in defence of astrotheology

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
Ulan
Posts: 1505
Joined: Sat Mar 29, 2014 3:58 am

Re: in defence of astrotheology

Post by Ulan »

Leucius Charinus wrote:One of the greatest Apollo *related* cults in antiquity for the first three centuries of the common era was that of Apollo's son, the Healing God Asclepius Extensive archaeology even including the "Pool of Bethsaida". Jesus was supposed to be a Healer. In the Acts of Pilate, Pilate informs the Jews that Jesus heals by the power of Asclepius.
Okay, that's at least something, as vague as it is. This is the Roman/Greek tendency to equate foreign cults and their gods with some of their own. And it's late.
Leucius Charinus wrote:This has nothing to do with astrotheology either.
Indeed. You would first have to find astrotheological relevance in Asclepius, and this still leaves us to find a connection to Christianity that amounts to more than the comment in Acts of Pilate, which come from a time period (4th century) when we don't need to look for solar references in many cults.
Leucius Charinus wrote:How would any one in antiquity explain resurrection? People did not return back to life after they went to the Underworld. It was and is a one way trip.
Don't forget about Orphism. Again, the connection is chthonic, not celestial.
Robert Tulip
Posts: 331
Joined: Thu Nov 28, 2013 2:44 am

Re: in defence of astrotheology

Post by Robert Tulip »

A few quick comments.

Peter Kirby really does need to invest in some asbestos underpants after asserting that claims about solar discussion in Tertullian and Augustine are unsourced when the very word before his extract is the cited source, which he then proceeds to link, the Catholic Encyclopedia article on Christmas. I fear that Peter’s objection is more an emotional incredulity about the extensive solar themes embedded in early Christianity.

I mentioned to a friend Neil Godfrey’s courageous assertion that the god of the vine is somehow not also a god of the sun, despite the intimate bond between sun and vine in the annual fertility cycle of life and death, and she was unsurprisingly nonplussed and agog, as I am. This whole claim of solar themes being late just has me asking why anyone could advance such ridiculous claims, for example against the Egyptian context of solar monotheism as a major early religious idea, and not only with Akhenaten.

The whole trajectory of religious evolution in the Roman Empire is away from an early allegorical naturalism towards a late literal supernaturalism, in the context of a steady growth of imperial alienation from nature. This path makes the idea of solar worship as emerging late in the Empire extremely implausible.

Well done Clive for inventing “cycletheology”. Next you will breathlessly inform us that you have discovered the day, the month, the year, the bicycle path and even the Great Year.

I think Prof O’Neill’s comment about Tertullian’s flat earth faith may be an inference from The Latin Church Father's infamously wry Talibanesque comment about Athens and Jerusalem, intimating that revelations about heaven have nothing to learn from efforts to look at nature. I had quite a long online discussion about this.
Stephan Huller
Posts: 3009
Joined: Tue Apr 29, 2014 12:59 pm

Re: in defence of astrotheology

Post by Stephan Huller »

Of course you don't have any problems with Ms Murdock using the Catholic Encyclopedia as her sole (unacknowledged). We already know the lady can do no wrong in your eyes. Maybe this is the opportunity you share some of your love poetry in honor of the "enlightened leader." Just whip out the guitar and sing a few bars of Hare Krishna in honor of Ms Murdock.
Clive
Posts: 1197
Joined: Sun Aug 17, 2014 2:20 pm

Re: in defence of astrotheology

Post by Clive »

The categories Olympian and chthonic were not, however, completely separate. Some Olympian deities, such as Hermes and Zeus, also received chthonic sacrifices and tithes in certain locations. The deified heroes Heracles and Asclepius might be worshipped as gods or chthonic heroes, depending on the site and the time of origin of the myth.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chthonic

Did I comment about solar being too simple? I see a process of accretion, of synthesis, of co-evolution. A wonderful marinade - let's chuck that in the cooking pot and see what it tastes like. There ain't no liver of blaspheming Jew in there though!
"We cannot slaughter each other out of the human impasse"
Clive
Posts: 1197
Joined: Sun Aug 17, 2014 2:20 pm

Re: in defence of astrotheology

Post by Clive »

Actually the God bycli is worthy of all praise honour and glory!

The bicycle path is proof of her munificence! :-)
"We cannot slaughter each other out of the human impasse"
Robert Tulip
Posts: 331
Joined: Thu Nov 28, 2013 2:44 am

Re: in defence of astrotheology

Post by Robert Tulip »

Stephan Huller wrote:Of course you don't have any problems with Ms Murdock using the Catholic Encyclopedia as her sole (unacknowledged). We already know the lady can do no wrong in your eyes. Maybe this is the opportunity you share some of your love poetry in honor of the "enlightened leader." Just whip out the guitar and sing a few bars of Hare Krishna in honor of Ms Murdock.
I do sometimes wish Stephan that you would engage on content rather than present such facile rebounding insults. But then I suppose your visceral hostility to all things Indian is all part of your cuddly charm.

Peter's partial quote was rather like saying, 'hey Mattyboy, whydjya say "are the meek for they will inherit the earth"? Dja mean foolish, prosperous, criminal, or what?'

The excuse that Pete's Bible has a page turn after the word "blessed" (just as Murdock's book has a page turn after the word "CE" as a perfectly authoritative and proper source on Augustine and Tertullian on Christianity and sun worship) does not really provide a strong basis for his speculation, which does not end up looking entirely kindly and informed. The short chapter of Suns of God titled Krishna's Birthdate that Mr Kirby referenced as supposedly light on footnotes and ancient sources has 37 footnotes and by my count dozens of ancient references. This claim of weak sourcing is itself sloppy, although it must be recognised that the subject matter of this chapter means that some secondary sources will be open to challenge.
User avatar
neilgodfrey
Posts: 6161
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 4:08 pm

Re: in defence of astrotheology

Post by neilgodfrey »

Robert,

By the same token are you justifying the failure to cite any source in Plato for Plato's divine man crucified in space?

No doubt you also addressed with your friend my own references to the history of Dionysus's links with Apollo and the minutely sourced evidence and significance for these links from works such as those by Kerenyi.

Reading your outline of religious history leaves me wondering if you seriously believe every professor who has written on the primary sources has got everything completely wrong and the truth of the matter can only be found in the words of acharya.

And if a professor ever makes a mistake that is in the acharya's' favour (re Tertullian) then it was not a mistake at all but evidence of deeper wisdom.
vridar.org Musings on biblical studies, politics, religion, ethics, human nature, tidbits from science
The Crow
Posts: 206
Joined: Wed May 14, 2014 2:26 am
Location: Southern US

Re: in defence of astrotheology

Post by The Crow »

Man! This thread still going? When is the trial? I think the inquest has lasted long enough.
Ulan
Posts: 1505
Joined: Sat Mar 29, 2014 3:58 am

Re: in defence of astrotheology

Post by Ulan »

The Crow wrote:Man! This thread still going? When is the trial? I think the inquest has lasted long enough.
As Robert failed to provide any evidence for any of his fanciful stories, aside from some possible allusion to the zodiac in Revelations, I guess we can put astrotheology to rest. He had a chance to get the ball rolling and dropped it. Maybe another time.

So it looks like astrotheology is some modern New Age movement without any relevance to the origins of Christianity.
Stephan Huller
Posts: 3009
Joined: Tue Apr 29, 2014 12:59 pm

Re: in defence of astrotheology

Post by Stephan Huller »

Yup. Funny how not finding any supportive evidence leads people to conclude AGAINST a proposition. Robert will undoubtedly attempt to portray us as modern day "heresy hunters" and they the victimized martyrs for the truth. I would however like to say that this lot is so pathetic that they seem incapable of understanding how to cobble together rational arguments in the first place. We haven't even started to scratch the surface on the early Christian interest in the heavens because the presumed "advocates" here at the forum are only interested in using "early Christianity" as such as a Trojan Horse to place their modern New Age myths in antiquity. There hasn't been any effort to understand what the Christians actually believed, because quite frankly Robert and Company aren't interested in spending the time to find out what they actually said
Post Reply