needing to do so in that format.

Furthermore, just eyeballing that list and working off of memory alone, I can recall a Jewish antecedent for most those items, and I'm betting if I checked the literature (which I can't do at this moment) I could find a Jewish antecedent for every single one of them. Perhaps some of those Jewish antecedents ultimately derive (through Babylon or other Ancient Near East sources or whatever) to some rudimentary astronomical observations. But as I and several others tried to explain early on in this thread, it doesn't matter whether astronomical antecedents to Jewish belief exist; it matters whether early Christian writers were aware of those alleged astronomical antecedents. There is no evidence they were.

[Peter Kirby]

By the way, in response to Peter Kirby's comments comparing astrotheology to the Constantinian invention theory of Christianity

You mean in response to this:

Don't read too much into this 'important recognition.' Powerful is not necessarily probable or even plausible. For example I might say the same thing and with the same sense of Pete Brown's original thesis of a Constantinian invention of Christianity. It is a hypothesis and it should be evaluated. It might be the sort of thing that explains the origins of a religion. Whether it actually is or not stands or falls on the evidence.

Generally speaking a 'powerful' hypothesis is one which is reasonably expected to make several specific predictions and which can be abstractly regarded as one possible explanation for the primary phenomenon under investigation. (In literary criticism you might find the phrase 'strong reading' used a bit similarly. It is not meant as unqualified praise.)

I have not actually found any evidence for your hypothesis, so I asked my follow up questions to get a sense of whether you have any.

That's not actually a direct comparison, in the sense that someone might get from reading your own comment above. It's an example.

my view of LC's Constantine analysis is that it presents a null hypothesis, which can probably be disproved, but which still provides a useful Gedank that enables us to see quickly that Christian origins are very far from the conventional account. Constantinian origin is far weaker as a scientific theory than astrotheology, given the difficulty the "Oceania was always at war with Eastasia" 1984 Big Brother trope of extensive late invention has in explaining away earlier data. The analysis of the abundant lode of precessional material in the Bible, by contrast, presents an elegant and parsimonious explanation for all the data with high predictive power.

When will you share this analysis of the abundant lode of precessional material in the BIble?

I'm not really liking the way that my posts are being used for little bits of out-of-context references.

I'd like to continue this conversation, but with less of that, and with more-direct replies to me (particularly, the 3 questions post a few pages back).

[Stephan Huller]

Peter, I think these delightful rantings from Mr Huller do go slightly further than you indicated.

But the reason why 'Mr. Huller' is acting this way is because (a) he basically believes in the human capacity for honesty and (b) he is facing what he feels is someone who is engaged in dishonesty. In other words, I am upset that you should know better. You should know that you are not acting in an honest and forthright manner, that you should know that you have not even made the pretense of connecting your claim that 'astrotheology' you believe 'is the truth' (i.e. the doctrines of the enlightened Acharya S' your mistress [fem. form of 'master'] and enlightened guru) with 'ancient Christianity.' You have not cited any actual evidence that Christians did more than look at the sky or identify Jesus with the sun in artistic images from the third or fourth century (which Allen Brent would argue are just signs of Christianity adapting to the 'monarchianism' being promoted by the Imperial court at the time.

This 'evidence' says little or nothing about 'early' or 'earliest' Christianity being a religion of astrotheology. Yet your willingness to continue to promoting the beliefs of Acharya S at the expense of providing any real evidence to your outlandish claims makes me suspect (or 'recognize') that you little more than a typical religious charlatan. The fact that you are acting dishonestly 'for a cause' allows you to justify your dishonesty.

It would be like someone coming on the forum and argue that Jesus was 'really' a king - i.e. that we walked around with a crown and robes - because he wore purple robes in 'early' iconography:



If we engaged with that person at the forum and he kept referencing that purple was the color of royalty and went on blah blah blah about purple but never provided any actual evidence for such an unrealistic line of argumentation - he would be laughed out of existence like that guy who used to come here with the Jesus = Caesar business a while back.

Indeed IMO there WERE groups that argued for something like what you might call 'astrotheology.' In other words, I think a case COULD be made - so I am not the 'persecutor' you claim. I am just amazed at how little effort you actually put into finding EVIDENCE for what you are suggesting. I know where the evidence is. But - like with the December 25 argument - it is amazing to see you don't bother to seek it out. The problem is that you are already a 'convert' to the idea and feel little need to actually develop rational arguments. Instead you come across like a popular evangelist for a rather stupid set of religious beliefs.

[Charles Wilson]

Let's have some REAL Astrotheology!

The soldiers who had slept there on the night in question said that the temple of Jupiter had opened of itself with great clangour and that some of the guards had been so terrified that they fainted.

Don't forget that Vespasian was voted a god by the Roman Senate. Those were powerful men who knew what they were doing!

1. Thank you GD and LC for getting it.
2. There is another point in this quote that goes to the heart of this Astrotheological Mumbo-Jumbo. According to the Standard Christian Time Line, "Jesus" lived and died in the 30s. "Paul", who never met "Jesus", becomes his "Abortion of an Apostle" and creates all sorts of *Miracles* as the Church grows.
3. When did the above quote from Dio take place? That would be just before the Ascension of Vespasian.

4. Note the role of the "Soldiers" in this set piece. Compare the statement by the soldier in the Gospels. The Roman has not met this man who is dying on the cross in front of him and his declaration that "Truly, this man was the son of God" is taken as "Gospel Truth". Yet, the soldiers sleeping at the temple of Jupiter has no meaning at all. "They're just chump soldiers, superstitious people who get scared by things going bump in the night."

5. These scared soldiers are fainting 40 years after the acclamation of godhood from another soldier. Why? Because the Crucifixion Motif is another Set Piece - a "Just So" Story. You simply have to pick and choose the appropriate "Sacred Moment" for the Roman soldiers. You can't choose the soldiers who fainted at the temple of Jupiter because that's just superstition. The statement made by the soldier at the cross is TRUTH. Wha...?

6. Which brings us back to Christianity and supersessionist Theology over Judaism. Judaism explicitly carries a prohibition against worshiping the sun, the moon and the heavenly bodies. They are OBJECTS. They can be used in the reckoning of calendars for the use of the Nation from farming to the Holy Days but they are not to be worshiped. Astrotheology carries within it a tacit assumption that a "LITTLE" divination is OK and, indeed necessary to understand "Jesus, Son of God". Judaism, because it prohibited such Astrotheology, was retrograde to God's Way. Christianity, because it understood the "Just So" amount of Divination, was OK and that made it OK to destroy Judea completely.

Soldiers proclaiming "Jesus'" divinity? Good. Soldiers, 40 years later, fainting at something that happens at the temple of Jupiter? Superstition.

NONSENSE.

CW

[Mimi]

I'd like to see some comments that address the evidence mentioned by Price (link above) in defence/support of astrotheology ....

• Extracted and numbered from D.M. Murdock (Acharya S.), Christ in Egypt: The Horus-Jesus Connection.
  Reviewed by Robert M. Price
  
  
  (1) Hercules’ twelve labors surely mark his progress, as the sun, through the houses of the Zodiac;
  why do Jesus circumambient twelve disciples not mean the same thing? And so on.
  
  (2) The tale of Joseph and his brethren is already transparently a retelling of Osiris and Set.
  
  (3) The New Testament Lazarus story is another (Mary and Martha playing Isis and Nephthys).
  
  (4) And so is the story of Jesus (Mary Magdalene and the others as Isis and Nephthys).
  
  ...etc...

This is not "evidence". These are bare assertions. Now, Price was writing a book review and is not necessarily expected to provide "evidence" and probably didn't see himself as needing to do so in that format.

Furthermore, just eyeballing that list and working off of memory alone, I can recall a Jewish antecedent for most those items, and I'm betting if I checked the literature (which I can't do at this moment) I could find a Jewish antecedent for every single one of them. Perhaps some of those Jewish antecedents ultimately derive (through Babylon or other Ancient Near East sources or whatever) to some rudimentary astronomical observations. But as I and several others tried to explain early on in this thread, it doesn't matter whether astronomical antecedents to Jewish belief exist; it matters whether early Christian writers were aware of those alleged astronomical antecedents. There is no evidence they were.

The issue with those lists is explained here:

To explain, many only see Acharya's lists, say for example, of Horus, Mithra, Krishna or Buddha online at some website or forum or the Zeitgeist part 1 movie (explained in the post below) without ever actually reading Acharya's books or sources to get the full context ...

Pagan Parallels: Achilles Heel of Christianity

"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 [PAGANS] believe regarding those whom you esteem sons of Jupiter...."

- Justin Martyr, First Apology

"...Christian scholars over the centuries have admitted that ... "there are parallels between the Mysteries and Christianity"1 and that "the miracle stories of the Gospels do in fact parallel literary forms found in pagan and Jewish miracle stories,"2 "...According to Form Criticism the Gospels are more like folklore and myth than historical fact."3

1. Metzger, HLS, 8.
2. Meier, II, 536.
3. Geisler, CA, 320.

- Who Was Jesus?, 259

"The only definite account of his life and teachings is contained in the four Gospels of the New Testament, Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. All other historical records of the time are silent about him. The brief mentions of Jesus in the writings of Josephus, Tacitus and Suetonius have been generally regarded as not genuine and as Christian interpolations; in Jewish writings there is no report about Jesus that has historical value. Some scholars have even gone so far as to hold that the entire Jesus story is a myth…"

- The Universal Jewish Encyclopedia

I can recall a Jewish antecedent for most those items, and I'm betting if I checked the literature (which I can't do at this moment) I could find a Jewish antecedent for every single one of them. Perhaps some of those Jewish antecedents ultimately derive (through Babylon or other Ancient Near East sources or whatever)

And those would lead back to the Canaanites, Babylonians, Phoenicians, Egyptians etc. as you mentioned.

it matters whether early Christian writers were aware of those alleged astronomical antecedents. There is no evidence they were.

Yes, there is, but one would actually have to study the subject instead of expecting to be spoon-fed bits and pieces in a forum thread.

"...As concerns the prevalence of solar Yahwism in ancient Israel, Dr. J. Glen Taylor concludes:

"Several lines of evidence, both archaeological and biblical, bear witness to a close relationship between Yahweh and the sun. The nature of that association is such that often a 'solar' character was presumed for Yahweh. Indeed, at many points the sun actually represented Yahweh as a kind of 'icon.' Thus, in at least the vast majority of cases, biblical passages which refer to sun worship in Israel do not refer to a foreign phenomenon borrowed by idolatrous Israelites, but to a Yahwistic phenomenon which Deuteronomistic theology came to look upon as idolatrous.... an association between Yahweh and the sun was not limited to one or two obscure contexts, but was remarkably well integrated into the religion of ancient Israel." (Taylor, 257)

Hence, the sun was worshipped by the Israelites, who associated it with their tribal god Yahweh. Like Father, like son, and the connection between Jesus and the sun is first evidenced in the OT book of Malachi (4:2), which immediately precedes the New Testament and in which the author refers to the "Sun of Righteousness" who will "arise with healing in his wings." This scripture, which is in the last chapter before the Gospel of Matthew, sounds much like the winged solar disc of Babylon and Egypt.



"The Sun of Righteousness will arise with healing in his wings."

This scripture in Malachi is perceived as a reference to the coming messiah, Jesus Christ. In this regard, this clearly solar appellation "Sun of Righteousness" is repeated many times by early Church fathers as being applicable to Christ.

Jesus as the Sun throughout History

Jesus Christ, Sun of Righteousness
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=faILHU82-Cw

Star Worship of the Ancient Israelites

2,750-year-old solar-aligned temple discovered in Israel

The Astrotheological Origins of Christianity

The Zodiac and Judeo-Christian Astrotheology

National Geographic's "Ancient Astronomers" discusses the 16,000 year old cave painting/mural depicting the zodiac at Lascaux in Southern France with archaeoastronomer, Chantal Jegues-Wolkiewiez:

National Geographic's "Ancient Astronomers"

Stone Age Zodiac
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZfbE-syvLpE

Why won't the videos work now? I did what it said and it worked before but now it doesn't.

Jesus Christ, Sun of Righteousness

Stone Age Zodiac

[Mimi]

Astrotheology is not merely observations of the planets etc. It is the worship of the celestial phenomena -- worship of the planets, sun, moon, constellations. This worship was enabled by the creation of stories to tell the stories of the movements such as the equinoxes and precession, eclipses, etc -- and these stories were the myths that many have interpreted literally. The myths are really symbolic for the movements and characteristics of the heavenly bodies.

Christianity itself was the product of this religious worship of the heavenly bodies.

This is my understanding of what astrotheology is. I base it on Acharya S's own explanation at http://www.stellarhousepublishing.com/a ... ology.html

Some extracts:

This nature worship has included reverence not only for the earth, its creatures and their fecundity, but also for the sun, moon, planets and stars. For many thousands of years, man has looked to the skies and become awestruck by what he has observed. This awe has led to the reverence and worship both of the night and day skies, an adoration called "astrotheology." . . . So fascinated by the sky, or heavens, has been man that he has created entire religions, with organized priesthoods, complex rituals and massive edifices, in order to tell its story.

The astronomical science allowed the ancients to predict weather patterns, the turn of seasons and attendant climate changes, as well as comets, asteroids and meteors menacing the earth. This archaeoastronomy was an accurate prognosticator for daily, weekly, monthly and yearly events. Indeed, it was an augur for the changes of entire ages . . .

the basics of this important knowledge were preserved because the ancients used myths as mnemonic devices passed along from generation to generation. This tradition was especially important during the thousands of years when writing was either non-existent or limited. Unfortunately, the key to this knowledge was nevertheless often lost, as the myths became believed as "historical fact."...

The reality is that the ancient gods were mainly astrotheological and/or based on natural, earthly forces.

Another important factor in ancient astrotheology is the precession of the equinoxes

the knowledge about astrotheology would reveal the Christians' own religion to be Pagan in virtually every significant aspect, constituting a remake of the ancient religion.

What astrolotheology is NOT:

• Observation of the heavens for purposes of astronomical or even astrological interest or "science".
• Observation of the heavens to determine a calendar and various festivals, seasons, etc.
• Speculations about the nature of the heavenly bodies and how they work.
• The use of astronomical or even astrological images and symbols in narratives that are unrelated to the worship of the heavens.

What astrolotheology is NOT:

• Observation of the heavens for purposes of astronomical or even astrological interest or "science".
• Observation of the heavens to determine a calendar and various festivals, seasons, etc.
• Speculations about the nature of the heavenly bodies and how they work.
• The use of astronomical or even astrological images and symbols in narratives that are unrelated to the worship of the heavens.

WRONG on all counts, Neil.

From the same link, Neil:

"In The Roots of Civilization, archaeologist Alexander Marshack discusses "calendar sticks," or ancient bones with markings that Marshack determined represented lunar calendars, dating to at least 25,000 or 35,000 years ago."

... daily, weekly, monthly and yearly events...

It looks like you're trying to incorporate confirmation biases against astrotheology by inventing your own definition and meaning, Neil, so that you can then use it to strawman any evidence in favor of astrotheology you don't like. I'm still waiting for you to make your case for astrotheology too. It would help explain a couple things 1. how well you actually understand astrotheology and 2. it would help explain where you're coming from.

Instead of more quote-mining, how about actually reading the whole article?

In its entry on "Astrology," the Catholic Encyclopedia describes the development of this archaic science in the ancient world:

The history of astrology is an important part of the history of the development of civilization, it goes back to the early days of the human race…. Astrology was…the foster-sister of astronomy, the science of the investigation of the heavens…. According to the belief of the early civilized races of the East, the stars were the source and at the same time the heralds of everything that happened, and the right to study the "godlike science" of astrology was a privilege of the priesthood. This was the case in Mesopotamia and Egypt, the oldest centres of civilization known to us in the East. The most ancient dwellers on the Euphrates, the Akkado-Sumerians, were believers in judicial astrology, which was closely interwoven with their worship of the stars. The same is true of their successors, the Babylonians and Assyrians, who were the chief exponents of astrology in antiquity…. The Assyro-Babylonian priests (Chaldeans) were the professional astrologers of classical antiquity. In its origin Chaldaic astrology also goes back to the worship of stars; this is proved by the religious symbolism of the most ancient cuneiform texts of the zodiac. The oldest astrological document extant is the work called "Namar-Beli" (Illumination of Bel) composed for King Sargon I (end of the third millennium B.C.) and contained in the cuneiform library of King Asurbanipal (668-626 B.C.)…. Even in the time of Chaldean, which should be called Assyrian, astrology, the five planets, together with the sun and moon, were divided according to their character and their position in the zodiac as well as according to their position in the twelve houses. As star of the sun, Saturn was the great planet and ruler of the heavens…. The Egyptians and Hindus were as zealous astrologers as the nations on the Euphrates and Tigris. The dependence of the early Egyptian star (sun) worship (the basis of the worship of Osiris) upon early Chaldaic influences belongs to the still unsettled question of the origin of early Egyptian civilization.

Thus, astrology - a "godlike science"—dates back thousands of years and has been an important part of human civilization. According to mainstream archaeology, the oldest extant text specifically addressing "astrology" dates from the 3rd millennium BCE; yet, the astrological religion or astrotheology is recorded abundantly in Indian, Egyptian and Sumerian sacred literature as well, some of which represents traditions much older than the third millennium. Also, as noted, megalithic ruins push astronomical knowledge back at least 6,000 to 6,500 years ago, while ancient mariners reveal such knowledge dating to 30,000 or more years ago.... (29-30)

http://www.stellarhousepublishing.com/a ... ology.html

She explains a few things in her article on mythicism too:

What is a Mythicist?

"At Stonehenge in England and Carnac in France, in Egypt and Yucatan, across the whole face of the earth are found mysterious ruins of ancient monuments, monuments with astronomical significance. These relics of other times are as accessible as the American Midwest and as remote as the jungles of Guatemala. Some of them were built according to celestial alignments; others were actually precision astronomical observatories ... Careful observation of the celestial rhythms was compellingly important to early peoples, and their expertise, in some respects, was not equaled in Europe until three thousand years later."

- Dr. Edwin Krupp, Astronomer and Director of the Griffith Observatory in Los Angeles

[Stephan Huller]

Mimi

I don't know what is wrong with people's brain once they join a cult of some sort but what we are arguing is not hard to understand. Here are the questions AGAIN:

1. are you suggesting that all interest in the heavens = 'astrotheology'?
2. is it possible that for instance the Emperor was depicted as the sun as part of the Imperial cult and this in turn influenced early Christian art (as Allen Brent would suggest) - i.e. so there was only an indirect - and ultimately LATE - association with 'astrotheology'?
3. do you acknowledge that there may have been many different theological 'conclusions' drawn from the observations of the heavens and so - in contradiction to your cultic suppositions - there could be many, many different mystery religious sensibilities and understandings developed or developed in association with the observance of the heavens? In other words, that the mysteries of Mithras would have little (other than heavenly observations) with Christianity if it were developed from 'astrotheology'

The problem is that you folks ultimately want Christianity to be an appendage of YOUR version of 'astrotheology.' That's the end game for you. This accounts for the sloppiness of your scholarship. You are not interested in discovering what Christianity is but rather projecting your conclusions about the truth of astrotheology into any religion which might have signs of interest in the heavens.

[Clive]

Maybe churches face the rising sun because xian beliefs and rituals are descended from mithraic practices of rebirth at dawn, so it isn't actually evidence of astrotheology but of ritual copying the rebirth of the sun as a model of resurrection? He is risen!

[Stephan Huller]

The point again Clive is there is no 'proof' for any of their assertions. You go along with what they say because you WANT it to be true rather than you see that the evidence supports their assertions.